AGENDA: GANNABOSCH VLAKTE MINE RIGHT APPLICATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORISATION PUBLIC MEETING

Transcription

1 AGENDA: GANNABOSCH VLAKTE MINE RIGHT APPLICATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORISATION PUBLIC MEETING DATE: 08 DECEMBER 2016 TIME: 16H00 VENUE: WINE VALLEY OFFICES, C/O VOORTREKKER STREET/REITZ STREET, ROBERTSON PRESENT: NAME AFFILIATION CONTACT S Louis Jordaan LJ G.B. Wires louis@grahambeckwines.co.za Johan Fourie JF Le Roux s Source johanrie@barvallei.co.za / leroux@dmurb.co.za Johnny Steenkamp JS LIFE johnny@bauhausmarketing.co.za Kornelius Riemann KR Umvoto Africa kornelius@umvoto.com Paul Lee PL Umvoto Africa paul@umvoto.com Paul Petschnig PP Umvoto Africa paul.p@umvoto.com Magen Munnik MM Umvoto Africa magen.m@umvoto.com APOLOGIES: NAME AFFILIATION CONTACT S Jackie Robinson Amandalia Robertson Farm amandalia@breede.co.za WELCOME 1 Kornelius Riemann (KR) opened the meeting at 16:10. He welcomed everybody, introduced the purpose of the meeting and asked for a round of introduction. 2 ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES See tables above and attached attendance register Umvoto Africa (Pty) Ltd. Earth Water Science - Life P.O. Box 61 Muizenberg Telephone: (021) Fax: amanzi@umvoto.com Internet: Reg. No.: 2001\013609\07 Directors: E R Hay, CJH Hartnady, K Riemann Associates: R Wonnacott, FS Botha, WJ Gouws, D Blake, Z Pambuka

2 MATTERS ARISING FROM PREVIOUS MINUTES There were no matters arising from the previous public meeting in August However, Paul Lee (PL) highlighted the following: 3 i. The Brick Factory development was not considered in the first Draft EIA Report and the previous public meeting, as it is a separate regulatory process and not required for the Mine Rights Application. However, this has been included in the second Draft EIA Report and will be discussed in this meeting, as requested at the previous meeting; ii. A Visual Impact Assessment was commissioned, as requested at the first Public Participation meeting; iii. A Storm Water Management Plan for the mine is currently underway and will be included in the Mine Works Programme and Final EIA Report. PRESENTATION ON GANNABOSCH CLAY MINE DEVELOPMENT PL presented aspects of the Gannabosch Mine Draft EIA Report and changes to the first Draft EIA Report (all abbreviated points below are illustrated in the attached PDF version of the presentation). The presentation highlighted the following: Regulatory process undertaken to date (see Slide 2); Specialist Studies undertaken (see Slide 3); and Summary of the main impacts and associated mitigations. 4 The key factor was the proposed mitigation of the impact to the CBA and drainage lines. Paul Lee explained that in order to reduce fragmentation of the biodiversity; the east west axis of the mine, as proposed in the original draft EIA Report, has been modified into a north south axis which reduces the extent to which the CBA is affected. Drainage lines and ecological corridors have likewise been avoided with 30 meter buffer zones. Other potential impacts that were not discussed at the first Public Participation meeting (and the associated mitigation measures) include: Fugitive dust emission affecting the surrounding area: Based on the expertise of the Air Emission Specialist, fugitive dust will be limited to a maximum of 2 km extent along the prevalent wind nodes. Zone of noise impact: Noise reduction calculations undertaken by Umvoto determined that mine machinery noise from the single excavator will be below SANS regulatory settings for rural environment within 500m from source. Zone of visual influence: The specialist study concludes that the ZVI is limited to a maximum of 3 km from the approaching northwest direction along the R60. Proposed mitigations include the construct of a berm screen from natural overburden and topplanted with indigenous windrows. QUESTIONS FROM THE FLOOR 5 JF asked if Umvoto could bring in a consultant to determine the property value of the surrounding area before and after the development of the Clay Mine. PL agreed that a professional property appraiser should be appointed to carry out this work docx Page 2

3 LJ wanted to know if all items being discussed in the meeting will be included in the EIA Draft. PL confirmed this. JF raised concerns about the noise level and dust and sulphur emissions, because he resides in the vicinity of the proposed mine. PL responded with reference to the slides showing the potential impacts and proposed mitigations. JF raised the concern of emissions being trapped by mist during cold, still and winter inversion conditions. PL agreed to take this up with the air emission specialist to provide further insight into this matter. LJ and JF raised concerns in splitting the development of the Clay Mine and the Brick Factory and were of the opinion that it is not acceptable to exclude the factory impacts from the cumulative impact to the mine. PL explained that the Clay Mine and Brick Factory are two separate application procedures and that these need to be treated as such from a regulatory and legal perspective. He added that sufficient information on the factory is contained within the EIA Report and EMPr for the mine to enable the IAP s and DMR to understand the cumulative impacts. A separate Public Participation meeting for the development of the Brick Factory will be undertaken. JF expressed an overarching concern with regards to both developments, suggesting that the residents of Robertson and, more specifically the Langeberg Local Municipality, may not fully comprehend that the proposed developments may affect the town negatively. PL responded by stating that the principle objective of the entire Public Participation Process was to solicit comments and concerns from all IAP s and that the consultants need to be guided by the concerns of the IAP s to inform the Final EIA Report Both JF and LJ suggested that one possible reason for a lack of awareness and interest was due to the date of issue of the Draft EIA report and the time and date of the public meeting. It is harvesting season for some and other people are busy with upcoming tourist season or winding down for holiday. PL responded that the meeting was called within an approved time period as per the regulation of the NEMA and was dependent upon the deadline for final submission, set by DMR. JF stated that he would be seeking council and advice to request an extension for this deadline of 15 December 2016 for conclusion of the Public Participation Process, as not sufficient time is given to study the documents provided by Umvoto and issue a suitable response. KR replied that it was not within Umvoto s jurisdiction or power to extend the deadline and that this was the responsibility of the decision making authority docx Page 3

4 LJ. asked when the public meeting for Brick Factory will be held. PL explained that no date has been set as the formal application has not been submitted yet. LJ wanted to know whether the mining will start immediately on the granting of a mine license irrespective of a factory authorisation. PL explained that as the two processes are linked and because the proponent has no intention to sell the clay to a third party; advance mining would not make sense and is therefore unlikely. LJ suggested that berms and trees be set up first before mining and that time be allowed for trees to grow approximately 2 years. JS recommended that mature trees be planted instead of seeds. PL responded that while every attempt would be geared towards ensuring that the trees are well established as soon as possible; it is not possible for the proponent to undertake any projects on the land until the granting of a license is assured. JF noted that the discussion was proceeding as if the project will take place whether he opposes it or not and that mitigations were being suggested for a project that, in his opinion, was not agreed to. He again stressed that he was against the separation of the Clay Mine and Brick Factory development and is concerned that not enough studies have been done and that there remain serious flaws in the proposed project. PL assured that the purpose of the Public Participation meeting is not to suggest an intended outcome but rather to solicit all concerns. JF stated that he will send all his questions in written form and for now he reserves all his rights. LJ requested the list of studies done. PL confirmed that Umvoto will all the questions covered in the meeting as requested by LJ and will send out the presentation to support the Draft EIA Report which is available for review. 6 CLOSURE The meeting closed at 17: docx Page 4

5