proposed brt bus depot in meadowlands, soweto.

advertisement
Deepening, Lengthening and Widening
of Berth 203 to 205, Container Terminal,
Pier 2, Port of Durban
PUBLIC OPEN DAY - EIA:
31 October 2012
WELCOME & INTRODUCTION
WELCOME!
Thank you for taking the time to attend the Public Open Day. Your
presence is appreciated . Please take a seat and watch the
presentation.
After the presentation you will have an opportunity to ask the
technical and environmental teams questions. Should you have any
comments please complete a reply form. We value your contribution
to the EIA process. There are maps at the back of the hall should you want
to view them. We look forward to your contribution.
2
MEET THE PROJECT TEAM
Proponent
Representative
Responsibility
Ivan Moonsamy
Senior Project Manager
Miriam Haffejee
Environmental Manager
Paris Foolchand
Project Manager
Organisation
Transnet National Ports Authority
(TNPA)
Transnet Capital Projects (TCP)
Joe McMahon
Environmental Manager
Consultants
Representative
Vanessa Brueton
Responsibility
Organisation
Environmental Assessment
Practitioner
Nemai Consulting
Nicky Naidoo
Project Manager
3
WHY HAVE A PUBLIC OPEN DAY???
1. To provide feedback since the Scoping Phase;
2. To present the findings of the EIA study which
is informed by the various specialist studies;
and
3. To provide an opportunity for you to submit and
raise your comments for consideration by the
project team.
4
WHY HAVE A PUBLIC OPEN DAY???
In addition, a Public Open Day allows, you, the
I&AP to participate in the EIA process at
your convenience. The project team will be
available throughout the day for you to ask
questions and raise queries.
5
RECAP SINCE THE SCOPING PHASE –
WHY IS THIS PROJECT NECESSARY???
1.
The current quay walls at Berth 203 to 205 are over 50 years old and is
beyond its original design limits. Hence, the quay walls are considered
unsafe and need to be upgraded.
2.
At the same time the Port of Durban has experienced a steady growth in
container numbers and vessel sizes. Therefore, the design for the upgrade
to the existing quay walls needs to take into account the larger vessels
entering the Port.
3.
As the berth channel is not deep enough, large vessels can only enter and
leave the Port at high tide which negatively impacts the efficiency of the
Port. Further, the Port of Durban is considered a ‘hub’ port and to maintain
this status, it needs to accommodate the larger vessels which will improve
its efficiency.
4.
Hence, the upgrade of the unsafe quay walls presents an opportunity to
improve the safety and efficiency of the Port of Durban.
6
WHERE IS THE PROJECT LOCATED???
FOCUS OF THE PROPOSED
PROJECT IS PIER 2
DURBAN CONTAINER
TERMINAL
COMPRISES OF 15 BERTHS
CAN ACCOMADATE 8 POST PANAMAX VESSELS
WHERE ARE BERTHS 203 to 205 LOCATED?
203
204
205
WATER DEPTH -12.8m CDP
TOTAL EXISTING BERTH LENGTH OF 914m
EXISTING SANDBANK
EXISTING CRANE
ASSEMBLEY AREA
EXTENSIONS
170m Extension of
Berth 205
9
WHAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH THE EXISTING QUAY WALLS???
1. It was built in the 1960s and does not meet the
minimum Eurocode 7 Safety Standards;
2. The berth channel is not deep enough as a result
scour holes have formed which has undermined
the structural stability of the existing quay wall;
3. The berths are only 914m long and it needs to be
1190m to accommodate three Super Post
Panamax vessels; and
4. The current quay wall cannot safely
accommodate the larger Ship to Shore cranes.
10
VESSEL SIZES AT DCT
The original quaywall was
designed to accommodate a
1000 TEU vessel with wharf
cranes
DCT is presently operating vessels of
6000 TEU and greater
1
WHAT EXACTLY IS THIS PROJECT ABOUT???
The project involves:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The westward lengthening of Berth 205 by 170m;
The eastward lengthening of Berth 203 by 100m;
The widening of Berths 203 to 205 by 50m;
The deepening of the Berth channel, approach
channel, and vessel turning basin from the current 12.8m CDP to -16.5m CDP;
Excavating the trench for the new quay wall structure
from -12.8m CDP to -19m CDP (for caisson option
only);
The offshore disposal of dredge material;
The offshore sand winning for infill material; and
The installation of new Ship to Shore (STS) cranes
and associated infrastructure.
12
WHAT ALTERNATIVES WERE CONSIDERED?
The EIA Regulations require that we consider different alternatives. Initially, three technological
alternatives were presented in the Scoping Report. These were:
 Caisson,
 Sheet Pile; and
 Deck on Pile.
Further, two alternative offshore sand winning sites were presented. These were:
•
Area 1; and
•
Area 2
Only one dredge footprint was presented. However, impacts on the Central Sandbank was one of
the main concerns raised by I&APs. This led to process whereby alternatives dredge
footprints were considered
Initially, the specialist met to discuss the original dredge footprint. In addition, the engineering
team had to consider ways in which the dredge footprint could be decreased without
impacting on the safety of vessels. This led to various dredge footprint alternatives. The CSIR
then modelled the impacts of these dredge footprints in terms of bed shear stress and
likelihood of erosion. A specialist integration meeting then took place where the findings of
the specialist studies were presented. Based on this meeting, the dredge footprints were
further refined and assessed by the specialists. This resulted in the final preferred alternative,
Option 3G.
13
EVOLUTION OF ALTERNATIVES
14
OFFSHORE SAND WINNING ALTERNATIVES
• Two alternative offshore sand winning sites
were assessed:
– Area 1; and
– Area 2.
15
AREA 1
16
AREA 2
17
DREDGE FOOTPRINT ALTERNATIVES
• Six dredge footprints were assessed.
– Option 3B
– Option 3C
– Option 3D
– Option 3E
– Option 3F
– Option 3G
• As explained earlier these were modified based on the
findings of the specialist studies and discussions between the
project team.
18
OPTION 3B
Original dredge footprint including
large amount of scour protection
along western edge of Berth 205
19
OPTION 3C
Provision of Caisson wall along
western edge to minimise loss
of Sandbank habitat
20
OPTION 3D
Includes Sandbank
Expansion. This option
results in a net loss of -4.6%
of sandbank habitat
21
OPTION 3E
Includes Sandbank Expansion.
There is only a small difference
between this and Option 3D. This
option results in a net loss of 3.8% of sandbank habitat
22
OPTION 3F
Includes Sandbank Expansion. In
this option the expanded
sandbank area is increased. .
This option results in a net loss of
-0.1% of sandbank habitat
23
OPTION 3G
Option 3G also includes the
Sandbank Expansion. In this
option the expanded sandbank
area is increased. This option
results in a net GAIN of 0.03% of
sandbank habitat.
24
SPECIALIST STUDIES
A number of specialist studies were undertaken to determine the potential
impact of the proposed development. These include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Estuarine Biodiversity Specialist Study:
Marine Biodiversity Specialist Study – Offshore Sand Winning Sites
Avifauna Specialist Study
Underwater Heritage Impact Assessment (Sand Winning Sites and Port of Durban)
Economic Impact Assessment
Sediment and Chemical Analysis of Dredge Material
Potential Long Term Impacts to Sandbank Habitats, Water and Sediment Quality
Modelling of potential environmental changes in the port marine environment
Dredging Turbidity and Physical Impact Study
Assessment of Alternative Design Options
25
SPECIALIST STUDIES –
ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVES
The following conclusions and recommendations are made for the Berth 203 to 205 Expansion
(ZAA, 2012a):
• The Caisson Option is substantially preferable to the other options on a wide range of the
issues considered, including:
–
–
–
–
•
Cost
Potential life without high maintenance costs
Greater risks and complexity during construction
Potential stability of the existing quay wall
It was recommended that Option 3G should form the basis of the final design due to its
decreased impact on the sandbanks compared to the original options, but subject to
confirmation of its suitability and safety in respect of the vessel navigation requirements
(ZAA, 2012a).
26
SPECIALIST STUDIES –
DREDGING TURBIDITY AND PHSYICAL IMPACT STUDY
ZAA (2012b) makes the following conclusions and recommendations:
• No significant negative environmental impacts in regards to increased turbidity
and erosion have been identified;
• The physical extent of the proposed works is too limited to have any significant
impact on the surrounding coastlines and beaches;
• In all cases, the calculated suspended sediment concentrations have been
found to be low (peak values less than 45mg/l); and
• Maximum concentrations from the offshore disposal site have been estimated
to be low (less than 5mg/l) after four hours and will not reach the shoreline at
concentrations above the low risk levels.
27
SPECIALIST STUDIES –
Estuarine Impact Assessment
The following recommendations and conclusions were made:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
All three quay wall options have similar impacts.
Negative impacts include the destruction and disturbance of intertidal and subtidal soft
bottom habitat and associated invertebrate and fish communities.
These effects may be reduced only by strict adherence to a suite of proposed mitigation
measures that include refilling/backfilling and enlarging of the Central Bank sand flat in
addition to strict operating rules pertaining to dredging such that the extent of any
turbidity plumes are minimised and do not exceed specified threshold levels.
Overall impact significance can be reduced to low levels for most aspects of the proposed
development, except habitat loss due to the mattresses which are likely to have a medium
impact.
A monitoring program to determine the actual impacts of the widening of the Berths on
the biodiversity of Durban Harbour is recommended and described, from pre-construction
and into the operational phase of the Berths.
In addition, monitoring of the backfilled part of the Central Bank sand bank and the
artificially enlarged portion of this sand bank is recommended.
Monitoring of turbidity levels during dredging is also prescribed to ensure that threshold
limits are not exceeded.
28
SPECIALIST STUDIES –
Offshore Sand Winning Impact Assessment
The following recommendations and
conclusions were made:
•
•
•
•
Monitoring of turbidity levels is to be undertaken
at the sites indicated in (blue dots) with
measurements taken at the surface, mid-water
and at the bottom.
Turbidity levels at these stations are to be
monitored continuously for at least two months
prior to the start of the the sand winning and
dredge spoil disposal operations and should
continue for a minimum of two months after
At no point should the turbidity levels exceed the
established maximum threshold of 20 mg/L.
Sand Winning activities should be restricted to
Area 1 (the southernmost of the two sites
proposed) in order to avoid disturbing Site 2 (the
northernmost site) as this area is largely pristine
(Miller & Leuci, 2001).
29
SPECIALIST STUDIES –
Avifauna Impact Assessment
The following recommendations and conclusions were made:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Sandbank expansion as proposed in Option 3G should be undertaken as it will
result in a net gain of 0.03% of intertidal sand flat
Undertake all dredging within 100 m of the Central Sandbank intertidal-sand
flats during winter when bird abundances are lower and Palearctic migrants are
away.
As far as possible construct the artificial extension of Central Sandbank during
winter when migrant waders are absent.
When dredging within 100 m of Central Bank intertidal-sand flats, do not
dredge at multiple sites concurrently, but only at one area at a time with a
single dredger.
No dredging operations should be conducted between sunset and sunrise
within 100 m of Central Bank intertidal-sand flats including the infilling of sand
up to the new quay wall of Berth 205 and southward enlargement of Central
Bank.
Monitoring protocol as explained in Avifauna Impact Assessment to be
followed.
30
SPECIALIST STUDIES –
Potential Long Term Impacts to Sandbank Habitat,
Water and Sediment Quality
The following conclusions and recommendations were made (CSIR, 2012a):
•
•
•
•
The habitat loss of the Central Sandbank does not result in a loss of connectivity
between the Sandbanks, Mangroves and Little Lagoon.
Losses in habitat from some tidal elevations do occur but are mainly from deep
subtidal and high intertidal habitat. The development of the Sandbank Expansion
results in the creation of significant area of new low intertidal and shallow subtidal
habitat. Development Option 3G is therefore preferable.
Most of the habitat lost with Option 3G is of deep subtidal and high intertidal
sandbank area which have the lowest ecological value in terms of estuarine
nursery function.
Development option 3G is the only design layout that does not result in a net loss
of habitat when all tidal elevation zones are considered. Indeed a slight gain in
habitat is achieved through the Sandbank Expansion (623m2 or 0.03% of total
Sandbank habitat).
31
SPECIALIST STUDIES –
Potential Long Term Impacts to Sandbank Habitat,
Water and Sediment Quality
• The long term stability of sandbank habitat to be created as part of Option
3G is essential to successful mitigation.
• Monitoring of ecological succession on the sandbank to be created as part
of Option 3G is also recommended.
• Changes in current velocities over ecological habitats will generally be very
low.
• Numerical modelling has demonstrated that the development will not
significantly alter current strengths, circulation fluxes or flushing rates in
Durban Bay.
• Overall the report found that Option 3G would have a neutral impact
taking into account the extension of the Central Sandbank.
• An optional additional mitigation measure would be to create additional
shallow subtidal habitat in the Sandbank Expansion and attempt to
establish Zostera capensis seagrass in this area.
32
SPECIALIST STUDIES –
Wave Modelling Study
The following conclusions were made (Van Ballegooyen et al., 2012):
• Given the small loss of sandbank habitat associated with development
Options 3B to 3D and the potential for further erosion between berth 205
and Little Lagoon, two further design iteration were undertaken to both
ensure no net loss of sandbank habitat.
• This results in Option 3G.
• The changes in tidal prism are limited as are any localised changes in
surface and bottom velocities.
• No major change in seiching behaviour in the port was identified. Changes
in areas of concern such as the Yacht basin are negligible.
33
SPECIALIST STUDIES – Sediment and Chemical Analysis
Based on the low concentrations of
metals and organic chemicals in
sediment within and near the
dredging footprint there is a very
low probability that chemicals
released from the sediment during
the dredging and spoil disposal
processes will be present in the
water column at toxic
concentrations.
There is also a low probability that
contaminants translocated to the
spoil disposal ground will be present
at concentrations that will adversely
affect bottom-dwelling organisms
34
SPECIALIST STUDIES –
Underwater Heritage Impact Assessment
From a heritage point of view, work
can continue in the harbour as
long as the mitigation and
measures are implemented;
and;
• Sand Winning at the specific
portion of either Area 1 or
Area 2 is recommended (see
map)
35
SPECIALIST STUDIES –
Economic Impact Study
If the expansion does not occur there will be a significant loss of handling
capacity of 284 108 TEU’s carried on vessels too large to be berthed at
Berth 203 to 205
This has a direct spend loss impact of R1961 million, induced spend of R1569
million, port related employment loss of 852 jobs and total employment
loss of 3530 over the period of 2016 – 2020.
36
SPECIALIST STUDIES –
Geotechnical Study
Based on the geotechnical results, ZAA (2012a) has made a
number of recommendations:
• Due to the existing poor soil condition at the quay walls,
Caissons are the preferred option;
• Soft piling is required as a form of soil improvement
• Sand Winning Area 1 is preferred.
37
BEST PRACTICABLE ENVIRONMENTAL OPTION (BPEO)
Based on the recommendations of the specialists, technical considerations and the
comparison of the impacts associated with the three quay wall options, five dredge
footprint options and two offshore sand winning options, a combination of
alternatives was selected.
• The Caisson quay wall alternative was selected due to the following factors:
–
–
–
–
–
Poor soil conditions along the quay wall;
Safety considerations;
Low maintenance requirements;
No cathodic protection or specialist coating requirements;
Caissons built within the Port of Durban (at Lot 10) and can be floated into position and
thus no insitu casting of piles is required.
– Dredge material from the dredge footprint can be used for the infill of the Caissons and
behind the quay wall at Berth 205 and thus reduces the volume of dredge material to be
disposed of; and
– Environmental specialists did not have a preference in terms of quay wall alternatives.
38
BEST PRACTICABLE ENVIRONMENTAL OPTION (BPEO)
The Caisson quay wall will be used in combination with Dredge Footprint Option 3G. This
option was selected for the following reasons:
–
–
–
The provision of the Caisson quay wall along the western edge of Berth 205 prevents long term erosion
between the Little Lagoon and western edge of Berth 205.
The provision of the Central Sandbank Expansion results in a 0.03% net gain in Central Sandbank habitat.
This increases the area of shallow subtidal and interidal habitats, which are ecologically important, by
49.7% and 4.1% respectively.
The use of dredge material in the creation of the Central Sandbank Expansion decreases the volume to
be disposed at the Offshore Disposal Site.
Offshore Sand Winning will still be necessary. This will take place within Area 1 as
recommended by the Marine Biodiversity Specialist. Further, dredging will be
contained within a sub-area within Area 1 as suggested by the Maritime
Archaeologist (Area 1a). This option was selected for the following reasons:
–
–
–
Area 1 is more disturbed than Area 2 and the overall impact is likely be less significant as this site has
been used for dredge disposal in the past.
Although Area 1 has a known wreck, dredging will be contained to the northern strip (Area 1a) as shown
above and thus there is a lower probability of uncovering potential Underwater Heritage Sites.
.
39
IMPACT STATEMENT
With the selection of the BPEO for the quay wall alternatives,
dredge footprint and offshore sand winning site, the adoption of
the mitigation measures included in the EIA Report and the
dedicated implementation of the suite of EMPrs, it is believed
that the significant environmental aspects and impact
associated with this project can be suitably mitigated. With the
aforementioned in mind, it can be concluded that there are no
fatal flaws associated with the project and that authorisation
can be issued, based on the findings of the specialists and the
impact assessment, through the compliance with the identified
environmental management provisions
40
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following key recommendations, which may also influence the conditions of the
Environmental Authorisation (where relevant), accompany the EIA for the Berth 203
to 205 Expansion:
1. The mitigation measures contained in the suite of EMPrs must be adhered to at all times.
2. The Central Sandbank Expansion must be undertaken at least 6 months prior to the construction of the western
portion of Berth 205
3. Monitoring must be undertaken two months prior to the Sandbank Expansion and at least 6 months after the
expansion.
4. The feasibility of creating Zostera capensis seagrass bed habitat in this sandbank extension area should be
further assessed. If possible, the relevant environmental specialists should be appointed to oversee the permit
process for translocation of Zostera capensis into Durban Bay as well as the actual habitat creation process.
5. Turbidity monitoring stations must be placed as recommended by Anchor Environmental (2012a and b).
6. The results of the monitoring must be provided to the ECO, EMC and DEA.
7. Dredging must be stopped in turbidity levels increase above 50mg/l within the Port of Durban or 20mg/l at the
Offshore Sand Winning sites;
8. The location of shipwreck in Area 1 as well as the exact extent of the Sand Winning Area 1a must be noted by
the dredge operator. Plotted coordinates of the location of the dredger throughout the dredging activity must
be provided to the ECO.
9. If the dredge uncovers any underwater heritage, dredging must stop and SAHRA must be notified. A qualified
maritime archaeologist must be then called to further assess the site
41
ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORISATION
PROCESSES
42
ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORISATION
PROCESSES
1. Proposed Approach
NEMA - EIA
2. Proposed Approach
MPRDA –
Offshore Borrow Pits
3. Proposed Approach
NEM: ICM –
Dumping at Sea Permit
43
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS TO DATE
To date the following as been undertaken:

Scoping Phase







The landowner (Transnet) was notified;
A focus group was convened;
A random survey was conducted;
Adjacent landowners within 100m were notified;
On site notices and adverts were placed; and
A project specific website domain was registered.
EIA Phase





On site notices were placed;
Adverts were placed in the Chatsworth Rising Sun, Southlands Sun, Isolezwe and
the Mercury
BIDs were delivered to tenants within 100m
Registered I&APs were notified by email and sms
The Draft EIA report was made available at two public venues and uploaded on the
project specific website (www.berth203to205expansioneia.co.za).
44
OTHER LICENSING PROCESSES
 A Mining permit for the offshore borrow pit will
be made to DMR in terms of the MPRDA.
 A Dumping At Sea Permit for the offshore
disposal site for the dredge material will be
made to the DEA in terms of the NEM:ICM.
45
This brings us to the end of the presentation. We trust that
you have sufficient information on the project. Please raise
all questions at the technical station. We encourage you to
complete a reply form before you leave if you have any
comments. Should you prefer, please free to comment
anonymously.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
46
Download
Related flashcards

Water

33 cards

Dairy products

15 cards

Agricultural gods

13 cards

Agriculture

34 cards

Create Flashcards