Environmental Impact Assessment

Home , Acanthosicyos horridus, Kuiseb River, Swakop River, Walvis Bay Rural

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

KUISEB DELTA NEW SCHEME

ERONGO REGION

A PROJECT BY NAMIBIA WATER CORPORATION

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT FOR REVIEW BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITIES AND OFFICE OF THE ENVRONMENTAL COMMISSONER

27 JULY 2020 PROJECT INFORMATION

Study Phase ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Project Title Kuiseb Delta New Scheme

Project Location South-east of Walvis Bay, Erongo Region

Project Number 2019/02/NW

BID Number SC/RP/NW-11/2019

Competent Authority Ministry of Mines & Energy (powerlines)

Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry (fauna & flora)

Approving Authority Directorate of Environmental Affairs (Ministry of Environment and Tourism)

Proponent Namibia Water Corporation

Private Bag 13389

176 Iscor Street

Windhoek

Executing Agent Namibia Water Corporation

Private Bag 13389

176 Iscor Street

Windhoek

Department of Engineering and Scientific Services

Environmental Assessment Urban Green cc Practitioner PO Box 11929

Klein Windhoek

Telephone: +264-61-300 820

Fax: +264-61-401 294

E-mail: [email protected]

Website: www.urbangreenafrica.net

Acknowledgements Photos: NAMWATER and Environment and Wildlife Consulting Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... i

LIST OF FIGURES...... iv

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ...... viii

APPENDICES ...... x

GLOSSARY OF TERMS ...... xii

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 SCHEME’S BACKGROUND ...... 1 1.2 SCHEME’S CHALLENGES ...... 1 1.3 NEED AND DESIRABILITY TO UPGRADE AND EXPAND THE SCHEME ...... 3 1.4 STUDY TERMS OF REFERENCE ...... 3 1.5 STUDY ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS ...... 3 1.6 PURPOSE OF THIS EIA REPORT ...... 4

2 STUDY TEAM AND EXPERTISE ...... 5 2.1 ROLE PLAYERS ...... 5 2.2 EXPERTISE OF THE EAP ...... 5

3 STUDY APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY ...... 7 3.1 REGISTRATION OF APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE CERTIFICATE ...... 7 3.1.1 LISTED ACTIVITIES ...... 7 3.1.2 THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY ...... 8 3.1.3 ASSESSMENT PROCESS ...... 8 3.1.4 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY ...... 8

4 LEGAL AND REGULATORY REVIEW ...... 10 4.1 NAMIBIAN LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR EIA ...... 10 4.2 NAMIBIAN SECTORAL LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS ...... 11 4.3 INTERNATIONAL TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS ...... 16

5 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT ...... 18

i Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

5.1 THE CENTRAL NAMIB AREA & KUISEB DELTA SCHEME ...... 18 5.1.1 LOCALITY ...... 18 5.1.2 OVERVIEW & SCHEMATIC LAYOUT OF EXISTING SYSTEM ...... 18 5.1.3 KUISEB DELTA WATER SCHEME BULK INFRASTRUCTURE ...... 19 5.1.4 CURRENT INFRASTRUCTURE CAPACITY ...... 23 5.1.5 DEMAND AND SUPPLY PROJECTIONS...... 24 5.1.6 SUSTAINABLE YIELDS ...... 24 5.1.7 INSTITUTIONS AND SUPPLY RESPONSIBILITY ...... 25 5.1.8 CHALLENGES WITHIN THE KUISEB DELTA WATER SCHEME ...... 25 5.1.9 NEED AND DESIRABILITY ...... 26 5.2 THE PROJECT ...... 27 5.2.1 THE STUDY AREA ...... 27 5.2.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...... 27 5.2.3 SUPPLY CAPACITY ...... 30 5.2.4 INFRASTRUCTURE ALIGNMENTS ...... 30 5.2.5 INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN AND SPECIFICATIONS ...... 37 5.2.6 ESTIMATED COST ...... 39 5.2.7 CONSTRUCTION PHASE ACTIVITIES ...... 44 5.2.8 OPERATIONAL PHASE ...... 46 5.2.9 DECOMMISSIONING AND CLOSURE ...... 46

6 DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ...... 47 6.1 BIOPHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT ...... 47 6.1.1 CLIMATE AND AIR QUALITY...... 47 6.1.2 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ...... 47 6.1.3 DUNES AND DUNE MIGRATION ...... 48 6.1.4 TOPOGRAPHY ...... 49 6.1.5 HYDROGEOLOGY ...... 49 6.1.6 BIODIVERSITY ...... 55 6.2 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT ...... 64 6.2.1 REGIONAL OVERVIEW ...... 64 6.2.2 WALVIS BAY TOWN ...... 65 6.2.3 WALVIS BAY RURAL CONSTITUENCY ...... 65

ii Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

6.3 ARCHAEOLOGY AND HERITAGE ...... 69 6.3.1 Overview ...... 69 6.3.2 Archaeological CHARACTERISTICS ...... 69 6.3.3 Monuments ...... 72 6.4 VISUAL AESTHETICS AND SENSE OF PLACE ...... 72

7 PUBLIC CONSULTATION ...... 74 7.1 PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT ...... 74 7.1.1 FIRST ROUND OF CONSULTATION ...... 74 7.1.2 SECOND ROUND OF CONSULTATION ...... 89

8 IMPACT ASSESSMENT ...... 100 8.1 METHODOLOGY OF ASSESSMENT ...... 100 8.2 MITIGATION APPLICATION METHODOLOGY ...... 103 8.3 POTENTIAL IMPACTS IDENTIFIED ...... 104 8.3.1 PLANNING AND DESIGN PHASE ...... 104 8.3.2 CONSTRUCTION-RELATED IMPACTS ...... 107 8.3.3 OPERATIONAL PHASE ...... 149 8.3.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ...... 174 8.3.5 DECOMMISSION AND CLOSURE IMPACTS ...... 175

9 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 176 9.1 OVERVIEW ...... 176 9.2 CONCLUSION ...... 179 9.3 RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 180 9.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ...... 182

10 REFERENCES ...... 183

iii Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1: Locality of Study Area ...... 2 Figure 3-1: Diagrammatic representation of Namibia's Environmental Assessment process ...... 9 Figure 5-1: Map of the Central Namib Bulk Water Supply System ...... 19 Figure 5-2: Map of the Kuiseb Delta Water Scheme ...... 20 Figure 5-3: Locality Map indicating the ‘initial’ Study Area ...... 28

Figure 5-4: Map indicating the newly drille boreholes (production and standby) ...... 29 Figure 5-5: Map of the Provided Alignment from existing Boreholes to the High Dune Reservoir ...... 31 Figure 5-6: Map of the Provided Alignments from the High Dune Reservoir to the Mile 7 Reservoirs ...... 33 Figure 5-7: Map of the Proposed Alternative Alignment, a combination of two Options ...... 34 Figure 5-8: Map of the Proposed Alternative Alignments from the boreholes to the High Dune Reservoir ...... 36 Figure 5-9: Map of the provided Alternative Alignments from the High Dune Reservoir (white star) to the Mile 7 Reservoir (black star) ...... 37 Figure 6-1: Hydrology Map of Larger Study Area ...... 50 Figure 6-2: Hydrogeological Map of the Larger Study Area ...... 51 Figure 6-3: Infrastructure and Land Use Map of the Larger Study Area ...... 68

Figure 6-4: Archaeological Zones…………………………………………………………. 70

Figure 6-5: Archaeological Sites within the Study Area ...... 73 Figure 8-1: Screening process for determining key impacts ...... 101

LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1: Project role players...... 5 Table 2-2: Qualifications and expertise of the environmental consultants ...... 5 Table 3-1: Listed Activities as per GN. No. 29 of 2012 applicable to the proposed project ...... 7

Table 4-1: Legislation guiding the EIA ...... 10 Table 4-2: Cross-sectoral legislation applicable to the project………………………11

Table 4-3: International Treaties and Conventions applicable to the Project...... 16

iv Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

Table 5-1: List of newly drilled boreholes recommended for installation for production and standby in Dorob South……………………………………... 30

Table 5-2: Estimated Cost (September 2015) ...... 39 Table 5-3: Capital Cost (2019) ...... 39 Table 5-4: Estimated Costs (NamWater 2019) ...... 40 Table 5-5: General Maintenance Cost ...... 42 Table 5-6: Estimated Maintenance Costs Per Option (NamWater 2019) ...... 42 Table 7-1: Comments received during the first round of public consultation ...... 76 Table 8-1: Criteria for impact evaluation (DEA, 2008) ...... 90 Table 8-2: Key issues and potential impacts expected during the construction phase .. 97 Table 8-3: Impact assessment pertaining to air quality ...... 98 Table 8-4: Impact assessment pertaining to hydrology (surface flow) ...... 100 Table 8-5: Impact assessment pertaining to hydrogeology ...... 102 Table 8-6: Impact assessment pertaining to top soil ...... 104 Table 8-7: Impact assessment pertaining to traffic safety ...... 106 Table 8-8: Impact assessment pertaining to health, safety and security ...... 107 Table 8-9: Impact assessment pertaining to noise and vibration ...... 109 Table 8-10: Impact assessment pertaining to visual disturbance ...... 111 Table 8-11: Impact assessment pertaining to restricting accessibility into the area ...... 112 Table 8-12: Impact assessment pertaining to flooding ...... 114 Table 8-13: Impact assessment pertaining to removal of traditional fruits ...... 115 Table 8-14: Impact assessment pertaining to employment and skills transfer ...... 116 Table 8-15: Impact assessment pertaining to heritage and archaeological remains ..... 118

Table 8-16: Impact assessment pertaining to faunal species ...... 121 Table 8-17: Impact assessment pertaining to faunal species ...... 125 Table 8-18: Impact assessment pertaining to handling of asbestos pipes ...... 128 Table 8-19: Comparative Assessment of the Key Biophysical Impacts during the Construction Phase for the THREE Alternatives Proposed ...... 130 Table 8-20: Comparative Assessment of the Socio-economic Impacts during the Construction Phase for the THREE Alternatives Proposed ...... 131 Table 8-21: Combined Comparative Assessment during the Construction Phase for the THREE Alternatives Proposed (after mitigation) ...... 132

Table 8-22: Grouped Alignment Options ...... 133

v Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

Table 8-23: Comparative Assessment of the Key Biophysical Impacts during the Construction Phase for the FOUR Alternatives Proposed...... 133 Table 8-24: Comparative Assessment of the Socio-economic Impacts during the Construction Phase for the FOUR Alternatives Proposed...... 134 Table 8-25: Comparative Assessment of the Key Heritage & Archaeological Impacts during the Construction Phase for the FOUR Alternatives Proposed ...... 135 Table 8-26: Combined Comparative Assessment during the Construction Phase for the FOUR Alternatives Proposed (after mitigation) ...... 136 Table 8-27: Comparative Assessment of the Construction Cost and Time Implication for the FOUR Alternatives Proposed ...... 137 Table 8-28: Key Issues and Potential Impacts expected during the Operational Phase 138 Table 8-29: Impact assessment pertaining to human and domestic stock (safety and movement) ...... 140 Table 8-30: Impact assessment pertaining to visual disturbance (increased powerline height) ...... 142 Table 8-31: Impact assessment pertaining to mammal and avian species ...... 145 Table 8-32: Impact assessment pertaining to faunal (!nara) species ...... 147 Table 8-33: Impact assessment pertaining to hydrology/surface flow (flooding) ...... 149 Table 8-34: Impact assessment pertaining to unidentifiable infrastructure ...... 150 Table 8-35: Impact assessment pertaining to operational and maintenance cost ...... 152 Table 8-36: Impact assessment pertaining to security of water supply ...... 153 Table 8-37: Comparative Assessment of the Key Biophysical Impacts during the operational Phase for the THREE Alternatives Proposed ...... 154 Table 8-38: Comparative Assessment of the Socio-economic Impacts during the Operational Phase for the THREE Alternatives Proposed ...... 155 Table 8-39: Comparative Assessment of the assumed Maintenance Cost during the Operational Phase for the THREE Alternatives Proposed ...... 156 Table 8-40: Combined Comparative Assessment during the Operational Phase for the THREE Alternatives Proposed (after mitigation) ...... 157 Table 8-41: Comparative Assessment of the Key Biophysical Impacts during the Operational Phase for the FOUR Alternatives Proposed ...... 158 Table 8-42: Comparative Assessment of the Socio-economic Impacts during the Operational Phase for the FOUR Alternatives Proposed ...... 159 Table 8-43: Comparative Assessment of the Interruption to Water Supply Impact during the Operational Phase for the FOUR Alternatives Proposed ...... 160

vi Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

Table 8-44: Comparative Assessment of the Operational and Maintenance Cost for the FOUR Alternatives Proposed (Combined) 161

Table 8-45: Combined Comparative Assessment during the Construction and Operational Phase for the FOUR Alternatives Proposed (after mitigation) . 162

vii Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

AC Asbestos cement

CNA Central Namib Area

CV Curriculum Vitae

DEA Department of Environmental Affairs

EA Environmental Assessment

EAP Environmental Assessment Practitioner

ECC Environmental Clearance Certificate

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

EMA Environmental Management Act

EMP Environmental Management Plan

GG Government Gazette

GN Government notice

HDPE High Density Polyethylene

I&AP Interested and Affected Party

IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature

IUSDF Integrated Urban Spatial Development Framework

KWS Kuiseb Water Scheme

MAWF Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry

MET Ministry of Environment and Tourism

Mm3/a million cubic meters per annum

NPC National Planning Commission

NSA Namibia Statistics Agency

viii Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

RA Roads Authority

ToR Terms of Reference

UNCCD United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification

WB Walvis Bay

ix Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Application for Environmental Clearance Certificate

Appendix B: Environmental Management Plan

Appendix C: CV of EAP responsible for the Environmental Assessment

Appendix D: Public Consultation

Appendix D1: List of Pre-identified Interested and Affected Parties & Authorities

1st Round of Public Consultation Appendix D2: Notification email sent to I&APs and authorities and proof of delivery of emails

Appendix D3: Background Information Document (BID)

Appendix D4: Notification letter sent via courier to regional and local authorities

Appendix D5: Proof of delivery of notification letter sent to Erongo Regional Council and Walvis Bay Municipality via courier

Appendix D6 Notification letter hand delivered to line ministries and state-owned enterprises situated in Windhoek

Appendix D7: Proof of hand delivery of notification letter sent to line ministries and state-owned enterprises situated in Windhoek

Appendix D8: Copies of newspaper notices placed in the printed media

Appendix D9: Proof of on-site notices placed at the reception areas of the Erongo Regional Council and Walvis Bay Municipality

Appendix D10: Public meeting attendance register and Power Point presentation

Appendix D11: Local community meeting attendance register and Power Point presentation

Appendix D12: Acknowledgement by Topnaar community and email correspondence pertaining to community meeting

Appendix D13: List of registered I&APs

x Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

Appendix D14: Copy of correspondence between I&APs and the EAP

2nd Round of Public Consultation Appendix D15: Copy of 1st notification emails sent to I&APs & authorities

Appendix D16: Proof of public notice placed at Erongo Regional Council, Walvis Bay Municipality & returned comments forms

Appendix D17: Copy of emails sent to I&APs & authorities of postponement of 2nd round public consultation due to COVID 19 regulations

Appendix D18: Copy of emails sent to I&APs & authorities of commencement of 2nd round public consultation and closure of comment period

Appendix D19: Copy of original correspondence (comments submitted and responses given)

Appendix E: Geohydrological Baseline Report

Appendix F: Biophysical Baseline Report

Appendix G: Archaeological Baseline Report

Appendix H: Ecological Detailed Report

Appendix I: Archaeological Field Survey Report

Appendix J: Kuiseb Dorob South Drilling and Test Pumping Report August 2017

Appendix K: DWRM Assessment Report

Appendix L: NamWater September 2015 Report

Appendix M: NamWater October 2019 Report

Appendix N: Water Abstraction Permit of May 2019

xi Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Alternatives - A possible course of action, in place of another, that would meet the same purpose and need but which would avoid or minimize negative impacts or enhance project benefits. These can include alternative locations/sites, routes, layouts, processes, designs, schedules and/or inputs. The “no-go” alternative constitutes the ‘without project’ option and provides a benchmark against which to evaluate changes; development should result in net benefit to society and should avoid undesirable negative impacts.

Artificial Water Resource - A natural source or occurrence of water, which is artificially confined.

Assessment - The process of collecting, organising, analysing, interpreting and communicating information relevant to decision making.

Bulk Water Supply - The wholesale supply of water on a business-orientated basis, in large quantities, whether in treated or untreated form, for any utilisation purpose to a customer for own use or for subsequent supply by the customer to consumers.

Competent Authority - means a body or person empowered under the local authorities act or Environmental Management Act to enforce the rule of law.

Cumulative Impacts - in relation to an activity, means the impact of an activity that in itself may not be significant but may become significant when added to the existing and potential impacts eventuating from similar or diverse activities or undertakings in the area.

Environment - As defined in the Environmental Assessment Policy and Environmental Management Act - “land, water and air; all organic and inorganic matter and living organisms as well as biological diversity; the interacting natural systems that include components referred to in sub-paragraphs, the human environment insofar as it represents archaeological, aesthetic, cultural, historic, economic, paleontological or social values”.

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) - Process of assessment of the effects of a development on the environment.

Environmental Management Plan (EMP) - A working document on environmental and socioeconomic mitigation measures, which must be implemented by several responsible parties during all the phases of the proposed project.

Evaluation – means the process of ascertaining the relative importance or significance of information, the light of people’s values, preference and judgements in order to make a decision.

Hazard - Anything that has the potential to cause damage to life, property and/or the environment. The hazard of a particular material or installation is constant; that is, it would present the same hazard wherever it was present.

xii Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

Interested and Affected Party (I&AP) - any person, group of persons or organisation interested in, or affected by an activity; and any organ of state that may have jurisdiction over any aspect of the activity.

Mitigate - The implementation of practical measures to reduce adverse impacts.

Natural Water Resource - A natural source or occurrence of water, which is not artificially confined.

Proponent (Applicant) - Any person who has submitted or intends to submit an application for an authorisation, as legislated by the Environmental Management Act no. 7 of 2007, to undertake an activity or activities identified as a listed activity or listed activities; or in any other notice published by the Minister or Ministry of Environment & Tourism.

Public - Citizens who have diverse cultural, educational, political and socio-economic characteristics. The public is not a homogeneous and unified group of people with a set of agreed common interests and aims. There is no single public. There are a number of publics, some of whom may emerge at any time during the process depending on their particular concerns and the issues involved.

Public consultation - The process of engagement between stakeholders (the proponent, authorities and I&APs) during the planning, assessment, implementation and/or management of proposals or activities. The level of stakeholder engagement varies depending on the nature of the proposal or activity as well as the level of commitment by stakeholders to the process. Stakeholder engagement can therefore be described by a spectrum or continuum of increasing levels of engagement in the decision-making process. The term is considered to be more appropriate than the term “public participation”.

The term therefore includes the proponent, authorities (both the lead authority and other authorities) and all interested and affected parties (I&APs). The principle that environmental consultants and stakeholder engagement practitioners should be independent and unbiased excludes these groups from being considered stakeholders.

Scoping Process - process of identifying: issues that will be relevant for consideration of the application; the potential environmental impacts of the proposed activity; and alternatives to the proposed activity that are feasible and reasonable.

Significant Effect/Impact - means an impact that by its magnitude, duration, intensity or probability of occurrence may have a notable effect on one or more aspects of the environment.

Sustainable Development – Development that meets the needs of the current generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs and aspirations.

Waterworks - A dam, embankment, wall, borehole, well, pumping installation, pipe, pipeline, canal, reservoir, sluice gate, filter, sedimentation tank, channel, purification plant, gauge post or measuring weir, road, telephone line or other work, structure or installation constructed,

xiii Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------erected or used for or in connection with the collection, abstraction, impounding, storage, conservation, transport, passage, drainage, purification, measurement or control of water, sewage, effluent or waste water.

xiv Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

1 INTRODUCTION This chapter of the report provides a background and motivation to the project; the study’s terms of reference; purpose of this report; the assumptions and limitations of the study; and an outline of the remainder of the report.

1.1 SCHEME’S BACKGROUND The central portion of the Namib area, i.e. Namib Water Supply Area, is partially supplied by means of water from the Kuiseb Delta aquifer, in specific from the Dorob South and the Rooibank B aquifers (see Figure 1-1). There is however the northern area, referred to as Dorob North, which does not form part of the study area.

The Kuiseb Delta Scheme consists of various aquifers, boreholes, and pump stations with pump lines, gravity pipelines and reservoirs supplying water to the town of Walvis Bay.

Water from Dorob South and Rooibank B aquifers, is pumped to the 2,000 m3 concrete High Dune Reservoir, from where it flows under gravity via a 9,100 m long, 350 mm fibre cement (FC) pipeline to the Mile 7 Reservoir in order to supply Walvis Bay. The Rooibank B boreholes, pump directly into the gravity feed pipeline connecting High Dune and Mile 7 reservoirs (see Figure 1-1 for orientation). Electricity is supplied via an underground power cable.

1.2 SCHEME’S CHALLENGES The existing Scheme and infrastructure, of which parts dates back to as early as 1962, is under pressure to supply in a higher demand for potable water, while security of supply is complicated by pipeline breakages and maintenance difficulties.

The frequent pipe breaks result in interruptions to water supply, which has both financial implications to NamWater and socio-economic implications to the affected end-users (i.e. town of Walvis Bay). Furthermore, these pipe breaks result in large quantities of water losses, which in turn results in wastage of scarce water resources.

Maintenance of the old pipeline (fibre cement) and the power cable is complicated by moving sand dunes, which has resulted in delaying repairs and resulting interruption in supply of water to the town of Walvis Bay and surrounding customers. The power cables are often covered by sand dunes of such magnitude, which make locating and access to the cables almost impossible.

1 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

Figure 1-1: Locality of project area

2 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------The situation is worsened by the fact that asbestos cement pipes (AC) are being phased out of production on the world market and therefore require different materials and fittings for their replacement when repairs are required.

As a result, water supply to NamWater customers has been interrupted on several occasions, which has a variety of socio-economic implications.

1.3 NEED AND DESIRABILITY TO UPGRADE AND EXPAND THE SCHEME Upgrading and expansion of this Scheme and its infrastructure has become necessary mainly due to (i) an increase in the demand for water from current customers and projected future demands, (ii) to ensure security of supply, especially during flood events, and (iii) redundant and outdated infrastructure, which results in an inability from the side of NAMWATER to ensure security of water.

In line with the Namibia Water Corporation Act (Act 12 of 1997), the proposed project sets out to conserve and protect the water resource and importantly maintain levels of services to ensuring the most cost-effective and commercially viable means of achieving the service standards.

1.4 STUDY TERMS OF REFERENCE In light of the mentioned need and desirability, Urban Green cc (hereafter referred to as Urban Green [UG]) was appointed by NamWater (hereafter referred to as the Proponent) to undertake the required environmental assessment (EA) for purpose of applying for an Environmental Clearance Certificate (ECC) for the proposed upgrade and expansion of the Kuiseb Delta Scheme (i.e. the Proposed Project).

The Terms of Reference (ToR) for the EA was specified in Annexure 1 of the ‘Request for Proposal to Conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment and Compilation of an Environmental Management Plan for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme’ (SC/RP/NW-11/2019), provided by the Proponent.

An important aspect worth mentioning is the requirement to identify alternatives other than the proposed, which was done as part of this study. The Proposed Project is presented in Chapter 5 of this report, which presents both the initial proposed project and the alternatives that was proposed following this study.

1.5 STUDY ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS In undertaking the EA and compiling of the EIA report, the following assumptions and limitations apply:

• It is assumed that all the information provided by the Proponent and authorities consulted are accurate and that those aforementioned have disclosed all necessary information available.

3 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------• The lack of interest from the directly affected community, i.e. Topnaars, limits the availability of information and value on especially the !naras and its cultural and economic value to this particular community.

• It is assumed that all permit or licence requirements, other than the ECC, associated with the proposed project will be addressed as separate investigations and are not included in this EA process. • It is assumed that there will be no significant changes to the proposed project (see Chapter 5) or the affected environment (see Chapter 6) between the compilation of this report and implementation of the proposed project that could substantially influence findings, recommendations with respect to mitigation and management, etc.

• The EA process involved the assessment of impacts on the current conservation value of affected land and not on either the historic or potential future conservation value. This EA process included an evaluation of impacts on the archaeology of the affected area.

• The assessment is based on the prevailing environmental (social and biophysical) and legislative context at the time of writing this report.

• From the August 2017 NAMWATER Report, the ‘sustainability and abstraction strategy’ was evaluated by the Hydrologist, but could not determine the sustainable abstraction of the source. The sustainable abstraction of the Kuiseb Aquifer was based on the groundwater flow modelling report (2018) from GCS Water & Environmental Engineering Namibia (Pty) Ltd.). • It is assumed that information obtained from NamWater in-house Engineers and environmental specialist is accurate. • Very limited information was available on the ‘construction interventions’ of the different types of infrastructure. The available information is presented in this report.

1.6 PURPOSE OF THIS EIA REPORT This EIA report serves the purpose of providing information to the Competent Authroities and the Office of the Environmental Commissioner with the information necessary to make an informed decision with respect to the awarding or refusing of the application for an ECC associated with the proposed project.

4 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------2 STUDY TEAM AND EXPERTISE

2.1 ROLE PLAYERS The role players in this study are set out in Table 2-1.

Table 2-1: Project role players ORGANISATION PROJECT ROLE

Ministry of Mines and Energy Competent Authority

Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry Competent Authority

Decision-making authority for environmental Department of Environmental Affairs authorisation

Namibia Water Corporation Limited (NamWater) Proponent

Environment and Wildlife Consulting (Peter Ecologist Cunningham)

Dynamic Water Resources Management (Otto Hydrologist van Vuuren)

Dr. John Kinahan Archaeologist

Urban Green cc Independent Environmental Consultant (EAP)

Urban Green cc Public participation

2.2 EXPERTISE OF THE EAP The qualifications and expertise of the environmental consultant are set out in Table 2-2 below. A detailed CV is attached as Appendix C.

Table 2-2: Qualifications and expertise of the environmental consultants NAME Urban Green cc (Brand van Zyl)

EAP; project management; public & stakeholder consultation; impact Responsibility on the assessment and mitigation formulation; reporting and application for Project Environmental Clearance

M. Degree in Environmental Management; M. Degree Town and Qualifications Regional Planning; Bachelor of Arts Urban Geography

Professional Registration Namibian Council for Town and Regional Planners

Experience in years 16

Brand van Zyl has been involved in various Environmental Impact Experience Assessment studies throughout Namibia and of different kind.

5 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

NAME Environment & Wildlife Consulting, Namibia (Peter Cunningham)

Responsibility on the Vertebrate fauna & flora; ecology; mitigation for power line & pipeline Project

Qualifications MSc; BSc Honours; BSc (Conservation Ecology)

Professional Registration N/A

Experience in years 23

Peter Cunningham has been involved as ecologist in various Environmental Impact Assessment studies throughout Namibia Experience (including Angola, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, United Arab Emirates & Saudi Arabia).

NAME Dr. John Kinahan

Responsibility on the Archaeological survey and assessment Project

Qualifications PhD University of the Witwatersrand, 1989

Professional Registration N/A

Experience in years 40

John Kinahan is a research archaeologist who has worked wisely in Africa and is attached to several universities in southern Africa, the Experience United Kingdom and North America. He has published more than 70 research articles which have been cited 1381 times, and has a Google Scholar ranking of H18.

NAME Dynamic Water Resources Management (Otto van Vuuren)

Assessing the pumping test report by NamWater for the Responsibility on the geohydrological input into the Environmental Impact Assessment and Project the Environmental Management Plan for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme

B. Sc (Geological sciences); B.Sc (Hons) (Hydrology and Qualifications Geohydrology)

Awaiting registration as Senior Geoscientist at the Geosciences Council Professional Registration of Namibia. (Application submitted, see attached confirmation)

Experience in years 31

Otto van Vuuren has more than 30 years’ experience in the Experience groundwater sector and related services in Namibia.

6 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------3 STUDY APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY The steps followed as part of this EA process are; registration of application for an ECC and execution of the Environmental Impact Assessment (content of this report). A flowchart indicating the process being followed is presented by Figure 3-1 below.

3.1 REGISTRATION OF APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE CERTIFICATE

3.1.1 LISTED ACTIVITIES The first step followed as part of this EA process was to identify the listed activities, which the proposed project triggers, as stipulated in the ‘List of Activities that may not be undertaken without an Environmental Clearance Certificate’ (GN. No. 29 of 2012). These activities are listed in Table 3-1 below.

Table 3-1: Listed activities as per Government Notice 29 of 2012 applicable

Activity No. Activity Description

Energy Generation, Transmission and Storage Activities

The construction of facilities for the transmission and supply of Activity 1(b) electricity

Forestry Activities

The clearance of forest areas, deforestation, afforestation, timber Activity 4 harvesting or vegetation on a sand dune that requires authorisation in terms of the Forest Act, 2001 (Act No. 12 of 2001).

Water Resource Developments

Construction of canals and channels including the diversion of the Activity 8.4 normal flow of water in a riverbed and water transfer schemes between water catchments and impoundments.

Activity 8.8 Construction and other activities in watercourses within flood lines.

Activity 8.9 Construction and other activities within a catchment area

Infrastructure

The construction of oil, water, gas and petrochemical and other Activity 10.1(a) bulk supply pipelines.

7 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------Considering the above, it is therefore required that an ECC be obtained from the Environmental Commissioner in accordance with Section 27(3) of Namibia’s Environmental Management Act (No. 7 of 2007) (hereafter referred to as the EMA) for the proposed project.

3.1.2 THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY In accordance with Section 32 of the EMA, applications for an ECC should be submitted with the relevant Competent Authority. The Competent Authority is defined as that authority having the jurisdiction to approve or permit a particular listed activity in accordance with the relevant national legislation.

In accordance with Regulation 6(1) of the EIA Regulations (GN. 30 of 2012), an application was submitted to the Competent Authorities (Ministry of Mines and Energy; and the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry) on 15 May 2019 (Appendix A) of which copies was submitted with the office of the Environmental Commissioner (Appendix A).

The listed activity of ‘abstraction of ground water or surface water for industrial or commercial purposes’ was specifically excluded from the EAP’s Tender Proposal, due to the complexity and need for further investigation from a specialist/s. A separate environmental clearance certificate should be obtained for the mentioned listed activity, either as a separate study or by expanding this study.

3.1.3 ASSESSMENT PROCESS Following the registration of the listed activities (see section 3.1.1) with the applicable authorities (see section 3.1.2), the assessment commenced with public consultation as prescribed by Regulation 21 to 24 of the EIA Regulations (GN. No. 30 of 2012). A baseline assessment of the hydrological- (Appendix E), ecological- (Appendix F) and the archaeological (Appendix G) character of the receiving environment were undertaken during June and July 2019.

From the ecological and the archaeological baseline assessments it was found that, a more detailed assessment would be required, which was undertaken during August and September 2019.

3.1.4 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY This EA process was carried out in accordance with provisions for EA as prescribed by the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations (GN. No. 30 of 2012), provided for by Section 56 of the Environmental Management Act (No. 7 of 2007).

The study’s approach and methods were guided by the Terms of Reference (Section 1.4) and the relevant legislation (Section 4.1).

The methodology of each of the specialist studies are presented within the respective reports, attached as Appendixes H & I.

8 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

Figure 3-1: Diagrammatic representation of Namibia's Environmental Assessment process

9 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------4 LEGAL AND REGULATORY REVIEW For the purpose of environmental protection and sustainable renewable resource management to the benefit of all, legislation from different spheres under control of different ministries have been adopted and enacted by the Namibian Parliament. In support to the goal of sustainable renewable resource management, various international treaties and conventions have also been agreed to by Namibia.

There are a number of sectoral laws that fall under the general rubric of environmental laws. Sectoral laws are generally specific and apply to sectors such as forestry, water, mining and so forth. Any development, such as the proposed Project, is expected to have certain impacts and would therefore have to comply with some or other legislative requirement/s before commencement.

This chapter provides an overview to the legislation that is applicable to both the assessment process and the various activities making up the project. It is accordingly divided into: (i) the legal framework for environmental management in Namibia; (ii) national sectoral legislative requirements applicable to the activities of the proposed project; and (iii) other relevant legislation and approvals required for the commencement of the project.

4.1 NAMIBIAN LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR EIA A number of Namibian legislation and policies have environmental considerations with respect to the proposed project.

The aforementioned instruments accounting for the legal framework for conducting an environmental assessment is listed in Table 4-1 below.

Table 4-1: Legislation guiding the EIA

STATUTE PROVISIONS PROJECT IMPLICATIONS

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT LEGAL FRAMEWORK

The Namibian Article 95 (1) states that “the State shall The project should support Constitution (1990) actively promote and maintain the welfare the provisions of the of the people by adopting, inter alia, Namibian Constitution policies aimed at… maintenance of ecosystems, essential ecological processes and biological diversity of Namibia and utilization of natural resources on a sustainable basis” Article 100 stipulates that all natural resources are vested in the state, unless otherwise legally owned. The use of such resources is only allowed within reasonable limits and beyond such limits, permission should be obtained from a competent authority responsible for the use and

10 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

STATUTE PROVISIONS PROJECT IMPLICATIONS

governance of the concerned natural resources.

Environmental Section 3(2) of the EMA provides a set of The project should adhere Management Act principles that give effect to the provisions to the principles provided in (No 7 of 2007) of the Namibian Constitution for integrated the EMA. environmental management. An ECC should be obtained Section 27(3) stipulates that no party, for the project. whether private or governmental, can The Proponent should conduct a listed activity without an ECC renew the ECC (if granted) obtained from the Environmental every three years. Commissioner. Section 40(1) stipulates that an ECC remains valid for a period not exceeding three years, subject to cancellation or suspension.

EIA Regulations Provides for the process to be followed in The EA process should be 2012 (GG No. 4878 undertaking an environmental assessment, undertaken as prescribed in GN No. 29 and 30) stipulating particular requirements with the EIA Regulations. regards to public consultation, the Transfer of the ECC should identification of impacts and establishing be done as per the the significance thereof, as well as the requirements, at the time content of an environmental scoping report. when so required. Of particular interest is the transfer of an ECC, which is regulated by section 20 of the EIA Regulations.

4.2 NAMIBIAN SECTORAL LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS A number of Namibian legislation and policies have environmental considerations in respect of the proposed project, as listed in Table 4-2 below.

Table 4-2: Cross-sectoral legislation applicable to the project

STATUTE PROVISIONS PROJECT IMPLICATIONS

NATIONAL SECTORAL LEGISLATION

Namibia Water The Act provides for a more efficient use The Proponent’s actions Corporation Act No. and control of water resources, apart from during this project should 12 of 1997 providing for the establishment of the be in line with the Namibia Water Corporation Limited; the mentioned objectives. regulation of its powers, duties and functions; and other incidental matters.

11 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

STATUTE PROVISIONS PROJECT IMPLICATIONS

The objectives of the Corporation focus apart from others on the bulk water supply within a ‘…cost-effective, environmentally sound and sustainable means…’.

Water Act No. 54 of Makes provision for a number of functions This Act, along with the 1956, as amended pertaining to the management, control and Water Resources use of water resources, water supply and Management Act, No 11 of the protection of water resources. 2013 requires the Of importance is that the Act - Proponent to investigate and implement measures to • Prohibits the pollution of underground ensure sustainable use of and surface water bodies. water resources and ensure • Liability of clean-up costs after closure / that no pollution of any abandonment of an activity. above or below ground water takes place.

Forest Act No. 12 of Provision for the protection of various plant 2001, as amended species.

Section 22(1): It is unlawful for any person to “cut, destroy or remove” any living tree, bush or shrub growing within 100 metres from a river, stream or watercourse on land that is not part of a surveyed erf or a local Protected vegetation should authority area without a licence. be incorporated as part of Prohibits the removal of and transport of the project. various protected plant species. Vegetation in watercourses and 100m on either side is Nature Protects wild animals and indigenous to be protected from Conservation plants. damage. Ordinance No. 4 of Prohibits disturbance or destruction of the Intended removal of such 1975, as amended eggs of huntable game birds or protected vegetation (Acacia erioloba, birds without a permit. Albizia, anthelmintica, Requires a permit for picking (the definition Ziziphus mucronata, Boscia of “picking” includes damage or destroy) albitrunca) would require a protected plants without a permit. permit. Prohibits the removal of and transport of various protected plant species.

Soil Conservation Prevention and combating of soil erosion; Act No. 76 of 1969, conservation, improvement and manner of as amended use of soil and vegetation, and protection of water sources.

Hazardous The Ordinance applies to the manufacture, During the construction and

12 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

STATUTE PROVISIONS PROJECT IMPLICATIONS

Substances sale, use, disposal and dumping of operation phases, any Ordinance No. 14 hazardous substances, and is administered hazardous waste needs to of 1974, as by the Minister of Health and Social be properly handled, stored amended Services. Its primary purpose is to prevent and disposed of in a hazardous substances from causing injury, responsible manner and at ill health or the death of human beings. appropriate waste sites.

Atmospheric Provides for the prevention of the pollution Excessive dust emissions Pollution Prevention of the atmosphere. Part IV of this should be avoided as it Ordinance No 11 of ordinance deals with dust control and could be categorised as 1976, as amended provides for the proclamation of dust causing a public nuisance control areas. under common law.

Public Health Act Section 119 states that “no person shall The Proponent has a No. 36 of 1919, as cause a nuisance or shall suffer to exist on general obligation not to amended any land or premises owned or occupied cause any nuisance, which by him or of which he is in charge any may have an implication on Health and Safety nuisance or other condition liable to be human health. Regulations GN injurious or dangerous to health.” 156/1997 (GG 1617)

Labour Act No. 11 The Labour Act (No. 6 of 1992), the New The Proponent (including of 2007, as Labour Act (no. 11 of 2007) and their appointed contractors) amended Government Notice 156 of 1997: Labour needs to comply with health Act, 1992: Regulations Relating to the and safety regulations Health and Safety of Employees at Work, pertaining to the health and governs working conditions of employees. safety of employees during These regulations are prescribed for construction. among others safety relating to hazardous Operational activities substances, exposure limits and physical should not result in any hazards. Special consideration must be potential negative health given to: implications to the residents • Chapter 3: Welfare and Facilities at and/or larger community. Work-Places • Chapter 4: Safety of Machinery • Chapter 5: Hazardous Substances • Chapter 6: Physical Hazards and general provision

Road Traffic and Provides for the control of traffic on public All personnel and vehicles Transport Act 52 of roads and the regulations pertaining to active during the 1999 and its 2001 road transport, including the licensing of construction phase should Regulations, as vehicles and drivers. be appropriately licensed. amended Part 5 of the 2001 Regulations lays out Construction materials detailed provisions pertaining to vehicle transported/delivered to the loads – i.e. types of loads and the construction site should

13 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

STATUTE PROVISIONS PROJECT IMPLICATIONS

appropriate manner in which loads for adhere to the requirements different vehicle classes should be carried. of the 2001 Regulations – i.e. should note exceed limits stipulated and should be transported in a safe manner.

Road Ordinance Rails, tracks, bridges, wires, cables, The limitations applicable 1972 (Ordinance 17 subways or culverts across or under on RA proclaimed roads of 1972) proclaimed roads (S36.1) should inform the proposed Infringements and obstructions on and location of the pipeline & interference with proclaimed roads. (S37.1) powerline and construction activity where applicable.

National Heritage The Act requires the identification of All protected heritage Act (Act 27 of cultural and archaeological sites within the resources (e.g. human 2004), as amended study area, registration and protection remains etc.) discovered, thereof. need to be reported immediately to the National Heritage Council (NHC) and require a permit from the NHC before they may be relocated. Heritage resources need to be considered by a heritage specialist.

White Paper on The Policy objectives are based on the Obligation to use water National Water following applicable principles: resource in a sustainable Policy for Namibia way and to properly (2000) • Resource sustainability maintain the water supply and distribution system. • Sustainable utilization

• Access to water

The policy also refers to the right of every citizen to obtain, within reasonable distance from their place of abode, a quantity of water sufficient to maintain life, health and productive activity.

Communal Land The Act provides for the allocation and Cognisance should be Reform Act No. 5 administration of all communal land and taken of the fact that the of 2002 makes provision for the prevention of area is situated within a negative impacts to the natural communal area and the environment. applicable rights should thus be respected.

14 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

STATUTE PROVISIONS PROJECT IMPLICATIONS

Traditional Section 3 of the Traditional Authorities Cognisance and Authorities Act No. Act gives certain powers, duties and involvement from the side 25 of 2000 functions to traditional authorities and of the applicable traditional members thereof. Section 3(2)(c) of the authority becomes Act is about the environmental necessary to ensure responsibility of traditional authorities. sustainable development to the benefit of the larger community.

Deeds Registries The Act provides for the registration of title The Proponent should Act (Act 47 of deeds (i.e. ownership) for land within the survey and register a 1937) territory of Namibia and related matters. servitude for the proposed pipeline & power line & road This act provides for the registration of title over the communal land. deeds for land parcels and associated survey diagrams, which are to be lodged with both the Directorate of Survey and Mapping as well as the Directorate of Deeds Registration.

A servitude, can be understood as a right to occupy space or move across a given parcel of land surveyed and lodged with the Directorate of Survey and Mapping and registered accordingly with the Directorate of Deeds Registration.

LOCAL SECTORAL LEGISLATION

Dorob National Regulation 36F(9)(g)(iii) prohibits any The Proponent should Park Regulations person from undertaking construction obtain written permission (GG No. 5015, GN activities within the Dorob National Park from the Minister of No. 210/2012) without written permission from the Minister Environment and Tourism of Environment and Tourism. Regulation for the proposed 36F also prohibits: construction activity.

• Littering The Proponent (and any appointed contractors) • Environmental degradation should adhere to the rules • Hunting of animals and regulations of the • Picking of plants Dorob National Park. • Throwing away a burning or smouldering object or put or leave it at a place where it may possibly ignite another object

Integrated Urban The IUSDF sets specific development Activities of the project Spatial guidelines with reference to infrastructure falling within the IUSDF

15 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

STATUTE PROVISIONS PROJECT IMPLICATIONS

Development development and land uses. should take note of the Framework proposed development (IUSDF) for Walvis guidelines, i.e. the project Bay area is identified for low impact recreation and tourism.

Walvis Bay Town The scheme sets specific regulations Activities of the project that Planning Scheme pertaining to land use and related takes place within the requirements (i.e. building heights; Scheme boundary should densities; etc.), as well as environmental be undertaken as per the protection, etc. regulations and requirements of the Scheme.

4.3 INTERNATIONAL TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS The international treaties and conventions applicable to the project and worth taking note of are listed below in Table 4-3 below.

Table 4-3: International Treaties and Conventions applicable to the Project STATUTE PROVISIONS PROJECT IMPLICATIONS

The United Nations Address land degradation in the dry lands Activities should not be of Convention to with the purpose to contribute to the such that it contributes to Combat conservation and sustainable use of negative implications on Desertification biodiversity and the mitigation of climate biodiversity and as a result (UNCCD) change. stimulate climate change.

Convention on Regulate or manage biological resources Removal of vegetation cover Biological Diversity important for the conservation of biological and destruction of natural 1992 diversity whether within or outside protected habitats should be avoided. areas, with a view to ensuring their conservation and sustainable use. Promote the protection of ecosystems, natural habitats and the maintenance of viable populations of species in natural surroundings.

Stockholm It recognizes the need for: “a common Protection of natural Declaration on the outlook and common principles to inspire resources and prevention of Human and guide the people of the world in the any form of pollution. Environment, preservation and enhancement of the Stockholm (1972) human environment.

RAMSAR Article 2(1) provides for the inclusion of Namibia is a signatory to Convention on wetlands in a “List of Wetlands of this convention. Wetlands of International Importance” “especially where The Walvis Bay Lagoon is

16 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

STATUTE PROVISIONS PROJECT IMPLICATIONS

International these have importance as waterfowl included in the “List of Importance (1971) habitat”. Wetlands of International Article 2(6) provides for the exercising of Importance” and their international responsibilities with respect to conservation has the these wetlands. support of national government. The Article 4 provides for the promotion of Proponent therefore has a conservation of wetlands and waterfowl. responsibility to protect these any waterfowl which move to and from the Walvis Bay Lagoon.

17 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------5 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT This chapter provides first a background introduction to the Central Namib Area and the Kuiseb Delta Scheme, within which the project area or study area falls, and then a description of the Proposed Project and closing the chapter with an outline of the possible alternative alignments that were identified and accordingly subjected to an environmental assessment (see Chapter 8).

The content of this chapter is based on and derived from secondary information as provided by the Proponent and the environmental specialists.

5.1 THE CENTRAL NAMIB AREA & KUISEB DELTA SCHEME

5.1.1 LOCALITY The Central Namib Area, which includes the Kuiseb Delta Scheme, is located to the western central parts of Namibia, surrounding the towns of Henties Bay, Swakopmund and Walvis Bay, as indicated by Figure 5-1 below.

5.1.2 OVERVIEW & SCHEMATIC LAYOUT OF EXISTING SYSTEM Most of the bulk water supply infrastructure in the Central Namib Area Bulk Water Supply System was developed in the 1970s and some of the pipelines are showing signs of having reached the end of their useful life and need replacement, while most of the reservoirs are of sufficient capacity for many years to come. Bulk water supply to the Central Namib Area (CNA) is presently based on groundwater abstracted from the alluvia in the lower reaches of two ephemeral river systems, the Kuiseb River some 20 km south of Walvis Bay, the Omaruru River 80 km north of Swakopmund and Orano Desalination Plant (previously Areva) as indicated in Figure 5-1 below. Both the mentioned rivers receive recharge from ephemeral flow generated inland in the central highlands.

The Central Namib Area Bulk Water Supply System consists of four schemes, which supplies water to consumers along 100 km of coastline and 65 km inland. The most southern scheme within the CNA is the Kuiseb Delta Water Scheme, within which this proposed project is located, i.e. the Dorob South & Rooibank component.

The Kuiseb Delta Water Scheme again can be divided into three sub-components, i.e. Swartbank, Rooibank A & B and Dorob South well fields, that feed Walvis Bay and/or Swakopmund, as depicted by Figure 5-2 below. Swakopmund town is fed from the Swartbank component, while the Rooibank A is feeding the Mile 7 reservoir directly, as well as the High Dune reservoir, who is again feeding the Mile 7 reservoir, from which the town of Walvis Bay and surrounding clients are fed. The CNA scheme was so designed that the Kuiseb Delta Scheme can supplement supply to the users directly dependent on the Omdel Scheme and vice versa. This reverse supply is done during times of either of the Scheme not being able to supply in the demand or during times of flooding and damages to abstraction boreholes.

18 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

Figure 5-1: Map of the Central Namib Bulk Water Supply System (Source: NamWater, 2009)

5.1.3 KUISEB DELTA WATER SCHEME BULK INFRASTRUCTURE (i) Bulk Water Infrastructure The Kuiseb Delta currently comprises of the Swartbank-, Rooibank A-, and the Dorob South and Rooibank B aquifer compartments (Figure 5-2), comprising of 57 production boreholes scattered over a distance of approximately 30 km from the Kuiseb Delta at Dorob South & Rooibank to Swartbank further south-east.

The Dorob South & Rooibank B compartment consists of a total of 39 boreholes of which twenty-one (21) boreholes were drilled prior to 2016/2017 and another eighteen (18) during 2016/2017. Of the 21 boreholes (prior to 2016/2017), 11 are still accessible and will remain part of the Scheme, while the remaining 10 boreholes, which are either inaccessible due to migrating sand or uneconomical to rehabilitate, will not be part of the Scheme any longer.

19 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

Figure 5-2: Map of the Kuiseb Delta Water Scheme (Source: NamWater, 2009)

In addition to the mentioned boreholes, the Scheme also includes the High Dune Reservoir (see Photo 5-1) and Mile 7 Reservoirs (see Photo 5-2).

Photo 5-1 - View of the High Dune Reservoir

20 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

Photo 5-2 - View of the Mile 7 Reservoirs

Water abstracted from the Dorob South well field and Rooibank B Groups 1 and 2, is pumped to the High Dune Reservoir from where it gravitates to the Mile 7 Reservoirs. Water abstracted from the Rooibank B Group 3 (6 production boreholes), is pumped directly into the gravity pipeline connecting the High Dune- and Mile 7 reservoirs.

From the Mile 7 Reservoirs, water flows by gravity to Walvis Bay and NamPort reservoirs from where water is further distributed to the Municipality of Walvis Bay and NamPort respectively.

The gravity pipeline between the High Dune Reservoir and Mile 7 Reservoirs (see Photo 5- 3) is a 9.1 km long 350 mm fibre cement (FC) pipe.

Photo 5-3 - View of exposed section of the gravity pipeline between the High Dune Reservoir and the Mile 7 Reservoirs

21 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------This component supplies the town of Walvis Bay, various industries in and around Walvis Bay (including NamPort) and other smaller consumers. Walvis Bay remains the largest consumer of water within the Central Namib Area (NamWater, 2009).

(ii) Bulk Powerline Infrastructure The entire Scheme is supplied via an existing power network owned by NamWater, but supplied by NamPower. Apart from the below ground power line in between the High Dune Reservoir and the Mile 7 Reservoirs, which was established in 1962, the remainder of the power lines are above ground structures, as indicated by Photos 5-4 & 5-5 below.

Photos 5-4 & 5-5 - View of existing above ground power line infrastructure

(iii) Bulk Road Infrastructure Access to the bulk water- and power infrastructure is obtained via the existing formal road network (i.e. M0036 & D1983) and unproclaimed ‘service roads’.

The unproclaimed ‘service roads’ differs from gravel strips of roads (Photo 5-6) to two-track (Photos 5-7 & 5-8) following the alignment of existing infrastructure. Due to the migrating sand dunes, some parts of the unproclaimed ‘service roads’ and other bulk infrastructure have been covered.

Photo 5-6 - View of graded unproclaimed ‘service road’

22 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

Photo 5-7 - View of two-track unproclaimed ‘service road’

Photo 5-8 - View of sand covered unproclaimed ‘service road’

Various ‘service roads’ of different type (see Photos 5-6, 5-7 & 5-8) exists throughout the larger area. The ‘service road’ in between the High Dune Reservoir and the Mile 7 Reservoirs is an existing ‘road’ of which about 75% is existing and in used. The last 25% of this road has been covered with sand.

5.1.4 CURRENT INFRASTRUCTURE CAPACITY The High Dune Reservoir has a holding capacity of 2,000 m³, while the Mile 7 Reservoirs has a combined capacity of 2,000 m³.

According to the Preliminary Design Report (NamWater, 29 October 2019), the High Dune- Mile 7 pipeline’s capacity of 322 m3/hr (2.8 Mm³/a) is considered to small and restrictive to the Scheme’s production potential set at 4.2 Mm3/a.

Water abstracted from the Dorob South well field (12 production boreholes) and Rooibank B Groups 1 and 2 (6 production boreholes), having a combined capacity of 6,360 m³/day, is pumped to the High Dune Reservoir from where it gravitates to the Mile 7 Reservoirs (see Figure 5-1). Water abstracted from the Rooibank B Group 3 (6 production boreholes) with a capacity of 2,460 m³/day or 123 m³/h, is pumped directly into the gravity pipeline connecting the High Dune- and Mile 7 reservoirs (see Figure 5-1).

23 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------5.1.5 DEMAND AND SUPPLY PROJECTIONS The bulk water supply situation of the Central Namib Area is becoming more desperate as the new and growing towns, as well as uranium mines’ additional demand is placing an increasing burden on both the Scheme’s infrastructure and resource supply capacity. The March 2009 NamWater study predicted that the Omdel and Kuiseb aquifers would be unable to supply in the demand of all consumers by 2014/15. At the time, the 2009 Study projected that additional sources delivering 27.1 Mm3/a and 32.2 Mm3/a would be required by 2014/15 and 2029/30 respectively. This is between 2-2.5 times the current source capacity.

NamWater’s 2009 study, ‘Water Supply Infrastructure Development and Capital Replacement Master Plan for the Central Namib Area’ (March, 2009), depicted a shortfall in supply in 2019/20, mainly as a result of infrastructure capacity.

The Kuiseb Delta compartment of the Scheme (i.e. Rooibank A & Dorob South), the focus of this study, currently contributes to 28.6% of the Scheme’s total supply (NamWater, 2015).

According to the NamWater 2015 study, the future demand of Walvis Bay, NamPort and smaller consumers, estimated at 10.7 Mm3/a was considerably higher than the then approved abstraction permit of the Lower Kuiseb Aquifers of 7 Mm3/a, which was increased to 9 Mm3/a during May 2019 (see point 5.1.6 below).

Although redeeming plans exist, the delay to construct a desalination plant at Mile 6 and the recent downward review of the sustainable yield of the Omdel Aquifer to 4.6 Mm3/a, left NamWater to also focus on the Rooibank B and Dorob South Aquifers (jointly known as the Kuiseb Delta scheme) to enhance the interim water supply sources for existing customers and refer new water supply applicants to desalination sources such as the Orano (previously Areva) desalination plant at Wlotzkasbaken.

5.1.6 SUSTAINABLE YIELDS In 2001 the sustainable yield of the Kuiseb Delta was calculated as 7.0 Mm³/a by the Geohydrology Sub-division of NamWater, which was updated in April 2019 to 9 Mm³/a. According to NamWater’s March 2009 study, the combined recommended abstraction rate (30,520 m3/day or 11.1 Mm3/a during normal operation) from the Kuiseb Delta Water Scheme was higher than the sustainable yield of the aquifer (i.e. 7.0 Mm3/a). The permitted abstraction volumes of 7 Mm³/a was approved on 19 November 2013 and was valid until 13 March 2017. During May 2019 NamWater received a permit for 9.0 Mm3/a (Appendix N).

In lieu of geohydrological studies referring to additional potential of the Kuiseb Delta, NamWater appointed SLR Global Environmental Solutions to carry out a numerical groundwater flow model on the Rooibank B and Dorob South compartments to ascertain and quantify aquifer abstraction potential. This 2014 study, updated during 2018, recommended a total abstraction potential of 5.3Mm3/a (i.e. 726 m3/h), while the sustainable abstraction is set at 3.2Mm3/a.

Given the groundwater modelling recommendations (SLR Global Environmental Solutions, 2018), NamWater registered a borehole drilling programme (Appendix J) to abstract at least the sustainable yield (3.2 Mm3/a) from the Kuiseb Delta scheme. Based on the average

24 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------yield of existing boreholes, a total of 18 production and 6 monitoring boreholes were drilled and subjected to pump tests during November 2016 to May 2017. These boreholes are expected to give an additional yield of 216 m3/h resulting in an estimated total abstraction of (3.2 Mm3/a or 436 m3/h) from the Kuiseb Delta.

As required by the ‘Request for Proposal to Conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment and Compilation of an Environmental Management Plan for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme’ (SC/RP/NW-11/2019) (November 2018), and independent review of the Drilling of 19 Production Boreholes and 5 Monitoring Boreholes at Kuiseb Water Supply Scheme (Dorob South Extension Project) (August 2017) was done by Dynamic Water Resource Management (Appendix K).

Of the 18 boreholes drilled, seven (7) will be commissioned of which five (5) of the mentioned seven (7) will be production boreholes and two (2) of the mentioned seven (7) will be standby boreholes (see section 5.2.2).

5.1.7 INSTITUTIONS AND SUPPLY RESPONSIBILITY Apart from the bulk water reservoirs and pipelines under the ownership of the Walvis Bay Municipality, all other bulk water infrastructure (i.e. a network of boreholes, chlorine dosage facilities and pump stations and pipelines), which forms part of the Kuiseb Delta Scheme, is owned, operated and maintained by NamWater.

The following institutions are responsible for effective water resources management as part of this network:

• Namibia Water Corporation: Bulk water supply: Water is abstracted from primary sources (e.g. aquifers) and supplied to local and regional authorities or other end- users directly.

• Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry (MAWF): Overall water resource inventory, monitoring, control, regulation and management.

• Local Authorities and Regional Councils: Water is bought in bulk from NamWater and distributed/reticulated to consumers in urban areas (cities, towns, villages) and rural areas.

5.1.8 CHALLENGES WITHIN THE KUISEB DELTA WATER SCHEME Occasionally, Walvis Bay town experience water shortages when water supply is interrupted from the Dorob South- and Rooibank B aquifers due to many different reasons e.g. flood damage to infrastructure, power supply interruptions, lack of scheduled maintenance, etc., which again has serious socio-economic implications to the Regional economy.

5.1.8.1 Natural Risks Natural risks entail damages during floods and infrastructure covered or exposed by moving sand dunes.

During major floods in the Kuiseb River, power lines and pipelines in the river are prone to damage resulting in serious water supply disruptions in Walvis Bay. The flood intensity and

25 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------path are very unpredictable and vary greatly from year to year. As a result, the extent of the damage can also vary, making it difficult to protect the infrastructure. The risk of flood damage to bulk water supply and associated infrastructure in the Kuiseb River causes great concern and the Municipality of Walvis Bay has requested that the problem be addressed. The Lower Kuiseb Aquifers have experienced floods in the 2010/11 rainy season. Although these floods resulted in substantial recharge to the aquifers, they caused damage and buried some boreholes in Dorob South.

In the Rooibank B and Dorob South areas, which are located in the hyperactive dunes, the moving sand dunes burry, while in other cases, expose these boreholes, power cables and the pipelines. The underground power cable and pipeline between the Mile 7- and the High Dune reservoirs is frequently buried by moving sand dunes. Maintenance of this old pipeline (fibre cement) and the power cable is as a result of the sand complicated, which has resulted in delaying repairs.

An underground power cable in the vicinity of moving Barchan sand dunes is considered a high risk, which may result in the Kuiseb Delta boreholes without power for an extended period and consequently in reduced water supply to Walvis Bay town and other customers.

5.1.8.2 Infrastructural Risks Infrastructural risks to sustainable supply include both the dilapidated and outdated state of infrastructure, as well as the limited capacity of the existing network (see section 5.1.4).

Parts of the Scheme’s infrastructure dates back to as early as 1962, with the High Dune – Mile 7 pipeline being approximately 40 years old, which is expected to have reached the end of its economic life span.

The demand for water has also increased to a level above the current infrastructure’s supply capacity, i.e. the operating capacity of the High Dune – Mile 7 gravity pipeline is 322 m³/h or 2.35 Mm³/a, which is less than the maximum total potential abstraction of 5.3 Mm3/a or i.e. 726 m3/h or stainable yield of 3.2 Mm3/a (see section 5.1.6).

5.1.9 NEED AND DESIRABILITY The bulk water supply situation at the Central Namib Area is becoming more desperate as expanding urban areas and the new and growing uranium mines’ additional demand has outstripped the capacity of existing water supply schemes whose infrastructure is aged, unreliable and failing.

Although redeeming plans exist, the delay to construct a desalination plant at Mile 6 (or other approved location) and the recent downward review of the sustainable yield of the Omdel Aquifer to 4.6 Mm3/a, left NamWater to also focus on the Rooibank B and Dorob South Aquifers (jointly known as the Kuiseb Delta scheme) to enhance the interim water supply sources for existing customers, while referring new water supply applicants to desalination sources such as the Orano (previously Areva) desalination plant at Wlotzkasbaken.

The town of Walvis Bay, which includes the NamPort Harbour, the Walvis Bay International Airport, Namibia’s fishing industry and others, play a very important role in the socio-

26 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------economic development of the Region and National GDP. Access to water as a basic service and security of supply is crucial to the existence and expansion of this important economic hub along the Central Coastal area.

Considering the deficit between current supply and future demand, and to be able to supply in the demand, the expansion of the Kuiseb Delta Water Scheme has become necessary and desirable.

NAMWATER accordingly proposes to (i) increase the amount of water abstracted from the Dorob South and the Rooibank B aquifers, and (ii) upgrade the associated water supply infrastructure, to ensure security of water supply to Walvis Bay town and the other customers.

5.2 THE PROJECT

5.2.1 THE STUDY AREA This study area as initially presented by the Proponent during the ‘Request for Proposal to Conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment and Compilation of an Environmental Management Plan for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme’ (SC/RP/NW-11/2019) (November 2018), focused on that compartment of the Kuiseb Delta Water Scheme, which includes the Rooibank B and Dorob South well fields (those drilled prior and during 2016/2017), which by default also includes the High Dune- and Mile 7 Reservoirs and related infrastructures (i.e. pipelines, power lines and roads), as indicated by Figure 5-2 above and Figure 5-3 below.

5.2.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project, as initially presented by the Proponent during the Request for Proposal1 (November 2018), entails the expansion and upgrading of the existing Rooibank B and Dorob South compartment of the Kuiseb Delta Water Scheme, which at the time included the following - (i) Connection of seven (7) of the eighteen (18) drilled boreholes (during 2016/2017), of which five (5) of the mentioned seven (7) will be production boreholes and two (2) of the mentioned seven (7) will be standby boreholes (see Table 5.1 and Figure 5-4); (ii) Construction of a new roads, overhead power lines and HDPE pipelines to connect the newly drilled seven (7) boreholes and the existing thirteen (13) boreholes to the High Dune Reservoir (see Figure 5-4); and (iii) Replacement of the existing 9.1 km gravity pipeline (fibre cement) with a HDPE pipeline, construction of a power line and repair of the road between the High Dune- and Mile 7 Reservoirs (see Figure 5-3).

1 As specified within the NamWater Request for Proposal (SC/RP/NW-11/2019).

27 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

Figure 5-3: Locality Map indicating the ‘initial’ Study Area (i.e. Proposed Alignment)

28 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

Figure 5-4: Map indicating the newly drilled boreholes recommended for installation for production and standby in Dorob South

29 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

Table 5-1 - List of newly drilled boreholes recommended for installation for production and standby in Dorob South

Recommended. Borehole Number Remark m3/month m3/a Production (m3/h)

Recommended WW100292 60 36,000 432,000 for installation

Recommended WW100296 48 28,800 345,600 for installation

Recommended WW100295 45 27,000 324,000 for installation

Recommended WW100293 16 9,600 115,200 for installation

Recommended WW100294 30 18,000 216,000 for installation

Sub-total 199 119,400 1,432,800

Wet Standby Boreholes

Wet standby WW100302 29 17,400 208,800 boreholes

Wet standby WW100313 46 27,600 331,200 boreholes

Sub total 75 45,000 540,000

5.2.3 SUPPLY CAPACITY The proposed expansion and upgrade of the Rooibank B and Dorob South component, will deliver an additional volume of 216 m³/h to the Kuiseb Delta Water Scheme.

5.2.4 INFRASTRUCTURE ALIGNMENTS The proposed project as initially presented by the Proponent during the Request for Proposal2 (November 2018), provided for one possible alignment, presented under point 5.2.4.1 Provided Alignments, while the ‘alternatives’ was later on included considering the

2 As specified within the NamWater Request for Proposal (SC/RP/NW-11/2019).

30 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------September 2015 NamWater Report3 and the October 2019 NamWater Report4, presented under point 5.2.4.2 Alternative Alignments.

All six (6) of the alignments provided was assessed (i.e. biophysical and archaeological assessments), which resulted in four (4) alignments subjected to a comparative evaluation (see Chapter 8).

5.2.4.1 Provided Alignment/s

(i) Request for Proposal to Conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment (SC/RP/NW- 11/2019) The provided alignment as part of the Request for Proposal5 (November 2018) is presented by Figure 5-3 above, and in more detail by Figures 5-5 and 5-6, below.

High Dune Reservoir

Figure 5-5: Map of the Provided Alignment from existing Boreholes to the High Dune Reservoir (NamWater)

Figure 5-5 indicates the alignment in-between the various boreholes (7 in total) and the High Dune Reservoir to the north-east, from which again a straight alignment to the Mile 7 Reservoirs is proposed (Figure 5-3), located 9 km to the north.

From Figures 5-5 and 5-6 it is evident that the proposed alignments follow the shortest possible route in a relative straight line, mainly motivated by cost, i.e. to reduce construction, operational and maintenance cost.

3 NWC-IP-SSS111-01 Development Proposal on the Kuiseb Delta and Replacement of the High Dune Mile 7 - Pipeline Scheme - September 2015 4 Done by NamWater (& C-SROB121: Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Preliminary Design Report - 29 October 2019) 5 As specified within the NamWater Request for Proposal (SC/RP/NW-11/2019).

31 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------5.2.4.2 Provided Alternative Alignments The alternative alignments, as presented below, were either proposed by NamWater (September 2015 NamWater Report or the October 2019 NamWater Report) or proposed from the side of the environmental specialists. NamWater’s analysis and proposals was considered purely from a financial perspective (i.e. capital cost and operational cost6), while the environmental specialists considered ecological and archaeological sensitivity. The risk factor, i.e. security of supply (i.e. required volumes and continued supply without interruptions), was not considered, which value is directly related to the storage capacity of existing reservoirs to provide for at least 72 hours7 water supply to clients.

(i) September 2015 NamWater Report The particular report provided for five different options, as presented by Figure 5-6 below and discussed in more detail in the attached September 2015 NamWater Report (Appendix L).

‘Option 1’ (blue line) follows the alignment ‘ACDE’ as indicated by Figure 5-6 along the existing High Dune - Mile 7 pipeline route, which is an entire new alignment (9.1 km). This Option’s entire alignment is vulnerable to the moving dunes.

‘Option 2’ (purple & blue lines) follows the alignment ‘ABDE’ as indicated by Figure 5-6, which is an entire new alignment. This Option (9.3 km) is slightly longer than Option 1, with almost the entire alignment vulnerable to the moving dunes.

‘Option 3’ (light green & turquoise lines) follows the alignment ‘AFGE’, as indicated by Figure 5-6, of which the part ‘FGE’ is an existing alignment. From the High Dune Reservoir, the alignment extends eastwards passing through a small section (7 km) of the sand dunes, while the remainder (11.6 km) is unhindered towards the existing pipeline (point F) in between Rooibank A and the Quarry Reservoir.

‘Option 4’ (light green & white & dark green & turquoise) follows the alignment ‘AXHIGE’, as indicated by Figure 5-6, of which the part ‘HIGE’’ is an existing alignment. From the High Dune Reservoir, the alignment extends eastwards through a small section (7 km) of the sand dunes, while the remainder (6.5 km) is unhindered towards the Schwarzekuppe Reservoir (point H).

‘Option 5’ (light green & red) follows the alignment ‘AXK’ and then ‘KGE’, as indicated by Figure 5-6, of which ‘KGE’ is an existing alignment. From the High Dune Reservoir, the alignment extends eastwards through a small section (7 km) of the sand dunes, while the remainder (7 km) is unhindered towards Rooibank A. This option requires the construction of an additional pipeline between Rooibank A and the Mile 7 Reservoirs.

6 Consider pump costs only, NOT maintenance cost. 7 Estimated time to locate pipeline and undertake repairs.

32 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

Figure 5-6: Map of the Provided Alternative Alignments between High Dune Reservoir and Mile 7 Reservoirs

33 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------Options 1 and 2 are for their shortest distance the cheapest from a capital cost perspective, hence the reason why Option 1 was the preferred alignment at the time (2015) for NamWater. The detailed capital cost of the different options is presented in Table 8 of the September 2015 NamWater Report, attached as Appendix L.

(ii) October 2019 NamWater Report This Report (Appendix M), after considering the preliminary findings of this Study, proposed another alignment, Option 6, which is a combination of two alignments, i.e. ‘Option 1’ (blue line) and ‘Option 5’ (light green & red), but with the difference that ‘Option 1’ would cater for the water pipeline with road and ‘Option 5’ for the road and power line (see Figure 5-7).

This proposal was based on the preliminary findings that the direct alignments (i.e. Options 1 and 2) passes through extensive !nara fields having both a cultural (i.e. Topnaars) and ecological (i.e. food and shelter for various fauna) value and for the reason that infrastructure maintenance would result in very high costs. The raised power lines (from 14 m to 20 m) would also have a substantial capital cost implication and increase the risk of bird strikes, while visual disturbance would be increased.

Figure 5-7: Map of the Proposed Alternative Alignment, a combination of two Options (NamWater)

5.2.4.3 Proposed Alternative Alignments The alternative alignments ‘proposed’ from the side of the environmental specialists, was developed considering the proposed alignments (both the 2015 and 2019 Reports) from the

34 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------side of NamWater, and following an ecological and archaeological baseline assessment, followed-up by an on-site verification visit (i.e. detailed analysis).

These alternative alignments are described below and presented by Figures 5-8 and 5-9.

(i) Alignment between Boreholes and the High Dune Reservoir The below listed three alternative alignments were proposed8, listed from most preferred to least preferred, which is presented by Figure 5-8.

• Follow existing tracks (i.e. unproclaimed roads) in the area (white dotted lines): Following the existing tracks in the Delta area would imply that less “new” areas – i.e. including damage to Acanthosicyos horridus (!nara) plants – will be disturbed. This alignment will however be prone to occasional flood disturbances.

• Northern backbone (Orange dotted lines): The northern boundary backbone or northern bank of the Kuiseb River (i.e. off takes to the various boreholes would link from here) would avoid most of the Acanthosicyos horridus (!nara) plants in the Delta area and be less prone to occasional flood disturbances.

NamWater’s proposal to install the mainline connecting the boreholes outside the river, correspond with this proposal.

• Southern backbone (Yellow dotted lines): The southern boundary backbone or southern bank of the Kuiseb River (i.e. off takes to the various boreholes would link from here) would avoid most of the Acanthosicyos horridus (!nara) plants in the Delta area and be less prone to occasional flood disturbances.

NamWater’s proposal to install the mainline connecting the boreholes outside the river correspond with this proposal.

8 Note that the final alignment will not follow a straight line, but adapt to on-site sensitivities.

35 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

Proposed Pipelines

Drilled and existing boreholes to be connected

Figure 5-8: Map of the Proposed Alternative Alignments from the boreholes to the High Dune Reservoir

(ii) Alignment between High Dune Reservoir and Mile 7 Reservoirs The below listed three alternative alignments to NamWater’s Options 1 and 2 were proposed, listed from most preferred to least preferred, as indicated by Figure 5-9. The black dotted line indicates extensive (large) mobile sand dune areas, while the grey dotted line indicates a less extensive (smaller) mobile sand dune area.

• Existing road access route (white = ±20 km) This alignment would follow the existing access route (i.e. road) to the High Dune Reservoir – i.e. already impacted and maintained, as indicated by Figure 5-9.

This alignment corresponds to a certain degree with Options 3 or 4 of NamWater, as indicated on Figure 5-9.

• Partial existing road access route on edge of gravel plain (yellow = ±17 km) This alignment would follow part of the existing access route (i.e. road) to the High Dune Reservoir – i.e. already impacted and maintained – but take a short cut through the less extensive mobile sand dune area, as indicated by Figure 5-9.

This alignment is almost similar to NamWater’s proposed Option 3, as indicated on Figure 5- 6.

• Partial existing road access route and through an area of less extensive mobile sand dunes (green = ±12 km) This alignment would follow part of the existing access route (i.e. road) to the High Dune Reservoir – i.e. already impacted and maintained – but take a short cut through the extensive and less extensive mobile sand dune area, as indicated by Figure 5-9.

This alignment does not correspond with any of the NamWater proposals.

36 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

Mile 7

High Dune

Figure 5-9: Map of the provided Alternative Alignments from the High Dune Reservoir (white star) to the Mile 7 Reservoir (black star)

5.2.5 INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN AND SPECIFICATIONS As per the Request for Proposal9 (November 2018), it was proposed that all infrastructure (i.e. pipelines, power lines and roads) should follow the same alignment, for the reasons to minimise impact on the receiving environment and to minimise cost (both construction and operational costs).

5.2.5.1 Pipelines All new pipelines will be HDPE (high-density polyethylene) pipes of different diameters. HDPE is preferred because of its flexibility and potential to allow deflection, displacement and movement without causing any damage. The advantage of HDPE under the circumstances of the Kuiseb Delta is the fact that it will be difficult to dislodge during flooding or when buried or exposed by the dunes’ movement.

(i) Between Boreholes and the High Dune Reservoir The pipelines from the boreholes to the main pipeline and the main pipeline will either be 90mm, 110mm, 140mm and 160mm in diameter and of different lengths (see Appendix M). All these pipelines will be installed below ground, within trenches of 1.3 m in depth and 1.15 m in width.

9 As specified within the NamWater Request for Proposal (SC/RP/NW-11/2019).

37 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------(ii) Between High Dune Reservoir and Mile 7 Reservoirs (or other Options) Initially10 the old gravity AC pipeline would have been replaced with a below ground 560 mm PN 10 HDPE gravity pipeline, following the current pipeline route between the High Dune Reservoir and the Mile 7 Reservoirs. The proposal was changed (October 2019 NamWater Report) to an above ground pipeline (560 mm) without any pedestals. This was mainly motivated by the fact that it can be expected that the pipeline will be ‘buried’ in time as sand dunes migrate and for the fact that the HDPE pipes allows for flexibility and potential to allow deflection, displacement and movement without causing any damage. This was again changed during March 2020 to the original design whereby the 560 mm pipeline will be buried under ground, for the reason having less of an environmental impact.

HDPE pipes will be welded along the proposed pipeline route next to the existing pipeline without interrupting water supply. When welding is complete, the ends of the HDPE pipe can be connected to the boreholes and the existing pipeline can be decommissioned, and the new pipeline put to use.

Those parts of the existing AC pipeline, which is too deep to access (i.e. covered by sand dunes), will be left underground. Those parts visible or becoming visible over time should either be covered with sand (i.e. increase maintenance cost) or should be removed and dumped at an approved dump site.

5.2.5.2 Overhead Power Lines For purpose of supplying electricity to the various boreholes and pump stations, a 66kV- 400V overhead power lines are proposed.

The power lines will consist of freestanding tar pole structures at a height of 14 m, which might be increased to a height of 20 m at certain sections to ensure a safe height above the migrating sand dunes. The span width between the pole structures are 80 to 100 m, but is expected to differ at bends. A three-phase electrical system will most likely be installed – i.e. three conductors.

The required servitude for the proposed power lines will be 28 m – i.e. 14 m either side of the power line centreline, within which the other services will be located.

Considering the high cost implication to have 20 m height pole structures in between the High Dune Reservoir and Mile 7 Reservoirs, the decision was to construct normal 14 m high structures along the plain area following the existing roads, with minor deviations.

5.2.5.3 Roads In the event where roads do not exists, access roads will be ‘constructed’ for exclusive use by NamWater. These ‘roads’ will be 5 m in width and will NOT be for public use.

Where roads exist, i.e. in between the High Dune Reservoir and Mile 7 Reservoirs, the road will be cleared and fixed where needed (and if needed).

10 As specified within the NamWater Request for Proposal (SC/RP/NW-11/2019).

38 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------5.2.6 ESTIMATED COST Two cost calculations were done by NamWater (during September 2015 and again during October 2019), while the October 2019 estimates considered only Options 1 & 2.

The mentioned cost calculations done during 2015 and 2019 consider capital cost and pump costs (i.e. operational costs) only and not maintenance cost, which can be expected to be the highest for Options 1 and 2, due to continued maintenance requirements as a result of migrating sand dunes. In addition, the costs of 2015 and 2019 did not consider the capital cost of the 20 m high electricity power lines, which would increase the costs for Options 1 and 2 from what has been presented in the 2015 and 2019 reports.

5.2.6.1 Capital Cost The estimated total cost of the different ‘Options’ (see sections 5.2.4.1 and 5.2.4.2) is presented in Table 5-2 below11.

Table 5-2 - Estimated Costs (September 2015) Option Cost (N$ Million) Unit Cost N$/m³

1 110.85 4.33

2 112.18 4.54

3 164.03 6.59

4 137.10 7.08

5a 246.18 9.55

5b 158.67 7.82

Updated costs received during 2019 from NamWater is presented in Table 5-3 below, which provided a per kilometre cost per infrastructure type.

Table 5-3 - Capital Cost (2019)

Cost per kilometre Infrastructure Type (N$)

Pipeline 6.2 mil/km

Power line (underground cable) 1300/m

Normal Overhead power lines 250/km

High Overhead power lines 1.2 mil/km

Road 1.2 mil/km

11 September 2015 NamWater Report (see Appendix L)

39 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------The October 2019 Report, which focussed on Option 1 only, provided an updated estimate of N$ 114,662,445.04 for Option 1. Given that the cost above did not consider a more expensive power line structure (i.e. higher than normal), the cost is expected to be slightly higher, but still lower than the nearest other option, Option 2.

From the dynamic prime cost analysis, Option 1 was found viable with a profitability index of 1.25 and an internal rate of return (IRR) of 25.9%. The dynamic prime cost over the 17 years was calculated as N$ 9.15 (inclusive of overheads), at the time of September 2015.

To be able to do an equal estimated comparison between the 6 options, the 2019 values are applied to each of the 6 options, as reflected in Table 5-4 below.

Table 5-4 - Estimated Construction Costs (NamWater 2019) Infrastructure Distance Total Cost Option Cost/km Type (km) (N$) Pipeline 9.1 6,200,000 56,420,000 Pumping 0.0 0 0

Normal Overhead 0.0 250,000 0 Power line 1

High Overhead 9.1 1,200,000 10,920,000 Power line

Road 9.1 1,200,000 10,920,000 Total Cost 78,260,000

Pipeline 9.3 6,200,000 57,660,000 Pumping 0.0 0 0

Normal Overhead 0 250,000 0 Power line 2

High Overhead 9.3 1,200,000 11,160,000 Power line

Road 9.3 1,200,000 11,160,000 Total Cost 79,980,000

Pipeline 18.6 6,200,000 115,320,000 Pumping 1 1,200,000 1,200,000

3 Normal Overhead 11.6 250,000 2,900,000 Power line

40 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

High Overhead 7 1,200,000 8,400,000 Power line

Road 18.6 1,200,000 22,320,000 Total Cost 150,140,000

Pipeline 13.5 6,200,000 83,700,000 Pumping 1 1,200,000 1,200,000

Normal Overhead 6.5 250,000 1,625,000 Power line 4

High Overhead 7 1,200,000 8,400,000 Power line

Road 13.5 1,200,000 16,200,000 Total Cost 111,125,000

Pipeline 14 6,200,000 86,800,000 Pumping 1 1,200,000 1,200,000

Normal Overhead 7 250,000 1,750,000 Power line 5

High Overhead 7 1,200,000 8,400,000 Power line

Road 14 1,200,000 16,800,000 Total Cost 114,950,000

Pipeline 9.1 6,200,000 56,420,000 Pumping 1 1,200,000 1,200,000

Normal Overhead 7 250,000 1,750,000 Power line 6

High Overhead 7 1,200,000 8,400,000 Power line

Road 23.1 1,200,000 27,720,000 Total Cost 95,490,000

41 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------5.2.6.2 Operational Cost The estimated operational cost received from NamWater is N$12.1/m³ of water supplied. No differentiation has been made between the different Options.

5.2.6.3 Maintenance Cost Maintenance costs for the different infrastructure types, received from NamWater are presented in Table 5-5 below.

Table 5-5 - Maintenance Cost

Infrastructure Type Cost

Pipeline 1% of Capital cost

Power line (underground cable) 6.5% of the capital Normal Overhead power lines cost High Overhead power lines

Road 36,000/km/annum

The estimated maintenance cost presented in the Table above, did not consider different environmental conditions, but was estimated on the length of the particular infrastructure only. It can be expected that the per kilometre maintenance cost for Options 1 and 2 (section 5.2.4.2[i]) would be substantially higher in comparison to those Options not passing through the sand dunes.

If applied to each option, the maintenance cost per option is as indicated in Table 5-6 below.

Table 5-6 - Estimated Maintenance Costs (NamWater 2019) Infrastructure Distance Maintenance Option Type (km) Cost (N$) Pipeline 9.1 564,200.00 Pumping 0.0

Normal Overhead 0.0 Power line 1

High Overhead 9.1 709,800.00 Power line

Road 9.1 327,600.00 Total Cost 1,601,600.00 Pipeline 9.3 576,600.00 2 Pumping 0.0

42 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

Normal Overhead 0 Power line

High Overhead 9.3 725,400.00 Power line

Road 9.3 334,800.00 Total Cost 1,636,800.00 Pipeline 18.6 1,153,200.00 Pumping 1

Normal Overhead 11.6 188,500.00 Power line 3

High Overhead 7 546,000.00 Power line

Road 18.6 669,600.00 Total Cost 2,557,300.00 Pipeline 13.5 837,000.00 Pumping 1

Normal Overhead 6.5 105,625.00 Power line 4

High Overhead 7 546,000.00 Power line

Road 13.5 486,000.00 Total Cost 1,974,625.00 Pipeline 14 868,000.00 Pumping 1

Normal Overhead 7 113,750.00 Power line 5

High Overhead 7 546,000.00 Power line

Road 14 504,000.00 Total Cost 2,031,750.00 Pipeline 9.1 564,200.00 6 Pumping 1

43 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

Normal Overhead 7 113,750.00 Power line

High Overhead 7 546,000.00 Power line

Road 23.1 831,600.00 Total Cost 2,055,550.00

5.2.7 CONSTRUCTION PHASE ACTIVITIES The construction period, excluding the construction tender adjudication phase, is estimated at ± 12 months from site establishment to site rehabilitation.

It is expected to have more than one contractor on-site during the same time, which will take responsibility for the different infrastructure types.

5.2.7.1 Pipelines Some of the typical activities associated with construction of the pipeline infrastructure include -

• Transportation of pipes and construction materials, as well as construction labourers;

• Clearance of vegetation and surface preparations for construction site and along the alignment of pipelines;

• Temporary storage of pipes and construction materials at the construction site and along the alignment of pipelines;

• Setting-up and operations of construction camp;

• Temporary storage, management and removal of construction waste and domestic waste;

• Excavations and earth moving (i.e. trench digging), with the associated large construction machinery, to lay pipelines;

• Assembly of pipe segments and use of construction machinery to move pipe segments and move them into the excavated trenches;

• Disconnecting of affected pipelines and connection of the new pipelines. This will require the temporary interruption to water supply for the entire length of the existing pipeline and hence to all those dependent on this supply. This interruption will be no longer than 24 hours;

• Registration of a 28 m wide servitude along the pipelines, power lines and roads (all services to be located within the same servitude); and

• Post-construction rehabilitation of disturbed area.

44 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------The construction labour force will be accommodated at Rooibank where all facilities are available and not on-site. Only security staff/guards will be on-site 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for the duration of the construction phase. The actual number of construction labourers is unknown at this stage.

5.2.7.2 Roads Some of the typical activities associated with construction of the road infrastructure include -

• Transportation of construction materials, as well as construction labourers;

• Clearance of vegetation and surface preparations for construction site and along the alignment of roads;

• Grading for purpose of roads using grader;

• Registration of a 28 m wide servitude along the pipelines, power lines and roads (all services to be located within the same servitude); and

• Post-construction rehabilitation of disturbed area.

The construction labour force will be accommodated at Rooibank where all facilities are available and not on-site. Only security staff/guards will be on-site 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for the duration of the construction phase. The actual number of construction labourers is unknown at this stage.

5.2.7.3 Power lines Some of the typical activities associated with construction of the power line infrastructure include -

• Transportation of poles, electricity cables and construction materials, as well as construction labourers;

• Clearance of vegetation and surface preparations for construction site and along the alignment of powerlines;

• Temporary storage of poles, electricity cables and construction materials at the construction site and along the alignment of the powerlines;

• Setting-up and operations of construction camp;

• Temporary storage, management and removal of construction waste and domestic waste;

• Excavations and earth moving (i.e. digging), with the associated large construction machinery;

• Raising of pole structures and fixing of power cables making use of construction machinery;

• Testing of power supply;

• Registration of a 28 m wide servitude along the pipelines, powerlines and roads (all services to be located within the same servitude); and

45 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------• Post-construction rehabilitation of disturbed area.

5.2.8 OPERATIONAL PHASE The activities associated with the operational phase a very similar between the different infrastructure types, as presented below -

• Clearance of vegetation (that might have naturally revegetated) along the pipeline and/or powerline section requiring emergency maintenance repairs;

• Grading of roads and resulting clearance of vegetation (that might have naturally revegetated);

• Removal of sand that have migrated underneath powerlines, which might increase the risk of electrocution for animals and humans;

• Removal of sand that have migrated into and onto roads;

• Removal of bird nests within the powerline pole structures;

• Monthly inspection along the servitudes will be conducted by small 4 x 4 vehicle;

• Routine maintenance would require access to state land and Dorob Park area; and

• Emergency repairs to pipeline and powerline, which activities would be similar to that of the construction phase.

5.2.9 DECOMMISSIONING AND CLOSURE The decommissioning of this scheme, though not foreseen, is nonetheless described here. Some of the typical activities associated with decommissioning and closure include:

• Large-scale excavations and earth moving (i.e. unearthing the pipelines; removal of powerline structures), with the associated large/heavy machinery to remove pipes and power line poles;

• Transportation of significant volumes of rubble and ‘waste’ (pipes; tar poles, powerline cables, pumps, etc.) as well as construction labourers;

• Ripping of compacted road surfaces and rehabilitation;

• Ongoing post-closure rehabilitation of disturbed area; and

• De-registration of the 28 m servitude.

The appointed contractor’s labour force will be accommodated within Walvis Bay and/or Rooibank and not on-site. Only security staff/guards will be on-site 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for the duration of the deconstruction phase. The actual number of labourers used in such an exercise is unknown at this stage.

46 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------6 DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT This chapter describes the details pertaining to the larger study area with reference to biophysical characteristics and socio-economic characteristics.

This chapter provides the basis for assessing the likely negative and positive impacts that the proposed project might have on the receiving environment (e.g. natural and social), as well as the significance thereof, which again will inform the applicable mitigating measures to be applied during the design stage, construction and operation.

6.1 BIOPHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT

6.1.1 CLIMATE AND AIR QUALITY The central coastal region of Namibia is characterised by a scarcity of rain, with the Walvis Bay (WB) area receiving an average annual rainfall of less than 50 mm (Mendelsohn, et al., 2009). Along the coast, the air remains humid throughout the year as a result of moist air feeding off the Atlantic. During the least humid month of the year (June) the average humidity value for the greater area of WB is between 30-50%. During the most humid month of the year (February) the average humidity value for the greater area of WB is between 80- 100% (Mendelsohn, et al., 2009).

Winds from the south and west predominate along the coast, but occasional hot and dry east (or berg) winds create unpleasant conditions (Mendelsohn, et al., 2009). Winds play a major factor in the migration of the dunes within the study area.

Average annual temperatures in the greater WB area are between 16 °C – 22 °C.

No air quality monitoring station exists at WB or at any locality within the vicinity of the project site and therefore no measurable/quantifiable air quality indicators are available. Given WB’s prominent industrial and fishing sector, air quality (i.e. smells and smoke) tends to worsen from time to time. The municipal sewage treatment facility is also a contributing factor to odours. Vehicular- and air traffic emissions are expected, although the effect of these on the overall air quality is expected to be minimal. Strong winds during the winter months have the ability to generate dust (i.e. sand storms), which again impact on air quality.

6.1.2 GEOLOGY AND SOILS12 The geology underlying the Namib Desert consists of Precambrian basement of predominantly granite, gneiss and shale. The oldest Tertiary rocks are part of the Tsondab Sandstone Formation, which underlies most of the central Namib south of the Kuiseb River. North of the Kuiseb River, a flat gravel plain on a crystalline basement is found. The underlying rocks consist of calcareous and gypsic metamorphic bedrock or granite.

12 Obtained from Dynamic Water Resource Management, June 2019

47 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------The dune area south of the Kuiseb River reaches about 100 km inland from the Atlantic Ocean and ranges from Lüderitz in South of Namibia nearly to Walvis Bay. In addition to the Precambrian basement, paleo-channels have been identified, which are incised in the Tsondab sandstone and the basement. The paleo-channels are filled with a 40 – 90 m thick layer of calcareous silty fine sands and covered by up to 100 m of sand dunes. Five paleo- channels have been identified that extend between 20 and 65 km in length and 0.5 – 5 km in width. The movement of the sand dunes also contributes to the development of the different paleo-channels by forcing the Kuiseb River to repeatedly change its course to develop new flow pathways.

The study area’s basement consists mainly of the above-mentioned Precambrian bedrock. However, in some parts (predominantly in the middle between Swartbank and Rooibank), the Tsondab sandstone forms the basement. The lithological contacts are often faulted. The geological map of the Kuiseb is shown in Figure 3 of the Baseline Report on the Geohydrology and Hydrology attached as Appendix E.

The Kuiseb River is subdivided through several hard rock barriers (bedrock highs) into fully or partially separated compartments. Hard rock barriers appear at Gobabeb, Narob, Swartbank, Rooibank and Haob, where the riverbed is narrowed to some hundred meters or even less, and the river flows partially over hard rock outcrops (Appendix E).

6.1.3 DUNES AND DUNE MIGRATION The dunes located between the town of Walvis Bay and the Kuiseb Delta is classified as barchan dunes, which is constantly migrating, determined by winds and available material.

Dune heights within the Kuiseb River delta range from 4.10 m to 16.7 m (Barnes, 1999). The Kuiseb dunes are composed of coarse to medium sand sands. The sand which forms these dunes originates from the sediment deposited in the Kuiseb delta when the river flows.

According to Barnes (1999) barchan dunes migrate between 3 and 43 meters per year. Movement of dunes with the Kuiseb delta was recorded to range from 9 m/annum to 13.5 m/annum. The rate at which these dunes migrate is determined by dune height, the size of the dune, the shape, dune density, topography and wind regime.

The factors that influence temporal changes in the rates and directions of dune movement are wind regime, change in sand supply, change in dune size and precipitation (i.e. fog; rain). The mean rate of movement is approximately within a northward direction (Barnes, 1999).

Considering the project, especially the proposed shortest route, dune migration will affect operations and management of especially the powerlines. According to Barnes (1999) various stabilisation methods exists. Considering the scale of this project and the extent of the area affected none of the methods would provide a long-term lasting solution. Continues ‘cleaning’ of roads with graders would become part of the yearly operations of this project, which brings with it continued expenses, which is eventually passed on to the end-user.

48 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------As these sand dunes migrate closer to powerlines and even under power lines, the safety distance to these high voltage lines are decreased, which increases the risk of electrocution for both animals and humans.

6.1.4 TOPOGRAPHY According to the Southern African Institute for Environmental Assessment (SAIEA) (2010), in the Erongo Region, the land rises steadily from sea level to about 1,000 m across the breadth of the Namib. The Namib Desert land surface is mostly flat with undulating gravel plains, punctuated with occasional ridges and isolated ‘inselberg’ hills and mountains. South of the Kuiseb River lies the central Namib sand sea and sand dunes forming a narrow coastal belt between WB and Swakopmund.

The Namib Desert land surface is incised by a few main ephemeral rivers that run seawards from wetter parts of their catchments further inland. There are four main rivers in the Erongo Region – the Ugab-, Omaruru-, Swakop- and Kuiseb Rivers.

The Kuiseb River is subdivided into the Upper Kuiseb River, the Middle Kuiseb River and the Lower Kuiseb River. The Kuiseb ephemeral River that is dry for most of the year, and often even for many years overruns the study area. Run-off is generated predominantly in the upper part of the catchment in the Khomas Hochland (see Figure 6-1). Only if the volume of run-off generated is enough does flow reaches the Lower Kuiseb area. Flash floods are relatively short and highly variable in magnitude, duration and frequency (Appendix M).

Mean annual runoff of the Kuiseb River is approximately half that of the Swakop River (40 million cubic metres per annum). Although surface flows only reach the coastal area on average once every ten-year (Van Vuuren, June 2019), the real value of the Kuiseb River lies in its alluvial aquifer capability (Heyns & van Vuuren, 2009).

6.1.5 HYDROGEOLOGY13 6.1.5.1 Overview Groundwater availability within the central coastal region of Namibia is evidenced by settlement patterns – i.e. along or near major ephemeral rivers, in this area (see Figure 6-1). Sufficient amounts of water have been successfully obtained from alluvial aquifers (i.e. the Lower Kuiseb Aquifer), while the potential for bedrock aquifers is very limited (Christelis & Struckmeier, 2001).

The major westward flowing ephemeral rivers are important groundwater areas or aquifers. The thickness of the sand, gravel and silt deposits in the riverbeds of these rivers can range between 10 and 30 m and have moderate to high groundwater yields (Christelis & Struckmeier, 2001). The alluvial aquifers are indicated by dark and light blue areas on the map below (Figure 6-2).

13 Obtained from Dynamic Water Resource Management, June 2019

49 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

Figure 6-1: Hydrology Map of Larger Study Area

50 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

Figure 6-2: Hydrogeological Map of the Larger Study Area

51 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

The alluvial aquifer in the lower part of the Kuiseb River at Rooibank (see Figure 6-2) has been used to supply WB with water since 1923 (Christelis & Struckmeier, 2001). The alluvium of the Kuiseb River is 15-20 m thick and has relatively high permeability (Christelis & Struckmeier, 2001). Its high permeability allows for quick recharge during flood events and gives it the ability to sustain relatively high pumping rates as well (Christelis & Struckmeier, 2001).

The upper alluvial aquifer is hydraulically connected to the lower paleo-channels aquifer. There is evidence of zones of higher transmissivity (“corridors”) that may influence the overall recharge mechanism along the riverbed. An aerial geophysical survey of the area identified corridors from the riverbed aquifer to the paleo-channels between Natab and Rooibank. The transmissivity of the different hydrogeological units in the Kuiseb area was determined by a number of previous hydrogeological investigations and can be summarized as follows (GCS, 2018):

• Alluvial aquifer 150 – 1600 m2/d, • Paleo-channels aquifer 2– 6 m2/d, • Tsondab-Sandstone 4 m2/d; and • Crystalline basement 0.03 m2/d.

Along with the alluvial aquifer, the paleo-channels are the most important aquifers in the Kuiseb Aquifer system due to the better storage and aquifer hydraulic conductivities (GCS, 2018).

6.1.5.2 Groundwater Recharge According to GCS (2018) (Dynamic Water Resource Management, June 2019), the relatively large alluvial aquifer of the Kuiseb River ( 240 Mm3) is recharged from irregular flooding originating in the upper catchment. Recharge to the alluvial aquifers occurs via vertical ∼ infiltration of streamflow through riverbed losses from the Kuiseb River. Transmission losses from the riverbed during flood events are an important source of groundwater recharge to the underlying aquifer system.

A rough recharge calculation for 1 km river length at Gobabeb was done by Schimtz (GCS, 2018), based on two flood periods when water table fluctuation was measured (18 January 2004 and 23 January 2004). At the beginning of the measurement (15.01.2004) the water level was 7.33 m below surface and fluctuated between 7.32 m and 7.38 m for the few next days. Seven hours after the first flood event (18.01.2004), the water table started to rise significantly with a sharp increase of 84 cm in 72 hours to 6.44 m (21.01.2004, 06:00) below surface. The water level fluctuated for three days between 6.39 m and 6.44 m below surface. On the 23.01.2004, one day after the river had stopped flowing; the water level started decreasing to reach 6.52 m below surface on the 26.1.2004. Eleven hours after the arrival time for flood event two, the water table rose 13 cm in 23 hours to 6.39 m at 27.01.2004 (GCS, 2018).

52 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------• Maximum water level rise after flood one: 89 cm (7.33 m – 6.44 m = 0.89 m)

• Maximum water level rise after flood two: 0.08 cm (6.52 m – 6.44 m = 0.08 m)

Drawdowns and recoveries caused by pumping from the production borehole caused fluctuations of roughly 5 cm maximum, around 6 cm were visible.

A good indication of recharge to the aquifers is based on estimated runoff losses in the Kuiseb River between Swartbank and the Kuiseb Delta (GCS, 2018). Currently surface runoff events in the Lower Kuiseb River are monitored at one gauging station only, which is Gobabeb and which is considered insufficient to estimate the actual recharge to the aquifer from flow events.

From the GCS (2018) study, covered by the attached report from Dynamic Water Resource Management (June 2019), calculations clearly show that the magnitude of a flood has a significant bearing on the amount of subsequent recharge; the greater the flood, the higher the recharge.

6.1.5.3 Sources of Groundwater Recharge Dynamic Water Resource Management (June 2019) refers to a study by Klaus et al. in 2008, which confirms that floodwater recharge is the dominant source of groundwater in the study area.

6.1.5.4 Groundwater Levels Due to the most recent flood events during the 2010/2011 rainy season, the water levels for some boreholes, an example of borehole WW20194 (E1) rose from 10 meters below ground level (mbgl) to as shallow as 1 mbgl. This indicates that the aquifer was fully recharged.

Water level data shows the water levels dropped in the “drier” periods and rose in the following “wetter” period. Groundwater levels recorded in January 2018 range from 4 mbgl to 48 mbgl, with the deeper water levels being in the Rooibank A - Swartbank compartment boreholes (Appendix M).

6.1.5.5 Borehole and Aquifer Yield As part of this study, Dynamic Water Resource Management was contracted to evaluate and assess the pumping tests done by NamWater on 18 boreholes drilled and test pumped during 2016/2017. The Report (Drilling of 19 Production Boreholes and 5 Monitoring Boreholes at Kuiseb Water Supply Scheme, Dorob South Extension Project, August 2017) is attached as Appendix J.

The objective of the 2016/2017 drilling project (Appendix J) was to increase the abstraction capacity from Dorob South aquifer and to improve the security of water supply to Walvis Bay and other customers (NamWater, 2017). The objective of the independent evaluation by Dynamic Water Resource Management was to assess on if the method followed was correct and if the mentioned method can be used to assess long-term yields.

53 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------Dynamic Water Resource Management concluded as follows:

• As a stand-alone, the report (Drilling of 19 Production Boreholes and 5 Monitoring Boreholes at Kuiseb Water Supply Scheme, Dorob South Extension Project, August 2017) is insufficient to make any conclusions regarding aquifer sustainability.

• HOWEVER, being used in conjunction with the groundwater flow modelling report (2018 Modelling Report from GCS Water & Environmental Engineering Namibia (Pty) Ltd.), i.e. using the pumping test report to define maximum abstraction rates for individual boreholes, whilst staying within the modelled sustainable yield of the aquifer, renders it acceptable and within the recommendations of the groundwater flow modelling report, which concludes as follows:

• The numerical groundwater model for the Kuiseb Delta Aquifers, constructed in 2014, indicated that the cumulative recommended abstraction capacity for the Kuiseb Delta Aquifers, exploited by the Rooibank B and Dorob South wellfields, was estimated to be about 3.2 Mm3/a, which is 16% more than a previously calculated safe yield of about 2.74 Mm3/a.

• Based on the 2018 groundwater model, the sustainable yield from the Rooibank B - Dorob South compartment is only 2.7Mm3/a, while the Rooibank A – Swartbank compartment has a sustainable yield of 8.7 Mm3/a, totalling 11.4 Mm3/a for the whole Kuiseb Aquifer.

• The cumulative yield of the 18 boreholes, based on well test analyses, is 4.69 Mm3/a. However, the recommended installed capacity is significantly lower to stay in line with the modelled sustainable yield of 2.7 Mm3/a.

• Based on the methodology given and model results (2018 Modelling Report from GCS Water & Environmental Engineering Namibia (Pty) Ltd.), and considering no recharge, the sustainable yield for the next 10 years’ time period until 2028 is 9 Mm3/a.

• Considering the sensitivity / vulnerability of the Kuiseb Aquifer’s sustainability to frequent recharge, it is essential that the effect of increased and continued abstraction may have on the water levels are continuously monitored and assessed.

6.1.5.6 Groundwater Quality From Dynamic Water Resource Management’s Report (Appendix M), the historical water quality data indicates that there are substantial variations in most chemical determinants.

The water quality data from the Lower Kuiseb River alluvial aquifers taken in 2011 and 2012 shows the water can be classified as excellent to good quality (Group A to Group B), according to the Namibian Drinking Water Standards under the old Water Act No. 54 of 1956 (Namibia’s Department of Water Affairs, unknown date).

54 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------6.1.6 BIODIVERSITY14 6.1.6.1 Overview The Namib Desert Biome makes up a large proportion (32%) of the land area of Namibia with parks in this biome making up 69% of the protected area network or 29.7% of the biome (Barnard 1998). Four of 14 desert vegetation types are adequately protected with up to 94% representation in the protected area network in Namibia (Appendix F).

The proposed development site falls within the Namib-Naukluft Park, which extends from the Kuiseb River southwards with the Dorob National Park to the northeast. The MME (2010) classifies the Kuiseb Delta area (344 km2) as a high biodiversity red flag area due to the very high density of !nara (Acanthosicyos horridus) plants and its importance for the Topnaar livelihood.

No communal or freehold conservancies are located in the general area. The closest communal conservancy is the ≠Gaingu Conservancy in the Spitzkoppe area approximately 150 km to the northeast (Mendelsohn et al. 2002, NACSO 2010).

The main drainage line in the area is the Kuiseb River with a catchment area of 15,500 km² with common riparian species including Ana tree, Tamarix, Camelthorn, Salvadora, Fig, Euclea, !Nara and Mesquite (Appendix F).

6.1.6.2 Baseline Assessment (i) Fauna a) Reptiles Cunningham (May, 2019) indicates that the overall reptile diversity and endemism in the Dorob South and Rooibank B (Kuiseb River) area is estimated at between 31-40 species and 17-20 species, respectively (Appendix F).

According to the literature review at least 54 species of reptiles are expected to occur in the general Dorob South and Rooibank B (Kuiseb River) area with 27 species being endemic – i.e. 50% endemic, 1 species (Varanus albigularis) as vulnerable, 2 species as rare and insufficiently known while 4 species have some form of international conservation status. These consist of at least 17 snakes (2 thread snakes, 1 burrowing snake, 14 typical snakes) of which 6 species (35%) are endemic, 1 terrapin, 16 lizards (50% endemic), 1 monitor, 1 agama, 2 chameleons (although the Cape dwarf chameleon is endemic to South Africa it was introduced to gardens in the Walvis Bay area and thus does not occur there naturally – i.e. alien) and 16 geckos (81% endemic).

14 Extracted from the Baseline Biophysical Report compiled by Environment and Wildlife Consulting

55 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------The endemic species expected to occur throughout the general area and viewed as the most important are Namibiana (Leptotyphlops) labialis (Damara thread snake), Bitis peringueyi (Péringuey’s adder), Typhlacontias brevipes (FitzSimmons’ burrowing skink) and various Meroles species. All these species are mainly associated with pockets of vegetation throughout the area and susceptible to local disturbances. Cunningham (May, 2019) states that none of the important reptile species are exclusively associated with the Dorob South and Rooibank B (Kuiseb River) proposed development sites (Appendix F). b) Amphibians Cunningham (May, 2019) states that the dry sandy coastal desert (Namib) and saline coastal areas are poor habitats for amphibians.

Although the ephemeral Kuiseb River reaches the sea in the Walvis Bay area, it seldom flows with temporary freshwater pools being rare close to the coast. Other water bodies in the area (e.g. Walvis Bay sewage works) are generally saline of nature and not suitable habitat for amphibians. Overall, the saline coastal habitats are marginal for amphibians.

According to Cunningham’s literature review, up to 7 species of amphibians can occur in suitable habitat in the general Dorob South and Rooibank B (Kuiseb River) area. The endemic species expected to occur throughout the general area and viewed as the most important are Poyntonophrynus dombensis (Dombe toad),Poyntonophrynus hoeschi (Hoesch’s toad) and Phrynomantis annectens (marbled rubber frog).

However, none of the important amphibian species are exclusively associated with the Dorob South and Rooibank B (Kuiseb River) proposed development sites (Appendix F). c) Mammals According to Cunningham’s literature review (Appendix F), up to 44 species of mammals are known and/or expected to occur in the general Dorob South and Rooibank B (Kuiseb River) area of which 11 species (25%) are classified as endemic. According to the Namibian legislation 1 species is classified as rare, 4 species as vulnerable, 1 species as protected game, 4 species as insufficiently known, 3 species as invasive aliens, 2 species as huntable game, 1 species as problem animal while 2 species (both bats) are not listed. Eleven species are listed with various international conservation statuses of which 2 species are classified as vulnerable (Eremitalpa granti and Cistugo seabrai) and 8 species as near threatened by the SARDB (SARDB 2004). The IUCN (IUCN, 2019) classifies 1 species as near threatened (Hyaena brunnea) (all other species classified as least concern), while 1 species is classified as a CITES Appendix II species (see Table 3 of the Biophysical Baseline Report attached as Appendix F).

Cunningham (May, 2019) reports that the most important mammal species known and/or expected to occur in the general area are viewed as the little known bats – i.e. Cistugo seabrae (Namibian wing-gland bat) and Laephotis namibensis (Namibian long-eared bat) – and the carnivores Hyaena brunnea (brown hyena) and Felis silvestris (African wild cat). Both carnivores are shy and elusive and tend to avoid disturbed areas. H. brunnea are

56 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------nowhere common throughout their range while F. silvestris furthermore faces genetic pollution issues with feral cats close to human settlements.

Larger mammals such as Gemsbok, round-eared elephant-shrew, aardvark (Protected Game), warthog (Huntable Game) and Kudu (Huntable Game) have also occasionally been seen in the area (Pers. obs.). However, these species probably indicate vagrants having followed the various drainage lines into the area and are not permanently associated with the area.

Although most of the other species of conservation concern are viewed as “secure”, overall habitat alteration and overutilization are the two primary processes threatening most mammals in Namibia (Griffin, 1998c). Development undoubtedly would affect most mammals in the proposed development area, but by following the proposed mitigations these could be ameliorated. d) Avian Cunningham (May 2019) states that Bird diversity is viewed as medium in the Dorob South and Rooibank B (Kuiseb River) area with 141-170 species (this would include migrant species) estimated with at least 1-3 species being endemic to the general area (Mendelsohn et al. 2000).

According to Cunningham’s literature review (Appendix F), at least 128 species of terrestrial [“breeding residents”] birds occur and/or could occur in the general Dorob South and Rooibank B (Kuiseb River) area at any time. Seven of the 14 Namibian endemic bird species (50% of all Namibian endemic species or 5.5% of the species expected to occur in the area) can or are likely to occur in the general area (Hockey et al. 2006).

Only 3 endemics – Rűppels korhaan, dune and gray’s larks – are expected to occur in the general area. Three species are classified as endangered (booted eagle, martial eagle, Lűdwig’s bustard), 2 as vulnerable (secretarybird, lappet-faced vulture) and 3 as near threatened (Verreaux’s eagle, peregrine falcon, Damara tern), while the IUCN (2019) classifies 2 species as endangered (lappet-faced vulture, Lűdwig’s bustard) and 3 as vulnerable (secretary bird, martial eagle, Damara tern). According to the southern African status for birds, 9 species are classified as endemic and 34 species as near endemics.

Realistically, the only bird species probably occurring at the proposed development sites throughout the year are Dune lark, Gray’s lark, and Tractrac chat. Cunningham (Appendix F) indicates that none of the important bird species are exclusively associated with the Dorob South and Rooibank B (Kuiseb River) proposed development sites.

(ii) Flora a) Tree and Shrub Diversity Cunningham (Appendix F) indicates that an estimated 20-39 species of larger trees and shrubs occur in the general Dorob South and Rooibank B (Kuiseb River), area. A total of 62 species is expected from the general area.

57 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------A total of 62 larger trees and shrubs known and/or expected to occur in the general area is listed in Table 5 of the Biophysical Baseline Report (Appendix F).

Eight species of trees and shrubs (20.5%) expected to occur in the area are classified as endemics, 1 species as near endemic (2.6%), 21 species (53.9%) are protected under the Forest Act No. 12 of 2001, 3 species (7.7%) are protected under the Nature Conservation Ordinance No. 4 of 1975 while 5 species (13%) are classified as CITES Appendix II species. Arthraerua leubnitziae is endemic to the fog zone in the central Namib region (Burke 2003).

The most important species expected to occur in the area are Acanthosicyos horridus (Protected F; N-end) which could be considered one of Namibia’s most characteristic plants and remains an important commodity to the local Topnaar people and Capparis hereroensis (End).

Cunningham (Appendix F) indicates that none of the important larger tree and shrub species is exclusively associated with the Dorob South and Rooibank B (Kuiseb River) proposed development sites.

b) Grass Diversity It is estimated that up to 48 grasses – 6 to 37 species – (Burke 2003 [6 sp.], Curtis and Marais 1986 [5 sp.], Müller 2007 [21 sp.], Müller 1984 [24 sp.], Van Oudshoorn 1999 [37 sp.]) occur in the general Dorob South and Rooibank B (Kuiseb River), area (Appendix F).

Stipagrostis sabulicolia is considered a “true Namib endemic” which only occurs in the dune fields of the Namib Desert and is accordingly considered the most important species along with Eragrostis omahekensis.

None of the important grass species is exclusively associated with the Dorob South and Rooibank B (Kuiseb River) proposed development sites (Appendix F). c) Other Species Cunningham (Appendix F) indicates that the occurrence of aloes, ferns, lithops and lichen is unlikely within the area of the proposed development site.

The endemic and protected Acanthosicyos horridus (!nara) is an important commodity for the Topnaars living along the Kuiseb River. Furthermore, it serves as refuge and a source of food for various desert dwelling fauna.

Photo 6-1 blow presents a view of the upper section of the Kuiseb River Delta (i.e. High Dune Reservoir area) with shrub-like Acacia erioloba (camel thorn), while the dune hummocks are dominated by Acanthosicyos horridus (!nara) and the tough Stipagrostis sabulicolia (dune bushman grass) grass.

58 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

Photo 6-1 - View of vegetation within the upper section of the Kuiseb River Delta

(High Dune Reservoir Area) Source - P. Cunningham 2019

(iii) Important Areas a) Kuiseb River The Kuiseb River has a catchment area of 15,500 km2 and a total length of 420 km with the common riparian vegetation including species such as Acacia erioloba, Acanthosicyos horridus, Euclea pseudebenus, Faidherbia albida, Ficus spp., Salvadora persica and Tamarix usneoides (Appendix F).

Ephemeral rivers are viewed as sites of special ecological importance mainly for its biotic richness; large desert-dwelling mammals; high value for human subsistence and tourism (Curtis and Barnard 1998), while the lower catchment of the Kuiseb River passes through a unique arid environment divided by this linear oasis and has great conservation and tourism significance to Namibia (Appendix F). Such vegetated rivers in an otherwise extreme arid environment are unique habitat and a virtual lifeline to many desert dwelling fauna. b) !nara fields The endemic and protected Acanthosicyos horridus (!nara) is important as a commodity for the Topnaars living along the Kuiseb River. Furthermore, it serves as refuge and a source of food for various desert dwelling fauna. c) Bird flyways Although very little is known regarding bird flight paths in Namibia, especially species moving/migrating at night, most birds seem to follow the shortest routes between selected habitats – e.g. dams, estuaries, bays, etc. However, unpredictable rainfall events may lure species into areas not normally frequented – e.g. kori and Ludwig’s bustards into the coastal

59 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------areas – and storms (e.g. berg winds) may also force birds into areas not regularly visited. Planning for all eventualities is therefore not always possible.

Avifauna is expected to be potentially affected by the proposed new 66kV-400V overhead power lines (8,837 m) associated with the boreholes throughout the development area. Although, none of the unique/important bird species is exclusively associated with the proposed development area, the effect of aboveground pylon infrastructure is expected to be detrimental to certain birds – e.g. “pylon sensitive species”.

Birds expected to be negatively affected by the pylon developments include:

• Birds flying at pylon height – e.g. bustards, swifts, sandgrouse, ravens, raptors and aquatic and marine species.

• Birds with nocturnal transients – e.g. Palaearctic migrants and wetland birds (i.e. coastal area).

• Birds following certain geological and/or landscape features (e.g. rivers; mountain ranges, etc.) whilst foraging and/or migrating – e.g. aquatic/marine species and raptors.

• Birds attracted to the area during rainfall events – e.g. bustards – and temporary water sources in ephemeral rivers/drainage lines – e.g. aquatic/marine species.

Pylon sensitive bird species known/expected to occur in the general area include (Appendix F):

• Caspian tern;

• Chestnut-banded plover;

• Great crested grebe;

• Great white pelican;

• Greater flamingo;

• Lesser flamingo;

• Ludwig’s bustard; and

• Maccoa duck.

Nest induced faulting caused by birds includes (Appendix F):

• Cape crow;

• Pied crow; and

• Herons – large.

The following factors influence the collision risk for birds (Appendix F):

• Voltage levels – i.e. correlation between physical size of bird and collision risk;

60 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------• Body size and flight behaviour – i.e. birds with a heavy body size and small wing surface are more prone to collisions;

• Flight height and habitat use – i.e. short distance, low altitude, frequency of overhead structures;

• Age (i.e. young birds more prone to collisions);

• Resident versus migratory birds (i.e. movement into unfamiliar terrain increases collisions);

• Weather (i.e. inclement weather increases collisions);

• Time of day (i.e. nocturnal movement increases collisions);

• Land use (i.e. cultivated areas attract birds); and

• Topography (i.e. mountains/rivers/shorelines act as corridors).

Cunningham (Appendix F) states that bird streamers are also known to cause power outages on 66kV power lines.

Species potentially affected by the proposed overhead power lines once operational and at greatest risk would be those larger species flying at pylon height (e.g. greater and lesser flamingos and great white pelican); nocturnal travellers (e.g. flamingos and Palaearctic species) and species potentially visiting the area for roosting/foraging, etc. (e.g. bustards).

Cunningham (May 2019) presents in his Biophysical Assessment Report as Figures 2 and 3 potential flight paths and documented bird mortalities caused by power lines in Namibia. Expected bird flight paths between Sandwich Harbour-Walvis Bay lagoon; including Pelican Point and salt works areas; Sandwich Harbour-Walvis Bay sewage works; Walvis Bay- sewage works; Kuiseb River to coastal areas, which includes Dorob South and Rooibank B project area.

6.1.6.3 Detailed Assessment A site assessment (see Appendix H) was undertaken during August 2019 to determine the actual faunal and floral diversity, which was supplemented by other confirmed sightings by the author from the general area.

(i) Fauna a) Reptiles At least 28 species of reptiles were confirmed from the general area, either through direct observations during rapid site visit (i.e. 6 species) or as confirmed sightings using the author’s previous records from the general area (i.e. 27 species (Appendix H). Of the 28 species confirmed from the general area, 15 species are classified as endemic (all secure); 1 species classified as an invasive alien species; 1 species classified as near threatened and 4 species classified as least concern by the IUCN (2019) and 1 species classified as a

61 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------CITES Appendix 2 species (Appendix H). Most reptiles have not yet been assessed by the IUCN Red List (IUCN 2019).

The only reptiles confirmed to occur in the area during the fieldwork for this project were:

• 2 snakes – Bitis arietans and Bitis caudalis; • 1 skink – Trachylepis variegata; • 1 burrowing skink – Typhlacontias brevipes; and • 1 Old World lizards – Meroles reticulatus.

Of these 5 species confirmed from the area, 2 species are classified as endemic and secure (Typhlacontias brevipes and Meroles reticulatus). Typhlacontias brevipes is classified as endemic and secure (100% of the taxon’s range) in Namibia (Griffin 2003) although not yet assessed by the IUCN (2019). Meroles reticulatus is classified as endemic and secure (80% of the taxon’s range occurs in Namibia with extralimital range to south-western Angola) in Namibia (Appendix H) although not yet assessed by the IUCN (2019).

The most important species confirmed from the Kuiseb River Delta area would be the 2 species classified as endemic (Typhlacontias brevipes and Meroles reticulatus) although they are not exclusively associated with the area, but occur widespread in suitable habitat along the coastal areas.

b) Amphibian The endemic species expected to occur throughout the general area and viewed as the most important are Poyntonophrynus dombensis (Dombe toad), Poyntonophrynus hoeschi (Hoesch’s toad) and Phrynomantis annectens (marbled rubber frog). However, none of the important amphibian species are exclusively associated with the Dorob South and Rooibank B (Kuiseb River) proposed development sites.

No amphibians were observed in the area during the fieldwork and no amphibians were identified during other surveys conducted by the author in the general area (Appendix H).

c) Mammals At least 15 species of mammals were confirmed from the general area, either through direct observations during rapid site visit (i.e. 7 species) or as confirmed sightings using the author’s previous records from the general area (Appendix H). Of the 15 species confirmed from the general area, 4 species are classified as endemic (all secure); 3 species classified as vulnerable; 1 species classified as insufficiently known and peripheral, 2 species classified as an invasive alien species; 2 species classified as huntable game and 1 species classified as a problem animal by Namibian legislation (Appendix H) while 1 species is classified as near threatened by the IUCN (2019).

The only mammals confirmed to occur in the area during the fieldwork were: • 2 rodents – Rhabdomys pumilio and Gerbillurus tytonis; • 3 carnivores – Felis silvestris, Vulpes chama and Canis mesomelas; and • 2 ungulates – Antidorcas marsupialis and Oryx gazella.

62 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------The well-vegetated Kuiseb River Delta supports a high density of small mammals, which in turn support predators in an otherwise harsh and marginal desert environment.

d) Avian At least 78 species of birds were confirmed from the general area, either through direct observations (i.e. 18 species only) or as confirmed sightings using the author’s previous records from the general area (Appendix H).

Only 18 bird species were confirmed to occur in the area during the fieldwork of which 2 species are not included in Table 4 – i.e. jackal buzzard (3 individuals) and great white pelican (flock of 16 birds). Of the 18 species actually observed during the fieldwork 1 species is classified as endangered (booted eagle), 1 species classified as vulnerable (great white pelican) and 1 species classified as endemic (dune lark) according to Simmons et al. (2015) (Appendix H). Furthermore, 1 and 4 species are classified as endemic and near endemic to Southern Africa, respectively (Appendix H).

(ii) Flora a) Tree and Shrubs If all the plants identified from various habitats in the area are included then at least 21 species (excluding grasses) were identified with the majority of the plants associated with the Kuiseb River Delta (17 species). Of these species confirmed from various habitats in the area, 4 species are protected by the Forest Act No. 12 of 2001 (Acacia erioloba, Acanthosicyos horridus, Faidherbia albida, Tamarix usneoides), 3 species are classified as endemic (Arthraerua leubnitziae, Caparis hereoensis, Zygophyllum stapffii) and 2 species classified as near endemic (Acanthosicyos horridus, Brownanthus arenosus) (Appendix H).

During the fieldwork, only 7 species of larger trees/shrubs – 4 species protected by Forest Act No. 12 of 2001 (Acacia erioloba, Acanthosicyos horridus, Faidherbia albida, Tamarix usneoides), 2 species classified as endemic (Arthraerua leubnitziae, Zygophyllum stapffii) and 1 species classified as near endemic (Acanthosicyos horridus) – were confirmed from the general area – with most of these mainly associated with the Kuiseb River Delta riparian vegetation (Appendix H). b) Grasses During the fieldwork, only 8 species of grass were confirmed from the general area, which includes 2 species not previously expected within the area (i.e. Stipagrostis hermanii and Cladoraphis cyperoides). Grasses are not well represented throughout the dune belt area although Stipagrostis sabulicolia and Cladoraphis spinosa form dense stands in some parts of the Kuiseb River Delta; High Dune Reservoir and mobile dune areas. According to Burke (Appendix H) the endemic Stipagrostis sabulicolia is strictly confined to mobile dunes and as it is often the only perennial species present, it provides habitat for a variety of species, especially insects. The preferred habitat of Cladoraphis spinosa is dunes and riverbeds in the Namib (Appendix H).

63 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------The annual Stipagrostis hermanii occurs on the gravel and sandy/gravel plains, while S. sabulicolia is common on hummocks along in the Kuiseb River Delta area as well as some parts of the dune belt area. Patches of Phragmites australis also occurs in the area, but usually associated with surface water – e.g. leakages along the various pipelines and closer to the coastal areas (including the Walvis Bay sewerage works). c) Other Species Acanthosicyos horridus (!nara) is common in the Kuiseb River Delta area, even the dominant plant in some areas, forming dense impenetrable stands. They also occur in the mobile dune belt area between the High Dune Reservoir and the Mile 7 Reservoir.

The endemic and protected Acanthosicyos horridus (!nara) is an important commodity for the Topnaars living along the Kuiseb River.

6.2 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT The Erongo Region is expectedly the second most economically active region in the Namibia, following the Khomas Region. The Region’s economy is shaped by a variety of activities, such as fisheries, mining, tourism and prominent urban centres.

6.2.1 REGIONAL OVERVIEW The 2011 Population and Housing Census show that the Erongo Region has a total population of 150,809, which 7.1% of Namibia’s estimated total population at the time. The annual population growth rate for the Erongo Region was estimated at 1.3% in 2001 which increased significantly to 3.4% by 2011. 87% of the population live in urban areas compared to only 13% in rural areas (Namibia Statistics Agency (NSA), 2014).

The population density of the Erongo Region was 2.4 people/km² (NSA, 2014), which is similar to the national average of 2.6 people/km². The Erongo Region is therefore relatively sparsely populated, mainly as a result of the size and predominant part being desert habitat.

The Erongo Region has a relatively young population with 28% of the population being younger than 15 years of age. Of those 15 years and older (i.e. the labour force) 79 are actively engaged, with 70% employed and 30% unemployed. The percentage of those unemployed is lower than the national percentage for the same, which was 37% in 2011.

Formal employment opportunities in the region are limited to towns and some other major settlements. ‘Agriculture, forestry and fisheries’ dominated as the main industry of the workforce (13.8 %), whereas ‘manufacturing’ and ‘mining and quarrying’, employed 11.7% and 11.5% of the regional workforce respectively (NSA, 2014).

Private employment provided jobs to the largest portion of employees (68.1%) in the region (NSA, 2014), which confirms the predominant urban based economy of the region.

64 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------The majority of people in the Erongo Region are Oshiwambo speaking (38.8% of households), with Afrikaans (20.4% of households) and Nama/Damara (18.8% of households) occupying second and third.

6.2.2 WALVIS BAY TOWN Walvis Bay, the Regional Capital, host a prominent and diverse economic base, contributing to Namibia’s GDP. Walvis Bay is also located within the web of coastal transportation, communication and utility systems and networks (i.e. air; road; rail and sea).

The Walvis Bay harbour, considered to become the most important port on Africa’s west coast and a regional container hub for southern Africa, is a major contributor and stimulant to the Regional Capital’s socio-economic development and Namibia’s GDP.

The town of Walvis Bay and it’s economy importance has been strengthened and expanded by mean of the Walvis Bay Corridor, which uses the port of Walvis Bay as the trade gateway, its main arteries being the Trans-Caprivi and Trans-Kalahari Highways. The Walvis Bay to Grootfontein railway line also forms part of the corridor.

6.2.3 WALVIS BAY RURAL CONSTITUENCY 6.2.3.1 Economic Profile The main source of household income was stated as wages and salaries (81.3%), while ‘Business Activities’ (excluding those related to farming) accounted for 9.7% of household incomes.

Approximately 11.1% (livestock – 5.2%, crop – 4.2% and poultry – 1.7%) of households within the WB Rural Constituency are actively engaged in some form of activity directly related to the production or processing of crops, dairy products, poultry or livestock for commercial sale or as a principal means of personal subsistence (NSA, 2014).

Results from the 2011 Population and Housing Census showed that the most commonly owned asset in the WB Rural Constituency were radios (78%), televisions (69.3%) and cell phones (60.2%).

6.2.3.2 Demographic Profile The affected constituency (within which the project is located) – i.e. Walvis Bay (WB) Rural Constituency, had an estimated total population of 26 916 in 2011, which accounts for approximately 17.8% of the total regional population at the time. The population density of the constituency was 2.4 people/km² (NSA, 2014), which is similar to the regional average of 2.4 people/km².

Consistent with the regional population composition, the WB rural constituency has a relatively young population with 27% of the population being younger than 15 years of age. Of those 15 years and older (i.e. the labour force) 85 (higher than regional percentage) are actively engaged, with 68% employed and 32% unemployed. The percentage of those

65 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------unemployed is slightly higher than the regional percentage for the same, which was 30% in 2011.

6.2.3.3 Infrastructure (i) Water and Sanitation The 2011 Population and Housing Census show that 99% of all households in the WB Rural Constituency had access to safe water.

Only 2% of households within the WB rural constituency had no toilet facilities, evidence of high provision to basic services (NSA, 2014).

(ii) Electricity Supply The Region has a well-developed electricity network under management of ErongoRed and supplied by NamPower. Electricity is predominantly imported from South Africa and Zambia, with the local coal fired Von Eck Power Station in Windhoek, the hydroelectric station at Ruacana Falls and diesel driven Paratus power station at Walvis Bay.

(iii) Transportation The Erongo Region has a well-developed road network providing access to all major towns and smaller settlements. The regional network covering more than 40,000 kilometres plays a crucial role in the socio-economics of the Region and the town of Walvis Bay. The primary route the B2 connecting Walvis Bay and Swakopmund is tarred and link to the Trans-Caprivi Highway and the Trans-Kalahari Highway. The highway is also connected to the Maputo Corridor on Africa’s east coast.

The Walvis Bay International Airport, situated 10 km from Walvis Bay town, is a major contributor to the local economy handling “over 20 000 aircrafts and a massive 98 178 passengers in 2015” (Namibia Airports Company Limited, 2017). This aforementioned numbers equates to approximately 265 people/day that frequent/move through the airport.

The Walvis Bay harbour, managed and owned by NAMPORT, is a world-class harbour equal to that of Cape Town and Durban. The port currently handles around 2.5 million tons of cargo annually, with an average turnaround time of about 12-18 hours for container vessels. Products include foodstuffs, marble blocks, lead and copper ingots and an annual 500,000 tons of salt. As well as excellent logistical support services, there is a thriving ship repair and marine engineering industry at Walvis Bay. The harbour is one of the biggest industries in Namibia contributing to foreign income and investment, which is directly and indirectly contributing to the socio-economic well-being of the residents of Walvis Bay. The Walvis Bay harbour is currently being extended.

(iv) Land Use The three most significant land uses in the Erongo Region are conservation/tourism, agriculture and mining, which is also common within the larger study area (see Figure 6-3).

66 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------Large parts of the Erongo Region are under the ownership of the State (i.e. state land) as protected areas earmarked for conservation; these include the Namib-Naukluft Park to the east and south of the project site and the Dorob National Park, which surrounds the project site and extends northward (see Figure 6-3).

The project site is located within an area having a ‘double’ conservation land use, i.e. within the Dorob National Park and the Walvis Bay Nature Reserve, as well as within the Kuiseb Delta Tourism Concession, earmarked as an important eco-tourism, archaeological and biodiversity hotspots.

Activities within the Dorob National Park is regulated by the Nature Conservation Ordinance Section 14, which protects and preserve wild animal life, fisheries, wild plant life and objects of geological, archaeological, historical and other scientific interest (Dorob National Park Rules and Regulations, December 2012). In accordance with the EIA for the Kuiseb Delta and Dune Belt Area (UNAM, 2011), the study area falls within the proposed ‘Walvis Bay Nature Reserve’, which states that all existing developments located in this area should continue their activities in this area, but new applications of such kind will not be allowed.

The study area, located to the south and forming part of the larger Dune Belt Area between Swakopmund and Walvis Bay, is having less of a tourism and recreational importants compared to the remainder of the Dune Belt Area, but contributes to some socio-economic development. The area of the Kuiseb Delta falls with the ‘eco-tourism’ part of the larger Dune Belt Area. Community-based tourism, cultural, sightseeing, eco-tours (i.e. birding) and camping are thus some of the activities taking place within the study area, although very limited at this stage. Some of these activities are led by members of the local Topnaars community under the Kuiseb Delta Development Trust.

Uncontrolled access to the area resulted and still results in ‘aggressive’ type of activities (i.e. quad biking; 4 x 4 off road driving) having a negative impact on the allocated ‘eco-tourism’ land use.

67 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

Figure 6-3: Infrastructure and Land Use Map of the Larger Study Area

68 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

The WB Integrated Urban Spatial Development Framework (Walvis Bay Municipal Council, 2014) proposed a revision of the current WB Municipal boundary, to include extra land for anticipated growth of WB up until 2030. The revised WB Municipal boundary will include the land on which the project site is located – i.e. the land will change from surveyed State Land, to a land use defined by the Walvis Bay Town Planning Scheme.

6.3 ARCHAEOLOGY AND HERITAGE 6.3.1 OVERVIEW The Kuiseb Delta is unparalleled in Southern Africa for its archaeology, which provides a continuum of 2000 years, including detailed evidence from the last 250 years (Appendix G). By 1990s, 235 sites had been identified with 75% being from pre-contact times and 25% showing evidence of contact ranging in age from 15th to 20th century. Therefore, the Kuiseb Delta has Heritage/Archaeological sites that have been in existence since 2000 years ago, which include customary land, graves, waterholes, elephant tracks and historical art. The Kuiseb Delta is also known for its specialised and habitat specific species like Dune Lark and !Nara Melon.

The study area has been a traditional range for the Topnaars (“strandlopers”) leading a nomadic lifestyle as hunters and gatherers.

6.3.2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS 6.3.2.1 Baseline Assessment A series of detailed studies over several decades has identified a large concentration of archaeological sites on the margins of the Walvis Bay lagoon as well as the dune-fields of the Kuiseb Delta, and to a lesser extent on the gravel plains lying immediately north of the Kuiseb Delta. These sites contain unique evidence of human settlement in the area mainly dating to within the last 2000 years, including the only well preserved in situ evidence of early historical contact between indigenous pastoralists and European traders. The gravel plains lying immediately north of the Kuiseb Delta contain evidence of human occupation dating to within the late Pleistocene era, or the last one million years. The sites and the archaeological landscape in which they are situated are considered to be highly sensitive and of global archaeological importance.

The Kuiseb Delta has been proposed as an archaeological conservation area under the provisions of the National Heritage Act (27 of 2004, section 52).

As highlighted by Dr. J. Kinahan in the Baseline Report (Appendix G), a significant part of the project area falls within the registered Topnaar Archaeological Tourism Concession Area which is intended as an income-generating project for the local Topnaar community. The concession area, which also falls partly within the Dorob National Park, includes portions of three high sensitivity archaeological zones: the Walvis Bay dune-fields, Frederiksdam and Khaeros, as indicated by Figure 6-4 below.

69 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

Figure 6-4: Archaeological Zones

The mentioned Figure 6-4 above (also as Figure 1 of the Archaeological Baseline Report, attached as Appendix G) thus shows that much of the area covered by the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme project is of known archaeological sensitivity and that it also falls partly within areas that are already gazetted as protected areas or have been proposed for conservation protection on the basis of their archaeological significance and sensitivity.

70 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

Archaeological sites dating to the late Pleistocene in the lower Kuiseb and on the gravel plains to the north of the river also fall within the area to be affected by the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme. These sites consist of dispersed surface scatters of stone artefacts, some of which have been mapped in detail.

Considering the proposed alternative alignments and that some parts of the lower Kuiseb has not been studied yet, a detailed field survey was undertaken during October 2019 to establish the real potential impact. The detailed Archaeological Field Survey is attached as Appendix I.

6.3.2.2 Archaeological Field Survey The archaeological field assessment considered the study area in three components, Component A - Well Field Abstraction Points; Component B - Pipeline Between High Dune Reservoir and Mile 7 Reservoirs; and Component C - Existing Access Route Between High Dune Reservoir and Rooibank, as described in more detailed within the attached Archaeological Field Survey Report Appendix I.

Significant- and vulnerability ranking is as below.

SIGNIFICANCE RANKING 0 no archaeological significance 1 disturbed or secondary context, without diagnostic material 2 isolated minor find in undisturbed primary context, with diagnostic material 3 archaeological site forming part of an identifiable local distribution or group 4 multi-component site or central site with high research potential 5 major archaeological sites containing unique evidence of high regional significance

VULNERABILITY RANKING 0 not vulnerable 1 no threat posed by current or proposed development activities 2 low or indirect threats from possible consequences of development (e.g. soil erosion) 3 probable threats from inadvertent disturbance due to proximity of development 4 high likelihood of partial disturbance or destruction due to close proximity of development 5 direct and certain threat of major disturbance or total destruction

Component A - Archaeological sites associated with this component are shown in Figure 6- 5, below. Nine archaeological sites considered to lie within vulnerable proximity to the proposed well-field infrastructure have been recorded, which have a significance rating of between 1 and 3, and vulnerability rating of 1.

Component B - Two archaeological sites associated with this component are shown in Figure 6-5, below, together with four sites in the vicinity of the High Dune reservoir and described under Component A, above. The two archaeological sites considered to lie within vulnerable proximity (within 100 m) to the pipeline terminus at the Mile 7 reservoirs, of which the one site (Site 146/2) is having a high significant rating (4), but low vulnerability (1).

71 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

Component C - Archaeological sites associated with this component are shown in Figure 6- 5, below. Seven archaeological sites are considered to lie within vulnerable proximity to the proposed access road infrastructure of which the significance rating range between 2 and 4.

6.3.3 MONUMENTS Two national monuments, both located a significant distance from the project site to the west – the Nathaniel Maxuilili Memorial (officially unveiled in June 2000) and a memorial erected along the site of Namibia’s first railway line dating back to 1897, which was constructed by the British Government.

6.4 VISUAL AESTHETICS AND SENSE OF PLACE The project site falls within the boundaries of the Dorob National Park, which has a high visual and sense of place value. The dunes and gravel plains between Walvis Bay and the Kuiseb River, as well as south of the Kuiseb River include a variety of desert landscapes. Most outstanding are the various types of sand dunes, which take on mainly crescent- shaped forms. The gravel plains are less spectacular, but represent a natural part of the desert landscape around Walvis Bay as the windswept part of the desert.

The project site has been disturbed by the initial construction of the pipeline as well as continuous maintenance and repair activities. The larger area is also associated with various off road tracks, as well as several roads and powerlines in the larger area (see section 5.1.3). The project site itself has a combination of dunes and flat to undulating gravel plains making the site less visible.

The larger part of the project site is located far (10 to 15 km) from WB with no other permanent activities within the immediate surroundings, which makes the project site less visible, i.e. no visual impact. Tourism activities and local collection of wild fruits will result in people getting closer to the project site, which would then have an impact of visual disturbance (i.e. above ground power lines and reservoirs). This disturbance is however common in the larger area considering the existing bulk water infrastructure network.

72 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

Figure 6-5: Archaeological Sites within the Study Area

73 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

7 PUBLIC CONSULTATION Public consultation and participation are an important aspect of an EA process. During public consultation, potential impacts that the proposed project may have on the natural and/or socio-economic environments, were identified. Consultation with Interested and Affected Parties (I&APs) and relevant Authorities enables transparent decision-making.

This chapter describes in detail the full extent of the public consultation process that was followed and the I&APs and authorities that were notified of the study being undertaken. It also includes the main issues and concerns raised during the public consultation process and comments received on the Background Information Document (BID) distributed during the first round of public consultation.

Public consultation for the purposes of this project was done as prescribed by Regulations 21 to 24 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations (GN. 30 of 2012).

7.1 PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT

7.1.1 FIRST ROUND OF CONSULTATION Engagement with the public and authorities as part of the first round of public consultation commenced on the 28th of May 2019 and concluded on the 18th of June 2019. During the first round of consultation, I&APs and authorities were given an opportunity to register and submit comments and/or concerns on the proposed project.

7.1.1.1 Activities of Public Engagement Activities undertaken to date to ensure effective and adequate I&AP involvement, are as follows:

• A list of predetermined I&APs and authorities was compiled. A total of 42 I&APs were included on the database (Appendix D1).

• A notification email (Appendix D2) with Background Information Document (BID) (Appendix D3) and an invitation to attend a public meeting was distributed to all pre- identified I&APs and authorities (Appendix D1) on the 28th of May 2019.

• Notification letters (Appendix D4) with BID (Appendix D3) and an invitation to attend a public meeting was sent via courier (Appendix D5) to the Regional- and Local Authorities (Appendix D1) on the 24th of May 2019.

• Notification letters (Appendix D6) with BID (Appendix D3) and an invitation to attend a public meeting was hand delivered to line ministries and State Owned Enterprises (Appendix D1) situated in Windhoek on the 27th of May 2019 (Appendix D7).

• Public notices announcing the commencement of the EA and an invitation to register as an I&AP and to attend a public meeting were placed in ‘The Namib Times’ and

74 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

‘The Namibian’ newspapers on the 28th of May 2019 and 4th of June 2019 (Appendix D8).

• A notice board (with the dimensions 60cm x 42cm) was placed at the Erongo Regional Council, the Walvis Bay Rural Constituency office and the Walvis Bay Municipality (Appendix D9).

• A public meeting was held at the Walvis Bay Protea Hotel (Indongo Hall at 10:00am) on Saturday the 15th of June 2019. The meeting was not attended by any person from the public (Appendix D10).

• A community meeting was held with the Topnaar community at the Araamstarad Settlement at 15:00 on Saturday the 15th of June 2019 (Appendix D11). The meeting was not attended by any person. The Deputy Chief of the Topnaar Community and additional members acknowledged communication and information sharing with the community, on the project (Appendix D12).

• A register was opened and maintained and included all registered I&APs who as a result of the consultation process submitted comments or raised their concerns (Appendix D13).

7.1.1.2 Comments Received and Responses Provided All comments and feedback received from I&APs and Authorities are summarised in Table 7-1 below, while a copy of the original correspondence is attached as Appendix D14.

75 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

Table 7-1: Comments received during the first round of public consultation NO. NAME COMMENTS NAME RESPONSE

1. Mr D. Uushona (Manager: Dear Julia or Brand (Urban Green), Urban Green cc Dear Mr. D. Uushona, Solid Waste and My Environmental colleagues will display and (05/06/2019) Thank you for your kind assistance, it is Environmental forward you a picture of the display for your appreciated!! Management) Municipality record keeping. The municipality is having a of Walvis Bay Apart from the notice at the Municipality, number of offices and libraries within the there is also a notice at the Constituency (28/05/2019) different suburbs, and your notification would Office and at the Regional Council in have reached much more Interested & Affected Swakopmund, as required by the Parties (I&APs) should you have couriered more Regulations. pamphlets (not all may have access to the newspapers). All identified stakeholders are contacted directly (i.e. hand delivered letter or Other two concerns are the time slot and venue registered post) and issued with a BID to for the public meeting. The scheduled time of 10 comment on, while the broader public is am will not be able to cater for those employed notified via the newspaper notices, as I&APs. required by the Regulations. The public Most of the public members will obviously be at meeting is done in addition to the work and the location of the meeting venue may Regulations’ requirements for those people not be reachable and suitable to the majority of in the public interested to obtain more the Walvis Bay public/residences. information. In addition to the mentioned You are recommended to look for alternative public meeting, a separate community timeslots and venues. Most importantly is to meeting is scheduled with the Topnaar distinguish between main stakeholders’ community. meetings and public meetings. From my 13 years’ experience, Saturday’s Dear Council’s Colleagues, Please take note of are far more effective in reaching the the attached notification for your registration and broader public, which cannot attend during input/comments to this noble project. Share with the week due to work commitments. Public officials receive the information either hand

76 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

NO. NAME COMMENTS NAME RESPONSE

other I&APs. delivered or registered post. So, all potential I&APs are covered. Nangula & Lovisa – you may want to share with WEMAF. Regards

Kindest regards, Brand van Zyl

Mr. David Uushona (CMP)

2 Mr E. De Paauw Roads Morning Mr. van Zyl, Urban Green cc Dear Mr. E. de Paauw, Authority (Specialist Your letter of 28 May 2019 refers. (05/06/2019) The RA has been added to the list of Road Legislation, Advise registered I&APs. & Compliance NP&C) Kindly add the Roads Authority as an I&AP. Your office will be kept informed. (05/06/2019) We have no comments on the matter at this time. Regards

Regards Brand van Zyl

EAM de Paauw

3. Mr F. Löhnert Dear Brand, Urban Green cc Dear Frank

(10/06/2019) Please register me as I&AP and send BID. (11/06/2019) Your email below refers.

Thanks, regards You have been registered as an I&AP.

Frank Löhnert Find attached the BID.

Please indicate your interest to this study for purpose of our records?

Regards

Brand van Zyl

77 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

NO. NAME COMMENTS NAME RESPONSE

Mr F. Löhnert (Namib Dear Brand Urban Green cc Dear Frank, Botanical Gardens CC) Please register also Namib Botanical Gardens (12/06/2019) Your email below refers. (11/06/2019) as I&AP for subject project. The Namib Botanical Gardens has been Hereunder a summary of the I&AP and pertinent registered. concerns: Regards DATE / STATUS 2019.06.11 Brand van Zyl NAME Namib Botanical Gardens, represented by Frank Löhnert

POSTAL ADDRESS P.O. Box 4494, Vineta, Swakopmund

TEL / FAX No. 064 – 400 304

CELL PHONE No. 081 – 129 4770

E-MAIL ADDRESS [email protected]

I&AP’s INTEREST IN THE PROPOSED PROJECT

Objectives of the Namib Botanical Garden(NBG) project:

 To develop a botanical garden, on its site just outside Swakopmund;  To preserve and publicly display indigenous plant species of the Namib desert;  To create “xeri-scapes” (dry-gardens) and other themed horticultural exhibits;

78 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

NO. NAME COMMENTS NAME RESPONSE

 To raise environmental awareness and sensitization of residents and visitors, about the sensitive Namib desert flora  NBG would therefore be interested to source indigenous, protected plant material requiring relocation from your EIA site, when the site is cleared for the proposed project.  NBG would thus be interested to access such plant material for purpose of rescue, relocation and display, within themed displays of the NBG project, and as stock for propagation.

COMMENTS / QUESTIONS:

Please register Namib Botanical Gardens project as I&AP.

Please register NBG as a prospective partner and destination site in the rescue and relocation of indigenous and protected flora.

NBG has recently participated in a number of plant rescue & relocation exercises with Husab mine and also at Rössing Uranium mine.

Thanks, regards,

Frank Löhnert

79 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

NO. NAME COMMENTS NAME RESPONSE

4. Mr J. Bismark (Director - Dear Mr. van Zyl Urban Green cc Dear Mr Bismark TriStone Africa) Would you kindly provide us with BID for the EIA (11/06/2019) As requested, find attached a BID for the (10/06/2019) for “upgrading and expansion of existing Kuiseb above mentioned study. Delta Water Scheme to ensure security of Please indicate your interest in this study supply and increased volumes to Walvis Bay for purpose of our records? and surrounding users”? Regards Best regards, Brand van Zyl Joào Bismark

Director

TriStone Africa

Mr J. Bismark (Director - We supply pipelines in Namibia and we were TriStone Africa) interested to have a bit more detail on the material and specifications. (10/06/2019) Many thanks,

Best regards,

Joào Bismark

Director

TriStone Africa

5. Mr T. Wassenaar & Dear Brand, Urban Green cc Dear Theo, Gobabeb (NUST) Kindly register me (and through me also (11/06/2019) Your email refers. Gobabeb) as an Interested and Affected Party

80 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

NO. NAME COMMENTS NAME RESPONSE

(11/06/2019) for the abovementioned EIA. You and Gobabeb have been registered as I&APs. As part of the activities of the Namib Ecological Restoration and Monitoring Unit (NERMU) at Thank you for your valuable contribution. I Gobabeb (of which I am the Principal have cc both Peter Cunningham (ecologist) Investigator even though I am now with NUST), and Otto van Vuuren (hydrologist), which we have been measuring the response of you know well, for their notification and riparian trees to moisture stress in the Kuiseb, consideration. Swakop and Khan Rivers for a few years now. This particular study does not look at In fact, the topic of Elbe Becker's (copied in) abstraction rates and the sustainability PhD is the measurement of water stress in the thereof, but on the infrastructure side of the three dominant tree species of the rivers. project. Otto was however tasked as an independent evaluator to look at the tests Before our more recent work, Gobabeb has done by NAMWATER, mainly to evaluate been monitoring the health and species correctness of the process and data. composition of the riparian trees for a number of decades. I will include your concern within our study and definitely raise the concern, which Our data clearly show that some trees are continues abstraction above the critical probably highly vulnerable to extraction rates level will have an impact. over a critical limit. Increased abstraction may therefore pose significant threats to the integrity I guess desalination as an alternative water of the riparian ecosystem and should be source is become increasingly important to approached and managed with great caution. both ensure sustainable supply and avoid negative environmental impacts as a result Please note that Gobabeb has extensive of abstraction of underground waters. experience in the study and monitoring of the riparian ecosystems and can contribute valuable You and Gobabeb will be kept informed. insights into their sustainable management. Regards We will gladly advise your ecological specialist Brand van Zyl

81 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

NO. NAME COMMENTS NAME RESPONSE

consultant on any of these aspects.

Kind regards

Theo Wassenaar

Associate Professor: Conservation Biology/ Zoology

Agriculture and Natural Resources Sciences

Namibia University of Science and Technology

T: +264 61 207 2292

F: +264 61 207 9292

E: [email protected]

W: www.nust.na

Mr T. Wassenaar & Brand, Urban Green cc Good Morning Theo, Gobabeb (NUST) A quick follow-up: (20/06/2019) I agree with your opinion, but the scope of (18/06/2019) I think that a project to abstract water from an the project and the study, for which I am alluvial aquifer that does not assess impacts to appointed, does not include the resource. the riparian ecosystem is missing the point. At As previously indicated, your concern has least as far as impacts to biodiversity are been recorded and will be conveyed to concerned. The footprint impact of the NAMWATER. infrastructure is probably minor, the total size is I agree that desalination is the way, apart small and the main impacts of aboveground from saving water and reusing pipelines on wildlife movements are easy to wastewaters, which is not high on the mitigate. But water deficits in trees can lead to agenda of the general person on the street. widespread mortalities that will not recover quickly. There are a lot of arguments that can

82 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

NO. NAME COMMENTS NAME RESPONSE

be held around this point, but from an EA Regards process it is quite clear that the main potential Brand van Zyl impact is on this aspect. Without any detailed knowledge of the project it is probably dangerous to generalise, but I have found this same approach now in at least three projects that I have been involved with: two irrigation projects and one biomass energy - in each case the proponent insisted that only the site-scale footprint effect should be evaluated. At least for the biomass project the proponent realised this error and agreed that the downstream effect on savanna ecosystem integrity is likely the much larger potential impact. The irrigation projects refused to acknowledge the importance of their impact on aquatic ecosystems of a river already under some stress (Kavango). I don't know whether it is correct to bundle the NamWater project with these, because I don't know the precise circumstances (the relative abstraction rates may be very low, although I doubt this), but I think it is worth making a strong point about this. In general one just wonders at the logic of going for more groundwater when everything points to the fact that we should be going for desal. Best wishes

83 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

NO. NAME COMMENTS NAME RESPONSE

Theo Wassenaar

Associate Professor: Conservation Biology/ Zoology

Agriculture and Natural Resources Sciences

Namibia University of Science and Technology

T: +264 61 207 2292

F: +264 61 207 9292

E: [email protected]

W: www.nust.na

6. Elbé Becker Dear Brand, Urban Green cc Dear Elbé, Thank you for adding Gobabeb as an I&AP. (Gobabeb) (20/06/2019) Thank you for your input. Once again, the I am sorry we were unable to attend the public concern will be conveyed to NAMWATER. (18/06/2019) consultation meeting held in Walvis Bay on the Mr. NP du Plessis of NAMWATER has 15th. I had been in Windhoek at the time, been copied into these emails and he is otherwise I would have certainly attended it. I best to advise/assist you with regards to have only received the BID today and seeing your request. that we have until the end of today to comment, a detailed perusal is not possible. I would Regards therefore just like to raise a few general points Brand van Zyl for your consideration. As Dr Wassenaar has explained in this email thread, I am in the middle of a study on the effects of abstraction on the riparian trees of the Swakop, Khan and Kuiseb rivers. Because we

84 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

NO. NAME COMMENTS NAME RESPONSE

are still in the process of data collection, I have no peer-reviewed results to share with you. However, I do feel that it is my responsibility to inform you that in a study done on trees situated within a 2 km radius of a borehole (n = 15 boreholes), our preliminary data suggests that an abstraction rate that results in a drop in rest water levels of as little as 3 mm/day coincides with increased mortality in trees. Thus, I wish to stress the importance of potential impacts on riparian vegetation should abstraction rates focus on one or two compartments within the Kuiseb river aquifer and the increased abstraction volumes and rates are expected to be large. It goes without saying that these trees are important to the surrounding desert and riparian ecosystem, and therefore it is of major concern to ensure their protection. If increased abstraction activities are to commence in the Kuiseb, I was hoping that this might be an opportunity to study the effects of abstraction on trees in more detail. To this end, access to reliable and comprehensive data of rest water levels would be extremely useful when relating my plant stress measurements to a particular stressor such as water deprivation. Would your client be willing to share such data

85 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

NO. NAME COMMENTS NAME RESPONSE

in the mutual benefit of protecting our natural riparian forest resource by understanding it better? Thank you for your attention and consideration. Regards, Elbé Becker Gobabeb Namib Research Institute

7. Mr J. Hashoshange Dear Mr. van Zyl, Urban Green cc Dear Mr. J. Hashoshange, (VKE Namibia (Pty) Ltd) VKE Namibia (Pty) Ltd Consulting Engineers (20/06/2019) Your email below refers. have been appointed by the Roads Authority of (11/06/2019) Namibia to carry out Detailed Design, Tender Find attached a map indicating the district Documentation and Site supervision for the roads as well. The proposed pipeline and “Construction MR44, MR36, and TR2/1 power line will thus pass district road Between Swakopmund and Walvis Bay to D1983. Freeway Standards (Phases 1 & 2). Please provide me with your comments. Phase 2 which may be affected by the Scheme Regards is between Farm 58 and Walvis Bay. We have received the Background Information Document Brand van Zyl (BID) via the Roads Authority in respect of the abovementioned project. The map included in the BID is a bit faint and we herewith request for a clearer one. Also, the map doesn’t seem to include road DR1983 which may be affected by the Scheme. DR1983 starts on MR36 some 1.5km west of the intersection of MR36 & MR44 and follows a

86 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

NO. NAME COMMENTS NAME RESPONSE

south-easterly direction. The idea is to confirm if this Scheme will affect the Phase 2 of Walvis Bay – Swakopmund. Jason Hashoshange Engineer M +264 81 128 7811 T +264 61 237 642

Mr J. Hashoshange Dear Mr. van Zyl, Urban Green cc Dear Mr. J. Hashoshange, (VKE Namibia (Pty) Ltd) Please find attached picture of the roads under (11/06/2019) Thank you. reference for easy of orientation. (11/06/2019) Regards Jason Hashoshange Engineer Brand van Zyl M +264 81 128 7811 Urban Green cc Dear Mr. J. Hashoshange,

(9/10/2019) Please note that D1983 will NOT be affected by the proposed project.

The project extends between the Mile 7 Reservoir and the High Dune Reservoir and then to the west of the High Dune Reservoir.

Should you have any further questions, please let me know?

Regards

Brand

87 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

NO. NAME COMMENTS NAME RESPONSE

8 R Admiral P. H. Vilho Attention: Mr Brand van Zyl Ministry of Defence Re: Application for an Environmental Clearance (20/06/2019) Certificate for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme, Walvis Bay, Erongo Region.

1. The above matter bears reference.

2. As discussed telephonically on 18th June 2019 with your esteemed office, please be informed that the Ministry of Defence (MOD) has no objection to the intended application for the Environmental Clearance Certificate of the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme in Walvis Bay, Erongo Region.

3. The MOD kindly request your esteemed office upon approval of the certificate and commencement of the project, that members from the MOD always have access to and from the Rooikop Military Base at all times.

4. Your consideration in this regard is highly appreciated.

Yours sincerely

R Adm. Peter H. Vilho

Executive Director

88 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

7.1.2 SECOND ROUND OF CONSULTATION Engagement with the public and authorities as part of the second round of public consultation commenced on the 25th of March and concluded on the 27th of July 2020. During the second round of consultation, I&APs and authorities were given an opportunity to submit comments on the Draft EIA Report.

7.1.2.1 Activities of Public Engagement Activities undertaken during the 2nd round to ensure effective and adequate I&AP involvement, are as follows:

• A notification email (Appendix D15) informing all affected authorities and registered I&APs of the availability of the draft EIA report and request for comment was distributed on 25 March 2020.

• A public notice (Appendix D16) announcing the availability of the draft EIA report and request for comment were placed on the 25th of March 2020 at the Customer Care Centre of the Erongo Regional Council, Walvis Bay Municipality and the Walvis Bay Rural Constituency offices.

• The draft EIA report with a Comment Sheet and Register were made available on the 25th of March 2020 at the Customer Care Centre of the Erongo Regional Council, Walvis Bay Municipality and the Walvis Bay Rural Constituency offices.

• The draft EIA report with a Comment Sheet and Register were made available at the offices of Urban Green cc on the 25th of March 2020.

• A notification email (Appendix D17) informing all affected authorities and registered I&APs that the closing date for comment as part of the 2nd round of public consultation was postponed until further notice was send on 26 March 2020.

• A notification email (Appendix D18) informing all affected authorities and registered I&APs that the 2nd round of public consultation commences and request for comment was distributed on 6 July 2020.

7.1.2.2 Comments Received and Responses Provided All comments and feedback received from I&APs and authorities are summarised in Table 7-2 below, while a copy of the original correspondence is attached as Appendix D19.

89 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------Table 7-2: Comments received during the second round of public consultation NO NAME COMMENTS NAME RESPONSE 1

1. Mr D. Uushona Dear Julia Urban Green Dear David, (Manager: Solid Waste cc This is to acknowledge receipt of the couriered Thank you for the feedback. and Environmental package. (25/3/2020) Management) We are currently in discussion with NAMWATER on the matter of Municipality of Walvis Nangula will facilitate the distribution and extending the feedback period. I will keep you and all other I&APs up Bay communication further. You may want to to date. extend/review the d-date for comments (25/03/2020) Regards submission taking into consideration the COVID- 19 announcements.

Kindest regards

2. Elbé Brand, Urban Green Dear Elbé, cc (Gobabeb) A quick follow-up: I think that a project to abstract I am busy finalising the Report and will email to you for comment, water from an alluvial aquifer that does not assess (19/03/2020) expected next week Tuesday. (18/06/2019) impacts to the riparian ecosystem is missing the My recommendation to Namwater was that I meet with you to discuss point. At least as far as impacts to biodiversity are any further questions from your side and also to discuss how concerned. The footprint impact of the Namwater can assist and Gobabeb (i.e. Elbé) with the current infrastructure is probably minor, the total size is investigation. small and the main impacts of aboveground pipelines on wildlife movements are easy to Can you please let me know if you are available for a meeting on mitigate. But water deficits in trees can lead to Friday 3 April 2020 at Walvis Bay? widespread mortalities that will not recover Regards quickly. There are a lot of arguments that can be held around this point, but from an EA process it is quite clear that the main potential impact is on this aspect.

Without any detailed knowledge of the project it is probably dangerous to generalise, but I have found this same approach now in at least three

90 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------NO NAME COMMENTS NAME RESPONSE 1 projects that I have been involved with: two irrigation projects and one biomass energy - in each case the proponent insisted that only the site-scale footprint effect should be evaluated. At least for the biomass project the proponent realised this error and agreed that the downstream effect on savanna ecosystem integrity is likely the much larger potential impact. The irrigation projects refused to acknowledge the importance of their impact on aquatic ecosystems of a river already under some stress (Kavango). I don't know whether it is correct to bundle the Namwater project with these, because I don't know the precise circumstances (the relative abstraction rates may be very low, although I doubt this), but I think it is worth making a strong point about this.

In general one just wonders at the logic of going for more groundwater when everything points to the fact that we should be going for desal.

Best wishes

Elbé Becker Dear Brand Urban Green Dear Elbé, cc (Gobabeb) I would be pleased to assist in this regard. I am If you are in Windhoek, then there is no need to travel to the coast. however no longer residing at the coast (I am in (24/03/2020) We will not be having any public meetings. Anyway, with the Covid (23/03/2020) Windhoek now), but let us see what can be done 19, I believe it is best to minimise meetings, so I will forward you and and perhaps we may yet be able to meet on 3 Theo the EIA Report for your comments. If there is then any reason to April. meet in person we can do so.

Regards, Regards

91 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------NO NAME COMMENTS NAME RESPONSE 1

Elbe

Elbé Becker Urban Green Dear Elbé, cc (Gobabeb) Find attached the EIA Report. Please let me know should you need (25/03/2020) any of the appendixes? I am not attaching all the appendixes due to

size.

The deadline for submission of comments is 8 April 2020 by close of business please?

Should there be any questions, please let me know?

Elbé Becker Dear Brand Urban Green Dear Elbé, cc (Gobabeb) I am drafting a much longer communication Previous communication refers. regarding our findings on tree health in the Kuiseb (27/07/2020) (08/04/2020) Your comments and concerns raised during the 2nd round has also river, but I find I am running out of time today. been included into the Final EIA Report that will be submitted with the Here is just a few comments on the EIA itself. I Competent Authority and the office of the Environmental could not comment on the document itself, so I Commissioner. have referred to section and page numbers. Find below feedback to your questions. Please let me know if you need some clarification. The new pipeline will go underground. Peter did consider migrations, Section 1.3. Upgrading and expansion of the hence the recommendation and decision that the pipeline should go Kuiseb delta scheme. underground. I have noticed repairs to the pipeline that have According to the studies done by Groundwater Consulting Services already been completed near Rooibank. This there is sufficient water available and that the rate of recharge and pipeline is now above ground. This could act as a use would not have a negative result. These are presented in the barrier that could potentially prevent animals from Final Scoping Report. accessing the river. Will longer sections of pipe form such a barrier be constructed? Has Correct yes, the 3.2Mm³ was determined by the specialist as the migrations by wildlife been considered? sustainable abstraction rate.

I can see how upgrading the infrastructure may 1. The geohydrologist indicated that as fresh water levels drop saline

92 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------NO NAME COMMENTS NAME RESPONSE 1 aid in protecting the water resource, but how does water might have an impact on quality, which has been and will the expansion of the scheme contribute to this? continue to be monitored.

P 25: Do I understand correctly – Namwater is 2. As previously stated, more information and research is necessary planning on increasing the abstraction at to indicate the extend of the potential impact and NAMWATER Rooibank from 2.7 Mm3 to 3.2 Mm3? indicated that they are willing to assist with data. According to NP du Plessis from NAMWATER they have not been contacted by you yet. Other points: 3. This concern was included and highlighted as a matter to be 1. Was the impact on recharge of fresh water and investigated and included as part of NAMWATER’s routine potential salt water invasion into the aquifer inspections. Please provide more details with respect to the considered? particular transformer? Maybe you have a coordinate? 2. The sustainable yield is a value based on Regards changes in water levels, but does not take into account the water requirement of the ecosystem. Particularly the riparian trees that grow over the aquifer. We have been monitoring the tree mortalities in the Swakop, Khan and Kuiseb rivers since 2013. From this data we have indications that past abstraction has resulted in tree mortality. From our paper that is currently in draft, we can say that there are good indications that abstraction rates that result in a daily drop of RWL of more than about 3 mm/day may result in an increase in tree mortality. We also measured the changes in photosynthetic efficiency of trees around boreholes at Rooibank and Swartbank boreholes. The preliminary analysis of the health of the trees around these boreholes reveal that trees around the borehole close to Rooibank has been stressed between April 2018 and April 2019.

3. Infrastructure maintenance. During our

93 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------NO NAME COMMENTS NAME RESPONSE 1 monitoring, we observed what we thought was transformer oil leaking from one of the transformers on the power lines that supply electricity to pumps. This is an additional pollution concern. How will such contamination be avoided?

Thank you for the opportunity to comment and have a lovely evening.

Regards,

Elbe

3. Mr F. Löhnert (Namib Dear Brand, Urban Green Dear Mr. F. Löhnert, Botanical Gardens cc Please send an electronic copy of the Kusibe Find attached an electronic copy of the Report. Due to the size of the CC) delta New scheme. (09/07/2020) appendixes they are not attached. Should you wish to have a copy of (08/07/2020) an appendix, please let me know? Thanks, regards, Regards Frank Löhnert

Namib Botanical Gardens CC

È +264 (0) 81 – 129 4770

P.O.Box 4494, Vineta,

Swakopmund.

NAMIBIA

[email protected]

4. Ann & Mike Scott Hi Urban Green Dear Ann & Mike, cc (27/03/2020) Thanks for the update. Please could you send us Find attached the EIA Report. Let me know if you would like to have an electronic copy of the Kuiseb Delta New

94 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------NO NAME COMMENTS NAME RESPONSE 1

Scheme EIA? (30/03/2020) any of the appendixes? All the best Regards

Ann & Mike Scott

Ann & Mike Scott Dear Brand Urban Green Dear Ann & Mike, cc (31/03/2020) Hope you are keeping well. A few comments on I will include the example line that is within the BID in the EIA Report. your report: (01/04/2020) Peter Cunningham looked at the electrocution risk and provided the 1. An executive summary would be helpful. mitigation of flight diverters along these power lines.

2. Not sure if there are illustrations/photographs of Keep safe! the typical “66kV-400V” power line(s) in the Regards Biophysical Assessment Report, but it would also be helpful to include these examples in the main report; impacts vary according to power line structure, and the risks (in particular, the electrocution risk) would need to be assessed for each type of power line and its associated structures (transformers etc.)

Good luck with the application.

Best wishes

Ann & Mike

Ann & Mike Scott Thanks – could you forward the BID to us too? Urban Green Dear Ann & Mike, cc (01/04/2020) Keep well Find below photos 1 and 2, being examples of similar powerlines. (02/04/2020) Photo 3 below is a structure proposed in the instance that a higher structure (i.e. 20m above NGL) be required.

Depending on the terrain the design will change as per the photos

95 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------NO NAME COMMENTS NAME RESPONSE 1 above.

Regards

5. Mr T. Wassenaar Brand, Urban Green Dear Theo, (NUST) cc A quick follow-up: I think that a project to abstract I am busy finalising the Report and will email to you for comment, (18/06/2019) water from an alluvial aquifer that does not assess (19/03/2020) expected next week Tuesday. impacts to the riparian ecosystem is missing the My recommendation to Namwater was that I meet with you to discuss point. At least as far as impacts to biodiversity are any further questions from your side and also to discuss how concerned. The footprint impact of the Namwater can assist and Gobabeb (i.e. Elbé) with the current infrastructure is probably minor, the total size is investigation. small and the main impacts of aboveground pipelines on wildlife movements are easy to Can you please let me know if you are available for a meeting on mitigate. But water deficits in trees can lead to Friday 3 April 2020 at Walvis Bay? widespread mortalities that will not recover Regards quickly. There are a lot of arguments that can be held around this point, but from an EA process it is quite clear that the main potential impact is on this aspect.

Without any detailed knowledge of the project it is probably dangerous to generalise, but I have found this same approach now in at least three projects that I have been involved with: two irrigation projects and one biomass energy - in each case the proponent insisted that only the site-scale footprint effect should be evaluated. At least for the biomass project the proponent realised this error and agreed that the downstream effect on savanna ecosystem integrity is likely the much larger potential impact. The irrigation projects refused to acknowledge the

96 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------NO NAME COMMENTS NAME RESPONSE 1 importance of their impact on aquatic ecosystems of a river already under some stress (Kavango). I don't know whether it is correct to bundle the Namwater project with these, because I don't know the precise circumstances (the relative abstraction rates may be very low, although I doubt this), but I think it is worth making a strong point about this.

In general one just wonders at the logic of going for more groundwater when everything points to the fact that we should be going for desal.

Best wishes

Theo

6. Mr Khurisab. Urban Green Mr Khurisab, Secretary of the cc Good day. I trust that you are well. Topnaar community (22/07/2020) The above mentioned subject refers. (22/07/2020) Based on the Statement issued today by His Excellency Dr Hage G. Geingob at a Media briefing on the migration from stage 3 to stage 4 & the Erongo specific response today, we hereby request input from your office regarding the preferred manner of feedback on the Draft EIA Report that was send to the Walvis Bay Rural Constituency office 24 March 2020, as was agreed upon telephonically and indicated in the below email.

Two possible scenarios exists, the first is to have a public meeting, but the current restriction at Walvis Bay is a total of 10 persons only. The second option is for the community to have more than one public gathering of not more than 10 people, and then all public meetings

97 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------NO NAME COMMENTS NAME RESPONSE 1 give their feedback to you. Then yourself and Mr Brand van Zyl can meet.

Please let us know which option you would prefer?

I hope the above is in order. Thank you for your kind assistance always.

Kind regards

Mr Khurisab. & Ms Good day once again I have discussed these with Urban Green Dear Ms Kham & Mr Khurisab, Kham Secretaries of the Deputy Chief Mr. Stoffel Anamab about it and cc Telephone communication between us today regarding the above the Topnaar seems like due to covid-19 our meetings and (13/07/2020) mentioned subject refers. community discussions won`t take Place for now because we are still waiting on the health people from Walvis We take notice that you are all engaged with funeral arrangements at (01/07/2020) bay for our testing and staff for our area as the the moment, and hereby convey our sincerest sympathy. Topnaar jurisdiction by these week maybe...and As indicated during our separate phone discussions; the due date for even the meeting has to take place at Aramstraat comments on the EIA Report is today 13 July 2020 by close of at the !nara centre. business; however we will make an acceptation for your comments by tomorrow 14 July 2020 as agreed upon with Mr Khurisab. Thank you.

Kind regards

Mr Khurisab. & Ms Good day once again thank you for your time it's Urban Green Mr Khurisab, Kham Secretaries of been a busy week as you have been talking with cc The above mentioned subject refers. the Topnaar us. I have discussed this with the Deputy Chief (14/07/2020) community and he then say we can postpone it to next Please take note that the EIA Report review deadline has lapsed week... thank for your time yesterday 13 July 2020, but we are willing to provide you an extension (14/07/2020) period for comments until next week Wednesday 22 July 2020.

Thereafter; we can no longer extend; as the Final EIA Report has to go for submission to the Environmental commissioner. Thank you.

Kind regards

98 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------NO NAME COMMENTS NAME RESPONSE 1

Mr Khurisab. & Ms Good afternoon Ms Julia Bashir it has been a Urban Green Dear Mr Khurisab, Kham Secretaries of busy week up to now we still on our toes but cc Previous communication with regards to the above mentioned subject the Topnaar anyway...the Deputy Chief hereby request me to (22/07/2020) refers. community than gave u a go ahead on the EA that needs to be done. Thanks for your time. Thank you for the feedback and the directive from the Deputy Chief (22/07/2020) Anamab; to go ahead with the EIA process.

We appreciate your positivity on the project; and will keep you updated where needed. Thank you.

Kind regards

99 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

8 IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Given the nature of the proposed project (see Chapter 5), evaluated against the sensitivity of the receiving environment (see Chapter 6), it seems inevitable that there be no impact on the immediate and surrounding receiving socio-economic and biophysical environments. An understanding of these expected impacts together with active control measures and mitigating factors can minimise such impacts, even avoid impacts in certain cases.

This chapter presents a description and assessment of the key issues of concern and potential impacts expected as a result of the proposed project as assessed by the Specialists. Mitigation measures relevant to the planning and design, construction and operational phases of the proposed project, as appropriate, are recommended. These measures are aimed at avoiding, minimising or rehabilitating negative impacts or enhancing potential benefits. The significance of potential impacts without and with mitigation is also provided.

8.1 METHODOLOGY OF ASSESSMENT Each of the potential impacts identified during the scoping assessment was screened according to a set of questions (Figure 8-1), which resulted in highlighting those impacts that can be mitigated within the framework of the scoping assessment or baseline study (i.e. general impacts) and the key impacts that required further investigation by means of detailed on-site investigations.

All impacts, both the general- and key impacts, were evaluated in terms of duration (time scale), extent (spatial scale), intensity (magnitude), probability, and status, in combination providing the expected significance.

The means of arriving at the different significance ratings is explained in Table 8-1 below. This criteria is used to ascertain the significance of the impact, firstly in the case of no mitigation and then with the most effective mitigation measure(s) in place. The significance of an impact is derived by taking into account the temporal and spatial scales and magnitude. Such significance is also informed by the context of the impact, i.e. the character and identity of the receptor of the impact.

The methodology followed by the specialist in conducting their respective specialist studies, i.e. Biophysical Assessment (Vertebrate Fauna & Flora) and the Archaeology Field Survey, is presented in the respective reports, attached as Appendix H and Appendix I, respectively.

100 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

Does the issue fall within the scope

of this project and the responsibility of NAMWATER

YES NO

Can be Key issue for Refer to relevant addressed assessment authority without further investigation

Carried over to Further EMP investigation required

Figure 8-1: Screening process for determining key impacts

Table 8-1: Criteria for impact evaluation (DEA, 2008)

CRITERIA DESCRIPTION

Reviews the type of effect that the proposed activity will have on the Nature relevant component of the environment and includes “what will be affected and how?”

Positive – environment overall will benefit from the impact

Status (+ or -) Negative – environment overall will be adversely affected by the impact

Neutral – environment overall will not be affected

Site specific - confined to the project boundaries

Local - limited to within 15 km of the area

Extent Regional - limited to ~100 km radius

National - limited to within the borders of Namibia

International - Extending beyond Namibia’s borders

Duration Reviews the lifetime of the impact, as being -

101 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

Very short – days, <3 days

Short - days, <1 month)

Medium - months, <1 year

Long - years, 1 -10 years

Permanent - >10 years

Establishes whether the magnitude of the impact is destructive or innocuous and whether or not it exceeds set standards, and is described as –

None (No environmental functions and processes are affected);

Low (Environmental functions and processes are negligibly affected); Intensity Medium (Environment continues to function but in a noticeably modified manner);

High (Environmental functions and processes are altered such that they temporarily or permanently cease and/or exceed legal standards/requirements).

Considers the likelihood of the impact occurring and is described as –

Improbable (low likelihood),

Probability Probable (distinct possibility),

Highly probable (most likely) or

Definite (impact will occur regardless of prevention measures).

None (A concern or potential impact that, upon evaluation, is found to have no significant impact at all)

Low (Any magnitude, impacts will be localised and temporary. Accordingly, the impact is not expected to require amendment to the project design)

Significance (no Medium (Impacts of moderate magnitude locally to regionally in the short mitigation) term. Accordingly, the impact is expected to require modification of the project design or alternative mitigation)

High (Impacts of high magnitude locally and in the long term and/or regionally and beyond. Accordingly the impact could have a “no go” implication for the project unless mitigation or re-design is practically achievable)

Mitigation Description of possible mitigation measures

Significance None (A concern or potential impact that, upon evaluation, is found to

102 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

(with mitigation) have no significant impact at all)

Low (Any magnitude, impacts will be localised and temporary. Accordingly, the impact is not expected to require amendment to the project design)

Medium (Impacts of moderate magnitude locally to regionally in the short term. Accordingly, the impact is expected to require modification of the project design or alternative mitigation)

The degree of confidence in the predictions, based on the availability of information and specialist knowledge.

Low (based on the availability of specialist knowledge and other information) Confidence level Medium (based on the availability of specialist knowledge and other information)

High (based on the availability of specialist knowledge and other information)

8.2 MITIGATION APPLICATION METHODOLOGY There is a hierarchy of actions (i.e. mitigations), which can be undertaken to respond to any proposed project or activity’s impacts. These cover avoidance, minimisation and compensation. It is possible and considered sought after to enhance the environment by ensuring that positive gains are included in the proposed project. If negative impacts occur then the hierarchy, as a guiding philosophy, recommends the following steps.

• Impact avoidance: This step is most effective when applied at an early stage of project planning. It can be achieved by:

o not undertaking certain actions or elements that could result in adverse impacts;

o avoiding areas that are environmentally sensitive; and

o Putting in place preventative measures to stop adverse impacts from occurring.

• Impact minimisation: This step is usually taken during impact identification and prediction to limit or reduce the degree, extent, magnitude, or duration of adverse impacts. It can be achieved by:

o scaling down or relocating the proposal;

o redesigning elements of the project; and

103 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

o Implementing mitigation measures to manage the impacts.

• Impact compensation: This step is usually applied to remedy unavoidable residual adverse impacts. It can be achieved by:

o rehabilitation of the affected site or environment, for example, by habitat enhancement;

o restoration of the affected site or environment to its previous state or better; and

o Replacement of the same resource values at another location (off-set), for example, by wetland engineering to provide an equivalent area to that lost to drainage or infill.

8.3 POTENTIAL IMPACTS IDENTIFIED The information presented in this section has been drawn from the scoping assessment phase, as well as the detailed assessment phase conducted by the Specialists (i.e. Biophysical Assessment - Vertebrate Fauna & Flora and the Archaeology Field Survey) and the EAP.

For this assessment’s purpose, the issues and impacts identified are grouped according to the main project phases – i.e. the planning phase, the construction phase, the operational phase and decommissioning and closure phase. Sections 8.3.1, 8.3.2 and 8.3.3 give a broad overview of each potential impact expected during the three phases, while a comprehensive assessment outcome with mitigations is presented for each potential impact.

8.3.1 PLANNING AND DESIGN PHASE The planning phase is the current phase within which the proposed project is, the phase where conceptual designs and plans are drafted for discussion and evaluation, which will result in the final designs and plans for implementation. Issues to be considered during the planning phase are not necessarily assessed according to the assessment criteria as explained above (Section 8.1 – Methodology of Assessment).

Some of the issues raised as part of this phase could have just as well been grouped under the construction- or operational phases of the proposed project, but is regarded of such importance that it be considered during the planning phase already.

8.3.1.1 Lowering Groundwater Levels (i) Overview The aspect of the possible lowering of groundwater levels due to abstraction from the aquifer has been raised as a concern having the potential to negatively affect the riparian vegetation within the vicinity of the boreholes.

According to recent flood events, during the 2010/2011 rainy season, the water levels for some boreholes, rose from 10 meters below ground level (mbgl) to as shallow as 1 mbgl.,

104 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

while water levels dropped in the “drier” periods. Groundwater levels recorded in January 2018 range from 4 mbgl to 48 mbgl, with the deeper water levels being in the Rooibank A - Swartbank compartment boreholes (Appendix K).

The Namib Ecological Restoration and Monitoring Unit (NERMU) at Gobabeb has been monitoring the health and species composition of the riparian trees within the Kuiseb River for a number of decades, which preliminary results shows that some trees are probably highly vulnerable to extraction rates over a critical limit. According to NERMU, increased abstraction may therefore pose significant threats to the integrity of the riparian ecosystem and should be approached and managed with great caution. The exact ‘levels’ are not known or confirmed from detailed studies, resulting in this concern not being able to be assessed in detail and to such extent to state a confident conclusion.

(ii) Potential Impact Abstraction volumes from the Kuiseb Delta and resulting expected impact on the riparian vegetation was raised as a concern, of which the real effect at this point in time is an unknown.

(iii) Recommendation Considering the sensitivity/vulnerability of the Kuiseb Aquifer’s sustainability to frequent recharge, it is essential that the effect of increased and continued abstraction on the water levels be monitored and assessed. The mentioned should be done in cooperation between Namib Ecological Restoration and Monitoring Unit (NERMU) at Gobabeb Research Centre (Elbé Bekker) and NAMWATER.

It is equally important that other sources, such as desalination, be pushed to supplement the supply and relieve the underground water resource from having to provide in the demand.

8.3.1.2 Infrastructure Alignment (i) Overview As per the Request for Proposal15 (November 2018), it was proposed that all infrastructure (i.e. pipelines, powerlines ad roads) should follow the same alignment, for the reason to minimise impact on the receiving environment and to minimise cost (both construction and operational costs).

The mentioned principle was later on changed in the proposal of Option 6. Option 6 proposed a combination of NamWater’s ‘Option 1’ (blue line) and ‘Option 5’ (light green & red), whereby the ‘Option 1’ alignment would cater for the water pipeline and existing road and ‘Option 5’ alignment for the road and powerline.

This proposal was based on the preliminary findings that the direct alignments (i.e. Options 1 and 2) passes through extensive !nara fields having both a cultural (i.e. Topnaars) and

15 As specified within the NamWater Request for Proposal (SC/RP/NW-11/2019).

105 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

ecological (i.e. food and shelter for various fauna) value, while raised powerlines (from 14 m to 20 m) would have a substantial capital cost implication and increase the risk of bird strikes, while visual disturbance would be increased.

(ii) Potential Impact Considering the fact that the water pipeline would require access for purpose of routine maintenance, the existing gravel road would require frequent cleaning.

(iii) Recommendation Where roads exist rehabilitation is recommended rather than construction of new roads.

Where new roads need to be constructed, it is important to consider the sensitive areas, i.e. such as the !nara fields and avoid the mentioned. Roads should thus not be ‘forced’ to remain within the 28 m servitude area of the powerline, but rather pass around the sensitive !nara fields.

8.3.1.3 Disposal of Existing Asbestos Cement (AC) Pipeline (i) Overview As per the Request for Proposal16 (November 2018), it was proposed that the asbestos cement (AC) gravity pipeline in between the High Dune Reservoir and the Mile 7 Reservoirs be disconnected and left ‘underground’.

This practise of ‘burial at site’ is common within some developed countries such as the United States of America (Wang, et al., 2010) and preferred compared to removing and disposing of AC pipes at licenced disposal site, for one having high cost implications, two suitable disposal sites are not readily existing, but more so due to the health and safety impact during removal, transportation and disposal.

The danger of AC pipes lies in the breakdown of the pipe’s integrity, which again results in the AC fibre becoming airborne, which has a negative impact on humans. If left unexposed to the natural elements, the risk of breakdown is prevented, BUT only for as long as the AC pipe are NOT exposed to natural elements.

(ii) Potential Impact Considering that some parts of the AC pipe line lies exposed and given that other parts can be exposed as sand dunes migrates (i.e. exposing new sections), a real health and safety risk exists.

(iii) Recommendation It is recommended that a particular action plan be drafted on how this matter would be dealt with, which can entail either -

16 As specified within the NamWater Request for Proposal (SC/RP/NW-11/2019).

106 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

(a) The removal of those parts of the AC pipeline as and when it becomes exposed as per the actions stipulated within the Environmental Management Plan (Appendix B).

(b) Continue covering the AC pipe as and when it becomes exposed of which the latter will result in long term maintenance responsibilities and costs.

8.3.1.4 Infrastructure Servitude (i) Overview Apart from the powerlines having a 28 m servitude, as per the Request for Proposal17 (November 2018), none of the other infrastructure (i.e. roads and pipelines) have been given a servitude width. The roads will have a width of 5 m.

(ii) Potential Impact Should each of the infrastructure types have a separate servitude, the width will have unnecessarily various negative implications, without any real benefits.

(iii) Recommendation All infrastructure types should be accommodated within the 28 m servitude of the powerlines.

8.3.2 CONSTRUCTION-RELATED IMPACTS The construction activities, which have been considered, include those activities based on the information provided by the Proponent and commonly associated with such activity (i.e. construction of infrastructure).

The physical construction activity in itself is mostly temporary in nature, but may result in permanent damage if not properly planned, mitigated and managed. From the three types of infrastructure types (i.e. roads, power line, pipeline), the construction of roads are due to their nature expected to have the largest impact on the receiving flora, while the powerline is expected to have the greatest impact on the avifauna. The significance of the expected impact/s will differ between the alignments, with those alignments passing through sensitive areas having the greatest sensitivity.

Table 8-2 below presents the potential impacts (i.e. general- and key impacts) expected to occur during the construction phase, while Table 8-3 to Table 8-18 present the assessment (applicable to all alignments), while a weighted comparison between alignments are presented in Table 8-19 to Table 8-21.

17 As specified within the NamWater Request for Proposal (SC/RP/NW-11/2019).

107 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

Table 8-2: Key issues and potential impacts expected during the construction phase

AFFECTED GENERAL / KEY IMPACT POTENTIAL IMPACTS

Air quality General Air pollution

Hydrology General Flooding (Surface Flow)

Hydrogeology General Soil and groundwater pollution

Key Lowering groundwater levels

Top Soils General Loss of topsoil

General Traffic safety Socio- economic General Health, safety and security environment General Noise & vibration

General Visual disturbance

General Restricted accessibility

Key Flooding

Key Removal of traditional fruits (i.e. !naras)

General Employment & skills transfer

Heritage / Key Disturbance and destruction of Archaeological archaeological remains and site of remains heritage value

Fauna & flora Key Vegetation clearance and habitat destruction

8.3.2.1 Air Quality Dust and gaseous emissions are associated with construction activities, with dust generation being the main concern of which the severity is directly related to the type of infrastructure, extent of the construction activity and the nature of the receiving environment. In comparison, the grading of roads is expected to have the highest potential of dust generation, followed by the digging of trenches. The digging of holes for the pylons is expected to have the least possible impact. Grading of roads within the plains is again expected to generate more dust in comparison to the migrating sand dune area.

108 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

The air quality of the immediate study area is considered to be of a very good quality given the distance (10 km to 15 km) from Walvis Bay town, which is associated with a good air quality deteriorating from time to time (see Section 6.1.1 – Climate and Air Quality). The study area is known to be subject to occasional dust storms during winter months (May and June) with high wind speeds, which decrease visibility and air quality.

Air quality, as a result of the construction activities, will affect visibility (i.e. safety) and cleanness (health). Construction during east wind conditions will be hampered and delayed, for which reason construction should preferable be avoided during the winter months.

The significance is thus directly related to distance and area (plains or sand dunes), which results in the longest alignments (Options 5 & 6) to have the greatest impact, reducing in significance to the shortest route (Option 1). The alignments are presented in Section 5.2.4.

Table 8-3 below presents the assessment outcome.

Table 8-3: Impact assessment pertaining to air quality

CRITERIA DESCRIPTION

2 Risk Event Dust CO emissions

Dust will be generated during Emissions as a result of construction when it involves the construction vehicles can be Nature of exposure of soil during and after land expected, but considered minute. Impact clearing. Periods of strong winds (winter months) will intensify this impact.

Negative to workers’ safety and Neutral health Status (+ or -) Negative to by passers (i.e. local people and tourists)

Extent Site specific Site specific

Duration Short Short

Intensity None None

Probability Probable Probable

Significance (no Low Low mitigation)

109 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

Reduce road and trench widths to the All construction vehicles used on- absolute minimum. site should be within a perfect state and not result in higher CO2 Keep road and trench lengths to the emissions than what he particular absolute minimum (sensitive areas vehicle’s allowable CO2 emissions should be avoided). levels. Dust suppression making use of salt See attached Construction water. Management Plan (Appendix B). Avoid construction activities during times of strong winds.

Mitigation Construction personnel should be issued with safety and health gear to ensure a healthy and safe working environment at all times.

Concession holders should be informed of the construction activities and period, and requested to avoid the particular area during this time.

See attached Construction Management Plan (Appendix B).

Significance None None (with mitigation)

Confidence High High level

Given the expected scale (i.e. width and length of road and trenches), the distance (10 to 15 km) to the nearest permanent receptor (Walvis Bay town), the prevailing wind direction (south-westerly winds) and wind speeds, dust from construction activities are expected to be temporary in nature and have a low pre-mitigation impact significance rating and low-none post-mitigation significance rating. The reduction in the impact significance rating relates mostly to occupational dust impacts.

8.3.2.2 Hydrology (Surface Flow) This aspect entails the potential of flooding and resulting erosion and sedimentation.

Construction activities are associated with the removal of surface vegetation and loosening of soil (i.e. trenches; roads), which all contributes to increased water velocity and resulting erosion and sedimentation.

110 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

overruns the study area only if the volume of run-off generated is enough. Flash floods are relatively short lived and highly variable in magnitude, duration and frequency (see Sections 6.1.4 & 6.1.5 – Topography and Hydrology). Vegetation cover within the study area is sparse, holding very little preventative measures during flash floods.

Given the locality of some part of the proposed project within the flatter flood plains of the lower Kuiseb River, flooding and resulting soil erosion and sedimentation are regarded potential impacts to be considered and mitigated.

The significance that flooding (and related delays) holds to the expected impact on soil erosion and sedimentation is directly related to the distance and area (plains or sand dunes), as well as the time of year (i.e. rainy season or not), which results in the longest alignments (Options 5 & 6) which follows the plains to have the greatest impact, reducing in significance for Option 3 to the least for Option 1. Given that Option 1 passes through the migrating sand dunes area, which is hardly affected by flooding, it will be the least affected, followed by Option 2. The alignments are presented in Section 5.2.4.

Table 8-4 below presents the assessment outcome.

Table 8-4: Impact assessment pertaining to hydrology (surface flow)

CRITERIA DESCRIPTION

Risk event Flooding

Loss of topsoil as a result of erosion and downstream sedimentation of Nature delta

Status (+ or -) Negative

Extent Local

Duration Short

Intensity Very short

Probability Probable

Significance (no None (dunes area) medium (river plains) mitigation)

Avoid construction within the rainy season, considered for the upstream Mitigation area (not the coast).

Continues monitoring of up-stream conditions to detect any flow in

111 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

advance.

Installation of infrastructure should provide for the necessary design and avoidance measures to protect infrastructure from flood damages.

See attached Construction Management Plan (Appendix B).

Significance None (dunes area) low (river plains) (with mitigation)

Confidence High level

Given the flat topography, highly permeable alluvium soils and highly variable floods (in magnitude, duration and frequency), flooding and resulting delays are expected to have a low pre-mitigation impact significance rating and none post-mitigation significance rating.

8.3.2.3 Hydrogeology (Underground Sensitivities) This aspect entails the potential pollution to ground- and surface water, which includes soils, as well as declining volumes of groundwater levels as a result of water consumption.

Construction activities are associated with a variety of potential pollution sources, either as a result of the construction process (i.e. cement, lubricants, chemicals, diesel, wastewater, solid waste) or from the human element involved in the process (i.e. human waste), either having a direct, indirect, short lived- or long term impact/s. In general, construction activities are also associated with water usage, which the volume is directly related to the type of infrastructure.

The coastal area receives less than 50 mm of rainfall a year and is thus heavily dependent on the groundwater from the lower Kuiseb Delta as the primary water source to sustain the socio-economic activities within and surrounding the town of Walvis Bay.

The alluvium of the Kuiseb River is highly permeable, which allows for quick recharge during flood events and gives it the ability to sustain relatively high pumping rates as well. Groundwater levels recorded in January 2018 range from 4 mbgl to 48 mbgl, with the deeper water levels being in the Rooibank A - Swartbank compartment boreholes. According to the 2018 Modelling Report from GCS Water & Environmental Engineering Namibia (Pty) Ltd. the sustainable yield for the next 10 years’ until 2028, with no recharge is 9 Mm3/a, while the recommended installed capacity is 2.7 Mm3/a, which is significantly lower (see Section 6.1.4 & 6.1.5 – Topography and Hydrology).

Considering the high permeability of the alluvium, pollutants from construction activities will easily and quickly find its way into the aquifer and will have an impact on water quality, of which the significance of the impact is directly related to the nature and volumes of the particular pollutant.

112 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

The significance that pollution and/or water usage holds is in a certain respect directly related to the construction time, i.e. the longer the construction period the higher the risk for pollution and the larger the demand for water is, but also the type of infrastructure being constructed (i.e. road construction requires larger volumes of water). Awareness and sensitivity applied by the personnel is however the determining factor above distance and time. A comparison between the different alignments, without considering human awareness and sensitivity, would result in the longer alignments (Options 5 & 6) having the highest potential impact and the shortest (Option 1) the least potential impacts (see Figure 5- 6 for alignments). The dune areas however pose a more difficult working environment than the plains, which may increase the risk for accidental spillages and pollution.

Table 8-5 below presents the assessment outcome.

Table 8-5: Impact assessment pertaining to hydrogeology

CRITERIA DESCRIPTION

Risk event Soil, surface and groundwater pollution Lowering groundwater levels

Over abstraction with resulting Spillage of hazardous liquids and Nature decline in source volume and construction waste lowering water table

Status (+ or -) Negative Negative

Extent Local Local

Duration Long Long

Intensity Low Low

Probability Probable Improbable

Significance (no Low Low (low volumes associated with mitigation) construction phase)

All precautions are to be taken to prevent Water consumption and usage contamination of the soil. should be managed and monitored to avoid any wastage. Appointing qualified and reputable contractors is essential. Semi-purified water (general Mitigation standards as minimum) and/or salt Proper training of construction personnel water should be used for would reduce the possibility of the impact construction purpose, if any occurring. intended. Polluted soil and building rubble must be

113 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

transported away from the site to an See attached Construction approved and appropriately classified Management Plan (Appendix B). waste disposal site.

Polluted soil must be remediated where possible.

No diesel or any other hazardous liquid should be stored on-site, but off-site.

Refuelling should not take place on-site, but off-site at appropriately designed and managed station.

Mobile chemical toilets should be provided, which should not be left on-site, but moved as the construction team progresses and removed from site on a daily basis.

See attached Construction Management Plan (Appendix B).

Significance None None (with mitigation)

Confidence High High level

Given the nature of the expected construction activities, which is not associated with highly toxic or large volumes of pollutants, or the availability of alternative water sources (i.e. semi- purified and salt water), a low pre-mitigation impact significance is expected and none post- mitigation significance.

With the proper precautionary measures in place and responsible practise, it is unlikely that groundwater and soil contamination should occur during the construction phase (temporary in nature) and is therefore not likely to have any detrimental impact on the soil and groundwater resources of the area. Method Statements are compulsory (Appendix B) for this particular aspect of the construction phase and should be closely monitored by the appointed Environmental Control Officer.

8.3.2.4 Top Soil This aspect deals with top soil removal and potential negative impacts as a result of incorrect handling and management thereof for the duration of the construction period.

Removal of topsoil is inevitable, of which the grading of roads is expected to have the highest potential impact (i.e. top soil will not be returned). Topsoil removed from the alignment to accommodate the pipelines can be returned with great success within areas outside the sand dunes.

114 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

The soils vary from having higher content of clay, especially within the plains, too sandy soils within the dune area. A variety and different kinds of habitats appear within the study area, directly related to the particular soils structure and condition. Soils play an important role in habitats, which again provides for different kinds of fauna and flora species. Protection of top soils is thus important, firstly to ensure re-establishing of habitats and secondly avoid erosion due to no vegetation regrowth.

The significance that soil degradation will have is directly related to the distance and area (plains or sand dunes), as well as the virgin state (i.e. already disturbed or not), which results in the longest alignments (Options 5 & 6) following the plains to have the greatest impact, reducing in significance for Option 3, with Options 1 and 2 having the smallest impact. Given that Options 1 and 2 will pass through the migrating sand dunes area, it will be the least affected, followed by Option 3 (see Figure 5-6 for alignments). Given that Option 5 follows existing tracks, the impact on soil degradation is expected to be less compared to virgin land.

Table 8-6 below presents the assessment outcome.

Table 8-6: Impact assessment pertaining to top soil

CRITERIA DESCRIPTION

Risk event Loss of top soil

Nature Vegetation removal and disturbance to soil structure (i.e. integrity)

Status (+ or -) Negative

Extent Site specific

Duration Long

Intensity Low

Probability Probable

Significance (no Medium mitigation)

Top soil should be properly removed, effectively stored for the duration of the construction period, and returned accompanied with Mitigation vegetation rehabilitation.

A detailed Method Statement is required.

115 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

See attached Construction Management Plan (Appendix B).

Significance (with Low mitigation)

Confidence level High

On average, soil damage/degradation as a result of the construction activities are expected to have a medium impact significance rating before mitigation and a low impact significance rating after implementing mitigation measures.

8.3.2.5 Socio-economic This aspect includes a variety of potential impacts, as listed in Table 8-2, of which security of water supply is considered the most important impact, but also employment generation and skills transfer being positive results associated with the construction phase.

Negative impacts requiring mitigation are traffic safety to other road users, safety for construction personnel, as well as continued access to the !nara fields and tourism spots, visual disturbances within the larger area during the construction phase. Positive impacts on the other hand are employment and income generation, skills transfer and socio-economic upliftment of staff.

Each of the listed impacts is dealt with below.

(i) Traffic Safety Construction activities are associated with an increase in vehicles (i.e. workers’ busses, delivery vehicles and construction vehicles) to and from the site/s, although temporary in nature. Most of the roads to be used will be existing NAMWATER roads. Public roads to be used by construction vehicles are M0036 and D1983.

Some of the proposed alignments, Options 4 & 5, will cross the D1983 (see Figure 5-6), which will result in excavations passing through the road, which would require temporary redirection of traffic and increased road safety measures.

The D1983 is a prominent transportation route providing access to the Topnaar communities residing within the various settlements along the Kuiseb River, but also tourists entering the Dunes area.

Apart from Options 4 & 5 having a direct and added traffic implication, all other Options are expected to have a similar traffic impact as the same roads (i.e. M0036 and D1983) will be used by construction vehicles.

116 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

Table 8-7 below presents the assessment outcome.

Table 8-7: Impact assessment pertaining to traffic safety

CRITERIA DESCRIPTION

Risk event Traffic safety

Increased vehicle movement long the roads will increase the risk of Nature accidents Temporary excavations passing the D1983 will restrict normal flow

Status (+ or -) Negative

Extent Site specific

Duration Short

Intensity Low

Probability Probable

Significance (no Low mitigation)

Construction vehicles should be road worthy and driven by responsible drivers with valid driver’s licences. Construction vehicles should adhere to speed limits and give way to other road users.

Diversion of traffic and appropriate management at the crossing with the D1983 is required.

Arrangements with the local traffic department and/or the affected Mitigation road users must be made regarding diversion of traffic particularly at road crossings.

Placement of warning signs along the D1983 to inform and forewarn other road users of construction vehicles.

Proper planning prior to construction activities would ensure minimum traffic disruptions. A detailed Method Statement is required.

See attached Construction Management Plan (Appendix B).

Significance (with Low mitigation)

117 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

Confidence level High

Considering the scale of the construction works and expected volumes of traffic the pre- mitigation impact is regarded as low.

(ii) Health, Safety and Security Construction activities are associated with a variety of potential negative implications to the nearby residents, their animals and the construction staff’s health, safety and security.

Criminal activities are unfortunately coupled with construction, posing a security risk for nearby residents. It is not to say that these criminal activities are as a result of the construction staff, but is known to happen in the vicinity of construction projects.

Prostitution is also associated with construction activities, especially where construction labourers reside in temporary accommodation near or on site/s.

Construction of the proposed infrastructure has the potential for accidental injury, either minor or major accidents, to both construction workers and nearby residents. On-site safety of all personnel is an important responsibility of the appointed contractor/s and should be adhered to in accordance with the requirements of the Labour Act (No 11 of 2007) and the Public Health Act (No. 36 of 1919). Ensuring that the construction activities do not pose any danger to the surrounding residents is important. The contractor’s site and construction site/s should be properly secured to prevent any injury or harm to the residents and/or any local fauna.

Open trenches and other constructions during the construction phase may also pose a safety and health implication to residents (i.e. Topnaars entering the area for collection of traditional foods; tourists and recreationalist).

The significance is directly related to the duration of the construction period and length of the particular alignment, which results in the longest alignment (Option 5) following the plains to have the greatest impact, reducing in significance for Option 3, while Options 1 & 2 passing through the migrating sand dunes area (i.e. shortest alignment) will be the least affected (see Figure 5-6 for alignments).

Table 8-8 below presents the assessment outcome.

Table 8-8: Impact assessment pertaining to health, safety and security

CRITERIA DESCRIPTION

Risk event Health, safety and security

Nature Injury to construction staff during construction activities.

118 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

Potential increase in HIV/AIDS.

Increased security risks due to criminal activities.

Open trenches and injury to residents & animals.

Status (+ or -) Negative

Extent Site specific

Duration Short

Intensity Low

Probability Probable

Significance (no Low mitigation)

Provide the necessary safety clothing to construction personnel and undertake continues awareness training. Contractor’s site and construction site/s should be properly secured so as to prevent access by unauthorised personnel and animals. Mitigation All construction personnel should undergo health and safety training (including training on HIV/Aids).

See attached Construction Management Plan (Appendix B).

Significance (with Low mitigation)

Confidence level High

Given the distance between the project site and the neighbouring communities and the fact that all temporary construction personnel will be sourced locally and that no overnight facilities will be provided on-site, most of these negative impacts are regarded as having a low impact.

(iii) Noise and Vibrations Construction activities are associated with noises and vibrations, of which differs in intensity pending the type of construction taking place. The effect of noises during the construction phase is experienced by the surrounding receptors and/or the on-site construction personnel.

119 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

The nature of the construction activities is not associated with any large scale or high intensity noise activities. No blasting is intended as part of the construction phase. The grading of roads is expected to have the highest possible impact in this respect, while the construction of the power lines would have the least possible impact.

The project site is located more than 15 km from the nearest receptor and is screened by the Dunes area located in between.

The significance of this impact is directly related to the duration of the construction period and length of the particular alignment, which results in the longest alignment/s, i.e. Option 6 and 5 following the plains to have the greatest impact, reducing in significance for Option 3, while Options 1 & 2 passing through the migrating sand dunes area (i.e. shortest alignment) will be the least affected (see Figure 5-6 for alignments).

Table 8-9 below presents the assessment outcome.

Table 8-9: Impact assessment pertaining to noise and vibration

CRITERIA DESCRIPTION

Risk event Noises & vibration disturbances

Noises and vibrations as a result of grading of roads and digging of Nature trenches.

Status (+ or -) Neutral

Extent Site specific

Duration Short

Intensity None

Probability Probable

Significance (no None mitigation)

The World Health Organization (WHO) guideline on maximum noise levels (guidelines for Community Noise, 1999) to prevent hearing impairment can be followed during the construction phase. This Mitigation limits noise levels to an average of 70 dB over a 24 hour period with maximum noise levels not exceeding 110 dB during the period.

All construction vehicles and machinery should be kept in good working condition. If any noise-related complaints are registered the

120 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

applicable construction vehicles and machinery should be fitted with noise reduction devices.

Personnel working in noisy environments must be issued with hearing protectors.

See attached Construction Management Plan (Appendix B).

Significance (with None mitigation)

Confidence level High

Given the nature and scale of the construction activities, as well as the distance between the proposed project site and the nearest receptor, the potential impact is regarded as having none.

(iv) Visual Disturbance Activities during the construction phase are associated with large construction vehicles, stockyards waste sites and contractors’ accommodation & ablution facilities, which pose a visual disturbance.

The project site falls within the boundaries of the Dorob National Park, defined by dunes and gravel plains, which can from a tourism perspective considered to have a high visual and sense of place value (see section 6.4 - Visual Aesthetics and Sense of Place). The larger surrounding area forms part of the Topnaar Archaeological Tourism Concession Area being visited by tourists. From an ecological perspective, the project footprint is not ecologically unique, but is expected to accommodate some conservation worthy endemic plant species.

The plains hosting the old and newly drilled boreholes resemble some disturbance as a result of anthropogenic activities – i.e. vehicle tracks owing to the ease of access to the area. The part in between the High Dune Reservoir and the Mile 7 Reservoirs resembles evidence of disturbance (i.e. reservoirs, road and pipeline), hence certain parts are not considered pristine and untouched anymore, while are parts to possibly accommodate infrastructure is undisturbed.

The larger part of the project site is located far (10 to 15 km) from Walvis Bay with no other permanent activities within the immediate surroundings, which makes the project site less visible, i.e. no visual impact. However, tourism activities and access by local people collecting wild fruits increases the significance of the impact (i.e. above ground power lines and pipeline). This ‘disturbance’ is however common in the larger area considering the existing bulk water infrastructure networks (i.e. roads, above ground pipelines and powerlines).

Considering that the construction activities and nature of the construction camp will remain the same, there is no real significance difference between the different options. As

121 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------construction activities and camps move closer to tourist and public areas, the higher the significance will be, but is always temporary in nature.

Table 8- 10 below presents the assessment outcome.

Table 8-10: Impact assessment pertaining to visual disturbance

CRITERIA DESCRIPTION

Risk event Visual disturbance

Nature Affects the landscape and visual aesthetics (i.e. sense of place)

Status (+ or -) Neutral

Extent Site specific

Duration Short

Intensity Low

Probability Definite

Significance (no Low mitigation)

The contractor’s campsite should be located as far as possible from main access roads and tourism spots within the area. The contractor’s campsite should be screened in such a way that it minimises, as far as practicably possible, the visual effect.

The appointed contractor should ensure that adequate temporary Mitigation disposal facilities are available on-site and that all waste are properly stored not resulting in any littering or visual disturbances. Waste should be disposed of regularly and at appropriate facilities.

Products that can be re used or recycled need to be kept separate.

See attached Construction Management Plan (Appendix B).

Significance (with Low mitigation)

Confidence level High

122 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

Given the relatively small size of the construction activities expected to be scattered along the project area and temporary nature of these, no significant change to the visual character of the landscape is expected. The sense of place at worksites will temporarily change to that associated with a construction site. Poorly planned construction activities and construction sites will result in unnecessary disturbance to the areas adjacent to the project site and should therefore be avoided. Therefore, caution should be applied from the side of the appointed contractor not to unnecessarily detract from the existing visual character and sense of place of the receiving environment.

The significance of the pre-mitigation visual impact on the areas surrounding the project site during the construction phase is expected to be low.

(v) Restricted Access The proposed project’s construction phase is associated with certain activities that might restrict access to a particular area, such as open trenches.

Although the larger part of the project site is located far (10 to 15 km) from Walvis Bay, the existence of tracks throughout the area is proof of the area being accessed for recreational purpose (i.e. off-road enthusiasts, picnics), but more importantly by the local Topnaar community for collection of traditional fruits and tourists. Wild animals and farming stock of the Topnaars graze the area as well.

The significance is directly related to the duration of the construction period and length of the particular alignment, which results in the longest alignments, i.e. Options 5 & 6 following the plains to have the greatest impact, reducing in significance for Option 3. Given that Options 1 and 2 will pass through the migrating sand dunes area (i.e. shortest alignment), it will be the least affected, followed by Option 3 (see Figure 5-6 for alignments).

Table 8-11 below presents the assessment outcome.

Table 8-11: Impact assessment pertaining to restricting accessibility into the area

CRITERIA DESCRIPTION

Risk event Restricted accessibility

Restricts accessibility to the area for purpose of grazing; collection of Nature fruits; recreational purpose; tourism

Status (+ or -) Negative

Extent Local

Duration Short

123 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

Intensity Low

Probability Definite

Significance (no Medium mitigation)

Length of open trenches should be restricted in length and done in phases to enable continues accessibility.

Road detours should be provided where road access (along Mitigation existing/established formal or informal roads) is limited/reduced due to construction activity.

See attached Construction Management Plan (Appendix B).

Significance (with Low mitigation)

Confidence level High

Without any mitigation, open trenches are expected to have a pre-mitigation impact significance rating of medium, which can be reduced to low after mitigation.

(vi) Flooding This aspect entails the potential of flooding and expected delays and/or damages that may occur.

The study area, located within the lower Kuiseb part of the River, is having a predominant flat topography, defined by the flat plains and dune areas on both side of the plains. The Kuiseb River (ephemeral) is dry for most of the year, and often even for many years, and will overruns the study area only if the volume of run-off generated is enough. Flash floods are relatively short lived and highly variable in magnitude, duration and frequency (see Section 6.1.4 – Topography). Vegetation cover within the study area is sparse, holding very little preventative measures during flash floods.

Given the locality of some part of the proposed project within the flatter flood plains of the lower Kuiseb River, flooding and resulting effects is regarded a potential impact to be considered and mitigated. Flooding and resulting delay of construction activities is considered of importance, given the urgent demand for increased water supply. Flooding during construction may also result in damages to construction vehicles and equipment, and will pose a safety risk to personnel.

The significance that flooding (and related delays) holds is directly related to the distance and area (plains or sand dunes), as well as the time of year (i.e. rainy season or not), which

124 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------results in the longest alignments, i.e. Options 5 & 6 which follows the plains to have the greatest impact, reducing in significance for Option 3. Given that Options 1 & 2 will pass through the migrating sand dunes area, which is hardly affected by flooding, it will be the least affected, followed by Option 3 (see Figure 5-6 for alignments).

Table 8-12 below presents the assessment outcome.

Table 8-12: Impact assessment pertaining to flooding

CRITERIA DESCRIPTION

Risk event Flooding

Delay in construction activities / damages to construction vehicles Nature and equipment / safety risk to construction personnel

Status (+ or -) Negative

Extent Local

Duration Short

Intensity Very short

Probability Probable

Significance (no Low mitigation)

Avoid construction within the rainy season, considered for the upstream area (not the coast).

Continues monitoring of up-stream conditions to detect any flow in Mitigation advance.

No person should overnight within the river.

See attached Construction Management Plan (Appendix B).

Significance (with None mitigation)

Confidence level High

125 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

(vii) Removal of Traditional Fruits Construction of the proposed infrastructure will result in the removal of vegetation, which will include the removal of the !nara to a less or larger extend depending the area (i.e. river plains or dunes area).

Different from the pipelines (where installed underground) where regrowth of !naras will take place after rehabilitation, construction and maintenance of roads will result in a permanent destruction of the traditional fruit within the particular footprint.

The Kuiseb Delta area is considered a high biodiversity red flag area due to the very high density of !nara (Acanthosicyos horridus) plants and its importance for the Topnaar livelihood. The endemic and protected Acanthosicyos horridus (!nara) is important as a commodity for the Topnaars living along the Kuiseb River.

The significance that the construction activities is expected to have on the socio-economic wellbeing and traditional lifestyle of the Topnaars is directly related to the appearance and density of !naras within the larger area and the proposed alignment. The highest density of !naras appears within the Dunes area, i.e. within the area of Options 1 and 2. Although Options 1 and 2 are the shortest alignments, avoidance of all of the !nara fields might be impossible and if achievable would result in a longer distance, of which the actual increased distance is difficult to state at this stage. The alignments within the river plains (Options 3, 4 and 5) accommodate less !nara fields, which is easier avoided as a result.

Table 8-13 below presents the assessment outcome.

Table 8-13: Impact assessment pertaining to removal of traditional fruits

CRITERIA DESCRIPTION

Risk event Removal of Traditional Fruits

Nature Impact on traditional lifestyle and traditional practises

Status (+ or -) Negative

Extent Local

Duration Short (underground pipelines) Permanent (roads)

Intensity Low (alignment within river plains) Medium (Options 1 and 2)

126 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

Probability Probable (alignment within river plains) Definite (Options 1 and 2)

Significance (no High mitigation)

Existing !nara fields should be avoided.

If unavoidable, only underground pipelines should pass through !nara Mitigation fields, which area should be properly rehabilitated and revegetated.

See attached Construction Management Plan (Appendix B).

Significance (with Medium mitigation)

Confidence level High

Given the dense appearance of !nara fruits within the alignment of Options 1 and 2 in comparison to the alignments following the river plains, as well as the fact that it would be far more difficult to reroute Options 1 and 2 to avoid these !nara Fields, Options 1 and 2 would have the greatest impact in comparison.

(viii) Employment and Skills Transfer In light of the significant levels of unemployment within the affected constituency, any employment holds a positive impact on the local community’s wellbeing, although temporary in nature. It is expected and recommended that most of the temporary construction staff should be sourced from the Topnaar community as far as practicably possible.

The real impact thereof depends on the number of the workforce required and duration of the construction phase, which is again directly related to the length of the alignment. A greater positive significance is thus expected from Options 5 and 6.

Table 8-14 below presents the assessment outcome.

Table 8-14: Impact assessment pertaining to employment and skills transfer

CRITERIA DESCRIPTION

Risk event Employment and skills transfer

Nature Improved wellbeing

Status (+ or -) Positive

127 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

Extent National

Duration Short (income) Permanent (skills transfer)

Intensity Medium

Probability Probable

Significance (no Medium mitigation)

As a minimum, people residing near the project site should be Mitigation employed for all unskilled labour tasks.

Significance (with Medium mitigation)

Confidence level High

Employment opportunities will be created during the construction phase of the proposed project. Unemployment within the affected constituency is a significant problem. The pre- mitigation impact significance rating is therefore medium.

8.3.2.6 Heritage and Archaeological Remains The nature of the construction activities are such that it would probably destroy any unknown heritage and/or archaeological remains without knowing it.

The Kuiseb Delta hosts Heritage/Archaeological sites and has been a traditional range for the Topnaars (“strandlopers”) leading a nomadic lifestyle as hunters and gatherers (see section 6.3 - Archaeology and Heritage). The Kuiseb Delta has as a result been proposed as an archaeological conservation area under the provisions of the National Heritage Act (27 of 2004, section 52).

Considering the existence of Heritage/Archaeological sites (Figure 6-5) within the areas of the proposed alignment Options, an on-site investigation was undertaken to establish the significance and vulnerability between the respective Options (i.e. infrastructure alignments). The Archaeological Field Survey Report is attached as Appendix I.

Table 8-15 below presents the assessment outcome.

128 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

Table 8-15: Impact assessment pertaining to heritage and archaeological remains

CRITERIA DESCRIPTION

Risk event Heritage and archaeological remains

Nature Destruction of heritage and archaeological remains

Status (+ or -) Negative

Extent Site Specific

Duration Permanent

Intensity High

Probability Probable

Significance (no High mitigation)

Caution should be exercised during the construction phase in the event that archaeological/heritage remains are discovered during the excavations.

Sites 146/5 and 6, and Site 146/2 should be clearly demarcated in advance of construction work. Demarcation should be done by means of high visibility perimeter mesh, placing a buffer of at least 100 m around each of the three sites.

The project should adopt the Chance Finds and No-go Area Mitigation procedures attached as Appendices 1 and 2 to the Archaeological Field Survey Report.

The Environmental Site Manager should receive training by a suitably qualified archaeologist with respect to the identification of archaeological/heritage remains and the procedures to follow in the event that such remains are discovered during construction.

Any archaeological materials find should be reported to the Environmental Site Manager and the National Monuments Council, and all on-site activities stopped immediately.

Significance (with Medium mitigation)

129 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

Confidence level High

Of the three project areas, Component A encompassing the well-field and related infrastructure, contains the most sensitive sites. These are Sites 146/3 – 8, and include two sites with human remains, which are particularly sensitive to disturbance. Component B includes one particularly sensitive location, Site 146/2, a traditional Topnaar cemetery. Component C includes only one significant location in Site 194/35, which is not considered vulnerable to the present project.

8.3.2.7 Fauna & Flora Construction activities are associated with the removal and destruction of natural habitats and posing a risk to migrating fauna. Considering the nature of the intended infrastructure, the construction of roads is expected to have the greatest impact owning to the footprint and lasting nature. Above ground pipelines, as what is intended between the High Dune Reservoir and Mile 7 Reservoir, also pose challenges.

The proposed development site falls within the Namib-Naukluft Park which is classified as a high biodiversity red flag area due to the very high density of !nara (Acanthosicyos horridus) plants and its importance for the Topnaar livelihood. Two important coastal wetlands – i.e. Walvis Bay Wetlands and Sandwich Harbour – both RAMSAR sites, occur in the area. According to Curtis and Barnard (1998) the entire coast and the Walvis Bay lagoon as a coastal wetland, are viewed as sites with special ecological importance in Namibia. The main drainage line in the area is the Kuiseb River with a catchment area of 15,500 km² with common riparian species including Ana tree, Tamarix, Camelthorn, Salvadora, Fig, Euclea, !Nara and Mesquite (Jacobson et al. 1995).

The details pertaining to the Fauna and Flora are presented in Appendixes F & H, from which this part of the Report was populated from.

(i) Fauna a) Reptiles The most important species confirmed from the Kuiseb River Delta area would be the two species classified as endemic (Typhlacontias brevipes and Meroles reticulatus) although they are not exclusively associated with the area, but occur widespread in suitable habitat along the coastal areas (see Section 6.1.6 - Biodiversity).

The proposed infrastructure developments are not expected to adversely affect any unique reptiles (none of the unique species are exclusively associated with the proposed development area) in the area. However, the proposed mitigations (see Table 8-16 below) should be followed to minimise the overall impact on reptiles in the area.

130 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

b) Amphibians The endemic species expected to occur throughout the general area and viewed as the most important are Poyntonophrynus dombensis (Dombe toad), Poyntonophrynus hoeschi (Hoesch’s toad) and Phrynomantis annectens (marbled rubber frog) (see Section 6.1.6 - Biodiversity). However, none of the important amphibian species are exclusively associated with the Dorob South and Rooibank B (Kuiseb River) proposed development sites.

The proposed infrastructure developments are not expected to adversely affect any unique amphibians (none of the unique species are exclusively associated with the proposed development area) in the area. However, the proposed mitigations (see Table 8-16 below) should be followed to minimise the overall impact on amphibians in the area. c) Mammals The most important mammal species known and/or expected to occur in the general area are viewed as the little known bats – i.e. Cistugo seabrae (Namibian wing-gland bat) and Laephotis namibensis (Namibian long-eared bat) – and the carnivores Hyaena brunnea (brown hyena) and Felis silvestris (African wild cat). Both carnivores are shy and elusive and tend to avoid disturbed areas. H. brunnea are nowhere common throughout their range while F. silvestris furthermore faces genetic pollution issues with feral cats close to human settlements (see Section 6.1.6 - Biodiversity). However, they are not exclusively associated with the area, but occur widespread in suitable habitat throughout Namibia.

However, the proposed mitigations (see Table 8-16 below) should be followed to minimise the overall impact on mammals in the area. d) Avian The most important bird species known and/or expected to occur in the general area are viewed as the species classified as endangered (booted eagle, martial eagle, Lűdwig’s bustard), vulnerable (secretarybird, lappet-faced vulture) and near threatened (Verreaux’s eagle, peregrine falcon, Damara tern) under Namibian legislation (Simmons et al. 2015); species classified as endangered (lappet-faced vulture, Lűdwig’s bustard) and vulnerable (secretarybird, martial eagle, Damara tern) by the IUCN (2019) and endemic species (Rűppels korhaan, dune and gray’s larks).

The most important species actually confirmed during the fieldwork are species classified as endangered (booted eagle) and vulnerable (great white pelican) as well as endemic (dune lark) (see Section 6.1.6 - Biodiversity). However, they are not exclusively associated with the area, but occur widespread in suitable habitat throughout Namibia.

e) Conclusion Vertebrate fauna species most likely to be adversely affected by the proposed new water extraction developments – i.e. pipeline, power line and tracks – in the Dorob South and Rooibank B (Kuiseb River) area would be the unique species of reptiles (i.e. Bitis peringueyi and Meroles spp.) potentially occurring in the area, as reptiles are sedentary, slow moving

131 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------and less mobile than mammals and birds. However, none is exclusively associated with the proposed development sites.

Amphibians are not expected to be adversely affected by these developments due to the overall lack of suitable habitat throughout the general area.

Mammals are more mobile and although important species are known to occur and/or pass through the area, none are expected to be specifically associated and/or expected to be negatively affected by the developments.

The significance that the construction activities is expected to have on the faunal species is directly related to distance and area (plains or sand dunes), which results in the longest alignments (Options 5 & 6) to have the greatest impact, reducing in significance (Option 3) to Options 1 and 2 expected to have the lowest impact (see Figure 5-6 for alignments).

Table 8-16 below presents the assessment outcome for all faunal species.

Table 8-16: Impact assessment pertaining to faunal species

CRITERIA DESCRIPTION

Risk event Faunal species

Nature Destruction of faunal habitats and fauna themselves

Status (+ or -) Negative

Extent Site Specific

Duration Permanent

Intensity Low

Probability Probable

Significance (no Medium (dunes area) High (river plains area) mitigation)

Avoid development and associated infrastructure in Acanthosicyos horridus (!nara) fields, etc. This would minimise the negative effect on the local environment especially unique features serving as Mitigation habitat to various species. Implement and maintain track discipline limited to existing tracks and/or certain tracks with maximum speed limits (e.g. 30 km/h) as this would result in fewer faunal road mortalities and associated dust

132 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

pollution problems.

Avoid off road driving in areas prone to scarring and especially the gravel plains. Nocturnal driving should also be avoided as this result in the destruction of slow moving fauna – e.g. various reptiles and other nocturnal species.

Avoid and/or limit the use of lights during nocturnal activities as this influence and/or affects various nocturnal species – e.g. bats and owls, etc. and contribute to “light pollution”. Use focused lighting for least effect.

Prevent overnight activities during the construction phase(s). This could result in pollution; killing of perceived dangerous nocturnal species (e.g. snakes, bats, etc.); illegal collection of species for the pet industry (e.g. chameleon), etc.

Prevent and discourage the setting of snares (poaching), illegal collecting of veld foods (e.g. ostrich eggs, etc.), indiscriminate killing of perceived dangerous species (e.g. snakes, etc.), and the collection of wood as this would diminish and negatively affect the local fauna – especially during the construction phase(s).

Initiate a suitable and appropriate refuse removal policy during the construction phase(s) as littering could result in certain animals becoming accustomed to humans and associated activity and result in typical problem animal scenarios – e.g. black-backed jackal, crows, etc.

Avoid the removal and damage of bigger trees (especially protected species – i.e. Acacia erioloba (camel thorn), Faidherbia albida (Anna tree) and Tamarix usneoides (wild tamarisk) and Acanthosicyos horridus (!nara) plants [See Tables 5 and 6; Forest Act No. 12 of 2001]) – during developments – including the development of access routes – as these serve as habitat for a myriad of fauna.

Rehabilitation of the disturbed areas – i.e. initial development access route “scars” and associated tracks, as well as temporary accommodation sites. Preferably workers should be transported in/out to the construction sites on a daily basis to avoid excess damage to the local environment (e.g. wood collection, poaching, etc.). Such rehabilitation would not only confirm the various development companies’ environmental integrity, but also show true local commitment to the environment.

Limit development – i.e. keep to the bare minimum – in the Kuiseb River Delta area or within 100 m of this drainage line to preserve the associated riparian fauna.

Prevent (do not allow) domestic pets – e.g. cats and dogs – accompanying the workers during the construction phase as pets can cause considerable damage to the local fauna. Cats also interbreed and transmit diseases to the indigenous African wildcat found in the

133 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

area. The indiscriminate and wanton killing of the local fauna (including domestic stock) by such pets should be avoided at all cost.

Initiate a policy of capture and removal of fauna (e.g. slow moving species such as chameleon, snakes, etc.) encountered serendipitously within the construction areas. Such fauna should be removed to other areas of similar habitat in the area.

Ensure that mobile ablution facilities are used and frequently serviced on site during the construction phase(s) to avoid pollution in the area.

Educate/inform contractors on dangerous and protected species to avoid and the consequences of illegal collection of such species. Liaise with DRFN and/or MET to provide this service.

Investigate the idea of employing a qualified environmental officer (EO) during the construction phase to ensure appropriate conduct by contractor(s).

Employ an ecologist for advice on the best route(s) prior to construction – i.e. assist with the final alignment.

Strongly consider the proposed alternative routes in the Kuiseb River Delta area (i.e. follow existing tracks; northern or southern backbone) as well as between the High Dune Reservoir and the Mile 7 Reservoir (i.e. routes 1 and 2) as these routes, albeit longer, would result in less maintenance activities over time, as well as the removal/destruction of fewer Acanthosicyos horridus (!nara) plants which serve as habitat to a variety of vertebrates (and invertebrates).

Significance (with Medium (dunes area) Low (river plains area) mitigation)

Confidence level High

It can be expected that the impact/s will be on localised unique habitats (e.g. Kuiseb River Delta Acanthosicyos horridus [!nara] fields) with associated fauna bearing the brunt of this proposed development, but be limited in extent and only permanent at the actual development sites and access routes. For the majority of the impacts, considered to be of medium significance before mitigation can be reduced to medium/low, although some impacts would not be able to be avoided or see rehabilitation after construction (i.e. habitats within roads).

(ii) Flora a) Tree and Shrubs Of the 62 species of trees and shrubs expected to occur in the area, 8 species are classified as endemics (12.9%), 1 specie as near endemic (1.6%), 20 species are protected under the

134 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

Forest Act No. 12 of 2001 (32.3%), 4 species are protected under the Nature Conservation Ordinance No. 4 of 1975 (6.5%) while 5 species are classified as CITES Appendix 2 (8.1%) species. Arthraerua leubnitziae is endemic to the fog zone in the central Namib region (Burke 2003).

The most important species expected to occur in the area are Acanthosicyos horridus (protected; near endemic) which could be considered one of Namibia’s most characteristic plants (Seely 2010) and remains an important commodity to the local Topnaar people (Burke 2003) and Capparis hereroensis (endemic). However, none of the important larger tree and shrub species is exclusively associated with the Dorob South and Rooibank B (Kuiseb River) proposed development sites.

The proposed road, pipeline and power line developments are not expected to adversely affect most of the unique trees and shrubs (none of the unique species are exclusively associated with the proposed development area) in the area. However, the proposed mitigations (see Table 8-17 below) should be followed to minimise the overall impact on flora, especially the important Acanthosicyos horridus (!nara) fields, in the Kuiseb River Delta area. b) Grasses Between 21 and 24 species of grass potentially could occur in the general area (Müller 1984, Müller 2007). According to Müller (1984) the endemic grass Eragrostis omahekensis potentially occurs in the general area although the updated Müller (2007) excludes this species suggesting that it probably does not occur in the area. Burke (2003a) describes Stipagrostis sabulicolia as a “true Namib endemic” which only occurs in the dune fields of the Namib Desert. The most important species expected to occur in the area are Eragrostis omahekensis and Stipagrostis sabulicolia. However, none of the important grass species is exclusively associated with the Dorob South and Rooibank B (Kuiseb River) proposed development sites.

The proposed pipeline and power line developments are not expected to adversely affect any unique grass (none of the unique species are exclusively associated with the proposed development area) in the area. However, the proposed mitigations (see Table 8-17 below) should be followed to minimise the overall impact on grasses – viewed as important as food and habitat for a variety of vertebrate and invertebrates as well as its soil stabilising effect, especially in the mobile dune belt area – throughout the area. c) !nara Acanthosicyos horridus (!nara) can be considered one of the most characteristic plants in the Namib Desert (Seely 2010). It viewed as the most important plant species in the Kuiseb River Delta area, not only because of its social and financial value to the Topnaar community, but as it is viewed as a keystone species in the area – i.e. plays a unique and crucial role in the way the ecosystem functions.

The plant is eaten by ostrich (and donkeys) and the fruit by various small rodents (gerbils), black backed jackal, oryx, black rhino and various invertebrates (Burke 2003a, Mannheimer

135 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

and Curtis 2018, Seely 2010). It is also viewed as of “vital existence for several desert animals” (Mannheimer et al. 2008). Detritus (dead organic matter) associated with this plant also attracts a variety of insects (Burke 2003a) while various reptiles are also associated with this plant for shelter and invertebrates attracted to it – e.g. the mainly herbivorous Angolosaurus skoogi (desert plated lizard) in the northern Namib (Seely 2010). During the fieldwork Meroles reticulatus (reticulated desert lizard) were observed foraging on invertebrates around these plants and using the plants spiny growth form as refuge while Cape sparrow and four striped grass mice were observed foraging on new and fallen flowers and dune hairy footed gerbils were observed feeding on the fruit.

Furthermore, Southern Africa is an important centre of diversity for the melon family (Cucurbitaceae) and they have an excellent potential for development to supplement or replace cereal production in arid regions (Kolberg 1998). d) Conclusion From the different flora within the project site, the !nara fields is considered the most sensitive having a value as traditional source of food to the Topnaar community, but also to various fauna species and even insects. All attempts should be made to minimise damage and destruction of these Acanthosicyos horridus [!nara] fields in the Kuiseb River Delta and adjacent dune areas. None of the important larger tree and shrub species is exclusively associated with the Dorob South and Rooibank B (Kuiseb River) proposed development sites and can easily be avoided by amending the alignment slightly.

The significance that the construction activities is expected to have on especially the !naras is directly related to distance and the particular area (plains or sand dunes) through which the infrastructure will pass, which results in Options 1 and 2 having the greatest impact (i.e. highly sensitive area), with Options 3, 4 and 5 having the least impact (see Figure 5-6 for alignments). The fact that Option 6 will also pass through the dunes area (same as Option 1) the significance would be great.

Table 18-17 below presents the comprehensive assessment outcome for all faunal species.

Table 8-17: Impact assessment pertaining to faunal species

CRITERIA DESCRIPTION

Risk event Flora species (!naras)

Nature Destruction of !naras’ habitats and !naras themselves

Status (+ or -) Negative

Extent Site Specific

136 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

Duration Permanent

Depends on the alignment (Medium for Options 1 and 2; Low for Intensity Options 3 and 4)

Probability Probable

Significance (no High mitigation)

Avoid development and associated infrastructure in sensitive areas – e.g. Kuiseb River Delta Acanthosicyos horridus (!nara) fields, etc. This would minimise the negative effect on the local environment.

Identify protected and unique species (e.g. Acacia erioloba (camel thorn), Acanthosicyos horridus (!nara), Faidherbia albida (Anna tree), Tamarisk usneoides (wild tamarisk) [See Tables 5 and 6; Forest Act No. 12 of 2001]) before the commencement of development activities in areas where these occur and avoid.

Prevent and discourage the collecting of firewood, as dead wood has an important ecological role. Such collecting of firewood, especially for economic reasons, often leads to abuses – e.g. chopping down of live and/or protected tree species such as Acacia erioloba which is a good quality wood. This would only be relevant to the Kuiseb River Delta riparian vegetation.

Avoid the removal and damage of bigger trees (especially protected species – i.e. Acacia erioloba [camel thorn], Faidherbia albida [Anna Mitigation tree], Tamarisk usneoides [wild tamarisk] and Acanthosicyos horridus [!nara] plants [See Tables 5 and 6; Forest Act No. 12 of 2001]) – during developments – including the development of access routes – as these serve as habitat for a myriad of fauna.

Implement a policy of “no tolerance” towards the existing invasive alien plant species (i.e. Argemone ochroleuca, Datura spp., Eucalyptus spp., Nicotiana glauca, Prosopis spp. and Ricinus communis) in the area. This should include the removal and destruction of these species throughout the proposed development areas. Such activity would be beneficial to the overall ecology of the area, especially the Kuiseb River area where most of these aliens currently occur.

137 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

development companies’ environmental integrity, but also show true local commitment to the environment.

Limit development – i.e. keep to the bare minimum – in the Kuiseb River Delta area or within 100 m of this drainage line to preserve the associated riparian fauna.

Educate/inform contractors on protected species to avoid and the consequences of damaging such species. Liaise with DRFN and/or MET to provide this service.

Investigate the idea of employing a qualified environmental officer (EO) during the construction phase to ensure appropriate conduct by contractor(s).

Avoid the use of herbicides for plant/weed control along the pipeline/power line route(s).

Employ an ecologist for advice on the best route(s) prior to construction – i.e. assist with the final alignment.

Strongly consider alternative routes in the Kuiseb River Delta area (i.e. follow existing tracks; northern or southern backbone) as well as between the High Dune Reservoir and the Mile 7 Reservoir (i.e. routes 1 and 2) as these routes, albeit longer, would result in less removal/destruction of fewer Acanthosicyos horridus (!nara) plants which serve as habitat to a variety of vertebrates (and invertebrates).

Use the excavated soil to fill the trench when burying the pipeline.

Significance (with Medium to Low mitigation)

Confidence level High

It can be expected that the impact/s will be on localised unique habitats (e.g. Kuiseb River Delta Acanthosicyos horridus [!nara] fields) with associated flora bearing the brunt of this proposed development, but be limited in extent and only permanent at the actual development sites and access routes. For the majority of the impacts, considered to be of high significance before mitigation can be reduced to medium to low, although some impacts would not be able to be avoided or see rehabilitation after construction (i.e. habitats within roads).

8.3.2.8 Occupational Health – Handling Asbestos Containing Material The gravity pipeline in between the High Dune Reservoir and the Mile 7 Reservoirs is an asbestos cement (AC) pipe, of which one of the options is to remove and dispose the pipes at an approved waste disposal site.

According to the World Health Organisation (WHO) (2016) “all types of asbestos cause lung cancer, cancer of the larynx and ovary, and asbestosis (fibrosis of the lungs)”. Exposure to

138 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------asbestos that is considered hazardous to human health occurs through inhalation of fibres in air containing friable (i.e. crumbly) asbestos substances (WHO, 2016). In the event that the AC pipe segments become exposed and then friable (i.e. crumbly) near human receptors, for whatever reason, the risk of the development of respiratory health diseases increases. However, it should be noted that the incidence of asbestos related diseases is very low except in cases of high and prolonged occupational exposure.

Table 8-18 below presents the assessment outcome.

Table 8-18: Impact assessment pertaining to handling of asbestos pipes

CRITERIA DESCRIPTION

Risk event Handling asbestos pipes

Nature Potential health implications

Status (+ or -) Negative

Extent Site Specific

Duration Short

Intensity Medium

Probability Probable

Significance (no High mitigation)

When removing/handling AC pipes, it is important to handle the pipes in a manner that will minimise the risk of making it friable (i.e. crumbly) or releasing asbestos dust into the environment. Start by exposing the AC pipe with minimal disturbance. Excavate no closer than 15 cm of the pipe. Carefully uncover the remainder of the soil surrounding the pipe by hand or with a shovel. An assessment should then be made to determine if the pipe is damaged, cracked or Mitigation broken.

Pipe segments which are not damaged (i.e. intact and not deteriorated) should be handled in the following manner:

1. Place durable plastic sheeting (plastic that will not rip under abrasive conditions) under the AC pipe to prevent soil contamination.

139 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

2. Adequately wet the AC pipe with water (use of surfactant or liquid soap is encouraged) before and during removal to avoid creating airborne dust.

3. Separate the AC pipe at the nearest coupling (pipe joint fitting).

4. Slide the pipe apart at the joints (no saw cutting) or use other methods that do not cause the pipe to break, become friable or otherwise create the potential to release asbestos fibres.

5. It is recommended as best practice (i.e. not required) that the wet AC pipe should be wrapped in two layers of durable plastic sheeting (plastic that will not rip under abrasive conditions) and sealed with durable adhesive tape. This can be done in the trench or adjacent to the trench.

6. If the trench is filled with water, the placement of polyethylene sheeting is not required.

7. Transport/move AC pipe to desired end point.

Pipe segments which are damaged (i.e. deteriorated or not intact) or when cutting or mechanical breakage (e.g., with saws, or blade cutting) is necessary should be handled in the following manner:

1. Place durable plastic sheeting (plastic that will not rip under abrasive conditions) under the AC pipe to prevent soil contamination.

2. Adequately wet AC pipe with water where cutting or breaking will occur.

3. Saw cutting of AC pipe shall only be conducted with dustless concrete cutting equipment or wet cutting equipment.

4. It is recommended as best practice (i.e. not required) that the wet AC pipe should be wrapped in two layers of durable plastic sheeting (plastic that will not rip under abrasive conditions) and sealed. This can be done in the trench or adjacent to the trench.

5. Transport/move AC pipe to desired end point.

Significance (with Medium mitigation)

Confidence level High

140 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

8.3.2.9 Comparative Assessment

(i) Alignment between Boreholes and the High Dune Reservoir Three possible alignments were proposed for the infrastructure to be constructed to link-up the boreholes to the high dune reservoir (see section 5.2.4.3[i]), as listed below and indicated by Figure 5-8.

• Follow existing tracks (i.e. unproclaimed roads) in the area (white dotted lines)

• Northern backbone (Orange dotted lines)

• Southern backbone (Yellow dotted lines)

The different alignments for this particular part of the proposed project are evaluated from a biophysical- (Table 8-19) and socio-economic (Table 8-20) perspective only, considering that the other aspects do not differ between the alignments. Each impact is weighted according to its significance level for each alignment, both pre- and post-mitigation.

Table 8-19: Comparative Assessment of the Key Biophysical Impacts during the Construction Phase for the THREE Alternatives Proposed

Existing Tracks Northern Backbone Southern Backbone

KEY ISSUE Biophysical Environment PRE POST PRE POST PRE POST MITIGATION MITIGATION MITIGATION MITIGATION MITIGATION MITIGATION Vegetation clearance and habitat destruction Low Low Medium Medium Medium Medium (!naras) (considered from a negative perspective)

Restricted grazing & migration & entrapment High Medium High Medium High Medium (fauna) (considered from a negative perspective)

141 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------Existing Tracks Northern Backbone Southern Backbone NEGATIVE SIGNIFICANCE RATING IN TERMS OF THE PRE POST PRE POST PRE POST BIOPHYSICAL MITIGATION MITIGATION MITIGATION MITIGATION MITIGATION MITIGATION ENVIRONMENT LOW (1*1) LOW (1*1) LOW (0*1) LOW (0*1) LOW (0*1) LOW (0*1) LOW 1 point MEDIUM (1*3) MEDIUM (0*3) MEDIUM (1*3) MEDIUM (2*3) MEDIUM (1*3) MEDIUM (2*3) HIGH (0*5) MEDIUM 3 points HIGH (1*5) HIGH (1*5) HIGH (0*5) HIGH (1*5) HIGH (0*5) TOTAL = 4 HIGH 5 points TOTAL = 6 TOTAL = 8 TOTAL = 6 TOTAL = 8 TOTAL = 6

From the bio-physical assessment above, it is understandable that the already ‘disturbed’ alignment would have the least impact, considering the amount and dense population of the !nara within the area. Keeping all infrastructure types together within the most disturbed area would have the least impact.

Table 8-20: Comparative Assessment of the Socio-economic Impacts during the Construction Phase for the THREE Alternatives Proposed

Existing Tracks Northern Backbone Southern Backbone

KEY ISSUE Socio Economic Environment PRE POST PRE POST PRE POST MITIGATION MITIGATION MITIGATION MITIGATION MITIGATION MITIGATION Loss of !naras (vegetation that local population value) Low Low Medium Medium Medium Medium (considered from a negative perspective)

Construction workers safety (flooding) High Low Medium Low Medium Low (considered from a negative perspective)

142 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------Existing Tracks Northern Backbone Southern Backbone NEGATIVE SIGNIFICANCE RATING IN TERMS OF THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC LOW (1*1) LOW (2*1) LOW (0*1) LOW (1*1) LOW (0*1) LOW (1*1) ENVIRONMENT MEDIUM (0*3) MEDIUM (0*3) MEDIUM (2*3) MEDIUM (1*3) MEDIUM (2*3) MEDIUM (1*3) LOW 1 point HIGH (1*5) HIGH (0*5) HIGH (0*5) HIGH (0*5) HIGH (0*5) HIGH (0*5) MEDIUM 3 points TOTAL = 6 TOTAL = 2 TOTAL = 6 TOTAL = 4 TOTAL = 6 TOTAL = 4 HIGH 5 points

From a socio-economic perspective, the highest expected impact will occur along the northern- and southern backbone areas, mainly as a result of the expected loss of !naras, considered of high cultural value to the Topnaars and as a food source for various fauna.

Table 8-21 below presents a combined comparative assessment of the impacts expected during the construction phase for all THREE the alternatives proposed.

Table 8-21: Combined Comparative Assessment during the Construction Phase for the THREE Alternatives Proposed (after mitigation)

Existing Tracks Northern Backbone Southern Backbone KEY ISSUE Combined

Biophysical 4 6 6

Socio-economic 2 4 4

TOTAL NEGATIVE SIGNIFICANCE RATING 6 10 10

FOR THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE, FOLLOWING THE EXISTING TRACKS POSE TO BE THE ALIGNMENT HAVING THE LOWEST EXPECTED IMPACT, CONSIDERING THE BIO-PHYSICAL- AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC FACTORS IN COMBINATION.

143 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------(ii) Alignment between High Dune Reservoir and Mile 7 Reservoirs Considering the similarity between some of the provided and proposed alignments, some of the alignments (see Figures 5-6 & 5-9) were grouped together for purpose of the comparative assessments below, as indicated by Table 8-22.

Table 8-22 – Grouped Alignment Options Option Grouped Alignment

1 1 2

3 3

4 4 5

6 6

Tables 8-23 to 8-27 presents the comparative assessments between the grouped Options, from both a biophysical-, socio-economic-, archaeological-, and cost & time frame perspective. Each impact is weighted according to its significance level for each Option, both pre- and post-mitigation. Option 6 is evaluated with the understanding that a 5m gravel road will be constructed along the water pipeline (in between the High Dune Reservoir and the Mile 7 Reservoirs), in addition to the road to be constructed along the power line.

Table 8-23: Comparative Assessment of the Key Biophysical Impacts during the Construction Phase for the FOUR Alternatives Proposed

OPTION 1 OPTION 3 OPTION 4 OPTION 6

KEY ISSUE Biophysical Environment INFRASTRUC- PRE POST PRE POST PRE POST PRE POST TURE TYPE MITIGATION MITIGATION MITIGATION MITIGATION MITIGATION MITIGATION MITIGATION MITIGATION Vegetation clearance Road Medium Low Medium Low Medium Low Medium Low and habitat destruction Powerline Medium Low Low None Low None Low None (!naras) (considered from a negative Pipeline Medium Low Low None Low None Medium Low perspective)

144 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------Restricted grazing & Road Medium Low Medium Low Medium Low Medium Low migration & Powerline Medium Low Medium Low Medium Low Medium Low entrapment (fauna) (considered from a Pipeline Medium Low Medium Low Medium Low Medium Low negative perspective)

OPTION 1 OPTION 3 OPTION 4 OPTION 6 NEGATIVE SIGNIFICANCE RATING PRE POST PRE POST PRE POST PRE POST IN TERMS OF THE MITIGATION MITIGATION MITIGATION MITIGATION MITIGATION MITIGATION MITIGATION MITIGATION BIOPHYSICAL LOW (6*1) ENVIRONMENT LOW (2*1) LOW (4*1) LOW (2*1) LOW (4*1) LOW (1*1) LOW (0*1) MEDIUM LOW (5*1) MEDIUM MEDIUM MEDIUM MEDIUM MEDIUM LOW 1 point MEDIUM (6*3) (0*3) MEDIUM (0*3) (4*3) (0*3) (4*3) (0*3) (5*3) HIGH (0*5) HIGH (0*5) HIGH (0*5) MEDIUM 3 points HIGH (0*5) HIGH (0*5) HIGH (0*5) HIGH (0*5) HIGH (0*5) TOTAL = 18 TOTAL = 6 TOTAL = 5 HIGH 5 points TOTAL = 14 TOTAL = 4 TOTAL = 14 TOTAL = 4 TOTAL = 16

From the bio-physical assessment above, it is clear that the more sensitive dune areas are having a higher significance than the river plains area, which contains far less !nara fields and is more disturbed (i.e. existing roads and powerlines).

Table 8-24: Comparative Assessment of the Socio-economic Impacts during the Construction Phase for the FOUR Alternatives Proposed

OPTION 1 OPTION 3 OPTION 4 OPTION 6

KEY ISSUE Socio Economic Environment INFRASTRUC- PRE POST PRE POST PRE POST PRE POST TURE TYPE MITIGATION MITIGATION MITIGATION MITIGATION MITIGATION MITIGATION MITIGATION MITIGATION Loss of !nars Road Medium Low Medium Low Medium Low Medium Low (vegetation that local Powerline Medium Low Low None Low None Low None population value) (considered from a Pipeline Medium Low Low None Low None Medium Low negative perspective)

145 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------Road None None Medium Low Medium Low Medium Low Construction workers Powerline None None Medium Low Medium Low Medium Low safety (flooding) (considered from a Pipeline None None Medium Low Medium Low None None negative perspective)

OPTION 1 OPTION 3 OPTION 4 OPTION 6 NEGATIVE SIGNIFICANCE RATING IN TERMS OF THE SOCIO- LOW (0*1) LOW (3*1) LOW (2*1) LOW (4*1) LOW (2*1) LOW (4*1) LOW (1*1) LOW (4*1) ECONOMIC MEDIUM MEDIUM MEDIUM MEDIUM MEDIUM MEDIUM MEDIUM MEDIUM ENVIRONMENT (3*3) (0*3) (4*3) (0*3) (4*3) (0*3) (3*3) (0*3) LOW 1 point HIGH (0*5) HIGH (0*5) HIGH (0*5) HIGH (0*5) HIGH (0*5) HIGH (0*5) HIGH (1*5) HIGH (0*5) MEDIUM 3 TOTAL = 9 TOTAL = 3 TOTAL = 18 TOTAL = 4 TOTAL = 18 TOTAL = 4 TOTAL = 10 TOTAL = 4 points HIGH 5 points

From a socio-economic perspective, the highest expected impact will occur within the plain area, mainly as a result of the danger to flooding and associated risks for human life.

Table 8-25: Comparative Assessment of the Key Heritage & Archaeological Impacts during the Construction Phase for the FOUR Alternatives Proposed

OPTION 1 OPTION 3 OPTION 4 OPTION 6

KEY ISSUE Archaeological Environment PRE POST PRE POST PRE POST PRE POST MITIGATION MITIGATION MITIGATION MITIGATION MITIGATION MITIGATION MITIGATION MITIGATION

Vulnerability High Low Medium Low Medium Low Medium Low

Sensitivity High High High High High High High High

146 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------OPTION 1 OPTION 3 OPTION 4 OPTION 6 NEGATIVE SIGNIFICANCE RATING IN TERMS OF THE LOW (0*1) LOW (1*1) LOW (0*1) LOW (0*1) ARCHAEOLOGICAL LOW (1*1) LOW (1*1) LOW (1*1) LOW (1*1) MEDIUM MEDIUM MEDIUM MEDIUM ENVIRONMENT MEDIUM (0*3) MEDIUM (0*3) MEDIUM (0*3) MEDIUM (0*3) (1*3) HIGH (0*3) (1*3) HIGH (1*3) HIGH LOW 1 point HIGH (2*5) HIGH (1*5) HIGH (1*5) HIGH (1*5) (1*5) HIGH (1*5) (1*5) (1*5) MEDIUM 3 points TOTAL = 10 TOTAL = 6 TOTAL = 6 TOTAL = 6 TOTAL = 8 TOTAL = 6 TOTAL = 8 TOTAL = 8 HIGH 5 points

From an archaeological perspective, the expected significance after mitigation does not differ between the different alignments.

Table 8-26 below presents a combined comparative assessment of the impacts expected during the construction phase for all FOUR the alternatives proposed.

Table 8-26: Combined Comparative Assessment during the Construction Phase for the FOUR Alternatives Proposed (after mitigation)

OPTION 1 OPTION 3 OPTION 4 OPTION 6 KEY ISSUE Combined

Biophysical 6 4 4 5

Socio-economic 3 4 4 4

Archaeological 6 6 6 6

TOTAL NEGATIVE SIGNIFICANCE RATING 15 14 14 15 DURING CONSTRUCTION

For the construction phase, combinedly evaluated from a biophysical, social and archaeological perspective, Options 3 and 4 pose to be the alignment having the lowest expected impact.

147 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------From a financial perspective (i.e. construction cost & time), Option 1 is the most affordable, mainly as a result of the shortest distance.

Table 8-27: Comparative Assessment of the Construction Cost and Time Implication for the FOUR Alternatives Proposed

OPTION 1 OPTION 3 OPTION 4 OPTION 6 KEY ISSUE Construction Cost & Time

Cost (N$) @ 2019 Calculations Medium High High Medium

Time (estimated) Low High High Medium

OPTION 1 OPTION 3 OPTION 4 OPTION 6 NEGATIVE SIGNIFICANCE RATING IN TERMS OF THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL LOW (1*1) MEDIUM (1*3) LOW (0*1) MEDIUM (0*3) LOW (0*1) MEDIUM (0*3) LOW (0*1) MEDIUM (2*3) ENVIRONMENT HIGH (0*5) HIGH (2*5) HIGH (2*5) HIGH (0*5) LOW 1 point TOTAL = 4 TOTAL = 10 TOTAL = 10 TOTAL = 6 MEDIUM 3 points HIGH 5 points

If the construction cost of the different Options is considered, the difference in cost between Option 3 (proposed by ecologist) and Option 6 (preferred by NamWater) is N$ 54,650,000.00 (see section 5.2.6).

Considering the small impact difference of Option 6 (preferred by NamWater) to Option 3 (proposed by ecologist) and large cost difference, Option 6 poses to be the preferred route.

148 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

8.3.3 OPERATIONAL PHASE Considering the type of project (i.e. construction of infrastructure), the operational activities (i.e. routine and emergency repairs) is predominantly similar to that of the construction phase. As a result, those operational activities expected to be of a similar nature to the construction phase activities are not repeated in this part of the report, but only those unique to the operational phase of the proposed project.

Those concerns considered unique to the operational phase and of key importance is (i) potential flooding and resulting damages to infrastructure (i.e. interruption to the supply of water); (ii) the potential safety risk to animals and humans as a result of electrocution within the dune area; and (iii) removal of Acanthosicyos horridus [!nara]. Furthermore, the concern for the long term impact of water abstraction from the Kuiseb River Delta area and resulting lowering of the water table and consequently affecting the viability of the important and extensive Acanthosicyos horridus [!nara] fields in the area are also listed below, although not part of this study’s scope of work.

Details with regards to the potential impacts expected during the operation phase are briefly discussed below. Detailed mitigation measures and environmental requirements having direct relevance to the expected operational phase impacts are presented in the tables below and Environmental Management Plan (Appendix B).

Table 8-28 below presents the potential impacts expected to occur during the operational phase of the proposed project, while Table 8-29 to Table 8-36 present the outcome of those impacts considered of more importance.

Table 8-28: Key Issues and Potential Impacts expected during the Operational Phase

AFFECTED GENERAL / KEY IMPACT POTENTIAL IMPACTS

Air quality General Air pollution (CO²)

Hydrogeology General Soil and groundwater pollution

Key Over abstraction and lowering groundwater levels

Top soils General Loss of topsoil

General Traffic safety Socio- economic Key Human and domestic animal safety environment General Noise & vibration

Key Visual disturbance

General Restricted accessibility

Key Flooding

149 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

General Employment & skills transfer

Fauna & flora Key Electrocution of mammals and avian Restriction of movement by mammals and avian Clearance of !naras

Interruptions Key Unidentifiable underground or covered in water infrastructure during emergency repairs supply Flooding and damages to infrastructure

Yearly running General Increased cost to supply of water & maintenance cost

Security in Key Continues economic growth (positive water supply impact) and increased volumes

8.3.3.1 Socio-economic (i) Human and Domestic Stock (safety and movement) The dunes located between the town of Walvis Bay, the Kuiseb Delta is classified as barchan dunes, which is constantly migrating, determined by winds and available material. Dune heights within the Kuiseb River delta range from 4.10 m to 16.7 m (Barnes, 1999).

Considering the project, especially the proposed shortest route (Options 1 & 2), dune migration will affect operations and management of especially the powerlines. According to Barnes (1999) various stabilisation methods exists. Continues ‘clearing’ underneath the powerlines with graders would become part of the yearly operations of this project, which brings with it continued expenses, which is eventually passed on to the end-user.

As these sand dunes migrate closer to powerlines and even under power lines, the safety distance to these high voltage lines are decreased, which increases the risk of electrocution for humans (i.e. Topnaars, tourist and locals) and domestic stock (goats, sheep, cattle and donkey).

The below ground pipeline in between the High Dune Reservoir and the Mile 7 Reservoirs will have no effect on movement of domestic stock (Topnaar goats, sheep, cattle and donkey) and or wildlife. Over time, the exposed sections might have a minor impact, but not expected to be of any significant affect.

The significance that the mentioned have and related impact thereof is directly related to the (i) natural elements (i.e. wind regime, change in sand supply, change in dune size and precipitation), (ii) the particular area (i.e. dune- or plains area); (iii) design (i.e. above- or below ground); and (iv) the length of the alignment, which results in Option 2 having the

150 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------highest risk as it is the longer Option passing through the dunes area. Those alignments following the plains are not expected to be affected by this particular aspect (see Figure 5-6 for alignments).

Table 8-29 below presents a general assessment outcome for those alignments passing through the dunes area.

Table 8-29: Impact assessment pertaining to human and domestic stock (safety and movement)

CRITERIA DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION

Human and domestic stock Risk event Human and domestic stock safety movement

Nature Electrocution risk Grazing restrictions

Status (+ or -) Negative Negative

Extent Site specific Site specific

Duration Permanent Temporary

Intensity High Low

Probability Definite Definite

Significance Medium to High Low (no mitigation)

Powerlines: Pipelines:

1. Strongly consider the proposed 1. Sections of the pipeline that alternative alignments in the Kuiseb becomes exposed over time should River Delta area (i.e. follow the plains) be assessed and if expected to result as these alignments, albeit longer, in a migration obstacle, be covered would not have the potential danger of with sand. Mitigation electrocution. 2. Pipelines should be of such to be 2. Attach bird avoidance measures able to carry the weight of domestic (e.g. coils, flappers, etc.) on power animals. lines established within the Kuiseb River Delta area, as well as within 100m of the Kuiseb River bank, regardless of which route is selected.

151 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

3. Increase the height of powerlines within the Dunes area to ensure a safe height for animals to move freely underneath powerlines. This mitigation will however increase visibility and result in visual disturbances to the landscape and sense of place (see Table 8-30 below).

4. A method statement, which includes a thorough and detailed monitoring plan, should be drafted, implemented and monitored. Should amendments be required, the mentioned plan should be updated.

Significance None None (with mitigation)

Confidence High High level

Considering the continued migration of dunes within the area (i.e. dunes area), the potential impact and significance of electrocution applicable to Options 1 and 2 is expected to be medium to high before mitigation and low to none after mitigation. Underground pipelines are not expected to have any impact on animal migration and grazing.

(ii) Visual Disturbance Apart from the activities having a construction impact nature during the operational phase, there is also the long term operational impact of ‘visibility’ that especially powerlines have.

152 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

The larger part of the project site is located far (10 to 15 km) from Walvis Bay with no other permanent activities within the immediate surroundings, which makes the project site less visible, i.e. no visual impact. However, tourism activities and access by local people collecting wild fruits increases the significance of the impact (i.e. above ground power lines). This ‘disturbance’ is however, common in the larger area considering the existing bulk water infrastructure networks (i.e. roads, above ground pipelines and powerlines).

The general visual impact as a result of the standard powerlines (i.e. 14 m in height) can be considered as low, but would increase to medium in the instance of increasing the height of the powerline to 20 m to ensure a safe clearing height above the migrating sand dunes. This impact would thus be applicable to the alignments of Options 1 and 2, and small sections of the other Options.

Table 8-30 below presents the comprehensive assessment outcome.

Table 8-30: Impact assessment pertaining to visual disturbance (increased powerline height)

CRITERIA DESCRIPTION

Risk event Visual disturbance

Nature Affects the landscape and visual aesthetics (i.e. sense of place)

Status (+ or -) Neutral

Extent Site specific

Duration Permanent

Intensity Low

Probability Definite

Significance (no Low mitigation)

Very little mitigations exist to avoid visual disturbances.

Mitigation The best suitable mitigation would be to avoid areas visited by tourists.

Significance (with Low mitigation)

153 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

Confidence level High

Given the scale and design of the proposed 66kV-400V powerlines, the impact is expected to be low, which can be reduced to none if the alignment avoids the tourism areas.

8.3.3.2 Fauna & Flora The nature of the particular project’s operational activities holds potential impacts to both the faunal- (i.e. mammals and avian) and flora (!naras) species associated with the particular area.

The proposed development site falls within the Namib-Naukluft Park, which is classified as a high biodiversity red flag area due to the very high density of !nara (Acanthosicyos horridus) plants and its importance for the Topnaar livelihood.

Two important coastal wetlands – i.e. Walvis Bay Wetlands and Sandwich Harbour – both RAMSAR sites, occur in the area. According to Curtis and Barnard (1998) the entire coast and the Walvis Bay lagoon as a coastal wetland, are viewed as sites with special ecological importance in Namibia. The main drainage line in the area is the Kuiseb River with a catchment area of 15,500 km² with common riparian species including Ana tree, Tamarix, Camelthorn, Salvadora, Fig, Euclea, !Nara and Mesquite (Jacobson et al. 1995).

(i) Fauna (mammals and avian safety and movement) Considering the nature of the intended infrastructure, the expected impact to be either avoided or mitigated is electrocution.

The dunes located between the town of Walvis Bay and the Kuiseb Delta is classified as barchan dunes, which is constantly migrating, determined by winds and available material. Dune heights within the Kuiseb River delta range from 4.10 m to 16.7 m (Barnes, 1999). As these sand dunes migrate closer to powerlines and even under power lines, the safety distance to these high voltage lines are decreased, which increases the risk of electrocution for humans (i.e. Topnaars, tourist and locals) and domestic stock (goats, sheep, cattle and donkey). a) Mammals The most important mammal species to be affected known and/or expected to occur in the general area are viewed as the little known bats – i.e. Cistugo seabrae (Namibian wing- gland bat) and Laephotis namibensis (Namibian long-eared bat) – and the carnivores Hyaena brunnea (brown hyena) and Felis silvestris (African wild cat). Both carnivores are shy and elusive and tend to avoid disturbed areas. H. brunnea are nowhere common throughout their range while F. silvestris furthermore faces genetic pollution issues with feral cats close to human settlements. However, they are not exclusively associated with the area, but occur widespread in suitable habitat throughout Namibia.

154 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

Powerline impact - The proposed power line developments are not expected to adversely affect any unique mammals (none of the unique species are exclusively associated with the proposed development area) in the area.

Mobile sand dunes may accumulate against/beneath pylons and the transmission line, which if left unchecked (i.e. not cleared), potentially could result in an electrocution hazard to mammals (e.g. bigger species such as oryx, springbok, Topnaar domestic livestock and even humans) – when the ground clearance decreases and result in ‘flashovers’ (electrocutions) [Standard electrical and working clearances would apply].

However, the proposed mitigations (see Table 8-31 below) should be followed to minimise the overall impact on mammals in the area. b) Avian The most important bird species known and/or expected to occur in the general area are viewed as the species classified as endangered (booted eagle, martial eagle, Lűdwig’s bustard), vulnerable (secretarybird, lappet-faced vulture) and near threatened (Verreaux’s eagle, peregrine falcon, Damara tern) under Namibian legislation (Simmons et al. 2015); species classified as endangered (lappet-faced vulture, Lűdwig’s bustard) and vulnerable (secretarybird, martial eagle, Damara tern) by the IUCN (2019) and endemic species (Rűppels korhaan, dune and gray’s larks).

The most important species actually confirmed during the fieldwork are species classified as endangered (booted eagle) and vulnerable (great white pelican) as well as endemic (dune lark). However, they are not exclusively associated with the area, but occur widespread in suitable habitat throughout Namibia.

The most important bird species potentially affected by the proposed developments in the area would be species viewed as “power line sensitive” – i.e. species known to be negatively affected by above ground power line infrastructures.

Powerline impact - Avifauna is expected to be potentially affected by the proposed new 66kV-400V overhead power lines associated with the boreholes throughout the development area. Although, none of the unique/important bird species is exclusively associated with the proposed development area, the effect of aboveground pylon infrastructure is expected to be detrimental to certain birds – e.g. “pylon sensitive species”, listed in more detail within the attached Biophysical Assessment Report (Appendix H).

Species potentially affected by the proposed overhead power lines, once operational and at greatest risk, would be those larger species flying at pylon height (e.g. greater and lesser flamingos and great white pelican); nocturnal travellers (e.g. flamingos and Palaearctic species) and species potentially visiting the area for roosting/foraging, etc. (e.g. bustards).

155 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

Mobile sand dunes may accumulate against/beneath pylons and the transmission line, which if left unchecked (i.e. not cleared), potentially could result in an electrocution hazard to ostrich – when the ground clearance decreases and result in ‘flashovers’ (electrocutions) [Standard electrical and working clearances would apply].

Although very little is known regarding the actual flight paths used by the birds frequenting the general area, Figures 16 and 17 within the attached Biophysical Assessment Report (Appendix H) indicates potential flight paths and documented bird mortalities caused by power lines in Namibia. c) Conclusion The significance that the mentioned have and related impact thereof is directly related to the (i) natural elements (i.e. wind regime, change in sand supply, change in dune size and precipitation), (ii) the particular area (i.e. dune- or plains area); (iii) design (i.e. above- or below ground); and (iv) the length of the alignment, which results in Option 2 having the highest risk as it is the longer Option, having power lines passing through the sensitive dunes area. Those alignments following the plains are not expected to be affected by this particular aspect (see Figure 5-6 for alignments).

Table 8-31 below presents the comprehensive assessment outcome for mammal and avian species expected to be affected.

Table 8-31: Impact assessment pertaining to mammal and avian species

CRITERIA DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION

Faunal species (mammals and Risk event Faunal species (mammals & avian) avian)

Nature Electrocution Restricted movement

Status (+ or -) Negative Negative

Extent Site Specific Site Specific

Duration Permanent Temporary

Intensity Medium Low

Probability Probable Probable

Significance Medium Low (no mitigation)

156 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

Powerlines: Pipelines:

Strongly consider the proposed 1. Sections of the pipeline that alternative alignments in the Kuiseb becomes exposed over time should River Delta area (i.e. follow the plains) be assessed and if expected to as these alignments, albeit longer, result in a migration obstacle, be would not have the potential danger of covered with sand. electrocution. 2. Pipelines should be of such to be Attach bird avoidance measures (e.g. able to carry the weight of domestic coils, flappers, etc.) on power lines animals. established within the Kuiseb River Delta area, as well as within 100m of the Kuiseb River bank, regardless of which route is selected.

Increase the height of powerlines Mitigation within the Dunes area to ensure a safe height for animals to move freely underneath powerlines. This mitigation will however increase visibility and result in visual disturbances to the landscape and sense of place (see Table 8-30 above).

A method statement, which includes a thorough and detailed monitoring plan, should be drafted, implemented and monitored. Should amendments be required, the mentioned plan should be updated.

Significance Medium (with mitigation)

Confidence High level

It can be expected that the impact/s will be on localised unique habitats (e.g. Kuiseb River Delta Acanthosicyos horridus [!nara] fields) with associated fauna bearing the brunt of this proposed development, but be limited in extent and only permanent at the actual development sites and access routes. For the majority of the impacts, considered to be of medium significance, workable mitigations can be applied which will reduce some of the impacts to low.

157 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

(ii) Flora a) !nara From the different flora within the project site, the !nara fields is considered the most sensitive having a value as traditional source of food to the Topnaar community, but also to various fauna species and even insects. All attempts should be made to minimise damage and destruction of these Acanthosicyos horridus [!nara] fields in the Kuiseb River Delta and adjacent dune areas during any routine and/or emergency maintenance activities.

The significance that the operational activities is expected to have on especially the !naras is directly related to extend and nature of the routine and/or emergency maintenance activities, as well as the extent of regrowth of the !nara plants.

Table 8-32 below presents the comprehensive assessment outcome for the !nara species.

Table 8-32: Impact assessment pertaining to faunal (!nara) species

CRITERIA DESCRIPTION

Risk event Flora species (!naras)

Nature Destruction of !naras’ habitats and !naras themselves

Status (+ or -) Negative

Extent Site Specific

Duration Permanent

Intensity None

Probability Improbable

Significance (no Low mitigation)

Limit the removal and damage to [!nara] plants to the minimum and what is required for operational activities.

Rehabilitation of the disturbed area/s.

Mitigation Educate/inform contractors on protected species to avoid and the consequences of damaging such species. Liaise with DRFN and/or MET to provide this service.

Avoid the use of herbicides for plant/weed control along the

158 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

pipeline/power line route(s).

Significance (with None mitigation)

Confidence level High

It can be expected that the impact/s will be within the footprint of the affected area with the associated !naras bearing the brunt, but be limited in extent and only temporary at the actual footprint. The impact is expected to be of a low significance before mitigation, which can be reduced to low.

8.3.3.3 Interruptions in Water Supply Interruptions in the supply of water from this Scheme, for whatever reason, is expected to have an impact, which significance will be defined by the nature and extend of the cause. Potential causes are flooding and the inability to find the infrastructure, as discussed in more detail below.

(i) Flooding (damages to infrastructure) This aspect entails the potential of flooding and resulting damages to infrastructure, which may result in the interruption of water supply.

The Kuiseb River (ephemeral) is dry for most of the year, and often even for many years, and will overruns the study area only if the volume of run-off generated is enough. Flash floods are relatively short lived and highly variable in magnitude, duration and frequency (see Sections 6.1.4 & 6.1.5 – Topography and Hydrology). Vegetation cover within the study area is sparse, holding very little preventative measures during flash floods.

Given the locality of some part of the proposed project within the flatter flood plains of the lower Kuiseb River, flooding and resulting damages to infrastructure is regarded a potential impact to be considered and mitigated.

The significance that flooding and related damages to infrastructure holds, is directly related to the magnitude of the flood and area (plains or sand dunes), as well as the time of year (i.e. rainy season or not), which results in the longest alignments, Options 5 & 6 which follows the plains to have the greatest potential risk, reducing in significance for the shorter Option 3. Given that Options 1 & 2 will pass through the migrating sand dunes area, which is hardly affected by flooding, it will be the least affected, followed by Option 3, which will be partially subjected to flooding (see Figure 5-6 for alignments).

Table 8-33 below presents the assessment outcome.

159 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

Table 8-33: Impact assessment pertaining to hydrology/surface flow (flooding)

CRITERIA DESCRIPTION

Risk event Flooding

Damage to infrastructure and interruption to water supply (i.e. security of Nature water supply)

Status (+ or -) Negative

Extent Local

Duration Very Short (minor damages) Short (major damages)

Intensity Low (minor damages) Medium (major damages)Medium

Probability Improbable

Significance (no Low (minor damages) Medium (major damages)Medium mitigation)

Reservoirs should be maintained at maximum capacity to provide for sufficient volumes during down times.

Larger scheme does provide for substitutions should it become necessary, but is only for short-term application. Mitigation Have a risk assessment plan and related action plan in place to address damages to infrastructure, which should include a 6-monthly infrastructure inspection, of which one of the inspections should be undertaken just before the rainy season (September).

Significance None (with mitigation)

Confidence High level

160 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

(ii) Unidentifiable Infrastructure (pipelines) Routine maintenance and up keeping of all infrastructure types is an essential part of this project in ensuring security of water supply to the end users. The activities associated with this routine maintenance are presented in section 5.2.8 - Operational Phase.

Routine inspections of the underground pipelines would be complicated as it is not visible, which may result in leakages not being detected. The greatest risk however exists during emergency repairs, when the identification of the pipelines is crucial to solving the problem in time.

The significance that unidentifiable infrastructure holds, is directly related to the area (plains or sand dunes) and extent of the ‘hidden’ infrastructure.

Table 8-34 below presents the comprehensive assessment outcome for the unidentifiable infrastructure.

Table 8-34: Impact assessment pertaining to unidentifiable infrastructure

CRITERIA DESCRIPTION

Risk event Routine and emergency maintenance complications

Nature Unidentifiable underground water pipelines

Status (+ or -) Negative

Extent Site Specific

Duration Short

Intensity Medium

Probability Improbable

Significance (no Medium mitigation)

The locality of all pipelines (underground and aboveground) should be surveyed and servitude diagrams be drafted. Mitigation Maintenance personnel should be equipped with a GPS to identify pipelines during routine visits and emergency repairs.

Significance (with None

161 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

mitigation)

Confidence level High

The impact as outlined above is expected to be of a medium significance in the case when the underground infrastructure cannot be identified in time and results in a delay in repairs (3 days and more), which again may result in water shortages. The potential impact can however be easily mitigated by means of surveying the underground pipelines and have surveyed records available, which would reduce the significance to none.

8.3.3.4 Yearly Operational and Maintenance Cost Comparison The estimated operational costs received from NamWater were indicated at N$12.1/m³ of water supplied. No differentiation has been made between the different Options.

The estimated maintenance costs for the different infrastructure types received from NamWater are presented in Table 5-4 within section 5.2.6 - Estimated Costs. The estimated maintenance cost presented in Table 5-4 did not consider different environmental conditions (i.e. dunes area or plains area), but was estimated on the capital cost of the particular infrastructure type.

Considering the proposed project (section 5.2), dune migration will affect operations and management of especially the powerlines along Options 1 and 2. According to Barnes (1999) barchan dunes migrate between 3 and 43 meters per year. According to Barnes (1999) various stabilisation methods exists, but considering the scale of this project and the extent of the area affected none of the methods would provide a long-term lasting solution.

Continues ‘cleaning’ underneath the powerlines, cleaning of roads and covering of pipelines with graders, as would be require for Options 1 and 2 and 6, would become part of the yearly operations of this project, which brings with it continues expenses, which is eventually passed on to the end-user.

Considering the alignment of Options 1 and 2 and 6 passing through the migrating dunes area, it is expected to have a higher per km maintenance cost in comparison to those Options not passing through the sand dunes. It is worth mentioning that the operations and security of water supply from the current scheme is being compromised by this same factor.

Table 8-35 below presents the assessment outcome for the operational and maintenance cost.

162 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

Table 8-35: Impact assessment pertaining to operational and maintenance cost

CRITERIA DESCRIPTION

Risk event Increased cost to supply water

Nature Yearly running and maintenance cost need to be recouped from end user

Status (+ or -) Negative

Extent Regional

Duration Permanent

Intensity Medium

Probability Definite

Significance (no High mitigation)

Mitigation Avoid the alignment of Options 1 and 2

Significance (with Medium mitigation)

Confidence level High

The higher inset cost that Options 2 and 3 and 6 will have due to the longer distances should be justifiable by the reduced maintenance cost, the live span of the infrastructure and scheme (i.e. expected years of operation).

A more detailed cost analysis from what has been provided from the side of NamWater would be required to enable an informed decision from a financial perspective (i.e. inset- and maintenance cost).

8.3.3.5 Security of Water Supply (infrastructure) Considering the state of the current scheme (see sections 5.1.3 and 5.1.4) and the demands (see section 5.1.5), the current scheme would not be able to securely supply in the long term demand required to ensure continues socio-economic development and expansion within the coastal town of Walvis Bay (see section 6.2).

Once operational the proposed project, which entails the (i) expansion of the scheme’s capacity and (ii) construction of new and reliable infrastructure (see section 5.2.2), would ensure security in the supply of the required water volumes (i.e. existing and projected demands).

163 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

The mentioned has become crucial in sustaining the current and future demands, which is considered essential towards continues socio-economic development and expansion of the coastal town.

The current scheme’s incapacity to supply the required volumes of water and secure the supply thereof can be considered to have a high significance (negative) towards Walvis Bay’s sustainable socio-economic growth, which can be mitigated by means of upgrading the current scheme in both capacity and security (i.e. new scheme).

Table 8-36 below presents the assessment outcome of the new scheme in ensuring security of water supply at the required projected volumes.

Table 8-36: Impact assessment pertaining to security of water supply

CRITERIA DESCRIPTION

Risk event Security of water supply

Nature Continues economic growth

Status (+ or -) Positive

Extent Regional

Duration Permanent

Intensity High

Probability Definite

Significance High

The above aspect would however only remain positive as long as the required volumes of water is available, i.e. if the Dorob South & Rooibank B aquifers are capable of delivering in the demands, which according to the 2018 Modelling Report (GCS Water & Environmental Engineering Namibia (Pty) Ltd. would be the case.

164 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------8.3.3.6 Comparative Assessment Outcome

(i) Alignment between Boreholes and the High Dune Reservoir

Three possible alignments were proposed for the infrastructure to be constructed to link-up the boreholes to the high dune reservoir (see section 5.2.4.3[i]), as listed below and indicated by Figure 5-8.

• Follow existing tracks (i.e. unproclaimed roads) in the area (white dotted lines)

• Northern backbone (Orange dotted lines)

• Southern backbone (Yellow dotted lines)

The different alignments for this particular part of the proposed project are evaluated from a biophysical- (Table 8-37), socio-economic (Table 8- 38) and maintenance cost (Table 8-39) perspective, considering that the other aspects does not differ between the alignments. Each impact is weighted according to its significance level for each alignment, both pre- and post-mitigation.

Table 8-37: Comparative Assessment of the Key Biophysical Impacts during the operational Phase for the THREE Alternatives Proposed

Existing Tracks Northern Backbone Southern Backbone

KEY ISSUE Biophysical Environment PRE POST PRE POST PRE POST MITIGATION MITIGATION MITIGATION MITIGATION MITIGATION MITIGATION Vegetation clearance and habitat destruction (!naras) (5m road) Low Low Medium Medium Medium Medium (considered from a negative perspective)

Electrocution (mammals) (considered from a negative Low Low Medium Low Medium Low perspective)

Birdstrikes (electrocution) Low Low Medium Low Medium Low (considered from a negative

165 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------perspective)

Existing Tracks Northern Backbone Southern Backbone NEGATIVE SIGNIFICANCE RATING IN TERMS OF THE PRE POST PRE POST PRE POST BIOPHYSICAL MITIGATION MITIGATION MITIGATION MITIGATION MITIGATION MITIGATION ENVIRONMENT LOW (3*1) LOW (3*1) LOW (0*1) LOW (2*1) LOW (0*1) LOW (2*1) LOW 1 point MEDIUM (0*3) MEDIUM (0*3) MEDIUM (3*3) MEDIUM (1*3) MEDIUM (3*3) MEDIUM (1*3) HIGH (0*5) MEDIUM 3 points HIGH (0*5) HIGH (0*5) HIGH (0*5) HIGH (0*5) HIGH (0*5) TOTAL = 3 HIGH 5 points TOTAL = 3 TOTAL = 8 TOTAL = 5 TOTAL = 8 TOTAL = 5

From the bio-physical assessment above, it is understandable that the already ‘disturbed’ alignment (existing tracks) would have the least impact, as continued removal of vegetation regrowth (especially !nara) would not be necessary. The ‘existing tracks’ alignment will also have less of an impact on migratory birds, compared to the northern- and southern backbone alignments passing through some parts of the migrating sand dunes requiring power lines at a higher level. Keeping all infrastructure types together within the most disturbed area would have the least impact.

Table 8-38: Comparative Assessment of the Socio-economic Impacts during the Operational Phase for the THREE Alternatives Proposed

Existing Tracks Northern Backbone Southern Backbone

KEY ISSUE Socio Economic Environment PRE POST PRE POST PRE POST MITIGATION MITIGATION MITIGATION MITIGATION MITIGATION MITIGATION Loss of !naras (5m road) (vegetation that local population value) Low Low Medium Medium Medium Medium (considered from a negative perspective)

Damages (flooding) (considered from a negative High Medium Medium Low Medium Low perspective)

166 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------Electrocution (Topnaars) (considered from a negative Low Low Medium Low Medium Low perspective)

Existing Tracks Northern Backbone Southern Backbone NEGATIVE SIGNIFICANCE RATING IN TERMS OF THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC LOW (2*1) LOW (2*1) LOW (0*1) LOW (2*1) LOW (0*1) LOW (2*1) ENVIRONMENT MEDIUM (0*3) MEDIUM (1*3) MEDIUM (3*3) MEDIUM (1*3) MEDIUM (3*3) MEDIUM (1*3) LOW 1 point HIGH (1*5) HIGH (0*5) HIGH (0*5) HIGH (0*5) HIGH (0*5) HIGH (0*5) MEDIUM 3 points TOTAL = 7 TOTAL = 5 TOTAL = 9 TOTAL = 5 TOTAL = 9 TOTAL = 5 HIGH 5 points

From a socio-economic perspective, the post-mitigation significance is equal between the respective alignments.

Table 8-39: Comparative Assessment of the assumed Maintenance Cost during the Operational Phase for the THREE Alternatives Proposed

Existing Tracks Northern Backbone Southern Backbone

KEY ISSUE Maintenance Cost PRE POST PRE POST PRE POST MITIGATION MITIGATION MITIGATION MITIGATION MITIGATION MITIGATION Maintenance Cost Low Low Medium Medium Medium Medium

Existing Tracks Northern Backbone Southern Backbone NEGATIVE SIGNIFICANCE RATING IN TERMS OF THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC LOW (1*1) LOW (1*1) LOW (0*1) LOW (0*1) LOW (0*1) LOW (0*1) ENVIRONMENT MEDIUM (0*3) MEDIUM (0*3) MEDIUM (1*3) MEDIUM (1*3) MEDIUM (1*3) MEDIUM (1*3) LOW 1 point HIGH (0*5) HIGH (0*5) HIGH (0*5) HIGH (0*5) HIGH (0*5) HIGH (0*5) MEDIUM 3 points TOTAL = 1 TOTAL = 1 TOTAL = 3 TOTAL = 3 TOTAL = 3 TOTAL = 3 HIGH 5 points

From a maintenance cost perspective, it can be safely assumed that the northern- and southern backbone alignments would require some more maintenance, due to parts of these alignments passing through the migrating dunes areas.

167 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------Table 8-40 below presents a combined comparative assessment of the impacts expected during the operational phase for all THREE the alternatives proposed.

Table 8-40: Combined Comparative Assessment during the Operational Phase for the THREE Alternatives Proposed (after mitigation)

Existing Tracks Northern Backbone Southern Backbone KEY ISSUE Combined

Biophysical 3 5 5

Socio-economic 5 5 5

Maintenance Cost 1 3 3

TOTAL NEGATIVE SIGNIFICANCE RATING 9 13 13

For the operational phase, following the existing tracks (i.e. gravel roads) pose to be the alignment having the lowest expected impact, considering the bio-physical-, socio-economic-, and financial factors in combination.

168 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------(ii) Alignment between High Dune Reservoir and Mile 7 Reservoirs Considering the similarity between some of the provided and proposed alignments, some of the alignments (see Figures 5-6 & 5-9) were grouped together for purpose of the comparative assessments below, as indicated by Table 8-22.

Tables 8-41 to 8-45 presents the comparative assessments between the grouped Options, from both a biophysical-, socio-economic-, archaeological-, and cost & time frame perspective. Each impact is weighted according to its significance level for each Option, both pre- and post-mitigation. Option 6 is evaluated with the understanding that the larger part (±75%) of the existing road along the old water pipeline (in between the High Dune Reservoir and the Mile 7 Reservoirs) will continue to be used and that the pipeline will be buried underground.

Table 8-41: Comparative Assessment of the Key Biophysical Impacts during the Operational Phase for the FOUR Alternatives Proposed

OPTION 1 OPTION 3 OPTION 4 OPTION 6 Biophysical Environment KEY ISSUE INFRASTRUC- PRE POST PRE POST PRE POST PRE POST TURE TYPE MITIGATION MITIGATION MITIGATION MITIGATION MITIGATION MITIGATION MITIGATION MITIGATION

Powerline High Medium Medium Low Medium Low Medium Low Restricted grazing & (avifauna) migration (fauna) Pipeline (considered from a (domestic negative perspective) Low None None None None None Low None animals & fauna) Vegetation clearance (considered from a Road Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low negative perspective)

Electrocution (mammals & domestic stock) Powerline High Medium Medium Low Medium Low Medium Low (considered from a negative perspective)

Birdstrikes Powerline High Medium Medium Low Medium Low Medium Low

169 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------(electrocution) (considered from a negative perspective)

OPTION 1 OPTION 3 OPTION 4 OPTION 6 NEGATIVE SIGNIFICANCE PRE POST PRE POST PRE POST PRE POST RATING IN TERMS OF MITIGATION MITIGATION MITIGATION MITIGATION MITIGATION MITIGATION MITIGATION MITIGATION THE BIOPHYSICAL LOW (1*1) ENVIRONMENT LOW (2*1) MEDIUM LOW (1*1) LOW (4*1) LOW (1*1) LOW (4*1) LOW (2*1) LOW (4*1) MEDIUM LOW 1 poin (3*3) MEDIUM (3*3) MEDIUM (0*3) MEDIUM (3*3) MEDIUM (0*3) MEDIUM (3*3) MEDIUM (0*3) (0*3) HIGH (0*5) HIGH (0*5) HIGH (0*5) HIGH (0*5) HIGH (0*5) HIGH (0*5) HIGH (0*5) MEDIUM 3 poin HIGH (3*5) TOTAL = 10 TOTAL = 10 TOTAL = 4 TOTAL = 10 TOTAL = 4 TOTAL = 15 TOTAL = 4 HIGH 5 poin TOTAL = 17

From the bio-physical assessment above, it is clear that the more sensitive dune areas are having a higher significance than the river plains area, which contains far less !nara fields, is more disturbed (i.e. existing roads and powerlines) and requires lower power lines.

Table 8-42: Comparative Assessment of the Socio-economic Impacts during the Operational Phase for the FOUR Alternatives Proposed

OPTION 1 OPTION 3 OPTION 4 OPTION 6

KEY ISSUE Socio Economic Environment INFRASTRUC- PRE POST PRE POST PRE POST PRE POST TURE TYPE MITIGATION MITIGATION MITIGATION MITIGATION MITIGATION MITIGATION MITIGATION MITIGATION Electrocution (people & domestic animals) Powerline High Medium Medium Low Medium Low Medium Low (considered from a negative perspective)

Restricted movement (people & domestic Pipeline None None None None None None None None animals) (considered from a negative

170 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------perspective)

Visual disturbance Pipeline None None None None None None None None (considered from a Power line Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium negative perspective) Road Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low

OPTION 1 OPTION 3 OPTION 4 OPTION 6 NEGATIVE SIGNIFICANCE RATING IN TERMS OF THE SOCIO- LOW (1*1) LOW (1*1) LOW (1*1) LOW (2*1) LOW (1*1) LOW (2*1) LOW (1*1) LOW (2*1) ECONOMIC MEDIUM MEDIUM MEDIUM MEDIUM MEDIUM MEDIUM MEDIUM MEDIUM ENVIRONMENT (1*3) (2*3) (2*3) (1*3) (2*3) (1*3) (2*3) (1*3) LOW 1 point HIGH (1*5) HIGH (0*5) HIGH (0*5) HIGH (0*5) HIGH (0*5) HIGH (0*5) HIGH (0*5) HIGH (0*5) MEDIUM 3 TOTAL = 9 TOTAL = 7 TOTAL = 7 TOTAL = 5 TOTAL = 7 TOTAL = 5 TOTAL = 7 TOTAL = 5 points HIGH 5 points

From a socio-economic perspective, the highest expected impact will occur within the dunes area, mainly as a result of the higher risk for electrocution.

Table 8-43: Comparative Assessment of the interruption to water supply impact during the Operational Phase for the FOUR Alternatives Proposed

OPTION 1 OPTION 3 OPTION 4 OPTION 6

KEY ISSUE Interruption to Water Supply PRE POST PRE POST PRE POST PRE POST MITIGATION MITIGATION MITIGATION MITIGATION MITIGATION MITIGATION MITIGATION MITIGATION

Flooding (damages to infrastructure and Low Low High Medium High Medium Medium Low interruptions to water supply)

High Low High Low High Low High Low Unidentifiable infrastructure

171 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------(delay in repairs and impact on security of supply)

OPTION 1 OPTION 3 OPTION 4 OPTION 6 NEGATIVE SIGNIFICANCE RATING LOW (0*1) LOW (1*1) LOW (0*1) LOW (0*1) LOW (1*1) LOW (2*1) LOW (1*1) LOW (2*1) MEDIUM MEDIUM MEDIUM MEDIUM LOW 1 point MEDIUM (0*3) MEDIUM (0*3) MEDIUM (1*3) MEDIUM (0*3) (0*3) HIGH (1*3) (0*3) HIGH (1*3) HIGH MEDIUM 3 points HIGH (1*5) HIGH (0*5) HIGH (0*5) HIGH (0*5) (2*5) HIGH (0*5) (2*5) (1*5) HIGH 5 points TOTAL = 6 TOTAL = 2 TOTAL = 4 TOTAL = 2 TOTAL = 10 TOTAL = 4 TOTAL = 10 TOTAL = 6

Considering potential damages due to flooding and delays in repairs due to unidentifiable infrastructure (i.e. buried water pipelines), it is expected that Options 1 and 6 would have the lowest risk.

Table 8-44 below presents a combined comparative assessment of the impacts expected during the operational phase for all FOUR the alternatives proposed.

Table 8-44: Combined Comparative Assessment during the Operational Phase for the FOUR Alternatives Proposed (after mitigation)

OPTION 1 OPTION 3 OPTION 4 OPTION 6 KEY ISSUE Combined

Biophysical 10 4 4 4

Socio-economic 7 5 5 5

Interruptions to water supply 2 4 4 2

TOTAL NEGATIVE SIGNIFICANCE RATING 19 14 14 11

172 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------For the operational phase, Option 6 pose to be the alignment having the lowest expected impact, considering the bio-physical-, socio- economic- and security to water supply in combination.

Table 8-45 below presents a combined comparative assessment of the impacts expected during both the construction- and operational phases for all FOUR the alternatives proposed.

Table 8-45: Combined Comparative Assessment during the Construction- and Operational Phases for the FOUR Alternatives Proposed (after mitigation)

OPTION 1 OPTION 3 OPTION 4 OPTION 6 KEY ISSUE Combined

Construction Phase 15 14 14 15

Operational Phase 19 14 14 11

TOTAL NEGATIVE SIGNIFICANCE RATING 34 28 28 26

In combination, from a bio-physical-, socio-economic- and security to water supply perspective, Option 6 pose to be the alignment having the lowest expected impact.

173 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

8.3.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Cumulative impacts are defined as “those that result from the successive, incremental, and/or combined effects of an action, project, or activity when added to other existing, planned, and/or reasonably anticipated future ones”.

The clustering of existing infrastructure in the larger area, including reservoirs, power lines and roads, would increase the cumulative effect of any impacts associated with the proposed project.

The cumulative impacts that can be expected, as a result of the Project, are –

• Visual impact as a result of the increase in numbers and height of powerlines especially. Roads to a lesser extent, while underground pipelines would have no impact over the longer term (i.e. after rehabilitation and revegetation).

• Although low numbers of mortalities may be recorded, the cumulative impacts of any negative interactions over the entire lifespan of the power lines may be significant. Sensitive species that are already under threat, including Red Data and endemic species, as well as nomads/migrants are at particular risk to such cumulative effects. Proposed mitigations are thus essential in preventing cumulative impacts.

• By expanding the Scheme, the resulting impact is an increase load on the available water resources – i.e. the Lower Kuiseb Aquifer. According to the 2018 Modelling Report from GCS Water & Environmental Engineering Namibia (Pty) Ltd., the sustainable yield for the next 10 years’ time period until 2028 is 9 Mm3/a, considering no recharge, which is lower than the planned abstraction of 2.7 Mm3/a.

• By expanding Kuiseb Water Scheme there will be a direct cumulative result of an increased security of supply at higher volumes. The larger Kuiseb Water Scheme would be able to supplement the Omdel Scheme more effectively.

174 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

8.3.5 DECOMMISSION AND CLOSURE IMPACTS Some projects require decommissioning and closure, which becomes necessary once the intended purpose of the project is no longer required, or its purpose is taken over by another project.

For the Kuiseb Delta Scheme, decommissioning and closure, is HIGHLY unlikely as the Scheme will remain the primary water source, mainly due to cheaper abstraction costs compared to desalination, and due to the natural recharge for as long as rains continue.

At worst case scenario it can be expected that the scheme be supplemented with desalinated water, but would never under normal rain conditions be decommissioned. Replacement of redundant infrastructure will happen as certain components reach their live expectancy. Impacts associated with this replacement of redundant infrastructure are significantly similar in nature to those associated with the construction phase.

175 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

9 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This chapter of the report presents the assessment conclusion following the scoping phase and the detailed investigations, as well as the key recommendations and the environmental statement for consideration by the authorities. The conclusion and recommendations as presented in this chapter have been drawn from the assessment outcome, as presented in Chapter 8.

9.1 OVERVIEW

The central portion of the Namib area, i.e. Namib Water Supply Area, is partially supplied by means of water from the Kuiseb Delta aquifer, in specific from the Dorob South and the Rooibank B aquifers (see Figure 1-1). The Kuiseb Delta Scheme consists of various aquifers, boreholes, and pump stations with pump lines, gravity pipelines and reservoirs, of which parts dates back to as early as 1962, supplying water to the town of Walvis Bay.

The demand for water has increased to a level above the current infrastructure’s supply capacity, i.e. the operating capacity of the High Dune – Mile 7 gravity pipeline is 322 m³/h or 2.35 Mm³/a, which is less than the maximum total potential abstraction of 5.3 Mm3/a or i.e. 726 m3/h or stainable yield of 3.2 Mm3/a (SLR Global Environmental Solutions, 2018). The current scheme is thus not able to deliver in the current and projected demand. The frequent pipe breaks result in interruptions to water supply, which has both financial implications to NamWater and socio-economic implications to the affected end-users (i.e. town of Walvis Bay). Furthermore, these pipe breaks result in large quantities of water losses, which in turn results in wastage of scarce water resources. Maintenance of the old pipeline (fibre cement) and the power cable is complicated by moving sand dunes, which has resulted in delaying repairs and resulting interruption in supply of water to the town of Walvis Bay. The pipeline and power cable are often covered by sand dunes of such magnitude, which make locating and access to the cable impossible.

Upgrading and expansion of this Scheme and its infrastructure has become necessary mainly due to (i) an increase in the demand for water from current customers and projected future demands, and (ii) redundant and outdated infrastructure, which results in an inability from the side of NamWater to ensure security of water supply.

In light of the mentioned need and desirability, Urban Green cc was appointed by NamWater to undertake the required environmental assessment (EA) for purpose of applying for an Environmental Clearance Certificate (ECC) for the proposed upgrade and expansion of the Kuiseb Delta Scheme (i.e. the Proposed Project). The Terms of Reference (ToR) for the EA was specified in Annexure 1 of the ‘Request for Proposal to Conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment and Compilation of an Environmental Management Plan for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme’ (SC/RP/NW-11/2019), provided by the Proponent.

This EA process was carried out in accordance with provisions for EA as prescribed by the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations (GN. No. 30 of 2012), provided for by Section 56 of the Environmental Management Act (No. 7 of 2007). As part of this process

176 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

detailed public consultation was conducted, which provided valuable information regarding the proposed project and amendment thereof to ensure that negative socio-economic impacts are avoided or at least minimised.

Initially a single alignment between the respective boreholes and the High Dune Reservoir-, and between the High Dune Reservoir to the Mile 7 Reservoirs was provided by NamWater, but was expanded to 6 possible alternative alignments, which were all subjected to the assessment. The 6 possible alternatives were further refined and grouped into four possible alternatives and subjected to a comparative assessment, based on the expected similar social, archaeological and environmental implications.

From the comparative assessments (section 8.3.2.9 & 8.3.3.6), Option 6 alignment (see Figures 5-6 & 5-7) is expected to have the least possible negative impact on the receiving environment, for both the construction- and the operational phases. The shortest alignment, Option 1, preferred by NamWater has a higher significance, mainly as a result of the alignment passing through extensive !nara fields and has a higher significance with respect to electrocution and visual disturbance.

The single greatest positive impact that the proposed project WILL have is to address the current Scheme’s challenges in ensuring security of water supply and at the required volumes considering the existing demands and projected demands. The continued abstraction of water from the aquifer has been verified to be able to supply in the increased demand (see section 6.1.5.5). The concern and potential impact that the decreasing water levels in the Kuiseb River may have on the riparian vegetation could not be confirmed at this stage and requires further investigation and monitoring.

The continued abstraction of alluvium sources at increasing volumes, which is dependent on sufficient and continued rainfall, is given current climate conditions and changing patterns not considered a sustainable approach anymore. Supplementing water supply by means of desalination has become an absolute necessity to ensure long-term security of supply to the growing economy along the Central Coastal Area.

Given the nature of the proposed project, evaluated against the sensitivity of the receiving environment (both the biophysical-, socio-economic- and archaeological environments), it is expected that the proposed project will have an impact on its receiving environment, some of greater potential significance than others.

Based on the findings of the impact assessment conducted, the following can be concluded with respect to the social environment:

• The creation of a significant number of temporary jobs, in light of the significant unemployment rate experienced in the affected areas, is a significant positive impact.

• The improvement of the security of water supply to the town of Walvis Bay and other users constitutes a significant positive impact.

177 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

• Temporary and permanent destruction of the sensitive !nara fields, which has a high cultural and economic value to especially the Topnaar community, constitutes a significant negative impact. • Temporary disturbance and visual interference to tourism activities within the Topnaar Archaeological Tourism Concession Area holds a negative impact.

• Potential occupational respiratory health impacts associated with the handling and disposal of asbestos containing materials is a negative impact.

• Open trenches during the construction phase holds negative implications to the community’s safety and migration throughout the area.

• Electrocution along the powerline alignment passing through the migrating sand dunes poses a significant negative impact, requiring specific mitigations.

Mitigation measures and recommendations have been prescribed in this report (and the EMP – Appendix B) to reduce the significance of these key impacts (among others) to acceptable levels.

Based on the findings of the impact assessment conducted, the following can be concluded with respect to the biophysical environment:

• Potential habitat destruction and associated biodiversity loss, during both the construction phase and the operational phase constitutes a negative impact of limited significance.

• Temporary and permanent destruction of the sensitive !nara fields, which has a high cultural and economic value to especially the Topnaar community, constitutes a significant negative impact.

• Open trenches during the construction phase holds negative implications to the general fauna’s safety and migration throughout the area.

• Electrocution and bird strikes along the powerline alignment passing through the migrating sand dunes pose a significant negative impact requiring specific mitigations.

• Potential pollution of surface and groundwater resources, because of the limited quality of these resources, constitutes an impact of limited significance.

Mitigation measures and recommendations have been prescribed in this report (and the EMP – Appendix B) to reduce the significance of these key impacts (among others) to acceptable levels.

Based on the findings of the impact assessment conducted, the following can be concluded with respect to the archaeological environment:

• Potential disturbance and destruction to existing known archaeological remains constitutes a negative impact of limited significance.

178 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

Mitigation measures and recommendations have been prescribed in this report (and the EMP – Appendix B) to reduce the significance of these key impacts (among others) to acceptable levels.

9.2 CONCLUSION From the assessment conducted, it can be concluded that all provided and proposed alignments would be possible, BUT considering the sensitivity of the receiving environment, certain alignments holds a higher significant negative impact than others.

The initial provided alignments (i.e. in between the boreholes and the High Dune Reservoir, and in between the High Dune Reservoir and the Mile 7 Reservoirs) from the side of NamWater is expected to have high negative environmental consequences and that alternative alignments exists expected to have less of a social-, ecological-, and archaeological impact, as proposed.

Considering both the financial- and environmental significance, the Option 6 alignment (see Figure 5-6) is expected to have the least possible negative impact on the receiving environment, for both the construction- and the operational phases.

The proposed project itself is expected to have an overall positive impact on the supply and security in supply, which is crucial in both sustaining and supporting much, needed socio- economic growth within the town of Walvis Bay and surroundings.

A potential impact of which the significance cannot be determined by this Study, but which holds a potential threat to the sensitive riparian vegetation, is the lowering groundwater levels and resulting declining water levels. Further studies and monitoring is required to conclude on the real impact.

Considering the continued growth and increasing demand on natural resources measured against changing climate conditions and rainfall patterns, alternative means of supplying (i.e. desalination) the increasing demand will have to be implemented.

Supplementing water supply by means of desalination has become an absolute necessity to ensure long term security of supply to the growing economy along the Central Coastal Area.

Based on the baseline information, as provided by the Proponent, this environmental assessment study after conducting the impact assessment detailed above, concludes that there is currently no evidence indicating that any of the impacts identified are of such significance that it cannot be reasonably mitigated and that the proposed project, as presented in this report, should not be allowed to continue. It is however required that the recommendations as presented below first be satisfied with approval from the Environmental Commissioner before the project can commence.

Given this, it is not to say that there will be no further impact/s and potential threats as highlighted by the study. Construction, operations and decommissioning and closure activities need to be strictly controlled by the Proponent and Contractor, and monitored by the applicable Competent Authority to ensure that all potential impacts

179 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

identified in this study and other impacts that might arise during implementation are properly identified in time and addressed in an effective manner.

9.3 RECOMMENDATIONS It is therefore recommended that this project be granted an ECC, subject to the following recommendations and final approval by the Environmental Commissioner as per the Environmental Management Act, No. 7 of 2007.

• All required permits, licenses and approvals for the proposed project should first be obtained from the applicable authorities. This includes, but is not limited to:

o Written permission from the Minister of the Ministry of Environment and Tourism to carry out the proposed construction activity within the Dorob National Park.

• All other recommendations and mitigations listed within this report should be implemented during the planning, construction, operational and decommissioning phases, of which the most important ones are listed below:

o Further investigation should be undertaken with respect to declining water levels within the particular area of the Kuiseb River and resulting effect on the riparian vegetation. Such investigations are already being undertaken by the Namib Ecological Restoration and Monitoring Unit (NERMU) at Gobabeb and should be supported by NamWater as part of the Scheme’s monitoring plan.

o The preferred alignment should be finalised with the assistance of the project ecologist and archaeologist before construction commences.

o The Proponent can implement (in combination where possible, or individually) any of the three feasible options with respect to the fate/disposal of the disconnected AC pipeline: . The Proponent can construct the necessary waste disposal cells at the WB Municipal Council’s hazardous waste disposal site, according to the specifications of the WB Municipal Council, pay the required waste levy and subsequently dispose of the AC pipe segments at the aforementioned disposal site. The WB Municipal Council will then take responsibility for the waste. . The Proponent can design and construct their own dedicated disposal site for asbestos containing materials (in this case AC pipe segments) within the boundaries of one of their nearby properties, dispose of the pipe segments and continuously monitor the waste in accordance with accepted international standards. The Proponent will be responsible for the asbestos containing waste in this instance. This option will require a separate application for an ECC. . The existing AC pipeline can be left in situ, but would require an operational management plan.

180 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

o Road detours should be provided where road access (along existing/established formal or informal roads) is restricted/limited due to construction activity and the required traffic warning signs should be installed for the duration of the construction phase.

o All infrastructures should be constructed within the 28 m powerline servitude, where feasible considering the existence of !nara fields. Where necessary roads should bypass the !nara fields and not remain within the 28 m powerline servitude.

o The alignment of the pipelines should be clearly marked for its entire length and a servitude should be registered for the entire length of the pipeline route, so as to ensure easy identification of the underground pipeline.

o The Topnaar community and that of Walvis Bay should be informed beforehand and instructed to avoid the affected area for the duration of the construction period.

o Construction activities should be done in such manner as to minimise and restrict any potential danger and/or harm to wildlife, domestic stock and people.

o All identified archaeological sites should be clearly demarcated as no-go areas. o Rehabilitation of the disturbed areas is essential in returning the natural environment to its original state, which should be monitored and managed.

o Attach bird avoidance measures (e.g. coils, flappers, etc.) on power lines established within the Kuiseb River Delta area, as well as within 100 m of the Kuiseb River bank, regardless of which route is selected.

o Proponent should co-ordinate closely with the Roads Authority (RA) to ensure coordination and cooperation to ensure road safety.

• All affected individuals and institutions should be provided with a minimum of one week’s notice of exact date and time of the potential water interruption associated with the disconnecting of the existing pipeline and connection of the proposed pipeline as well as the expected duration. The Proponent should ensure that the interruption to water supply is less than 24 hours.

• An Operational Monitoring Plan would be important in ensuring that any defects are detected as quickly as possible to enable repairs or proactive measures to avoid unexpected interruptions to water supply along the proposed pipeline and the affected end-users.

• In the event that building material (sand and stone) is sourced from nearby quarries it is required that the necessary approval (i.e. ECC) be obtained by the appointed Contractor.

• An Environmental Control Officer should be appointed during the course of the construction phase to make sure that all the requirements as listed within this scoping report and the EMP (Appendix B) are adhered to. Furthermore, the Environmental Control Officer should receive training by a suitably qualified archaeologist with

181 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

respect to the identification of archaeological/heritage remains and the procedures to follow in the event that such remains are discovered during construction.

• Continuous on-site monitoring and evaluation should be conducted during the construction and operational phases.

• Supplementing the larger Scheme by means of desalination has become necessary and desirable considering the increasing demand for water, declining water availability, changing climate conditions and availability of seawater.

9.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Based on the information presented in this assessment report, the Environmental Assessment Practitioner is of the opinion that the immediate and larger environment will not be significantly impacted in the event that the above recommendations as proposed in this report are implemented and monitored, and responsible environmental practises are applied by the Proponent, appointed contractors and sub-consultants.

Urban Green cc, the independent environmental assessment practitioner, recommends to the relevant authorities that the application for the proposed upgrade of the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme be approved on condition that the above recommendations (Section 9.3) are met and that continuous monitoring be conducted in accordance with the Environmental Management Act (Act No. 7 of 2007), its EIA Regulations and this assessment report. It is important that proof of monitoring be submitted to the office of the Environmental Commissioner to be used as part of the review process pertaining to the 3-yearly ECC renewal.

IT IS IMPORTANT TO STATE TO ALL COMPETENT AUTHORITIES, THAT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENTS HAVE VERY LITTLE VALUE IN CONTRIBUTING TO SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENTAL PRACTISES IF NOT IMPLEMENTED BY THE PROPONENT AND EQUALLY IMPORTANT IF NOT MONITORED AND/OR REGULATED BY THE RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITIES.

THIS STUDY AND REPORT DOES NOT PREVENT ANY OF THE EXPECTED IMPACTS FROM TAKING PLACE, BUT CAN ONLY BE ACHIEVED THROUGH ON-SITE CONSTRUCTION MONITORING AND CONTINUOUS OPERATIONAL MONITORING.

182 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

10 REFERENCES Barnes, J., 1999, Barchan Dune Morphology, Migration and Management on the Kuiseb River Delta, Namibia.

Christelis, G. & Struckmeier, W., 2001. Groundwater in Namibia: an explanation to the Hydrogeological Map. Windhoek: John Meinert Printing.

Government of Namibia, 2007. Environmental Management Act. Windhoek: Government Gazette.

Groundwater Consulting Services (2018). Updating of the Numerical Groundwater Flow Model for the Lower Kuiseb River Aquifers. (Report prepared for NamWater).

Heyns, P. & van Vuuren, O., 2009. Hydrology and geohydrology specialist report. In: SAIEA, ed. Strategic Environmental Assessment of the Central Namib Uranium Rush. s.l.:s.n.

Mendelsohn, J., Jarvis, A., Roberts, C. & Robertson, T., 2009. Atlas of Namibia. 3rd ed. Cape Town: Sunbird Publishers.

Ministry of Environment and Tourism, 2017. Dorob National Park. [Online] Available at: http://www.met.gov.na/national-parks/dorob-national-park/216/ [Accessed 6 April 2017].

Ministry of Environment and Tourism, 2017. Namib Naukluft Park. [Online] Available at: www.met.gov.na/national-parks/namib-naukluft-park/224/ [Accessed 6 April 2017].

Namibia Airports Company Limited, 2017. Walvis Bay International Airport. [Online] Available at: http://www.airports.com.na/airports/walvis-bay-international-airport/14/ [Accessed 6 April 2017].

Namibia Statistics Agency, 2014. Namibia 2011 Population & Housing Census Main Report, s.l.: Republic of Namibia.

NamWater, 2009. Water Supply Infrastructure Development and Capital Replacement Master Water Plan for the Central Namib Area, s.l.: s.n.

Queensland Government, 2015. Asbestos. [Online] Available at: http://www.deir.qld.gov.au/asbestos/general/risks.htm [Accessed 26 January 2016].

SAIEA, 2010. Strategic Environmental Assessment for the central Namib Uranium Rush, Windhoek: Ministry of Mines and Energy.

(SLR global environmental solutions, November 2014)

Urban Dynamics, 2014, Integrated Urban Spatial Development Framework (IUSDF) for Walvis Bay

183 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Kuiseb Delta New Scheme Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for review by Competent Authroities & EC – 27 July 2020 ------

Wang, D., Hu, Y. & Chowdhury, R., 2010. Safety and waste management of asbestos cement pipes. Keystone, ASCE Pipeline Conference.

World Health Organisation, 1996. Guidelines for drinking-water quality. 2nd ed. Geneva: World Health Organisation.

World Health Organisation, 2016. International Programme on Chemical Safety. [Online] Available at: http://www.who.int/ipcs/assessment/public_health/asbestos/en/ [Accessed 21 November 2016].

184