04 App C.11 Geotechnical

THE BASIC ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED KOMAS WIND ENERGY
FACILITY AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE NEAR KLEINSEE IN THE

NORTHERN CAPE PROVINCE.
APPENDIX C.11
Geotechnical Assessment
GENESIS ENERTRAG KOMAS (PTY) LTD
KOMAS WIND ENERGY FACILITY &

ASSOCIATED POWER LINE &
ELECTRICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
DESKTOP GEOTECHNICAL IMPACT
ASSESSMENT
JANUARY 29, 2021 FINAL

KOMAS WIND ENERGY
FACILITY & ASSOCIATED
POWER LINE &
ELECTRICAL
INFRASTRUCTURE
DESKTOP GEOTECHNICAL
IMPACT ASSESSMENT
GENESIS ENERTRAG KOMAS (PTY) LTD
FINAL
PROJECT NO.: 41102874

DATE: JANUARY 2021
WSP
THE PAVILION, 1ST FLOOR
CNR PORTSWOOD AND BEACH ROAD, WATERFRONT
CAPE TOWN, 8001
SOUTH AFRICA
T: T +27 21 481 8700

WSP.COM
WSP Environmental (Pty) Ltd.

QUALITY MANAGEMENT
ISSUE/REVISION FIRST ISSUE REVISION 1 REVISION 2 REVISION 3
Remarks Draft Report Final Report Final Report v2
Date August 2020 September 2020 January 2021
Prepared by R Leyland R Leyland R Leyland
Signature
Checked by J McStay J McStay J McStay
Signature
Authorised by J McStay J McStay J McStay
Signature
Project number 41102874 41102874 41102874
Report number 1 1 1
File reference G:\000 NEW Projects\41102874 – Enertrag Geotech and

Geological\LRaGE\Reports\Final
SIGNATURES
PREPARED BY
Dr. Robert Leyland, Pri. Sci. Nat.

Associate
AUTHORISED BY
Dr. Jon McStay

Director
KOMAS WIND ENERGY FACILITY & ASSOCIATED POWER LINE & ELECTRICAL INFRASTRUCTURE WSP
Project No. 41102874 January 2021
GENESIS ENERTRAG KOMAS (PTY) LTD Page iii
PRODUCTION TEAM
CLIENT: GENESIS ENERTRAG KOMAS (PTY) LTD
Project Managers Kyle Swartz
Andrea Gibb
WSP
Project Manager and Lead Consultant Robert Leyland
Project Director Jon McStay
GENESIS ENERTRAG KOMAS (PTY) LTD Page v
TABLE OF 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................... 1
CONTENTS 1.1
1.2
Project Background and Aims ...................................................... 1
Scope of Works and Limitations.................................................. 1
1.3 Reporting Requirements ................................................................2
2 SPECIALIST INFORMATION .......................................... 3
3 SITE GEOLOGICAL SETTING.......................................... 3
4 TOPOGRAPHY AND LAND USE ................................... 4
5 SOIL COVER .......................................................................... 7
6 GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS .................................... 8

6.1 Introduction ......................................................................................... 8
6.2 Drainage (Surface) ............................................................................. 8
6.3 Erosion .................................................................................................... 8
6.4 Excavation Assessment.................................................................. 8
6.5 Foundation Recommendations .................................................. 9
6.6 GroundWater ....................................................................................... 9
6.7 Slope Stability ..................................................................................... 9
6.8 Dolomitic Ground and Subsidence ........................................... 9
6.9 Problem Soils ....................................................................................... 9
6.10 Seismic Activity .................................................................................. 9
7 GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT ................................. 10

7.1 Foundation Conditions ................................................................. 10
7.2 Cable Trenches ................................................................................... 11
7.3 Access Roads ....................................................................................... 11
GENESIS ENERTRAG KOMAS (PTY) LTD Page vii
8 GEOTECHNICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ............... 11
9 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......... 1
REFERENCES ..................................................................................... 1
FIGURES
Figure 1. Location of the proposed Komas WEF and grid
servitude (Created by report authors during
this report’s generation for use in the
assessment as described in this report. Source
data: Base map from OpenStreetMap and
OpenStreetMap Foundation). ................................................ 1
Figure 2. Site geological setting (Created by report authors
during this report’s generation for use in the
data: 2916 Springbok 1:250 000 Geological
Map, 2001). .......................................................................................... 5
Figure 3. Regional Terrain (Created by report authors during
this report’s generation for use in the
data: Google Maps). ...................................................................... 6
Figure 4. Komas WEF site topography (Created by report
authors during this report’s generation for use
in the assessment as described in this report.
Source data: National Geo-spatial Information
(NGI) 1:50 000 topocadastral maps accessed at
https://gis.elsenburg.com/apps/cfm)............................... 7
Figure 5. Distribution of recorded earthquakes in vast area
surrounding the site (Incorporated Research
Institutions for Seismology, iris.edu/hq/). ................... 10
ANNEXURES
A SPECIALIST CURRICULUM VITAE
B IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
WSP KOMAS WIND ENERGY FACILITY & ASSOCIATED POWER LINE & ELECTRICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
January 2021 Project No. 41102874
Page viii GENESIS ENERTRAG KOMAS (PTY) LTD
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND AND AIMS
WSP Environmental (Pty) Ltd (WSP) has performed a geological assessment of the proposed Komas Wind Energy Facility
(WEF) and grid infrastructure in the Nama Khoi Local Municipality, Northern Cape. The site is located approximately
35km southeast of Kleinsee and 53km southwest of Springbok while the proposed grid servitude extends from the site
northwards to the R355 road that joins Kleinsee and Springbok (Figure 1).
The site is being evaluated for future development as a permanent renewable energy generation facility. The primary
objective of the investigation is to perform an interpretive general assessment of the impacts of the proposed
development on the geotechnical conditions or vice versa.
Figure 1. Location of the proposed Komas WEF and grid servitude, please note the proposed Substation
area includes the Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) (Created by report authors during this report’s
generation for use in the assessment as described in this report. Source data: Base map from
OpenStreetMap and OpenStreetMap Foundation).
1.2 SCOPE OF WORKS AND LIMITATIONS

The scope of works is limited to a desktop review and interpretative reporting on the findings. This report details the
findings the required interpretation thereof. As no site investigations were completed there is a degree of uncertainty
associated with the data as conditions may have changed since data sources were created. The uncertainty is however
considered to be acceptable for the purposes of the basic assessment stage, especially considering the geographic
location and the geomorphological history of the area.
All interpretations are presented in light of the proposed development and are therefore project specific. The data and
interpretation thereof, as presented in this report, is therefore not intended to be used for any other purpose.
1.3 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

Appendix 6 of the EIA Regulations (GNR326 EIA Regulations - 7 April 2017) specify the requirements listed in Table 1.
The section of this report that deals with each of the requirements is also included in the table.
Table 1. EIA regulation requirements and the
Requirements of Appendix 6 – GN R326 EIA Regulations 7 April 2017 Addressed in the Specialist
Report
1. (1) A specialist report prepared in terms of these Regulations must contain- Section 2 and Annexure A
a) details of-
i. the specialist who prepared the report; and
ii. the expertise of that specialist to compile a specialist report
including a curriculum vitae;
b) a declaration that the specialist is independent in a form as may be specified Annexure C
by the competent authority;
c) an indication of the scope of, and the purpose for which, the report was Section 1
prepared;
(cA) an indication of the quality and age of base data used for the specialist Section 3 and Section 4
report;
(cB) a description of existing impacts on the site, cumulative impacts of the Section 8 and 9
proposed development and levels of acceptable change;
d) the duration, date and season of the site investigation and the relevance of NA
the season to the outcome of the assessment;
e) a description of the methodology adopted in preparing the report or carrying Section 1.2
out the specialised process inclusive of equipment and modelling used;
f) details of an assessment of the specific identified sensitivity of the site related N/A
to the proposed activity or activities and its associated structures and
infrastructure, inclusive of a site plan identifying site alternatives;
g) an identification of any areas to be avoided, including buffers; N/A
h) a map superimposing the activity including the associated structures and N/A
infrastructure on the environmental sensitivities of the site including areas to be
avoided, including buffers;
i) a description of any assumptions made and any uncertainties or gaps in Section 1.2
knowledge;
j) a description of the findings and potential implications of such findings on the Section 6 and 7
impact of the proposed activity or activities;
k) any mitigation measures for inclusion in the EMPr; Section 8
l) any conditions for inclusion in the environmental authorisation; N/A
m) any monitoring requirements for inclusion in the EMPr or environmental N/A
authorisation;
n) a reasoned opinion- Section 9
i. whether the proposed activity, activities or portions thereof should be
authorised;
(iA) regarding the acceptability of the proposed activity or activities and
ii) if the opinion is that the proposed activity, activities or portions thereof
Page 2 GENESIS ENERTRAG KOMAS (PTY) LTD
Requirements of Appendix 6 – GN R326 EIA Regulations 7 April 2017 Addressed in the Specialist
Report
should be authorised, any avoidance, management and mitigation N/A
measures that should be included in the EMPr, and where applicable, the
closure plan;
o) a description of any consultation process that was undertaken during the N/A
course of preparing the specialist report;
p) a summary and copies of any comments received during any consultation N/A
process and where applicable all responses thereto; and
q) any other information requested by the competent authority. N/A
2) Where a government notice gazetted by the Minister provides for any Comply with the Assessment
protocol or minimum information requirement to be applied to a specialist Protocols that were published on
report, the requirements as indicated in such notice will apply 20 March 2020, in Government
Gazette 43110, GN 320. This
specifically includes Part A, which
provides the Site Sensitivity
Verification Requirements where a
Specialist Assessment is required
but no Specific Assessment
Protocol has been prescribed. As
at September 2020, there are no
sensitivity layers on the Screening
Tool for Geotechnical features. Part
A has therefore not been compiled
for this assessment
2 SPECIALIST INFORMATION
The report was prepared by Dr Robert Leyland, a professionally Registered Natural Scientist (Engineering Geologist)
with 11 years of experience. The report was reviewed by Dr Jon McStay, an engineering geologist with 28 years of
experience. The curriculum vitae of both specialists are included as Annexure A to this report.
3 SITE GEOLOGICAL SETTING

The Geological Map (1:250 000, 2916 Springbok, 2001) indicates that the proposed development area is predominantly
underlain directly by Quarternary deposits described as semi consolidated piedmont deposits and red sands (Figure 2).
These are deposited on the wide (±30km) coastal foreland that stretched from the west coast to the escarpment, east of
the site. Due to the widespread nature of these recent deposits the distribution of geological units under the sediments
is not well defined. The deposits are known to be underlain by the Bushmanland Terrane which consists of basement
granitic gneisses, granulite grade supracrustal rocks and late granitoid intrusions.
The Steinkopf Gneiss of the Gladkop Suite is exposed in the north where the Buffels River has eroded into the underlying
bedrock. This unit is part of the older basement of the Bushmanland Terrane. The next unit that is mapped in the area,
and is mapped as outcrop in close proximity to the proposed development is the Khurisberg Subgroup which is part of
the Bushmanland Group supracrustal rocks that were deposited on the basement and later metamorphosed to form
gneiss, quartzite and schist. Younger units mapped in the area, but only significantly to the east of the development
area include the Mesklip Gneiss (Little Namaqua Suite) and the Rietberg Granite (Spektakel Suite). These both represent
late stage granitic intrusions, some of which were metamorphosed.
4 TOPOGRAPHY AND LAND USE
As mentioned, the site is located in the coastal foreland that stretched from the west coast to the escarpment, east of
the site. The area can be described as slightly undulating plains while the low mountains of the escapement are located
further east (Figure 3). On the proposed WEF site there is very little relief with the east and west sides of the site being
at an elevation of 200-235m above sea level while the central plane at a level of 180m (Figure 4). In the far south-eastern
corner is a small ridge that reaches 400m above sea level. This ridge related to the occurrence of Khurisberg Subgroup
rock outcrops mapped just outside the site boundary in that area.
Figure 2. Site geological setting, please note the proposed Substation area includes the BESS (Created by
report authors during this report’s generation for use in the assessment as described in this report. Source
data: 2916 Springbok 1:250 000 Geological Map, 2001).
A greater percentage of the land within the site and the region that surrounds the site area is occupied by shrubland
with some patches of barren land (Department of Environmental Affairs, South African National Land-Cover, 2018).
Minor mines and quarries are indicated on road that crosses the central part of the servitudes but aerial photograph
interpretation of these indicates them to be minor borrow pits, likely for gravel road maintenance. The northernmost
parts of the servitude line show the mine workings of the Dikgat Mine Diamond Mine (currently non-operational).
Figure 3. Regional Terrain, please note the proposed Substation area includes the BESS (Created by report
authors during this report’s generation for use in the assessment as described in this report. Source data:
Google Maps).
Figure 4. Komas WEF site topography, please note the proposed Substation area includes the BESS
(Created by report authors during this report’s generation for use in the assessment as described in this
report. Source data: National Geo-spatial Information (NGI) 1:50 000 topocadastral maps accessed at
https://gis.elsenburg.com/apps/cfm).
5 SOIL COVER
The expected soil conditions are interpreted primarily from the data on Land Types sourced from the online Agricultural
Geo Referenced Information System (AGIS), produced by the Institute of Soil, Climate and Water (Agricultural Research
Council, 2007) and supplemented by a knowledge of the geological setting and experience.
The Komas WEF site is characterized by 3 Land Types, Ai 13, Ah38 and Hb 80 with a fourth (Ib123) only being present in
small ridge area along the south-eastern corner. A summary of the soil conditions relevant to the geotechnical
assessment of each Land Type is given in Table 2. The grid servitude areas cross areas of the same Land Types as the site
and a small area of Land Type Af17 north of the Buffels River.
All land classes are characterized by sandy top soils with minimal clay contents. The majority of the Land Types have
shallow soils but the depth limiting material is rarely rock. In most cases soil depth is limited by pedocrete layers such
as calcrete and silcrete (dorbank) or a gleyed clay horizon. In the servitude areas the soils are expected to be similar to
that in the WEF site area.
The major soil categories in all the Land Types are all sandy soils that are free draining but in some cases plinthic
(partially or fully indurated) layers are expected.
Table 2. Summary of soil properties in in Land Type encountered on the Komas WEF site and the associated
grid servitude.
DEPTH AVERAGE AVERAGE
LAND TOPSOIL CLAY
LIMITING DEPTH DEPTH MAJOR SOIL CATEGORIES
TYPE %
MATERIALS (mm) CLASS
ca, ka, db, 67% Free draining structureless
Ah38 904 901-1200mm 1.3
ne, gc 23% Excessively drained sandy
68% Free draining structureless
Ai13 gc, ne 955 901-1200mm 3.0
13% Structureless with plinthic horizon
43% Excessively drained sandy
16% Structureless with plinthic horizon
Hb80 R, ka 861 601-900mm 2.1
16% Shallow soils on rock
<10% Free draining structureless
Af17 Rare 1271 >1200 93% Free draining structureless 4.0
64% Rock
Ib123 R 168 <300mm 3.0
17% Shallow soils on rock
R: Rock, ca: accumulation of carbonates of alkali earths, ka: indurated calcrete, db: dorbank, ne: unconsolidated material,
gc: gleyed clay.
6 GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS
6.1 INTRODUCTION
The following sections describe the expected geotechnical conditions as inferred from the known geological and
topographical conditions.
6.2 DRAINAGE (SURFACE)

The site surface drainage is acceptable given the slight gradients and the arid environment coupled with sandy free
draining soils that prevent excessive runoff. There are no signs of widespread water ponding on the Komas WEF site,
despite the low gradients in the central parts of the site. There may be an accumulation of shallow groundwater in these
areas during wet periods, followed by evaporation and the deposition in the evaporite minerals in surface soil layers.
The site is also located on a regional high area with both the main rivers draining the escarpment to the east of the site
flowing around the site.
6.3 EROSION
The low site gradients coupled with the arid environment make the likelihood of soil erosion unlikely. The presence of
strong winds coupled with the generally sparse vegetation does result in a high risk of soil erosion by wind. As such
areas disturbed during construction will result in additional soil erosion. Wind erosion is however a slower process and
as such no significant erosion is expected. The WEF site does contain some very localized sandy deposits that are likely
to be aeolian deposits.
Along both grid servitudes there is evidence of minor erosion in the Buffels River vicinity but this appears to be related
to a localized outcrop of Khurisberg Subgroup rocks.
6.4 EXCAVATION ASSESSMENT

The majority of the Komas WEF site area is expected to have hard excavation difficulties for any excavations deeper
than 1m. This is due to the occurrence of calcrete or silcrete horizons at shallow depths. The thickness of these horizons
should be investigated during further geotechnical investigations. Isolated areas where aeolian sand deposits have
accumulated may have deeper soils but excavation conditions are expected to be generally hard.
6.5 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS
The conditions at the Komas WEF site are such that the use of shallow foundation solutions is feasible and will prevent
the need for excessive excavations in pedocretes or hard rock. The proposed structures are however very tall and
subject to high moments which require the foundations to prevent overturn. The use of a foundation anchoring system
will therefore be required as an alternative to deep excavated bases. The proposed base footprints will require detailed
geotechnical investigations to ensure the foundation design accounts for the geotechnical characteristics of the
predocrete and bedrock conditions.
Along the servitude line the use of shallow foundations for grid infrastructure with similar foundations anchoring
systems is recommended to prevent the need for excessive excavations.
6.6 GROUNDWATER
The groundwater across the entire proposed development area is expected to be located in deep fractures in the
bedrock. Groundwater is not expected to affect the development and no shallow water table is expected, with the
exception of localised accumulations after rainfall episodes.
The natural groundwater in the fractured rock aquifer may be slightly to highly saline and does not always meet the full
requirements for drinking water.
6.7 SLOPE STABILITY

The Komis WEF has generally very low slope angles but on the slopes of the ridge in the south-eastern corner the
gradient reaches up to 9 degrees. The geological map indicates the rock in Khurisberg Subgroup to dip at 40-58 degrees
to the north and the slopes are therefore unlikely to be unstable with respect to deep seated plain failures.
Development on the site is unlikely to cause any slope instability as no significant cut slopes will be developed. Where
deep excavations into bedrock are required a detailed geotechnical investigation should be done to determine the
excavation side slope stability.
6.8 DOLOMITIC GROUND AND SUBSIDENCE

The entire proposed development area is not located in a carbonate terrain and no known karst features are present in
the area. The possibility of karst related ground subsidence is therefore not considered to be negligible.
6.9 PROBLEM SOILS

The proposed development area is located on an area where no expansive soils are known to occur. The limited soil
thickness and sandy nature of the soils is expected to result in no problems related to the densification of soils under
loads. This includes consolidation settlements (due to the expected unsaturated soils) and the collapse of low density
skeletal soils.
Some soils on site may be dispersive but this is not expected to be significant as no developments of dams is proposed.
Saline soils may be present locally and the effects thereof on underground infrastructure should be considered in all
designs.
6.10 SEISMIC ACTIVITY

According to the maps produced by Fernández and Du Plessis (1992) the site area has a low seismic hazard with a 10%
probability of a peak horizontal acceleration of 50-100 cm/s2 and a potential maximum Modified Mercalli scale intensity
event of of VI being exceeded once every 50 years. Such an event (Modified Mercalli scale VI-VII) are considered
sufficient to cause damage to poorly build or badly designed structures.
The Namakwa District is considered to be generally tectonically inactive and earthquakes are mostly absent. The
distribution of recorded eathquakes in the IRIS (Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology) database (Figure 5)
confirms the lack of earthquakes recorded in the region and that all quakes recorded within 300km of the site are small,
(Richter scale <4) shallow quakes. The presence of the nuclear waste disposal site at Vaalputs in Namaqualand means
that the seismic database for this region is well established and hence predictions of seismic risk have a high level of
confidence.
The Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR) earthquake hazard level for Namakwa District is “low”
which means that there is a 2% chance of potentially-damaging earthquake induced ground accelerations in the next 50
years (http://thinkhazard.org). Based on this information the seismic risk associated with the project is considered to
be low and is not considered further in this geotechnical investigation. It is recommended that structures are designed
to withstand a peak horizontal acceleration of 50-100 cm/s2.
Figure 5. Distribution of recorded earthquakes in vast area surrounding the site (Incorporated Research
Institutions for Seismology, iris.edu/hq/).
7 GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
7.1 FOUNDATION CONDITIONS
Wind turbines are normally founded on large round or square raft-like concrete bases with a central base surrounded
by a concrete raft with the size depending on the overall height of the mast. The mast structures are not particularly
heavy in terms of foundation loading, as the load is distributed evenly over the large foundation area. However, the
masts are subjected to high wind shear and thus dense soil with a moderate to high shear strength and bearing capacity
is required for founding. Therefore foundation conditions are a key constraint on engineering costs and affect project
feasibility.
The rock condition in this area is generally considered favourable for founding the masts. However the metamorphic
nature of the sub-outcrop can result in highly variable and unpredictable rock mass properties. This can result in
significant lateral variations in excavation and anchoring conditions. Additionally the presence of superficial pedocrete
deposits over weaker soils can result in inadequate foundation conditions for the bases.
In general founding depth would be approximately 2.0m, which will result in some difficult excavation and potentially
the need for rock blasting to create an even rock surface for casting the base. The removal of some indurated pedocrete
horizons may also be required. The bearing capacity in the bedrock is expected to be well in excess of the required
bearing capacity for the anticipated loads of the operating wind turbines.
7.2 CABLE TRENCHES

Excavation conditions for trenches will require heavy ripping with a large hydraulic excavator and may require blasting
of rock or pedocretes, depending on the depth of excavation and the sub-outcrop pattern of the bedrock and the soil
thickness.
The ground conditions are generally very dry over most of the site. The majority of the excavated material will not be
suitable for bedding or backfill and as such materials may have to be imported. This and the thermal conductivity of
materials should be investigated at later stages of the development as they are not considered to impact the proposed
development.
Saline soils conditions will result in cathodic protection or insulation on most underground cables.
7.3 ACCESS ROADS

The road subgrade conditions are generally good due to the sandy and gravelly nature of the shallow soil cover. Road
development will however disturb large areas and erosion, especially by wind, of disturbed materials may occur.
Temporary access roads require the importation of a suitable wearing-course gravel to improve trafficability for heavy
vehicles and reduce the risk of erosion of the natural subgrade. The use of local calcrete deposits and calcrete obtained
from foundation excavations, as a suitable gravel wearing-course should be possible.
8 GEOTECHNICAL IMPACT
ASSESSMENT
The geotechnical impact assessment of the proposed Komas WEF and associated grid servitude development was
performed according to the methodology provided and included in Annexure B of this report. The assessment considers
the entire development but the three main parts of the development, namely large structures (turbines and pylons),
cable trenches and access roads are the primary consideration. The impacts are presented separately for the WEF
development (Table 3) and the grid servitude (Table 4).
8.1 COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVES

The two grid servitude options do not have differing geotechnical conditions and as such the one assessment applies to
both options. This also results in there being no preferred options provided. There is no preferred option between
Substation Option 1 and Option 2 with respect to the geotechnical impact assessment. Both alternatives are favourable.
8.2 ASSESSMENT OF NO-GO ALTERNATIVE

Should the proposed Komas WEF and associated infrastructure not be developed, there will be no geotechnical impacts
associated with the proposed development.
Table 3. Komas WEF Impact Assessment: Geotechnical
Irreplaceability of Significance
Aspect/ Impact Nature of potential Reversibility Potential mitigation Significance
Status Extent Duration Consequence Probability receiving without Rank Confidence
pathway impact/risk of impact measures with mitigation
environment/resource mitigation
Construction
Maintain vegetation cover as

Construction related soil far as possible; strip, stockpile
Topsoil degradation Negative Site Short-term Slight Unlikely Moderate Replaceable Very Low Very Low 5 High
erosion and re-spread topsoil, Proper
construction management
Construction related Foundation design to avoid
Disturbance of fauna and
disturbance of Negative Site Medium-term Slight Unlikely Moderate Replaceable blasting and deep excavation Very Low Very Low 5 High
flora
development areas into sound rock
Avoid steep slope areas, design
Erosion and slope instability
Slope stability Negative Excavations Medium-term Slight Unlikely Moderate Low any cuts slopes according to Very Low Very Low 5 High
around structures
detailed geotechnical analysis
Damage / Destruction of Extremely Design according to expected

Seismic activity Negative Site Long-term Moderate Moderate Low Very Low Very Low 5 High
proposed development unlikely peak ground acceleration
Decommissioning

Decommission related soil far as possible; strip, stockpile
Decommission related Foundation design to avoid
flora
Fill any excavations or flatten
any slopes that may form due
Slope stability in areas where structures Negative Site Medium-term Slight Unlikely Moderate Low Very Low Very Low 5 High
to/during removing
are removed
infrastructure
Cumulative Impacts

far as possible; strip, stockpile
Soil erosion Topsoil degradation Negative Site Short-term Slight Unlikely Moderate Replaceable Very Low Very Low 5 High
and re-spread topsoil, Proper
Foundation design to avoid
Disturbance of Disturbance of fauna and
Negative Site Medium-term Slight Unlikely Moderate Replaceable blasting and deep excavation Very Low Very Low 5 High
development areas flora
into sound rock
Erosion and slope instability Avoid steep slope areas, design
Slope stability around existing and Negative Site Medium-term Slight Unlikely Moderate Low any cuts slopes according to Very Low Very Low 5 High
removed structures detailed geotechnical analysis

Table 4. Komas Grid Servitude Impact Assessment: Geotechnical
Irreplaceability of Significance
Aspect/ Impact Nature of potential Reversibility Potential mitigation Significance
Status Extent Duration Consequence Probability receiving without Rank Confidence
pathway impact/risk of impact measures with mitigation
environment/resource mitigation
Construction

Construction related soil far as possible; strip, stockpile
Construction related blasting and deep excavation
disturbance of Negative Site Medium-term Slight Unlikely Moderate Replaceable into sound rock, proper access Very Low Very Low 5 High
flora
development areas road development and
maintenance along servitude
Avoid steep slope areas, design
Slope stability Negative Site Medium-term Slight Unlikely Moderate Low any cuts slopes according to Very Low Very Low 5 High
around structures
detailed geotechnical analysis

Decommissioning

Decommission related soil far as possible; strip, stockpile
Decommission related Foundation design to avoid
flora
Fill any excavations or flatten
any slopes that may form due
Slope stability in areas where structures are Negative Site Medium-term Slight Unlikely Moderate Low Very Low Very Low 5 High
to/during removing
removed
infrastructure
Cumulative Impacts

far as possible; strip, stockpile
Soil erosion Topsoil degradation Negative Site Short-term Slight Unlikely Moderate Replaceable Very Low Very Low 5 High
and re-spread topsoil, Proper
Disturbance of Disturbance of fauna and
Negative Site Medium-term Slight Unlikely Moderate Replaceable blasting and deep excavation Very Low Very Low 5 High
development areas flora
into sound rock
Erosion and slope instability Avoid steep slope areas, design
Slope stability around existing and removed Negative Site Medium-term Slight Unlikely Moderate Low any cuts slopes according to Very Low Very Low 5 High
structures detailed geotechnical analysis

9 CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
The completed desktop assessment of the geotechnical conditions at the proposed development site and grid servitude
of the Komas WEF has shown the site to be generally suitable for the proposed development. The proposed development
should, from a geotechnical impact perspective, be authorised. There is no preferred grid servitude option with respect
to the geotechnical impact assessment.
The most significant geotechnical condition that will affect the development is the expected hard excavation conditions.
It is therefore recommended that shallow foundations that are anchored to the bedrock are considered. This will require
a detailed study of the rock mass and pedocrete properties at the wind turbine locations. The excavation conditions will
also affect the trench excavation costs negatively.
Minimal slope stability issues are expected as slope areas are minimal. No other problem soils or problem geotechnical
conditions are expected on site.
Access roads can be developed as gravel road with suitable wearing-course to protect the subgrade likely being obtained
from local calcrete deposits.
The impacts of the development have been assessed and all geotechnical impacts are considered to have a very low
significance.
REFERENCES
Agricultural Research Council, 2007. Land types of South Africa, 1:250 000 map and memoir series. ARC-Institute
for Soil, Climate and Water. Pretoria, South Africa.
Fernández L.M., and Du Plessis A., 1992. Seismic hazard maps for Southern Africa. Published by the Government printer
for the Geological Survey of South Africa (presently known as the Council for Geoscience).
Department of Environmental Affairs, South African National Land-Cover, 2018. Dataset downloaded from
https://egis.environment.gov.za/gis_data_downloads.
ANNEXURES
ASPECIALIST
CURRICULUM
VITAE
JON McSTAY, B.Sc.H, Ph.D
Director (Engineering and Environmental Geologist),
Environment and Energy
CAREER SUMMARY
An engineering and environmental geologist with twenty five years of consulting
experience, Dr Jon McStay has considerable experience in geotechnical site
investigation and ground engineering for buildings, major infrastructure, roads, ports
and harbours.
His key experience includes, Geotechnical Investigations, Geophysical Investigations,
Engineering Geology and Ground Engineering, Marine Geotechnical and Reclamation
and Expert Witness
Dr McStay was Lecturer in Engineering Geology at the University of Cape Town from
1989 to 1995.
Years with the firm EDUCATION

17 Doctor of Philosophy, Geology and Mineralogy, University of1992
Cape Town, South Africa
Years of experience
28 Bachelor of Science (Honours), Geological Services, University of1982
Birmingham, United Kingdom
Areas of expertise
Geotechnical Investigations PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Geophysical Investigations Foundation Engineering and Bulk Infrastructure
Engineering Geology and Ground — River Club, Observatory, Cape Town, South Africa (2019). Project Director for
Engineering geotechnical investigations for proposed multi-use development.
Investigation involved combined use of geotechnical drilling and seismic
refraction surveys to evaluate foundation and lateral support conditions with
drilling and pump testing of groundwater to assess dewatering of fractured
rock. Liesbeek Leisure Properties Trust.
— Growth Point Site B (2017), Foreshore Cape Town, South Africa. Project Direct
for geotechnical investigations for proposed high-rise complex with deep
basement in area of reclaimed land. Investigation involved combined use of
geotechnical drilling and seismic refraction surveys to evaluate foundation and
lateral support conditions with drilling and pump testing of groundwater well
to assess potential for water supply. Growth Point.
— St Helena Deep Aquifer Exploration (2017). St Helena.Project Director for pilot
project to evaluate groundwater supply from volcanic aquifer units on St
Helena with the successful drilling of ten exploratory wells. Connect Project
Managers.
— Dias versus Petropolus and Others, Camps Bay, Cape Town, South Africa (2017-
2019) Expert Witness in the Cape Town High Court. Technical evaluation
related to removal of lateral support and subsequent damage to property.
Land mark case in South African property law was judged in favour of the
plaintiff with costs.
— Contermanskloof 100 ML reservoir, Cape Town, South Africa (2014-2016).
Project leader for geotechnical investigations and ground engineering of concrete
reservoir. Client: City of Cape Town.
— Sir Lowry’s Pass Bulk Sewer, Somerset West, South Africa (2015) Project leader.
Geotechnical investigation of bulk sewer. Client: City of Cape Town.
— FNB Offices, Bloemfontein, Free State, South Africa (2014): Project leader.
Geotechnical investigation for multi-storey office block with deep basement,
including piling design and lateral support measures. Client: GNG Family Trust
Group.
— Firgrove Rolling Stock Depot, Cape Town, Western Cape, South Africa (2014):
Project leader. Geotechnical investigations of existing structures and heavy crane
gantries for refurbishment and extension to rolling stock repair depot. Client:
PRASA.
— Cape Flats 3 Bulk Sewer, Cape Town, South Africa.(2013 ) Project leader.
Geotechnical investigation of bulk sewer. Client : City of Cape Town.
— Labadi Beach Hotel, Accra, Ghana, Africa (2010): Project leader. Geotechnical
investigation for beachside hotel and resort development. Client: Constant
Capital
— Maputo Waterfront, Mozambique, Africa (2010): Project leader. Geotechnical
investigations for multi-storey structures with deep basements for beachfront
development. Client: CR Holdings.
— Cape Town Stadium, Cape Town, Western Cape, South Africa (2006-2010):
Project Leader. Geotechnical discipline responsible for all ground engineering
and remediation of contaminated land for the 2010 FIFA World Cup Stadium and
Green Point Urban Park. Including quality assurance of all foundations and bulk
earthworks. Client: City of Cape Town.
— SARC Khayelitsha Rail, Cape Town, Western Cape, South Africa (2005): Project
leader Detailed in-situ testing to determine elastic modulus and compressibility
of carbonate sands for founding road over rail bridges. Client: SARC.
— Garden Route Shopping Mall, George, Western Cape, South Africa (2004):
Project leader. Geotechnical investigation of foundation conditions, piling
specifications and earthworks for regional shopping centre. Client: Arcus Gibb.
— Sonangol Headquarter Building, Luanda, Angola, Africa (2000-2001): Project
leader. Geotechnical investigation and design of piled foundations for a 20 storey
building with a deep basement. Client: Sonangol.
— US Consulate Steenberg, Cape Town, Western Cape, South Africa (2001-2005):
Project leader. Preliminary geotechnical and environmental site investigation and
site geologist for detailed geotechnical investigation and construction supervision
of new office building foundations and earthworks, including driven cast in-situ
piles. Client: US OBO and Hensel Phelps.
— Century City, Cape Town, Western Cape, South Africa (1995-2001): Project
leader. Geotechnical investigations for site planning and specific investigations
and foundation design specifications for Theme Park, various office buildings and
associated infrastructure. Client: Monex.
Marine Geotechnical
— Port of Pemba Oil and Gas Hub, Mozambique, Africa (2014): Project leader.
Geotechnical investigations, including onshore and offshore drilling and testing.
Design review of geotechnical aspects of quaywall design and reclamation works.
Client: ENILS.
— Port of Walvis Bay, North Port Expansion, Namibia, Africa (2013-2014):
Geotechnical review consultant for port expansion projects, including offshore
and onshore geotechnical drilling investigations and assessment of sediment
quality for offshore disposal. Client: Namport.
— Port of Durban – Bayhead, Durban, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa (2014): Project
Leader. Geotechnical investigation for waste handling facilities. Client: Transnet
National Ports Authority (TNPA).
— Port of Durban Pier 1 Phase 2, Durban, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa (2012):
Geotechnical review consultant. Geotechnical review of foundation conditions.
Client: Transnet National Ports Authority (TNPA).
Page 2 of 3
— Port of Walvis Bay, Container Terminal EPC, Nambia, Africa (2009-2016):

Geotechnical review consultant. Design and construction of container terminal.
Client: Namport.
— Port of Ngqura, Ore Terminal Feasibility Study, Coega, Eastern Cape, South
Africa (2007-2008): Project Leader. Onshore geotechnical drilling and
geophysical investigation of foundation conditions for quay walls and
dredgeability of a deep water industrial harbour. Client: Portnet.
Page 3 of 3
ROBERT LEYLAND, Ph.D., M.Sc.
Principal Consultant & Engineering Geologist,
Environment & Energy
CAREER SUMMARY
An engineering and environmental geologist, Robert Leyland, has worked in both
consulting and research environments for 12 years. During this time he gained field
experience by performing mapping, geotechnical, geological and hydrogeological
investigations and project management as a project leader. His fields of experience
include investigations for large commercial developments, geological pavement
material investigations, pipeline and shallow foundation investigations, aquifer
exploration and vulnerability mapping.
EDUCATION
Doctor of Philosophy, Mining, Geological and Geophysical 2014

YEARS WITH THE FIRM Engineering, University of Arizona
5 Master of Science, Environmental and Engineering Geology, 2008

University of Pretoria, South Africa
YEARS TOTAL
Bachelor of Science (Honours), Environmental and Engineering 2006
12 Geology, University of Pretoria
PROFESSIONAL Bachelor of Science, Environmental and Engineering Geology, 2005
QUALIFICATIONS University of Pretoria, South Africa
Pri.Sci.Nat (South Africa)
AREAS OF PRACTICE PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS
Geotechnical foundation South African Council for Natural Scientific Profession, SACNASP
investigations Professional Natural Scientist – Geological Science
Geological pavement South African Institute for Engineering and Environmental SAIEG
material investigations Geologists
Engineering Geology Association of Engineering Geologists AEG
assessments
Soil and groundwater PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
contamination
investigations Geotechnical investigations
— Geotechnical Investigation for the detailed engineering design for the
LANGUAGES rehabilitation of Kolongo Landfill, Bangui, Central African Republic (2020).
English Geotechnical Investigation Lead. Geotechnical investigation including on site
rotary percussion drilling, regional soil profiling, groundwater investigation
Afrikaans and capping material assessment. Client: UNOPS.
— Geotechnical Investigation for the proposed upgrades of Port Victotia Quay,
Mahe, Seychelles (2019): Geotechnical Investigation Lead. Comprehensive
geotechnical investigation including seismic surveys, core drilling and offshore
sediment sampling. Client: Seychelles Port Authority / Project Planning &
Management (Ltd).
— Geotechnical investigation at Mananga Weir in the Komati River, Mananga,
eSwatini (2019): Geotechnical Investigation Lead. Core drilling and sediment
sampling from floating river barge. Client: Climate Resilient Infrastructure
Development Facility (CRIDF).
— Geotechnical Investigation for Biomass Power Plant development in Northern
Namibia (2019). Geotechnical Investigation Lead. Comprehensive geotechnical
investigation including gravity surveys, electrical resistivity surveys, core
drilling and trial pitting. Client: Nampower / Burmeister & Partners (Pty) Ltd.
— Geotechnical Investigation of Proposed Brewery Site, Marracuene,
Mozambique (2018): Project manager and lead consultant. Comprehensive
geotechnical investigation including trial pitting, core drilling and on site

testing. Client: AB InBev.
— Geotechnical Investigation for the development of a munitions storage facility
in Bouar, Central African Republic (2018): Project manager and lead consultant.
Comprehensive geotechnical investigation including trial pitting and
laboratory testing. Client: United Nations Mine Action Services (UNMAS).
— Deep foundation and basement investigation for proposed hotel development
in Cape Town city (2018): Project manager and lead consultant.
Comprehensive geotechnical investigation including seismic survey, trial
pitting and core drilling. Client: Growth Point Properties Limited.
— Shallow and deep foundation conditions at proposed site of desalination plant,
Bluff, Durban (2017): Project manager and lead consultant. Comprehensive
geotechnical investigation including GPR surveys, trial pitting and core
drilling. Client: Hitachi / WSP Coastal Engineering.
— Sinkhole investigation under rail loading terminal, Mpumalanga (2016): Project
manager and lead consultant. Forensic investigation into the cause of the
development of a sinkhole within the SACE Rapid Loading Terminal near
Emalahleni, Mpumalanga using ground penetrating radar. Client: WSP
Development, Transport and Infrastructure.
— Slope stability and foundation assessment, Bloemfontein (2016): Project
manager and lead consultant. Geotechnical slope stability and foundation
analysis of proposed development on Naval Hill, Bloemfontein including core
drilling, sampling, testing and slope stability modelling. Client: WSP Transport
and Infrastructure.
— Geotechnical Investigation for proposed school development, Retreat, Cape
Town (2016): Project manager and lead consultant. Shallow foundation and
geotechnical investigation of proposed site for LSEN school development,
Retreat, Cape Town. Client: Gibb (Pty) Ltd.
— Geotechnical Investigation for proposed school development, Sir Lowry’s
Village, Western Cape (2016): Project manager and lead consultant. Shallow
foundation and geotechnical investigation of proposed site for Sir Lowry’s Pass
Secondary School development, Sir Lowry’s Village, Cape Town. Client: Gibb
(Pty) Ltd.
— Bulk Water Pipeline Investigation, Gansbaai (2016): Project manager and lead
consultant. Geotechnical investigation for upgrading of the bulk water supply
to Gansbaai. Client: Bigen Africa Services (Pty) Ltd.
— Proposed Fuel Station investigation, Modderfontein (2016): Project manager
and lead consultant. Geotechnical Investigation of proposed new Fuel Station
development. Client: Engen / WSP Civils.
— Phase 2 geotechnical investigation of Highbury Phase 3 Low Cost Housing
development (2016): Project manager and lead consultant. Phase 2
geotechnical investigation of low cost housing development in Highbury, Kuils
River, Cape Town. Client: Power Construction.
— Geotechnical foundation conditions for proposed Kommetjie Extension (2016):
Project manager and lead consultant. Geotechnical investigation at proposed
extension to Kommetjie residential area. Client: Gibb (Pty) Ltd.
— Geotechnical conditions along Belhar CBD Bulk Water Pipeline, Cape Town
(2016): Project manager and lead consultant. Geotechnical investigation along
Belhar large diameter water pipeline. Client: Bigen Africa.
— Geotechnical foundation conditions at Wierda Valley, Sandton (2016): Project
manager and lead consultant. Geotechnical investigation at proposed
Page 2 of 5
construction site to determine foundation conditions. Client: Group 5

Engineering.
— Geotechnical foundation conditions for Delft High School, Delft, Cape Town
(2016): Project manager and lead consultant. Geotechnical investigation at
proposed construction site to determine foundation conditions. Client: Gibb
(Pty) Ltd.
— Geotechnical investigation for Tyre Feed Scheme and Cement Mill Upgrade, De
Hoek, Western Cape, South Africa (2015): Project manager and lead consultant.
Geotechnical investigation at existing cement plant for development of large-
scale plant upgrades. Client: PPC De Hoek.
— Geotechnical and sinkhole Investigation, Mpumalanga, South Africa (2015):
Geotechnical investigation leader. Geophysical survey and ground truthing of
potential subsurface erosion features for use in infrastructure stability
assessments. Client: Eskom.
Pavement Material Investigations
— Drilling investigation of potential dolerite quarry in Flagstaff area, Eastern
Cape (2016). Drilling investigation to delineate dolerite intrusion dimensions
and potential use of material as concrete aggregate. Client: SMEC.
— Evaluation of quarry rock suitability, Lesotho, Africa (2015): Project Leader.
Mapping and sampling of extended quarry pit walls, stockpiles and road layers.
Client: CMC Di Ravenna - Lesotho Branch.
— Evaluation of salt deposits on G1 base course from Qwa Qwa quarry,
Harrismith, South Africa (2014): Project Leader. Road and quarry investigation
to determine the severity and source of salt deposits developing from crushed
stone base course. Client: DMV Consultants.
— Identifying factors producing observed variations, from expected quarry rock
properties, Lesotho, Africa (2013): Project Leader. Mapping and sampling of
extended quarry pit walls and muck piles to identify causes of poor material
properties. Client: Roughton Gabarone.
— Investigation into possible causes of bleeding on sections of road P16/1, Vrede,
South Africa (2012): Project leader. Sampling and comprehensive testing of
road base aggregates to determine reasons for pavement failures developed
during construction. Miletus Engineering.
— Variability of Basic Igneous Rock Road Aggregate Properties within Quarries,
Lesotho, Africa (2012): Project Leader. Detailed sampling and testing of
geological and geotechnical properties of potential crushed rock aggregate
quarries in Lesotho. Client: Roughton Gabarone.
Specialized construction investigations
— Investigation into use of intelligent compaction as a possible quality control
tool and general compaction process aid, Bethal, South Africa (2012-2013):
Project Leader. Construction monitoring and planning combined with routine
and novel pavement layer testing to determine the correlation between
traditional and new pavement layer property testing results. Client: South
African National Roads Agency Limited (SANRAL).
Soil and groundwater contamination investigations
— Waste landfill facility closure assessment, Newcastle (2017). Project manager
and lead consultant. Waste material quantification, classification and waste
capping assessment. Client: Silicon Technologies (Pty) Ltd.
— Soil contamination baseline assessment for the potential presence of
petroleum hydrocarbons and lead within shallow soils underlying a tank farm
in Paarden Eiland, Cape Town (2016). Project manager and lead consultant.
Page 3 of 5
Groundwater and soil sampling, analysis and contamination assessment.

Client: FFS Refiners (Pty) Ltd
— Soil contamination assessment at hydrocarbon solvent blending and lube oil,
storage depo, Epping, Cape Town (2016). Project manager and lead consultant.
Soil sampling, analysis and contamination assessment. Client: Engen Petroleum
Ltd
Hydrogeological Investigations
— Hydrogeological assessment and development of proposed desalination plant
site, Bluff, Durban (2017): Project manager and lead consultant.
Characterization of hydrogeology, assessment of potential well sites and
development and testing of water supply well for a proposed desalination
plant. Client: Hitachi/WSP Coastal Engineering.
— Assessment and exploration for deep aquifer water supply wells, St Helena
Island (2017): Project manager. Assessment of St Helena deep aquifers with
respect to water supply potential followed by exploration drilling at selected
locations to provide preliminary assessment of water supply well development
feasibility. Client: Connect St Helena.
AWARDS
Excellence award presented by South African Institute of 2008

Environmental and Engineering Geologists
Academic Honorary Colours, University of Pretoria 2005, 2006, 2008
PUBLICATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS

Publications
— Leyland R.C., Witthüser K.T. and van Rooy J.L. 2008. Vulnerability mapping in
karst terrains, Exemplified in the Wider Cradle of Humankind World Heritage
Site. WRC Report No. KV 208/08. Water Research Commission, Pretoria.
— Leyland, R.C. and Witthüser, K.T. 2008. Regional description of the
groundwater chemistry of the Kruger National Park. WRC Report No. KV
211/08. Water Research Commission, Pretoria.
— Leyland, R.C. and Witthüser, K.T. 2010. VUKA: a modified COP vulnerability
mapping method for karst terrains in South Africa. Quarterly Journal of
Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology, 43, 107-116.
— Leyland, RC, Paige-Green, P and Momayez, M., 2013. Development of the road
aggregate test specifications for the modified ethylene glycol durability index
for basic crystalline materials. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 26(7).
— Leyland, RC, Verryn, S and Momayez, M., 2014. Smectite clay identification and
quantification as an indicator of basic igneous rock durability. Bulletin of
Engineering Geology and the Environment. DOI 10.1007/s10064-014-0669-6.
— Leyland, RC. A Case Study of Intelligent Compaction Used in Road Upgrades.
Engineering Geology for Society and Territory, 7 Education, Professional Ethics
and Public Recognition of Engineering Geology, 2014, pp 201-206.
— Leyland, RC. Some Variations in Petrography of South African Karoo Dolerites
and the Effects Thereof on Aggregate Properties. Engineering Geology for
Society and Territory, 5 Urban Geology, Sustainable Planning and Landscape
Exploitation, 2015, pp 65-70.
— Leyland, RC, Momayez, M. and van Rooy, J.L., 2016. The identification and
treatment of poor durability Karoo dolerite base course aggregate –
Page 4 of 5
evidence from case studies. Journal of the South African Institute of Civil
Engineering. Vol. 58, No 1, pp 26-33.
Presentations
— Leyland, R.C. and McStay, L. 2016. Geological investigations for the future
expansion of the SADC Gateway Port of Walvis Bay, Namibia: influence of
terrestrial and marine sedimentology on Port development. 35 th International
Geological Congress, ICC Cape Town, August 2016,
— Leyland, R.C., Witthüser, K.T. and van Rooy, J.L. 2006. Vulnerability mapping in
the Cradle of Humankind World Heritage Site. Proceedings of the 8th
conference on limestone hydrology. Neuchatel, Switzerland, pp 173-178.
— Leyland, R.C. and Schneider, M. 2009. Regional Description of the Groundwater
Chemistry of the Kruger National Park (KNP) using Multivariate Statistics.
Fourth Biennial Groundwater Conference, Somerset West. 15-18 November
2009
— Leyland, R.C. The development of a strategic slope management system for use
in South Africa. In, Williams, A.L., Pinches, G.M., Chin, C.Y., McMorran, T.J. and
Massey, C.I. (Eds.). Geologically Active. Proceedings of the 11th IAEG Congress,
Auckland, New Zealand, 5-10 September, 2010, pp 1265-1277.
— Leyland, R and Paige-Green, P., 2011. A simple slope hazard management
system for the South African Primary Road Network. 8th International
Conference on Managing Pavement Assets, Santiago, Chile, November, 2011.
— Leyland, R.C, 2014. A case study of intelligent compaction used in road
upgrades. 12th IAEG Congress, Turino, Italy, 15-19 September 2014.
— Leyland, R.C, 2014. Some variations in petrography of South African Karoo
Dolerites and the effects thereof on aggregate properties. 12th IAEG Congress,
Turino, Italy, 15-19 September 2014.
Page 5 of 5
BIMPACT
ASSESSMENT
METHODOLOGY
Impact Assessment Methodology
Note from the CSIR: The following impact assessment must be used to assess the potential impacts and
significance thereof.
The impact assessment includes:

 the nature, significance and consequences of the impact and risk;
 the extent and duration of the impact and risk;
 the probability of the impact and risk occurring;
 the degree to which impacts and risks can be mitigated;
 the degree to which the impacts and risks can be reversed; and
 the degree to which the impacts and risks can cause loss of irreplaceable resources.
As per the DEFFT Guideline 5: Assessment of Alternatives and Impacts, the following methodology is applied to
the prediction and assessment of impacts and risks. Potential impacts and risks have been rated in terms of the
direct, indirect and cumulative:
 Direct impacts are impacts that are caused directly by the activity and generally occur at the same time and at
the place of the activity. These impacts are usually associated with the construction, operation or maintenance
of an activity and are generally obvious and quantifiable.
 Indirect impacts of an activity are indirect or induced changes that may occur as a result of the activity. These
types of impacts include all the potential impacts that do not manifest immediately when the activity is
undertaken or which occur at a different place as a result of the activity.
 Cumulative impacts are impacts that result from the incremental impact of the proposed activity on a common
resource when added to the impacts of other past, present or reasonably foreseeable future activities.
Cumulative impacts can occur from the collective impacts of individual minor actions over a period of time and
can include both direct and indirect impacts.
The impact assessment methodology includes the following aspects:
 Nature of impact/risk - The type of effect that a proposed activity will have on the
environment.
 Status - Whether the impact/risk on the overall environment will be:

o Positive - environment overall will benefit from the impact/risk;
o Negative - environment overall will be adversely affected by the impact/risk;
or
o Neutral - environment overall not be affected.
 Spatial extent – The size of the area that will be affected by the impact/risk:
o Site specific;
o Local (<10 km from site);
o Regional (<100 km of site);
o National; or
o International (e.g. Greenhouse Gas emissions or migrant birds).
 Duration – The timeframe during which the impact/risk will be experienced:

o Very short term (instantaneous);
o Short term (less than 1 year);
o Medium term (1 to 10 years);
o Long term (the impact will cease after the operational life of the activity (i.e.
the impact or risk will occur for the project duration)); or
o Permanent (mitigation will not occur in such a way or in such a time span
that the impact can be considered transient (i.e. the impact will occur beyond
the project decommissioning)).
 Consequence – The anticipated consequence of the risk/impact:

o Extreme (extreme alteration of natural systems, patterns or processes, i.e.
where environmental functions and processes are altered such that they
permanently cease);
o Severe (severe alteration of natural systems, patterns or processes, i.e.
where environmental functions and processes are altered such that they
temporarily or permanently cease);
o Substantial (substantial alteration of natural systems, patterns or processes,
i.e. where environmental functions and processes are altered such that they
temporarily or permanently cease);
o Moderate (notable alteration of natural systems, patterns or processes, i.e.
where the environment continues to function but in a modified manner); or
o Slight (negligible alteration of natural systems, patterns or processes, i.e.
where no natural systems/environmental functions, patterns, or processes
are affected).
 Reversibility of the Impacts - the extent to which the impacts/risks are reversible
assuming that the project has reached the end of its life cycle (decommissioning
phase):
o High reversibility of impacts (impact is highly reversible at end of project life
i.e. this is the most favourable assessment for the environment);
o Moderate reversibility of impacts;
o Low reversibility of impacts; or
o Impacts are non-reversible (impact is permanent, i.e. this is the least
favourable assessment for the environment).
 Irreplaceability of Receiving Environment/Resource Loss caused by impacts/risks

– the degree to which the impact causes irreplaceable loss of resources assuming
that the project has reached the end of its life cycle (decommissioning phase):
o High irreplaceability of resources (project will destroy unique resources that
cannot be replaced, i.e. this is the least favourable assessment for the
environment);
o Moderate irreplaceability of resources;
o Low irreplaceability of resources; or
o Resources are replaceable (the affected resource is easy to
replace/rehabilitate, i.e. this is the most favourable assessment for the
environment).
Using the criteria above, the impacts have been further assessed in terms of the
following:
 Probability – The probability of the impact/risk occurring:

o Extremely unlikely (little to no chance of occurring);
o Very unlikely (<30% chance of occurring);
o Unlikely (30-50% chance of occurring)
o Likely (51 – 90% chance of occurring); or
o Very Likely (>90% chance of occurring regardless of prevention measures).
To determine the significance of the identified impact/risk, the consequence is

multiplied by probability (qualitatively as shown in Figure 1).
Figure 1. Guide to assessing risk/impact significance as a result of consequence

and probability.
 Significance – Will the impact cause a notable alteration of the environment?

o Very low (the risk/impact may result in very minor alterations of the
environment and can be easily avoided by implementing appropriate
mitigation measures, and will not have an influence on decision-making);
o Low (the risk/impact may result in minor alterations of the environment and
can be easily avoided by implementing appropriate mitigation measures,
and will not have an influence on decision-making);
o Moderate (the risk/impact will result in moderate alteration of the
environment and can be reduced or avoided by implementing the
appropriate mitigation measures, and will only have an influence on the
decision-making if not mitigated);
o High (the risk/impact will result in major alteration to the environment even
with the implementation on the appropriate mitigation measures and will
have an influence on decision-making); and
o Very high (the risk/impact will result in very major alteration to the
environment even with the implementation on the appropriate mitigation
measures and will have an influence on decision-making (i.e. the project
cannot be authorised unless major changes to the engineering design are
carried out to reduce the significance rating)).
With the implementation of mitigation measures, the residual impacts/risks are ranked
as follows in terms of significance:
 Very low = 5;
 Low = 4;
 Moderate = 3;
 High = 2; and
 Very high = 1.
Confidence – The degree of confidence in predictions based on available information

and specialist knowledge:
 Low;
 Medium; or
 High.
CSPECIALIST
DECLARATION
OF INTEREST

04 App C.11 Geotechnical

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

04 App C.11 Geotechnical

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

04 App C.11 Geotechnical

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE BASIC ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED KOMAS WIND ENERGY

FACILITY AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE NEAR KLEINSEE IN THE

KOMAS WIND ENERGY FACILITY &

JANUARY 29, 2021 FINAL

PROJECT NO.: 41102874

T: T +27 21 481 8700

WSP Environmental (Pty) Ltd.

ISSUE/REVISION FIRST ISSUE REVISION 1 REVISION 2 REVISION 3

Remarks Draft Report Final Report Final Report v2

Date August 2020 September 2020 January 2021

Prepared by R Leyland R Leyland R Leyland

Checked by J McStay J McStay J McStay

Authorised by J McStay J McStay J McStay

Project number 41102874 41102874 41102874

File reference G:\000 NEW Projects\41102874 – Enertrag Geotech and

Dr. Robert Leyland, Pri. Sci. Nat.

Dr. Jon McStay

Project Managers Kyle Swartz

Project Manager and Lead Consultant Robert Leyland

Project Director Jon McStay

Scope of Works and Limitations.................................................. 1

1.3 Reporting Requirements ................................................................2

2 SPECIALIST INFORMATION .......................................... 3

3 SITE GEOLOGICAL SETTING.......................................... 3

4 TOPOGRAPHY AND LAND USE ................................... 4

5 SOIL COVER .......................................................................... 7

6 GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS .................................... 8

6.2 Drainage (Surface) ............................................................................. 8

6.3 Erosion .................................................................................................... 8

6.4 Excavation Assessment.................................................................. 8

6.5 Foundation Recommendations .................................................. 9

6.6 GroundWater ....................................................................................... 9

6.7 Slope Stability ..................................................................................... 9

6.8 Dolomitic Ground and Subsidence ........................................... 9

6.9 Problem Soils ....................................................................................... 9

6.10 Seismic Activity .................................................................................. 9

7 GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT ................................. 10

7.2 Cable Trenches ................................................................................... 11

7.3 Access Roads ....................................................................................... 11

9 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......... 1

1.2 SCOPE OF WORKS AND LIMITATIONS

1.3 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

3 SITE GEOLOGICAL SETTING

6.2 DRAINAGE (SURFACE)

6.4 EXCAVATION ASSESSMENT

6.7 SLOPE STABILITY

6.8 DOLOMITIC GROUND AND SUBSIDENCE

6.9 PROBLEM SOILS

6.10 SEISMIC ACTIVITY

7.2 CABLE TRENCHES

7.3 ACCESS ROADS

8.1 COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVES

8.2 ASSESSMENT OF NO-GO ALTERNATIVE

Maintain vegetation cover as

Damage / Destruction of Extremely Design according to expected

Maintain vegetation cover as

Maintain vegetation cover as

Damage / Destruction of Extremely Design according to expected

Maintain vegetation cover as