SUBSTANTIVE AMENDMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL …...1 title: substantive amendment to the environmental...

0

SUBSTANTIVE AMENDMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORISATION ISSUED FOR EDISON PV AND SHARED

ELECTRICITY INFRASTRUCTURE, DEALESVILLE, FREE STATE DEA REFERENCE NUMBER: 14/12/16/3/3/2/851/AM1

October 2018

DRAFT AMENDMENT REPORT for public comment

Prepared for: 29 Solar (Pty) Ltd

Prepared by: CSIR

© CSIR 2018. All rights to the intellectual property and/or contents of this document remain vested in the CSIR. This document is issued for the sole

purpose for which it is supplied. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by means

electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the express written permission of the CSIR. It may also not be lent, resold, hired

out or otherwise disposed of by way of trade in any form of binding or cover than that in which it is published.

1

Title:

SUBSTANTIVE AMENDMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL

AUTHORISATION ISSUED FOR EDISON PV AND SHARED

ELECTRICITY INFRASTRUCTURE, DEALESVILLE, FREE STATE

Prepared for: 29 Solar (Pty) Ltd

Prepared by: Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR)

Lead Author:

Luanita Snyman-Van der Walt MSc Env Sci | PgC GISc | Pr. Sc. Nat. Email: [email protected]

Tel: 021 888 2490

Internal review: Surina Laurie MPhil (Stell) | Pr. Sc. Nat.

DEA Reference

Number: 14/12/16/3/3/2/851/AM1

CSIR Project Number: EMS0153

Date: October 2018

Version: DRAFT, for public comment

To be cited as:

CSIR. 2018. Substantive Amendment to the Environmental

Authorisation issued for Edison PV and shared electricity

infrastructure, Dealesville, Free State. CSIR Report Number:

CSIR/IU/021MH/IR/2018/0004/A. Stellenbosch.

2

Table of Contents

Summary ..................................................................................................................................................................... 7

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................... 8

1.1 Legislative context for amendments to Environmental Authorisation ........................... 10

Public Participation Process ..................................................................................................................... 11

2.1 Plan for public participation during the Amendment Process .......................................... 11

Register of Interested and Affected Parties ....................................................................................... 11

30-days public comment on draft Amendment Report ................................................................ 11

Notification of I&APs .................................................................................................................................. 11

Comments and Reponses ......................................................................................................................... 11

Proof of the Public Participation Process ............................................................................................ 12

Proposed Amendment ............................................................................................................................... 12

3.1 Motivation for the proposed amendments .............................................................................. 14

Split of the EA ................................................................................................................................................ 14

Amendment of electricity infrastructure voltage specification .................................................. 14

Amendment of the electricity infrastructure layout ........................................................................ 14

Project Description ...................................................................................................................................... 15

4.1 Project components and specifications ..................................................................................... 15

4.2 Listed Activities that have been authorised .............................................................................. 22

Assessment of impacts related to the proposed changes ........................................................... 25

5.1 Geohydrology ...................................................................................................................................... 26

5.2 Fauna, Flora and Ecology ................................................................................................................. 26

5.3 Avifauna .................................................................................................................................................. 27

5.4 Wetlands and aquatic ecology ...................................................................................................... 28

5.5 Soils and agricultural potential ...................................................................................................... 29

5.6 Heritage and palaeontology ........................................................................................................... 29

5.7 Visual landscape character .............................................................................................................. 30

5.8 Socio-economic ................................................................................................................................... 31

Measures to ensure avoidance, management and mitigation of impacts associated with

the proposed changes ........................................................................................................................................ 32

6.1 Geohydrology ...................................................................................................................................... 32

6.2 Fauna, flora and ecology .................................................................................................................. 32

6.3 Avifauna .................................................................................................................................................. 33

3

6.4 Wetlands and aquatic ecology ...................................................................................................... 33

6.5 Soils and agricultural potential ...................................................................................................... 33

6.6 Heritage and palaeontology ........................................................................................................... 33

6.7 Visual landscape character .............................................................................................................. 34

6.8 Socio-economics ................................................................................................................................. 35

Changes to the EMPr .................................................................................................................................. 36

Advantages and disadvantages associated with the proposed changes ............................... 37

Concluding Statement by the EAP ........................................................................................................ 38

References .................................................................................................................................................. 39

Appendix A .............................................................................................................................................................. 41

1. DEA correspondence on the nature of the proposed Amendment process .................... 41

Appendix B .............................................................................................................................................................. 46

1. Letters from specialists declaring and confirming that the outcomes and

recommendations from their original assessment remain unchanged ....................................... 46

1.1. Geohydrology .................................................................................................................................. 47

1.2 Ecology (including Fauna, Flora, Avifauna, Wetlands, Aquatic Ecology) ................... 48

1.3 Soils and agricultural potential ................................................................................................. 50

1.4 Heritage and palaeontology ...................................................................................................... 51

1.5 Visual and landscape character ................................................................................................ 54

1.6 Socio-economics ............................................................................................................................ 56

Appendix C .............................................................................................................................................................. 58

1. Annotated Environmental Authorisation Indicating the Requested Changes ................. 58

Appendix D .............................................................................................................................................................. 76

1. Full Impact Assessment Tables ........................................................................................................... 76

1.1. Geohydrology impact assessment ........................................................................................... 76

1.2. Fauna, flora and ecology Impact assessment ...................................................................... 79

1.3. Avifauna impact assessment ...................................................................................................... 84

1.4. Wetlands and aquatic ecology impact assessment .......................................................... 86

1.5. Soils and agricultural potential impact assessment .......................................................... 88

1.6. Heritage impact assessment ...................................................................................................... 91

1.7. Visual landscape character impact assessment .................................................................. 96

1.8. Socio-economics impact assessment ..................................................................................... 99

4

Appendix E ............................................................................................................................................................. 106

1. Curriculum Vitae Of The Environmental Assessment Practitioner ...................................... 106

List of Abbreviations EA Environmental Authorisation

kV Kilovolt

EIAR Environmental Impact Assessment Report

REIPPPP Renewable Energy Independent Power Producer Procurement Programme

MTS Main Transmission Station

HV High voltage

NEMA National Environmental Management Act (Act 107 of 1998)

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

PV Photovoltaic

I&APs Interested and Affected Parties

PPP Public Participation Process

EAP Environmental Assessment Practitioner

LN Listing Notice

NFEPA National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Area

PES Present Ecological State

EIS Ecological Importance and Sensitivity

EMPr Environmental Management Programme

List of Figures

Figure 1: Layout of the original authorised 29 Solar Dealesville Development consisting of five

100 MW solar PV facilities, located approximately 5 km west of Dealesville, Free

State. ......................................................................................................................................................... 9

Figure 2: Original layout of the 29 Solar Electricity Infrastructure, in relation to Edison PV.

Identified sensitive environmental features and associated buffers are also indicated.

................................................................................................................................................................. 20

Figure 3: Amended layout of the 29 Solar Electricity Infrastructure, in relation to Edison PV. It

can be clearly seen that the new layout still avoids all of the highly sensitive

environmental features and associated buffers. ................................................................... 21

Figure 4: Groundwater impact assessment summary. Bordered blocks represent impact

significance after mitigation. ........................................................................................................ 26

Figure 5: Fauna, flora and ecology impact assessment summary. Bordered blocks represent

impact significance after mitigation. ......................................................................................... 27

Figure 6: Avifauna impact assessment summary. Bordered blocks represent impact significance

after mitigation. ................................................................................................................................. 27

Figure 7: Wetland impact assessment summary. Bordered blocks represent impact significance


5

Figure 8: Aquatic ecology impact assessment summary. Bordered blocks represent impact


Figure 9: Soil and agricultural potential impact assessment summary. Bordered blocks

represent impact significance after mitigation. .................................................................... 29

Figure 10: Heritage impact assessment summary. Bordered blocks represent impact

significance after mitigation ......................................................................................................... 30

Figure 11: Visual impact assessment summary. Bordered blocks represent impact significance


Figure 12: Socio-economic impact assessment summary. Bordered blocks represent impact


List of Tables

Table 1: Summary of the type of changes to the valid EA that are being applied for. ............... 13

Table 2: Summary of the approved project description for Edison PV and shared electricity

infrastructure. (In addition to ‘splitting’ the valid EA into EA1 for Edison PV and EA2

for the 29 Solar Electricity infrastructure components – the electricity infrastructure in

red boxes are subject to the proposed amendment – these changes are indicated in

bold red text and an asterisk (*)). ................................................................................................ 16

Table 3: Summary of the approved project components and maximum specifications for Edison

PV and shared electricity infrastructure. In addition to ‘splitting’ the valid EA into EA1

for Edison PV and EA2 for the 29 Solar Electricity infrastructure components. (In

addition to ‘splitting’ the valid EA into EA1 for Edison PV and EA2 for the 29 Solar

Electricity infrastructure components – the electricity infrastructure in red boxes are

subject to the proposed amendment – these changes are indicated in bold red text and

an asterisk (*)). ................................................................................................................................... 18

Table 4: Amended centre points of the 29 Solar collector substations and Main Transmission

Station. .................................................................................................................................................. 19

Table 5: Amended points of the 29 Solar powerlines connecting the collector substations to

the Main Transmission Station (132 kV) and connecting the Main Transmission

Station to the existing Eskom Perseus Hydra transmission line (400 kV). .................. 19

Table 6: Listed Activities that have been authorised in 2016 under the EIA regulations of 2014,

with the corresponding activity from the amended 2014 EIA regulations gazetted in

2017. (GN: General Notice; LN: Listed Activity). .................................................................... 22

Table 7: Specialists who undertook the original impacts assessments for the Edison PV Solar

Field and 29 Solar Dealesville Electricity Infrastructure. .................................................... 25

Table 8: Advantages and disadvantages associated with the proposed changes to Edison PV

and the 29 Solar Electricity Infrastructure. .............................................................................. 37

Table 9: Geohydrology: Impact Assessment Summary Table – Operation Phase Impacts. ...... 76

Table 10: Geohydrology: Impact Assessment Summary Table – Decommissioning Phase

Impacts. ................................................................................................................................................ 77

Table 11: Geohydrology: Impact Assessment Summary Table – Cumulative Impacts. .............. 78

6

Table 12: Fauna, flora and ecology: Impact Assessment Summary Table – Construction Phase

Impacts ................................................................................................................................................. 79

Table 13: Fauna, flora and ecology: Impact Assessment Summary Table – Operational Phase

Impacts ................................................................................................................................................. 81

Table 14: Fauna, flora and ecology: Impact Assessment Summary Table – Decommissioning

Phase Impacts. ................................................................................................................................... 82

Table 15: Fauna, flora and ecology: Impact Assessment Summary Table – Cumulative Impacts

................................................................................................................................................................. 83

Table 16: Avifauna: Impact Assessment Summary Table – Construction Phase Impacts .......... 84

Table 17: Avifauna: Impact Assessment Summary Table – Operational Phase Impacts ............ 84

Table 18: Avifauna: Impact Assessment Summary Table – Cumulative Impacts ......................... 85

Table 19: Wetlands: Impact Assessment Summary Table – Construction Phase Impacts ......... 86

Table 20: Wetlands: Impact Assessment Summary Table – Cumulative Impacts ......................... 86

Table 21: Aquatic Ecology: Impact assessment summary table – Construction Phase impacts.

................................................................................................................................................................. 87

Table 22: Aquatic Ecology: Impact assessment summary table – Operation Phase impacts. .. 87

Table 23: Aquatic Ecology: Impact assessment summary table – Decommissioning Phase

impacts. ................................................................................................................................................ 88

Table 24: Agriculture and Soil Potential: Impact assessment summary table – Construction

Phase impacts. ................................................................................................................................... 88

Table 25: Agriculture and Soil Potential: Impact assessment summary table – Operation Phase

impacts. ................................................................................................................................................ 89

Table 26: Agriculture and Soil Potential: Impact assessment summary table – Decommissioning

Phase impacts. ................................................................................................................................... 90

Table 27: Agriculture and Soil Potential: Impact assessment summary table – Cumulative

impacts. ................................................................................................................................................ 91

Table 28: Heritage: Impact assessment summary table – Construction Phase impacts. ............ 91

Table 29: Heritage: Impact assessment summary table – Operation Phase impacts. ................. 93

Table 30: Heritage Impact assessment summary table – Decommissioning Phase impacts. .. 94

Table 31: Heritage: Impact assessment summary table – Cumulative impacts. ............................ 94

Table 32: Visual: Impact assessment summary table – Construction Phase impacts. ................. 96

Table 33: Visual: Impact assessment summary table – Operation Phase impacts. ...................... 97

Table 34: Visual: Impact assessment summary table – Decommissioning Phase impacts. ....... 98

Table 35: Visual: Impact assessment summary table – Cumulative impacts. ................................. 98

Table 36: Socio-economics: Impact assessment summary table – Construction Phase impacts.

................................................................................................................................................................. 99

Table 37: Socio-economics: Impact assessment summary table – Operation Phase impacts.

............................................................................................................................................................... 100

Table 38: Socio-economics: Impact assessment summary table – Decommissioning Phase

impacts. .............................................................................................................................................. 102

Table 39: Socio-economics: Impact assessment summary table – Cumulative impacts. ......... 104

7

Summary

On 05 September 2016, the five proposed photovoltaic (PV) facilities and associated electrical

infrastructure were granted Environmental Authorisation (EA) by the National Department of

Environmental Affairs (DEA).

This report supports an Application for Substantive Amendment to the EA for Edison PV

and shared electricity infrastructure (DEA Reference Number: 14/12/16/3/3/2/851) in

terms of Section 31 Part 2 Amendment of the National Environmental Management Act:

Environmental Authorisation Regulations.

The existing and valid EA encompasses the 100 megawatt Edison Solar PV Facility and the

shared electricity infrastructure. The Applicant (29 Solar Pty. Ltd) wishes to undertake the

following amendments to the EA:

1) Split the EA for “Edison PV and shared electricity infrastructure” into two separate EAs:

i) EA 1 – Edison PV: for the listed activities and components associated with the Edison

PV facility; and

ii) EA 2 – 29 Solar Electricity Infrastructure: for the listed activities and components

associated with the shared electricity infrastructure (EA2);

2) Amend the electricity infrastructure voltage specification (which applies to the high

voltage (HV) transmission line, connecting the proposed MTS and the existing Eskom HV

electricity infrastructure), from 275 kilovolt (kV) to 400 kV, and the specification of the MTS

from 132/275 kV to 132/400 kV, to be included in EA2, if granted; and

3) Amend the layout of the electricity infrastructure by moving the locations of the

collector substations and Main Transmission Station (MTS), as well as the associated routing

of the 132 kV transmission line connecting the collector substations and MTS and short 400

kV transmission line connecting the MTS to the existing Eskom 200 kV transmission line (EA2),

if granted.

Despite the proposed amendments, the Edison PV facility and 29 Solar Electricity Infrastructure

would still be developed within the approved site (development envelope). Furthermore, the

above changes do not influence the findings of the EIAr, nor does it constitute a change in the

scope of the development, the potential impacts and their mitigation measures, or the listed

activities authorised in the original and valid EA.

As confirmed by the specialists who undertook the studies for the original, approved

EIA, implementation of the proposed amendments to the EA for Edison PV and the 29

Solar Electricity Infrastructure do not influence the findings of the original impact

assessment, and will not result in additional or unacceptable environmental impacts.

As such, it is the opinion of the Environmental Assessment Practitioner (EAP) that the

proposed changes and issue amended EAs for 1) Edison PV, and 2) the 29 Solar

Electricity Infrastructure be approved.

8

Introduction

In July 2015, 29 Solar (Pty) Ltd (Reg. No. 2015/002969/07) (hereafter referred to as the

Applicant) proposed to construct and operate five 100 megawatt (MW) solar photovoltaic (PV)

facilities and associated electrical infrastructure over nine farms close to Dealesville, in the Free

State province. The five projects and associated infrastructure are collectively referred to as

the 29 Solar Dealesville Development and is situated approximately 50 km south-east of

Boshof and approximately 70 km north-east of Bloemfontein.

The CSIR was commissioned to undertake an Environmental Screening Study and

Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) (CSIR, 2016) for the 29 Solar Dealesville

Development in terms of the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) (Act no 107 of

1998) (South Africa, 1998) and EIA Regulations of 2014 (South Africa, 2014).

The 29 Solar Dealesville Development comprises of the following projects (Figure 1):

1. Edison PV (DEA Reference Number: 14/12/16/3/3/2/851) (project under

consideration for this amendment process)

2. Watt PV (DEA Reference Number: 14/12/16/3/3/2/854)

3. Faraday PV (DEA Reference Number: 14/12/16/3/3/2/855)

4. Marconi PV (DEA Reference Number: 14/12/16/3/3/2/853)

5. Maxwell PV (DEA Reference Number: 14/12/16/3/3/2/852)

On 05 September 2016, the five proposed PV facilities and associated electrical infrastructure

were granted Environmental Authorisation (EA) by the National Department of Environmental

Affairs (DEA).

This report supports an Application for Substantive Amendment to the EA for Edison PV

and shared electricity infrastructure (DEA Reference Number: 14/12/16/3/3/2/851).

9

Figure 1: Layout of the original authorised 29 Solar Dealesville Development consisting of five 100 MW solar PV facilities, located approximately 5 km

west of Dealesville, Free State.

10

1.1 Legislative context for amendments to Environmental Authorisation

The DEA has confirmed, through personal correspondence, that the amendments that the

Applicant proposes are considered as a Part 2 Substantive Amendment (see Appendix A).

According the 2017 NEMA EIA regulations (South Africa, 2017:237-238) a Part 2, Substantive

amendment involves the following:

“Part 2: Amendments where a change in scope occurs

Amendment to be applied for in terms of Part 2

31. An environmental authorisation may be amended by following the process prescribed in this

Part if the amendment will result in a change to the scope of a valid environmental authorisation

where such change will result in an increased level or change in the nature of impact where such

level or change in nature of impact was not—

a) assessed and included in the initial application for environmental authorisation; or

b) taken into consideration in the initial environmental authorisation;

and the change does not, on its own, constitute a listed or specified activity.

Process and consideration of application for amendment

32. (1) The applicant must within 90 days of receipt by the competent authority of the application

made in terms of regulation 31, submit to the competent authority—

(a) a report, reflecting—

i. an assessment of all impacts related to the proposed change1;

ii. advantages and disadvantages associated with the proposed change2; and

iii. measures to ensure avoidance, management and mitigation of impacts

associated with such proposed change3; and

iv. any changes to the EMPr4;

which report—

(aa) had been subjected to a public participation process5, which had been agreed

to by the competent authority, and which was appropriate to bring the proposed

change to the attention of potential and registered interested and affected

parties, including organs of state, which have jurisdiction in respect of any aspect

of the relevant activity, and the competent authority, and

(bb) reflects the incorporation of comments received, including any comments of the

competent authority6; …”

1 See Section 5 and Appendix D However, the proposed amendments to the EA and project do not

result in any additional or other impacts that have not been assessed during the original and

approved EIA process.

2 See Section 8.

3 See Section 6.

4 See Section 7 and “Part 2: EMPr for Edison PV” and “Part 3: EMPr for 29 Solar Electricity Infrastructure”

(separate EMPrs).

5 See Section 2.

6 To be included into the final version of this report, after comments have been received.

11

Public Participation Process

This draft version of the Amendment Report accompanies the initial Application for

Amendment to the Competent Authority and has not yet been subject to a Public Participation

Process (PPP). After receipt of the Amendment Application has been acknowledged by the

Competent Authority, and the way forward on the amendment process clarified and

confirmed, Interested and Affected Parties (I&APs) will be notified of the proposed

amendments and the draft version of this Amendment Report will be released for public

comment.

2.1 Plan for public participation during the Amendment Process

Register of Interested and Affected Parties

The existing register of I&APs identified during the original EIA process concluded in 2016 will

be checked and updated accordingly to ensure relevant I&APs are notified and able to

participate in the Amendment process.

30-days public comment on draft Amendment Report

Once the Competent Authority has acknowledged receipt of the Application for Amendment,

the draft version of this report will be made available for public comment. The report will be

available on the CSIR website. Hard copies will be supplied to key I&APs (Free State

Department of Economic Development, Tourism and Environmental Affairs, National

Department of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries, and Free State Regional Department of

Water and Sanitation). Hard copies may be requested from the EAP by other I&APs if required.

Notification of I&APs

I&APs and broader stakeholders will be notified of the proposed amendments to the 29 Solar

Dealesville Development, as well as their opportunity to peruse and provide comments on the

draft Amendment Report (this report) using the following communication mechanisms:

Notification letters and emails;

Site Notices (placed at the proposed site and at relevant locations in the town of

Dealesville to inform stakeholders); and

Newspaper advertisements within the Express (English) and Volksblad (Afrikaans)

newspapers, previously used in the EIA process.

Comments and Reponses

Any comments received during the 30-day public commenting period on the draft

Amendment Report will be recorded, incorporated into the Amendment Report where

relevant, and appropriately responded to. Furthermore, they will form part of Comments and

Responses Report which will be appended to the final version of this Amendment Report for

submission to the Competent Authority for decision-making.

12

Proof of the Public Participation Process

Proof of the PPP will be included in the final version of this Amendment Report in the form of

photographs, letter and email read receipts, as well as proof of the placement if the newspaper

advertisements.

Proposed Amendment

The existing EA (DEA Reference Number: 14/12/16/3/3/2/851) encompasses the 100 MW

Edison Solar PV Facility and the shared electricity infrastructure. The Applicant wishes to

undertake the following amendments:

1) Split the EA for “Edison PV and shared electricity infrastructure” into two separate EAs: (see

Section 4.2 for an outline of the activities applicable to each split EA)

i) EA 1: for the listed activities and components associated with the Edison PV facility;

and

ii) EA 2: for the listed activities and components associated with the shared electricity

infrastructure (EA2);

2) Amend the project specification of the high voltage (HV) transmission line, connecting

the proposed MTS and the existing Eskom HV electricity infrastructure, from 275 kilovolt (kV)

to 400 kV, and the specification of the MTS from 132/275 kV to 132/400 kV (EA2); and




kV transmission line connecting the MTS to the existing Eskom 400 kV transmission line (EA2).

Despite the proposed amendments, the proposed Edison solar PV facility and 29 Solar

Electricity Infrastructure would still be developed within the approved site (development

envelope and corridor). Furthermore, the above changes do not influence the findings of the

EIAr, nor does it constitute a change in the scope of the development, the potential impacts

and their mitigation measures, or the listed activities authorised in the original and valid EA.

Table 1 summarises the types of changes to the EA that are being applied for.

13

Table 1: Summary of the type of changes to the valid EA that are being applied for.

Summary of proposed amendments to Edison PV and the 29 Solar Electricity

Infrastructure.

Will the land portions, site, layout and/or

footprint change? No

Will the location of infrastructure change?

Yes, the position of the Collector substations,

MTS and transmission line routings will

change. But are still within the assessed

development envelope and still avoids all

sensitive environmental features.

Will the dimensions and specification (e.g.

height, length, routings) of the infrastructure

change?

Yes

The electrical capacity (i.e. voltage) of the

MTS and HV transmission line will change,

the dimensions and specifications remain

unchanged.

The routings and length of the 132 kV

transmission lines connecting the collector

substations and the MTS will change (length

increase from 1.26 km to 6.5 km).

The routing and length of the 400 kV

transmission line connecting the MTS to the

existing 400 kV Eskom transmission line will

change (length decrease from 210 m to 138

m).

Will any additional listed activities that will be

undertaken? No

Will the amendment result in additional

impacts? No

Will the amendment affect the significance

rating of the impacts in the EIA?

No. See Appendix B for letters from the

specialists declaring and confirming that the

outcomes and recommendations from their

original assessments remain unchanged.

Will the rights or interests of other affected

parties be influenced negatively? No

Will there be an administrative change?

Yes – split the EA into two separate EAs, one

for Edison PV, and one for the 29 Solar

Electricity Infrastructure.

Will there be a change in project description?

Yes – change the capacity (i.e. voltage) of the

MTS to 132/400 kV and the HV transmission

line to 400 kV, as well as the location

coordinates of the collector substations, MTS

and powerline routings.

14

3.1 Motivation for the proposed amendments

Split of the EA

When EA is granted for renewable energy projects, the projects may be selected as preferred

bidders in the Renewable Energy Independent Power Producer Procurement Programme

(REIPPPP). Following construction of the renewable energy project, the supporting electricity

infrastructure components (associated with transmission and distribution) are required to be

transferred into the ownership of Eskom. Transferring the ownership of the electricity

infrastructure to Eskom also entails transferring all environmental rights, responsibilities and

obligations stated in the EA and EMPr to Eskom.

Furthermore, the Applicant wishes to bid each of the package of 29 Solar Dealesville

Development projects (Edison PV, Watt PV, Marconi PV, Faraday PV and Maxwell PV) as stand-

alone projects, each being serviced by shared electricity infrastructure. To this end, the

Applicant is requesting a split of the Edison PV EA, with the end result being a separate EA for

Edison PV solar facility and a separate EA for the 29 Solar Electricity Infrastructure. In

anticipation of this change, separate Environmental Management Programmes for Edison PV

and the 29 Solar Electricity Infrastructure were compiled during the EIA and approved by DEA.

Amendment of electricity infrastructure voltage specification

Additionally, the Applicant has been in contact with Eskom regarding the shared electricity

infrastructure which falls under the ambit of the existing EA. From these discussions, it has

been made apparent that for reasons of technical feasibility the capacity (voltage) of the HV

line should be increased from 257 kV to 400 kV, and the specification of the MTS from 132/275

kV to 132/400 kV. This is as to connect to the existing 400 kV Eskom Perseus Hydra

transmission line, instead of the originally proposed 275 kV Eskom Boundary Perseus

transmission line.

Amendment of the electricity infrastructure layout

The layout of the electricity infrastructure is to optimise the layout of the 29 Solar Electricity

Infrastructure from a technical and financial perspective for the applicant. The MTS position

needs to be amended to connect to the existing 400 kV Eskom Perseus Hydra transmission

line, instead of the originally proposed 275 kV Eskom Boundary Perseus transmission line.

Despite the proposed capacity increase and location changes of the substations and

transmission line routings; all technical specifications would remain unchanged, including the

height and length the transmission line, as well as the footprints, and dimensions of the

collector substations and MTS. Therefore, the activities and impacts described in the original

EA remain unchanged.

15

Project Description

4.1 Project components and specifications

The 100 MW Edison PV Facility is set to comprise of i) a solar field, with the solar arrays, and

solar and mounting system technology, and underground cabling; ii) building infrastructure

including offices, ablution facilities, warehouse/ workshop and operational control centre; and

iii) associated infrastructure such as roads, fencing and security, operation-, maintenance- and

laydown areas, storm water channels, and water pipelines.

The 29 Solar Electricity Infrastructure comprises of two 132/33/22 kV collector substations, one

275/132 kV MTS, 132 kV overhead transmission lines connecting the collector substations with

the MTS, and 275 overhead transmission lines which will loop into the National Electricity Grid

via existing Eskom 275 kV transmission lines. Project specifications of Edison PV facility and

the 29 Solar Electricity Infrastructure, as approved in the EA (Table 2). In addition to ‘splitting’

the valid EA into EA1 for Edison PV and EA2 for the 29 Solar Electricity infrastructure

components, the electricity infrastructure in red boxes in the table are subject to the proposed

amendment – these changes are indicated in bold red text and an asterisk (*).

In the original, approved Environmental Impact Assessment Report (EIAr) the Edison PV solar

field and 29 Solar Electricity Infrastructure were integrated into a single report, but were

treated separately throughout the EIAR in terms of assessment of impacts and development

of separate Environmental Management Programmes (EMPrs).

16

Table 2: Summary of the approved project description for Edison PV and shared electricity infrastructure. (In addition to ‘splitting’ the valid EA into

EA1 for Edison PV and EA2 for the 29 Solar Electricity infrastructure components – the electricity infrastructure in red boxes are subject to the proposed

amendment – these changes are indicated in bold red text and an asterisk (*)).

General

Closest town: Dealesville

Local Municipality: Tokologo

District Municipality: Lejweleputswa

Province: Free State

Edison PV Solar Field

Technology: Solar PV

Maximum capacity: 100 MW

Final development envelope footprint: 360.26 ha

Location

(centre point of proposed PV area): 28°39'43.33"S; 25°41'43.73"E

Land portions:

PV area

(incl. building- and

associated infrastructure)

Cornelia RE 1550 [SG Code: F00400000000155000000; Area 85.26 ha]

Palmietfontein RE 140 [SG Code: F00400000000014000000; Area 810.75ha]

Modderpan RE 750 [SG Code: F00400000000075000000; Area 428 ha]

Internal roads



Mooihoek RE 1551 [SG Code: F00400000000155100000; Area 342.81 ha]

Doornhoek RE 37 [SG Code: F00400000000003700000; Area 416.84ha]


Sterkfontein 4/ 639 [SG Code: F00400000000063900004; Area 237.24 ha]

Brakfontein 3/ 636 [SG Code: F00400000000063600003; Area 183.6 ha]

Associated infrastructure

Solar field:

Solar Arrays mounted on Horizontal Single Axis Tracking; and

Underground 11, 22 or 33 kV cables

Building infrastructure:

Offices;

Ablution facilities;

Operational control centre; and

Warehouse/workshop;

17

Associated infrastructure:

Access roads and internal gravel roads;

Fencing and security

Operation and Maintenance Area;

Stormwater channels; and

Water pipelines;

Temporary laydown area (may be replaced by solar panels after it has served its purpose);

29 Solar Electricity Infrastructure

Electricity infrastructure:

Two 132/33/22 kV collector substations

[One 275/132 kV Main Transmission Station (MTS)]

One 400/132kV Main Transmission Station (MTS). *

132 kV overhead transmission lines connecting the collector substation to the MTS

[275 kV transmission line]

400 kV transmission line connecting the MTS to an existing Eskom 400 kV line.*

Connection to National Electricity Grid: Loop-in-loop-out (LILO) connection to existing Eskom lines

Substation footprint area: 120 m x 120 m (per collector substation)

300 m x 200 m (MTS)

Location

(centre point of substations):

[Collector substation A: 28°39'56.45"S; 25°40'41.07"E]

Collector substation A (East): 28°39'51.37"S; 25°41'33.51"E *

[Collector substation B: 28°40'4.49"S; 25°39'27.53"E]

Collector substation B (West): 28°40'7.97"S; 25°38'52.37"E *

[MTS: 28°40'23.06"S; 25°40'31.40"E]

MTS: 28°40'43.81"S; 25°40'59.21"E *

Land portions:



Mooihoek RE 1551 [SG Code: F00400000000155100000; Area 342.81 ha]

Doornhoek RE 37 [SG Code: F00400000000003700000; Area 416.84ha]


Sterkfontein 4/ 639 [SG Code: F00400000000063900004; Area 237.24 ha]

Brakfontein 3/ 636 [SG Code: F00400000000063600003; Area 183.6 ha]

18

Table 3: Summary of the approved project components and maximum specifications for Edison

PV and shared electricity infrastructure. In addition to ‘splitting’ the valid EA into EA1 for Edison

PV and EA2 for the 29 Solar Electricity infrastructure components. (In addition to ‘splitting’ the

valid EA into EA1 for Edison PV and EA2 for the 29 Solar Electricity infrastructure components –

the electricity infrastructure in red boxes are subject to the proposed amendment – these changes

are indicated in bold red text and an asterisk (*)).

Component Specification

PV FACILITY on 360.26 ha development envelope

Capacity 100 MW

PV area Footprint area: 240 - 300 ha;

Height: 5 m

Number of inverters required 112

Buildings Footprint area: 1 100 m2

Height: 4 m

Temporary laydown area Footprint area: 40 000 m2 = 4 ha;

(may be replaced by PV panels after it has served its

purpose)

Roads Width: 3 - 5 m

Length: 13 km

Fencing Electrified security fencing

Height: 3 m

Water use (construction) Volume: 16 700 m3 per year (duration of

construction)

Water use (operation) Volume: 4 672 m3 per year

Waste water/sewage (construction) Portable contained toilets will be on site and

provided and serviced by a licensed contractor

Waste water/sewage (operation) Volume: 183 m3 per year

Solid waste (construction) Weight: 300 t per year (duration of construction)

Solid waste (operation) Weight: 36 t per year

ELECTRICITY INFRASTRUCTURE

132/33/22 kV collector substations

(x2)

Substation footprint area: 120 m x 120 m = 14 400

m2 = 1.44 ha;

Height: 21 m

[275/132 kV MTS]

400/132 kV MTS *

Platform footprint area: 200 m x 300 m = 60 000 m2

= 6 ha;

Height: 25 m

132 kV transmission lines Height: 35 m

[Length: 1.26 km]

Length 6.5 km *

[275 kV transmission line]

400 kV transmission line *

Height: 35 m

[Length: 210 m]

Length: 138 m *

19

The proposed amendments to the 29 Solar Electricity Infrastructure layout are visually

expressed in Figure 2 (original approved layout) and Figure 3 (proposed amended layout) in

relation to the identified environmental sensitivity. Here, the new position of the collector

substations and MTS, as well as updated powerline routings can be seen. Furthermore, the

amended layout poses even lower risk to the small southern most salt pan near the existing

Eskom transmission lines.

Updated coordinates for the proposed updated locations and routings of the 29 Solar

Electricity Infrastructure are provided in Table 4 and Table 5.

Table 4: Amended centre points of the 29 Solar collector substations and Main Transmission

Station.

Centre point of substations Latitude Longitude

Collector substation A (East) 28°39'51.37"S 25°41'33.51"E

Collection substation B (West) 28°40'7.97"S 25°38'52.37"E

Main Transmission Station 28°40'43.81"S 25°40'59.21"E

Table 5: Amended points of the 29 Solar powerlines connecting the collector substations to the

Main Transmission Station (132 kV) and connecting the Main Transmission Station to the existing

Eskom Perseus Hydra transmission line (400 kV).

Coordinates of transmission line routings Latitude Longitude

132 kV transmission line route

Collector substation A (East) to MTS

A (start at Collector substation A (East)) 28° 39' 53.353" S 25° 41' 33.173" E

B 28° 40' 15.006" S 25° 41' 33.171" E

C 28° 40' 24.358" S 25° 40' 53.464" E

D 28° 40' 30.099" S 25° 40' 55.079" E

E 28° 40' 35.140" S 25° 40' 50.891" E

F (end at MTS) 28° 40' 39.198" S 25° 40' 56.758" E

Collector substation B (West) to MTS

A (start at Collector substation A (East)) 28° 40' 10.000" S 25° 38' 52.945" E

B 28° 40' 46.906" S 25° 39' 11.232" E

C 28° 40' 56.851" S 25° 40' 16.159" E

D 28° 40' 42.351" S 25° 40' 52.918" E

E (end at MTS) 28° 40' 42.844" S 25° 40' 53.822" E

400 kV line route

Start point (at MTS) 28° 40' 48.415" S 25° 41' 2.815" E

End point (at Eskom Perseus Hydra 400 kV line) 28° 40' 51.152" S 25° 41' 6.885" E

Furthermore, Appendix C of this report provides an annotated version of the EA (granted 05

September) which clearly indicates the proposed changes being applied for.

20

Figure 2: Original layout of the 29 Solar Electricity Infrastructure, in relation to Edison PV. Identified sensitive environmental features and associated

buffers are also indicated.

21

Figure 3: Amended layout of the 29 Solar Electricity Infrastructure, in relation to Edison PV. It can be clearly seen that the new layout still avoids all of

the highly sensitive environmental features and associated buffers.

22

4.2 Listed Activities that have been authorised

Table 6: Listed Activities that have been authorised in 2016 under the EIA regulations of 2014, with the corresponding activity from the amended 2014 EIA

regulations gazetted in 2017. (GN: General Notice; LN: Listed Activity).

Activities authorised in terms of the 2014 NEMA EIA

Regulations

Corresponding activity in terms of amended 2014 NEMA

EIA Regulations, 2017

EA 1

Edison PV

EA 2

29 Solar

Electricity

Infrastructure

GN R983 (LN1), Activity 28 (ii): Residential, mixed,

retail, commercial, industrial or institutional

developments where such land was used for

agriculture or afforestation on or after 01 April 1998 and

where such development

ii. will occur outside an urban area, where the

total land to be developed is bigger than 1

hectare;

excluding where such land has already been developed for

residential, mixed, retail, commercial, industrial or

institutional purposes.

GR 924 (LN1), Activity 28:

Residential, mixed, retail, commercial, industrial or

institutional developments where such land was used for

agriculture, game farming, equestrian purposes or

afforestation on or after 01 April 1998 and where such

development:

i. will occur outside an urban area, where the total

land to be developed is bigger than 1 hectare;

excluding where such land has already been developed for

residential, mixed, retail, commercial, industrial or institutional

purposes.

GN R984 (LN2), Activity 1:

The development of facilities or infrastructure for the

generation of electricity from a renewable resource

where the electricity output is 20 megawatts or more,

excluding where such development of facilities or

infrastructure is for photovoltaic installations and occurs

within an urban area.



generation of electricity from a renewable resource where

the electricity output is 20 megawatts or more, excluding

where such development of facilities or infrastructure is for

photovoltaic installations and occurs —

a) within an urban area; or

b) on existing infrastructure.

23


Regulations



EA 1

Edison PV

EA 2

29 Solar

Electricity

Infrastructure



transmission and distribution of electricity with a

capacity of 275 kilovolts or more, outside an urban area

or industrial complex.

GN R 325 (LN2), Activity 9:


transmission and distribution of electricity with a capacity

of 275 kilovolts or more, outside an urban area or industrial

complex excluding the development of bypass infrastructure

for the transmission and distribution of electricity where such

bypass infrastructure is —

a) temporarily required to allow for maintenance of

existing infrastructure;

b) 2 kilometres or shorter in length;

c) within an existing transmission line servitude; and

d) will be removed within 18 months of the

commencement of development.


The clearance of an area of 20 hectares or more of

indigenous vegetation, excluding where such clearance of

indigenous vegetation is required for:

i. the undertaking of a linear activity; or

ii. maintenance purposes undertaken in accordance

with a maintenance management plan.

GN R 325 (LN2), Activity 15:

The clearance of an area of 20 hectares or more of

indigenous vegetation, excluding

where such clearance of indigenous vegetation is required

for—

i. the undertaking of a linear activity; or

ii. maintenance purposes undertaken in accordance with

a maintenance management plan.

24


Regulations



EA 1

Edison PV

EA 2

29 Solar

Electricity

Infrastructure

GN R985, Activity 12 (i):

The clearance of an area of 300 square metres or more

of indigenous vegetation except where such clearance of

indigenous vegetation is prior to the publication of such a

list, within an area that required for maintenance purposes

undertaken in accordance with a maintenance

management plan.

a) In Eastern Cape, Free State, Gauteng, Limpopo,

North West and Western Cape Provinces:

i. Within any critically endangered or endangered

ecosystem listed in terms of section 52 of the

NEMBA or prior to the publication of such a list,

within an area that has been identified as critically

endangered in the National Spatial Biodiversity

Assessment

GN R324 (LN3), Activity 12 (b):

The clearance of an area of 300 square metres or more of

indigenous vegetation except where such clearance of

indigenous vegetation is required for maintenance purposes

undertaken in accordance with a maintenance management

plan.

b. Free State

i. Within any critically endangered or endangered

ecosystem listed in terms of section 52 of the NEMBA

or prior to the publication of such a list, within an area

that has been identified as critically endangered in the

National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment 2004;

ii. Within critical biodiversity areas identified in

bioregional plans;

iii. On land, where, at the time of the coming into effect

of this Notice or thereafter such land was zoned open

space, conservation or had an equivalent zoning; or

iv. Areas within a watercourse or wetland; or within

100 metres from the edge of a watercourse or

wetland.

Note: All of the above Listed Activities were assessed during the original EIA and approved in the original EA. No additional activities are being

applied for that were not considered as part of the original EIA.

25

Assessment of impacts related to the proposed changes

Table 7 presents the studies undertaken and specialists who collaborated on the original EIAr

in 2016 (CSIR, 2016).

Table 7: Specialists who undertook the original impacts assessments for the Edison PV Solar Field

and 29 Solar Dealesville Electricity Infrastructure.

Specialist Company Study Reference

Rudi Greffrath (fauna

& flora ecologist)

Digby Wells (Pty)

Ltd

Ecological Impact

Assessment (including

Terrestrial Ecology, Wetlands

and Aquatic Ecology)

Digby Wells, 2016a Crystal Rowe (flora

ecologist)

Russell Tate (aquatic

ecologist) Digby Wells, 2016b &

Digby Wells, 2016c

Danie Otto (terrestrial

and aquatic ecologist)

Phil Patton

(ornithologist) Avifauna Impact Assessment Digby Wells, 2016d

Henry Holland Private consultant Visual Impact Assessment Holland, 2016

Dr. Jayson Orton ASHA Consulting

(Pty) Ltd

Heritage Impact Assessment

(Archaeology and Cultural

Landscape) Orton, 2016

Lloyd Rossouw Palaeo Field

Services

Desktop Palaeontological

Impact Assessment

Julian Conrad GEOSS Geohydrological Assessment Conrad & Peek, 2016

Johann Lanz Private Soils and Agricultural

Potential Assessment Lanz, 2016

Dr. Hugo van Zyl (EIA

Phase)

Independent

Economic

Researchers

Socio-economics Van Zyl, 2016

The specialists presented in Table 7 have been consulted and provided with all the

information pertaining to the proposed changes to the Edison PV and 29 Solar Electricity

Infrastructure EA. The feedback and conclusion from the specialists were that the

proposed changes do not alter the originally identified impacts, assessment of these

impacts, impact significance or recommended management and mitigations measures.

The Heritage specialist has proposed the addition of an emphasis of an existing

mitigation measure with regards to the new electricity infrastructure layout (see Sections

5.6, 6.6, and Appendix B Section 1.4), which has been added to Part 3: EMPr for 29 Solar

Electricity Infrastructure (also refer to Section 7) See Appendix B for confirmation letters

from the specialists.

26

The proposed amendments to the EA and project do not result in any additional or other

impacts that have not been assessed during the original and approved EIA process. Summaries

of the impacts assessments conducted for the original, approved EIAr are provided in Section

5.1 to 5.8 (extracted from CSIR (2016)). The full impact assessment tables are available in

Appendix D.

5.1 Geohydrology

The proposed site for the 29 Solar Dealesville Development, associated electrical infrastructure

and the connection points to the substation will have a minimal effect on the geohydrology of

the area.

Potential impacts to groundwater during all phases are expected to be low to very low negative

with implementation of appropriate mitigation. The greatest risk to groundwater is the

cumulative over-abstraction of reserves for the construction of multiple solar energy facilities

proposed in the Dealesville area (Figure 4). However, the significance of this impact may be

reduced to low with proper management.

Figure 4: Groundwater impact assessment summary. Bordered blocks represent impact

significance after mitigation.

5.2 Fauna, Flora and Ecology

The study area falls primarily with in the Western Free State Clay Grassland but also in the Vaal-

Vet Sandy Grassland (Mucina and Rutherford, 2006). The ephemeral pans are classified as

Highveld Salt Pans. Vegetation was largely karroid and vegetation was mostly comprised of

Themeda triandra – Rosenia humilis mixed shrubland/grassland (covering 292ha), in addition

to alien bushclumps and ephemeral pans.

A total of 17 mammals were recorded, many of which were game species and none of which

were Red Data listed. No amphibians were recorded and four reptiles were recorded. Each

reptile has been listed on the Transvaal Nature Conservation Ordinance (1983) list of protected

species. No recent protected species list has been published for the Free State Province,

however, and this list needs revision.

The proposed development will result in the loss of Very High ecologically sensitive habitat in

the form of pans. It is strongly recommended that these areas are avoided and the specific

mitigation measures described in the wetlands assessment report are adhered to. The overall

impact of the proposed Solar PV facility will be moderate to low.

Potential impacts to fauna and flora during all phases are expected to be moderate to low and

very low negative with implementation of appropriate mitigation (Figure 5). The greatest risk

None Very Low Low Moderate High Very high

Construction of storage and labour accommodation yards Groundwater contamination -

Stormwater outflows Groundwater contamination -

Accidental oil spillage / fuel leakage Groundwater contamination -

Cumulative use of groundwater Over-abstraction -Ge

oh

ydro

logy

Aspect/ Impact pathway Nature of potential impact/riskSignificance of impact/risk

27

to fauna and flora is habitat and species loss, which can be mitigated by minimising

disturbance and site remediation. Cumulative impacts of vegetation clearing range from

moderate to low and very low negative (Figure 5).

Figure 5: Fauna, flora and ecology impact assessment summary. Bordered blocks represent impact


5.3 Avifauna

A total of 46 birds were recorded, three of these species are protected according to the IUCN

(2015). One species was found to be endemic and two species near endemic, 45 species are

protected according to the Transvaal Nature conservation act.

The proposed development will result in the loss of Very High ecologically sensitive habitat in

the form of pans, which in turn will impact on bird species. It is strongly recommended that

these areas are avoided and the specific mitigation measures described in the wetlands

assessment report are adhered to. Collision and electrocution of birds with infrastructure,

specifically powerlines is a high impact, but one that can be mitigated through measures listed

in this report.

The overall impact of the proposed 29 Dealesville Development during all phases will be

moderate to high negative. The significance of impacts may be reduced to low negative with

the implementation of proper management actions and mitigation measures (Figure 6). The

greatest risks to avifauna are due to the electricity infrastructure. Cumulative impacts are

expected to be high to moderate negative with the implementation of proposed management

and mitigation (Figure 6).

Figure 6: Avifauna impact assessment summary. Bordered blocks represent impact significance

after mitigation.


Internal access roads and vehicular activities on site Habitat and species loss -

Internal access roads and vehicular activities on site Exposed soil susceptible to erosion -

Site Preparation Habitat and species loss -

Site Preparation Exposed soil susceptible to erosion -

Construction of surface infrastructure and preparation Habitat and species loss -

Construction of surface infrastructure and preparation Exposed soil susceptible to erosion -

Soil disturbance resulting in the spread of alien plant species on site Spread of Alien plant species -

Soil disturbance resulting in the spread of alien plant species on site Exposed soil susceptible to erosion -

Access control and fencing Fencing in, or out certain grazers -

Access control and fencing Over or under grazed veld -

Disassemble components Damage of vegetation and habitat types -Cumulative clearing of vegetation Habitat and species loss -

Cumulative clearing of vegetation Exposed soil susceptible to erosion -

Significance of impact/risk

Fau

na

& F

lora

Aspect/ Impact pathway Nature of potential impact/risk


Loss of Avifauna Diversity due to habitat destruction Habitat and species loss -

Loss of Avifauna Diversity due to disturbance and barrier effect Species loss -

Avifauna habitat fragmentation Habitat and species loss -

Collision and electrocution on powerlines Species loss -

Electrocutions on substations and switching stations Species loss -

Collision of birds with panels and other infrastructure Species loss -

Cumulative impact of infrastructure Avifauna habitat and Species loss -

Avi

fau

na



28

5.4 Wetlands and aquatic ecology

The study area falls within the C52K catchment, associated with the Modder River. Ephemeral

pans occur as a belt in the region and many are salt pans. National Freshwater Ecosystem

Priority Area (NFEPA) recognises some of the larger pans on site; which have been allocated a

ranking of 4, which is indicative of wetlands in a near natural condition.

A large pan borders the Edison Solar PV project to the west and two small pans occur along

the northern boundary. None of the wetlands identified fall within the footprint area, although

the site falls within the wetland buffers of 100 – 200 m. Despite the perceived natural state of

the pans on site according got the NFEPA assessment, the Palmietfontein Pan was allocated a

Present Ecological State) PES category of C (moderately modified) and the remainder of the

pans received a D (largely modified) due to a number of negative impacts such as erosion, the

traversing of a road through the pan catchment and buffers, establishment of alien plants in

the catchment and overgrazing. Further to this, each pan was assigned an Ecological

Importance and Sensitivity (EIS) category of D (not ecologically sensitive).

The proposed 29 Solar PV development may infringe of the buffers of the pans, resulting in

moderate negative impacts to their PES. It is important to maintain the pan catchment since

these wetlands are inward draining systems. Avoiding the wetlands and proposed wetland

buffers will result no to low impact significance (Figure 7). The risk of cumulative loss of

ephemeral pans is moderate negative, but avoiding these features results in no impact (Figure

7).

Figure 7: Wetland impact assessment summary. Bordered blocks represent impact significance

after mitigation.

The majority of the impacts stem from livestock trampling within the catchment which is

causing sedimentation and erosion along preferential flow paths within the pan catchments.

The presence of alien vegetation may also be contributing to flow modification via increased

water uptake from below the ground surface. Anthropogenic impacts were discovered in the

catchment of many of the pans in study area. These impacts included roads, fences and water

abstraction.

From the impact assessment for the proposed project it is clear that the minor impacts that

could result from the proposed project, if managed correctly could result in a positive

improvement to the biodiversity of the aquatic ecosystems (Figure 8). Annual wet season

monitoring has been prescribed to determine if any impacts from the proposed project are

occurring and to prescribe mitigation actions should they be necessary.


Clearing of vegetation for the solar facility Loss of wetland buffers

Clearing of vegetation for electrical infrastructure Loss of pan area, pan habitat and buffers -

Vegetation clearing Cumulative loss of ephemeral pans

Nature of potential impact/risk


We

tlan

ds

Aspect/ Impact pathway

29

Figure 8: Aquatic ecology impact assessment summary. Bordered blocks represent impact


5.5 Soils and agricultural potential

The proposed development is located on land zoned and used for agriculture. South Africa

has very limited arable land and it is therefore critical to ensure that development does not

lead to an inappropriate loss of potentially arable land. The proposed site is on land which is

unsuitable for cultivation predominantly due to soil limitations, but also due to climate

limitations. The low agricultural potential of the site limits the significance of agricultural

impacts. The site is not considered to be land that has a high priority for preservation as

agricultural land.

Because of the low agricultural potential of the site, which makes it unsuitable for cultivation,

the development should, from an agricultural impact perspective, be authorised. Authorisation

is promoted by the fact that the site falls within a proposed renewable energy development

zone, where such land use has been assessed as very suitable in terms of a number of factors,

including agricultural impact. It is preferable to incur a loss of agricultural land in such a region,

without cultivation potential, than to lose agricultural land that has a higher potential, to

renewable energy development elsewhere in the country.

No agriculturally sensitive areas occur within the proposed site and no part of it is therefore

required to be set aside from the development. Potential impacts during all phases are

expected to be moderate to low and very low negative. Whilst additional land use income and

increased security against stock theft and predation are considered positive spin-offs from

developing the proposed 29 Solar Dealesville Development (Figure 9). The impact of

cumulative loss to agricultural land on a regional scale is moderate negative (Figure 9).

Figure 9: Soil and agricultural potential impact assessment summary. Bordered blocks represent

impact significance after mitigation.

5.6 Heritage and palaeontology

The proposed footprint area for the Edison PV development has very few heritage resources

within it and only a few small areas will need to be excluded from development. The majority

of sensitive features, including many graves, lie within the electricity infrastructure corridor and


Internal access roads, vehicular activities on site and site preparation Erosion and Sedimentation +

Increased runoff from hardened surfaces and vehicular incursions into the pan Erosion and Sedimentation +

Increased threat for loosened topsoil and lack of anchorage Erosion and Sedimentation +


Aq

uat

ic

Eco

logy


Occupation of the land by the project infrastructure Loss of agricultural land use -

Change in land surface characteristics. Erosion -

Disturbance to soil profile. Loss of topsoil -

Construction dust generation Degradation of veld vegetation -

Project land rental Additional land use income +


Fencing and securing of facility perimeter Increased security against stock theft and predation +


Decommissioning activities that disturb the soil profile. Loss of topsoil -

Decommissioning dust generation Degradation of veld vegetation -

Occupation of the land by infrastructure of multiple developments Cumulative loss of agricultural land -



Soil

an

d A

gric

ult

ura

l Po

ten

tial

30

because of the small surface footprint of transmission lines it should be easy to avoid these

sites. Potential impacts to heritage resources during all phases are moderate to low and very

low negative (Figure 10), with adherence to proposed avoidance, management and mitigation

action. Cumulative impacts range from moderate to low and very low negative (Figure 10).

The new position of the 400/132 kV MTS is located approximately 200 m to the south of the

graves recorded at waypoint 926 (see Appendix B, Section 1.4). The proposed farm fence that

will enclose the substation area will run about 60 m from the graves. While this change will not

specifically result in any new impacts, it does slightly increase the chances of accidental impacts

occurring and the before mitigation impact significance/risk should be increased to moderate

for both the construction and decommissioning phases. This is largely because the graves can

be very difficult to see in the long grass, especially if driving a large vehicle. The post-mitigation

impact significance/risk, however, would remain at very low.

Figure 10: Heritage impact assessment summary. Bordered blocks represent impact significance

after mitigation

5.7 Visual landscape character

The landscape surrounding the proposed site has a rural agricultural character which has been

transformed by extensive stock farming and large scale electrical infrastructure in the form of

high voltage transmission lines and two large substations.

The visibility analysis indicates that the significance of the potential visual impacts will not be

influenced by the exact location within the surveyed area of the 240 - 360 ha required for the

facility. The analysis was conducted using maximum heights for structures in order to simulate a

worst case scenario.

The impacts to sensitive visual receptors during all phases are expected to range from moderate

to low and very low negative with the implementation of proposed mitigation measures, whilst

cumulative impacts are expected to be low to very low negative (Figure 11)


Clearing of site Destruction of palaeontological resources -

Clearing of site Destruction of archaeological resources -

Clearing of site Destruction of graves -

Clearing of site and construction of facility Alteration of the cultural and natural landscape -

Workers wondering off site Damage to graves -

Operation of facility Alteration of the cultural and natural landscape -

Staff wondering off site Damage to graves -

Removal of facility infrastructure Alteration of the cultural and natural landscape -

Workers wondering off site Damage to graves -

Cumulative site clearing Destruction of palaeontological resources -

Cumulative site clearing Destruction of archaeological resources -

Cumulative site clearing and construction Alteration of the cultural and natural landscape -

He

rita

ge



31

Figure 11: Visual impact assessment summary. Bordered blocks represent impact significance

after mitigation.

5.8 Socio-economic

When considering the overall costs and benefits of the proposed project it was found that the

benefits should be more prominent allowing for the achievement of a net benefit.

Benefits would be particularly prominent for the project applicants, land owners on the site,

beneficiaries of local socio-economic development projects and in the achievement of national

and regional energy policy goals. The project would also help to diversify the local economy

and result in significant positive economic spin-offs primarily because of the expenditure

injection and jobs associated with it.

Risks and negative impacts would primarily arise at a local scale and include risks associated

with ‘social ills’ that may arise from an influx of workers and work-seekers along with risk to

surrounding land owners. On the whole, these risks are considered manageable with adequate

mitigation. Limited tourism facilities, the nature or surrounding land uses and visual impacts

indicates that risks to tourism and property values would remain low overall with mitigation

for the 29 Solar Dealesville development (Figure 12).

If all of the individual PV projects go ahead along with other solar project approved or planned

for the wider area, there would be a significant amplification of impacts. Positive impact

associated with project expenditure and the funding of local socio-economic development

initiatives would increase to a cumulative high significance. Cumulative social impacts

associated with the influx of people and impacts on surrounding land owners should increase

to a cumulative moderate significance given their intensity. Cumulative tourism and property

value impacts should increase to a similar degree.

Figure 12: Socio-economic impact assessment summary. Bordered blocks represent impact



Visual intrusion of construction activities associated with PV facility Loss of visual resources -

Visual intrusion of construction activities associated with the electricity infrastructure Loss of visual resources -

Landscape impact of a large PV facility on a rural agricultural landscape Change of landscape character -

Landscape impact of the electricity infrastructure Change of landscape character -

Visual intrusion of operational PV facility Change in existing views of sensitive visual receptors -

Visual intrusion of opertaional the electricity infrastructure Change in existing views of sensitive visual receptors -

Impact of night lighting on the nightscape of the region Light pollution in a dark nightscape. -

Visual impact of decommissioning the PV facility Impact on visual resources. -

Visual impact of decommissioning the the electricity infrastructure Impact on visual resources -

Cumulative impact on the landscape of the region. Change in landscape character -

Cumulative impact on sensitive visual receptors. Visual intrusion -


Vis

ual


Project expenditure Expenditure related impacts on jobs etc. +

Presence of facility and workers Impacts on surrounding land owners -

Visual and other impacts Impacts on tourism -

Visual and other impacts Impact on surrounding property values -

Socio-economic development contribution Funding of socio-economic and enterprise development initiatives +

Cumulative project expenditure Expenditure related impacts on jobs etc. +

Cumulative socio-economic development contribution Funding of socio-economic and enterprise development initiatives +

Cumulative influx of workers Social impact associated with an influx of people -

Cumulative presence of facility and workers Impacts on surrounding land owners -

Cumulative visual and other impacts Impacts on tourism -

Cumulative visual and other impacts Impact on surrounding property values -


Soci

o-e

con

om

ics

32

Measures to ensure avoidance, management and mitigation of

impacts associated with the proposed changes

The proposed change of ‘splitting’ the EA is an administrative change and as such does not

result in environmental impacts that need to be avoided, managed or mitigated.

The proposed change of increasing the capacity of the HV transmission lines from 275kV to

400kV does not result in a change to the dimensions or footprints of the proposed electricity

infrastructure. As such, it does not result in additional or alternative environmental impacts

that need to be avoided, managed or mitigated. The measures proposed and described in the

original EIAr and EMPr remain relevant to the 29 Solar Dealesville electricity infrastructure.

The proposed change of moving the MTS and collector substations results in these electricity

infrastructure components still avoiding all identified sensitive features on site, and does not

result in additional or alternative environmental impacts that need to be avoided, managed or

mitigated. The measures proposed and described in the original EIAr and EMPr remain relevant

to the 29 Solar Dealesville electricity infrastructure, but are summarised in Section 6.1 to 6.8

below (CSIR, 2016).

6.1 Geohydrology

Key management actions and mitigation measures include, but are not limited to:

• All vehicles and other equipment (such as generators) must be regularly serviced to

ensure they do not spill oil. Vehicles should be refuelled on paved (impervious) areas.

If liquid product is being transported it must be ensured this does not spill during

transit;

• Emergency measures and plans must be put in place and rehearsed in order to prepare

for accidental spillage;

• Diesel fuel storage tanks must be above ground in a bunded area;

• Engines that stand in one place for an excessive length of time must have drip trays;

and

• Vehicle and washing areas must also be on paved surfaces and the by-products

removed to an evaporative storage area or a hazardous waste disposal site (if the

material is hazardous).

6.2 Fauna, flora and ecology


• Avoid pans and pan buffer areas;

• Keep the footprint of the disturbed area to the minimum and designated areas only;

• Preconstruction walk through of the facility in order to locate species of conservation

concern that can be translocated as well as comply with permitting conditions;

• Preconstruction environmental induction should be done for all construction staff and

visitors;

• Adhere to existing roads;

33

• Limit vegetation removal; and

• Rehabilitate vegetation cleared and disturbed areas using indigenous species.

6.3 Avifauna


• Avoid pans and pan buffer areas;

• Keep the footprint of the disturbed area to the minimum and designated areas only;

• Preconstruction walk through of the facility in order to locate species of conservation

concern that can be translocated as well as comply with permitting conditions;

• Limit vegetation removal;

• Monitor bird collisions and fatalities;

• Install bird reflectors/deflectors ;

• Utilize underground cabling as far as possible;

• All line structures must be used in tandem with the standard Eskom Bird Perch to

provide safe perching substrate high above the dangerous hardware; and

• Regular maintenance to remove nesting sites in infrastructure components

establishing.

6.4 Wetlands and aquatic ecology


• Avoid pans and pan buffer areas; and

• In the event that any wetlands are impacted, the disturbed areas should be

rehabilitated and revegetated immediately.



Implement a storm water system that effectively collects and safely disseminates

any run-off water from all hardened surfaces and it must prevent any potential

down slope erosion;

When activities mechanically disturb the soil below surface in any way, available

topsoil should first be stripped from the entire surface to be disturbed and

stockpiled for re-spreading during rehabilitation;

Topsoil stockpiles must be conserved against losses through erosion by

establishing vegetation cover on them;

During rehabilitation, the stockpiled topsoil must be evenly spread over the entire

disturbed surface; and

Control dust generation during construction activities by implementing standard

construction site dust control measures.



34

A palaeontologist should inspect the pre-construction geotechnical report to

evaluate potential impacts to the Ecca Formation and the need for any further work;

Avoid all identified heritage features by a buffer distance of 20 m;

All activities must take place within the authorised construction footprint so as to

minimise damage to nearby heritage resources;

If any archaeological material or human burials are uncovered during the course of

development then work in the immediate area should be halted. The find would

need to be reported to the heritage authorities and may require inspection by an

archaeologist. Such heritage is the property of the state and may require excavation

and curation in an approved institution; and

Make use of neutral, earthy coloured paint on the built elements of the facility so

as to reduce the degree of contrast in the landscape.

The new position of the 400/132 kV MTS is located approximately 200 m to the south of the

graves recorded at waypoint 926 (see Appendix B, Section 1.4). The proposed farm fence that

will enclose the substation area will run about 60 m from the graves. While this change will not

specifically result in any new impacts, it does slightly increase the chances of accidental impacts

occurring and the before mitigation impact significance/risk should be increased to moderate

for both the construction and decommissioning phases. This is largely because the graves can

be very difficult to see in the long grass, especially if driving a large vehicle. The post-mitigation

impact significance/risk, however, would remain at very low.

All existing recommendations remain valid and should be included in the amended EA for the

electrical infrastructure. The new recommendation is to read as follows:

The set of graves at waypoint 926 must be fenced with a permanent stock fence

set at least 5 m away from all sides of the graves. A pedestrian gate must be

provided to facilitate access.

6.7 Visual landscape character


Preparation of the solar field area (i.e. clearance of vegetation, grading, contouring

and compacting) and solar field construction should be phased in a way that makes

practical sense in order to minimise the area of soil exposed and duration of

exposure;

Night time construction should be avoided;

A lighting plan that documents the design, layout and technology used for lighting

purposes should be prepared, indicating how nightscape impacts will be minimised;

A maintenance plan for buildings and structures should be followed to ensure that

structures remain as non-reflective as possible, and buildings remain as unobtrusive

as possible.

35

Appropriate coloured materials should be used for structures to blend in with the

backdrop of the project where this is technically feasible and the colour or paint

will not have a deleterious effect on the functionality of the structures;

The project developer should maintain rehabilitated surfaces until a self-sustaining

stand of vegetation is established and visually adapted to the undisturbed

surrounding vegetation. No new disturbance should be created during operations

without approval by the Environmental Officer;

Restoration of disturbed land should commence as soon after disturbance as

possible;

Dust and noxious weed control should be part of maintenance activities;

Road maintenance activities should avoid damaging or disturbing vegetation; and

Where possible, the type of power line towers used for the proposed power line

should be similar to existing power line towers in the landscape.

6.8 Socio-economics


Maximise positive impacts through tendering, procurement and employment

policies;

Set targets for use of local labour and maximise opportunities for the training of

unskilled and skilled workers;

Use local sub-contractors where possible;

Establish a Monitoring Forum for the project;

Implement an HIV/AIDS awareness programme for all construction workers at the

outset of the construction phase;

Make necessary arrangements to enable workers from outside the area to return

home over weekends and or on a regular basis during the construction phase; This

would reduce the risk posed by non-local construction workers to local family

structures and social networks;

Closely monitor and manage the movement of workers on and off the site;

Implement measures to assist and, if needed, fairly compensate potentially affected

surrounding landowners whereby damages to farm property, stock theft or

significant disruptions to farming activities can be minimized or reduced;

Draw up a fire management plan prior to construction in agreement with

neighbouring land owners;

Close liaison with local municipal and other stakeholders involved in socio-

economic development in order to ensure that any projects are integrated into

wider strategies and plans with regard to socio-economic development; and

Monitor potential impacts on surrounding property values with the assistance of

an independent valuer. If it is independently confirmed that value reductions have

taken place and they cannot be mitigated, then this information can be used as a

basis for negotiation and/or mediation between the applicant and neighbouring

land owners focused on compensation.

36

Changes to the EMPr

The proposed changes do not influence the findings of the authorised EIAr, nor does it

constitute a change in the potential impacts and their mitigation measures, the listed activities

authorised in the original and valid EA, or the rights and responsibilities of the Applicant in

terms of the EA and EMPr.

The material content of the original EMPrs remains unchanged. The following minor changes

have been made to accommodate the proposed amendments:

Based on the Heritage Specialist review of the proposed amendments (see Appendix

B, Section 1.4), an additional measure has been included to the EMPr of the 29 Solar

Electricity Infrastructure under the project planning and design and construction

phases (see pages 13 and 21 of “Part 3: EMPr for 29 Solar Electricity Infrastructure”):

o The set of graves at waypoint 926 must be fenced with a permanent stock fence

set at least 5 m away from all sides of the graves. A pedestrian gate must be

provided to facilitate access.

The EMPrs are now two separate documents: one for the Edison PV Solar Field (see Part

2: EMPr for Edison PV) and one for the 29 Solar Electricity Infrastructure (see Part 3:

EMPr for 29 Solar Electricity Infrastructure). This change is to accommodate the

proposed ‘splitting’ such that each EA has a corresponding and dedicated EMPr.

The specification of the electricity infrastructure (refer to Table 4 in the updated EMPr

for the 29 Solar Electricity) and layout maps (Figure 3 and Figure 4 of the respective

EMPrs for Edison PV and the 29 Solar Electricity) have been updated to reflect the

proposed changes to the 29 Solar Electricity Infrastructure (i.e. increased HV

transmission line and MTS capacity; and updated layout of the electricity infrastructure).

37

Advantages and disadvantages associated with the proposed changes

The proposed amendments hold administrative, technical and financial advantages for the Applicant (Table 8). Furthermore, it is not expected

that the proposed changes will result in any disadvantages from an environmental perspective (Table 8) as it is remains within the originally

assessed development envelope and still avoids all sensitive environmental features. The proposed changes do not influence the findings of the

authorised EIAr, nor does it constitute a change in the potential impacts and their mitigation measures, the listed activities authorised in the

original and valid EA, or the rights and responsibilities of the Applicant in terms of the EA and EMPr.

Table 8: Advantages and disadvantages associated with the proposed changes to Edison PV and the 29 Solar Electricity Infrastructure.

Proposed amendment Advantage Disadvantage

1. Split the existing EA into two separate EAs: EA1 – Edison

PV; and EA2 – 29 Solar Electricity Infrastructure

Administrative

Easy transfer of ownership and environmental

rights, responsibilities and obligations of the

electricity infrastructure to Eskom.

Ability to present the 29 Solar Dealesville

Development solar PV projects as stand-alone

projects in the Renewable Energy Independent

Power Producer Procurement Programme

(REIPPPP).

No disadvantage from an

environmental or administrative

perspective.

2. Amend the project specification of the HV

transmission line, connecting the proposed MTS and

the existing Eskom HV electricity infrastructure, from

275 kV to 400 kV, and the specification of the MTS from

132/275 kV to 132/400 kV (EA2).

Technical

Better compatibility with the existing Eskom

infrastructure to which to connect the 29 Solar

Development and evacuate generated

electricity into the grid.



perspective.

3. Amend the layout of the electricity infrastructure by

moving the locations of the collector substations and

MTS (EA2).

Technical and financial

Optimised layout for the collector substations,

connecting to the MTS, and connecting to the

existing 400 kV Eskom transmission line.



perspective. All sensitive

environmental features are still

avoided.

38

Concluding Statement by the EAP

The development of the 100 MW Edison Solar PV Facility and the shared electricity

infrastructure received EA on 05 September 2016. The Applicant wishes to amend the EA in

the following ways:

1) Split the EA for “Edison PV and shared electricity infrastructure” into two separate EAs:

i) EA 1 – Edison PV: for the listed activities and components associated with the Edison

PV facility; and

ii) EA 2 – 29 Solar Electricity Infrastructure: for the listed activities and components

associated with the shared electricity infrastructure (EA2);

2) Amend the project specification of the high voltage (HV) transmission line, connecting

the proposed MTS and the existing Eskom HV electricity infrastructure, from 275 kilovolt (kV)

to 400 kV, and the specification of the MTS from 132/275 kV to 132/400 kV, to be included in

EA2, if granted; and




kV transmission line connecting the MTS to the existing Eskom 200 kV transmission line (EA2),

if granted.

The amendment of the EA proposed above does not influence the findings of the EIA and

specialist input, nor does it constitute a change in the scope of the development, the

potential impacts and their mitigation measures, or the listed activities authorised in the

original and valid EA.

The implementation of the proposed amendments to the Environmental Authorisation

for Edison PV and the 29 Solar Electricity Infrastructure will not result in additional or

unacceptable environmental impacts. As such, it is the opinion of the EAP, Ms. Luanita

Snyman-Van der Walt, that the proposed changes and issue amended EAs for 1) Edison

PV, and 2) the 29 Solar Electricity Infrastructure be approved.

CSIR

Environmental Management Services

Contact Person:

Luanita Snyman-Van der Walt

PO Box 320, Stellenbosch, 7599

Tel: 021 888 2490 | Fax: 021 888 2693 | Email: [email protected]

Refer to Appendix E for Ms. Snyman-van der Walt’s curriculum vitae.

39

References

Conrad, J. & Peek, C. 2016. Geohydrological Assessment: Scoping and Environmental Impact

Assessment for the proposed development of 5 x 100 MW 29 Solar Photovoltaic Facility

near Dealesville, Free State. Stellenbosch: GEOSS - Geohydrological and Spatial Solutions

International (Pty) Ltd.

CSIR. 2016. Environmental Impact Assessment Report: Scoping and Environmental Impact

Assessment for the proposed development of Edison PV 100 MW Photovoltaic Facility

near Dealesville, Free State. CSIR Report Number: CSIR/CAS/EMS/IR/2015/0010/A.

Stellenbosch.

Digby Wells Environmental. 2016a. Fauna and Flora: Scoping and Environmental Impact

Assessment for the proposed development of the 5 x 100 MW 29 Solar Photovoltaic

Facility near Dealesville, Free State Province. Project Code: CSI3623. Bryanston: Digby

Wells Environmental.

Digby Wells Environmental. 2016b. Wetland Assessment Report: Scoping and Environmental

Impact Assessment for the proposed development of the 5 x 100 MW 29 Solar

Photovoltaic Facility near Dealesville, Free State Province. Project Code: CSI3623.

Bryanston: Digby Wells Environmental.

Digby Wells Environmental. 2016c. Wetland Assessment Report: Scoping and Environmental

Impact Assessment for the proposed development of the 5 x 100 MW 29 Solar

Photovoltaic Facility near Dealesville, Free State Province. Project Code: CSI3623.

Bryanston: Digby Wells Environmental.

Digby Wells Environmental. 2016d. Avifauna: Scoping and Environmental Impact Assessment

for the proposed development of the 5 x 100 MW 29 Solar Photovoltaic Facility near

Dealesville, Free State Province. Project Code: CSI3623. Bryanston: Digby Wells

Environmental.

International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). 2015. [Url] http://www.iucnredlist.org.

Date accessed: 12 October 2015.

Lanz, J. 2016. Soils And Agricultural Potential Assessment: Scoping and Environmental Impact

Assessment for the proposed development of 5 x 100 MW 29 Solar Photovoltaic Facility

and its associated transmission infrastructure near Dealesville, Free State. Stellenbosch.

Orton, J. 2016. Heritage Impact Assessment: Scoping and Environmental Impact Assessment

for the proposed development of the 5 x 100 MW 29 Solar Photovoltaic Facility near

Dealesville, Free State. Muizenberg: ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd.

South Africa. 1998. National Environmental Management Act (Act No 107 of 1998).

40


Amendments to the Environment Impact Assessment Regulations, 2014. Notice 326.

Government Gazette No. 40772. 07 April 2017.


Environment Impact Assessment Regulations, 2014. Notice 982. Government Gazette No.

38282. 04 December 2014.

Van Zyl, H.W. 2016. Environmental Impact Assessment of Five Solar PV Facilities and

Supporting Electrical Infrastructure near Dealesville in the Free State Province Proposed

by Twenty Nine Solar: Socio-economic Specialist Report. Green Point: Independent

Economic Researchers.

41

Appendix A

1. DEA correspondence on the nature of the proposed Amendment process

46

Appendix B

1. Letters from specialists declaring and confirming that the outcomes and

recommendations from their original assessment remain unchanged

47

1.1. Geohydrology

48

1.2 Ecology (including Fauna, Flora, Avifauna, Wetlands, Aquatic Ecology)

50


51


54

1.5 Visual and landscape character

56

1.6 Socio-economics

58

Appendix C

1. Annotated Environmental Authorisation Indicating the Requested

Changes

60

Title for EA 1: “The 100 Megawatts (MW) Edison

Photovoltaic (PV Solar facility near Dealesville within

the Tokologo Local Municipality in the Free State.”

Title for EA2: “The 29 Solar Shared Electricity

Infrastructure near Dealesville within the Tokologo

Local Municipality in the Free State.”

No change. The land portions for EA 1 (Edison PV) and

EA 2 (Shared Electricity Infrastructure) are the same. The

“Location of activity” can be repeated in EA 1 and EA 2.

62

GN R 983 Item 28 is applicable to EA 1 (Edison PV) and

EA 2 (Shared Electricity Infrastructure).

GN R 984 Item 1 is only applicable to EA 1 (Edison PV).

GN R 984 Item 9 is only applicable to EA 2 (Shared

Electricity Infrastructure).

Project components for EA 2 (29 Solar Electricity

Infrastructure)

The specification should change to:

400 kV transmission line

132 kV transmission lines

Two 132/33/22 kV collector substations

One 400/132 kV Main Transmission Station

(MTS)

400 kV overhead transmission line looping

in to the National Electricity Grid via

existing Eskom 400 kV transmission lines.

*

63


EA 2 (29 Solar Electricity Infrastructure).


EA 2 (29 Solar Electricity Infrastructure).

64

SG codes for EA 1 (Edison PV) remain unchanged

SG codes for EA 2 (29 Solar Electricity Infrastructure)

remain unchanged


Infrastructure)


400/132 kV MTS

The dimensions and footprint of the MTS remain

unchanged.

*

65

Centre coordinates for EA 1 (Edison PV) remain

unchanged

Centre coordinates for EA 2 (29 Solar Electricity

Infrastructure) and should be replaced by the new

locations of the electricity infrastructure presented in

Table 4 of the Amendment Report.

These are the centre coordinates for EA 2 (29 Solar

Electricity Infrastructure) and should be replaced by the

new locations of the electricity infrastructure presented

in Table 4 of the Amendment Report.

Project components for EA 1 (Edison PV) remain the

unchanged.

66


Infrastructure)


One 400/132 kV MTS

400 kV overhead transmission line looping

in to the National Electricity Grid via

existing Eskom 400 kV transmission lines.

Project components for EA 1 (Edison PV) (cont.) remain

unchanged.

Project components for EA 1 (Edison PV) (cont.) remain

unchanged.

Technical details for EA 1 (Edison PV) remain

unchanged.

*

67

Technical details for EA 2 (29

Solar Electricity Infrastructure)

Technical detail of the Main

Transmission Station (MTS)

must change to 132/400 kV.

EA 2 (29 Solar Electricity

Infrastructure)

Footprint area and height of

the 2 x collector substations

and Main Transmission

Station remains unchanged.


Infrastructure)

Technical detail of the high

voltage line must change to

400 kV.


Infrastructure)

The height of the high

voltage lines (400 kV)

remains unchanged.

The length must change to

138 m.


Infrastructure)

*

The height of the 132 kV

transmission lines remains

unchanged.

The length must change to

6.5 km.


Infrastructure)

76

Appendix D

1. Full Impact Assessment Tables

1.1. Geohydrology impact assessment

Table 9: Geohydrology: Impact Assessment Summary Table – Operation Phase Impacts.

Asp

ect/

Im

pact

path

way

Natu

re o

f p

ote

nti

al

imp

act/

risk

Sta

tus

Sp

ati

al

Exte

nt

Du

rati

on

Co

nse

qu

en

ce

Pro

bab

ilit

y

Revers

ibil

ity o

f im

pact

Irre

pla

ce

ab

ilit

y o

f re

ceiv

ing

en

vir

on

men

t/re

sou

rce

Po

ten

tial

mit

igati

on

measu

res Significance of impact/risk

= consequence x probability

Ran

kin

g o

f im

pact/

risk

Co

nfi

den

ce l

evel

Wit

ho

ut

mit

igati

on

/man

ag

em

en

t

Wit

h m

itig

ati

on

/man

ag

em

en

t

(resi

du

al

risk

/im

pact)

OPERATION PHASE DIRECT IMPACTS

Construction of

storage and labour

accommodation yards

Groundwater

contamination

Neu

tral

Sit

e

Sh

ort

- te

rm

Slig

ht

Ext

rem

ely

un

likely

Hig

h

Low

All reasonable measures must be taken to prevent

groundwater contamination.

Vehicles must be regularly serviced and maintained. Any

engines that stand in one place for an excessive length of time

must have drip trays.

Diesel fuel storage tanks should be above ground on an

impermeable surface in a bunded area.

Construction vehicles and equipment should also be refuelled

on an impermeable surface.

Low Very low 5

Hig

h

Stormwater outflows Groundwater

contamination

Neu

tral

Sit

e

Sh

ort

- te

rm

Slig

ht

Ext

rem

ely

un

likely

Hig

h

Low

All reasonable measures must be taken to prevent

groundwater contamination

Essentially the contamination of stormwater must be avoided.

Keep drainage channels clear of debris and litter.

If any potentially contamination liquids are spilled in the

stormwater channels they must be cleaned up.

Low Very low 5

Hig

h

77

Asp

ect/

Im

pact

path

way

Natu

re o

f p

ote

nti

al

imp

act/

risk

Sta

tus

Sp

ati

al

Exte

nt

Du

rati

on

Co

nse

qu

en

ce

Pro

bab

ilit

y

Revers

ibil

ity o

f im

pact

Irre

pla

ce

ab

ilit

y o

f re

ceiv

ing

en

vir

on

men

t/re

sou

rce

Po

ten

tial

mit

igati

on

measu



Ran

kin

g o

f im

pact/

risk

Co

nfi

den

ce l

evel

Wit

ho

ut

mit

igati

on

/man

ag

em

en

t

Wit

h m

itig

ati

on

/man

ag

em

en

t

(resi

du

al

risk

/im

pact)


Accidental oil

spillage / fuel

leakage

Groundwater

contamination

Neu

tral

Sit

e

Sh

ort

-te

rm

Slig

ht

Ext

rem

ely

un

likely

Hig

h

Low

Vehicles must be regularly serviced and maintained.

Any engines that stand in one place for an excessive length

of time must have drip trays.



Construction vehicles and equipment should also be refuelled

on an impermeable surface.

Low Very low 5

Hig

h

Table 10: Geohydrology: Impact Assessment Summary Table – Decommissioning Phase Impacts.

Asp

ect/

Im

pact

path

way

Natu

re o

f p

ote

nti

al

imp

act/

risk

Sta

tus

Sp

ati

al

Exte

nt

Du

rati

on

Co

nse

qu

en

ce

Pro

bab

ilit

y

Revers

ibil

ity o

f im

pact

Irre

pla

ce

ab

ilit

y o

f re

ceiv

ing

en

vir

on

men

t/re

sou

rce

Po

ten

tial

mit

igati

on

measu

res



Ran

kin

g o

f im

pact/

risk

Co

nfi

den

ce l

evel

Wit

ho

ut

mit

igati

on

/man

ag

em

en

t

Wit

h m

itig

ati

on

/man

ag

em

en

t

(resi

du

al

risk

/im

pact)

DECOMMISSIONING PHASE DIRECT IMPACTS

Accidental oil

spillage / fuel

leakage

Groundwater

contamination

Neu

tral

Sit

e

Sh

ort

-te

rm

Slig

ht

Ext

rem

ely

un

likely

Hig

h

Low

Vehicles must be regularly serviced and maintained.

Any engines that stand in one place for an excessive length

of time must have drip trays.



Construction vehicles and equipment should also be

refuelled on an impermeable surface.

Low Very low 5

Hig

h

78

Table 11: Geohydrology: Impact Assessment Summary Table – Cumulative Impacts.

Asp

ect/

Im

pact

path

way

Natu

re o

f p

ote

nti

al

imp

act/

risk

Sta

tus

Sp

ati

al

Exte

nt

Du

rati

on

Co

nse

qu

en

ce

Pro

bab

ilit

y

Revers

ibil

ity o

f im

pact

Irre

pla

ce

ab

ilit

y o

f re

ceiv

ing

en

vir

on

men

t/re

sou

rce

Po

ten

tial

mit

igati

on

measu



Ran

kin

g o

f im

pact/

risk

Co

nfi

den

ce l

evel

Wit

ho

ut

mit

igati

on

/man

ag

em

en

t

Wit

h m

itig

ati

on

/man

ag

em

en

t (r

esi

du

al

risk

/im

pact)

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Groundwater Over-abstraction

Neg

ati

ve

Sit

e

Med

ium

-term

Mo

dera

te

Un

likely

Yes

Mo

dera

te

Monitoring measures include production and background

groundwater level and quality monitoring in conjunction with

rainfall measurements and the measurement of the volumes

of groundwater abstracted.

Moderate Low 4

Med

ium

79

1.2. Fauna, flora and ecology Impact assessment

Table 12: Fauna, flora and ecology: Impact Assessment Summary Table – Construction Phase Impacts

Asp

ect/

Im

pact

path

way

Natu

re o

f p

ote

nti

al

imp

act/

risk

Sta

tus

Sp

ati

al

Exte

nt

Du

rati

on

Co

nse

qu

en

ce

Pro

bab

ilit

y

Revers

ibil

ity o

f im

pact

Irre

pla

ce

ab

ilit

y o

f re

ceiv

ing

en

vir

on

men

t/re

sou

rce

Po

ten

tial

mit

igati

on

measu

res



Ran

kin

g o

f im

pact/

risk

Co

nfi

den

ce l

evel

Wit

ho

ut

mit

igati

on

/man

ag

em

en

t

Wit

h m

itig

ati

on

/man

ag

em

en

t

(resi

du

al

risk

/im

pact)

CONSTRUCTION PHASE DIRECT IMPACTS

Internal access roads and

vehicular activities on site

Habitat and species

loss

Neg

ati

ve

Sit

e

Lon

g-t

erm

Mo

dera

te

Very

lik

ely

Yes

(re

hab

ilit

ati

on

aft

er

Co

nst

ruct

ion

)

Mo

dera

te

(en

dan

gere

d

veg

eta

tio

n)

Plant and Animal search

and rescue (EMPr) Moderate Low 4

Hig

h

Exposed soil

susceptible to erosion

Neg

ati

ve

Sit

e

Med

ium

-term

Mo

dera

te

Likely

Yes

(reh

ab

ilit

ati

on

aft

er

Co

nst

ruct

ion

)

Mo

dera

te

Erosion Management

Plan (EMPr) Low Very low 5

Hig

h

Site Preparation Habitat and species

loss

Neg

ati

ve

Sit

e

Lon

g-t

erm

Su

bst

an

tial

Very

lik

ely

Yes

(re

hab

ilit

ati

on

aft

er

Co

nst

ruct

ion

)

Mo

dera

te

(en

dan

gere

d

veg

eta

tio

n)

Plant and Animals search


Hig

h

80

Asp

ect/

Im

pact

path

way

Natu

re o

f p

ote

nti

al

imp

act/

risk

Sta

tus

Sp

ati

al

Exte

nt

Du

rati

on

Co

nse

qu

en

ce

Pro

bab

ilit

y

Revers

ibil

ity o

f im

pact

Irre

pla

ce

ab

ilit

y o

f re

ceiv

ing

en

vir

on

men

t/re

sou

rce

Po

ten

tial

mit

igati

on

measu

res



Ran

kin

g o

f im

pact/

risk

Co

nfi

den

ce l

evel

Wit

ho

ut

mit

igati

on

/man

ag

em

en

t

Wit

h m

itig

ati

on

/man

ag

em

en

t

(resi

du

al

risk

/im

pact)

Exposed soil


Neg

ati

ve

Sit

e

Med

ium

-term

Mo

dera

te

Likely

Yes

(reh

ab

ilit

ati

on

aft

er

Co

nst

ruct

ion

)

Mo

dera

te

Erosion Management


Hig

h

Construction of surface

infrastructure and

preparation

Habitat and species

loss

Neg

ati

ve

Sit

e a

nd

su

rro

un

din

gs

Lon

g-t

erm

Su

bst

an

tial

Very

lik

ely

Yes

(re

hab

ilit

ati

on

aft

er

Co

nst

ruct

ion

)

Mo

dera

te (

en

dan

gere

d

veg

eta

tio

n)

Plant and Animal search


Hig

h

Exposed soil

susceptible to

erosion Neg

ati

ve

Sit

e a

nd

su

rro

un

din

gs

Med

ium

-term

Mo

dera

te

Likely

Yes

(reh

ab

ilit

ati

on

aft

er

Co

nst

ruct

ion

)

Mo

dera

te

Erosion Management


Hig

h

81

Asp

ect/

Im

pact

path

way

Natu

re o

f p

ote

nti

al

imp

act/

risk

Sta

tus

Sp

ati

al

Exte

nt

Du

rati

on

Co

nse

qu

en

ce

Pro

bab

ilit

y

Revers

ibil

ity o

f im

pact

Irre

pla

ce

ab

ilit

y o

f re

ceiv

ing

en

vir

on

men

t/re

sou

rce

Po

ten

tial

mit

igati

on

measu

res



Ran

kin

g o

f im

pact/

risk

Co

nfi

den

ce l

evel

Wit

ho

ut

mit

igati

on

/man

ag

em

en

t

Wit

h m

itig

ati

on

/man

ag

em

en

t

(resi

du

al

risk

/im

pact)

Soil disturbance resulting in

the spread of alien plant

species on site

Spread of Alien

plant species

Neg

ati

ve

Sit

e a

nd

su

rro

un

din

gs

Lon

g-t

erm

Mo

dera

te

Likely

Yes

(reh

ab

ilit

ati

on

aft

er

Co

nst

ruct

ion

)

Mo

dera

te

Alien plant Management


Hig

h

Exposed soil


Neg

ati

ve

Sit

e a

nd

surr

ou

nd

ing

s

Med

ium

-term

Mo

dera

te

Likely

Yes

(reh

ab

ilit

ati

on

aft

er

Co

nst

ruct

ion

)

Mo

dera

te

Erosion Management Plan

(EMPr) Low Very low 5

Hig

h

Table 13: Fauna, flora and ecology: Impact Assessment Summary Table – Operational Phase Impacts

Asp

ect/

Im

pact

path

way

Natu

re o

f p

ote

nti

al

imp

act/

risk

Sta

tus

Sp

ati

al

Exte

nt

Du

rati

on

Co

nse

qu

en

ce

Pro

bab

ilit

y

Revers

ibil

ity o

f im

pact

Irre

pla

ce

ab

ilit

y o

f

receiv

ing

en

vir

on

men

t/re

sou

rce

Po

ten

tial

mit

igati

on

measu

res



Ran

kin

g o

f im

pact/

risk

Co

nfi

den

ce l

evel

Wit

ho

ut

mit

igati

on

/man

ag

em

en

t

Wit

h

mit

igati

on

/man

ag

em

en

t

(resi

du

al

risk

/im

pact)

OPERATIONAL PHASE DIRECT IMPACTS

Access control and

fencing

Fencing in, or out

certain grazers

Neg

ati

ve

Sit

e

Lon

g-t

erm

Su

bst

an

tial

Very

lik

ely

Yes

(w

ith

mit

igati

on

measu

res)

Mo

dera

te

(en

dan

gere

d

veg

eta

tio

n)

Plant search and rescue

(EMPr) Moderate Low 4

Med

ium

82

Asp

ect/

Im

pact

path

way

Natu

re o

f p

ote

nti

al

imp

act/

risk

Sta

tus

Sp

ati

al

Exte

nt

Du

rati

on

Co

nse

qu

en

ce

Pro

bab

ilit

y

Revers

ibil

ity o

f im

pact

Irre

pla

ce

ab

ilit

y o

f

receiv

ing

en

vir

on

men

t/re

sou

rce

Po

ten

tial

mit

igati

on

measu

res



Ran

kin

g o

f im

pact/

risk

Co

nfi

den

ce l

evel

Wit

ho

ut

mit

igati

on

/man

ag

em

en

t

Wit

h

mit

igati

on

/man

ag

em

en

t

(resi

du

al

risk

/im

pact)


Over or under

grazed veld

Neg

ati

ve

Sit

e

Med

ium

-

term

Mo

dera

te

Likely

Yes

(reh

ab

ilit

a

tio

n a

fter

deco

mm

i

ssio

nin

g)

Mo

dera

te



Hig

h

Table 14: Fauna, flora and ecology: Impact Assessment Summary Table – Decommissioning Phase Impacts.

Asp

ect/

Im

pact

path

way

Natu

re o

f p

ote

nti

al

imp

act/

risk

Sta

tus

Sp

ati

al

Exte

nt

Du

rati

on

Co

nse

qu

en

ce

Pro

bab

ilit

y

Revers

ibil

ity o

f im

pact

Irre

pla

ce

ab

ilit

y o

f re

ceiv

ing

en

vir

on

men

t/re

sou

rce

Po

ten

tial

mit

igati

on

measu

res



Ran

kin

g o

f im

pact/

risk

Co

nfi

den

ce l

evel

Wit

ho

ut

mit

igati

on

/man

ag

em

en

t

Wit

h m

itig

ati

on

/man

ag

em

en

t

(resi

du

al

risk

/im

pact)


Disassemble

components

Damage to

vegetation and

habitat types Neg

ati

ve

Sit

e

Sh

ort

-term

Mo

dera

te

Very

lik

ely

Yes

(w

ith

mit

igati

on

measu

res)

Mo

dera

te

(en

dan

gere

d

veg

eta

tio

n)



Med

ium

83

Table 15: Fauna, flora and ecology: Impact Assessment Summary Table – Cumulative Impacts A

spect/

Im

pact

path

way

Natu

re o

f p

ote

nti

al

imp

act/

risk

Sta

tus

Sp

ati

al

Exte

nt

Du

rati

on

Co

nse

qu

en

ce

Pro

bab

ilit

y

Revers

ibil

ity o

f im

pact

Irre

pla

ce

ab

ilit

y o

f re

ceiv

ing

en

vir

on

men

t/re

sou

rce

Po

ten

tial

mit

igati

on

measu



Ran

kin

g o

f im

pact/

risk

Co

nfi

den

ce l

evel

Wit

ho

ut

mit

igati

on

/man

ag

em

en

t

Wit

h m

itig

ati

on

/man

ag

em

en

t

(resi

du

al

risk

/im

pact)

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Clearing of

vegetation,

including

Kentani, and the

remaining

Dealesville

projects.

Habitat and

species loss

Neg

ati

ve

Sit

e

Lon

g-t

erm

Su

bst

an

tial

Very

lik

ely

Yes

(w

ith

mit

igati

on

measu

res)

Mo

dera

te

(en

dan

gere

d

veg

eta

tio

n)



Med

ium

Exposed soil

susceptible to

erosion Neg

ati

ve

Sit

e

Med

ium

-term

Mo

dera

te

Likely

Yes

(w

ith

mit

igati

on

measu

res)

Mo

dera

te



Hig

h

84

1.3. Avifauna impact assessment

Table 16: Avifauna: Impact Assessment Summary Table – Construction Phase Impacts

Asp

ect/

Im

pact

path

way

Natu

re o

f p

ote

nti

al

imp

act/

risk

Sta

tus

Sp

ati

al

Exte

nt

Du

rati

on

Co

nse

qu

en

ce

Pro

bab

ilit

y

Revers

ibil

ity o

f im

pact

Irre

pla

ce

ab

ilit

y o

f

receiv

ing

en

vir

on

men

t/re

sou

rce

Po

ten

tial

mit

igati

on

measu

res



Ran

kin

g o

f im

pact/

risk

Co

nfi

den

ce l

evel

Wit

ho

ut

mit

igati

on

/man

ag

em

en

t

Wit

h m

itig

ati

on

/man

ag

em

en

t

(resi

du

al

risk

/im

pact)


Loss of Avifauna

Diversity due to

habitat destruction

Habitat and

species loss

Neg

ati

ve

Loca

l

Lon

g-t

erm

Su

bst

an

tial

Cert

ain

Yes

wit

h

stri

ct

mit

igati

on

Mo

dera

te

Keep Disturbance footprint to a

minimum.

Practice continual rehabilitation

Moderate Low 1

Hig

h

Loss of Avifauna

Diversity due to

disturbance and

barrier effect

Species loss

Neg

ati

ve

Sit

e

Lon

g-t

erm

Su

bst

an

tial

Very

lik

ely

Yes

wit

h

stri

ct

mit

igati

on

Mo

dera

te

Monitor Bird fatalities.


minimum

Moderate Low 2

Hig

h

Avifauna habitat

fragmentation

Habitat and

species loss

Neg

ati

ve

Sit

e

Lon

g-t

erm

Su

bst

an

tial

Very

lik

ely

Yes

wit

h

stri

ct

mit

igati

on

Mo

dera

te


minimum

Moderate Low 4

Hig

h

Table 17: Avifauna: Impact Assessment Summary Table – Operational Phase Impacts

Asp

ect/

Im

pact

path

way

Natu

re o

f p

ote

nti

al

imp

act/

risk

Sta

tus

Sp

ati

al

Exte

nt

Du

rati

on

Co

nse

qu

en

ce

Pro

bab

ilit

y

Revers

ibil

ity o

f

imp

act

Irre

pla

ce

ab

ilit

y o

f

receiv

ing

en

vir

on

men

t/re

sou

rc

e

Po

ten

tial

mit

igati

on

measu

res



Ran

kin

g o

f

imp

act/

risk

Co

nfi

den

ce l

evel

Wit

ho

ut

mit

igati

on

/man

ag

em

en

t

Wit

h m

itig

ati

on

/man

ag

em

en

t

(resi

du

al

risk

/im

pact)


Collision and

electrocution on

powerlines

Species loss

Neg

ati

ve

Sit

e

Lon

g-t

erm

Mo

dera

te

Likely

Yes

wit

h s

tric

t

mit

igati

on

Mo

dera

te

Use bird friendly towers

Utilize underground cabling as far as

possible.

Conduct an Avifauna walkthrough before

construction starts.

Install bird reflectors/deflectors

High Low 2

Hig

h

85

Asp

ect/

Im

pact

path

way

Natu

re o

f p

ote

nti

al

imp

act/

risk

Sta

tus

Sp

ati

al

Exte

nt

Du

rati

on

Co

nse

qu

en

ce

Pro

bab

ilit

y

Revers

ibil

ity o

f

imp

act

Irre

pla

ce

ab

ilit

y o

f

receiv

ing

en

vir

on

men

t/re

sou

rc

e

Po

ten

tial

mit

igati

on

measu

res



Ran

kin

g o

f

imp

act/

risk

Co

nfi

den

ce l

evel

Wit

ho

ut

mit

igati

on

/man

ag

em

en

t

Wit

h m

itig

ati

on

/man

ag

em

en

t

(resi

du

al

risk

/im

pact)


Electrocutions on

substations and

switching stations

Species loss N

eg

ati

ve

Sit

e

Lon

g-t

erm

Su

bst

an

tial

Very

lik

ely

Yes

wit

h s

tric

t

mit

igati

on

Mo

dera

te

Regular maintenance High Low 3

Hig

h

Collision of birds with

panels and other

infrastructure

Species loss

Neg

ati

ve

Sit

e

Lon

g-t

erm

Su

bst

an

tial

Likely

Yes

wit

h

stri

ct

mit

igati

on

Mo

dera

te

Implement monitoring program

Moderate Low 5

Hig

h

Table 18: Avifauna: Impact Assessment Summary Table – Cumulative Impacts

Asp

ect/

Im

pact

path

way

Natu

re o

f p

ote

nti

al

imp

act/

risk

Sta

tus

Sp

ati

al

Exte

nt

Du

rati

on

Co

nse

qu

en

ce

Pro

bab

ilit

y

Revers

ibil

ity o

f im

pact

Irre

pla

ce

ab

ilit

y o

f re

ceiv

ing

en

vir

on

men

t/re

sou

rce

Po

ten

tial

mit

igati

on

measu

res



Ran

kin

g o

f im

pact/

risk

Co

nfi

den

ce l

evel

Wit

ho

ut

mit

igati

on

/man

ag

em

en

t

Wit

h m

itig

ati

on

/man

ag

em

en

t

(resi

du

al

risk

/im

pact)

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Cumulative impact

of PV infrastructure

Avifauna

habitat and

Species loss Neg

ati

ve

Reg

ion

al

Lon

g-t

erm

Su

bst

an

tial

Very

lik

ely

Yes

(re

hab

ilit

ati

on

aft

er

deco

mm

issi

on

ing

)

Low

revers

ibilit

y

Keep Disturbance to designated areas High Moderate 4

Med

ium

86

1.4. Wetlands and aquatic ecology impact assessment

Table 19: Wetlands: Impact Assessment Summary Table – Construction Phase Impacts

Asp

ect/

Im

pact

path

way

Natu

re o

f p

ote

nti

al

imp

act/

risk

Sta

tus

Sp

ati

al

Exte

nt

Du

rati

on

Co

nse

qu

en

ce

Pro

bab

ilit

y

Revers

ibil

ity o

f

imp

act

Irre

pla

ce

ab

ilit

y o

f

receiv

ing

en

vir

on

men

t/re

sou

rc

e

Po

ten

tial

mit

igati

on

measu

res



Ran

kin

g o

f

imp

act/

risk

Co

nfi

den

ce l

evel

Wit

ho

ut

mit

igati

on

/man

ag

em

en

t

Wit

h

mit

igati

on

/man

ag

em

en

t

(resi

du

al

risk

/im

pact)


Clearing of vegetation for

the Edison Solar PV

Loss of wetland

buffers

Neg

ati

ve

Sit

e

Lon

g-t

erm

Su

bst

an

tial

Defi

nit

e

Rehabilitation with native

species

High (overgrazed

vegetation) Avoid wetland buffers Moderate No impact 3

Hig

h

Clearing of vegetation for

electrical infrastructure

Loss of pan area,

pan habitat and

buffers Neg

ati

ve

Sit

e

Lon

g-t

erm

Mo

dera

te

Defi

nit

e


species Moderate

Avoid wetlands and

buffers Moderate Low 3

Hig

h

Table 20: Wetlands: Impact Assessment Summary Table – Cumulative Impacts

Asp

ect/

Im

pact

path

way

Natu

re o

f p

ote

nti

al

imp

act/

risk

Sta

tus

Sp

ati

al

Exte

nt

Du

rati

on

Co

nse

qu

en

ce

Pro

bab

ilit

y

Revers

ibil

ity o

f im

pact

Irre

pla

ce

ab

ilit

y o

f re

ceiv

ing

en

vir

on

men

t/re

sou

rce

Po

ten

tial

mit

igati

on

measu

res



Ran

kin

g o

f im

pact/

risk

Co

nfi

den

ce l

evel

Wit

ho

ut

mit

igati

on

/man

ag

em

en

t

Wit

h m

itig

ati

on

/man

ag

em

en

t

(resi

du

al

risk

/im

pact)

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Vegetation

clearing

Cumulative loss

of ephemeral

pans Neg

ati

ve

Sit

e

Lon

g-t

erm

Mo

dera

te

Defi

nit

e


species Moderate

Avoid wetlands and

buffers Moderate No impact 4

Hig

h

87

Table 21: Aquatic Ecology: Impact assessment summary table – Construction Phase impacts.

Asp

ect/

Im

pact

path

way

Natu

re o

f

po

ten

tial

imp

act/

risk

Sta

tus

Sp

ati

al

Exte

nt

Du

rati

on

Co

nse

qu

en

ce

Pro

bab

ilit

y

Revers

ibil

ity o

f

imp

act

Irre

pla

ce

ab

ilit

y o

f

receiv

ing

en

vir

on

men

t/re

so

urc

e

Po

ten

tial

mit

igati

on

measu

res



Ran

kin

g o

f

imp

act/

risk

Co

nfi

den

ce l

evel

Without

mitigation

/management

With mitigation

/management

(residual

risk/impact)


Internal access roads,

vehicular activities on

site and site

preparation

Erosion and

Sedimentation N

eg

ati

ve

Pan

catc

hm

en

t

Lon

g-t

erm

Su

bst

an

tial

Very

lik

ely

Yes

(re

hab

ilit

ati

on

aft

er

Co

nst

ruct

ion

)

Mo

dera

te

(en

dan

gere

d

veg

eta

tio

n)

200 m buffer around pan;

Remove stock animals Moderate Low positive 4

Hig

h

Table 22: Aquatic Ecology: Impact assessment summary table – Operation Phase impacts.

Asp

ect/

Im

pact

path

way

Natu

re o

f

po

ten

tial

imp

act/

risk

Sta

tus

Sp

ati

al

Exte

nt

Du

rati

on

Co

nse

qu

en

ce

Pro

bab

ilit

y

Revers

ibil

ity o

f

imp

act

Irre

pla

ce

ab

ilit

y

of

receiv

ing

en

vir

on

men

t/re

s

ou

rce

Po

ten

tial

mit

igati

on

measu

res



Ran

kin

g o

f

imp

act/

risk

Co

nfi

den

ce l

evel

Without

mitigation

/management

With mitigation

/management

(residual

risk/impact)


Increased runoff from

hardened surfaces and

vehicular incursions into

the pan

Erosion and

Sedimentation

Neg

ati

ve

Pan

catc

hm

en

t

Lon

g-t

erm

Su

bst

an

tial

Very

lik

ely

Yes

(re

hab

ilit

ati

on

aft

er

Co

nst

ruct

ion

)

Mo

dera

te

(en

dan

gere

d

veg

eta

tio

n) 200 m buffer around pan;

Maintain absence of stock

animals

Use of berms and canals to trap

excess runoff

Moderate Low positive 4

Hig

h

88

Table 23: Aquatic Ecology: Impact assessment summary table – Decommissioning Phase impacts. A

spect/

Im

pact

path

way

Natu

re o

f p

ote

nti

al

imp

act/

risk

Sta

tus

Sp

ati

al

Exte

nt

Du

rati

on

Co

nse

qu

en

ce

Pro

bab

ilit

y

Revers

ibil

ity o

f im

pact

Irre

pla

ce

ab

ilit

y o

f

receiv

ing

en

vir

on

men

t/re

sou

rce

Po

ten

tial

mit

igati

on

measu

res



Ran

kin

g o

f

imp

act/

risk

Co

nfi

den

ce l

evel

Without

mitigation

/management

With mitigation

/management

(residual

risk/impact)


Increased threat for

loosened topsoil and

lack of anchorage

Erosion and

Sedimentation N

eg

ati

ve

Pan

catc

hm

en

t

Lon

g-t

erm

Su

bst

an

tial

Very

lik

ely

Yes

(re

hab

ilit

ati

on

aft

er

Co

nst

ruct

ion

)

Mo

dera

te (

en

dan

gere

d

veg

eta

tio

n) 200m buffer around pan;

Maintain absence of stock

animals;

Use of berms and canals to trap

excess runoff

Moderate Low positive 4

Hig

h

1.5. Soils and agricultural potential impact assessment

Table 24: Agriculture and Soil Potential: Impact assessment summary table – Construction Phase impacts.

Asp

ect/

Im

pact

path

way

Natu

re o

f p

ote

nti

al

imp

act/

risk

Sta

tus

Sp

ati

al

Exte

nt

Du

rati

on

Co

nse

qu

en

ce

Pro

bab

ilit

y

Revers

ibil

ity o

f im

pact

Irre

pla

ce

ab

ilit

y o

f

receiv

ing

en

vir

on

men

t/re

sou

rce

Po

ten

tial

mit

igati

on

measu

res



Ran

kin

g o

f im

pact/

risk

Co

nfi

den

ce l

evel

Without mitigation

/management

With mitigation

/management

(residual risk/impact)


Occupation of the

land by the project

infrastructure

Loss of

agricultural land

use Neg

ati

ve

Sit

e

Med

ium

term

Su

bst

an

tial

Very

Lik

ely

Hig

h

Low

None Moderate Moderate 3

Hig

h

Change in land

surface

characteristics.

Erosion

Neg

ati

ve

Sit

e

Med

ium

term

Mo

dera

te

Un

likely

Low

Low

Implement an effective system of storm water run-off control. Low Low 4

Hig

h

89

Asp

ect/

Im

pact

path

way

Natu

re o

f p

ote

nti

al

imp

act/

risk

Sta

tus

Sp

ati

al

Exte

nt

Du

rati

on

Co

nse

qu

en

ce

Pro

bab

ilit

y

Revers

ibil

ity o

f im

pact

Irre

pla

ce

ab

ilit

y o

f

receiv

ing

en

vir

on

men

t/re

sou

rce

Po

ten

tial

mit

igati

on

measu

res



Ran

kin

g o

f im

pact/

risk

Co

nfi

den

ce l

evel

Without mitigation

/management

With mitigation

/management



Constructional

activities that

disturb the soil

profile.

Loss of topsoil N

eg

ati

ve

Sit

e

Med

ium

term

Mo

dera

te

Un

likely

Mo

dera

te

Low

Strip, stockpile and re-spread topsoil during rehabilitation. Low Low 4

Hig

h

Construction dust

generation

Degradation of

veld vegetation

Neg

ati

ve

Sit

e

Med

ium

term

Slig

ht

Likely

Hig

h

Low

Control dust Very Low Very Low 5

Hig

h

Project land rental Additional land

use income

Po

siti

ve

Sit

e

Lon

g t

erm

Mo

dera

te

Very

Lik

ely

Hig

h

Low

None Low positive Low positive 4

Hig

h

Table 25: Agriculture and Soil Potential: Impact assessment summary table – Operation Phase impacts.

Asp

ect/

Im

pact

path

way

Natu

re o

f

po

ten

tial

imp

act/

risk

Sta

tus

Sp

ati

al

Ex

ten

t

Du

rati

on

Co

nse

qu

en

ce

Pro

bab

ilit

y

Revers

ibil

ity o

f

imp

act

Irre

pla

ceab

ilit

y o

f

receiv

ing

en

vir

on

men

t/re

so

urc

e

Po

ten

tial

mit

igati

on

measu

res



Ran

kin

g o

f

imp

act/

risk

Co

nfi

den

ce l

evel

Without mitigation

/management

With mitigation

/management (residual

risk/impact)


Occupation of the land

by the project

infrastructure

Loss of agricultural

land use

Neg

ati

ve

Sit

e

Lo

ng

term

Mo

dera

te

Very

Lik

ely

Hig

h

Lo

w

Facilitate grazing of small stock within the panel areas. Low Low 4

Hig

h

Change in land surface

characteristics. Erosion

Neg

ati

ve

Sit

e

Lo

ng

term

Mo

dera

te

Un

likely

Lo

w

Lo

w


Hig

h

Project land rental Additional land use

income

Po

siti

ve

Sit

e

Lo

ng

term

Mo

dera

te

Very

Lik

ely

Hig

h

Lo

w


Hig

h

90

Asp

ect/

Im

pact

path

way

Natu

re o

f

po

ten

tial

imp

act/

risk

Sta

tus

Sp

ati

al

Ex

ten

t

Du

rati

on

Co

nse

qu

en

ce

Pro

bab

ilit

y

Revers

ibil

ity o

f

imp

act

Irre

pla

ceab

ilit

y o

f

receiv

ing

en

vir

on

men

t/re

so

urc

e

Po

ten

tial

mit

igati

on

measu

res



Ran

kin

g o

f

imp

act/

risk

Co

nfi

den

ce l

evel

Without mitigation

/management

With mitigation


risk/impact)

Fencing and securing

of facility perimeter

Increased security

against stock theft

and predation. Po

siti

ve

Sit

e

Lo

ng

term

Mo

dera

te

Very

Lik

ely

Hig

h

Lo

w

Ensure fencing is jackal proof. Low positive Low positive 4

Hig

h

Table 26: Agriculture and Soil Potential: Impact assessment summary table – Decommissioning Phase impacts.

Asp

ect/

Im

pact

path

way

Natu

re o

f p

ote

nti

al

imp

act/

risk

Sta

tus

Sp

ati

al

Exte

nt

Du

rati

on

Co

nse

qu

en

ce

Pro

bab

ilit

y

Revers

ibil

ity o

f im

pact

Irre

pla

ce

ab

ilit

y o

f

receiv

ing

en

vir

on

men

t/re

sou

rce

Po

ten

tial

mit

igati

on

measu

res



Ran

kin

g o

f

imp

act/

risk

Co

nfi

den

ce l

evel

Without mitigation

/management

With mitigation

/management



Occupation of the

land by the project

infrastructure

Loss of

agricultural

land use Neg

ati

ve

Sit

e

Med

ium

term

Su

bst

an

tial

Very

Lik

ely

Hig

h

Low


Hig

h

Change in land

surface characteristics. Erosion

Neg

ati

ve

Sit

e

Med

ium

term

Mo

dera

te

Un

likely

Low

Low


Hig

h

Decommissioning

activities that disturb

the soil profile.

Loss of topsoil

Neg

ati

ve

Sit

e

Med

ium

term

Mo

dera

te

Un

likely

Mo

dera

te

Low

Strip, stockpile and re-spread topsoil during rehabilitation. Low Low 4

Hig

h

Decommissioning

dust generation

Degradation of

veld vegetation

Neg

ati

ve

Sit

e

Med

ium

term

Slig

ht

Likely

Hig

h

Low

Control dust Very Low Very Low 5

Hig

h

Project land rental Additional land

use income

Po

siti

ve

Sit

e

Lon

g

term

Mo

dera

te

Very

Likely

Hig

h

Low


Hig

h

91

Table 27: Agriculture and Soil Potential: Impact assessment summary table – Cumulative impacts. A

spect/

Im

pact

path

way

Natu

re o

f p

ote

nti

al

imp

act/

risk

Sta

tus

Sp

ati

al

Exte

nt

Du

rati

on

Co

nse

qu

en

ce

Pro

bab

ilit

y

Revers

ibil

ity o

f im

pact

Irre

pla

ce

ab

ilit

y o

f

receiv

ing

en

vir

on

men

t/re

sou

rce

Po

ten

tial

mit

igati

on

measu

res



Ran

kin

g o

f im

pact/

risk

Co

nfi

den

ce l

evel

Without mitigation

/management

With mitigation


risk/impact)

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Occupation of the land

by the project

infrastructure of

multiple developments

Regional loss of

agricultural land N

eg

ati

ve

Reg

ion

al

Lon

g t

erm

Su

bst

an

tial

Very

Lik

ely

Hig

h

Low


Hig

h

1.6. Heritage impact assessment

Table 28: Heritage: Impact assessment summary table – Construction Phase impacts.

Asp

ect/

Im

pact

path

way

Natu

re o

f p

ote

nti

al

imp

act/

risk

Sta

tus

Sp

ati

al

Exte

nt

Du

rati

on

Co

nse

qu

en

ce

Pro

bab

ilit

y

Revers

ibil

ity o

f im

pact

Irre

pla

ce

ab

ilit

y o

f re

ceiv

ing

en

vir

on

men

t/re

sou

rce

Po

ten

tial

mit

igati

on

measu

res



Ran

kin

g o

f im

pact/

risk

Co

nfi

den

ce l

evel

Without mitigation

/management

With mitigation

/management

(residual

risk/impact)


Clearing of

site

Destruction of

palaeontological

resources Neg

ati

ve

Loca

l

Perm

an

en

t

Su

bst

an

tial

Un

likely

No

n-

revers

ible

Irre

pla

ceab

le

A palaeontologist should inspect the pre-construction

geotechnical report to evaluate potential impacts to the Ecca

Formation and the need for any further work; and

Appoint a palaeontologist to check for sensitive features prior to

construction.

Moderate Very low 5

Hig

h

Clearing of

site

Destruction of

archaeological

resources Neg

ati

ve

Sit

e

Perm

an

en

t

Mo

dera

te

Very

lik

ely

No

n-

revers

ible

Irre

pla

ceab

le

Avoid sites with a buffer of 20 m from GPS co-ords; or

Archaeological excavation to be undertaken by a professional

archaeologist; and

Ensure all works occur inside approved development footprint.

Low Very low 5

Hig

h

92

Asp

ect/

Im

pact

path

way

Natu

re o

f p

ote

nti

al

imp

act/

risk

Sta

tus

Sp

ati

al

Exte

nt

Du

rati

on

Co

nse

qu

en

ce

Pro

bab

ilit

y

Revers

ibil

ity o

f im

pact

Irre

pla

ce

ab

ilit

y o

f re

ceiv

ing

en

vir

on

men

t/re

sou

rce

Po

ten

tial

mit

igati

on

measu

res



Ran

kin

g o

f im

pact/

risk

Co

nfi

den

ce l

evel

Without mitigation

/management

With mitigation

/management

(residual

risk/impact)


Clearing of

site Destruction of graves

Neg

ati

ve

Sit

e

Perm

an

en

t

Ext

rem

e

Very

un

likely

No

n-r

evers

ible

Irre

pla

ceab

le

Avoid graves with a buffer of at least 5 m from actual graves. Low Very low 5

Hig

h

Clearing of

site and

construction

of facility

Alteration of the

cultural and natural

landscape Neg

ati

ve

Loca

l

Lon

g t

erm

Mo

dera

te

Very

lik

ely

Hig

h

Mo

dera

te

Use earthy-coloured paint on built elements; and

All staff and vehicles to remain in authorised project footprint. Low Low 4

Hig

h

CONSTRUCTION PHASE INDIRECT IMPACTS

Workers

wondering

off site

Damage to graves

Neg

ati

ve

Sit

e

Perm

an

en

t

Mo

dera

te

Un

likely

No

n-

revers

ible

Irre

pla

ceab

le Ensure that construction footprint is fenced and that workers are

not allowed off site. Low Very low 5

Hig

h

93

Table 29: Heritage: Impact assessment summary table – Operation Phase impacts.

Asp

ect/

Im

pact

path

way

Natu

re o

f p

ote

nti

al

imp

act/

risk

Sta

tus

Sp

ati

al

Exte

nt

Du

rati

on

Co

nse

qu

en

ce

Pro

bab

ilit

y

Revers

ibil

ity o

f im

pact

Irre

pla

ce

ab

ilit

y o

f

receiv

ing

en

vir

on

men

t/re

sou

rce

Po

ten

tial

mit

igati

on

measu

res



Ran

kin

g o

f

imp

act/

risk

Co

nfi

den

ce l

evel

Without mitigation

/management

With mitigation

/management

(residual

risk/impact)


Operation of

facility

Alteration of

the cultural

and natural

landscape

Neg

ati

ve

Loca

l

Lon

g t

erm

Mo

dera

te

Very

lik

ely

Hig

h

Mo

dera

te

All staff and vehicles to remain in authorised project footprint Low Low 4

Hig

h

OPERATION PHASE INDIRECT IMPACTS

Staff

wondering

off site

Damage to

graves

Neg

ati

ve

Sit

e

Perm

an

en

t

Mo

dera

te

Ext

rem

ely

un

likely

No

n-r

evers

ible

Irre

pla

ceab

le

Ensure that PV footprint is fenced and that staff are not allowed off site Very low Very low 5

Hig

h

94

Table 30: Heritage Impact assessment summary table – Decommissioning Phase impacts.

Asp

ect/

Im

pact

path

way

Natu

re o

f p

ote

nti

al

imp

act/

risk

Sta

tus

Sp

ati

al

Exte

nt

Du

rati

on

Co

nse

qu

en

ce

Pro

bab

ilit

y

Revers

ibil

ity o

f im

pact

Irre

pla

ce

ab

ilit

y o

f re

ceiv

ing

en

vir

on

men

t/re

sou

rce

Po

ten

tial

mit

igati

on

measu

res



Ran

kin

g o

f im

pact/

risk

Co

nfi

den

ce l

evel

Without mitigation

/management

With mitigation

/management

(residual

risk/impact)


Removal of

facility (i.e.

construction

vehicles, etc.)

Alteration

of the

cultural and

natural

landscape

Neg

ati

ve

Loca

l

Lon

g t

erm

Mo

dera

te

Very

lik

ely

Hig

h

Mo

dera

te

All staff and vehicles to remain in authorised project footprint. Low Low 4

Hig

h

DECOMMISSIONING PHASE INDIRECT IMPACTS

Workers

wondering off

site

Damage to

graves

Neg

ati

ve

Sit

e

Perm

an

en

t

Mo

dera

te

Ext

rem

ely

un

likely

No

n-r

evers

ible

Irre

pla

ceab

le

Ensure that PV footprint is fenced and that staff are not allowed off site. Very low Very low 5

Hig

h

Table 31: Heritage: Impact assessment summary table – Cumulative impacts.

Asp

ect/

Im

pact

path

way

Natu

re o

f p

ote

nti

al

imp

act/

risk

Sta

tus

Sp

ati

al

Exte

nt

Du

rati

on

Co

nse

qu

en

ce

Pro

bab

ilit

y

Revers

ibil

ity o

f im

pact

Irre

pla

ce

ab

ilit

y o

f

receiv

ing

en

vir

on

men

t/re

sou

rce

Po

ten

tial

mit

igati

on

measu

res



Ran

kin

g o

f im

pact/

risk

Co

nfi

den

ce l

evel

Without mitigation

/management

With mitigation

/management

(residual

risk/impact)

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Clearing of

site

Destruction of

palaeontological

resources Neg

ati

ve

Loca

l

Perm

an

en

t

Su

bst

an

tial

Un

likely

No

n-

revers

ible

Irre

pla

ceab

le A palaeontologist should inspect the pre-

construction geotechnical report to evaluate

potential impacts to the Ecca Formation and the

need for any further work; and

Appoint a palaeontologist to check for sensitive

features prior to construction.

Moderate Very low 5

Hig

h

95

Asp

ect/

Im

pact

path

way

Natu

re o

f p

ote

nti

al

imp

act/

risk

Sta

tus

Sp

ati

al

Exte

nt

Du

rati

on

Co

nse

qu

en

ce

Pro

bab

ilit

y

Revers

ibil

ity o

f im

pact

Irre

pla

ce

ab

ilit

y o

f

receiv

ing

en

vir

on

men

t/re

sou

rce

Po

ten

tial

mit

igati

on

measu

res



Ran

kin

g o

f im

pact/

risk

Co

nfi

den

ce l

evel

Without mitigation

/management

With mitigation

/management

(residual

risk/impact)

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Clearing of

site

Destruction of

archaeological

resources Neg

ati

ve

Loca

l

Perm

an

en

t

Mo

dera

te

Very

lik

ely

No

n-

revers

ible

Irre

pla

ceab

le Avoid sites with a buffer of 20 m from GPS co-ords;

or

Archaeological excavation to be undertaken by a

professional archaeologist; and

Ensure all works occur inside approved

development footprint.

Low Very low 5

Hig

h

Clearing of

site Destruction of graves

Neg

ati

ve

Sit

e

Perm

an

en

t

Ext

rem

e

Very

un

likely

No

n-

revers

ible

Irre

pla

ceab

le

Avoid graves with a buffer of at least 5 m from

actual graves. Low Very low 5

Hig

h

Clearing of

site and

construction

of facility

Alteration of the

cultural and natural

landscape Neg

ati

ve

Reg

ion

al

Lon

g t

erm

Su

bst

an

tial

Very

lik

ely

Hig

h

Mo

dera

te

Use earthy-coloured paint on built elements;

All staff and vehicles to remain in authorised

project footprint.

Low Low 4 High

96

1.7. Visual landscape character impact assessment

Table 32: Visual: Impact assessment summary table – Construction Phase impacts.

Asp

ect/

Im

pact

path

way

Natu

re o

f p

ote

nti

al

imp

act/

risk

Sta

tus

Sp

ati

al

Exte

nt

Du

rati

on

Co

nse

qu

en

ce

Pro

bab

ilit

y

Revers

ibil

ity o

f im

pact

Irre

pla

ce

ab

ilit

y o

f

receiv

ing

en

vir

on

men

t/re

sou

rce

Po

ten

tial

mit

igati

on

measu

res



Ran

kin

g o

f im

pact/

risk

Co

nfi

den

ce l

evel

Without mitigation

/management

With mitigation


risk/impact)


Visual intrusion of

construction

activities

associated with a

PV Plant on

existing views of

sensitive visual

receptors

Loss of visual

resources

Neg

ati

ve

Reg

ion

Sh

ort

to

Med

ium

Term

Su

bst

an

tial

Very

lik

ely

Hig

h (

rem

oval o

f h

igh

ly

vis

ible

str

uct

ure

s)

Low

Phased clearing of the area for solar field in order to

reduce the amount and duration of bare soil

exposure.

Moderate Low 4

Hig

h

Construction

activities

associated with

transmission lines

Loss of visual

resources

Neg

ati

ve

Loca

l

Very

Sh

ort

Term

Mo

dera

te

Likely

Hig

h (

rem

oval o

f

hig

hly

vis

ible

stru

ctu

res)

Low

In line with best practice construction guidelines. Low Low 5

Hig

h

97

Table 33: Visual: Impact assessment summary table – Operation Phase impacts. A

spect/

Im

pact

path

way

Natu

re o

f p

ote

nti

al

imp

act/

risk

Sta

tus

Sp

ati

al

Exte

nt

Du

rati

on

Co

nse

qu

en

ce

Pro

bab

ilit

y

Revers

ibil

ity o

f im

pact

Irre

pla

ce

ab

ilit

y o

f

receiv

ing

en

vir

on

men

t/re

sou

rce

Po

ten

tial

mit

igati

on

measu

res



Ran

kin

g o

f im

pact/

risk

Co

nfi

den

ce l

evel

Without mitigation

/management

With mitigation


risk/impact)


Potential landscape

impact of a large Solar

Energy Facility on a rural

agricultural landscape

Change of

landscape

character Neg

ati

ve

Reg

ion

al

Lon

g T

erm

Slig

ht

Very

Lik

ely

Hig

h

Low

A maintenance plan for buildings and structures

should be followed to ensure that structures remain

as non-reflective as possible, and buildings remain

as unobtrusive as possible.

Maintenance of access roads should not cause

further disturbance and damage to the surrounding

landscape

Very Low Very Low 4

Hig

h

Landscape impact caused

by transmission lines

Change of

landscape

character Neg

ati

ve

Loca

l

Lon

g T

erm

Slig

ht

Likely

Hig

h

Low

A maintenance plan for buildings and structures

should be followed to ensure that structures remain

as non-reflective as possible, and buildings remain

as unobtrusive as possible.

Maintenance of access roads should not cause

further disturbance and damage to the surrounding

landscape

Very Low Very Low 5

Hig

h

Visual intrusion of a solar

energy facility on views of

sensitive visual receptors

Change in

existing

views of

sensitive

visual

receptors.

Neg

ati

ve

Reg

ion

al

Lon

g T

erm

Mo

dera

te

Very

Lik

ely

Hig

h

Low

Building facades and colours such that they blend in

with the landscape background where technically

feasible.

Low Very Low 4

Hig

h

Visual intrusion of

transmission lines on

views of sensitive visual

receptors

Change in

existing

views of

sensitive

visual

receptors

Neg

ati

ve

Loca

l

Lon

g T

erm

Slig

ht

Likely

Hig

h

Low

Powerline towers to be similar to those in the

landscape already where possible. Very Low Very Low 5

Hig

h

Impact of night lighting

on the nightscape of the

region

Light

pollution in a

dark

nightscape.

Neg

ati

ve

Loca

l

Lon

g T

erm

Slig

ht

Likely

Hig

h

Low

Lighting plan should be prepared which will

minimise impacts on the nightscape Very Low Very Low 5

Hig

h

98

Table 34: Visual: Impact assessment summary table – Decommissioning Phase impacts. A

spect/

Im

pact

path

way

Natu

re o

f p

ote

nti

al

imp

act/

risk

Sta

tus

Sp

ati

al

Exte

nt

Du

rati

on

Co

nse

qu

en

ce

Pro

bab

ilit

y

Revers

ibil

ity o

f im

pact

Irre

pla

ce

ab

ilit

y o

f

receiv

ing

en

vir

on

men

t/re

sou

rce

Po

ten

tial

mit

igati

on

measu

res



Ran

kin

g o

f

imp

act/

risk

Co

nfi

den

ce l

evel

Without

mitigation

/management

With mitigation

/management

(residual

risk/impact)


Visual impact of

decommissioning activities

associated with a PV Plant on

existing views of sensitive visual

receptors

Impact on

visual

resources Neg

ati

ve

Reg

ion

al

Sh

ort

Term

Su

bst

an

tial

Very

Lik

ely

Hig

h

Low

Rehabilitation of areas cleared for solar field Moderate Low 4

Hig

h

Visual impact of

decommissioning activities

associated with transmission

lines on existing views of

sensitive visual receptors

Impact on

visual

resources Neg

ati

ve

Loca

l

Very

sh

ort

term

Mo

dera

te

Likely

Hig

h

Low

Disturbed and transformed areas should be

rehabilitated. Other best practice guidelines for

construction activities apply.

Low Low 4

Hig

h

Table 35: Visual: Impact assessment summary table – Cumulative impacts.

Asp

ect/

Im

pact

path

way

Natu

re o

f p

ote

nti

al

imp

act/

risk

Sta

tus

Sp

ati

al

Exte

nt

Du

rati

on

Co

nse

qu

en

ce

Pro

bab

ilit

y

Revers

ibil

ity o

f im

pact

Irre

pla

ce

ab

ilit

y o

f

receiv

ing

en

vir

on

men

t/re

sou

rce

Po

ten

tial

mit

igati

on

measu

res



Ran

kin

g o

f im

pact/

risk

Co

nfi

den

ce l

evel

Without mitigation

/management

With mitigation

/management

(residual

risk/impact)

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Cumulative impact

on the landscape

of the region.

Change in

landscape

character Neu

tral

Reg

ion

al

Lon

g

term

Slig

ht

Likely

Hig

h

Low

Best practice and implementation of

appropriate management and mitigation

of impacts by all proposed solar energy

facility

Very Low Very Low 5

Hig

h

Cumulative impact

on sensitive visual

receptors.

Visual

intrusion

Neg

ati

ve

Reg

ion

al

Lon

g T

erm

Mo

dera

te

Likely

Hig

h

Low

Best practice and implementation of

appropriate management and mitigation

of impacts by all proposed solar energy

facility

Low Low 4

Hig

h

99

1.8. Socio-economics impact assessment

Table 36: Socio-economics: Impact assessment summary table – Construction Phase impacts.

Asp

ect/

Im

pact

path

way

Natu

re o

f p

ote

nti

al

imp

act/

risk

Sta

tus

Sp

ati

al

Exte

nt

Du

rati

on

Co

nse

qu

en

ce

Pro

bab

ilit

y

Revers

ibil

ity o

f im

pact

Irre

pla

ce

ab

ilit

y o

f re

ceiv

ing

en

vir

on

men

t/re

sou

rce

Po

ten

tial

mit

igati

on

measu

res



Ran

kin

g o

f im

pact/

risk

Co

nfi

den

ce l

evel

Without mitigation

/management

With mitigation

/management



Project

expenditure

Expenditure

related impacts

on jobs etc. Po

siti

ve

Reg

ion

al

Sh

ort

-term

Su

bst

an

tial

Defi

nit

e

Low

Low

Maximise positive impacts

Set targets for use of local labour

Maximise opportunities for the training of unskilled and skilled workers.

Use local sub-contractors where possible

Assist smaller enterprises where possible in tendering for contracts

Aim to meet DoE socio-economic development scorecard

Moderate positive Moderate positive 3

Hig

h

Influx of workers

Social impact

associated with

an influx of

people

Neg

ati

ve

Reg

ion

al

Sh

ort

-term

Mo

dera

te

Hig

hly

pro

bab

le

Hig

h

Low

Implement a ‘locals first’ policy

Make available a complaints register on site to any individual

Establish a Monitoring Forum for the project

Implement an HIV/AIDS awareness programme

enable workers from outside the area to return home over weekends

Moderate Low 4

Med

ium

to

hig

h

Presence of facility

and workers

Impacts on

surrounding land

owners Neg

ati

ve

Loca

l

Sh

ort

-term

Mo

dera

te

Hig

hly

pro

bab

le

Hig

h

Low

Implement measures to assist and, if needed, fairly compensate potentially affected

surrounding landowners whereby damages to farm property, stock theft or significant

disruptions to farming activities can be minimized or reduced

No construction workers allowed staying on the site overnight.

The community will be able to contact the site manager

Make available a complaints register

A fire management plan should be drawn up

Outline procedures for managing and storing waste on site

Set up a monitoring programme

in collaboration with neighbouring land owners that is specifically designed to provide

clarity on impacts and risks

Moderate Low 4

Med

ium

to

hig

h

Visual and other

impacts

Impacts on

tourism

Neg

ati

ve

Loca

l

Sh

ort

-term

Mo

dera

te

Hig

hly

pro

bab

le

Hig

h

Low

Implement measures to minimise visual and ecological impacts which would contribute

to minimising tourism impacts. Moderate Low 4

Med

ium

100

Asp

ect/

Im

pact

path

way

Natu

re o

f p

ote

nti

al

imp

act/

risk

Sta

tus

Sp

ati

al

Exte

nt

Du

rati

on

Co

nse

qu

en

ce

Pro

bab

ilit

y

Revers

ibil

ity o

f im

pact

Irre

pla

ce

ab

ilit

y o

f re

ceiv

ing

en

vir

on

men

t/re

sou

rce

Po

ten

tial

mit

igati

on

measu

res



Ran

kin

g o

f im

pact/

risk

Co

nfi

den

ce l

evel

Without mitigation

/management

With mitigation

/management



Visual and other

impacts

Impact on

surrounding

property values Neg

ati

ve

Loca

l

Sh

ort

-term

Mo

dera

te

Hig

hly

pro

bab

le

Hig

h

Low

Implement measures to minimise visual, agricultural and ecological impacts which

would contribute to minimising impacts on property values. Moderate Low 4

Med

ium

Table 37: Socio-economics: Impact assessment summary table – Operation Phase impacts.

Asp

ect/

Im

pact

path

way

Natu

re o

f p

ote

nti

al

imp

act/

risk

Sta

tus

Sp

ati

al

Exte

nt

Du

rati

on

Co

nse

qu

en

ce

Pro

bab

ilit

y

Revers

ibil

ity o

f im

pact

Irre

pla

ce

ab

ilit

y o

f re

ceiv

ing

en

vir

on

men

t/re

sou

rce

Po

ten

tial

mit

igati

on

measu

res



Ran

kin

g o

f im

pact/

risk

Co

nfi

den

ce l

evel

Without mitigation

/management

With mitigation

/management



Project

expenditure

Expenditure related

impacts on jobs etc.

Po

siti

ve

Reg

ion

al

Sh

ort

-term

Su

bst

an

tial

Defi

nit

e

Low

Low








Hig

h

101

Asp

ect/

Im

pact

path

way

Natu

re o

f p

ote

nti

al

imp

act/

risk

Sta

tus

Sp

ati

al

Exte

nt

Du

rati

on

Co

nse

qu

en

ce

Pro

bab

ilit

y

Revers

ibil

ity o

f im

pact

Irre

pla

ce

ab

ilit

y o

f re

ceiv

ing

en

vir

on

men

t/re

sou

rce

Po

ten

tial

mit

igati

on

measu

res



Ran

kin

g o

f im

pact/

risk

Co

nfi

den

ce l

evel

Without mitigation

/management

With mitigation

/management



Socio-economic

development

contribution

Funding of socio-

economic and

enterprise

development

initiatives

Po

siti

ve

Reg

ion

al

Lon

g-t

erm

Su

bst

an

tial

Defi

nit

e

Low

Low


economic development


Implement an HIV/AIDS awareness program

Make necessary arrangements to enable workers from outside the area to

return home over weekends and or on a regular basis during the construction

phase

Moderate positive Moderate to high

positive 3 - 2

Hig

h

Influx of workers

Social impact

associated with an

influx of people Neg

ati

ve

Reg

ion

al

Sh

ort

-term

Mo

dera

te

Hig

hly

pro

bab

le

Hig

h

Low






Moderate Low 4

Med

ium

to

hig

h


and workers

Impacts on

surrounding land

owners Neg

ati

ve

Loca

l

Sh

ort

-term

Mo

dera

te

Hig

hly

pro

bab

le

Hig

h

Low

Implement measures to assist and, if needed, fairly compensate potentially

affected surrounding landowners whereby damages to farm property, stock

theft or significant disruptions to farming activities can be minimized or

reduced







in collaboration with neighbouring land owners that is specifically designed

to provide clarity on impacts and risks

Moderate Low 4

Med

ium

to

hig

h

Visual and other

impacts Impacts on tourism

Neg

ati

ve

Loca

l

Sh

ort

-term

Mo

dera

te

Hig

hly

pro

bab

le

Hig

h

Low

Implement measures to minimise visual and ecological impacts which would

contribute to minimising tourism impacts. Moderate Low 4

Med

ium

102

Asp

ect/

Im

pact

path

way

Natu

re o

f p

ote

nti

al

imp

act/

risk

Sta

tus

Sp

ati

al

Exte

nt

Du

rati

on

Co

nse

qu

en

ce

Pro

bab

ilit

y

Revers

ibil

ity o

f im

pact

Irre

pla

ce

ab

ilit

y o

f re

ceiv

ing

en

vir

on

men

t/re

sou

rce

Po

ten

tial

mit

igati

on

measu

res



Ran

kin

g o

f im

pact/

risk

Co

nfi

den

ce l

evel

Without mitigation

/management

With mitigation

/management



Visual and other

impacts

Impact on

surrounding

property values Neg

ati

ve

Loca

l

Sh

ort

-term

Mo

dera

te

Hig

hly

pro

bab

le

Hig

h

Low

Implement measures to minimise visual, agricultural and ecological impacts

which would contribute to minimising impacts on property values.

Monitor impacts on property values with the assistance of an independent

valuer.

Moderate Low 4

Med

ium

Table 38: Socio-economics: Impact assessment summary table – Decommissioning Phase impacts.

Asp

ect/

Im

pact

path

way

Natu

re o

f p

ote

nti

al

imp

act/

risk

Sta

tus

Sp

ati

al

Exte

nt

Du

rati

on

Co

nse

qu

en

ce

Pro

bab

ilit

y

Revers

ibil

ity o

f im

pact

Irre

pla

ce

ab

ilit

y o

f re

ceiv

ing

en

vir

on

men

t/re

sou

rce

Po

ten

tial

mit

igati

on

measu

res



Ran

kin

g o

f im

pact/

risk

Co

nfi

den

ce l

evel

Without mitigation

/management

With mitigation

/management



Project

expenditure

Expenditure related


Po

siti

ve

Reg

ion

al

Sh

ort

-term

Su

bst

an

tial

Defi

nit

e

Low

Low








Hig

h

Socio-economic

development

contribution

Funding of socio-

economic and

enterprise

development

initiatives

Po

siti

ve

Reg

ion

al

Lon

g-t

erm

Su

bst

an

tial

Defi

nit

e

Low

Low


economic development


Implement an HIV/AIDS awareness program

Make necessary arrangements to enable workers from outside the area to return

home over weekends and or on a regular basis during the construction phase

Moderate positive Moderate to high

positive 3 - 2

Hig

h

103

Asp

ect/

Im

pact

path

way

Natu

re o

f p

ote

nti

al

imp

act/

risk

Sta

tus

Sp

ati

al

Exte

nt

Du

rati

on

Co

nse

qu

en

ce

Pro

bab

ilit

y

Revers

ibil

ity o

f im

pact

Irre

pla

ce

ab

ilit

y o

f re

ceiv

ing

en

vir

on

men

t/re

sou

rce

Po

ten

tial

mit

igati

on

measu

res



Ran

kin

g o

f im

pact/

risk

Co

nfi

den

ce l

evel

Without mitigation

/management

With mitigation

/management



Influx of workers

Social impact

associated with an


ati

ve

Reg

ion

al

Sh

ort

-term

Mo

dera

te

Hig

hly

pro

bab

le

Hig

h

Low






Moderate Low 4

Med

ium

to

hig

h


and workers

Impacts on

surrounding land

owners Neg

ati

ve

Loca

l

Sh

ort

-term

Mo

dera

te

Hig

hly

pro

bab

le

Hig

h

Low

Implement measures to assist and, if needed, fairly compensate potentially

affected surrounding landowners whereby damages to farm property, stock

theft or significant disruptions to farming activities can be minimized or

reduced







in collaboration with neighbouring land owners that is specifically designed

to provide clarity on impacts and risks

Moderate Low 4

Med

ium

to

hig

h

Visual and other


Neg

ati

ve

Loca

l

Sh

ort

-term

Mo

dera

te

Hig

hly

pro

bab

le

Hig

h

Low

Implement measures to minimise visual and ecological impacts which would

contribute to minimising tourism impacts. Moderate Low 4

Med

ium

Visual and other

impacts

Impact on

surrounding property

values Neg

ati

ve

Loca

l

Sh

ort

-term

Mo

dera

te

Hig

hly

pro

bab

le

Hig

h

Low

Implement measures to minimise visual, agricultural and ecological impacts

which would contribute to minimising impacts on property values.

Monitor impacts on property values with the assistance of an independent

valuer.

Moderate Low 4

Med

ium

104

Table 39: Socio-economics: Impact assessment summary table – Cumulative impacts. A

spect/

Im

pact

path

way

Natu

re o

f p

ote

nti

al

imp

act/

risk

Sta

tus

Sp

ati

al

Exte

nt

Du

rati

on

Co

nse

qu

en

ce

Pro

bab

ilit

y

Revers

ibil

ity o

f im

pact

Irre

pla

ce

ab

ilit

y o

f

receiv

ing

en

vir

on

men

t/re

sou

rce

Po

ten

tial

mit

igati

on

measu

res



Ran

kin

g o

f im

pact/

risk

Co

nfi

den

ce l

evel

Without mitigation

/management

With mitigation

/management


CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Project expenditure Expenditure related


Po

siti

ve

Reg

ion

al

Sh

ort

-term

Su

bst

an

tial

Defi

nit

e

Low

Low

Applicant has limited control over other projects and therefore

cumulative impacts High positive High positive 5

Hig

h

Socio-economic

development

contribution

Funding of socio-

economic and

enterprise

development

initiatives

Po

siti

ve

Reg

ion

al

Lon

g-t

erm

Su

bst

an

tial

Defi

nit

e

Low

Low


cumulative impacts High positive High positive 5

Hig

h

Influx of workers

Social impact

associated with an


ati

ve

Reg

ion

al

Sh

ort

-term

Mo

dera

te

Hig

hly

pro

bab

le

Hig

h

Low


cumulative impacts Moderate Moderate 4

Med

ium

to

hig

h


and workers

Impacts on

surrounding land

owners Neg

ati

ve

Loca

l

Sh

ort

-term

Mo

dera

te

Hig

hly

pro

bab

le

Hig

h

Low


cumulative impacts Moderate Moderate 4

Med

ium

to

hig

h

Visual and other


Neg

ati

ve

Loca

l

Sh

ort

-term

Mo

dera

te

Hig

hly

pro

bab

le

Hig

h

Low


cumulative impacts Low to moderate Low to moderate 4 to3

Med

ium

105

Asp

ect/

Im

pact

path

way

Natu

re o

f p

ote

nti

al

imp

act/

risk

Sta

tus

Sp

ati

al

Exte

nt

Du

rati

on

Co

nse

qu

en

ce

Pro

bab

ilit

y

Revers

ibil

ity o

f im

pact

Irre

pla

ce

ab

ilit

y o

f

receiv

ing

en

vir

on

men

t/re

sou

rce

Po

ten

tial

mit

igati

on

measu

res



Ran

kin

g o

f im

pact/

risk

Co

nfi

den

ce l

evel

Without mitigation

/management

With mitigation

/management


CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Visual and other

impacts

Impact on

surrounding

property values Neg

ati

ve

Loca

l

Sh

ort

-term

Mo

dera

te

Hig

hly

pro

bab

le

Hig

h

Low


cumulative impacts Low to moderate Low to moderate 4 to3

Med

ium

106

Appendix E

1. Curriculum Vitae Of The Environmental Assessment Practitioner

LUANITA SNYMAN-VAN DER WALT

MSc Environmental Science (NWU)

Pr. Sci. Nat. Environmental Science

Tel : +27 21 888 2490

Cell : +27 72 182 9718

Email: [email protected]

Full Name: Snyman-Van der Walt, Luanita

Professional Registration: Pr.Sci.Nat Environmental Science – Reg No: 400128/16

Nationality: South Africa

Marital Status: Married

Current employer: CSIR Environmental Management Services

Position in Firm: Junior Environmental Scientist and Assessment Practitioner

Specialisation: Environmental Assessment and Management; Geographic Information Systems; Landscape &

Urban Ecology

BIOSKETCH

Luanita commenced work at CSIR in January 2014, after completing a BSc. Botany-Zoology-Tourism, a BSc. Hons. in Environmental Science, as

well as a MSc. in Environmental Science at the North West University, Potchefstroom Campus. She is pursuing an MSc. In Geographical Information

Science at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, and is registered as a Professional Natural Scientist with the South African Council for Natural Scientific

Professions (Reg. no. 400128/16).

Her work at the CSIR involves strategic environmental assessment and management, with a focus on Geographic Information System (GIS) analyses

for environmental assessment and decision-making.

PROJECT TRACK RECORD

Completion Description Role Client

In progress Substantive amendment to the Environmental Authorisation of the Edison PV solar development.

Project manager and Environmental Assessment Practitioner.

29 Solar

In progress Sustainable Development Goal Lab on “Africa’s first Decision-Theatres”.

Project manager Future Earth

In progress Strategic Environmental Assessment for Gas Pipeline Corridors and Electricity Grid Expansion.

Integrating Author and Editor: Biodiversity and Ecology

DEA

In progress GEF funded biodiversity and land use projects Project management, technical/specialist support, and mentoring

SANBI

In progress Strategic Environmental Assessment Aquaculture Development in South Africa

Project member – Technical GIS and mapping

Department of Environmental Affairs

March 2018 Scoping and Environmental Impact Assessment for the proposed development of the Kap Vley Wind Energy Facility near Kleinzee in the Northern Cape

Specialist study: Aquatic Ecology juwi Renewable Energies

March 2018 Scoping and Environmental Impact Assessment for the proposed development of a 100 MW Solar Photovoltaic Facility near Kenhardt in the Northern Cape Province

Specialist study: Visual Impact Assessment

juwi Renewable Energies

September 2017

Sustainable Development Goal Lab on “Mainstreaming resilience into climate change adaptation and disaster risk planning.”

Project leader Future Earth; Stockholm Resilience Centre; University of Tokyo (funders)

June 2017 Strategic Environmental Assessment for the development of Shale Gas in South Africa

Project officer Department of Environmental Affairs

December 2017

Guidance for Resilience in the Anthropocene: Investments for development (GRAID) – African Cities.

Project member: Sustainability assessment guideline

Stockholm Resilience Centre (funder)

107

Completion Description Role Client

January 2017 Environmental and Social Impact Assessment for the Floating Liquid Natural Gas project near Kribi, Cameroon.

Project member – Technical GIS and mapping, ecology inputs

Golar

October 2016 Environmental Screening Study for the Giyani Waste Oil Boiler, Limpopo: Environmental management plan for the Hi-Hanyile essential oil distillery

Project manager CSIR Enterprise Creation for Development

September 2016

Scoping and Environmental Impact Assessment for 5 x 100 MW Solar PV facilities near Dealesville, Free State.

Project manager and Environmental Assessment Practitioner

29 Solar

June 2016 Environmental and Social Impact Assessment for the Bomono Early Field Development Project, Cameroon.

Project member - Technical GIS and mapping, ecology inputs

EurOil

May 2016 Scoping and Environmental Impact Assessment for the proposed Development of a 7 x 75 MW Solar Photovoltaic Facilities near Kenhardt, Northern Cape

Project member - Technical GIS and mapping

Mulilo

April 2016 Scoping and Environmental Impact Assessment for the Proposed Development 3 x 75 MW Solar Photovoltaic Facilities near Kenhardt, Northern Cape


Scatec

April 2016 Strategic Environmental Assessment for identification of electricity grid infrastructure development corridors in South Africa



February 2016

Environmental Impact Assessment for the development of 12 Solar PV projects near Dealesville, Free State.

Project member - Technical GIS and mapping, ecology inputs, stakeholder engagement

Mainstream Renewable Energy

September 2015

Environmental Screening Study for the Proposed Vaayu Energy SA Wind Energy Facility near Wesley, Eastern Cape

Project leader Vaayu Energy

February 2015

Environmental Screening Study for Biochar- and Composting facilities in the Umzimvubu Catchment

Project member - Technical GIS and mapping & ecology inputs


March 2015 Strategic Environmental Assessment for identification of renewable energy zones for wind and solar PV projects in South Africa



November 2014

Rapid environmental screening study for WASA wind monitoring masts (11-15) in the eastern cape, Kwazulu-Natal and Free State provinces, South Africa


CSIR Built Environment

August 2014 Environmental Screening Study for the importation of Liquid Natural Gas into the Western Cape


Western Cape Government

March 2014 Environmental Screening Study for a Proposed LNG Terminal at Saldanha and associated pipeline infrastructures to Atlantis and Mossel Bay, Western Cape


PetroSA

PAST EMPLOYMENT RECORD

2014 - 2015 Environmental Scientist and Assessment Practitioner (Intern). Council for Scientific and Industrial Research – Environmental

Management Services (EMS), Implementation Unit (IU) - Stellenbosch.

QUALIFICATIONS

2017 - current MSc. Geographic Information Science Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, Netherlands 2018 PgC. Geographic Information Science Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, Netherlands 2013 MSc. Environmental Science (Cum Laude) North West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa 2010 BSc. Hons. Environmental Science North West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa 2009 BSc. Botany- Zoology-Tourism North West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa

SOFTWARE SKILLS

ESRI Arcmap (adept)

Microsoft Office (Word, Excel, Powerpoint, Visio, Project) (adept)

Google Earth

Vensim PLE

ERDAS IMAGINE (basic)

PostGreSQL (basic)

PEER REVIEWED PUBLICATIONS

Snyman-van der Walt, L., et al. Mainstreaming resilience into urban climate change adaptation and planning: the case of water management in the City of Cape Town. In Springer ebook on “Science for Sustainable Societies” (Book Chapter; In Preparation).

108

Schreiner, G.O., De Jager, M.J., Snyman-Van der Walt, L., Dludla, A., Lochner, P.A., Wright, J. G., Scholes, R.J., Atkinson, D., Hardcastle, P., Kotze, H., Esterhuyse, S. 2018. 'Evidence-based and participatory processes in support of shale gas policy development in South Africa'. In: Whitton, J., Cotton, M., Charnley-Parry, I.M. & Brasier, K. (Eds.) Governing Shale Gas: Development, Citizen Participation and Decision Making in the US, Canada, Australia and Europe. London, UK: Routledge.

Schreiner, G.O. & Snyman-van der Walt, L. 2018. Risk modelling of shale gas development scenarios in the central Karoo. International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning, 13(2): 294-306.

Scholes, R.J., Schreiner, G.O. & Snyman-Van der Walt, L., 2017, ‘Scientific assessments: Matching the process to the problem’, Bothalia, 47(2), a2144. https://doi.org/10.4102/abc. v47i2.2144.

Scholes, R., Lochner, P., Schreiner, G., Snyman-Van der Walt, L. and de Jager, M. (eds.). 2016. Shale Gas Development in the Central Karoo: A Scientific Assessment of the Opportunities and Risks. CSIR/IU/021MH/EXP/2016/003/A, ISBN 978-0-7988-5631-7

Burns, M., Atkinson, D., Barker, O., Davis, C., Day, L., Dunlop, A., Esterhuyse, S., Hobbs, P., McLachlan, I., Neethling, H., Rossouw, N., Todd, S., Snyman-Van der Walt, L., Van Huyssteen, E., Adams, S., de Jager, M., Mowzer, Z. and Scholes, B. 2016. Scenarios and Activities. In Scholes, R., Lochner, P., Schreiner, G., Snyman-Van der Walt, L. and de Jager, M.(Eds.). 2016. Shale Gas Development in the Central Karoo: A Scientific Assessment of the Opportunities and Risks. CSIR/IU/021MH/EXP/2016/003/A, ISBN 978-0-7988-5631-7, Pretoria: CSIR.

Van Wilgen, B.W., Boshoff, N., Smit, I.P., Solano-Fernandez, S. & Van der Walt, L. 2016. A bibliometric analysis to illustrate the role of an embedded research capability in South African National Parks. Scientometrics, 107:185-212.

Van der Walt, L., Cilliers, S. S., Kellner, K., Du Toit, M.J., Tongway, D. 2014. To what extent does urbanisation affect fragmented grassland functioning? Journal of Environmental Management, 151, 517-530.

Van der Walt, L., Cilliers, S. S., Du Toit, M. J., & Kellner, K. 2014. Urban Ecosystems Conservation of fragmented grasslands as part of the urban green infrastructure : How important are species diversity, functional diversity and landscape functionality? Urban Ecosystems, 18(1): 87-113. DOI 10.1007/s11252–014–0393–9.

Van der Walt, L., Cilliers, S. S., Kellner, K., Tongway, D., & van Rensburg, L. 2012. Landscape functionality of plant communities in the Impala Platinum mining area, Rustenburg. Journal of Environmental Management, 113, 103–116. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.08.024. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.11.034.

Breedt, J.A.D., Brewer, I., Coetzer, A., Van der Walt, L. & Cilliers, S.S., 2012. “Landskapsfunksionaliteit en plantdiversiteit in stedelike en landelike gefragmenteerde grasvelde in die Potchefstroom omgewing‟, Suid-Afrikaanse Tydskrif vir Natuurwetenskap en Tegnologie 31(1), Art. #279, 1 page. http://dx.doi. org/10.4102/satnt.v31i1.279.

Van der Walt, L., Cilliers, S.S., Kellner, K. 2011. Landscape function of plant communities in the Impala Platinum mining area, Rustenburg, South Africa. South African Journal of Botany. 77(2): 563.

CONFERENCES

Snyman-van der Walt, L. & Laurie, S. 2017. Sustainable Development Goals Lab: Mainstreaming resilience into climate change adaptation and disaster risk planning. 7th International Conference on Sustainability Science, Stockholm Sweden. 24 – 26 August 2017. TOdB: CSIR/IU/021MH/EXP/2017/0015/A

Snyman-van der Walt, L. 2017. Conference Presentation. GIS analysis and stakeholder input to identify strategic areas for aquaculture development: National Strategic Environmental Assessment for Aquaculture Development in South Africa; International Association for Impact Assessment - South Africa Conference, Worcester, 15 – 18 August 2017. TOdB Publication Number: CSIR/IU/021MH/EXP/2017/0010/A

Snyman-van der Walt, L. 2017. Key results of the South African shale gas scientific assessment: science for policy and responsible decision-making. Conference Presentation at 2017 2017 Southern African Systems Analysis Centre Capacity Development Programme. Stellenbosch, 12 July 2017. TOdB Publication Number: CSIR/IU/021MH/EXP/2017/0008/A.

Snyman-van der Walt, L. 2017. National Strategic Environmental Assessment for aquaculture development in South Africa: GIS analysis for identifying optimal areas for marine and freshwater aquaculture development presentation at World Aquaculture Conference, Cape Town, 26-30 June 201, TOdB Publication Number: CSIR/IU/021MH/EXP/2017/0006/A.

Schreiner, G.O. & Snyman-van der Walt, L. 2017. Modelling social-ecological risks of shale gas development in the Central Karoo: key results of the South African shale gas scientific assessment. CSIR document number: CSIR/IU/021MH/EXP/2017/0005/A. Oral presentation at the

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.11.034

109

American Association of Petroleum Geologists workshop on exploration and development of unconventional hydrocarbons: understanding

and mitigating geotechnical challenges through conventional wisdom, Cape Town, South Africa, 20 June 2017.

Schreiner, G.O, Snyman-Van der Walt, L., Fischer, D. & Cape, L. 2017. Scenarios-based risk model for shale gas scientific assessment. Conference proceedings from the International Association of Impact Assessment International Conference 2017, Montreal, Canada. 4-7 April 2017.

Van der Walt, L., Cilliers, S.S., Du Toit, M.J. & Kellner, K. 2013. Conservation of fragmented grasslands as part of the green infrastructure: how important are species diversity, functional diversity, and landscape functionality? Oral presentation at the First Congress of SURE (Society of Urban Ecology), Berlin, Germany, 25-27 July 2013.

Van der Walt, L., Cilliers, S.S., Kellner, K. & Du Toit, M.J. 2012. Landscape functionality and plant diversity in urban and rural grassland fragments in the Tlokwe Municipal area, North-West, South Africa. Poster presentation at the 38th Annual South African Association of Botanists (SAAB) Conference, Pretoria, South Africa, 15-18 January 2012.

Van der Walt, L., Cilliers, S.S. & Kellner, K. 2011. Landscape function of plant communities in the Impala Platinum mining area, Rustenburg, South Africa. Oral presentation at the 37th Annunal South African Association of Botanists (SAAB) Conference, Grahamstown, South Africa, 17-19 January 2011.

RELEVANT COURSES

2018 GeoServices-4-Sustainability Summer School. Module: Geo-Application Development and Module: Advanced Remote Sensing,

Eberswalde University for Sustainable Development, Germany.

2015 Effective skills for dealing with challenging meetings, Conflict Dynamics (cc), CSIR Stellenbosch.

Foundation Level Course in Science Communication and Working with the Media, CSIR, Stellenbosch.

2014 CiLLA Project Management 1 Course, CSIR Stellenbosch.

2012 Transboundary Protection of Biodiversity, North West University Law Faculty (South Africa) and Justig Liebig University (Germany),

NWU Potchefstroom.

2010 Control of alien invasive species, Centre for Wildlife Management, University of Pretoria.

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS/REGISTRATIONS

2015-current South African Council for Natural Scientific Professions (SACNASP), Professional Natural Scientist (Reg. no. 400128/16).

2014-current International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) South Africa (Membership Number: 3584) 2014-2015 South African Council for Natural Scientific Professions (SACNASP), Candidate Professional Natural Scientist (Reg. no.

100276/14). 2011-2012 South African Association of Botanists (SAAB)

HONOURS AND AWARDS

2017 CSIR Implementation Unit Excellence Awards: Collaboration Award – Team Shale Gas Strategic Environmental Assessment.

2016 CSIR Excellence Awards: Collaboration Award finalist – Team Shale Gas Strategic Environmental Assessment.

2015 CSIR Implementation Unit Excellence Awards: Human Capital Development Award – Team Special Needs & Skills Development.

Award: Best MSc Student in the Faculty of Natural Science, Potchefstroom Campus, North West University

2014 Award: Best Masters Degree Student (S2A3 Bronze Medal) for Environmental Science and Technology, Potchefstroom

Campus, North West University

2013 Award: Mildred vd Merwe-Radloff Award for Best MSc Thesis – Botany, Potchefstroom Campus, North West University

2007-2013 Golden Key International Academic Honours Association

LANGUAGE CAPABILITY

Speaking Reading Writing Afrikaans Excellent Excellent Excellent English Excellent Excellent Excellent

SUBSTANTIVE AMENDMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL …...1 title: substantive amendment to the environmental...

Documents

Transcript of SUBSTANTIVE AMENDMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL …...1 title: substantive amendment to the environmental...