Deepening, Lengthening and Widening of Berth 203 to 205 ... · proposed the deepening, lengthening...

Deepening, Lengthening and Widening of Berths 203 to 205

Final Scoping Report i

Deepening, Lengthening and Widening of Berth 203 to 205, Pier 2, Container Terminal, Port of

Durban

FINAL SCOPING REPORT

May 2012 [NEAS REF NO: DEA/EIA/0000988/2012

DEA REF NO: 14/12/16/3/3/2/275]

P.O. BOX 1673

SUNNINGHILL

2157

147 Bram Fischer Drive

FERNDALE

2194

Tel: 011 781 1730

Fax: 011 781 1731

Email: [email protected]


Final Scoping Report ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PROJECT BACKGROUND AND MOTIVATION

The Port of Durban is the gateway port in the South African ports system which plays an

important role in facilitating the import and export needs for much of South Africa. The

existing Blockwork Quay wall structure along Pier 2 Berth 203 to 205 was designed in the

1970s, to support dockside cranes with a lifting capacity of 4 tonnes and a water depth of

-12.8m Chart Datum Port (CDP). This allowed for the safe berthing of vessels with a fully

laden draft (vertical distance between the waterline and the bottom of the hull) not greater

than -11.8m CDP. At present the existing quay wall structure is operated beyond its

original design parameters. Recent studies have concluded that the existing quay walls

do not meet the minimum Eurocode 7 Safety Standards and that there is a risk of

potential quay wall failure (PRDW, 2011).

In addition, vessel sizes have increased since the original terminal was constructed and

Berth 203 to 205 cannot therefore safely accommodate fully laden new generation

container vessels due to insufficient water depth at these berths. At present these vessels

enter and exit the Port partially laden and during the high tide window. This is an unsafe

operating condition and the risk exists that vessels could run aground. Transnet National

Ports Authority (TNPA) has proposed the deepening, lengthening and widening of Berth

203 to 205 in order to improve the safety of the berths as well as to improve the efficiency

of the Port.

The proposed upgrade would include the following activities:

1. The westward lengthening of Berth 205 by 170m;

2. The eastward lengthening of Berth 203 by 100m;

3. The seaward widening of Berths 203 to 205 by 50m;

4. The deepening of the berth channel, approach channel and vessel turning basin

from the current -12.8m CDP to -16.5m CDP;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterline


Final Scoping Report iii

5. Three technical options will be considered namely, the Deck on Pile option, Sheet

Pile option and the Caisson option. For the Caisson option, a trench will need to be

excavated to -19m CDP;

6. The precasting of beams; storage of sheet piles or construction of caissons (for the

Deck on Pile, Sheet Pile and Caisson option respectively) would take place at

Bayhead Lot 10;

7. The offshore disposal of dredge material;

8. The offshore sand winning for infill material; and

9. The installation of new Ship to Shore (STS) cranes and associated infrastructure.

Nemai Consulting was appointed by TNPA to undertake the requisite Environmental

Authorisation Process for the Proposed Berth 203 to 205 upgrade. The proposed

development triggers activities listed in Government Notices No. R. 544, R. 545 and R.

546 dated 18 June 2010 in Government Gazette No. 33306. Hence a full Scoping/EIA

study as per the August 2010 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations

promulgated in terms of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107

of 1998) is necessary.

SCOPING AND EIA PROCESS

According to DEAT (2002), scoping is typically divided into three phases, namely:

Planning the scoping procedure;

A process of stakeholder engagement to identify the key issues; and

Reporting on the Terms of Reference (ToR) for the next Phase of the assessment.

The purpose of the Draft Scoping Report is as follows:

To describe the need and desirability for the proposed upgrade of Berths 203 to

205;

To describe how the proposed project will be executed;

To provide a description of the receiving environment that could be affected by the

proposed project;

To explain the Scoping and EIA processes;


Final Scoping Report iv

To describe the Public Participation Process that will occur as part of the Scoping

Phase;

To provide a description of the legislation that was considered; and

To present a Plan of Study for the pending EIA Phase of the project.

The Scoping Phase allows Interested and Affected Parties (I&APs) the opportunity to

comment on the overall environmental assessment approach and environmental issues.

These comments help to focus the efforts from technical specialists during the

subsequent Environmental Impact Assessment Phase.

The Draft Scoping report aimed to provide information on the background of the project,

the Scoping and EIA process, the project and activities, the receiving environment as well

as relevant legislation. Pertinent environmental issues and a Plan of Study for the EIA

phase was also provided. Registered I&APs were granted an opportunity to review and

comment on the Draft Scoping report in accordance with Regulation 56 (1) of

Government Notice No. R. 543 of 18 June 2010, Government Gazette No. 33306. The

public review period was between 09 March 2012 and 30 April 2012.

Comments received during the Public review process have been used to update the

Comments and Response Report, I&AP database. Moreover, some comments received

warranted the addition of new Specialist Studies. Due to the substantive nature of the

comments received, registered I&APs were granted a 2nd period of review of the final

Scoping Report between 25 May 2012 and 01 June 2012 in order to ensure that all

comments had been captured. The Final Scoping report will then be submitted to the

Department of Environmental Affairs for review on 4 June 2012.

The potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed project were identified

during the Scoping Phase through an appraisal of the following:

Proposed footprint of the project infrastructure and components, which included a

desktop evaluation with a Geographical Information System (GIS) and aerial

photography, as well as site investigations;


Final Scoping Report v

Activities associated with the project life-cycle (i.e. pre-construction, construction,

operation and decommissioning);

Nature and profile of the receiving environment and potential sensitive environmental

features and attributes;

Input received during the public participation process from I&APs; and

Legal and policy context.

PROJECT LOCATION

The project is located in eThekwini Municipality in the Port of Durban. The project

footprint includes the following:

The Current Pier 2 Berth 203 to 205;

170m west of Berth 205;

100m east of Berth 203;

50m seawards of the current quay wall for the widening of the Berths;

The dredge footprint including the berth channel, approach channel and turning

basin;

The excavation trench for the new quay wall (Caisson option only);

Bayhead Lot 10 for the construction of the caissons; precasting of elements for the

Deck On Pile option or storage of steel sheet piles for the Sheet Pile Option,

depending on which is the preferred option;

The offshore disposal site; and

The offshore sand winning site.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The Port of Durban plays an important role in facilitating the import and export needs for

much of South Africa. The total cargo revenue at the Port of Durban is made up

predominately from containerised cargo. However, there is a growing concern by the

shipping industry that the Port of Durban cannot safely accommodate larger vessels with

a deeper draft.


Final Scoping Report vi

The existing Blockwork Quay wall structure along Pier 2 Berth 203 to 205 was designed

in the 1970s and is presently operating beyond its original design limitations. Recent

studies have concluded that the existing quay walls do not meet the minimum Eurocode 7

Safety Standards and that there is a risk of potential quay wall failure (PRDW, 2011). The

key focus of the Port is to ensure safe, orderly and efficient port operations as indicated in

the National Ports Act, 2005 (Act No. 12 of 2005). In order to meet this obligation, the

proposed project is considered necessary.

In addition, vessel sizes have increased since the original terminal was constructed and

Berth 203 to 205 cannot therefore safely accommodate fully laden new generation

container vessels due to insufficient water depth at these berths. At present these vessels

enter and exit the Port partially laden and during the high tide window. This is an unsafe

operating condition and the risk exists that vessels could run aground. TNPA has

proposed the deepening, lengthening and widening of Berth 203 to 205 in order to

improve the safety of the berths as well as to improve the efficiency of the Port.

Details of the technology alternatives are detailed in Chapter 11 of the Draft Scoping

Report. As per Government Notice R. 543 (EIA Regulations, 2010), all alternatives will be

assessed equally.

It is important to note that no location alternatives will be assessed as the unsafe quay

walls are limited to Berths 203 to 205. Instead, three technological alternatives will be

assessed, namely:

1. Caisson Quay Wall;

2. Sheet Pile Quay Wall; and

3. Deck-On-Pile Quay Wall.

The proposed project involves:

The lengthening of Berth 203 by 100m eastwards;

The lengthening of Berth 205 by 170m westwards;

The widening of Berths 203 to 205 by 50m seawards;


Final Scoping Report vii

The deepening of the Berth channel, turning basin and approach channel to

-16.5m CDP;

The deepening of the new berth trench to-19m CDP (for the Caisson option only);

The construction of Caissons; or storage of Steel Sheet Piles or Precasting of

Concrete Piles for the Caisson, Sheet Pile and Deck on Pile options, respectively

at Bayhead Lot 10;

The offshore disposal of the dredge spoil material; and

The offshore sand winning for infill material.

PROFILE OF THE RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT

The Final Scoping Report provides a general description of the status quo of the

receiving environment in the project area. This serves to provide the context within which

the Scoping exercise was conducted. It also allows for an appreciation of sensitive

environmental features and possible receptors of the effects of the proposed project. The

study area includes the entire footprint of the project components and offshore sand

winning and offshore disposal areas.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

The Scoping Report provides a full account of the public participation process that was

followed for the Scoping phase for the proposed Berth 203 to 205 expansion.

The issues raised by I&APs during Scoping, to a large extent, determine and guide the

investigations during the EIA phase. The Comments and Response Report, which

summarises the salient issues raised by I&APs (during meetings and in correspondence

received) and the project team’s response to these matters, is contained in the Scoping

Report.

The issues raised by I&APs during Scoping, as contained in the Comments and

Response Report, were grouped into the following main categories:


Final Scoping Report viii

o 1999 RoD o Alignment with Transnet

Development Plans

o Water Use o Durban Bay draft Environmental

Management Plan

o Services o Alternatives

o Impacts on Central Sandbank o Environmental Process

o Impacts on Little Lagoon o Mitigation Measures and Offsets

o Impacts on the Durban Bay

Estuary

o Specialist Studies

o Impact on the Bayhead

Mangroves

o Socio-Economic Impacts

o Requests for Information o Traffic and Road Maintenance

o Offshore Borrow areas o Waste Management

o Concerns regarding modelling of

impacts

o General

o Dredging and Offshore dredge

disposal

o Climate Change

The figure to follow outlines the public participation process for the Scoping phase

(current) as well as the Environmental Impact Assessment phase (pending).


Final Scoping Report ix


Final Scoping Report x

SCOPING LEVEL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

In accordance with the purpose of the Scoping exercise as part of the overall

environmental assessment, the Scoping Report identifies potentially significant

environmental issues for further consideration and prioritisation during the EIA stage. This

allows for a more efficient and focused impact assessment in the ensuing EIA Phase,

where the analysis is largely limited to significant issues and reasonable alternatives. In

addition, a methodology to quantitatively assess the potential impacts is also provided,

which will be employed during the EIA Phase. The following features are discussed on a

qualitative level:

Land Use

Climate

Geology & Soils

Port Layout & Bathymetry

Recreational Users

Hydrodynamic Functioning

Water and Sediment Quality

Estuarine Hydrology

Estuarine Biota

Estuarine Sensitivity and

Functioning and Ecosystem

Services

Rivers

Sensitive Areas: the Little Lagoon

Sensitive Areas: Bayhead Natural

Heritage Site- Mangroves

Socio-Economic Environment

Air Quality

Noise

Maritime Archaeology and

Cultural Features

Infrastructure

Services: Storm Water

Services: Electricity

Services: Transportation network

Tourism

Offshore Dredge Disposal

Offshore Sand winning

Pertinent environmental issues, which will receive specific attention during the EIA phase,

are tabulated below. Please note that Specialist studies which have been underlined

have been added after comments from I&APs.


Final Scoping Report xi

Environmental Factor

Potential Issues / Impacts Proposed Assessment and/or

Management

Geology and Soil Sourcing of dredge material for infill purposes from Offshore Sand winning;

Physical impacts of dredging on offshore sand winning site;

Dredging of berth channel, approach channel and turning basin; and

Shoreline erosion due to offshore sand winning.

Geotechnical Study;

Sediment and Chemical Analysis of Dredge Material;

Shoreline Stability Study – Offshore Sand Winning; and

EMP;

Port Layout and Bathymetry

Change in Bathymetry through deepening; and

Possible increase in seiches.

Wave Energy Analysis

Wave Energy Analysis on Central Sandbank

Recreational User’s Impacts of increases in seiches on moored boats in the Marinas;

Impact of Dredging on Water Quality;

Impact on Expansion of Berth 205 onto the Central Sandbank;

Loss of vegetation of conservation significance; and

Impact on subsistence fishing opportunities.

Wave Energy Analysis;

Wave Energy Analysis on Central Sandbank;

Sediment Plume Analysis

Turbidity Study;


Estuarine/Marine Biodiversity Study;

Ecological Impact on Central Sandbank;

Local Economic Impact Study; and

EMP.


Impacts of deepening on seiches, tides, waves etc.; and

Impacts of expansion on seiches, tides, waves etc.


Wave Energy Analysis on Central Sandbank; and

EMP.


Impact of dredging on water quality in the Port; and

Impact of dredging on water quality at the Offshore disposal site.


Turbidity Study;

Sediment and Chemical Analysis of Dredge Material; and

EMP.

Estuarine Biota Impact of loss of tidal habitat on waterbirds;

Impacts of loss of tidal and sub tidal habitat on fish and crustaceans;

Impacts of loss of open water/ deepwater habitat on fish species;

Impact of dredging on microalgae;

Impacts related to increased turbidity of water;

Impact of dredging on benthic organisms; and

Impacts of dredging on water quality and related impacts on benthic organisms, fish, crustaceans and water birds

Sediment and Chemical Analysis of Dredge Material

Estuarine and Marine Biodiversity Assessment;


Avifauna Impact Assessment; and

EMP.


Final Scoping Report xii



Management

Estuarine Sensitivity and Functioning and Ecosystem goods and services

Decreased functioning of the Durban Bay Estuary; and

Loss of Ecosystem Goods and Services.


Ecological Impact on Central Sandbank

Avifauna Impact Assessment;

Local Economic Study; and

EMP.

Sensitive Areas- Little Lagoon

Indirect impacts related to increased seiches, increased sedimentation, proximity to construction activities on the Little Lagoon.


Wave Energy Analysis on the Central Sandbank;


Assessment of Indirect Impacts on the Little Lagoon; and

EMP.

Sensitive Areas- Central Sandbank

Impact on the habitat and functioning of the Central Sandbank.


Ecological Assessment of Impacts on the Central Sandbank.

Maritime Archaeological and Cultural Features

Impact on heritage resources Maritime Archaeology Heritage Impact Assessment; and

EMP.

Offshore Disposal Site

Smothering of benthic community at offshore disposal site;

Change in sediment type at offshore disposal site; and

Change in water quality at offshore disposal site.



Turbidity Study;

Bathymetric Survey;

Sediment Plume Analysis; and

EMP.

Offshore Sand Winning Site


Impacts of dredging on water quality and related impacts on benthic organisms, fish, crustaceans and water birds; and

Potential for Shoreline erosion due to change in sea floor bathymetry and offshore sand winning site.


Turbidity Study;

Bathymetry Survey;


Sediment Plume Modelling; and

Shoreline Stability Study.

Transportation Increase in construction related traffic; and

Increase in efficiency of Berths 203 to 205 leading to more traffic.

Current Traffic Management Plan between eThekwini Municipality and Transnet; and

EMP.

Tourism Impacts of increased sedimentation on beach users and uShaka Marine World; and

Impacts of shoreline erosion or accretion on beach users and uShaka Marine World.

Sediment Plume Modelling of offshore disposal;

Turbidity Study;


Shoreline Stability Study; and

EMP.


Final Scoping Report xiii

PLAN OF STUDY FOR EIA

The Scoping Report is concluded with a Plan of Study, which explains the approach to be

adopted to conduct the EIA for the proposed Berth upgrade in accordance with the

following pertinent tasks and considerations:

Key environmental issues identified during the Scoping Phase to be investigated

further; and

Specialist studies to be undertaken, which include:

1. Estuarine/Marine Ecology Assessment;

2. Avifauna Impact Assessment;

3. Marine Archaeology Assessment;

4. Local Economic Impact Assessment;

5. Sediment and Chemical Analysis of Dredge Material;

6. Ecological Impact on Central Sandbank Study;

7. Assessment of Indirect and Direct Impacts on the Little Lagoon;

8. Sediment Plume Analysis (Internal and External)- Comparison of type of dredging;

9. Shoreline Stability – Offshore Sand Winning Site;

10. Sediment Plume Analysis – Ecological Impacts within the Port;

11. Wave Energy Analysis – Offshore borrow area and Offshore Disposal area;

12. Wave Energy Analysis – Ecological impacts on the Central Sandbank;

13. Geotechnical Study;

14. Turbidity Study – Impacts of Dredging and Sand Winning;

15. Bathymetric Survey; including: Central Sandbank; Offshore Disposal Site; Sand

winning site;

16. Technical Assessment of the three alternatives;

Public Participation process to be followed;

Contents of the EIA Report;

Consultation with DEA; and

EIA timeframes.


Final Scoping Report xiv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................... II

TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................ XIV

TITLE AND APPROVAL PAGE .................................................................................. XXIX

AMENDMENTS PAGE ................................................................................................. XXX

LIST OF ACRONYMS ................................................................................................. XXXI

DEFINITIONS ........................................................................................................... XXXIV

1. PURPOSE OF THE FINAL SCOPING REPORT – 2ND REVIEW ........................... 1

2. DOCUMENT ROADMAP ........................................................................................ 3

3. PROJECT BACKGROUND AND MOTIVATION .................................................... 6

3.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 6

3.2 Existing Quay Wall Structure and Safety Concerns ......................................................... 7

3.3 Importance of Containerised Cargo in the Port of Durban ............................................. 8

3.4 Economic Importance of the Port of Durban .................................................................. 11

3.5 International Shipping Trends .......................................................................................... 17

3.6 Design Requirements for Super Post Panamax Vessels ................................................. 18

3.7 Quay Wall Safety and the Expansion of Berths 203 to 205 ............................................ 19


Final Scoping Report xv

4. LEGISLATION AND GUIDELINES CONSIDERED .............................................. 20

4.1 The Constitution ................................................................................................................. 20

4.2 The National Environmental Management Act, 1998 .................................................... 20

4.3 The National Environmental Management: Integrated Coastal Management Act,

2008 ...................................................................................................................................... 26

4.4 The National Environmental Management Waste Act, 2008 ......................................... 30

4.5 The National Water Act, 1998 ........................................................................................... 31

4.6 The Marine Living Resources Act, 1989 .......................................................................... 32

4.7 The Seashore Act, 1935 ...................................................................................................... 33

4.8 The Sea Birds and Seals Act, 1973 .................................................................................... 33

4.9 The National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 ............................. 34

4.10 The National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act, 2003 ....................... 34

4.11 The Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act, 1983 ................................................. 34

4.12 The National Heritage Resources Act, 1999 .................................................................... 34

4.13 The Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act, 2003 ................................... 36

4.14 The National Ports Act, 2005 ............................................................................................ 37

4.15 The National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act, 2004 .............................. 38

4.16 The Occupational Health and Safety Act, 1993 ............................................................... 39

4.17 The National Health and Safety Act, 2004 ....................................................................... 39

4.18 The KZN Conservation Management Act ....................................................................... 39

4.19 Policy, Programmes and Plans .......................................................................................... 40


Final Scoping Report xvi

4.19.1 Durban Bay Estuarine Management Plan – Situational Analysis Report ..................... 40

4.19.2 eThekwini Integrated Development Plan ...................................................................... 40

4.20 Guidelines ............................................................................................................................ 41

4.21 International Conventions ................................................................................................. 42

4.21.1 The London Convention of 1972 .................................................................................. 42

4.21.2 The London Protocol of 1996 ....................................................................................... 42

4.21.3 The Bonn Convention - Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of

Wild Animals (CMS) .................................................................................................... 42

4.22 Previous Records of Decision regarding the Port of Durban ......................................... 42

5. SCOPING AND EIA PROCESS ............................................................................ 46

5.1 Environmental Assessment Triggers ................................................................................ 46

5.2 Environmental Assessment Authorities ........................................................................... 46

5.3 Scoping Process .................................................................................................................. 47

5.3.1 Formal Process .............................................................................................................. 47

5.3.2 Landowner Notification ................................................................................................ 48

5.3.3 Application Form .......................................................................................................... 49

5.3.4 Screening of Alternatives .............................................................................................. 49

5.3.5 Impact Prediction .......................................................................................................... 50

6. ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS.................................................................... 52

7. NEED AND DESIRABILITY .................................................................................. 53

8. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PRACTITIONER .......................................... 57

9. PROJECT LOCATION .......................................................................................... 58

10. PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................... 63


Final Scoping Report xvii

10.1 Project Components ........................................................................................................... 64

10.1.1 Design Parameters of the Quay wall ............................................................................. 64

10.1.2 Design Parameters – Cope Level .................................................................................. 64

10.1.3 Design Parameters – Dredge Depth .............................................................................. 66

10.2 Project Life Cycle ............................................................................................................... 75

10.2.1 Pre-feasibility and Feasibility Phases ............................................................................ 75

10.2.2 Project Phasing .............................................................................................................. 75

10.2.3 Pre-construction Phase .................................................................................................. 78

10.2.4 Construction Phase ........................................................................................................ 79

10.2.5 Extension of Berth 205 .................................................................................................. 80

10.2.6 Extension of Berth 203 .................................................................................................. 80

10.2.7 Upgrade of Berths 203 to 205 ....................................................................................... 81

10.2.8 Operational Phase .......................................................................................................... 82

10.2.9 Decommissioning Phase ............................................................................................... 82

11. ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................................... 83

11.1 Screened Alternatives ........................................................................................................ 83

11.2 Quay Wall Alternatives ..................................................................................................... 86

11.2.1 Deck On Pile Quay Wall ............................................................................................... 86

11.2.2 Sheet Pile Quay Wall .................................................................................................... 89

11.2.3 Caisson Quay Wall ........................................................................................................ 91

11.2.4 Summary of Components .............................................................................................. 94

11.3 Offshore Sand Winning ..................................................................................................... 95

11.4 Offshore Dredge Disposal .................................................................................................. 96

11.5 No Go Option ...................................................................................................................... 97

12. PROFILE OF THE RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT ................................................. 99

12.1 Land Use ............................................................................................................................ 100

12.1.1 Status Quo ................................................................................................................... 100


Final Scoping Report xviii

12.1.2 Potential Impacts / Implications .................................................................................. 102

12.1.3 Specialist Study Triggered / Additional Investigations .............................................. 102

12.2 Climate .............................................................................................................................. 103

12.2.1 Status Quo ................................................................................................................... 103



12.3 Geology & Soils ................................................................................................................. 104

12.3.1 Status Quo ................................................................................................................... 104



12.4 Port Layout and Bathymetry .......................................................................................... 107

12.4.1 Status Quo ................................................................................................................... 107



12.5 Recreational Users ............................................................................................................ 110

12.5.1 Status Quo ................................................................................................................... 110



12.6 Hydrodynamic Functioning ............................................................................................ 112

12.6.1 Status Quo ................................................................................................................... 112



12.7 Water and Sediment Quality ........................................................................................... 122

12.7.1 Status Quo ................................................................................................................... 122



12.8 Estuarine Hydrology ........................................................................................................ 131

12.8.1 Status Quo ................................................................................................................... 131


Final Scoping Report xix



12.9 Estuarine Biota ................................................................................................................. 132

12.9.1 Status Quo ................................................................................................................... 132



12.10 Estuarine Sensitivity and Functioning and Ecosystem Good and Services ................ 140

12.10.1 Status Quo ................................................................................................................... 140



12.11 Rivers ................................................................................................................................. 144

12.11.1 Status Quo ................................................................................................................... 144



12.12 Sensitive Areas: The Little Lagoon ................................................................................. 145

12.12.1 Status Quo ................................................................................................................... 145



12.13 Sensitive Areas: Bayhead Natural Heritage Site- Mangroves ..................................... 146

12.13.1 Status Quo ................................................................................................................... 146



12.14 Socio-Economic Environment ......................................................................................... 147

12.14.1 Status Quo ................................................................................................................... 147



12.15 Air quality ......................................................................................................................... 151

12.15.1 Status Quo ................................................................................................................... 151


Final Scoping Report xx



12.16 Noise ................................................................................................................................... 152

12.16.1 Status Quo ................................................................................................................... 152



12.17 Maritime Archaeology and Culture features ................................................................. 153

12.17.1 Status Quo ................................................................................................................... 153



12.18 Infrastructure ................................................................................................................... 155

12.18.1 Status Quo ................................................................................................................... 155



12.19 Services: Storm Water ..................................................................................................... 157

12.19.1 Status Quo ................................................................................................................... 157



12.20 Services: Electricity .......................................................................................................... 157

12.20.1 Status Quo ................................................................................................................... 158



12.21 Transportation Network .................................................................................................. 158

12.21.1 Status Quo ................................................................................................................... 158



12.22 Tourism ............................................................................................................................. 159

12.22.1 Status Quo ................................................................................................................... 159


Final Scoping Report xxi



12.23 Offshore Dredge Disposal ................................................................................................ 159

12.23.1 Status Quo ................................................................................................................... 159



12.24 Offshore Sand Winning ................................................................................................... 161

12.24.1 Status Quo ................................................................................................................... 161



13. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION .................................................................................. 163

13.1 Authorities Consultation.................................................................................................. 164

13.1.1 Pre-Application Consultation Discussions .................................................................. 164

13.1.2 Environmental Authorities Meeting ............................................................................ 164

13.2 Database of I&APs ........................................................................................................... 164

13.3 Landowner Notification ................................................................................................... 165

13.4 Focus Group Meetings ..................................................................................................... 165

13.5 One of One Meetings with Key Stakeholders ................................................................ 168

13.6 Project Announcement and Notification of Scoping Report Review .......................... 168

13.6.1 Background Information Document ........................................................................... 169

13.6.2 Onsite notices .............................................................................................................. 169

13.6.3 Newspaper Advertisements ......................................................................................... 170

13.6.4 Public Open Day ......................................................................................................... 170

13.6.5 Site Visits for I&APs .................................................................................................. 171

13.7 Review Process for Draft Scoping Report ...................................................................... 171

13.7.1 Accessing the Draft Scoping Report ........................................................................... 171


Final Scoping Report xxii

13.7.2 Project Website ........................................................................................................... 172

13.7.3 Commenting on the Draft Scoping Report .................................................................. 173

13.7.4 2nd

Period of Public Review ........................................................................................ 173

13.8 Issues raised by I&APs .................................................................................................... 173

14. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES ............................................................................... 175

14.1 Approach ........................................................................................................................... 175

14.1.1 Predicting Significant Environmental Issues .............................................................. 175

14.1.2 Mitigation of Impacts .................................................................................................. 176

14.2 Environmental Screening Investigation ......................................................................... 177

14.3 Impacts identified by I&APs ........................................................................................... 181

14.4 Summary of Environmental Issues ................................................................................. 185

14.5 Cumulative Impacts ......................................................................................................... 191

15. METHODOLOGY TO ASSESS THE IDENTIFIED IMPACTS ............................ 194

16. PLAN OF STUDY FOR EIA ................................................................................ 196

16.1 Key Environmental Issues Identified During Scoping Phase ....................................... 196

16.2 Specialist Studies .............................................................................................................. 196

16.2.1 Terms of Reference – General .................................................................................... 198

16.3 Terms of Reference - Specific .......................................................................................... 200

16.3.1 Estuarine/Marine Biodiversity Assessment ................................................................ 200

16.3.1. Avifauna Impact Assessment ...................................................................................... 202

Summary of Key Issues & Triggers Identified During Scoping .................................... 202

Approach ..................................................................................................................................... 202

16.3.2 Marine Archaeology Impact Assessment .................................................................... 203


Final Scoping Report xxiii

16.3.3 Sediment and Chemical Analysis of Dredge Material ................................................ 204

16.3.4 Ecological Impacts on the Central Sandbank .............................................................. 205

16.3.5 Local Economic Impact Assessment .......................................................................... 206

16.3.6 Assessment of the Indirect Impacts on the Little Lagoon ........................................... 206

16.4 Specialist studies under Technical Feasibility Study .................................................... 207

16.5 Public Participation – EIA Phase ................................................................................... 208

16.5.1 Updating of I&AP Database ....................................................................................... 208

16.5.2 Project Website ........................................................................................................... 208

16.5.3 Notification – Approval of Scoping Report ................................................................ 208

16.5.4 Public Open Day ......................................................................................................... 208

16.5.5 Comments and Response Report ................................................................................ 209

16.5.6 Review of Draft EIA Report ....................................................................................... 209

16.5.7 Notification of DEA Decision ..................................................................................... 209

16.6 EIA Report ........................................................................................................................ 210

16.7 Authority Consultation .................................................................................................... 211

16.8 Dumping at Sea Permit .................................................................................................... 211

16.9 EIA Timeframes ............................................................................................................... 212

17. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................... 213

18. REFERENCES .................................................................................................... 214


Final Scoping Report xxiv

LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1: DIMENSIONS OF TEU (FROM - GERMANISCHER LLOYD, 2005) ....................................................................... 8

FIGURE 2: NUMBERS OF CONTAINERS HANDLED BY PORT BETWEEN 2003 AND 2009 (VAN COLLER ET AL., 2008). ...... 9

FIGURE 3: CONTAINERS HANDLED BETWEEN 1997 AND 2007 (FROM VAN COLLER ET AL., 2008). .............................. 10

FIGURE 4: ECONOMIC IMPACT CYCLE (URBAN-ECON DEVELOPMENT ECONOMISTS)................................................... 15

FIGURE 5: SHIPPING FLOWCHART AT PORT OF DURBAN ............................................................................................... 16

FIGURE 6: EVOLUTION OF CONTAINER VESSELS (FROM GERMANISCHER LLOYD, 2005) ............................................... 17

FIGURE 7: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME TRADE - SOURCE: UNCTAD, 2007 ..................................................................... 18

FIGURE 8: EXAMPLE OF 350M LONG VESSEL (FROM GERMANISCHER LLOYD, 2005) .................................................... 19

FIGURE 9: SCOPING AND EIA AUTHORISATION PROCESS .............................................................................................. 48

FIGURE 10: ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF LANDOWNER NOTIFICATION ............................................................................. 49

FIGURE 11: D’MOSS AREA .............................................................................................................................................. 55

FIGURE 12: CENTRAL REGION OF THE ETHEKWINI MUNICIPAL AREA (EMA) (FROM IDP, 2011) ................................... 58

FIGURE 13: 1: 250 000 TOPO-CADASTRAL LOCALITY MAP ............................................................................................. 60

FIGURE 14: 1:20 000 TOPO-CADASTRAL LOCALITY MAP ................................................................................................ 61

FIGURE 15: WARD MAP .................................................................................................................................................. 62

FIGURE 16: DIAGRAMMATIC REPRESENTATION OF THE COPE LEVEL (+4.25M CDP) (PRDW, 2011). ............................ 66

FIGURE 17: BERTH CHANNEL AND APPROACH CHANNEL TO BE DREDGED (PRDW, 2011). ........................................... 70

FIGURE 18: CONSTRUCTION STAGE 1 – BERTH 205 ...................................................................................................... 76

FIGURE 19: CONSTRUCTION STAGE 2: BERTH 204 ......................................................................................................... 77

FIGURE 20: CONSTRUCTION STAGE 3: BERTH 203 ......................................................................................................... 77

FIGURE 21: COMPLETED BERTHS AFTER CONSTRUCTION .............................................................................................. 78

FIGURE 22: SHEET PILES MADE UP OF 1200MM DIAMETER STEEL TUBULAR PILES (PRDW, 2011) ............................... 87

FIGURE 23: TRANSVERSE BEAMS MADE UP OF PRE-STRESSED CONCRETE U BEAMS FILLED WITH IN-SITU CONCRETE

SPANNING BETWEEN THE PILES AND THE EXISTING BLOCK WALL (PRDW, 2011) ..................................... 88

FIGURE 24: SHEET PILE WALL MADE UP OF HZ KING PILES WITH AZ INTERMEDIATE PILES WITH A STEEL GRADE OF

430 N/MM2

DRIVEN TO A DEPTH OF -33M CDP (PRDW, 2011) .................................................................. 90

FIGURE 25: SHEET PILE WALL WITH INVERTED T DEADMAN ANCHORS EACH ACCOMMODATING TWO TIE RODS

PASSING THROUGH DRILLED HOLES IN THE EXISTING QUAY WALL (PRDW, 2011) .................................... 91

FIGURE 26: PROPOSED CAISSON OPTION CAISSON FILLED WITH DREDGED FILL MATERIAL (PRDW, 2011) ................. 92

FIGURE 27: TYPICAL “FIGURE 8” TYPE CAISSONS ........................................................................................................... 93

FIGURE 28: ROW OF VERTICAL TUBULAR PILES WHICH WOULD BE USED TO SUPPORT THE REAR SHIP TO SHORE

CRANE BEAM (PRDW, 2011) ....................................................................................................................... 94

FIGURE 29: POSITION OF ALTERNATIVE SAND WINNING SITES (BATHYMETRY OBTAINED FROM COUNCIL OF

GEOSCIENCES, 2001). .................................................................................................................................. 96

FIGURE 30: CURRENT PERMITTED OFFSHORE DISPOSAL SITE ........................................................................................ 97


Final Scoping Report xxv

FIGURE 31: AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE LAYOUT OF THE PORT OF DURBAN .............................................. 101

FIGURE 32: LAND USE WITHIN THE PORT (MER/ERM, 2011) ....................................................................................... 102

FIGURE 33: POSITION OF THE BOREHOLES FOR THE DETAILED GEOTECHNICAL STUDY (PRDW, 2011) ...................... 106

FIGURE 34: CURRENT LAYOUT OF THE PORT OF DURBAN (FROM TNPA, 2009) .......................................................... 107

FIGURE 35: DURBAN HARBOUR SANDBANK STUDY (EMS, 2010)................................................................................. 109

FIGURE 36: SURFACE FLOW DURING SPRING PEAK FLOOD (UPPER PANEL) AND EBB (LOWER PANEL) TIDES (SOURCE:

PRDW, 2007). ............................................................................................................................................ 114

FIGURE 37: ANNUAL WIND ROSES FOR VARIOUS LOCATIONS IN THE PROT OF DURBAN FOR THE PERIOD MAY 2010

TO OCTOBER 2011 .................................................................................................................................... 116

FIGURE 38 SCHEMATIC OF WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS IN THE PORT OF DURBAN (SOURCE: MER/ERM, 2011) .... 118

FIGURE 39: MEAN TIDAL CURRENTS IN THE PORT OF DURBAN DURING SPRING TIDES (SOURCE: PRDW, 2007) BEFORE

THE MOUTH WIDENING (UPPER PANEL) AND AFTER THE MOUTH WIDENING (LOWER PANEL) ............. 119

FIGURE 40: MAXIMUM TIDAL CURRENTS IN THE PORT OF DURBAN DURING SPRING TIDES (SOURCE: PRDW, 2007)

BEFORE THE MOUTH WIDENING (UPPER PANEL) AND AFTER THE MOUTH WIDENING (LOWER PANEL)120

FIGURE 41: AERIAL VIEW OF DURBAN BAY ILLUSTRATING THE POSITIONS WHERE WATER QUALITY WAS MONITORED

IN 2009, 2010 AND 2011 (CSIR, 2011) ...................................................................................................... 123

FIGURE 42: AVERAGE (±STANDARD DEVIATION) PH AND DISSOLVED OXYGEN CONCENTRATION MEASURED IN

SURFACE AND BOTTOM WATERS OF DURBAN BAY FOR 26 SURVEYS PERFORMED IN 2009 AND 2010.

STATIONS 1- 8 ARE SITUATED IN THE UPPER REACHES OF THE BAY, AND STATIONS 9 – 15 IN THE LOWER

REACHES. STATIONS 10 AND 11 ARE SITUATED WITHIN THE EXPANSION FOOTPRINT (CSIR, 2011) ....... 124

FIGURE 43: AVERAGE (±STANDARD DEVIATION) CONCENTRATIONS OF VARIOUS NUTRIENTS IN SURFACE WATERS OF

DURBAN BAY FOR 26 SURVEYS PERFORMED IN 2009 AND 2010. STATIONS 1- 8 ARE SITUATED IN THE

UPPER REACHES OF THE BAY, AND STATIONS 9 – 15 IN THE LOWER REACHES. STATIONS 10 AND 11 ARE

SITUATED WITHIN THE EXPANSION FOOTPRINT (CSIR, 2011) .................................................................. 125

FIGURE 44: ENRICHMENT FACTOR SPATIAL TRENDS FOR COPPER, MANGANESE AND MERCURY IN DURBAN BAY IN

AUGUST 2011. ALSO INCLUDED IS THE SPATIAL TREND FOR THE NUMBER OF METALS ENRICHED IN

SEDIMENT. AN ENRICHMENT FACTOR REPRESENTS BY HOW MANY TIMES A MEASURED METAL

CONCENTRATION EXCEEDS THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION PREDICTED BY THE BASELINE MODEL FOR

THAT METAL IN GRANULOMETRICALLY EQUIVALENT SEDIMENT (CSIR, 2011) ........................................ 127

FIGURE 45: TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBON AND POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBON CONCENTRATIONS IN

SEDIMENT FROM DURBAN BAY IN AUGUST 2011. STATIONS 10 AND 11 ARE SITUATED WITHIN THE

EXPANSION FOOTPRINT ............................................................................................................................ 128

FIGURE 46: CONSERVATION STATUS OF THE PROPOSED BERTH 203 TO 205 EXPANSION AREA ................................ 134

FIGURE 47: PROTECTED STATUS OF THE PROPOSED BERTH 203 TO 205 EXPANSION AREA ....................................... 134

FIGURE 48: VEGETATION TYPES OF THE PROPOSED BERTHS 203 TO 205 EXPANSION SITE ........................................ 135

FIGURE 49: RIVERS IN THE REGIONAL STUDY AREA ..................................................................................................... 144

FIGURE 50: DURBAN HARBOUR SHOWING SHIPWRECK DATABASE ZONES (FROM CSIR, 2011). ................................ 154


Final Scoping Report xxvi

FIGURE 51: INFRASTRUCTURE ON SITE ........................................................................................................................ 156

FIGURE 52: OUTLINE OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS .......................................................................................... 163

FIGURE 53: AREAS WHERE QUESTIONNAIRES WERE ADMINISTERED. ......................................................................... 166

FIGURE 54: MAIN CONCERNS REGARDING THE PROPOSED PROJECT. ......................................................................... 167

FIGURE 55: THE MAIN EXPECTED POSITIVE IMPACTS REGARDING THE PROPOSED PROJECT. .................................... 168

FIGURE 56: LOCATIONS OF ONSITE NOTICES ............................................................................................................... 170

FIGURE 57: COMPARATIVE RISK ASSESSMENT METHOD (ADAPTED FROM STANDARDS AUSTRALIA AND STANDARDS

NEW ZEALAND, 2004) (CSIR, 2011). .......................................................................................................... 177

FIGURE 58: CHANGES IN THE DURBAN BAY BETWEEN 1800S AND 1999..................................................................... 192

FIGURE 59: EIA TIMEFRAMES ....................................................................................................................................... 212


Final Scoping Report xxvii

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1: SCOPING REPORT ROADMAP ............................................................................................................................ 3

TABLE 2: DEVELOPMENT OF CARGO CAPACITY IN THE DURBAN HARBOUR AS INTENDED FOR THE PERIOD TO 2050.

(FROM VAN COLLER ET AL., 2008) ...................................................................................................................... 9

TABLE 3:VESSEL ARRIVALS – DURBAN PORT (FIN. YR. 2005/06) (FROM VAN COLLER ET AL., 2008) ............................. 11

TABLE 4: LISTED ACTIVITIES TRIGGERED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT. .......................................................................... 21

TABLE 5: 1999 ROD AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR THE CURRENT SCOPING REPORT ..................................................... 44

TABLE 6: NEED AND DESIRABILITY OF THE PROPOSED DEEPENING, LENGTHENING AND WIDENING OF BERTHS 203 TO

205 .............................................................................................................................................................. 53

TABLE 7: SCOPING AND EIA CORE TEAM MEMBERS ...................................................................................................... 57

TABLE 8: THE DESIGN VESSEL CHARACTERISTICS ........................................................................................................... 67

TABLE 9: CHANNEL DEPTH AND BERTH FACTORS .......................................................................................................... 69

TABLE 10: KEY ACTIVITIES FOR DIFFERING QUAY WALL TYPES ...................................................................................... 81

TABLE 11: SUMMARY OF QUAY WALL COMPONENTS ................................................................................................... 94

TABLE 12: ECONOMIC FACTORS AND IMPLICATIONS OF THE NO-GO ALTERNATIVE..................................................... 98

TABLE 13: MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM MONTHLY TEMPERATURES RECORDED AT DURBAN AIRPORT (MER/ERM,

2011) ......................................................................................................................................................... 103

TABLE 14: MONTHLY AVERAGE RAINFALL RECORDED AT DURBAN AIRPORT (MER/ERM, 2011) ................................ 103

TABLE 15: SUMMARY OF LOCAL GEOLOGY UNDERLYING THE PROJECT AREA ............................................................ 104

TABLE 16: HYDROLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF DURBAN BAY ESTUARY .......................................................................... 131

TABLE 17: ECOSYSTEM GOODS AND SERVICES PROVIDED BY DURBAN BAY (ADAPTED FROM MER/ERM, 2011). ..... 142

TABLE 18: A SUMMARY TABLE OF PM10 ESTIMATES FOR ETHEKWINI (WITI, 2005) ..................................................... 151

TABLE 19: WRECKS NEAR THE DURBAN HARBOUR (FROM CSIR, 2011) ....................................................................... 154

TABLE 20: LOCATIONS FOR REVIEW OF DRAFT SCOPING REPORT ............................................................................... 172

TABLE 21: RISK ASSESSMENT FOR THE DEEPENING, LENGTHENING AND WIDENING OF BERTH 203 TO 205 FROM THE

CSIR ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING (2011) ................................................................................................. 178

TABLE 22: PERTINENT ISSUES (CONSTRUCTION PHASE) FOR PRIORITISATION DURING THE EIA PHASE ..................... 185

TABLE 23: PERTINENT ISSUES (OPERATIONAL PHASE) FOR PRIORITISATION DURING THE EIA PHASE ........................ 190

TABLE 24: LOCATIONS FOR REVIEW OF DRAFT EIA REPORT ........................................................................................ 209


Final Scoping Report xxviii

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A Application form

Appendix B Curricula Vitae of EAPs

Appendix C Alternatives

Appendix D Maps

Appendix E Authority Meeting

Appendix F I&AP database

Appendix G Landowner Notification

Appendix H Focus Group Meeting

Appendix I Questionnaires

Appendix J WESSA Meeting

Appendix K Background Information Document

Appendix L Site Notices

Appendix M Newspaper Adverts

Appendix N Proof Of Delivery

Appendix O Comment Form

Appendix P Comments and Response Report

Appendix Q Public Open Day Presentation


Final Scoping Report xxix

TITLE AND APPROVAL PAGE

Project name: Proposed Deepening, Lengthening and Widening of Berth 203 to 205,

Pier 2, Container Terminal, Port of Durban

Report Title: Proposed Deepening, Lengthening and Widening of Berth 203 to 205,

Pier 2, Container Terminal, Port of Durban - Draft Scoping Report

Authors: Vanessa Brueton, Donavan Henning, Ann Burke and Nicky Naidoo

Authority reference no.: NEAS REF NO: DEA/EIA/0000988/2012, DEA REF NO:

14/12/16/3/3/2/275

Status of report: Final Scoping Report for 2nd

Period of Public Review

Date of issue: 25 May 2012

Prepared by Nemai Consulting


Final Scoping Report xxx

AMENDMENTS PAGE

Date Nature of Amendment Amendment No. Signature

09 March 2012 Draft for Public Review 1

25 May 2012 Final For 2nd Period of Public

Review 2


Final Scoping Report xxxi

LIST OF ACRONYMS

CBD Central Business District

CDP Chart Datum Port

Chl-a Chlorophyll -a

cm Centimetre

CSD Cutter Suction Dredger

CSDP Central Spatial Development Plan

CSIR Council for Scientific and Industrial Research

CSR Central Spatial Region

D’MOSS Durban Metro Open Space System

DAEA&RD Department of Agriculture, Environmental Affairs and Rural Development

(provincial)

DEA Department of Environmental Affairs

DEDT Department of Economic Development and Tourism

DIN Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen

DIP Dissolved Inorganic Phosphate

DO Dissolved Oxygen

DWA Department of Water Affairs

EA Environmental Authorisation


Final Scoping Report xxxii

EESMP eThekwini Environmental Services Management Plan

EHI Estuary Health Index

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

EIR Environmental Impact Report

EM eThekwini Municipality

EMP Environmental Management Plan

EstMP Estuarine Management Plan

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GGP Gross Geographic Product

GIS Geographic Information Systems

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

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

RoD Record of Decision

TCP Transnet Capital Projects

TEMPI Transnet eThekwini Municipality Planning Initiative

TEU Twenty Foot Equivalent Unit

TNPA Transnet National Ports Authority

ToR Terms of Reference


Final Scoping Report xxxiii

TSHD Trailing Suction Hopper Dredger


Final Scoping Report xxxiv

DEFINITIONS

Acute effect Rapid adverse effect (e.g. death) caused for example by contaminants or physical

processes. The term can be used to define either the exposure or the response to

an exposure (effect).

Alternatives In relation to a proposed activity, alternatives refer to the different means of meeting

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

to:

The property or location where it is proposed to undertake the activity;

The type of activity to be undertaken;

The design or layout of the activity;

The technology to be used in the activity; and

The operational aspects of the activity.

Amphipod A kind of malacostracan crustacean.

Anthropogenic Produced or caused by humans.

Archaeology The scientific study of aspects of the human past, primarily through material

evidence.

Artifact An object used or produced by people in the past.

Ballast Water Use Use of water in specialised ballast tanks to aid in controlling a ship’s trim and draft.

Bathymetry The sea bed “topography” derived from measurements of depths of water.

Benthic Referring to organisms living in or on the sediments of aquatic, estuarine and

marine habitats.

Benthos The sum total of organisms living in, or on, the sediments of aquatic habitats.


Final Scoping Report xxxv

Biodiversity The variety of life forms, including the plants, animals and micro-organisms, the

genes they contain and the ecosystems and ecological processes of which they are

a part.

Biogeochemistry The study of the relationship between geochemistry of a region and the biology in

that region.

Biomass The living weight of a plant or animal population, usually expressed on a unit area

basis.

Biota The sum total of the living organisms of any designated area.

Bivalve A mollusc with a hinged double shell.

Chart Datum (CD) A reference point linked to the low water mark (ordinary spring tide) and used for

measuring sea water depth. In South Africa, a unique Chart Datum is identified for

each port. Chart Datum is defined by the Hydrographer as 0.913 metres below land

levelling datum.

Chart Datum Port

(CDP)

Chart Datum Port is defined by TNPA as 0.900 metres below land levelling datum.

Chronic effect Effect lingering or continuing for a long time; often for periods from several weeks to

years. Can be used to define either the exposure of an aquatic species or its

response to an exposure (effect).

Community An assemblage of organisms characterized by a distinctive combination of species

occupying a common environment.

Community

composition

All the types of taxa present in a community.

Community

structure

All the types of taxa present in a community and their relative abundances.

Contaminant Biological (e.g. bacterial and viral pathogens) and chemical introductions capable of

producing an adverse response (effect) in a biological system, seriously injuring

structure and/or function.


Final Scoping Report xxxvi

Cope Line The outer edge of the quay wall.

Crustacea A highly diverse class of organisms containing crabs, shrimps, lobsters, isopods,

amphipods etc.

Detritus Unconsolidated sediments composed of both inorganic and dead and decaying

organic material.

Dewatering To remove water from an object, in this case sediment.

Dragline An excavating machine with a digging bucket attached by cables to a long jib and

operated by being dragged back toward the machine by another cable.

Echinoderms Phylum of marine invertebrates that includes sea urchins, starfish, brittle stars, sea

cucumbers. All are characterized by tube feet and five-part radially symmetrical

bodies.

Endangered A taxon is regarded as endangered when it faces a high risk of extinction in the wild.

This is defined as a 20% probability of extinction within 20 years.

Environment The biophysical, social, economic, cultural, political and historical context within

which people live and within which development takes place.

Environmental

impact

A change resulting from the effect of an activity on the environment, whether

desirable or undesirable. Impacts may be the direct consequence of an

organisation’s activities or may be indirectly caused by them.

Environmental

impact

assessment (EIA)

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), as defined in the NEMA EIA Regulations

and in relation to an application to which scoping must be applied, means the

process of collecting, organising, analysing, interpreting and communicating

information that is relevant to the consideration of that application.

Environmental

issue

A concern felt by one or more parties about some existing, potential or perceived

environmental impact.

Epifaunal Organisms, which live at or on the sediment surface being either attached (sessile)

or capable of movement.


Final Scoping Report xxxvii

Habitat The place where a population (e.g. animal, plant, micro-organism) lives and its

surroundings, both living and non-living.

Infauna Animals of any size living within the sediment. They move freely through interstitial

spaces between sedimentary particles or they build burrows or tubes.

Interested and

affected party

(I&AP)

Individuals or groups concerned with or affected by an activity and its

consequences. These include the authorities, local communities, investors, work

force, consumers, environmental interest groups and the general public.

Isopod Any of various small terrestrial or aquatic crustaceans with seven pairs of legs

adapted for crawling.

Lithogenic Derived from rocks and/or soils

Macrofauna Animals which are greater than 1 mm.

Macrophyte A member of the macroscopic plant life of an area, especially of a body of water;

large aquatic plant.

Molluscs A phylum of organisms containing snails, mussels, oysters.

Mysids Small shrimp-like crustaceans.

PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyls.

PEL Probable effective levels.

Piscivorous Feeding on fishes.


Final Scoping Report xxxviii

Pollution The introduction of unwanted components into waters, air or soil, usually as result of

human activity; e.g. hot water in rivers, sewage in the sea, oil on land.

Polychaetes A class of mainly marine worms.

Population Population is defined as the total number of individuals of the species or taxon.

Recruitment The replenishment or addition of individuals of an animal or plant population

through reproduction, dispersion and migration.

Re-suspension A renewed suspension of particulates.

Scoping This refers to the process of determining the spatial and temporal boundaries (the

extent) for the EIA and key issues to be addressed in an environmental

assessment.

Sediment Unconsolidated mineral and/or organic particulate material.

Significant impact An impact that by its magnitude, duration, intensity or probability of occurrence may

have a notable effect on one or more aspects of the environment.

Sipunculids Small unsegmented marine worm that when disturbed retracts its anterior portion

into the body giving the appearance of a peanut.

Species A group of organisms that resemble each other to a greater degree than members

of other groups and that form a reproductively isolated group that will not produce

viable offspring if bred with members of another group.

Suspended

material

Total mass of material suspended in a given volume of water, measured in mg/l.

Taxon (Taxa): Any group of organisms considered to be sufficiently distinct from other such groups

to be treated as a separate unit (e.g. species, genera, families).


Final Scoping Report xxxix

TEL Threshold effective levels.

Terrigenous Derived naturally from rocks and/or soils.

TEU Twenty-foot Equivalent Unit, a unit referring to a standard twenty foot container size

and used to measure the volume of cargo, and used to measure the operations and

capacity of a container terminal.

Toxicity The inherent potential or capacity of a material to cause adverse effects in a living

organism.

Turbidity Turbidity is the attenuation of light in water caused by the sum of suspended

particles and any dissolved chemicals in the water which may alter the passage of

light through scattering (generally inorganic and organic particles) and/or absorption

(generally particulate or dissolved biological material).

Vulnerable A taxon is vulnerable when it is facing a medium risk of extinction in the wild in the

medium-term future, defined as a 10% probability of extinction within 100 years.


Final Scoping Report 1

1. PURPOSE OF THE FINAL SCOPING REPORT – 2ND REVIEW

The Scoping Report for the proposed Deepening, Lengthening and Widening of Berth

203 to 205 aims to determine the full ‘scope’ of the Environmental Impact Assessment

(EIA) Phase. It also aims to identify key environmental issues and identify potential

alternatives (DEAT, 2005a). Information used in this Draft Scoping report was obtained

from a number of sources (see references). The draft Scoping report was then made

available to the public for review and comment. Copies of the Draft Scoping Report were

placed at the Seafarers Club and the Central Library. In addition, an electronic copy was

made available on the project website (www.berth203to205expansioneia.co.za).

The purpose of the Draft Scoping Report was as follows:

To describe the need and desirability for the proposed upgrade of Berths 203 to

205;

To describe how the proposed project will be executed;

To provide a description of the receiving environment that could be affected by the

proposed project;

To explain the Scoping and EIA processes;

To describe the Public Participation Process that will occur as part of the Scoping

Phase;

To provide a description of the legislation that was considered; and

To present a Plan of Study for the pending EIA Phase of the project.

Comments received from registered I&APS (contained in the Comments and Response

Report in Appendix P) helped shape the final Scoping Report. Changes included the

introduction of new Specialist studies. Registered I&APs are granted a further week to

review the amended Final Scoping Report to ensure that all comments have been

included and addressed. The Final Scoping Report will be made available for review and

comment from 25 May 2012 to 01 June 2012 at the Seafarers Club and the Central

Library. In addition, it will be uploaded onto the project website

http://www.berth203to205expansioneia.co.za/



(www.berth203to205expansioneia.co.za) so that registered I&APs can download the

document.




2. DOCUMENT ROADMAP

In order to ensure all requirements of Government Notice (GN) R. 543 of 18 June 2010

and to provide clarity to the readers of this document, a document roadmap is provided

below. The document roadmap provides information on GN R. 543 of 18 June 2010

Regulations requirements as well as a guide on the content of each chapter. Please note

that in some cases more information is provided than required in the EIA regulations in

which case there will be no correlating section to GN R. 543.

Table 1: Scoping Report Roadmap

Chapter Title CORRELATION WITH GN No. R. 543 (EIA REGULATIONS)

Included Section Description

1 Purpose of the Draft Scoping Report

2 Document Roadmap

3 Project Background and Motivation

R28(1)(i) A description of the need and desirability of the proposed activity.

4 Legislation and Guidelines Considered

R28(1)(f) An identification of all legislation and guidelines that have been considered in the preparation of the scoping report.

R28(2) A scoping report must take into account any guidelines applicable to the kind of activity which is the subject of the application.

5 Scoping and EIA Process

6 Assumptions & Limitations

7 Need & Desirability

R28(1)(i) A description of the need and desirability of the proposed activity.

8 Environmental Assessment Practitioner

R28(1)(a)

Details of - (i) the EAP who prepared the report; and (ii) the expertise of the EAP to carry out scoping

procedures.

9 Project Location R28(1)(d) A description of the property on which the activity is to be undertaken and the location of the activity on the property.

10 Project Description

R28(1)(b) A description of the proposed activity.

11 Alternatives R28(1)(c)

A description of any feasible and reasonable alternatives that have been identified.

R28(1)(j) A description of identified potential alternatives to the proposed activity, including advantages and





disadvantages that the proposed activity or alternatives may have on the environment and the community that may be affected by the activity.

12 Profile of the Receiving Environment

R28(1)(e) A description of the environment that may be affected by the activity and the manner in which the activity may be affected by the environment.

R28(1)(j)

A description of identified potential alternatives to the proposed activity, including advantages and disadvantages that the proposed activity or alternatives may have on the environment and the community that may be affected by the activity.

13 Public Participation

R28(1)(h)

Details of the public participation process conducted in terms of regulation 27(a), including - (i) the steps that were taken to notify potentially

interested and affected parties of the application;

(ii) proof that notice boards, advertisements and notices notifying potentially interested and affected parties of the application have been displayed, placed or given;

(iii) a list of all persons or organisations that were identified and registered in terms of regulation 55 as interested and affected parties in relation to the application; and

(iv) a summary of the issues raised by interested and affected parties, the date of receipt of and the response of the EAP to those issues.

R28(1)(k)

Copies of any representations, and comments received in connection with the application or the scoping report from interested and affected parties.

R28(1)(l)

Copies of 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.

R28(1)(m) Any responses by the EAP to those representations and comments and views;

14 Environmental Issues

R28(1)(g) A description of environmental issues and potential impacts, including cumulative impacts, that have been identified.

15 Methodology to Assess the Identified Impacts

16 Plan of Study for EIA

R28(1)(n)

A plan of study for environmental impact assessment which sets out the proposed approach to the environmental impact assessment of the application, which must include - (i) a description of the tasks that will be

undertaken as part of the environmental impact assessment process, including any specialist reports or specialised processes,





and the manner in which such tasks will be undertaken;

(ii) an indication of the stages at which the competent authority will be consulted;

(iii) a description of the proposed method of assessing the environmental issues and alternatives, including the option of not proceeding with the activity; and

(iv) particulars of the public participation process that will be conducted during the environmental impact assessment process;

17 R28(1)(o) Any specific information required by the competent authority.

18 R28(1)(p) Any other matters required in terms of sections 24(4)(a) and (b) of the Act.



3. PROJECT BACKGROUND AND MOTIVATION

3.1 Introduction

TNPA plans to upgrade Berths 203 to 205, Pier 2, Container Terminal, Port of Durban.

The existing Blockwork Quay wall structure along Pier 2 Berth 203 to 205 was designed

in the 1970s to support dockside cranes with the lifting capacity of 4 tonnes. The quay

walls are presently operating beyond their original design limitations. Recent studies have

concluded that the existing quay walls do not meet the minimum Eurocode 7 Safety

Standards and that there is a risk of potential quay wall failure (PRDW, 2011)

Vessel sizes have also increased since the original terminal was constructed and Berth

203 to 205 cannot therefore safely accommodate fully laden new generation container

vessels due to insufficient water depth at these berths. At present these vessels enter

and exit the Port partially laden and during the high tide window. This is an unsafe

operating condition and the risk exists that vessels could run aground. TNPA has

proposed the deepening, lengthening and widening of Berth 203 to 205 in order to

improve the safety of the berths as well as to improve the efficiency of the Port.





4. The deepening of the berth channel, approach channel, and vessel turning basin


5. Three technical options are to be considered namely, the Caisson option, Sheet

Pile option and Deck on Pile option. For the Caisson option, a trench will need to

be excavated to -19m CDP;

6. The construction of caissons, storage of sheet piles or precasting of elements of

the Deck on Pile (for the Caisson option, Sheet Pile Option and Deck on Pile

option, respectively) at Bayhead Lot 10;





9. The installation of new Ship to Shore (STS) cranes and associated infrastructure.

Nemai Consulting was appointed by TNPA to undertake the requisite Environmental

Authorisation Process for the Proposed Berth 203 to 205, Pier 2 upgrade. The proposed

development triggers activities listed in Government Notices No. R. 544, R. 545 and R.

546. Hence, a full Scoping/EIA study as per the August 2010 Environmental Impact

Assessment (EIA) Regulations promulgated in terms of the National Environmental

Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998) is necessary.

In addition, a Dumping at Sea Permit as per the National Environmental Management:

Integrated Coastal Management Act, 2008 (Act 24 of 2008), is required to dispose of

dredged material at an offshore disposal site. A Mining permit for dredging of material

offshore for infill purposes will also be required as per the Mineral and Petroleum

Resources Development Act, 2002 (Act No. 22 of 2002). The impacts of offshore disposal

as well as offshore sand winning for infill material will also be included in the Scoping

Report.

3.2 Existing Quay Wall Structure and Safety Concerns

The existing blockwork quays of Berths 203 to 205 were designed in the 1970s and do

not meet the required Eurocode 7 minimum standards of safety (PRDW, 2011). The

recent Transnet (2009) study indicates that there is a potential risk for quay wall failure.

One of the main reasons for this is the insufficient water depth at the Berth 203 to 205.

Although large Post Panamax vessels enter

the Port partially laden and only at the high

tide, in some areas, scour protection at the

berths has been damaged by vessel

propeller blades. There is also the risk that

large vessels may run aground (even though

only partially laden). The safety of Berths

203 to 205, Pier 2 is an immediate concern



for TNPA and the main motivation for the upgrade of Berths 203 to 205.

3.3 Importance of Containerised Cargo in the Port of Durban

One of major technical changes in cargo logistics has been the introduction of containers

which has revolutionised cargo handling methods and costs (Van Coller et al., 2008).

Shipping companies have steadily increased the size of their ships and extended their

area of influence. With the introduction of much larger ships (Panamax, Post-Panamax

and Super Post-Panamax), it is natural that it is more cost efficient for these ships if they

can sail the longest possible distance between stops. This has fuelled the so-called “Hub

and Spoke” thinking where large ships sail between East and West, only calling at the

larger so-called Hub ports. From there smaller vessels carry out distribution to the smaller

ports along the coast (Van Coller et al., 2008).

The Port of Durban, situated in Durban Bay is South Africa’s busiest port in terms of large

cargo vessel calls (CSIR, 2008). In

addition, the Port of Durban handled

the greatest number of containers

between 2003 and 2009 of all South

African ports (Figure 2) (SAPO,

2010). Container size is often

described as Twenty foot Equivalent

Unit (TEU) and in terms of capacity,

it is expected that by 2050, the Port

of Durban will need to handle

approximately 8 065 000 TEU of

containers (Table 1).

Figure 1: Dimensions of TEU (From -

Germanischer Lloyd, 2005)



The growth in container traffic is currently approximately 10%. The Port of Durban,

already handles 67% of South Africa’s container cargo (Figure 2). In addition, container

volumes are up at over 2 million TEUs per annum which means that in terms of size,

Durban is a world-class port (Van Coller et al., 2008) (Figure 3).

Table 2: Development of cargo capacity in the Durban harbour as intended for the period to 2050.

(From Van Coller et al., 2008)

Projected capacity for different categories of cargo

Category 2005 2020 2035 2050

CONTAINERS

teu

berths

1 690 000

8

5 363 000

20

8 065 000

20

8 065 000

20

BREAKBULK

tons

berths

6 632 000

16

8 292 000

17

10 367 000

17

11 336 000

17

DRYBULK

tons

berths

11 474 000

8

15 442 000

8

20 784 000

8

27 972 000

8

LIQUID BULK

tons

berths

9 060 000

8

10 666 000

10

12 568 000

10

14 822 000

10

VEHICLES

units

berths

213 437

1

487 326

2

655 877

3

882 724

3

Figure 2: Numbers of Containers handled by Port between 2003 and 2009 (Van Coller et al., 2008).



For the Port of Durban to become a hub port for at least part of their cargo trade, there is

a need for major redesign of infrastructure, hence the 2010 project to widen the port

entrance and to dredge both the entrance and much of the internal port area to greater

depths (Van Coller et al., 2008).

Figure 3: Containers handled between 1997 and 2007 (from Van Coller et al., 2008).

In addition, of the seven South African Ports, Durban had the most vessel arrivals during

the 2005/06 financial year (April-March) (31, 7% of the total arrivals of 14,335 in South

Africa). Of the 4,551 vessels that entered the Port of Durban, approximately 90% were

ocean-going and 10% were coastal, fishing and miscellaneous (Table 3). In addition,

container vessels (26.6%) were the highest number by type of vessel and constituted the

most by gross tonnage (33.7%) in the 2005/2006 financial year.

0

200

400

600

800

1 000

1 200

1 400

1 600

1 800

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

'000

TE

Us

p.a

.

CONTAINER TEUS HANDLED

TEUs Landed Total TEUs Handled TEUs Shipped



Table 3: Vessel arrivals – Durban Port (Fin. Yr. 2005/06) (From Van Coller et al., 2008)

3.4 Economic Importance of the Port of Durban

The Port of Durban can be seen as the premier gateway port in South Africa and as the

South African economy grows, so does the need for a greater capacity to cater for

growing freight volumes at the Port. In the past 10 years, the growth in containerised

traffic through the Port of Durban has been three times the national GDP growth rate. It is

currently forecast that the existing transportation infrastructure will reach its limit by 2019

and unless significant expansion takes place, South African economic growth will be

constrained.

The total cargo revenue at the Port of Durban is made up predominately from

containerised cargo. Related to this, however, is the growing concern by the shipping

industry that the Port of Durban cannot safely accommodate this growth in containerised

cargo. Some new traffic can be handled merely by efficiency gains however it is

estimated that at the current rates of growth, container handling demands will exceed

handling capacity in the near future. The proposed upgrade aims at increasing efficiency

and safety at the Durban Container Terminal.

VESSEL TYPE TOTAL

No. % Gross Tonnage

(‘000)

%

Ocean Going:

General Cargo

Bulk

Liquid Bulk

Container*

Passenger

Car/Vehicle Carriers

Other

1088

762

603

1,214

64

239

132

23.9

16.7

13.2

26.6

1.4

5.3

2.9

13,455

16,767

17,607

31,817

1,009

9,602

2,024

14.2

17.7

18.6

33.7

1.1

10.2

2.1

Total Ocean Going 4,102 90.1 92,281 97.6

Coastwise

Fishing/Trawlers

Miscellaneous

196

176

77

4.3

3.9

1.7

1,869

95

298

2.0

0.1

0.3

Total Coastal/Fishing/Misc. 449 9.9 2,262 2.4

TOTAL Arrivals 4,551 100.0 94,543 100.0



President Jacob Zuma specifically made mention of Transnet expansion projects in his

2012 State of the Nation Address. This includes upgrade projects within the Port of

Durban. The national importance of the Port was judged by 80,764 million tonnes of

cargo (approximately 30% of the total cargo handled at the eight South African

Commercial Ports). In addition, the Port of Durban handled 2,713 million TEUs out of a

total of 4,393 million TEUs (61% of the total), thus emphasising the Port of Durban’s

importance as an international commercial gateway to South Africa and its adjoining

regions.

The expansion of the port including the upgrade of Berth 203 to 205 aims to reduce the

cost of doing business, improve productivity and will create employment and generate

wealth locally, regionally and nationally. The Port of Durban does face competition,

global shipping lines have indicated that there will only be one port of call (or ‘hub’) along

the KwaZulu-Natal coastline. As the turnaround time at the Port lengthens, shipping lines

may choose to relocate to other ports. The following ports are in competition with the Port

of Durban:

Port of St. Louis in Mauritius;

Port of Beira;

Port of Maputo;

Port of Richard’s Bay; and

Port of Coega.

Some of these ports have already begun upgrading their infrastructure.

The eThekwini Municipality Central Spatial Development Annual Review 2010/2011

recognises the strategic importance of upgrading and expanding the Port of Durban as it

is the economic, manufacturing and trading hub of the area. Moreover, the need for the

expansion within the port has been precipitated by prolonged congestion arising from a

capacity crisis in many aspects of port operations. With steady and accelerating

economic growth and the lowering of barriers to international trade, there have been



increased volumes of seaborne traffic and as a major generator of transport activity and

economic generation, the port is a strategic focus area in the eThekwini Municipality.

The Port of Durban is the responsibility of TNPA, which is in turn a division of Transnet

SOC Ltd. TNPA has two main business responsibilities, viz. (i) being the Port landlord,

and (ii) providing a range of maritime services such as tugs, pilots, dredging, berthing,

radar, lighthouses, dry-dock facilities, etc. as well as harbour master functions such as

port control, vessel traffic, port security, etc.

The land around the Port is owned by the TNPA and large sections of it are leased to

independent operators for cargo terminals, ship repairs and other activities. This is where

its role as port landlord comes into play. Dues earned from these leases (rentals, port and

cargo dues) form a large portion of the TNPA revenue. The main lessee is Transnet Port

Terminals (TPT) (also a Transnet division), which operates the major terminals. There are

also a number of private sector lessees who operate specialised terminals such as the

Sugar Terminal and Bulk Liquid Terminals or conduct specialised operations such as

Ship-building and Repair or Cargo Logistics processes of some kind.

Economic activity related to the Port of Durban can be divided into direct port-dependent

activity and indirect port-dependent activity. The former includes activities that owe their

existence directly to the port such as service vessels and cargoes. The latter includes

cargo owners that are based in Durban because of its locational advantage as well as

ancillary players who supply services and goods to the Port. Some directly dependent

services include the following:

All Port Services provided by the TNPA;

Marine Engineering;

Ship Chandlers ;

Marine Engineering Components & Spares;

Oil & Fuel Bunkering;

Marine Engines & Equipment Servicing, etc;

Marine Services;



Marine Servicing Materials;

Marine Consultants & Contractors;

Ship Repair;

Marine Cargo Surveyors & Cost Adjusters;

Boat & Engine Repair;

Marine Insurance Assessors;

Control Instruments & Systems;

Security & Surveillance Consultants ;

Meteorological Services;

Underwater Diving Services;

Fire Fighting Equipment & Supplies ;

Fire Protection Engineers; and

Specialist Services such as air conditioning, refrigeration, acoustics and

insulation, anti-corrosion treatment and cleaning.

The above list is not necessarily complete, but is sufficient to show that ship operations

require a wide range of support services (Van Coller et al., 2008). The multiplier effect in

terms of value added, jobs and local wealth creation from providing a full range of

services to over 4500 ship arrivals a year, is large.

The Port of Durban through these service linkages is also in a position to offer a very

wide range of services. There is for instance a large and excellent pool of ship building,

repair and servicing skills in Durban. Of particular interest is that some of these overlap

with other industries such as engineering, metal working and even the automotive sector.

Durban’s competitive advantage should be maintained at a high level through skills

development and support systems as it constitutes one of the port’s main strengths (Van

Coller et al., 2008).

Economic studies on the impacts of developing the efficiency of the Port of Durban have

shown a positive economic impact cycle (Figure 4) and from an economic view any

increased efficiency of the Port of Durban is likely to have positive knock on effects on

South Africa’s economy (Van Coller et al., 2008).



Figure 4: Economic Impact Cycle (Urban-Econ Development Economists)

TNPA has also prepared the Port of Durban Development Framework in which forecasts

indicate continued strong growth in container volumes through the Port (and in line with

world trends). The objectives of this framework are:

To provide additional container handling capacity to meet future demand; and

To consolidate general cargo handling facilities and the alignment of operations

with best practices.

The upgrade of Berths 203 to 205 is part of the first Phase of development of the Port.

The development framework details four proposed Phases of development aimed at

meeting the anticipated growth of container and general cargo.

A 2011 Order of Magnitude study by Urban-Econ Development Economists estimated the

impact of the proposed four Phases of development on new business sales, GGP, job

opportunities and income/wages. Although the upgrade of Berths 203 to 205 will only

contribute to Phase 1, the following figures indicate a significant positive impact with

approximately 29 000 jobs created for the entire Phase 1 and approximately 11 billion

rand spent in wages for the full Phase 1.



Figure 5 provides a detailed flowchart of the different services required at the Port of

Durban.

Figure 5: Shipping Flowchart at Port of Durban



3.5 International Shipping Trends

With the global trend of containerisation, there has been a progressive trend of increasing

vessel size. In the 1970s, 1000 and 1500 TEU ships were replaced by 2000+ TEU ships

and by the early 1990s, most major shipping lines had ordered 4000+ TEU Panamax

vessels. The rate of increase in vessel size accelerated in the 1990s, when shipping lines

deployed vessels too large to transit the Panama Canal (Post-Panamax vessels). Vessel

sizes are still growing and ships up to 16 000 TEU are expected in the future. Figure 6

shows the typical evolution of container vessels up to 2005.

Figure 6: Evolution of Container Vessels (From Germanischer Lloyd, 2005)

Growth in containerised cargo has increased the overall maritime trade (Figure 7).

International shipping trends have an impact on the Port of Durban planning as the port

depth and berth characteristics restrict access of Super Post-Panamax vessels. Current

harbour restrictions for example, limit the organic bulk carriers because these vessels

require a certain depth of water in the entrance channel and at the quayside.



Figure 7: International Maritime trade - Source: UNCTAD, 2007

3.6 Design Requirements for Super Post Panamax Vessels

As part of the feasibility studies for the Upgrade of Berths 203 to 205, Prestedge Retief

Dresner and Wijnberg (PRDW) used a 9200 TEU design vessel (the same design vessel

was used in the Durban Entrance Channel Widening and Deepening project).

The following vessel characteristics were used:

Vessel Type – 9200 TEU;

Displacement – 147,700 m3;

Laden Draught – 14.5m;

Overall Length – 350m; and

Beam – 45.6m

Figure 8 shows a vessel with similar design parameters to the design vessel used (length

= 353m; draught = 15m; breadth = 42.8m).



Figure 8: Example of 350m long vessel (From Germanischer Lloyd, 2005)

In order to safely accommodate Super Post Panamax vessels of this size at Berth 203 to

205, Port of Durban, it is necessary to deepen the berth channel, approach channel and

turning basin. In addition, Berth 203 to 205, would need to be lengthened to

simultaneously accommodate three Super Post Panamax vessels of about 353m in

length.

3.7 Quay Wall Safety and the Expansion of Berths 203 to 205

The main motivation for the upgrade of the quay wall at Berth 203 to 205, Pier 2 is the

current unsafe conditions at the berths. However, in order for the Port of Durban to

remain competitive as a ‘hub’ port for southern Africa there is also a need to

accommodate Super Post Panamax vessels which require deeper channels and longer

berths. The combination of these motivating factors has lead to decision to upgrade and

extend Berth 203 to 205 thus providing safe berthing conditions and meeting the present

demand of shipping companies for ports which can accommodate large container

vessels.



4. LEGISLATION AND GUIDELINES CONSIDERED

4.1 The Constitution

The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Act 108 of 1996, is the supreme law of

the land and provides amongst others the legal framwork for legislation regulating coastal

management in general. It also emphasises the need for co-operative governance. In

addition, the Environmental clause in Section 24 of the Constitution provides that:

The Constitution provides the overarching framework for sustainable development.

4.2 The National Environmental Management Act, 1998

The proposed Deepening, Lengthening and Widening of Berths 203 to 205, requires

authorisation in terms of the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) (Act No.

107 of 1998), and the EIA will be undertaken in accordance with the EIA Regulations

(2010) that consist of the following:

“Everyone has the right –

a.) to an environment which is not harmful to their health or well

being;

b.) to have the environment protected for the benefit of present and

future generations through reasonable legislation and other

measures that:

I. Prevent pollution and ecological degradation;

II. Promotes conservation;

III. Secure ecologically sustainable development and the

use of natural resources while promoting justifiable

economic and social development”



EIA procedures - Government Notice No. R. 543;

Listing Notice 1 - Government Notice No. R. 544;

Listing Notice 2 - Government Notice No. R. 545; and

Listing Notice 3 - Government Notice No. R. 546.

The project triggers activities under Listing Notices 1, 2 and 3, and thus needs to be

subjected to a Scoping and EIA process. The listed activities are explained in the context

of the project in the table to follow. Note that some of the dimensions in the following

table differ from what was included in the Application Form (all values were originally

indicated as approximates), due to the dynamic nature of the planning and design

process.

In addition to the Listed Activities contained within the Listed Notices, NEMA articulates

principles such as “Polluter Pays” and “the Precautionary Principle”. It also provides for

ecosytems that require special attention:

Table 4: Listed Activities triggered by the proposed project.

Indicate the number and date of the

relevant notice:

Activity No (s) (in terms of the relevant notice)

:

Description

GNR. 544, 18 June 2010

9 The construction of approximately 2000m of storm water pipes

which exceed 0.36m in diameter.

13

Temporary storage of dangerous goods (e.g. fuel) during the

“Sensitive, valuable, highly dynamic or stressed ecosystems, such

as coastal shores, estuaries and wetlands...require specific

attention in management and planning procedures, especially

where they are subject to significant human resource usage and

development pressure”




relevant notice:


:

Description

construction Phase at Berths 203 to 205

Temporary storage of dangerous goods (e.g. fuel) during the construction of the Caissons at Bayhead Lot 10*.

*Please note that this would only apply to the Caisson Quay Wall alternative and that all alternatives will be assessed equally.

14

The construction within coastal public property to: Lengthen berth 203 eastwards by 100m (involving the removal of

the Ro-Ro ramp) and lengthen berth 205, westwards by 170m(involving the demolition of the current South-East corner as well as excavation of a portion of the central sandbank).

Widening of berth 203 to 205 through the construction of a new Quay wall approximately 50m seawards.

Deepening of the berth basin, approach channel and turning basin through dredging to increase the current depth from -12.8m CDP (Chart Datum Point) to -16.5m CDP.

Excavation for the trench for the proposed quay wall structure to -20m CDP for the proposed new quay length from Berth 203 to 205.

In addition, three technological alternatives will be assessed equally. Caisson construction, sheet pile storage or precasting of some elements of the Deck on Pile alternative will take place at Bayhead Lot 10 for the Caisson option, Sheet Pile option or Deck on pile option, respectively. However it is important to note that the definition of Coastal Public Property currently excludes the Port as the relevant ICM section is on hold. This is being discussed at a Ministerial level. The Activity has been added put as a potential activity pending the outcome of the Ministerial decision.

16 (iv) (vi)

Construction and earth-moving activities within the Port of Durban to:

Lengthen berth 203 eastwards by 100m (involving the removal of the Ro-Ro ramp) and lengthen berth 205, westwards by 170m(involving the demolition of the current South-East corner as well as excavation of a portion of the central sandbank).




In an Estuary. In addition, three technological alternatives will be assessed equally. Caisson construction, sheet pile storage or precasting of some elements of the Deck on Pile alternative will take place at Bayhead Lot 10 for the Caisson option,




relevant notice:


:

Description

Sheet Pile option or Deck on pile option, respectively.

18

Infilling of more than 5 cubic metres of material (mixture of suitable dredged material and imported sand):

Between the current Quay wall and the new Quay wall within the Port of Durban to extend Berth 203 to 205 approximately 50m seawards and the cells of the proposed quay wall structure.

In an estuary.



Depositing of dredge material at an offshore disposal site (which will require a Dumping at Sea permit).

20

The construction of the new quay wall of Berths 203 to 205 will require infilling of approximately 1 million cubic metres.

This infill material will be obtained from an offshore borrow pit. The application for which will be scoped in this EIA but for which authorisation will be sought from the Department of Minerals and Energy.

26 Possible occurrence of sensitive biodiversity features in the

adjacent Durban Bay Estuary and Central Sandbank.

27 (v)

The decommissioning of the Straddle Crane parking lot (adjacent to Berth 205) which has been used for the storage of dangerous goods (diesel and hydraulic fluid) within decommissioned Straddle cranes.

Please note that this activity was not included in the original activity however a new application form will be submitted with the Draft Scoping report and the impacts of this activity will be assessed as part of the Scoping and EIA process.

28

The expansion of Berths 203 to 205 will include the dredging of approximately 4.22 million cubic metres of dredge material which will be disposed at an offshore disposal site.

A Dumping permit will be necessary for such offsite disposal under the National Environmental Management: Integrated Coastal Management Act, 2008 (Act No. 24 of 2008).

43

Expansion of Berth 203 to 205 through construction in coastal public property to:

Lengthen berth 203 eastwards by 100m (involving the removal of the Ro-Ro ramp) and lengthen berth 205, westwards by 170m (involving the demolition of the current South-East corner as well as excavation of a portion of the central sandbank).

Widening of berth 203 to 205 through the construction of a new Quay wall approximately 50m seawards






relevant notice:


:

Description

These activities are aimed at improving the efficiency of Berths 203 to 205. In addition, three technological alternatives will be assessed equally. Caisson construction, sheet pile storage or precasting of some elements of the Deck on Pile alternative will take place at Bayhead Lot 10 for the Caisson option, Sheet Pile option or Deck on pile option, respectively. However it is important to note that the definition of Coastal Public Property currently excludes the Port as the relevant ICM section is on hold. This is being discussed at a Ministerial level. The Activity has been added put as a potential activity pending the outcome of the Ministerial decision.

45 (iv) (vi) (vii)

Expansion of Berth 203 to 205 through construction and earth-moving activities within the Port of Durban to:





These activities are aimed at improving the efficiency of Berths 203 to 205. In addition, three technological alternatives will be assessed equally. Caisson construction, sheet pile storage or precasting of some elements of the Deck on Pile alternative will take place at Bayhead Lot 10 for the Caisson option, Sheet Pile option or Deck on pile option, respectively.

GN R. 545, 18 June 2010

5

The construction of the new quay wall for of Berths 203 to 205 will include the dredging of approximately 4.22 million cubic metres of dredge material which will be disposed at an offshore disposal site.

A Dumping permit will be necessary for such offsite disposal under the National Environmental Management: Integrated Coastal Management Act, 2008 (Act No. 24 of 2008).

24 (i)







relevant notice:


:

Description



These activities are aimed at improving the efficiency of Berths 203 to 205. In addition, three technological alternatives will be assessed equally. Caisson construction, sheet pile storage or precasting of some elements of the Deck on Pile alternative will take place at Bayhead Lot 10 for the Caisson option, Sheet Pile option or Deck on pile option, respectively.

GN R. 546, 18 June 2010

10 (a) (i)

Temporary storage of dangerous goods (e.g. fuel) during the

construction Phase in an estuary.

Temporary storage of dangerous goods (e.g. fuel) during the construction of Caissons for the Caisson option or precasting of elements for the Deck on Pile Option at Bayhead Lot 10.

16 (a) (i)






These activities are aimed at improving the efficiency of Berths 203 to 205.

Berths 203 to 205 are adjacent to the Durban Bay Estuary. In addition, three technological alternatives will be assessed equally. Caisson construction, sheet pile storage or precasting of some elements of the Deck on Pile alternative will take place at Bayhead Lot 10 for the Caisson option, Sheet Pile option or Deck on pile option, respectively.

24 (a) (i)

Expansion of Berth 203 to 205 through construction and earth-moving activities within the Port of Durban to:

Lengthen berth 203 eastwards by 100m (involving the removal of the Ro-Ro ramp) and lengthen berth 205, westwards by 170m (involving the demolition of the current South-East corner as well as




relevant notice:


:

Description

excavation of a portion of the central sandbank).




These activities are aimed at improving the efficiency of Berths 203 to 205.

Berths 203 to 205 are adjacent to the Durban Bay Estuary. In addition, three technological alternatives will be assessed equally. Caisson construction, sheet pile storage or precasting of some elements of the Deck on Pile alternative will take place at Bayhead Lot 10 for the Caisson option, Sheet Pile option or Deck on pile option, respectively.

4.3 The National Environmental Management: Integrated Coastal Management

Act, 2008

The National Environmental Management: Intergrated Coastal Management Act, 2008

(Act No 24 of 2008) aims to promote the coastal environment as well as to ensure that

development and use of natural resources within the coastal zone is socially and

economically justiable and ecologically sustainable.

Certain provisions are directly related to management of estuaries. In addition, the

definition of ‘estuary’ differs to that in the National Water Act, 1998.



Another important definition is that of Coastal Public Property (Section 7 of the Act):

It also stipulates that the State, in its capacity as the public trustee of all coastal public

property must ensure that all ensure that coastal public property is managed, protected,

The definition of an “estuary” meaning a body of water (as per the

NEM ICM):

a.) that is part of a watercourse that is permanently or periodically open to

the sea;

b.) in which a rise and fall of the water level as a result of the tides is

measurable at spring tides when the watercourse is open to the sea; or;

c.) in respect of which the salinity is measurably higher as a result of the sea

Coastal Public Property:

(a) coastal waters;

(b) land submerged by coastal waters, including—

(i) land flooded by coastal waters which subsequently becomes part of the bed of coastal waters; and

(ii) the substrata beneath such land;

(c) any island, whether natural or artificial, within coastal waters, but excluding—

(i) any part of an island that was lawfully alienated before this Act commenced; or

(ii) any part of an artificially created island (other than the seashore of that island) that is proclaimed by the Minister

to be excluded from coastal public property;

(d) the seashore, but excluding—

(i) any portion of the seashore below the high-water mark which was lawfully alienated before the Sea-Shore Act,")

935 (Act No. 21 of 1935) took effect or which was lawfully alienated in terms of that Act and which has not

subsequently been re-incorporated into the seashore; and

(ii) any portion of a coastal cliff that was lawfully alienated before this Act took effect and is not owned by the State;

(e) the seashore of a privately owned island within coastal waters; 20

(f) any admiralty reserve owned by the State;

(g) any state-owned land declared under section 8 to be coastal public property; or

(h) any natural resources on or in—

(i) any coastal public property of a category mentioned in paragraph (a) to (8)1 25

(ii) the exclusive economic zone, or in or on the continental shelf as contemplated in sections 7 and 8 of the

Maritime Zones Act. 1994 (Act No. 15 of 1994), respectively: or

(iii) any harbour, work or other installation on or in any coastal public property of a category mentioned in

paragraphs (a) to (h) that is owned by an organ of state.



conserved and enhanced in the interests of the whole community and also should take

whatever reasonable legislative measures it considers necessary to conserve and protect

coastal public property for the benefit of present and future generations.

However it is important to note that the definition of Coastal Public Property currently

excludes the Port, as the relevant NEM: ICM section is on hold. This is being discussed

at a Ministerial level. While activities related to Coastal Public Property have been

included, this is pending the outcome of the Ministerial decision.

Section 70 of the NEM:ICM deals with the prohibition of incineration or dumping at sea

while Section 71 deals with Dumping Permits. When deciding on an application for a

Dumping permit, the Minister must take into account the following:

a.) The Waste Assessment Guidelines set out in Schedule 2;

b.) Any coastal management programme applicable in the area;

c.) The likely environmental impact of the proposed activity;

d.) National legislation dealing with waste;

e.) The interests of the whole community;

f.) Transboundary impacts and International obligations and standards; and

g.) Any other factors that may be prescribed.

Dumping at sea is only permitted for certain substances and this is governed by Section

71 (3). A Dumping at Sea permit can be obtained for dredged material if certain

conditions are satisfied.



Schedule 2 (Section 71) sets out the Guidelimes for the Assessment of Wastes or other

material that may be considered Dumping at Sea (“The Waste Assessment Guidelines”).

The Waste Assessment Guidelines sets out that a Waste Prevention Audit should be

conducted in order to assess alternatives to Dumping at Sea. This assessment should

include an evaluation of the following;

a.) the types, amounts and relative hazard of waste generated;

b.) details of the production process and sources of wastes within that process;

and

c.) the feasibility of the following waste reduction or prevention techniques:

i) product reformulation;

ii) clean production technologies;

iiii.) process modification;

iv) input substitution; and

v) on-site, closed loop recycling.

Specfically, for dredged material and sewerage sludge, the goal of waste management

should be to identify and control the sources of contamination. In addition, all applications

to dump wastes at sea must demonstrate that appropriate consideration has been given

to the following hierarchy of waste management options which includes:

a.) re-use;

Section 71 (3):

The Minister may not grant any dumping permit that authorises the

dumping of any waste or other material, other than:

a.) dredged material;

b.) sewerage sludge;

c.) fish waste, or material resulting from industrial fishing processing operations;

d.) vessels and platforms or other man-made structures at sea;

e.) inert, inorganic, geological material;

f.) organic material of natural origin; or

g,) bulky items primarily comprised of iron, steel, concrete and similarly non

harmful materials where the concern is physical impact and limited to

circumstances where such waste is generated at locations such as small islands

with isolated communities having no practicable access to disposal options other



b.) off site recycling;

c.) destruction of hazardous constituents;

d.) treatment to reduce or remove the hazardous constituents; and

e.) disposal on land, into air, and in water.

Characterisation of waste to dumped must also be taken into account and includes:

a.) origin, total amount, form, average composition;

b.) properties: physical, chemical, biochemical and biological;

c.) toxicity;

d.) persistence: phsyical, chemical and biological; and

e.) accumulation and biotransformation in biological materials or sediments.

The main implications of the National Environmental Management Integrated Coastal

Management Act, 2008 (Act 24 of 2008) on the proposed project is its function in the

government of offshore disposal of dredge material as well as the management of

Estuaries.

4.4 The National Environmental Management Waste Act, 2008

The National Environmental Management Waste Act (56 of 2008) regulates waste

management in order to protect the health and environment of South African citizens.

This is achieved through pollution prevention, institutional arrangements and planning

matters, national norms and standards and the licensing and control of waste

management activities.

This act contains activities listed in Categories A and B that would require licensing from

the provincial or national authorities. In order to obtain licences for these application a

Basic Assessment or EIA process, respectively, should be followed according to the

requirements stated in NEMA.

No authorisation will be required in terms of the National Environmental Management:

Waste Act (NEM: WA) (Act No. 59 of 2008), as the project will not include any listed

waste management activities.



The following should be noted with regards to waste management during the construction

Phase:

The decommissioning of the Straddle Crane storage yard which has been used to

store dangerous goods does not require a Waste License Application as:

o Dangerous goods previously stored at the Straddle Crane Storage yard will be

removed by a third party contractor to the requisite licensed waste disposal

facility;

Temporary waste storage facilities will remain below the thresholds contained in the

listed activities under Schedule 1 of NEM:WA; and

The EMP will make suitable provisions for waste management, including the storage,

handling and disposal of waste.

4.5 The National Water Act, 1998

The National Water Act (36 of 1998) regulates the surface and subsurface water of South

Africa. Water is considered a scarce commodity and should therefore be adequately

protected. Amongst other, the act deals with the protection of water sources, water uses,

water management strategies and catchment management, dam safety and general

powers and functions.

The purpose of the act is to ensure that South Africa’s water resources are protected,

used, developed, conserved, managed and controlled. The National Water Act includes

the definition of a Water Resource as well as an Estuary.



A Water Use License Application in terms of the National Water Act, 1998 is not

necessary as there are no activities requiring this.

WESSA/Coastwatch has asked that the need for an Integrated Water Use License be re-

assessed. Clarification has been sought from the Provincial Department of Water Affairs

and any information pertaining to this will be included during the EIA phase.

4.6 The Marine Living Resources Act, 1989

The Marine Living Resources Act, 1989 (Act No. 18 of 1989) (MLRA) aims to provide for

the conservation of the marine ecosystem, the long term sustainable utilisation of marine

living resources, the orderly access to exploitation, utilisation and protection of certain

marine living resources and to provide for the exercise of control over marine living

resources in a fair and equitable manner to the benefit of all citizens of South Africa.

The National Water Act definition for a Water Resource

includes:

1.) A Watercourse;

2.) Surface Water;

3.) An Estuary; and

4.) An Aquifer

The National Water Act definition for an estuary is:

A partially or fully enclosed body of water –

a.) which is open to the sea permanently or periodically; and

b.) within which the sea water can be diluted to an extent that

is measurable with fresh water drained from the land.



These aims are directly dependent on the healthy functioning of estuaries and thus the

impacts of developments on estuaries as well as Marine living resources needs to be

acertained.

The MLRA applies to all persons on, or in South African waters.

The main implication of this act, is the sustainable utilisation of marine resources.

Estauries provide numerous ecosystem goods and services which are necessary to

marine resources and thus impacts on the Durban Bay Estuary may impact marine

resources.

4.7 The Seashore Act, 1935

The Seashore Act, 1935 (Act 21 of 1935) regulated the use and pollution as well as the

removal of material from the sea and shore. This act was repealed in its entirety by the

National Environmental Management: Integrated Coastal Management Act, 2008. The

Seashore Act, is still discussed in the Durban Bay Estuary Management Plan –

Situational Analysis and as such is worth mentioning.

4.8 The Sea Birds and Seals Act, 1973

The Sea birds and Seals Act, 1973 (Act No. 46 of 1973) provides protection for various

seabirds along the South African coast including estuaries.

The main implication of this act is the protection of seabirds. The Central Sandbank

provides a tidal habitat to many migratory wading birds.

South African Waters includes the seashore, internal waters, territorial

waters, the exclusive economic zone and such waters as tidal lagoons and

tidal rivers in which the rise and fall of the water level takes place as a

result of the tides.



4.9 The National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004

The National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (10 of 2004) was promulgated

for the management and conservation of South Africa’s biodiversity through the

protection of species and ecosystems and the sustainable use of indigenous biological

resources.

The main implication of this act is the protection of biodiversity. The Central Sandbank is

a diverse habitat and thus the impacts of the proposed project need to be ascertained.

4.10 The National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act, 2003

The aim of the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act, 2003 (Act No

57 of 2003) is to provide for the protection and conservation of ecologically viable areas

representative of South Africa’s biological diversity and natural seascapes. The purpose

of a Protected Environment is amongst others to protect a specific ecosystem outside a

special nature reserve world heritage site or nature reserve and also to ensure the use of

the natural resources in the area is sustainable.

4.11 The Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act, 1983

The Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act, 1983 (Act No 43 of 1983) requires the

maintenance of riparian vegetation and provides a list of invasive alien vegetation that

must be controlled or eradicated.

4.12 The National Heritage Resources Act, 1999

The National Heritage Resources Act (25 of 1999) was promulgated for the protection of

National Heritage Resources and the empowerment of civil society to conserve their

heritage resources.



In terms of Section 38 of this act, certain listed activities require authorisation from

provincial agencies:

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

linear development or barrier exceeding 300m in length;

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

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

(i) exceeding 5 000 m2 in extent; or

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

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

The National Heritage Resources Act, 1999 protects both buildings and shipwrecks that

are older than 60 years old. A permit may be required from SAHRA should the need arise

to disturb or damage any historic shipwrecks however at this point no permits are

necessary. Further, during the Channel Widening and Deepening Project, studies were

done to determine the location of shipwrecks. These will be checked against the areas of

development for this project.

Other relevant legislation which incorporates submerged archaeological sites is described

in the following acts:

Merchant Shipping Act, 1951 (Act No, 57 of 1951);

Customs and Excise Act, 1964 (Act No 91 of 1964); and

Legal Succession to the South African Transport Services Act, 1989 (Act No 9 of

1989).

The above legislation mainly deals with the sites of shipwrecks and with shipwrecks and

their contents without any reference to any cultural or historical value. Only the NHRA

specifically acknowledges the value of shipwrecks in terms of cultural or historical

context.



4.13 The Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act, 2003

The Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA) (Act No. 28 of 2002)

sets out the requirements with which applicants for prospecting rights, mining rights and

mining permits must comply in Sections 16, 22 and 27 of the MPRDA.

Important definitions of the MPDA include:

‘ ‘

‘ ‘

Specifically, Section 35 (1) states that “The protection of any wreck in the

territorial waters and the maritime cultural zone shall be the responsibility of the

South African Heritage Resource Agency (SAHRA)”.

‘Land’ which includes the surface of the land and the sea, where appropriate,

Mine’ when used as a verb, means any operation or activity for the purposes of

winning an mineral on, in, or under the earth, water, or any residue deposit,

whether by underground or open working or otherwise and includes any operation

or activity incidental thereto.



In order to infill behind the new quay wall, a mining permit will be required to dredge the

required material from an offshore sand winning area.

4.14 The National Ports Act, 2005

The National Ports Act, 2005 (Act No. 12 of 2005) is the primary piece of legislation

regulating the port sector in South Africa. It specifically deals with the modernisation and

efficient operation of South African ports. Transnet National Ports Authority (TNPA) must

regulate and control development, in accordance with approved port development

frameworks, integrate biophysical, social and economic issues in all forms of decision

making and ensure sustainable and transparent planning processes, in consultation with

stakeholders.

Mineral’ means any substance, whether in solid, liquid or gaseous form, occurring

naturally in or on the earth or in or under water and which was formed by subjected

to a geological process and includes sand, stone, rock, gravel, clay, soil and any

minerals occurring in residue stockpiles or residue deposits but excludes –

a.) water, other than water taken from land or sea for the extraction of any mineral

b.) petroleum; or

c.) peat

The objective of the Ports:

“To promote the development of effective and productive South African

ports Industry that is capable of contributing to the economic growth and

development of South Africa”



Section 69 of the NPA deals with the protection of the environment and requires that

TNPA achieves a balance between the protection of the environment and the

establishment, development and maintenance of ports as well as ensuring the

sustainable and transparent port planning processes are undertaken when formulating

any port development framework. Amongst others the NPA requires that TNPA regulate

and control pollution within the port limits.

Section 80 of the NPA deals with Port regulations, while Section 83 deals with Port

Access and recognises that a port must be freely accessible to any person who conducts

lawful business in it. However as per the requirements of the International Ship and Port

Facility Security (ISPS) code and the Occupational Health and Safety Act, a balance

between public access and safety is required.

As per Section 80 (2) of the NPA, TNPA has developed Port Rules (Government Gazette

No 31986 on 6 March 2009) for the control and management of ports and the approaches

thereto and for the maintenance of safety, security and good order in the ports. The Port

Rules deal with the following:

Vessel movements;

Health and Safety;

Prevention of Pollution;

Protection of the Environment; and

Compliance with the Port Waste Management Plan.

4.15 The National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act, 2004

The National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act 39 of 2004 provides for the

setting of national norms and standards for regulating air quality monitoring, management

and control and describes specific air quality measures so as to protect the environment

and human health or well-being by:

preventing pollution and ecological degradation; and

promoting sustainable development through reasonable resource use.



It also includes the establishment of national ambient dust fall out levels that may be

relevant to the construction.

4.16 The Occupational Health and Safety Act, 1993

The Occupational Health and Safety Act, 1993 (Act No.85 of 1993) provides for the

health and safety of people at work as well as the health and safety of persons using

plant and machinery.

4.17 The National Health and Safety Act, 2004

The National Health Act, 2004 (Act No. 61 of 2004) provides measures for the promotion

of health of citizens of South Africa and is administered by the Department of Health. The

Act has impact on the port in that pollution of marine resources can have impacts of

human health.

The Act also provide for Municipal Health Services which include:

Water quality monitoring;

Waste management;

Health surveillance of premises;

Environmental pollution control; and

Chemical safety

4.18 The KZN Conservation Management Act

The Act provides for the establishment of the KZN Conservation and prescribes its

powers, duties and functions which include:

Direct Nature conservation management

Direct Protected areas management;

This is currently carried out by Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife.



4.19 Policy, Programmes and Plans

4.19.1 Durban Bay Estuarine Management Plan – Situational Analysis Report

As per the National Environmental Management: Integrated Coastal Management Act,

Transnet National Ports Authority, Department of Agriculture, Environmental Affairs and

Rural Development and eThekwini Municipality have requested the development of the

Durban Bay Estuarine Management Plan. As part of this, a Situational assessment of the

Durban Bay was undertaken by Environmental Resources Management (ERM) and

Marine and Estuarine Research (MER) (MER/ERM, 2011). Information contained in this

report has been used in this Scoping report.

Please note that the draft Environmental Management Plan for the Durban Bay Estuary

was only made available for public review after the Scoping Report had been compiled

(from 12 March 2012). However, the implications of this document will be discussed

during the EIA phase.

4.19.2 eThekwini Integrated Development Plan

The Municipal Systems Act, 2000 (Act No. 32 of 2000) requires that local government

structures prepare Integrated Development Plans (IDPs) to serve as tools for facilitation

and management of development. The IDP (2011) highlights the Port of Durban as an

economic investment area that requires major investment. The development of the Port

as an economic, manufacturing and trading hub and its promotion as a gateway port to

the east is prioritised. However, the IDP also highlights the importance of balancing the

physical, social and economic benefits of the coastal area.



4.20 Guidelines

The following guidelines were used in the preparation of this report.

Integrated Environmental Management Information Series, in particular Series 2 –

Scoping (DEAT, 2002);

Guideline on Alternatives: NEMA Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations

(prepared by the Western Cape Department of Environmental Affairs and

Development Planning, 2006);

Guideline 3: General Guide to the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations,

2005. Integrated Environmental Management Guideline Series (DEAT, 2005a);

Guideline 4: Public Participation, in support of the EIA Regulations. Integrated

Environmental Management Guideline Series (DEAT, 2005);

Guideline on Need and Desirability, NEMA Environmental Impact Assessment

Regulations Guideline and Information Document Series. Department of

Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (DEADP, 2009);

Assessment of alternatives and impacts (Guideline 5) in support of the EIA

Regulations, Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Pretoria (DEAT,

2006); and

Celiers, L., Breetzke, T., Moore, L., and Malan, D. 2009. A User-friendly Guide to

South Africa’s Integrated Coastal Management Act. DEA and SSO Engineers and

Environmental Consultants, Cape Town, South Africa.

Although, not a Guideline, the Review and Update of South Africa’s National Action List

for the Screening of Dredged Sediment proposed for Marine Disposal (DEA, 2011) also

provided much guidance in regards to Screening of Dredged Material.



4.21 International Conventions

4.21.1 The London Convention of 1972

The deliberate disposal of waste and other matter at sea is internationally regulated

through the London Convention (Convention of the Prevention of Marine Pollution by

Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter). As a party to the London Convention, the South

African government has agreed to adhere to the pollution prevention principles

encapsulated in the convention.

4.21.2 The London Protocol of 1996

The London Protocol entered into force on 24 March 2006 and acts to modernise the

London Convention. It will replace the London Convention when all members of the

Convention are also parties to the London Protocol. However, for parties which are

already parties to the London Protocol, the protocol supersedes the London Convention.

4.21.3 The Bonn Convention - Convention on the Conservation of Migratory

Species of Wild Animals (CMS)

This convention was organised in response to the need for nations to cooperate in the

conservation of animals that migrate across their borders. These include terrestrial

mammals, reptiles, marine species and birds. Special attention is paid to endangered

species. South Africa is a major partner in this convention as it is the terminus for many of

the migratory species, including the Palaeoarctic (birds) and the Antarctic species

(whales and birds).

4.22 Previous Records of Decision regarding the Port of Durban

In 1999, Common Ground Consulting undertook an Integrated Environmental

Management Process which evolved into an Environmental Impact Assessment on behalf

of Portnet (now TNPA) regarding the following activities:

1. Phase 1, which would have involved the westward expansion of Pier 2 to create

berths 206/207 and the dredging of the channel through the central banks;



2. Phase 2, which would have entailed the relocation of the SA Container Depot

(SACD) and the creation of a buffer zone relating to Phase 1;

3. Phase 3, which entailed the creation of Deepwater Berths ‘D’ to ‘G’ at the Point

and the relocation of breakbulk business from Pier 1 to the new terminal;

4. Phase 4(a), which entailed the conversion of Pier 1 to container handling; and

5. Phase 4(b), which would have entailed the eastward expansion of Pier 1.

The main implications for the Current Scoping Assessment come from clarification

provided from the Department. Firstly, although similar, Phase 1 of the 1999 EIA would

create two new berths and permanently separate the central sandbank. It would also

result in the permanent loss of the Little Lagoon. The current proposed project, cuts into a

small portion of the central sandbank but does not cut through and separate it. In

addition, it does not directly impact the Little Lagoon (Indirect impacts will be assessed as

part of the Scoping and EIA process).

“Successful outcome of the habitat rehabilitation, creation and monitoring programme

referred to Paragraph 5, means that the Department would assess the success based on

future evidence to be provided in a possible application.”

The proposed project through the Scoping and EIA process will assess the impacts of the

proposed development and this will be assessed by the Department as a new application.

Another important point of clarity, is that in regards to Phase 3, the authorisation was

granted on condition that there is to no further loss of water area in the future as a result

of infilling.” Further clarification from the Authorities indicated that no further infilling to the

‘magnitude of Phase 3 would be allowed. The proposed infilling is less than the Phase 3

infilling and thus below the order of magnitude provided by the Department.

The Record of Decision for the above Phased activities was as follows:



Table 5: 1999 RoD and the implications for the Current Scoping report

Phase RoD Implications for the current Scoping Report

Phase 1, which would have involved the westward expansion of Pier 2 to create berths 206/207 and the dredging of the channel through the central banks

Not granted 1. Stakeholders consulted throughout the IEM process recommended that Phase 1 should be deferred;

2. Phase 1 is proposed within the most ecologically sensitive parts of the Bay; 3. The findings of the EIR indicate that the ecological impacts of Phase 1 are irreversible and

significantly high 4. The ecological impacts of the Phase will result in:

a. Permanent loss of habitat for juvenile fish and migrant wading birds. South Africa is a signatory to the Bonn Convention and therefore should put measures in place to honour her commitment to the convention

b. Dredging of the channel would separate the remaining sandbanks from the mangroves leading to the destruction of the Natural Heritage Site which lies within the Little Lagoon

5. Future approval of Phase 1 would dependent of the outcome of a habitat, rehabilitation, creation and monitoring programme led by Portnet.

In 1999, the latter was clarified with the Authorities: “Successful outcome of the habitat rehabilitation, creation and monitoring programme referred to Paragraph 5, means that the Department would assess the success based on future evidence to be provided in a possible application.”

Phase 2, which would have entailed the relocation of the SA Container Depot (SACD) and the creation of a buffer zone relating to Phase 1;

Not granted The findings of the EIA was that Phase 2 is closely associated with Phase 1 and therefore should be deferred.

Phase 3, which entailed the creation of Deepwater Berths ‘D’ to ‘G’ at the Point and the relocation of breakbulk business from Pier 1 to the new terminal;

Authorised “Authorisation is granted on condition that there is to no further loss of water area in the future as a result of infilling.” This point was clarified with the Authorities in 1999. The Clarification states that the “no further loss of water area” means that there should be no further infill of the sea to the order of magnitude of Phase 3.

Phase 4(a), which entailed the conversion of Pier 1 to container handling

Authorised None



Phase 4(b), which would have entailed the eastward expansion of Pier 1.

Refused 1. Phase 4 (b) will proceed only if Phase 1 or a new long term option proves not viable; 2. The activity will result in further filling of the bay and loss of deep water habitat



There have been several comments from I&APs regarding the 1999 RoD. These have

been noted. In addition, the Clarification obtained from the Department of Environmental

Affairs (DEA) then the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT) has

been made available on the project website (www.berth203to205expansioneia.co.za).

The 1999 RoD has been read together with the Clarification obtain from the Department.

5. SCOPING AND EIA PROCESS

5.1 Environmental Assessment Triggers

The proposed Deepening, Lengthening and Widening of Berth 203 to 205 entails certain

activities that require authorisation in terms of NEMA. Refer to Section 4 for further

discussion on the legal framework.

The process for seeking authorisation is undertaken in accordance with the

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations (GN No. R. 543, R. 544, R. 545 and

R. 546 of 18 June 2011), promulgated in terms of Chapter 5 of NEMA. From the date of

effect of these amended EIA Regulations, which was 02 August 2010, they replaced the

previous EIA Regulations that had been promulgated on 21 April 2006.

Based on the types of activities involved, which include activities listed in GN No. R. 544,

R. 545 and R. 546 of 18 June 2011 (see Table 4), the requisite environmental

assessment for the project is a Scoping and EIA process.

5.2 Environmental Assessment Authorities

In terms of NEMA, the lead decision-making authority for the environmental assessment

is the National Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA), as the project proponent

TNPA is a Parastatal company. However, due to the geographic location of the project

the KZN Department of Agriculture, Environmental Affairs and Rural Development

(DAEARD) is regarded as a key commenting authority during the execution of the EIA,

and all documentation will thus be copied to this Department.




In addition, the Coastal and Biodiversity Management Component of the Department of

Agriculture, Environmental Affairs and Rural Development will also receive a copy of all

documentation as requested.

5.3 Scoping Process

5.3.1 Formal Process

According to DEAT (2002), Scoping is typically divided into three phases, namely:

Planning the scoping procedure;

A process of stakeholder engagement to identify the key issues, and

Reporting on the terms of reference for the next Phase of the assessment.

A key output of the Scoping process is the prioritisation of environmental issues and

impacts and the selection of suitable and feasible alternatives to be investigated further.

An outline of the Scoping and EIA process for the proposed Deepening, Lengthening and

Widening of Berths 203 to 205, is provided in below.



Figure 9: Scoping and EIA Authorisation Process

5.3.2 Landowner Notification

TNPA is the Landowner and the Project proponent. However, as per the EIA regulations,

TNPA were notified of the proposed project during the application phase.

Acknowledgment of Notification is provided below.



Figure 10: Acknowledgement of Landowner Notification

5.3.3 Application Form

An Application Form for Scoping and EIA, in terms of Regulation 26 of Government

Notice No. R. 543 of 18 June 2010, was submitted to DEA on 10 February 2012 (refer to

copy of Application Form and DEA’s acknowledgement contained in Appendix A). DEA

assigned the following reference number to the project: NEAS Reference:

DEA/EIA/0000988/2012; DEA Reference: 14/12/16/3/3/2/275. A copy of the Application

Form was submitted to KZN DAEARD.

5.3.4 Screening of Alternatives

Various options to meeting the project’s objectives were considered during the previous

feasibility study (PRDW, 2011).



The Scoping exercise considers feasible design alternatives of the quay wall. The main

reason for this is that the current quay wall does not meet current safety standards and

needs to be replaced. Thus no location alternatives can be considered. The “no go”

option is also evaluated.

The EIA Phase will include a detailed comparative analysis of the project’s feasible

alternatives that emanate from the Scoping exercise, which will include environmental,

social, economic and technical evaluations (with specialist input). This will ultimately

result in the selection of a Best Practicable Environmental Option (BPEO).

See Section 11 for further discussions on alternatives.

5.3.5 Impact Prediction

The potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed project were identified

during the Scoping Phase through an appraisal of the following:

Proposed footprint of the project infrastructure and components, which included a

desktop evaluation with a Geographical Information System (GIS) and aerial

photography, as well as site investigations;


operation and decommissioning);


features and attributes;

Input received during public participation from I&APs; and

Legal and policy context.

The Scoping exercise aims to identify and qualitatively predict significant environmental

issues for further consideration and prioritisation during the EIA stage (see Section 15).

Note that “significance” relate to whether the effect (i.e. change to the environmental

feature / attribute) is of sufficient importance that it ought to be considered and have an

influence on decision-making.



During the EIA stage a detailed quantitative impact assessment will be informed by

contributions from the project team, specialist studies, the public, and through the

application of the impact assessment methodology contained in Section 15. Suitable

mitigation measures will be identified to manage (i.e. prevent, reduce, rehabilitate and/or

compensate) the environmental impacts, and will be included in an Environmental

Management Programme (EMPr).



6. ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS

The following assumptions and limitations were made in the Scoping exercise:

In accordance with the purpose of Scoping, the report does not include detailed

specialist investigations on the receiving environment, which will only form part of the

EIA Phase. The environment in the project area was primarily assessed in the

Scoping Phase through site visits, desktop screening, incorporating existing

information from previous studies, and input received from I&APs.

As the design of the project components is still in feasibility stage, and due to the

dynamic nature of the planning environment, the dimensions and layout of the

infrastructure may change as the technical study advances.

The details of the offshore sand winning areas are based on previous geophysical and

sediment sampling and will only be confirmed following the conclusion of the

geotechnical study, which will be available during the EIA Phase.

The details of the Sediment and Chemical analysis of Dredge Material will only be

available in the EIA Phase. The desktop analysis of the impacts of disposal of dredge

material included in this Scoping report was taken from previous modelling studies

regarding offshore disposal.

Since 2000, there have been numerous Specialist studies regarding the Central

Sandbank and the Little Lagoon. These reports have been used to provide a desktop

analysis of the impacts of the proposed projects. Specialist Studies for the proposed

project will only be available in the EIA Phase.



7. NEED AND DESIRABILITY

In terms of Regulation 28(1)(i) of GN No. R. 543 (18 June 2010), this section discusses

the need and desirability of the project. The format contained in the Guideline on Need

and Desirability (DEA&DP, 2009) has been used in Table 6.

Table 6: Need and Desirability of the Proposed Deepening, Lengthening and Widening of Berths 203

to 205

No. Question Response

NEED (‘timing’)

1. 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 IDP).

The eThekwini Integrated Development Plan (IDP) and the Central Spatial Development Framework (CSDF) prioritises the development of the Port as an economic, manufacturing and trading hub and promoting it as a gateway especially to the East;

However, it must be noted that eThekwini Metropolitan Municipality has raised an objection to the proposed development based on the 1999 RoD. The Clarification of the 1999 RoD has been made available in Appendix R as part of the final Scoping Report. (Please see Comments and Response Report in Appendix P).

2. 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 The proposed project aims to increase container efficiency at the Port of Durban. Data from the Transnet eThekwini Municipality Port Initiative (TEMPI) suggests that the upgrade is necessary in order to meet current and future demand. TEMPI which is a joint planning initiative between Transnet and the eThekwini Municipality. Initiated at the beginning of 2006, TEMPI aimed to develop a framework to inform independent decision making, based on a shared vision and understanding of future development requirements of the port and the city. The TEMPI exercise occurred in the context of rapidly escalating demand for port capacity and related activities, nationally and particularly in Durban:

Current projections are that container volumes will be 2,5 times higher in 2020 than in 2006.

The Durban port handled 1,7m TEU in 2005, and Transnet projects that it will need to be able to handle some 5,36m TEU by 2020, and 8m TEU by 2050,

Transnet projections are based on moderate national economic growth estimates (3/4% pa), which are already being exceeded.

In addition, Van Coller et al., (2007) undertook a Value Chain Analysis of the Durban Maritime Industry. Data showed that the




current efficiency of the container terminals is low and new cranes are required in order to increase efficiency. In addition, Transnet (2009) safety analysis of the quay wall indicated it was below the minimum Eurocode 7 Safety requirements and thus needs to be upgraded. Lastly, major shipping companies have indicated to TNPA that they are planning to start using larger Super Post Panamax vessels which currently cannot be accommodated by Berths 203 to 205. The lengthening of the berths would allow for simultaneous berthing of three 350m Super Post Panamax Vessels..

3. 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)

TEMPI which is a joint planning initiative between Transnet and the eThekwini Municipality initiated in 2006 undertook to understand the Economic footprint of the Port of Durban. Around 32 000 people are employed directly in the port. In addition, approximately 7000 people are employed indirectly. According to the IDP (2011) employment numbers in the eThekwini Municipality amounted to 53.4% of the provincial total with the majority of employment opportunities in (1) wholesale and retail trade, (2) community services and (3) manufacturing; Ongoing improvements at the Port of Durban have cushioned the blow of the global economic slowdown (IDP, 2011).


4. Are the necessary services with appropriate capacity currently available (at the time of application), or must additional capacity be created to cater for the development?

Services to be considered during the EIA Phase however due to the fact that the proposed project is an upgrade of an existing site, it is thought that service provision will be available.

5. 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)?

Transnet and eThekwini initiated a joint planning initiative in 2006 called TEMPI which aimed to develop a framework to inform independent decision making, based on a shared vision and understanding of future development requirements of the port and the city. The proposed upgrade of Berths 203 to 205 is in line with this framework.





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

Yes The National Development Plan for 2030 makes mention of new plans developed by Transnet to address the capacity issues with the Port of Durban.

DESIRABILITY (‘placing’)

7. Is the development the best practicable environmental option (BPEO) for this land/site?

The BPEO will only be determined following a comparative analysis of the feasible alternatives during the EIA Phase.

8. Would the approval of this application compromise the integrity of the existing approved municipal IDP and SDF as agreed to by the relevant authorities?

No It is not anticipated that the proposed project will contradict or be in conflict with the municipal IDPs and SDFs as in both documents, the strategic importance of development of the Port of Durban is made.


9. Would the approval of this application compromise the integrity of the existing environmental management priorities for the area (e.g. as defined in EMFs), and if so, can it be justified in terms of sustainability considerations?

The impacts of the proposed activity will be assessed in the EIA Phase however, the Port of Durban occurs within Durban Bay Estuary which is a D’MOSS area. Wherever possible no development is permitted within D’MOSS. This system has been designed to ensure a sustained supply of ecosystem goods and services that are needed to ensure a high quality of life for all of Durban’s residents.

Figure 11: D’MOSS area




10. 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).

The proposed project does not change the current land use of Berths 203 to 205 (which are currently used for Berthing of Ships and container handling). The proposed project, however extends the footprint of Berths 203 (eastwards) and Berth 205 (westwards) into D’MOSS areas which provide important ecosystem services.

11. 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)?

The impact of the proposed activity on sensitive features such as the Little Lagoon and Central Sandbank as well as on Durban Bay Estuary as a whole will be assessed in detail in the EIA Phase. For a desktop assessment, see compilation of significant environmental issues associated with the proposed Deepening, Lengthening and Widening of Berths 203 to 205 contained in Section 14.

12. How will the development impact on people’s health and wellbeing (e.g. i.t.o. noise, odours, visual character and sense of place, etc)?

The proposed activity takes place within an existing port. For a desktop assessment, see compilation of significant environmental issues associated with the proposed Deepening, Lengthening and Widening of Berths 203 to 205 contained in Section 14.

13 Will the proposed activity or the land use associated with the activity applied for, result in unacceptable opportunity costs?

For a desktop assessment, see compilation of significant environmental issues associated with the proposed Deepening, Lengthening and Widening of Berths 203 to 205 contained in Section 14.

14 Will the proposed land use result in unacceptable cumulative impacts?

Cumulative impacts, as considered in Section 14.4 will be evaluated in the EIA Phase



8. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PRACTITIONER

Nemai Consulting was appointed by Transnet National Ports Authority (TNPA) as the

independent Environmental Assessment Practitioner (EAP) to undertake the

environmental assessment for the proposed Deepening, Lengthening and Widening of

Berths 203 to 205, Port of Durban. In accordance with Regulation 28(1)(a) of Government

Notice No. R. 543 of 18 June 2010, this section provides an overview of Nemai

Consulting and the company’s experience with EIAs, as well as the details and

experience of the EAPs that form part of the Scoping and EIA team.

Nemai Consulting is an independent, specialist environmental, social development and

Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) consultancy, which was founded in December

1999. The company is directed by a team of experienced and capable environmental

engineers, scientists, ecologists, sociologists, economists and analysts. The company

has offices in Randburg (Gauteng), Durban (KZN) and Rustenburg (North West

Province).

The core members of Nemai Consulting that are involved with the Scoping and EIA

process for the proposed Deepening, Lengthening and Widening of Berths 203 to 205,

Port of Durban are captured in Table 7 below, and their respective Curricula Vitae are

contained in to Appendix B.

Table 7: Scoping and EIA Core Team Members

Name Qualifications Duties

Ms D. Naidoo BSc Eng (Chem) Project Manager

Environmental Engineering

Ms. V. Brueton

BSc. (Hons) – Ecology, Environment and Conservation

MSc. – Ecology, Environment and Conservation (Awaiting Examination)

EIA Process

Scoping & EIA Reports

Ms A. Burke BSc – Forestry Management

MSc - Natural Resource Management

Public Participation Coordinator

Conservation Specialist

Mr D. Henning

BSc (Hons) Aquatic Health

M.Sc River Ecology

Water Quality and Aquatic Health Specialist

Mr C. Chidley BSc Eng (Civil);

BA (Economics, Philosophy)

Environmental Engineering

EMP



MBA

Ms. R. Le Roux

MSc (Env Management) EIA process

9. PROJECT LOCATION

The project area occurs in the central region of the eThekwini Municipal Area (EMA) and

falls within Durban (Figure 12. The central region is essentially the Urban Core of the

EMA and is home to approximately 1.3 million people accounting for 34% of eThekwini’s

total population of 3.5 million people (Stats SA). Please see Appendix D for the locality

maps of the area.

Figure 12: Central Region of the eThekwini Municipal Area (EMA) (From IDP, 2011)

The boundaries of the Central Spatial Region (CSR) extend from the Umgeni River, in the

North, along the coast through to the Umlaas Canal in the South and extend to the

escarpment in the west extending over an area of 677 km2 (67772.33 ha). Three Area

Based Management (ABM) areas fall within the CSR namely; Inner eThekwini

Regeneration and Urban Management Programme (iTrump), Cato Manor Development

Association (CMDA) and part of the South Durban Basin (SDB) (IDP,2011).



The project site occurs in Ward 66 (Figure 15) and the property description for the sites is

Portion of Kings Flats No. 16344 (Pier 2) (N0FU00000001634400000) and Portion 10 of

Erf 10013, Durban (N0FU00850001001300000). See Figure 13 and 14 for the Site

Locality Maps.



Figure 13: 1: 250 000 Topo-Cadastral Locality Map



Figure 14: 1:20 000 Topo-Cadastral Locality Map



Figure 15: Ward Map



10. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Note: The sizing and location of the project-related infrastructure takes place within a

dynamic planning environment, with various role-players, affected landowners, authorities

and other stakeholders. Subsequent project modifications that emanate from discussions

with the I&APs, findings from specialist studies and technical considerations will be

conveyed during the public participation of the EIA Phase and will be incorporated into

the Draft EIA report, which will be lodged in the public domain.





4. The deepening of the Berth channel, approach channel, and vessel turning basin


5. Three technical options are to be considered namely, the Caisson option, Sheet

Pile Option and Deck on Pile option, however for the Caisson option, a trench will

need to be excavated to -19m CDP;

6. The construction of caissons or storage of sheet piles or precasting of elements of

the Deck on Pile (for the Caisson option, Sheet Pile Option and Deck on Pile

option, respectively) at Bayhead Lot 10;



9. The installation of new Ship to Shore (STS) cranes and associated infrastructure

Three technological alternatives for the Upgrade of Berths 203 to 205 are being

considered. These include:

1. Deck On Pile Quay Wall;

2. Sheet Pile Quay Wall; and

3. Caisson Quay Wall.



Refer to the layout of three technology alternatives contained in Appendix C for the

discussions to follow. A more detailed description of the project activities is provided in

the sections to follow.

10.1 Project Components

10.1.1 Design Parameters of the Quay wall

In order to increase efficiency of Berths 203 to 205, the design alternatives have taken

into account the following functional requirements:

The Quay wall needs to be 1190m long in order to simultaneously accommodate

three 9200 TEU capacity Super Post Panamax container vessels;

The Berths to have a water depth of -16.5m CDP with a cope level of +4.25m

CDP;

The Quay wall must be able to accommodate 80 tonne lift capacity Ship to Shore

Cranes with a rail gauge of 30.48m;

The new structures will be designed for a design life of 50 years;

The Quay wall must be flexible in accommodation of alternative loading

requirements;

The Quay wall option must be robust; and

The provision of additional stack area would be beneficial.

During the initial concept development phase, seven quay walls concepts were assessed

using a Multi Criteria Assessment approach. Options that provided a structural, safe,

reliable, financially viable and maintenance friendly structure were selected.

10.1.2 Design Parameters – Cope Level

The Cope Level which is the top edge of a quay wall also needed to determined and is

dependent on the water level in the harbour. Thus the following site conditions were

taken into account:

Astronomical tides;



Barometric pressure;

Wind and wave set up;

Resonance (seiche);

Long term effects (Global Climate Change); and

Short Period waves

Tide records between 1972 and 2001 were analysed and compared with astronomical

predictions to determine a residual value. This residual value provides information on the

impact of barometric pressure and set up effects. This value was found to be 69cm for a

1:100 year return period (PRDW, 2011)

Resonance is not believed to be significant because of the length of the waterway and

the convoluted shape of the bay.

The impact of global climate change and sea level rise will have an impact on the existing

quay structure in the future. Mid point projections, upper end projections and extreme

upper limit projections were considered for the period to 2050, 2061 and 2100

respectively. Upper end projects are recommended for large coastal structures (PRDW,

2011) and thus the following increase estimate was considered reasonable:

Increase in Sea Level to 2061 - +0.58m

Storm Surge increase to 2061 – +12%

Design Wave Height increase to 2061 – +10%

Short period waves due to wind or because of ship’s wake effects were superimposed

onto to the still water level. A wave height of 60cm (crest to trough) was considered

reasonable.

Thus the maximum water level in the port was calculated as follows.

Highest Astronomical Tide (HAT) = + 2.297m CDP

1:100 year residual = + 0.690m

Long Term Sea Level Rise (2061) = + 0.580m



Wave (60cm/2) = + 0.300m

+ 3.857m CDP

Minimum water level was calculated using the Lowest Astronomical Tide (LAT) which is

-0.013m CDP and Wave of -0.300m. From these calculations, a Cope Level of +4.25m

CDP has been used in the design. The figure below shows the proposed cope level.

Figure 16: Diagrammatic representation of the Cope Level (+4.25m CDP) (PRDW, 2011).

10.1.3 Design Parameters – Dredge Depth

In addition, the Berth Channel, approach channel and turning basin need to be dredged

to allow for the depth requirements of 9200 TEU Post Panamax Vessels. Dredge depths

were based on PIANC (1997a) and PIANC (1985) guidelines and the nominal depth was

determined using a 9200 TEU design vessel in fully laden conditions. In addition, to the

depth required for the design vessel, maintenance depth zone factors were also

determined.

The following design requirements were taken into account:

Design Vessel;



Channel and Berth depths;

Channel Geometry;

Channel Width;

Berth Length;

Cope Level;

Scour Protection;

Design loading conditions; and

Alternative Quay requirements

Table 8: The Design Vessel Characteristics

Characteristic Description Maximum

Design Vessel

Minimum

Design Vessel

Vessel Type

A TEU is a Twenty foot Equivalent Unit used

to describe 1 x 20ft Container and provides a

description of the size of the Container

Vessel.

9200 TEU 2000 TEU

Displacement The amount of water displaced fully laden.

As weight is added to a ship, it submerges. 147,700 m

3 30,694m

3

Dead Weight

Tonnage

Maximum DWT is the amount of weight a

ship can carry without riding dangerously low

in the water

111,000 dwt 20,000 dwt

Length Overall

The overall length of the Container Vessel

350m 201m

Length between

Perpendiculars

The length of a vessel along the waterline

from the main bow perpendicular member to

the main stern perpendicular member. This

gives a reasonable idea of the ship's carrying

capacity, as it excluded the small, often

334m 190m




Design Vessel

Minimum

Design Vessel

unusable volume contained in her

overhanging ends.

Beam

The beam (B) is its width at the widest point.

45.6m 28.6m

Laden Draft

The draft of a ship's hull is the vertical

distance between the waterline and the

bottom of the hull (keel), with the thickness of

the hull included. Draft determines the

minimum depth of water a ship or boat can

safely navigate.

14.5m 10.4m

Moulded Depth

The moulded depth (D) is the vertical

distance measured from the top of the keel to

the underside of the upper deck at side.

27.2m 16.1m

Bow Radius The radius of the forward part of the hull of a

ship. 150m -

Block Coefficient

Block Coefficient (Cb) is the volume (V)

divided by the Length Between

Perpendiculars (Lpp,) x Beam at Waterline

(BWL) x Draft (T). If you draw a box around

the submerged part of the ship, it is the ratio

of the box volume occupied by the ship. It

gives a sense of how much of the block

defined by the beam (B) & draft (T) is filled by

0.67 -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hull_(watercraft)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterline

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hull_(watercraft)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship




Design Vessel

Minimum

Design Vessel

the hull. Full forms such as oil tankers will

have a high Cb where fine shapes such as

sailboats will have a low Cb.

A deterministic method was used to determine channel and berth depths which included

factors such as tidal changes during transit, loaded draft of the vessel, net underkeel

clearance, allowances for squat and allowances for heel/trim. The channel and berth

depth factors are summarised below:

Table 9: Channel Depth and Berth Factors

Allowance Parameter Channel Depth Berth Depth

Tidal Changes during Transit 0.0m 0.0m

Loaded draft of the vessel 14.5, 14.5,

Net underkeel clearance 0.6m 0.6m

Allowances for Squat 0.4m 0.0m

Allowance for Heel/Trim 0.3m 0.4m

Nominal Depth 15.8m 15.5m

Allowance for Sounding Error 0.2m 0.2m

Allowance for Siltation 0.2m 0.5m

Maintenance Dredging

Accuracy

0.3m 0.3m

Depth Requirement (m CDP) 16.5 m CDP 16.5 m CDP

In addition, PIANC (1997a) recommends a minimum depth/draft ratio of between 1 and

1.15. This added to depth requirement means that the Total Depth requirement is

between -16. 0 m CDP and -16.7 m CDP and a depth of -16.5 m CDP was decided for

both the berth and the channel. Note: This figure excludes additional overburden

protection to the top of the berth scour protection.



In terms of Channel Geometry, figure 17 shows the approximate area of the Berth

Channel, approach channel and turning basin to be dredged.

Figure 17: Berth Channel and approach channel to be dredged (PRDW, 2011).

Specific requirements include:

Although the entrance channel has been dredged to -17m CDP (in the Port

Entrance Widening project), the south East corner of the point berths does not

have the appropriate safety margin for the berthing operations. Thus the entrance

channel is to be widened and deepened to -17m CDP;



Figure 17a: Proposed widening and deepening of Point berths

The deepening of the remaining navigable channels to a depth of -16.5m CDP;

Figure 17b: Proposed deepening of the approach channel and berth channel to -16.5m

The deepening of the turning basin which is 600m in diameter, between Pier 1 and

the T-Jetty (Note PIANC requires a turning basin of 630m, however due to the

limiting factors of the sandbank and existing infrastructure, a turning basin of 600m

should be adequate); and



Figure 17c: Proposed deepening of the turning basin

A reduction in the channel width from 425m to 280m.

Figure 17d: Proposed reduction in channel width through the widening of berths 203 to 205 by 50m

The figures below show the proposed typical cross sections at deepened berths 203 to

205.



Figure 17e: Geological Profile of approach channel and turning basin

Figure 17f: Geological profile of Berth channel



Figure 17g: Geological Profile between turning basin and berth channel

Figures 17e to 17g show the geological profile of the turning basin, approach channel and

berth channel which would be deepened as part of the proposed project. Approximately 4

million m3 of material will be dredged. The majority of this will be made up of sand

(3,640,357 m3), while a small portion will be made up of clay (582,640m3) (PRDW, 2011).

The design of the channel side slopes which face towards the sandbanks are based on

the existing slopes in these areas and are regarded to be at ‘limiting equilibrium’. The

design approach which has been taken aims to minimise the volume of dredging and the

impact on the sandbanks (PRDW, 2011).

In areas where the sandbanks will not be exposed to significant waves, a 1:3 slope will be

dredged. However in areas where the sandbanks will be affected by the propellers of the

berthing/ unberthing ships, the slopes will be protected using sheet piles.

On the basis of the current geotechnical information available, the dredging will be done

using a combination of a >10 000m3 Trailing Suction Hopper Dredger (TSHD) and a

Medium Size Cutter Suction Dredger (CSD) with associated tug, spilt hopper barges and

a workboat (PRDW, 2011).



All material will be dredged by the TSDH except the Berth 205 extension as the nature of

the dredging for the extension is very different to the rest of the proposed dredging. The

soil has to be cut from high levels: this will be done using the CSD which will undermine

the dredge slope and feed the cutter suction head of the dredger.

To adequately consider the impacts associated with the deepening, lengthening and

widening of Berth 203 to 205, the major activities during each Phase of the project life-

cycle is provided. The activities associated with the three alternative quay wall types may

have different activities associated and thus the project life cycles of each option is

tabulated below where necessary.

10.2 Project Life Cycle

10.2.1 Pre-feasibility and Feasibility Phases

a) Wave modelling;

b) Assessment of base conditions (including geology, construction material

investigation etc.);

c) Technical, economic and environmental screening of the three quay wall options;

d) Geotechnical investigations to confirm borrow areas and quarries;

e) Geotechnical investigations to confirm geology of the areas to be dredged; and

f) Sediment and Chemical analysis of Dredge material to be disposed.

10.2.2 Project Phasing

The proposed project will occur between 49 and 53 months (approximately 4 years)

(PRDW, 2011). However, due to the importance of the container terminal to the Port of

Durban, the project will need to be Phased to allow for two operational berths at all times

(Figure 18, 19, 20). This will occur in the following way:

Berth 205 will be decommissioned at the site camp set up;

This stage will take approximately 19 months;



During this time dredging of the entire dredge footprint will take place to ensure

that when the proposed deepened Berth 205 is operational, it will be able to safely

accommodate Super Post Panamax Ships; and

If possible, dredge material from the dredging will be used to infill behind the new

quay wall (for the Sheet pile and Caisson Options only).

Figure 18: Construction Stage 1 – Berth 205

Once Berth 205 is operational, Berth 204 will be decommissioned;

The area will be dredged and the new quay wall be fitted; and

The area behind the new quay wall will be infilled using fill material sourced from

an offshore sand winning site. This is due to the fact that by this stage, all dredging

will have taken place.

Comments raised by I&APs include the need to consider the alternative of storing the

dredge material for use for infilling of Berths 203 and 204. This will be considered as part

of the EIA phase.



Figure 19: Construction Stage 2: Berth 204

Once Berth 204 becomes operational, Berth 203 will be decommissioned;

The area will be dredged and the new quay wall be fitted; and

The area behind the new quay wall will be infilled using fill material sourced from a

offshore sand winning site. This is due to the fact that by this stage, all dredging

will have taken place.

Figure 20: Construction Stage 3: Berth 203

The following diagram provides an overview of the planned berths after construction

(Figure 21).



Figure 21: Completed Berths after construction

10.2.3 Pre-construction Phase

a) Detailed engineering design;

b) Detailed geotechnical investigations;

c) Obtain Environmental Authorisation;

d) Obtain Permit for Offshore dredge disposal;

e) Obtain Permit for Offshore sand winning;

f) Procurement process for Contractors;

g) Transnet National Ports Authority (TNPA) will produce a detailed cargo migration

plan for container cargo during the proposed upgrade;

h) Demobilise Berth 205 for the first Phase of construction;

i) The displaced containers will be accommodated within the cargo migration plan.

j) Procurement of HZM 1180 D-24 and AZ 26 Sections for Sheet Pile extensions of

existing Berths;

k) Procurement of other necessary materials;

l) For caisson alternative: Set up site camp at Bayhead lot 10

m) For Sheet Pile Alternatives: Store sheet piles at Bayhead Lot 10; and

n) For Deck on Pile Alternative: Use Bayhead Lot 10 as casting yard.



10.2.4 Construction Phase

The construction of the new quay wall is likely to take:

53 months for Double span Deck on Pile Quay wall;

52 months for Sheet Pile Quay wall; and

49 months for a Caisson Quay Wall.

General activities as part of the construction Phase include:

a) Appoint Environmental Control Officer;

b) Site establishment;

c) Relocation of infrastructure;

d) Establish construction camps;

e) Establish Bulk fuel storage;

f) Storage and handling of material;

g) Site and basin clearing;

h) Excavation and dredging of the site;

i) Establishment of and operations at the Lot 10 site for construction of Caissons

(Caisson Option) or Beams (Deck On Pile Option) or storage of Sheet Piles

(Sheet Pile Option);

j) Concrete Works;

k) Sheet Piling;

l) Mechanical, Electrical, Stormwater and Crane Rail;

m) Stockpiling (sand, crushed stone, aggregate, etc.);

n) Waste and wastewater management;

o) Reinstatement and rehabilitation of construction domain; and

p) Commissioning of Berths.

The following is a specific description of the activities related to the following phases.

Please refer to Section 10.2.2 for more information on project phasing.



10.2.5 Extension of Berth 205

The extension of Berth 205 will use Sheet pile technology and will involve the following

activities:

a) Demolish and remove existing back of quay paving and South West corner return

wall;

b) Set up land based piling rig and guide frame and pile positions;

c) Position and drive HZ king piles and double AZ intermediate piles in staged

pattern;

d) Excavate for deadman anchor and tie rod installation;

e) Install deadman anchors;

f) Install, backfill and tension tie rods;

g) Construct cope beam and rear crane beam;

h) Dredge the Berth pocket to -18.3 m CDP;

i) Place scour protection;

j) Install services and pave back of quay area; and

k) Install quay furniture.

10.2.6 Extension of Berth 203

The return wall from 202 to 203 will use Sheet pile technology and will involve the

following activities:

a) Demolish and remove the existing quay wall so that the founding rock can be

removed in order to install the new sheet pile quay wall;

b) Set up marine piling rig and guide frame at pile positions;

c) Position and drive HZ king piles and double AZ intermediate piles in staged

pattern;

d) Partial backfill behind new wall;

e) Install deadman anchors;

f) Install, backfill and tension tie rods;



g) Complete backfill behind new wall;

h) Construct cope beam and rear crane beam;

i) Dredge the Berth pocket to -18.3 m CDP;

j) Place scour protection;

k) Install services and pave back of quay area; and

l) Install quay furniture.

Please note that initially it was thought that Sheet Pile extensions would be required for

both the Berth 203 and Berth 205 extensions. However, as new information regarding the

geology of site comes to light, all three alternatives will be considered for the extensions.

10.2.7 Upgrade of Berths 203 to 205

The project activities for the upgrade of the current berths differ depending on

technological alternative. The table below provides a summary of key activities related to

each quay wall alternative.

Table 10: Key Activities for differing Quay wall types

Deck On Pile Sheet Pile Caisson

Set up Casting yard at Lot 10. Set up marine piling rig and guide

frame at pile positions.

Construct Caissons at Bayhead

Lot 10 casting yard.

Remove existing scour

protection.

Position and drive HZ king piles

and double AZ intermediate piles

in staged pattern.

Dredge caisson trench to -19.6m

CD and place foundation bed

underwater.

Dredge to -18.5 m CDP at

28.5m seaward of existing

cope line.

Demolish existing back of quay

paving and core drill the tie rod

holes in existing capping unit.

Once complete, tow the caissons

into position and sink the caisson.

Drive central piles from marine

based piling rig.

Excavate for deadman anchor

and tie rod installation.

Fill the caissons with dredged

sand material and seal the joints

between the caissons.

Place revetment rock between

and around piles. Install deadman anchors.

Place scour protection and drive

piles for landside crane rail.



Construct superstructure on

piles, working over water.

Install, backfill and tension the tie

rods. Backfill behind the caisson wall.

Install services and pave back

of quay area. Backfill behind the new wall.

Construct cope beam and rear

crane beam.

Place scour protection. Construct the cope beam and

rear crane beam.

Install services and pave back of

quay area.

Install Quay furniture.

Dredge berth pocket to -18.3m

CDP.

Install quay furniture. Place scour protection and pave

back of quay area.

Install quay furniture.

10.2.8 Operational Phase

a) Maintenance of infrastructure;

b) Operation of Berth 203 to 205 Container terminal;

c) Maintenance dredging to required depths; and

d) On-going consultation with directly affected parties.

10.2.9 Decommissioning Phase

The new quay wall has been designed to have a lifespan of approximately 50 years

with suitable maintenance. Depending on the Port of Durban requirements, Berths

203 to 205 would be maintained, or upgraded if necessary. Decommissioning is thus

not considered applicable to the project. However, should decommissioning be

required the activity will need to comply with the appropriate environmental legislation

and best practices at that time.



11. ALTERNATIVES

Alternatives are the different ways in which the project can be executed to ultimately

achieve its objectives. Examples could include carrying out a different type of action,

choosing an alternative location or adopting a different technology or design for the

project.

The sub-sections to follow discuss the project alternatives considered during the Scoping

process. The EIA process will provide a detailed comparative analysis of alternatives

from environmental (including specialist input) and technical perspectives.

By conducting the comparative analysis, the Best Practicable Environmental Option

(BPEO) can be selected with technical and environmental justification. Münster (2005)

defines BPEO as the alternative that “provides the most benefit or causes the least

damage to the environment as a whole, at a cost acceptable to society, in the long term

as well as in the short term”.

11.1 Screened Alternatives

Prestedge Retief Dresner Wijnberg Consulting Port and Coastal Engineers (PRDW)

conducted a Pre-Feasibility analysis of seven quay wall alternatives (2011). These

alternatives included:

1. Deck On Pile (Double Span) Quay Wall;

2. Deck On Pile (Narrow) Quay Wall;

3. Deck with Toe Pile Quay Wall;

4. Sheet Pile Combi Quay Wall;

5. Caisson Full Slope Quay Wall;

6. Caisson Toe Pile Quay Wall; and

7. Counterfort Quay Wall.

A Multi Criteria Analysis based on the following factors was undertaken:



1. Serviceability

1.1 Accommodation of range of vessel sizes

1.2 Impact on terminal stacking area

2. Value and Cost

2.1 Capital Cost

2.2 Maintenance and Operation Cost

2.3 Least Occupational Cost

3. Constructability

3.1 Speed of construction

3.2 Interface with Dredging

3.3 Risk of delays due to ground conditions

4. Existing Structure

4.1 Stability of existing structure (permanent)

4.2 Stability of existing structure (temporary)

4.3 Impact of existing structure failure

5. Maintainability

5.1. Ease of Maintenance

5.2. Localisation and reparability of damage

5.3. Services

6. Upgradeability

6.1 Ability to design for future deepening

6.2 Ability to increase loading –post construction

From the Pre-feasibility, the following alternatives were determined to be feasible, and

underwent further feasibility studies (PRDW, 2012). The Scoping exercise considers

feasible alternatives in terms of the following quay wall alternatives.

1. Deck On Pile (Double Span) Quay Wall;

2. Sheet Pile Combi Quay Wall; and

3. Caisson Quay Wall.



The EIA Phase will include a detailed comparative analysis of the project’s feasible

alternatives that emanate from the Scoping exercise, which will include environmental,

social, economic and technical evaluations (with specialist input) together with input from

I&APs. This will ultimately result in the selection of a Best Practicable Environmental

Option (BPEO).

An important consideration is that currently, the safety of the current quay wall has been

shown to be below standard and thus the main motivation for the upgrade is to prevent

berth collapse. The alternatives investigated (quay walls) have been largely considered to

address this issue.



11.2 Quay Wall Alternatives

11.2.1 Deck On Pile Quay Wall

This option uses a combination of deck on pile structure and sheet pile quay wall sections

in order to make up the required 1190m of new quay wall length

A Deck on Pile structure consists of cast insitu suspended concrete “deck” structure

which is supported by precast beams and cast insitu concrete piles. The Deck On Pile

structure depends on the re-use of the existing quay wall as an integral structural

component. Due to the structural instability of the existing wall, additional passive

pressure would need to be applied to the waterside of the existing wall in the form of a

protective scour slope. The formation of the passive protection slope during construction

and its inaccessibility to maintenance crews after construction poses a significant risk to

failure of this type of construction.

The open nature of this structure also exposes a greater surface area of concrete to

splash zone corrosion. The inaccessible nature of the soffit (underneath) of the structure

makes repairs dangerous and expensive. The suspended deck does not require infilling.

Due to their configuration, deck on pile quay walls can be expected to be associated with

increased safety and environmental risks in the form of structure failure, slippage and

instability.

The Deck on Pile Quay Wall option consists of the following:

A new double span deck wall with a cope line of approximately 28.38m seaward of

the current cope line;

The rear Ship to Shore crane rail will run along the existing block quay wall;

A new deck on pile quay wall will run along the 914m of existing quay wall;

The lengthening of Berth 203 by 100m eastwards and Berth 205, westwards by

170m will use sheet pile quay walls;



The double span deck will be supported on two rows of vertical piles spaced at

approximately 6.7m centres, longitudinally;

There will be three spans per bollard/fender location; and

The piles will be made up of 1200mm diameter steel tubular piles which attain the

required bearing capacity through a combination of skin friction and end bearing

within the soil strata.

Figure 22: Sheet Piles made up of 1200mm diameter steel tubular piles (PRDW, 2011)

The transverse beams will be 1.5m deep pre-stressed concrete U beams filled with

in-situ concrete spanning between the piles and the existing block wall; and

The drilling of large diameter piles close to the existing wall poses a significant risk

of collapse on the existing quay wall structure.



Figure 23: Transverse beams made up of pre-stressed concrete U beams filled with in-situ concrete

spanning between the piles and the existing block wall (PRDW, 2011)

The beams running in a longitudinal direction will be made of pre-cast concrete

1.2m deep;

The deck will be made up of pre-stressed concrete planks spanning between the

transverse beams and finished with an in-situ topping;

All the pile caps will be made of pre-cast concrete elements which are placed

directly onto the top of the pile, providing an allowance of 100mm in any direction

for installation tolerance before being bonded to the overlying superstructure with

in-situ concrete;

Post-tensioned ground anchors extending from the top of the existing block wall

will resist the lateral loads applied to the structure; and

The span between the existing block wall and the middle row of piles is articulated

at each end to prevent induced bending caused by the differential settlement or

deflection of the two different structure types.



11.2.2 Sheet Pile Quay Wall

This option makes use of a continuous 1190m tied back sheet pile wall.

Sheet pile quay walls are essentially anchored retaining walls. They consist of a number

of steel sheets/piles which are driven deep into the ground. Sheet Pile quay walls require

an anchor to support the weight of the wall. This anchor will be situated behind the

existing quay wall front. The implementation of a sheet pile quay wall would require the

establishment of a new stone bed/scour protection at the new dredged depth in front of

the quay wall.

The area behind the Sheet Pile quay wall would then be backfilled, while the surface of

the quay would need to be covered with concrete paving. Sheet Pile quay walls also have

a limited life expectancy due to the materials used in constructing the quay wall. Steel

materials are more subjective to corrosion and are restricted to specified load weights so

as to avoid bending. Regular maintenance of the quay wall will be required to extend the

life expectancy of this quay wall alternative.

The Sheet Pile Quay Wall option consists of:

Continuous tied back sheet pile wall with a cope line 31.58m seaward from the

existing cope line;

The rear Ship to Shore (STS) crane rail will run along the top of the existing block

quay wall. When the STS runs over the eastward and westward extensions, it will

be supported by reinforced concrete spread footings; and

The continuous embedded wall will consist of HZ king piles with AZ intermediate

piles with a steel grade of 430 N/mm2.



Figure 24: Sheet Pile wall made up of HZ king piles with AZ intermediate piles with a steel grade of

430 N/mm2 driven to a depth of -33m CDP (PRDW, 2011)

The wall is then tied back by tie rods (95mm diameter, steel grade 460 N/mm2)

spaced at 2.258m centres anchored by inverted T deadman anchors which are

positioned 12m back from the existing cope line.



Figure 25: Sheet Pile wall with inverted T deadman anchors each accommodating two tie rods

passing through drilled holes in the existing quay wall (PRDW, 2011)

Each anchor will accommodate two tie rods;

The tie rods will pass through core drilled holes in the existing quay wall;

Resistance to is provided by the high section modulus of the solution as well the

as the design penetration depth which varies along the wall length between -24m

CDP and -34m CDP; and

The composition of backfill material for the proposed wall will be a composite of

the hydraulic fill from the offshore borrow site.

11.2.3 Caisson Quay Wall

The Caisson option consists of combination of caisson and sheet pile quay wall with a

new cope line that is 48.5m seawards from the existing quay wall.

Caisson quay walls comprise of a number of large individual concrete structures

(caissons) which are floated into position and then submerged adjacent to one another to



form a quay front. Due to the fact that caisson quay walls make use of gravitational forces

they are able to support excessive loads.

The implementation of a caisson quay wall would require the establishment of a new

stone bed/scour protection. The area behind the caisson quay wall would then require

backfilling in order to extend the relevant quay wall to the desired width. The surface of

the quay would then be covered with concrete paving to create a solid, accessible area

for the loading and offloading of container cargo by gantry cranes and rail. Due to their

nature, caisson quay walls require little maintenance and are associated with an

extended life cycle compared to other quay wall options.

The proposed Caisson Quay Wall option consists of:

The proposed new caisson wall will consist of a “figure 8” type caisson that is

15.9m wide x 26m long x 0.8m thick, founded on a 1m thick prepared stone bed.

The external walls of the caisson will be 0.55m thick.

Figure 26: Proposed Caisson option caisson filled with dredged fill material (PRDW, 2011)



Figure 27: Typical “figure 8” type Caissons

The extensions from Berth 203 eastwards and Berth 205 westward would be done

using sheet piles should Caissons not be able to be placed at these tie in points;

and

The rear Ship to Shore crane beam will be supported by a row of vertical tubular

piles placed at 6m centres.



Figure 28: Row of vertical tubular piles which would be used to support the rear Ship to Shore crane

beam (PRDW, 2011)

The backfill material will be a combination of suitable dredge material and imported

sand; and

The distance between the existing wall and the proposed caisson wall allows for a

1:3 dredge slope down to the base of the proposed new caisson wall which

minimises the risk of undermining the existing quay wall during the construction

Phase.

11.2.4 Summary of Components

The salient parameters for the three quay wall options are summarised in the table to follow.

Table 11: Summary of Quay Wall Components


Length of wall 1190m 1190m 1190m

Seaward Expansion of Cope Line

28.38m 31.58m 48.5m

New Scour Bed Protection

Yes Yes Yes




Life Expectancy Limited Limited Extended

Backfilling required Only at Extension areas Yes Yes

Maintenance Regular maintenance of the quay wall will be required to extend the life expectancy.

Regular maintenance of the quay wall will be required to extend the life expectancy.

Requires little maintenance

Reliant on Current Wall

Yes No No

Safety Increased safety risks in the form of structure failure, slippage and instability.

Steel materials are more subjective to corrosion and are restricted to specified load weights so as to avoid bending. Without maintenance, safety may become an issue.

They make use of gravitational forces so are able to support excessive loads. Also require little maintenance.

Type of Extension (eastward from 203 and westward of 205)*

Sheet Pile Sheet Pile Sheet Pile

* Please note that based on new geotechnical information available, all quay wall

alternatives will be considered during the EIA phase.

11.3 Offshore Sand Winning

In order to maintain a functioning port during the upgrade process, the dredging of the

turning basin, approach channel and berth channel will occur in the first Phase of the

upgrade. Berth 205 will then be decommissioned and upgraded while Berths 203 and 204

are still functioning. Suitable dredge material will be used where possible for the infill of

Berth 205, however, unused dredge spoil will be disposed before it can be used for

infilling of Berths 203 and 204. Thus, offshore sand winning will be necessary to provide

the necessary dredge infill material for Berths 203 and 204.

Two proposed sand winning areas have been investigated by a prior geophysical and

sediment sampling studies in 2001 (Council for Geoscience, 2001). The impacts of the

proposed offshore sand winning will be assessed in the EIA Phase.



Figure 29: Position of alternative sand winning sites (Bathymetry obtained from Council of

Geosciences, 2001).

11.4 Offshore Dredge Disposal

Approximately 4 million cubic metres of dredge material will need to be disposed at an

offshore disposal site. The Port of Durban currently has an offshore disposal permit for

maintenance dredging and the site has been used for previous capital projects. An

application for a Dumping at sea permit can only be made once a positive Environmental

Authorisation has been received. However, the impacts of both dredging and dredge

disposal need to be determined during the EIA Phase. Figure 30 below shows the current

permitted site.

If a Dumping at Sea permit is received, a grid would be superimposed over the location of

the current disposal site. Dredge material would be moved to the site in a TSHD and



each disposal event would occur over a separate cell of the disposal site in order to

ensure an equal distribution.

In addition, in order to obtain a Dumping at Sea Permit, as per the National

Environmental Management: Integrated Coastal Management Act, the sediment type,

quality, size and chemical composition of the dredge material needs to be determined.

This is to ensure that the quantity of metals, hydrocarbons etc. are not above dangerous

levels. A Sediment and Chemical Analysis of Dredge Material will take place as a

specialist study in the EIA Phase. However, from studies of water quality (CSIR, 2011), it

appears that the area around Berth 203 to 205 is not highly contaminated (see Section

12).

Figure 30: Current permitted offshore disposal site

11.5 No Go Option

As standard practice and to satisfy regulatory requirements, the option of not proceeding

with the project is included in the evaluation of the alternatives.



The Transnet eThekwini Municipality Port Initiative (TEMPI) undertook an economic

assessment of the Port of Durban in 2007. The following is a summary of the major

findings and the implications of no go alternative which are economic in nature.

The impacts of the no-go alternative will also be assessed in regards to the receiving

environment.

Table 12: Economic factors and implications of the No-go Alternative

Key Economic Factors (TEMPI, 2007) Implications of the No-Go Alternative

Durban’s port infrastructure and traffic levels

are colossal by African and Southern

Hemisphere standards

The implications of the ‘no go’ option are as

follows:

The Port of Durban will not maintain

a competitive level of services

Large vessels make use of

competitor ports

Loss of income in terms of wages

and salaries

Negative economic impact on the

local economy

Negative economic impact on the

national economy

Negative impact on related

industries

It vies for leading container port in the Southern

Hemisphere

It has the largest and most diversified set of port

ancillary establishments of any port in the

Southern hemisphere

It’s a hub port for the rest of Southern Africa

Around 32 000 people are employed directly by

the port

Approximately R3bn is spent on wages and

salaries annually

NEPAD agenda forsees Durban as the logistics

hub for adjacent economies

In order for the port to maintain its standing, it

needs to expand and handle more cargo and

larger ships

International evidence shows ports have to keep

up with changing technology to remain

competitive

Without deepening, the port will be relegated to

a shrinking residual of smaller and relatively

more expensive vessels

There is a significant linkage between local



Key Economic Factors (TEMPI, 2007) Implications of the No-Go Alternative

economy and the port

Products handled in the port are also linked to

other industries and thus the growth of the local

economy is dependent on the growth of the port

12. PROFILE OF THE RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT

This section provides a general description of the status quo of the receiving environment

in the project area. This serves to provide the context within which the Scoping exercise

was conducted. It also allows for an appreciation of sensitive environmental features and

possible receptors of the effects of the proposed project.

The study area includes the entire footprint of the project components, offshore borrow

areas and offshore disposal areas. Where necessary, the regional context of the

environmental features is also explained, with an ensuing focus on the local surrounding

environment. More in-depth discussions on the receiving environment will be provided in

the EIA Report, where the findings of the requisite specialist studies will be incorporated

into the document.

A brief overview is also provided of the manner in which the environmental features may

be affected (positively or negatively) by the proposed Berth 203 to 205 upgrade project

life-cycle. Key environmental issues are discussed further in Section 15. These

preliminary effects are only discussed concisely on a qualitative level, as part of the

Scoping Phase. The EIA Report will provide a comprehensive evaluation of the potential

impacts, and will quantify the effects to the environment based on the methodology

presented in Section 16.



12.1 Land Use

12.1.1 Status Quo

The area under consideration for the proposed developments, i.e. the Port of Durban,

is situated along the Indian Ocean coastline on the east coast of South Africa within

the province of KwaZulu-Natal. Historically, the port has formed a focal point for the

City of Durban, and is of national and international importance owing to its role in

facilitating the import and export needs for much of South Africa.

In terms of biophysical setting, the area is characterized by a number of sandbanks

clearly visible at low tide, together with isolated relics of mangrove areas. The

uMhlatuzana, uMbilo and aManzimnyama Rivers of KwaZulu-Natal, comprise the

three major rivers flowing into the Port of Durban at their corresponding canals. Each

of these rivers hosts a variety of land uses and form the core of urbanization and

industrialization. In addition, there are several storm water drains with sources located

in the Durban CBD that discharge into the port at various locations (MER/ERM, 2011;

CSIR, 2011).

The Port of Durban spans a total area of approximately 1 854 Ha in extent. The water

surface is approximately 892 Ha at high tide and approximately 679 Ha at low tide,

while the land based component of the Port covers approximately 962 Ha (Transnet,

2011). The total extent of the Port area including the harbour and back of port area is

managed by Transnet National Ports Authority (TNPA) (CSIR, 2011). The land use of

Berths 203 to 205 and Bayhead Lot 10 is industrial (Figure 31 and 32).

Land uses within the Port of Durban include the following (MER/ERM, 2011):

Port activities at various operational terminals (including the Container

Terminal);

Large scale shipping activities as well as smaller boating activities;

Other industrial activities undertaken by tenants or leaseholders located in

Maydon Wharf, Bayhead, Kings Rest and Cutler. These include petro-chemical



storage and liquid bulk, cold storage, container staking, shipping repair, ship

building, manufacturing industries and other storage;

Recreational uses such as marinas and club houses in the Victoria

Embankment and Silt Canal;

Commercial uses along the Victoria Embankment including the Bat Centre and

Wilson’s Wharf;

Natural heritage areas such as the Mangroves; and

Smaller subsistence use by fisherman.

The main land users are Transnet National Ports Authority and the industrial and

commercial leaseholders that make use of the Port.

Figure 31: Aerial photograph showing the layout of the Port of Durban

Beyond the boundaries of the Port, the area is surrounded by a mixture of industrial,

business and residential districts (Figure 32) (CSIR, 2011).



Figure 32: Land use within the Port (MER/ERM, 2011)

12.1.2 Potential Impacts / Implications

In terms of the Port activities and associated industrial land use, the proposed project

plans to extend and upgrade an existing Berth area which should have positive impacts

overall. The proposed project however will change the land use of a portion of the Central

Sandbank. Due to the ecological sensitivity of the sandbank, this may have impacts on

recreational and subsistence land users however these will be assessed together with

impacts on the ecological impacts.

12.1.3 Specialist Study Triggered / Additional Investigations

No direct specialist studies associated with land use to be conducted. Indirect studies

associated with the proposed project include the Marine/Estuarine Biodiversity Study.



12.2 Climate

12.2.1 Status Quo

The Port of Durban is subjected to a warm maritime climate with average minimum

temperatures of 16°C during the winter months of May to July and an average of 27°C

during the hotter summer months of January to March (MER/ERM, 2011) (Table 13).

Table 13: Minimum and Maximum Monthly temperatures recorded at Durban Airport (MER/ERM,

2011)

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

Durban-

Max (°C)

27 27 27 24 23 23

22 22 22 23 25 26 24

Durban-

Min (°C)

22 22 22 19 16 16 16 17 17 18 20 21 19

The area is generally wet, receiving an average rainfall of 1054 mm/year. Most of the

rainfall is received in summer (MER/ERM, 2011) (Table 14).

Table 14: Monthly average rainfall recorded at Durban Airport (MER/ERM, 2011)

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

Durban-

Rainfall

(mm)

119 127 132 84 56 33 36 48 74 109 117 119 87


On a large scale, the upgrade of Berths 203 to 205 contributes to Port development

aimed at increasing the efficiency of the Port. This could contribute to greenhouse gas

emissions, due to the presence of larger vessels at the Port. However, the proposed

project will not change the current land use of the Port and the project is not expected to

change the micro-climate of the area.




No specialist studies are currently envisioned.

12.3 Geology & Soils

12.3.1 Status Quo

Rock types beneath the Durban Bay are described as faulted Karoo sediments of the

Dwyka (tillite) and Ecca (Shales) Groups (MER/ERM, 2011). These are overlain by a

shallow crust of Cretaceous sediments which thicken eastward beneath the Bluff (King,

1960). As result of the depositional environment, the Harbour beds are extremely variable

both in depth and lateral distribution. These sediments are mainly sands with layers of

clays which vary in thickness from less than 1m to 15m thick (PRDW, 2011).

Table 15 below provides a summary of the local geology underlying the project area and

was determined using information from numerous borehole logs, sonic and acoustic logs

(PRDW, 2011).

Table 15: Summary of local geology underlying the project area

Geological Divisions

Units Description Depth

Late Pleistocene and Holocene cover sands

Late Pleistocene Aeolian Sediments

Medium dense to dense, light reddish brown to light grey fine grained sand with a coarser basal unit, gravelly sand

Holocene lagoonal sediments

Medium dense to dense, olive to light grey/brown, fine to medium grained sand with occasionally heavy minerals

Late Pleistocene Calcarenite

Medium to hard rock, light to dark brown, fine to medium grained, weakly laminated

-7.5 to -11.4m CDP

Late Pleistocene Channel Sands

Unit 2 – Upper Portion (clay rich unit)

Very soft to stiff, light grey to dark brown mottled, occasionally orange, fissured silty to fine to medium grained sandy clay

-12 to - -41.7m CDP

Unit 2- Lower portions, sandy unit

Loose to dense, light to dark grey, yellowish brown olive or light reddish brown, fine to coarse grained sand, subordinate layers of firm grey clay.

Late Pleistocene channel fill sediments

Unit 1 – Upper clay Rich Unit

Stiff to very stiff, light grey to dark brown occasionally black fissured to microshattered, silty to sandy, occasionally gravelly clay

-16 m to -44m CDP



Unit 1- Basal Sand Unit

Loose to very dense, olive to dark grey reddish brown occasionally light grey to white, fine to medium grained sand, occasionally medium to very coarse with minor conglomerate

Late Pleistocene Logaoonal sediments

Highly variable sediment assemblage, light olive grey to reddish light brown, dark brown and orange brown loose to dense fine to medium sand, occasional lenses of fine to coarse grained to gravelly sand with occasional shell fragments

-14m to -34m CDP

Late Pleistocene Aeolianite

Isolated eroded remnants, pale yellowish brown slight weathered thinly bedded medium to coarse grained, medium to coarse grained medium hard rock, calcarenite

-17m to - 28m CDP

Pleistocene Basal Sand Unit

Light reddish orange to brown mottled light grey to medium dense to very dense fine to medium grained sand with small amounts of clayey/silty sand

-23m to - 29m CDP

Pleistocene Basal Clay Unit

Dark brown and dark grey to black, stiff to very stiff dense to very dense organic fine sandy to silty clay with minor amounts of clayey fine sandy silt

-27m to - 33m CDP

Pleistocene Basal Silt Unit

Dark yellowish orange to dark grey mottled with dark orange medium dense to very stiff, weathered fine sandy to gravelly silts or clayey silty fine sands

-28m to -36m CDP

Cretaceous Sediments

Olive to light grey thickly bedded consolidated siltstone wuth thin interbedded hard concretionary calcarenite horizons

-18m to - 52m CDP


The main implications of the site geology relates to dredging. The approach channel,

berth channel, turning basin and berths will be dredged to between -16.5m CDP and -

19m CDP. Suitable dredge material will be used for the infill of Berth 205 (which will be

the first Phase of the project), while the rest of the material is likely to be disposed at an



offshore disposal site. The type and quantity of sediments to be dredged will affect the

impacts of dredge disposal on the offshore disposal site.


A detailed Geotechnical study will take place as part of the Feasibility assessment (see

the figure below for information on the proposed position of the boreholes for the

Geotechnical study).

Figure 33: Position of the Boreholes for the Detailed Geotechnical Study (PRDW, 2011)

In addition, as required by the National Environmental Management: Integrated Coastal

Management Act, sediment and chemical analysis of dredge material will be undertaken.

Information from these studies will be provided during the EIA Phase.



12.4 Port Layout and Bathymetry

12.4.1 Status Quo

The Port of Durban comprises a number of interlinked channels and turning basins

servicing port infrastructure (jetties, wharfs, berths and piers), and which is also used by a

variety of small craft (yachts, ski boasts, supply vessels, tug boats, naval vessels) (Figure

34).

Figure 34: Current layout of the Port of Durban (From TNPA, 2009)

Recently, the entrance channel was widened and deepened to about -17m CD.

Navigation channels in much of the remainder of the port (west of Pier 1 and T jetty) are

maintained at a depth of about -13m CD. In addition to the deepwater navigation

channels, shallower waters exist in numerous areas of the Bay and are either remnants

or modifications of the original habitat.

The CSIR conducted an elevation and bathymetric study after the Port Entrance widening

and deepening project (2010). Results suggest that erosion at certain boundary edges of

the central sandbank has occurred where deepwater dredging has encroached near or



into the slope of the sandbanks resulting in localised progradation and slumping (CSIR,

2010). In addition, there was some loss of sediment from the surface of the sandbanks.

The following figure provides a summary of the Durban Harbour Sandbank Survey (EMS,

2010). The main results show that there has been a slight increase in the sedimentation

of the little lagoon (Figure 35 a and d), and loss of sediment along the southern portion of

the central sandbank (Figure 35 a and c). In addition, the topography has of the Central

Sandbank has changed slightly since 2007 (Figure 35b).

a b



c d

Figure 35: Durban Harbour Sandbank Study (EMS, 2010)


The port bathymetry will be changed by deepening of the approach channel, turning

basin and berth channel. The channels are currently maintained at approximately -13m

CDP and this will be deepened to between -16.5m CDP and -19m CDP. This may impact

waves, tides, seiches etc. which would have a further cumulative impact on the port

bathymetry.

Furthermore, the addition of new, longer quay wall, 50m seawards may also influence

wave seiches. A seiche is a ‘standing wave’ which occurs on an enclosed or partially

enclosed body of water. The widening of the entrance channel has resulted in an

approximate doubling in the magnitude of the one hour and 10 minute oscillations in the

Bay. These changes are greatest in the upper reaches. There is a strong likelihood that

changes in the port layout, particularly the straightening of quay walls, will exacerbate

such seiches (CSIR, 2010). Such changes could serve to destabilise or move sediments

on the sandbank areas, particularly should dredging activities predispose the sandbanks

to such a destabilisation. While it is highly likely that the seiches will be changed or

amplified, the consequences for the sandbanks are much less certain. The westward



expansion of Berth 205 into the central sandbank may further impact the stability of the

sandbanks.


A wave energy analysis will be undertaken to understand the impact of the proposed

study on wave energy. This information will be used to determine whether further impacts

on the port bathymetry can be expected. This information will be provided during EIA

Phase.

12.5 Recreational Users

12.5.1 Status Quo

The Port of Durban is owned and managed by Transnet National Ports Authority (TNPA)

and the main land use (as mentioned previously) is port operations and the use of the

Port by large and small shipping vessels.

In addition, the Port is used by the following:

Recreational uses such as marinas and club houses in the Victoria

Embankment and Silt Canal;

Commercial uses along the Victoria Embankment including the Bat Centre and

Wilson’s Wharf;

Natural heritage areas such as the Mangroves; and

Smaller subsistence use by fisherman.

In addition, uShaka Marine World as well as beach users may be effected by dredging

and offshore sand winning which could potentially impact water quality, water turbidity

and bathymetry as well as related wave energy.




The exacerbation of one hour and 10 minute seiches could result in changes in water

level variability of up to 20 cm greater than presently observed. This could have impacts

on the moored yachts and thus impact recreational users of the Port. The changes in port

layout, resulting in more rectilinear structures, could exacerbate long wave energy effects

in the Bay which would also have a negative impact on moored yachts. The proposed

project is unlikely to have long wave energy effects (CSIR, 2010).

Contaminants released from sediment during dredging are available for uptake by

organisms. This is known as bioaccumulation. This poses a risk to organisms at higher

trophic levels since predators are exposed to contaminants in their prey (CSIR, 2010).

According to the CSIR Environmental Screening Study (2010), dredging may release

contaminants into the water. However, the probability of such bioaccumulation, is

unlikely. Metal and hydrocarbon contamination of sediment across the dredging footprint

for all Phases is of a low to very low magnitude (CSIR, unpublished data). The release of

contaminants from sediment during dredging is thus expected to be low. By implication,

the availability of contaminants for uptake is also low. Bioaccumulation of contaminants

would mainly affect subsistence fisherman who are fishing in the bay. Although no fishing

is authorised in the Port of Durban, subsistence fishing does occur.

Disposal of dredged material at the offshore disposal site will result in a change of

bathymetry of the seabed at the offshore disposal site. This can lead to changes in wave

direction (through refraction) and in turn to changes in long shore transport of sediment

and consequently shoreline erosion and/or accretion (CSIR, 2011). However, proposed

offshore disposal ground is situated in water of a considerable depth and it is improbable

that alterations to its bathymetry through spoil disposal will lead to changes wave

direction. Further support for this contention comes from the fact that no changes to wave

direction appear to have resulted due to the disposal of spoil generated through dredging

for the Entrance Widening Programme (CSIR, 2011)

In addition, dredging for infill material at an offshore sand winning/borrow pit would impact

the bathymetry of the borrow area and may lead to changes in wave direction and



consequently shoreline erosion. The impacts although unlikely, would impact recreational

users of the beaches closest to the sand winning site.

Other implications will be discussed in more detail in sections below. However, the

proposed project may impact the Little lagoon, Central Sandbank and Mangroves which

would have an impact on the ecological integrity of the port and thus negatively impact

any recreational use related to the ecological integrity of the port.


No direct assessment of the impacts on recreational users is envisaged, however, the

implications mentioned above are directly linked to a number of other issues including the

level of contamination of dredge material, wave energy in the Port and ecological

impacts. The following studies will be undertaken and discussed (as related to

recreational users) in the EIA Phase:

Wave energy analysis;

Sediment and Chemical analysis of dredge material;

Marine/Estuarine Biodiversity Assessment;

Local Economic Impact Assessment;

Ecological Assessment of the Impacts on the Central Sandbank;

Assessment of the Indirect Impacts on the Little Lagoon;

Shoreline Stability – Offfshore Sand winning site;

Sediment Plume Modelling – Offshore Sand winning Site; and

High Level Central Sandbank Study.

12.6 Hydrodynamic Functioning

12.6.1 Status Quo

The circulation in the Port of Durban is largely tidally driven, with localised effects due to

wind-forcing of the surface waters and inflows of fresh water in the upper reaches of the

Port. Shorter term fluctuations known as resonant seiches with periods of approximately

1 hour and 10min are observed in the port (PRDW, 2009; CSIR, 2010).



Moreover, water level variation in the Port is made up mainly of a semi-diurnal tide with a

period of approximately 12.4 hours and a range of 0.4 m at neap tide, increasing to 2.3 m

at maximum spring tide. These tidal water level variations drive near-surface tidal flows of

up to 0.3 to 0.4 m/s mid-channel in the entrance channel, with surface flows exceeding

0.55 m/s in shallow waters on either side of the channel (PRDW, 2009) (Figure 36).

Tidal flows in the entrance channel during neap tides are significantly less (approximately

0.1 m/s near-bottom and 0.15 m/s near the surface (PRDW, 2009; CSIR, 2010). Strong

tidal flows are observed over shallows adjacent to Victoria Embankment and over the

Central Sandbank between Pier 2 and the Maydon Wharf Channel (see Figure 36).

Measurements made by the CSIR in the entrance channel in early summer 2001 (CSIR,

unpublished data; CSIR, 2010) and in 2005 (PRDW, 2009) indicate that near-bottom

flows are not much less than those near the surface.

The resonant seiches of approximately 1 hour period (first resonant mode of the Bay)

have a water level range of approximately 0.1 to 0.2 m and result in short-term

fluctuations in currents of approximately 0.1 to 0.15 m/s, while seiches with an

approximate 10 minute period are somewhat smaller in amplitude, ranging approximately

between 0.05 and 0.1 m (CSIR, 2010).



Figure 36: Surface flow during spring peak flood (upper panel) and ebb (lower panel) tides (source:

PRDW, 2007).

Wind-driven influences on circulation in the Bay include large-scale wind-driven flows

over the adjacent shelf that affect conditions and the nature of flows in the entrance

channel and the temperature of waters entering into the Bay. More immediate wind

influences result in small modifications to surface flows and wind waves in the port.



These influences vary around the Bay, due to the local variations in the wind field (Figure

37) (CSIR, 2011).

Winds inside the Bay are significantly less than those measured at the Port Control tower

and on the eastern breakwater. Within the Bay, the Salisbury Island area is sheltered

from SW to SSW winds that predominate in winter. To a lesser extent the same

observation can be made for the container terminal. However, winds measured on the

northern part of the Bay between the yacht basin and the T-jetty do not show similar

sheltering effects with respect to SW to SSW winds. All sites seemingly are fully exposed

to the NNE and NE winds that predominate in spring and summer, the strongest NNE/NE

winds being observed at Salisbury Island (Figure 37) (CSIR, 2011).



Figure 37: Annual wind roses for various locations in the Prot of Durban for the period May 2010 to

October 2011

Durmarine Building

Container Terminal Pier

SA Navy Base

Eastern

Breakwater Port Control 2



In addition, the water column within the Bay is not strongly stratified. Profile

measurements show that vertical temperature gradients generally do not exceed one or

two degrees Celsius. Thermistor chain measurements in the entrance channel prior to

widening of the entrance channel show a mean difference between the surface and

bottom sensors of 0.4°C, with a maximum difference of 2.5°C (PRDW, 2009).

Measurements within the Bay confirm that although episodic stratification events may

occur, temperature stratification is limited (CSIR, 2011).

Freshwater inflows result in salinity-driven stratification events in the upper part of the

Port. This stratification is generally limited to the upper part of the water column, often

resulting in lower salinity water being confined to the upper tens of centimetres of the

water column (CSIR, 2011). The magnitude and depth depends on the magnitude of

these freshwater inflows, which peak in summer.

The nature of flushing in the Bay (tidal near the entrance channel and flushing by

freshwater inflows in the upper reaches) results in a strong gradient in flushing potential.

At the entrance channel there is strong flushing due to tidal flows (Figure 38). With the

widening of the entrance channel this flushing has increased. However, in the upper

reaches, where the influence of tidal flushing is limited, flushing rates and residence times

have remained largely the same as those that existed prior to the entrance channel

widening.

Freshwater inflows are generally confined to surface layers of the water column and thus

surface water may be relatively well-flushed in these upper reaches of the port. However

the deeper waters remain largely insulated from these flushing effects unless there are

very large freshwater inflows. A schematic of prevailing water conditions (Figure 38)

provides a good proxy for the flushing potential and residence times in the Bay. These

observations are supported by the model results reported in PRDW (2007) (CSIR, 2011).



Figure 38 Schematic of water quality conditions in the Port of Durban (source: MER/ERM, 2011)

Model simulations of maximum current speeds in the Port of Durban prior to the entrance

channel widening show that the mean current speeds in the entrance channel will have

changed significantly with its widening (CSIR, 2010). Model predictions suggest that

mean current speeds in the entrance channel over a tidal cycle will have reduced from

0.25 m/s to 0.12 m/s and the maximum current speed from 0.55 m/s to 0.30 m/s (Figure

39).

However, conversely, the maximum current speed over the Central Sandbank during

spring tides is predicted to have increased from 0.40 m/s to 0.55 m/s with the widening of

the entrance channel (Figure 40). The mean current speed during spring tides is

predicted to remain largely unchanged. The maximum current speeds are also predicted

to have increased on the southern end of the tidal mud flats in the vicinity of the Yacht

Basin. These increases have been attributed to the widened entrance channel allowing

more long period energy (near the resonant oscillation period of approximately 1 hour) to

enter the Bay (PRDW, 2007).



Figure 39: Mean tidal currents in the Port of Durban during Spring tides (source: PRDW, 2007)

before the mouth widening (upper panel) and after the mouth widening (lower panel)



Figure 40: Maximum tidal currents in the Port of Durban during Spring tides (source: PRDW, 2007)

before the mouth widening (upper panel) and after the mouth widening (lower panel)




The proposed deepening, widening and lengthening of Berth 203 to 205 may have the

following implications:

1. The exacerbation of one hour and 10 minute seiches could result in changes in

water column mixing dynamics and consequently positively affect water quality in

the Port (however this is unlikely) and if changes occur they would likely be

insignificant (CSIR, 2010).

2. The exacerbation of one hour and 10 minute seiches could serve to destabilise or

move sediments on the sandbank areas, particularly should dredging activities

predispose the sandbanks to such a destabilisation.

3. The exacerbation of one hour and 10 minute seiches could result in changes in

water level variability of up to 20 cm greater than presently observed.

4. The loss of surface water area associated with the expansion of Berth 203 to 205

including the extension of Berth 205 by 170 m into the Central Sandbank, the

seaward expansion of Berths 203 to 205 by 50m and the eastward expansion of

Berth 203 by 100m results in approximately 52 535 m2 water loss. The percentage

loss of water surface based on an assumed estuarine area of 13.5 km2 (reported in

MER/ERM, 2011) is approximately 0.4% (CSIR, 2010). Only small changes in

currents would be expected due to the reduction in tidal prism due to the infilling

proposed for the container berth expansion. These changes are also not expected

to affect and change flushing in the upper reaches of the Bay (CSIR, 2010). The

tidal prism or the quantity of water flowing into and out of the port with each tide is

roughly proportional to the water surface area.

5. Long-term changes to water and sediment quality that could arise due to changes

in hydrodynamics will clearly have implications for the ecological functioning of the

Bay.

6. Wave patterns in the Bay could be altered by the change in layout, resulting in

possible infrastructure damage, due to the fact that Berth 203 to 205 exists

already, the probability of such wave patterns is unlikely.

7. Mooring problems due to long-wave energy could also be a possible impact,

however long wave energy is not thought to be a concern for the upgrade of



Berths 203 to 205 as the proposed project will only be upgrading existing

structures and not adding or creating new rectilinear structures which could

exacerbate long wave energy effects in the Port.

8. Possible localised scour and habitat change due to locally accelerated flows are

possible, however unlikely, as the expansion of Berths 203 to 205 is not creating

new rectilinear areas through infill, only extending the current quay wall.


In order to understand the impacts of the proposed berth extension, a Wave energy study

will be undertaken. Information from this study will be used to better understand the

impacts of the proposed project on hydrodynamic functioning.

12.7 Water and Sediment Quality

12.7.1 Status Quo

Surveys of water quality performed at 15 stations across the Port of Durban (Figure 41) in

the summer and winter of 2011 on behalf of TNPA (unpublished) and research on long-

term (23 surveys over 18 months) trends in water quality performed by the Coastal

Systems Research group of the CSIR at the same 15 stations in 2009 and 2010

(unpublished) has provided a good understanding of spatial and temporal trends in water

quality in Durban Bay (CSIR, 2011).



Figure 41: Aerial view of Durban Bay illustrating the positions where water quality was monitored in

2009, 2010 and 2011 (CSIR, 2011)

Water quality in the upper reaches of the Bay, taken as extending between the extreme

upper reach of the Silt Canal through to the exit of the Esplanade Channel, to the left of

the central sandbank (stations 1 to 8 in Figure 41) is poor and far more impaired

compared to the remaining lower area of the Port to (stations 9 to 15) (CSIR, 2011).

There is lower pH and dissolved oxygen concentrations in the upper reaches of the bay

as well as higher nutrient concentrations when compared to lower reaches of the Bay

(Figures 42 and 43). Station 10 (between Berth 203 and 205 and the Central Sandbank)

is most relevant to this discussion. Both pH and dissolved oxygen concentrations are

relatively high (Figure 42) and dissolved nutrients are relatively low (Figure 43).



Figure 42: Average (±standard deviation) pH and dissolved oxygen concentration measured in

surface and bottom waters of Durban Bay for 26 surveys performed in 2009 and 2010. Stations 1- 8

are situated in the upper reaches of the Bay, and stations 9 – 15 in the lower reaches. Stations 10

and 11 are situated within the expansion footprint (CSIR, 2011)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

pH

7.5

7.7

7.9

8.1

8.3

Station

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Dis

solv

ed o

xyge

n (

mg.

l-1)

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Surface

Bottom



Figure 43: Average (±standard deviation) concentrations of various nutrients in surface waters of

Durban Bay for 26 surveys performed in 2009 and 2010. Stations 1- 8 are situated in the upper

reaches of the Bay, and stations 9 – 15 in the lower reaches. Stations 10 and 11 are situated within

the expansion footprint (CSIR, 2011)

Station

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

PO

4 (µM)

0

2

4

6

8

10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

NH

4 (µM)

0

5

10

15

20

25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

NO

2 (µM)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

NO

x (µM)

0

15

30

45

60

75



To a certain extent, the berth channel is protected from the main anthropogenic sources

of contaminants to the Port which include the aManzimnyama, uMhlatuzana and uMbilo

Rivers (which are identified as the major anthropogenic sources of contaminants to the

Bay) and vessel repair and construction facilities (CSIR, 2011). In general, port activities

in the lower reaches of the Bay are of a ‘cleaner’ nature, including the import and export

of containers and vehicles (CSIR, 2011).

The situation is compounded by the channel-like morphology of the upper reaches of the

Bay, which serves to reduce the turnover time of water. Because of the low turnover time

and hence reduced mixing and dilution, contaminants are retained in the upper reaches

of the Bay. Many of these contaminants settle from the water column. However, other

contaminants, such as nutrients, are retained in the water column for longer in these

reaches of the Bay. This can lead to the development of microalgal blooms (CSIR, 2011).

In 2007, a microalgal bloom is widely considered the main cause of a particularly large

fish kill that occurred (CSIR, 2011). However, the magnitude and frequency of blooms in

the lower reaches is typically far lower compared to the upper reaches (CSIR, 2011).

Research performed by the Coastal Systems research group of the CSIR in 2011

(unpublished) has provided an excellent understanding of the spatial extent of organic

matter enrichment and metal contamination of sediment in Durban Bay, while surveys of

sediment quality performed in summer and winter since 2007 on behalf of Transnet

National Ports Authority (unpublished) has provided insight into broad spatial trends for

hydrocarbon contamination of sediment (CSIR, 2011).

Metal and hydrocarbon contamination of sediment from the upper reaches of the Bay is

far more pronounced than in the lower reaches (Figures 44). The most pronounced metal

and hydrocarbon contamination is in the Silt canal and the Congella Basin, with relatively

minor contamination in the lower reaches.



Figure 44: Enrichment Factor spatial trends for copper, manganese and mercury in Durban Bay in

August 2011. Also included is the spatial trend for the number of metals enriched in sediment. An

Enrichment Factor represents by how many times a measured metal concentration exceeds the

highest concentration predicted by the baseline model for that metal in granulometrically equivalent

sediment (CSIR, 2011)



Figure 45: Total petroleum hydrocarbon and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon concentrations in

sediment from Durban Bay in August 2011. Stations 10 and 11 are situated within the expansion

footprint

Sediment quality near Berth 203 to 205, is in general, good. There is very low level

mercury enrichment of sediment in the basin between Pier 1 and Pier 2. Hydrocarbon

contamination of sediment in and near the expansion footprint is either the lowest or near

the lowest for any area investigated in the Bay (Figure 45).

However, dredging may have an impact on water quality as contaminants in sediment

can exist in two forms: i) Adsorbed or otherwise bound to particulates, and ii) Dissolved in

sediment porewater (water between grains of sediment). Dredging leads to the release of

contaminants from sediment into the water column, where they can remain in their

original form (i.e. particulate‐associated or dissolved) or they can be transformed from

one form to the other. Many metals, for example, are immobilised in sediment through

their binding to sulphide and are unable to exert toxicity unless the sediment is ingested.

Sulphides, produced by sulphate reducing bacteria in sediment under anoxic conditions,

are unstable in the presence of oxygen. When exposed to well-aerated water the



sulphide is transformed to sulphate and the metal is released in its ionic, or dissolved,

form (CSIR, 2011). In this form contaminants are able to cross biological membranes and

exert toxic effects.

The fate of contaminants released from sediment is determined by conditions in the

overlying water, in particular its pH, salinity, dissolved oxygen concentration, and

suspended solids concentration (Eggleton and Thomas, 2004; Simpson et al., 2004;

Atkinson et al., 2007). Most contaminants in their dissolved form rapidly adsorb onto

suspended sediment and in this manner are scavenged from the water column (van den

Berg et al., 2001; Santana-Casiano et al., 2004). As a result, dissolved concentrations of

contaminants are usually only temporarily elevated in the immediate vicinity of dredging

operations (e.g. van den Berg et al., 2001; Versar, 2001; CSIR, 2011).

Dredging also releases nutrients present in sediment porewater into the water column. If

the released nutrient concentrations are high and various other conditions are met,

microalgal productivity can be stimulated to a degree that a microalgal bloom forms

(CSIR, 2011). This can lead to many adverse effects including low dissolved oxygen

concentrations. In addition, when microalgal blooms eventually collapse, it results in the

influx of a large amount of organic matter to sediment (CSIR, 2011).

There are numerous compounds and substances in sediment that exert an oxygen

demand, including organic material, reduced iron and sulphides. Exposure of these

compounds and substances to well-aerated water through dredging leads to an increase

in the demand for oxygen in the overlying water column (Stumm and Morgan, 1996; LFR,

2004; CSIR, 2011). The reduction of dissolved oxygen during dredging is minimal (1 - 2

mg.l-1) and transient in surface waters, but can be more severe in bottom waters

(reduction of up to 6 mg.l-1 for 4 - 8 minutes, US Navy 1990) if the load of oxygen

demanding substances in sediment is high. Since oxygen is a fundamental requirement

for the survival of most aquatic organisms, decreases in dissolved oxygen can affect

ecological processes. The severity of this impact from an ecological perspective is more

likely in situations where dissolved oxygen concentrations are already reduced (LFR,

2004; CSIR, 2011).




Some of the potential implications of the expansion of Berths 203 to 205 include:

1. Reduced tidal flushing related to a reduced tidal prism (infilling decreases the tidal

prism or the amount of water moving in and out the Port) may result in decreased

water quality. However, the reduction in tidal prism is very small and the

associated water quality should not be significantly impacted.

2. Dredging may release contaminants in sediments into the water column to the

extent that water quality is reduced and toxic effects may manifest. However, this

would be localised to the immediate vicinity of the dredging operation. It is

dependent on the amounts of contamination in the dredging area which is low.

3. Dredging may release nutrients into the sediment porewater and result in

microalgal blooms which can reduce or completely remove dissolved oxygen.

However, this is unlikely as the total organic content of the dredging footprint is low

(CSIR, 2011).

4. Dredging can aerate water and mix substances and compounds in the sediment

which exert an oxygen demand. This can lead to a reduction of dissolved oxygen

during dredging. This impact is unlikely as the water column is already well

aerated and the total organic compounds of the expansion footprint is low (CSIR,

2011).

5. As mentioned, dredging can release contaminants that are available for uptake by

organisms and this can, in certain instances, result in bioaccumulation of

contaminants in organisms. This is however, unlikely as the contamination across

the dredging footprint is low.


A Sediment and Chemical analysis of materials to be dredged will be undertaken. This

together with the numerous water quality studies conducted by the CSIR in the past, will

be used to better understand the probability and extent of the impact of the Berth 203 to

205 expansion.



12.8 Estuarine Hydrology

12.8.1 Status Quo

Mallory (2010) conducted an estuarine health and hydrology assessment. In addition, the

Durban Estuarine Management Plan Situational Analysis (MER/ERM, 2011) has provided

a detailed assessment of the state of the Durban Bay Estuary (Port of Durban) (Table

16).

Table 16: Hydrological assessment of Durban Bay Estuary

Hydrological characteristic

Quaternary catchment location U60F

Quaternary catchment area 272 km2

Natural MAR if U60F 43.25 million m3/annum

Estuary Catchment area 229 km2

Proportion of quaternary catchment flowing into

estuary

0.84

Natural MAR of Estuary 33.33 million m3/annum

Mean annual precipitation 969mm/annum

Mean annual evaporation 1200mm/annum

The results of the hydrological analysis of Durban Bay show that the hydrology of the

estuary has been altered by increased run off due to urbanisation and effluent return

flows. The present day run off is estimated to approximately 74% greater than natural

with only 36% of the flow made up of natural components.


The proposed expansion project should have only a small and localised impact on the

estuarine hydrology through increased run off from the larger expanded berths.


No specialist studies specifically related to estuarine hydrology is envisaged however, the

impacts of storm water and increased run off will be assessed in the EIA Phase.



In addition, the Environmental Management Plan (EMP) will provide mitigation measures

to decrease run off during the construction Phase of the project.

12.9 Estuarine Biota

12.9.1 Status Quo

Estuaries, especially in KwaZulu-Natal, are the most threatened of all coastal habitats.

Biota dependent on estuaries rely on connectivity amongst these systems, the habitats

within them, and their connectivity to freshwaters. The ever decreasing environmental

quality of estuaries, brought about by a multitude of anthropogenic activities, constrains

populations of estuarine dependent biota and the benefits we derive from them (CSIR,

2011).

The most obvious plants in the Bay are the mangroves followed by the smaller macro-

algae commonly known as seaweeds. However, a major contribution to the entire system

is made by micro-algae, microscopic, single celled plants, which live in the water or on

the bottom, particularly in shallower areas where there is more light penetration. Their

presence is not readily evident unless they occur in abundance in the water column,

where their presence may discolour the water and these are referred to as blooms

(MER/ERM, 2011).

Of the different micro-algal types, diatoms are often present in the greatest abundance.

The micro-algae occupy a significant position at the base of the food chain and are found

in the water column and on the sandbanks of Durban Bay as both phytoplankton

(suspended drifting plankton) and microphytobenthos (bottom dwelling microalgae). The

evaluation of the role of micro-algae is often centred on diatoms which are ubiquitous and

prolific in Durban Bay. It should also be noted that the Central Sandbank with an area of

approximately 77 ha constitutes nearly 60 % of the total sandbank area and is the area

with the greatest diversity and abundance of microphytobenthos (MER/ERM, 2011).

The greater species diversity on the central sandbanks is indicative that environmental

conditions are more favourable on these banks in contrast to the dominance of a few

species that are tolerant of the harsher and more polluted conditions in the silt canal area



(MER/ERM, 2011). The Central Sandbanks are the single largest expanse of habitat

suitable for diverse diatom growth in the harbour area. The central sandbanks are

essentially large grained sediments with a low capacity for retention of heavy metals and

other pollutants. Wide expanses of shallow pools offer a favourable micro-habitat for algal

production during low tide. The central sandbanks are also shallow at high tide and there

are only short lived turbid i.e. light reducing conditions after a major inflow of river water

into the Bay during summer (MER/ERM, 2011).

In the past, at least four types of estuarine vegetation community would have existed in

the original Bay configuration (submerged macrophytes such as seagrasses, emergent

macrophytes such as reeds and sedges, mangroves and brackish/freshwater swamp with

Barringtonia racemosa and Hibiscus tiliaceus), only one type of estuarine vegetation

community still exists in Durban Bay i.e. the mangroves.

In the late 1950s, Durban Bay still supported about 250 Ha of mangroves, despite a

history of destruction going back to the latter years of the 19th Century when there was

recorded resistance from the public to mangrove clearing in 1890. The species involved

are the predominant white Avicennia marina, black Brugueira gymnorrhiza and the much

less common red Rhizophora mucronata. The southern and western margins of the Bay,

which supported the bulk of the mangrove area, disappeared under infilling and

development, except for the Bayhead remnant, in the 50s and 60s. The Bayhead site of

Mangroves achieved Natural Heritage Status however only a small area remnant

remains.

In the past, the main vegetation type of Berth 203 to 205 would have been KwaZulu-Natal

Coastal Belt. The 2006 Conservation Status of this vegetation type is endangered and it

poorly protected (Figure 46 to 48).



Figure 46: Conservation Status of the proposed Berth 203 to 205 expansion area

Figure 47: Protected status of the proposed Berth 203 to 205 expansion area



Figure 48: Vegetation types of the proposed Berths 203 to 205 expansion site

From an invertebrate organism point of view the Durban Bay provides an exceptional

habitat on the KZN coastline - the distinctive habitat is provided by the fact that the Bay is

sheltered from the strong wave action that characterises the KZN coast. In addition, it is

tidal with extensive shallow areas and has a strong marine influence. This combination

has allowed the development of the mangroves, which in turn provide a major

invertebrate habitat, while the intertidal banks provide an additional habitat for those

species such as the soldier crab Dotilla fenestrata and the several species of fiddler crabs

belonging to the genus Uca which are dependent on consistent tidal exposure of their

habitats (MER/ERM, 2011).

Estuarine dependant fishes (and crustaceans) make use of Durban Bay. The spotted

grunter (Pomadasys commersonnii) is one of the most important of these from a fisheries

resource point of view. Within the Bay this species is a favoured target for recreational

anglers. Subsistence anglers also target the species, along with other estuarine

dependant fishes. Several of these species are heavily exploited in coastal fisheries



outside of Durban Bay, and the Bay plays presently unquantified role in sustaining these

fisheries (CSIR, 2011)

The sandprawn, Callianassa kraussi is an important component of the Bay’s invertebrate

fauna. It is thought to be the reason that spotted grunter appears to favour Durban Bay,

as these prawns comprise an important component of their diet. The role of Callianassa

as a bioturbator influencing sandbank structure and biological communities in Durban

Bay has been highlighted in recent scientific literature (Pillay et al., 2007a, b and 2008;

CSIR, 2011).

The mudprawn, Upogebia africana, also occurs in the Bay. Mudprawns are not limited to

shallow sand banks and occur in deeper (and muddier) basins and channels (Weerts,

per.obs), and are also likely to be an important food source for spotted grunter and other

fishes (CSIR, 2011; MER/ERM, 2011).

Various species of water bird make use of Durban Bay and have a high dependence on

the habitats it offers, particularly as roosting and feeding areas. Several of these species

are migratory. It is widely regarded that suitable alternative habitats either do not exist or

are generally fully utilised, so losses and/or reductions of these habitats in Durban Bay

may result in population losses (CSIR, 2011). The role of Durban Bay for water birds has

also been highlighted and investigated (Allan, 2009; CSIR, 2011). The estuarine nature of

Durban Bay and is therefore relatively well studied and accepted (CSIR, 2011).

The Central Sandbank supports 40% of all waterbirds in the Bay, mainly the Palaeartic

waders as well as the roosting gulls and terns (MER/ERM, 2011). In addition, species

such as the large bodied greenshank (Tringa totanus), grey plover (Pluvialis squatarola)

and whimbrel (Numenius phaeopus) are also common. Bayhead was the second most

selected site with species such as Charadrius hiaticula, Kittlitz’ plover, Charadruis

pecuarius, common sandpiper Actitis hypoleucos and terek sandpiper, Xerus cinereus as

well as the little stint, Calidris minuta (MER/ERM, 2011; McInnes et al., 2006). The

importance of the Central Sandbank is related to feeding opportunities as well as human



limited access. As South Africa is a signatory to the Bonn Convention, there is a

commitment to limit threats from human disturbance (MER/ERM, 2011).

The biological role of Durban Bay as an estuary has been documented in the scientific

literature (Cyrus and Forbes, 1996; Forbes et al., 1996; CSIR, 2011). This was based on

the findings of field surveys conducted in the early 1990’s, indicating recruitment of post-

larval prawns into these systems, a dominance of typically estuarine associated fauna,

and a large proportion of sampled fish fauna comprising juveniles of marine spawned

estuarine species. Factors underpinning the estuarine role of these bays in KwaZulu-

Natal and influencing biological spatial and temporal distributions within them, such as

larval and juvenile fish recruitment, faunal-habitat associations and bioturbation effects,

have subsequently been the focus of post-graduate studies (Harris and Cyrus, 1997 and

1999; Weerts and Cyrus, 2002; Weerts et al., 2003; Pillay et al., 2007a, b and 2008;

CSIR, 2011; MER/ERM, 2011).

Less well studied or appreciated is the role of these bays as refugia and habitat for

marine biota. The lower reaches of Durban Bay, especially at hard structure habitats

created by concrete piers and quay walls, are subject to water that is strongly marine in

nature and shows little variation in salinity. Flora and fauna that use these habitats are

much more typical of marine reef biota than estuarine biota. They include sessile and/or

encrusting biota, such as algae, sponges, tunicates, barnacles and mussels, as well as

more mobile invertebrates and fishes (CSIR, 2011).

The above species all have estuarine dependencies. Estuaries typically provide

ecosystem goods and services and thus habitat integrity, diversity and connectivity are

the critical features of these systems which underpin their resilience and their ability to

provide these ecosystem goods and services (CSIR, 2011).

Estuaries are highly valued components of natural coastal systems. Biologically, they are

highly productive and usually diverse. Their role as a nursery to important marine

spawned fish and crustacean species is perhaps their most well recognised value.



However, they play important roles in many basic coastal processes, including

hydrodynamics, sediment movement, and geochemical, water chemistry and biological

processes (CSIR, 2010; MER/ERM, 2011).


The proposed expansion may have potential implications on estuarine biota including:

1. Dredging will result in the physical destruction and removal of sediment habitat

and associated infauna. This loss of habitat and associated infauna is temporary

and newly exposed sediment is re-colonised however the rate of re-colonisation is

dependent on numerous factors and can affect productivity of the area.

2. Dredging can result in the removal of prey species such as the mudprawn

Upogebia africana for bottom feeding fish and will likely impact fish populations

until prey populations have recovered.

3. Expansion of Berth 205 into the Central Sandbank will result in the loss of some

intertidal habitat, which is considered the most threatened in the Port of

Durban/Durban Bay. This has implications on the estuarine species dependent on

this habitat.

4. Dredging of the Berth channel may negatively impact the Central Sandbank,

should dredging encroach close enough to the sandbank. The dredging may result

in slumping of the sandbank and thus result in a loss of habitat for estuarine biota.

5. Expansion of Berths 203 to 205 seawards by 50m will result in a loss of deep

subtidal and open water habitats which may impact ecological productivity and

assimilative capacity of the Bay.

6. Dredging will disturb sediment and the excessive settlement of suspended

sediment can result in smothering of bottom dwelling organisms and changes to

the community composition.

7. Dredging activities are likely to increase suspended solids in the water column

which can adversely affect filter feeding organisms which often have very delicate

respiratory apparatus. High concentrations of inedible suspended sediment can

also directly interfere with food intake by clogging filter-feeding structures,

potentially affecting growth and condition of these animals. In addition, dilution of



organic material by sediment particles can lead to a decrease in the net food

intake per unit of time and clearing excess sediment is energetically expensive.

8. Dredging of the expansion footprint with increase suspended solids concentrations

and turbidity on the water column. This can impact primary productivity as the

reduction of light can inhibit photosynthesis of microalgae.

9. Microalgae that live in and on sediment, the so-called microphytobenthos, are

important components of the intertidal community (Gibbs et al., 2001; CSIR, 2011).

Microphytobenthos contribute significantly to primary production in shallow waters,

and in intertidal habitats they dominate primary productivity. Since

microphytobenthos are dependent on light for photosynthesis, a decrease in light

penetration of the water column over intertidal sandbanks due to increased

suspended solids concentrations and turbidity due to with dredging may reduce

their productivity.

10. Dredging of the expansion footprint may increase suspended solid concentrations

and turbidity on pelagic organisms including swimming prawn and fish. Feeding

rates of fish which are visual predators decrease due to a decrease in visibility.

Fine sediment may also clog the respiratory epithelia while larger sediment

particles may clog the gills. Fish species have been found with an increased level

of deformities such as eroded fins, ‘coughing and lesions when there are

increased suspended solid concentrations in the water column.

11. Dredging increases the suspended solid concentration in the water column, bird

species that hunt using visual cues may be adversely affected.

12. Feeding habitat for wading birds will be lost on a portion of Central Sandbank; in

addition, if there is any collapsing of the Central Sandbank further loss of habitat

may result.

13. Noise during construction may disturb bird species.


An Estuarine/Marine Biodiversity Assessment will be undertaken in order to understand

the potential implications of the proposed expansion of Berths 203 to 205. In addition, an

Ecological Assessment of the Central Sandbank and an Assessment of the indirect



Impacts on the Little Lagoon will also be undertaken to understand the impacts on the

Central Sandbank and the Little Lagoon.

Due to comments from WESSA/Coastwatch, an Avifauna Impact Assessment will be

undertaken during the EIA phase. Further, a Turbidity Study as well as a Sediment Plume

Analysis will also be undertaken and will provide insight on the effects of dredging.

12.10 Estuarine Sensitivity and Functioning and Ecosystem Good and Services

12.10.1 Status Quo

By definition, an estuary constitutes a partly enclosed coastal body of water with one or

more rivers or streams flowing into it, and with a free connection to the open sea. These

systems form a transition zone between river and ocean environments and are subject to

both marine influences (e.g. tides, waves, and the influx of saline water) and riverine

influences (e.g. flows of fresh water and sediment). The high productivity in estuaries

stems from the inflow of both seawater and freshwater, which provide high levels of

nutrients in both the water column and sediment.

Durban Bay Estuarine Management Situational Analysis (MER/ERM, 2011) showed that

the Durban Bay Estuary is highly degraded largely due to the following issues:

Change in mouth configuration and state;

Significant loss of habitat;

Loss of rich productive habitat types such as the Zostera seagrass beds;

Significant declines in water quality;

Loss of invertebrate species associated with a loss of habitat;

Changes in species composition and abundance of fish;

Loss of bird species and overall numbers due to habitat loss; and

Increased nutrient loading in the system.

Although highly modified from its original form and state, Durban Bay remains an

estuarine embayment. Biological habitat in its broadest sense has a structural component



and an environmental component (CSIR, 2011; MER/ERM, 2011). Habitat structure in the

Bay is governed by sheltered tidal waters in deepwater basins and over shallow

sandbanks and mudflats. Environmental properties are derived from the inflows of

freshwater (predominantly via surface flow), which creates variability in water quality

parameters such as salinity, turbidity and pH. These water quality characteristics,

particularly over shallow water sand and mud substrates, and together with a remnant

stand of mangroves at Bayhead, are the most important estuarine habitats in the Bay

(CSIR, 2011).

The major causes for the ecological deterioration that occurred between 1950 and 1980

were listed by Begg (1978) as:

Loss of “marginal” vegetation (this included primarily mangroves and Zostera

eelgrass);

“Disruption” of suitable substrates as feeding grounds (referring to dredging

impacts on sand and mud substrates, and loss of these shallow water habitats).

Industrial pollution; and

Increased tidal exchange.

The impacts of loss of structural habitat (sand and mudflats, mangroves and Zostera)

were, in all likelihood, the predominant vector of ecosystem degradation between

1950 and 1980. Major port developments occurred during this period. Pollution

undoubtedly played some role, with domestic and industrial effluent disposed from an

outlet on North Pier at the port entrance until 1969. Potential impacts of this practise

were mitigated by restricting disposal to outflowing tides and major pollution events

were likely the result of spillages rather than persistent contaminant loading. An early

(1972) fish kill in the Bay was reportedly the result of discharge of acidic effluent

(Heydorn, 1972; cited in Begg, 1978; CSIR, 2011).

Together with urban development, catchment and stormwater contamination became

increasingly problematic, to the point that Begg (1978, p. 247) described the Bay as

functioning as a “giant stormwater sump for the city of Durban”. Monitoring



programmes conducted in the last decade all indicate degraded water and sediment

quality in the vicinity of river and stormwater inflows (Pillay, 2004; James et al.,

2008a,b; Deyzel et al., 2009; CSIR, 2011).

Past port and city development has therefore already affected the significant majority

of the original area of Durban Bay, through physical alteration and destruction of

habitat. Past developments have constrained more recent port development, to the

point that future port growth now relies on expansion of quays and wharfs at the

expense of open waters and the little natural intertidal and subtidal habitat that

remains (CSIR, 2011).

The urban population and city development, on the other hand, have continued to

increase, with increases in pollutant loads to the port via river and stormwater inflows.

This increasing pollution loading into a decreasing water area with reduced

assimilative capacity through loss of natural habitat has reduced the ecological

resilience of the Bay. Pollution impacts, such as fish kills experienced in 2007 (Weerts

and Pillay, 2008), are the result (CSIR, 2011).

Ecosystem services provided by Durban Bay have been the subject of consideration

in recent years, largely in response to the need to assist and guide decision-making

pertaining to various port development options. Table 17 represents a summary of the

most recent thinking on ecosystem services provided, as presented in the Draft

Situation Assessment of the Estuarine Management Plan being developed for Durban

Bay (MER/ERM, 2011). This thinking stems largely from the ecosystem goods and

services assessment conducted as part of the Transnet - eThekwini Municipality

Planning Initiative (Mander et al., 2006).

Table 17: Ecosystem goods and services provided by Durban Bay (adapted from MER/ERM, 2011).

Ecosystem goods and services or mitigation supplied by Durban Bay

Key habitats essential for delivery of goods and

services

Atmospheric management Sandbanks, water column

Climate management - cooling built up urban areas Water body, sandbanks

Climate change - species diversity and links to different All habitats



industries supported by these species as well as international obligations

Waste dilution - waste entering the port from port activities and urban/industrial runoff is diluted by water volume and tidal exchange

Water column, sandbanks (current topography promotes rapid exchange)

Waste assimilation and disease risk management – waste and bacteriological contamination entering the port from port activities and urban/industrial runoff is absorbed and degraded

Sandbanks, water column, mangroves

Flood mitigation - receiving facility / shock absorber reducing flood damage

Water body

Mitigation of environmental impacts on adjacent smaller estuaries caused by droughts/floods, artificial mouth breachings and pollution events

Intertidal sandbanks, water column

Nursery for estuarine dependent crustaceans and fish - without estuarine systems these organisms cannot complete their life cycle

All habitats, especially intertidal sandbanks, mangroves and Little Lagoon

Essential habitat for aquatic birds - a local, regional and internationally important habitat for resident and migratory birds

Sandbanks, water surface, mangroves

Genetic, species and landscape conservation - conservation of national assets

All habitats, especially intertidal sandbanks

Landscape character - creates a sense of place for local residents and users of the Bay area

Water surface, sandbanks

Food production and supply All habitats

Sport and outdoor recreational activities - swimming, canoeing, fishing, flyfishing, sailing

Waterbody, sandbanks

Leisure activities - picnic and bird watching Sandbanks, mangroves

Education activities Mangroves, Little Lagoon, sandbanks

Research and knowledge creation All habitats


Further expansion in the Port of Durban/Durban Bay may result in loss of estuarine

habitat and decrease the habitat functioning of the Durban Bay Estuary. This could result

in a loss of ecosystem goods and services.


The Estuarine/Marine Biodiversity Assessment will also provide detailed information

regarding impacts on Estuarine habitat which will be discussed in the EIA Phase. In

addition, the high level Central Sandbank study and the Ecological Assessment of the

impacts of the Central Sandbank will determine how the proposed project will impact the

Central Sandbank. An assessment of the indirect impacts on the Little Lagoon will also be



undertaken. This information will be linked to the Ecosystem Goods and Services that the

Central Sandbank, Little Lagoon and Durban Estuary as a whole, provides and discussed

in the EIA Phase.

12.11 Rivers

12.11.1 Status Quo

Figure 49: Rivers in the Regional Study Area

The uMbilo, uMhlatuzana and aManzimnyama are three rivers supplying freshwater to

the estuary (Figure 49). The catchment of all three rivers falls within the eThekwini

Municipal Bounday. The uMbilo River has a catchment of 67km2 and a length of 35km,

whilst the uMhlatuzana River has a catchment of 113km2 and a length of 50km. The

aManzimnyama River is the smallest and has a 15km2 catchment and is approximately

5.5km long (MER/ERM, 2011). All three rivers are canalised in their lower reaches and

highly transformed through most of the catchment.




The expansion of Berths 203 to 205 will not impact any rivers feeding into the Estuary.


No specialist studies are required.

12.12 Sensitive Areas: The Little Lagoon

12.12.1 Status Quo

The Little Lagoon area of Durban Bay has been demonstrated to have exceptional

biodiversity richness (MER, 2003). A Record of Decision regarding the expansion of Pier

2 (by adding 2 new berths, Berth 206 and 207), was handed down in 1999 and the

decision was deferred mainly due to the ecological sensitivity of the Little Lagoon, which

would have been lost. Transnet National Ports Authority (then Portnet) undertook a study

to understand the ecological sensitivity of the Little Lagoon.

Monitoring of typical major, physico-chemical determinants of estuarine environments

such as salinity, temperature, dissolved oxygen, turbidity and sediment type took place in

2001 and 2002. Salinities generally approximated seawater levels, turbidity was relatively

low and temperatures were within the range to be expected in a sub-tropical estuary. In

addition, Chlorophyll-a levels in the water column were low.

Thirty-four benthic invertebrate species were recorded, of which, the sandprawn

Callianassa kraussi and the inter-tidal soldier crab, Dotilla fenestrata made up the bulk of

the biomass (MER, 2003). The hypobenthos were dominated by a mysid shrimp,

Mesopodopsis africanus but densities were low. In addition, the zooplankton community

was dominated by an alien copepod. A total of 32 fish species were recorded, most of

these were juveniles that were either partially or completely dependent on the estuarine

nursery grounds. Most of these fish were feeding on Benthic Invertebrates.




The Post harbour widening survey (CSIR, 2010; EMS, 2010) showed that the port

widening project had increased sediment deposition in the Little Lagoon to a small

degree. The potential implications of the proposed expansion of Berths 203 to 205 are a

change in Bay hydrology leading to increased sedimentation of the Little Lagoon. Another

potential implication is that, as mentioned above, dredging may release contaminants into

the water column and that this impact may extend to the Little lagoon. This is highly

unlikely due to current hydrology of the Bay.

In addition, during Construction, activities such as excavation, infilling, decommissioning

of the berth 205 may result in an increase in pollution flowing into the water around the

little lagoon.


An ecological Assessment of the impacts on the Central Sandbank and an indirect

assessment of the impacts on the Little Lagoon will be used to better understand the

current state of the area together with the Marine/Estuary Impact Assessment.

12.13 Sensitive Areas: Bayhead Natural Heritage Site- Mangroves

12.13.1 Status Quo

In the late 1950s, Durban Bay still supported about 250 Ha of mangroves, despite a

history of destruction going back to the latter years of the previous century when there

was recorded resistance from the public to mangrove clearing in 1890. The mangroves

provide a habitat for a variety of march crabs, mainly of the genus, Sesarma, the large

Scylla serrata, the large mangrove whelk, Pyranzus palustris and the climbing whelk,

Cerithidea decollate. However evidence suggests that both whelk species have declined

(MER/ERM, 2011). In addition, the mangrove fringes and adjoining areas still support

various species of fiddler crabs of the genus, Uca.



Light isotope tracer studies undertaken by Newman et al., (2008) on the usage of energy

captured by the mangroves indicated that the large sesarnud marsh crab, Neosarmatium

meinerti, was the only species which derived significant proportions of its energy from

mangrove material (MER/ERM, 2011).


The Bayhead Natural Heritage site should not be affected by the proposed expansion

project as firstly, the expansion footprint does not interfere with the mangroves. However,

there may be indirect impacts related to the release of contaminants into the water

column; increased turbidity and change in hydrology. However, the likelihood of these

impacts is very low due to the low level of contaminants in the expansion footprint

(especially in comparison to the poor water quality experienced by the Bayhead area) as

well as the current hydrology of the Port, where the upper reaches of the Bay (near the

mangroves) are not flushed by the tides.


The Estuarine/Marine Biodiversity Assessment will also take into account impacts on the

mangroves.

12.14 Socio-Economic Environment

12.14.1 Status Quo

The Port of Durban can be seen as the premier gateway port in South Africa and as the

South African economy grows, so does the need for a greater capacity to cater for

growing freight volumes at the Port. In the past 10 years, the growth in containerised

traffic through the Port of Durban has been three times the national GDP growth rate. It is

currently forecast that the existing transportation infrastructure will reach its limit by 2019

and unless significant expansion takes place, South African economic growth will be

constrained.



President Jacob Zuma specifically made mention of upgrade projects within the Port of

Durban in 2012 State of the Nation Address. The national importance of the Port was

judged by 80, 764 million tonnes of cargo (30% of the total cargo handled at the eight

South African Commercial Ports). In addition, the Port of Durban handled 2,713 million

TEUs out of a total of 4,393 million TEUs (61% of the total), thus emphasising the Port of

Durban’s importance as an international commercial gateway to South Africa and its

adjoining regions.

The expansion of the port including the upgrade of Berths 203 to 205 aims to reduce the

cost of doing business, improve productivity and will create employment and generate

wealth locally, regionally and nationally. However, the Port of Durban does face

competition. Global shipping lines have indicated that there will only be one port of call (or

‘hub’) along the KwaZulu-Natal coastline. As the turnaround time at the Port lengthens,

shipping lines may choose to relocate to other ports.

From the cargo aspect, the highest growth has been in container numbers, motor

vehicles, bulk liquid chemicals and bulk petroleum products. The growth rates in these

products have been spectacular over the past decade, with a sharp escalation since

2002. In addition, container volumes are up at over 2 million TEUs per annum which

means Durban is in a world-size class, and growing at between 8 and 10 percent per

annum.

In addition, of the seven South African Ports, Durban had the most vessel arrivals during

the 2005/06 financial year (April-March). Altogether 4,551 vessels entered Durban

harbour (31,7% of the of the total arrivals of 14,335 in South Africa). Of these

approximately 90% were ocean-going and 10% were coastal, fishing and miscellaneous.

Container vessels (26.6%) were the highest number by type of vessel and constituted the

most by gross tonnage (33.7%) in the 2005/2006 financial year.

The total cargo revenue at the Port of Durban is made up predominately from

containerised cargo. In the 2009/2010 financial year, containerised cargo revenue was

2,032,913,600 (approximately, 77% of the total cargo revenue). Related to this, however,



is the growing concern by the shipping industry that the Port of Durban can accommodate

this growth in containerised cargo. Some new traffic can be handled merely by efficiency

gains however it is estimated that at the current rates of growth, container handling

demands will exceed handling capacity in the near future. The proposed upgrade aims at

increasing efficiency and safety and the Durban Container Terminal.

TNPA has also prepared the Port of Durban Development Framework in which forecasts

indicate continued strong growth in container volumes through the Port (and in line with

world trends). The objectives of this framework are:

To provide additional container handling capacity to meet future demand; and

To consolidate general cargo handling facilities and the alignment of operations

with best practices.

The upgrade of Berths 203 to 205 is set out as part of the first Phase of development of

the Port. The development framework details four proposed Phases of development

aimed at meeting the anticipated growth of container and general cargo. A 2011 Order of

Magnitude study by Urban-Econ Development Economists estimated a positive impact of

the proposed four Phases of development on new business sales, GGP, job opportunities

and income/wages.

The Port of Durban together with its associated catchments forms the core of

urbanisation and industrialisation. As such, a large portion of the 3 583 300 people living

in Durban (Statistics SA, 2007), together with associated activities supported by the port,

all may ultimately impact on the functioning of the Bay (MER/ERM, 2011). In fact a large

portion of Durban’s population lives within the catchments in which the Bay is located

(approximately 13% of Durban’s total population i.e. 465 829 people), with an additional

10% of the total population (i.e. 360 791 people) occurring within 6 kilometres of the Bay

(MER/ERM, 2011).

MER/ERM (2011) identifies a range of land use and social users within and on the border

of the primary boundary (i.e. the Bay), including:

Predominant industrial activities surrounding the port include:



Port activities in various operational terminals; and

Industrial activities undertaken by tenants including petro-chemical storage, cold

storage, manufacturing industries and liquid bulk.

A small portion of the bay is used for non-industrial purposes including:

Recreational users such as marinas and club houses;

Commercial users such as the Bat Centre and Wilson’s Wharf complex; and

Natural heritage areas such as the mangrove area near King’s Rest.

MER/ERM (2011) further identifies a range of social users and activities within the

secondary land use boundary (i.e. the immediate vicinity of the Bay and beyond)

including:

Large scale back of port industry;

CBD and associated commercial retail and state institutions;

Tourism and recreational facilities;

Open space classified areas on the Bluff, Durban Botanical Gardens and Albert

Park;

Formal and less formal settlements in the areas of Clairwood, Bluff and Glenwood;

Undeveloped land near the Bayhead rail yards;

Rail facilities and shunting yards in the Bayhead area; and

Recreational areas including Sun Coast Casino and Durban Central Beachfront.


The potential impact of the proposed expansion project is positive. The proposed

expansion includes the deepening of the berth channel, approach channel and turning

basin to allow for the use of Super Post Panamax Ships. The widened berths will also

allow for larger and more efficient Ship to Shore cranes which should increase efficiency

at the Port of Durban. These positive impacts should allow for the Port of Durban’s

continued success as a ‘hub’ port which has positive implications for both the national

economy as well as the local economy.




A number of studies have been undertaken regarding the Port of Durban by Transnet

eThekwini Municipality Ports Initiative (TEMPI) as well as the Durban Bay Estuarine

Management Plan- Situational Analysis. In addition, a Local Economic Impact

Assessment will be undertaken. The impacts of the proposed expansion will be discussed

in greater detail in the EIA Phase.

12.15 Air quality

12.15.1 Status Quo

The Ethekwini Municipality established a modern air quality monitoring network in the

South Durban Basin in December 2003 (Witi, 2005). The basin is located on the eastern

seaboard of South Africa and has a mix of heavy industrial activity and residential

settlements in close proximity. Air quality monitoring takes place at the following stations

and aims to measure two main sources of air pollution: industrial and traffic pollution.

1. Ganges Monitoring Station – Merebank

2. King Edward Monitoring Station – Congella

3. City Hall Monitoring Station – City Centre

4. Settlers Monitoring Station – Merebank

5. Wentwork Monitoring Station – Wentworth

6. Ferndale Monitoring Station – North of Durban

The pollutants measured include sulphur dioxide, total reduced sulphur, oxides of

nitrogen, particulate matter (PM10), ozone and carbon monoxide and the network

incorporates the latest technology in continuous air quality monitoring (Witi, 2005).

Table 18: A summary table of PM10 estimates for Ethekwini (Witi, 2005)

Station Annual Average

(μg/m3)

24-Hour MAX.

(μg/m3)

24-Hour

Exceedances



Wentworth 39.1 143.1 27

Ganges 46.4 179.3 36

City Hall 38.1 159.7 21

King Edward 37.6 162.2 21

Ferndale 39.7 145.9 18

Settlers school 40.0 NA NA


Dust will be generated during the construction period from various sources. In addition,

the expanded Berth 203 to 205 will increase the efficiency of the Port of Durban, so more

containers should be handled in a period of time which is likely to increase traffic and the

emissions from traffic. However, no specific Air Quality Assessment is necessary for this

study.


No specialist studies are currently envisaged. However the EMP will make special

recommendations regarding dust control.

12.16 Noise

12.16.1 Status Quo

The Port of Durban is the industrial hub of the city and noise levels are relatively high due

to the Port activities taking place.


During construction, localised increases in noise will be caused by construction activities.

Leaseholders and tenants in the Port of Durban may find the additional noise a nuisance

during the construction period. In addition, berths at the Point will be used during the

upgrade process which may increase the noise impacts on flats and offices in the area.




Noise that emanates from construction activities will be addressed through targeted best

practices for noise management in the EMP. The EIA will further pay special attention to

the management of noise from the berths at Point to ensure that regulated standards are

abided by.

12.17 Maritime Archaeology and Culture features

12.17.1 Status Quo

Underwater Heritage:

According to the Shipwreck database compiled from Levine (1986) and Turner (1988)

(CSIR, 2011), 139 ships have been wrecked in or near Durban Harbour since 1685. Of

these, 38 were salvaged or removed, either at the time of the event or years later, as in

the case of the Karin. Of the 101 remaining wrecks, 12 were scuttled in the deep water

either off the Bluff or about 5km away from Durban; 28 were wrecked in or near the

entrance to the harbour and the remaining 61 were wrecked on the Durban Beach areas

or the Outer Anchorage. Figure 49 below depicts 4 Shipwreck Zones which occur within

an around the Durban Harbour.



Figure 50: Durban Harbour showing Shipwreck Database Zones (From CSIR, 2011).

The below wrecks were either reported as wrecking in the harbour or their whereabouts

are not recorded in the standard databases.

Table 19: Wrecks near the Durban Harbour (from CSIR, 2011)

Name Status Origin Date Comment

Burnham Aground –

Wrecked

Britain 29 May 1840 Harbour? The vessels cable

parted at the port, during a north-

west gale and went aground. Part

of cargo was saved and no lives

were lost.

Elizabeth Anne Wrecked October

1863

Fleur de

Maurice

Aground Britain April 1894

Kayle

M. Smith Abandoned – Norway 23 March Durban as a hulk. After the



Peterson Towed –

Converted to

hulk

1903 vessel was disabled in a gale, the

crew were rescued by the fishing

steamer, Hansa and brought to

Durban. The barque was

abandoned near Port Shepstone

and towed to Durban by the tug

Ingane. She was converted into a

hulk.

Northwester /

North-Wester

Wrecked? 31 May

1939/1839

No lives lost.

Stone Age Sites:

There is a low possibility that artefacts may be recovered during the dredging process

(CSIR, 2011).


The project could impact on heritage resources as follows:

Destruction or damage of heritage resources through construction activities; and

Inundation of heritage resources.


A Maritime Archaeology Study will be undertaken to better understand the impact of the

proposed expansion of maritime archaeology.

12.18 Infrastructure

12.18.1 Status Quo

Existing infrastructure on Berths 203 to 205 include a Ro-Ro Ramp, Electrical Substation,

Storm water drain system, site offices and lights (see pictures below). The current cranes

will be replaced with Ship to Shore.



Figure 51: Infrastructure on site

In addition, there is a straddle crane storage area which will be decommissioned. This

area has been contaminated by hazardous material such as diesel and hydraulic fluid

however it occurs on layers on concrete. A third party contractor will be hired to remove

the contaminated concrete and to dispose of it at a licensed disposal facility.




Existing infrastructure on Berth 203 to 205 will be decommissioned and removed before

construction of the new quay wall begins. All other services will be abandoned although it

may be possible to salvage and recycle some infrastructure such as sole plates. New

services infrastructure will be necessary. In addition, the new Ship to Shore cranes could

be potentially impacted during construction activities.


Mitigation measures to be identified during the EIA Phase to safeguard existing

infrastructure. In addition, the EMP will provide specific measures to ensure the Straddle

Crane storage area is dealt with correctly.

12.19 Services: Storm Water

12.19.1 Status Quo

The new storm water system will be integrated with the current existing storm water

system during the expansion process.


There should be no implications for storm water.


Feasibility assessments for the proposed expansion (PRDW, 2011) have taken into

account the construction of a new storm water pipe. No additional studies are necessary.

12.20 Services: Electricity



12.20.1 Status Quo

Electrical services to the site already exist, however the relatively new Substation will be

decommissioned and removed and a new substation will be constructed once the new

quay walls have been built.


There should be no implications for Electrical Services.


As the site already has access to electricity services, no additional studies are required.

12.21 Transportation Network

12.21.1 Status Quo

Currently, the transportation network around the Port of Durban is congested. The

Transnet eThekwini Municipality Port Initiative (TEMPI) undertook a traffic assessment. In

addition, Transnet and eThekwini Municipality have a Traffic Management Plan which

both parties have agreed to. The increase of traffic for the upgrade of Berths 203 to 205

is thought to be minimal and will not increase traffic numbers above the agreed upon

limits set out in the Traffic Management Plan with eThekwini Municipality.


The increase in traffic for the deepening, lengthening, and widening of Berth 203 to 205 is

thought to be minimal as the project is mainly focused on the safety of the current Berths.

Increased efficiency at Berth 203 to 205 however may increase traffic loads in the area.




A desktop analysis of the TEMPI traffic study will be undertaken and more details

provided in the EIA Phase. However it’s important to note that the traffic will not increase

above agreed upon levels with the eThekwini Municipality.

12.22 Tourism

12.22.1 Status Quo

The main tourist areas in and around the Port of Durban include the Marinas, the

beaches and uShaka Marine World.


The proposed project does not plan to change the land use of the Port and impacts on

tourism are related to indirect effects such as increased water turbidity due to sand

winning.


A Sediment Plume Analysis from the Sand winning site will be conducted to ensure that it

does not impact on uShaka Marine World or recreational users within the Port. The

Marine/Estuarine Biodiversity Assessment will also determine the impacts of the

proposed project on fauna. This will be used to assess the indirect impacts. In addition, a

Turbidity study and a shoreline impact study will be undertaken.

12.23 Offshore Dredge Disposal

12.23.1 Status Quo

Approximately 4 million cubic metres of dredge material will need to be disposed at an

offshore disposal site. The Port of Durban currently has an offshore disposal permit for

maintenance dredging and the site has been used for previous capital projects. An

application for a Dumping at sea permit can only be made once a positive Environmental



Authorisation has been received. However, the impacts of both dredging and dredge

disposal need to be determined during the EIA Phase.

The current site is dispersive and has been used for both maintenance dredge disposal

as well as dredge disposal for capital projects. The sediment at the site is thus already

mixed. In addition, Water and Sediment Quality studies suggest that the contamination

around Berth 203 to 205 is relatively low. Thus the impact on the offshore disposal site is

likely to be less significant.

In addition, if a Dumping at Sea permit was

received, a grid would be superimposed

over the location of the current disposal

site. Dredge material would be moved to

the site in a TSHD and each disposal

would occur over a separate cell of the

disposal site in order to ensure an equal

distribution.


1. Changes to the bathymetry of the seabed associated with spoil disposal can lead

to changes in wave direction (through refraction) and in turn to changes in

longshore transport of sediment and consequently shoreline erosion and/or

accretion. However, dredge disposal for the Channel Widening and Deepening

project took place at the current dredge disposal site and no impacts on the

shoreline were noted;

2. Offshore disposal of dredge material will result in smothering of bottom dwelling

organisms at the Offshore disposal site. If the sediment type is different to that

found at the disposal site, a change in community composition may also be

expected;

3. During disposal of dredge material, contaminants may be released into the water

column. This can have negative impacts on biota; and



4. Disposal of dredge material at the offshore disposal site will increase turbidity and

amount of suspended solids which will impact biota at the offshore disposal site.


In order to obtain a Dumping at Sea Permit, as per the National Environmental

Management: Integrated Coastal Management Act, 2008, the sediment type, quality, size

and chemical composition of the dredge material needs to be determined. This is to

ensure that the quantity of metals, hydrocarbons etc. are not above dangerous levels. A

Sediment and Chemical Analysis of Dredge Material will take place as a specialist study

in the EIA Phase. In addition, a Turbidity study will be undertaken as well as Bathymetric

survey of the offshore disposal site. The Wave Energy analysis will also include the

changes in bathymetry at the offshore disposal site. n

12.24 Offshore Sand Winning

12.24.1 Status Quo

Two potential sites which were investigated during 2001 (Centre for Geosciences, 2011)

will be investigated to assess the sediment type etc.


1. Offshore sand winning for infill material will result in the physical destruction and

removal of sediment habitat and associated infauna at the offshore borrow area;

2. Changes to the bathymetry of the seabed associated with sand winning can lead

to changes in wave direction (through refraction) and in turn to changes in

longshore transport of sediment and consequently shoreline erosion and/or

accretion;

3. Increased turbidity due to dredging at the sand winning site may impact beach

users;

4. Increased turbidity due to dredging at the sand winning site may impact visual

predators; and



5. Dredging at the sand winning site may release contaminants or nutrients into the

water column however this is unlikely as the sites, although impacted have not

been used for dredge disposal.


A sediment plume modelling analysis as well as Turbidity Study will take place to ensure

that increased turbidity does not impact recreational users, fishermen etc. In addition, a

Shoreline Stability Assessment will be undertaken to ensure that sand winning does not

undermine the beaches in the area. The Wave Energy Study will also include the sand

winning area.



13. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

The purpose of public participation process for the proposed Deepening, Lengthening

and Widening of Berth 203 to 205 includes:

1. Providing I&APs with an opportunity to obtain information about the project;

2. Allowing I&APs to express their views, issues and concerns with regard to the project;

3. Granting I&APs an opportunity to recommend measures to avoid or reduce adverse

impacts and enhance positive impacts associated with the project; and

4. Enabling Transnet and the project team to incorporate the needs, concerns and

recommendations of I&APs into the project, where feasible.

The public participation process that was followed for the proposed project is governed by

NEMA and Government Notice No. R. 543. Figure 52 outlines the public participation

process for the Scoping (current) and EIA Phases (pending).

Figure 52: Outline of Public Participation Process



13.1 Authorities Consultation

Note that authorities are regarded as government departments with jurisdiction pertaining

to the activities associated with the proposed Deepening, Lengthening and Widening of

Berths 203 to 205 or the receiving environment.

13.1.1 Pre-Application Consultation Discussions

Informal Pre-Application Consultation Discussions took place telephonically with the

Department of Environmental Affairs: Directorate – Oceans and Coasts. The purpose of

this discussion was to determine the needs of the Department in regards to offshore

disposal of dredge material.

13.1.2 Environmental Authorities Meeting

An Environmental Authorities Meeting was held on 29 February 2012 at the Queen

Elizabeth Boardroom, Queens Warehouse, Durban (Transnet Offices). The meeting was

attended by representatives from the following authorities:

Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA): Oceans and Coasts Directorate;

KwaZulu-Natal Department of Agriculture, Environmental Affairs and Rural

Development (KZN DAEARD);

South African Heritage Resources Agency - Maritime Archaeology Unit (SAHRA);

eThekwini Municipality; and

KwaZulu-Natal Department of Economic Development and Tourism (KZN DEDT).

The minutes of the Environmental Authorities Meeting are contained in Appendix E.

13.2 Database of I&APs

A database of I&APs, which includes authorities, different spheres of government

(national, provincial and local), parastatals, stakeholders, landowners, interest groups

and members of the general public, was prepared for the project and is contained in



Appendix F. The project made use of the Durban Bay Estuarine Management Plan

Database of I&APs due to the fact that proposed project takes place within the Durban

Bay Estuary.

13.3 Landowner Notification

The landowner for the proposed Deepening, Lengthening and Widening of Berth 203 to

205 is Transnet. The Port Manager of the Port of Durban, Ricky Bhikraj was officially

notified. (The Acknowledgement of Receipt of the Landowner Notification is contained in

Appendix G). The letter and Acknowledgement of Receipt accompanied the submission

of the Application form to the DEA on 10 February 2012.

13.4 Focus Group Meetings

A focus group meeting was held on the 22 February 2012 at the Seafarers Club, 1

Seafarers Road, Bayhead. The purpose of this meeting was to determine the concerns

regarding the proposed project. The Minutes of the Focus Group Meeting is Contained in

Appendix H).

Concerns centred around the socio-economic impacts on the local community and

seafarers. One of the main concerns was that larger ships require a smaller crew and that

the expansion project would result in fewer jobs for the seafaring community. There were

also concerns that this would then have a knock on effect on the community as a whole.

However, the attendees felt that if the project would have positive socio-economic

impacts then it would be a welcomed even if there were negative environmental impacts.

Another concern was related to the logistics planning of the project and how this would

impact tenants and businesses in the Port.

There was some concern regarding the Central Sandbank, impact on the birds and on

the mangroves. In addition, it is important to note that the general public must feel

comfortable to report issues related to TNPA business. This may be difficult as TNPA is

the landowner in most cases and a major force in the local economy.



From the conclusions presented above, the following recommendations have been made

and are included in the Draft Scoping Report:

1. A Local Economic Impact Assessment to determine the positive and negative

impacts (if any) of the proposed project on the community (including businesses,

tenants and seafarers) has been included in the Plan of Study for the EIA;

2. The importance of a Traffic Management Plan has been highlighted and Traffic

Management will be specifically dealt with in the EIA;

3. In order to provide a comfortable commenting environment, I&APs will be able to

comment anonymously at the Public Open Day through anonymous Reply forms;

and

4. A detailed logistics plan related to management of the berths (i.e. container

migration plan) must be provided during the EIA phase so that I&APs know how

the logistics management of the proposed project will impact them.

In addition, a small survey was undertaken, whereby a questionnaire was administered to

determine main concerns regarding the proposed project.

Figure 53: Areas where questionnaires were administered.

Respondents were surveyed in five different areas surrounding the Port of Durban

(Figure 52). The results (Appendix I) show that in general, the project is well known in



the community. Of the 19 people interviewed, seven people were most concerned about

traffic related issues (Figure 53). Four people had social concerns (mostly related to job

creation and employment) while three had environmental concerns. In addition, nearly all

expected positive impacts related to the project related to economic issues such as

employment (Figure 54).

Recommendations drawn from the survey process include the following:

The inclusion of a Local Economic Impact Assessment to determine the positive

and negative impacts of the proposed project on the local community; and

The inclusion of a Traffic Management Plan in the EIA report.

Figure 54: Main Concerns regarding the proposed project.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

What are your mainconcerns?



Figure 55: The main expected positive impacts regarding the proposed project.

13.5 One of One Meetings with Key Stakeholders

In order to further facilitate public participation for the proposed project, one on one key

stakeholder meetings were held with Wildlife and Environmental Society of South Africa

(WESSA). During one of two site visits held during the public review period, discussions

with the South Durban Community Environmental Alliance (SDCEA) took place.

A meeting with Ushaka Marine World will be organised during the EIA phase.

The minutes for the meeting are contained in Appendix J.

13.6 Project Announcement and Notification of Scoping Report Review

The project announcement and notification of review of the Draft Scoping Report was

undertaken as a combined exercise through the various media and mechanisms

employed to inform the I&APs.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

What positivethings could thisproject bring?



13.6.1 Background Information Document

Background Information Documents (BIDs) and Reply Forms (refer to Appendix K) were

prepared and forwarded to the I&APs contained in the database. In addition, although the

project occurs within the Port of Durban, all properties, landowners, tenants etc. within

100m of the Port of Durban were notified through the distribution of BIDs.

The BID provided the following information:

Project background and description;

EIA process; and

Details of the review process for the Draft Scoping Report and the public meeting.

The BID included a Reply Form, which granted the opportunity to register as an I&AP and

to raise queries or concerns regarding the project.

13.6.2 Onsite notices

Onsite notices, which also served as notification of the project and provided the details of

the review of the Draft Scoping Report and the public meeting, will be placed at strategic

points, which include the following points:

Bayhead;

Point;

Maydon Wharf;

Victoria Embankment;

The Bluff;

Umbilo; and

Congela



Figure 56: Locations of onsite notices

Proof of these notices is contained in Appendix L.

13.6.3 Newspaper Advertisements

In addition, an advertisement was placed in the Mercury and the Isolezwe on 9 March

2012. Copies of the advert are contained in Appendix M.

13.6.4 Public Open Day

The following public open day has been scheduled:

Date: 12 April 2012

Time: 10h00 – 17h00

Venue: Seafarers Club



The purpose of the meeting was to introduce the project and to share information, to

present the EIA process and an overview of the Draft Scoping Report, and to provide a

platform for project-related discussions. The minutes of the public open day together with

the informative presentation used are included in Appendix Q.

13.6.5 Site Visits for I&APs

Three site visits were organised during the public review period for I&APs that requested

an opportunity to the view the site. The details of these site visits are contained below:

Date Time Attendance

24 April 2012

(Low Tide)

09h00 Patrick Bond – UKZN Centre for Civil Society

Robert Kirby - Private

Santosh Banchoo- Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife

J. Surgu - Private

24 April 2012

(High Tide)

13h00 Desmond D’Sa – South Durban Community Environmental

Alliance (SDCEA) and four representatives of KZN

Subsistence Fisherman Forum and the SDCEA

26 April 2012

(Low Tide)

12h00 Representatives of the KZN Subsistence Fisherman Forum

13.7 Review Process for Draft Scoping Report

13.7.1 Accessing the Draft Scoping Report

In accordance with Regulation 56 of G.N. No. R. 543 of 18 June 2010, registered I&APs

were granted an opportunity to review and comment on the Draft Scoping Report by

placing copies of the document at the locations provided in Table 20. A 50-day review

period (from 09 March 2012 – 30 April 2012) has been provided.



Table 20: Locations for review of Draft Scoping Report

No. Location Address Tel. No.

1. The Seafarers Club 1 Seafarers Road, Bayhead, Durban 031 466 1326

2. Central Reference Library - Durban

10th Floor, Liberty Towers, 214 Dr Pixley KaSeme Street, Durban

031 322 4414

Copies of the document were also provided to the following key regulatory and

commentary authorities:

DEA (Environment Impact Evaluation);

DEA (Oceans and Coasts);

KZN DAEARD – Environmental Services

KZN DAEARD – Coastal and Biodiversity Management

Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife;

DWA KZN Regional Office;

DMR KZN Office;

SAHRA – Maritime Archaeology;

KZN Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF);

KZN Department of Transport; and

eThekwini Municipality.

A copy of the draft Scoping Report was also provided to WESSA/Coastwatch and the

South Durban Community Environmental Alliance. Proof of delivery to the

aforementioned authorities in also contained in Appendix N.

13.7.2 Project Website

Due to the public interest in this proposed project, a copy of the Draft Scoping report was

made available on the following website (www.berth203toberth205expansioneia.co.za ).

The website will be updated throughout the Scoping and EIA process to allow for a

comprehensive public participation process. Furthermore, during the public review

http://www.berth203toberth205expansioneia.co.za/



period, numerous documents were requested by I&APs. All requested information which

has been provided to date is provided in Appendix R.

13.7.3 Commenting on the Draft Scoping Report

A comment form was provided in Appendix O of the Draft Scoping report. A copy of this

comment form which was also available at the Public Open Day and in the Background

Information Documents (BIDs).

Comments received from I&APs from the review of the Draft Scoping Report between the

09 March 2012 and 30 April 2012 are contained in the Comments and Response Report

in Appendix P. A number of comments were received between the 31 April 2012 and the

05 May 2012 but were still included in the Comments and Response Report however any

comments received after the 05 May 2012 will be included in the EIA phase.

13.7.4 2nd Period of Public Review

Due to the substantive nature of the comments, the Final Scoping report with the

Comments and Response Report were made available for a second period of public

review between 25 May 2012 and 01 June 2012. Copies of the report will be available at

the Seafarers Club and the Central Library (Table 20 above). In addition, the amended

Scoping report will be available on the project website

(www.berth203to205expansioneia.co.za) for download and review.

13.8 Issues raised by I&APs

The finalised Comments and Response Report, which summarises the salient issues

raised by I&APs and the project team’s response to these matters is included in Appendix

P. The issues listed in the final Comments and Response Report were identified from

minutes of meetings, questionnaires, completed Reply Forms and other correspondence

received.

As mentioned, the Scoping Phase serves to identify and prioritise issues for further

assessment during the EIA Phase. Accordingly, the comments received from I&APs




during public participation as part of Scoping will be afforded due consideration and

further investigation during the pending EIA stage. The comments received can be

divided into the following categories.

o 1999 RoD o Alignment with Transnet

Development Plans

o Water Use o Durban Bay draft Environmental

Management Plan

o Services o Alternatives

o Impacts on Central Sandbank o Environmental Process

o Impacts on Little Lagoon o Mitigation Measures and Offsets

o Impacts on the Durban Bay

Estuary

o Specialist Studies

o Impact on the Bayhead

Mangroves

o Socio-Economic Impacts

o Requests for Information o Traffic and Road Maintenance

o Offshore Borrow areas o Waste Management

o Concerns regarding modelling of

impacts

o General

o Dredging and Offshore dredge

disposal

o Climate Change

Main concerns centred around the impacts on the Central Sandbank and Durban Bay

estuary as a whole. Specific concerns included the impact on wading bird species;

fisheries and the socio-economic impact on subsistence fisherman who rely on the

Central Sandbank nursery.

Furthermore, there were concerns regarding the validity of the proposed expansion due

to the Record of Decision (RoD) handed down by the Department of Environmental

Affairs and Tourism (DEAT) in 1999. There were also concerns that increased efficiency

would result in heavier traffic in the area.



A number of I&APs felt that the expansion was necessary to maintain the ‘hub’ status of

the Port of Durban.

14. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

In accordance with the purpose of the Scoping exercise as part of the overall

environmental assessment, this section aims to identify potentially significant

environmental issues for further consideration and prioritisation during the EIA stage. This

allows for a more efficient and focused impact assessment in the ensuing EIA Phase,

where the analysis is largely limited to significant issues and reasonable alternatives.

14.1 Approach

14.1.1 Predicting Significant Environmental Issues

The potential environmental issues associated with the proposed Deepening,

Lengthening and Widening of Berths 203 to 205, were identified during the Scoping

Phase through an appraisal of the following:

The risks identified during the Environmental Screening Investigation, undertaken by

CSIR (2011) (see Section 14.2 and Section 12);

Project-related components and infrastructure (see Section 10.1);


operation and decommissioning) (see Section 10.3);

Proposed alternatives (see Section 11);


features and attributes (see Section 12), which included a desktop evaluation (via

literature review, GIS, topographical maps and aerial photography) and site

investigations;

Input received during public participation from I&APs (see Section 14.3); and

Legal and policy context (see Section 4).



The two main categories of environmental impacts of the proposed project are those

which are inherent to construction (including dredging, offshore disposal, offshore sand

winning, upgrading of the new quay wall and extension of the berths) and those which are

related to the operation new upgraded and extended Berths 203 to 205. Apart from

explaining the receiving environment, Section 12 discusses possible impacts during

primarily the construction and operational Phases of the project. The significant

environmental issues were distilled from the aforementioned section and are summarised

in Section 14.4. Cumulative impacts are briefly explained in Section 14.5.

14.1.2 Mitigation of Impacts

During the EIA stage a detailed assessment will be conducted to evaluate all potential

impacts (paying particular attention to the significant issues listed in the Scoping Report),

with input from the project team and requisite specialist studies and through the

application of the impact assessment methodology contained in Section 15.

Suitable mitigation measures will be identified to manage the environmental impacts

according to the following hierarchy:

1. Initial efforts should strive to prevent the occurrence of the impact;

2. It this is not possible, mitigation should include measures that reduce or minimise the

significance of the impact to an acceptable level;

3. Remediation and rehabilitation should take place if measures cannot suitably

prevent or reduce the impacts, or to address the residual impacts; and

4. As a last measure, compensation should be employed as a form of mitigating the

impacts associated with a project.

The mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Environmental Management

Programme (EMP), which will form part of the EIA Report. This deliverable, together with

the Environmental Authorisation, can act as a standalone document that can be used to

inter alia monitor against compliance of the project with its pre-determined objectives,

targets and management actions.



14.2 Environmental Screening Investigation

The CSIR was appointed by Transnet in 2011 to undertake an Environmental Screening

for three Phases of potential upgrades at the Port of Durban. The first of these Phases

involves the deepening, lengthening and widening of Berths 203 to 205. The study

identified potential environmental (biophysical, socio-economic and enviro-legal) issues.

Information contained in the Environmental Screening report by the CSIR (2011) has

been used together with other information to determine the environmental impacts of the

proposed projects.

The screening assessment was undertaken using a risk matrix system (Figure 56), where

the possible risks associated with each environmental issue were rated according to risk

level, likelihood and significance.

Figure 57: Comparative risk assessment method (adapted from Standards Australia and Standards

New Zealand, 2004) (CSIR, 2011).

Table 21 presents a summary of the risk assessment conducted by CSIR (2011). Main

issues include impacts of dredging and expansion into the Central Sandbank.

*P



Table 21: Risk Assessment for the Deepening, Lengthening and Widening of Berth 203 to 205 from the CSIR Environmental Screening (2011)

Source of Risk

Risk Identified Extent Duration Probability Status Degree of

Confidence

Significance

Without Mitigation

With Mitigation

Impacts associated with dredging and quay expansion in Durban Bay

Reduced tidal flushing associated with a reduction in the tidal prism Local Permanent Definite -ve High Low Low

Potential destabilisation of sand bank areas due to the potential exacerbation of one hour and/or 10 minute oscillations by changes in port layout

Local Permanent Probable -ve Low Medium Low

Potential effects on Yacht Basin due to the potential exacerbation of one hour and/or 10 minute oscillations by changes in port layout

Local Permanent Probable -ve Low Low Low

Changes in mixing dynamics and flushing in the port associated with the potential exacerbation of one hour and/or 10 minute oscillations by changes in port layout

Local Permanent Unlikely +ve High Low Low

Wave patterns in the Bay could be altered by the change in layout, particularly the Phase 2 development, resulting in infrastructure damage

Local Permanent Unlikely -ve Medium Low Low

Mooring problems due to long-wave energy Local Permanent Unlikely -ve Medium Medium Low

Possible localised scour and habitat change due to locally accelerated flows

Local Permanent Probable -ve Medium Low Low

Ecological effects due to the release of contaminants in sediment into the water column to the extent that toxic effects manifest

Local During

Construction Unlikely -ve High Low Low

Ecological effects due to the release of nutrients in sediment porewater to the extent that microalgae are stimulated to bloom status

Local During

Construction Unlikely -ve High Medium Medium

Ecological effects due to the reduction in dissolved oxygen concentrations Local During

Construction Probable -ve High Low Low

Ecological and human health risks due to the bioaccumulation and biomagnification of contaminants released from sediment

Local During and

Post Construction

Unlikely -ve High Low Low



Source of Risk


Confidence

Significance

Without Mitigation

With Mitigation

Ecological effects due to the temporary loss of sediment habitat and associated infauna in dredging footprint

Local During and

Post Construction

Definite -ve High Medium Medium

Ecological effects due to the permanent loss of intertidal and shallow subtidal habitats – Phase

Local and Regional

Permanent Definite -ve High High High

Ecological effects due to the permanent loss of intertidal and shallow subtidal habitats due to sandbank slumping and movement

Local and Regional

Permanent Definite -ve High High High

Ecological effects due to the permanent loss of deep subtidal and open water habitats

Local Permanent Definite -ve High Medium Low

Ecological effects due to the smothering of subtidal bottom-dwelling organisms due to the settlement of suspended sediment outside the dredging footprint

Local During

Construction Definite -ve High Low Low

Ecological effects of increased suspended solids concentrations on filter feeding organisms

Local During


Ecological effects of increased suspended solids concentrations and turbidity on water column primary productivity

Local During

Construction Definite -ve Medium Low Low

Ecological effects of increased suspended solids concentrations and turbidity on microphytobenthos

Local During

Construction Probable -ve Medium High High

Ecological effects of increased suspended solids concentrations and turbidity on pelagic organisms

Local During

Construction Definite Neutral High Medium Medium

Ecological effects of increased suspended solids concentrations and turbidity on piscivorous birds

Local / Regional /

Inter- national

During Construction

Probable -ve Medium Medium Low

Aesthetic effects of increased suspended solids concentrations and turbidity

Local During




Source of Risk


Confidence

Significance

Without Mitigation

With Mitigation

Impacts associated with disposal of dredged material in offshore waters

Ecological effects due to the release of contaminants, nutrients and organic matter during spoil disposal

Local During


Ecological effects due to increased suspended solids concentrations and turbidity during spoil disposal

Local During


Ecological effects due to the disturbance of bottom-dwelling organisms at the spoil disposal ground – exposure to contaminants in spoil

Local During


Ecological effects due to the disturbance of bottom-dwelling organisms at the spoil disposal ground – physical effects

Local During and

Post Construction

Definite -ve High Low Low

Shoreline effects due to the alteration of wave patterns Local During and

Post Construction

Unlikely -ve Low Low Low



14.3 Impacts identified by I&APs

The issues raised by I&APs during Scoping, as contained in the Comments and

Response Report (Appendix P), have been grouped into the following main categories

(also reflected in summarized list in Section 13.8):

1999 RoD -

o Implications of the 1999 RoD;

o Loss of amount of Surface water prevented by 1999 RoD; and

o Habitat recreation has not been undertaken by TNPA (as required by 1999 RoD).

Water Use -

o The need for an Integrated Water Use License Application (IWULA) must be re-

assessed; and

o A storm water management plan for construction and operation is required in the

EIA phase.

Services -

o The presence of any electrical services must be determined; and

o The relocation of any electrical services must be at the expense of the applicant.

Impacts on Central Sandbank -

o Impacts of berthing larger ships on the Central Sandbanks;

o Details of the exact physical and ecological footprint of the expansion into the

Central Sandbank is required;

o Impacts on fish spawning on Central Sandbanks and related impacts on fisheries;

o Negative impacts should be mitigated with offsets;

o Impacts on slope stability and possibility of collapse;

o Impact of additional wave action from larger ships on the Central Sandbank;

o Impact of removal and loss of habitat;

o Impact of changes in tidal prism and erosional impacts on the Central Sandbanks;

and

o Impacts on wading birds.

Impacts on Little Lagoon -

o Impacts on the Little Lagoon should be mitigated.



Impacts on Durban Bay Estuary-

o Alignment with Durban Bay Estuarine Management Plan

o Impacts on Durban Bay’s ability to provide goods and services;

o Importance of Durban Bay for wading birds;

o Impact of knock on and cumulative effects not limited to the project footprint;

o Increased pollution to Durban Bay;

o Impacts on Durban Bay may have regional consequences.

o Further development may result in ecological collapse of Durban Bay and

compromise the long term functioning of the system.

o Direct loss of intertidal sandbank;

o Further loss of the intertidal sandbank as a result of erosion due to larger vessels

moving through the area;

o Infilling and subsequent loss of water areas;

o Loss of subtidal areas as a consequence of dredging.

o Impacts on the largest population of the Sandprawn Callianassa kraussi which

occurs within Durban Bay.

o Impacts on benthic invertebrates within Durban Bay.

o Impact of infilling on the carrying capacity of the Durban Bay ecosystem.

o Increase in depth and redistribution of sediment due to dredging;

Impacts on the Bayhead Natural Heritage Site- Mangroves –

o Indirect impacts on Mangroves.

Requests for information

o Requests for various documents

Offshore Borrow Areas -

o Impacts to biodiversity at offshore borrow areas;

o Impacts of offshore sand winning on shoreline;

Concern Regarding Modelling of Impacts -

o Modelled results must be treated with caution.

Dredging and Offshore Dredge Disposal -

o Impacts of contaminated spoil material on dredge disposal site;

o Impacts of dredging on marine life;



o Use of dredge material for infilling to be considered as an alternative to offshore

sand winning;

o Impacts of suspended solids in the water;

o Impacts of dredging on visual predators which rely on clear water; and

o Possible re-suspension of trace metals and contaminants during dredging.

Alignment with Transnet Development Plans-

o The alignment of the proposed development must be discussed in light of the

broader context of Transnet plans;

o Alignment of the proposed development with the proposed dig out port.

o Placing power line underground;

o Building of new sub-station;

o Alignment of route alongside existing transmission lines and roads;

o Suggestions of possible deviations;

o Upgrading existing power lines.

Draft Durban Bay Estuarine Management Plan -

o Alignment of the proposed expansion with the Durban Bay Estuarine Management

Plan;

o Proposed development contradicts Durban Bay Estuarine Management Plan;

Alternatives -

o No site alternatives have been assessed;

o Implications of Sheet Pile Option in terms of corrosion, maintenance and load

weights to be included in EIA report.

o Alternative of storing dredge material for use in the infill of Berth 203 to 205 to be

considered;

o Site alternatives within the Port should be assessed;

o Alternative of rehabilitating the quay wall without expansion should be considered.

Environmental process -

o Dumping at Sea Process;

o Need for Activity 13, 27 and 56 of GN. R 544 of 18 June 2010 and Activity 10 of

GN.R. 546 of 18 June 2010 to be re-assessed;

o Independence of Environmental Assessment Practitioner;

o Notice of Scoping phase;



o Public Participation Process;

o Site Visit for I&APs; and

o Decision making authority

Mitigation Measures and Offsets -

o Offsets for impacts on Little Lagoon;

o Mitigation measures for impacts on beaches to be considered; and

o Compensation is not possible in estuarine environment.

Specialist Studies -

o Marine/Estuarine Biodiversity Impact Assessment to include offshore disposal site

and offshore sand winning site;

o Specialist Study Terms of Reference;

o Resource Economic Impact Study;

o Avifauna Impact Assessment;

o Results of Specialist studies to be holistically considered; and

o Traffic Impact Assessment and Traffic Management plan.

Socio-economic Impacts -

o Impacts on economy

o Impacts on trade;

o Impacts on employment;

o Impacts of influx of workers into Durban;

o Need for larger ships to meet global requirements; and

o Impacts on subsistence fishing.

Traffic and Road Maintainance –

o Impacts of increased traffic;

Waste Management –

o Need for a Waste Management License; and

o Spill contingency plan.

General –

o Land Use and zoning;

o Health and Safety during construction;

o Noise;

o Background Information Document (BID);



Climate Change -

o Impacts of increased CO2 emissions from larger ships;

o Impacts of increased CO2 emissions from transportation of containers; and

o Impact on COP17 legacy.

14.4 Summary of Environmental Issues

Pertinent environmental issues, which will receive specific attention during the EIA

Phase, are listed in the tables to follow.

Table 22: Pertinent Issues (Construction Phase) for prioritisation during the EIA Phase


Potential Issues / Impacts Proposed Resolution





Geotechnical Study;



EMP






Recreational Users Impacts of increases in seiches on moored boats in the Marinas;








Turbidity Study;





EMP.





Turbidity Study;


EMP.
















EMP.








EMP.




Ecological Assessment of Impacts on the Central Sandbank; and

Indirect and direct impacts on the Little Lagoon.








EMP.







Turbidity Study;

Bathymetric Survey;


EMP.

Offshore Sand winning site





Turbidity Study;

Bathymetry Survey;










EMP.



Sediment Plume Modelling of offshore disposal site and offshore sand winning site;

Turbidity Study;



EMP.





Management





Geotechnical Study;



EMP;






Recreational User’s Impacts of increases in seiches on moored boats in the Marinas;








Turbidity Study;





EMP.






EMP.





Turbidity Study;


EMP.












EMP.





Management








EMP.




Wave Energy Analysis on the Central Sandbank;



EMP.







EMP.







Turbidity Study;

Bathymetric Survey;


EMP.

Offshore Sand Winning Site





Turbidity Study;

Bathymetry Survey;





Increase in efficiency of Berths 203 to 205 leading to more traffic.


EMP.



Sediment Plume Modelling of offshore disposal site and offshore sand winning site;

Turbidity Study;



EMP.



Table 23: Pertinent Issues (Operational Phase) for prioritisation during the EIA Phase



Geology and Soil Shoreline erosion due to offshore sand winning.

Geotechnical Study;


EMP.

Recreational Users Impacts on increases seiches on moored boats in the Marinas;

Impact on Expansion of Berth 205 into the Central Sandbank on subsistence fishing opportunities; and

Loss of vegetation of conservation significance.



Local Economic Impact Assessment; and

EMP.






EMP.

Estuarine Biota Impact of loss of tidal and subtidal habitat on waterbirds;

Impacts of loss of tidal and subtidal habitat on fish and crustaceans; and

Impacts of loss of deepwater habitat on fish species.


High Level Central Sandbank Study;

Ecological Assessment of Impacts on the Central Sandbank;


EMP.





High Level Central Sandbank Study;

Ecological Assessment of Impacts on the Central Sandbank;


EMP.

Offshore disposal site


Increase in contaminated spoil at disposal site.


Estuarine and Marine Biodiversity Assessment; and

EMP.

Offshore Sand Winning

Physical Destruction of habitat and loss of infauna;

Increased sedimentation and impacts of visual predators;

Increased turbidity; and

Shoreline erosion or accretion.

Shoreline Stability Study;


Estuarine/Marine Biodiversity Assessment.

Transportation Increase in efficiency of Berths 203 to 205 leading to more traffic.


EMP.





Tourism Impacts of increased sedimentation on beach users and uShaka Marine World

EMP;



Although impacts in the decommissioning phase are not included, it will nonetheless

receive appropriate attention in the impact assessment during the EIA Phase.

14.5 Cumulative Impacts

Box 3: What is a “Cumulative Impact”?

According to GN No. R. 543 (18 June 2010), a “cumulative impact”, in relation to an activity, means the impact of an activity that in itself may not be significant, but may become significant when added to the existing and potential impacts eventuating from similar or diverse activities or undertakings in the area.

Cumulative impacts can be identified by combining the potential environmental

implications of the proposed deepening, lengthening and widening of Berths 203 to 205

with the impacts of projects and activities that have occurred in the past, are currently

occurring, or are proposed in the future within the project area.

The loss of the tidal, subtidal and open water habitat within the Durban Bay Estuary is

one of the main cumulative impacts (Figure 57).



Figure 58: Changes in the Durban Bay between 1800s and 1999

In the past, most of the area was made up of Mangroves, tidal flats and open water

however there has been a significant decrease in the amount of natural remaining habitat

and a related increase in infilled land (Figure 57). The current project does not

significantly decrease the water area or central sandbanks. However, as part of a host of

port planning packages, the cumulative impact of encroaching on the Central Sandbank

may be great. The loss of open water due to future infilling may also be great.

The cumulative impacts of any further encroachment on the Central Sandbank and loss

of open water would need to be determined as part of any future environmental

authorisation processes. In addition, as part of the current Environmental Authorisation

process, a High Level Central Sandbank study will determine the impacts of the proposed

project on the ecologically sensitive Central Sandbank.



The construction period will be associated with traffic-related impacts to the local road

network. Transnet and eThekwini Municipality have a Traffic Management Plan in place

and the proposed project does not increase the traffic beyond agreed levels.

The offshore disposal site may also have cumulative impacts as it has been used for

maintenance and capital dredging in the past and most likely will be used for

maintenance dredging in the future. The increase of sediment may impact the site

bathymetry. It may also increase the level of contaminants in the area. The impact of

future dredge disposal would need to be determined.

A positive cumulative impact is that of the socio-economic environment at a local,

regional and national scale. The Port of Durban handles a high proportion of container

imports and exports, with more efficient and safe quays, it is most likely that the Port of

Durban will remain a economic hub. This has positive implications in terms of job creation

and wages.



15. METHODOLOGY TO ASSESS THE IDENTIFIED IMPACTS

The EIA quantitative impact assessment will further focus on the direct and indirect

impacts, as well as impacts associated with standard and non-standard operating

procedures.

All impacts will be analysed with regard to their nature, extent, magnitude, duration,

probability and significance. The following definitions apply:

Nature (/Status)

The project could have a positive, negative or neutral impact on the environment.

Extent

Local - extend to the site and its immediate surroundings.

Regional - impact on the region but within the province.

National - impact on an interprovincial scale.

International - impact outside of South Africa.

Magnitude

Degree to which impact may cause irreplaceable loss of resources.

Low - natural and social functions and processes are not affected or minimally affected.

Medium - affected environment is notably altered; natural and social functions and processes

continue albeit in a modified way.

High - natural or social functions or processes could be substantially affected or altered to the

extent that they could temporarily or permanently cease.

Duration

Short term - 0-5 years.

Medium term - 5-11 years.

Long term - impact ceases after the operational life cycle of the activity either because of

natural processes or by human intervention.

Permanent - mitigation either by natural process or by human intervention will not occur in

such a way or in such a time span that the impact can be considered transient.



Probability

Almost certain - the event is expected to occur in most circumstances.

Likely - the event will probably occur in most circumstances.

Moderate - the event should occur at some time.

Unlikely - the event could occur at some time.

Rare/Remote - the event may occur only in exceptional circumstances.

Significance

Provides an overall impression of an impact’s importance, and the degree to which it can be

mitigated. The range for significance ratings is as follows-

0 – Impact will not affect the environment. No mitigation necessary.

1 – No impact after mitigation.

2 – Residual impact after mitigation.

3 – Impact cannot be mitigated.



16. PLAN OF STUDY FOR EIA

This Plan of Study, which explains the approach to be adopted to conduct the EIA for the

proposed deepening, lengthening and widening of Berths 203 to 205, was prepared in

accordance with Regulation 28(1)(n) of GN No. R. 543 (18 June 2010).

16.1 Key Environmental Issues Identified During Scoping Phase

The Scoping exercise aims to identify and qualitatively predict significant environmental

issues for further consideration and prioritisation during the EIA stage. The issues raised

by I&APs during Scoping Phase will also guide the identification of significant issues.

During the EIA stage a detailed quantitative impact assessment will be conducted via

contributions from the project team and requisite specialist studies, and through the

application of the impact assessment methodology contained in Section 15. Suitable

mitigation measures will be identified to manage (i.e. prevent, reduce, rehabilitate and/or

compensate) the environmental impacts, and will be included in an EMP.

Pertinent environmental issues identified during Scoping, which will receive specific

attention during the EIA Phase are listed in Table 22 (construction Phase) and Table 23

(operation Phase).

16.2 Specialist Studies

According to Münster (2005), a ‘trigger’ is “a particular characteristic of either the

receiving environment or the proposed project which indicates that there is likely to be an

issue and/or potentially significant impact associated with that proposed development that

may require specialist input”. The requisite specialist studies ‘triggered’ by the findings of

the Scoping process, aimed at addressing the key issues and compliance with legal

obligations, include:



1. Estuarine/Marine Ecology Assessment;

2. Avifauna Impact Assessment;

3. Marine Archaeology Assessment;

4. Local Economic Impact Assessment;

5. Sediment and Chemical Analysis of Dredge Material;

6. Ecological Impact on Central Sandbank Study;

7. Assessment of Indirect and Direct Impacts on the Little Lagoon;

8. Sediment Plume Analysis (Internal and External)- Comparison of type of dredging;

9. Shoreline Stability – Offshore Sand Winning Site;

10. Sediment Plume Analysis – Ecological Impacts within the Port;

11. Wave Energy Analysis – Offshore borrow area and Offshore Disposal area;

12. Wave Energy Analysis – Ecological impacts on the Central Sandbank;

13. Geotechnical Study;

14. Turbidity Study – Impacts of Dredging and Sand Winning;

15. Bathymetric Survey; including: Central Sandbank; Offshore Disposal Site; Sand

winning site;

16. Technical Assessment of the three alternatives;

The Terms of Reference (ToR), both general and specific, for the abovementioned

specialist studies follow in the sub-sections below. Amongst others, the Guideline for

determining the scope of specialist involvement in EIA processes (Münster, 2005) was

used in compiling the general Terms of Reference for the specialist studies. The following

guidelines were also employed to prepare the specific ToR for the respective specialists

(where appropriate):

Guideline for involving biodiversity specialists in EIA processes (Brownlie, 2005);

Guideline for involving heritage specialists in EIA processes (Winter & Baumann,

2005); and

In addition to the above guidelines, the relevant specialists need to satisfy specific

requirements stipulated by the following key environmental authorities:

DEA and KZN DAEARD;




DMR; and

SAHRA – Maritime Archaeology

For the inclusion of the findings of the specialist studies into the EIA report, the following

guideline will be used: Guideline for the review of specialist input in EIA processes

(Keatimilwe & Ashton, 2005). Key considerations will include:

Ensuring that the specialists have adequately addressed I&APs’ issues and specific

requirements prescribed by environmental authorities;

Ensuring that the specialists’ input is relevant, appropriate and unambiguous; and

Verifying that information regarding the receiving ecological, social and economic

environment has been accurately reflected and considered.

16.2.1 Terms of Reference – General

The following general ToR apply to all the EIA specialist studies to be undertaken for the

proposed Deepening, lengthening and widening of Berth 203 to 205:

1. Address all triggers for the specialist studies contained in the subsequent specific

ToR.

2. Address issues raised by I&APs, as contained in the Comments and Response

Report, and conduct an assessment of all potentially significant impacts. Additional

issues that have not been identified during Scoping should also be highlighted to the

EAP for further investigations.

3. Ensure that the requirements of the environmental authorities that have specific

jurisdiction over the various disciplines and environmental features are satisfied.

4. Approach to include desktop study and site visits, as deemed necessary, to

understand the affected environment and to adequately investigate and evaluate

salient issues. Indigenous knowledge (i.e. targeted consultation) should also be

regarded as a potential information resource.

5. Assess the impacts (direct, indirect and cumulative) in terms of their significance

(using suitable evaluation criteria) and suggest suitable mitigation measures. In

accordance with the mitigation hierarchy, negative impacts should be avoided,

minimised, rehabilitated (or reinstated) or compensated for (i.e. offsets), whereas



positive impacts should be enhanced. A risk-averse and cautious approach should be

adopted under conditions of uncertainty.

6. Consider time boundaries, including short to long-term implications of impacts for

project life-cycle (i.e. pre-construction, construction, operation and decommissioning).

7. Consider spatial boundaries, including:

a. Broad context of the proposed project (i.e. beyond the boundaries of the specific

site);

b. Off-site impacts; and

c. Local, regional, national or global context.

8. The provision of a statement of impact significance for each issue, which specifies

whether or not a pre-determined threshold of significance (i.e. changes in effects to

the environment which would change a significance rating) has been exceeded, and

whether or not the impact presents a potential fatal flaw or not. This statement of

significance should be provided for anticipated project impacts both before and after

application of impact management actions.

9. Recommend a monitoring programme to implement mitigation measures and

measure performance. List indicators to be used during monitoring.

10. Appraisal of alternatives (including the No-Go option) by identifying the Best

Practicable Environmental Option (BPEO) with suitable justification.

11. Advise on the need for additional specialists to investigate specific components and

the scope and extent of the information required from such studies.

12. Engage with other specialists whose studies may have bearing on your specific

investigation.

13. Present findings and participate at public meetings, where EIA Report is to be

presented to I&APs.

14. Information provided to the EAP needs to be signed off.

15. Review and sign off on EIA Report prior to submission to DEA to ensure that

specialist information has been interpreted and integrated correctly into the report.

16. The appointed specialists must take into account the policy framework and legislation

relevant to their particular studies.

17. All specialist reports must adhere to regulation 32 (“specialist reports and reports on specialist processes”) of GN No. R. 543 (18 June 2010).



16.3 Terms of Reference - Specific

16.3.1 Estuarine/Marine Biodiversity Assessment

Summary of Key Issues & Triggers Identified During Scoping

Offshore Sand Winning will result in the physical removal of the benthic community.

Dredging within the Port of Durban will result in the physical removal of the benthic

community.

Increased turbidity may impact visual predators in the area of dredging inside the

Port of Durban and at the Offshore Sand winning Site.

Extension into the Central Sandbank may result in a loss of habitat and impact

wading bird species.

Dredging near the Central Sandbank may result in central sandbank collapsing and

a loss of habitat for Wading bird species, fish species and crustaceans.

Extension into the Central Sandbank may result in central sandbank collapsing and


Impacts of disposal of dredge material on offshore disposal site.

Approach

Undertake baseline survey (reconnaissance) and describe affected environment

within the project footprint from a biodiversity perspective.

Undertake desktop study (literature review, topographical maps and aerial

photographs) and baseline survey and describe the Durban Bay Estuary, the

offshore sand winning site.

Take into consideration the provincial conservation goals and targets and identify

existing and future planned conservation areas.

Assess the current ecological status and the conservation priority within the project

footprint and adjacent area (as deemed necessary) including the dredge footprint,

expansion footprint and offshore sand winning area. Provide a concise description

of the importance of the affected area to biodiversity in terms of pattern and

process, ecosystem goods and services, as appropriate.

Undertake sensitivity study to identify protected and conservation-worthy species.

Prepare a biodiversity sensitivity map with the use of GIS, based on the findings of



the study.

Identify potential fatal flaws associated with the project and its alternatives from a

biodiversity perspective.

Provide suitable mitigation measures to safeguard the estuary and offshore sand

winning area and during project life-cycle.

Provide suitable mitigation measures to safeguard the little lagoon during the

project life cycle.

Provide suitable mitigation measures to safeguard the central sandbank during

project life-cycle.

Determine ecological status of the receiving estuarine and marine environment,

including the identification of endangered or protected species.

Nominated Specialist

Organisation: Anchor Environmental Consultants

Name: Barry Clark

Qualifications: PhD- Marine Biology

No. of years experience: 15

Affiliation (if applicable): Professional Natural Scientist: South African Council

for Natural Scientific Professions

Professional Member of South African Institute of

Ecologists and Environmental Scientists

South African representative to the SURVAS Network

(Synthesis and Upscaling of Sea-level Rise

Vulnerability Assessment Studies)

Member of International Association of Impact

Assessors (IAIA)

Member of Subsistence Fisheries Advisory Group

Member of the South African Network for Coastal and

Oceanic Research (SANCOR) Economics Task Team



16.3.1. Avifauna Impact Assessment


Increased turbidity may impact visual predators in the area of dredging inside

the Port of Durban including bird species.

Extension into the Central Sandbank may result in a loss of habitat and impact


Dredging near the Central Sandbank may result in central sandbank

collapsing and a loss of habitat for Wading bird species.

Extension into the Central Sandbank may result in central sandbank collapsing

and a loss of habitat for Wading bird species.

Approach

Undertake baseline survey (reconnaissance) and describe affected environment

within the project footprint from a biodiversity perspective.

Undertake desktop study (literature review, topographical maps and aerial

photographs) and baseline survey and describe the Central Sandbank within the

Durban Bay Estuary.

Take into consideration the provincial conservation goals and targets and identify

existing and future planned conservation areas.

Undertake sensitivity study to identify protected and conservation-worthy species.

Prepare a biodiversity sensitivity map with the use of GIS, based on the findings of

the study.

Undertake an Avifauna impact assessment which highlights are impacts as well as

possible mitigation measures

Identify potential fatal flaws associated with the project and its alternatives from a

avifauna perspective.

Provide suitable mitigation measures to safeguard avifauna within the central



sandbank during project life-cycle.


Organisation: Anchor Environmental Consultants

Name: Jane Turpie

Qualifications: PhD- Ornithology

No. of years experience: 14

16.3.2 Marine Archaeology Impact Assessment


Potential occurrence of heritage resources such as shipwrecks within the dredging

at the Port of Durban

Potential occurrence of heritage resources such as shipwrecks within the dredging

at the Offshore Sand winning site and Offshore disposal site.

Approach

Undertake a Phase 1 Heritage Impact Assessment in accordance with the South

African Heritage Resources Act (No. 25 of 1999).

The identification and mapping of all heritage resources in the area affected, as

defined in Section 2 of the National Heritage Resources Act, 1999, including

archaeological and palaeontological sites on or close (within 100 m) of the

proposed development including the dredging footprint, expansion footprint, and

offshore sand winning site.

An assessment of the significance of such resources in terms of the heritage

assessment criteria as set out in the regulations.

An assessment of the impact of development on such heritage resources.

Prepare a heritage sensitivity map (GIS-based), based on the findings of the study.

Identify heritage resources to be monitored.

Comply with specific requirements and guidelines of SAHRA – Maritime

Archaeology Unit.




Name: Vanessa Maitland

Qualifications: B.A. (Hons) – Archaeology

No. of years experience: 8 years

Affiliation (if applicable): Association for South African Professional Archaeologists

16.3.3 Sediment and Chemical Analysis of Dredge Material


Potential for contamination and environmental impacts such a microalgal blooms

during dredging due to the release of organic matter and/or contaminants into the

water column

Impacts of contaminated dredge material on the offshore disposal site

Approach

Sampling to -17m CDP to determine vertical content of dredge footprint

Sampling at approximately 15 points to determine horizontal content of dredge

footprint

Determining the grain size composition

Determine the concentrations of trace metals including Aluminium, Iron, Arsenic,

Cadmium, Cobalt, Chromium, Copper, Manganese, Mercury, Nickel, Lead,

Vanadium and Zinc

Reporting to include all relevant information for the Dumping at Sea permitting process.


Organisation: CSIR

Name: Brent Newman

Qualifications: PhD

No. of years experience: 11 years



16.3.4 Ecological Impacts on the Central Sandbank


Extension into the Central Sandbank may result in a loss of habitat and impact on


Dredging near the Central Sandbank may result in central sandbank collapsing and


Approach

Determine the ecological status quo of the different tidal zones of the Central

Sandbank together with the percentage of fauna and flora that occurs within the

affected footprint.

Compare this to the percentage of fauna and flora on the entire Central Sandbank

to determine the significance of the loss of the portion of the sandbank through the

extension of Berth 205. In addition, determine whether this loss would be significant

and if would undermine the functioning of the Central Sandbank as a whole.

Determine if deepening of the approach channel, berth channel and turning basin

to 16.5m will result in a shorting of the water circulation cycle within the Port of

Durban. If there is an impact, what are the implications on hydrodynamic

functioning?

Conduct a desk top study for the widening of little lagoon and re-introducing sea

grass species. Determine the viability of the reintroduction as well as the benefits to

the ecosystem. Also determine why the proposed species is the most viable option.


Organisation: CSIR

Name: Steven Weerts

Qualifications: To be determined

No. of years experience:

Affiliation (if applicable):



16.3.5 Local Economic Impact Assessment


An outcome of the survey and focus group was to understand the economic

implications for businesses and residences in the vicinity of the Port.

Approach

Currently various economic studies have been undertaken for the Port of Durban

including van coller et al., 2008 and Urban-Econ, 2011. The emphasis of these

studies are at a regional and national scale. As part of this assessment, these

studies will be downscaled to a local level with the intention of understanding the

economic implications on the local community.


Organisation: Urban-Econ

Name:

To be determined Qualifications:



16.3.6 Assessment of the Indirect Impacts on the Little Lagoon


The Little Lagoon is considered a highly sensitive feature in the vicinity of Berths

203 to 205.

The 1999 Record of Decision recognised the Little Lagoon as an area of

conservation importance.



Approach

Desktop assessment of the ecological status quo of the Little Lagoon.

Determine any impacts (direct or indirect) on the Little Lagoon.

Recommend, offset and/or mitigation measures to limit any impacts on the Little

Lagoon.


Organisation: CSIR

Name:

Steven Weerts Qualifications:



16.4 Specialist studies under Technical Feasibility Study

The following specialist studies will form part of the Technical Studies, and the findings

will be incorporated into the EIA Report:

Sediment Plume Analysis (Internal and External)- Comparison of type of dredging;

Shoreline Stability – Offshore Sand Winning Site;

Sediment Plume Analysis – Ecological Impacts within the Port;

Wave Energy Analysis – Offshore borrow area and Offshore Disposal area;

Wave Energy Analysis – Ecological impacts on the Central Sandbank;

Geotechnical Study;

Turbidity Study – Impacts of Dredging and Sand Winning;

Bathymetric Survey; including: Central Sandbank; Offshore Disposal Site; Sand

winning site;

Technical Assessment of the three alternatives;



16.5 Public Participation – EIA Phase

16.5.1 Updating of I&AP Database

The I&APs database will be updated as and when necessary during the execution of the

EIA.

16.5.2 Project Website

Due to the interest in the project, a project website has been created. All documents and

notifications will also be available on the project website for download. The website will

be updated periodically with new information. I&APs are encouraged to visit the website

at (www.berth203to205expansioneia.co.za).

16.5.3 Notification – Approval of Scoping Report

Advertisements will be placed in the following newspapers as notification that the Scoping

Report has been approved by DEA:

Isolezwe; and

The Mercury.

In addition, all I&APs will be notified of the approval of the Scoping Report and

commencement of the EIA Phase via fax, email or registered mail. The notification will

also be available on the project website (www.berth203to205expansioneia.co.za).

16.5.4 Public Open Day

A public meeting will be held in Durban. All parties on the I&AP database will be invited

(via email, fax or post) to attend and advertisements will be placed in the newspapers

(same as listed in Section 16.5.2) as notification of the Public Open Day.





16.5.5 Comments and Response Report

A Comments and Response Report will be compiled and included in the EIA Report,

which will record the date that issues were raised, a summary of each issue, and the

response of the team to address the issue.

In addition, any unattended comments from the Scoping Phase or where the status of the

responses has changed, will also be addressed in the Comments and Response Report

for the EIA Phase.

16.5.6 Review of Draft EIA Report

A 40-day period will be provided to I&APs to review the Draft EIA Report, and copies of

the document will be lodged for public review at the following venues:

Table 24: Locations for review of Draft EIA Report

Copy Location Address Tel. No.

1. The Seafarers Club 1 Seafarers Road, Bayhead, Durban 031 466 1326

2. The Central Reference Library - Durban

10th floor, Liberty Towers, 214 Dr. Pixley

KaSeme Street, Durban 031 322 4414

All parties on the I&APs database will be notified via email, fax or post of the opportunity

to review the Draft EIA Report at the abovementioned locations, the review period and

the process for submitting comments on the report. The public will also be notified of the

aforementioned via advertisements in the newspapers (Isolezwe and the Mercury). In

addition, an electronic copy of the Draft EIA report will be available for download from

www.berth203to205expansioneia.co.za.

All comments received from I&APs and the responses thereto will be included in the final

EIA Report for submission to DEA.

16.5.7 Notification of DEA Decision

All I&APs will be notified via email, fax or post within 10 days after having received written

notice from DEA on the final decision. Advertisements will also be placed in local and




regional newspapers regarding the Department’s decision. These notifications will include

the appeal procedure to the decision.

16.6 EIA Report

The EIA Report will be compiled to satisfy the minimum requirements stipulated in

regulation 31 of GN No. R. 543 (18 June 2010). The following critical components of the

EIA Report are highlighted:

A detailed description of the proposed development;

A detailed description of the proposed development site;

A description of the environment that may be affected by the activity and the manner

in which physical, biological, social, economic and cultural aspects of the environment

may be affected by the proposed development;

The methodology of the stakeholder engagement process will be described;

The Comments and Response Report and Stakeholder Database will be provided as

an appendix to the EIA Report;

A description of the need and desirability of the proposed development and the

identified potential alternatives to the proposed activity;

A summary of the methodology used in determining the significance of potential

impacts;

A description and comparative assessment of the project alternatives;

A summary of the findings of the specialist studies;

A detailed assessment of all identified potential impacts;

A list of the assumptions, uncertainties and gaps in knowledge;

An opinion by the consultant as to whether the development is suitable for approval

within the proposed site;

An Environmental Management Programme (EMP) that complies with regulation 33 of

GN No. R. 543;

Copies of all specialist reports appended to the EIA report; and

Any further information that will assist in decision making by the authorities.



16.7 Authority Consultation

The EIA will only commence once DEA has accepted the Scoping Report and the Plan of

Study for the EIA. If relevant, the necessary revisions will be made to the aforementioned

documents if requested by this Department.

An authorities meeting will be scheduled during the EIA public participation process to

present salient findings. In addition, copies of the Draft EIA Report will be provided to the

following key regulatory and commentary authorities:

DEA (Environmental Impact Evaluation);

DEA (Oceans and Coasts);

KZN DAEARD;


DWA KZN Regional Office;

DMR KZN Office;

SAHRA – Maritime Archaeology

KZN DAFF;

KZN Department of Transport; and

eThekwini Municipality.

The final EIA Report will be submitted to DEA. Any requested amendments will be

discussed with the Department to ensure that their queries are adequately and timeously

attended to.

16.8 Dumping at Sea Permit

Once a decision has been obtained by the DEA, the Dumping at Sea Permit application

will be made to DEA: Oceans and Coasts Directorate. The Final EIA report as well as the

Environmental Authorisation will be provided as appendices to the application.



16.9 EIA Timeframes

The table below presents the proposed timeframes for the EIA process. Note that these

dates are subject to change.

Figure 59: EIA Timeframes

EIA Milestone Proposed Timeframe

I&AP Review of Draft Scoping Report 9 March 2012-30 April

2012

Submission of final Scoping Report to DEA 04 June 2012

Review of Scoping Report by DEA 25 May 2012 – 01 June

2012

Notification - I&AP Review of Draft EIA Report 24 July 2012

Public Review of Draft EIA Report 26 July 2012 – 6 September 2012

Submit final EIA Report to DEA 27 September 2012

DEA Review & Decision 28 September 2012- 12

February 2013

Notify I&APs of Decision 13 February 2013- 15

February 2013



17. CONCLUSION

Taking cognisance of the findings of the Scoping process, the EIA will need to conduct

detailed investigations for the significant environmental issues identified as well as for the

proposed alternative quay wall options.

It is the opinion of the EIA team that Scoping was executed in an objective manner and

that the process and report conform to the requirements of regulations 27 and 28 of GN

No. R. 543 (18 June 2010), respectively.

It is also believed that the Plan of Study for EIA is comprehensive and will be adequate to

address the significant issues identified during Scoping, to select the BPEO, and to

ultimately allow for informed decision-making.



18. REFERENCES

Allan, D. (2001). The waterbirds of Durban Bay, South Africa - a worst-case scenario of African coastal wetland destruction. Symposium S04: Wetlands and Waterfowl. Ostrich 72:S15: 71-87.

Amafa Heritage KwaZulu-Natal (2011). Available: http://heritagekzn.co.za. Last

accessed 13 November 2011. Angel, A. and B.M. Clark (Undated). “Port of Durban Ballast Water Flora and Faunal

Survey. Final Report. Prepared for Transnet, National Ports Authority.” Anchor Environmental Consultants, Unpublished.

Arcus Gibb (2004). “Environmental Impact Assessment for the Widening and

Deepening of the Port of Durban Entrance Channel Final Scoping Report.” AS/NZS (Standards Australia and Standards New Zealand) (2004). “Risk

Management Guidelines: Companion to AS/NZS 4360:2004.” HB 436, NSW, ISBN 0 7337 5960 2.

AS/NZS (Standards Australia and Standards New Zealand) (2004). “Risk

Management, AS/NZS 4360:2004”. NSW, ISBN 0 7337 5904 1. Atkinson, C.A., D.F. Jolley and S.L. Simpson (2007). “Effect of overlying water pH,

dissolved oxygen, salinity and sediment disturbances on metal release and sequestration from metal contaminated marine sediments.” Chemosphere 69: 1428-1437.

Beckley, L.E., P.V. Radebe and B.Q. Mann (2001). “Inventory of Fishes Recorded

from Durban Harbour (1950 – 2000).” Unpublished Report, South African Association for Marine Biological Research (202): 1-9.

Beckley, L.F., and B.Q. Mann (2001). “Monitoring of Fishes in Durban Harbour June –

December 2001 Annual Report.” Begg, G.W. (1978). “The Estuaries of Natal.” Natal Town and Regional Planning

Report 41: 1-657. Begg, G.W. (1984). “The Estuaries of Natal (Part II).” Natal Town and Regional

Planning Report 55: 1 631. Berg, L. (1982). “The effect of exposure to short-term pulses of suspended sediment

on the behaviour of juvenile salmonids.” In: Hartman, G.F. (Ed) “Proceedings of the Carnation Creek workshop: a ten-year review.” Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Pacific Biological Station, Nanaimo, Canada.

Bolam, S.G. (2011). “Burial survival of benthic macrofauna following deposition of



simulated dredged material.” Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 181: 13-27.

Bolam, S.G. and H.L. Rees (2003). “Minimizing impacts of maintenance dredged

material disposal in the coastal environment: a habitat approach.” Environmental Management 32: 171-188.

Bolam, S.G. and P. Whomersley (2005). “Development of macrofaunal communities

on dredged material used for mudflat enhancement: a comparison of three beneficial use schemes after one year.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 50: 40-47.

Bolam, S.G., H.L. Rees, P. Somerfield, R. Smith, K.R. Clarke, R.M. Warwick, M.

Atkins and E. Garnacho (2006). “Ecological consequences of dredged material disposal in the marine environment: A holistic assessment of activities around the England and Wales coastline.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 52: 415-426.

Celiers, L., Breetzke, T., Moore, L., and Malan, D. 2009. A User-friendly Guide to

South Africa’s Integrated Coastal Management Act. DEA and SSO Engineers and Environmental Consultants, Cape Town, South Africa

Claassen, M. (1999). “Ecological Risk Assessment as a Framework for Environmental

Impact Assessments.” Water Science and Technology Vol. 39, No. 10-11, pp. 151 – 154. Elsevier Science Limited, Great Britain.

Claassen, M., W.F. Strydom, K. Murray and S. Jooste (2001). “Ecological Risk

Assessment Guidelines.” Pretoria, South Africa. CSIR (2010). Elevation and Bathymetric survey of the Port of Durban sandbanks post

entrance widening, with a desktop assessment of potential ecological implications. CSIR Report.

CSIR (2011). Environmental Sensitivity Study- Proposed development of Pier 1,

Phase 2 Container Terminal in the Port of Durban. CSIR Report. Cyrus, D.P. and A.T. Forbes (1996). “Preliminary results on the role of KwaZulu-Natal

harbours as nursery grounds for juveniles of selected marine organisms which utilise estuaries.” South African Journal of Wildlife Research 26: 26-33.

Day, J.H. and J.F.C. Morgans (1956). “The ecology of South African estuaries. Part 7.

The biology of Durban Bay.” Annals of the Natal Museum 13: 259-312 Delgado, M.V., A. De Jonge, and H. Peletier (1991). “Experiments on the

resuspension of natural microphytobenthos populations.” Marine Biology 108: 321-328.

Demetriades, N.T., and A.T. Forbes (2008). “Report on Fish Kill and Dissolved

Oxygen Levels in Durban Bay During December 2007/January 2008.”



DEAT, 2001. South African Estuaries: Catchment Land-Cover. National Summary Report. Prepared by CSIR for the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT), Pretoria.

DEAT, 2002. Scoping, Integrated Environmental Management, Information Series 2,

Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT), Pretoria. DEAT. 2005a. Guideline 3: General Guide to the Environmental Impact Assessment

Regulations, 2005. Integrated Environmental Management Guideline Series. Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT), Pretoria.

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

Integrated Environmental Management Guideline Series. Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT), Pretoria.

DEA&DP. 2006. Guideline on Alternatives, NEMA EIA Regulations Guideline and

Information Document Series. Western Cape Department of Environmental Affairs & Development Planning (DEA&DP), Cape Town.

DEA&DP. 2009. Guideline on Need and Desirability, NEMA EIA Regulations

Guideline and Information Document Series. Western Cape Department of Environmental Affairs & Development Planning (DEA&DP), Cape Town.

Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT) (2002). “Integrated

Environmental Management Information Series: Ecological Risk Assessment.” DEAT, Pretoria.

Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT) (2006). “Integrated

Environmental Management Information Series 23: Risk Management.” DEAT, Pretoria.

Department of Public Works, Roads and Transport (DPWRT) (2011). “Port of Durban.”

Available: http://www.safiri.co.za/mpfdb/maritime-port-of-durban.html. Last accessed 14 November 2011.

Deyzel, S., N. James and A. Paterson (2008a). “Confidential report on long-term

ecological monitoring in the Port of Durban - January and February 2008.” SAEON Unpublished Report.

Deyzel, S., N. James and A. Paterson (2008b). “Confidential report on long-term

ecological monitoring in the Port of Durban - July 2008.” SAEON Unpublished Report.

Deyzel, S., N. James and A. Paterson (2009). “Confidential Report on Long-Term

Ecological Monitoring in the Port of Durban – July 2008 and January 2009.” Prepared for Transnet National Ports Authority by the South African Environmental Observation Network, Unpublished.



Eggleton, J. and K.V. Thomas (2004). “A review of factors affecting the release and bioavailability of contaminants during sediment disturbance events.” Environment International 30: 973-980.

EMS (2010). Durban Harbour Sandbank Survey. Unpublished Report. Essink, K. (1999). “Ecological effects of dumping of dredged sediments: options for

management.” Journal of Coastal Conservation 5: 69-80. Forbes, A.T. and N.T. Demetriades (2003). “Ecology of the Little Lagoon area of

Durban Bay.” Report prepared for National Ports Authority Durban by Marine and Estuarine Research. 74 pp.

Forbes, A.T. and N.T. Demetriades (2006a). “Transnet-eThekwini Municipality

Planning Initiative. Specialist Report - Environment. Report for Transnet-eThekwini Municipality Planning Initiative.”

Forbes, A.T. and N.T. Demetriades (2006b). “Assessment of the potential for

restoration of habitats in Durban Bay.” In Forbes, A.T. and N.T. Demetriades (2006). “Specialist Ecological Reports July - November 2006.” Report for Transnet-eThekwini Municipality Planning Initiative.

Forbes, A.T., N.T. Demetriades and D.P. Cyrus (1996).” Biological significance of

harbours as coastal habitats in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa.” Aquatic Conservation: Marine and freshwater ecosystems 6: 331-341.

Germanischer Lloyd, 2005. “Trends in the Development of Container Ships.”

Presentation at NTU Athens. Gibbs, M., S. Thrush, J. Sukias, K. Berkenbusch, D. Thompson and S. Bury (2001).

“Evaluation of terrestrial sediment spatial patterns throughout the Whitford embayment and its benthic food web using stable isotope techniques.” Prepared for Auckland Regional Council. NIWA Client Report ARC01270.

Grant, J. and G. Gust (1987). “Prediction of coastal sediment stability from

photopigment content of mats of purple sulphur bacteria.” Nature 330: 244-246. Guarini, J.M., G.F. Blanchard, P. Gros, D. Gouleau and C. Bacher (2000). “Dynamic

model of the short-term variability of microphytobenthic biomass on temperate intertidal mudflats.” Marine Ecology Progress Series 195: 291-303.

Harris, S.A. and D.P. Cyrus (1997). “Composition, abundance and seasonality of

larval fish in Richards Bay harbour, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa.” Southern African Journal of Aquatic Sciences 23: 56-78.

Harris, S.A. and D.P. Cyrus (1999). “Composition, abundance and seasonality of fish

larvae in the mouth of Durban Harbour, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa.” South African Journal of Marine Science 21: 19-39.



Hecht, T. and C.D. van der Lingen (1992). “Turbidity-induced changes in feeding

strategies of fish in estuaries.” South African Journal of Zoology 27: 95-107. Heydorn, A.E.F. (1972). “South African estuaries, their function and the threat to their

existence.” Findiver 32: 18-19. Hollanda, R., N. Zingmarka and D.J. Dean (1974). “Quantitative evidence concerning

the stabilization of sediments by marine benthic diatoms.” Marine Biology 27: 191-196.

IDP. 2011. Integrated Development Plan: eThekwini Municipality 2011/2012. Jassby, A.D., A.J. Cloers and T.M. Powell (1993). “Organic carbon sources and sinks

in San Francisco Bay: Variability induced by river flow.” Marine Ecology 95: 39-54.

Jones, R.A. and G.F. Lee (1978). “Evaluation of the Elutriate Test as a Method of

Predicting Contaminant Release during Open Water Disposal of Dredged Sediment and Environmental Impact of Open Water Dredged Material Disposal, Vol. I: Discussion.” Technical Report D-78- 45, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

Kromkamp, J., J. Peene, P. van Rijswijk, A. Sandee and N. Goosen (1995).

“Nutrients, light and primary production by phytoplankton and microphytobenthos in eutrophic, turbid Westerschelde estuary (The Netherlands).” Hydrobiologia 311: 9-19.

KZN Durban (2011). “Transport.” Available:

http://www.kzndurban.co.za/Durban/transport.php. Last accessed 13 November2011.

Lee, G.F., R.A. Jones, F.Y. Saleh, G.M. Mariani, D.H. Homer, J.S. Butler and P.

Bandyopadhyay (1978). “Evaluation of the Elutriate Test as a Method of Predicting Contaminant Release during Open Water Disposal of Dredged Sediment and Environmental Impact of Open Water Dredged Materials Disposal, Vol. II: Data Report.” Technical Report D-78-45, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS (1978).

Levine, M. Unpublished Manuscript. Held by Vanessa Maitland. LFR (2004.)” Framework for assessment of potential effects of dredging on sensitive

fish species in San Francisco Bay.” USACE, San Francisco, CA. MacIntyre, H.L. and J.J. Cullen (1995). “Fine-scale vertical resolution of chlorophyll

and photosynthetlc parameters in shallow-water benthos.” Marine Ecology Progress Series 122: 227-237.



Mander M., N.T. Demetriades, A.T. Forbes and D. Allan (2006). “An Assessment of the Ecosystem Benefits Supplied by Durban Bay and the Implications of Port Development Options.” Report for Transnet-eThekwini Municipality Planning Initiative.

Mann, B. (2002). “Long Term Monitoring of Fish and Sand Prawns in the Durban

Harbour Quarterly Feedback Report (April 2002).” Unpublished report of the Oceanographic Research Institute.

Mann, B. and N. James (2002). “Long Term Monitoring of Fish and Sand Prawns in

the Durban Harbour Quarterly Feedback Report (June 2002).” Unpublished report of the Oceanographic Research Institute.


the Durban Harbour Quarterly Feedback Report (September 2002).” Unpublished report of the Oceanographic Research Institute.


the Durban Harbour Quarterly Feedback Report (December 2002).” Unpublished report of the Oceanographic Research Institute.

Maurer, D., R.T. Keck, J.C. Tinsman and W.A. Leathem (1982). “Vertical migration

and mortality of benthos in dredged material: Part III: Polychaeta.” Marine Environmental Research 6: 49-68.

Maurer, D., R.T. Keck, J.C. Tinsman, W.A. Leathem, C. Wethe, C. Lord and T.M.

Church (1986). “Vertical migration of benthos in simulated dredged material overburdens: a synthesis.” Internationale Revue gesamten Hydrobiologie 71: 49-63.

Mclusky, D.S. (1989). “The estuarine ecosystem.” Chapman and Hall, NY. MER/ERM (2011). “Development of the Bay of Natal Estuarine Management Plan:

Situation Assessment.” Report prepared for eThekwini Municipality, Transnet National Port Authority and the Department of Agriculture, Environmental Affairs and Rural Development.

Miller, D.C., C.L. Muir and O.A. Dauser (2002). “Detrimental effects of sedimentation

on marine benthos: What can be learned from natural processes and rates?” Ecological Engineering 19: 211-232.

Newell, R.C., L.I. Seiderer and D.R. Hitchcock (1998). “The impact of dredging works

in coastal waters: a review of the sensitivity to disturbance and subsequent recovery of biological resources on the sea bed.” Oceanography and Marine Biology Annual Review 36: 127-178.

Newman, B., S. Weerts, S. Porter and F. Mackay (2008). “Specialist Studies for



Transnet Capital Expansion Program Durban Bay.” CSIR Report for Transnet Projects. Unpublished. 230 pp. incl. 17 Appendices.

Nowicki, L. and S.W. Nixon (1983). “Benthic community metabolism in a coastal

lagoon ecosystem.” Marine Ecology Progress Series 22: 21-30. Paterson, D., D.R. Crautok and R. Little (1990). “Subaerial exposure and changes in

sediment stability of intertidal estuarine sediments.” Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science 30: 341-356.

Pearson, T. (1995). “African Keyport: Story of the Port of Durban.” Durban. Accucut

Books cc. Pennekamp, J.G.S. and M.P. Quaak (1990). “Impact on the Environment of Turbidity

Caused by Dredging.” Terra et Aqua 42: 10-20. Pillay, D., G.M. Branch and A.T. Forbes (2007a).” The influence of bioturbation by the

sandprawn Callianassa kraussi on feeding and survival of the bivalve Eumarcia paupercula and the gastropod Nassarius kraussianus.” Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 344: 1–9.

Pillay, D., G.M. Branch and A.T. Forbes (2007b). “Experimental evidence for the

effects of the thalassinidean sandprawn Callianassa kraussi on macrobenthic communities.” Marine Biology 152: 611–618.

Pillay, D., G.M. Branch and A.T. Forbes (2008). “Habitat change in an estuarine

embayment: Anthropogenic influences and a regime shift in biotic interactions.” Marine Ecology Progress Series 370: 19-31.

Pillay, S. (2004). “Port of Durban. Review of previous monitoring data. Environmental

chemistry.” Prepared for National Ports Authority of South Africa. CSIR Report. Plante-Cuny, M., C. Barranguet, D. Bonn and C. Grenz (1993). “Does chlorophyllide a

reduce reliability of chlorophyll a measurements in marine coastal sediments?” Aquatic Science 55: 19-30.

Prestedge Retief Dresner Wijnberg (PRDW) (2007). “Hydrodynamic Modelling Study.”

PRDW Report No. 479/1/103 Rev 01. Prestedge Retief Dresner Wijnberg (PRDW) (2009). “Impact of Entrance Widening

and Deepening on Tidal Levels inside the Harbour.” PRDW Report No. 385/G/006.

Prestedge Retief Dresner Wijnberg (PRDW) (2011). Pre-Feasibility Study Report for

the Proposed Berth Deepening of Berths 203 to 205 at DCT. PRDW Report No. 1079/0/003/REV01.



Roberts, R.D., M.R. Gregory and B.A. Fosters (1998). “Developing an efficient macrofauna monitoring index from an impact study – a dredged spoil example.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 36: 231-235.

Santana-Casiano, J.M., M. Gonzalez-Davila and F.J. Millero (2004). “The oxidation of

Fe(II) in NaCl-HCO-3 and seawater solutions in the presence of phthalate and salicylate ions: a kinetic model.” Marine Chemistry 85: 27-40.

Schleiger, S.L. (2000). “Use of an index of biotic integrity to detect effects of land use

on stream fish communities in wet-central Georgia.” Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 129: 1118-1183.

Scullion, J. and R.W. Edwards (1980). “The effects of coal industry pollutants on the

macro-invertebrate fauna of a small river in the South Wales Coalfield.” Freshwater Biology 10: 141-162.

Shand, N. (2007). “Transnet Capital Projects, Durban Bayhead Container Terminal,

Port and Marine Engineering, Hydrological and Water Quality Analysis, First Draft.”

Sherk, J.A., J.M. O’Connor and D.A. Neumann (1975). “Effects of suspended and

deposited sediments on estuarine environments.” Estuarine Research 2. Academic Press, New York.

Simpson, S.L., B.M. Angel and D.F. Jolley (2004). “Metal equilibration in laboratory-

contaminated (spiked) sediments used for the development of whole-sediment toxicity tests.” Chemosphere 54: 597-609.

Staats, N., L.I. Stal, B. De Winder and L.R. Mur (2000). “Oxygenic photosynthesis as

driving process in exopolysaccharide production of benthic diatoms.” Marine Ecology Progress Series 193: 261-269.

Stumm, W. and J.J. Morgan (1996). “Aquatic Chemistry. In: Chemical Equilibria and

Rates in Natural Waters.” John Wiley, New York. TEMPI (2007). Transnet-eThekwini Joint Port Planning Project – Economic

Workstream. Transnet National Ports Authority (2011). “Durban Overview.” Available:

http://www.transnetnationalportsauthority.net/NPA_ports_durban_overview.html. Last accessed 14 November 2011.

Turner, M. (1988). “Shipwrecks & Salvage in Southern Africa: 1505 to the Present.”

Cape Town. C.Struik. Urban-Econ Development Economist (2011). Measuring Anticipated Economic Impact

of Dig-Out Port. Presentation.



UNCTAD (2007). Globalisation of Port Logistics: opportunities and challenges for developing countries. Presentation.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (1998). “Guidelines for Ecological Risk

Assessment.” EPA/630/R-95/002F, Federal Register 63(93):26846-26924. US-EPA, Washington DC.

US Navy (1990). “Final environmental impact statement for proposed new dredging.

U.S. Navy Military Construction. US Navy, Western Division Naval Facility Engineering Command Projects P-202 (Naval Air Station Alameda) and P-082 (Naval Supply Center Oakland).”

van Ballegooyen, R., A. Pulfrich, N. Steffani, P. Morant, G. Diedericks and A. Theron

(2011). “Comparative Marine Environmental Risk Assessment of two proposed locations for the Vision Industrial Park, Namibia.” CSIR Report No: CSIR/NRE/CO/ER/2011/0049/B, pp. 150.

Van Coller,J., Maasdorp, G., and Mavundla, K. 2011. Durban Maritime Industry: A

Value Chain Analysis. Unpublished Report.

Van den Berg, G.A., G.G.A. Meijers, L.M. Van der Heijdt and J.J.G. Zwolsman (2001).

“Dredging-related mobilisation of trace metals: A case study in the Netherlands.” Water Research 35: 1979-1986.

Varela, M. and E. Penas (1985). “Primary production of benthic microalgae in an

intertidal sand flat of the Ria de Arosa, NW Spain.” Marine Ecology Progress Series 24: 111-119.

Versar (2001). “Near-field water quality modelling of dredging operations in the

Delaware River.” Prepared for US Army Core of Engineers, Philadelphia, PA. Ware, S., S.G. Bolam and H.L. Rees (2010). “Impact and recovery associated with the

deposition of capital dredging at UK disposal sites: Lessons for future licensing and monitoring.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 60: 79-90.

Weerts, S.P. and Pillay (2008). “Fish kills in Durban Bay, December 2007.” CSIR

Report No. CSIR/NRE/ECO/ER/ 2008/0015/C. Weerts, S.P. and D.P. Cyrus (2002). “Occurrence of young and small-sized fishes in

different habitats within a subtropical South African estuary and adjacent harbour.” Marine and Freshwater Research 53: 447-456.

Weerts, S.P., G. Cilliers and D.P. Cyrus (2003). “Estuarine macrocrustacea of

Richards Bay harbour, South Africa, with particular reference to the penaeid prawns.” African Zoology 38(2): 286-296.



Whitfield, A.K. (2004). “External Review of Little Lagoon Studies, Port of Durban.”

South African Institute for Aquatic Biodiversity. Widdows, J., P. Fieth and C.M. Worral (1979). “Relationship between seston,

available food and feeding activity in the common mussel Mytilus edulis.” Marine Biology 50: 195-207.

Wilber, D.H. and D.G. Clarke (2001). “Biological effects of suspended sediments: a

review of suspended sediment impacts on fish and shellfish with relation to dredging activities in estuaries.” North American Journal of Fisheries Management 21: 855-875.

Deepening, Lengthening and Widening of Berth 203 to 205 ... · proposed the deepening, lengthening...

Documents

Transcript of Deepening, Lengthening and Widening of Berth 203 to 205 ... · proposed the deepening, lengthening...