Final Scoping Report THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW

Final Scoping Report

THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW LANDFILL DISPOSAL SITE IN

MTHATHA, LOCATED NEAR QWEQWE VILLAGE, KING SABATA DALINDYEBO

MUNICIPALITY, EASTERN CAPE

14 April 2014

EIA Reference: OR/B/10/002/13

P:\01 TERRATEST\3249 - EIA for Mthatha Landfill Site - SB\07 REPORTS\FSR

April 2014

Page 2 of 123

FINAL SCOPING REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED MTHATHA

LANDFILL SITE, QWEQWE, KING SABATA DALINDYEBO

MUNICIPALITY, EASTERN CAPE

JEFFARES AND GREEN NO:

3249

DATE:

14 April 2014

REPORT STATUS:

Final

CARRIED OUT BY:

Jeffares and Green (Pty) Ltd

PO Box 27308

Greenacres

6057

Phone: (041) 363 1900

Fax: (041) 363 1922

COMMISSIONED BY:

Ikamva Consulting

PO Box 1217

Mthatha

5099

Phone: (047) 531 4044

Fax: 086 626 8914

AUTHOR:

Sarah Baxter

CLIENT CONTACT PERSON:

Thando Khesa

SYNOPSIS:

Final Scoping Report as part of the Environmental Authorisation and Waste License Application process for

the proposed new Mthatha Landfill Site, located near Qweqwe Village, King Sabata Dalindyebo Municipality,

Eastern Cape

KEY WORDS:

LANDFILL SITE, ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORISATION, WASTE LICENSE APPLICATION, QWEQWE

VILLAGE, KING SABATA DALINDYEBO MUNICIPALITY, EASTERN CAPE

© COPYRIGHT: Jeffares and Green (Pty) Ltd.

QUALITY VERIFICATION:

This report has been prepared under the controls established by a quality management system that meets the requirements of ISO9001: 2008 which has been independently certified by DEKRA Certification under certificate number 90906882

Verification Capacity Name Signature Date

By Author Environmental

Scientist Sarah Baxter

11/04/2014

Checked by Executive Associate Magnus van

Rooyen

11/04/2014

Final Scoping Report Jeffares and Green (Pty) Ltd


April 2014

Page 3 of 123

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The King Sabata Dalindyebo (KSD) Local Municipality has identified a need to establish a

new landfill site for the disposal of general wastes generated within the town of Mthatha and

its surrounds. The Municipality identified a 45 ha site under the jurisdiction of the Qweqwe

Traditional Authority as the preferred site for the proposed development. The proposed

landfill site would comprise a GMB+ site and would have the capacity to service the KSD

Municipality for the next 20 years.

Jeffares and Green (Pty) Ltd were appointed by Ikamva Consulting (the Project Managers,

on behalf of KSD Municipality) to undertake the necessary Environmental Authorisation (EA)

and Waste License Application process for the proposed development.

The proposed application has been undertaken in terms of Section 24 (5) of the National

Environmental Management Act, 1998 (NEMA - Act No. 107 of 1998) as part of an

Application for Environmental Authorisation, and a Waste Licence Application under the

National Environmental Management: Waste Act (NEM:WA) 2008 (Act No. 59 of 2008). The

proposed development triggers activities listed under GN R544 and R545 of the NEMA EIA

Regulations (2010) as well as Categories A and B of GN 921 of the NEM:WA. The proposed

development therefore requires a Scoping and Environmental Impact Assessment and

Waste License Application process to be conducted. The Competent Authority is the Eastern

Cape Department of Economic Development, Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEDEAT).

The investigation, assessment and statement of the potential impacts of activities in this

Draft Scoping Report has followed the procedure as described in Regulations 26 to 35 of GN

R543 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2010.

The aim of the Environmental Scoping Phase is to provide information regarding the current

environmental, social and possible economic conditions on the site and to provide

information regarding the type and extent of the potential impacts resulting from the

proposed project. The identification of potential impacts has been undertaken in conjunction

with stakeholder and public involvement through a Public Participation Process.

A number of impacts associated with the proposed development have been identified

through the Scoping Phase. These will be investigated in more detail and mitigation

measures will be recommended in the EIA Phase. No fatal flaws have been identified.



April 2014

Page 4 of 123

As per the requirements of Regulation 25 to 35 of GN R543, this Scoping Report contains

the following information:

A description of the proposed development;

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

includes a description of the advantages and disadvantages that the proposed

development and its alternatives will have for the environment and the local

community;

A description of the property proposed for development;

A description of the environment that may be affected by the activity as well as the

manner in which the activity may be affected by the environment;

A description of environmental issues and potential impacts, including cumulative

impacts, that have been identified;

Details of the Public Participation Process;

Details of the need and desirability of the project; and

A Plan of Study for the EIA phase, setting out the proposed approach to impact

assessment.



April 2014

Page 5 of 123

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

BID Background Information Document

CBO Community Based Organization

DEA Department of Environmental Affairs

DEDEAT Department of Economic Development, Environmental Affairs and

Tourism

DWA Department of Water Affairs

EAP Environmental Assessment Practitioner

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

EMF Environmental Management Framework

EMPr Environmental Management Programme

GN Government Notice

HIA Heritage Impact Assessment

IAP Interested and Affected Party

IDP Integrated Development Plan

MEC Member of the Executive Council

NEMA National Environmental Management Act

NEM:WA National Environmental Management Waste Act

SDF Strategic Development Framework

WMA Waste Management Activity

WML Waste Management License



April 2014

Page 6 of 123

DEFINITIONS

The National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) and the National Environmental

Management Waste Act (NEM:WA) provide definitions which are pertinent to the

management of waste.

“activity” means an activity identified in any notice published by the Minister or MEC in

terms of section 24D(1)(a) of the Act as a listed activity or specified activity;

“best practicable environmental option” means the option that provides the most benefit

or causes the least damage to the environment as a whole, at a cost acceptable to society,

in the long term as well as in the short term;

“commence” means the start of any physical activity on the site in furtherance of a listed

activity;

“community” means any group of persons or a part of such a group who share common

interests, and who regard themselves as a community;

‘‘constitution’’ means the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996;

‘‘container’’ means a disposable or re-usable vessel in which waste is placed for the

purposes of storing, accumulating, handling, transporting, treating or disposing of that waste,

and includes bins, bin-liners and skips

“cumulative impact”, in relation to an activity, means the impact of an activity that in itself

may not be significant, but may become significant when added to the existing and potential

impacts eventuating from similar or diverse activities or undertakings in the area;

‘‘disposal’’ means the burial, deposit, discharge, abandoning, dumping, placing or release

of any waste into, or onto, any land;

“EAP” means an environmental assessment practitioner as defined in section 1 of the Act;

“environment” means the surroundings within which humans exist and that are made up of:

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

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

(iii) any part or combination of (i) and (ii) and the interrelationships among and

between them; and

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

foregoing that influence human health and wellbeing.



April 2014

Page 7 of 123

“environmental authorization”, means the authorization by a competent authority of a

listed activity in terms of this NEMA;

“environmental impact assessment”, means a systematic process of identifying,

assessing and reporting environmental impacts associated with an activity and includes

basic assessment and S&EIR;

‘‘environmentally sound management’’ means the taking of all practicable steps to ensure

that waste is managed in a manner that will protect health and the environment;

‘‘general waste’’ means waste that does not pose an immediate hazard or threat to health

or to the environment, and includes:

(a) domestic waste;

(b) building and demolition waste;

(c) business waste; and

(d) inert waste;

hazardous waste’’ means any waste that contains organic or inorganic elements or

compounds that may, owing to the inherent physical, chemical or toxicological

characteristics of that waste, have a detrimental impact on health and the environment;

‘‘high-risk activity’’ means an undertaking, including processes involving substances that

present a likelihood of harm to health or the environment;

‘‘holder of waste’’ means any person who imports, generates, stores, accumulates,

transports, processes, treats, or exports waste or disposes of waste;

“independent”, in relation to an EAP or a person compiling a specialist report or

undertaking a specialised process or appointed as a member of an appeal panel, means—

(a) that such EAP or person has no business, financial, personal or other interest in

the activity, application or appeal in respect of which that EAP or person is appointed

in terms of these Regulations other than fair remuneration for work performed in

connection with that activity, application or appeal; or

(b) that there are no circumstances that may compromise the objectivity of that EAP

or person in performing such work;

‘‘inert waste’’ means waste that:

(a) does not undergo any significant physical, chemical or biological transformation

after disposal;

(b) does not burn, react physically or chemically biodegrade or otherwise adversely

affect any other matter or environment with which it may come into contact; and

(c) does not impact negatively on the environment, because of its pollutant content

and because the toxicity of its leachate is insignificant;



April 2014

Page 8 of 123

“listed activity”, means an activity identified in terms of section 24(2)(a) and (d) of the

NEMA;

plan of study for environmental impact assessment” means a document contemplated

in [regulation 28(1)(l)] regulation 28(1)(n), which forms part of a scoping report and sets out

how an environmental impact assessment must be conducted;

“pollution” means any change in the environment caused by -

(i) substances;

(ii) radioactive or other waves; or

(iii) noise, odours, dust or heat,

emitted from any activity, including the storage or treatment of waste or substances,

construction and the provision of services, whether engaged in by any person or an organ of

state, where that change has an adverse effect on human health or wellbeing or on the

composition, resilience and productivity of natural or managed ecosystems, or on materials

useful to people, or will have such an effect in the future.

‘‘priority waste’’ means a waste declared to be a priority waste in terms of section 14 of the

NEM:WA

“registered interested and affected party”, in relation to an application, means an

interested and affected party whose name is recorded in the register opened for that

application in terms of regulation 55;

“significant impact” means an impact that by its magnitude, duration, intensity or

probability of occurrence may have a notable effect on one or more aspects of the

environment;

“specialised process” means a process to obtain information which—

(a) is not readily available without undertaking the process; and

(b) is necessary for informing an assessment or evaluation of the impacts of an

activity, and includes risk assessment and cost benefit analysis;

“state department” means any department or administration in the national or provincial

sphere of government exercising functions that involve the management of the environment;

“sustainable development” means the integration of social, economic and environmental

factors into planning, implementation and decision making so as to ensure that development

serves present and future generations;

‘‘storage’’ means the accumulation of waste in a manner that does not constitute treatment

or disposal of that waste;

‘‘waste’’ means any substance, whether or not that substance can be reduced, re-used,

recycled and recovered—

http://thor.sabinet.co.za/netlawpdf/netlaw/NATIONAL%20ENVIRONMENTAL%20MANAGEMENT%20ACT.htm#section24



April 2014

Page 9 of 123

(a) that is surplus, unwanted, rejected, discarded, abandoned or disposed of;

(b) which the generator has no further use of for the purposes of production;

(c) that must be treated or disposed of; or

(d) that is identified as a waste by the Minister by notice in the Gazette, and includes

waste generated by the mining, medical or other sector, but—

(i) a by-product is not considered waste; and

(ii) any portion of waste, once re-used, recycled and recovered, ceases to be waste;

‘‘waste disposal facility’’ means any site or premise used for the accumulation of waste

with the purpose of disposing of that waste at that site or on that premise;

‘‘waste management activity’’ means any activity listed in Schedule 1 of the

NEM:NEM:WA or published by notice in the Gazette under section 19;

‘‘waste management control officer’’ means a waste management control officer

designated under section 58(1) under NEM:WA;

‘‘waste management licence’’ means a licence issued in terms of section 49 of the

NEM:WA;

‘‘waste management services’’ means waste collection, treatment, recycling and disposal

services



April 2014

Page 10 of 123

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 16

1.1 PROJECT LOCATION ........................................................................................................................... 17

1.2 SITE DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................................................. 21

1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................................................... 21

1.3.1 Status Quo ...................................................................................................................................... 21

1.3.2 Proposed Future for Waste Disposal ............................................................................................... 22

1.3.3 End-use and Rehabilitation ............................................................................................................. 25

1.4 PROJECT PROPONENT ....................................................................................................................... 26

1.5 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PRACTITIONER ................................................................................ 26

1.6 TEAM MEMBERS ................................................................................................................................. 27

1.6.1 Magnus van Rooyen ....................................................................................................................... 27

1.6.2 Sarah Baxter ................................................................................................................................... 27

1.6.3 Cherize Mattheus ............................................................................................................................ 28

1.7 TERMS OF REFERENCE ....................................................................................................................... 28

2 APPROACH TO THE SCOPING PHASE ...................................................................................................... 32

2.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE SCOPING AND EIA PROCESS AND METHODOLOGY ....................................... 32

2.1.1 Scoping Phase ................................................................................................................................. 32

2.1.2 EIA Phase ........................................................................................................................................ 32

2.2 DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF SCOPING PHASE ................................................................................... 35

2.2.1 Integrated Application for Authorisation and Waste License ......................................................... 35

2.2.2 Land Owner Notification ................................................................................................................. 35

2.2.3 Compilation of Stakeholder Database ............................................................................................ 35

2.2.4 Stakeholder and Public Engagement .............................................................................................. 35

2.2.5 Plan of Study for EIA ....................................................................................................................... 37

2.2.6 Public Review of Draft Scoping Report ............................................................................................ 37

2.2.7 Authority Review and Acceptance of Final Scoping Report ............................................................ 37

3 LEGAL FRAMEWORK .............................................................................................................................. 38

3.1 THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ACT (NO. 107 OF 1998) ...................................... 38

3.1.1 List of Activities identified in terms of Sections 24(2) and 24D ....................................................... 39

3.2 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT: WASTE ACT (NO. 59 OF 2008) ................................. 40

3.2.1 Waste Management Activities Requiring a Waste License ............................................................. 40

3.2.2 Other Applicable Waste Regulations .............................................................................................. 41

3.3 NATIONAL WATER ACT (NO. 36 OF 1998) ........................................................................................ 41

3.4 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT: AIR QUALITY ACT (NO. 39 OF 2004) ........................ 42

3.5 MUNICIPAL PLANNING DOCUMENTS .................................................................................................... 42

3.5.1 King Sabata Dalindyebo Integrated Development Plan .................................................................. 42

3.5.2 KSD Spatial Development Framework ............................................................................................ 43

3.5.3 KSD Integrated Waste Management Strategy................................................................................ 45

3.6 SUMMARY OF LEGAL FRAMEWORK ................................................................................................... 45

4 DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE ................................................................................ 46

4.1 CLIMATE .............................................................................................................................................. 46

4.2 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ......................................................................................................................... 46

4.3 TOPOGRAPHY ..................................................................................................................................... 46

4.4 HYDROLOGY ....................................................................................................................................... 50

4.5 BIODIVERSITY ..................................................................................................................................... 50



April 2014

Page 11 of 123

4.6 TERRESTRIAL CRITICAL BIODIVERSITY AREAS ................................................................................. 51

4.7 SITES OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL, CULTURAL AND HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE ........................................ 55

4.8 NOISE .................................................................................................................................................. 55

4.9 VISUAL ENVIRONMENT ....................................................................................................................... 55

4.10 AIR QUALITY ....................................................................................................................................... 55

5 DESCRIPTION OF THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC BASELINE ............................................................................... 57

5.1 POPULATION INFORMATION ................................................................................................................ 57

5.2 ECONOMIC PROFILE ............................................................................................................................ 57

5.3 WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICE DELIVERY AND INFRASTRUCTURE ................................................. 58

6 ALTERNATIVES ....................................................................................................................................... 60

6.1 ALTERNATE SITES FOR DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................. 60

6.1.1 Preferred Alternative - Qweqwe Site .............................................................................................. 60

6.1.2 Alternate Site 1 – De Colgny Site ..................................................................................................... 61

6.1.3 Alternate Site 2 – Highbury Site ...................................................................................................... 61

6.1.4 Alternate Site 3 – Orange Grove Site .............................................................................................. 61

6.2 ALTERNATE DEVELOPMENT TYPES ................................................................................................... 63

6.2.1 Preferred Alternative – Establishment of a GMB+ Landfill Site ...................................................... 63

6.3 ALTERNATE LAYOUTS ........................................................................................................................ 64

6.3.1 Layout 1 – Preferred Layout ............................................................................................................ 65

6.3.2 Layout 2 – Alternate Layout 1 ......................................................................................................... 65

6.3.3 Layout 3 – Alternate Layout 2 ......................................................................................................... 66

6.4 ALTERNATE LEACHATE TREATMENT METHODS ................................................................................. 66

6.4.1 Preferred Alternative – Leachate Ponds ......................................................................................... 66

6.4.2 Municipal WWTW ........................................................................................................................... 66

6.4.3 Onsite WWTW ................................................................................................................................ 66

6.4.4 Evaporation ..................................................................................................................................... 67

6.5 NO GO ALTERNATIVE ......................................................................................................................... 67

7 NEED AND DESIRABILITY ....................................................................................................................... 68

7.1 NEED ................................................................................................................................................... 68

7.1.1 Question 1 ....................................................................................................................................... 69

7.1.2 Question 2 ....................................................................................................................................... 69

7.1.3 Question 3 ....................................................................................................................................... 70

7.1.4 Question 4 ....................................................................................................................................... 71

7.1.5 Question 5 ....................................................................................................................................... 72

7.1.6 Question 6 ....................................................................................................................................... 72

7.2 DESIRABILITY ...................................................................................................................................... 73

7.2.1 Question 7 ....................................................................................................................................... 73

7.2.2 Question 8: ...................................................................................................................................... 74

7.2.3 Question 9: ...................................................................................................................................... 74

7.2.4 Question 10 ..................................................................................................................................... 74

7.2.5 Question 11 ..................................................................................................................................... 75

7.2.6 Question 12 ..................................................................................................................................... 75

7.2.7 Question 13 ..................................................................................................................................... 76

7.2.8 Question 14 ..................................................................................................................................... 77

8 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS .......................................................................................................... 79

8.1 OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................................................................ 79

8.2 APPROACH .......................................................................................................................................... 79



April 2014

Page 12 of 123

8.3 KEY ISSUES FROM IAPS ..................................................................................................................... 79

8.4 COMMENT ON DRAFT SCOPING REPORT ........................................................................................... 80

9 IMPACT ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................................................ 84

9.1 CRITERIA FOR ASSESSING THE IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT ............................................................... 84

9.2 TOPOGRAPHY ...................................................................................................................................... 85

9.2.1 Description ...................................................................................................................................... 85

9.2.2 Potential Impacts ............................................................................................................................ 85

9.2.3 Significance Rating .......................................................................................................................... 85

9.2.4 Recommended Way Forward .......................................................................................................... 86

9.3 CLIMATE .............................................................................................................................................. 86

9.3.1 Description ...................................................................................................................................... 86




9.4 AIR QUALITY ....................................................................................................................................... 88

9.4.1 Description ...................................................................................................................................... 88




9.5 GEOLOGY ............................................................................................................................................ 90

9.5.1 Description ...................................................................................................................................... 90




9.6 GROUNDWATER .................................................................................................................................. 91

9.6.1 Description ...................................................................................................................................... 91




9.7 SURFACE WATER ............................................................................................................................... 93

9.7.1 Description ...................................................................................................................................... 93




9.8 FLORA AND FAUNA ............................................................................................................................. 95

9.8.1 Description ...................................................................................................................................... 95




9.9 SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS ............................................................................................................... 97

9.9.1 Description ...................................................................................................................................... 97




9.10 TRAFFIC ASPECTS .............................................................................................................................. 99

9.10.1 Description .................................................................................................................................. 99

9.10.2 Potential Impacts ........................................................................................................................ 99

9.10.3 Significance Rating ................................................................................................................... 100

9.10.4 Recommended Way Forward ................................................................................................... 100

9.11 NOISE ................................................................................................................................................ 100



April 2014

Page 13 of 123

9.11.1 Description ................................................................................................................................ 100

9.11.2 Potential Impacts ...................................................................................................................... 101



9.12 VISUAL IMPACTS AND AESTHETICS .................................................................................................. 102

9.12.1 Description ................................................................................................................................ 102




9.13 CULTURAL AND HERITAGE IMPACTS ................................................................................................ 103

9.13.1 Description ................................................................................................................................ 103




10 PLAN OF STUDY FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ..................................................... 105

10.1 INTRODUCTION TO THE EIA PHASE .................................................................................................. 105

10.2 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS ................................................................................................... 105

10.3 REQUIRED SPECIALIST STUDIES ...................................................................................................... 105

10.3.1 Geotechnical Assessment ......................................................................................................... 106

10.3.2 Geo- hydrological Assessment .................................................................................................. 107

10.3.3 Traffic Impact Assessment ........................................................................................................ 109

10.3.4 Wetland Assessment ................................................................................................................ 109

10.3.5 Floodline Assessment ............................................................................................................... 110

10.4 POTENTIAL FURTHER SPECIALIST STUDIES THAT MAY BE REQUIRED .......................................... 110

10.4.1 Air Quality Impact Assessment ................................................................................................. 110

10.4.2 Noise Impact Assessment ......................................................................................................... 111

10.4.3 Visual Impact Assessment ........................................................................................................ 111

10.4.4 Heritage Impact Assessment .................................................................................................... 112

10.4.5 Social Impact Assessment ......................................................................................................... 113

10.5 INVESTIGATION OF ALTERNATIVES .................................................................................................. 114

10.5.1 Alternate Development Sites .................................................................................................... 114

10.5.2 Alternate Layouts ..................................................................................................................... 114

10.5.3 Alternate Leachate Treatment Methods .................................................................................. 114

10.5.4 No Go Alternative ..................................................................................................................... 114

10.6 LICENSING ......................................................................................................................................... 114

10.6.1 Waste License Application ........................................................................................................ 114

10.6.2 Water Use License .................................................................................................................... 115

10.7 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY ............................................................... 115

10.8 IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................ 118

10.9 QUANTITATIVE DESCRIPTION OF IMPACTS ....................................................................................... 120

11 CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................................... 122

12 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................ 123



April 2014

Page 14 of 123

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A - Curricula Vitae of the Project Team

APPENDIX B - Integrated Application Form

APPENDIX C - Layout Options

APPENDIX D - List of Interested and Affected Parties

APPENDIX E - Initial Public Participation Process

APPENDIX F - Comments received on Draft Scoping Report

APPENDIX G - Site Photos

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1: GEOGRAPHIC CO-ORDINATES OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................. 17

TABLE 2: LISTED ACTIVITIES TRIGGERED BY THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................. 28

TABLE 3: RECOMMENDED LAND-USE TYPES FOR EACH BIODIVERSITY MAPPED CATEGORY ......................................................... 52

TABLE 4: POPULATION DISTRIBUTION WITHIN KSD LOCAL MUNICIPALITY ............................................................................. 57

TABLE 5: BROAD ECONOMIC SECTOR SHARE OF EMPLOYMENT (2008) ............................................................................... 58

TABLE 6: COMMENTS RECEIVED AND RESPONSES FROM THE PROJECT TEAM BASED ON THE CIRCULATION OF THE DRAFT SCOPING

REPORT........................................................................................................................................................... 81

TABLE 7: CRITERIA USED FOR THE SIGNIFICANCE RATING .................................................................................................... 84

TABLE 8: SIGNIFICANCE RATING OF IMPACTS ON TOPOGRAPHY ........................................................................................... 85

TABLE 9: SIGNIFICANCE RATING OF IMPACTS RELATING TO LOCAL CLIMATE ............................................................................ 87

TABLE 10: SIGNIFICANCE RATING OF IMPACTS RELATING TO AIR QUALITY .............................................................................. 89

TABLE 11: SIGNIFICANCE RATING OF IMPACTS RELATING OF GEOLOGY ................................................................................. 90

TABLE 12: SIGNIFICANCE RATING OF IMPACTS RELATING TO GEO-HYDROLOGY ...................................................................... 92

TABLE 13: SIGNIFICANCE RATING OF IMPACTS RELATING TO SURFACE WATER ....................................................................... 94

TABLE 14: SIGNIFICANCE RATING OF IMPACTS RELATING TO BIODIVERSITY ............................................................................ 96

TABLE 15: SIGNIFICANCE RATING OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS ....................................................................................... 98

TABLE 16: SIGNIFICANCE RATING OF IMPACTS RELATING TO TRAFFIC IMPACTS ..................................................................... 100

TABLE 17: SIGNIFICANCE RATING OF IMPACTS RELATING TO NOISE IMPACTS ....................................................................... 101

TABLE 18: SIGNIFICANCE RATING OF IMPACTS RELATING TO VISUAL IMPACTS ...................................................................... 102

TABLE 19: SIGNIFICANCE RATING OF IMPACTS RELATING TO HERITAGE IMPACTS .................................................................. 103

TABLE 20: CRITERIA FOR THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY ................................................................................... 118

TABLE 21: EXAMPLE OF HOW A DESCRIBED IMPACT IS CHARACTERISED ............................................................................... 120

TABLE 22: IMPACT RISK CLASSES ................................................................................................................................ 120

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1: TOPOGRAPHIC MAP INDICATING THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED LANDFILL SITE IN RELATION TO MTHATHA ................. 18

FIGURE 2: AERIAL PHOTO INDICATING THE LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY PROPOSED FOR DEVELOPMENT ...................................... 19

FIGURE 3: MAP INDICATING THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED LANDFILL SITE AND ACCESS ROAD ............................................... 20

FIGURE 4: DIAGRAMMATIC OVERVIEW OF THE SCOPING AND EIA PROCESS ........................................................................... 34

FIGURE 5: KING SABATA DALINDYEBO MUNICIPALITY SPATIAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK MAP, INDICATING THE APPROXIMATE

LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED LANDFILL SITE (SDF, 2007) ......................................................................................... 44

FIGURE 6: MAP INDICATING THE GEOLOGY OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SITE .................................................................. 48

FIGURE 7: MAP INDICATING THE TOPOGRAPHY OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SITE ............................................................ 49



April 2014

Page 15 of 123

FIGURE 8: MAP INDICATING THE VEGETATION OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SITE (AS CLASSIFIED BY MUCINA AND RUTHERFORD,

2006) ............................................................................................................................................................ 53

FIGURE 9: MAP INDICATING THE CBA CLASSIFICATION OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SITE (EASTERN CAPE BIODIVERSITY

CONSERVATION PLAN) ....................................................................................................................................... 54

FIGURE 10: MAP INDICATING THE LOCATION OF THE THREE ALTERNATE DEVELOPMENT SITES.................................................... 62



April 2014

Page 16 of 123

1 INTRODUCTION

This report documents the Scoping Phase of the EIA process and includes:

Section 1 - A comprehensive project description, including: site locality and

proposed project design;

Section 2 - The approach and methodology adopted for the Environmental

Authorisation process;

Section 3 - A review of the relevant legislation;

Section 4 - A description of the baseline environment, including: climatic

conditions; geology and soils; topography; land use and land capability;

hydrology; geohydrology; biodiversity (flora and fauna); sites of archaeological,

cultural and heritage significance; visual aspects and regional socio-economic

structure;

Section 5 - A detailed assessment of alternatives;

Section 6 - A detailed project motivation / assessment of need and desirability;

Section 7 - A list of potential issues and concerns raised by stakeholders during

the public engagement process;

Section 8 - An assessment of identified impacts; and

Section 9 - A Plan of Study for the EIA Phase.

Jeffares and Green (Pty) Ltd has been appointed by Ikamva Consulting to undertake the

Environmental Authorisation and Waste License Application Process for the proposed

establishment of a new landfill site to service the King Sabata Dalindyebo (KSD) Municipal

area.

This application has been undertaken in terms of Section 24 (5) of the National

Environmental Management Act (NEMA), 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998) as part of an

Environmental Authorisation; as well as for a Waste Licence in terms of the National

Environmental Management: Waste Act (NEM:WA) 2008 (Act No. 59 of 2008).

The Competent Authority responsible for consideration of the proposal for Environmental

Authorisation in terms of the NEMA is the Eastern Department of Economic Development,

Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEDEAT).



April 2014

Page 17 of 123

1.1 PROJECT LOCATION

The site proposed for development is located off the National Route 2 (N2) Freeway,

approximately 12km south-west of Mthatha. The area proposed for development is

approximately 45ha in extent. The proposed development site is under the ownership of the

Qweqwe Traditional Authority and is currently utilised as communal grazing land. A meeting

was held during October 2012 with the Qweqwe community members, during which a

resolution was signed indicating acceptance and support for the proposed development on

the communal land.

The geographic co-ordinates of the corners of the proposed development site are:

Table 1: Geographic co-ordinates of the proposed development

CORNER SOUTH EAST

SOUTH WEST 31° 40’ 17.06” S 28° 41’ 31.43” E

SOUTH EAST 31° 40’ 12.37” S 28° 41’ 44.25” E

NORTH WEST 31° 39’ 49.39” S 28° 41’ 20.35” E

NORTH EAST 31° 39’ 42.32” S 28° 41’ 37.49” E

Maps indicating the location of the proposed development site are contained in Figures 1, 2

and 3.



April 2014

Page 18 of 123

Figure 1: Topographic map indicating the location of the proposed landfill site in relation to Mthatha



April 2014

Page 19 of 123

Figure 2: Aerial photo indicating the location of the property proposed for development



April 2014

Page 20 of 123

Figure 3: Map indicating the location of the proposed landfill site and access road



April 2014

Page 21 of 123

1.2 SITE DESCRIPTION

The proposed development site is bounded to the southwest and northeast, by unnamed

drainage lines/erosion dongas. The property is entirely surrounded by communal grazing

land.

The site falls outside of the Town Planning Scheme and is therefore unzoned. The site has

been utilised for agricultural purposes in the past, including crop farming (terraces are in

evidence) and the grazing of livestock. No service infrastructure is currently in place on the

site.

The site is characterised by a ridge, running approximately northwest to southeast across

the middle of the property, sloping downwards, fairly steeply from this ridge towards the

drainage lines to the southwest and northeast.

Due to the high levels of disturbance on the site, following previous cultivation and the

current grazing activities, it is not anticipated that the vegetation of the site will have

significant conservation value. In addition, no wetland areas were identified on the site.

1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

1.3.1 Status Quo

According to the KSD Integrated Waste Management Plan (dated February 2012), Mthatha

comprises:

18 931 formal service points, generating an average of 90 866kg of waste per day;

and

4 028 informal service points generating an average of 2 482kg per day.

Waste types (waste characterisation) generated in the KSD region fall into four categories:

Domestic;

Commercial;

Building rubble / construction and demolition waste; and

Garden refuse / greens.

Domestic and garden waste is currently collected together by the KSD Municipality and is

disposed of at the existing Mthatha Landfill Site. Commercial waste is generally sorted into

its recyclable fractions (cardboard, paper, metal and glass) at the point of generation and is



April 2014

Page 22 of 123

collected by private contractors. Building rubble is partly removed by contractors to the

existing Municipal Landfill, where it is used as fill material or daily cover material. Largely,

however, this waste is illegally dumped in open spaces.

The existing Municipal Landfill Site servicing the Mthatha area within the KSD Municipal

Area is approaching capacity and is not licensed. Environmental and public health impacts

associated with this site are therefore significant and need to be corrected.

1.3.2 Proposed Future for Waste Disposal

A need has been identified to establish an adequately designed and licensed landfill site to

provide for the future disposal of general wastes generated within the KSD jurisdiction. The

KSD Municipality has therefore employed a suitably qualified project team to undertake the

design and authorisation of the new landfill site which will have the capacity to service the

Mthatha area for the next 20 years. The proposed landfill site will be issued the appropriate

licences and permits by the Eastern Cape DEDEAT and the Department of Water Affairs

(DWA).

The broad terms of reference supplied to the project designers by the Municipality require

the design of a cost-effective facility that will address environmental and public health

impacts. As such, the following are to be compiled:

Operating and maintenance manuals;

Health and safety measures; and

Environmental monitoring procedures.

The designers of the landfill have undertaken calculations which consider current and

projected future population size, economic status and waste removal service provision to

measure the impact on waste generation potential in the Municipality in the next 20 years.

Based on these calculations, the designers have determined that in order to meet the KSD

Municipality’s waste disposal needs for the next 20 years, the proposed new landfill will need

an airspace of 16.6ha (with a height of 20m, sloped at a 1:3 gradient), if no recycling is

implemented on the site. If recycling is implemented at a rate of 45%, then the total airspace

required is reduces to 9.6ha (with a height of 20m, sloped at a 1:4 gradient). Preliminary

indications are that the preferred development site can offer a feasible, functional landfill

footprint of 20ha and could therefore meet the needs of the Municipality for the next 20

years.



April 2014

Page 23 of 123

Potential has been identified for the implementation of recycling activities on the site. There

are currently a number of informal recyclers in the Mthatha area which could be

mainstreamed and incorporated in the proposed new formal recycling facility. Based on

calculations by the project designers, it is anticipated that 40 – 45% of the waste stream

could be recycled or composted.

The proposed landfill site will be designed to receive approximately 50 000 tonnes of general

waste per annum and will comprise of the following components:

Hard standing areas and access roads;

Signage, security fencing and controlled access;

Tipping areas;

Lined waste cells;

Cover material;

Suitable drainage for clean and contaminated stormwater;

Administration buildings;

A weighbridge;

Recycling area / drop-off facility;

Composting area; and

Access road with an intersection off the N2 Freeway

In terms of service provision on the site, as there is currently no service infrastructure on the

site, completely new infrastructure will need to be established. Potable water is proposed to

be provided either from a new borehole or via a tanker service where by the KSD

Municipality will deliver water to the site, which will be stored in a storage tank. Electricity is

proposed to be supplied via an onsite generator which will be owned and operated by the

landfill operator. Sewage generated in the ablution facilities will disposed of via septic tanks,

with liquid being diverted into the leachate management system or the constructed wetland.

Systems for the control and management of gas, runoff and leachate will also be

incorporated into the design of the facility.

(i) Gas Management

Due to the nature of the waste (containing organic material and moisture) landfill gas will be

generated at the operational facility. Provision for the management of gas, with the aid of



April 2014

Page 24 of 123

passive venting systems during the early stages of the operations, and active gas

extractions once landfill operations are underway, will be implemented on the site.

(ii) Uncontaminated Runoff Management

The runoff management system will comprise two parts, one to manage uncontaminated

runoff and another to manage contaminated runoff.

Uncontaminated runoff will be diverted around the site and into one of the natural drainage

lines located along the property boundary. Uncontaminated runoff will be prevented from

entering the landfill by means of a cut-off channel constructed along the boundary of the site.

This may be supplemented with a berm / bund, together with the ring road which would also

act as a drainage control feature.

Uncontaminated run-off from virgin areas of the landfill site, from completed covered areas

of the landfill and from within the cover excavations are to be directed off the landfill site into

the natural stream. Uncontaminated water might also need to be discharged into the

contaminated water dam for dilution purposes.

(iii) Contaminated Runoff Management

Contaminated run-off or potentially polluted water from exposed portions of the landfill will be

collected in open earth toe-drains along the toe of the landfill. These drains would discharge

into contaminated water or leachate retention ponds depending on the severity of

contamination. The main contaminated water ponds are to be located at the lower portions

of the site adjacent to the leachate treatment facility / constructed wetland. The water quality

in these dams would have to be monitored before releasing into the environment.

(iv) Leachate Management

Since it has been established that the landfill will produce significant volumes of leachate, a

comprehensive leachate management system for the collection, treatment and disposal of

leachate is to be provided. This would include a geosynthetic lined system at the base of the

waste body on top of the in situ soils to limit infiltration of leachate into the ground water. The

details of the lining system and the leachate collection system will be considered in depth



April 2014

Page 25 of 123

during the feasibility and detail design phases of the project. This will be been done to

ensure compliance with the latest regulations1.

The preferred method for the treatment of leachate is biological co-treatment of sewage

(generated in the ablution facilities) and leachate in organic oxidation ponds / lagoons,

coupled with a constructed wetland or reed-bed system. It is likely that leachate will be

retained in these systems for between 50 and 100 days before being discharged to the

environment for disposal.

1.3.3 End-use and Rehabilitation

The objectives of the end-use design of the landfill are as follows:

(i) To create an aesthetically acceptable landform with gentle slopes (not exceeding a

1:3 gradient) that, as far as possible, blends in with the surrounding terrain; and

(ii) To maximise the landfill airspace available for waste disposal and hence the site life.

As an initial approach, the proposed final shape of the landfill has been determined

according to drainage and end-use requirements. The landfill is proposed to be shaped to

final contour levels, roughly following the original topography but ending up higher due to the

material filled in and raised above the natural contours. It is envisaged that the maximum

height of the landfill will be about 20m above the original ground profile. The upper surface of

the landfill is to have general slopes of at least 1:20 to promote rapid drainage off the landfill

surface.

Regarding the end-use of the site, it is envisaged to be returned to the local people as open

space or for the resumption of agricultural activities. The end-use of the site will however, be

discussed with all stakeholders during the EIA process and during the operations as part of

the ongoing public participation programme to ensure that the rehabilitated site is acceptable

to them.

Re-vegetation of the completed areas is to commence as soon as possible after capping.

Indigenous trees and shrubs typical to the surrounding area will be planted around the site

for screening purposes, as well as in any areas where the substrate will support tree growth.

Over the rest of the site, grass is to be established using indigenous grass types. The

1 National Environmental Management: Waste Act, 2008 (Act No. 59 of 2008): National Norms and Standards for the Disposal of Waste to Landfill (No. R636 of 23 August 2013).



April 2014

Page 26 of 123

intention is to implement what is known as "the rising green wall effect" by progressively

grading and vegetating the side bunds and then working behind them. It is proposed that this

will especially be implemented on the Mthatha site to act as a wind screen minimizing the

effects of windblown litter.

1.4 PROJECT PROPONENT

Applicant name: King Sabata Dalindyebo Municipality

Contact Person Mr L.P. Maka

Physical address: Munitata Building, Sutherland Street, Mthatha

Postal address: PO Box 44, Mthatha

Postal code: 5099 Cell: 071 569 0558

Telephone: 047 501 4312 Fax: 047 531 3128

E-mail: [email protected]

1.5 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PRACTITIONER

Jeffares and Green (Pty) Ltd was appointed by Ikamva Consulting (on behalf of KSD

Municipality) to undertake the necessary environmental applications for the proposed

development.

The project is made up of several disciplines and is reflected in the project team assembled.

The assessment team is made up of:

Name Role

Magnus van Rooyen Project Manager

Sarah Baxter Environmental Assessment Practitioner

Cherize Mattheus Junior Environmental Assessment Practitioner

Primary contact for the project is tabulated below:

Company name : Jeffares and Green (Pty) Ltd

Contact Person Sarah Baxter



April 2014

Page 27 of 123

Physical address: First Floor, Block 1, Greenacres Office Park, Second Avenue, Newton Park, 6045

Postal address: PO Box 27308, Greenacres

Postal code: 6057 Cell: 082 385 9881

Telephone: 041 363 1900 Fax: 041 363 1922

Email Address [email protected]

1.6 TEAM MEMBERS

The key members of the project team are detailed below and curricula vitae are presented in

Appendix A.

1.6.1 Magnus van Rooyen

Mr van Rooyen is an Executive Associate and the Regional Head of the Environmental

Division of a Jeffares & Green (Pty) Ltd. He is located in Pietermaritzburg, KwaZulu-Natal.

In addition to holding a Masters degree in Environmental Management, he also holds a BSc

degree in Botany and Zoology, an Honours Degree in Botany and a Post Graduate

Certificate in Education. He has 8 years’ experience in projects involving Environmental

Impact Assessments in various developmental sectors (Mining Sector, National Roads,

Pipelines, Dams, and Residential Developments), conducting of Specialist Biodiversity

Assessments associated with Environmental Impact Assessments and Project Feasibility

Studies. He has experience in the compilation of Resettlement Policy Framework Plans

associated with infrastructure development projects. Mr van Rooyen has experience in

working on various private and public sectors as well as rural and urban environments in

various countries. He is registered with the South African Council for Natural Scientific

Professionals (SACNASP Reg. No. 400335/11).

1.6.2 Sarah Baxter

Miss Baxter graduated from the School of Applied Environmental Sciences at the University

of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg, having completed a BSc undergraduate degree and a

post-graduate BSc Honours degree in Environmental Science. These comprise

multidisciplinary degrees and included courses in Natural Resource Management and

Sustainable Land Use, Environmental Modelling and Management, Biodiversity

Conservation, Ecosystem Ecology and Management and Geographic Information Systems

(GIS). Miss Baxter has five years’ professional experience as an environmental scientist in a



April 2014

Page 28 of 123

wide range of projects for private, government and commercial clients requiring a number of

processes. These include Screening Assessments; Basic Assessments; Scoping and

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA); Environmental Management Programmes

(construction and operation); Environmental Compliance Auditing (construction and

operation); Environmental Feasibility Assessments; Waste License Applications; Public

Participation Processes; Permit Applications; and Environmental Advice. She has been

employed by Jeffares & Green (Pty) Ltd since May 2012 in the position of Environmental

Scientist.

1.6.3 Cherize Mattheus

Miss Matthues is a graduate Environmental Assessment Practitioner. She has been with the

company for 5 months, following her qualification in 2012 with a Masters in Zoology from

Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University.

1.7 TERMS OF REFERENCE

The proposed development triggers activities listed under Government Notices 544 and 545

of the NEMA, as well as waste management activities listed in Categories A and B of

Government Notice 718 of the NEMWA, as detailed in the table below. Based on this, the

proposed development requires a Scoping and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and

Waste License Application process to be conducted.

Table 2: Listed activities triggered by the proposed development

No. & date of

Notice: Activity numbers Description

No. R 544

18 June 2010 Activity 11

The construction of:

(iii) bridges

(xi) infrastructure or structures covering 50 square

meters or more

Where such construction occurs within a watercourse

or within 32 meters of a watercourse, measured from

the edge of a watercourse, excluding where such

construction will occur behind the development

setback line.

The proposed access road to the landfill site will cross

a donga / drainage line, requiring the establishment of



April 2014

Page 29 of 123

a new bridge / causeway. In addition, sections of the

property boundary fall within 32 meters of the edge of

dongas / drainage lines. Should excavation for the

construction of the landfill site occur in these areas,

then this activity will be triggered.

No. R 544


The infilling or depositing of any material of more than

5 cubic meters into, or the dredging, excavation,

removal or moving of soil, sand, shells, shell grit,

pebbles or rock or more than 5 cubic meters from:

(i) a watercourse;

But excluding where such infilling, depositing,

dredging, excavation, removal or moving;

a. is for maintenance purposes undertaken in

accordance with a management plan agreed

to by the relevant authority; or

b. occurs behind the development setback line.

As part of the construction of the access road, it will be

necessary to construct a donga / drainage line

crossing. This will require the excavation of in excess

of 5m3 of material from the watercourse.

No. R 544


The construction of a road, outside urban areas,

(i) with a reserve wider than 13,5 meters, or

(ii) where no reserve exists where the road is

wider than 8 metres, or

(iii) for which an environmental authorisation was

obtained for the route determination in terms of

activity 5 in Government Notice 387 of 2006 or

activity 18 in Notice 545 of 2010.

The proposed development will require the

establishment of an access road between the landfill

site and the N2 Freeway. This road will be wider than 8

meters in order to accommodate the waste delivery

vehicles.

No. R 545


Physical alteration of undeveloped, vacant or derelict

land for residential, retail, commercial, recreational,

industrial or institutional use where the total area to be



April 2014

Page 30 of 123

transformed is 20 hectares or more; except where

such physical alteration takes place for:

(i) linear development activities; or

(ii) agriculture or afforestation where activity 16 in

this Schedule will apply.

The area proposed for development is approximately

45 ha in extent and currently comprises undeveloped

and vacant land.

No. 921

29 November

2013

Category A: Activity 1

The storage of general waste in lagoons.

It is proposed that leachate generated by the landfill

site will be directed into and stored on leachate ponds.

As the landfill site will accept general waste only, the

leachate generated by the facility can be deemed to be

general in nature.

No. 921

29 November

2013


The recycling of general waste at a facility that has an

operational area in excess of 500m2, excluding

recycling that takes place as an integral part of an

internal manufacturing process within the same

premises.

A Recycling Centre is proposed as part of the new

landfill site. Recycled wastes from the incoming

general waste stream will be diverted into this centre.

This centre will have an operational area in excess of

500m2.

No. 921

29 November

2013


The construction of a facility for a waste management

activity listed in Category A of this Schedule (not in

isolation to the associated waste management

activity).

The proposed leachate management system and

recycling centre trigger waste management activities

listed in Category A. The construction of these facilities

will trigger Activity 12.

No. 921

29 November

Category B: Activity 8

The disposal of general waste to land covering an area

in excess of 200m² and with a total capacity exceeding



April 2014

Page 31 of 123

2013 25 000 tons.

The proposed development comprises a landfill site

which will be approximately 45 ha (45 000 m2) in extent

and with a capacity in excess of 25 000 tons, at which

general wastes will be disposed of to land.

No. 921

29 November

2013

Category B: Activity 10

Construction of a facility for a waste management

activity listed in Category B of this Schedule (not in

isolation to the associated waste management

activity).

The proposed landfill site triggers waste management

activities listed in Category B. The construction of this

facility will trigger Activity 10.

No. 921

29 November

2013

Category C: Activity 5

The extraction, recovery or flaring of landfill gas.

Gas generated in the landfill site will be extracted by

passive and active measures.

According to the Regulations this activity may not, therefore commence without

Environmental Authorisation (EA) and a Waste License from the Competent Authority. An

investigation, assessment and statement of potential impacts of the proposed activity must

follow the procedure as described in Regulations 26 to 35 of the Environmental Impact

Assessment Regulations, 2010.

The Eastern Cape Department of Economic Development, Environmental Affairs and

Tourism (DEDEAT) are the Competent Authority responsible for the issuing of an EA and

Waste License for this particular proposed project. An amended version of the Application

Form (following the repeal of GN 718 and its replacement with GN 921 of 29 November

2013) is contained in Appendix B.



April 2014

Page 32 of 123

2 APPROACH TO THE SCOPING PHASE

2.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE SCOPING AND EIA PROCESS AND METHODOLOGY

A Scoping and EIA process is a planning and decision-making tool. It identifies potential

negative and positive impacts of a proposed project and recommends ways to enhance the

positive impacts and mitigate the negative impacts. The process is largely comprised of

three phases:

The Environmental Scoping Phase

The Environmental Impact Assessment Phase

The Decision Phase

2.1.1 Scoping Phase

The aim of the Environmental Scoping Phase is to provide information regarding the current

environmental, social and possible economic conditions on the site that is being applied for

and to provide information regarding the type and extent of the proposed project. During the

Scoping Phase all potential impacts, both positive and negative, associated with the

proposed development will be identified. This will be done through a process of site

assessment, desktop investigation and will be undertaken in conjunction with stakeholder

and public interest involvement through a Public Participation Process. The outcome of the

Scoping Phase will be a detailed Plan of Study for the EIA Phase, which will detail how the

identified impacts will be investigated in order to obtain a full understanding of and report on

the ecological and social sustainability and economic efficiency of the proposed

development and to facilitate balanced decision-making.

2.1.2 EIA Phase

During the EIA Phase, the Plan of Study will be implemented. This will include the

commissioning of various specialist studies for input into the assessment of impacts

identified during the Scoping Phase. Specialists will further aid in the compilation of

recommendations and mitigation measures for the minimisation of negative impacts and the

enhancement of positive impacts. This information will be compiled into an EIA Report which

will contain the Environmental Assessment Practitioner’s recommendations regarding the

authorisation of the proposed development as well as the possible mitigation and

management measures that needs to be implemented during the construction and

operational phases of the project.



April 2014

Page 33 of 123

The EIA Report will be submitted to the Competent Authority for the decision making

process.

All work will be undertaken in compliance with the NEMA and the NEM:WA.

The Scoping and EIA process is illustrated in Figure 4.



April 2014

Page 34 of 123

Figure 4: Diagrammatic overview of the Scoping and EIA process

We are here



April 2014

Page 35 of 123

2.2 DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF SCOPING PHASE

2.2.1 Integrated Application for Authorisation and Waste License

An Application for an Integrated Environmental Authorisation and Waste Management

Licence was submitted to the Eastern Cape DEDEAT on 16 May 2013. Acknowledgment of

Receipt of the Application form was received on 3 July 2013 and Acceptance of the

Application was received on 25 August 2013. The application was assigned a file reference

number OR/B/10/002/13 (Appendix B). Subsequent to the submission of the above-

mentioned Application Form, the Waste Management Regulations (GN 718 of 3 July 2009)

have been repealed and replaced by GN 921 of 29 November 2013. An amended version of

the Application Form is attached in Appendix B.

2.2.2 Land Owner Notification

The preferred development site is under communal ownership, managed by the Qweqwe

Traditional Authority. During October 2012, the Department of Rural Development and Land

Reform facilitated the signing of a Community Resolution by the Qweqwe Municipality,

indicating their acceptance and support of the proposed landfill site at the preferred Qweqwe

Site. A copy of this Community Resolution document is included in Appendix B of this

Scoping Report.

2.2.3 Compilation of Stakeholder Database

The compilation of a stakeholder database entails the development and maintenance of an

electronic database for the duration of the project where stakeholders and affected parties

can register. The process begins with an initial scan of national, provincial and local

authorities to identify potential stakeholders. In addition, non-governmental organizations

(NGO’s) were identified and included in the database for notification of the project. Adjacent

landowners were searched and notified directly, when they could be located.

The identification and registration of stakeholders will be an on-going activity during the

Scoping and EIA phases of the project. Initial stakeholders were identified through the Public

Notification phase.

2.2.4 Stakeholder and Public Engagement

The NEMA EIA Regulations of 2010 (Sections 54-57) require an inclusive, transparent

process of engagement. Any and all persons who may be affected by and/or have an

interest in a proposed project are entitled to be informed and submit comments.



April 2014

Page 36 of 123

Procedures for informing stakeholders about a project and engaging their participation have

become standard practice. The stakeholder consultation process was undertaken in English.

2.2.4.1 Notification:

(i) Site Notices

The NEMA EIA Regulations of 2010 require that a site notice be fixed at a place

conspicuous to the public at the boundary of the site where the activity to which the

application relates is to be undertaken, and on any alternative sites. The purpose of the site

notice is to notify neighbours of the project and to provide details for registration as a

stakeholder. Refer to Appendix E for a copy of the site notice placed and the photographs of

the site notices.

(ii) Advertisements

The NEMA EIA Regulations (2010) require that an advertisement be placed in either a local

newspaper or a Government Gazette. For the proposed project, an advert was placed in the

Daily Despatch on 30 July 2013. Refer to Appendix E for a copy of the newspaper

advertisement.

(iii) Background Information Documents (BIDs)

The purpose of the BID is to provide written background information on the proposed project,

outlining the environmental process as well as providing an opportunity for registration of

other stakeholders. A copy of the BID is contained in Appendix E.

According to the NEMA EIA Regulations (2010), written notice must be given to the:

Owners and occupiers of land adjacent to the site where the activity is to be

undertaken;

Owners and occupiers of land within a 100m radius of the boundary of the project;

Municipal ward councillor in which the site and alternate site is situated;

Municipality who has jurisdiction of the area;

Any organ of state having jurisdiction in respect of any respect of the activity; and

Any other party as required by the competent authority.

The BID’s were distributed to landowners and tenants, where they could be identified,

Authorities, Key Stakeholders and people responding to the above-mentioned site posters

and advertisement, requesting registration as an IAP.



April 2014

Page 37 of 123

2.2.4.2 Comments and Responses:

Following publication of the adverts, placing of the site notices and circulation of the BID,

comments are generally received from IAPs.

2.2.5 Plan of Study for EIA

The Plan of Study for EIA lays out the process for and inputs into the detailed impact

assessment phase. The Plan of Study is the final product of the Scoping Phase, and it must

ensure that all issues raised during the stakeholder engagement process and technical

scoping are captured in the scope of work for the EIA such that they will be addressed, if

found significant, in the management plans. The Plan of Study for EIA for the proposed

development is contained in Section 9.

2.2.6 Public Review of Draft Scoping Report

The Draft Scoping Report and Plan of Study were made available to all registered IAPs for

comment for a period of 60 days, between 19 November 2013 and 10 February 2014. The

report was also made available in hard copy for public review and was also available on the

Jeffares and Green (Pty) Ltd Website (http://www.jgi.co.za/public-participation).

Hard copies of the report were sent to the following key stakeholders:

Department of Economic Development, Environmental Affairs and Tourism;

Department of Water Affairs;

Endangered Wildlife Trust (EWT).

South African Roads Agency Limited (SANRAL);

King Sabata Dalindyebo Local Municipality; and

OR Tambo District Municipality.

All comments received have been included into and responded to in Section 8.4 (Table 6) of

this final version of the Scoping Report for submission to the relevant authority.

2.2.7 Authority Review and Acceptance of Final Scoping Report

This final version of the Scoping Report and Plan of Study will be submitted to the DEDEAT.

Following review of the report, the DEDEAT may accept or rejected the Scoping Report. If

accepted, the project will proceed to the EIA Phase.

http://www.jgi.co.za/public-participation



April 2014

Page 38 of 123

3 LEGAL FRAMEWORK

3.1 THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ACT (NO. 107 OF 1998)

The National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) (Act 107 of 1998) is a ‘principles-

based Act’ and is an overarching statute regulating various aspects of natural resource use,

integrated environmental management and pollution control. The Act provides for:

the right to an environment that is not harmful to the health and well-being of the

South African people;

sustainable development, environmental protection, equitable distribution of natural

resources; and

the formulation of environmental management frameworks.

Its definition of the environment includes the land and water of the earth, micro-organisms,

plant and animal life or a combination of those things, and the interrelationships among

them.

The Act aims to provide for co-operative environmental governance by establishing

principles for decision-making on matters affecting the environment, institutions that will

promote co-operative governance, and procedures for co-ordinating environmental functions

exercised by organs of state. Section 24 provides for the prohibition, restriction and control

of activities that are likely to have a detrimental effect on the environment.

The NEMA contains a set of principles that govern environmental management, and against

which all environmental management plans and actions are measured. Sustainable

development requires the consideration of all relevant factors including the following:

Environmental management must place people and their needs at the forefront of its

concern, and serve their physical, psychological, developmental, cultural and social

interests equitably;

That the disturbance of ecosystems and loss of biological diversity are avoided, or

where they cannot be altogether avoided, are minimized and remedied;

That pollution and degradation of the environment are avoided, or, where

unavoidable, are minimised and remedied;

That waste is avoided, or where unavoidable is minimised and reused or recycled

where possible and/or disposed of in a responsible manner;



April 2014

Page 39 of 123

That a risk-adverse and cautious approach is applied, which takes into account the

limits of current knowledge about the consequences of decisions or actions;

That negative impacts on the environment and on people’s environmental rights be

anticipated and prevented, and where they cannot be altogether prevented, are

minimized and remedied;

The right of workers to refuse work that is harmful to human health or the

environment and to be informed of dangers must be respected and protected;

The role of women and youth in environmental management and development must

be recognised and their full participation therein must be promoted;

Responsibility for the environmental health and safety consequences of a policy,

programme, project, product, process, service or activity exists throughout its life

cycle;

The participation of interested and affected parties in environmental governance

must be promoted, and people must have the opportunity to develop the

understanding, skills and capacity necessary for achieving equitable and effective

participation;

The participation by vulnerable and disadvantaged persons must be ensured;

Decisions must take into account the interests, needs and values of all interested and

affected parties, and this includes recognising all forms of knowledge, including

traditional and ordinary knowledge;

That the cost of remedying pollution, environmental degradation and consequent

adverse health effects and of preventing, controlling or minimizing further pollution,

environmental damage or adverse health effects must be paid for by those

responsible for harming the environment;

Community well-being and empowerment must be promoted through environmental

education, the raising of environmental awareness, the sharing of knowledge and

experience and other appropriate means; and

Decisions must be taken in an open and transparent manner, and access to

information must be provided in accordance with the law.

3.1.1 List of Activities identified in terms of Sections 24(2) and 24D

The listed activities are found in three regulations or listing notices. GN R544, GN R545 and

GN R546 of 18 June 2010 (as amended). The relevant activities triggered by this particular

project are contained within in Listing Notices 1 and 2, which results in the need for the

completion of a Scoping and Environmental Impact Assessment process for the issuing of



April 2014

Page 40 of 123

an Environmental Authorisation. The listed activities triggered by this proposed development

are summarised in Table 2.

3.2 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT: WASTE ACT (NO. 59 OF 2008)

Waste management in South Africa is regulated by the National Environmental

Management: Waste Act (Act 59 of 2008) (NEM:WA). The objectives of the Act are, inter

alia:

to protect health, well-being and the environment by providing reasonable measures

for—

o minimising the consumption of natural resources;

o treating and safely disposing of waste as a last resort;

o preventing pollution and ecological degradation;

o securing ecologically sustainable development while promoting justifiable

economic and social development; and

o achieving integrated waste management reporting and planning;

to ensure that people are aware of the impact of waste on their health, well-being and

the environment; and

to give effect to section 24 of the Constitution in order to secure an environment that

is not harmful to health and well-being.

3.2.1 Waste Management Activities Requiring a Waste License

Section 19(1) of the NEM:WA declares that the Minister must publish a list of waste

management activities (WMA) which may lead to a detrimental effect on the environment.

These activities will require a Waste Management License (WML) prior to commencement of

the activity. This list was initially published in Government Notice No. 718 of 3 July 2009.

Subsequently, GN 718 has been repealed and replaced by GN 921 of 29 November 2013.

The proposed development triggers activities contained within Categories A, B and C of the

above-mentioned list. As such, a Scoping and EIA Process (in accordance to the regulations

contained in the NEMA) is required for the issuing of a Waste License. A summary of the

Waste Management Activities triggered by the proposed landfill development is contained in

Table 2.



April 2014

Page 41 of 123

3.2.2 Other Applicable Waste Regulations

In addition to the NEM:WA and GN 921 of 29 NOVEMBER 2013, the following regulations

relating to waste management have been published and will be considered in this Report:

Waste Classification and Management Regulations in Government Gazette No. 634

of 23 August 2013, which provides for:

o The identification and categorisation of waste;

o The manner in which particular waste types must be dealt with and managed;

o Measures that are required for the environmentally sound management of

waste;

o Requirements in respect of waste management activities;

o The utilisation of waste by way of recovery, re-use and recycling;

o The control of waste management facilities;

o Labelling requirements in respect of waste management; and

o The location, planning and design of waste management activities.

National Norms and Standards for the Assessment of Waste for Landfill Disposal in

Government Gazette No. R635 of August 2013 and the National Norms and

Standards for the Disposal of Waste to Landfill in Government Gazette No. R636 of

23 August 2013, which together provide norms and standards for the storage,

treatment and disposal of waste, including the planning and operation of waste

treatment and waste disposal facilities.

Standards for Extraction, Flaring or Recovery of Landfill Gas in Government Notice

GN 924 of 29 November 2013, which aim at controlling the extraction, flaring and

recovery of landfill gas at facilities in order to prevent potential negative impacts on

the biophysical and socio-economic environments.

3.3 NATIONAL WATER ACT (NO. 36 OF 1998)

The National Water Act (Act No. 36 of 1998) (NWA) has sustainability and equity as the core

principles guiding the protection, use, development, conservation, management and control

of water resources. Basic human needs, the need to promote social and economic

development and the need to establish suitable institutions to are the aims of the NWA.

Chapter 3 provides for the protection of all water resources with Part 4 dealing with pollution

prevention. Section 19 encumbers the owner or person in control of land to take reasonable

precautions to prevent the contamination of water resources. The NWA, in this application is



April 2014

Page 42 of 123

therefore a key document for the protection of water resources and the project must take

cognisance of leachate containment and pollution prevention in the design of the landfill.

Chapter 4 of the NWA deals with the use of water and the regulation thereof and further

defines water uses which will require a Water Use License or General Authorisation. Input

from the Department of Water Affairs will be sought regarding the need for a Water Use

License or application for a General Authorisation. Construction of the proposed landfill site

will not commence until such time as the appropriate water use authorisations are in place.

3.4 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT: AIR QUALITY ACT (NO. 39 OF

2004)

The National Environmental Management Air Quality Act (Act No. 39 of 2004) (NEM:AQA)

was a landmark act which focused on the ambient air quality and the receptor as opposed to

the previous act which defined air quality by regulating the emissions which impact air

quality. As a result of the NEM:AQA, standards for ambient air quality have been developed

which are managed through the local municipalities or provincial municipalities.

The NEM:AQA enabled the publication of the Listed Activities and Minimum Emission

Requirements, which require emitters to apply for and obtain an Atmospheric Emissions

License (AEL) related to installations such as combustion installations in various industries.

As no combustion activities will be employed at the proposed landfill site, it will not be

necessary to apply for an AEL.

3.5 MUNICIPAL PLANNING DOCUMENTS

3.5.1 King Sabata Dalindyebo Integrated Development Plan

The Integrated Development Plan (IDP) for the King Sabata Dalindyebo (KSD) Local

Municipality has, as its ultimate objective, improved service delivery and betterment of the

community. As such, the principal aim of the IDP and the KSD Municipality is to present a

coherent plan for service delivery and a plan to improve the quality of life for its communities.

In terms of waste management within the municipal jurisdiction, the IDP document notes that

a formal refuse collection service is provided once a week to 27 562 households. A further

64 603 households currently make use of a communal or own refuse dump system.



April 2014

Page 43 of 123

The Municipality is currently engaging in rehabilitation activities at two of their existing landfill

sites, in Mthatha and Mqanduli, in order to meet permit requirements. The IDP, however,

notes that the Mthatha Landfill Site is reaching capacity and that there is a need to establish

a new, permitted landfill site. The establishment of a new landfill site has been identified as a

Planned Environmental Project within the IDP. The Municipality has identified a number of

potential development sites and has implemented the required Feasibility Studies

(comprising geotechnical and geo-hydrological assessments) and Environmental

Authorisation processes. This document represents the Draft Scoping Report for the

development of the preferred alternate development site. Through the abovementioned

assessments and authorisation processes, the Municipality aims to design and establish a

landfill site that is environmentally friendly, compliant with all statutory requirements and that

provides economic opportunities to benefit SMME’s.

The proposed development of a permitted landfill site is therefore in line with the Municipal

IDP.

3.5.2 KSD Spatial Development Framework

The Spatial Development Framework (SDF) and associated Strategic Environmental

Assessment (SEA) are tools applied to guide land development decisions which seek to

improve the quality of life of the residents, while at the same time ensuring that the

environment is protected. The SDF and SEA in combination seek to identify opportunities

and constraints for development provided by the natural and social environments as well as

mechanisms to mitigate negative impacts. According to the SDF Map for the KSD

Municipality (Figure 5) the area in which the landfill site is proposed has not been designated

for a specific use.



April 2014

Page 44 of 123

Figure 5: King Sabata Dalindyebo Municipality Spatial Development Framework Map, indicating the approximate location of the proposed landfill site (SDF, 2007)

Approximate location of the

proposed landfill site



April 2014

Page 45 of 123

3.5.3 KSD Integrated Waste Management Strategy

In fulfilling its constitutional mandate as well as the requirements of their Integrated Waste

Management Strategy (IWMS), KSD Municipality as the local sphere of governance must

give effect to the provisions of the Constitution by guaranteeing an environment that is not

harmful to the health and well-being of its community, curtailing poor waste management

practices and ensuring sustainable development in the municipality`s area of jurisdiction.

The proposed development of a properly designed and located landfill site will contribute to

the fulfilling of these requirements.

3.6 SUMMARY OF LEGAL FRAMEWORK

The key environmental legislation in regard to the project are the NEMA, the NEM:WA and

the NWA. The NEMA requires that the proposed development receive Environmental

Authorisation from the Eastern Cape DEDEAT, as competent authority, prior to

commencement. The NEM:WA requires licensing for the disposal of general waste to land

and the construction of associated facilities. The Competent Authority for the issuing of the

Waste License is also the Eastern cape DEDEAT. The NWA requires the issuing of a Water

Use License for activities within a 500 meter radius of a water course and a General

Authorisation for disposing of waste in a manner that may detrimentally impact on a water

resource. Input regarding the need for Water Use License Applications will be sought from

the DWA.

In addition to the above regulations, the following Department of Water Affairs Guideline

Documents were also considered:

The Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, Second Edition, 1998. Waste

Management Series. Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill

The Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, Third Edition, 2005. Waste

Management Series. Minimum Requirements for Water Monitoring at Waste

Management Facilities.

Furthermore, the following guideline documents need to be consulted in the design of the

proposed landfill site:

National Norms and Standards for Disposal of Waste to Landfill (Government

Gazette No. R 636 of 23 August 2013).



April 2014

Page 46 of 123

The proposed development will undergo authorisation, licensing and permitting according to

the requirements of the above Acts and Regulations. In addition, the proposed landfill site

will be in line with the municipal planning documents currently available in the KSD Local

Municipality as well as with the above-mentioned guideline documents.

4 DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE

4.1 CLIMATE

The climate and local weather of the area are strongly influenced by topography. Average

annual temperature varies between 1.8°C in July and 25.3°C in January. The proposed

development site falls within a summer rainfall area, characterised by dry winters and wet

summers, with thunderstorms being common in summer. Average rainfall is approximately

877mm per year. The area experiences high levels of wind, with monthly averages ranging

between 12 and 15km/hour. Maximum wind speeds of 76km/hour are experienced at times.

Rainfall and winds will need to be carefully considered in the design and operation of the

facility with regards to how they impact upon leachate management, litter control and dust

suppression.

4.2 GEOLOGY AND SOILS

According to the 1:250 000 geological map (3128 UMTATA) published by the Council for

Geoscience, the regional geology of the Mthatha area is dominated by sandstones and

mudstones belonging to the Beaufort Group, with igneous intrusions in the form of dolerite

dykes and sills being common (Figure 6). The Beaufort Group is comprised of the Tarkastad

and Adelaide Subgroups, respectively.

A specialist Geotechnical Assessment will be conducted during the EIA Phase. This

assessment will provide more details on the underlying geology of the site and based on

this, its suitability for the proposed development. In addition, this report will include

recommendations regarding founding and erosion protection.

4.3 TOPOGRAPHY

The site is dominated by a ridge of higher ground which sits at an altitude of approximately

850 meters above sea level (masl). This ridge runs from the southeast corner of the

property, towards the centre of the property, where its alignment changes to run towards the



April 2014

Page 47 of 123

northeast corner of the property. To either side of this ridge, to the southwest, the northwest

and the east, the property falls away steeply to drainage lines which run along the eastern

and western boundaries of the property. The altitude of these lowest points is approximately

790masl. Topography of the proposed development site is indicated in Figure 7.



April 2014

Page 48 of 123

Figure 6: Map indicating the geology of the proposed development site



April 2014

Page 49 of 123

Figure 7: Map indicating the topography of the proposed development site



April 2014

Page 50 of 123

4.4 HYDROLOGY

To proposed landfill site is bounded to the west and east by two drainage lines / dongas,

which join to the north of the property. Flow within these systems is therefore from south to

north.

A third drainage line / donga which runs in an easterly direction is located near to the N2

Freeway. The proposed road which will provide access to the landfill site from the N2

Freeway will cross this drainage line.

Associated with the presence of these drainage lines, may be wetland and riparian areas. In

order to ensure the protection of these systems, it will be necessary to identify any wetland

areas, delineate their extent and apply and appropriate buffer zone of no development. An

investigation of riparian / wetland areas will be undertaken and will be reported on in the EIA

Report.

One of the major concerns associated with the development of landfill sites is the leaching of

contaminants from the site, resulting in contamination of groundwater reserves. In order to

assess this potential impact it will be necessary to determine the underlying geo-hydrology

and geology of the proposed development site. Once this has been determined, the

specialists will be able to provide detailed input regarding the suitability of the site for

development as well as make recommendations for the minimisation and prevention of

contamination associated with leaching. These specialist studies will be conducted and

reported on in the EIA Report.

4.5 BIODIVERSITY

The preferred development site comprises and is bounded on all four sides by communal

agricultural land which is utilised for the grazing of cattle, sheep and goats. According to

Mucina and Rutherford (2006) the area in which the proposed development site falls is

expected to comprise Mthatha Moist Grassland (Gs 14) (Figure 8). Landscape features are

described as undulating plains and hills supporting species-poor, sour, wiry grassland of

predominantly Eragrostis plana and Sporobolus africanus. This is typical of the proposed

development site which has been disturbed by past cultivation (evidenced by the presence

of terraces on the property) and, more recently, extensive grazing. In good condition these

grasslands would be expected to be dominated by Themeda triandra.



April 2014

Page 51 of 123

This vegetation type is classified as Vulnerable by the South African National Biodiversity

Institute (SANBI), with only a small fraction statutorily conserved in the Luchaba and Nduli

Wildlife Reserves. More than 40% of this vegetation type has been transformed, primarily for

cultivation and plantations and this is the case with the site in question.

Mucina and Rutherford (2006) identify one biogeographically important plant taxon occurring

in this vegetation type:

Encephalartos frederici-guilielmi (White haired cycad) – classified as Near

Threatened and as a Sub-Escarpment Grassland Endemic which was not

encountered on the site.

The IUCN Red Data Species Database was queried and the following animal species were

identified as occurring in the Mthatha area:

Pronolagus crassicaudatus (Natal Red Rock Hare) – classified as Least Concern;

Duberria lutrix (Common slug eater) – classified as Least Concern; and

Pachydactylus maculatus (Spotted thick-toed gecko) – classified as Least Concern.

It must be noted that the above-mentioned list is based on a desktop investigation. More

detailed information will be included in the EIA Report.

4.6 TERRESTRIAL CRITICAL BIODIVERSITY AREAS

The Critical Biodiversity Area (CBA) Maps indicate areas of land as well as aquatic features

which must be safeguarded in their natural state if biodiversity is to persist and ecosystems

are to continue functioning. CBAs incorporate:

(i) areas that need to be safeguarded in order to meet national biodiversity thresholds;

(ii) areas required to ensure the continued existence and functioning of species and

ecosystems, including the delivery of ecosystem services; and/or

(iii) important locations for biodiversity features or rare species.

The proposed development site was queried in terms of the Eastern Cape Biodiversity

Conservation Plan. According to this database, the proposed development site falls within an

area designated as T2: Terrestrial Critical Biodiversity Area (CBA) Level 2 (Figure 9). This

means that the site is expected to contain vegetation listed as Endangered which equates to

a determination that the area of intact vegetation remaining of the vegetation type is within



April 2014

Page 52 of 123

15% of the set representation target. The vegetation type of the proposed development site,

as mentioned above, is the Mthatha Moist Grasslands.

In the Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Technical Report (2007),

recommendations are made regarding permitted, conditionally-permitted and non-permitted

land-use types within each of the identified CBA’s. Recommendations for land-use in Level 2

CBA’s are summarised in the table below.

Table 3: Recommended land-use types for each biodiversity mapped category

PERMITTED CONDITIONAL NOT PERMITTED

Conservation Dry land and irrigation cropping (existing and fallow cultivated

land) Commercial Livestock

Game Farming Dry land and irrigated cropping

(conversion of virgin land)

Communal Livestock Dairy Farming

Timber

Low density rural settlement

Low density urban settlement

High density urban settlement

Development of a landfill site is not specified as a land-use type in this table, input will

therefore need to be sought from the relevant stakeholders regarding the suitability of the

proposed development type, and any conditions for development of the site.

Due to previous disturbances of the site for agricultural use, comprising past cropping and

current grazing, the vegetation of the site has been modified and bears limited resemblance

to the veld type identified above. It is the opinion of the EAP therefore, that the site has

limited conservation value. More detail on the vegetation, biodiversity and conservation

value of the site will be obtained through a specialist vegetation assessment during the EIA

Phase.



April 2014

Page 53 of 123

Figure 8: Map indicating the vegetation of the proposed development site (as classified by Mucina and Rutherford, 2006)



April 2014

Page 54 of 123

Figure 9: Map indicating the CBA Classification of the proposed development site (Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan)



April 2014

Page 55 of 123

4.7 SITES OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL, CULTURAL AND HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE

According to the National Heritage Resources Act No 25 of 1999, provisions are made to

protect national heritage and this forms an integral part of the environmental assessment

process. In order to give effect to this requirement, it will be necessary to determine whether

or not there are any heritage resources on the proposed development site. Input in this

regard will be sought from the South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA) as well

as the Eastern Cape Heritage Resources Committee (ECHRC). Should it be required, a

Heritage Impact Assessment will be conducted. The results of this assessment will be

reported on in the EIA Report.

4.8 NOISE

Currently, there are no noise sources on the site. Current ambient noise sources include the

N2 Freeway to the south, and noises associated with neighbouring rural residential areas to

the east, northeast and west and agricultural activities (grazing of livestock). The proposed

development will alter this noise profile during the construction phase as a result of

increased plant and construction workers on the site. During the operational phase, noise

will be generated by waste delivery vehicles accessing the site, plant utilised in the daily

covering of waste and the presence of the operational work force.

Should the need arise, through the public participation process, a Noise Impact Assessment

will be conducted. This will be included and reported on in the EIA Report.

Recommendations for the minimisation of noise impacts will be included in the EIA Report

and associated Environmental Management Programme (EMPr).

4.9 VISUAL ENVIRONMENT

The current visual environment comprises an open landscape with rural residential

development interspersed with open spaces, typically grassland, which is utilised for

communal grazing of livestock. This visual landscape will be dramatically altered by the

proposed development. Should the need arise, through the public participation process, a

Visual Impact Assessment will be conducted. This will be included and reported on in the

EIA Report. Recommendations for the minimisation of visual impacts will be included in the

EIA Report and associated EMPr.

4.10 AIR QUALITY

Ambient air quality at the proposed development site is impacted upon at present by the

proximity of the N2 Freeway and the agricultural use of the property (grazing of livestock). It



April 2014

Page 56 of 123

is anticipated that ambient air quality will be significantly and negatively impacted by the

proposed landfill development as a result of odour generation and increased dust. Should

the need arise through the public participation process, an Air Quality Assessment will be

conducted and reported on in the EIA Report. Recommendations for the minimisation of air

quality impacts will be included in the EIA Report and associated EMPr.



April 2014

Page 57 of 123

5 DESCRIPTION OF THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC BASELINE

The information contained in this section was sourced from the King Sabata Dalindyebo

Local Municipality’s Integrated Development Plan (2012 - 2017).

5.1 POPULATION INFORMATION

The King Sabata Dalindyebo Local Municipality has an estimated population of 451 710

people, living in approximately 104 240 households. This translates to an average of 4

people per household.

Approximately 95% of these households are located in rural areas and village settlements.

KSD is therefore classified as a rural municipality. Table 4 below provides a breakdown of

the population according to race.

Table 4: Population distribution within KSD Local Municipality

Black Coloured Indian/Asian White Other TOTAL

Number 444 770 3 403 1 480 1 356 702 451 710

% of Population

98.4% 0.75% 0.33% 0.3% 0.16% 100%

Source: Stats SA Community Survey 2011

Between 2001 and 2011, the KSD Municipality experienced a net population increase from

416 347 to 451 710, an increase of 7.8%. This is attributed to the presence of Mthatha Town

which is a regional service centre, as well as the N2 Freeway which is a major transport

route acting as a gateway to a wide range of tourism offerings such as Coffee Bay and Hole

in the Wall. The Municipality is also an economic home to two of the largest economic

activities in the district, namely forestry and agriculture.

KSD has a very youthful population, with 74% of the population aged between 0 and 35

years of age. This means that the majority of the population are of a school-going age and

that dependency levels in the municipality are high. The Municipality has, as a result,

prioritised youth and skills development programmes.

5.2 ECONOMIC PROFILE

The KSD Municipality is the largest contributor to the O.R. Tambo District Municipality

economy. In 2007, the KSD workforce (made up of people aged between 15 and 64 years)

was made up of approximately 229 668 people, or 53% of the total population. Of these,



April 2014

Page 58 of 123

28% (66 158) were employed, whilst only 15% (35 944) fell within the category of

“unemployed”. The remainder, 57% were classified as “not economically active”.

Varied topographical and climatic conditions in KSD Municipality contribute to diverse

agricultural activities including wool, beef and dairy, maize, vegetables, deciduous and

tropical fruits, forestry and fishing. The Municipality is also a popular tourism destination.

There are, therefore, a number of key contributors to the local economy, including

agriculture, forestry, fishing, tourism, construction and property development. Contribution to

the local economy by the various commercial sectors is summarised in Table 5 below.

Table 5: Broad Economic Sector Share of Employment (2008)

ECONOMIC SECTOR PERCENTAGE CONTRIBUTION

Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing 0.8%

Mining 0.3%

Manufacturing 2.1%

Electricity and Water 0.2%

Construction 2.9%

Wholesale and Retail Trade, Catering and Accommodation 7.9%

Transport and Communication 1.5%

Finance and Business Services 9.4%

Community, Social and Other Personal Services 26.8%

Other Government and Social Services 9.4%

Despite the wide range of economic sectors, indicators used to measure development within

the Municipality show that poverty has increased in the past decade. Conversely though,

there has been a slight increase in the quality of life for residents within the Municipal Area.

5.3 WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICE DELIVERY AND INFRASTRUCTURE

The KSD Municipality has a predominantly rural landscape with a rural population residing in

traditional villages and homes. The main towns are located along the main access roads and

serve as rural service centres to the surrounding rural population. This has meant that

service delivery in the outlying rural areas is limited, with the main challenge to infrastructure

development being distance from the main service centres.



April 2014

Page 59 of 123

In terms of waste management services, the KSD Municipality provides a formal waste

removal service to 27 562 households (26% of the total population) on a weekly basis. The

remaining 64% of the population make use of communal or home refuse dump systems.

As part of the Municipality’s formal waste management system, KSD operates two landfill

sites, at Mthatha and Mqanduli. These two sites are currently undergoing rehabilitation in

order to become compliant with the relevant legislation. The Mthatha Landfill Site is,

however, approaching capacity and a need has been identified to establish a new landfill site

to replace the existing facility. The proposed development will allow the KSD Municipality to

address this issue and to improve and expand waste management infrastructure and service

delivery within their region of jurisdiction.



April 2014

Page 60 of 123

6 ALTERNATIVES

In terms of the definitions contained within the NEMA, alternatives are defined in relation to a

proposed activity as different means of meeting the general purposes and requirements of

the activity, and may include alternatives to –

the property on which, or location where, it is proposed to undertake the activity;

the type of activity to be undertaken;

the design or layout of the activity;

the technology to be used in the activity;

the operational aspects of the activity; and

the option of not implementing the activity.

Feasible and reasonable alternatives which have been identified for the proposed

development and that will be assessed in more detail are listed below.

6.1 ALTERNATE SITES FOR DEVELOPMENT

During 2009 the KSD Municipality contracted Arcus Gibb to conduct a Feasibility Study for

the proposed new Mthatha Landfill Site. As part of this Study, 9 potential development sites

were identified. These were reported on in a Pre-Feasibility Report titled Volume 1:

Identification and Ranking of Candidate Sites (February 2009). Based on this report, 3 sites

were identified for further geotechnical and geo-hydrological assessment. These were the

De Colgny site, Highbury site and Orange Grove site. The KSD Municipality has also,

subsequently identified a site at Qweqwe which is being pursued as the preferred site.

Geotechnical and geo-hydrological assessments of this preferred site are currently

underway and will be reported on in the EIA Phase.

The three sites investigated by Arcus Gibb, and the Qweqwe site most recently identified by

the KSD Municipality have been considered as alternate development sites.

6.1.1 Preferred Alternative - Qweqwe Site

The Qweqwe site is located on land owned and managed by the Qweqwe Traditional

Authority. The site is located approximately 15km southwest of the town of Mthatha along

the N2 Freeway. Currently, no formal access route to the proposed development site exists.

The site is utilised as communal grazing land for cattle, sheep and goats, although it has

been cultivated in the past as evidenced by the presence of terraces on the site. The site is

bounded to the southwest and northeast by seasonal drainage lines.



April 2014

Page 61 of 123

6.1.2 Alternate Site 1 – De Colgny Site

The De Colgny candidate site is located on Farm 10/5 and can be accessed via a gravel

road that links with the R61 Road. The site is currently used for cattle and sheep grazing,

and is bound to the southeast by a Mission and to the southwest by the KSD FET College. A

water reservoir is located on top of the hill and two man-made surface water bodies delimit

the southwestern boundary of the site. The Mthatha Dam and a tributary of the Mthatha

River are located approximately 2km and 500m northeast and east of the site, respectively.

6.1.3 Alternate Site 2 – Highbury Site

The Highbury candidate site is located on Farm 48 and can be accessed via a gravel road

which links up with the R61 Road. This is an intermittently used dolerite borrow pit that is

partly vegetated by pioneer grass communities and scattered bush and trees. The site is

bound by gravel roads in the south and east and by the meandering Mthatha River

approximately 700m to the west. The topography of this site is very undulating,

characterised by numerous small-scale hills (often steep-sided and rocky) and valleys – the

result of poor borrow pit operation and management. Dolerite outcrops at the surface in

places, and large dolerite boulders are scattered across the site. Illegal dumping is taking

place immediately south of this site.

6.1.4 Alternate Site 3 – Orange Grove Site

The Orange Grove candidate site is located on Farm RE/38 and can be accessed via a

gravel road that links up with the Tutor Ndamase Road. The site is currently used for

grazing. The Mthatha River bounds the site in the east, approximately 550m away.

The location of the three alternate development sites is indicated in Figure 10 below.



April 2014

Page 62 of 123

Figure 10: Map indicating the location of the three alternate development sites



April 2014

Page 63 of 123

6.2 ALTERNATE DEVELOPMENT TYPES

6.2.1 Preferred Alternative – Establishment of a GMB+ Landfill Site

A site for the disposal of general waste generated in the KSD Municipality is required. The

facility designers have proposed the establishment of a GMB+ facility as the preferred

option. This is broken down as follows:

(i) G = General Waste

General waste includes:

Domestic waste;

Uncontaminated building and demolition waste;

Business waste not containing hazardous waste;

Inert waste;

Waste tyres;

Garden waste;

Post-consumer packaging;

Non-infectious animal carcasses; and

Uncontaminated, excavated earth.

Hazardous wastes are not permitted at general landfill sites, these include:

Health Care Risk Wastes (HCRW);

Asbestos waste;

General waste, excluding domestic waste which contains hazardous waste or

hazardous chemicals;

Mixed hazardous chemical waste from analytical laboratories and laboratories from

academic institutions in containers less than 100 litres.

Unless further investigation demonstrates that significant quantities of hazardous waste will

be generated in Mthatha and disposed of illegally, there is no need to make specific

provision for hazardous waste disposal at the proposed site. Only general wastes will

therefore be accepted at the site.

(ii) M = Medium Size

General waste landfills are subdivided into 4 classes based on the magnitude of the waste

stream and the size of the operation. These classes are Communal (C), Small (S), Medium

(M) and Large (L). As the proposed landfill is required for the disposal of approximately



April 2014

Page 64 of 123

50 000 tonnes of general waste per year (or 136 tonnes per day), it is classified as a Medium

(M) facility.

(iii) B+ = Significant Leachate Generation

The above-mentioned classes of landfill are further subdivided on the basis of the site’s

potential for leachate generation. Significant leachate generation depends on the water

balance of the site, which is dictated primarily by ambient climatic conditions. Other factors

such as the moisture content of the incoming wastes and ingress of either ground- or surface

water can also result in the generation of significant leachate.

A B- Landfill is a landfill that generates only sporadic leachate and does not require a

leachate management system. A B+ landfill is a landfill that generates significant leachate.

All B+ sites, with the exception of communal sites, require leachate management systems

comprising liners and leachate collection systems.

It has been determined by the project designers that the proposed site will have significant

leachate potential. A management system is therefore required. Environmental barriers or

liner systems will be introduced at the base of the landfill. All potential leachate will be

trapped by this barrier and drained towards a holding pond where it will undergo on-site

treatment.

(iv) Summary

In terms of the above criteria, the proposed landfill site is a GMB+ site:

G General Waste

M Medium size >150 but <500 tonnes per day.

B+ Significant leachate generation

No alternate development types have been considered as a direct need for a new, properly

designed and environmentally compliant landfill site to service the Mthatha area has been

identified. The required landfill site will need to be classified as a GMB+ site in order to meet

the needs of the Municipality and based on site specific water balance conditions. The

preferred alternative therefore represents the only way to meet this need.

6.3 ALTERNATE LAYOUTS

As the site is located on a hillock with steep sides, the core landfill area needs to be located

in the centre of the site, governed by the contours that will allow gravitational flow of leachate



April 2014

Page 65 of 123

and potentially contaminated water to the holding ponds. Larger areas of the site could be

used but would require the construction of further pond and drainage systems.

The options presented below essentially differ in that the leachate ponds could be located on

either side of the hillock. This in turn would result in the relocation of the recycling and

composting areas.

The challenge remains to design a functional landfill site whilst mitigating a number of

impacts, i.e. visual exposure, climatic exposure (specifically high winds) and to overcome

drainage challenges and steep access roads.

6.3.1 Layout 1 – Preferred Layout

In the preferred layout option, the landfill area is located on the eastern and central portions

of the property, where the flatter, higher areas are located. The leachate treatment area is

located on the western portions of the property. The steepest slopes on the property

therefore lie between the landfill area and the leachate treatment area, facilitating the

movement of leachate and contaminated runoff under gravity. The Administration area,

which includes the weighbridge, public transfer area, and the composting area are located in

the southern portions of the property, near the site entrance, reducing the need to transport

compost around the site and therefore minimising costs.

6.3.2 Layout 2 – Alternate Layout 1

In this layout option, a large portion of the western side of the site will be used as a landfill.

On the southern side, a sizable area, although steep, is available for the placing of the

administration area. Due to the topography of the site, the full landfill area cannot be used

without the introduction of electrically driven leachate pumps and duplicated contaminated

water evaporation ponds. If this is to be avoided and to allow for the use of gravity for the

movement of leachates and contaminated water (which would be a much cheaper option

and will require less management and maintenance), the toe of the landfill would need to be

located well within the boundaries of the site, and upslope, minimising the area which could

be used for landfilling activities. The water flow pipes and channels would then be located in

the areas below the landfill. The leachate management facilities would be located on the

eastern side of the property.



April 2014

Page 66 of 123

6.3.3 Layout 3 – Alternate Layout 2

Layout 3 is a variation on Layout 2, except that the administration area, public offloading

area and composting area is located well into the site on the eastern side and somewhat

down the slope to the northeast. This has the negative implication that composted and

recycled material will have to be brought back up the incline for reselling, adding to transport

costs. For this reason, Layout option 3 is not being pursued as the preferred option.

Drawings of the three layouts under consideration are contained in Appendix C.

6.4 ALTERNATE LEACHATE TREATMENT METHODS

6.4.1 Preferred Alternative – Leachate Ponds

Establishment of a series of oxidation ponds and constructed wetland systems/reed beds for

the biological co-treatment of sewage (generated at the onsite ablution facilities) and

leachate is considered to be the preferred alternative. Leachate and sewage would have a

retention time of 50 – 100 days in the ponds, during which time it would undergo an

oxidation breakdown process. Following this, the treated wastewater would be channelled

into a constructed wetland area to undergo final polishing before being released to the

drainage lines which run along the property boundary. This is being pursued as the preferred

alternative as it is the most cost effective, low-maintenance and effective method of

treatment.

6.4.2 Municipal WWTW

Leachate generated at the landfill would collect in a pond and pumped via a main sewer line

in the vicinity (if present and feasible) for treatment at the Municipal Wastewater Treatment

Works (WWTW). This is not being pursued as the preferred alternative as it is unlikely that a

bulk sewer line exists in the area. If a line were to be established, it is unlikely that the

Mthatha WWTW would have the capacity to treat the leachate to an adequate standard for

safe release to the environment.

6.4.3 Onsite WWTW

Establishment of an onsite activated sludge treatment plant and aerators to treat the

leachate prior to releasing it to the ponds and constructed wetlands. This would be a very

expensive and high-tech option, requiring maintenance and prone to breakdown and place a

management burden on the landfill site operators.



April 2014

Page 67 of 123

6.4.4 Evaporation

Leachate could be captured in a pond and then recirculated back on to the landfill where it is

left to evaporate. This would require the use of pumps and is not the most practical option

available as too much runoff would be generated as a result of the liner system on the base

of the landfill. In addition, at the beginning of operations, when waste levels are low, the

landfill would have limited absorption capacity, especially if it coincides with the rainy

season.

6.5 NO GO ALTERNATIVE

The no-go option would be to not implement the proposed landfill site development on the

preferred site and to retain the current status quo. This would mean that the existing, un-

licenced and incorrectly designed landfill site currently utilised for the Mthatha area, would

continue to be used. It must be noted that this landfill site is approaching capacity, requiring

the identification of a new and suitable landfill site.



April 2014

Page 68 of 123

7 NEED AND DESIRABILITY

The National Framework for Sustainable Development (NFSD) states that the “achievement

of sustainable development is not a once-off occurrence and its objectives cannot be

achieved by a single action or decision. It is an on-going process that requires a particular

set of values and attitudes in which economic, social and environmental assets that society

has at its disposal, are managed in a manner that sustains human well-being without

compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own need”.

In order to give appropriate consideration to these objectives, the NEMA EIA Regulations

(2010) require that the Need and Desirability of a proposed project be outlined as part of the

Scoping Report. The following section has been compiled according to the Need and

Desirability Guideline Document contained in GN 792 of 5 October 2012.

The Guideline Document promotes the concept that need and desirability be strategically

and democratically determined. The strategic context for informing need and desirability is

best addressed and determined therefore during the formulation of the sustainable

development vision, goals, and objectives of Integrated Development Plans (IDPs) and

Spatial Development Framework (SDFs) during which collaborative and participative

processes play an integral part, and are given effect to, in the democratic processes at local

government level. The need and desirability of a development must therefore be measured

against the vision, goals and objectives formulated in the areas IDP and SDF.

7.1 NEED

The above-mentioned Guideline Document states that though the need for development is

not disputable, the Applicant has to convince the Competent Authority that the proposed

development is a necessity.

In providing for the Need for a project, the Applicant has to explain how a development

would benefit the local/regional/national community. By emphasising how communities

would benefit from the development, the need for a project is emphasized.

The following questions are outlined in the Guideline Document as a guide that in answering

them addresses the requirements of considering the Need and Desirability of a proposed

project.



April 2014

Page 69 of 123

7.1.1 Question 1

Question: Is the land use (associated with the activity being applied for) considered within

the timeframe intended by the existing approved SDF agreed to by the relevant

environmental authority? (i.e. is the proposed development in line with the projects and

programmes identified as priorities within the IDP).

Response: Yes, the EAP is of the opinion that the proposed development is in line with the

priorities identified in the current IDP.

The IDP for the KSD Local Municipality has, as its ultimate objective, improved service

delivery and betterment of the community. As such, the principal aim of the IDP and the KSD

Municipality is to present a coherent plan for service delivery and a plan to improve the

quality of life for its communities.

The IDP states that the Municipality is currently engaging in rehabilitation activities at two of

their existing landfill sites, in Mthatha and Mqanduli, in order to meet permit requirements.

The IDP, however, notes that the Mthatha Landfill Site is reaching capacity and that there is

a need to establish a new, permitted landfill site. The establishment of a new landfill site has

been identified as a Planned Environmental Project within the IDP and is reported on in the

IDP. The Municipality aims to design and establish a landfill site that is environmentally

friendly, compliant with all statutory requirements and that provides economic opportunities

to benefit SMME’s.

The proposed development of a permitted landfill site which is appropriately located is

therefore supportive of and in line with the objectives of the KSD IDP.

7.1.2 Question 2

Question: 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?

Response: Yes. A direct need has been identified by the KSD Municipality to establish a

new, permitted landfill which has been correctly designed, to provide for the disposal of

general wastes generated within the town of Mthatha and its surrounds. This need arises

due to the fact that the existing site is almost at capacity and that the existing landfill site is

an environmental and public-health risk (due to improper design and a lack of appropriate



April 2014

Page 70 of 123

permitting). There is an urgent need, therefore to establish a new landfill site to service the

Mthatha area in the long term (next 20 years).

7.1.3 Question 3

Question: 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).

Response: The proposed development is a societal priority. The IDP identifies the direct

need for a new landfill site for the Mthatha Area. This proposed development will directly and

completely satisfy this need in the long term.

In addition to meeting the need for a waste disposal site in the KSD Municipal area, the

proposed development will go some way to meeting other societal requirements including:

(i) Short term job creation – The project will promote the creation of short term

employment through the construction phase, which will include earthworks, service

installation and construction of buildings. The number of potential employment

opportunities that will be created by the construction phase is not known at this point

however it is anticipated that both skilled and unskilled jobs will be created.

Permanent job creation during the operational phase is estimated to total 200

permanent jobs and 100 contract jobs. It is recommended that labour and employees

for both the construction and operational phases of the proposed development be

sourced from the local community as far as possible.

(ii) Long term job creation – the operational facility will create a number of permanent

employment opportunities. These include site guards, admin staff, plant operators,

waste pickers and operators at the recycling facility. The number of jobs that will be

created, and the income that will be generated by the operational landfill site, is not

currently known.

(iii) Creation of economic and investment opportunities - it is proposed to establish a

recycling facility as part of the proposed landfill site. The running and management of

this facility will be awarded to a local SMME, thus providing an economic opportunity

to small business owners. Opportunities exist for investment in this operation and the



April 2014

Page 71 of 123

creation of other, related activities, such as education and conservation drives,

collection services, separation services, and potential capturing of landfill gas for

energy production etc.

(iv) Improved public health – at the existing site, litter is overflowing, representing a

public health risk to surrounding residents. The creation of a new and properly

managed landfill site will ensure the improved control of wastes and the minimisation

of health risks to the public. This will enable the KSD Municipality to ensure the local

community’s constitutional right to an environment that is not harmful to health.

(v) Improved environmental health – at the existing site, litter has become windblown

and leachate is poorly managed. The existing site therefore presents a number of

significant risks to the local surface and groundwater reserves. The establishment of

a new and properly managed landfill site will ensure the improved control of leachate

and litter as well as the minimisation of contamination, making local water reserves

safe for human and animal consumption.

7.1.4 Question 4

Question: Are the necessary services with appropriate capacity currently available (at the

time of application), or must additional capacity be created to cater for the development?

Response: The site has been utilised for agricultural activities in the past. Service

infrastructure on the property and in the surrounding area is therefore limited. Despite this,

the service infrastructure proposed for establishment on the site will, for the most part, not

require capacity provision by the Municipality, as explained below.

(i) Electricity – it is proposed that electricity for the site be supplied by an onsite

generator. This generator would be owned and operated by the landfill operator.

(ii) Water - potable water will either be sourced from a new borehole, which will be

drilled on the site; or it will be delivered to the site by the KSD Municipality by a

tanker, and stored in a storage tank.

(iii) Waste Disposal – waste generated by the administration areas and the workers on

the site will comprise general office and domestic waste. This waste will be

separated on site. Recyclable wastes will be fed into the onsite recycling facility, the

remaining non-recyclable waste will be landfilled.



April 2014

Page 72 of 123

(iv) Sewage Disposal – sewage generated by the onsite ablution facilities will be

directed into septic tanks, with liquid being diverted into the leachate management

system or the constructed wetland.

(v) Access – access to the site will be off the N2 Freeway. In order to supply this access

between the Freeway and the proposed landfill, a new road will need to be

constructed. The road will need to be constructed of a durable material in order to

allow for disposal during all weather conditions.

Therefore, as the site will, for the most part not connect into municipal services, it will not

create capacity issues for the municipality.

7.1.5 Question 5

Question: 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)?

Response: The proposed development forms an integral part of the municipality’s service

infrastructure plan as it is key to future waste management service provision within the

municipality.

The KSD Municipality’s IDP does not include a detailed infrastructure plan in which priority

areas for the establishment of infrastructure are identified. It must be noted, however, that

the proposed development will be largely “off the grid” and not reliant on municipal services.

Rather, electricity will be supplied from an onsite generator and water will be sourced from a

borehole.

7.1.6 Question 6

Question: Is this project part of a national programme to address an issue of national

concern or importance?

Response: No.



April 2014

Page 73 of 123

7.2 DESIRABILITY

Desirability relates to the placement of an activity. The motivation must indicate why the

location of a development in this particular area would be more desirable than establishing in

another area.

7.2.1 Question 7

Question: Is the development the best practicable environmental option (BPEO) for this

land/site?

Response: The “best practicable environmental option” implies that the proposal provides

the most benefit and causes the least damage to the environment as a whole, at a cost

acceptable to society, in the long term as well as the short term. In determining the BPEO

adequate consideration must be given to opportunity costs.

The need for environmentally acceptable yet cost-effective waste disposal has become a

priority in South Africa. This is because increasing population and urbanization have resulted

in growing waste generation, placing pressure on the environment. There is also an

increasing awareness of environmental issues and a desire for a clean environment on the

part of the public. To ensure a cleaner environment, the Department of Water Affairs (DWA)

and the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA), with whom responsibility for waste

disposal was vested, initiated a programme to meet both current and future waste disposal

needs. The aim of the programme is to protect the environment and the public from the

impacts of bad waste disposal practices. The first step was to implement a control system,

involving permits for disposal sites. To be eligible for a permit, a disposal site is required to

meet and maintain certain standards as set by the DWA and DEA. The design and location

of the proposed landfill site will be subject to the approval of the DWA and DEA. The project

engineers have therefore complied with the relevant minimum requirements, norms and

standards and waste-related regulations in the design of the facility. This will ensure the

mitigation and minimisation of any potential negative impacts associated with the

development. These include (but are not limited to):

Control of leachate and runoff to prevent contamination of surface and groundwater

resources;

Daily covering of waste to minimise wind-blown debris, odours and pests; and

Surface and ground water monitoring;



April 2014

Page 74 of 123

Implementation of the above mitigation measures will minimise potential environmental

impacts to a level where they are acceptable to society in the long term. The proposed

development of a correctly designed and located landfill site therefore represents the BPEO.

7.2.2 Question 8:

Question: Would the approval of this application compromise the integrity of the existing

approved municipal IDP and SDF as agreed to by the relevant authorities?

Response: No, the proposed development is in line with and would assist in the

achievement of the mandates set out in both the IDP and SDF.

7.2.3 Question 9:

Question: Would the approval of this application compromise the integrity of the existing

environmental management priorities for the area (e.g. as defined in EMFs), and if so, can it

be justified in terms of sustainability considerations?

Response: the proposed development will not adversely affect any conservation priority

areas identified in any of the municipal planning documents currently available.

7.2.4 Question 10

Question: Does 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).

Response: The development of the proposed landfill site is dependent on a number of

locational factors, which include:

Proximity to a main transport route;

Accessibility; and

Large areas of flat land.

The proposed development sites considered in this application satisfy all of these locational

requirements.

Environmental factors such as subsurface geology and groundwater need to be assessed in

determining the suitability of a site. This will be done following completion of the necessary

specialist studies and will be reported on in the EIA Report.



April 2014

Page 75 of 123

7.2.5 Question 11

Question: 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)?

Response: A number of watercourses occur in close proximity to the identified alternate

development sites. These may have riparian areas associated with them. As part of the EIA

Phase it will be necessary to delineate these systems and determine potential impacts on

them as a result of the proposed development. This work will be undertaken by a suitable

qualified and experienced specialist. Recommendations for the mitigation and minimisation

of these impacts will be put forward, together with an opinion on the suitability of the site for

the proposed development.

No obvious areas of cultural significance have been identified on any of the identified sites.

Input in this regard will be sought from SAHRA as well as the Eastern Cape Heritage

Association and should it be deemed necessary, a Heritage Impact Assessment will be

conducted. Recommendations for the mitigation and minimisation of these impacts will be

put forward, together with an opinion on the suitability of the site for the proposed

development.

7.2.6 Question 12

Question: How will the development impact on people’s health and wellbeing (e.g. i.t.o.

noise, odours, visual character and sense of place, etc.)?

Response:

(i) Noise - Currently, there are limited noise sources on the various development sites

under consideration. Current surrounding ambient noise sources include roads and

noises associated with neighbouring rural residential areas and agricultural activities

(cattle, sheep and goat grazing). The proposed development will alter this noise

profile during the construction phase as a result of plant and construction workers

operating on the site. During the operational phase, noise will be generated by waste

delivery vehicles accessing the site, plant utilised in the daily covering of waste and

the presence of the operational work force.

It may be necessary to conduct a Noise Impact Assessment in order to fully

determine the impact of noise on the surrounding population’s health and well-being.

This will be informed by comment received on the Scoping Report. Should a Noise



April 2014

Page 76 of 123

Impact Assessment be conducted, it will be included and reported on in the EIA

Report. Recommendations for the minimisation of noise impacts will be included in

the EIA Report and associated Environmental Management Programme (EMPr).

(ii) Odour - Ambient air quality at the development sites under consideration are

impacted upon at present by the proximity of local roads and the agricultural use of

the property (grazing of livestock). It is anticipated that ambient air quality will be

significantly and negatively impacted by the proposed landfill development as a result

of odour generation and increased dust. This will have a direct and negative effect on

the local community’s health and well-being. Should the need arise through the

public participation process, an Air Quality Assessment will be conducted and

reported on in the EIA Report. Recommendations for the minimisation of air quality

impacts will be included in the EIA Report and associated EMPr.

(iii) Visual Character - The current visual environment of the various alternate sites

comprises an open landscape with rural residential development interspersed with

open spaces, typically grassland, which are utilised for communal grazing of

livestock. This visual landscape will be dramatically altered by the proposed

development. Should the need arise, through the public participation process, a

Visual Impact Assessment will be conducted. This will be included and reported on in

the EIA Report. Recommendations for the minimisation of visual impacts will be

included in the EIA Report and associated EMPr.

(iv) Sense of Place - The areas in which the landfill site development is proposed have

historically been utilised for agricultural purposes and have an associated rural and

agricultural “look and feel”. The establishment of a new landfill site on any of the

properties under consideration would contribute greatly to a change in the sense of

place of the area. The community will be afforded an opportunity to comment on this

impact in order to determine its significance.

7.2.7 Question 13

Question: Will the proposed activity or the land use associated with the activity applied for,

result in unacceptable opportunity costs?

Response: The opportunity cost is the cost of losing other alternatives when one alternative

is chosen. Assuming the best choice is made, it is the "cost" incurred by not enjoying the



April 2014

Page 77 of 123

benefit that would be had by taking the second best choice available. In this case, as only

one type of development type is being considered, that of a GMB+ Landfill Site, the

opportunity costs for the alternate development sites, layouts, leachate treatment methods

and the no-go option will be considered.

(i) Alternate Development Sites

In terms of developing one site rather than another, all four of the sites are located on the

outskirts of Mthatha on land utilised for communal agriculture and under the management of

traditional authorities. The development of one site rather than another is therefore not likely

to have significant opportunity costs and site selection can be lead, in an unbiased fashion

by environmental factors such as suitable geology and geohydrology.

(ii) Alternate Layouts

Each of the layouts under consideration will make use of the best design principles in terms

of meeting the requirements of the current legislated norms and standards, requirements

and environmental regulations. Selection of a preferred layout therefore will not have

unreasonable opportunity costs and can be made based on the best practical and most

economically efficient layout.

(iii) Alternate Leachate Treatment Methods

In terms of selecting a preferred method for the treatment of leachate, each of methods

considered have been utilised successfully on other landfill sites. There are therefore no

significant opportunity costs associated with selecting one treatment method over another. It

is possible, therefore to select the most low-tech, cost effective and efficient method for the

treatment of leachate, as the preferred method, without losing anything by not selecting a

different method.

7.2.8 Question 14

Question: Will the proposed land use result in unacceptable cumulative impacts?

Response: The proposed project will have a number of cumulative impacts, including:

Increased traffic flows and heavy vehicle traffic on the access roads leading to the

development site;

Increased demand on water supply (whether supplied in tankers by the municipality

or abstracted from a local aquifer);

Alteration of the sense of place in the area;



April 2014

Page 78 of 123

Job creation and economic upliftment of the area and the greater municipal area.

Reduction in general waste disposal through the introduction of recycling initiatives

Increased economic and investment opportunities.

Traffic Impacts and the alteration of the sense of place will be assessed by specialists and

reported on in detail in the EIA Report.

The volumes of water required by the proposed facility are not known at present. This

information will become available as the authorisation process progresses. Comment on the

impact of water supply to the site and its cumulative impact will be made once these

volumes are known.

Once each of these impacts has been assessed, an opinion on the significance of these

cumulative impacts will be provided.

Job creation, increased investment and increased recycling are positive cumulative impacts

which the KSD Municipality should seek to enhance as far as possible.



April 2014

Page 79 of 123

8 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS

8.1 OBJECTIVES

The objectives of the public participation process are to identify and inform potential IAPs of

the proposed development, to provide them with the opportunity to register any issues or

concerns regarding the proposal and to identify mitigatory and management options to

address issues and concerns raised where appropriate.

8.2 APPROACH

In undertaking the public participation process, all known, relevant facts pertaining to the

proposed project were made available to registered and identified IAPs so that they could

participate in a meaningful manner. The approach included:

On-going technical liaison with relevant local municipal officials and the project

facilitators regarding the proposed development;

Identifying potential IAPs during discussions with the project facilitators;

Giving written notice to organs of the state having jurisdiction over the proposal;

Giving written notice to NGO’s, CBO’s, etc. who might have an interest in the

proposal;

A newspaper advertisement was placed in The Witness in English on 8 May 2012

(Refer to Appendix E);

Posters were placed at the entrance to the site and along the property boundary on

11 May 2012; and

Preparing a Background Information Document (BID) for circulation to IAPs (Refer to

Appendix E); and

Keeping IAPs informed, keeping a register of all IAPs and allowing them the

opportunity to make comment on the proposed activity (see table below of registered

IAPs).

A number of IAPs were identified or identified themselves and made an input. A list of the

registered IAPs on the project is contained in Appendix D.

8.3 KEY ISSUES FROM IAPS

Following the publication of the advert and the placing of site posters, requests were

received to register certain individuals and groups as IAPs. This was done and a copy of the

BID was sent to these IAPs. Copies of the BID were also sent to key stakeholders and



April 2014

Page 80 of 123

interest groups identified by the EAP. No comments were received on the BID. Copies of the

correspondence sent to registered IAPs is attached in Appendix E.

8.4 COMMENT ON DRAFT SCOPING REPORT

The Draft Scoping Report was made available to all registered IAPs for comment for a

period of 60 days, between 19 November 2013 and 10 February 2014. Hard copies of the

report were sent to key stakeholders and government departments. The report was also

made available digitally on the Jeffares and Green website. Hard and digital copies of the

report were sent to IAPs on request.

Comments received during this period have been summarised and responded to in the table

below. Hard copies of the comments received are attached in Appendix F.



April 2014

Page 81 of 123

Table 6: Comments received and responses from the project team based on the circulation of the Draft Scoping Report

IAP COMMENT RESPONSE

Rynette Coetzee Endangered Wildlife Trust 21 November 2013

Thank you for contacting us regarding the landfill site. However, we are currently inundated with requests to assist with scoping reports and EIAs and are battling to get to everything.

Please do feel free to contact us again in future, and you may address your emails to Marie Parramon-Gurney ([email protected]) and to Harriet Davies-Mostert (harrietdewt.org.za).

Noted.

Noted.

J. Gouws SANRAL 17 January 2014

The South African National Roads Agency SOC Limited (SANRAL) has the following comments to offer:

The national road is not affected by development of the landfill area itself, however the intersection with the landfill development and the N2 need to be upgraded to accommodate the increased traffic volumes safely.

A Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) has to be submitted to this office for consideration. The study should include traffic counts during both peak and off-peak hours and the assessment will also need to consider all traffic associated with this landfill development.

Detail of the designs of the upgrading of the intersection between the landfill development and the N2 must also be submitted and all road improvements will have to be according to our standards and at the cost of the King Sabata Dalindyebo Municipality.

Noted.

A Specialist Traffic Impact Assessment will be undertaken. The results of the assessment will be included in the EIA Report.

These designs will be made available in the EIA Report, a copy of which will be forwarded to SANRAL for comment.

Qondile Paliso Eastern Cape Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism

The above subject bears reference. This Office hereby wishes to acknowledge receipt of the Draft Scoping Report on the 13 January 2014.

Upon scrutiny of the report it has been notices that the provisions as per the EIA Regulations of 2010, with particular reference to Chapter 3, Part 3, Section 28 are not considered in the report. You are therefore advised to amend the report, and submit it as a final document

Noted.

The EAP has made amendments to the report, to include comments received on the Draft Document, as well as responses to these comments. These amendments constitute this Final version of the Scoping Report which will be submitted to the DEDEAT for acceptance. It is not clear from the correspondence received which sections of the Regulations have not been complied with. It is therefore

mailto:[email protected]



April 2014

Page 82 of 123

impossible to make any further amendments in this regard.

C. Russell Department of Water Affairs 14 February 2014

The Draft Scoping Report compiled by Jeffares and Green Consulting dated December 2013 was addressed and comment refers.

The proposed landfill site should not be:

Located below the 1:50 year flood line of a river;

In close proximity to water bodies such as wetlands, vleis, pans, estuaries, and floodplains;

Situated in unstable areas;

Situated in or near sensitive ecological areas;

Situated in areas characterised by flat gradient, shallow or emergent groundwater;

Situated in areas characterised by steep gradients, shallow

Noted.

A Floodline Assessment is proposed to be undertaken during the EIA Phase of the project. The layout of the proposed landfill site will be amended as necessary to ensure that no portions of the proposed site will be located within the 1:50 year floodline.

A Wetland Delineation Assessment is proposed to be undertaken during the EIA Phase. The Wetland Specialist will recommend an appropriate buffer on any wetland areas identified, and the layout of the proposed landfill site will be amended as necessary to ensure that no development occurs within water bodies of their prescribed buffers.

A Geotechnical Assessment will be conducted and included in the EIA Report. This assessment will identify any areas of instability which should be avoided in terms of the proposed development. The layout of the proposed site will be amended as necessary, based on the findings of this assessment.

As stated previously, the entire site has been disturbed, as a result of past agricultural practices. It is the opinion of the EAP, therefore that the only potentially sensitive ecological areas on the site are those associated with watercourses (e.g. wetlands and riparian areas). A Specialist will undertake an identification and delineation exercise of these sensitive ecological areas. Appropriate buffers will be recommended. If necessary, the layout of the proposed development will be amended to accommodate these sensitive areas and their buffers.

These will be investigated by the Geotechnical and Geo-Hydrological Specialists. Based on the recommendations of the specialists regarding these types of areas, the layout of the development will be amended.

These will be investigated by the Geotechnical Specialist.



April 2014

Page 83 of 123

bedrock with little soil cover, where stability of slopes could be a problem;

Situated on areas of groundwater recharge on account of topography and/or highly permeable soils;

Situated on areas overlying or adjacent to important or potentially important aquifers (Parson Aquifer Classification), where such aquifers are to be used for current or future water supply purposes.

The following documentation should also be forwarded for comments:

Geo-Hydrological Assessment;

Floodline Assessment;

Wetland Assessment.

It should be noted that Local Authorities are responsible for the implementation of legislation governing land development objectives and are therefore responsible for land use planning within areas of their jurisdiction and the appropriate zoning of land taking full cognizance of the environment.

If you have any queries regarding your activity please do not hesitate to contact this office.

Based on the recommendations of the specialist regarding these types of areas, the layout of the development will be amended.

These will be investigated by the Geo-Hydrological Specialist. Based on the recommendations of the specialist regarding these types of areas, the layout of the development will be amended.

These will be investigated by the Geo-Hydrological Specialist. Based on the recommendations of the specialist regarding these types of areas, the layout of the development will be amended.

This will be included in the EIA Report.



Noted.

Noted.



April 2014

Page 84 of 123

9 IMPACT ASSESSMENT

9.1 CRITERIA FOR ASSESSING THE IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT

This section investigates the possible biophysical and socio-economic impacts and benefits,

which may arise from the proposed development. This assessment is an initial screening of

impacts identified to date, the significance of a number of the impacts will only be fully

assessed once all of the specialist studies have been completed during the full EIA stage of

the process.

The identified possible impact of the proposed development was assessed according to a

number of criteria to arrive at an overall significance rating. Table 7 highlights these criteria.

Table 7: Criteria used for the significance rating

Impact Type

Positive– There is a positive impact associated with the development.

Negative – There is a negative impact associated with the development.

Spatial Scale

Site – Immediate area of impact

Local – Area within 10km of study area

Regional – Entire Local Municipality

National – National

International – International

Duration

Short Term – Less than the duration of the activity

Medium Term – Impact persists until activity ceases

Long Term – Impact persists after activity ceases but not permanent

Permanent – Impact is permanent

Probability

Low – Unlikely

Medium – Possible

High – Likely

Definite – Definitely

Significance

Based on the above criteria the significance of impacts is determined in terms of duration and spatial scale, and is rated as:

Low– The impact is less important, but may require some mitigation action.

Medium– The impact is important and requires attention; mitigation is required to reduce the negative impacts

High– The impact is of great importance. Mitigation is therefore crucial.



April 2014

Page 85 of 123

9.2 TOPOGRAPHY

9.2.1 Description

The site is dominated by a ridge of higher ground which sits at an altitude of approximately

850 meters above sea level (masl). This ridge runs from the south-east corner of the

property, towards the centre of the property, where its alignment changes to run towards the

north-east corner of the property. To either side of this ridge, to the south-west, the north-

west and the east, the property falls away steeply to drainage lines which run along the

eastern and western boundaries of the property. The altitude of these lowest points is

approximately 790masl.

9.2.2 Potential Impacts

Macro-topographic changes to the landscape will result from the development of the landfill

and will arise from:

The development of waste cells above ground level;

The deposition of waste to a level of 10m above ground level; and

The ongoing coverage and capping of waste cells.

Micro-topographic changes will also result from the installation of surface water diversion

structures and evaporation pond/leachate management system and associated drainage

requirements. These will be of a limited impact considering the more significant overall

change to the landscape resulting from the landfilling process.

9.2.3 Significance Rating

The table below provides a summary of the expected significance rating of the impacts on

the topography of the site as a result of the proposed development.

Table 8: Significance rating of impacts on Topography

CRITERION RATING EXPLANATION

Impact Type Negative

The alteration of the topography of the site will put the area at

increased risk of erosion, with the associated risk of

sedimentation of local watercourses.

Spatial Scale Site The alteration of topography will limited to the footprint of the

proposed development site.

Duration Permanent The impact is permanent

Probability Definite Alteration of the topography of the site is fundamental to the

proposed development. Use of the property as a landfill site



April 2014

Page 86 of 123

cannot occur is the topography is not altered.

Significance High

The alteration of the sites topography is significant and

requires the implementation of mitigation measures to control

and minimise associated impacts.

9.2.4 Recommended Way Forward

The development of the landfill will result in significant local (site) topographic changes,

which, to the most part cannot be mitigated against. There are a number of mitigation

measures that can be investigated for implementation to ensure that the impact is minimised

where possible:

Cap and shape all waste cells on completion of filling;

Capped and shaped areas must be slightly convex so as to encourage runoff and

minimise infiltration. Slopes should not to exceed a gradient of 1 in 3;

Even out mounds and hollows during the contouring and shaping process to avoid

the creation of low points in which the ponding of water can occur; and

Capped waste cells are to be rehabilitated with indigenous vegetation.

These will be investigated in more detail during the EIA Phase.

9.3 CLIMATE

9.3.1 Description

The climate and local weather of the area are strongly influenced by topography. Average

annual temperature varies between 1.8°C in July and 25.3°C in January.

The proposed development site falls within a summer rainfall area, characterised by dry

winters and wet summers, with thunderstorms being common in summer. Average rainfall in

the region is approximately 877mm per year. Rainfall is of specific significance when it

comes to the management of leachate which is generated when water peculates through the

waste body.

The KSD region experiences wind throughout the year, with a monthly average of 12 – 15

km/hour. Maximum wind speed has been measured at 76km/hour. Wind is of significance in

the operation of a landfill site, especially with regards to the management and control of litter

and dust.



April 2014

Page 87 of 123


Overall, the average climatic conditions experienced during most of the year are moderate

and are unlikely to have a significant impact on the project, however, the following potential

impacts have been identified:

Rainfall levels need to be considered in the planning and design of the leachate

management plan;

High intensity or long duration rainfall events may result in erosion, wash-aways and

creation of dongas, especially in those areas where vegetation has been cleared, or

where landfill construction is underway;

Windy conditions may result in erosion of exposed surfaces where vegetation has

been removed. This may cause a loss of soil material and localised deterioration of

local air quality;

Windy conditions may also result in waste which has not been properly covered, to

become windblown, resulting in litter and contamination of the surrounding

environment;

High winds may result in dust generation as a result of the storage and use of cover

material on the site; and

High temperatures may have an effect on the success of the rehabilitation

programme. High surface temperatures during the summer months when air

temperatures may reach 40ºC and may result in seed germination failure and an

unsuccessful rehabilitation programme.


The table below provides a summary of the expected significance rating of the impacts

associated with the climate of the area.

Table 9: Significance rating of impacts relating to local climate



Impacts include increased risk of contamination from

leachate, erosion, sedimentation, litter and dust generation.

These are negative in nature.

Spatial Scale Site and Local Impacts will be limited to the site and those areas immediately

surrounding the proposed development site.

Duration Permanent

The proposed landfill facility is intended as a permanent

development. As long as the facility is in operation, the

identified impacts will be in effect.



April 2014

Page 88 of 123

Probability High

It is very likely that the identified impacts will occur as the

climatic conditions which will cause these impacts tend to

occur on a regular basis.

Significance Medium

Should the identified impacts occur, they will be easy to

reverse should the recommended mitigation measures be

implemented.


To minimise the potential impacts, the following should be investigated:

Properly designed and effective leachate management system;

Extent of un-vegetated, exposed surfaces should be kept to the minimum necessary

to enable work to proceed;

Ensure rehabilitation of non-active cells is undertaken continuously and as soon as

possible;

Re-vegetate long-term stockpiles, surface water diversion structures and other

berms;

After a high intensity or long duration rainfall event, identify and repair erosion and

wash-away sites immediately;

Dust abatement measures (i.e. dampening of roads, management of cover material

stockpiles) should be employed during windy conditions;

Waste must be adequately covered each day to minimise windblown litter; and

Correct site management and planning will ensure that adequate scheduling of

operational and rehabilitation procedures is undertaken to manage adverse climatic

conditions at certain times of the year.

These will be investigated in more detail during the EIA Phase.

9.4 AIR QUALITY

9.4.1 Description

Ambient air quality at the preferred development site is impacted upon at present by the

proximity of the N2 Freeway and the agricultural use of the property (grazing of livestock).


It is anticipated that ambient air quality will be significantly and negatively impacted by the

proposed landfill development as a result of odour generation and increased dust.



April 2014

Page 89 of 123


The table below provides a summary of the expected significance rating of the air quality

impacts associated with the proposed development. The determination of the significance of

these impacts is very difficult as air quality impacts have not been quantified.

Table 10: Significance rating of impacts relating to air quality


Impact Type Negative Air quality will be decreased as a result of the proposed

development.

Spatial Scale Site and Local Impacts will be restricted to the site and those areas

immediately surrounding the development site.

Duration Permanent

The proposed development is intended as a permanent

installation. As long as the facility is operational, there will be

negative air quality impacts.

Probability Definite The operational landfill will produce odours which will

adversely affect local air quality. This cannot be avoided.

Significance High

The deterioration of air quality could impact upon the health

and well-being of surrounding residents and sensitive

receptors. It is vital therefore that mitigation measures be

employed to minimise and control air quality impacts.


It is likely that an Air Quality Impact Assessment will need to be conducted for the proposed

development. This will be confirmed following input from key stakeholders and IAPs.

The Air Quality Impact Assessment would involve the screening of potential human health

risks associated with the development of the site as well as dispersion modelling studies

aimed at demarcating appropriate buffer zones and zones of influence around the proposed

site. Baseline air quality sampling, comprehensive air dispersion modelling, health risk

screening and buffer zone projections would need to be conducted. These assessments

would allow for the determination of a health buffer zone, a dust management zone and an

odour management zone. In addition, an Air Quality Management Plan would be compiled

for the proposed development.

Mitigation measures which could be investigated for implementation on the site to minimise

air quality impacts include:



April 2014

Page 90 of 123

During the Design Phase, the production of landfill gas from the site should be

considered. A comprehensive Landfill Gas Management Plan should be established

including appropriate mitigation measures such as the installation of a Landfill gas

Collection System;

Ambient air sampling could be conducted during construction and following

commissioning of the site. If an Air Quality Assessment is conducted during the EIA

process, this could be considered as a description of the baseline conditions on the

site, against which future air quality can be compared;

If the health buffer zone is determined, it may be necessary to relocate any receptors

falling within this zone. Priority would need to be given to relocating sensitive

receptors such as schools, crèches, places of worship and clinics/hospitals; and

It is recommended that an on-site weather station be installed to collect

meteorological data. Parameters including wind speed and direction as well as

temperature are to be recorded at hourly intervals. This data would aid in the refining

of any identified buffer zones.

9.5 GEOLOGY

9.5.1 Description

The 1:250 000 geological maps indicate that the proposed development site is underlain by

the sediments of the Karoo Supergroup with the mudstones and lesser sandstones of the

Tarkastad and Adelaide subgroups (Beaufort Group) dominant, and some Ecca Group

shale.


If the geological conditions on the site are unsuitable, this would have implications for the

sub-surface movement of leachate and associated contamination of ground and surface

water reserves.


The table below provides a summary of the expected significance rating of the geological


these impacts is very difficult as geological impacts have not yet been quantified.

Table 11: Significance rating of impacts relating of Geology


Impact Type Negative Should the geology of the site be found to be unsuitable, this



April 2014

Page 91 of 123

will result in contamination of local water resources as a result

of leaching. In addition, if the site is developed in spite of the

unsuitable geology, this will have cost implications as special

designs will need to be implemented and constructed to

ensure the containment of leachate.

Spatial Scale Site and Local

Should the geology be unsuitable, contamination risk will be

highest on the site and in the areas immediately surrounding

the site.

Duration Permanent

The proposed landfill site is intended as a permanent fixture. If

the subsurface conditions of the site are unsuitable, then as

long as the facility is in operation, there will be a

contamination risk.

Probability Unknown The results of the Geotechnical Assessment will supply this

information.

Significance High

If the geology of the site is unsuitable and the risk of

contamination is high, this could be viewed as a fatal flaw in

the project.


In order to determine the suitability of the identified sites for development as a landfill site, it

is necessary to undertake a detailed Geotechnical Assessment. Details regarding the

impacts of the proposed development on the subsurface conditions of the site and proposed

mitigation measures will be provided following completion of the Geotechnical Assessment.

9.6 GROUNDWATER

9.6.1 Description

The underlying lithology of the site, which is to be confirmed through a Geotechnical

Assessment, will affect the groundwater regime operating below the site; as groundwater

storage and movement tends to occur within joints, fractures or bedding planes within rock

masses.

In addition to determining subsurface geological conditions therefore, it will be necessary to

determine the presence and proximity of groundwater reserves in order to fully report on the

risk of groundwater contamination as a result of the leaching from the proposed landfill

development. A detailed Geo-Hydrological Assessment will therefore be undertaken and

reported on in the EIA Phase. Information on groundwater recharge, aquifer through-flow



April 2014

Page 92 of 123

and aquifer potential will be provided in order to determine the strategic value of the

resource.


As an assessment of geo-hydrological conditions will only be completed during the EIA

Phase, it is difficult to predict with any certainty what impacts will occur in this regard. More

details will be provided in the EIA Report. it must be noted, however, that the proposed

landfill development has the potential to contaminate groundwater resources as a result of

leachate emanating from the decomposition of the waste material.


The table below provides a summary of the expected significance rating of the geo-

hydrological impacts associated with the proposed development. The determination of the

significance of these impacts is very difficult as geo-hydrological impacts have not yet been

quantified.

Table 12: Significance rating of impacts relating to Geo-Hydrology


Impact Type Negative Unsuitable geo-hydrological conditions on the site will result in

increased risk of groundwater contamination.

Spatial Scale Site and Local Contamination risk will be highest on the site and in the areas

immediately surrounding the site.

Duration Permanent The proposed landfill site is intended as a permanent fixture

making the risk to contamination permanent.

Probability Unknown The results of the Geo-Hydrological Assessment will supply

this information.

Significance High

If the risk of contamination is high, this could be viewed as a

fatal flaw in the project. Proper design and monitoring of the

system will be vitally important.


New generation landfill design principles as well as sound operational and management

practices are essential to mitigate this potential impact. Key mitigation measures which

should be investigated are highlighted below:

Liner system: A GMB+ liner in accordance with the Minimum requirements should be

installed below each cell and extra care should be exercised to ensure continuation

of the liner between adjacent cells;



April 2014

Page 93 of 123

Phased cell development: The site should be developed as a series of smaller cells,

each with its own stormwater diversion, subsoils drainage and monitoring systems.

Prior to development of new cells, the results of monitoring systems and site audits

should be reviewed by a geo-hydrologist to evaluate the performance of mitigatory

measures and management practices of the preceding cells. Where necessary,

additional geo-hydrological investigation should be carried out to ensure that the

groundwater monitoring network and preventative engineering measures are

adequate;

Leachate management: The implementation and proficient management of specific

engineering measures for the capturing and controlling leachate generated within the

landfill body is essential. All leachate collected from the leachate collection systems

will be piped and discharged into a lined leachate collection ponds with adequate

reserve storage capacity to cope with the combined flow of both the leachate

collection and detection layer in the event of failure of the liner; and

Monitoring: Groundwater monitoring points are to be established, and a regular

monitoring and reporting programme implemented. The sampling regime will be

specified in the permit conditions, which will be included in the EMPr. Samples will

need to be submitted to an accredited laboratory for measurement of a broad range

of both organic and inorganic contaminants.

9.7 SURFACE WATER

9.7.1 Description

To proposed landfill site is bounded to the west and east by two seasonal drainage lines,

which join to the north of the property. Flow within these systems is therefore from south to

north. Associated with the presence of these drainage lines, may be wetland and riparian

areas.

In addition to these, a third drainage line will be impacted upon by the proposed road which

will supply access to the landfill site off the N2 Freeway. It is necessary to construct a

crossing on this drainage line to provide access to the landfill site.


The landfill development has the potential to contaminate local surface resources as a result

of leachate emanating from the decomposition of the waste material, as well as

contaminated stormwater runoff.



April 2014

Page 94 of 123

Construction within the drainage line could result in contamination, increased erosion and

sedimentation of the downstream system.


The table below provides a summary of the expected significance rating of the hydrological

impacts associated with the proposed development.

Table 13: Significance rating of impacts relating to Surface Water



If improperly designed, managed and monitored, the landfill

site could result in contamination of surface water as a result

of leaching and contaminated runoff.

Construction of the watercourse crossing could result in

contamination, increased erosion and sedimentation

Spatial Scale Site and Local If contamination of surface water resources occurs, this will

have impacts downstream of the development site.

Duration

Permanent

The proposed landfill site is intended as a permanent fixture.

As long as the facility is in operation, there will be a

contamination risk.

Short term Erosion and sedimentation impacts would be limited to the

construction phase.

Probability High Leachate and contaminants will occur on the site. Control of

these undesirable elements is key.

Significance High

Careful planning and the implementation of management

systems will be required to control and minimise

contamination risks.


Measures for the minimisation of erosion and the control of contamination whilst working in

watercourses will need to be included in the EMPr for implementation during the construction

of the watercourse crossing.

In order to ensure the protection of surface water and riparian systems, it will be necessary

to identify any wetland areas, delineate their extent and apply and appropriate buffer zone of

no development. An investigation of riparian/wetland areas (should any occur on the site) will

be undertaken and will be reported on in the EIA Report. In addition, the 1:50 and 1:100 year



April 2014

Page 95 of 123

floodlines will need to be determined to inform the need for flood protection and minimisation

of contamination as a result of flood events.

The following mitigation measures are recommended for investigation. More detailed

measures will be included in the EIA Report following completion of the above-mentioned

specialist studies.

Lined surface water interceptor drains should be installed up-gradient of each cell to

prevent any surface run-off into the active landfill area and active landfill areas should

be limited to minimise rainfall recharge through these uncapped open zones;

Surface water monitoring points should be established and a regular monitoring and

reporting programme implemented. The sampling regime will be specified in the

permit conditions, which will be included in the EMPr;

Samples will need to be submitted to an accredited laboratory for measurement a

broad range of both organic and inorganic contaminants;

In order to quantify the impacts of the landfill on surface water quality, the water

monitoring programme developed for the site must allow for upstream and

downstream sampling locations. The programme will need to take cognisance of

natural water sources used by the local communities. The implementation of the

water monitoring programme will allow for the quantitative comparative assessments

of impacts associated with the facility on water quality. This is the standard practice

set by the regulatory authorities; and

Implementation of new generation landfill design principles and sound operational

and management practices will ensure that surface water resources are not

contaminated as a result of landfill operations.

9.8 FLORA AND FAUNA

9.8.1 Description

The preferred development site comprises and is bounded on all four sides by communal

agricultural land which is utilised for the grazing of cattle, sheep and goats. The preferred

development site falls in an area identified as supporting Mthatha Moist Grassland (Gs 14).

This vegetation type is classified as Vulnerable by the South African National Biodiversity

Institute (SANBI). The proposed development site has been disturbed by past cultivation

(evidenced by the presence of terraces on the property) and, more recently, extensive

grazing. It therefore is not a pristine representation of this vegetation type.



April 2014

Page 96 of 123

A query of the IUCN Red Data Species database indicates that three species of least

Concern may occur in the area. This list is, however only based on a desktop level

investigation and may not, therefore be complete.


The development of the proposed landfill site will result in the total loss of the Mthatha Moist

Grassland (and associated faunal habitat), which is considered to have significant

conservation value.


The table below provides a summary of the expected significance rating of the biodiversity


these impacts is very difficult as geo-hydrological impacts have not yet been quantified.

Table 14: Significance rating of impacts relating to Biodiversity


Impact Type Negative Flora and associated faunal habitats would be lost as a result

of the development of a landfill site.

Spatial Scale Site Vegetation and habitat loss would be limited to the

development footprint.

Duration Permanent

The landfill site is intended to be a permanent fixture. As long

as the landfill site is operational, natural biodiversity on the

site will be altered.

Probability Definite The development of a landfill site requires the removal of

vegetation. It cannot be avoided.

Significance High

There will be the complete loss of vegetation and habitats

which potentially have high conservation value. This will need

to be offset through re-vegetation of completed cells with

indigenous vegetation.


The loss of vegetation cannot be prevented however, the rehabilitation and re-vegetation of

completed landfill cells has the potential to contribute to this grassland biome in the long

term. The following measures will reduce the potential impact:

Rare plant species (if they occur) must be removed from site prior to construction and

replanted in nearby open areas or in an on-site nursery;



April 2014

Page 97 of 123

Completed cells must be landscaped and re-vegetated with local species as soon as

possible;

Development should be set back from drainage lines and scarp edges;

Further specialist studies to determine the exact status of fauna and flora on the site

is not deemed necessary at this stage, however, this will be confirmed based on

comment received from key stakeholders; and

A Re-vegetation and Alien Vegetation Management Plan should be prepared by a

suitably qualified individual as a condition of the environmental authorisation for use

in the rehabilitation of completed cells.

9.9 SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS

9.9.1 Description

The proposed landfill site is located within Ward 8, which is situated in the KSD Local

Municipality, which covers an area of approximately 301.77 square kilometres. The KSD

Municipality has an estimated population of 451 710 people, living in approximately 104 240

households

The economy of the KSD Municipality is varied, but most income is generated through a few

key contributors, including agriculture, forestry, fishing, tourism, construction and property

development. The town of Mthatha, located in the centre of the municipality, is a key service

and economic centre.


Employment and Economic Opportunities

The area of the proposed landfill site is surrounded by rural, agricultural communities which

currently experience high unemployment rates. It is not known at this time how many

personnel will be required for landfill construction and operation, however, the KSD

Municipality is committed to employing local people first for the jobs that do become

available.

Indirect economic opportunities may result from secondary landfill activities such as the

recycling plant, waste picking, waste separation and sorting, education and conservation

drives, etc. Substantial secondary employment opportunities would be dependent on the

broader local economic development in the area, which may be stimulated by the

development of a large regional waste disposal site.



April 2014

Page 98 of 123

Property Devaluation

Lack of proper site management and control systems could have a negative effect on

property values in the areas adjacent to the proposed landfill site.

Change in sense of place

Sense of place relates to the nature of an area and the way in which those living there

interact with their social and natural environment. Factors that could possibly affect an

individual’s sense of place includes aesthetics, visibility, noise and lighting nuisance, traffic

disturbance and the changing nature of the landscape as a result of the development of an

area. Sense of place relates broadly to the change in the overall nature of the area.

In the context of the proposed landfill site, sense of place particularly relates to the proximity

of residential settlements to the proposed site, resulting in a number of consequences for the

communities in the surrounding area.

There will be a change in the nature of the area which will be experienced by the adjacent

rural communities. Comment in this regard will need to be sought from the community.]

Impact on future development plans

The proposed landfill site falls outside of any future use planning zones compiled by the KSD

Municipality.


The table below provides a summary of the expected significance rating of the socio-

economic impacts associated with the proposed development. The determination of the

significance of these impacts is very difficult as no comments on this application have been

received from the local community.

Table 15: Significance rating of Socio-Economic Impacts


Impact Type Negative Loss of property values and altered sense of place.

Positive Creation of jobs and economic investment opportunities.

Spatial Scale Local Impacts will be limited to the area immediately surrounding

the development site.

Duration Permanent


as the landfill site is operational, the socio-economic impacts

described will be in effect.



April 2014

Page 99 of 123

Probability Definite The alteration of the land use and character will definitely

have socio-economic impacts. It cannot be avoided.

Significance High

The impacts will have a great effect. The negative impacts

identified require mitigation if they are to be borne by the

surrounding community. The positive impacts need to be

enhanced to ensure the community’s long term support of the

development.


In terms of mitigation measures, the following is recommended for further investigation:

Where possible, the landfill development must be linked to future local economic

development plans;

Appropriate site management and the implementation of buffer areas with compatible

land use should reduce the negative impact on the value of adjacent properties, and

will ensure that the local community and general area is not negatively affected by

the landfill operations;

A monitoring committee for the landfill must be established and maintained. This

committee requires representation from all relevant parties including community

members. The establishment of this committee will play an important role in allowing

communities to channel their interested and concerns, hence promoting the

principles of social and environmental justice;

Discussions with the local community with regard to possible end uses of the site

need to be undertaken at the time of imminent site closure; and

Proper site management and vegetation screening are mitigation measures that will

ensure that the impact on the receiving environment is reduced as far as possible.

9.10 TRAFFIC ASPECTS

9.10.1 Description

Access to the landfill site will be via a new gravel access road, which will join the N2

Freeway.


There will be an increase in the number of slow moving waste transport vehicles on

the N2 Freeway, moving between the site and Mthatha; and

Potential safety issues associated with heavy vehicles leaving and joining the N2

Freeway at the proposed new intersection.



April 2014

Page 100 of 123


The table below provides a summary of the expected significance rating of the traffic impacts

associated with the proposed development. The determination of the significance of these

impacts is very difficult as no comments on this application have been received from the

local community.

Table 16: Significance rating of impacts relating to Traffic Impacts



Increased traffic volumes, increased numbers of heavy, slow

moving traffic, trucks turning off and on to the N2 Freeway,

with associated safety risks.

Spatial Scale Local Impacts will occur on the road network surrounding the

proposed landfill site.

Duration Permanent


as the landfill site is operational, the traffic impacts described

will be in effect.

Probability Definite The operational landfill will require delivery vehicles. This will

result in traffic impacts.

Significance High Mitigation measures will need to be implemented to ensure

the safety of road users in vicinity of the landfill site.


The following is recommended for further investigation during the EIA Phase:

The access point off the N2 Freeway will require careful design to ensure the safety

of vehicles entering and leaving the facility. Approval of the proposed design will

need to be obtained from the South African National Roads Agency Limited

(SANRAL); and

Comment will be sought from SANRAL regarding the capacity of the road network to

deal with this increase as well as input regarding improved safety for road users

(including signage, rumble strips, etc.).

9.11 NOISE

9.11.1 Description

Currently, there are no noise sources on the site. Ambient noise sources include the N2

Freeway, and noises associated with neighbouring rural residential areas and agricultural

activities (cattle, sheep and goat grazing).



April 2014

Page 101 of 123


The proposed development will alter this noise profile during the construction phase as a

result of increased plant and construction workers on the site. During the operational phase,

noise will be generated by waste delivery vehicles accessing the site, plant utilised in the

daily covering of waste and the presence of the operational work force.


The table below provides a summary of the expected significance rating of the noise impacts

associated with the proposed development.

Table 17: Significance rating of impacts relating to Noise Impacts


Impact Type Negative The noise profile of the area will be altered and more

disturbance will be created

Spatial Scale Site and Local The impact will be limited to the development site and those

areas located directly adjacent to the site.

Duration Permanent


as the landfill site is operational, noise impacts will be

generated.

Probability Definite Noise impacts are inescapable as heavy plant will be required

to work on the site

Significance Medium

It is not anticipated that noise levels generated by the site will

exceed regulated noise levels, and will therefore not have

impacts on well-being. However, it will have a nuisance factor

and must therefore be mitigated against.


The following mitigation measures are proposed for further investigation to ensure that noise

emanating from the site activities is reduced where possible:

Where applicable, acoustic treatment of equipment and machinery should be

implemented which may include silencers on air exhausts of jackhammers and drills,

maintenance of compressor and compactor motor exhausts and/or air hoses and

placing of generators sound-proof containers when in use;

Should noise complaints be received, a noise study may be required. Such an

investigation which should consider the applicability of noise attenuation that could

be offered by the use of physical barriers, i.e. acoustic screens, to separate the noise

source(s) from the noise-sensitive receptors. Such barriers could be in the form of



April 2014

Page 102 of 123

wooden fences, brick / concrete walls or man-made earth bunds as long as they are

of a mass of at least 10 kg/m2 and are constructed with no holes or gaps.

9.12 VISUAL IMPACTS AND AESTHETICS

9.12.1 Description

The current visual environment comprises an open landscape with rural residential

development interspersed with open spaces, typically grassland, which is utilised for

communal grazing of livestock.


The visual landscape will be dramatically altered by the proposed development. this will

have an impact on the sense of place.


The table below provides a summary of the expected significance rating of the visual


Table 18: Significance rating of impacts relating to Visual Impacts


Impact Type Negative The sense of place will be lost and a rural agricultural view will

be replaced with an industrial view.

Spatial Scale Local Only the areas immediately adjacent to the development site

will be affected.

Duration Permanent


as the landfill site is operational, noise impacts will be

generated.

Probability Definite

If the proposed landfill site should be constructed, there would

be no way to avoid the alteration of the visual character of the

site.

Significance Medium

The development will be visually intruding, but will not affect

quality of life or environmental health. Visual impacts can be

managed through the appropriate implementation of mitigation

measures.


Should the need arise, through the public participation process, a Visual Impact

Assessment will be conducted. This will be included and reported on in the EIA



April 2014

Page 103 of 123

Report. Recommendations for the minimisation of visual impacts will be included in

the EIA Report and associated EMPr.

Green walls could be constructed to minimise visual impacts. Green walls

themselves can, however obstruct views and look out of scale and place because of

their shape and size. Green wall landscaping should try to replicate natural features

and not appear alien in the landscape. This can be aided by the use of indigenous

vegetation that mirrors the seasonal colour variations of the surrounding environs.

9.13 CULTURAL AND HERITAGE IMPACTS

9.13.1 Description

No above-ground structures of heritage importance are located on the site. It is not known if

any sub-surface artefacts or graves are present on the site.


Subsurface heritage artefacts and graves may be present on the site and uncovered by

earthmoving activities during the construction phase. These could potentially be destroyed or

damaged.


The table below provides a summary of the expected significance rating of the heritage


Table 19: Significance rating of impacts relating to Heritage Impacts


Impact Type Negative There is the potential that heritage resources could be

damaged or entirely destroyed as a result of the development.

Spatial Scale Site Risk to heritage resources will be confined to the development

footprint.

Duration Permanent Heritage resources would be permanently damaged or

destroyed.

Probability Unknown

This is dependent on whether or not there are subsurface

heritage resources on the property. This will be confirmed by

input from appropriate specialists.

Significance High The loss of heritage resources is serious and needs to be

avoided as far as possible.



April 2014

Page 104 of 123


According to the National Heritage Resources Act No 25 of 1999, provisions are made to

protect national heritage and this forms an integral part of the environmental assessment

process. In order to give effect to this requirement, it will be necessary to determine whether

or not there are any heritage resources on the proposed development site. Input in this

regard will be sought from the SAHRA and the Eastern Cape Heritage Association. Should it

be required, a Heritage Impact Assessment must be conducted. The results of this

assessment will be reported on in the EIA Report.



April 2014

Page 105 of 123

10 PLAN OF STUDY FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

10.1 INTRODUCTION TO THE EIA PHASE

The Scoping Phase of the project concentrates on determining and describing impacts

associated with the proposed development and identifies the key issues which require

specialist investigations during the EIA phase.

During the EIA Phase, therefore the potential impacts identified in this report will be

confirmed and evaluated according to criteria given in this Plan of Study (PoS). This will be

done in order to determine the significance of the impacts. Mitigation measures to minimize

any significant negative impacts and maximize all positive impacts will be proposed.

10.2 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS

The Public Participation Process will continue during the EIA Phase. IAPs will continue to be

informed of the progress regarding the specialist studies and the EIA, and will be asked for

comment on an on-going basis up to the submission of the Final EIA Report for Authority

review and decision-making. In line with the requirements of the NEM:WA, a second advert

will be placed in a local newspaper. This will inform IAPs of the commencement of the EIA

Phase and encourage registration on the project.

A register of the IAPs will be kept. The Draft EIA Report (containing all specialist studies) will

be made available to registered IAPs for a period of 60 days in order to allow comment on

the contents of the document. A Comments and Responses Report listing all issues raised,

together with an indication of how they were considered and/or addressed, will be appended

to the Final EIA Report.

The Final EIA Report will be submitted to DEDEAT once all IAPs have had a chance to

review the Draft EIA Report. Once the authorities have issued a decision on the proposed

project, the IAPs will be informed of the decision and of their right to appeal against the

decision.

10.3 REQUIRED SPECIALIST STUDIES

Five specialist studies have been identified to date which will need to be conducted during

the EIA Phase in order to assess and determine the suitability of the site for the proposed

development. The terms of reference for these studies is detailed below.



April 2014

Page 106 of 123

10.3.1 Geotechnical Assessment

(i) Objective

The objective of the Geotechnical Assessment will be to determine the suitability of the site

for development as a landfill site from a geotechnical point of reference. This will be

undertaken through the identification of any fatal flaws.

(ii) Scope

The scope of works to be undertaken by the Geotechnical Specialist will include the

following:

Machine excavation of 24 trial pits. Trial pit locations were selected based on the

proposed layout;

Depth to bedrock (where encountered) at each of the trial pits will be recorded;

Characteristics of the subsoil profile will be recorded and reported on. All trial pits will

be profiled according to the methods outlined by Jennings et al (1973) and the Core

Logging Committee of South Africa (1976);

Samples will be taken at each of the trial pits for the following laboratory tests:

o Mod – Modified AASHTO is an indication of compaction density of a material

under the influence of variable water content percentages.

o California Bearing Ratios (CBRs) – used to measure the load bearing

capacity of soils, generally for soils used in the construction of roads.

o Road indicators – A suite of soil description tests, incorporating particle size

grading down to the 0.075mm fraction, soil mortar analysis and Atterberg

Limits.

o Foundation indicators - A suite of soil description tests, incorporating particle

size grading down to the 0.002mm fraction, soil mortar analysis and Atterberg

Limits incorporating potential clay activity.

o Lab permeability tests – Laboratory based permeability tests conducted on a

retrieved soil sample, usually Falling Head Permeability giving a resultant

value of hydraulic conductivity.

o Recompacted shear box tests – Measure of direct shear of a soil sample,

recompacted to an appropriate field density. Yields values for cohesion and

internal angle of friction.

o Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) tests will be undertaken adjacent to

every second trial pit (a total of 12 DCPs), sunk to 2 meters each. The DCP is

an instrument designed to provide a measure of the in situ density and

estimated allowable safe bearing capacity of a material.



April 2014

Page 107 of 123

Based on the information obtained from these assessments, the specialist will make

inferences and conclusions relating to inherent ground stability, potential contaminant

ingress, erosion potential, suitability and volume of the materials for earthworks and ease of

excavation, position of the groundwater table where encountered and groundwater seepage.

(iii) Deliverable

The Geotechnical Specialist will supply a report which provides a description of in situ rock

conditions beneath the site, together with an opinion on the general suitability of the site for

development as a landfill.

10.3.2 Geo- hydrological Assessment

(i) Objective

The objective of the Geo-Hydrological Assessment will be to determine the suitability of the

site for development as a landfill site from a geo-hydrological perspective. This will be

undertaken through the identification of any fatal flaws.

(ii) Scope

The Geo-Hydrological Assessment would be undertaken through a number of phases.

These would include:

A Desktop Assessment

This would include an investigation of regional geology and geohydrology (groundwater

occurrence) as well as structural geology and aerial photo interpretation to determine the

presence of any geological structures in the area as these are often zones of heightened

groundwater potential and are therefore at greater risk of contamination as a result of landfill

activities.

In addition, an investigation of existing groundwater resources would be undertaken by

interrogating the National Groundwater Database maintained by the DWA to establish the

existence of any boreholes in close proximity to the proposed development site

The outcomes of these desktop assessments would inform the types and locations of field

surveys to be conducted.

Field Assessment and Hydrocensus

On the site, geological intrusions will be identified which could potentially be exploited as

zones of groundwater potential and which could be fatal flaws to the proposed landfill



April 2014

Page 108 of 123

development. The topography of the site will be assessed in order to determine its effect on

groundwater flow patterns and the associated implications for contamination. Furthermore,

the presence and location of surface and groundwater resources will be verified through a

hydrocensus. As part of this census the depth to groundwater and the rate of discharge from

the resource will be measured and recorded.

Risk Assessment

A Risk Assessment will be undertaken to determine if the aquifer underneath and adjacent to

the development site will become polluted by leachate emanating from the site and

associated facilities. In carrying out the Risk Assessment, the following will need to be

considered:

o Evaluation of potential contaminants;

o Evaluation of the zone or barrier between the system and the aquifer; and

o Evaluation of the aquifer.

Based on this, an assessment of the vulnerability of the aquifer and its strategic value, will

be made.

Detailed Assessment

In accordance with the DWA Minimum Requirements, a Stage 2 – Detailed Geo-

Hydrological Assessment will be conducted. This will include:

o Geophysical survey;

o Aquifer assessment:

Borehole drilling

Aquifer testing

Water quality testing

o Augmented Risk Assessment and Impact Analysis

Based on the information obtained from these assessments, the specialist will make

inferences and conclusions relating to the inherent suitability of the site for development as a

landfill in terms of local geo-hydrological conditions. Any fatal flaws to the proposed

development will be identified.

(iii) Deliverable

The Geo-Hydrological Specialist will supply a report which provides a description of in situ

geo-hydrological conditions beneath the site, together with an opinion on the general

suitability of the site for development as a landfill.



April 2014

Page 109 of 123

10.3.3 Traffic Impact Assessment

(i) Objective

To investigate the traffic impacts and assess the adequacy of the access point to the

proposed development site. This study has been requested by SANRAL.

(ii) Scope

The study will need to be conducted in line with any requirements contained within guideline

documents compiled by SANRAL. The study will most likely include traffic counts during both

peak and off-peak hours. The assessment will need to consider traffic associated with:

The transport of general waste to the landfill by municipal waste removal trucks;

Transport of general waste to the landfill by the public;

Transport of recyclables to the recycling facility by private contractors;

Transport of recyclables to the recycling facility by the public;

Public accessing the site to purchase compost; and

Delivery of cover material to the site (if deemed necessary).

The study will need to undertake an assessment of the design of the proposed intersection

between the development site and the N2 Freeway to determine its suitability and capacity

to safely deal with the above-mentioned traffic volumes.

(iii) Deliverables

The Specialist will need to deliver a report which provides an opinion on the suitability of the

proposed intersection between the proposed development site and the N2 Freeway. In

addition, any recommendations for the improvement of the intersection to increase the safety

of road users will need to be included. Mitigation measures to ensure the safety of all road

users in proximity to the proposed intersection will be recommended.

10.3.4 Wetland Assessment

Should any be identified on the property, it will be necessary to undertake a Wetland

Delineation Assessment. This would determine the exact extent of any wetlands on the

property to ensure that no development occurs within these sensitive systems. In addition,

the specialist may recommend a buffer which would be applied to these systems to ensure

protection of these systems. This assessment has been requested by DWA.



April 2014

Page 110 of 123

10.3.5 Floodline Assessment

(i) Objective

To determine the maximum elevation of flood waters and calculate the inundation area for

each floodline in order to determine how flood events will impact upon the proposed

development and its associated infrastructure. This study has been requested by DWA.

(ii) Scope

The floodline assessment will; comprise the following steps:

Undertake a desktop study to gather the data requires for the peak discharge

calculations which will include catchment physiographic and climatic information for

the site;

Undertake a detailed site visit to obtain the remaining information required to

undertake a peak discharge calculation, including soil and vegetation characteristics.

In addition, any hydraulic structures on the watercourse that may impact upon the

floodline will be assessed for inclusion into the hydraulic modelling; and

Calculate the 1:50 and 1:100 year peak discharge values for the watercourses that

may impact on the landfill site and its infrastructure. Peak discharge values will be

calculated using one of the DWA’s approved methods, such as the Rational Method,

Unit Hydrograph or the SCS-SA Method.

(iii) Deliverables

A map indicating the layout of the proposed landfill site and its proposed infrastructure with

the calculated peak discharges for the 1:50 and 1:100 year flood events overlaid, in order to

indicate which parts of the proposed development will be affected. Recommendations for

flood protection will be included in the report.

10.4 POTENTIAL FURTHER SPECIALIST STUDIES THAT MAY BE REQUIRED

The need may arise during the EIA Phase to undertake further specialist assessments on

the site. These could include:

10.4.1 Air Quality Impact Assessment

(i) Objective

It is likely that an Air Quality Impact Assessment may be required to determine the impact of

odour and dust generated by the proposed landfill site on the environment and the well-

being of the neighbouring rural residential areas.



April 2014

Page 111 of 123

(ii) Scope

To provide an assessment of the potential air quality impacts associated with the proposed

landfill development on the surrounding environment and the well-being of local residents.

The study would include:

Initial ambient air quality sampling to establish a baseline for air quality;

Preparation of an air emissions inventory from the new landfill site;

Atmospheric dispersion modelling, utilising local meteorological data, to determine

zones of influence around the proposed development site;

Buffer zone projection based on the above-mentioned modelling, including health

buffer zone (if deemed necessary), odour management zone and dust management

zone; and

Recommendation of mitigation measures.

(iii) Deliverables

A report detailing the predicted air quality impacts of the proposed development on the

surrounding environment and rural residential areas, in terms of health and well-being, dust

and odour.

An Air Quality Monitoring and Management Plan should be compiled to monitor, manage

and minimise the above-mentioned impacts. The zones of influence of each of these impacts

should be mapped, indicating their worst case scenario, to show the areas within which the

Monitoring and Management Plan needs to be implemented.

10.4.2 Noise Impact Assessment

It is unlikely that noise generated during the construction and operational phases will exceed

the legislated levels for environmental and public health and well-being. It is therefore not

anticipated that a Noise Impact Assessment will be requires. Should the need arise through

the Public Participation Process following circulation of this Draft Scoping Report, this Plan

of Study will be amended accordingly.

10.4.3 Visual Impact Assessment

(i) Objective

The aim of the Visual Impact Assessment would be to ensure that the visual consequences

of the proposed development are understood and considered.



April 2014

Page 112 of 123

(ii) Scope

The study would involve an assessment of the visual quality and sense of place of the

landscape through a land survey. The visual impact would be assessed in terms of visual

intrusion (the nature of intrusion of the landfill site), the visual quality of the surrounding

environment and its compatibility with the landscape and surrounding landuse.

The height of the landfill would be modelled at a total height of 20 meters above ground

level. A viewshed of the site would then be generated by a model within a specified radius

(for example 10 km) of the development site.

(iii) Deliverables

A report in which the visual impacts of the landfill development are quantitatively and

qualitatively determined, including a modelled, visual representation of these impacts,

together with recommendations for the mitigation and minimisation of these impacts.

10.4.4 Heritage Impact Assessment

(i) Objective

Heritage resources are protected in terms of the National Heritage Resources Act (No. 25 of

1999). Heritage resources are not limited to archaeological artefacts, historical buildings and

graves, but also include intangible and invisible resources such as places, oral traditions and

rituals. Heritage resources also include any place or object of cultural significance, i.e. of

aesthetic, architectural, historical, scientific, social, spiritual, linguistic or technological value

or significance. The Heritage Impact Assessment will therefore need to identify these

resources on the site to ensure their protection in terms of the above-mentioned Act. The

need for this assessment will be informed by comment received from SAHRA.

(ii) Scope

A desktop assessment of the heritage database would be undertaken to determine if any

heritage resources are predicted to occur in the area. This would then be verified by a site

assessment. The site assessment would comprise a controlled-exclusive ground survey

which requires an inspection of the surface of the ground, wherever the surface is visible,

with no substantial effort to clear bush, turf, deadfall, leaves or other material that may cover

the surface and with no attempt to look beneath the surface beyond the inspection of rodent

burrows, cur banks and other exposures that are observed by accident, to discover any

heritage resources.



April 2014

Page 113 of 123

(iii) Deliverables

Provide an assessment on the potential presence of heritage resources and their

significance (should they occur). Provide mitigation measures and a way forward to ensure

the protection of any heritage resources on the site. Should it be required, advice on

application for permits from SAHRA will be provided.

10.4.5 Social Impact Assessment

It may be necessary to conduct a Social Impact Assessment in order to determine the

impact of the proposed landfill site on the surrounding rural residential population, as the

proposed development constitutes a significant alteration of land use and aesthetic. The

need for a Social Impact Assessment will be determined based on the comments received in

response to this Draft Scoping Report. It must be noted, however, that the Qweqwe

Community has signed a Community Resolution indicating that they have no objection to the

proposed landfill development on the preferred site.

All specialist studies will be undertaken in compliance with regulation 33(2) of GN 385, and

will include:

details of –

the specialist who prepared the report; and

the expertise of that specialist to carry out the specialist study;

an indication of the scope of, and the rationale for the report;

a description of the methodology adopted in conducting the specialist study;

a description of all assumptions uncertainties or gaps in knowledge;

a description of all the impacts direct and secondary and the implications of the

impacts of the proposed project, including identified alternatives, on the receiving

environment;

a description of the cumulative impacts the proposed project, including identified

alternatives, would have on the receiving environment;

recommendations in respect of any mitigation measures that should be considered

by the applicant and the competent authority;

any other information requested by the competent authority.

All mitigation measures required will be defined for inclusion in the EMPr. This programme

will also include an Alien Vegetation Control Programme.



April 2014

Page 114 of 123

10.5 INVESTIGATION OF ALTERNATIVES

Details regarding the alternatives that will be considered in more detail in the EIA Phase are

contained within Section 6 of this Draft Scoping Report. The alternatives that will be

considered are listed below.

10.5.1 Alternate Development Sites

Preferred Site – Qweqwe Site

Alternate Site 1 - De Colgny Site

Alternate Site 2 – Highbury Site

Alternate Site 3 – Orange Grove Site

10.5.2 Alternate Layouts

Preferred Layout – Layout 1

Alternate Layout 1 – Layout 2

Alternate Layout 2 – Layout 3

10.5.3 Alternate Leachate Treatment Methods

Preferred Method – Oxidation Ponds and Constructed Wetlands

Alternate Method 1 – Municipal WWTW

Alternate Method 2 – Onsite WWTW

Alternate Method 3 - Evaporation

10.5.4 No Go Alternative

The no-go option would be to not implement the proposed landfill site development on the

preferred site and to retain the current status quo. This would mean that the existing, un-

licenced and incorrectly designed landfill site currently utilised for the Mthatha area, would

continue to be used. It must be noted that this landfill site is approaching capacity, requiring

the identification of a new and suitable landfill site.

10.6 LICENSING

The establishment of the sewage package treatment plant will require a Waste Licence and

potentially, a Water Use Licence.

10.6.1 Waste License Application

In terms of the National Environmental Management: Waste Act, 2008 (Act No. 59 of 2008),

the proposed establishment of a new landfill site triggers activities listed under Categories A,



April 2014

Page 115 of 123

B and C of GN 921 (of 29 November 2013) and thus requires a Waste License Application

as well as environmental authorisation.

An Application for Integrated Environmental Authorisation and Waste Management Licence

has been completed and submitted to the relevant Competent Authority.

10.6.2 Water Use License

It is likely that the proposed landfill site will require a Water Use License from the DWA in

order to discharge treated leachate from the facility to the environment. Input from the DWA

in this regard will be sought and the necessary steps will be taken to obtain the relevant

licenses/authorisations should the proposed development receive environmental

authorisation.

10.7 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

The EIA process will be undertaken in line with the requirements of the promulgated EIA

Regulations of the NEMA.

The outcomes of the plan of study for EIA include the following:

Provide a description of the tasks that are undertaken as part of the EIA process,

including any specialist reports or specialised processes, and the manner in which

such tasks were undertaken;

Provide an indication of the stages at which the competent authority will be

consulted;

Provide a description of the proposed method of assessing the environmental issues

and alternatives, including the option of not proceeding with the activity;

Overview of the stakeholder engagement that was conducted during the EIA

process; and

Include any specific information required by the competent authority.

The purpose of the EIA and draft EMPr is to provide/determine:

An assessment of the environments likely to be affected by the proposed project;

An assessment of the nature, extent, duration, probability and significance of the

identified potential environmental, social and cultural impacts of the proposed project;

A comparative assessment of the identified land use and development alternatives

and their potential environmental, social and cultural impacts;

The appropriate mitigation measures for each significant impact of the proposed

project;



April 2014

Page 116 of 123

Details of the stakeholder engagement process followed during the course of the

assessment and an indication of how the issues raised have been addressed;

Identification of knowledge gaps and reporting on the adequacy of predictive

methods, underlying assumptions and uncertainties encountered in compiling the

required information;

A description of the arrangements for monitoring and management of environmental

impacts; and

Inclusion of technical and supporting information as appendices, if available.

The EIA process will see the following deliverables submitted for stakeholder review

and approval by the responsible authority (DAEA) will include the following:

Specialist Investigations;

Environmental Impact Report; and

Environmental Management Programme.

The EIA Report will contain the following information:

Details of the EAP who compiled the report and their expertise to carry out an EIA;

Detailed description of the proposed activity;

Description of the property on which the activity is to be undertaken and the location

of the activity on the property;

A description of the environment that may be affected by the activity and the manner

in which the physical, biological, social, economic and cultural aspects of the

environment may be affected by the proposed activity (pre-development description

of the environment);

Details of the stakeholder engagement conducted during the scoping phase and the

on-going consultation during the EIA phase;

Description of the need and desirability of the proposed activity and identified

potential alternatives to the proposed activity, including advantages and

disadvantages that the proposed activity or alternatives may have on the

environment and the community that may be affected by the activity;

An indication of the methodology used in determining the significance of potential

environmental impacts;

A description and comparative assessment of all alternatives identified during the EIA

process;

A summary of the findings and recommendations of any specialist report or report on

a specialised process;



April 2014

Page 117 of 123

A description of all environmental issues that were identified during the EIA process,

and assessment of the significance of each issue and an indication of the extent to

which the issue could be addressed by the adoption of mitigation measures;

An assessment of each identified potentially significant impact including cumulative

impacts, the nature of the impact, the extent and duration of the impact, the

probability of the impact occurring, the degree to which the impact can be reversed;

the degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable loss of resources, and the

degree to which the impact can be mitigated;

A description of assumptions, uncertainties and gaps in knowledge;

An opinion as to whether the activity should or should not be authorised, and if the

opinion is that it should be authorised, any conditions that should be made in respect

of that authorisation;

An environmental impact statement which contains a summary of the key findings of

the environmental impact assessment and a comparative assessment of the positive

and negative implications of the proposed activity and identified alternatives;

A draft EMPr; and

Compilation of a specialist volume.

During the compilation of the EIA, a draft EMPr will be compiled in accordance with the

NEMA EIA Regulations (2010). The draft EMPr will provide the actions for the management

of identified environmental impacts emanating from the proposed project and a detailed

outline of the implementation programme to minimise and/or eliminate the anticipated

negative environmental impacts. The draft EMPr will provide strategies to be used to

address the roles and responsibilities of environmental management personnel on site, and

a framework for environmental compliance and monitoring. The draft EMPr will be complied

as part of the EIA.

The draft EMPr will include the following:

Details of the person who prepared the draft EMPr and the expertise of the person to

prepare and draft EMPr;

Information on any proposed management or mitigation measures that will be taken

to address the environmental impacts that have been identified in the EIA report,

including environmental impacts or objectives in respect of planning and design, pre-

construction and construction activities, operation or undertaking of the activities,

rehabilitation of the environment and closure where relevant;



April 2014

Page 118 of 123

A detailed description of the aspects of the activity that are covered by the draft

EMPr;

An identification of the people who will be responsible for the implementation of the

measures;

Where appropriate, time periods within which the measures contemplated in the draft

EMPr must be implemented; and

Proposed mechanisms for monitoring compliance with the draft EMPr and reporting

thereon.

10.8 IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

Impacts will be identified in terms of their nature, intensity, spatial scale, duration, probability

and impact rating to provide significance. Once mitigation measures are identified, the

efficacy of the mitigation measures will be assessed using the same methodology.

Impact assessment methodology is provided in Table 20 below.

Table 20: Criteria for the impact assessment methodology

Nature

Direct Indirect Cumulative

Positive

Negative

A. Intensity

No Impact

(NI)

There is no impact at all - not even a very low impact on a party or

system. 0

Very Low

(VL)

Impact is negligible within the bounds of impacts which could occur. In

the case of adverse impacts, almost no mitigation and/or remedial

activity is needed, and any minor steps which might be needed are

easy, cheap, and simple. In the case of beneficial impacts, alternative

means are almost all likely to be better, in one or a number of ways,

than this means of achieving the benefit. Three additional categories

must also be used where relevant. They are in addition to the

category represented on the scale, and if used, will replace the scale.

1

Low

(L)

Impact is of a low order and therefore likely to have little real effect. In

the case of adverse impacts: mitigation and/or remedial activity is

either easily achieved or little will be required, or both. In the case of

beneficial impacts, alternative means for achieving this benefit are

likely to be easier, cheaper, more effective, less time consuming, or

some combination of these.

2



April 2014

Page 119 of 123

Medium

(M)

Impact is real but not substantial in relation to other impacts, which

might take effect within the bounds of those which could occur. In the

case of adverse impacts: mitigation and/or remedial activity are both

feasible and fairly easily possible. In the case of beneficial impacts:

other means of achieving this benefit are about equal in time, cost,

effort, etc.

3

High

(H)

Impact is of substantial order within the bounds of impacts, which

could occur. In the case of adverse impacts: mitigation and/or

remedial activity is feasible but difficult, expensive, time-consuming or

some combination of these. In the case of beneficial impacts, other

means of achieving this benefit are feasible but they are more difficult,

expensive, time-consuming or some combination of these.

4

Very High

(VH)

Of the highest order possible within the bounds of impacts which could

occur. In the case of adverse impacts: there is no possible mitigation

and/or remedial activity which could offset the impact. In the case of

beneficial impacts, there is no real alternative to achieving this benefit.

5

B. Spatial Scale

Isolated/

Proposed

Site

The impact will affect an area no bigger than the development site. 1

Study Area The impact will affect an area not exceeding the boundary of the

AfroProp property. 2

Local The impact will affect an area up to 5 km from the proposed

development site. 3

Regional/

Provincial

The spatial scale is moderate within the bounds of impacts possible,

and will be felt at a regional scale (District Municipality to Provincial

Level).

4

National/

Global The maximum extent of any impact. 5

C. Duration

Incidental The impact will be limited to isolated incidences that are expected to

occur very sporadically. 1

Short-term

The environmental impact identified will operate for the duration of the

construction phase or a period of less than 5 years, whichever is the

greater.

2

Medium term The environmental impact identified will operate for the duration of life

of plant. 3

Long term The environmental impact identified will operate beyond the life of

operation. 4



April 2014

Page 120 of 123

Impact Risk = (Intensity + Spatial + Duration) x Probability

3 5

Permanent The environmental impact will be permanent. 5

D. Probability

Practically impossible 1

Unlikely 2

Could happen 3

Very Likely 4

It’s going to happen / has occurred 5

10.9 QUANTITATIVE DESCRIPTION OF IMPACTS

To allow for impacts to be described in a quantitative manner in addition to the qualitative

description given above, a rating scale of between 1 and 5 will be used for each of the

assessment criteria. Thus the total value of the impact is described below:

Table 20 below provides an example of how the rating tool is implemented.

Table 21: Example of how a described impact is characterised

Described Impact

Intensity Spatial Scale

Duration Probability Rating

Impact to air Low Local Medium-term Could Happen

2 3 3 3 1.6

Impact Risk = (2 + 3 + 3) x 3

3 5 = 2.67 x 0.60

= 1.60

= Very Low

Explanation: The intensity, spatial scale and duration are added to give a total of 8, that is

divided by 3 to give a criteria rating of 2,67. The probability (3) is divided by 5

to give a probability rating of 0,6. The criteria rating of 2,67 is then multiplied

by the probability rating (0,6) to give the final rating of 1,6.

Table 22: Impact Risk Classes

RATING IMPACT CLASS DESCRIPTION

0.1 – 1.0 1 Very Low

1.1 – 2.0 2 Low



April 2014

Page 121 of 123

RATING IMPACT CLASS DESCRIPTION

2.1 – 3.0 3 Moderate

3.1 – 4.0 4 High

4.1 – 5.0 5 Very High



April 2014

Page 122 of 123

11 CONCLUSION

The Scoping Phase was undertaken in line with the requirements of the NEMA EIA

Regulations R543. The proposed development requires environmental authorisation in terms

of the NEMA Regulations (GNR 545) as well as a Waste License Application in terms of the

NEM:WA (GN 921).

The proposed development site falls within the King Sabata Dalindyebo Local Municipality,

in an area which has historically been utilised for communal agriculture. The Municipality has

identified a need to establish a new general waste landfill site to service the town of Mthatha

and its surrounds for the next 20 years. The proposed landfill considered in this report will

meet this need and will allow for compliance with all relevant environmental and health and

safety regulations related to landfill operations. The landfill site is therefore anticipated to be

sustainable in the long term.

The Scoping Report has identified the main impacts associated with the proposed

development. During the EIA Phase, these issues will be addressed and investigated in

greater detail to determine their significance as well as to recommend appropriate mitigation

measures. The Plan of Study described in Section 10 describes the proposed methodology

that will be adopted in order to accomplish this. The Plan of Study also includes the terms of

reference for the proposed specialist studies, a description of the risk rating methodology to

be used and details of the overall deliverables of the EIA process.

No fatal flaws in terms of ecological, social or economic impacts associated with the

proposed development, have been identified to date.



April 2014

Page 123 of 123

12 REFERENCES

1. Arcus Gibb, February 2009. EC – OR Tambo Waste Minimisation Project. King Sabata

Dalindyebo Municipality: Mthatha Landfill Feasibility Study: Pre-Feasibility Report.

Volume 1: Identification and Ranking of Candidate Sites. Project No.: J28276.

2. Kwezi V3 Engineers, October 2007. Disposal Site Census Report of Unauthorised

Disposal Sites in South Africa. Report No. 227870/PWO. Volume 1. For Department of

Environmental Affairs and Tourism.

3. Mucina, L. and Rutherford, M.C. (eds) (2006): The Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho

and Swaziland. Strelitzia 19. Pretoria: South African National Biodiversity Institute.

4. King Sabata Dalindyebo Local Municipality: Integrated Development Plan 2012 – 2017.

5. King Sabata Dalindyebo Local Municipality: Spatial Development Framework: March

2007.