proposed irrigation scheme expansion project, stampriet, hardap...

PROPOSED IRRIGATION SCHEME EXPANSION PROJECT,

STAMPRIET, HARDAP REGION

SCOPING REPORT (INCLUDING IMPACT ASSESSMENT)

Prepared for: Tristone Business Trust

Client Ref: Stampriet Irrigation EIA

SSLR Project No: 733.20070.00001

Revision No: Final

Month/Year: March 2019

Tristone Business Trust

Proposed Irrigation Scheme Expansion Project, Stampriet, Hardap Region

733.20070.00001

March 2019

i

DOCUMENT INFORMATION

Title Proposed Irrigation Scheme Expansion Project, Stampriet, Hardap Region

Scoping Report (Including Impact Assessment)

Project Manager Gerhard Jacobs

Project Manager e-mail [email protected]

Author Immanuel Katali

Reviewer Alex Pheiffer

Keywords Stampriet, Irrigation, Scheme, Water Abstraction, Increased, Expansion, Tristone

Status Final

SLR Project No 733.20070.00001

DOCUMENT REVISION RECORD

Rev No. Issue Date Description Issued By

A November 2018 First draft issued for client comment IK and EG

B March 2019 Final Report to Competent Authority EG

BASIS OF REPORT

This document has been prepared by an SLR Group company with reasonable skill, care and diligence, and taking account of the

manpower, timescales and resources devoted to it by agreement with Tristone Business Trust (the Client) as part or all of the services it

has been appointed by the Client to carry out. It is subject to the terms and conditions of that appointment.

SLR shall not be liable for the use of or reliance on any information, advice, recommendations and opinions in this document for any

purpose by any person other than the Client. Reliance may be granted to a third party only in the event that SLR and the third party have

executed a reliance agreement or collateral warranty.

Information reported herein may be based on the interpretation of public domain data collected by SLR, and/or information supplied by

the Client and/or its other advisors and associates. These data have been accepted in good faith as being accurate and valid.

SLR disclaims any responsibility to the Client and others in respect of any matters outside the agreed scope of the work.

The copyright and intellectual property in all drawings, reports, specifications, bills of quantities, calculations and other information set

out in this report remain vested in SLR unless the terms of appointment state otherwise.

This document may contain information of a specialised and/or highly technical nature and the Client is advised to seek clarification on

any elements which may be unclear to it.

Information, advice, recommendations and opinions in this document should only be relied upon in the context of the whole document

and any documents referenced explicitly herein and should then only be used within the context of the appointment.



733.20070.00001

March 2019

i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

TBT plans to expand its irrigation scheme (of 105 ha) to include a new portion, namely Portion A, on

Steyn’s Halt of the farm De Duine (198) (Steyn’s Halt), covering a total area of 5100 ha. An irrigation

scheme of 15 ha will be undertaken on this additional portion of land. With the expansion of the

irrigation scheme, TBT plans to renew the existing abstraction permits, while also amending the

abstraction limit from the current permitted 970 000 m³/year to 1 800 000 m³/year. This increase in

abstraction makes provision for the proposed 210 000 m³/year to be supplied from a new borehole

to be established on Steyn’s Halt.

Given that the land was previously cleared and used for rain fed corn plantations impacts on

heritage/cultural aspects are not expected. Through the project the capability of the land is being

realised. In the context of noise and visual related impacts, the increase in activities is relatively

small. In the context of air quality related impacts, the additional portion of land was previously

cleared and used for rain fed corn plantations. The continued use of the land by TBT for agricultural

purposes would therefore not change any impacts previously experienced. The use of pesticides and

farm practises on site could impact ecological systems through pollution of the environment and

generation of dust.

Specialist input was provided on the likely impact of the proposed project on groundwater

resources. This was seen as the main impact associated with the project and was the focus of issues

raised during the public participation process. The findings of the specialist input and other relevant

information have been integrated and synthesised into this Scoping (including impact assessment)

Report.

A summary of the assessment of potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed

project is provided in the table below. The mitigated assessment assumes that mitigation measures

included in the environmental management programme (EMP) would be implemented by TBT.

SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED PROJECT

Section Potential impact Significance of the impact*

Unmitigated Mitigated

Ecology

Pollution of environment with pesticides (which comprise insecticides, herbicides and fungicides)

Medium Low

Dust impacts on vegetation Low Low

Avifaunal deaths due to power lines Medium Low

Groundwater

Negative impact of pesticides, fertilizers and hydrocarbons on groundwater quality

High Low

Negative impact of increased abstraction rates on groundwater quantity downstream

Medium Low

Socio-economic Positive economic impacts High + High +

* The ratings are negative unless otherwise specified.

In summary, the expansion of the TBT Irrigation Scheme has the potential to result in negative

groundwater quality and quantity impacts and ecological impacts in the unmitigated scenario and

positive socio-economic impacts through increased job security, investment in the region and



733.20070.00001

March 2019

ii

support of the local community and economy as well as the Namibian economy as a whole. The

project would also contribute to food security in Namibia as a whole.

SLR Namibia concludes that should TBT follow the actions (i.e. management and mitigation

measures) provided in the EIA and EMP report, the project would have an acceptable impact on the

surrounding physical and social environment.



733.20070.00001

March 2019

iii

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... I

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

PURPOSE OF THE REPORT ...................................................................................................................... 1 1.1

INTRODUCTION TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ........................................................................................ 1 1.2

PROJECT MOTIVATION (NEED AND DESIRABILITY) ................................................................................. 3 1.3

EIA PROCESS ........................................................................................................................................... 3 1.4

EIA TEAM ............................................................................................................................................... 4 1.5

OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ................................................................................................................ 5 1.6

LEGAL FRAMEWORK .................................................................................................................. 6 2

SCOPING METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................... 8 3

INFORMATION COLLECTION .................................................................................................................. 8 3.1

SCOPING REPORT ................................................................................................................................... 8 3.2

SPECIALIST ASSESSMENT........................................................................................................................ 9 3.3

ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS ....................................................................................................... 10 3.4

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS ............................................................................................. 11 4

IAPS ...................................................................................................................................................... 11 4.1

STEPS IN THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS ................................................................................... 11 4.2

SUMMARY OF ISSUES RAISED .............................................................................................................. 12 4.3

PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................. 13 5

OVERVIEW............................................................................................................................................ 13 5.1

IRRIGATION SCHEME INFRASTRUCTURE .............................................................................................. 13 5.2

PUMP STATIONS ..................................................................................................................................................................... 13 5.2.1

PIPELINES ................................................................................................................................................................................ 13 5.2.2

ON-FIELD IRRIGATION SYSTEM AND INFRASTRUCTURE ...................................................................................................... 13 5.2.3

LOGISTICS CENTRE AND SUPPORT FACILITIES ...................................................................................................................... 13 5.2.4

WATER SUPPLY AND USE ..................................................................................................................... 14 5.3

ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION................................................................................................................... 15 5.4

WASTE MANAGEMENT ........................................................................................................................ 15 5.5

SEWAGE MANAGEMENT ...................................................................................................................... 15 5.6

EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ............................................................................................................. 15 5.7

PROJECT ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................................................... 16 6

ALTERNATIVE SITE AND WATER ABSTRACTION OPTIONS .................................................................... 16 6.1

ALTERNATIVE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY OPTIONS ....................................................................................... 16 6.2

ALTERNATIVE POTABLE WATER SUPPLY OPTIONS ............................................................................... 16 6.3

ALTERNATIVE CROP OPTIONS .............................................................................................................. 16 6.4

THE “NO PROJECT” OPTION ................................................................................................................. 17 6.5

DESCRIPTION OF THE CURRENT ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................ 18 7

BIOPHYSICAL ........................................................................................................................................ 18 7.1

CLIMATE .................................................................................................................................................................................. 18 7.1.1

GEOLOGY AND SOILS .............................................................................................................................................................. 18 7.1.2

TOPOGRAPHY AND HYDROLOGY ........................................................................................................................................... 20 7.1.3

REGIONAL GROUNDWATER ................................................................................................................................................... 21 7.1.4

LOCAL GROUNDWATER ......................................................................................................................................................... 23 7.1.5



733.20070.00001

March 2019

iv

SOCIO-ECONOMIC STRUCTURE/PROFILE ............................................................................................. 25 7.2

SURFACE RIGHTS AND LAND TENURE ................................................................................................................................... 25 7.2.1

HARDAP REGIONAL COUNCIL ................................................................................................................................................ 25 7.2.2

REGIONAL DEMOGRAPHICS ................................................................................................................................................... 25 7.2.3

MARIENTAL RURAL ................................................................................................................................................................. 25 7.2.4

IDENTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS................................ 26 8

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT .................................................................................. 27 9

ECOLOGY .............................................................................................................................................. 28 9.1

ISSUE: POLLUTION OF ENVIRONMENT WITH PESTICIDES (WHICH COMPRISE INSECTICIDES, HERBICIDES AND 9.1.1

FUNGICIDES) ........................................................................................................................................................................... 28 ISSUE: DUST IMPACTS ON VEGETATION ............................................................................................................................... 30 9.1.2

ISSUE: AVIFAUNAL DEATHS DUE TO POWER LINES .............................................................................................................. 31 9.1.3

GROUNDWATER ................................................................................................................................... 32 9.2

ISSUE: NEGATIVE IMPACT OF INCREASED PESTICIDES, FERTILIZERS AND HYDROCARBONS ON GROUNDWATER 9.2.1

QUALITY .................................................................................................................................................................................. 32 ISSUE: NEGATIVE IMPACT OF INCREASED ABSTRACTION RATES ON GROUNDWATER QUANTITY DOWNSTREAM......... 34 9.2.2

SURFACE WATER .................................................................................................................................. 36 9.3

NOISE AND VISUAL ............................................................................................................................... 36 9.4

SOCIO-ECONOMIC ............................................................................................................................... 36 9.5

ISSUE: POSITIVE SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS ...................................................................................................................... 37 9.5.1

HERITAGE ............................................................................................................................................. 37 9.6

CUMULATIVE IMPACT ASSESSMENT .................................................................................................... 38 9.7

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................ 39 10

CONSULTANT EXPERIENCE AND DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE ........................................... 41 11

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 42 12

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: TEAM CVS .................................................................................................................................. A

APPENDIX B: INFORMATION SHARING RECORD (BID, NEWSPAPER ADVERTS, SITE NOTICE) ........................ B

APPENDIX C: DATABASE .................................................................................................................................. C

APPENDIX D: MINUTES AND ISSUES AND RESPONSE REPORT ....................................................................... D

APPENDIX E: GROUNDWATER SPECIALIST STUDY ........................................................................................... E

APPENDIX F: EMP ............................................................................................................................................. F

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1: EIA PROCESS ...................................................................................................................................... 3

TABLE 2: PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT TEAM ................................................................................. 4

TABLE 3: RELEVANT LEGISLATION AND POLICIES ............................................................................................ 6

TABLE 4: SCOPING REPORT REQUIREMENTS STIPULATED IN THE EIA REGULATIONS .................................... 8

TABLE 5: TRISTONE’S IRRIGATION SCHEME STAKEHOLDERS ......................................................................... 11

TABLE 6: CONSULTATION PROCESS WITH IAPS AND AUTHORITIES .............................................................. 11

TABLE 7: CURRENT WATER SUPPLY AND PROPOSED WATER ABSTRACTION AMENDMENTS ...................... 14

TABLE 8: WATER QUALITY DATA OF TBT IRRIGATION BOREHOLES ............................................................... 24

TABLE 9: CRITERIA FOR ASSESSING IMPACTS: CRITERIA FOR ASSESSING ..................................................... 27

TABLE 10: SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED PROJECT ..................... 39



733.20070.00001

March 2019

v

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1: REGIONAL LOCATION OF THE TRISTONE IRRIGATION SCHEME...................................................... 2

FIGURE 2: MEAN MONTHLY AND ANNUAL RAINFALL FROM 2000-2017 AT GOCHAS .................................. 18

FIGURE 3: GEOLOGY OF THE IRRIGATION SCHEME ....................................................................................... 19

FIGURE 4: GEOLOGICAL CROSS-SECTION (GGRETA, 2016) ............................................................................ 20

FIGURE 5: SITE RELIEF AND GROUNDWATER FLOW DIRECTION ................................................................... 21

FIGURE 6: STAMPRIET TRANS BOUNDARY AQUIFER SYSTEM BOUNDARIES (GGRETA, 2016) ...................... 22

FIGURE 7: HYDROCENSUS BOREHOLE LOCATIONS ........................................................................................ 24



733.20070.00001

March 2019

vi

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Acronyms / Abbreviations

Definition

CFU Commercial Farming Unit

DEA Directorate of Environmental Affairs

EAP Environmental Assessment Practitioner

EAPAN Environmental Assessment Professionals of Namibia

ECC Environmental Clearance Certificate

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

EMP Environmental Management Plan

GAP Good Agricultural Practice

ha Hectares

IAPs Interested and Affected Party

m³/h Cubic Metres per Hour

MAP Mean Annual Precipitation

MAR Mean Annual Runoff

MAWF Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry

MET Ministry of Environment and Tourism

MSFU Medium Scale Farming Unit

PPP Public Participation Process

SLR SLR Environmental Consulting (Namibia) (Pty) Ltd

SSFU Small Scale Farming Unit



733.20070.00001

March 2019

1

INTRODUCTION 1

PURPOSE OF THE REPORT 1.1

This Scoping Report which includes an impact assessment has been compiled and distributed for

review and comment as part of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process for the

proposed Irrigation Scheme Expansion Project.

This Scoping Report (including impact assessment) includes a description of the proposed project

and the affected environment, a summary of the EIA process followed to date, the findings of the

specialist studies, an assessment of the environmental impacts that the proposed activities are likely

to have and sets out SLR’s recommended management and mitigation measures.

Registered Interested and Affected Parties (IAPs) are being provided with the opportunity to

comment on this Scoping (including impact assessment) Report. Once the comment period closes,

the Report will be updated to a final report with due consideration of the comments received, and

will be submitted to the Ministry of Environment and Tourism (MET): Department of Environmental

Affairs (Competent Authority) for decision-making.

INTRODUCTION TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 1.2

Tristone Business Trust (TBT) has been operating an irrigation scheme since 2005. The irrigation

scheme is located ±40km south east of Stampriet, in the Hardap Region (Figure 1) and covers a total

area of 38 855 hectares (ha). The crops produced from the scheme include maize, oats, lucerne, fruit

and cow peas, which are sold on a commercial scale.

The scheme uses groundwater as specified under Permits 11 159; 11 116; 11 115; 10 472; 10 450; 10

475 and 10 423. There are currently nine boreholes drilled across the various portions of the scheme

that are used for groundwater supply, with an abstraction amount of up to 970 000m³/a. This

abstraction amount is permitted by the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF).

The irrigation scheme currently covers the following farms:

Dikbos Portion 1 of Eerstbegin(197/1) (4890ha) for maize, Lucerne and oats

Witpan Portion B of De Duine (198B) (5085 ha) for maize and oats

Hartebeestloop (202) Remainder (6190ha) for fruits other than citrus

Hartebeestloop (202/1) (7235ha) for Lucerne, maize and oats

Ptn 1 (Oserikare) of Farm Breedestraat (204) (4420ha)

Okongona (203) (9140ha)

Ptn 3 (a Ptn of Ptn 2) of Farm Fricourt (199) (1895ha).

TBT plans to expand its irrigation scheme to include a new portion, namely Portion A, on Steyn’s Halt

of the farm De Duine (198) (Steyn’s Halt), covering a total area of 5100 ha. This additional portion

has three existing boreholes, which are too shallow and are not suitable for irrigation. The land is



733.20070.00001

March 2019

2

already cleared and was previously used for rain fed corn plantations. No additional land clearing

would be required.

FIGURE 1: REGIONAL LOCATION OF THE TRISTONE IRRIGATION SCHEME

With the expansion of the irrigation scheme, TBT plans to renew the existing abstraction permits,

while also amending the abstraction limit from the current permitted 970 000 m³/year to

1 800 000 m³/year. This increase in abstraction makes provision for the proposed 210 000 m³/year

to be supplied from a new borehole to be drilled on the Steyn’s Halt portion.

Given that the land has already been cleared, this Scoping Report (including impact assessment)

focuses on the operational phase of the project.

SLR Environmental Consulting (Namibia) (Pty) Ltd (SLR) has been appointed by TBT as the

independent Environmental Assessment Practitioner (EAP) to undertake the EIA process.



733.20070.00001

March 2019

3

PROJECT MOTIVATION (NEED AND DESIRABILITY) 1.3

There has been a large demand for local produce in the market and as per Namibia Agriculture Policy

of 2015 it is the objective of the government to actively promote the sustainable utilization of

available resources for crop production to realize the country’s full crop production potential and

ensure food security at national and household levels. The proposed expansion of the irrigation

scheme and increase in water abstraction would support the scheme in reaching maximum output

and yield production. The increase in water requirements would be supplied by existing permitted

boreholes as well as from one new proposed borehole on Steyn’s Halt.

Furthermore, an increase in production would ensure that TBT remains competitive in the market.

Provided TBT complies with the mitigation measures outlined in this report, the project has the

potential to have the following positive socio-economic impacts:

An increase in the tax base of the economy

The continuation of jobs, and skills, in the labour sector, an increase in job creation

An increase in the production, and supply, of crops in the local market (a commodity which

is currently in high demand).

EIA PROCESS 1.4

EIAs are regulated by the Ministry of Environment and Tourism (MET) in terms of the Environmental

Management Act, 7 of 2007. This Act was gazetted on 27 December 2007 (Government Gazette No.

3966) and enacted on 6 February 2012. The Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations:

Environmental Management Act, 2007 (Government Gazette No. 4878) were promulgated on 6

February 2012. Given that this project relates to irrigation and the use of abstracted groundwater,

the DWAF will provide recommendations to MET as part of the decision-making process.

Steps in the EIA process are outlined in Table 1 below. Further detail on the public participation

process is provided in Section 4.

TABLE 1: EIA PROCESS

Objectives Corresponding activities

Project initiation and Screening phase (June-July 2018)

- Identify environmental aspects and potential impacts of the proposed project

- Notify the decision-making authority of the proposed project

- Initiate the EIA Scoping process.

- Notify the MAWF of the proposed project.

- Submission of an application to MET.

- Identification of potential impacts that could occur as a result of the proposed project and related specialist terms of reference.

- Confirmation of EIA process to be followed.

- Identify key stakeholders (develop IAP database).

Scoping (including impact assessment) phase (July 2018 – January 2019)

- Involve Interested and Affected Parties (IAPs) in the scoping process through information sharing.

- Confirm potential environmental issues associated with the

- Notify government authorities and IAPs of the proposed project and EIA process (through telephone calls, e-mails, newspaper advertisements and site notices).

- IAP registration and submission of initial comments.

- Information sharing meeting.



733.20070.00001

March 2019

4

Objectives Corresponding activities

proposed project.

- Determine the terms of reference for specialist input and undertake specialist studies.

- Consider alternatives.

- Identify any fatal flaws.

- Provide details associated with the potentially affected environment.

- Assessment of potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed project.

- Develop management and mitigation measures.

- Conduct specialist studies.

- Compilation of Scoping Report (including impact assessment) and EMP.

- Distribute Scoping Report and EMP to relevant authorities and IAPs for review.

- Forward finalised Scoping Report (including EMP) incorporating IAP comments to MET for decision making.

Within this framework, the required components of the EIA report are discussed in more detail as

part of the EIA methodology in Section 3.

EIA TEAM 1.5

As noted in Chapter 1, SLR is the independent firm of consultants that has been appointed by TBT to

undertake the EIA. The environmental project team is outlined in Table 2.

Gerhard Jacobs, the Project Manager has three years of relevant experience in Hydrogeology and

has previously managed projects in the mining and agriculture industries, amongst other. Ester

Gustavo, the project assistant and co-author has seven years’ experience in groundwater and

surface water assessment and has previously managed projects in the mining, power and energy

industries, while, Immanuel Katali, the project assistant and co-author has three years of experience

in the Environmental Management discipline dealing with EIAs and EMPs. Immanuel is certified

under the Environmental Assessment Professionals of Namibia (EAPAN). Alex Pheiffer, the

Reviewer, holds a Master’s Degree in Environmental Management (from the Rand Afrikaans

University) and has over 16 years of experience in a range of environmental disciplines, including

EIAs, EMPs, Licensing, Environmental Auditing and Monitoring, Review and Public Consultation. She

has expertise in a wide range of projects. She is certified under the Environmental Assessment

Professionals of Namibia (EAPAN). The relevant curriculum vitae documentation is attached in

Appendix A.

TABLE 2: PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT TEAM

Name Designation Tasks and roles Company

Gerhard Jacobs

Project Manager and Groundwater and Surface water Specialist

Management of the process, team members and other stakeholders

Groundwater and surface water assessment SLR Consulting

Immanuel Katali

Project Assistant and Environmental Assessment Practitioner

Assisting Project Manager in the EIA Process

Compilation of report



733.20070.00001

March 2019

5

Name Designation Tasks and roles Company

Ester Gustavo

Project Assistant and Groundwater Specialist

Compilation of report

Groundwater assessment

Alex Pheiffer Environmental Assessment Practitioner

Quality Control and review

OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT 1.6

This Scoping Report including an impact assessment and management programme has been

distributed for a 30 calendar day review period from 25 February 2019 to 27 March 2019 in order to

provide registered IAPs with an opportunity to comment on any aspect of the proposed project and

the findings of the EIA process. Copies of the full report have been made available on the SLR

website (at https://slrconsulting.com/za/slr-documents/) and at the Windhoek National Library and

Stampriet Village Council. Electronic copies of the report can be requested from SLR.

For comments to be included in the final report that is submitted to the MET, comments should

reach SLR by no later than 27th March 2019.

https://slrconsulting.com/za/slr-documents/



733.20070.00001

March 2019

6

LEGAL FRAMEWORK 2

EIAs are influenced by national legislation and a range of guidelines. The legislation applicable to this

project and the EIA process is discussed further below.

The Republic of Namibia has five tiers of law and a number of policies relevant to environmental

assessment and protection, which includes:

The Constitution

Statutory law

Common law

Customary law

International law.

Key policies currently in force include:

EIA Policy (1995)

Namibia’s Environmental Assessment Policy for Sustainable Development and

Environmental Conservation (1994).

As the main source of legislation, the Constitution of the Republic of Namibia (1990) makes provision

for the creation and enforcement of applicable legislation. In this context and in accordance with its

constitution, Namibia has passed numerous laws intended to protect the natural environment and

mitigate against adverse environmental impacts.

In the context of the proposed irrigation project, there are several laws and policies currently

applicable. These are reflected in Table 3.

In addition MAWF would be responsible for authorising the renewal of the abstraction permits

including the increased abstraction volumes.

TABLE 3: RELEVANT LEGISLATION AND POLICIES

Year Name

Current Namibian legislation & Bills

1990 The Constitution of the Republic of Namibia of 1990

1997 Namibian Water Corporation Act, No. 12 of 1997

2003 Pollution control and waste management bill, 2004

2003 Agricultural (Commercial) Land Reform Amendment Act of 2003

2013 Water Resources Management Act, 2013

2007 Environmental Management Act No. 7 of 2007

2013 Water Resources Management Act, (Act No. 11 of 2013)

Former South African and SWA legislation still applicable in Namibia

1919 Public Health Act No. 36 of 1919

1956 Water Act No. 54 of 1956



733.20070.00001

March 2019

7

Year Name

1969 Soil Conservation Act No. 76 of 1969

1974 Hazardous Substances Ordinance No. 14 of 1974

Namibian policy

1995 Namibia's Environmental Assessment Policy for Sustainable Development and Environmental Conservation

1995 National Agricultural Policy

2000 National Water Policy White Paper

2008 Green Scheme Policy

International law to which Namibia is a signatory

1989 The Rotterdam convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade



733.20070.00001

March 2019

8

SCOPING METHODOLOGY 3

INFORMATION COLLECTION 3.1

SLR used various sources to identify environmental issues associated with the proposed project and

the Terms of Reference for the required investigations.

Information used in the process was sourced from:

Project information provided by TBT which includes:

o Site layouts

o Technical and process information

Site visit by the SLR Project Team

SLR groundwater Specialist Study

Consultation with the Technical Project Team

Consultation with IAPs

Consultation with relevant authorities

Atlas of Namibia

National Groundwater Database (GROWAS)

Meteorological offices.

In case of people related impacts, the assessment focused on third parties and did not assess health

and safety impacts on workers. The assumption was made that these aspects are separately

regulated by health and safety legislation, policies and standards.

SCOPING REPORT 3.2

The main purpose of this Scoping Report is to indicate which environmental aspects relating to the

proposed activities will be assessed and to provide mitigation measures, where required.

Table 4 outlines the Scoping Report requirements as set out in Section 8 of the Environmental

Impact Assessment Regulations that were promulgated in February 2012 in terms of the

Environmental Management Act, 7 of 2007.

TABLE 4: SCOPING REPORT REQUIREMENTS STIPULATED IN THE EIA REGULATIONS

Requirements for a Scoping Report in terms of the February 2012 regulations Reference in report

(a) the curriculum vitae of the EAPs who prepared the report; Section 2 and Appendix A

(b) a description of the proposed activity; Section 5

(c) a description of the site on which the activity is to be undertaken and the location of the activity on the site;

Section 1

(d) a description of the environment that may be affected by the proposed activity and the manner in which the geographical, physical, biological, social, economic and cultural aspects of the environment may be affected by the proposed listed activity;

Section 7

(e) an identification of laws and guidelines that have been considered in the preparation of the Scoping Report;

Section 2



733.20070.00001

March 2019

9

Requirements for a Scoping Report in terms of the February 2012 regulations Reference in report

(f) details of the public consultation process conducted in terms of regulation 7(1) in connection with the application, including -

(i) the steps that were taken to notify potentially interested and affected parties of the proposed application;

(ii) proof that notice boards, advertisements and notices notifying potentially interested and affected parties of the proposed application have been displayed, placed or given;

(iii) a list of all persons, organisations and organs of state that were registered in terms of regulation 22 as interested and affected parties in relation to the application; and

(iv) a summary of the issues raised by interested and affected parties, the date of receipt of and the response of the EAP to those issues;

Section 4

(g) a description of the need and desirability of the proposed listed activity and any identified alternatives to the proposed activity that are feasible and reasonable, including the advantages and disadvantages that the proposed activity or alternatives have on the environment and on the community that may be affected by the activity;

Section 1.3 and 6

(h) a description and assessment of the significance of any significant effects, including cumulative effects, that may occur as a result of the undertaking of the activity or identified alternatives or as a result of any construction, erection or decommissioning associated with the undertaking of the proposed listed activity;

Sections 9

(i) terms of reference for the detailed assessment; and Section 3

(j) a management plan, which includes -

(i) information on any proposed management, mitigation, protection or remedial measures to be undertaken to address the effects on the environment that have been identified including objectives in respect of the rehabilitation of the environment and closure;

(ii) as far as is reasonably practicable, measures to rehabilitate the environment affected by the undertaking of the activity or specified activity to its natural or predetermined state or to a land use which conforms to the generally accepted principle of sustainable development; and

(iii) a description of the manner in which the applicant intends to modify, remedy, control or stop any action, activity or process which causes pollution or environmental degradation remedy the cause of pollution or degradation and migration of pollutants.

Appendix F

SPECIALIST ASSESSMENT 3.3

A key issue identified during the process was the potential for impacts on groundwater resources.

SLR’s geohydrology team undertook a specialist study to assess this. The specialist study involved

the gathering of data (desktop and hydrocensus) relevant to identifying and assessing environmental

impacts that may occur as a result of the proposed project. These impacts have been assessed

according to pre-defined rating scales (see Section 9 below). The specialist study included

recommended mitigation measures to minimise potential impacts or optimisation measures to

enhance potential benefits as well as monitoring requirements, where required. These have been

incorporated into the EMP. The methodology applied to the specialist study is included in the

specialist report attached as an appendix to this report.



733.20070.00001

March 2019

10

ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS 3.4

The key assumptions and limitations are detailed below.

Details of the site operations and design information used to describe the project and

identify impacts were provided by TBT. It is assumed that this information is accurate and

that the project will be implemented and operated as described.

Monitoring data and the results of a hydrogeological study formed the basis for the

assessment of impact significance.

The identification of environmental impacts, the rating of impact significance and the

recommendation of mitigation measures assumed that the design parameters and standard

operating conditions at the Irrigation Project are implemented with an acceptable level of

management and maintenance efficiency. Occasional non-compliances or limited failures

are an accepted part of operations and were thus included in the impact assessment.

This study does not, and cannot, assess the environmental risks associated with fires,

accidents, very poor site management or maintenance and acts of nature. A full risk

assessment would be required to deal with these issues.

The assumptions and limitations of the specialist study or opinion are detailed in the

specialist report.

Pump test evaluation indicates that the groundwater potential for the TBT can meet the

higher demand although certain long term predictions cannot be made at the moment.

According to DWAF a regional groundwater model is in development for the STAS aquifer

(pers. comment Bertram Swartz). The objective of this model will be to determine and

predict the long term effects of abstraction for irrigation and other industrial uses on the

STAS aquifer. Once this model is completed it should be used to make realistic predictions of

the impacts of current and future water use in the area. The model will be used to

determine the sustainable use of the aquifer as a whole and to actively manage the aquifer

and all water users.



733.20070.00001

March 2019

11

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS 4

A public participation process is being undertaken to inform the EIA process. The purpose of the

public participation process was to ensure that all persons and/or organisations that may be

affected by, or interested in, the proposed project, were informed of the project and could register

their views and concerns. By consulting with relevant authorities and IAPs, the range of

environmental issues to be considered in the Scoping Report (including the assessment of impacts)

has been given specific context and focus. Included below is a summary of the IAPs consulted, the

process that was followed, and the issues that were identified.

IAPS 4.1

A broad list of persons, group of persons or organisations that were informed about the project and

who were requested to register as IAPs, if affected by or interested in the project, is included in

Table 5 below.

TABLE 5: TRISTONE’S IRRIGATION SCHEME STAKEHOLDERS

IAP Grouping Organisation

Local and regional government – councillors and key officers

Stampriet Village Council, Hardap Regional Council

Government Ministries Ministry of Environment and Tourism (MET): Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA)

Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry (MAWF): Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF)

Government Parastatals NamWater

Residents and farmers Home owners/tenants in Stampriet and Farmers.

Media Newspaper adverts: Namibian Sun and Die Republikein

Other interested and affected parties

Any other people with an interest in the proposed project or who may be affected by the proposed project.

The IAP database for the EIA process is included in Appendix C of the report.

STEPS IN THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS 4.2

Table 6 sets out the steps that were followed as part of the public participation process.

TABLE 6: CONSULTATION PROCESS WITH IAPS AND AUTHORITIES

Task Description Date

Notification - regulatory authorities and IAPs

Notification to MET SLR submitted the Application for ECC to MET. July 2018

IAP identification

The IAP database was updated to include additional IAPs. A copy of the IAP database is attached in Appendix C.

All parties who registered or showed an interest in the EIA process, together with relevant Local, Regional and Governmental Ministries are included in Appendix C.

June 2018 throughout the process



733.20070.00001

March 2019

12

Task Description Date

Distribution of background information document (BID)

BIDs were distributed via email to all authorities and IAPs on the IAP database and were available at the information-sharing meeting. Copies of the BID were made available on request to SLR.

The purpose of the BID was to inform IAPs and authorities about the proposed project, EIA process, possible environmental impacts and means of providing input into the EIA process. Attached to the BID was a registration and response form, which provided IAPs with an opportunity to submit their names, contact details and comments on the project. A copy of the BID is attached in Appendix B.

July and September 2018

Site notices A site notice was placed at the TBT’s Irrigation Scheme entrance. A copy of the site notice is included in Appendix B.

July 2018

Newspaper Advertisements

Block advertisements were placed as follows:

- The Republikein (21 and 28 July 2017)

- The Namibian Sun (21 and 28 July 2017).

Refer to Appendix B.

September 2018

Public meeting and Focus Group meetings and submission of comments

Information-sharing Meeting

A public information-sharing meeting was held at the Stampriet Boerevereniging Hall. A copy of the presentation and attached register is attached as Appendix B.

September 2018

Comments and Responses

Minutes of the meeting and comments received during the process are attached in Appendix D.

-

Review of draft Scoping Report

IAPs and authorities (excluding MET) review of Scoping Report and EMP

Authorities and IAPs have 30 calendar days to review the Scoping Report and submit comments in writing to SLR.

February 2019

MET review of Scoping Report and EMP

The final Scoping Report, including authority and IAP review comments, will be delivered to MET on completion of the public review process.

March 2019

SUMMARY OF ISSUES RAISED 4.3

All issues that have been raised to date by authorities and IAPs are included in Appendix D. The key

issues raised relate to:

Impacts on groundwater levels and availability to third party users

Impacts on the groundwater quality.



733.20070.00001

March 2019

13

PROJECT DESCRIPTION 5

OVERVIEW 5.1

The proposed project includes the following activities:

Proposed expansion of the irrigation scheme to include an 8th farm portion namely

Portion A, Steyn’s Halt of the farm De Duine (198) (Steyn’s Halt), covering a total area of

5100 ha and with three existing boreholes that are shallow.

Proposed renewal of groundwater abstraction Permits 10 450; 10 472; 10 423; 10 475;

11 151; 11 116; and 11 159

Proposed amendment of the permitted groundwater abstraction quotas from

970 000 m³/annum to 1 800 000m³/annum inclusive of 210 000 m³/annum from a new

borehole to be drilled on Steyn’s Halt.

The main operational components of the proposed project are described below.

IRRIGATION SCHEME INFRASTRUCTURE 5.2

The existing irrigation scheme is on commercial land with existing associated infrastructure. Existing

infrastructure comprises boreholes, pipelines, tanks, on-field irrigation systems, plantations, a

logistics centre and accommodation. No infrastructure exists on the new Steyn’s Halt farm portion.

Additional irrigation infrastructure required for the proposed project is described below.

Pump stations 5.2.1

Boreholes at the existing farm portions have been installed with electrical submersible pumps. The

new borehole to be established on Steyn’s Halt would be equipped with an irrigation pump station.

Pipelines 5.2.2

A low-pressure underground pipeline of ±40 mm in diameter is installed on the existing farm

portions. This pipeline runs from the boreholes located on the various farms to the irrigation

scheme. For the Steyn’s Halt farm portion, a standalone system will be established.

On-field irrigation system and infrastructure 5.2.3

The existing irrigation systems consist of Centre Pivot Irrigation covering approximately 105 ha in

total. Similarly, the Steyn’s Halt farm portion will use a Centre Pivot Irrigation system covering

approximately 15 ha in total.

Logistics centre and Support facilities 5.2.4

To support the administrative activities of the irrigation scheme, the irrigation scheme includes a

Logistics Center which includes:

an office



733.20070.00001

March 2019

14

chemical store and mixing facility used to store all pesticides (which comprise insecticides,

herbicides and fungicides) and fertilizer – this is a controlled facility with fire suppression,

emergency showers, and containment measures

above ground diesel facility for storage, handling and refuelling vehicles and machinery – the

storage tanks have a maximum capacity of 2500 litres each.

The above facilities would also support the activities on the new Steyn’s Halt.

Accommodation is provided in 17 houses as follows:

Hartebeesloop: 2 houses for managers and 4 houses for 12 labourers

Dikbos (Eerstebegin): 1 house for managers and 2 houses for 6 labourers

Okongona: 1 house for managers and 4 houses for 6 labourers

Witpan (De duine): 1 empty house

Grunfeld (Fricourt): 1 house for labourer

An existing empty house is located on the Steyn’s Halt portion, which is planned for the supervisor of

the farm and a team of 2 workers.

WATER SUPPLY AND USE 5.3

The water supply to the irrigation scheme is abstracted from nine boreholes (not all pumped

concurrently) that are drilled across the seven farm portions (Table 7). Greater volumes of water are

required for the irrigation scheme to meet increased crop production. The table below includes the

proposed increased abstraction volumes as well as the new additional portion (Portion A, Steyn’s

Halt of the farm De Duine (198)) that will require a total volume of water of up to

210 000m³/annum. The project irrigation will require approximately 223 m3 per hour over a

pumping period of 12 hours a day for crop irrigation and for general use, e.g. drinking water,

washing and cleaning and general domestic use. With reference to the table, the abstraction

volumes would increase from the permitted 970 000m³/annum to 1 800 000m³/annum.

TABLE 7: CURRENT WATER SUPPLY AND PROPOSED WATER ABSTRACTION AMENDMENTS

Farms Permit No & Borehole Existing Quota (m³/a)

Proposed amendment (m³/a)

Dikbos (Eerstbegin) (197/1) PN: 10 423, WW 32118 and WW 40316 190 000 250 000

Witpan (De Duine) (198B) PN: 10 475, WW 727 and WW 41056 220 000 250 000

Hartebeestloop (202) PN: 10 450, WW 37690 80 000 120 000

Hartebeestloop (202/1) PN: 10 472, WW 37688 140 000 220 000

Oserikare (Breedestraat) (204) PN: 11 115, WW 204028 150 000 250 000

Okongona (203) PN: 11 116, WW 203986 100 000 250 000

Grunfeld (Fricourt) (199) PN: 11 159, WW 203984 100 000 250 000

Steyn’s Halt of farm De Duine New - 210 000

Total 970 000 1 800 000



733.20070.00001

March 2019

15

With reference to Table 7, TBT intends to apply for the renewal of its existing groundwater

abstraction permits and concurrently apply to amend its yearly abstraction. An application for

renewing and increasing the abstraction quotas of the existing permits will be submitted to DWAF.

ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION 5.4

Power for the irrigation scheme is sourced from NamPower and a private distribution network.

Although a battery and solar combined system exists at Steyn’s Halt, this can only support the most

basic household appliances. Therefore the existing distribution network will be extended to include

Steyn’s Halt as follows:

Phase 1: The private electricity network established at Hartebeestloop, which currently

serves Witpan Portion B of De Duine (198B) will be extended from the Witpan transformer

via an additional 3 km of 22kV powerline to supply between 50 -100 kVA electricity to the

Steyn’s Halt portion.

Phase 2: A 22kV power line from the Auob line that goes from Stampriet to Gochas will be

extended to supply power to the second planned field on the Steyn’s Halt portion. This is the

main NamPower line servicing Gochas and the surrounding areas. The transformer will be

between 50 -100 kVA.

WASTE MANAGEMENT 5.5

Domestic non-hazardous waste is stored in an open pit. The exact quantities cannot be determined

and the type of waste varies according to seasons. Hazardous waste resulting from the use of

pesticides is stored at the chemical store and mixing facility and taken off site for disposal.

SEWAGE MANAGEMENT 5.6

The logistics centre and the small and medium scale farm housing have pit sewage systems. The

same system will be implemented on Steyn’s Halt.

EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING 5.7

Permanent staff on site includes:

1 x Stud Manager

1 x Game /hunting manager

3x Agronomist / Managers

25 x General Labourers.

1 x supervisor and 2 General labourers



733.20070.00001

March 2019

16

PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 6

Limited alternatives exist for the project. This is discussed further below.

ALTERNATIVE SITE AND WATER ABSTRACTION OPTIONS 6.1

The proposed project caters for the expansion of an existing irrigation scheme by incorporating an

additional neighbouring portion of land. Therefore no site or layout alternatives are available.

A component of the project caters for the increase in water abstraction volumes to meet an increase

in crop production and yield. This is being driven by market conditions and demand. Irrigation water

would be sourced from groundwater as this is the only sustainable resource available. No other

water supply options exist.

ALTERNATIVE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY OPTIONS 6.2

Power for the irrigation scheme is sourced from NamPower and a private distribution network.

Although a battery and solar combined system exists at Steyn’s Halt, this can only support the most

basic household appliances. Therefore the existing distribution network will be extended to include

Steyn’s Halt (see Section 5.4). No other feasible alternatives exist.

ALTERNATIVE POTABLE WATER SUPPLY OPTIONS 6.3

Potable water is sourced from an existing potable water supply source. The option of installing a

small purification plant for purifying water from the saline boreholes was considered. However, the

option was not financially or logistically feasible. No other feasible options exist.

ALTERNATIVE CROP OPTIONS 6.4

The crop options planned for Steyn’s Halt is white maize for the summer season and oats for the

winter season. Steyn’s Halt can only be reached by a two-spoor sand road crossing the dunes, with a

4-wheel tracked vehicle. There are existing 4-wheel tracked tractors and trailers that can reach

Steyn’s Halt. Initially crops planted at Steyn’s Halt will be limited to those that can withstand the

transport over the difficult terrain. Once the irrigation is fully established, a road will be built to

allow for better and easier access. This will allow for crops with higher returns.

An alternative is to grow crops such as asparagus, sweet potatoes, date palms, oranges, lemons and

micro greens. However, growing such crops requires knowledge and expertise that is often too

costly. Therefore, TBT proposes to only grow these crops during the second operational season.



733.20070.00001

March 2019

17

THE “NO PROJECT” OPTION 6.5

The No-Go alternative represents the option not to proceed with the proposed expansion of the

irrigation scheme. The assessment of this option requires a comparison between the options of

proceeding with the project with that of not proceeding with the project.

The food security situation in Namibia is characterised by extreme variability in levels of food

production, large volumes of coarse grain imports and disparity in household income levels. The

2013 Global Hunger Index, published by The International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI),

ranks Namibia at 53 out of 120 countries assessed indicating a “serious food problem”. (Source:

www.wfp.org). Proceeding with the project attracts potential socio-economic benefits and potential

negative environmental impacts. The main direct benefit of the project is the local production of

food, thereby increasing Namibian food security and self-reliance. Potential negative impacts on

groundwater resources can be mitigated through compliance with sector specific standards

including the Good Agriculture Practise (GAP) standard. The sustainable use of groundwater as a

resource is controlled by DWAF through the issuing of abstraction permits that are supported by

pump testing data. Not implementing the project would result in the region and Namibia in general

not benefiting from the increase in food security associated with the project.

For the purpose of this assessment, the status quo was considered in the unmitigated scenario in

comparison to establishing the proposed development in the mitigated scenario.

http://www.wfp.org/



733.20070.00001

March 2019

18

DESCRIPTION OF THE CURRENT ENVIRONMENT 7

This chapter provides a general overview of the current baseline conditions associated with

Irrigation Scheme and associated linear infrastructure. This section was compiled utilising the

available databases and aerial imagery.

BIOPHYSICAL 7.1

Climate 7.1.1

The Stampriet area experiences minimum temperatures as low as below 2˚C, where more than 30

days of the year experience frost. Maximum temperatures can escalate to 36˚C. Humidity is highly

variable throughout the year; the least humid month is October at 10-20% and most humid month is

around April at 60 – 70% humidity (Mendelssohn, et al., 2002).

While evaporation rates are high throughout the country, the southern area where the project is

located loses much more water through evaporation compared to the north-eastern and coastal

areas. This rate is higher during summer months due to high solar radiation. An annual average

evaporation rate of up to 2300 mm/annum is expected in the area.

Mean annual rainfall across the basin varies between 120 mm (Stampriet) and 240 mm

(Leonardsville). It is highly variable and therefore cannot be reflected accurately in a figure for

average precipitation. Rarely, extreme rainfall can reach 500 mm. Recording of rainfall at Stampriet

was discontinued by the Meteorological offices. Average monthly and average annual rainfall data

from Gochas, a settlement south of the TBT Irrigation scheme indicates that most rainfall events

occur during October to April, very little rain is experienced in winter and the highest rainfall was

experienced in 2011, 2012 and 2017 (Figure 2).

FIGURE 2: MEAN MONTHLY AND ANNUAL RAINFALL FROM 2000-2017 AT GOCHAS

Geology and soils 7.1.2

The geology of the area is primarily sandstones and mudstone of the Karoo Supergroup, with

isolated occurrences of dolerite intrusions (Figure 3).

Most of the area is covered by Kalahari sands that stretch across the eastern, north eastern and

north central parts of the country. The dominant soils at the irrigation scheme are Ferralic Arenosols



733.20070.00001

March 2019

19

(Mendelsohn 2002). Ferralic Arenosols (ferralic refers to a high content of combined oxides of iron

and aluminium) are formed mainly by wind-blown sand. They are characterised by a high proportion

of sand (generally greater than 70 %), with the remainder being clay and silt. The sandy texture

allows good drainage and the loose structure results in little runoff.

FIGURE 3: GEOLOGY OF THE IRRIGATION SCHEME

Groundwater occurs in three main aquifers namely the Kalahari Beds, the Auob Sandstone and the

Nossob Sandstone. The average thickness of the Kalahari Aquifer is 100 m, the Auob 80 m, and the

Nossob 25 m (JICA 2002). In the south-eastern part of the Namibian STAS, the Kalahari sediments are

considerably thicker, reaching about 250 m in the ‘Pre-Kalahari Valley’ (Figure 4). The Auob

Sandstone Aquifer and the Nossob Sandstone Aquifer lie in the Ecca Group of the lower Karoo

Sequence and are separated by shale layers of the Mukorob Member, which is overlaid by Shale and

Silt stone (SLR, 2018).



733.20070.00001

March 2019

20

FIGURE 4: GEOLOGICAL CROSS-SECTION (GGRETA, 2016)

Topography and hydrology 7.1.3

The altitude of the surrounding area is on average 1000 masl. It is a relatively flat area, with minor

dunes striking in a north-south direction.

The Aoub, Olifants and Nossob Rivers are the major ephemeral rivers in the area that are part of the

larger Orange River Basin in Southern Africa. The Auob River lies closest to the irrigation scheme.

These rivers flow from northwest to south east only when above-average rainfall occurs, but they

are endoreic within the Orange River Basin. These rivers are reported to seldom carry water for a

long distance and their runoff never reaches the Orange River but rather dissipates into the Kalahari

Desert about 130 km to the north of the Orange River.

Their courses cut through very flat areas that are dominated by Kalahari sands and therefore result

in poorly defined catchments (Mendelsohn, 2002) (Figure 3). Numerous salt pans occur in the area,

resulting from the evaporation of water from ponds.



733.20070.00001

March 2019

21

FIGURE 5: SITE RELIEF AND GROUNDWATER FLOW DIRECTION

Regional groundwater 7.1.4

Occurrence

The irrigation scheme is situated in the Stampriet Transboundary Aquifer System (STAS) (Figure 6)

and makes use of water from the (sub-) artesian aquifer for irrigation purposes. The boundaries of

the STAS are well defined in Namibia (Figure 6). In Namibia, the STAS covers an area of about

71 000 km², or about 8.6 % of the country's total surface area (Alker, 2007).



733.20070.00001

March 2019

22

FIGURE 6: STAMPRIET TRANS BOUNDARY AQUIFER SYSTEM BOUNDARIES (GGRETA, 2016)

The three main aquifers in the STAS in Namibia are in the Kalahari Beds, the Auob Sandstone and the

Nossob Sandstone. The Auob and Nossob Aquifers are confined and free flowing in the Auob Valley

from Stampriet and further downstream, as well as in the Nossob Valley around Leonardville.

Several springs are located in the eastern outcrop of the Kalkrand Basalt in the northwest (SLR,

2018).

The Auob aquifer contains the most water, however all groundwater within the estimated volume

will not be available for groundwater abstraction; a volume of water will remain within the aquifer

due to the storativity. The storativity in the Auob and Nossob aquifers is similar; these aquifers

would experience similar drawdowns if abstracted at the same rate. On the other hand, much larger

amounts of groundwater would need to be abstracted from the Kalahari aquifer to lower the water

level by the same amount, due to a lower storativity (SLR, 2018).

Recharge

Most aquifer recharge is thought to occur on Namibian territory (Puri 2001, 52). Estimates based on

studies conducted in the region are that recharge to the artesian aquifers in normal rainfall years is

relatively low to non-existent (0.5% of rainfall), but considerable recharge may occur during wet

years (as much as 3% of rainfall) (JICA 2002 and GGRETA, 2016). According to GGRETA (2016),

recharge via sinkholes and faults are the dominant mechanism of recharge in the north-western and

western boundaries of the STAS, and specifically to the Auob aquifer. It has been confirmed that



733.20070.00001

March 2019

23

water tables begin to rise in artesian aquifers some 50 km from these recharge areas a few weeks

after heavy rainfall has occurred (SLR, 2018).

Abstraction and use

A large number of boreholes abstract water from the STAS area in Namibia with the largest

consumer (47%) being irrigation. Other uses include stock watering at 37.5%, domestic use at 15%

and a small proportion of less than 1% for tourism (GGRETA, 2016). Of the total annual groundwater

abstraction from the STAS, 66% is from the Kalahari aquifers, 33% from the Auob aquifer and only

1% from the Nossob aquifer (GGRETA, 2016).

Water quality

Regional groundwater quality deteriorates in a south-south-easterly direction because the Kalahari

in the central parts of the basin consists mainly of fine sand, silt and clayey deposits which have

accumulated mineral salts due to low rainfall and runoff as well as high evaporation. The confining

layer of the Auob Aquifer has also been largely carried away in the south-eastern parts of the pre-

Kalahari River, resulting in saline groundwater. The south-eastern area of the STAS is referred to as

the “Salt Block” because of the brackish to saline water in the Kalahari, Auob and Nossob Aquifers

(SLR, 2018).

Local groundwater 7.1.5

A hydrocensus was conducted on the seven farms belonging to TBT as well as on neighbouring farms

that were accessible during survey period. In total 44 privately owned boreholes were located

(Figure 7).

Flows, levels and use

Groundwater flow mimics topography at a moderate gradient from northwest to south east

(Figure 5). The depth to groundwater level in the hydrocensus boreholes ranges between 7 and

50 mbgl. Two different aquifers are present and in use, namely the shallower Kalahari aquifer and

the deeper Auob aquifer. The shallower Kalahari aquifer is lower yielding and used for livestock and

game watering as well as domestic use while the deeper Auob aquifer is mostly used for irrigation.

TBT monitoring data indicates small water level changes during the last three years in all monitored

boreholes. These changes can be linked to increased abstraction during warm summer months

(December - March) and reduced groundwater abstraction in winter months as temperatures cool

down and crops use less water. No permanent trend of water level decline can be observed and

therefore the current water use is considered sustainable (SLR, 2018).



733.20070.00001

March 2019

24

FIGURE 7: HYDROCENSUS BOREHOLE LOCATIONS

Water quality

Groundwater water quality monitoring data has been compared to the DWA National Drinking

Standards for human consumption of 1991 (Table 8). For boreholes where repeat sampling has been

done (Grunfelde and Dikbos), it is possible to see that no deterioration in water quality took place

over the last three years. Water quality for the five boreholes sampled and analysed indicates mostly

a low risk (Group C) due to the elevated concentrations of nitrate except for Witpan which has good

quality water (Group B). Osirekare and Grunfelde have elevated sodium concentrations which can

cause salinization and crust formation when used for irrigation.

TABLE 8: WATER QUALITY DATA OF TBT IRRIGATION BOREHOLES

Potential

All abstraction boreholes that are used for irrigation on the TBT irrigation scheme tap the sub-

artesian Auob aquifer. The Auob aquifer contains the biggest volume of water in the STAS. Of the

Date Borehole no p H

Total Dissolved

Solids (TDS)

Chloride

as Cl-

Fluoride

as F-

Sulphate

as SO42-

Nitrate as

N

Sodium as

Na

Potassium

as K

Magnesiu

m as Mg

Calcium

as Ca

Bicarbonate

as HCO3

Jul-15 WW204028 (Osirekare) 8.6 1291 138 2.1 86 36 447 7.8 2.2 3.7 699

Sep-15 WW203984 (Grunfelde) 8.4 1122 102 2 88 28 358 7.0 1.4 1.7 476

Sep-18 WW203984 (Grunfelde) 7.9 937 56 0.9 52 38 273 8.4 14 23 567

Sep-15 WW203986 (Okongona) 8.5 1407 190 2.5 101 27 449 11 2.3 2.4 532

Mar-16 WW32118 (Dikbos) 7.4 594 36 0.6 36 22 108 8.8 29 39 342

Sep-18 WW32118 (Dikbos) 7.6 595 37 0.5 35 24 106 9.0 29 42 348

Mar-16 WW41056 (Witpan) 8.2 559 40 0.6 27 12 115 9.2 26 29 348

Group A

Group B

Group C

Group D



733.20070.00001

March 2019

25

installed boreholes, pump testing was conducted on three boreholes drilled in 2015 on farms

Okongona (Borehole WW 203986), Osirekare (Borehole WW204028) and Grunfelde (borehole WW

203984). No results are available for the remaining irrigation boreholes due to the age of the

boreholes. Pump testing data indicates that the proposed abstraction rates should be sustainable.

Long term piezometric levels should be monitored.

SOCIO-ECONOMIC STRUCTURE/PROFILE 7.2

Surface Rights and Land Tenure 7.2.1

Governed by the Stampriet Village council, the majority of land is privately owned freehold land. The

majority of the land is used for agriculture and tourism activities by private individuals and

companies, with very little government agriculture taking place. The sizes of the freehold private

farms range between 5 000 and 10 000ha (Mendelsohn, 2002). The Tristone Irrigation Project is on

commercial land that is administered by the Tristone Business Trust. Land administered by the Trust

is used for crop production as well as naturally occurring game but primarily the land is used for

cattle ranching. The surrounding areas are currently used for livestock grazing, and other irrigation

projects are visible along the Auob River.

Hardap Regional Council 7.2.2

The region comprises of six constituencies including Gibeon, Mariental Rural, Mariental Urban,

Rehoboth Rural, Rehoboth Urban East and Rehoboth Urban West. The region stretches the entire

width of Namibia from the Atlantic Ocean in the west to Namibia’s eastern international border. In

the northeast, it borders the Kgalagadi District of Botswana, and in the southeast, it borders South

Africa’s Northern Cape Province. The region is largely dependent on agricultural and cattle farming.

The region is also bordered by Angola, Botswana, Zimbabwe and Zambia (Namibia Statistics Agency,

2011).

Regional demographics 7.2.3

Of the employed population in the Hardap Region’s, 64% earn wages and salaries as the main source

of income with 7% coming from farming (Namibia Statistics Agency, 2011). This shows that the

majority of the region is economically active. Of the employable population, only 65% of the

population is currently employed. This is slightly lower than the national average of 66.9%. There is

therefore a need for additional employment opportunities in the Region.

Mariental Rural 7.2.4

The project area falls within the Mariental Rural Constituency in the Hardap Region. The Mariental

Rural Constituency has a population of approximately 15 308 of which 65% are employed. The

majority of the people in Mariental Rural earn wages and salaries (61%) and are employed in the

agricultural industry (Namibia Statistics Agency, 2011).



733.20070.00001

March 2019

26

IDENTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS 8

Environmental aspects and potential impacts were identified through review of the technical project

details provided by TBT, field observations by the SLR EIA team, stakeholder inputs during the public

participation process and specialist input.



733.20070.00001

March 2019

27

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 9

An assessment of the potential positive and negative impacts associated with the expansion of the

irrigation scheme and increase in groundwater abstraction for irrigation purposes is provided in the

sections below. Given that the land was previously used for rain fed corn plantations, no additional

land clearing would be required. Therefore, the impact assessment focuses on the operational phase

of the project only.

The impacts are discussed under issue headings in this section. Impacts are considered in a

cumulative manner where possible such that the impacts of the proposed project are seen in the

context of the operational Irrigation Scheme and the baseline conditions, described in Sections 5 and

7, respectively. Information that has been included in Section 7 will not be repeated below.

Mitigation measures identified to reduce and remedy the assessed impacts are provided under the

relevant impact discussions sections. An EMP for the project is included in Appendix F. It is

important to note that the assessments below include the potential direct, indirect and cumulative

impacts associated with the proposed project.

Both the criteria used to assess the impacts and the method of determining the significance of the

impacts is outlined in Table 9. This method complies with the Environmental Impact Assessment

Regulations: Environmental Management Act, 2007 (Government Gazette No. 4878) EIA regulations.

Part A provides the approach for determining impact consequence (combining severity, spatial scale

and duration) and impact significance (the overall rating of the impact). Impact consequence and

significance are determined from Part B and C. The interpretation of the impact significance is given

in Part D. Both mitigated and unmitigated scenarios are considered for each impact.

TABLE 9: CRITERIA FOR ASSESSING IMPACTS: CRITERIA FOR ASSESSING

PART A: DEFINITION AND CRITERIA Definition of SIGNIFICANCE Significance = consequence x probability

Definition of CONSEQUENCE Consequence is a function of severity, spatial extent and duration

Criteria for ranking of the SEVERITY/NATURE of environmental impacts

H Substantial deterioration (death, illness or injury). Recommended level will often be violated. Vigorous community action. Irreplaceable loss of resources.

M Moderate/ measurable deterioration (discomfort). Recommended level will occasionally be violated. Widespread complaints. Noticeable loss of resources.

L Minor deterioration (nuisance or minor deterioration). Change not measurable/ will remain in the current range. Recommended level will never be violated. Sporadic complaints. Limited loss of resources.

L+ Minor improvement. Change not measurable/ will remain in the current range. Recommended level will never be violated. Sporadic complaints.

M+ Moderate improvement. Will be within or better than the recommended level. No observed reaction.

H+ Substantial improvement. Will be within or better than the recommended level. Favourable publicity.

Criteria for ranking the DURATION of impacts

L Quickly reversible. Less than the project life. Short term

M Reversible over time. Life of the project. Medium term

H Permanent. Beyond closure. Long term.

Criteria for ranking the SPATIAL SCALE of impacts

L Localised - Within the site boundary.

M Fairly widespread – Beyond the site boundary. Local

H Widespread – Far beyond site boundary. Regional/ national



733.20070.00001

March 2019

28

PART B: DETERMINING CONSEQUENCE

SEVERITY = L

DURATION Long term H Medium Medium Medium

Medium term M Low Low Medium

Short term L Low Low Medium

SEVERITY = M

DURATION Long term H Medium High High

Medium term M Medium Medium High

Short term L Low Medium Medium

SEVERITY = H

DURATION Long term H High High High

Medium term M Medium Medium High

Short term L Medium Medium High

L M H

Localised Within site boundary

Site

Fairly widespread Beyond site boundary

Local

Widespread Far beyond site

boundary Regional/ national

SPATIAL SCALE

PART C: DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE

PROBABILITY (of exposure to impacts)

Definite/ Continuous H Medium Medium High

Possible/ frequent M Medium Medium High

Unlikely/ seldom L Low Low Medium

L M H

CONSEQUENCE

PART D: INTERPRETATION OF SIGNIFICANCE

Significance Decision guideline

High It would influence the decision regardless of any possible mitigation.

Medium It should have an influence on the decision unless it is mitigated.

Low It will not have an influence on the decision.

*H = high, M= medium and L= low and + denotes a positive impact.

ECOLOGY 9.1

Issue: Pollution of environment with pesticides (which comprise insecticides, 9.1.1

herbicides and fungicides)

Introduction

Given that the land was previously cleared and used for rain fed corn plantations no additional land

clearing would be required. This assessment considers the potential impacts associated with the use

of pesticides (which comprise insecticides, herbicides and fungicides). The application of pesticides

as a routine measure to decrease herbivory, seed predation and interspecific competition can cause

pollution to the environment. The leaching into groundwater would have further impacts on the

regional biodiversity (discussed separately under Section 9.2).

Impact assessment

Pesticides form one of the three pillars of the so-called 'green revolution'; the other two being new

and rapidly replaced seed varieties, and high fertilizer inputs. Because invertebrate organisms are a

food source for a large number of vertebrates, pesticides, even the ones that are designed to affect

only one or two target groups, have spill over effects on the ecosystem and may cause morbidity and

mortality in secondary consumers of all kinds (AWR, 2015). Effects of compounds that are not

completely biodegradable are cumulative, building up in the ecosystem.



733.20070.00001

March 2019

29

Although direct contact may cause death of organisms, the potential exists for chemicals to spread

beyond the site boundaries. Herbicides, especially those that disrupt reproductive processes in

plants, may have similar effects on native plants and result in a localised alteration of population

sizes.

Given the above, the cumulative unmitigated severity is high, but may be reduced to low with the

successful implementation of the mitigation measures.

Although the direct impacts may occur within the site boundary, the project could contribute to

cumulative impacts at a broader scale. Potential impacts would extend for the life of the project and

may be reversible over time.

Without any mitigation the probability associated with the impacts is high. With mitigation, the

probability of impacts will be reduced to low.

The significance of this potential impact is medium in the unmitigated scenario and low with

mitigation.

Mitigation Severity Duration Spatial Scale Consequence Probability of occurrence

Significance

Unmitigated H M M M H M

Mitigated L M L L L L

Mitigation measures

Objectives

Responsible use of pesticides.

Prevent degradation of ecological systems.

Measures to be implemented

Chemicals should not be used as the main form of pesticide control; use should form part of an

integrated pest management (IPM) approach. IPM is an approach to pest management that blends

all available management techniques - nonchemical and chemical - into one strategy. Use pesticides

only when pest damage exceeds an economic or aesthetic threshold

Bio-degradable and / or environmentally acceptable chemicals and pesticides will be used as far as

possible.

TBT will follow international standards of best practice in the use of pesticides in agriculture. This

will include:

Select and use chemicals with low toxicity outside target groups (i.e. highly specific), short

half-lives and high levels of adsorption to reduce leaching issues.

The eco-toxicity of each chemical will be confirmed using an independent database such as

the Pesticide Action Network (PAN) Pesticide Database.



733.20070.00001

March 2019

30

Use optimal, not maximal doses

Apply herbicides and fungicides with boom sprayers or during planting

Apply for as short periods as possible and select days that are not windy

Ensure that there is no overspray that drifts into the adjacent indigenous habitats or into

areas of human habitation

Given that most of the chemicals will be applied through the irrigation system, using an

optimal water management approach based on measured soil moisture levels will also mean

that leaching and runoff will be limited.

Strictly control and allow for direct application of herbicides to minimise effects on native

ecosystems.

Implement a monitoring programme that caters for both the presence and abundance of different

pests (fungi as well as invertebrates) and the effects of different management options.

Issue: Dust impacts on vegetation 9.1.2

Introduction

In the context of air quality related impacts, the additional portion of land, Steyn’s Halt portion, was

previously cleared and used for rain fed corn plantations. The continued use of the land by TBT for

agricultural purposes would therefore not change any impacts previously experienced. However,

wind-blown dust from exposed or worked soils resulting in fall out dust could impact the

surrounding biophysical environment.

Impact assessment

Fugitive dust emissions could result in the smothering of vegetation in the region. This in turn can

have an impact on invertebrates and grazers who rely on the vegetation as a food source. The

severity of this impact would be medium in the unmitigated scenario and could be reduced to low

through mitigation.

Dust fallout impacts are of medium duration and would extend beyond the site boundaries. It is

expected that once plants, fields will generally be kept relatively moist in order to ensure optimal

plant growth and thereby prevent fugitive dust emissions. The preservation of the soils for

agriculture is a major priority for the ongoing sustainability of the project. The probability is

considered to be low in the unmitigated and mitigated scenarios.

The significance of impacts on air quality during is low in both the unmitigated and mitigated

scenarios.


Significance

Unmitigated M M M M L L

Mitigated L M M L L L



733.20070.00001

March 2019

31

Mitigation measures

Objectives

To minimise the generation of dust.



Although some of the below measures are already in place it is worth re-iterating the importance to

continue with these mitigation measures.

Avoid as far as possible ploughing if the soil is dry and/or if there are high winds (exceeding

24 km/h). Planting should occur shortly after ploughing.

Do not till on fallow and bare ground when average wind speeds exceed 40 km/h.

Cover piles of fertilizer, compost, or soil. Use surface coverings like wood chips, mulch, or plastic

sheeting to help stabilize soil.

Use cover crops like grasses and legumes to help reduce wind erosion.

Use physical barriers such as fences, straw bales, and large trees to minimize the flow of dust.

Carry out visual dust monitoring and use water or dust suppressants when substantial dust is

blowing offsite.

Issue: Avifaunal deaths due to power lines 9.1.3

Introduction

Overhead electrical distribution lines could result in death or injury to birds as a result of striking

electrical installations and lines, or as a result of becoming electrocuted when shorting high-voltage

currents. The existing electrical distribution for the irrigation scheme will be extended to service

Steyn’s Halt. The additional lines are relatively minor when compared to the existing network.

However, collisions with electrical lines can impact the surrounding biophysical environment.

Impact assessment

All live electrical structures can result in electrocution of individual birds, which occurs when birds

make contact with conducting structures. The impacts of a single, relatively short power line are

seldom significant beyond its local environment. When considered cumulatively with existing

distribution networks both on site and off, the cumulative unmitigated severity is medium but can

be reduced to low through mitigation.

The impacts on birds would occur for the life of the operations and would impact bird populations

outside of the project boundaries. In the unmitigated scenario it’s possible that impacts would occur

but with mitigation these can be avoided as far as possible.



733.20070.00001

March 2019

32

The significance of the potential impact is medium in the unmitigated scenario and low in the

mitigated scenario.


Significance

Unmitigated M M M M M M

Mitigated L M L L L L

Mitigation measures

Objectives



Make the top-most lines on all types of electrical lines visible to birds.

Monitor the lines regularly and install markers if there is any mortality.

GROUNDWATER 9.2

Issue: Negative impact of increased pesticides, fertilizers and hydrocarbons on 9.2.1

groundwater quality

Introduction

Agricultural activities on the project are mainly supported by irrigation, whereby a danger to recycle

pesticides and fertilizers via groundwater occurs through groundwater abstraction and usage. As a

result, percolating irrigation water on farms that have been treated with herbicides and insecticides

and where fertilizers are used, allow these chemicals to accumulate and potentially reach the

shallow groundwater table. Biodegradable materials are used where possible.

In addition the use of machinery and equipment requires the use of hydrocarbons. Hydrocarbons

have the potential to pollute groundwater resources through leaks and spills.

Impact assessment

Once pesticides and hydrocarbons have entered the hydrological cycle, their elimination is difficult,

and in most instances impossible, especially with groundwater. In unmitigated cases the

recommended concentrations would often be violated. Current groundwater quality analysis data

however shows no evidence of deteriorating water quality caused by TBT. Through the

implementation of the Good Agriculture Practise (GAP) standards and hydrocarbon management,

the severity can be reduced.

The impact would extend beyond the site boundary as contamination transport is expected to be

widespread, though local, following the groundwater flow patterns. Given that the deeper Auob

aquifer is protected by a confined layer, pollution dispersion would only occur in the shallow

Kalahari aquifer.



733.20070.00001

March 2019

33

Although contamination sources would be limited to the operational phase of the irrigation scheme,

any resultant contamination would extend beyond the life of the operations in the unmitigated case.

In the absence of mitigation recycling of potentially polluted groundwater could deteriorate

groundwater further through ongoing abstraction and usage. In the unmitigated case, the duration

of potential impacts would be long term. Where the GPA standards and hydrocarbon management

practises are applied, potential impacts could be reversed over time.

The potential for negative groundwater quality impacts exists. Where this groundwater is then used

for human or livestock consumption, the potential exists for health related impacts. The extent of

these impacts would depend on the concentration of these elements and the length of exposure of

potential receptors.

The significance of groundwater contamination due to the use of pesticides, fertilizers and

hydrocarbon is high in the unmitigated case reducing to low in the mitigated case.


Significance

Unmitigated H H M H H H

Mitigated L M M L L L

Mitigation measures

Objectives

Reduce concentration of contaminants in irrigation water to prevent pollution of underlying

aquifer.


The irrigation scheme will comply with the GAP codes and standards.

Implement the measures outlined in Section Error! Reference source not found.. In addition, with

egards to the storage and handling of pesticides and fertilisers, TBT will:

Provide appropriate storage on-site (well-marked, closed and covered storage area(s), on

impermeable substrate and with containment measures that can contain 110% of the total

volume stored).

Regular monitoring and maintenance of storage facilities for early detection of any potential

leakages.

Mixing or handling of materials within designated areas to minimise unnecessary spills to the

environment.

Immediate clean-up of any accidental spills.

Disposal of used containers and waste packaging in a suitable and approved manner.



733.20070.00001

March 2019

34

With regards to the storage, handling and use of hydrocarbons, TBT will:

Provide appropriate storage on-site (well-marked, closed and covered storage area(s), on an

impermeable substrate and with containment measures that can contain 110% of the total

volume stored).

Regular monitoring and maintenance of storage facilities for early detection of any potential

leakages.

Handling of hydrocarbons and maintenance of equipment and machinery within designated

areas with containment measures to minimise unnecessary spills to the environment.

Immediate clean-up of any accidental spills.

Disposal of used containers and waste packaging in a suitable and approved manner.

Crops that are adapted to the climate and soil conditions and that do not require excessive volumes

of pesticides and fertilizers will be planted.

An optimal water management plan that records and controls the volumes of water used, measures

soil moisture levels to limit leaching, and includes efficient irrigation methods will be implemented.

High sodium levels at Osirekare, Okongona and Grunfelde can cause salinization and crust formation

on the irrigated lands. Gypsum should be considered to mitigate these effects.

Special management for salinity control may be required. A 90% relative yield of moderately salt

tolerant crops can be maintained by using a low frequency irrigation system.

Monitoring boreholes (not used for pumping), intersecting both, the Kalahari and Auob aquifers, will

be established downstream of the irrigation scheme, near the southern border of the site.

Water samples from all production and monitoring boreholes will be taken annually and analysed for

pesticides, fertilisers and hydrocarbons. The data will be analysed for trends and where required

additional mitigation will be implemented in consultation with a specialist.

Issue: Negative impact of increased abstraction rates on groundwater quantity 9.2.2

downstream

Introduction

When groundwater is exploited, water levels decline and continue to do so until they either stabilize

at a lower level or, if abstraction is persistently greater than recharge, the aquifer is dewatered. This

could result in a decrease or loss of water supply to other groundwater users. The irrigation scheme

is located in a Water Controlled Area (WCA), where the aquifer is artesian and of high groundwater

potential. In addition abstraction permits that are supported by pump testing data, to ensure

abstraction rates are sustainable, are required from the DWAF.



733.20070.00001

March 2019

35

Impact assessment

A relatively high volume of groundwater abstraction is planned (currently at 970 000 m³/annum with

a proposed increase to 1 800 000 m3/annum) from the Aoub aquifer. This may pose a threat to the

downstream users of the same aquifer. Pumping test evaluation is necessary to determine at what

rate the boreholes can be pumped sustainably. Without more recent test pumping evaluation, it is

difficult to conclude the severity of the potential impact that the additional abstraction rates will

cause. Historical pump test evaluation indicates that the groundwater potential in the Aoub aquifer

can meet the higher demand although certain long term predictions cannot be made at the

moment. Current available data from time series water level recordings show no evidence of over

abstraction caused by TBT for the current abstraction rates. In the unmitigated case the severity of

potential impacts is considered to be medium reducing to low with mitigation where water is

abstracted at a sustainable yield in line with abstraction permits from DWAF.

The over abstraction of groundwater could lead to a drawdown in water levels and a related cone of

depression. In the absence of mitigation this could extend beyond the boundaries of the scheme to

neighboring farms. With mitigation over-abstraction would not occur reducing the spatial scale of

any potential impacts.

Abstraction impacts would occur for the life of the operations if unmitigated. Once active pumping

stops and where abstraction took place at a sustainable yield, groundwater levels would return to

natural conditions.

In the unmitigated case it is possible that groundwater levels would decrease and potentially affect

downstream users of the Aoub aquifer. It is however unlikely that abstraction impacts would be

experienced in the shallower Kalahari aquifer. With mitigation the likelihood of potential impacts

affecting third party users can be reduced.

The significance of groundwater abstraction impacts is medium in the unmitigated case reducing to

low in the mitigated case.


Significance

Unmitigated M M M M M M

Mitigated L L L L L L

Mitigation measures

Objectives

To reduce the threat of lowering groundwater levels in the local aquifer which consequently

infringes on the volume available for surrounding water users.

To prevent the dewatering of the aquifer.



733.20070.00001

March 2019

36


Abstraction permits must be obtained from DWAF and conditions of the permit which include

installation of water meters, maintenance of equipment to prevent leakages and monthly water

level readings must be adhered to and documented.

Permits must be renewed every two years or as required by DWAF, supported by an updated impact

assessment by a hydrogeologist.

Monitoring boreholes (not used for pumping), intersecting both, the Kalahari and Auob aquifers, will

be established downstream of the irrigation scheme, near the southern border of the site.

Water levels will be measured at monitoring boreholes on a monthly basis. The data will be used to

determine changes in groundwater levels due to pumping from the irrigation scheme. The data will

be analysed for trends and where required additional mitigation will be implemented in consultation

with a specialist. The monitoring data must be submitted as part of the monthly reporting to DWAF.

Regular pump testing of active boreholes should be undertaken to confirm the aquifer capacity and

sustainable long term abstraction rates.

SURFACE WATER 9.3

Given the sandy nature of the site, the related good drainage and the loose structure of the soils,

little runoff occurs. Rainfall water seeps into the Kalahari sands. Given the distance to the nearest

river and the ephemeral and endoreic nature of rivers in the vicinity of the irrigation scheme, very

limited to no potential exists for surface water runoff from the site to impact on the river or for the

irrigation scheme to affect any flow in the river. Therefore surface water impacts have not been

identified and an assessment has not been done.

NOISE AND VISUAL 9.4

The proposed project includes the expansion of the existing irrigation scheme of 105 ha to include

an additional irrigation scheme of 15 ha. In the context of noise and visual related impacts, this

increase is relatively small. Therefore impacts on noise and visual aspects have not been identified

and an assessment of these aspects has not been done.

SOCIO-ECONOMIC 9.5

Projects in general can bring with them an expectation of new employment. Given the small scale of

the proposed project within an existing irrigation scheme and in a relatively remote part of the

country, negative socio-economic impacts associated with an influx of job seekers are not expected

and therefore related impacts have not been identified or assessed.



733.20070.00001

March 2019

37

Issue: Positive socio-economic impacts 9.5.1

Introduction

In the broadest sense, activities associated with a project contribute towards positive socio-

economic impacts. The project has the potential to create socio-economic benefits through

continued employment, increased economic contributions and increased food security.

Impact assessment

The proposed project will result in positive socio-economic benefits through wages, taxes and

procurement of services. The proposed expansion of the irrigation scheme and increase in water

abstraction would support the scheme in reaching maximum output and yield production. This

would provide an invaluable contribution to food security and self-reliance in Namibia as a whole.

Furthermore, an increase in production would ensure that TBT remains competitive in the market.

The increased provision of products and services to the project as well as purchases by the upstream

supply chain would provide indirect economic benefits.

Economic impacts would be felt at a local community level as well as positively impact the Namibian

economy as a whole.

The direct positive economic impacts would occur for the life of the project.

In the unmitigated and mitigated scenarios, the significance of this potential impact is high positive.


Significance

Unmitigated M+ M H H+ M H+

Mitigated M+ M H H+ M H+

Mitigation measures

Objectives

To enhance the positive socio-economic impacts


TBT will ensure that the irrigation scheme is operated in a manner that ensures the sustainable use

of resources while maximising the production potential and economic value of the scheme.

Local labour will be used and on-going skills training will be undertaken.

HERITAGE 9.6

Given that the land was previously cleared and used for rain fed corn plantations no additional land

clearing would be required. Therefore impacts on heritage/cultural aspects have not been identified

and an assessment of these aspects has not been done.



733.20070.00001

March 2019

38

CUMULATIVE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 9.7

Cumulative groundwater quantity impacts could be experienced in the region because the Aoub

Aquifer that is underlying the irrigation area is the most targeted and utilised local aquifer for

irrigation purposes. Cumulative groundwater quality impacts on the already brackish and saline

Kalahari aquifer could occur. Where GAP standards are complied with and abstraction is done is a

manner that meets the sustainable yield of the borehole and related aquifer, cumulative impacts on

the aquifer will be minimised.



733.20070.00001

March 2019

39

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 10

This chapter summarises the key findings of the study.

TBT plans to expand its irrigation scheme (of 105 ha) to include a new portion, namely Portion A, on

Steyn’s Halt of the farm De Duine (198) (Steyn’s Halt), covering a total area of 5100 ha. An irrigation

scheme of 15 ha will be undertaken on this additional portion of land. With the expansion of the

irrigation scheme, TBT plans to renew the existing abstraction permits, while also amending the

abstraction limit from the current permitted 970 000 m³/year to 1 800 000 m³/year. This increase in

abstraction makes provision for the proposed 210 000 m³/year to be supplied from a new borehole

to be established on Steyn’s Halt.

Given that the land was previously cleared and used for rain fed corn plantations impacts on

heritage/cultural aspects are not expected. Through the project the capability of the land is being

realised. In the context of noise and visual related impacts, the increase in activities is relatively

small. In the context of air quality related impacts, the additional portion of land was previously

cleared and used for rain fed corn plantations. The continued use of the land by TBT for agricultural

purposes would therefore not change any impacts previously experienced. The use of pesticides and

farm practises on site could impact ecological systems through pollution of the environment and

generation of dust.

Specialist input was provided on the likely impact of the proposed project on groundwater

resources. This was seen as the main impact associated with the project and was the focus of issues

raised during the public participation process. The findings of the specialist input and other relevant

information have been integrated and synthesised into this Scoping (including impact assessment)

Report.

A summary of the assessment of potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed

project is provided in Table 10. The mitigated assessment assumes that mitigation measures

included in the environmental management programme (EMP) would be implemented by TBT.

TABLE 10: SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED PROJECT

Section Potential impact Significance of the impact*

Unmitigated Mitigated

Ecology

Pollution of environment with pesticides (which comprise insecticides, herbicides and fungicides)

Medium Low

Dust impacts on vegetation Low Low

Avifaunal deaths due to power lines Medium Low

Groundwater

Negative impact of pesticides, fertilizers and hydrocarbons on groundwater quality

High Low

Negative impact of increased abstraction rates on groundwater quantity downstream

Medium Low

Socio-economic Positive economic impacts High + High +

* The ratings are negative unless otherwise specified.



733.20070.00001

March 2019

40

In summary, the expansion of the TBT Irrigation Scheme has the potential to result in negative

groundwater quality and quantity impacts and ecological impacts in the unmitigated scenario and

positive socio-economic impacts through increased job security, investment in the region and

support of the local community and economy as well as the Namibian economy as a whole. The

project would also contribute to food security in Namibia as a whole.

SLR Namibia concludes that should TBT follow the actions (i.e. management and mitigation

measures) provided in the EIA and EMP report, the project would have an acceptable impact on the

surrounding physical and social environment.



733.20070.00001

March 2019

41

CONSULTANT EXPERIENCE AND DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE 11

SLR Environmental Consulting (Namibia) (Pty) Ltd (SLR) is the independent firm of consultants that

has been appointed by TBT to undertake the EIA and related process.

Gerhard Jacobs, the Project Manager has three years of relevant experience in Hydrogeology and

has previously managed projects in the mining and agriculture industries, amongst other. Ester

Gustavo, the project assistant and co-author has seven years’ experience in groundwater and

surface water assessment and has previously managed projects in the mining, power and energy

industries, while, Immanuel Katali, the project assistant and co-author has three years of experience

in the Environmental Management discipline dealing with EIAs and EMPs. Immanuel is certified

under the Environmental Assessment Professionals of Namibia (EAPAN). Alex Pheiffer, the

Reviewer, holds a Master’s Degree in Environmental Management (from the Rand Afrikaans

University) and has over 16 years of experience in a range of environmental disciplines, including

EIAs, EMPs, Licensing, Environmental Auditing and Monitoring, Review and Public Consultation. She

has expertise in a wide range of projects. She is certified under the Environmental Assessment

Professionals of Namibia (EAPAN).

The undersigned herewith declare that this report represents an independent, objective assessment

of the environmental impacts associated with TBT’s Irrigation Expansion project in the Hardap

Region of Namibia.

SLR has no vested interest in the proposed project other than fair payment for consulting services

rendered as part of the EIA process.

Immanuel Katali

(Report Author)

Gerhard Jacobs

(Project Manager)

Alex Pheiffer

(Project Reviewer)



733.20070.00001

March 2019

42

REFERENCES 12

Environmental Management Act, 2007 (Government Gazette No. 4878) EIA regulations

Japan International Cooperation Agency - JICA (2002): The Study on the Groundwater Potential

Evaluation and Management Plan in the Southeast Kalahari (Stampriet) Artesian Basin in the

Republic of Namibia – Final Report

Mendelsohn, J., Jarvis, A., Roberts, C. and Roberts, T., (2002): Atlas of Namibia: A portrait of the land

and its people.- David Philip Publishers, Cape Town, RSA

Namibia Agriculture Policy, December 2015, Ministry of Agriculture Water and Forestry. Republic of

Namibia.

SLR (2018) Groundwater Study for Tristone Business Trust Irrigation Scheme.

The Constitution of the Republic of Namibia (1990).

The Environmental Impact Assessment Policy (1995).

The Environmental Assessment Policy for Sustainable Development and Environmental Conservation

(1994).



733.20070.00001

March 2019

A

APPENDIX A: TEAM CVS



733.20070.00001

March 2019

B

APPENDIX B: INFORMATION SHARING RECORD (BID, NEWSPAPER ADVERTS, SITE NOTICE)



733.20070.00001

March 2019

C

APPENDIX C: DATABASE

Organisation Name Position Email Tel no.

Stampriet Village

Council

Mr. Eddy

Kohima

CEO [email protected] 063-260038

Hardap Regional

Council

Ms T. Basson CRO (Acting) [email protected]

Amandla

Isaacks

(Pvt Secretary) [email protected] 063-240944 or

'0816805637

Governor [email protected]

Ministry of

Agriculture, Water

and Forestry

Mr Betram

Swartz

Hydrogeologist [email protected] 061-2087089,

0812020710

Ministry of

Environment and

Tourism

Mr Damian

Nchindo

[email protected] 0612842717

NamWater

Mr. Nicolaas

du Plessis

Environmental

Manager

[email protected] 061- 712093,

0811279040

Ms Jolanda

Murangi

[email protected]

Farmer Jaco Kotze auobdrif@iwayna 0814422122

Farmer Jaco Van

Wyk

[email protected] 0816926164

Industry Gondwana

Anib Park

anibpark@gondwana-

collection.com

Industry Gondwana

Enviromental

Officer

enviro@gondwana-

collection.com

Individual Hannes

Meyer

Hannes Meyer

Trust

[email protected]

Individual Cronje Loftie-Eaton

[email protected]

+264-811243652

mailto:[email protected]








mailto:auobdrif@iwayna










733.20070.00001

March 2019

D

APPENDIX D: MINUTES AND ISSUES AND RESPONSE REPORT



733.20070.00001

March 2019

E

APPENDIX E: GROUNDWATER SPECIALIST STUDY



733.20070.00001

March 2019

F

APPENDIX F: EMP



733.20070.00001

March 2019

i

AFRICAN OFFICES

South Africa

CAPE TOWN

T: +27 21 461 1118

FOURWAYS

T: +27 11 467 0945

SOMERSET WEST

T: +27 21 851 3348

Namibia

WINDHOEK

T: + 264 61 231 287

SWAKOPMUND

T: + 264 64 402 317

proposed irrigation scheme expansion project, stampriet, hardap...

Documents