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
after mitigation. ................................................................................................................................. 28
5
Figure 8: Aquatic ecology impact assessment summary. Bordered blocks represent impact
significance after mitigation. ........................................................................................................ 29
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
after mitigation. ................................................................................................................................. 31
Figure 12: Socio-economic impact assessment summary. Bordered blocks represent impact
significance after mitigation. ........................................................................................................ 31
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
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 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
Cornelia RE 1550 [SG Code: F00400000000155000000; Area 85.26 ha]
Modderpan RE 750 [SG Code: F00400000000075000000; Area 428 ha]
Mooihoek RE 1551 [SG Code: F00400000000155100000; Area 342.81 ha]
Doornhoek RE 37 [SG Code: F00400000000003700000; Area 416.84ha]
Palmietfontein RE 140 [SG Code: F00400000000014000000; Area 810.75ha]
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:
Cornelia RE 1550 [SG Code: F00400000000155000000; Area 85.26 ha]
Modderpan RE 750 [SG Code: F00400000000075000000; Area 428 ha]
Mooihoek RE 1551 [SG Code: F00400000000155100000; Area 342.81 ha]
Doornhoek RE 37 [SG Code: F00400000000003700000; Area 416.84ha]
Palmietfontein RE 140 [SG Code: F00400000000014000000; Area 810.75ha]
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.
GN R325 (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 —
a) within an urban area; or
b) on existing infrastructure.
23
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 R984 (LN2), Activity 9:
The development of facilities or infrastructure for the
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:
The development of facilities or infrastructure for the
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.
GN R984 (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.
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
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 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
significance after mitigation.
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.
None Very Low Low Moderate High Very high
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
None Very Low Low Moderate High Very high
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
Aspect/ Impact pathway Nature of potential impact/risk
Significance of impact/risk
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.
None Very Low Low Moderate High Very high
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
Significance of impact/risk
We
tlan
ds
Aspect/ Impact pathway
29
Figure 8: Aquatic ecology impact assessment summary. Bordered blocks represent impact
significance after mitigation.
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
None Very Low Low Moderate High Very high
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 +
Aspect/ Impact pathway Nature of potential impact/riskSignificance of impact/risk
Aq
uat
ic
Eco
logy
None Very Low Low Moderate High Very high
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 +
Change in land surface characteristics. Erosion -
Fencing and securing of facility perimeter Increased security against stock theft and predation +
Change in land surface characteristics. Erosion -
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 -
Aspect/ Impact pathway Nature of potential impact/risk
Significance of impact/risk
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)
None Very Low Low Moderate High Very high
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
Aspect/ Impact pathway Nature of potential impact/risk
Significance of impact/risk
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
significance after mitigation.
None Very Low Low Moderate High Very high
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 -
Aspect/ Impact pathway Nature of potential impact/riskSignificance of impact/risk
Vis
ual
None Very Low Low Moderate High Very high
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 -
Aspect/ Impact pathway Nature of potential impact/riskSignificance of impact/risk
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
Key management actions and mitigation measures include, but are not limited to:
• 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
Key management actions and mitigation measures include, but are not limited to:
• 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
Key management actions and mitigation measures include, but are not limited to:
• Avoid pans and pan buffer areas; and
• In the event that any wetlands are impacted, the disturbed areas should be
rehabilitated and revegetated immediately.
6.5 Soils and agricultural potential
Key management actions and mitigation measures include, but are not limited to:
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.
6.6 Heritage and palaeontology
Key management actions and mitigation measures include, but are not limited to:
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
Key management actions and mitigation measures include, but are not limited to:
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
Key management actions and mitigation measures include, but are not limited to:
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.
No disadvantage from an
environmental or administrative
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.
No disadvantage from an
environmental or administrative
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
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.
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
South Africa. 2017. National Environmental Management Act (Act No 107 of 1998).
Amendments to the Environment Impact Assessment Regulations, 2014. Notice 326.
Government Gazette No. 40772. 07 April 2017.
South Africa. 2014. National Environmental Management Act (Act No 107 of 1998).
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
42
43
44
45
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)
49
50
1.3 Soils and agricultural potential
51
1.4 Heritage and palaeontology
52
53
54
1.5 Visual and landscape character
55
56
1.6 Socio-economics
57
58
Appendix C
1. Annotated Environmental Authorisation Indicating the Requested
Changes
59
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.
61
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
GN R 984 Item 15 is applicable to EA 1 (Edison PV) and
EA 2 (29 Solar Electricity Infrastructure).
GN R 985 Item 12 is applicable to EA 1 (Edison PV) and
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
Project components for EA 2 (29 Solar Electricity
Infrastructure)
The specification should change to:
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
Project components for EA 2 (29 Solar Electricity
Infrastructure)
The specification should change to:
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.
EA 2 (29 Solar Electricity
Infrastructure)
Technical detail of the high
voltage line must change to
400 kV.
EA 2 (29 Solar Electricity
Infrastructure)
The height of the high
voltage lines (400 kV)
remains unchanged.
The length must change to
138 m.
EA 2 (29 Solar Electricity
Infrastructure)
*
The height of the 132 kV
transmission lines remains
unchanged.
The length must change to
6.5 km.
EA 2 (29 Solar Electricity
Infrastructure)
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
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
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
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.
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
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
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)
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.
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
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
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 (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
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)
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
and rescue (EMPr) Moderate Low 4
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
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)
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
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
and rescue (EMPr) Moderate Low 4
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
Plan (EMPr) Low Very low 5
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
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)
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
Plan (EMPr) Low Very low 5
Hig
h
Exposed soil
susceptible to erosion
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
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
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
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
mit
igati
on
/man
ag
em
en
t
(resi
du
al
risk
/im
pact)
OPERATIONAL PHASE DIRECT IMPACTS
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
Erosion Management Plan
(EMPr) Low Very low 5
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
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)
DECOMMISSIONING PHASE DIRECT IMPACTS
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)
Plant search and rescue
(EMPr) Moderate Low 4
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
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)
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)
Plant search and rescue
(EMPr) Moderate Low 4
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
Erosion Management Plan
(EMPr) Low Very low 5
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
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)
CONSTRUCTION PHASE DIRECT IMPACTS
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.
Keep Disturbance footprint to a
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
Keep Disturbance footprint to a
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
Significance of impact/risk
= consequence x probability
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)
OPERATIONAL PHASE DIRECT IMPACTS
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
Significance of impact/risk
= consequence x probability
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)
OPERATIONAL PHASE DIRECT IMPACTS
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
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)
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
Significance of impact/risk
= consequence x probability
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)
CONSTRUCTION PHASE DIRECT IMPACTS
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
Rehabilitation with native
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
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)
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Vegetation
clearing
Cumulative loss
of ephemeral
pans Neg
ati
ve
Sit
e
Lon
g-t
erm
Mo
dera
te
Defi
nit
e
Rehabilitation with native
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
Significance of impact/risk
= consequence x probability
Ran
kin
g o
f
imp
act/
risk
Co
nfi
den
ce l
evel
Without
mitigation
/management
With mitigation
/management
(residual
risk/impact)
CONSTRUCTION PHASE DIRECT IMPACTS
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
Significance of impact/risk
= consequence x probability
Ran
kin
g o
f
imp
act/
risk
Co
nfi
den
ce l
evel
Without
mitigation
/management
With mitigation
/management
(residual
risk/impact)
OPERATION PHASE DIRECT IMPACTS
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
Significance of impact/risk
= consequence x probability
Ran
kin
g o
f
imp
act/
risk
Co
nfi
den
ce l
evel
Without
mitigation
/management
With mitigation
/management
(residual
risk/impact)
OPERATION PHASE DIRECT IMPACTS
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
Significance of impact/risk
= consequence x probability
Ran
kin
g o
f im
pact/
risk
Co
nfi
den
ce l
evel
Without mitigation
/management
With mitigation
/management
(residual risk/impact)
CONSTRUCTION PHASE DIRECT IMPACTS
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
Significance of impact/risk
= consequence x probability
Ran
kin
g o
f im
pact/
risk
Co
nfi
den
ce l
evel
Without mitigation
/management
With mitigation
/management
(residual risk/impact)
CONSTRUCTION PHASE DIRECT IMPACTS
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
Significance of impact/risk
= consequence x probability
Ran
kin
g o
f
imp
act/
risk
Co
nfi
den
ce l
evel
Without mitigation
/management
With mitigation
/management (residual
risk/impact)
OPERATION PHASE DIRECT IMPACTS
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
Implement an effective system of storm water run-off control. Low Low 4
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
None Low positive Low positive 4
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
Significance of impact/risk
= consequence x probability
Ran
kin
g o
f
imp
act/
risk
Co
nfi
den
ce l
evel
Without mitigation
/management
With mitigation
/management (residual
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
Significance of impact/risk
= consequence x probability
Ran
kin
g o
f
imp
act/
risk
Co
nfi
den
ce l
evel
Without mitigation
/management
With mitigation
/management
(residual risk/impact)
DECOMMISSIONING PHASE DIRECT IMPACTS
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
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
None Low positive Low positive 4
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
Significance of impact/risk
= consequence x probability
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
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
None Moderate Moderate 3
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
Significance of impact/risk
= consequence x probability
Ran
kin
g o
f im
pact/
risk
Co
nfi
den
ce l
evel
Without mitigation
/management
With mitigation
/management
(residual
risk/impact)
CONSTRUCTION PHASE DIRECT 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
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
Significance of impact/risk
= consequence x probability
Ran
kin
g o
f im
pact/
risk
Co
nfi
den
ce l
evel
Without mitigation
/management
With mitigation
/management
(residual
risk/impact)
CONSTRUCTION PHASE DIRECT IMPACTS
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
Significance of impact/risk
= consequence x probability
Ran
kin
g o
f
imp
act/
risk
Co
nfi
den
ce l
evel
Without mitigation
/management
With mitigation
/management
(residual
risk/impact)
OPERATION PHASE DIRECT IMPACTS
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
Significance of impact/risk
= consequence x probability
Ran
kin
g o
f im
pact/
risk
Co
nfi
den
ce l
evel
Without mitigation
/management
With mitigation
/management
(residual
risk/impact)
DECOMMISSIONING PHASE DIRECT IMPACTS
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
Significance of impact/risk
= consequence x probability
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
Significance of impact/risk
= consequence x probability
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
Significance of impact/risk
= consequence x probability
Ran
kin
g o
f im
pact/
risk
Co
nfi
den
ce l
evel
Without mitigation
/management
With mitigation
/management (residual
risk/impact)
CONSTRUCTION PHASE DIRECT IMPACTS
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
Significance of impact/risk
= consequence x probability
Ran
kin
g o
f im
pact/
risk
Co
nfi
den
ce l
evel
Without mitigation
/management
With mitigation
/management (residual
risk/impact)
OPERATION PHASE DIRECT IMPACTS
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
Significance of impact/risk
= consequence x probability
Ran
kin
g o
f
imp
act/
risk
Co
nfi
den
ce l
evel
Without
mitigation
/management
With mitigation
/management
(residual
risk/impact)
DECOMMISSIONING PHASE DIRECT IMPACTS
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
Significance of impact/risk
= consequence x probability
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
Significance of impact/risk
= consequence x probability
Ran
kin
g o
f im
pact/
risk
Co
nfi
den
ce l
evel
Without mitigation
/management
With mitigation
/management
(residual risk/impact)
CONSTRUCTION PHASE DIRECT IMPACTS
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
Significance of impact/risk
= consequence x probability
Ran
kin
g o
f im
pact/
risk
Co
nfi
den
ce l
evel
Without mitigation
/management
With mitigation
/management
(residual risk/impact)
CONSTRUCTION PHASE DIRECT 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
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
Significance of impact/risk
= consequence x probability
Ran
kin
g o
f im
pact/
risk
Co
nfi
den
ce l
evel
Without mitigation
/management
With mitigation
/management
(residual risk/impact)
OPERATION PHASE DIRECT IMPACTS
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
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
Significance of impact/risk
= consequence x probability
Ran
kin
g o
f im
pact/
risk
Co
nfi
den
ce l
evel
Without mitigation
/management
With mitigation
/management
(residual risk/impact)
OPERATION PHASE DIRECT IMPACTS
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
Close liaison with local municipal and other stakeholders involved in socio-
economic development
Establish a Monitoring Forum for the project
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
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
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
Significance of impact/risk
= consequence x probability
Ran
kin
g o
f im
pact/
risk
Co
nfi
den
ce l
evel
Without mitigation
/management
With mitigation
/management
(residual risk/impact)
OPERATION PHASE DIRECT 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
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
Significance of impact/risk
= consequence x probability
Ran
kin
g o
f im
pact/
risk
Co
nfi
den
ce l
evel
Without mitigation
/management
With mitigation
/management
(residual risk/impact)
DECOMMISSIONING PHASE DIRECT IMPACTS
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
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
Close liaison with local municipal and other stakeholders involved in socio-
economic development
Establish a Monitoring Forum for the project
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
Significance of impact/risk
= consequence x probability
Ran
kin
g o
f im
pact/
risk
Co
nfi
den
ce l
evel
Without mitigation
/management
With mitigation
/management
(residual risk/impact)
DECOMMISSIONING PHASE DIRECT IMPACTS
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
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
Significance of impact/risk
= consequence x probability
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
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
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
Applicant has limited control over other projects and therefore
cumulative impacts High positive High positive 5
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
Applicant has limited control over other projects and therefore
cumulative impacts Moderate Moderate 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
Applicant has limited control over other projects and therefore
cumulative impacts Moderate Moderate 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
Applicant has limited control over other projects and therefore
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
Significance of impact/risk
= consequence x probability
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
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
Applicant has limited control over other projects and therefore
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
Project member - Technical GIS and mapping
Scatec
April 2016 Strategic Environmental Assessment for identification of electricity grid infrastructure development corridors in South Africa
Project member - Technical GIS and mapping
Department of Environmental Affairs
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
Department of Environmental Affairs
March 2015 Strategic Environmental Assessment for identification of renewable energy zones for wind and solar PV projects in South Africa
Project member - Technical GIS and mapping
Department of Environmental Affairs
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
Project member - Technical GIS and mapping
CSIR Built Environment
August 2014 Environmental Screening Study for the importation of Liquid Natural Gas into the Western Cape
Project member - Technical GIS and mapping, ecology inputs
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
Project member - Technical GIS and mapping, ecology inputs
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
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
Top Related