Highlands Central Wind Energy Facility

Comments and Response Report

Highlands Central Wind Energy Facility

Arcus Consultancy Services South Africa (Pty) Ltd Highlands Central WEF (RF) (Pty) Ltd October 2019 Page 310

Ref Name, Date and Method Comment Response Respondent & Date of Response

REVISED DRAFT BAR PHASE

1 Nick Smith

29 August 2019

By Email

From: Nick Smith <[email protected]> Sent: 29 August 2019 12:17 To: 'Muhammad Essop' <[email protected]> Cc: 'Mmamohale Kabasa' <[email protected]>; Ashlin Bodasing <[email protected]>

Subject: RE: 14/12/16/3/3/1/1955 - 1960

Dear Mr. Essop

We acknowledge receipt of your email and the attached letter and look forward to receipt of the Department’s reasons in due course, and in accordance with the relevant stipulations in PAJA.

Regards

Nick

From: Muhammad Essop [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 29 August 2019 10:49 AM To: Nick Smith <[email protected]> Cc: Mmamohale Kabasa <[email protected]>; 'Ashlin Bodasing' <[email protected]> Subject: RE: 14/12/16/3/3/1/1955 - 1960

Dear Mr Smith.

Please find attached letter.

Regards

mailto:[email protected]









Muhammad Essop

Assistant Director - Strategic Infrastructure Developments

Integrated Environmental Authorisations

Department of Environmental Affairs

+Private Bag X447

Pretoria

0001

((012) 399 9406

: [email protected]

From: Nick Smith <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2019 11:09

To: EIAadmin <[email protected]> Cc: Mmamohale Kabasa <[email protected]>; Muhammad Essop <[email protected]>; 'Ashlin Bodasing' <[email protected]> Subject: RE: 14/12/16/3/3/1/1955 - 1960

Dear Sirs and Mesdames

Please see the attached letter, in response to the Department’s letter that we received under cover of your email below of 19 July 2019.

We look forward to hearing from the Department in response to the attached letter.

tel:0123951734









Arcus Consultancy Services South Africa (Pty) Ltd Highlands Central WEF (RF) (Pty) Ltd October 2019 12



Yours faithfully

ND Smith

From: EIAadmin [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 19 July 2019 02:28 PM To: [email protected] Cc: Mmamohale Kabasa <[email protected]>; Muhammad Essop <[email protected]>; EIAadmin <[email protected]> Subject: 14/12/16/3/3/1/1955 - 1960

Good day.

Please find herein the attached letter for the above mentioned.

I hope you find all in order.

Thank you.

Kind Regards,

Integrated Environmental Authorisations:

IEM Systems and Tools Coordination

Tel (012) 399 8630 / 9370 / 9367

Email: [email protected]












2 Mfundo Ndovela

Environmental Planning Intern

+27 65 932 6216

0434920843

[email protected]

15 October 2019

By Email

Attachment: Highlands WEF Area of Interest for Development.kmz

From: Mfundo Ndovela [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2019 14:04 To: Highlands <[email protected]> Cc: Shanè Gertze <[email protected]> Subject: Request for KMZ files for the Highlands Wind Energy

Facilities

Dear Mr Ryan David-Andersen

I hope this email finds you well.

Can you please send me the kmz files for the Highlands WEF application.

Your response will be highly appreciated.

Kind Regards,

Mfundo Ndovela

From: Highlands <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2019 10:28 AM To: Mfundo Ndovela <[email protected]>; Highlands

<[email protected]> Cc: Shanè Gertze <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Request for KMZ files for the Highlands Wind Energy Facilities

Dear Mfundo

Thanks for your email. Please find attached a kmz of the proposed Highlands WEF site boundary.

Please let me know if you require any additional information, or have any comments.

Thank you

Ryan David-Andersen

16/10/2019

By Email

3 Andre Van Der Spuy

31 October 2019

By Email

Attachment: Highlands Letter to DEA 221019

From: Andre van der Spuy <[email protected]> Sent: 31 October 2019 10:53 To: Highlands <[email protected]>; Ashlin Bodasing <[email protected]>

Cc: 'Nick Smith' <[email protected]>; Flemming Jensen <[email protected]>; 'Hein Badenhorst' <[email protected]> Subject: Highlands Wind Energy Facilities for Public Comment














To: Ms. A. Bodasing

Dear “EAP”

Please find attached letter for your information.

Secondly, we urgently request your advice on the matters below and would appreciate your explanation of same in order to enable a proper understanding of the proposed Highlands Wind Farm Revised BARs findings and to understand the objective rationale applied by you in arriving at your findings. From the section “Assessment of Potential Effects” in the relevant Revised BARs we find no explanation of what constitutes an unacceptable level of impact and /or development activity. Accordingly, our questions are as follows:

1. Please provide us with your definition of “unsustainable” in the context of a (potential) environmental impact.

2. How do you determine a “fatal flaw” in the context of your environmental impact assessment methodology and what specific objective criteria do you apply in adjudicating a “fatal flaw”?

3. What specific objective impact assessment methodology criteria would determine that any of the activities being applied for under the 6 applications pertaining to the






proposed Highlands Wind Farms would render any of them as being “environmentally unacceptable”?

We look forward to receiving your responses as soon as possible to these enquiries and which will provide us with the necessary understanding to proceed with a proper review.

Sincerely

Andre van der Spuy

From: Highlands [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 14 October 2019 01:55 PM To: Highlands Subject: Notification of Availability of the Revised Basic Assessment Reports for Highlands Wind Energy Facilities for Public Comment

Dear Interested & Affected Party,

RE: NOTIFICATION OF AVAILABILITY OF THE REVISED BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORTS FOR THE PROPOSED HIGHLANDS WIND ENERGY FACILITIES AND ASSOCIATED GRID CONNECTIONS, EASTERN CAPE PROVINCE

You are receiving this notification regarding the availability of the Revised Basic Assessment Reports for the proposed Highlands Wind Energy Facilities and associated grid connections, as you







have been identified as an Interested and Affected Party (I&AP). We invite you to review and comment on these reports.

Please find the attached letter for your interest, in English and Afrikaans:

1.) NOTIFICATION OF AVAILABILITY OF THE REVISED BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORTS FOR THE PROPOSED HIGHLANDS WIND ENERGY FACILITIES AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE EASTERN CAPE PROVINCE

2.) KENNISGEWING VAN BESKIKBAARHEID VAN DIE HERSIENE BASIESE ASSESSESSRINGSVERSLAE VIR DIE VOORGESTELDE HIGHLANDS-WINDKRAGAANLEG EN GEPAARDGAANDE INFRASTRUKTUUR IN DIE OOS-KAAP

The Revised Basic Assessment reports are available for public review and comment from 14 October 2019 until the 12 November 2019 (both days inclusive) at the following locations:

Langenhoven Library, Somerset East;

Ernst van Heerden Library, Pearston; and

Website: https://arcusconsulting.co.za/projects/highlands-wind-energy-facilities-basic-assessment-reports-for-public-

review/

https://arcusconsulting.co.za/projects/highlands-wind-energy-facilities-basic-assessment-reports-for-public-review/








With reference to the proposed development, please send your comments on the Revised Basic Assessment Reports in writing by the 12 November 2019 to:

Ryan David-Andersen; [email protected]

Phone: 021 412 1529 or Fax: 086 762 2885;

Postal: Office 607, Cube Workspace, Cnr Long Street and Hans Strijdom Avenue, Cape Town 8001

Please feel free to contact me should you have any further queries, or should you no longer wish to receive notifications regarding the above projects.

Kind Regards,

Ryan David-Andersen

4 Gerry Pienaar

Director Environmental Impact Management DEDEAT

[email protected]

0824584593

1 November 2019

By Email

From: Gerry Pienaar [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, 01 November 2019 08:54 To: Ashlin Bodasing <[email protected]> Cc: Andries Struwig <[email protected]> Subject: HIGHLANDS AMENDED BASIC ASSESSMENT AND RELATED DOCUMENTS Importance: High

Dear Mr Bodasing,

The Eastern Cape Department of Economic Development, Environmental Affairs and Tourism is not succeeding in downloading the huge number of large complex documents and








will therefore not be in a position to comment within the time-frame. It will be highly appreciated if we can be provided with CD’s containing the documentation, as follows:

Regional Manager Environmental Affairs Sarah Baartman Region, Corner Athol Fugard/Castle Hill Central Port Elizabeth 6001 OR Private Bag X5001 GREENACRES 6057. For attention Mr Andries Struwig, cell 0795031762 email [email protected].

AND

Director Environmental Impact Management, Lilitha House/Global Life Building, Bhisho, Eastern Cape. For attention Ms Ncumisa Manyonga at [email protected] or C.G.Pienaar cell 0824584593 email [email protected].

In addition we would like to request a reasonable extension of time-frame in order to allow the Department to comment meaningfully.

Kind regards

5 Andre van der Spuy

1 November 2019

By Email

From: Andre van der Spuy [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, 01 November 2019 09:13 To: Ashlin Bodasing <[email protected]>; Highlands

<[email protected]> Cc: 'Nick Smith' <[email protected]>; 'Flemming Jensen' <[email protected]>; 'Hein Badenhorst' <[email protected]>; 'Sabelo Malaza' <[email protected]>; 'Muhammad Essop'

From: Ashlin Bodasing Sent: Friday, 01 November 2019 09:19 To: Andre van der Spuy <[email protected]>;

Highlands <[email protected]> Cc: 'Nick Smith' <[email protected]>; 'Flemming Jensen' <[email protected]>; 'Hein Badenhorst' <[email protected]>; 'Sabelo Malaza' <[email protected]>;

Ashlin Bodasing

01/11/2019

By Email
















<[email protected]>; 'Gerry Pienaar' <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Highlands Wind Energy Facilities for Public Comment

Dear Ms. Bodasing

Thank you for undertaking to deliver the requested reports.

We still urgently await your answer pertaining to our 3 enquiries of explanation delivered to you in our email of 31/10/2019 (as it appears below). Your immediate response to these fundamentally important issues would be appreciated.

Rgds

Andre van der Spuy

'Muhammad Essop' <[email protected]>; 'Gerry Pienaar' <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Highlands Wind Energy Facilities for Public Comment

Dear Mr van der Spuy,

I am currently busy with the responses to the email you reference and will respond to these queries timeously.

Regards,

Ashlin Bodasing

From: Ashlin Bodasing Sent: 01 November 2019 15:43 To: Andre van der Spuy <[email protected]>; Highlands <[email protected]> Cc: 'Nick Smith' <[email protected]>; 'Flemming Jensen' <[email protected]>; 'Hein Badenhorst' <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Highlands Wind Energy Facilities for Public Comment


Please note that the delivery of the requested CD was made today to the address provided below. There was no answer. The package was dropped off in your mailbox.








Regards,

Ashlin Bodasing

From: Andre van der Spuy [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, 31 October 2019 18:36 To: Highlands <[email protected]>; Ashlin Bodasing <[email protected]> Cc: 'Nick Smith' <[email protected]>; Flemming Jensen <[email protected]>; 'Hein Badenhorst' <[email protected]>; 'Sabelo Malaza' <[email protected]>; Muhammad Essop <[email protected]>; 'Gerry Pienaar' <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Highlands Wind Energy Facilities for Public Comment Importance: High

To: Ms. A. Bodasing

Dear “EAP”

The chaotic and extensively mis-labeled nature of the Highlands WEF documentation presented for review (on the notified website), and the downloading thereof, is taking an extraordinary and unreasonable amount of time merely in preparation of it being in a form which is available for review. Therefore, please

From: Ashlin Bodasing [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 01 November 2019 09:03 AM To: Andre van der Spuy; Highlands Cc: 'Nick Smith'; Flemming Jensen; 'Hein Badenhorst'; 'Sabelo Malaza'; Muhammad Essop; 'Gerry Pienaar' Subject: RE: Highlands Wind Energy Facilities for Public Comment


This is to confirm that an electronic copy of the reports will be delivered to the address provided below.

Regards,

Ashlin Bodasing
















kindly send by courier, without delay, a full CD copy set of the full Highland WEF documentation to:

Andre van der Spuy Environmental Consultants

42 Afrikander Road

Murdoch Valley South

Simon’s Town

7975

Alternatively, and preferably, a full set of the documentation in hard copy is requested by courier to same address. Under the circumstances it belies comprehension how the “occupier” sector of the affected local community would be expected to process this information had they been included in the public participation process!

Delivery of the information in the requested form is awaited.

Sincerely

Andre van der Spuy

From: Andre van der Spuy [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 31 October 2019 10:53 AM To: 'Highlands'; '[email protected]' Cc: 'Nick Smith'; Flemming Jensen; 'Hein Badenhorst' Subject: Highlands Wind Energy Facilities for Public Comment

To: Ms. A. Bodasing







Dear “EAP”





6. What specific objective impact assessment methodology criteria would determine that any of the activities being

applied for under the 6 applications pertaining to the proposed Highlands Wind Farms would render any of them as being “environmentally unacceptable”?







Sincerely

Andre van der Spuy















The Revised Basic Assessment reports are available for public review and comment from 14 October 2019 until the 12

November 2019 (both days inclusive) at the following locations:



Website: https://arcusconsulting.co.za/projects/highlands-wind-energy-facilities-basic-assessment-reports-for-public-review/

With reference to the proposed development, please send your

comments on the Revised Basic Assessment Reports in writing by the 12 November 2019 to:











Phone: 021 412 1529 or Fax: 086 762 2885;



Kind Regards,

Ryan David-Andersen

6 EIA Admin



(012) 399 8630 / 9370 / 9367

[email protected]

1 November 2019

By Email

Attached: Response to the request for reasons of decision I.T.O. section 5 of the promotion of administrative justice act, 3 of

From: EIAadmin [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, 01 November 2019 12:51 To: [email protected] Cc: EIAadmin <[email protected]>; Ashlin Bodasing <[email protected]> Subject: 14/12/16/3/3/1/1955-1960

Good day.



Thank you.








2000 (as amended) for the lifting of suspension of application for environmental authorisations of the 85 MW highlands north wind energy

facility and associated 132kV powerline; the 70 MW highlands Central Wind energy facility and associated 132kV powerline and the 90 MW highlands south wind energy facility and associated 132 kV powerline west of somerset east within the blue crane route lm in the eastern cape province (1955.pdf)


3 November 2019

By Email

From: Andre van der Spuy [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, 03 November 2019 08:59 To: Ashlin Bodasing <[email protected]>; Highlands <[email protected]> Cc: 'Nick Smith' <[email protected]>; 'Flemming Jensen' <[email protected]>; 'Hein Badenhorst' <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Highlands Wind Energy Facilities for Public Comment

Dear Ms Bodasing

I confirm receipt of the CDs and accompanying letter (as attached).






Thank you

Andre van der Spuy

From: Ashlin Bodasing [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 01 November 2019 03:43 PM To: Andre van der Spuy; Highlands Cc: 'Nick Smith'; 'Flemming Jensen'; 'Hein Badenhorst' Subject: RE: Highlands Wind Energy Facilities for Public Comment


Please note that the delivery of the requested CD was made today to the address provided below. There was no answer. The package was dropped off in your mailbox.

Regards,

Ashlin Bodasing

From: Andre van der Spuy [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, 01 November 2019 09:13 To: Ashlin Bodasing <[email protected]>; Highlands <[email protected]> Cc: 'Nick Smith' <[email protected]>; 'Flemming Jensen'

<[email protected]>; 'Hein Badenhorst' <[email protected]>; 'Sabelo Malaza' <[email protected]>; 'Muhammad Essop' <[email protected]>; 'Gerry Pienaar'















<[email protected]> Subject: RE: Highlands Wind Energy Facilities for Public Comment

Dear Ms. Bodasing

Thank you for undertaking to deliver the requested reports.

We still urgently await your answer pertaining to our 3 enquiries of explanation delivered to you in our email of 31/10/2019 (as it appears below). Your immediate response to these fundamentally important issues would be appreciated.

Rgds

Andre van der Spuy

From: Ashlin Bodasing [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 01 November 2019 09:03 AM To: Andre van der Spuy; Highlands Cc: 'Nick Smith'; Flemming Jensen; 'Hein Badenhorst'; 'Sabelo Malaza'; Muhammad Essop; 'Gerry Pienaar' Subject: RE: Highlands Wind Energy Facilities for Public Comment









This is to confirm that an electronic copy of the reports will be delivered to the address provided below.

Regards,

Ashlin Bodasing

From: Andre van der Spuy [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, 31 October 2019 18:36 To: Highlands <[email protected]>; Ashlin Bodasing <[email protected]> Cc: 'Nick Smith' <[email protected]>; Flemming Jensen <[email protected]>; 'Hein Badenhorst' <[email protected]>; 'Sabelo Malaza' <[email protected]>; Muhammad Essop <[email protected]>; 'Gerry Pienaar' <[email protected]>

Subject: RE: Highlands Wind Energy Facilities for Public Comment Importance: High

To: Ms. A. Bodasing

Dear “EAP”

The chaotic and extensively mis-labeled nature of the Highlands WEF documentation presented for review (on the notified

website), and the downloading thereof, is taking an extraordinary and unreasonable amount of time merely in preparation of it being in a form which is available for review. Therefore, please kindly send by courier, without delay, a full CD copy set of the full Highland WEF documentation to:















Andre van der Spuy Environmental Consultants

42 Afrikander Road

Murdoch Valley South

Simon’s Town

7975

Alternatively, and preferably, a full set of the documentation in hard copy is requested by courier to same address. Under the circumstances it belies comprehension how the “occupier” sector of the affected local community would be expected to process this information had they been included in the public participation process!

Delivery of the information in the requested form is awaited.

Sincerely

Andre van der Spuy

From: Andre van der Spuy [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 31 October 2019 10:53 AM To: 'Highlands'; '[email protected]' Cc: 'Nick Smith'; Flemming Jensen; 'Hein Badenhorst' Subject: Highlands Wind Energy Facilities for Public Comment

To: Ms. A. Bodasing







Dear “EAP”





9. What specific objective impact assessment methodology criteria would determine that any of the activities being applied for under the 6 applications pertaining to the proposed Highlands Wind Farms would render any of them as being “environmentally unacceptable”?







Sincerely

Andre van der Spuy


















Website: https://arcusconsulting.co.za/projects/highlands-wind-energy-facilities-basic-assessment-reports-for-public-

review/











Phone: 021 412 1529 or Fax: 086 762 2885;



Kind Regards,

Ryan David-Andersen

8 EIA Admin



(012) 399 8630 / 9370 / 9367

[email protected]

4 November 2019

By Email

From: EIAadmin <[email protected]> Sent: 04 November 2019 12:35 To: [email protected]; Ashlin Bodasing <[email protected]> Cc: Mmamohale Kabasa <[email protected]>; EIAadmin <[email protected]> Subject: 14/12/16/3/3/1/1955 - 1960

Good day.










Attachment: Comments on the revised basic assessment report for the proposed highlands north wind energy facility and associated infrastructure, eastern cape province. (14-12-16-3-3-1-19955.pdf)


Thank you.

Kind Regards,

Andre van der Spuy

12 November 2019

By Email

From: Andre van der Spuy [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, 12 November 2019 07:05 To: Ashlin Bodasing <[email protected]>; Highlands <[email protected]> Cc: 'Nick Smith' <[email protected]>; 'Flemming Jensen' <[email protected]>; 'Hein Badenhorst' <[email protected]> Subject: Highlands Wind Energy Facilities : definition unsustainable development

Dear Ms Bodasing

Thank you for your below partial answers to our urgent enquiry of 31/10/2019 which I receive now for the first time on the final day of the first 30 day comment period.

Given the lateness of your response it is unfortunately not

possible to incorporate it into the review of our (first) comment document and which is almost its final form ready for delivery later today. This being the case we reserve the right to respond to the advice given below either separately (as a supplementary






comment) or as part of our second set of comments on the remaining applications and which will be delivered within the next 30 comment period (as motivated previously).

In the interim I would appreciate clarity being provided on your final statement, “It should be noted that should any of the above definitions apply to a proposed development, the development would not progress to application stage”, given that the applicability, or not, of the three definitions would only become clearly evident during the applications stage i.e. during the BA/ EIA and PPP processes, once the application has been submitted.

Kind regards

Andre van der Spuy

From: Andre van der Spuy [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, 12 November 2019 09:17 To: Ashlin Bodasing <[email protected]>; Highlands <[email protected]> Cc: 'Nick Smith' <[email protected]>; 'Flemming Jensen' <[email protected]>; 'Hein Badenhorst' <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Highlands Wind Energy Facilities for Public Comment

Dear Ms. Bodasing






Please advise where in the documentation available for review I would be able to find a complete copy of the latest application forms. Alternatively kindly provide the requested application forms.

Thank you

Andre v d Spuy

From: Andre van der Spuy <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, 31 October 2019 10:52 To: Highlands <[email protected]>; Ashlin Bodasing <[email protected]> Cc: 'Nick Smith' <[email protected]>; Flemming Jensen <[email protected]>; 'Hein Badenhorst' <[email protected]> Subject: Highlands Wind Energy Facilities for Public Comment

To: Ms. A. Bodasing

Dear “EAP”


Secondly, we urgently request your advice on the matters below and would appreciate your explanation of same in order to enable

a proper understanding of the proposed Highlands Wind Farm Revised BARs findings and to understand the objective rationale applied by you in arriving at your findings. From the section “Assessment of Potential Effects” in the relevant Revised

From: Ashlin Bodasing [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 11 November 2019 05:43 PM To: Andre van der Spuy; Highlands Cc: 'Nick Smith'; Flemming Jensen; 'Hein Badenhorst' Subject: Re: Highlands Wind Energy Facilities for Public Comment


Apologies for the delay in the response to your query below. Our response is as follows:

The definition requested are all interrelated and can in some instances been used interchangeably,

1. The Brundtland Report definition applies, "Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."-






BARs we find no explanation of what constitutes an unacceptable level of impact and /or development activity. Accordingly, our questions are as follows:



3. What specific objective impact assessment methodology criteria would determine that any of the activities being applied for under the 6 applications pertaining to the proposed Highlands Wind Farms would render any of them as being “environmentally unacceptable”?


Sincerely

Andre van der Spuy

From: Highlands [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 14 October 2019 01:55 PM

Therefore an “unsustainable” impact is an impact that would potentially change conservation status of a species, regardless of mitigation applied, or impact the ability of a population or future generations to meet

their own needs as a result of the potential impact.

2. A flaw is a lack of complete adherence to accepted methodology for survey and assessment, and/or a lack of logical progression through the process of assessing impacts. This could be considered “fatal” if correcting it would be likely to lead to a materially different conclusion on the significance of effects or the mitigation required, compared to that assessed. It therefore stands to reason that a “fatal flaw” is determined if a proposed development is likely to potentially change conservation status of a species or impact the ability of a population or future generations to meet their own needs, even with mitigation applied.

3. If a project (or linked group of projects) has a net overall environmental impact that is beneficial, then it would be environmentally acceptable. Therefore if the project has a potential impact that would potentially change conservation status of a species, even with mitigation applied, then this would be “environmentally unacceptable”.






To: Highlands Subject: Notification of Availability of the Revised Basic Assessment Reports for Highlands Wind Energy Facilities for Public Comment



You are receiving this notification regarding the availability of the Revised Basic Assessment Reports for the proposed Highlands Wind Energy Facilities and associated grid connections, as you have been identified as an Interested and Affected Party (I&AP). We invite you to review and comment on these reports.




It should be noted that should any of the above definitions apply to a proposed development, the development would not progress to application stage.

Regard's

Ashlin







· Langenhoven Library, Somerset East;

· Ernst van Heerden Library, Pearston; and

· Website: https://arcusconsulting.co.za/projects/highlands-wind-energy-facilities-basic-assessment-reports-for-public-review/



Phone: 021 412 1529 or Fax: 086 762 2885;



Kind Regards,

Ryan David-Andersen









9 EIA Admin



(012) 399 8630 / 9370 / 9367

[email protected]

12 November 2019

By Email

Attachment: Comments on the revised basic assessment report for the proposed highlands south wind energy facility and associated infrastructure, eastern cape province. (14-12-16-3-3-1-1960.pdf)

From: EIAadmin <[email protected]> Sent: 12 November 2019 08:37 To: Ashlin Bodasing <[email protected]> Cc: Lunga Dlova <[email protected]>; EIAadmin <[email protected]>

Subject: 14/12/16/3/3/1/1960

Good day.



Thank you.

Kind Regards,


AVDS Environmental Consultants 42 Afrikander Road Simon's Town 7975 South Africa

From: Andre van der Spuy [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, 12 November 2019 20:09 To: Highlands <[email protected]>; Ashlin Bodasing <[email protected]> Cc: Flemming Jensen <[email protected]>; Francois Pieters <[email protected]>; Fritz Walter <[email protected]>; Grant Abrahamson <[email protected]>; Hein Badenhorst








021 786 2919 [email protected]

12 November 2019

By Email

Attachments:

App2 Highlands Wind Farm Rebuttal (28.10.2019).pdf;

HIGHLANDS WEFs RFBARs_Objections Final 121119.pdf;

Appendix 1(a)_Objections List.doc;

Appendix 1(b)_Author’s qualifications.docx;

App 8.pdf

App 7.docx

App 6.xlsx;

App 5.pdf;

App 4.jpg;

App 3.jpeg.

<[email protected]>; Hennie Ebersohn Driefontein Safaris <[email protected]>; Jannie Geyer <[email protected]>; Kamala <[email protected]>; Kevin McCaughey <[email protected]>; Michael Puren <[email protected]>; Mornay Schafer <[email protected]>; Poul Petersen <[email protected]>; Richard Inskip Kruizemuntfontein <[email protected]>; 'Gerry Pienaar' <[email protected]>; 'Nick Smith' <[email protected]> Subject: Highland WEFs: objection to 3 applications for proposed wind farms.

Dear Ms. Bodasing Attached please find our comments and objections , with Appendices, to the 3 applications relating to the proposed Highlands Wind Energy Facilities. Comment on the remaining 3 applications pertaining to the respective electrical grid infrastructures will be submitted in due course. Sincerely Andre van der Spuy




Arcus Consultancy Services South Africa (Pty) Ltd Highlands Central WEF (RF) (Pty) Ltd October 2019 3



11 EIA Admin



(012) 399 8630 / 9370 / 9367

[email protected]

13 November 2019

By Email

Attachment: Comments on the revised basic assessment report for the proposed highlands central wind energy ffacility and associated infrastructure, eastern cape province(14-12-16-3-3-1-1958.pdf)

From: EIAadmin [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, 13 November 2019 08:28 To: Ashlin Bodasing <[email protected]> Cc: Masina Litsoane <[email protected]>; EIAadmin <[email protected]> Subject: 14/12/16/3/3/1/1958 Good day. Please find herein the attached letter for the above mentioned. I hope you find all in order. Thank you.

12 Megan Murgatroyd

HawkWatch International

+27 (0)797007804

13 November 2019

By Email

From: Megan Murgatroyd <[email protected]> Sent: 13 November 2019 15:03 To: Andrew Pearson <[email protected]> Cc: Arjun Amar <[email protected]>; Ashlin Bodasing <[email protected]> Subject: Re: VERA comment

Correct.

Andrew Pearson

13/11/19

By Email






Regards,

Meg

From: Megan Murgatroyd [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, 13 November 2019 14:49 To: Andrew Pearson <[email protected]> Cc: Arjun Amar <[email protected]>; Ashlin Bodasing <[email protected]> Subject: Re: VERA comment

Hi Andrew,

Through the grapevine comment is not valid.

The VERA model manuscript is in prep to submit for publication. The model which was applied to Highlands was the most conservative out of all models we have tested - i.e. the one which performs best in terms of protecting eagles. 4 km buffer might reduce protection of eagles and would certainly exclude more area from development than actually deemed necessary.

Regards,

Megan

On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 at 14:32, Andrew Pearson <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Megan

As you are aware, we updated the Highlands Bird Impact Assessment to include the results of the VERA model. This was released for public comment. Please can you assist with a

On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 at 14:59, Andrew Pearson <[email protected]> wrote:

Thanks Megan

So just to confirm, you would not support the use of a 4 km buffer ahead of the no-go areas produced by the model?

Regards












response dated 4 November from Andrew Jenkins, received via Andre van der Spuy.

1. Once a comprehensive survey of Verreaux’s Eagle sites in the general area has been completed use the results to apply the VERA model to identify all the habitat likely to be frequently used by ranging and foraging Verreaux’s Eagles.

It seems that this modelling work has been done and incorporated into the sensitivity mapping informing the revised report and assessment. I have recently heard (through the grapevine) that Megan Murgatroyd has encountered some failings in the application of the VERA model, and would prefer that a simple circular buffer distance of 4 km be imposed around Verreaux’s Eagle nests in relation to wind farm development proposals until some errors in the model have been corrected. This should be verified with Dr Murgatroyd and the mapping for the project adjusted (or not) accordingly.

This is quite urgent, and can we please have a response by tomorrow afternoon?

Thanks

13 Department of Environmental Affairs. The revised Basic Assessment Report (BAR) was received by the Department on 14 October 2018.

By Email

You are hereby advised to amend the listed activity applied for, on the application form and the revised final BAR to be submitted, to include Listing Notice 1 GN R327- Activity 28.

The amended application form has been submitted with this Revised Final Basic Assessment Report. The amended application form reflects the changes to the project description and all relevant listed activities.

In Revised Final Basic Assessment Report for the Proposed

Highlands Central Wind

Please make sure that the revised final BAR to be submitted is printed in colour, for easy use of maps, graphs and images

The Revised Final BAR has been printed in colour as requested.






Please ensure that DMS coordinate system is used when providing site and turbines and other infrastructure location.

The DMS coordinate system has been used when providing site, turbine and infrastructure locations.

Energy Facility, Eastern Cape Province

15/11/19 Please ensure that all issues raised and comments received during the circulation of the revised draft BAR from registered I&AP's and organs of state which have jurisdiction in respect of the proposed activity are adequately addressed in the revised final BAR.

All issues raised and submitted within the commenting period of the revised BAR have been addressed in the Revised Final BAR and responded to in the Comments and Response Report.

Proof of correspondence with the various stakeholders must be included in the revised final BAR. Should you be unable to obtain comments, proof should be submitted to the Department of the attempts that were made to obtain comments. The Public Participation Process must be conducted in terms of Regulation 39, 40, 41, 42, 43 & 44 of the EIA Regulations 2014.

Proof of correspondence throughout the process is included in the Comments and Response Report. Where the EAP was unable to obtain comments from stakeholders, proof of attempts to gain comments is also included in the comments and response report.

The public participation process for this application

has been conducted in term of Regulation 39, 40, 41, 42, 43 & 44 of the EIA Regulations 2014.

You are further reminded that the revised final BAR to be submitted to this Department must comply with all the requirements in terms of the scope of assessment and content of Basic Assessment reports in accordance with Appendix 1 and Regulation 19(1) of the EIA Regulations, 2014.

The Revised Final BAR complies with all requirements in terms of scope of assessment and content of BA reports in accordance with Appendix 1 and Regulation 19(1) of the EIA Regulations, 2014.

The Environmental Management Programme (EMPr) to be submitted as part of the revised final BAR must include the following:

All recommendations and mitigation measures recorded in the revised draft BAR and the specialist studies conducted

All mitigation measures and recommendations of specialists have been included in the EMPr.






The final preferred route layout map The Final preferred route map is included in the EMPr.

An environmental sensitivity map indicating environmental sensitive areas and features identified during the assessment process

An environmental sensitivity map indicating environmental sensitive areas and features identified during the assessment process has been included in the EMPr.

A map combining the final preferred route layout map superimposed (overlain) on the environmental sensitivity map

A map combining the final preferred route layout map superimposed (overlain) on the environmental sensitivity map has been included in the EMPr.

An alien invasive management plan to be implemented during construction and operation of the power line. The plan must include mitigation measures to reduce the invasion of alien species and ensure that the continuous monitoring and removal

of alien species is undertaken

This has been included in the EMPr.

A plant rescue and protection plan which allows for the maximum transplant of conservation important species from areas to be transformed. This plan must be compiled by a vegetation specialist familiar with the site and be implemented prior to commencement of the construction phase


A re-vegetation and habitat rehabilitation plan to be implemented during the construction and operation of the facility. Restoration must be undertaken as soon as possible after completion of construction activities to reduce the amount of habitat converted at any one time and to speed up the recovery to natural habitats.


A transportation plan for the transport of components, main assembly cranes and other large pieces of equipment.







An erosion management plan for monitoring and rehabilitating erosion events associated with the power line. Appropriate erosion mitigation must form part of this plan to prevent and

reduce the risk of any potential erosion


An effective monitoring system to detect any leakage or spillage of all hazardous substances during their transportation, handling, use and storage. This must include precautionary measures to limit the possibility of oil and other toxic liquids from entering the soil or storm water systems.


Measures to protect hydrological features such as wetlands, dams and their catchments, and other environmental sensitive areas

from construction impacts including the direct or indirect spillage of pollutants.


General Comments

You are hereby reminded that should the revised final BAR fail to comply with the requirements of this letter, the application for environmental authorisation may be refused.

The EAP acknowledges this comment and has complied with the requirements of the letter.

The applicant is hereby reminded to comply with the requirements of Regulation 45 with regard to the time period

allowed for complying with the requirements of the Regulations, and Regulations 43 and 44 with regard to the allowance of a comment period for interested and affected parties on all reports

The application acknowledges the requirements of Regulation 45, 43 and 44, and will comply with these

requirements.






submitted to the competent authority for decision-making. The reports referred to are listed in Regulation 43(1).

Furthermore, it must be reiterated that, should an application for Environmental Authorisation be subject to the provisions of

Chapter II, Section 38 of the National Heritage Resources Act, Act 25 of 1999,then this Department will not be able to make nor issue a decision in terms of your application for Environmental Authorisation pending a letter from the pertinent heritage authority categorically stating that the application fulfils the requirements of the relevant heritage resources authority as described in Chapter II, Section 38(8) of the National Heritage Resources Act, Act 25 of 1999. Comments from SAHRA and/or the provincial department of heritage must be provided in the BAR.

The Eastern Cape Provincial Heritage Authority has been contacted to provide comment on the prosed

development. Proof of correspondence is included in the Volume III.

Furthermore, it must be reiterated that, should an application for Environmental Authorisation be subject to the provisions of Chapter II, Section 38 of the National Heritage Resources Act, Act 25 of 1999,then this Department will not be able to make nor issue a decision in terms of your application for Environmental Authorisation pending a letter from the pertinent heritage authority categorically stating that the application fulfils the requirements of the relevant heritage resources authority as described in Chapter II, Section 38(8) of the National Heritage Resources Act, Act 25 of 1999. Comments from SAHRA and/or the provincial department of heritage must be provided in the BAR.

The Eastern Cape Provincial Heritage Authority has been contacted to provide comment on the prosed development. Proof of correspondence is included in the Volume III.

You are hereby reminded of Section 24F of the National Environmental Management Act, Act No 107 of 1998, as

amended, which stipulates that no activity may commence prior to an Environmental Authorisation being granted by the Department

The applicant acknowledges Section 24F NEMA, and will comply with it.






Further note that in terms of Regulation 45 of the EIA Regulations 2014, this application will lapse if the applicant fails to meet any of the timeframes prescribed in terms of these Regulations, unless an extension has been granted in terms of Regulation 3(7).

The EAP acknowledges Regulation 45 and will ensure that the report is submitted within the required timeframes.

Revised Draft BAR Phase

Ref Comment Response

1 These objections are submitted by AVDS Environmental Consultants on behalf of the parties listed in Appendix 1 to these objections.

No response required.

2 The 12 parties on behalf of whom or which these objections are submitted are to be listed individually as registered I&APs. They are all strongly opposed to all of the applications which constitute the proposed HWEF for the reasons set out in these

objections, and those delivered previously.

The EAP acknowledges these 12 parties, and that AVDS has submitted these comments on their behalf.

3 The interests and concerns of the objectors in this submission extend beyond their personal interests and they also share a common bond in that they seek to prevent the environmental and social degradation of the greater area, which would result as a direct consequence of the proposed activities being authorised by the competent authority.

The proposed development will not result in environmental or social degradation. The proposed development is needed in the context of providing much need renewable energy. The environmental impact assessment process has been completed thoroughly, with extensive survey work to ensure that any potential negative impacts are avoided or minimized and positive impacts of the proposed development are enhanced.

4 These objections concern the three RBARs for the three proposed HWEF wind energy facilities (i.e. North, Central and South) and all other products and procedures related to these discrete environmental applications for the developments that collectively make up the Highlands WEF (along with the remaining three components pertaining to the electrical grid infrastructure associated with each of the three wind energy facilities). These objections do not extend to the three components pertaining to the electrical grid infrastructure associated with each of the three wind energy facilities.

It is noted by the EAP that these comments pertain only to the three wind farm applications. Therefore any reference within these comments related to the grid connections, will not be responded to. The letter reference was received by the EAP on 31 October 2019. The letter was attached to an email query. The letter referred to was attached for reference, and was addressed to the Competent Authority (CA). The EAP therefore did not respond to the requested additional 30 day commenting period. It should






The latter applications will be covered in a separate comment that will be submitted within the extended 60-day reasonable comment period that has been requested, and which is assumed will be granted in due course. On

22/10/2019 a letter was sent by AVDSEC to the competent authority (previously the DEA) requesting that the EAP be advised to provide, at the least, an additional 30 days of comment over and above that 30 days allowed for in the EAP’s notification dated 14 October 2019. The letter motivated the request and advised of the

unreasonable timeframe for comment allotted by the EAP under the circumstances of there being six applications, associated RBARs and associated specialist reports and other information. The letter advised that submission of comment would be served to the EAP within the initial 30 day comment period (as properly calculated) and which would pertain to 3 of the six applications. Comment on the remaining three applications would be delivered as soon as reasonably possible thereafter, and in any event within the 60-day (extended) comment period sought on behalf of the objectors. The DEFF was advised that AVDSEC would proceed with the review of the applications on this basis while the response to the request was awaited.

be noted by the CA that this additional 30 day commenting period could not be accommodated by the EAP, as the regulated timeframes do not allow for this accommodation to AVDS. It is reasonable to assume that the 30 day comment period is sufficient for AVDS to submit comments on the reports, as the specialists reports are shared for the three applications, the three applications are related to each other and are part of the greater Highlands Wind Energy Facility. Also it should be noted that AVDS and the other

attached specialist study included in his email response to the three applications, were commissioned even before the applications were suspended by the CA. It can only be assumed that he has been working on these responses for nine months. The Revised Basic Assessment Reports, state that the only changes in the report are the layout of the facility and the Avifaunal Impact Assessment Report. In such an instance, the Revised BAR is largely the same as he had previously reviewed and commented on, therefore an additional 30 days for comment is not warranted in this instance, and the EAP finds that the 30 days commenting period on the Revised BAR is sufficient.

5 In the reading of this objection any reference to the HWEF in the singular must, unless otherwise specified, be taken to refer to all 6 of the proposed development proposals (and the NEMA-listed activities that comprise or form part of each proposal) as encompassed under the 6 environmental applications for the 3 proposed wind farms (being the North, Central and South Highlands Wind Energy Facilities) and their 3 respective, associated electrical grid infrastructure proposals. Reference made to any particular individual component (or application) of the total six will be clearly specified.

The applications for the three grid connections has lapsed, and therefore any reference to the grid connections, will not be considered and responded. It is stated by AVDS, that these comments specifically relate to the three wind farm applications (AVDS point 4), and not the grid connection applications, for which separate comments will be received.

6 Simultaneous to the appointed mandate of AVDSEC as a representative of its clients, AVDSEC also acts as a professional expert in this objection, where appropriate and according to the specialist expertise and qualifications of AVDSEC member, Andre van der Spuy (the author). The author’s qualifications are set out in

Appendix 1(b) to this objection.

This is acknowledged by the EAP. No response to this is required.

7 It is submitted in this objection (for the reasons stated) that the so-called “reasoned opinion” of the EAP in the RBARs, that the applicant’s Preferred Alternative be

It is the “reasoned opinion” of the EAP that the preferred alternative has been subject to 10 specialist studies, with each specialist qualified, experienced and respected in their field of expertise. The “reasoned






approved, is unjustified, unsubstantiated and irrational, on account of the fundamental flaws explained in this objection.

opinion” is based on a recognized and approved impact assessment methodology and an iterative approach to determine the preferred alternative. The EAP through the basic assessment process and through the 10 specialist assessments commissioned for the proposed development believes that the proposed development does not have any “fundamental flaws”.

8 All of the objectors confirm that they, and their considerable and well-established interests, will be negatively impacted by the proposed HWEF to a significant degree. Neither the applicant nor the EAP have made any reasonable effort to mitigate (offset) the inevitable significant negative impacts that the objectors would be subjected to and the objectors therefore find the 3 applications for the proposed HWEF to be unacceptable and unsustainable when considered in terms of the listed activities’ significant negative ecological, economic and social impacts. In so doing the applicant and EAP have intentionally ignored and/or downplayed the significant information already submitted to them on behalf of the clients and in which the case of the clients’ interests is substantiated beyond reasonable dispute.

The EAP and the specialists appointed are all independent consultants and have assessed the proposed development to be required in this time and this place, as described in the extensive need and desirability Section of the Revised BARs (Section 3). In terms of the listed activities, the EAP finds AVDS response that the “proposed HWEF to be unacceptable and unsustainable when considered in terms of the listed activities’ significant negative ecological, economic and social impacts”, to be irrational and unsubstantiated. It can only be assumed that he has not read the Section 3 Need and Desirability in the Revised BAR. All information submitted by AVDS, has not been “intentionally ignored and/or downplayed” by the EAP. The EAP and the specialists have considered these submissions extensively and responded to them, and these responses have been seen by AVDS and those he represents. To say that these have been ignored, is unsubstantiated and untruthful. Information supplied prior to this commenting period on the Revised BAR, have all been responded and dealt with by the EAP and the CA.

9 This objection reminds the applicant that the latter must ensure that “negative impacts on the environment and on (the objectors’) environmental rights be anticipated and prevented, and where they cannot be altogether prevented, are minimised and remedied”. Proper, correct and acceptable mitigation of the inevitable negative impacts (including those not yet identified or otherwise ignored or underplayed in the applications) must be effected, with the “no go” option considered as the ultimate mitigation measure. The “no go” option is the objectors’ preferred

option but should the HWEF proposal proceed, in any form, then it will be necessary to compensate for and/or offset those residual negative impacts which the approved HWEF development will undeniably have upon the objectors, and the environment itself.

It is clear to the EAP that AVDS has not thoroughly read the revised BAR, where it clearly states that the three Highlands WEF have gone through an iterative process, and based on specialists’ findings, the layout has evolved through the process. The "no- go" alternative, was assessed, and was deemed reasonable, but not the most acceptable, for the greater benefit to the country. Perceived negative impacts have been mitigated, and the report states that the developer should negotiate with the surrounding

affected landowners regarding any potential negative impacts that may arise, should the wind farm be authorized and should it be awarded preferred bidder status in the REIPPPP. Compensation cannot be given, when there have been no proven impacts.






10 This objection must not be presumed to constitute the full range of the objectors’ concerns with the HWEF application, and the objectors reserve their right to table any further matters that may come to their attention going forward.

Any comments received as part of the application process will be considered and if time allows will be responded to. Comments outside of any official process, cannot reasonably be expected to be responded to.

11 On 21/6/2018 notification of the commencement of the PPP for the proposed HWEF was received from Arcus Consulting.

This is correct.

12 On 18/9/2018 notification of the availability for comment of the DBARs for six environmental applications was received pertaining to the proposed development of the 49 turbine HWEF as constituted by 3 separate wind energy facilities; and their associated separate electrical grid infrastructures.

This is correct.

13 On 25/10/2018 objection was submitted to Arcus Consulting on the six applications. The submission was severely limited in content by the unreasonably short comment period of only 37 days (extended by 7 days over and above the initially advised 30-day comment period). Substantial flaws in the DBARs and BA process were identified and advice was offered to the EAP regarding their remedy. Furthermore, the EAP was explicitly advised at this early stage that the objectors had appointed their own

specialists to prepare specialist reports on various deficient aspects of the applications and which information, once provided to the EAP, would be critical in the proper environmental impact assessment of the applications going forward from that point. No response was received from the EAP, and no effort was made to obtain or receive the objectors’ appointed specialists’ studies.

The EAP acknowledged these emails, but did not see a reason to request these additional specialists’ reports, if these reports were available, this should have been submitted as part of the 37 day public review period. It can only be assumed that even if requested these reports would not have been sent to the EAP, as these reports were submitted to the CA, after submission of the final report to the CA for decision making. The comments

received from AVDS on these supposed “substantial flaws” were responded to in the final BAR submitted to the CA.

14 On 7/1/2019 notification was received from the EAP of the submission to the Department of Environmental Affairs (referred to as “the competent authority” herein) (for decision-making) of the FBARs for the six applications. No opportunity to comment by registered I&APs on the FBARS was advised of, or provided.

The EIA Regulations do not make provision for I&APs to comment on the final BARs submitted to the CA. AVDS cannot use this as a flaw in the process conducted by the EAP. There is no reasonable reason that he would say that no opportunity to comment was advised off or provided. As a professional expert, AVDS should know the process and the EIA regulations. Nevertheless, the reports were made available for public review, to inform I&APs that their comments were received and to let them

know how the EAP considered and responded to their comments.






15 On 14/2/2019 the competent authority, being the decision-maker, was served with professional reviews and opinions of the objectors’ specialists. Copies were provided to the EAP. The professional studies included were:

These are timeline points and a response from the EAP is not required. The EAP acknowledges this sequence of events as presented by AVDS.

15 a “Comments on Simon Todd’s (3 Foxes Biodiversity Solutions) flora & fauna report for the basic assessment of the proposed Highlands Windfarm”, Neil Wilson, dated 7 February 2019.

15 b “Review of the Visual Impact Report on the Proposed Highlands Wind Energy Facilities and Grid Connections, Eastern Cape Province”, Menno Klapwijk, dated January 2019.

15 c “Peer review of the bird impact study for the proposed Highlands Wind Farm developments in the Somerset East area of the Eastern Cape Province”; Andrew Jenkins, AVISENSE Consulting, dated November 2018.

16 On 5/3/2019 a letter from the competent authority was received in which was advised that the applications associated with the proposed HWEF had been suspended and the letter further specified various substantive tasks to be attended to by the EAP, and which related to the three specialist reviews submitted on behalf of the objectors to the competent authority.

17 On 7/3/2019 a notice was received from the appointed EAP advised of the suspension of the applications by the competent authority.

18 On 19/3/2019 a record of response was received from the applicant’s attorney, Cullinan & Associates, to the competent authority’s suspension of the applications and additional directives.

19 On 20/3/2019 a notice was received from the appointed EAP advising of the

submission of a response to the competent authority’s suspension of the applications.

20 On 3/4/2019 and 5/4/2019 replies by the objectors’ appointed specialists, Dr. Andrew Jenkins; Mr. Menno Klapwijk and Dr. Neil Wilson, to the EAP’s responses contained in






the applicant attorney’s letter of 19/3/2019, were delivered to the competent authority, and copied to the EAP.

21 On 14 October 2019 notification was received of the availability for comment of the six RBARs for the proposed HWEF for a period of 30 days.

22 On 1/8/2019 a letter was sent by the objectors’ attorneys to the competent authority requesting reasons for effective dismissal of the specialist opinions provided by Dr. Neil Wilson and Mr. Menno Klapwijk.

23 On 30/10/2019 a letter was received by the objectors’ attorneys from the competent authority providing the reasons requested in the objectors’ attorney’s letter of 1/8/2019.

24 On 22/10/2019 a letter was sent by AVDSEC to the competent authority (previously the DEA) requesting that the EAP be advised to provide, at the least, an additional 30 days of comment over and above that 30 days allowed for in the EAP’s notification dated 14 October 2019. On 31/10/2019 a copy of the motivated letter of request was provide to the EAP by email. To date no response to the request has been received

by either the competent authority or the EAP.

The EAP received an email on 31 October 2019, in which the referenced letter was attached “for information”. The request was not addressed to the EAP, therefore the EAP did not respond to the request.

25 On 31/10/2019 an email was sent to the EAP urgently requesting clarity on aspects of impact interpretation related to the methodology employed by the EAP in the RBARs. No response until the final day (being 12/11/2019) of the first 30 day comment period and by which time the objector’s review had already been fundamentally completed.

The EAP responded to the clarifications requested in the email on 11 November 2019, and not on the final day of comment as claimed by AVDS.

26 On XX an email was sent to the EAP requesting occupiers to participate. No response to this request was received by us or the occupiers served (to the best of our knowledge).

The EAP is unsure of the meaning of “XX” as submitted in this comment. The EAP did on numerous occasion request from surrounding landowners, names and or contact details of workers and occupiers, and no positive response was received from any of the landowners being represented by AVDS. The EAP was advised that AVDS explicitly informed those he represents not to provide the EAP with these details. This is against the principles of NEMA. The EAP is of the opinion that all reasonable measures were taken to notify I&APs of the project and to solicit comments.






Appendix 8 in Volume III provides evidence trying to get information on occupiers, to allow them to participation in the process. On the 18th of October 2018 in an email AVDS clearly states the following “The clients have now been properly advised of the real intentions of your unethical and scheming approach and have been advised not to engage or assist you in any further manner.”

For AVDS to say that no response to this request was received by him or

occupiers is simply not true.

27 As a result of what appears to be the applicant-favoured bias of the EAP, and some of the specialists, the BA process for the applications adopted a sustained and applicant-favoured approach from the outset and which arrived almost immediately and prematurely (in the DBARs) at the applicant’s desired outcome, being the EAP’s opinion that:

“Overall, it is recommended that the Highlands … WEF be approved, subject to the implementation of all recommended mitigation measures and management actions contained in all the specialist reports.”

The process conducted by the EAP is not and has not been applicant favored. These comments are unsubstantiated and unfounded. To further say that it has been from the outset is disputed. The Draft BAR was submitted only after the required one year avifaunal monitoring programme was completed and advised the layout and impact assessment. This is also true for the bat 12 month monitoring programme, which was completed prior to the availability of the draft BAR for comment. The same is true for all the other specialists’ studies, where field surveys were completed prior to the submission of the draft report for public review. Therefore the EAP notes that the draft report was informed by completed specialist studies and surveys, so for AVDS to say that we arrived at the applicants desired outcome almost immediately and prematurely (in the DBARs) is unfounded and is untrue. The impact assessments and significance ratings were conducted in an objective manner, using a standard rating methodology.

28 It is noted that this opinion has remained unchanged from the start of the BA process, it being the same in the DBAR (of September 2018); the FBAR (of January 2019); and the RBAR (of October 2019). This despite the significant information delivered to the EAP on behalf of the objectors since the production of the DBAR. Clearly the EAP was set on the stated outcome from the start of the BA process irrespective of what further new information or findings may have arisen during the course of the BA process.

The opinion has remained the same throughout the process, because the so called “significant information” was not significant in the opinion of the EAP or the specialists to change the rating of the impact assessment. It therefore only stands to reason, that statements on the report will not change. This “significant information delivered to the EAP” was received and extensively responded to during the process and during the suspension of the application. As mentioned this information presented did not change

the findings or the impact assessment and their ratings.

29 In order to achieve the applicant-desired findings the EAP has embarked upon a BA process which exaggerates proclaimed benefits of renewable energy sources

It is reiterated that the findings of the assessment are objective and not biased in favour of the applicant. AVDS fails to understand the process that






generally and of the proposed HWEF specifically. The SIA by Tony Barbour is heavily relied upon to achieve this and the numerous exaggerated and carefully-selected positive impacts given in the SIA to be associated with the proposed HWEF are used to serve the interests of the applicant (i.e. recommended approval). The true fallacy of these SIA impacts is exposed later in this objection and by the findings of the objectors’ specialist’s socio-economic expert (Appendix 2 to these objections). Despite the contrary and compelling evidence submitted to the EAP in our previous objection

and in the subsequent specialist studies by the objectors (which the EAP has effectively dismissed, and so has the competent authority in some instances) the EAP adds the following statement in the RBAR in justification of its manipulated management of the BA process and her opinion.

“The study has concluded that there are no negative high residual impacts, including potential cumulative impacts associated with the proposed development.”

is clearly explained in the BAR, a feasibility assessment was conducted, a one year long monitoring programme for birds and bats was conducted and 9 other specialist studies informed the basic assessment reports. The EAP and the social specialist have responded separately to what AVDS refers to as Appendix 2 and finds that:

The loss of revenue and capital value represents the key motivation behind the findings of the Zimmerman report that the findings of the SIA are

inaccurate and misrepresent the socio-economic impact of the proposed wind farm to the detriment of the established eco-tourism and game farming enterprises in close proximity. As indicated above, the SIA indicated that the impact would be Moderate Negative. The SIA did not quantify the potential financial costs.

There appears to have been limited or no effort to verify the information provided by the affected landowners by considering or referring to other studies or identifying potential assumptions and limitations. The information provided by the affected landowners does not therefore appear to have been interrogated. In this regard, the report provides no discussion on how the monetary figures (estimated annual losses from game-based revenue (632% decrease) and total capital depreciation per farm (52%) are therefore questioned) related to negative impact on game-based revenue and capital depreciation were arrived at. The report merely states that the methodology is deemed to be sufficiently accurate and representative of the current state of economic affairs as it is based on “primary data”. However, if the primary data is not accurate and or has not been verified then this will impact on the findings. In this regard the primary data has been provided by farmers that potentially stand to be affected by the proposed wind farm. There is therefore likely to be tendency for the potential costs to be inflated.

The report submitted as Appendix 2, draws conclusions on “primary data” collected from a select few land owners, and has not been verified, these are just their assumptions that has no basis on actual events or scientific / forensic verifications.

Local communities (in the form of a Trust) will own a minimum of 2,5% of the project.






The Project is obliged to contribute to Social Economic Development and Enterprise Development of the local community. Using the target set out in the Round 4 RFP (and we are not sure how this might change for upcoming rounds, but probably upwards), and assuming the following for Highlands:

Project size roughly 120MW; the local community will benefit by (approximately) an annual R5million (first year), then increasing by CPI for the 20 year period

This is besides the actual salaries for staff employed on the WEF(s).

The developer can commit as part of the socio-economic development plan and job creation commitments under the REIPPP, The owner and operator of the wind farm will be providing training in this regard and is confident that any job loss or economic loss in game farming will be offset by greater economic benefit and job creation in the wind energy industry, which is arguable more sustainable for the country than the limited opportunity that game farming affords.

30 Despite the “high” negative potential impacts associated with the proposed HWEF, which are variously beyond effective mitigation, and which have been identified by

proper professional specialist studies commissioned by the objectors (as well as in this and the previous objection of 25/10/2018) and which were provided to the EAP for consideration in the BA process, the EAP has effectively dismissed these damning potential impact findings which correctly determine under NEMA that the proposed HWEF is environmentally unsustainable and will damage the environment and the interests of the local community. The removal of only 8 turbines from the original layout of 49 turbines is a wholly insufficient response to:

These “proper professional specialist studies” submitted by AVDS, were reviewed and responded to extensively during the suspension process.

These were not “effectively dismissed”; they were considered and deemed not be provide any additional information to change the impact rating. It should be noted that none of the “studies” submitted comply with the EIA Regulations, including Appendix 6 – Content of Specialist Reports. The avifaunal specialist conducted additional site work, and used the VERA model to update the reports, the results of which impacted the proposed layout of the Highlands WEFs. Therefore for AVDS to say that these report submissions were not considered is not true. It is unclear how AVDS comes to the conclusion that his specialists’ studies conclude that there are “high negative potential impacts” “beyond effective mitigation”, as none of the reports completed any form of impact assessment or significance assessments. There is no methodology in any of the report submitted by

AVDS that is used to determine these “high” negative potential impacts.

30 i The additional potential negative impacts and advice identified in our previous submissions for inclusion in the BA but which the EAP effectively dismissed;

There were no additional potential new negative impacts that AVDS advised the EAP or were identified by any of the submissions made by AVDS. The






submissions were considered and responded to and therefore were not dismissed.

The peer reviews commissioned by Mr van der Spuy, do not add any new information that has the potential to change any of the specialist assessments and mitigation measures included in the Revised Final Basic Assessment Reports. This has been confirmed by the specialist and the EAP.

30 ii the confirmed findings of the objectors’ commissioned specialist reports; and These “confirmed findings” of the objector’s commissioned specialist reports were effectively dealt and responded to during the suspension process and dismissed by the DEA.

We note also that the new reports were commissioned by Mr van der Spuy, a known professional wind-farm industry objector. We are highly concerned that no declarations of independence and objectivity are attached to the reports herein. The objectivity and independence of the authors of these reports is therefore questioned.

.

30 iii the limited information contained in the RBAR itself which information, when correctly and honestly interpreted according to the provisions under NEMA, properly reveals several significant High residual negative impacts, as well as an overwhelming 91% of the potential residual impacts associated with the proposed HWEF to be negative.

The report does not contain limited information the revised BAR, together with the 10 specialist reports complied with the EIA Regulation and the principles of NEMA. The report does state the following:

“The study has concluded that there are no negative high residual impacts, including potential cumulative impacts associated with the proposed development.

Taking into consideration the findings of the BA process, including additional avifauna site work the fact that recommended mitigation measures, no-go areas and buffers have been used to inform the revised project layout design, it is the opinion of the Environmental Assessment Practitioner (EAP) that the majority of negative impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project have been mitigated to acceptable levels. While the residual impacts of the project will have an impact on the local environment, and potentially on surrounding existing game and hunting tourism operations, the extent of the benefits associated with the






implementation of the projects will benefit a much larger group of people, in terms of renewable energy supply and positive local and regional economic impact. In addition, the area has been designated a Renewable Energy Development Zone for wind energy, through a Strategic Environmental Impact Assessment by National Government.”

The percentage of negative impacts is not important and is not considered an important weighting criteria, it is how these negative impacts can be

mitigated and managed to ensure least damage to the environment. This is the reason for an EIA, to ensure that the negative impacts of a proposed development can be effectively managed. The results of this EIA process have concluded that the majority of the negative impacts can be mitigated to acceptable levels, this was based on a standard assessment methodology conducted by specialists with proven expertise in their specialists fields, while complying with the requirements of the EIA Regulations. The same cannot be said for AVDS reports, which did not follow the standard methodologies, that are biased and that have no scientific basis.

31 The EAP appears to use every opportunity in the RBAR to motivate in favour of the proposed HWEF and against any other development option (including the “no go” option) and any obvious negative factors or impacts tend to be understated and/or counter-balanced by an inevitable justification of same in light of supposed overriding benefits of the project and/or the proclaimed effectiveness of mitigation of the negative factor. An example of such one- sided interpretation is provided under point 62 of this objection where the EAP condemns the “no go” option based on a superior number of proclaimed negative reasons and impacts. Contrary to this, some of the proclaimed benefits and positive impacts identified for only the proposed HWEF are hardly ever contextualised against the negative impacts associated with the same factors (e.g. the proclaimed positive impact of job creation from the proposed HWEF is never placed in the context of the inevitable net loss of employment should the proposed HWEF render the ecotourism businesses in the area unsustainable as outlined in the rebuttal by Derek Zimmerman, Appendix 2). The EAP’s subjective

approach in dealing with and justifying matters pertaining to the proposed HWEF therefore relies upon the selected and/or exaggerated use of facts that favour the applicant and equally the dismissal and/or understatement of those facts that do not

The assessment of the no-go option is a requirement of the EIA Regulations, and the EAP believes this to be adequately addressed.

There is no evidence that there will be inevitable net loss of employment, and with the existing wind farm operations in the country there is no evidence of this occurring. Therefore to say that something is inevitable, is misleading and false. There is no evidence supplied by AVDS that wind farms may, or have, or will render eco-tourism businesses unsustainable.

Appendix 2 has been responded to separately, and in summary:

There appears to have been limited or no effort to verify the information provided by the affected landowners by considering or referring to other studies or identifying potential assumptions and limitations. The information provided by the affected landowners does not therefore appear to have been interrogated. In this regard, the report provides no discussion on how

the monetary figures (estimated annual losses from game-based revenue (632% decrease ) and total capital depreciation per farm (52%) are therefore questioned) related to impact on game-based revenue and capital depreciation were arrived at. The report merely states that the methodology is deemed to be sufficiently accurate and representative of the






favour the applicant’s interests and the predetermined outcome (of approval) of the preferred HWEF.

current state of economic affairs as it is based on “primary data”. However, if the primary data is not accurate and or has not been verified then this will impact on the findings. In this regard the primary data has been provided by farmers that potentially stand to be affected by the proposed wind farm. There is therefore likely to be tendency for the potential costs to be inflated.

33 It is noted that despite the overwhelming number of potential negative impacts associated with the proposed HWEF when compared to the proclaimed positive impacts (as shown in this objection), none of these negative potential impacts are “High” negative (post-mitigation). This is a fact used by the EAP to motivate the proposed HWEF. On the facts and circumstances of the application, it does not appear objectively rational for the EAP to conclude that all of the negative potential impacts can be mitigated to less than “high” negative.

The EAP used a standard rating methodology to determine this rating. This standard rating methodology was used across all specialist studies to provide a consistent assessment.

34 Using that data of the RBAR itself (Section 19) a comparison of the positive versus negative potential impacts of the proposed HWEF was undertaken for all phases of the project (i.e. construction, operation and decommissioning) and with mitigation effort applied (no impact ratings are provided in the RBAR for any alternatives or the “no go” option otherwise these would have been included in the below comparison, as the RBAR was required to have done). The results are as follows:

Total number of impacts identified in the RBAR for Proposed HWEF:

IMPACT Construction Operation Decommission Total %

+ 1 5 0 6 8

- 31 28 10 69 90.8

Neutral/

N/A

0 0 1* 1 1.2

This Low neutral (“L”) is reduced under mitigation from a medium negative one. This however makes no sense as a neutral impact cannot simultaneously be attributed

The no go alternative was assessed, as were the alternatives, and these are clearly laid out and demonstrated in the alternatives Section of the BAR, Section 6. The impact assessment and the assessment of potential impacts were assessed only on the preferred alternative. In order to reach the preferred alternative, specialist input in the form of high sensitivity areas, buffers and no go areas, were used to inform the layout of the preferred alternative.






with a non-neutral categorisation. The impact should therefore have been presented as Negative and not “Neutral”.

35 It can be observed that over 90% of the potential impacts associated with the proposed HWEF are negative, thereby far outweighing the supposed benefits (i.e. potential positive impacts) of the proposed HWEF. These positive impacts are SIA-derived impacts but as this objection convincingly shows later by means of the rebuttal of Derek Zimmerman (Appendix 2) even these proclaimed positive impacts are not correct and are in fact mostly potential negative impacts as well.

These positive impact have a much larger benefit to the country, in the form of providing much needed renewable energy. This positive impact of the proposed development should not be dismissed by the objectors. This rebuttal by Derek Zimmerman, is one sided and is based only on the response of 8 surrounding landowners. There is no scientific basis for his assessment, his methodology does not show how he arrives at the, what can only be assumed, inflated figures. The potential positive societal impact should the proposed development be constructed and become operational has been proven by the existing operational wind farms in South Africa. This includes job creation of the local communities, not only directly within the wind farm but indirect business opportunities in the area. There is also the skill development aspect that goes with it, both during the construction and the operation of the wind farm. These are proven positive benefits of renewable energy in South Africa. The potential loss of revenue for a few of the surrounding landowners has not been proven, and even in the Derek Zimmerman report, this has not been proven, inflated figures are based on an assumption that has no basis in scientific facts.

Wind energy can provide technical skills to South Africans and thus improve the technical skills profile of the country and the regions where wind energy facilities are located. Through the REIPPPP, developers’ own initiatives and through support from international donor agencies, a number of young South Africans are being trained on various aspects of wind farm construction and operation.

In addition, projects are required to indicate skills transfer and training initiatives as part of the economic development commitments of projects that are submitted under the REIPPPP.

36 It can therefore be seen that, based on a proper comparison of the limited information (since it excludes alternative development options) the proposed HWEF will create or be the cause of an overwhelming number of potential negative impacts upon the receiving environment and local community. Even the sustained argument

The report has assessed all the potential impacts including the potential impact on the surrounding landowners. This perceived loss of income of the surrounding landowners, has no factual basis, and has not been proven to be the case where there are existing operational wind farms in South Africa.






by the EAP for support of the proposed HWEF on the basis of the proclaimed positive potential impacts of the proposed HWEF as a renewable energy facility and its support in political directives is undone by the fact that these proclaimed potential positive impacts are included already in the above impact comparison since they were assessed under Mr. Barbour’s social impact assessment and then presented in the RBAR table (Section 19) SIA impact description of “Clean, renewable energy infrastructure” and other described SIA impacts.

The rebuttal report, does not provide any evidence of such. The assessment in the BAR is based on scientific verifiable information and a standard rating methodology across all specialists’ studies was used. Further the “proclaimed positive potential impacts” has been proven, and is based on experience of the already constructed and operating wind farms in South Africa.

Wind energy can provide technical skills to South Africans and thus improve

the technical skills profile of the country and the regions where wind energy facilities are located. Through the REIPPPP, developers’ own initiatives and through support from international donor agencies, a number of young South Africans are being trained on various aspects of wind farm construction and operation.


37 Contrary to the evidence of the above analysis it will be noted how the selective

interpretation of potential impact data is used to justify the EAP’s opinion of recommended approval (see Section 20 of the RBAR), per:

“The study has concluded that there are no negative high residual impacts, including potential cumulative impacts associated with the proposed development.”

There has not been any selective interpretation in the BAR.

38 The EAP, in association with the SIA specialist, Tony Barbour, exaggerate the post-mitigation positive impacts of the proposed HWEF. The undeserved medium and high positive categorisation of these proclaimed positive impacts is exposed elsewhere in this objection and by the rebuttal of Mr. Derek Zimmerman (Appendix 2) which shows that the potential socio-economic impacts of the proposed HWEF will in fact be significantly negative to the extent that the preferred (and only site) of the proposed HWEF is considered to be “inappropriate” and the specialist (Mr. Zimmerman) recommends that the applications not be

approved.

The EAP disputes the findings of the rebuttal report. There appears to have been limited or no effort to verify the information provided by the affected landowners by considering or referring to other studies or identifying potential assumptions and limitations. The information provided by the affected landowners does not therefore appear to have been interrogated. In this regard, the report provides no discussion on how the monetary figures (estimated annual losses from game-based revenue (632% decrease ) and total capital depreciation per farm (52%) are therefore questioned l) related to impact on game-based revenue and capital depreciation were arrived at. The report merely states that the






methodology is deemed to be sufficiently accurate and representative of the current state of economic affairs as it is based on “primary data”. However, if the primary data is not accurate and or has not been verified then this will impact on the findings. In this regard the primary data has been provided by farmers that potentially stand to be affected by the proposed wind farm. There is therefore likely to be tendency for the potential costs to be inflated.

39 The correct conclusion, based upon objective assessment and interpretation of all of the information that has served before the competent authority, is that the listed activities that comprise or form part of the proposed HWEF are unsustainable. The proclaimed positive benefits that could be delivered by a genuinely sustainable renewable energy project could well be achieved at another appropriate location and the proposed HWEF offers nothing uniquely beneficial in this regard. The SIA (page 133) by Tony Barbour concedes that:

“However, at a provincial and national level, it should be noted that the proposed WF development is not unique. In this regard, a significant number of other renewable

energy developments are currently proposed in the Eastern Cape and other parts of South Africa. Foregoing the proposed establishment of WFs would therefore not necessarily compromise the development of renewable energy facilities in the Eastern Cape Province and or South Africa.”

The environmental assessment process for the proposed development was an objective process, and was undertaken according the EIA regulation and the principals of NEMA. The reports and the process has been open and transparent. The report concludes, based on independent, experienced specialist’s findings that the proposed development should be authorized. A comprehensive alternative assessment was conducted and is reported on in Section 6 of the BAR. AVDS should also recognize that the location of the proposed wind farm is within a designated renewable energy development zone, which was determined by the National Government through a strategic environmental assessment process.

40 The EAP’s failure to properly assess, on a comparative basis, any alternatives to the (preferred and only) proposed HWEF is a significant failing as shown in this objection. While some alternative sites are critically described and are said to have been considered as alternatives (but no evidence is provided) the location of these sites is still not even declared despite previous objection in this regard. Even the “no go” development option is excluded from proper impact assessment and despite the EAP having been informed that it is the favoured option of the objectors, who amount to a considerable proportion of the local community. The exclusion of a proper and

objective assessment of the “no go” option has the consequence that many positive impacts that would have been assessed in a proper assessment of the “no go” option, (such as continued growth in the local ecotourism economy, employment and biodiversity benefits) have not been considered. (Note: such a

Section 6 of the BAR has a comparative assessment of the proposed layout, as well as comparative assessment of the types of renewable energy developments and different site locations. This comprehensive assessment, clearly shows the process as well and alternatives assessment. It is not clear how AVDS can say that the “objectors amount to a considerable proportion of the local community” this statement is factually untrue, how can these 12 objectors be defined as a considerable proportion?

The SIA states the following:

The population of the SBDM increased by from 388 206 in 2001 to 450 584 in 2011, which represents an increase of ~ 16%. The population of the






description of the positive benefits for the “no go” option is indeed offered in a later section of this objection).

BCRLM increased marginally from 35 407 in 2001 to 36 002 in 2011 (~ 0.1%) over the same period.

41 Yet another aspect that has been assessed and considered selectively by the EAP in the BA process is the proper application of mitigation measures to identified potential impacts, including the application of the full range of the mitigation hierarchy. Most notable is the failure to apply any mitigation to significant negative impacts where

such mitigation would likely impose major costs upon the applicant. Those costs would include addressing the significant negative economic impacts of the proposed HWEF upon the objectors’ land and operation values, as identified and quantified in Derek Zimmerman’s rebuttal (Appendix 2). The correct application of the mitigation hierarchy gives, as a lowest order of address, the necessity to “offset” negative impacts that cannot be avoided and remedied to acceptable (to the affected entity, not necessarily the EAP) levels. In the context of the proposed HWEF, this requires that compensation be offered (or at least a compensation mechanism provided for) for negative impacts upon the objectors’ economic interests (and those of other similarly impacted I&APs).

It is not reasonable to include compensation measures in the BAR, which is what AVDS is alluding to in this comment. The potential negative impact, as outlined by AVDS, has no basis, there has not been any scientific study proving that wind farms cause of has cause loss of income for surrounding

land owners. The rebuttal does not prove that these land owners will suffer economic loss that must be compensated. It was a selected targeted audience that completed the questionnaire with a bias from the outset, as they have been objecting the development from the outset.

42 In its numerous motivations of the proposed HWEF the RBAR relies heavily upon the Cookhouse REDZ as constituting justification for the proposed HWEF. This ignores the fact that any proposed WEF outside of the REDZ has equal right and justification to apply for approval and be so considered by the competent authority. It also ignores the fact that the only advantage offered to a prospective applicant by a REDZ is that any renewable energy facility application need only follow the BA process as opposed to a full EIA process – there is no further advantage to its location. This was confirmed by Mr. M. Essop in his presentation at the 2018 Birdlife EWT Energy-Bird Forum. Mere location of the proposed HWEF within the Cookhouse REDZ does not offer it any environmental advantages especially in light of the recognised and substantial environmental damages being wrought by operating wind farms located within the Cookhouse REDZ (such as the mortalities of more than 15 Endangered Cape Vultures, amongst other Endangered bird species, plus the significant negative

impacts on the previously well-established ecotourism and wildlife industry in the region) and to which the proposed HWEF will add significant High, and “very High”, cumulative negative impacts (latter confirmed in the objectors’ appointed specialist studies).

The stated fact that the proposed development is in the REDZ is not used as the sole reason for the development to be authorized. It is merely stating that the area has already been “pre-approved” as a desired location for renewable energy. The fact that the development is in the REDZ did not lessen the environmental impact assessment conducted in order to obtain environmental authorisation. Full and complete specialist’s studies were conducted for the assessment. The EAP cannot comment on the comments made by Mr. Essop.

It should be noted that the objectors appointed specialists did not comply with the EIA Regulation compiling their reports, nor with Appendix 6, and none of the reports have actual significance rating or show their impact assessment methodology. So how AVDS has concluded “high” and “very high” impacts, is confusing.

The proposed Highlands WEF is >45 km away from these operational sites. These operational sites are a lot closer to the Cape Vulture roost site and colonies further to the east. The pre-construction passage rate of Cape Vulture at one of these sites (Amakhala Wind Farm) was 0.13 birds at rotor






swept height per hour of observation. This is higher than what was recorded at Highlands, and it is also noted that this refers to flights at rotor swept height. If all flights of the species are considered, it is possible that this figure is even higher. Data from another WEF site in the Cookhouse/Bedford area (i.e. Golden Valley II WEF), shows that this area (i.e. where the mortalities have been recorded at operational sites) has higher levels of Cape Vulture activity (especially in summer) than what was

recorded on the Highlands site. Large numbers of Vultures, including vultures roosting overnight on power lines in the area were recorded in 2014/2015 at Golden Valley, and monitoring found a passage rate of ~0.14 birds per hour. Pre-construction monitoring at the Cookhouse Wind farm recorded a passage rate of 0.31 birds/hour, while Nojoli wind farm also in the same area had an average of 0.13 birds/hour (BLSA, Pers.Com), all higher than what has been recorded at Highlands.

43 Regarding the issue of “significance” of a potential impact rating the RBAR (Section 3.2.3) says only this:

“The significance of environmental impacts is a function of the environmental aspects that are present and to be impacted on, the probability of an impact occurring and the consequence of such an impact occurring before and after implementation of proposed mitigation measures.”;

and,

“Combining the consequence of the impact and the probability of occurrence provides the overall significance (risk) of impacts.”

This is a standard methodology used, it is defined in the BAR report.

44 This however is almost meaningless unless it is explained how it was applied by the EAP to the assessment of the overall environmental sustainability of the proposed HWEF. For instance, at what level (i.e. low, moderate, high or other) of “significance” is a particular potential impact regarded as constituting a “Fatal Flaw”. The RBAR does not provide this critically important threshold.

A flaw is a lack of complete adherence to accepted methodology for survey and assessment, and/or a lack of logical progression through the process of assessing impacts. This could be considered “fatal” if correcting it would be likely to lead to a materially different conclusion on the significance of effects or the mitigation required, compared to that assessed. It therefore stands to reason that a “fatal flaw” is determined if a proposed development is likely to potentially change conservation status of a species or impact the ability of a population or future generations to meet their own needs, even with mitigation applied. The methodology clearly states that






HIGH post mitigated impacts would potentially constitute a fatal flaw. AVDS is simply not understating the methodology, which is explained in great details in the BAR.

45 From the above quotations it is noted that the RBAR appears to regard “significance” as being the same as the “risk” of a potential impact occurring. Nowhere in the RBAR is the threshold level of “unacceptable” “risk” defined or provided by the EAP. This is

a severe short-coming which limits the ability to assess the proposed HWEF properly and therefore undermines the credibility of the RBAR impact assessments.

The significance of environmental aspects can be determined and ranked by considering the criteria presented in the BAR. In some cases it may be necessary to undertake the impact assessment to determine whether a

particular aspect is significant. Therefore, a fair degree of iteration is unavoidable during the assessment process.

The methodology stated the following:

“Significant impacts would only be present if significant aspects are present. Hence, a method for ranking the significance of aspects is required. Once the significance aspects have been identified, it is necessary to rank the significance of the impacts that could result from them.”

The methodology for assessing the significance of impacts is clearly outlined in the BAR.

Not having definitions in the BAR does not constitute a severe short coming in being able to assess the potential impacts of the development.

46 These omissions appear to have been used by the EAP (and specialists) to apply a flexible interpretation so as to ensure that no post-mitigation potential negative impact is allocated a “High” level of significance.

There have not been any omissions. It is simply a failure of AVDS to read and understand the BAR. The methodology is clearly stated and explained in the BAR.

47 It is recorded that on 31/10/2019 an urgent request was sent by email to Ms. A. Bodasing enquiring as to her interpretation of the meaning of the above terms, per:

This email was received. The definitions were provided as requested by AVDS. The following was submitted via email.

47 1 Please provide us with your definition of “unsustainable” in the context of a (potential) environmental impact.

The Brundtland Report definition applies, "Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."- Therefore an “unsustainable” impact is an impact that would potentially change conservation status of a species, regardless of mitigation applied, or impact the ability of a population or future generations to meet their own needs as a result of the potential impact.






47 2 How do you determine a “fatal flaw” in the context of your environmental impact assessment methodology and what specific objective criteria do you apply in adjudicating a “fatal flaw”?

A flaw is a lack of complete adherence to accepted methodology for survey and assessment, and/or a lack of logical progression through the process of assessing impacts. This could be considered “fatal” if correcting it would be likely to lead to a materially different conclusion on the significance of effects or the mitigation required, compared to that assessed. It therefore stands to reason that a “fatal flaw” is determined if a proposed development is likely to potentially change conservation status of a species

or impact the ability of a population or future generations to meet their own needs, even with mitigation applied.

47 3 What specific objective impact assessment methodology criteria would determine that any of the activities being applied for under the 6 applications pertaining to the proposed Highlands Wind Farms would render any of them as being “environmentally unacceptable”?

If a project (or linked group of projects) has a net overall environmental impact that is beneficial, then it would be environmentally acceptable. Therefore if the project has a potential impact that would potentially change conservation status of a species, even with mitigation applied, then this would be “environmentally unacceptable”.

47 The urgent request went unanswered by the EAP for 12 days (despite an intervening reminder per email of 1/11/2019) until the final day of the initial 30 day comment period (being

12/1/2019) and by which time the response was anyway too late to be considered given the fundamentally completed state of the objection document at the time of receipt.

As mentioned and stated by AVDS a response was provided as requested.

48 The EAP’s interpretation of the meaning of these is required in order to properly conduct this review and make properly informed comment. and the comment is accordingly limited by that failure to respond in reasonable time. For the same reasons without such knowledge the competent authority must be unable to make a proper rational decision of approval on the applications, and an EA of refusal will be demanded by the circumstances.

AVDS cannot use this as a reason for the DEA to refuse the application. The EAP submits that the definitions required, should not have limited AVDS to respond, which he has done, to the BAR. Further having or not having these definitions should not limit the DEA from making an informed decision on the application, as all relevant information is contained in the BAR on which the DEA can base their decision.

49 Closely related to the above questions is what quantity of potential negative impacts associated with the proposed HWEF would the EAP consider to have an excessively negative potential cumulative impact on the environment and would constitute it to be environmentally unacceptable. On behalf of the objectors, we

The quantity of potential negative impacts, should not be a determining factor in authorizing a proposed development. It is the nature of these potential negative impacts, the significance level of these potential impacts and the mitigation measures to be implemented.






submit that the significant percentage of negative impacts tabulated clearly shows that the project is unsustainable, when objectively viewed.

The International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) defines an environmental impact assessment as "the process of identifying, predicting, evaluating and mitigating the biophysical, social, and other relevant effects of development proposals prior to major decisions being taken and commitments made".

50 In conclusion then the RBAR is not a reliable and objective document and cannot be

relied upon by the competent authority to arrive at an accountable and justifiable decision (of approval) without substantive and fundamental repeat of the BA process in the required proper and objective manner and in order to produce a reliable BAR. This will require inter alia a complete and genuine effort to engage with the local community, including the objectors and the occupiers on their properties some of whom have expressed to the EAP their wish to participate in the BA process. The appointment of a legitimate EAP goes without saying

The environmental authorisation process has been open and transparent

and has complied with the EIA regulations. AVDS makes sweeping statements without justification or evidence. If AVDS objectively looks at the BAR and the process, it is clearly evident, that it complies with NEMA and the EIA regulations. During the process we have tried to get in contact with occupiers of the objectors land portions and the following response was received from AVDS on the 18th of October in an email AVDS clearly states the following “The clients have now been properly advised of the real intentions of your unethical and scheming approach and have been advised not to engage or assist you in any further manner.”

51 The comments made herein do not refer to the alternatives given under the applications for electrical grid infrastructure as such is associated with the proposed HWEF.

This is noted.

52 In the objection of 25/10/2018 it was pointed out that the applications were non-compliant in terms of the proper, equal and unbiased consideration and proper comparative assessment of alternatives, through a consultative process with the I&APs, as is required under the NEMA EIA Regulations. It was pointed out that the objectors’ favoured option, the “no go” option, was not properly assessed; and that they also favoured (conditionally) the development of a solar energy facility rather than the proposed HWEF, since the former offers less associated environmental risk yet would also meet the proclaimed need for electricity generation. The EAP was advised to abandon the applications due to these identified shortcomings and to engage from the beginning in the formulation of proper and genuine alternatives

which are the product of the required consultative process – this advice has been ignored by the EAP.

This “advice” provided by AVDS was considered when finalizing the BAR. Section 6 of the BAR clearly indicates the alternative considered by the applicant. A comprehensive alternatives assessment, as well as need and desirability assessment was conducted for the proposed development. Consideration of the objectors no-go option being the preferred option was considered as well, it was determined that the no go option, although reasonable, was not feasible in the context of the potential positive benefits that will be realized if this project is approved and awarded preferred bidder as part of the REIPPPP.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Association_for_Impact_Assessment

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biophysics






53 The responses of the EAP to the issues around alternatives, as raised in the objection of 25/10/2018, have been reviewed in Vol. III of the RBAR and it is noted that the EAP has effectively dismissed these (valid) concerns.

It is acknowledged that these issues raised were responded to by the EAP. Just because AVDS did not get the response that he desired does not mean that these were dismissed without consideration.

54 In response to our concern that only the applicant’s preferred alternative has been assessed in the BA process, and by the specialist impact assessments, the EAP states (Vol. III) that a “detailed process flow of how the Preferred Alternative was identified” was provided in the BAR. The EAP further claims that the specialists assessed alternative turbine layouts in an “iterative manner” in which the initial proposed layout was developed from their sensitivity maps and then assessed as with- and without mitigation in their impact assessment tables. In this regard the EAP fails to understand the following critical issues:

The iterative process as described in the BAR and stated by AVDS, is also embedded mitigation. The specialist assessed the site provided the sensitivity areas and which areas are suitable for the development of a wind farm, following this, draft layout was produced, which the specialist used to inform their site visits. Following the site visits, the specialist either confirmed these no go areas or included additional areas of no development. This layout was then taken forward to be assessed as part of the BA process. The BAR shows the following as required by Appendix 1 of the EIA Regulations, including but not limited to the following:

A motivation for the preferred site, activity and technology alternative.

Full description of the process followed to reach the proposed preferred alternative within the site.

Details of the alternatives considered.

Outcome of site selection matrix

It should be noted that initial notification informing the public and the surrounding landowners of the proposed development was sent out in June 2018. These notifications (site posters, site notices, email and registered mail letters), included a figure / map of the proposed development including the proposed turbine layout, the grid connections as well as the proposed access road. This is four months prior to the draft BAR release for public review and comment. Therefore for AVDS to state that the “local community” did not have an opportunity from the start to be involved in the process is incorrect. The consultative process began in June, and no comments on the layout that was sent out were received by the EAP. Further to say that the consultation was only at the very advanced stage is again incorrect.

54 i The supposed alternative “turbine layouts” (note plural) should then have ALL been equally subjected to the so-called iterative process of mitigation (i.e. the process described is actually a process of “mitigation” rather than preferred alternative

The layout as described in the Revised BAR, were subject to consultative process. Through consultation, the layout of the facility changed the number of turbines reduced. This was through the additional avifaunal work






development) and thereafter ALL of the produced alternatives subjected to a comparative impact assessment.

completed. Therefore the public had the opportunity to review and comment on both these layouts.

54 ii The mislabelled process of so-called iterative development of the preferred alternative should have, at the very least, been subjected to the required “consultative process” from the start in order to ensure that it was informed by local community expectations and inputs. The EAP states in Vol. III that consultation was undertaken.

However this only happened after the very advanced development of the Preferred Alternative and most certainly the initial “alternative turbine layouts” were never subjected to any consultative process.

Regardless of the label of Preferred Layout as stated in the draft BAR, the “local community” had an opportunity to comment on the layout, and did not add any meaningful comments on the layout and the position of turbines. AVDS and those he represents are objecting to the wind farm

development, not the layout of the proposed facility. It should be noted that initial notification informing the public and the surrounding landowners of the proposed development was sent out in June 2018. These notifications (site posters, site notices, email and registered mail letters), included a figure / map of the proposed development including the proposed turbine layout, the grid connections as well as the proposed access road. This is four months prior to the draft BAR release for public review and comment. Therefore for AVDS to state that the “local community” did not have an opportunity from the start to be involved in the process is incorrect. The consultative process began in June, and no comments on the layout that was sent out were received by the EAP. Further to say that the consultation was only at the very advanced stage is again incorrect.

55 It is noted that point 57 of our objection of 25/10/2018 is omitted from Vol. III. That important, and still very relevant, point states the following;

“It is noted in fact that the DBAR relegates the function of the “No go” Alternative to being simply a “baseline” scenario against which to measure and assess impacts associated with the Preferred Alternative of the Applicant. Such is a fundamentally flawed interpretation of the EIA Regulations.”

The EAP apologies for this omission, this has now been included in the Comments and Response Report. This unfortunately got lost in the 102 points raised by AVDS in his submission on the draft BAR, during the EAPs response.

56 In other words the “no go” option is given no real prospect of recommendation or approval.

The preferred alternative as described and assessed in the BAR is being submitted for approval. The no- go option was assessed and found not be the preferred option.

57 Review of Section 6 of the RBAR which purports to deal with the assessment of alternatives shows clearly that no real assessment of alternatives has been undertaken. Instead the applicant’s parent company’s prospective wind farm sites

The assessment was put through a consultative process. The draft BAR was out for a 37 day comment and review period in September / October 2018, so to say that the alternative assessment was not consulted is not correct.






located elsewhere in the country are given (but not identified) as supposed alternatives that were weighed up against the proposed HWEF site. It is quite clear that no real consideration of alternatives has occurred in the instance of the proposed HWEF – for instance, is it really expected of the reviewer to accept that “Nuclear power” is a reasonable and practical alternative that has been considered in the BA process (see Table 6.4 of the RBAR)? The identification and assessment of real and practical alternatives to the Preferred Option is required to happen within the

legislated BA process and quite clearly the proclaimed process (i.e. which is not an “assessment”) of choosing the preferred site, unsubstantiated as it is, has happened mainly before the BA process and certainly without any public consultation. Public consultation has been permitted on only the preferred development option, being the only option considered in the BA process.

I&APs had an opportunity to comment on the process and provide meaningful comment and alternatives, should they wish, to the proposed layout and the site selected. The process to choose the preferred site is detailed in the BAR, and just because AVDS does not like the outcome does not make it any less meaningful.

58 No potential environmental impact assessments of any alternative, which the objectors could consider against the current preferred alternative, have been undertaken. Not even the “no go” option has been subjected to a proper environmental impact assessment.

Initial notification informing the public and the surrounding landowners of the proposed development was sent out in June 2018. These notifications (site posters, site notices, email and registered mail letters), included a figure / map of the proposed development including the proposed turbine layout, the grid connections as well as the proposed access road. This is four months prior to the draft BAR release for public review and comment. Therefore for AVDS to state that the “local community” did not have an opportunity from the start to be involved in the process is incorrect. The consultative process began in June, and no comments on the layout that was sent out were received by the EAP. Further to say that the I&APs were not provided with an opportunity to comment on the layouts is again incorrect.

59 The presentation of Tables 6.1 and 6.2 provide no identified and verifiable alternatives to the proposed HWEF and are meaningless. Table 6.1 provides cryptically labeled alternatives being “Region B”, Region C” and “Region D” and like the so-called “Preferred Region A” they too are all described as merely “Inland Eastern Cape”. Similarly the Table 6.2 provides descriptions of so-called alternatives

per the following extract:

The Pre-feasibility part of the site selection stage (as detailed in Section 6) includes a range of preliminarily considerations which are investigated to evaluate the project sites:

1. Grid connection options and capacity availability on the existing national grid;

2. The feasibility of site access;

3. Technical construction issues such as geological conditions and topography;






4. Preliminary high level environmental considerations regarding the presence of internationally, nationally, provincial and local protected areas, identified heritage sites, hydrology (including perennial and no-perennial waterways, dams and wetlands, etc.), location of houses, roads etc. based on publicly available data or preliminary on-site investigations. Publicly available data is obtained from sources such as the Endangered Wildlife Trust (EWT), Cape Nature, Birdlife SA, SANBI, local wildlife groups and

other publicly available georeferenced environmental data of South Africa. At this stage of a development initial consultation with key statutory and non-statutory organisations such as Birdlife SA, EWT, SANBI and Provincial/National Department of Environmental Affairs may be completed.

Only if no initial, high level issues are identified, a monitoring mast is erected on preferred project sites to measure on site wind. A minimum of 12-months data collection is required in order for the wind data to be considered bankable.

60 Given the vast and unlimited area encompassed under the broad descriptions applied for so- called alternative sites under Table 6.2 the objectors’ own properties were evidently also considered as alternative sites but they were never consulted nor even aware of such considerations at any stage. It is thus not possible to reasonably accept that the Table 6.2 describes any real and practical alternatives to the proposed HWEF or its chosen site.

Appendix 1 (3) (g) of the EIA Regulations 2014, as amended require the basic assessment report to contain a motivation for the preferred site, activity and technology alternative. Section 6.2 provides this motivation for the preferred site. Details and a full description of all alternatives considered for the preferred site is not required by the Regulations. Appendix 1 (3) (h) states that a full description of the process followed to reach the proposed preferred alternative within the site is required, as is given in Section 6.3. Therefore names and locations of the investigated regional and local site alternatives are not required in the BAR.

It must be made clear that some of the clients of Mr AVDS have been approached by the social specialist, but mostly refused to participate in the process. Access to their properties was not granted. The social specialist made attempts to conduct interviews. Therefore, there may indeed be inaccuracies resulting from their refusal to participate, but not to the extent that the description and the assessment changes.

61 The objectors stand to be materially and negatively affected by the decisions taken by the applicant, and permitted by the EAP in the BA process, on alternatives and the initial identification thereof without proper consultation. The EAP has failed to uphold

The Preferred Alternative was derived through an iterative process that took into account the results of the various specialist studies and therefore represents the best environmental option.






their rights to participate meaningfully in such matters. This is especially pertinent since the only chosen and pursued site has now been identified as being entirely inappropriate for the proposed HWEF by 2 experts (Mr. Derek Zimmerman and Mr. Menno Klapwijk) given the associated environmental risks.

Appendix 1 (3) (g) of the EIA Regulations 2014, as amended require the basic assessment report to contain a motivation for the preferred site, activity and technology alternative. Section 6.2 provides this motivation (h) A full description of the process followed to reach the proposed preferred alternative within the site (bolding supplied) is required, as is given in Section 6.3, 6.4 and 6.5. Therefore details of names and exact locations of the investigated site alternatives are not required to be presented in the

BAR.

For clarification the headings in Table 6.1 have been changed from Site B, Site C and Site D to Region B, Region C and Region D in the final BAR.

It should be noted the details and a full description of all alternatives considered for the preferred site is not required by the Regulations.

The other Regions were considered unsuitable for wind energy development due to insufficient wind resource or high avifaunal sensitivity.

Table 6.1 and 6.2 demonstrate how the Applicant reached the decision on selecting the development site as the most reasonable site alternative and therefore provides the motivation for the preferred site.

Appendix 1 (3) (g) of the EIA Regulations 2014, as amended require the

basic assessment report to contain a motivation for the preferred site, activity and technology alternative. Section 6.2 provides this motivation for the preferred site. Details and a full description of all alternatives considered for the preferred site is not required by the Regulations. Appendix 1 (3) (h) states that a full description of the process followed to reach the proposed preferred alternative within the site is required, as is given in Section 6.3. Therefore names and locations of the investigated regional and local site alternatives are not required in the BAR.

62 On page 90 of Vol. III of the RBAR it is concerning to note that the EAP formulates a flimsy set of reasons as the basis for not selecting the “no go” option as the Preferred option. The irony is that the socio-economic rebuttal by Derek Zimmerman has

discredited all of these proclaimed “disadvantages” of the “no go” option and therefore, the ”no go” option must rightly be reintroduced into the BA process and in fact accorded the Preferred Option status according to the EAP’s own reasoning. The following listed “disadvantages” of the “no go”

The EAP disputes that these reasons are “flimsy” these are fact that are stated, based on scientific information. The rebuttal report, is not more that biased reporting. Derek Zimmerman consults with no one but objectors to

the development and proposes inflated monitory loss of these objectors should the development be authorized.






Alternative (listed in the 3rd column on page 90 of Vol. III) must be reconsidered in light of the findings of Mr. Zimmerman’s report findings, as follows:

62 i [Listed disadvantage]: Land use remains low agricultural, without benefits from complimentary land use.

Reconsideration of issue:

In absence of the Proposed HWEF the low agricultural land use offers opportunity for participating in the proven beneficial game- and eco-tourism industry with its associated socio-economic benefits.

A project landowner (Bill Brown – Highlands Trust) has submitted a comment with regards to why the project landowners do not consider game related farming as a suitable land use for the project land portions. He states the following:

The agricultural specialists report indicates that the land in question is only suitable for low-intensity grazing or wind farm development. When Mr Andre van der Spuy, (who legally represents those who object to the wind farm) questions why the land has not been considered for game related farming, he interprets low-intensity grazing as applying to domestic livestock and evidently not to game. Low intensity grazing (and, to a lesser extent, browsing) would apply to both domestic as well as wild animals. The agricultural specialist report does, therefore, include game farming as a viable enterprise for the area.

Mr Van der Spuy’s question regarding game farming can be interpreted as suggesting that, by farming game, landowners would be making ‘better’ use

of the land, and would not be enticed by the financial gains of wind farming. To begin with, there are a number of financial reasons, why landowners may not farm game:

(i) Some of the land is government owned. Emerging farmers assigned to this land do not have title to this land, and, as such, cannot use the land as co-lateral, nor do they have the capital or expertise to go into such a venture.

(ii) Some are dedicated livestock owners who do not wish to farm game.

(iii) Some game farmers entered the industry many years ago and are well established. It is inevitably more difficult for farmers who are not in the industry to enter the industry successfully.

(iv) I am personally aware of a farmer who, having returned home to farm

some 5 years ago, decided to increase the farms viability by dedicating part of the farm to high-value game. The colour variant of the species in question was initially valued at R480 000 per unit. Now, 5 years later, this colour variant is valued at about R10 000 per unit. Such collapses in the






market value are obviously a deterrent to many who have entertained the idea of some form of game farming. Needless to say, I am one of these.

There are also ecological reasons why a landowner may not farm game:

(i) In the past, game would move over vast areas as they followed the change of season and rainfall patterns. Today, it is acknowledged that completely intact ecological systems are basically non-existent. At 2 million hectares, even the Kruger National Park has it problems, and the concept of trans-boarder parks was initiated to help with this. So what of the average game farm of, say, 5000ha? It is widely acknowledged that the long-term viability of a farm is dependent on the integrity of the soil and vegetation, and that animals need to be managed in such a way as to minimise negative impact through poor grazing practices such as under, over and selective grazing. Domestic livestock can be easily rotated from one camp to another allowing for adequate recovery of the vegetation. In some areas, this, coupled with the use of fire and the adaptive use of supplementary feeding where needed, can allow for the integrity of the land to be preserved in the long-term. Game, on the other hand, cannot be rotated and controlled to the same degree. The impact of long-term selective grazing by game is often very visible in areas where such farming adjoins livestock farming. The game farming areas often show a marked scarcity of grass, with a dominance of less palatable ‘increaser’ species (pictures available).

(ii) Where the game is intensively managed, the degradation within the small camped areas can be extreme and is self-evident. This is common with particularly valuable animals.

(iii) Arid and semi-arid areas are particularly susceptible to degradation. This includes the Highlands region.

Inevitably, a landowner’s interest in the land-use of an area is heavily determined by financial values. I must point out that I had initially tried to farm sheep on my property but had to give up because of excessive losses

to predators that were either not controlled on some properties in the vicinity, or controlled to a minor extent. I had no recourse to this problem but to switch to farming cattle, which is far less profitable. While I have not objected to land owners getting on with their respective enterprises even though some of their enterprises have had a negative financial effect on






me, the point is that some land owners do object to the wind farm. It would seem that they feel that the wind farm would negatively affect their clientele who want an aesthetically pleasing African experience.

If wind farms are an aesthetic problem, then I would suggest that such a land owner starts in his/her back yard. Animals and plants that are foreign to that area are invariably held as a deviation from authenticity and aesthetics by many who are in the know. While most properties have exotic

species, it is the conscious planting of exotics – some even prohibited – that I point to. If the clientele on a game farm do not object to the presence of out-of-range South African species, completely foreign species, or an avenue of exotic conifers, why should the landowner or the clientele be concerned about wind turbines which are arguably less intrusive than large pylons? I am also aware that visiting hunters very frequently do not hunt in what would be termed zxcan aesthetically pleasing manner – certainly, the purist would decry any hunting that does not involve ‘fair chase’. Why would such hunting clientele – and land owners who provide such hunting - be concerned about wind turbines?

The security of the supply of electricity is crucial to our economy, and we surely have an interest in our local economy. The proposed wind farm would be a major contributor to the security of electricity. Such wind turbines are found in many parts of the world and are an attempt to be environmentally sound through lowered carbon emissions.

The security of food is also crucial to our economy. Wind farming is compatible with livestock farming, as is evident in the Cookhouse area. While it may be that the erection of the wind turbines may lower the overall carrying capacity of the areas slightly due to access roads and the space at the base of the turbines, I make the point that game farming is a minor contributor to food security.

While some who object to the wind farm may be established farmers who run significant enterprises, others may have ‘lifestyle’ farms of little or no

productivity. These people may not even be around in the long-term. Their decision may have significant effect on commercial farmers who are making good use of their land. In what way is their ‘vote’ justified?






Should foreigners who own land object to the local land owners adding to the power supply of the country?

In other areas I am told that game farmers have not objected to wind farms. An Environmental Impact Assessment on the Highlands site has already determined that, due to environmental reasons, the turbines should not be erected at the higher elevation, but that they be erected lower down where their visibility would be less obvious. I feel that the points detailed

above show very clearly that the wind farm is a positive initiative.

Bill Brown

62 ii [Listed disadvantage]: No additional electricity will be generated through renewable resources.


In absence of the Proposed HWEF there is offered more likelihood of a more environmentally suitable site being chosen elsewhere in the country/province to meet the need for additional renewable energy and the confirmed inappropriateness of the site for proposed HWEF is correctly honoured. A “win-win” situation is achieved for the country, society, the local community and the environment.

The alternative analysis and the need and desirability section outlines this as the preferred site.

Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) 2017 Guideline on Need and Desirability1 which states that while the “concept of need and desirability relates to the type of development being proposed, essentially, the concept of need and desirability can be explained in terms of the general meaning of its two components in which need refers to time and desirability to place

– i.e. is this the right time and is it the right place for locating the type of land-use/activity being proposed? Need and desirability can be equated to wise use of land – i.e. the question of what is the most sustainable use of land.”

62 iii [Listed disadvantage]: No opportunity for additional employment (permanent or temporary) in an area where job creation is identified as a key priority.


In absence of the Proposed HWEF the high level of local employment in the

surrounding game farms and ecotourism industry is protected and the same

The job creation goes far beyond that of local eco-tourism and game farming. Wind energy can provide technical skills to South Africans and thus improve the technical skills profile of the country and the regions where wind energy facilities are located. Through the REIPPPP, developers’ own initiatives and through support from international donor agencies, a number of young South Africans are being trained on various aspects of wind farm construction and operation.

1DEA (2017) Guideline on Need and Desirability. Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA), Pretoria, South Africa, ISBN: 978-0-9802694-4-4.






employment benefits are able to be enhanced through future similar development, even on the HWEF properties.


62 iv [Listed disadvantage]: No socio-economic benefits for the community associated with the establishment of a Community Trust.


In absence of the Proposed HWEF the exceedingly beneficial socio-economic benefits (being long term ones of more than 20 years duration) of the ecotourism and game industry are preserved and offer the opportunity for future growth. Anyway, the value of these wind farm-associated of Trusts is the subject of much questioning.

Wind energy can provide technical skills to South Africans and thus improve the technical skills profile of the country and the regions where wind energy facilities are located. Through the REIPPPP, developers’ own initiatives and

through support from international donor agencies, a number of young South Africans are being trained on various aspects of wind farm construction and operation.


62 v [Listed disadvantage]: The government will not be assisted in addressing climate change, energy security and economic development.


In absence of the Proposed HWEF the issue of climate change mitigation and energy security is anyway better achieved through one of the many other, genuinely sustainable, renewable energy projects in the country. Likewise the achievement of economic development. The confirmed inappropriate nature of the preferred site for development of the proposed HWEF is honoured and the unacceptable and likely environmental damages avoided.

While this may be true, the need and desirability section and the alternative section clearly outlines why this site is preferred for the development of a wind farm. The recent commitments in the Integrated Resource Plan to renewable energy developments in South Africa, further provides evidence of this. The government is also looking at further Renewable Energy Zones evidenced by the SEA currently underway for Phase 2 of the REDZ.

62 vi [Listed disadvantage]: No development in an area earmarked and suitable for such specific development (REDZ).


The meaning of the REDZ is misinterpreted by the EAP since that designation does not confirm the area as suitable for wind farm development and in fact the site is confirmed by the objectors’ specialist to be inappropriate for development of the proposed HWEF and which is instead best developed in another “vacant” site.

The meaning is not misinterpreted by the EAP. The EAP is simply saying that through the designation of the area as a REDZ, that the wind farm is suited. This is also true based on the wind data gathered on the site, as well as the specialist assessments conducted.






63 The associated benefits of the “no go” option are clear and recorded and therefore far outweigh any potential benefits (which appear to be very limited, when properly weighed against a myriad of significant negative and unsustainable impacts) of the preferred site being developed for the proposed HWEF.

The proposed benefits of the wind farm are clearly outlined in the BAR, this should not be on the only consideration the DEA must consider, the BAR report further assesses the potential positive and negative impacts of the proposed development. The report concludes that the majority of the negative impacts have been mitigated to acceptable levels.

64 The applicant’s specialist impact assessments that have been used to inform (only) the Preferred HWEF are likewise fundamentally deficient in their identification and assessment of environmental impacts associated with any other real alternatives.

The identification and assessment of impacts was conducted in an objective manner by all the specialists using a standard method of assessment.

The BAR gives a detailed account in Chapter 6 – Assessment of Alternatives of the site selection process undertaken by the Developer. The final position of the turbines on the selected site takes into account the results of detailed specialist environmental studies which identified the best environmental option that minimises negative impacts and avoids sensitive areas.

Section 6 Assessment of Alternatives gives detailed account of all alternatives considered. This includes the No go Alternative, alternatives regions considered, alternative sites within the region that were considered, alternative turbine layouts that were assessed, and alternative technologies.

Table 6.4 provides a summary of the alternatives considered in the

selection of the preferred alternative. Based on this assessment, it was decided that the proposed location of the WEF will be the Highlands site, located in the Eastern Cape Province. Through the feasibility process the design of the WEF was developed taking into consideration environmental constraints. These constraints were provided by the specialists, and included no-go areas based on avifaunal and bat constraints, as well as floral and faunal constraints, aquatic buffers, and visual constraints. A provisional layout for the proposed development was designed based on these constraints, and provided to the specialists to use as part of the impact assessment phase (The Proposed Layout). The specialist’s detailed assessments resulted in constraints being refined or added so that this provisional layout has continued to evolve throughout the process. The

Final Mitigated Layout takes into account all final specialist findings and recommendations, as well as geo-technical aspects of the site. The Final Mitigated Layout is submitted to the DEA for authorisation, and if approved and awarded preferred bidder status, this layout will further be developed,






through micro siting of turbines and roads, with the assistance from the relevant specialists.

Initial notification informing the public and the surrounding landowners of the proposed development was sent out in June 2018. These notifications (site posters, site notices, email and registered mail letters), included a figure / map of the proposed development including the proposed turbine layout, the grid connections as well as the proposed access road. This is

four months prior to the draft BAR release for public review and comment.

65 Review of the RBAR reveals that the EAP has ignored the advice offered in our submission of 25/10/2018; and that within the specialist VIA by BCK (per Mr. Menno Klapwijk); and, that within the BCK responses to comments (dated 5/4/2019) on his initial report concerning the very significant cumulative negative impact that the proposed HWEF will contribute significantly too, if approved.

The EAP has responded comprehensively to all the submissions of AVDS, his appointed specialists, and those he represents.

66 The RBAR steadfastly, (but incorrectly), claims that there are only two renewable energy projects within a 35km radius of the proposed HWEF and it accordingly restricts its cumulative assessment to just these two. The approach is a calculated one by the EAP which is designed to understate the obvious high negative cumulative impacts associated with the proposed HWEF given the large numbers of large wind farm projects (and the far-away solar farm that it does consider) within the geographical area affected and impacted by the proposed HWEF. As advised to the EAP in the reports by Menno Klapwijk there, are identified by name, at least 9 massive wind farms projects that must be considered in reality given their relationship to the proposed HWEF development. However, the DBAR fails to provide an overall plan of the Cookhouse REDZ showing the wind farm developments (intended; in planning; approved; and operating) and which must be an obvious inclusion in any final documentation submitted in relation to any of the HWEF applications.

The conducted cumulative impact assessment is in line with the Regulations and goes beyond the 30 km requirement by the Competent Authority.

The Avifaunal Specialist assessed impacts within a 50 km radius to include

the existing wind energy facilities Nojoli WEF, Cookhouse WEF and Amakhala Emoyeni WEF and proposed Cookhouse II, Middleton and Golden Valley 1 and 2 WEFs, in addition to solar farms within a 50 km radius. It was found that with mitigation the potential impact is of medium negative significance. The bat specialist assessed cumulative impacts within a 250 km radius and found that that the potential impact is of medium negative significance with mitigation. All other specialists assessed cumulative impacts within a 35 km radius. The EAP is unsure if AVDS is advising that the cumulative assessment should consider the entire Cookhouse REDZ, if this indeed what is being stated, the EAP finds this unreasonable. It should be noted, that even if there are plans for wind farm development there is no information available to assess. One cannot assess the potential of a wind with no information in the public domain, as there no information to

assess. Expecting the EAP to include an idea of a wind farm, with no information to base the cumulative assessment on is not reasonable. Therefore only planned developments which have been through the application stage, with an idea of the size of the facility can be used to






produce an informed cumulative assessment. By definition, cumulative impacts are those that result from incremental changes caused by past, present or reasonably foreseeable future actions together with the proposed development, if there is no publically available information on this “huge wind farm” how can one reasonably foresee that this will be developed. It is therefore not reasonable to include this unknown in the cumulative assessment. The development of a huge wind farm as described

by AVDS thought his various correspondence will only be feasible with multiphase, governmental department planning, none of which has been realised as yet. Grid capacities will need to be increased along with additional substations, there is no information around any of this in the public domain.

67 In Vol. III (page 12) the EAP asserts that she knows nothing about the Watson/Siemens wind farm (officially called “Wind Relic” Wind Farm) project located directly abutting to the proposed HWEF even though one of the neighbouring landowners abutting the South HWEF is evidently signed to the Watson/ Siemens wind farm project (see Appendix 3). The EAP avers that efforts to establish more information about it were fruitless. Appendix 4 shows the massive extent of the intended Watson/Siemens wind farm. Appendix 5, being a presentation made to the relevant local municipality and development agencies by the proponents of the Watson/Siemens wind farm the document provides further evidence of the privately and publically well-known existence of this planned project (despite the proponents best endeavors to keep it hushed). There can be no doubt that the EAP, and applicant, and contracted landowners, are all well aware of its existence and significant potential negative impact in tandem with the proposed HWEF.

The EAP is unaware of what huge wind farm is being referenced as Watson/Siemens). Attempts to confirm and understand what wind farm is referred to yielded no results. It should be noted, that even if there are plans for this wind farm, as far as can be established, this is only in the pre-planning, feasibility, prospecting stage, therefore there is no information available to assess. One cannot assess the potential of a wind with no information in the public domain, as there no information to assess. Expecting the EAP to include an idea of a wind farm, with no information to base the cumulative assessment on is not reasonable. Therefore only planned developments which have been through the application stage, with an idea of the size of the facility can be used to produce an informed cumulative assessment. By definition, cumulative impacts are those that result from incremental changes caused by past, present or reasonably foreseeable future actions together with the proposed development, if there is no publically available information on this “huge wind farm” how can one reasonably foresee that this will be developed. It is therefore not reasonable to include this unknown in the cumulative assessment. Simply showing a large area of interest from an undated undocumented,

unreferenced “Appendix 5”, still provides no information on which to assess as part of the cumulative assessment.

68 The EAP chooses 35km as a “generally accepted” radius for the purposes of assessing cumulative impact of wind farms but provides no reference for its justification of that

All existing and planned renewable energy facilities, including those at the application stage, have been considered, based on the latest (at the time of






radius. Even with this limit applied in the cumulative assessment the EAP fails to consider the cumulative impacts of the 6 separate components of the HWEF. The further 9 renewable energy projects advised in the Klapwijk report of 5/4/2019 are identified by name for the EAP yet she still claims to not know about them (even though they are indeed listed on the competent authority’s database of renewable energy projects – see Appendix 6).

writing the VIA Report) REEA Database (Q4, 2018), available from DEA. AVDS and the Klapwijk (BCK) report is potentially stating that the cumulative assessment for the Highlands WEF’s should have been conducted to take into account the entire Cookhouse REDZ and all potential developments within this zone. It is generally accepted that a 30 km radius is sufficient for the cumulative assessment for WEFs, in this case Arcus used a 35 km minimum radius for the cumulative assessment. According to

Figure 1.1 in the BAR’s there is only one proposed WEF and one solar facility within the 35 km radius, so the EAP is unsure how the BCK specialist has counted 9 huge wind farm projects. Map 1 in the VIA indicates renewable energy facilities.

The Kwande WEF is northwest of Grahamstown, about 100km away, and the Spitskop WEF is east of the Middleton one, about 60km away and should therefore provide little or no cumulative visual impact. It should be noted that this minimum cumulative assessment radius was taken into consideration by all the specialists, and the VIA, confirms that 35 km is sufficient for the cumulative assessment, whereas, birds considered a 50 km radius and bats considered 250 km radius for their cumulative assessments.

Minimum visual buffers indicated in the Visual Impact Assessment (Volume II, page 17) for private reserves and game farms are 1km (high visual sensitivity), and 2km (moderate visual sensitivity). If the latter buffer was increased to 5km it would still result in 'moderate' visual sensitivity. Therefore there is no need to extend the buffer zone to 5 km.

69 The BCK VIA by Mr. Klapwijk (January 2019) states that the cumulative visual impacts presented for the HWEF are significantly understated, and should correctly be classified as “High” negative on a proper assessment of the proposed HWEF. Despite this professional advice having been provided to the EAP previously, the cumulative visual impact ratings given in the RBARs remain unchanged and the EAP continues to advance the same arguments for such while dismissing the contrary evidence

provided. Mr. Klapwijk, in his responses document dated 5/4/2019, has provided the following further compelling response to the EAP’s understatement of the subject impact:

The peer review was commissioned by Mr van der Spuy, who is representing surrounding land owners objecting to the proposed development.

There is no scientific evidence that wind farms negatively affect eco-tourism activities. According to the SIA, based on the findings of the literature

review there is limited evidence to suggest that the proposed Highlands WF would impact on the tourism in the SBDM and BCLM. The findings also indicate that wind farms do not impact on tourist routes. At a regional level the impact is rated Low Negative. However, the proposed WF may have a localised impact on the game farming operations in the immediate vicinity






“In order to conduct the assessment of potential visual impact of the Highlands Wind Farm project correctly it is necessary to be guided by the definition of “cumulative impact” as such is defined, and intended to be applied, in the NEMA EIA Regulations, as amended, and which is defined as follows:

Since it is clear that the assessed cumulative impact must factor in “reasonably foreseeable impacts eventuating from similar or diverse activities” the consideration by the visual impact specialist and EAP of planned and proposed wind farm developments only evidenced in the (inaccurate) REEA Database of the DEA is an unjustified restriction of the required scope of cumulative impact assessment. In this regard a glaring omission is that of the massive wind farm (“Largest wind farm to be developed nationally” according to its own presentation to the Blue Crane Route Municipality – see Annexure A) being planned within the Cookhouse REDZ and which directly abuts the Highlands Wind Farm project on its eastern boundary (see Annexure B, being a map of the eastern extent of contracted properties to the wind farm). This wind farm, extending as far eastwards as near Grahamstown and southwards towards Alicedale, is well known locally and regionally (i.e. within the Cookhouse REDZ) and where it is commonly being referred to in local circles as the “Watson/Siemens Wind Farm”. It is at a significantly advanced stage of planning already with many landowners having been contracted as participants and the proponents have made presentations to many of the key governing and development bodies, including the Blue Crane Route Municipality, the Sarah Baartman District Municipality and the Cacadu Development Agency. Given that the participating landowners in the Highlands wind farm project are very likely to also be aware of the “Watson/Siemens Wind Farm” project it is difficulty to accept that the EAP is unaware of this significant (proposed) development and which would no doubt have been revealed by a proper stakeholder engagement process.

The claim that “It is generally accepted that a 30 km radius is sufficient for the cumulative assessment for WEFs,…” is strongly disputed. Based on our extensive experience involved with environmental applications for wind energy facility developments we are unaware of any generally accepted distance threshold for the

of the site. The significance of this impact is rated Moderate Negative. The potential localised impact would however need to be considered within the context of the Highlands WF location within the Cookhouse Wind REDZ and the significant socio-economic benefits associated with the establishment of renewable energy facilities.

The visual specialists took into account all the ecotourism based farms that were on the SAPAD Database, as well as those identified in the SIA and the

list provided by the EAP. Assessments can only be based on information that is available.

The visual specialist and the social specialist considered each other’s reports to inform their impact assessments. Therefore, the visual specialist did have knowledge of this information, and did not need to gain access to the surrounding land or have discussions with the land owners / farm managers to determine the land use, as this was undertaken by the social specialist. It should be noted that the avifaunal specialist and the social specialist tried at various times to gain access to the surrounding land owners’ properties and were denied access and / or declined to talk to the social specialist and voice their concerns (Final BARs Volume III: Comments & Response Report Table 1, page 80). According to the Social Impact Assessment report (Final BARs, Volume II) “Only the owners of Buffelsfontein, Kamala and East Cape Safaris could be contacted for comment. The owners of Klipplaat (Side by Side) declined to comment at this stage (Mr. Fleming Jensen, communicated via Mr. Grant Abrahamson, pers. comm). A number of other properties in the vicinity of the site (e.g. Mistkraal and Driefontein) also appear to support commercial game hunting operations. The owners of these properties could not be reached for comment. However, the concerns identified by the owners of Kamala and East Cape Safaris are likely to be relevant and apply to the other game-based operations in the study area."

"The owner of Buffelsfontein has indicated that he had no issues with the proposed turbines, as the key portions of his property would either be in the view shadow or too distant to experience significant impacts (Tollie Jordaan, pers. comm)." (Final BARs, Volume II: Social Impact Assessment, page 77)






limitation of cumulative impact assessment. Nonetheless, the scope and assessment of cumulative assessment must be guided by the NEMA definition of cumulative assessment and which provides no such distance threshold as a limit. In the context of the typically vast geographical spread and visual extent of wind farms such a threshold limit of only 30km is unjustified and the planned “Watson/Siemens wind farm” which abuts the Highlands Wind Farm project and extents to north of Grahamstown provides indisputable evidence of this fact. It is indeed necessary for

the cumulative visual impact then to consider the entire Cookhouse REDZ since it is largely saturated with operating and planned WEF projects and the REDZ itself does not excuse the proper consideration of cumulative impacts to the necessary extent.

These are some of the known wind farm developments/projects within the Cookhouse REDZ:

- Highlands North WEF

- Highlands Central WEF

- Highlands South WEF

- Cookhouse WEF (largest operating wind farm in South Africa)

- Amahkala WEF

- Njoli WEF

- Golden Valley I WEF

- Golden Valley II WEF

- Watson/Siemens WEF (to become the largest wind farm in South Africa)

- Spitskop West WEF

- Spitskop East WEF

- Riebeeck East Solar and Wind Energy Facility (status unknown)

It is also important to note that it was never the specific intention of the Strategic Environmental Assessment for Wind and Solar Photovoltaic Energy in South Africa that the entire Cookhouse REDZ be given up to renewable energy development.

It appears therefore that some of the landowners have been reluctant to take part in the public participation process, and instead lodged their objections through Mr van der Spuy.

Both the Visual Impact Assessment report and Social Impact Assessment report (final BARs, Volume II) indicate that some of the farms with ecotourism facilities are within the 2-5km zone, and where information was available at the time, visual buffers were indicated for these, for example

Volume II: Visual Impact Assessment report page 16.

The maximum turbine height being applied for is 200 m.

The visual specialists, in comparing the 3 wind farms, rated the Northern WEF slightly higher than the Central and Southern WEFs, because of the arterial R63 Route, the Bruintjieshoogte scenic pass, the Bruintjieshoogte mountains (scenic resource) and the proximity of the Kamala Private Game Reserve, (at a higher elevation), in relation to the Northern WEF.

The visual assessment followed the methodology provided by the EAP, Adapted from T Hacking, AATS – Envirolink, 1998: An innovative approach to structuring environmental impact assessment reports. In: IAIA SA 1998 Conference Papers and Notes.

The potential impact that the proposed Highlands WEFS may have on each environmental receptor could be influenced by a combination of the sensitivity and importance of the receptor and the predicted degree of alteration from the baseline state (either beneficial or adverse).

Environmental sensitivity (and importance) may be categorised by a multitude of factors, such as the rarity of the species; transformation of natural landscapes or changes to soil quality and land use. The overall significance of a potential environmental impact is determined by the interaction of the above two factors (i.e., sensitivity/importance and predicted degree of alteration from the baseline). Specialists, in their terms of references were supplied with a standard method with which to determine the significance of impacts to ensure objective assessment and

evaluation, while enabling easier multidisciplinary decision-making. The significance of environmental impacts is a function of the environmental aspects that are present and to be impacted on, the probability of an impact occurring and the consequence of such an impact occurring before






All things above considered there can be no doubt that the potential cumulative visual impact of the three Highlands WEFs and their associated infrastructure have not been considered properly and has resulted in the significant understatement of this potential impact.”

and after implementation of proposed mitigation measures. Intensity is calculated and presented in Tables 9 to 15 in the VIA and are not considered to be “overly conservative”.

The visual consultants made use of routes where they were not restricted by locked gates, and generally selected viewpoints that were close to farmsteads. Some of these farmsteads, mainly in the west, were in a view shadow or faced away from the proposed WEFs and it would not have

served any purpose entering the private property.

The visual report and the social report are interlinked. We note that the social report contains the following:

"Several of the farms which focus primarily on eco-tourism which included hunting, photographic, adventure and star-gazing are within the 2km -5km zone."

"These farms include Kamala Private Game Reserve (2km), Eastern Cape Safaris (2km), Boskam (4.5km), Vaalklip Game Reserve (4km), Driefontein Safaris (1km), Side By Side Safaris (2.5km) and The Ridges. Several other farms fall just outside the 5km zone such as Die Brill, Malpepo Safaris, Michael Puren Gonakraal and Skietfontein."

The visual specialist and the social specialist considered each other’s reports to inform their impact assessments. Therefore, the visual specialist did have knowledge of this information, and did not need to gain access to the surrounding land or have discussions with the land owners / farm managers to determine the land use, as this was undertaken by the social specialist. It should be noted that the avifaunal specialist and the social specialist tried at various time to gain access to the surrounding land owners properties and were denied access and / or declined to talk to the social specialist and voice their concerns. According to the social report “Only the owners of Buffelsfontein, Kamala and East Cape Safaris could be contacted for comment. The owners of Klipplaat (Side by Side) declined to comment at

this stage (Mr. Fleming Jensen, communicated via Mr. Grant Abrahamson, pers. comm). A number of other properties in the vicinity of the site (e.g. Mistkraal and Driefontein) also appear to support commercial game hunting operations. The owners of these properties could not be reached for






comment. However, the concerns identified by the owners of Kamala and East Cape Safaris are likely to be relevant and apply to the other game-based operations in the study area.

"The owner of Buffelsfontein has indicated that he had no issues with the proposed turbines, as the key portions of his property would either be in the view shadow or too distant to experience significant impacts (Tollie Jordaan, Social Specialist pers. comm)." (Final BARs Volume II: Social

Impact Assessment page 77)"

It appears therefore that some of the landowners have been reluctant to take part in the public participation process, and instead lodged their objections through AVDS.

Both the VIA and SIA indicate that some of the farms with ecotourism facilities are within the 2-5km zone, and where information was available at the time, visual buffers were indicated for these.

The visual consultants attempted to obtain views covering a range of distances from the project site (from 857m to 11.5km), which would in turn, through interpolation, give an impression of the proposed turbines at different distances, as shown in the photomontages. This assists with the

cumulative assessment of the wind farm as well.

For purposes of clarity, visibility and visual sensitivity are two completely different factors.

The buffers used in the 2014 CSIR Report were nominal buffers for broad regional scale mapping purposes, and are not intended to be used indiscriminately at the project scale but rather adapted to local conditions, as noted in Table 4 in the VIA. For example, the receptor may be in a view shadow. Table 5 and Map 5 of the VIA indicates minimum visual buffers recommended for the Highlands project, which was taken into consideration in the layout.

All existing and planned renewable energy facilities, including those at the application stage, have been considered, based on the latest (at the time of writing the VIA Report) REEA Database (Q4, 2018), available from DEA. The BCK report is potentially stating that the cumulative assessment for the Highlands WEF’s should have been conducted to take into account the entire Cookhouse REDZ and all potential developments within this zone. It






is generally accepted that a 30 km radius is sufficient for the cumulative assessment for WEFs, in this case Arcus used a 35 km minimum radius for the cumulative assessment. According to Figure 1.1 in the BAR’s there is only one proposed WEF and one solar facility within the 35 km radius, so the EAP is unsure how the BCK specialist has counted 9 huge wind farm projects. Map 1 in the VIA indicates renewable energy facilities on the Database and nearly all of these are beyond 35km.

There is no known record of the mentioned Siemens/Watson WEF either on the Database or websites, so it is unclear what wind farm BCK is referring to here. The Kwande WEF is northwest of Grahamstown, about 100km away, and the Spitskop WEF is east of the Middleton one, about 60km away and should therefore provide little or no cumulative visual impact. It should be noted that this minimum cumulative assessment radius was taken into consideration by all the specialists, and the VIA, confirms that 35 km is sufficient for the cumulative assessment, whereas, birds considered a 50 km radius and bats considered 250 km radius for their cumulative assessments.

Added to this is the fact that the area falls within a gazetted Cookhouse REDZ, where one would expect to see wind farms. The cumulative visual impact is therefore considered to be low.

The EAP is unaware of what huge wind farm is being referenced by BCK. Attempts to confirm and understand what wind farm BCK is referring to yielded no results. It should be noted, that even if there are plans for this wind farm, as far as can be established, this is only in the pre-planning, feasibility, prospecting stage, therefore there is no information available to assess. One cannot assess the potential of a wind with no information in the public domain, as there no information to assess. Expecting the EAP to include an idea of a wind farm, with no information to base the cumulative assessment on is not reasonable. Therefore only planned developments which have been through the application stage, with an idea of the size of the facility can be used to produce an informed cumulative assessment. By definition, cumulative impacts are those that result from incremental changes caused by past, present or reasonably foreseeable future actions together with the proposed development, if there is no publically available information on this “huge wind farm” how can one reasonably foresee that






this will be developed. It is therefore not reasonable to include this unknown in the cumulative assessment.

Minimum visual buffers indicated in the Visual Impact Assessment (Final BARs: Volume II, page 17) for private reserves and game farms are 1km (high visual sensitivity), and 2km (moderate visual sensitivity). If the latter buffer was increased to 5km it would still result in 'moderate' visual sensitivity. Therefore there is no need to extend the buffer zone to 5 km.

The EAP does not dispute the proposed wind farm developments within the Cookhouse REDZ. Some of these projects, applications being lapsed and no longer valid.

70 All of the above considered it is clear that the EAP’s view (and that of the applicant’s appointed VIA specialist), that only the competent authority’s database of (only) renewable energy projects need to be considered in the cumulative impact assessment, is significantly limited, and flawed. The competent authority’s quoted database used by the EAP is heavily outdated and wrong. All of the 9 named wind farms (except the Watson/Siemens WEF) provided to the EAP have been or are the subject of environmental applications to the competent authority and the competent

authority will have full knowledge of same, as will the relevant local authorities, Cacadu Development Agency and many others. It is also wrong of the EAP to only consider (some) developments of (only) the same type (i.e. renewable energy developments) within (only) a 35km radius of the proposed HWEF. Given AVDSEC’ familiarity with the general area and specifically the area encompassed by the environmentally sensitive Cookhouse REDZ, combined with the evidenced favouring of the applicant’s interests by the EAP, it is a very viable proposition to suggest that the limited interpretation and application of the critical aspect of cumulative impact assessment is designed to try to avoid the very possible impact findings of High negative potential cumulative environmental impacts which are beyond mitigation. (High potential cumulative negative impact have been confirmed by VIA specialist Mr. Klapwijk, and this constitutes a “fatal flaw” for the proposed HWEF under NEMA’s principles for sustainable development).

The assessment undertaken included developments that are currently in progress, i.e. have a project description and have been through public participation. It doesn’t only consider approved projects, it considers all applications in process. Developments that are in the planning phase, that have no information released to the public and does not have an application submitted for consideration, cannot reasonably be expected to be included as part of the cumulative assessment. There are no specialist studies

conducted, there is no project to be assessed, there is just speculation.

Section 18 Cumulative Impacts The cumulative impact assessment goes beyond the Departments request to include cumulative impacts in a 30 km radius The Avifaunal Specialist assessed impacts within a 50 km radius to include the existing wind energy facilities Nojoli WEF, Cookhouse WEF and Amakhala Emoyeni WEF and proposed Cookhouse II, Middleton and Golden Valley 1 and 2 WEFs, in addition to solar farms within a 50 km radius. It was found that with mitigation the potential impact is of medium negative significance. The bat specialist assessed cumulative impacts within a 250 km radius and found that that the potential impact is of medium negative significance with mitigation. All other specialists assessed cumulative impacts within a 35 km radius.

71 At the earliest instance, in our submission of 25/10/2018, the EAP was “well advised to conduct a proper cumulative impact assessment which incorporates the Cookhouse REDZ entirely, including those operating wind farms which are known to be

The proposed Highlands WEF is >45 km away from these operational sites. These operational sites are a lot closer to the Cape Vulture roost site and colonies further to the east. The pre-construction passage rate of Cape






destroying Endangered Cape Vulture (such as Cookhouse and Amakhala Wind Farms) and other threatened bird and animal species. It will also need to include all other known wind farm projects (such as the neighbouring Watson/Siemens wind farm initiative) and any other activities which could contribute to the cumulative impact of the proposed HWEF”. The EAP has failed to heed the advice of more than 1 year ago and the subject RBARs thus remain fatally flawed on these grounds.

Vulture at one of these sites (Amakhala Wind Farm) was 0.13 birds at rotor swept height per hour of observation. This is higher than what was recorded at Highlands, and it is also noted that this refers to flights at rotor swept height. If all flights of the species are considered, it is possible that this figure is even higher. Data from another WEF site in the Cookhouse/Bedford area (i.e. Golden Valley II WEF), shows that this area (i.e. where the mortalities have been recorded at operational sites) has

higher levels of Cape Vulture activity (especially in summer) than what was recorded on the Highlands site. Large numbers of Vultures, including vultures roosting overnight on power lines in the area were recorded in 2014/2015 at Golden Valley, and monitoring found a passage rate of ~0.14 birds per hour. Pre-construction monitoring at the Cookhouse Wind farm recorded a passage rate of 0.31 birds/hour, while Nojoli wind farm also in the same area had an average of 0.13 birds/hour (BLSA, Pers.Com), all higher than what has been recorded at Highlands.

72 It is noted that the EAP has failed to implement the 5km visual buffer around game farms and ecotourism facilities that was recommended by Mr. Menno Klapwijk. This failure to implement the recommended mitigation measure provides further grounds for the fatal flaw finding.

Minimum visual buffers indicated in the Visual Impact Assessment (Volume II, page 17) for private reserves and game farms are 1km (high visual sensitivity), and 2km (moderate visual sensitivity). If the latter buffer was increased to 5km it would still result in 'moderate' visual sensitivity. Therefore there is no need to extend the buffer zone to 5 km.

73 In the November 2018 avifaunal review by Dr. Andrew Jenkins of the BAR’s bird impact study for the proposed HWEF (of which the EAP has a copy), Dr. Jenkins provides the following statement regarding the potential cumulative impact of the proposed HWEF on birds:

“All of these apparent errors are compounded when they are brought forward into the assessment of cumulative impacts of the Highlands proposal in combination with the other renewable projects built or planned within a 50 km radius. Again, the report concedes that the Highlands wind farms may well result in collision fatalities of eagles, vultures, cranes and bustards. These casualties will be additive to those already occurring at built facilities and likely to occur at other planned projects,

Mr Jenkins is entitled to his opinion. In our opinion, the cumulative impact of the proposed Highlands WEF (which will likely consist of <40 turbines and is >45 km from operational sites), can be lowered to a moderate impact with the mitigation proposed.






spread across a broad front from east of Bedford to west of Pearston. To consider the aggregate impact on birds of all these projects together as “High” and possibly lowered to “Medium” with mitigation is, at best, extremely optimistic indeed and shows a complete failure to apply the intended spirit of the Precautionary Principle. In my opinion, the pre-mitigation rating in this instance should be “Very High”, possibly lowered to “High” if a coordinated mitigation plan is instituted across all projects, developed in terms of a programme of additional research (see below).”

74 The latest RBARs make no effort to address the proposed mitigation suggested by Dr. Jenkins that is required to possibly lower the real potential cumulative negative “Very High” impact of the proposed HWEF. The proposed HWEF therefore maintains (post-mitigation opportunity) a “Very High” negative potential cumulative impact (which is an impact rating higher than the maximum limit provided for under the EAP’s chosen impact rating categorisation) in terms of bird impacts. In Dr. Jenkins’ document of April 2019 he questions the EAP and bird specialist’s failure to consider all types of developments and specifically also the adjacent Watsons/Siemens wind farm in the calculation of potential cumulative impact assessment. This is a fatal flaw and it renders the proposed HWEF as unsustainable.

This conclusion is not based on any standard significance rating methodology, the EAP cannot ascertain what criteria was used to determine this conclusion.

Standard practise in bird specialist assessments for WEF is to consider the cumulative impact of operational, proposed or approved renewable energy projects that are in the public domain (and appear in the DEA’s application data base). We considered seven wind energy projects and three PV projects (and associated electrical infrastructure) in our cumulative assessment.

The ‘Siemens/Watson’ project is not in the public domain, does not appear

on the DEA’s data base of applications, and may never even proceed to EIA, or if it does it may be in a different description to what is currently available information regarding this project. If this project is to be considered, then the cumulative impacts could be higher than assessed, but this can only be confirmed once information on this project (including bird specialist studies etc.) are available and can be reviewed.

While the recorded mortalities of Cape Vulture at the operational facilities near Bedford/Cookhouse are a concern, the level of mortality is (which has been observed over a number of years) is not catastrophic. Based on a number of factors, including the increased distance from roost sites and lower recorded activity of Cape Vulture in the area, The Highlands WEF is likely to have lower impacts on Cape Vulture than what has been observed

at Cookhouse / Bedford.

75 The RBARs thus significantly understate the potential cumulative impacts of the proposed HWEF and this is a fatal flaw. Secondly, when such potential cumulative impacts are indeed correctly assessed (as in Dr. Jenkins and Mr. Klapwijk’s studies)

Sections 18 of the BAR addresses cumulative impacts and the EAP does not agree that these have been significantly understated. Neither of the two reports submitted by AVDS complies with the EIA Regulation or Appendix 6






and it is shown that the proposed HWEF has unsustainably high negative potential cumulative impacts (which are beyond effective mitigation).

of the EIA regulations. There is no methodology for rating the impacts, these impacts. The reports do not state how the specialists arrived at these “unsustainably high” negative impact.

It must be noted that AVDS uses the words “unsustainable” fatally flawed” and he himself provides no definition of these words, so therefore, as stated by AVDS:

“This is a severe short-coming which limits the ability for his specialists assess the proposed HWEF properly and therefore undermines the credibility of the his specialists’ impact assessments.” It must be noted though that none of the specialist reports submitted by AVDS has an impact assessment rating methodology.

76 In the submission of 25/10/2018 it was recorded that the EIA Regulations, Appendix 1, point 2, state that;

“The objective of the basic assessment process is to, through a consultative process…

This is acknowledged, and was responded to.

76 a determine the policy and legislative context within which the activity is located and document how the proposed activity complies with and responds to the policy and

legislative context;

76 b describe the need and desirability of the proposed activity, including the need and desirability of the activity in the context of the preferred location;”

77 It is therefore a fundamental requirement that aspects of need and desirability regarding the proposed activity and its preferred location be informed by a “consultative process.” The intention of the law in this regard is that the need and desirability of the proposed activity be meaningfully determined in relation to the views of also those most affected and which is usually those most closely located to the proposed development. In this case the objectors constitute a significant portion of those local community entities and members most closely affected by the proposed development and it is right then that their views be meaningfully used in determining the real need and purpose of the proposed HWEF.

The consultative aspect of the Basic Assessment process is provided for as per Regulations as the public commenting period, which was extended beyond the required 30 days, during which time I&APs are encouraged to participate and provide their input on all aspects of the BAR including alternatives and the need & desirability of the proposed activity. The BAR identifies alternatives considered (Section 6) and describes the need & desirability of the proposed alternatives (Section 5 and 6). All comments made by I&APs during the consultative period have been considered by the EAP, responded to and addressed.






78 Review of the Vol. III C&RR reveals the efforts of the EAP to effectively dismiss the objectors’ well-recorded and substantiated misgivings regarding the proposed HWEF and likewise thus the lack of appetite (“need and desire”) in the local community for the project.

The objectors misgivings are recorded, acknowledged and responded to comprehensively in the Comments and Response Report. These were not dismissed as claimed by AVDS.

79 When challenged on the grounds that no proper consultative process has been allowed to inform the need and desirability of the proposed HWEF the EAP readily diverts away from the real issue (of meaningful inclusion of I&AP input in outcomes of the BA process) by quoting that a 37 days comment period was provided and which exceeds the legislated minimum 30- day comment period.

Initial notifications regarding the proposed development, included maps of the layout of the wind farm and the related grid connections and access where sent to surrounding land owners. Site notices and posters were also placed, including adverts in the local and regional newspapers. This was the start of the consultative process, which AVDS client did not participate in, nor were they willing to speak to any of the specialists to provide input into the process.

80 It must be pointed out now that over and above the minimum 30-day comment period that must be provided to I&APs the EAP ignores the equally important legislated requirement that a “reasonable opportunity to comment” on the applications must be provided to I&APs and there may well be instances where such requires that substantially more than 30 days be provided for comment (as in the case of the 6 HWEF applications).

The EAP believes this to be a reasonable opportunity to comment on the BARs.

81 This comment shows elsewhere the very limited extent to which the EAP has engaged with occupiers of adjacent properties and then represented that engagement as being all- encompassing and sufficient for purposes of the RBARs. Despite the claims made by the EAP in reality no real interviews were conducted by the EAP or SIA specialist, Tony Barbour, with any of the objectors or their representatives and those purportedly held with Mr. Hein Badenhorst (of Kamala Private Game Reserve) and Mr. Grant Abrahamson, and his family members, were merely engagements of no real substance. Neither were any of the occupiers of the objectors’ properties ever interviewed and their views have not been obtained in order to inform a proper assessment of the true need and desirability of the proposed HWEF. From Vol. III it is clearly seen that the few occupiers (a mere 22 according to the attendance records in

Vol. III) that were engaged were mainly those of properties of landowners who are contracted as beneficiaries of the project, or their families. Furthermore, it is noted that the recorded views of those occupiers included in Vol. III are made by some

On the 18th of October 2018 in an email AVDS clearly states the following “The clients have now been properly advised of the real intentions of your unethical and scheming approach and have been advised not to engage or assist you in any further manner.”

The Volume III clearly outlined efforts by the EAP to try to get in contact with surrounding land owner occupiers. The letter referenced is merely stating the he has advised, the following:

“However, in order to be of some help we would advise you to contact the Department of Environmental Affairs (Ms. Dee Fischer) who undertook the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) which determined that the subject Cookhouse REDZ, within which said “occupiers” reside and our clients properties fall, be proclaimed under the auspices that the SEA was the product of a comprehensive (scoping) process of public consultation






other unidentified party. The legitimacy of the record of the supposed views of the 22 occupiers are thus very questionable.

during which affected parties were extensively consulted. On that basis you would be reasonably expected to obtain from the DEA all the names and details of those you seek since they are within, and affected by, the SEA Cookhouse REDZ (as your motivation Highlands WEF evidences in its substantial reliance upon the same SEA).”

The EAP confirms that contact was made in this regard, proof included in this document.

The social specialist report, which details interviews conducted with surrounding landowners and project landowners. It must be made clear that the clients of Mr AVDS have been approached by the social specialist, but mostly refused to participate in the process. Access to their properties was not granted. The social specialist made attempts to conduct interviews. Therefore, there may indeed be inaccuracies resulting from their refusal to participate, but not to the extent that the description and the assessment changes.

The 12 land owner objecting to the proposed development can hardly be construed as “considerable proportion of the local community”, as stated in point number 45,

“The “no go” development option is excluded from proper impact assessment and despite the EAP having been informed that it is the favoured option of the objectors, who amount to a considerable proportion of the local community.”

Initial notification to the surrounding landowners sent out in June 2018, requested their assistance with gaining occupier details. The EAP attempted again to gain information on or contact details of occupier of surrounding land owner and many were unwilling to assist or unresponsive to our request.

The EAP has not ignored any potential I&APs. In the spirit of NEMA, and ensuring that all I&APs are included in the process, should AVDS not provide the EAP with the contact details of these occupiers that want to participate?

82 The views of 22 persons associated with only 3 properties can hardly be construed as a meaningful sample of the occupier community and the EAP-recorded views of same cast further doubt on the reliability of this sample as being representative of the affected occupier sector in the local community.

83 The EAP’s assertion that the author precluded her engagement with any of the occupiers of the objectors’ properties is rejected outright and it is pointed out that it is the legislated sole responsibility of the EAP to notify occupiers in writing of the proposed applications and that no other parties have any obligation to assist in this regard (as was pointed out to the EAP, any assistance can be misconstrued as being manipulation of those occupiers’ real interests, with associated risks to the landowner or other representatives). The EAP failed to notify the occupiers on the objectors’ properties in terms of her legal obligations and thus their views have not informed the need and desirability of the project.

84 The EAP’s limited efforts to engage occupiers were made only after the release of the

DBAR within which the need and desirability of the proposed HWEF had already been motivated (and which remains fundamentally unchanged in the current RBAR). The need and desirability were therefore seemingly pre-determined from the start by the EAP and all public engagement was after the fact and has had no influence on the matter whatsoever.

85 The SIA by Tony Barbour reveals that he also made no effort to obtain the views of any occupiers and the SIA is not informed by this critically important sector of the local community. Accordingly the findings of the SIA cannot be taken to be representative of the views of the local community.

86 It must also be recorded that the EAP has apparently ignored the request relayed to her in a letter attached to an email of 8/8/2019 and which advised her of the wishes of (some) of the occupiers of the objectors’ properties to be contacted and afforded the possibility of participating in the 30-day PPP advised under point 4 of the Department’s letter of






18/07/2019 in relation to the requirements that needed to be met in order to remove the suspension imposed at that time by the Department upon the applications. This important request goes unanswered still, and is unacknowledged in the C&RR (see Vol. III, page 300), and it accordingly stands as further evidence of the EAP’s intentions to exclude the affected people (excluding owners) associated with the objectors’ properties and which are estimated by Mr. Zimmerman to number 720. This is a significant number of local and potentially affected people which the EAP has

ignored.

The initial notification sent out in June 2018 stated the following:

To assist Arcus in ensuring all I&APs have been informed of the proposed developments, we kindly request your assistance in obtaining contact details of labourers and occupiers on your properties. Arcus will include them on our database and ensure that they have been included as part of the environmental authorisation process.

Why is AVDS excluding them from being part of the process by not providing the EAP with these details?

87 Also, given the views of unconditional objection to the proposed HWEF by the objectors and the unrepresentative sample of occupiers’ views used to extrapolate and exaggerate a view of occupier support, it is clear that the proposed HWEF is, in reality, likely neither needed nor desirable “in the context of the preferred location” by the local community. The supposed benefits for the local community members which the EAP quotes the SIA as having identified and assessed are not substantiated by any record of any real broadly-encompassing local community support.

The EAP has taken all reasonable measure to get in contact with occupiers, and this is outlines in Volume III. Responses have been provided to AVDS objections and appointed specialsits assessment. These have been considered in the application process and the study concludes:

Based on the findings of the additional work, the applicant has reduced the number of turbines being applied for and ensured that the revised final mitigated layout adheres to all sensitivities and no go areas proposed by all specialists. Taking into consideration the findings of the BA process for the proposed project and the fact that recommended mitigation measures as well as additional avifaunal site work and the results of VERA have been used to inform the revised project layout design, it is the opinion of the Environmental Assessment Practitioner (EAP) that the majority of negative impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project have been mitigated to acceptable levels. While the residual impacts of the project will impact on the local environment, and potentially on existing game and hunting tourism operations, the extent of the benefits associated with the implementation of the projects will benefit a much larger group of people, in terms of renewable energy supply and positive local and regional economic impact. In addition, the area has been designated a Renewable Energy Development Zone for wind energy in particular, through a Strategic Environmental Impact Assessment by National Government.

88 . It is observed that the EAP continues to rely heavily upon the Cookhouse REDZ as a supporting directive for the proposed HWEF despite having been advised about the now well documented significant negative environmental impacts associated with the wind farms already operating in this Cookhouse REDZ and to which the proposed

The fact that the proposed development is situated in the REDZ does not diminish the potential impact, and therefore this was assessed as part of the EIA process and a full specialists impact assessments was conducted.






HWEF will simply add further negative impacts to an already significant negative cumulative impact (such as that upon the Endangered Cape Vulture population). The EAP thus ignored the contents of our submission of 25/10/2018 which found that the impacts considered in the assessments were variously limited and understated. The EAP also ignores the evidence of unacceptably high negative impacts as identified in the various specialist studies undertaken by Dr, Andrew Jenkins, Mr. Menno Klapwijk, Mr. Neil Wilson and Mr. Derek Zimmerman. For instance, the avifaunal report by Dr.

Andrew Jenkins identified the real and proper cumulative impact of the proposed HWEF on Cape Vultures and other collision-prone species as being “Very High” negative and possibly “High”1 if a proper mitigation effort across ALL contributing wind farms is implemented (the latter remains unattended to in the RBAR). The bird impact study by Mr. Pearson records that more than 15 Endangered Cape Vultures have been killed by wind farms operating in the Cookhouse REDZ and one wonders then what more evidence of negative impacts the EAP is required to be provided with in order to act reasonably and properly.

The same specialist studies that would have been conducted outside of a REDZ (in a full Scoping & EIA process) were conducted for the Highlands wind energy facilities applications. The Terms of reference for these studies were not influenced by the REDZ and a full impact assessment was conducted for each discipline.

The proposed Highlands WEF is >45 km away from these operational sites. These operational sites are a lot closer to the Cape Vulture roost site and

colonies further to the east. The pre-construction passage rate of Cape Vulture at one of these sites (Amakhala Wind Farm) was 0.13 birds at rotor swept height per hour of observation. This is higher than what was recorded at Highlands, and it is also noted that this refers to flights at rotor swept height. If all flights of the species are considered, it is possible that this figure is even higher. Data from another WEF site in the Cookhouse/Bedford area (i.e. Golden Valley II WEF), shows that this area (i.e. where the mortalities have been recorded at operational sites) has higher levels of Cape Vulture activity (especially in summer) than what was recorded on the Highlands site. Large numbers of Vultures, including vultures roosting overnight on power lines in the area were recorded in 2014/2015 at Golden Valley, and monitoring found a passage rate of ~0.14 birds per hour. Pre-construction monitoring at the Cookhouse Wind farm recorded a passage rate of 0.31 birds/hour, while Nojoli wind farm also in the same area had an average of 0.13 birds/hour (BLSA, Pers.Com), all higher than what has been recorded at Highlands.

The EAP submits that this “review” by BCK is not a comprehensive assessment of the potential impacts. This is clearly aimed at one aspect and not taking the entire proposed development and proposed benefits into consideration. A proper assessment, as conducted by the applicants appointed specialist, takes into consideration all potential negative and positive aspects of the proposed development in terms of visual impact.

It should be noted that these comments were extensively responded to as part of the suspension process and included in Volume III. The fact that AVDS simply dismisses these responses and continues to reiterate comments already responded to, should be noted by the CA.






89 The suggested mitigation measure of potential cumulative impact of Dr. Jenkins is insightful to the extent that it is consistent with the requirements of the IFC World Bank Group’ “Environmental, Health, and Safety Guidelines, Wind Energy” Guideline, point 32 (page 9) which states as follows:

“32. Where multiple wind farm facilities are located in the same geographical area and near areas of high biodiversity value, wind project developers are encouraged to implement a coordinated approach to surveys and monitoring. This approach is cost-effective, as surveys could be jointly planned and implemented with costs shared between developers. A common survey methodology and approach also lends itself to cumulative impact assessment, as data collection methods and the level of effort could be standardized. Cumulative impact assessments should be undertaken in cases where multiple wind farms are located near areas of high biodiversity value.”

Importantly, even if the required coordinated impact mitigation programme were effectively implemented this would still only possibly result in the potential cumulative impact being lowered to a significance level of “High” which implies that an unacceptable level of impact will still be very likely to occur.

The EAP agrees with the coordinated approach, and it is encouraged that developers work together. In the 50 km radius of the proposed development there are seven wind farm project and three PV projets were considered in the cumulative assessment (operational or approved developments).

90 In the objection of 25/10/2018 the impact findings of the SIA and the DBAR were disputed, for the reasons provided. The EAP was also advised that the objectors had appointed their own socio-economic specialist and that the results of that specialist’s study would be provided to the EAP once to hand.

No response required.

91 The responses of the EAP to the relevant socio-economic issues raised in our objection of 25/10/2018 are recorded in Vol. III of the RBAR. It is noted that the responses are generally and variously dismissive of the important issues brought to the EAP’s attention and feign ignorance in the understanding of the issue tabled and/or dismiss same on the basis of no reference having been supplied. The effect is that the EAP has dismissed all of the issues brought to its attention and has done so without even attempting to establish the basis for them (where she may have deemed such necessary according to the provided responses). It serves no purpose now to repeat the same issues again here. The objectors’ specialist socio- economic rebuttal by Mr. Zimmerman has been produced (Appendix 2). That report provides a

This Appendix 2 Derek Zimmerman Report is responded to separately.






solid basis to substantiate the socio-economic issues and concerns raised in our objection of 25/10/2018.

92 The objection of 25/10/2018 pointed out that the SIA and DBAR (and now the RBAR too) were not informed by local community input. The responses provided in Vol. III of the RBAR refer the reader to the list of parties interviewed for the Barbour SIA. It is noted that almost all of the interviewed parties appear to be connected directly or

indirectly to beneficiaries of the proposed HWEF. The only 2 of the objectors referenced did not participate in proper interviews with Mr. Barbour but rather mere superficial engagement by telephone. Those engagements certainly cannot qualify as “interviews” as alleged by the EAP. Notwithstanding the length of time now passed since that comment of 25/10/2018 the EAP has made no effort at all to engage with the objectors to ascertain and properly understand their concerns and interests. On the other hand further engagement with a very few occupiers (merely 22) of nearby farms has been undertaken but none with the occupiers of the objectors’ properties. This is clearly so as to avoid the possibility of negative views towards the proposed HWEF being recorded. It is pointed out that on 8/8/2019 the EAP was advised by email of the desire of the occupiers on some of the objectors’ properties to be engaged with – the EAP has ignored their request.



“However, in order to be of some help we would advise you to contact the Department of Environmental Affairs (Ms. Dee Fischer) who undertook the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) which determined that the subject Cookhouse REDZ, within which said “occupiers” reside and our clients properties fall, be proclaimed under the auspices that the SEA was the product of a comprehensive (scoping) process of public consultation during which affected parties were extensively consulted. On that basis you would be reasonably expected to obtain from the DEA all the names and

details of those you seek since they are within, and affected by, the SEA Cookhouse REDZ (as your motivation Highlands WEF evidences in its substantial reliance upon the same SEA).”


The EAP has not ignored any potential I&APs. In the spirit of NEMA, and ensuring that all I&APs are included in the process, should AVDS not provide the EAP with the contact details of these occupiers that want to participate?

The initial notification sent out in June 2018 stated the following:

To assist Arcus in ensuring all I&APs have been informed of the proposed developments, we kindly request your assistance in obtaining contact details of labourers and occupiers on your properties. Arcus will include them on our database and ensure that they have been included as part of the environmental authorisation process.






Why is AVDS excluding them from being part of the process by not providing the EAP with these details?

93 Despite being asked to provide specific employment figures for the proposed HWEF and associated job descriptions the EAP has failed to do so in Vol. III of the RBAR. It is again stated there that approximately 20 full-time jobs will be created during the operational phase of the proposed HWEF. Notwithstanding that this is merely an

approximation (and is therefore unacceptable) such a paltry figure of 20 permanent jobs cannot be used to justify the huge subsidy expense to taxpayers, and risk to the environment, that the proposed HWEF poses. The temporary jobs associated with the construction phase are negligible given their short duration. The EAP has been unable to provide any convincing evidence that the proposed wind farm will create a meaningful level of employment. When compared against the many jobs created by the objectors for current employees (189 per Derek Zimmerman; October 2019) placed at risk by the proposed HWEF the high level of risk posed by the development is unacceptable and unsustainable and the RBAR is remiss for not having recorded a “high” negative potential impact (post-mitigation, and for all phases) for the proposed HWEF in terms of its overall impact on employment in the coal community. The proposed HWEF places the jobs of many long-standing local community members at significant high risk and a calculated “reduction of 110 employment opportunities or jobs” associated with the objectors’ game- and ecotourism industry operations is provided by Mr. Zimmerman (but the RBAR does not record potential impact).

The project will be developed under the Department of Energy’s Renewable Energy Independent Power Producers Procurement Program (REIPPPP).

As a part of the REIPPPP, local communities are required to have a stake in the ownership of the project, which is either funded by financier or by the other equity shareholder. Community ownership of an operating wind farm is generally conducted via a broad-based community trust, with the surrounding communities as beneficiaries of the dividends paid to shareholders in the project company. The dividend revenue will be invested in community development initiatives which would be outlined in the community trust deeds In addition, successful REIPPPP projects are required to invest a percentage of gross revenue in socio economic development and enterprise development, primarily in the surrounding local communities (currently defined in the REIPPPP as located within a 50 km radius of the wind farm's operational site). If the wind farm is constructed, a number of critical community development programmes would be established that would have the potential to positively impact the communities near the wind facilities.

Wind energy can provide technical skills to South Africans and thus improve the technical skills profile of the country and the regions where wind energy facilities are located. Through the REIPPPP developers’ own initiatives and through support from international donor agencies, a number of young South Africans are being trained on various aspects of wind farm construction and operation.


During the operation and maintenance phase, a number of employment

opportunities will be created. These opportunities may include site management, environmental management, facility operation and maintenance, community liaison, administration, monitoring, reporting, catering, cleaning and security. The exact number of jobs during operation






(and construction) is not yet known, but will be defined in detail in the later stages of project development.

AVDS has still not provided any evidence that the proposed development and operation of the wind will in fact have a negative economic impact on the surrounding game farm operations.

94 Despite the substantial information provided to the EAP since the first DBAR (September 2018), which report was not informed by any meaningful local community input, and regarding the objectors’ extensive and fixed interests which are put at risk by the proposed HWEF the social impact ratings have remained unchanged through the interactions of the BAR to a FBAR and now a RBAR. The EAP is clearly stubbornly refusing to acknowledge, and assess, the potential impacts brought to her attention by the objectors. The EAP is now presented with further compelling evidence of these potential impacts to the objectors, by way of the Derek Zimmerman socio-economic rebuttal report (Appendix 2) and it remains to be seen if the EAP will finally attend to the outstanding matters of impact assessment in a proper manner.

The reports commissioned by Mr van der Spuy do not provide any new information that could have impacted on the assessments conducted by the Arcus specialists. The EAP and the appointed specialists conducted the assessment in line with the relevant NEMA (Act 107 of 1998) and the EIA Regulations, 2014, as amended, as well as with applicable industry/specialist guidelines.

Information contained the BAR and the specialist reports is based on valid information obtained from I&APs willing to participate in the process. Regardless this “substantial information” does not change the results of the social assessment.

The Derek Zimmerman report appears to have limited or no effort to verify

the information provided by the affected landowners by considering or referring to other studies or identifying potential assumptions and limitations. The information provided by the affected landowners does not therefore appear to have been interrogated. In this regard, the report provides no discussion on how the figures (estimated annual losses from game-based revenue (632% decrease ) and total capital depreciation per farm (52%) are therefore questioned ) related to impact on game-based revenue and capital depreciation were arrived at. The report merely states that the methodology is deemed to be sufficiently accurate and representative of the current state of economic affairs as it is based on “primary data”. However, if the primary data is not accurate and or has not been verified then this will impact on the findings. In this regard the

primary data has been provided by farmers that potentially stand to be affected by the proposed wind farm. There is therefore likely to be tendency for the potential costs to be inflated.






The key quantitative findings of the Zimmerman report, specifically the findings that estimated annual losses from game-based revenue (62% decrease) and total capital depreciation per farm (52%) are therefore questioned. This also has implications for the reported impact on employment.

The statement that the methodology is deemed to be sufficiently accurate and representative of the current state of economic affairs as it is based on

primary data, is therefore questioned. This in turn has implications for the overall conclusion of the review that notes that “the findings of the SIA are inaccurate and misrepresent the socio-economic impact of the proposed wind farm to the detriment of the established eco-tourism and game farming enterprises in close proximity”.

95 This objection includes a rebuttal (Appendix 2) of the social impact assessment by Tony Barbour which has been used to inform, and justify, the proposed HWEF to a significant extent. The socio-economic rebuttal by Mr. Derek Zimmerman of Rand International Capital, entitled “Rebuttal of a Wind Energy Social Impact Assessment (SIA): A review of: ‘Social Impact Assessment (SIA) for the proposed WKN Windcurrent (Pty) Ltd Somerset East Wind Energy Project’ (October 2019)”, is included as Appendix 2. It was commissioned by the objectors represented in this objection in order to provide the necessary support to their concerns raised about the proposed HWEF and as were first recorded in the objection of 25/10/2018. We refer to that document herein as the “SIA rebuttal”.

This has been responded to separately by the Social Specialist.

96 The SIA rebuttal has reviewed the SIA undertaken by Mr. Tony Barbour for the proposed HWEF and confirms the author’s views recorded in the objection of 25/10/2018 that the SIA by Mr. Barbour is inadequately informed by (inter alia) local community member concerns, (including those of the objectors); and that the proper socio-economic impacts are misrepresented, and the benefits (potential positive impacts) are unsubstantiated and vastly exaggerated. It concludes as follows:

“We therefore conclude that the findings of the SIA are inaccurate and misrepresent the socio-economic impact of the proposed wind farm to the detriment of the established eco- tourism and game farming enterprises in close proximity.



“However, in order to be of some help we would advise you to contact the Department of Environmental Affairs (Ms. Dee Fischer) who undertook the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) which determined that the subject Cookhouse REDZ, within which said “occupiers” reside and our






At worst the final recommendation in the Arcus / Barbour SIA must be accepted as:

“The applicants should meet with the affected landowners located to the north, east and south of the site to discuss the possibility relocating wind turbines that have the highest potential visual impact.” (Barbour et al, 2018)

The application of WKN Windcurrent (Pty) Ltd to establish the three phases of wind farms and grid connections should therefore not be approved by the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA), now called the Department of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries (DEFF).”

clients properties fall, be proclaimed under the auspices that the SEA was the product of a comprehensive (scoping) process of public consultation during which affected parties were extensively consulted. On that basis you would be reasonably expected to obtain from the DEA all the names and details of those you seek since they are within, and affected by, the SEA Cookhouse REDZ (as your motivation Highlands WEF evidences in its substantial reliance upon the same SEA).”


The social specialist report, which details interviews conducted with surrounding landowners and project landowners. It must be made clear that the clients of Mr AVDS have been approached by the social specialist, but mostly refused to participate in the process. Access to their properties was not granted. The social specialist made attempts to conduct interviews. Therefore, there may indeed be inaccuracies resulting from their refusal to participate, but not to the extent that the description and the assessment changes.

97 It is also recorded now that the applicant has made no effort to meet with the affected landowners, being, at least, the 12 landowners represented in this objection, to discuss the possibility of relocating wind turbines. The latest revision of the proposed HWEF layout and its removal of 8 turbines is based primarily upon avifaunal concerns, and not visual impacts. The objectors confirm that they remain very concerned about the potential high negative visual impacts of the proposed HWEF (and associated secondary socio-economic potential negative impacts) which they regard as being unacceptable, and a significant threat to their interests and those of the significant number of employees in their service, and those of their associated business operations, and other beneficiaries in Somerset East and the broader region as a result of the objectors’ commercial and eco-tourism activities. The latter, in

particular, are fundamentally irreconcilable with the proposed HWEF.

This is not true the applicant in August 2018 met with the following surrounding landowners:

Grant Abrahamson, Fritz Walter, Hein Badenhorst, Kevin Mccaughey, Mornay Schafer, Michael Puren, Gideon Meiring, Jannie Geyer, Paul Jordaan and Flemming Jensen

It should be noted that the Applicant met with the majority of the objecting party, including Grant Abrahamson of East Cape Safaris, Fleming Jensen of Side by Side Safaris and Hein Badenhorst of Kamala Game Reserve, on 8 August 2018. However, the objectors focussed on objecting to the proposed project outright rather than engaging in a discussion about compensation. Despite having contact details, the objecting party have not contacted the

Applicant directly to approach the topic of compensation. Neither the objecting party, nor AVDS, have provided any evidence, either locally or abroad, of case studies where proximity to wind energy facilities have been proven to have had a significant negative influence on the financial






sustainability of tourism or game-farming. In addition, neither the objecting party, nor AVDS, have provided any insight into how such compensation should be calculated.

98 Added to the above will be the necessity of the applicant to discuss the issue of compensation (or off-setting) where residual negative impacts cannot be mitigated to an extent that is acceptable to any of the affected objectors. This will be

in line with the required impact mitigation hierarchy and the “polluter pays” principle. The issue is supported by Mr. Zimmerman’s study, per:

“No effort has been made by the SIA to mitigate these identified negative impacts and unaccounted for costs and which would possibly include compensation for loss of investment value and employment.”

AVDS has still not provided any evidence that the proposed development and operation of the wind will in fact have a negative economic impact on the surrounding game farm OR eco-tourism operations.

99 The rebuttal recommends that “proposed wind farm should be established on vacant land in another location which will not result in existing economic activity being negatively affected”, yet the EAP has negated this necessary option by scoping out, at an early stage (i.e. before any PPP), all other alternative sites, none of which have been adequately identified, much less assessed. The crux of the matter is that the approach of the EAP to include only the applicant’s preferred site in the assessment has condemned the proposed HWEF and associated applications to a site where it will inevitably constitute unsustainable development.

The Preferred Alternative was derived through an iterative process that took into account the results of the various specialist studies and therefore represents the best environmental option.

Appendix 1 (3) (g) of the EIA Regulations 2014, as amended require the basic assessment report to contain a motivation for the preferred site,

activity and technology alternative. Section 6.2 provides this motivation (h) A full description of the process followed to reach the proposed preferred alternative within the site (bolding supplied) is required, as is given in Section 6.3, 6.4 and 6.5. Therefore details of names and exact locations of the investigated site alternatives are not required to be presented in the BAR.

For clarification the headings in Table 6.1 have been changed from Site B, Site C and Site D to Region B, Region C and Region D in the final BAR.

It should be noted the details and a full description of all alternatives considered for the preferred site is not required by the Regulations.

The other Regions were considered unsuitable for wind energy development due to insufficient wind resource or high avifaunal sensitivity.

Table 6.1 and 6.2 demonstrate how the Applicant reached the decision on selecting the development site as the most reasonable site alternative and therefore provides the motivation for the preferred site.






Appendix 1 (3) (g) of the EIA Regulations 2014, as amended require the basic assessment report to contain a motivation for the preferred site, activity and technology alternative. Section 6.2 provides this motivation for the preferred site. Details and a full description of all alternatives considered for the preferred site is not required by the Regulations. Appendix 1 (3) (h) states that a full description of the process followed to reach the proposed preferred alternative within the site is required, as is

given in Section 6.3. Therefore names and locations of the investigated regional and local site alternatives are not required in the BAR.

100 Regarding the issue of job creation the SIA rebuttal states:

“… it is clear that the SIA has grossly underestimated the socio-economic benefits which currently flow from the local game farming and eco-tourism operations and the impact which the proposed project will have on such operations.

Our analysis has found that the deemed game farm related tourism revenue for the affected area is far larger than that considered in the SIA report, and that there are

approximately 189 permanent employment opportunities associated with those properties, of which 174 are game industry related, and as many as 531 dependents reliant on the game farming activities in the precinct. These employment and dependency figures need to be seen in the context of the approximately 20 permanent employment opportunities, with 10 of these within the region which the SIA report indicates will be created by an average wind farm. The SIA report at page v states that the potential operational wages will be approximately R 3 million, whereas on a conservative basis we estimate game farm and hunting activity based wages to beapproximately R 6.2 million per annum, a factor of two which could be lost to the region, and all local people.

Our experience of other wind farms indicates that even this estimate of 20 employees

in the SIA is a high figure and the SIA fails to identify what these specific job descriptions are. The windfarm employees would typically also be highly skilled engineers familiar with the European supplied mechanical equipment for the wind turbines and grid connection.”

The project will be developed under the Department of Energy’s Renewable Energy Independent Power Producers Procurement Program (REIPPPP).

As a part of the REIPPPP, local communities are required to have a stake in the ownership of the project, which is either funded by financier or by the other equity shareholder. Community ownership of an operating wind farm is generally conducted via a broad-based community trust, with the surrounding communities as beneficiaries of the dividends paid to shareholders in the project company. The dividend revenue will be invested in community development initiatives which would be outlined in the community trust deeds In addition, successful REIPPPP projects are required to invest a percentage of gross revenue in socio economic development and enterprise development, primarily in the surrounding local communities (currently defined in the REIPPPP as located within a 50 km radius of the wind farm's operational site). If the wind farm is constructed, a number of critical community development programmes would be established that would have the potential to positively impact the communities near the wind facilities.

Wind energy can provide technical skills to South Africans and thus improve the technical skills profile of the country and the regions where wind energy facilities are located. Through the REIPPPP developers’ own initiatives and through support from international donor agencies, a number of young

South Africans are being trained on various aspects of wind farm construction and operation.







During the operation and maintenance phase, a number of employment opportunities will be created. These opportunities may include site management, environmental management, facility operation and maintenance, community liaison, administration, monitoring, reporting,

catering, cleaning and security. The exact number of jobs during operation (and construction) is not yet known, but will be defined in detail in the later stages of project development.


101 The SIA rebuttal therefore confirms our finding expressed previously in the PPP for the project that the proposed HWEF offers insignificant benefit in terms of real employment when compared against the substantial employment being sustained by

the game industry, which is placed at considerable risk by the proposed HWEF.


The appears to have been limited or no effort to verify the information provided by the affected landowners by considering or referring to other studies or identifying potential assumptions and limitations. The information provided by the affected landowners does not therefore appear to have been interrogated. In this regard, the report provides no discussion on how the figures related to impact on game-based revenue and capital depreciation were arrived at. The report merely states that the methodology is deemed to be sufficiently accurate and representative of the current state of economic affairs as it is based on “primary data”. However, if the primary data is not accurate and or has not been verified then this will impact on the findings. In this regard the primary data has been provided by farmers that potentially stand to be affected by the proposed

wind farm. There is therefore likely to be tendency for the potential costs to be inflated.






The key quantitative findings of the Zimmerman report, specifically the findings that estimated annual losses from game-based revenue (62% decrease) and total capital depreciation per farm (52%) are therefore questioned. This also has implications for the reported impact on employment.

The statement that the methodology is deemed to be sufficiently accurate and representative of the current state of economic affairs as it is based on primary data, is therefore questioned. This in turn has implications for the overall conclusion of the review that notes that “the findings of the SIA are inaccurate and misrepresent the socio-economic impact of the proposed wind farm to the detriment of the established eco-tourism and game farming enterprises in close proximity”.

102 In its analysis of the economic character and contributions of the objector’s game-based operations, the SIA rebuttal provides the following compelling analysis:

“Substantial capital investments have been made into the game farming industry in the area, with certain of the farms attracting foreign investment. The total property values of the affected game farms are in the region of R 418 million and the estimated capital value that could be lost due to the presence of the wind farm is estimated by Rand International Capital to be more than R 249 million.

The revenue generated by the eco-tourism, game farming, hunting and taxidermy activities of the affected farms and businesses is approximately R 62 million per annum, of which R 39 million could be lost due to the wind farm, or 63 percent. If we apply the same reduction factor in revenue to the game and eco-tourism based employment, then this would reduce from 174 jobs to 64, a reduction of 110 employment opportunities or jobs.

The upstream and downstream value chains of flights within the country through to taxidermy and other localised expenditures are significant at around R 7.44 million per annum (i.e an additional 31% of the expenditure incurred on the game farm

itself) and represent important contributions to the local economy.”


The report appears to have been limited or no effort to verify the information provided by the affected landowners by considering or referring to other studies or identifying potential assumptions and limitations. The information provided by the affected landowners does not therefore appear to have been interrogated. In this regard, the report provides no discussion on how the figures related to impact on game-based revenue and capital depreciation were arrived at. The report merely states that the methodology is deemed to be sufficiently accurate and representative of the current state of economic affairs as it is based on “primary data”. However, if the primary data is not accurate and or has not been verified then this will impact on the findings. In this regard the primary data has been provided by farmers that potentially stand to be affected by the proposed wind farm. There is therefore likely to be tendency for the potential costs to be inflated.

The key quantitative findings of the Zimmerman report, specifically the findings that estimated annual losses from game-based revenue (63% decrease) and total capital depreciation per farm (52%) are therefore






questioned. This also has implications for the reported impact on employment.

The statement that the methodology is deemed to be sufficiently accurate and representative of the current state of economic affairs as it is based on primary data, is therefore questioned. This in turn has implications for the overall conclusion of the review that notes that “the findings of the SIA are inaccurate and misrepresent the socio-economic impact of the proposed

wind farm to the detriment of the established eco-tourism and game farming enterprises in close proximity”.

103 The SIA rebuttal then adds that:

“No effort has been made by the SIA to mitigate these identified negative impacts and unaccounted for costs and which would possibly include compensation for loss of investment value and employment.”

AVDS has still not provided any evidence that the proposed development and operation of the wind will in fact have a negative impact on the surrounding game farm operations.

104 In conclusion the RBAR has no legitimate and rational basis for using the SIA by Mr. Barbour to justify the proclaimed positive benefits of the proposed HWEF, which are

exaggerated and which ignore the counter-acting potential negative impacts, which are of significantly greater magnitude, and that are likely to be suffered by game farming and ecotourism operations and investments in very close proximity to the proposed HWEF. In fact, the rebuttal by Mr. Zimmerman goes further to advise that a different site should be chosen for the proposed HWEF and that the applications should not be approved.

105 In our submission of 25/10/2018 the results of the DBARs’ VIA, prepared by Quinton Lawson (QL) in association with Bernard Oberholzer, was disputed on various grounds, including the failure of the VIA specialist to have properly “ground-truthed” the results. They, for instance, never assessed the visual impact from any of the objectors’ properties, and have still not done so.

The visual specialists used the 2018 SAPAD Database from the DEA for private nature reserves and the CSIR's file on the Eastern Cape for game farms as a starting point. According to the SIA (Pg. 77) the following information was obtained from adjacent or nearby farms:

"In as far as could be established, commercial game farming is carried out on (from north to south) Buffelsfontein, Kamala Game Reserve, Kaalplaas (East Cape Safaris) and Klipplaat (Side by Side Safaris). Only the owners of Buffelsfontein, Kamala and East Cape Safaris could be contacted for comment. The owners of Klipplaat (Side by Side) declined to comment at






this stage (Mr. Fleming Jensen, communicated via Mr. Grant Abrahamson, pers. comm). A number of other properties in the vicinity of the site (e.g. Mistkraal and Driefontein) also appear to support commercial game hunting operations. The owners of these properties could not be reached for comment. However, the concerns identified by the owners of Kamala and East Cape Safaris are likely to be relevant and apply to the other game-based operations in the study area."

"The owner of Buffelsfontein has indicated that he had no issues with the proposed turbines, as the key portions of his property would either be in the view shadow or too distant to experience significant impacts (Tollie Jordaan, pers. comm)."

According to the Environmental Assessment Practitioner (EAP), Boskamp Trust (Boskam?) is a registered I&AP, whose owner, Mr McCoughey has not given any comment personally and we are unaware of the nature of his farming practices. The Ridges comes up as a preregistered I&AP, but nobody has commented and although they were phoned, nobody answered or got back to the EAP.

It appears therefore that some of the landowners have been reluctant to

take part in the public participation process, and instead lodged their objections through AVDS.

106 The severe visual impacts of the HWEF upon the objectors’ properties were brought to the attention of the EAP yet she and the applicant failed to attempt to engage with the objectors or their professional representatives (despite the claims of attempting to do so, for which no evidence is provided). The EAP was also advised of the objectors’ intention to deliver the results of a proper independent VIA commissioned in order to verify (or not) their claims. The EAP however ignored this advice and instead proceeded to finalise the FBAR and submit it for decision-making.

The numerous attempts to engage are clearly provided in Volume II and III.

107 On 14/2/2019 a VIA review (dated January 2019) of the HWEF VIA, as undertaken by Mr. Menno Klapwijk of Bapela Cave Klapwijk Landscape Architects and Environmental Planners (BCK) was submitted to the competent authority with a copy provided to the EAP. A further comment was submitted by way of a reply (dated 5/4/2019) to the responses of the EAP to the original BCK VIA of January 2019 and which

These comments and responses are detailed in this comment and response report.






was transmitted by email on 5/4/2019 to the competent authority with a copy to the EAP.

108 The VIA by BCK found there to be substantive failings in the methodology and findings of the QL VIA undertaken for the proposed HWEF. It concluded that the potential visual impacts of the proposed HWEF had been understated in the QL VIA and that in reality the proposed HWEF constitutes a significant and unacceptable

visual threat to the objectors’ interests. The BCK VIA (January 2019) stated the following in conclusion:

“It can be concluded that the report did not take into account many of the eco-tourism based farms in terms of the negative visual impact on the aesthetics of their operations. Furthermore, it is believed that the criteria used to evaluate the visual impact are overly conservative in terms of intensity bearing in mind the enormous size and height of the turbines (total height 210m – the equivalent of a 70-80 storey building).

Based on the close proximity of the surrounding eco-tourism establishments to the proposed wind farm it is concluded that the chosen site selected is inappropriate in

terms of the high visual intensity impact bearing in mind that there are alternative locations within the REDZ.

The VIA report states that the cumulative visual impact significance is considered low due to distance being a mitigating factor. However, excluding the Pearson Solar project, there are several wind farms planned and existing from abutting the Highlands wind farm on the east and extending all the way to just north of Grahamstown. One would expect the cumulative visual impact to be high.

It appears that the consultants are not consistent in terms of criteria used to evaluate the extent of visual impact.

It is our opinion that Table 7 in the report (Visual Impact Intensity (Severity) has downplayed the severity of the potential impacts especially for the South WEF and that these should be adjusted to a High criteria rating.

There is no scientific evidence that wind farms negatively affect eco-tourism activities. According to the SIA, based on the findings of the literature review there is limited evidence to suggest that the proposed Highlands WF would impact on the tourism in the SBDM and BCLM. The findings also

indicate that wind farms do not impact on tourist routes. At a regional level the impact is rated Low Negative. However, the proposed WF may have a localised impact on the game farming operations in the immediate vicinity of the site. The significance of this impact is rated Moderate Negative. The potential localised impact would however need to be considered within the context of the Highlands WF location within the Cookhouse Wind REDZ and the significant socio-economic benefits associated with the establishment of renewable energy facilities.

The visual specialists took into account all the ecotourism based farms that were on the SAPAD Database, as well as those identified in the SIA and the list provided by the EAP. Assessments can only be based on information that is available.

The visual specialist and the social specialist considered each other’s reports to inform their impact assessments. Therefore, the visual specialist did have knowledge of this information, and did not need to gain access to the surrounding land or have discussions with the land owners / farm managers to determine the land use, as this was undertaken by the social specialist. It should be noted that the avifaunal specialist and the social specialist tried at various times to gain access to the surrounding land owners’ properties and were denied access and / or declined to talk to the social specialist and voice their concerns (Final BARs Volume III: Comments & Response Report Table 1, page 80). According to the Social Impact Assessment report (Final BARs, Volume II) “Only the owners of Buffelsfontein, Kamala and East Cape Safaris could be contacted for comment. The owners of Klipplaat (Side by

Side) declined to comment at this stage (Mr. Fleming Jensen, communicated via Mr. Grant Abrahamson, pers. comm). A number of other properties in the vicinity of the site (e.g. Mistkraal and Driefontein) also appear to support commercial game hunting operations. The owners of






We, furthermore, recommend that the buffer zone for the turbines and infrastructure should extend to 5 km, as stated by the VIA consultants, where the eco-tourism farms are in close contact with the WEFs.”

these properties could not be reached for comment. However, the concerns identified by the owners of Kamala and East Cape Safaris are likely to be relevant and apply to the other game-based operations in the study area."

"The owner of Buffelsfontein has indicated that he had no issues with the proposed turbines, as the key portions of his property would either be in the view shadow or too distant to experience significant impacts (Tollie Jordaan, pers. comm)." (Final BARs, Volume II: Social Impact Assessment,

page 77)


Both the Visual Impact Assessment report and Social Impact Assessment report (final BARs, Volume II) indicate that some of the farms with ecotourism facilities are within the 2-5km zone, and where information was available at the time, visual buffers were indicated for these, for example Volume II: Visual Impact Assessment report page 16.


The visual specialists, in comparing the 3 wind farms, rated the Northern

WEF slightly higher than the Central and Southern WEFs, because of the arterial R63 Route, the Bruintjieshoogte scenic pass, the Bruintjieshoogte mountains (scenic resource) and the proximity of the Kamala Private Game Reserve, (at a higher elevation), in relation to the Northern WEF.



Environmental sensitivity (and importance) may be categorised by a multitude of factors, such as the rarity of the species; transformation of natural landscapes or changes to soil quality and land use. The overall significance of a potential environmental impact is determined by the






interaction of the above two factors (i.e., sensitivity/importance and predicted degree of alteration from the baseline). Specialists, in their terms of references were supplied with a standard method with which to determine the significance of impacts to ensure objective assessment and evaluation, while enabling easier multidisciplinary decision-making. The significance of environmental impacts is a function of the environmental aspects that are present and to be impacted on, the probability of an

impact occurring and the consequence of such an impact occurring before and after implementation of proposed mitigation measures. Intensity is calculated and presented in Tables 9 to 15 in the VIA and are not considered to be “overly conservative”.


109 The BCK VIA has made some important findings and recommendations which should properly be addressed and incorporated into the planning of the proposed HWEF (but have not been). Regrettably, the EAP has essentially dismissed the findings of the BCK VIA and the competent authority has done likewise (deeming the QL VIA to be adequate for the purposes of decision-making) in its record of 5/3/2019.

The information contained in the “peer reviewed” reports commission by Mr van der Spuy, does not contain any material new information. The information contained in the peer reviewed reports does not change any of the specialist’s findings nor does it change the assessments and mitigations measures proposed by the EAP and the specialists. There is no information contained in the peer reviewed reports that would influence the outcome of the DEA’s decision.

110 The conclusion of the BCK VIA that the “the chosen site selected is inappropriate in terms of the high visual intensity impact” is consistent with the finding given by Mr. Zimmerman in the SIA rebuttal. The identified understatement of potential visual impacts (which, correctly indicated, should be high negative) and the overstatement of the effectiveness of mitigation measures used to lower potential visual impact

findings remain unattended to by QL and the EAP. The recommended 5km radius around ecotourism farms is likewise ignored in the latest RBAR and HWEF layout. The potential cumulative visual impact should be high negative after mitigation effort, but this has not been corrected in the latest set of HWEF documentation (and, once

There is no scientific evidence that wind farms negatively affect eco-tourism activities. According to the SIA, based on the findings of the literature review there is limited evidence to suggest that the proposed Highlands WF would impact on the tourism in the SBDM and BCLM. The findings also indicate that wind farms do not impact on tourist routes. At a regional level

the impact is rated Low Negative. However, the proposed WF may have a localised impact on the game farming operations in the immediate vicinity of the site. The significance of this impact is rated Moderate Negative. The potential localised impact would however need to be considered within the






again, the advised location, and associated potential impacts, of the adjacent intended Watson/Siemens wind farm is entirely ignored).

context of the Highlands WF location within the Cookhouse Wind REDZ and the significant socio-economic benefits associated with the establishment of renewable energy facilities.


The visual specialist and the social specialist considered each other’s reports to inform their impact assessments. Therefore, the visual specialist did have knowledge of this information, and did not need to gain access to the surrounding land or have discussions with the land owners / farm managers to determine the land use, as this was undertaken by the social specialist. It should be noted that the avifaunal specialist and the social specialist tried at various times to gain access to the surrounding land owners’ properties and were denied access and / or declined to talk to the social specialist and voice their concerns (Final BARs Volume III: Comments & Response Report Table 1, page 80). According to the Social Impact Assessment report (Final BARs, Volume II) “Only the owners of Buffelsfontein, Kamala and East Cape Safaris could be contacted for comment. The owners of Klipplaat (Side by Side) declined to comment at this stage (Mr. Fleming Jensen, communicated via Mr. Grant Abrahamson, pers. comm). A number of other properties in the vicinity of the site (e.g. Mistkraal and Driefontein) also appear to support commercial game hunting operations. The owners of these properties could not be reached for comment. However, the concerns identified by the owners of Kamala and East Cape Safaris are likely to be relevant and apply to the other game-based operations in the study area."










The visual specialists, in comparing the 3 wind farms, rated the Northern WEF slightly higher than the Central and Southern WEFs, because of the arterial R63 Route, the Bruintjieshoogte scenic pass, the Bruintjieshoogte mountains (scenic resource) and the proximity of the Kamala Private Game Reserve, (at a higher elevation), in relation to the Northern WEF.


The potential impact that the proposed Highlands WEFS may have on each environmental receptor could be influenced by a combination of the sensitivity and importance of the receptor and the predicted degree of

alteration from the baseline state (either beneficial or adverse).

Environmental sensitivity (and importance) may be categorised by a multitude of factors, such as the rarity of the species; transformation of natural landscapes or changes to soil quality and land use. The overall significance of a potential environmental impact is determined by the interaction of the above two factors (i.e., sensitivity/importance and predicted degree of alteration from the baseline). Specialists, in their terms of references were supplied with a standard method with which to determine the significance of impacts to ensure objective assessment and evaluation, while enabling easier multidisciplinary decision-making. The significance of environmental impacts is a function of the environmental aspects that are present and to be impacted on, the probability of an

impact occurring and the consequence of such an impact occurring before and after implementation of proposed mitigation measures. Intensity is calculated and presented in Tables 9 to 15 in the VIA and are not considered to be “overly conservative”.







There is no known record of the mentioned Siemens/Watson WEF either on the Database or websites, so it is unclear what wind farm BCK / AVDS is referring to here. The Kwande WEF is northwest of Grahamstown, about 100 km away, and the Spitskop WEF is east of the Middleton one, about 60 km away and should therefore provide little or no cumulative visual impact. It should be noted that this minimum cumulative assessment radius was taken into consideration by all the specialists, and the VIA, confirms that 35 km is sufficient for the cumulative assessment, whereas, birds considered a 50 km radius and bats considered 250 km radius for their cumulative assessments.

111 The reply of BCK (dated 5/4/2019) further substantiates, clarifies and confirms the findings of BCK’s original VIA review. It is worth recording that the subsequent SIA review by Mr. Zimmerman is consistent with the findings of BCK in concluding that the potential impacts on ecotourism and game-related operations around the proposed HWEF have been understated and that the site chosen for the proposed HWEF is inappropriate given the numerous identified environmental risks to the objectors.

There is no scientific evidence that wind farms negatively affect eco-tourism activities. According to the SIA, based on the findings of the literature review there is limited evidence to suggest that the proposed Highlands WF would impact on the tourism in the SBDM and BCLM. The findings also indicate that wind farms do not impact on tourist routes. At a regional level the impact is rated Low Negative. However, the proposed WF may have a localised impact on the game farming operations in the immediate vicinity of the site. The significance of this impact is rated Moderate Negative. The potential localised impact would however need to be considered within the context of the Highlands WF location within the Cookhouse Wind REDZ and the significant socio-economic benefits associated with the establishment of renewable energy facilities.







The visual specialist and the social specialist considered each other’s reports to inform their impact assessments. Therefore, the visual specialist did have knowledge of this information, and did not need to gain access to the surrounding land or have discussions with the land owners / farm managers to determine the land use, as this was undertaken by the social specialist. It should be noted that the avifaunal specialist and the social specialist tried at various times to gain access to the surrounding land owners’ properties and

were denied access and / or declined to talk to the social specialist and voice their concerns (Final BARs Volume III: Comments & Response Report Table 1, page 80). According to the Social Impact Assessment report (Final BARs, Volume II) “Only the owners of Buffelsfontein, Kamala and East Cape Safaris could be contacted for comment. The owners of Klipplaat (Side by Side) declined to comment at this stage (Mr. Fleming Jensen, communicated via Mr. Grant Abrahamson, pers. comm). A number of other properties in the vicinity of the site (e.g. Mistkraal and Driefontein) also appear to support commercial game hunting operations. The owners of these properties could not be reached for comment. However, the concerns identified by the owners of Kamala and East Cape Safaris are likely to be relevant and apply to the other game-based operations in the study area."





The visual specialists, in comparing the 3 wind farms, rated the Northern WEF slightly higher than the Central and Southern WEFs, because of the






arterial R63 Route, the Bruintjieshoogte scenic pass, the Bruintjieshoogte mountains (scenic resource) and the proximity of the Kamala Private Game Reserve, (at a higher elevation), in relation to the Northern WEF.



Environmental sensitivity (and importance) may be categorised by a multitude of factors, such as the rarity of the species; transformation of natural landscapes or changes to soil quality and land use. The overall significance of a potential environmental impact is determined by the interaction of the above two factors (i.e., sensitivity/importance and predicted degree of alteration from the baseline). Specialists, in their terms of references were supplied with a standard method with which to

determine the significance of impacts to ensure objective assessment and evaluation, while enabling easier multidisciplinary decision-making. The significance of environmental impacts is a function of the environmental aspects that are present and to be impacted on, the probability of an impact occurring and the consequence of such an impact occurring before and after implementation of proposed mitigation measures. Intensity is calculated and presented in Tables 9 to 15 in the VIA and are not considered to be “overly conservative”.

112 Although the EAP has not provided the author with the requested definition, interpretation and method of application of the term and concept of a “fatal flaw”,

whatever these may happen to be, it can be concluded with a fair degree of confidence that the potential visual impacts associated with the current version of the proposed HWEF constitute a so- called “fatal flaw” and the fact that the chosen site is inappropriate for wind farm development dictates that such a finding cannot be

The visual specialists believe that significant visual mitigation took place during the planning stage, through a number of iterations of the layout, in

which environmental considerations from the various specialists were taken into account. It is agreed that signage would have little impact in comparison, but remains important when seen from close quarters. As stated in the Basic Assessment Reports, before the start of the application process detailed specialist feasibility studies were conducted to identify






corrected by any further changes to the proposed HWEF at this site. An alternative suitable site will need to be found for the proposed HWEF.

areas most environmentally suitable for development within the proposed development site boundary, to determine any fatal flaws to progressing the application and the development. As a result of these studies a development layout was produced that avoids sensitive areas and identified constraints. This included visual constraints and buffers about sensitive landscape, features and properties.

113 Our objection of 25/10/2018 disputed the findings (and the consequent understated impact ratings) of the avifaunal study by Mr. Andrew Pearson. The objectors also noted, with concern, that Mr. Pearson’s report did not exclude “unacceptable impacts” from occurring. The EAP was advised of the objectors’ appointment of their own avifaunal specialist (Dr. Andrew Jenkins of Avisense) to review the work undertaken by Mr. Pearson.

This comment does not require a response.

114 Given the substantial information and findings of Dr. Jenkins’ review it was submitted to the competent authority (with a copy to the EAP) in order that the competent authority could consider it in its administration of the applications. Ultimately, the applications were suspended by the competent authority and the EAP was advised to undertake some of the tasks related to issues and failings of the Pearson bird impact study, as identified by Dr. Jenkins.

This comment does not require a response.

115 Amongst the recommendations and key findings of Dr. Jenkins’ review were that:

It “lacks the accuracy, completeness and detail required to fully identify and evaluate the impacts of the proposed development”;

that the “upcoming results of an EWT study of Cape Vulture movements and numbers in the Bedford/Cookhouse region in relation to wind energy development in the area should be included in this study. These findings could potentially require that impact ratings concerning this highly sensitive species be adjusted, materially affecting perspectives on the long-term sustainability of the proposed wind farm”.

The study exceeded (Jenkins et al, 2015) and 72 hours per VP per year was conducted in line with the Verreaux’s Eagle guidelines (BLSA, 2017). The monitoring approach was also advised by a site feasibility study for the proposed development site. This study (Arcus 2017) included a site visit by the specialist (which included searching for nests) and thorough desk-based review and was completed in March 2017.

An independent Peer review by Jon Smallie, concluded that the Arcus study complied with both applicable sets of guidelines. This peer review also stated that the survey scope was “suitable and adequate” and that the nest survey work conducted was “very thorough survey of available nesting

substrate on site, and provides high confidence in the status quo with respect to sensitive species breeding”.






the “impact assessment underplays the potential severity of turbine and/or power line collision impacts on threatened and collision-prone species such as Verreaux’s Eagle, Cape Vulture, Blue Crane and Ludwig’s Bustard, and over-estimates our current ability to mitigate such impacts, resulting in residual impact ratings that are overly lenient on the development proposal. This project-specific failing is compounded and magnified in the report’s attempt to evaluate the cumulative impacts of this and other renewable energy projects in the region on local populations of threatened birds.”; and

On page 9 of his peer review Jenkins (2018) stated “the pre-mitigation impact of about 35 km of new 66-132 kV line on these and other key species (possibly including Cape Vulture) is considered “Medium” and reduced to “Low” by the attachment of bird diverters”.

This is an incorrect statement, which gives the incorrect ratings for the assessment of the grid connection.

The 35 km long grid connection is applicable only to the Highlands South (Phase 3) application. Table 34 shows that collisions for this line (and for both its alternatives) was rated as “High” without mitigation and “Medium” with mitigation. The assessment of “Medium” without mitigation and reducing to “Low” with mitigation was for the North (Phase 1) grid connection and the Central (Phase 2) grid connection. These lines are proposed to be a maximum of 5 and 8 km long respectively.

the Verreaux’s Eagle (VERA) model be applied in place of the proposed satellite tagging exercise in order to better understand the potential disturbance and collision risks posed by the proposed HWEF and that the VERA be used during the current planning phase;

VERA model was applied.

that the “upcoming results of an EWT study of Cape Vulture movements and numbers in the Bedford/Cookhouse region in relation to wind energy development in the area should be included in this study. These findings could potentially require that impact ratings concerning this highly sensitive species be adjusted, materially affecting

perspectives on the long-term sustainability of the proposed wind farm”.

According to Endangered Wildlife Trust (EWT) project initiation only began in September 2018, and as of March 2019 no birds had been tagged as yet in the area. There is limited information available, and the completion date of the project (or when usable information will be available) is not known.

This study is focussed on the Cookhouse / Bedford area where there are a number of operational wind farms that have resulted in some mortality of Cape Vulture. The proposed Highlands WEF is >45 km away from these operational sites. These operational sites are a lot closer to the Cape Vulture roost site and colonies further to the east. The pre-construction






passage rate of Cape Vulture at one of these sites (Amakhala Wind Farm) was 0.13 birds at rotor swept height per hour of observation. This is higher than what was recorded at Highlands, and it is also noted that this refers to flights at rotor swept height. If all flights of the species are considered, it is possible that this figure is even higher. Data from another WEF site in the Cookhouse/Bedford area (i.e. Golden Valley II WEF), shows that this area (i.e. where the mortalities have been recorded at operational sites) has

higher levels of Cape Vulture activity (especially in summer) than what was recorded on the Highlands site. Large numbers of Vultures, including vultures roosting overnight on power lines in the area were recorded in 2014/2015 at Golden Valley, and monitoring found a passage rate of ~0.14 birds per hour. Pre-construction monitoring at the Cookhouse Wind farm recorded a passage rate of 0.31 birds/hour, while Nojoli wind farm also in the same area had an average of 0.13 birds/hour (BLSA, Pers.Com), all higher than what has been recorded at Highlands.

At Highlands, Cape Vulture was only recorded during the final summer season, and only from VP watches when 11 flights were recorded for this species (mostly conducted by birds from one flock of 8 birds). It was also not recorded during the screening phase site visit in March 2017, or the follow up site work in August 2019. The recorded passage rate of 0.093 birds/hour is low, there are no breeding colonies within 175 km and the closest known active roost site is at Agieskloof, 60 km away. New breeding colonies and roosts were searched for by field workers and extensive consultation with landowners, local birders and Vulpro, and none were located. Considering the above, Cape Vulture is only likely to be an occasional visitor to the Highlands WEF, and should mortalities occur for this species (which is unlikely but possible), it is predicted that the levels of mortality will be low, and they could be mitigated by implementing mitigation such as carcass management strategies and /or shut down on demand and / or curtailment strategies.

116 Despite the well-intended professional advice offered to the EAP and Mr. Andrew Pearson by Dr. Jenkins’ study (being a highly qualified and respected ornithologist) and which dictated a more thorough avifaunal assessment and circumspect interpretation thereof by Mr. Pearson, this has not been the case and the revised avifaunal study by Mr. Pearson and the RBAR persist in their unchanged portrayal of

While Mr Pearson may not have a PhD, he is suitably qualified and very experienced, and well respected by the majority of his peers and the members of BARESG.






understated bird impacts, and exaggerated mitigation effectiveness, associated with the proposed HWEF.

We believe that a very thorough avifaunal study and assessment has been completed, often exceeding the level of input/thoroughness done by Mr Jenkins on a number of historical projects where Avisense did the pre-construction work.

The study exceeded (Jenkins et al, 2015) and 72 hours per VP per year was conducted in line with the Verreaux’s Eagle guidelines (BLSA, 2017). The monitoring approach was also advised by a site feasibility study for the proposed development site. This study (Arcus 2017) included a site visit by the specialist (which included searching for nests) and thorough desk-based review and was completed in March 2017. The revised study was further enhanced, both by Mr Jenkin’s additional site work in October 2018 and the extensive additional nest search work conducted by Arcus in August 2019.

117 In a further commission of Dr. Jenkins’ professional opinion (dated 4/11/2019; see Appendix 7) regarding the standard of work undertaken by Mr. Pearson in the light of the substantial study gaps and assessment deficiencies identified in Dr. Jenkins’ first

review report (11/2018) it is revealed that there still remain significant deficiencies in the slightly updated avifaunal study of Mr. Pearson, and thus also in the RBAR and in the latest amended HWEF turbine layout. Some of the deficiencies are of a serious nature and indicate that the avifaunal impact assessment remains unreliable and inadequate for rational decision-making purposes.

Furthermore, the revised HWEF turbine layout itself therefore remains deficient and uninformed by information that is critical to ensuring that the proposed HWEF represents the best practicable environmental option. These deficiencies are recorded in the latest report by Dr. Jenkins and the EAP would be well-advised to heed and remedy the RBAR before proceeding further in the BA process or even considering the submission of a final version of the RBARs to the competent authority.

The updated avifaunal report addressed all the requirements of the DEA uplift of suspension letter.

It was not required, in the updated bird report to address all of Dr Jenkin’s recommendations. The report was updated to include the additional work required by the DEA after the DEA considered Dr Jenkin’s documents/comments and the Arcus responses. Having said this, Arcus did still go beyond what the DEA requested (during the additional August field work) by searching for possible Secretarybird nest sites, doing extensive additional searches of cliffs and ridges for raptor nests, searching beyond 4 km from the WEF site for Verreaux’s Eagle nests and by revisiting known Verreaux’s Eagle nest sites to check for evidence of breeding.

It is not clear what additional information ‘that is critical to ensuring that the proposed HWEF represents the best practicable environmental option’ is still needed. We believe, and especially now that VERA has been applied and additional nest search work completed, that sufficient information exists to make an informed decision.






118 It is noted that, despite being advised thereof, Mr. Pearson excludes the Watson/Siemens WEF from his consideration of cumulative impacts and instead, focuses his efforts on the various and many wind farm projects located eastwards within the Cookhouse REDZ. Given the information provided by Mr. Pearson regarding the ongoing mortalities to Red Data listed bird species (and especially the Endangered Cape Vulture), and others, by those supposedly sustainable wind farms, there can be no doubt that the addition of the 3 proposed HWEFs, with associated grids, to the

cumulative impact is a significant and highly negative one. As such, it is clearly beyond effective mitigation (despite the fact that Mr. Pearson suggests otherwise).

The ‘Siemens/Watson’ project is not in the public domain, does not appear on the DEA’s data base of applications, and may never even proceed to EIA, or if it does it may be in a different description to what is currently available information regarding this project. If this project is to be considered, then the cumulative impacts could be higher than assessed, but this can only be confirmed once information on this project (including bird specialist studies etc.) are available and can be reviewed.

While the recorded mortalities of Cape Vulture at the operational facilities near Bedford/Cookhouse are a concern, the level of mortality is (which has been observed over a number of years) is not catastrophic. Based on a number of factors, including the increased distance from roost sites and lower recorded activity of Cape Vulture in the area, the Highlands WEF is likely to have lower impacts on Cape Vulture than what has been observed at Cookhouse / Bedford.

119 The revised avifaunal study by Mr. Pearson now recommends that the recognised high negative cumulative impact of the proposed HWEF can be mitigated to moderate

negative by implementing a mitigation programme across all of the Cookhouse REDZ wind farms. What and how such a programme of mitigation is envisaged is not specified, and it is thus merely a concept at this point. We must accordingly reiterate the recommendation by Dr. Jenkins that a suitably experienced and qualified ornithologist be appointed by the applicant to undertake the necessary proper assessment of the proposed HWEF project. We also recommend that the bird specialist consult the information for the Watson/Siemens wind farm given under Appendices 3, 4 and 5 and which were sourced from the proponents of the Watson/Siemens wind farm (the specialist should also obtain the details of the project manager, Mr. Hylton Newcombe, a registered I&AP to this HWEF BA process, and obtain the relevant details and latest plans of that project).

Mr Pearson is a suitably qualified and experience specialist. Andrew Pearson has >8 years of experience as a bird specialist, the majority of which he has

been a member of the Birds and Renewable Energy Specialist Group (BARESG), a group whose meetings Dr. Jenkins had often attended with Mr Pearson. As far as Mr Pearson is aware, not once did Dr Jenkins ever raise any concerns (directly or indirectly) with the BARESG group regarding Mr Pearson’s quality of work or experience, or question his position on BARESG or his ability to do specialist work. Another BARESG specialist, Mr Jon Smallie, in his peer review of the Highlands work conducted by Mr Pearson, stated that “The avifaunal specialist (Andrew Pearson) is certainly qualified and sufficiently experienced to conduct this assessment” and “Andrew is a competent and very thorough avifaunal specialist”. The team used to survey and conduct the standard field work are experienced individuals who have conducted avifaunal surveys for a number of wind farm applications.

The quality of the work is reflected in the through survey effort and reporting produced by Mr Pearson.






The study exceeded (Jenkins et al, 2015) and 72 hours per VP per year was conducted in line with the Verreaux’s Eagle guidelines (BLSA, 2017). The monitoring approach was also advised by a site feasibility study for the proposed development site. This study (Arcus 2017) included a site visit by the specialist (which included searching for nests) and thorough desk-based review and was completed in March 2017. The revised study was further enhanced, both by Mr Jenkin’s additional site work in October 2018 and the

extensive additional nest search work conducted by Arcus in August 2019.

This project has been excluded from the cumulative assessment in that it is not in the public domain, it is not clear if it will proceed to EIA and if so in what description, location, size or extent. By the time WindRelic decides to apply for EA, the project could be extremely different to that depicted in appendices 3-5, and the potential cumulative impact of this ‘Siemens/Watson’ project should then be properly assessed as part of that EIA process (or any other wind farm EIA in the area that is assessed once this ‘Siemens/Watson’ project is in the public domain.

120 The report by Dr. Jenkins (Appendix 7) highlights the fact that the investigative field work by Mr. Pearson remains inadequate as is his regard for known Red Data bird species on the site (such as Blue Cranes and Secretarybirds).

The study exceeded (Jenkins et al, 2015) and 72 hours per VP per year was conducted in line with the Verreaux’s Eagle guidelines (BLSA, 2017). The monitoring approach was also advised by a site feasibility study for the proposed development site. This study (Arcus 2017) included a site visit by the specialist (which included searching for nests) and thorough desk-based review and was completed in March 2017. The revised study was further enhanced, both by Mr Jenkin’s additional site work in October 2018 and the extensive additional nest search work conducted by Arcus in August 2019.

The fact that Blue Crane and Secretarybird may nest on or around the development site is important, and was considered in our impact assessment, but it does not constitute a fatal flaw. We have not ignored

them. We do not feel it necessary to confirm 100% if they are in fact nesting on the WEF or to know exactly where they are nesting in order to complete a through avifaunal assessment. However, nesting sites of Blue Crane were searched for in spring during the monitoring programme on the site, but none were found. Never the less, we have assumed that they are






nesting somewhere on the site, and that potential disturbance to breeding birds can be mitigated for by searching for possible nest sites prior to construction, and implementing mitigation at that stage. Furthermore, both these species have experienced relatively low levels of collision in South Africa. One Secretarybird mortality is known to date. While Blue Crane has suffered 9 fatalities on wind farms (as of October 2019- BARESG meeting information supplied by BLSA), this is relatively low when considering how

prevalent and abundant this species has been found to be on a number of operational sites that have been operational for a number of years in South Africa. Blue Cranes have shown high tolerance to wind developments with relatively low mortality despite a number of operational facilities within their core range for a number of years (Ralston-Paton et al, 2017; Pers. Obs; Pers. Com BARESG and BLSA).

If a Blue Crane nest site was located during the monitoring work, it would not have changed the impact assessment or the significance ratings. It would (and can still, if found through the additional recommended work) advise the final constructed layout and the construction scheduling. Such an approach (of recommending additional post authorization / pre-construction/ construction phase field work) has been recommend by other specialists on other sites for Blue Crane.

Regarding the impact assessment done by Dr. Jenkins for the West Coast One wind farm (WC1), now operational, Dr. Jenkins stated that “Blue Crane and Black Harrier, might breed either on the site or within the broader impact area of the proposed facility”. The report stated “Blue Cranes made up a substantial proportion of the large birds seen on site (from about 20% to >95%), but exhibited a mid-winter peak in numbers (Table 3, Fig. 6), when these birds were aggregated in large off-season flocks, and dropped off into summer as they split into breeding pairs and became less easily detectable from the road”. While one nest of Blue Crane was found by the monitoring, there was no specific reference to structured specific searching for such nest sites, and the report also stated “Ideally, the welfare of these and other sensitive species should be further catered for by a pre-construction walk-through, and by ongoing monitoring of the area throughout the construction period.”






121 Importantly, Dr. Jenkins advises now that the VERA model has apparently been found to have some shortcomings and in light thereof the author of the model has recommended that a circular buffer of 4km be accommodated around known Verreaux’s Eagle nests. Mr. Pearson is advised to contact the author of the VERA model to verify the information and to adjust the proposed HWEF layout accordingly (if necessary).

In our recent, direct and extensive communication with Dr Murgatroyd she did not mention any ‘failings in application’ of the model. She did note that the model was not 100% finalised or finished, but that she had tested various scenarios and used the ‘best fit’ and the most accurate available model at the time, for the Highlands work that she conducted.

This comment was reviewed by Dr. Murgatroyd who responded with the following statement

“Hi Andrew,

Through the grapevine comment is not valid.

The VERA model manuscript is in prep to submit for publication. The model which was applied to Highlands was the most conservative out of all models we have tested - i.e. the one which performs best in terms of protecting eagles. 4 km buffer might reduce protection of eagles and would certainly exclude more area from development than actually deemed necessary.

Regards,

Megan.”

In follow up correspondence, Dr Murgatroyd confirmed that she would not support the use of 4 km buffers ahead of the no-go areas produced by the model.

122 Dr. Jenkins also draws attention to the failure of Mr. Pearson to consult with the biologists undertaking the Cape Vulture survey in relation to wind farm impacts around the Bedford/Cookhouse area, and to await the findings of that study so as to properly understand the potential contribution of the proposed HWEF to the cumulative impacts on that species. This repeated stipulation by Dr. Jenkins was equally ignored by the competent authority in their subsequent specifications to the applicant. Dr. Jenkins has again advised that any pronouncements on the proposed HWEF by the competent authority should be delayed until the findings of the survey are to hand and can be assessed in the light of the potential added impacts of the proposed HWEF – this professional advice too should be heeded by the EAP and the competent authority (to this end the competent authority will be provided with a copy of this objection and Dr. Jenkins’ latest report contained in Appendix 7).

According to Endangered Wildlife Trust (EWT) project initiation only began in September 2018, and as of March 2019 no birds had been tagged as yet in the area. There is limited information available, and the completion date of the project (or when usable information will be available) is not known.

This study is focussed on the Cookhouse / Bedford area where there are a number of operational wind farms that have resulted in some mortality of Cape Vulture. The proposed Highlands WEF is >45 km away from these operational sites. These operational sites are a lot closer to the Cape Vulture roost site and colonies further to the east. The pre-construction passage rate of Cape Vulture at one of these sites (Amakhala Wind Farm) was 0.13 birds at rotor swept height per hour of observation. This is higher than what was recorded at Highlands, and it is also noted that this refers to flights at rotor swept height. If all flights of the species are considered, it is






possible that this figure is even higher. Data from another WEF site in the Cookhouse/Bedford area (i.e. Golden Valley II WEF), shows that this area (i.e. where the mortalities have been recorded at operational sites) has higher levels of Cape Vulture activity (especially in summer) than what was recorded on the Highlands site. Large numbers of Vultures, including vultures roosting overnight on power lines in the area were recorded in 2014/2015 at Golden Valley, and monitoring found a passage rate of ~0.14

birds per hour. Pre-construction monitoring at the Cookhouse Wind farm recorded a passage rate of 0.31 birds/hour, while Nojoli wind farm also in the same area had an average of 0.13 birds/hour (BLSA, Pers.Com), all higher than what has been recorded at Highlands.

At Highlands, Cape Vulture was only recorded during the final summer season, and only from VP watches when 11 flights were recoded for this species (mostly conducted by birds from one flock of 8 birds). It was also not recorded during the screening phase site visit in March 2017, or the follow up site work in August 2019. The recorded passage rate of 0.093 birds/hour is low, there are no breeding colonies within 175 km and the closest known active roost site is at Agieskloof, 60 km away. New breeding colonies and roosts were searched for by field workers and extensive consultation with landowners, local birders and Vulpro, and none were located. Considering the above, Cape Vulture is only likely to be an occasional visitor to the Highlands WEF, and should mortalities occur for this species (which is unlikely but possible), it is predicted that the levels of mortality will be low, and they could be mitigated by implementing mitigation such as carcass management strategies and /or shut down on demand and / or curtailment strategies.

123 In conclusion, the latest proposed HWEF is deficient in its proper consideration of avifaunal issues and the unchanged potential impacts provided in the RBAR lack credibility and do not inspire the necessary level of confidence required for objective and rational decision-making. They also are incongruent with the sensitive aspects of

the receiving environment being significantly understated. Several of the potentially negative avifaunal impacts, including the cumulative impact, must correctly be rated as high negative after mitigation. This rating should render the proposed HWEF as unsustainable (irrespective of the significant outstanding work required).

The no-go areas were changed, and the number of turbines reduced and all turbines were removed from the more stringent and extensive no-go areas in the revised report. Based on this, and the extensive bird information collect on the site, we were of the opinion that the potential impacts

remained the same as assessed in the original report.






124 In our objection of 25/10/2018 the numerous deficiencies in, and superficiality of, the Simon Todd specialist report on fauna and fauna were brought to the attention of the EAP. Comment was also made on the inappropriateness of Mr. Todd in terms of his qualifications and experience (he is essentially apparently a karoo vegetation botanist) to conduct such a wide- ranging ecological study.

These comments were comprehensively responded to by the EAP. These responses can be found in this comments and response report.

125 Attention was drawn to the superficial level of investigation; manipulation of impact ratings; and the inappropriateness of mitigation measures (which, given their consequences for the applications, appear to be an intended action designed to serve the purposes of the applicant).

The EAP disagrees with this statement. The environmental authorisation process complies with NEMA and the EIA Regulations.

126 The failure of the Todd report properly to assess the impact of noise from the proposed HWEF on fauna was identified and the EAP was advised to attend to same by way of the appointment and commissioning of a suitably qualified specialist (which Mr. Todd is not).

The Arcus ecological specialist is aware of the impacts of sound on fauna, having reviewed the peer-reviewed literature on this subject in another recent context. Evidence of this work is available in Todd (2016)2 and Scholes et al. (2016)3. These papers specifically consider the impact of noise on fauna and provide an overview of the manner in which sound affects fauna as well as the different ways in which fauna respond and adapt to these changes in their environment. That noise affects fauna is not debatable and is taken a basic premise from which to work and understand the specific impacts associated with wind farms. There are no authoritative statements in the report to the contrary.

127 The EAP was also advised to appoint a suitable botanist who is familiar with the receiving environment to undertake a proper and dedicated botanical impact study.

The EAPs appointed specialist Mr. Todd is a suitable botanist familiar with the receiving environment.

128 Review of the responses provide by the EAP in Vol. III of the RBAR reveal that the EAP (and Mr. Todd evidently) has effectively dismissed the significant potential impacts and issues raised by us and the advice offered. Incorrect assumptions are made regarding the reviewed ability of the author’s review of the Todd report but it serves no purpose to correct each of the EAP’s/Mr. Todd’s responses given that the flaws and issues identified are anyway corroborated now by the subsequent specialist

The EAP does not believe that any new information or significant new information has been presented by Dr Wilson. Therefore there is no need to change any of the assessments or the nature of the significance as already rated and assessed in the EIA reports. There have been no studies, finding or evidence presented Dr Wilson that constitute new information or warrant additional assessments to be undertaken, the responses by both the

2 Todd, S.W., Horrman, M.t., Henschel, J.R., Cardoso, A.W., Brooks, M.I.C.H.A.E.L., & Underhill, L.G. (2016). The potential impacts of fracking on biodiversity of the Karoo Basin, South Africa.

Hydraulic fracturing in the Karoo: Critical legal and environmental perspectives’. (Eds J. Glazeweski and S. Esterhuyse.) pp , 278-301 3 Scholes, B., Lochner, P.A., Schreiner, G., & De Jager, M. (2016). Shale gas development in the Central Karoo: a scientific assessment of the opportunities and risks.






studies by Dr. Neil Wilson (an ecologist appointed by the objectors) and which were provided to the EAP at their time of release (except for the latest report which is included herewith as Appendix 8).

Ecology Specialist and the Noise Specialist adequately addresses any concerns raised by Dr Wilson.

129 Mr. Todd is certainly not qualified to make the important statement that “It is doubted that appointing a noise specialist would greatly inform the impacts of noise on fauna” and which effectively scopes out this important potential impact based

upon his unqualified and unsubstantiated opinion. Perusal of his provided qualifications and experience confirms that he is not qualified to make such important (but unsubstantiated) calls of judgment. In his responses Mr. Todd numerously contradicts himself by, for instance, claiming that the animals “become habituated to machines even when these make a noise”.

The Arcus ecological specialist is aware of the impacts of sound on fauna, having reviewed the peer-reviewed literature on this subject in another recent context.

130 Our advice to the EAP regarding the necessity to appoint a suitable locally knowledgeable botanist to undertake a proper botanical impact assessment is neither recorded in the Vol. III C&RR, nor responded to anywhere by the EAP. This is a critically important issue given the confirmed ecological sensitivity of the receiving environment and the presence of CBAs within and around the potentially affected area. It remains thus a critical information gap in the RBAR without which the competent authority will not be able to make a rational and therefore legally defensible decision to approve the applications.

The Arcus ecological specialist is a locally knowledgeable botanist. There is no information gap in the BAR or the ecological specialist report. The ecological sensitivity of the site is assessed in the BAR and in the Ecological Specialist report (Volume II).

131 Leading up to, and during the course of the suspension of the applications imposed by the competent authority Dr. Neil Wilson provided various professional comment documents which identified the numerous significant flaws in the Todd ecological impact study. The first of these comment documents have already been provided to the competent authority and the EAP but the third one (number (iii) below) is introduced now as Appendix 8 to this comment.

These supposed flaws identified by Dr Wilson, has been sufficiently responded during the suspension phase and ins included in this comments and response report.

132 In his comment document of 7/2/2019 Dr. Wilson exposed the failure of the Todd report to assess properly the potential impact of noise (including broad-band wind

turbine sound) upon fauna and advised that in the absence of this the impact ratings given to the potential impacts of the HWEF upon fauna are unreliable and speculative. He concluded with the following advice:

Arcus’s noise specialist has responded to Dr. Wilson’s comment with the following statement, as quoted from the letter in Appendix 13 of this report.

“Wind turbines emit very low levels of noise at such frequencies, and as such, manufacturers do not provide such information. The lowest octave-band provided by the manufacturer is 32 Hz. As such, it is not possible to present a noise contour plot of infrasound levels.






“To begin assessing impacts of the wind farm’s broad-band sound on the fauna, Mr Todd should include a map showing predicted sounds levels (sound contours) at 50 metre intervals from the circumference of the proposed wind farm development for infrasound (<20 Hz), low frequency sound (20-200 Hz) and higher frequency sound (>200 Hz).”

Infrasound is present in the environment, and is generated by a wide range of natural sources (e.g. wind, waves etc.). In February 2013, the Environmental Protection Authority of South Australia published the results of a study into infrasound levels near wind farms. This study measured infrasound levels at urban locations, rural locations with wind turbines close by, and rural locations with no wind turbines in the vicinity. It found that infrasound levels near wind farms are comparable to levels away from wind

farms in both urban and rural locations. Infrasound levels were also measured during organised shut-downs of the wind farms; the results showed that there was no noticeable difference in infrasound levels whether the turbines were active or inactive.

On this basis, the very low level of infrasound generated by wind turbines is likely to be lower than infrasound generated by the wind itself. It is not possible to provide a noise contour plot relating to infrasound, and there is considered to be no reasonable prospect of a significant effect”.

133 Up to the present date this important advice has not been implemented by the EAP and the consequent failures in the Todd findings remain.

This “advice” was considered by both the Arcus noise and ecology specialists and have been sufficiently responded to in this comments and response report.

134 In his comment document of 1/4/2019, issued in reply to the responses of the EAP (and Mr. Todd) to his document of 7/2/2019, Dr. Wilson reiterates the unsubstantiated nature of the statements which are based upon Mr. Todd’s unqualified opinion regarding the impact of noise upon fauna and Dr. Wilson recommends that:

“Mr. Todd should be obliged by the Department to provide the spectral data and sound amplitudes produced by the proposed wind farm at 50m intervals from the perimeter, and then consider the sound impacts on fauna for the section of his report to have any credibility.”

As shown in Appendix 13, Arcus noise specialist has calculated noise contour plots for higher-frequency and lower-frequency sound. It is not possible to provide a noise contour plot relating to infrasound. As such, information from the Arcus noise specialist has informed sound impacts on fauna.

135 It is also pointed out by Dr. Wilson that, “(n)o mitigation is mentioned for the long-term broad- band sound emitted by the wind turbines, and therefore Mr Todd cannot speak about post-

mitigation operational impacts in his report.”

The Fauna & Flora Specialist Basic Assessment report (Final BARs Volume II) provides a variety of mitigation measures. Apart from stopping turbines for periods, there does not appear to be any effective mitigation for turbine noise. However, until such time as the noise impact of turbines on fauna are demonstrated through science-based and peer-reviewed research and






literature, there is no valid reason to justify the operational impact of stopping turbines during operation to reduce noise. In addition, there are a variety of noise reducing measures that are implemented as standard practice on wind farms aimed at reducing the overall noise impacts.

136 In his most recent expert advice of 4/11/2019 (Appendix 8) Dr. Wilson comments briefly upon the latest set of RBARs; the Todd Specialist study (RBAR, Vol. II), and

the “Noise” environmental impact assessment report by Arcus Consultancy Services (RBAR, Vol. II), dated September 2018, in terms of their respective deficiencies as such relate to potential faunal impacts of noise and ecological impacts generally. The deficiencies of these 2 specialist studies are clearly set out in Dr. Wilson’s review and have the effect of rendering the findings and impacts results of the studies as unreliable and variously incorrect. These flaws (including that, “Medium pre-mitigation and low post-mitigation significance scores for impacts on fauna during the operational phase of the Highlands North, Central and South WEF developments are probably being under-estimated due to unrealistic assumptions of rapid turbine habituation by most fauna and minimal impacts of turbine noise affecting a small subset of species present.“) are transferred to the associated results of the RBARs which are consequently deemed to suffer from the same problems.

The Arcus ecological specialist is aware of the impacts of sound on fauna, having reviewed the peer-reviewed literature on this subject in another

recent context.

Evidence of this work is available in Todd (2016)1 and Scholes et al. (2016).2 These papers specifically consider the impact of noise on fauna and provide an overview of the manner in which sounds affects fauna as well as the different ways in which fauna respond and adapt to these changes to their environment. That noise affects fauna is not debatable and is taken a basic premise from which to work and understand the specific impacts associated with wind farms. There are no authoritative statements in the report to the contrary.

In terms of the vertebrate fauna, noise generally acts to degrade the quality of the habitat for vulnerable and sensitive species. As such, the

presence of turbines does not exclude species from the area, but may result in a decrease in the fitness or density of the affected species. In this regard it is important to note that wind turbines are similar in their effects to roads and other sources of anthropogenic noise and there is nothing specific about wind turbine noise that makes its impact different from other sources.

Given the above, it is considered that noise from the Development will be of equal significance scores having considered the noise impact on fauna.

137 Dr. Wilson provides references of documented negative impacts of wind turbine sound on fauna (see point 3 of the second page of the document, Appendix 8), contrary to the EAP’s claim. It is incumbent upon the EAP to ensure that these important deficiencies are attended to and that the necessary potential impact of noise from the proposed HWEF on fauna is properly and empirically assessed – and as Dr. Wilson states under Section B, Point 4 of his report;

In line with Appendix 13 as written by Arcus noise specialist, the EAP has ensured that important deficiencies have been attended to, and the potential impact of noise from the Development has been assessed.






“The impacts of wind turbine sound on animals in terms of mate attraction, reproductive success, territorial defence, prey detection and predator avoidance will remain speculative and under- estimated until spectral data and sound amplitudes are provided for infrasound (<20 Hz), low frequency sound (20-200 Hz) and higher frequency sound (>200 Hz). Sound contour plots showing how sound intensity varies at varying distances from the turbines should form part of this important information. The absence of this transparent information from the Arcus noise report is an

important weakness which creates difficulty in assessing the associated broad-band wind turbine sound impacts.”

138 Vol. III (page 217) of the RBAR persists with the same arguments but which have already been exposed and dismissed by Dr. Wilson in his various review documents.

The EAP maintains these responses, there is nothing new that has been submitted by Dr Wilson.

139 It must be concluded then that the sustained refusal of the EAP to commission a study to determine the spectral data and sound amplitudes “for infrasound (<20 Hz), low frequency sound (20-200 Hz) and higher frequency sound (>200 Hz)” must dictate then that the potential impacts of sound from the proposed HWEF on animals will remain speculative and under-estimated. Dr. Wilson has further advised that “sound contour plots showing how sound intensity varies at varying distances from the turbines should form part of this important information and that the absence of this transparent information from the Arcus noise report is an important weakness which creates difficulty in assessing the associated broad-band wind turbine sound impacts”.

The EAP commissioned Arcus noise specialist to conduct a study in order to determine spectral data and sound amplitude for infrasound, low frequency sound and high frequency sound potential impacts on animals (Appendix 13):

“Wind turbines emit very low levels of noise at such frequencies, and as such, manufacturers do not provide such information. The lowest octave-band provided by the manufacturer is 32 Hz. As such, it is not possible to present a noise contour plot of infrasound levels.

Infrasound is present in the environment, and is generated by a wide range of natural sources (e.g. wind, waves etc.). In February 2013, the Environmental Protection Authority of South Australia published the results of a study into infrasound levels near wind farms. This study measured infrasound levels at urban locations, rural locations with wind turbines close by, and rural locations with no wind turbines in the vicinity. It found that infrasound levels near wind farms are comparable to levels away from wind farms in both urban and rural locations. Infrasound levels were also measured during organised shut-downs of the wind farms; the results showed that there was no noticeable difference in infrasound levels

whether the turbines were active or inactive.

On this basis, the very low level of infrasound generated by wind turbines is likely to be lower than infrasound generated by the wind itself. It is not






possible to provide a noise contour plot relating to infrasound, and there is considered to be no reasonable prospect of a significant effect”.

The turbines will not emit broad-band sound on a continual basis as the turbines only turn and generate power when the wind is above the kick-in speed. In accordance with Appendix 13:

“Noise levels will be lower during low wind speeds, and no wind turbine noise will be present during periods of calm (20-year monthly mean wind speed in Uitenhage: 3.14 m/s) High wind speeds also result in elevated background noise levels; this provides additional masking of the wind turbine noise and correlates with low levels of faunal activity, particularly with the regard to vocalising for territorial or mate attraction purposes.

It is not possible for all areas to be downwind of the wind turbines simultaneously; those areas which are downwind of the turbines will change with varying wind direction. For those area which are directly upwind of the turbines during a given wind direction, noise levels will be approximately 10 dB lower than presented.

Worst-case predicted noise levels are comparable with the level of noise

already present in the locality;

Wind turbines emit very low levels of infrasound, and it is not possible to produce an infrasound-based noise contour plot. Infrasound generated by wind turbines is likely to be lower than infrasound generated by the wind itself, and there is considered to be no reasonable prospect of a significant effect.”

140 In the broad consideration of biodiversity the IFC World Bank Group’ “Environmental, Health, and Safety Guidelines, Wind Energy” Guideline, point 25 (page 6) has this to say:

“Site selection is critical to avoiding and minimizing potential adverse impacts on biodiversity. Site selection should include the following:

• Consideration of the proximity of the proposed wind energy facility to sites of high biodiversity value in the region (including those located across national boundaries).

The process followed by the EAP and applicant, largely follows this process highlighted by AVDS. In summary the following was undertaken (which has been highlighted in the BAR as well as in the comments and response report):

Section 6 Assessment of Alternatives gives detailed account of all alternatives considered. This includes the No go Alternative, alternatives regions considered, alternative sites within the region that were considered, alternative turbine layouts that were assessed, and alternative technologies.






Early screening can improve macro-level project site selection and the scoping of priorities for further assessment, thus reducing unnecessary biodiversity impacts and costs in the future. Sites of local, regional, and international importance may include: national and international protected areas (including marine protected areas), Important Bird Areas (IBA), Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs), Alliance for Zero Extinction (AZE) sites, Ramsar sites (Wetlands of International Importance), known congregatory sites, and unique or threatened ecosystems. These sites may be known

to be important migration routes, wetlands, or staging, foraging, or breeding areas; they may house bat hibernation areas and roosts; or they may contain important topographical features,

including ridges, river valleys, shorelines, and riparian areas.”

Table 6.4 provides a summary of the alternatives considered in the selection of the preferred alternative. Based on this assessment, it was decided that the proposed location of the WEF will be the Highlands site, located in the Eastern Cape Province. Through the feasibility process the design of the WEF was developed taking into consideration environmental constraints. These constraints were provided by the specialists, and included no-go areas based on avifaunal and bat constraints, as well as

floral and faunal constraints, aquatic buffers, and visual constraints. A provisional layout for the proposed development was designed based on these constraints, and provided to the specialists to use as part of the impact assessment phase (The Proposed Layout). The specialist’s detailed assessments resulted in constraints being refined or added so that this provisional layout has continued to evolve throughout the process. The Revised Final Mitigated Layout takes into account all final specialist findings and recommendations, as well as geo-technical aspects of the site. The Final Mitigated Layout is submitted to the DEA for authorisation, and if approved and awarded preferred bidder status, this layout will further be developed, through micro siting of turbines and roads, with the assistance from the relevant specialists.

141 Contrary to the IFC World Bank Group Guideline recommendations it is quite clear that the site chosen for the proposed HWEF does not steer away and respect sensitive biodiversity areas and features (such as Critical Biodiversity Areas or CBA’s) even where unacceptable wind farm impacts are already occurring (such the vulture mortalities nearby from operating wind farms) and where

the same species has been recorded on the proposed HWEF site.

The proposed Highlands WEF is >45 km away from these operational sites. These operational sites are a lot closer to the Cape Vulture roost site and colonies further to the east. The pre-construction passage rate of Cape Vulture at one of these sites (Amakhala Wind Farm) was 0.13 birds at rotor swept height per hour of observation. This is higher than what was recorded at Highlands, and it is also noted that this refers to flights at rotor swept height. If all flights of the species are considered, it is possible that this figure is even higher. Data from another WEF site in the Cookhouse/Bedford area (i.e. Golden Valley II WEF), shows that this area (i.e. where the mortalities have been recorded at operational sites) has higher levels of Cape Vulture activity (especially in summer) than what was

recorded on the Highlands site. Large numbers of Vultures, including vultures roosting overnight on power lines in the area were recorded in 2014/2015 at Golden Valley, and monitoring found a passage rate of ~0.14 birds per hour. Pre-construction monitoring at the Cookhouse Wind farm recorded a passage rate of 0.31 birds/hour, while Nojoli wind farm also in






the same area had an average of 0.13 birds/hour (BLSA, Pers.Com), all higher than what has been recorded at Highlands.

The NPAES is not based on ground-truthed information and is in the process of being updated. Furthermore, the NAPES is large and the development would not compromise the ability to meet conservation targets within the NPAES focus area.

Approximately half of the Highlands Central WEF falls within a Tier 2 CBA aimed at maintaining the broad-scale connectivity of the landscape.

Even though the development would result in some habitat loss within the CBA this is not likely to compromise the overall functioning of the CBA as it is very large and the development occupies a very small portion of the CBA. Given the large scale of the CBA and the relatively small proportion of the CBA that falls within the development footprint, it is not likely that the development would compromise the overall functioning of the CBA as an ecological corridor.

The report states the following:

The majority of the development footprint lies within a NPAES focus area. The development however lies on the margin of the NPAES focus area and the extent of the development would not significantly impact ability to meet conservation targets elsewhere within the focus area which is large in comparison with the development site. Similarly, there are no other renewable energy developments in the immediate area with the result that cumulative impacts within 50 km of the site are still very low. In the wider area there are several existing wind farms, but these are on different ridge systems and the overall extent of cumulative impact in the area remains low.

142 In the objection of 25/10/2018 potential “off-site” environmental impacts of the proposed HWEF were brought to the attention of the EAP as not having been assessed. These, as far as could be established, pertained principally to traffic and

road impacts, and borrow pit activities.

Traffic impact assessment was included as part of the basic assessment process. These have been assessed and considered. The traffic impact assessment is included in Volume II. The report states that existing licensed

borrow pits will be used, should this not be available then an application will be submitted for this. Any potential impacts related to borrow pit activities will be assessed ad authorisation received prior to the establishment of the borrow pit.






143 In Vol. III the EAP has dismissed these potential impacts and has simply responded to the effect that all of the impacts associated with the proposed HWEF have been included in the current BA process. The EAP has also stated that existing authorised borrow pits will be used and that if it is necessary to establish a new borrow pit then that will be the subject of a new and separate environmental authorisation application.

This is correct and the EAP maintains this all potential impacts have been assessed in the basic assessment process.

144 The approach of the EAP is non-compliant as she has not identified all of the potential and likely impacts associated with the proposed HWEF and seems to regard any potential impacts that will not pertain directly to the actual construction and operation of the proposed project (if it is approved) as being peripheral and of little consequence. Not only is such an incremental view to development of the proposed activity non-compliant with NEMA and the NEMA EIA Regulations, but it also places the project at considerable risk. It is a legal requirement that all of the potential impacts associated with the proposed activity are identified and assessed, and the cumulative impact of the proposed HWEF must also be assessed.

The EAP has identified all of the potential impacts associated with the proposed development. This is detailed in Sections 8- 19 of the BAR. The EAP maintains compliance with both NEMA and the EIA Regulations, as detailed in the BAR.

145 The RBARs for the proposed HWEF suffer from some fundamental and obvious flaws which arise from the similarly flawed BA process from which they have been produced. The flaws are numerous and are largely the result of the EAP’s sustained determination from the outset of the BA process to ensure that her reasoned opinion concludes with the recommended approval of the applicant’s preferred option for development of the proposed HWEF.

The environmental authorisation process conducted for this application is not flawed, as purported by AVDS. The process to arrive at the preferred alternative is outlined extensively in the report, and in particular Sections 5 and 6.

146 The potential cumulative impact of the proposed HWEF is identified by 3 of the 4 objectors’ specialists as being a significant problem but which is drastically understated by the EAP. The avifaunal review finds it to be “Very High” and which could possibly be reduced to “High” through a coordinated mitigation program across all of the wind farms in the Cookhouse REDZ. The existence of the intended massive Watson/Siemens (or “Wind Relic”) wind farm right on the boundary of the proposed HWEF is ignored by the EAP and her appointed specialist in their assessment of the

potential cumulative impact.

None of the objectors’ specialist studies comply with NEMA or the EIA Regulation, in particular Appendix 6. These studies further do not have a standard rating methodology to rate these impacts, as high, medium or low. There is in fact no impact assessment in these reports.

It should be noted, that even if there are plans for this wind farm, as far as can be established, this is only in the pre-planning, feasibility, prospecting stage, therefore there is no information available to assess. One cannot assess the potential of a wind with no information in the public domain, as there no information to assess. Expecting the EAP to include an idea of a wind farm, with no information to base the cumulative assessment on, is not reasonable. Therefore only planned developments which have been






through the application stage, with an idea of the size of the facility can be used to produce an informed cumulative assessment. By definition, cumulative impacts are those that result from incremental changes caused by past, present or reasonably foreseeable future actions together with the proposed development, if there is no publically available information on this “massive wind farm” how can one reasonably foresee that this will be developed. It is therefore not reasonable to include this unknown in the

cumulative assessment.

147 The objectors’ appointed socio-economic and visual impact specialists both conclude that the site chosen for the proposed HWEF is inappropriate for the development and suggest that a more suitable site be located for the proposed HWEF – unfortunately the applicant-favoured approach of the EAP dispensed of all possible alternative sites very early in the BA process (it is questionable whether there ever in fact were any alternatives) and which means that the proposed HWEF can only rightly be replaced with the “no go” option and which must be the outcome of the applications.

This conclusion is not based on any standard significance rating methodology, the EAP cannot ascertain what criteria was used to determine this conclusion. The Arcus Visual Specialist has responded to the new submission from the objectors visual specialist, the same was complete for the socio-economic report submitted by AVDS.

As stated above, a comprehensive alternative assessment was conducted, and is outline in Section 6 of the BAR.

148 The RBARs are not informed by a meaningful and representative sample of opinion of the local affected community and no effort has been made by the applicant to meet with the objectors, as recommended in the SIA for the proposed development. The request of the occupiers on some of the objectors’ properties to be consulted has been ignored by the EAP even though it is revealed that the number of employees of the objectors’ operations is 189 (a significant workforce in the local area).

Appendix 8 in Volume III provides evidence trying to get information on occupiers, to be enable to allow them to participation in the process. On the 18th of October 2018 in an email AVDS clearly states the following “The clients have now been properly advised of the real intentions of your unethical and scheming approach and have been advised not to engage or assist you in any further manner.”


“However, in order to be of some help we would advise you to contact the Department of Environmental Affairs (Ms. Dee Fischer) who undertook the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) which determined that the subject Cookhouse REDZ, within which said “occupiers” reside and our clients properties fall, be proclaimed under the auspices that the SEA was the product of a comprehensive (scoping) process of public consultation during which affected parties were extensively consulted. On that basis you would be reasonably expected to obtain from the DEA all the names and details of those you seek since they are within, and affected by, the SEA






Cookhouse REDZ (as your motivation Highlands WEF evidences in its substantial reliance upon the same SEA).”


149 Notwithstanding the substantial deficiencies in the RBARs there exists sufficient compelling evidence for the EAP and applicant to abandon entirely the prospect of establishing the proposed HWEF on the site. The only available option for the applicant now is to relocate the project elsewhere, or to abandon it entirely.

The EAP submits that there are no deficiencies in the revised BARs or the process. AVDS

Highlands Central Wind Energy Facility

Documents

Transcript of Highlands Central Wind Energy Facility