The following approach was then taken to delineating recommended buffer zones for the initially mapped freshwater ecosystems:

Transcription

1 11 IMPACTS ON WETLANDS AND AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS 11.1 Introduction The Freshwater Consulting Group (FCG) was appointed to provide specialist input relating to the potential impacts of the proposed development on freshwater ecosystems. A copy of the full wetlands and aquatic ecosystems report is included in Appendix E Methodology Establishing the Baseline Conditions The approach taken to generate a preliminary, desktop-based map of freshwater ecosystems for the site was as follows: The boundaries of the farms making up the proposed site and the proposed turbine layout were overlaid as GIS shapefiles onto existing geo-referenced 1: scale aerial photographs of the area obtained from Chief Directorate: National Geo-spatial Information(CD:NGI). Currently mapped rivers (perennial and non-perennial) were overlaid onto the GIS map (using the 1: digital map layer for rivers obtained from CD:NGI map sheet 3319); Currently mapped dams were overlaid onto the GIS map (using the 1: Inland Water Areas layer for map sheet 3319). Rivers and wetlands mapped by the NFEPA project were overlaid onto the GIS map of the area, and a distinction was made between those wetland categorised as natural versus those categorised as artificial. For the natural NFEPA wetlands and the NFEPA rivers, a further distinction was made between the mapped features categorised as a Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Area (FEPA) and those that weren t. The aquatic layers for the Witzenberg Municipality that were generated by the C.A.P.E. Fine-Scale Planning project for the Upper Breede River Valley planning domain (Job et al. 2008) were overlaid on the GIS map of the area, specifically the Aquatic Critical Biodiversity Area (CBA), Critical Ecological Support Area (CESA) and Other Ecological Support Area (OESA) layers. A distinction was made between the aquatic features and the mapped buffer areas for each layer. Additional aquatic ecosystems on site were manually digitised in GIS, based on visual cues, using geo-referenced digital aerial images in conjunction with Google Earth satellite imagery. Both wetlands and rivers were mapped in this way and a category for the confidence of these assessments was included in an attribute tables accompanying the GIS shapefiles. Information on the wetland type (sensu SANBI 2009) was also included in the attribute table for the wetland layer. Rivers or wetlands that were incorrectly mapped by the NFEPA or 1: map series were masked as non-aquatic features on the GIS map. The following approach was then taken to delineating recommended buffer zones for the initially mapped freshwater ecosystems: Final EIA Report 11-1

2 following the generic guideline for buffers provided in the NFEPA Implementation Manual, a 100 m no-go buffer zone was created around all FEPA priority wetlands on the GIS map. The buffers for the Aquatic CBA, CESA and OESA layers that were generated by the C.A.P.E. Fine-Scale Planning project for the Upper Breede River Valley planning domain (Job et al. 2008) were adopted as the recommended buffer areas for the aquatic features mapped through this conservation planning initiative. This project used a combination of 100, 50 and 32 m buffers, depending on the categorised conservation status of each mapped feature. A 30 m buffer zone was demarcated around all other wetlands and rivers, similar to the default 32 m buffer width used in the C.A.P.E. Fine-Scale Planning project (Snaddon et al. 2008) for all aquatic features that were not categorised as CBAs or CESAs. The desktop mapping was followed by a site visit undertaken in late August 2012, the purpose of which was to ground-truth the relevant portions of the preliminary map of freshwater ecosystems, and to collect sufficient information/data to determine the present ecological condition and conservation importance of the potentially affected ecosystems with a relatively high degree of confidence. During the site visit, a rough delineation of the location and extent of potentially affected wetlands that were confirmed to be present on the site was performed. This delineation followed the Department of Water Affairs guidelines for wetland identification and delineation i, and was based on a visual examination of the hydrological, soil and vegetation characteristics of the potential wetland areas that the proposed infrastructure may encroach into Assessment The impacts identified and described in Section 11.3 low are assessed in terms of the Assessment Criteria and Rating Scales reflected in Table 6.11 in Chapter 6, in order to derive the final impact significance rating for each identified impact Assessment Identification of Potential s (a) Design phase impacts (pre-construction) The main potential design-phase impact on freshwater ecosystems identified was the negative impact of the proposed wind turbines, roads and trenches encroaching into riverine corridors and wetlands, resulting in the loss and fragmentation of riverine/wetland habitat. Final EIA Report 11-2

3 Figure 11-1: Map of freshwater ecosystems on the proposed site in relation to the proposed turbines and roads for the Wolseley WEF (numbers in grey circles refer to mapped wetlands) Final EIA Report 11-3

4 The following proposed turbines would encroach into freshwater ecosystems (see map above): Turbine 1 would encroach into the edge of Wetland 11, rated to be of high conservation importance, while Turbine 2 would be close to the edge of this wetland; Turbine 13 would encroach into Wetland 10, rated to be of moderate conservation importance; Turbines 16 and 17 would encroach into Wetland 7, rated to be of moderate conservation importance; Turbine 18 would encroach into Wetland 6, rated to be of moderate conservation importance; Turbine 22 would encroach into the edge of Wetland 3, rated to be of moderate conservation importance; Turbines 15, 21, 25, 26 and 30 would encroach into wetlands rated to be of low conservation importance; and Turbines 14 and 27 would encroach into drainage lines. The proposed roads would be routed through the following mapped wetlands: Wetland 11, rated to be of high conservation importance; Wetlands 6, 7 and 10 (and the edge of Wetland 3), rated to be of moderate conservation importance; and Wetlands 1, 2, 4, 5 and 9, rated to be of low conservation importance. (b) Construction phase impacts The following potential impacts are associated with the construction phase of the project: Destruction/damage of wetland, river and riparian areas through constructionrelated activities; Pollution of freshwater ecosystems, resulting from the runoff of fuel and oil from vehicles and machinery, and from construction activities; and Disturbance to aquatic and semi-aquatic fauna. (c) Operational phase impacts The potential impacts associated with the construction phase include the following: Hydrological alteration of rivers/wetlands through the establishment of turbines and roads in or through these areas; Alteration of hydrology and water quality of rivers/wetlands through increased stormwater runoff; and Ongoing disturbance to aquatic and semi-aquatic fauna. (d) Decommissioning impacts The impacts on freshwater ecosystems that could be associated with the decommissioning phase of the project would be very similar to the construction phase. Final EIA Report 11-4

5 Assessment of Potential s (a) Design phase The direct loss and fragmentation of riverine and wetland habitat as a result of the establishment of turbines, roads and trenches in wetland areas, was rated to be a negative impact of medium significance without mitigation. If the recommended mitigation measures of altering the layout plan and compensating for the unavoidable loss of wetlands of moderate conservation importance through the rehabilitation and protection of degraded wetlands of moderate to high conservation importance were to be effectively implemented, it is predicted that the loss and fragmentation of freshwater ecosystems would be a negative impact of low to medium significance. To reduce the impact to a low level of significance, the encroachment of turbines and roads into wetlands of moderate importance would need to avoided. (b) Construction phase The construction of the turbines and the access roads could result in the destruction or damage of freshwater ecosystems that are located in close proximity to this infrastructure. In addition, freshwater ecosystems (wetlands in particular) could be damaged or destroyed through the establishment of temporary laydown areas and temporary tracks in or near to drainage lines or wetlands (especially the 13 m wide track for use by the crawler crane that would be used to erect the towers and turbines). The significance of the impact is medium (-) without, and low medium (-) with mitigations. The runoff of fuel, oil, concrete, sewage and other contaminants into rivers and wetlands will result in the pollution of these ecosystems and is rated as an impact of medium (-) significance without mitigation. With mitigation the impact is expected to be of low to medium (-) significance. A significant increase in noise levels during the construction phase is likely, relative to the current situation, caused by the use of large trucks and cranes to transport and manoeuvre the turbine components. The increased noise levels would inevitably lead to the disturbance of aquatic and semi-aquatic fauna associated with nearby freshwater ecosystems, for example wetland-associated birds, small mammals such as mongoose, and the frog species that could forage and breed in the wetlands (and surrounding terrestrial areas) on the site, possibly including the vulnerable Cape Caco. Due to the difficulty in mitigating this impact, the impact is rated to be of low medium (-) significance, with and without mitigation. (c) Operational phase The hydrology of rivers and wetlands will be altered due to the impeding or diverting of flows by turbine and road structures. Irrespective of whether or not the recommended mitigation measures are implemented, this potential negative operational-phase impact was rated to be of medium (-) significance. This is largely due to the potential for a number of wetlands across the site to be affected by this impact, including wetlands assessed to be of moderate conservation importance. The only way to reduce this impact to lower levels would be to alter the layout plan in such a way that there would be less encroachment into wetland areas, particularly those of moderate and high conservation importance. Final EIA Report 11-5

6 An increase in the hardened surfaces on the site would lead to increased quantities of stormwater runoff into freshwater ecosystems. The footprint of each turbine would, however, be limited to the area of the foundations (~5.5 m 2 ), and the proposed access roads would be relatively narrow (3-4 m wide) gravel-surfaced roads. The stormwater-related impacts on the hydrology and water quality of rivers and wetlands are likely to be of low medium (-) significance, and could be reduced to a low level of significance through the design and implementation of a stormwater management system that follows the principles of sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS). The noise, possible vibration and increased air movement generated through the operation of the wind farm could potentially result in the disturbance of aquatic and semi-aquatic fauna associated with the rivers and wetlands located in close proximity to the proposed turbines. These potential disturbance-related impacts would occur continually, during the day and night, and could affect invertebrates (especially those with an aerial phase), frogs (including the vulnerable Cape Caco that may occur in the area), small mammals such as water mongoose, and birds (note that the potential impacts of the Wolseley WEF on birds and bats have been dealt with in other specialist reports). The potential impact of ongoing disturbance to aquatic and semiaquatic fauna was rated to be of medium (-) significance, and no mitigation of this negative impact is possible. (d) Decommissioning The decommissioning phase would be very similar to the construction-phase impacts. All of the potential impacts are predicted to be of low or low to medium (-) significance levels with the recommended mitigation measures assumed to be in place. The protection of rehabilitated wetlands, especially those of moderate to high conservation importance, from decommissioning-phase impacts would be of paramount importance. (e) Cumulative No cumulative impacts of major significance are anticipated to result from the proposed wind farm development. Further loss of wetlands in the region through the establishment of the wind farm was assessed to be a potential cumulative impact of low medium (-) significance without mitigation, due to the extensive loss of wetlands that has already occurred in the region and the likely loss of some wetlands areas of moderate conservation importance on the site. The cumulative impact would reduce to a low level of significance if the recommended design-phase mitigation measures are implemented Measures The most effective way to reduce the design-related impacts on freshwater ecosystems would be to modify the proposed layout plan, although rehabilitation and protection of degraded wetlands in compensation for wetland loss could also reduce the significance of such impacts. The following recommendations are made in this regard: No turbines or roads should be located in any wetlands of high conservation importance, and a no-development buffer area should be maintained around these wetlands. In particular, turbines 1 and 2 should be moved to a position that is 50 m or more outside of Wetland 11, and the roads for these turbines Final EIA Report 11-6

7 should not cross through the wetland. Turbines should only be placed within 50 m of Wetland 11 (but not in the wetland itself) if the degraded portions of this wetland are to be rehabilitated as part of the proposed project. The encroachment of turbines or roads into wetlands of moderate importance should be avoided as far as possible and, where unavoidable, the degree of encroachment should be minimised as far as possible and other portions of the wetland should be rehabilitated. In particular, Turbine 13 should be moved to the edge of Wetland 10 and Turbine 18 should be moved to the edge of Wetland 6 if the placement of turbines in these wetlands of moderate conservation importance is unavoidable, and the roads to these turbines should not cross through the wetlands. The road to Turbine 22 should also be re-routed around Wetland 3. The remaining portions of Wetlands 6 and 10 should be rehabilitated if the establishment of turbines and/or roads for the WEF in these wetlands is unavoidable. The loss of a portion of Wetland 7 through the establishment of Turbines 16 and 17, and their associated roads, in this wetland of moderate conservation importance should be compensated by the rehabilitation of other portions of this wetland and portions of adjacent Wetland 8 that is of high conservation importance. The rehabilitated wetland areas should be protected from agricultural and other activities that would lead to their ongoing degradation, and they should be managed for conservation purposes. The rehabilitation of wetlands as compensation for wetland loss should be planned and implemented under the guidance of a suitably qualified wetland ecologist. No turbines should be placed in drainage lines and no roads should be routed directly alongside drainage lines. In particular, Turbines 14 and 27 should be shifted away from the drainage lines that they would be in according to the proposed layout plan that was assessed in this report. Proposed mitigations during the construction, operation and decommissioning phase are indicated in the impact tables below Summary of Potential s The assessment of each impact is discussed and presented in tabular format as shown below for both pre and post mitigation. The different phases (Construction, Operation, and Decommissioning) are treated separately: Tables below provide a summary of the potential impacts with and without mitigation during construction and operation respectively Design phase (pre-construction) Table 11-1 Description and assessment of potential design-phase impacts on freshwater ecosystems associated with the proposed turbines, roads and trenches Nature Extent Duration Intensity Reversibility on Irreplaceable Resources Consequence Probability Significance Confidence : Encroachment into riverine corridors and wetlands Description: Direct loss and fragmentation of riverine and wetland habitat as a result of encroachment into these ecosystems from the Final EIA Report 11-7

8 development Without Negative High High High High Description: Alter the layout plan to minimise encroachment into wetlands and river corridors as far as possible (following the recommended changes outlined in this freshwater ecology impact assessment report) and, where encroachment into wetlands of moderate conservation importance is unavoidable, rehabilitate degraded portions of these wetlands and/or degraded portions of nearby wetlands of high and moderate conservation importance that are of a similar type. With Negative High Low High Low to * High Low to * High Cumulative : Cumulative impact of the Wolseley WEF on the further loss of wetlands in the region is likely to be of low to medium significance without mitigation, and low with the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures. * The ratings for the consequence and significance were adjusted on the basis of professional judgement, as the stipulated assessment method (Appendix 1) resulted in the same overall result with and without mitigation whereas the recommended mitigation measures would undoubtedly reduce the consequence and significance of the potential design-phase impacts Construction Phase Table 11-1: Potential impact of destruction/damage of wetland, river and riparian areas Nature Extent Duration Intensity Reversibility on Irreplaceable Resources Consequence Probability Significance Confidence 1: Destruction/damage of wetland, river and riparian areas through construction-related activities Description: Physical destruction or damage of wetlands and/or riparian vegetation through the storage of building materials, the temporary lay-down of equipment (sand, soil, bricks, steel, pipes, etc.), and/or the establishment of temporary roads in wetland and/or riparian areas Without Negative High Description: Construction camps and temporary laydown areas should be located at least 30 m from freshwater ecosystems identified to be of low or moderate conservation importance and 50 m from freshwater ecosystems identified to be of high conservation importance. Wetlands, rivers and riparian areas within which no wind turbines or access roads are to be established should be treated as no-go areas and appropriately demarcated as such. No vehicles, machinery, personnel, construction material, fuel, oil, bitumen or waste should be allowed into these areas without the express permission of and supervision by the ECO, except for rehabilitation work in these areas. Construction activities associated with the establishment of wind turbines and roads that are to be located in wetlands should be restricted to a working area of 10m around these structures, and these working areas should be clearly demarcated. No vehicles, machinery, personnel, construction material, fuel, oil, bitumen or waste should be allowed outside of the demarcated working areas. The temporary track for the crawler crane should not encroach within 10m of any wetlands for those turbines and access roads that are not located in wetlands. For the construction of wind turbines and roads that are located in wetland areas, the routing of the temporary track for the crane should be determined through consultation with a wetland ecologist and the rehabilitation of the track should be conducted under the guidance and supervision of a wetland ecologist. Workers should be made aware of the importance of not destroying or damaging the vegetation along rivers and in wetland areas, and this awareness should be promoted throughout the construction phase. Freshwater ecosystems located in close proximity to the construction areas should be inspected on a regular basis by the ECO for signs of disturbance from construction activities. If signs of disturbance are noted, immediate action should be taken to remedy the situation and, if necessary, a freshwater ecologist should be consulted for advice on the most suitable remediation measures. With Negative Low to Low to High Low to * medium Cumulative : Not applicable * The rating for the consequence was adjusted on the basis of professional judgement, as the stipulated assessment method (Appendix 1) resulted in the same overall result with and without mitigation whereas the recommended mitigation measures would undoubtedly reduce the consequence (and significance) of the potential construction-phase impact Final EIA Report 11-8

9 Table 11-2: potential pollution-related impacts on freshwater ecosystems during the construction phase Nature Extent Duration Intensity Reversibility on Irreplaceable Resources Consequence Probability Significance Confidence 2: Pollution of freshwater ecosystems, resulting from the runoff of fuel and oil from vehicles and machinery, and from construction-related activities Description: Pollution of wetlands and/or rivers through leakage of fuels, oils, etc. from construction machinery, or from washing of equipment or flushing of concrete mixers and other vehicles as well as sediments from de-watering of excavations Without Negative Low High Description: Toilets must be located at least 30 m from freshwater ecosystems identified to be of low or moderate conservation importance and 50 m from freshwater ecosystems identified to be of high conservation importance. No fuel storage, refuelling, vehicle maintenance or vehicle depots should be allowed within 30 m of freshwater ecosystems identified to be of low or moderate conservation importance and 50 m from freshwater ecosystems identified to be of high conservation importance; Refuelling and fuel storage areas, and areas used for the servicing or parking of vehicles and machinery, should be located on impervious bases and should have bunds around them. Bunds should be sufficiently high to ensure that all the fuel kept in the area will be captured in the event of a major spillage. Vehicles and machinery should not be washed within 30 m of freshwater ecosystems identified to be of low or moderate conservation importance and 50 m from freshwater ecosystems identified to be of high conservation importance. No discharge of effluents or polluted water shall be allowed into any rivers or wetland areas. If construction areas are to be pumped of water (e.g. after rains), this water must be pumped into an appropriate settlement area, and not allowed to flow into any rivers or wetland areas. No spoil material, including stripped topsoil, should be temporarily stockpiled within 30 m of freshwater ecosystems identified to be of low or moderate conservation importance and 50 m of freshwater ecosystems identified to be of high conservation importance. There should be as little disturbance to surrounding vegetation as possible when construction activities are undertaken, as intact vegetation adjacent to construction areas will assist in the control of sediment dispersal from exposed areas. Workers should be made aware of the importance of not polluting rivers or wetlands and of not undertaking activities that could result in such pollution, and this awareness should be promoted throughout the construction phase. Freshwater ecosystems located in close proximity to the construction areas should be inspected on a regular basis (but especially after rainfall) by the ECO for signs of sedimentation and pollution. If signs of sedimentation or pollution are noted, immediate action should be taken to remedy the situation and, if necessary, a freshwater ecologist should be consulted for advice on the most suitable remediation measures. With Cumulative : Not applicable Negative Low Low Low Low to medium Table 11-3: potential impact of disturbance to aquatic and semi-aquatic fauna during the construction phase Nature Extent Duration Intensity Reversibility on Irreplaceable Resources Consequence Probability Significance Confidence 3: Disturbance to aquatic and semi-aquatic fauna Description: Increased disturbance of aquatic and semi-aquatic fauna, as a result of the noise from construction teams and their machinery working within or in close proximity to wetlands and rivers Without Negative Low to Low Low Low Low to to Low to High Description: Final EIA Report 11-9

10 Construction camps and temporary laydown areas should be located at least 30 m from freshwater ecosystems identified to be of low or moderate conservation importance and 50 m from freshwater ecosystems identified to be of high conservation importance. Wetlands, rivers and river riparian areas within which no wind turbines or access roads are to be established should be treated as no-go areas and appropriately demarcated as such. No vehicles, machinery, personnel, construction material, fuel, oil, bitumen or waste should be allowed into these areas without the express permission of and supervision by the ECO, except for rehabilitation work in these areas. Construction activities associated with the establishment of wind turbines and roads that are to be located in wetlands should be restricted to a working area of 10m around these structures, and these working areas should be clearly demarcated. No vehicles, machinery, personnel, construction material, fuel, oil, bitumen or waste should be allowed outside of the demarcated working areas. Workers should be made aware of the importance of not killing or harming any animals that they encounter and this awareness should be promoted throughout the construction phase. With Negative Cumulative : Not applicable Low to Low Low to Low Low Low to High Low to Operational phase Table 11-4: potential impact of the hydrological alteration of freshwater ecosystems associated with the turbine and road placements Nature Extent Duration Intensity Reversibility on Irreplaceable Resources Consequence Probability Significance Confidence 1: Hydrological alteration of rivers/wetlands Description: Alteration of the hydrology of rivers and wetlands, due to the impeding or diverting of flows by turbine and road structures built in, across or adjacent to rivers and wetlands Without Negative High High Description: Formalisation of road crossings over rivers and drainage lines using structures that minimise the alteration of flows (e.g. box culverts with a wide span). Installation of adequate sub-surface drainage under roads that cross through wetland areas. With Negative High Low High Cumulative : Low significance at a regional scale Table 11-5: Potential stormwater-related impacts on freshwater ecosystems Nature Extent Duration Intensity Reversibility on Irreplaceable Resources Consequence Probability Significance Confidence 2: Stormwater runoff-related impacts Description: Alteration of the hydrology and water quality of freshwater ecosystems from increased stormwater runoff Without Negative High Low to * Low to Description: Design and implement a stormwater management system that follows the principles of a sustainable urban drainage system (SUDS), with input from a freshwater ecologist into the design of the management system. Ensure that roads that run through or adjacent to wetlands have multiple cross-drains, to prevent the concentration of flows into the wetlands at a limited number of points along the roads. Final EIA Report 11-10

11 With Negative High Low Low* Low Cumulative : Insignificant at a regional scale * The rating for the consequence was adjusted on the basis of professional judgement, as the stipulated assessment method (Appendix 1) resulted in a rating that was considered to be too high for this particular impact Table 11-6: potential ongoing operational-related disturbance to aquatic and semi-aquatic fauna Nature Extent Duration Intensity Reversibility on Irreplaceable Resources Consequence Probability Significance Confidence 3: Ongoing faunal disturbance Description: Disturbance to aquatic and semi-aquatic fauna from operation of wind turbines (which would generate noise, possible vibration and increased air movement) Without Negative High Low High Description: Not possible. Cumulative : Low to moderate significance at a regional scale Decommissioning Phase The decommissioning phase would be very similar to the construction-phase impacts Responses to Recommendations for The specialist wetland assessment has recommended the following mitigation measures be implemented. The extent to which SAGIT has agreed to implement these recommendations is also provided below. A revised layout which incorporates and responds to these changes was prepared in December 2012 and is reflected in Figure 4.1 in presented in Appendix G and. These changes are discussed further in Section of this EIR: 1. Move turbines 1 and 2 at least 50 m from wetland 11, and realign their access roads to ensure they do not cross the wetland. SAGIT has indicated that it will move turbines 1 and 2 at least 50 m north of the northern boundary of wetland 11. The access road to these turbines can, at its eastern most extremity, also be moved away from the wetland area. The portion of access road immediately south-west of the existing sub-station will however have to maintain its proposed alignment through a portion of wetland 11. Turbine 1 was moved away from the edge of a wetland of high importance (Wetland #11), approximately 50 m to the north of the wetland edge, but the proposed access road to Turbine 1 (and Turbine 2) still cuts through a portion of the wetland. Final EIA Report 11-11

12 2. If the placement of turbines 13 and 18 in wetlands of moderate conservation value (wetlands 10 and 6 respectively) is unavoidable, these turbines should be moved to the edge of the wetlands. Their access roads should not cross these wetlands. SAGIT has indicated that turbine 13 and 18 will be move to the edge of the wetlands. Despite the realignment of the access roads, it will not be possible to avoid crossing portions of wetlands 6 and 10. Turbine 13 was moved westward, closer to the edge of a wetland of moderate conservation importance (Wetland #10), whereas the previous turbine position was near centre of the wetland. The access road for Turbine 13 was realigned so that it only encroaches into the western portion of the Wetland #10 (of moderate conservation importance), whereas the road was previously routed straight through the centre of the wetland. Turbine 18 was moved slightly south, further into a wetland of moderate conservation importance (Wetland #6), but the access road for this turbine (which previously connected to Turbine 20) no longer cuts through the entire wetland as it did before. 3. The road to turbine 22 should be re-routed around wetland 3. SAGIT has indicated that this access road can easily be, and will be, rerouted around wetland 3. The access road for Turbine 22 was moved southward, out of and along the edge of a wetland of moderate conservation importance (Wetland #3), but the turbine position (within the wetland, along the southern edge) was not changed. 4. The remaining portions of Wetlands 6 and 10 should be rehabilitated if the establishment of turbines and/or roads for the WEF in these wetlands is unavoidable SAGIT have indicated that they will rehabilitate wetlands 6 and 10 accordingly. 5. The loss of a portion of Wetland 7 through the establishment of Turbines 16 and 17, and their associated roads, in this wetland of moderate conservation importance should be compensated by the rehabilitation of other portions of this wetland and portions of adjacent Wetland 8 that is of high conservation importance. Tubine 17 and the access road for this turbine were moved slightly to the south, but remain within a wetland of moderate conservation importance (Wetland #7). SAGIT have indicated that they will rehabilitate wetlands 7 and 8 accordingly. 6. No turbines should be placed in drainage lines and no roads should be routed directly alongside drainage lines. In particular, Turbines 14 and 27 should be shifted away from the drainage lines. Final EIA Report 11-12

13 SAGIT have indicated that these two turbines have been placed specifically on field margins so not as to interrupt agricultural activities. Considering that the drainage lines are artificial drainage lines positioned to accommodate the field layout pattern, and have not been designated of high conservation value, the proposed location is considered a workable compromise. The micrositing of these turbines will be adjusted to ensure impacts on the drainage lines is minimised. Turbine 14 was move south-eastward, away from and out of the recommended 30 m buffer zone for a drainage line, and the access road for this turbine was realigned to follow an existing road. Turbine 27 and the access road for this turbine were moved northward, out of the drainage line and to the edge of the recommended 30 m buffer area for the drainage line, but into Wetland #2 of low conservation importance. 7. Turbine 20 and its access road were moved eastward, slightly further away from edge of Wetland #6 of moderate conservation importance. 8. Turbine 19 was move south-eastward to a position adjacent to the recommended 30 m buffer area of a drainage line (the previous position for this turbine was in a non-wetland area in the middle of a wheat field) and the new proposed access road to this turbine has been routed along the edge of the recommended buffer area Summary and Conclusions No impacts of high negative significance on freshwater ecosystems are anticipated for the proposed wind farm project, partly due to incorporation of some of the recommendations of the preliminary freshwater ecosystem mapping report into the formulation of the final layout plan. The direct loss and fragmentation of wetland habitat that is likely to result from the establishment of turbines, roads and trenches in wetland areas was, however, assessed to be a negative design-phase impact of medium significance without mitigation. SAGIT have committed to accepting as many of the proposed mitigation measures possible. With implementation thereof, it is likely that the majority of the post mitigation impacts as listed in the summary table below will be realised. It is recommended that these commitments be made conditions of approval. Final EIA Report 11-13

14 Table 11-7: Summary of s on Wetlands and Aquatic Ecology Operation Decommissioning Construction (*preconstruction) Premitigation Postmitigation Premitigation Postmitigation Premitigation Postmitigation Encroachment into riverine corridors and wetlands * Med (-) Low Med (-) Destruction/damage of wetland, river and riparian areas Med (-) Low Med (-) Med (-) Low Med (-) Pollution of freshwater ecosystems (oil and fuel runoff) Med (-) Low Med (-) Med (-) Low Med (-) Disturbance to aquatic and semiaquatic fauna Low (-) Low (-) Low med (-) Low Med (-) Hydrological alteration of rivers/wetlands through construction of turbines and roads Hydrological and water quality alteration of rivers/wetlands through stormwater runoff Med (-) Med (-) Low-Med (-) Low (-) Ongoing faunal disturbance Med (-) i Department of Water Affairs and Forestry [DWAF] (2005). A Practical Field Procedure for Identification and Delineation of Wetlands and Riparian Areas. Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, Pretoria. Final EIA Report 11-14