Substantive Amendment to the Environmental

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

December 2018

FINAL AMENDMENT REPORT submitted to the National Department of Environmental Affairs for decision-making

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.

SUBSTANTIVE AMENDMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL Title: 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)

Luanita Snyman-Van der Walt

Lead Author: MSc Env Sci | PgC GISc | Pr. Sc. Nat. Email: [email protected] Tel: 021 888 2490

Surina Laurie Internal review: MPhil (Stell) | Pr. Sc. Nat. DEA Reference 14/12/16/3/3/2/851/AM1 Number:

CSIR Project Number: EMS0153

Date: December 2018

Version: FINAL, for decision-making

CSIR. 2018. Substantive Amendment to the Environmental Authorisation issued for Edison PV and shared electricity To be cited as: infrastructure, Dealesville, Free State. CSIR Report Number: CSIR/IU/021MH/IR/2018/0004/A. Stellenbosch.

1 Table of Contents Summary ...... 8 Introduction ...... 9 1.1 Legislative context for amendments to Environmental Authorisation ...... 11 Proposed Amendment ...... 12 2.1 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 3.1 Project components and specifications ...... 15 3.2 Listed Activities that have been authorised ...... 22 Public Participation Process ...... 25 4.1 Register of Interested and Affected Parties ...... 25 4.2 Notification of I&APs ...... 25 4.3 30-days public comment on draft Amendment Report ...... 25 4.4 Comments and Reponses ...... 25 Assessment of impacts related to the proposed changes ...... 42 5.1 Geohydrology ...... 43 5.2 Fauna, Flora and Ecology ...... 43 5.3 Avifauna ...... 44 5.4 Wetlands and aquatic ecology ...... 45 5.5 Soils and agricultural potential ...... 46 5.6 Heritage and palaeontology ...... 46 5.7 Visual landscape character ...... 47 5.8 Socio-economic ...... 48 Measures to ensure avoidance, management and mitigation of impacts associated with the proposed changes ...... 49 6.1 Geohydrology ...... 49 6.2 Fauna, flora and ecology ...... 49 6.3 Avifauna ...... 50 6.4 Wetlands and aquatic ecology ...... 50 6.5 Soils and agricultural potential ...... 50

2 6.6 Heritage and palaeontology ...... 51 6.7 Visual landscape character ...... 51 6.8 Socio-economics ...... 52 Changes to the EMPr ...... 53 Advantages and disadvantages associated with the proposed changes ...... 54 Concluding Statement by the EAP ...... 55 References ...... 56 Appendix A ...... 58 DEA correspondence on the nature of the proposed Amendment process ...... 58 Appendix B ...... 63 Letters from specialists declaring and confirming that the outcomes and recommendations from their original assessment remain unchanged ...... 63 Geohydrology ...... 63 Ecology (including Fauna, Flora, Avifauna, Wetlands, Aquatic Ecology) ...... 64 Soils and agricultural potential ...... 66 Heritage and palaeontology ...... 67 Visual and landscape character ...... 70 Socio-economics ...... 72 Appendix C ...... 74 Annotated Environmental Authorisation Indicating the Requested Changes ...... 74 Appendix D ...... 93 Comments and Responses...... 93 DEA Correspondence ...... 93 Other Authority Correspondence ...... 98 South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA) ...... 98 I&AP correspondence ...... 104 Received Comments (and email responses where relevant) ...... 104 Appendix E ...... 112 Proof of PPP ...... 112 Site notices ...... 112 Newspaper advertisements in Volksblad and Mangaung Express ...... 117 Email to I&APs ...... 119

3 Email to I&APs – Delivery Report...... 120 Registered post letter to registered I&APs ...... 124 Courier of hard copies, CD and letters to relevant Provincial Authorities ...... 124 Appendix F ...... 126 Full Impact Assessment Tables ...... 126 1.1. Geohydrology impact assessment ...... 126 1.2. Fauna, flora and ecology Impact assessment ...... 129 1.3. Avifauna impact assessment ...... 133 1.4. Wetlands and aquatic ecology impact assessment ...... 135 1.5. Soils and agricultural potential impact assessment ...... 138 1.6. Heritage impact assessment ...... 141 1.7. Visual landscape character impact assessment ...... 145 1.8. Socio-economics impact assessment ...... 148 Appendix G ...... 155 Curriculum Vitae Of The Environmental Assessment Practitioner ...... 155

List of Abbreviations CA Competent Authority 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

4 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...... 10 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...... 43 Figure 5: Fauna, flora and ecology impact assessment summary. Bordered blocks represent impact significance after mitigation...... 44 Figure 6: Avifauna impact assessment summary. Bordered blocks represent impact significance after mitigation...... 44 Figure 7: Wetland impact assessment summary. Bordered blocks represent impact significance after mitigation...... 45 Figure 8: Aquatic ecology impact assessment summary. Bordered blocks represent impact significance after mitigation...... 46 Figure 9: Soil and agricultural potential impact assessment summary. Bordered blocks represent impact significance after mitigation...... 46 Figure 10: Heritage impact assessment summary. Bordered blocks represent impact significance after mitigation ...... 47 Figure 11: Visual impact assessment summary. Bordered blocks represent impact significance after mitigation...... 48 Figure 12: Socio-economic impact assessment summary. Bordered blocks represent impact significance after mitigation...... 48

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

5 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: Comments received during the Public Participation Period, and Responses by the EAP...... 26 Table 8: Specialists who undertook the original impacts assessments for the Edison PV Solar Field and 29 Solar Dealesville Electricity Infrastructure...... 42 Table 9: Advantages and disadvantages associated with the proposed changes to Edison PV and the 29 Solar Electricity Infrastructure...... 54 Table 10: Geohydrology: Impact Assessment Summary Table – Operation Phase Impacts... 126 Table 11: Geohydrology: Impact Assessment Summary Table – Decommissioning Phase Impacts...... 127 Table 12: Geohydrology: Impact Assessment Summary Table – Cumulative Impacts...... 128 Table 13: Fauna, flora and ecology: Impact Assessment Summary Table – Construction Phase Impacts ...... 129 Table 14: Fauna, flora and ecology: Impact Assessment Summary Table – Operational Phase Impacts ...... 131 Table 15: Fauna, flora and ecology: Impact Assessment Summary Table – Decommissioning Phase Impacts...... 132 Table 16: Fauna, flora and ecology: Impact Assessment Summary Table – Cumulative Impacts ...... 132 Table 17: Avifauna: Impact Assessment Summary Table – Construction Phase Impacts ...... 133 Table 18: Avifauna: Impact Assessment Summary Table – Operational Phase Impacts ...... 134 Table 19: Avifauna: Impact Assessment Summary Table – Cumulative Impacts ...... 135 Table 20: Wetlands: Impact Assessment Summary Table – Construction Phase Impacts ...... 135 Table 21: Wetlands: Impact Assessment Summary Table – Cumulative Impacts ...... 136 Table 22: Aquatic Ecology: Impact assessment summary table – Construction Phase impacts...... 136 Table 23: Aquatic Ecology: Impact assessment summary table – Operation Phase impacts. 136 Table 24: Aquatic Ecology: Impact assessment summary table – Decommissioning Phase impacts...... 137 Table 25: Agriculture and Soil Potential: Impact assessment summary table – Construction Phase impacts...... 138 Table 26: Agriculture and Soil Potential: Impact assessment summary table – Operation Phase impacts...... 139

6 Table 27: Agriculture and Soil Potential: Impact assessment summary table – Decommissioning Phase impacts...... 139 Table 28: Agriculture and Soil Potential: Impact assessment summary table – Cumulative impacts...... 140 Table 29: Heritage: Impact assessment summary table – Construction Phase impacts...... 141 Table 30: Heritage: Impact assessment summary table – Operation Phase impacts...... 142 Table 31: Heritage Impact assessment summary table – Decommissioning Phase impacts. 142 Table 32: Heritage: Impact assessment summary table – Cumulative impacts...... 143 Table 33: Visual: Impact assessment summary table – Construction Phase impacts...... 145 Table 34: Visual: Impact assessment summary table – Operation Phase impacts...... 146 Table 35: Visual: Impact assessment summary table – Decommissioning Phase impacts...... 147 Table 36: Visual: Impact assessment summary table – Cumulative impacts...... 147 Table 37: Socio-economics: Impact assessment summary table – Construction Phase impacts...... 148 Table 38: Socio-economics: Impact assessment summary table – Operation Phase impacts...... 150 Table 39: Socio-economics: Impact assessment summary table – Decommissioning Phase impacts...... 152 Table 40: Socio-economics: Impact assessment summary table – Cumulative impacts...... 153

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 400 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):

 Edison PV (DEA Reference Number: 14/12/16/3/3/2/851) (project under consideration for this amendment process)  Watt PV (DEA Reference Number: 14/12/16/3/3/2/854)  Faraday PV (DEA Reference Number: 14/12/16/3/3/2/855)  Marconi PV (DEA Reference Number: 14/12/16/3/3/2/853)  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).

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.

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 F. 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, updated EMPrs). 5 See Section 4, Appendix D, and Appendix E. 6 It was confirmed by the Competent Authority that they did not have any comments on the draft report – see Appendix D, page 93

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 3.2 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

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.

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 No footprint change? Yes, the position of the Collector substations, MTS and transmission line routings will Will the location of infrastructure change? change. But are still within the assessed development envelope and still avoids all sensitive environmental features. 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 Will the dimensions and specification (e.g. transmission lines connecting the collector height, length, routings) of the infrastructure substations and the MTS will change (length change? 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 No undertaken? Will the amendment result in additional No impacts? No. See Appendix B for letters from the Will the amendment affect the significance specialists declaring and confirming that the rating of the impacts in the EIA? outcomes and recommendations from their original assessments remain unchanged. Will the rights or interests of other affected No parties be influenced negatively? Yes – split the EA into two separate EAs, one Will there be an administrative change? for Edison PV, and one for the 29 Solar Electricity Infrastructure. Yes – change the capacity (i.e. voltage) of the MTS to 132/400 kV and the HV transmission Will there be a change in project description? line to 400 kV, as well as the location coordinates of the collector substations, MTS and powerline routings.

13 2.1 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.

14 Project Description

3.1 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).

15 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 28°39'43.33"S; 25°41'43.73"E (centre point of proposed PV area): PV area Cornelia RE 1550 [SG Code: F00400000000155000000; Area 85.26 ha] (incl. building- and Palmietfontein RE 140 [SG Code: F00400000000014000000; Area 810.75ha] associated infrastructure) Modderpan RE 750 [SG Code: F00400000000075000000; Area 428 ha] Cornelia RE 1550 [SG Code: F00400000000155000000; Area 85.26 ha] Modderpan RE 750 [SG Code: F00400000000075000000; Area 428 ha] Land portions: Mooihoek RE 1551 [SG Code: F00400000000155100000; Area 342.81 ha] Internal roads 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] Solar field:  Solar Arrays mounted on Horizontal Single Axis Tracking; and  Underground 11, 22 or 33 kV cables Building infrastructure: Associated infrastructure  Offices;  Ablution facilities;  Operational control centre; and  Warehouse/workshop;

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  Two 132/33/22 kV collector substations  [One 275/132 kV Main Transmission Station (MTS)]  One 400/132kV Main Transmission Station (MTS). * Electricity infrastructure:  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 120 m x 120 m (per collector substation) Substation footprint area: 300 m x 200 m (MTS) [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 * Location [Collector substation B: 28°40'4.49"S; 25°39'27.53"E] (centre point of substations): 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 * 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] Land portions: 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]

17 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 2 Temporary laydown area Footprint area: 40 000 m = 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) 3 Water use (operation) Volume: 4 672 m per year Waste water/sewage (construction) Portable contained toilets will be on site and provided and serviced by a licensed contractor 3 Waste water/sewage (operation) Volume: 183 m 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 Substation footprint area: 120 m x 120 m = 14 400 2 (x2) m = 1.44 ha; Height: 21 m

2 [275/132 kV MTS] Platform footprint area: 200 m x 300 m = 60 000 m 400/132 kV MTS * = 6 ha; Height: 25 m 132 kV transmission lines Height: 35 m [Length: 1.26 km] Length 6.5 km * [275 kV transmission line] Height: 35 m [Length: 210 m] 400 kV transmission line * Length: 138 m *

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.

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.

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 3.2 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). EA 2 Activities authorised in terms of the 2014 NEMA EIA Corresponding activity in terms of amended 2014 NEMA EA 1 29 Solar Regulations EIA Regulations, 2017 Edison PV Electricity Infrastructure GN R983 (LN1), Activity 28 (ii): Residential, mixed, GR 924 (LN1), Activity 28: retail, commercial, industrial or institutional Residential, mixed, retail, commercial, industrial or developments where such land was used for institutional developments where such land was used for agriculture or afforestation on or after 01 April 1998 and agriculture, game farming, equestrian purposes or where such development afforestation on or after 01 April 1998 and where such ii. will occur outside an urban area, where the development: total land to be developed is bigger than 1 i. will occur outside an urban area, where the total   hectare; land to be developed is bigger than 1 hectare; excluding where such land has already been developed for excluding where such land has already been developed for residential, mixed, retail, commercial, industrial or residential, mixed, retail, commercial, industrial or institutional institutional purposes. purposes.

GN R984 (LN2), Activity 1: GN R325 (LN2), Activity 1: The development of facilities or infrastructure for the The development of facilities or infrastructure for the generation of electricity from a renewable resource generation of electricity from a renewable resource where where the electricity output is 20 megawatts or more, the electricity output is 20 megawatts or more, excluding excluding where such development of facilities or where such development of facilities or infrastructure is for

infrastructure is for photovoltaic installations and occurs photovoltaic installations and occurs —  within an urban area. a) within an urban area; or b) on existing infrastructure.

EA 2 Activities authorised in terms of the 2014 NEMA EIA Corresponding activity in terms of amended 2014 NEMA EA 1 29 Solar Regulations EIA Regulations, 2017 Edison PV Electricity Infrastructure GN R984 (LN2), Activity 9: GN R 325 (LN2), Activity 9: The development of facilities or infrastructure for the The development of facilities or infrastructure for the transmission and distribution of electricity with a transmission and distribution of electricity with a capacity capacity of 275 kilovolts or more, outside an urban area of 275 kilovolts or more, outside an urban area or industrial or industrial complex. 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: GN R 325 (LN2), Activity 15: The clearance of an area of 20 hectares or more of The clearance of an area of 20 hectares or more of indigenous vegetation, excluding where such clearance of indigenous vegetation, excluding indigenous vegetation is required for: where such clearance of indigenous vegetation is required i. the undertaking of a linear activity; or for— ii. maintenance purposes undertaken in accordance i. the undertaking of a linear activity; or   with a maintenance management plan. ii. maintenance purposes undertaken in accordance with a maintenance management plan.

23 EA 2 Activities authorised in terms of the 2014 NEMA EIA Corresponding activity in terms of amended 2014 NEMA EA 1 29 Solar Regulations EIA Regulations, 2017 Edison PV Electricity Infrastructure GN R985, Activity 12 (i): GN R324 (LN3), Activity 12 (b): The clearance of an area of 300 square metres or more The clearance of an area of 300 square metres or more of of indigenous vegetation except where such clearance of indigenous vegetation except where such clearance of indigenous vegetation is prior to the publication of such a indigenous vegetation is required for maintenance purposes list, within an area that required for maintenance purposes undertaken in accordance with a maintenance management undertaken in accordance with a maintenance plan. management plan. b. Free State a) In Eastern Cape, Free State, Gauteng, Limpopo, i. Within any critically endangered or endangered North West and Western Cape Provinces: ecosystem listed in terms of section 52 of the NEMBA i. Within any critically endangered or endangered or prior to the publication of such a list, within an area

ecosystem listed in terms of section 52 of the that has been identified as critically endangered in the   NEMBA or prior to the publication of such a list, National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment 2004; within an area that has been identified as critically ii. Within critical biodiversity areas identified in endangered in the National Spatial Biodiversity bioregional plans; Assessment 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.

24 Public Participation Process The final version of this Amendment Report was subject to a Public Participation Process (PPP). Comments received during the PPP has been included and responded to in this final version of the Amendment Report (see Table 7).

4.1 Register of Interested and Affected Parties The existing database of I&APs identified during the original EIA process concluded in 2016, was checked and updated accordingly to ensure relevant I&APs were notified and able to participate in the Amendment process.

4.2 Notification of I&APs I&APs and broader stakeholders were 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 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.

See Appendix E for proof of PPP.

4.3 30-days public comment on draft Amendment Report The draft version of this report was made available for public comment from 15October – 19 November 2018. The resulting comments and responses trail is presented in Section 4.4 below.

4.4 Comments and Reponses Comments received during the 30-day public commenting period on the draft Amendment Report was recorded and appropriately responded to in Table 7. No new information or impacts, that had not been dealt with in the original EIA process, on which the valid authorisation was based, were raised by I&APs.

Table 7: Comments received during the Public Participation Period, and Responses by the EAP. Number in Comment received Comment Response Appendix by: D

1 Brenda Atkinson Will the change affect Brakfontein 1/636? The change only affect the land portions originally identified for the proposed development. The development site does not Farm Brakfontein *Translated from Afrikaans increase in size and does include additional land portions. 1/636 Brakfontein 1/636 remains an adjacent property to the proposed 29 Solar Dealesville Development.

*Translated from Afrikaans 15 October 2018

2 Gert Jonker The impact study has to redone as a result of changes. If the project The amendment assessment has shown that no additional continues, it must be shown that 29 Solar or development personnel impacts, from those originally assessed in the Environmental Farm Noodshulp will be held responsible for all expenses in terms of environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) (2016), will result from the proposed damage, theft, security and road maintenance. changes. Aspects of environmental damage, road maintenance

and socio-economic issues (theft and security) were assessed *Translated from Afrikaans 17 October 2018 in the original EIA. Subsequently, the Competent Authority (CA) (National Department of Environmental Affairs) had granted Environmental Authorisation (EA) for the proposed 29 Solar Dealesville Development. The EA remains valid, and the CA will Comment form decide on the whether to amend the valid EA with the proposed changes based on this Amendment Report.

This issue was also raised during an appeal of the decision by the Competent Authority to grant EA (by Mr. Rory Muldoon representing a number of parties, including neighbouring land

Number in Comment received Comment Response Appendix by: D

owners, October 2016), and was not found by the DEA Appeals Directorate to be sufficient to overturn the EA.

3 Ben Roestof Approval is granted, subject to the following conditions, as per Noted, thank you. attached drawings supplied, Our Client (Openserve)’s infrastructure Mvelaphanda is affected by this proposal and the route is highlighted in GREEN and Trading RED on attached sketch as accurately as possible. We did our utmost (Telkom) to ensure that we indicate our route as accurate as possible and should you discover any of our cables that is not on the sketch please stop and contact us immediately to arrange a site meeting. In the event that our cables are exposed and damaged/stolen by a third 30 October 2018 party the damages will be repaired at the customer’s account. Please make use of pilot holes in order not too damage our infrastructure. Therefore any damages occurred during construction of work will be Email repaired at the customer’s account.

Mr Leonard Thikeson must be contacted … TWO (2) weeks before any commencement of work.

4 Gerhard van Rhyn *Translated from Afrikaans

Dealesville Forum ------Teen Sonplaasprojekte; The following facts are important to evaluate the solar farm development in Dealesville: Benadeelde Boere ------

1. Contracts with farmers were already in place before the project was The contractual and financial arrangements between the (o.b.o launched. As a result, these people were positive about this developer / project proponent and the land owners whose land development from the start, regardless of the negative impact. Views has been selected for potential development is not within the A Jacobs now held by this group are not consistent with the perception of scope of EIA. them and views that they normally and in the past have maintained.

27 Number in Comment received Comment Response Appendix by: D

C van Straten 2. This state of affairs causes an incorrect message to be sent to all The EIA has been conducted by an independent EAP in concerned. It also puts the impact study under suspicion because adherence to the National Environmental Management Act. E stevens confusing messages are now being communicated.

JJ van Staden 3. This situation paralyzes the community to evaluate the project Noted. objectively and correctly. This state of affairs will lead to the wrong Pieter vermeulen decisions that will not be able to be reversed. Willie Liebenberg 4. The negative impact that the development will have in this Wouter de Vos particular area is therefore wrongly interpreted by external role players. Gert Jonker 5. It is strange that only the few farmers whose farms will be used for The original EIA, on which the valid EA was granted, concluded Dawie Keyser solar farms are in favor of this, against the rest of the community who that no unacceptably high impacts are anticipated (with objectively judges it. Nobody will resist any development if there is implementation of the recommended mitigation measures) Henk Pieterse minimal impact or if it has exceptional benefits for everyone. When from the proposed development. The DEA granted EA for the major impacts are caused by developments, those being proposed development based on the EIA findings. The Koos Saaiman disadvantaged are usually compensated. In this case, only a few amendment to the EA (with which this report is concerned) Willie Haarhoff beneficiaries are created so that false arguments and support arise in does not change the findings and outcome of the original EIA. order to suppress and isolate the disadvantaged by processes. John Fouche Rumours and false arguments between community members are not within the scope of EIA. Gerhard van Rhyn 6. The fact that two solar farm projects are currently being planned Cumulative impacts were assessed during the EIA and Gert du Plessis here, but handled separately, causes that the combined impact of considered the proposed Mainstream Kentani, Boshof and them is not being reflected. Letsatsi projects. The proposed amendment, with which this Piet Wiese report is concerned, does not increase the cumulative impact of the projects originally assessed. Erika kruger

Witkopb v.d. 7. Nobody is against green projects and developments per se, but During the original EIA, on which the valid EA was granted, the the project must be placed in such a way that it has the minimum development layout was planned as to avoid high sensitivity Westhuizen impact. environmental features as identified by the specialist investigations as to minimise any potential impacts.

28 Number in Comment received Comment Response Appendix by: D

Jacobus Sanders The proposed new location of the MTS, collector substation and power lines still avoid all high sensitivity areas, does not Regard Sanders create a greater impact that that which has been assessed, and are still subject to the mitigation measures and best practices Albertus Teseling recommended in the EMPr. Jabus Viljoen 8. The current Eskom developments as well as the planned The findings from the Socio-economic specialist findings in the Meisie Nel developments of Eskom already have a huge, inevitable impact on original EIA, on which the valid EA is based, remains relevant: nature and farming, as well as land values. Land around Dealesville is CJ Carsten already of the cheapest in the Free State due to the existing developments. Banie van Aswegen “Monitoring Programme to be set up in collaboration with neighbouring land owners needs to include the monitoring E van Rhyn of property value impacts using the services of an independent valuer. If it is independently confirmed that L Badenhorst value reductions have taken place and they cannot be mitigated, then this information can be used as a basis for Vickus van Staden negotiation and/or mediation between the applicant and Yolanda van neighbouring land owners focused on compensation. It Deventer does, however, needs to be recognized that compensation is not necessarily required under South African law. Legal Corneel du Plessis) implications would therefore need to be considered further should impacts be found during monitoring.”

(Refer to Appendix M of the EIAr, dated 2015). Letters sent via email The proposed amendments, with which this report is concerned, does not change the findings or recommended mitigations measures of the original EIAr (CSIR, 2015), or the conditions of the valid EA.

9. The greater problem, however, is the financial impact, as well as The findings from the Agriculture specialist findings in the the continuation of meaningful and normal farm practices within a original EIA, on which the valid EA is based, remains relevant: radius of thirty kilometres around Dealesville.

29 Number in Comment received Comment Response Appendix by: D

“The impact on the potential for agricultural production is minimal.”

“Solar farms are compatible with agricultural activities, and there is no reason why a farmer should not continue to farm in the presence of a solar development.”

(Refer to Appendix M of the EIAr, CSIR, 2015).

The proposed amendments, with which this report is concerned, does not change the findings or recommended mitigations measures of the original EIAr (CSIR, 2015), or the conditions of the valid EA.

10. The spontaneous social contract as well as the trust between Personal distrust amongst community members is not within farmers are damaged by this type of handling and forced strategies the scope of EIA. from outside forces.

11. An inclusive process beforehand, where everyone could honestly During the original EIA process a total of 111 I&APs were give their opinion, would certainly have resulted in better outcomes identified at the project inception stage (September 2015). The for the project in the region. In this case, only the interests of the database of I&APs included land owners, neighbouring land persons involved directly in the process are taken into account. owners, national authorities (e.g. DEA, DWS, DAFF), provincial authorities (e.g. Department of Police, Roads and Transport), municipal authorities, and local community groups (e.g. AgriBoshof, Agri Dealesville Farmer’s Association, NG Kerk Dealesville). All I&APs in the database was notified by post and email (where addresses were available) of the project, key junctures in the EIA process, and informed of the availability of documentation and the opportunity to comment on various reports. More stakeholders have been added to the database as they were identified and nominated throughout the EIA process.

30 Number in Comment received Comment Response Appendix by: D

This database of I&APs were used during the Substantive Amendment process (2018).

Furthermore, site notices were placed in and around the town of Dealesville at project inception. And stakeholders were notified of the availability of reports and opportunity to comment in two local newspapers (Volksblad and Mangaung Express). This was done for both the original EIA process as well as this Amendment process.

The PPP undertaken for the 29 Solar Dealesville Development Projects have done all public participation in adherence to the requirements in NEMA.

12. Nobody will be disadvantaged if the project does not go ahead, Noted, although no evidence is presented to support this but there is a lot at stake as well as direct detriment should the vague statement. The original EIA report outlines potential project continue in its current position. advantages and disadvantages of development of the proposed 29 Solar Dealesville Development.

13. There are enough other areas where nobody is disadvantaged or The proposed development site had been evaluated as where the impact will not be so great. preferred based on initial scoping of technical and environmental aspects (see Project Alternatives, Chapter 7, in the original EIAr, CSIR, 2015).

This Amendment concerns the 29 Solar Dealesville Development which is proposed on the farms Cornelia RE 1550, Palmietfontein RE 140, Modderpan RE 750, Cornelia RE 1550, Modderpan RE 750,

Mooihoek RE 1551, Doornhoek RE 37, Palmietfontein RE 140, Sterkfontein 4/ 639, and Brakfontein 3/ 636, has, after being subjected to a Full Scoping and EIA process, received EA.

31 Number in Comment received Comment Response Appendix by: D

14. The fact that developers in this case do not buy the land for The business-case involving aspects such as the funding of development of the solar farms, but merely rent premises for the actual development and land lease agreements are not within period that they have contracts with Eskom, indicates that no the scope of EIA. permanent developments are planned and that they are uncertain about the future thereafter. Through the whole process, many The original EIA was done by an independent EAP, and farmers and their futures are being disadvantaged, while they are not independent, credible specialists. Based on the evaluation of sure about the way forward. This proposed business model benefits the EIA report the DEA reached a decision to grant EA for the and creates security only for the developers and possibly the farmers development. on whose farms projects are planned. The disadvantaged must The current process is to amend (mainly administratively) the reactively and with great uncertainty plan for their future, with all the existing EA, which currently remains valid. negative market forces that are going to influence it. With this in mind, there must be very good research on the detriment of people who live and make a living there permanently. Temporary developments and processes and how they will play out in the future cannot be taken lightly. We hope with this serious plea and request that the project will enjoy much more and serious attention and assessment than has been the case up to today. The request for the impact study to be done again must be seriously considered against this background to ensure that correct decisions are made.

The community has only now been informed, thanks to information During the original EIA process a total of 111 I&APs were from fellow farmers, about the matter and therefore participation can identified at the project inception stage (September 2015). The now take place with greater insight and wisdom than has been the database of I&APs included land owners, neighbouring land case so far. owners, national authorities (e.g. DEA, DWS, DAFF), provincial authorities (e.g. Department of Police, Roads and Transport), municipal authorities, and local community groups (e.g. AgriBoshof, Agri Dealesville Farmer’s Association, NG Kerk Dealesville). All I&APs in the database was notified by post and email (where addresses were available) of the project, key junctures in the EIA process, and informed of the availability of documentation and the opportunity to comment on various reports. More stakeholders have been added to the database

32 Number in Comment received Comment Response Appendix by: D

as they were identified and nominated throughout the EIA process.

This same list of I&APs were used during the Substantive Amendment process (2018).

The PPP undertaken for the 29 Solar Dealesville Development Projects have done all public participation in adherence to the requirements in NEMA.

Should this project continue despite its current controversy and Noted. inadequate research, it leaves us with no alternative than to mobilize the broader public of Dealesville, as well as the farming community, and also to involve civil society organizations.

*Translated from Afrikaans Project developers are at liberty to change their site layout plans if the need arises (often based on technical and financial ------aspects – which are not within the ambit of EIA). The Reaction to the proposed change to the original layout of the Solar Competent Authority (DEA) must decide whether the proposed 29 power project at Dealesville changes will have an unacceptable impact to the environment, which the Substantive Amendment investigation documented ------in this report, shows to be the case. The current suggestions on the original layout of the Solar 29 power project reinforce the uncertainties and questions about the initial market research and consultation work that led to the layout proposals already approved.

As our previous inputs, as well as the impact study, pointed out three years ago, these changes again reinforce our original suspicion that 33 Number in Comment received Comment Response Appendix by: D

the layout might have had personal preferences and benefits. Participation by certain beneficiaries, as well as their role during the process, allowed such suspicion to be strengthened. It eliminates any other suitable option to choose a better terrain. This means that the overall layout of the project must take place around this position, regardless of whether it is the most suitable place for development for the town and the farmers in the area.

As mentioned several times earlier, Dealesville is already severely The findings from the Agriculture specialist findings in the compromised with power stations and power lines historically built original EIA, on which the valid EA is based, remains relevant: and established here, and for which Eskom has already paid billions of dollars. With the established infrastructure here, it is obvious that “The impact on the potential for agricultural production is renewable energy developers see the potential here, but they are minimal.” actually compromising the area even further, which places normal “Solar farms are compatible with agricultural activities, farming practices under more abnormal pressure. and there is no reason why a farmer should not continue to farm in the presence of a solar development.”

(Refer to Appendix M of the EIAr, CSIR, 2015).

The proposed amendments, with which this report is concerned, does not change the findings or recommended mitigations measures of the original EIAr (CSIR, 2015), or the conditions of the valid EA.

Furthermore, future development projects initiated by Eskom could “At a national level, South Africa is facing serious electricity potentially be jeopardized through this. Current power development shortages as well as water scarcity. Linked to this, the proposed and infrastructure here is a national and strategic asset for Eskom and projects aim to supply additional electricity to the national grid. the country, and therefore, additional power developments planned Furthermore, the urgent need to reduce greenhouse gas privately must be properly evaluated against that. emissions and the importance of a secure and diversified energy supply has resulted in a global shift towards, and an increased Currently, Eskom is already planning new power lines in the region. focus on, the use of renewable energy technologies. In South Future demand and needs for more power for the western part of the Africa, national government has encouraged the utilisation of country will increase power lines from this region. What is true is that renewable energy through national policy and strategic renewable energy projects currently have far more options than planning. The objective is to expand electricity generation

34 Number in Comment received Comment Response Appendix by: D

Eskom about where to develop their projects. Therefore, all preferred capacity in South Africa and promote the practice of sustainable areas for Eskom's established developments cannot necessarily and development. automatically be seen as optimal for solar projects, without fully estimating the already existing impact. The Integrated Resource Plan for South Africa for the period 2010 to 2030 (hereinafter referred to as “IRP 2010”) (DoE, 2011) was Farmers cannot be placed in a position where their businesses are released by government in 2010, with an updated report in 2013, constantly threatened and undermined by future developments, and proposes to develop and secure 17 800 MW of renewable especially if the private sector advances and increases its frequency. energy capacity by 2030 (including wind, solar and other energy sources). The IRP 2010 has set up a target of 3 725 MW of renewable energy to be produced by Independent Power Producers (IPPs) by 2016. Subsequent to this, an additional target of 6300 MW from renewable energy sources was added to the Renewable Energy IPP Procurement Programme as published in Government Gazette No. 39111 of 18 August 2015 (South Africa, 2015). The additional target allocated for wind energy is 3040 MW and 2200 MW for solar PV.

Linked to this, in 2011, the Department of Energy (DoE) launched the Renewable Energy Independent Power Producer Procurement Programme (REIPPPP) and invited potential IPPs to submit proposals for the financing, construction, operation and maintenance of the first 3 725 MW of onshore wind, solar thermal, solar PV, biomass, biogas, landfill gas or small hydro projects. The two main evaluation criteria for compliant proposals are price and economic development, with other selection criteria including technical feasibility and grid connectivity, environmental acceptability, black economic empowerment, community development, and local economic and manufacturing propositions. The bidders with the highest rankings (according to the aforementioned criteria) are appointed as “Preferred Bidders” by the DoE.”

(CSIR, 2015)

35 Number in Comment received Comment Response Appendix by: D

Although the farmers of Dealesville are not against renewable energy Noted. projects per se, the site must be chosen very carefully where the project can be meaningfully developed and where it has the least detrimental impact on the region, as well as for Eskom.

At present, there is a feeling that this development should be done The proposed development site had been evaluated as further from the epicentre of Eskom’s power station and power line preferred based on initial scoping of technical and development around Dealesville, so that the foreseeable and environmental aspects (see Project Alternatives, Chapter 7, in predicted negative impact of it does not harm farmers any further. the original EIAr, CSIR, 2015).

The proposed amendments, with which this report is concerned, does not change the findings or recommended mitigations measures of the original EIAr (CSIR, 2015), or the conditions of the valid EA.

Farmers cannot oppose Eskom's approved projects, but can oppose All developments that Trigger the Listed Activities in the NEMA private developers' additional development plans, where it is about EIA Regulations (E.g. the development of transmission lines profit rather than to bear in mind the interests of the area. Developers exceeding 275 kV) must undertake EIA processes, which adhere identify areas where they can make the easiest and most money and to the requirements of the law with regards to participation of then use existing legislation to approve projects, under the banner of Interested and Affected Parties. job creation and power supply to the state, which is correct by nature but must never be to the detriment of the people and the The proposed development site had been evaluated as environment of the area. preferred based on initial scoping of technical and environmental aspects (see Project Alternatives, Chapter 7, in the original EIAr, CSIR, 2015).

The proposed amendments, with which this report is concerned, does not change the findings or recommended mitigations measures of the original EIAr (CSIR, 2015), or the conditions of the valid EA.

There are too many other development areas that are just as suitable The proposed development site had been evaluated as for these vital developments for the country and its people without preferred based on initial scoping of technical and

36 Number in Comment received Comment Response Appendix by: D

placing unnecessary stresses and pressures on areas. It must be environmental aspects (see Project Alternatives, Chapter 7, in sensitive to the impact of the planned development on the existing the original EIAr, CSIR, 2015). farmers, who is farming there for ages and centuries and also the threat to the immediate environment and towns. The proposed amendment, with which this report is concerned, does not change this finding.

The findings from the Agriculture specialist findings in the original EIA, on which the valid EA is based, remains relevant:

“The impact on the potential for agricultural production is minimal.”

“Solar farms are compatible with agricultural activities, and there is no reason why a farmer should not continue to farm in the presence of a solar development.”

(Refer to Appendix M of the EIAr, CSIR, 2015).

The proposed amendments, with which this report is concerned, does not change the findings or recommended mitigations measures of the original EIAr (CSIR, 2015), or the conditions of the valid EA.

Therefore, we feel that there are plenty of projects that can be Many of these issues were also raised during an appeal of the approved by the state, where there is no obvious disadvantage, as in decision by the Competent Authority to grant EA (by Mr. Rory this case. The risk of continuing this project is just too high and Muldoon representing a number of parties, including unpredictable in the future, while there are many other projects neighbouring land owners, October 2016), and was not found nationwide that can be implemented successfully. by the DEA Appeals Directorate to be sufficient to overturn the EA. This project was controversial from the outset because it has a huge impact on many farmers directly negatively affected by this, as well as the fact that its layout is too close to Dealesville town, which may have too high expectations and unforeseen demands on the town.

37 Number in Comment received Comment Response Appendix by: D

Breakdown of reasons why the move of the substation should not be approved and the project should currently be rejected:

1. The project is too close to Dealesville, which connects the These aspects have been covered and assessed in the original town unilaterally and directly to the development, while the EIA and measures to manage these incorporated in the EMPr. town will not be able to meet future expectations, such as especially water, removal services, policing, infrastructure The proposed amendments, with which this report is maintenance, etcetera. concerned, does not change the findings or recommended mitigations measures of the original EIAr (CSIR, 2015), or the conditions of the valid EA.

This issue was also raised during an appeal of the decision by the Competent Authority to grant EA (by Mr. Rory Muldoon representing a number of parties, including neighbouring land owners, October 2016), and was not found by the DEA Appeals Directorate to be sufficient to overturn the EA.

2. The identification of the site may have been driven by The proposed development site had been evaluated as individual benefit rather than by the interests of the entire preferred based on initial scoping of technical and community or the identification of alternative sites that could environmental aspects (see Project Alternatives, Chapter 7, in have been taken into account. the original EIAr, CSIR, 2015).

The proposed amendments, with which this report is concerned, does not change the findings or recommended mitigations measures of the original EIAr (CSIR, 2015), or the conditions of the valid EA.

3. The fact that the original site plan is now being amended During the original EIA process (CSIR, 2015), the entire means that the original research and planning have not been proposed site was assessed. The proposed development was properly done. It further causes the concern that in other grated EA based on the assessment. The amended site layout aspects and areas research has also not been done properly still avoids all identified environmental sensitivities and does and information provided thoroughly. not change the outcomes of the impact assessment or the recommended mitigation measures and management actions.

38 Number in Comment received Comment Response Appendix by: D

Project developers are at liberty to change their site layout plans if the need arises (often based on technical and financial aspects – which are not within the ambit of EIA). The Competent Authority (DEA) must decide whether the proposed changes will have an unacceptable impact to the environment, which the Substantive Amendment investigation documented in this report, shows to be the case.

4. The impact study is done by an institution on behalf of the The EAP collects all the knowledge (from existing plans, developer and therefore they are not in possession of the policies, documents, to relevant issues raised by I&APs, to in- total advance information and knowledge of the region. field data collected by specialists) that is required to conduct a credible EIA process.

5. Although legislation stipulates that an impact study is valid The legal validity for EA is 5 years, as stipulated in the NEMA for five years, it should be kept in mind that the impact study EIA Regulations. here already took place three years ago and the approval of the project was done two years ago. Given that such a long time has elapsed before these changes have been proposed, as well as the controversy and strong opposition by the disadvantaged, this project should now be reconsidered.

6. It is increasingly heard from farmers that underground water The following water source options were assessed during the is declining, and that in some cases farming activities had to EIA: Drilling new boreholes for water abstraction, subject to be discontinued because of that. And this already within two obtaining a Water Use License; Existing boreholes to source to three years after the impact study has been completed. groundwater; Already with the impact study, farmers who had first-rate experience of this expressed their concerns about water Municipal water; or Importing water from other viable sources levels in the area. in the vicinity with trucks. 7. For a number of years Dealesville has already been Although groundwater from existing boreholes was indicated dependent on borehole water from farmers in the area. as a preferred option, but is subject to monitoring by a Further pressure on boreholes, such as this additional geohydrologist advisor and close monitoring. Alternative water development near the town on agricultural land, may sources will be used if groundwater is proven to be unviable potentially harm this water availability to the town in the if/when the development proceeds to implementation.

39 Number in Comment received Comment Response Appendix by: D

future. As mentioned earlier, this development is too close to The proposed amendments, with which this report is the town and is directly linked to the same sources. concerned, does not change the findings or recommended mitigations measures of the original EIAr (CSIR, 2015), or the conditions of the valid EA.

8. Livestock thefts have grown tremendously in this region, and The Socio-economic Specialist Report from the original EIAr farmers currently have to launch regular actions to protect recognised increased crime as a key risk, and stated that “it will themselves against thefts. A site further away from the town be critically important that this impact be clearly addressed in and situated more remotely, will definitely be easier to police the Code of Conduct for workers on the project and in the against thefts. In this case, there are just too many farmers Monitoring Programme” that is included in the EMPr. with farms around this project, as well as too many farmers whose farms are earmarked for the project. In view of the The proposed amendments, with which this report is great unhappiness and uncertainty surrounding the concerned, does not change the findings or recommended proposed project in the region, we ask decision makers to mitigations measures of the original EIAr (CSIR, 2015), or the look into alternative opportunities. conditions of the valid EA. This issue was also raised during an appeal of the decision by the Competent Authority to grant EA (by Mr. Rory Muldoon representing a number of parties, including neighbouring land owners, October 2016), and was not found by the DEA Appeals Directorate to be sufficient to overturn the EA.

With the current changes to the project, as well as the controversy of The legal validity for EA is 5 years, as stipulated in the NEMA the preparation process for this project, we request that a new impact EIA Regulations. There is no legal requirement to re-undertake study be done as in the two to three years past; the existing impact the EIA process. study has already been proved wrong in too many aspects. With a new impact study, the whole development in the existing area and Project developers are at liberty to change their site layout format may be reconsidered, or alternatively discontinued. It can then plans if the need arises (often based on technical and financial be continued with a wider consultation and a larger inclusive process aspects – which are not within the ambit of EIA). The 40 Number in Comment received Comment Response Appendix by: D

to look for a more suitable site in the area. With all of the above- Competent Authority (DEA) must decide whether the proposed mentioned information evaluated together, the risk is too high to changes will have an unacceptable impact to the environment, continue with this project at this stage. which the Substantive Amendment investigation documented in this report, shows to be the case.

We hope to finally convince our decision-makers of our opposition Noted. to and fears about this project in its current form and location. The interests of a private developer of another area cannot possibly be considered to be more important than the interests of the existing community that has been built up for decades.

5 Jack Amour Access to farms in terms of protocol for access to farms. Access to the development that occur via existing farm roads are subject to an agreement between land owners and the Free State project developer. Agriculture Social problems during construction phase. These aspects have been covered and assessed in the original EIA and measures to manage these incorporated in the EMPr.

21 November 2018 The proposed amendments, with which this report is concerned, does not change the findings or recommended

mitigations measures of the original EIAr (CSIR, 2015), or the Comment form conditions of the valid EA.

41 Assessment of impacts related to the proposed changes Table 8 presents the studies undertaken and specialists who collaborated on the original EIAr in 2016 (CSIR, 2016).

Table 8: 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, 2016a Crystal Rowe (flora Ecological Impact ecologist) Assessment (including Russell Tate (aquatic Digby Wells (Pty) Terrestrial Ecology, Wetlands Digby Wells, 2016b ecologist) Ltd and Aquatic Ecology) & Danie Otto (terrestrial Digby Wells, 2016c and aquatic ecologist) Phil Patton Avifauna Impact Assessment Digby Wells, 2016d (ornithologist) Henry Holland Private consultant Visual Impact Assessment Holland, 2016 Heritage Impact Assessment ASHA Consulting Dr. Jayson Orton (Archaeology and Cultural (Pty) Ltd Landscape) Orton, 2016 Palaeo Field Desktop Palaeontological Lloyd Rossouw Services Impact Assessment Conrad & Peek, Julian Conrad GEOSS Geohydrological Assessment 2016 Soils and Agricultural Johann Lanz Private Lanz, 2016 Potential Assessment Independent Dr. Hugo van Zyl (EIA Economic Socio-economics Van Zyl, 2016 Phase) Researchers

The specialists presented in Table 8 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 0), 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.

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 F.

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.

Significance of impact/risk Aspect/ Impact pathway Nature of potential impact/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 -

Geohydrology Cumulative use of groundwater Over-abstraction - 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

43 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).

Significance of impact/risk Aspect/ Impact pathway Nature of potential impact/risk 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 -

Fauna & Flora & Fauna 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 - 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).

Significance of impact/risk 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 -

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

44 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).

Significance of impact/risk Aspect/ Impact pathway Nature of potential impact/risk 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 -

Wetlands Vegetation clearing Cumulative loss of ephemeral pans 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.

45 Significance of impact/risk Aspect/ Impact pathway Nature of potential impact/risk 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 +

Aquatic Aquatic Ecology Increased threat for loosened topsoil and lack of anchorage Erosion and Sedimentation + 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).

Significance of impact/risk Aspect/ Impact pathway Nature of potential impact/risk 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 -

Soil and Agricultural Potential Soiland Occupation of the land by infrastructure of multiple developments Cumulative loss of agricultural land - 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

46 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). 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.

Significance of impact/risk Aspect/ Impact pathway Nature of potential impact/risk 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 -

Heritage 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 - 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)

47 Significance of impact/risk Aspect/ Impact pathway Nature of potential impact/risk 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 - Visual 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 - 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.

Significance of impact/risk Aspect/ Impact pathway Nature of potential impact/risk 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 -

Socio-economics 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 - Figure 12: Socio-economic impact assessment summary. Bordered blocks represent impact significance after mitigation.

48 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:

49 • 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.

50 6.6 Heritage and palaeontology Key management actions and mitigation measures include, but are not limited to:

 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.

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.

51  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.

52 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), 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).

53 Advantages and disadvantages associated with the proposed changes The proposed amendments hold administrative, technical and financial advantages for the Applicant (Table 9). Furthermore, it is not expected that the proposed changes will result in any disadvantages from an environmental perspective (Table 9) 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 9: 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 Administrative No disadvantage from an PV; and EA2 – 29 Solar Electricity Infrastructure  Easy transfer of ownership and environmental environmental or administrative rights, responsibilities and obligations of the perspective. 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). 2. Amend the project specification of the HV Technical No disadvantage from an transmission line, connecting the proposed MTS and  Better compatibility with the existing Eskom environmental or administrative the existing Eskom HV electricity infrastructure, from infrastructure to which to connect the 29 Solar perspective. 275 kV to 400 kV, and the specification of the MTS from Development and evacuate generated 132/275 kV to 132/400 kV (EA2). electricity into the grid.

3. Amend the layout of the electricity infrastructure by Technical and financial No disadvantage from an moving the locations of the collector substations and  Optimised layout for the collector substations, environmental or administrative MTS (EA2). connecting to the MTS, and connecting to the perspective. All sensitive existing 400 kV Eskom transmission line. environmental features are still avoided.

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);

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 G for Ms. Snyman-van der Walt’s curriculum vitae.

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).

56 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.

57 Appendix A

DEA correspondence on the nature of the proposed Amendment process

59 60 61

62 Appendix B

Letters from specialists declaring and confirming that the outcomes and recommendations from their original assessment remain unchanged Geohydrology

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

65 Soils and agricultural potential

66 Heritage and palaeontology

69 Visual and landscape character

71 Socio-economics

73 Appendix C

Annotated Environmental Authorisation Indicating the Requested Changes

75 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.

76 77 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 78 in to the National Electricity Grid via existing Eskom 400 kV transmission lines.

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).

79 * 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.

SG codes for EA 1 (Edison PV) remain unchanged

SG codes for EA 2 (29 Solar Electricity Infrastructure) remain unchanged

80 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.

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

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

* 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.

Technical details for EA 1 (Edison PV) remain unchanged.

82 Technical details for EA 2 (29 * Solar Electricity Infrastructure)

Footprint area and height of the 2 x collector substations Technical detail of the Main and Main Transmission Transmission Station (MTS) Station remains unchanged. must change to 132/400 kV. EA 2 (29 Solar Electricity EA 2 (29 Solar Electricity Infrastructure) Infrastructure) The height of the 132 kV transmission lines remains unchanged. Technical detail of the high voltage line must change to The length must change to 400 kV. 6.5 km.

EA 2 (29 Solar Electricity EA 2 (29 Solar Electricity Infrastructure) 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)

88 Condition 93 is relevant to EA 1 (Edison PV)

89 Conditions 95 – 98 are relevant to EA 2 (29 Solar Electricity Infrastructure)

92 Appendix D

Comments and Responses DEA Correspondence

94 95 96

97 Other Authority Correspondence South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA)

99 100 101 102

103 I&AP correspondence 2 Received Comments (and email responses where relevant)

104 3

105 4

106

107

108

109

110 5

111 Appendix E

Proof of PPP Site notices Farms Carlton & Klippan

Farms Cornelia & Mooihoek

112 Dealesville Vleismark

Farms Doornhoek, Brakfontein, Sterkfontein on R64

113 Farms Doornhoek, Brakfontein, Sterkfontein on S401

Dealesville Library

114 Farms Modderpan

Tokologo Municipal Offices

115 Farm Palmietfontein

Pienk Huis Deli

116 Newspaper advertisements in Volksblad and Mangaung Express

117

118 Email to I&APs

119

Email to I&APs – Delivery Report

120

121

122

123 Registered post letter to registered I&APs Courier of hard copies, CD and letters to relevant Provincial Authorities

124

125 Appendix F

Full Impact Assessment Tables

1.1. Geohydrology impact assessment Table 10: Geohydrology: Impact Assessment Summary Table – Operation Phase Impacts.

Significance of impact/risk

= consequence x probability

Status

Duration

Probability

Consequence

Spatial Extent

Confidence level

environment/resource

Reversibility impact of

Ranking Ranking of impact/risk

Aspect/ Impact pathway

/management /management

With mitigation

Irreplaceability receiving of

Potential mitigation measures

Without mitigation

Nature Nature of potential impact/risk

(residual risk/impact)

OPERATION PHASE DIRECT IMPACTS

 All reasonable measures must be taken to prevent

groundwater contamination.

 Vehicles must be regularly serviced and maintained.

Construction of

Any engines that stand in one place for an excessive

term

storage and labour Groundwater - length of time must have drip trays. Low Very low 5

Site

Low

High High

accommodation contamination Slight

Neutral  Diesel fuel storage tanks should be above ground on

yards Short an impermeable surface in a bunded area.

Extremely unlikely  Construction vehicles and equipment should also be refuelled on an impermeable surface.

 All reasonable measures must be taken to prevent

groundwater contamination

 Essentially the contamination of stormwater must be

term

Groundwater Stormwater outflows - avoided. Low Very low 5

Site

Low

High High

contamination Slight

Neutral  Keep drainage channels clear of debris and litter. Short  If any potentially contamination liquids are spilled in

Extremely unlikely the stormwater channels they must be cleaned up.

126 Significance of impact/risk

= consequence x probability

Status

Duration

Probability

Consequence

Spatial Extent

Confidence level

environment/resource

Reversibility impact of

Ranking Ranking of impact/risk

Aspect/ Impact pathway

/management /management

With mitigation

Irreplaceability receiving of

Potential mitigation measures

Without mitigation

Nature Nature of potential impact/risk

(residual risk/impact)

OPERATION PHASE DIRECT IMPACTS

 Vehicles must be regularly serviced and maintained.

 Any engines that stand in one place for an

Accidental oil excessive length of time must have drip trays.

term

Groundwater - spillage / fuel  Diesel fuel storage tanks should be above ground on Low Very low 5

Site

Low

High High

contamination Slight

leakage Neutral an impermeable surface in a bunded area. Short  Construction vehicles and equipment should also be

Extremely unlikely refuelled on an impermeable surface.

Table 11: Geohydrology: Impact Assessment Summary Table – Decommissioning Phase Impacts.

Significance of impact/risk

= consequence x probability

Status

Duration

Probability

impact/risk

Consequence

Spatial Extent

Confidence level

Nature Nature of potential

Without

(residual

environment/resource

Reversibility impact of

mitigation

Ranking Ranking of impact/risk

Aspect/ Impact pathway risk/impact)

/management /management

Irreplaceability receiving of

With mitigation

Potential mitigation measures

DECOMMISSIONING PHASE DIRECT IMPACTS

 Vehicles must be regularly serviced and maintained.

 Any engines that stand in one place for an

Accidental oil excessive length of time must have drip trays.

term

Groundwater - spillage / fuel  Diesel fuel storage tanks should be above ground Low Very low 5

Site

Low

High High

contamination Slight

leakage Neutral on an impermeable surface in a bunded area. Short  Construction vehicles and equipment should also be

Extremely unlikely refuelled on an impermeable surface.

127

Table 12: Geohydrology: Impact Assessment Summary Table – Cumulative Impacts.

Significance of impact/risk

= consequence x probability

Status

Duration

Probability

Consequence

Spatial Extent

Confidence level

risk/impact)

environment/resource

Reversibility impact of

Ranking Ranking of impact/risk

/management

Aspect/ Impact pathway

With mitigation

Irreplaceability receiving of

Without mitigation

Potential mitigation measures

Nature Nature of potential impact/risk

/management (residual

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

 Monitoring measures include production and

background groundwater level and quality monitoring

Over- term

Groundwater - in conjunction with rainfall measurements and the Moderate Low 4 abstraction

Yes Yes Site measurement of the volumes of groundwater

Unlikely

Medium

Negative Moderate Moderate abstracted.

Medium

128 1.2. Fauna, flora and ecology Impact assessment

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

Significance of impact/risk

= consequence x probability

Status

Duration

Probability

Consequence

Spatial Extent

Confidence level

environment/resource

Reversibility impact of

Ranking Ranking of impact/risk

/management

Aspect/ Impact pathway

With mitigation

Irreplaceability receiving of

Without mitigation

Potential mitigation measur

(residual risk/impact)

Nature Nature of potential impact/risk

CONSTRUCTION PHASE DIRECT IMPACTS

Habitat and species Plant and Animal search

term Moderate Low 4 loss - and rescue (EMPr)

Site

High

Negative

Moderate Moderate

Very likelyVery

Long

vegetation)

(endangered

Yes Yes (rehabilitation Internal access roads and after Construction) vehicular activities on site

Exposed soil term Erosion Management

- Low Very low 5 susceptible to erosion Plan (EMPr)

Site

High

Likely

Negative

Moderate Moderate

Medium

Yes (rehabilitationYes

after Construction)

Habitat and species Plant and Animals search

Site Preparation term Moderate Low 4 loss - and rescue (EMPr)

Site

High

Negative

Moderate

Very likelyVery

Long

Substantial

vegetation)

(endangered

Yes Yes (rehabilitation

after Construction)

129 Significance of impact/risk

= consequence x probability

Status

Duration

Probability

Consequence

Spatial Extent

Confidence level

environment/resource

Reversibility impact of

Ranking Ranking of impact/risk

/management

Aspect/ Impact pathway

With mitigation

Irreplaceability receiving of

Without mitigation

Potential mitigation measur

(residual risk/impact)

Nature Nature of potential impact/risk

Exposed soil term Erosion Management

- Low Very low 5 susceptible to erosion Plan (EMPr)

Site

High

Likely

Negative

Moderate Moderate

Construction)

Medium

Yes (rehabilitationYes after

Habitat and Plant and Animal search

term Moderate Low 4

likely species loss - and rescue (EMPr)

High

Negative

Very Very

Long

Substantial

vegetation)

Construction)

Construction of surface Site and surroundings

Moderate (endangered

Yes Yes (rehabilitation after infrastructure and preparation

Exposed soil

term Erosion Management susceptible to - Low Very low 5 Plan (EMPr)

High

erosion Likely

Negative

Moderate Moderate

Construction)

Medium

(rehabilitation after

Site and surroundings

Yes Yes

Soil disturbance resulting

Spread of Alien Alien plant Management

in the spread of alien plant term Low Very low 5 plant species - Plan (EMPr)

High species on site Likely

Negative

Moderate Moderate

Long

Construction)

Site and surroundings

Yes (rehabilitationYes after

130 Significance of impact/risk

= consequence x probability

Status

Duration

Probability

Consequence

Spatial Extent

Confidence level

environment/resource

Reversibility impact of

Ranking Ranking of impact/risk

/management

Aspect/ Impact pathway

With mitigation

Irreplaceability receiving of

Without mitigation

Potential mitigation measur

(residual risk/impact)

Nature Nature of potential impact/risk

Exposed soil term Erosion Management Plan

- 5 susceptible to erosion (EMPr) Low Very low

Yes Yes

after

High

Likely

Site and

Negative

Moderate Moderate

surroundings

Construction)

(rehabilitation

Medium

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

Significance of impact/risk

= consequence x probability

Status

Duration

receiving

measures

Probability

impact/risk

Consequence

Spatial Extent

With

Confidence level

Irreplaceability of

Without

(residual

Nature Nature of potential

Potential mitigation

mitigation mitigation

risk/impact)

environment/resource

Reversibility impact of

Ranking Ranking of impact/risk

/management /management

Aspect/ Impact pathway

OPERATIONAL PHASE DIRECT IMPACTS

Fencing in, or out Plant search and rescue

term Moderate Low 4

- certain grazers d (EMPr)

Site

Medium

Access control and Negative

Yes Yes (with

Moderate

Very likelyVery measures)

mitigation

Long

Substantial

vegetation)

(endangere fencing

Over or under Erosion Management Plan Low Very low 5 grazed veld (EMPr)

Yes Yes

Site

term

High

Likely

Negative ssioning)

tion after

Medium

decommi

Moderate Moderate

(rehabilita

131 Table 15: Fauna, flora and ecology: Impact Assessment Summary Table – Decommissioning Phase Impacts.

Significance of impact/risk

= consequence x probability

impact

Status

Duration

Probability

impact/risk

Consequence

Spatial Extent

Confidence level

(residual

Nature Nature of potential

risk/impact)

environment/resource

Reversibility of

Ranking Ranking of impact/risk

/management /management

Aspect/ Impact pathway

With mitigation

Irreplaceability receiving of

Without mitigation

Potential mitigation measures

DECOMMISSIONING PHASE DIRECT IMPACTS

Damage to Disassemble Plant search and rescue

vegetation and term Moderate Low 4 components - (EMPr) habitat types Site

Medium

Negative

Yes Yes (with

Moderate Moderate

Very likelyVery measures)

mitigation

Short

vegetation)

(endangered

Table 16: Fauna, flora and ecology: Impact Assessment Summary Table – Cumulative Impacts

Significance of impact/risk

= consequence x probability

Status

Duration

Probability

Consequence

Spatial Extent

Confidence level

environment/resource

Reversibility impact of

Ranking Ranking of impact/risk

/management

Aspect/ Impact pathway

With mitigation

Irreplaceability receiving of

Without mitigation

Potential mitigation measures

(residual risk/impact)

Nature Nature of potential impact/risk

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Clearing of

vegetation, Habitat and ly Plant search and rescue

term Moderate Low 4 including species loss - (EMPr)

Site

Medium

Kentani, and the Negative

Moderate

Very likeVery measures)

Long

Substantial

vegetation) remaining (endangered

Yes Yes (with mitigation

132 Dealesville

projects. Exposed soil

term Erosion Management Plan

susceptible to - Low Very low 5 (EMPr)

Site

High

erosion Likely

Negative

Yes Yes (with

Moderate Moderate

measures)

mitigation

Medium

1.3. Avifauna impact assessment

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

Significance of impact/risk

= consequence x probability

Status

Duration

receiving

measures

Probability

impact/risk

Consequence

Spatial Extent

Confidence level

Irreplaceability of

Without

(residual

Nature Nature of potential

Potential mitigation

mitigation

risk/impact)

environment/resource

Reversibility impact of

Ranking Ranking of impact/risk

/management /management

Aspect/ Impact pathway

With mitigation

CONSTRUCTION PHASE DIRECT IMPACTS

Loss of Avifauna  Keep Disturbance footprint to a Habitat and

term

Diversity due to - minimum. Moderate Low 1

High

strict species loss Local

Certain

Yes withYes

habitat destruction Negative  Practice continual rehabilitation

Moderate

mitigation

Long

Substantial

 Monitor Bird fatalities. Loss of Avifauna

Diversity due to  Keep Disturbance footprint to a

term

Species loss - Moderate Low 2

Site

minimum High disturbance and strict

Yes withYes

Negative

Moderate

Very likelyVery

mitigation

Long barrier effect Substantial

 Keep Disturbance footprint to a

Avifauna habitat Habitat and term

- minimum Moderate Low 4

Site

High fragmentation species loss strict

Yes withYes

Negative

Moderate

Very likelyVery

mitigation

Long

Substantial

133 Table 18: Avifauna: Impact Assessment Summary Table – Operational Phase Impacts

Significance of impact/risk

= consequence x probability

Status

Duration

receiving

measures

Probability

impact/risk

Consequence

Spatial Extent

Confidence level

Irreplaceability of

Without

(residual

Nature Nature of potential

Potential mitigation

mitigation

risk/impact)

environment/resource

Reversibility impact of

Ranking Ranking of impact/risk

/management /management

Aspect/ Impact pathway

With mitigation

OPERATIONAL PHASE DIRECT IMPACTS

 Use bird friendly towers

 Utilize underground cabling as far as

Collision and possible.

term

electrocution on Species loss - High Low 2

Site

High

Likely  Conduct an Avifauna walkthrough before

powerlines Negative

Moderate Moderate

mitigation Long construction starts.

Yes withYes strict  Install bird reflectors/deflectors

Electrocutions on

term

substations and Species loss -  Regular maintenance High Low 3

Site

High

switching stations Negative

Moderate

Very likelyVery

mitigation

Long

Substantial

Yes withYes strict

Collision of birds with  Implement monitoring program

term

panels and other Species loss - Moderate Low 5

Site

High

strict Likely

Yes withYes

infrastructure Negative

Moderate

mitigation

Long

Substantial

134 Table 19: Avifauna: Impact Assessment Summary Table – Cumulative Impacts

Significance of impact/risk

= consequence x probability

of impact of

Status

Duration

Probability

impact/risk

Consequence

Spatial Extent

Confidence level

(residual

Nature Nature of potential

risk/impact)

environment/resource

Reversibility

Ranking Ranking of impact/risk

/management /management

Aspect/ Impact pathway

With mitigation

Irreplaceability receiving of

Without mitigation

Potential mitigation measures

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Avifauna Cumulative impact

term

habitat and -  Keep Disturbance to designated areas High Moderate 4 of PV infrastructure

Medium

Regional

Species loss Negative

Very likelyVery

Long

Substantial

Low reversibilityLow

decommissioning)

Yes Yes (rehabilitation after

1.4. Wetlands and aquatic ecology impact assessment

Table 20: Wetlands: Impact Assessment Summary Table – Construction Phase Impacts

Significance of impact/risk

= consequence x probability

Status

Duration

receiving

measures

Probability

impact/risk

Consequence

Spatial Extent

With

Confidence level

Irreplaceability of

Without

(residual

Nature Nature of potential

Potential mitigation

mitigation mitigation

risk/impact)

environment/resource

Reversibility impact of

Ranking Ranking of impact/risk

/management

Aspect/ Impact pathway

CONSTRUCTION PHASE DIRECT IMPACTS

Clearing of vegetation for Loss of wetland Rehabilitation with native High (overgrazed Avoid wetland

term Moderate No impact 3 the Edison Solar PV buffers - species vegetation) buffers

Site

High

Definite

Negative

Long

Substantial

135 Loss of pan

Clearing of vegetation for area, pan Rehabilitation with native Avoid wetlands and

term Moderate Moderate Low 3 electrical infrastructure habitat and - species buffers

Site

High

Definite

buffers Negative

Moderate

Long

Table 21: Wetlands: Impact Assessment Summary Table – Cumulative Impacts

Significance of impact/risk

= consequence x probability

Status

Duration

Probability

impact/risk

Consequence

Spatial Extent

Confidence level

(residual

Nature Nature of potential

environment/resource

Reversibility impact of

risk/impact)

Ranking Ranking of impact/risk

Aspect/ Impact pathway

/management

With mitigation

Irreplaceability receiving of

Without mitigation

Potential mitigation measures

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Cumulative

Vegetation loss of Rehabilitation with native Avoid wetlands and

term Moderate Moderate No impact 4 clearing ephemeral - species buffers

Site

High

Definite

pans Negative

Moderate

Long

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

Significance of impact/risk

= consequence x probability

With mitigation

Status impact Without

pathway

Duration

receiving

measures

Ranking Ranking of

Probability

impact/risk /management impact/risk

Consequence Spatial Extent mitigation

Reversibility of

Aspect/ Impact

Confidence level

Irreplaceability of (residual

Nature Nature of potential Potential mitigation /management environment/resource risk/impact) CONSTRUCTION PHASE DIRECT IMPACTS

Internal access roads,

vehicular activities on Erosion and term  200 m buffer around pan; - Moderate Low positive 4

site and site Sedimentation  Remove stock animals High

catchment

Negative

Moderate

Very likelyVery

Long

Substantial preparation vegetation)

(endangered

Pan

Yes Yes (rehabilitation

after Construction)

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

136

Significance of impact/risk

= consequence x probability

mitigation With mitigation

Status impact Without

pathway

Duration

receiving

measures

Ranking Ranking of

Probability

impact/risk /management impact/risk

Consequence Spatial Extent mitigation

Reversibility of

Aspect/ Impact

Confidence level

Irreplaceability of (residual

Nature Nature of potential Potential /management environment/resource risk/impact) OPERATION PHASE DIRECT IMPACTS

 200 m buffer around pan; Increased runoff from

 Maintain absence of stock

hardened surfaces and Erosion and term - animals Moderate Low positive 4

vehicular incursions into Sedimentation High catchment  Use of berms and canals to trap

Negative

Moderate

Very likelyVery

Long

Substantial the pan vegetation)

(endangered

Pan excess runoff

Yes Yes (rehabilitation

after Construction)

Table 24: Aquatic Ecology: Impact assessment summary table – Decommissioning Phase impacts.

Significance of impact/risk

= consequence x probability

With mitigation

Status

aceability of

pathway Without

Duration

receiving

measures

Ranking Ranking of

Probability impact/risk /management impact/risk

Consequence Spatial Extent mitigation

Aspect/ Impact

Confidence level

Irrepl (residual

Nature Nature of potential Potential mitigation /management

environment/resource Reversibility impact of risk/impact) OPERATION PHASE DIRECT IMPACTS

 200m buffer around pan;

Increased threat for  Maintain absence of stock

Erosion and term loosened topsoil and - animals; Moderate Low positive 4

Sedimentation High lack of anchorage  Use of berms and canals to trap

Negative

Very likelyVery

Long

Substantial

vegetation)

Construction) excess runoff

Pan catchment

Moderate (endangered

Yes Yes (rehabilitation after

137 1.5. Soils and agricultural potential impact assessment

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

Significance of impact/risk

= consequence x probability

Status

Duration With mitigation

measures

Probability impact/risk Without mitigation

Consequence Spatial Extent /management /management Confidence level

Nature Nature of potential Potential mitigation (residual risk/impact)

environment/resource

Reversibility impact of

Ranking Ranking of impact/risk

Aspect/ Impact pathway

Irreplaceability receiving of

CONSTRUCTION PHASE DIRECT IMPACTS

Occupation of the Loss of

land by the project agricultural land None Moderate Moderate 3

Site

Low

High High

infrastructure use Negative

Very Very Likely

Substantial

Medium term

Change in land

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

Site

Low Low

term

High

Unlikely

Medium

characteristics. Negative

Moderate

Constructional

activities that Loss of topsoil Strip, stockpile and re-spread topsoil during rehabilitation. Low Low 4

Site

Low

term disturb the soil High

Unlikely

Medium

Negative profile. Moderate Moderate

Construction dust Degradation of Control dust Very Low Very Low 5

Site

Low

term

High High

Likely

generation veld vegetation Slight

Medium

Negative

Additional land Project land rental None Low positive Low positive 4

Site

Low use income High High

Positive

Moderate

Long termLong

Very Very Likely

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

Significance of impact/risk

= consequence x probability

Status

impact

pathway

Duration

receiving receiving

measures

Ranking ofRanking

Probability

impact/risk With mitigation impact/risk

Consequence Spatial Extent Spatial Without mitigation

Reversibility of Reversibility

Aspect/ Impact Aspect/

Confidence level Confidence

Irreplaceability of Irreplaceability /management (residual

Nature of potential Nature of potential

Potential mitigation Potential

environment/resourc /management risk/impact) OPERATION PHASE DIRECT IMPACTS

Occupation of the land

Loss of agricultural by the project Facilitate grazing of small stock within the panel areas. Low Low 4

Site

Low land use High High

infrastructure Negative

Moderate

Long term Long

Very Likely Very

Change in land surface Erosion Implement an effective system of storm water run-off control. Low Low 4

Site

Low Low characteristics. High

Unlikely

Negative

Moderate

Long term Long

Additional land use Project land rental None Low positive Low positive 4

Site

Low income High High

Positive

Moderate

Long term Long

Very Likely Very

Increased security

Fencing and securing against stock theft Ensure fencing is jackal proof. Low positive Low positive 4

Site

Low of facility perimeter High High

and predation. Positive

Moderate

Long term Long

Very Likely Very

Table 27: Agriculture and Soil Potential: Impact assessment summary table – Decommissioning Phase impacts.

Significance of impact/risk

= consequence x probability

Status

ial mitigation

Duration With mitigation

measures

Probability impact/risk Without mitigation

Consequence Spatial Extent /management /management Confidence level

Nature Nature of potential Potent (residual risk/impact)

environment/resource

Reversibility impact of

Ranking Ranking of impact/risk

Aspect/ Impact pathway

Irreplaceability receiving of

DECOMMISSIONING PHASE DIRECT IMPACTS

Occupation of the Loss of

land by the project agricultural None Moderate Moderate 3

Site

Low

term

High High

Medium

infrastructure land use Negative

Very Very Likely

Substantial

139

Significance of impact/risk

= consequence x probability

Status

ial mitigation

Duration With mitigation

measures

Probability impact/risk Without mitigation

Consequence Spatial Extent /management /management Confidence level

Nature Nature of potential Potent (residual risk/impact)

environment/resource

Reversibility impact of

Ranking Ranking of impact/risk

Aspect/ Impact pathway

Irreplaceability receiving of

Change in land Erosion Implement an effective system of storm water run-off control. Low Low 4

Site

Low Low

term surface characteristics. High

Unlikely

Medium

Negative

Moderate

Decommissioning

activities that disturb Loss of topsoil Strip, stockpile and re-spread topsoil during rehabilitation. Low Low 4

Site

Low

term

High

Unlikely

Medium

the soil profile. Negative

Moderate Moderate

Decommissioning Degradation of Control dust Very Low Very Low 5

Site

Low

term

High High

Likely

dust generation veld vegetation Slight

Medium

Negative

Additional land Project land rental None Low positive Low positive 4

Site

Low

Very Very

term

High High

Long Long

use income Likely

Positive

Moderate

Table 28: Agriculture and Soil Potential: Impact assessment summary table – Cumulative impacts.

Significance of impact/risk

= consequence x probability

Status

idence level

Duration With mitigation

measures

Probability impact/risk Without mitigation

Consequence Spatial Extent /management (residual /management Conf

Nature Nature of potential Potential mitigation risk/impact)

environment/resource

Reversibility impact of

Ranking Ranking of impact/risk

Aspect/ Impact pathway

Irreplaceability receiving of

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Occupation of the land

by the project Regional loss of None Moderate Moderate 3 infrastructure of agricultural land

Low

High High

Regional multiple developments Negative

Long termLong

Very Very Likely

Substantial

140 1.6. Heritage impact assessment

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

Significance of impact/risk

= consequence x probability

pact/risk

With mitigation

Status

Duration

Probability Without mitigation /management

Consequence

Spatial Extent

of of potential impact/risk

Confidence level /management (residual

environment/resource

Reversibility impact of

Ranking Ranking of im

Aspect/ Impact pathway risk/impact)

Irreplaceability receiving of

Potential mitigation measures

Nature

CONSTRUCTION PHASE DIRECT IMPACTS

 A palaeontologist should inspect the pre-construction

Destruction of Clearing of - geotechnical report to evaluate potential impacts to the Ecca palaeontological Formation and the need for any further work; and Moderate Very low 5

High

Local site Non

Unlikely  Appoint a palaeontologist to check for sensitive features prior to

resources Negative

reversible

Permanent

Substantial Irreplaceable construction.

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

Destruction of

Clearing of -  Archaeological excavation to be undertaken by a professional archaeological Low Very low 5

Site

High site Non archaeologist; and

resources Negative

reversible

Moderate

Very likelyVery Permanent  Ensure all works occur inside approved development footprint.

Irreplaceable

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

Site

reversible site High

Extreme

Negative

Permanent

Very unlikelyVery

Irreplaceable

Non

Clearing of

Alteration of the site and  Use earthy-coloured paint on built elements; and cultural and natural Low Low 4

High High construction Local  All staff and vehicles to remain in authorised project footprint.

landscape Negative

Moderate Moderate

Very likelyVery of facility termLong CONSTRUCTION PHASE INDIRECT IMPACTS

Workers

 Ensure that construction footprint is fenced and that workers are

wondering Damage to graves le Low Very low 5

Site

High Non not allowed off site.

Unlikely

off site Negative

reversible

Moderate

Permanent

Irreplaceab

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

Significance of impact/risk

= consequence x probability

Status With mitigation

Duration

measures

Probability

impact/risk

Consequence

Spatial Extent Without mitigation /management

Confidence level

Nature Nature of potential

Potential mitigation /management (residual

environment/resource

Reversibility impact of

Ranking Ranking of impact/risk Aspect/ Impact pathway risk/impact)

Irreplaceability receiving of

OPERATION PHASE DIRECT IMPACTS

Alteration of

Operation of the cultural  All staff and vehicles to remain in authorised project footprint Low Low 4

High High facility and natural Local

Negative

Moderate Moderate

Very likelyVery landscape termLong

OPERATION PHASE INDIRECT IMPACTS

Staff Damage to wondering  Ensure that PV footprint is fenced and that staff are not allowed off site Very low Very low 5

Site

reversible graves High

unlikely

off site Negative

Extremely

Moderate

Permanent

Irreplaceable

Non

Table 31: Heritage Impact assessment summary table – Decommissioning Phase impacts.

Significance of impact/risk

= consequence x probability

Status With mitigation

Duration

Probability

Consequence

Spatial Extent Without mitigation /management

Confidence level /management (residual

environment/resource

Reversibility impact of

Ranking Ranking of impact/risk Aspect/ Impact pathway risk/impact)

Irreplaceability receiving of

Potential mitigation measures

Nature Nature of potential impact/risk

DECOMMISSIONING PHASE DIRECT IMPACTS Alteration

Removal of

of the facility (i.e. cultural and  All staff and vehicles to remain in authorised project footprint. Low Low 4

High High construction Local

natural Negative

Moderate Moderate

Very likelyVery vehicles, etc.) termLong landscape

142

Significance of impact/risk

= consequence x probability

Status With mitigation

Duration

Probability

Consequence

Spatial Extent Without mitigation /management

Confidence level /management (residual

environment/resource

Reversibility impact of

Ranking Ranking of impact/risk Aspect/ Impact pathway risk/impact)

Irreplaceability receiving of

Potential mitigation measures

Nature Nature of potential impact/risk

DECOMMISSIONING PHASE INDIRECT IMPACTS

Workers Damage to wondering off  Ensure that PV footprint is fenced and that staff are not allowed off site. Very low Very low 5

Site

reversible graves High

unlikely

site Negative

Extremely

Moderate

Permanent

Irreplaceable

Non

Table 32: Heritage: Impact assessment summary table – Cumulative impacts.

Significance of impact/risk

= consequence x probability

Status With mitigation

Duration

Probability

Consequence

Spatial Extent Without mitigation /management

Confidence level /management (residual

environment/resource

Reversibility impact of

Ranking Ranking of impact/risk

Aspect/ Impact pathway

Irreplaceability receiving of risk/impact)

Potential mitigation measures

Nature Nature of potential impact/risk

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

 A palaeontologist should inspect the pre-

construction geotechnical report to evaluate

Destruction of Clearing of - potential impacts to the Ecca Formation and the palaeontological Moderate Very low 5

High

Local site Non need for any further work; and

Unlikely

resources Negative

reversible

Permanent Substantial  Appoint a palaeontologist to check for sensitive

Irreplaceable features prior to construction.

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

Destruction of Clearing of -  Archaeological excavation to be undertaken by a archaeological Low Very low 5

High

Local site Non professional archaeologist; and

resources Negative

reversible

Moderate

Very likelyVery Permanent  Ensure all works occur inside approved

Irreplaceable development footprint.

143

Significance of impact/risk

= consequence x probability

Status With mitigation

Duration

Probability

Consequence

Spatial Extent Without mitigation /management

Confidence level /management (residual

environment/resource

Reversibility impact of

Ranking Ranking of impact/risk Aspect/ Impact pathway risk/impact)

Irreplaceability receiving of

Potential mitigation measures

Nature Nature of potential impact/risk

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Clearing of -  Avoid graves with a buffer of at least 5 m from Destruction of graves Low Very low 5

Site

High site Non actual graves.

Extreme

Negative

reversible

Permanent

Very unlikelyVery

Irreplaceable

Clearing of

Alteration of the site and  Use earthy-coloured paint on built elements; cultural and natural  All staff and vehicles to remain in authorised Low Low 4 High construction High

Regional project footprint.

landscape Negative

Moderate

Very likelyVery

Long termLong of facility Substantial

144 1.7. Visual landscape character impact assessment Table 33: Visual: Impact assessment summary table – Construction Phase impacts.

Significance of impact/risk

= consequence x probability

Status

Duration With mitigation

measures

Probability impact/risk Without mitigation

Consequence Spatial Extent /management (residual /management Confidence level

Nature Nature of potential Potential mitigation risk/impact)

environment/resource

Reversibility impact of

Ranking Ranking of impact/risk

Aspect/ Impact pathway

Irreplaceability receiving of

CONSTRUCTION PHASE DIRECT IMPACTS

Visual intrusion of

construction

activities

 Phased clearing of the area for solar field in order to associated with a Loss of visual reduce the amount and duration of bare soil Moderate Low 4

Low PV Plant on resources High

Region

Negative exposure.

Very likelyVery existing views of Substantial

sensitive visual structures)visible

Short to Medium Term receptors (removalHigh of highly

Construction

activities Loss of visual  In line with best practice construction guidelines. Low Low 5

Low

High

Local

associated with resources Likely

Negative

Moderate transmission lines structures)

highly visible

Very ShortVery Term

High (removalHigh of

145 Table 34: Visual: Impact assessment summary table – Operation Phase impacts.

Significance of impact/risk

ing

= consequence x probability

Status

Duration With mitigation

measures

Probability impact/risk Without mitigation

Consequence Spatial Extent /management (residual /management Confidence level

Nature Nature of potential Potential mitigation risk/impact)

environment/resource

Reversibility impact of

Ranking Ranking of impact/risk

Aspect/ Impact pathway

Irreplaceability receiv of

OPERATION PHASE DIRECT IMPACTS

 A maintenance plan for buildings and structures

Potential landscape should be followed to ensure that structures remain

Change of impact of a large Solar as non-reflective as possible, and buildings remain

landscape Low as unobtrusive as possible. Very Low Very Low 4

High

Slight Energy Facility on a rural High

Regional Negative  Maintenance of access roads should not cause

Very Very Likely character Long Term agricultural landscape further disturbance and damage to the surrounding landscape  A maintenance plan for buildings and structures

should be followed to ensure that structures remain

Change of Landscape impact caused as non-reflective as possible, and buildings remain

landscape Low as unobtrusive as possible. Very Low Very Low 5

High

Local

Likely

Slight by transmission lines High Negative  Maintenance of access roads should not cause character Long Term further disturbance and damage to the surrounding landscape Change in

existing

Visual intrusion of a solar views of  Building facades and colours such that they blend in

energy facility on views of Low with the landscape background where technically Low Very Low 4

High

sensitive High

Regional

Negative Moderate feasible.

Very Very Likely sensitive visual receptors Long Term visual receptors. Change in

Visual intrusion of existing

transmission lines on views of  Powerline towers to be similar to those in the

Low Very Low Very Low 5

High

Local

Likely

Slight views of sensitive visual sensitive landscape already where possible. High

Negative receptors visual Long Term receptors

Light

Impact of night lighting pollution in  Lighting plan should be prepared which will

on the nightscape of the Low Very Low Very Low 5

High

Local

Likely

Slight a dark minimise impacts on the nightscape High

Negative

region Long Term nightscape.

146

Table 35: Visual: Impact assessment summary table – Decommissioning Phase impacts.

Significance of impact/risk

= consequence x probability

Status With mitigation

Duration

measures

Probability Without

impact/risk

Consequence

Spatial Extent /management

mitigation Confidence level

Nature Nature of potential

Potential mitigation (residual

environment/resource

Reversibility impact of /management Ranking of impact/risk Aspect/ Impact pathway risk/impact)

Irreplaceability receiving of

DECOMMISSIONING PHASE DIRECT IMPACTS

Visual impact of

decommissioning activities Impact on

associated with a PV Plant on visual  Rehabilitation of areas cleared for solar field Moderate Low 4

Low

High High

Regional

existing views of sensitive visual resources Negative

Very Very Likely

Substantial

Short Term receptors

Visual impact of

decommissioning activities Impact on  Disturbed and transformed areas should be

associated with transmission visual rehabilitated. Other best practice guidelines for Low Low 4

Low

High High

Local

Likely

lines on existing views of resources Negative construction activities apply.

Moderate

sensitive visual receptors shortVery term

Table 36: Visual: Impact assessment summary table – Cumulative impacts.

Significance of impact/risk

= consequence x probability

Status With mitigation

Duration

measures

Probability

impact/risk

Consequence

Spatial Extent Without mitigation /management

Confidence level

Nature Nature of potential

Potential mitigation /management (residual

environment/resource

Reversibility impact of

Ranking Ranking of impact/risk Aspect/ Impact pathway risk/impact)

Irreplaceability receiving of

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

 Best practice and implementation of

Cumulative impact Change in appropriate management and mitigation on the landscape landscape Very Low Very Low 5

Low

term

High High

Long Long

Likely

Slight of impacts by all proposed solar energy

Neutral

of the region. character Regional facility

147

Significance of impact/risk

= consequence x probability

Status With mitigation

Duration

measures

Probability

impact/risk

Consequence

Spatial Extent Without mitigation /management

Confidence level

Nature Nature of potential

Potential mitigation /management (residual

environment/resource

Reversibility impact of

Ranking Ranking of impact/risk Aspect/ Impact pathway risk/impact)

Irreplaceability receiving of

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

 Best practice and implementation of

Cumulative impact Visual appropriate management and mitigation on sensitive visual Low Low 4

Low

High High

intrusion Likely of impacts by all proposed solar energy

Regional receptors. Negative

Moderate Long Long Term facility

1.8. Socio-economics impact assessment Table 37: Socio-economics: Impact assessment summary table – Construction Phase impacts.

Significance of impact/risk

= consequence x probability

Status

Duration With mitigation

Probability Without mitigation

Consequence Spatial Extent /management /management Confidence level (residual risk/impact)

environment/resource

Reversibility impact of

Ranking Ranking of impact/risk

Aspect/ Impact pathway

Irreplaceability receiving of

Potential mitigation measures

Nature Nature of potential impact/risk

CONSTRUCTION PHASE DIRECT IMPACTS  Maximise positive impacts

 Set targets for use of local labour

Expenditure

Project term  Maximise opportunities for the training of unskilled and skilled workers. related impacts - Moderate positive Moderate positive 3

Low Low expenditure  Use local sub-contractors where possible High

Positive

Definite

on jobs etc. Regional

Short Substantial  Assist smaller enterprises where possible in tendering for contracts  Aim to meet DoE socio-economic development scorecard  Implement a ‘locals first’ policy

Social impact

 Make available a complaints register on site to any individual

associated with term Influx of workers -  Establish a Monitoring Forum for the project Moderate Low 4

Low

high an influx of High

Highly Highly

Regional

Negative probable  Implement an HIV/AIDS awareness programme

Moderate

Short people Medium to  enable workers from outside the area to return home over weekends

148

Significance of impact/risk

= consequence x probability

Status

Duration With mitigation

Probability Without mitigation

Consequence Spatial Extent /management /management Confidence level (residual risk/impact)

environment/resource

Reversibility impact of

Ranking Ranking of impact/risk

Aspect/ Impact pathway

Irreplaceability receiving of

Potential mitigation measures

Nature Nature of potential impact/risk

CONSTRUCTION PHASE DIRECT IMPACTS  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.

Impacts on  The community will be able to contact the site manager

Presence of facility term

surrounding land  Make available a complaints register Moderate Low 4

Low

High and workers Local

owners Negative  A fire management plan should be drawn up

Moderate

Short

Highly Highly probable  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 Medium to high

Visual and other Impacts on term  Implement measures to minimise visual and ecological impacts which would contribute - Moderate Low 4

Low

High impacts tourism Local to minimising tourism impacts.

Medium

Negative

Moderate

Short

Highly Highly probable

Impact on

Visual and other term  Implement measures to minimise visual, agricultural and ecological impacts which surrounding - Moderate Low 4

Low

High impacts Local would contribute to minimising impacts on property values.

Medium

property values Negative

Moderate

Short

Highly Highly probable

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

Significance of impact/risk

= consequence x probability

Status

Duration With mitigation

Probability Without mitigation

Consequence Spatial Extent /management /management Confidence level (residual risk/impact)

environment/resource

Reversibility impact of

Ranking Ranking of impact/risk

Aspect/ Impact pathway

Irreplaceability receiving of

Potential mitigation measures

Nature Nature of potential impact/risk

OPERATION PHASE DIRECT IMPACTS  Maximise positive impacts

 Set targets for use of local labour

Project Expenditure related term  Maximise opportunities for the training of unskilled and skilled workers. - Moderate positive Moderate positive 3

Low Low expenditure impacts on jobs etc.  Use local sub-contractors where possible High

Positive

Definite

Regional

Short Substantial  Assist smaller enterprises where possible in tendering for contracts  Aim to meet DoE socio-economic development scorecard  Close liaison with local municipal and other stakeholders involved in socio- Funding of socio- economic development

Socio-economic economic and  Establish a Monitoring Forum for the project Moderate to high

term development enterprise -  Implement an HIV/AIDS awareness program Moderate positive 3 - 2

Low Low positive High

Positive

Definite contribution development Regional  Make necessary arrangements to enable workers from outside the area to

Long

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

 Implement a ‘locals first’ policy

Social impact  Make available a complaints register on site to any individual

term Influx of workers associated with an -  Establish a Monitoring Forum for the project Moderate Low 4

Low

high

High

Highly Highly

Regional

influx of people Negative probable  Implement an HIV/AIDS awareness programme

Moderate

Short

Medium to  enable workers from outside the area to return home over weekends

150 Significance of impact/risk

= consequence x probability

Status

Duration With mitigation

Probability Without mitigation

Consequence Spatial Extent /management /management Confidence level (residual risk/impact)

environment/resource

Reversibility impact of

Ranking Ranking of impact/risk

Aspect/ Impact pathway

Irreplaceability receiving of

Potential mitigation measures

Nature Nature of potential impact/risk

OPERATION PHASE DIRECT IMPACTS  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.

Impacts on

Presence of facility term  The community will be able to contact the site manager surrounding land - Moderate Low 4

Low

High

Local

and workers  Make available a complaints register

owners Negative

Moderate Short  A fire management plan should be drawn up Highly Highly probable  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 Medium to high

Visual and other term  Implement measures to minimise visual and ecological impacts which would Impacts on tourism - Moderate Low 4

Low

High impacts Local contribute to minimising tourism impacts.

Highly Highly

Medium

Negative probable

Moderate

Short

 Implement measures to minimise visual, agricultural and ecological impacts

Impact on

Visual and other term which would contribute to minimising impacts on property values. surrounding - Moderate Low 4

Low

High impacts Local  Monitor impacts on property values with the assistance of an independent

Highly Highly

Medium

property values Negative probable

Moderate Short valuer.

151 Table 39: Socio-economics: Impact assessment summary table – Decommissioning Phase impacts.

Significance of impact/risk

= consequence x probability

Status

Duration With mitigation

Probability Without mitigation

Consequence Spatial Extent /management /management Confidence level (residual risk/impact)

environment/resource

Reversibility impact of

Ranking Ranking of impact/risk

Aspect/ Impact pathway

Irreplaceability receiving of

Potential mitigation measures

Nature Nature of potential impact/risk

DECOMMISSIONING PHASE DIRECT IMPACTS  Maximise positive impacts

 Set targets for use of local labour

Project Expenditure related term  Maximise opportunities for the training of unskilled and skilled workers. - Moderate positive Moderate positive 3

Low Low expenditure impacts on jobs etc.  Use local sub-contractors where possible High

Positive

Definite

Regional

Short Substantial  Assist smaller enterprises where possible in tendering for contracts  Aim to meet DoE socio-economic development scorecard

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

economic development

Socio-economic economic and  Establish a Monitoring Forum for the project Moderate to high

term development enterprise - Moderate positive 3 - 2

Low Low  Implement an HIV/AIDS awareness program positive High

Positive

Definite contribution development Regional

Long Substantial  Make necessary arrangements to enable workers from outside the area to return initiatives home over weekends and or on a regular basis during the construction phase

 Implement a ‘locals first’ policy

Social impact  Make available a complaints register on site to any individual

term

Influx of workers associated with an probable  Establish a Monitoring Forum for the project Moderate Low 4

Low

High

Regional influx of people Negative  Implement an HIV/AIDS awareness programme

Moderate

Short

Highly Highly

 enable workers from outside the area to return home over weekends Medium to high

 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.

Impacts on

Presence of facility term  The community will be able to contact the site manager surrounding land - Moderate Low 4

Low

High

Local

and workers  Make available a complaints register

owners Negative

to provide clarity on impacts and risks Medium to high

152

Significance of impact/risk

= consequence x probability

Status

Duration With mitigation

Probability Without mitigation

Consequence Spatial Extent /management /management Confidence level (residual risk/impact)

environment/resource

Reversibility impact of

Ranking Ranking of impact/risk

Aspect/ Impact pathway

Irreplaceability receiving of

Potential mitigation measures

Nature Nature of potential impact/risk

DECOMMISSIONING PHASE DIRECT IMPACTS

Visual and other term  Implement measures to minimise visual and ecological impacts which would Impacts on tourism - Moderate Low 4

Low

High impacts Local contribute to minimising tourism impacts.

Medium

Negative

Moderate

Short

Highly Highly probable

 Implement measures to minimise visual, agricultural and ecological impacts

Impact on

Visual and other term which would contribute to minimising impacts on property values. surrounding property - Moderate Low 4

Low

High impacts Local  Monitor impacts on property values with the assistance of an independent

Medium

values Negative

Moderate Short valuer.

Highly Highly probable

Table 40: Socio-economics: Impact assessment summary table – Cumulative impacts.

Significance of impact/risk

= consequence x probability

Status

Duration With mitigation

Probability impact/risk Without mitigation

Consequence Spatial Extent /management /management Confidence level Nature Nature of potential (residual risk/impact)

environment/resource

Reversibility impact of

Ranking Ranking of impact/risk

Aspect/ Impact pathway

Irreplaceability receiving of

Potential mitigation measures

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Applicant has limited control over other projects and therefore

Expenditure related term Project expenditure - cumulative impacts High positive High positive 5

Low Low impacts on jobs etc. High

Positive

Definite

Regional

Short

Substantial

153

Significance of impact/risk

= consequence x probability

Status

Duration With mitigation

Probability impact/risk Without mitigation

Consequence Spatial Extent /management /management Confidence level Nature Nature of potential (residual risk/impact)

environment/resource

Reversibility impact of

Ranking Ranking of impact/risk

Aspect/ Impact pathway

Irreplaceability receiving of

Potential mitigation measures

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Funding of socio-

Socio-economic economic and Applicant has limited control over other projects and therefore

term development enterprise - cumulative impacts High positive High positive 5

Low Low

High

Positive

Definite contribution development Regional

Long

Substantial initiatives

Social impact Applicant has limited control over other projects and therefore

term Influx of workers associated with an - cumulative impacts Moderate Moderate 4

Low

High

Regional influx of people Negative

Moderate

Short

Highly Highly probable

Medium to high

Impacts on Applicant has limited control over other projects and therefore

Presence of facility term surrounding land - cumulative impacts Moderate Moderate 4

Low

High and workers Local

owners Negative

Moderate

Short

Highly Highly probable

Medium to high

Applicant has limited control over other projects and therefore

Visual and other term Impacts on tourism - cumulative impacts Low to moderate Low to moderate 4 to3

Low

High impacts Local

Medium

Negative

Moderate

Short

Highly Highly probable

Impact on Applicant has limited control over other projects and therefore

Visual and other term surrounding - cumulative impacts Low to moderate Low to moderate 4 to3

Low

High impacts Local

Medium

property values Negative

Moderate

Short

Highly Highly probable

154 Appendix G

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

Substantive amendment to the Environmental Authorisation of Project manager and Environmental In progress 29 Solar the Edison PV solar development. Assessment Practitioner.

Sustainable Development Goal Lab on “Africa’s first Decision- In progress Project manager Future Earth Theatres”.

Strategic Environmental Assessment for Gas Pipeline Integrating Author and Editor: In progress DEA Corridors and Electricity Grid Expansion. Biodiversity and Ecology

Project management, In progress GEF funded biodiversity and land use projects technical/specialist support, and SANBI mentoring

Strategic Environmental Assessment Aquaculture Project member – Technical GIS and Department of Environmental In progress Development in South Africa mapping Affairs

Scoping and Environmental Impact Assessment for the March 2018 proposed development of the Kap Vley Wind Energy Facility Specialist study: Aquatic Ecology juwi Renewable Energies near Kleinzee in the Northern Cape

155 Completion Description Role Client

Scoping and Environmental Impact Assessment for the Specialist study: Visual Impact March 2018 proposed development of a 100 MW Solar Photovoltaic Facility juwi Renewable Energies Assessment near Kenhardt in the Northern Cape Province

Sustainable Development Goal Lab on “Mainstreaming Future Earth; Stockholm September resilience into climate change adaptation and disaster risk Project leader Resilience Centre; University of 2017 planning.” Tokyo (funders)

Strategic Environmental Assessment for the development of Department of Environmental June 2017 Project officer Shale Gas in South Africa Affairs

December Guidance for Resilience in the Anthropocene: Investments for Project member: Sustainability Stockholm Resilience Centre 2017 development (GRAID) – African Cities. assessment guideline (funder)

Environmental and Social Impact Assessment for the Floating Project member – Technical GIS and January 2017 Golar Liquid Natural Gas project near Kribi, Cameroon. mapping, ecology inputs

Environmental Screening Study for the Giyani Waste Oil Boiler, CSIR Enterprise Creation for October 2016 Limpopo: Environmental management plan for the Hi-Hanyile Project manager Development essential oil distillery

September Scoping and Environmental Impact Assessment for 5 x 100 Project manager and Environmental 29 Solar 2016 MW Solar PV facilities near Dealesville, Free State. Assessment Practitioner

Environmental and Social Impact Assessment for the Bomono Project member - Technical GIS and June 2016 EurOil Early Field Development Project, Cameroon. mapping, ecology inputs

Scoping and Environmental Impact Assessment for the Project member - Technical GIS and May 2016 proposed Development of a 7 x 75 MW Solar Photovoltaic Mulilo mapping Facilities near Kenhardt, Northern Cape

Scoping and Environmental Impact Assessment for the Project member - Technical GIS and April 2016 Proposed Development 3 x 75 MW Solar Photovoltaic Facilities Scatec mapping near Kenhardt, Northern Cape

Strategic Environmental Assessment for identification of Project member - Technical GIS and Department of Environmental April 2016 electricity grid infrastructure development corridors in South mapping Affairs Africa

Project member - Technical GIS and February Environmental Impact Assessment for the development of 12 mapping, ecology inputs, stakeholder Mainstream Renewable Energy 2016 Solar PV projects near Dealesville, Free State. engagement

September Environmental Screening Study for the Proposed Vaayu Project leader Vaayu Energy 2015 Energy SA Wind Energy Facility near Wesley, Eastern Cape

February Environmental Screening Study for Biochar- and Composting Project member - Technical GIS and Department of Environmental 2015 facilities in the Umzimvubu Catchment mapping & ecology inputs Affairs

Strategic Environmental Assessment for identification of Project member - Technical GIS and Department of Environmental March 2015 renewable energy zones for wind and solar PV projects in mapping Affairs South Africa

Rapid environmental screening study for WASA wind November Project member - Technical GIS and monitoring masts (11-15) in the eastern cape, Kwazulu-Natal CSIR Built Environment 2014 mapping and Free State provinces, South Africa

Environmental Screening Study for the importation of Liquid Project member - Technical GIS and August 2014 Western Cape Government Natural Gas into the Western Cape mapping, ecology inputs

156 Completion Description Role Client

Environmental Screening Study for a Proposed LNG Terminal Project member - Technical GIS and March 2014 at Saldanha and associated pipeline infrastructures to Atlantis PetroSA mapping, ecology inputs and Mossel Bay, Western Cape

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 (Cum Laude) 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).

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

157 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 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.

158 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

159