FINAL BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT - Cape EAPrac Sonskynvallei...Cape EAPrac Final Basic Assessment...

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

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

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

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

D.J. Jeffery Directors L. van Zyl

FINAL BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT

For

SONSKYNVALLEI HOUSING EXTENSION – PHASE 3

On

Portions 4, 59 & 105 of the Farm Hartenbosch 217, Erf 1853 & Erf 3122, Mossel Bay

In terms of the

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

Prepared for Applicant: Mossel Bay Municipality By: Cape EAPrac

Report Reference: MOS286/13 Department Reference: 16/3/1/1/D6/18/0070/13

Case Officer: Marianne Lesch Date: 13 November 2014

APPOINTED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PRACTITIONER: Cape EAPrac Environmental Assessment Practitioners

PO Box 2070 George

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

Report written & compiled by: Wynand Loftus (MTech Nature Conservation).

Report reviewed by: Louise-Mari van Zyl (MA Geography & Environmental Science [US];

Registered Environmental Assessment Practitioner with the Interim Certification Board for

Environmental Assessment Practitioners of South Africa, EAPSA); Ms van Zyl has over twelve

years‟ experience as an environmental practitioner.

PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT: Environmental Authorisation

APPLICANT: Mossel Bay Municipality

CAPE EAPRAC REFERENCE NO: MOS286/13

DEPARTMENT REFERENCE: 16/3/1/1/D6/18/0070/13

SUBMISSION DATE 13 November 2014

Sonskynvallei Housing Phase 3 MOS286/13

Cape EAPrac Final Basic Assessment Report

FINAL BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT

in terms of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998), as amended & Environmental

Impact Regulations 2010

Sonskynvallei Housing Extension – Phase 3 Portions 4, 59 & 105 of the Farm Hartenbosch 217, Erf 1853 & Erf 3122, Mossel Bay

Submitted for: Stakeholder Review & Comment This report is the property of the Author/Company, who may publish it, in whole, provided that: Written approval is obtained from the Author and that Cape EAPrac is acknowledged in the

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

specifications, recommendations or statements that is not administered or controlled by Cape EAPrac;

The contents of this report, including specialist/consultant reports, may not be used for purposes of sale or publicity or advertisement without the prior written approval of Cape EAPrac;

Cape EAPrac accepts no responsibility by the Applicant/Client for failure to follow or comply with the recommended programme, specifications or recommendations contained in this report;

Cape EAPrac accepts no responsibility for deviation or non-compliance of any specifications or recommendations made by specialists or consultants whose input/reports are used to inform this report; and

All figures, plates and diagrams are copyrighted and may not be reproduced by any means, in any form, in part or whole without prior written approved from Cape EAPrac.

Report Issued by: Cape Environmental Assessment Practitioners

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



ORDER OF REPORT Executive Summary

Basic Assessment Report

Appendix A : Location & Topographical Map

Appendix B : Site Layout Plans

Appendix C : Site Photos

Appendix D : Biodiversity Overlays

Annexure D1 : Critical Biodiversity Area (CBA) Map

Annexure D2 : Vegetation Map

Annexure D3 : National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Area (NFEPA) Map

Appendix E : Permits and Approvals

Annexure E1 : ATKV Letter of Consent to Develop

Annexure E2 : Availability of Electrical Services

Annexure E3 : Availability of Water & Waste Capacity

Appendix F : Public Participation Information

Annexure F1 : Initial Notification, Advert, Site Notice & Correction Notice

Annexure F2 : Registrations Received

Annexure F3 : Meeting Minutes and Attendance Registers

Annexure F4 : Initial Issues and Comments

Annexure F5 : Draft BAR Notifications

Annexure F6 : Comments Received on Draft BAR

Annexure F7 : Final BAR Notifications

Annexure F8 : Comments and Response Table

Annexure F9 : Stakeholder Register (registered I&APs)

Appendix G : Specialist Reports

Annexure G1 Archaeological Impact Statement

Annexure G2 : Botanical Impact Assessment

Annexure G3 : Civil Services Report

Annexure G4 : Electrical Services Report

Annexure G5 : Heritage Assessment



Annexure G6 : Planning Statement

Annexure G7 : Traffic Impact Assessment

Annexure G8 : Visual Impact Statement

Appendix H : Construction Phase Environmental Management Programme

Appendix I : Background Information Document (BID)



TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

SUMMARY ................................................................................................. 4

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 4 1.1 PROJECT NEED................................................................................................................................ 4

2. PROCESS DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................... 4 3. ACTIVITY & PLANNING CONTEXT .................................................................................................... 5 4. SITE DESCRIPTION AND ATTRIBUTES ............................................................................................ 7 5. PROCESS TO DATE ............................................................................................................................ 8 6. IMPACT SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................. 9 7. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................... 10

SECTION A: ACTIVITY INFORMATION .................................................. 12

1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................................. 12 1.1 INFRASTRUCTURE DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................................... 23

2. PHYSICAL SIZE OF THE ACTIVITY.................................................................................................. 33 3. SITE ACCESS ..................................................................................................................................... 33

4. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY ON WHICH THE ACTIVITY IS TO BE UNDERTAKEN AND THE LOCATION OF THE ACTIVITY ON THE PROPERTY ............................................................. 34 5. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS ....................................................................................................................... 43

SECTION B: DESCRIPTION OF RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT ............... 44

1. SITE/AREA DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................ 44 2. GRADIENT OF THE SITE .................................................................................................................. 44 3. LOCATION IN LANDSCAPE .............................................................................................................. 44 4. GROUNDWATER, SOIL AND GEOLOGICAL STABILITY OF THE SITE ........................................ 46 5. SURFACE WATER ............................................................................................................................. 47 6. BIODIVERSITY ................................................................................................................................... 47 7. LAND USE OF THE SITE ................................................................................................................... 50 8. LAND USE CHARACTER OF SURROUNDING AREA ..................................................................... 50 9. SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASPECTS .......................................................................................................... 51 10. HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASPECTS ....................................................................................... 53 11. APPLICABLE LEGISLATION, POLICIES AND/OR GUIDELINES ................................................... 55

SECTION C: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ................................................... 58

SECTION D: NEED AND DESIRABILITY ................................................ 64

SECTION E: ALTERNATIVES ................................................................. 70

SECTION F: IMPACT ASSESSMENT, MANAGEMENT, ......................... 73

MITIGATION AND MONITORING MEASURES ....................................... 73

1. DESCRIBE THE MANNER IN WHICH THE DEVELOPMENT WILL IMPACT ON THE FOLLOWING ASPECTS: ........................................................................................................................... 73 2. WASTE AND EMISSIONS .................................................................................................................. 77



3. WATER USE ....................................................................................................................................... 78 4. POWER SUPPLY ................................................................................................................................ 79

4.1 ENERGY EFFICIENCY ............................................................................................................... 79

5. DESCRIPTION AND ASSESSMENT OF THE SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS PRIOR TO AND AFTER MITIGATION .................................................................................................................................. 80 6. SPECIALIST INPUTS/STUDIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................... 104 7. IMPACT SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... 108 8. OTHER MANAGEMENT, MITIGATION AND MONITORING MEASURES .................................... 109

SECTION G: ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGIES AND CRITERIA, GAPS IN KNOWLEDGE, UNDERLAYING ASSUMPTIONS AND UNCERTAINTIES ................................................................................... 111

SECTION H: RECOMMENDATION OF THE EAP ................................. 113

SECTION I: APPENDICES ..................................................................... 115

DECLARATIONS.................................................................................... 116

1. THE APPLICANT .............................................................................................................................. 116 2. THE INDEPENDENT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PRACTITIONER (EAP) ....................... 117 3. THE INDEPENDENT PERSON WHO COMPILED A SPECIALIST REPORT OR UNDERTOOK

A SPECIALIST PROCESS ....................................................................................................................... 118

REFERENCES ....................................................................................... 119

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Google Earth image showing the alignment of the proposed new bulk water pipeline to

service the proposed development – imagery date September 2013 (Google Earth, 2014). The existing road leading up to the Hartenboskop reservoir from Sonskynvallei is also visible on the image. .......................................................................................................................................... 13

Figure 2: Route of the proposed new bulk water line from the Hartenboskop reservoir to the site. The figure also illustrates the route of the proposed new sewer rising main for the proposed development (Du Preez, 2014). .................................................................................................. 14

Figure 3: The proposed alignment of the new pipeline is indicated in the figure. The Botanical specialist recommends that where the servitude ends, the pipeline follows the alignment of the existing road leading up to the Hartenboskop reservoir and not as indicated by the blue line. .. 15

Figure 4: The pipeline alignment as recommended by the specialists is illustrated. It is recommended that the pipeline follow the alignment of an existing track leading to the Hartenboskop reservoir. ..................................................................................................................................................... 16

Figure 5: Map illustrating the location and short description of infrastructure upgrades proposed for Phase 3 of Sonskynvallei Housing. The map does not include the proposed new water pipeline and reservoir upgrade as these are described earlier in this report. .......................................... 23

Figure 6: Vegetation along the southern section of the R328 where the walkway is proposed, note that the vegetation directly adjacent to the road consist of grasses. At this particular point a milkwood (indicated by arrow) is within close proximity of the road. It is anticipated that if construction occurs within demarcated areas, this milkwood will not be affected. In the



background, where the white bakkie is, is the Mandela Street turnoff to Sonskynvallei. The Department Transport and Public Works have recommended that the turnoff in the foreground be closed. This photo was taken looking in a north easterly direction along the R328. ............. 24

Figure 7: This photo was taken from same position as Figure 6 looking in a south easterly direction towards Hartenbos along the R328. Vegetation directly adjacent to the road consists of grasses and there are no protected trees found along this stretch up to Waboom Street (where walkway is proposed to stop). Reeds seen in this photo is associated with stormwater runoff from the road ............................................................................................................................................. 25

Figure 8: The photo was taken looking back towards Sonskynvallei at the approximate halfway mark between Mandela and Waboom Street. Vegetation is sparse and consists of grasses. ............ 25

Figure 9: This photo was taken at the same location as Figure 7, looking in the opposite direction, towards Hartenbos. The turnoff to Waboom Street can be seen in the background. Impact on vegetation along this section is also considered to be negligible. .............................................. 25

Figure 10: The access point referred to as „waste disposal‟ in comment received from the Department of Transport and Public Works which the Department to be closed off. The waste disposal site can be seen in the background, behind the white wall ............................................................... 26

Figure 11: The waste disposal site at Sonskynvallei, which will be accessed via Mandela Street in future. .......................................................................................................................................... 26

Figure 12: This photo was taken from the „waste disposal‟ access point (to be closed off) looking towards the Mandela Street access point (seen in the background where the bakkie is) situated approximately 50m from where this photo was taken. There will therefore be ample space to construct a left turning lane with minimum length of 30m. From the figure it is clear that the impact on vegetation is negligible. .............................................................................................. 27

Figure 13: The Gumpiro Avenue access point. It was recommended by the TIA and Dept. Transport and Public Works that this access point be closed. This photo was taken in a westerly direction, showing the R328 to Oudtshoorn on the right and the clinic and community centre on the left in the background. ........................................................................................................................... 28

Figure 14: The two photos were taken from the existing Gumpiro Avenue access point (to be closed). The photo on the left is taken in the direction of Oudtshoorn and the photo on the right in the direction of Hartenbos. ................................................................................................................ 28

Figure 15: The height difference between the road and site is illustrated in this picture. In the foreground is an access point for a PetroSA water line indicated in the site development plan. No development will take place on the water line servitude ....................................................... 29

Figure 16: It is proposed that the new pump station be constructed on the grassed area on the left of this photo. This area was assessed by the botanical specialist and found suitable for development. Areas seen on the right hand side of this photo has been excluded from the development area as it has been identified as sensitive and conservation worthy by the specialist ...................................................................................................................................... 29

Figure 17: The new rising main will start at the existing Sonskynvallei pump station and travel in a north westerly direction (photo on the right) toward the location of the new pump station. ........ 30

Figure 18: The vegetation along Gumpiro Avenue road reserve where rising main is proposed to be installed. The Sonskynvallei pump station is visible in the background ...................................... 30

Figure 19: The vegetation along Gumpiro Avenue is illustrated looking in a north westerly direction towards the current Gumpiro Avenue access point. The rising main is proposed to be installed on the left of the fence seen in this photo ................................................................................... 31

Figure 20: Vegetation along the rising main route in the northern corner of the proposed development site/north of the clinic. This vegetation was assessed as part of the botanical specialist assessment and not found to be sensitive .................................................................................. 31

Figure 21: The photo shows, from the left, the R328, stormwater channel next to the road and the Gumpiro Avenue road reserve. Sonskynvallei pump station is visible in the background, along the road reserve. It would be impractical to align the sewer rising main in the stormwater channel next to the road, therefore the Gumpiro Avenue road reserve is recommended to be more suitable. .............................................................................................................................. 32



Figure 22: Area of the proposed site that has been identified for housing development (location of the housing activity on the property) i.e. outlined in yellow is the proposed area where the houses will physically be built, Public Open Space is excluded. ............................................................. 35

Figure 23: Proposed alignment of the new bulk water pipeline. ............................................................ 36

Figure 24: Proposed new pipeline alignment as recommended by specialists. The proposed new alignment means a section of the pipeline will be aligned an along an existing track leading to the Hartenboskop reservoir. ........................................................................................................ 37

Figure 25: The existing Hartenboskop reservoir is seen in the background. Vegetation around the site comprises a mixture of indigenous and alien plants. The botanical specialist described the vegetation close (and around) the reservoir as „somewhat transformed‟. The fence around the reservoir site has been largely destroyed and vandalised. The photo was taken in a westerly direction. ...................................................................................................................................... 38

Figure 26: Vegetation at the Hartenboskop reservoir. Photo taken from the reservoir to the where Figure 25 was taken from, in a north-easterly direction. ............................................................. 38

Figure 27: Alignment of proposed bulk water pipeline to service the proposed development. The pipeline will start at the existing Hartenboskop reservoir and be approximately 1.4km in length – imagery date September 2013 (Google Earth, 2014). ................................................................ 40

Figure 28: Slope (in degrees) of the proposed development area is indicated in the figure. Map was generated on CapeFarmMapper – Western Cape Department of Agriculture (CapeFarmMapper, 2014) ........................................................................................................................................... 44

Figure 29: Location of the development site in the landscape indicating the R328 between Hartenbos and Oudtshoorn (Google Earth, 2014). ....................................................................................... 45

Figure 30: Contour plan (5m) of the proposed Sonskynvallei development site. The figure illustrates the proposed new bulk water pipeline alignment as recommended by specialists (line) and the proposed development site (polygon). Please note that the area identified for housing development does not comprise the entire development site as indicated in this figure, refer to Appendix B – Development layout. Map was generated on CapeFarmMapper – Department of Agriculture (CapeFarmMapper, 2014) ........................................................................................ 45

Figure 31: The figure above is from Coetzee (2014), and illustrates areas of the proposed development site (yellow) in terms of their sensitivity. Areas 1 -3 indicate thicket vegetation and 4 indicate an area that has been mostly transformed. ................................................................ 49

Figure 32: The figure illustrates the land uses surrounding the development site. ............................... 51

Figure 33: 3D images of the proposed structures for the Sonskynvallei Phase 3 housing extension. Single free-standing units are illustrated in the back and semi-detached in the front (Stead, 2014). .......................................................................................................................................... 71

Figure 34: Urban Edge of Mossel Bay indicated by the blue dotted line. From the image it is clear that the existing Sonskynvallei Township as well as the proposed new development area (except for a portion of the new bulk water pipeline) falls within the urban edge of Mossel Bay (Mossel Bay SDF, 2008). ............................................................................................................................... 108

LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Coordinates of the proposed water pipeline from the existing Hartenboskop reservoir to the

proposed Phase of the Sonskynvallei housing development...................................................... 41



ABBREVIATIONS AIA Archaeological Impact Assessment BGIS Biodiversity Geographic Information System BID Background Information Document CBD Central Business District ACMP Archaeological Conservation Management Plan CDSM Chief Directorate Surveys and Mapping CEMP Construction Environmental Management Plan DBAR Draft Basic Assessment Report DEA Department of Environmental Affairs DEA&DP Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning DME Department of Minerals and Energy FBAR Final Basic Assessment Report EAP Environmental Impact Practitioner EHS Environmental, Health & Safety EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EIR Environmental Impact Report EMP Environmental Management Programme GPS Global Positioning System HIA Heritage Impact Assessment HWC Heritage Western Cape I&APs Interested and Affected Parties IDP Integrated Development Plan LLRC Low Level River Crossing LUDS Land Use Decision Support LUPO Land Use Planning Ordinance MW Mega Watt NEMA National Environmental Management Act NEMAA National Environmental Management Amendment Act NEMBA National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act NERSA National Energy Regulator of South Africa NHRA National Heritage Resources Act NID Notice of Intent to Develop NSBA National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment NWA National Water Act PM Post Meridiem; “Afternoon” SACAA South African Civil Aviation Authority SAHRA South African National Heritage Resources Agency SANBI South Africa National Biodiversity Institute SANS South Africa National Standards SDF Spatial Development Framework SAPD South Africa Police Department TIA Traffic Impact Assessment VIA Visual Impact Assessment


Cape EAPrac 1 Final Basic Assessment Report

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT (AUGUST 2010)

BASIC ASSESSMENT FORM

(AUGUST 2011) Basic Assessment Report in terms of the NEMA Environmental Impact Assessment

Regulations, 2010 AUGUST 2010

Kindly note that: 1. This Basic Assessment Report is the standard report required by DEA&DP in terms of the EIA Regulations, 2010 and

must be completed for all Basic Assessment applications. 2. This report must be used in all instances for Basic Assessment applications for an environmental authorisation in terms of

the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998) (NEMA), as amended, and the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2010, and/or a waste management licence in terms of the National Environmental Management: Waste Act, 2008 (Act 59 of 2008) (NEM: WA), and/or an atmospheric emission licence in terms of the National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act, 2004 (Act No. 39 of 2004) (NEM: AQA).

3. This report is current as of 2 August 2010. It is the responsibility of the Applicant / EAP to ascertain whether subsequent

versions of the report have been published or produced by the competent authority.

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

5. Incomplete reports will be rejected. A rejected report may be amended and resubmitted. 6. The use of “not applicable” in the report must be done with circumspection. Where it is used in respect of material

information that is required by the Department for assessing the application, this may result in the rejection of the report as provided for in the regulations.

7. While the different sections of the report only provide space for provision of information related to one alternative,

if more than one feasible and reasonable alternative is considered, the relevant section must be copied and completed for each alternative.

8. Unless protected by law all information contained in, and attached to this report, will become public information on receipt

by the competent authority. If information is not submitted with this report due to such information being protected by law, the applicant and/or EAP must declare such non-disclosure and provide the reasons for the belief that the information is protected.

9. This report must be submitted to the Department at the postal address given below or by delivery thereof to the Registry

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

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

Department.



DEPARTMENTAL DETAILS CAPE TOWN OFFICE REGION A (Cape Winelands, City of Cape Town: Tygerberg and Oostenberg Administrations)

CAPE TOWN OFFICE REGION B (West Coast, Overberg, City of Cape Town: Helderberg, South Peninsula, Cape Town and Blaauwberg Administrations

GEORGE OFFICE (Eden and Central Karoo)

Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning Attention: Directorate: Integrated Environmental Management (Region A2) Private Bag X 9086 Cape Town, 8000 Registry Office 1st Floor Utilitas Building 1 Dorp Street, Cape Town Queries should be directed to the Directorate: Integrated Environmental Management (Region A2) at: Tel: (021) 483-4793 Fax: (021) 483-3633

Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning Attention: Directorate: Integrated Environmental Management (Region B) Private Bag X 9086 Cape Town, 8000 Registry Office 1st Floor Utilitas Building 1 Dorp Street, Cape Town Queries should be directed to the Directorate: Integrated Environmental Management (Region B) at: Tel: (021) 483-4094 Fax: (021) 483-4372

Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning Attention: Directorate: Integrated Environmental Management (Region A1) Private Bag X 6509 George, 6530 Registry Office 4th Floor, York Park Building 93 York Street George Queries should be directed to the Directorate: Integrated Environmental Management (Region A1) at: Tel: (044) 805 8600 Fax: (044) 874-2423

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

DEPARTMENTAL REFERENCE NUMBER(S) File reference number (EIA): File reference number (Waste): File reference number (Other): PROJECT TITLE Sonskynvallei Housing Extension – Phase 3

DETAILS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PRACTITIONER (EAP) Environmental Assessment Practitioner (EAP):

Cape Environmental Assessment Practitioners (Pty) Ltd

Contact person: Wynand Loftus Postal address: P O Box 2070 George Postal code: 6530 Telephone: (044) 874 0365 Cell: 072 354 2607 E-mail: [email protected] Fax: (044) 874 0432 EAP Qualifications MTech Nature Conservation (Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University)

EAP Registrations/Associations

Director certified as an Environmental Assessment Practitioners with the

Interim Certification Board for Environmental Assessment Practitioners of

South Africa (EAPSA).

DETAILS OF THE EAP‟S EXPERTISE TO CARRY OUT BASIC ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES Wynand Loftus (MTech Nature Conservation, NMMU) has a Master‟s degree, completed in 2013,

focused on the Invasive Alien Plants management and the effectiveness thereof in South African

National Parks. The main conceptual foundation of his Master‟s was Strategic Adaptive Management,

specifically focussing on whether this management paradigm is being implemented (practically) on the

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



ground.

As part of his BTech Nature Conservation, Wynand completed a subject that focuses on the National

Environmental Management Act (NEMA) and the environmental process that needs to take place as

described in the act (e.g. this report). Amongst others, he also has experience in resource

management (erosion & fire management), plant identification & statistics, which formed part of his

study career.



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE CONTENT OF THE BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT:

SUMMARY

1. INTRODUCTION

Cape Environmental Assessment Practitioners (Cape EAPrac) has been appointed by the Mossel

Bay Municipality as independent environmental assessment practitioners (EAP) to investigate and

assess the environmental impact of a proposed housing development on Portions 4, 59 & 105 of the

Farm Hartenbosch 217, Erf 1853 and Erf 3122, Mossel Bay.

The development triggers a number of “listed activities” in terms of the 2010 Environmental

Regulations and National Environmental Management Act (Act 107 of 1998 as amended) for which

prior authorisation must be obtained from the Provincial Department of Environmental Affairs.

In order to investigate and assess the potential impacts associated with the proposed development a

Basic Assessment process must be undertaken. Such a process is to be informed by specialist and

project team input. This report includes reference to such studies and uses the information gathered

by specialists to determine the nature and significance of impacts that may result from the proposed

development.

Please note that for ease of reference, any information that did not appear in the Draft BAR is

highlighted in dark grey in this Final BAR.

1.1 PROJECT NEED The Mossel Bay Municipality, as the local authority, has a mandate and responsibility to provide in the

housing need of those that cannot secure/afford accommodation. As part of this mandate the

Municipality maintains a housing list of beneficiaries that qualify for assistance / subsidies and based

on the demand the Municipality investigate and implements housing projects to address the housing

backlog.

The Municipality has identified the proposed site as suitable for one of their housing projects within the

greater Mossel Bay area. There is a constant influx of people into the Sonskynvallei community and

housing shortages need to be addressed. The property falls within the urban edge of Mossel Bay

and has been earmarked for future township expansion.

2. PROCESS DESCRIPTION

This Final Basic Assessment Report (FBAR) is the third, and final, in a series of three (3) reports

that make up the Basic Assessment process. The first being the Application Form that was submitted

to the Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (DEA&DP) on 19 November

2013 and accepted by them on 5 December 2013. The second being the Draft Basic Assessment

Report (DBAR) which was made available to the public, and authorities, for a 40-day commenting

period (1 October 2014 to 10 November 2014).



Public participation commenced with written notice to neighbouring land owners, newspaper adverts

and site notices, calling for the registration of Interested & Affected Parties (I&APs) to register for the

process and/or submit preliminary comments if relevant.

The above steps were followed by a meeting with the local Councillor, relevant Municipal departments,

planner and Cape EAPrac to obtain input and guidance on aspects that must be taken into account

during the environmental process. The public participation process was informed by a meeting

between the ward committee and the persons mentioned above.

This FBAR (3rd of the three reports) will be available for a period of 21-days during which time

registered I&APS, Key Stakeholders, relevant Authorities and Organs of State will be allowed time to

review the report and formulate their comments. Once the comment period ends on the FBAR, Cape

EAPrac will consult with the relevant project team members and specialists to reflect on any

changes/amendments that may be required in order to address and/or mitigate further

issues/concerns not yet identified. All comments received during the specified comment period will be

considered, responded to, and recorded in the Final Basic Assessment Report (FBAR) which will be

submitted to the Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (DEA&DP). The

FBAR is the final report of the environmental process. Any changes to the proposal and submissions

are included in this FBAR.

Once the comment period on the FBAR ends, the report will be submitted to the delegated decision-

making Authority (DEA&DP, George) for consideration and decision-making.

All registered I&APs will be informed of the Department’s decision on the application.

3. ACTIVITY & PLANNING CONTEXT

Two development alternatives have been considered in the planning phase of this process. Alternative

3 (Status Qua/No-Go) is not considered feasible as it does not present the most optimal use for the

site since the property falls within the urban edge and has been earmarked for township expansion.

The impacts of Alternative 3 are however assessed against other alternatives. The following

alternatives are considered in this application (values appearing below are approximate):

Alternative 1

Appendix B, layout map dated January 2014

- 686 Residential Zone (subsidy) erven (free-

standing single dwellings)

- 2 Transport Zone II erven

- 14 Public Open Space erven

- 2 Church erven

- 1 Crèche erf

- 1 Business erf

- 1 Authority erf

Limited specialist input ito of sensitive natural areas

that must be avoided and visual impact.

Alternative 2 (preferred) - 616 Residential Zone (subsidy) erven (semi-



Appendix B, layout map

dated November 2014

detached dwellings)

- 2 Transport Zone II erven

- 11 Public Open Space erven

- 2 Church erven

- 1 Crèche erf

- 1 Business erf

- 1 Authority erf

Layout informed through specialist input. Areas with

sensitive vegetation have been excluded from

development footprint. Visual impact statement

identified that a number of erven be removed to

decrease visual impact – reflected in this plan. The

Department of Transport & Public Works

recommended that the layout be amended to

accommodate a possible future access point opposite

the mine – recommendation take into account in this

layout.

Alternative 3 No development takes

place Status Quo/No-Go

The properties are currently zoned Agriculture and Authority respectively, thus re-zoning of the site is

required to allow for the erven in the table above.

The Municipality has confirmed that services (electricity and household waste) can be supplied to the

development (Annexure E2 & E3). Infrastructure upgrades are however required for the water

provisioning and sewage, as indicated in the civil services report. The report compiled by Du Preez

(2014) indicated that the following upgrades be made in order to service the proposed development:

- 1200kl capacity increase to the existing Hartenboskop reservoir (new reservoir)

- New 200mm bulk water pipeline from the Hartenboskop reservoir to the proposed

development

- New sewer rising main with pump station (within the development footprint)

Where relevant the environmental impact of the new bulk services were considered and assessed in

this document.

The proposed development will have an approximate footprint of 33.76ha, of which ± 14.6ha will be

developed as housing opportunities with associated infrastructure, and ±19.1ha will be zoned Public

Open Space.

It has to be noted that although the proposed development makes provision for a high number of

housing opportunities, not all housing opportunities will be developed simultaneously. Prior to



Phase 3 (of Sonskynvallei) being implemented, Phase 2 (approved and serviced) must be occupied

first, only later to be followed by Phase 3 (this application). It is anticipated that this application (for

Phase 3 of Sonskynvallei) will be implemented over a 5 – 10 year period.

The proposed development site will be serviced and housing opportunities will be developed as per

the need and availability of municipal funds.

4. SITE DESCRIPTION AND ATTRIBUTES

Farm Portions 59 & 105 of the Farm Hartenbosch 217 and Erf 1853 are owned by the Mossel Bay

Municipality (the Applicant). Erf 3122 and Portion 4 of the Farm Hartenbosch 217 are owned by the

ATKV (Afrikaanse Taal- en Kultuurvereniging) who have granted the Applicant permission to conduct

an environmental impact assessment and develop the property for the goal of subsidy housing

opportunities (Annexure E1).

PROPERTY ZONING SIZE COORDINATES 21 SG DIGIT

Farm Portion 59 of 217 Agricultural Zone I 16.7

34˚07‟10.36”S

22˚05‟03.21”E C05100000000021700059

Farm Portion 105

of 217 Institutional Zone I 6.5ha 34˚06‟53.67”S

22˚04‟57.44”E C05100000000021700105

Erf 1853 Agricultural Zone I 151.8ha

34˚07‟18.77”S

22˚05‟25.06”E C05100040000185300000

Erf 3122 Agricultural Zone I 60.5ha

34˚07‟39.11”S

22˚05‟04.55”E C05100040000312200000

Remainder of

Farm Portion 4 of

217 Agricultural Zone I 43.2

34˚07‟11.25”S

22˚04‟48.54”E C05100000000021700004

The development site can be described as an undeveloped area located between a housing suburb to

the east (existing Sonskynvallei Township), brickworks to the west, agricultural land to the north and a

„natural‟ area to the south. Five (5) properties make up the development site. In total these properties

covers an area of ±278ha. The proposed development will however be restricted to an approximate

footprint of 33.76ha. The site is located approximately 2km west of the N2 between Hartenbos and

Klein Brak, along the R328 that travels between Hartenbos and Oudtshoorn. Access to the site would

be via the existing R328 and Mandela Street as recommended and indicated in the Traffic Impact

Assessment (TIA; Annexure G6).



According to SANBI BGIS the entire site is described as Groot Brak Dune Strandveld and classified

as ‘Endangered’ in terms of ecosystem status, and ‘not protected’ in terms of protection status. This

vegetation type is associated with flat undulating landscapes and steep coastal slopes. At a finer scale

the vegetation has been described as Herbertsdale Renoster Thicket which is characterised by

small thicket clumps occurring in a matrix of Renosterveld. The Renosterveld component of the

vegetation is very grassy in the areas most recently burnt. True thicket occurs west of the rugby field

(Coetzee, 2014).

In overall context the land use of the site can be described as natural/undeveloped. There is also a

rugby field, netball court (under construction), crèche and clinic on the site. These facilities are

currently used by people from the existing Sonskynvallei Township (Phase 1). The proposed

development, Phase 3, will in-part be constructed around the rugby field, crèche and clinic. Most of the

development will be constructed on an area described as natural.

5. PROCESS TO DATE

CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS DATE PURPOSE ENTITY ACTIONS 19 November 2013 Application form for

Basic Assessment DEA&DP Submitted

5 December 2013 Application accepted DEA&DP Environmental Process to commence

13 June 2014 Public Participation Process (PPP): Advert calling I&APs to register

George Herald Calling I&APs to register for the Environmental Process

13 June 2014 PPP: Placing of two (2) site notices

Proposed development site

Informing of the project proposal, deviations and exemption, as well as how to register as an I&AP

13 June 2014 PPP: notification of Environmental Process

Neighbouring landowners, ward councillor, relevant state departments and authorities

Informing of the Environmental Process and how to register as an I&AP if not already registered. Also ask to submit any provisional comments. Direct neighbours of Sonskynvallei were informed via letter drop.

20 June 2014 Meeting with ward Councillor, planners, Mossel Bay Municipality Housing & Environmental Managers

Mossel Bay Municipality

Discuss future ward committee meeting, visual impact statement will be required, BID will need to be compiled (in Afrikaans), explore possibility of semi-detached dwellings.

23 June 2014 Compose Afrikaans Background Information Document

Cape EAPrac BID was prepared to provide more information to



(BID) community members and relevant authorities.

2 July 2014 Ward committee meeting

Sonskynvallei and Hartenbosheuwels Ward Committees and Mossel Bay Municipality

Discuss the project and hand out BID‟s to attendees.

14 July 2014 Distribute BID to registered I&APs, relevant state departments and authorities

Various Provide information of proposed development.

29 September 2014 Submit DBAR DEA&DP DBAR made available for 40-day commenting period.

1 October 2014 Start of 40-day commenting period on DBAR. DBAR hard copy made available at the Mossel Bay Municipality‟s Planning Department, Hartenbos Library and Sonskynvallei Clinic. Digital Copy available on the Cape EAPrac website.

Document made available by Cape EAPrac.

Start of 40-day commenting period on DBAR.

10 November 2014 End of 40-day commenting period on DBAR

11 November 2014 Send out Notifications of the Availability of the FBAR from 13 November to 3 December 2014. FBAR will be submitted at the same time as start of commenting period

Registered I&APs. Notification of start of 21-day commenting period.

12 November 2014 Submit Final BAR DEA&DP Final BAR made available for 21-day commenting period at same date as submission.

6. IMPACT SUMMARY

The change in character of the area from an undeveloped portion of land to an urban township

is low negative considering that the property falls within the urban edge of Mossel Bay, which

renders the change acceptable as it is designated for township development.

The loss of biodiversity associated with the clearing of vegetation and the transformation of

portions of the site for housing development is considered low/medium negative. The reason

for this impact rating is due to the land currently being undeveloped and containing remnants



of natural vegetation. Conservation worthy thicket patches identified as part of the Botanical

Impact Assessment has been excluded from the development area. It also has to be noted

that provision has been made for large areas of Public Open Space along the southern side of

the proposed development area where the natural vegetation can be conserved.

Impact on Heritage resources are considered to be negligible due to the absence of old

structures/buildings or gravesites on the development site.

From an archaeological point of view the proposed development will have no impact on

significant archaeological resources and the correct manner for dealing with archaeological

resources exposed during construction is laid out in the Archaeological Impact Assessment.

Impacts on archaeological resources are considered negligible.

The proposed new development will result in an increase in traffic volumes of the area. This is

considered to be low as the Traffic Impact Assessment make recommendations for best traffic

management. Traffic impact is also unavoidable in terms of township development, thus

mitigation measures needs to be as effective as possible.

The potential impact of installing the external bulk services (sewer line, water line and 1200kl

reservoir) is considered negligible as these services will be installed within already disturbed

areas (i.e. transformed) or servitudes where other services are already accommodated.

Alignment of the water line has been changed through specialist input in order to decrease the

impact on vegetation. A section of the pipeline will aligned along the existing track leading to

the Hartenboskop reservoir. Mossel Bay Municipality confirmed that a servitude can be

registered to accommodate the pipeline.

Providing housing in the Mossel Bay/Sonskynvallei area where there is a known housing need

is considered very high positive.

The visual impact of the proposed development does not constitute a significant impact

considering that amendments were made to the layout to exclude visually sensitive areas,

specify a combination of semi-detached and single erven to reduce the bulk effect, as well as

that the area falls within the urban edge.

The potential of increasing crime and security risks within the established township area is

considered medium negative.

No noise impacts are expected for the operation phase.

Potential erosion during construction phase is considered low negative. By following

mitigation and control measures as indicated in the Environmental Management Programme

this impact can be brought down to very low-negligible.

7. CONCLUSION

The main purpose of the proposed project is to alleviate the need for housing in the greater Mossel

Bay area. The Municipality has identified beneficiaries that are likely to qualify for subsidies and if

approved, these beneficiaries will be further engaged with and assisted with applications for subsidies.



The project is unlikely to result in significant negative environmental impacts whilst creating a

large number of housing opportunities to families. Mitigation measures have been recommended to

manage and reduce impacts to within acceptable limits.

The various specialist studies and project team investigations have all concluded that there is no

fatal flaw in developing the property in the manner proposed. The preferred Alternative 2 is therefore

recommended for approval (Appendix B, layout dated November 2014).



SECTION A: ACTIVITY INFORMATION

1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

(a) Is the project a new development? YES NO (b) Provide a detailed description of the development project and associated infrastructure. The Mossel Bay Municipality intends to develop approximately 33.76ha of land adjacent to (south-

west of) the existing Sonskynvallei township into subsidy housing opportunities and associated

township erven. The site is located on Portions 4, 59 & 105 of the Farm Hartenbosch 217, Erf 1853

and Erf 3122, Mossel Bay. The site falls within the urban edge of Mossel Bay.

With regards to bulk infrastructure:

A new 200mm bulk water pipeline from the existing Hartenboskop reservoir will have to be

constructed to service the proposed development with water.

A new internal sewage pump station and rising main is required, which will discharge into the

existing Sonskynvallei pump station with sufficient capacity.

A new 1200kl reservoir to be constructed next to the existing Hartenboskop Reservoir.

These bulk services are assessed as part of this process.

The properties are currently zoned as Agriculture I and Authority, thus rezoning of the property is

necessary. Rezoning will provide for one of the following alternatives (Appendix B – site development

plan):

Alternative 1 (January 2014) Alternative 2 (preferred – November 2014)

686 Residential Zone (subsidy) erven – free-

standing single residential dwellings

616 Residential Zone (subsidy) erven – free-

standing single residential dwellings

2 Transport Zone II erven 2 Transport Zone II erven

14 Public Open Space erven 11 Public Open Space erven

2 Church erven 2 Church erven

1 Crèche erf 1 Crèche erf

1 Business erf 1 Business erf

1 Authority erf 1 Authority erf

Farm Portions 59 & 105 of the Farm Hartenbosch 217 and Erf 1853 are owned by the Mossel Bay

Municipality (the Applicant). Erf 3122 and Portion 4 of the Farm Hartenbosch 217 are owned by the

ATKV (Afrikaanse Taal- en Kultuurvereniging) who have granted the Applicant permission (Annexure

E1) to conduct an environmental impact assessment and develop the property for the goal of subsidy

housing opportunities.

The information below was obtained, unless otherwise indicated, from the Civil Engineering Services

Report (2014), compiled by Louis du Preez from Royal Haskoning DHV, reference Du Preez (2014) –



Annexure G3. Services to the proposed housing development will include the following:

Bulk water supply

The Annual Average Daily Demand (AADD) for the proposed development was estimated to be 600

litres per day for 616 residential units, in total this amounts to 369.6 kilo-litres per day for the entire

proposed housing development. The peak water flow for 616 residential units is estimated to be 17.1 litres per second.

It was confirmed by GLS Consulting that an additional 1200kl reservoir storage is required at the

existing 3500kl Hartenboskop reservoir. The storage in the new reservoir will be shared by the

proposed Sonskynvallei development and other proposed developments in the supply area of the new

reservoir (i.e. Hartenbosch Heuwels extensions). In addition to the increase of the Hartenboskop

reservoir storage capacity, a bulk water supply line will be required from the reservoir to the

proposed site. A 1415m x 200mm pipeline following the gravel track to the reservoir in part, as

well as following within the servitude of an existing 100mm diameter bulk line servicing the

Brandwag township is proposed.

A 10 metre wide corridor route of the pipeline is illustrated in Figure 1 & Figure 2 below. The exact

route of the pipeline within this corridor will be determined during the detailed design phase.

Figure 1: Google Earth image showing the alignment of the proposed new bulk water pipeline to service the proposed development – imagery date September 2013 (Google Earth, 2014). The existing road leading up to the Hartenboskop reservoir from Sonskynvallei is also visible on the image.



Figure 2: Route of the proposed new bulk water line from the Hartenboskop reservoir to the site. The figure also illustrates the route of the proposed new sewer rising main for the proposed development (Du Preez, 2014).

Alignment recommendation by Botanical Specialist

It is proposed that the new bulk water pipeline follow the alignment of the existing pipeline which runs

within a registered servitude (confirmed with engineers) as indicated in Figure 3. This servitude stops



at the boundary of the Remainder of Portion 4 of Farm 217, also indicated in Figure 3. From this point,

the botanical specialist has recommended that the pipeline follow the alignment of the existing road

leading up to the Hartenboskop reservoir as close as possible in order to minimise the impact on

vegetation (road is visible in Figure 3).

―If the trenching of the pipeline is carried out in a sensitive way (ie, by trenching along the

existing road and using a minimum footprint width), it will be possible to lay the pipeline

with very little biodiversity impact.‖ (Coetzee, 2014)

Figure 3: The proposed alignment of the new pipeline is indicated in the figure. The Botanical specialist recommends that where the servitude ends, the pipeline follows the alignment of the existing road leading up to the Hartenboskop reservoir and not as indicated by the blue line.



Figure 4: The pipeline alignment as recommended by the specialists is illustrated. It is recommended that the pipeline follow the alignment of an existing track leading to the Hartenboskop reservoir.

Also taking into account that the existing water servitude runs through a portion that has been flagged

by NFEPA, it was agreed with the Mossel Bay Municipality‟s Technical Manager, Mr Sedick Naidoo

(email correspondence, see Annexure F4) to realign the new water line so that it will follow the existing

gravel track for the portion indicated in the yellow hash line in the above image (a servitude must be

registered along the planned new route for the section where the proposed pipeline follows the road).

This realignment for the specified portion of the water line will ensure compliance with the botanists‟

recommendation. It was confirmed with the land surveyor that the survey of the water pipeline

servitude can be handled when the Phase 3 Erven are surveyed.

Bulk sewage

It is estimated that 80% of the AADD will comprise of sewage flow, this amounts to 500l/d per unit and

308kl/d for 616 units. According to the engineer (RHDHV) officials at the Mossel Bay Municipality have

confirmed that additional flow generated by the proposed housing development can be

accommodated by the existing waste water treatment works once proposed upgrades have been

completed (Annexure E3). The proposed new development will connect to the existing sewerage

network currently servicing Sonskynvallei township via a new sewage pump station with rising main.

Upgrades to segments of the existing network will be determined during detailed design in order to

accommodate additional flow. An internal sewage pump station with rising main will be required for

the proposed development which will discharge into the existing Sonskynvallei pump station which has

sufficient capacity for the additional flow. See Figure 2 for rising main alignment.



Bulk stormwater management

Where possible, the run-off rates for the full spectrum of design storms should not exceed the run-off

rates from the pre-developed site. Minor storm events (1:2 year) will be managed in pipes or open

channels, whereas major storms (1:50 year) will be managed through controlled overland flows and

above-ground attenuation storage. The new stormwater pipe systems will connect to the existing

stormwater network of the adjacent development. Stormwater concentration will be avoided at all

costs. Concrete headwalls with flow dissipaters will be constructed at all outlets, followed by a 0.3m

thick Reno mattress stilling basin for erosion protection and energy dissipation as detailed in

Annexure A of the Civil Services Report.

Access

Access to the proposed development site will be via the existing R328 that runs between Oudtshoorn

and Mossel Bay and existing roads of the Sonskynvallei township. The existing access into

Sonskynvallei Phase 1 will be upgraded according to the recommendations of the TIA.

Solid waste

According to the engineers (RHDHV) officials from Mossel Bay Municipality has confirmed that refuse

generated by the proposed new development will be collected as part of the normal municipal service

and that the landfill site has adequate capacity (Annexure E3).

Above described services refers to bulk services. Internal services are discussed in section 1(d)

below.

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

GN No. R. 544 Activity No(s):

Describe the relevant Basic Assessment Activity(ies) in writing as per Listing Notice 1 (GN No. R. 544)

Describe the portion of the development as per the project description that relates to the applicable listed activity.

11 The construction of (x) buildings and (xi)

infrastructure where such construction

occurs within 32m of a watercourse

measured from the edge of the watercourse.

Development on a section of the

Remainder of Portion 4 of Farm 217 may

fall within 32m from a drainage line that

borders the property to the West (i.e.

infrastructure).

18 The infilling or depositing of any material of

more than 5 cubic metres into, or the

dredging, excavation, removal or moving of

soil, sand, shell grit, pebbles or rock from –

(i) a watercourse

The Civil Services report found that a new

bulk water line that connects to the

Hartenboskop reservoir will have to be

installed. The alternative alignment, as per

the botanist‟s recommendation will avoid

any impact on the NFEPA area.

23 The transformation of undeveloped, vacant

or derelict land to (i) residential, retail,

The planned extension of Sonskynvallei

(Phase 3) will have an approximate



commercial, recreational or institutional use,

inside an urban area, and where the total

area to be transformed is 5ha or more, but

less than 20ha.

footprint area of 14ha (excluding Public

Open Space). Portion 105 is already

transformed and therefore this activity only

applies to the Remainder of Portion 4 and

Portion 59 of Farm 217. GN No. R. 546 Activity No(s):

Describe the relevant Basic Assessment Activity(ies) in writing as per Listing Notice 3 (GN No. R. 546)


12 The clearance of an area of 300square

meters or more of vegetation where 75% or

more of the vegetative cover constitutes

indigenous vegetation [within any critically

endangered or endangered ecosystem

listed ito NEMBA or prior to the publication

of such a list within an area that has been

identified as critically endangered ito NSBA).

A small section of Remainder Portion 4 of

Farm 217 is designated as CBA (along the

drainage line West of the property). CBA

has not been adopted yet.

The entire development site is indicated

as Grootbrak Dune Strandveld

(endangered in terms of NSBA and

NEMBA but not critically endangered as

per the description of Activity 12).

13 The clearance of an area of 1ha or more of

vegetation where 75% or more of the

vegetative cover constitutes indigenous

vegetation (within critical biodiversity areas

and ecological support areas identified in

systematic biodiversity plans adopted by the

competent authority).

A small section of Remainder Portion 4 of

Farm 217 is designated as CBA (along the

drainage line West of the property). CBA

has not been adopted yet.

14 The clearance of an area of 5ha or more of

vegetation where 75% or more of the

vegetative cover constitutes indigenous

vegetation (in all areas outside urban

areas).

The property falls within the defined urban

edge of Mossel Bay.

16 The construction of (iii) buildings with a

footprint exceeding 10 square metres in size

or (iv) infrastructure covering 10 square

metres or more where such construction

occurs within 32m from the edge of a

watercourse (inside urban areas if zoned

open space, if the area is designated for

conservation use in the SDF and all areas

seawards of the development setback line

or the high water mark where no setback

line exists).

The property falls within the defined urban

area of Hartenbos.



Activity 2 of Listing Notice 3 (R546) relating to the construction of reservoirs was considered for the construction of

the additional reservoir storage. The Hartenboskop reservoir is located within the urban edge of Mossel Bay and

inside an area earmarked as ‗Residential Infill and Expansion Areas‘ in the 2008 Mossel Bay SDF (area is labeled

Hartenbos Heuwels 2 on the Spatial Planning Categories Map). The listed activity is therefore not triggered by the

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

GN No. R. 545 Activity No(s):

If permission was granted in terms of Regulation 20, describe the relevant Scoping and EIA Activity(ies) in writing as per Listing Notice 2 (GN No. R. 545)


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

GN No. 718 - Category A Activity No(s): Describe the relevant Category A waste management activity in writing.

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

GN No. 718 – Category B Activity No(s): Describe the relevant Category B waste management activity in writing.

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

GN No. 248 Activity No(s): Describe the relevant atmospheric emission activity in writing.

(d) Please provide details of all components of the proposed project and attach diagrams (e.g. architectural drawings or perspectives, engineering drawings, process flow charts etc.). Buildings YES NO

Provide brief description:

Approximately 13ha of the proposed site has been identified for the development of ±616 subsidy housing opportunities/erven (preferred alternative) with associated infrastructure. Land uses

include 2 Transport Zone II erven, 11 Public Open Space erven, 2 Church erven, 1 crèche erf and 1

Business zone erf. The entire site is ±33.7ha in size of which ±13ha has been identified for

development, the remainder is indicated for Public Open Space (±20.7ha).

See Appendix B for site development layout. Above describes the preferred development layout

dated November 2014.

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


Infrastructure will comprise of the instalment of internal civil services i.e. water supply, foul

sewerage, stormwater management, internal roads, external roads and electrical services. As

mentioned earlier in this report, a 200mm bulk water line will be required from the existing



Hartenboskop reservoir. An additional 1200kl storage reservoir at the Hartenboskop reservoir will

also be required. Also a new sewer pump line with pumpstation must be installed. Refer to section

1(b) and the Civil Services Report (Annexure G3) for a detailed description of the proposed bulk

services upgrades.

Water supply (Du Preez, 2014)

Internal pipes will be sized to cater for the instantaneous peak demand and fire flow. The

network will have a minimum pipe size of 75mm mPVC pipe.

Pipe materials: Mains – mPVC or similar; Erf connections – 20 mm Class 16 Type 5 SABS

533 or Polycop Class 16 JASWIC approved.

Fire flow – fire hydrants to be placed maximum 240m apart.

Foul sewerage (Du Preez, 2014)

Network pipe size will be minimum 160mm in diameter and Erf connections will be 110mm in

diameter.

Pipe material will be solid wall type uPVC.

Pipe cover will be 1.2m below roadways/footways and 0.6m elsewhere.

Stormwater management (Du Preez, 2014)

Minor storms (1:2 year) will be managed through a network of kerb inlets, grid inlets, open channels and below-ground pipes. Major storm events (1:50 year) will be managed

through overland flow via roads and footways, and attenuation storage within public open

spaces and within the road network, as appropriate.

Pipes will have a minimum diameter of 375mm and the pipe material will be concrete or

Spiral HDPE (subject to Municipal approval).

Maximum use of SUDS recommended: open grassed channels (swales), permeable

surfacing (where appropriate), water storage and re-use to reduce stormwater runoff

volumes

Internal roads (Du Preez, 2014)

The internal road surface will be block paving, Cape seal, asphalt or concrete (subject to

Municipal approval at the time of implementation of the project).

The road width will be 3m minimum

Layer works will be dictated by the geotechnical investigation and municipal standards.

External roads (Trafic study) (Maart, 2014; Annexure G6)

A traffic impact assessment (TIA) was conducted to assess the effect of the proposed

development on traffic and the road network in the area, and where mitigation measures will

be necessary. The following recommendations are made in the TIA:



Mandela Street will be chosen as a single access point to the development and should be

improved by a left turning lane on the eastern approach with a minimum length of 30m.

The Gumpiro Avenue access point onto TR 33/2 to the West of Mandela Street should be

closed off. A request to formalise this access point was raised by the Ward Committee

members during a meeting that took place on 2 July 2014 at the Sonskynvallei Community

Centre regarding the proposed development. It is believed that the safety of the access point

(and possibly formalising it) can be increased significantly if the vegetation inside the road

reserve is cleared. Response on this request from the engineer who conducted the TIA can

be seen in section 11(C) of this report. Also see feedback from Western Cape Government

Department of Transport and Public works below.

The existing pedestrian walkway from Hartenbos to the TR 33/1 - Waboom Street junction

needs to be extended up to the Mandela Street access to the Sonskyn Valley development.

The walkway will be ± 950m long and should be at least 2m wide and to the same standard

as the existing facility.

An internal pedestrian walkway network should also be implemented along Gumpiro

Avenue and along the 13m wide road reserve-roads. These walkways should be at least on

one side of the street and be a minimum of 1.5m wide.

Public transport embayments will be positioned along the 13m wide road reserve – roads

with the objective for commuters not to walk more than 500m to the pick-up or drop-off point.

On 15 October 2014 this office received comment from the Western Cape Government Department

Transport and Public Works stating the following:

- This branch will not be opposed to the issuing of an Environmental Authorisation, provided

that a Land Use Planning Ordinance (LUPO) application is submitted via the Local Authority

to this Branch.

- At this stage this Branch can state the following:

o It accepts the motivation of the Traffic Impact Study

o The following accesses will have to be closed:

Off Trunk Road 33 section 2 at ±km0.88 LHS (waste disposal)

Off Trunk Road 33 section 2 at ±km0.94 LHS (Gumpiro Avenue)

- Mandela Street off Trunk Road 33 section 2 at ±km0.94 LHS will have to be upgraded as per

SMEC‟s recommendation (Traffic Impact Assessment).

- The proposed layout must be amended in order to construct another access when required,

onto Trunk Road 33 section 2 at ±km1.78 LHS (opposite the mine).

Electricity (CVW Electrical, 2014; Annexure G4)

Electricity will be supplied by Mossel Bay Municipality.

Supply will be provided from the newly built 66/11kV 20MVA Substation situated

approximately 1km east of the proposed development.

Distribution on the property will be an 11000/420V underground cable system, which will



have no visual impact on the environment. High Voltage cables will be installed at a minimum

depth of 1000mm and low Voltage cables at a minimum depth of 600mm from finished

ground level.

The Municipality will install energy efficient street lighting, 57W Compact Fluorescent‟s on

5, 4m poles.

Telephone network will be supplied by Telkom, whose cables will be overhead. Processing activities (e.g. manufacturing, storage, distribution) YES NO


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

Provide brief description YES NO

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

Provide brief description

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

Provide brief description



1.1 INFRASTRUCTURE DESCRIPTION This section describes infrastructure upgrades proposed for Phase 3 of Sonskynvallei. It takes into account infrastructure upgrades recommended in the Civil Services Report (Du Preez, 2014), the Traffic Impact Assessment (Maart, 2014) and comment received by the Western Cape Government Department of Transport and Public Works (received 15 Oct 14, see section A 3(C) of this report). Please note, the numbers of the descriptions following below correspond with the numbers on the map in Figure 4. The descriptions must be read whilst referring to the map.

Figure 5: Map illustrating the location and short description of infrastructure upgrades proposed for Phase 3 of Sonskynvallei Housing. The map does not include the proposed new water pipeline and reservoir upgrade as these are described earlier in this report.



1) The TIA recommends that “The existing pedestrian walkway from Hartenbos to the TR 33/1 -

Waboom Street junction needs to be extended up to the Mandela Street access to the

Sonskyn Valley development. The walkway will be ± 950m long and should be at least 2m

wide and to the same standard as the existing facility.” (Annexure G7)

On 1 October 2014 a site visit was conducted to investigate the vegetation along the route

described above and to establish whether any protected trees occur along the proposed

walkway route. As illustrated in the figures below, the proposed walkway will have no negative

impact on indigenous vegetation, whether it is constructed along the northern or southern side

of the R328. As a whole the environmental impact of the walkway can be described as

negligible, with a positive social and safety impact. It must be ensured that construction

activities only take place within demarcated areas as to not negatively impact vegetation

further away from the road and outside the road reserve.

Figure 6: Vegetation along the southern section of the R328 where the walkway is proposed, note that the vegetation directly adjacent to the road consist of grasses. At this particular point a milkwood (indicated by arrow) is within close proximity of the road. It is anticipated that if construction occurs within demarcated areas, this milkwood will not be affected. In the background, where the white bakkie is, is the Mandela Street turnoff to Sonskynvallei. The Department Transport and Public Works have recommended that the turnoff in the foreground be closed. This photo was taken looking in a north easterly direction along the R328.



Figure 7: This photo was taken from same position as Figure 6 looking in a south easterly direction towards Hartenbos along the R328. Vegetation directly adjacent to the road consists of grasses and there are no protected trees found along this stretch up to Waboom Street (where walkway is proposed to stop). Reeds seen in this photo is associated with stormwater runoff from the road

Figure 8: The photo was taken looking back towards Sonskynvallei at the approximate halfway mark between Mandela and Waboom Street. Vegetation is sparse and consists of grasses.

Figure 9: This photo was taken at the same location as Figure 7, looking in the opposite direction, towards Hartenbos. The turnoff to Waboom Street can be seen in the background. Impact on vegetation along this section is also considered to be negligible.



2) Comment received from the Western Cape Government Department of Transport and Public

Works on 15 October 2014 stated that ―the following access will have to be closed: Off trunk

Road 33 section 2 at ±km0.88 LHS (waste disposal).‖ This access point (Figure 10) is located

approximately 50m from the Mandela Street turnoff (proposed as single access point for

Sonskynvallei) and acts as a second access point to the waste disposal (Figure 11). Future

access to the waste disposal site will be via Mandela Street.

Figure 10: The access point referred to as „waste disposal‟ in comment received from the Department of Transport and Public Works which the Department to be closed off. The waste disposal site can be seen in the background, behind the white wall

Figure 11: The waste disposal site at Sonskynvallei, which will be accessed via Mandela Street in future.



3) The TIA recommended that “Mandela Street will be chosen as a single access point to the

development and should be improved by a left turning lane on the eastern approach with a

minimum length of 30m.The Gumpiro Avenue access point onto TR 33/2 to the West of

Mandela Street should be closed off.” Impact on vegetation if the proposed left turning lane

were to be constructed is considered negligible Figure 12.

Figure 12: This photo was taken from the „waste disposal‟ access point (to be closed off) looking towards the Mandela Street access point (seen in the background where the bakkie is) situated approximately 50m from where this photo was taken. There will therefore be ample space to construct a left turning lane with minimum length of 30m. From the figure it is clear that the impact on vegetation is negligible.


Works on 15 October 2014 stated that ―the following access will have to be closed: Off Trunk

Road 33 section 2 at ±km1.59 LHS (Gumpiro Avenue).‖ Prior to the comment received by the

Department, the local Ward Committee members requested that this access point remain and

be formalised as a second access point to Sonskynvallei (TIA recommends it be closed for

safety reasons). Correspondence highlighting the committees request was sent to the Dept.

on 14 July 2014.



Figure 13: The Gumpiro Avenue access point. It was recommended by the TIA and Dept. Transport and Public Works that this access point be closed. This photo was taken in a westerly direction, showing the R328 to Oudtshoorn on the right and the clinic and community centre on the left in the background.

Figure 14: The two photos were taken from the existing Gumpiro Avenue access point (to be closed). The photo on the left is taken in the direction of Oudtshoorn and the photo on the right in the direction of Hartenbos.


Works on 15 October 2014 stated that ―the proposed layout must be amended in order to be

able to construct another access when required, onto Trunk Road 33 section 2 at ±km1.78

LHS (opposite the mine). Development has been excluded from this point where, according to

the above comment, a future access point may possibly be constructed. The botanical

specialist identified this area as being sensitive and development was subsequently excluded

here. Despite the sensitive vegetation, the height difference between the road and the

development site at this particular place is quite high (Figure 15) and may pose a challenge to

future road construction. This location can be earmarked as a possible future access point and



will have to go through the appropriate procedure should it be decided an access point is

required here.

Figure 15: The height difference between the road and site is illustrated in this picture. In the foreground is an access point for a PetroSA water line indicated in the site development plan. No development will take place on the water line servitude

6) The Civil Services Report states that a new pump station will have to be constructed at this

point. The pump station will fall within the greater footprint of the housing development. The

figure below illustrates the vegetation at this point.

Figure 16: It is proposed that the new pump station be constructed on the grassed area on the left of this photo. This area was assessed by the botanical specialist and found suitable for development. Areas seen on the right



hand side of this photo has been excluded from the development area as it has been identified as sensitive and conservation worthy by the specialist

7) The Civil Services Report indicated that a new sewer rising main will have to be constructed.

The line will travel from the existing Sonskynvallei pump station to the proposed new pump

station described in point „6‟ above. After a site visit it was found that the most suitable

alignment for the rising main, with least vegetative impact, would be for the rising main to be

aligned inside the road reserve of Gumpiro Avenue. This was discussed with the engineer at

Royal Haskoning DHV and confirmed to be a good recommendation. Below are images

illustrating the vegetation along the proposed route of the new sewer rising main.

Figure 17: The new rising main will start at the existing Sonskynvallei pump station and travel in a north westerly direction (photo on the right) toward the location of the new pump station.

Figure 18: The vegetation along Gumpiro Avenue road reserve where rising main is proposed to be installed. The Sonskynvallei pump station is visible in the background



Figure 19: The vegetation along Gumpiro Avenue is illustrated looking in a north westerly direction towards the current Gumpiro Avenue access point. The rising main is proposed to be installed on the left of the fence seen in this photo

Figure 20: Vegetation along the rising main route in the northern corner of the proposed development site/north of the clinic. This vegetation was assessed as part of the botanical specialist assessment and not found to be sensitive



Figure 21: The photo shows, from the left, the R328, stormwater channel next to the road and the Gumpiro Avenue road reserve. Sonskynvallei pump station is visible in the background, along the road reserve. It would be impractical to align the sewer rising main in the stormwater channel next to the road, therefore the Gumpiro Avenue road reserve is recommended to be more suitable.



2. PHYSICAL SIZE OF THE ACTIVITY

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

All properties are located in the Mossel Bay District Total: ±278.4ha

Portion 4 of the Farm Hartenbosch 217 ±43.1ha Portion 59 of the Farm Hartenbosch 217 ±16.7ha Portion 105 of the Farm Hartenbosch 217 ±6.4ha Erf 1853 ±151.7ha Erf 3122 ±60.5ha

Size of the facility: (b) Indicate the size of the facility (development area) on which the activity is to be undertaken.

Total development site – includes areas identified for Public Open

Space. ±33.76ha

Size of the activity: (c) Indicate the physical size (footprint) of the activity together with its associated infrastructure:

Excluding Public Open Space. ±13ha

(d) Indicate the physical size (footprint) of the activity:

Only development of Residential Zone I ±8.8ha

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

Only Transport Zone II. 42 310m2

and, for linear activities:

Length of the activity: (f) Indicate the length of the activity:

New bulk water pipeline from Hartenboskop reservoir to proposed phase 3 housing development at Sonskynvallei

±1.4km

New Rising main sewer line ±540m

3. SITE ACCESS

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

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

(c) Describe the type of access road planned:

Access to the site would be via the existing R328 and Mandela Road as recommended and

indicated in the Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) (Maart, 2014) - Annexure G6.

As listed in section 1(b) above the following recommendations are made in the TIA:

Mandela Street will be chosen as a single access point to the development and should be



improved by a left turning lane on the eastern approach with a minimum length of 30m.

The Gumpiro Avenue access point onto TR 33/2 to the West of Mandela Street should be

closed off.

The existing pedestrian walkway from Hartenbos to the TR 33/1 - Waboom Street junction

needs to be extended up to the Mandela Street access to the Sonskyn Valley development.

The walkway will be ± 950m long and should be at least 2m wide and to the same standard

as the existing facility.

An internal pedestrian walkway network should also be implemented along Gumpiro Avenue

and along the 13m wide road reserve-roads. These walkways should be at least on one side

of the street and be a minimum of 1.5m wide.

Public transport embayments will be positioned along the 13m wide road reserve – roads

with the objective for commuters not to walk more than 500m to the pick-up or drop-off point.

On 15 October 2014 this office received comment from the Western Cape Government Department

Transport and Public Works stating the following:

- This branch will not be opposed to the issuing of an Environmental Authorisation, provided

that a Land Use Planning Ordinance (LUPO) application is submitted via the Local Authority

to this Branch.

- At this stage this Branch can state the following:

o It accepts the motivation of the Traffic Impact Study

o The following accesses will have to be closed:

Off Trunk Road 33 section 2 at ±km0.88 LHS (waste disposal)

Off Trunk Road 33 section 2 at ±km0.94 LHS (Gumpiro Avenue)



- The proposed layout must be amended in order to construct another access when required,

onto Trunk Road 33 section 2 at ±km1.78 LHS (opposite the mine). Please Note: indicate the position of the proposed access road on the site plan.

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

(a) Provide a description of the property on which the activity is to be undertaken and the location of the activity on the property. The development site can be described as an undeveloped area located between a housing suburb

to the east (existing Sonskynvallei township Phase 1), brickworks to the west, agricultural land to the

north and a „natural‟ area to the south. Five (5) properties make up the development site. In total

these properties covers an area of ±278ha.

The proposed development will however have an approximate footprint of 33.76ha (including

Public Open Space). The development will consist of a housing component, a new bulk water



supply line from the Hartenboskop reservoir to the new development and the construction of

additional 1200kl reservoir at the Hartenboskop reservoir1.

Housing

The housing activity will have an approximate footprint of 13ha (with associated infrastructure) and is

located on the northern section of the development site, adjacent to the existing Sonskynvallei

township. The development site can be described as a natural area and is unrestrictedly connected

to an extensive area of similar natural vegetation to the south (Coetzee, 2014).

In terms of topography the development is located on a northerly facing slope where it reaches the

top of a hill and then slopes southward to the abovementioned natural vegetation. The location of the

housing component of the activity on the property is illustrated in the Figure 22 below.

Figure 22: Area of the proposed site that has been identified for housing development (location of the housing activity on the property) i.e. outlined in yellow is the proposed area where the houses will physically be built, Public Open Space is excluded.

Infrastructure

The proposed new 200mm bulk water line will start at the existing Hartenboskop reservoir and cross

Erf 3122, Erf 1853, Remainder of Portion 4 of Farm 217 and Portion 105 of Farm 217. The initial

1 Activity 2 of Listing Notice 3 (R546) relating to the construction of reservoirs was considered for the

construction of the additional reservoir storage. The Hartenboskop reservoir is located within the urban edge of Mossel Bay and inside an area earmarked as „Residential Infill and Expansion Areas‟ in the 2008 Mossel Bay SDF (area is labeled Hartenbos Heuwels 2 on the Spatial Planning Categories Map). The listed activity is therefore not triggered by the proposed reservoir construction.



proposal by the engineers was to install this new water line within the existing water line servitude.

This servitude however crosses an area flagged ito NFEPA and it has since been recommended by

the botanical specialist that a portion of the pipeline route be amended to follow the existing gravel

track and in doing so avoid the NFEPA area completely (confirmed with Mossel Bay Municipality, see

Annexure F4). It is proposed that the pipeline be installed adjacent to an existing water line (thus

follow the same alignment) for 2/3 of the servitude route and will be approximately 1.4km in length

(exact length of the pipeline will be determined by the engineers during detailed design). Furthermore

the Botanical Specialist described the location of the pipeline as follows:

“A part (roughly one-third) of the pipeline route lies through the existing residential area

and along the Hartenbos/Oudtshoorn tarred road and its construction or upgrading in

this area will thus have no impact on any area of natural vegetation. The three

remaining sections consist largely of grassy renosterveld and the upper pipeline route

lies all along a ridge. There are no sensitive habitats (like wetlands, seeps, thicket

patches, quartz patches or limestone patches or even patches of mature fynbos) along

the route.” (Coetzee, 2014)

Figure 23: Proposed alignment of the new bulk water pipeline. The pipeline should however avoid the area indicated by NFEPA as being sensitive, therefore it must be realigned to follow the existing gravel track instead.



Figure 24: Proposed new pipeline alignment as recommended by specialists. The proposed new alignment means a section of the pipeline will be aligned an along an existing track leading to the Hartenboskop reservoir.

The new pump sewer line with pumpstation will be installed next to the R328. The engineers from

RHDHV have confirmed that the exact alignment of the sewer line will be determined during detailed

design. It is also during this stage that the engineers will determine if the sewer line will be inside the

road reserve or outside. If inside, the engineers will follow the appropriate steps and correspondence

with the Roads Authority.

Following a site visit (1 Oct 2014), it is recommended that the sewer line be aligned within the road

reserve of Gumpiro Avenue as illustrated and described in Section A – 1.1 (Infrastructure

Description). The alignment will have the least vegetative impact, it is also more practical as there is

a stormwater channel (Figure 21) adjacent to the R328 and aligning the sewer main in this channel is

unfeasible. This was discussed with the engineer at RHDHV and confirmed to be a good

recommendation.

It was confirmed by GLS Consulting that an additional 1200kl reservoir storage is required at the

existing 3500kl Hartenboskop reservoir (Du Preez, 2014). The storage in the new reservoir will be

shared by the proposed Sonskynvallei development and other proposed developments in the supply

area of the new reservoir. The photographs below show the existing Hartenboskop reservoir and the

vegetation around it.



Figure 25: The existing Hartenboskop reservoir is seen in the background. Vegetation around the site comprises a mixture of indigenous and alien plants. The botanical specialist described the vegetation close (and around) the reservoir as „somewhat transformed‟. The fence around the reservoir site has been largely destroyed and vandalised. The photo was taken in a westerly direction.

Figure 26: Vegetation at the Hartenboskop reservoir. Photo taken from the reservoir to the where Figure 25

was taken from, in a north-easterly direction.



(b) Please provide a location map (see below) as appendix a to this report which shows the location of the property and the location of the activity on the property; as well as a site map (see below) as appendix b to this report; and if applicable all alternative properties and locations.

Locality map:

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

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

following:

an accurate indication of the project site position as well as the positions of the alternative sites, if any; road names or numbers of all the major roads as well as the roads that provide access to the site(s) a north arrow; a legend; the prevailing wind direction (during November to April and during May to October); and GPS co-ordinates (Indicate the position of the activity using the latitude and longitude of the centre point

of the site for each alternative site. The co-ordinates should be in degrees and decimal minutes. The minutes should have at least three decimals to ensure adequate accuracy. The projection that must be used in all cases is the WGS84 spheroid in a national or local projection).

See Appendix A for location and topographical map.

Site Plan:

Detailed site plan(s) must be prepared for each alternative site or alternative activity. The site plan must contain or conform to the following: The detailed site plan must be at a scale preferably at a scale of 1:500 or at an appropriate scale. The

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

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

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

indicated on the site plan. Services, including electricity supply cables (indicate above or underground), water supply pipelines,

boreholes, sewage pipelines, storm water infrastructure and access roads that will form part of the development must be indicated on the site plan.

Servitudes indicating the purpose of the servitude must be indicated on the site plan. Sensitive environmental elements within 100m of the site must be included on the site plan, including (but

not limited to): o Rivers. o Flood lines (i.e. 1:10, 1:50, year and 32 meter set back line from the banks of a river/stream). o Ridges. o Cultural and historical features. o Areas with indigenous vegetation (even if it is degraded or infested with alien species).

Whenever the slope of the site exceeds 1:10, then a contour map of the site must be submitted. See Appendix B for Site Plans – Preferred layout is dated November 2014.

(c) For a linear activity, please also provide a description of the route. The proposed bulk water pipeline that forms part of this Basic Assessment report will:

Travel from the existing Hartenboskop reservoir to the proposed housing development in a

mainly eastern and north-eastern direction;

Follow the alignment of an existing road leading up to the reservoir (as recommended by the

Botanical Specialist);

Where the pipeline reaches the border of RE Portion 4 of Farm 217 it will follow the alignment

of an existing water pipeline inside a registered servitude (Figure 3) towards the Sonskynvallei

Township;

It then travels almost in straight line towards Gumpiro Avenue.



Figure 27: Alignment of proposed bulk water pipeline to service the proposed development. The pipeline will start at the existing Hartenboskop reservoir and be approximately 1.4km in length – imagery date September 2013 (Google Earth, 2014). The proposed new sewer line will run along the northern boundary of the proposed development,

adjacent to the R328. The engineers at RHDHV confirmed the exact alignment of the sewer line, and

whether it will be inside or outside the road reserve, will be determined during detailed design. It is

recommended that the sewer line be aligned inside the Gumpiro Avenue road reserve. The sewer line

will start at the proposed new sewage pump station at the northern corner of Portion 105 of Farm 217

(north of the rugby field). It will then travel in an easterly direction to the existing sewage pump station

(Figure 17) at the corner of Jansen Avenue (Figure 2 & Annexure G3).

It must be noted that for the purpose of this environmental investigation both the sewer and water

pipeline routes were assessed as a 10 metre wide corridor with a centre coordinate (see below). The

reason for this approach is to allow some flexibility for the final alignment which depends on the detail

engineering design that is only done post the environmental process.

The corridor width for each of these features must therefore be considered and approved instead of a

specific line only.



Indicate the position of the activity using the latitude and longitude of the centre point of the site. The co-ordinates must be in degrees, minutes and seconds. The minutes should be given to at least three decimals to ensure adequate accuracy. The projection that must be used in all cases is the WGS84 spheroid in a national or local projection.

Latitude (S): Longitude (E):

34o 07„ 03.90“ 22o 04„ 56.94“

(d) or: For linear activities: New bulk water pipeline Latitude (S): Longitude (E):

Starting point of the activity 34o 07„ 24.79“ 22o 05„ 08.03“ Middle point of the activity 34o 07„ 11.95“ 22o 04„ 57.96“ End point of the activity 34o 06„ 52.30“ 22o 05„ 03.12“

The following are the coordinates for the new sewer line:

Start at new sewage pump station - 34˚06‟50.34”S 22˚04‟57.33”E

End at existing sewage pump station - 34˚06‟55.28”S 22˚05‟16.23”E

Coordinates are approximate and forms the centre line of a 10 metre wide corridor. The pipeline(s)

should be installed within this 10 metre wide corridor. Please Note: For linear activities that are longer than 500m, please provide and addendum with co-ordinates taken every 100 meters along the route. Below are coordinates of the proposed water pipeline taken every 100m and at every

directional changes, as per the alignment illustrated in Figure 27. Coordinates are approximate and forms the centre line of a 10 metre wide corridor. The pipeline should be installed within

this 10 metre wide corridor

Table 1: Coordinates of the proposed water pipeline from the existing Hartenboskop reservoir to the proposed Phase of the Sonskynvallei housing development.

Distance (metres) SOUTH EAST

0 start

Hartenboskop reservoir 34˚07‟24.79” 22˚05‟08.03”

23 34˚07‟25.05” 22˚05‟07.17”

46 34˚07‟24.75” 22˚05‟06.35”

92 34˚07‟23.24” 22˚05‟06.32”

186 34˚07‟22.77” 22˚05‟02.68”

286 34˚07‟20.74” 22˚04‟59.71”

307 34˚07‟20.29” 22˚04‟59.08”

407 34˚07‟18.80” 22˚04‟55.60”

410 34˚07‟18.75” 22˚04‟55.47”



493 34˚07‟16.36” 22˚04‟54.01”

593 34˚07‟13.73” 22˚04‟56.35”

693 34˚07‟13.75” 22˚04‟55.34”

738 34˚07‟09.68” 22˚04‟58.77”

834 34˚07‟06.94” 22˚04‟57.12”

934 34˚07‟03.85” 22˚04‟58.48”

1034 34˚07‟00.81” 22˚04‟59.84”

1134 34˚06‟57.76” 22˚05‟01.12”

1234 34˚06‟54.71” 22˚05‟02.51”

1300 34˚06‟52.30” 22˚05‟03.12”



5. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS

Colour photographs of the site and its surroundings (taken of the site and from the site) with a description of each photograph. The vantage points from which the photographs were taken must be indicated on the site plan, or locality plan as applicable. If available, please also provide a recent aerial photograph. Photographs must be attached as Appendix C to this report. It should be supplemented with additional photographs of relevant features on the site. Date of photographs must be included. Please note that the above requirements must be duplicated for all alternative sites.

See Appendix C for Site Photographs



SECTION B: DESCRIPTION OF RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT

1. SITE/AREA DESCRIPTION

For linear activities (pipelines, etc.) as well as activities that cover very large sites, it may be necessary to complete copies of this section for each part of the site that has a significantly different environment. In such cases please complete copies of Section B and indicate the area which is covered by each copy No. on the Site Plan.

2. GRADIENT OF THE SITE

Indicate the general gradient of the sites (highlight the appropriate box).

Figure 28: Slope (in degrees) of the proposed development area is indicated in the figure. Map was generated on CapeFarmMapper – Western Cape Department of Agriculture (CapeFarmMapper, 2014)

3. LOCATION IN LANDSCAPE

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

Ridgeline Plateau Side slope of hill/mountain

Closed valley

Open valley Plain

Undulating plain/low hills Dune Sea-

front

(b) Please provide a description of the location in the landscape. The site forms part of an open/undulating hill landscape that slope northwards towards the R328 that

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



connect Hartenbos and Oudtshoorn. The figures below illustrate the location of the site in the

landscape.

Figure 29: Location of the development site in the landscape indicating the R328 between Hartenbos and Oudtshoorn (Google Earth, 2014).

Figure 30: Contour plan (5m) of the proposed Sonskynvallei development site. The figure illustrates the proposed new bulk water pipeline alignment as recommended by specialists (line) and the proposed

Development Site



development site (polygon). Please note that the area identified for housing development does not comprise the entire development site as indicated in this figure, refer to Appendix B – Development layout. Map was generated on CapeFarmMapper – Department of Agriculture (CapeFarmMapper, 2014)

4. GROUNDWATER, SOIL AND GEOLOGICAL STABILITY OF THE SITE

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

Shallow water table (less than 1.5m deep) YES NO UNSURE Seasonally wet soils (often close to water bodies) YES NO UNSURE Unstable rocky slopes or steep slopes with loose soil YES NO UNSURE Dispersive soils (soils that dissolve in water) YES NO UNSURE Soils with high clay content YES NO UNSURE Any other unstable soil or geological feature YES NO UNSURE An area sensitive to erosion YES NO UNSURE An area adjacent to or above an aquifer. YES NO UNSURE An area within 100m of the source of surface water YES NO UNSURE

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

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

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

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

Granite Shale Sandstone Quartzite Dolomite Dolorite Other

(describe)

Please provide a description.

The geological information below was obtained from the Agricultural Geo-Referenced Information

System‘s (AGIS) using the „Comprehensive Atlas‟ (AGIS, 2014).

The Geology of the proposed development site is described on AGIS as: “Mainly conglomerate,

sandstone, siltstone and mudstone of the Enon Formation, Uitenhage Group, with quartzitic sandstone

of the Table Mountain Group, Cape Supergroup.”

In terms of soil the following information was obtained from AGIS:

Generalized Soil Pattern

Soils with a marked clay accumulation, strongly structured and a non-reddish colour. They may occur

associated with one or more of vertic, melanic and plinthic soils.

Wind Erosion

Indicated as Loamy Sands Sub-Dominant which is classified as moderately susceptible to wind

erosion.

Water Erosion

Land with moderate to high water or wind erosion hazard. Generally moderately to strongly sloping

land. Soils have low to moderate erodibility.



5. SURFACE WATER

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

Perennial River YES NO UNSURE

Non-Perennial River YES NO UNSURE

Permanent Wetland YES NO UNSURE

Seasonal Wetland YES NO UNSURE

Artificial Wetland YES NO UNSURE

Estuarine / Lagoonal wetland YES NO UNSURE

(b) Please provide a description. Set within an otherwise undulating landscape, the site is found on the northern slope of one of these

undulating hills. Surface water adjacent to the site consists of drainage lines that flow towards the

Hartenbos River (located approximately 260m north/north-east of the nearest point of the proposed

Phase 3 development). The preferred housing with associated infrastructure of the development

will not be within 32m of such drainage lines.

6. BIODIVERSITY

Please note: The Department may request specialist input/studies depending on the nature of the biodiversity occurring on the site and potential impact(s) of the proposed activity/ies. To assist with the identification of the biodiversity occurring on site and the ecosystem status consult http://bgis.sanbi.org or [email protected]. Information is also available on compact disc (cd) from the Biodiversity-GIS Unit, Ph (021) 799 8698. This information may be updated from time to time and it is the applicant/ EAP‟s responsibility to ensure that the latest version is used. A map of the relevant biodiversity information (including an indication of the habitat conditions as per (b) below) and must be provided as an overlay map to the property/site plan as Appendix D to this report. (a) Highlight the applicable biodiversity planning categories of all areas on site and indicate the reason(s) provided in the

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

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

Critical Biodiversity Area (CBA)

Ecological

Support

Area (ESA)

Other

Natural

Area (ONA)

No Natural

Area

Remaining

(NNR)

A small portion of the development site falls within a

CBA along the western border and a larger portion

(particularly around the rugby field) is indicated as

CBA Buffer.

From the CBA map it appears that the proposed new

bulk water pipeline will go through a small area

indicated as a CBA Terrestrial. (Coetzee (2014)

stated that there are no sensitive areas within the

route of the pipeline.

See Appendic D for CBA Map.

http://bgis.sanbi.org/

mailto:[email protected]



(b) Highlight and describe the habitat condition on site. Habitat condition described below refers to the proposed development site (Including Public Open Space).

Habitat Condition

Percentage of habitat condition class (adding up

to 100%)

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

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

Natural 10%

Areas of true thicket occur along the western border of the proposed development site. This is the only area that can be described as „natural‟ as too frequent fires have changed the remainder of the site from its natural state. Less intact thicket patches also occur in the proposed development area.

Near Natural

(includes areas with low to

moderate level of alien

invasive plants)

60%

The majority of the site can be described as „near-natural‟ as the vegetation on site is described on a fine scale as Herbertsdale Renoster Thicket which is characterised by small patches of thicket occurring in a matrix of Renosterveld (Coetzee, 2014). The Renosterveld component has been somewhat degraded as a result of too frequent fires.

Degraded

(includes areas heavily

invaded by alien plants) 10%

Degraded areas are found around (fringes) transformed areas. This is areas in the north and north-east of the rugby field as well as around the Hartenboskop reservoir. Many areas of Renosterveld have experienced too frequent fires and are dominated by grasses.

Transformed

(includes cultivation, dams,

urban, plantation, roads, etc) 20%

The north and north-eastern corner of the proposed development site around the rugby field, clinic and community centre has been completely transformed. Also the area that immediately surrounds the Hartenboskop reservoir.

(c) Complete the table to indicate:

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

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

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

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

According to SANBI BGIS the entire site is described as Groot Brak Dune Strandveld and classified

as ‘Endangered’ in terms of ecosystem status, and ‘not protected’ in terms of protection status. This

Terrestrial Ecosystems Aquatic Ecosystems

Ecosystem threat status as per the

National Environmental Management:

Biodiversity Act (Act No. 10 of 2004)

Critical Wetland (including rivers,

depressions, channelled and

unchanneled wetlands, flats,

seeps pans, and artificial

wetlands)

Estuary Coastline Endangered

Vulnerable

Least Threatened YES NO UNSURE YES NO YES NO



vegetation type is associated with flat undulating landscapes and steep coastal slopes. It is mostly

underlain by clastic sedimentary rocks of the Kirkwood formation, however towards the east quartzite,

schist and phyllite of the Kaaimans Group and Cape Granite are also present. The largest area

covering of this vegetation type is north of Mossel Bay. (Rebelo et al. 2006)

At a finer scale the vegetation has been described as Herbertsdale Renoster Thicket which is

characterised by small thicket clumps occurring in a matrix of Renosterveld. The Renosterveld

component of the vegetation is very grassy in the areas most recently burnt. True thicket occurs west

of the rugby field (Coetzee, 2014). Coetzee (2014) has recommended that the larger thicket area

along the western border of the proposed development site be excluded from the development area

as it can connect to thicket on the neighbouring property (labelled „1 & 2‟ in Figure 31). Other thicket

patches within the development area are isolated and not considered worthy of

conservation/preservation effort (labelled „3‟ in Figure 31). This is reflected in the Site Development

Plan of the preferred alternative (Appendix B, dated November 2014).

Figure 31: The figure above is from Coetzee (2014), and illustrates areas of the proposed

development site (yellow) in terms of their sensitivity. Areas 1 -3 indicate thicket vegetation and 4

indicate an area that has been mostly transformed.

In general the site can be described as being in fair condition with some thicket patches occurring

within the Renosterveld. The vegetation of the proposed development site can be summarised as

follows:

- The vegetation of the development area is classified as Herbertsdale Renoster Thicket –

characterised by small thicket clumps within a matrix of Renosterveld



- Areas north and north-east of the rugby field have been mostly transformed;

- True thicket occur along the north-western boundary of the development site;

- Isolated thicket patches occur within the development site;

- Renosterveld areas exposed to too frequent fires are grass dominated.

7. LAND USE OF THE SITE

Please note: The Department may request specialist input/studies depending on the nature of the land use character of the area and potential impact(s) of the proposed activity/ies.

Untransformed area Low density residential Medium density residential

High density residential Informal residential

Retail Commercial & warehousing Light industrial Medium industrial Heavy industrial

Power station Office/consulting room Military or police

base/station/compound

Casino/entertainment complex

Tourism & Hospitality facility

Open cast mine Underground mine Spoil heap or slimes dam

Quarry, sand or borrow pit Dam or reservoir

Hospital/medical center (Clinic)

School (crèche) Tertiary education facility

Church Old age home

Sewage treatment plant

Train station or shunting yard Railway line Major road (4 lanes or

more) Airport

Harbour Sport facilities

(rugby field and netball courts)

Golf course Polo fields Filling station

Landfill or waste treatment site Plantation Agriculture River, stream or

wetland Nature conservation

area Mountain, koppie or

ridge Museum Historical building Graveyard Archeological site

Other land uses (describe):

(a) Please provide a description. In overall context the land use of the site can be described as natural/undeveloped. There is also a

rugby field, netball court (under construction), crèche and clinic on the site. These facilities are

currently used by people from the existing Sonskynvallei township.

Phase 2 of Sonskynvallei has already been approved with services and this phase will be

implemented before Phase 3 is implemented.

The proposed development, Phase 3, will in-part be constructed around the rugby field, crèche and

clinic. Most of the development will be constructed on an area described as natural.

8. LAND USE CHARACTER OF SURROUNDING AREA

(a) Highlight the current land uses and/or prominent features that occur within +/- 500m radius of the site and neighbouring properties if these are located beyond 500m of the site.

Please note: The Department may request specialist input/studies depending on the nature of the land use character of the area and potential impact(s) of the proposed activity/ies.



Untransformed area Low density residential Medium density residential

High density residential Informal residential

Retail Commercial & warehousing (brickworks)

Light industrial (brickworks) Medium industrial Heavy industrial

Power station Office/consulting room Military or police base/station/compound

Casino/entertainment complex

Tourism & Hospitality facility

Open cast mine Underground mine Spoil heap or slimes dam

Quarry, sand or borrow pit (Transand)

Dam or reservoir (small dams)

Hospital/medical center School/Crèche Tertiary education

facility Church Old age home

Sewage treatment plant

Train station or shunting yard Railway line Major road (4 lanes or

more) Airport

Harbour Sport facilities Golf course Polo fields Filling station

Landfill or waste treatment site Plantation Agriculture River, stream or

wetland Nature conservation area/Conservancy

Mountain, koppie or ridge Museum Historical building Graveyard Archeological site

Other land uses (describe):

(b) Please provide a description, including the distance and direction to the nearest residential area and industrial area. The image below shows the typical land use of the surrounding area as described in the table above.

Figure 32: The figure illustrates the land uses surrounding the development site.

9. SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASPECTS

Describe the existing social and economic characteristics of the community in order to provide baseline information. Socio-Economic Context of the Mossel Bay Municipal Area.



According to the Mossel Bay IDP (2012), Mossel Bay has the 2nd largest population in the Eden

District with a population size of 117 840 in 2007 compared to 71 499 in 2001. The population grew

on average by 8.7 per cent between 2001 and 2007 as compared to the district wide growth of 2 %.

The IDP concludes that a population growth of this proportion is likely to place strain on existing

backlogs and the municipality‟s ability to effectively service the community. Mossel Bay‟s population

composition is as follows:

- children at 25.6%;

- economically active population at 67.3%; and

- persons aged 65 and older at 7.2%

The current gender ration is 111.6 males per 100 females. Overall there has been a shift in the

gender distribution in Mossel Bay. In 2001, there were 49.7% males to 50.3%females. In 2007, this

shifted to 52.8% males to 47.2 %females creating a shift in the female dominance in 2001 to a male

dominance from 2007. Mossel Bay‟s population distribution by race is as follows:

African racial group 41.6%

Coloured racial 37.9%

White racial group 19.2%

Representation by the Indian/Asian population in Mossel Bay is relatively small compared to

the other population groups.

The biggest employment contributors in the Mossel Bay Municipal are:

Construction 9%

Wholesale & retail 8%

Community: social & personal services 7%

Manufacturing 6%

The three largest economic sectors are:

Manufacturing (28.7%)

Finance & business services (27.5%)

Trade (13.4%)

The unemployment rate for males was 15.6% with a 44.5 percentage share of the unemployed. The

unemployment rate for females was significantly higher at 28.9% but the percentage share of the

unemployed lower at 55.5 %.

The 2012 IDP Housing statistics for the Mossel Bay Municipality are as follows:

Household infrastructure

Formal 21 484

Informal 4 181

Traditional 1 059



Other dwelling types 62

Total 26 786

The formal dwelling backlog (number of households not living in a formal dwelling) was recorded as

5 302 in 2009.

Sanitation (recorded in 2009)

Flush toilet 25 621

Ventilation improved pit 52

Pit toilet 359

Bucket system 146

No toilet 607

Total 26 786

The sanitation backlog recorded in 2009 was 1 112.

Access to water

Piped water inside dwelling 18,466 Piped water in yard 7,008 Communal piped water: less than 200m from dwelling 381 Communal piped water: more than 200m from dwelling 482 No formal piped water 449 Total 26,786

The water backlog (number of households below RDP level) for 2009 was 931.

The number of households with no electrical connection estimated at 3 315 in 2009.

The number of households with no refuse removal in 2009 was 1,390

Please note that this section deals with the socio economic context of the municipal area, the specific

socio economic context of the proposed development is dealt with in section D of this report.

10. HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASPECTS

(a) Please be advised that if section 38 of the National Heritage Resources Act, 1999 (Act No. 25 of 1999), is applicable to

your proposed development, then you are requested to furnish this Department with written comment from Heritage

Western Cape as part of your public participation process. Section 38 of the Act states as follows: “38. (1) Subject to the

provisions of subsections (7), (8) and (9), any person who intends to undertake a development categorised as-

(a) the construction of a road, wall, power line, pipeline, canal or other similar form of linear development or barrier exceeding 300m in length;

(b) the construction of a bridge or similar structure exceeding 50m in length; I any development or other activity which will change the character of a site- (i) exceeding 5 000 m2 in extent; or (ii) involving three or more existing erven or subdivisions thereof; or (iii) involving three or more erven or divisions thereof which have been consolidated within the past five years; or (iv) the costs of which will exceed a sum set in terms of regulations by SAHRA or a provincial heritage resources

authority; (d) the re-zoning of a site exceeding 10 000 m2 in extent; or (e) any other category of development provided for in regulations by SAHRA or a provincial heritage resources

authority,



must at the very earliest stages of initiating such a development, notify the responsible heritage resources authority and furnish it with details regarding the location, nature and extent of the proposed development.‖

(b) The impact on any national estate referred to in section 3(2), excluding the national estate contemplated in section

3(2)(i)(vi) and (vii), of the National Heritage Resources Act, 1999 (Act No. 25 of 1999), must also be investigated, assessed

and evaluated. Section 3(2) states as follows: “3(2) Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), the national estate may

include—

(a) places, buildings, structures and equipment of cultural significance; (b) places to which oral traditions are attached or which are associated with living heritage; I historical settlements and townscapes; (d) landscapes and natural features of cultural significance;

(e) geological sites of scientific or cultural importance; (f) archaeological and palaeontological sites; (g) graves and burial grounds, including— (i) ancestral graves; (ii) royal graves and graves of traditional leaders; (iii) graves of victims of conflict; (iv) graves of individuals designated by the Minister by notice in the Gazette; (v) historical graves and cemeteries; and (vi) other human remains which are not covered in terms of the Human Tissue Act, 1983 (Act No. 65 of 1983); (h) sites of significance relating to the history of slavery in South Africa; (i) movable objects, including— (i) objects recovered from the soil or waters of South Africa, including archaeological and palaeontological objects and material, meteorites and rare geological specimens; (ii) objects to which oral traditions are attached or which are associated with living heritage; (iii) ethnographic art and objects; (iv) military objects; (v) objects of decorative or fine art; (vi) objects of scientific or technological interest; and (vii) books, records, documents, photographic positives and negatives, graphic, film or video material or sound recordings, excluding those that are public records as defined in section 1(xiv) of the National Archives of South Africa Act, 1996 (Act No. 43 of 1996).‖

Is section 38 of the National Heritage Resources Act, 1999, applicable to the development? YES NO

UNCERTAIN

If YES, explain:

The following activities are applicable to the proposed development.

(a) the construction of a road, wall, power line, pipeline, canal or other similar form of

linear development or barrier exceeding 300m in length;

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

(i) exceeding 5 000 m2 in extent; or

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

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

A Heritage assessment and Notice of Intent to Develop (NID, Annexure G5) was

submitted to Heritage Western Cape (HWC) by De Kock (2014) who recommended

that an Archaeological Impact Assessment (AIA) be conducted due to the sensitive

archaeological nature of coastal areas in the Mossel Bay district. Preliminary

comment from HWC confirmed the need for an AIA. The AIA can be viewed in

Annexure G1.



Will the development impact on any national estate referred to in section 3(2) of the National Heritage

Resources Act, 1999?

YES NO

UNCERTAIN

If YES, explain:

Will any building or structure older than 60 years be affected in any way? YES NO UNCERTAIN

If YES, explain:

Please Note: If uncertain, the Department may request that specialist input be provided.

11. APPLICABLE LEGISLATION, POLICIES AND/OR GUIDELINES

(a) Please list all legislation, policies and/or guidelines that have been considered in the preparation of this Basic Assessment Report.

LEGISLATION ADMINISTERING

AUTHORITY

TYPE Permit/ license/

authorisation/comment / relevant consideration (e.g.

rezoning or consent use,

building plan approval)

DATE (if already obtained):

National Environmental

Management Act

Department of

Environmental Affairs

Basic Assessment

process

Act 107 of 1998 as

amended

National Environmental

Management:

Biodiversity Act

Department of

Environmental Affairs

CapeNature

Basic Assessment

process

Act 10 of 2004

National Water Act Department of Water

Affairs

Water Use Licence

Application (WULA)2

Awaiting response

from DWA

National Spatial

Biodiversity

Assessment

CapeNature CBA and ESA areas 2011

Garden Route

Biodiversity Sector

Plan

CapeNature CBA and ESA areas

Conservation of

Agricultural Resources

Act

Department of

Agriculture, Forestry &

Fisheries

Clearing of alien

vegetation as listed ito

CARA

Act 43 of 1983

2 The closest point of the proposed activity is ±260m from the Hartenbos River, however ±60% of the proposed development will be further than 500m from the Hartenbos River. Between the proposed development and the Hartenbos River there is a road (R328), residential and farming buildings, agricultural lands, and Transand Brickworks. Although within 500m from a river/wetland, the proposed development will not (as stated in Section 21(c) & (i) of the NWA) impede, or divert the flow of the watercourse; alter the bed, banks, course or characteristics of this watercourse. It is therefore the opinion of this office that a WULA is not required



National Veld and

Forest Fire Act

Department of

Agriculture, Forestry &

Fisheries

Proximity to forestry

areas.

Act 101 of 1998

Nature & Environment

Conservation

Ordinance

CapeNature Endangered vegetation

type as well as CBA

and ESA.

Ordinance 19 of 1974

National Heritage

Resources Act

Heritage Western

Cape

Activity greater than

5000m2.

Act 25 of 1999

Land Use Planning

Ordinance

Mossel Bay

Municipality

Rezoning application Ordinance 15 of 1985

POLICY/ GUIDELINES ADMINISTERING AUTHORITY

National Building Regulations Building Inspectors from the local Authority

(Mossel Bay Municipality)

SANS 10400 (National Building Standards) Building Inspectors from the local Authority

(Mossel Bay Municipality)

The Red Book, SABS 1200LE, COLTO 2000,

SANRAL Drainage Manual

Implementation of the Environmental

Authorisation

Spatial Development Framework (2013) Mossel Bay Municipality

Community Safety By-Law Mossel Bay Municipality

DEA&DP EIA Guideline Information Document

on Generic Terms of Reference for EAPs and

Project Schedules (August 2010)

DEA&DP

DEA&DP EIA Guideline on Need & Desirability

(August 2010)

DEA&DP

DEA&DP EIA Guideline on Alternatives (August

2010)

DEA&DP

DEA&DP Guidelines on Environmental

Management Plans (August 2010)

DEA&DP

DEA&DP Guideline for Determining the Scope of

Specialist Involvement (June 2005) DEA&DP

DEA&DP Guideline for Involving Biodiversity

Specialists in EIA processes (June 2005) DEA&DP

DEA&DP Guideline for Involving Heritage

Specialists (June 2005) DEA&DP

DEA&DP Guideline for Involving Visual &

Aesthetic Specialists in EIA processes (June

2005)

DEA&DP

(b) Please describe how the legislation, policies and/or guidelines were taken into account in the preparation of this Basic

Assessment Report.



LEGISLATION / POLICY / GUIDELINE DESCRIBE HOW THE LEGISLATION / POLICY / GUIDELINE WERE TAKEN

INTO ACCOUNT (E.g. describe the extent to which it was adhered to, or deviated from, etc).

Spatial Development Framework (2013)

The Spatial Development Framework was consulted to determine whether the development proposal is in line with the framework‟s recommendations for land use.

DEA&DP EIA Guideline Information Document on Generic Terms of Reference for EAPs and Project Schedules (August 2010)

The EIA Guideline Information Document ToR for EAPs and Project Schedules were consulted to ensure that the EAP‟s conduction of the process and the Project Schedule of this application correspond to these requirements.

DEA&DP EIA Guideline on Need & Desirability (August 2010)

The EIA Guideline on Need & Desirability was consulted as part of the project motivation and section of this report describing the proposal‟s need & desirability.

DEA&DP Guidelines on Environmental Management Plans (August 2010)

The Environmental Management Plans Guidelines were consulted as part of the compiling of the Environmental Management Plan (EMP) for this application to ensure that the EMP prescribed complies with the Guidelines.

DEA&DP Guideline for Determining the Scope of Specialist Involvement (June 2005)

This Guideline was consulted and considered with initial site visit to determine the specialists necessary to inform the assessment of this application and development site.

DEA&DP Guideline for Involving Biodiversity Specialists in EIA processes (June 2005)

This Guideline was consulted and considered with initial site visit. It was determined that a Botanical specialist must be appointed to assess the impact of the proposed development on botanical resources.

DEA&DP Guideline for Involving Heritage Specialists (June 2005)

This Guideline was consulted and considered with initial site visit. The National Heritage Resources Act was also consulted and it was determined that a Heritage Specialist be appointed to assess the impact of the proposed development on any heritage resources.

DEA&DP Guideline for Involving Visual & Aesthetic Specialists in EIA processes (June 2005)

This Guideline was consulted and considered with initial site visit and given the urban nature of the immediate area, it is not necessary for a visual specialist to be involved.

Please note: Copies of any permit(s) or licences received from any other organ of state must be attached this report as Appendix E.



SECTION C: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The public participation process must fulfil the requirements outlined in NEMA, the EIA Regulations, and if applicable the NEM:

WA and/or the NEM: AQA. This Department‟s Guideline on Public Participation (August 2010) and Guideline on Exemption

Applications (August 2010), both of which are available on the Department‟s website (http://www.capegateway.gov.za/eadp),

must also be taken into account.

Please highlight the appropriate box to indicate whether the specific requirement was undertaken or whether there was a deviation that was agreed to by the Department.

1. Were all potential interested and affected parties notified of the application by –

(a) fixing a notice board at a place conspicuous to the public at the boundary or on the fence of - (i) the site where the activity to which the application relates is to be undertaken; and

YES DEVIATED

(ii) any alternative site mentioned in the application; YES DEVIATED

(b) giving written notice to –




(i) the owner or person in control of that land if the applicant is not the owner or person in control

of the land;

Notice was given to ATKV who is the owner of Erf 3122 and Portion 4 of

the Farm Hartenbosch 217. Written permission to conduct the environmental process and develop

low cost housing opportunities on the land was granted by the ATKV in

writing – Annexure E1.

YES N/A

(ii) the occupiers of the site where the activity is to be undertaken and to any alternative site where

the activity is to be undertaken; YES DEVIATED

(iii) owners and occupiers of land adjacent to the site where the activity is to be undertaken and to

any alternative site where the activity is to be undertaken; YES DEVIATED

(iv) the municipal councillor of the ward in which the site and alternative site is situated and any organisation of ratepayers that represent the community in the area;

YES DEVIATED

(v) the municipality which has jurisdiction in the area; YES DEVIATED

(vi) any organ of state having jurisdiction in respect of any aspect of the activity; and YES DEVIATED

(vii) any other party as required by the competent authority; YES DEVIATED

I placing an advertisement in -

(i) one* local newspaper; and YES DEVIATED

(ii) any official Gazette that is published specifically for the purpose of providing public notice of applications or other submissions made in terms of these Regulations;

YES DEVIATED N/A

(d) placing an advertisement in at least one* provincial newspaper or national newspaper, if the activity has or may have an impact that extends beyond the boundaries of the metropolitan or local municipality in which it is or will be undertaken.

YES DEVIATED N/A

* Please note: In terms of the NEM: WA and NEM: AQA a notice must be placed in at least two newspapers circulating in the

area in which the activity applied for is to be carried out.

2. Provide a list of all the state departments that were consulted:

Department of Human Settlements Charl Louw

Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Cobri Vermeulen

Department of Agriculture Cor vd Walt

Department of Health: Province Manie Abrahams

Department of Water Affairs Caroline Tlowana & Hester Lyons

Heritage Western Cape Calvin van Wijk

Eden District Municipality Vernon Gibbs

CapeNature Clyde Lamberts/Benjamin Walton

Mossel Bay Municipality: Housing Johan van Zyl

Mossel Bay Municipality: Planning Carel Venter, Eddie Kruger & Dries Cilliers

Mossel Bay Municipality: Technical Services Eric Louw

Mossel Bay Municipality: Electrical Dick Naidoo

Mossel Bay Municipality: Health Lanese Hesselman

Mossel Bay Municipality: Environmental Warren Manuel

Ward 7 Councillor Jim van der Merwe

Provincial Roads Cornelius Malgas & Malcolm Watters



3. Please provide an overall summary of the Public Participation Process that was followed. (The detailed outcomes of this process must

be included in a comments and response report to be attached to the final Basic Assessment Report (see note below) as Appendix F).

The general public was informed of the process and invited to register as an Interested & Affected

Party (I&AP) through a newspaper advert that appeared in the Mossel Bay Advertiser on 13

June 2014. This advert was placed in English calling for I&APs to submit their contact details and

any preliminary comments they may have to Cape EAPrac. Specific information was given about

deviations and exemption being applied for as part of this notice. I&APs were given 21-days to

register for the environmental process

Site notices were placed at the site in English, informing of the project proposal, deviations and

exemption, as well as how to register as an I&AP.

On 13 June 2014, neighbouring landowners were notified in writing of the proposed project and

environmental process. They were informed of their right to participate in the process and

requested to register as an I&AP should they have any issues/concerns regarding the proposed

development.

Direct neighbours in the existing Sonskynvallei township was notified on 13 June 2014 via letter-

drop, as the Mossel Bay Municipality was listed as the landowner in windeed. Letters was received

by either the landowner or family members who were at home at the time.

On 20 June 2014 a meeting took place in Councillor J. Van der Merwe‟s office in the Mossel Bay

Municipality‟s main building, Mossel Bay (see Annexure F3 for minutes and attendance register).

The following persons attended the meeting: Councillor J. Van der Merwe (Ward 7), Johan van Zyl

(Mossel Bay Municipality: Housing Manager), Warren Manuel (Mossel Bay Municipality:

Environment), Delarey Viljoen (DELplan), Louise-Mari van Zyl (Cape EAPrac: Director) and

Wynand Loftus (Cape EAPrac). It was established that a meeting with the ward committee can be

arranged through Councillor Van der Merwe. The meeting was scheduled for 2 July 2014 at the

Sonskynvallei community hall. Other points of discussion included, but are not limited to:

Visual Impact Assessment will be required.

A Background Information Document will be complied by Cape EAPrac and distributed to

the Agricultural Society (and other interested parties) via the Councillor.

Environmental Education for erosion and the possibility of a tree planting programme post

construction was suggested.

Community currently complain about strong water flow during rains. Stormwater

management is essential (included in the civil services report).

In terms of layout, explore the possibility of duplex units for the proposed development in

order to minimise visual impact.

On 2 July 2014 a meeting took place at the Sonskynvallei Community Centre to discuss the

proposed project with the ward committees of Sonskynvallei and Hartenbosheuwels. Councillor J.

Van der Merwe, DELplan, Cape EAPrac and representatives of the Mossel Bay Municipality

(Planning and Environment) was also present. Ward committee members was given a

Background Information Document containing information regarding the proposed development



and the Environmental Process was explained. Cape EAPrac gave an overview of the process up

to date and attendees were given ample opportunity to ask questions.

In the above mentioned meeting the community enquired about the possibility of keeping the

Gumpiro Street access point, instead of closing it and only using Mandela Road as a single

access point to the neighbourhood as recommended by the Traffic Impact Assessment. The TIA

recommends the Gumpiro access point be closed due to safety regulations. The community

suggested that the sight distance of the access point can be increase, thus increasing the safety, if

the vegetation in the road reserve be cleared. The engineer who compiled the TIA (Henry Maart)

was asked to respond to the community‟s request and explain why the Gumpiro Street access

point must be closed, his response was as follows:

- The TIA takes into account the published guidelines of the Western Cape Government,

who is the roads authority on TR33/2.

- The guidelines are based on safety, proper sight distances, reaction times and roadside

markings, etc.

- The existing access points in question are substandard in terms of access spacing.

- Moving it more to the EAST will increase the vertical separation between the two roads

that must be joined. This will create a steep access into the suburb and also bring about

lower shoulder sight distance values towards the West. This will create a substandard

second access while we are of the opinion that the Mandela junction is sufficient.

14 July 2014. Distribute BID to registered I&APs, relevant state departments and authorities.

16 July 2014. The Western Cape Government Department of Health made the following

comment: “The Department has no objection to the proposed development, subject to the

following conditions:

- Mossel Bay Municipality must supply all drinking water;

- Sewage must be connected to the Municipal sewage system; and

- All refuse waste must be removed by the Mossel Bay Municipality.”

Letter dated 27 August 2014 was received from the Department of Agriculture who requested

that the impact on agriculture be indicated. Further correspondence with the Department resulted

in the Department revising its comment, stating that a study indicating the impact on agriculture is

not required (email received 13 October 2014).

5 September 2014. Receive initial comment on the project from Billy Robertson. Points raised

include: Erf boundaries, neighbouring properties, flood plain, natural Renosterveld & safety of

pedestrians (Annexure F4). Mr Robertson‟s comments were responded, refer to Comments and

Responses Table (Annexure F8)

29 September 2014. Post Notification letters of the availability of the DBAR to I&APs who has no

email address. Courier CD copies to commenting state departments (Annexure F5).

30 September 2014. Email Notification letter of the availability of the DBAR to registered I&APs.

1 October 2014. Draft BAR made available to public and registered I&APs for 40-day commenting

period. A hard copy of the DBAR was placed at the Mossel Bay Municipality‟s Planning

Department, Hartenbos Library and the Sonskynvallei Clinic. Registered I&APs was also informed



of a digital copy of the DBAR available on the Cape EAPrac website.

All registered I&APs were notified of the availability of the DBAR, see Annexure F5 – Draft BAR

Notifications.

9 October 2014. Mr Faan Gerber from the Hartenbosheuwels Home Owners Association

commented on the DBAR saying that they have no issues with the proposed development. Mr

Gerber enquired about the development plan and whether it makes provision for a school. He

believes there no need for a new school as there is already one. The Hartenbos Care Centre is

the governing body of the existing body and will have to be informed if/when school expansion

was to take place. Mr Gerber‟s comments and responses thereto can be seen in the Comments

and Responses Table (Annexure F8).

On 15 October 2014 this office received the following comment from the Department Transport

and Public works:

This branch will not be opposed to the issuing of an Environmental Authorisation, provided that a

Land Use Planning Ordinance (LUPO) application is submitted via the Local Authority to this

Branch.

At this stage this Branch can state the following:

- It accepts the motivation of the Traffic Impact Study

- The following accesses will have to be closed:

- Off Trunk Road 33 section 2 at ±km0.88 LHS (waste disposal)

- Off Trunk Road 33 section 2 at ±km0.94 LHS (Gumpiro Avenue)



The proposed layout must be amended in order to be able to construct another access, when

required, onto Trunk Road 33 section 2 at ±km1.78 LHS (opposite the mine). This comment was

discussed with the planners and reflected in the latest proposed development layout (Appendix B

– plan dated November 2014)

On 28 October 2014 the Department of Health George Office stated that it has no further

comment regarding the proposed development. The department confirmed that it be removed from

the I&AP register (Annexure F6).

On 10 November 2014 this office received a letter from the Department of Water Affairs (DWA),

commenting on the proposed development. The DWA has no objection to the proposed

development on subject to all relevant sections and regulations of the National Water Act,

regarding water use and the conditions listed below (please refer to Annexure F6 to view the full

comment of the DWA):

- Letter in which Mossel Bay Municipality confirms the availability of potable water and sewage

treatment capacity must be submitted to the DWA;

- Storm water management infrastructure must be to the satisfaction of the Mossel Bay Municipality;

- No activity may take place within 1:100 year flood line, riparian areas or within 500m from a

wetland; and

- Surface and/or groundwater pollution must be dealt with in accordance with Section 19 & 20 of the



National Water Act.

Please note:

Should any of the responses be “No” and no deviation or exemption from that requirement was requested and

agreed to /granted by the Department, the Basic Assessment Report will be rejected.

A list of all the potential interested and affected parties, including the organs of State, notified and a list of all the

register of interested and affected parties, must be submitted with the final Basic Assessment Report. The list of

registered interested and affected parties must be opened, maintained and made available to any person

requesting access to the register in writing.

The draft Basic Assessment Report must be submitted to the Department before it is made available to interested

and affected parties, including the relevant organs of State and State departments which have jurisdiction with

regard to any aspect of the activity, for a 40-day commenting period. With regard to State departments, the 40-

day period commences the day after the date on which the Department as the competent/licensing authority

requests such State department in writing to submit comment. The applicant/EAP is therefore required to inform

this Department in writing when the draft Basic Assessment Report will be made available to the relevant State

departments for comment. Upon receipt of the Draft Basic Assessment Report and this confirmation, this

Department will in accordance with Section 24O(2) and (3) of the NEMA request the relevant State departments

to comment on the draft report within 40 days.

All comments of interested and affected parties on the draft Basic Assessment Report must be recorded,

responded to and included in the Comments and Responses Report included as Appendix F to the final Basic

Assessment Report. If necessary, any amendments in response to comments received must be effected in the

Basic Assessment Report itself. The Comments and Responses Report must also include a description of the

public participation process followed.

The final Basic Assessment Report must be made available to registered interested and affected parties for

comment before submitting it to the Department for consideration. Unless otherwise indicated by the Department,

a final Basic Assessment Report must be made available to the registered interested and affected parties for

comment for a minimum of 21-days. Comments on the final Basic Assessment Report does not have to be

responded to, but the comments must be attached to the final Basic Assessment Report.

The minutes of any meetings held by the EAP with interested and affected parties and other role players which

record the views of the participants must also be submitted as part of the public participation information to be

attached to the final Basic Assessment Report as Appendix F.

Proof of all the notices given as indicated, as well as of notice to the interested and affected parties of the

availability of the draft Basic Assessment Report and final Basic Assessment Report must be submitted as part of

the public participation information to be attached to the final Basic Assessment Report as Appendix F.



SECTION D: NEED AND DESIRABILITY Please Note: Before completing this section, first consult this Department‟s Guideline on Need and Desirability (August 2010) available on the Department‟s website (http://www.capegateway.gov.za/eadp).

1. Is the activity permitted in terms of the property‟s existing land use rights? YES NO Please explain

The development site is currently zoned as Agriculture I and Authority Zone. The land will be re-zoned

for the proposed housing development. The site is however indicated in all relevant spatial tools as

being suitable for township development as it falls within the urban edge. 2. Will the activity be in line with the following?

(a) Provincial Spatial Development Framework (PSDF) YES NO Please explain

The PSDF promotes infill development and proximity to existing services. The PSDF further promotes

the provision of affordable housing to address the housing backlog within Municipal areas. (b) Urban edge / Edge of Built environment for the area YES NO Please explain

The development site falls within the urban edge for this area. (c) Integrated Development Plan and Spatial Development Framework of the Local

Municipality (e.g. would the approval of this application compromise the integrity of the

existing approved and credible municipal IDP and SDF?).

YES NO Please explain

The IDP promotes the planning and supply of affordable housing to local communities.

The property falls within the area designated for township expansion. (d) Approved Structure Plan of the Municipality YES NO Please explain

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

(e.g. Would the approval of this application compromise the integrity of the existing

environmental management priorities for the area and if so, can it be justified in terms of

sustainability considerations?)


No adopted EMF available for this area. (f) Any other Plans (e.g. Guide Plan) YES NO Please explain

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

YES NO Please

explain

The proposed development is recognised in the SDF and IDP. 4. Should development, or if applicable, expansion of the town/area concerned in terms

of this land use (associated with the activity being applied for) occur here at this point in time?

YES NO Please

explain

The Mossel Bay Municipality has a responsibility to provide housing to its communities. The proposed

development will address the housing need of the area and falls within the urban edge of Mossel Bay. 5. Does the community/area need the activity and the associated land use concerned (is

it a societal priority)? (This refers to the strategic as well as local level (e.g. development is a national priority, but within a specific local context it could be inappropriate.)

YES NO Please

explain

The PSDF promotes the provisioning of affordable housing to address the housing backlog within

Municipal areas. The local community, by means of their Councillor & Ward Committee have indicated

their support for the housing project as there is a considerable housing need in the Mossel Bay area.

6. Are the necessary services with adequate capacity currently available (at the time of application), or must additional capacity be created to cater for the development?

YES NO Please

explain




(Confirmation by the relevant Municipality in this regard must be attached to the final Basic Assessment Report as Appendix E.)

The proposed development will have to install water, sewage and electricity to the individual Erven. The

Civil Services report (Annexure G3) has indicated that upgrades at the Hartenboskop reservoir will be

required for bulk water supply and a new bulk water pipeline will have to be installed. It was confirmed

by GLS Consulting that an additional 1200kl reservoir storage is required at the existing 3500kl

Hartenboskop reservoir. The storage in the new reservoir will be shared by the proposed Sonskynvallei

development and other proposed developments in the supply area of the new reservoir. In addition to

the increase of the Hartenboskop reservoir storage capacity, a bulk water supply line will be required

from the reservoir to the proposed site.

A 1415m x 200mm pipeline following in part the route of an existing 100mm diameter bulk line servicing

the Brandwag township is proposed. A portion of the pipeline will be aligned alongside the above

mentioned 100mm pipeline within a registered servitude, the remainder of the pipeline will follow an

existing track leading to the Hartenboskop reservoir. The recommended alignment is illustrated in Figure

4.

Additional sewage flow generated by the proposed housing development can be accommodated by the

existing waste water treatment works (Du Preez, 2014).

New sewer line with rising main will be installed and connected to the existing Sonskynvallei

pumpstation which has sufficient capacity to accommodate the additional flow.

Electricity supply will be provided from the newly built 66/11kV 20MVA Substation situated

approximately 1km east of the proposed development (CVW Electrical 2014; Annexure E2).

7. Is this development provided for in the infrastructure planning of the municipality, and if not what will the implication be on the infrastructure planning of the municipality (priority and placement of services and opportunity costs)? (Comment by the relevant Municipality in this regard must be attached to the final Basic Assessment Report as Appendix E.)

YES NO Please

explain

The proposed bulk water upgrades (Annexure G3) will ensure that the municipality has sufficient

infrastructure to service the proposed development.

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

YES NO Please

explain

Meeting the basic needs of local communities through the provisioning of basic services and housing

opportunities is seen as an issue of national concern. 9. Do location factors favour this land use (associated with the activity applied for) at this

place? (This relates to the contextualisation of the proposed land use on this site within its broader context.)

YES NO Please

explain

The proposed Phase 3 Sonskynvallei housing development form part of a greater housing development

i.e. Phases 1 & 2. The location of the proposed development is adjacent to the before mentioned phases

and thus in line with the Municipality‟s long term strategy for the area.

10. How will the activity or the land use associated with the activity applied for, impact on sensitive natural and cultural areas (built and rural/natural environment)?

YES NO Please

explain

A heritage Specialist Assessment was undertaken by Stefan de Kock of PERCEPTION Planning for the

proposed development (De Kock, 2014; Annexure G5). It was indicated by De Kock (2014) that no



historic structures, ruins or gravesites were found during field work. The heritage report also stated that

no significant structures and/or cultural landscape patterns could be identified through early aerial

imagery.

Due to the general sensitive archaeological nature of coastal areas in the Mossel Bay area, the heritage

specialist recommended that an archaeological impact assessment be undertaken for this area. The

specialist also recommended that archaeological monitoring may be required during future earthworks

and excavations associated with the proposal, which would include installation of the proposed bulk

water pipeline.

An Archaeological Impact Assessment (AIA) conducted by Nilssen (2014) found no objections to the

proposed development in terms of archaeology (i.e. no significant archaeoligical resources will be

impacted by the proposed development) and recommended that no further work is needed in this regard

(Annexure G1).

11. How will the development impact on people‟s health and wellbeing (e.g. in terms of noise, odours, visual character and sense of place, etc)?


The installation of basic services (potable water, sewerage, stormwater management, roads and waste

removal services) will have a positive impact on the health of the people that are to be relocated to the

site, as well as the environmental health of the site and surrounding natural systems.

The visual character will be impacted by transforming a vacant area to a built environment, however

within the context of the urban edge and adjacent built environment (housing and industrial) this change

in visual character is unlikely to have a negative impact on people’s health and wellbeing. The Visual

Impact Statement (Annexure G7) by Stephen Stead from Visual Resource Management Africa cc state

that the proposed development (preferred alternative) does not constitute a significant visual impact.

In terms of sense of place, the prosed development will provide much needed housing which will

establish ownership and a sense of place within the new community.

12. Will the proposed activity or the land use associated with the activity applied for, result in unacceptable opportunity costs?

YES NO Please

explain

The proposed development forms part of the strategic long-term housing strategy of the Mossel Bay

Municipality.

13. What will the cumulative impacts (positive and negative) of the proposed land use associated with the activity applied for, be?

YES NO Please

explain

Potential cumulative impacts include the following:

Provide high density housing opportunities (positive, long term) in an area with housing

shortages;

Potential pollution from construction activities and activities of residents (negative, short term,

can be mitigated);

Potential erosion as a result of construction activities (negative, short term, can be mitigated);

Waste, sewage and stormwater services to housing beneficiaries (positive, long term); and



(17) Please describe how the general objectives of Integrated Environmental Management as set out in section 23 of NEMA have been taken into account: The purpose of Section 23 of NEMA is to promote the application of appropriate environmental

management tools in order to ensure the integrated environmental management of activities. The aim

of these principles is to identify, predict and evaluate the actual and potential impact on the

environment (including socio-economic and cultural environments), to assess alternatives and

propose mitigation options which will contribute to minimizing detrimental impact.

For this application, actual and potential impacts on the various environments have been considered

and assessed. The following specialist input was considered during the completing of this Basic

Assessment:

Archaeological

Botanical

Civil

Electrical

Heritage

Planning

Traffic

Visual

The nature of the application results in minimal impacts, with positive impacts for beneficiaries who will

be residing in the proposed development. The proposed development has been planned in a way to

avoid the intact patch of thicket on the western side of the development patch as well as semi-intact

Impact of subsidised housing on operations and values of surrounding businesses (negative, long term).

It is believed that the manner in which the proposed Sonskynvallei Housing Extension Phase 3

development is planned, answers to the challenges of need and desirability taking into account that the

area is (has been) designated for township development in municipal spatial planning tools. The land

use is not considered to be in conflict with other existing land uses in the area.

14. Is the development the best practicable environmental option for this land/site? YES NO Please

explain

The development is in-line with the strategic long-term housing strategy of the Mossel Bay Municipality.

Formal services like stormwater management, sewage and waste removal will mitigate the potential

environmental impact of the development.

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

explain

Positive. To provide much needed housing to the local community members in an area that has housing need.

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

explain

All considerations have been covered above.



thicket patches around the rugby field. The most valuable/conservation-worthy patch of thicket can

connect to thicket adjacent to the site and impacts on this vegetation must be managed and minimised

where possible. Potential pollution on surrounding areas is of high concern. Mitigation measures as

set out in the Environmental Management Programme (EMP) needs to be followed in order to

minimise the potential impacts on the surrounding natural environment.

The proposed infrastructure development, along with the generous Public Open Space areas will

mitigate the possibility of pollution through sewage, waste and stormwater (erosion).

Finally, in accordance with the Integrated Environmental Management principles, ample opportunity is

being allowed for public participation. An advert has been placed in the local newspaper, informing

members of the public of the proposal and available information, and included details on how

members of the public can register as stakeholders and through doing so, form part of the

environmental process. Other key stakeholders (e.g. Councillor, direct neighbours, CapeNature,

Mossel Bay Municipality) have been identified and notified of the process. A Notice Board was placed

at the development site. Initial comment received prior to the completion of the DBAR is included in

this report (Annexure F4). The public advertisement and notices sent to identified stakeholders,

included details on the Draft Basic Assessment Report’s availability and how comment can be

submitted on the application. Comments received on the Draft Basic Assessment Report were

considered by the project team, responded to, and is included in this Final Basic Assessment Report.

All registered I&APs were informed of the availability of the FBAR for comment and review period of

21 days. All comments received on the FBAR will be included in the FBAR that will be submitted to the

DEA&DP for decision making.

(18) Please describe how the principles of environmental management as set out in section 2 of NEMA have been taken into account: The main and applicable principles of environmental management as set out in Section 2 of NEMA

emphasises the following:

Environmental management placing people and their needs at forefront of its concern, and

serve their physical, physiological, developmental, cultural and social interests equitably – the

proposed development will not exceed beyond the building restriction area. Potential pollution

aspects have been addressed and can be mitigated successfully through implementation of

the EMP. I&APs and Stakeholders are allowed the opportunity to consider and submit

comment in terms of the proposal.

Socially, environmentally and economically sustainable development – the proposed

development forms part of the Mossel Bay Municipality’s long term housing strategy.

The cultural/heritage significance of the site has been assessed and the specialist reported

that no heritage resources will be affected by the proposed development.

The archaeological impact assessment (AIA) found that the proposed development will not

have a negative impact on any significant archaeological resources and indicated that no

further work with regard to archaeology is needed. Mitigation measures pertaining to the



exposure of significant archaeological resources and human remains during construction are

laid out in the AIA.

Waste generated by the proposed development will be removed and managed through the

existing Municipal waste management system.

Landscape disturbance – The development site is adjacent to the existing Sonskynvallei

Township and is considered to be in-line with the surrounding land-use character.

Recommendations related to water and energy conservation have been included in the

Environmental Management Programme (EMP) for implementation.

Recommendations in terms of site demarcation and no-go areas, as well as service

installation and maintenance (e.g. a variety of retaining and stormwater control structures etc.)

have been made in line with a risk-averse and cautious approach.

The most viable, practical and environmentally-conservative options have been pursued

where possible.

Mitigation and monitoring measures have been recommended to minimise and avoid

potential contamination / degradation of the environment (through alien plant removal, anti-

erosion measures, etc).



SECTION E: ALTERNATIVES Please Note: Before completing this section, first consult this Department‟s Guideline on Alternatives (August 2010) available on the Department‟s website (http://www.capegateway.gov.za/eadp). “Alternatives”, in relation to a proposed activity, means different means of meeting the general purposes and requirements of the activity, which may include alternatives to –

(a) the property on which, or location where, it is proposed to undertake the activity; (b) the type of activity to be undertaken; I the design or layout of the activity; (d) the technology to be used in the activity; (e) the operational aspects of the activity; and (f) the option of not implementing the activity.

The NEMA prescribes that the procedures for the investigation, assessment and communication of the potential consequences or impacts of activities on the environment must, inter alia, with respect to every application for environmental authorisation –

ensure that the general objectives of integrated environmental management laid down in NEMA and the National Environmental Management Principles set out in NEMA are taken into account; and

include an investigation of the potential consequences or impacts of the alternatives to the activity on the environment and assessment of the significance of those potential consequences or impacts, including the option of not implementing the activity.

The general objective of integrated environmental management is, inter alia, to “identify, predict and evaluate the actual and potential impact on the environment, socio-economic conditions and cultural heritage, the risks and consequences and alternatives and options for mitigation of activities, with a view to minimising negative impacts, maximising benefits, and promoting compliance with the principles of environmental management” set out in NEMA. 1. In the sections below, please provide a description of any identified and considered alternatives and alternatives that were

found to be feasible and reasonable. Please note: Detailed written proof the investigation of alternatives must be provided and motivation if no reasonable or feasible alternatives exist.

(a) Property and location/site alternatives to avoid negative impacts, mitigate unavoidable negative impacts and maximise

positive impacts, or detailed motivation if no reasonable or feasible alternatives exist: The property has been identified as a suitable site for the proposed development – this has been

confirmed through specialist reports.

High density residential developments appear in the SDF and the proposed development will be able

to gain access to services like sewage, waste and electricity by connecting to the existing system of

the Sonskynvallei township.

No alternative site(s) have been investigated.

(b) Activity alternatives to avoid negative impacts, mitigate unavoidable negative impacts and maximise positive impacts, or detailed motivation if no reasonable or feasible alternatives exist: The property has been identified as a suitable site for the proposed development – this has been confirmed through specialist reports.

High density residential developments appear in the SDF and the proposed development will be able

to gain access to services like sewage, waste and electricity by connection to the existing system of

the Sonskynvallei residential area.

The site falls within the urban edge of Mossel Bay adjacent to the existing Sonskynvallei Township.

No activity alternative has been considered.




(c) Design or layout alternatives to avoid negative impacts, mitigate unavoidable negative impacts and maximise positive impacts, or detailed motivation if no reasonable or feasible alternatives exist:

Design alternatives: Free standing residential units (Alternative 1) and semi-detached units

(Alternative 2) are being considered.

Figure 33: 3D images of the proposed structures for the Sonskynvallei Phase 3 housing extension. Single free-standing units are illustrated in the back and semi-detached in the front (Stead, 2014).

Layout alternatives: Two Layout alternatives are being considered, the „initial layout‟

(Alternative 1) and „updated layout‟ (Alternative). The initial layout had limited input in terms of

specialists and consists of the single free-standing residential units. The updated layout

contains more specialist input, shows the semi-detached residential units (which reduce visual

intrusion as it results in less bulk) and is considered the preferred alternative. The alternative

layout can be seen in Appendix B, layout dated November 2014.

Realignment of the water pipeline for a section along the existing gravel track to avoid an

area identified as being sensitive.

(d) Technology alternatives (e.g. to reduce resource demand and resource use efficiency) to avoid negative impacts, mitigate unavoidable negative impacts and maximise positive impacts, or detailed motivation if no reasonable or feasible alternatives exist: SUDS (Sustainable Urban Drainage System) have been recommended by the Engineers to improve

overall stormwater management and reduce the potential for unwanted erosion i.e. swales (grassed

channels vs. hard surfaced open stormwater channels) and permeable surfaces rather than

impermeable surfaces where appropriate. (e) Operational alternatives to avoid negative impacts, mitigate unavoidable negative impacts and maximise positive impacts, or detailed motivation if no reasonable or feasible alternatives exist: No operational alternatives were considered. (f) the option of not implementing the activity (the No-Go Option): ALTERNATIVE 3



The site is designated for township development in the relevant spatial planning tools for Mossel Bay

Municipality and is thus in line with the Municipality‟s housing strategy. There is a high level of

certainty that the site will be developed for housing purposes.

(g) Other alternatives to avoid negative impacts, mitigate unavoidable negative impacts and maximise positive impacts, or detailed motivation if no reasonable or feasible alternatives exist: No additional alternatives. (h) Please provide a summary of the alternatives investigated and the outcomes of such investigation: Please note: If no feasible and reasonable alternatives exist, the description and proof of the investigation of alternatives, together with motivation of why no feasible or reasonable alternatives exist, must be provided. The following alternatives are assessed as part of this application.

Alternative 1: Initial layout with free standing units

This alternative was informed through limited specialist input and contains the single free-standing

residential units. The Botanical Impact Statement indicated that there are areas of thicket close to the

rugby field that must be excluded from the development area. This was discussed with the planners

and is reflected in this alternative. See Appendix B, layout dated January 2014.

This alternative also allows for the water pipeline to be installed along the existing water servitude.

Alternative 2: Updated layout with semi-detached units (preferred)

Layout was informed through specialist assessments i.e. Visual and Botanical. This alternative takes

into account environmentally sensitive areas and contains the semi-detached dwellings which from a

Visual point of view will have less impact. This alternative further excludes sensitive/conservation-

worthy vegetation from the development layout as per recommendation from the specialist. It also

makes provision for a possible future access point opposite the mine, as recommended by the Dept.

Transport & Public Works. Alternative 2 is the preferred alternative. See Appendix B, layout dated

November 2014.

This alternative allows for a portion of the new water pipeline route to be realigned to follow the

existing gravel track to avoid an area identified as being sensitive (within the existing servitude).

Alternative 3: No-Go (Status quo)

No development.



SECTION F: IMPACT ASSESSMENT, MANAGEMENT, MITIGATION AND MONITORING MEASURES

Please note: The information in this section must be duplicated for all the feasible and reasonable alternatives (where relevant).

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

(a) Geographical and physical aspects: The site will be transformed from a natural environment to a built environment i.e. subsidy housing

opportunities.

The removal of vegetation and replacement with hard surfaces will increase the volume of runoff water

and subsequently increase the risk of erosion.

The engineers have however allowed for sufficient mitigation to address the potential impact

of erosion through providing for open grassed channels (swales), permeable surfacing

(where appropriate), water storage and re-use to reduce stormwater runoff volumes. Minor

storms (1:2 year) will be managed through a network of kerb inlets, grid inlets, open channels and below-ground pipes. Major storm events (1:50 year) will be managed through

overland flow via roads and footways, and attenuation storage within public open spaces

and within the road network, as appropriate. (b) Biological aspects: Will the development have an impact on critical biodiversity areas (CBAs) or ecological support areas (CSAs)? YES NO If yes, please describe:

Please read the explanations below in conjunction with the Critical Biodiversity Areas Map in Appendix

D of this report.

Terrestrial CBA

From the CBA data available for this area it appears that a small portion of the proposed bulk water

pipeline will cross a CBA at the existing reservoir.

The NFEPA broad scale mapping indicates a portion of the existing water pipeline servitude as being

sensitive. The latter area was also identified by the Botanical Specialist as being sensitive and was

subsequently excluded from the development area.

According to the Botanical specialist the most conservation worthy vegetation is around the rugby

field, particularly on its western side where thicket could possibly connect to thicket on the

neighbouring property (this area is picked up as an Aquatic CBA Buffer Area). As indicated by the

development layout, housing opportunities have been excluded from this area.

Aquatic CBA

With regards to Aquatic CBA‟s, the entire Portion 105 of Farm 217 (where the existing sports fields

are) is indicated as an Aquatic CBA buffer along with a section on the north-western boundary of the

development area (Appendix D). No Aquatic CBA‟s are indicated within the proposed development

area. It has to be noted that the existing Sonskynvallei township as well as neighbouring light industrial

areas are also indicated as Aquatic CBA buffers.



The north-western Aquatic CBA buffer has been excluded from the development area due to the

sensitive nature of the vegetation (as per recommendation from the botanical specialist) and much of

the area surrounding the rugby field has been disturbed or transformed.

Will the development have on terrestrial vegetation, or aquatic ecosystems (wetlands, estuaries or the coastline)?

YES NO

If yes, please describe:

Terrestrial ecosystems The entire site is described as Groot Brak Dune Strandveld (Rebelo et al. 2006) and classified as

„Endangered‟ in terms of ecosystem status according to SANBI BGIS. On a finer scale the vegetation

of the development area is described as Herbertsdale Renoster Thicket and conforms better to this

description as Groot Brak Dune Strandveld is much too broad a description (Coetzee, 2014). The

proposed development will thus replace terrestrial vegetation. Sensitive and conservation worthy

vegetation have been excluded from the development footprint and a large section of the development

area to the south will be zoned Public Open Space. In the event that the sensitive vegetation,

excluded from the development area, can be managed (community project), i.e. kept clean of alien

plants and protected from vandalism and wood harvesting, the potential impact on the receiving

environment is likely to be HIGHLY POSITIVE.

Aquatic ecosystems

No areas indicated as National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas (NFEPA) will be affected by the

footprint of the proposed development (Appendix D). However there are two areas within the larger

proposed development area indicated as NFEPA areas. The larger of the two areas is located within

an area which is proposed for Public Open Space (Appendix D) and will thus not be impacted directly

by the proposed development.

A very small section in the north-western part (where the true thicket occurs) is also indicated as an

NFEPA. By recommendation of the Botanical specialist this area has been excluded from the

development area and will also not be directly affected by the development.

Will the development have an impact on any populations of threatened plant or animal species, and/or on any habitat that may contain a unique signature of plant or animal species? YES NO

If yes, please describe:

According to SANBI BGIS the vegetation of the site, Groot Brak Dune Strandveld (on a finer scale

Herbertsdale Renoster Thicket) is classified as „Endangered‘ in terms of ecosystem status. The

Botanical Specialist has recommended that sensitive thicket areas along the north-western boundary

be excluded from the development area. Smaller thicket patches within the development site are

isolated and not conservation worthy.

The proposed development would thus not have a negative impact on threatened animal or plant

species, as these areas (conservation worthy) have been excluded from development area. The

Botanical Assessment suggested that the remainder of the proposed development site consisting

Grassy Renosterveld (mostly) is more suitable for the proposed housing development.

See Appendix D for vegetation map.



Please describe the manner in which any other biological aspects will be impacted:

No other biological aspects will be impacted. (c) Socio-Economic aspects: What is the expected capital value of the activity on completion? Unknown What is the expected yearly income or contribution to the economy that will be generated by or as a result of the activity? Unknown

Will the activity contribute to service infrastructure? YES NO How many new employment opportunities will be created in the construction phase of the activity? Unknown What is the expected value of the employment opportunities during the construction phase? Unknown What percentage of this will accrue to previously disadvantaged individuals? Unknown How will this be ensured and monitored (please explain):

The Municipality, as the Applicant, will be responsible for implementing the project. As the local

Authority they are obliged to support a „local-first‟ policy through which preference should be given to

local contractors and job seekers. It is recommended that the appointed contractor make use of the

Municipality‟s list of job seekers and contractors to ensure maximum local employment. The

Contractor must keep record of employment records to ensure that the local community

(Sonskynvallei first, then neighbouring communities, then greater Mossel Bay area and then Garden

Route district for selection order) does benefit.

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

What is the expected current value of the employment opportunities during the first 10 years? Unknown What percentage of this will accrue to previously disadvantaged individuals? Unknown How will this be ensured and monitored (please explain):

The Municipality, as the Applicant, will be responsible for implementing the project. As the local

Authority they are obliged to support a „local-first‟ policy through which preference should be given to

local contractors and job seekers. It is recommended that the appointed contractor make use of the

Municipality‟s list of job seekers and contractors to ensure maximum local employment. The

Contractor must keep record of employment records to ensure that the local community

(Sonskynvallei first, then neighbouring communities, then greater Mossel Bay area and then Garden

Route district for selection order) does benefit.

Any other information related to the manner in which the socio-economic aspects will be impacted:



Housing demand pressure will be reduced in the Sonskynvallei area with beneficiaries who

are currently homeless, living in informal structures (i.e. backyard dwellers), or renting rooms

will be able to qualify for the housing scheme.

Existing crime/vandalism levels may increase due to the urban sprawl encroaching onto

neighbouring properties. It is recommended that the north-western boundary of the

Remainder of Portion 4 of Farm 217 be fenced prior to construction to act as an additional

barrier to prevent unlawful access to Portion 102 of Farm 217.

It has to be noted that the proposed development forms part of the Mossel Bay Municipality‟s

long-term strategy to address the housing need of its area. Not all 616 housing opportunities,

as indicated in the development plan (Appendix B), will be constructed, nor occupied in a

single phase. Housing opportunities will become available as per the funding from the

Municipality. Through conducting an environmental process for more housing opportunities

than which is currently required, the Municipality would be able to address future demand in a

timeous fashion, without having to complete an additional environmental process. (d) Cultural and historic aspects: Heritage Report

The Heritage specialist assessment (Annexure G5) indicated that from a colonial perspective the

proposed development site form part of the early farm Hartenbosch. Historically the farm was

predominantly used for raising livestock.

De Kock (2014) identified no historic structures, ruins or possible gravesites during his fieldwork. Early

aerial photography indicates little cultivation along the Hartenbos River corridor, which include the

northernmost portion of the proposed development site. No significant structures and/or cultural

landscape patterns could be identified through early aerial imagery (De Kock, 2014).

De Kock (2014) recommended that an archaeological impact assessment be undertaken due to the

general sensitive archaeological nature of coastal areas in the Mossel Bay district. It was also stated

that archaeological monitoring may be required during future earthworks and excavations associated

with the proposed development (includes the bulk water pipeline).

Archaeological Impact Assessment (AIA, Nilssen, 2014)

The AIA (Annexure G1) indicated that no significant archaeological resources would be negatively

impacted by the proposed development. The AIA concluded with the following recommended and

required mitigation measures:

Recommended mitigations measures:

Based on the findings of this study and of those in the immediate surroundings, it is

recommended that no further archaeological work or mitigation is required.

Required mitigation measures:



In the event that vegetation clearing and earthmoving activities expose significant

archaeological materials, such activities must stop and Heritage Western Cape must be

notified immediately.

If archaeological materials are exposed during vegetation clearing and/or earth moving

activities, then they must be dealt with in accordance with the National Heritage Resources

Act (No. 25 of 1999) and at the expense of the developer.

In the event of exposing human remains during construction, the matter will fall into the

domain of Heritage Western Cape (Mr. Guy Thomas) or the South African Heritage Resources

Agency (Mrs Colette Scheermeyer) and will require a professional archaeologist to undertake

mitigation if needed. The developer will be responsible for costs associated with such work.

2. WASTE AND EMISSIONS

(a) Waste (including effluent) management Will the activity produce waste (including rubble) during the construction phase? YES NO If yes, indicate the types of waste (actual type of waste, e.g. oil, and whether hazardous or not) and estimated quantity per type? M3

Limited building rubble. Will the activity produce waste during its operational phase? The activity will generate household effluent and general household waste during its operational phase.

YES NO

If yes, indicate the types of waste (actual type of waste, e.g. oil, and whether hazardous or not) and estimated quantity per type? M3

Where and how will the waste be treated / disposed of (describe)? The project will be serviced with Municipal water borne sewage. Sewage will be disposed of at the

Municipal waste water treatment works. General household waste will be collected as part of the

existing waste removal system currently servicing the Sonskynvallei community. If yes, indicate the types of waste (actual type of waste, e.g. oil, and whether hazardous or not) and estimated quantity per type per phase of the development? Has the municipality or relevant authority confirmed that sufficient capacity exist for treating / disposing of the waste to be generated by this activity(ies)? If yes, provide written confirmation from Municipality or relevant authority. Mossel Bay Municipality is also the Applicant – see Annexure E3 for letter confirming capacity for waste disposal.

YES NO

Will the activity produce waste that will be treated and/or disposed of at another facility other than into a municipal waste stream?

YES NO

If yes, has this facility confirmed that sufficient capacity exist for treating / disposing of the waste to be generated by this activity(ies)? Provide written confirmation from the facility and provide the following particulars of the facility:

YES NO

Does the facility have an operating license? (If yes, please attach a copy of the license.) YES NO

Facility name: Contact person: Postal address: Postal code: Telephone: Cell: E-mail: Fax:



Describe the measures that will be taken to reduce, reuse or recycle waste: The DEA&DP waste minimisation guideline document for environmental impact assessment reviews

(May, 2003) is the key guideline document regarding management of waste during the construction

period. This Guideline raises awareness to waste minimisation issues and highlights waste and

wastage minimization practices. Part B of this document is of particular importance, as it addresses

issues of general waste and wastage minimization during construction activities. The

recommendations and principles of this document have been used to inform the Environmental

Management Programme (attached in Appendix H).

Mossel Bay Municipality has a „blue-bag‟ recycling programme that is currently running. The

Municipality itself does not recycle the material; the contractor collects the blue bags and then further

proceeds with the recycling process. It is recommended that recyclable materials are sorted at the

source i.e. each individual residence, as it will improve the efficiency of the recycling process.

(b) Emissions into the atmosphere Will the activity produce emissions that will be disposed of into the atmosphere? YES NO If yes, does it require approval in terms of relevant legislation? YES NO Describe the emissions in terms of type and concentration and how it will be treated/mitigated:

3. WATER USE

Please indicate the source(s) of water for the activity by ticking the appropriate box(es)

Municipal Water board Groundwater River, Stream, Dam or Lake Other The activity will not use water

If water is to be extracted from a groundwater source, river, stream, dam, lake or any other natural feature, please indicate the volume that will be extracted per month: N/A Please provide proof of assurance of water supply (eg. Letter of confirmation from municipality / water user associations, yield of borehole) See Annexure E3 for letter from Mossel Bay Municipality confirming water infrastructure capacity. Proposed upgrades in the civil services report. Does the activity require a water use permit / license from DWAF? YES NO If yes, please submit the necessary application to Department of Water Affairs and attach proof thereof to this application. Describe the measures that will be taken to reduce water demand, and measures to reuse or recycle water: Dual flush toilets must be installed. Low flow showerheads and taps must be installed.

It is unlikely that the available project financing will cover rainwater storage tanks therefore such are

not recommended as it is unlikely to be feasible.

The beneficiaries that qualify for the subsidised houses are allocated a limited volume of „free‟ water

for which they do not pay (it is subsidised by the State). As soon as they exceed their „free‟ monthly

allocation they have to pay for the water they use. As a result such low income households rarely

exceed their „free‟ monthly volume which is a default water saving mechanism in itself.



4. POWER SUPPLY

Please indicate the source of power supply eg. Municipality / Eskom / Renewable energy source Municipal (Annexure E2) If power supply is not available, where will power be sourced from?

4.1 ENERGY EFFICIENCY Describe the design measures, if any, that have been taken to ensure that the activity is energy efficient: The use of low voltage or compact fluorescent lights (instead of incandescent globes) is

recommended for each unit.

It is doubtful whether project funding will be sufficient to allow solar heating technologies to be

implemented, but should funding be available, it is recommended that heat pumps or roof set solar

panels be installed as a measure to reduce electricity consumption.

Describe how alternative energy sources have been taken into account or been built into the design of the activity, if any: As described above, solar power technologies must be explored if funding is available.



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

Please note: While sections are provided for impacts on certain aspects of the environment and certain impacts, the sections should also be copied and completed for all other impacts.

(a) Impacts that may result from the planning, design and construction phase (briefly describe and compare the potential impacts (as appropriate), significance rating of impacts, proposed

mitigation and significance rating of impacts after mitigation that are likely to occur as a result of the planning, design and construction phase. Potential impacts on geographical and physical aspects: Exposure of soil during construction. Transformation of area from natural to transformed

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 (preferred) Alternative 3 (No-Go)

Nature of impact: Negative Negative Positive (no exposure of soil and transformation of proposed development area)

Extent and duration of impact: Local, permanent (development footprint)

Local, permanent (development footprint) Local, long term

Probability of occurrence: Definite Definite Probable Degree to which the impact can be reversed: Low Low Positive – no need to reverse Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable loss of resources: Medium Medium Low

Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Medium Medium No need to mitigate Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation (Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)

Medium Medium N/A

Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: High High N/A

Proposed mitigation:

Construction area to be clearly demarcated prior to construction to avoid encroachment into adjacent areas. No activities allowed within the No-Go area.

Environmental Control Officer

Construction area to be clearly demarcated prior to construction to avoid encroachment into adjacent areas. No activities allowed within the No-Go area.

Environmental Control Officer

N/A



(ECO) must monitor construction activities

(ECO) must monitor construction activities

Cumulative impact post mitigation: Low Low N/A Significance rating of impact after mitigation (Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)

Low Low N/A

Potential impacts on geographical and physical aspects: Construction of a ±1.4km bulk water pipeline from Hartenboskop reservoir, over a drainage line and to the proposed development


Nature of impact:

Negative Construction of the bulk water pipeline will follow the alignment of an existing pipeline i.e. the proposed new pipeline will be installed adjacent to the existing one and follow the same footprint where possible.

Neutral Realignment of a section of the water pipeline to avoid an area indicated as sensitive will reduce the potential impact on the receiving environment.

Neutral (no impact) Current capacity of pipeline may limit future development.

Extent and duration of impact: Specific to alignment, long term (development footprint)

Specific to alignment, long term (development footprint) N/A

Probability of occurrence: Definite Definite N/A Degree to which the impact can be reversed: Low Low N/A

Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable loss of resources:

Medium-High (within the NFEPA area)

Negligible (following existing servitude and gravel track already transformed).

N/A

Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Medium Very Low N/A Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation (Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)

High-Medium (mainly crossing of NFEPA area) Very Low (avoiding sensitive section) N/A

Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: Low High N/A

Proposed mitigation: Construction area to be

clearly demarcated prior to construction to avoid

Sensitive area avoided. Construction area to be

clearly demarcated prior to N/A



encroachment into adjacent areas. No activities allowed within the No-Go area;

Environmental Control Officer (ECO) must monitor construction activities; and

Drainage line crossing must be carefully monitored for erosion, damage to banks and littering.

construction to avoid encroachment into adjacent areas. No activities allowed within the No-Go area;

Environmental Control Officer (ECO) must monitor construction activities; and


Cumulative impact post mitigation: Medium Low N/A Significance rating of impact after mitigation (Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)

Medium Low N/A

Potential impact on biological aspects: Removal of Vegetation for the construction of housing opportunities


Nature of impact: Negative Negative Positive (no loss of vegetation) Extent and duration of impact: Local, Permanent Local, Permanent N/A Probability of occurrence: Definite Definite N/A

Degree to which the impact can be reversed: Low (construction of housing opportunities needs to occur)

Low (construction of housing opportunities needs to occur)

N/A

Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable loss of resources:

Medium (layout does not reflect botanically sensitive areas)

Low (additional areas with conservation worthy vegetation has been avoided in the layout)

N/A

Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Medium Medium-Low N/A Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation (Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)

Medium Medium N/A

Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: Medium Medium-High N/A




Demarcate no-go zones to avoid encroachment into natural areas surrounding the development site;

Use natural, locally indigenous, vegetation for landscaping;

Appoint an ECO during construction; and

Consult Environmental Management Programme which forms part of this report.

Layout amended to avoid sensitive areas.





N/A


Low Low N/A

Potential impact on biological aspects: Irreplaceable loss of the thicket component of the Herbertsdale Renoster Thicket due to housing construction (Coetzee, 2014).


Nature of impact: Negative Negative Positive (no loss of vegetation) Extent and duration of impact: Local, Permanent Local, Permanent N/A Probability of occurrence: Definite Definite N/A Degree to which the impact can be reversed: Irreversible Irreversible N/A Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable loss of resources: High Medium N/A

Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: High Medium N/A Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation (Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)

High Low N/A

Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: Low High N/A








Exclude thicket area on north-western boundary of development area;

Off-setting the impact by conserving the undisturbed area south of the proposed development site should be considered;





N/A

Cumulative impact post mitigation: Medium-high Very Low N/A Significance rating of impact after mitigation (Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)

Medium-high Very Low N/A

Potential impact on biological aspects: Irreplaceable loss of the Renosterveld component of the Herbertsdale Renoster Thicket due to housing construction (Coetzee, 2014).


Nature of impact: Negative Negative Positive (no loss of vegetation) Extent and duration of impact: Local, Permanent Local, Permanent N/A Probability of occurrence: Definite Definite N/A



Degree to which the impact can be reversed: Irreversible Irreversible N/A Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable loss of resources: High High N/A

Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: High High N/A Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation (Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)

High High N/A

Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: Medium-low Medium N/A






Off-setting the impact by conserving the undisturbed area south of the proposed development site should be considered;





N/A


Medium Low N/A



Potential impact on biological aspects: Impact on vegetation due to construction of bulk water pipeline

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 (preferred alignment –

as recommended by Botanical Specialist (Coetzee, 2014)

Alternative 3 (No-Go)

Nature of impact: Negative Negative No impact Extent and duration of impact: Local, Medium term Local, Medium term N/A Probability of occurrence: Definite Definite N/A Degree to which the impact can be reversed: Medium (partially reversible) Medium (partially reversible) N/A Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable loss of resources: Medium Very Low N/A

Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Medium Low N/A Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation (Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)

Medium-High Low N/A

Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: Medium High N/A






Route the pipeline all along the edge of the existing road up to the reservoir to avoid sensitive NFEPA area.





N/A


Medium negative Low positive N/A



Potential impact on biological aspects: Disruption of important landscape connectivity (Coetzee, 2014).


Nature of impact: Negative Negative No impact on connectivity Extent and duration of impact: Local, Permanent Local, Permanent N/A Probability of occurrence: Improbable Improbable N/A Degree to which the impact can be reversed: No impact No impact N/A Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable loss of resources: Low Low N/A

Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Low Low N/A Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation (Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)

Low Low N/A

Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: No mitigation necessary No mitigation necessary N/A

Proposed mitigation: Connectivity not disrupted –

no mitigation necessary Connectivity not disrupted – no

mitigation necessary N/A


Low Low N/A

Potential impacts on socio-economic aspects: Crime during construction period


Nature of impact: Negative Negative Positive

Extent and duration of impact: Local, short term (during civil construction phase)

Local, short term (during civil construction phase) Local, Long term

Probability of occurrence: Improbable to probable Improbable to probable Improbable (no direct correlation between crime and construction of new housing opportunities)

Degree to which the impact can be reversed: High High Positive – no need to reverse Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable loss of resources: Low Low Low



Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Medium Medium Medium Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation (Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)

Low Low Low

Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: High High No need to mitigate


Contractors may not move off-site; and

No overnight facilities may be allowed

Contractors may not move off-site; and

No overnight facilities may be allowed.

N/A


Low Low N/A

Potential impacts on socio-economic aspects: Employment opportunities and generation of income.


Nature of impact: Positive Positive Negative

Extent and duration of impact: Local, Short term (during civil construction phase)

Local, Short term (during civil construction phase) Local, long term

Probability of occurrence: Medium Medium Medium Degree to which the impact can be reversed: Positive – no need to reverse Positive – no need to reverse Low Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable loss of resources: Low Low Low


Low Low Low

Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: Medium-High Medium-High Medium-High


The Applicant must apply a „local first‟ policy when appointing contractors to ensure that maximum employment opportunities are offered to the local community (Sonskynvallei), the area (Mossel

The Applicant must apply a „local first‟ policy when appointing contractors to ensure that maximum employment opportunities are offered to the local community (Sonskynvallei), the area (Mossel Bay) and the region (Garden

Construction of the proposed housing development. This will provide job opportunities to the community, area and region.



Bay) and the region (Garden Route. Route. Cumulative impact post mitigation: Medium-High Medium-High Medium-High Significance rating of impact after mitigation (Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)

Medium Medium Medium

Potential impacts on cultural-historical aspects:

The Heritage assessment conducted by De Kock (2014) stated that no heritage resources would be negatively impacted by the proposed development. The report did however recommend that an archaeological impact assessment be conducted due to the sensitive archaeological nature of the Moseel Bay coastal district. This impact table therefore focuses on the archaeological impacts associated with the proposed development, as per the archaeological impact assessment report compiled by Nilssen (2014).


Nature of impact: Negligible Negligible Neutral Extent and duration of impact: Local, permanent Local, permanent N/A Probability of occurrence: Low to none Low to none N/A

Degree to which the impact can be reversed: Low (very little impact; housing development will be permanent)

Low (very little impact; housing development will be permanent) N/A

Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable loss of resources: Low Low N/A


Low Low N/A

Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: Low (very little impact – no impact on significant archaeological resources)

Low (very little impact – no impact on significant archaeological resources) N/A


No further archaeological work or mitigation is needed;

Uncovering of significant archaeological materials or human remains must be dealt with as indicated in the AIA



N/A

Cumulative impact post mitigation: Low Low N/A Significance rating of impact after mitigation Low Low N/A



(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)

Potential noise impacts: Construction Noise Alternative 1 Alternative 2 (preferred) Alternative 3 (No-Go)

Nature of impact: Negative Negative No impact

Extent and duration of impact: Local, short term/temporary (during construction phase)

Local, short term/temporary (during construction phase) N/A

Probability of occurrence: High High N/A Degree to which the impact can be reversed: Low Low N/A Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable loss of resources: Low Low N/A

Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Medium Medium N/A Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation (Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)

Medium-High Medium-High N/A

Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: Medium Medium N/A


1) Construction activities must be limited to 7:00-18:00 during working days, 8:00 – 14:00 on Saturdays and no construction activities allowed on Sundays and Public Holidays. This must be monitored by the ECO.

2) Construction vehicles must abide by the EMP Noise Emission requirements.

1) Construction activities must be limited to 7:00-18:00 during working days, 8:00 – 14:00 on Saturdays and no construction activities allowed on Sundays and Public Holidays. This must be monitored by the ECO.

2) Construction vehicles must abide by the EMP Noise Emission requirements.

N/A


Low Low N/A

Potential visual impacts: Transformation of a vacant site to a developed area (exposure of soil during construction)




Nature of impact: Low negative Low negative No impact Extent and duration of impact: Site specific, permanent Site specific, permanent N/A Probability of occurrence: Probable Probable N/A Degree to which the impact can be reversed: Negligible Negligible N/A Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable loss of resources:

Low (impact considered insignificant) Low (impact considered insignificant) N/A


Low Low N/A

Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: Low Low N/A


Do not clear the entire development site at once. Clear sections as is needed. This will decrease the visual impact during the construction phase

Do not clear the entire development site at once. Clear sections as is needed. This will decrease the visual impact during the construction phase

N/A


Low Low N/A

(b) Impacts that may result from the operational phase (briefly describe and compare the potential impacts (as appropriate), significance rating of impacts, proposed mitigation and

significance rating of impacts after mitigation that are likely to occur as a result of the operational phase.

Potential impacts on the geographical and physical aspects: Change in character from vacant property to urban township


Nature of impact: Negative Negative No impact Extent and duration of impact: Local, Permanent Local, Permanent N/A Probability of occurrence: High High N/A Degree to which the impact can be reversed: Low Low N/A Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable loss of resources: Low Low N/A

Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Medium Low N/A



Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation (Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)

Medium Low N/A

Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: Medium Low N/A

Proposed mitigation: Reduce bulk by introducing different typologies No further mitigation N/A


Medium Low N/A

Potential impact biological aspects: Littering, damage to vegetation and harvesting of vegetation (fire wood)


Nature of impact: Negative Negative

Neutral – no additional impact, however it is anticipated that, to a degree, this impact is already occurring.

Extent and duration of impact: Local, long term Local, long term Local, long term Probability of occurrence: Probable Probable Probable

Degree to which the impact can be reversed: Medium (if the community can take ownership of their surrounding environment and conserve it)

Medium (if the community can take ownership of their surrounding environment and conserve it)

Medium (if the community can take ownership of their surrounding environment and conserve it)

Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable loss of resources: Low Low Low


Medium Medium Medium

Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: Medium Medium Medium

Proposed mitigation: Littering can be mitigated by

placing enough rubbish bins Littering can be mitigated by

placing enough rubbish bins Littering can be mitigated by

placing enough rubbish bins



throughout the proposed new development. Bins must be well indicated;

Signage explaining the negative effects of littering (environmental education); and

This issue will best be addressed when the community takes ownership of the natural environment surrounding them.







Cumulative impact post mitigation: Low Low Low Significance rating of impact after mitigation (Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)

Low Low Low

Potential impact on biological aspects: Indirect off-site human impact in unaffected natural vegetation due to the close proximity to the proposed development (Coetzee, 2014).


Nature of impact: Negative Negative No additional impact Extent and duration of impact: Local, Permanent Local, Permanent N/A Probability of occurrence: Probable Probable N/A Degree to which the impact can be reversed: Medium (partially reversible) Medium (partially reversible) N/A Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable loss of resources: Medium Medium N/A

Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Medium Medium N/A Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation (Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)

Medium Medium N/A

Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: Medium Medium N/A




Fencing can restrict access to natural areas;

Educate residents; and Constant clean-up actions

Fencing can restrict access to natural areas;

Educate residents; and Constant clean-up actions

N/A


Low Low N/A

Potential impact biological aspects: Damage to watercourse and vegetation as a result of maintenance of new bulk water pipeline


Nature of impact: Negative Negative

No impact. If the new pipeline is not constructed there will be no impact. Maintenance of the old pipeline will still have to occur, however the impacts of the old pipeline is not assessed as part of this application.

Extent and duration of impact: Local, periodical (as is needed) Local, periodical (as is needed) N/A

Probability of occurrence:

Probable (pipeline is underground and will need to be exposed for maintenance; dynamic nature of a watercourse may result in damage to infrastructure)

Unlikely with portion of pipeline realigned to avoid NFEPA section. N/A

Degree to which the impact can be reversed: Low Low N/A Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable loss of resources: High Low N/A

Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Medium Low N/A




Medium Low N/A

Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: Medium High N/A


Maintenance area to be clearly demarcated prior to construction to avoid encroachment into adjacent areas;

Environmental Control Officer (ECO) must monitor maintenance activities; and


Avoid NFEPA area completely Maintenance area to be clearly

demarcated prior to construction to avoid encroachment into adjacent areas;

Environmental Control Officer (ECO) must monitor maintenance activities; and


N/A


Low Low N/A

Potential impacts on the socio-economic aspects: Providing housing opportunities in an area with a housing need.


Nature of impact: Positive Positive Negative

Extent and duration of impact: Local, permanent Local, permanent Local, permanent (no development will result in no housing opportunities)

Probability of occurrence: Definite Definite Definite Degree to which the impact can be reversed: Positive – no need to be reversed Positive – no need to be reversed Low Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable loss of resources: Low Low Low

Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: High High High negative Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation High High High negative



(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: Positive – no mitigation Positive – no mitigation High

Proposed mitigation: Positive – no mitigation Positive – no mitigation

Follow correct procedures (e.g. environmental and planning processes) and implement housing development.

Cumulative impact post mitigation: Positive – no mitigation Positive – no mitigation Low Significance rating of impact after mitigation (Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)

Positive – no mitigation Positive – no mitigation Low

Potential impacts on the socio-economic aspects: Potential for increase in crime, theft, vandalism and reduced security levels within the general area.


Nature of impact: Negative Negative Neutral – no additional impact. Extent and duration of impact: Local, long term Local, long term N/A Probability of occurrence: Probable Probable N/A Degree to which the impact can be reversed: Low Low N/A Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable loss of resources: Medium Medium N/A

Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Medium-High Medium-High N/A Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation (Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)

Medium-High Medium-High N/A

Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: Low Low N/A


Retailers / Operators in the area must be vigilant and incidents of crime/theft must be reported to the local Police; and

Neighbourhood watch.

Retailers / Operators in the area must be vigilant and incidents of crime/theft must be reported to the local Police; and

Neighbourhood watch.

N/A

Cumulative impact post mitigation: Medium Medium N/A



Significance rating of impact after mitigation (Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)

Medium Medium N/A

Potential impacts on the cultural-historical aspects:

The Heritage assessment conducted by De Kock (2014) stated that no heritage resources would be negatively impacted by the proposed development. The report did however recommend that an archaeological impact assessment be conducted due to the sensitive archaeological nature of the Moseel Bay coastal district. This impact table therefore focuses on the archaeological impacts associated with the proposed development, as per the archaeological impact assessment report compiled by Nilssen (2014).

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 (preferred – specialist

recommendations taken into account)

Alternative 3 (No-Go)

Nature of impact: Negligible Negligible No impact Extent and duration of impact: Local, permanent Local, permanent N/A Probability of occurrence: Low to none Low to none N/A

Degree to which the impact can be reversed: Low (very little impact; housing development will be permanent)

Low (very little impact; housing development will be permanent)

N/A

Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable loss of resources: Low Low N/A


Low Low N/A

Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: Low (very little impact – no impact on significant archaeological resources)

Low (very little impact – no impact on significant archaeological resources)

N/A






N/A

Cumulative impact post mitigation: Low Low N/A



Significance rating of impact after mitigation (Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)

Low Low N/A

Potential visual impacts: Transformation of a vacant site to a developed area


Nature of impact: Very low negative Negligible to very low negative No impact

Extent and duration of impact: Extent: Zone of Visual Influence is approximately 3km. Duration: Permanent

Extent: Zone of Visual Influence is approximately 3km. Duration: Permanent

N/A

Probability of occurrence: Definite Definite N/A Degree to which the impact can be reversed: Low Low N/A Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable loss of resources:

Low (impact considered insignificant) Low (impact considered insignificant) N/A

Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Medium Low (with semi-detached mixture) N/A Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation (Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)

Medium Low N/A

Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: Medium Low N/A


Reduce skyline intrusion by relocating units 18 – 27 off the prominent ridgeline, as seen from the R328 road receptors;

The dwellings should be painted in a grey-green colour range to reduce visual intrusion as seen from the N2 and Hartenbosheuwels residential areas;

Dust control measures should be implemented during construction;

Indigenous and endemic

Reduce skyline intrusion by relocating units 18 – 27 off the prominent ridgeline, as seen from the R328 road receptors;

Utilization of the semi-detached dwelling option so as to reduce the visual footprint of development and create an appearance of more open space;

The dwellings should be painted in a grey-green colour range to reduce visual intrusion as seen from the N2 and Hartenbosheuwels

N/A



trees should be incorporated into the street design;

Overhead mast lighting should not be utilised; and

Street lighting should be downward directional.

residential areas; Dust control measures should

be implemented during construction;

Indigenous and endemic trees should be incorporated into the street design;



Cumulative impact post mitigation: Low Very low to negligible N/A Significance rating of impact after mitigation (Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)

Low Very low (insignificant) N/A

(c) Impacts that may result from the decommissioning and closure phase (briefly describe and compare the potential impacts (as appropriate), significance rating of impacts, proposed mitigation

and significance rating of impacts after mitigation that are likely to occur as a result of the decommissioning and closure phase. The project is of a permanent nature. It is unlikely that the housing development, once established, will be decommissioned in the near future. No impacts identified/assessed as such.

Potential impacts on the geographical and physical aspects: Alternative 1 Alternative 2 (preferred) Alternative 3 (No-Go)

Nature of impact: Extent and duration of impact: Probability of occurrence: Degree to which the impact can be reversed: Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable loss of resources:

Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation



(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: Proposed mitigation: Cumulative impact post mitigation: Significance rating of impact after mitigation (Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)

Potential impact biological aspects: Alternative 1 Alternative 2 (preferred) Alternative 3 (No-Go) Nature of impact: Extent and duration of impact: Probability of occurrence: Degree to which the impact can be reversed: Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable loss of resources:

Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation (Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)

Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: Proposed mitigation: Cumulative impact post mitigation: Significance rating of impact after mitigation (Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)

Potential impacts on the socio-economic aspects: Alternative 1 Alternative 2 (preferred) Alternative 3 (No-Go)


Cumulative impact prior to mitigation:





Potential impacts on the cultural-historical aspects: Alternative 1 Alternative 2 (preferred) Alternative 3 (No-Go)




Potential noise impacts: Alternative 1 Alternative 2 (preferred) Alternative 3 (No-Go) Nature of impact: Extent and duration of impact: Probability of occurrence: Degree to which the impact can be reversed: Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable loss of resources:





Potential visual impacts: Alternative 1 Alternative 2 (preferred) Alternative 3 (No-Go) Nature of impact: Extent and duration of impact: Probability of occurrence: Degree to which the impact can be reversed: Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable loss of resources:



(d) Any other impacts: Potential impact: Alternative 1 Alternative 2 (preferred) Alternative 3 (No-Go) Nature of impact: Extent and duration of impact: Probability of occurrence: Degree to which the impact can be reversed: Degree to which the impact may cause



irreplaceable loss of resources: Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation (Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)




6. SPECIALIST INPUTS/STUDIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Please note: Specialist inputs/studies must be attached to this report as Appendix G. Also take into account the Department‟s Guidelines on the Involvement of Specialists in EIA Processes available on the Department‟s website (http://www.capegateway.gov.za/eadp).

Specialist inputs/studies and recommendations:

Archaeological The AIA (Annexure G1) indicated that no significant archaeological

resources would be negatively impacted by the proposed development.

The AIA concluded with the following recommended and required mitigation

measures:

Recommended mitigations measures:

Based on the findings of this study and of those in the

immediate surroundings, it is recommended that no further

archaeological work or mitigation is required.

Required mitigation measures:

In the event that vegetation clearing and earthmoving activities

expose significant archaeological materials, such activities must

stop and Heritage Western Cape must be notified immediately.

If archaeological materials are exposed during vegetation clearing

and/or earth moving activities, then they must be dealt with in

accordance with the National Heritage Resources Act (No. 25 of

1999) and at the expense of the developer.

In the event of exposing human remains during construction, the

matter will fall into the domain of Heritage Western Cape (Mr. Guy

Thomas) or the South African Heritage Resources Agency (Mrs

Colette Scheermeyer) and will require a professional archaeologist

to undertake mitigation if needed. The developer will be

responsible for costs associated with such work

Botanical

(Coetzee, 2014)

The vegetation of the proposed development site is classified as described

as Groot Brak Dune Strandveld and classified as ‘Endangered’ in terms

of ecosystem status, and ‘not protected’ in terms of protection status. This

vegetation type is associated with flat undulating landscapes and steep

coastal slopes.

At a finer scale the vegetation has been described as Herbertsdale

Renoster Thicket which is characterised by small thicket clumps occurring

in a matrix of Renosterveld. The Renosterveld component of the vegetation

is very grassy in the areas most recently burnt. True thicket occurs west of




the rugby field along the north-western border of the development site.

This area has been identified by the Botanical specialist as conservation

worthy and recommended to be excluded from the development area. The

preferred layout assessed in this document reflects the specialist‟s

recommendation.

Furthermore the specialist recommends that the natural area south and

west of the development site be set aside as a conservation area to offset

the impact of the much needed housing development.

The proposed development area is not a part of any important landscape

corridor and its impact on landscape connectivity is consequently

considered to be of low significance.

The proposed alignment of the bulk water supply pipeline will result in

unnecessary natural habitat destruction, as it will impact on a part of the

more sensitive thicket area. With the proposed mitigation, the overall

impact will be very low or negligible. As mitigation, it is alternatively

proposed that the pipeline be aligned along the road up to the water

storage reservoir to the south to avoid the NFEPA section. See Annexure

G2.

Civil Services Report

(Du Preez, 2014)

The following conclusion are from the Civil Services Report (Annexure G3):

Water for the proposed development cannot be provided by

connecting to the existing municipal network. A new 1200lk

reservoir at the Hartenboskop reservoir site and a 200mm dia bulk

water connection will be required from this reservoir. Cost

estimates are provided in the text above.

Sewage flow from the proposed development can be

accommodated in the existing network of the adjacent

Sonskynvallei residential area. An additional internal sewage pump

station and sewage line rising main is required. No dedicated bulk

sewer outfall connections are required.

The stormwater generated by the development will be managed

within the site to ensure the runoff rates for the full spectrum of

design storms do not exceed the runoff rates from the pre-

developed site, where feasible. The minor storms will be managed

within the formal stormwater system comprising inlets, channels

and pipes. The major storms will be conveyed and managed

overland via the roads and public open spaces. Typical stormwater

discharge structures, with incorporated erosion protection

measures, have been detailed in Annexure A of the Civil Services



Report.

Waste generated by the development will be collected and

managed by Mossel Bay Municipality as part of the normal

municipal service.

Electrical Services Report

(CVW Electrical, 2014)

The following input was obtained through the Electrical Services Report

(Annexure G4):

Mossel Bay Municipality will be the supply authority.

The supply will be provided from the newly built 66/11 kV 20 MVA

substation approximately 1km to the east of the proposed

development. The existing 11 kV network will be extended to the

west with minor upgrades required at Sonskynvallei Substation.

Each Erf boundary will be provided with 40A single-phase

electricity.

Distribution on the property (Erf) will be an 11000/420 V

underground cable system, which will have no visual impact on the

environment.

To minimise load shedding and blackouts, it is recommended that

the Municipality install energy efficient street lighting, 57 W

Compact Fluorescent‟s on 5, 4m Poles.

Heritage Report

(De Kock, 2014)

No historic structures, ruins or possible gravesites were identified

during field work. No significant structures and/or cultural

landscape patterns could be identified through early aerial imagery.

It is recommended that a focussed Integrated Heritage Impact

Assessment be undertaken which must include specialist input in

the form of an Archaeological Impact Assessment. See Annexure

G5.

Traffic Impact Assessment

(Maart, 2014)

Mandela Street will be chosen as a single access point to the

development and should be improved by a left turning lane on the

eastern approach with a minimum length of 30m.

The Gumpiro Avenue access point onto TR 33/2 to the West of

Mandela Street should be closed off. A request to formalise this

access point was raised by the Ward Committee members during a

meeting that took place on 2 July 2014 at the Sonskynvallei

Community Centre regarding the proposed development. It is

believed that the safety of the access point can be increased

significantly if the vegetation inside the road reserve is cleared.

The existing pedestrian walkway from Hartenbos to the TR 33/1 -



Waboom Street junction needs to be extended up to the Mandela

Street access to the Sonskyn Valley development. The walkway

will be ± 950m long and should be at least 2m wide and to the

same standard as the existing facility.

An internal pedestrian walkway network should also be

implemented along Gumpiro Avenue and along the 13m wide road

reserve-roads. These walkways should be at least on one side of

the street and be a minimum of 1.5m wide.

Public transport embayments will be positioned along the 13m

wide road reserve – roads with the objective for commuters not to

walk more than 500m to the pick-up or drop-off point

See Annexure G6.

Visual Impact

Statement

(Stead, 2014)

The Visual Impact Statement indicated that the proposed development

does not constitute a significant visual impact. The viewshed analysis

indicated that the visibility of the proposed project alternatives would be

contained mainly to the foreground/midground areas (up to 6km) due to the

hilly terrain of the surrounding areas. It was found that the areas have a

high visual absorption capacity due to the strong precedent for industrial

and residential development with associated infrastructure that is already

present in the area. It is likely that the zone of visual influence will be

restricted to the high exposure areas within the 2km buffer distance.

Further detailed visual assessment is not necessary for the following

reasons:

The moderate extent of the viewshed of the proposed project

which spreads into the surrounding areas with a higher VAC level;

The proposed project‟s close proximity to the existing Sonskyn

Vallei residential development;

The alignment of the proposed project within the urban edge and

with municipal planning; and

The protection of the hill landscape via open space zoning

Stead (2014) make the following recommendations to assist in reducing the

visual intrusion effects of the proposed development:

Reduce skyline intrusion by remove units 18 – 27 off the prominent

ridgeline, as seen from the R328 road receptors (alternative 2

complies with this recommendation);

Utilization of the semi-detached dwelling option so as to reduce the



visual footprint of development and create an appearance of more

open space (alternative 2 complies with this recommendation);

The dwellings should be painted in a grey-green colour range to

reduce visual intrusion as seen from the N2 and Hartenbos

Heuwels residential areas;

Dust control measures should be implemented during construction;

Indigenous and endemic trees should be incorporated into the

street design;



See Annexure G7.

7. IMPACT SUMMARY

Please provide a summary of all the above impacts.

The change in character of the area from an undeveloped portion of land to an urban township

is LOW negative considering that the property falls within the urban edge of Mossel Bay,

which renders the change acceptable.

Figure 34: Urban Edge of Mossel Bay indicated by the blue dotted line. From the image it is clear that the existing Sonskynvallei Township as well as the proposed new development area (except for a portion of the new bulk water pipeline) falls within the urban edge of Mossel Bay (Mossel Bay SDF, 2008).

The loss of biodiversity associated with the clearing of vegetation and the transformation of

portions of the site for housing development is considered low/medium negative. The reason



for this impact rating is due to the land currently being undeveloped and containing remnants

of natural vegetation. Conservation worthy thicket patches identified as part of the Botanical

Impact Assessment was however excluded from the development area. It also has to be noted

that provision has been made for large areas of Public Open Space along the southern side of

the proposed development area where the natural vegetation can be conserved.

Impact on Heritage resources are considered to be negligible due to the absence of old

structures/buildings or gravesites on the development site.

From an archaeological point of view the proposed development will have no impact on

significant archaeological resources and the correct manner for dealing with archaeological

resources exposed during construction is laid out in the Archaeological Impact Assessment.

Impacts on archaeological resources are considered negligible.

The proposed new development will result in an increase in traffic volumes of the area. This is

considered to be negligible as the Traffic Impact Assessment make recommendations for

best traffic management. Traffic impact is also unavoidable in terms of township development,

thus mitigation measures needs to be as effective as possible.

Providing housing in the Mossel Bay/Sonskynvallei area where there is a known housing need

is considered very high positive.

The visual impact of the proposed development does not constitute a significant impact.

The potential of increasing crime and security risks within the established township area is

considered medium negative.

No noise impacts are expected for the operation phase.

Potential erosion during construction phase is considered low negative. By following

mitigation and control measures as indicated in the Environmental Management Programme

this impact can be brought down to very low-negligible.

8. OTHER MANAGEMENT, MITIGATION AND MONITORING MEASURES

(a) Over and above the mitigation measures described in Section 6 above, please indicate any additional management, mitigation and monitoring measures.

The Mossel Bay Municipality must, as far possible, enforce a „local first‟ policy when it comes

to awarding contract for implementation of the project.

The Mossel Bay Municipality, in cooperation with the SAPS and local communities, must

attend to the challenges of crime, police response time to crime reports and consider the

establishment of a Neighbourhood Watch system that will benefit the community as a whole.

The Municipality must clear the Public Open Space areas south of the proposed development

footprint of invasive alien plants like Acacia cyclops (rooikrans).

Environmental Education boards can be put up at the Sonskynvallei Community Hall to inform

the local community of the importance of conserving the natural area surrounding them.

Boards should typically contain information regarding to littering, damage to plants and



animals, wise water use and pollution, as well as ways to recycle household material.

The thicket patch near the rugby field which was excluded from the development must be

monitored for invasive alien plant invasion, plant harvesting and vandalism. (b) Describe the ability of the applicant to implement the management, mitigation and monitoring measures.

It is highly likely that the Mossel Bay Municipality will be able to enforce a „local first‟ policy

when it comes to awarding contracts for implementation of the project.

The Municipality‟s resources will determine whether they can implement an alien clearing

programme on the areas indicated for Public Open Space.

It is anticipated that the applicant will be able to implement the mitigation measures proposed.

It is recommended that all mitigation measures and construction activities are overseen by the

ECO to ensure minimal impact on the environment.

Please note: A draft ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME must be attached this report as Appendix H.



SECTION G: ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGIES AND CRITERIA, GAPS IN KNOWLEDGE, UNDERLAYING

ASSUMPTIONS AND UNCERTAINTIES (a) Please describe adequacy of the assessment methods used.

Assessment measures used includes:

Site visits to determine the nature and sensitivity of the land

Consultation with stakeholders

This assessment has taken into account various specialist input and recommendations,

namely: Botanical, Civil Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Heritage & Traffic Impact

Assessment.

Consideration of applicable Legislation, Guideline and Policies

The assessment methods used are anticipated to be adequate for the nature of the application and

site.

(b) Please describe the assessment criteria used.

Nature of the impact: impacts associated with the proposed housing development have been

described in terms of whether they are negative or positive and to what extent.

Duration of impacts: Impact were assessed in terms of their anticipated duration:

- Short term (e.g. during the construction phase)

- Medium term (e.g. during part or all of the operational phase)

- Long term (e.g. beyond the operational phase, but not permanently)

- Permanent (e.g. where the impact is for all intents and purposes irreversible)

- Discontinuous or intermittent (e.g. where the impact may only occur during specific climatic

conditions or during a particular season of the year)

Intensity or magnitude: The size of the impact (if positive) or its severity (if negative)

- Low, where biodiversity is negligibly affected or where the impact is so low that the remedial

action is not required;

- Medium, where biodiversity pattern, process and/or ecosystem services are altered, but not

severely affected, and the impact can be remedied successfully; and

- High, where patter, process and/or ecosystem services would be substantially (i.e. to a very

large degree) affected. If a negative impact, could lead to irreplaceable loss of biodiversity

and/or unacceptable consequences for human wellbeing.

Probability: Should describe the likelihood of the impact actually occurring indicated as:

- Improbable, where the possibility of the impact is very low either because of design or historic

experience;



- Probable, where there is a distinct possibility that the impact will occur;

- Highly probable, where it is most likely that the impact will occur; or

- Definite, where the impact will occur regardless of any prevention measures.

Significance: The significance of impacts can be determined through a synthesis of the assessment

criteria. Significance can be described as:

- Low, where it would have negligible effect on biodiversity, and on the decision;

- Medium, where it would have a moderate effect on biodiversity, and should influence the

decision;

- High, where it would have, or there would be a high risk of, a large effect on biodiversity.

These impacts should have a major influence on the decision;

- Very high, where it would have, or there would be a high risk of, an irreversible negative

impact on biodiversity and irreplaceable loss of natural capital or a major positive effect.

Impacts of very high significance should be a central factor in decision-making.

Confidence: The level of confidence in predicting the impact can be described as:

- Low, where there is little confidence in the prediction, due to inherent uncertainty about the

likely response of the receiving ecosystem, or inadequate information;

- Medium, where there is a moderate level of confidence in the prediction, or

- High, where the impact can be predicted with a high level of confidence

(c) Please describe the gaps in knowledge.

The consulting of various specialists in the compilation of this assessment report has shown that there

are no gaps in knowledge and that informed recommendations are being made.

(d) Please describe the underlying assumptions.

It is assumed that the information that this assessment is based upon is accurate, correct and truthful

(project information).

It is also assumed that the proposed mitigation measures and Environmental Management Plan and

mitigation measures will be followed during construction and operation.

(e) Please describe the uncertainties.

No uncertainties were highlighted during the compilation of this report.


113 Cape EAPrac Final Basic Assessment Report

SECTION H: RECOMMENDATION OF THE EAP In my view (EAP), the information contained in this application form and the documentation attached hereto is sufficient to make a decision in respect of the activity applied for. YES NO

If “NO”, list the aspects that should be further assessed through additional specialist input/assessment or whether this application must be subjected to a Scoping & EIR process before a decision can be made: If “YES”, please indicate below whether in your opinion the activity should or should not be authorised: Activity should be authorised: YES NO Please provide reasons for your opinion

The proposed development site falls within the urban edge of Mossel Bay, therefore the

proposal for township development is in line with forward spatial planning of the area.

The site is very well located, in that is accessible via the existing roads. Furthermore,

although the proposed development includes community facilities (i.e. church, crèche, and

business erven) it is located adjacent to existing facilities like the sport fields, community

centre and clinic.

There is a need for housing in the Sonskynvallei area and it is the responsibility of the

Mossel Bay Municipality to provide housing opportunities to local communities.

The Mossel Bay Municipality‟s intent to provide housing forms part of the National Strategy

for housing.

The Municipality has confirmed that with the recommended upgrades (bulk water pipeline)

there will be sufficient capacity within the system to service the proposed development in

terms of water (sewage and drinking), electricity and refuse removal – Annexure E2 & E3.

The development proposal has been informed by various specialist assessments.

The thicket patches around the rugby field as well as along the north-western boundary of

the development area has been avoided as per recommendation of the specialist – reflected

in preferred layout alternative 2.

The NFEPA area which is considered to be sensitive will be avoided by realigning the new

water pipeline along the existing gravel track that runs to the existing reservoir.

The impacts of the proposed housing development on archaeological resources are

considered negligible.

Semi-detached houses, as per specialist recommendation, will have less visual impact as it

will create the impression of larger open space areas. Other visual recommendations will also

decrease the already insignificant visual impact.

The proposed development is in-line with the character of the area which consist of

Sonskynvallei Phase 1 as well as the approved Phase 2 of Sonskynvallei.

The proposed mitigation measures as well as the Environmental Management Programme

will inform sound environmental monitoring and management practices for the duration of the

construction phase as well as operational phase.

Although the proposed development will result in loss of undeveloped land, it is outweighed by

the benefits of providing housing opportunities in an area where there is a housing need.



The development layout has made provision for fairly large areas of Public Open Space

south of where the proposed housing opportunities are to be constructed.

If you are of the opinion that the activity should be authorised, then please provide any conditions, including mitigation measures that should in your view be considered for inclusion in an authorisation.

An Environmental Control Officer (ECO) should be appointed prior to construction to

facilitate induction of the contractor‟s team, and to oversee the construction period.

The ECO must ensure that construction activities remain within the guidelines set out in the

Environmental Management Programme as to ensure no negative impacts on the

environment.

Solid waste and any waste generated from construction activities must be disposed of at a

recognised site and in the correct manner.

Water saving measures described in the EMP must be followed.

It is recommended that the thicket patches excluded from the development footprint be

regularly monitored for invasive alien plant invasion and damage/vandalism.

Ensure that landscaping will only use natural, preferably indigenous, vegetation.

Fynbos is a fire driven system and it is recommended that the Municipality implement and

maintain proper fire breaks along the edges of the township to avoid unnecessary damages

to property or livelihoods.

Duration and Validity: Environmental authorisations are usually granted for a period of three years from the date of issue. Should a longer period be required, the applicant/EAP is requested to provide a detailed motivation on what the period of validity should be. Implementation of the project is subject to various funding application processes between the Mossel

Bay Municipality and the Provincial Department of Human Settlements. Successful applications will

unlock funding for the implementation of this project. Since the time period for such processes is

unknown it is recommended that a period of no less than five (5) years be considered for the period of

validity of the Environmental Authorisation.



SECTION I: APPENDICES The following appendices must be attached to this report:

Appendix Tick the box if Appendix is attached

Appendix A: Locality map X

Appendix B: Site plan(s) X

Appendix C: Photographs X

Appendix D: Biodiversity overlay map X

Appendix E: Permit(s) / license(s) from any other organ of state including service letters from the municipality X

Appendix F:

Public participation information: including a copy of the register of interested and affected parties, the comments and responses report, proof of notices, advertisements and any other public participation information as required in Section C above.

X

Appendix G: Specialist Report(s) X

Appendix H : Environmental Management Programme X

Appendix I: Additional information related to the Application – Background Information Document (BID) X

Appendix J: Any Other (if applicable) (describe) N/A



REFERENCES AGIS (2014). Agricultural Geo-Referenced Information System. Retrieved from

http://www.agis.agric.za/agisweb/?MIval=agish_content.html CapeFarmMapper (2014). CapeFarmMapper. Retrieved from Elsenburg:

http://www.elsenburg.com/gis/apps/cfm/. Coetzee, K. (2014). Sonskynvallei Housing Phase 3, Mossel Bay. Vegetation description, sensitivity

analysis and environmental impact assessment. George: Conservation Management Services.

CVW Electrical (2014). Rezoning of Erf 217/4, 59 & 105, Sonskynvallei, Hartenbos: Electrification of

686 x RDP Erven. Hartenbos: CVW Electrical. De Kock, S. (2014). Background Information Document to NID in terms of Section 38(8) of the

National Heritage Resources Act, 1999 (Act 25 of 1999): Proposed Residential Development on Portions of the Farm Hartenbosch 217/4, 59 & 105 (Sonskynvallei), Mossel Bay District. George: PERCEPTION Planning

DWA (2001). Generic public participation guideline. Department of Water Affairs and Forestry. DEAT (2002). Integrated Environmental Management Information Series 3: Stakeholder

Engagement. Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Pretoria. DEADP (2003). Waste Minimisation Guideline for Environmental Impact Assessment reviews. NEMA

EIA Regulations Guideline & Information Series, Department Environmental Affairs & Development Planning.

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

Information Series 11, Department of Environmental Affairs & Tourism, Pretoria. DEAT (2004). Environmental management Plans, Integrated Environmental management,

Informatino Series 12, Department Environmental Affairs & Tourism. DEAT (2005). Assessment of Impacts and Alternatives, Integrated Environmental Management

Guideline Series, Department of Environmental Affairs & Tourism, Pretoria. DEAT (2005). Guideline 4: Public Participation, in terms of the EIA Regulations 2005, Integrated

Environmental Management Guideline Series, Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Pretoria.

DEADP (2005). Guideline for the review of specialist input in the EIA process. NEMA EIA

Regulations Guideline & Information Document Series, Department of Environmental Affairs & Development Planning.

DEADP (2005). Guideline for involving biodiversity specialists in the EIA process. NEMA EIA

Regulations Guideline & Information Document Series, Department of Environmental Affairs & Development Planning.

DEADP (2005). Guideline for environmental management plans. NEMA EIA Regulations Guideline & Information Document Series, Department of Environmental Affairs & Development Planning.



DEADP (2005). Provincial urban edge guideline. Department Environmental Affairs & Development

Planning. DEAT (2006). EIA Regulations in terms of the National Environmental Management Act (Act No 107

of 1998) (Government Notice No R 385, R 386 and R 387 in Government Gazette No 28753 of 21 April 2006).

DEADP (2006). Guideline on the Interpretation of the Listed Activities. NEMA EIA Regulations

Guidelines & Information Document Series, Department of Environmental Affairs & Development Planning.

DEADP (2007). Guide on Alternatives, NEMA EIA Regulations Guidelines & Information Document

Series, Department of Environmental Affairs & Development Planning. DEADP (2007). Guideline on Appeals, NEMA EIA Regulations Guidelines & Information Document

Series, Department of Environmental Affairs & Development Planning. DEADP (2007). Guideline on Exemption Applications. NEMA EIA Regulations Guidelines &

Information Document Series, Department of Environmental Affairs & Development Planning. DEADP (2007). Guideline on Public Participation. NEMA EIA Regulations Guidelines & Information

Document Series, Department of Environmental Affairs & Development Planning. DEADP (2009). Guideline on Need & Desirability, NEMA EIA Regulations Guideline and Information

Document Series, Department Environmental Affairs & Development Planning. DEADP (2009). Guideline on Alternatives, NEMA EIA Regulations Guideline and Information

Document Series, Department Environmental Affairs & Development Planning. DEADP (2009). Guideline on Transitional Arrangements, NEMA EIA Regulations Guideline and

Information Document Series, Department Environmental Affairs & Development Planning. DEADP (2009). Guideline on Exemption Applications. NEMA EIA Regulations Guideline and

Information Document Series, Department Environmental Affairs & Development Planning. DEADP (2009). Guideline on Appeals. NEMA EIA Regulations Guideline and Information Document

Series, Department Environmental Affairs & Development Planning. DEADP (2009). Guideline on Public Participation. NEMA EIA Regulations Guideline and Information

Document Series, Department Environmental Affairs & Development Planning. Du Preez, L. (2014). Civil Engineering Services Report for PRT Projects: Sonskynvallei 700, Mossel

Bay. George: Royal Haskoning DHV Keatimilwe K & Ashton PJ 2005. Guideline for the review of specialist input in EIA processes.

Department Environmental Affairs & Development Planning. Lochner P (2005). Guideline for Environmental Management Plans. Department Environmental

Affairs & Development Planning.



Münster, F. (2005). Guidelines for Determining the Scope of Specialist Involvement in EIA

Processes: Edition 1. CSIR Report No ENV-S-C 2005 053 A. Republic of South Africa, Provincial Government of the Western Cape, Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning, Cape Town.

Oberholzer B (2005). Guideline for involving visual & aesthetic specialists. Department

Environmental Affairs & Development Planning. Winter S & Beaumann N (2005). Guideline for involving heritage specialists in EIA processes.

Department Environmental Affairs & Development Planning. DEA (2010). National Climate Change Response Green Paper 2010. DEA (January 2008). National Response to South Africa‘s Electricity Shortage. Interventions to

address electricity shortages. DEA&DP. (May 2006). Strategic Initiative to Introduce Commercial Land Based Wind Energy

Development to the Western Cape: Specialist Study: Executive Summary - CNdV Africa prepared for Provincial Government of the Western Cape.

Department of Mineral & Energy (1998). White Paper on Energy Policy of the Republic of South

Africa. Department of Mineral & Energy (2003). The White Paper on Renewable Energy. Hsai-Yang, F (Ed)(2006). Environmental Geotechnology Dictionary (online version). University of

North Caroline, Charlotte, USA. Integrated Resource Plan for Electricity (Oct. 2010). Revision 2, Version8. International Finance Corporation – World Bank Group. (April 2007). Environmental, Health and

Safety Guidelines for Electric Power Transmission and Distribution. International Finance Corporation – World Bank Group. (April 2007). Environmental, Health and

Safety Guidelines for Wind Energy. International Finance Corporation – World Bank Group. (April 2007). General Environmental,

Health and Safety Guidelines. Maart, H. (2014). Traffic Impact Study for the extension of the Sonskyn Valley Development on

Hartenbos 217/4, 59 & 105, Mossel Bay. George: SMEC South Africa Mossel Bay SDF. (2008). Mossel Bay Spatial Development Framework Mucina, L. & Rutherford, M.C. (eds) 2006. The Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland.

Strelitzia 19. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria. National Energy Regulator of South Africa (NERSA)(Feb.2010). Rules on selection criteria for

renewable energy projects under the REFIT Programme.



Nilssen, P. (2014). Phase 1a Archaeological Impact Assessment. Proposed Residential Development

on Portions of the Farm Hartenbosch 217/4, 59 and 105 (Sonskynvallei), Mossel Bay District, Western Cape Province. Mossel Bay: CARM.

Saayman, I. (2005). Guideline for Involving Hydrogeologists in EIA Processes: Edition 1. CSIR

Report No ENV-S-C 2005 053 D. Republic of South Africa, Provincial Government of the Western Cape, Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning, Cape Town.

SANBI Biodiversity GIS (2007). South African National Biodiversity Institute, Cape Town, South

Africa. Stead, S. (2014). Environmental Impact Assessment for Sonskynvallei Phase 3, Mossel Bay, Western

Cape Province: Visual Statement Specialist Report. George: Visual Resource Management Africa cc.

FINAL BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT - Cape EAPrac Sonskynvallei...Cape EAPrac Final Basic Assessment...

Documents

Transcript of FINAL BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT - Cape EAPrac Sonskynvallei...Cape EAPrac Final Basic Assessment...