Umdoni South Bulk Water Augmentation (USBWA) project (the Project)
Bazley Residents Association (BRA)
Final submission on the DBAR, dated May 2024, as prepared by EnviroPro 30 June 2024
The BRA is a representative body for the town of Bazley and is registered as an IAP for the Project. Bazley forms a significant part of the Bazley Conservancy, a registered conservancy with Conservancies KZN. We expend significant resources and time on protecting the conservancy, an aspect which the consultants and Ugu seemed unaware of and is not mentioned in the DBAR. Details of the conservancy and the work we do are comprehensively detailed on our website: www.bazley.org.za.
We have provided below our submission on the Project. This should be read in conjunction with all our previous correspondence with EnviroPro and other parties involved on the Project.
1.
At the outset we must make it clear that we are well aware of the dire need for the construction of a proper and efficient water supply for the Greater Malangeni area and GDP communities. Our comments below relate solely to Bazley, which appears to be a totally separate project with a much lower level of priority.
2.
There are nine (per the DBAR) very different communities/areas covered under the Project and DBAR, yet very little effort is made to distinguish between them and their different needs – it mostly paints all areas with the same brush. Furthermore, there seems to be, at least, two very different projects proposed. Bazley seems to be part of very much a secondary project, together with Elysium and Ifafa, which entails only replacement/refurbishment of an existing pipeline.
3.
When the DBAR was released, a deadline for submissions by IAPs was given as 22 June 2024 and, following a request by the BRA, was extended to 30/6/2024. We submitted various questions on 30/5/24 and only received answers on 4/6/24, five days later. We then submitted further questions on 7/6/24 and only received answers, after follow ups, on 24/6/24 – seventeen days later and two days after the initial deadline.
This is unreasonable, given the tight deadline we were provided with. We understand that these delays were due to responses being awaited from the Engineer. Furthermore, regrettably, we must put it on record that the responses indicated as being from the Engineer were mostly vague and not particularly helpful in assisting us in preparing our submission.
4.
Our correspondence starting 23/11/23 through to Feb 2024, and included in appendix C of the DBAR, refers. We also refer to EnviroPro’s email responses of 12/6/24 and 18/6/24.
In multiple emails to EnviroPro and other involved parties over this extended period, we sought to obtain explanations for the unauthorised mass clearing of indigenous coastal forest by Ugu District Municipality (Ugu) between Sezela and Ndesingane Rivers (Sezela/Ndesingane clearing). To date, we have received no clear answers from EnviroPro, the Consulting Engineers (ENsync), Ugu themselves or the EDTEA. The matter is however referred to on pg11 of the DBAR: “the applicant commenced with the replacement of a 6km section of the pipeline near Bazley Beach, part of the bulk pipeline replacement route, prior to receiving formal approval from EDTEA.”
None of the parties that should have been aware of this, and preventing it, were aware of it, or where it was even located. We spoke to EnviroPro, EDTEA, Ugu’s Compliance Officer and ENsync – all claimed complete ignorance of the matter.
With this in mind, our obvious overriding concern is whether the Project, as it pertains to Bazley and the Bazley Conservancy will be undertaken in a competent, properly managed and independently monitored manner, with the necessary safeguards and oversights in place.
This was clearly not the case at the Sezela/Ndesingane clearing, as illustrated by the following:
- The clearing done for the construction corridor was measured to be between 12 – 20m wide, which is up to double the 10m maximum footprint allowed, as stipulated in the DBAR;
- The route the unauthorised clearing followed does not align with the proposed corridor as indicated in the DBAR, and in places was over 20m out from the proposed corridor. Annexure 1 provides images showing the discrepancy between the proposed and actual unauthorised cleared route;
- The work done was obviously unsupervised, and the contractor clearly displayed no concern about the destruction and damage being unnecessarily done to the natural environment;
- The excavator used worked and cleared vegetation to the river edge, in contravention of the guidelines indicated in the DBAR;
- Notwithstanding the explicit requirements in the DBAR, none of the area has been rehabilitated (7 months and counting) and is now predominantly covered in Castor-oil Plant Riccinus communis – an Alien Invasive Plant (AIP).
On page 105 of the DBAR, it stipulates that the two objectives of the Project are:” For there to be no lasting negative impacts on the environment once construction is complete” and “To practice responsible construction, ‘best practice’”, and further on: “The contractor is responsible for and must ensure that the site has been rehabilitated in full before leaving the site.” None of these objectives were remotely achieved at the Sezela/Ndesingane clearing.
In light of the above, we as a community are unable to place our trust in Ugu to employ “best practice” when working in Bazley. Nor are we able to place reliance on any of the parties involved to ensure/enforce Ugu’s compliance with the DBAR as they are required to do.
To be clear, if what happened at the Sezela/Ndesingane clearing happens in Bazley, our town and its natural environment will be irretrievably damaged, and we are therefore very concerned and apprehensive about the Project and Ugu’s involvement.
In answers to questions (dated 24/6/24) we were assured “the EA and EMPr will mandate that an independent ECO supervise the site.” Further to this, we would request the inclusion of a condition in the environmental authorisation, that would require monitoring reports (monthly) are submitted to interested and affected parties at the same time as they are submitted to EDTEA.
5.
With regard to the Bazley section of the proposed route, there has been insufficient consideration of “alternatives”. A proper consideration of alternatives is required by the Regulations. In the case of linear projects, such as pipelines, alternative routes must be considered and selected through a consultative process. It seems that the route was first chosen (informed mostly by the route of the existing pipeline) and “consultation” (limited to the invitation to comment on the DBAR) followed afterwards. There has therefore been no prior consultation on the route through Bazley. It has been pre-determined, and it is only the impacts that we have been invited to comment on.
As will become evident further on in our submission, we have considered alternative routes, compared to that proposed in the DBAR, and have identified one that we believe will be significantly less damaging and disruptive to Bazley. From a project perspective, it will also be less costly and time consuming.
6.
In previous answers (4/6/24), Enviropro/Project Engineer indicate “pipe boring” would only be used for national/provincial roads, and the rest will be dug up. This means several roads and multiple driveways in Bazley will be dug up. We are very concerned about how this will disrupt the town during construction, and then subsequently how/if the damage caused will be adequately repaired.
Past experience has proven Ugu cannot be trusted to repair what they have damaged. Attached as Annexure 2 is photographic proof of vast damage to Bazley’s roads, done by Ugu while repairing water pipe breakages, and never repaired. We sit, years later, with large and dangerous holes in our roads which Ugu have failed to repair.
According to the answers provided on 24/6/24, we have been assured that:
- “Pipelines would not run down the middle of roads but down the side of roads”;
- “Road crossing/closure does not take more than a day.”; and
- “Rehabilitation of roads and driveways…are undertaken through strict contractual codes and not by municipality itself.”
7.
A 10m wide working corridor, as stipulated in the DBAR, through our town will destroy our tiny roads and verges. In some places there is considerably less than that available. This size of corridor will also destroy and disturb large areas of coastal forest. Discussions with the Ugu Compliance Officer last year suggested that such a small pipeline (160mm) could be completed within a 3m wide working corridor.
The answer provided on 24/6/24 that “this does not mean the entire corridor will be used along the entire length of the pipeline”, gives us very little comfort. We would therefore appeal for the specific working corridor in Bazley to be significantly reduced.
8.
The original pipeline in Bazley was laid around 1973, 51 years ago, when the town was vastly different as compared to today. There were no tarred roads, no electricity, no Fibre and only a handful of houses compared to the present day (150+ houses). To largely follow the existing pipeline is simplistic and seems inappropriate, given that part of it runs under main roads and it will cause significant destruction and disruption to current infrastructure and properties. The layout of the town as it exists today needs to be properly considered, and a route devised which minimises the impact, and makes sense from both a practical and economic perspective.
In essence, the route proposed in the DBAR appears to simply follow the existing pipeline as laid down in 1973 without taking cognisance of the fact that the entire configuration of Bazley has fundamentally changed since then. Our proposed route takes into account the current physical realities on the ground.
9.
Per the DBAR: “a Terrestrial Biodiversity specialist was commissioned. Based on the specialist’s findings the proposed footprint area is of a ‘High’ sensitivity,”. Also, per the DBAR: “The water pipeline will result in a large amount of clearance of Endangered indigenous vegetation when creating the construction corridor”.
Given this and the existence of Indian Ocean Coastal Belt and Forest alongside “Modified” habitat (predominantly sugar cane), we would suggest that it would be considerably better to avoid the former and rather use the areas of the modified habitat as far as possible.
10.
The biodiversity specialist findings state in 2.5.1 of the DBAR that: “The location, state and size of the ecosystem means that it is unlikely that any functional habitat or SCCs will be lost because of the impacts arising from the proposed activities.” However, in certain sections of the proposed route, most notably the Ndesingane – Bazley section, this is untrue, as functional coastal forest that is known to support SCCs will be damaged, and SCC habitat will definitely be transformed and degraded if the proposed route is followed (see further in point 12e).
11.
A large excavator was used in the unauthorised Sezela/Ndesingane clearing, which was completely unnecessary and caused the massive damage already mentioned in point 4. above. Not only will heavy machinery damage the natural vegetation and properties, moving it through Bazley town will damage our fragile roads. In many places our tar roads are very thin, which we know from continually repairing potholes (done by the community, not the municipality), so we know it will not handle any heavy vehicles and machinery. We request that the fragility of our town and its road system be carefully borne in mind when determining what machinery/vehicles should be used here.
The response from the Engineer in the answers of 24/6/24 provided no clarity or comfort on this specific aspect.
12.
EnviroPro provided us with the KMZ files indicating the location of the existing pipeline in Bazley, and the proposed route of the new pipeline.
Bearing in mind the various points above, we have reviewed these in detail and have several suggestions on how the route could be minimally adjusted, yet with significant effect on the potential damage and disruption to our town. On the maps which are referred to below, the DBAR proposed pipeline is in yellow and our proposed route is in pink. Our suggested changes (from south to north) are as follows:
a. Starting from the south side, where the proposed pipeline crosses the Ifafa river and goes north alongside the railway line, there is a gravel road adjacent to the railway line on the west side which should be followed. From MacNicol’s Caravan Park onwards our route would then follow that as proposed in the DBAR, on the east side of Lagoon Drive. Beyond the last driveway on the west side, however, we believe it would be hugely beneficial for the pipeline to move to the west (inland) verge of Lagoon Drive. Annexure 3 illustrates our suggested route (pink), as compared to that proposed in the DBAR (yellow).
b. Following on from a. above, running the pipeline predominantly along the east (sea side) verge of Lagoon Drive will cause damage to numerous roads and driveways and is likely to interfere with, and damage, existing infrastructure, in particular Bazley’s Fibre, which is laid there. We believe that a large portion of this pipeline should therefore be laid on the west (inland side) of Lagoon Drive. From the point mentioned in a. above all the way to the P560 (main entrance to Bazley), there are no roads and properties on the west side/verge. Using the west side verge would therefore cause considerably less damage and disruption than the east side. Annexure 4a and Annexure 4b illustrate our suggested route, as compared to that proposed in the DBAR.
c. From the P560 northwards, running the pipeline predominantly along the east (sea side) verge of Ridge Road will cause damage to numerous roads and driveways and is likely to interfere with and damage existing infrastructure, in particular the fibre which is laid there. We believe that significantly less damage will result if the pipeline rather follows the west (inland) verge of Bushbuck Way. This route would avoid all roads, driveways and properties and would cause considerably less damage and disruption than following Ridge Road. In particular, this route would the large electrical sub-station on Marine as well as avoid crossing Marine Drive. Annexure 5 indicates our suggested route, as compared to that proposed in the DBAR.
d. From where Bushbuck Way merges with the end of Hilltop Road, there is a road indicated through the adjoining cane fields that has a far more direct line to the reservoir than that proposed in the DBAR (along Ridge Road and Reservoir Road). This will ensure the rest of the town (including roads, driveways, existing infrastructure, properties, and several areas of indigenous forest) will remain undisturbed. Not only that, our proposed route will avoid having to cross two watercourses (WC28 and WC29 per the DBAR). Annexure 6 provides our suggested route, as compared to that proposed.
e. From the reservoir, the proposed pipeline in the DBAR travels down the gravel road from the reservoir to Ndesingane beach, on the south (forest) side of the road. In the process this will destroy and disturb large amounts of a significant area of indigenous forest.
This forest patch is known to support a number of faunal species of conservation concern. This includes Green Mamba Dedroaspis angusticeps (Vulnerable), Crowned Eagle Stephanoetus coronatus (Vulnerable) and Blue Duiker Philantomba monicola (Vulnerable) (all of which are routinely observed in this and other forest patches around the town), and likely other sensitive species, most notably Spotted Ground-thrush Geokichla guttata, together with healthy coastal forest biodiversity communities. It would be unnecessarily destructive, as the pipeline could easily be run down the north side of the gravel road instead, where there is nothing but a sugarcane field boundary, consisting of sandy soil.
We believe that putting the pipeline on the north side, where there is no forest or vegetation of consequence, makes environmental, practical and economic sense. Annexure 7a and Annexure 7b provide our suggested route, as compared to that proposed in the DBAR.
13.
We have provided our own KMZ file as part of this submission, illustrating the various suggestions made in point 12 above. Annexure 8 provides our overall suggested route, as compared to that proposed.
14.
Following our suggested route, as per points 12. and 13. above, as opposed to the proposed route in the DBAR will result in the following significant improvements:
a. Avoid destroying large areas of indigenous coastal forest and other natural vegetation;
b. Avoid interfering with, or damaging, large sections of infrastructure including Fibre that has been laid predominantly along the east verge of our roads;
c. Avoid crossing five roads;
d. Avoid crossing multiple driveways. It is worth noting that our proposed route would miss virtually all of the driveways in Bazley, while the proposed route in the DBAR would cross some 60+ driveways;
e. The proposed DBAR route will cross a number of waterways. Our proposed route would avoid crossing two significant waterways (WC28 and WC29 per the DBAR), together with their surrounding indigenous forest; and
f. Our proposed route would greatly improve the costs of the project, as the excavation required would involve a shorter route along a generally easier, unvegetated route, away from populated areas. Specifically: less roads will need to be trenched and repaired, no driveways will need to be trenched and repaired and watercourses and indigenous vegetation will be avoided, thereby reducing the need for extensive rehabilitation.
15.
In conclusion:
a. The Bazley section of the Project does not have the same level priority as Malangeni, GDP and other areas north of Bazley;
b. Bazley and the Greater Bazley Conservancy have large areas of coastal forest and natural vegetation which support rich biodiversity, including sensitive species;
c. The proposed pipeline route will cause immense damage and disruption to our small town, and will result in the destruction of considerable sensitive natural habitat;
d. Relatively small variations to the pipeline route will significantly reduce adverse impacts on the town and surrounding natural environment.
16.
We therefore propose:
a. It would be in the interests of Ugu to create a separate project for Bazley so that only this portion goes through a separate environmental assessment and authorisation process, and the rest of the basic assessment process can continue for the remainder of the route. This will give the parties the opportunity to consult on a more suitable route through Bazley.
b. If the proposal in a. above is not accepted, then we would urge that the proposed route of the pipeline through Bazley be amended to reflect the aforementioned changes, as illustrated on the KMZ file provided and in Annexures 3 – 8, and:
i. The construction corridor is reduced to the smallest workable size where it crosses, or runs adjacent to, areas of forest or within the town road network;
ii. All areas of forest that are unavoidably destroyed or disturbed are appropriately rehabilitated through:
1. An alien plant control programme; and
2. If needed, replanting with appropriate locally occurring plant species, sourced from local material, all under the supervision of an experienced botanist, is done within an approved rehabilitation plan with appropriate and approved frequencies and timelines;
iii. All construction areas and all areas that require rehabilitation are monitored at an appropriate frequency by an independent specialist, and that monitoring results are provided back to the EDTEA and the BRA to provide oversight.
We appeal to those in authority to give serious consideration to our proposals and requests, in particular our suggested variations to the proposed route of the pipeline. We would welcome the opportunity, and urge the relevant parties, to walk the routes with us such that we can discuss and agree a route with the least damaging consequences for Bazley.
