draft environmental impact report · dea case officer & ref. no: ms thabile sangweni...

Cape Environmental Assessment Practitioners (Pty) Ltd Reg. No. 2008/004627/07

Telephone: (044) 874 0365 1st Floor Eagles View Building

Facsimile: (044) 874 0432 5 Progress Street, George

Web: www.cape-eaprac.co.za PO Box 2070, George 6530

D.J. Jeffery Directors L. van Zyl

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

for

EPHRAIM SUN

on

Remainder of Portion 62 (portion of portion 9) (Vryheid) of farm Vaalkoppies no 40.

In terms of the

National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998), as amended & Environmental Impact Regulations 2014

Prepared for Applicant: Ephraim Sun (Pty) Ltd.

By: Cape EAPrac

Report Reference: KHH381/06

DEA Reference: 14/12/16/3/3/2/821

DENC Reference: NC/NAT/ZFM/KHA/EPH1/2015

Case Officer: Thabile Sangweni

Date: 6 November 2015

Ephraim Sun PV Energy Facility KHH/381/06

APPOINTED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PRACTITIONER:

Cape EAPrac Environmental Assessment Practitioners

PO Box 2070 George 6530

Tel: 044-874 0365 Fax: 044-874 0432

Report written & compiled by: Dale Holder (Ndip Nat Con), who has 12 years‟ experience as an environmental practitioner.

PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT:

Public / Stakeholder Review & Comment

APPLICANT:

Ephraim Sun (Pty) Ltd.

CAPE EAPRAC REFERENCE NO:

KHH381/06

DEPARTMENT REFERENCE:

DEA Reference: 14/12/16/3/3/2/821

DENC Reference: NC/NAT/ZFM/KHA/EPH1/2015

SUBMISSION DATE

06 November 2015


Cape EAPrac Draft Environmental Impact Report

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

in terms of the

National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998), as amended & Environmental Impact Regulations 2014

Ephraim Sun Remainder of Portion 62 (portion of portion 9) (Vryheid) of farm Vaalkoppies No 40

Submitted for:

Stakeholder Review & Comment

This report is the property of the Author/Company, who may publish it, in whole, provided that: Written approval is obtained from the Author and that Cape EAPrac is acknowledged in the

publication; Cape EAPrac is indemnified against any claim for damages that may result from any

publication of specifications, recommendations or statements that is not administered or controlled by Cape EAPrac;

The contents of this report, including specialist/consultant reports, may not be used for purposes of sale or publicity or advertisement without the prior written approval of Cape EAPrac;

Cape EAPrac accepts no responsibility by the Applicant/Client for failure to follow or comply with the recommended programme, specifications or recommendations contained in this report;

Cape EAPrac accepts no responsibility for deviation or non-compliance of any specifications or recommendations made by specialists or consultants whose input/reports are used to inform this report; and

All figures, plates and diagrams are copyrighted and may not be reproduced by any means, in any form, in part or whole without prior written approved from Cape EAPrac.

Report Issued by:

Cape Environmental Assessment Practitioners

Tel: 044 874 0365 PO Box 2070

Fax: 044 874 0432 5 Progress Street

Web: www.cape-eaprac.co.za George 6530



REPORT DETAILS

Title: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

For Ephraim Sun PV Energy Facility

Purpose of this report: This Environmental Impact Report forms part of a series of reports and information sources that

are being provided during the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the proposed Ephraim

Sun in the Northern Cape Province. In accordance with the regulations, the objectives of a

scoping process is to, through a consultative process:

(a) identify the relevant policies and legislation relevant to the activity;

(b) motivate the need and desirability of the proposed activity, including the need and desirability of the activity in the context of the preferred location;

(c) identify and confirm the preferred activity and technology alternative through an impact and risk assessment and ranking process;

(d) identify and confirm the preferred site, through a detailed site selection process, which includes an impact and risk assessment process inclusive of cumulative impacts and a ranking process of all the identified alternatives focusing on the geographical, physical, biological, social, economic, and cultural aspects of the environment;

(e) identify the key issues to be addressed in the assessment phase;

(f) agree on the level of assessment to be undertaken, including the methodology to be applied, the expertise required as well as the extent of further consultation to be undertaken to determine the impacts and risks the activity will impose on the preferred site through the life of the activity, including the nature, significance, consequence, extent, duration and probability of the impacts to inform the location of the development footprint within the preferred site; and

(g) identify suitable measures to avoid, manage or mitigate identified impacts and to determine the

extent of the residual risks that need to be managed and monitored.

The Draft Scoping Report was made available to all stakeholders for a 30 day review & comment

period, 03 July 2015 – 03 August 2015

The Scoping Report was made available to all stakeholders for a further 30 day review &

comment period, 17 August 2015 – 16 September 2015

This Draft Environmental Impact Report is made available for a 30 Day review and comment

period extending from 09 November 2015 – 09 December 2015.

Prepared for: Ephraim Sun (Pty) Ltd

Published by: Cape Environmental Assessment Practitioners (Pty) Ltd. (Cape EAPrac)

Authors: Mr Dale Holder

Reviewed by: Ms Melissa Mackay

Cape EAPrac Ref: KHH381/05

DEA Case officer & Ref. No: Ms Thabile Sangweni

14/12/16/3/3/2/821

Date: 06 November 2015

To be cited as: Cape EAPrac, 2015. Draft Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Ephraim Sun PV

Energy Facility. Report Reference: KHH381/06. George.



TECHNICAL CHECKLIST

The following technical checklist is included as a quick reference roadmap to the proposed project.

Company Details

Company profile Name and details of Developer Ephraim Sun (Pty) Ltd is a renewable energy developer, proposing the development of a Solar PV Energy Facilty.

Site Details

Size of the site Description and Size in hectares of the affected property.

Remainder of Portion 62 (Portion of Portion 9)(Vryheid) of Farm Vaal Koppies no 40. Total Property Size: 4695,8487ha

Development Footprint

This includes the total footprint of PV panels, auxiliary buildings, onsite substation, inverter stations and internal roads.

Initial Study Area is 540ha. The total footprint of the Ephraim Sun PV Energy Facility will not exceed 220ha

Technology Details

Capacity of the facility Capacity of facility (in MW Net generating capacity (AC) of 75MW, Installed capacity (DC) of +/-90MW.

Solar Technology selection

Type of technology PV and/or concentrated PV with fixed, single or double axis tracking technology.

Capacity and dimensions of the PV field 75 MW (AC) yield. Footprint of not more than 220ha .

Structure height PV Structures not more than 10m

Surface area to be covered (including associated infrastructure such as roads, substation and laydown areas)

Less than 220 ha.

Structure orientation Fixed-tilt in north-facing orientation, or mounted on horizontal axis tracking from east to west or mounted on dual tracking systems.

Laydown area dimensions Approximately 2-5ha of laydown area will be required (the laydown areas will not exceed 5ha.)

Connection to National Grid

Grid connection Substation to which project will connect.

The project intends connecting to the National Grid via the Gordonia substation. A number of alternatives (including loop in loop out and self-build alternatives have been considered and described in this scoping report

Capacity of substation to connect facility Estimated current capacity 80Mw

Power line/s

Number of overhead power lines required 1x132kV line

Route/s of power lines Multiple alignment options under consideration. Please refer to the layout plans attached in Appendix D.

Voltage of overhead power lines 132kV.

Height of the Power Line <32m

Servitude Width Maximum of 30m – 40m.

Auxiliary Infrastructure

Other infrastructure Additional Infrastructure Auxiliary buildings of approximately 2 ha. The functions within these buildings include (but are not limited to) gate house, ablutions, workshops,



storage and warehousing area, site offices, substation and control centre. Perimeter Fencing not exceeding 5m

Details of access roads The access road and the internal road will not exceed 6m in width.

Extent of areas required for laydown of materials and equipment

Approximately 2-5ha of laydown areas will be required (Laydown areas will not exceed 5ha).

CONTENT REQUIREMENTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS

Section 2 in Appendix 2 of regulation 982 details the information that is necessary for a proper understanding of the process, informing all preferred alternatives, including location alternatives, the scope of the assessment, and the consultation process to be undertaken through the environmental impact assessment process. The table below lists the minimal contents of a scoping report in terms of these regulations;

Requirement Details

(a) details of -

(i) the EAP who prepared the report; and

(ii) the expertise of the EAP, including a curriculum vitae;

This was compiled by Dale Holder of Cape Environmental Assessment Practitioners (Pty) Ltd (Cape EAPrac). Details of the EAP are included at the beginning of this report. A CV of the author as well as a company profile of Cape EAPrac is attached in Appendix G4

(b) the location of the activity, including -

(i) the 21 digit Surveyor General code of each cadastral land parcel;

(ii) where available, the physical address and farm name;

(iii) where the required information in items (i) and (ii) is not available, the coordinates of the boundary of the property or properties;

The proposed activity is to be situated South of Upington on Remainder of Portion 62 (Portion of Portion 9)(Vryheid) of Farm Vaal Koppies no 40.

(i) 21 digit Surveyor General code: C03600000000004000062

(ii) Farm name and number: Remainder of Portion 62 (Portion of Portion 9)(Vryheid) of Farm Vaal Koppies no 40

(c) a plan which locates the proposed activity or activities applied for at an appropriate scale, or, if it is (i) a linear activity, a description and coordinates of the corridor in which the proposed activity or activities is to be undertaken; or

(ii) on land where the property has not been defined, the coordinates within which the activity is to be undertaken;

A Location plan including co-ordinates of the proposed activity is attached in Appendix A.

(d) a description of the scope of the proposed activity, including -

(i) all listed and specified activities triggered;

(ii) a description of the activities to be undertaken, including associated structures and infrastructure;

The description of the proposed activity is detailed in section 3 on pg 14.

Listed and specified activities triggered are detailed in section 2.2 on pg 5

(e) a description of the policy and legislative context within which the development is proposed including an identification of all legislation, policies, plans, guidelines, spatial tools, municipal development planning frameworks and instruments that are applicable to this activity and are to be considered in the assessment process;

The legislative and policy context is included in section 2 on 4 page of this report.

(f) a motivation for the need and desirability for the proposed development including the need and desirability of the activity in

The need and desirability of the project is included in section 5



Requirement Details

the context of the preferred location; on page 17 of this report.

(h) a full description of the process followed to reach the proposed preferred activity, site and location within the site, including -

(i) details of all the alternatives considered;

(ii) details of the public participation process undertaken in terms of regulation 41 of the Regulations, including copies of the supporting documents and inputs;

(iii) a summary of the issues raised by interested and affected parties, and an indication of the manner in which the issues were incorporated, or the reasons for not including them;

(iv) the environmental attributes associated with the alternatives focusing on the geographical, physical, biological, social, economic, heritage and cultural aspects;

(v) the impacts and risks identified for each alternative, including the nature, significance, consequence, extent, duration and probability of the impacts, including the degree to which these impacts -

(aa) can be reversed;

(bb) may cause irreplaceable loss of resources; and

(cc) can be avoided, managed or mitigated;

(vi) the methodology used in determining and ranking the nature, significance, consequences, extent, duration and probability of potential environmental impacts and risks associated with the alternatives;

(vii) positive and negative impacts that the proposed activity and alternatives will have on the environment and on the community that may be affected focusing on the geographical, physical, biological, social, economic, heritage and cultural aspects;

(viii) the possible mitigation measures that could be applied and level of residual risk;

(ix) the outcome of the site selection matrix;

(x) if no alternatives, including alternative locations for the activity were investigated, the motivation for not considering such and

(xi) a concluding statement indicating the preferred alternatives, including preferred location of the activity;

(i) The details of all alternatives considered is included in section 7 on pg 23.

(ii) The details of the public participation already undertaken as well as the details of the public participation for the remainder of the environmental process is detailed in section 20 on page 83.

(iii) An issues and responses report is included in appendix F2.

(iv) Detailed site description and attributes is included in section 11 on page 40.

(v) A description of potential impacts identified by the EAP as well as participating specialists is included in section 17 on pg 78.

(vi) The methodology used for the determination and ranking of significance is included in section 22 on pg 88. Please also refer to the specific methodologies in the specialist reports attached in Appendix E.

(vii) This scoping report identifies the potential positive and negative impacts associated with the proposed project. These are included in section 17 on pg 78. An assessment of the significance of these identified impacts will take place in the impact assessment phase of this environmental process.

(viii) The potential mitigation measures are addressed in section 13 - 16.

(ix) Details regarding the criteria for the selection of the preferred site selection is included in section 4 on pg 15.

(x) Alternatives, including layout alternatives (for both the facility and grid connection), technological alternatives and the no-go alternative have been considered. Details of these are included in section 7 on pg 23.

(xi) The preferred alternative was determined using a risk adverse approach whereby the baseline specialist studies were used to determine the footprint of the proposed facility. Details of this process are included in section 7 on pg 23.

(i) a plan of study for undertaking the environmental impact assessment process to be undertaken, including -

(i) a description of the alternatives to be considered and assessed within the preferred site, including the option of not proceeding with the activity;

(ii) a description of the aspects to be assessed as part of the environmental impact assessment process;

(iii) aspects to be assessed by specialists;

The plan of study for Environmental Impact Assessment phase of the environmental process is included in sections 23 on pg 94.



Requirement Details

(iv) a description of the proposed method of assessing the environmental aspects, including a description of the proposed method of assessing the environmental aspects including aspects to be assessed by specialists;

(v) a description of the proposed method of assessing duration and significance;

(vi) an indication of the stages at which the competent authority will be consulted;

(vii) particulars of the public participation process that will be conducted during the environmental impact assessment process; and

(viii) a description of the tasks that will be undertaken as part of the environmental impact assessment process;

(ix) identify suitable measures to avoid, reverse, mitigate or manage identified impacts and to determine the extent of the residual risks that need to be managed and monitored.

(j) an undertaking under oath or affirmation by the EAP in relation to -

(i) the correctness of the information provided in the report;

(ii) the inclusion of comments and inputs from stakeholders and interested and affected parties; and

(iii) any information provided by the EAP to interested and affected parties and any responses by the EAP to comments or inputs made by interested or affected parties;

The signed EAP declaration is included in Appendix G4.

(k) an undertaking under oath or affirmation by the EAP in relation to the level of agreement between the EAP and interested and affected parties on the plan of study for undertaking the environmental impact assessment;

Attached in Annexure E4

(l) where applicable, any specific information required by the competent authority;

A pre-application meeting was held between the EAP and the DEA, where the need for any specific information was discussed and agreed upon. Minutes of this meeting are attached in Appendix G2. All correspondence with the competent authority is also included in this report in appendix G2.

(m) any other matter required in terms of section 24(4)(a) and (b) of the Act.

Compliance with section 24(4)(a) and (b) is included in section 20 of the report.

Appendix 3 of Regulation 982 of the 2014 EIA Regulations contains the required contents of an Environmental Impact Assessment Report. The checklist below serves as a summary of how these requirements were incorporated into this Impact Assessment Report.

Requirement Details

(1) An environmental impact assessment report must contain the information that is necessary for the competent authority to consider and come to a decision on the application, and must include -

(a) details of -

(i) The EAP who prepared the report; and

The details of the EAP are included at the bgginning of this

report (overleaf from the cover page). The EAP’s

declaration and CV is also included in Annexure G4.



Requirement Details

(ii) The expertise of the EAP, including, a curriculum vitae.

(b) the location of the activity, including –

(i) The 21 digit Surveyor General code of each cadastral

land parcel;

(ii) Where available, the physical address and farm name;

(iii) Where the required information in items (i) and (ii) is not

available, the coordinates of the boundary of the

property or properties.

The proposed activity is to be situated South of Upington on Remainder of Portion 62 (Portion of Portion 9)(Vryheid) of Farm Vaal Koppies no 40.

(iii) 21 digit Surveyor General code: C03600000000004000062

(iv) Farm name and number: Remainder of Portion 62 (Portion of Portion 9)(Vryheid) of Farm Vaal Koppies no 40

(c) a plan which locates the proposed activity or activities applied

for as well as the associated structures and infrastructure at an

appropriate scale, or, if it is

(i) A linear activity, a description and coordinates of the

corridor in which the proposed activity or activities is to

be undertaken; or

(ii) On land where the property has not been defined, the

coordinates within which the activity is to be undertaken.

Detailed layout plans are included in the layout report

attached in Appendix B

(d) a description of the scope of the proposed activity, including -

(i) All listed and specified activities triggered and being

applied for; and

(ii) A description of the associated structures and

infrastructure related to the development.

Sections 1, 2, 3 & 4 of the Environmental Impact

Assessment report.

(e) A description of the policy and legislative context within which

the development is located and an explanation of how the

proposed development complies with and responds to the

legislation and policy content.

Section 2 of the Environmental Impact Assessment report.

(f) A motivation for the need and desirability for the proposed

development, including the need and desirability of the activity in

the context of the preferred location.


(g) A motivation for the preferred development footprint within the approved site.


(h) A full description of the process followed to reach the proposed

development footprint within the approved site, including -

(i) Details of the development footprint alternatives

considered;

(ii) Details of the public participation process undertaken in

terms of regulation 41 of the Regulations, including

copies of the supporting documents and inputs;

(iii) A summary of the issues raised by interested and

affected parties, and an indication of the manner in

which the issues were incorporated, or the reasons for

not including them;

(iv) The environmental attributes associated with the


(i) Section 7 of the Environmental Impact Assessment report.

(ii) Section 25 of the Environmental Impact Assessment report.

(iii) Section 25 of the Environmental Impact Assessment report and Appendix F

(iv) Section 12 of the Environmental Impact Assessment report.

(v) Section 14 – 23 of the Environmental Impact Assessment report.

(vi) Please refer to the plan of study for Environmental Impact Report that formed part of the Final Scoping Report. The



Requirement Details

development footprint alternatives focusing on the

geographical, physical, biological, social, economic,

heritage and cultural aspects;

(v) The impacts and risks identified, including the nature,

significance, consequence, extent, duration and

probability of the impacts, including the degree to which

these impacts -

(aa) can be reversed;

(bb) may cause irreplaceable loss of resources; and

(cc) can be avoided, managed or mitigated.

(vi) The methodology used in determining and ranking the

nature, significance, consequences, extent, duration and

probability of potential environmental impacts and risks;

(vii) Positive and negative impacts that the proposed activity

and alternatives will have on the environment and on the

community that may be affected focusing on the

geographical, physical, biological, social, economic,

heritage and cultural aspects;

(viii) The possible mitigation measures that could be applied

and level of residual risk;

(ix) If no alternative development locations for the activity

were investigated, the motivation for not considering

such: and

(x) A concluding statement indicating the preferred

alternative development location within the approved

site.

methodology for the specialist impact assessments are included in their respective studies.

(vii) Section 14 – 23 of the Environmental Impact Assessment report.

(viii) Section 14 – 23 of the Environmental Impact Assessment report.

(ix) Alternatives were investigated.. Please refer to Sections 4 and 7 of the Environmental Impact Assessment report.

(x) Section 28 of the Environmental Impact Assessment report.

(i) A full description of the process undertaken to identify, assess

and rank the impacts the activity and associated structures and

infrastructure will impose on the preferred location through the life

of the activity, including -

(i) A description of all environmental issues and risks that

were identified during the environmental impact

assessment process; and

(ii) An assessment of the significance of each issue and risk

and an indication of the extent to which the issue and

risk could be avoided or addressed by the adoption of

mitigation measures.

Please refer to the Plan of Study For Environmental Impact Assessment that Formed part of the Final Scoping Report. Also refer to Section 15 of the Environmental Impact Assessment report.

(j) An assessment of each identified potentially significant impact

and risk, including -

(i) Cumulative impacts;

(ii) The nature, significance and consequences of the

impact and risk;

(iii) The extent and duration of the impact and risk;

(iv) The probability of the impact and risk occurring;

Section 14 – 23 of the Environmental Impact Assessment report.



Requirement Details

(v) The degree to which the impact and risk can be

reversed;

(vi) The degree to which the impact and risk may cause

irreplaceable loss of resources; and

(vii) The degree to which the impact and risk can be

mitigated.

(k) Where applicable, a summary of the findings and

recommendations of any specialist report complying with Appendix

6 to these Regulations and an indication as to how these findings

and recommendations have been included in the final assessment

report.

Not Applicable.

(l) An environmental impact statement which contains –

(i) A summary of the key findings of the environmental

impact assessment;

(ii) A map at an appropriate scale which superimposes the

proposed activity and its associated structures and

infrastructure on the environmental sensitivities of the

preferred site indicating any areas that should be

avoided, including buffers; and

(iii) A summary of the positive and negative impacts and

risks of the proposed activity and identified alternatives.

Section 28 of the Environmental Impact Assessment

report.

(m) Based on the assessment, and where applicable,

recommendations from specialist reports, the recording of

proposed impact management objectives, and the impact

management outcomes for the development for inclusion in the

EMPr as well as for inclusion as conditions of authorisation.

Appendix H of the Environmental Impact Assessment

report.

(n) The final proposed alternatives which respond to the impact

management measures, avoidance and mitigation measures

identified through the assessment.

The currently proposed alternatives are provided throughout this report. Should the outcome of the Impact assessment phase require and deviations to these preferred alternatives, the Final Environmental Impact Report submitted for decision making will reflect these.

(o) Any aspects which were conditional to the findings of the

assessment either by the EAP or specialist which are to be

included as conditions of authorisation.


report.

(p) A description of assumptions, uncertainties and gaps in

knowledge which relate to the assessment and mitigation

measures proposed.


report.

(q) A reasoned opinion as to whether the proposed activity should

or should not be authorised, and if the opinion is that it should be

authorised, any conditions that should be made in respect of that

authorisation.


report.

(r) Where the proposed activity does not include operational

aspects, the period for which the environmental authorisation is

required and the date on which the activity will be concluded and

The project in this regard does include operational aspects.



Requirement Details

the post construction monitoring requirements finalised.

(s) An undertaking under oath or affirmation by the EAP in relation

to:

(i) The correctness of the information provided in the

reports;

(ii) The inclusion of comments and inputs rom stakeholders

and I&APs;

(iii) The inclusion of inputs and recommendations from the

specialist reports where relevant; and

(iv) Any information provided by the EAP to interested and

affected parties and any responses by the EAP to

comments or inputs made by interested and affected

parties.

Annexure G4.

(t) Where applicable, details of any financial provisions for the

rehabilitation, closure and ongoing post decommissioning

management of negative environmental impacts;

Not applicable.

(u) An indication of any deviation from the approved scoping

report, including the plan of study, including –

(i) Any deviation from the methodology used in determining

the significance of potential environmental impacts and

risks; and

(ii) A motivation for the deviation.

The only deviation from the approved plan of study, was

the undertaking of two additional specialist studies:

- Freshwater ecological assessment; - Avifaunal Impact Assessment;

Both of these will be included in the Final Environmental Impact Report.

(v) Any specific information that may be required by the competent authority.

Refer to table below.

(w) Any other matters required in terms of section 24(4)(a) and (b)

of the Act.

None.

CONDITIONS OF SCOPING ACCEPTANCE

The final scoping report for Ephraim Sun was accepted by the Department on 19 October 2015 (Annexure G1). The following specific conditions formed part of this acceptance:

Requirement Description

Comments from relevant stakeholders are to be included in the Final EIR. These stakeholders must include: Northern Cape Department of Environment and Nature conservation, Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF), provincial Department of Agriculture, South African Civil Aviation Authority (SACAA), Department of Transport, Local Municipalities, District Municipality, Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS), Department of Communications, SENTECH, Eskom Holdings SOC Limited, South African National Roads Agency Limited (SANRAL), South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA), EWT, Birdlife SA, Department of Mineral Resources, Department of Rural Development and Land Reform

All these authorities listed were given an opportunity to comment on the various reports that formed part of this environmental process.

Registered I&AP’s who fail to submit comments within the allocated timeframe are deemed to have no comments.

Please refer to section 26 below as well as the comments and response report Attached in appendix E for further details in this regard.




& Square Kilometre Array (SKA).

The EIAr must provide an assessment of the impacts and mitigation for each of the listed activities applied for.

Please refer to sections 14 – 20 of this report

It is noted that no activity under GN 985 is being applied for. However, should they at a later stage found to be applicable, an amended application must be submitted to the Department.

No activities published in terms of Regulation 985 are considered to be applicable to the development.

Activity 11 of R983 has however been added to this environmental process.

The EIAr must provide the technical details of the proposed facility in a table form as well as their proposed dimensions.

Please refer to the table above, where the detailed technical components of the project are listed.

The EIR must provide co-ordinate points for the proposed development as well as start, middle and end points of any linear activities.

The EIR must provide a clear indication of all components of the facility as well as associated infrastructure.

Please refer to the layout plans and layout reports in Appendix where all project components are described in detail and shown spatially on the various plans.

The EIR must contain a comments and responses report in compliance with Appendix 2h(iii) of the NEMA EIA Regulations, 2014.

The comments and responses report is attached in Annexure F2.

The EIR must include all the detail of the Public Participation Process in compliance with regulation 41 of the 2104 EIA regulations.

Please refer to section 25 below as well as Appendix F for full details and proof of compliance with these requirements.

Details of the future plans for the site and infrastructure after decommissioning in 20 – 30 years and the possibility of upgrading the proposed infrastructure to more advanced technologies.

The decommissioning phase of the development and the environmental requirements in this regard are included in the EMPr attached in Appendix H.

An Avifaunal Assessment must be conducted to determine the impacts that the proposed activity may have on Avifauna. Mitigation measures must be proposed and included in the EIR and EMP.

An avifaunal assessment was commissioned and the results of this will be included in Annexure E9. At the time of publishing this Draft Environmental Impact Report, the results of the Avifaunal assessment were not yet available. These will be included in the Final EIR.

An assessment of the current ecological status and conservation priority within the proposed development footprint must be conducted.

Please refer to the Ecological Impact Assessment Report in appendix E1 for details on the current ecological state of the property.

A sensitivity study to evaluate and confirm the sensitivities of the two proposed alternatives.

The comparative assessment of alternatives is considered under each of the specialist disciplines.

The provincial authorities and conservation agencies must be consulted to confirm the impacts of the proposed development on the proposed site as well as on conservation efforts that may have been invested in the area.

The Northern Cape Department of Environment and Nature Conservation, were registered as Key stakeholders and have provided comment during this environmental process (Refer to Appendix F). No specific conservation orientated projects have been identified in the area.

Information on services required for the site. Proof of availability of services are attached in Annexure G8. Service level agreements will be entered into between the applicant and the service provider. These agreements will however only take place at a much later stage.

A copy of the final site layout map including biodiversity information considered in layout progression must be provided.

Please refer to Appendix D for copies of the layout plans as well as the layout report, which shows how all biodiversity information has been incorporated into the layout design process.




An environmental sensitivity map indicating environmentally sensitive areas and features identified during the EIA process.

All biodiversity overlays are included in Appendix B.

A map of the final layout superimposed onto environmental sensitivity map.

All biodiversity overlays are included in Appendix B.

A shapefile of the preferred layout must be provided to the Department.

The CD appended to the report contains the shapefiles of both the preferred as well as alternative layouts.

The EMPr to be submitted as part of the EIR must be include the following:

- All recommendations and mitigation measures to the recorded in the Final EIR.

- The final site layout plan. - Measures as dictated by the final site layout plan and

micro-siting. - An environmental sensitivity map indicating

environmental sensitive areas and features identified during the EIA process.

- A map combining the final layout plan superimposed (overlain) on the environmental sensitivity map.

- An alien invasive management plan to be implemented during construction and operation of the facility. The plan must include mitigation measures to reduce he invasion of alien species and ensure that the continuous monitoring and removal of alien species is undertaken.

- A plant rescue and protection plan which allows for the maximum transplant of conservation important species from areas to be transformed. This plan must be compiled by a vegetation specialist familiar with the site in consultation with the ECO and be implemented prior to commencement of the construction phase.

- An open space management plan to be implemented during the construction and operation of the facility.

- A re-vegetation and habitat rehabilitation plan to be implemented during the construction and operation of the facility including timeframes for restoration which must indicate rehabilitation within the shortest possible time after completion of the construction activities to reduce the amount converted at any one time and to speed up the recovery to natural habitats.

- A storm water management plan to be implemented during the construction and operation of the facility. The plan must ensure compliance with applicable regulations and prevent off-site migration of contaminated storm water or increased soil erosion. The plan must include the construction of appropriate design measures that allow surface and subsurface movement of water along drainage lines so as not to impede natural surface and subsurface flows. Drainage measures must promote the dissipation of storm water run-off.

- An effective monitoring system to detect any leakage or spillage of all hazardous substances during their transportation, handling, use and storage. This must include precautionary measures to limit the possibility of oil and other toxic liquids from entering the soil or storm water systems.

- An erosion management plan for monitoring and rehabilitating erosion events associated with the

The EMPr is attached in Appendix H. Table 1 in this EMPr includes details as to how these requirements have been incorporated.




facility. Appropriate erosion mitigation must form part of this plan to prevent and reduce the risk of any potential erosion.

- A traffic management plan for the site access roads to ensure that no hazards would result from the increased truck traffic and that traffic flow would not be adversely impacted. This plan must include measures to minimise impacts on local commuters e.g. limiting construction vehicles traveling on public roadways during the morning & late afternoon commute time and avoid using roads through densely populated built-up areas to not disturb existing retail & commercial operations.

- A transportation plan for the transport of PV components, main assembly cranes and other large pieces of equipment.

- Measures to protect hydrological features such as streams, rivers, pans, wetlands, dams and their catchments, and other environmental sensitive areas from construction impacts including the direct or indirect spillage of pollutants.

The EIAr must include a cumulative impact assessment of the facility. The specialist studies as outlined PoSEIA must also assess potential cumulative impacts.

Please refer to section 24 of the report for the assessment of cumulative impacts. This section includes specific impacts as highlighted by the participating specialists.

EIA INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR SOLAR FACILITIES

1. General Information

Description of the affected farm portions Remainder of Portion 62 (Portion of Portion 9)(Vryheid) of Farm Vaal Koppies no 40.

Total Property Size: 4695,8487ha

21 digit Surveyor General codes of all affected farm portions C03600000000004000062

Copies of deeds of all affected farm portions The title deed is attached in Annexure G6.

Photos of areas that give a visual perspective of all parts of the

site.

A full photographic record of the site is attached in Appendix C.

Please also refer to the various specialists reports in Appendix

D, for additional photos specific to their respective disciplines.

Photographs from sensitive visual receptors (tourism routes, tourism facilities etc.)

Please refer to the photo montages in the Visual impact Assessment attached in Annexure E7.

Solar plant design specifications The design specifications of the facility are detailed in the

Engineering Report attached in Annexure E6. The summary of

these are also included in the technical checklist at the

beginning of the report.

Type of technology Photovoltaic (PV) (including both conventional PV as well as Concentrated PV).

Structure height Maximum of 10m

Surface area to be covered (incl. associated infrastructure) Footprint of not more than 220ha .

Structure orientation North facing




Laydown area dimensions (construction period & thereafter) Approximately 2-5ha of laydown area will be required (the

laydown areas will not exceed 5ha.)

Generation capacity Net generating capacity (AC) of 75MW, Installed capacity (DC) will likely be higher.

Generation Capacity of the Facility as a whole at delivery points The facility will have a maximum generating capacity of 75

Megawatts.

2. Site Maps and GIS information

All maps and information layers must also be provided in ESRI

Shapefile format.

All Shapefiles (layout, cadastral units, biodiversity and sensitivity

layers) are included in the CD attached to this report.

All affected farm portions must be indicated The affected farm portions are indicated on all maps and plans.

The facility is situated on the Remainder of Portion 62 (Portion of

Portion 9)(Vryheid) of Farm Vaal Koppies no 40.

The exact site of the application must be indicated. The exact site is indicated on all maps and plans in appendix A,

C & G2 as well as all the plans included with the specialist

reports.

A Status Quo Map must be provided that includes the following:

- Current land use of the site,

- Rivers streams and watercourses,

- Ridgelines and 20m continuous contours,

- Fountains, boreholes, dams,

- High potential agricultural areas, and

- Buffer Zones.

This is included in the regional maps (Location and

Topographical) attached in Appendix A.

Slope Analysis that includes the following slope ranges:

- Less than 8% slope.

- Between 8% and 12% slope.

- Between 12% and 14 % slope.

- Steeper than 18% slope.

Attached in the Visual Impact Assessment in Annexure E7..

Site Development proposal map that indicates:

- Foundation footprint,

- Permanent laydown area,

- Construction period laydown area,

- Internal roads,

- River, stream and water crossings,

- Substations,

- Cable routes,

- Connection routes,

- Cut and fill areas,

- Borrow pits,

These items are indicated on the series of plans attached in the

Layout Report Attached in Appendix D.




- Spoil heaps, and

- Buildings including accommodation.

3. Regional map and GIS information

All maps must be provided in ESRI shape file format. ESRI Shapefiles are included on the attached CD.

The map/layer must cover an area of 20km around the site. All cadastral and regional biodiversity data contains a 20km

buffer of the site.

Indicate the following on the Map:

- Roads,

- Railway lines and their stations,

- Industrial areas,

- Harbour and Airports,

- Electricity transmission,

- Pipelines,

- Water Sources,

- Visibility Assessment,

- Critical Biodiversity Areas and Ecological Support

Areas,

- Critically endangered and Endangered vegetation

areas,

- Agricultural fields,

- Irrigated Areas, and

- New Roads and upgrades to existing roads.

These are indicated on the location and topographical plans in

Appendix A and the Biodiversity overlays in Appendix B as

well as the specialist maps included in the various specialist

assessments.

AGRICULTURAL STUDY REQUIREMENTS

Detailed Soil Assessment of the site including the following:

- Identification of soil forms present,

- The size of the area where a particular soil form is

found,

- GPS readings of soil survey points,

- The depth of the soil at each survey point,

- Soil colour,

- Limiting factors,

- Clay content,

- Slope of the site,

- A detailed map indicating the locality of the soil forms

within the specified area, and

- Size of the site

A full agricultural potential study was undertaken and this is

included in Annexure E2.

Exact locality of the site. The proposed development will take place on Remainder of

Portion 62 (Portion of Portion 9)(Vryheid) of Farm Vaal Koppies




no 40.. Details are provided in the study site description of this

report as well as on all plans attached in Appendix A, B, D and

Specialist Reports.

Current activities on the site, developments, buildings These are indicated on the Regional plans attached in

Appendix A

Surrounding developments and land uses. These are indicated on the Regional plans attached in

Appendix A

Access routes and the condition thereof. These are indicated on the Solar Facility Layout Plans and the

Layout Report attached in Appendix D.

Current status of the land The land is currently vacant and is marginally used for livestock

grazing.

Possible land use options for the site These are considered in the Agricultural Potential Study

attached as Annexure E2 of this report.

Water availability, source and quality This is detailed in the Agricultural Potential study attached in

Annexure E2.

Detailed descriptions as to why agriculture should or should not

be the land use of choice

These are included in the Agricultural Potential Study attached in

Annexure E2.

Impact of the change in land use of the surrounding area This is detailed in the Agricultural Potential study attached in

Annexure E2.

A Shapefile containing the soil forms and relevant attribute data. The Shapefiles of the soil forms are included on the CD attached

to this report.

ASTRONOMY GEOGRAPHIC ADVANTAGE ACT, 2007

Indicate the applicability of the Astronomy Geographic

Advantage Act.

Based on distance to the nearest SKA station, and the

information currently available on the detailed design of the PV

installation, this facility poses a potential low level risk of

detrimental impact on the SKA.

Obtain comment from the South African Large Telescope

(SALT) if the proposed development is situated within a declared

astronomy Advantage Area.

The project is situated outside of the defined buffer from SALT.



ORDER OF REPORT Report Summary

Scoping Report – Main Report

Appendix A : Location, Topographical Plans

Appendix B : Biodiversity Overlays

Appendix C : Site Photographs

Appendix D : Solar Facility Layout Plans and Layout Report (Solek, 2015)

Appendix E : Specialist Reports

Annexure E1 : Ecological Impact Assessment Report (Todd, 2015)

Annexure E2 : Agricultural Potential Study (Lubbe, 2015)

Annexure E3 : Archaeology Impact Assessment Report (Nilssen, 2015)

Annexure E4 : Palaeontology Desktop Study (Almond, 2015)

Annexure E5 : Integrated Heritage Study (De Kock, 2015)

Annexure E6 : Engineering Report (Solek, 2015)

Annexure E7 : Visual Impact Assessment (Stead, 2015)

Annexure E8 : Freshwater Assessment (To be included in Final EIR)

Annexure E9 : Avifaunal Impact Assessment (To be included in Final EIR)

Annexure E10 : Transport Study and Traffic Management Plan (Solek, 2015)

Annexure E11 : Storm-water, Wash-water and Erosion Management Plan (Aurecon, 2015)

Annexure E12 : Planning Statement

Appendix F : Public Participation Process

Annexure F1 : I&AP Register

Annexure F2 : Comments and Response Report

Annexure F3 : Adverts & Site Notices

Annexure F4 : Draft Scoping Report Notifications

Annexure F5 : Draft Scoping Report Comments and Responses

Annexure F6 : Scoping Report Notifications

Annexure F7 : Scoping Report Comments and Responses

Annexure F8 : Draft EIR Notifications

Annexure F9 : Draft EIR comments and responses



Appendix G : Other Information

Annexure G1 : Correspondence with Authorities

Annexure G2 : Minutes of Pre- Application Meeting with DEA

Annexure G3 : Landowner Consent

Annexure G4 : EAP Declaration & CV

Annexure G5 : Specialist Declarations

Annexure G6 : Title Deed / Windeed Report

Annexure G7 : Correspondence with Project Team (Site Selection)

Annexure G8 : Proof of Availability of Services

Annexure G9 : Proof of WULA submission (to be included in Final EIR)

Appendix H : Environmental Management Programme

Appendix I : Revised Application



TABLE OF CONTENTS REPORT SUMMARY

1 PROJECT OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................................... I

2 NEED AND DESIRABILITY ................................................................................................................. II

3 ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS ................................................................................................. II

4 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL & ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................ III

5 SPECIALIST STUDIES ....................................................................................................................... IV

6 CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................ IV

1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Overview of Alternative Energy in South Africa and the Northern Cape. ..............................2 2 LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK ...................................................................................... 4

2.1 The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa ....................................................................5 2.2 National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) ...................................................................5 2.3 National Environmental Management: Biodiversity (ACT 10 OF 2004)..................................7 2.4 National Protected Area Expansion Strategy (NPAES) for S.A. 2008 (2010) .........................9 2.5 Critical Biodiversity Areas. ...................................................................................................... 10 2.6 National Forests Act (No. 84 of 1998): .................................................................................... 10 2.7 Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act – CARA (Act 43 of 1983): ............................. 10 2.8 Northern Cape Nature Conservation Act, No. 9 of 2009: ...................................................... 11 2.9 Nature and Environmental Conservation Ordinance (19 of 1974) ....................................... 12 2.10 National Heritage Resources Act ............................................................................................ 12 2.11 National Water Act, NO 36 OF 1998 ........................................................................................ 13 2.12 Astronomy Geographic Advantage Act, 2007 (Act No 21 Of 2007) ..................................... 13 2.13 Environmental Impact Assessment Guideline For Renewable Energy Projects ............... 13 2.14 Sustainability IMPERATIVE ..................................................................................................... 14

3 ACTIVITY ............................................................................................................................................ 15

4 SITE SELECTION ............................................................................................................................... 16

4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 16 4.2 Area Selection ........................................................................................................................... 16

4.2.1 Geographical location .................................................................................................... 16 4.2.2 Defined RED zone area ................................................................................................... 17 4.2.3 Grid connection............................................................................................................... 17 4.2.4 Nearest town and Infrastructure.................................................................................... 17

4.3 Site selection ............................................................................................................................. 17 4.3.1 Grid connection............................................................................................................... 18 4.3.2 Land availability, characteristics and considerations ................................................ 18 4.3.3 Environmental considerations ...................................................................................... 18 4.3.4 Shadows .......................................................................................................................... 19 4.3.5 Site access, infrastructure availability and services................................................... 19 4.3.6 Dust consideration ......................................................................................................... 19

4.4 Footprint selection process ..................................................................................................... 20 4.5 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 21

5 NEED AND DESIRABILITY ............................................................................................................... 22

5.1.1 Feasibility consideration ................................................................................................ 22 5.1.2 Solar Resource & Energy Production ........................................................................... 22 5.1.3 Solar Farm & Grid Connection ...................................................................................... 22



5.1.4 Social impact ................................................................................................................... 22 5.1.5 Employment & Skills Transfer ....................................................................................... 23 5.1.6 need (time) ....................................................................................................................... 23 5.1.7 Desirability (place) .......................................................................................................... 24

6 SOCIO ECONOMIC CONTEXT OF THE KHARA HAIS MUNICIPAL AREA ................................... 26

7 CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES AND LAYOUT PROGRESSION ...................................... 27

7.1 Layout Progression .................................................................................................................. 27 1.1 Preliminary Study Site .............................................................................................................. 28

7.1.1 Sensitive Areas ............................................................................................................... 29 7.2 Layout Alternatives .................................................................................................................. 31

7.2.1 Initial Layouts (Scoping Phase)..................................................................................... 31 7.2.2 Proposed Site Alternatives (impact phase) .................................................................. 32

7.3 Facility layout and components .............................................................................................. 35 7.3.1 Solar Panel Area.............................................................................................................. 36 7.3.2 Mounting of the Modules ............................................................................................... 37 7.3.3 Grid Connection and Cabling ........................................................................................ 37 7.3.4 Auxiliary Building Area .................................................................................................. 38 7.3.5 Construction of Roads ................................................................................................... 38

7.4 Access Routes .......................................................................................................................... 39 7.4.1 Access to the Site ........................................................................................................... 39 7.4.2 Road access alternative 1 (east and west) and Road access alternative 3 (west) ... 40 7.4.3 Road access alternative 2 (east and west) ................................................................... 41 7.4.4 Access routes.................................................................................................................. 42

7.5 Grid connection and power line routes .................................................................................. 43 7.5.1 “Loop-in/Loop-out” proposed Alternatives ................................................................. 44 7.5.2 Self-build Alternatives .................................................................................................... 45 7.5.3 Preferred Grid Connection ............................................................................................. 47 1.1.1 Grid connection summary ............................................................................................. 48

8 TECHNICAL OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................... 48

8.1 Foundation Footprint ............................................................................................................... 49 8.2 Module Height ........................................................................................................................... 50 8.3 Solar Panel Area ....................................................................................................................... 50 8.4 Access Roads ........................................................................................................................... 50 8.5 Inverter Rooms.......................................................................................................................... 51 8.6 On Site sub-station and transformers .................................................................................... 51 8.7 Cables and Trenching .............................................................................................................. 51 8.8 Connection to National Grid .................................................................................................... 52 8.9 Perimeter Fence ........................................................................................................................ 52 8.10 Cut and Fill Areas ..................................................................................................................... 52 8.11 Borrow Pits ................................................................................................................................ 52 8.12 Soil Heaps .................................................................................................................................. 52 8.13 Auxilliary Buildings and Laydown Area. ................................................................................ 53 8.14 Fire management and protection area ................................................................................... 53

9 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AND TRANSPORTATION ...................................................................... 54

9.1 General freight requirements .................................................................................................. 54 9.1.1 Legislation ....................................................................................................................... 54 9.1.2 Freight for Solar Energy Facility ................................................................................... 55

9.2 Traffic consideration ................................................................................................................ 55 9.3 Access Routes to Ephraim Sun solar facility ........................................................................ 56

9.3.1 Ephraim Sun Facility Location ...................................................................................... 56



9.3.2 Preferred route for transport of materials to site. ....................................................... 57 9.3.3 Alternative routes for transport of materials to site .................................................... 58 9.3.4 Routes from Local Suppliers ......................................................................................... 60

9.4 Authority and Permit Requirements ....................................................................................... 62 9.5 Route Limitations of the Preferred Route from the Port ...................................................... 63

9.5.1 General considerations .................................................................................................. 63 9.5.2 Kleinbegin/N10 considerations ..................................................................................... 63

9.6 Traffic Recommendations and mitigation measures ............................................................ 64 10 ECONOMIC CONTEXT ...................................................................................................................... 64

10.1 Project cost overview ............................................................................................................... 64 10.1.1 Project specific costs ..................................................................................................... 65 10.1.2 Revenue streams ............................................................................................................ 65

11 PROJECT PROGRAMME AND TIMELINES ..................................................................................... 65

12 SITE DESCRIPTION AND ATTRIBUTES .......................................................................................... 66

12.1 location & built environment ................................................................................................... 66 12.2 Geology & Climate .................................................................................................................... 66

12.2.1 Geology ............................................................................................................................ 66 12.2.2 Climate ............................................................................................................................. 66 12.2.3 Soils .................................................................................................................................. 67 12.2.4 Topography ..................................................................................................................... 67

12.3 Botanical Composition Of The Site......................................................................................... 67 12.3.1 Broad-Scale Vegetation Patterns .................................................................................. 67 12.3.2 Fine-Scale Vegetation Patterns ..................................................................................... 69 12.3.3 Listed and Protected Plant Species .............................................................................. 70 12.3.4 Critical Biodiversity Areas & Broad-Scale Processes ................................................ 71

12.4 Faunal Component Of The Site ............................................................................................... 71 12.4.1 Mammals .......................................................................................................................... 71 12.4.2 Reptiles ............................................................................................................................ 72 12.4.3 Amphibians ...................................................................................................................... 72 12.4.4 Avifauna ........................................................................................................................... 72

13 PLANNING CONTEXT ....................................................................................................................... 73

14 AGRICULTURAL POTENTIAL OF THE STUDY SITE ..................................................................... 75

14.1 Structures On Site .................................................................................................................... 75 14.2 Surrounding developments ..................................................................................................... 75 14.3 Past and Current Agricultural Activities on Site ................................................................... 75 14.4 Soil Classification ..................................................................................................................... 75 14.5 Veld Condition Assessment .................................................................................................... 77 14.6 Land Capability and Suitability for agriculture ...................................................................... 77 14.7 Water Availability/Provision .................................................................................................... 78 14.8 Assessment of connecting lines ............................................................................................. 78 14.9 Summary of findings of Agricultural Specialist .................................................................... 79 14.10 POSSIBLE IMPACTS on Agricultural resources ................................................................... 80 14.11 CONCLUSION of Agricultural study ....................................................................................... 80

15 ECOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY OF THE STUDY SITE ........................................................................ 80

16 ASSESSMENT OF ECOLOGICAL (FAUNA & FLORA) IMPACTS .................................................. 82

16.1 Identification Of Potential Impacts And Damaging Activities .............................................. 82 16.2 Identification of Impacts to be Assessed ............................................................................... 83

16.2.1 Impacts on vegetation and protected plant species ................................................... 83



16.2.2 Soil erosion and associated degradation of ecosystems .......................................... 83 16.2.3 Direct Faunal Impacts ..................................................................................................... 83 16.2.4 Alien Plant Invasion ........................................................................................................ 84 16.2.5 Reduced ability to meet conservation obligations & targets ..................................... 84 16.2.6 Impact on broad-scale ecological processes .............................................................. 84

16.3 Assesment of Impacts - Solar PV Footprint ........................................................................... 85 16.3.1 Planning & Construction Phase .................................................................................... 85 16.3.2 Operational Phase .......................................................................................................... 86

16.4 Ecological Impacts of - Power Line & Grid Connection ....................................................... 88 16.4.1 Construction Phase ........................................................................................................ 88 16.4.2 Operational Phase .......................................................................................................... 88

16.5 Cumulative Ecological Impacts ............................................................................................... 89 17 ASSESSMENT OF AVIFAUNAL IMPACTS ...................................................................................... 91

17.1 Scope of Work ........................................................................................................................... 91 17.2 Approach of the study .............................................................................................................. 92 17.3 Outputs of the Study ................................................................................................................ 92

17.3.1 Avifaunal Sensitivity Map: ............................................................................................. 93 17.3.2 Consolidated Species List: ............................................................................................ 93

18 ASSESSMENT OF FRESHWATER ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS. ....................................................... 93

18.1 Identification and sensitivity rating of surface watercourses. ............................................. 94 18.1.1 Plains Wash ..................................................................................................................... 94 18.1.2 Drainage Lines ................................................................................................................ 95

18.2 Ecological Sensitivity of Hydrological Features ................................................................... 95 18.3 Identification, assessment of all potential impacts to the watercourses and suggestion of mitigation measures; and .................................................................................................................... 95 18.4 Recommendations on the preferred placement of photovoltaic panels ............................ 96 18.5 Management of Storm water to Protect Hydrological Resources. ...................................... 96

19 ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL HYDROGEOLOGICAL IMPACTS ................................................ 97

20 ASSESMENT OF VISUAL IMPACT ................................................................................................... 98

20.1 Baseline: Project Visibility ....................................................................................................... 98 20.2 Regional Landscape Character ............................................................................................. 100 20.3 Site Landscape Character ...................................................................................................... 101

20.3.1 Site Topography ............................................................................................................ 101 20.4 Findings of visibility assessment ......................................................................................... 105

20.4.1 Visual Absorption Capacity ......................................................................................... 105 20.4.2 Project Visibility ............................................................................................................ 105 20.4.3 Project Exposure........................................................................................................... 105 20.4.4 Scenic Quality ............................................................................................................... 105 20.4.5 Receptor Sensitivity ..................................................................................................... 105

20.5 Key Observation Points ......................................................................................................... 106 20.6 Assessment of Visual Impacts .............................................................................................. 108 20.7 Findings of Visual Assessment ............................................................................................. 113

20.7.1 PV Footprint - Preferred and Option 2, 3 & 4 ............................................................. 113 20.7.2 Substations 01, 02 & 03 ................................................................................................ 113 20.7.3 Substations 04 & 05 ...................................................................................................... 114 20.7.4 Powerlines - LILO ILANGA Alternatives 01,02 & 03 and LILO Kleinbegin 04 ......... 114 20.7.5 Powerlines - LILO ILANGA Alternatives 04 & 05 ....................................................... 114 1.1.1 POowerline - Selfbuild Ephraim .................................................................................. 115

20.8 Visual Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 115



21 ASSESSMENT OF HERITAGE IMPACTS ...................................................................................... 116

21.1 Methodology ............................................................................................................................ 116 21.2 Historical Background ........................................................................................................... 117 21.3 Heritage Resources & Issues ................................................................................................ 118

21.3.1 Cultural landscape context .......................................................................................... 118 21.3.2 Archaeology .................................................................................................................. 119 21.3.3 Palaeontology................................................................................................................ 120 21.3.4 Visual - Spatial issues .................................................................................................. 121 21.3.5 Eco-tourism ................................................................................................................... 122

21.4 Heritage Informants/ Indicators & Assessment Of Impacts ............................................... 122 21.4.1 Cultural landscape issues ............................................................................................ 122 21.4.2 Archaeology .................................................................................................................. 122 21.4.3 Palaeontology................................................................................................................ 122 21.4.4 Visual - Spatial issues .................................................................................................. 122

22 ASSESSMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACTS ...................................................................... 122

22.1 Purpose and Scope of the Study .......................................................................................... 123 22.1.1 Terms of Reference (ToR): ........................................................................................... 123

22.2 Study Area ............................................................................................................................... 123 22.3 Approach to the Study ........................................................................................................... 124 22.4 Assumptions, Limitations and Gaps in Knowledge ............................................................ 125 22.5 Results ..................................................................................................................................... 125

22.5.1 Archaeological Background - Desktop Study & Literature Review ......................... 125 22.5.2 Significance and Recommendation: ........................................................................... 130

22.6 Sources of Risk, Impact Identification and Assessment .................................................... 131 22.6.1 Impact Assessment Ratings for Ephraim Sun PV and Powerlines ......................... 131

22.7 Recommended and Required Mitigation Measures ............................................................ 131 23 ASSESSMENT OF PALAEONTOLOGICAL IMPACTS .................................................................. 132

23.1 Geological Background ......................................................................................................... 132 23.2 Palaeontological Heritage ...................................................................................................... 133 23.3 Conclusions & Recommendations ....................................................................................... 133

23.3.1 Proposed Mitigatoin ..................................................................................................... 133 24 ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ............................................................ 134

24.1 Cumulative Visual Impacts .................................................................................................... 136 24.2 Cumulative Ecological Impacts ............................................................................................. 138

25 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS TO DATE ............................................................................ 138

25.1 Registration of Key Stakeholders ......................................................................................... 142 25.2 Notification Of Availability of Draft Scoping Report ........................................................... 143 25.3 Notification Of Availability of Scoping Report ..................................................................... 143 25.4 Notification Of Availability of Draft Environmental Impact Report .................................... 143 25.5 Comments and Responses .................................................................................................... 143

26 ASSUMPTIONS & LIMITATIONS .................................................................................................... 147

27 PROCESS TO BE FOLLOWED ....................................................................................................... 148

28 CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................................ 148

29 ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................................................ 150

30 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................. 151



FIGURES Figure 1: Global Horizontal radiation map for South Africa (Source: http://solargis.info, 2015)........................ 3 Figure 2: Summary of Scoping & EIR Process in terms of the 2014 Regulations. ........................................... 6 Figure 3: Broad-scale overview of the vegetation in and around the Ephraim Sun site (Todd, 2015) .............. 9 Figure 4:Typical Layout of a Solar PV Energy Facility (Solek, 2015) ..............................................................15 Figure 5: Ecological Sensitivity of the Ephraim sun study site and surrounding area.....................................21 Figure 6: Ephraim Sun footprint ..................................................................................................................... 29 Figure 7. Ecological Sensitivity of the Ephraim Sun Preliminary and surrounding area. ............................... 31 Figure 8 Alternative 1 layout Figure 9 Alternative 2 layout .......................................................................... 32 Figure 10 Ephraim Sun - Preferred Site Layout ............................................................................................. 33 Figure 11: Ephraim Sun - Alternative Layout 1 .............................................................................................. 34 Figure 12: Ephraim Sun - Alternative Layout 2 .............................................................................................. 34 Figure 13: Ephraim Sun - Alternative Layout 3 .............................................................................................. 35 Figure 14: Ephraim - preferred site layout and components .......................................................................... 36 Figure 15: Rammed or screwed mounting method on fixed frame ............................................................... 37 Figure 16: Installing frames foundation ........................................................................................................ 37 Figure 17: Alternative access roads for the proposed site alternatives .......................................................... 40 Figure 18: Detailed overview towards access roads ...................................................................................... 41 Figure 19: Proposed Access Road entrances ................................................................................................ 43 Figure 20: Power line Loop in Loop out alternatives ...................................................................................... 45 Figure 21: Grid Connection Self-build alternatives ......................................................................................... 46 Figure 22: Preferred grid connections (LiLo and self-build) ........................................................................... 47 Figure 24 : Typical layout of solar modules – PV arrays (left) and CPV modules (right) ............................... 49 Figure 25: Foundation footprint ...................................................................................................................... 49 Figure 26: Typical internal road example ....................................................................................................... 51 Figure 27: Typical inverter room .................................................................................................................... 51 Figure 28: Typical on-site substation footprint ................................................................................................ 51 Figure 29: Typical cable trenches ................................................................................................................... 52 Figure 30: Foundation of a typical on-site building ......................................................................................... 53 Figure 31: Ephraim Sun Facility location in relation to public roads. .............................................................. 54 Figure 32: Saldanha Bay Harbour as preferred port and route to project site ............................................... 57 Figure 33: Alternative Route – Saldanha to project site (via N7/N14) ............................................................ 59 Figure 34: Alternative Route from Durban, KZN ............................................................................................ 60 Figure 35: Alternative route from Port Elizabeth to project site ...................................................................... 60 Figure 36: Alternative route from Gauteng ..................................................................................................... 61 Figure 37: Alternative Route from Cape Town ............................................................................................... 62 Figure 38: Alternative Route from Durban, KZN ............................................................................................ 62 Figure 39: N10 Kleinbegin intersection ........................................................................................................... 64 Figure 40: Broad-scale overview of the vegetation in and around the Ephraim Sun study area ................... 68 Figure 41: Habitat map of Ephraim Sun study area ....................................................................................... 70 Figure 42: Augering points ............................................................................................................................ 76 Figure 43: Soil Groups .................................................................................................................................... 76 Figure 44: Connection line alternatives .......................................................................................................... 78 Figure 45: Site sensitivity analysis ................................................................................................................. 81 Figure 46: Regional NASA ASTER Digital Elevation Model Map................................................................... 99 Figure 47: Viewshed for the PV structures generated from a 10m offset ................................................... 100 Figure 48: Viewshed for the power line structures generated from a 25m .................................................. 100 Figure 49: ASTER Digital Elevation Model map depicting profile line direction .......................................... 102 Figure 50: ASTER Digital Elevation Model map depicting profile sections ................................................. 103 Figure 51: Site landscape character and photograph point locality ............................................................. 103 Figure 52: Power line photograph point locality overlay onto Open Source Satellite image map ............... 103 Figure 53: Map depicting the main receptor locations associated with the proposed PV study area .......... 106 Figure 54: Map depicting the main receptor locations .................................................................................. 107 Figure 55: High exposure view northwest from the Kleinbegin Road receptor ........................................... 107



Figure 56: High exposure view east from the N10 of the proposed power line crossing ............................ 107 Figure 57: High exposure view east from the Vaalkoppies Farmstead. ...................................................... 108 Figure 58: Approximate position of power line as seen from Upington residential areas .......................... 108 Figure 59: Location of development site transposed onto extract from early (1906- 1914) mapping .......... 118 Figure 60: Tracks showing extent of Archaeological foot survey ................................................................ 124 Figure 61:Examples of archaeological occurrences showing a mix of ESA, MSA and LSA specimens ..... 128 Figure 62: Examples of archaeological occurrences showing a mix of LSA and ESA ................................ 129 Figure 63: Examples of archaeological occurrences showing a mix of LSA and ESA ................................ 129 Figure 64: Examples of archaeological occurrences showing a mix of MSA and LSA ............................... 130 Figure 65: Examples of archaeological occurrences showing a mix of MSA, LSA and ESA specimens .... 130 Figure 66: Summary of impacts on archaeological resources. .................................................................... 131 Figure 67: Showing other renewable energy projects in the vicinity of Ephraim Sun ................................. 135 Figure 68: Showing other renewable energy projects in the vicinity of Ephraim Sun .................................. 136

PLATES

Plate 1: Workers‟ home with windmill and reservoir off site ............................................................................ 75 Plate 2: Photographic record of Agricultural condition along grid connection alternatives ........................... 79

TABLES

Table 1: NEMA 2014 listed activities for the Ephraim Sun PV Energy Facility ................................................. 6 Table 2: Vegetation types that occur within or near the Ephraim Sun site. ...................................................... 8 Table 3:Listed plant species known from the broad vicinity of the proposed Ephraim study area ................ 11 Table 4:Component Areas and % of Total Project Area ................................................................................ 15 Table 5: Employment statistics for the Khara Hais Municipal area ................................................................ 26 Table 6: Housing statistics for Khara Hais Municipal Area ............................................................................. 27 Table 7: Grid connection Alternative distances .............................................................................................. 48 Table 8: N10/Kleinbegin official traffic volume data ........................................................................................ 56 Table 9: Kleinbegin coordinates ...................................................................................................................... 56 Table 10: Preferred route detail ...................................................................................................................... 58 Table 11: Preliminary implementation schedule. ........................................................................................... 65 Table 12: Climatic conditions of the Ephraim Study Site .............................................................................. 66 Table 13: Vegetation types that occur within or near the Ephraim Sun site .................................................. 68 Table 14: Listed species which may occur within the Ephraim Sun PV Project ............................................. 71 Table 15: Listed bird species known to occur in the vicinity of the proposed Ephraim Sun site ..................... 73 Table 16: Proposed Rezoning Activities ......................................................................................................... 74 Table 17: Soil Forms ....................................................................................................................................... 76 Table 18: Veld Condition Assessment outcome ............................................................................................ 77 Table 19: Land Capability and Suitability Assessment for Crop Production ................................................... 77 Table 20: Land Capability and Suitability Assessment for Grazing ................................................................ 78 Table 21: Assessment of Ecological Impacts during the planning and construction phase of Ephraim Sun 85 Table 22: Assessment of Ecological Impacts during the operational phase of Ephraim Sun ....................... 86 Table 23: Assessment of Ecological Impacts during the planning and construction phase ........................... 88 Table 24: Assessment of Ecological Impacts during the operational phase ................................................... 88 Table 25: Assessment of Cumulative Ecological Impacts for the development and grid connection............. 89 Table 26: Ecological Impact on Hydrological Features. .................................................................................. 95 Table 27: Proposed Project Heights and Zone of Visual Influence Table ..................................................... 98 Table 28: Landscape scenic quality rating table .......................................................................................... 104 Table 29: Landscape receptor sensitivity rating table .................................................................................. 104 Table 30: Assessment of Visual Impacts of the PV Field ............................................................................ 108 Table 31: Assessment of Visual Impacts of the substation .......................................................................... 110 Table 32: Assessment of visual impacts of power line ................................................................................ 111



Table 33: Assessment of cumulative visual impacts of the PV Facility ........................................................ 136 Table 34: Assessment of cumulative visual impacts of the substation positions.......................................... 136 Table 35: Assessment of cumulative visual impacts of the grid connection ................................................. 137 Table 36: Assessment of cumulative ecological impacts ............................................................................. 138 Table 37: Compliance with public participation in terms of R982 ................................................................ 139 Table 38: Key Stakeholders automatically registered as part of the Environmental Process ..................... 142 Table 39: Comments and Responses Table ............................................................................................... 143

Ephraim Sun PV Energy Facility Ref: KHH381/06

Cape EAPrac i Draft Environmental Impact Report

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – OVERVIEW

1 PROJECT OVERVIEW

Cape EAPrac has been appointed by Ephraim Sun (Pty) Ltd., hereafter referred to as the Applicant, as the independent Environmental Assessment Practitioner EAP), to facilitate the Scoping & Environmental Impact Reporting (S&EIR) process required in terms of the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA, Act 107 of 1998) for the proposed development of the „Ephraim Sun PV Energy Facility’ near Upington in the Northern Cape Province of South Africa.

Ephraim Sun (Pty) Ltd. Have an option to sub-lease a section of Remainder of Portion 62 (Portion of Portion 9)(Vryheid) of Farm Vaal Koppies no 40 from the landowner, Newhaven Trust, for the purposes of developing the proposed solar facility. A copy of a letter from Newhaven Trust providing consent for the continuation of the EIA is attached in Annexure G3.

The total generation capacity (contracted capacity)of the solar facility will not exceed 75MW for input into the national Eskom grid. The project will feed into the National Grid via the existing Gordonia sub station.

The purpose of the preceding Scoping Report was to describe the environment to be affected, the proposed project, the process followed to date to allow registered interested and affected parties the opportunity to provide informed comment on the potential impacts associated with the development of the Ephraim Sun PV Development and associated grid connection. This Environmental Impact aims to consider and assess the potential impacts identified in the scoping phase of the environmental process. It furthermore includes an Environmental Management Programme that provides environmental management requirements for the identified impacts.

The Draft Scoping Report was available for review and comment for a period of 30 Days extending from: 03 July 2015 – 03 August 2015.

The Scoping Report was available for review and comment for a further period of 30 Days extending from: 17 August 2015 – 16 September 2015.

This Draft Environmental Impact Report is herewith available for review and comment for a period of 30 Days extending from: 09 November – 09 December 2015.

All comments on this report must be submitted to Cape EAPrac by no later than 09 December 2015. Comments must be submitted to:


Att: Mr Dale Holder

PO Box 2070, George, 6530

Fax: 044-874 0432 or Email: [email protected]


Cape EAPrac ii Draft Environmental Impact Report

2 NEED AND DESIRABILITY

Need and desirability has been considered in detail in this environmental process. The overall need and desirability in terms developing renewable energy generation in South Africa is considered in section 1.1, while the project specific need and desirability is considered in section 5.

3 ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS

The current assessment is being undertaken in terms of the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA, Act 107 of 1998). This Act makes provision for the identification and assessment of activities that are potentially detrimental to the environment and which require authorisation from the competent authority (in this case, the national Department of Environmental Affairs, DEA) based on the findings of an Environmental Assessment.

The proposed development entails a number of listed activities, which require a Scoping & Environmental Impact Reporting (S&EIR) process, which must be conducted by an independent environmental assessment practitioner (EAP). Cape EAPrac has been appointed to undertake this process.

The listed activities associated with the proposed development, as stipulation under 2014 Regulations 983, 984 and 985 are as follows:

Listed activity as described in GN R.983, 984 and 985

Description of project activity that triggers listed activity

Regulation 983 – Basic Assessment

GN R983 Activity 11: The development of facilities or infrastructure for the transmission and distribution of electricity- (i) outside urban areas or industrial complexes with a capacity of more than 33 but less than 275 kilovolts; or (ii) inside urban areas or industrial complexes with a capacity of 275 kilovolts or more.

The proposed Ephraim Sun PV Energy Facility will connect to the national electricity via the existing Gordonia sub-station (a number of connection alternatives are under investigation). The proposed distribution and transmission infrastructure included the construction of an on-site substation and a 132kV overhead power line from the on-site substation.

GN R983 Activity 12:

The development of- (xii) infrastructure or structures with a physical footprint of 100 square metres or more; where such development occurs- (a) within a watercourse; (c) if no development setback exists, within 32 metres of a watercourse, measured from the edge of a watercourse;

The construction of internal and access roads and pv panel infrastructure across drainage lines and ephemeral washes. Please refer to the Freshwater Ecology Impact Assessment in Annexure E8 for an assessment of impacts associated with this infrastructure.

GN R983 Activity 19: The infilling or depositing of any material of more than 5 cubic metres into, or the

Movement material for the piling of PV panels as well as the construction of internal tracks will exceed the 5 cubic metre


Cape EAPrac iii Draft Environmental Impact Report

dredging, excavation, removal or moving of soil, sand, shells, shell grit, pebbles or rock of more than 5 cubic (i) a watercourse;

threshold of this activity.

Regulation 984 – Scoping and Environmental Impact Reporting

GN R984 Activity 1: The development of facilities or infrastructure for the generation of electricity from a renewable resource where the electricity output is 20 megawatts or more, excluding where such development of facilities or infrastructure is for photovoltaic installations and occurs within an urban area.

The proposed Ephraim Sun PV Energy Facility will have a maximum generation Capacity (Contracted Capacity) of 75 megawatts and as such exceeds the threshold defined in this activity.

GN R984 Activity 15: The clearance of an area of 20 hectares or more of indigenous vegetation, excluding where such clearance of indigenous vegetation is required for- (i) the undertaking of a linear activity; or (ii) maintenance purposes undertaken in accordance with a maintenance management plan.

The proposed Ephraim Sun PV Energy Facility will have a maximum footprint of 220ha and as such exceeds the threshold defined in this activity.


NO Activities in terms of Regulation 985.

NOTE: Basic Assessment as well as Scoping and Environmental Impact Reporting Activities are being triggered by the proposed development and as such, the Environmental Process will follow a Scoping and Environmental Impact Reporting process.

It must noted that GNR 983 Activity 12 and 19 were not included as part of the original application for Authorisation. Based on the outcome of certain specialist scoping studies, they have subsequently been added and assessed in detail as part of this Impact Assessment.

Before any of the above mentioned listed activities can be undertaken, authorisation must be obtained from the relevant authority, in this case the National Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA). Should the Department approve the proposed activity, the Environmental Authorisation does not exclude the need for obtaining relevant approvals from other Authorities who has a legal mandate.

4 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL & ALTERNATIVES

The proposed photovoltaic (PV) SEF will have a net generating capacity of 75 MWAC with an estimated maximum footprint of ± 220 ha. A preliminary study area of ± 520 ha was identified by the Project Developer. The project footprint within this larger 520ha area was identified taking potential constraints identified by the EAP, Project Engineer and Participating Specialists..


Cape EAPrac iv Draft Environmental Impact Report

The technology under consideration is either concentrating photovoltaic (CPV) modules or photovoltaic (PV) modules mounted on either of fixed or tracking structures. Other infrastructure includes inverter stations, internal electrical reticulation, internal roads, an on-site switching station / substation, a 132 kV overhead (OH) transmission line, auxiliary buildings, construction laydown areas and perimeter fencing and security infrastructure. The on-site switching station / substation will locate the main power transformer/s that will step up the generated electricity to a suitable voltage level for transmission into the national electricity grid, via the OH line. Auxiliary buildings include, inter alia, a control building, offices, warehouses, a canteen and visitors centre, staff lockers and ablution facilities and gate house and security offices.

5 SPECIALIST STUDIES

The following specialists have / will be providing input into this environmental process:

- Faunal - Mr Simon Todd - Avifaunal - Mr Simon Todd - Archaeology - Dr Peter Nilssen - Palaeontology - Dr John Almond - Intergrated Heritage - Stefan de Kock - Agricultural Potential - Mr Christo Lubbe - Visual - Stephen Stead - Technical aspects - Solek Renewable Energy Engineers - Stormwater - Aurecon Engineers - Traffic and Transportation - Solek Renewable Energy Engineers - Freshwater Ecology - Dr Brian Colotty - Planning - Macroplan

6 CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS

Cape EAPrac is of the opinion that the information contained in this Draft Environmental Impact Report and the documentation attached hereto is sufficient to allow the general public and key stakeholders to apply their minds to the potential negative and/or positive impacts associated with the development, in respect of the activities applied for.

This Draft Environmental Impact Report is available for stakeholder review and comment for a period of 30-days, extending from 09 November to 09 December 2015. All comments received, will be considered and addressed, and feedback provided to registered stakeholders.

All stakeholders are requested to review this Draft Environmental Impact Report and the associated appendices, and provide comment, or raise issues of concern, directly to Cape EAPrac within the specified 30-day comment period.

Comments must be submitted, in writing, to the following address no later than 09 December 2015


Att: Mr Dale Holder



Cape EAPrac v Draft Environmental Impact Report



Cape EAPrac 1 Draft Environmental Impact Report

SCOPING REPORT - MAIN REPORT 1 INTRODUCTION

Cape EAPrac has been appointed by Ephraim Sun (Pty) Ltd., hereafter referred to as the Applicant, as the independent Environmental Assessment Practitioner EAP), to facilitate the Scoping & Environmental Impact Reporting (S&EIR) process required in terms of the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA, Act 107 of 1998) for the proposed development of the „Ephraim Sun PV Energy Facility’ near Upington in the Northern Cape Province of South Africa.

Ephraim Sun (Pty) Ltd. Have an option to sub-lease a section of Remainder of Portion 62 (Portion of Portion 9)(Vryheid) of Farm Vaal Koppies no 40 from the landowner, Newhaven Trust, for the purposes of developing the proposed solar facility. A copy of a letter from Newhaven Trust providing consent for the continuation of the EIA is attached in Annexure G3.

The total generation capacity (contracted capacity)of the solar facility will not exceed 75MW for input into the national Eskom grid. The project will feed into the National Grid via the existing Gordonia sub station.

The purpose of the preceding Scoping Report was to describe the environment to be affected, the proposed project, the process followed to date to allow registered interested and affected parties the opportunity to provide informed comment on the potential impacts associated with the development of the Ephraim Sun PV Development and associated grid connection. This Environmental Impact aims to consider and assess the potential impacts identified in the scoping phase of the environmental process. It furthermore includes an Environmental Management Programme that provides environmental management requirements for the identified impacts.

The Draft Scoping Report was available for review and comment for a period of 30 Days extending from: 03 July 2015 – 03 August 2015.

The Scoping Report was available for review and comment for a further period of 30 Days extending from: 17 August 2015 – 16 September 2015.

This Draft Environmental Impact Report is herewith available for review and comment for a period of 30 Days extending from: 09 November – 09 December 2015.

All comments on this report must be submitted to Cape EAPrac by no later than 09 December 2015. Comments must be submitted to:


Att: Mr Dale Holder





1.1 OVERVIEW OF ALTERNATIVE ENERGY IN SOUTH AFRICA AND THE NORTHERN CAPE.

South Africa has for several years been experiencing considerable constraints in the availability and stability of electrical supply. Load shedding procedures have been applied since December 2005 due to multi-technical failures, as well as generation and transmission constraints.

Eskom generates about 95% of South Africa‟s electricity supply, and has undertaken to increase capacity to meet growing demands. At the moment, the country‟s power stations are 90% coal-fired, and two huge new facilities are being built to add to this capacity. However, Eskom‟s plans to increase its national capacity by 40 000 megawatts in the period to 2025 have had to be scaled down due to the global economic recession (Northern Cape Business website).

International best-practice requires a 15% electricity reserve margin to deal with routine maintenance requirements and unexpected shutdowns in electricity supply systems. South Africa has historically enjoyed a large reserve margin (25% in 2002, 20% in 2004 and 16% in 2006), but that has declined over the recent past to 8% - 10%, as a result of robust economic growth and the associated demand for electricity. The spare power available to provide supply at any time of the day is known as the reserve capacity and the spare plant available when the highest demand of the year is recorded is known as the reserve margin (National Response to South Africa‟s Electricity Shortage, 2008). This has resulted in limited opportunities for maintenance and necessitated that power stations are run harder. This results in station equipment becoming highly stressed and an increase in unplanned outages and generator trips. The expected demand growth will rapidly erode this margin, as well as Eskom‟s ability to recover after it‟s already stressed systems shutdown.

This necessitates the additional generation of at least 3 000MW in the shortest possible time, to allow the reserve necessary to bring Eskom‟s system back into balance (ibid). This need can either be addressed from the supply or the demand side. Where the demand side interventions include short, medium and long term aspects of a national Power Conservation Programme to incentivise the public to use less electricity (as mentioned above), one of the supply side options (besides Eskom building new plants and returning old plants to service) is to allow Independent Power Producers (IPPs) to contribute electricity to the national grid (National Response Document, 2008). Ephraim Sun (Pty) Ltd. is one such body, which intends generating electricity from a renewable energy resource, namely solar.

In March 2011, the Cabinet approved South Africa's Integrated Resource Plan 2010, in terms of which energy from renewable sources will be expected to make up a substantial 42% of all new electricity generation in the country over the next 20 years. The government's New Growth Path for the economy also envisages up to 300 000 jobs being created in the "green" economy by 2020 (South Africa info website).

The Northern Cape is suggested by many to be the ideal location for various forms of alternative energy. This has resulted in a number of feasibility studies being conducted, not least of which an investigation by the Industrial Development Corporation in 2010 (R33-million spent) into potential for photo-voltaic, thermal, solar and wind power (Northern Cape Business website).

The area of the Northern Cape and Namibia boasts the highest solar radiation intensity anywhere in southern Africa. Solar energy is therefore likely to be the most viable alternative energy source for the Northern Cape, although wind-power potential is generally good along the coast (State of the Environment, S.A.)



Figure 1: Global Horizontal radiation map for South Africa (Source: http://solargis.info, 2015).

The Northern Cape area is considered to have extremely favourable solar radiation levels over the majority of the year, making it ideal for the production of solar-power via Photovoltaic (fixed and tracking panels) and Concentrated (solar thermal) Solar technology systems. Several solar irradiation maps have been produced for South Africa, all of which indicate that the Northern Cape area has high solar irradiation.

A solar-investment conference was held in November 2010 at Upington and was attended by 400 delegates from all over the world. Dipuo Peters, the national Minister of Energy at that time, outlined the competitive advantages of the Northern Cape, over and above its extremely high irradiation levels, amongst others:

relative closeness to the national power grid compared to other areas with comparable sunshine;

water from the Orange River; access to two airports; and good major roads and a flat landscape (Northern Cape Business website – solar power).

The Northern Cape is not too dusty, the land is flat and sparsely populated, and there are little to no geological or climate risks, meaning that the sun can be used year-round (BuaNews online). An



advantage that the Northern Cape has over the Sahara Desert is the relatively wind-free environment that prevails in large portions of the province. A Clinton Climate Initiative (CCI) pre-feasibility study has found that South Africa has one of the best solar resources on the planet (Northern Cape Business website – solar power).

Ephraim Sun (Pty) Ltd. is one such IPP solar project which intends to generate 75MW of electricity from solar-energy for inclusion into the National grid. The Ephraim Sun PV Energy Facility development site is considered ideal, primarily due to:

The flat topography of the proposed development site and it‟s the availability for use for an alternative energy generation facility;

The grid connection alternatives based in proximity other renewable energy activities and the Gordonia sub station; and

Its location within a landscape, in that it is set back from roads with possible scenic quality.

Please section 4 of this report for the details of the site selection.

Minister Tina Joemat-Pettersson, the current Minister of Energy issued a media statement on 16 April 2015 on the Expansion and Acceleration of the Independent Power Producer Procurement Programme

In this statement, she stated that resolving the energy challenge remains a critical element of the South African Cabinet¡¦s list of nine strategic priorities to be pursued in partnership with the private sector and all stakeholders.

In this press release, the Minister confirmed that she instructed the Department and the IPP Office to accelerate and expand the Renewable Energy IPP Procurement Programme through:

Utilising the enabling provisions in the current RFP to allocate additional MWs from Bid Window 4 procurement process.

Issuing a Request for Further Proposals for an expedited procurement process of 1800MW from all technologies.

Redesign the current RFP for the Fifth Bid Submission phase to be ready for release in the second quarter of 2016.

The Department of Energy (DoE) has set a number of dates for the submission of bid documents for private companies to apply for a licence to generate electricity. The bidding deadlines for the first two stages were as follow:

1st Bid Submission: 4 November 2011. 2nd Bid Submission: 5 March 2012. 3rd Bid submission: 19th of August 2013. 4th Bid submission: 18 August 2014. 5th Bid Submission: To be confirmed.

NOTE: It is the intention that the Ephraim Sun PV Energy Facility solar development will submit a bid under this Renewable Energy Independent Power Producers Procurement Programme (REIPPP)

2 LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK

The legislation that is relevant to this study is briefly outlined below. These environmental requirements are not intended to be definitive or exhaustive, but serve to highlight key environmental legislation and responsibilities only.



2.1 THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (Act 108 of 1996) states that everyone has a right to a non-threatening environment and that reasonable measure are applied to protect the environment. This includes preventing pollution and promoting conservation and environmentally sustainable development, while promoting justifiable social and economic development.

2.2 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ACT (NEMA)

The current assessment is being undertaken in terms of the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA, Act 107 of 1998)1 . This Act makes provision for the identification and assessment of activities that are potentially detrimental to the environment and which require authorisation from the competent authority (in this case, the national Department of Environmental Affairs, DEA) based on the findings of an Environmental Assessment.

The proposed development entails a number of listed activities, which require a Scoping & Environmental Impact Reporting (S&EIR) process, which must be conducted by an independent environmental assessment practitioner (EAP). Cape EAPrac has been appointed to undertake this process. Figure 2 below depicts a summary of the S&EIR process.

1 On 18 June 2010 the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs promulgated new regulations in terms of Chapter 5 of the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA, Act 107 of 1998), viz, the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations 2014. These regulations came into effect on 08 December 2014 and replace the EIA regulations promulgated in 2006 and 2010.

Key

Scoping Phase Environmental Impact Phase

Decision Making / Appeal Phase

ActivitiesNEMA Listing Notice 2NEM:WA Category B

NEM:AQA

Submit Application Form to Competent Authority

Acknowledgement / Acceptance of

Application

Conduct Public Participation

Reject Application

Submit Final Scoping Report (SR) and Plan of Study for Environmental

Impact Report to Competent Authority

RefuseEnvironmental Authorisation

Accept SR and Planof Study

Prepare Environmental Impact Report (EIR);

Conduct specialist investigations;Conduct Public Participation

Submit Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to Competent Authority

Acknowledgement / Acceptance of SR

43 days

Acknowledgement of EIR

10 days

Grant EA in full or part

Refuse EA in full or part

Notify Applicant of Decision

5 days

Applicant to notify I&APs of Decision

Appeal

14 days

Submit SR 44 days from

receipt of application

Submit EIR 106 days from acceptance of

scoping report or 156 days if signficant

changes made

10 days

107 days

6 days

Conduct specialist investigations;Draft Scoping Report (SR); Conduct

Inital Public Participation.

10 days

30 days for comment on SR

30 days for comment on EIR

Department ActionsApplicant / EAP Actions Appellant Actions Statutory Timeframes



Figure 2: Summary of Scoping & EIR Process in terms of the 2014 Regulations.

The listed activities associated with the proposed development, as stipulation under 2014 Regulations 983, 984 and 985 are as follows:

Table 1: NEMA 2014 listed activities for the Ephraim Sun PV Energy Facility

Listed activity as described in GN R.983, 984 and 985

Description of project activity that triggers listed activity


GN R983 Activity 11: The development of facilities or infrastructure for the transmission and distribution of electricity- (i) outside urban areas or industrial complexes with a capacity of more than 33 but less than 275 kilovolts; or (ii) inside urban areas or industrial complexes with a capacity of 275 kilovolts or more.

The proposed Ephraim Sun PV Energy Facility will connect to the national electricity via the existing Gordonia sub-station (a number of connection alternatives are under investigation). The proposed distribution and transmission infrastructure included the construction of an on-site substation and a 132kV overhead power line from the on-site substation.

GN R983 Activity 12:

The development of- (xii) infrastructure or structures with a physical footprint of 100 square metres or more; where such development occurs- (a) within a watercourse; (c) if no development setback exists, within 32 metres of a watercourse, measured from the edge of a watercourse;

The construction of internal and access roads and pv panel infrastructure across drainage lines and ephemeral washes. Please refer to the Freshwater Ecology Impact Assessment in Annexure E8 for an assessment of impacts associated with this infrastructure.

GN R983 Activity 19: The infilling or depositing of any material of more than 5 cubic metres into, or the dredging, excavation, removal or moving of soil, sand, shells, shell grit, pebbles or rock of more than 5 cubic (i) a watercourse;

Movement material for the piling of PV panels as well as the construction of internal tracks will exceed the 5 cubic metre threshold of this activity.

Regulation 984 – Scoping and Environmental Impact Reporting

GN R984 Activity 1: The development of facilities or infrastructure for the generation of electricity from a renewable resource where the electricity output is 20 megawatts or more, excluding where such development of facilities or infrastructure is for photovoltaic installations and occurs within an urban area.

The proposed Ephraim Sun PV Energy Facility will have a maximum generation Capacity (Contracted Capacity) of 75 megawatts and as such exceeds the threshold defined in this activity.

GN R984 Activity 15: The clearance of an area of 20 hectares or more of indigenous vegetation, excluding where such clearance of indigenous vegetation is

The proposed Ephraim Sun PV Energy Facility will have a maximum footprint of 220ha and as such exceeds the threshold defined in this activity.



required for- (i) the undertaking of a linear activity; or (ii) maintenance purposes undertaken in accordance with a maintenance management plan.


NO Activities in terms of Regulation 985.

NOTE: Basic Assessment as well as Scoping and Environmental Impact Reporting Activities are being triggered by the proposed development and as such, the Environmental Process will follow a Scoping and Environmental Impact Reporting process.

It must noted that GNR 983 Activity 12 and 19 were not included as part of the original application for Authorisation. Based on the outcome of certain specialist scoping studies, they have subsequently been added and assessed in detail as part of this Impact Assessment.

Before any of the above mentioned listed activities can be undertaken, authorisation must be obtained from the relevant authority, in this case the National Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA). Should the Department approve the proposed activity, the Environmental Authorisation does not exclude the need for obtaining relevant approvals from other Authorities who has a legal mandate.

2.3 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT: BIODIVERSITY (ACT 10 OF 2004)

The National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (Act 10 of 2004) (NEMBA) provides for listing threatened or protected ecosystems, in one of four categories: critically endangered (CR), endangered (EN), vulnerable (VU) or protected. The Draft National List of Threatened Ecosystems (Notice 1477 of 2009, Government Gazette No 32689, 6 November 2009) has been gazetted for public comment.

The list of threatened terrestrial ecosystems supersedes the information regarding terrestrial ecosystem status in the NSBA 2004. In terms of the EIA regulations, a basic assessment report is required for the transformation or removal of indigenous vegetation in a critically endangered or endangered ecosystem regardless of the extent of transformation that will occur. However, all of the vegetation types on both the study sites are classified as Least Threatened.

NEMBA also deals with endangered, threatened and otherwise controlled species. The Act provides for listing of species as threatened or protected, under one of the following categories:

Critically Endangered: any indigenous species facing an extremely high risk of extinction in the wild in the immediate future.

Endangered: any indigenous species facing a high risk of extinction in the wild in the near future, although it is not a critically endangered species.

Vulnerable: any indigenous species facing an extremely high risk of extinction in the wild in the medium-term future; although it is not a critically endangered species or an endangered species.

Protected species: any species which is of such high conservation value or national importance that it requires national protection. Species listed in this category include, among others, species listed in terms of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).



Certain activities, known as Restricted Activities, are regulated by a set of permit regulations published under the Act. These activities may not proceed without environmental authorization.

According to the national vegetation map (Mucina & Rutherford 2006), the site fall entirely within the Kalahari Karroid Shrubland vegetation type. Other vegetation types in the area include Bushmanland Arid Grassland southeast and Lower Gariep Alluvial Vegetation along the alluvial terraces of the Orange River. In terms of the conservation status of the various vegetation types of the area, only Lower Gariep Alluvial Vegetation is of concern and is listed as Endangered. This vegetation type is however associated with the alluvium along the Orange River and would not be impacted by the current development which is some distance from the river itself.

Kalahari Karroid Shrubland is classified as Least Threatened and has been little impacted by transformation with 99% of the original extent still intact (Table 1). It is however considered Hardly Protected within formal conservation areas. According to Mucina & Rutherford (2006), no vegetation-type endemic species are known from Kalahari Karroid Shrubland. Kalahari Karroid Shrubland does not occur over a very large area for an arid vegetation type, but represents a transitional vegetation type between the northern Nama Karoo and Kalahari (Savannah) vegetation types. The broad description of Kalahari Karroid Shrubland as reported by Mucina & Rutherford (2006) is not repeated here as an actual description of the vegetation as observed on-site is provided in the next section of the report and supersedes the very coarse mapping provided by the national vegetation map.

Table 2: Vegetation types that occur within or near the Ephraim Sun site with their basic conservation statics and status according to the National List of Threatened Ecosystems (2011).

Name Extent

km2 Remaining

Conservation Target

Protected Status

Kalahari Karroid Shrubland 8284 99.2% 21% 0.1% Least threatened

Lower Gariep Alluvial

Vegetation 752 50.3% 31% 5.8% Endangered

Lower Gariep Broken Veld 4538 99.5% 21% 3.9% Least threatened

Bushmanland Arid Grassland 45479 99.4% 21% 0.4% Least threatened

Note: Only Kalahari Karroid Shrubland occurs within the proposed development area.



Figure 3: Broad-scale overview of the vegetation in and around the Ephraim Sun site (Todd, 2015)

The vegetation map is an extract of the national vegetation map as produced by Mucina & Rutherford (2006), and also includes wetlands delineated by the National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas assessment (Nel et al. 2011).

2.4 NATIONAL PROTECTED AREA EXPANSION STRATEGY (NPAES) FOR S.A. 2008 (2010)

Considering that South Africa‟s protected area network currently falls far short of sustaining biodiversity and ecological processes, the NPEAS aims to achieve cost-effective protected area expansion for ecological sustainability and increased resilience to Climate Change. Protected areas, recognised by the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act (Act 57 of 2003), are considered formal protected areas in the NPAES. The NPAES sets targets for expansion of these protected areas, provides maps of the most important protected area expansion, and makes recommendations on mechanisms for protected area expansion.

The NPAES identifies 42 focus areas for land-based protected area expansion in South Africa. These are large intact and un-fragmented areas suitable for the creation or expansion of large



protected areas. There are no NPAES expansion areas that have been identified in close proximity to the site.

2.5 CRITICAL BIODIVERSITY AREAS.

According the South African National Biodiversity Institute Biodiversity Geographic Information System (SANBI BGIS) and the Ecological Specialist, Mr Simon Todd, there are no fine-scale conservation planning has been conducted for the region and as a result, no Critical Biodiversity Areas have been defined for the study area.

2.6 NATIONAL FORESTS ACT (NO. 84 OF 1998):

The National Forests Act provides for the protection of forests as well as specific tree species, quoting directly from the Act: “no person may cut, disturb, damage or destroy any protected tree or possess, collect, remove, transport, export, purchase, sell, donate or in any other manner acquire or dispose of any protected tree or any forest product derived from a protected tree, except under a licence or exemption granted by the Minister to an applicant and subject to such period and conditions as may be stipulated”.

The ecological specialist, Mr Simon Todd, confirmed that there are also species which are present which are either protected the national forest act or under the Northern Cape Nature Conservation Act of 2009, which includes Boscia foetida and Boscia albitrunca all Mesembryanthemaceae, , all species within the Euphorbiaceae. Oxalidaceae, Iridaceae, all species within the genera Nemesia and Jamesbrittenia. Boscia albitrunca is not common at the site and only a handful of individuals were observed. Boscia foetida was however observed to be fairly common.

Please refer to the Ecological Impact Assessment Report in Annexure E1 for a detailed description of the botanical component of the site.

2.7 CONSERVATION OF AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES ACT – CARA (ACT 43 OF 1983):

CARA provides for the regulation of control over the utilisation of the natural agricultural resources in order to promote the conservation of soil, water and vegetation and provides for combating weeds and invader plant species. The Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act defines different categories of alien plants:

Category 1 - prohibited and must be controlled; Category 2 – must be grown within a demarcated area under permit; and Category 3 - ornamental plants that may no longer be planted, but existing plants may

remain provided that all reasonable steps are taken to prevent the spreading thereof, except within the flood lines of water courses and wetlands.

The abundance of alien plant species on the Ephraim Sun PV Energy Facility site is very low, which can be ascribed mainly to the aridity of the site.

The Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development is guided by Act 43 of 1983.

In order to comply with their mandate in terms of this legislation, the developer must take care of the following:

Article 7.(3)b of Regulation 9238: CONSERVATION OF AGRICULTURE RESOURCES, 1983 (Act 43 of 1983)



Utilisation and protection of vleis, marshes, water sponges and water courses

7.(1) “no land user shall utilize the vegetation in a vlei, marsh or water sponge or within the flood area of a water course or within 10 meters horizontally outside such flood area in a manner that causes or may cause the deterioration of or damage to the natural agriculture resources.”

(3)(b) “cultivate any land on his farm unit within the flood area of a water course or within 10 meters horizontally outside the flood area of a water course”

The proposed Ephraim sun layout has been developed in such a manner as to insure its impacts in terms of article 7 of CARA are kept to an absolute minimum.

2.8 NORTHERN CAPE NATURE CONSERVATION ACT, NO. 9 OF 2009:

The Northern Cape Nature Conservation Act provides inter alia for the sustainable utilisation of wild animals, aquatic biota and plants as well as permitting and trade regulations regarding wild fauna and flora within the province. In terms of this act the following section may be relevant with regards to any security fencing the solar development may require.

Manipulation of boundary fences: 19. No Person may –

(a) erect, alter, remove or partly remove or cause to be erected, altered, removed or partly removed, any fence, whether on a common boundary or on such person’s own property, in such a manner that any wild animal which as a result thereof gains access or may gain access to the property or a camp on the property, cannot escape or is likely not to be able to escape therefrom.

It is recommended that the perimeter fencing around the solar development site will be constructed in a manner which allows for the passage of small and medium sized mammals: The biodiversity specialist will make recommendations with regard to the specific fencing configuration during the EIA phase of this project.

The conservation status of the plant species which have been recorded in previous studies in the area listed in the table below.

Table 3:Listed plant species known from the broad vicinity of the proposed Ephraim study area (Todd, 2015)

Family Species IUCN Status Likelihood

ASPHODELACEAE Aloe dichotoma VU Low

MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Dinteranthus wilmotianus NT Low

AMARYLLIDACEAE Crinum bulbispermum Declining Low

FABACEAE Acacia erioloba Declining Confirmed

APOCYNACEAE Hoodia gordonii DDD Confirmed

GERANIACEAE Pelargonium reniforme subsp. reniforme DDD Low

ASTERACEAE Gymnostephium ciliare DDT Low

ASTERACEAE Senecio monticola DDT Low

Please also refer to the Ecological Impact Assessment Report attached in Annexure E1.



2.9 NATURE AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION ORDINANCE (19 OF 1974)

This legislation was developed to protect both animal and plant species within the various provinces of the country which warrant protection. These may be species which are under threat or which are already considered to be endangered. The provincial environmental authorities are responsible for implementing the provisions of this legislation, which includes the issuing of permits etc. In the Northern Cape, the Department of Environment and Nature Conservation fulfils this mandate as per the Northern Cape Nature Conservation Act as described above.

2.10 NATIONAL HERITAGE RESOURCES ACT

The protection and management of South Africa‟s heritage resources are controlled by the National Heritage Resources Act (Act No. 25 of 1999). South African National Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA) is the enforcing authority in the Northern Cape, and is registered as a Stakeholder for this environmental process.

In terms of Section 38 of the National Heritage Resources Act, SAHRA will comment on the detailed Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) where certain categories of development are proposed. Section 38(8) also makes provision for the assessment of heritage impacts as part of an EIA process.

The National Heritage Resources Act requires relevant authorities to be notified regarding this proposed development, as the following activities are relevant:

the construction of a road, wall, power line, pipeline, canal or other similar form of linear development or barrier exceeding 300m in length;

any development or other activity which will change the character of a site exceeding 5 000 m² in extent;

the re-zoning of a site exceeding 10 000m² in extent.

Furthermore, in terms of Section 34(1), no person may alter or demolish any structure or part of a structure, which is older than 60 years without a permit issued by the SAHRA, or the responsible resources authority.

Nor may anyone destroy, damage, alter, exhume or remove from its original position, or otherwise disturb, any grave or burial ground older than 60 years, which is situated outside a formal cemetery administered by a local authority, without a permit issued by the SAHRA, or a provincial heritage authority, in terms of Section 36 (3).

In terms of Section 35 (4), no person may destroy, damage, excavate, alter or remove from its original position, or collect, any archaeological material or object, without a permit issued by the SAHRA, or the responsible resources authority.

Mr Stefan de Kock, of Perception Heritage Planning, has been appointed to undertake an integrated heritage assessment for the proposed Ephraim Sun PV Energy Facility. This integrated heritage study has included an Archaeological Impact Assessment to be undertaken by Dr Peter Nilssen as well as a Paleontological Desktop Assessment undertaken by Dr John Almond.

These reports have been submitted to SAHRA via SAHRIS and are awaiting final comment.

Please refer to the Integrated Heritage Assesment, Archaeological Impact Assessment and Paleontological Desktop Assessment attached in Annexure E5, E3 & E4 respectively.



2.11 NATIONAL WATER ACT, NO 36 OF 1998

Section 21c & i of the National Water Act (NWA) requires the Applicant to apply for authorisation from the Department of Water and Sanitation for an activity in, or in proximity to any watercourse. Such an application would be required for any access road or PV infrastructure that crosses any watercourse.

Section 21(a) of the National Water Act is related to the abstraction of water from .a water resource (including abstraction of groundwater). A Water Use Licence (WUL) would be required for such abstraction.

Water required for the construction and operation of the Ephraim Sun PV Energy Facility is to be sourced either sourced from Khai Garib or Khara Hais Local Municipality. In Future, should the project consider abstraction from a water resource for the purposes of construction or operating of the facility, such abstraction will likely require a licence in terms of Section 21(a) of the NWA.

A number of seasonal washes as well as watercourses have been identified by the Ecological Specialist as occurring on site. The crossing of these with infrastructure associated with the facility will likely require a licence in terms of section 21(i) and (c) of the National Water Act.

Due to the identification of these hydrological resources, a freshwater specialist has been appointed to undertake and Aquatic Ecology Impact Assessment. Please refer to Annexure E8 for a copy of this study.

The Department of Water and Sanitation have been registered as a key stakeholder in this environmental process.

2.12 Astronomy Geographic Advantage Act, 2007 (Act No 21 Of 2007)

The purpose of the Act is to preserve the geographic advantage areas that attract investment in astronomy. The entire Northern Cape Province, excluding the Tsantsabane Municipality, has been declared an astronomy advantage area. The Northern Cape optical and radio telescope sites were declared core astronomy advantage areas. The Act allowed for the declaration of the Southern Africa Large Telescope (SALT), Meerkat and Square Kilometre Array (SKA) as astronomy and related scientific endeavours that has to be protected.

The South African SKA Project Office have been registered as a key stakeholder on this environmental process and have been requested to provide comment and input in terms of the Astronomy Geographic Advantage Act.

2.13 Environmental Impact Assessment Guideline For Renewable Energy Projects

The Minister of Environmental Affairs, publish the Environmental Impact Assessment Guideline for Renewable Energy for implementation, in terms of section 24J of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998) on 16 October 2016.

The purpose of these guidelines is primarily to provide guidance on the environmental management legal framework applicable to renewable energy operations and all the role players in the sector. The guideline is principally intended for use by the following stakeholder groups:

Public Sector Authorities (as regulator and/or competent authority); Joint public sector authorities and project funders, e.g., Eskom, IDC, etc. Private Sector Entities (as project funder/developer/consultant); Other interested and affected parties (as determined by the project location and/or scope).



These guideline seek to identify activities requiring authorisation prior to commencement of that activity, and provide an interface between national EIA regulations and other legislative requirements of various authorities.

2.14 Sustainability Imperative

The norm implicit to our environmental law is the notion of sustainable development (“SD”). SD and sustainable use and exploitation of natural resources are at the core of the protection of the environment. SD is generally accepted to mean development that meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. The evolving elements of the concept of SD inter alia include the right to develop; the pursuit of equity in the use and allocation of natural resources (the principle of intra-generational equity) and the need to preserve natural resources for the benefit of present and future generations. Economic development, social development and the protection of the environment are considered the pillars of SD (the triple bottom line).

“Man-land relationships require a holistic perspective, an ability to appreciate the many aspects that make up the real problems. Sustainable planning has to confront the physical, social, environmental and economic challenges and conflicting aspirations of local communities. The imperative of sustainable planning translates into notions of striking a balance between the many competing interests in the ecological, economic and social fields in a planned manner. The ‘triple bottom line’ objectives of sustainable planning and development should be understood in terms of economic efficiency (employment and economic growth), social equity (human needs) and ecological integrity (ecological capital).”

As was pointed out by the Constitutional Court, SD does not require the cessation of socio-economic development but seeks to regulate the manner in which it takes place. The idea that developmental and environmental protection must be reconciled is central to the concept of SD - it implies the accommodation, reconciliation and (in some instances) integration between economic development, social development and environmental protection. It is regarded as providing a “conceptual bridge” between the right to social and economic development, and the need to protect the environment.

Our Constitutional Court has pointed out that the requirement that environmental authorities must place people and their needs at the forefront of their concern so that environmental management can serve their developmental, cultural and social interests, can be achieved if a development is sustainable. “The very idea of sustainability implies continuity. It reflects the concern for social and developmental equity between generations, a concern that must logically be extended to equity within each generation. This concern is reflected in the principles of inter-generational and intra-generational equity which are embodied in both section 24 of the Constitution and the principles of environmental management contained in NEMA.” [Emphasis added.]

In terms of NEMA sustainable development requires the integration of the relevant factors, the purpose of which is to ensure that development serves present and future generations.2

It is believed that the proposed 75MW Ephraim Sun PV Facility supports the notion of sustainable development by presenting a reasonable and feasible alternative to the existing vacant land use type, which has limited agricultural potential due the lack of water and infrastructure.

2 See definition of “sustainable development” in section 1 of NEMA.



Furthermore the proposed alternative energy project (reliant on a natural renewable resource – solar energy) is in line with the national and global goal of reducing reliance on fossil fuels, thereby providing long-term benefits to future generations in a sustainable manner.

3 ACTIVITY

The proposed photovoltaic (PV) SEF will have a net generating capacity of 75 MWAC with an estimated maximum footprint of ± 200 ha. A preliminary study area of ± 520 ha was identified by the Project Developer. Following this, ecological, agricultural, visual and archaeological experts were appointed to undertake their baseline assessments and sensitivity analysis on the entire 520 ha study site. This sensitivity plan will be used to determine the preferred location of the proposed PV footprint will not exceed ± 220 ha. The approximate area that each component of the SEF will occupy is summarised in the table below.

Table 4: Component Areas and % of Total Project Area (Solek, 2015)

Component Estimated extent of 75 MW plant

Percentage of selected area (+ 200 ha)

Percentage of whole farm (±4695.8487 ha)

PV modules 180 ha (1.8 km2) 90% 3.8%

Internal roads 18 ha (0.18 km2) 9% 0.38%

Auxiliary buildings 2 ha ( 0.02 km2) 1% less than 0.1%

The technology under consideration is either concentrating photovoltaic (CPV) modules or photovoltaic (PV) modules mounted on either of fixed or tracking structures. Other infrastructure includes inverter stations, internal electrical reticulation, internal roads, an on-site switching station / substation, a 132 kV overhead (OH) transmission line, auxiliary buildings, construction laydown areas and perimeter fencing and security infrastructure. The on-site switching station / substation will locate the main power transformer/s that will step up the generated electricity to a suitable voltage level for transmission into the national electricity grid, via the OH line. Auxiliary buildings include, inter alia, a control building, offices, warehouses, visitors centre, staff lockers and ablution facilities and gate house and security offices.

The figure below depicts a typical layout of a solar PV energy facility.

Figure 4:Typical Layout of a Solar PV Energy Facility (Solek, 2015)

Auxiliary buildings

PV arrays

Internal roads

On-site substation



Determining the optimal layout is a costly process which would normally take place once an REIPP tender has been awarded to the bidder. For the purpose of the environmental impact assessment, a typical layout will be discussed, alternatives will be investigated and a preliminary high level layout will be drafted – This typical layout will include a maximum environmental footprint that will be assessed in the environmental process. The final layout design that will be done after bidding will take into account the site constraints identified and recommendations made by the various EIA specialists. With the actual construction, the final plant layout will stay the same in terms of footprint size and height, as assessed in the environmental process, but the exact location of the different components may change within the footprint.

Various layout alternatives for the abovementioned components are under consideration. The preferred alternative (to avoid constraints defined by the specialists) will be determined during the EIR phase of the project. Details regarding the consideration of alternatives are included in the section below.

Please refer to the layout report attached in Appendix C and the Engineering Report attached in Annexure E6 for further information and descriptions of the proposed activity.

4 SITE SELECTION

The site selection process followed a two stage approach. Firstly to select the property for the proposed development (Remainder of Portion 62 (Portion of Portion 9)(Vryheid) of Farm Vaal Koppies no 40) and secondly to select the footprint of the proposed development within the farm portion. Please refer to the site selection matrix as compiled by Solek Renewable Energy Engineers and as attached in Annexure G7.

4.1 INTRODUCTION

Cape Environmental Practitioners requested a motivation from Solek Innovations (Pty) Ltd. towards the identification and selection of the corresponding site under development. The site selection maitrix aims to provide a motivation from the developer towards the development of Ephraim Sun (Pty) Ltd. at the proposed location and within the proposed footprint at the current time.

Ephraim Sun (Pty) Ltd. Solar Energy Facility, as an Independent Power Producer (IPP) under the “Renewable Energy Independent Power Producers Program” (REIPPPP) of the “Department of Energy” (DOE), is proposing the establishment of a commercial solar energy facility on the Remainder of Portion 62 (Portion of Portion 9)(Vryheid) of the Farm Vaal Koppies no 40 near Upington in the Northern Cape.

The facility is to be known as Ephraim Sun (Pty) Ltd. The planned size of the facility is 75 MWAC, although the actual MWpeak installed can be expected to be more in order to produce 75MWAC.

4.2 AREA SELECTION

The following section describes and elaborates the motivation behind the decision on developing a solar facility (such as Ephraim Sun) within the Upington area. As part of the site identification and selection the following factors were considered.

4.2.1 Geographical location

When considering South Africa‟s irradiation distribution, the Northern Cape Province is known to be one of the most preferred areas for the generation of solar energy in South Africa and even in



the world. This can be ascribed to the advantageous sun radiation specifications and the vast flat planes that the province has to offer which are not intensively used except for grazing.

The irradiation at a specific geographical area has a direct impact on the economic viability and competitiveness of a solar facility due to the fact that more electricity can be generated for the same installed infrastructure per annum. The annual irradiance is mostly attributed to factors such as weather conditions. The fact that Upington has such a high irradiance draws solar generating facility developments to this area, exactly as in the case of Ephraim Sun (Pty) Ltd. development.

4.2.2 Defined RED zone area

The “Department of Environmental Affairs” is in the process of identifying “Renewable Energy Development Zones (REDz) across South Africa, which is typically best, suited for renewable energy generation. Upington and its surrounding area is one of the areas identified to be a Renewable Energy Development Zone. These REDz areas are supported by the development plan of ESKOM due to the large quantities of potential generation in these areas.

The development of Ephraim Sun (Pty) Ltd. is therefore positioned to utilise the potential benefits of the RED zones which could include the availability of the national powerline network ; environmental processes and approvals; and reduction in overall development costs due to being located within the RED zones.

4.2.3 Grid connection

Grid connection strengthening is planned for Upington area with a specific reference towards Gordonia substation, Upington new MTS substation and powerline connections between Gordonia substation and Upington MTS. These upgrades are planned according to the “Transmission Development Plan” (TDP 2015-2024) and the “Generation Connection Capacity Assessment” (GCCA 2022).

Grid capacity studies have been done and according to the feedback close proximity of generation facilities to demand centres is of high importance to reduce losses on the distribution of power. Upington offers a valuable synergy of grid availability and planning towards increased grid capacity due to the large potential future renewable energy generators in the area.

The availability of grid capacity is a significant factor within all renewable energy projects under the REIPPP program as ESKOM approval is required in order to qualify to have a valid bid.

4.2.4 Nearest town and Infrastructure

The proposed Ephraim Sun solar facility is located 15 km south east of the nearest town Upington. The solar facility will benefit the local community and will benefit the economy of Upington and surrounding areas. The employment of local labour force will we done as far as availability of such services allows and will support the REIPPP Program objective regarding socio-economic upliftment.

Upington as a town provides additional advantages in the light of project development such as its ease of access (by national road network as well as airport facilities). Upington is further located approximately 800 kilometres from the Gauteng metropole and can be accessed via the N14.

4.3 Site Selection

The following section describes and elaborates the motivation behind the decision on developing a solar facility (such as Ephraim Sun) on the farm and within the specific footprint. The Ephraim Sun



development is planned to be developed on the Remainder of Portion 62 (Portion of Portion 9)(Vryheid) of Farm Vaal Koppies no 40 near Upington.

As part of the site footprint and farm selection the following factors were considered.

4.3.1 Grid connection

The availability of additional grid capacity for generation feed at the Gordonia substation and the distance from the said farm to Gordonia made this location ideal for such a solar development.

There are multiple grid connection alternatives being considered, each with its own advantages and disadvantages. These grid connections include two categories namely either self-build lines or “Loop-in/Loop-out” (LiLo) grid connections.

The proposed site within the Preliminary Study site was selected based on the distance to the Gordonia ESKOM substation and the authorised Karoshoek Solar One (Pty) Ltd. 132kV grid connection (for the purpose of a LiLo connection).The cost of a grid connection for the evacuation of a solar facility is a large contributor to the overall project cost and therefore acts as an important consideration during site and area selection.

4.3.2 Land availability, characteristics and considerations

The second important consideration during site selection is the specific portion of land to be utilised, its characteristics and the corresponding potential constraints of the land. Various factors influence the viability and feasibility of utilising a specific portion of land for such a development.

The utilisation of agricultural resources and the conservation thereof is of utmost importance to ensure sustainable food production in South Africa. The quality and quantity of agricultural resource available on the specific property therefore is an important consideration during site selection. From an agricultural perspective, the said property and footprint has a low agricultural potential effectively implying that the loss of agricultural activities will be limited should a portion of the property be used for a renewable energy development. The agricultural potential study (as conducted by the agricultural specialist) confirms that the selection process correctly utilised a low agricultural potential property portion for the Ephraim development.

The “Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries” (DAFF) currently imposes a constraint of a maximum development of agricultural land for renewable energy of 10%. This constrain implies that a limited footprint size can be accommodated per title deed. This 10% constraint is taken into consideration during the site and farm selection.

The level ground surface additionally benefits the site selection with regard to the facility layout and practicalities such as frame installation. Depending on the infrastructure procured (e.g. fixed tilt, single-axis tracker or double-axis trackers) the elevation profile and specific gradients on-site could enable or disqualify such infrastructure options. The importance of a relatively flat gradient cannot be disregarded as this could influence the competitiveness and viability of such a development.

4.3.3 Environmental considerations

The selection of a specific site and its corresponding footprint is largely influenced by the on-site conditions and identification of potential sensitive areas. Definite cognisance of sensitive areas should is taken and incorporated as far as possible in order to choose a project footprint with the least possible environmental impact.

Specific items and environmental considerations taken during the initial site identification include (but is not limited to) ephemeral washes and its location, large quantities and concentrations of



flora (especially woody flora and trees), pans/marshes/vleis and any other area which could potentially include sensitive fauna or flora.

The identification of the initial study area for the Ephraim project took cognisance of and avoided areas as far as possible which include these sensitive features. The specialist studies further investigates and depicts additional sensitive areas of which the developer at the time of initiation was not aware. As part of the environmental process the layouts and possible footprints are adapted to reduce possible environmental impacts of such a facility.

4.3.4 Shadows

The importance of irradiance is touched on in Section 4.2.1 of this motivation. There are however local considerations to be taken into account which influence the irradiance values, such as on-site generated shadows.

As part of the site selection and layout planning on-site shadows is taken into account. Geological factors such as hills, gradients, trees and other objects can significantly influence the overall yields and the corresponding planned footprint. The Ephraim Sun footprint is limited to eastly expansions due to “koppies” located to the east of the proposed site location. The shadowing caused by these geological phenomenon was incorporated into the consideration and facility layout.

4.3.5 Site access, infrastructure availability and services

An important factor to consider is the accessibility of the site. Within the area selection section of this motivation report reference is made towards the general accessibility of Upington area (high accessibility rating). The farm and the project site do however further influence the accessibility of the facility and influences the ease of construction. The accessibility has a direct influence on the project cost and ultimately on the competitiveness of the project as a whole.

Regarding the specific farm and facility footprint, the farm is accessible from the Kleinbegin road (a district road, DR3035) that intersects the N10 national road 10km south-east of Upington. It can be said that the accessibility is good from Upington to the farm via this described route. The accessibility from the Kleinbegin road to the site footprint is further considered as part of the site selection criteria. The access roads is planned to be directly from the Kleinbegin road and follows a moderate gradient to the site.

The location and selection of the site took into account the traffic volumes and transportation costs of site establishment, facility infrastructure (modules, frames and electrical equipment) as well as transport of employees.

Services such as electricity, water and removal of waste is further taken into account as part of the site selection process. The availability of services does however not influence the decision towards the site location to that large extend due to the relatively low volume of permanent employees on-site during operations. The site is however located in close proximity to the Khara Hais Municipality and different services could be obtained from this municipality or its adjacent municipality as and when required.

4.3.6 Dust consideration

Solar facilities are sensitive towards the amount of dust in the area. The facility is located close to the Kleinbegin road which is a gravel road. The close proximity to the Kleinbegin road is a positive consideration in terms of the accessibility and construction of the project, but does have an increased dust implication on the facility.



The amount of dust expected during construction is significantly more than during the operation of the facility due to increased traffic volumes. In order to reduce the impact of dust on the facility a 50 meter buffer was incorporated from the Kleinbegin road which should reduce a large portion of the dust.

4.4 Footprint Selection Process

The selection of the proposed study area within the farm followed a risk adverse, bottom up approach in order to ensure that the impacts of the proposed developments can be avoided as far as possible. This avoidance approach reduces the degree of mitigation required in order ensure that potential environmental impacts are within acceptable levels.

This approach was achieved by means of appointing ecological, archaeological, visual and agricultural experts to undertake baseline studies and sensitivity analysis for the entire study site.

This sensitivity analysis will be used to determine the location of the proposed PV footprint as well as the future detailed layout of the the facility.

The layout will be developed in a such a manner as to avoid all areas with a medium – high, high and very high sensitivity. This will ensure that also ensured that potential impact the drainage lines and associated vegetation, rocky outcrops and ecological connectivity is kept to an absolute minimum.



Figure 5: Ecological Sensitivity of the Ephraim sun study site and surrounding area.

4.5 Conclusion

It is the opinion of Solek Innovation that the area and specific site selected for Ephraim Sun (Pty) Ltd. development is economically competitive and environmentally acceptable in order to develop a sustainable renewable energy project within the Upington area.

The considerations taken during site selection speak of economical, environmental and legislative context. Solek believes that the project will have multiple favourable impacts to the area while having a limited and reduced impact on the specific area should all recommended mitigation steps be implemented.



5 NEED AND DESIRABILITY

In keeping with the requirements of an integrated Environmental Impact process, the DEA&DP 3Guidelines on Need and Desirability (2010 & 2011) were referenced to provide the following estimation of the activity in relation to the broader societal needs. The concept of need and desirability can be explained in terms of its two components, where need refers to time and desirability refers to place. Questions pertaining to these components are answered in the Sections below.

The section 1.1 above considers the overall need for alternative, so-called „green energy‟ in light of the known environmental burdens associated with the impact of coal power generation through which most of our country‟s electricity is currently being generated. Associated aspects such as air pollution, water use and carbon tax are discussed in order to further explain the need and desirability for „green energy‟ projects in general.

5.1.1 Feasibility consideration

The commercial feasibility for the proposed 75MWAC Ephraim Sun PV Energy Facility to be built on private land near Upington, has been informed by its contextual location, and economic, social and environmental impacts and influence. The project has gathered sufficient information and conducted studies of the site and the region to make qualified and reliable assumptions on the project‟s various impacts.

5.1.2 Solar Resource & Energy Production The arid climate experienced in the Northern Cape lends itself to the availability of high levels of solar energy. Considering the steady nature of the solar radiation at the Ephraim Sun site, the resource is sufficient to guarantee a positive return on investment.

5.1.3 Solar Farm & Grid Connection Among the outstanding characteristics of the Ephraim Sun PV Energy Facility site is its exceptionally flat nature, sufficient non sensitive environments and accessible location, facilitating the delivery of bulky PV Panel infrastructure, and the construction and assembly process. The proximity of the site to the N10 decreases the impact on secondary roads and natural habitat from the traffic going to and from the solar facility during construction and operations. The proximity of the Gordonia Sub Station also allows for connection via a relatively short transmission line. As the site is not used for intensive agricultural purposes, the solar facility will not interfere with the agricultural productivity of the area.

5.1.4 Social impact The Northern Cape region is economically challenged due to its arid climate, challenging agricultural conditions, lack of water and limited natural resources (away from the Orange River). The Northern Cape is well-known for the large number of copper and zinc mines in the area, but since the early 1990‟s, many of these mines have closed down, leaving a devastating trail of unemployment behind. The local economy, mainly supported by limited agriculture, simply isn‟t enough to accommodate the high level of unemployment.

Private sector development is seen to offer opportunities to access Enterprise Development funds of the main mining groups. This can contribute to entrepreneurial activities linked to their supply

3 The Western Cape Provincial guidelines on Need and Desirability were considered in the absence of National and

Northern Cape Guidelines.



chain (Khara Hais SDF, 2010). The same applies to the investment, in terms of employment opportunities and entrepreneurial activities, associated with renewable energy projects.

Power generation is one of the rare growth opportunities for the Northern Cape due to the high solar irradiation levels and its strategic position relative to the National Transmission Network. This setup creates unprecedented growth opportunities for the area and the establishment of a renewable energy project is considered important to diversify and compliment the economic development of the region.

5.1.5 Employment & Skills Transfer The benefits of renewable energy facilities to local regions are not confined to the initial investment in the project. They also provide a reliable and on-going income for landowners and municipality, creating direct employment opportunities for locals, as well as flow-on employment for local businesses through provision of products and services to the project and its employees.

The Ephraim Sun PV Energy Facility will have a positive impact on local employment. During the estimated 18 month construction phase, the project will employ approximately 40-50 people of various qualifications. The majority will be provided by the local labour market. During operations, the solar facility is expected to have 6-10 permanent employees ranging from security staff to administration and artisans. Due the fact that there is no skilled labour in the field of renewable energy as yet, the employment structure will consist of local and overseas capacity. To guarantee successful operations over the lifetime of the investment, the Ephraim Sun PV Energy Facility will use the skills of outside labour to cross-train local specialists. This cross training and skills development will take place especially in the area of technical maintenance and administration.

The economic impact of the proposed Ephraim Sun PV Energy Facility reflects expenditures related to the construction and operation. These activities will increase economic activity within the region and province.

5.1.6 need (time)

Is the land use considered within the timeframe intended by the existing approved Spatial Development Framework (SDF)? (I.e. is the proposed development in line with the projects and programmes identified as priorities within the credible IDP? Yes, „the employment of renewable energy technology‟ / development has a spatial strategic place in the Khara Hais Municipality SDF while the need for a policy on the development of sustainable solar energy farms has been identified as Key Development Priority / Project.

Should the development occur here at this point in time?

Yes, the proposed Ephraim Sun PV Energy Facility is to be located outside the Upington urban edge, would provide a welcomed diversification to the local economy and perhaps serve as a catalyst for further expansion in the stream of sustainable renewable energy development (identified as a priority development strategy IDP & SDF).

Does the community / area need the activity and the associated land use concerned?

The Khara Hais Municipality identified the opportunity for a renewable energy project through their SDF and IDP processes, which include public participation. The proposed renewable energy development will allow for a diversification of employment, skills and contribute to the potential development of small business associated with its construction, operation and maintenance activities.



From the location near Upington the proposed solar farm will contribute electricity to the constrained Northern Cape and National electrical network, contributing to a provincial and national need. The Ephraim Sun PV Energy Facility has been designed to in such a way as to avoid or minimize potential negative impacts of the local environment while enhancing potential positive impacts, locally and regionally.

Are the necessary services with adequate capacity currently available?

Some existing, some new. The Ephraim Sun PV Energy Facility development requires the installation of a 132 kV overhead transmission line to connect to the existing Gordonia Sub Station (feed into the national grid system), as well as an access road to the development site from the N10 via the Kleinbegin road. The cost of supplying the new infrastructure will be covered by the Applicant. The bird-friendly additions to the proposed new powerline will have a net benefit to the existing line, through minimizing bird collisions and electrocutions.

The water required for the construction and operation of the solar facility will be sourced from the Khai Garib Municipality or Khara Hais and will be supplemented by stored rainwater (Proof of confirmation of availability will be included in the Environmental Impact Report).

Construction waste will be disposed of at the existing Khara Hais landfill site.

Is this development provided for in the infrastructure planning of the municipality?

Yes. Attracting private investment and the employment of renewable energy development are identified as priority strategies to create sustainable urban and rural settlements.

Is this project part of a national programme to address an issue of national concern or importance?

Yes. In order to meet the increasing power demand within South Africa, Eskom has set a target of 30% of all new power generation to be derived from independent power producers (IPPs). Ephraim Sun (Pty) Ltd. is one such IPP which intends to generate not exceeding 75MW (megawatts) of Alternating Current (AC) electricity from the proposed Solar Farm, for input into the national grid (via the Gordonia Sub-Station).

5.1.7 Desirability (place)

Is the development the best practicable environmental option for this land / site?

The target property is outside the Upington Urban Edge and as such may not be considered for an alternative land use such as urban development. The property has a poor agricultural potential due to the arid climate and soil conditions. These factors have rendered the property vacant with limited land use option alternatives. Since Photovoltaic solar facilities have a limited footprint, the physical impact on receiving environment would be low, while the remaining undeveloped areas may rehabilitate to their natural state in time and remain protected as such.

Would the approval of this application compromise the integrity of the existing approved and credible municipal IDP and SDF?

No. According to the Khara Hais Municipality IDP, attracting Renewable Energy Investment is seen as an IDP Strategy and economic driver to alleviate unemployment and poverty and “to ensure sustainable economic and social transformation in the District”. The performance of which would be reflected in the development of a Renewable Energy Strategy and Policy for the District by 2013 (IDP, 2012-2016).

Would the approval of this application compromise the integrity of the existing approved environmental management priorities for the area?



Unlikely. According to the national vegetation map (Mucina & Rutherford 2006), the solar development site lies entirely within a vegetation type that is classified as Least Threatened (Ecosystems that cover most of their original extent and which are mostly undamaged, healthy and functioning). Considering the extent of this relatively intact ecosystem type, and the fact that the site is not highly sensitive (there are no unique, threatened or otherwise unique habitats present which are not widely available in the wider landscape), it can withstand some loss of natural area through development.

Do location factors favour this land use at this place?

Yes. The Northern Cape region has been identified as being one of the most viable for Solar energy generation due to the following factors:

Excellent solar radiation (compared to other regions). Close to existing main transport routes and access points. Close to connection points to the local and national electrical grid. Outside Critical Biodiversity areas.

The ecological sensitive areas on and surrounding the solar site have informed the optimal location and layout for the proposed solar project, with minimal impact to the receiving environment, subject to implementation of mitigation measures.

How will the activity or the land use associated with the activity applied for, impact on sensitive natural and cultural areas?

The alternatives considered for the solar development have been iteratively designed and informed by various investigations and assessments that considered both the natural and cultural landscapes. The natural and cultural sensitive areas have been identified and where possible, avoided to prevent negative impacts on such areas.

How will the development impact on people’s health and wellbeing?

The site is located outside of the Upington urban edge and as a result is unlikely to impact negatively on the community‟s health and wellbeing.

Will the proposed activity or the land use associated with the activity applied for, result in unacceptable opportunity costs?

Unlikely. The next best land use alternative to the solar facility is limited agriculture (the status-quo). However, the proposed solar development site does not have any significant agricultural value and has not been utilized for any intensive agricultural purposes. The site is too small to generate noteworthy financial benefit from agricultural activities. The development of the proposed solar facility would constitute the loss of less than 220ha of the overall property. The economic benefits and opportunities that the proposed solar development holds for the landowner and the local economy of the municipal area cannot be recovered from the current or potential agricultural activities.

The opportunity costs in terms of the water-use requirements of the solar facility are within acceptable bounds if one considers the confirmed capacity from the local authority and minimal demand on the resources.

Will the proposed land use result in unacceptable cumulative impacts?

Unlikely. Due to the fact that Northern Cape has been identified as an area with high potential for renewable energy generation: solar irradiation and availability of vast tracts of land with low sensitivity, there are a number of on-going applications in the region already. The potential for



further, future solar developments in the area cannot be discounted (as a large number have already been approved or are in progress). However these will have synergistic benefits for the economy and growth of the area, while the contribution to cumulative habitat loss in the area associated with this and potential future solar development would be relatively small in relation to the land resources available, with low impacts restricted to the local area.

6 SOCIO ECONOMIC CONTEXT OF THE KHARA HAIS MUNICIPAL AREA

Information displayed in this section, unless otherwise indicated, was obtained from the 2013/14 Integrated Development Plan (IDP) of the Khara Hais Municipality (Khara Hais IDP, 2013/14).

According to the Khara Hais Municipal IDP, there are approximately 23 245 households in the Municipal area. The 2011 census conducted by Stats-SA reported that the total population of Khara Hais is 93 494. The population of the Municipality has increased by 2.5% between 2002 and 2012. The IDP states that the increase in population figures from 78 393 in 2008 to 93 494 in 2011 is a result of an overall influx of people from other parts of South Africa and Africa. It is expected that with a further increase of 2.5% between 2012 and 2022, the population will be ±116 868. Currently the population constitute 49.3% male and 50.7% female.

According to the IDP 26.9% of the inhabitants are economically active and 14 486 households are subsidized by the services subsidy scheme. Approximately 23% of the labour force is unemployed and a large number of residents are dependent on government pensions, which mean that they earn less than R1 280 per month. This has a negative impact on payment of services.

The Khara Hais Spatial Development Framework (SDF) of 2009 indicates the racial composition of the Municipal area to be as follows:

66.3% Coloured; 19.2% Black; 14.4% White; and 0.1% Indian.

The potentially economically active population of Khara Hais comprises approximately 67% of the total population. The fastest growing economic sectors which can be exploited for future job creation in the Municipal area are:

Agriculture; Electricity and Water; and Mining.

The table below shows the employment status of the potentially economically active population of Khara Hais:

Table 5: Employment statistics for the Khara Hais Municipal area (IDP)

Total Potential Economically Active Population (Ages 15- 64) 67 127

Employed 45%

Unemployed 16%

Not working / other 39%

Total economically active population 40 894



Employed 75%

Unemployed 25%

The following service backlogs are indicated in the //Khara Hais IDP (2013/14):

- ±5% of households does not have services for sewerage and sanitation; - 3% of households are not serviced for water; and - 4% of households do not have waste removal

The housing statistics for Khara Hais are as follows:

Table 6: Housing statistics for Khara Hais Municipal Area

Number of Households

Formal Structures 17 479 (72%)

Informal Structures 6 182 (35%)

Informal Back Yard 718 (3%)

According to the Khara Hais IDP (2013/14) there are no houses within the 14 Wards of the Municipal area that are not serviced for electricity.

Various solar development opportunities have been identified for the Khara Hais Municipal area, which the Municipality identified as Anchor economic activities. The Upington area is regarded to be one of the most ideal areas for solar energy generation and by utilising these opportunities the Municipality would be able to create substantial job opportunities for local communities.

7 CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES AND LAYOUT PROGRESSION

The proposed Ephraim Sun PV Energy Facility is to consist of solar photovoltaic (PV) technology with fixed, single or double axis tracking mounting structures, with a net generation (contracted) capacity of 75MWAC (MegaWatts - Alternating Current) (and up to 90MWDC Direct Current installed/nameplate capacity), as well as associated infrastructure, which will include:

On-site switching-station / substation; Auxiliary buildings (gate-house and security, control centre, office, warehouse, canteen &

visitors centre, staff lockers etc.); Inverter-stations, transformers and internal electrical reticulation (underground cabling); Access and internal road network; Laydown area; Overhead electrical transmission line / grid connection (connect to the proposed Sekgame

substation); Rainwater tanks; and Perimeter fencing.

A number of alternatives, including layout and technological alternatives were considered for the proposed Ephraim Sun PV Energy Facility. . Please also refer to the Layout Report in Appendix C compiled by Solek from which the following is drawn.

7.1 LAYOUT PROGRESSION

As part of the Scoping process the preliminary study area has been considered and possible layouts have been mapped in order to get to an optimal layout in the light of both the environmental and project aspects and constraints.



It should be noted that the Proposed Site 1 alternative layout as indicated in the figure below overlap/intersects the preliminary study area of the approved preferred site for the Joram Solar project and its corresponding Environmental Authorisation (DEA reference 14/12/16/3/3/2/713). The overlapping of the authorised preferred site of Joram project and the corresponding “Proposed Site 1” of the Ephraim project implies amendment of the Joram authorised site, should the “Proposed Site 1” be the final preferred Ephraim site.

The amendment application for the Joram Solar site change (from the authorised preferred site to the alternative site) was submitted to the “Department of Environmental Affairs” (DEA). The outcome of the submitted application was a classification of the amendment by DEA as a “Part 2” substantive amendment. This classification as a substantive amendment implies a substantial portion of the EA process (including public participation) needs to be undertaken. A final decision will be made by the developers (after taking consideration of the timeline implications and the corresponding REIPPP timelines). The final layout decision on the Ephraim Sun site will be made and incorporated into the final impact report prior to submission.

To summarise therefore there is currently a portion of the Ephraim Sun study site (“Ephraim Sun proposed site 1) which overlaps with the Joram Solar study site (and its authorised “preferred site”). The developers are aware of the fact that a single area cannot be approved under more than one environmental authorisation. The developers have undertaken to ensure that none such double allocation towards two preferred sites will occur. It is planned to state within the Final Environmental Impact Report of Ephraim which layout to eliminate from the environmental authorisation. This decision would largely be dependent on the department‟s decision on the Joram amendment application.

The layout progression for Ephraim Sun project therefore includes considerations to the interdependency on the Joram project and its corresponding layouts. The layouts considered therefore within this impact assessment report include different scenarios in relation to the Joram project.

The following section of the report will provide an overview of the layout progression and the considerations towards the different scenarios in layouts.

1.1 PRELIMINARY STUDY SITE As part of the draft impact layout report different locations within an identified study site for the proposed facility were investigated. A preliminary study site of 520 ha was identified as part of this scoping phase of the Ephraim Sun (Pty) Ltd. Solar Development project. The large footprint of the preliminary study site was initially chosen in order to possibly develop multiple solar facilities and to

The large footprint also takes into account the study area and preferred site of the Joram Solar project (DEA reference 14/12/16/3/3/2/713). The Joram Solar project received its environmental authorisation in September 2015. The total footprint of Ephraim Sun is indicated Figure 6. The appointed specialists undertook their baseline studies on the total study area in order to apply a risk averse layout development approach.

The figure below depicts the preliminary study area of the Ephraim project in yellow and the preliminary study area of the Joram project (already authorised) located adjacent to each other on the same property. The figure additionally portrays one of the potential layout alternatives considered (“Ephraim Sun Proposed Site 1”) in this Ephraim impact report which extends across the preliminary study area of the Joram project. More detailed discussions on the specific layouts are discussed in following sub-categories under the layout progression.



Figure 6: Ephraim Sun footprint (Preliminary Study Site and scoping phase proposed site alternative 1 layout)

In addition the land is considered to have a low agriculture potential, with limited carrying capacity, as stipulated within the Agriculture Potential specialist report. The usage of this low agricultural potential land for renewable energy generation purposes is believed to have little effect on food production and the corresponding food security. The low concentration of nutrients in the soil as well as low annual rainfall also means that vegetation is not very dense or high, eliminating the chances of casting shadows on the solar arrays or having an effect on food security.

The 520 ha area was also identified because of its level surface, road access alternatives, and distance to the Gordonia Eskom substation. The identified 520 ha study area is referred to as the “Preliminary Study Area”. Please refer to the DEIR engineering report (Ephraim Sun, October 2015) for more details regarding the proposed layout and corresponding expected infrastructure. The infrastructure includes components such as frames, solar modules, roads, workshop and admin office area, laydown area, ablution, perimeter fencing and an onsite substation.

7.1.1 Sensitive Areas

Ecological study and sensitive areas are included and mapped as part of this Environmental Impact assessment phase. These are included in order to evaluate the layout alternatives considered within the scoping phase and adapt the layouts accordingly in order to minimize the environmental impact.



As a first layout scenario, the possible sensitive areas were added to the original 520ha preliminary study area. These possible ephemeral washes and sensitive areas has been assessed and confirmed by the specialist studies, with a specific reference towards the ecological study.

In the preliminary study area it is proposed to build across the ephemeral washes in order to keep the solar design as rectangular as possible. The solar frames can be installed using a ramming method which would have the minimum impact on the environment. As far as practically possible the ramming poles would be inserted as far as possible from all ephemeral washes and sensitive areas to take the ecological constraints into account. Note that a freshwater ecology study is undertaken so as to verify any constraints surrounding seasonal ephemeral washes and to take cognisance of any water use licence activities which could be required.

The Preferred and alternative site layouts as part of the impact phase have been selected, excluding high sensitive areas. Figure 7 below indicates assessed sensitive areas as per ecology assessment, relating to seasonal washes, within the Preliminary Study Site and proposed scoping alternative.

Note that these sensitive areas are excluded within the last iteration of the site layout. This is discussed below and within Section 7.2.2.2 of the layout report in Appendix C.



Figure 7. Ecological Sensitivity of the Ephraim Sun Preliminary and surrounding area.

7.2 LAYOUT ALTERNATIVES

The layout progression from inception to the impact phase can be summarised in this section which observes the layout alternatives accordingly.

7.2.1 Initial Layouts (Scoping Phase)

As part of the scoping phase numerous layouts and technologies were taken into consideration. As part of the Scoping phase two alternative layouts were included. The following two figures depict these proposed layouts.



Figure 8 Scoping phase Proposed site alternative 1 layout Figure 9 Scoping phase Proposed site alternative 2 layout

7.2.2 Proposed Site Alternatives (impact phase)

The proposed site alternatives within the impact phase have utilised the two identified scoping layouts as departure point within the impact phase. In order to avoid identified sensitive areas the following layout alternatives have been selected. Based on specialist studies especially the ecological study, the sensitive areas have been evaluated and confirmed.

Please note that as described above the proposed site alternative 1 layout overlaps with the assessed preliminary study area of EIA (DEA reference 14/12/16/3/3/2/713) as depicted and described in Figure 6 and Figure 8.

As mentioned above, the solar arrays will be placed in such a way that would have the least influence on the ephemeral washes while avoiding the ecological sensitive areas where practically possible. Although the annual rainfall within this region is extremely low, the hydrological features (drainage lines / ephemeral washes) were carefully considered and the most viable alternative selected.

Because of the relatively dry climate and low rainfall, natural vegetation tends to be denser within the drainage washes, thus the layout which has the smallest impact on the seasonal washes would generally also have the smallest impact on the vegetation.

Within the impact assessment phase various specialist reports were obtained and incorporated in order to develop mitigated layouts for the impact assessment phase. These mitigated layouts utilises the indicated sensitive areas and specialist feedback to reduce the environmental impact which the project could have. Four mitigated layouts were developed within the impact assessment phase namely the preferred layout and three alternative layouts. For the remainder of this report these layouts will be referred to as the preferred and alternative layouts.

It should be noted that for the “final impact report” only one preferred site layout will be selected and the alternative layouts will be eliminated.

7.2.2.1 Layout influencers – specialist studies

The ecology specialist report significantly influenced the layouts within the impact assessment phase. Different alterations in terms of the ecology sensitive areas were made.

- Ecology specialist studies



The feedback received from the ecology specialist (Simon Todd Consulting, Simon Todd) was that there were sensitive areas to take cognisance of in terms of the design. According to the ecology report the main drainage line should be spared from the development area. This can be done by incorporating a corridor within the environmental impact site layouts. Such incorporation will decrease the environmental impact by providing a passage through for fauna. A detailed cognisance of his DEIR report will be incorporated into the FEIR layout and engineering report.

- Visual specialist studies

The feedback received from the appointed visual specialist consultant, “Visual Resource Management Africa” (VRMA, Stephen Stead), includes a 50m buffer area from the Kleinbegin road, a proposed height restriction of 10 meters and a proposed avoidance of a self-build line across the N10. A detailed cognisance of his DEIR report will be incorporated into the FEIR layout and engineering report.

7.2.2.2 Impact assessment layouts

The impact assessment layouts utilises the scoping layouts and incorporates the specialist findings, recommendations and constraints (as mentioned in Section 7.2.2.1) into this impact assessment layouts. It should be noted that due to sensitivity ratings and mitigation measures, the final impact report will incorporate all specialist inputs and illustrates final layouts.

- Preferred Layout The preferred site Layout as used in the scoping phase which incorporates exclusion of sensitive areas is illustrated in Figure 10.

Figure 10 Ephraim Sun - Preferred Site Layout

- Alternative site Layouts The Ephaim Sun Alternative site layouts are illustrated in the figures below. Due to the outcome of the Joram Solar preferred facility layout, the Alternative site Layouts have been selected and a final preferred site layout will be selected for the final impact report. Note that these alternative layouts incorporated the exclusion of sensitive areas as discussed within Section 7.2.2.1.



Figure 11: Ephraim Sun - Alternative Layout 1





7.3 FACILITY LAYOUT AND COMPONENTS

Figure 14 illustrates the preferred layout and depicts how the typical layout will look like and what components the facility will comprise of. Please refer to the Engineering report (Annexure E6) for a detailed list of components and a corresponding explanation in more detail.



Figure 14: Ephraim - preferred site layout and components

The components and infrastructure of the facility includes the ground-mounted structures, solar modules, cables, inverter rooms, access roads, auxiliary roads, auxiliary buildings (administration, security, workshop, storage and ablution), rainwater tanks, perimeter fencing with associated security infrastructure, an on-site substation, and electrical distribution line.

The exact position of these components will be determined with the final plant design after preferred bidder status.

The infrastructure of the preferred layout will have a footprint of approximately 200 ha within the preferred layout area. The layout is aimed at having the lowest possible environmental impact while keeping the project economical viable.

A general explanation of the components of the layout will be discussed below. For a more detailed overview, refer to the Engineering Report in Annexure E6.

7.3.1 Solar Panel Area

The solar arrays are put together with strings of solar modules connected in series, which can be mounted onto single or double axis tracking systems. In the case of concentrated PV double axis tracking systems is typically used. In the case of poly or mono-crystalline PV panels typically single axis or fixed-tilt frames are utilised.



Large PV facilities typically use single tracking axis frames which are constructed in an North-South direction. The single axis tracking technology enables the facility to increase the amount of electricity generated due to an optimised irradiation angle to the PV panels.

The standardised length of a solar array would typically be between 30 m and 200 m long. Where a tracker system is used, modules are controlled individually and standardised systems are preferred for economic and practical reasons.

The solar modules will be placed in such a way that it would have the least influence on the washes and avoid the determined ecological boundaries where required.

7.3.2 Mounting of the Modules

As discussed in the Engineering Report, the foundation of mountings can either be laid in a small concrete block, driven piers, or a deep seated screw mounting system. The impact on agricultural resources and production of these alternatives are considered equal, although the concrete option will require greater inputs during decommissioning in order to remove the concrete from the soil. As far as practically feasible the poles would be driven in as far as possible from all washes and will take the ecological constraints into account.

Figure 15: Rammed or screwed mounting method on fixed frame (image www.expo21xx.com)

The physical process of ramming the anchors into the ground is done using specific ramming technology and equipment (typically self-powered vehicles on tracks). Figure 16 below shows equipment being used in the ramming process. Some of the ground covering in the medium sensitivity area will be cleared to do the frame installation accurately. Although the site is very flat, some minor excavation may be necessary in certain medium sensitivity areas.

In the case where earth screws or rock anchors would be more suitable, the rammed pole would be replaced by one of the former. In the areas of high sensitivity, vegetation would be left in place to avoid the risk of erosion. In the unlikely case where brush or trees are high enough to cast shadows they would be trimmed to size.

Figure 16: Installing frames foundation (Image from www.aceinfra.com and www.kaska.eu )

7.3.3 Grid Connection and Cabling

The electrical feeding line is proposed to be constructed as self-build grid connection to connect to the Gordonia Eskom substation east of Upington or via a “Loop–in/Loop-out” connection onto the

http://www.aceinfra.com/

http://www.kaska.eu/



preferred bidder “Karoshoek Solar One (RF) (Pty) Ltd.” 132kV power line. The “Karoshoek Solar One (RF) (Pty) Ltd.” electrical power lines would run along the existing Gordonia/Kleinbegin power lines as far as possible to minimise the effect on the environment. It should be noted that the Joram Solar self-build powerline route has been approved by the Department of Environmental Affairs within the “Environmental Authorization” of Joram Solar.

A 75 MW installation will have various electrical components to meet the national grid code requirements in order to supply generated electricity onto the national grid. The installed infrastructure will ensure the correct conversion of produced power from the generated panel Direct Current (DC) to Alternate Current (AC). This conversion from DC to AC is done by means of inverter stations. A single inverter station is connected to a series of arrays and would be placed along the service roads to give quick and easy access.

A number of inverter stations will be installed, of which each of these inverter stations are connected to the on-site substation from where a power line is constructed. The power line is constructed from the onsite substation to the point of supply either directly to the substation or onto an existing power line (loop-in/loop-out).

The final placement of the inverter stations and on-site substation would take the ground conditions into consideration, meaning that suitable areas with a minimal impact on the environment would be preferred. Interconnecting cables may be trenched if required, although the amount of trenching will be reduced as far as practically possible. Cabling would be mounted to structures as far as possible to avoid excessive excavation works and clearing of vegetation.

An inverter station would typically be built into a transportable container and will have an onsite footprint of 56 m² (14m x 4m). The on-site substation is expected to have a footprint of approximately 400m2 (20m x 20m).

7.3.4 Auxiliary Building Area

The main storage, workshop, ablution, and administration facilities are placed in an area where there will be easy access.

The final storage and administration areas would also be selected to minimise their impact on the environment by considering the ground conditions and the ecology of the surrounding areas. Since this area may host more human activity than most other parts of the solar facility, it is important to take the surrounding habitat into consideration. The structure erected should not be more than 2000 square meters in area and is referred to as the Storage and Admin facility. Water to the facilities is planned to be supplied by twenty 10 kl water tanks. These tanks will also be used as redundant water for operation of the plant.

7.3.5 Construction of Roads

In the case where access roads cross the possible washes or where they are in the close vicinity of seasonal washes special care and precautionary measures must be taken to mitigate the risk of erosion due to ground disturbances. By incorporating precast concrete infrastructure into the construction of these roads the risk of the roads acting as water channels could be avoided. Special attention to drainage, water flow and erosion will be given and potential risks will be mitigated by applying appropriate building methods.

A storm-water management plan is developed and forms part of this impact assessment which has more detailed information towards consideration of storm-water infrastructure. Please refer to the Ephraim engineering report (DEIR, October 2015) for more information and detail towards the



different types of roads (main access road, internal roads, perimeter roads and internal tracks) as well as their corresponding properties.

7.4 ACCESS ROUTES

Access to the site will be along appropriate provincial and local roads. The proposed access roads to the site are from the Kleinbegin gravel road. The Kleinbegin road intersects the M10, 10km east of Upington. Figure 17 depicts the different access route alternatives.

There are three access road alternatives, with two having a site entrance option to the east and west of the Kleinbegin road. All three entrance options being from the Kleinbegin road. The site access road alternatives will be investigated to determine which one will have the least environmental impact and would be more viable.

A Transport and Traffic Management Plan is included within this environmental impact phase. This traffic management and transportation plan investigates, plan and describe implications around increased traffic loads and potential route scenarios.

7.4.1 Access to the Site

Different access route alternatives towards the site alternatives are described within this section of the report. Figure 17 depicts the footprint of the study area and the two proposed access road alternatives.



Figure 17: Alternative access roads for the proposed site alternatives

7.4.2 Road access alternative 1 (east and west) and Road access alternative 3 (west)

Access road alternative 1 has been investigated and provides access to the Alternative site layouts from the Kleinbegin road at the existing farm entrance. The access is located at the existing farm entrance to the east of Kleinbegin road. This access alternative provides access to the eastern side of the Kleinbegin road by means of an existing entrance and to the west by means of a new proposed entrance.

There is another existing farm road entrance located approximately 30 metres South-East of “Access road alternative 1” existing farm entrance. This second entrance is to the west of the Kleinbegin road and could serve as an entrance to the West of the Kleinbegin road, depicted in Figure 18 as “Road access alternative 03 West”. From an environmental impact assessment perspective it will be preferred to utilise the existing entrance roads to each of these sides (therefore utilising access alternative 01 and access alternative 03). It should be noted that the alternative “Road access alternative 03 West” has been assessed as option to an alternative site layout.



From a road safety perspective it would be preferred to have entrances to the east and the west of the Kleinbegin road opposite to each other (therefore utilising only access alternative 01 to the east and the west of the Kleinbegin road).

Figure 18 depicts a detailed overview of the proposed access road alternatives towards the east and west of the Kleinbegin road for all three of the access road alternatives.

Figure 18: Detailed overview towards access roads

7.4.3 Road access alternative 2 (east and west)

Access road alternative 2 has been investigated and provides access from the Kleinbegin road at the depicted “Access road alternative 02” as depicted in Figure 18.

The proposed access is located south-east of a large washes located on either side of the Kleinbegin road. The location of the proposed location is chosen south-east of this wash in order to avoid crossing of this sensitive area should the specialists find that this is indeed a sensitive area to be avoided. This access alternative intends to provide access to both the eastern and western side of the Kleinbegin road (including the two site alternatives) by constructing an entrance point on either side of the Kleinbegin road at this location.



7.4.4 Access routes

The access roads to the site will be from the Kleinbegin road. The distance from the Kleinbegin road / N10 intersection, 10km south east from Upington, are7.8km to “Access road alternative 1” and 8.8km to “Access road alternative 2”.

Upgrading of the existing farm access “Access road alternative 1” as well as “Access road alternative 2” might be required and will be investigated as part of the Transportation and Traffic management assessment.

As part of the Environmental Impact assessment the access road alternatives and routes have been assessed and approved by “South African National Road Agency” (SANRAL) and provincial road agency. SANRAL is governed by various laws by which all national roads should be managed. The specific area of concern with regard to SANRAL is at the intersection of the N10 and Kleinbegin road with a specific focus towards ensuring adequate sight distance in relation to the traffic characteristics. A letter of no-objection was received from SANRAL in terms of utilising the N10/Kleinbegin road intersection for the purposes of the Ephraim Sun project. Further condition to be adhered to are described within the “Transport and Traffic management plan” as compiled for the Ephraim Sun project. A letter of no objection was further obtained from the provincial road agency with regard to access road alternatives to the Ephraim Sun solar facility from the Kleinbegin road (as described in the previous section).

The figure below indicates the Ephraim Sun preliminary study area and access road alternatives from the Kleinbegin Road.



Figure 19: Proposed Access Road entrances

7.5 GRID CONNECTION AND POWER LINE ROUTES

The following section describes the various grid connection routes considered within this impact assessment.

In the scoping phase several “self-build” and “Loop-in/Loop-out” (LiLo) power line route alternatives were investigated. The distances of self-build power lines, upgrading of infrastructure (with a specific reference towards the “Keidebees” Eskom substation) and servitude alternatives have been taken into consideration.

The Karoshoek Solar One (Pty) Ltd. CSP project power line servitude traverse the same property. This servitude runs north of Ephraim Sun Preliminary site Layout. The “Environmental Authorisation” (EA)was approved for the Karoshoek Solar One (Pty) Ltd. self-build 132kV line upto the Gordonia substation (North of the Orange river). The Karoshoek Solar One CSP project received preferred bidder status (REIPPP round 3) and reached financial close in the first quarter of 2015.



Please note that the routes of power lines inside the project site and study area have a number of options and that this route options could change. The routes outside the study area and project site are however fixed to the route discussions in this report.

As part of the scoping phase, the following grid connection route alternatives have been assessed and included. For the purposes of the impact assessment phase these routes (as used in the scoping phase) are used as baseline for the impact phase. The specialist studies and feedback within the impact phase (as described in Section 7.2.2.1) are incorporated within the following section in terms of the grid connection routes.

The following section portrays an overview of the various grid connection alternatives considered within this impact phase and report. The alternatives are divided into two categories namely “Loop-in/Loop-out” (LiLo) alternatives and “Self-build” alternatives.

There are five proposed on-site substation locations, although only one final onsite substation will be built for the Ephraim project. The depicted locations of these on-site substations have been chosen in such a way to service each of the different scenarios in terms of its grid connection.

7.5.1 “Loop-in/Loop-out” proposed Alternatives

Figure 20 depicts the proposed on-site substations within the facility footprint, the corresponding “Loop-in/Loop-out” (LiLo) connection alternatives, the existing power line infrastructure and the newly authorised power line infrastructure (Ilanga CSP/Karoshoek CSP project and corresponding grid connection).

There are different grid LiLo options for both of the preferred and alternative site layouts. A “Loop-In/Loop-Out”(LiLo) connection can be considered to either the newly authorised grid connection (Ilanga CSP/Karoshoek CSP project) or to the existing Kleinbegin 132kVpower line.

7.5.1.1 LiLo connection on Karoshoek Solar One CSP powerline

The first option considered is to loop into the authorised 132kV Ilanga Gordonia (Karoshoek Solar One (Pty) Ltd.) power line. There are multiple routes considered for such a LiLo connection from the onsite substations 1, 3, 4 and 5.

Figure 20 depicts the LiLo connection options considered.

7.5.1.2 LiLo connection on Kleinbegin powerline

The second option is to loop into the existing Gordonia/Kleinbegin 132 kV line as connection alternatives from onsite substations 2, 4 and 5 that has been included and assessed in the scoping phase. It should be noted that the existing 132kV Gordonia/Kleinbegin powerline structures is close to the end of its design life. The approval from Eskom would be required in order to Loop-in/Loop-out onto this line or additionally consider the upgrading of the Gordonia/Kleibegin line.

Figure 20 depicts the LiLo connection options considered.



Figure 20: Power line Loop in Loop out alternatives

7.5.2 Self-build Alternatives

All the self-build power line alternatives as part of the scoping phase have been assessed and follow their different routes from proposed onsite substation alternatives up to the Gordonia/Kleinbegin 132kV power line and will then run parallel to the Gordonia/Kleinbegin 132kV line connecting to Gordonia/Eskom Substation.

The routes were all chosen along existing fences or power lines, in order to minimise the additional environmental impact. The environmental impact of the remaining alternatives should all be more or less the same. The three self-build alternatives that have been assessed are illustrated in Figure 21.

7.5.2.1 Self-build Alternative 1

The proposed power line alternative option 1 “Ephraim Sun Selfbuild sub1_01” runs from onsite substation 1 on the southern side of the authorised Karoshoek Solar One (Pty) Ltd. power line in a western direction of the Gordonia/Kleinbegin 132kV power line and from that point follows the Gordonia/Kleinbegin 132kV power line in a northern direction connecting to Gordonia Eskom Substation (“Gordonia SS”).

The self-build alternative 1 power line is planned to be constructed on the western side of the existing Gordonia/Kleinbegin 132kV line and on the western side of the Karoshoek Solar One (Pty)



Ltd. power line. Being planned on the west of these two lines implies that the self-build option needs to cross the Gordonia/Kleinbegin 132kV line. The reason for the line being planned on the western side of these lines pertains to the existing location of the ESKOM servitude across the river and urban area as well as the location of the existing Gordonia/Kleinbegin 132kV line being on the eastern boundary of this servitude.


The proposed power line alternative option 2 “Ephraim Sun Selfbuild sub2_01” runs from onsite substation 2 parallel to the Gordonia/Kleinbegin 132kV power line, on the eastern side of the Gordonia/Kleinbegin 132kV line in a northern direction and finally connects to the Gordonia Eskom Substation (“Gordonia SS”, as depicted in Figure 21).


The proposed power line alternative option 3 “Ephraim Sun Selfbuild sub3_01” is constructed in a northern direction from on-site substation 3 for a short distance until it reaches the Karoshoek Solar One (Pty) Ltd. power line. From here the self-build alternative 3 follows the same route as “Ephraim Sun Self-build Sub1_01” alternative 1. This route being parallel to the Karoshoek Solar One power line until it reaches the Gordonia/Kleinbegin 132kV line and from there on to Gordonia Substation.

Figure 21: Grid Connection Self-build alternatives

Please note that due to the specific recommendations towards the no-go of a self-build grid connection by the visual specialist (VRM Africa), Solek takes cognisance thereof and motivates the self-build option as a single self-build line between the Ephraim project and the Joram project. In



principle the amount of self-build lines to Gordonia therefore between the two projects will not be more than one line, in order to reduce the environmental impact.

7.5.3 Preferred Grid Connection

7.5.3.1 Preferred Loop in Loop out Grid Connection

The preferred “loop in Loop out” option will connect to the authorised 132kV Ilanga Gordonia (Karoshoek Solar One (Pty) Ltd.) Power line, planned to be constructed, from onsite substations 1. Figure 22 depicts the preferred grid connections on one single diagram.

7.5.3.2 Preferred Self-build Grid Connection

The preferred Self-build Grid connection “Ephraim Sun Selfbuild sub1_01” will be from onsite substation 1 and will follow the authorised Karoshoek Solar One (Pty) Ltd. power line in a western direction up to the boundary of the preliminary study site where after following the assessed route along the Gordonia Kleinbegin 132kV line connecting to the Gordonia substation. Figure 22 depicts the preferred grid connections on one single diagram.

Figure 22: Preferred grid connections (LiLo and self-build)

Please note that due to the specific recommendations towards the no-go of a self-build grid connection by the visual specialist (VRM Africa), Solek have confirmed that it is the intention to construct a single self-build line for both the Ephraim project and the Joram project. In principle the amount of self-build lines to Gordonia therefore between the two projects will not be more than one line (which is already authorised), in order to reduce the environmental impact.



It should be noted that the Joram Solar (Pty) Ltd. grid connection /powerline was approved by the Department of Environmental Affairs under its Environmental Authorisation. Should only one grid connection be shared between these two projects (Joram and the Ephraim), the grid connection of Ephraim will continue with its self-build grid connection upto the location where it intersects with the approved Joram grid connection where it would “Loop-in/Loop-out” of the Joram grid connection.

1.1.1 Grid connection summary Table 7 gives an overview to all of the alternatives and the corresponding distances of these options. Note that the highlighted fields are the preferred grid connections . These distances are measured from the onsite substations to the Gordonia substation in the case of “Self Build” options. In the case of LiLo connections, the distance is measured from the on-site substations to either the planned Karoshoek Solar One (Pty) Ltd. 132kV grid connection or existing Gordonia/Kleinbegin 132kV Power line.

Table 7: Grid connection Alternative distances

Grid Connection Alternatives Distance (km)

Loop in Loop out Power Line Alternatives

Ephraim Sun GOR/KLEINB Lilo sub4_01 1.7 km



Ephraim Sun ILA/GOR Lilo sub1_01 0.1 km



Ephraim Sun ILA/GOR Lilo sub5_01 2.3km

Self-build Power Line Alternatives

Ephraim Sun Selfbuild sub1_01 12.2 km



8 TECHNICAL OVERVIEW

The following section presents an overview of the main components of the solar energy facility layout as described in the Engineering report compiled by Solek. Please refer to the engineering report attached in Annexure E6 for further information regarding the Technical componants of the proposed facility.

The final design will consist of different components. A typical description of the components and their assumed impact are listed below. For more detail on the preliminary layout, please refer to the Layout Report in Appendix C.

The exact position of the solar PV or CPV module layout will follow a risk-averse approach and be determined by the recommendations in the environmental specialists‟ reports in order to avoid all sensitive areas in the positioning of the facility. In addition, the final layout will be influenced by the



final detail design of the project once a tender has been awarded (once “preferred bidder” status has been awarded by the Department of Energy to the project).

It should be noted that the footprint of the 75MW facility on a proposed site area of 220ha might overlap/intersects the preliminary study area of the Joram Solar project (DEA reference 14/12/16/3/3/2/713) that has been assessed and is currently under final review by the DEA. As part of the project development for a second phase project (Ephriam Sun solar project) and as outcome of the specialist studies, the plan will be to submit an amendment application on the Joram Solar EA that amends the preferred layout to be the „Joram Solar Alternative layout‟ as considered and assessed in the previous EIA. This will then provide the opportunity to propose the Ephraim Sun Site alternative 1 layout to overlap and be included within the assessed preliminary study area of the Joram Sun EIA (DEA reference 14/12/16/3/3/2/713), without compromising the EA for Joram Solar.

The final footprint of the Ephraim Sun solar energy facility, on the remainder of portion 62 (Portion of Portion 9) (Vryheid) on farm Vaal Koppies no 40, is expected to be closer to 200ha, effectively allowing sensitive areas to be excluded should this be required.

The following figure depicts a typical layout of PV modules for the two types of PV technology.

Figure 23 : Typical layout of solar modules – PV arrays (left) and CPV modules (right)

8.1 Foundation Footprint

The physical footprint of the PV/CPV modules on the ground is formed by a network of vertical poles (typically 100 mm in diameter), on which the modules are to be mounted. The following figure depicts the typical foundation and substructures unto which the frames and PV modules are mounted.

Figure 24: Foundation footprint



Different methods are used to mount the modules to the ground. The mounting structure choice will be influenced by the pricing, geotechnical properties and technology at the time of construction.

Some of the methods include basic drilling or hammering with specific tools. The physical process of ramming the anchors into the ground is done using special equipment (typically on tracks). In the case where earth screws or rock anchors would be more suitable, the rammed pole technology would be replaced by one of the former. Some of the ground covering in the medium sensitivity area may be cleared to do the frame installation accurately. Although the site is very flat, some minor excavation may be necessary in certain medium sensitivity areas.

Additionally modules can be mounted to the ground by casting small concrete foundation blocks; usage of concrete foundation will be limited as far as possible (function of geology and other requirements). Removal of such foundations is possible upon de-commissioning of the facility.

8.2 Module Height

The PV panel arrays have an approximate height of 3.5 m, whereas the CPV modules have a height of 10m. A maximum height of 10 m will be considered and assessed in the Environmental Impact Assessment Process. This will allow for flexibility to technology changes in the industry. The maximum height listed here is only a precautionary description due to foreseeable future changes in technology.

8.3 Solar Panel Area

The solar arrays are put together with strings of solar modules connected in series, which can be mounted onto single or double axis tracking systems. These frames are typically installed with the single tracking axis in an east-west direction to maximise the system‟s output.

The standardised length of a solar array would typically be between 50 m and 200 m long. Where a tracker system is used, each of the modules is controlled individually and standardised systems are preferred for economic and practical reasons. The solar modules will be placed in such a way that it would have the least influence on the seasonal washers and avoiding the ecological boundaries set where practically possible.

8.4 Access Roads

An access road of approximately 6m wide will be required for the facility. The access road alternatives are discussed in more detail later in this report and within the layout report.

Gravelled internal roads and un-surfaced access tracks are to be provided for. Such access tracks that will be seen as main internal roads (typically < 6 m wide and limited to the construction site) will form part of the development footprint. Pathways (typically <4 m wide) between the PV/CPV module layout will typically also be provided for to make the cleaning and maintenance of the panels possible. Existing roads will be used as far as possible.

The following figure depicts an example of typical internal roads.



Figure 25: Typical internal road example

8.5 Inverter Rooms

The DC cabling (LV/MV) from the module strings will be connected to the inverters that will be housed within inverter rooms located at specific areas as per solar PV design layouts and cabling diagrams (these diagrams will be populated closer to tender submission, or post-preferred bidder status). The footprint of an inverter room will be approximately 56m² (4m x 14m) and height of 3m.

Figure 26: Typical inverter room (Solek, 2015)

8.6 On Site Sub-Station and Transformers

The step-up substation and its associated infrastructure and internal roads should have a footprint of approximately 0.04 ha (20 m x 20 m). Note that the 0.04 ha is an estimate and included in the entire building footprint of typically < 1 ha.

Figure 27: Typical on-site substation footprint

8.7 Cables and Trenching

Shallow trenches for electric cables will be required to connect the PV/CPV modules to the inverter rooms and the inverter rooms to the on-site substation. These electric cables are planned along internal roads and/or along pathways between the PV/CPV modules as far as possible.



Figure 28: Typical cable trenches

8.8 Connection To National Grid

Electricity will be transmitted from the on-site step-up substation via a new overhead power line to either the existing Kleinbegin/Gordonia 132kV power line or to the the Karoshoek Solar One (Pty) Ltd. project powerline by means of a “loop-in/loop-out” connection. Other grid connection options include a variety of own-built line options to the Gordonia substation. A number of possible connection routes are investigated in this EIA. The final preferred route will be subject to the negotiations with the neighbouring farmers and the recommendation of the environmental specialists. Please refer to the layout report for more detailed depiction and description of grid connection route options.

8.9 Perimeter Fence

A perimeter security fence will be constructed around the solar park with a guarded security point. The perimeter security fence is envisioned to include security cameras and any related and required infrastructure (such as cabling, central monitoring etc). Note that energy supply towards this required security infrastructure is envisioned to be obtained from the auxiliary power supply.

8.10 Cut and Fill Areas

As far as possible, any cut and fill activity along the access roads will be avoided. The majority of the proposed access roads are currently being used by construction vehicles and should not need any alternation. Where alternations might be necessary, input from civil construction engineers will be sourced regarding the cut and fill aspects.

8.11 Borrow Pits

As far as possible, the creation of borrow pits will be avoided. There is a quarry site located on the existing farm. The road surfacing material required (e.g. gravel/base course or stone) can be sourced from these existing quarry on the farm should additional road surfacing material be required. The current EIA application does not make provision for new borrow pits. Should new borrow pits be required on the property, these will have to be licenced/authorised in terms of the Minerals and Petroleum Resources Development Act and the National Environmental Management Act. To avoid this process a licenced borrow pit in the area would rather be used.

8.12 Soil Heaps

As far as possible, the creation of permanent soil heaps will be avoided. All topsoil removed for the purpose of digging foundations are to be separately stockpiled within the boundaries of the 220 ha development footprint, for later rehabilitation. It is unlikely that major soil heaps will be required for this construction site.



8.13 Auxilliary Buildings and Laydown Area.

The auxiliary buildings area will typically include:

A workshop area A storeroom area A change and ablution room area An administrative and security building 20 x 10 kl water tanks

Figure 29: Foundation of a typical on-site building

The infrastructure for the auxiliary buildings should occupy approximately 2 ha. The workshop will be used for general maintenance of parts, etc. and will typically be 20 m x 40 m. The storeroom will be used for the storage of small equipment and parts and will typically be 20 m x 30 m. The change and ablution facilities will be very basic and will include toilets, basins and a change area. The administrative and security building will be used as an on-site office and will have a footprint of typically 10 m x 10 m.

The final detailed design and exact coordinated layout of the facility will be designed and finalised should the facility be approved and awarded a tender as a “preferred bidder” under the REIPPP. The component list above is typical to such projects and may deviate due to engineering requirements, new technologies and regulatory changes from the government‟s tender process. This will be done should the project be approved and the environmental specialists recommendations have been made.

8.14 Fire Management and Protection Area

It is of importance that cognisance of fire risks should be taken and the corresponding preventative matters be implemented. It is the landowner‟s responsibility to maintain firebreaks on the border of his property, which also includes the border of the long-term lease area. The solar facility has a similar responsibility to maintain an adequate fire break on its own border.

Additional preparation should be taken by both the landowner and the solar facility (and its personnel) to be sufficiently prepared in combatting veld fires. The management of plant biomass within the solar facility boundaries are important as there could be an increase of such biomass should the area experience exceptional heavy rains in previous years. The solar facility should actively manage such a potential build-up of biomass within its area so as to reduce any fire risk.

Additional cognisance, planning and execution of the following key points should be taken in operating the solar facility: Fires should only be allowed within fire-safe demarcated areas (within the site camp and not within the solar field itself); contact details should be available on site of local fire and emergency services; basic firefighting equipment should be available on-site; adequate training should be given to personnel in fire prevention and fighting; all contractors and employees should be briefed on the management of fire and prevention thereof on-site.



9 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AND TRANSPORTATION

A transport study and traffic management plan has been compiled by Solek renewable energy engineers. This study is included in Annexure E10 and relevant management requirements are also contained in the EMPr attached in Appendix H.

Access to the site will be along appropriate national, provincial and local roads. The access roads to the site will be from the Kleinbegin road, 8km from the Kleinbegin / N10 intersection and 10km east from Upington in the Northern Cape. The different access routes will be investigated as part of this study. The facility location is illustrated in the figure below.

Figure 30: Ephraim Sun Facility location in relation to public roads.

The purpose of the transport study (Annexure E10) is:

Determine access freight routes for delivery of material and resources Confirm required clearance for material delivery Confirm freight requirements Propose alternative routes for delivery of material and resources Normal and heavy vehicle freight legal limits Specific permits required for Abnormal Vehicles Maximum height clearance on roads. Propose traffic accommodation measures during construction and operation of

proposed Solar Energy facility Impact on traffic volumes and traffic flow.

9.1 General Freight Requirements

9.1.1 Legislation The general current limitations on road freight transport are:

Axle load limitation of 7,7t on front axle, 9,0t on single rear axles. Axle unit limitations are 18t for dual axle unit and 24t for 3 axle unit. Bridge formula requirements to limit concentration of loads and to regulate load

distribution on the vehicle.



Gross vehicle mass of 56t. This means a typical payload of about 30t. Maximum vehicle length of 22m for an Interlink, 18,5m for horse and trailer and

13,5m for a single unit. Width limit of 2,6m. Height limit of 4,3m.

Abnormal permits are required for vehicles exceeding these limits.

9.1.2 Freight for Solar Energy Facility Solar modules (panels). Substructure and possible foundation which might be drill in screws (Frames for Solar

modules). Building materials (concrete aggregates, cement and gravel, steel and perimeter fencing). Construction equipment such as piling rigs and cranes. Inverter rooms (containerized) as per regulations and standard container specifications. Transformer, cables, switch gear and all other required infrastructure for on-site

substations.

The following is anticipated:

Depending on the technology (PV or CPV) the substructure foundation could be drill in screws or concrete foundation. The transportation of these materials will be conventional trucks which should adhere to legal limits.

Solar Modules and substructure (frames) will probably be transported in containers or wooden crates using conventional heavy vehicles within the legal limits from nearest South African port. The number of loads will be a function of the capacity of the solar farm and the extent of the substructure.

The Inverter rooms will be containerized units and will be transported with conventional trucks which should adhere to legal limits.

Transformers will most probably be transported by abnormal vehicles from the nearest South African port or local South African manufacturer.

Additional equipment procured for on-site substations will be planned in conventional trucks which should adhere to legal limits.

9.2 Traffic Consideration Taking into account freight and traffic volumes for a 75MW solar project as well as the planned timelines of construction which will be between 12 to 18 months the following will be applicable:

Estimated 3000 to 4000 heavy vehicle trips during the construction period. The majority of these vehicle trips are estimated to take place within the first 9 to 12 months of construction.

The daily additional increased traffic volumes therefore equates to between 15 and 20 heavy vehicle trips per day over a period of 9 to 12 months.

Please note that a “vehicle trip” is seen defined in this instance as one vehicle movement. Therefore a full truck load which delivers its load is seen as one vehicle trip. The impact of the increased amount of traffic on the general traffic would therefore be negligible as the additional peak hour traffic would be at most 2 vehicle trips per peak hour. This implies that on average within the peak hour (morning and afternoon) one full truck load will be delivered and one empty truck load will return.



The current traffic volumes on N10 as received from Mikros Traffic Monitoring (Pty) Ltd as referred to by SANRAL for the year 2015 (2015/01/01 to 2015/08/27) at the location Grootdrink, 57km from the N10/Kleinbegin intersection is illustrated in Table 8below.

Table 8: N10/Kleinbegin official traffic volume data (between Upington and Groblershoop)

N10 (Grootdrink) To Upington To Groblershoop

Total

Average daily Traffic (ADT) 610 601 1211

Average daily Truck Traffic (ADTT) 109 109 218

Percentage of trucks 17.9 18.2 18

Truck split % (Short: Medium: Long) 43:13:44 40:14:46 48:13:39

Percentage of night traffic (20h00 – 06h00)

11.9 11.4 11.7

The illustrated “Average daily traffic” (ADT) of approximately 1200 vehicles has a maximum hourly flow of approximately 76 vehicles/hour as calculated for this specific section of road. The average of 60 vehicles / hour is derived from 88.3% of total vehicles during daytime (06h00 – 20h00).

It can therefore be stated that the construction traffic and the post construction traffic would have an impact of max 20% of the average truck traffic and less than 5% on the total traffic volumes. It should be noted that the specific route will be determined and that a distance of only 10 km on the N10 will probably be used between Upington and the Kleinbegin road.

9.3 Access Routes To Ephraim Sun Solar Facility This section will deal with the facility‟s geographic location, its site access points and the corresponding main routes from nearby ports and central business areas (such as Gauteng and Durban) in South Africa.

9.3.1 Ephraim Sun Facility Location As previously mentioned the facility is located in Upington area within the Northern Cape Province. The facility site is located adjacent to the Kleinbegin road. The coordinates on the Kleinbegin road is depicted in Table 9 below.

Table 9: Kleinbegin coordinates

Road Access Alternative 1 (East and West)

Latitude: 28°30'33.89"S

Longitude 21°21'17.70"E

Road Access Alternative 3 (West)

Latitude: 28°30'34.70"S


Road Access Alternative 2 (East and West)

Latitude: 28°30'52.43"S




9.3.2 Preferred route for transport of materials to site. The material to be transported to site would either be manufactured locally or imported from various international locations.

In the case of local manufacturing, it is assumed that the material will either be manufactured and/or sourced from Gauteng area.

In the case of importation imported material arrives in South Africa at either of the large and nearest ports being Saldanha, Cape Town or Port Elizabeth.

Saldanha is viewed (with the current information at hand) as the preferred port with the shortest distance to site from port (817 kilometres from Saldanha port to Ephraim site), as indicated in Figure 31 below.

It should be noted that the Ports Authority also has preferences on specific freight import which should be viewed as a possible constraint. It is expected that a minimum order (estimated 200 containers) of container shipments could be required at Saldanha Port. An appropriate feasibility study will be done during the procurement phase where all possible scenarios will be considered (comparing route distances, differences between Cape Town port and Saldana port in terms of rates and taxes).

Figure 31: Saldanha Bay Harbour as preferred port and route to project site

The preferred route should take cognisance of reducing the distance travelled through densely populated areas and additionally limit the amount of delivery trips during peak-hours.

Table 10 below summarises the specific route-sections to be travelled, its corresponding distances and characteristics for the preferred route from Saldanha to the project site.



Table 10: Preferred route detail

From To Distance Road Road surface

Saldanha Velddrif 33km (Provincial) R27

Asphalt surface, single carriageway, tarred shoulders.

Velddrif Piketberg 62km R399 (Provincial)

Asphalt surface, single carriageway, gravel shoulders.

Piketberg Vanrhynsdorp 174km N7 (National )

Asphalt surface, single carriageway, tarred shoulders. Currently upgrading in process.

Vanrhynsdorp Calvinia 121km R27 (National)

Asphalt surface, single carriageway, tarred shoulders Recently upgraded.

Calvinia Keimoes 366km R27 (National)


Keimoes Upington 43 N14 (National)


Upington N10 / Kleinbegin intersection

10km N10 Asphalt surface, single carriageway, gravel shoulders.

Kleinbegin Road Site 8km Kleinbegin Gravel road (7.5m wide)

9.3.3 Alternative routes for transport of materials to site

9.3.3.1 Alternative route (Saldanha via N7/N14) Should the preferred route not be acceptable or engaged under periodic maintenance works, then the route via Springbok could be used as an alternative. Figure 32 depicts the alternative route from Saldanha (a distance of 936km) via Springbok (utilising the N7 and N14). This route is an alternative route considered should Saldanha still be utilised as preferred port, but the preferred route (via Calvinia) not be accepted. The route is approximately 100 kilometres more in distance than the preferred route.



Figure 32: Alternative Route – Saldanha to project site (via N7/N14)

9.3.3.2 Alternative port (Cape Town) and route The preferred route and the first alternative route (as described above) are based on Saldanha port as a preferred port. In this scenario a Cape Town Port is considered together with its corresponding transportation route to the project site.

The route from Cape Town port follows the national road and also follows an almost identical route as the preferred route and the alternative route as described above. The difference being that the route from Cape Town utilises a section on the N1 to the N7 and continues from here to Piketberg where it links up with the described routes.

9.3.3.3 Alternative port (Durban) and route The Port of Durban is widely attributed as the largest container port in Africa and by far the largest container port in South Africa. It would be unwise to exclude the Port of Durban as a possible point of supply for the imported goods.

The route from Durban to the project site is approximately 1200 kilometres in distance. The utilisation of the Port of Durban will be based on a feasibility study and the corresponding increased over-land transport as opposed to potential higher port costs at some of the other ports.

Figure 35 below depicts the route options to be followed from the Port of Durban to the project site, should this alternative be used.



Figure 33: Alternative Route from Durban, KZN

9.3.3.4 Alternative port (Port Elizabeth) and route Utilising the Port Elizabeth Port as an alternative point of import and its corresponding route is the least preferred route but offers an alternative should Saldanha port not be available and should the Port Elizabeth port be a more viable solution than that offered by Durban. Figure 34 below depicts the over-land transportation route considered should the Port Elizabeth port be the chosen port of entry. The route is approximately 910 kilometres in total to the project site.

Figure 34: Alternative route from Port Elizabeth to project site

9.3.4 Routes from Local Suppliers All local procured items and material for the facility is expected to be procured from mainly the following key areas:



Johannesburg and area, Gauteng Cape Town, Western Cape Durban, KwaZulu Natal

The routes to the site from these centres are predominantly on Provincial and National roads. Figure 35, Figure 36 and Figure 37 below depicts the most probable routes from each of these areas to the project site. There are no limitations on normal freight on these routes.

Material sources for road building and concrete works are available in Upington and all material will most likely be transported from Upington area.

Figure 35: Alternative route from Gauteng



Figure 36: Alternative Route from Cape Town

Figure 37: Alternative Route from Durban, KZN

9.4 Authority and Permit Requirements A substantive portion of the goods to be transported (whether local or internationally

sourced) is expected to be normal loads and as such would not require special permitting for the usage of roads. There are however the following considerations to take into account in this regard:

No toll fees required on the routes from the preferred port. On the routes from the other manufacturing centres certain portions of the national routes are tolled which will required toll fees.



An Abnormal permit will be required for the transport of the transformer. The estimated permit value will be a function of the actual vehicle configuration but is estimated at R7000 - R9000 per trip.

9.5 ROUTE LIMITATIONS OF THE PREFERRED ROUTE FROM THE PORT

9.5.1 General considerations As per the preferred route from the Saldanha Port to the Solar Facility the general remark is that:

No limitations on normal heavy vehicles. Permits required from the Provincial Authorities for abnormal loads such as the transformer. Vertical clearance of bridges in general is limited to 5,2m on these routes. However, should

the transformer exceed 5,2m , the route will have to be confirmed or altered as required but the permit conditions will direct the load on an approved route.

It should also be noted that the N7 is currently undergoing upgrades and might be completed by the time the project receive preferred bidder status and/or within the construction period.

9.5.2 Kleinbegin/N10 considerations The project developer obtained a letter of no-objection from SANRAL for the proposed usage of the N10/Kleinbegin intersection. SANRAL proposed recommendations to be implemented within the traffic management plan. SANRAL‟s recommendations includes proposed upgrades at the intersection with regard to road signage, special reference to sight distance, as well as possible upgrading of the intersection to surfaced standards with turning lanes. Such considerations should be taken into account within the final road designs. This access upgrading will be limited to the current road reserve at the intersection of the N10 and the Kleinbegin road.

Shoulders are the usable areas immediately adjacent to the travelled way and are a critical element of the roadway cross-section. They provide:

A recovery area for errant vehicles; A refuge for stopped or disabled vehicles; An area out of the travel lanes for emergency and maintenance vehicles; and Lateral support of the roadway structure.

In addition, shoulders support use of the road by other modes of transport, for example cyclists and pedestrians. The intersection between the N10 and Klienbegin road should allow adequate reserve for shoulders as per best practices.

Figure 38 below indicated the N10 and Kleinbegin road intersection.



Figure 38: N10 Kleinbegin intersection

9.6 TRAFFIC RECOMMENDATIONS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

As per the Ephraim Sun road access assessment and the SA road agency regulations and requirements for route alternative and access road upgrades, the following points are recommended mitigation measures.

The road access should be upgraded to at least a 5m width (preferable 6m with sufficient shoulders) and gravel wearing course layer.

Regulations and temporary road signage as well as possible widening of the road shoulder should be implemented at the N10 Kleinbegin road intersection during the Ephraim Sun project construction phase.

Legal limits for normal heavy vehicle freight should be applied Abnormal Permits required for transport of transformers Maximum vertical clearance on most routes is 5,2m for Abnormal Load but should

preferably be limited to 4,8m. If the project received approval, by the time of construction overhead lines should be

verified with regard to vertical clearance. Recommended that the road surface at the facility access being inspected regularly (every

second month) Limit the amount of delivery trips during peak hour periods. Limit the distance travelled through densely populated areas by utilising roads outside of

city and town-centres. Maintain routes on the main feed-in routes such as the N14 and N10.

10 ECONOMIC CONTEXT

10.1 PROJECT COST OVERVIEW

Renewable energy projects, such as the proposed solar facility, require significant capital investment. Funds of equity and debt investors either from foreign or domestic sources are obtained. The cost requirements and potential revenue are discussed in this section, sketching a business case for the development of renewable energy projects within South Africa (specifically solar farms in the Northern Cape).



The project costs consist of two parts, capital cost and running cost. The capital cost pertains to all costs incurred for the establishment of a producing facility. The running cost relates to those costs incurred to ensure that the facility operates as it should throughout its expected lifetime.

Solar PV installations can operate for many years with relatively little maintenance or intervention. Therefore after the initial capital outlay required for building the solar power plant, further financial investment is limited. Operating costs are also limited compared to other power generation technologies.

10.1.1 Project specific costs

The Ephraim Sun PV Facility detailed costing has not been completed on the date of submitting this scoping report. The project is, however, based on the industry standard cost with capital expenditure that can amount to more or less R20-25M per megawatt installed capacity. The running cost of a solar PV facility is minimal related to the initial capital cost, contributing to the most significant cost of constructing and running a solar PV facility.

10.1.2 Revenue streams

The payback of the facility results mainly from electricity sales, intended under the current governmental programme, known as the “Renewable Energy Independent Power Producer Procurement Programme” (REIPPPP).

The IPP procurement programme portrays fixed ceiling prices for bidders to tender against in a competitive environment. The establishment of these ceiling prices is based on industry standard return on investments.

As part of the IPP procurement programme preferred bidders will enter into a power purchase agreement between the IPP generator and the Single Buyers Office/Department of Energy. National treasury provides surety, while NERSA regulates the IPP licences.

The bidding and tender procedure of the IPP procurement programme requires an environmental authorisation, where no project would be considered without the EIA Environmental Authorisation being given.

11 PROJECT PROGRAMME AND TIMELINES

As mentioned previously the Ephraim Sun PV Facility is intended to be lodged under the IPP procurement programme. The programme has definite and stringent timelines, which the project should meet. Note that the Department of Energy has not yet released the exact dates for the 5th and 6th bidding submissions. Table 11: Preliminary implementation schedule.

Description Timeline

1 Expected IPPPP submission date (5th round) Second Quarter of 2016.

2 Preferred bidders selected Last Quarter 2016

3 Finalisation of agreements First Quarter 2017

4 Procurement of infrastructure Last Quarter 2017

5 Construction 2017 - 2018



6 Commissioning 2018

The table above clearly depicts the dependence of the project on the IPP procurement programme‟s timelines. Any delay within the IPP procurement programme will have a corresponding effect on the timelines of the projects timelines. Also, as mentioned, no official public submission dates for Round 5 and Round 6 have been communicated by the Department of Energy. NOTE: The Ephraim Sun PV Energy Facility intends submitting their bid during the 5th or 6th bidding window or thereafter if unsuccessful in immediate bidding rounds. 12 SITE DESCRIPTION AND ATTRIBUTES

The following sections provide a description of the natural environmental and built environment context of the Remainder of Portion 62 (Portion of Portion 9)(Vryheid) of Farm Vaal Koppies no 40, with particular focus on the site location for the proposed Ephraim Sun PV Energy Facility.

12.1 LOCATION & BUILT ENVIRONMENT

The target property, Remainder of Portion 62 (Portion of Portion 9)(Vryheid) of Farm Vaal Koppies no 40, is located in the ZF Mgcawu District (previously Siyanda District) of the Northern Cape Province, within the jurisdiction area of the Khara Hais Local Municipality. The property is situated South East of Upington.

The proposed Ephraim Sun PV energy Facility is situated South of the N10 National Road.

No buildings, ruins or any other structures were noted on or within the direct proximity of the proposed solar development site.

Additional information on regarding the built environment will be included in the Heritage impact assessment that will be included in the Draft EIR.

12.2 GEOLOGY & CLIMATE

The following information on geology and climate was obtained from the Agricultural Potential study attached in Annexure E2

12.2.1 Geology The geology is that of the Bushmanland sequence. Sedimentary and Volcanic rocks of this sequence include Granite, migmatite and gneiss of the Namaqualand Metamorphic Complex

12.2.2 Climate The region is classified as an arid zone with desert climate. The following specific parameters are applicable: Table 12: Climatic conditions of the Ephraim Study Site (Lubbe, 2015)

Rainfall

Annual rainfall 0-200 mm

Summer rainfall <62.5 mm

Winter rainfall <62.5 mm

Variation in rainfall 40 to 50%



Temperature

Mean maximum temperature 31 to 33⁰C

Mean minimum temperature Minus 2⁰C

First frost expected 01 to 10 May

Last frost expected 11 to 20 September

Hours of sunshine >80%

Evaporation 2200 2400 mm

12.2.3 Soils Soils in this region usually show the following characteristics:

Soils have minimal development, are usually shallow, on hard or weathering rock, with or without intermittent diverse soils.

Lime is generally present in part or most of the landscape. Red and yellow well-drained sandy soil with high base status may occur. Freely drained, structure less soils may occur. Soils may have favourable physical properties. Soils may also have restricted depth, excessive drainage, high erodibility and low natural

fertility.

12.2.4 Topography The topography has low relief. The slope gradient is between 0 and 2% with an undulating shape.

12.3 Botanical Composition Of The Site

Mr Simon Todd undertook a site assessment of the entire property in order to develop a site sensitivity plan and to determine the baseline botanical composition of the site. Please refer to the Ecological scoping report attached in Annexure E1.

12.3.1 Broad-Scale Vegetation Patterns

According to the national vegetation map (Mucina & Rutherford 2006), the site fall entirely within the Kalahari Karroid Shrubland vegetation type. Other vegetation types in the area include Bushmanland Arid Grassland southeast and Lower Gariep Alluvial Vegetation along the alluvial terraces of the Orange River. In terms of the conservation status of the various vegetation types of the area, only Lower Gariep Alluvial Vegetation is of concern and is listed as Endangered. This vegetation type is however associated with the alluvium along the Orange River and would not be impacted by the current development which is some distance from the river itself.

Kalahari Karroid Shrubland is classified as Least Threatened and has been little impacted by transformation with 99% of the original extent still intact (Table 1). It is however considered Hardly Protected within formal conservation areas. According to Mucina & Rutherford (2006), no vegetation-type endemic species are known from Kalahari Karroid Shrubland. Kalahari Karroid Shrubland does not occur over a very large area for an arid vegetation type, but represents a transitional vegetation type between the northern Nama Karoo and Kalahari (Savannah) vegetation types. The broad description of Kalahari Karroid Shrubland as reported by Mucina & Rutherford (2006) is not repeated here as an actual description of the vegetation as observed on-site is provided in the next section of the report and supersedes the very coarse mapping provided by the national vegetation map.



Table 13: Vegetation types that occur within or near the Ephraim Sun site with their basic conservation statics and status according to the National List of Threatened Ecosystems (Todd, 2015)

Name Extent km2 Remaining Conservation

Target Protected Status

Kalahari Karroid

Shrubland 8284 99.2% 21% 0.1% Least threatened

Lower Gariep Alluvial

Vegetation 752 50.3% 31% 5.8% Endangered

Lower Gariep Broken Veld 4538 99.5% 21% 3.9% Least threatened

Bushmanland Arid

Grassland 45479 99.4% 21% 0.4% Least threatened

Figure 39: Broad-scale overview of the vegetation in and around the Ephraim Sun study area (Todd, 2015)



The vegetation map is an extract of the national vegetation map as produced by Mucina & Rutherford (2006), and also includes rivers and wetlands delineated by the National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas assessment (Nel et al. 2011).

12.3.2 Fine-Scale Vegetation Patterns

A number of different habitat units were identified at the site. These are relatively homogenous areas with similar vegetation structure and species composition and representing similar habitat units. These form the underlying basis for the sensitivity map. The units identified include the following units:

Kalahari Karroid Shrubland on open plains – This unit represents the majority of the site and would receive the brunt of the development footprint. This habitat is not considered highly sensitive because this habitat is widespread and the abundance of species of conservation concern within the habitat is low. There is some variation in the composition of this habitat related to substrate as well as grazing history. Some areas are dominated largely by low shrubs, while on deeper soils, this gives way to areas dominated largely by various species of Stipagrostis.

Rocky Hills – There are a number of low to moderately high rocky hills in the area. Although the majority of these are outside of the affected area, there is a low rocky hill immediately to the south of the proposed study area which should be protected from impact. The rocky hills have a high biodiversity compared to the adjacent plains and include a number of species of conservation concern, which were confirmed present at the site, within this habitat.

Plains Washes – The soils, aridity and topography of the area result in the development of broad washes on the plains of the site. These are low-lying areas which may receive water during large rainfall events, but do not develop defined drainage channels as there is insufficient runoff and the water received quickly infiltrates into the deeper soils of these areas. These areas are considered to be moderately sensitive due to the higher biomass they support and the increased abundance of protected species such as Boscia foetida. A

Wooded Washes – a related habitat to the Plains Wash, the Wooded Wash was also recognised at the site, these are similar areas but better developed and dominated by a high proportion of woody species, usually Acacia mellifera, but also with Boscia foetida, Boscia albitrunca and Acacia erioloba present. These areas of wooded wash as considered more sensitive than the plains wash on account of the high woody biomass and structural and habitat role that these areas provide.

Drainage Lines – There are a number of drainage lines within the site, some of which are within the broad study area. These areas are considered sensitive on account of the role they play in the hydrology and ecology of the area. The abundance of protected species such as Boscia foetida is relatively high and occasional individuals of Acacia erioloba may also be present. These areas should be excluded from the development footprint.



Figure 40: Habitat map of Ephraim Sun study area, illustrating the distribution of the different habitats present at the site.

12.3.3 Listed and Protected Plant Species

According to the SANBI SIBIS database, 221 indigenous plant species have been recorded from the quarter degree squares 2821 AD, BC, CB and DA. This includes only 4 species of conservation concern, but those known from a somewhat wider area are listed below in Table 3 as the immediate area has not been well sampled and is not likely to be representative. Of the listed species, two can be confirmed present at the site, Acacia erioloba which is occasional across most of the site within the larger drainage lines and Hoodia gordonii which is occasional across the plains. There are also additional species which are present which are either protected by DAFF or under the Northern Cape Nature Conservation Act of 2009, which includes Boscia foetida and Boscia albitrunca all Mesembryanthemaceae, , all species within the Euphorbiaceae. Oxalidaceae, Iridaceae, all species within the genera Nemesia and Jamesbrittenia. Boscia albitrunca is not common at the site and only a handful of individuals were observed. Boscia foetida was however observed to be fairly common.



Table 14: Listed species which may occur within the Ephraim Sun PV Project, including their IUCN status and the likelihood that they occur at the site (Todd, 2015)

Family Species IUCN Status Likelihood

ASPHODELACEAE Aloe dichotoma VU Low

MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Dinteranthus wilmotianus NT Low

AMARYLLIDACEAE Crinum bulbispermum Declining Low

FABACEAE Acacia erioloba Declining Confirmed

APOCYNACEAE Hoodia gordonii DDD Confirmed

GERANIACEAE Pelargonium reniforme subsp. reniforme DDD Low

ASTERACEAE Gymnostephium ciliare DDT Low

ASTERACEAE Senecio monticola DDT Low

12.3.4 Critical Biodiversity Areas & Broad-Scale Processes

No fine-scale conservation planning has been conducted for the region and as a result, no Critical Biodiversity Areas have been defined for the study area. In terms of other broad-scale planning studies, the site does not fall within a National Protected Areas Expansion Strategy Focus Area (NPAES), indicating that the area has not been identified as an area of exceptional biodiversity or of significance for the long-term maintenance of broad-scale ecological processes and climate change buffering within the region. The development would however contribute to cumulative impacts in the area, which are becoming increasingly large given the concentration of renewable energy facilities in the immediate area. The potential contribution of the development to cumulative impacts in the area will be investigated in greater detail in the EIA phase of the development but is highlighted here as a potentially significant impact of the development.

12.4 Faunal Component Of The Site

Mr Simon Todd undertook a site assessment of the entire property in order to develop a site sensitivity plan and to determine the baseline faunal composition of the site. Please refer to the Ecological scoping report attached in Annexure E1.

12.4.1 Mammals

The site falls within the distribution range of 46 terrestrial mammals, indicating that the mammalian diversity at the site is of moderate potential. Areas of specific significance for mammals are likely to be the drainage lines which provide greater cover as well as moisture and forage availability and the low rocky hills within and to the south of the site. The open plains are not considered highly sensitive from a faunal perspective as similar habitat is widely available in the area and there would not be any specific species of concern associated with this habitat.

Three listed terrestrial mammals may occur at the site, the Honey Badger Mellivora capensis (Endangered), Brown Hyaena Hyaena brunnea (Near Threatened) and Black-footed cat Felis nigripes (Vulnerable). Although the area is used for livestock production, human activity is concentrated along the Orange River and around Upington and quickly dissipates moving away from these areas, with the result that all three listed species are likely to occur in the general area and may be present at the site.



Overall there do not appear to be any highly significant issues regarding mammals and the development of the site. In general the major impact associated with the development of the site for mammals would be habitat loss and potentially some disruption of the broad-scale connectivity of the landscape.

12.4.2 Reptiles

According to the SARCA database, 42 reptile species are known from the area suggesting that the reptile diversity within the site is likely to be moderate to high. Species observed in the area include Common Ground Agama Agama aculeata aculeata, Western Rock Skink Trachylepis sulcata sulcata, Karoo Girdled Lizard Karusasaurus polyzonus, Namaqua Mountain Gecko Pachydactylus montanus, Spotted Sand Lizard Pedioplanis lineoocellata and Plain Sand Lizard Pedioplanis inornata. The rocky outcrops in and southeast of the site would be the most important areas for reptiles, but the extent of important habitat likely to affected by the development would be low.

As with mammals, the development is likely to result in local habitat loss for reptiles but as there are no listed or range-restricted reptiles that are likely to occur at the site the impacts are not likely to be of broader significance.

12.4.3 Amphibians

The site lies within the distribution range of 10 amphibian species. The only listed species which may occur at the site is the Giant Bullfrog Pyxicephalus adspersus which is listed as Near Threatened. There is however no suitable habitat for this species at the site and so it is highly unlikely to be present. There are no perennial water sources within the site and hence amphibian diversity and abundance in general would be low. The drainage lines present are sandy and would not contain water for sufficient periods to offer breeding habitat for any species. As a result impacts on amphibians are likely to be local in extent and of low significance.

12.4.4 Avifauna

According to the SABAP 1 and 2 data sets, 190 bird species are known from the broad area surrounding the site. This includes 7 IUCN listed species, all of which except for the Black Stork are likely to occur at the site on a regular basis. Impacts on avifauna may result from the facility itself or from the grid connection. The facility would result in some habitat loss for resident species while some species are known to perceive the panels as water and fly into them. This appears to be a problem associated with tracking systems rather than static arrays. The only listed species observed at the site was the Kori Bustard, which appears to be relatively common in the area following good rainfall as it was observed several times in the area.

All of the listed bird species known from the area are susceptible to some degree to electrocution or collision from power-line infrastructure. Larger raptors are susceptible to both collision and electrocution, while storks and bustards are all vulnerable to collision with power lines. This is a significant source of impact for these species in the country and additional power line infrastructure is likely to increase the cumulative impact on susceptible species. Overall impacts on avifauna are not likely to be highly significant provided that mitigation measures are implemented to reduce the collision and electrocution potential of the power line.



Table 15: Listed bird species known to occur in the vicinity of the proposed Ephraim Sun site, according to the SABAP 1 and 2 databases, and their risk of collision with or electrocution from power line infrastructure.

Species Common Name Status Collision Electrocution

Falco biarmicus Lanner Falcon NT High Moderate

Falco naumanni Lesser Kestrel VU High Moderate

Ciconia nigra Black Stork NT High

Falco peregrinus Peregrine Falcon NT High Moderate

Ardeotis kori Kori Bustard VU High

Neotis ludwigii Ludwig's Bustard VU High

Polemaetus bellicosus Martial Eagle VU Moderate High

13 PLANNING CONTEXT

Macroplan town and regional planners have been appointed to provide town and regional planning input into this environmental process. Please refer to Annexure E12 for a copy of their planning statement from which the following is drawn.

The planning statement provides specific implications and requirements of the Spatial Planning Land Use Management Act, Act 16 of 2013, (SPLUMA) in relation to the proposed Ephraim Sun (Pty.) Ltd. Solar Energy Facility.

Town and Regional Planning practices in the Northern Cape Province has been undertaken in terms of the Northern Cape Planning and Development Act, Act 7 of 1998, (NCPDA) prior to 01 July 2015. Other provinces in South Africa functioned in terms of their respective acts, but most notably, the Development Facilitation Act, Act 67 of 1995 (DFA).

It has been interpreted that, in the light of the NCPDA having been developed in terms of the DFA, the latter forming a national framework, the NCPDA has been automatically repealed therewith. SPLUMA has therefore taken the place of the DFA as the national framework act. 01 July 2015 marked the commencement of SPLUMA, which has come to replace five acts/ laws, as is indicated in Schedule 3 of the said act. These acts/ laws are as follows:

- Act No. 84 of 1967 – Removal of Restrictions Act (repealed in whole). - Act No. 88 of 1967 – Physical Planning Act (repealed in whole). - Act No. 113 of 1991 – Less Formal Township Establishment Act (repealed in whole). - Act No. 125 of 1991 – Physical Planning Act (repealed in whole). - Act No. 67 of 1995 - Development Facilitation Act (repealed in whole).

SPLUMA, having replaced the DFA has had many legal implications necessitating structural changes at ground-level. i.e. local municipalities had to make organisational and procedural changes in order to ensure SPLUMA compliance and private planning firms had to scrutinise SPLUMA to make sure that their applications comply therewith.

The implications of SPLUMA on the proposed project, in the context of town planning, is indicated below.



The Municipal rezoning application that is to be submitted for this project:

At a local governmental level, in terms of this project, the SPLUMA implications include the matters mentioned in the paragraphs above, as well the fact that the new //Khara Hais Land Use Management Scheme of 2015 (LUMS) will inform the land use change application with regard to this project.

In the comment from the //Khara Hais Local Municipality, they indicated that the rezoning, that is to be undertaken at a later point in time, will be from Agriculture to Renewable Energy Structures.

The new zoning descriptions that will be used in the land use change application for this project, according to the mentioned new //Khara Hais 2015 LUMS, will be:

Table 16: Proposed Rezoning Activities

Existing Zoning Proposed new Zoning

Zoning Type C.a.2 Agriculture

F.i.1 Renewable Energy Structures

Primary Land Use Description

The breeding of animals on natural veld, land and pasture, stock or auction pens, the processing of products produced on the farm, the cultivation of crops and at most one single residential house and other buildings that is reasonably relevant to the main agricultural activity on the farm, including bona-fide staff housing.

A plant that utilises renewable energy (wind turbines, trough system, power tower system and photovoltaic system) and where agricultural activities can be practised on areas which are not utilised for the renewable energy plant. It includes all plant and equipment, and other miscellaneous infrastructure associated with the generation, transmission and distribution of renewable energy whether it feeds into the national grid or not. Such infrastructure includes but is not limited to workshops and stores, offices, site canteen, medical station, fire station, a tourist facilitation centre, ambulance garage, compressor house buildings, water supply infrastructure, guard houses, accommodation facilities, as well as recreational facilities for personnel, excluding temporary housing. No subdivision of any section thereof will be allowed.

Furthermore, decision-making in the //Khara Hais Municipality, in terms of SPLUMA and the //Khara Hais 2015 LUMS, is delegated according to the nature of each application separately to either a specific municipal official or the //Khara Hais Municipal Town Planning Tribunal.



14 AGRICULTURAL POTENTIAL OF THE STUDY SITE

Mr Christo Lubbe, an agricultural specialist, undertook an agricultural potential study of the proposed Ephraim Sun PV Energy Facility from which the following is drawn. A full copy of the agricultural potential study is attached in Annexure E2 of this report.

The objectives of Mr Lubbe‟s study were to consider the possibility of temporary and permanent impacts on agricultural production that may result from the construction and operation of the PV facility.

The key findings of this study are summarised below.

14.1 Structures On Site There are no building structures on site, except for two reservoirs on the northwestern corner (Point K on map) and outside the site, there is a windmill and reservoir for workers‟ homes.

Plate 1: Workers‟ home with windmill and reservoir off site

14.2 SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTS The site is surrounded by stock farming activities

14.3 PAST AND CURRENT AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES ON SITE The site is currently utilised for extensive cattle farming. There is no evidence of past or current cultivation.

14.4 SOIL CLASSIFICATION An augering survey was carried out as indicated below. At each augering point, an observation record was completed.

The soil observation records are representative of the three soil forms found on the site. These are further described below each observation record.

The soils were then grouped in uniform utilization polygons, as illustrated below.



Figure 41: Augering points (Lubbe, 2015) Figure 42: Soil Groups (Lubbe, 2015) Table 17: Soil Forms (Lubbe 2015)

Plooysburg (40-60 cm) About 19% consists of the Plooysburg form (Family Brakkies) 0-20 cm yellowish red, sandy, (fine grade)with single grain structure top soil 20-40 cm yellowish red sandy, (fine grade)with single grain structure sub soil Hard pan Carbonate horizon limiting layer

ESD > 40cm

ESD < 40cm

OBS 3

LAT 28.51155

LONG 21.36165FORM Py TSD 50 WET 0 HOR TYPE DEPTH COL CLAY S-GR CONS STRUC STONEFAM 1100 ESD 50 C l 1 A 20 10R58 5 VF 5 sg 0ROUGH 1 ASD GEO G1 2 B 50 10R44 10 VF 5 a 0TERR_POS 4 LTN h PHOTO 3L.COVER/USE:VIS.VELD.COND A 3 B 3 C 3 D 4 E 2 TOTAL

shrub veld

COMMENTSLOPE GRAD 1 MOISTURE L

SLOPE SHAPE V EROSION M

15

OBS 1

LAT 28.50902

LONG 21.35554FORM Hu TSD 30 WET 0 HOR TYPE DEPTH COL CLAY S-GR CONS STRUC STONEFAM 3100 ESD 30 C l 1 A 30 10R58 5 VF 5 sg S4ROUGH 2 ASD GEO G1 2TERR_POS 4 LTN st PHOTO 3L.COVER/USE:VIS.VELD.COND A 3 B 3 C 3 D 6 E 2 TOTAL

COMMENTSLOPE GRAD 1 MOISTURE L

SLOPE SHAPE V EROSION M

stones, small shrubs,sparse grass



Hutton /Lithosol About 81% consists of the Hutton form (Family Stella) and Lithosols complex 0-30 cm red, sandy, (fine grade)with single grain structure top soil Hard rock at shallow depth

More than 81% of the soil on the site has an effective depth of less than 30cm. The restriction is rock and hard carbonates sub surface layers. The top surface is also rough with a high level of surface rock. Cultivation is not possible because of these mechanical restrictions.

Some deep pockets of sandy soil with a depth of up to 90cm occur as indicated in the figure below and contribute to 19% or 105 ha of the 540 ha unit.

14.5 VELD CONDITION ASSESSMENT A veld condition assessment was done simultaneous with the soil survey, by visual acknowledgement.

The photos Figure 43show that the basal cover is low; consisting mainly of shrubs and poor grazing grasses. There is a moderate level of invasion of three thorn shrubs and Acacia mellifera.

Table 18: Veld Condition Assessment outcome (Lubbe, 2015)

Shrub veld with Three thorn and

Black thorn invasion Cover spars with mostly shrub

vegetation and large bare and stony areas

Cover on soils deeper than 40 cm

14.6 LAND CAPABILITY AND SUITABILITY FOR AGRICULTURE The land surveyed falls in capability class Vl, generally not suited for cultivation. Very severe limitations restrict land use to grazing, woodlands or wildlife.

Table 19: Land Capability and Suitability Assessment for Crop Production Land capability class

Suitability Rating Major Limitation to Crop Production Area (ha) % of Local

Study Area Class VI

Hu/Lithosols

Very low Low water holding capacity Shallow rooting zone Severe climate Severe erosion hazard

435 81

Class lV Py >40cm

Low Low water holding capacity Severe climate

105 19



Table 20: Land Capability and Suitability Assessment for Grazing Area Description Suitability

Rating Major Limitation to Grazing Area (ha) % of Local

Study Area Cattle /Sheep Low Very shallow rooting depth on carbonate

hard setting, low clay content, low rainfall, with carrying capacity of 41-60 ha /LSU

540 100

14.7 WATER AVAILABILITY/PROVISION Water is provided to livestock from a borehole pumped by windmill and stored in a reservoir and troughs.

14.8 ASSESSMENT OF CONNECTING LINES Three alternative lines for connecting to the grid were assessed. See Figure 43.

Figure 43: Connection line alternatives

The results of the assessments for all three alternatives are the same:

The soil is predominately of very low agricultural value. The limiting factors are shallow soil depth and mechanical restrictions, due to a very high percentage stones in top and subsoil.

Small pockets of arable soil do occur with effective depth up to 60cm. The low rainfall, sandy texture and small area of the pocket prevent commercial cultivation.

The effect on drainage will be very low.

The following photos show the soil surface of the alignment of the connecting lines:

sub1

sub3

sub4sub5

sub2

A

B

C

A’

N



Connect at A Connect to A from A’’

Between 5/4 and A’ Between 5 and B

Sub 2 Sub 3

Plate 2: Photographic record of Agricultural condition along grid connection alternatives (Lubbe, 2015)

14.9 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS OF AGRICULTURAL SPECIALIST The site is largely unsuitable for cultivation due to the following limiting factors:

Low annual rainfall, high evaporation and extreme temperatures restrict dry land cultivation.

The very shallow soil depth with its limited water holding capacity restricts root

development

The soils have carbonate-rich B-horizons. The use of Calcic soils is limited by climate (low

rainfall and high evaporation), shallow soil depth, high pH, low plant available P and trace

elements (especially Fe), toxic levels of extractable B and stoniness. All calcic soils are

highly susceptible to water erosion.

The very fine sand grade of top soil influences the stability and increases erodibility

potential.

Low clay percentage results in low water holding capacity and low nutrient availability,

resulting in low soil fertility.



Although the grazing potential is very low, the area could be utilised for grazing.

14.10 POSSIBLE IMPACTS ON AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES

Placement of spoil material generated from construction related excavations, which can cover agricultural land and thereby render it unsuitable for future agriculture.

Land surface disturbance and alteration of its run-off.

Loss of agricultural land.

14.11 CONCLUSION OF AGRICULTURAL STUDY

The findings of the agricultural study indicate that the site‟s agricultural potential is low. Due to poor soil properties and extreme climatic conditions, farming activities consist of grazing for cattle, but due to the low grazing potential of the region, the loss of the small area of grazing land is negligible.

The proposed PV facility will have minimal impacts on agriculture, locally and on site, and will have very little influence on the current commercial farming.

15 ECOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY OF THE STUDY SITE

Mr. Simon Todd, of Simon Todd Consulting, conducted an Ecological Sensitivity Analysis of the proposed Ephraim Sun PV Energy Facility during the scoping phase of the development (see Annexure E1 for full report). The results of this

The sensitivity map for the proposed development area of the Ephraim Sun PV Project site is illustrated above in Figure 5. Although there is quite a diversity of habitats and features present in the wider area, the proposed study area within which the facility would be located is dominated by open plains with several washes and drainage lines present. There is also a small rocky outcrop present of less than 2 ha. The low rocky hill south of the study area which was identified as sensitive is not within the proposed development area and would therefore not be affected by the development. There is however a drainage line which bisects the study area and which would need to be spared from the development. This could be incorporated into a corridor through the facility which would decrease the potential impact of the development on landscape connectivity and still allow fauna to use the drainage line to pass through the area from east to west. Overall, the site is considered relatively low sensitivity and apart from the drainage line, there are no features within the 520ha study area that are considered highly sensitive and which would pose a red flag for the development. There are likely to be some individuals of Boscia foetida present within the development footprint as well as some Hoodia gordonii, but the numbers would be relatively low as these species have a wide distribution and the development would not be likely to significantly impact the local or regional populations of these species.



Figure 44: Site sensitivity analysis (Todd, 2015)



16 ASSESSMENT OF ECOLOGICAL (FAUNA & FLORA) IMPACTS

An Ecological Impact Assessment encompassing, Fauna, Flora was undertaken by Mr Simon Todd. A copy of this assessment is attached in Appendix E1.

16.1 IDENTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND DAMAGING ACTIVITIES

Potential ecological impacts resulting from the development of the Ephraim Sun Development would stem from a variety of different activities and risk factors associated with the preconstruction, construction and operational phases of the project including the following:

Preconstruction Phase

Human presence and uncontrolled access to the site may result in negative impacts on fauna and flora through poaching of fauna and uncontrolled collection of plants for traditional medicine or other purpose.

Site clearing & exploration activities for site establishment would have a negative impact on biodiversity if this was not conducted in a sensitive manner.

Construction Phase Vegetation clearing for the PV arrays, access roads, site fencing etc could impact

listed plant species as well as high-biodiversity plant communities. Vegetation clearing will also lead to habitat loss for fauna and potentially the loss of sensitive faunal species, habitats and ecosystems.

Increased erosion risk would occur due to the loss of plant cover and soil disturbance created during the construction phase. This may impact downstream riparian and wetland habitats if a lot of silt enters the drainage systems.

Presence and operation of construction machinery on site. This will create a physical impact as well as generate noise, pollution and other forms of disturbance at the site.

Increased human presence can lead to poaching, illegal plant harvesting and other forms of disturbance such as fire.

Operational Phase The operation of the facility will generate noise and disturbance which may deter

some fauna from the area. The areas inside the facility will requirement management and if this is not done

appropriately, it could impact adjacent intact areas through impacts such as erosion, alien plant invasion and contamination from pollutants, herbicides or pesticides.



Overhead power lines will pose a risk to avifauna susceptible to collisions and electrocution with power line infrastructure.

Cumulative Impacts The loss of unprotected vegetation types on a cumulative basis from the broad

area may impact the countries‟ ability to meet its conservation targets. Transformation of intact habitat would contribute to the fragmentation of the

landscape and would potentially disrupt the connectivity of the landscape for fauna and flora and impair their ability to respond to environmental fluctuations.

16.2 IDENTIFICATION OF IMPACTS TO BE ASSESSED

The development will result in a variety of impacts, associated largely with the disturbance, loss and transformation of intact vegetation and faunal habitat to hard infrastructure such as roads, PV areas, operations buildings etc. The following impacts are identified as those most likely to be associated with the development and which are assessed for the different phases of the project as appropriate.

16.2.1 Impacts on vegetation and protected plant species

There are a number of listed and protected species present at the site and it is highly likely that some of these would be impacted by the development. Vegetation clearing during construction will lead to the loss of currently intact habitat within the development footprint and is an inevitable consequence of the development. As this impact is certain to occur it is assessed for the construction phase as this is when clearing will take place.

16.2.2 Soil erosion and associated degradation of ecosystems

The large amount of disturbance created during construction would potentially leave the site vulnerable to soil erosion. The site is gently sloping and disturbance leading to the loss of plant cover over large parts of the site will certainly increase the risk of wind and water erosion at the site. In addition, the panels will generate a lot more runoff than the natural vegetation would and as a result the amount of runoff the site experiences is likely to increase. Soil erosion is therefore considered a likely impact and is assessed for the construction phase.

16.2.3 Direct Faunal Impacts

Increased levels of noise, pollution, disturbance and human presence during construction will be detrimental to fauna. Sensitive and shy fauna would move away from the area during the construction phase as a result of the noise and human activities present, while some slow-moving species would not be able to avoid the construction activities and might be killed. Some impact on fauna is highly likely to occur during construction as well as operation and this impact is therefore assessed for the construction phase and operational phase.



16.2.4 Alien Plant Invasion

The disturbance created during construction is highly likely to encourage the invasion of the disturbed areas by alien species. Although there are not a lot of alien species present within the undisturbed parts of the site, there were some aliens present in disturbed areas such as around watering points and in the larger drainage lines. This includes woody invaders such as Prosopis glandulosa. Such species will rapidly increase in abundance and expand into the disturbed areas if given the opportunity. This impact is deemed highly likely to occur and is assessed as a likely impact associated with the development.

16.2.5 Reduced ability to meet conservation obligations & targets

The loss of unprotected vegetation types on a cumulative basis from the broad area may

impact the countries’ ability to meet its conservation targets. The receiving vegetation

types in the study area are classified as Least Threatened and are still more than 98%

intact. As these are widespread vegetation types and there is no indication that there are

any rare or restricted habitats within the development footprint, this is not considered to be

a high risk associated with the current development when considered at the scale of the

vegetation type. However, this impact is assessed on account of the high potential for

cumulative impacts on more local habitat types which are not as widespread as the

vegetation type itself.

16.2.6 Impact on broad-scale ecological processes

Transformation of intact habitat on a cumulative basis would contribute to the fragmentation of the landscape and would potentially disrupt the connectivity of the landscape for fauna and flora and impair their ability to respond to environmental fluctuations. Due to the large amount of development in the area, this is a likely cumulative impact of the development that is assessed.



16.2.7 Assesment of Impacts - Solar PV Footprint

The following assessed impacts are those for the solar facility itself, for the planning and construction and operational phases of the development

16.2.8 Planning & Construction Phase

From an ecological perspective, the table below shows the assessment of potential ecological impacts that may occur during the Planning and Construction phase of the Development. It also provides details of the proposed mitigation measures to reduce the significance of these impacts.

Table 21: Assessment of Ecological Impacts during the planning and construction phase of Ephraim Sun (Todd, 2015)

Nature of impact Spatial Extent

Duration Intensity Probability Reversibility

Significance and Status Confidence

level Without

Mitigation

With

Mitigation

Impacts on vegetation and listed or protected plant species resulting from construction activities

Preferred Alternative/Alternative 2 Local Long-

Term High Definite Low Medium-

High

Negative

Medium

Negative High

Alternative 3/Alternative 4 Local Long-Term High Definite Low

Medium-High

Negative

Medium

Negative High

Mitigation/Management Actions

Preconstruction walk-through of the facility in order to locate species of conservation concern that can be translocated (such as Hoodia) as well as comply with the Northern Cape Nature Conservation Act and DENC/DAFF permit conditions.

Vegetation clearing to commence only after walk through has been conducted and necessary permits obtained. Preconstruction environmental induction for all construction staff on site to ensure that basic environmental principles are

adhered to. This includes awareness as to no littering, appropriate handling of pollution and chemical spills, avoiding fire hazards, minimizing wildlife interactions, remaining within demarcated construction areas etc.

Eco to provide supervision and oversight of vegetation clearing activities within sensitive areas such as near drainage areas. Vegetation clearing to be kept to a minimum. No unnecessary vegetation to be cleared. All construction vehicles should adhere to clearly defined and demarcated roads. No off-road driving to be allowed outside of

the construction area. Temporary lay-down areas should be located within previously transformed areas or areas that have been identified as being of

low sensitivity. These areas should be rehabilitated after use.

Direct Faunal Impacts During Construction

Preferred Alternative/Alternative 2 Local Short-

Term Medium High High Medium

Negative

Medium-Low

Negative High

Alternative 3/Alternative 4 Local Short- Term Medium High High

Medium

Negative

Medium-Low

Negative High


All personnel should undergo environmental induction with regards to fauna and in particular awareness about not harming or collecting species such as snakes, tortoises and owls which are often persecuted out of superstition.






level Without

Mitigation

With

Mitigation

Any fauna threatened by the construction activities should be removed to safety by the ECO or appropriately qualified environmental officer.

All construction vehicles should adhere to a low speed limit to avoid collisions with susceptible species such as snakes and tortoises.

All hazardous materials should be stored in the appropriate manner to prevent contamination of the site. Any accidental chemical, fuel and oil spills that occur at the site should be cleaned up in the appropriate manner as related to the nature of the spill.

If trenches need to be dug for water pipelines or electrical cabling, these should not be left open for extended periods of time as fauna may fall in and become trapped in them. Trenches which are standing open should have places where there are soil ramps allowing fauna to escape the trench.

Soil Erosion Risk During Construction

Preferred Alternative/Alternative 2 Local Medium-

term Medium-

High High Low Medium Negative

Low Negative High

Alternative 3/Alternative 4 Local Medium-term

Medium-High High Low Medium

Negative Low

Negative High


Dust suppression and erosion management should be an integrated component of the construction approach. Disturbance near to drainage lines or the pan should be avoided and sensitive drainage areas near to the construction

activities should demarcated as no-go areas. Regular monitoring for erosion problems along the access roads and other cleared areas. Erosion problems should be rectified on a regular basis. Sediment traps may be necessary to prevent erosion and soil movement if there are topsoil or other waste heaps present

during the wet season. A low cover of vegetation should be left wherever possible within the construction footprint to bind the soil, prevent erosion and

promote post-disturbance recovery of an indigenous ground cover.

16.2.9 Operational Phase

From an ecological perspective, the table below shows the assessment of potential ecological impacts that may occur during the Operational phase of the Development. It also provides details of the proposed mitigation measures to reduce the significance of these impacts.

Table 22: Assessment of Ecological Impacts during the operational phase of Ephraim Sun (Todd, 2015)

Nature of impact Spatial

Extent Duration Intensity Probability Reversibility

Significance and Status

Confidence

level Without

Mitigation

With

Mitigation

Alien Plant Invasion Risk During Operation

Preferred Alternative/Alternative 2 Local

Long-

term

Medium-

High High Medium

Medium

Negative

Low

Negative High

Alternative 3/Alternative 4 Local Long-

term

Medium-

High High Medium

Medium

Negative

Low

Negative High




Nature of impact Spatial

Extent Duration Intensity Probability Reversibility


Confidence

level Without

Mitigation

With

Mitigation

Wherever excavation is necessary, topsoil should be set aside and replaced after construction to encourage natural regeneration of the local indigenous species.

The recovery of the indigenous grass layer should be encouraged through leaving some areas intact through the construction phase to create a seed source for adjacent cleared areas.

Due to the disturbance at the site as well as the increased runoff generated by the hard infrastructure, alien plant species are likely to be a long-term problem at the site and a long-term control plan will need to be implemented. Problem woody species such as Prosopis are already present and are likely to increase rapidly if not controlled.

Regular monitoring for alien plants within the development footprint as well as adjacent areas which receive runoff from the facility as there are also likely to be prone to invasion problems.

Regular alien clearing should be conducted using the best-practice methods for the species concerned. The use of herbicides should be avoided as far as possible.

Soil Erosion Risk During Operation

Preferred Alternative/Alternative 2 Local Long-term

Medium-High High Medium-

Low Medium Negative

Low Negative High

Alternative 3/Alternative 4 Local Long-term

Medium-High High Medium-

Low Medium Negative

Low Negative High


All roads and other hardened surfaces should have runoff control features which redirect water flow and dissipate any energy in the water which may pose an erosion risk.

Regular monitoring for erosion after construction to ensure that no erosion problems have developed as result of the disturbance.

All erosion problems observed should be rectified as soon as possible, using the appropriate erosion control structures and revegetation techniques.

All cleared areas should be revegetated with indigenous perennial grasses from the local area. These can be cut when dry and placed on the cleared areas if natural recovery is slow.

Faunal impacts during operation:

Preferred Alternative/Alternative 2 Local Long-term Medium Moderate High Medium-

Negative Low-

Negative High

Alternative 3/Alternative 4 Local Long-term Medium Moderate High Medium-

Negative Low-

Negative High


No unauthorized persons should be allowed onto the site. Any potentially dangerous fauna such snakes or fauna threatened by the maintenance and operational activities should be

removed to a safe location. The collection, hunting or harvesting of any plants or animals at the site should be strictly forbidden. If the site must be lit at night for security purposes, this should be done with downward-directed low-UV type lights (such as

most LEDs), which do not attract insects. All hazardous materials should be stored in the appropriate manner to prevent contamination of the site. Any accidental

chemical, fuel and oil spills that occur at the site should be cleaned up in the appropriate manner as related to the nature of the spill.

All vehicles accessing the site should adhere to a low speed limit (30km/h max) to avoid collisions with susceptible species such as snakes and tortoises.

If the facility is to be fenced, then no electrified strands should be placed within 30cm of the ground as come species such as tortoises are susceptible to electrocution from electric fences as they do not move away when electrocuted but rather adopt



defensive behaviour and are killed by repeated shocks. Alternatively, the electrified strands should be placed on the inside of the fence and not the outside as is the case on the majority of already constructed PV plants.

16.3 Ecological Impacts of - Power Line & Grid Connection

The following assessed impacts are those for the grid connection required to connect the facility to the Eskom grid, for the construction and operational phases of the development. No preconstruction-phase impacts are anticipated for the grid connection.

16.3.1 Construction Phase

From an ecological perspective, the table below shows the assessment of potential ecological impacts that may occur during the Planning and Construction phase of the powerline and grid connection. It also provides details of the proposed mitigation measures to reduce the significance of these impacts.

Table 23: Assessment of Ecological Impacts during the planning and construction phase of the Ephraim Sun Grid connection (Todd, 2015)




Confidence level Without

Mitigation

With

Mitigation

Impacts on vegetation and listed or protected plant species resulting from construction activities

Local Long-Term Low Probable Moderate-

High

Medium-Low

Negative

Low

Negative High


Preconstruction walk-through of the final power line route in order to identify any sensitive features which might be affected along the route, with minor adjustment of the route or pylon positions were necessary.

No unauthorised site clearing or disturbance at the site without an ECO present or without the required permits from the provincial authorities.

16.3.2 Operational Phase

From an ecological perspective, the table below shows the assessment of potential ecological impacts that may occur during the Operational phase of the powerline and grid connection. It also provides details of the proposed mitigation measures to reduce the significance of these impacts.

Table 24: Assessment of Ecological Impacts during the operational phase of the Ephraim Sun Grid connection (Todd, 2015)



Significance and

Status Confidence level

Without

Mitigation

Without

Mitigation

The operation and presence of the facility may lead to negative impacts on avifauna as a result of electrocution or collisions with the

Local Long-Term Low Probable Moderate

Medium

Negative

Low

Negative Moderate





Significance and

Status Confidence level

Without

Mitigation

Without

Mitigation

associated power transmission infrastructure.


Ensure that all new lines are marked with bird flight diverters along their entire length, but particularly in areas where larger birds are likely to pass such as near drainage lines, dams or pans and hills.

All new power line infrastructure should be bird-friendly in configuration and adequately insulated (Lehman et al. 2007). Any electrocution and collision events that occur should be recorded, including the species affected and the date. If repeated

collisions occur within the same area, then further mitigation and avoidance measures will need to be implemented. Collisions should also be reported to the EWT-Eskom partnership (0860-111-535).

16.4 CUMULATIVE ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS

The following are the cumulative impacts that are assessed as being a likely consequence of the development.

Table 25: Assessment of Cumulative Ecological Impacts for the Ephraim Sun development and grid connection(Todd, 2015)


Duration Intensity Probability Reversibility Significance and Status


Mitigation With

Mitigation

Reduced ability to meet conservation obligations & targets due to cumulative habitat loss

Preferred Alternative/Alternative 2 Regional

Long-Term

Low Low Moderate Low

Negative Low

Negative Moderate-

High

Alternative 3/Alternative 4 Regional

Long-Term


Negative Low

Negative Moderate-

High


The development footprint should be kept to a minimum and natural vegetation should be encouraged to return to disturbed areas.

An open space management plan should be developed for the site, which should include management of biodiversity within the fenced area, as well as that in the adjacent rangeland.

Impact on broad-scale ecological processes due to cumulative loss and fragmentation of habitat

Preferred Alternative/Alternative 2 Regional

Long-Term

Medium Moderate Low Medium-

Low Negative

Low Negative

Moderate-High


Long-Term

Medium Moderate Low Medium Negative

Medium-Low

Negative

Moderate-High




Duration Intensity Probability Reversibility Significance and Status


Mitigation With

Mitigation Mitigation/Management Actions

Minimise the development footprint as far as possible. Avoid impact to potential corridors such as the riparian corridors associated with the larger drainage lines within the facility

area. The facility should be fenced off in a manner which allows fauna to pass by the facility within the property in a direction to and

from the Orange River. In practical terms this means that the facility should be fenced-off to include only the developed areas and should include as little undeveloped ground or natural veld as possible. In addition, there should not be electrified ground-strands present and the electrified strands should be located on the inside of the fence and not the outside. Furthermore, the fence should be a single layer fence and not a double fence with a large gap between. Images of suitable fencing types from existing PV facilities are available on request.

16.5 CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS

The majority of the Ephraim Sun site consists of low open shrubland or arid grassland on gentle slopes and open plains considered to be of moderate to low sensitivity. Within this habitat type there are few listed or protected species present and the significance of impacts on vegetation within these areas are likely to be relatively low. Within the study site there is however a number of fairly large drainage lines present, which would need to be avoided by the development footprint. In the area south of the Kleinbegin road, a low rocky hill immediately south of the study area was identified as sensitive on account of the confirmed presence of species of conservation concern. However as this area is outside the study area it would not be affected by the proposed development.

In terms of the four different alternatives considered, the two options north of the Kleinbegin road and the two options which are largely restricted to the area south of the Kleinbegin Road are seen, from an ecological perspective as being likely to generate similar ecological impact that cannot be differentiated at the course scale of the assessment, although there may be small details which would result in one option being preferred over another. At a course scale, Alternative 2 and the Preferred Alternative are preferred to Alternative 3 and 4 due to the proximity of the former to the approved Joram PV facility, which would result in a single development node at the site and not one on either side of the Kleinbegin road. At a fine-scale there are small differences in the footprint of the development areas which would result in small differences in potential impact that can only be picked up by ranking the different Alternatives as below in Table 3.

Table 26: Ranked scores of each Alternative for each potential impact, highlighting the preference of the Preferred Alternative over the other alternatives, which is not readily apparent at the course scale of the assessment.

Impact Preferred Alternative Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Impacts on vegetation and protected plant species 1 2 4 3

Soil erosion & degradation 1 2 4 3

Direct faunal impacts 1 4 3 2

Alien plant invasion 1 2 4 3



Reduced ability to meet conservation targets 1 2 4 3

Impact on broad-scale ecological processes 1 2 4 3

Total Score 6 14 23 17

Rank 1 2 4 3

There do not appear to be any impacts that are likely to be associated with the development that cannot be mitigated to a relatively low level. There are however some individuals of listed and protected species such as Boscia foetida, Hoodia gordonii, Boscia albitrunca and Acacia erioloba that area likely to be present within the footprint regardless of which Alternative is used. The total numbers of affected individuals is however low and their loss is not considered to represent a highly significant impact. In addition, some avoidance of the larger drainage lines of the site is likely to be required in order to avoid impact to these areas, the extent and buffering required for these features should be defined by a freshwater specialist and would suffice for terrestrial biodiversity concerns.

Overall the site is considered relatively favourable for the development of a PV facility as there are no features within the development footprint that are considered rare of or very high biodiversity significance. Although the development would generate relatively high impacts during construction, these would be of local significance only and no broader-scale loss of biodiversity or significant impacts would be generated if standard avoidance and mitigation measures are applied.

17 ASSESSMENT OF AVIFAUNAL IMPACTS

Condition x in the Departments acceptance of the Final Scoping Report included a condition that an Avifaunal Assessment be done to determine the impacts that the proposed activity may have on Avifauna.

An avifaunal specialist has been appointed to undertake this assessment. Due to the specific monitoring requirements in terms of the BirdLife Africa best practice guidelines, the results of this study were not available at the time of publishing this Draft Report. The results of the avifaunal assessment will therefore be included in the Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report.

17.1 Scope of Work

The assessment will be conducted according to the EIA Regulations, as well as the current BirdLife South Africa best-practice guidelines for the assessment of avifaunal impacts from renewable energy development, “Guidelines to minimize the impact on birds of Solar Facilities and Associated Infrastructure in South Africa” (Smit, 2012).

The study will include data searches, desktop studies, site visit/field survey of the property and baseline data collection, and provide:

A description of the site in terms of the avifaunal habitats present; A consolidated list of bird species and priority bird species (priority species will include

nationally and/or globally threatened, rare, endemic or range-restricted birds species)



likely to occur on the proposed site, with information on the relative value (in terms of breeding, nesting, roosting and foraging) of the site for these birds;

A description of the likely seasonal variation in the presence/absence of priority species and preliminary observations of their movements;

A preliminary delineation of areas that are potentially highly sensitive, no-go areas that may need to be avoided by the development;

A description of the nature of the impact that the proposed development may have on the bird species present; and

A description of any mitigation measures that may be required to manage impacts related to the monitoring and assessment of the site

17.2 APPROACH OF THE STUDY

The avifaunal study will be conducted using a two-phased approach:

1. A desktop analysis of the local avifauna, using relevant, pre-existing information and datasets such as Hockey et al. (2005), Southern African Bird Atlas Project data (SABAP 1; Harrison et al., 1997, and SABAP 2; http://sabap2.adu.org.za/v1/index.php), Coordinated Waterbird Counts (CWAC; Taylor et al., 1999), Coordinated Avifaunal Roadcounts (CAR; Young et al., 2003), Birds in Reserves Project (BIRP), Important Bird Areas (IBA; Barnes 1998), IUCN Red List (Taylor, 2014) associated specialist studies as well as available published and unpublished literature relating to bird interactions with solar energy facilities.

2. An initial 1-day site visit has already been conducted and a follow-up site visit of at least 2 days to validate the preliminary findings of the desktop analysis as well as to search for key species and resources and to develop an on-site understanding of the local avifauna. Walked transects, vehicle transects and vantage point surveys conducted in various habitats across the site will be conducted and are designed to:

Quantify aspects of the local avifauna (such as species diversity and abundance);

Identify nest sites present on site; Confirm the presence, abundance, habitat preference and movements of priority

species; Identify important avian flyways across the site; and Delineate any obvious, highly sensitive, no-go areas to be avoided by the

development.

17.3 OUTPUTS OF THE STUDY

The EIA Report will be produced according to national guidelines and standards and will include the site-specific findings, including a description of the environment as related to avifauna, full identification of key avifaunal impacts and issues, a sensitivity/constraints map, and an outline of any additional studies that may be required before construction.

A description of the potential impacts of the development on avifauna and recommended mitigation measures will be provided which will be separated into the following project phases:

Construction Operation



Decommissioning

Cumulative impacts will be described and mitigation measures provided where possible.

17.3.1 Avifaunal Sensitivity Map:

Where relevant, all findings will be spatially represented, indicating sensitive receptors/areas, no-go areas, constraints and any other data that would be relevant in terms of the proposed development. All spatial information will be submitted as shape files or KML files according to preference.

17.3.2 Consolidated Species List:

A list of all the species likely to occur within the development area, indicating conservation status, endemicity, susceptibility to relevant and potential impacts of the development and whether or not the species was recorded on site.

18 ASSESSMENT OF FRESHWATER ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS.

During the scoping phase of this development, the Ecologist identified potential freshwater resources that required further assessment. Due to this, a freshwater ecologist, Dr Brian Colloty of Scherman Colloty & Associates, has been appointed to undertake this assessment.

The results of this assessment will be included in the Final Environmental Impact Report.

The following potential issues would be assessed:

Potential loss of riverine habitat (road and services crossings) Increase in stormwater runoff and the potential to increase the amount of erosion in the

catchment The possible impact of supplying the water requirements for construction and operation

phases of the development, should a natural resource be considered as the supply source

The following aspects related to potential wetlands and rivers (water courses) for the site will be included in this study:

A desktop assessment of the study area. This will cover the development footprint in relation to available information related to wetland / riverine ecosystems functioning, river classification, flow regime, water quality, physical, biota, and riparian habitat within the region.

A map demarcating the relevant local drainage area of the respective waterbodies, and the respective catchments within a 500m radius of the study area. This will demonstrate, from a holistic point of view the connectivity between the site and the surrounding regions, i.e. the zone of influence. Maps depicting demarcated waterbodies will be delineated to a scale of 1:10 000, as well as any WULA regulated zones.

The determination of the ecological state of any aquatic systems, estimating their biodiversity, conservation and ecosystem function importance with regard ecosystem services after a site visit has been conducted. Note that this determination will not



include avifaunal, herpetological or invertebrate studies; however possible habitat for species of special concern would be commented on.

Recommend buffer zones and No-go areas around any delineated wetland areas based on the relevant legislation, e.g. Conservation Plan guidelines or best practice in the form of a sensitivity map.

Assess the potential impacts, based on the supplied methodology Provide mitigations regarding project related impacts, including engineering services that

could negatively affect demarcated aquatic areas. Provide the relevant aspects with regard compiling the Environmental Management /

Monitoring Plans.

The following have also been considered in terms of potential Hydrological Impacts that were identified in the Ecological Impact Assessment Report (Annexure E1) and the Stormwater Management Plan (Annexure E10). Note this assessment will be updated after completion of the freshwater ecological study.

This assessment was compiled taking the following into account:

Ecological Scoping Report compiled by Mr Simon Todd; Ecological Impact Assessment Report compiled by Mr Simon Todd; Stormwater Management Plan Compiled by Aurecon.

18.1 IDENTIFICATION AND SENSITIVITY RATING OF SURFACE WATERCOURSES.

Todd, 2014 identified potential watercourses via a desktop study that formed part of the ecological scoping report. These watercourses were ground-truthed and mapped as part of the ecological impact assessment report.

Todd, 2014 categorised all hydrological features on site into 3 habitat categories, namely:

Drainage Systems, Plains wash

18.1.1 Plains Wash

The lower-lying parts of the site have accumulated relatively deeper soils on account of water and wind transport and deposition of sand into these areas. Due to the deeper and more sandy nature of the soils, these areas are generally dominated by various species of Stipagrostis, which is typical of this substrate. Dominant and typical species include Stipagrostis anomala, S.ciliata, S.uniplumis and Schmidtia kalariensis. Occasional scattered shrubs and low trees are also present and usually consist of Phaeoptilum spinosum, Rhigozum trichotomum and Boscia foetida. A variety of other shrubs from the surrounding stony plains may also be present depending on the soil depth and texture. It is important to note that these areas are not drainage lines, as there is no clear drainage channel present and there are no species associated with mesic conditions present, but these are simply areas which occasionally receive runoff from adjacent more stony soils and when this does occur, the water usually infiltrates in-situ and does not drain further. As such, these areas are considered more sensitive than the



surrounding plains, but are not considered ecologically equivalent to drainage lines and not considered highly sensitive areas.

18.1.2 Drainage Lines

There are a number of minor drainage lines which traverse the site. These are not very large and well developed, but carry water for brief periods following heavy rainfall events and usually consist of a variable width sandy bed which may be exposed or fairly well vegetated by tall shrubs and scattered trees such as Rhigozum trichotomum, Acacia mellifera, Boscia foetida and Phaeoptilum spinosum. Due to the ecological role that drainage lines play as well as their vulnerability to disturbance, these areas are considered sensitive and should be avoided as much as possible. Within the site, the density and abundance of protected species is concentrated along the drainage lines with species such as Boscia foetida, and Acacia erioloba being found largely within or near this habitat type.

These Drainage Lines which in the section pictured is fairly well vegetated largely by Rhigozum trichotomum, but with Acacia mellifera, Boscia foetida and Phaeoptilum spinosum also prevalent. The tree towards the right of the image is the woody alien Prosopis glandulosa, which was prevalent around the watering point located with the V along northern boundary of the study area.

18.2 ECOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY OF HYDROLOGICAL FEATURES

The Ecological specialist allocated the following sensitivities to the Hydrological Features.

Drainage Lines – High Plains Washes – Medium

18.3 IDENTIFICATION, ASSESSMENT OF ALL POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO THE WATERCOURSES AND SUGGESTION OF MITIGATION MEASURES; AND

Based on the outcome of the Ecological Impact Assessment and Storm water management plan, the following potential hydrological impacts were identified.

Impacts on drainage patterns. Erosion and siltation of the offsite drainage line. Loss of vegetation along plains washes

The table below includes an assessment of the potential impacts of the preferred alternative on onsite and nearby hydrological features.

Table 27: Ecological Impact on Hydrological Features.

Impact Extent Duration Intensity Probability Reversibility

Significance

without

mitigation

Significance

with

mitigation

Confidence

Soil Erosion Risk During Construction

Local Medium-term

Medium-High High Low Medium

Negative Low

Negative High



Impact Extent Duration Intensity Probability Reversibility

Significance

without

mitigation

Significance

with

mitigation

Confidence


Dust suppression and erosion management should be an integrated component of the construction approach. Disturbance near to drainage lines or the pan should be avoided and sensitive drainage areas near to the construction

activities should demarcated as no-go areas. Regular monitoring for erosion problems along the access roads and other cleared areas. Erosion problems should be rectified on a regular basis. Sediment traps may be necessary to prevent erosion and soil movement if there are topsoil or other waste heaps present

during the wet season. A low cover of vegetation should be left wherever possible within the construction footprint to bind the soil, prevent erosion and

promote post-disturbance recovery of an indigenous ground cover.

Impact on Drainage lines Local Long-term Medium Moderate Low

Medium-High

Negative

Medium-Low

Negative Moderate


The small catchment in the immediate vicinity of the pan should be delineated in the field prior to construction during the preconstruction walk-through of the facility, in order to determine the most appropriate set-back for this feature.

The pan should be explicitly accommodated within the erosion and runoff management plans for the facility and it should not be used to receive and manage waste water or runoff at the site.

The pan should be monitored during operation to ensure that it does not attract birds which are then negatively impacted by the panels or the power lines at the site.

The pan should be fenced off from the facility, but with standard livestock-type fencing (not jackal-proof) that allows fauna to pass through.

18.4 RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE PREFERRED PLACEMENT OF PHOTOVOLTAIC PANELS

The preferred layout was specifically developed to exclude the sensitive hydrological features as identified by the ecological specialist. An avoidance approach was applied, whereby ecologically sensitive hydrological features were excluded from within the development layout.

The preferred layout included the following key exclusions in order to ensure that the impact on hydrological was kept to an absolute minimum.

- Main drainage line was excluded completely from the proposed development footprint.

18.5 MANAGEMENT OF STORM WATER TO PROTECT HYDROLOGICAL RESOURCES.

The effective management of stormwater in the long term is of utmost importance to ensure that the hydrological resources on site remain functional from both an ecological and hydrological perspective. To this end, Aurecon were appointed to develop a Stormwater Management Plan for the site (Annexure E11).

The scope of the Stormwater Management Plan (SMP) includes inter alia:

Determine catchment area for the project site. Estimate floods expected for the catchment. Confirm existing drainage pattern and streams.



Propose drainage elements such as side drains, outlets and other mitigation measures to accommodate the flows.

Prepare a conceptual drainage layout plan and strategy for the project site.

The stormwater management plan makes specific provision for following existing contours to minimise impacts on the existing drainage patterns. With the implementation of the stormwater management plan, the potential impact of the facility on existing drainage patterns is deemed to be low.

19 ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL HYDROGEOLOGICAL IMPACTS

The assessment of potential Hydrogeological impacts discussed below, took into account the following:

DEA&DP guideline on involving hydrogeologists in EIA processes. Ecological Scoping Report compiled by Mr Simon Todd; Ecological Impact Assessment Report compiled by Mr Simon Todd; Stormwater Management Plan Compiled by Aurecon; and Layout and Engineering report compiled by Solek Renewable Energy Engineers.

According to the DEADP guideline the following triggers and key issues potentially require specialist input.

In order to determine whether hydrogeological specialist input to the EIA process is required it is suggested that:

1. The proponent and/or the EIA practitioner determines whether the proposed development falls within one of the following activity types:

Where effluent or chemicals with the potential to change groundwater quality is handled as part of the project, or discharged into the environment due to the project. The proposed activity (generation of electricity by means of PV) does not generate or use any chemicals or effluent that could potentially result in pollution of groundwater resources. Note – cleaning of PV panels will be done with clean water without the use of any cleaning chemicals.

The volume of groundwater in storage or entering groundwater storage is changed beyond what is allowed by the DWAF General Authorisations. The current proposal does not include the utilisation or storage of groundwater. Should the utilization or storage of groundwater be considered in the future a hydrological specialist will be required to provide input into the legally required application in terms of the National Water Act.

The groundwater flow regime is changed. The groundwater flow regime will not be changed as a result of the proposed activity.

Considering the above, it is concluded that the proposed PV facility will not likely have any impact on Hydrogeological resources and as such, further assessment is not deemed necessary.



20 ASSESMENT OF VISUAL IMPACT

Mr Stephen Stead of Visual Resource Management Africa undertook a visual impact assessment of the proposed development from which the following is drawn. Please refer to Annexure E7 for a full copy of this specialist report.

In order to provide context to the reader, both the baseline (included during the scoping phase) as well as the assessment of impacts are included below.

20.1 BASELINE: PROJECT VISIBILITY

The visible extent, or viewshed, is „the outer boundary defining a view catchment area, usually along crests and ridgelines‟ (Oberholzer, 2005). In order to define the extent of the possible influence of the proposed project, a viewshed analysis is undertaken from the proposed sites at a specified height above ground level as indicated in the below table making use of open source NASA ASTER Digital Elevation Model data (NASA, 2009). The extent of the viewshed analysis was restricted to a defined distance that represents the approximate zone of visual influence (ZVI) of the proposed activities, which takes the scale, and size of the proposed projects into consideration in relation to the natural visual absorption capacity of the receiving environment. The maps are informative only as visibility tends to diminish exponentially with distance, which is well recognised in visual analysis literature (Hull & Bishop, 1988).

Table 28: Proposed Project Heights and Zone of Visual Influence Table (Stead, 2015)

Project Phase Proposed Activity Approx. Max. Height (m) Approx. ZVI (km)

PV PV Structure 10 12

Power lines Power line Structures 25 6

The ZVI for Ephraim Sun was restricted to 12km, as the 10m height proposed landscape modification would be visually contained by the surrounding slightly elevated terrain to the west and east. The ZVI for the proposed power lines was set at 6km, due to the small visual surface area of the cabling and structures. The surrounding landscape visual absorption capacity is rated medium, due to the topography as well as the Eskom power lines located to the west of the property. Further to the north, along the proposed power line route, the visual absorption capacity is rated medium to high, due to the built environment associated with the town of Upington, as well as the proposed power line which will be routed along the existing 132kV power line. As depicted in the regional topographic map below, a small north to south-aligned hill range topographically screens the study area from the east. To the north and south of the study area lies slightly raised ground, which would likely screen most of the study site from adjacent receptors located within these regions. The property drainage is to the southwest, which then drains to the northwest to the Orange River.



Figure 45: Regional NASA ASTER Digital Elevation Model Map depicting the prominent topographical features associated with the property and surrounding terrain (Stead, 2015)



Figure 46: Viewshed for the PV structures generated from a 10m offset overlaid onto OS Satellite Image Map

Figure 47: Viewshed for the power line structures generated from a 25m offset overlaid onto OS Satellite Image Map (Stead, 2015)

20.2 REGIONAL LANDSCAPE CHARACTER

Landscape character is defined by the U.K. Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA) as the „distinct and recognisable pattern of elements that occurs consistently in a particular type of landscape, and how this is perceived by people. It reflects particular combinations of geology, landform, soils, vegetation, land use and human settlement‟. It creates the specific sense of place or essential character and „spirit of the place‟. (IEMA, 2002)

The following key landmarks, falling within the proposed project viewshed, were identified during the desktop assessment:

Rural agricultural / viticulture landscape associated with the Orange River The N10 National Road Renewable Energy Node: The Khi Solar 1 Concentrated Solar Power facility

The main landscape feature in the area is the Orange River. This landscape includes the river and residential and agricultural developments along the valley. Landform is fairly undulating and hilly, with rocky outcrops scattered along the banks where the river has eroded down creating a slight valley. Due to the proximity to water, vegetation is more prolific along the riverbank and is predominantly associated with cultivated vineyards and small-scale agriculture, although there are some larger residential developments that do detract from the overall landscape character. The cultural landscapes of this area are primarily associated with agricultural activities and vineyards on the more fertile lands along the Orange River and they add value to the overall



vista. The types of receptors making use of the Orange River visual resources are mostly related to agriculture, tourism and residential. It is likely that maintaining the existing sense of place would be important to these receptors due to the viticulture landscape context.

The N10, located 7.5km to the north of the study area, is an important tourist view corridor linking Upington in the northeast, to Prieska in the southeast. Based on the CSIR SEA negative mapping recommendations, it is recommended that a suitable visual buffer along the road is set in place to ensure that views of the proposed PV facilities are set back and do not detract from the viniculture sense of place. However, as the proposed project area is outside of the visual context of the N10, the buffering would not be relevant to the proposed PV component of the project. The proposed power line does cross the N10 in an area that is associated with a viticulture landscape, which would need to be taken into consideration in the assessment phase.

The site is also situated in the background visual vicinity of the Khi Solar One Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) tower project, currently under construction 26km to the west of the property. This creates a large vertical feature in the landscape that does dominate the attention of the casual observer. The tower visually re-enforces the likelihood that the areas surrounding Upington will become more visually associated with solar energy landscapes. The Ilanga CSP project to the east of the study site has also been approved, with its transmission line located to north of the study area. Once this facility has been constructed, the southern side of the Orange River will also become more strongly associated with solar energy landscapes.

20.3 SITE LANDSCAPE CHARACTER

In terms of the VRM methodology, landscape character is derived from a combination of scenic quality, receptor sensitivity to landscape change, and distance of the proposed landscape modification from key receptor points. The scenic quality is determined making use of the VRM scenic quality questionnaire (refer to addendum). In order to better understand the visual resources of the site, regional vegetation and terrain influences are described at a broad-brush level.

20.3.1 Site Topography

Elevation profiles were generated making use of ASTER data Digital Elevation Model. The following slopes and elevation statistics were generated for the proposed property and adjacent surrounds. The minimum elevation on the property is 841 mamsl, with the maximum 890 mamsl. The average elevation is 860 mamsl. The property is predominantly flat with an average slope percentage of 3.93%. The average aspect of the study area is SW facing



Figure 48: ASTER Digital Elevation Model map depicting profile line direction and location and steep slopes (Stead, 2015).

The profile sections generated for the property indicate that along the west to east profile (CS1), the terrain is generally flat with drainage to the west. Also evident are the low hills to the east, as well as slightly higher terrain to the west, both of which would assist in reducing the visual extent of the proposed PV project.

Along the north to south profile (CS2), the terrain is more undulating, but only within a 20m range. Higher ground to the north also has the potential to reduce the visual extent.

CS1 Profile

CS2 Profile



Figure 49: ASTER Digital Elevation Model map depicting profile sections (Stead, 2015)

Figure 50: Site landscape character and photograph point locality overlay onto Open Source Satellite image map (Stead, 2015)

Figure 51: Power line photograph point locality overlay onto Open Source Satellite image map (Stead, 2015)



Table 29: Landscape scenic quality rating table (Stead, 2015)

Landscape Kalahari Karroid Shrubland Drainage Line

Landform 2 2

Vegetation 2 3

Water 0 2

Colour 3 3

Adjacent scenery 3 2

Scarcity 1 3

Cultural modifications 2 0

Score 13 15

Category B B

(A= scenic quality rating of ≥19; B = rating of 12 – 18, C= rating of ≤11)

Table 30: Landscape receptor sensitivity rating table (Stead, 2015)

Landscape Kalahari Karroid Shrubland Drainage Line

Type of user M H

Amount of use L L

Public interest L M

Adjacent land users M H

Special areas L H

Score M H

(H = High, M = Moderate, L = Low sensitivity)

For the Kalahari Karroid Shrubland the landform is rated low because of its predominantly flat nature with few interesting landscape features. Vegetation is mainly small sized shrubs and also rated low, having little variety or contrast, with no evidence of water. There are some interesting colours provided by the khaki grasses and grey green shrubs contrasting with the dark browns of the rocky hills in the background. Colour as an element is defined as moderate. Adjacent hill scenery surrounding the site does add value to the scenic quality. Scarcity factor is rated low, as this type of scenery is fairly widespread in the area and cultural modifications introduce no discordant elements into the vista. The overall scenic quality score is 13, and a VRM category B scenic quality rating was defined for this site.

Sensitivity of the type of users (agricultural farmers) would be moderate, as the area is seldom seen and isolated with the amount of use defined as low. The type of area is fairly common within the region and is not formally protected as a conservation area, hence public interest is likely to be low. The importance of the maintenance of visual quality to adjacent land users would be moderate to low. The overall sensitivity rating was defined as moderate.



For the Drainage Lines the landform is rated low because of its predominantly flat nature with limited individual interest or variation. Vegetation comprises small shrubs and is rated medium. As this is a drainage line, there is a presence of the absence of water that adds some scenic value. As with the other landscapes in the area, interesting colouring is added by dark browns of the rocky hills in the background. The scarcity factor of this landscape is rated low, as this type of scenery is fairly widespread in the area. Cultural modifications are not apparent and neither adds to, nor detracts from the scenic value. The overall scenic quality score is 15 and a VRM category B scenic quality rating is awarded.

For the drainage lines, sensitivity of the type of users (agricultural farmers) would be high as the area is water-related within an arid zone. As the area is very remote, amount of use is very low and public interest would be low due to the uniformity of the landscape, lack of access and the lack of formal conservation protection. The importance of maintaining the current scenic quality for adjacent land users was defined as moderate to high as adjacent farmers could be affected by altered water run-off patterns. River areas are special areas and were rated high, with the overall receptor sensitivity rating also being high.

20.4 FINDINGS OF VISIBILITY ASSESSMENT

20.4.1 Visual Absorption Capacity

Due to the flat landscape and the limited vegetation, the visual absorption capacity of the landscape is low as the site landscape offers little topographic, vegetation or structural visual screening.

20.4.2 Project Visibility

The visibility of both the alternative sites are defined as medium to low due to the surrounding hills and raised ground containing the viewshed to the east, south and west, with fragmented exposure to the north.

20.4.3 Project Exposure

The nearest receptor is the Kleinbegin District Road that runs through the proposed site and the N10 National Road users, located approximately 7.5 km to the north. Due to the close proximity of the proposed site to the Kleinbegin Road, Visual Exposure is defined as High.

20.4.4 Scenic Quality

Based on the VRM methodology, the scenic quality of the area is defined medium. This is due to the predominantly flat landform with limited terrain variation, only one or two vegetation types and the limited presence of water. Adjacent hill scenery surrounding the site does add value to the scenic quality, but is fairly common in the area and scarcity is low. Cultural modifications are mainly related to agricultural grassland farming which adds to the rural sense of place due to the lack of visible development.

20.4.5 Receptor Sensitivity

Due to the remoteness of the locality and the single agricultural road from which the proposed site is viewed, the overall sensitivity rating was defined as low. The type of area is fairly common within the region and is not formally protected as a conservation area, hence public interest is likely to be low. The importance of the maintenance of visual quality to adjacent land users would be moderate to low.



20.5 KEY OBSERVATION POINTS

Key Observation Points (KOPs) are defined by the Bureau of Land Management as the people (receptors) located in strategic locations surrounding the property that make consistent use of the views associated with the site where the landscape modifications are proposed. These locations are important in terms of the VRM methodology, which requires that the degree of contrast that the proposed landscape modifications will make to the existing landscape be measured from these most critical locations, or receptors, surrounding the property.

To define the KOPs, potential receptor locations are identified in the viewshed analysis, which are screened, based on the following criteria:

Angle of observation Number of viewers Length of time the project is in view Relative project size Season of use Critical viewpoints, e.g. views from communities, road crossings Distance from property

The KOP‟s for this site, where clear views of the proposed project could result in a change to local visual resources, are:

Kleinbegin Road (PV projects component) Farm Vaalkoppies Farmstead (Power line project component) Groenpunt Way in Keidebees residential area (Power line project component)

Figure 52: Map depicting the main receptor locations associated with the proposed PV study area (Stead 2015).



Figure 53: Map depicting the main receptor locations associated with the proposed power line crossing of the Orange River area (Stead, 2015).

Figure 54: High exposure view northwest from the Kleinbegin Road receptor, where the proposed development would be located on either side of the road in the middle-distance(Stead, 2015).

Figure 55: High exposure view east from the N10 of the proposed power line crossing with the existing 132kV power line in the background (Stead, 2015)



Figure 56: High exposure view east from the Vaalkoppies Farmstead of the proposed power line crossing with the existing 132kV power line in the background (Stead, 2015).

Figure 57: Approximate position of power line as seen from Upington residential areas (Stead, 2015)

20.6 ASSESSMENT OF VISUAL IMPACTS

The tables below reflect the assessment of visual impacts for the PV Facility, Substations as well as the power lines. This assessment includes construction, operation, decommissioning and closure as well as cumulative impacts. The mitigation measures proposed for the reduction of these impacts are also reflected below.

Table 31: Assessment of Visual Impacts of the PV Field (Stead, 2015)

Impact Activity

Phas

e

Miti

gatio

n

Nat

ure

Exte

nt

Dur

atio

n

Seve

rity

Prob

abili

ty

Sign

ifica

nce

with

out

Miti

gatio

n

Sign

ifica

nce

with

Miti

gatio

n

PV Solar – Preferred Construction.

W/Out -ve Local Short H P H

With -ve Site Short MH P MH

Operation. W/Out -ve Local Long H P H

With -ve Site Long MH P M

Closeure W/Out -ve Reg. Perm VH P VH

With -ve Site Short L P L

Cumulative.

W/Out -ve Reg. Long M P M

With +ve Reg. Long L P M



Impact Activity

Phas

e

Miti

gatio

n

Nat

ure

Exte

nt

Dur

atio

n

Seve

rity

Prob

abili

ty

Sign

ifica

nce

with

out

Miti

gatio

n

Sign

ifica

nce

with

Miti

gatio

n

PV Solar – Option 2 Construction





Closure W/Out -ve Reg. Perm VH P VH


Cumulative. W/Out -ve Reg. Long M P M


PV Solar – Option 3 Construction.







Cumulative W/Out -ve Reg. Long M P M


PV Solar – Option 4 Construction.











Table 32: Assessment of Visual Impacts of the substation (Stead, 2015)

Impact Activity

Phas

e

Miti

gatio

n

Nat

ure

Exte

nt

Dur

atio

n

Seve

rity

Prob

abili

ty

Sign

ifica

nce

with

out

Sign

ifica

nce

with

miti

gatio

n

Substation 01 Construction

W/Out -ve Site Short L P L

With -ve Site Short L P VL

Operation. W/Out -ve Site Long L P L

With -ve Site Long L P VL

Closure W/Out -ve Site Perm L P L

With -ve Site Short N P VL

Cumulative W/Out -ve Site Perm M P M

With +ve Reg Long M P M

Substation 02 (VISUAL PREFERANCE) Construction.

W/Out -ve Site Short L P L

With -ve Site Short L P VL

Operation. W/Out -ve Site Long L P L

With -ve Site Long L P VL

Closure W/Out -ve Site Perm L P L

With -ve Site Short N P VL

Cumulative W/Out -ve Site Perm M P M


Substation 03 Construction.

W/Out -ve Site Short M P M


Operation. W/Out -ve Site Long M P M

With -ve Site Long L P L

Closure W/Out -ve Site Perm M P M

With -ve Site Short N P N

Cumulative. W/Out -ve Site Perm M P M


Substation 04 Construction.

W/Out -ve Site Short M P M


Operation. W/Out -ve Site Long M P M


Closure W/Out -ve Site Perm M P M




Impact Activity

Phas

e

Miti

gatio

n

Nat

ure

Exte

nt

Dur

atio

n

Seve

rity

Prob

abili

ty

Sign

ifica

nce

with

out

Sign

ifica

nce

with

miti

gatio

n

Cumulative. W/Out -ve Site Perm M P M


Table 33: Assessment of visual impacts of power line (Stead, 2015)

Impact Activity

Phas

e

Miti

gatio

n

Nat

ure

Exte

nt

Dur

atio

n

Seve

rity

Prob

abili

ty

Sign

ifica

nce

with

out

Sign

ifica

nce

with

LiLo KleinB

sub04_01

(1.7km)

Construction. W/Out -ve Local Short L P L


Operation. W/Out -ve Local Long L P L


Closure W/Out -ve Reg. Perm H P H


Cumulative.

W/Out -ve Reg. Long L P L

With -ve Reg. Long L P L

LiLo ILA sub04_01

(2.3)

Construction. W/Out -ve Local Short MH P MH

With -ve Site Short M P M

Operation. W/Out -ve Local Long MH P MH

With -ve Site Long M P M



Cumulative. W/Out -ve Reg. Long M P M

With -ve Reg. Long M P M

LiLo ILA sub05_01

(2.3)

Construction. W/Out -ve Local Short MH P MH


Operation. W/Out -ve Local Long MH P MH

With -ve Site Long M P M







Impact Activity

Phas

e

Miti

gatio

n

Nat

ure

Exte

nt

Dur

atio

n

Seve

rity

Prob

abili

ty

Sign

ifica

nce

with

out

Sign

ifica

nce

with

LiLo ILA sub 1, 2 & 3

(2.3)

Construction. W/Out -ve Local Short L P L


Operation. W/Out -ve Local Long L P L


Closure W/Out -ve Reg. Perm M P M




Selfbuild Ephraim Sun (12.2km)

Construction. W/Out -ve Local Short L P H

With -ve Site Short L P M

Operational. W/Out -ve Local Long L P H

With -ve Site Long L P M

Close (NA)

Cumulative. W/Out -ve Reg. Long M P H




20.7 FINDINGS OF VISUAL ASSESSMENT

20.7.1 PV Footprint - Preferred and Option 2, 3 & 4

Without mitigation the visual significance is likely to be high as the existing agricultural landscape context will be significantly changed. High PV structures will dominate the landscape context, increasing the potential for negative cumulative effects and the surrounding areas landscape sterilisation. With mitigation and a restriction in height to 10m above the ground, the ZVI would be contained to within a local area, resulting in moderate visual impact significance. With the removal of the facility, the impacts, with mitigation could be reduced to low should rehabilitation be effectively implemented. As this development is located in an area that has no precedent for PV development, construction of a PV facility could result in the area becoming a renewable energy development node. This could result in moderate cumulative dust and traffic movement impacts to the viticulture areas to the north along the Kleinbegin Road. To mitigate cumulative effects, a height restriction has been implemented and it is recommended that dust suppression management take place along the length of the Kleinbegin Road to reduce wind blown dust impacts to the adjacent viticulture farms.

20.7.1.1 Proposed Construction Mitigation

Restriction in height to 10m above the ground. Allow un-restricted drainage along the drainage lines as per surface water hydrology

specialist recommendations for the specific sections detailed by the ecology and hydrology specialists.

Lights at night management. Maintain a 50m buffer on either side of the Kleinbegin Road. Wind blown dust management needs to be implemented.

20.7.1.2 Proposed Operational Mitigation

Wind blown dust management. Lights at night management.

20.7.1.3 Proposed Decommissioning and Closure mitigation

Remove all structures and buildings. Shape to allow for natural surface water run-off. Rehabilitation as per rehabilitation specialist‟s recommendations.

20.7.2 Substations 01, 02 & 03

As these substations are located away form the Kleinbegin Road, the visual significance is rated low without mitigation and very low with mitigation. There will be low receptor exposure and are in close proximity to existing or authorised power lines which increases the VAC of their localities. The visually preferred substation option is Substation 02.


Wind blow dust management


Lights are night management



20.7.2.3 Proposed Closure and Decommissioning Mitigation

Removal of all structures and buildings. Ground shaping to allow for natural surface water run-off. Rehabilitation as per the rehabilitation specialist‟s recommendations.

20.7.3 Substations 04 & 05

The substation located adjacent the Klein Begin Road are rated medium without mitigation and low with mitigation. To reduce visual intrusion to the Kleinbegin Road receptors, it is recommended that they are located a minimum of 100m from the road servitude.


100m buffer from the Klein Begin Road. Wind blow dust management.


Lights are night management.

20.7.3.3 Proposed Decommissioning and Closure Mitigation

Removal of all structures and buildings. Ground shaping to allow for natural surface water run-off. Rehabilitation as per the rehabilitation specialist‟s recommendations.

20.7.4 Powerlines - LILO ILANGA Alternatives 01,02 & 03 and LILO Kleinbegin 04

These LILO power lines are located away from the Kleinbegin Road and are rated low without mitigation and very low with mitigation as they have low receptor exposure and are in close proximity to existing or authorised power lines which increase the VAC of their localities. The visually preferred substation option is LILO ILA Sub04 02.


Wind blow dust management


Erosion management.

20.7.4.3 Proposed Closure & Decomissioning

Removal of all structures. Ground shaping to allow for natural surface water run-off. Rehabilitation as per the rehabilitation specialist‟s recommendations.

20.7.5 Powerlines - LILO ILANGA Alternatives 04 & 05

These LILO options are longer, in close proximity to the Kleinbegin Road, cross over a drainage area excluded from the Joram study site, and are also located in slightly more prominent localities. For these reasons the routings are rated medium to high without mitigation, but medium with mitigation which would require specific cognisance be taken to construct structures outside of the



defined washes. All requirements as stipulated by ecologists and hydrologists should be taken into account and should be dealt with.

20.7.5.1 Proposed Construction Mitigations

Specific cognisance be taken to construct structures outside of the defined washes. All requirements as stipulated by ecologists and hydrologists should be taken into account and should be dealt with;

Wind blow dust management.

20.7.5.2 Proposed Operational Mitigations

Erosion management.

20.7.5.3 Proposed Closure and Decommissioning Mitigations

Removal of all structures. Ground shaping to allow for natural surface water run-off. Rehabilitation as per the rehabilitation specialist‟s recommendations.

1.1.1 POowerline - Selfbuild Ephraim Without mitigation the impact significance is likely to be high for construction and operation (de-commissioning unlikely) due to the cluttering of the Orange River visual resources from multiple lines crossing the Orange River, and intrusion from more monopoles. The Eskom servitude is a three-pylon servitude. A fourth routing over the Orange River at this location is not recommended due to the higher levels of visual intrusion. If a fourth power line crossing is required, utilise the existing powerline servitude crossing the Orange River by means of co-hanging of conductors. Should a new (third) line be authorised, utilise powerline structures that are visually similar (so as to reduce visual impact) to either the Ilanga CSP 132kV line which will be built in the next 3 years or with the Eskom power line (which is planned to be upgraded). Ensure that pylons and position thereof corresponds with either Ilanga or ESKOM lines. With mitigations, the visual impact significance is likely to be moderate. Due to the limited information on the planning of the Orange River servitude crossing, confidence in the impacts is reduced.

20.7.5.4 Proposed Mitigations

Co-hanging on the Karoshoek Solar One CSP power line structures. Utilise lattice pylons crossing the Orange River Valley that are the same design and

respective positioning as the existing Eskom lattice pylons. However, it should be noted that the current Eskom lattice pylons is at end of life and that the new approved Ilanga CSP project powerline structures will define future visual uniformity with regard to design and position.

20.8 VISUAL CONCLUSION

The visual specialist has recommended that the PV project should be authorised, but only with mitigation.

The visibility of the proposed PV project is expected to be low due to the study area being surrounded on three sides by higher ground. The visibility of the power line component is expected to be medium due to its proposed routing along the existing Gordonia / Kleinbegin 132 kV power line which increases the visual absorption capacity.



Scenic quality for the property is medium to high due to the remoteness of the locality and the drainage patterning on some of the sections of the property. The Orange River and the associated viticulture landscapes, through which the power line is proposed, are also key features in the landscape that increases the landscape value.

Receptor sensitivity to landscape change for the proposed PV area is expected to be low due to the remoteness of the locality, which is well screened topographically. Receptor sensitivity to landscape change for the proposed power line is expected to be high. This is due to high exposure to residential receptors who are located in a higher scenic context with frequently used views of the Orange River.

The key visual issue of the project is the crossing of the Orange River and associated viticulture landscapes. Multiple lines crossing the river is highly likely to clutter the Orange River visual resources. The Eskom servitude is a three-pylon servitude. A fourth routing over the Orange River at this location is not recommended due to the high levels of visual intrusion. If a fourth power line crossing is required, utilise the existing powerline servitude crossing the Orange River by means of co-hanging of conductors. Should a new (third) line be authorised, utilise powerline structures that are visually similar (so as to reduce visual impact) to either the Ilanga CSP 132kV line that will be built in the next 3 years, or with the Eskom power line (which is planned to be upgraded). Ensure that pylons and position thereof corresponds with either Ilanga or ESKOM lines. With mitigations, the visual impact significance is likely to be moderate.

21 ASSESSMENT OF HERITAGE IMPACTS

Mr Stefan de Kock of Perception heritage consultants have been appointed to undertake an integrated heritage assessment of the proposed Ephraim Sun PV Energy. The integrated specialist study will encompass three studies (undertaken by separate specialists) that will be collated into a single study. The key disciplines in this study include:

- Built Environment and Landscape considerations – Mr Stephan de Kock (Perception Heritage Consultants)

- Archaeology – Dr Peter Nilssen - Palaeontology – Dr John Almond (Natura viva)

The integrated heritage study will be provided to the competent heritage authority, SAHRA, to inform their decision making process.

The information in this section thus provides an overview in terms of all heritage related disciplines. For detailed assessment in terms of Archaeology and Palaeontology please refer to the following two sections.

21.1 Methodology

Compilation of the Integrated HIA report for the proposed development activity (including relevant development alternatives) includes professional inputs from the following specialist reports sanctioned as part of the HIA process:

Basic archival research, Cultural landscape assessment, Built environment analysis and assimilating inputs from various specialist reports (Perception Planning, S. de Kock);

Archaeological Impact Assessment (Dr. Peter Nilssen); Desktop Palaeontological Impact Assessment (Natura Viva, Dr. J. Almond); Visual Impact Assessment (VRM Africa, S Stead).



As part of the compilation of this Integrated HIA report the site and its environs was studied, visited, photographed and assessed, which more specifically involved the following:

Field work carried out by Dr. Peter Nilssen from 19th to 25th May 2015 ; Liaising with project manager, environmental consultant and various specialist consultants; Assimilating findings and recommendations emanating from specialist inputs into HIA; Identification of heritage-related issues and concerns; Analysis of development site and its environs; Identification of contextual spatial informants; Establishing cultural significance, based on criteria set out in NHRA; Identification of heritage-related design informants based on the above; Focussed public participation process to be coordinated as part of Environmental Impact

Assessment facilitated by Cape Environmental Impact Assessment Practitioners (Pty) Ltd; Assess conformity of final proposed site layout to design informants identified; Submission to competent authorities (SAHRA and Ngwao Boswa Kapa Bokoni) via

SAHRIS.

21.2 Historical Background

Early travellers such as Wikar and Gordon travelled along the Orange River in the 1770‟s and described various communities living along the river (Penn 1995). By the mid-19th century the stretch of the Orange River to the west of Upington was settled by the Korana, a Khoekhoen group whose origins are still unclear (Strauss 1979). With increasing Trekboer encroachment from the south, the Korana became involved in a struggle to maintain an independent existence. The attempt by the Korana to resist resulted in two wars, that of 1868-9 and 1878-9.

Formally founded in 1884, the town of Upington was named after Sir Thomas Upington. Sir Thomas Upington (1844–1898), was born in Cork, Ireland, and was an administrator and politician of the Cape Colony. He was briefly Prime Minister of the Cape Colony, between 1884 and 1886, during a period of extreme turbulence in the Cape's history.

However the town‟s origins date back to 1875, when a mission station was established and run by Reverend Schröder. The mission station now houses the town museum, known as the Kalahari Orange Museum.

The farm Vaal Koppies was first surveyed in 18833 and included a surface area of 20,586 morgen and 593 square roods (±17,696 ha). The original farm boundaries included the farms Vryheid, Gifkloof and Strausville.



Figure 58: Approximate location of proposed development site transposed onto extract from early (1906- 1914) mapping for the area southeast of Upington (Source: CDSM)

Early mapping (1906-1914) shows the location of an early farmstead at Vaalkopjes, south of the proposed development site boundary. Further structures recorded during the compilation of this mapping include a single well with wind pump, tank and trough as well as a small dam.

Availability of water and grazing are described as fair during wet months and bad during dry months. The mapping furthermore highlights the alignment of several historic tracks through the area, which are no longer evident within the landscape.

Basic historic background research did not identify or highlight any significant historic or other heritage-related themes, which may be negatively impacted through the proposed development.

21.3 Heritage Resources & Issues

21.3.1 Cultural landscape context

The term “cultural landscape” refers to the imprint created on a natural landscape through human habitation and cultivation over an extended period of time. While the Cape has been inhabited for many hundreds of thousands of years (pre-colonial history) prior to Western settlement (colonial history), the nomadic lifestyles of early inhabitants are not always as evident within the landscape as the significant imprints made by humans during the last two – three hundred years and more. Unlike ancient landscapes in parts of the world where environmental conditions allowed more intensive cultivation over periods much longer than locally have allowed natural and cultural components of the landscape to become interwoven, landscape components Northern Cape have not yet developed in such a manner.



The fact that natural and cultural landscape components in the region is therefore more distinguished means that the cultural landscape is likely to be very vulnerable to the cumulative impact of inappropriate large-scale development.

Ultimately, definition of a cultural landscape can be informed by the following elements, weighed through professional opinion, public values and statutory (legal) framework:

Natural Landscape Public Memory Social History Historical Architecture Palaeontology Archaeology

The site may be described as being part of a typical Kalahari landscape and defined by flat and wide open spaces overgrown by sparse, low-growing vegetation. From a Pre-Modern perspective, the site formed part of an area mostly used for small stock farming. The only modern man-made features noted on and within the direct proximity of the site were single vehicle gravel tracks, two freestanding concrete dams (disused), feeding and watering troughs for cattle, cattle grazing, fencing, and a few areas of minor earthmoving, none of which are considered to be of any local cultural significance. No structures or ruins were noted within the proposed site boundaries or its direct vicinity. From a cultural landscape perspective, the site is considered to be of no local cultural significance.

From a broad, regional perspective the cultural landscape is considered highly complex and potentially significant in terms of pre-colonial as well as pre-modern (traditional) landscape patterns. Given the cumulative impact of mining activities and more recent development patterns, it is therefore recommended that the competent authority commission a broad-scale mapping, as meant within the context of this paragraph, as required in terms of Section 30(5) of the National Heritage Resources Act, 1999 (Act 25 of 1999).

Without the benefit of the above research and mapping and given the pattern of existing development on and within the direct proximity of the site, it is therefore our contention that from a cultural landscape perspective, the proposed development site is of no local cultural significance.

21.3.2 Archaeology

The Archaeological Impact Assessment (AIA), compiled by Dr Peter Nilssen, the findings of which are summarised below with permission from author. Kindly refer to specialist‟s full report and findings. Note that the AIA covered the larger study area (±580ha) as well as the various alternatives for the proposed 132kV overhead power line that will be the grid connection between the solar facility and the Gordonia Substation.

“Previous archaeological studies in the surrounding environment showed that no significant archaeological sites occur in the immediate vicinity of the current study area. Although numerous Stone Age stone artefacts were recorded in the studied areas covered by this assessment, they occur as isolated finds that are temporally mixed, in derived and unstratified contexts and that lack organic remains and other cultural materials. No other tangible heritage resources were identified. As a result, the archaeological record in the studied areas is considered to be of low significance, and therefore, it is recommended that no further archaeological investigation or work is required prior to the development.



On archaeological grounds there are no fatal flaws associated with the proposed development activities, and therefore, there are no objections to the authorization of the proposed development of the Ephraim Sun PV Solar Development and associated grid connection route options to the Gordonia Substation.

21.3.2.1 Recommended Mitigation Measures;

Archaeological resources identified during this study do not require further recording/studies, and because they are considered to be of low heritage value and have been adequately recorded through this assessment, it is suggested that they can be disturbed or damaged without a permit from SAHRA;

The development may benefit from having an on-site display of the Stone Age archaeological record in the area, though this will require negotiation with and permission from SAHRA.

21.3.2.2 Required Mitigation Measures;

In the event that excavations and earthmoving activities expose significant archaeological or heritage resources, such activities must stop and SAHRA must be notified immediately;

If significant archaeological or heritage resources are exposed during construction activities, then they must be dealt with in accordance with the National Heritage Resources Act (No. 25 of 1999) and at the expense of the developer;

In the event of exposing human remains during construction, the matter will fall into the domain of the South African Heritage Resources Agency (Mrs Colette Scheermeyer) and will require a professional archaeologist to undertake mitigation if needed. Such work will also be at the expense of the developer.”

21.3.3 Palaeontology

From the desktop palaeontological study (summarised below), compiled by Natura Viva (Dr. John Almond) it is concluded that no further related studies or mitigation would be required.

Kindly refer to specialist‟s full report and recommendations (Annexure E4).

“The igneous and metamorphic Precambrian basement rocks underlying the Ephraim Sun solar PV facility study area at depth are entirely unfossiliferous. The overlying aeolian sands and stream gravels of the Kalahari Group mantling the older bedrocks are generally of low palaeontological sensitivity. The main project area lies too far from the river to affect any possible – but unmapped - older (Tertiary) fossiliferous river gravels along the southern banks of the Gariep. The footprint of the 132 kV transmission line monopoles is too small to have a significant impact on fossil heritage (This applies to all route options under consideration). It is concluded that the proposed Ephraim Sun solar PV facility near Upington, including the associated short transmission line, is unlikely to have significant impacts on local palaeontological heritage resources.

21.3.3.1 Recommendation:

It is therefore recommended that, pending the discovery of significant new fossils remains before or during construction, exemption from further specialist palaeontological studies and mitigation be granted for the proposed Ephraim Sun solar PV facility on the farm Vaal Koppies 40 near Upington, Northern Cape.



21.3.3.2 Required Mitigation Measures;:

Should any substantial fossil remains (e.g. mammalian bones and teeth) be encountered during excavation, however, these should be safeguarded, preferably in situ, and reported by the ECO to SAHRA, i.e. The South African Heritage Resources Authority, as soon as possible (Contact details: Mrs Colette Scheermeyer, P.O. Box 4637, Cape Town 8000. Tel: 021 462 4502. Email: [email protected]) so that appropriate action can be taken by a professional palaeontologist, at the developer‟s expense. Mitigation would normally involve the scientific recording and judicious sampling or collection of fossil material as well as associated geological data (e.g. stratigraphy, sedimentology, taphonomy) by a professional INTEGRATED HIA palaeontologist.”

21.3.4 Visual - Spatial issues

The visual impact assessment (summarised below), compiled by VRM Africa (Stephen Stead) recommends that the PV project should be authorised, though with mitigation. Kindly refer to specialist‟s full report and recommendations (Annexure E7).

“It is the recommendation of this study that the PV project should be authorised, but only with

mitigation.

The visibility of the proposed PV project is expected to be low due to the study area being surrounded on three sides by higher ground. The visibility of the power line component is expected to be medium due to its proposed routing along the existing Gordonia / Kleinbegin 132 kV power line which increases the visual absorption capacity.

Scenic quality for the property is medium to high due to the remoteness of the locality and the drainage patterning on some of the sections of the property. The Orange River and the associated viticulture landscapes, through which the power line is proposed, are also key features in the landscape that increases the landscape value.

Receptor sensitivity to landscape change for the proposed PV area is expected to be low due to the remoteness of the locality, which is well screened topographically. Receptor sensitivity to landscape change for the proposed power line is expected to be high. This is due to high exposure to residential receptors which are located in a higher scenic context with frequently used views of the Orange River.

The key visual issue of the project is the crossing of the Orange River and associated viticulture landscapes. Multiple lines crossing the river, and intrusion from more monopoles, is highly likely to clutter the Orange River visual resources. The Eskom servitude is a three-pylon servitude. A fourth routing over the Orange River at this location is not recommended due to the high levels of visual intrusion. If a fourth power line crossing is required, utilise the existing powerline servitude crossing the Orange River by means of co-hanging of conductors”

21.3.4.1 Recommended Mitigation:

“Should a new (third) line be authorised, utilise powerline structures that are visually similar (so as to reduce visual impact) to either the Ilanga CSP 132kV line that will be built in the next 3 years, or with the Eskom power line (which is planned to be upgraded). Ensure that pylons and position thereof corresponds with either Ilanga or ESKOM lines. With mitigations, the visual impact significance is likely to be moderate”.



21.3.5 Eco-tourism

One of the goals of ecotourism is to offer tourists insight into the impact of human beings on the environment, and to foster a greater appreciation of our natural habitats and from an economic perspective, heritage resources may prove to be valuable resources when used in sustainable manner through eco-tourism. This may for example include investment in adaptive reuse of historic buildings so as to conserve and enhance the unique character and historic themes pertinent to this area. Heritage tourism can therefore serve as a driver for economic development, including infrastructure development and poverty alleviation through job creation.

Given the location as well as pattern of existing land use within the proximity of the site and furthermore, the relative low density of heritage resources considered of cultural significance noted as part of this assessment, we do not consider that the proposed development would offer significant heritage-related eco-tourism opportunities associated with the development site.

21.4 Heritage Informants/ Indicators & Assessment Of Impacts

According to the requirements of Section 38(3) of the NHRA, land use planning and EIA processes must be informed by and incorporate heritage informants and indicators. It is the purpose of this Section to define heritage informants and indicators pertaining to the way in which heritage resources must be incorporated into the overall layout and design of the proposed development as read in conjunction with preceding Sections.

21.4.1 Cultural landscape issues

From a regional and natural landscape perspective, the proposed development site forms part of a highly-transformed landscape altered through mining activities as well as high concentration of proposals for development of several renewable energy (solar) facilities. While the proposal would relate to a landscape modification, we do not consider that it would alter any natural or cultural landscape of cultural significance.

21.4.2 Archaeology

All recommendations contained in AIA, as summarised in Section 8.2 of this HIA report shall be adhered to.

21.4.3 Palaeontology

It is recommended that no further palaeontological studies or mitigation be undertaken in respect of the proposed development site. All recommendations contained in PIA, as summarised in Section 8.3 of this HIA report shall be adhered to.

21.4.4 Visual - Spatial issues

All recommendations contained in visual impact assessment, as summarised in Section 8.4 of this HIA report shall be adhered to.

22 ASSESSMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACTS

Dr Peter Nilssen undertook a detailed archaeological assessment of the proposed facility and grid connections (Please refer to Annexure E3) from which the following is drawn.



22.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE STUDY

The overall purpose of the AIA is to assess the sensitivity of archaeological resources in the affected area, to determine the potential impacts on such resources, and to avoid and/or minimize such impacts by means of management and/or mitigation measures. This AIA report forms part of the Integrated HIA and meets standards required by the South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA) in terms of the National Heritage Resources Act, No. 25 of 1999.

The objectives of the Archaeological Impact Assessment are:

To assess the nature and sensitivity of archaeological resources in the affected environment; To identify the impact of the proposed development on such resources as well as options for

mitigation in order to minimize potential negative impacts and to make recommendations for mitigation where necessary; and

To identify archaeological resources and issues that may require further investigation.

22.1.1 Terms of Reference (ToR):

Locate boundaries and extents of the study areas. Conduct a detailed foot survey of the study areas to identify and record all archaeological

resources. Assess the impact of the proposed development on such resources according to

assessment criteria provided by Cape EAPrac. Recommend mitigation measures and additional studies where necessary. Prepare and submit a report that meets standards required by Heritage Authorities in terms

of the National Heritage Resources Act, No. 25 of 1999

22.2 STUDY AREA

The bulk of the study area is essentially flat and is situated in a slight depression with low ridges and koppies to both the west and east, and with moderate to small intervening drainage lines with a mainly northerly orientation, sloping down gently towards the Orange River in the north. Vegetation is open and sparse, and dominated by Karoo shrubs, some grasses and a few small/short trees of mostly Acacia species that cluster along the main drainage lines running through the study area. Consequently, there are large expanses of exposed ground surfaces and archaeological visibility is excellent. Surface sediments are mostly stony with quartz and quartzite dominating over most of the affected area and these lie in and atop beige to brown to reddish sands that are variable in coarseness. These geological deposits appear to be alluvial gravels that are also exposed in stream cuttings. A few rocky outcrops of quartz, quartzite and calcrete also occur in the area.

Relatively recent human-related disturbances to the environment include a gravel road, single vehicle gravel tracks, two freestanding concrete dams (disused), feeding and watering troughs for cattle, cattle grazing, fencing, and a few areas of minor earthmoving. Apart from sheet wash as well as shallow erosion gullies associated with the drainage lines, there is considerable burrowing by smaller and larger mammals though no archaeological remains were found in association with animal burrows. Overall, the study area is relatively undisturbed with little negative impact on the existing archaeological record apart from natural erosion processes.

Several portions of the proposed grid connection options were covered during the archaeological investigation for the proposed Joram Solar Facility (Nilssen 2014b). The receiving environment for the grid connection route options is essentially the same as that described above for the PV footprint area. However, the affected environment changes to residential and urban once the grid



connection route to the Gordonia Substation crosses the N10 national road and Orange River to the north. A clear servitude for overhead power lines exists in this northern portion of the power line route. Gravels in this northern section are dominated by banded ironstone, but there is considerable disturbance to surface sediments even in the undeveloped areas along the existing power line servitude (Nilssen 2014b).

22.3 APPROACH TO THE STUDY

This assessment was conducted with accepted best practice principles and in accordance with guidelines and minimum standards as set out by the Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning and the South African Heritage Resources Agency (DEA&DP 2005, SAHRA 2007).

An overview of the archaeological desktop study and literature review is presented below in the results section.

In order to assess the nature and significance of the archaeological record in the affected area, a comprehensive foot survey was performed. The extent of the area covered by the foot survey was based on the provisional development layout plan including the footprint area for the solar facility and the own built power line route options as per the figure below. Note that certain areas of the solar facility as well as portions of the power line route options were covered during the assessment for the Joram Solar Facility and associated grid connection options, and therefore, those areas were not surveyed again for the current investigation (Nilssen 2014b). The significance of archaeological resources were assessed in terms of their content and context. Attributes considered in determining significance include artefact and/or ecofact types, rarity of finds, exceptional items, organic preservation, aesthetic appeal, potential for future research, density of finds and the context in which archaeological traces occur.

Figure 59: Tracks showing extent of Archaeological foot survey (Nilssen, 2015)



Due to low, open vegetation and large expanses of exposed ground surfaces, access and archaeological visibility was excellent and allowed for a thorough assessment of the archaeological record in the larger study area and along the proposed grid connection options. Because this author is familiar with the archaeological record in the immediate surroundings, and because of excellent archaeological visibility, survey walk tracks were spaced from about 50m to 100m apart. The relatively large spaces between survey tracks is justified by this author's familiarity with the study area and its archaeological contents as well as the low density and overall uniformity of the archaeological record in the receiving environment.

22.4 ASSUMPTIONS, LIMITATIONS AND GAPS IN KNOWLEDGE

This assessment is based on the assumption that the solar panel arrays and associated infrastructure of the proposed Ephraim Sun Solar PV Development will be contained within the larger study area and that the proposed power line route options will not be rerouted. In the event that the impacted areas are modified, then a further archaeological investigation may be required. It is also assumed that all background information and layout plans provided by Cape EAPrac are correct and current. Once all participating specialists' input are considered and incorporated into the final development layout plan, Cape EAPrac will circulate the final layout plan to participating specialists for their consideration and approval.

This assessment is specifically for the footprint of the proposed solar facility and corridors of the proposed power line routes and does not apply to, and may not be used for, any other future developments on the remainder of the affected properties.

High densities of alluvial gravels that include a high proportion of quartz were very low and difficult to assess since it is not feasible to individually inspect every stone. Nevertheless, and although some artefacts in quartz almost certainly went undetected, a careful assessment allowed for the identification of numerous Stone Age artefacts and if present, higher density scatters would certainly have been readily visible to the trained eye.

There were no further limitations to the study since all relevant portions of the affected areas were accessible on foot and archaeological visibility is excellent, and therefore, it is considered that sufficient observations were made for the purpose of this assessment. Due to the fact that parts of the archaeological record may be covered by surface sediments, this study is limited to such resources exposed on the surface and in disturbed contexts. Consequently, it cannot be ruled out that additional archaeological resources may be exposed during the construction phase of the development.

At present there are no gaps in knowledge regarding the proposed development.

22.5 RESULTS

22.5.1 Archaeological Background - Desktop Study & Literature Review

A literature review of previous archaeological and heritage-related work in the surrounding area was conducted in part by using information from the Report Mapping Project of the SAHRA-APM Unit as well as SAHRIS. Most of the reports cited here were downloaded from the SAHRA/SAHRIS web site.

Very little archaeological research has been conducted in this portion of South Africa and the bulk of information concerning the history and archaeology of the area was obtained through heritage and archaeological studies associated with environmental impact assessments for a variety of development activities.



It is evident from earlier studies that structures, graves as well as remnants of the Anglo-Boer War characterize the archaeological record of the historic period in the surroundings of Upington. The bulk of human occupation of the general surroundings, however, relates to the pre-historic period where Rock Art and herder sites as well as artefacts of the Early Stone Age, Middle Stone Age and Later Stone Ages are represented. No significant archaeological sites were identified in the immediate surroundings of the affected area and stone artefacts - made in a variety of raw materials - are most commonly found in low density scatters across the landscape. Overall, the Stone Age finds made in the area are considered to be of low archaeological significance because of the absence of organic and other cultural remains, their low frequencies, temporally mixed nature as well as their disturbed, derived and unstratified contexts (e.g., Beaumont 2006a, b, c, d & e, Beaumont 2008, Dreyer 2006, Kaplan 2008, Morris 2006 & 2013, Nilssen 2012 & 2014b, Pelser 2012, Webley and Halkett 2010).

In an archaeological study conducted on the same broader property for the Joram Solar Facility, this author concluded that "although numerous Stone Age stone artefacts were recorded in the studied areas covered by this assessment, they occur as isolated finds or in very low density scatters that are temporally mixed, in derived and unstratified contexts and that lack organic remains and other cultural materials. No other tangible heritage resources were identified. Consequently, the archaeological record in the studied areas is considered to be of low significance, and therefore, it is recommended that no further archaeological studies are required prior to the development" (Nilssen 2014b, executive summary).

In addition to the above, the next nearest archaeological study, which consists of the same environmental setting, geological sediments and overall context as that of the current study areas, was undertaken a few kilometres to the east of the proposed Ephraim Sun PV Solar Development and power line route options (Nilssen 2012). The main findings of the latter investigation were that "Although numerous Stone Age artefacts were identified along most of the studied area, these are scattered on the surface in low densities and occur mostly as isolated finds. No faunal remains or other cultural materials were seen. The vast bulk of specimens are in quartz with only a few pieces made in banded ironstone. A few artefacts of potentially Middle Stone Age (MSA) origin were seen, but the overwhelming majority are of the Later Stone Age (LSA). Because Stone Age artefacts identified in the study area occur as isolated finds or in low density artefact scatters that are in a temporally mixed and derived context, these materials are considered to be of low archaeological significance. Apart from the above-mentioned archaeological materials, no other heritage related resources or issues were identified during the study".

Since the bulk of the archaeological record in the immediate surroundings is that of the Stone Age period, a brief overview of the technology associated with the development of archaic and modern humans during this era is given below.

Early Stone Age (ESA) materials including Acheulian hand axes, cleavers and chopping tools that may date from as early as 2.7 million years ago and come to end about 300 000 years ago is the earliest evidence for the tool-making human ancestors occupying this area. Such artefacts are usually found among alluvial gravels. While present, ESA artefacts are fairly rare and are usually found in disturbed or derived contexts where they are mixed with artefacts of more recent Stone Age times.

The Middle Stone Age (MSA) starts about 300 000 years ago and the interface between the ESA and MSA is sometimes marked by a stone tool industry known as the Fauresmith, where small hand axes appear to indicate the transition from archaic humans to Homo sapiens. In the main, however, MSA stone artefacts are characterised by flake and blade industries where evidence for



core preparation - also known as the Levallois technique - is seen on prepared or faceted platforms of flakes and blades. Convergent flakes or points are also one of the markers of the MSA period. Like the ESA specimens, though more numerous, stone artefacts of MSA origin also occur among alluvial gravels and are commonly mixed with artefacts of both ESA and Later Stone Age origin. Unfortunately, no other cultural materials or faunal remains are associated with these artefacts when found in exposed contexts.

The Later Stone Age (LSA) starts about 40 000 years ago and is characterised by substantial technological improvements over the MSA industries. Advancements on previous technologies and new technologies as well as cultural developments include the widespread occurrence of rock art (cave paintings and rock engravings), decorative objects (ostrich egg shell beads, marine shell pendants and beads, ochre), human burials with grave goods including painted stones, an expanded stone tool kit, microlithic stone tool industries (often associated with composite tools such as bow and arrow hunting), bone tools, tortoise carapace bowls, ostrich egg shell containers, fire making sticks and so on. Due to the non-preservation of organic remains in exposed contexts such as the affected environment, the archaeological traces of the LSA occupants is limited to stone artefacts. While LSA stone artefacts are common in the landscape, they occur in low densities - often in isolation, are mixed with ESA and MSA specimens and lack organic and cultural remains. As a result, these materials are generally of low scientific value.

The bulk of archaic human (ESA) and human (MSA to recent) occupation of this area involves the Stone Age era, and therefore, the most significant cultural layer in this area involves the pre-colonial cultural landscape and its sense of place (see UNESCO 2008 for definitions, significance and preservation of cultural landscapes).

4.2. Archaeological Foot Survey

The entire archaeological inspection was conducted on foot over a period of 6.5 days from 19 to 25 May 2015. A total distance of just over 103km was walked, covering an area of approximately 250ha in extent. Archaeological visibility was excellent with exposed ground surfaces accounting for between 70 and 90% of the landscape.

The archaeological record observed during this study is very similar to that recorded on the adjacent study area that was investigated for the proposed Joram Solar Facility (Nilssen 2014b). The same suite of artefacts was observed, but occur in notably lower densities than that seen during the study for the Joram Solar Facility. The only identified archaeological remains are those of Stone Age origin. While numerous stone artefacts were seen, they are very thinly scattered across the landscape. At no point were any artefact scatters of significant densities observed, and no habitation sites were identified. In addition to their low densities, the value of the archaeological record is further diminished by its temporally mixed nature and the entire absence of any other cultural, organic or faunal remains.

Materials of Early Stone Age (ESA) origin are notably less common than those of the Middle Stone Age (MSA) and Later Stone Age (LSA) and ESA specimens include flakes, cores and bifacially retouched hand axes and cleavers. No "chopper" tools were seen. It appears that most specimens of ESA origin are in quartzite and are usually heavily patinated. Some specimens cannot be attributed to either MSA or ESA since many of the MSA specimens are also patinated. Some artefacts, therefore, are likely of either ESA or MSA origin. It is estimated that the ESA fraction of the recorded stone artefact assemblage is about 5% (as described in Nilssen 2014b).

MSA specimens are notably more common than those of the ESA, but also considerably less common than those of LSA origin. The MSA fraction of the overall stone artefact assemblage is



estimated to be about 25%. MSA specimens include Fauresmith type hand axes, convergent flakes, blades, cores (including disc and blade cores), flakes, large scrapers, possible notched pieces/adzes and possible hammer stones. Prepared platforms are common, particularly on convergent flakes and blades and artefacts are in quartzite, quartz and banded ironstone. No raw material is notably more common than others. Due to their mixed context, some artefacts could not be assigned definitively to either MSA or LSA origins, and in particular, quartz does not appear to become as obviously patinated as quartzite (as described in Nilssen 2014b).

Specimens of LSA origin are notably more frequent than those of the ESA or MSA and comprise about 70% of the total stone artefact assemblage. Specimens include adzes, notched pieces, scrapers, hammer stones, an upper grind stone, cores (including disc cores though no bladelet cores were identified), flakes and flaked pieces, and like the MSA materials, specimens are mostly in quartz, quartzite and banded ironstone. Quartz and banded ironstone appear to be the preferred raw materials. Adzes and notched pieces are by far the most common formal tools followed by scrapers (as described in Nilssen 2014b).

Artefacts of ESA, MSA and LSA origin are all deflated / eroded onto the same surfaces and are thus lacking in context. A few examples reflecting a representative sample of recorded specimens are shown in Plates 4 through 8. Two cement dams and a few feeding / watering troughs were the only built structures seen on the affected property. No other tangible heritage related resources were observed.

Figure 60:Examples of archaeological occurrences showing a mix of Early Stone Age (top left and bottom left and middle), Middle Stone Age (bottom right) and Later Stone Age specimens (top middle and right) (Nilssen, 2016)



Figure 61: Examples of archaeological occurrences showing a mix of Later Stone Age and Early Stone Age (top middle) specimens (Nilssen, 2015)

Figure 62: Examples of archaeological occurrences showing a mix of Later Stone Age and Early Stone Age (bottom middle) specimens (Nilssen,2015)



Figure 63: Examples of archaeological occurrences showing a mix of possible Middle Stone Age (top left) and Later Stone Age specimens (Nilssen, 2015)

Figure 64: Examples of archaeological occurrences showing a mix of possible Middle Stone Age (top left), Later Stone Age (top middle and bottom left) and Early Stone Age (top right and bottom middle and right) specimens (Nilssen, 2015)

22.5.2 Significance and Recommendation:

The archaeological record in the proposed development areas is considered to be of low significance and it is recommended that no further studies or mitigation is required. It is considered that the documentation of the archaeological record in the affected areas made during the current study is sufficient. It is suggested that the entire larger study area for the solar panels is suitable for development, as are all six options for the power line route. There are no fatal flaws or constraints from an archaeological perspective, and therefore, there are no objections to the proposed linear and area developments associated with the Ephraim Sun PV Solar Development.



22.6 SOURCES OF RISK, IMPACT IDENTIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT

Because archaeological resources are non-renewable and each archaeological occurrence is unique, it is important that areas affected by development are assessed for the presence and sensitivity of such resources prior to development. The proposed Ephraim Sun PV Solar Development and associated power lines will involve area and linear developments respectively and these could have a permanent negative impact on archaeological resources. This study has shown that archaeological resources do occur in the affected environment, but that they are of low significance. The purpose of this AIA is to assess the sensitivity of archaeological resources in the affected areas, to determine the potential impacts on such resources, and to avoid and/or minimize such impacts on sensitive resources through management and/or mitigation measures.

Direct negative impacts on archaeological resources will occur during the construction and installation phase of the proposed development. Indirect and cumulative impacts will occur during the operational phase of the development.

While numerous artefacts of Stone Age origin were identified in the study areas, no significant archaeological sites were recorded and based on the surface finds, it is highly improbable that significant archaeological sites are currently buried beneath surface sediments.

The below criteria for assessment are drawn from the EIA Regulations that were published in April 1998 by the South African Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. The format of impact tables presented below were provided by Cape EAPrac.

22.6.1 Impact Assessment Ratings for Ephraim Sun PV and Powerlines

Figure 65: Summary of impacts on archaeological resources associated with the Ephraim Sun PV Solar Development, 132kV overhead power line routes (power lines) and the No-Go option (NO-GO).

Alternative Nature of

impact

Extent

of

impact

Duration

of impact Intensity

Probability

of

occurrence

Status of the

impact

Degree of

confidence

Level of

significance

Significance

after

mitigation

ESF Construction

&

Installation

Local Long term

to

permanent

High Definite Negative for

archaeological

resources;

positive for

development

High Low Low

ESF Operational Local Long term

to

permanent

Low Low Neutral High Low Low

Power lines Construction

&

Installation

Local Long term

to

permanent

Low Low to

medium

Negligibly

negative

High Low Low

Power lines Operational Local Long term

to

permanent

Low Low Neutral High Low Low

NO-GO Farming

activities

Local Long term

to

permanent

Low Low to

medium

Neutral Medium Low Low

22.7 RECOMMENDED AND REQUIRED MITIGATION MEASURES

The following mitigation measures were recommended by the archaeology specialist

Archaeological resources identified during this study do not require further recording/studies, and because they are considered to be of low heritage value and have



been adequately recorded through this assessment, it is suggested that they can be disturbed or damaged without a permit from SAHRA.

The development may benefit from having an on-site display of the Stone Age archaeological record in the area, though this will require negotiation with and permission from SAHRA.

The archaeology specialist furthermore highlighted the following requirements as mandatory.

In the event that excavations and earthmoving activities expose significant archaeological or heritage resources, such activities must stop and SAHRA must be notified immediately.

If significant archaeological or heritage resources are exposed during construction activities, then they must be dealt with in accordance with the National Heritage Resources Act (No. 25 of 1999) and at the expense of the developer.

In the event of exposing human remains during construction, the matter will fall into the domain of the South African Heritage Resources Agency (Mrs Colette Scheermeyer) and will require a professional archaeologist to undertake mitigation if needed. Such work will also be at the expense of the developer.

23 ASSESSMENT OF PALAEONTOLOGICAL IMPACTS

Dr John Almond undertook a paleontological desktop assessment (Annexure E4) of the proposed Ephraim Sun PV Development. The following summarises the specialists findings in this regard.

23.1 Geological Background

The Ephraim Solar Development study area features fairly flat-lying to gently sloping, arid terrain at 800 to 890 m amsl on the southern side of the Gariep River to the southeast of Upington. It is traversed by several shallow ephemeral, dendritic water courses that ultimately feed into the Gariep (Fig. 2). The geology of the study area near Upington is shown on the 1: 250 000 geology map 2820 Upington .

A comprehensive sheet explanation for this map has been published by Moen (2007). The study area is underlain at depth by a range of ancient Precambrian basement rocks – largely high grade metamorphic rocks (e.g. gneisses, metapelites) and intrusive granitoids – that belong to the Namaqua-Natal Province of Mid Proterozoic (Mokolian) age (Cornell et al. 2006, Moen 2007). The rock units concerned include granites of the Keimoes Suite (Ms); quartzites and schists of the Vaalkoppies Group (Mda), and various metasedimenmts of the Areachap Sequence (Msp, Mbe). These basement rocks are approximately two to one billion years old and entirely unfossiliferous (Almond & Pether 2008).

They only crop out as small, isolated patches of basement rocks or low Inselberge. Most of the study area is covered by fine-grained aeolian (wind-blown) sands of the Gordonia Formation (Qg, the youngest, Pleistocene to Recent, subunit of the Kalahari Group.

Prominent NW-SE trending linear dunes of orange-hued sands are clearly visible on satellite images of the region to the west of Upington. The geology of the Late Cretaceous to Recent Kalahari Group is reviewed by Thomas (1981), Dingle et al. (1983), Thomas & Shaw 1991, Haddon (2000) and Partridge et al. (2006). The Gordonia dune sands are considered to range in age from the Late Pliocene / Early Pleistocene to Recent, dated in part from enclosed Middle to Later Stone Age stone tools (Dingle et al., 1983, p. 291). Other Quaternary to Recent superficial deposits in the



study area include downwasted surface gravels, colluvium and gravelly to sandy stream sediments.

23.2 Palaeontological Heritage

The igneous and metamorphic basement rocks are entirely unfossiliferous. The fossil record of the Kalahari Group is generally sparse and low in diversity. The Gordonia Formation dune sands were mainly active during cold, drier intervals of the Pleistocene Epoch that were unfavourable to most forms of life, apart from hardy, desert-adapted species. Porous dune sands are not generally conducive to fossil preservation. However, mummification of soft tissues may play a role here and migrating lime-rich groundwaters derived from the underlying bedrocks (including, for example, dolerite) may lead to the rapid calcretisation of organic structures such as burrows and root casts.

Occasional terrestrial fossil remains that might be expected within this unit include calcretized rhizoliths (root casts) and termitaria (e.g. Hodotermes, the harvester termite), ostrich egg shells (Struthio) and shells of land snails (e.g. Trigonephrus) (Almond 2008, Almond & Pether 2008).

Other fossil groups such as freshwater bivalves and gastropods (e.g. Corbula, Unio) and snails, ostracods (seed shrimps), charophytes (stonewort algae), diatoms (microscopic algae within siliceous shells) and stromatolites (laminated microbial limestones) are associated with local watercourses and pans. Microfossils such as diatoms may be blown by wind into nearby dune sands. These Kalahari fossils (or subfossils) can be expected to occur sporadically but widely, and the overall palaeontological sensitivity of the Gordonia Formation is therefore considered to be low.

Underlying calcretes of the Mokolanen Formation might also contain trace fossils such as rhizoliths, termite and other insect burrows, or even mammalian trackways.

23.3 Conclusions & Recommendations

The igneous and metamorphic Precambrian basement rocks underlying the Ephraim Solar

Development study area at depth are entirely unfossiliferous. The overlying aeolian sands and stream gravels of the Kalahari Group mantling the older bedrocks are generally of low palaeontological sensitivity. Significant impacts on possible – but unmapped - older (Tertiary) fossiliferous river gravels along the southern banks of the Gariep are not considered likely.

It is concluded that the proposed Joram Solar Development near Upington, including the associated short transmission line, is unlikely to have significant impacts on local palaeontological heritage resources.

It is therefore recommended that, pending the discovery of significant new fossils remains before or during construction, exemption from further specialist palaeontological studies and mitigation be granted for the proposed Joram Solar Development on the farm Vaal Koppies 40 near Upington, Northern Cape.

23.3.1 Proposed Mitigatoin

The Palaeontology specialist proposed the following mitigation for the proposed Ephraim Sun Development.

Should any substantial fossil remains (e.g. mammalian bones and teeth) be encountered during excavation, however, these should be safeguarded, preferably in situ, and reported by the ECO to SAHRA, i.e. The South African Heritage Resources Authority, as soon as possible (Contact details:



Mrs Colette Scheermeyer, P.O. Box 4637, Cape Town 8000. Tel: 021 462 4502. Email: [email protected]) so that appropriate action can be taken by a professional palaeontologist, at the developer‟s expense. Mitigation would normally involve the scientific recording and judicious sampling or collection of fossil material as well as associated geological data (e.g. stratigraphy, sedimentology, taphonomy) by a professional palaeontologist.

24 ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

When considering South Africa‟s irradiation distribution, the Northern Cape Province, and Upington in particular, is known to be one of the most preferred areas for the generation of solar energy in South Africa and even in the world. This can be ascribed to the advantageous sun radiation specifications and the flat planes which are not intensively used except for low scale grazing. The global irradiation in the specific area is between 2400 and 2600 kWh/m2.

In order to consider the project cumulatively, the Environmental Impact Reporting phase of the Environmental Process has considered the cumulative of the proposed facility in addition to the other projects that are proposed in the immediate area as well as the Joram Solar Development (already authorised) proposed on the same property.

There are at least 7 known projects in the region (within 50 km radius) of the proposed Ephraim Solar Development Site.

In considering and assessing cumulative impacts, the following resources were utilised to determine the extent of potential impacts:

- DEA database of renewable energy applications; - Engagement with specialists who have undertaken work in the area; - Engagement with project developers, who have determined known projectsin the vicinity as

part of grid feasibility studies; - SAHRIS database of Heritage Applications.



Figure 66: Showing other renewable energy projects in the vicinity of Ephraim Sun (Solek, 2015)



Figure 67: Showing other renewable energy projects in the vicinity of Ephraim Sun (DEA, 2015)

24.1 CUMULATIVE VISUAL IMPACTS

From a visual perspective, the overall cumulative impacts were assessed by the visual specialist and are included in the in the tables below.

Table 34: Assessment of cumulative visual impacts of the PV Facility

Impact Activity

Ph

ase

Mit

igat

ion

Nat

ure

Ext

ent

Du

rati

on

Sev

erit

y

Pro

bab

ility

Sig

nif

ican

ce

wit

ho

ut

Sig

nif

ican

ce

wit

h

PV Preferred Alternative. Cuml.



PV Solar – Option 2 Cuml.



PV Solar – Option 3

Cuml. W/Out -ve Reg. Long M P M


PV Solar – Option 4 Cuml.



Table 35: Assessment of cumulative visual impacts of the substation positions



Impact Activity

Ph

ase

Mit

igat

ion

Nat

ure

Ext

ent

Du

rati

on

Sev

erit

y

Pro

bab

ility

Sig

nif

ican

ce

wit

ho

ut

Sig

nif

ican

ce w

ith

mit

igat

ion

Substation 01 Cuml. W/Out -ve Site Perm M P M






Substation 04 Cuml.

W/Out -ve Site Perm M P M


Table 36: Assessment of cumulative visual impacts of the grid connection

Impact Activity

Ph

ase

Mit

igat

ion

Nat

ure

Ext

ent

Du

rati

on

Sev

erit

y

Pro

bab

ility

Sig

nif

ican

ce

wit

ho

ut

Sig

nif

ican

ce

wit

h

LiLo KleinB

sub04_01

(1.7km) Cuml.

W/Out -ve Reg. Long L P L

With -ve Reg. Long L P L

LiLo ILA sub04_01

(2.3)

Cuml.



LiLo ILA sub05_01

(2.3)

Cuml.



LiLo ILA sub 1, 2 & 3

(2.3)

Cuml.



Ephraim Self Build Cuml.

W/Out -ve Reg. Long M P H




24.2 CUMULATIVE ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS

From an ecological perspective, the overall cumulative impacts were assessed by the ecology specialist and are included in the in the tables below.

Table 37: Assessment of cumulative ecological impacts (Todd, 2015)




level Without Mitigation

With Mitigation

Reduced ability to meet conservation obligations & targets due to cumulative habitat loss

Preferred Alternative/Alternative 2

Regional Long-Term


Negative Low

Negative Moderate-

High


Long-Term


Negative Low

Negative Moderate-

High


The development footprint should be kept to a minimum and natural vegetation should be encouraged to return to disturbed

areas.

An open space management plan should be developed for the site, which should include management of biodiversity within the

fenced area, as well as that in the adjacent rangeland.

Impact on broad-scale ecological processes due to cumulative loss and fragmentation of habitat

Preferred Alternative/Alternative 2

Regional Long-Term

Medium Moderate Low Medium-

Low Negative

Low Negative

Moderate-High


Long-Term

Medium Moderate Low Medium Negative

Medium-Low

Negative

Moderate-High


Minimise the development footprint as far as possible.

Avoid impact to potential corridors such as the riparian corridors associated with the larger drainage lines within the facility area.

The facility should be fenced off in a manner which allows fauna to pass by the facility within the property in a direction to and

from the Orange River. In practical terms this means that the facility should be fenced-off to include only the developed areas

and should include as little undeveloped ground or natural veld as possible. In addition, there should not be electrified ground-

strands present and the electrified strands should be located on the inside of the fence and not the outside. Furthermore, the

fence should be a single layer fence and not a double fence with a large gap between. Images of suitable fencing types from

existing PV facilities are available on request.

25 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS TO DATE

A detailed account of public participation that has taken place to date is included in Appendix F.

Section 41 in Chapter 6 of regulation 982 details the public participation process that has to take place as part of an environmental process. The table below provides a quick reference to show how this environmental process has or intends to comply with these legislated requirements relating to public participation.



Table 38: Compliance with public participation in terms of R982

Regulated Requirement Description

(1) If the proponent is not the owner or person in control of the land on which the activity is to be undertaken, the proponent must, before applying for an environmental authorisation in respect of such activity, obtain the written consent of the landowner or person in control of the land to undertake such activity on that land.

(2) Subregulation (1) does not apply in respect of-.

(a) linear activities;

Proof of landowner consent for the PV facility is attached in Annexure G3.

The proposed grid connection is deemed to constitute a linear activity and as such not required to obtain landowner consent.

The person conducting a public participation process must take into account any relevant guidelines applicable to public participation as contemplated in section 24J of the Act and must give notice to all potential interested and affected parties of an application or proposed application which is subjected to public participation by -

(a) fixing a notice board at a place conspicuous to and accessible by the public at the boundary, on the fence or along the corridor of -

(i) the site where the activity to which the application or proposed application relates is or is to be undertaken; and

(ii) any alternative site;

A site notice was placed along the Kleinbegin road at the access road as well as at the entrance to the property.

Photographic evidence of these notices is attached in Annexure F3.

(b) giving written notice, in any of the manners provided for in section 47D of the Act, to -

(i) the occupiers of the site and, if the proponent or applicant is not the owner or person in control of the site on which the activity is to be undertaken, the owner or person in control of the site where the activity is or is to be undertaken or to any alternative site where the activity is to be undertaken;

Th owner is the only current occupier of the site. Landowner consent is attached in Annexure G3.

(ii) owners, persons in control of, and occupiers of land adjacent to the site where the activity is or is to be undertaken or to any alternative site where the activity is to be undertaken;

Owners of adjacent properties have been notified of this environmental process. Such owners have been requested to inform the occupiers of the land of this environmental process. Please refer to Annexure F4 for copies of these notifications

(iii) the municipal councillor of the ward in which the site or alternative site is situated and any organisation of ratepayers that represent the community in the area;

The ward councillor has been notified of this environmental process.

Please refer to Annexure F4 for copies of these notifications

(iv) the municipality which has jurisdiction in the area;

The Khai Garib municipality has been notified of this environmental process.

Please refer to Annexure F4 for copies of these




notifications.

(v) any organ of state having jurisdiction in respect of any aspect of the activity; and

Please refer to section 19.1 below showing the list of organs of state that were notified as part of this environmental process.

Please refer to Annexure F4 for copies of these notifications.

(vi) any other party as required by the competent authority;

A pre application meeting was held with the competent authority. At this meeting the competent authority provided input into the proposed Stakeholder register. All additional parties identified at this pre-application meeting have been included in the stakeholder register and have received notifications of the availability of this report.

(c) placing an advertisement in -

(i) one local newspaper; or

(ii) any official Gazette that is published specifically for the purpose of providing public notice of applications or other submissions made in terms of these Regulations;

A notice of the availability of this Draft Scoping Report as well as a call for registration has been placed in “Die Gemsbok”.

Please refer to Annexure F3 for a copy of this advertisement.

There is currently no official Gazette that has been published specifically for the purpose of providing public notice of applications

(d) placing an advertisement in at least one provincial newspaper or national newspaper, if the activity has or may have an impact that extends beyond the boundaries of the metropolitan or district municipality in which it is or will be undertaken: Provided that this paragraph need not be complied with if an advertisement has been placed in an official Gazette referred to in paragraph (c)(ii);and

Adverts were not placed in provincial or national newspapers, as the potential impacts will not extend beyond the borders of the municipal area.

(e) using reasonable alternative methods, as agreed to by the competent authority, in those instances where a person is desirous of but unable to participate in the process due to -

(i) illiteracy;

(ii) disability; or

(iii) any other disadvantage.

Notifications have included provision for alternative engagement in the event of illiteracy, disability or any other disadvantage. In such instances, Cape EAPrac will engage with such individuals in such a manner as agreed on with the competent authority.

(3) A notice, notice board or advertisement referred to in subregulation (2) must -

(a) give details of the application or proposed application which is subjected to public participation; and

(b) state -

(i) whether basic assessment or S&EIR

Please refer to Annexure F3.




procedures are being applied to the application;

(ii) the nature and location of the activity to which the application relates;

(iii) where further information on the application or proposed application can be obtained; and

(iv) the manner in which and the person to whom representations in respect of the application or proposed application may be made.

(4) A notice board referred to in subregulation (2) must -

(a) be of a size at least 60cm by 42cm; and

(b) display the required information in lettering and in a format as may be determined by the competent authority.

Please refer to Annexure F3.

(5) Where public participation is conducted in terms of this regulation for an application or proposed application, subregulation (2)(a), (b), (c) and (d) need not be complied with again during the additional public participation process contemplated in regulations 19(1)(b) or 23(1)(b) or the public participation process contemplated in regulation 21(2)(d), on condition that -

(a) such process has been preceded by a public participation process which included compliance with subregulation (2)(a), (b), (c) and (d); and

(b) written notice is given to registered interested and affected parties regarding where the -

(i) revised basic assessment report or, EMPr or closure plan, as contemplated in regulation 19(1)(b);

(ii) revised environmental impact report or EMPr as contemplated in regulation 23(1)(b);or

(iii) environmental impact report and EMPr as contemplated in regulation 21(2)(d);

may be obtained, the manner in which and the person to whom representations on these reports or plans may be made and the date on which such representations are due.

This will be complied with if final reports are produced later on in the environmental process.

(6) When complying with this regulation, the person conducting the public participation process must ensure that -

(a) information containing all relevant facts in respect of the application or proposed

All reports that are submitted to the competent authority will be subject to a public participation process. These include:

- Draft Scoping Report - Scoping Report




application is made available to potential interested and affected parties; and

(b) participation by potential or registered interested and affected parties is facilitated in such a manner that all potential or registered interested and affected parties are provided with a reasonable opportunity to comment on the application or proposed application.

(7) Where an environmental authorisation is required in terms of these Regulations and an authorisation, permit or licence is required in terms of a specific environmental management Act, the public participation process contemplated in this Chapter may be combined with any public participation processes prescribed in terms of a specific environmental management Act, on condition that all relevant authorities agree to such combination of processes.

- Plan of Study for Environmental Impact Report

- Environmental Impact Report - Environmental Management Plan - All specialist reports that form part of this

environmental process.

25.1 REGISTRATION OF KEY STAKEHOLDERS

A number of key stakeholders were automatically registered and will be given an opportunity to comment on the Draft and Scoping Report as well as this Environmental Impact Report This list was agreed upon with the competent authority during the pre-application meeting. Copies and proof of these notifications are included in Appendix E. A list of key stakeholders registered for this process included in the table below.

Table 39: Key Stakeholders automatically registered as part of the Environmental Process

Stakeholders Registered

Neighbouring property owners Department of Environmental Affairs and Nature Conservation

Department of Water Affairs

Khara Hais Municipality: Municipal Manager and Planning Department.

South African National Parks Department of Science and Technology

Khara Hais Municipality: Ward Councillors

South African National Roads Agency Limited

The Council for Scientific and Industrial Research

South African Heritage Resources Agency

Department of Transport and Public Works

The South African Square Kilometre Array

Northern Cape Heritage Resources Authority

Department of Health The South African Civil Aviation Authority

Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries

Department of Minerals and Energy

Department of Science and Technology

Provincial Department of Eskom Department of



Stakeholders Registered

Agriculture Communications

Khai Garib Municipality Ward councillors

Department of Mineral Resources

SENTECH

Department of Environmental Affairs, Biodiversity Directorate.

Birdlife Africa. Endangered Wildlife Trust.

25.2 Notification Of Availability of Draft Scoping Report

Automatically registered I&AP‟s were notified of the availability of the Draft Scoping Report for review and comment. In order to facilitate effective comment, all State Departments and key stakeholders have been provided with digital copies of the report on CD. Please refer to Appendix F for proof of these notifications.

25.3 Notification Of Availability of Scoping Report

Registered I&AP‟s were notified of the availability of the Draft Scoping Report for review and comment. In order to facilitate effective comment, all State Departments and key stakeholders have been provided with digital copies of the report on CD. Reports were also available at the Upington Library, Khara Hais Municipal offices and on the Cape EAPrac Website. Please refer to Appendix F for proof of these notifications.

25.4 Notification Of Availability of Draft Environmental Impact Report

Registered I&AP‟s were notified of the availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for review and comment. In order to facilitate effective comment, all State Departments and key stakeholders have been provided with digital copies of the report on CD. Reports were also available at the Upington Library, Khara Hais Municipal offices and on the Cape EAPrac Website. Please refer to Appendix F for proof of these notifications.

25.5 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

Comments and responses received to date are included in the table below.

Table 40: Comments and Responses Table

Date From Comment Response Date of Response

19 August 2015

Jaco Strauss – IT5 Civils

Please register our company as mentioned above for the following projects.

1) EPHRAIM SUN – On Vaalkoppies farm Northern Cape proposed 75MV PV facility

2) Dyasonklip 1&2 and Sirus Solar PV Project 1 ref no KA/231.

I confirm that IT5 Civils, represented by yourself has been registered as an Interested and Affected Party for:

1) EPHRAIM SUN – On Vaalkoppies farm Northern Cape proposed 75MV PV facility

2) Dyasonklip 1&2 and Sirus Solar PV Project 1 Grid Connection: ref no KA/231

We will notify you of the Availability of

30 August 2015




the Draft Environmental Impact Report for 1 and the Draft Basic Assessment Report for 2 as soon as they are available.

03 September 2015

Conrad Geldenhuys

Senior Manager: Town Planning and Building Control:

//Khara Hais Municipality

1. In Paragraph 5.1.6 it is stated that water will be sourced from //Khara Hais Municipality.

Could you please consult with the Director Civil Engineering in this regard as there is no services (such as water) available near the site and the proposed development is therefore not included in the infrastructure planning of //Khara Hais Municipality.

2. Planning Context:

Please take note that the rezoning to be undertaken will be from Agriculture to Renewable Energy Structures and also that the Northern Cape Planning and Development Act has been replaced by the Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act (Act 16 of 2013) (SPLUMA)

You also mentioned in the report that the Removal of Restriction application will be lodged with the Provincial Authority. According to SPLUMA, these applications will also now be dealt with by the local authority itself.

3. Page 84 (iv) refer to Khai Garib……..and should be replaced by //Khara Hais Municipality. The same goes for 96 of the report.

1. The project Engineers, Solek Renewable Energy Engineers, are currently engaging with the Technical Services Department at the // Khara Hais municipality regarding the availability of services, including Water, Refuge Removal and Sewerage.

The other options for supply of services by external service providers are also in the process of being investigated.

Further information on this will be included in the Environmental Impact Assessment report to follow.

2. Thank you for your confirmation that the Northern Cape Planning and Development Act has been replaced by the Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act (Act 16 of 2013) (SPLUMA). A professional planning consultant is in the process of being appointed. This consultant will provide input into this environmental process and will also engage directly with the //Khara Hais Municipality and Department of Agriculture regarding the planning consents required for this proposal.

3. Thank you for pointing out these two typographical errors. These will be corrected in the Final Scoping report.

03 September 2015

01 September 2015

Norman Papenfus - Transnet

Transnet SOC Limited has no objection to the proposal.

Transnet SOC Limited are not affected as the nearest railway line lies ± 1,7km south-west from the proposal (see attached).

Noted 01 September 2015

01 September

Ms L Tools-Benado –

The Department acknowledges receipt Mr O Riba has been added to the Database of Registered I&AP’s and will

01 September




2015 Northern Cape Department of Environment and Nature Conservation.

of the Scoping Report.

The responsible case officer is Mr O. Riba and the assigned reference number is NC/NAT/ZFM/KHA/EPH/2015.

be provided with copies of further reports in this process.

The provincial departments reference number has been added to the FSR and will be reflected on the cover of all future reports.

2015.

16 September 2015

Mr Ordain Riba - Northern Cape Department of Environment and Nature Conservation

1) During the construction phase of the project, will diesel be stored on site and if so, in what quantities

2. Transportation of Hazardous substances should follow best transportation practices sited in SANS:102333 along with the National Road Act.

3. Permits must be obtained from relevant authorities for the Removal of Protected Fauna and Flora

4. Must ensure that the construction of the perimeter fencing is done in such a way that it is a few inches above the ground to allow for small animal movements.

5. Must ensure that soil compaction is only done where necessary and the rest of the other land is not used as thoroughfares so as to avoid reduction of soil infiltration capacity and increases in soil erosion.

It is likely that diesel will be stored on site during construction. The exact volume of storage is unknown at this stage. This volume will however be far below the 80 cubic metres as defined in regulation 983.

The specific environmental requirements regarding the storage of fuel will be contained in the Environmental Management Programme (EMPR) that will form part of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

Provisions for this requirement will be made in the EMPR as well as the Transport and Traffic Management Plan that will form part of the EIR.

This requirement is noted and has formed part of the legislative requirements as discussed in the scoping report. It will also be reiterated in the EIR and will be recommended as a condition of authorisation, should the project be authorised.

The ecological specialist, has made specific recommendations regarding the perimeter fencing to allow for movement of small mammals and reptiles. These recommendations include leaving gaps for the animals to pass as well as a condition that the bottom strands of the fence are not electrified.

The preliminary construction programme makes provision for the construction of internal roads to be constructed prior to other activities taking place on the site. This will ensure that vehicles utilise these defined roads to limit compaction of the remainder of the areas. Furthermore, all areas outside of the development footprint will be demarcated as no-go areas. Please

16 September 2015




6. Must indicate numbers of protected trees that will be affected by the proposed development. This is important to consider cumulative impact.

also note that a Stormwater, Washwater and Erosion management plan will be included in the EIR.

The ecological specialist has estimated the numbers of protected trees that will be affected by the development in order to consider cumulative impact. His baseline study confirmed the following:

According to the SANBI SIBIS database, 221 indigenous plant species have been recorded from the quarter degree squares 2821 AD, BC, CB and DA. This includes only 4 species of conservation concern, but those known from a somewhat wider area are listed below in Table 3 as the immediate area has not been well sampled and is not likely to be representative. Of the listed species, two can be confirmed present at the site, Acacia erioloba which is occasional across most of the site within the larger drainage lines and Hoodia gordonii which is occasional across the plains. There are also additional species which are present which are either protected by DAFF or under the Northern Cape Nature Conservation Act of 2009, which includes Boscia foetida and Boscia albitrunca al Mesembryanthemaceae, , all species within the Euphorbiaceae. Oxalidaceae, Iridaceae, all species within the genera Nemesia and Jamesbrittenia. Boscia albitrunca is not common at the site and only a handful of individuals were observed. Boscia foetida was however observed to be fairly common.

Further to this, if the project is selected as a preferred bidder, a biodiversity walk through will be done on project footprint to determine exact numbers and locations of protected species – This information will be frovided to DENC and DAFF in support of permit applications.

The EMP will include a specific protocol for concrete batching, which will include a minimum safe distance from aquatic features.

The EMP will include a specific protocol




7. The applicant must ensure that concrete batching is not done around water bodies.

8. Must ensure that exposed topsoil is protected and covered to avoid being blown by wind and eroded by rain.

9. Waste generated on site must be identified, classified and disposed of at a licenced landfill.

10. How would locally employed workers be made aware of the social health risk related to temporary projects.

11. How many local and non-local people would be employed during the construction and operational phases of the project.

.

for topsoil stripping, handling and protection.

The EMP will include a specific protocol for waste management on site. The Khara Hais municipality have also been requested to confirm capacity of their landfills to receive such waste.

The EMP will make provision for an environmental and social induction of all construction workers.

Details of this will be provided in the Engineering report that will form part of the EIR.

Cape EAPrac will inform you of the availability of the Environmental Impact report for further review and commenting in due course.

Please contact me should you have any further queries or comments at this stage

14 September 2015 – Reminders for comment sent to all registered I&AP’s

26 ASSUMPTIONS & LIMITATIONS

This section provides a brief overview of specific assumptions and limitations having an impact on this environmental application process:



It is assumed that the information on which this report is based (specialist studies and project information, as well as existing information) is correct, factual and truthful.

The proposed development is in line with the statutory planning vision for the area (namely the local Spatial Development Plan), and thus it is assumed that issues such as the cumulative impact of development in terms of character of the area and its resources, have been taken into account during the strategic planning for the area.

It is assumed that all the relevant mitigation measures and agreements specified in this report will be implemented in order to ensure minimal negative impacts and maximum environmental benefits.

It is assumed that due consideration will be given to the discrepancies in the digital mapping (PV panel array layouts against possible constraints), caused by differing software programs, and that it is understood that the ultimate/final positioning of solar array will only be confirmed on-site with the relevant specialist/s.

The Department of Water Affairs may consider the submission of a water use application necessary for allowing the use of water from the farm boreholes and possible the crossing of the on-site drainage lines by the infrastructure associated with the solar facility. The assumption is made that on review of this Draft Scoping Report the Department of Water Affairs will provide prompt confirmation and recommendations in this regard.

It is assumed that Stakeholders and Interested and Affected Parties notified during the initial public participation process will submit all relevant comments within the designated 40-days review and comment period, so that these can included in the Final Scoping Report can be timeously submitted to the delegated Authority, the Department Environmental Affairs for consideration.

The assumptions and limitations of the various specialist studies are included in their respective reports attached in Appendix D.

27 PROCESS TO BE FOLLOWED

The following process is to be followed for the remainder of the environmental process:

The EIR will be made available for public review and comment period of 30-days; The Final EIR will be submitted to the DEA for consideration and decision-making; The DEA‟s decision (Environmental Authorisation) on the FEIR will be communicated with all

registered I&APs.

28 CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS

This scoping exercise is currently being undertaken to present concept proposals to the public and potential Interested & Affected Parties and to identify environmental issues and concerns raised as a result of the proposed development alternatives to date. This will allow Interested & Affected Parties (I&APs), authorities, the project team, as well as specialists to provide input and raise issues and concerns, based on baseline / scoping studies undertaken. The Ephraim Sun PV Energy Facility ite has been analysed from Ecological, Agricultural Potential, Heritage, perspectives, and site constraints and potential impacts identified.

This Draft Environmental Impact Report (DSR) summarises the process to date, reports on the findings of relevant baseline studies.



Cape EAPrac is of the opinion that the information contained in this Draft Environmental Impact Report and the documentation attached hereto is sufficient to allow the general public and key stakeholders to apply their minds to the potential negative and/or positive impacts associated with the development, in respect of the activities applied for.

This Draft Environmental Impact Report (DSR) is made available for stakeholder review and comment for a period of 30-days, extending from 09 November 2015 – 09 December 2015. All comments received, will be considered and addressed, and feedback will be provided to registered stakeholders.

All stakeholders are requested to review this Draft Scoping Report and the associated appendices, and provide comment, or raise issues of concern, directly to Cape EAPrac within the specified 30-day comment period.

Comments must be submitted, in writing, to the following address no later than 09 December 2015


Att: Mr Dale Holder





29 ABBREVIATIONS

AFNP Augrabies Falls National Park

AIA Archaeological Impact Assessment

BGIS LUDS Biodiversity Geographic Information System Land Use Decision Support

CBA Critical Biodiversity Area

CDSM Chief Directorate Surveys and Mapping

CEMPr Construction Environmental Management Programme

DEA Department of Environmental Affairs

DEA&NC Department of Environmental Affairs and Nature Conservation

DME Department of Minerals and Energy

EAP Environmental Impact Practitioner

EHS Environmental, Health & Safety

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

EMPr Environmental Management Programme

ESA Ecological Support Area

GPS Global Positioning System

GWh Giga Watt hour

HIA Heritage Impact Assessment

I&APs Interested and Affected Parties

IDP Integrated Development Plan

IFC International Finance Corporation

IPP Independent Power Producer

kV Kilo Volt

LUDS Land Use Decision Support

LUPO Land Use Planning Ordinance

MW Mega Watt

NEMA National Environmental Management Act

NEMBA National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act

NERSA National Energy Regulator of South Africa

NHRA National Heritage Resources Act

NPAES National Protected Area Expansion Strategy

NSBA National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment

NWA National Water Act



PM Post Meridiem; “Afternoon”

PSDF Provincial Spatial Development Framework

S.A. South Africa

SACAA / CAA South African Civil Aviation Authority

SAHRA South African National Heritage Resources Agency

SANBI South Africa National Biodiversity Institute

SANS South Africa National Standards

SDF Spatial Development Framework

TOPS Threatened and Protected Species

30 REFERENCES

DEA (2010). National Climate Change Response Green Paper 2010.

DEA (January 2008). National Response to South Africa’s Electricity Shortage. Interventions to address electricity shortages.

DEA&DP (2003). Waste Minimisation Guideline for Environmental Impact Assessment reviews. NEMA EIA Regulations Guideline & Information Series, Department Environmental Affairs & Development Planning.

DEA&DP (2005). Guideline for the review of specialist input in the EIA process. NEMA EIA Regulations Guideline & Information Document Series, Department of Environmental Affairs & Development Planning.

DEA&DP (2005). Guideline for involving biodiversity specialists in the EIA process. NEMA EIA Regulations Guideline & Information Document Series, Department of Environmental Affairs & Development Planning.

DEA&DP (2005). Guideline for environmental management plans. NEMA EIA Regulations Guideline & Information Document Series, Department of Environmental Affairs & Development Planning.

DEA&DP (2005). Provincial urban edge guideline. Department Environmental Affairs & Development Planning.

DEA&DP (2006). Guideline on the Interpretation of the Listed Activities. NEMA EIA Regulations Guidelines & Information Document Series, Department of Environmental Affairs & Development Planning.

DEA&DP (2007). Guide on Alternatives, NEMA EIA Regulations Guidelines & Information Document Series, Department of Environmental Affairs & Development Planning.

DEA&DP (2007). Guideline on Appeals, NEMA EIA Regulations Guidelines & Information Document Series, Department of Environmental Affairs & Development Planning.

DEA&DP (2007). Guideline on Exemption Applications. NEMA EIA Regulations Guidelines & Information Document Series, Department of Environmental Affairs & Development Planning.



DEA&DP (2007). Guideline on Public Participation. NEMA EIA Regulations Guidelines & Information Document Series, Department of Environmental Affairs & Development Planning.

DEA&DP (2009). Guideline on Need & Desirability, NEMA EIA Regulations Guideline and Information Document Series, Department Environmental Affairs & Development Planning.

DEA&DP (2009). Guideline on Alternatives, NEMA EIA Regulations Guideline and Information Document Series, Department Environmental Affairs & Development Planning.

DEA&DP (2009). Guideline on Transitional Arrangements, NEMA EIA Regulations Guideline and Information Document Series, Department Environmental Affairs & Development Planning.

DEA&DP (2009). Guideline on Exemption Applications. NEMA EIA Regulations Guideline and Information Document Series, Department Environmental Affairs & Development Planning.

DEA&DP (2009). Guideline on Appeals. NEMA EIA Regulations Guideline and Information Document Series, Department Environmental Affairs & Development Planning.

DEA&DP (2009). Guideline on Public Participation. NEMA EIA Regulations Guideline and Information Document Series, Department Environmental Affairs & Development Planning.

DEA&DP. (May 2006). Strategic Initiative to Introduce Commercial Land Based Wind Energy Development to the Western Cape: Specialist Study: Executive Summary - CNdV Africa prepared for Provincial Government of the Western Cape.

Department of Mineral & Energy (1998). White Paper on Energy Policy of the Republic of South Africa.

Department of Mineral & Energy (2003). The White Paper on Renewable Energy.

DEAT (2002). Integrated Environmental Management Information Series 3: Stakeholder Engagement. Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Pretoria.

DEAT (2004). Criteria for determining alternatives in EIAs, Integrated Environmental Management, Information Series 11, Department of Environmental Affairs & Tourism, Pretoria.

DEAT (2004). Environmental Management Plans, Integrated Environmental management, Information Series 12, Department Environmental Affairs & Tourism.

DEAT (2005). Assessment of Impacts and Alternatives, Integrated Environmental Management Guideline Series, Department of Environmental Affairs & Tourism, Pretoria.

DEAT (2005). Guideline 4: Public Participation, in terms of the EIA Regulations 2005, Integrated Environmental Management Guideline Series, Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Pretoria.

DEAT (2006). EIA Regulations in terms of the National Environmental Management Act (Act No 107 of 1998) (Government Notice No R 385, R 386 and R 387 in Government Gazette No 28753 of 21 April 2006).

DWA (2001). Generic public participation guideline. Department of Water Affairs and Forestry.

Hsai-Yang, F (Ed)(2006). Environmental Geotechnology Dictionary (online version). University of North Caroline, Charlotte, USA.

Integrated Resource Plan for Electricity (Oct. 2010). Revision 2, Version8.

International Finance Corporation – World Bank Group. (April 2007). Environmental, Health and Safety Guidelines for Electric Power Transmission and Distribution.



International Finance Corporation – World Bank Group. (April 2007). Environmental, Health and Safety Guidelines for Wind Energy.

International Finance Corporation – World Bank Group. (April 2007). General Environmental, Health and Safety Guidelines.

Keatimilwe K & Ashton PJ 2005. Guideline for the review of specialist input in EIA processes. Department Environmental Affairs & Development Planning.

Lochner P (2005). Guideline for Environmental Management Plans. Department Environmental Affairs & Development Planning.

Lower Orange River Transfrontier Conservation Area Planning: Background Information Document (August 2007). Retrieved on 29 March 2012 from:

www.dwaf.gov.za/Documents/Other/RMP/LOR/LORRMPBIDAug07.pdf

Lubbe, C. (2015). Agricultural Potential Study for Ephraim Sun PV Energy Facility, Lubbe, Swellendam.

Mucina, L. & Rutherford, M.C. (eds) 2006. The Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Strelitzia 19. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.

Münster, F. (2005). Guidelines for Determining the Scope of Specialist Involvement in EIA Processes: Edition 1. CSIR Report No ENV-S-C 2005 053 A. Republic of South Africa, Provincial Government of the Western Cape, Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning, Cape Town.

Oberholzer B (2005). Guideline for involving visual & aesthetic specialists. Department Environmental Affairs & Development Planning.

Nilssen P. (2015). Archaeology Scoping report for Ephraim Sun PV Energy Facility, Nilssen, Mossel Bay.

National Energy Regulator of South Africa (NERSA)(Feb.2010). Rules on selection criteria for renewable energy projects under the REFIT Programme.

National Protected Area Expansion Strategy for S.A. 2008: Priorities for expanding the protected area network for ecological sustainability and climate change adaptation. Government of South Africa, Pretoria, 2010. ISBN 978-1-919976-55-6.

Northern Cape Business online. Retrieved from: http://www.northerncapebusiness.co.za on 27 March 2012.

Northern Cape Business online. Solar Power. Retrieved from: http://www.northerncapebusiness.co.za/special _features/941417.htm on 27 March 2012.

Saayman, I. (2005). Guideline for Involving Hydrogeologists in EIA Processes: Edition 1. CSIR Report No ENV-S-C 2005 053 D. Republic of South Africa, Provincial Government of the Western Cape, Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning, Cape Town.

SANBI Biodiversity GIS (2007). South African National Biodiversity Institute, Cape Town, South Africa.

Todd, E. (2015). Fauna and Flora Scoping report for Ephraim Sun PV Energy Facility, Simon Todd Consulting, Cape Town.

Winter S & Beaumann N (2005). Guideline for involving heritage specialists in EIA processes. Department Environmental Affairs & Development Planning.

http://www.dwaf.gov.za/Documents/Other/RMP/LOR/LORRMPBIDAug07.pdf

http://www.northerncapebusiness.co.za/

http://www.northerncapebusiness.co.za/