Tel: 044 874 0365 PO Box 2070 Fax: 044 874 0432 5 Progress Street Web: www.cape-eaprac.co.za George 6530
Cavalier Abattoir Throughput Capacity TSH400/04
Cape EAPrac Basic Assessment Report
ORDER OF REPORT
Basic Assessment Form
Appendix A : Site Plans
Appendix B : Photographs
Appendix C : Facility Illustrations
Appendix D : Route Position Information (Not Applicable)
Appendix E : Public Participation
Annexure E1 : Proof of site notice
Annexure E2 : Written Notices
Annexure E3 : Proof of Newspaper Advert
Annexure E4 : Communication with I&APs
Annexure E5 : Meeting Minutes (None)
Annexure E6 : Comments & Responses Report
Annexure E7 : BAR Comments
Annexure E8 : BAR Amendments Comments (None)
Annexure E9 : I&AP Register
Appendix F : Permits / Licenses
Annexure F1 : Waste Management License (Biogas)
Annexure F2 : Water Use License Authorisation
Annexure F3 : Heritage
Annexure F4 : Throughput Registration Certificate
Appendix G : Specialist Reports
Annexure G1 : Ecological Impact Assessment
Appendix H : Environmental Management Programme
Appendix I : Other Information
Annexure I1 : Biodiversity Overlays
Annexure I2 : EAP Curriculum vitae & Declaration
Annexure I3 : Authority Correspondence
Cavalier Abattoir Throughput Capacity TSH400/04
Cape EAPrac Basic Assessment Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... VIII
2 PROPOSAL .............................................................................................................................. IX
3 THE WAY-FORWARD: ............................................................................................................. IX
SECTION A: ACTIVITY INFORMATION .................................................... 3
1 PROPOSAL OR DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTION .................................................................... 3
1 ISSUES RAISED BY INTERESTED AND AFFECTED PARTIES ............................................ 33
2 IMPACTS THAT MAY RESULT FROM THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONAL PHASE ..................................................................................................................................... 35
3 IMPACTS THAT MAY RESULT FROM THE DECOMISSIONING AND CLOSURE PHASE ... 38
Appendix 1 of Regulation 982 of the 2014 EIA Regulations contains the required contents of
a Basic Assessment Report. The checklist below serves as a summary of how these
requirements were incorporated into this Basic Assessment Report.
Requirement Details
(1) A basic assessment report must contain the
information that is necessary for the competent
authority to consider and come to a decision on
the application, and must include -
(a) Details of -
(i) The EAP who prepared the report;
and
(ii) The expertise of the EAP, including, a
curriculum vitae.
Melissa Mackay (BTech & ND Nature
Conservation), who has nine years’
experience as an environmental
practitioner.
Annexure I2
(b) The location of the activity, including –
(i) The 21 digit Surveyor General code of
each cadastral land parcel;
(ii) Where available, the physical address and
farm name;
(iii) Where the required information in items (i)
and (ii) is not available, the coordinates of
the boundary of the property or properties.
T0JR00000000028800083
Farm 83 of 288 Boekenhoutkloof located
approximately 7kms north west of the town
of Cullinan in Gauteng.
(c) a plan which locates the proposed activity or
activities applied for as well as the associated
structures and infrastructure at an appropriate
scale, or, if it is
(i) A linear activity, a description and
coordinates of the corridor in which the
proposed activity or activities is to be
undertaken; or
(ii) On land where the property has not been
Appendix C
Cavalier Abattoir Throughput Capacity TSH400/04
Cape EAPrac Basic Assessment Report
Requirement Details
defined, the coordinates within which the
activity is to be undertaken.
(d) a description of the scope of the proposed
activity, including -
(i) All listed and specified activities triggered
and being applied for; and
(ii) A description of the activities to be
undertaken including associated
structures and infrastructure.
Section A2
Section 2; Section A1
(e) A description of the policy and legislative
context within which the development is
proposed, including –
(i) An identification of all legislation, policies,
plans, guidelines, spatial tools, municipal
development planning frameworks, and
instruments that are applicable to this
activity and have been considered in the
preparation of the report; and
(ii) .How the proposed activity complies with
and responds to the legislation and policy
context, plans, guidelines, tools
frameworks and instruments.
Section A2
Section A2
(f) A motivation for the need and desirability for
the proposed development, including the need
and desirability of the activity in the context of the
preferred location.
Section 1
Section A2
Section E9
(g) A motivation for the preferred site, activity and
technology alternative.
Section E9
(h) A full description of the process followed to
reach the proposed preferred alternative within
Cavalier Abattoir Throughput Capacity TSH400/04
Cape EAPrac Basic Assessment Report
Requirement Details
the site, including -
(i) Details of all alternatives considered;
(ii) Details of the public participation process
undertaken in terms of regulation 41 of the
Regulations, including copies of the
supporting documents and inputs;
(iii) A summary of the issues raised by
interested and affected parties, and an
indication of the manner in which the
issues were incorporated, or the reasons
for not including them;
(iv) The environmental attributes associated
with the alternatives focusing on the
geographical, physical, biological, social,
economic, heritage and cultural aspects;
(v) The impacts and risks identified for each
alternative, including the nature,
significance, consequence, extent,
duration and probability of the impacts,
including the degree to which these
impacts -
(aa) can be reversed;
(bb) may cause irreplaceable loss of resources;
and
(cc) can be avoided, managed or mitigated.
(vi) The methodology used in determining and
ranking the nature, significance,
consequences, extent, duration and
probability of potential environmental
impacts and risks associated with the
alternatives;
(vii) Positive and negative impacts that the
Section 1; Section 2; Section A3
Section C
Annexure E6; Section C
Section B
Section E
Cavalier Abattoir Throughput Capacity TSH400/04
Cape EAPrac Basic Assessment Report
Requirement Details
proposed activity and alternatives will
have on the environment and on the
community that may be affected focusing
on the geographical, physical, biological,
social, economic, heritage and cultural
aspects;
(viii) The possible mitigation measures
that could be applied and level of residual
risk;
(ix) The outcome of the site selection matrix;
(x) If no alternatives, including alternative
locations for the activity were investigated,
the motivation for not considering such;
and
(xi) A concluding statement indicating the
preferred alternatives, including preferred
location of the activity.
(i) A full description of the process undertaken to
identify, assess and rank the impacts the activity
will impose on the preferred location through the
life of the activity, including -
(i) A description of all environmental issues
and risks that were identified during the
environmental impact assessment
process; and
(ii) An assessment of the significance of each
issue and risk and an indication of the
extent to which the issue and risk could be
avoided or addressed by the adoption of
mitigation measures.
Section E
(j) An assessment of each identified potentially Section E
Cavalier Abattoir Throughput Capacity TSH400/04
Cape EAPrac Basic Assessment Report
Requirement Details
significant impact and risk, including -
(i) Cumulative impacts;
(ii) The nature, significance and
consequences of the impact and risk;
(iii) The extent and duration of the impact and
risk;
(iv) The probability of the impact and risk
occurring;
(v) The degree to which the impact and risk
can be reversed;
(vi) The degree to which the impact and risk
may cause irreplaceable loss of
resources; and
(vii) The degree to which the impact and risk
can be mitigated.
(k) Where applicable, a summary of the findings
and impact management measures identified in
any specialist report complying with Appendix 6
to these Regulations and an indication as to how
these findings and recommendations have been
included in the final assessment report.
Section E
(l) An environmental impact statement which
contains –
(i) A summary of the key findings of the
environmental impact assessment;
(ii) A map at an appropriate scale which
superimposes the proposed activity and
its associated structures and infrastructure
on the environmental sensitivities of the
preferred site indicating any areas that
Section E5
Cavalier Abattoir Throughput Capacity TSH400/04
Cape EAPrac Basic Assessment Report
Requirement Details
should be avoided, including buffers; and
(iii) A summary of the positive and negative
impacts and risks of the proposed activity
and identified alternatives.
(m) Based on the assessment, and where
applicable, impact management measures from
specialist reports, the recording of proposed
impact management objectives, and the impact
management outcomes for the development for
inclusion in the EMPr.
Section E8; Appendix H
(n) Any aspects which were conditional to the
findings of the assessment either by the EAP or
specialist which are to be included as conditions
of authorisation.
Section E8
(o) A description of assumptions, uncertainties
and gaps in knowledge which relate to the
assessment and mitigation measures proposed.
Section E2
(p) A reasoned opinion as to whether the
proposed activity should or should not be
authorised, and if the opinion is that it should be
authorised, any conditions that should be made in
respect of that authorisation.
Section E8
(q) Where the proposed activity does not include
operational aspects, the period for which the
environmental authorisation is required, the date
on which the activity will be concluded and the
post construction monitoring requirements
finalised.
Section E10
(r) An undertaking under oath or affirmation by
the EAP in relation to:
Appendix I2
Cavalier Abattoir Throughput Capacity TSH400/04
Cape EAPrac Basic Assessment Report
Requirement Details
(i) The correctness of the information
provided in the reports;
(ii) The inclusion of comments and inputs rom
stakeholders and I&APs;
(iii) The inclusion of inputs and
recommendations from the specialist
reports where relevant; and
(iv) Any information provided by the EAP to
interested and affected parties and any
responses by the EAP to comments or
inputs made by interested and affected
parties.
(s) Where applicable, details of any financial
provisions for the rehabilitation, closure and
ongoing post decommissioning management of
negative environmental impacts.
Not applicable
(t) Any specific information that may be required
by the competent authority.
None to date
(u) Any other matters required in terms of section
24(4)(a) and (b) of the Act.
Cavalier Abattoir Throughput Capacity TSH400/04
Cape EAPrac viii Basic Assessment Report
1 INTRODUCTION
Cape Environmental Assessment Practitioners (Cape EAPrac) has been appointed by the
Applicant, Cavalier Abattoir (Pty) Ltd to facilitate the Basic Assessment process required in terms
of the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA, Act 107 of 1998, as amended) for the
increase of the abattoir’s slaughter throughput capacity on Portion 83 of Farm 288
Boekenhoutskloof from 150 to 250 large stock units, namely cattle. In addition, the applicant
intends to construct two new oxidation ponds and to line existing ponds in order to improve water
resource management on the site. These activities do not trigger any of the NEMA thresholds and
will not be directly related to the throughput increase for cattle, but will be undertaken in
compliance with the Water Use License granted to Cavalier. The additional oxidation ponds will
align with the existing approved Water Use License and accommodate abattoir wastewater from
the recently expanded abattoir facility, as previously approved.
The expanded development is proposed as follows:
Increase of the slaughter throughput capacity from 150 to 250 cattle per day;
Two new oxidation dams consisting of primary and a secondary settling dams with a
volume of approximately 1,7Ml(1700m³);
The combined size of the dams is approximately 4 472m²;
Lining of the existing oxidation dams;
The increase of the throughput capacity does NOT require any expansion to the existing
approved facilities.
Cavalier Abattoir (Pty) Ltd has been issued with the following authorisations:
Environmental Authorisation dated 14th January 2014 for the upgrade and expansion of the
abattoir including the relocation of the processing facilities to the property;
Waste Management License dated 5th August 2014 for the construction and operation of a
biogas facility for treating abattoir waste;
Water Use License dated 17th December 2014 for the change of water use from irrigation to
include irrigation and abattoir use, and the treatment of wastewater in seven (7) oxidation
dams (of which 5 are existing);
Amendment Environmental Authorisation dated 3rd March 2015 for the corrections and
minor changes to conditions of the previous Environmental Authorisation;
Cavalier Abattoir Throughput Capacity TSH400/04
Cape EAPrac ix Basic Assessment Report
Amendment Environmental Authorisation dated 23rd June 2015 to amend the 2014 layout
with the realignment of the administrative building to another location on the property.
This Basic Assessment is being undertaken in terms of the 2014 EIA Regulations, specifically GN
983, Activity 38.
2 PROPOSAL
Currently Cavalier Abattoir has approval for the slaughter of 150 large stock units (cattle) per day.
They are proposing increasing this number to 250 large stock units (cattle) per day. This increase
does not require the physical upgrading or changing to the already approved facility on the site.
The implications of this increase are:
Increase of lairage manure generated whilst animals are standing in the lairages. Please
note that according to the veterinary requirements, no animals may stand for longer than 12
hours awaiting slaughter. The size of the lairages will not increase, merely the speed at
which the animals are processed. It must also be noted that the number of animals that
arrive on site will be driven by availability of livestock, proximity to the abattoir and market
requirements for meat products (i.e. sales).
Increase in blood from slaughter processes.
Increase in condemned (majority of which are non-infectious) materials generated.
Increase of wastewater used in the facility.
All waste generated by this increase in throughput will be treated by means of the approved biogas
plant currently under construction. The plant has sufficient capacity to process the waste materials
without requiring any upgrades.
In addition to the expansion of the throughput capacity, the abattoir will be constructing two
additional oxidation dams in compliance with the WULA. The construction of the dams does not
trigger any NEMA thresholds and is not required to accommodate the throughput capacity
expansion. The dams will improve the management of wastewater on the site and provided
treated water for use as irrigation water. Please note that this assessment does not include the
oxidation dams.
3 THE WAY-FORWARD:
The Pre Application Draft Basic Assessment Report was circulated to all previously registered
stakeholders. The process to date included public participation through means of written notices to
key stakeholders (i.e. neighbours, known focus groups) and Authorities calling for registration of
Cavalier Abattoir Throughput Capacity TSH400/04
Cape EAPrac x Basic Assessment Report
Interested & Affected Parties (I&APs), as well as site notices and adverts in local newspapers
informing of the availability of reports for information and review. Submissions received during the
comment period have been collated and responded to as part of the ongoing stakeholder
engagement. The Pre Application BAR comment period extended from 4 December 2015 to 15 January 2016. This excluded the period 15 December to 5 January as per the EIA Regulations.
This current Basic Assessment Report includes all comment received and is being made available
to registered I&APs for a period of 30 days extending from Friday 19th February to Tuesday 22nd Marc 2016. This is being done in compliance with the Public Participation requirements of the
2014 NEMA EIA Regulations and as part of the formal EIA process as consented to by GDARD on
1st February 2016.
Once the comment period expires, the Basic Assessment report including any additional
comments received will be provided to GDARD for decision making.
Comments must be submitted in writing, to the address provided and must reach this office no later
Basic Assessment Report in terms of the National Environmental Management Act,
1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998), as amended, and the Environmental Impact Assessment
Regulations, 2014 (Version 1)
Kindly note that:
1. This Basic Assessment Report is the standard report required by GDARD in terms of the EIA Regulations, 2014.
2. This application form is current as of 8 December 2014. It is the responsibility of the EAP to ascertain whether subsequent versions of the form have been published or produced by the competent authority.
3. A draft Basic Assessment Report must be submitted, for purposes of comments within a period of thirty (30) days, to all State Departments administering a law relating to a matter likely to be affected by the activity to be undertaken.
4. A draft Basic Assessment Report (1 hard copy and two CD’s) must be submitted, for purposes of comments within a period of thirty (30) days, to a Competent Authority empowered in terms of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998), as amended to consider and decide on the application.
5. Five (5) copies (3 hard copies and 2 CDs-PDF) of the final report and attachments must be handed in at offices of the relevant competent authority, as detailed below.
6. The report must be typed within the spaces provided in the form. The size of the spaces provided is not necessarily indicative of the amount of information to be provided. The report is in the form of a table that can extend itself as each space is filled with typing.
7. Selected boxes must be indicated by a cross and, when the form is completed electronically, must also be highlighted.
8. An incomplete report may lead to an application for environmental authorisation being refused.
9. Any report that does not contain a titled and dated full colour large scale layout plan of the proposed activities including a coherent legend, overlain with the sensitivities found on site may lead to an application for environmental authorisation being refused.
10. The use of “not applicable” in the report must be done with circumspection because if it is used in respect of material information that is required by the competent authority for assessing the application, it may result in the application for environmental authorisation being refused.
11. No faxed or e-mailed reports will be accepted. Only hand delivered or posted applications will be accepted.
12. Unless protected by law, and clearly indicated as such, all information filled in on this application will become public information on receipt by the competent authority. The applicant/EAP must provide any interested and affected party with the information contained in this application on request, during any stage of the application process.
13. Although pre-application meeting with the Competent Authority is optional, applicants are advised to have these meetings prior to submission of application to seek guidance from the Competent Authority.
DEPARTMENTAL DETAILS Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development Attention: Administrative Unit of the of the Environmental Affairs Branch P.O. Box 8769 Johannesburg 2000 Administrative Unit of the of the Environmental Affairs Branch Ground floor Diamond Building 11 Diagonal Street, Johannesburg Administrative Unit telephone number: (011) 240 3377 Department central telephone number: (011) 240 2500
If this BAR has not been submitted within 90 days of receipt of the application by the competent authority and permission was not requested to submit within 140 days, please indicate the reasons for not submitting within time frame.
Is a closure plan applicable for this application and has it been included in this report?
if not, state reasons for not including the closure plan.
The abattoir is an ongoing operation and there are no plans to close the facility. Decommissioning is dealt with in the EMPr attached to this report, but is not likely to happen in the foreseeable future.
Has a draft report for this application been submitted to a competent authority and all State Departments administering a law relating to a matter likely to be affected as a result of this activity? Is a list of the State Departments referred to above attached to this report including their full contact details and contact person? If no, state reasons for not attaching the list.
Have State Departments including the competent authority commented?
If no, why? This report was circulated for comment from all relevant State Departments. The following State
Departments acknowledged receipt of the documentation but did not included any formal
comment:
Provincial Department of Agriculture;
National Department of Water Affairs; and
GDARD (Competent authority).
Should any further comments be forthcoming during this public participation process, those
comments will be collated and included in the final report to be submitted to GDARD for decision
Project title (must be the same name as per application form):
Cavalier Abattoir Throughput Capacity Expansion Select the appropriate box
The application is for an upgrade of an existing development
The application is for a new development
Other, specify
Does the activity also require any authorisation other than NEMA EIA authorisation?
YES NO If yes, describe the legislation and the Competent Authority administering such legislation If yes, have you applied for the authorisation(s)? YES NO If yes, have you received approval(s)? (attach in appropriate appendix) YES NO
List all legislation, policies and/or guidelines of any sphere of government that are applicable to the application as contemplated in the EIA regulations: Title of legislation, policy or guideline: Administering authority: Promulgation
Date:
The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa National
National Environmental Management Act No. 107 of 1998 as amended.
National & Provincial 1998
National Environmental Management: Waste Act (Act 59 of 2008)
National & Provincial 2008
National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (NEM:BA) (Act 10 of 2004)
National 2004
National Protected Area Expansion Strategy (NPAES) for S.A. 2008 (2010)
National 2010
Peri-Urban Areas Town Planning Scheme 1975 Provincial 1975 National Water Act (Act 36 of 1998) National 1998 National Heritage Resources Act (Act 25 of 1999) National 1999 Meat Safety Act (Act 40 of 2000) National 2000 Animal Protection Act (Act 71 of 1962) National 1962 Guideline for Environmental Management Plans Western Cape DEA&DP 2013 Guideline on Public Participation Western Cape DEA&DP 2013 Guideline on Need & Desirability Western Cape DEA&DP 2013 Companion Guidelines to the EIA Regulations National DEA 2012 GDARD Requirements for Biodiversity Assessments Version 2
Gauteng GDARD
2012
Integrated Development Plan 2011 – 2016 Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality
Description of compliance with the relevant legislation, policy or guideline:
Legislation, policy of guideline Description of compliance
The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa The National Constitution is the supreme law of the Republic of South Africa. It
is the logical point of departure of any exploration of the maze of statutory provisions that apply within environmental protection and land use management context. It inter alia confirms that everyone has the right to an environment that is not harmful to their health or well-being and to have the environment protected for the benefit of present and future generations. It also stipulates as an objective of local government that it should promote social and economic development and it enjoins the public administration to be development-orientated. In other words, a balanced approached is envisaged to matters of this nature.
The National Constitution states that the Republic is a democratic state founded on stipulated values. Those values include the supremacy of the Constitution and the rule of law. The rule of law basically requires the state to act in accordance with the law. This in turn means that the state can only exercise power to the extent permitted by law and that it must obey the law like everyone else in the country. It is therefore necessary to briefly refer to some of the other statutory provisions that apply in addition to the National Constitution in respect of the development proposal.
National Environmental Management Act No. 107 of 1998 as amended.
The current assessment is being undertaken in terms of the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA, Act 107 of 1998, as amended)1 and the 2014 EIA Regulations . This Act makes provision for the identification and assessment of activities that are potentially detrimental to the environment and which require authorisation from the competent authority (in this case, the provincial Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, GDARD) based on the findings of an Environmental Assessment.
The proposed development entails a ‘listed activity’, which require a Basic Environmental Impact Assessment, which must be conducted by an independent environmental assessment practitioner (EAP).
Before any listed activity can be undertaken, authorisation must be obtained from the relevant authority. The listed activity associated with the proposed development, as stipulated under the 2014 Regulations 983 is as follows:
Table 1: NEMA 2014 listed activities for the Cavalier Abattoir
R983 Listed Activity Activity Description
38(ii) The expansion and related operation of facilities for the slaughter of animals where the daily product throughput will be increased by more than:
(ii) 6 units of reptiles, red
The approved upgraded abattoir proposes to increase the daily slaughter throughput from 150 cattle per day to 250 cattle per day. This does not require the physical upgrade to any of the facilities on the
1 On 18 June 2010 the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs promulgated new regulations in terms of Chapter 5 of the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA, Act 107 of 1998), viz, the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations 2010. These regulations came into effect on 02 August 2010 and replace the EIA regulations promulgated in 2006.
National Environmental Management: Waste Act (Act 59 of 2008)
The National Environmental Management: Waste Act (NEM:WA, Act 59 of 2008) makes provision for the identification and assessment of activities that are related to management of waste related activities and which require authorisation from the relevant authorities based on the findings of an environmental assessment. NEM:WA is a National Act, which is enforced by the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA). In the Gauteng Province any activity requiring a Waste Management License (WML) in terms of NEM:WA is enforced by the Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (GDARD). The Act aims to protect health and the environment by providing reasonable measures for the prevention of pollution and ecological degradation and for securing ecologically sustainable development.
A WML has already been obtained for the construction and operation of a waste-to-energy Biogas plant. The plant does not require any further upgrade to accommodate the additional waste generated by the increased throughput nor does it require an amendment to the existing WML.
National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (NEM:BA) (Act 10 of 2004)
NEM:BA is a Special Environmental Management Act (SEMA) and makes provision for the management and conservation of South Africa’s biodiversity within the framework of NEMA. The Act further provides for protection of species and ecosystems that warrant national protection, the sustainable use of indigenous biological resources, the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from bio-prospecting involving biological resources and the establishment and functions of the South African Biodiversity Institute (SANBI).
SANBI specifies ecosystem status categories that are used in the various Biodiversity Programmes. With respect to the latest Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBA) and Gauteng’s Conservation Plan (C-Plan 3.3) identified for South Africa, it has been confirmed that the property in question, does not fall within a CBA area or any other important biodiversity area.
Annexure I1 contains graphics of the SANBI categories and CBA (Gauteng C-Plan v3.3) showing that the Cavalier Abattoir does not fall within any of the areas identified for conservation priority.
National Protected Area Expansion Strategy (NPAES) for S.A. 2008 (2010)
Considering that South Africa’s protected area network currently falls short of sustaining biodiversity and ecological processes, the NPAES aims to achieve cost-effective protected area expansion for ecological sustainability and increased resilience to Climate Change. Protected areas, recognised by the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act (Act 57 of 2003), are considered formal protected areas in the NPAES. The NPAES sets targets for expansion of these protected areas, provides maps of the most important protected area expansion, and makes recommendations on mechanisms for protected area expansion.
The Cavalier Abattoir farm properties do not fall within any proposed NPAES areas.
Peri-Urban Areas Town Planning Scheme 1975 Tshwane Municipality has approved the development of the abattoir in terms of
this scheme. The increased throughput capacity does not require any further approval under the Planning Scheme.
National Water Act (Act 36 of 1998) The National Water Act (NWA) gives effect to the constitutional right of
access to water. The Act’s overall purpose is to ensure that South Africa's
water resources are protected, used and managed in ways which take into account a number of factors, including inter-generational equity, equitable access, redressing the results of past racial and gender discrimination, promoting sustainable and beneficial use, facilitating social and economic development, and providing for water quality and environmental protection.
Cavalier Abattoir has an existing Water Use License (WUL) for the facility. The increase in throughput capacity does not require any amendments to this license. A copy of the WUL is included as Annexure F2.
The Department of Water Affairs is a registered Authority for this application and have been approached for input as part of the ongoing environmental investigation.
National Heritage Resources Act (Act 25 of 1999)
The protection and management of South Africa’s heritage resources are controlled by the National Heritage Resources Act (Act No. 25 of 1999). The Integrated Heritage Impact Assessment was submitted to the Gauteng Heritage Resources Authority (GHRA) for further input, comment and decision-making. The Phase One Heritage Assessment has been included in this AFBAR and recommendations have been included in the EMPr.
On 15 July 2013 the Heritage Authority approved the proposed project in terms of the NHRA (Act No 25 of 1999). A copy of this decision is included as Annexure F3.
Meat Safety Act (Act 40 of 2000) The Act aims to provide for measures to promote meat safety and the safety of
animal products; to establish and maintain essential national standards in respect of abattoirs; to regulate the importation and exportation of meat; to establish meat safety schemes; and to provide for matters connected therewith.
The Act ensures that any meat product designated for public consumption must be slaughtered at a registered facility. The facility must comply with health and safety standards as provided for in the Act. The Act also provides guidelines to determine the grading of facilities.
The Cavalier Abattoir has been issued with a High Throughput Registration Certificate (Reg No. 171/1/2/1/7) for the slaughter of 250 units (sheep or goats) per day (equivalent to 1500 sheep) and is therefore registered and complies with the Act. It must be noted that the Department of Agriculture has not yet issued a throughput for 150 units of cattle as the construction of the cattle abattoir is still ongoing.
A copy of the current Registration Certificate has been included in Annexure F4 of this Application.
Animal Protection Act (Act 71 of 1962) Slaughtering requirements and specifications for the transportation, bleeding,
stunning and lairage of animals in confined areas.
Guideline for Environmental Management Plans
The attached EMPr complies with the requirements of this guideline.
Guideline on Public Participation The PPP pertaining to this process has been undertaken in terms of the 2014
EIA Regulations and this guideline.
Guideline on Need & Desirability The Need & Desirability pertaining to this process has been undertaken in
terms of the 2014 EIA Regulations and this guideline.
Companion Guidelines to the EIA Regulations The EIA process has been undertaken in terms of the 2014 EIA Regulations
and this guideline.
GDARD Requirements for Biodiversity Assessments Version 2
A specialist biodiversity study was undertaken for the property and has been included in this report. The specialist study complied with these requirements.
Integrated Development Plan 2011 – 2016 The IDP supports the improvement of industries associated with the
development of agriculture in the province.
3 ALTERNATIVES
Describe the proposal and alternatives that are considered in this application. Alternatives should include a consideration of all possible means by which the purpose and need of the proposed activity could be accomplished. The determination of whether the site or activity (including different processes etc.) or both is appropriate needs to be informed by the specific circumstances of the activity and its environment. The no-go option must in all cases be included in the assessment phase as the baseline against which the impacts of the other alternatives are assessed. Do not include the no go option into the alternative table below. Note: After receipt of this report the competent authority may also request the applicant to assess additional alternatives that could possibly accomplish the purpose and need of the proposed activity if it is clear that realistic alternatives have not been considered to a reasonable extent. Please describe the process followed to reach (decide on) the list of alternatives below
The Cavalier Abattoir is an existing slaughter and processing facility. The abattoir is currently being upgraded (already approved) to include slaughter facilities for cattle. The new facility will be obtaining a Throughput Capacity Certificate from the Department of Agriculture to slaughter 150 cattle per day in the new premises. The 150 units per day were authorised in terms of NEMA EIA Regulations 2010. The Department of Agriculture has not yet issued a Throughput Certificate for the 150 units as the facility is still under construction.
Cavalier proposes to expand the capacity from 150 to 250 units per day. This expansion does NOT require any physical changes to the approved facility. The expansion relates to the management of cattle coming into the facility and the marketing of the final product. The expansion will lead to an increase in faecal matter, blood and slaughter waste on the site, however the approved biogas facility will accommodate this increase without requiring any changes to the design capacity of the plant.
Therefore, only two alternatives are proposed:
Alternative 1 (Preferred) – increase in slaughter throughput allowing a new Throughput Certificate to be issued by the Department of Agriculture;
No Go Alternative – whereby no expansion in the throughput is authorised and only 150 cattle per day may be slaughtered.
Provide a description of the alternatives considered No. Alternative type, either
alternative: site on property, properties, activity, design, technology, energy, operational or other(provide details of “other”)
1 Alternative 1 Increase in the daily throughput capacity allowing for 250 large stock units (cattle) to be slaughtered daily. No changes to the existing approved facilities are required to accommodate this increase in capacity.
2 No Go Alternative No increase of the daily throughput capacity is undertaken and the current authorisation for 150 large stock units (cattle) remains in place.
3 Alternative 2
Etc.
In the event that no alternative(s) has/have been provided, a motivation must be included in the table below.
4 PHYSICAL SIZE OF THE ACTIVITY
Indicate the total physical size (footprint) of the proposal as well as alternatives. Footprints are to include all new infrastructure (roads, services etc), impermeable surfaces and landscaped areas: Size of the activity:
Proposed activity (Total environmental (landscaping, parking, etc.) and the building footprint)
None
Alternatives: Alternative 1 (if any) None No Go (if any) None Ha/ m2
or, for linear activities: Length of the activity:
Proposed activity
Alternatives: Alternative 1 (if any)
Alternative 2 (if any)
m/km Indicate the size of the site(s) or servitudes (within which the above footprints will occur): Size of the site/servitude:
Proposed activity None Alternatives: Alternative 1 (if any) None No Go (if any) None Ha/m2
5 SITE ACCESS
Proposal Does ready access to the site exist, or is access directly from an existing road? YES NO
If NO, what is the distance over which a new access road will be built m
Include the position of the access road on the site plan (if the access road is to traverse a sensitive feature the impact thereof must be included in the assessment). Alternative 1 Does ready access to the site exist, or is access directly from an existing road? YES NO
If NO, what is the distance over which a new access road will be built m
Describe the type of access road planned:
Include the position of the access road on the site plan. (if the access road is to traverse a sensitive feature the impact thereof must be included in the assessment). Alternative 2 Does ready access to the site exist, or is access directly from an existing road? YES NO
If NO, what is the distance over which a new access road will be built m
Describe the type of access road planned:
Include the position of the access road on the site plan. (if the access road is to traverse a sensitive feature the impact thereof must be included in the assessment). PLEASE NOTE: Points 6 to 8 of Section A must be duplicated where relevant for alternatives
(only complete when applicable)
6 LAYOUT OR ROUTE PLAN
A detailed site or route (for linear activities) plan(s) must be prepared for each alternative site or alternative activity. It must be attached to this document. The site or route plans must indicate the following: the layout plan is printed in colour and is overlaid with a sensitivity map (if applicable); layout plan is of acceptable paper size and scale, e.g.
o A4 size for activities with development footprint of 10sqm to 5 hectares; o A3 size for activities with development footprint of ˃ 5 hectares to 20 hectares; o A2 size for activities with development footprint of ˃20 hectares to 50 hectares); o A1 size for activities with development footprint of ˃50 hectares);
The following should serve as a guide for scale issues on the layout plan:
o A0 = 1: 500 o A1 = 1: 1000 o A2 = 1: 2000 o A3 = 1: 4000 o A4 = 1: 8000 (±10 000)
shapefiles of the activity must be included in the electronic submission on the CD’s; the property boundaries and Surveyor General numbers of all the properties within 50m of the site; the exact position of each element of the activity as well as any other structures on the site; the position of services, including electricity supply cables (indicate above or underground), water supply pipelines, boreholes,
sewage pipelines, septic tanks, storm water infrastructure; servitudes indicating the purpose of the servitude; sensitive environmental elements on and within 100m of the site or sites (including the relevant buffers as prescribed by the
competent authority) including (but not limited thereto): o Rivers and wetlands; o the 1:100 and 1:50 year flood line; o ridges; o cultural and historical features; o areas with indigenous vegetation (even if it is degraded or infested with alien species);
Where a watercourse is located on the site at least one cross section of the water course must be included (to allow the position of the relevant buffer from the bank to be clearly indicated)
FOR LOCALITY MAP (NOTE THIS IS ALSO INCLUDED IN THE APPLICATION FORM REQUIREMENTS)
the scale of locality map must be at least 1:50 000. For linear activities of more than 25 kilometres, a smaller scale e.g. 1:250 000
can be used. The scale must be indicated on the map; the locality map and all other maps must be in colour; locality map must show property boundaries and numbers within 100m of the site, and for poultry and/or piggery, locality map
must show properties within 500m and prevailing or predominant wind direction;
for gentle slopes the 1m contour intervals must be indicated on the map and whenever the slope of the site exceeds 1:10, the 500mm contours must be indicated on the map;
areas with indigenous vegetation (even if it is degraded or infested with alien species); locality map must show exact position of development site or sites; locality map showing and identifying (if possible) public and access roads; and the current land use as well as the land use zoning of each of the properties adjoining the site or sites.
7 SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
Colour photographs from the center of the site must be taken in at least the eight major compass directions with a description of each photograph. Photographs must be attached under the appropriate Appendix. It should be supplemented with additional photographs of relevant features on the site, where applicable.
8 FACILITY ILLUSTRATION
A detailed illustration of the activity must be provided at a scale of 1:200 for activities that include structures. The illustrations must be to scale and must represent a realistic image of the planned activity. The illustration must give a representative view of the activity to be attached in the appropriate Appendix.
Note: Complete Section B for the proposal and alternative(s) (if necessary) Instructions for completion of Section B for linear activities
1) For linear activities (pipelines etc) it may be necessary to complete Section B for each section of the site that has a significantly different environment.
2) Indicate on a plan(s) the different environments identified 3) Complete Section B for each of the above areas identified 4) Attach to this form in a chronological order 5) Each copy of Section B must clearly indicate the corresponding sections of the route at the top of the next page.
Instructions for completion of Section B for location/route alternatives
1) For each location/route alternative identified the entire Section B needs to be completed 2) Each alterative location/route needs to be clearly indicated at the top of the next page 3) Attach the above documents in a chronological order
(complete only when appropriate)
Instructions for completion of Section B when both location/route alternatives and linear activities are applicable for the application Section B is to be completed and attachments order in the following way
All significantly different environments identified for Alternative 1 is to be completed and attached in a chronological order; then All significantly different environments identified for Alternative 2 is to be completed and attached chronological order, etc.
Section B - Section of Route (complete only when appropriate for above)
Section B – Location/route Alternative No. (complete only when appropriate for above)
1 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
Property description: (Including Physical Address and Farm name, portion etc.)
Farm 83 of 288 Boekenhoutkloof located approximately 7kms north west of the town of Cullinan in Gauteng.
2 ACTIVITY POSITION
Indicate the position of the activity using the latitude and longitude of the centre point of the site for each alternative site. The co-ordinates should be in decimal degrees. The degrees should have at least six decimals to ensure adequate accuracy. The projection that must be used in all cases is the WGS84 spheroid in a national or local projection.
Alternative: Latitude (S): Longitude (E):
-25.627˚ 28.482˚
In the case of linear activities: Alternative: Latitude (S): Longitude (E): Starting point of the activity o o Middle point of the activity o o End point of the activity o o
Section B has been duplicated for sections of the route "insert No. of duplicates" times
Section B has been duplicated for location/route alternatives "insert No. of duplicates" times
For route alternatives that are longer than 500m, please provide co-ordinates taken every 250 meters along the route and attached in the appropriate Appendix
Addendum of route alternatives attached The 21 digit Surveyor General code of each cadastral land parcel
PROPOSAL ALT. 1 T 0 J R 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 8 8 0 0 0 8 3 ALT. 2 T 0 J R 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 8 8 0 0 0 8 3 etc.
Indicate the landform(s) that best describes the site.
Ridgeline Plateau Side slope of hill/ridge Valley Plain Undulating plain/low
hills River front
5 GROUNDWATER, SOIL AND GEOLOGICAL STABILITY OF THE SITE
a) Is the site located on any of the following?
Shallow water table (less than 1.5m deep) YES NO
Dolomite, sinkhole or doline areas YES NO
Seasonally wet soils (often close to water bodies) YES NO
Unstable rocky slopes or steep slopes with loose soil YES NO
Dispersive soils (soils that dissolve in water) YES NO
Soils with high clay content (clay fraction more than 40%) YES NO
Any other unstable soil or geological feature YES NO
An area sensitive to erosion YES NO
(Information in respect of the above will often be available at the planning sections of local authorities. Where it exists, the 1:50 000 scale Regional Geotechnical Maps prepared by Geological Survey may also be used). b) are any caves located on the site(s) YES NO
If yes to above provide location details in terms of latitude and longitude and indicate location on site or route map(s)
c) are any caves located within a 300m radius of the site(s) YES NO
If yes to above provide location details in terms of latitude and longitude and indicate location on site or route map(s)
Latitude (S): Longitude (E): o o
d) are any sinkholes located within a 300m radius of the site(s) YES NO
If yes to above provide location details in terms of latitude and longitude and indicate location on site or route map(s)
Latitude (S): Longitude (E):
o o
If any of the answers to the above are “YES” or “unsure”, specialist input may be requested by the Department
6 AGRICULTURE
Does the site have high potential agriculture as contemplated in the Gauteng Agricultural Potential Atlas (GAPA 4)?
YES NO
Please note: The Department may request specialist input/studies in respect of the above.
7 GROUNDCOVER
To be noted that the location of all identified rare or endangered species or other elements should be accurately indicated on the site plan(s). Indicate the types of groundcover present on the site and include the estimated percentage found on site
Natural veld - good condition
% =
Natural veld with scattered aliens
% =
Natural veld with heavy alien infestation
% =
Veld dominated by alien species
% =
Landscaped (vegetation)
% =
Sport field % =
Cultivated land % =
Paved surface (hard landscaping)
% =
Building or other structure
% = Bare soil
% =
Please note: The Department may request specialist input/studies depending on the nature of the groundcover and potential impact(s) of the proposed activity/ies. Are there any rare or endangered flora or fauna species (including red list species) present on the site
YES NO
If YES, specify and explain:
Are there any rare or endangered flora or fauna species (including red list species) present within a 200m (if within urban area as defined in the Regulations) or within 600m (if outside the urban area as defined in the Regulations) radius of the site.
YES NO
If YES, specify and explain:
Are there any special or sensitive habitats or other natural features present on the site? YES NO
Was a specialist consulted to assist with completing this section YES NO If yes complete specialist details Name of the specialist: Dr Noel van Rooyen Qualification(s) of the specialist: BSc (Agric), BSc (Honours), MSc (1978) and DSc degrees (1984)
in Plant Ecology at the University of Pretoria, South Africa Postal address: 272 Thatcher’s Field, Lynnwood, Pretoria Postal code: 0081 Telephone: +27 (0)12 348 9043 Cell: +27 (0) 82 882 0886 E-mail: [email protected] Fax: Are any further specialist studies recommended by the specialist? YES NO If YES, specify: If YES, is such a report(s) attached? YES NO If YES list the specialist reports attached below Signature of specialist:
Date: 17/07/2013
Please note; If more than one specialist was consulted to assist with the filling in of this section then this table must be appropriately duplicated
8 LAND USE CHARACTER OF SURROUNDING AREA
Using the associated number of the relevant current land use or prominent feature from the table below, fill in the position of these land-uses in the vacant blocks below which represent a 500m radius around the site
1. Vacant land 2. River, stream, wetland
3. Nature conservation area 4. Public open space 5. Koppie or ridge
6. Dam or reservoir 7. Agriculture 8. Low density residential 9. Medium to high density residential
10. Informal residential
11. Old age home 12. Retail 13. Offices 14. Commercial & warehousing 15. Light industrial
16. Heavy industrialAN 17. Hospitality facility 18. Church 19. Education facilities 20. Sport facilities
21. Golf course/polo fields 22. AirportN 23. Train station or
shunting yardN 24. Railway lineN 25. Major road (4 lanes or more)N
26. Sewage treatment plantA
27. Landfill or waste treatment siteA 28. Historical building 29. Graveyard 30. Archeological
site
31. Open cast mine 32. Underground mine 33.Spoil heap or slimes damA 34. Small Holdings
Other land uses (describe):
NOTE: Each block represents an area of 250m X 250m, if your proposed development is larger than this please use the appropriate number and orientation of hashed blocks
Note: More than one (1) Land-use may be indicated in a block Please note: The Department may request specialist input/studies depending on the nature of the land use character of the area and potential impact(s) of the proposed activity/ies. Specialist reports that look at health & air quality and noise impacts may be required for any feature above and in particular those features marked with an “A“ and with an “N” respectively. Have specialist reports been attached YES NO
A Vegetation Survey was conducted by Dr Noel van Rooyen of Ekotrust dated 28 February 2013.
A Pre Application meeting with the GDARD confirmed that this report may be considered for this
application as it is still relevant.
The document is included as Annexure G1 in this report.
9 SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONTEXT
Describe the existing social and economic characteristics of the area and the community condition as baseline information to assess the potential social, economic and community impacts.
The area immediately surrounding the Cavalier Abattoir is characterized by agricultural properties,
both small and large scale agricultural units. The Abattoir is the largest commercial employer
within the immediate area. There is evidence of historic diggings to the north of the site, however
this is no longer in operation.
The town of Cullinan, located approximately 30kms east of Pretoria, is the closest main center to
the study site. It was established as a diamond mining center after diamonds were first discovered
in 1902. Diamonds are still mined in the Cullinan area with the Premier Mine being the third largest
diamond mine in South Africa.
The Cullinan / Refilwe area has been identified as one of the areas within the City of Tshwane
(CoT) municipal area as being one of the 12 areas within the municipal are with the highest
densities, along with having high social facilities area, coupled with a high dependence on welfare
and high unemployment (IDP 2011 – 2016). The development of the Abattoir is supported by the
outcome issues for the new growth path as envisaged by CoT. An investment map indicates the
spatial development programmes that were created as a measure to support the implementation of
the City’s developmental outcomes and Spatial Development Framework. The Cullinan area is
Figure 2: City of Tshwane Investment Map (Source: IDP 2011 – 2016)
10 CULTURAL/HISTORICAL FEATURES
Please be advised that if section 38 of the National Heritage Resources Act 25 of 1999 is applicable to your proposal or alternatives, then you are requested to furnish this Department with written comment from the South African Heritage Resource Agency (SAHRA) – Attach comment in appropriate annexure 38. (1) Subject to the provisions of subsections (7), (8) and (9), any person who intends to undertake a development categorised as- (a) the construction of a road, wall, powerline, pipeline, canal or other similar form of linear development or barrier exceeding 300m in
length; (b) the construction of a bridge or similar structure exceeding 50m in length; (c) any development or other activity which will change the character of a site- (i) exceeding 5 000 m2 in extent; or (ii) involving three or more existing erven or subdivisions thereof; or (iii) involving three or more erven or divisions thereof which have been consolidated within the past five years; or (iv) the costs of which will exceed a sum set in terms of regulations by SAHRA or a provincial heritage resources
authority; (d) the re-zoning of a site exceeding 10 000 m2 in extent; or (e) any other category of development provided for in regulations by SAHRA or a provincial heritage resources authority, must at the
very earliest stages of initiating such a development, notify the responsible heritage resources authority and furnish it with details regarding the location, nature and extent of the proposed development.
Are there any signs of culturally (aesthetic, social, spiritual, environmental) or historically significant elements, as defined in section 2 of the National Heritage Resources Act, 1999, (Act No. 25 of 1999), including archaeological or palaeontological sites, on or close (within 20m) to the site?
YES NO
If YES, explain:
If uncertain, the Department may request that specialist input be provided to establish whether there is such a feature(s) present on or close to the site.
Briefly explain the findings of the specialist if one was already appointed:
Will any building or structure older than 60 years be affected in any way? YES NO Is it necessary to apply for a permit in terms of the National Heritage Resources Act, 1999 (Act 25 of 1999)?
YES NO
If yes, please attached the comments from SAHRA in the appropriate Appendix
(Section 41) The Environmental Assessment Practitioner must conduct public participation process in accordance with the requirement of the EIA Regulations, 2014.
1 LOCAL AUTHORITY PARTICIPATION
Local authorities are key interested and affected parties in each application and no decision on any application will be made before the relevant local authority is provided with the opportunity to give input. The planning and the environmental sections of the local authority must be informed of the application at least thirty (30) calendar days before the submission of the application to the competent authority. Was the draft report submitted to the local authority for comment?
YES NO
If yes, has any comments been received from the local authority?
YES NO
If “YES”, briefly describe the comment below (also attach any correspondence to and from the local authority to this application):
If “NO” briefly explain why no comments have been received or why the report was not submitted if that is the case.
The Pre Application Draft Basic Assessment Report was circulated for comment by local
authorities and was made available from 4 December 2015 to 15 January 2016. This comment
period provided for a 21 day comment period excluding the period 15 December 2015 to 5
January 2016.
No comment was received from the local authority during this period. This Basic Assessment
Report will be available for comment from Friday 19 February to Tuesday 22 March 2016 and
comment will again be requested.
2 CONSULTATION WITH OTHER STAKEHOLDERS
Any stakeholder that has a direct interest in the activity, site or property, such as servitude holders and service providers, should be informed of the application at least thirty (30) calendar days before the submission of the application and be provided with the opportunity to comment. Has any comment been received from stakeholders? YES NO
If “YES”, briefly describe the feedback below (also attach copies of any correspondence to and from the stakeholders to this application):
The following concerns were raised by neighbouring stakeholders:
We are against the expansion of the Cavalier Abattoir cattle slaughter throughput increase for the following reasons:
1. The newly built abattoir is not even in operation for the 150 units of cattle per day and yet your client wants to expand to 250 units an increase of 66%? We get the impression that Cavalier already included and planned the infrastructure now being built to accommodate for this and only now do the necessary paper work?
Cape EAPrac: The ability to accommodate the increase in slaughter capacity is associated with storage and cooling facilities rather than the actual mechanisms used to slaughter the animals. The approved facility footprint and infrastructure therefore does not require any changes to it. It is reliant on the speed of process, the effectiveness and efficiency of processing and storage and the effectiveness of supply and demand of the final product.
2. The biogas facility is very important to reduce the battle against ground and water pollution – confirm whether the design is sufficient to accommodate additional throughput? And so what is the max. throughput that can be handled successfully by this facility.
Cape EAPrac: The biogas plant was designed to accommodate all available waste on the site, including that of the already approved upgrades. The additional volumes of waste generated by the 100 extra animals fall within the original volume specifications. As for the slaughter process, the additional volume requires management changes as opposed to physical infrastructure changes. It must also be noted that the greatest volume of waste which will be generated by the additional 100 animals, will be in the form of wastewater. This will be treated in the oxidation dams and not the biogas facility. A biogas plant is unable to cope with too much water and is far more efficient with the correct ratio of solid material to liquid.
The approved biogas plant has the capacity to treat 1200m³ of waste material per day, which is sufficient for the increased throughput capacity.
3. 66% additional throughput and yet you state no increase in water use ? This cannot be true. Boreholes in the area are already showing a decrease in capacity on a daily basis.
Cape EAPrac: Please note that it was stated that no increase in the AUTHORISED water use is required. The abattoir's approved use will be sufficient for the increase in slaughter units. In addition, several water recycling mechanisms have been implemented to ensure sustainable use of the resource.
4. As stated numerous times in the past two years the gravel access road to our properties cannot handle the current traffic from the abattoir. Yet to date – Cavalier has made no attempt to address this problem. Yet they want to increase capacity and directly increasing the traffic ? It is unacceptable that there is no urgency to address this dangerous problem for pedestrians as well as motorists.
Cape EAPrac: The Environmental Authorisation for the upgrade requires that the road be improved to accommodate the additional traffic. This will be in the form of tarring of the road, as was communicated to all stakeholders in the original process. Cavalier: City of Tshwane as well as Gautrans prescribed road specifications that have to be completed by the same time as the completion of the project. This include a connection to the Gautrans main road and the tarring of the current gravel road.
5. We have also experienced an increase rubbish, plastic bags – plastic bottles being dumped on and beside the gravel road. We have cattle and I am sure you are well aware that is hazardous, animals can die when they consume this. We addressed this last year and Cavalier try to clean up on a regular basis – but this is still unacceptable as this will become even more out of control.
Cape EAPrac: The increase in slaughter throughput has no direct correlation to litter on the roadside.
6. The air pollution (terrible smell) from the abattoir will get even worse.
Cape EAPrac: The improved waste management on the site in the form of the biogas facility, as well as improved oxidation dams provides improved odour management by default. It must be noted that there will not yet have been an improvement yet as the construction of the new waste management activities is not complete and operation has not yet commenced. Cavalier: All the required controls are in place to eliminate any smell.
7. The noise level of the cooling units already is a problem – we have requested Cavalier to address this via both environmental consultants Cape ea Practitioners as well as Bokamoso – to date they have made no attempt to even try to accommodate us. This is unacceptable that they can simply ignore our requests to address this. We cannot sleep with open windows as there is a constant “buzzing” coming from their premises. Important to note is that our properties are used for residential
Cape EAPrac: No such request has been addressed to this office. We recommend that the neighbours take up the original offer by Cavalier to set up a forum within which communicaton and rapid response to complaints may be addressed.
purposes and should Cavalier keep on with expansions we will reside in an industrial area in the near future. The argument of all this being agricultural activities can no longer be accepted as all the additions clearly can only be seen as industrial.
8. The noise of the trucks and vehicles travelling on the gravel road for about day and night is very bad and will get worse if the cattle throughput is increased.
Cavalier: Volumes of trucks will increase but we are convince that the upgrading of the road system will reduce the noise to a minimum.
9. Please confirm whether the oxidation dams have been lined ? Two additional dams means more waste water ? You state no increase in water use – please explain why do they not need any permission to build the two additional dams?
Cape EAPrac: The existing oxidation dams have been in place for many years before the legal requirement of lining was implemented. That no pollution has been identified in the boreholes nearest the dams indicates that some lining, probably clay was originally used however it is not likely to have been to the standards currently required. The existing dams cannot be lined in situ as they are used on a daily basis for the abattoir wastewater. Once the two new dams are built, the existing dams will be emptied and lined, thus ensuring that there is more than sufficient capacity to treat all wastewater generated by the abattoir. The two new dams do not exceed the thresholds identified for activities related to the expansion of treatment ponds in the NEMA EIA Regulations. Therefore on their own they do not require Environmental Authorisation and legally Cavalier would be in their right to begin construction immediately. The Water Use License also authorised the construction of the two new dams along with the requirement to line the existing dams. Please note that it was stated that no increase in the AUTHORISED water use is required. The abattoir's approved use will be sufficient for the increase in slaughter units. In addition, several water recycling mechanisms have been implemented to ensure sustainable use of the resource. Cavalier: The requirement as per the WUL is that the two
new dams have to be completed at the time that the project reach completion.
10. We requested a tribunal with the last application – this was ignored and the application approved ? Take note that this steam roller behaviour and actions leave a lot of questions
Cape EAPrac: There is some uncertainty regarding this statement, particularly as there have been different applications required in terms of different legislation. 1. A public meeting was held on the site as part of the NEMA EIA process. 2. During the EIA process, Cavalier offered to become involved in a community forum and invited all neighbours to participate. The intention of this was to ensure communication and rapid response to any complaints. No response was forthcoming. 3. Public meetings were held as part of the Water Use License process. Any further requirements or requests associated with this process is unknown, particularly as the WUL was issued.
Fourie, Eugene - Neighbouring Property Owner
Automatically registered as an I&AP. Registered 30 November 2015
Representing the Gauteng Concervancies and Stuardships Association at the MAP Forum on 26 November 2015, an office bearer of the Tshwane Municipality reported to the Forum that Tshwane had approved the first application of Cavalier but not yet the Kameeldrifvoere application. Copy of agenda attached.
Cape EAPrac: Thank you for the information. I have forwarded this to both the applicant and Bokamoso. Cavalier has expressed an interest in being associated with the forum.
The Minister of Water Affairs had replied, to a written question in parlement, that the state of the aquifers and wetlands, within five kilometers around both abattoirs/feedlots, will be assessed and monitored continually to ensure that the scale of the operations are sustainable.
Cape EAPrac: Thank you for the information. I have forwarded this to both the applicant and Bokamoso.
We note that several new boreholes have been drilled, some in wetlands, during the last month or two. We reqest the initial and follow-up geohydrological reports, on the state of the aquifers and wetlands, to set our minds at ease that the scale of the operations are sustainable, and will remain so even after this new proposed expansion.
Cape EAPrac: Thank you for the information. I have forwarded this to both the applicant and our understanding is that the boreholes on site correlate to those identified in the approved WULA. With regards to the geohydrolgoical reports I have requested Bokamoso to provide you with copies directly.
I trust that the CD will contain all the necessary information.
Cape EAPrac: The CD contains the information related to this application. I have however forwarded your request to Bokamoso.
03-D
ec-1
5
Thank you for the communication. The Cavalier operation is very neat and well run up till now.
Cape EAPrac: Noted.
However, we have not had any insight into the status of the wetlands and aquifers. Please send me the CD and geohydrology report to P O Box 32289, Totiusdal, 0134.
Cape EAPrac: I will put a CD in the post for you today. With regard to the aquifers and wetlands the last information I received was the specialist studies for the Water Use License from Bokamoso, which I understand was provided to all of the Interested & Affected Parties. I will forward you email to Lizelle and request that she provides you with follow up.
Jordaan, S.P. - Neighbouring Property Owner
Automatically registered as an I&AP. Registered 30 November 2015
6 We are against the expansion of the Cavalier Abattoir cattle slaughter throughput increase for the following reasons:
1. If the abattoir was designed for 150 units of cattle only, how is it possible to expand to 250 units if the infrastructure has not already been built for the planned expansion?
Cape EAPrac: The ability to accommodate the increase in slaughter capacity is associated with storage and cooling facilities rather than the actual mechanisms used to slaughter the animals. The approved facility footprint and infrastructure therefore does not require any changes to it. It is reliant on the speed of process, the effectiveness and efficiency of processing and storage and the effectiveness of supply and demand of the final product.
2. Has the biogas facility already been designed to accommodate the additional throughput?
Cape EAPrac: The biogas plant was designed to accommodate all available waste on the site, including that of the already approved upgrades. The additional volumes of waste generated by the 100 extra animals fall within the original volume specifications. As for the slaughter process, the additional volume requires management changes as opposed to physical infrastructure changes. It must also be noted that the greatest volume of waste which will be generated by the additional 100 animals, will be in the form of wastewater. This will be treated in the oxidation dams and not the biogas facility. A biogas plant is unable to cope with too much water and is far more efficient with the correct ratio of solid material to liquid.
3. How is it possible not to use more water for the additional 100 units?
Cape EAPrac: It is not that no additional water will be used, rather water volumes required will be well within the approved levels as per the WUL. In addition, the abattoir has implemented several water recycling initiatives in order to better manage their resource.
4. Our boreholes have dramatically dropped in water yield. Where will the abattoir get the additional water?
Cape EAPrac: The water volume was confirmed by the geohydrological study which led to the issuing of the Water Use License by the Department of Water Affairs. Cavalier has also developed facilities and strategies on the premises to reduce water consumption and reuse wherever possible. Cavalier: Boreholes as per the WULA approval will be adequate to run the entire operation as well as the additional 100 cattle.
5. The gravel access road across our property on our servitude road can not handle the current traffic from the abattoir. How will it handle the additional trucks delivering cattle and transporting carcasses? We have not been informed of any plans to tar the road.
Cape EAPrac: The Environmental Authorisation for the upgrade requires that the road be improved to accommodate the additional traffic. This will be in the form of tarring of the road, as was communicated to all stakeholders in the original process. Cavalier: City of Tshwane as well as Gautrans prescribed road specifications that have to be completed by the same time as the completion of the project. This include a connection to the Gautrans main road and the tarring of the current gravel road.
6. The air pollution (terrible smell) from the abattoir will get worse.
Cape EAPrac: The improved waste management on the site in the form of the biogas facility, as well as improved oxidation dams provides improved odour management by default. It must be noted that there will not yet have been an improvement yet as the construction of the new waste management activities is not complete and operation has not yet commenced. Cavalier: All the required controls are in place to eliminate any smell.
7. The noise of the trucks and vehicles travelling on the gravel road for about day and night is very bad and will get worse if the cattle throughput is increased
Cavalier: Volumes of trucks will increase but we are convinced that the upgrading of the road system will reduce the noise to a minimum.
8. The oxidation dams have been supposed to be lined already. Why do they not need any permission to build the two additional dams?
Cape EAPrac: The existing oxidation dams have been in place for many years before the legal requirement of lining was implemented. That no pollution has been identified in the boreholes nearest the dams indicates that some lining, probably clay was originally used however it is not likely to have been to the standards currently required. The existing dams cannot be lined in situ as they are used on a daily basis for the abattoir wastewater. Once the two new dams are built, the existing dams will be emptied and lined, thus ensuring that there is more than sufficient capacity to treat all wastewater generated by the abattoir. The two new dams do not exceed the thresholds identified for activities related to the expansion of treatment ponds in the NEMA EIA Regulations. Therefore on their own they do not require Environmental Authorisation and legally Cavalier would be in their right to begin construction immediately. The Water Use License also authorised the construction of the two new dams along with the requirement to line the existing dams. Cavalier: The requirement as per the WUL is that the two new dams have to be completed at the time that the project reach completion.
If “NO” briefly explain why no comments have been received
3 GENERAL PUBLIC PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS
The Environmental Assessment Practitioner must ensure that the public participation process is adequate and must determine whether a public meeting or any other additional measure is appropriate or not based on the particular nature of each case. Special attention should be given to the involvement of local community structures such as Ward Committees and ratepayers associations. Please note that public concerns that emerge at a later stage that should have been addressed may cause the competent authority to withdraw any authorisation it may have issued if it becomes apparent that the public participation process was flawed. The EAP must record all comments and respond to each comment of the public / interested and affected party before the application report is submitted. The comments and responses must be captured in a Comments and Responses Report as prescribed in the regulations and be attached to this application.
4 APPENDICES FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
All public participation information is to be attached in the appropriate Appendix. The information in this Appendix is to be ordered as
detailed below
Appendix 1 – Proof of site notice
Appendix 2 – Written notices issued as required in terms of the regulations
Note: Section D is to be completed for the proposal and alternative(s) (if necessary) Instructions for completion of Section D for alternatives
1) For each alternative under investigation, where such alternatives will have different resource and process details (e.g. technology alternative), the entire Section D needs to be completed
4) Each alterative needs to be clearly indicated in the box below 5) Attach the above documents in a chronological order
(complete only when appropriate)
Section D Alternative No. "insert alternative number" (complete only when appropriate for above)
1 WASTE, EFFLUENT, AND EMISSION MANAGEMENT
Solid waste management Will the activity produce solid construction waste during the construction/initiation phase? YES NO
If yes, what estimated quantity will be produced per month? m3
How will the construction solid waste be disposed of (describe)?
Where will the construction solid waste be disposed of (describe)?
Will the activity produce solid waste during its operational phase? YES NO
If yes, what estimated quantity will be produced per month? `m3
How will the solid waste be disposed of (describe)?
Has the municipality or relevant service provider confirmed that sufficient air space exists for treating/disposing of the solid waste to be generated by this activity?
YES NO
Where will the solid waste be disposed if it does not feed into a municipal waste stream (describe)?
Note: If the solid waste (construction or operational phases) will not be disposed of in a registered landfill site or be taken up in a municipal waste stream, the applicant should consult with the competent authority to determine whether it is necessary to change to an application for scoping and EIA.
Can any part of the solid waste be classified as hazardous in terms of the relevant legislation? YES NO
If yes, inform the competent authority and request a change to an application for scoping and EIA.
Is the activity that is being applied for a solid waste handling or treatment facility? YES NO
If yes, the applicant should consult with the competent authority to determine whether it is necessary to change to an application for scoping and EIA.
Section D has been duplicated for alternatives "insert No. of duplicates" times
Describe the measures, if any, that will be taken to ensure the optimal reuse or recycling of materials:
Liquid effluent (other than domestic sewage) Will the activity produce effluent, other than normal sewage, that will be disposed of in a municipal sewage system?
YES NO
If yes, what estimated quantity will be produced per month? m3 If yes, has the municipality confirmed that sufficient capacity exist for treating / disposing of the liquid effluent to be generated by this activity(ies)?
YES NO
Will the activity produce any effluent that will be treated and/or disposed of on site? YES NO
If yes, what estimated quantity will be produced per month? ±12 357m3
The volume indicated above is for 100 units which is the increase in the throughput capacity.
There is already approval in place for the treatment of waste for 150 units per day. The total
volume for 250 units per day is ±1 103m³ or 30 894m³ per month. The waste stream includes
blood, slaughter waste, manure and wastewater.
If yes describe the nature of the effluent and how it will be disposed.
The waste produced by the increased throughput capacity will be treated in the authorised
biogas plant. The biogas plant uses anaerobic digestion of organic waste to capture methane
gas and produce electricity.
Please see Annexure F1 for a copy of the Waste Management License for the facility.
The improvements proposed for the oxidation dams will ensure that there is sufficient backup
capacity in the event that it is required, as well as improving the current treatment options in
place. The treated sludge from the approved biogas plant is reused as organic fertilizer on the
farm.
Note that if effluent is to be treated or disposed on site the applicant should consult with the competent authority to determine whether it is necessary to change to an application for scoping and EIA
Will the activity produce effluent that will be treated and/or disposed of at another facility? YES NO If yes, provide the particulars of the facility: Facility name: Contact person: Postal address: Postal code: Telephone: Cell: E-mail: Fax: Describe the measures that will be taken to ensure the optimal reuse or recycling of waste water, if any:
The treated sludge from the approved biogas plant is reused as organic fertilizer on the farm.
Any wastewater not utilised in the biogas facility will be polished in the oxidation ponds. This
water is then reused as irrigation water on the farm. There is currently sufficient capacity, but
the improvements proposed to the oxidation dams will ensure back up capacity in the event
that the biogas plant is not operational for any time. The lining of the dams will improve the
current state of the dams.
Liquid effluent (domestic sewage) Will the activity produce domestic effluent that will be disposed of in a municipal sewage system? YES NO
If yes, what estimated quantity will be produced per month? m3
If yes, has the municipality confirmed that sufficient capacity exist for treating / disposing of the domestic effluent to be generated by this activity(ies)?
YES NO
Will the activity produce any effluent that will be treated and/or disposed of on site? YES NO
If yes describe how it will be treated and disposed off.
Emissions into the atmosphere Will the activity release emissions into the atmosphere? YES NO
If yes, is it controlled by any legislation of any sphere of government? YES NO If yes, the applicant should consult with the competent authority to determine whether it is necessary to change to an application for scoping and EIA.
If no, describe the emissions in terms of type and concentration:
Emissions from breathing and flatulence from the cattle are probable, however these are in
keeping with the agricultural nature of the area and do not require any authorisation.
It must be noted that the approved waste management activities for the facility were aimed at
improving the existing waste systems and will by default improve on odours. Since the
construction is not yet completed nor in operation, odours associated with the previous waste
management system will persist. Once the new system is in operation, any odours will
decrease. This will apply to the increased throughput capacity as well.
2 WATER USE
Indicate the source(s) of water that will be used for the activity municipal Directly from
water board groundwater river, stream, dam or
lake other the activity will not use water
Please note that the water use on the site has an existing Water Use License (WUL) in place. No
additional water is required for the increased throughput capacity. The figures captured in this
The assessment of impacts must adhere to the minimum requirements in the EIA Regulations, 2014, and should take applicable official guidelines into account. The issues raised by interested and affected parties should also be addressed in the assessment of impacts as well as the impacts of not implementing the activity (Section 24(4)(b)(i).
1 ISSUES RAISED BY INTERESTED AND AFFECTED PARTIES
Summarise the issues raised by interested and affected parties.
The following issues were raised by Interested & Affected Parties:
1. The increase in throughput capacity without increase in footprint of the facility implies
that the current facility was already designed for 250 cattle units.
2. Was the biogas already designed to accommodate the increased waste material?
3. Increase in water use.
4. Where will the additional water come from?
5. The state of the access road.
6. Odours from the abattoir will be increased.
7. Noise of vehicles on the gravel road.
8. Why do the oxidation dams not need authorisation?
9. Are the oxidation dams lined?
10. Increased litter and rubbish along the road.
11. Noise level of the cooling units.
12. Request for a tribunal.
Summary of response from the practitioner to the issues raised by the interested and affected parties (including the manner in which the public comments are incorporated or why they were not included) (A full response must be provided in the Comments and Response Report that must be attached to this report):
Responses to the issues raised above:
1. The ability to accommodate the increase in slaughter capacity is associated with storage
and cooling facilities rather than the actual mechanisms used to slaughter the animals.
The approved facility footprint and infrastructure therefore does not require any changes
to it. It is reliant on the speed of process, the effectiveness and efficiency of processing
and storage and the effectiveness of supply and demand of the final product.
2. The biogas plant was designed to accommodate all available waste on the site, including
that of the already approved upgrades. The additional volumes of waste generated by
the 100 extra animals fall within the original volume specifications. As for the slaughter
process, the additional volume requires management changes as opposed to physical
infrastructure changes. It must also be noted that the greatest volume of waste which will
be generated by the additional 100 animals, will be in the form of wastewater. This will
be treated in the oxidation dams and not the biogas facility. A biogas plant is unable to
Based on a synthesis of the information contained in the above-described procedure, you are
required to assess the potential impacts in terms of the following significance criteria:
No significance: the impacts do not influence the proposed development and/or environment in
any way.
Low significance: the impacts will have a minor influence on the proposed development and/or
environment. These impacts require some attention to modification of the project design where
possible, or alternative mitigation.
Moderate significance: the impacts will have a moderate influence on the proposed
development and/or environment. The impact can be ameliorated by a modification in the
project design or implementation of effective mitigation measures.
High significance: the impacts will have a major influence on the proposed development and/or
environment and will result in the “no-go” option on the development or portions of the
development regardless of any mitigation measures that could be implemented. This level of
significance must be well motivated.
General Assumptions & Limitations
It is assumed that the information on which this report is based (specialist studies and
project information, as well as existing information) is correct, factual and truthful.
The proposed development is in line with the statutory planning vision for the area
(namely the local Spatial Development Plan), and thus it is assumed that issues such as
the cumulative impact of development in terms of character of the area and its
resources, have been taken into account during the strategic planning for the area.
It is assumed that all the relevant mitigation measures and agreements specified in this
report will be implemented in order to ensure minimal negative impacts and maximum
environmental benefits.
It is assumed that Stakeholders and Interested and Affected Parties notified during the
initial public participation process will submit all relevant comments within the designated review and comment period, so that these can included in the Final Report
can be timeously submitted to the delegated Authority for consideration.
Briefly describe and compare the potential impacts (as appropriate), significance rating of impacts, proposed mitigation and significance rating of impacts after mitigation that are likely to occur as a result of the construction phase for the various alternatives of the proposed development. This must include an assessment of the significance of all impacts. Proposal
Significance rating of impacts (positive or negative):
Proposed mitigation:
Significance rating of impacts after mitigation:
Risk of the impact and mitigation not being implemented
None for this application. Construction has already been assessed and approved. The construction activities associated with the oxidation dams are below threshold and will not have any further significant impacts for construction.
Alternative 1 (REPEAT THIS TABLE FOR EACH ALTERNATIVE)
Potential impacts:
Significance rating of impacts (positive or negative):
Proposed mitigation:
Significance rating of impacts after mitigation:
Risk of the impact and mitigation not being implemented
None. No Go
Potential impacts:
Significance rating of impacts (positive or negative):
Proposed mitigation:
Significance rating of impacts after mitigation:
Risk of the impact and mitigation not being implemented
None. List any specialist reports that were used to fill in the above tables. Such reports are to be attached in the appropriate Appendix.
Describe any gaps in knowledge or assumptions made in the assessment of the environment and the impacts associated with the proposed development.
3 IMPACTS THAT MAY RESULT FROM THE DECOMISSIONING AND CLOSURE PHASE
Briefly describe and compare the potential impacts (as appropriate), significance rating of impacts, proposed mitigation and significance rating of impacts after mitigation that are likely to occur as a result of the decommissioning and closure phase for the various alternatives of the proposed development. This must include an assessment of the significance of all impacts. Proposal Potential impacts:
Significance rating of impacts(positive or negative):
Proposed mitigation:
Significance rating of impacts after mitigation:
Risk of the impact and mitigation not being implemented
Direct: Loss of economic driver in the area.
High negative impact.
Support sustainable development of agrarian industries as per the
Indirect: Loss of biodiversity Moderate. Development should be
contained within the proposed footprint of the development and unnecessary disturbance adjacent to the site should be avoided. Slurry dams will be enlarged or new ones built to contain any effluent from the existing feedlots and prevent overflow into the drainage lines in the north-east and south of the property. Transplanted/relocated individuals of Aloe species and Boophone disticha should be monitored. Indigenous trees and shrubs should be retained where possible and/or indigenous trees of the area should be planted in suitable areas at the site. Alien invasive species should be eradicated on site. Existing and dedicated roads should be marked and utilised by vehicles.
Low Very low
Alternative 1
Potential impacts:
Significance rating of impacts(positive or negative):
Proposed mitigation:
Significance rating of impacts after mitigation:
Risk of the impact and mitigation not being implemented
Alternative 2
Potential impacts:
Significance rating of impacts (positive or negative):
Proposed mitigation:
Significance rating of impacts after mitigation:
Risk of the impact and mitigation not being implemented
List any specialist reports that were used to fill in the above tables. Such reports are to be attached in the appropriate Appendix.
A Vegetation Survey was conducted by Dr Noel van Rooyen of Ekotrust dated 28 February
2013. A Pre Application meeting with the GDARD confirmed that this report may be considered
for this application as it is still relevant.
The document is included as Annexure G1 in this report. Where applicable indicate the detailed financial provisions for rehabilitation, closure and ongoing post decommissioning management for the negative environmental impacts.
Since no closure or decommissioning is envisaged for the near future, this section is currently
not applicable. In the event that the facility does decommission, the relevant legislation at that
time must be complied with.
4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Describe potential impacts that, on their own may not be significant, but is significant when added to the impact of other activities or existing impacts in the environment. Substantiate response:
The following cumulative impacts may occur:
The establishment of declared weedy and alien invasive plant species on the disturbed
site could lead to their spread into the surrounding natural vegetation and onto
neighbouring properties. Their presence may also slow down the recovery of the natural
vegetation.
The spread of alien invaders due to loss of natural vegetation and possible increased
water runoff leading to erosion will exacerbate the negative impact of the development
on the vegetation and will lead to a loss of habitat for indigenous fauna and flora if not
managed.
The establishment of declared weedy and alien invasive plant species on the disturbed
site could lead to their spread into the surrounding natural vegetation and onto
neighbouring properties. Their presence may also slow down the recovery of the natural
vegetation.
Improved socio-economic development within an area identified by the Integrated
Development Plan 2011 – 2016 is likely to have positive cumulative impacts on the local
communities.
Improved waste management on site by means of the lining and implementation of the
Taking the assessment of potential impacts into account, please provide an environmental impact statement that sums up the impact that the proposal and its alternatives may have on the environment after the management and mitigation of impacts have been taken into account with specific reference to types of impact, duration of impacts, likelihood of potential impacts actually occurring and the significance of impacts. Proposal
Nature of Impact Extent Duration Intensity Probability Significance
Impact on
Natural Vegetation (Operation)
Site specific Permanent Low Highly probable Low
Impact on Alien Vegetation
(Operation)
Property Long term (depends
on ongoing
management)
High positive Highly probable High positive
Socio-Economic Region Long term High positive Highly probable High positive
Waste Management
Region Long term High positive Highly probable High positive
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
No-go (compulsory)
Nature of Impact Extent Duration Intensity Probability Significance
Impact on Natural Vegetation
(Operation)
Site specific Discontinuous Low Highly probable Low
Impact on Alien
Vegetation (Operation)
Property Discontinuous Low Highly probable Medium
negative
Socio-Economic Region Long term Low Highly probable Low
6 IMPACT SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSAL OR PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
For proposal:
The overall impacts for the proposed development have a very low impact on the receiving
environment as the infrastructure is already approved and under construction. The
improvements proposed for the oxidation dams, although below the NEMA thresholds will
contribute to the overall waste management on the site, and provide sufficient buffering capacity
in the event that the approved biogas plant every experiences difficulties.
There is a High positive impact on waste management for the abattoir, as well as on the socio-
economic aspect for the region.
For alternative:
Having assessed the significance of impacts of the proposal and alternative(s), please provide an overall summary and reasons for selecting the proposal or preferred alternative.
The abattoir is proposing the increase in the slaughter throughput capacity from 150 units to 250
units (cattle). This will not require the expansion of any of the infrastructure that has already
been approved and is currently under construction. This is due to the fact that the throughput
can be increased by means of increasing sales (livestock and product) and improved cold
storage and packing on the site. The approved biogas facility will accommodate the additional
waste material generated by the additional 100 units on a daily basis.
The existing oxidation dams will be lined and an additional two dams will be constructed. These
are below the NEMA thresholds and do not require authorisation. They have been introduced in
this report though, because they will offer a backup buffer option in the event that the biogas
plant is ever inoperable. Overall they will improve the waste management on the site, as well as
the quality of the irrigation water (which is currently within the guidelines provided by DWS).
The overall impacts for the proposed development have a very low impact on the receiving
environment as the infrastructure is already approved and under construction. The
improvements proposed for the oxidation dams, although below the NEMA thresholds will
contribute to the overall waste management on the site, and provide sufficient buffering capacity
in the event that the approved biogas plant every experiences difficulties.
There is a High positive impact on waste management for the abattoir, as well as on the socio-
Indicate the application of any spatial development tool protocols on the proposed development and the outcome thereof.
The abattoir has been granted consent use in terms of the Tshwane planning regulations to
operate on the site.
8 RECOMMENDATION OF THE PRACTITIONER
Is the information contained in this report and the documentation attached hereto sufficient to make a decision in respect of the activity applied for (in the view of the Environmental Assessment Practitioner as bound by professional ethical standards and the code of conduct of EAPASA).
YES NO
If “NO”, indicate the aspects that require further assessment before a decision can be made (list the aspects that require further assessment):
If “YES”, please list any recommended conditions, including mitigation measures that should be considered for inclusion in any authorisation that may be granted by the competent authority in respect of the application:
The existing EMPr and conditions of authorisation must be adhered to on the site. These
conditions will ensure that the increase in throughput capacity is effectively managed.
9 THE NEEDS AND DESIRABILITY OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
(as per notice 792 of 2012, or the updated version of this guideline)
The existing abattoir and processing facility is in a unique position to provide economic stability
in an area that suffers from low employment. An increase in the cattle throughput capacity
increases the economic viability of the facility and provides a regional slaughter facility for local
farmers / feedlots. Since no further infrastructure expansions are required to increase the
throughput, the impacts remain very low.
According to the 2013 SDF for Region 5, the following statements have been made:
Rural economies will be supported by agriculture, and where possible by mining, tourism and
agro processing;
The greatest strength of the area, in respect of agriculture, is its central location and access to
markets. The east-west transport linkages and proximity to the urban centres within Gauteng are
important opportunities in this regard. With specific reference to the Johannesburg International
The following appendixes must be attached as appropriate (this list is inclusive, but not exhaustive): It is required that if more than one item is enclosed that a table of contents is included in the appendix Appendix A: Site plan(s) – (must include a scaled layout plan of the proposed activities overlain on the site sensitivities indicating areas to be avoided including buffers) Appendix B: Photographs Appendix C: Facility illustration(s) Appendix D: Route position information Appendix E: Public participation information Appendix F: Water use license(s) authorisation, SAHRA information, service letters from municipalities,
water supply information Appendix G: Specialist reports Appendix H: EMPr Appendix I: Other information CHECKLIST To ensure that all information that the Department needs to be able to process this application, please check that:
Where requested, supporting documentation has been attached; All relevant sections of the form have been completed.
