Presentation to DMR and Minutes of Meeting

Transcription

1 Annex C16 Presentation to DMR and Minutes of Meeting ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT SOUTH DEEP SOLAR PV EIA REPORT

2 Meeting Minutes Subject/Ref Venue Date of Meeting 02 October South Deep Solar PV EIA Presentation DMR Offices, 78 De Korte Street, Johannesburg Environmental Resources Management Building 32 1 st Floor The Woodlands Office Park Woodlands Drive Woodmead, 2148 T: F: Present Distribution Alan Cochran (AC) (ERM, Environmental Consultant) Puseletso Matete (PM) (South Deep, Project Proponent) Ravisha Ajodhapersadh (RA) (EGP, Project Developer) Mantwa Mathebula (MM) (EGP, Project Developer) Christinah Ramoelo (CR) (DMR, Case Developer) Musa Mangobe (MMe) (DMR, oversight) As above Date 11 October 2017 MINUTES 1. Welcome and Introductions a. AC welcomed all present. b. All introduced themselves 2. Health & Safety Moment a. AC noted the emergency exits and the procedures to be followed in case of emergency. 3. Objectives of the Meeting a. AC outlined the objectives of the meeting were to i. Present the findings of the Environmental Impact Assessment to the DMR. ii. Provide a platform for the DMR to ask questions about the project. 4. South Deep Solar EIA Presentation a. AC presented the EIA (See Annex A). Issues and questions were addressed as the presentation progressed; these are listed in item 5 below. 5. EIA Questions and Discussions a. MMe noted that the proponent should be accurate with the Listed Activities that are applied for as these will be audited by the Department once the project has been authorised. b. CR will need to conduct a site visit of the proposed project location once the final EIA has been submitted. It was also suggested that CR join a site visit to an operating Solar PV Facility in early November. Invitation is to be sent to the regional Manager suggesting CR attend. c. Detailed discussion of the site selection and alternatives analysis process. This has been outlined in detail in the EAI report. ACTION Proponent to double check Listed Activities applied for. EGP to invite CR to attend site visit to operating Solar PV Facility. Invitation to be sent to DMR Regional Manager requesting CR attendance. Note.

3 Meeting Minutes d. AC noted the project will not be constructed with a wetland / water course. However, the project will be within 500m of a watercourse and thus the necessary Water Use Licence Application process has been initiated. e. MMe noted that GDARD have Gazetted a new Environmental Management Framework (EMF) and that this should be consulted for the project f. Terrestrial Ecology: The areas designated by GDARD as Important and Ecological Support are not 100% accurate, but serve as a guide to the specialist terrestrial ecologist. The terrestrial ecologist has thus mapped areas which are Natural Habitat and Modified Habitat. The areas that are defined as Natural Habitat are of concern and the developer is working on way to optimise the project layout and reduce the impact on these areas. Additionally the developer and proponent are looking at developing Additional Conservation Actions (ACA s) to account for the potential residual impact on the Natural Habitat (Important areas). g. There are 20 mine employees that have an agreement with the mine to graze their cattle on the land earmarked for the proposed project. Thus the mine is in discussions with these people on alternative locations to graze their cattle. h. There are several Cultural heritage features identified. Most of these are of low heritage significance. There is a grave on the proposed site. The developer has optimized the project layout to avoid the grave as well as provide access to the grave for family members. i. Financial Provisions: The draft EIA includes Financial Provisions for decommissioning and closure. This must be updated based on the optimised layout. MMe noted that ERM should double check that the latest DMR calculation sheet has been used to generate this and that he would send ERM the latest calculation sheet. It may be useful to have the financial provisions independently audited prior to submission. DMR informed the Proponent and Project Developer that prior to any issuance of an Environmental Authorisation (EA), the financial provision in terms of closure and rehabilitation will be requested in writing by the DMR to the Proponent. Additionally the Proponent will need to enact payment of the financial provision prior to issuance of the EA and the EA will not be issued without the financial provisions being in place. MMe noted that the Proponent and the Developer should ensure that it is covered under their contractual agreement. j. In terms of consultation of key authorities, MMe noted that as long as the proponent has proof of submission of the Draft Scoping Report and the Draft EIA to the various key commenting Note. Proponent to consult the new GDARD EMF. Note. Note. Note. Proponent to check Financial Provisions calculation sheet is the latest one and to update in accordance with the optimized site layout. MMe to share the latest financial provisions calculation sheet with ERM. Proponent to consider having the updated financial provisions independently audited prior to submission. Note. Proponent to include proof of delivery of reports

4 Meeting Minutes authorities / departments (DAFF, DWS, GDARD, and Municipality) then this is sufficient. k. Mining Charter is not applicable to this project. This needs to be explained in the Comments and Responses Report. 6. Discussion: Transfer of Environmental Authorisation and requirement for Section 102 Amendment to Mining Right. a. Transfer of the Environmental Authorisation from South Deep to EGP should be straight forward. Proponent should make use of the NEMA (DEA) form for this. b. EGP await DMR Regional Director (RD) response to letter regarding Section 102. MMe suggested setting up a meeting with the RD to discuss this issue. in PPP chapter annexes. Note. Note. RA and MM to request meeting with DMR Regional Director. Annexes Annex A: _DMR EIA Presentation_ pdf

5 Environmental Impact Assessment for the South Deep Solar PV Power Plant DMR Meeting 2 October 2017 Insert then choose Picture select your picture. Right click your picture and Send to back. Copyright 2017 by ERM Worldwide Group Limited and/or its affiliates ( ERM ). All Rights Reserved. No part of The The business world s leading of sustainability sustainability consultancy this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, without prior written permission of ERM.

6 Presentation Outline Welcome and Introductions Health & Safety Moment Objectives of the Meeting Introductions About the Project The EIA Process Environmental & Social Baseline Potential Impacts Key Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Management Programme Report Public Consultation Process The Way Forward Water Use Licence Application (WULA) Notice Questions, Comments, and Discussion 2

7 Objectives of the Meeting Present the findings of the Environmental Impact Assessment to the DMR. Provide a platform for the DMR to ask questions about the project. 3

8 Introductions Project Proponent Project Developer Global producer of gold with operations in Australia, Ghana, Peru and South Africa. Gold Fields in collaboration with Enel Green Power is proposing to develop a 40MW Solar PV Plant at the South Deep Gold Mine near Westonaria, Gauteng Independent Consultant Global Sustainability Consultancy. Independent Environmental Assessment Practitioner (EAP). Responsible for conducting the EIA and public participation process. Leader in the renewable energy sector with operations in Europe, Americas, Asia, Oceania and Africa 4

9 Project Need and Desirability The PV facility is desired to: Supplement the Mine s power supply with green/ clean energy Diversify the Mine s energy mix to reduce the mines reliance on fossil fuels and include renewable energy Contribute to the Mine s strategic objective to reduce energy costs and decrease the environmental footprint of the mine Why Solar PV? Well established technology Economic return on investment time (two years on a year life span) Construction process is simple Small land-take footprint when compared to other similar technologies Good sighting options as they can be constructed on sloping landscapes 5

10 Project Location The site is within the existing South Deep mining right, adjacent to existing mining operations: 6

11 Activity and Technology Alternatives Activity alternatives considered included other power generation options: Diesel fired power plant Gas-fired power plant Wind farm facility Solar power plant Solar was found to be the best suited generation alternative. Within solar the following technologies were considered: Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) Concentrated Photovoltaic (CPV) Photovoltaic panels (PV) Photovoltaic panels were found to be the preferred technology alternatives. 7

12 Site Alternatives 8

13 Motivation for Proposed Site The site is a mixture of modified and natural habitat and is currently used for grazing Located next to the mine s main access road The entire project footprint (40MW) can be accommodated The site is comparatively flat Ease of interconnection with Mine network The site is close to existing Mine infrastructure 9

14 Project Description 40MW Solar PV Plant occupying a maximum area of 130 ha (1.3 km 2 ) consisting of: Single axis tracking Solar PV panels/modules arranged in arrays PV module mountings DC-AC current inverters and transformers Substation and connection to Mine s 11kV distribution line Underground cabling On-site buildings (including an operational control centre, office, ablutions and guard house) Access roads and internal road network 10

15 Project Description Electrical Transformer Typical PV Arrays 11 Typical Substation

16 Project Layout 12

17 The EIA Process The Project requires full Scoping and EIA Processes in terms of National Environmental Management Act, 1998, (Act No. 107 of 1998), as amended (NEMA). 13

18 Environmental Baseline: Soils & Land Capability 94.8 ha has Class VI grazing land capability: it has the ability to support livestock farming (grazing) 26.6 ha has Class IV land capability: arable but with severe climate and terrain limitations that restrict crop yield. 9.5 ha has Class III land capability: suitable for crop production but with climate limitations that restrict yield. According to this classification system, the project site is therefore most suitable to light and moderate grazing, forestry and wildlife as an agricultural or ecological land use. 14

19 Environmental Baseline: Wetlands Two main wetland systems are associated with the project site: Channelled valley bottom wetland to the west and an unchannelled valley bottom to the east. Both wetlands have a present Ecological Status Score of C (the impact of the modifications on the hydrological integrity is identifiable but limited). The Loopspruit flanks the footprint to the west and the Kariegaspruit to the east. 15

20 Environmental Baseline: Terrestrial Ecology The vegetation type is Rocky Highveld Grassland, of which a total of 60% is transformed and only 1.38% is conserved. Natural grassland 68 ha (52%), Modified grasslands 62 ha (48%) Gauteng Conservation Plan: Important Area 70 ha (54%) Ecological Support 13 ha (10%) 16

21 Social Baseline: Socio-Economic Gauteng Provincia l Governm West ent Rand District Municipa Rand lity West City Local Municipa lity Ward 30 Administrative Structure Percent Demographics West Rand District Municipality Randfontein Local Municipality Westonaria 17 Percent 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Mining and Quarrying General Wholesale and government and retail, trade personal services Economic Activities Finance and business services Manufacturing Construction Transport and communication Westonaria Randfontein Local Municipality West Rand District Municipality Electricity, gas and water Agriculture, fishing and forestry

22 Social Baseline: Socio-economic Employment Education Health Unemployment in WRDM: 26.7% 30% over age 20 in WRDM have completed secondary School. There are clinics located in most of the urban centres within Westonaria, including Thusanang. Unemployment rate for females in Westonaria was 48% in 2011, significantly higher than that of the male population (19%). reflects the higher demand for male labour by the mining sector. Within the RWC Local Municipality, the number of people completing secondary school has increased from 30 percent to approximately 35 percent between 2011 and Overall, prevalence the HIV/ AIDS has been quite stable in the WRDM, decreasing from 7.9% in 2003 to 7.6% by 2013 in the Randfontein Local Municipality and decreasing from 10.3% to 10.09% in the Westonaria Local Municipality over that same period 18

23 Social Baseline: Cultural Heritage 19 Built Environment (Section 34 of the NHRA) Feature 1: ephemeral stone wall foundations (GP.C). Feature 2: remains of a rectangular stone walled house (GP.C). Feature 3: Ruins of old Farm house (GP.C). Feature 4: Large stone cattle kraal (GP.B). Feature 5: ephemeral rectangular stone packed foundations (GP.C). Feature 6: Remains of old farm house (GP.C). Archaeological and palaeontological resources (Section 35 of the NHRA) No archaeological sites of significance were recorded during the survey. Burial Grounds and Graves (Section 36 of the NHRA) Feature 3: The grave is that of Elisabeth Gezina Prinsloo, born on the 12th of October 1879 and who passed away on the 30th June The site is of high social significance (GP.A). Field Rating Key Grade Significance Recommended Mitigation National Significance (NS) Grade 1 - Conservation; national site nomination Provincial Significance (PS) Grade 2 - Conservation; provincial site nomination Local Significance (LS) Grade 3A High significance Conservation; mitigation not advised Local Significance (LS) Grade 3B High significance Mitigation (part of site should be retained) Generally Protected A (GP.A) - High/medium significance Mitigation before destruction Generally Protected B (GP.B) - Medium significance Recording before destruction Generally Protected C (GP.C) - Low significance Destruction

24 Social Baseline: Visual Resource A Class IV Visual objective was assigned to the two landscapes of the proposed development area. This was due to the Low Scenic Quality of the resource as well as the anticipated Low Receptor Sensitivity to landscape change. The main findings: The two broad brush landscape types are similar in character. The overall site Scenic Quality is graded Low, predominantly due to the lack of uniqueness of the site, the homogeneity of the vegetation and the degraded adjacent mine landscapes. Scenic Quality Receptor Sensitivity Visual Resources A= scenic quality rating of 19; B = rating of 12 18, C= rating of 11 H = High; M = Medium; L = Low VRM NAME Landform Vegetation Water Colour Scarcity Adjacent Landscape Cultural Modifications Sum Rating Type of Users Amount of Use Public Interest Adjacent Land Uses Special Areas Rating Class Rand Highveld Grassland C M H L L L L IV Transformed Rand Highveld Grassland C M H L L L L IV 20 SUM (Avg) C M H L L L L

25 Potential Impacts There were 25 potential impacts identified. Embedded controls considered and mitigation measures developed. Impact significance before mitigation and after mitigation (residual impact) assessed. Topic Impact Statement Significance (Premitigation) Residual Impact Significance (Postmitigation) Surface Water & Wetlands Chemical pollution of surface water due to solar PV power plant construction and operational activities Minor (-ve) Negligible (-ve) Surface Water & Wetlands Altered surface hydrology due to the construction and operation of the solar PV power plant Negligible (-ve) Negligible (-ve) Surface Water & Wetlands Increased sediment load in surface water systems due to construction and operation of the solar PV power plant Negligible (-ve) Negligible (-ve) Terrestrial Eosystems Loss of natural terrestrial grassland habitat due to the construction of the solar PV power plant Moderate (-ve) Moderate (-ve) Terrestrial Eosystems Increased risk of invasive alien plant encroachment due to clearing of grassland vegetation Moderate (-ve) Minor (-ve) Terrestrial Eosystems Loss and disruption of ecosystem services due to clearing of grassland vegetation Minor (-ve) Negligible (-ve) Soils and Land Capability Susceptibility to erosion due to solar PV power plant construction activities Minor (-ve) Negligible (-ve) Soils and Land Capability Susceptibility to erosion due to solar PV power plant operational activities Negligible (-ve) Negligible (-ve) Soils and Land Capability Chemical pollution of soils due to solar PV power plant construction activities Moderate (-ve) Minor (-ve) Soils and Land Capability Chemical Pollution of soils due to solar PV power plant operational activities Negligible (-ve) Negligible (-ve) Soils and Land Capability Loss of land capability due to construction of the solar PV power plant Moderate (-ve) Moderate (-ve) Socio-economic Increased employment, local business opportunities, and skills enhancement due to the construction and decommissioning of the solar PV power plant Positive (+ve) Positive (+ve) Socio-economic Increased employment, local business opportunities, and skills enhancement due to the operation of the solar PV power plant Positive (+ve) Positive (+ve) Socio-economic Increased socio-economic spending during the operation of the PV power plant Positive (+ve) Positive (+ve) Socio-economic Loss of access to grazing land due to the construction and operation of the solar PV power plant Minor (-ve) Minor (-ve) Socio-economic Reduced community health and safety due to the presence of temporary construction workforce and additional job seekers Moderate (-ve) Moderate (-ve) Socio-economic Increased incidence of crime due to the increased activity associated with the construction of the solar PV power plant Moderate (-ve) Minor (-ve) Socio-economic Increased incidence of nuisance factors (noise, dust, and traffic) due to the construction of the solar PV power plant Moderate (-ve) Minor (-ve) Socio-economic Increased risk to worker rights, health, and safety due to construction and operation of the solar PV power plant Minor (-ve) Minor (-ve) Cultural Heritage Loss of cultural heritage resources due to construction of the solar PV power plant Negligible (-ve) Negligible (-ve) Cultural Heritage Damage or destruction of a grave site due to the construction of the solar PV power plant Moderate (-ve) Moderate (-ve) Visual Resources Reduction in visual resources for the Northern Receptors due to the construction of the solar PV power plant Minor (-ve) Minor (-ve) Visual Resources Reduction in visual resources for the Western Receptors due to the construction of the solar PV power plant Moderate (-ve) Moderate (-ve) Visual Resources Reduction in visual resources for the Southern Receptors due to the construction of the solar PV power plant Negligible (-ve) Negligible (-ve) Visual Resources Degradation of the landscape to due to the construction and operation of the solar PV power plant Minor (-ve) Minor (-ve) 21

26 Key Impacts and Mitigation Measures Loss of natural terrestrial grassland habitat due to the construction of the solar PV power plant: The proponent to set aside an area of natural grassland, that supports the same vegetation as within the site, on the edge of the site that will be protected from construction activities and any future development and that will be used to translocate plant species when construction commences. In order to achieve No Net Loss it is recommended that the proponent, in consultation with the Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (GDARD) and any relevant stakeholders, identify feasible conservation actions designed to compensate for residual adverse biodiversity impacts arising from the proposed project development and persisting after appropriate avoidance, minimization and restoration measures have been taken. The conservation action must be designed to conserve the same biodiversity values that are being impacted by the project. These conservation actions must be measurable conservation outcomes for biodiversity and must be demonstrated in situ (on-the-ground), on an appropriate geographic scale (e.g., local, landscape-level, national, regional) and be implemented for the lifetime of the solar project. 22

27 Key Impacts and Mitigation Measures Loss of access to grazing land due to the construction and operation of the solar PV power plant: The proponent to engage with the cattle owners to inform them that the land will no longer be available for grazing and to investigate the possibility of providing suitable alternative land to graze cattle. Loss of cultural heritage resources due to construction of the solar PV power plant AND Damage or destruction of a grave site due to the construction of the solar PV power plant: The proponent to engage the Heritage and other relevant authorities in a timely manner to obtain the necessary permits for the destruction of heritage resources and the relocation of the grave. 23

28 EMPr Environmental Management Programme Report (EMPr) Environmental and Social Management System (ESMS) Planning Environmental and Social Commitments Management Plans and Procedures Implementation Roles and Responsibilities Training and Awareness Communication Documentation Managing Changes to Project Activities or Project Setting Stakeholder Engagement Grievance Mechanism Pre-construction Management and Monitoring Measures Terrestrial Ecosystems Socio-economic Cultural Heritage Construction Management and Monitoring Measures Surface Water and Wetlands Terrestrial Ecosystems Soils and Land Capability Management Socio-Economic Cultural Heritage Visual and Landscape Operational Management and Mitigation Measures Surface Water and Wetlands Terrestrial Ecosystems Soils and land Capability Socio-Economic Decommissioning Management and Monitoring Measures 24 Specific Management Plans and Procedures 1. Waste Management Plan 2. Stormwater Management Plan 3. Traffic Management Plan 4. Emergency Response Plan 5. Grievance Mechanism 6. Cultural Heritage Chance Finds Procedure 7. Alien Invasive Plant Management Plan 8. Plant Rescue and Protection Plan 9. Construction Revegetation and Rehabilitation Plan 10. Decommissioning, Closure, and Rehabilitation Plan

29 Public Consultation Process: Scoping Phase Site Notices; News paper adverts; Stakeholder database development; Calling and ing BID; Project website; 30 day comment period from 22 May 2017 to 27 June 2017 Key Stakeholder Meetings: DMR 8 March 2017 Rand West Stakeholders Forum 17 May 2017 Adjacent Land Owners 27 June 2017 Cattle Owners Committee Representative 27 June 2017) Public Meeting / Open Day 7 June 2017 Hard copy of Draft Scoping Report (DSR) submitted to: DMR, DAFF, DWS, GDARD, WRDM. Hard copy of DSR made available at Westonaria, Carletonville, and Fochville Libraries. 25

30 Public Consultation Process: EIA Phase Notifying Stakeholders (Calls, s, sms s, website); 30 day comment period from 28 August 2017 to 27 September 2017 Public Meeting 13 September 2017 Hard copy distribution of Draft EIA Report to: DMR, DAFF, DWS, GDARD, WRDM. Report uploaded to project website; Hard copy of Draft EIA made available at Westonaria, Carletonville, and Fochville Libraries. 26

31 Main Stakeholder Questions & Concerns Skills Development Recruitment Process Mining Charter Applicability Stakeholder Communication Employment Opportunities Local SMME s (procurement process) Community Development / Investment 27

32 Way Forward Finalise EIA & EMPr: Week 2-6 October Submit to DMR: Week 9-13 October DMR Review Environmental Authorisation 28

33 Water Use Licence Application (WULA) The following activities apply for the project in terms of the National Water Act, 1998 (NWA) (Act No 36 of 1998): Section 21(c): Impeding or diverting the flow of water in a water course Section 21(i): Altering the bed, banks, course or characteristics of a watercourse The application phase to authorise these activities has commenced with the Department of Water-affairs. 29

34 Questions, Comments, & Discussion CONTACT DETAILS: ERM Johannesburg Office Tel: Fax: Postnet Suite 624, Private Bag x29, Gallo Manor, 2052 Project Website: ERM Ref Number: Thank you 30