1. AMATHOLE DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY
UPGRADING OF HOGSBACK SANITATION INFRASTRUCTURE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
15 November 2016

2. Presentation Sequence
Purpose of meeting
Project team
Project Background
Project Motivation
Design Parameters
Design Options
EIA process
Key Issues
Conclusion
Way forward

3. Purpose of Meeting Upgrading of Hogsback Sanitation Infrastructure
Public Meeting as part of the EIA process to inform the community with regards to the project and obtain comments/ concerns with regards to the project

4. PROJECT TEAM EAP: Indwe Environmental Consulting
Engineers: Royal HaskoningDHV
Proponent: Amathole District Municipality

5. PROJECT BACKGROUND
ADM appointed RHDHV to investigate options to upgrade sanitation infrastructure in Hamburg, Kei Mouth and Hogsback Tourism Areas
Currently erven within Hogsback have septic tank and soakaway systems
Several septic tanks were observed to be overflowing. Due to the loamy ground conditions and shade caused by thick tree cover the soak-away drains are not effective. The saturated soil around the soak-away drains prevents the overflow water from being absorbed. Overflowing tanks are causing unhygienic living conditions and pollution of the groundwater and surrounding environment.

6. PROJECT BACKGROUND
RHDHV prepared Preliminary Design Report for Sanitation Infrastructure Upgrade in Hogsback in September 2015
Indwe Environmental Consulting appointed to undertake applications for environmental authorisation:
Basic Assessment (National Environmental Management Act, 108 of 1998, EIA Regulations 2014)
General Authorisation for stream crossings (National Water Act, 36 of 1998, Section 21 (c) and (i))
General Authorisation for discharge of treated effluent (National Water Act, 36 of 1998, Section 21 (e)
Protected tree disturbance for construction (National Forest Act, 84 of 1984)

7. PROJECT MOTIVATION
The primary objective of the project is to provide a basic, hygienic sanitation system to the area that is safe to the environment and the community that will be using it
Currently high cost of operation (tankers have to discharge at Alice - 70km round trip)
On-going pollution of the environment due to overflowing septic tanks
Potential negative effect on the tourism industry and downstream water users

8. ADM IDP 2016/17

9. DESIGN PARAMETERS
Erf connections will be at the lowest point of the site.
Pipelines will be located 1m from the cadastral boundary either on the inside of the property or outside the property within the road reserve.
The position of existing services was not taken into consideration for the preliminary design.
The location of all existing services needs to be confirmed with various service providers

10. Pump stations located at the lowest areas of the site to pump to the WWTW
Pump stations designed to incorporate a 4 hour emergency storage capacity in case of power or mechanical failures
The plant will include all unit processes and components required to accomplish:
screening
primary treatment and nitrification
solids removal (secondary settling)
disinfection (chlorination) tanks

11. DESIGN OPTIONS OPTION 1 – WATER BORNE SANITATION & WWTW ADM
OPTION 2 – SMALL-BORE SANITATION & ON-SITE TREATMENT MODULE

12. WATER BORNE SANITATION & PACKAGE TREATMENT PLANT
The sewer reticulation network and WWTW will require on-going maintenance
Operational cost expected to be much lower than tanker service
Requires a water connection to each property
Sewage will be treated and discharged into a nearby stream

14. WWTW Site 1

15. WWTW Site 2

16. EIA PROCESS Environmental Assessment processes:
National Environmental Management Act – (EIA)
Environmental Application to be submitted to DEDEAT
Public Participation Process
Basic Assessment Report and Environmental Management Plan
Submitted to DEDEAT – Amathole Region, East London
National Water Act

17. BA PROCESS or + Consultation BAR & EMPR
Pre-application (Optional)
WUL
Application
Consultation BAR & EMPR +
NOI
Site inspection & permission to proceed
90 days
Public Participation including CA (30 days)
Incorporate PP comments
Submit BAR & EMPr
EA Decision prerequisite for MPRDA Decision or
Notification of addition 50 days PP
DWA meeting:
DWA recommendations
BAR and EMPr review
Public participation including CA (30 days)
Incorporate PP comments
50 days
WULA submitted
107 days
WULAC recommendation
DAYS (Non- substantive) Days (Substantive)
Submit BAR & EMPr
157 days
Decision
BAR and EMPr review
WUL Decision
107 days
Decision
In event of substantive BA process all time-frames extended by 50 days
ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORISATION APPEAL FINALISED
90 days
EA APPEAL DECISION
90 days

18. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Undertaken in accordance with Regulation 41 of 2014 EIA Regulations
A newspaper advert was placed on 19th September 2016
Background information documents were delivered to residents and all I&APs on 28th September 2016
Signboards were placed at the entrances of Hogsback

19. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Posters were placed in public areas in Hogsback
Comments have been received and recorded from I&APs
Tourism Info Centre
Local Grocery Store

20. KEY ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Ecological Impacts
Disturbance of indigenous vegetation and biodiversity impacts
Disturbance to riparian vegetation during trench digging for stream crossings
Disturbance to residents gardens during linear pipeline installation
Rehabilitation of trenches, cleared areas, access roads and subsequent erosion control
Social Impacts
Increased noise, construction traffic
Employment opportunities (job creation and community upliftment)
Improved health and hygiene standards if system is operated correctly

21. GENERAL ISSUES RAISED BY I&APs
Regular experiences of electricity failures for extended periods
Social instability of the area arising from the non delivery of services
Current informal housing and future high density housing plans in Hogsback need to be considered and included in the project
Need for a comprehensive Development Plan for Hogsback
Properties dependent on water from ADM have experienced a lack of water in the past
Municipality should focus its resources and consider direct assistance to the three hotels and small business zone
Concern for the on-going maintenance of the proposed infrastructure

22. CONCLUSION Development in line with latest environmental policy
Draft Basic Assessment Report – 30 day public comment
Detailed Environmental Management Programme prepared for construction and operation phases
Environmental Authorisation – legal document in which EMP and other approval conditions are mandatory and are audited

23. Way Forward Please sign attendance register
All reports are on Indwe Website –
Please send written comments by 30 November to:
Indwe Environmental Consulting
12 Preston Avenue
Vincent
East London
Tel:
Fax: