Final EIAR - Aurecon AME Environmental | Environmental Projects

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Proposed Wind and Solar (Photovoltaic) Energy Facilities on Kangnas Farm near Springbok in the Northern Cape: Final EIR 118 Figure 4.36: (v) Site KNG2012/007 is not of very high significance but nonetheless has value as, being a pan, the chances of subsurface deposits occurring around it are still relatively high. It therefore should not be developed. b) Impact assessment Wind Energy Facility Potential Impacts Direct impacts to heritage resources present on farm Kangnas, Koeris, Areb and Smorgen Schaduwe are primarily expected to occur during the construction phase of the wind energy facility. Most of the important heritage resources have already been protected through institution of buffers around farm werfs, pans and mountains. There are, however, five areas of primary heritage concern that require action before development and during operation of the proposed facilities. These areas are (i) Orange Hill, (ii) SMS Hill, (iii) Gobeesvlei, (iv) Springbokvlei and (v) Site KNG2012/007. No conventional archaeological mitigation work (i.e. excavation, recording) is required so long as the suggested buffers and no-go areas are implemented. Impacts to graves and built environment resources will not occur in the actual wind turbine layout zone. The majority of potential heritage impacts are considered to be of regional extent, low-medium magnitude and long term and therefore of low to medium (-) significance, with or without mitigation. No difference in significance would result from the proposed wind energy facility alternatives. Solar Energy Facility Potential Impacts Direct impacts to heritage resources are primarily expected to occur during the construction phase of the solar energy facility, although indirect visual impacts would continue for the life of the project. Impacts to graves and built environment resources would not occur in the actual solar layout zone. Based on the above, the potential impact on heritage resources is considered © Aurecon (2012) No unauthorised reproduction, copy or adaptation, in whole or in part, may be made. P:\Projects\108495 Kangnas WEF & PV EIA's\3 Project Delivery\4 Reports\FEIR\FEIR 210213 Final.doc
Proposed Wind and Solar (Photovoltaic) Energy Facilities on Kangnas Farm near Springbok in the Northern Cape: Final EIR 119 to be site specific, very low to medium magnitude and long term and therefore of very low to medium (-) significance, with or without mitigation. No difference in significance would result from the proposed solar alternatives. c) Mitigation measures Mitigation measures for the wind energy facility • ‘Orange Hill’ and its surrounds should be considered a no-go area and a buffer as shown in Figure 4.32 should be implemented. The buffer is approximately 700 m diameter. • ‘SMS Hill’ and its surrounds should be considered a no-go area and a buffer as shown in Figure 4.33 should be implemented. The buffer is approximately east/west and 1.9 km north/south (approximately 450 m from all recorded heritage sources). • ‘Gobees se Pan’ and its immediate surroundings should be considered a no-go area and a buffer as shown in Figure 4.34 should be implemented. The buffer is approximately 1.2 km east/west and 1.3 km north/south (approximately 350 m from all recorded heritage sources). • ‘Springbokvlei’ and its immediate surroundings should be considered a no-go area and a buffer as shown in Figure 4.35 should be implemented. The buffer is approximately 9 00 m east/west and 1 000 m north/south (approximately 200 m from all recorded heritage sources). 4.4.6 Impact on palaeontology The study area is largely underlain by ancient Precambrian metamorphic and igneous basement rocks of the Namaqua-Natal Metamorphic Province that crop out as low, rocky inselbergs. In the intervening flatter, low-lying areas where the wind and solar energy facilities are likely to be constructed older basement rocks are extensively mantled with geologically young superficial deposits (Quaternary to Recent sandy alluvium, colluvium, soils, wind-blown sand, calcrete hardpans etc) that are generally of low to very low palaeontological sensitivity. However, small but significant areas of older fossiliferous sediments have been recorded in the subsurface within the general area and have yielded scientifically important vertebrate and plant fossil material. A large scale development such as the proposed project could have a negative impact on the palaeontological resources by damaging or destroying such material or by requiring the material to be removed and stored in situ. As such a Palaeontology Impact Assessment (PIA) was therefore undertaken by Dr John Almond. The assessment was based on a desktop review of the paleontological aspects in the project. The PIA is included in Annexure H. The findings and recommendations of the study is summarised below. Furthermore two areas were pointed out by a landowner, Mr van Niekerk, that he believes are meteorite impact sites / craters. Meteorite impact sites are considered to be rare geological features and as such are protected under the National Heritage Resources Act (No. 25 of 1999) (NHRA) (ACO, 2012). Professor Chris Harris of the University of Cape Town’s (UCT) Department Of Geological Sciences undertook a site visit to investigate the two sites on 2 April 2012 (the site visit report is included in Annexure H. © Aurecon (2012) No unauthorised reproduction, copy or adaptation, in whole or in part, may be made. P:\Projects\108495 Kangnas WEF & PV EIA's\3 Project Delivery\4 Reports\FEIR\FEIR 210213 Final.doc
Page 1 and 2:
PROPOSED WIND AND SOLAR (PHOTOVOLTA
Page 3 and 4:
OMGEWINGSINVLOEDBEPALING: BEOOGDE A
Page 5 and 6:
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT: PR
Page 7 and 8:
OMGEWINGSINVLOEDBEPALING: BEOOGDE A
Page 9 and 10:
wat elk ongeveer 40 x 5 m groot is.
Page 11 and 12:
Die Kangas wind- en sonenergie proj
Page 13 and 14:
o Twee alternatiewe tegnologieë vi
Page 15 and 16:
IMPAK BEDRYFSFASE IMPAKTE 1.1 1.2 2
Page 17 and 18:
Ten einde onnodige OM-wysigings te
Page 19 and 20:
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT: PR
Page 21 and 22:
The fundamental difference between
Page 23 and 24:
EIA Process EIA Regulations (Regula
Page 25 and 26:
Identified impacts The EIR has prov
Page 27 and 28:
IMPACT OPERATIONAL PHASE IMPACTS 1.
Page 29 and 30:
In order to limit unnecessary EA am
Page 31 and 32:
Proposed Wind and Solar (Photovolta
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108: Proposed Wind and Solar (Photovolta
Page 157: Proposed Wind and Solar (Photovolta
show all

Final EIAR - Aurecon AME Environmental | Environmental Projects

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?