Final Scoping Report - CSIR

Report Details and 

Summary

CSIR –July 2012 

pg 2 


Summary 

Title: Environmental Impact Assessment for the proposed Sondereind Wind 

Energie Pty Ltd (SWE) wind energy project near Vleesbaai, Western Cape 

Province: FINAL SCOPING REPORT 

Purpose of this report: This Final Scoping Report (FSR) forms part of a series of reports and 

information sources that are being provided during the Environmental Impact 

Assessment (EIA) process for the proposed SWE Wind Energy Project near 

Vleesbaai. In accordance with the EIA Regulations, the purpose of the 

Scoping Report is to: 

• Provide a description of the proposed project, including a sufficient level 

of detail to enable stakeholders to identify relevant issues and concerns; 

• Describe the local environmental and development context within which 

the project is proposed, to assist further in identifying issues and 

concerns; 

• Provide an overview of the process being followed in the Scoping Phase, 

in particular the public participation process, as well as present the draft 

Plan of Study for EIA that would be followed in the subsequent EIA 

phase; 

• Present the issues and concerns identified to date from the stakeholder 

engagement process, together with an explanation of how these issues 

will be addressed through the EIA process. 

This Final Scoping Report is being made available to all stakeholders for a 

21 day review period, with comments to reach CSIR by 25 July 2012. 

Prepared for: SWE (Pty) Ltd 

Contact person: Mr. Douglas Harrowsmith 

Published by: CSIR, P O Box 320, Stellenbosch, 7599, South Africa 

Tel: +27-21-888 2400 

Fax: +27-21-888 2693 

Lead Authors: Rudolph du Toit 

CSIR Report Number: 

CSIR Project Number: 

DEA Ref Number 12/12/20/2408 

CSIR/CAS/EMS/ER/2011/0030/B 

EMS0008 

Date: July 2012 

To be cited as: CSIR, 2011. Environmental Impact Assessment for the proposed SWE 

Wind Energy Facility project near Vleesbaai, Western Cape: 

Final Scoping Report. CSIR Report Number: 

CSIR/CAS/EMS/ER/2011/0030/B. Stellenbosch.

Chapter 1 Introduction 

Chapter 2 Project Description 

Chapter 3 Description of the Affected Environment 

Chapter 4 Approach to EIA Process and Public Participation 

Chapter 5 Issues and Responses Trail 

Chapter 6 Plan of study for EIA 

Chapter 7 References 

APPENDICES Appendix A Curriculum Vitae – Paul Lochner 

Appendix B NEMA-DEA Application Form 

Appendix C Site notices 

Appendix D Advertisements 

Appendix E I&AP database 


pg 3 


Summary 

Appendix F Correspondence to Interested & Affected Parties 

Appendix G Comments received

1 PROJECT BACKGROUND 

AND OVERVIEW 

The SONDEREIND WIND ENERGIE (Pty) 

Limited (SWE) [the company name was changed 

from Vleesbaai Independent Power Producer 

(VIPP) (Pty) Limited] is a South Africa-based 

renewable energy company that develops, builds, 

operates and maintains commercial wind powered 

generation facilities. SWE work in collaboration 

with Rübsamen Windenergie GmbH, a company 

based in Germany, established in 1987, that 

specialises in project planning, including wind 

measurement, energy assessment and the 

construction of wind energy facilities. 

The intention of this project is to generate 

additional electricity that will feed into the national 

grid by installing a wind farm with a maximum 

capacity of 140 MW near of the village of 

Vleesbaai. At a national level, renewable energy 

has the potential to play an important role in South 

Africa through diversifying the sources of power 

generation and reducing the carbon footprint from 

fossil fuel power generation, such as coal fired 

power stations. Currently, approximately 90% of 

South Africa’s power generation is derived from 

coal. The Renewable Energy Feed-In Tariffs 

(REFIT) released by the government in April 2009 

provided an important catalyst to promote interest 

and investment in the South African wind energy 

market. REFIT was however replaced by the 

Independent Power Producer (IPP) Procurement 

Programme which adjudicates the allocation of 

power purchase agreements (PPA) based on both 

price and non-price elements (e.g. environmental 

as well as socio-economic input and land-use 

consent) with a tender process, the R/kWh price 

quoted in REFIT acting as the upper limit of what 

would be paid for renewable energy. 

At a provincial level, the Western Cape Province is 

currently facing considerable constraints in the 

availability and stability of electricity supply. This is 

as a consequence of South Africa’s electricity 

generation and supply system being 

overstretched; and that the Western Cape is 

reliant on the import of power for the majority of its 

electricity needs. Accordingly, it is therefore the 


pg 4 


Summary 

intention to generate additional power in the 

province. The SWE project is therefore aimed at 

assisting in overcoming rolling blackouts 

anticipated by the Medium Term Risk Mitigation 

Plan for electricity in South Africa from 2011 to 

2016 if non-Eskom power generation projects are 

not realised. The Western Cape Province 

furthermore aims to change the province's current 

energy mix to contain 15% renewable energy 

sources by 2014 (White Paper on Sustainable 

Energy, Western Cape, 2008), which constitutes 

approximately 500 to 600 MW of renewable 

energy. The Western Cape wind regime is 

anticipated to provide at least a 30% capacity 

factor (i.e. generate sufficient wind energy 30% of 

the time at suitable sites). If this renewable energy 

target was to be met entirely through wind energy, 

installed capacity of approximately 1600 to 

2000 MW would be required. The SWE project will 

contribute to attaining this target. 

Key components of the project are: 

• 30 to 50 turbines of between 2.5 and 

5 MW capacity. Turbine hub heights of 

between ± 90 and 120 m, with rotor 

diameters of between 90 and 140 m, will 

be considered. Models of this size group 

would have a base of approximately 20 m 

x 20 m x 4 m depth. 

• Gravel access roads will be built to give 

access to turbine, with existing farm roads 

being used or upgraded wherever 

possible. 

• Construction of hard standing areas [laydowns] 

for use by cranes during 

construction and retained for possible 

maintenance use. 

A local dedicated substation [or substations with a 

maximum of 2] will be constructed on the property 

to feed into the Eskom grid via a ± 29 km 

distribution line to the Proteus transmission 

substation. 

Individual wind turbines will be connected to the 

internal substation/s via underground cables.

2 ISSUES IDENTIFIED TO DATE 

The Draft Scoping Report (DSR) included the 

issues identified to date from the scoping process 

as well as an environmental screening study 

conducted by ERM. The project and associated 

EIA process was advertised in three regional 

newspapers and letters with personal notification 

regarding the EIA process were mailed to all key 

stakeholders on the database. The I&AP register 

was updated continuously during the scoping 

phase. Comments and concerns raised by I&APs 

where captured and are presented in Appendix G 

of the DSR. A synthesis of these issues is 

provided in the Issues & Response Trail 

(Appendix G) of the DSR, which includes an 

explanation of how the issues will be addressed 

through the EIA. 

In summary, the following key issues have been 

identified to date: 

Ecology 

● As a consequence of the high level 

of transformation at the site, all 

remaining natural vegetation at the 

site is considered to be highly 

sensitive and the development 

should strive to avoid these areas 

given the large amounts of low 

sensitivity transformed areas 

available. The sensitivity of the 

transformed areas is low and the 

development of the site is not likely 

to generate significant ecological 

impact provided that standard 

mitigation measures are applied. 

Birds 

● Possible bird mortality from 

collisions with turbines or power 

lines, in particular for raptors and 

larger bird species such as cranes, 

bustards and Secretary Birds. 


pg 5 


Summary 

Bats 

● Identification of potential bat 

species occurring in the study area 

and their vulnerability to impacts 

from turbines. 

Visual 

● Visual impact of turbines on the 

sense of place and landscape 

character of the surrounding area. 

● Visibility of the turbines from 

surrounding areas, in particular 

tourism routes and game parks. 

Noise 

● Impact of noise from operation of 

the turbines on nearby residential 

areas. 

Freshwater ecology 

● Impact of the proposed project on 

freshwater resources, particularly 

wetlands and seasonal pans. 

Archaeology and palaeontology 

(heritage) 

● Potential impact on archaeology, 

e.g. stone age artefacts. 

● Impact of excavations during 

construction on palaeontology, e.g. 

fossils. 

Faunal & Flora assessment (along 

transmission line route and additional 

land parcels) 

● Impact on fauna and flora along the 

proposed transmission line route 

and on additional land parcels.

3 CHANGES TO THE FSR 

3.1 ADDITIONAL LAND PARCELS 

Two land parcels have been added to the original 

project site as published in the DSR released on 1 

December 2011. These land parcels are all 

located on the north-eastern boundary of the 

proposed project’s location. The two new portions 

added are: 

1. Buffelsfontein farm 250 portion 1, and 

2. Buffelsfontein farm 250 portion 29 

Both portions added are indicated in dark blue on 

the diagram hereunder (Figure 1). 

In addition to these two added portions, the 

diagram also shows the impact of a recent 

consolidation of portions of Buffelsfontein 250, 

with a subdivision of Grootkloof, to produce Farm 

381, 

The increased area brought into the projects outer 

cadastral is identified in yellow. The ravine, as with 

all ravines within the projects cadastral boundary, 

is shown in green. 

The addition of this added area [farm 381] does 

not add to the useful area of the project, and is 

included as no subdivision of land is required or 

permitted. 

Furthermore the diagram hereunder also identifies 

the position of two local quarries [marked by 

orange circles] which will be used to source 

internal road building materials. 


pg 6 


Summary


pg 7

3.2 EXPLANATORY NOTE ON 

ADDITION OF NEW LAND 

PARCELS 

The portions of land added to the cadastral 

boundary through this addendum, were added to 

respond to, in principle, the following: 

• Constraints introduced by amendments 

to the Land Use Planning Ordinance 

[LUPO] regulations; 

• Turbine densities with respect to 

turbulence interference and proximity to 

residences within the assembled land 

portions, the project zone; 

• To provide additional options to respond 

to necessary, at present unknown, buffer 

requirements; 

• To provide a contiguous internal layout 

to facilitate underground cable layout 

and connection; 

• To optimize use of best wind zones 

across the project zone 

3.3 CHANGES TO THE PROPOSED 

PLAN OF STUDY 

Two additional studies have been added to the 

Plan of Study proposed in the DSR. 

3.3.1 Freshwater ecology 

A freshwater ecology study was added to the 

Plan of Study to address the potential impacts 

which might result from the addition of the new 

land parcels in the vicinity of the Langvlei 

wetland area. This study will however not focus 

exclusively on the Langvlei, but will also 

encompass all the other smaller wetlands and 

seasonal pans in the study area. 

The abbreviated Terms of reference prepared for 

the freshwater ecology study includes: 


pg 8 


Summary 

• A desktop aquatic biodiversity 

assessment of the study area. This will 

cover the development footprint in 

relation to available ecological 

information related to wetland and 

riverine ecosystems functioning within 

the region. 

• A map demarcating the relevant local 

drainage area of the respective 

wetland/s, i.e. the wetland, its respective 

catchment and other wetland areas 

within a 500 m radius of the study area. 

This will demonstrate, from a holistic 

point of view the connectivity between 

the site and the surrounding regions, i.e. 

the zone of influence. 

• Maps depicting demarcated wetland 

areas delineated to a scale of 1:10 000, 

following the methodology described by 

the DWAF (2005), together with a 

classification of delineated wetland 

areas, according to the methods 

contained in the Level 1 WET-Health 

methodology and the latest National 

Wetland Classification System (2010). A 

detailed field work methodology is 

supplied in the Annexure. 

• The determination of the ecological state 

of any wetland areas, estimating their 

biodiversity, conservation and 

ecosystem function importance with 

regard ecosystem services. SC&A is 

presently assessing the Present 

Ecological State (PES) as part of a 2 

year Water Research Commission 

funded study and is thus developing the 

latest PES methods in collaboration with 

the Department of Water. Note that this 

determination will not include avifaunal, 

herpetological or invertebrate studies; 

however possible habitat for species of 

special concern would be commented 

on. 

• Recommend buffer zones and No-go 

areas around any delineated wetland 

areas based on the relevant legislation, 

e.g. any bioregional plans of 

conservation guidelines or best practice.

• Assess the potential impacts, based on 

a supplied methodology. 

• Provide mitigations regarding project 

related impacts, including engineering 

services that could negatively affect 

demarcated wetland areas. 

• Recommend specific actions that could 

enhance the wetland functioning in the 

areas, allowing the potential for a 

positive contribution by the project, e.g. 

useful of artificial wetlands in storm 

water control. 

• Supply the client with geo-referenced 

GIS shape files of the wetland / riverine 

areas. 

• Provide one draft report for comment, 

with a maximum of two rounds of 

comments addressed. 

3.3.2 Faunal & Ecological Assessment 

An assessment of the plan and animal life 

present in the new land parcels is included in the 

Plan of Study. A similar study was completed for 

the original study site prior to the start of the 

Scoping/EIA process but will now be repeated 

for the additional land parcels. It should also be 

noted that the transmission line route proposed 

from the study site to the Eskom Proteus 

substation in the north will also be investigated 

by this study. 

The abbreviated Terms of Reference for the 

faunal and ecological assessment includes: 

• Carry out fieldwork to locate and 

describe the vegetation on the study 

area, key focus on the impact footprint(s) 

for site(s). 

• Determine the species present and 

localities within each vegetation types. 

• Determine whether the study area falls 

wholly or partially within the distribution 

range of species listed as Vulnerable, 

Endangered or Critically Endangered 

and Protected. 

• Provide a description of the current state 

of the vegetation on site supported by 

relevant photographs. 


pg 9 


Summary 

• Identify and describe the conservation 

value and conservation planning 

frameworks relevant to this site 

(Regional Planning) for represented 

vegetation units. 

• Describe the areas where indigenous 

vegetation has been transformed 

• Determine alien species present; their 

distribution within the study area and 

recommended management actions. 

• Note and record the position of 

unusually large specimens of trees. 

• Provide a detailed vegetation sensitivity 

map of the site, including mapping of 

disturbance and transformation on site. 

• Faunal Assessment (mammal and 

Reptile) will be integrated into Ecological 

(Biodiversity) Assessment Report. 

• Identify and rate potential impacts, 

outline mitigation measures and outline 

additional management guidelines. 

• An Environmental Management Plan 

(EMP), including generic rehabilitation 

and re-vegetation guideline will be 

provided in the report. 

The desktop faunal study will entail the following: 

• Establish which species may occur in 

the area and their relevant conservation 

status 

• Identify the potential impacts of the wind 

project on fauna and faunal mortality 

• Identify potential management plans to 

reduce the impact of the wind farm on 

the local faunal community.

CSIR July 2012 

pg 1-1 

Chapter 1: Introduction 

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1-3 

1.1 PROJECT PROPONENT 1-3 

1.2 PROJECT COMPONENTS & LOCATION 1-3 

1.3 PROJECT AIM 1-8 

1.4 NEED AND DESIRABILITY OF THE PROJECT 1-9 

1.5 REQUIREMENTS FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 1-16 

1.6 EIA TEAM 1-16 

1.7 DETAILS AND EXPERTISE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

PRACTITIONER (EAP) 1-16 

1.8 OBJECTIVES OF THE FINAL SCOPING REPORT 1-17


pg 1-2 


Table 1.1 Farm name, number and portion of properties over which the proposed project extends 1-4 

Table 1.2 Farm name, number and portion of properties included in the transmission line servitude 1-5 

Table 1.3 DEA&DP list of 14 questions to determine need and desirability including answers relevant to 

the proposed SSWEEW wind energy project 1-10 

Table 1.4 EIA Team 1-17 

Table 1.5 Summary of where requirements of a Scoping Report (in terms of Sections 29 and 30 of the 

NEMA EIA Regulations) are provided in this Draft Scoping Report 1-19 

Figure 1.1 Location map of the SWE Wind Energy Project (in red outline) near Vleesbaai 1-6 

Figure 1.2 Proposed 2 x 132kV transmission line route to Proteus substation 1-7 

Figure 1.3 Eden District Municipality SDF 1-14 

Figure 1.4 Western Cape Provincial SDF 1-15

1.1 PROJECT PROPONENT 

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 


pg 1-3 


The Sondereind Wind Energie (Pty) Limited (SEW) (formerly known as Vleesbaai Independent 

Power Producer (Pty) Limited) is a South Africa-based renewable energy company that was 

formed to develop, build, operate and maintain the wind powered generation facility identified 

herein. SEW work in collaboration with Rübsamen Windenergie GmbH, a Germany based 

company specialising in wind measurement, energy assessment and the planning and 

construction of wind energy facilities established in and operational from 1989 (see Figure 1.1). 

1.2 PROJECT COMPONENTS & LOCATION 

SEW proposes to develop a Wind Energy Facility (WEF) of up to 140 MW installed capacity. The 

boundaries of the site are located approximately 1 km west of the town of Vleesbaai, and 2 km 

north of the Gouritz River Mouth (approximate centre of project site: 34°17’20’’S by 21°52’10’’E) 

in the Western Cape Province of South Africa. The proposed project site currently comprises 35 

farm portions or sections of farms (See Table 1.1 for farm details). The facility will be spread-out 

over an area of about 4800 ha stretching from the eastern bank of the Gouritz River, to a point 

approximately 10 km due north; while the transmission line servitudes encompasses 37 farms 

(Table 1.2). 

From the final substation serving the WEF connection to PROTEUS substation in the vicinity of the 

PetroSA GTL refinery the power lines will be aboveground. The servitude, in which the power 

lines to PROTUEUS will be erected, was originally approved for a single 66 kV line. Consequently, 

the upgrading of this servitude to a 2 x 132 kV corridor forms part of this EIA process. 

Rehabilitation of existing access roads as well as the construction of new access roads to the 

proposed turbine locations within the site is also required. No turbines are proposed to be 

constructed within the floodplain of the Gouritz River; within a minimum of 2 km of the coastline 

or within any of the ravines that are a feature of the site.


pg 1-4 


Table 1.1 Farm name, number and portion of properties over which the proposed project extends 

Portion 12 of Farm 259, Brakkefontein 

Portion 11, being the remaining extent of the Farm Brakkefontein 259 

Portion 5, being the remaining extent of the Farm Vleesch Baai 251 

Portion 0, Farm 263, being the remaining extent of the Farm Ingang 263 

Remaining extent of Farm Vleesch Baai 251 

Portion 5 of Farm 259, Misgunst 

The farm Brakkefontein West 260 (portion 0) 

Portion 31 of the farm Brakkefontein no. 256 

The farm Zoutpan No. 261 (portion 0) 

The remaining portion 0 of the Gouritz River Farm 306, Farm Number 306 

Portion 1 of the Gouritz River Farm 306, Farm Number 306 


The remaining extent of the farm Brakkefontein 258 

Portion 9 of the farm Brakkefontein 256 


Portion 29, the remaining extent of farm Brakkefontein 259 



Portion 6, of the farm Vleesch Baai 251 

Portion 7, the remaining extent of the farm Vleesch Baai 251 

Portion 13, the remaining extent of the farm Brakkefontein 256 


Portion 19, of the farm Brakkefontein 256 


Portion 2 (the remaining extent) of the farm Vleesch Baai 251 

Portion 13 of the farm Vleesch Baai 251 


The remaining extent of Farm 262/0, Brakkefontein Oos 

The farm Brakkefontein 259 portion 3 (the remaining extent) 

The farm Vleesch Baai 251, portion 4 (the remaining extent) 

The farm Misgunst aan de Gouritz Rivier 257, portion 10 

Farm 390 Vleesch Baai 

Farm Lamont 393 

Portion 35 (a portion of portion 33) of the farm Brakkefontein 256 

The remaining extent of Portion 33 of the farm Brakkefontein 256 

Remainder of portion 37 of the farm Buffelsfontein 250 

Farm Buffelsfontein 381 

Portion 15 (a portion of portion 9) of the farm Buffelsfontein 250 

Remainder of portion 11 (Fairview) of the farm Buffelsfontein 250


pg 1-5 


Table 1.2 Farm name, number and portion of properties included in the transmission line servitude 

Farm 207, portion 1 






Remainder of Farm 242 




Farm 217, portion10 

Farm Driefontein 243, portion 8 






Farm Buffelsfontein 250, portion 1 





Farm Witteklip 241, portion 10 



Farm Buffelsfontein 250, portion15 





Farm Vleesch Baai 251, portion 17 



Farm Ingang 263 

Farm Keerom 264 


Farm 209, portion 001

Figure 1.1 Location map of the SWE Wind Energy Project (in red outline) near Vleesbaai 


pg 1-6

Figure 1.2 Proposed 2 x 132kV transmission line route to Proteus substation 


pg 1-7

1.3 PROJECT AIM 


pg 1-8 


This project intends to generate electricity that will be fed into the national, provincial or 

municipal electricity grid by installing a WEF with a maximum installed capacity of 140 MW. 

Renewable energy projects, in particular wind energy facilities, present attractive investment 

opportunities to potential developers while offering practical support and alternatives to the 

strained and fossil fuel dependent national electricity supply. The mature nature of wind energy 

technology assures an economy of scale which reduces unit costs of turbines, offering higher 

efficiencies than earlier models and delivering more reliable output. This enable developers to 

generate a reasonable return on their investment by supplying relatively consistent, competitively 

priced energy to the national grid. The renewable energy feed-in tariffs (REFIT) released by the 

government in April 2009 provided an important catalyst to promote interest and investment in 

the South African wind energy market. REFIT was however recently replaced in the Independent 

Power Producer (IPP) Programme by a tender process which adjudicates the allocation of power 

purchase agreements (PPA) on both price and non-price elements (e.g. environmental and 

financial robustness, BBBEE compliance and socio-economic development criteria). 

At a provincial level, the Western Cape Province is currently facing considerable constraints in the 

availability of electricity supply. This is a consequence of South Africa’s electricity generation and 

supply system being overstretched; and that the Western Cape is reliant on the import of power 

for the majority of its electricity needs. The province’s maximum electricity demand of 

approximately 3500 to 3900 MW cannot be met by the transmission line connecting the Western 

Cape to the national grid. Accordingly, pressure on local generation capacity, most notably the 

Koeberg Nuclear Power Station (2 units with combined maximum capacity of 1800 MW), is such 

that if one reactor at Koeberg is offline, the entire province experiences supply shortages. 

Accordingly, the need has been identified to generate additional power in the province. This 

project is aimed at assisting in overcoming rolling blackouts anticipated by the Medium Term Risk 

Mitigation Plan for electricity in South Africa from 2011 to 2016 if Eskom power generation 

projects are not realised. 

Traditional coal-based electricity generation currently contributes approximately 90% of South 

Africa’s supply. Generation of new power from wind is predicted to become cheaper than coal by 

as early as 2020. Thereafter, wind energy cost is predicted to continue to decline relative to the 

rising costs of coal power (NERSA, 2009). This indicates the economic need to develop wind 

energy facilities in South Africa. 

The development of wind energy is also important for South Africa reducing its overall 

environmental footprint, in particular CO₂ emissions from coal fired power generation (including 

externality costs). Coal-based power generation is one of the major global sources of CO₂ 

emissions, which contributes to global warming. Fossil fuel emissions furthermore release 

harmful gasses including oxides of sulphur and nitrogen. 

If realized, the SWE WEF would contribute to the reduction of future carbon and noxious 

emissions resulting from power generation.


pg 1-9 


Wind generation also avoids the water consumption associated with generation of electricity from 

coal. Given that South Africa is mainly an arid country with current and increasingly severe water 

constraints, this factor, too weighs in favor of a WEF. 

Eskom currently uses approximately 2% of South Africa’s total fresh water resources to produce 

power, largely from water-cooled coal power stations. These power stations typically use 

approximately 10 000 m³ of fresh water per MW generated, per annum (Eskom presentation, 

Water Security Africa, 18-20 May 2009). 

Accelerated climate change has the potential to impact on the availability and quantity of water in 

South Africa, with decreases in summer rainfall predicted in the interior with increasing instances 

of droughts and floods. This creates a risk for water-dependent power generation. By comparison, 

wind energy has no direct water consumption; reducing demand on South Africa’s already overstretched 

water resources. 

The Western Cape Province aims to change the province's current energy mix to contain 15% 

renewable energy sources by 2014 (White Paper on Sustainable Energy, Western Cape, 2008), 

approximately 500 to 600 MW of available renewable energy. The Western Cape wind regime is 

anticipated to provide at least a 30% capacity factor (i.e. generate sufficient wind energy 30% of 

the time at suitable sites). If this renewable energy target was to be met entirely by wind energy, 

this would therefore require an installed capacity of 1600 to 2000 MW. 

The SWE WEF will contribute to this target. 

1.4 NEED AND DESIRABILITY OF THE PROJECT 

The Western Cape Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (DEA&DP) 

guideline on need and desirability (2010) states that the essential aim of investigating the need 

and desirability of a proposed project revolves around determining: (a) suitability, i.e. is the 

activity proposed in the right location for the suggested land-use/activity and (b) timing, i.e. is it 

the right time to develop a given activity? 

According to the above guideline, the question of suitability and timing can best be investigated by 

considering 14 questions (Table 1.3). The need and desirability of the proposed WEF is 

determined in the table below by answering each of the 14 questions. In each instance the 

questions is stated first, followed by an answer and a 

justification for the answer.


pg 1-10 


Table 1.3 DEA&DP list of 14 questions to determine need and desirability including answers relevant to the 

proposed SEW wind energy project 

1. Is the land use (associated with the activity being applied for) considered within the timeframe intended by 

the existing approved Spatial Development Framework (SDF) agreed to by the relevant environmental 

authority? (i.e. is the proposed development in line with the projects and programmes identified as 

priorities within the credible IDP) 

Answer: Yes 

Justification: The Mossel Bay IDP (2007, page 43 & 67) identifies insufficient electricity supply and lack of 

employment and economic opportunity as priority issues to be addressed. The proposed wind energy 

facility would help to address the need for increased electricity supply while also creating temporary and 

limited permanent employment in the area. 

The Draft Eden District Municipality IDP (2012/2017, page 153) requires (under the strategic objective of 

executing regional bulk infrastructure planning, and implementation of projects) the consideration and 

monitoring of renewable energy options is included as a strategy. 

Objective 9 of the Western Cape’s Provincial Spatial Development Framework (SDF) (2010) aims to 

minimise the consumption of scarce environmental resources, particularly water, fuel, building materials, 

mineral resources, electricity and land. Under this objective it is stated that renewable energy sources 

(wind, solar thermal, biomass, and domestic hydro-electricity generation) should comprise 25% of the 

Province's energy generation capacity by 2020. 

2. Should development, or if applicable, expansion of the town/area concerned in terms of this land use 

(associated with the activity being applied for) occur here at this point in time? 

Answer: Yes 

Justification: Development of the proposed activity would not result in an expansion of the nearby town 

(Vleesbaai). Development of a diversified, renewable energy source addresses the need for greater 

electrical supply stated in the Mossel Bay IDP (2007, page 43) as well as addressing a provincial need to 

increase the share of renewable energy in the provincial energy mix by 15% by 2014 (Western Cape 

Provincial White Paper on Sustainable Energy, 2008). Finally, the presence of an abundant renewable 

resource (wind) at this specific location adds credence to the development of the proposed wind energy 

facility at the proposed location. 

Figures 1.3 & 1.4 below illustrate the location of the proposed project relative to the Eden District 

Municipality SDF and the Western Province SDF. According to these maps the area in which the project is 

located has been designated as a mixture of ecological corridors and intensive agriculture. The 

environmental screening study preceding this EIA indicated that very little natural vegetation remains in 

the area designated for the proposed WEF; being largely transformed by agriculture. Though ecological 

corridors are present in the Vleesbaai area, the proposed project, at present, does not appear to impede on 

these.


pg 1-11 


3. Does the community/area need the activity and the associated land use concerned (is it a societal priority)? 

This refers to the strategic as well as local level (e.g. development is a national priority, but within a specific 

local context it could be inappropriate) 

Answer: Yes 

Justification: At a National level Eskom has approximately 40 000 MW of installed capacity with an 8% – 

10% reserve margin. Expected demand growth will rapidly erode this margin. This necessitates the 

additional generation of at least 3000 MW in the shortest possible time (National Response Document, 

2008). As a result the proposed project addresses a national/strategic priority) At a local level, the Mossel 

Bay IDP (2007) identifies inadequate electrical supply as a problem facing the Municipality, as well as 

identifying the need for additional electrical infrastructure (specifically substations & high and medium 

voltage distribution infrastructure). The proposed development will make available approximately 140MW 

of installed capacity with associated distribution infrastructure. 

4. Are the necessary services with adequate capacity currently available (at the time of application), or must 

additional capacity be created to cater for the development? 

Answer: Yes 

Justification: The existing electrical infrastructure at Proteus is sufficient to support the proposed 

development. However, the feed in line from the WEF site to Proteus needs to be upgraded. Accordingly, 

distribution lines from the project site to Proteus are part of the proposed activity to be constructed by the 

applicant. 

5. Is this development provided for in the infrastructure planning of the municipality, and if not what will the 

implication be on the infrastructure planning of the municipality (priority and placement of services and 

opportunity costs)? 

Answer: No 

Justification: The Municipality has not heretofore been a generator of electricity; therefore they do not 

have an infrastructure development plan. There is no anticipated negative impact on municipal 

infrastructure planning (no clash of priority, and/or placement) as the infrastructure required to connect 

the proposed WEF will be provided by the applicant. The development is proposed on marginal agricultural 

land with little or no existing and/or planned infrastructure. The opportunity benefit of constructing the 

proposed WEF will be increased revenue flow to both landowners[resulting in the ability to maintain and 

improve farming activities] local community through financial assistance to deserving learners and schools 

facility enhancement, direct and indirect employment opportunities and local enterprise development 

through having turbines on identified agricultural property. 

The opportunity cost of not constructing the proposed facility would be the maintenance of the current 

status quo which is marginal agriculture. 

6. Is this project part of a national programme to address an issue of national concern or importance? 

Answer: Yes 

Justification: The National Integrated Resource Plan for Electricity (IRP2) (2011) sets as an objective that 

42% of new national energy supply be generated by renewable energy facilities by 2030.

7. Is the development the best practicable environmental option for this land/site? 


pg 1-12 


Answer: Uncertain 

Justification: It would be premature to decide on the environmental practicability of the proposed 

development prior to the completion of the impact assessment phase of this EIA process. However, the 

long-term viability of agriculture (existing land-use) on the farms selected for the WEF site seems marginal, 

with some farmers more stressed than others, and subject to global economic and climatic variables. The 

proposed WEF will provide an economic stimulus to landowners directly and to the greater region. 

8. Would the approval of this application compromise the integrity of the existing approved and credible 

municipal IDP and SDF as agreed to by the relevant authorities? 

Answer: No 

Justification: The proposed activity supports the Mossel Bay IDP (2007, page 43) through increasing 

electricity generation and associated distribution infrastructure. The IDP also identifies the creation of 

employment and economic opportunities as a major need. The proposed WEF focuses on local job creation 

(identified as a need in the Mossel Bay IDP: 2007, page 67 and in central government criteria set for 

renewable energy facilities developments) during the construction and operation phases of the project (if 

approved by the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA)). It should however be noted that 

employment during construction phase will be temporary and that limited employment opportunities will 

be created during the operational phase. 

However the developers of the WEF are cognisant of the need for economic development in the area and 

are engaging with communities to introduce both socio-economic initiatives and the fostering of local 

[separate from and additional to the WEF project] enterprises that will create employment for local 

disadvantaged persons. This improvement in economic activity /job creation accordingly addresses an 

expressed need in the both the municipal IDP and the governments general aims in poverty alleviation. 

9. Would the approval of this application compromise the integrity of the existing environmental 

management priorities for the area (e.g. as defined in EMFs), and if so, can it be justified in terms of 

sustainability considerations? 

Answer: No 

Justification: The proposed development does not require active environmental management but rather 

mitigation of potential negative environmental impacts during the construction phase of the project (onceoff). 

Accordingly the environmental management priorities of the area will not be changed. It should also be 

noted that existing agricultural activities can continue on the proposed project area as the footprint of each 

turbine is relatively small. 

10. Do location factors favour this land use (associated with the activity applied for) at this place? (this relates 

to the contextualisation of the proposed land use on this site within its broader context) 

Answer: Yes and no 

Justification: Location factors in terms of the existing renewable resource (wind) support the proposed 

activity at the project site, due to a very favourable wind regime. The site is also located in an area with a 

rural character and accordingly will have reduced visibility. On the negative side, the presence of wind 

turbines in a rural landscape might be perceived as visually disturbing or intrusive.


pg 1-13 


11. How will the activity or the land use associated with the activity applied for, impact on sensitive natural 

and cultural areas (built and rural/natural environment)? 

Answer: Largely neutral in respect of natural sensitivity and potentially negative on cultural areas 

Justification: The activity is proposed on transformed agricultural land with very little existing 

natural/sensitive vegetation. All structures will be located above the 1:50 year flood line and would be 

located outside of the riparian and littoral zone along the eastern bank of the Gouritz River. Accordingly the 

impact on sensitive natural areas would be minimal (the EIA process would however need to confirm this). 

The impact of the proposed activity on cultural areas is difficult to predict and would potentially be 

ambiguous. This is due to the subjective nature of perceptions regarding the relative attraction or 

disturbance of wind turbines in a rural landscape. It would however be prudent to expect that some of the 

local residents would find the proposed activity to have a negative impact on local cultural areas. 

12. How will the development impact on people’s health and wellbeing (e.g. in terms of noise, odours, visual 

character and sense of place, etc)? 

Answer: Neutral and potentially negative 

Justification: The location of the proposed activity in a rural location causes noise impacts to be negligible 

(turbine noise will be inaudible at a distance of 500m from turbine base due to ambient noise masking). 

Furthermore, wind turbines are generally very safe structures which do not generate any odours, 

emissions or significant fire risks. However, as stated previously, the presence of wind turbines in a rural 

landscape might be perceived by some as visually intrusive or disturbing and subsequently as a negative 

impact on wellbeing. 

13. Will the proposed activity or the land use associated with the activity applied for, result in unacceptable 

opportunity costs? 

Answer: No 

Justification: Wind energy facilities can be dismantled and completely removed from the site and do not 

permanently prevent alternative land-uses on the same land parcel selected. Furthermore, WEFs are 

compatible with most agricultural practices, allowing concurrent use of the land. 

14. Will the proposed land use result in unacceptable cumulative impacts? 

Answer: Uncertain 

Justification: The potential cumulative impact connected to the proposed activity can only be objectively 

determined at the end of the EIA process. At present, it is prudent to view the potential cumulative impact 

as uncertain. However, given the location of the proposed activity, and given that at least 2 other WEF’s are 

proposed in the vicinity of the PetroSA LNG refinery, sufficient information is available to accurately 

determine cumulative impacts during the latter part of the EIA process.

Figure 1.3 Eden District Municipality SDF 


pg 1-14

Figure 1.4 Western Cape Provincial SDF 


pg 1-15


pg 1-16 


1.5 REQUIREMENTS FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

Regulations for EIAs were promulgated under Chapter 5 of the National Environmental 

Management Act (NEMA, Act 107 of 1998) in Government Gazette 33306 on 18 June 2010. The 

proposed activity requires full Scoping and Environmental Impact Reporting (S&EIR) in terms of 

GN.R545, and includes basic assessments required for activities listed in GN.R544 and GN.R546. 

The listed activities that are included in the proposed activity are: 

1) The construction of facilities or infrastructure for the generation of electricity where 

the electricity output is 20 megawatts (MW) or more. 

Chapter 4 of the Draft Scoping Report contains a detailed list of the activities contained in GN 

R544 as well as GN R546 which are triggered by the various project components and form part of 

this Scoping and EIA Process. These listed activities require authorisation from the relevant 

authority, in this case the national Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA), as energy related 

authorisations have been assigned to national level. The environmental assessment needs to show 

the responsible authority (DEA) and the project proponent (SEW) what the consequences of their 

actions will be in terms of impacts on the biophysical and socio-economic environment; and how 

such impacts should be managed. 

1.6 EIA TEAM 

The CSIR has been appointed by SEW to undertake the EIA required for this project. 

The EIA team involved in this EIA is listed in Table 1.4. Most of the specialists are familiar with the 

area and have been involved in other specialist studies in the area. 

1.7 DETAILS AND EXPERTISE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

PRACTITIONER (EAP) 

The EIA Project Team is being led by Paul Lochner, who has 15 years’ experience in 

environmental assessment and management studies, primarily in the leadership and integration 

functions (refer to Appendix A for his CV). This has included Strategic Environmental Assessments 

(SEA), EIAs and EMPs. He has been a certified Environmental Assessment Practitioner for South 

Africa (EAPSA) since July 2003; and has conducted several EIA processes both in South Africa and 

internationally. Examples of EIAs include the Coega Aluminium Smelter EIA, EIA for the expansion 

of the container terminal and construction of an administration craft harbour at the Port of 

Ngqura, Thesen Islands EIA at Knysna, Century City Wetlands EIA in Cape Town, EIA for a resort 

development on Fregate Island in the Seychelles, and ESIA for a proposed alumina refinery at 

Sosnogorsk in the Komi Republic of Russia. He has also prepared various EMPs, such as the EMP 

for the Rietvlei Wetland Reserve (Cape Town), EMP for Century City wetlands, EMP for Eskom 

Wind Energy Project (Klipheuwel) and the EMP for the Coega Aluminium Smelter. He has 

authored several Guidelines, such as the “Overview of Integrated Environmental Management” 

information document for DEAT in 2004; and the “Guideline for EMPs” published in 2005 by the 

Western Cape Government.


pg 1-17 


Paul will be supported by a CSIR Project Manager, Rudolph du Toit. Rudolph managed the 

InnoWind Western Cape Wind Energy EIA project for the development of 4 commercial wind 

energy facilities with a combine installed capacity of 200 MW as well as 4 Basic Assessments for 

the erection of wind monitoring masts and infrastructure associated with the InnoWind project. 

He also gained international EIA experience in Cameroon through managing the Glencore (Pty) 

Ltd Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) for Offshore Exploration Drilling 

Operations in the Matanda Block. 

Table 1.4 EIA Team 

EIA Management Team 

NAME ORGANISATION ROLE 

Paul Lochner CSIR Project Leader (EAPSA) 

Rudolph duToit CSIR Project Manager 

SPECIALIST TEAM* 

Chris van Rooyen, Chris van Rooyen Consulting Avifauna (birds) 

Kate MacEwan Natural Scientific Services cc Bats 

Henry Holland MapThis Visual 

Brett Williams SafeTech Noise 

Dr Jonathan Kaplan Agency for Cultural Resource Management Archaeology 

Dr John Almond Natura Viva Palaeontology 

Dr Hugo van Zyl Independent Economic Researchers Socio-economic 

Johan Lantz Private consultant Soil potential 

Dr Brian Colloty Scherman Colloty & Associates Freshwater ecology 

Simon Todd Simon Todd Consulting Terrestrial ecology 

1.8 OBJECTIVES OF THE FINAL SCOPING REPORT 

The Scoping Phase of the EIA refers to the process of determining the spatial and temporal 

boundaries for the EIA. In broad terms, this involves three important activities: 

Confirming the process to be followed and opportunities for stakeholder engagement; 

Clarifying the project scope and alternatives to be covered; and 

Identifying the key issues to be addressed in the impact assessment phase and the 

approach to be followed in addressing these issues. 

This is done through parallel initiatives of consulting with the lead authorities involved in the 

decision-making for this EIA application, consulting with the public to ensure that local issues are 

well understood, and consulting with the EIA specialist team to ensure that “technical” issues are 

identified. The scoping process is supported by a review of relevant background literature on the 

local area. Through this comprehensive process the environmental assessment can identify and 

focus on key issues requiring assessment and identify reasonable alternatives. 

The primary objective of the Draft Scoping Report is to present key stakeholders (including 

affected organs of state) with an overview of the project and key issues that require assessment in 

the EIA Phase, and allow the opportunity for the identification of additional issues that may


pg 1-18 


require assessment. Issues raised in response to the Draft Scoping Report will be captured in an 

Issues Trail and be included in the Final Scoping Report and Plan of Study for EIA. These 

documents will be submitted to the competent authority, the National Department of 

Environmental Affairs (DEA), for approval. This approval is planned to mark the end of the 

Scoping phase after which the EIA process moves into the impact assessment and reporting 

phases. 

In terms of legal requirements a crucial objective of the Draft Scoping Report is to satisfy the 

requirements of Regulations 29 and 30 of the NEMA EIA Regulations. These sections regulate and 

prescribe the content of the Scoping Reports and specify the type of supporting information that 

must accompany the submission of the Scoping Report to the authorities. An overview of where 

the requirements of Sections 29 and 30 are addressed in this Draft Scoping Report is presented in 

Table 1.5. Furthermore, this process is designed to satisfy the requirements of Regulations 57, 58 

and 59 of the NEMA EIA Regulations relating to the public participation process and, specifically, 

the registration of and submissions from interested and affected parties. 

Table 1.5/…


pg 1-19 


Table 1.5 Summary of where requirements of a Scoping Report (in terms of Sections 28 of the NEMA EIA 

Regulations) are provided in this Final Scoping Report 

Section Requirement for Scoping Report Where this is provided in 

this Draft Scoping Report 

28 (1)(a) Details of the EAP who prepared the report. Chapter 1 & Appendix A 

28 (1)(b) Description of the proposed activity Chapter 2 

28 (1)(c) Description of feasible and reasonable alternatives Chapter 4 

28 (1)(d) 

Description of the property and the location of the activity on the 

property 

Chapters 1, 2 & 3 

28 (1)(e) 

Description of the environment that might be affected by the Chapter 3 

activity and the manner in which the activity might be affected by 

the environment 

28 (1)(f) 

Identification of legislation and guidelines considered for the Chapter 1 & 4 

preparation of Scoping Report 

28 (1)(g) 

Description of environmental issues and potential impacts, 

including cumulative impacts 

Chapter 6 

28 (1)(h)(i) 

Steps taken to notify potential interested and affected parties Chapter 4 & Appendix D 

(I&APs) of the application 

28 (1)(h)(ii) Proof of notice boards, advertisements and notices to I&APs Appendices C, D & G 

28 (1)(h)(iii) 

List of all persons or organizations identified and registered as Appendix E 

I&APs in terms of regulation 55 

28 (1)(h)(iv) 

Summary of issues raised by I&APs, date received and response by 

EAP 

Chapter 5 

28 (1)(i) Description of the need and desirability of the proposed activity Chapter 1 

28 (1)(j) 

Description of identified potential alternatives to the proposed Chapter 3, 4 & 6 

activity, including advantages and disadvantages that the proposed 

activity or alternatives may have on the environment and the 

community that may be affected by the activity 

28 (1)(k) 

Copies of representations, objections and comments received in 

connection with the application or Scoping Report from I&APs 

Appendix G 

28 (1)(l) 

Copies of the minutes of meetings held by the EAP with I&APs and 

other role players 

Appendix H 

28(1)(m) 

Any responses by the EAP to those representations, objections, Chapter 5 

comments and views 

Description of tasks undertaken as part of the EIA, including Chapter 6 

28 (1)(n)(i) specialists reports and the manner in which tasks will be 

undertaken 

28 (1)(n)(ii) Indication of stages at which competent authority will be consulted Chapter 4 

28 (1)(n)(iii) 

Description of proposed method for assessing environmental Chapter 6 

issues and alternatives, including “no project” alternative 

28 (1)(i)(iv) Particulars of public participation process during EIA Chapter 6 

28 (1)(o) Specific information required by competent authority N/A 

28 (2) 

Guidelines applicable to the kind of activity which is the subject of 

the application 

Chapter 4 

28 (3) 

Written proof of the investigation to the authority as required by 

Section 24(4)(b)(i) of the NEMA Act. 

Chapter 4, 5 & 7

CSIR – July 2012 

pg 2-1 

Chapter 2 : Project Description 

CHAPTER 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2-2 

2.1 SITE SELECTION 2-2 

2.2 KEY COMPONENTS OF THE PROPOSED WIND ENERGY FACILITY 2-2 

2.3 WIND TURBINE COMPONENT & MONOPOLE TRANSMISSION LINE 

DESCRIPTION 2-4 

2.4 PROJECT ACTIVITIES 2-9 

2.4.1 Construction 2-12 

2.4.2 Operation and maintenance 2-13 

2.4.3 Period of operation 2-13 

2.4.4 Decommissioning 2-13 

Figure 2.1 Generic design for a horizontal axis wind turbine 2-5 

Figure 2.2 Typical steel monopole transmission structure proposed to transmit electricity to the Proteus 

substation. 2-7 

Figure 2.3 Steel monopole transmission structure displayed on left with steel lattice structure in the right 2-8 

Figure 2.4 3 MW turbine layout 2-10 

Figure 2.5 4.5 MW turbine layout 2-11


pg 2-2 


CHAPTER 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 

This chapter is based on information provided by SWE. A description of the site location and 

adjacent land use is provided in Chapter 3. 

2.1 SITE SELECTION 

During the pre-feasibility phase of the project, SWE reviewed a range of potential sites in the Eden 

Region, including site visits to three sites that were short-listed. These sites were evaluated based 

on a range of criteria such as: 

Local wind climate (the wind regime in the area appears favourable); 

Local power line network, including existing grid availability, stability and capacity, local 

power utilisation, future developments and planned power line upgrades; 

Proximity to conservation areas such as national parks, nature reserves and wetlands and 

Important Birding Areas (IBAs); 

Proximity to the local registered aviation and military zones; 

Not within Important Birding Area; 

Road access for construction and operational maintenance; 

Engagement with landowners. 

Based on the above review, the Brakkefontein/Buffelsfontein/Misgunst site was selected to be 

taken forward (the subject of this EIA). 

2.2 KEY COMPONENTS OF THE PROPOSED WIND ENERGY FACILITY 

The facility and its associated infrastructure will comprise the following infrastructure: 

Wind turbines 

Turbine technology has not at this stage been selected but up to 50 turbines with an 

installed capacity of between 2.5 MW and 4.5 MW each, depending on the final design, is 

envisaged. Hub heights of up to 120 m and rotor diameters of between 90 m and 140 m 

are possible. A possible turbine considered is the 3 MW Vestas V112 with a hub height of 

119 m and a rotor diameter of 112 m. Turbines will be supported on reinforced concrete 

spread foundations (maximum 20 m x 20 m x 4 m deep). The operational life of the wind 

turbines is expected to be a minimum of 25 years. Turbine life can be extended beyond 25 

years through regular maintenance and/or technology upgrades. 

Gravel-surfaced [compacted hard stand areas] of approximately 2100m² adjacent to each 

turbine will be used by cranes during construction and retained for maintenance use 

throughout the life span of the project.


pg 2-3 


Lay down areas of 40 m x 50 m will be utilised during assembly stage of construction. 

These will be firm, cleared areas on which containers, turbines; rotor blades can be 

unloaded (all onto timber bearers) and handled during the assembly phase. 

Electrical connections 

The SWE-WEF may install one internal substation as a collection point for energy 

generated by turbines in the western half of the facility, to be connected to a second 

substation on or near the northern boundary of the site, dependent on economic viability 

and generation loss calculation during final planning; alternatively one substation only 

will be constructed. 

From this latter substation connection to the Proteus transmission substation will be via 2 

x 132 kV distribution lines of approximately 29 kilometres to be erected along an existing 

distribution line corridor from the SWE-WEF site to the Proteus substation in the vicinity 

of the PetroSA GTL refinery (formerly known as MossGas), along the established servitude 

alignment. 

Power lines connecting each turbine to the proposed on-site substations will run 

underground. 

Other infrastructure 

Roads 

Control rooms (size 10 m x 10 m) are required for the wind farm. 

Fencing as required around the substation and the control room. 

Site security measures as may be required. 

Gravel surfaced access roads to the turbines will be constructed (approx. 4.5 m in general 

width with some sections being wider and having corner radii of 50 m). The developer 

has committed to use, wherever possible, existing access roads, upgrading them as 

required. 

The roads will include temporary turning circles for large trucks. 

Temporary activities during construction 

Existing borrow pits/quarries will be used as far as possible, for suitable material. The size 

of these pits will be dependent on the terrain and need for granular fill material for use in 

construction. Material from turbine foundation pits will also be used where its quality is 

suitable for compaction. In the provision of hardstand. At the end of construction where, 

necessary, pits will be backfilled using surplus excavated material from the foundations. 

Construction consists of three distinct components: civil construction; electrical installation and 

wind turbine erection; and commissioning. The construction and commissioning phase of the 

project will typically require 12 to 18 months. Employment across various skill levels will be


pg 2-4 


created during the construction phase of the project. Additional secondary business opportunities 

for the local and regional economies will be provided. Though fewer people will be employed 

during the operational phase, it will provide opportunities for skills training and business 

development in the area. 

2.3 WIND TURBINE COMPONENT & MONOPOLE TRANSMISSION LINE 

DESCRIPTION 

Modern wind energy turbines are mounted on either a vertical or horizontal axis. Because vertical 

axis wind turbines are generally less efficient than horizontal axis turbines, and are not applicable 

to large scale generation installations, all wind turbines for primary generation are mounted on a 

horizontal axis, as are those proposed for the SWE-WEF. A typical horizontal-axis turbine consists 

of the following components, shown in Figure 2.1: 

When rotor blades are exposed to wind, the action of moving air on the rotor blade, 

which is aerodynamically shaped, causes it to move. This movement produces kinetic 

energy which converts to rotation of the rotor blade attached to the rotor hub. These 

blades are bolted to a rotor hub. 

The nacelle is a casing that contains the shaft, gearbox, electronic control unit, yaw 

controller, brakes and the generator. The shaft is connected to the centre of the rotor hub, 

and turns in concert with the rotor hub at speeds, of 5 – 18 rpm. The shaft is connected 

through a gearbox to a high speed shaft (1000-1800 rpm) that connects to a generator, 

which is an assembly of permanent magnets that surrounds a wire coil. When the rotor 

turns the shaft, the shaft in turn spins, via its gearing, the assembly of magnets. This action 

generates voltage in the coil. This provides alternating current for distribution through 

power lines 

The tower supports the rotor and nacelle and provides the height for the rotor blades to 

adequately clear the ground and operate in higher wind speeds found at elevation above 

ground level. With a higher tower electricity output increases. 

The turbine has electrical equipment to carry the electricity from the generator down 

through the tower. This equipment also powers the safety controls on the turbine.


pg 2-5 


Figure 2.1 Generic design for a horizontal axis wind turbine 

(Source: Encyclopaedia of Renewable Energy and Sustainable Living) 

The output of a wind turbine depends on the velocity of the wind, height of the hub, length of the 

rotor blades and the dimension of the generator. The turbines envisaged for SWE will have a 

maximum hub height of 120 m, a maximum rotor blade diameter of between 90 & 140 m and 

maximum rotor sweep (circular area available for producing power) of up to 16,000 m 2. Each 

turbine will have an installed power generation capacity of between 2.5 MW and 5 MW. 

Wind turbines are designed to deliver peak efficiency at a specific wind speed, and manufacturers 

provide power curves that show how output varies with wind speed. Turbines have a start-up 

speed, which is the speed at which the rotor and blades start to rotate, and a cut-in speed, the 

minimum wind speed at which usable power is generated. This is typically about 3 - 4 metres per 

second. The cut-out speed is a safety feature that protects the wind turbine from mechanical 

damage, and is the highest wind speed at which the turbine will stop producing power. This is 

typically about 25 meters per second. As soon as the wind drops back to a safe level, the turbine 

usually resumes normal operation. The survival wind speed is about 60 m/s, this corresponds to 

216 km/h. The rated speed is the minimum wind speed at which the turbine delivers peak 

efficiency to generate its designated rated power. The rated speed of the proposed 3 MW turbines 

is 12 meters per second. Power output from a turbine increases as the wind speed increases, and 

usually levels off above the rated speed. This is the furling speed, which is the amount of wind


pg 2-6 


required to produce the maximum power that a turbine is capable of generating; any wind in 

excess of that speed will not generate more than this maximum power generation capacity. 

Two primary transmission structures are generally used to deliver power in South Africa; namely: 

the steel monopole and steel lattice structures. Steel monopole structures will be used for the 

proposed 2 x 132 kV lines connecting the SEW-WEF with the Eskom Proteus substation. A typical 

steel monopole structure is shown in Figure 2.2 and Figure 2.3:


pg 2-7 


Figure 2.2 Typical 

steel monopole 

transmission 

structure proposed to 

transmit electricity 

to the Proteus 

substation. 

(Source: ESKOM)


pg 2-8 


Figure 2.3 Steel monopole transmission structure displayed on left with steel lattice 

structure in the right 

(Source: ESKOM)

2.4 LAYOUT ALTERNATIVES 


pg 2-9 


At this stage of the EIA process two turbine layout alternatives are being considered, namely a 

3 MW (Figure 2.4) and a 4.5 MW (Figure 2.5) layout. These layouts are provisional and will be 

adapted based on the findings of the specialist studies during the Impact Assessment phase of this 

EIA process.

Figure 2.4 3 MW turbine layout 


pg 2-10 

Chapter 2 : Project Description

Figure 2.5 Proposed 4.5 MW turbine layout 


pg 2-11 

Chapter 2 : Project Description

2.5 PROJECT ACTIVITIES 

2.5.1 Construction 


pg 2-12 


Construction is planned to start in 2013, and will take up to 18 months. A further month will be 

devoted to commissioning and testing each turbine. 

Site Preparation 

A geotechnical survey will be undertaken before each turbine is set out. 

Access roads 

Upgrading of existing roads and construction of new internal roads will be required to 

accommodate a grader, digger loader, excavator, rollers, water cart and tippers. 

Workforce facilities and laydown areas 

Facilities for a site office, first aid station, ablution and change facilities, and any other support the 

workforce may need, will need to be established for the construction phase. At each turbine site, 

vegetation will be cleared to create a laydown area for temporary storage of equipment and 

supplies. This will include space for parking and loading/offloading of trucks and dumpers, 

assembling turbine components and a hard standing pad for the crane that will erect the turbine 

towers. 

Turbines 

Vegetation will be cleared for excavation of foundations for the turbines. All soil removed will be 

stored for backfill. Geotechnical and structural engineers will assess the site conditions and design 

a foundation that is suited to the site. Foundations are constructed from steel, gravel and concrete. 

Turbines will be erected one at a time. The tower is first assembled in sections, using two cranes, 

the nacelle will then be lifted into position at the top of the tower. The rotor (including the blades 

and the hub) will be assembled on the ground and then lifted into position and secured using two 

cranes. Figure 2.6 to Figure 2.16 illustrates how this process is executed.

Electrical infrastructure and connections 


pg 2-13 


All internal connections between turbines and substations will be installed below ground. Up to 

two substations could be installed one to serve the western half the other the eastern half and to 

receive the final connection from the western substation. 

From the Eastern substation connection to Proteus substation for connection to the transmission 

grid will be via an existing servitude upgraded to accept the capacity of the WEF. 

Site remediation 

Temporary work areas will be rehabilitated and restored when construction has ended and 

equipment removed. The goal will be to restore those portions of the site subjected to temporary 

use to its current land use (i.e. agriculture). 

2.5.2 Operation and maintenance 

SWE or the turbine manufacturer providing overall equipment guarantees and service 

supervision, will remotely monitor the operation and maintenance of the turbines. Over the 

lifetime of the turbines, the maintenance schedule is an initial commissioning & handover 

inspection, followed by semi-annual, annual and two and five year inspections, depending on the 

type of turbine. Maintenance requires general cleaning of all components, changing of oil and 

replacement of brake lining. No heavy vehicles are required to do this. 

2.5.3 Period of operation 

The operational life of the wind turbines is expected to be a minimum of 25 years. Turbine life can 

be extended beyond 25 years through regular maintenance and/or technology upgrades. The land 

on which the facility will be established is leased in its entirety by the developer with access and 

occupation rights ceded to each individual property owner for a period of 65 years. The 

appropriate land zoning as detailed in the Land Use Planning Ordinance (LUPO) of 1985, is 

consented use for renewable energy (For which LUPO has been amended. See Provincial Gazette 

Nr. 6875) will be applied for by the proponent at the Mossel Bay Local Municipality. 

2.5.4 Decommissioning 

This involves removing the turbines, and the concrete footings to allow natural vegetation growth. 

The costs of decommissioning will be covered by the scrap/recycle value of the turbines and by 

the company backed by suitable performance guarantees. Prior to the commencement of the 

project, and in accordance with the amended Land Use Planning Ordinance (LUPO) published in 

the Province of Western Cape: Provincial Gazette nr. 6894 on 29 July 2011 1, funding to cover the 

cost of decommissioning and rehabilitation has to be made available to the Mossel Bay 

1 

Available online at: http://www.greengazette.co.za/documents/provincial-gazette-for-western-cape-6894-of-29-jul- 

2011_20110729-WCP-06894. Assessed 27 June 2012


pg 2-14 


Municipality. These funds will be utilised to decommission the facility if the developer would no 

longer be able to do so. This security can either be in the form of insurance or a fund managed by 

the municipality. 

Any other supporting infrastructure no longer in use will also be removed from the site and either 

disposed of or recycled.


pg 2-15 


Turbine tower being transported Concrete base for the turbine 

Rotor blade being transported Internal access roads to turbine sites 

Tower section being lifted Rotor placed into position


pg 2-16 


Rotor blade hub being lifted Nacelle being lifted 

Nacelle placed into position Tower sections placed into position


pg 3-1 

Chapter 3 : 

Description of the 

Affected Environment 

CHAPTER 3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3-3 

3.1 INTRODUCTION 3-3 

3.2 LOCATION OF THE STUDY AREA 3-3 

3.3 ADAPHIC BASELINE 3-8 

3.3.1 Climate 3-8 

3.3.2 Topography 3-8 

3.3.3 Geology, Soils and Hydrology 3-8 

3.3.4 Agricultural Potential 3-9 

3.3.5 Visual Exposure 3-9 

3.4 BIOPHYSICAL BASELINE 3-9 

3.4.1 Description of Habitats and Vegetation Types 3-9 

3.4.2 Mammals, Reptiles and Amphibians 3-16 

3.5 SOCIO-ECONOMIC BASELINE 3-22 

3.5.1 Demographic Profile 3-22 

3.5.2 Economy 3-22 

3.5.3 Infrastructure, Services and Amenities 3-23 

3.5.4 Tourism Activities 3-23 

3.6 PLANNING CONTEXT AND SURROUNDING LAND USES 3-24 

3.6.1 Strategic Environmental Framework (SEF) for Wind Farms 3-24 

3.6.2 Western Cape Strategic Guidelines for Wind Farms 3-25 

3.6.3 Interpretation of Guidelines to Vleesbaai SEW-WEF Project Site 3-29

Table 3.1 Farm name and portion included in the proposed Vleesbaai wind energy 

project 3-4 

Table 3.2 Farm name, number and portion of properties included in the 

transmission line servitude 3-5 

Table 3.2 Actual Bat Species Identified in the Vleesbaai Study Area 3-17 

Table 3.3 Priority Avifauna Species for the Vleesbaai Wind Farm selected on the 

basis of South African (Barnes 2000) or global conservation status 

(www.iucnredlist.org or http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/species/), 

level of endemicity, relative abundance on site (SABAP reporting rates, 

direct observation), and estimated conservation or ecological significance 

of the local population. Red-listed endemic species are shaded in grey. 3-19 

Table 3.4 Access to Basic Service Delivery in the Eden District Municipality 3-23 

Table 3.5 Criteria Used to Inform Wind Farm Site Selection (and Buffers) (modified 

from DEADP/CNdV 2006) 3-27 

Figure 3.1 Location of the proposed wind farm near Vleesbaai 3-7 

Figure 3.2 Vegetation types of the study site and surrounding area as assessed during 

pre-feasibility (Note: 1: Turbine positions and ratings are theoretical and 

will be informed by scoping study. 2: The above diagram indicates the 

extent of the WEF as during the pre-feasibility screening phase, not the 

current extent, and is used to illustrated the vegetation cover present in the 

area). 3-12 

Figure 3.3: Critical Biodiversity areas (Note: 1: Turbine positions and ratings are 

theoretical and will be informed by scoping study. 2: The above diagram 

indicates the extent of the WEF as during the pre-feasibility screening 

phase, not the current extent, and is used to illustrated the vegetation cover 

present in the area). 3-15 

Figure 3.4 Framework for location of wind energy projects based on landscape 

character (Strategic Initiative to Introduce Commercial Land Based Wind 

Energy Development in the Western Cape, 2006) 3-31 


pg 3-2 

Chapter 3 : 


Affected Environment

3.1 INTRODUCTION 


pg 3-3 

Chapter 3 : 



CHAPTER 3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 

This section of the Draft Scoping Report provides a description of the environment that may be 

affected by the proposed SEW-WEF near Vleesbaai in the Western Cape Province. This 

information is provided in order to assist the reader in understanding the possible effects of the 

proposed project on the environment. The information presented here has been sourced 

primarily from the ERM SEW Screening Study (2011). ERM was contracted by SEW in March 

2011 to undertake a baseline sensitivity study to identify and map key environmental constraints 

(social and biophysical) that would identify the existence of potential fatal flaws arising from the 

proposed wind farm development; or key environmental constraints which would influence the 

layout of the WEF development. The study was also required to define the scope of additional 

investigations to be undertaken in a more detailed Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). 

Please note: This chapter intends to provide an overview of the affected environment and does 

not represent a detailed environmental study. Detailed studies focused on significant 

environmental aspects of this project will only be provided during the impact assessment phase 

of this project. 

3.2 LOCATION OF THE STUDY AREA 

The study area extends over an area of approximately 4500 ha and is located 25 km south west of 

Mossel Bay, 1 km west of the town of Vleesbaai and 2 km north of Gouritz River Mouth in the 

Western Cape Province (approximate centre of the study area is 34°17’20”S by 21°52’10”E). The 

N2 highway passes the study site approximately 6.5 km to the north, while the R 325 skirts the 

south western side of the study area across the Gouritz River and at a distance of about 4 km 

distance. The study area is located within the Eden District Municipality as well as the Mossel Bay 

Local Municipality (Figure 3.1). 

No statutory nature reserves are present within a 30 km radius of the site. However, two private 

conservancies, Fransmanshoek and Springerbaai, are located along the coastline to the south east 

of the study area while the Garden Route Game Lodge and Gondwana Game Reserve are situated 

21 km North West and 22 km north of the study area respectively. It should also be noted that the 

Gouritz Initiative corridor, aimed at protecting the Gouritz River catchment area through to the 

sea, runs past the study area. 

The wind energy facility is proposed on existing farmland located amongst the plains and valleys 

surrounding Vleesbaai. A total of 35 farms and extant subdivided portions of farms are included 

in the proposed location and are listed in Table 3.1 below. A transmission line and associated 

servitude is also proposed to connect the wind energy facility to the Eskom Proteus substation. 

This servitude is a linear activity and encompasses 37 farms, or sections of farms as indicated in 

Table 3.2 below.


pg 3-4 

Chapter 3 : 



Table 3.1 Farm name and portion included in the proposed Vleesbaai wind energy project 


Portion 11, being the remaining extent of the Farm Brakkefontein 259 

Portion 5, being the remaining extent of the Farm Vleesch Baai 251 

Portion 0, Farm 263, being the remaining extent of the Farm Ingang 263 

Remaining extent of Farm Vleesch Baai 251 

Portion 5 of Farm 259, Misgunst 

The farm Brakkefontein West 260 (portion 0) 

Portion 31 of the farm Brakkefontein no. 256 

The farm Zoutpan No. 261 (portion 0) 

The remaining portion 0 of the Gouritz River Farm 306, Farm Number 306 



The remaining extent of the farm Brakkefontein 258 






Portion 6, of the farm Vleesch Baai 251 

Portion 7, the remaining extent of the farm Vleesch Baai 251 





Portion 2 (the remaining extent) of the farm Vleesch Baai 251 

Portion 13 of the farm Vleesch Baai 251 


The remaining extent of Farm 262/0, Brakkefontein Oos 

The farm Brakkefontein 259 portion 3 (the remaining extent) 

The farm Vleesch Baai 251, portion 4 (the remaining extent) 

The farm Misgunst aan de Gouritz Rivier 257, portion 10 

Farm 390 Vleesch Baai 

Farm Lamont 393 

Portion 35 (a portion of portion 33) of the farm Brakkefontein 256 

The remaining extent of Portion 33 of the farm Brakkefontein 256 

Remainder of portion 37 of the farm Buffelsfontein 250 

Farm Buffelsfontein 381 

Portion 15 (a portion of portion 9) of the farm Buffelsfontein 250 

Remainder of portion 11 (Fairview) of the farm Buffelsfontein 250


pg 3-5 

Chapter 3 : 



Table 3.2 Farm name, number and portion of properties included in the transmission line servitude 











Farm 217, portion10 

Farm Driefontein 243, portion 8 











Farm Witteklip 241, portion 10 



Farm Buffelsfontein 250, portion15 








Farm Ingang 263 

Farm Keerom 264 


Farm 209, portion 001


pg 3-6 

Chapter 3 : 



These properties are leased from the farm owners by SEW. The lease agreement allows for the 

development of the required WEF wind infrastructure while allowing pre-existing farming 

activities to continue as before.

Figure 3.1 Location of the proposed SEW wind farm near Vleesbaai 


pg 3-7 

Chapter 3 : 


Affected Environment

3.3 ABIOTIC BASELINE 

3.3.1 Climate 


pg 3-8 

Chapter 3 : 



The SEW-WEF site lies within the Southern Cape Region, which experiences a fairly temperate 

coastal climate. The area is located in the Southern Cape area of year-round rainfall with an 

average rainfall of 460 mm per year. The distribution of rainfall shows a tendency towards being 

bimodal with peaks in April and August. Average temperatures do not range widely with June, 

July and August being the coolest months (daily minimum ± 10 °C, daily maximum ± 15 °C) and 

December and January the hottest (daily minimum ± 15 °C, daily maximum ± 25 °C). 

In more recent years, the Southern Cape, in particular the Eden District has experienced drought 

and erratic rainfall conditions, with mean average rainfalls well below what has been described 

above. 

3.3.2 Topography 

The project site is located on an elevated plateau characterised by undulating plains intersected 

by well defined drainage channels, draining south – southeast towards the lower Gouritz River 

floodplain. The drainage channels are typified by slopes which are relatively steep and comprise 

thicket vegetation. 

The coastal zone located approximately 2 km to the east of the project site is a transition zone 

between a range of geological and geomorphological features, resulting in a diverse range of 

ecological niches. The coastline in the vicinity of Vleesbaai is characterised by semi-circular bays 

with rocky headlands protruding in their western and eastern regions. Sand tends to accumulate 

along the northern and eastern sections of these bays, often forming extensive dune fields (Lubke 

and de Moor, 1998). This is particularly prominent from Mossel Bay west towards 

Fransmanshoek, and to a lesser degree, in Voorbaai, in the vicinity of Klein Brak River and 

Hartenbos. 

3.3.3 Geology, Soils and Hydrology 

The project site is situated on a plateau that has been formed by limestone rock of the De 

Hoopvlei Formation (Bredasdorp Group) which was laid down during the Cenozoic Era. A 

shallow capping of alkaline to neutral sand of the Wankoe Formation (Bredasdorp Group) lies 

over the hard calcarenite limestone (Roberts et al, 2006 in McDonald 2010). The altitude of the 

plateau is 40 metres above mean sea level (mamsl). The remaining area consists of 

conglomerates of the Enon Formation (Uitenhage Group). The weathering conglomerates with 

pebbles and cobbles are exposed in places on the slopes of the shallow valley to the north and 

west of the plateau. Soils are typified by shallow alkaline to neutral grey regic sands and Glenrosa 

and Mispah forms. 

The Gouritz River and associated floodplain runs adjacent to the western site boundary. There 

are a number of well established drainage channels on the western portion of the site, which flow 

towards the Gouritz River and floodplain. A vlei (Voëlvlei) is located to the north west of the site,


pg 3-9 

Chapter 3 : 



and a portion of the vlei is mapped as falling within the site. In addition, there are a number of salt 

pans located on the site. 

Groundwater is reportedly brackish and not suited to irrigation (F Orban pers. comm.). 

3.3.4 Agricultural Potential 

The project site is currently utilised for agricultural purposes, predominantly ostrich and sheep 

grazing. According to local farmers, poor soil suitability and recent drought conditions have 

forced them to move away from crop cultivation and focus on stock/ostrich farming. According to 

the Enpat Soil Potentials data available from 2001, most of the site consists of “Soils of 

intermediate suitability for arable agriculture where climate permits” and there are pockets of 

“Soils of poor suitability for arable agriculture”. 

A local resident (Fred Orban) who has lived in the area for many years reports that changing 

rainfall patterns has contributed to a reduction in commercial farming and a change in farming 

practices from cultivation of crops, including vegetables such as onions and peas, to ostrich 

farming and livestock grazing. He reports that rainfall patterns seem to be more erratic, with 

varying peaks and increased storm events with intervening drought. The decline in agricultural 

viability has resulted in a loss of jobs and the need for farmer assistance during drought periods. 

3.3.5 Visual Exposure 

The proposed WEF site is located on an exposed and gently undulating agricultural plateau above 

the coastal belt and is traversed by a number of secondary roads. These include the road from 

Mossel Bay to Boggomsbaai and Vleesbaai and southwards to join the R325 to Gouritsmond, 

amongst others. This site is also approximately 6.5 km from the N2 located to the north. These 

roads are well used by holiday makers and residents of the small coastal towns who traverse the 

agricultural plateau areas when accessing the coastal areas. 

Visual analysis shows that the site and turbine areas are visually exposed to a number of 

viewsheds. However, the context for the development is within an altered rural landscape and 

this needs to be taken into account during the visual impact assessment. 

3.4 BIOPHYSICAL BASELINE 

3.4.1 Description of Habitats and Vegetation Types 

3.4.1.1 General Context 

The site lies to the east of the Gourits River estuary, about 30 km south west of Mossel Bay. The 

proximity of the Gourits River has several important implications for the ecology of the site. In 

particular, the Gourits River valley is more arid than the adjacent sections of coastline. As a result, 

many species associated with more mesic coastal environments do not occur at the site. In 

addition, the Gourits River valley has had an impact on the biogeography of the region as it


pg 3-10 

Chapter 3 : 



represents a barrier to dispersal for some species, many of which do not occur east of the Gourits 

River. 

3.4.1.2 Broad-Scale Vegetation Description 

The vegetation of the area has been mapped by Mucina and Rutherford (2006) as well as Vlok 

and Euston Brown (2002) (Figure 3.3). There are some large disparities between the two maps 

which warrant some discussion within the context of the site and the development. 

Mucina and Rutherford (2006) map four vegetation types within the study area (Figure 3.3). 

1. Cape Lowland Alluvial Vegetation – this occurs on the floodplain of the Gourits River in 

the north-western corner of the site, and is classified as Critically Endangered. 

2. Cape Inland Salt Pans – small portions of which occur adjacent to the Cape Lowland 

Alluvial Vegetation along the Gourits River. This type was classified as Vulnerable in 2005 

but since revised to Least Threatened. 

3. Southern Cape Valley Thicket - occurs on the steep slopes and valleys along the 

western boundary of the site, and is classified as Vulnerable in 2005 but has since been 

revised to a Least Threatened status. This type is equivalent to the Vlok and Euston 

Brown mapped type of Gourits Valley Thicket and these authors regard it as being 

Vulnerable. The extent of Southern Cape Valley Thicket / Gourits Valley Thicket is limited 

and the total original extent of this unit is only 17 700 ha (Mucina & Rutherford 2006) of 

which approximately 61.5% remained intact in 2008. 

4. Canca Limestone Fynbos (mapped as Herbertsdale Renoster Thicket by Vlok and 

Euston-Brown) has been mapped as the predominant vegetation type across the site (in 

the areas highly transformed for agriculture). It appears that the study area never had 

fynbos but was predominantly covered by a mix of Renosterveld and Thicket. Canca 

Limestone Fynbos is classified as Least Threatened while Vlok and Euston-Brown 

contend that Herbertsdale Renoster Thicket is Endangered with only 41% of this 

vegetation unit remaining compared to at least 71% for Canca Limestone Fynbos. The 

vegetation map of Vlok and Euston Brown is regarded as more accurate in regard to the 

study area. 

Within the local context, both Cape Inland Salt Pans and Southern Cape Valley Thicket should 

perhaps be assigned the Vulnerable Status to reflect more accurately the conservation value of 

these vegetation types. Although the salt pans themselves may not be threatened they are 

functionally linked to the other adjacent vegetation types such as Cape Lowland Alluvial 

Vegetation which is Critically Endangered. Therefore, despite the fact that the salt pans are 

themselves not threatened, they occur within a sensitive and endangered environment which 

should be protected as far as possible. Cape Inland Salt Pans have not been distinguished from 

Cape Alluvial Vegetation by Vlok and Euston-Brown. 

The most conspicuous difference between the two vegetation maps presented in Figure 3.3 is the 

large extent of Canca Limestone Fynbos mapped by Mucina & Rutherford and which is mapped as 

Herbertsdale Renoster Thicket by Vlok & Euston Brown. The discrepancy between the two maps 

can to some extent be attributed to the different scales at which the vegetation was mapped, the


pg 3-11 

Chapter 3 : 



extent of ground-truthing, as well as the heterogeneous and variable nature of the vegetation in 

the area. 

Based on the observations of the vegetation from the site visit, the vegetation map of Vlok and 

Euston-Brown provides the more accurate and representative vegetation map of the site and is 

taken as the preferable reference for the vegetation of the area. In terms of the conservation value 

of the remnant vegetation patches at the site, the above discussion is to some extent moot when 

one considers the Critical Biodiversity Maps for the Area. The majority of remaining natural 

vegetation on the site has CBA status, and is therefore important from a conservation perspective. 

3.4.1.3 Description of Site Vegetation 

Within the proposed wind farm site and general area, very little natural vegetation remains intact 

and more than 95% of the site has been transformed for croplands or grazing. Large remnant 

vegetation patches are restricted to steep valley slopes and narrow gorges. Remnant patches in 

the flatter areas are rare, generally small and often occur in areas with shallow soils. The majority 

of remnant natural vegetation at the site is Gouritz Valley Thicket/Southern Cape Valley Thicket. 

These natural areas are mostly used for livestock grazing, largely with sheep, although some 

cattle, ostrich and game were also observed. The transformed areas are also used for livestock 

grazing and do not appear to be cultivated on a regular basis, which may be due to a general 

decline in cultivation or attributable to the drought period experienced in the area. Although 

some return of the natural vegetation onto the old lands was observed in a few localities, grazing 

pressure currently constrains the extent of natural vegetation recovery. The different plant 

communities observed at the site are described and illustrated below.

Figure 3.2 Vegetation types of the study site and surrounding area as assessed during pre-feasibility (Note: 1: Turbine positions and ratings are theoretical and will be 

informed by scoping study. 2: The above diagram indicates the extent of the WEF as during the pre-feasibility screening phase, not the current extent, and is used to 

illustrated the vegetation cover present in the area). 


pg 3-12

3.4.1.4 Thicket Communities 


pg 3-13 

Chapter 3 : 



The thicket communities at the site occupy most of the slopes and narrow valleys at the site. 

There is some variation in the overall composition of the thicket communities related to moisture 

availability which is in turn largely determined by aspect and slope. 

Typical and dominant species within the thicket communities included trees such as Schotia afra, 

Sideroxylon inerme, Tarchonanthus camphoratus, Olea europea subsp. africana, Euclea undulata, 

Rhus longispina and R.glauca; shrubs such as Azimia tetracantha and Carissa bispinosa subsp. 

bispinosa; climbers such as Fockea edulis, Pelargonium peltatum, Rhoicissus digitata and 

Asparagus mucronatus; and succulents including Aloe arborescens, Cotyledon orbiculata subsp. 

orbiculata, Sarcostemma viminale and Aloe ferox. Some of the drier slopes had an increased grass 

component including Themeda triandra, Ehrharta erecta and Panicum maximum. 

Species observed at the site which are considered by Mucina and Rutherford (2006) to be 

biogeographically important include Aloe arborescens, Euphorbia mammilaris and Azimia 

tetracantha which all reach their western limit in the area while Diospyros pallens and Gasteria 

carinata reach their southeastern limit in the area. The vegetation type is also host to at least two 

endemic species, Haworthia chloracantha and H.turgida which although not observed during the 

site visit have been recorded in the vicinity. 

The condition of the thicket communities in the area varied from good to relatively poor. Some 

areas had been fairly severely impacted by grazing which had greatly reduced the cover of the 

understorey vegetation, leaving these areas vulnerable to erosion. Most thicket patches were 

lightly to moderately invaded by prickly pear, Opuntia sp. 

Renosterveld Communities 

Remnant patches of renosterveld were extremely rare at the site, possibly as a result of a 

reduction in fire frequency in the area which has allowed the thicket communities to invade the 

Renosterveld. 

Dominant and typical species in the Renosterveld includes low trees and tall shrubs such as Rhus 

glauca, R.longispina and Carissa bispinosa subsp. bispinosa; low shrubs including Indigofera 

nigromontana, Dicerothamnus rhinocerotis, Oedera genistifolia, Asparagus mucronatus, A.capensis, 

Pollichia campestris, Pelargonium abrotanifolium, and Eriocephalus africanus; and succulents such 

as Aloe ferox, A.maculata and Bulbine praemorsa. Geophytes present at the time of sampling 

include Drimia altissima, Haemanthus sanguineus and Crossyne guttata. Other species observed 

included Kedrostis nana and Ehrharta erecta. 

The Renosterveld vegetation that was observed at the site was in a poor condition: the remnants 

were not fenced off from the old croplands with the result that they experienced very heavy 

grazing pressure as well as invasion by many of the weedy alien species common on the old lands.


pg 3-14 

Chapter 3 : 



Old Lands 

The majority of old lands in the study area do not appear to be cultivated on a regular basis or 

were not cultivated as a result of the prevailing drought at the time of survey. Those areas which 

had been recently cultivated were largely bare at the time of the site visit or contained a low 

cover of alien grass species such as Lolium rigidum and various Bromus sp. Old lands that had not 

been recently cultivated had developed into grazing lawns dominated by Cynodon dactylon with 

other weedy and alien annual and forb species such as Atriplex semibaccata, Emex australis, 

Xanthium spinosum, Conyza bonariensis, Bromus japonicas and Solanum linnaeanum. In rare 

instances some natural regeneration of the indigenous vegetation onto the old lands was 

observed, particularly by Dicerothamnus rhinocerotis and Merxmeullera stricta. Overall, the old 

lands have very low biodiversity value and the low and open nature of the vegetation makes it an 

inhospitable environment for most vertebrate fauna. 

In some places, the old lands have not been entirely cleared and scattered trees, usually 

Milkwood, Sideroxylon inerme, have been left in order to provide shade for the livestock. 

Milkwood trees are protected under the National Forests Act (No. 84 of 1998) and require a 

permit from the Department of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries to cut or destroy them. 

Some of the proposed turbine locations are in close proximity to some of these trees and 

therefore care should be taken during construction to ensure that these trees are not destroyed 

or harmed. 

3.4.1.5 Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBAs) and Key Habitats for Conservation 

The Critical Biodiversity Areas in and around the study site is depicted in Figure 3.4, as derived by 

Pence (2008) and fully described in The Biodiversity Sector Plan for the Hessequa and Mossel 

Bay Municipalities (Maree & Vromans, 2010).


pg 3-15 

Chapter 3 : 



Figure 3.3: Critical Biodiversity areas 

(Note: 1: Turbine positions and ratings are theoretical and will be informed by scoping study. 2: The above 

diagram indicates the extent of the WEF as during the pre-feasibility screening phase, not the current extent, 

and is used to illustrated the vegetation cover present in the area).


pg 3-16 

Chapter 3 : 



Broadly, there are two regions which constitute the majority of the CBAs within the study area: 

the coastal strip and the Gourits River corridor. These two areas have been selected as CBAs on 

the basis of their biodiversity value and because they constitute major movement and migration 

pathways for terrestrial fauna and flora. The majority of remnant vegetation patches at the site 

have also been classified as CBA and those that are not CBA are usually designated as Ecological 

Support Areas (ESAs). The inclusion of virtually all natural vegetation at the site within CBAs and 

ESAs stems from the high level of vegetation transformation at the site which renders all 

remaining fragments valuable from an ecological and biodiversity perspective. 

The Gourits Initiative (Lombard & Wolf 2004) mapped broad-scale ecological processes 

operating within its’ planning domain, which includes the study site. The western half of the site 

falls within the North-South Gourits Corridor, which identifies areas required in order to maintain 

connectivity along the Gourits River, linking the coastal ecosystem with the inland mountain 

ecosystems. The remnant vegetation fragments are particularly important in this regard, while 

the transformed areas do not play a significant role for most biota. Development within the 

transformed areas is therefore not likely to cause a significant disruption of this corridor for 

terrestrial biota. According to the Gourits Initiative, the western fringe of the site falls within a 

coastal corridor as well as a movement corridor for avian nectar feeders. 

3.4.2 Mammals, Reptiles and Amphibians 

3.4.2.1 Mammals 

Due to the extensive transformation of the site, the resident fauna is likely to represent only a 

subset of the species which historically occurred in the area. Thicket is a herbivore-driven 

ecosystem and the loss of large herbivores will have a long-term negative effect on this 

ecosystem. Some residents in the broader area have established private nature reserves and 

introduced large and medium sized herbivores such as zebra, gemsbok and springbuck. However, 

the extent of these so-called reserves is limited and the potential for overgrazing and degradation 

as a result of overstocking is high. 

Within the old lands there is likely to be a highly depauperate vertebrate community as a result of 

the low vegetation cover. Persistent species will be those that favour or can tolerate low 

vegetation cover such as the Cape and Hairy-Footed Gerbil (Tatera afra and Gerbillurus paeba), 

both of which were observed on the transformed areas of the site. Other species such as Scrub 

Hare Lepus saxatilis and Steenbok Raphicerus campestris will forage on the old lands at night but 

return to natural vegetation remnants for shelter and protection. Porcupine activity was 

observed in most patches, suggesting that porcupines traverse the open areas in order to forage 

at night. Narrow remnants of bush along fence-lines and roadsides probably provide important 

corridors for movement for porcupines as well as other mammals and smaller vertebrates. 

Most mammalian species are likely to be associated with the natural vegetation communities and 

their immediate surroundings. Small antelope which occur at the site include Common Duiker 

Sylvicapra grimmia, Steenbok Raphicerus campestris and Cape Grysbok Raphicerus melanotis. 

Although all of these small antelope are able to persist within agriculturally developed 

landscapes, the Cape Grysbok and Duiker rely more heavily on cover than the Steenbok.


pg 3-17 

Chapter 3 : 



Consequently, the former two species will be more closely associated with the larger vegetation 

remnants within the area. Although there are some range-restricted mammal species which 

occur along this section of coastline, most of them are reportedly unlikely to occur at the site. This 

includes the Long-tailed Forest Shrew, Myosorex longicaudatus, and the Fynbos Golden Mole 

Amblysomus corriae, both of which are restricted to the southern-Cape but according to Smithers 

and Chimimba (2005) are not likely to occur within the more arid Gourits River valley. 

Bats 

Based on actual captures, sightings and sound analysis, the bat species in Table 3.2 can be 

confirmed for the Vleesbaai WEF 

Table 3.2 Actual Bat Species Identified in the Vleesbaai Study Area 

SPECIES COMMON NAME GLOBAL 

SA 

CONSERV. STATUS CONSERV. STATUS 

Miniopterus natalensis Natal long-fingered bat NT NT 

Tadarida aegyptiaca Egyptian free-tailed bat LC LC 

Rhinolophus capensis Cape horseshoe bat NT NT 

Neoromicia capensis Cape serotine bat LC LC 

Nycteris thebaica Common slit-faced bat LC LC 

Rhinolophus clivosus Geoffroy's horseshoe bat LC NT 

Myotis tricolor Temminck's myotis LC LC 

Observations from the above results include: 

The most common bat encountered was the Cape serotine. This species was mostly 

recorded at sites that had buildings nearby. However, sound analysis from Voëlvlei cave 

also indicates that this species is utilizing the crevices in the rocks. 

Similarly, the Common slit-faced bat and the Egyptian free-tailed bat were both most 

common near buildings, but also near rocky areas. 

Cave dwelling species such as the Natal long-fingered bat, Cape horseshoe bat and 

Temminck’s myotis were recorded foraging within the study area. 

At least five bat species were recorded for Voëlvlei Cave, with echolocation calls 

indicating that even more could have been present. Further research during the next 

phase of the project will be required to verify the species, to determine the importance of 

the study area as foraging ground for them, as well as to determine whether the cave is a 

seasonal or year round roost. 

Where the Meteorological Mast is situated on open agricultural land, no bats were 

recorded on the night of the 12 th April 2011. 

Three of the seven species encountered have a conservation status of Near Threatened. 

All three of these are cave-dwelling species.


pg 3-18 

Chapter 3 : 



Birds 

The site is located at the extreme south-eastern corner of the Overberg Wheatbelt Important Bird 

Area, known particularly for containing >50% of the global population of Blue Crane 

Anthropoides paradiseus and comprising the eastern, core breeding area for the locally endemic 

Black Harrier Circus maurus, and the entire distribution of the Agulhas Long-billed Lark 

Certhilauda brevirostris (Barnes 1998, Young et al. 2003, Curtis et al. 2004). 

More than 240 species may occur on the site, including 20 red-listed species, 51 endemic or nearendemic 

species, and seven red-listed endemics (Knysna Woodpecker Campethera notata, Blue 

Crane, African Black Oystercatcher Haematopus moquini, Cape Vulture Gyps coprotheres, Black 

Harrier, Knysna Warbler Bradypterus sylvaticus and Agulhas Long-billed Lark). The area probably 

supports good numbers of Blue Crane (manifest as both breeding pairs in summer, and nonbreeding 

or wintering flocks), as well as smaller numbers of Denham’s Bustard (Young et al. 

2003). A number of red-listed raptors are likely to occur regularly, and some may be resident in 

the area, such as Secretarybird Bird Sagittarius serpentarius, Black Harrier and African Marsh 

Harrier Circus ranivorus, Martial Eagle Polemaetus bellicosus, Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus 

and Lanner Falcon Falco biarmicus (Jenkins 1994, Van Zyl et al. 1994, Young et al. 2003, Curtis et 

al. 2004). Agulhas Long-billed Lark is likely to frequent the croplands, and Knysna Woodpecker 

and Knysna Warbler might be present in the denser, more pristine thicket patches. 

Sixty-one species were seen in the broader impact zone during a site visit on 13-14 April 2011. 

This visit involved driving (and to a limited extent walking) around the development area in 

order to determine the avian habitats available, and to refine estimations of the birds likely to 

occur there, and the context in which the bird/wind farm interactions are likely to take place. 

Significant observations included multiple sightings of Blue Crane (totaling >50 birds located 

within or close to the development area, and including a pair with two half-grown chicks), a pair 

of Secretarybirds Sagittarius serpentarius, two sightings of Denham’s Bustard Neotis denhami 

(totaling only three birds), and two sightings of Black Harrier made by other members of the 

team. Also, Agulhas Long-billed Lark was quite abundant on croplands throughout the area. 

Unfortunately, the site visit was not optimally timed to independently assess the avifauna of the 

wetland system, which was completely dry away from the main course of the Gourits River. 

On the basis of these on-site observations, in combination with the available bird atlas and count 

data for the general area, 15 priority species are recognised as key in the assessment of avian 

impacts of the proposed Vleesbaai Wind Energy Facility((Table 3.3), and as suitable surrogates 

for impacts on other species.


pg 3-19 

Chapter 3 : 



Table 3.3 Priority Avifauna Species for the Vleesbaai Wind Farm selected on the basis of South African (Barnes 2000) or global conservation status (www.iucnredlist.org 

or http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/species/), level of endemicity, relative abundance on site (SABAP reporting rates, direct observation), and estimated conservation or 

ecological significance of the local population. Red-listed endemic species are shaded in grey. 

Common name 

Knysna 

Woodpecker 

Scientific name 

SA conservation 

status/ 

(Global conservation 

status) 

Campethera notata Near-threatened 

(Near-threatened) 

Denham’s Bustard Neotis denhami Vulnerable 

(Near-threatened) 

Blue Crane Anthropoides 

paradiseus 

Vulnerable 

(Vulnerable) 

Regional 

endemicity 

Average 

SABAP 

reporting 

rate 

(N = 161 

cards) 

Estimated 

importance 

of local 

population 

Preferred 

habitat 

Collision 

Risk posed by 

Electro- 

cution 

Disturbance / 

habitat loss 

Endemic 8.8 Moderate Thicket - - Moderate 

- 34.8 High Croplands, 

pasture 

Endemic 71.4 Low Croplands, 

wetlands 

High - High 

High - High 

Caspian Tern Sterna caspia Near-threatened - 5.0 Low Wetlands Moderate - - 

African Fish-Eagle Haliaeetus vocifer - - 52.2 Moderate Wetlands High High Moderate 

African Marsh 

Harrier 

Circus ranivorus Vulnerable - 14.9 Moderate Wetlands, 

croplands 

Black Harrier Circus maurus Near-threatened 

(Vulnerable) 

Endemic 8.1 Moderate Wetlands, 

natural 

vegetation, 

croplands 

Moderate - Moderate 

Moderate - Moderate 

Martial Eagle Polemaetus Vulnerable - 5.6 Moderate Natural High High -

Common name 

Scientific name 

Secretarybird Sagittarius 

serpentarius 

SA conservation 

status/ 

(Global conservation 

status) 

Regional 

endemicity 

Average 

SABAP 

reporting 

rate 

(N = 161 

cards) 


pg 3-20 

Estimated 

importance 

of local 

population 

Preferred 

habitat 

bellicosus (Near-threatened) vegetation, 

croplands 

Near-threatened - 9.3 Moderate Croplands, 

pasture, natural 

vegetation 

Lanner Falcon Falco biarmicus Near-threatened - 6.2 Moderate Croplands, 

pasture 

Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus Near-threatened - 1.0 Low? Croplands, 

pasture 

Greater Flamingo Phoenicopterus ruber Near-threatened - 8.7 Low? Wetlands, flying 

over 

Black Stork Ciconia nigra Near-threatened - 6.2 Low? Wetlands, flying 

over 

Knysna Warbler Bradypterus 

sylvaticus 

Agulhas Longbilled 

Lark 

Certhilauda 

brevisrostris 

Chapter 3 : 



Collision 

Risk posed by 

Electro- 

cution 

Disturbance / 

habitat loss 

High - Moderate 

High Moderate - 

High Moderate - 

High - - 

High - - 

Vulnerable 

(Vulnerable) 

Endemic 10.6 Moderate Thicket - - Moderate 

Near-threatened Endemic 44.1 High Croplands, 

pasture, natural 

vegetation 

- - Moderate

3.4.2.2 Reptiles 


pg 3-21 

Chapter 3 : 



In terms of reptiles, the site is likely to be rich in snakes relative to other types of reptiles due to 

the nature of habitats present as well as the high relative abundance of rodents and amphibians 

which is likely to characterize the site. Since the distribution of snakes tends to correlate with that 

of their prey items, it is likely that reptile species which favour aquatic habitats will be adequately 

represented by the aquatic CBAs which include virtually all the natural and man-made dams and 

pans in the area as well as the riparian areas and their buffers. The other snake and reptile 

species will largely be restricted to the vicinity of the vegetation remnants. Although the only 

tortoise species observed at the site was the Angulate Tortoise Chersina angulata, a few other 

tortoise species may occur at the site including the Parrot-beaked Padloper, Homopus areolatus, 

which is restricted to the southern Cape. The Renosterveld fragments and thicket areas with 

broken cover are likely to be more important for tortoises at the site as the dense cover and steep 

slopes of most of the remnant thicket are not likely to favour tortoises. The thicket and fynbos 

communities in the area are however likely to host arboreal species such as the Boomslang and 

chameleons such as the Little Karoo Dwarf Chameleon, Bradypodion gutturale and the Cape 

Dwarf Chameleon, Bradypodion pumilum. 

There are no listed reptile species known from the area and since the turbines will be restricted 

to the old lands which are not significant in terms of reptile habitat, the development is not likely 

to have a significant direct impact on reptiles. 

3.4.2.3 Amphibians 

There are about a dozen frog species which are likely to occur at the site. Due to the presence of a 

relatively large number of dams and pans in the area as well as the moist environments 

associated with the Gourits River, frogs are likely to be fairly abundant in the lower lying areas of 

the site. Although several frog species confined to the southern and southwestern Cape are likely 

to occur at the site (Sand Rain Frog Breviceps rosei, Cape Sand Frog Tomopterna delalandii, Arum 

Lily Frog Hyperolius horstockii), none of these are highly restricted in their distribution relative to 

the extent of the site and the development is not likely to trigger any significant concerns 

regarding potential impacts on amphibians. The aquatic CBAs in the area adequately encompass 

both the likely pattern and process aspects of frog habitat requirements at the site and no specific 

recommendations beyond those inherent in the CBA maps need to be made regarding sensitive 

habitats for frogs at the site. 

3.4.3 Freshwater ecology 

The majority of the site falls within the estuarine portion of the Gourits River. The remainder of 

the site contains small coastal catchments from Vleesbaai to Mossel Bay. The proposed 

development thus contains small thicket dominated valleys that are connected with the Gourits 

Estuary, as well portions of the Buffels River and Voёlvlei wetland. 

Several water bodies and aquatic systems were observed on site with the preliminary 

delineations. Based on the 6 levels of the National Wetland Classification System, these systems


pg 3-22 

Chapter 3 : 



are typical of Inland Systems (Level 1), within the Southern Coastal Belt Ecoregion (Level 2), with 

the majority of the river valleys being connected to the Gourits Estuary or the Voёlvlei. 

Wetland landscape units (Level 3) were thus valley floors (riparian / palustrine) or small 

plateaus, which contained depression or un-channelled valley bottom hydrogeomorphic units 

(Level 4). The depression or endorheic pans were a dominant feature within the study area, 

hosting several wetland plant species, small amphibians and groups of Blue Crane (Anthropoides 

paradiseus) that use the wetland areas as breeding sites. 

However due to the small catchments and locality of these systems, they infrequently contain any 

surface runoff or open water (Level 5), but would remain important habitat or refuges within a 

landscape that has largely been altered through agricultural practices. 

The agricultural impacts observed included alteration of the hydrological regime through the 

creation of dam walls or pan excavation to increase water storage volumes, landscape alteration 

for crop / fodder production or water quality impacts with regard high nutrient concentrations. 

High nutrient levels were possibly elevated by run-off from nearby livestock holding pens that 

contained large quantities of fecal matter or feed supplements. 

3.5 SOCIO-ECONOMIC BASELINE 

3.5.1 Demographic Profile 

The Eden District Municipality’s (DM) population accounts for 10.6 percent of the total 

population in the Western Cape. The population in the Eden DM has increased by 37 percent 

since 1996 and was estimated to be 537,421 in 2009 (Eden District IDP, 2011). The population of 

the Mossel Bay Local Municipality (LM) showed a significant increase between 1996 and 2007 

(increasing from 62,254 to 117,838 persons), however there has been a subsequent decline in 

population figures to 85,415 in 2009. 

The Eden DM contains a large working age population, with approximately 66 percent of the total 

population falling between the ages of 15 and 64. This number has increased between 2007 and 

2009 from 179 263 to 189 339. The increase economic active age group can be attributed to more 

people moving to Eden in pursuit of job opportunities. 

The racial composition of the population within the Eden DM comprises of Coloured people 

(52.2 percent), Indian people (0.5 percent), White people (18.3 percent) and the Black/African 

people (29 percent). 

3.5.2 Economy 

The primary economic activities in the Eden DM are agriculture, manufacturing, tourism, trade 

and business. The economy of the Eden DM grew at an average annual rate of 3.3 percent 

between 1995 and 2004, which is slightly higher than the Western Cape at 3 percent (IDP). The 

Mossel Bay LM was the second highest contributor to the Eden District’s GDP in 2004, 

contributing 21 percent, while George contributed 35 per cent. The Mossel Bay LM showed the


pg 3-23 

Chapter 3 : 



highest economic growth rate in the District for the period 2003-2004 (6.5 percent), together 

with the George LM (5.6 percent) and Hessequa LM (5.5 percent) the Mossel Bay LM has made a 

significant contribution to the economy of the Eden DM. 

The global economic recession has impacted negatively on the South African economy since 

2009. In 2009 the provincial economic growth rate decreased to 2.5 percent per annum from a 

3.6 percent growth rate in 2008. While no official statistics are currently available, it can be 

assumed that the Eden DM and the Mossel Bay LM will show a similar decline in growth. 

The Southern Cape has also been affect by drought conditions which has had a negative effect on 

the agricultural and tourism sectors in the area. The National Department of Agriculture has 

allocated drought relief funds that will provide some financial assistance to farmers. 

3.5.3 Infrastructure, Services and Amenities 

Infrastructure in the Eden DM is under pressure as the demand for services have been steadily 

increasing due to population increase and influx into the area. There is a need to maintain (or 

replace) existing infrastructure which must be balanced with the demand for new infrastructure. 

In response to address the maintenance of existing infrastructure the Eden District partnered 

with the Development Bank of Southern Africa to roll-out a Sustainable Municipal Infrastructure 

Operations and Maintenance programme in the District. The program is currently being piloted in 

Hessequa, Kannaland and the District Management Area (DMA) in Eden (Eden District IDP, 

2011). 

Overall access to infrastructure and services within the Eden DM has improved between 2001 

and 2007 (which has also increased pressure on bulk services). Access to formal housing and 

piped water are an exception to this trend, and the table below shows that the number of people 

with access to formal housing has decreased. There has been an increase in the number informal 

dwellings, which explains the decrease in access to piped water and may be attributed to the 

influx of people into the Eden DM. 

Table 3.4 Access to Basic Service Delivery in the Eden District Municipality 

(% share of households) 2001 2007 

Formal dwellings 76.2% 72.2% 

Informal dwellings 3.0% 9.1% 

Electricity 82.5% 90.1% 

Flush toilets 71.6% 82.5% 

Water (piped water) 67.4% 58.9% 

Refuse removal (local 

authority/ private) 

82.5% 90.1% 

Source: Stats SA, Community survey, 2007 

3.5.4 Tourism Activities 

The natural scenic beauty of the Eden DM makes it a popular tourism destination. The small 

coastal towns in the Mossel Bay LM, (such as Vleesbaai, Gouritzmond, Boggomsbaai) are popular


pg 3-24 

Chapter 3 : 



getaways for weekends and over the December holidays. There are a number of nature reserves 

in the area also attract visitors to the area. According to the Eden DM, visitors to the area are from 

overseas and from with South Africa alike. 

The greatest growth potential within the region’s tourism sector is concentrated on the leisure 

and ecotourism segments along the coastal areas. The Eden DM Integrated Development Plan 

(IDP) highlights the increased development in the Tourism sector through the “Economic and 

Tourism Development Cluster.” The “Eden Tourism Marketing and Development Strategy” was 

adopted in 2008 in order to ensure the sustainable growth of the Tourism sector. 

In close proximity to the Vleesbaai WEF site is a popular coastal trail – Oystercatcher Trails – 

which cater for options ranging from luxury to self-catering trails along the coast. 

3.6 PLANNING CONTEXT AND SURROUNDING LAND USES 

There are two primary documents that provide the environmental guidance for wind farm siting 

and layout planning. An overview of each of these is provided below. 

3.6.1 Strategic Environmental Framework (SEF) for Wind Farms 

In the light of the many applications for wind farm authorisation under REFIT 1, the Department 

of Environmental Affairs (DEA) commissioned a Strategic Environmental Framework to guide 

decision-making on wind farms (EnviroNomics/MetroGIS, February 2011). 

The SEF envisages overall suitability of wind farm applications being based on indexes of 

environmental and technical suitability. Environmental suitability criteria include: 

• Land suitability 

• Ecological suitability, and 

• Visual suitability 

In the SEF, these criteria were evaluated and mapped at a national level to determine which areas 

are suitable/unsuitable for wind farm development. 

3.6.1.1 Ecological Suitability 

Ecological suitability criteria considered the location of Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBAs) but of 

key importance to regional planning for wind farms, it was recognised that these had limitations 

at a national scale and a finer level of resolution is appropriate at a local site planning level. The 

location of Important Bird Areas (IBAs) and Ramsar sites were however considered and mapped 

as an indicator of ecological suitability. 

The Vleesbaai site is situated in an area peripheral to portions of land with low suitability for 

wind farms but based on the map these portions appear to be those associated with the Gourits 

River Valley and probably relate to the Gourits Valley Thicket in the riverine corridors and gullies.

3.6.1.2 Land Use Suitability 


pg 3-25 

Chapter 3 : 



Land use suitability considered and mapped the criteria and applied buffers as follows: 

• National parks – 10 km buffer to allow for visual protection; 

• Proximity to Ramsar sites, World Heritage sites, Nature Reserves (Provincial), and 

Mountain Catchment Areas; 

• Proximity to urban areas – 1km buffer; 

• Cultivated and land with high agricultural potential. 

Wind farms within these zones were excluded and designated as land with low suitability or 

moderate suitability (within 10 km of a National Park) for wind farms. 

The SEF provides motivation for developers to submit sufficient information on arable potential 

of agricultural land with applications for wind farms as the document indicates the selection of 

wind farms under REFIT 1 will follow a risk averse approach where they are sited on cultivated 

land. 

3.6.1.3 Visual Sensitivity 

Criteria for assigning categories of visual sensitivity include proximity to scenic routes, important 

landscape features identified by DEA, taking into account steep slopes (8° and steeper), and 

important visual catchments between national roads and landscape features to minimise risks to 

aesthetic resource values. 

3.6.1.4 Technical Suitability 

Key technical criteria considered in the SEF were: 

• Proximity to the national grid (132 kV substations) using selection buffers of 17.5, 35 and 

70 km; and 

• Wind resource areas with high suitability rated as wind speeds > 8 m/s. 

The SEW-WEF site falls within the area designated as high suitability for grid connection as it is 

within 29 km of a 132 kV substation, but according to the SEF, outside the area of high wind 

resource suitability of > 8 m/s. 

3.6.2 Western Cape Strategic Guidelines for Wind Farms 

The report: "Strategic Initiative to Introduce Commercial and Land Based Wind Energy 

Development to the Western Cape" was drafted in 2006 (CNdV 2006) and provides a broad 

guiding framework for the location of wind energy development in both urban and rural areas, 

based on the sensitivity and capacity of landscape types and the scale of the project (Figure 3.5). 

The Report indicates that in the rural context where most commercial wind farms will be located, 

large scale ‘open’ landscapes and/or ‘disturbed’ rural landscapes are preferred for the siting of 

wind farms. 

The report further states that Commercial Wind Energy development should be excluded from:


pg 3-26 

Chapter 3 : 



• Areas of high aesthetic landscape value, particularly national parks and provincial nature 

reserves and other wilderness areas. 

• Areas where technical and safety considerations apply. 

Wind energy should be encouraged: 

• At strategic locations identified in a Regional Wind Plan (RWP) to be prepared by the 

relevant planning authority. 

• Where they are well located in terms of visual impact, technical and safety criteria and 

landscape, environmental and planning criteria. 

• In large concentrated wind farms rather than small dispersed locations where the 

distance between large wind farms is at least 30 km, and ideally exceeding 50 km. 

• In appropriate urban and industrial “brownfield” sites. 

• Where visual disturbance to the landscape has already occurred (e.g. power transmission 

lines). 

• At the local scale where individual turbines (not exceeding 50 m in total height) could 

provide power to small users. 

These criteria have, however, not been legislated and serve as guidelines.

Table 3.5 Criteria Used to Inform Wind Farm Site Selection (and Buffers) (modified from DEADP/CNdV 2006) 


pg 3-27 

Chapter 3 : 



CRITERIA BUFFER* NOTES 

1 Urban Areas 800 m This distance covers noise and flicker effects at local level 

2 Residential Areas (including rural dwellings) 400 m* This distance covers noise and flicker effects at local level 

3 Transport routes 

3a 

3b 

3c 

3d 

3e 

National Roads 

Local Roads 

Provincial Tourist Route 

Local Tourist Route 

Railway Lines 

4 Transmission Lines 

4a 

4b 

4c 

Major Power Lines 

Cell Phone Masts and Communication Towers 

Radio and Navigation beacons 

5 Key Infrastructure / Airports 

5a 

5b 

5c 

Airport with Primary Radar 

Local Airfield 

National Security Sites 

13 km* 

500 m* 

4 km 

2.5 km 

250 m 

250 m 

500 m* 

250 m* 

25 km 

2.5 km 

15 km 

6 National Parks and Provincial Nature Reserves 2 km 

7 Other Protected Areas 

7a Mountain Catchments 

500 m* 

7b Protected Natural Environments 

2 km 

7c Private Nature Reserves / Conservancies 

500 m* 

8 Coast and Rivers 

− depending on scenic value of route 

− review if high scenic value 

− statutory scenic drives 

− can be reduced depending on local importance 

− rail corridors usually visually disturbed 

− To be captured at local scale 


− Should be eliminated at regional level 

− To be confirmed with agency 




− Should be eliminated at regional level

8a 

8b 

CRITERIA BUFFER* NOTES 

Distance to coastlines of undisturbed scenic value 

Distance to rivers 

8c Distance to 1:100 year floodlines 

9 Sensitive Areas (Avian) 

9a Distance to Major Wetlands (Ramsar) 

9b Distance to local wetlands / dams 

9c Distance to bird habitats or migration flight paths (where 

known) 

10 Topographical 

10a Slope and elevation 

10b Distance from ridge lines / cliffs 

10c Geographical priority areas 

4km 

500 m* 

200m* 

2 km 

500 m* 

1 km 

25 m* 

500 m* 


pg 3-28 

Chapter 3 : 




− Only perennial rivers mapped at regional level. Site level 

assessment to account for all hydrology and site 

geohydrology 

− To be mapped at local level 


− Map at local level 

− Specific breeding sites to be dealt with at EIA level 

11 Vegetation 

11a Distance to important vegetation / remnants To be mapped at local level 

− Key considerations at local level. See visual and site 

assessment criteria 

− Major ridge lines eliminated at regional level, local level to 

identify ridgelines /skyline issues 

Source: DEADP/CNdV 2006: Towards a Regional Methodology for Wind Energy Site Selection 

* Assigned buffer distances will be considered and amended where necessary on a site basis as informed by available data and expert knowledge. 

Note: some criteria such as sites of heritage value were not included in the DEADP/CNdV report and therefore do not have an assigned buffer distances. These will need 

to be assigned by the heritage specialists during the EIA.

3.6.3 Interpretation of Guidelines to Vleesbaai SEW-WEF Project Site 


pg 3-29 

Chapter 3 : 



The following criteria are of particular relevance to the selection of the project site and may be 

taken into consideration by the decision making authorities: 

Proximity to other proposed wind farms; 

Distance to National and Local Roads; 

Proximity to Coastline of Undisturbed Scenic Value; 

Proximity to other private nature reserves; 

Distance to Rivers; and 

Distance to 1:100 year floodline. 

Proximity to Other Wind Farms 

The CNdV (2006) guidelines suggest a recommended distance between large farms of at least 

30 km and preferably 50 km. While the SEW WEFF 140 MW wind farm site is not considered a 

large wind farm, it is proposed to be located within 1.4 km of the proposed 200 MW Inca Energy 

Wind Farm (this project is currently on hold). The decision-making authorities will need to decide 

whether these two medium sized wind farms with a combined total of 340 MW are acceptable in 

the light of technical capacity and environmental considerations. The cumulative impacts of these 

two wind farms, together with the InnoWind 130 MW wind farm to the north, will need to be 

assessed in the EIA. 

Distance to National and Local Roads 

The nearest boundary of the proposed Vleesbaai wind farm site is approximately 5.11 km from 

the N2. While the guidelines specify a buffer of 13 km this is contingent on the scenic value of the 

route. The scenic value of the route in the vicinity of the N2 along which the SEW WEF would be 

visible is regarded as relatively low, and it is considered likely that a distance of 6.5 km from the 

N2 will be acceptable from a visual point of view. This will need to be assessed by a visual 

consultant during the EIA. 

Proximity to Coastline of Undisturbed Scenic Value 

The nearest boundary of the proposed wind farm site to the coastline is approximately 662 m 

while the CNdV guidelines specify 4 km. The wind farm site is however situated on a cultivated 

plateau and is expected to be largely hidden from view by users and the majority of residents of 

the coastline. Turbines are mainly likely to be visible to users of walking trails along the coastline 

where the trails traverse the upper contours above the sea and residents in the upper parts of the 

coastal towns of Boggomsbaai and Vleesbaai. However, the prevailing viewshed of coastal users is 

likely to be oriented towards the sea rather than up the slopes across the fields. The coastline is 

relatively unspoilt along many stretches (particularly the dune belt between Kanonpunt and 

Vleesbaai), and the entire coastline from Kanonpunt to north of Boggomsbaai is designated as 

conservancy. However, there are several clusters of residential areas at intervals (such as 

Kanonpunt, Vleesbaai and Boggomsbaai, and other housing developments are proposed (e.g. 

Amanzi Moya next to Vleesbaai). These factors will need to be taken into account when 

determining the appropriateness of siting turbines within 4 km of the coast.


pg 3-30 

Chapter 3 : 



Proximity to Other Reserves 

The guidelines indicate a buffer requirement of 500 m from private reserves. The entire coastline 

to the south of the proposed site lies within the Fransmanshoek Conservancy or Springerbaai 

Conservancy. The wind farm site abuts the Fransmanshoek Conservancy along two boundaries 

comprising its eastern boundary. At this section of abutment with the conservancy, the land 

comprises grazing and an adherence to the 600 m noise buffer guidelines in this section 

combined with compliance with LUPO buffer guidelines for outer cadastral boundaries, should 

provide the necessary noise buffer desired in this area. A relaxation of this buffer guideline, if 

necessary may be acceptable to the Fransmanshoek Conservancy based on the agricultural status 

of this portion. 

Proximity to Rivers and Floodplain 

The Gourits River is the most significant river in the vicinity of the project site and the nearest 

proposed turbine locations are situated at least 1.2 km from the high-water mark in the river 

course and approximately 500 m from the predicted 1:100 year floodline (presumed to lie where 

the edge of the floodplain meets the slopes rising to the plateau). The defined edge of the study 

area does however extend across the floodplain but no turbines are located in this area. All 

turbine locations are atop a plateau and set back from the river and therefore sufficient distance 

is allowed to avoid any risk to the river course and floodplain or to the turbine structures.

Chapter 3 : Description of the Affected Environment 

Figure 3.4 Framework for location of wind energy projects based on landscape character (Strategic Initiative to Introduce Commercial Land Based Wind Energy 

Development in the Western Cape, 2006) 


pg 3-31


pg 4-1 

Chapter 4 : 

Approach to EIA Process 

and Public Participation 

CHAPTER 4. APPROACH TO EIA PROCESS AND PUBLIC 

PARTICIPATION 4-3 

4.1 LEGAL CONTEXT FOR THIS EIA 4-3 

4.2 LEGISLATION AND GUIDELINES PERTINENT TO THIS EIA 4-5 

4.3 PRINCIPLES FOR SCOPING AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 4-6 

4.4 OBJECTIVES OF THE SCOPING PROCESS 4-7 

4.5 TASKS IN THE SCOPING PHASE 4-8 

Task 1: I&AP identification, registration and the creation of an electronic database 4-8 

Task 2: Announcement of the Scoping process 4-9 

Task 3: Ongoing Communication and Capacity Building 4-9 

Task 4: Consultation with authorities 4-10 

Task 5: Technical Scoping with project proponent and EIA team 4-11 

Task 6: Consultation with I&APs (public) to identify issues and concerns 4-11 

Task 7: Focus Group Meetings 4-12 

Task 8: Identification of Issues and Concerns 4-12 

Task 9: Review of the Draft Scoping Report 4-12 

Task 10: Final Scoping Report for public comment (current stage) 4-13 

Task 11: Final Scoping Report 4-13 

4.6 APPROACH TO THE ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVES 4-13 

4.6.1 No-go alternative 4-14 

4.6.2 Land-use alternatives 4-14 

4.6.3 Location Alternatives 4-15 

4.6.4 Technology and layout alternatives as part of the development 4-18 

4.7 SCHEDULE FOR THE EIA 4-19

Table 4.1 Listed activities that potentially form part of the proposed 

SWE-WEF Vleesbaai Wind Energy Project 4-4 

Table 4.2 DEA&DP Strategic Initiative to Introduce Commercial Land- 

Based Wind Energy Development to the Western Cape 

(2006) criteria affecting the SWE-WEF Vleesbaai site 4-16 

Table 4.3 EIA Schedule for the SWE-WEF Wind Energy Project 4-20 

Figure 4.1 Example of a VAWT with HAWT on horizon (Source: 

www.usasolarwind.com) 4-19 


pg 4-2 

Chapter 4 : 


and Public Participation


pg 4-3 

Chapter 4 : 



CHAPTER 4. APPROACH TO EIA PROCESS AND 

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 

This chapter provides an overview of the approach to the Scoping Phase of the EIA, commencing 

with an outline of the legal context, followed by the key principles that are applied in designing 

the EIA process and the tasks being followed during Scoping. 

4.1 LEGAL CONTEXT FOR THIS EIA 

Section 24(1) of the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA, Act 107 of 1998) states: 

"In order to give effect to the general objectives of integrated environmental management laid down 

in this Chapter, the potential impact on the environment of listed activities must be considered, 

investigated, assessed and reported to the competent authority charged by this Act with granting 

the relevant environmental authorization." 

The reference to "listed activities" in section 24 of NEMA relates to the regulations promulgated 

respectively in Government Notices R 544, R 545 and R 546 in Government Gazette No 33306, 

dated 18 June 2010, which Government Notices came into effect on 2 August 2010. The relevant 

Government Notices published in terms of NEMA that comprise collectively the NEMA EIA 

Regulations list activities that require either a Basic Assessment, or Scoping and Environmental 

Impact Assessment (that is a “full EIA”) be conducted. The SWE-WEF Vleesbaai project requires a 

full EIA, in particular because it includes, inter alia, the following activity listed under Activity 

Number 1 in GN R 545 in Government Gazette No 33306 of June 2010: 

1. The construction of facilities or infrastructure for the generation of electricity where the 

electricity output is 20 megawatts or more. 

All the listed activities potentially forming part of this proposed development that require 

environmental authorization were included in the application form prepared and submitted to 

the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) and the Letter of Approval is attached as 

Appendix B of this report. The listed activities are indicated in Table 4.1 below. 

It should be noted that a precautionary approach was followed when identifying listed activities 

in the application form, i.e. if the activity potentially forms part of the project, it is listed. However, 

the final project proposal will be shaped by the findings of the EIA process and certain activities 

may be added or removed from the project proposal. The DEA will be informed in writing of such 

amendments and I&APS will also be informed accordingly.

RELEVANT 

NOTICE: 

GN.R544, 

18 June 2010 

(Basic 

Assessment) 

GN.R545, 

18 June 2010 

(Scoping and EIA) 

GN.R546, 

18 June 2010 

(Activities in 

identified 

geographical 

areas) 

Table 4.1 Listed activities that potentially form part 

of the proposed SWE-WEF Vleesbaai Wind Energy Project 


pg 4-4 

Chapter 4 : 



ACTIVITY LISTED ACTIVITY: 

NO (S): 

10 The construction of facilities or infrastructure for the transmission and 

distribution of electricity - 

(i) outside urban areas or industrial complexes with a capacity of more 

than 33 but less than 275 kilovolts. 

11 The construction of: 

(xi) infrastructure or structures covering 50 square metres or more 

where such construction occurs within a watercourse or within 32 

metres of a watercourse, measured from the edge of a watercourse. 

18 The infilling or depositing of any material of more than 5 cubic meters 

into, or the dredging, excavation, removal or moving of soil, sand, 

shells, shell grit, pebbles or rock of more than 5 cubic meters from: 

(i) A watercourse 

22 The construction of a road, outside urban areas, 

(i) with a reserve wider than 13.5 metres or, 

(ii) where no reserve exists where the road is wider than 8 metres 

24 The transformation of land bigger than 1000 square metres in size, to 

residential, retail, commercial, industrial or institutional use, where, at 

the time of the coming into effect of this Schedule such land was zoned 

open space, conservation or had an equivalent zoning. 

26 Any process or activity identified in terms of section 53 (1) of the 

National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act No. 

10 of 2004). 

1 The construction of facilities or infrastructure for the generation of 

electricity where the electricity output is 20 megawatts or more. 

8 The construction of facilities or infrastructure for the transmission and 

distribution of electricity with a capacity of 275 kilovolts or more, 

outside an urban area or industrial complex. 

15 Physical alteration of undeveloped, vacant or derelict land for 

residential, retail, commercial, recreational, industrial or institutional 

use where the total area to be transformed is 20 hectares or more. 

4 The construction of a road wider than 4 metres with a reserve less than 

13.5 metres. 

14 The clearance of an area of 5 hectares or more of vegetation where 

75% or more of the vegetative cover constitutes indigenous vegetation. 

16 The construction of: 

(iii) buildings with a footprint exceeding 10 square metres in size; or 

(iv) infrastructure covering 10 square metres or more where such 

construction occurs within a watercourse or within 32 metres of a 

watercourse. 

19 The widening of a road by more than 4 meters, or the lengthening of a 

road by more than 1 kilometre


pg 4-5 

Chapter 4 : 



The EIA process is a planning, design and decision making tool used to demonstrate to the 

responsible authority, DEA, and the project proponent, Sondereind Wind Energie (Pty) Ltd, what 

the consequences of their choices will be in biophysical, social and economic terms. As such it 

identifies potential impacts (negative and positive) that the project may have on the environment. 

The EIA makes recommendations to mitigate negative impacts and enhance positive impacts 

associated with the project. 

4.2 LEGISLATION AND GUIDELINES PERTINENT TO THIS EIA 

The scope and content of this Draft Scoping Report has been informed by the following 

legislation, guidelines and information series documents: 

National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) (Act 107 of 1998); 

EIA Regulations published under Chapter 5 of the NEMA on 18 June 2010 (GN R543, GN 

R544, GN R545 and GN R546 in Government Gazette 33306); 

− Guidelines published in terms of the NEMA EIA Regulations, in particular: 

− Guideline on Transitional Arrangements (DEA&DP, August 2010) 

− Guideline on Alternatives (DEA&DP, August 2010) 

− Guideline on Public Participation (DEA&DP, August 2010) 

− Guideline on Need and Desirability (DEA&DP, August 2010) 

Information Document on Generic Terms of Reference for EAP's and Project Schedules 

(DEA&DP, August 2010) 

Integrated Environmental Management Information Series (Booklets 0 to 23) (DEAT, 

2002 – 2005); 

Guidelines for Involving Specialists in the EIA Processes Series (DEA&DP; CSIR & Tony 

Barbour, 2005 – 2007) 

Strategic Initiative to Introduce Commercial Land-Based Wind Energy Development to 

the Western Cape: Towards a Regional Methodology for Wind Energy Site Selection 

Series (Provincial Government Western Cape & CNdV, May 2006) 

Strategic Environmental Framework for the Optimal Location of Wind Farms in the 

Coastal Provinces of South Africa (Phase 1 for REFIT 1) (DEA & Environomics, February 

2011) 

National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (NEMBA) (Act 10 of 2004); 

National Heritage Resources Act (NHRA) (Act 25 of 1999); 

Electricity Act (Act 41 of 1987); 

Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (Act 2 of 2000); 

Civil Aviation Act (Act 13 of 2009) and Civil Aviation Regulations (CAR) of 1997; and 

Civil Aviation Authority Act (Act 40 of 1998) 

Conservation of Agricultural Resources (Act No. 43 of 1983) 

Land Use Planning Ordinance (LUPO) (Ordinance 15 of 1985) as amended in July 2011 

Mosselbay Municipality IDP (2012-2017); 

Draft Eden District Municipality Integrated Development Plan (2012-2017); 

Eden District Municipality SDF (2010); and

Western Cape Province Provincial SDF (2010). 


pg 4-6 

Chapter 4 : 



Other Acts, standards and/or guidelines which may also be applicable will be reviewed in more 

detail as part of the specialist studies to be conducted for the EIA. 

4.3 PRINCIPLES FOR SCOPING AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 

The public participation process for this Scoping and EIA process is being driven by a stakeholder 

engagement process that will include inputs from authorities, interested and affected parties 

(I&APs), technical specialists and the project proponent. Guideline 4 on “Public Participation in 

support of the EIA Regulations” published by DEAT in May 2006, states that public participation 

is one of the most important aspects of the environmental authorisation process. This stems from 

the requirement that people have a right to be informed about potential impacts that may affect 

them and that they must be afforded an opportunity to comment on those impacts. Effective 

public participation also improves the ability of the competent authority to make informed 

decisions and results in improved decision-making as the view of all parties are considered 

(DEAT, 2006: pg 9). 

According to The DEAT (2006) Guideline on Public Participation, an effective public participation 

process: 

• “Provides an opportunity for interested and affected parties (I&APs) to obtain clear, 

accurate an comprehensive information about the proposed activity, its alternatives or 

the decision and the environmental impacts thereof; 

• Provides I&APs with an opportunity to indicate their viewpoints, issues and concerns 

regarding the activity, alternatives and /or the decision; 

• Provides I&APs with the opportunity of suggesting ways of avoiding, reducing or 

mitigating negative impacts of an activity and for enhancing positive impacts; 

• Enables the applicant to incorporate the needs, preferences and values of affected parties 

into the activity; 

• Provides opportunities to avoid and resolve disputes and reconcile conflicting interests; 

and 

• Enhances transparency and accountability in decision making.” 

To the above, one can add the following universally recognised principles for public participation: 

Inclusive consultation that enables all sectors of society to participate in the consultation 

and assessment processes; 

Provision of accurate and easily accessible information in a language that is clear and 

sufficiently non-technical for I&APs to understand, and that is sufficient to enable 

meaningful participation; 

Active empowerment of grassroots people to understand concepts and information with 

a view to active and meaningful participation;


pg 4-7 

Chapter 4 : 



Use of a variety of methods for information dissemination in order to improve 

accessibility, for example, by way of discussion documents, meetings, workshops, focus 

group discussions, and the printed and broadcast media; 

Affording I&APs sufficient time to study material, to exchange information, and to make 

contributions at various stages during the assessment process; 

Provision of opportunities for I&APs to provide their inputs via a range of methods, for 

example, via briefing sessions, public meetings, written submissions or direct contact 

with members of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Team. 

Public participation is a process and vehicle to provide sufficient and accessible 

information to I&APs in an objective manner to assist I&APs to identify issues of concern, 

to identify alternatives, to suggest opportunities to reduce potentially negative or 

enhance potentially positive impacts, and to verify that issues and/or inputs have been 

captured and addressed during the assessment process. 

At the outset it is important to highlight two key aspects of public participation: 

There are practical and financial limitations to the involvement of all individuals within a 

public participation programme (PPP). Hence, public participation aims to generate 

issues that are representative of societal sectors, not each individual. Hence, the PPP will 

be designed to be inclusive of a broad range of sectors relevant to the proposed project. 

The PPP will aim to raise a diversity of perspectives and will not be designed to force 

consensus amongst I&APs. Indeed, diversity of opinion rather than consensus building is 

likely to enrich ultimate decision making. Therefore where possible, the public 

participation process will aim to obtain an indication of trade-offs that all stakeholders 

(i.e. I&APs, technical specialists, the authorities and the development proponent) are 

willing to accept with regard to the ecological sustainability, social equity and economic 

growth associated with the project. 

4.4 OBJECTIVES OF THE SCOPING PROCESS 

This Scoping process is being planned and conducted in a manner that is intended to provide 

sufficient information to enable the authorities to reach a decision regarding the scope of issues 

to be addressed in this EIA process, and in particular to convey the range of specialist studies that 

will be included as part of the Environmental Impact Reporting Phase of the EIA, as well as the 

approach to these specialist studies. 

Within this context, the objectives of this Scoping process are to: 

Identify and inform a broad range of stakeholders about the proposed development; 

Clarify the scope and nature of the proposed activities and the alternatives being 

considered;


pg 4-8 

Chapter 4 : 



Conduct an open, participatory and transparent approach and facilitate the inclusion of 

stakeholder concerns in the decision-making process; 

Identify and document the key issues to be addressed in the forthcoming Environmental 

Impact Reporting Phase of the EIA, through a process of broad-based consultation with 

stakeholders; 

Ensure due consideration of alternative options in regard to the proposed development, 

including the “No development” option. 

4.5 TASKS IN THE SCOPING PHASE 

This section provides an overview of the tasks being undertaken in the Scoping Phase, with a 

particular emphasis on providing a clear record of the public participation process followed. 

Task 1: I&AP identification, registration and 

the creation of an electronic database 

Prior to advertising the EIA process an initial database of I&APs was developed for the Scoping 

process. This was supplemented with input from the CSIR EIA Project Manager and Leader and 

the Project Applicant, SWE. Appendix E contains the current I&AP database, which has been 

updated to include requests to register their interest in the project by I&APs. 

While I&APs have been encouraged to register their interest in the project from the start of the 

process, following the public announcements (see Task 2), the identification and registration of 

I&APs will be ongoing for the duration of the study. Stakeholders from a variety of sectors, 

geographical locations and/or interest groups can be expected to show an interest in the 

development proposal, for example: 

Provincial and Local Government Departments 

Local interest groups, for example, Councillors and Rate Payers associations 

Farmers Organisations 

Environmental Groups and NGO’s 

Grassroots communities and structures 

In terms of the electronic database, I&AP details are being captured and automatically updated as 

and when information is distributed to or received from I&APs. This ongoing and up-to-date 

record of communication is an important component of the public participation process. 

It must be noted that while not required by the regulations those I&APs proactively identified at 

the outset of the Scoping Process will remain on the project database through the EIA process and 

will be kept informed of all opportunities to comment and will only be removed from the 

database by request.

Task 2: Announcement of the Scoping process 


pg 4-9 

Chapter 4 : 



In order to notify and inform the public of the proposed project and invite members of the public 

to register as I&APs, the project and EIA process were advertised in the local newspaper, Die 

Burger on 7 October 2011. One advertisement was placed in English. A copy of the advertisement 

placed is contained in Appendix D of this report. . 

In addition to the newspaper advertisements, letters with personal notification regarding the EIA 

process were mailed or emailed to all pre-identified key stakeholders on the database (Letter 1). 

Appendix F contains copies of correspondence and information distributed to I&APs prior to the 

release of the Draft Scoping Report. Letter 1 to I&APs included the Background Information 

Document (BID) developed for the project as well as a comment form. The purpose of the BID is 

to inform the public of the proposed project, the EIA process and provide an overview of the 

opportunities and mechanisms for public participation. 

In line with the EIA Regulations, particularly GN R 385. 56. (a), a site notice board was placed at 

the location, providing information on the project and EIA process. 

Appendix C contains photographs of the site notice board placed. 

A public meeting was held on the 19th of December 2011 at 14:00 in the church hall in Vleesbaai 

to discuss the proposed project and to ensure enough detailed information was distributed to 

I&APs to enable informed and effective participation. 

Task 3: Ongoing Communication and Capacity 

Building 

In accordance with the principles of bodies such as the International Association for Public 

Participation (IAP2), the process for this EIA aims to ensure that people are involved from the 

outset, that we proactively solicit the involvement of stakeholders representing all three 

dimensions of sustainability (i.e. biophysical, social and economic dimensions), and that we 

provide them with sufficient and accessible information to contribute meaningfully to the 

process. In this manner, the public participation process aims to build the capacity of 

stakeholders to participate. 

Within the context of the EIA process, capacity building is not viewed as a “once off” event, but 

rather a series of events and/or information sharing which provides information on a 

continuous basis thereby building the capacity and knowledge of I&APs to effectively participate 

in the EIA process and raise issues of concern. 

One of the challenges facing the participation process is the diversity of South African society. 

Public participation by its very nature is a dynamic process with various sectors of society having


pg 4-10 

Chapter 4 : 



varying needs, values and interests. The core question for public participation is “How can I, the 

interested and affected party, meaningfully participate in the process?” This varies according to 

the needs of I&APs. The public participation process should be inclusive of all I&APs, and afford 

them the opportunity to raise their issues and concerns in a manner that suites them. Coupled 

with this South African society is characterized by varying socio-economic, literacy and language 

levels all of which need to be considered in the participation process. For example, certain I&APs 

may want to receive documentation only and not attend meetings, some I&APs may want to only 

attend meetings, other I&APs may not want to attend meetings and send their comments in 

writing, and some I&APs may want to be actively involved throughout the process. 

In order to accommodate the varying needs of I&APs and develop their capacity to participate in 

the process, information sharing forms an integral and ongoing component of the EIA process 

to ensure effective public participation. The following provides an overview of information 

sharing throughout the EIA process in order to develop the capacity of I&APs to effectively 

engage in the public participation process: 

Website – placing EIA related project information on the website www.csir.co.za/EIA/ 

Language – encouraging I&APs to use the language of their choice at meetings and 

providing translations at meetings in English and Afrikaans when required. The 

Comment Form is available in English and Afrikaans. The newspaper advertisement was 

placed in English and Afrikaans. 

Background Information Document (October 2011) –contains information on the project, 

EIA and public participation process 

Newspaper Advertisements requesting I&APs to register their interest in the project and 

raise issues of concern 

Letters to I&APs notifying them of the various stages of the EIA process, availability of 

reports for comment and inviting them to attend public meetings to be held 

Report Distribution – providing hard copies of the Scoping and EIA reports at local 

libraries and on the project website for viewing by I&APs 

Public Meetings – where representatives of the project applicant and EIA team are 

present to interact and engage with members of the public 

Focus Group Meetings – to target key I&AP groups (Councillors, ratepayers association, 

surrounding landowners, affected organs of state, environmental organisations) and 

proactively invite them to attend a meeting where they are provided with an overview of 

the project and EIA process. 

Documents will be posted onto the CSIR website (www.csir.co.za/EIA) as and when they become 

available and I&APs will be notified accordingly. 

Task 4: Consultation with authorities 

All public participation documentation will reach the lead authority (National DEA) as well as 

other relevant authorities included on the I&AP database. Additionally, consultation with relevant


pg 4-11 

Chapter 4 : 



authorities on a one-on-one basis will be effected where necessary. The CSIR EIA project leader 

and manager and the client team will seek to hold meetings as necessary with the key authorities 

at various milestones throughout the process. Notes will be provided summarising the key 

outcomes from these meetings with authorities, and used to provide inputs into the EIA process. 

Task 5: Technical Scoping with project 

proponent and EIA team 

The Scoping process has been designed to incorporate two complementary components: a 

stakeholder engagement process that includes the relevant authorities and wider interested and 

affected parties (I&APs); and a technical process involving the EIA team and the project 

proponent (SWE). 

The purpose of the technical Scoping process is to draw on the past experience of the EIA team 

and the project proponent to identify environmental issues and concerns related to the proposed 

project upfront, and confirm that the necessary specialist studies have been identified. 

Consequently, an initial site visit and meeting were held with the project proponent on 7 October 

2011. The results from this site visit and meeting have informed the scope and Terms of 

Reference for the project including the specialist studies. Based on the experience of the EIA team 

in working on several similar projects, combined with the experience of the project proponent 

and their technical team (who also have extensive experience in working with similar projects 

locally and internationally), the specialist studies are being initiated in parallel with the Scoping 

process. This enables the specialists to analyse baseline information and conduct field work that 

will assist the EIA team in understanding the key issues raised during the public Scoping phase. 

Task 6: Consultation with I&APs (public) to 

identify issues and concerns 

In order to accommodate the varying needs of I&APs as well as capture their views, issues and 

concerns regarding the project, a comment and registration period extending from 13 October 

2011 to 2 November 2011 was provided. 

The comments received from I&APs, via fax or e-mail, have been captured in the Issues and 

Responses Trail contained in Chapter 5 of this report. Appendix G contains copies of all the 

comments received. 

Various opportunities have been provided for I&APs to have their issues noted prior to the 

release of the Draft Scoping Report. These include: 

Letter 1 to I&APs (dated 13 th October 2011) notifying them of the initiation of the Scoping 

process and providing them with a Background Information Document (BID) to inform 

them about the project and a comment form 

Newspaper advertisements placed

Site notice board 

Website information 

Written, faxed or email correspondence. 

Task 7: Focus Group Meetings 


pg 4-12 

Chapter 4 : 



One-on-one focus group meetings will be held with key stakeholders during the review of the 

Draft Scoping Report to inform them of the proposed project, the EIA process and obtain their 

issues and concerns for inclusion in the Final Scoping Report. The purpose of these meetings is to 

develop their capacity to participate in the process as well as identify issues for inclusion in the 

Final Scoping Report and later phases of the EIA process. 

Task 8: Identification of Issues and Concerns 

Issues and concerns raised by I&APs have been synthesized in the Issues and Responses Trail 

(Chapter 5). The issues and concerns were identified through the following mechanisms: 

written submissions in response to advertisements and communications with I&APs 

issues raised through written correspondence received from I&APs (fax, email and mail). 

The Issues Trail (Chapter 5) also includes responses from the EIA Team (and, in some cases, the 

project proponent) to the issues raised. In general, the responses indicate how the issues will be 

addressed in the EIA process. In some cases, immediate responses and clarification were 

provided. Where issues were raised that the EIA team considers beyond the scope and purpose of 

this EIA process, clear reasoning for this view is provided. 

Task 9: Review of the Draft Scoping Report 

The Draft Scoping Report was released for a 40 day public review period on 1 December 2011. All 

I&APs on the project database have been notified in writing of the release of the Draft Scoping 

Report for review and was invited to attend a public meeting held during the review period. 

The following mechanisms and opportunities have been utilised to notify I&APs of the release of 

the Draft Scoping Report for comment: 

Letter 2: to notify I&APs of the release of the Draft Scoping Report, the comment period 

and the public meeting, to include an executive summary of the report and comment 

form (Date 1 December 2011) 

Public Meeting (19 December 2011) 

Placement of Draft Scoping Report on project website (www.csir.co.za/EIA)


pg 4-13 

Chapter 4 : 



Placement of Draft Scoping Report in the Vleesbaai Dienste Kantoor and Gouritzmond 

Library 

One-on-one focus group meetings with key I&AP groups 

All issues and concerns identified through the review of the Draft Scoping Report have been 

captured in the updated Issues and Responses Trail, which is included in this Final Scoping 

Report for submission to DEA for decision making. 

The Scoping process is currently at this stage, when I&APs are invited to review the Final 

Scoping Report. This stage and the forthcoming steps in the Scoping process are presented 

below: 

Task 10: Final Scoping Report for public 

comment (current stage) 

Letter 3 to I&APs will notify I&APs that the Final Scoping Report is released for a 21 day public 

commenting period. All I&APs will be notified in writing of the release of the Final Scoping 

Report. 

The following mechanisms and opportunities have been utilised to notify I&APs of the release of 

the Final Scoping Report for comment: 

Letter 3: to notify I&APs of the release of the Final Scoping Report and the comment 

period and an executive summary of the report (Date: 25 July 2012) 

Placement of Draft Scoping Report on project website 

(www.csir.co.za/EIA/vleesbaai.html) 

Placement of Draft Scoping Report in the Vleesbaai Dienste Kantoor and Gouritzmond 

Library 

One-on-one focus group meetings with key I&AP groups as may be required 

Task 11: Final Scoping Report 

Letter 4 to I&APs will notify all I&APs in writing that the Final Scoping Report is submitted to 

government for decision making. 

This step marks the end of the public participation process for the Scoping Phase. The publication 

participation programme for the subsequent Environmental Impact Reporting Phase is presented 

in the Plan of Study for EIA (Chapter 6). 

4.6 APPROACH TO THE ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVES 

As per the Western Cape Provincial Department of Environmental Affairs & Development Planning 

EIA Guideline Information Document Series: Guideline on Alternatives (DEA&DP, August 2010), the 

EIA Regulations require that alternatives to a proposed activity be considered. Alternatives are 

different means of meeting the general purpose and need of a proposed activity. This may include


pg 4-14 

Chapter 4 : 



the assessment of site alternatives, activity alternatives, process or technology alternatives, 

temporal alternatives and/or the no-go alternative. 

The EIA Regulations indicate that alternatives that are considered in an assessment process be 

reasonable and feasible. I&APs must also be provided with an opportunity of providing inputs into 

the process of formulating alternatives. The assessment of alternatives should, as a minimum, 

include the following: 

The consideration of the no-go alternative as a baseline scenario; 

A comparison of the reasonable and feasible alternatives; and 

Providing a methodology for the elimination of an alternative. 

4.6.1 No-go alternative 

The No Project alternative assumes that the project as proposed does not go ahead. This 

alternative provides the baseline against which other alternatives are compared and will be 

considered throughout the report. The implications of the “no project” alternative are that: 

The land-use remains only agricultural; 

There is no development of wind energy facilities at that location. However, other wind 

energy facilities are planned for the Mossel Bay municipal area; 

There is no change in the landscape and biophysical character of the study area; 

There is no opportunity for additional employment (albeit temporary) in an area where 

job creation is identified as a key priority (Mossel Bay IDP). 

4.6.2 Land-use alternatives 

4.6.2.1 Agriculture 

At present the proposed site is zoned for agricultural land-use, and is mainly used for ostrich 

grazing. Local farmers report that poor soil suitability and persistent droughts have forced them 

to abandon cultivation and focus their efforts on stock/ostrich farming. The Enpat Soil Potentials 

Data (2001) indicates that most of the site consists of “Soils of intermediate suitability for arable 

agriculture where climate permits” with pockets of “Soils of poor suitability for arable agriculture”. 

4.6.2.2 Renewable energy facilities 

An alternative reasonable and feasible land-use for the Vleesbaai site is a renewable energy 

facility other than the proposed wind energy project. The general lack of an abundant and 

sustainable supply of biomass and the absence of large inland and coastal water bodies precludes 

the possibility of renewable energy from biomass and/or small/large scale hydro generation. 

Solar irradiation along the south coast of the Western Cape Province is low to moderate at 6000 

to 7000 MJ/m² (South African Renewable Energy Resource Database; available online at: 

http://www.sabregen.co.za/) and compares poorly with areas of the Northern Cape Province 

where irradiation levels of 8501 to 9500 MJ/m² is received.

4.6.3 Location Alternatives 

4.6.3.1 Planning suitability 


pg 4-15 

Chapter 4 : 



According to the DEA&DP Strategic Initiative to Introduce Commercial Land-Based Wind Energy 

Development to the Western Cape (2006) the proposed Vleesbaai site appears to be a borderline 

between the so-called Suitable Rural (Preferred Zones) and the Unsuitable (Restricted Zones) due 

to its rural agricultural character (i.e. Preferred Zone) and scenic coastal location (i.e. Restricted 

Zone). The proposed development’s potential location in a restricted zone should not, at this early 

stage of the EIA process, be considered as a disqualifying factor, but should rather focus attention 

on careful and risk averse assessment in terms potential visual impacts. A detailed discussion on 

the applicable criteria (according to the DEA&DP Guideline mentioned above) affecting the 

proposed SWE-WEF Vleesbaai site is contained in the table below (Table 4.2). 

Table 4.2/…


pg 4-16 

Chapter 4 : 



Table 4.2 DEA&DP Strategic Initiative to Introduce Commercial Land-Based Wind Energy Development to 

the Western Cape (2006) criteria affecting the SWE-WEF Vleesbaai site 

DEA&DP Guideline Criteria Local context 

Proximity to other wind farms: 

A recommended distance between 

large wind farms of at least 30 km 

and preferably 50 km 

Distance to national & local roads: 

A 13 km buffer around scenic routes 

Proximity to coastline of 

undisturbed value: 

4 km set-back from coastline of 

undisturbed value 

Proximity to private nature 

reserves: 

500 m buffer around private 

reserves 

Distance to rivers and 1:100 year 

flood line: 500 m set-back from 

rivers and 200 m set-back 

from1:100 year flood line 

The SWE-WEF Vleesbaai 140 MW project is a medium sized WEF 

and is proposed to be located within 10 km of the proposed 

200 MW Inca Energy Wind Farm. The decision-making authorities 

(DEA) will need to decide whether these two medium sized wind 

farms with a combined total of 340 MW are acceptable given the 

technical capacity and environmental considerations of the area 

(ERM, 2011). 

The closest of the proposed Vleesbaai wind farm site is 

approximately 6.5 km from the N2. The scenic value of the section 

of the N2 along which the SWE-WEF would be visible is regarded 

as relatively low, and it is considered likely that a distance of 6.5 

km from the N2 will be reduce visual intrusion to acceptable 

levels; this assumption whoever needs to be assessed by a visual 

consultant during the EIA (ERM, 2011). 

The closest boundary of the proposed SWE-WEF site is 2.2 km 

from the coastline. The wind farm site is proposed on a cultivated 

plateau and is expected to be largely hidden from views from the 

coastline. The highest level of visibility would be to users of 

walking trails along the coastline where the trails traverse the 

upper contours above the sea as well as residents in the upper 

parts of the coastal towns of Boggomsbaai and Vleesbaai. The 

prevailing viewshed of coastal users is however likely to be 

oriented towards the sea rather than up the slopes across the 

fields to the west and south-west. The coastline is relatively 

unspoilt, but various residential developments are already 

established in this area. The appropriateness of the proposed 

development must be determined through a visual impact 

assessment as part of the EIA process. (ERM, 2011). 

The Fransmanshoek conservancy abuts the proposed SWE-WEF 

site along a portion of its south eastern boundary. This area of the 

conservancy consists of grazing land and is no longer in a pristine 

condition. Due to the degraded nature of this section, SWE 

proposes to place turbines 300 m from the cadastral boundary. 

The only large river present in the general area of the proposed 

SWE-WEF site is the Gouritz River. The closest turbine to the river 

is at least 2 km away and 1 km above the 1:100 year flood line 

(presumed to lie where the edge of the floodplain meets the 

slopes rising to the plateau) (ERM, 2011).

4.6.3.2 Strategic suitability 


pg 4-17 

Chapter 4 : 



The Strategic Environmental Framework (SEF) for the Optimal Location of WIND FARMS in the 

Coastal Provinces of South Africa (Phase 1 for Refit 1) (2011) identifies 4 criteria for measuring the 

suitability of wind farm locations in South Africa. These are: 

Technical suitability; 

Land-use suitability; 

Ecological suitability; and 

Visual suitability 

Technical suitability 

Key technical criteria considered in the SEF were proximity to the national grid (132 kV 

substations) using a selection buffer of 17.5 km, 35 km and 70 km; and wind resource areas with 

high suitability rated as wind speeds in excess of 8 m/s. 

The proposed SWE-WEF site falls within the area designated as being of high suitability for grid 

connection as it is within 17.5 km to 35 km of a 132 kV substation, but according to the SEF, it is 

located outside the area of high wind resource suitability of > 8 m/s. Wind resource measurement 

must however be confirmed by on-site measurement as national scale wind resource information 

is unreliable at project scale. 

Land-use suitability 

The SEF measured land-use suitability according to the following criteria: 

National parks (10 km buffer to allow for visual protection); 

Proximity to Ramsar sites, World Heritage sites, Nature Reserves (Provincial), and 

Mountain Catchment Areas; 

Proximity to urban areas (1 km buffer); and 

Cultivated and land with high agricultural potential. 

Areas within the abovementioned buffers were designated as being of low to moderate suitability 

for wind farm development. 

The proposed SWE-WEF site does not fall within any of the above mentioned buffers and appears 

to have high suitability in terms of land-use. 

Ecological suitability 

These criteria considered Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBA) and Important Birding Areas (IBA) 

considered being of key importance to local and regional planning in terms of WEF development. 

The SEF however recognised the limitations of CBA’s identified at national scale and calls for fine 

scale local level CBA identification. IBA’s can however be identified with more accuracy. 

The SWE-WEF site is situated peripheral to portions of land with low suitability for wind farms. 

These portions however appear to be associated with the Gouritz River Valley and probably 

relate to the Gouritz Valley Thicket found in riverine corridors and channels. During the screening 

phase (feasibility study) of the SWE project it was determined that the vegetation on-site is 

almost completely transformed and that the National Vegetation Map (by Mucina & Rutherford,


pg 4-18 

Chapter 4 : 



2006) does not accurately reflect the current vegetation units. No IBA are present on or in close 

proximity to the proposed Vleesbaai site. 

Visual suitability 

The suitability of the proposed site in terms of the SEF include proximity to scenic routes, 

important landscape features identified by DEA, consideration of steep slopes (8 ° and steeper), 

and important visual catchments between national roads and landscape features to minimise 

risks to visually sensitive areas. The largely subjective nature of visual intrusion and subsequently 

determining the visual suitability of the proposed Vleesbaai site necessitated a visual impact 

assessment which will be conducted as part of the impact assessment phase of the project. 

4.6.4 Technology and layout alternatives as part of the development 

Different spatial configurations are considered when investigating site layout alternatives. The 

electricity production from a wind turbine generator is simultaneously dependent on many 

factors. The most significant among these are the mean wind speed at the site and the 

characteristics of the turbine itself, especially the hub height and the cut-in, rated and furling 

wind speeds. The matching of turbine to site is based on identifying the optimum turbine speed 

parameters, known as the power curve, for a particular site. These configurations should also 

take account of the power curves for turbines from different manufacturers. Technology 

alternatives are also, therefore, an intrinsic part of this evaluation. Other opportunities and 

constraints that determine layout are environmental factors, e.g., vegetation sensitivities, and 

infrastructural factors, e.g., location of the electrical substation. 

The only feasible technological alternative to the horizontal axis wind turbine (HAWT), proposed 

by SWE, is the so-called vertical axis wind turbine (VAWT). With the VAWT system, the turbine 

rotor shaft is mounted vertically as opposed to the horizontal mount of the HAWT (Figure 4.1). 

Such a configuration affords the VAWT various advantages, most notably; easy access to the 

turbine gearbox, relative quiet operation and being potentially less lethal to birds and bats due to 

a reduced rotor diameter. SWE, however, do not consider VAWT to be a reasonable alternative 

technology due to the unproven nature of these turbines at a commercial or Megawatt scale as 

well as its reduced efficiency (due to its relative low height and subsequent lower wind speeds at 

ground level) compared to that of HAWT (Riegler, 2003).

Figure 4.1 Example of a VAWT with 

HAWT on horizon (Source: 

www.usasolarwind.com) 


pg 4-19 

Chapter 4 : 



The preliminary layout and technology for the wind facility at the SWE-WEF consist of between 

33 and 50 turbines with an individual capacity of between 2.5 MW and 4.5 MW each. The 

combined installed capacity will be no more than 140 MW. The size, amount and layout of the 

turbines are subject to the findings of the EIA process. 

4.7 SCHEDULE FOR THE EIA 

The proposed schedule for the EIA, based on the legislated EIA process, is presented in Table 4.3. 

It should be noted that this schedule could be revised during the EIA process, depending on 

factors such as the time required for decisions from authorities.

TASKS 

1 Prepare Draft Scoping Report (DSR) and Plan of Study for 

EIA (PSEIA) 

2 Public comments period (40 days) on DSR and 

stakeholder meetings 

3 Public comments period (21 days) on FSR 

4 Submit Final Scoping Report (FSR) and PSEIA to 

authorities for decision (30 days) 

5 Communicate authority decision to I&APs and process for 

next phase 

6 Specialist studies (including fieldwork) 

7 Prepare Draft EIA Report and EMP 

8 Public review of Draft EIA Report and EMP (40 days) 

9 Public comments period (21 days) on Final EIA Report 

10 Submit Final EIA Report and Draft EMP to authorities 

11 Decision by authorities (115 days plus Xmas holiday 

closed period) 

12 Appeal process 

Key: 

BID: Background Information Document 

DEA: National Department of Environmental Affairs 

DEIA: Draft EIA report 

DSR: Draft Scoping Report 

FSR: Final Scoping Report 

PSEIA: Plan of Study for EIA 

EMP: Environmental Management Plan 

Table 4.3 EIA Schedule for the SWE-WEF Wind Energy Project 

2011 

Oct 

Nov 

Dec 

2012 

Jan 

Feb 

EIA SCHEDULE (MONTHS) 

Mar 

Apr 

May 

Jun 

Jul 

Aug 

Chapter 4 : 



Sep 

Oct 

Nov 

Dec 

2013 

Jan 

Feb 

Mar 


pg 4-20


pg 5-1 

Chapter 5 : 

Issues & Responses Trail 

CHAPTER 5. ISSUES AND RESPONSES TRAIL 5-2 

5.1 IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES 5-2 

5.2 ISSUES AND RESPONSES TRAIL 5-4 

A: COMMENTS RECEIVED PRIOR TO THE RELEASE OF THE DRAFT SCOPING REPORT ___________________ 5-4 

B: COMMENTS RECEIVED PRIOR TO THE RELEASE OF THE FINAL SCOPING REPORT ___________________ 5-24 

Figure 5.1: Decision-making framework for identification of key issues for the EIA _____________________ 5-3


pg 5-2 

Chapter 5 : 


CHAPTER 5. ISSUES AND RESPONSES TRAIL 

5.1 IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES 

An important element of the Scoping process is to evaluate the issues raised through the Scoping 

interactions with the specialists, authorities and the public on the EIA team and the project 

proponent. In accordance with the philosophy of Integrated Environmental Management, it is 

important for the EIA to focus on the key issues. 

To assist in the identification of key issues, a decision-making process is applied to the issues and 

concerns raised, based on the following criteria (Figure 5.1): 

a) Whether or not the issue falls within the scope and responsibility of the SWE Wind 

Energy EIA; and 

b) Whether or not sufficient information is available to respond to the issue or concern 

raised without further specialist investigation. 

Issues were sourced by the CSIR team from the following Scoping interactions: 

Newspaper advertisement – In order to notify and inform the public of the proposed 

project and invite members of the public to register as I&APs, and to inform the EIA 

consultant about specific issues or interests in the proposed project, the project was 

advertised in the local newspaper, i.e Die Burger, 7 October 2011; 

Telephone – issues raised by I&APs during telephonic consultations; 

Letters and faxes – issues sent to CSIR via fax or posted correspondence; 

Email – issues sent to CSIR via email correspondence; and 

Comment Form – issues submitted to CSIR via the Comment Form that was provided with 

Letter 1 and the Background Information Document (BID) that were mailed to I&APs. 

Appendix G of the DSR contains the detailed correspondence received. The comments received 

have also been included in the Issues Trail below. The issues that were raised were grouped 

according to the following categories: 

1. Issues related to potential impact on visual impact; 

2. Issues related to potential impact on heritage resources; 

3. Issues related to potential impact on noise; 

4. Issues related to potential impact on bio-physical environment; 

5. Issues related to general comments; and 

6. Issues related to EIA process and policy


pg 5-3 

Chapter 5 : 


Figure 5.1: Decision-making framework for identification of key issues for the EIA

5.2 ISSUES AND RESPONSES TRAIL 


pg 5-4 

Chapter 5 : 


Issues raised to date in the Scoping process are provided below, together with a response from the EIA team. A synthesis of issues to be addressed in the 

Specialist Studies is provided in the Plan of Study for EIA (Chapter 6). The results of the Specialist Studies will be made available to I&APs for comment as 

part of the Draft EIA Report. All comments received prior to the release of the Final Scoping Report, through meetings and written correspondence are 

attached as Appendix G to this report. 

a) Visual impacts 

A: COMMENTS RECEIVED PRIOR TO THE RELEASE OF THE DRAFT SCOPING REPORT 

Issue Commentator Date Response 

1.1 Die effek wat hierdie onooglike windlaaiers op die 

omgewing en natuur aanvoeling te Vleesbaai privaat 

dorp sal hê? 

J.E.Theart 18 October 2011: 

Fax 

1.2 Die turbines gaan die see-uitsig belemmer. H. van der Watt 21 October 2011: 

Fax 

1.3 Die impak van letterlik drie tot vier dosyn turbinemaste Dr. M. Pauw 

11 November 

van byna 200 m hoog en met rotors wat ‘n deursnit van 

soveel as 150 m op veral Vleesbaai strandoord se 

horison, moet ernstig aandag kry. Die maste begin al 

slegs ‘n paar honderd meter vanaf die teerpad daar waar 

dit in die klofie net buite Vleesbaai ‘n draai maak. Die 

gemerkte area op die BID reik selfs bo-oor die 

Kanon/Vleesbaai Laerskoolpaadjie in ‘n oostelike rigting 

(Vleesbaai Dienste) 2011: Email 

1.4 a) Die vraag kan dus gevra word hoekom daar na 

J.E.Theart (Keerom 11 November 

windenergie in hierdie omgewing op hierdie skaal 

Beleggings 

2011: Email 

The visual impact on the local sense of place as well as 

visual intrusion will be considered in the visual impact 

assessment commissioned for the impact assessment 

phase of this project. This assessment will form part of 

the Draft EIA Report. 

Refer to response to 1.1 

A full visual impact assessment was commissioned for 

the EIA. Please refer to Chapter 6, sub-section 6.6.4 for 

a brief methodology proposed for this study. 

a) As mentioned above, the scale of the proposed 

project is a function of wind energy technology‘s


gekyk word. Die voorstel is dus dat indien daar 

voortgegaan word dat dit afgeskaal moet word en 

die norm moet wees dat dit optimaal onopsigtelik 

moet wees vir dorpsgebiede soos Vleesbaai, 

Boggomsbaai en Gouritzmond. 

b) Behalwe vir die punt van sigbaarheid sou ons nie 

graag ŉ turbine nader as sewe kilometer van 

Vleesbaai af soek nie. 

1.5 Die feit is dat hierdie windenergie generators enige 

omgewing afskuwelik skend. Dit is ook nie iets waaraan 

gewoond geraak word soos in die geval van 

kommunikasietorings nie. Die bewegende blaaie trek 

deurlopend die aandag en is daarom geensens iets wat in 

die omgewing saamsmelt en aan gewoond geraak kan 

word nie. Aanvaar dit as ŉ feit wat geen 

omgewingsevaluasie kan verskans nie. Om daardie rede 

moet daar met groot sorg te werk gegaan word hoe 

plasing van die turbines gedoen word indien die projek 


pg 5-5 

Chapter 5 : 


Aandeleblok) greater efficiency in terms of generation and the 

presence of a vast renewable resource in the form 

wind being present at the proposed project 

location. For a complete set of selection criteria, 

please refer to Chapter 2, section 2.1 of this Draft 

Scoping Report. It should be noted that reducing 

the visibility of the turbines would imply a 

reduction in turbine height. Such a reduction in 

high will seriously affect wind potential and 

subsequently the efficiency of the wind farm. The 

combined effect of the proposed reduction in 

project size and visibility proposed by the 

commentator will pose a serious threat to the 

financial viability of the project due to reduced 

efficiency. 

b) A radius of 7 km around Vleesbaai will place most 

turbines in sensitive locations such as: Voëlvlei, 

the deep river valley of the Buffels River (near 

Buffelsfontein Farm) to the North West of 

Vleesbaai and within the Gourits River valley to 

the south west of Vleesbaai. 

J.E. Theart (Keerom 

Belleggings 

Aandeleblok) 

11 November 

2011: Email 

Please refer to response to 1.3 above. CSIR supports 

the notion that an impact assessment is a valuable tool 

for identifying potential impacts and not a means of 

concealing it. 

Visual impact is a major consideration of this EIA and 

is not taken lightly. The visual impact attributed to 

wind turbines is however largely a function of 

personal preference and, as such, subjective in nature 

as indicated in the work of Krohn & Damborg, 1999;


pg 5-6 

Chapter 5 : 



sou realiseer Warren et al, 2005 and Frantal & Kunc, 2010. 

Accordingly, both positive and negative perceptions of 

wind turbines are to be expected from the local 

Vleesbaai community. Interestingly, the notion that 

local communities will not get used to the intrusion 

posed by the turbines is not supported by research. 

Warren et al (2005) indicates that local acceptance of 

wind energy projects tends to increase over time and 

with proximity to the actual wind farms (See also 

Redlinger et al, 2002; SEDD, 2002 and Elliot, 2003). 

b) Impacts on bio-physical environment 


2.1 Erection of 56 turbines will have a devastating effect on 

all wild life. It is unthinkable that more indigenousness 

bush should be damaged or removed. Fewer turbines 

over a smaller area. 

R. Bass 25 October 2011: 

Email 

This research does not disprove the commentator’s 

statement, but serves to illustrate the complex nature 

of visual impact and the need for a robust study to 

inform decision making. 

Wind turbines generally only affect birds and bats and 

very little research linking wind turbines to impacts 

on other terrestrial animals exists. It should also be 

noted that the turbines are proposed on previously 

transformed agricultural land with very little intact 

natural vegetation and habitat remaining. Accordingly, 

impacts on terrestrial biota, apart from avifauna, 

appear to be minimal. It should however be stated that 

potential impacts on avifauna can be significant and a 

full bird and bat impact assessment was 

commissioned to determine such impacts. These


pg 5-7 

Chapter 5 : 



assessments will be published in the Draft EIA Report. 

2.2 Die turbines gaan ‘n invloed hê op die migrasie en vlieg 

van bye. 

J.E.Theart 18 October 2011: 

Fax 

The amount of turbines erected generally influences 

the profitability and hence the viability of wind farms. 

From an environmental management and planning 

perspective, having numerous small scale wind farms 

scattered throughout the countryside is less 

acceptable than having larger generation capacity 

concentrated in fewer locations. Secondly, 

concentrating fewer turbines in a smaller area 

generally increases the risk to avifauna as high density 

turbines cause’s an almost impenetrable flight path 

obstructions. 

Research on the impact of wind turbines on insect 

populations is limited. Research on insect flight 

characteristics however indicate that insects generally 

prefer to fly in low wind speed, high humidity and a 

temperature of above approximately 10°C (Corten & 

Veldkamp; 2001). Accordingly, though insect 

mortalities are expected, the magnitude of such 

mortalities is expected to be of a lower order due to 

the higher wind speed and steady wind regime in 

areas where wind turbines are erected. Wind turbines 

normally require a steady wind regime of above at 

least 4 metres/second for most of the year in order to 

be financially viable. Secondly, in open terrain, the 

highest density of insects is generally found close to 

ground level while in sheltered areas a greater vertical 

distribution is encountered (Verboom & Huitema; 

1997). Given that the tip of the turbine blade turns at a 

height of 50 metres above ground level and due to


pg 5-8 

Chapter 5 : 



turbine location in open terrain (for optimal wind 

potential), insect populations are not expected to be 

greatly impacted. 

2.3 Climate change- Change in atmospheric conditions due 

to wind turbines in close proximity. 

2.4 The Overberg holds more than 50% of the world’s 

population of Blue Cranes. They should be considered in 

the Application. 

2.5 a) We would like to see all power-lines, whether 

between turbines, to sub-stations or to Eskom’s 

power station, be placed underground. We 

understand that this is more costly to do, however 

Dana Bay Conservancy 

Chairperson 

31 October 2011: 

Fax 

K. Morrison 3 November 2011: 

Fax 

R. Scholtz 27 October 2011: 

Email 

The turbulence (and resultant changes in atmospheric 

conditions) caused by the proposed turbines is 

expected to be of low significance as it would correlate 

with turbulence caused by existing infrastructure 

(high tension power lines, pylons, radio masts and 

buildings). Research conducted on maize pollen 

indicates that wind speeds of 2 metre/second will 

result in substantial horizontal movement of pollen 

(up to 172.8 km/day) with little turbulent effects. 

Wind speeds of 10 metres/second and higher however 

radically increase the vertical (turbulent) movement 

of pollen over uneven surfaces (Emberlin, Adams- 

Groom & Tidmarsh; 1999). Given that the cut-in speed 

for the wind turbines are 4 metres/second (i.e. the 

wind speed at which the blades start rotating) and 

that it is located on sloping terrain, the turbulence 

caused by turbines is expected to be comparable to 

that caused by the wind. 

Comment noted. 

The bird impact assessment identifies Blue Cranes as a 

priority species and due attention is devoted to this 

specie. Please also refer to Chapter 3, table 3.2 of this 

Draft Scoping Report for a list of priority species 

considered in the bird impact assessment. 

a) Comment noted. Electrical infrastructure 

connecting turbines will be underground; 

however, other electrical infrastructure (cables) 

might be above ground. The value of placing such


feel it is a small compromise to make. While the 

turbines might contribute to the loss of the ‘rural 

feel’ of the area, it can be argued that they will not 

change it drastically. However, large power-lines 

attached to power-line towers, will greatly increase 

the industrial look to the area. Furthermore, power 

lines are possibly even more damaging to collision 

prone bird species, and will increase the danger 

areas for collision prone bird species greatly. 

b) We would like the hydrology and aquatic report to 

take into account the many seasonal pans in and 

around the project area. We would like to see a 

respectable buffer being placed around each pan, 

where no turbine, road or power line is to pass 

through. 

c) We feel that no turbines, roads or power lines 

should be placed on or around the ‘toes’ and ravines 

around the Johnsons Post saltpan. The ravines and 

pan, although semi invaded with certain alien plants, 

still represent good examples of indigenous Gouritz 

Valley Thicket and provide important corridors for 

plants and animals moving through the Gouritz 

corridor. The salt pan also attracts large numbers of 

birds, including many species found on the Bird Life 

South Africa Priority Species List for wind turbines. 

2.6 a) No development should be done on naturally 

vegetated areas to ensure that the existing network 

of biological corridors is sustained. 

b) No fencing should be erected which would hinder 

W. Meyer 27 October 2011: 

Email 


pg 5-9 

Chapter 5 : 


infrastructure underground must be weighed 

against the potential impact of 

removing/disturbing long stretches of vegetation 

(both cultivated crops and natural vegetation) 

and associated habitats. The results of the bird 

impact assessment will inform this decision. 

b) Comment noted. 

c) Comment noted. 

a) Comment noted. All turbines are proposed on 

previously transformed agricultural land. 

b) No fencing is proposed around turbines and 

supporting infrastructure. However, for safety


pg 5-10 

Chapter 5 : 



the movement of the natural fauna through the 

above-mentioned corridor system. 

reason, substation will be fenced. 

2.7 a) Bewaringskaarte moet geraadpleeg wprd oor 

Dr M. Pauw (Vleesbaai 11 November a) Noted. Conservation and/or biodiversity maps 

biofisiese impakte. Dit wissel van habitat- 

Dienste) 

2011: Email 

have already been considered during the preversteuring 

tot die effek op verskeie beboste klowe, 

feasibility stage of this project (please refer to the 

asook op dosyne vleie en panne binne die 

Environmental & Social Screening Study 

voorgestelde ontwikkelingsgebied wat vir groot 

conducted by ERM on the CSIR website: 

gedeeltes van die jaar en in sommige gevalle 

www.csir.co.za/eia (follow Vleesbaai links)). This 

permanent vol water is. 

study considered vegetation maps drafted by 

b) Van die areas is die habitat van beskermde 

Mucina & Rutherford (2006), Vlok & Euston 

kraanvoëls, ander watervoëls, ‘n verskeidenheid 

Brown (2002) as well as Critical Biodiversity Area 

soorte wilde eende, grondvoëls soos tarentale en 

maps by Pence (2008). The Biodiversity sector 

fisante, ‘n groot verskeidenheid ander voëlsoorte, 

Plan for the Hessequa & Mossel Bay Municipalities 

allerlei amfibieë, kleinwild, knaagdiere, kleiner 

(Maree & Vromans, 2010) was also consulted. 

roofdiertjies en dergelike meer. 

b) Noted. A full bird impact assessment was 

c) Die aanleg is ook in die nabyheid van die reuse 

commissioned for this EIA. Please refer to Chapter 

Voëlvlei wat beskryf word as ‘n ‘Important Bird 

6, sub-section 6.6.1 of this draft Scoping Report 

Area’. 

for a brief methodology of this study. 

d) Die Biodiversiteit Sektorplan vir Hessequa en 

c) Please see response (b) above. 

Mosselbaai Munisipaliteite moet geraadpleeg en bio- 

d) Please see response to (a) above. 

sensitiewe areas in ag geneem word. 

e) Please see response to (a) above. 

e) Die potensiële verlies van habitat in kritieke 

f) The bird impact assessment will always consider 

biodiversiteitsgebiede sal dus dringend ondersoek 

not only bird mortality but also potential habitat 

moet word. 

sterilization caused by project infrastructure. 

f) Hier geld dit nie net die impak op trekvoëls en ander 

g) Bird flight paths will be considered in the bird 

veral groter voëls wat teen die turbines kan vasvlieg, 

impact assessment and will be confirmed by 

ens nie, maar ook of dit gaan maak dat sekere soorte 

monitoring. 

heeltemal uit die gebied kan padgee. Met die 

h) Noted. All turbines will be located on previously 

duisende voëls in die gebied gaan sogenoemde ‘bird 

transformed agricultural land with commensurate 

strikes’ onvermydelik voorkom. 

sterilized habitats. Please see comment (c) by 

g) Plasing van maste sal moet geskied met inagneming 

Cape Nature in section 2.8 below for confirmation.


van vlug-verbindingsroetes tussen van die dosyne 

veral groter panne en vleie. Ongewenste plasing 

moet sover moontlik heeltemal vermy word. 

h) Die oppervlak van die fondament van so ‘n turbine 

kan tot sowat 300 vk m beloop, plus die sg ‘laydown 

area’ van soveel as 800 vk m waar apparate vir 

instandhouding neergesit word. 

i) Die direkte en kumulatiewe impakte van soveel 

strukture binne ‘n betreklik klein gebied (gemiddeld 

een per 100 ha) is potensieel nie gering nie. 

j) Daarbenewens moet die impak van ‘n kraglyn na die 

proteus kragstasie toe, die netwerk van 

toegangsroetes na die onderskeie terreine en met 

name spesiale paaie of roetes wat vir die vervoer 

van toerusting (dosyne abnormale vragte met 

abnormale groot voertuie na die verskillende 

terreine nodig sal wees) deeglik aandag kry. 

2.8 a) Cape Nature supports the development of 

renewable energy facilities, including wind turbines. 

However, it must be recognised that the potential 

impacts on biodiversity of this relatively new 

technology are not yet fully understood in South 

Africa. We are concerned that the cumulative 

impacts of these facilities, if not properly considered 

and planned for, could be quite significant. It is 

therefore essential that a precautionary approach is 

taken and that turbines are placed outside of 

ecologically sensitive areas. It is also vital that a 

clear monitoring and reporting protocol is put in 

place so that lessons learned from newly established 

A. Duffel-Canham 

(CapeNature) 


pg 5-11 


Email 

Chapter 5 : 


Infrastructure will follow existing roads and will 

avoid natural vegetation. Where natural 

vegetation cannot be avoided impacts will be 

determined on a case-for-case basis. 

i) Noted. Please refer to response (h) above. Due to 

the scale of the project this full Scoping/EIA 

process was commissioned to inform decision 

making. 

j) All specialist studies will include investigating 

potential impacts resulting from the proposed 

power line to the Proteus substation, as well as 

potential road widening and construction. Please 

note that the existing road infrastructure will be 

used during construction and maintenance with 

new road construction only being considered as a 

last resort. 

a) Noted. CSIR agrees that a precautionary 

approach should be adopted. No turbines or 

associated infrastructure will be placed in 

ecologically sensitive areas. Furthermore, 

extensive bird and bat monitoring has 

already started at the project location and is 

being conducted in accordance with the EWT 

& Birdlife guideline as well as the South 

African Good Practice Guidelines for 

Surveying Bats in Wind Farm Developments 

(Sowler & Stoffberg, 2011) and includes longterm 

pre-authorization and pre-construction 

monitoring.


facilities can be shared with the wider community. 

b) According to the fine-scale vegetation maps for the 

area, the proposed development site is covered 

mostly by Canca Limestone Fynbos, with Groot Brak 

Dune Strandveld occurring near the rivers and 

coastal areas and Gamka Thicket vegetation 

occurring to the north. Groot Brak Dune Strandveld 

is considered to be an Endangered vegetation type. 

c) Most of the site has been transformed due to 

agricultural activities. There are however several 

remnant patches of natural vegetation, mostly Groot 

Brak Dune Strandveld. These have all been mapped 

as Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBAs) and must be 

avoided by the development, which includes not 

only turbines and laydown areas but also associated 

infrastructure such as inter alia roads, powerlines , 

cables etc. 

d) All aquatic habitats must also be avoided by all 

aspects of the development. 

e) The proximity of the development to the Gouritz and 

Buffels River is concerning from both a bird and bat 

perspective. Both birds and bats visit rivers and 

other aquatic features for feeding purposes and an 

appropriate buffer for the development must be 

determined through detailed monitoring of both 

bird and bat activity across and near the site. 

Surveys should be conducted on site across several 

seasons (preferably preauthorisation and not just 

pre-construction). It must be clearly shown how 

these surveys influence the placing of turbines and 

other mitigation measures. Bird monitoring 


pg 5-12 

Chapter 5 : 


b) Noted. 

c) Noted. Please refer to response (a) above. 

d) Noted. Aquatic habitats will be avoided. 

e) Detailed bird and bat impact assessments 

were commissioned for this EIA. Please also 

refer to monitoring programmes mentioned 

in (a) above.


guidelines have been developed by EWT and Birdlife 

Africa and we strongly recommend that these are 

implemented. 

2.9 Wat ek hier bo genoem het maak windenergie ŉ 

onaanvaarbare oplossing in ŉ gebied van ons land wat 

grootliks toegespits is op toerisme. Dit is bekend dat 

hierdie voorgestelde projek saam met twee ander wat 

voorgestel word vir die sowat 20 kilometer radius om 

die Eskom kragstasie langs PetroSA te Mosselbaai. 

Op hierdie stadium handel ons net met ŉ paar punte wat 

u hopelik in die “Draft Scoping Report“ reeds sal 

aanspreek. 

a) U word daarop gewys dat hierdie voorgestelde 

projek ŉ besliste beduidende invloed gaan hê op die 

besondere aantreklikheid van die Vleesbaai 

omgewing en so ook die waarde van beleggings wat 

daar gemaak is in hoofsaaklik vakansiehuise. 

b) Dit is ook ŉ deel van ons land waar die voël 

populasie bevorder moet word in stede van om dit 

te belemmer met projekte soos hierdie. 

c) Die benutting van sonenergie en optimale benutting 

van lynkrag sal veel meer aanvaarbaar wees. Die 

hele Karoo is daar waar ons ernstig kan kyk na 

kragopwekking deur middel van sonenergie. 

d) Juis op hierdie stadium onderhandel President Zuma 

in die DRK om die nodige samewerking ten opsigte 

van die Inga hidro-elektriese kragopwekking te 

bewerkstellig waar meer krag opgewek kan word as 

J.E.Theart 11 November 

2011: Email 


pg 5-13 

Chapter 5 : 


a) A socio-economic impact study was 

commissioned for this EIA to determine potential 

impacts of economic nature. Please refer to 

Chapter 6, subsection 6.6.7 of this Draft Scoping 

Report for a brief methodology proposed for this 

study. 

b) Noted. A full bird impact assessment was 

commissioned for this EIA. Please refer to Chapter 

6, subsection 6.6.1 of this Draft Scoping Report for 

a brief methodology proposed for this study. 

c) CSIR agrees that various demand-side (efficiencyrelated) 

management (DSM) options are available 

to assist in meeting government energy targets. 

However, in terms of a supply-side management 

(SSM), very limited options are available. The 

focus of this EIA is electricity generation and 

accordingly falls within the realm of SSM. 

Furthermore, DSM strategies cannot be offered as 

alternatives to SSM or new generation options but 

should be seen as a supplementary strategy. 

Eskom is pursuing various DSM options, in 

parallel with the South African government’s 

efforts to promote renewable energy. 

A direct comparison between solar PV and wind 

energy is problematic. CSIR supports both solar 

PV and wind generation, but also recognises the


wat tans in die grootste deel van Afrika opgewek 

word en Suid-Afrika dit grootliks kan benut terwyl 

ander minder ergelike bronne ontwikkel word en 

veral die kultuur van energie besparing ernstige 

aandag kry. 


pg 5-14 

Chapter 5 : 


specific limitations of each of these technologies. 

Current solar PV technology does not allow for 

the same level of generation efficiency as wind 

turbines and also requires a larger footprint than 

wind turbines. Solar PV (crystalline silicone) has a 

rated capacity factor (actual amount of energy 

converted to electricity) of approximately 25% 

whereas wind turbines generally have a capacity 

factor of 35% to 40%. Furthermore, solar PV 

generally produces 700 kilowatts of electricity per 

hectare, compared to 2.5 to 5 megawatts 

(depending on turbine size) of electricity for wind 

turbines if as little as one turbine is erected per 

hectare. 

Accordingly, the relative environmental impact of 

having a similar sized (140 MW) solar PV plant in 

the Karoo needs to weighed against the proposed 

wind energy development near Vleesbaai. In 

order to generate 140MW, assuming a theoretical 

100% capacity factor, a solar PV plant in the 

Karoo would require an uninterrupted footprint 

of 200ha (140MW / 700kW per hectare = 200ha), 

roughly the same size as the city state of Monaco, 

versus the currently proposed uninterrupted 

footprint of 6.9ha (1124m 2 base x 56 turbines = 

6.9ha) for wind turbines. If a linear relationship 

between footprint size and potential 

environmental impact is assumed (which is highly 

likely), the relative environmental impact of a 

similar sized solar PV plant in the Karoo would far


pg 5-15 

Chapter 5 : 



outweigh the impact associated with the 

proposed wind energy facility near Vleesbaai as it 

would be 28 times larger. To this should be added 

that wind turbines allows normal agricultural 

activities to proceed, but solar PV does not. This 

limitation combined with a larger footprint 

creates a potential conflict between large-scale 

solar PV plants and agricultural production/food 

security. 

Furthermore, the relative isolated location of the 

larger Karoo area (assuming that large-scale solar 

PV plants should be located out of sight) results in 

a paucity of available and suitable electrical 

infrastructure as well as end-users. Generation 

capacity must be located close to suitable feed-in 

points such as large substations and transmission 

lines and preferably should be close to consumers 

as energy loss due to transmission is directly 

linked to the distance of transmission. The close 

proximity of the ESKOM Proteus substation and 

transmission infrastructure in the vicinity of the 

PetroSA GTL Refinery makes the Vleesbaai, 

Mossel Bay and Dana Bay area’s very attractive 

for renewable energy generation. Subsequently, 

as the commentator points out, there are 

currently 3 wind energy projects proposed in this 

area. 

d) Noted. As indicated above, CSIR agrees with the 

principle of DSM (i.e. efficient use of energy), but 

DSM cannot be proposed as an alternative to SSM.


pg 5-16 

Chapter 5 : 



The Inga Hydro-electric scheme is of great 

significance to South Africa; however, the aim of 

the VIPP project is the establishment of local (not 

only South African, but Western Cape-based) 

generation capacity to assist in achieving energy 

security for the Southern Cape region. 

c) Noise impacts 


3.1 Die geraas van die turbines gaan die stilte verbreek. J.E.Theart 18 October 2011: 

Fax 

3.2 Dit is ŉ feit dat hierdie installasies ŉ geraas maak wat 

onaanvaarbaar is in ŉ vakansie omgewing soos 

hierdie. 

J.E. Theart (Keerom 

Beleggings 

Aandeleblok) 

11 November 

2011: Email 

Noted. Wind turbine noise is loudest at the base of the 

turbine and reduces in loudness with an increase in 

distance. At a distance of 500m from the turbine base 

background noise (wind noise) is expected to mask 

the turbine noise. A buffer zone of 500m will be 

maintained around all inhabited buildings and no 

turbine may be located in this zone. Accordingly, 

turbines should hardly be audible beyond the 500m 

buffer zone. 

The noise generated by the proposed wind turbines is 

the subject of a noise impact assessment 

commissioned for this EIA. Please refer to Chapter 6, 

subsection 6.6.3 of this Draft Scoping Report for a 

brief methodology proposed for this study. Please also 

note that no turbines will be located within 500m of 

an inhabited area. At this distance, turbine noise is not 

expected to be audible above background noise. This 

will however be proved or disproved by the noise 

impact assessment.

3.3 a) Impakstudies moet onder andere insluit die 

visuele steurnisse van hierdie uiters opvallende 

strukture, die geraas wat lemme maak wat op 

hulle buitenste parameter bykans met die spoed 

van klank kan beweeg (volgens waarnemers is 

dit onaards, Unheimlich) en die ‘flicker’ van 

turbine-skaduwees. Hierdie is almal bekende 

nadele van hierdie turbines. Dit moet 

bevredigend aangespreek word. 

b) Vleesbaai inwoners versoek dat minstens 

gedeelte 4 van Vleeschbaai 251 (item 30 op die 

lys van eiendomme) weggelaat word omdat dit te 

naby aan residensiële gebiede kom, veral as in ag 

geneem word dat daar moontlik verdere 

uitbreiding van Vleesbaai in ‘n westelike 

(landwaartse) rigting kan kom 

d) Heritage impacts 

Dr. M Pauw (Vleesbaai 

Dienste) 


pg 5-17 

11 November 

2011: Email 


4.1 a) The archaeological resources in this region, 

surrounding the proposed wind farm, are 

extremely rich and of major national and 

international significance 

b) Other reports from surrounding plots in this area 

document rich archaeology 

c) Surface survey alone cannot rule out the 

potential for rich sites underground 

d) We recommend that any earth-moving activities 

be monitored by an archaeologist 

C. Nelson (MAPCRM) 2 November 2011: 

Email 

Chapter 5 : 


a) Noted. Please see response to 3.1 above. A full 

noise impact assessment was commissioned for 

this EIA. Please refer to Chapter 6, sub-section 

6.6.3 for a brief methodology of this study. VIPP 

will draft shadow-flicker maps, indicating shadow 

flicker experienced in hours per year with the 

acceptable threshold being 30h/year. These maps 

will be included in the Draft EIA Report. 

b) Noted. This request will be forwarded to VIPP and 

the Planning consultant, CNdV Africa, for 

consideration. 

a) Comment noted. 



d) As a rule, all our EIA reports suggests that 

should any archaeologically sensitive 

material be uncovered during earthmoving, 

all work should stop immediately and the 

appointed archaeologist should be contacted 

to document and remove such material.


4.2 Please note that as this application is submitted in 

terms of NEMA, but will undoubtedly affect heritage 

resources, HWC acts as a commenting authority to the 

DEA&DP. All applications that come to us in this 

regard must be accompanied by a Notification of 

Intent to Develop (NID) form (attached). HWC will not 

comment on any applications submitted without this 

document. 

Your application will be held in abeyance pending the 

submission of the NID form to our offices. In addition 

we require an electronic copy of all documentation 

relevant to the submission. This must be provided on 

a CD and not emailed. 

4.3 One of the problems that we regularly encounter is 

that the construction workers engaged in the 

earthmoving are not trained to recognize 

archaeology. Also, they do not have the training to 

discern when there has been a shift from background 

scatter, low density artifacts, to higher density 

scatters that signal an important site has been 

encountered. As you probably know, the region in and 

about Mossel Bay has one of the world’s most 

important records for human origins. It is so rich that 

the Mossel Bay Municipality has become engaged in 

developing a plan to conserve it, and eventually turn 

it to economic advantage for archaeo-tourism. They 

have asked our assistance, and as we have noted to 

them, documenting and conserving that record is the 

first step. Heritage Western Cape has begun to move 

forward on developing a World Heritage site 

Justin Bradfield 

(Heritage Western 

Cape) 


pg 5-18 


Email 

Dr C. Marean 2 November 2011: 

Email 

Chapter 5 : 


Noted. A NID will be couriered to HWC along with the 

Draft Scoping Report. All documentation will be 

provided on CD. 

CSIR fully appreciates the sensitivity of this site and 

would like to suggest that you and/or Cindy Nelson 

meet with our archaeologist when he is on site. 

This could be a very useful opportunity to share your 

local knowledge with him and to discuss the nature of 

his study in greater detail.


nomination for the sites along the coast, and we are 

also assisting with that. 

Given the above, it is crucial that major earthmoving 

in this area be monitored by people who can 

recognize when important archaeology is 

encountered. 

e) General comments 


5.1 a) The name Vleesbaai Independent Power 

Suppliers, is not appropriate. Most of the farmers 

who have signed up are sub divisions of the 

original farm ‘Brakkefontein’. We feel the 

inclusion of Vleesbaai in the name, label 

Vleesbaai as an industrial power supplier rather 

than a quiet sea side village. We request a name 

change in order to be more suitable to the locality 

of the wind farm and in consideration of 

Vleesbaai image. 

b) We request proof of the approval of the 

substation located 1km west of Vleesbaai. If this 

has not been approved, we don’t see how plans to 

transport the energy can be made on proposed 

substations? We also request proof of the 

associated servitudes approval. 

5.2 a) Voordeel wat Keerom Beleggings Aandeleblok en 

Vleesbaai privaat dorp uit hierdie projek kan kry? 

R. Scholtz 27 October 2011: 

Email 

J.E. Theart 18 October 2011: 

Fax 


pg 5-19 

Chapter 5 : 


a) The naming convention of this project falls 

beyond the scope of this EIA. This request was 

however forwarded to the project proponent. 

b) This request was forwarded to the project 

proponent. 

a) Chapter 1, section 1.4 of this Draft Scoping Report 

(November 2011) illustrates the potential


b) Alhoewel die Propmania eieindom (Gedeelte 30 

van plaas Brakkefontein Nr. 256) binne die 

voorgestelde projek op die kaart (BID) geleë is 

word daar nêrens melding gemaak van die 

afstand wat die naaste wind turbine van 

genoemde eindom opgerig gaan word nie. Daar is 

‘n wetlike voorgeskrewe afstand wat gehandhaaf 

moet word. 

5.3 It is unacceptable that the BID, and future EIA 

documents/notices, are so big that many people will 

not be able to receive them in email or download 

them from the respective webpage. Public documents 

should be kept to under 1 MB to ensure that everyone 

will be able to access them. 

5.4 Ons as boere sien uit na die projek in ons area. 

Finansieël kan dit ons baie help tydens droogtes 

aangesien ons ‘n baie wisselvallige reënpatroon het 

en al groot droogtes beleef het. 

W. Meyer 27 October 2011: 

Email 

J. du Toit 2 November 2011: 

Fax 


pg 5-20 

Chapter 5 : 


benefits resulting from this project. These 

benefits will accrue to the larger Mossel Bay 

Municipal area and not exclusively to Vleesbaai. 

Potential benefits to private entities falls beyond 

the scope of this EIA. This request was however 

forwarded to the project proponent. 

b) Page 3 of the Background Information Document 

(BID) states: “VIPP has not determined a final 

layout at this early stage of the EIA process. The 

proposed layout to be taken forward to the impact 

assessment phase will be informed by the various 

inputs from specialists (e.g. identification of no-go 

areas, critical biodiversity areas, etc.) during the 

scoping phase of this project.” Accordingly, no 

distance between the said property and closest 

turbine can at present be given. A minimum 

buffer of 1.5 turbine length (300m) will be 

maintained along property boundaries of 

neighbouring landowners who did not sign a 

lease agreement with SWE (Pty) Ltd. 

Noted. Please note that EIA reports generally 

comprise in excess of 200 to 600 pages and include 

high resolution imagery (maps & photos) to enable 

decision making. Consequently, a limit of 1MB for all 

public documents related to this EIA cannot be 

realistically achieved. 

Noted.


pg 5-21 

Chapter 5 : 



5.5 Almal was geskok toe die projek ook skielik die naam J.E. Theart (Keerom 11 November Please refer to response (a) in section 5.1 above. 

Vleesbaai in sy identifikasie dra. Dit alleen word al as 

Beleggings 

2011: Email 

ŉ negatiewe aspek beskou 

Aandeleblok) 

5.6 a) Daar is wydverspreide ongemak met die feit dat Dr M. Pauw (Vleesbaai 11 November a) Please refer to response (a) in section 5.1 above. 

die naam “Vleesbaai” voorgestel word as naam 

Dienste) 

2011: Email b) Noted. Please refer to response (a) in section 5.1 

vir die projek. 

above. It should also be noted that wind turbine 

development tends to strengthen the urban edge 

b) Die voorgestelde projek behels ‘n massiewe 

or outer limit of the current urban development 

industriële ontwikkeling en as dit via die naam 

and subsequently prevents uncontrolled urban 

aan die bestaande Vleesbaai strandoord gekoppel 

growth. 

word, gaan dit die persepsie van wat Vleesbaai is 

c) Please refer to response (a) in section 5.1 above. 

drasties kan laat verander – vanaf ‘n rustige 

d) As indicated on page 2 of the Background 

strandoord na ‘n besige industriële 

Information Document, VIPP works in 

ontwikkelingsgebied. Dit gaan die verdere 

collaboration with Rübsamen Windenergie GmbH 

persepsie tot gevolg kan hê dat dit aanvaarbaar 

which has extensive wind farm development 

word om Vleesbaai as ‘n stedelike en ‘n 

experience. 

industriële groeipunt te beskou – iets wat 

e) Noted. This request was communicated to the 

voornemende ontwikkelaars maklik sal aanwend 

proponent. 

as motivering om verdere uitbreiding van 

f) Please refer to response (d) above. 

Vleesbaai goedgekeur te kry. Dit kan die beeld 

g) Noted. VIPP & Eskom are in constant 

asook die toekoms van Vleesbaai drasties in ‘n 

communication. From previous experience, 

negatiewe rigting beinvloed 

project proponents will finance and construct 

c) Die vraag is waarom is hierdie naam gekies? 

substations should Eskom be unable to do so. The 

Byna 60% (20) van die lys van plaasgedeeltes 

construction of the substation, at present, falls 

wat gelys word, dra die naam Brakkefontein. 

beyond the scope of this EIA. 

Slegs 8 van die 35 gedeeltes is dele van die plaas 

h) No proposed renewable energy project proposed 

Vleesbaai 251. Vleesbaai Dienste, in oorleg met ‘n 

in South Africa can guarantee the sale of 

hele aantal belanghebbendes wil dringend vra dat 

electricity before the EIA process is concluded. 

die naam verander word. Iets soos “Brakkefontein” 

Renewable energy can only be sold following a 

sal veel meer aanvaarbaar wees. 

bidding process whereby a given national 

d) Daar bestaan vrae oor die (veral ekonomiese) 

allocation per renewable energy (x amount of


lewensvatbaarheid van die voorgestelde projek, 

veral aangesien die applikant basies bloot ‘n 

Familietrust verteenwoordig. 

e) Belanghebbendes verlang duidelike bewyse van 

waarborge dat genoegsame fondse wel 

beskikbaar sal wees en dat die projek op ‘n 

verantwoordelike manier gevestig en volhoubaar 

bedryf sal kan word, veral in die lig van die 

volgehoue ekonomiese resessie, wêreldwyd en 

meer bepaald in Suid-Afrika. 

f) Dit sluit ook in die vraag of die ontwikkelaar oor 

die nodige kundigheid en kwalifikasies beskik om 

die projek van stapel te stuur en volhoubaar te 

bedryf. Alternatiewelik, of die ontwikkelaar 

genoegsame toegang tot sodanige kundigheid sal 

hê. 

g) Die AID verwys op bl 3 na Eskom se nuwe 

substasie (iewers wes van Vleesbaai) asof dit 

reeds ‘n werklikheid is. Dis nie die geval nie en 

kan dalk nog lank duur om te realiseer, veral in 

die lig van Eskom se finansiële probleme. Die 

proses staan al jare lank doodstil. Dit kan nie 

sonder meer aanvaar word dat daardie 

infrastruktuur al bestaan en deur die aansoeker 

benut sal kan word nie. 

h) Die aansoeker moet bewyse lewer dat Eskom wel 

die krag wat opgewek gaan word, sal koop en na 

die Proteus kragstasie sal vervoer. 

i) Daar moet ook seker gemaak word of die 

“existing servitude” vir die voorgestelde kraglyn 

van die voorgestelde substasie na die Proteus 


pg 5-22 

Chapter 5 : 


megawatt per wind, solar, hydro and biomass) is 

divided and awarded to prospective Independent 

Power Producers (IPPs). The bidding process 

requires, at the very least, a completed EIA and a 

positive Environmental Authorization in order to 

partake in the bidding process. Accordingly, no 

guarantee can be given of the sale of electricity at 

this early stage. 

i) Noted. 

j) Yes. 

k) Three alternative locations were considered by 

VIPP. 

l) The selection criteria employed is indicated in 

Chapter 2, section 2.1 of this Draft Scoping 

Report.


kragstasie (noord-wes van PetroSA) al 

geregistreer is. 

j) Is daar na alternatiewe liggings gekyk? 

k) Watter? 

l) Waarom is hierdie spesifieke gebied, wat uit 

soveel bio-sensitiewe areas (met name klowe, 

vleie en panne) bestaan, gekies? 


pg 5-23 

Chapter 5 : 

Issues & Responses Trail


pg 5-24 

Chapter 5 : 


B: COMMENTS RECEIVED PRIOR TO THE RELEASE OF THE FINAL SCOPING REPORT 

Issue: VISUAL _______________________________________________________________________________________________ 5-24 

Issue: BIOPHYSICAL __________________________________________________________________________________________ 5-30 

Issue: GENERAL______________________________________________________________________________________________ 5-62 

Issue: NOISE ________________________________________________________________________________________________ 5-72 

Issue: AUTHORITY COMMENTS _________________________________________________________________________________ 5-74 

Issue: EIA PROCESS & POLICY ___________________________________________________________________________________ 5-82 

Issue: VISUAL Commentator Date Response 

1.1 a) Location of the proposed wind farm: It 

appeared at the public meeting of Dec. 2011 

that the maps now have changed. It further 

appears that area being now being considered 

has been changed to include portions to the 

north, directly west and north-west of 

Boggomsbaai. This was NOT previously given 

notice of. What are we thus responding to??? 

We obviously can only respond logically on the 

direct impact on Boggomsbaai once we are 

provided with a final map. 

b) Visual impact: We are obviously concerned 

about the visual impact. The claims that are 

made that it will be large hidden are too vague 

and misleading. More clarity and factual 

information about localities must be provided 

before we can comment on this. 

Mr Jacob Graaf 

(Chairman: 

Boggomsbaai 

Ratepayers 

Association) 

28 January 2012 

(By email) 

a) Comment noted. The aim of the Scoping 

Phase (i.e. Draft & Final Scoping Reports (DSR 

& FSR)) is not to assess the significance of 

impacts but rather to identify potential 

impacts and to develop a methodology to 

adequately measure the environmental 

impact that might result from it. Impact 

assessment is only addressed in the Draft & 

Final EIA Reports. The aim of the maps in the 

DSR & FSR is to provide the reader with an 

understanding of the general location, 

attributes, legal process and plan of study 

relevant to the proposed project. The desired 

outcome of requesting comments is 

accordingly aimed at identifying potential 

impacts, likely to result from the planning, 

construction & operation of the proposed


c) Undisturbed scenic value claims are made that 

the Vleesbaai coastline is not a scenic coastline. 

We totally disagree with this and in fact wish to 

state this is one of the last remaining pristine 

and beautiful pieces of coastline which has not 

yet been damaged by urban or industrial 

development. This should receive extensive 

attention during the EIA. 


pg 5-25 

Chapter 5 : 


project; not definite impacts. The impacts 

identified (in the DSR) for Vleesbaai is 

subsequently also generally applicable to 

Boggomsbaai. Please also note that the 

Background Information Document (BID) 

which contained the “old” maps is not a 

legally required document and does not 

constitute a binding representation of the 

proposed project. Rather, it serves to inform 

the public that a project is proposed in their 

area of residence and requests their 

participation in the EIA process. Legally, the 

notification period only commences through 

the publishing of the newspaper adverts and 

subsequent DSR. Even after the legal process 

commenced, the project footprint may still be 

changed, provided that the EIA Application is 

amended accordingly and that all affected 

landowners are informed. 

b) As stated above, the aim of the DSR is not to 

provide factual information on expected 

impacts. It should also be noted that the 

section to which the commentator refers also 

states the following: “The wind farm site is 

however situated on a cultivated plateau and 

is expected to be largely hidden from view by 

users and the majority of residents of the 

coastline. (Emphasis added)(VIPP DSR, 

Chapter 3, page 28). This section also 

concludes by saying that the appropriateness 

(from a visual perspective) must still be


pg 5-26 

Chapter 5 : 



determined in the EIA phase. A proposed 

turbine layout was not yet offered in the DSR, 

accordingly, the true visibility of the 

proposed project could not be accurately 

determined at that time. (Note: two proposed 

layout are provided in this FSR) 

c) Comment noted. The FSR is 

quoted/interpreted inaccurately. The section 

to which the commentator refers does not 

indicate that the Vleesbaai coastline is “not a 

scenic coastline”. Rather, it describes the 

physical attributes of the coastline and even 

refers to the scenic value by indicating that: 

“The coastline is relatively unspoilt along 

many stretches (particularly the dune belt 

between Kanonpunt and Vleesbaai), and the 

entire coastline from Kanonpunt to north of 

Boggomsbaai is designated as 

conservancy.”(VIPP DSR, Chapter 3, page 28). 

The presence of urban development as well 

as the extensively cultivated nature of the 

plateau on which the project is proposed can 

however not be ignored. As such, the DSR 

refrains from making a judgement on the 

scenic value, but merely states that: These 

factors will need to be taken into account when 

determining the appropriateness of siting 

turbines within 4 km of the coast. (VIPP DSR, 

Chapter 3, page 28). 

1.2 The scenic coastal location may render the area 

unsuitable for wind "farms". The attractiveness of the 

Prof Peter Buchholtz 25 January 2012 Comment noted. Visual, bird and noise impact studies 

were commissioned for this EIA and the results of


pg 5-27 

Chapter 5 : 



area for tourism is a fact and may be adversely affected 

by wind turbines in respect of e.g. bird life and 

noise/vibrations. 

these will be published in the Draft EIA Report. 

1.3 a) The DSR claims that the proposed site will be Dr M Pauw (Company 28 January 2012 a) The commentator fails to include the word 

“largely hidden from view … by the majority of Secretary: Vleesbaai (By email) 

“expected” in his quotation from the DSR. 

residents on the coastline” (pg 3-28). This is Dienste) 

Chapter 3, page 23 of the DSR states: “The 

misleading. The majority of erven (at least 60%) 

wind farm site is however situated on a 

in Vleesbaai are on an elevation where the 

cultivated plateau and is expected to be 

horizon will be dotted with turbines barely 1.5 

largely hidden from view by users and the 

km from the western extremities of Vleesbaai 

majority of residents of the coastline” 

village. Moreover, many of these Vleesbaai 

(emphasis added). The tentative nature of the 

properties face north to north-east and the 

this statement is due to the fact that no layout 

turbines will be within their lateral-front view. 

was proposed (at the release of the DSR) and 

We request the EAP to take this into careful 

subsequently no comment can be offered on 

consideration. 

the distance of the closest turbine to the town 

b) The above was one of the reasons why we 

of Vleesbaai, nor can any informed judgement 

requested the exclusion of the portion which 

be made regarding the relative visibility of 

lies closest to Vleesbaai village. We have not yet 

turbines. It is not clear how the commentator 

received feedback on whether this will be the 

calculated visibility in the absence of a 

case. 

turbine layout and corresponding contour 

height of individual turbines relative to view 

sheds (observation points) in Vleesbaai. 

This section of the DSR does not claim to offer 

any form of environmental impact 

assessment but rather provides an 

environmental description as denoted by the 

chapter title and the note conspicuously 

placed under section 3.1 (Chapter 3, page 3 of 

the DSR). It reads: “Please note: This chapter 

intends to provide an overview of the affected 

environment and does not represent a detailed


pg 5-28 

Chapter 5 : 



environmental study. Detailed studies focused 

on significant environmental aspects of this 

project will only be provided during the impact 

assessment phase of this project” (emphasis 

added). 

b) The inclusion of the property referred to, 

which we presume to be the farm Vleesch 

Baai 251, Portion 0; will act mainly as a buffer 

as required by LUPO. Reference to the 

constraints map will give more detail on this 

aspect. 

1.4 Ek gaan in onooglike windtorings vaskyk. Tweedens 

gaan die rustigheid verdwyn. In plaas van on die see te 

hoor gaan jy 24h uur van die dag die torings hoor 

beweeg. Derdens gaan dit misdaad na ons omgewing 

(werksgeeleenthede met gepaardgaande toename in 

Mr J.J.F. Joubert 15 April 2012 (By 

post) 

Response from Sondereind Wind Energie ( SWE): 

Preliminary planning for the 3MW turbine layout 

shows that the closest turbine to the main entrance to 

Vleesbaai will be around 1,850m from the gate. 

Measured from the central part of Hoekbaai this 

increases to a distance of 2.4km. The majority of 

turbines will be screened by the natural rise of land to 

the south west of Vleesbaai. View-sheds prepared by a 

specialist from various vantage points will be 

published in the Draft EIA Report. We will also look 

into the claim that 600 of the property owners in 

Vleesbaai will be able to see turbines from their 

premises 

A visual impact assessment and noise impact 

assessment was commissioned as part of this EIA 

process the findings of the studies will be published in 

the Draft EIA Report.


misdaad). Laastens kry ek net die minusse van die stelsel 

en geen voordele nie. 

1.5 Visual impact on landscape (density of layout)? MR AC Maarschalk 22 March 2012 

(by post) 


pg 5-29 

Chapter 5 : 


It is not clear how the commentator infers an increase 

in employment opportunities with an increase in 

crime. Generally, there is an inverse relationship 

between employment and crime, with levels of crime 

reducing as employment opportunities increases. This 

is of specific importance as local communities will be 

given preference for employment during the 

construction phase [about 18 months to 2 years] and 

new employment opportunities that will flow from 

both permanent jobs created by the management 

company and those enterprises that are planned for 

development during the construction phase of the 

WEF 

Response from SWE: 

We are in discussions with members of the community 

on addressing socio-economic issues as part of the 

work that we will do during the construction phase 

and subsequently during the operation phase will be 

continued by the operations company. Community 

based monitoring structures will be established in 

conjunction with advice received by and through the 

offices of the Mossel Bay Municipality. 

Please see response to 1.4 above.

Issue: BIOPHYSICAL Commentator Date Response 

2.1 a) We feel that using anecdotal reports from 

residents of changing weather patterns and 

farming practices over the years, should not be 

used in the main document of the DSR, but 

should rather be expressed in the comments 

and response table as everyone else. The 

rainfall data and other weather data have been 

well recorded for the area by the relevant 

departments, and should be accessed and 

analysed, especially seeing that this is a project 

relying on weather for it to be a success. 

Farming practices over the years should also be 

well documented by the Dept. Of Agriculture, 

and should also be analysed and added to the 

documents released should they be relevant. 

b) We feel that there is not enough mention about 

the temporary or ephemeral pans of water that 

appear after good rains. Since June 2011 for 

approximately 7 months after, the pans have 

been in existence but are now nearly completely 

dry. Due to the nature of the rainfall of the area, 

the pans may appear at any time (following 

good rains) attracting large numbers of water 

birds, some extremely rare. At the same time 

the pans may disappear for years at a time, 

however they always form in the same places. 

The hydrology study will have to seriously take 

this into account, as at the time the specialist 

study is done the pans might not be visible at 

all. These pans need to be considered as 

Mr Roland Scholtz 

(Senior Ranger 

Fransmanshoek 

Conservancy) 


pg 5-30 


(By email) 

Chapter 5 : 


a) Comment noted. The purpose and aim of the 

information contained in the DSR & FSR is not 

to provide a final or definitive report on the 

state of the impacted environment, but rather 

to provide the reader with general 

information on the (in this case) physical 

attributes of the receiving environment. The 

DSR does not claim to be an authoritative 

reference document on the receiving 

environment but rather aims to identify 

potential environmental impacts, earmark 

impacts significant enough to merit 

assessment and propose a methodology of 

how to assess such impacts. Detailed 

environmental descriptions will only follow 

in the Draft and Final EIA Reports. The note 

conspicuously placed under section 3.1 

(Chapter 3, page 3 of the DSR) reads: “Please 

note: This chapter intends to provide an 

overview of the affected environment and does 

not represent a detailed environmental study. 

Detailed studies focused on significant 

environmental aspects of this project will only 

be provided during the impact assessment 

phase of this project” (emphasis added). 

It should also be noted that interviews with 

landowners is an accepted means of 

obtaining information during fieldwork, as 

information, such as changing farming 

practices, might not be accurately reflected in


wetlands and a respectable buffer should be 

placed around them. 

c) Lastly, we feel that no turbines should be placed 

anywhere near Boggomsbaai within the two 

new areas added to the project area. We would 

like clarification as soon as possible as to the 

buffer that has been decided around 

Boggomsbaai? 

2.2 a) Mammals: I find it strange that no mention is 

made of Bushbuck in the thickets! 

b) Birds: The importance of Voëlvlei needs to be 

stressed. In years with high rainfall (as was the 

case in 2011) Voëlvlei is home to tens of 

thousands of birds. In December 2011 / January 

2012 Langvlei became known amongst borders 

country wide due to the presence of a 

Hudsonian Godwit, at least 7 Pectoral 

Sandpipers and Baillon’s Crakes (which were 

breeding there). It also hosted many African 

and Greater Painted-Snipes. The close proximity 

of wind turbines (with the associated 

Mr Pieter Le Grange January 2012 (By 

email) 


pg 5-31 

Chapter 5 : 


literature/databases due to the relative 

limited detail (at farm/erf level) and time lag 

of such sources. The project relies on wind, 

humidity and temperature measurement 

records to inform its viability, not weather in 

general, or rainfall in particular; 

anemometers and wind vanes, were installed 

on site to obtain this information. 

b) Comment noted. CSIR agrees with this 

statement and a wetland ecology study was 

subsequently included in this FSR. Thank you 

for contribution in this regard. 

c) Placement of turbines on the new land 

parcels close to Boggomsbaai will be 

informed by the outcome of the specialist 

studies. The buffer around Boggomsbaai will 

generally be the same as applicable to 

Vleesbaai. 

a) Comment noted. As indicated in 2.1 (a) above, 

the aim of the FSR is not to provide a detailed 

account of the affected environment but 

rather to identify potential impacts and 

proposing how to assess such impacts. The 

commentator will also note that the sections 

(VIPP DSR, Chapter 3, section 3.4) dealing 

with birds and bats are more detailed than 

those dealing with mammals, reptiles and 

amphibians. This is due to the more 

significant impact likely to influence birds 

and bats, given the nature of the proposed 

development (i.e. wind turbines). Wind


construction work) may have a huge impact on 

this very important vlei and pan. Many surveys 

to identify species present have been carried 

out in the area surrounding Vleesbaai over the 

past 4 years. The data have been submitted to 

the SABAP2 team and the data can be viewed on 

their web site. The Vleesbaai pentad 

(3415_2150) (i.e. the area bordered by -34 deg 

15 min and -34 deg 20 min and also 21 deg 50 

min & 21 deg 55 min) had been surveyed 65 

times and a total of 205 species have been 

recorded. The pentad just north of it (which 

includes Langvlei) has 12 cards and 143 

species, not including the recent rarities. The 

pentad to the west of the Vleesbaai pentad, 

which includes the middle section of Voëlvlei, 

has 43 cards wth 224 species. 

c) Reference is made to the possibility of 

2.3 

Padlopers. In December 2011 Padlopers were 

seen within the boundaries of Vlees Bay and 

one was photographed. They have also been 

seen (and photographed) on the road from 

Gouritzmond to the N2 

a) It is crucial that specific, geographically defined, 

sites are selected for impact assessment by the 

conclusion of the scoping process. At this stage, 

we simply have too little concrete detail about 

the alternative sites for the turbines and 

infrastructure, which significantly compromises 

one’s ability to make an informed submission 

on the potential impacts relating to the propose 

Mr Charl de Villiers 27 January 2012 

(By email) 


pg 5-32 

Chapter 5 : 


turbines require a very small footprint, are 

generally constructed on transformed and/or 

degraded land and subsequently have a 

negligible impact on most mammals. 



a) There is only one selected site being a 

composite of a number of farm portions as 

listed in Chapter 1. Two alternative layouts 

are presented in the FSR. These layouts show 

alternative turbine sizes on the one 

composite site. Additions to the site were 

made recently so as to accommodate known 

constraints imposed by LUPO and specific s


facility. This lack of clarity on where, precisely, 

the project may be located and how it may 

interact with specific components of the 

receiving environment will also translate into 

reduced predictive ability and reliability of the 

EIA. It is therefore strongly recommended that a 

final scoping report be withheld for public 

release until the project has been narrowed 

down to two or more specific sites to support 

an informed comparative assessment of the 

pros and cons of each. 

b) I am concerned that insufficient weight is 

attached to the proximity of Voëlvlei which, if 

memory serves me well, is one of the top 10 

water bodies in South Africa and Namibia that 

are frequented by migrant waders and other 

water birds during the summer months. It is 

strongly recommended that the Animal 

Demography Unit at UCT be contacted for its 

input in this regard. Voëlvlei, as pointed out in 

other comment submitted on this application, is 

surrounded by numerous natural and artificial 

depression wetlands that, too, host notable 

numbers of migrant waders during summer. 

The EIA will have to consider how the 

movement of these and other water birds 

between these different water bodies may need 

to influence the siting of turbines and, more 

broadly, the desirability and appropriateness of 

the Vleesbaai area for a wind energy facility. 

c) The comments and response report refers to 


pg 5-33 

Chapter 5 : 


drawn from experience gained by the 

developers in other sites. The expansion of 

the site’s overall area gives the developers 

the opportunity of optimising turbine 

placements, given known constraints. 

b) The bird impact assessment includes 4 

seasons of bird monitoring to identify flight 

paths and would inform the appropriateness 

of the proposed location.


bird habitat being ‘sterilised’ by cultivation. 

This is misleading. Cultivation has, in fact, 

contributed to habitat diversity in this area and 

creates niches for bird and other species that 

frequent grassland-type habitats. The direct and 

indirect impacts of large-scale cultivation have 

had a significantly adverse effect on biota 

associated with especially Renoster-thicket 

vegetation types, but by the same token niches 

have been opened up that would otherwise not 

be available to many species. From a lay 

perspective, it would seem that larger birds 

such as Blue Crane, European Stork, Grey and 

Black-Headed heron and various raptors, for 

example (including the Black Harrier) have 

been successful in establishing themselves in 

this transformed environment. All in all, the 

area between Gouritsmond, Vleesbaai and the 

N2 would seem to be unsuitable for a wind 

energy facility owing to a heightened risk of 

collisions and other adverse interactions 

between birds and these structures. 

d) Potential power line corridors also need to be 

identified through a high-level screening 

process that draws on inter alia the Mossel Bay 

Municipality biodiversity sector plan and bird 

sensitivity. The process of corridor selection 

would have to be co-ordinated with the 

identification distinct site alternatives on the 

basis of contextual limitations and 

environmental impacts. 


pg 5-34 

Chapter 5 : 


c) The DSR is quoted inaccurately. The Issues & 

Responses Trail (Chapter 5, section 2.7 (f)) 

states the following regarding bird habitats in 

particular: 

“The bird impact assessment will always consider not 

only bird mortality but also potential habitat 

sterilization caused by project infrastructure.” 

As such, reference is made to habitat 

sterilization caused not by cultivation, but 

rather by project infrastructure (i.e. the 

presence of turbines causing birds to avoid 

the area). It should also be noted that such 

sterilization could potentially occur and is by 

no means certain at this stage. 

d) The power line corridor linking the proposed 

project with the Proteus substation will 

follow an existing Eskom servitude which will 

be enlarged to cater for 2 x 132 kV lines. This 

power line route is included as part EIA to 

determine resultant environmental impacts.


e) Trustfully the next few months will allow the 

project proponent to systematically eliminate 

areas that, contextually, would not be suitable 

for a wind energy facility. The result of such a 

process of elimination would trustfully 

conclude in one or two alternative sites that can 

be assessed and evaluated with the requisite 

degree of detail and confidence in the findings 

which, at present, would have to be called into 

question due the factors outlined above. 

2.4 Hiermee voeg ons, die ondergetekendes, ons name by 

diegene wat beswaar maak teen die oprigting van 

windlaaiers by so ‘n sensitiewe area soos Voëlvlei, 

Langvlei en Vleesbaai. Verseker sal die voëllewe ‘n baie 

ernstige knou kry indien die windlaaiers opgerig sou 

word. 

2.5 Voëlvlei and Langvlei are regularly visited by us as 

birdwatchers for the variety of waders and ducks and 

other birds, we strongly object to the erection of any 

wind farm in that region as that will have a very harmful 

effect on the birdlife which is also a tourism attraction to 

foreign birders. 

2.6 a) Die omgewings impak van die projek t.o.v. 

natuurlewe 

b) Die bëinvloeding van die waarde van 

omliggende eiendomme a.g.v. die projek; 

c) Die invloed van die projek op toekomstige 

ontwikkelings ander dan 

nywerheidsontwikkeling; 

d) Die negatiewe invloed van die projek op 

landbou bedrywighede; 

Mr GJA Beetge & Mrs 

LC Beetge 


pg 5-35 


(By email) 

Mr Gert Kruger 26 January 2012 

(By email) 

Mr J.J Reichert 22 February 2012 

(by fax) 

Chapter 5 : 


e) As indicated in 2.1 (a) above, the aim of the 

DSR & FSR is not to provide assessment 

findings, but merely to identify potential 

impacts and determining how best to assess 

such impacts. 


Comment noted. Please note that the impact on birds, 

as well as ecotourism is being investigated. 

a) A full Environmental Impact Assessment 

(EIA) is being conducted to assess the 

potential environmental impacts resulting 

from the proposed project; 

b) A socio-economic specialist study forms part 

of the above mentioned EIA process and will 

investigate potential impacts on property 

values as part of it Terms of Reference; 

c) The socio-economic specialist study also


e) Die negatiewe invloed van turbines op estetiese 

natuurskoon 

2.7 a) Damage to landscape character; 

b) Archaeological and built heritage impacts; 

c) Public rights of way; 

d) Risk to migratory/critically endangered species 

(e.g. Blue Carne and Oystercatcher); 

e) Direct habitat loss, habitat loss due to 

hydrological impact; 

f) Shadow/flicker and reflected light 

g) TV & communication reception; 

h) Radiation emissions from power lines; 

i) Aerial impact (aviation safety). 

Mr S.D Cox 12 April 2012 (by 

fax) 


pg 5-36 

Chapter 5 : 


investigates the fit of the proposed project 

with anticipated future growth of the area. It 

should however be noted that future 

development of any area is difficult to 

determine with a high level of certainty. 

d) A soil and agricultural potential specialist 

study forms part of this EIA process and 

potential impacts on agriculture is being 

investigated as part of its Terms of Reference. 

Impacts are however anticipated to be low as 

a wind turbine has a very small footprint and 

allows original agricultural activities to 

continue underneath it. 

e) A visual impact assessment specialist study is 

being conducted as part of the EIA process. 

Determining potential impacts on the 

aesthetic of the country side forms part of 

this study’s Terms of Reference. 

a) Please see response to 2.6 (e) above. 

b) Archaeological, paleontological and built 

environment specialist studies are included 

in the EIA process and will investigate any 

potential impact resulting from the proposed 

project. 

c) Public rights of way are not expected to be 

impacted as turbines will not be located on 

public land. 

d) A bird impact assessment specialist study is 

included in this EIA process and will 

investigate potential impacts on migratory 

and critically endangered species. Please see


pg 5-37 

Chapter 5 : 



the list of priority avifauna species presented 

in Chapter 3 of this Report (Table 3.3, page 3- 

19) 

e) A terrestrial ecology specialist study and 

wetland ecology specialist study is included 

in this EIA process and will investigate any 

potential habitat loss impact resulting from 

the proposed development. 

f) A shadow flicker study will be conducted as a 

additional technical study and will form part 

of the EIA process. 

g) ICT services are not expected to be impacted 

given the relatively small size of the proposed 

project. 

h) Additional radiation emissions from new 

power lines will be investigated in greater 

depth in the Impact Assessment phase of this 

EIA 

i) Aviation safety is being considered by the 

Civil Aviation Authority (CAA). Please see its 

interim comment in Appendix G. 

2.8 a) My plaas lê glo 5-37 en a aan die Gourtizrivier 

maar ek sien dat die turbienes so na as 32m aan 

waterbron kan wees; 

b) Wat gebeur met die voëls in daardie areas; 

c) Ek lees dat die grond verander gaan word na 

kommersieel/industrieel. Sal dit my waardasies 

op my plaas verhoog of nie want dit kan vir my 

kostes beteken aan belasting maar geen 

voordeel van ‘n turbiene op my grond nie; 

d) Wat word van die groenstrook langs die 

Mr B.J.C. Hanniball 28 February 2012 

(by fax) 

a) The actual wind turbines may be as close as 

32m from a water course. This however does 

not apply to the Gouritz River. The Gouritz 

River valley is an important migration route 

and flight path for avifauna (birds & bats), 

linking the interior (Little Karoo area) with 

the coast. Accordingly, placing turbines 

anywhere in the river valley would pose 

unacceptable risks to avifuana. Secondly, the 

1:50 year and 1:100 year flood line of the


Gourtizrivier of tot by die see; 

e) Wat gaan met die plantegroei gebeur want in 

sekere areas kom skaars plante voor? 

2.9 Investigate the impact on climate change (climate change 

caused by wind turbines) hence the ecological 

environment (see newspaper report to which this 

comment refers in Appendix G) 

Mrs J.K Cox 12 April 2012 (by 

fax) 


pg 5-38 

Chapter 5 : 


Gouritz River must also be taken in 

consideration when placing turbines. These 

flood lines effectively prevents placement of 

turbines in the river valley. 

b) A bird impact assessment is included in this 

EIA and will investigate potential impacts, 

resulting from the proposed project, on birds 

in the entire study area. 

c) The zoning of the affected properties will not 

be changed to industrial or commercial. 

Under the Land Use Planning Ordinance 

(LUPO) Amendment (2011) the sections of 

agricultural property directly affected by 

project infrastructure (wind turbine footprint 

& support infrastructure) would be zoned as 

“consent use” for Renewable Energy 

Structures. Accordingly, the overall property 

zoning will remain agricultural use. 

d) As explained in (a) above, no development is 

proposed in the Gouritz River valley or the 

coastal zone. 

e) A terrestrial ecology specialist study is 

included in this EIA process and will 

investigate any potential impacts, resulting 

from the proposed project, on natural 

vegetation. 

The article provided refers to climate change or 

heating of the atmosphere on a sight specific scale (i.e. 

the area immediately surrounding the turbine or wind 

energy facility). Such heating is limited to night-time 

hours as it is caused by the mixing of warmer upper


pg 5-39 

Chapter 5 : 



air with the cooler surface air by the movement of the 

turbine blades. These conditions are reversed during 

daylight hours as surface temperatures are higher 

than the upper air temperatures during the day; 

subsequently causing a local cooling effect. 

Such sight specific heating and cooling is not without 

effect. However, environmental effects only become 

significant once vast areas are covered with turbines 

and if these areas are in close proximity to each other. 

The environmental impact of the warming and cooling 

effect must also be considered. Localised warming 

during evenings is considered to be a positive impact 

from an agricultural perspective as it improves plant 

growth and reduces the risk of frost. Conversely, 

cooling during the day helps to reduce peak 

temperatures which might damage crops. 

More importantly, the heating effect caused by wind 

turbines does not add to the total heat budget of the 

earth. The heat budget is the difference between solar 

irradiation and earth radiation (the heat we get from 

the sun minus the heat lost from the earth’s surface). 

Given that the kinetic energy of the wind originates 

from the sun; no additional heat can be added to the 

earth’s heat budget through the movement of turbine 

blades. The observed heating effect of turbines results 

from the mixing of surface air and upper air, not from 

the heating of the atmosphere. This distinction is 

important as all fossil-based energy generation adds 

to the earth’s heat budget; thereby gradually heating


pg 5-40 

Chapter 5 : 



the atmosphere and causing a global heating effect as 

opposed to wind energy’s site specific effect. This 

heating effect is not only as a result of CO2 emissions, 

but also due to the generation of “waste heat” (energy 

which heats-up generators, transmission lines and 

circuitry rather than being utilized by end users). 

2.10 a) The scope does not appear to include any 

investigation into the effect the wind 

turbines/power lines could have on nocturnal 

birds such as owls and nightjars; 

b) There needs to be an assessment on the impact 

of a reduction or increase in rodent activity as a 

result of the proposed development and its 

consequences on bird or reptile activity in the 

Mr S.D. Cox 12 May 2012 (by 

fax) 

Consequently, we must consider which form of energy 

generation offers the least impact in terms of climate 

change; given that additional generation is an 

unavoidable reality. Renewable energy, like wind 

turbines, clearly impacts the atmosphere less and at a 

smaller scale than fossil-based generation. 

Finally, it should also be noted that changes in surface 

temperatures, both heating and cooling, is caused by 

other manmade structures and activities such as 

buildings (causing increased turbulence and air 

mixing), changed land surfaces (bare earth or tar gets 

hotter than vegetated surfaces) and changes in 

vegetation (agriculture changes surface temperatures 

by altering the naturally occurring reflectivity of 

indigenous vegetation). 

a) Please see response to 2.7 (d) above. This 

study includes all bird species present on site, 

including nocturnal and migratory species. 

b) Such a study presupposes a significant 

reduction in raptor populations as a direct 

result of the proposed wind energy facility, as 

direct impacts on rodent populations are 

highly unlikely due to turbine placements in


area. E.g. if the number of birds active in the 

area declines rodent activity could increase- 

what impact will this have on the environment 

and local communities; 

c) The proposed land parcels extend the project to 

boundary of the Springerbaai Coastal Eco-estate 

which is a private nature reserve/conservancy 

and part of the Vleesbaai Conservancy. No 

buffer is provided as the regulations require? 

Further there appears to be no attempt to 

investigate the impact the development will 

have on fauna in the estate; 

d) Damage to existing roads- is the responsibility 

for repairing these clear? 

e) Google has numerous examples of wind turbine 

malfunctioning resulting in fire. High winds 

assist with the transfer of fire to surrounding 

vegetation. It is common knowledge that fires in 

such areas can have devastating effects, 

spreading over vast areas fuelled by high winds 

and resulting loss of vegetation, potential death 

or injury, loss or damage to private property 

fauna and flora. The scope does not appear to 

include a study of such consequences on all 

levels of society, including damage to 

surrounding components of the project itself, 

e.g. substations. There is also no attempt to 

understand what responsibility for recompense 

the project developer will assume for their 

liability, if any? Remote monitoring is unlikely 

to prevent such incidents from occurring and 


pg 5-41 

Chapter 5 : 


already transformed (ploughed) land (i.e. no 

rodent habitat destruction or displacement 

by turbine infrastructure). Should the bird 

impact assessment indicate a significant 

impact on raptor populations; such a study 

on rodent activity would be commissioned. 

c) The information and maps published to date 

only identifies the cadastral boundaries of the 

land parcels included in the project, not 

buffer zones and exclusion areas. No buffer 

zones have yet been published as such zones 

are calculated from the closest turbine to the 

cadastral boundary of the conservancy. No 

turbine layout was proposed in the Draft 

Scoping Report and Amendment to the Draft 

Scoping report. Accordingly, no buffer zones 

could be provided in these two documents. 

Given that the actual turbine footprint will 

not be located on the Springerbaai Coastal 

Eco-estate and given the low impact of wind 

turbines on terrestrial fauna; such an 

investigation is not deemed necessary. 


Constraints imposed by LUPO determine that 

there will be a minimum buffer on outer 

cadastral boundaries of 1.5 times the height 

of the turbine and its rotor measured at the 

extent of the circumference it defines. In the 

case of the SWE-WEF where maximum 

relevant height could be 288 m, buffers of


will in all likelihood result in responses which 

are too late to ensure containment of the fire. 


pg 5-42 

Chapter 5 : 


300 m are allowed by the developer in their 

planning of turbine positions. Thus no 

turbine will be closer than 300 m from an 

adjoining boundary. 

d) SWE will repair public roads, used for 

construction purposes, to its original 

condition if such damage is proven to have 

been caused by the transportation of the 

turbine assemblies and/or the construction 

of the wind energy facility. 


Furthermore any contractor tendering for 

construction work will do so in the 

knowledge that SWE have set parameters for 

the execution of work having regard for the 

environment in which the WEF is sited. 

Clearly SWE will hold any contractor to 

penalties for non-compliance. The 

management of contracts of this magnitude 

will be under the supervision and control of 

professional and qualified persons employed 

by SWE and who carry professional 

indemnity. SWE feels that this carries 

sufficient protection for the liability implied. 

e) According to research conducted by Chou & 

Tu (2011), approximately 19% of turbine 

related accidents involves fire. In this study 

only a total of 715 turbine failures/accidents 

could be identified globally, of which only


pg 5-43 

Chapter 5 : 



136 involved fires. It should be noted that 

wind farms are in operation since the 1970’s. 

The total number of turbine accidents since 

turbine inception would translate into 17.4 

accidents per year globally of which only 3.3 

would involve fire. Therefore, fire will only 

affect an extremely small number of the 

approximately 100 000 commercial wind 

turbines in operation globally (approximately 

only 0.003%). Accordingly, the fire hazard 

posed by wind turbines is of such a low 

magnitude that it does not merit assessment 

in this EIA. Please also refer to response 2.10 

(d) above. 

2.11 Please refer to Appendix G for the list of comments (11 

pages covering 33 issues/comments) 

Springerbaai Home 

Owners Association 

(PHJ van Vuuren) 

29 May 2012 (By 

email) 


Comment noted. The respondent is advised 

that in view of the high capital outlay in such 

an undertaking and the country's reliance on 

energy production from all generations 

facilities, comprehensive insurance is carried 

to cover all incidents, especially those that 

result in down time. Insurance also covers 

public liability risk. 

Note: The numbering system used by the 

commentator is replicated by CSIR to avoid confusion 

1 to 10: Comment noted 

11: Please note that the map included in the 

Addendum to the Draft Scoping Report only indicates


pg 5-44 

Chapter 5 : 



the cadastral boundary of the proposed project. The 

actual turbine placements cannot extend up to the 

cadastral boundaries indicated on the map as the Land 

Use Planning Ordinance (of 1985 as amended in 2012) 

stipulates that a buffer of at least 1.5 turbine lengths 

(300 m) must be maintained between the turbine 

footprint and a neighbouring property. Turbine 

placement will also be influenced by the findings and 

subsequent mitigation measures proposed by all the 

specialists involved in this EIA process. Turbines are 

therefore not expected to be located on cadastral 

boundaries. It should also be noted that properties 

included in the EIA will not necessarily be used for 

turbine erection, but may also be needed for 

supporting infrastructure, such as underground power 

lines and access roads. 

Impacts on property values, aesthetics as well as bird 

and bat mortality is currently being investigated by 

specialist studies commissioned for this EIA process. 

The results of these studies will be published in the 

Draft EIA Report. Please see response to 25 below for 

a reply to the question related to climate change. 

12. Comment noted. Please see response to 11 above. 

13. The guideline from which this distance is quoted is 

a decision support tool and not a legal requirement. 

Relaxation of or exemption from this guideline is 

permitted if the project proponent can offer a 

compelling reason for doing so. In this light, it should


pg 5-45 

Chapter 5 : 



be noted that the Inca Energy Mossel Bay Project was 

placed on hold by the relevant project proponent. 

Furthermore, the InnoWind Mossel Bay project has 

not yet received Environmental Authorisation and the 

success of this project is subsequently uncertain. The 

uncertainty surrounding the abovementioned two 

projects lead the EAP to state that the resultant 

impacts of placing the VIPP project in close proximity 

to other projects must be assessed, but it remains the 

responsibility of government to decide whether it 

should be allowed. The Draft Scoping Report reads: 

“While the Vleesbaai 140 MW wind farm site is not 

considered a large wind farm, it is proposed to be 

located within 10 km of the proposed 200 MW Inca 

Energy Wind Farm. The decision-making authorities 

will need to decide whether these two medium sized 

wind farms with a combined total of 340 MW are 

acceptable in the light of technical capacity and 

environmental considerations. The cumulative impacts 

of these two wind farms, together with the InnoWind 

130 MW wind farm to the north, will need to be assessed 

in the EIA.” (Chapter 3, page 29) 

14. Please see response to 13 above. 

14.1. The Draft Scoping Report is quoted 

incorrectly. The Draft Scoping Report 

(Chapter 3, page31) states that turbines are 

“expected to be largely hidden from view by 

users and the majority of residents of the 

coastline.” It goes on to state that: “Turbines 

are mainly likely to be visible to users of


pg 5-46 

Chapter 5 : 



walking trails along the coastline where the 

trails traverse the upper contours above the 

sea and residents in the upper parts of the 

coastal towns of Boggomsbaai and Vleesbaai” 

(emphasis added). From these quotes, it is 

clear that no inference is made to the effect 

that turbines will definitely not be visible to 

residents along the coastline, or that the 

proposed facility will not be visible from the 

coast itself. Furthermore, it is not clear how 

the commentator calculates the visibility of 

turbines from residential areas and the 

coastline as no turbine positions were 

proposed in the Draft Scoping Report. 

Visibility is a product of distance, elevation 

and intervening land-cover. In the absence of 

turbine positions to inform distance, 

elevation and intervening land-cover; claims 

of clear visibility of turbines appears 

unsubstantiated. For this reason, the draft 

Scoping Report assumes a cautious approach 

of not making a final decision on the visibility 

of the turbines until such time as the Visual 

Impact Assessment is completed and 

concrete findings are available. 

It should also be noted that a Visual Impact 

Assessment was commissioned for this EIA. If 

the scoping report intended to brush over the 

said minimum distance to the coastline; such 

a study would not have been commissioned.


pg 5-47 

Chapter 5 : 



14.2. The findings of the Visual Impact 

Assessment will inform this claim. 

14.3. Please see responses to 14.1 and 14.2 

above. 


16. CSIR disagrees with this statement. Firstly, the 

respondent does not introduce any issues which were 

not included in the original Draft Scoping Report. 

Secondly, the aim of having a draft version of any 

report is to allow for modifications and corrections. 

The responded fails to mention that additional issues 

resulting from the extension of the project footprint 

were identified by CSIR (i.e. fresh water ecology and 

terrestrial ecology impacts) and subsequently 

included in the Plan of Study for EIA published in the 

Addendum to the Draft Scoping Report (page 5). 

Finally, the respondent refers to “additional reasons 

for concern which were not addressed at all” but fails to 

indicate what these concerns are and how CSIR failed 

to address it. Accordingly, this statement is seen to be 

invalid. 

17. Caution should be taken when generalising 

environmental impacts resulting from similar projects. 

Environmental impacts are area and project specific 

and while some bird and bat mortalities might be 

expected, the magnitude and significance of such 

mortalities cannot be generalised from similar


projects. 


pg 5-48 

Chapter 5 : 


The purpose and aim of the Scoping phase of the EIA 

process is not to assess impacts, nor to consider 

mitigation measures to reduce such impacts. 

Accordingly, the Draft Scoping Report (Chapter 1, page 

16) states the following regarding the objectives of the 

Scoping Report: 

“The Scoping Phase of the EIA refers to the process of 

determining the spatial and temporal boundaries for the 

EIA. In broad terms, this involves three important 

activities: 

Confirming the process to be followed and 

opportunities for stakeholder engagement; 

Clarifying the project scope and alternatives to 

be covered; and 

Identifying the key issues to be addressed in the 

impact assessment phase and the approach to 

be followed in addressing these issues. “ 

From the above, it is clear that investigation into 

movement of turbines to reduce potential avifaunal 

mortalities and detailed assessment of the 

environmental suitability of the proposed area falls 

beyond the scope of the Scoping phase. Such issues 

will be addressed in the Impact Assessment phase of 

the EIA process which starts once the Final Scoping 

report is accepted by government. 

18. Please see response to 17 above.


pg 5-49 

Chapter 5 : 



According to research conducted by Chou & Tu 

(2011), approximately 19% of turbine related 

accidents involves fire. In this study only a total of 715 

turbine failures/accidents could be identified globally, 

of which only 136 involved fires. It should be noted 

that wind farms are in operation since the 1970’s. The 

total number of turbine accidents since turbine 

inception would therefore translate into 17.4 

accidents per year globally of which only 3.3 would 

involve fire. Therefore, fire will only affect an 

extremely small number of the approximately 100 000 

commercial wind turbines in operation globally 

(approximately only 0.003%). Accordingly, the fire 

hazard posed by wind turbines is of such a low 

magnitude that it does not merit assessment in this 

EIA. 

It should also be noted that all turbines will have both 

active and passive fire prevention and control 

measures. Active controls include several fire 

detectors located in various locations within each 

turbines. These fire detectors are connected in a 

continuous circuit and if one should be triggered, the 

entire turbine would shutdown as well as all the 

cooling fans to reduce oxygen flow into the turbine. 

The transformer also automatically shuts down should 

one of the fire detectors be activated. From a passive 

fire control perspective; the entire tower and nacelle 

are constructed from steel and are fully enclosed to 

prevent fires. This structure subsequently also acts as 

a Faraday Cage which greatly reduces the potential


pg 5-50 

Chapter 5 : 



fire risk resulting from lightning strikes. The turbine 

braking system is also enclosed in steel to prevent the 

danger of sparks. Furthermore, the turbine cooling 

system is fully enclosed, designed to prevent any 

cooling fluid to come into contact with the 

atmosphere. The cooling system uses a non-flammable 

water/glycol mixture. Finally, the vegetation cover 

below the turbine is trimmed and the soil is 

compacted to act as a hard standing surface for crane 

erection and turbine blade lay down area. This area 

also serves in controlling the spread of fire from the 

turbine to the surrounding vegetation. 

19. As indicated in the response to 17 above, the 

Scoping Report will not deal with the assessment, or 

consequences, of potential environmental impacts, but 

rather aims to identify such impacts. The Draft 

Scoping Report (Chapter 6, page 13,14 & 15) and the 

subsequent Addendum to the Draft Scoping Report 

(page 5) fulfils this aim by identifying the visual, noise 

and economic impacts (mentioned by the 

commentator) as potential environmental impacts to 

be considered in the Impact Assessment phase of the 

project. These impacts are being assessed through 

specialist studies which will be published in the Draft 

EIA Report. 

It is not clear how the commentator calculated the 

distance between residential properties in 

Springerbaai and the nearest turbine to these 

properties as no turbine layout was proposed in the


pg 5-51 

Chapter 5 : 



Draft Scoping Report. Accordingly, the reference to 

turbines being situated less than the minimum 

required distance from residential properties appears 

to be premature. 

Acceptable noise levels are set by SANS 10103:2008 

and are 45 dB for rural (outdoor) areas. Perceived 

noise is a product of the energy of the sound wave and 

the distance such a sound wave travels before 

reaching a noise sensitive area. Given that no turbine 

positions were proposed in the Draft Scoping Report, 

and given that no anticipated dB rating was supplied 

for noise emitted by turbines; it is not clear how the 

commentator can calculate noise levels to be at 

unacceptable levels at houses within Springerbaai. The 

potential noise impact of the proposed project will be 

investigated through a Noise Impact Assessment 

commissioned for this EIA process. The findings of this 

assessment will be published in the Draft EIA Report. 

Potential impacts on property values are investigated 

in an Economic Impact Assessment commissioned for 

this EIA process. The findings of this assessment will 

be published in the Draft EIA Report. 

20. Please note that the Draft Scoping Report is not 

submitted to an approval process by government; only 

The Final Scoping Report is submitted to such a 

process. As indicated earlier, the reason for having a 

draft version of the Scoping Report is to allow for 

uncertainty, growth or changes in the project scope.


pg 5-52 

Chapter 5 : 



Final turbine positions where not proposed in the 

Draft Scoping Report as the environmental sensitivity 

of the study area was still being investigated at that 

time. Since the release of the Draft Scoping Report, 

specialist studies have progressed to such a level as to 

have a better understanding of the environmental 

constraints present in the area. As such, a turbine 

layout is now proposed in the Final Scoping Report. 

21. CSIR disagrees with this statement. 

Chapter 4 (pages 18 to 19) of the Draft Scoping Report 

clearly states the alternative turbine technology 

currently available and indicates way such a turbine 

design (Vertical Axis Wind Turbines) is not an option 

for MW-scale projects. Secondly, Chapter 2 (page 6) of 

the Draft Scoping Report provides a detailed 

description of the turbine design being proposed for 

this project and also provides an illustration of what 

this turbine design looks like. Consequently, this 

statement is considered to be invalid. 

22. Details regarding the wind resource (speed, 

direction, frequency, etc.) present in the area are 

universally considered to be privileged information. 

The project proponent has invested considerable 

resources in erecting a wind measurement mast at the 

project site and analysing the collected data. The 

resultant information obtained from this monitoring 

project is confidential in nature as it confers economic 

benefit to its holder (similar to the results of oil and 

gas exploration projects in the private sector).



pg 5-53 

Chapter 5 : 


It stands to reason that the project proponent will not 

construct a multi-million Rand project in an area 

which will not provide sufficient return on investment. 


Please note that the EIA process does not consider the 

financial viability of the proposed project as an 

environmental impact to be considered in granting or 

withholding Environmental Authorisation. 


25. 

25.1 & 25.2: The commentator is correct in 

asserting that wind turbines can influence 

weather patterns. This assertion is however 

predicated on scale. The proposed project, 

combined with the potential impact of the 

proposed InnoWind and Inca Energy projects, 

would have a negligible local heating effect 

during evenings and a negligible cooling 

effect during daytime due to the mixing of 

upper and lower air behind the turbines. 

Changes to weather patterns might only 

become noticeable when wind energy 

extraction reaches a level of 2 terawatts (TW) 

(1 TW = 1 000 000 MW). The total global 

wind energy extraction capacity at the end of 

2011 only equalled 0.2 TW. This should be


pg 5-54 

Chapter 5 : 



contrasted with the mere 470 MW combined 

generation capacity of the proposed SWE, 

InnoWind and Inca Energy facilities. Research 

suggests that extracting as much as 11.5 TW 

of energy from the wind at an altitude of 

100m would still only result in a 1% loss of 

wind kinetic energy. The resultant impact on 

temperature and rainfall would be so small as 

to be indistinguishable from natural 

variability (New Scientist: 2012). 

Accordingly, potential impacts resulting from 

changed weather patterns are so insignificant 

as to not merit inclusion in the EIA process. 

26. 

26.1: An Economic Impact Assessment was 

commissioned to investigate this issue. 

The commentator is referred to Chapter 6 (page 

15) of the Draft Scoping Report which details the 

Terms of Reference for the Economic Impact 

Assessment. The relevant section states that the 

study should consider: 

“Impacts associated with environmental impacts 

that cannot be mitigated and have economic 

implications. This would focus on potential 

negative impacts on neighbouring land owners 

should they be relevant.” 

26.2: A continued efficiency is supposed as a 

turbine maintenance regime forms part of the 

wind energy facility management plan. Turbine 

blades will be cleaned and visually inspected on


pg 5-55 

Chapter 5 : 



regular basis to ensure optimum generation 

capacity. 

27. From a planning perspective, the proposed project is 

not viewed as an industrial development. Under LUPO 

(1985) as amended in 2011, the project is viewed as a 

“renewable energy structure” which does not require 

industrial zoning, but rather consent use zoning. 

27.1: Please see response to 27 above. 

In addition to the proposed project not being 

viewed as an industrial development, 

cognisance should also be taken of the resource 

dependence and land availability applicable to 

the proposed project. The wind energy facility 

needs to be erected where the wind resource is 

in greatest abundance and where land is 

available for such development. The area around 

the “MossGass” plant experiences wind 

turbulence due to the numerous tall structures 

already present in the area and furthermore 

does not offer sufficient available land for the 

size of the proposed project. 

27.2: Please see response to 27 and 27.1 above 


29. Comment noted. 

Please note that private reserves and eco-estates do not 

carry the same importance and privilege, from a national 

conservation perspective, as national parks. Accordingly,


pg 5-56 

Chapter 5 : 



it cannot be afforded the same buffers and boundaries as 

national parks. 

30. As indicated in responses 1 to 29; no verifiable and 

significant inadequacies or inaccuracies have been 

demonstrated by the commentator. Secondly, the function 

of the Scoping Report appears to be misinterpreted by the 

commentator. The Scoping Report aspires to identify 

potential environmental impacts and methodologies to 

assess such impacts. It does not consider potential 

advantages or disadvantages; the severity of impacts or 

mitigatory actions applicable. Such considerations will be 

dealt with in the Impact Assessment Phase of the EIA 

process. Environmental impacts expected to result from 

the proposed project, as well as the additional areas 

mentioned in the Addendum to the Draft Scoping Report, 

were identified and are listed on page 5 of the Addendum 

to the Draft Scoping Report. 

The commentator’s statement is subsequently viewed as 

invalid. 



33. Please note that the Draft Scoping Report and the 

subsequent Addendum to it is not submitted for 

acceptation or rejection. Rather, it is placed in the public 

domain to be subjected to the scrutiny of all I&APs so as to 

ensure that all relevant environmental issues were 

identified and that proposed methodologies for


pg 5-57 

Chapter 5 : 



investigating such impacts are acceptable. Subsequently, 

the identification of inaccuracies or inadequacies, even 

should it be present, is not sufficient grounds to reject the 

Draft Scoping Report. It should rather be seen as the aim 

of having a draft version of the report, as this allows for 

corrections in the Final version of the Scoping Report 

which will be submitted to government for acceptance or 

rejection. 

2.12 Please Appendix G for the list of comments Springerbaai 

Aesthetics Committee 

(K. Lochner) 

29 May 2012 (By 

fax) 

Note: The numbering system used by the 

commentator will be replicated by CSIR to avoid 

confusion. 

General comments: 

1. Please note that the Draft Scoping Report 

cannot be recalled. Rather, the Addendum to 

the Draft Scoping Report was published to 

display the latest project information related 

to project’s cadastral boundary. As such, the 

information contained in the Draft Scoping 

Report will not reflect the new distances to 

the key areas the commentator refers to. The 

Final Scoping Report does however reflect 

the updated distances. 

2. The latest cadastral boundary map, included 

in the Addendum to the Draft Scoping Report, 

contains all the properties relevant to the 

project. 

Comments & queries: 

1. Please see response to 2.11 (13) above.


pg 5-58 

Chapter 5 : 



2. It should be noted that the Inca energy 

project has been placed on hold. 

Furthermore, relaxation of, or exemption 

from the said guideline is allowed should the 

project proponent submit compelling reasons 

to do so. The very uncertain nature of the 

Inca Energy project supplies such grounds. 

3. The Visual Impact Assessment will consider 

the current viewsheds. It should be noted 

that current research (Krohn & Damborg, 

1999; Warren et al, 2005 and Frantal & Kunc, 

2010) indicates viewer perception of wind 

energy facilities to be very subjective, with 

some viewers finding such facilities attractive 

while other do not. 

4. Limited research has been conducted on 

animal and wind turbine interaction. 

Available research suggests that the major 

impact would result from noise emitted by 

the turbines. Research by Rabin, Coss & 

Owings (2006) indicates that such noise will 

impact on vocalizations aimed at animal 

communication. Specifically, this research 

identified elevated anti-predator behaviour 

in ground squirrels due to an inability to hear 

audible warnings. It is important to note that 

this research was conducted on a site 

immediately adjacent to a string of 6 

turbines. The impact of reduced vocalized 

inter-animal communication on larger 

mammals is uncertain. However, the turbines


pg 5-59 

Chapter 5 : 



are not proposed on land that currently 

carries any game. Furthermore, turbines will 

be placed at least 1.5 turbine lengths (300 m) 

from cadastral boundaries of nonparticipating 

landowners. The general 

distance at which wind turbine noise is 

masked by ambient (wind) noise is 

approximately 500 m. The only area where 

vocalized communication will be significantly 

impacted is the area immediately 

surrounding the turbine base where the dB 

rating is the highest. Accordingly, the noise 

impact on game roaming on neighbouring 

farms is expected to be insignificant due to 

the noise and planning buffers applicable to 

the project. 

5. The buffer relaxation is proposed only in the 

area where the Fransmanshoek Conservancy 

abuts the proposed project and only for the 

area which is transformed by previous 

agricultural activity (i.e. not pristine 

vegetation). The noise buffers applicable to 

buildings will effectively prevent the 

encroachment of turbines beyond a 500 m 

buffer. 

2.13 a) Negatiewe impak op eindoms waardes in die 

omgewing 

b) ‘n Windplaas sal is besonder onaantreklik en sal 

die omgewing skend 

Christo Groenewald 27 April 2012 

(By email) 

a) An economic impact assessment was 

commissioned for this EIA process. The 

findings of this study will be published in the 

Draft EIA Report.


c) Konstante geraas- ek het by ‘n windplaas 

eienaar gewerk en dit was een van die grootste 

klagtes van bewoners in die ongewing, van hulle 

moes verhuis 

d) Impak op wild en voels-gaan daar ‘n ordentlike 

impak studie gedoen word? 

e) Wat se voordeel hou die beoogde ontwikkeling 

vir die omgewing in? Wind plase skep nie werk, 

behalwe vir ‘n paar tegniesemenseen en of twee 

bestuurders nie- ek weet, ek het vir een gewerk 

f) Hoe en waar gaan die kabels van die windplaas 

aansluit by die elektrisiteits “grid”? Gaan 

eienaars se grond beinvloed? Word bogrondse 

of ondergrondse kabels beplan? 

g) Sou die ontwikkeling voortgaan, wat se bydrae 

gaan VIPP (Pty) Ltd maak aan die plaaslike 

gemeenskap? Is daar planne vir die gemeenskap 

om aandele in die projek te besit? 

h) Het VIPP die finansieële vermoeë om die projek 

te voltooi? Wie gaan die projek finansier? Is 

daar waarborge dat daar genoeg geld is om die 

projek te voltooi of is daar ‘n gevaar dat ‘n half 

voltooide projek vir maande of jare lank die 

omgewing ontsier? 


pg 5-60 

Chapter 5 : 


b) A visual impact assessment was 



Draft EIA Report. 

c) A noise impact assessment was 




d) A bird & bat impact assessment was 




e) The main direct advantage to the area is 

greater security of electrical supply. However, 

development needs in the Mossel Bay 

municipal area has been identified through 

the municipality’s Integrated Development 

Plan (IDP). The proposed wind energy project 

will supply funds to the Mossel Bay 

Municipality to administer accordingly. 

f) Please see Chapters 1 & 2 of this Final 

Scoping Report for maps of the proposed 

transmission line route connecting the 

project to the Eskom Proteus substation. All 

power line connecting turbine to each other 

will be below ground while transmission 

lines will be above ground. 

g) Please see response to 2.13 (e) above. No 

shares will be made available to local 

communities at this stage. 

h) According to the Land use Planning


pg 5-61 

Chapter 5 : 



Ordinance (LUPO) as amended in 2012, the 

project proponent must make financial 

provision, in the form of a fund administered 

by the Local Municipality, for rehabilitation, 

completion and decommissioning of the 

project before consent-use zoning will be 

approved by the competent authority. 

Accordingly, there is no danger of half 

constructed turbines spoiling the aesthetics 

of the area. 

2.14 Please see Appendix G for the list of comments. Lakes Bird Club (Chair: 

Pat Nurse) 

2.15 a) Effect on wildlife, e.g. Blue cranes 

b) Destruction of indigenous bush (e.g. fynbos) 

c) Possible changes to atmosphere/climate 

conditions in proximity of the wind turbines 

d) Noise 

e) Aesthetics 

28 May 2012 

(By email) 

Harry Graf 29 April 2012 

(By email) 

Comments noted. A full bird impact assessment and 

monitoring programme were commissioned for this 

EIA process and is currently being executed. The 

wetlands and seasonal pans are considered in the bird 

impact assessment and are also considered in the 

freshwater ecology impact assessment. The findings of 

these two studies will be published in the Draft EIA 


a) Please see response to 2.14 above 

b) A terrestrial ecology impact study was 

commissioned for this EIA process. 

c) Please see response to 2.11 (25) above 

d) A noise impact assessment was 

commissioned for this EIA process 

e) A visual impact assessment was 

commissioned for this EIA process.

Issue: GENERAL Commentator Date Response 

3.1 We have various concerns regarding the proposed wind 

energy facility and would like a public information 

meeting to be held in Gouritsmond, or a meeting with 

our committee. 

3.2 I have read the comments of Keerom Beleggings and 

Vleesbaai Dienste respectively and I would gladly add 

my voice of support to both of these. I have nothing more 

to add. 

3.3 a) To my absolute disbelieve, I have learnt that 

you are proposing a wind farm on the coast in 

SA. I shall appreciate it if you could advise me of 

comparison done on any impact studies in the 

rest of the world, especially in Europe where 

they have discontinued onshore wind farms. I 

refer especially to the UK situation. Very 

interesting to take note of this! I wonder then 

why a forward thinking company like yours are 

contemplating such unsightly monstrosities at 

an area of natural beauty? I look forward to 

your self- justified reply. 

b) Thank you for your prompt and thoughtful 

reply, I am however still concerned about the 

visual impact such a project will bring about to 

the natural beauty of the area and the 

environmental impact which may result from 

the subsequent proposal. I am sure there are 

more secluded areas away from the public eye, 

if you could pardon the pun 

Mr N Oosthuizen 

(Chairman: 

Gouritsmond Forum) 


pg 5-62 

15 December 

2012 (By fax) 

Mr Gerrit Olivier 23 January 2012 

(By email) 

Dr George Enslin 24 January 2012 

(By email) 

Chapter 5 : 


Comment noted. A public meeting was subsequently 

held on 19 December 2011 at the Vleesbaai Church 

Hall. 


a) CSIR is not proposing the development of this 

wind energy facility but is rather the 

appointed company responsible to determine 

the environmental impact which might result 

from the proposed development. As such, 

CSIR should not be confused with the 

physical attributes or aims of this project. The 

wind energy facility is being proposed by a 

private developer named the Sondereind 

Wind Energie (Pty) [SWE] Limited {formerly 

named Vleesbaai Independent Power 

Producer (Pty) Ltd (VIPP)}. Your concern 

relating to the development of wind energy 

facilities along the South African coast is 

however noted. The South African context 

does differ from that of Europe in terms of 

our general sea state and depth. Owing to our 

particularly rough seas (in the areas which 

hold the best wind resources) and the depth 

of our coastal waters, the development of 

offshore wind energy facilities is difficult and 

costly. The comparative availability of 

onshore space and quality of the local wind


pg 5-63 

Chapter 5 : 



resource accordingly makes onshore wind 

energy development a viable alternative in 

the South African context. The potential 

impacts resulting of such a development is 

however a reality and is the subject of an 

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). 

Please also note that the name of the project 

was changed to Sondereind Wind Energie 

(SWE) in order to avoid association with the 

coastal town of Vleesbaai. 

b) A full visual impact assessment is underway 

to determine potential visual impacts 

resulting from the proposed project. The 

findings of this study will be included in the 

Draft EIA Report due for release later this 

year. Site selection also takes into account 

wind speed and consistency, [best where one 

can use a consistent sea breeze] linked to 

turbulence and sudden surges in velocity 

[such as are experienced in mountainous 

areas which are detrimental to turbine 

durability]. These factors were been 

considered in selection of the site 

3.4 a) Die inligtingsvergadering te Vleesbaai op 19 

Desember 2011 is bygewoon en daar is kennis 

geneem van die ontwikkellaar se stellings. 

b) Daar is ook kennis geneem van die inhoud van 

Vleesbaai Dienste se terugvoer gedateer 28 

Januarie 2012. Dit sal geen sin maak om die 

inhoud te herhaal nie en daarom gaan ons 

Mr Etienne Theart 

(Chairman: Keerom 

Beleggings 

Aandeleblok 

(Edms.)Bpk) 


(By email) 



c) Comment noted. Please refer to response 3.3 

(b) above and comments on suitability of 

terrain 5 km from Vleesbaai. 

d) The EIA is concerned not only with assessing 

impact during the construction phase, but


akkoord daarmee. 

c) Ons herhaal tog weereens die volgende uit ons 

eie kommunikasie aan u: “ Behalwe vir die punt 

van sigbaarheid sou ons nie graag ŉ turbine 

nader as SWEe kilometer van Vleesbaai af soek 

nie.“ 

d) Dan wil ons graag weet hoe verseker gaan word 

dat toestande wat mag aanvaarbaar wees net na 

oprigting (veral geraas), volgehou gaan word 

gedurende instandhouding die toekoms in. Ook 

watter remedie ons as Vleesbaai inwoners het 

indien dit nie op ŉ aanvaarbare vlak gehou sou 

word nie. 

e) Ons stel dit weer dat eienaars van huise in die 

omgewing van oor die hele land kom en dat dit 

verwag sal word dat terugvoering in die vorm 

van vergaderings nie net in die Vleesbaai 

omgewing sal wees nie. Wat word daaraan 

gedoen? 

3.5 I wish to respond as follows on your report: I 

a) support the comment of the involved persons 

incorporated in Chapter 5: Issues and responses 

trail; 

b) question the comprehensiveness of the research 

and neutrality of the presentation. There is 

ample more explicit professional information 

available exposing an objective view on the 

merits and deficiencies of the envisaged system 

which was deliberately disregarded or reflects 

Mr Jan Pieterse 2 February 2012 

(By email) 


pg 5-64 

Chapter 5 : 


also during operational and decommissioning 

phases of the project. The only major impact 

which might be exacerbated by time (during 

operational phase) is the potential noise 

emitted by turbines. Accordingly, a 

monitoring programme will form part of the 

mitigation measures proposed by the noise 

specialist and will also be incorporated into 

the Environmental Management Plan. 

e) Comment noted. The distribution of property 

owners throughout the country causes 

meetings in other location (apart from 

Vleesbaai) to be impracticable. The most 

practical and thorough method of 

communication appears to be via the existing 

management structures of the various 

homeowners associations and concentrating 

meetings in an area we know will be 

frequented by all Vleesbaai property owners 

at least once a year. 


b) Comment noted. It however remains 

unclear why the research is considered 

to be incomprehensive and why the 

presentation is considered to be biased 

as the commentator fails to provide a 

reasoned argument for this position. The 

“ample more objective professional 

information” referred to by the 

commentator is also not referenced and 

subsequently fails to benefit all


superficial research 

c) question the efficiency of the equipment to be 

installed due to experience elsewhere fraught 

with obsolete/redundant/outmoded dumping 

from the first world to divert attention and 

masquerade promotion of green peace in Africa; 

d) question the financial and fiscal impact on 

government and the shift of responsibility to 

households within a depressed local and 

international economy without any clear 

positive prospects; 

e) question VIPP’s technical knowledge and access 

to professional knowledge and information to 

implement and maintain the project; 

f) question the import of material and products at 

a cost (a stressed fiscal base and unfavourable 

exchange rate), which can be produced locally 

with the spin-off of local capital investment, 

longer-term job creation and welfare 

distribution; 

g) question the share of local communities in 

upliftment from the initial, immediate and 

future remuneration of immediate 

beneficiaries; and 

h) have extreme doubts on the immediate 

availability of the technical capacity to assume 

specialized commissioned responsibilities; lack 

of appropriate training programs timeously can 

have disastrous results. 

i) Summarising. I support the critical search for 

alternate economic and ecologically beneficial 


pg 5-65 

Chapter 5 : 


participants while also remaining 

unproven. The CSIR further fails to see 

how the commentator reaches the 

conclusion that information was 

deliberately disregarded as no proof of 

this is presented. CSIR urges the 

commentator to benefit the EIA process 

by supporting his views with a reasoned 

argument and referenced documents. It 

should also be understood that the aim of 

the EIA process is not to determine the 

relative merits of wind energy 

technology, but rather to identify and 

assess environmental impacts resulting 

from the proposed project. 

c) As stated above, the failure to provide a 

reasoned argument for questioning the 

integrity and efficiency of Vestas’ 

equipment, a world leader in wind 

energy technology, prevents the CSIR 

from obtaining benefit from the 

comment. 


Please also note that SWE has not as yet 

selected a supplier. The industry is 

progressive and new developments are 

becoming available on a regular basis; 

SWE will make its decision on turbine 

selection after fully examining all the 

options available that give optimum


energy sources. The search, however, demands 

intensive identification of alternatives, taking 

account of the present level of socio-economic 

development and supportive administrative 

systems, the capacity of the fiscal base and 

current state of financial markets, social and 

economic opportunity costs, economy of scale, 

the design of a “simple applicable functional”, 

viable, sustainable and affordable system that 

will meet the needs of society. 


pg 5-66 

Chapter 5 : 


generation form available wind. To 

blanket the industry as passing off 

redundant or outmoded equipment 

designs on SA is trite and ignore the very 

competent abilities in assessment, 

negotiation and project development 

enjoyed in South Africa. In this we are 

not a third world country. 

d) The financial model and resultant fiscal 

and domestic impacts does not fall 

within the ambit of this EIA but is rather 

a result of government policy as 

expressed by its national renewable 

energy target contained in the 2003 

White Paper on Renewable Energy 

(10 000 GWh by 2013), the 2011 

Integrated Resource Plan (IRP 2) and the 

2011 Renewable Energy Independent 

Power Producer programme. 

e) As stated in the DSR (Chapter 1, Section 

1.1) SWE [formerly VIPP] work in 

collaboration with Rübsamen 

Windenergie GmbH, a Germany based 

company specialising in wind 

measurement, energy assessment and 

the construction of wind energy facilities 

since 1989. Accordingly, it is not clear 

why SWE’s [formerly VIPP’s] technical 

and professional knowledge is 

questioned.


pg 5-67 

Chapter 5 : 



f) CSIR agrees with the principle of 

manufacturing turbine components 

domestically. This ideal however has to 

be contrasted against the reality of 

limited local technical knowledge, skills 

and expertise and inadequate financial 

ability to obtain and maintain necessary 

manufacturing technology. The rate of 

renewable energy implementation, as 

required by government policy, does not 

allow the South African manufacturing 

sector enough time to respond to the 

created demand for locally produced 

turbine components. As such, the 

pressing and immediate need for 

increased generation capacity is in 

conflict with the need for local job 

creation and welfare creation. 

Unfortunately, growing the economy 

requires a commensurate growth in 

generation capacity. 

Response from SWE 

Furthermore there is a very real socioeconomic 

set of criteria built into the IPP 

PPA award process which optimised SA 

resident involvement to the maximum 

extent of its current capability with 

respect to local content and employment 

required by the development process of 

a WEF

3.6 


a) Ek is sterk ten gunste van die optimal aanwending 

van natuurlike energie-opwekking. 

b) Ek is gekant teen hierdie spesifieke projek weens sy 

uiters ongewenste ligging asook die gebruik van 

Vestas 3 MW turbines. 

Mr. IT Steenkamp January 2012 (By 

post) 

3.7 Ten gunste van die projek. Mr Bertie Steyl 15 April 2012 (By 

post) 

3.8 a) We note that the maps provided with the BID differ Dr M Pauw (Company 28 January (By 

from the ones in the DSR and that the area being Secretary: Vleesbaai 

email) 

considered has been expanded to include portions of Dienste) 


pg 5-68 

Chapter 5 : 


g) Beneficiaries will not be remunerated. 

Rather, funds will be allocated to the 

local municipality to invest according to 

the identified and agreed upon 

development needs as stipulated in 

municipality’s Integrated Development 

Plan (IDP). Structures for such 

distribution are currently the subject of 

discussions with authorities 

h) Please refer to (e & f) above. 

i) Comment noted. Suggest the respondent 

also take cognisance of the fact that 

government has opened energy 

generation, previously the sole preserve 

of central government control, to the 

private sector, tapping into substantial 

private capital resources that enter the 

country as a result, without impact on 

the governments IMF rating, with all the 

local economic benefits that DFI brings. 




a) The BID is not a legally binding document nor 

is its issuance required by NEMA. The aim 

and purpose of the BID is merely to alert the


land to the north, directly west and north-west of 

Boggomsbaai. To our knowledge there was no prior 

notice given between the time of issuing the BID and 

presenting the DSR that the area had been increased. 

Stakeholders responding to the BID were thus not 

accorded an opportunity to comment on that. We 

request an assurance that no further expansion of 

the locality will take place unless proper procedures 

are followed by, amongst others, issuing a new BID 

b) Our concern over the fact that the name Vleesbaai is 

being attached to the proposed facility (refers our 

comments on the BID dated 11 November 2011). 

We have not received any feedback on this matter. 

3.9 Die plaas Buffelsfontein is nie volhoubaar vir boerdery 

nie a.g.v. ‘n tekort aan water. Enige ander moontlikheid 

Mrs. JL Marais 22 March 2012 

(by post) 


pg 5-69 

Chapter 5 : 


public to the proposed development and 

request Interested & Affected Parties to 

participate in the EIA process. This is not to 

say that the information contained in the BID 

may be intentionally misleading, but rather 

that project details, so early in the project 

lifetime, is bound to change and allowance for 

such changes must be made. Consequently, 

the release of the DSR again allows all I&Aps 

to comment on the project. The legal EIA 

process starts when the project is advertised 

in a newspaper and the DSR is released. The 

proponent is then still entitled to change 

(expand or reduce) the project area provided 

that: (i) The EIA Application is updated to 

include the new properties; (ii) The relevant 

landowners are informed of the proposed EIA 

process and (iii) The DSR is updated to reflect 

and consider the new extent of the proposed 

project. As such the release of the Addendum 

to the DSR was all that was required to 

comply with the EIA regulations in terms of 

adding new land parcels. 

b) The developer is in the process of changing 

the project company name (as indicated in 

the Addendum to the Draft Scoping Report). 

The change to Sondereind Wind Energie is 

noted in this document. 

Comment noted.


vir inkomste word oorweeg. 

3.10 Wat sal die impak op grondpryse wees? Dit sal ‘n groot 

impak op die estetiese waarde van die omgewing hê 

Mr Pierre Marais 22 March 2012 

(by email) 

3.11 So iets sal goed wees vir die gemeenskap. Mr RJ Taute 22 March 2012 

(by post) 

3.12 Ek dink dit sal goed wees vir die gemeenskap. Mrs Alda Cupido 22 March 2012 

(by post) 

3.13 Stel belang in tegniese werking en omgewings impak. Mr ACJ Winterbach 22 March 2012 

(by post) 

3.15 Hoop die porjek sal ‘n sukses wees. Mr JG Zietsman 22 March 2012 

(by post) 

3.16 Gaan die hele gemeenskap baat by die projek of moet Mr Louis van Rensburg 22 March 2012 

bure aan die projek maar ongerief, b.v. geraas, aanvaar? 

(by post) 


pg 5-70 

Chapter 5 : 


The potential impact on property prices are being 

investigated as part of the Socio-economic specialist 

study commissioned for this EIA. The findings of this 

study will be published in the Draft EIA report. 

Furthermore, the aesthetic impact which might result 

from the proposed project is investigated by a visual 

impact assessment and heritage impact assessment 

commissioned for this EIA. The findings of this study 

will be published in the Draft EIA report. 



Technical turbine related information will be 

published in the Draft EIA Report. As no final turbine 

manufacturer has yet been decided on. A complete set 

of relevant environmental impact ratings and tables 

will also be presented in the Draft EIA Report. 


The proposed project will most likely present both 

benefits and impacts on neighbouring landowners. 

Benefits are expected to be indirect, in terms of 

greater energy security and stability of supply in the 

Southern Cape coastal area as well as a small 

contribution towards climate change mitigation which 

will benefit all. Negative impacts, on the other hand, is 

the subject of this EIA process and will only be clearly 

identified at the end of the EIA process. Mitigation 

measures will also be suggested by this EIA process to


pg 5-71 

Chapter 5 : 



reduce any significant negative environmental impact. 

3.17 Gaan die hele gemeenskap by projek baat? Gaan 

aangrensende grond ook by projek baat? Of moet 

aangrensende grond maar geraas en ‘seeroog’ net 

aanvaar? 

Mr LJF van Rensburg 22 March 2012 

(by post) 

It should however be noted that all forms of 

development carries both positive and negative 

environmental and social impacts. The presence of 

such impacts does not necessarily preclude the 

proponent from continuing with this development. 

Please see response to 3.16 above.

Issue: NOISE Commentator Date Response 

4.2 a) I consider NOISE a very serious problem for 

Vleesbaai and Gouritsmond, the nearby residential 

villages. The assertion that noise is inaudible at a 

distance of 500 metres, due to ambient noise 

masking, can only be correct for a “best case” 

scenario. Other views, to which I subscribe, insist on 

a distance of more than 2 km from the turbine, in 

order for the “swish and thump” of the blades to be 

inaudible. The position of the turbines, higher than 

the villages, would in addition favour a greater 

distance. Ambient noise for e.g. Gouritsmond at 

night is almost zero for most houses! 

b) Noise must be measured both at source and in the 

residential areas affected. Such measuring must 

include the construction phase noise, and must be 

repeated at regular intervals during the life of the 

turbines. 

c) The 2-km+ distance is strongly supported by 

medical evidence, see Dr Nina Pierpont’ s book on 

the “Wind Turbine Syndrome” (2009) ,dealing inter 

alia with the effects of low-frequency wind turbine 

noise on the organs of the inner ear, supported by 

many individual case studies. On Noise and Health 

Effects of Large Wind Turbines, see also 

http://www.wind-watch.org/ww-noise-health-p.ph. 

This contains more alarming cases of headache, 

dizziness, sleep disturbance, etc. Caused by wind 

turbine noise. 

d) I suggest that other areas for wind farms be 

investigated with a view to their position further 

away from settlements than the present proposal. 


pg 5-72 

Chapter 5 : 


Prof Peter Buchholtz 25 January 2012 a) The 500 m masking buffer should not be 

considered to be an assertion, but rather a general 

guideline subject to local conditions. Noise 

impacts and subsequent buffers will not be 

informed merely by a 500 m buffer, but rather by 

actual noise measurement at noise sensitive areas 

and subsequent interpretation by a computer 

model. Noise levels at noise sensitive areas must 

be 45 dB or less (in rural areas) as stipulated by 

the SANS standard 10103:2008, this noise level 

and not a 500 m buffer will be used to determine 

the distance between turbine and noise sensitive 

area. 

b) Such measurement forms part of the noise impact 

assessment. Measurement will also be repeated 

during the operational phase of the project to 

ensure that noise level do not rise due to poor 

maintenance and/faulty equipment. 

c) Several studies have confirmed that there are no 

physiological effects from low frequency or 

infrasound from wind turbines (Bellhouse, 2004; 

Leventhall, 2003; Mackenzie, 2006; ISO 9613-2; 

SANS 10103, 2008; Pedersen & Halmstad, 2003; 

Van den Berg, 2003) 

d) Comment noted.

Issue: NOISE Commentator Date Response 

4.3 I am mostly concerned about the low frequency noise 

that the rotors make. The wind is blowing most of the 

time between South East and South West. I would 

therefore object strongly if the wind generators are 

placed on the South Eastern, Southern or South Western 

side of any piece of the Vleesbaai border. 

However, should it not be possible, and the wind energy 

facilities need to be placed at all cost on the mentioned 

sides of Vleesbaai, it need to be at least 4 km away from 

Vleesbaai. 

4.4 Ons sal graag wil weet wat die geraas impak op ons sal 

wees? 

Mr Willem van 

Schalkwyk 


pg 5-73 


(By email) 

Mr Johann Menderoi 22 March 2012 

(by post) 

4.5 Noise levels of turbines? Mr AC Maarschalck 22 March (by 

post) 

Chapter 5 : 


Comment noted. Please refer to 4.2 (c) above. Also 

please note that the WEF site is located north east, 

through north to north west of Vleesbaai. 

A noise impact assessment was commissioned for this 

EIA process and its findings will be published in the 

Draft EIA Report. This assessment will indicate noise 

sensitive areas (e.g. houses) close to the proposed 

project and how these areas will be impacted. 

The noise levels of turbines changes with the distance 

between the noise receptor and the turbine, therefore 

no generally applicable decibel rating can be offered. 

Rather, noise levels will be determined at various 

noise sensitive areas to calculate expected noise, or 

decibel level applicable to specific sites. The noise 

impact assessment, as explained in 4.4 above, will 

provide details on such noise levels.

Issue: AUTHORITY COMMENTS Commentator Date Response 

5.1 Comment will only be provided after receipt of a physical 

copy of the Draft Scoping Report, as per our standard 

requirements. 

5.2 The South African National Roads Agency (SANRAL) has 

no comment with regard to the proposed VIPP Wind 

Energy Facility near Vleesbaai in the Western Cape 

Province. 

5.3 Since there is reason to believe that heritage resources 

will be impacted upon, HWC requires an HIA in terms of 

S. 38 (3) of the NHRA (Act 25 of 1999) assessing the 

impacts on the archaeological, paleontological and visual 

heritage resources which it has identified. 

5.4 A comprehensive Agricultural Impact Assessment done 

by an experienced and qualified agriculturalist is 

required. (Please see Appendix G for the full letter from 

the Department) 

5.5 a) The department does not support the 

application as it will impact negatively on the 

agricultural nature and production potential of 

the site. 

b) The site is intensively used for cultivation and a 

change of land use will result in the loss of 

agricultural land that is used for food 

production 

CapeNature 

(Mr B. Walton) 

SNARAL 

(Mrs. R de Kock) 


pg 5-74 

19 December 

2011 (By email) 


(By post) 

HWC (Mr. J Bradfield) 19 December 

2011 (By post) 

Western Cape 

Provincial Dept of 

Agriculture (Mr AS 

Roux) 

National Department 

of Agriculture, 

Forestry & Fisheries 


(by post) 

17 April 2012 (by 

post) 

Chapter 5 : 


A hardcopy of the DSR was couriered to CapeNature 

on Thursday 9 February 2012. 



An Agricultural Impact Assessment was commissioned 

for this EIA process and will be completed in terms of 

the regulations provided by the western Cape 

Provincial Department of Agriculture. 

a) Comment noted. It is not clear how a negative 

impact on agriculture can at present be 

determined by the Department given that the 

Agricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) has not 

yet been completed and given that turbine 

locations have not yet been suggested. 

b) Interim finding from the Agricultural Impact 

Assessment indicates that the study site has a 

land capability classification of marginal 

potential arable land. Furthermore, the AIA 

indicates that there is sufficient water for 

stock only, but not for any form of irrigation. 

The Department’s statement that the area is 

intensively cultivated subsequently appears 

to be incorrect.


5.6 a) This department reviewed you application and 

is of the opinion that all water related concerns 

are not adequately address in you submitted 

report. 

b) Kindly indicate the source of water and volume 

of water that will be used during the 

construction phase as well as during the 

operational phase of the project. 

c) Please note that the department is not in favour 

of any development within the 1:100 year flood 

line of any water course or within 500m of a 

wetland. Therefore flood lines related to 

streams/rivers in the vicinity of the proposed 

project must be established before any 

construction may commence. A report including 

a map indicating flood lines and all water 

courses must be submitted to this office for 

approval. 

d) Kindly provide this department with an 

indication of the proposed sewage disposal 

method for the proposed activity. Please note 

that the disposal of sewage at all times comply 

with the requirements of Sections 22 and 40 of 

the National Water Act, Act 36 of 1998. 

National Department 

of Water Affairs 


pg 5-75 

11 May 2012 

(By post) 

Chapter 5 : 


a) Comment noted. The department is 

referred to Chapter 6 (pages 16 to 17) of 

this Final Scoping Report for the Terms 

of reference Prepared for the freshwater 

ecology impact assessment. 

b) Water for construction purposes as well 

as occasional maintenance of the 

proposed project will be sourced from 

the municipal supply. A letter confirming 

that such supply is available will be 

obtained from the Mossel Bay Local 

municipality and will be published in 

subsequent reports. 

c) Comment noted. This request falls beyond 

the scope of the Scoping Phase. Actual 

assessment of impacts (proximity to 

water courses, wetlands and flood lines) 

will only be established during the 

Impact Assessment Phase of the project 

and will be published in the Draft EIA 

Report. It should be noted that the 

purpose of the Scoping Report is the 

identification of potential environmental 

impacts, not the assessment thereof. 

Cognisance should also be taken of the 

Addendum to the Draft Scoping Report 

published in April 2012. This report 

contained the Terms of Reference for a 

detailed freshwater ecology impact 

assessment proposed for this EIA which 

covers the requirements stated here.


pg 5-76 

Chapter 5 : 



d) Sewage disposal will only be necessary 

during the construction phase of the 

proposed project and will be via 

chemical storage which will be ultimately 

disposed of in the municipal sewage 

system. The management and disposal of 

sewage and other wastes are generally 

addressed in the Environmental 

Management Plan which forms an 

Addendum to the Draft and Final EIA 

Reports. 

5.7 a) Please ensure that that this proposal is also 

assessed in terms of the DEA’s “Strategic 

Environmental Framework for optimal location 

of wind farms in Coastal provinces” and the 

“Strategic Assessment of the Western Cape for 

sites suitable for Wind Energy developments”. 

b) This Directorate has a concern about the fact 

that the proposed site may be located in a 

Critical Biodiversity Area (CBA) according to 

information provided. The EIR process must 

assess to what extent the desired management 

objectives for the designated areas will be 

affected by the proposal. Please ensure that the 

relevant specialists are briefed to use these CBA 

maps during their assessment. Furthermore, the 

impacts on biodiversity (vegetation) must 

include the assessment of any associated 

activities (i.e. site specific or linear) which may 

lead to the degradation of the natural 

vegetation. 

Western Cape 

Provincial Dept of 

Environmental Affairs 

and Development 

Planning 

17 February 2012 

(by post) 


b) Relevant CBA maps (as per SANBI) were used 

during the screening study and will also be 

used during the EIR phase of the project. The 

information contained on the CBA maps does 

however not correlate with actual field 

observations, presumably due to changes in 

land use since the drafting of the maps. Field 

observations indicate that the majority of the 

study area is transformed by agriculture with 

only pockets of isolated natural vegetation 

remaining, primarily in drainage lines. 

(Please note: The screening study was not a 

desktop review, but consisted of both 

literature review and actual field work to 

establish the true nature of current natural 

vegetation). Biodiversity impacts resulting 

from all project activities will be considered 

in this EIA process. 

c) Comment noted.


c) The onus is on the applicant to prove that the 

proposed development will not significantly 

compromise the desired management 

objectives for the above designated areas. 

Failure to supply this information will prejudice 

this application. 

d) It is noted that a visual impact assessment and 

heritage study will be commissioned. The 

heritage assessment will apparently only focus 

on the archaeology and palaeontology. The 

heritage study should also assess the impacts 

on landscape. The terms of reference for the 

visual and heritage impact assessments should 

integrate this aspect. Please refer to this 

department’s Guideline for the involvement of 

heritage specialists in EIA processes (2005). 

e) The plan of study for the EIA should make 

provision for specialists conducting the 

specialist studies and opportunity to consider 

the terms of reference and findings of other 

specialists and integrate each other’s findings 

into their respective reports prior to the EIR 

being compiled and submitted. 

5.8 Eskom has no objection to the proposed project 

provided that the following requests are adhered to: 

a) Eskom must at all times have unrestricted 

access to affected properties to enable 

maintenance; 

b) No excavations closer than 6m to any Eskom 

structure or structure supporting mechanism to 

ESKOM (Christopher 

Epnaar) 


pg 5-77 

8 May 2012 

(By email) 

Chapter 5 : 


d) The heritage assessment will also consider 

the findings from the visual impact 

assessment and the paleontological 

assessment in order to assess the impact on 

landscape character. This requirement is 

indicated in the specialist terms of reference 

contained in Chapter 6 of the Final Scoping 


e) Provision for such integration will be made. 

Please see the specialist terms of reference in 

Chapter 6 of the Final Scoping Report. 

a) Comment noted 

b) Comment noted 

c) Comment noted 

d) Comment noted 

e) Comment noted 

f) Comment noted 

g) Comment noted 

h) Comment noted


pg 5-78 

Chapter 5 : 



be carried out without prior consent from 

Eskom 

i) Comment noted 

c) Safe working distances to be maintained at all 

times 

d) No machinery within 5.2 meter of any 

conductor 

e) Should it be necessary to move or support any 

of the services, at least months’ notice in writing 

is required and the costs will be for the account 

of the developer/applicant 

f) Eskom’s rights on the properties are not to be 

affected 

g) All services indicated on including drawing to 

be verified on site 

h) No trees or any structure to be planted or built 

under/close to existing Eskom overhead lines 

without prior consent from Eskom 

i) Enclosed please find a copy of the Occupational 

Health & Safety Act (Act no 85 of 1993). 

5.9 a) The Eden District Municipality are aware of the Eden District 

25 May 2012 a) Comment noted 

national target for renewable energy as Municipality (Mr G. (By Email) 

b) Comment noted. The lack of sufficient solar 

suggested by the Resource Plan for Electricity Louw: Municipal 

irradiation and biomass reserves in the Eden 

(IRP2) (2011) to reach 42% of the national Manager) 

District Municipal area precludes MW-scale 

energy supply by 2030 and in our efforts to 

electricity generation from these renewable 

adapt to climate change scenarios, our Council 

sources. Wind energy is however abundantly 

continue to explore all avenues of renewable 

present in the Eden area and an obvious first 

energy. Our Council remain concerned though 

choice in terms of renewable energy. The 

that there is presently no National Guidelines 

unavoidable environmental impacts resulting 

informing wind farm development. 

from the development of renewable energy 

b) Our avenues of preference for renewable 

projects needs to be weighed against the 

energy comprises largely of less invasive 

returns (in electricity) expected from such a


interventions like solar energy and waste / 

biomass conversion to energy as priority 

approaches to dealing with our present energy 

crisis. This is commensurate with the 

environment in which Eden is situated; one of 

outstanding natural beauty as well as a world 

biodiversity hotspot which is fragile and in 

constant need of protection to ensure efficient 

ecological patterns and processes in our 

landscapes. 

c) As per the EWT / Birdlife guidelines on premonitoring 

of avifauna, the Eden District 

Council strongly recommends that these be 

applied to the proposed development as per 

CapeNature’s request in this regard. We note 

some anomalies between various windfarm 

applications with regard to bird collision 

mitigation measures and require that mitigation 

methods are site specific and based on scientific 

rigour. We furthermore note that only limited 

species of bird have been mentioned as cause 

for concern. Please note that Secretary birds, 

Black Storks, Kynsna Warblers and African 

Marsh Harriers also frequent this area and 

require the deserved attention in the premonitoring 

phase. Please note that the survey 

conducted by the assigned ornithologist only 

records 150 species. It must be noted that at 

least 260 species of birds occur in the area. Blue 

Cranes / Storks / Herons require sizable areas 

to take off and land, and also cover substantial 


pg 5-79 

Chapter 5 : 


development. In this regard, wind is the best 

choice for renewable energy in the Eden area. 

c) The EWT/Birdlife guidelines are applied in 

this EIA. CSIR cannot comment on anomalies 

in other wind energy applications, but will 

ensure that all mitigation is site specific. The 

list of species mentioned is based on desktop 

studies and will be informed (during the 

impact assessment phase of this EIA) by field 

observations. Initial observation by the 

ornithologists will be augmented by detailed 

field observations in the impact assessment 

phase of this EIA. Turbine re-location might 

only be suggested as a mitigation measure 

once the full EIA has been completed. The 

EWT/Birdlife monitoring requirements 

enables the bird specialist to identify flight 

paths over 4 seasons of monitoring. Armed 

with this information, it might be possible to 

re-locate a turbine outside of a known flight 

path. 

d) Comment noted. 

e) A full economic impact assessment was 

commissioned for this EIA process. Please 

note that feasibility of the project is not 

determined on a carbon credit and electricity 

savings vs. capital investment basis. The 

project is proposed in response to a stated 

national need for renewable energy as 

stipulated in the IRP 2 (2011) and other 

policy documents.


distances to forage. How will re-positioning a 

turbine away from a breeding colony be a 

mitigation measure if these structures are still 

located in flightpaths? 

d) The Gourirtz Cluster Biosphere Reserve is in the 

process of registration and core, buffer and 

transitional areas demarcating sensitive zones 

and in keeping with the finescale vegetation 

mapping have been developed for UNESCO. The 

Eden District Municipality request that CSIR 

please consider the UNESCO requirements of a 

biosphere reserve and ensure compatibility 

with the biosphere mapping process. 

e) The Eden District Municipality recommend that 

a full economic feasibility study is carried out to 

determine the potential gain of carbon credits 

and electricity savings as opposed to the capital 

investment of this proposal. 

f) As a district committed to public service 

delivery, the Eden District Municipality have 

received public concerns regarding the 

potential impacts of the proposed development 

on the Vleesbaai tourism industry and property 

valuations, and recommend that a tourism / 

property impact study is included in the Final 

EIA. 

g) May we kindly request that details surrounding 

job creation opportunities and the sustainability 

of employment in the area is quantified to 

inform the decision making process. 

h) In keeping with our statutory mandate on land 


pg 5-80 

Chapter 5 : 


f) The economic impact assessment will 

investigate potential impacts on property 

values. 

g) The economic impact assessment will 

investigate and quantify the expected 

employment opportunities resulting from the 

proposed project. 

h) Comment noted.


use planning and the protection of our natural 

resources, the Eden District Municipality await 

further correspondence in order to make an 

informed decision. We furthermore reserve the 

right to amend our initial comments in this 

regard. 


pg 5-81 

Chapter 5 : 

Issues & Responses Trail

Issue: EIA PROCESS & POLICY Commentator Date Response 

1.1 a) The DEADP/CNdV 2006 criteria (3d) specify that 

turbines should be placed at least 2.5 km away from 

a local tourist route. The DSR argues that the road 

from N2 to Gouritz Bridge is not a tourist route. This 

is debatable. This road links Mossel Bay to Stilbaai. 

The portion between the N2 and the Gouritz river 

bridge near Voëlvlei is currently being upgraded and 

the tar road continues another 10 km beyond the 

bridge. From there a gravel road provides a 

convenient short cut to Stilbaai. This route is already 

popular with holidaymakers and other travellers 

who wish to commute to and from Stilbaai. Arguably 

the gravel portion will in due course also be 

upgraded which will make the link to Stilbaai a very 

convenient and popular tourist route. Due 

consideration should be given to the criterion 

regarding local tourist routes. 

b) The DEADP/CNdV 2006 criteria (8a) stipulate that 

turbines should be situated 4 km away from such 

coastlines. The DSR argues that the Vleesbaai 

coastline is not a scenic coastline. Yet this has been 

severally described as one of the last remaining 

pristine and beautiful pieces of coastline which has 

not yet been marred neither by unbridled urban 

sprawl nor by vast industrial eye sores. The view to 

the north and north-east across the bay is 

undeniably as scenic as can be found anywhere else. 

Due consideration should be given to the criterion 

regarding scenic coastlines. 

c) Reference has already been made to the 

Dr M Pauw (Company 

Secretary: Vleesbaai 

Dienste) 


pg 5-82 


(By email) 

Chapter 5 : 


a) The DSR is quoted incorrectly. The section referred 

to in the DSR only considers the scenic value of the 

N2 highway; not the connection route to the Gouritz 

River bridge. Accordingly, it refers to the 13 km 

buffer proposed along national roads (as per the 

DEADP/CNdV guideline). The section of road the 

commentator refers to might be considered as a 

local tourist route, but this must be determined by 

research and confirmed by fact. The economic 

impact study will look into this matter. Please note 

that the paragraph in question (Chapter 3, page 28 

of the DSR) concludes by stating: “This will need to 

be assessed by a visual consultant during the EIA”. 

This gives evidence of the tentative and descriptive 

nature of this section of the DSR, i.e. it is not an 

assessment. 

b) The DSR is quoted incorrectly. The DSR does not 

indicate that the said coastline is “not a scenic 

coastline”; rather, it describes the coastline’s 

physical attributes and goes on to state that the 

coastline is “relatively unspoilt along many stretches” 

(Chapter 3, page 28 of the DSR). The presence of 

urban development (i.e. Vleesbaai, Boggomsbaai, 

Gouritz Mond, etc.) as well as the extensively 

cultivated nature of the plateau on which the 

project is proposed can however not be ignored. As 

such, the DSR refrains from making a judgement on 

scenic value but rather states that: “These factors 

will need to be taken into account when determining 

the appropriateness of siting turbines within 4 km of

1.2 

1.3 

1.4 

1.5 

Issue: EIA PROCESS & POLICY Commentator Date Response 

DEADP/CNdV 2006 criteria. The DSR deals rather 

shoddily with this, switching its vocabulary from 

criterion to guideline. Page 3-28 serves as an 

example: 

Par 3.6.3 deals with Interpretation of guidelines 

to Vleesbaai project. The very next line speaks of 

criteria. The rest of this section, onto the next page 

reverts back to using guidelines. And being mere 

guidelines, it becomes apparent that the EAP does 

not take the specific requirements very seriously. 

When questioned about this at the 19 December 

meeting the EAP went to great lengths to argue that 

criteria and guidelines are exactly the same thing. 

No dictionary will agree with this. 

We urgently request a clear written directive from 

DEADP about the status, authority and applicability 

of the DEADP/CNdV 2006 Guidelines. 


pg 5-83 

Chapter 5 : 


the coast.” 

c) Page 10 of the Executive Summary of the 

DEADP/CNdV 2006 Guideline states the vision of 

the document as: “...to establish a policy on the 

implementation of regional criteria for identification 

of areas suitable for establishment of wind energy 

projects.” Accordingly, it is clear that the document 

in question is intended to be a policy or decision 

support instrument which contains various criteria. 

Consequently, the EAP is not wrong in referring to 

the document as a guideline and then continuing to 

unpack the various criteria contained within this 

guideline. The commentator’s inference that the 

said document’s status as a guideline causes the 

EAP to “not take the specific requirements very 

seriously” is not supported by a reasoned argument. 

On the contrary, if the EAP considered the guideline 

to be unimportant, reference would not have been 

made to it in the DSR (in fact 2 subsections (3.6.2 & 

3.6.3) is devoted to it), nor would section 3.6.3 of 

the DSR repeatedly state that the relative criteria 

applicable to the project site must be assessed in the 

EIA.


pg 6-1 

Chapter 6 : 

Plan of Study for EIA 

CHAPTER 6. PLAN OF STUDY FOR EIA 6-3 

6.1 IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES 6-3 

6.2 OVERVIEW OF APPROACH TO PREPARING THE EIA REPORT AND EMP 6-3 

6.3 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS 6-4 

Task 1: Review of Draft EIA Report and EMP 6-4 

Task 2: Comments and Responses Trail 6-5 

Task 3: Compilation of Final EIA Report for public review 6-5 

Task 4: Compilation of Final EIA Report for submission to authorities 6-6 

Task 5: Environmental Authorisation and Appeal Period 6-6 

6.4 AUTHORITY CONSULTATION DURING THE EIA PHASE 6-6 

6.5 APPROACH TO SPECIALIST STUDIES AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT 6-7 

6.5.1 Generic Terms of Reference for the assessment of impacts 6-7 

6.6 PROVISIONAL TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE SPECIALIST STUDIES 6-12 

6.6.1 Avifauna 6-13 

6.6.2 Bats 6-13 

6.6.3 Noise 6-14 

6.6.4 Visual 6-14 

6.6.5 Soil 6-15 

6.6.6 Traffic 6-15 

6.6.7 Socio-economic 6-15 

6.6.8 Heritage (archaeology) 6-16 

6.6.9 Palaeontology 6-17 

6.6.10 Wetland and Freshwater Ecology Assessment 6-17 

6.6.11 Terrestrial ecology (for transmission line corridor and additional land parcels only as 

similar study was already completed for the project site) 6-19 

6.6.12 Integration of findings 6-19


pg 6-2 

Chapter 6 : 


Table 6.1: Authority communication schedule 6-7 

Table 6.2: Table for rating of impacts 6-11


pg 6-3 

Chapter 6 : 


CHAPTER 6. PLAN OF STUDY FOR EIA 

6.1 IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES 

The DEAT General Guide to the EIA Regulations (Guideline 3, 2006) states that when the 

competent authority has accepted the Scoping Report and Plan of Study for EIA, the EIA phase 

may commence. The purpose of the EIA phase is to: 

Address issues that have been raised through the Scoping Process; 

Assess alternatives to the proposed activity in a comparative manner; 

Assess all identified impacts and determine the significance of each impact; and 

Recommend actions to avoid/mitigate negative impacts and enhance benefits. 

The Plan of Study for EIA (PSEIA) sets out the process to be followed in the EIA phase and is 

shaped by the findings of the Scoping process. The EIA phase consists of three parallel and 

overlapping processes: 

Assessment process involving the authorities where inputs are integrated and presented 

in documents that are submitted for approval by authorities (Sections 6.2 and 6.4); 

Public participation process whereby findings of the EIA phase are communicated and 

discussed with I&APs and responses are documented (Section 6.3); and 

Specialist studies that provide additional information required to address the issues 

raised in the Scoping phase (Sections 6.5 and 6.6). 

6.2 OVERVIEW OF APPROACH TO PREPARING THE EIA REPORT AND EMP 

The results of the specialist studies and other relevant project information will be synthesised 

and integrated into the Draft EIA Report. The Draft EIA Report will be released for a 40-day I&AP 

and authority review period, as outlined in Sections 6.3 and 6.4. All I&APs on the project database 

will be notified in writing of the release of the Draft EIA for review. It is proposed that during this 

review period a public meeting is held as well as focus group meetings with key I&APs. The 

purpose of these meetings will be to provide an overview of the outcome and recommendations 

from the specialist studies, as well as provide opportunity for comment. Comments raised 

through written correspondence (emails, comments forms) and at meetings (public meeting and 

focus group meetings) will be captured in a Comments and Responses Trail for inclusion in the 

Final EIA Report. Please note that the Final EIA Report will be released for an additional 21 day 

public review period after which it will be amended (if necessary) and submitted to government 

for decision-making. 

Comments raised will be responded to by the CSIR EIA team and/or the applicant. These 

responses will indicate how the issue has been dealt with in the EIA process. Should the comment 

received fall beyond the scope of this EIA, clear reasoning will be provided. All comments 

received will be attached as an appendix to the Final EIA Report.


pg 6-4 

Chapter 6 : 


The Draft EIA Report will include a draft EMP, which will be prepared in compliance with the 

relevant regulations. This EMP will be based broadly on the environmental management 

philosophy presented in the ISO 14001 standard, which embodies an approach of continuous 

improvement. Actions in the EMP will be drawn primarily from the management actions 

identified in the specialist studies for the construction and operational phases of the project. If the 

wind farm components are decommissioned or re-developed, this will need to be done in 

accordance with the relevant environmental standards and clean-up/ remediation requirements 

applicable at the time. 

6.3 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS 

The key steps in the public participation process for the EIA phase are described below. This 

approach will be confirmed with the provincial and national environmental authorities through 

their review of the PSEIA. The participation process for the Scoping Process is described in 

Section 4.3 of this report. 

Task 1: Review of Draft EIA Report and EMP 

The first stage in the process will entail the release of a Draft EIA Report for a 40-day public and 

authority review period. Relevant organs of state and I&APs will be informed of the review 

process in the following manner: 

Advertisements placed in one local and one regional newspaper; 

A letter (Letter 4) to all I&APs (including authorities), with notification of the 40-day 

public review period for the Draft EIA and invitation to attend the public meeting (this 

letter will include a summary of the Draft EIA Report and a Comment Form); 

Public Meeting on the Draft EIA Report, where key findings of the EIA report will be 

communicated and I&APs will have the opportunity to provide comments and engage 

with the EIA team and project proponent; 

Focus Group Meeting(s) with I&APs, e.g. affected and surrounding landowners; and 

Meeting(s) with key authorities involved in decision-making for this EIA. 

The Draft EIA Report and Draft EMP will be made available and distributed through the following 

mechanisms to ensure access to information on the project and to communicate the outcome of 

specialist studies: 

Copies of the report will be placed at the Vleesbaai Dienste Kantoor and Gouritzmond 

Library 

Relevant organs of state and key I&APs will be provided with a hard copy of the report or 

a CD; and 

Report to be placed on the project 

website: www.csir.co.za/EIA/ (follow the Vleesbaai links)

Task 2: Comments and Responses Trail 


pg 6-5 

Chapter 6 : 


A key component of the EIA process is documenting and responding to the comments received 

from I&APs and the authorities. The following comments on the Draft EIA Report and EMP will be 

documented: 

Written and email comments (e.g. letters and completed comment forms); 

Comments made at public meetings; 

Comments made at focus group meetings; 

Telephonic communication with CSIR project team; and 

One-on-one meetings with key authorities and/or I&APs. 

The comments received will be compiled into a Comments and Responses Trail for inclusion in 

the Final EIA Report. The Comments and Responses trail will indicate the nature of the comment, 

when and who raised the comment. The comments received will be considered by the EIA team 

and appropriate responses provided by the relevant member of the team and/or specialist. The 

response provided will indicate how the comment received has been considered in the Final EIA 

Report, and in the project design or EMP for the project. 

Task 3: Compilation of Final EIA Report for 

public review 

The Final EIA Report, including the Comments and Responses Trail and EMP, will be made 

available to all registered I&APs for a 21 day review period. Letter 5 will be sent to all I&APs on 

the project database notifying them of the release of the Final EIA report. The Final EIA Report 

will be distributed as follows: 


Library. 

Relevant organs of state and key I&APs will be provided with a hard copy or CD version of 

the report. 

Report to be placed on the project website: www.csir.co.za/EIA/ (follow Vleesbaai links) 

The following comments on the Final EIA Report and EMP will be documented: 

Written and email comments (e.g. letters and completed comment forms); 

Comments made at public meetings; 

Comments made at focus group meetings; 

Telephonic communication with CSIR project team; and 

One-on-one meetings with key authorities and/or I&APs. 

The comments received will be compiled into a Comments and Responses Trail for inclusion in 

the Final EIA Report for submission to the authorities. The Comments and Responses trail will


pg 6-6 

Chapter 6 : 


indicate the nature of the comment, when and who raised the comment. The comments received 

will be considered by the EIA team and appropriate responses provided by the relevant member 

of the team and/or specialist. The response provided will indicate how the comment received has 

been considered in the Final EIA Report and in the project design or EMP for the project. 

Task 4: Compilation of Final EIA Report for 

submission to authorities 

The Final EIA Report, including the Comments and Responses Trail and EMP, will be submitted to 

the authorities for decision making. Letter 6 will be sent to all I&APs on the project database 

notifying them of the submission of the Final EIA report. The Final EIA Report will be distributed 

as follows: 


Library. 

Relevant organs of state and key I&APs will be provided with a hard copy or CD version of 

the report. 

Report to be placed on the project website: www.csir.co.za/EIA/ (follow Vleesbaai links) 

Task 5: Environmental Authorisation and 

Appeal Period 

All I&APs on the project database will receive notification of the issuing of the Environmental 

Authorisation and the appeal period. The current NEMA Regulations stipulate that I&APs need to 

be informed within 7 days after receipt of the environmental decision. They need to be informed 

about the outcome of the environmental decision and the appeal procedure and its respective 

timelines. I&APs have to lodge their intent to appeal within 10 days of receipt of notification of 

environmental decision. I&APs then have to submit their appeal within 30 days. The following 

process will be followed for the distribution of the Environmental Authorisation and notification 

of the appeal period: 

Copies of the Environmental Authorisation will be placed at the Vleesbaai Dienste 

Kantoor and Gouritzmond Library; 

Letter 7 to be sent to all I&APs (including organs of state), with a copy of the 

Environmental Authorisation and information on the Appeal Period. 

Environmental Authorisation to be placed on the project website: www.csir.co.za/EIA/; 

and 

All I&APs on the project database will be notified of the outcome of the appeal period, this 

notification will be included in Letter 8 to I&APs. 

6.4 AUTHORITY CONSULTATION DURING THE EIA PHASE 

Authority consultation is integrated into the public consultation process, with additional one-onone 

meetings held with the lead authorities where necessary. It is proposed that the competent 

authority (national DEA) as well as other lead authorities will be consulted at various stages


pg 6-7 

Chapter 6 : 


during the EIA process. The authority consultation process for the Scoping Process is outlined in 

Chapter 4, Section 4.3 of this report. The Table below indicates the proposed consultation 

schedule for the EIA phase. 

6.5 APPROACH TO SPECIALIST STUDIES AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

This section outlines the assessment methodology and legal context for specialist studies, in 

accordance with Section 3: Assessment of Impacts, in DEAT Guideline 5, June 2006. 

Table 6.1: Authority communication schedule 

Stage in EIA Phase Form of Consultation 

During the EIA process 

During preparation of Draft EIA Report 

and EMP 

On submission of Final EIA Report and 

Draft EMP 

6.5.1 Generic Terms of Reference for the assessment of impacts 

Offer a site visit for authorities, as and when required. 

Communicate with DEA, discussing the outcome of Specialist 

Studies and EMP. 

Meetings with dedicated departments, if requested by DEA, with 

jurisdiction over particular aspects of the project (e.g. Local 

Authority) and potentially including relevant specialists. 

The identification of potential impacts should include impacts that may occur during the 

construction and operational phases of the activity. The assessment of impacts is to include 

direct, indirect as well as cumulative impacts. 

In order to identify potential impacts (both positive and negative) it is important that the nature 

of the proposed activity is well understood so that the impacts associated with the activity can be 

assessed. The process of identification and assessment of impacts will include: 

Determine the current environmental conditions in sufficient detail to provide a baseline 

against which impacts can be identified and measured; 

Determine future changes to the environment that may occur if the activity does not 

proceed; 

An understanding of the activity in sufficient detail to understand its consequences; and 

The identification of significant impacts which are likely to occur if the activity is 

undertaken. 

As per DEAT Guideline 5: Assessment of Alternatives and Impacts the following methodology is to 

be applied to the predication and assessment of impacts. Potential impacts should be 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.


pg 6-8 

Chapter 6 : 


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. The cumulative impacts will be 

assessed by identifying other wind project proposals in the local area (within 20km of the 

proposed SWE project) that are already approved (i.e. positive Environmental 

Authorisation issued) or with EIAs in progress in the public domain, based on an internet 

search. 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. 

Spatial extent – The size of the area that will be affected by the impact: 

o Site specific 

o Local ( less than 2 km from site) 

o Regional (within 30 km of site) 

o National 

o International (important for migrant birds) 

Intensity –The anticipated severity of the impact: 

o High (severe alteration of natural systems, patterns or processes) 

o Medium (notable alteration of natural systems, patterns or processes) 

o Low (negligible alteration of natural systems, patterns or processes). 

Duration –The timeframe during which the impact will be experienced: 

o Temporary (less than 1 year) 

o Short term (1 to 6 years) 

o Medium term (6 to 15 years) 

o Long term (the impact will cease after the operational life of the activity) 

o Permanent (mitigation will not occur in such a way or in such a time span that the 

impact can be considered transient). 

Reversibility – The “reversibility” of the environmental impacts of the proposed 

development after project cessation or decommissioning (‘High’ representing a ‘positive’ 

value and ‘Low’ representing a ‘negative’ value): 

o High (the alteration of natural systems can be reversed to an extent that represents 

similar or better environmental conditions, pre-development - through 

rehabilitation) 

o Medium (alteration of natural systems can be reversed to some extent) 

o Low (it is unlikely that the alteration of natural systems can be reversed) 

Irreplaceability – The “replaceability” of the of natural characteristics in the area that 

may be impacted upon the proposed development: 

o High (high irreplaceability means that the opportunity to replace or restore 

systems that are affected by the proposed development will be in very short supply 

and the site will not recover to its original state


pg 6-9 

Chapter 6 : 


o Medium (alteration of natural systems, patterns or processes may be able to be 

replaced) 

o Low (the site does most likely not represent a particularly sensitive system and can 

be replicated or replaced). 

Using the criteria above, the impacts will further be assessed in terms of the following: 

Probability –The probability of the impact occurring: 

o Improbable (little or no chance of occurring) 

o Probable (less than 50% chance of occurring) 

o Highly probable (50 – 90% chance of occurring) 

o Definite (greater than 90% chance of occurring). 

Significance – Will the impact cause a notable alteration of the environment? 

o Low to very low (the 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 Medium (the impact will result in a 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); and 

o High (the impacts will result in a major alteration to the environment even with the 

implementation on the appropriate mitigation measures and will have an influence 

on decision-making). 

Status - Whether the impact on the overall environment will be: 

o positive - environment overall will benefit from the impact 

o negative - environment overall will be adversely affected by the impact 

o neutral - environment overall not be affected. 

Confidence – The degree of confidence in predictions based on available information and 

specialist knowledge: 

o Low 

o Medium 

o High 

Management Actions and Monitoring of the Impacts (EMP) 

o Where negative impacts are identified, mitigatory measures will be identified to 

avoid or reduce negative impacts. Where no mitigatory measures are possible this 

will be stated; 

o Where positive impacts are identified, measures will be identified to potentially 

enhance positive impacts; and 

o Quantifiable standards for measuring and monitoring mitigatory measures and 

enhancements will be set. This will include a programme for monitoring and 

reviewing the recommendations to ensure their ongoing effectiveness. 

The Table 6.1 below is to be used by specialists for the rating of impacts. 

Other aspects to be taken into consideration in the assessment of impact significance are:


pg 6-10 

Chapter 6 : 


Impacts will be evaluated for the construction and operation phases of the development. 

The assessment of impacts for the decommissioning phase will be brief, as there is limited 

understanding at this stage of what this might entail. The relevant rehabilitation 

guidelines and legal requirements applicable at the time will need to be applied; 

The impact evaluation will, where possible, take into consideration the cumulative effects 

associated with this and other facilities/projects which are either developed or in the 

process of being developed in the local area; and 

The impact assessment will attempt to quantify the magnitude of potential impacts 

(direct and cumulative effects) and outline the rationale used. Where appropriate, 

national standards are to be used as a measure of the level of impact.

Nature of 

impact 

Status 

(Negative 

or 

positive) 

Scenario 1: Vegetation loss during construction 

1.1 

Temporary 

loss of 

vegetation 

cover in the 

construction 

footprint 

and lay 

down areas 

of the wind 

farm 

1.2. 

1.3. 

Scenario … 

Negative Local, i.e. 

less than 

2 km of 

turbine 

Table 6.2: Example of table for rating of impacts 

Extent Duration Intensity Probability Significance 

(no mitigation) 

Short, i.e. 

within 5 

days of a 

release 

High, since 

there will be 

severe 

alteration of 

the natural 

system 

Construction Phase 

Highly 

probable, 

since 

construction 

cannot 

progress if 

vegetation is 

not cleared. 


pg 6-11 

Medium, since 

impact could be 

mitigated 

Operational Phase 

Mitigation/Management 

Actions 

Demarcate the construction 

footprint with tape and 

ensure workers stay within 

this area, wherever practical. 

Educate workers on the need 

to stay on paths and 

established tracks wherever 

practical. If possible, establish 

lay down areas in degraded 

areas. Construction protocols 

will require top soil to be 

removed and separately 

stored from sub-soil. 

Chapter 6 : 


Significance 

(with mitigation) 

Low, since the 

areas will be 

rehabilitated after 

construction 

Confidence 

level 

High, since the 

prediction is 

made on 

available 

information


pg 6-12 

Chapter 6 : 


6.6 PROVISIONAL TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE SPECIALIST STUDIES 

(Note: These will be modified after the Scoping process has been concluded to include aspects 

raised by I&APs. Besides the eleven studies described below additional studies, if required, may 

be commissioned as a result of issues raised during scoping). 

Based on an evaluation of issues to date, the following Specialist Studies are proposed as part of 

the EIA phase: 

Specialist Study Proposed specialist 

Avifauna Chris van Rooyen, Chris van Rooyen Consulting 

Bats Kate McEwen, Natural Scientific Services (NSS) 

Noise Brett Williams, SafeTech 

Visual Henry Holland, MapThis 

Soil Johan Lantz 

Traffic Under direction of CNdV Africa 

Socio-economic Dr Hugo van Zyl, Independent Economic Researchers 

Heritage 

(Archaeology) 

Jonathan Kaplan, 

Agency for Cultural Resource 

Management 

Heritage (Palaeontology) Dr John Almond, Naturaviva 

Freshwater ecology Dr Brian Colloty, Scherman, Colloty & Associates 

Terrestrial ecology Simon Todd (Simon Todd Consulting) 

The Terms of Reference (ToRs) for the specialist studies will essentially consist of the generic 

assessment requirements and the specific issues identified for each study. These issues have been 

identified through the baseline studies, I&AP and authority consultation, as well as input from the 

proposed specialists based on their experience. As part of the review of the Draft Scoping Report, 

specialists are to propose any additional issues for inclusion in the specialist studies. Additional 

issues, identified through public and authority consultation during the Scoping phase, as well as 

specialist inputs, will be included in the final Terms of Reference for specialists (i.e. in the PSEIA 

in the Final Scoping Report). 

Note: A terrestrial ecology study for the proposed site is not included in the in this study as SWE 

already commissioned a vegetation screening study prior to the scoping/EIA phase of this 

project. According to the findings of the vegetation study, very little natural vegetation is present 

on the proposed site due to extensive agricultural transformation. As a result of this finding and 

due to SWE’s intention not to place any turbines in areas of natural vegetation, it was decided not 

to include a vegetation study in the impact assessment phase of this project. A terrestrial ecology 

study will only be conducted for the additional land parcels added to the study site and the 

transmission line route from the study site to the Proteus substation in the north.

6.6.1 Avifauna 

6.6.2 Bats 


pg 6-13 

Chapter 6 : 


Rapid desktop review of available information that can support and inform the specialist 

study, i.e. potential impacts on avifauna; 

Describe the receiving environment (habitat) from an avifaunal perspective and identify 

the bird communities that are most likely to be affected; 

Identify high risk species, particularly Red Data Book species that might be affected by the 

proposed facility; 

Identify potential impacts on avifauna, especially Red Data Book species, which will 

require further investigation; 

Impacts will be quantified if possible (according to the magnitude, spatial scale, timing, 

duration, reversibility, probability and significance) and a full description of predicted 

impacts (direct and indirect) will be provided; 

Highlight and discuss gaps in baseline data. An indication of the confidence levels will be 

given. The best available data sources will be used to predict the impacts, and extensive 

use will be made of local knowledge; 

Recommend and discuss practical mitigation measures; 

Indicate a monitoring programme; and 

Map bird sensitive areas in a sensitivity map for easy reference. 

Expected Impact: 

i. Potential for displacement & loss of habitat 

ii. Potential for death and/or injury due to being hit by turbine blades 

Identify the potential impacts of wind farms on bats and bat mortality; 

Do a desktop study to establish which species may occur in the area and their relevant 

conservation status; 

Conduct a site visit to determine the presence of any large bat roosts or breeding colonies, 

and areas of foraging activity close to the site; 

Recommend and discuss practical mitigation measures to reduce the impact of the wind 

farm on the local bat community; and 

Indicate a monitoring programme. 

Pre-construction phase monitoring to determine the flight height in progress 


i. Potential for displacement & loss of habitat 

ii. Potential for death and/or injury due to barotrauma

6.6.3 Noise 

6.6.4 Visual 


pg 6-14 

Chapter 6 : 


Conduct a desktop study of available information that can support and inform the 

specialist noise study; 

Identify all noise sensitive receptors; 

Identify all potential noise impacts; 

Conduct a noise modelling study of the future impact during construction and operation 

of the wind turbine generators, taking into account sensitive receptors. The modelling 

will be done using WindPRO 2.7; 

Measure the existing ambient noise at the proposed site during both the day and night 

time; 

Assess the potential impact impacts associated with the proposed project for the 

construction, operation and decommissioning phases; and 

Identify management actions to avoid or reduce negative impacts. 


i. Noise levels must be below SANS 10103:2008 levels at noise sensitive areas 

ii. Possible human announce due to noise impacts 

Describe the proposed project; 

Describe the receiving environment; 

Identify the view catchment area and Zone of Visual Influence; 

Identify important view corridors, viewpoints and receptors; 

Determine the visual absorption capacity (VAC) of the landscape, based on topography, 

vegetation cover, and urban fabric/settlement pattern; 

Determine the relative visibility, or visual intrusion, of the proposed project and its 

relative compatibility or conflict with the surroundings; 

A comparison of the existing situation with the probable effect of the proposed project, 

through visual simulation, generally using photo-montages; 

Identify potential visual impacts and cumulative impact using established criteria; and 

Provide mitigation measures and monitoring programmes where appropriate. 


i. Potential impact on visual character 

ii. Potential impact on sense of place 

iii. Potential impact in tourism and eco-tourism 

iv. Potential impact on property value perception 

v. Potential impact on visual heritage

6.6.5 Soil 

6.6.6 Traffic 

6.6.7 Socio-economic 


pg 6-15 

Chapter 6 : 


Describe the general land uses (grazing, dry land crop production and irrigated crop 

production with water licenses allocated to the land). 

Describe the soil bodies (soil forms) and rehabilitation requirements of these bodies must 

be prescribed. 

Investigations into the agricultural potential of the soil. 

Undertake a detailed soil survey. This will be done to determine the inherent physical and 

morphological properties of the soil including soil type (form), thickness of horizons 

(topsoil and subsoils). Field work will be done by mechanical and/or hand auger. 

The compilation of a soil map with legend. 

The compilation of a report comprising: 

o A synoptic description of the soils. 

o Evaluation of the suitability of the various soil units for the current agricultural 

land use namely grazing, dry land and irrigation crop production. 

Assess the potential impacts of the proposed development on soils and agricultural 

potential for both environmental and economic aspects. 

Identify and rate potential impacts, outline mitigation measures and/or rehabilitation 

procedures and outline additional management guidelines. 

Provide monitoring requirements as input into the Environmental Management Plan 

(EMP), as well as generic rehabilitation and guidelines e.g. re-vegetation guidelines. 


i. Determine agricultural potential of soil to prevent loss of high potential soils for 

food production 

The traffic impact assessment will be conducted under the direction of CNdV Africa, the 

planning consultants appointed by SWE to manage the rezoning application associated 

with this project. The findings of the traffic impact assessment will be incorporated into 

the EIA report. 


i. Potential traffic disruption due to abnormal load transportation 

ii. Potential damage to road surface due to abnormal load transport 

While it is difficult to be sure of all relevant impacts before commencing with the assessment of 

the development, based on our understanding of the project, it is likely that the following impacts 

would need to be assessed using a cost-benefit analysis framework:


pg 6-16 

Chapter 6 : 


Broad level review of the need and financial viability/risks associated with the project. 

This would be based primarily on information from the client. It is assumed that an 

adequate assessment of technical and financial feasibility of the project has been 

conducted to establish viability and justify further assessment of the project in the EIA 

phase. Feasibility considerations are assumed to include the generation of carbon credits 

as a potential income stream. 

Degree of fit with local, regional and national socio-economic development visions and 

plans including renewable energy plans 

Impacts on overall socio-economic development potential in the area including impacts 

on commercial enterprises nearby the site (incl. tourism, agriculture, small businesses 

and others). 

Impacts associated with project expenditure on direct and indirect employment and 

household incomes. These impacts would be investigated through an examination of how 

the project and the spending injection associated with it may impact on the local, regional 

and national economy. Impacts associated with upstream and downstream economic 

linkages and spin-offs would also be assessed taking import content and other relevant 

factors into consideration. Experience from other similar projects and any suitable 

economic models for the area would be used to assess these impacts. 

Impacts associated with environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated and have 

economic implications. This would focus on potential negative impacts on neighbouring 

land owners should they be relevant. 

6.6.8 Heritage (archaeology) 


i. Potential impact on property values 

ii. Potential impact on job creation 

iii. Potential impact on eco-tourism 

Determine whether there are likely to be any important archaeological resources that 

may potentially be affected by the proposed project (Phase 1), including the construction 

of the wind turbines, proposed access roads and the proposed overhead transmission 

line; 

To assess the sensitivity and conservation significance of archaeological and heritage 

landscape resources potentially affected by the proposed development; 

To assess the significance of any impacts resulting from the proposed development; and 

To identify measures to protect and maintain any valuable archaeological sites that may 

impacted by the proposed development. 

Integration of heritage (archaeology & palaeontology) study findings and visual impact 

assessment findings in order to assess impacts on landscape character.

6.6.9 Palaeontology 


pg 6-17 

Chapter 6 : 



i. Potential impact on archaeological remains and places of heritage interest 

ii. Potential impact on visual heritage 

Desktop review of all relevant palaeontological and geological literature, including 

geological maps, previous reports; 

Location and examination of fossil collections from study area (e.g. museums); 

Review plans and data on proposed development provided by the developer (e.g. location 

of footprint, depth and volume of bedrock excavation envisaged); 

Fieldwork: detailed field examination of representative natural and artificial exposures of 

potentially fossil-bearing sediments (rock outcrops, quarries, roadcuts etc); 

Recording of observed fossils and associated sedimentological features of 

palaeontological relevance (photos, maps, aerial or satellite images, GPS co-ordinates, 

stratigraphic columns); 

Judicious sampling of fossil material, where warranted; 

Curation and analysis: curation of any fossil material collected in an approved respository 

(usually museum or geological survey collection); 

Photography and provisional identification of fossils; 

Analysis of stratigraphy, age and depositional setting of fossil-bearing units; 

Final report and feedback: Illustrated, fully-referenced review of palaeontological 

heritage within study area based on desktop study and new data from fieldwork and 

analysis; 

Identification and ranking of highlights and sensitivities to development of fossil heritage 

within study area; 

Specific recommendations for further palaeontological mitigation (if any); and 

Recommendations and suggestions regarding fossil heritage management on site, 

including conservation measures as well as promotion of local fossil heritage (e.g. for 

public education, schools). 


i. Potential impact on fossil remains due to excavation and building 

6.6.10 Wetland and Freshwater Ecology Assessment 

Carry out fieldwork to locate and describe the freshwater features in the study area, 

with a key focus on the impact footprint for the site; 

Generate a map showing the sites in relation to any Critical Biodiversity Areas and 

links to ecological corridors and support areas; 

Provide a description of the current state of the wetland on site, supported by 

relevant photographs;


pg 6-18 

Chapter 6 : 


Identify and describe the conservation value and conservation planning frameworks 

relevant to this site; 

Describe the areas where ecosystem conditions have been transformed; 

Determine recommended management actions to address potential impacts; 

Consider the risks of increased run-off from washing regimes; 

Provide a detailed sensitivity map of the site, including mapping of disturbance and 

transformation on site with respect to wetland ecosystems; 

Provide monitoring requirements as input into the construction and operational 

phase Environmental Management Plan (EMP), as well as generic rehabilitation 

guidelines. 

In addition to the triggering of an Environmental Impact Assessment Process, the 

proposed development would also be likely to trigger other legislation, from a 

freshwater ecosystems perspective. In particular, General and/or Special 

Authorisations may be required from the National Department of Water Affairs 

(DWA) if any activity of the proposed project entails: 

o Abstraction of water from a water resource; 

o Interruptions to the natural passage of water along a water course; and 

o Development within 500 m of a wetland. 

Mitigation measures would need to be developed with a detailed understanding of 

the proposed structures and their management on site (e.g. required washing 

regimes, spacing), but would be likely to require at least that: 

Water courses are protected by adequately sized buffer areas, sized and designed 

according to the actual functional requirements of the buffers, including 

maintenance of ecological connectivity through what would become an increasingly 

(ecologically) sterile site – the specific habitat requirements of key fauna would need 

to be considered in this regard; 

Water flows onto and across the site are managed so as to allow dissipation and 

filtration upstream of water courses; 

The alignment and design of all infrastructure, including roads, pylons and pipes, 

should take cognisance of natural drainage lines, and be designed such that they do 

not result in erosion as a result of concentration of flows or other causes for 

increased velocities; 

Water quality impacts are effectively mitigated; 

Stringent controls on the rate and volume of flow generated on the site during storm 

events. 


i. Potential impact on drainage lines feeding wetlands 

ii. Avoidance of construction in or close to wetlands 

iii. Potential impact on erosion 

iv. Potential impact on Critical Aquatic Biodiversity Areas 

v. Potential water quality impacts


pg 6-19 

Chapter 6 : 


6.6.11 Terrestrial ecology (for transmission line corridor and additional land parcels only as similar study was 

already completed for the project site) 

The botanical study will entail the following: 

Carry out fieldwork to locate and describe the vegetation on the study area, key focus on 

the impact footprint(s) for site(s). 

Determine the species present and localities within each vegetation types. 

Determine whether the study area falls wholly or partially within the distribution range 

of species listed as Vulnerable, Endangered or Critically Endangered and Protected. 

Provide a description of the current state of the vegetation on site supported by relevant 

photographs. 

Identify and describe the conservation value and conservation planning frameworks 

relevant to this site (Regional Planning) for represented vegetation units. 

Describe the areas where indigenous vegetation has been transformed. 

Determine alien species present; their distribution within the study area and 

recommended management actions. 

Note and record the position of unusually large specimens of trees. 

Provide a detailed vegetation sensitivity map of the site, including mapping of 

disturbance and transformation on site. 

Faunal Assessment (Mammal and reptile) will be integrated into Ecological (Biodiversity) 

Assessment Report. 

Identify and rate potential impacts, outline mitigation measures and outline additional 

management guidelines. 

An Environmental Management Plan (EMP), including generic rehabilitation and revegetation 

guideline will be provided in the report. 

The desktop faunal study will entail the following: 

Establish which species may occur in the area and their relevant conservation status 

Identify the potential impacts of the wind project on fauna and faunal mortality 

Identify potential management plans to reduce the impact of the wind farm on the local 

faunal community. 

6.6.12 Integration of findings 


i. Potential impact on Critical Biodiversity Areas 

Once all specialist fieldwork and desktop research is completed, an opportunity for consideration 

and integration of findings will be allowed in order to ensure that specialist studies, contained in 

the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), do not contradict each other in terms of content and 

mitigation. Such integration also allows for a more holistic and thorough approach to 

environmental assessment.


pg 7-1 

Chapter 7 : 

References 

CHAPTER 7. REFERENCES 7-2

CHAPTER 7. REFERENCES 

CHAPTER 1: 

National Environmental Management Act (NEMA), Act No. 107 of 1998. 

CHAPTER 3: 


pg 7-2 

Chapter 7 : 

References 

NERSA. 2009. South Africa Renewable Energy Feed-in Tariff (REFIT): Regulatory Guidelines 26 

March 2009 

Barnes, K.N. (ed.) 1998. The Important Bird Areas of southern Africa. BirdLife South Africa, 

Johannesburg. 

CNdV, 2006. Strategic Initiative to Introduce Commercial Land Based Wind Energy Development 

to the Western Cape: Report 2 - Methodology 1: Criteria Based Assessment. 

Curtis, O., Simmons, R.E. & Jenkins, A.R. 2004. Black Harrier Circus maurus of the Fynbos biome, 

South Africa: a threatened specialist or an adaptable survivor? Bird Conservation International 

14: 233-245. 

Eden District Municipality. 2011. Integrated Development Plan (IDP) 

EnviroNomics/MetroGIS, February 2011. Strategic Environmental Framework for the Optimal 

Location of Wind Farms in the Coastal Provinces of South Africa (Phase 1 for REFIT 1). Report 

prepared for DEA and Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) 

ERM. 2011. Environmental and Social Screening Study: Vleesbaai Wind Park Development. 

Lombard, A.T. & Wolf, T. 2004. GIS Specialist Services, Gouritz Initiative (GI). Final Report. 

Western Cape Nature Conservation Board. 

Maree, K.S. and Vromans, D.C. 2010. The Biodiversity Sector Plan for the Hessequa and Mossel 

Bay Municipalities: Supporting land-use planning and decision-making in Critical Biodiversity 

Areas and Ecological Support Areas. Produced by CapeNature as part of the C.A.P.E. Fine-scale 

Biodiversity Planning Project. Kirstenbosch. 

Mucina. L. & Rutherford, M.C. (Eds) 2006. The vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. 

Strelitzia 19. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria. 

Pence, Genevieve Q.K. 2008. C.A.P.E. Fine-Scale Systematic Conservation Planning Assessment: 

Technical Report. Produced for CapeNature as part of the GEF-funded C.A.P.E. Fine-Scale 

Biodiversity Planning Project. Cape Town, South Africa.


pg 7-3 

Chapter 7 : 

References 

Van Zyl, A.J, Jenkins, A.R. & Allan, D.G. 1994. Evidence for seasonal movement by Rock Kestrels 

Falco tinnunculus and Lanner Falcons F. biarmicus in South Africa. Ostrich 65:111-121. 

Vlok, J.H.J. & Euston-Brown, D.I.W. 2002. The patterns within, and the ecological processes that 

sustain, the subtropical thicket vegetation in the planning domain for the Subtropical Thicket 

Ecosystem Planning (STEP) project. TERU Report 40: 142pp. 

Young, D.J., Harrison, J.A., Navarro, R.A., Anderson, M.D. & Colahan, B.D. (eds). 2003. Big birds on 

farms: Mazda CAR report 1993-2001. Avian Demography Unit, Cape Town. 

CHAPTER 4 

CNdV, 2006. Strategic Initiative to Introduce Commercial Land Based Wind Energy Development 

to the Western Cape: Report 2 - Methodology 1: Criteria Based Assessment. 

Department of Trade and Industry (DEAT). 2006. Guideline 3: Public Participation in support of 

the EIA Regulations. Pretoria 

Department of Trade and Industry (DEAT). 2006. Guideline 5: General Guide in support of the EIA 

Regulations. Pretoria 

Mucina. L. & Rutherford, M.C. (Eds) 2006. The vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. 

Strelitzia 19. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria. 

National Environmental Management Act (NEMA), Act No. 107 of 1998. 

Riegler, H., 2003. HAWT versus VAWT: small VAWT’s find a clear niche. REFOCUS July/August 

2003, p 44 – 46. 

South African Renewable Energy Resource Database available at: (http://www. sabregen.co.za/) 

CHAPTER 5 

Corten, G.P. & Veldkamp, H.F.2001. Insects can half wind-turbine power. Nature, 412, (5), p 42-43. 

Franta´l, B. & Kunc, J., 2011. WIND TURBINES IN TOURISM LANDSCAPES: Czech Experience. 

Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 38, No. 2, pp. 499–519, 2011 

Emberlin, J., Adams-Groom, B. & Tidmarsh, J., 1999. A Report on the Dispersal of Maize Pollen. 

University College, Worcester. Available at: http://www.mindfully.org/GE/Dispersal-Maize- 

Pollen-UK.htm (Accessed on 5 May 2011) 

Pedersena, E. & Pernilla, L, 2008. The impact of visual factors on noise annoyance among people 

living in the vicinity of wind turbines. Journal of Environmental Psychology28 379–389, 2008


pg 7-4 

Chapter 7 : 

References 

Valentine, S. V., 2011. Sheltering wind power projects from tempestuous community concerns. 

Energy for Sustainable Development 15 (2011) 109–114 

Verboom, B. & Huitema, H. 1997. The Importance of linear landscape elements for the pipistrelle 

Pipistrellus pipistrellus and the serotine bat Eptesicus serotinus. Landscape ecology, 12, (2), p 117- 

125. 

Warren, C. R., Lumdsen, C., O’Dowd, S. & Birnie, V. R., 2005. ‘Green On Green’: Public Perceptions 

of Wind Power in Scotland and Ireland. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 

Vol. 48, No. 6, 853 – 875, November 2005 

CHAPTER 6 

Department of Trade and Industry (DEAT). 2006. Guideline 3: Public Participation in support of 

the EIA Regulations. Pretoria 

Department of Trade and Industry (DEAT). 2006. Guideline 5: General Guide in support of the EIA 

Regulations. Pretoria

Final Scoping Report - CSIR

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

Delete template?

Save as template?