FEIR for Boitshepi Landfill Site .pdf - Zitholele.co.za
FEIR for Boitshepi Landfill Site .pdf - Zitholele.co.za FEIR for Boitshepi Landfill Site .pdf - Zitholele.co.za
97August 2010 8848Table 29: Impact Rating Matrix for terrestrial ecology during construction phase(Alternative 1-3).Type of Impact Significance Spatial Temporal Probability RatingInitial HIGH Study site Long TermHas alreadyoccurred3.3- HighAdditional LOW Study site Short Term Could Occur 1.3- LowCumulativeHas alreadyHIGH Study site Long Termoccurred3.3- HighResidualHas alreadyHIGH Study site Long Termoccurred3.3- High11.1.7 Visual ImpactThe visual simulations prepared by Zitholele illustrate the extent to which the waste disposalsite will be visible from key observation points (static and dynamic views). The verticalform/dimensions of the waste disposal site would be hidden by its location among existingbuildings and within a well vegetated area. The visual contrast is increased by the shape andscale of the site, which generally will not be viewed along the skyline.Initial ImpactIn the case of the Boitshepi Waste Disposal Site, it is pertinent to mention the existingimpacts found on site. In this case, there is a waste disposal site, the Boipatong, Tshepisoand Sharpeville communities as well as the heavy industries to the north.The proposed waste disposal site is potentially visible from the surrounding communities aswell as the industrial areas. The potential number of viewers from this area is high as thecommunities are densely populated but the views vary greatly depending on site specificconditions like the orientation of the homes as well as the location of other buildings, fences,vegetation and localized landforms. However, the large number of viewers in the viewshedmeans that the proposed extension has a High impact. This impact rating will be the samefor all three alternatives but due to the smaller visible area from Alternative 3, this is thepreferred alternative.The concrete fence that is present on the waste disposal site reduces the visibility of theactivities taking place on sight, significantly to the dynamic viewers (travelling along theimmediate roads, west, north and east of the waste disposal site), and also the immediatesurrounding dwellers.The initial impact to the visual aspect is therefore rated as a HIGH negative impact occurringin the study area and will be permanent as even prior to rehabilitation; the waste body wouldstill be as steep, at least at 1:3. This impact is occurring and as such is rated as a Highimpact.ZITHOLELE CONSULTING
98August 2010 8848Additional ImpactThe erection of camp sites for the contractors, surface drainage and storm water diversiondrains, lining system, leachate collection system, gas management systems and the leakagedetection system are all part of the proposed construction activities for the proposedextension of the waste disposal site.The construction activities that are being proposed for the waste disposal site will have aLOW significance, occurring in the study area. The impact will definitely occur. The impactwill be during the construction phase.Cumulative ImpactThe cumulative impact during the construction phase remains as assessed above for allthree alternatives since the additional impact and the initial impact occur in the same area.MitigationThere are several methods of screening the visual impact of a development like a wastedisposal site and any of these can be utilised to reduce the visual impact:• Screening vegetation or fences can be erected along the roads (in this case a concretefence has already been erected around the site (see Figure 29 below); andResidual ImpactFigure 29: Existing screening around the siteIt would be difficult to mitigate the visual impacts associated with the construction phase forwaste disposal facilities. There is a concrete fence that currently surrounds the site, andreduces the visual impact. The residual impact is as per the initial impact.ZITHOLELE CONSULTING
- Page 62 and 63: 47August 2010 8848Figure 12: Soil T
- Page 64 and 65: August 2010 4988487.1.3 Drainage Fe
- Page 66 and 67: August 2010 518848Figure 15: Upper
- Page 68 and 69: 53August 2010 8848Figure 16: Topogr
- Page 70 and 71: August 2010 558848Soweto Highveld G
- Page 72 and 73: August 2010 578848Figure 18: Alien
- Page 74 and 75: 59August 2010 8848Species ListThe f
- Page 76 and 77: 61August 2010 8848Common Name Scien
- Page 78 and 79: 63August 2010 8848five decades ago
- Page 80 and 81: 65August 2010 8848steel industry, I
- Page 82 and 83: 67August 2010 88488 WASTE LICENSE A
- Page 84 and 85: 69August 2010 8848Waste disposal si
- Page 86 and 87: 71August 2010 8848Table 13 below il
- Page 88 and 89: 73August 2010 8848continue to monit
- Page 90 and 91: 75August 2010 88489 WASTE DISPOSAL
- Page 92 and 93: 77August 2010 88489.2.1 Extension o
- Page 94 and 95: 79August 2010 8848Figure 26: Site l
- Page 96 and 97: 81August 2010 884810 IMPACT ASSESSM
- Page 98 and 99: 83August 2010 884810.3 Duration Sca
- Page 100 and 101: 85August 2010 884811 IMPACT ASSESSM
- Page 102 and 103: 87August 2010 8848• Link the exte
- Page 104 and 105: 89August 2010 8848Type ofImpactCumu
- Page 106 and 107: 91August 2010 8848Figure 28: Piezom
- Page 108 and 109: 93August 2010 884811.1.4 Surface wa
- Page 110 and 111: 95August 2010 8848seepage of ground
- Page 114 and 115: 99August 2010 8848Table 30: Impact
- Page 116 and 117: 101August 2010 8848• As a minimum
- Page 118 and 119: 103August 2010 8848Table 32: Impact
- Page 120 and 121: 105August 2010 8848material. Not on
- Page 122 and 123: 107August 2010 8848Safety• Access
- Page 124 and 125: 109August 2010 8848Type ofImpactCum
- Page 126 and 127: 111August 2010 884811.2.2 Topograph
- Page 128 and 129: 113August 2010 8848It is understood
- Page 130 and 131: 115August 2010 8848Additional Impac
- Page 132 and 133: 117August 2010 8848Cumulative Impac
- Page 134 and 135: 119August 2010 8848Additional Impac
- Page 136 and 137: 121August 2010 8848TrafficDuring th
- Page 138 and 139: 123August 2010 884811.3 Decommissio
- Page 140 and 141: 125August 2010 884811.3.3 Groundwat
- Page 142 and 143: 127August 2010 884811.3.5 Geotechni
- Page 144 and 145: 129August 2010 8848Additional Impac
- Page 146 and 147: 131August 2010 8848Additional Impac
- Page 148 and 149: 133August 2010 8848Table 53: Impact
- Page 150 and 151: 135August 2010 884812.1.1 Preferred
- Page 152: August 2010 137884813 CONCLUSION AN
97August 2010 8848Table 29: Impact Rating Matrix <strong>for</strong> terrestrial e<strong>co</strong>logy during <strong>co</strong>nstruction phase(Alternative 1-3).Type of Impact Significance Spatial Temporal Probability RatingInitial HIGH Study site Long TermHas alreadyoccurred3.3- HighAdditional LOW Study site Short Term Could Occur 1.3- LowCumulativeHas alreadyHIGH Study site Long Termoccurred3.3- HighResidualHas alreadyHIGH Study site Long Termoccurred3.3- High11.1.7 Visual ImpactThe visual simulations prepared by <strong>Zitholele</strong> illustrate the extent to which the waste disposalsite will be visible from key observation points (static and dynamic views). The vertical<strong>for</strong>m/dimensions of the waste disposal site would be hidden by its location among existingbuildings and within a well vegetated area. The visual <strong>co</strong>ntrast is increased by the shape andscale of the site, which generally will not be viewed along the skyline.Initial ImpactIn the case of the <strong>Boitshepi</strong> Waste Disposal <strong>Site</strong>, it is pertinent to mention the existingimpacts found on site. In this case, there is a waste disposal site, the Boipatong, Tshepisoand Sharpeville <strong>co</strong>mmunities as well as the heavy industries to the north.The proposed waste disposal site is potentially visible from the surrounding <strong>co</strong>mmunities aswell as the industrial areas. The potential number of viewers from this area is high as the<strong>co</strong>mmunities are densely populated but the views vary greatly depending on site specific<strong>co</strong>nditions like the orientation of the homes as well as the location of other buildings, fences,vegetation and localized land<strong>for</strong>ms. However, the large number of viewers in the viewshedmeans that the proposed extension has a High impact. This impact rating will be the same<strong>for</strong> all three alternatives but due to the smaller visible area from Alternative 3, this is thepreferred alternative.The <strong>co</strong>ncrete fence that is present on the waste disposal site reduces the visibility of theactivities taking place on sight, significantly to the dynamic viewers (travelling along theimmediate roads, west, north and east of the waste disposal site), and also the immediatesurrounding dwellers.The initial impact to the visual aspect is there<strong>for</strong>e rated as a HIGH negative impact occurringin the study area and will be permanent as even prior to rehabilitation; the waste body wouldstill be as steep, at least at 1:3. This impact is occurring and as such is rated as a Highimpact.ZITHOLELE CONSULTING
Change language