Abagold WEC BAR - Anchor Environmental

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A WAVE ENERGYCONVERTER ADJACENT TO THE ABAGOLD FARMS, HERMANUSFINAL BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORTPrepared for:Department of Environmental AffairsOn behalf of:AbagoldPrepared by:Anchor Environmental Consultants CC

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A WAVE ENERGYCONVERTER ADJACENT TO THE ABAGOLD FARMS, HERMANUSBASIC ASSESSMENT REPORTPrepared for:Department of Environmental AffairsPrivate Bag X447Pretoia 0001On behalf of:Abagold (Pty) LtdPO Box 1291Hermanus 7200Prepared by:Anchor Environmental Consultants (CC)8 Steenberg HouseSilverwood CloseTokai 7945

PROJECT INFORMATIONTITLEAPPLICANTENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTSDEA REFERENCEBasic Assessment Report for the proposed construction andoperation of a Slot-Slope Wave Energy Converter in Hermanus.Abagold LtdAnchor Environmental Consultants CC12/12/20/2405; NEAS Ref: DEA/EIA/0000505/2011REPORT DATE August 2012REPORT COMPILED BY: Karen Tunley..................................................Karen TunleySenior Environmental ConsultantREPORT REVIEWED BY: Dr. Barry Clark..................................................Dr Barry Clark, Director: Anchor Environmental ConsultantsPr. Nat. Sci. (Zoological Science, Ecological Science) Reg. No. 400021/053

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORTDEPARTMENTAL REFERENCE NUMBERS(For official use only)File Reference Number:Application Number:Date Received:Basic assessment report in terms of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2010,promulgated in terms of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998), asamended.PROJECT TITLECONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A SLOT-SLOPE WAVE ENERGY CONVERTER INHERMANUS.DETAILS OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PRACTITIONER AND DECLARATIONOF INTERESTEnvironmentalAssessmentPractitioner (EAP):Contact person:Postal address:Anchor Environmental Consultants CCDr Barry Clark8 Steenberg House, Silverwood Close, Tokai, Cape TownPostal code: 7945 Cell: 082 373 0521Telephone: 021 701 3420 Fax: 021 701 5280E-mail:barry@anchorenvironmental.co.zaProfessionalaffiliation(s) (if any)Professional Natural Scientist, registered with the South African Councilfor Natural Scientific Professions, Ecological Science and ZoologicalScience, Reg. No. 400021/054

Project Consultant: Anchor Environmental Consultants CCContact person: Karen TunleyPostal address: 8 Steenberg House, Silverwood Close, Tokai, Cape TownPostal code: 7945 Cell: 082 233 0117Telephone: 021 701 3420 Fax: 021 701 5280E-mail:karen@anchorenvironmental.co.za4.2 The Environmental Assessment PractitionerI, Dr. Barry Clark, declare that –General declaration:I act as the independent environmental practitioner in this applicationI will perform the work relating to the application in an objective manner, even if this results inviews and findings that are not favourable to the applicantI declare that there are no circumstances that may compromise my objectivity in performing suchwork;I have expertise in conducting environmental impact assessments, including knowledge of the Act,regulations and any guidelines that have relevance to the proposed activity;I will comply with the Act, regulations and all other applicable legislation;I will take into account, to the extent possible, the matters listed in regulation 8 of the regulationswhen preparing the application and any report relating to the application;I have no, and will not engage in, conflicting interests in the undertaking of the activity;I undertake to disclose to the applicant and the competent authority all material information in mypossession that reasonably has or may have the potential of influencing - any decision to be takenwith respect to the application by the competent authority; and - the objectivity of any report, planor document to be prepared by myself for submission to the competent authority;I will ensure that information containing all relevant facts in respect of the application is distributedor made available to interested and affected parties and the public and that participation byinterested and affected parties is facilitated in such a manner that all interested and affected partieswill be provided with a reasonable opportunity to participate and to provide comments ondocuments that are produced to support the application;I will ensure that the comments of all interested and affected parties are considered and recorded inreports that are submitted to the competent authority in respect of the application, provided thatcomments that are made by interested and affected parties in respect of a final report that will besubmitted to the competent authority may be attached to the report without further amendment tothe report;I will keep a register of all interested and affected parties that participated in a public participationprocess; andI will provide the competent authority with access to all information at my disposal regarding theapplication, whether such information is favourable to the applicant or notall the particulars furnished by me in this form are true and correct;will perform all other obligations as expected from an environmental assessment practitioner interms of the Regulations; and5

I realise that a false declaration is an offence in terms of regulation 71 and is punishable in terms ofsection 24F of the Act.Disclosure of Vested InterestI do not have and will not have any vested interest (either business, financial, personal or other) inthe proposed activity proceeding other than remuneration for work performed in terms of theEnvironmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2010;Signature of the environmental assessment practitioner:Anchor Environmental Consultants CCName of company:Date: 16 August 20126

DETAILS OF SPECIALIST AND DECLARATION OF INTERESTSpecialist:BOLAContact person:Bernard Oberholzer Pr.L.ArchPostal address:PO Box 471 StanfordPostal code: 7210 Cell: 083 513 5696Telephone: 028 341 0264 Fax: 028 341 0264E-mail:bernard.bola@gmail.comA statement of independence from the specialist, Bernard Oberholzer, is provided as part of the visualimpact assessment specialist report. The specialist reports are provided in Appendix D.7

DETAILS OF SPECIALIST AND DECLARATION OF INTERESTSpecialist:Contact person:Postal address:Anchor Environmental Consultants CCDr Barry Clark8 Steenberg House, Silverwood Close, Tokai, Cape TownPostal code: 7945 Cell: 082 373 0521Telephone: 021 701 3420 Fax: 021 701 5280E-mail:Professionalaffiliation(s) (if any)barry@anchorenvironmental.co.zaProfessional Natural Scientist, registered with the South African Councilfor Natural Scientific Professions, Ecological Science and ZoologicalScience, Reg. No. 400021/05Project Consultant: Anchor Environmental Consultants CCContact person: Karen TunleyPostal address: 8 Steenberg House, Silverwood Close, Tokai, Cape TownPostal code: 7945 Cell: 082 233 0117Telephone: 021 701 3420 Fax: 021 701 5280E-mail:karen@anchorenvironmental.co.za4.2 The specialist appointed in terms of the Regulations_I, Dr. Barry Clark, declare that --General declaration: I act as the independent specialist in this application I will perform the work relating to the application in an objective manner, even if this results inviews and findings that are not favourable to the applicant I declare that there are no circumstances that may compromise my objectivity in performing suchwork; I have expertise in conducting the specialist report relevant to this application, including knowledgeof the Act, regulations and any guidelines that have relevance to the proposed activity; I will comply with the Act, regulations and all other applicable legislation; I have no, and will not engage in, conflicting interests in the undertaking of the activity; I undertake to disclose to the applicant and the competent authority all material information in mypossession that reasonably has or may have the potential of influencing - any decision to be takenwith respect to the application by the competent authority; and - the objectivity of any report, planor document to be prepared by myself for submission to the competent authority; all the particulars furnished by me in this form are true and correct; and8

I realise that a false declaration is an offence in terms of Regulation 71 and is punishable in terms ofsection 24F of the Act.Signature of the specialist:Anchor Environmental Consultants CCName of company:Date: 16 August 20129

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYINTRODUCTIONAbagold Ltd, based in Hermanus, has proposed developing a slot-slope wave energy converter (WEC) toprovide a practical solution to decrease their overall energy bill. Three alternative developmentscenarios have been proposed for the coastal area adjacent to New Harbour Hermanus. Alternatives 1and 2 both involve the development of two WEC dams, a small pump assistance pond, and theextension of the existing discharge pipe and the fitment of a turbine to the end of the discharge pipe.The design is the same for these two alternatives, only the construction schedule differs wherebyAlternative 1 (preferred option) will be phased to allow for the testing of the slot-slope WEC design witha pilot WEC. Alternative 3 involves the development of one large WEC dam, the extension of the existingdischarge pipe and the fitment of a turbine to the end of the discharge pipe. Anchor EnvironmentalConsultants (AEC) was appointed by Abagold Ltd as the Environmental Assessment Practitioner for the“Abagold Wave Energy Converter” project.This Executive Summary includes the main findings of the Basic Assessment Report (BAR) prepared forthe proposed project. A draft version of the BAR was made available to stakeholders for a 40 daycomment period between the 23 rd of March and the 2 nd of May 2012 in order to allow interested andaffected parties (I&APs) and authorities an opportunity to comment on the Draft BAR. Copies of the fullreport were made available at the following locations:Hermanus public library;Abagold Offices, New Harbour , Hermanus;Offices of Anchor Environmental Consultants; andWebsite of Anchor Environmental Consultants (www.anchorenvironmental.co.za).This report is the final BAR to be submitted to the Department of Environmental Affairs as part of theapplication to commence the development of the slot-slope WEC.APPLICABILITY OF THE NEMA EIA REGULATIONSIn terms of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act 107 of 1998) (as amended) (NEMA),the proposed WEC development in Hermanus constitute activities which may result in negative impactsto the environment, and therefore require an environmental assessment and authorisation from thecompetent environmental authority, namely the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA).10

The proposed development triggers the following listed activities:Government Notice (GN) R.544 of 2010 (Basic Assessment process required)The construction of facilities or infrastructure for the generation of electricity where: (i) the1 electricity output is more than 10 megawatts but less than 20 megawatts; or (ii) the output is 10megawatts or less but the total extent of the facility covers an area in excess of 1 hectare.The construction of structures in the coastal public property where the development footprint isbigger than 50 square meters, excluding - (i) the construction of structures within existing ports orharbours that will not increase the development footprint or the throughput capacity of the port or14harbour; (ii) the construction of a port or harbour, in which case activity 24 of Notice 545 applies;(iii) the construction of temporary structures within the beach zone where such structures will bedemolished or disassembled after a period not exceeding 6 weeks.Construction or earth moving activities in the sea, an estuary, or within the littoral active zone or adistance of 100 metres inland of the high-water mark of the sea or an estuary, whichever is16greater, in respect of – (ii) tidal pools; (iii) embankments; (vi) infrastructure covering 50 squaremetres or more.The infilling or depositing of any material more than 5 cubic metres into, or the dredging,excavation, removal or moving of soil, sand, shells, shell grit, pebbles or rock from - (ii) the sea; (iii)18the seashore; (iv) the littoral active zone, an estuary or a distance of 100m inland of the high-watermark of the sea or an estuary, whichever distance is greaterGovernment Notice (GN) R.545 of 2010 (Scoping and Environmental Impact Assessment processrequired)The construction of an island, anchored platform or any other permanent structure on or along the14sea bed.Construction or earth moving activities in the sea, an estuary, or within the littoral active zone or a24 distance of 100 metres inland of the high-water mark of the sea or an estuary, whichever isgreater, in respect of – (iv) breakwater structures.The proposed development triggers activities listed on both Listing Notice 1 (Government Notice (GN)R.544 of 2010) and Listing Notice 2 (Government Notice (GN) R.545 of 2010) and therefore is subject toScoping and Environmental Impact Assessment. However, the potential impacts of the proposals on theenvironment (including all other beneficial uses of the sea in this area), both in respect of theconstruction and operational phases, were easy to identify and quantify, and could be comprehensivelyassessed on the basis of information provided in a basic assessment report only without requiring a fullscoping and Environmental Impact Reporting. As such, permission was granted by DEA to apply BasicAssessment instead of the required Scoping and EIA (refer to Appendix G).The Draft BAR has been compiled to assess the potential environmental impacts of the proposed projectand as a basis to inform I&APs of the proposed project and to obtain their feedback.11

PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTIONThe slot-slope WEC design is based on the capture and retention of water as a wave recedes along asloped ramp. Incoming waves will run uphill along the slope and on return, water will flow throughangled slots, fitted with simple non-return rubber flaps, and be retained in a wave energy pond. Waterwill thus be captured temporarily and then passed through turbines on return to the sea to generateelectricity.The alternative design proposals have been put forward for the project by the developers:Alternative 1:This is the preferred alternative for this project, and comprises a phased development approach inwhich a pilot slot-slope WEC pond with a 50 m slot-slope wall will first be constructed. Two turbines,designed to produce up to 750 kW of electricity, will be fitted to the pilot WEC. A small pump assistancepond (34 m long slot-slope wall) will be constructed at the same time as the pilot WEC, adjacent to thepump station from which seawater, for use on the Abagold abalone farm, can be abstracted. An existingdischarge pipe from the farm will also be extended and a turbine fitted to the end during the pilotphase. If the pilot WEC proves successful (a five month test period has been provided for in theconstruction schedule), a second WEC pond with a 180 m slot-slope wall will be constructed. Seventurbines with a rated capacity of up to 3 MW will be fitted to the main WEC.The sloped dam walls will be approximately 4.5 m above the mean sea level and will comprise sevenlayers of precast concrete units. The seaward side of the dam wall will have a sloping profile. The floor ofthe wave energy pond will be at mean sea level. Blasting will be required to level the areas within theponds to mean sea level. A base for the slot-slope wall will be constructed in a modular fashion usingand metal frame structure and plastic canvas bags to mould cement to the sea floor and create a flatsurface on top of which pre-cast units, making up the slot-slope walls, can be placed. Turbines will beinstalled in the pilot and main WECs and at the end of the discharge pipe.Alternative 2:The proposed site, design and layout of Alternative 2 is the same as for Alternative 1. The proposedconstruction plan is, however, not phased and there is no five month test period. Construction will thustake place over 36 as opposed to 41 months. The construction methods used for Alternative 2 will bethe same as that described for Alternative 1.Alternative 3:The proposed layout of the WEC ponds is different for Alternative 3 to that proposed for Alternative 1and 2. This Alternative involves the development of a single large WEC pond with a 320 m long slotslopeacross the small bay to the east of the new harbour, in front of the existing abalone farms. Thedam wall would be approximately 4.5 m above the mean sea level and would be constructed of precastconcrete units. The seaward side of the dam wall would have a sloping profile. 14 turbines with a ratedcapacity of up to 5.25 MW will be fitted to the main WEC. Blasting will be required to level the area12

within the pond to mean sea level. The construction methods used for Alternative 3 will be the same asthat described for Alternative 1.AFFECTED ENVIRONMENTThe proposed site for the various alternatives is located at the new harbour in Hermanus, within theOverstrand Municipal area. The site is in an industrial area, south of the Abagold abalone farms, on therocky shoreline. The site is situated approximately 1 km southwest of the Walker Bay Whale Sanctuary.The coastline at the proposed construction site comprises rocky intertidal habitat. The adjacent subtidalarea comprises rocky reefs and patches of kelp forest. The coastal area south west of the constructionsite is a rocky coast which borders residential developments. This section of coast is not recognised asan area of importance for recreational purposes. The harbour, to the northwest of the study site isaccessed by both fishing and tourist vessels and the harbour pier and rock outcrops are used byfishermen and for whale watching. HIK and Aquafarm are two neighbouring abalone farms who alsohave infrastructure in the coast al zone and extract sea water from the infratidal area adjacent to theharbor. Aquafarm’s extraction point is situated to the south of the proposed pilot WEC and HIK use thesame sump as Abagold to extract water.The intertidal rocky habitat within the proposed site was found to support a low species diversity and alow abundance of biota in comparison to other rocky intertidal sites in Hermanus. Furthermore, it wasindicated that the proposed site was of low importance to avifauna, notably oystercatchers, as arelatively low number of oystercatchers had previously been recorded at the site. It was thus indicatedthat the rocky shore habitat within the proposed development footprint was of low biodiversityimportance.The south coast is an important breeding and calving ground for southern right whales (Eubalaenaaustralis), which are present on the south coast mainly from August to September, when the femalesutilise sheltered sandy bays for calving (JACANA 2006). Walker Bay is among the top three sites fordensities of Southern Right Whales in the south Western Cape. Other cetacean species which may beexpected to occur in the Walker Bay/ Hermanus area include the humpback whale (Megapteranovaeangliae), Brydes whale (Balaenoptera brydei), the long-beaked common dolphin (Delphinuscapensis), the Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops adncus) and the Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin(Sousa chinensis). Potential impacts of the project on the whale populations, particularly during theconstruction phase is of concern and will require the implementation of certain mitigation measures.13

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTThe potential construction and operational phase impacts for all alternatives are summarised in Table 1and Table 2 below.TABLE 1.SUMMARY OF THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS LIKELY TO OCCUR DURING THE C ONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED WECS AND THESIGNIFICANCE THEREOF.Potential ImpactPOTENTIAL IMPACTS TO MARINE BIOTA:HABITAT DISTURBANCEPOTENTIAL IMPACTS TO MARINE BIOTA:BAROTRAUMA FROM BLASTING (Withmitigation)POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO MARINE BIOTA: NOISEFROM BLASTING AND DRILLING (Withmitigation)POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO MARINE BIOTA:WATER QUALITY (with mitigation)POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO MARINE BIOTA: LITTER(with mitigation)POTENTIAL SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS: JOBCREATIONPOTENTIAL IMPACTS TO NEIGHBOURINGUSERS: WATER QUALITY (with mitigation)POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO NEIGHBOURINGUSERS: NOISE IMPACTS (with mitigation)POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO NEIGHBOURINGUSERS: DUST IMPACTS (with mitigation)POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO NEIGHBOURINGUSERS: VISUAL IMPACTS (with mitigation)StatusAlternative1Alternative2Alternative3Negative Low Low MediumNegative Low Low MediumNegativeMedium-LowMedium-LowMedium-HighNegative Very Low Very Low Very LowNegative Low Low LowPositive Low Low LowNegative Very Low Very Low HighNegative Very Low Very Low Very LowNegative Insignificant Insignificant InsignificantNegative Low LowMediumlowTABLE 2SUMMARY OF THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS LIKELY TO OCCUR DURING THE OPERATION OF THE PROPOSED WECS AND THESIGNIFICANCE THEREOF.Potential ImpactStatusAlternative1Alternative2Alternative3POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO MARINE BIOTA: FISHKILLS IN TURBINES Negative Very Low Very Low Very LowPOTENTIAL IMPACTS TO MARINE ECOLOGY: HEAT Negative Very Low Very Low Very Low14

Potential ImpactStatusAlternative1Alternative2Alternative3AND NOISE GENERATED BY TURBINESPOTENTIAL SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS: JOBCREATION AND SECURITY Positive High High HighPOTENTIAL IMPACTS TO NEIGHBOURING USERS:WAVE AND CURRENT REGIME CHANGES Negative Low Low LowPOTENTIAL IMPACTS TO NEIGHBOURING USERS:VISUAL IMPACTSNegativeMediumlowMediumlowMediumEnvironmental impact statements for the four identified project alternatives are presented below.Alternative 1 (preferred alternative)The identified potential negative environmental impacts of Alternative 1 of the development are allmedium-low, low, very low or insignificant, aside from potential noise impacts on cetaceans (whales)during the construction phase of the project which were considered to be of medium significance.These noise-related impacts will be restricted to the construction phase of the project and hence will berelatively short-lived and as such do not represent a significant obstacle to the implementation of theproject. The phased implementation of infrastructure and activities in this alternative is attractive inthat it will allow the viability of the project to be assessed before full implementation has taken place.Identified positive impacts of this alternative are likely to be highly significant and will be of lastingduration and strongly motivate for implementation of the project.Alternative 2The identified potential negative environmental impacts of Alternative 2 are very similar to Alternative1, and are also all medium-low, low, very low or insignificant, aside from potential noise impacts oncetaceans (whales) during the construction phase of the project which were considered to be ofmedium significance. These noise-related impacts will be restricted to the construction phase of theproject and hence will be relatively short-lived and as such do not represent a significant obstacle to theimplementation of this alternative. The lack of a phased-implementation approach on this alternativerenders it less attractive relative to Alternative 1 in that it does not allow for the viability of the projectto be assessed before full implementation has taken place. Identified positive impacts of this alternativeare as for Alternative 1, and are likely to be highly significant and will be of lasting duration and stronglymotivate for implementation of the project.Alternative 3The identified potential negative environmental impacts of Alternative 3 are more significant thanAlternative 1 or 2 owing to the larger size of the WEC proposed in this alternative, but are still mostly ofmedium, low, or very low significance, aside from potential noise impacts on cetaceans (whales) duringthe construction phase of the project, and the impacts to the water intake capabilities by Aquafarmduring both the construction and operational phases, which were both considered to be of highsignificance . As is the case for Alternatives 1 and 2, these noise-related impacts will be restricted to the15

construction phase of the project, and will be relatively short-lived. However, the larger size of this WECand the increased depth of water will require considerably greater volumes of construction material andlonger construction times than for Alternative 1 and 2. The southern side wall of the proposed WEC damfor Alternative 3 will cut across the channel directly in front of the Aquafarm intake, thereby severelyhindering their seawater intake capability. The lack of a phased-implementation approach on thisalternative also renders it less attractive than Alternative 1 in that it does not allow for the viability ofthe project to be assessed before full implementation has taken place. Identified positive impacts of thisalternative are as for Alternative 1 and 2, but increased construction costs render this alternative lesssecure from a financial perspective.No-go alternative (compulsory)No potential negative biophysical impacts were identified as being as being associated with the No-goalternative. However, escalating costs of electricity coupled with the high demand for this resource byAbagold pose a significant threat to the current and future viability of company’s abalone farmingoperations, and hence its ability to retain existing jobs and to secure new jobs in the future. Thisrepresents a highly significant potential negative socio-economic impact associated with this Alternativeand strongly mitigates against adopting this Alternative.RECOMMENDATIONSIt is a recommendation of this study that Environmental Authorisation be issued for Alternative 1 asoutlined in this report. Such Environmental Authorisation should, however, be subject to the conditionsand mitigation measures listed below.Design1. To mitigate the potential impacts of altered wave and current patterns a detailed study must beconducted prior to the commencement of construction activities to inform the design of a rockslope to mitigate the reflections of waves and storm surge during severe storms towards theexisting Aquafarm infrastructure adjacent to the proposed development.Construction2. To mitigate the potential impacts of blasting on marine fauna the contractors must follow thefollowing conditions: No blasting or drilling in the sea must be conducted during the period between June 30 andDecember 31 as southern right whales are likely to be in the vicinity of Walker Bay. Observations with binoculars must be sited on key vantage points immediately before theintended blast. Blasting should only commence when cetaceans are not seen to be diving orresting on the sea surface within two kilometres of the blast site. All blasting must be conducted using a rock breaking technology known as NoneX(www.nonex.co.za). This is not an explosive technology. It is propellant compound encased ina cartridge which reacts very quickly to produce high volumes of harmless gas (nitrogen,carbon dioxide and steam). The cartridge is sealed inside a drilled hole and ignited. Highpressure gas is released and enters into the fractures caused by drilling and natural fracturesor planes of weakness in the rock. The gas pressure causes the fractures to expand and the16

ock to split apart. The cartridges do produce a high pressure over a short time frame and sowill produce noise.Blasting activities must be limited to one detonation series per day to avoid or reduce themortality of predators and seabirds attracted to fish kills from previous blasts.3. To mitigate the potential impacts to water quality the contractors must follow the followingconditions:Nonex must be used for all blasting.The casting of cement to create the base of the slot-slope wall must take place withinwatertight plastic canvas bags supported and shaped within metal frames with shutteringbeams.Adequate warning must be provided to neighbouring abalone farmers regarding the intendedtiming of any casting or blasting activities.A monthly schedule of planned activities is to be made available by Abagold and discussedwith all abalone farms.During periods when cement casting and/or blasting activities are planned, weekly activityschedules detailing the proposed dates for either activity must be provided to neighbouringabalone farms in advance. At least one days’ notice regarding changes to this schedule mustbe issued to all potentially affected farms.Construction activities (notably casting and blasting drilling operations) should be limited toweek days to ensure that there are personnel on site at the other abalone farms to respond toany incidents that may occur. Prior agreement should be sought from other abalone farms forcasting and blasting operations to be undertaken outside of these periods.4. To mitigate the potential impacts of litter on marine fauna the contractors must follow thefollowing conditions:All reasonable measures must be enforced to ensure there is no littering by constructionworkers.5. To mitigate the potential visual impacts of the proposed development the contractors andapplicants must follow the following conditions:The side walls of the buffer dams should be faced with rough stone, using the local sandstone,to blend with the surrounding rocky coastal landscape, similar to the rough stone facing on theexisting walls of the Abagold abalone farm.Ancillary structures, fencing, signage, and other vertical elements should be kept to anabsolute minimum to maintain the uncluttered, horizontal profile of the proposed buffer damwalls. Where signage is required, this should be fixed to walls instead of free-standing signs inorder to minimise visual clutter.No additional outdoor lighting should be introduced with the wave energy facility because ofthe visually exposed nature of the shorescape. Where external lighting is required for stepsetc. these should be low-level bulkhead type fittings with reflectors to prevent light spillage.All electrical and other cables should be located underground.Consideration should be given to creating an attractive graphic display of the wave energyfacility and an upgraded visitor centre for education purposes and to provide an attraction fortourists.17

6. To mitigate potential noise impacts above water the appointed contractor shall be familiar withand adhere to, any local by-laws and regulations regarding the generation of noise and hours ofoperation. The Contractor shall avoid construction activities outside of “normal working hours”.7. The appointed contractor shall ensure that the generation of dust is minimised and shallimplement a dust control programme (e.g. wetting areas being disturbed) to maintain a safeworking environment and minimise nuisance. The contractor shall ensure that exposed materialstockpiles are adequately protected against the wind.8. All construction materials should be stored and contained within a designated area.9. The applicant must ensure that the majority of the new temporary job opportunities are providedto members of the local community.10. On completion of the project, the appointed contractor shall ensure that all structures,equipment, materials, waste, rubble, notice boards and temporary fences used duringconstruction are removed.Operation11. Kelp and fouling biota found within the WEC dams and pump assistance pond must be removedperiodically during the operational phase of the activity.12. The applicant must monitor fouling of all surfaces and machinery in the WECs. No biocides are tobe used in the event of biofouling without the assessment of the impacts of such biocides.13. The applicant must ensure that the majority of the new temporary job opportunities are providedto members of the local community.18

TABLE OF CONTENTSSECTION A: ACTIVITY INFORMATION .......................................................................................................... 211. ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................... 212. FEASIBLE AND REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES .................................................................................. 283. ACTIVITY POSITION ......................................................................................................................... 294. PHYSICAL SIZE OF THE ACTIVITY ..................................................................................................... 305. SITE ACCESS ..................................................................................................................................... 306. SITE OR ROUTE PLAN ...................................................................................................................... 307. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS ........................................................................................................................ 308. FACILITY ILLUSTRATION .................................................................................................................. 309. ACTIVITY MOTIVATION ................................................................................................................... 3110. APPLICABLE LEGISLATION, POLICIES AND/OR GUIDELINES ........................................................ 3511. WASTE, EFFLUENT, EMISSION AND NOISE MANAGEMENT ........................................................ 3512. WATER USE ................................................................................................................................. 3613. ENERGY EFFICIENCY .................................................................................................................... 37SECTION B: SITE/AREA/PROPERTY DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................... 381. GRADIENT OF THE SITE ................................................................................................................... 392. LOCATION IN LANDSCAPE ............................................................................................................... 393. GROUNDWATER, SOIL AND GEOLOGICAL STABILITY OF THE SITE ................................................. 404. GROUNDCOVER .............................................................................................................................. 405. LAND USE CHARACTER OF SURROUNDING AREA ........................................................................... 416. CULTURAL/HISTORICAL FEATURES ................................................................................................. 42SECTION C: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ............................................................................................................ 431. ADVERTISEMENTS ........................................................................................................................... 432. CONTENT OF ADVERTISEMENTS AND NOTICES .............................................................................. 453. PLACEMENT OF ADVERTISEMENTS AND NOTICES ......................................................................... 464. DETERMINATION OF APPROPRIATE MEASURES ............................................................................. 465. COMMENTS AND RESPONSE REPORT ............................................................................................. 476. AUTHORITY PARTICIPATION ........................................................................................................... 487. CONSULTATION WITH OTHER STAKEHOLDERS............................................................................... 4819

SECTION D: IMPACT ASSESSMENT .............................................................................................................. 491. ISSUES RAISED BY INTERESTED AND AFFECTED PARTIES ................................................................ 492. IMPACTS THAT MAY RESULT FROM THE PLANNING AND DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION,OPERATIONAL, DECOMMISSIONING AND CLOSURE PHASES AS WELL AS PROPOSED MANAGEMENT OFIDENTIFIED IMPACTS AND PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES ............................................................ 51A. CONSTRUCTION PHASE................................................................................................................. 51B. OPERATIONAL PHASE ................................................................................................................... 66C. DECOMMISIONING PHASE ............................................................................................................ 71D. ANY OTHER IMPACTS: NO GO ALTERNATIVE ............................................................................... 713. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ......................................................................................... 72SECTION E: RECOMMENDATION OF PRACTITIONER ............................................................................. 74SECTION F: APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................. 77Appendix A: Site plans and locality map ................................................................................................. 77Appendix B: Photographs ....................................................................................................................... 77Appendix C: Facility illustration(s) .......................................................................................................... 77Appendix D: Specialist reports ................................................................................................................ 77Appendix E: Comments and responses report ....................................................................................... 77Appendix F: Environmental Management Programme (EMPr) .............................................................. 77Appendix G: Other Information .............................................................................................................. 7720

SECTION A: ACTIVITY INFORMATIONHas a specialist been consulted to assist with the completion of thissection?YESNO1. ACTIVITY DESCRIPTIONDescribe the activity, which is being applied for, in detail:Wave Energy Converter ConceptAbagold Ltd has proposed an alternative energy project that aims to:provide a practical solution to decrease Abagold’s overall energy bill,to test and derive information on the effectiveness of a slot-slope wave energy converter(WEC) to capture potential energy over a period andto provide a demonstration model for similar applications.The slot-slope WEC design is based on the capture and retention of water as a wave recedes along asloped ramp. Incoming waves will run uphill along a slope and on return, water will flow throughangled slots, fitted with simple non-return rubber flaps, and be retained in a wave energy pond.Water will thus be captured temporarily and then passed through turbines on return to the sea togenerate electricity. The proposed turbines to be used are very low head (VLH) turbines which havean extremely low rotational speed, large runner diameter and low water velocity, allowing for fishmovement through the turbines.FIGURE 1: CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF A SLOT-SLOPE WEC.The benefits of this design are that practically all waves, regardless of speed and size can be21

captured for energy production, output smoothing is possible due to the wave energy pond, and thestructural integrity of this device is ensured by both the simplicity of design as well as the weight ofthe water behind the structure. This serves to enhance survivability during extreme storm events.Alternative 1: Preferred alternativePreferred project approach and layoutA phased construction approach is the preferred alternative, as it allows for the organic growth andtesting of the wave energy technology. During the first phase a pilot slot-slope WEC (see 1 in Figure2) will be constructed on the coast immediately in front of the Abagold Amasa farm (rented fromthe Department of Public works), a small pump assistance pond (see 3 in Figure 2) will beconstructed adjacent to the pump station from which seawater, for use on the farm, can beabstracted, and the existing discharge pipeline will be extended and fitted with a turbine (seeexisting outfall in Figure 2) to generate electricity. If the pilot WEC proves successful, a second WECsee 2 in Figure 2) will be constructed during phase two, to the north of the pump station.FIGURE 2: LAYOUT OF THE PROPOSED SLOT-SLOPE WECS IN RELATION TO EXISTING AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS FORALTERNATIVES 1 AND 2.The pilot buffer dam wall will be 50 m long, the pump assistance dam wall 34 m long and the mainbuffer dam wall 180 m long. The sloped dam wall will be approximately 4.5 m above the mean sea22

level and will be constructed of seven layers of precast concrete units. The seaward side of the damwall will have a sloping, slotted profile. The floor of the wave energy pond will be at mean sea level.The pilot WEC will be fitted with two very low head (VLH) turbines (designed to produce up to750kW of electricity) while the main WEC will include seven VLH turbines with an installed capacityof up to 3 MW. Once extended the existing effluent pipe will discharge waste water from Abagold atsea level. A turbine will be fitted to the end of the discharge pipeline to generate electricity.Construction detailsThe first phase of construction will extend over 18 months. During these 18 months a pilot WEC anda pump assistance pond will be constructed and a turbine will be fitted to the existing outfall. Phasetwo will commence six months (month 24) after the pilot WEC has been completed and isconditional to the success of the Pilot WEC. Phase two will extend over 18 months. The proposedscheduling is provided in Appendix H.WEC constructionThe construction details described below apply to both the pilot WEC and main WEC. The pilot WECwill be constructed in phase one and tested, if this proves successful, the main WEC will beconstructed during phase two, to the north of the pump station.SiteestablishmentKelp will be removed from the intertidal and subtidal area within thefootprint of the site. The fronds of the kelp will be used by Abagold as feedand the remainder will be removed by the existing kelp concession holders.Urchins will also be collected and relocated from the intertidal and sub tidalhabitat within the footprint of the site to an alternative suitable habitat.Blasting will be required within the development footprint of the site. Blastingwill be conducted using a rock breaking technology known as NoneX. This isnot an explosive technology but rather a propellant compound encased in acartridge which reacts very quickly to produce high volumes of harmless gas(nitrogen, carbon dioxide and steam). The cartridge is sealed inside a drilledhole and ignited. High pressure gas is released and enters into the fracturescaused by drilling and natural fractures or planes of weakness in the rock.Following blasting rocks will be used to fill the footprint of the site to meansea level. Blasting below the water line will probably not be necessaary forthe Pilot and Pump assistance WEC (see Figure 6). However, the Main WECwill require minimal blasting underwater, for which a strict protocol has beenset forth in the Environmental Management Plan. Particular care and multipleobservers will be used with regard to whales.It is anticipated that site establishment will take two months for the pilotWEC and 2 months for the main WEC.23

Off-site activitiesWEC damconstructionThe slot-slope wall will be constructed from a series of pre-cast concrete unitsto be stacked on top of one another (Figure 3). The moulds for these units willbe manufactured off-site when the project commences. It is anticipated thatthis will take two months. The casting of pre-cast units will commence oncethe moulds have been completed. It is estimated that this will take 8 monthsto complete.The slot slope-wall will comprise a number of pre-cast units to be placed on abase and stacked to form the slot-slope wall. The use of pre-cast unitsrequires that there be a level, solid base to place the units upon. Theconstruction of the base of the wall will be conducted in a modular fashionusing a large re-usable metal frame (12 m x 3.6 m) with four adjustable legs(Figure 4). A crane will be used to position the metal frame. Crane access willbe obtained by filling in the base of the dam to water level or above ifnecessary with loose rock, some of which can be removed and later used inconstruction.The frame will be positioned on the sea floor using the crane and levelledusing the four adjustable legs. Holes will be drilled into the bedrock and boltswill be inserted into the holes to secure the frame in position. In some cases itmay be necessary to insert a two part epoxy gel into the drilled holes toimprove the integrity of the anchors. There is no risk of contamination fromthe epoxy as it is inserted into the drilled hole in a glass tube immediatelybefore anchor rod is inserted.A series of metal shuttering beams will be lowered through the framecircumference onto the rocks to form a “cage” on the uneven seafloor (see 2-4 in Figure 4). This will serve as a mould for the underwater concrete casting.A plastic canvas bag (see 5 in Figure 4) will be inserted into the mould andfilled with water to ensure proper positioning as well as to ensure that it iswater tight thus ensuring total enclosure of the wet concrete casting. The bagwill be protected by the shuttering of the cage and will not take any pressure.The bag will be filled with concrete through a water tight sleeve at the topwhile a second sleeve will ensure the escape of air as well as provide accessfor vibratory equipment to settle the concrete properly. The top surface willbe levelled using a removable top shutter board. The top of the base will beat mean sea level (MSL). Once the concrete is set the metal frame andshuttering will be removed and used for the next casting and the plastic bagwill be cut away from the top of the block as well as all exposed surfaces.Once the base is complete the pre-cast units of the slot-slope wall can bestacked securely on top.It is anticipated that the construction of the base of the wall will takeapproximately seven months for the pilot WEC and 15 months for the mainWEC.While the base of the slot-slope wall is being constructed the side walls andback walls of the dam will be constructed above MSL. The construction of24

these dam walls is estimated to take 4 months for the pilot WEC.Mechanical andelectricalinstallationsThe pre-cast units of the slot-slope wall will be stacked in seven layers on topof the concrete base using a crane. Each unit of the wall will have alignmentridges and slots to allow for accurate placement and to ensure that the dam iswater tight. The side wall of each unit will have a matching hollow throughwhich galvanized rods will be placed. This hollow will then be filled withconcrete, securing the units together and to the base. It is anticipated thatthe placement of units will take place over 8 months for the pilot WEC and 9months for the main WEC.The mechanical (turbines) and electrical installations will take place duringthe last three months of construction for both the pilot and main WECs.Pump assistance pond constructionConstruction of the pump assistance pond will commence once the side walls of the pilot WEC havebeen constructed (estimated to be 10 months after construction commences). The site will beestablished over one month in the same manner as for the WECs. The base of the slot-slope wall willalso be constructed in a modular fashion using the steel frame and shuttering beams. The slot-slopewall will also comprise seven layers of pre-cast units to be stacked above mean sea level. The totalestimated construction time for the pump assistance pond is 8 months.Effluent turbine constructionThe manufacturing and construction of the effluent turbine will commence at the same time as thatof the Pilot WEC and will extend over six months. Onsite activities during the first two months willinclude site establishment and the removal of existing filling around the turbine housing. Theturbine housing and inlet and outlet channels and manifolds will be constructed during the third andfourth months.25

FIGURE 3: CONFIGURATION OF PRE-CAST UNITS OF THE SL OT-SLOPE WEC26

FIGURE 4: METAL FRAME, SHUTTERING BEANS AND PLASTIC CANVAS BAGS TO BE USED FOR THE C ONSTRUCTION OF THE BASE OFTHE SLOT-SLOPE WALLPilot WEC blastingabove MSL – 6000m 3Pump WEC blastingabove MSL – 60m 3Main WEC blastingabove MSL – 4000m 3Pump WEC blastingbelow MSL – 250m 3Main WEC blastingbelow MSL – 1000m 3Pilot WEC blastingbelow MSL – 600m 3FIGURE 5: AREAS IN WHICH BLASTING IS REQUIRED.27

Design considerationsAngular irregularities will be cast into the walls on the inside of the dam to dissipate waves insteadof reflecting them. This will buffer wave action on the inside of the dam and stabilize the turbines.Operational detailsKelp will be removed as required from the slots and the pool. The width of the top most layer of theslot-slope wall will be wide enough to permit access by vehicles to aid in kelp clearing operationsand other maintenance requirements. Divers will be deployed as required to remove any fouling onthe infrastructure. No biocides will be used. Fouled surfaces will be scraped clear. All organicmaterial will be collected in a sump within the dam. An on-shore suction hose will be used to emptythe sump periodically and deposit the materials on land. These will be moved to an appropriatewaste disposal facility.2. FEASIBLE AND REASONABLE ALTERNATIVESDescribe alternatives that are considered in this application.Alternative 2: Non-phased approachAlternative 2 has all the same design and technological elements as Alternative 1 (the preferredalternative), only the development of this alternative will not be phased. Hence no pilot slot-slope WECwill be tested prior to developing the larger common buffer dam. The construction period will thereforeextend for 36 months as opposed to 41 months indicated in Alternative 1.Alternative 3: One large buffer damAlternative 3 also comprises a slot-slope WEC, however the layout of the buffer dam is different to thatproposed in Alternative 1 and 2. This alternative involves the development of one 320 m long storagedam right across the small bay to the east of the new harbour, in front of the existing abalone farms.The dam wall would be approximately 4.5 m above the mean sea level and would be constructed ofprecast concrete units. The seaward side of the dam wall would have a sloping profile. The constructionmethods used would be the same as that described above for Alternative 1.28

FIGURE 6: LAYOUT OF THE PROPOSED SLOT-SLOPE WECS IN RELATION TO EXISTING AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS FOR ALTERNATIVES 3No-go AlternativeThe No-go alternative, whereby Abagold would continue to utilize electricity supplied by Eskom, wasalso considered in the assessment.3. ACTIVITY POSITIONIndicate the position of the activity using the latitude and longitude of the centre point of the site foreach alternative site.Latitude (S):Longitude (E):Co-ordinate of central position at theproposed site (Alternative 1, 2 and 3)34 o 26.167‘ 19 o 13.402‘29

4. PHYSICAL SIZE OF THE ACTIVITYIndicate the physical size of the preferred activity/technology as well as alternativeactivities/technologies (footprints):Alternative:Size of the activity:Alternative A1 (preferred activity alternative) 20 900 m 2Alternative A2 (if any) 20 900 m 2Alternative A3 (if any) 35 000 m 25. SITE ACCESSDoes ready access to the site exist?YESNOThere are currently two access routes to the site. The one access route is a gravel roadleading through the Abagold farm down to the existing pump house. The second is a tarredand cement road to the north east of the Abagold farm leading to around the Harbour Rocksrestaurant. The rocky platform can be accessed by vehicles off this access road. Noadditional access routes will be constructed. Access roads are indicated on the site plan(Appendix A) and shown on site photographs (Appendix B).6. SITE OR ROUTE PLANSee Appendix A.7. SITE PHOTOGRAPHSSee Appendix B.8. FACILITY ILLUSTRATIONSee Appendix C.30

9. ACTIVITY MOTIVATION9(a)Socio-economic value of the activityExpected capital value of the activity oncompletionA1 A2 A3 No GoR82 400 000 R82 400 000 R150 000 000 R 0Expected yearly income that will be R 0 R 0 R 0 R 0generated by or as a result of theactivityNo direct income is expected to be generatedby the project. However, significant costssavings in respect of the amount of electricityto be purchased by Abagold from theHermanus Municipality are anticipated. Thesavings in electricity costs by Abagold, overthe first twenty years of operation of theWEC, are estimated at R640 000 000.Will the activity contribute to serviceinfrastructure?YESNO YESNO YESNO YES NOIs the activity a public amenity? YES NOYES NOYES NOYES NOHow many new employment 39 39 78 0opportunities will be created in thedevelopment phase of the activity?What is the expected value of the R2,056,000 R2,056,000 R4,112,000 R0employment opportunities during thedevelopment phase?What percentage of this will accrue topreviously disadvantaged individuals?61% 61% 61% 0%How many permanent new employmentopportunities will be created during theoperational phase of the activity?What is the expected current value ofthe employment opportunities duringthe first 10 years?What percentage of this will accrue topreviously disadvantaged individuals?12 12 24 0R9,760,000 R9,760,000 R19,520,000 R040.6% 40.6% 40.6% 0%9(b)Need and desirability of the activityMotivate and explain the need and desirability of the activity (including demand for the activity):31

NEED:1. Was the relevant provincial planning department involved in the application? YES2. Does the proposed land use fall within the relevant provincial planning YESframework?3. If the answer to questions 1 and / or 2 was NO, please provide further motivation /explanation:Objective 9 of the Provincial Spatial Development Framework (PSDF) is to “minimize theconsumption of scarce environmental resources, particularly water, fuel, building materials,mineral resources, electricity and land.” The development and testing of alternative,renewable energy sources will aid in the achievement of this objective. Indeed, one of theidentified strategies in the PSDF was to implement renewable energy sources. “Renewableenergy sources (wind, solar thermal, biomass, and domestic hydro-electricity generation)should comprise 25% of the Province's energy generation capacity by 2020 (adapted fromNational Policy Guidelines, EDRC, 2003).”NONODESIRABILITY:1. Does the proposed land use / development fit the surrounding area? YES2. Does the proposed land use / development conform to the relevant structure YESplans, SDF and planning visions for the area?3. Will the benefits of the proposed land use / development outweigh thenegative impacts of it?4. If the answer to any of the questions 1-3 was NO, please provide further motivation /explanation:Part of the proposed development site (that falling above the high water mark) falls on landzoned as an “Authority Zone” to be used for government purposes. This land (Erf 248) is theHermanus Harbour. The Erf has been subdivided into lots and is leased for various purposes.The lots adjacent to the proposed development site are used for agricultural industrialpurposes. The coastal area has been zoned as an ecological corridor and a CriticalBiodiversity Area (CBA). However, following field investigation, it was found that theintertidal habitat had been disturbed and modified and supported a low species diversityand a low abundance of biota. It has been acknowledged that site visits and specialist inputis required to supplement the CBA map and thereby aid in decision making (Holness 2009).The majority of the proposed development will, however, fall below the high water markwithin the coastal public property. Coastal public property is owned by the citizens of SouthAfrica, and the State acts a trustee on behalf of the citizens. The State has the duty toensure that coastal public property is used, managed, protected, conserved and enhancedin the interests of the whole community and not only a few individuals or groups. TheYESNONONO32

applicant will apply for a lease in terms of the Sea Shore Act, 1935, once an environmentalauthorisation has been issued for the project.It could be argued that the proposed project is in the interests of the community as a wholeas it is implementing and testing a technology to utilise a potential renewable energy sourcewhich may contribute to reduced reliance on fossil fuels and hence to the realisation ofSouth Africa’s climate change strategy. Furthermore, the implementation of the projectdoes facilitate the objective to “limit the environmental impact of electricity provision” as setout in the Overberg District SDF, by implementing and testing a renewable energy source.5. Will the proposed land use / development impact on the sense of place? YES NO6. Will the proposed land use / development set a precedent? YESNO7. Will any person’s rights be affected by the proposed land use /development?8. Will the proposed land use / development compromise the “urban edge”? YES9. If the answer to any of the question 5-8 was YES, please provide further motivation /explanation.The proposed project is the implementation and testing of an innovative technology toutilise a potential source of renewable energy. If this project proves successful there is agood chance that similar models may be implemented elsewhere. It is important torecognise at the outset that the coastal area considered is somewhat modified anddisturbed and adjacent to an existing industrial (harbour) site and any repetition of suchproject should only be targeted towards similar areas.The majority of the proposed development will fall below the high water mark withincoastal public property. Coastal public property is owned by the citizens of South Africa andthe State acts a trustee on behalf of the citizens. The State has the duty to ensure thatcoastal public property is used, managed, protected, conserved and enhanced in theinterests of the whole community and not only a few individuals or groups. The applicantwill apply for a lease from the Department of Environmental Affairs: Oceans and Coasts interms of the Sea Shore Act, 1935, and/or Integrated Coastal Management Act, 2008.YESNONOBENEFITS:1. Will the land use / development have any benefits for society in general? YES2. Explain:It could be argued that the proposed project is in the interests of the community as a wholeas it is implementing and testing a technology to utilise a renewable energy source whichwill contribute to reduced dependence on fossils fuels and hence towards South Africa’sNO33

climate change strategy.3. Will the land use / development have any benefits for the local communitieswhere it will be located?4. Explain:The direct benefits associated with the project include the employment opportunities thatwill arise during the construction and operation phase. All efforts will be made to ensurethat much of the construction and manufacturing will be undertaken locally.YESNOCurrently, rising electricity costs are threatening the future of Abagold. One of the indirectbenefits of the proposed project is the continued existence of Abagold and the jobs thatAbagold provides to local people. If the WEC is efficient it will ensure that Abagold remainsfinancially viable. Furthermore the reduced energy costs will allow for the implementationof the Sulamanzi project, a new initiative being implemented by Abagold, which holdssignificant benefits for the local community.There are currently no historically disadvantaged farmers in abalone farming in South Africa.Abagold’s Sulamanzi development was planned around the concept of 15 entrepreneurfarmers. The development consists of 15 identical production units. Each unit will bemanaged by an entrepreneur, selected from Abagold’s existing staff compliment, and will betrained up by Abagold. These entrepreneurs will each run their own farm with Abagoldproviding a “safety net”, technical advice and services, training and back-office functions.Abagold will supply seed to the farms and will process and market the harvested products.Having identical farms means that the entrepreneurs can learn from and comparethemselves to their peers on the other 14 farms. Farmers trained and mentored in this waycan go on to manage bigger farming units or even start their own farms one day.Sulamanzi will consist of 15 farms, identical in size, and will create 200 permanentemployment opportunities by 2016. These opportunities will range from entry level farmworkers to team leaders, farm managers, senior management, administration personneland technical staff. Training is a big focus at Abagold and employees are actively encouragedto further their studies or broaden their knowledge. In addition ,Abagold provides medicalassistance to employees.34

10. APPLICABLE LEGISLATION, POLICIES AND/OR GUIDELINESList all legislation, policies and/or guidelines of any sphere of government that are applicable tothe application as contemplated in the EIA regulations, if applicable:Title of legislation, policy or guideline: Administering authority: Date:The National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act Department of1998107 of 1998)Environmental AffairsThe National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act Department of2010107 of 1998) Environmental Impact AssessmentRegulations (GN. R. 543; GN. R. 544; GN. R. 545 and GN.R. 546);Environmental AffairsThe National Environmental Management: Integrated Department of2008Coastal Management Act, 2008 (Act 24 of 2008)Environmental AffairsThe Sea Shore Act, 1935 (Act No 21 of 1935)Department of1935Environmental AffairsThe South African Water Quality Guidelines for CoastalMarine WatersDepartment of Water Affairs 199611. WASTE, EFFLUENT, EMISSION AND NOISE MANAGEMENT11(a)Solid waste managementWill the activity produce solid construction waste during the construction/initiationphase?YESNOAny rubble produced during construction will be used as construction or fill material. All kelp is to beremoved from the site. The fronds of the kelp will be used by Abagold as feed and the remainder will beremoved by the existing kelp concession holders.Will the activity produce solid waste during its operational phase? YES NO11(b)Liquid effluentWill the activity produce effluent, other than normal sewage, that will be disposed of ina municipal sewage system?YESNOWill the activity produce any effluent that will be treated and/or disposed of on site? YES NO35

11(c)Emissions into the atmosphereWill the activity release emissions into the atmosphere? YES NO11(d)Generation of noiseWill the activity generate noise?YESNOIf yes, is it controlled by any legislation of any sphere of government? YES NOIf yes, the applicant should consult with the competent authority to determinewhether it is necessary to change to an application for scoping and EIA.If no, describe the noise in terms of type and level:Noise during the construction phase will comprise that generated by rock breaking or blasting, drilling ofthe seabed, additional vehicular noise, and machinery operation (the crane)12. WATER USEPlease indicate the source(s) of water that will be used for the activity by ticking the appropriate box(es)MunicipalWater board Groundwater River, stream, damor lakeOtherThe activity will not usewaterIf water is to be extracted from groundwater, river, stream, dam, lake or any other natural feature,please indicatethe volume that will be extracted per month:0 litresDoes the activity require a water use permit from the Department of Water Affairs? YES NO36

13. ENERGY EFFICIENCYDescribe the design measures, if any, that have been taken to ensure that the activity is energy efficient:No specific design measures have incorporated to ensure the construction is energy efficient. However,the activity itself will provide an alternative source of energy to power the Abagold abalone farm andwill provide the means to test an alternative energy technology.Describe how alternative energy sources have been taken into account or been built into the design ofthe activity, if any:No alternative energy sources have been taken into account or built into the design of the activity.However, the activity itself will provide an alternative source of energy to power the Abagold farm andwill provide the means to test an alternative energy technology.37

SECTION B: SITE/AREA/PROPERTY DESCRIPTIONHas a specialist been consulted to assist with the completion of this section?Property description/physical address:YESNOThe proposed development site for all three alternatives is situated on the rocky headland at thenorthern end of Walker Bay, adjacent to the New Harbour, south west of the pier. The proposeddevelopment site comprises rocky shore habitat and a mixture of rocky and sandy subtidal habitat. Thesite is situated approximately 1 km southwest of the Walker Bay Whale Sanctuary.Part of the proposed development site (that falling above the high water mark) falls on land zoned as an“Authority Zone” to be used for government purposes. This land (Erf 248) is the Hermanus Harbour. TheErf has been subdivided into lots and leased for various purposes. The lots adjacent to the proposeddevelopment site are used for agricultural industrial purposes (abalone farms). The coastal area hasbeen zoned as an ecological corridor and a Critical Biodiversity Area (CBA). However, following fieldinvestigation, it was found that the intertidal habitat had been disturbed and modified and supported alow level of species diversity and a low abundance of biota. It has been acknowledged that site visits andspecialist input is required to supplement the CBA map and thereby aid in decision making (Holness2009).The majority of the proposed development falls below the high water mark within coastal publicproperty. Coastal public property is owned by the citizens of South Africa and the State acts a trustee onbehalf of the citizens. The State has the duty to ensure that coastal public property is used, managed,protected, conserved and enhanced in the interests of the whole community and not only a fewindividuals or groups. The applicant is applying for a lease from the Department of EnvironmentalAffairs: Oceans and Coasts in terms of the Sea Shore Act, 1935.The coastal area south west of the proposed site is a rocky coast which borders residentialdevelopments (Whale Rock Estate). This section is not recognised as an area of importance forrecreational purposes. The harbour, to the northwest of the study site is accessed by both fishing andtourist vessels and the harbour pier and rock outcrops are used by fishermen and for whale watching.The adjacent abalone farms (Aquafarm Development (Pty) Ltd and HIK Abalone Farm (Pty) Ltd), as wellas Abagold, extract seawater from the adjacent marine environment for use on the farms and dischargeused seawater into the marine environment. The farms have infrastructure such as pump houses, sumpsand pipelines within the coastal public property adjacent to their farms.Where a large number of properties are involved (e.g. linear activities), please attach a full list to thisapplication. In instances where there is more than one town or district involved, please attach a list oftowns or districts to this application.38

Erf 248. Hermanus New Harbour. (Lease area 36 and 45)Coastal Public Property.Current land-use zoning: (In instances where there is more than one current land-use zoning, pleaseattach a list of current land use zonings that also indicate which portions each use pertains to , to thisapplication.)Authority use (Erf 248)Coastal Public Property. The applicant is applying for a lease from the Department of EnvironmentalAffairs: Oceans and Coasts in terms of the Sea Shore Act, 1935.Is a change of land-use or a consent use application required? YES NOMust a building plan be submitted to the local authority?YESNO1. GRADIENT OF THE SITEIndicate the general gradient of the site.Flat 1:50 – 1:20 1:20 – 1:15 1:15 – 1:10 1:10 – 1:7,51:7,5 – 1:5 Steeper than 1:52. LOCATION IN LANDSCAPEIndicate the landform(s) that best describes the site:2.1 Ridgeline2.2 Plateau2.3 Side slope of hill/mountain2.4 Closed valley2.5 Open valley2.6 Plain2.7 Undulating plain / low hills2.8 Dune2.9 Seafront 39

3. GROUNDWATER, SOIL AND GEOLOGICAL STABILITY OF THE SITEIs the site located on any of the following (tick the appropriate boxes)?Alternative 1, 2 and 3:Shallow water table (less than 1.5 m deep) YES NODolomite, sinkhole or doline areas YES NOSeasonally wet soils (often close to water bodies) YES NOUnstable rocky slopes or steep slopes with loose soil YES NODispersive soils (soils that dissolve in water) YES NOSoils with high clay content (clay fraction more than 40%) YES NOAny other unstable soil or geological feature YES NOAn area sensitive to erosion YES NO4. GROUNDCOVERIndicate the types of groundcover present on the site:The site substrate comprises a rocky intertidal and subtidal area. The rock type is Peninsula Formationquartzitic sandstones. There are various structures existing within the site (eg. pump, discharge pipe).Natural veld - good condition ENatural veld with scattered aliens ENatural veld with heavy alien infestation EVeld dominated by alien species EGardensSport fieldCultivated landPaved surfaceBuilding or other structureBare soil40

5. LAND USE CHARACTER OF SURROUNDING AREAIndicate land uses and/or prominent features that does currently occur within a 500 m radius of the siteand give description of how this influences the application or may be impacted upon by the application:5.1 Natural area 5.2 Low density residential 5.3 Medium density residential5.4 High density residentialNoise and dust generated duringconstruction could potentially impactnatural land areas. The marine fauna inthe vicinity could potentially be disturbedby noise and habitat alteration.Potential noise and visual impacts duringconstruction. No impacts duringoperation.5.5 Informal residential A5.6 Retail commercial & warehousing Potential noise and visual impacts duringconstruction.5.7 Light industrial No impact on industrial activities.5.8 Medium industrial AN5.9 Heavy industrial AN5.10 Power station5.11 Office/consulting room 5.12 Military or police base/station/compound5.13 Spoil heap or slimes dam A5.14 Quarry, sand or borrow pit5.15 Dam or reservoir5.16 Hospital/medical centre5.17 School5.18 Tertiary education facility5.19 Church5.20 Old age home5.21 Sewage treatment plant A5.22 Train station or shunting yard N5.23 Railway line N5.24 Major road (4 lanes or more) N5.25 Airport NPotential noise and visual impacts duringconstruction. No impacts duringoperation.5.26 Harbour No impact on harbour operations.41

5.27 Sport facilities5.28 Golf course5.29 Polo fields5.30 Filling station H5.31 Landfill or waste treatment site5.32 Plantation5.33 Agriculture5.34 River, stream or wetland5.35 Nature conservation area5.36 Mountain, koppie or ridge5.37 Museum5.38 Historical building5.39 Protected Area5.40 Graveyard5.41 Archaeological site5.42 Other land uses (describe)6. CULTURAL/HISTORICAL FEATURESAre there any signs of culturally or historically significantelements, as defined in section 2 of the National HeritageResources Act, 1999, (Act No. 25 of 1999), includingArchaeological or palaeontological sites, on or close (within 20m)to the site?Will any building or structure older than 60 years be affected inany way?Is it necessary to apply for a permit in terms of the NationalHeritage Resources Act, 1999 (Act 25 of 1999)?YESUncertainYESYESNONONO42

SECTION C: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION1. ADVERTISEMENTSNotice boards (of a size at least 60 cm by 4 2cm) were fixed at three points around the proposed site inplaces that were conspicuous to the public, namely; the entrance to Abagold (S1), and at either end ofthe proposed site (above the discharge pipe in front of the Harbour restaurant to the north – S2 - andadjacent to Whale Rock Estate to the south – S3).Written notice of the EIA process was provided to the following authorities: Department ofEnvironmental Affairs: Oceans & Coasts, Department of Environmental Affairs and DevelopmentPlanning, Cape Nature, the Overberg District Municipality and the Overstrand Municipality. Writtennotice of the EIA process was also provided to the following neighbouring landowners/tenants: BeachClub, Whale Bay Cascades, Whale Rock Estate, Aquafarm, HIK Abalone, Harbour Master, Harbour Rock43

Restaurant, Tuna Marine, SPP Canning / Marifeed, Lusitania, Combined Abalone Processors, Walker BayCanners, Hermanus Processing Services, Hermanus Boat Club, NSRI, Quayside Cabin, Hermanus WhaleCruises, Southern Right Carters, Solar Spectrum Whale Cruises, Scuba Africa, BS Divers and Gecko BarAn advertisement was placed in the Hermanus Times providing details of the application and publicparticipation process on the 17 th of November 2012 (a copy of the advertisement is provided inAppendix E).An advertisement was placed in the Cape Times providing details of the application and publicparticipation process on the 11 th of November 2012 (a copy of the advertisement is provided inAppendix E).44

The draft Basic Assessment Report (BAR) was made available for public comment from the 23rd ofMarch. An email was sent to all stakeholders informing them that a hard copy of the draft BAR wasavailable in the Hermanus library or for download on the Anchor Environmental Consultants websitefrom the 23rd of March. The comment period extended from the 23rd of March to the 2nd of May2012.2. CONTENT OF ADVERTISEMENTS AND NOTICESCopies of the notice boards, advertisements and written notices is provided in Appendix E.The notice board, advertisement or notices all indicated the details of the application which is subjectedto public participation; and stated whether basic assessment or scoping procedures were being appliedto the application, and the nature and location of the activity to which the application related; wherefurther information on the application or activity could be obtained; and the manner in which and theperson to whom representations in respect of the application may be made.45

3. PLACEMENT OF ADVERTISEMENTS AND NOTICESDetails provided above.4. DETERMINATION OF APPROPRIATE MEASURESA background information document (BID) was distributed to all interested and affected parties whoregistered with Anchor Environmental Consultants, to neighbouring landowners/tenants andauthorities. A public meeting was held on the 25 th of January 2012 at the Overstrand Municipality. Themeeting was advertised by means of an advert published in the Hermanus Times on the 12 th of January2012. A copy of the BID, advert and minutes of this meeting are provided in Appendix E.46

5. COMMENTS AND RESPONSE REPORTA full comments and responses report is available in Appendix E.Prior to the Draft BARComments were received from:Relmar Holdings (Pty) LtdAquafarm Developments (Pty) LtdHermanus Business ChamberThe Overstrand MunicipalityComments were primarily focused on:General impacts to marine ecologyVisual impacts (Relmar)Water quality concerns and impacts to neighbouring users (Aquafarm)Erosion impacts (Aquafarm)Support for the development (Hermanus Business Chamber and the Overstrand Municipality)Following the Draft BARComments were received from:Aquafarm Developments (Pty) LtdHIK Abalone(Pty) LtdCape NatureWhale Coast ConservationComments were primarily focused on:Water quality concerns and impacts to neighbouring users (Aquafarm)Construction management and consultation (HIK and Aquafarm)Support for the development (Cape Nature and Whale Coast Conservation)47

6. AUTHORITY PARTICIPATIONPlease note that a complete list of all organs of state and/or any other applicable authority with theircontact details must be appended to the basic assessment report or scoping report, whichever isapplicable.Authorities are key interested and affected parties in each application and no decision on anyapplication will be made before the relevant local authority is provided with the opportunity to giveinput.List of authorities informed:Department ofEnvironmental Affairs,Branch: Oceans & CoastsDepartment ofEnvironmental Affairs andDevelopment PlanningCape NatureOverstrand MunicipalityOverberg DistrictMunicipalityChumaniMangcuPO Box 52126, V&AWaterfront 8002cmangcu@environment.gov.zaMaboeeNthejanePrivate Bag X9086, CapeTown 8000maboee.nthejane@pgwc.gov.zaJonkershoek NatureConservation, ScientificSamantha Services, Private BagRalston X5014, Sbosch, 7599 landuse@capenature.co.zaLiezelBezuidenhout PO Box 22, Hermanus, 7220 lbezuidenhout@overstrand.gov.zaPrivate Bag X22,Francois Kotze Bredarsdorp, 7280fkotze@odm.org.zaList of authorities from whom comments have been received:Prior to the Draft BARThe Overstrand Municipality provided a letter of support. See Appendix E.Following the Draft BARCape Nature provided a letter of support. See Appendix E.7. CONSULTATION WITH OTHER STAKEHOLDERSYES NOHas any comment been received from stakeholders?If “YES”, briefly describe the feedback below (also attach copies of any correspondence to and from thestakeholders to this application):See Appendix E and above.48

SECTION D: IMPACT ASSESSMENTThe assessment of impacts must adhere to the minimum requirements in the EIA Regulations, 2010, andshould take applicable official guidelines into account. The issues raised by interested and affectedparties should also be addressed in the assessment of impacts.1. ISSUES RAISED BY INTERESTED AND AFFECTED PARTIESList the main issues raised by interested and affected parties.A full record of issues raised by interested and affected parties is attached in Appendix E.Prior to the Draft BAR interested and affected parties requested that the following concerns beaddressed in the BAR: Potential impacts of new develops on existing abalone farming activities. Impacts of the proposed development on the marine ecology. Visual impacts on future planned developments at the site leased by Relmar.Following the Draft BAR and affected parties requested that the following concerns be addressed inthe final BAR: Notice must be provided to all neighbouring water farms prior to blasting and the pouring of anyconcrete into the sump area or marine environment. Construction must be limited to week days. Review the sections dealing with impacts to water quality and consider the impacts specificallyin terms of abalone farms. Impacts of concrete and sediment plumes from blasting need to beconsidered. Review the construction methods section and provide more detail in the report. Aquafarm’s water abstraction point must be indicated on site diagrams. Impacts to nearshore waves and currents must be considered in relation to Aquafarm’sinfrastructure. Consider repositioning the pilot WEC Acknowledge that there is a risk of build up of organic matter in the WEC dams and providemitigation measures.Response from the practitioner to the issues raised by the interested and affected parties.A full response to the issues raised by interested and affected parties is attached in Appendix E.Responses to interested and affected parties prior to the Draft BAR being made available forcomment:49

The potential impacts of new developments on existing abalone farming activities and the impacts ofthe proposed development on marine ecology were addressed in the draft BAR and marine specialistreport. I&APs were assured that these issues would be addressed in the report.With regard to the concern that the proposed development would negatively impact planneddevelopments at the site leased by Relmar: The proposed site is situated within a harbour / lightindustrial area. The rocky shore area is in a disturbed state and the adjacent coastal areas are developedand used for industrial purposes. The proposed development is not out of character with the surroundingland uses and should not detract from the overall aesthetics of the area.Responses to interested and affected parties after the Draft BAR being made available for comment:A total of three emails were received from stakeholders after the draft BAR was made available forcomment. These emails were sent by Aquafarm Developments (Pty) Ltd (neighbouring abalone farm,HIK Abalone (Pty) Ltd (neighbouring abalone farm) and Cape Nature. Both neighbouring abalone farmsexpressed concern regarding the level of consultation with neighbouring users during construction.Emails were sent in response to this concern. Aquafarm however highlighted a number of concernsregarding the detail provided in the draft BAR, the potential impacts to water quality and the adjacentfarms and impact resulting from changes in the nearshore wave and current regime. Given the numberof concerns raised it was felt that a meeting between Anchor, Abagold and Aquafarm would be the mosteffective means to arrive at acceptable solutions. As such a meeting was held in July. The minutes of themeeting can be found in Appendix E.The following amendments were proposed following the meeting:1. The activity details section would be revised such that greater and clearer detail regardingconstruction methods in provided in the BAR. Such detail would include the measures taken toensure that no casting of cement will be required in the marine environment.2. The site diagrams would be amended so to include the position of the Aquafarm pumphouseand intake sump.3. A second site visit would be conducted by Prof. Geoff Toms in consultation with Aquafarm toview the position of the infrastructure in the coastal zone relative to the proposed development.The assessment of the impacts of change wave energy and current patterns would be updatedtaking into consideration this infrastructure.4. Monthly construction plans to be made available to all neighbouring farms. Weekly blasting andcement casting plans to be made available in advance to all neighbouring farms. Dailynotification prior to any blasting or casting of cement (within plastic canvas sacks in the marineenvironment).5. ECO to conduct weekly inspections and be on site during all blasting and cement casting (withinplastic canvas sacks in the marine environment) activities.Emails indicating the amendments were sent to Aquafarm with the minutes of the meeting attached.(see Appendix E).50

2. IMPACTS THAT MAY RESULT FROM THE PLANNING AND DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION,OPERATIONAL, DECOMMISSIONING AND CLOSURE PHASES AS WELL AS PROPOSEDMANAGEMENT OF IDENTIFIED IMPACTS AND PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURESA. CONSTRUCTION PHASEA.1. POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO MARINE BIOTA: HABITAT DISTURBANCE (Alternatives 1 and 2)Nature of impact The construction of Alternatives 1 and 2 will result in severe disturbanceof the rocky intertidal and infratidal surfaces and associated macrofaunaand flora will probably experience high levels of mortality. The loss ofbiota within the footprint of the site was recognised as an impact duringthe project planning phase. The construction plans presented to AnchorEnvironmental Consultants by Abagold at the outset of the projectincluded a step to remove and relocate certain fauna from the footprintof the site as a means to reduce this impact. The intertidal rocky habitatadjacent to the proposed site is not particularly important in terms ofbiodiversity conservation for rocky intertidal biota. It is likely that rockyintertidal biota will re-establish in the WEC ponds and on the walls of theWECs. No mitigation measures have been identified for the threealternatives provided the applicant applies the proposed step to relocatemarine fauna.StatusExtentDurationIntensityProbability ofoccurrenceCumulative impactprior to mitigationSignificance prior tomitigationDegree to which impactcan be mitigatedProposed mitigationProbability ofoccurrence withmitigationCumulative impact withmitigationSignificance withmitigationNegativeLocalMedium termMediumDefiniteLowLOWNot possible or necessaryN/AN/AN/AN/A51

A.1. POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO MARINE BIOTA: HABITAT DISTURBANCE (Alternatives 3)Nature of impact The construction of Alternative 3 will result in severe disturbance of therocky intertidal and infratidal surfaces and associated macrofauna andflora will probably experience high levels of mortality. This will be moresignificant than Alternative 1 and 2 due to the larger area involved. Theloss of biota within the footprint of the site was recognised as an impactduring the project planning phase. The construction plans presented toAnchor Environmental Consultants by Abagold at the outset of theproject included a step to remove and relocate certain fauna from thefootprint of the site as a means to reduce this impact. The intertidalrocky habitat adjacent to the proposed site is not particularly importantin terms of biodiversity conservation for rocky intertidal biota. It is likelythat rocky intertidal biota will re-establish in the WEC ponds and on thewalls of the WECs. No mitigation measures have been identified for thethree alternatives provided the applicant applies the proposed step torelocate marine fauna.StatusExtentDurationIntensityProbability ofoccurrenceCumulative impactprior to mitigationSignificance prior tomitigationDegree to which impactcan be mitigatedProposed mitigationProbability ofoccurrence withmitigationCumulative impact withmitigationSignificance withmitigationNegativeLocalMedium termMediumDefiniteMediumMediumNot possible or necessaryN/AN/AN/AN/A52

A.2. POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO MARINE BIOTA: BAROTRAUMA FROM BLASTING (Alternatives 1 and 2)Explosive charges in, adjacent to or beneath a water column producepressure waves or shockwaves which pass into the water medium.Shockwaves have harmful and often fatal impacts on organisms with gascavities, for example swim bladders in fish and sinus cavities and lungs inbirds and mammals.Nature of impactStatusNegativeExtentLocalDurationMedium termIntensityHighProbability ofProbableoccurrenceCumulative impact Highprior to mitigationSignificance prior to HIGHmitigationDegree to which impact Mediumcan be mitigated No blasting in the sea must be conducted during the periodbetween 30 June and 31 December as southern right whales arelikely to be in the vicinity of Walker Bay. Observations with binoculars must be sited on key vantage pointsimmediately before the intended blast. Blasting should onlycommence when cetaceans are not seen to be diving or resting onthe sea surface within two kilometres of the blast site. All blasting must be conducted using a rock breaking technologyknown as NoneX (www.nonex.co.za). This is not an explosivetechnology. It is propellant compound encased in a cartridge whichreacts very quickly to produce high volumes of harmless gas(nitrogen, carbon dioxide and steam). The cartridge is sealed insidea drilled hole and ignited. High pressure gas is released and entersinto the fractures caused by drilling and natural fractures or planesof weakness in the rock. The gas pressure causes the fractures toexpand and the rock to split apart. The cartridges do produce ahigh pressure over a short time frame and so will produce noise. Blasting activities must be limited to one detonation series per dayto avoid or reduce the mortality of predators and seabirds attractedto fish kills from previous blasts.Proposed mitigationProbability ofPossibleoccurrence withmitigationCumulative impact with LOWmitigationSignificance with LOWmitigation53

A.2. POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO MARINE BIOTA: BAROTRAUMA FROM BLASTING (Alternative 3)Explosive charges in, adjacent to or beneath a water column producepressure waves or shockwaves which pass into the water medium.Shockwaves have harmful and often fatal impacts on organisms with gascavities, for example swim bladders in fish and sinus cavities and lungs inbirds and mammals.Nature of impactStatusNegativeExtentLocalDurationMedium termIntensityHighProbability ofProbableoccurrenceCumulative impact Highprior to mitigationSignificance prior to HIGHmitigationDegree to which impact Mediumcan be mitigated No blasting in the sea must be conducted during the periodbetween 30 June and 31 December as southern right whales arelikely to be in the vicinity of Walker Bay. Observations with binoculars must be sited on key vantage pointsimmediately before the intended blast. Blasting should onlycommence when cetaceans are not seen to be diving or resting onthe sea surface within two kilometres of the blast site. All blasting must be conducted using a rock breaking technologyknown as NoneX (www.nonex.co.za). This is not an explosivetechnology. It is propellant compound encased in a cartridge whichreacts very quickly to produce high volumes of harmless gas(nitrogen, carbon dioxide and steam). The cartridge is sealed insidea drilled hole and ignited. High pressure gas is released and entersinto the fractures caused by drilling and natural fractures or planesof weakness in the rock. The gas pressure causes the fractures toexpand and the rock to split apart. The cartridges do produce ahigh pressure over a short time frame and so will produce noise. Blasting activities must be limited to one detonation series per dayto avoid or reduce the mortality of predators and seabirds attractedto fish kills from previous blasts.Proposed mitigationProbability ofPossibleoccurrence withmitigationCumulative impact with LOWmitigationSignificance with MEDIUMmitigation54

A.3. POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO MARINE BIOTA: NOISE FROM BLASTING AND DRILLING (Alternatives 1and 2)Nature of impact Noise will be generated by the drilling and blasting activities duringconstruction. Cetaceans have highly developed acoustic sensory systems,which enable them to communicate, navigate, forage and avoid predators inthe marine environment where hearing is a much more important sensethan vision. Increased noise levels may mask acoustic signals or reduce therange at which mammals can detect the signals. This may impact their abilityto maintain biological functions such as feeding, mating and protecting andraising young. Marine mammals are likely to avoid the area and maypotentially change behaviour or become stressed due to the noise generatedby blasting and drilling activities. Given the high densities of southern rightwhales in the Walker Bay / Hermanus area over the winter and spring andthe sensitivity of the whales to disturbance during calving, the potentialimpacts of construction in the sea area during this period are potentially highand appropriate mitigation measures must be implemented.StatusNegativeExtentRegionalDurationMedium termIntensityHighProbability of DefiniteoccurrenceCumulative impact Highprior to mitigationSignificance prior to HIGHmitigationDegree to which Mediumimpact can bemitigatedProposedmitigation No blasting in the sea may be conducted during the period between 30June and 31 December as southern right whales are likely to be in thevicinity of Walker Bay. Observations with binoculars must be sited on key vantage pointsimmediately before the intended blast. Blasting should only commencewhen cetaceans are not seen to be diving or resting on the sea surfacewithin two kilometres of the blast site. All blasting must be conducted using a rock breaking technology known asNoneX (www.nonex.co.za). This is not an explosive technology but rathera propellant compound encased in a cartridge which reacts very quickly toproduce high volumes of harmless gas (nitrogen, carbon dioxide andsteam). The cartridge is sealed inside a drilled hole and ignited. Highpressure gas is released and enters into the fractures caused by drillingand natural fractures or planes of weakness in the rock. The gas pressurecauses the fractures to expand and the rock to split apart. The cartridgesare not explosive and not produce the near instantaneous pressure orshockwaves of explosives.55

Probability ofoccurrence withmitigationCumulative impactwith mitigationSignificance withmitigationPossibleMediumMEDIUMA.3. POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO MARINE BIOTA: NOISE FROM BLASTING AND DRILLING (Alternative 3)Nature of impact Noise will be generated by the drilling and blasting activities duringconstruction. Cetaceans have highly developed acoustic sensory systems,which enable them to communicate, navigate, forage and avoid predatorsin the marine environment where hearing is a much more important sensethan vision. Increased noise levels may mask acoustic signals or reduce therange at which mammals can detect the signals. This may impact theirability to maintain biological functions such as feeding, mating andprotecting and raising young. Marine mammals are likely to avoid the areaand may potentially change behaviour or become stressed due to the noisegenerated by blasting and drilling activities. Given the high densities ofsouthern right whales in the Walker Bay / Hermanus area over the winterand spring and the sensitivity of the whales to disturbance during calving,the potential impacts of construction in the sea area during this period arepotentially high and appropriate mitigation measures must beimplemented.StatusNegativeExtentRegionalDurationMedium termIntensityHighProbability ofDefiniteoccurrenceCumulative impact prior Highto mitigationSignificance prior to HIGHmitigationDegree to which impact Mediumcan be mitigatedProposed mitigation No blasting in the sea may be conducted during the period between 30June and 31 December as southern right whales are likely to be in thevicinity of Walker Bay. Observations with binoculars must be sited on key vantage pointsimmediately before the intended blast. Blasting should only commencewhen cetaceans are not seen to be diving or resting on the sea surfacewithin two kilometres of the blast site. All blasting must be conducted using a rock breaking technology knownas NoneX (www.nonex.co.za). This is not an explosive technology butrather a propellant compound encased in a cartridge which reacts very56

quickly to produce high volumes of harmless gas (nitrogen, carbondioxide and steam). The cartridge is sealed inside a drilled hole andignited. High pressure gas is released and enters into the fracturescaused by drilling and natural fractures or planes of weakness in therock. The gas pressure causes the fractures to expand and the rock tosplit apart. The cartridges are not explosive and not produce the nearinstantaneous pressure or shockwaves of explosives.Probability ofoccurrence withmitigationCumulative impact withmitigationSignificance withmitigationPossibleMediumMEDIUM-HIGHA.4. POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO MARINE BIOTA: WATER QUALITY (Alternatives 1, 2 and 3)Nature of impact Construction activities such as drilling and blasting are likely to generatesediment plumes, which will increase the turbidity of the water and settleon the surrounding seafloor. Another potential source of contamination ofthe water in the vicinity of the construction site is the potential chemicalpollution from the casting of concrete. The construction planning anddesign took into account the sensitivity of surrounding aquaculture facilitiesto alterations to water quality in the near shore environment from whichthey extract water with these principle sources of pollution in mind. As suchthe following features were included at the outset in the project design:Nonex will be used for all blasting. The NoneX rock breaking processproduces a much courser fragmentation when compared to thesmaller particles produced by explosives. Furthermore NoneXdetonations on land have been reported to produce negligible dustand fumes. The use of NoneX blasting technology will result in therelease of gases into the water column. None of the gases producedwill be noxious given that the cartridge is oxygen balanced andsufficient oxygen is available to achieve optimal oxidation to producegases consisting of carbon dioxide, nitrogen and steam.The casting of cement to create the base of the slot-slope wall willtake place within water tight plastic canvas bags supported andshaped within metal frames with shuttering beams. There is apotential that the spillage of cement in the marine environment mayimpair water quality temporarily in the surrounding nearshore watersand thereby impact abalone farming operations. The proposedmethod utilising metal frames, shuttering beams and plastic canvasbags will reduce the likelihood of this impact occurring.The area surrounding the construction site is particularly exposed. It isanticipated that sand particles suspended by drilling and blasting will be57

eadily dispersed with no significant impact on the marine ecology. Similarlyin the event of exposure of cement directly into the marine environmentany chemical pollution is expected to be readily dispersed with and impactsare expected to be of low significance to the marine ecology in the area.Potential impacts from this source will need to be mitigated by providingneighbouring abalone farms with adequate warning regarding the timing ofall casting, and blasting activities such that they can be on standby and cantake appropriate action (e.g. temporarily turning off intake pumps) in theevent of an accident (e.g. spillage of wet concrete directly into the sea).The construction activities will involve the use of heavy vehicles andmachinery in the coastal zone and there is a potential for hydrocarbonspills. Suitable management mechanisms must be implemented to mitigatethis risk and contingency plans in the event of accidental spills must beprepared. This should include measures required to ensure that no stormwater from the site be allowed to enter the sea.StatusExtentDurationIntensityProbability ofoccurrenceCumulative impactprior to mitigationSignificance prior tomitigationDegree to which impactcan be mitigatedProposed mitigationProbability ofoccurrence withmitigationCumulative impact withmitigationSignificance withmitigationNegativeLocalMedium termMediumProbableLowLOWLow All fuel and oil is to be adequately stored and no leaking vehicles are tobe permitted on site. Contingency plans in the event of an accident must be prepared. Containment of storm water from construction areasPossibleVery lowVERY LOWA.5. POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO MARINE BIOTA: LITTER (Alternatives 1, 2 and 3)Nature of impact Large numbers of marine organisms, including fish and marinemammals, are killed or injured by becoming entangled in debris (Wallace58

1985), while others, including seabirds, are at risk through the ingestionof small plastic particles (Shomura and Yoshida 1985). All reasonablemeasures must be enforced to ensure there is no littering byconstruction workers.StatusExtentDurationIntensityProbability ofoccurrenceCumulative impactprior to mitigationSignificance prior tomitigationDegree to which impactcan be mitigatedProposed mitigationProbability ofoccurrence withmitigationCumulative impact withmitigationSignificance withmitigationNegativeRegionalMedium-termMediumProbableLowMEDIUMMedium No litter or Contractors’ waste must be left lying about the site at anytime. Sufficient closed containers must be on the construction site tohandle the amount of litter, waste, debris and builders wastegenerated on the site. A skip, with a wind proof cover, must be used to contain refuse fromsite bins.PossibleLowLOWA.6. POTENTIAL SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS: JOB CREATION (Alternatives 1, 2 and 3)An estimated 39 jobs will be created during the construction phase forAlternatives 1 and 2 and 78 jobs for Alternative 3. Construction activitiesNature of impact are expected to extend over 36 to 41 months.StatusPositiveExtentLocalDurationMedium termIntensityLowProbability ofProbableoccurrenceCumulative impact Lowprior to mitigation59

Significance prior tomitigationDegree to which impactcan be mitigatedProposed mitigationCumulative impact withmitigationSignificance withmitigationLOWNo mitigation requiredN/AN/AN/AA.7. POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO NEIGHBOURING USERS: WATER QUALITY AND INTAKE (Alternatives 1and 2)Nature of impact Several abalone farms, including Abagold, extract seawater foraquaculture purposes in the vicinity of the proposed development site.The quality of the feedwater must be maintained so not to adverselyimpact these aquaculture activities. During the project design phasesome of the impacts were anticipated and much consideration was givento reducing or eliminating these impacts through the use of innovativeconstruction methods. The construction planning and design particularlytook into account the sensitivity of surrounding aquaculture facilities toalterations to water quality in the near shore environment from whichthey extract water. The principle concerns regarding water qualityinclude potential chemical pollution from the casting of concrete directlyin the water as well as the increase in suspended solids followingblasting. As such the following features were included at the outset inthe project design: Nonex will be used for all blasting. The NoneX rock breaking processproduces a much courser fragmentation when compared to thesmaller particles produced by explosives. Furthermore NoneXdetonations on land have been reported to produce negligible dustand fumes. The use of NoneX blasting technology will result in therelease of gases into the water column. None of the gases producedwill be noxious given that the cartridge is oxygen balanced andsufficient oxygen is available to achieve optimal oxidation to producegases consisting of carbon dioxide, nitrogen and steam. The casting of cement to create the base of the slot-slope wall willtake place within water tight plastic canvas bags supported andshaped within metal frames with shuttering beams. There is apotential that the spillage of cement in the marine environment mayimpair water quality temporarily in the surrounding nearshore watersand thereby impact abalone farming operations. The proposedmethod utilising metal frames, shuttering beams and plastic canvasbags will reduce the likelihood of this impact occurring.60

StatusExtentDurationIntensityProbability ofoccurrenceCumulative impactprior to mitigationSignificance prior tomitigationDegree to which impactcan be mitigatedProposed mitigationNegativeLocalMedium termMediumProbableLowLOWLowAdditional management measures were requested by the neighbouringabalone farmers and it is recommended that these measures be mademandatory. The recommended measures are precautionarymanagement measures to mitigate the severity of potential impacts byensuring that personnel are available on site at each of the farms tomanage the intake systems during blasting and the casting of cement. A monthly schedule of planned activities is to be made available byAbagold and discussed with all neighbouring abalone farms. During periods when casting and/or blasting activities are planned,weekly activity schedules indicating the proposed dates of castingand/or blasting activities must be provided to neighbouring abalonefarms. At least one days notice regarding changes to this schedulemust be issued to all potentially affected farms. Construction activities (notably casting and blasting operations)should be limited to week days to ensure that there are personnel onsite at the other abalone farms to respond to any incidents that mayoccur. Prior agreement must be sought from other abalone farms forcasting and blasting operations to be undertaken outside of theseperiods.Probability ofoccurrence withmitigationCumulative impact withmitigationSignificance withmitigationPossibleVery lowVERY LOWA.7. POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO NEIGHBOURING USERS: WATER QUALITY AND INTAKE (Alternative 3)Nature of impact Several abalone farms, including Abagold, extract seawater foraquaculture purposes in the vicinity of the proposed development site.The quality of the feedwater must be maintained so not to adverselyimpact these aquaculture activities. During the project design phase61

some of the impacts were anticipated and much consideration was givento reducing or eliminating these impacts through the use of innovativeconstruction methods. These methods are described in detail above forAlternatives 1 and 2 and will be applied for Alternative 3. The impacts towater quality resulting from the construction and operation ofAlternative 3 are, like Alternatives 1 and 2 expected to be of lowsignificance prior to mitigation. However the positioning of the southernside wall of the WEC dam for Alternative 3 is directly in front of theAquafarm intake sump. This will impact the intake of water by Aquafarmsignificantly as the channel will be cut off by the wall.StatusExtentDurationIntensityProbability ofoccurrenceCumulative impactprior to mitigationSignificance prior tomitigationDegree to which impactcan be mitigatedProposed mitigationNegativeLocalLong termHighDefiniteHighHIGHLowAdditional management measures were requested by the neighbouringabalone farmers to reduce the potenmtial impacts of alterations towater quality. These recommendations and measures are detailed forAlternative 1 and 2 above and must be implemented for Alternative 3.The potential impacts to water quality after mitigation, like Alternative 1and 2 will be of very low significance for Alternative 3.No mitigation for the impaired water extraction capabilities by Aquafarmas a result of the construction of the southern side wall of the WEC damproposed in Alternative 3 has been identified.Probability ofoccurrence withmitigationCumulative impact withmitigationSignificance withmitigationDefiniteHighHIGHA.8. POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO NEIGHBOURING USERS: NOISE IMPACTS (Alternatives 1, 2 and 3)A certain amount of noise will be generated by blasting and drillingNature of impact activities during construction. This may present a nuisance to persons62

StatusExtentDurationIntensityProbability ofoccurrenceCumulative impactprior to mitigationSignificance prior tomitigationDegree to which impactcan be mitigatedProposed mitigationProbability ofoccurrence withmitigationCumulative impact withmitigationSignificance withmitigationworking or living within and adjacent to the New Harbour Hermanus.NegativeLocalMedium termMediumProbableMediumMEDIUMMedium The appointed contractor must be familiar with and adhere to, anylocal by-laws and regulations regarding the generation of noise andhours of operation. NoneX must be used for all blasting. Conveyor belting must be used to cover the holes being fired whenblasting.ImprobableVery lowVERY LOWA.9. POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO NEIGHBOURING USERS: DUST IMPACTS (Alternatives 1, 2 and 3)Nature of impact Dust could potentially be generated by blasting and drilling activitiesduring construction. Dust from stockpiles of construction materials mayalso be spread by wind. This may present a nuisance to neighbours.StatusNegativeExtentLocalDurationMedium termIntensityLowProbability ofPossibleoccurrenceCumulative impact Very Lowprior to mitigationSignificance prior to VERY LOWmitigationDegree to which impact Mediumcan be mitigatedProposed mitigation The appointed contractor shall ensure that the generation of dust isminimised and shall implement a dust control programme (e.g.63

Probability ofoccurrence withmitigationCumulative impact withmitigationSignificance withmitigationwetting areas being disturbed) to maintain a safe workingenvironment and minimise nuisance. The contractor shall ensurethat exposed material stockpiles are adequately protected againstthe wind. NoneX must be used as minimal dust is produced following thedetonation of NoneX.ImprobableInsignificantINSIGNIFICANTA.10. POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO NEIGHBOURING USERS: VISUAL IMPACTS (Alternative 1 and 2)Nature of impact Being nestled below the high walls of the existing Abagold abalone farm,and planned Relmar abalone farm, the WEC would be hardly visible fromthe shore. The 4.5 m high dam wall would be visible from the sea, butbeing relatively low, visibility would diminish rapidly with distance.StatusNegativeExtentLocalDurationShort-termIntensityMediumProbability ofProbableoccurrenceCumulative impact Medium-lowprior to mitigationSignificance prior to MEDIUM-LOWmitigationDegree to which impact Lowcan be mitigatedProposed mitigation No further mitigation is feasible in terms of siting and layout. Therocky cove site below the abalone farms are in a visually secludedarea, screened in part by rocky promontories and by the high wallsof the abalone farms. No visual screening from the sea is possible,and therefore no further mitigation is feasible. Ancillary structures, fencing, signage, and other vertical elementsshould be kept to an absolute minimum to maintain the uncluttered,horizontal profile of the proposed buffer dam walls. Where signageis required, this should be fixed to walls instead of free-standingsigns in order to minimise visual clutter. No additional outdoor lighting should be introduced with the waveenergy facility because of the visually exposed nature of theshorescape. Where external lighting is required for steps etc. theseshould be low-level bulkhead type fittings with reflectors to preventlight spillage. All electrical and other cables should be located64

Cumulative impact withmitigationSignificance withmitigationunderground.N/ALOWA.11. POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO NEIGHBOURING USERS: VISUAL IMPACTS (Alternative 3)Nature of impact The relatively small footprint and low profile of the buffer dams meansthat they will have a fairly small view catchment area, and would bevisible from few shore-based viewpoints. It would, however, be visiblefrom the sea and from tour boats. Visibility from the restaurant would befurther reduced with the construction of the planned Relmar abalonefarm in the foreground.StatusNegativeExtentLocalDurationShort-termIntensityMediumProbability ofProbableoccurrenceCumulative impact Mediumprior to mitigationSignificance prior to MEDIUMmitigationDegree to which impact Lowcan be mitigatedProposed mitigation No further mitigation is feasible in terms of siting and layout. Therocky cove site below the abalone farms are in a visually secludedarea, screened in part by rocky promontories and by the high wallsof the abalone farms. No visual screening from the sea is possible,and therefore no further mitigation is feasible. Ancillary structures, fencing, signage, and other vertical elementsshould be kept to an absolute minimum to maintain theuncluttered, horizontal profile of the proposed buffer dam walls.Where signage is required, this should be fixed to walls instead offree-standing signs in order to minimise visual clutter. No additional outdoor lighting should be introduced with the waveenergy facility because of the visually exposed nature of theshorescape. Where external lighting is required for steps etc. theseshould be low-level bulkhead type fittings with reflectors to preventlight spillage. All electrical and other cables should be locatedunderground.Cumulative impact with MEDIUM-LOWmitigationSignificance with MEDIUM-LOWmitigation65

B. OPERATIONAL PHASEB.1. POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO MARINE BIOTA: FISH KILLS IN TURBINES (Alternative 1, 2 and 3)Nature of impact The very low head turbine was specifically designed for very low headsites. These turbines have extremely low rotational speeds (34 rpm), alarge runner diameter (from 3.55 m to 5.6 m) and very low watervelocity (less than 2 m/s). Testing of the VLH turbines has revealed thatno excessive heat is generated during operation. The turbines will besituated entirely underwater and will therefore not present a noisenuisance to adjacent land areas. Noise generated underwater by theturbines will be insignificant compared to background noises along thecoastline, for example the pumps supplying water to the abalone farmsand the sounds of boat engines around the harbour area.StatusNegativeExtentLocalDurationLong termIntensityLowProbability ofImprobableoccurrenceCumulative impact Very Lowprior to mitigationSignificance prior to VERY LOWmitigationDegree to which impact Not possiblecan be mitigatedProposed mitigation No mitigation measure is required.Cumulative impact withmitigationSignificance withmitigationN/AN/AB.2. POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO MARINE ECOLOGY: HEAT AND NOISE GENERATED BY TURBINES(Alternative 1, 2 and 3)Nature of impact Very low head turbines were specifically designed for very low headsites. These turbines have extremely low rotational speeds (34 rpm), alarge runner diameter (from 3.55 m to 5.6 m) and very low watervelocity (less than 2 m/s). Testing of the VLH turbines has revealed thatno excessive heat was generated during operation. The turbines will besituated entirely underwater and will therefore not present a noisenuisance to adjacent land areas. Noise generated underwater by theturbines will be insignificant compared to background noises along the66

StatusExtentDurationIntensityProbability ofoccurrenceCumulative impactprior to mitigationSignificance prior tomitigationDegree to which impactcan be mitigatedProposed mitigationCumulative impact withmitigationSignificance withmitigationcoastline, for example the pumps supplying water to the abalone farmsand the sounds of boat engines around the harbour area.NegativeLocalLong-termLowImprobableVery LowVERY LOWNot possibleNo mitigation measure is required.N/AN/AB.3. POTENTIAL SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS: JOB CREATION AND SECURITY (Alternative 1, 2 and 3)Nature of impact An estimated 12 jobs will be created during the construction phase forthe operation of Alternatives 1 and 2 and 24 jobs for Alternative 3. Moresignificantly, a total of 500 jobs will remain secure at Abagold providedthe WECs are able to supply sufficient energy to offset the energyexpenditure of Abagold.StatusPositiveExtentLocalDurationLong-termIntensityHighProbability ofProbableoccurrenceCumulative impact Highprior to mitigationSignificance prior to HIGHmitigationDegree to which impact Not possiblecan be mitigatedProposed mitigation No mitigation measure is required.Probability ofoccurrence withmitigationCumulative impact withN/AN/A67

mitigationSignificance withmitigationN/AB.4. POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO NEIGHBOURING USERS: WAVE AND CURRENT REGIME CHANGES(Alternative 1, 2 and 3)Nature of impact The development of solid structures and the alteration to the shape ofthe coastline will result in alterations to the nearshore wave regime.Since the seabed is predominantly rocky it is not expected that erosionof the seabed will occur but there may be a slight redistribution of thesand pockets among the rock gulleys. Erosion of structures or coasts isnot expected. The vessels entering the existing port or maneuveringtowards it will not face significant problems from the reflection patternsfrom Abagold since the reflected waves will be unnoticeable at thedistance of the local fishing boat shipping routes to the harbour.During severe storms and spring high tides as the wave energyapproaching the site will be considerable and, with swell from the morewesterly directions (e.g. WSW), there is a potential risk of increasedoccurrence and intensity of reflections towards the Aquafarm pumpstation. Some damage may be inflicted during these events over andabove that expected in the absence of the WEC structures.StatusExtentDurationIntensityProbability ofoccurrenceCumulative impactprior to mitigationSignificance prior tomitigationDegree to which impactcan be mitigatedProposed mitigationNegativeLocalLong-termMediumPossibleMediumHIGHHighconstructing a rock slope against the vertical walls at those locationscomprising a 1 in 2 slope with rock sizes of 1 to 3 tonnes.It should be emphasized that the above recommendation is indicativeonly and that the slope needs to be designed by paying special attentionto the stability of the base of the slope (toe) and the correct weight ofthe rocks to avoid their displacement during storm events.A more detailed assessment using analytical models is necessary toconfirm whether the reflections described are of concern and whetherthe proposed rock slope is sufficient. It is thus recommended that a68

detailed wave modelling study only be conducted immediately prior tothe commencement of construction activities to inform the design of therock slope.Cumulative impact withmitigationSignificance withmitigationLowLOWB.5. POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO NEIGHBOURING USERS: VISUAL IMPACTS (Alternative 1 and 2)Nature of impact Being nestled below the high walls of the existing Abagold abalone farm,and planned Relmar abalone farm, the WEC would be hardly visible fromthe shore. The 4 m high dam wall would be visible from the sea, butbeing relatively low, visibility would diminish rapidly with distance.The rocky cove site below the abalone farms are in a visually secludedarea, screened in part by rocky promontories and by the high walls ofthe existing abalone farms. The seaward facing slot-slope buffer damwalls are constructed from interlocking precast elements with littleopportunity for alternative surface treatment. These will howeverbecome covered with marine life, which will reduce their visualsignificance.StatusNegativeExtentLocalDurationLong-termIntensityMedium-lowProbability ofHighly probableoccurrenceCumulative impact Medium-lowprior to mitigationSignificance prior to MEDIUM-LOWmitigationDegree to which impactcan be mitigatedNo visual screening from the sea is possible, and therefore no furthermitigation is feasible.Proposed mitigation No further mitigations are feasible in terms of siting and layout. The side walls of the buffer dams should be faced with rough stone,using the local sandstone, to blend with the surrounding rockycoastal landscape, similar to the rough stone facing on the existingwalls of the Abagold abalone farm. Ancillary structures, fencing, signage, and other vertical elementsshould be kept to an absolute minimum to maintain theuncluttered, horizontal profile of the proposed buffer dam walls.Where signage is required, this should be fixed to walls instead offree-standing signs in order to minimise visual clutter. No additional outdoor lighting should be introduced with the waveenergy facility because of the visually exposed nature of the69

Probability ofoccurrence withmitigationCumulative impact withmitigationSignificance withmitigationshorescape. Where external lighting is required for steps etc. theseshould be low-level bulkhead type fittings with reflectors to preventlight spillage. All electrical and other cables should be locatedunderground. Consideration should be given to creating an attractive graphicdisplay of the wave energy facility and an upgraded visitor centrefor education purposes and to provide an attraction for tourists.ProbableMedium-lowMEDIUM-LOWB.6. POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO NEIGHBOURING USERS: VISUAL IMPACTS (Alternative 3)Nature of impact The relatively small footprint and low profile of the buffer dam meansthat they would have a fairly small view catchment area, and would bevisible from few shore-based viewpoints. It would, however, be visiblefrom the sea and from tour boats. Visibility from the restaurant would befurther reduced with the construction of the planned Relmar abalonefarm in the foreground.The rocky cove site below the abalone farms is in a visually secludedarea, screened in part by rocky promontories and by the high walls ofthe abalone farms. The seaward facing slot-slope buffer dam walls areconstructed from interlocking precast elements with little opportunityfor alternative surface treatment. These will however become coveredwith marine life, which will reduce their visual significance.StatusNegativeExtentLocalDurationLong-termIntensityMediumProbability ofHighly probableoccurrenceCumulative impact Mediumprior to mitigationSignificance prior to MEDIUMmitigationDegree to which impactcan be mitigatedNo visual screening from the sea is possible, and therefore no furthermitigation is feasible.Proposed mitigation No further mitigations are feasible in terms of siting and layout. The side walls of the buffer dams should be faced with rough stone,using the local sandstone, to blend with the surrounding rockycoastal landscape, similar to the rough stone facing on the existingwalls of the Abagold abalone farm.70

Probability ofoccurrence withmitigationCumulative impact withmitigationSignificance withmitigation Ancillary structures, fencing, signage, and other vertical elementsshould be kept to an absolute minimum to maintain theuncluttered, horizontal profile of the proposed buffer dam walls.Where signage is required, this should be fixed to walls instead offree-standing signs in order to minimise visual clutter. No additional outdoor lighting should be introduced with the waveenergy facility because of the visually exposed nature of theshorescape. Where external lighting is required for steps etc. theseshould be low-level bulkhead type fittings with reflectors to preventlight spillage. All electrical and other cables should be locatedunderground. Consideration should be given to creating an attractive graphicdisplay of the wave energy facility and an upgraded visitor centrefor education purposes and to provide an attraction for tourists.ProbableMedium-lowMEDIUM-LOWC. DECOMMISIONING PHASEIt is not likely that the proposed project would be decommissioned.D. ANY OTHER IMPACTS: NO GO ALTERNATIVED.1. POTENTIAL SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS (No Go Alternative)The future status of Abagold’s operations are under threat given thecurrent and projected future price of electricity and the demand thereofby Abagold. A total of 500 jobs, comprising both current and future jobsat the Sulamanzi site, may not be secure if the no go alternative isNature of impact implemented.StatusNegativeExtentLocalDurationLong-termIntensityHighProbability ofoccurrenceProbableCumulative impactprior to mitigation HighSignificance prior tomitigationHIGH71

Degree to which impactcan be mitigatedProposed mitigationCumulative impact withmitigationSignificance withmitigationN/AN/AN/AN/A3. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTTaking the assessment of potential impacts into account, please provide an environmental impactstatement that summarises the impact that the proposed activity and its alternatives may have on theenvironment after the management and mitigation of impacts have been taken into account, withspecific reference to types of impact, duration of impacts, likelihood of potential impacts actuallyoccurring and the significance of impacts.Alternative 1 (preferred alternative)The identified potential negative environmental impacts of Alternative 1 of the development are all low,very low or insignificant, aside from potential noise impacts on cetaceans (whales) during theconstruction phase of the project which were considered to be of medium-low significance. Thesenoise-related impacts will be restricted to the construction phase of the project and hence will berelatively short-lived and as such do not represent a significant obstacle to the implementation of theproject. The phased implementation of infrastructure and activities in this alternative is attractive inthat it will allow the viability of the project to be assessed before full implementation has taken place.Identified positive impacts of this alternative are likely to be highly significant and will be of lastingduration and strongly motivate for implementation of the project.Alternative 2The identified potential negative environmental impacts of Alternative 2 are very similar to Alternative1, and are also all low, very low or insignificant, aside from potential noise impacts on cetaceans(whales) during the construction phase of the project which were considered to be of medium-lowsignificance. These noise-related impacts will be restricted to the construction phase of the project andhence will be relatively short-lived and as such do not represent a significant obstacle to theimplementation of this alternative. The lack of a phased-implementation approach on this alternativerenders it less attractive relative to Alternative 1 in that it does not allow for the viability of the projectto be assessed before full implementation has taken place. Identified positive impacts of this alternativeare as for Alternative 1, and are likely to be highly significant and will be of lasting duration and stronglymotivate for implementation of the project.Alternative 3The identified potential negative environmental impacts of Alternative 3 are more significant thanAlternative 1 or 2 owing to the larger size of the WEC proposed in this alternative, but are still mostly ofmedium, low, or very low significance, aside from potential noise impacts on cetaceans (whales) duringthe construction phase of the project, and the impacts to the water intake capabilities by Aquafarm72

during both the construction and operational phases, which were both considered to be of highsignificance . As is the case for Alternatives 1 and 2, these noise-related impacts will be restricted to theconstruction phase of the project, and will be relatively short-lived. However, the larger size of this WECand the increased depth of water will require considerably greater volumes of construction material andlonger construction times than for Alternative 1 and 2. The southern side wall of the proposed WEC damfor Alternative 3 will cut across the channel directly in front of the Aquafarm intake, thereby severelyhindering their seawater intake capability. The lack of a phased-implementation approach on thisalternative also renders it less attractive than Alternative 1 in that it does not allow for the viability ofthe project to be assessed before full implementation has taken place. Identified positive impacts of thisalternative are as for Alternative 1 and 2, but increased construction costs render this alternative lesssecure from a financial perspective.No-go alternative (compulsory)No potential negative biophysical impacts were identified as being associated with the No-goalternative. However, escalating costs of electricity coupled with the high demand for this resource byAbagold pose a significant threat to the current and future viability of company’s abalone farmingoperations, and hence its ability to retain existing jobs and to secure new jobs in the future. Thisrepresents a highly significant potential negative socio-economic impact associated with this alternativeand strongly mitigates against adopting this alternative.73

SECTION E: RECOMMENDATION OF PRACTITIONERIs the information contained in this report and the documentation attached heretosufficient to make a decision in respect of the activity applied for (in the view of theenvironmental assessment practitioner)?YESNOIf “YES”, please list any recommended conditions, including mitigation measures that should beconsidered for inclusion in any authorisation that may be granted by the competent authority in respectof the application:Design1. To mitigate the potential impacts of altered wave and current patterns a detailed study must beconducted prior to the commencement of construction activities to inform the design of a rockslope to mitigate the reflections of waves and storm surge during severe storms towards theexisting Aquafarm infrastructure adjacent to the proposed development.Construction2. To mitigate the potential impacts of blasting on marine fauna the contractors must follow thefollowing conditions: No blasting or drilling in the sea must be conducted during the period between June 30 andDecember 31 as southern right whales are likely to be in the vicinity of Walker Bay. Observations with binoculars must be sited on key vantage points immediately before theintended blast. Blasting should only commence when cetaceans are not seen to be diving orresting on the sea surface within two kilometres of the blast site. All blasting must be conducted using a rock breaking technology known as NoneX(www.nonex.co.za). This is not an explosive technology. It is propellant compound encased ina cartridge which reacts very quickly to produce high volumes of harmless gas (nitrogen,carbon dioxide and steam). The cartridge is sealed inside a drilled hole and ignited. Highpressure gas is released and enters into the fractures caused by drilling and natural fracturesor planes of weakness in the rock. The gas pressure causes the fractures to expand and therock to split apart. The cartridges do produce a high pressure over a short time frame and sowill produce noise. Blasting activities must be limited to one detonation series per day to avoid or reduce themortality of predators and seabirds attracted to fish kills from previous blasts.3. To mitigate the potential impacts to water quality the contractors must follow the followingconditions: Nonex must be used for all blasting. The casting of cement to create the base of the slot-slope wall must take place withinwatertight plastic canvas bags supported and shaped within metal frames with shutteringbeams. Adequate warning must be provided to neighbouring abalone farmers regarding the intended74

timing of any casting or blasting activities.A monthly schedule of planned activities is to be made available by Abagold and discussedwith all abalone farms.During periods when cement casting and/or blasting activities are planned, weekly activityschedules detailing the proposed dates for either activity must be provided to neighbouringabalone farms in advance. At least one days’ notice regarding changes to this schedule mustbe issued to all potentially affected farms.Construction activities (notably casting and blasting drilling operations) should be limited toweek days to ensure that there are personnel on site at the other abalone farms to respond toany incidents that may occur. Prior agreement should be sought from other abalone farms forcasting and blasting operations to be undertaken outside of these periods.4. To mitigate the potential impacts of litter on marine fauna the contractors must follow thefollowing conditions:All reasonable measures must be enforced to ensure there is no littering by constructionworkers.5. To mitigate the potential visual impacts of the proposed development the contractors andapplicants must follow the following conditions:The side walls of the buffer dams should be faced with rough stone, using the local sandstone,to blend with the surrounding rocky coastal landscape, similar to the rough stone facing on theexisting walls of the Abagold abalone farm.Ancillary structures, fencing, signage, and other vertical elements should be kept to anabsolute minimum to maintain the uncluttered, horizontal profile of the proposed buffer damwalls. Where signage is required, this should be fixed to walls instead of free-standing signs inorder to minimise visual clutter.No additional outdoor lighting should be introduced with the wave energy facility because ofthe visually exposed nature of the shorescape. Where external lighting is required for stepsetc. these should be low-level bulkhead type fittings with reflectors to prevent light spillage.All electrical and other cables should be located underground.Consideration should be given to creating an attractive graphic display of the wave energyfacility and an upgraded visitor centre for education purposes and to provide an attraction fortourists.6. To mitigate potential noise impacts above water the appointed contractor shall be familiar withand adhere to, any local by-laws and regulations regarding the generation of noise and hours ofoperation. The Contractor shall avoid construction activities outside of “normal working hours”.7. The appointed contractor shall ensure that the generation of dust is minimised and shallimplement a dust control programme (e.g. wetting areas being disturbed) to maintain a safeworking environment and minimise nuisance. The contractor shall ensure that exposed materialstockpiles are adequately protected against the wind.8. All construction materials should be stored and contained within a designated area.9. The applicant must ensure that the majority of the new temporary job opportunities are provided75

to members of the local community.10. On completion of the project, the appointed contractor shall ensure that all structures,equipment, materials, waste, rubble, notice boards and temporary fences used duringconstruction are removed.Operation11. Kelp and fouling biota found within the WEC dams and pump assistance pond must be removedperiodically during the operational phase of the activity.12. The applicant must monitor fouling of all surfaces and machinery in the WECs. No biocides are tobe used in the event of biofouling without the assessment of the impacts of such biocides.13. The applicant must ensure that the majority of the new temporary job opportunities are providedto members of the local community.Is an EMPr attached?The EMPr must be attached as Appendix F.YESNO76

SECTION F: APPENDICESAppendix A: Site plans and locality mapAppendix B: PhotographsAppendix C: Facility illustration(s)Appendix D: Specialist reportsAppendix E: Comments and responses reportAppendix F: Environmental Management Programme (EMPr)Appendix G: Other InformationDEA acceptance of new application for an environmental authorisation processDEA letter of permission to downgrade to Basic AssessmentProposed Construction Schedule77