ESKOM HOLDINGS SOC LIMITED RUIGTEVALLEI-DREUNBERG 132KV POWERLINE AMENDMENT OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORISATION: DEA 14/12/16/3/2/61
24 MAY 2019 PUBLIC
RUIGTEVALLEI- DREUNBERG 132KV POWERLINE AMENDMENT OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORISATION: DEA 14/12/16/3/2/61
ESKOM HOLDINGS SOC LIMITED
TYPE OF DOCUMENT (VERSION) PUBLIC
PROJECT NO.: 41101408 DATE: MAY 2019
WSP BUILDING C, KNIGHTSBRIDGE 33 SLOANE STREET BRYANSTON, 2191 SOUTH AFRICA
T: +27 11 361 1380 F: +086 606 7121 WSP.COM
WSP Environmental (Pty) Ltd.
QUALITY MANAGEMENT
ISSUE/REVISION FIRST ISSUE REVISION 1 REVISION 2 REVISION 3
Remarks Draft Assessment Report – Public Review
DEA Ref: 14/12/16/3/2/61
Date May 2019
Prepared by Tutayi Chifadza
Signature
Checked by Ashlea Strong
Signature
Authorised by Ashlea Strong
Signature
Project number 41101408
Report number 1
File reference file:///W:\000 NEW Projects\41101408 - Eskom Ruigtevallei 132kV\42 ES\2- REPORTS\02-Assessment Report\
WSP is an ISO9001:2015, ISO14001:2015 and OHSAS18001:2007 certified company
SIGNATURES
PREPARED BY
Tutayi Chifadza Environmental Consultant
REVIEWED BY
Ashlea Strong Principal Consultant
This Draft Assessment Report (Report) has been prepared by WSP Environmental Proprietary Limited (WSP) on behalf and at the request of Eskom Holdings (SOC) Limited (Client), to provide the Client and all interested and affected parties with an understanding of the impacts associated with the proposed amendments to their Environmental Authorisation. Unless otherwise agreed by us in writing, we do not accept responsibility or legal liability to any person other than the Client for the contents of, or any omissions from, this Report. To prepare this Report, we have reviewed only the documents and information provided to us by the Client or any third parties directed to provide information and documents to us by the Client. We have not reviewed any other documents in relation to this Report, except where otherwise indicated in the Report.
P R ODUCTION TEAM
CLIENT – ESKOM HOLDINGS SOC LIMITED
Manager: Environmental Management: Angelina Shalang Land Development and Environment
WSP
Project Manager Ashlea Strong
Environmental Consultant Tutayi Chifadza
SUBCONSULTANTS
Wetland Specialist WSP Environmental (Pty) Ltd
Biodiversity Specialist Indwe Environmental Consulting: Megan Hugo
Avifaunal Specialist Wild Skies Environmental Consulting, Jon Smallie
Heritage Specialist eThembeni Cultural Heritage Management, Len van Schalkwyk
Palaeontology Specialist Natura Viva, Dr John Almond
ACRONYMS AND ABB REVIATIONS
AIA Archaeological Impact Assessment AR Assessment Report BA Basic Assessment BAR Basic Assessment Report CBA Critical Biodiversity Area DEA Department of Environmental Affairs DEDEAT Eastern Cape Department of Economic Development, Environmental Affairs and Tourism DPW Department of Public Works DRDLR Department of Rural Development and Land Reform DWS Department of Water and Sanitation EA Environmental Authorisation EAP Environmental Assessment Practitioner ECO Environmental Control Officer ECPHRA Eastern Cape Provincial Heritage Resources Authority ECPTA Eastern Cape Parks and Tourism Agency EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EIAR Environmental Impact Assessment Report EMPr Environmental Management Programme GNR Government Notice Regulations HIA Heritage Impact Assessment I&APs Interested and Affected Parties NEMA National Environmental Management Act NHRA National Heritage Resources Act PIA Palaeontological Impact Assessment SAHRA South African Heritage Resources Agency
CONTENT OF THIS R EPORT
As per the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations 2014, as amended, Regulation 32 of Government Notice Regulation (GNR) 326 identifies the legislated requirements, which must be contained within an Assessment Report for the competent authority to consider and come to a decision on the amendment application. The Table A below details where the required information is located within this draft Assessment Report (this report). Table A: Legal Requirements as detailed in Regulation 32 of GNR 326 RELEVANT Regulation 32 of REPORT GNR 326 DESCRIPTION SECTION
1 The applicant must within 90 days of receipt by the competent authority of the The final application made in terms of regulation 31, submit to the competent authority: Amendment Report will be submitted to DEA as per requirement
(a) A report reflecting:
(i) An assessment of all impacts related to the proposed change; Section 4 and Section 4.2.5
(ii) Advantages and disadvantages associated with the proposed change; and Section 3.3
(iii) Measures to ensure avoidance, management and mitigation of impacts Section 5 associated with such proposed change; and
(iv) Any changes to the EMPr: Section 5
Which report:
(i) Had been subjected to a public participation process, which had been Proof to be included agreed to by the competent authority, and which was appropriate to bring in the Final Report. 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
(ii) Reflects the incorporation of comments received, including any To be included in comments of the competent authority the Final Report.
(b) A notification in writing that the report will be submitted within 140 days of receipt Not Applicable of application by the competent authority, as significant changes have been made or significant new information has been added to the report, which changes or information was contained in the report consulted on during the initial public participation process contemplated in subregulation 1(a) and that the revised report will be subjected to another public participation process of at least 30 days.
2 In the event where subregulation (1)(b) applies, the report, which reflects the Not Applicable incorporation of comments received, including any comments of the competent authority, must be submitted to the competent authority within 140 days of receipt of the application by the competent authority
RUIGTEVALLEI-DREUNBERG 132KV POWERLINE WSP Project No. 41101408 May 2019 ESKOM HOLDINGS SOC LIMITED Page v
TABLE OF 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 PURPOSE OF THE REPORT ...... 1 CONTENTS 1.2 BACKGROUND AND PROJECT OVERVIEW ...... 1 1.3 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ...... 1 1.4 LEGAL FRAMEWORK ...... 1 1.5 TERMS OF REFERENCE ...... 1
2 STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT ...... 2
2.1 STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT PLAN ...... 2 2.2 STAKEHOLDER IDENTIFICATION ...... 3
3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...... 5
3.1 PROJECT HISTORY ...... 5 3.2 PROJECT AND SURROUNDING AREA ...... 5 3.3 ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES ...... 1
4 IMPACT ASSESSMENT ...... 2
4.1 IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY ...... 2 4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACTS ...... 5 4.3 OVERALL SENSITIVITY ...... 21
5 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME ...... 2
5.1 BIODIVERSITY ADDITIONAL OR AMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES ...... 2 5.2 AVIFAUNA ADDITIONAL OR AMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES ...... 2 5.3 SURFACE WATER AND WETLAND ADDITIONAL OR AMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES ...... 3 5.4 HERITAGE ADDITIONAL OR AMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES ...... 5 5.5 PALAEONTOLOGY ADDITIONAL OR AMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES ...... 5 5.6 SOIL AND LAND ADDITIONAL OR AMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES ...... 6
RUIGTEVALLEI-DREUNBERG 132KV POWERLINE WSP Project No. 41101408 May 2019 ESKOM HOLDINGS SOC LIMITED
5.7 CONCLUSION...... 6
6 CONCLUSION ...... 7
RUIGTEVALLEI-DREUNBERG 132KV POWERLINE WSP Project No. 41101408 May 2019 ESKOM HOLDINGS SOC LIMITED
TABLES TABLE 1-1: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE RUIGTEVALLEI- DREUNBERG 132KV POWERLINE EA ...... 1 TABLE 2-1: STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT PLAN IN TERMS OF REGULATION 41 ...... 2 TABLE 2-2: INTERESTED AND AFFECTED PARTIES TABLE ...... 3 TABLE 3-1: ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ...... 1 TABLE 4-1: SPECIALISTS APPOINTED TO DETERMINE AND ASSESS THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS ...... 5 TABLE 4-2: 2012 BIODIVERSITY IMPACTS SIGNIFICANCE RATING...... 6 TABLE 4-3: 2013 SECTION 24G BIODIVERSITY IMPACTS SIGNIFICANCE RATING...... 7 TABLE 4-4: 2012 AVIFAUNA IMPACTS SIGNIFICANCE RATING...... 9 TABLE 4-5: RED DATA SPECIES LIKELY IN STUDY AREA ...... 10 TABLE 4-6: 2013 AVIFAUNA IMPACTS SIGNIFICANCE RATING...... 11 TABLE 4-7: 2012 HERITAGE IMPACTS SIGNIFICANCE RATING...... 12 TABLE 4-8: 2013 HERITAGE IMPACTS SIGNIFICANCE RATING...... 13 TABLE 4-9: 2016 PALAEONTOLOGY IMPACTS SIGNIFICANCE RATING ...... 14 TABLE 4-10: 2013 PALAEONTOLOGY IMPACTS SIGNIFICANCE RATING ...... 15 TABLE 4-11: 2012 AQUATIC IMPACTS SIGNIFICANCE RATING...... 16 TABLE 4-12: 2013 AQUATIC IMPACTS SIGNIFICANCE RATING...... 17 TABLE 4-13: HYDROLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT TABLE ...... 17 TABLE 4-14: 2012 SOIL AND LAND IMPACTS SIGNIFICANCE RATING...... 19 TABLE 4-15: 2013 SOIL AND LAND IMPACTS SIGNIFICANCE RATING...... 21
FIGURES FIGURE 1-1: AMENDED LOCATION OF ACTIVITY ...... 1
RUIGTEVALLEI-DREUNBERG 132KV POWERLINE WSP Project No. 41101408 May 2019 ESKOM HOLDINGS SOC LIMITED
FIGURE 3-1: LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT ...... 1 FIGURE 4-1: 2019 CBA EXTENT MAP ...... 9 FIGURE 4-2: SENSITIVITY MAP IN RELATION THE RUIGTEVALLEI- DREUNBERG 132 KV LINE ...... 1
APPENDICES A PRE-APPLICATION CORRESPONDENCE B STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT B-1 Stakeholder Database B-2 Advert B-3 Site Notices B-4 Notification Letters C AMENDED ENVIORNMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME D SPECIALIST DECLARATIONS AND CVS E BIODIVERSITY 2016 AND 2019 REPORTS F SURFACE WATER 2016 AND 2019 REPORT G HERITAGE 2016 AND 2019 REPORT H PALAEONTOLOGY 2016 AND 2019 REPORT I UPDATED ROUTE CO-ORDINATES
RUIGTEVALLEI-DREUNBERG 132KV POWERLINE WSP Project No. 41101408 May 2019 ESKOM HOLDINGS SOC LIMITED
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE OF THE REPORT
This Draft Assessment Report (AR) documents the process and findings of the Eskom Holdings SOC Limited (Eskom) application for amendment of the Environmental Authorisation (EA) issued for the Ruigtevallei- Dreunberg 132kV Powerline (Reference: 14/12/16/3/2/61). This report has the purpose of amending the approved EA and Environmental Management Programme (EMPr), dated 2 September 2016, to be able to deviate portions of the approved powerline alignment. Due to the fact that the amendments result in a change of scope, a Part 2 Amendment Process in terms of Regulation 31 of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations of 2014 (amended in 2017) is required.
1.2 BACKGROUND AND PROJECT OVERVIEW
In 2012, Eskom received an EA for the Ruigtevallei-Dreunburg 132 kV powerline (DEA Ref 12/12/20/2315, issued on the 29 Nov 2012), however, breached the EA requirements by constructing an unauthorised route assessed during the Basic Assessment (BA) process. Following consultations with the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA), Eskom conducted a Section 24G process in order to rectify this breach and to then consider a newer blended route of its preferred option and DEA’s original authorised route. The Section 24G (Ref 14/12/16/3/2/61) was granted on the 02 Sep 2016. After approval of the Section 24G application by the DEA, three of the landowners along the proposed servitude had a change of mind regarding the approved route, although public consultations had been conducted as part of the Section 24G process. This prompted the requirement for an amendment to the approved Section 24G route. Meetings were held with the landowners and three deviations have been identified: — The first proposed deviation allows Eskom to construct along the existing 66 kV line for another segment and avoid a longer route of following the landowner’s outside fence line. This deviation does however mean that the line is closer to the Verreaux’s Eagle nest the landowner had initially flagged during the Section 24G process before it re-joins the currently approved Section 24G route; — The second proposed deviation will see the route shortened as it follows a more direct path and is closer to the existing 66 kV line; and — The final proposed deviation will see the line move slightly further away from the existing infrastructure but will then follow a more direct path with less turning points along the servitude compared to the currently approved route before joining the currently joining the approved route again. The proposed deviations are indicated in Figure 1-1.
1.3 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
A variation application has been compiled and Table 1-1 outlines the amendments proposed to the existing EA. Table 1-1: Proposed amendments to the Ruigtevallei-Dreunberg 132kV Powerline EA
ASPECT TO BE AMENDED AUTHORISED PROPOSED AMENDMENT EA REFERENCE Annexure 2 Annexure 2: 132kV Power Annexure 2: 132kV Power Annexure 2 – page 10 of the EA (page 13 Line Co-ordinates Line Co-ordinates of the pdf document) 84km Ruigtevallei Dreunberg Updated route including new 132kV powerline co-ordinates for deviations
RUIGTEVALLEI-DREUNBERG 132KV POWERLINE WSP Project No. 41101408 May 2019 ESKOM HOLDINGS SOC LIMITED Page 1
D1
D2
D3
Figure 1-1: Amended Location of Activity
RUIGTEVALLEI-DREUNBERG 132KV POWERLINE WSP Project No. 41101408 May 2019 ESKOM HOLDINGS SOC LIMITED Page 1
1.4 LEGAL FRAMEWORK
On the 7th April 2017 the Minister of Environmental Affairs promulgated amendment EIA Regulations [Government Notice Regulation (GNR 327)] in terms of Chapter 5 of the National Environmental Management Act (No. 107 of 1998), as Amended (NEMA). Regulations 31 and 32 of the EIA Regulations details the process for a Part 2 (Substantive) amendment of an environmental authorisation where a change of scope occurs, but a listed activity is not triggered. The proposed amendments do not trigger new activities; however, it is anticipated that there will be a potential change in impacts, which was previously authorised in the existing EA associated with facility’s operations. One of the aims of this report is to provide an outline of the proposed changes.
1.5 TERMS OF REFERENCE
WSP Environmental (Pty) Ltd (WSP) was appointed in the capacity as independent environmental assessment practitioner (EAP) to undertake the amendment process in terms of Regulation 31 and 32 of the 2017 EIA Regulations. The amendment application process to be followed is summarised below: — A pre-application meeting was held on 24 January 2019 and attended by the DEA, WSP and Eskom (minutes attached in Appendix A) — The application for variation of the EA was submitted to the DEA on 24 May 2019. — No fee payment of is required for the application for the variation of the EA as the exclusion applies as the applicant is an organ of state. Section 32 of the 2017 EIA Regulations requires that the Draft Report be subject to a public participation process prior to submission to the DEA. WSP will facilitate the following public participation process on behalf of Eskom: — Provision of the Draft Report for a 30-day comment period as per the requirements of Section 32 (1) (b). — All registered stakeholders (as per the existing Eskom database) will be notified by WSP of the availability of the Draft Report for comment. Copies will be made available at the Gariep Public Library, Venterstad Public Library and Burgersdorp Public Library, as well as on WSP’s webpage (https://www.wsp.com/en- ZA/services/public-documents). The Final Report will include copies of all stakeholder engagement records to submit to DEA for decision- making. All registered interested and affected parties (I&APs) will thereafter be notified of the DEA’s decision.
RUIGTEVALLEI-DREUNBERG 132KV POWERLINE WSP Project No. 41101408 May 2019 ESKOM HOLDINGS SOC LIMITED Page 1
2 STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
2.1 STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT PLAN
The stakeholder engagement plan is outlined in Table 2-1. Table 2-1: Stakeholder Engagement Plan in terms of Regulation 41
CURRENT NO. ITEMS STATUS DESCRIPTION
1 One newspaper advert Completed WSP placed an English advert in the Uit ons Kontrei local newspaper on in a local newspaper 24 May 2019. introducing the project and requesting public A copy of the advert is contained in Appendix B. input.
2 Six on-site notices Completed Site notices were placed along the proposed deviations and at three public placed at strategic libraries. locations. A copy of the site notice is contained in Appendix B. Proof of placement will be included in the Final Assessment Report.
3 Notification letters Completed Notification letters were distributed to stakeholders via email and post. In will be distributed addition stakeholders were notified via sms. (emailed and faxed) to the existing area A copy of the notification letter is contained in Appendix B. Proof of stakeholder database. distribution will be included in the Final Assessment Report.
4 The Draft Report will Completed The reports were distributed to the public venues for review and are available be delivered to the from 24 May to 25 June 2019. The public venues included: Gariep Public Library, Venterstad Public — Gariep Public Library; Library and — Venterstad Public Library; and Burgersdorp Public — Burgersdorp Public Library. Library for stakeholder review. Additionally, an electronic version of the report was placed on the client’s website to be accessed by the public at the following link: The Draft Report will https://www.wsp.com/en-ZA/services/public-documents also be made available on the clients website.
5 The notices described Completed Notification letters were be distributed to stakeholders via email and post. In above will include the addition stakeholders will be notified via sms.. Draft Report availability A copy of the notification letter is contained in Appendix B. Proof of date/venues. distribution will be included in the Final Assessment Report. Furthermore, SMSs Furthermore, a meeting with each of the landowners at the areas where the and faxes will be sent proposed change in route occurs. out to known stakeholders within Minutes of the landowner meetings will be included in the Final Assessment the greater area, Report. including affected ward councillors
6 All stakeholder Not yet No comments have been received to date. comments will be used applicable to update the Draft Report before DEA submission.
RUIGTEVALLEI-DREUNBERG 132KV POWERLINE WSP Project No. 41101408 May 2019 ESKOM HOLDINGS SOC LIMITED Page 2
CURRENT NO. ITEMS STATUS DESCRIPTION
7 Submission and Not yet The DEA is allocated 107 days to review the Final Environmental Decision-Making applicable Authorisation Amendment Assessment Report. The DEA must within this timeframe issue a decision on the application for amendment.
9 EA Not yet Notify registered I&APs of the amended decision and their right to appeal. applicable
2.2 STAKEHOLDER IDENTIFICATION
Section 41 of the 2017 EIA Regulations states that written notices must be given to identified stakeholders as outlined in Table 2-2. Relevant authorities (Organs of State) have been automatically registered as I&APs. In accordance with the EIA Regulations, 2017, all other persons must request in writing to be placed on the register, submit written comments or attend meetings in order to be registered as stakeholders and included in future communication regarding the project. Table 2-2: Interested and Affected Parties Table
NEMA REQUIREMENT DISCUSSION
All landowners along the powerline servitude will be notified of the (i) the owner or person in control of that land if the applicant is not the owner or person in control of the amendment process via email and sms. Furthermore, a meeting with land each of the landowners at the areas where the proposed change in route occurs. Since this occurs at different spots along the servitude, separate meetings will be held with each relevant landowner on the same day.
(ii) the occupiers of the site where the activity is or is to All landowners and as well as the personnel indicated on the be undertaken or to any alternative site where the original I&AP database will be notified of the proposed activity is to be undertaken amendment.
(iii) owners and occupiers of land adjacent to the site Adjacent landowner and occupier details were collected and the where the activity is or is to be undertaken or to any landowners were notified via a project notification letter via email alternative site where the activity is to be undertaken and/or sms notification.
(iv) the municipal councillor of the ward in which the Ward Councillor of Ward 1 (Walter Sisulu Local Municipality) has site or alternative site is situated and any organisation been included on the stakeholder database. of ratepayers that represent the community in the area
(v) the municipality which has jurisdiction in the area The Walter Sisulu Local Municipality which is located in the Joe Gqabi District Municipality have been included on the stakeholder database.
(vi) any organ of state having jurisdiction in respect of The Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) has been any aspect of the activity consulted as the competent authority.
RUIGTEVALLEI-DREUNBERG 132KV POWERLINE WSP Project No. 41101408 May 2019 ESKOM HOLDINGS SOC LIMITED Page 3
NEMA REQUIREMENT DISCUSSION
(vii) any other party as required by the competent All tiers of government, namely, national, provincial, local authority. government and parastatals have been included on the stakeholder database. Inclusive of: — Eastern Cape Department of Economic Development, Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEDEAT) — Department of Environmental Affairs: Biodiversity and Conservation Unit — Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS) — Department of Energy — Eastern Cape Parks and Tourism Agency (ECPTA) — South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA) — Department of Rural Development and Land Reform (DRDLR) — Department of Public Works (DPW) — Walter Sisulu Local Municipality — Joe Gqabi District Municipality — Heritage Western Cape
Appendix B1 provides a list of stakeholders registered on the project database. Stakeholders were identified through several mechanisms. These include: — Utilising the project’s existing database and databases from other projects in the area; — Obtaining the latest municipal ward councillor details through the municipality; — Pre-identified project key stakeholders such as the Walter Sisulu Local Municipality, the Joe Gqabi District Municipality and other commenting authorities; — Advertising in the press (Appendix B2); and — Placement of site and community notices (Appendix B3).
RUIGTEVALLEI-DREUNBERG 132KV POWERLINE WSP Project No. 41101408 May 2019 ESKOM HOLDINGS SOC LIMITED Page 4
3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1 PROJECT HISTORY
In 2012, Eskom lodged a BA process to acquire an EA for the construction of the Ruigtevallei-Dreunburg 132 kV powerline (DEA Ref: 12/12/20/2315). The EA was granted on the 29 November 2012 following the submission of the final basic assessment report (BAR) in June 2012. The final BAR assessed three route alternatives which included Eskom’s preferred route (Route 1) with Route 2 and Route 3 as alternatives. The BAR was supported by several specialist studies including biodiversity and avifauna, archaeology and palaeontology. No fatal flaws were identified for any of the routes, however, Route 3 was preferred by the DEA due to lower environmental impacts. In May 2013, Eskom began with the construction of the powerline. However, during construction, an independent Environmental Control Officer (ECO) established the wrong route (Route 1) was under construction during an environmental compliance audit in September 2013. Based on findings from the audit, construction ceased and a meeting was held which included Eskom and DEA Compliance Division personnel on 10 October 2013 in order to find a way forward. The DEA conducted reactive inspections on 17 October 2013 to assess the site. During the assessment of the routes, sections of Route 1 and Route 3 were identified as common, therefore, construction of these common segments continued. These sections run parallel to an existing 66 kV line, the first 13 km of the powerline leaving the Ruigtevallei substation and the last 20 km linked to the Dreunberg substation. Due to breach of the EA requirements, the DEA proposed that Eskom complete a Section 24G of NEMA application to rectify this non-compliance. Gibb (Pty) Ltd (Gibb) was the EAP that led Section 24G application. During the application, Eskom and the DEA agreed to develop a blend of both Route 1 and Route 3, to which the landowners along the servitude agreed to. The blended route proposed during the 24G application process was approved on 2 September 2016 (Ref: 14/12/16/3/2/61).
3.2 PROJECT AND SURROUNDING AREA
After approval of the Section 24G application by the DEA, three of the landowners along the proposed servitude had a change of mind regarding the approved route, although public consultations had been conducted as part of the Section 24G process. This prompted the requirement for an amendment to the approved Section 24G route. Meetings were held with the landowners and three deviations have been identified. — The first proposed deviation allows Eskom to construct along the existing 66 kV line for another segment and avoid a longer route of following the landowner’s outside fence line. This deviation does however mean that the line is closer to the Verreaux’s Eagle nest the landowner had initially flagged during the Section 24G process before it re-joins the currently approved Section 24G route; — The second proposed deviation will see the route shortened as it follows a more direct path and is closer to the existing 66 kV line; and — The final proposed deviation will see the line move slightly further away from the existing infrastructure but will then follow a more direct path with less turning points along the servitude compared to the currently approved route before joining the currently joining the approved route again The proposed amendments are located at three different farm areas along the currently authorised Section 24G route. The route is within Ward 1 of the Walter Sisulu Local Municipality which is located in the Joe Gqabi District Municipality, Eastern Cape Province. The Joe Gqabi district is south of the Orange River which separates the municipality from the Northern Cape and Free State Provinces. The farm areas where the proposed amendments are to take place include Farm 255, Wildebeeste Valley 59 and Broek Poort 112. The first two proposed amendments (Farm 255 and Wildebeeste Valley 59) are within the 5 km buffer of the Oviston Nature Reserve which lies both north and south of the Gariep Dam. The Walter Sisulu Local Municipality has three major towns including Burgersdorp, Steynsburg and Venterstad. The surrounding area is mainly rural with the Gariep Dam, the N1, The Oviston Nature Reserve, R58 road linkages and livestock farming being the key features of the area. The district area has extensive farming which required service centres of Venterstad, Steynsburg and Burgersdorp in order to facilitate transportation of goods. The locality of the proposed project area is indicated in Figure 3-1 below.
RUIGTEVALLEI-DREUNBERG 132KV POWERLINE WSP Project No. 41101408 May 2019 ESKOM HOLDINGS SOC LIMITED Page 5
Figure 3-1: Location of the Proposed Project
RUIGTEVALLEI-DREUNBERG 132KV POWERLINE WSP Project No. 41101408 May 2019 ESKOM HOLDINGS SOC LIMITED Page 1
3.3 ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
The advantages and disadvantages for the proposed amendments are outlined in Table 3-1 below. Table 3-1: Advantages and Disadvantages of the Proposed Amendments
PROPOSED AMENDMENT ADVAVNTAGE DISADVANTAGE
Deviation 1 — Acknowledges and takes the landowner — Passes closer to Verreaux’s Eagle nest requirements into account; and increasing chances for collisions; — Follows along existing infrastructure — Route is longer; and therefore only impacts an already — Route places powerline closer to the Oviston impacted area. Nature Reserve and therefore the likelihood of fauna being impacted during construction and operation is somewhat higher.
Deviation 2 — Acknowledges and takes the landowner — Route place powerline closer to the Oviston requirements into account; Nature Reserve and therefore the likelihood of — Route is shorter; and fauna being impacted during construction and operation is somewhat higher. — Partially follows along existing infrastructure therefore only impacts an already impacted area.
Deviation 3 — Acknowledges and takes the landowner — None requirements into account; — Follows a straight forward route with minimal turns along the farm boundary; and — No consequence from a biodiversity standpoint.
RUIGTEVALLEI-DREUNBERG 132KV POWERLINE WSP Project No. 41101408 May 2019 ESKOM HOLDINGS SOC LIMITED Page 1
4 IMPACT ASSESSMENT
4.1 IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
To ensure a direct comparison between various specialist studies, a standard rating scale has been defined and was used to assess and quantify the identified impacts. The impact assessment used a rating criteria as per the 2014 EIA regulations and the following rating criteria was used to determine the significance of the identified impacts.
CRITERIA RATING SCALE NOTES
Nature Positive This is an evaluation of the type of effect the construction, operation and management of the proposed development would have on the affected Negative environment. Would it be positive, negative or neutral? Neutral
Extent Low Site-specific, affects only the development footprint This refers to the spatial scale at which the impact will occur. Medium Local (limited to the site and its immediate surroundings, including the surrounding towns and settlements within a 10 km radius);
High Regional (beyond a 10 km radius) to national
Duration Low Short-term: 0-5 years, typically impacts that are quickly reversible within the construction phase of the project
Medium Medium-term, 6-10 years, reversible over time
High Long-term, 10-60 years, and continue for the operational life span of the development
Intensity Low Where the impact affects the environment in such a way that natural, cultural and social functions and This is a relative evaluation within the processes are minimally affected context of all the activities and the other impacts within the framework of the project. Does the activity destroy the impacted Medium Where the affected environment is altered but natural, environment, alter its functioning, or render it cultural and social functions and processes continue slightly altered. albeit in a modified way; and valued, important, sensitive or vulnerable systems or communities are negatively affected
High Where natural, cultural or social functions and processes are altered to the extent that the impact will temporarily or permanently cease; and valued, important, sensitive or vulnerable systems or communities are substantially affected.
Degrees of Reversibility Low Impacted natural, cultural or social functions and processes will return to their pre-impacted state within This considers the ability of the impacted the short-term. environment to return to its pre-impacted
RUIGTEVALLEI-DREUNBERG 132KV POWERLINE WSP Project No. 41101408 May 2019 ESKOM HOLDINGS SOC LIMITED Page 2
CRITERIA RATING SCALE NOTES state once the cause of the impact has been removed. Medium Impacted natural, cultural or social functions and processes will return to their pre-impacted state within the medium to long term.
High Impacted natural, cultural or social functions and processes will never return to their pre-impacted state.
Potential for impact on irreplaceable Low No irreplaceable resources will be impacted. resources This refers to the potential for an Medium Resources that will be impacted can be replaced, with environmental resource to be replaced, effort. should it be impacted. A resource could possibly be replaced by natural processes (e.g. by natural colonisation from High There is no potential for replacing a particular surrounding areas), through artificial means vulnerable resource that will be impacted. (e.g. by reseeding disturbed areas or replanting rescued species) or by providing a substitute resource, in certain cases. In natural systems, providing substitute resources is usually not possible, but in social systems substitutes are often possible (e.g. by constructing new social facilities for those that are lost). Should it not be possible to replace a resource, the resource is essentially irreplaceable e.g. red data species that are restricted to a particular site or habitat of very limited extent.
Consequence Low A combination of any of the following: The consequence of the potential impacts is a — Intensity, duration, extent and impact on summation of above criteria, namely the irreplaceable resources are all rated low extent, duration, intensity and impact on — Intensity, duration and extent are rated low but irreplaceable resources. impact on irreplaceable resources is rated medium to high — Intensity is low and up to two of the other criteria are rated medium — Intensity is medium and all three other criteria are rated low
Medium — Intensity is medium and one other criteria is rated high, with the remainder being rated low — Intensity is low and at least two other criteria are rated medium or higher — Intensity is rated medium and at least two of the other criteria are rated medium or higher — Intensity is high and at least two other criteria are medium or higher — Intensity is rated low, but irreplaceability and duration are rated high
High — Intensity and impact on irreplaceable resources are rated high, with any combination of extent and duration — Intensity is rated high, with all of the other criteria being rated medium or higher
Probability Low Improbable. It is highly unlikely or less than 50 % likely that an impact will occur. The probability of the impact actually
RUIGTEVALLEI-DREUNBERG 132KV POWERLINE WSP Project No. 41101408 May 2019 ESKOM HOLDINGS SOC LIMITED Page 3
CRITERIA RATING SCALE NOTES occurring, based on professional experience with environments of a similar nature to the Medium Distinct possibility. It is between 50 and 70 % certain site and/or with similar projects. It is that the impact will occur. important to distinguish between probability of the impact occurring and probability that High Most likely. It is more than 75 % certain that the the activity causing a potential impact will impact will occur or it is definite that the impact will occur. Probability is defined as the occur. probability of the impact occurring, not as the probability of the activities that may result in the impact. The fact that an activity will occur does not necessarily imply that an impact will occur. For instance, the fact that a road will be built does not necessarily imply that it will impact on a wetland. If the road is properly routed to avoid the wetland, the impact may not occur at all, or the probability of the impact will be low, even though it is certain that the activity will occur.
Significance Low — Low consequence and low probability — Low consequence and medium probability Impact significance is defined to be a combination of the consequence (as described — Low consequence and high probability below) and probability of the impact occurring. The relationship between Low to Medium — Low consequence and high probability consequence and probability highlights that — Medium consequence and low probability the risk (or impact significance) must be evaluated in terms of the seriousness Medium — Medium consequence and low probability (consequence) of the impact, weighted by the — Medium consequence and medium probability probability of the impact actually occurring. The following analogy provides an — Medium consequence and high probability illustration of the relationship between — High consequence and low probability consequence and probability. The use of a vehicle may result in an accident (an impact) Medium to High — High consequence and medium probability with multiple fatalities, not only for the driver of the vehicle, but also for passengers and other road users. There are certain mitigation High — High consequence and high probability measures (e.g. the use of seatbelts, adhering to speed limits, airbags, anti-lock braking, etc.) that may reduce the consequence or probability or both. The probability of the impact is low enough that millions of vehicle users are prepared to accept the risk of driving a vehicle on a daily basis. Similarly, the consequence of an aircraft crashing is very high, but the risk is low enough that thousands of passengers happily accept this risk to travel by air on a daily basis. In simple terms, if the consequence and probability of an impact is high, then the impact will have a high significance. The significance defines the level to which the impact will influence the proposed development and/or environment. It determines whether mitigation measures need to be identified and implemented and whether the impact is important for decision-making.
Please note that this impact assessment methodology was utilised for the Gibb Section 24G and has been utilised again for the amendment process in instances where the proposed amendment result in a change in the original impacts.
RUIGTEVALLEI-DREUNBERG 132KV POWERLINE WSP Project No. 41101408 May 2019 ESKOM HOLDINGS SOC LIMITED Page 4
4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACTS
The original 2012 BA process had a set of impact assessment studies that were conducted in order to support the application. The impact ratings from these studies were noted for comparisons with concurrent studies done for the Section 24G application and for the ones to be conducted for the 2019 Part 2 amendment process. Specialist studies conducted for the original 2012 BA process included: — Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA); — Palaeontological Impact Assessment (PIA); and — Biodiversity and Avifauna Assessment. Gibb appointed specialists to support its Section 24G application and these included: — Biodiversity and Avifauna Assessment; — Archaeological Impact Assessment (AIA); and — Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA). In 2019 WSP appointed the specialists outlined in Table 4-1 to undertake the necessary specialist reporting to determine and assess the potential impacts associated with the proposed project for the Part 2 amendment process. Each of the specialists has reviewed the proposed amendments to the projects and have provided an update to their studies. The Specialist Declarations and Curriculum Vitae are included in Appendix D. Table 4-1: Specialists appointed to determine and assess the potential impacts
NR ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECT ASSESSED BY
1 Biodiversity Megan Hugo: Indwe Environmental Consulting
2 Avifauna Jon Smallie: Indwe Environmental Consulting
3 Heritage Len van Schalkwyk: eThembeni Cultural Heritage Management
4 Palaeontology John Almond: Natura Viva CC
5 Surface Water and Wetland Zakariya Nakhooda: WSP Environmental (Pty) Ltd
A summary of each of the 2012 BA process, 2013 Gibb Section 24G application specialists’ reports along with the findings of the 2019 Part 2 amendment process statements is provided in Section 4.2.1 to 4.2.6 below.
4.2.1 BIODIVERSITY
2012 BA IMPACTS IDENTIFIED AND SIGNIFICANCE RATING In March 2012 Pat Jennings of Arcus Gibb, was appointed to determine and assess the impacts on Biodiversity for the proposed project. Based on the findings of the report, no listed or threatened ecosystems under the National List of Threatened Terrestrial Ecosystems for the Eastern Cape occur within the study area. According to Mucina and Rutherford (2006) the predominant vegetation type within the study area is Eastern Upper Karoo, interspersed with Besemkaree Koppies Shrubland on ridges and hills. The former is a major component of the Nama-Karoo biome, whilst the latter represents an azonal grassland patch community embedded in this biome. Table 4-2 outlines the impacts identified and the significance following the impact assessment both with and without the implementation of mitigation and management measures for each phase of the project.
RUIGTEVALLEI-DREUNBERG 132KV POWERLINE WSP Project No. 41101408 May 2019 ESKOM HOLDINGS SOC LIMITED Page 5
Table 4-2: 2012 Biodiversity Impacts Significance Rating
WITHOUT WITH IMPACTS IDENTIFIED STATUS MITIGATION MITIGATION
Construction Phase Terrestrial Flora Impacts
Route 1
Increased runoff due to vegetation clearing which will cause Negative High Medium soil and water loss.
Loss of species habitat. Negative High Medium
Removal of protected or endangered species. Negative Medium Low
Removal of Alien vegetation. Positive Low High
Incorrect disposal of alien vegetation leading to rapid re- Negative Medium Low establishment.
Route 2
Increased runoff due to vegetation clearing which will cause Negative High Medium soil and water loss.
Loss of species habitat. Negative High Medium
Removal of protected or endangered species. Negative Medium Low
Removal of Alien vegetation. Positive Low High
Incorrect disposal of alien vegetation leading to rapid re- Negative Medium Low establishment
Route 3
Increased runoff due to vegetation clearing which will cause Negative High Medium soil and water loss.
Loss of species habitat. Negative High Medium
Removal of protected or endangered species. Negative High Medium
Removal of Alien vegetation. Positive Low High
Incorrect disposal of alien vegetation leading to rapid re- Negative Medium Low establishment.
Construction Phase Terrestrial Fauna Impacts
Route 1
RUIGTEVALLEI-DREUNBERG 132KV POWERLINE WSP Project No. 41101408 May 2019 ESKOM HOLDINGS SOC LIMITED Page 6
WITHOUT WITH IMPACTS IDENTIFIED STATUS MITIGATION MITIGATION
Disruption to livestock and game during construction. Negative High Medium
Route 2
Disruption to livestock and game during construction. Negative Medium Low
Route 3
Disruption to livestock and game during construction. Negative Medium Low
Operational Phase Terrestrial Flora & Fauna Impacts
Route 1
Damage to vegetation, livestock and wildlife due to use of Negative Medium Low vehicles during maintenance.
Route 2
Damage to vegetation, livestock and wildlife due to use of Negative High Low vehicles during maintenance.
Route 3
Damage to vegetation, livestock and wildlife due to use of Negative High Low vehicles during maintenance.
2013 GIBB SECTION 24G IMPACTS IDENTIFIED AND SIGNIFICANCE RATING In 2013, the Section 24G application assessed the potential impacts related to biodiversity. The impacts were identical to those from the 2012 assessment. Table 4-2 outlines the impacts identified and the significance following the impact assessment both with and without the implementation of mitigation and management measures for each phase of the project. The assessment was for Route 1 as proposed for the project. The same ecosystems from the original study still apply. Table 4-3: 2013 Section 24G Biodiversity Impacts Significance Rating
WITHOUT WITH IMPACTS IDENTIFIED STATUS MITIGATION MITIGATION
Terrestrial Flora Impacts
Construction Phase
Increased runoff due to vegetation clearing which will Negative Low-Medium Low cause soil and water loss.
Loss of species habitat. Negative Low Low
Removal of protected or endangered species. Negative Medium Low-Medium
RUIGTEVALLEI-DREUNBERG 132KV POWERLINE WSP Project No. 41101408 May 2019 ESKOM HOLDINGS SOC LIMITED Page 7
WITHOUT WITH IMPACTS IDENTIFIED STATUS MITIGATION MITIGATION
Removal of Alien vegetation. Positive Low-Medium Low-Medium
Incorrect disposal of alien vegetation leading to rapid re- Negative Medium Low-Medium establishment.
Loss of arable and irrigable land. Negative Medium Low
Terrestrial Fauna Impacts
Construction Phase
Disruption to livestock and game during construction. Negative Low Low
Terrestrial Flora & Fauna Impacts
Operational Phase
Damage to vegetation, livestock and wildlife due to use of Negative Low Low vehicles during maintenance.
2019 BA SPECIALIST FINDINIGS The ecologist made the following findings at Deviation 1: — This deviation places the powerline in closer proximity to the Oviston Nature Reserve than before and therefore the likelihood of fauna being impacted during construction and operation is somewhat higher. The specialist concluded that the proposed deviation is acceptable, subject to the additional mitigation measures described in Section 5 being implemented fully. The ecologist made the following findings at Deviation 2: — In terms of findings from a biodiversity perspective, this deviation (Deviation 2) places the powerline in in the Oviston Nature Reserve than before and therefore the likelihood of fauna being impacted during construction and operation is somewhat higher. The specialist concluded that the proposed deviation (Deviation 2) is acceptable. With regards to Deviation 3, the specialist indicated that the deviation has no consequence for biodiversity and that the original findings remain true. The specialist concluded that this deviation is acceptable. The specialist indicated that most general biodiversity impacts are likely to occur in the construction phase. These were all assessed to be of Low significance. Nonetheless mitigation measures have been prescribed to reduce the risk associated with these impacts. More specifically an ECO, somewhat familiar with the project, must be appointed well in advance to ensure compliance throughout the construction and close out period, given the history of deviations, intentional or not, undertaken. The CBA map is shown in Figure 4-1 below.
RUIGTEVALLEI-DREUNBERG 132KV POWERLINE WSP Project No. 41101408 May 2019 ESKOM HOLDINGS SOC LIMITED Page 8
Figure 4-1: 2019 CBA Extent Map The specialist indicated that the impact ratings made in the 2013 process remain unchanged by the proposed deviations. The 2019 specialist statement is attached to this report as Appendix E.
4.2.2 AVIFAUNA
2012 BA IMPACTS IDENTIFIED AND SIGNIFICANCE RATING In March 2012, Pat Jennings of Arcus Gibb was appointed to determine and assess the impacts on avifauna for the proposed project. Table 4-4 outlines the impacts identified and the significance following the impact assessment both with and without the implementation of mitigation and management measures for each phase of the project. Table 4-4: 2012 Avifauna Impacts Significance Rating
WITHOUT WITH IMPACTS IDENTIFIED STATUS MITIGATION MITIGATION
Planning and Design Phase Avifauna Impacts
Route 1
Electrocution of avifaunal species may result in loss of Negative High High biodiversity or endangered species
Route 2
RUIGTEVALLEI-DREUNBERG 132KV POWERLINE WSP Project No. 41101408 May 2019 ESKOM HOLDINGS SOC LIMITED Page 9
Electrocution of avifaunal species may result in loss of Negative High Medium biodiversity or endangered species
Route 3
Increased runoff due to vegetation clearing which will Negative Medium Low cause soil and water loss.
Operational Phase Avifauna Impacts
Route 1
Electrocution of avifaunal species and bird collisions with Negative Medium Low powerline may lead to loss of biodiversity and/or loss of endangered species
Route 2
Electrocution of avifaunal species and bird collisions with Negative High Low powerline may lead to loss of biodiversity and/or loss of endangered species
Route 3
Electrocution of avifaunal species and bird collisions with Negative High Low powerline may lead to loss of biodiversity and/or loss of endangered species
Focus has been placed on those species most likely to be impacted upon by the powerline. There are nevertheless a large number of species likely to occur in the study area. A number of these, such as the Ant- eating Chat and Eastern Clapper Lark, are not only characteristic of the study area but are also endemic or near endemic. Table 4-5 presents a list of species of high biodiversity conservation significance and potential for negative interaction with powerlines likely to occur within the study area. Species marked with an asterisk were observed in the study area by the specialist in 2012. Table 4-5: Red Data Species Likely in Study Area
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS ENDEMIC STATUS
Bustard, Kori Ardeotis kori VU
Bustard, Ludwig’s * Neotis ludwigii VU Near-endemic
Crane, Blue * Antrhopoides paradiseus VU Endemic
Eagle, Martial Polemaetus bellicosus VU
Eagle, Tawny Aquila rapax VU
Harrier, Black Circus maurus NT Endemic
Harrier, Pallid Circus macrourus NT
RUIGTEVALLEI-DREUNBERG 132KV POWERLINE WSP Project No. 41101408 May 2019 ESKOM HOLDINGS SOC LIMITED Page 10
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS ENDEMIC STATUS
Kestrel, Lesser * Falco macrourus VU
Korhaan, Blue * Eupodotis caerulescens NT Endemic
Korhaan, Karoo Eupodotis vigorsii Endemic
Korhaan, Northern Black Afrotis afraoides Endemic
Korhaan, White-bellied Eupodotis senegalensis VU
Secretarybird Sagittarius serpentarius NT
Stock, Black Ciconia nigra NT
Vulture, Cape Gyps coprotheres VU Near-endemic
The main avifaunal concern is for bird mortality through collision and electrocution with the powerline infrastructure.
2013 GIBB SECTION 24G IMPACTS IDENTIFIED AND SIGNIFICANCE RATING In 2013, the Section 24G application assessed the potential impacts related to avifauna. The impacts were identical to those from the 2012 assessment. Table 4-2 outlines the impacts identified and the significance following the impact assessment both with and without the implementation of mitigation and management measures for each phase of the project. The assessment was for Route 1 as proposed for the project. Table 4-6: 2013 Avifauna Impacts Significance Rating
WITHOUT WITH IMPACTS IDENTIFIED STATUS MITIGATION MITIGATION
Avifauna Impacts
Operational Phase
Electrocution of avifaunal species and bird collisions with Negative Medium Medium powerline may lead to loss of biodiversity and/or loss of endangered species.
The planning and design phase impacts were not assessed in the Section 24G application. The same bird species from the original study still apply.
2019 SPECIALIST FINDINIGS The ecologist made the following findings at Deviation 1: — The specialist confirmed that the Verreaux’s Eagle nest is still active and was used in the 2018 breeding season (May to Nov). The adult eagles were present in the nest vicinity for most of the field work. — The proposed Deviation A will place the new powerline approximately 280m from the Verreaux’s Eagle nest. — The line will cross the tar road 1050m west of the nest and 460m east of the nest in direct line of sight in both cases. It will therefore run on the far side of the tar road from the nest and also on the far side of an existing Telkom line. This is a slight advantage as eagles in flight across the road are likely to gain altitude to fly over the existing Telkom line and road, thereby hopefully also avoiding the new powerline. Any
RUIGTEVALLEI-DREUNBERG 132KV POWERLINE WSP Project No. 41101408 May 2019 ESKOM HOLDINGS SOC LIMITED Page 11
young eagles learning to fly are also more likely to perch on the Telkom line as a staging perch as it is closer than the powerline. — The specialist believes the two biggest risks to these eagles if the powerline is built here are collision with overhead cables, and disturbance of eagles by construction activities during breeding season. — The specialist noted that the proposed route is that suggested by the landowner, who has refused to have the powerline on the route previously proposed further south from this nest (2.4km from eagle nest). — It is not at all optimal to place a new powerline this close to the nest. However, based on the current status of this project and to make the best of a bad situation the specialist accepts the proposed deviation. The specialist concluded that the proposed deviation (Deviation 1) is acceptable, subject to the additional mitigation measures described in Section 5 being implemented fully. The ecologist made the following findings at Deviation 2: — Deviation 2 requires the powerline to traverse the Oviston Nature Reserve, which is also an Important Bird and Biodiversity Area (‘Upper Orange River’ IBA - Marnewick et al, 2015) as indicated earlier in the report. — The trigger species for this IBA include the following species relevant to powerlines: Blue Crane; Blue Korhaan; Ludwig’s Bustard; Karoo Korhaan; Greater Flamingo; Secretarybird; and Verreaux’s Eagle. — New powerlines in IBA’s such as this should be avoided where possible, as per our original recommendation. However, based on the current status of this project and to make the best of a bad situation we accept the proposed deviation. Partial mitigatory factors include that it mostly passes close to the R58 and fence lines. The specialist concluded that the proposed deviation (Deviation 2) is acceptable. With regards to Deviation 3, the specialist indicated that the deviation has no consequence for avifauna and that the original findings remain true. The specialist concluded that this deviation is acceptable. The specialist indicated that the impact ratings made in the 2013 process remain unchanged by the proposed deviations. More specifically, the specialist previously rated disturbance of birds during construction as High significance, and not reduced below High by mitigation (on Route 1). This remains the case, although far more comprehensive mitigation measures have been recommended (see Section 5). The specialist previously assessed collision to be of High significance, reduced to Medium by mitigation. This remains the case, although once again we more mitigation has been recommended. The 2019 specialist statement is attached to this report as Appendix E.
4.2.3 HERITAGE
2012 BA IMPACTS IDENTIFIED AND SIGNIFICANCE RATING In 2012 Len van Schalkwyk and Elizabeth Wahl of Ethembeni Cultural Heritage were appointed to determine and assess the impacts on the heritage impacts for the proposed project. Table 4-7 and outlines the impacts identified and the significance following the impact assessment both with and without the implementation of mitigation and management measures for each phase of the project. Table 4-7: 2012 Heritage Impacts Significance Rating
WITHOUT WITH IMPACTS IDENTIFIED STATUS MITIGATION MITIGATION
Construction Phase Heritage Impacts
Route 1
Damage to cultural, heritage and palaeontological artefacts Negative Medium Low that may be uncovered due to drilling holes / excavation.
RUIGTEVALLEI-DREUNBERG 132KV POWERLINE WSP Project No. 41101408 May 2019 ESKOM HOLDINGS SOC LIMITED Page 12
WITHOUT WITH IMPACTS IDENTIFIED STATUS MITIGATION MITIGATION
Route 2
Damage to cultural, heritage and palaeontological artefacts Negative High Low that may be uncovered due to drilling holes / excavation.
Route 3
Damage to cultural, heritage and palaeontological artefacts Negative Low Low that may be uncovered due to drilling holes / excavation.
The specialist recommended that the development proceed with the proposed heritage mitigation measures and ensure that the HIA be submitted to SAHRA in fulfilment of the requirements of the National Heritage Resources Act (NHRA). It was also recommended that in the event permission was granted for the development to proceed, the client had to remember that the NHRA requires that a developer cease all work immediately and follow the protocol contained in Section 11 of the HIA should any heritage resources be discovered during the development activities.
2013 GIBB SECTION 24G IMPACTS IDENTIFIED AND SIGNIFICANCE RATING In 2013, the Section 24G application assessed the potential impacts related to heritage resources. The impacts were identical to those from the 2012 assessment. Table 4-8 outlines the impacts identified and the significance following the impact assessment both with and without the implementation of mitigation and management measures for each phase of the project. The assessment was for Route 1 as proposed for the project. Table 4-8: 2013 Heritage Impacts Significance Rating
WITHOUT WITH IMPACTS IDENTIFIED STATUS MITIGATION MITIGATION
Heritage Impacts
Construction Phase
Damage to cultural, heritage and palaeontological artefacts Negative Medium Medium that may be uncovered due to drilling holes / excavation.
The specialist concluded that heritage resources potentially affected by Route alternative 4 are limited to archaeological occurrences occurring throughout the area; the landscape of Oviston Nature Reserve along its western and southern boundaries; and graves located outside of a formal cemetery on the farm Murrayskop. The low significance and abundance of archaeological occurrences does not warrant any mitigation, while impacts on landscapes have already been minimised and impacts on graves may be achieved through avoidance. Accordingly, the specialist recommended that Eskom complete the construction of Route alternative 4, with the heritage mitigation proposed in this report and have submitted this report to the SAHRA in fulfilment of the requirements of the NHRA. If permission is granted for development to proceed, the client is reminded that the Act requires that a developer cease all work immediately and contact SAHRA should any heritage resources, as defined in the Act, be discovered during the course of development activities.
2019 BA SPECIALIST FINDINIGS The specialist indicated that the majority of the now amended Route 1 intrudes now for only 1.8 km to the north of the R58 into the Reserve at Deviation 1 and for 800 m where it crosses the R58 again to feed into the Ruigtevallei S/S. The greatest part of the alignment lies to the south of the R58 and its towers will be visually screened by the more elevated north-facing topography. Rock Art, within 80 m of the powerline servitude, will not be directly affected by construction or operation of the powerline. The specialist indicated that the deviations
RUIGTEVALLEI-DREUNBERG 132KV POWERLINE WSP Project No. 41101408 May 2019 ESKOM HOLDINGS SOC LIMITED Page 13
have no material impact on any classes of discrete heritage resources. The 2019 specialist report is attached to this report as Appendix H.
4.2.4 PALAEONTOLOGY
2012 BA IMPACTS IDENTIFIED AND SIGNIFICANCE RATING In 2012 Dr John Almond, Natura Viva, was appointed to identify and assess the paleontological impacts for the proposed Rietkloof project. Table 4-9 and outlines the impacts identified and the significance following the impact assessment both with and without the implementation of mitigation and management measures for each phase of the project. Table 4-9: 2016 Palaeontology Impacts Significance Rating
WITHOUT WITH IMPACTS IDENTIFIED STATUS MITIGATION MITIGATION
Construction Phase Palaeontological Impacts
Route 1
Damage to cultural, heritage and palaeontological artefacts Negative Medium Low that may be uncovered due to drilling holes / excavation.
Route 2
Damage to cultural, heritage and palaeontological artefacts Negative High Low that may be uncovered due to drilling holes / excavation.
Route 3
Damage to cultural, heritage and palaeontological artefacts Negative Low Low that may be uncovered due to drilling holes / excavation.
The PIA concluded that a comparison of the three route options for the project showed no substantial difference in the routes in terms of the overall palaeontological sensitivity. The PIA indicated that since Route 3 followed an existing transmission line route for much of its length, it would require shorter lengths of new access roads and therefore have a lower impact on the project.
2013 GIBB SECTION 24G IMPACTS IDENTIFIED AND SIGNIFICANCE RATING In 2013, the Section 24G application assessed the potential impacts related to palaeontological impacts based on the heritage study. The impacts were identical to those from the 2012 assessment. Table 4-8 outlines the impacts identified and the significance following the impact assessment both with and without the implementation of mitigation and management measures for each phase of the project. The assessment was for Route 1 as proposed for the project.
RUIGTEVALLEI-DREUNBERG 132KV POWERLINE WSP Project No. 41101408 May 2019 ESKOM HOLDINGS SOC LIMITED Page 14
Table 4-10: 2013 Palaeontology Impacts Significance Rating
WITHOUT WITH IMPACTS IDENTIFIED STATUS MITIGATION MITIGATION
Palaeontological Impacts
Construction Phase
Damage to cultural, heritage and palaeontological artefacts Negative Medium Medium that may be uncovered due to drilling holes / excavation.
2019 BA SPECIALIST FINDINIGS Deviation 1: With regards to Deviation 1, the proposed route would take the transmission line close to the R58 tar road in this sector of the 132 kV transmission line. This deviation traverses an area of Permo-Triassic bedrocks of the Beaufort Group (Karoo Supergroup) that are of proven high palaeontological sensitivity. However, in practice the proposed corridor, running close and subparallel to the R58, is likely to be disturbed at surface and also lies well away from the good NW-facing hillslope bedrock exposures that have yielded numerous vertebrate fossils in this particular area. It is concluded that with mitigation the palaeontological heritage impact significance of the proposed short deviation is LOW and no further specialist mitigation or monitoring is recommended here during the construction phase (The Chance Fossil Finds Procedure appended to this report applies). The ECO is alerted to the potential vertebrate fossils within the bedrocks as well as within alluvial deposits. Deviation 2: The proposed deviation overlies bedrocks of the Early Triassic Katberg Formation and will not appreciably change the inferred impact significance of the 132 kV transmission line corridor. It is concluded that with mitigation the palaeontological heritage impact significance of the proposed short deviation is LOW and no further specialist mitigation or monitoring is recommended here during the construction phase (The Chance Fossil Finds Procedure appended to this report applies). The ECO is alerted to the potential vertebrate fossils (e.g. mammalian teeth, bones, horn cores) within alluvial deposits associated with the Brakspruit watercourse. Deviation 3: The proposed deviation overlies bedrocks of the Early Triassic Katberg Formation and will not appreciably change the inferred impact significance of the 132 kV transmission line corridor. It is concluded that the palaeontological heritage impact significance of the proposed short deviation is LOW and no further specialist mitigation or monitoring is recommended here during the construction phase (The Chance Fossil Finds Procedure appended to this report applies). It is noted that an important, highly-sensitive vertebrate fossil site recorded along the Broekspruit, just north of the R58 and c. 16.3 km WSW of Dreunberg will not be directly impacted by the proposed transmission line which will run south of the R58 here. The ECO is alerted to the potential vertebrate fossils (e.g. mammalian teeth, bones, horn cores) within the alluvial deposits. The 2019 specialist report is attached to this report as Appendix I.
4.2.5 SURFACE WATER AND WETLAND
2012 BA IMPACTS IDENTIFIED AND SIGNIFICANCE RATING In 2012, Gibb assessed the impacts on the aquatic environment for the proposed project in-house. Table 4-11 outlines the impacts identified and the significance following the impact assessment both with and without the implementation of mitigation and management measures for each phase of the project. Mitigation measures were provided to minimise or lower the expected impacts from executing the project.
RUIGTEVALLEI-DREUNBERG 132KV POWERLINE WSP Project No. 41101408 May 2019 ESKOM HOLDINGS SOC LIMITED Page 15
Table 4-11: 2012 Aquatic Impacts Significance Rating
WITHOUT WITH IMPACTS IDENTIFIED STATUS MITIGATION MITIGATION
Construction Phase Aquatic Impacts
Route 1
Routes close to environmentally sensitive areas such as Negative High Medium wetlands may result in environmental degradation.
Routes crossing over rivers may impact on banks and river Negative High Medium flow
Increased runoff causing soil and water losses due to Negative Medium Low levelling and compacting soil of access roads and work areas including the site camp.
Increased runoff causing silting of surface water for the Negative Medium Low duration of construction due to levelling and compacting soil of access roads and work areas including the site camp.
Contamination of soil, groundwater and surface water due Negative Medium Low to spillage of hazardous substances such as fuel.
Route 2
Routes close to environmentally sensitive areas such as Negative High Medium wetlands may result in environmental degradation.
Routes crossing over rivers may impact on banks and river Negative High Medium flow
Increased runoff causing soil and water losses due to Negative Medium Low levelling and compacting soil of access roads and work areas including the site camp.
Increased runoff causing silting of surface water for the Negative Medium Low duration of construction due to levelling and compacting soil of access roads and work areas including the site camp.
Contamination of soil, groundwater and surface water due Negative High Medium to spillage of hazardous substances such as fuel.
Route 3
Routes close to environmentally sensitive areas such as Negative High Medium wetlands may result in environmental degradation.
Routes crossing over rivers may impact on banks and river Negative High Medium flow
Increased runoff causing soil and water losses due to Negative Medium Low levelling and compacting soil of access roads and work areas including the site camp.
RUIGTEVALLEI-DREUNBERG 132KV POWERLINE WSP Project No. 41101408 May 2019 ESKOM HOLDINGS SOC LIMITED Page 16
WITHOUT WITH IMPACTS IDENTIFIED STATUS MITIGATION MITIGATION
Increased runoff causing silting of surface water for the Negative Medium Low duration of construction due to levelling and compacting soil of access roads and work areas including the site camp.
Contamination of soil, groundwater and surface water due Negative High Low to spillage of hazardous substances such as fuel.
2013 GIBB SECTION 24G IMPACTS IDENTIFIED AND SIGNIFICANCE RATING In 2013, Gibb assessed the impacts on the aquatic environment for the proposed project in-house. Table 4-12outlines the impacts identified and the significance following the impact assessment both with and without the implementation of mitigation and management measures for each phase of the project. The assessment was for Route 1 as proposed for the project. Mitigation measures were provided to minimise or lower the expected impacts from executing the project. Table 4-12: 2013 Aquatic Impacts Significance Rating
WITHOUT WITH IMPACTS IDENTIFIED STATUS MITIGATION MITIGATION
Construction Phase Aquatic Impacts
Route 1
Increased runoff will cause soil and water losses due to Negative Low-Medium Low vegetation clearing.
Contamination of soil, groundwater and surface water due Negative Medium Low to spillage of hazardous substances such as fuel.
2019 BA SPECIALIST FINDINIGS Of the three proposed deviations along the powerline route, only the activities along Deviation 2 was identified as having the potential to impact on the surrounding freshwater habitats. This is owing to the proposed deviation crossing over a non-perennial watercourse. Using the methodology and criteria mentioned above, the significance ratings of the associated activities have been determined for Deviation 2. These ratings are presented in Table 4-13. The aspects and potential impacts to freshwater habitats (as identified in Table 4-13) were not considered during the original BAR and the subsequent Section 24G rectification applications. As such, these impacts are new and the results are only applicable to Deviation 2. Table 4-13: Hydrological Impact Assessment Table
WITHOUT WITH IMPACTS IDENTIFIED STATUS MITIGATION MITIGATION
Construction Phase Aquatic Impacts
Deviation 2
Increased runoff due to vegetation clearing for access Negative Medium Low routes and tower placement.
RUIGTEVALLEI-DREUNBERG 132KV POWERLINE WSP Project No. 41101408 May 2019 ESKOM HOLDINGS SOC LIMITED Page 17
WITHOUT WITH IMPACTS IDENTIFIED STATUS MITIGATION MITIGATION
Increased sedimentation due to vegetation clearing for Negative Medium Low access routes and tower placement.
Loss of habitat due to vegetation clearing for access routes Negative Medium Low and tower placement.
Increased runoff due to stringing and drilling of Negative Medium Low holes/excavations for tower foundations resulting in soil exposure.
Increased sedimentation due to stringing and drilling of Negative Medium Low holes/excavations for tower foundations resulting in soil exposure.
Loss of habitat due to stringing and drilling of Negative Medium Low holes/excavations for tower foundations resulting in soil exposure.
Contamination of surrounding watercourses due to Negative Low Low incorrect storage of chemicals.
Loss of habitat due to incorrect storage of chemicals. Negative Medium Low
Contamination of surrounding watercourses due to leaks Negative Low Low from equipment.
Contamination of surrounding watercourses due to Negative Medium-High Low inappropriate storage or usage methods of hazardous chemicals.
Pollution of watercourses due to inappropriate storage or Negative Medium Low disposal of waste (ablution facilities, general waste and hazardous waste).
Operation Phase Aquatic Impacts
Loss of habitat due to fire damage from no undertaking Negative Medium Low proper maintenance and repairs of equipment.
Contamination of surrounding watercourses due to leaks Negative Medium Low from equipment or vehicles.
Pollution of watercourses due to inappropriate storage or Negative Medium Low disposal of waste (ablution facilities, general waste and hazardous waste).
Decommissioning Phase Aquatic Impacts
Contamination of surrounding watercourses due to leaks Negative Medium Low from equipment or vehicles.
RUIGTEVALLEI-DREUNBERG 132KV POWERLINE WSP Project No. 41101408 May 2019 ESKOM HOLDINGS SOC LIMITED Page 18
WITHOUT WITH IMPACTS IDENTIFIED STATUS MITIGATION MITIGATION
Pollution of watercourses due to inappropriate storage or Negative Medium Low disposal of waste (ablution facilities, general waste and hazardous waste).
The Hydrological Impact Assessment determined that the proposed powerline deviations does have a Low significance rating and therefore may have the potential to impact on the surrounding freshwater habitats. It must be noted that the project activities are not anticipated to contribute to the direct loss of freshwater habitat during the construction, operational and decommissioning phases. This is, however, dependant on the final construction plans and protocols. The 2019 specialist report is attached to this report as Appendix G.
4.2.6 SOIL AND LAND
2012 BA IMPACTS IDENTIFIED AND SIGNIFICANCE RATING In 2012, Gibb assessed the impacts on the soil and land for the proposed project in-house. Table 4-14 outlines the impacts identified and the significance following the impact assessment both with and without the implementation of mitigation and management measures for each phase of the project. Mitigation measures were provided to minimise or lower the expected impacts from executing the project. Table 4-14: 2012 Soil and Land Impacts Significance Rating
WITHOUT WITH IMPACTS IDENTIFIED STATUS MITIGATION MITIGATION
Construction Phase Soil and Land Impacts
Route 1
Routes on steep slopes may contribute to slope Negative Medium Low destabilisation and accelerated erosion
Loss of property value depending on route taken Negative Medium Low
Access roads require clearing of topsoil may cause soil Negative High Medium erosion
Stripping of topsoil for construction purposes may cause Negative Medium Low erosion
Increased runoff causing soil and water losses Negative Medium Low
Soil exposure and erosion from runoff due to drilling holes Negative Medium Low / excavation
Incorrect management of stockpiles leading to erosion Negative Medium Low
Onsite contamination of soil during concrete mixing. Negative Medium Low
Incorrect disposal of hazardous waste leading to land Negative High Low contamination.
RUIGTEVALLEI-DREUNBERG 132KV POWERLINE WSP Project No. 41101408 May 2019 ESKOM HOLDINGS SOC LIMITED Page 19
WITHOUT WITH IMPACTS IDENTIFIED STATUS MITIGATION MITIGATION
Loss of arable and irrigable land due to removal of Negative High Low vegetation
Route 2
Routes on steep slopes may contribute to slope Negative High Medium destabilisation and accelerated erosion
Loss of property value depending on route taken Negative High Low
Access roads require clearing of topsoil may cause soil Negative High Medium erosion
Stripping of topsoil for construction purposes may cause Negative Medium Low erosion
Increased runoff causing soil and water losses Negative Medium Low
Soil exposure and erosion from runoff due to drilling holes Negative High Low / excavation
Incorrect management of stockpiles leading to erosion Negative Medium Low
Onsite contamination of soil during concrete mixing. Negative High Low
Incorrect disposal of hazardous waste leading to land Negative High Low contamination.
Loss of arable and irrigable land due to removal of Negative High Low vegetation
Route 3
Routes on steep slopes may contribute to slope Negative High Medium destabilisation and accelerated erosion
Loss of property value depending on route taken Negative High Low
Access roads require clearing of topsoil may cause soil Negative High Medium erosion
Stripping of topsoil for construction purposes may cause Negative Medium Low erosion
Increased runoff causing soil and water losses Negative Medium Low
Soil exposure and erosion from runoff due to drilling holes Negative High Medium / excavation
Incorrect management of stockpiles leading to erosion Negative Medium Low
RUIGTEVALLEI-DREUNBERG 132KV POWERLINE WSP Project No. 41101408 May 2019 ESKOM HOLDINGS SOC LIMITED Page 20
WITHOUT WITH IMPACTS IDENTIFIED STATUS MITIGATION MITIGATION
Onsite contamination of soil during concrete mixing. Negative High Low
Incorrect disposal of hazardous waste leading to land Negative High Low contamination.
Loss of arable and irrigable land due to removal of Negative High Low vegetation
2013 GIBB SECTION 24G IMPACTS IDENTIFIED AND SIGNIFICANCE RATING In 2013, Gibb assessed the impacts on the soil and land for the proposed project in-house. Table 4-15 outlines the impacts identified and the significance following the impact assessment both with and without the implementation of mitigation and management measures for each phase of the project. The assessment was for Route 1 as proposed for the project. Mitigation measures were provided to minimise or lower the expected impacts from executing the project. Table 4-15: 2013 Soil and Land Impacts Significance Rating
WITHOUT WITH IMPACTS IDENTIFIED STATUS MITIGATION MITIGATION
Soil and Land Impacts
Construction Phase
Soil exposure and erosion from runoff due to drilling holes Negative Low Low / excavation
Incorrect management of stockpiles leading to erosion Negative Low Low
Onsite contamination of soil during concrete mixing. Negative Low Low
Incorrect disposal of hazardous waste leading to land Negative Low Low contamination.
Loss of arable and irrigable land due to removal of Negative Medium Low vegetation
2019 BA SPECIALIST FINDINIGS Based on previous findings, the proposed amendments will not result in any changes to the impact significance on soil and land capability.
4.3 OVERALL SENSITIVITY
The overall sensitivity of the project in relation the Ruigtevallei-Dreunberg 132 kV line is indicated in Figure 4-2 below.
RUIGTEVALLEI-DREUNBERG 132KV POWERLINE WSP Project No. 41101408 May 2019 ESKOM HOLDINGS SOC LIMITED Page 21
Figure 4-2: Sensitivity Map in relation the Ruigtevallei-Dreunberg 132 kV line
RUIGTEVALLEI-DREUNBERG 132KV POWERLINE WSP Project No. 41101408 May 2019 ESKOM HOLDINGS SOC LIMITED Page 1
5 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME
Provisions are made in the existing authorised EMPr for the proposed project. These provisions are made to ensure minimal environmental impact and damage occurs. There is only one additional mitigation and management measure associated with proposed project that has been recommended by the specialist.
5.1 BIODIVERSITY ADDITIONAL OR AMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES
No additional or amended mitigation measures have been recommended by the specialists. The 2016 mitigation measures included within the EIA and EMPr remain valid. No changes have therefore been made to the EMPr as a result of the biodiversity 2019 findings.
5.2 AVIFAUNA ADDITIONAL OR AMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES
The specialist recommended mitigation measures to be added to the 2016 mitigation measures included within the EIA and EMPr. Changes have therefore been made to the EMPr as a result of the Ecological 2019 findings. The following recommendations (in addition to the original mitigation measures) specifically to the avifaunal aspects of the project: — A thorough avifaunal walk through of the full line must be conducted by a suitably qualified and independent avifaunal specialist. This must be done as soon as possible. We would like to point out that if this walk through had been done originally several mistakes by Eskom could have been avoided. This walk through will ground truth all pylon positions and identify high risk sections of line for bird collision mitigation. — On the high bird collision risk sections of powerline (identified by walk through) it will be necessary to install anti bird collision line marking devices on the earth wire. This should be done as follows: — Devices must be installed as soon as the earth wire is strung as the risk begins immediately; — Devices must be installed for the full length of each span, not only the middle 60% as previously believed; — Light and dark colour devices must be alternated to ensure contrast against dark and light backgrounds respectively; — These marking devices must be maintained in working order for the full life span of the powerline; and — The effective spacing between devices must be no more than 10m. — At the Verreaux’s Eagle nest site (Deviation A) the following must be done: — Line marking devices must be installed as per above although at normal maximum spacing of 10m; — Devices must be maintained, if they fail they must be replaced immediately; — Bird perches must be installed on all pylon tops; — During the operational phase, no helicopter based maintenance or line patrols may be conducted on this section of line; — No construction of the powerline may take place between when the adult eagles start copulation and egg laying and the young eagle fledging (flying). This is approximately the period May to October, but varies according to environmental conditions and should be confirmed in the relevant season by a suitable avifaunal specialist; — Breeding status and success at this nest must be monitored during construction and for 3 years post construction. This will require site visits during breeding season in each of these years by a suitable avifaunal specialist. This must include a patrol of this section of powerline to determine if any fatalities
RUIGTEVALLEI-DREUNBERG 132KV POWERLINE WSP Project No. 41101408 May 2019 ESKOM HOLDINGS SOC LIMITED Page 2
have occurred; and — If in spite of the above mitigation any significant impact on these eagles is recorded (either through failed breeding or mortality of an eagle on the powerline) Eskom will be responsible for addressing this through further mitigation and/or research. A contingency budget must be provided for this eventuality.
5.3 SURFACE WATER AND WETLAND ADDITIONAL OR AMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES
The 2019 assessment was done and indicated that only the activities along Deviation 2 was identified as having the potential to impact on the surrounding freshwater habitats. The construction phase mitigation measures recommended by the specialist for Deviation 2 to control increased runoff, increased sedimentation and loss of habitat during the construction phase after vegetation clearance for access routes and tower placement include: — Use existing access roads as far as feasibly possible. Any additional access roads should be established to the same or higher standard as the existing sand roads within the area. — Watercourses, including wetlands should be clearly marked. These areas should be treated as no-go zones for contractors and site personnel. — The removal of vegetation must be kept to the bare minimum. Trees must be pruned to size and not removed (no de-stumping) around the identified systems. This must be done manually without the use of heavy machinery, which would result in significant compaction. — A phased-approach should be implemented for vegetation clearing along the servitude, limiting the extent of exposed areas to erosion and potential alien invasive encroachment. — Any removed topsoil should be stored and reapplied immediately after construction to encourage and facilitate rapid reestablishment of natural vegetation. — Efforts should be made to prevent dirty water from entering the surrounding environment. — It is preferable that construction takes place during the dry season (if possible) to reduce the erosion potential of the exposed surfaces and compaction impacts from the construction vehicles. — Erosion prevention mechanisms such as silt fences should be implemented. — Post-construction rehabilitation of any areas damaged / disturbed as a result of any construction or associated activity, should be undertaken. This would include areas in which erosion has occurred, as well as areas subjected to cement spillage and other impacts, and would need to be to an aquatic ecologist’s specifications. The construction phase mitigation measures recommended by the specialist for Deviation 2 to control increased runoff, increased sedimentation and loss of habitat during the construction phase stringing and drilling of holes / excavating for tower foundations resulting in soil exposure include: — Watercourses, including wetlands should be clearly marked. These areas should be treated as no-go zones for contractors and site personnel. — The removal of vegetation must be kept to the bare minimum. Trees must be pruned to size and not removed (no de-stumping) around the identified systems. This must be done manually without the use of heavy machinery, which would result in significant compaction. — Any removed topsoil should be stored and reapplied immediately after construction to encourage and facilitate rapid reestablishment of natural vegetation — Stringing should make use of a running block and span, limiting any intrusion into the freshwater habitat systems. — Method statements on erosion control; should be developed and approved by the environmental officer. — The tower sites should be contoured to allow for surface water to readily drain away (as it would under natural conditions) and to prevent ponding of water within areas where it would not have ponded before the construction activities. — Cement mixing / batching to be on areas with temporary removable bunding, outside of any watercourse, and managed to prevent any spillage into natural areas. Particular care must be taken to ensure that cement is not spilled onto areas other than the foundation areas. — Post-construction rehabilitation of any areas damaged / disturbed as a result of any construction or associated activity, should be undertaken. This would include areas in which erosion has occurred, as well
RUIGTEVALLEI-DREUNBERG 132KV POWERLINE WSP Project No. 41101408 May 2019 ESKOM HOLDINGS SOC LIMITED Page 3
as areas subjected to cement spillage and other impacts, and would need to be to an aquatic ecologist’s specifications. The construction phase mitigation measures recommended by the specialist for Deviation 2 to control contamination of surrounding watercourses and loss of habitat due to storing of construction material include: — Watercourses, including wetlands should be clearly marked. These areas should be treated as no-go zones for contractors and site personnel. — A temporary laydown area should be established. This area should be utilised for the storage of all construction equipment. This area should have temporary bunding. — Spill kits must be available at all times. — Erosion prevention mechanisms such as silt fences should be implemented. — Post-construction rehabilitation of any areas damaged / disturbed as a result of any construction or associated activity, should be undertaken. This would include areas in which erosion has occurred, as well as areas subjected to cement spillage and other impacts, and would need to be to an aquatic ecologist’s specifications. The construction phase mitigation measures recommended by the specialist for Deviation 2 to control contamination of surrounding watercourses due to leaks from equipment and vehicles include: — Use existing access roads as far as feasibly possible. Any additional access roads should be established to the same or higher standard as the existing sand roads within the area. — All vehicles and equipment must be maintained, and all re-fuelling and servicing of equipment is to take place in demarcated areas outside of the freshwater habitat areas. — Spill kits must be available at all times. The construction phase mitigation measures recommended by the specialist for Deviation 2 to control contamination of surrounding watercourses due to inappropriate storage or usage methods of hazardous chemicals include: — MSDS’S should be kept on site. Chemicals should have appropriate labelling. — Appropriate signage indicating the storage of hazardous materials should be displayed. — Depending of the nature of the material, appropriate storage and disposal methods should be utilised. These include bunding and designated (labelled) containers for storage and disposal. — Staff should be provided with Hazmat Training. Spill kits must be available at all times. — A fire officer should be appointed by the contractor. — Basic firefighting equipment should be kept on site. — Employees should be made aware of the procedures in the event of a fire. The construction phase mitigation measures recommended by the specialist for Deviation 2 to control pollution of surrounding watercourses due to inappropriate storage or usage methods of waste (ablution facilities, general waste and hazardous waste) include: — Adequate portable toilets should be provided along the route and maintained so that there is no reason for the use of open space areas for such purposes. These toilets must be maintained by a licenced/approved contractor. — Adequate waste disposal facilities (trash cans) and designated containers should be made available. — Efforts should be made to prevent dirty water from entering the surrounding environment. — Any hazardous waste should be appropriately disposed of. The operation phase mitigation measures recommended by the specialist for Deviation 2 to control habitat loss due to not undertaking maintenance and repairs on equipment include: — Maintenance should be undertaken on a regular basis. The operation phase mitigation measures recommended by the specialist for Deviation 2 to control contamination of surrounding watercourses due to leaks from equipment and vehicles include: — Use existing access roads as far as feasibly possible. Any additional access roads should be established to the same or higher standard as the existing sand roads within the area. — All vehicles and equipment must be maintained, and all re-fuelling and servicing of equipment is to take
RUIGTEVALLEI-DREUNBERG 132KV POWERLINE WSP Project No. 41101408 May 2019 ESKOM HOLDINGS SOC LIMITED Page 4
place in demarcated areas outside of the freshwater habitat areas. — Spill kits must be available at all times. The operation phase mitigation measures recommended by the specialist for Deviation 2 to control pollution of surrounding watercourses due to inappropriate storage or usage methods of waste (ablution facilities, general waste and hazardous waste) include: — Adequate portable toilets to be provided along the route and maintained so that there is no reason for the use of open space areas for such purposes. These toilets must be maintained by a licenced/approved contractor. — Adequate waste disposal facilities (trash cans) and designated containers should be made available. — Efforts should be made to prevent dirty water from entering the surrounding environment. The decommissioning phase mitigation measures recommended by the specialist for Deviation 2 to control contamination of surrounding watercourses due to leaks from equipment and vehicles include: — Use existing access roads as far as feasibly possible. Any additional access roads should be established to the same or higher standard as the existing sand roads within the area. — All vehicles and equipment must be maintained, and all re-fuelling and servicing of equipment is to take place in demarcated areas outside of the freshwater habitat areas — Spill kits must be available at all times. The decommissioning phase mitigation measures recommended by the specialist for Deviation 2 to control pollution of surrounding watercourses due to inappropriate storage or usage methods of waste (ablution facilities, general waste and hazardous waste) include: — Adequate portable toilets to be provided along the route and maintained so that there is no reason for the use of open space areas for such purposes. These toilets must be maintained by a licenced/approved contractor. — Adequate waste disposal facilities (trash cans) and designated containers should be made available. — Efforts should be made to prevent dirty water from entering the surrounding environment.
5.4 HERITAGE ADDITIONAL OR AMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES
No additional or amended mitigation measures have been recommended by the specialists. The 2016 mitigation measures included within the EIA and EMPr remain valid. No changes have therefore been made to the EMPr as a result of the heritage 2019 findings.
5.5 PALAEONTOLOGY ADDITIONAL OR AMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES
Pending the potential discovery of significant new fossil remains during the construction phase, no specialist palaeontological monitoring or mitigation is considered necessary for this transmission line project. In the case of any significant fossil finds made by the ECO or by others during construction, these should be — Safeguarded - preferably in situ - by stopping work in the immediate vicinity and fencing off the area with tape to prevent further access; and — Reported by the ECO as soon as possible to the relevant heritage management authority, Eastern Cape Provincial Heritage Resources Authority (ECPHRA), (Contact details: Mr Sello Mokhanya, 74 Alexander Road, King Williams Town 5600; [email protected]), so that appropriate mitigation by a palaeontological specialist can be considered. — A qualified palaeontological specialist should be appointed to inspect, record and (if warranted) sample or collect the fossil remains and pertinent geological data, at the developer’s expense. — Any further mitigation measures proposed by the palaeontologist should be implemented.
RUIGTEVALLEI-DREUNBERG 132KV POWERLINE WSP Project No. 41101408 May 2019 ESKOM HOLDINGS SOC LIMITED Page 5
— Work should be allowed to resume only once clearance is given in writing by the relevant authorities. The Chance Fossils Finds Procedure attached to the PIA should be followed for the proposed development.
5.6 SOIL AND LAND ADDITIONAL OR AMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES
No additional or amended mitigation measures have been recommended by the specialists. The 2016 mitigation measures included within the EIA and EMPr remain valid. No changes have therefore been made to the EMPr as a result of the heritage 2019 findings.
5.7 CONCLUSION
The existing mitigation measures in the originally approved EMPr must be adhered to. Monitoring of the application of mitigation measures should be undertaken on a continuous basis to ensure effective application of all recommendations. The additional mitigation measures recommended by the specialists should also be adhered to when the project commences. The updated draft EMPr is appended to this report (Appendix C). Please note that the final EMP will be submitted to DEA in the future to request approval thereof in line with Condition 16 of the 2016 EA.
RUIGTEVALLEI-DREUNBERG 132KV POWERLINE WSP Project No. 41101408 May 2019 ESKOM HOLDINGS SOC LIMITED Page 6
6 CONCLUSION
This Report is submitted in support of the application for variation of the EA issued to Eskom for the construction of the Ruigtevallei-Dreunburg 132 kV powerline. Due to the fact that the proposed amendments constitute a change of scope, a Part 2 Amendment Process in terms of Regulation 31 of the EIA Regulations of 2014 is required. The proposed amendments all fall within the original BA scope and are required to satisfy the landowner requirements along the proposed powerline servitude. The proposed amendments will result in a shorter route that mostly follows an already impacted area along the existing 66 kV powerline. According to the specialist input provided during 2019, the only additional or amended impacts were associated with Avifauna, Surface Water and Palaeontology. The specialist studies have however concluded that the impact significance from 2016 will mainly remain unchanged. This Report will be provided to potentially I&APs for a 30-day review period from 24 May to 25 June 2019. All comments received will be used to update the final report which will be submitted to the competent authority, the DEA. The DEA is tasked with making a decision on the variation application. The ultimate goal of the report is to achieve approval of the amendment in terms of Regulation 31 of the 2014 EIA Regulations. Based on the findings of the specialists, the EAP recommends that DEA amends the EA as follows:
ASPECT TO BE AMENDED AUTHORISED PROPOSED AMENDMENT EA REFERENCE Annexure 2 Annexure 2: 132kV Power Annexure 2: 132kV Power Annexure 2 – page 10 of the EA (page 13 Line Co-ordinates Line Co-ordinates of the pdf document) 84km Ruigtevallei Dreunberg Updated route including new 132kV powerline co-ordinates for deviations (Attached at Appendix J)
The updated draft EMPr is appended to this report (Appendix C). Please note that the final EMPr will be submitted to DEA in the future to request approval thereof in line with Condition 16 of the 2016 EA.
RUIGTEVALLEI-DREUNBERG 132KV POWERLINE WSP Project No. 41101408 May 2019 ESKOM HOLDINGS SOC LIMITED Page 7 APPENDIX
A PRE-APPLICATION CORRESPONDENCE
APPENDIX
B STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
APPENDIX
B-1 STAKEHOLDER DATABASE
APPENDIX
B-2 ADVERT
APPENDIX
B-3 SITE NOTICES
APPENDIX
B-4 NOTIFICATION LETTERS
APPENDIX
C AMENDED ENVIORNMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME
APPENDIX
D SPECIALIST DECLARATIONS AND CVS
APPENDIX
E BIODIVERSITY 2016 AND 2019 REPORTS
APPENDIX
F SURFACE WATER 2016 AND 2019 REPORT
APPENDIX
G HERITAGE 2016 AND 2019 REPORT
APPENDIX
H PALAEONTOLOGY 2016 AND 2019 REPORT
APPENDIX
I UPDATED ROUTE CO- ORDINATES