Johann Lanz

Soil Scientist (Pri.Sci.Nat.) Reg. no. 400268/12

Cell: 082 927 9018 e-mail: johann@johannlanz.co.za

1A Wolfe Street

Wynberg 7800

Cape Town South Africa

AGRICULTURAL EIA REPORT

FOR

NUWEVELD WIND FARM WEST

NEAR BEAUFORT WEST

WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE

Report by

Johann Lanz

Prepared for

Zutari (Pty) Ltd

29 April 2021

Johann Lanz Professional profile

Education

• M.Sc. (Environmental Geochemistry) University of Cape Town 1996 - June

1997

• B.Sc. Agriculture (Soil Science,

Chemistry)

University of Stellenbosch 1992 - 1995

• BA (English, Environmental &

Geographical Science)

University of Cape Town 1989 - 1991

• Matric Exemption Wynberg Boy's High

School

1983

Professional work experience

I am registered as a Professional Natural Scientist (Pri.Sci.Nat.) in the field of soil science,

registration number 400268/12, and am a member of the Soil Science Society of South Africa.

Soil Science Consultant Self employed 2002 - present

I run a soil science consulting business, servicing clients in both the environmental and

agricultural industries. Typical consulting projects involve:

• Soil specialist study inputs to EIA's, SEA’s and EMPR's. These have focused on impact

assessments and rehabilitation on agricultural land, rehabilitation and re-vegetation of

mining and industrially disturbed and contaminated soils, as well as more general

aspects of soil resource management. Recent clients include: CSIR; SRK Consulting;

Aurecon; Mainstream Renewable Power; SiVEST; Savannah Environmental; Subsolar;

Red Cap Investments; MBB Consulting Engineers; Enviroworks; Sharples Environmental

Services; Haw & Inglis; BioTherm Energy; Tiptrans.

• Soil resource evaluations and mapping for agricultural land use planning and

management. Recent clients include: Cederberg Wines; Unit for Technical Assistance -

Western Cape Department of Agriculture; Wedderwill Estate; Goedgedacht Olives;

Zewenwacht Wine Estate, Lourensford Fruit Company; Kaarsten Boerdery; Thelema

Mountain Vineyards; Rudera Wines; Flagstone Wines; Solms Delta Wines; Dornier

Wines.

• I have conducted several recent research projects focused on conservation farming, soil

health and carbon sequestration.

• I have project managed the development of soil nutrition software for Farmsecure Agri

Science.

Soil Science Consultant Agricultural Consultors

International (Tinie du Preez)

1998 - end

2001

Responsible for providing all aspects of a soil science technical consulting service

directly to clients in the wine, fruit and environmental industries all over South Africa,

and in Chile, South America.

Contracting Soil Scientist De Beers Namaqualand

Mines

July 1997 - Jan

1998

Completed a contract to make recommendations on soil rehabilitation and re-vegetation

of mined areas.

Publications

• Lanz, J. 2012. Soil health: sustaining Stellenbosch's roots. In: M Swilling, B Sebitosi & R

Loots (eds). Sustainable Stellenbosch: opening dialogues. Stellenbosch: SunMedia.

• Lanz, J. 2010. Soil health indicators: physical and chemical. South African Fruit Journal,

April / May 2010 issue.

• Lanz, J. 2009. Soil health constraints. South African Fruit Journal, August / September

2009 issue.

• Lanz, J. 2009. Soil carbon research. AgriProbe, Department of Agriculture.

• Lanz, J. 2005. Special Report: Soils and wine quality. Wineland Magazine.

I am a reviewing scientist for the South African Journal of Plant and Soil.

DETAILS OF THE SPECIALIST, DECLARATION OF INTEREST AND UNDERTAKING UNDER OATH

(For official use

only)

File Reference Number:

NEAS Reference Number: DEA/EIA/

Date Received:

Application for authorisation in terms of the National Environmental Management Act, Act No. 107 of 1998,

as amended and the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations, 2014, as amended (the

Regulations)

PROJECT TITLE

Nuweveld Wind Farms and Gridline near Beaufort West, in the Beaufort West Municipality, Western

Cape

Kindly note the following:

• This form must always be used for applications that must be subjected to Basic Assessment or

Scoping & Environmental Impact Reporting where this Department is the Competent Authority.

• This form is current as of 01 September 2018. It is the responsibility of the Applicant / Environmental

Assessment Practitioner (EAP) to ascertain whether subsequent versions of the form have been

published or produced by the Competent Authority. The latest available Departmental templates are

available at https://www.environment.gov.za/documents/forms.

• A copy of this form containing original signatures must be appended to all Draft and Final Reports

submitted to the department for consideration.

• All documentation delivered to the physical address contained in this form must be delivered during

the official Departmental Officer Hours which is visible on the Departmental gate.

• All EIA related documents (includes application forms, reports or any EIA related submissions) that

are faxed; emailed; delivered to Security or placed in the Departmental Tender Box will not be accepted,

only hardcopy submissions are accepted.

Departmental Details

Postal address:

Department of Environmental Affairs

Attention: Chief Director: Integrated Environmental Authorisations

Private Bag X447

Pretoria

0001

Physical address:Department of Environmental AffairsAttention: Chief Director: Integrated Environmental

Authorisations

Environment House

473 Steve Biko Road

Arcadia

Queries must be directed to the Directorate: Coordination, Strategic Planning and Support at:

Email: EIAAdmin@environment.gov.za

Table of Contents Executive Summary................................................................................................................................................ 8

1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 9

2 Terms of reference ........................................................................................................................................... 12

3 Methodology of study ...................................................................................................................................... 15

3.1 Methodology for assessing soils and agricultural potential .............................................................. 15

3.2 Methodology for assessing impacts and determining impact significance ....................................... 16

4 Assumptions, Constraints and limitations of study .......................................................................................... 16

5 Legislative and Permit Requirements .............................................................................................................. 16

6 Changes made from Pre-app Scoping Layout to Scoping Layout to address agricultural issues identified ..... 16

7 Baseline assessment of the soils and agricultural capability ........................................................................... 17

7.1 Climate and water availability............................................................................................................ 17

7.2 Terrain, topography and drainage...................................................................................................... 18

7.3 Soils .................................................................................................................................................... 18

7.4 Agricultural capability ........................................................................................................................ 18

7.5 Land use and development on and surrounding the site .................................................................. 20

7.6 Possible land use options for the site ................................................................................................ 20

7.7 Agricultural sensitivity ....................................................................................................................... 20

7.7.1 Site sensitivity verification ............................................................................................................... 21

8 Identification and assessment of impacts on agriculture ................................................................................ 22

8.1 Identification of key potential impacts .............................................................................................. 24

8.1.1 Construction Phase Impacts ............................................................................................................ 24

8.1.2 Operational Phase Impacts .............................................................................................................. 26

8.1.3 Decommissioning Impacts ............................................................................................................... 27

8.2 Summary of impacts .......................................................................................................................... 28

8.3 Cumulative impacts ........................................................................................................................... 30

8.4 Impacts of the no-go alternative ....................................................................................................... 31

8.5 Essential mitigation measures ........................................................................................................... 31

8.6 Impact footprint ................................................................................................................................ 32

9 Environmental Management Programme Inputs ............................................................................................ 33

10 Conclusions .................................................................................................................................................... 37

11 References ..................................................................................................................................................... 37

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The key findings of this study are:

• The low rainfall is a significant agricultural constraint that seriously limits the level of

agricultural production (including grazing) which is possible across the site.

• As a result of this limitation, the study area is unsuitable for cultivation and agricultural

land use is almost entirely limited to low density grazing of sheep and game.

• Soils of the higher lying areas are predominantly shallow, well drained, sandy loams on

underlying rock. Dominant soil forms are Mispah, Glenrosa and Hutton. Soils of the

lower plains are shallow, sandy loams on underlying dense clay. Dominant soil forms

are Swartland and Valsrivier. The shallow soils are a further agricultural constraint.

• The project area is classified with a predominant land capability evaluation value of 5,

although it varies from 1 to 7 across the site.

• The proposed wind farm has negligible and minor negative impacts on agriculture, but

also has a moderate positive impact.

• An important factor contributing to low impact is that the actual footprint of disturbance

of the infrastructure, that precludes agricultural land use, constitutes only a very small

proportion of the available land surface area.

• Cumulative negative impact is also assessed as negligible and minor because of the low

proportion of the land surface impacted and the low agricultural potential of the area.

• The recommended mitigation measures are implementation of an effective system of

storm water run-off control; maintenance of vegetation cover; and striping, stockpiling

and re-spreading of topsoil.

• Due to the low agricultural potential of the site, and the mitigation of negligible to minor

negative agricultural impacts, as well as the moderate positive impact, the development

of the wind farm will not have an unacceptable negative impact on the agricultural

production capability of the site. From an agricultural impact point of view, the wind

farm can be authorised.

9

1 INTRODUCTION

Development of the Nuweveld West Wind Farm is proposed approximately 65km north of

Beaufort West and approximately 30km south of Loxton in the Western Cape (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Location map of the proposed Nuweveld West Wind Farm.

The objective of this study is to identify potential impacts of the proposed development on

agricultural resources, including soils, and agricultural production potential, and to provide

recommended mitigation measures, monitoring requirements, and rehabilitation guidelines for

all identified impacts. Johann Lanz was appointed by Aurecon as an independent specialist to

conduct this Soils and Agricultural Impact Assessment.

This specialist assessment has been produced as part of an iterative design process being

undertaken for this project. As part of this process, various design and layout options have

been considered, assessed and further refined to ensure adherence to the environmental and

technical constraints present on site. Previous processes include a Screening Phase, a Pre-

Application and Scoping Phase which included the production and distribution of a Pre-

application and Scoping Reports. The outcomes of the preceding assessment phases have

informed the layout assessed within this report.

The specifications for the project components of the Nuweveld West Wind Farm are given in

Table 1.

As part of the shared infrastructure between Nuweveld West, North and East wind farms, a

proposed road diversion around the town of Beaufort West for large trucks transporting wind

turbine parts during construction, is also proposed (see Figure 2). The proposed road does not

affect agricultural activities and is therefore considered to have a negligible impact on

agriculture and not considered in any detail in this report.

Table 1: Summary of the Nuweveld West Wind Farm components and specifications

Project

Components

Description

Specifications & Footprint areas Estimated

Combined

Footprint (ha)

Location Approximately 65km north of Beaufort West and approximately 30km south of Loxton along the R381. Land use of the site and surrounding properties comprise of low density livestock farming (grazing). Total Wind farm area is 12796 ha

Wind Turbines • 38 potential turbine locations assessed for approval but only up to

a maximum of 35 wind turbines will be constructed.

• No Turbines are located to the West of the R381.

• Turbine envelope:

o Rotor diameter: 110m to 190m (up to 95m blade / radius)

o Hub height: 80m to 150m

o Rotor top tip height: 140m to 245m (maximum based on 150m hub + 95m blade = 245m)

o Rotor bottom tip height: minimum of 25 m (and not lower).

• Generation capacity: up to maximum of 8MW output per turbine

• Nuweveld West has a targeted nameplate capacity of up to a maximum of 280MW.

Turbine Foundations Each turbine will have a circular foundation with a diameter of up to 32m and this will be placed alongside the 40m wide hardstand resulting in an area of about 40mx32m that will be permanently disturbed for the turbine foundation.

4.5ha (permanent)

Turbine Hardstands Each turbine will have a hardstand of 80m x 40m. 11.2ha (permanent)

Cabling Turbines to be connected to on-site substation via 33kV cables. Cables to be laid underground in trenches mainly adjacent to roads or overhead via 33kV monopoles where burying is not possible due to technical, geological, environmental or topographical constraints. The length of the cabling that is not adjacent to the wind farm roads is 5.8km but of this about 0.3km is running along an existing road thus reducing the impact. The potential area impacted is recorded here for the off-road cables and those sections that run along proposed wind farm roads are covered within the temporary road disturbance footprint, see below.

1.7ha (temporary)

Internal WEF overhead powerlines

5.3km of 33kV overhead powerline with pylons of up to 20m high. The majority of this (2.9km) will be running next to the proposed Eskom grid connection ensuring the majority of the internal overhead line impacts are in the same corridor as the proposed grid connection.

1.6ha (permanent)

Site roads

Permanent roads will be 6m wide and may require side drains on one or both sides. All roads may have underground cables running next to them. A 12m wide road corridor may be temporary impacted during construction and rehabilitated to 6m wide after construction. For

≤54-65ha

(permanent)*

≤46ha

11

Nuweveld West a total road network of about 76,4km is proposed and the area impacted is presented here. Of this 76,4km, a total of 27km is shared infrastructure with Nuweveld North & East.

(temporary)*

N1 Bypass Road

(shared

infrastructure)

A temporary bypass road is required on the N1 to

avoid the town of Beaufort West with the major

Wind Farm components. The road will be up to 6m

wide but a 12m wide road corridor may be

temporary impacted during construction and

rehabilitated once construction is complete. The

length of the temporary road will be about 5.7km

of which about 2.5km is along an existing track.

This road will be shared by all three Wind Farm

(Nuweveld East, West and North).

6.8ha (temporary)

Wind farm Substations and battery facility

Wind farm will have a 150m x 75m substation yard which includes an Operation and Maintenance (O&M) building, Substation building and a High Voltage Gantry as well as a 2.4 ha area for battery storage facility which may be adjacent or slightly removed from the substation depending on the local constraints. The substation and battery facility will be connected by an underground or overhead cable

3.6ha (permanent)

Operations and maintenance (O&M) area

The O&M area will include all offices, stores, workshops, laydown area Building & Substation building will be housed in the substation yard.

Forms part of Substation yard

Security • Security gate and hut to be installed at entrance to site.

• No fencing around individual turbines, existing fencing shall remain around perimeter of properties.

• Temporary and permanent yard areas to be enclosed (with access

control) with an up to 2.4m high fence.

20m2

Temporary laydown, staging and yards areas required for the construction / decommissioning phase.

• Wind farm temporary construction areas:

o Temporary site camp/s areas: 20,000m2

o Batching plant area of approximately 2,000m2

o Each wind farm will have a bunded fuel & lubricants storage facility on site in fixed tanks not exceeding 80m3 (situated at the site camp).

• Individual turbine temporary laydown areas including crane boom

laydown areas, blade laydown areas and other potential temporary

areas will be up to a maximum of 5000m2.

2.2ha (temporary)

17.5ha (temporary)

Total disturbance footprint 75ha temporary and 86ha permanent*

*these areas represent more than will be impacted given the road values are based on all 38 turbines

being constructed wherein reality only 35 turbines will be developed as part of this application.

Figure 2. Map of the proposed road diversion (blue line) around Beaufort West.

2 TERMS OF REFERENCE

The terms of reference for this study is to produce a specialist report that fulfills the

requirements of the Protocol for the specialist assessment and minimum report content

requirements of environmental impacts on agricultural resources by onshore wind and/or solar

photovoltaic energy generation facilities where the electricity output is 20 megawatts or more,

gazetted in March 2020. This protocol has replaced Appendix 6 of the 2014 EIA Regulations as

far as the assessment of Agricultural impacts are concerned.. It should however be noted that

this assessment does not need to be aligned with the protocol, since the DEA has indicated

that irrespective of whether an EA application for a development has been submitted, if an

assessment started before the protocols came into effect on 9 May 2020 the protocols are not

applicable and the assessment should adhere Appendix 6 of the EIA regulations. Since this

assessment commenced in 2019, the study should comply with Appendix 6. However,

compliance to both Appendix 6 and the protocol are discussed below.

A specialist report should:

Provide a baseline description of the receiving environment in and surrounding the

development, including a description of any identified no go areas.

Identify and assess all potential impacts (direct, indirect and cumulative) of the

13

proposed development on soils and agricultural potential.

Provide recommended mitigation measures, monitoring requirements, and rehabilitation

guidelines for all identified impacts.

The report must fulfill the requirements of Appendix 6 of the 2014 EIA Regulations (See Table

2).

Table 2: Compliance with Appendix 6 of the 2014 EIA Regulations

Requirements of Appendix 6 – GN R326 EIA Regulations 7 April

2017

Addressed in the

Specialist Report

A specialist report prepared in terms of these Regulations must contain-

details of-

the specialist who prepared the report; and

the expertise of that specialist to compile a specialist report

including a curriculum vitae;

Title page

Following Title page

a declaration that the specialist is independent in a form as may be

specified by the competent authority;

Following CV

an indication of the scope of, and the purpose for which, the report was

prepared;

Sections 1 & 2

an indication of the quality and age of base data used for the specialist

report;

Section 3.1

a description of existing impacts on the site, cumulative impacts of the

proposed development and levels of acceptable change;

Sections 7.5, 8.3

the date and season of the site investigation and the relevance of the

season to the outcome of the assessment;

Not applicable

a description of the methodology adopted in preparing the report or

carrying out the specialised process inclusive of equipment and modelling

used;

Section 3

details of an assessment of the specific identified sensitivity of the site

related to the proposed activity or activities and its associated structures

and infrastructure, inclusive of a site plan identifying site alternatives;

Section 7.7 & Figure 3

an identification of any areas to be avoided, including buffers; Section 7.7

a map superimposing the activity including the associated structures and

infrastructure on the environmental sensitivities of the site including areas

to be avoided, including buffers;

Figure 3

a description of any assumptions made and any uncertainties or gaps in

knowledge;

Section 4

a description of the findings and potential implications of such findings on

the impact of the proposed activity or activities;

Section 8 & 10

any mitigation measures for inclusion in the EMPr; Section 8 & 9

any conditions for inclusion in the environmental authorisation; Not applicable

any monitoring requirements for inclusion in the EMPr or environmental

authorisation;

Section 9

a reasoned opinion-

whether the proposed activity, activities or portions thereof should

be authorised;

regarding the acceptability of the proposed activity or activities and

Section 10

Section 10

if the opinion is that the proposed activity, activities or portions

thereof should be authorised, any avoidance, management and

mitigation measures that should be included in the EMPr, and where

applicable, the closure plan;

Section 9

a description of any consultation process that was undertaken during the

course of preparing the specialist report;

Not applicable

Where a government notice gazetted by the Minister provides for any

protocol or minimum information requirement to be applied to a specialist

report, the requirements as indicated in such notice will apply.

Please refer to site

verification report included

in Section 7.7.1

Because the DEA Screening tool identifies the majority of the site as low agricultural

sensitivity, with some areas of medium sensitivity, and only small, isolated patches of high

sensitivity that are not impacted by the current layout of the project in any way, the protocol

requires only an Agricultural Compliance Statement.

The protocol states that an Agricultural Compliance Statement must be prepared by a

competent soil scientist/agricultural specialist registered with SACNASP

The compliance statement must (Section of the report that fulfils each requirement is given in

brackets after it):

be applicable to the preferred site and proposed development footprint;

confirm that the site is of “low” or “medium” sensitivity for agriculture (Section 7.7);

and

indicate whether or not the proposed development will have an unacceptable impact on

the agricultural production capability of the site (Section 10).

It must contain, as a minimum, the following information:

contact details and relevant experience as well as the SACNASP registration number of

the soil scientist or agricultural specialist preparing the statement including a curriculum

vita (following title page);

a signed statement of independence (following CV);

a map showing the proposed development footprint (including supporting

infrastructure) with a 50 m buffered development envelope, overlaid on the agricultural

sensitivity map generated by the screening tool (Figure 3);

calculations of the physical development footprint area for each land parcel as well as

the total physical development footprint area of the proposed development including

supporting infrastructure (Table 1);

confirmation that the development footprint is in line with the allowable development

limits (Section 8.6);

confirmation from the specialist that all reasonable measures have been taken through

micro-siting to avoid or minimize fragmentation and disturbance of agricultural activities

(Section 8.6);

15

a substantiated statement from the soil scientist or agricultural specialist on the

acceptability, or not, of the proposed development and a recommendation on the

approval, or not of the proposed development (Section 10);

any conditions to which this statement is subjected (Section 10);

in the case of a linear activity, confirmation from the agricultural specialist or soil

scientist, that in their opinion, based on the mitigation and remedial measures

proposed, the land can be returned to the current state within two years of completion

of the construction phase (Not applicable);

where required, proposed impact management outcomes or any monitoring

requirements for inclusion in the EMPr (Section 9); and

a description of the assumptions made and any uncertainties or gaps in knowledge or

data (Section 4).

3 METHODOLOGY OF STUDY

3.1 Methodology for assessing soils and agricultural potential

This report adheres to the process and content requirements of the gazetted agricultural

protocol as outlined in Section 2 above. As per the requirement, the assessment was based on

a desktop analysis of existing soil and agricultural potential data and other data for the site.

The following sources of information were used:

• Soil data was sourced from the land type data set, of the Department of Agriculture,

Forestry and Fisheries. This data set originates from the land type survey that was

conducted from the 1970's until 2002. It is the most reliable and comprehensive

national database of soil information in South Africa and although the data was

collected some time ago, it is still entirely relevant as the soil characteristics included in

the land type data do not change within time scales of hundreds of years.

• Land capability data was sourced from the 2017 National land capability evaluation

raster data layer produced by the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries,

Pretoria.

• Field crop boundaries were sourced from the national web-based environmental

screening tool.

• Rainfall and temperature data was sourced from The World Bank Climate Change

Knowledge Portal, dated 2015.

• Grazing capacity data was sourced from the 2018 Department of Agriculture, Forestry

and Fisheries long-term grazing capacity map for South Africa, available on Cape Farm

Mapper.

• Satellite imagery of the site and surrounds was sourced from Google Earth.

3.2 Methodology for assessing impacts and determining impact significance

The potential impacts identified in this specialist study were assessed based on the criteria and

methodology common to the whole impact assessment (the Aurecon standard assessment

methodology). The ratings of impacts were based on the specialist's knowledge and experience

of the field conditions of the environment in which the proposed development is located, and of

the impact of disturbances on that agricultural environment.

4 ASSUMPTIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND LIMITATIONS OF STUDY

The assessment rating of impacts is not an absolute measure. It is based on the subjective

considerations and experience of the specialist, but is done with due regard and as accurately

as possible within these constraints.

The study makes the assumption that water for irrigation is not available across the site. This

is based on the assumption that a long history of farming experience in an area will result in

the exploitation of viable water sources if they exist, and none have been exploited in this

area.

There are no other specific constraints, uncertainties and gaps in knowledge for this study.

5 LEGISLATIVE AND PERMIT REQUIREMENTS

The Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act (Act 70 of 1970) (SALA), requires that an application

for a wind farm on agriculturally zoned land be approved by the Department of Agriculture,

Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF). Despite the name of the Act, it does not apply only to

subdivision, and its purpose is to ensure productive use of agriculturally zoned land. Therefore,

even if land is not being subdivided or leased, SALA approval is required to develop

agriculturally zoned land for non-agricultural purposes.

The Act 70 of 1970 consent is separate from the EIA and needs to be applied for and obtained

after the EIA.

Rehabilitation after disturbance to agricultural land is managed by the Conservation of

Agricultural Resources Act (Act 43 of 1983) (CARA). No application is required in terms of

CARA. The EIA process covers the required aspects of this.

6 CHANGES MADE FROM THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS TO ADDRESS AGRICULTURAL

ISSUES IDENTIFIED

During the assessment process, the wind farm boundaries have changed and various turbine

positions (including the service roads) have been removed and/or relocated, with the main

reason being the presence of a Martial Eagle’s nest and associated buffer and the outcomes of

the VERA modelling. Each wind facility will also have a battery storage facility. An iterative

design process is being undertaken for this development and all agricultural sensitive areas

were identified in the beginning of the project and the layout was designed to avoid all of

these.

17

.

7 BASELINE ASSESSMENT OF THE SOILS AND AGRICULTURAL CAPABILITY

7.1 Climate and water availability

The site has a low average rainfall of 245 mm per annum (The World Bank Climate Change

Knowledge Portal, 2015). The average monthly rainfall distribution is shown in Figure 1. The

low rainfall is a significant agricultural constraint that seriously limits the level of agricultural

production (including grazing) which is possible.

There are some small farm dams across the project area, but according to the 2017/18 crop

census on Cape Farm Mapper, there is no irrigated cultivation associated with any of these

dams.

Figure 2. Average monthly temperature and rainfall for the project area.

7.2 Terrain, topography and drainage

The proposed development is located on broken terrain with small mountains on the

escarpment plateau. Altitude varies between 1,460 and 1,680 metres. There is a wide range of

slopes across the broken terrain of the project area. There are several non-perennial water

courses, typical of arid areas, that drain the project area, mainly to the north.

The underlying geology is mudstone, siltstone, shale and sandstone of the Beaufort Group of

the Karoo Supergroup. Dolerite intrusions are common.

7.3 Soils

The land type classification is a nationwide survey that groups areas of similar soil, terrain and

climatic conditions into different land types. The Project area extends over eight different land

types. Soils are very similar across most of these land types, with a distinction between the

higher lying, more mountainous areas, which cover most of the site, and the lower lying,

flatter plains. Soils of the higher lying areas are predominantly shallow, well drained, sandy

loams on underlying rock. Dominant soil forms are Mispah, Glenrosa and Hutton. Soils of the

lower plains are shallow, sandy loams on underlying dense clay. Dominant soil forms are

Swartland and Valsrivier.

The shallow, clay-rich soils are susceptible to erosion.

7.4 Agricultural capability

Land capability is defined as the combination of soil, climate and terrain suitability factors for

supporting rainfed agricultural production. It is an indication of what level and type of

agricultural production can sustainably be achieved on any land. The higher land capability

classes are suitable as arable land for the production of cultivated crops, while the lower

suitability classes are only suitable as non-arable grazing land, or at the lowest extreme, not

even suitable for grazing. In 2017 DAFF released updated and refined land capability mapping

across the whole of South Africa. This has greatly improved the accuracy of the land capability

rating for any particular piece of land anywhere in the country. The new land capability

mapping divides land capability into 15 different categories with 1 being the lowest and 15

being the highest. Values below 8 are generally not suitable for production of any cultivated

crop. Detail of this land capability scale is shown in Table 3.

The project area is classified with a predominant land capability evaluation value of 5, although

it varies from 1 to 7 across the site. Agricultural limitations that result in the low land

capability classification are predominantly due to the very limited climatic moisture availability,

with shallow soils as an additional factor. These factors render the site unsuitable for any kind

of mainstream cultivation and limit it to low density grazing only.

The long-term grazing capacity of the site is fairly low at 28 hectares per large stock unit, and

can thus only sustain low stocking densities.

19

Table 3: Details of the 2017 Land Capability classification for South Africa.

Land capability evaluation value Description

1 Very Low

2

3 Very Low to Low

4

5 Low

6 Low to Moderate

7

8 Moderate

9 Moderate to High

10

11 High

12 High to Very High

13

14 Very High

15

7.5 Land use and development on and surrounding the site

The area is a sheep and game farming area. The climate does not support any cultivation and

low intensity natural grazing is the only current and viable agricultural activity. The only

agricultural infrastructure in the area are wind pumps, stock watering points and fencing

surrounding grazing camps. There is one farmstead (that is a residential and administrative

node of buildings and infrastructure from which a farm is managed) within the study area.

7.6 Possible land use options for the site

The very low climatic moisture availability means that low density grazing is the only viable

agricultural land use for the site.

7.7 Agricultural sensitivity

Agricultural sensitivity is a direct function of the capability of the land for agricultural

production. This is because a negative impact on land of higher agricultural capability is more

detrimental to agriculture than the same impact on land of low agricultural capability. A

general assessment of agricultural sensitivity, in terms of loss of agricultural land in South

Africa, considers arable land that can support viable production of cultivated crops, to have

high sensitivity. This is because there is a scarcity of such land in South Africa, in terms of how

much is required for food security. However, there is not a scarcity in the country of land that

is only suitable as grazing land and such land is therefore not considered to have high

agricultural sensitivity.

The national web-based environmental screening tool identifies two small areas of 8 hectares

and 0.3 hectares of previously cultivated land as being of high agricultural sensitivity. The rest

of the site is rated by the tool as almost all low sensitivity due to land capability evaluation

values of less than 6, with very limited areas of medium sensitivity that have land capability

evaluation values of 6 – 7.

This assessment identifies, in addition to the screening tool, two other features as being of

high agricultural sensitivity in terms of disturbance from the development. These are

farmsteads and so-called wagon wheels which are central points around which grazing camps

are arranged. All of the high sensitivity areas were identified during the screening phase of the

environmental assessment, and the development footprint has been designed to avoid all of

these areas. A map of the development footprint overlaid on the agricultural sensitivity is given

in Figure 3.

In terms of the N1 bypass, the land is not considered suitable for agricultural purposes and is

not currently utilised as such (see following section). Therefore, it has not been mapped below

in terms of agricultural sensitivity.

The Agricultural sensitivity for a particular development should also be a function of the

magnitude of the particular impact which is exerted by that type of development on

agriculture, but this is not reflected in the screening tool sensitivity. In the case of wind farms,

the impact is low (see impact assessment section – as agricultural practices can continue

around and beneath the wind turbines).

7.7.1 Site sensitivity verification

In terms of the gazetted agricultural protocol, a site sensitivity verification must be submitted

that:

confirms or disputes the current use of the land and the environmental sensitivity as

identified by the screening tool, such as new developments or infrastructure, the

change in vegetation cover or status etc;

contains a motivation and evidence (e.g. photographs) of either the verified or different

use of the land and environmental sensitivity.

The agricultural sensitivity, as identified by the screening tool, is confirmed by this assessment,

except that additional high sensitivity areas, discussed in the section above, are added to

those of the screening tool. The motivation for confirming the sensitivity is that land of the

site, without doubt, corresponds to the definitions of the different sensitivity categories in

terms of its land capability and cultivation status. The entire Section 7 above is dedicated to

showing that.

21

Figure 3. Map of the wind farm layout overlain on the agricultural sensitivity of the site.

8 IDENTIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS ON AGRICULTURE

The focus and defining question of an agricultural impact assessment is to determine to what

extent a proposed development will compromise (negative impacts) or enhance (positive

impacts) current and/or future agricultural production. The significance of an impact is

therefore a direct function of the degree to which that impact will affect current or future

agricultural production. If there will be no impact on production, then there is no agricultural

impact. Impacts that degrade the agricultural resource base pose a threat to production and

therefore are within the scope of an agricultural impact assessment. Lifestyle impacts on the

resident farming community, for example visual impacts, do not necessarily impact agricultural

production and, if they do not, are not relevant to and within the scope of an agricultural

impact assessment. Such impacts are better addressed within the impact assessments of other

disciplines.

For agricultural impacts, the exact nature of the different infrastructure within the facility has

very little bearing on the significance of impacts. What is of most relevance is simply the

occupation of the land and whether it is being occupied by a turbine foundation, a hardstand, a

building or a substation (including associated battery facility) makes no difference. What is of

most relevance therefore is simply the total footprint of the facility.

The components of the project that can impact on soils, agricultural resources and productivity

are:

Occupation of the land by the total, direct, physical footprint of the proposed project

including all roads.

Construction activities that may disturb the soil profile and vegetation, for example for

levelling, excavations, etc.

The significance of all potential agricultural impacts is kept low by four important factors.

• The actual footprint of disturbance of the wind farm (including associated infrastructure

and roads) is very small in relation to the surface area of the affected farms. The wind

farm infrastructure will only occupy approximately 0.72% of the surface area, according

to the footprint calculations given in Table 1. Therefore, all agricultural impacts,

including loss of agricultural land use, erosion and soil degradation will not be

widespread and can at worse only affect a very limited proportion of the surface area.

• All agricultural activities will be able to continue unaffectedly on all parts of the farms

other than the small development footprint for the duration of and after the project.

• The proposed site is on land of extremely limited agricultural potential that is only

viable for low intensity grazing. Grazing can continue in tandem with the wind farm.

• All high-sensitive agricultural areas have been excluded from the current project layout.

Three potential agricultural impacts have been identified. The first two of these are direct,

negative impacts and the third is an indirect, positive impact.

Loss of agricultural land use (Negative impact) - Agricultural grazing land directly

occupied by the development infrastructure, which includes roads and hardstands, will

become unavailable for agricultural use. However, only a very small proportion of the

total land surface is impacted in this way and the layout avoids all high-sensitive

agricultural areas.

Soil degradation (Negative impact) - Soil degradation can result from erosion,

topsoil loss and contamination. Erosion can occur as a result of the alteration of the

land surface run-off characteristics, which can be caused by construction related land

surface disturbance, vegetation removal, and the establishment of hard surface areas

including roads. Loss of topsoil can result from poor topsoil management during

construction related excavations. Hydrocarbon spillages from construction activities can

contaminate soil. Soil degradation will reduce the ability of the soil to support

vegetation growth. Only a very small proportion of the total land surface is impacted in

this way.

Increased financial security for farming operations (Positive impact) - Reliable

income will be generated by the farming enterprises through the lease of the land to

23

the energy facility. This is likely to increase their cash flow and financial security and

thereby improve farming operations and potentially increase production.

No agricultural impact is identified for the proposed road diversion around the town of Beaufort

West for large trucks transporting wind turbine parts during construction (shared infrastructure

between Nuweveld West, West and East wind farms). There is no agricultural impact for the

following reasons:

1. This road is routed largely on existing roads, which means that there is negligible

change to the agricultural environment.

2. It is an area classified by the screening tool in terms of soil and climate as

predominantly low sensitivity with some medium sensitivity.

3. It is situated on the urban edge, which means that it is not suitable as grazing land,

due to the high threat of stock theft, and the land is therefore not utilised at all for

agriculture.

There can be no agricultural impact on land that cannot be used for agriculture.

8.1 Identification of key potential impacts

8.1.1 Construction Phase Impacts

Loss of agricultural land use (Negative impact)

Soil degradation (Negative impact)

25

8.1.2 Operational Phase Impacts

Increased financial security for farming operations (Positive impact)

8.1.3 Decommissioning Impacts

Soil degradation (Negative impact)

27

8.2 Summary of impacts

A summary of impacts is presented in the table below.

29

8.3 Cumulative impacts

The cumulative impact of a development is the impact that development will have when its

impact is considered together with the incremental impacts of other past, present or

reasonably foreseeable future activities that will affect the same environment. The most

important concept related to a cumulative impact is that of an acceptable level of change to an

environment. A cumulative impact only becomes relevant when the impact of the proposed

development will lead directly to the sum of impacts of all developments causing an acceptable

level of change to be exceeded in the surrounding area. If the impact of the development

being assessed does not cause that level to be exceeded, then the cumulative impact

associated with that development is not significant.

The potential cumulative agricultural impact of importance is a regional loss or degradation of

agricultural land. The defining question for assessing the cumulative agricultural impact is this:

What level of loss of agricultural land is acceptable in the area, and will the loss

associated with the Nuweveld West Wind Farm, cause that level in the area to be

exceeded?

DEA requires compliance with a specified methodology for the assessment of cumulative

impacts. This is positive in that it ensures engagement with the important issue of cumulative

impacts. However, the required compliance has some limitations and can, in my opinion, result

in an over-focus on methodological compliance, while missing the more important task of

effectively answering the above defining question.

There are no renewable energy project applications, with their associated transmission lines,

within 30km of the proposed site, other than the other two Nuweveld wind farms, Nuweveld

North and Nuweveld East. The cumulative impact of all three need therefore to be considered

in terms of the DEA requirements. In addition the grid connection for the Nuweveld wind farms

is also considered as part of the cumulative impacts.

In quantifying the cumulative impact, the area of land taken out of agricultural grazing as a

result of the three wind farms and one grid connection will amount to a total of approximately

320 hectares. As a proportion of the area within a 30km radius (approximately 283,000 ha),

this amounts to only 0.11% of the surface area. That is well within an acceptable limit in terms

of loss of low potential agricultural land, of which there is no scarcity in the country. This is

particularly so when considered within the context of the following point:

• In order for South Africa to achieve its renewable energy generation goals,

agriculturally zoned land will need to be used for renewable energy generation. It is far

more preferable to incur a cumulative loss of agricultural land in a region such as the

one being assessed, which has no cultivation potential, and low grazing capacity, than

to lose agricultural land that has a higher potential, and that is much scarcer, to

30

renewable energy development elsewhere in the country. The limits of acceptable

agricultural land loss are therefore far higher in this region than in regions with higher

agricultural potential.

It is also important to note that the cumulative impact of loss of agricultural land as a result of

wind farms is very different to the loss of agricultural land as a result of almost all other

developments, for example, urban expansion. This is because wind farms, unlike other

developments, can only impact a very limited proportion of the total surface area, because of

the required spacing between turbines. Therefore, the insignificantly small proportion of land

that is impacted in the case of one wind farm remains an insignificantly small proportion of the

agricultural land, regardless of how many wind farms are added. The cumulative impact has

the same significance as the individual impact because it is in the same proportion as the

individual impact.

It should also be noted that there are few land uses, other than renewable energy, that are

competing for agricultural land use in this area. The cumulative impact from developments,

other than renewable energy, is therefore likely to be negligible.

Due to all of the considerations discussed above, the cumulative impact of loss of agricultural

land use is assessed as having negligible significance. In terms of cumulative impact,

therefore, the development can be authorised.

8.4 Impacts of the no-go alternative

The no-go alternative considers impacts that will occur to the agricultural environment in the

absence of the proposed development. The one identified potential impact is that continued

low or changing rainfall in the area, in addition to other economic and market pressures on

farming, the agricultural enterprises will come under increasing pressure in terms of economic

viability, with a potential decrease in agricultural productivity.

The development has both positive and negative agricultural impacts.

The balance of positive and negative agricultural impacts associated with both the

development and the no-go alternative – that is the extent to which the development and the

no-go alternative will impact agricultural production – are not significantly different. Therefore,

from an agricultural impact perspective, there is no preferred alternative between the

development and the no-go.

8.5 Essential mitigation measures

The following are the essential mitigation measures:

• Implement an effective system of storm water run-off control using bunds and ditches,

where it is required - that is at all points of disturbance where water accumulation

31

might occur. The system must effectively collect and safely disseminate any run-off

water from all hardened surfaces and it must prevent any potential down slope erosion.

• Any occurrences of erosion must be attended to immediately and the integrity of the

erosion control system at that point must be amended to prevent further erosion from

occurring there.

• Maintain where possible all vegetation cover and facilitate re-vegetation of denuded

areas throughout the site, to stabilize disturbed soil against erosion.

• If an activity will mechanically disturb the soil below surface in any way, then any

available topsoil should first be stripped from the entire surface to be disturbed and

stockpiled for re-spreading during rehabilitation. During rehabilitation, the stockpiled

topsoil must be evenly spread over the entire disturbed surface, and then stabilized by

facilitating vegetation cover.

8.6 Impact footprint

The DEA's agricultural protocol stipulates allowable footprint limits for renewable energy

developments of > 20 MW. The agricultural footprint is defined in the protocol as the area that

is directly occupied by all infrastructures, including roads, hard standing areas, buildings,

substations (including associated battery facility) etc., that are associated with the renewable

energy facility during its operational phase, and that result in the exclusion of that land from

potential cultivation or grazing. It excludes all areas that were already occupied by roads and

other infrastructure prior to the establishment of the energy facility, but includes the surface

area required for expanding existing infrastructure (e.g. widening existing roads). It excludes

the corridor underneath overhead power lines, but includes the pylon footprints. It therefore

represents the total land that is actually excluded from agricultural use as a result of the

renewable energy facility.

The total size of the agricultural footprint of the three Nuweveld wind farms and one grid

connection will be approximately 338 hectares. The total generation capacity of the projects is

840 MW. On land of low and medium agricultural sensitivity the allowable development limit is

2.5 hectares per MW. Therefore the development limit for the agricultural footprint of the

Nuweveld wind farms and grid connection is 2100 hectares. The combined footprint of 338

hectares is well within the limit.

The agricultural protocol also requires confirmation that all reasonable measures have been

taken through micro-siting to minimize fragmentation and disturbance of agricultural activities.

This is confirmed. Because of the agricultural uniformity and low agricultural potential of the

environment, the exact positions of all infrastructure will make no significant difference to

agricultural impacts.

32

9 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME INPUTS

The environmental management programme inputs for the protection of soil resources are presented in

the tables below for each phase of the development.

Table 4: Management plan for the planning and design phase

Impact Mitigation /

management

objectives and

outcomes

Mitigation /

management

actions

Monitoring

Methodology Frequency Responsibility

Aspect:

Protection of soil

resources

Erosion That

disturbance and

existence of

hard surfaces

causes no

erosion on or

downstream of

the site.

Design an

effective system

of storm water

run-off control,

where it is

required - that

is at any points

where run-off

water might

accumulate. The

system must

effectively

collect and

safely

disseminate any

run-off water

from all

hardened

surfaces and it

must prevent

any potential

down slope

erosion.

Ensure that the

storm water

run-off control

is included in

the engineering

design.

Once-off during

the design

phase.

Holder of the EA

Table 5: Management plan for the construction phase

Impact Mitigation /

management

objectives and

outcomes

Mitigation /

management

actions

Monitoring

Methodology Frequency Responsibility

Aspect:

Protection of soil

resources

Erosion That

disturbance and

existence of

Implement an

effective system

of storm water

Undertake a

periodic site

inspection to

Monthly Environmental

Control Officer

(ECO)

33

hard surfaces

causes no

erosion on or

downstream of

the site.

run-off control,

where it is

required - that

is at any points

where run-off

water might

accumulate. The

system must

effectively

collect and

safely

disseminate any

run-off water

from all

hardened

surfaces and it

must prevent

any potential

down slope

erosion.

verify and

inspect the

effectiveness

and integrity of

the storm water

run-off control

system and to

specifically

record the

occurrence of

any erosion on

site or

downstream.

Corrective

action must be

implemented to

the run-off

control system

in the event of

any erosion

occurring.

That vegetation

clearing does

not pose a high

erosion risk.

Maintain where

possible all

vegetation

cover and

facilitate re-

vegetation of

denuded areas

throughout the

site, to stabilize

disturbed soil

against erosion.

Undertake a

periodic site

inspection to

record the

occurrence of

and re-

vegetation

progress of all

areas that

require re-

vegetation.

Every 3 months Environmental

Control Officer

(ECO)

Topsoil loss That no topsoil

is lost

If an activity

will

mechanically

disturb the soil

below surface in

any way, then

any available

topsoil should

first be stripped

from the entire

surface to be

disturbed and

stockpiled for

re-spreading

during

rehabilitation.

During

rehabilitation,

the stockpiled

topsoil must be

Record GPS

positions of all

occurrences of

below-surface

soil disturbance

(eg

excavations).

Record date of

topsoil stripping

and

replacement.

Check that

topsoil covers

entire disturbed

area.

As required,

whenever areas

are disturbed.

Environmental

Control Officer

(ECO)

34

evenly spread

over the entire

disturbed

surface.

Table 6: Management plan for the operational phase

Impact Mitigation /

management

objectives and

outcomes

Mitigation /

management

actions

Monitoring

Methodology Frequency Responsibility

Aspect:

Protection of soil

resources

Erosion That existence

of hard surfaces

causes no

erosion on or

downstream of

the site.

Maintain the

storm water

run-off control

system. Monitor

erosion and

remedy the

storm water

control system

in the event of

any erosion

occurring.

Undertake a

periodic site

inspection to

verify and

inspect the

effectiveness

and integrity of

the storm water

run-off control

system and to

specifically

record the

occurrence of

any erosion on

site or

downstream.

Corrective

action must be

implemented to

the run-off

control system

in the event of

any erosion

occurring.

Bi-annually Facility

Environmental

Manager

That denuded

areas are re-

vegetated to

stabilise soil

against erosion

Facilitate re-

vegetation of

denuded areas

throughout the

site

Undertake a

periodic site

inspection to

record the

progress of all

areas that

require re-

vegetation.

Bi-annually Facility

Environmental

Manager

Table 7: Management plan for the decommissioning phase

Impact Mitigation / Mitigation / Monitoring

35

management

objectives and

outcomes

management

actions

Methodology Frequency Responsibility

Aspect:

Protection of soil

resources

Erosion That

disturbance and

existence of

hard surfaces

causes no

erosion on or

downstream of

the site.

Implement an

effective system

of storm water

run-off control,

where it is

required - that

is at any points

where run-off

water might

accumulate. The

system must

effectively

collect and

safely

disseminate any

run-off water

from all

hardened

surfaces and it

must prevent

any potential

down slope

erosion.

Undertake a

periodic site

inspection to

verify and

inspect the

effectiveness

and integrity of

the storm water

run-off control

system and to

specifically

record the

occurrence of

any erosion on

site or

downstream.

Corrective

action must be

implemented to

the run-off

control system

in the event of

any erosion

occurring.

Monthly Environmental

Control Officer

(ECO)

Erosion That vegetation

clearing does

not pose a high

erosion risk.

Maintain where

possible all

vegetation

cover and

facilitate re-

vegetation of

denuded areas

throughout the

site, to stabilize

disturbed soil

against erosion.

Undertake a

periodic site

inspection to

record the

occurrence of

and re-

vegetation

progress of all

areas that

require re-

vegetation.

Every 3 months Environmental

Control Officer

(ECO)

Topsoil loss That no topsoil

is lost

If an activity

will

mechanically

disturb the soil

below surface in

any way, then

any available

topsoil should

first be stripped

from the entire

surface to be

Record GPS

positions of all

occurrences of

below-surface

soil disturbance

(eg

excavations).

Record date of

topsoil stripping

and

replacement.

As required,

whenever areas

are disturbed.

Environmental

Control Officer

(ECO)

36

disturbed and

stockpiled for

re-spreading

during

rehabilitation.

During

rehabilitation,

the stockpiled

topsoil must be

evenly spread

over the entire

disturbed

surface.

Check that

topsoil covers

entire disturbed

area.

10 CONCLUSIONS

The site has very low agricultural potential, is unsuitable for cultivation and agricultural land use is

limited to low density grazing of sheep and game. Small, isolated areas of high agricultural sensitivity,

that needed to be avoided by the development footprint, were identified during the screening phase.

The wind farm layout has been designed to avoid all of these areas. The proposed wind farm has

negligible and minor negative impacts on agriculture, but also has a moderate positive impact.

The main conclusion of the assessment is that:

Due to the low agricultural potential of the site, and the consequent negligible to minor, negative

agricultural impacts, as well as the moderate positive impact, the development of the wind farm

will not have an unacceptable negative impact on the agricultural production capability of the

site. From an agricultural impact point of view, the wind farm can be authorised.

The recommended mitigation measures are implementation of an effective system of storm water run-

off control; maintenance of vegetation cover; and striping, stockpiling and re-spreading of topsoil.

The conclusion of this assessment on the acceptability of the proposed development and the

recommendation for its approval is not subject to any conditions.

11 REFERENCES

Cape Farm Mapper. Available at: https://gis.elsenburg.com/apps/cfm/

Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, 2017. National land capability evaluation raster data

layer, 2017. Pretoria.

Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, 2002. National land type inventories data set.

Pretoria.

DEA, 2015. Strategic Environmental Assessment for wind and solar photovoltaic development in South

Africa. CSIR Report Number CSIR: CSIR/CAS/EMS/ER/2015/001/B. Stellenbosch.

Soil Classification Working Group. 1991. Soil classification: a taxonomic system for South Africa. Soil

37

and Irrigation Research Institute, Department of Agricultural Development, Pretoria.

The World Bank Climate Change Knowledge Portal available at

https://climateknowledgeportal.worldbank.org/country/south-africa/climate-data-historical