Mini-Dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the degree Master of Science (Environmental Sciences) School of Animal, Plant and Environmental Sciences University of Witwatersrand School: Mining Engineering (Centre For Sustainability In Mining And Industry) 26 January 2017 / The Gautrain Rapid Rail Link project is one of the biggest transport projects undertaken in South Africa. One of the unique features of this project was the manner in which public participation was conducted. There were two stages of public participation, one for the EIA process and the other for the EMP process. The research undertaken sought to study the influence of public participation on the development of mitigation measures in an EMP following EIA. The aim of the research project was to assess how the mitigation of environmental impacts, developed for an EMP during the construction phase, were affected by public participation, using the Gautrain Rail Link as a case study. When the comments were classified according to how they related to the different mitigation management plans it was found that the issues most commented on were those pertaining to public consultation and disclosure, noise vibration, visual/aesthetics, working hours, surface water, traffic as well as construction sites. Approximately 7% of the comments made by IAPs could be linked to specific changes to DFEMPs. Approximately 4% of the changes suggested by IAPs were rejected by Bombela. Prior to changes being made the DFEMP 2 had 238 targets; by the end on DFEMP5 the number of targets was 217 which reflected an 8.8% reduction. Prior to changes being made the DFEMP 2 had 789 method statements; by the end on DFEMP5 the number of method statements was 845 which reflected a 7.1% increase. These changes were mostly due to some of the targets being replaced by a “No complaints from the public” target and then the shifting of the previous targets into method statements. There was a change in the overall approach of mitigation targets to what could be viewed as more ‘people-orientated’ as opposed to mitigation that aimed to prevent adverse impacts to the environment. This was evident in the change of targets focusing on having no complaints from the public as opposed to setting targets that related to standards and specific environmental conditions. It was also found that the public input at the EMP stage could not have altered the mitigation strategy significantly but could have likely assisted in improving and refining the mitigation measures that had been selected. Public preference on the mitigation strategies applied was observed in the research as was the “Not In My Back Yard” phenomenon where the IAPs were more concerned with the impacts that directly affected their everyday lives and not the natural environment as a whole. It was noted that the input from the public resulted in valuable information being added and improved decision-making. It was found that the Independent Auditor’s comments resulted in the most evident changes in the DFEMPs. The public input process was able to highlight the feasibility and practicality of the targets set in the DFEMPs. It also gave IAPs an opportunity to voice their opinion on socioeconomic issues that they would otherwise not have been able to raise. A drawback from the public participation process was that the comments made by the IAPs were often repetitive which led to generic responses being given and also increased the likelihood of both IAP and developer participation fatigue. There was an agreement by all the interview participants for the need to EMP to be developed as continuous documents through the different phases of the project. Overall, the case study could add valuable input to the environmental management body of knowledge in South Africa. / MT2017