Key Stakeholders - CESNET Bay Wind Energy Project... · 2017. 6. 13. · Private Bag 1004,Richards...

Volume 3: Environmental Impact Assessment Report

Coastal & Environmental Services 199 Richards Bay Wind Energy Project

Dolf Marais Manager - Electricity Supply Services (City of uMhlathuze)

[email protected]

Dr Antonie Heyneke City manager: City of uMhlathuze 035 907 5002

Private Bag 1004,Richards Bay, 3900

Sibusiso Dlamini 082 921 9382 [email protected]

Key Stakeholders

The Chief Executive Officer

KZN Wildlife 033 845 1478 033 845 1499

PO Box 13053, Cascades, 3202

Felicity Elliot Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife 033 845 1437 086 532 6442

[email protected]


Dominic Wieners Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife [email protected]


Bianca McKelvey WESSA 031 201 3126/071

071 625 0829 [email protected]

100 Brand Road, Glenwood, Durban, 4001

Carolyn Schwegman

EIA Co-ordinator WESSA KZN Region 039 975 2147 039 975 2147

[email protected]

PO Box 343, Pennington, 4184

Belinda Hingle ESKOM [email protected]

PO Box 66, New Germany, 3620

Kate Richardson KZN Bat Association 031 261 8099 082 559 7681 [email protected]

52 Bowen Ave, Glenmore, Durban, 4001

Dr Boyd Escott Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife [email protected]

OTHER

Florian Kroeber Proponent (EA Energy) 031 301 6444 [email protected]

Hendrik Reyneke Mainstream Renewable Power South Africa 021 657 4050 021 671 5665


PO Box 45063, Claremont, 7735, Cape Town

Dieter Heinsohn ACER (Africa) Environmental Management Consultants

Giles Churchhill ACER (Africa) Environmental Management Consultants

035 340 2715 035 340 2232

[email protected]

PO Box 503, Mtunzini, 3867

Mr John Phipson 035 340 1940 082 944 8462 [email protected] PO Box 465, Mtunzini, 3867

Mr Andile Mgudlwa Siemens [email protected]

300 Janadel Avenue, Midrand, 1685

An De Fortier 086 651 2996

072 193 0380 [email protected] PO Box 411, Hluhluwe, 3960

mailto:[email protected]























Jan Jordaan Ulungeni Consulting CC 035 792 1026 035 792 1026

[email protected]

PO Box 1521, Empangeni, 3880

Digby Cyrus Head: Dept of Zoology and Coastal Research Unit of Zululand

[email protected]

George Oliver Vision Data Systems 082 962 2913 [email protected]

Chadd Bain Izulu Orphan Project and Bannage 083 649 9990 [email protected]

PO Box 7575, Empangeni Rail, 3910

Terry Baker Technical Director Environmental Management: Illiso Consulting


Brett Birkenstock Tongaat Hulett Sugar 083 236 7837 [email protected]

Private Bag X02, Felixton, 3875

R.N. Cebekhulu Inkosi: Obizo Traditional Council 035 794 1788 035 794 1894

082 975 5107


Dr Peter Haselau Chairperson: Wildlife and Environment Society of SA

035 794 1721


Mr Jimmy Hills Manager: Planning and Development: Transnet National Ports Authority, Port of RB


H.C. De Villiers Councillor 035 772 5957 035 772 5957


L.J. Nel 035 772 5957 035 772 5957


Hugo Stewart Umbani Power Station +27 (35) 792 1531

[email protected]

Peter Cowan Umbani Power Station +27 (31) 267 0842

[email protected]

Gary Johnson MTN 031 502 8784 031 705 7091


PO Box 2073, New Germany, 3260

Lize Shaw

Environmental Specialist – Zululand & Ntonjaneni Area

035 580 8117 035 580 4703

[email protected]

PO Box 35, Kwambonambi, 3915

Dr Boyd Escott GIS Analyst - Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife 033 845 1257 033 845 1226

[email protected]

PO Box 13053, Cascades, Pietermaritzburg, 3202

Ms Tatenda Mukai Ziso

Windlab Development Systems Pty (Ltd) 27 (0) 21 701 1292

[email protected]

Andrew Walshe Son of Ken Walshe [email protected]





















Coastal & Environmental Services Richards Bay Wind Energy Project

201

APPENDIX D – IMPORTANT CORRESPONDENCE Please note that the following important entities failed to submit comment on the draft amended EIR which was submitted to them:

Birdlife South Africa

Umhlathuze Local Municipality

Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife* * Ezemvelo has a staff shortage and a serious backlog of work. After the review period had ended, CES phoned Ezemvelo to enquire about progress. The backlog was explained, and it was promised that the project would be prioritised. Ezemvelo will submit comments as soon as possible, to CES if possible, or else directly to the Department of Environmental Affairs.



APPENDIX D-1: LETTER OF PROVISIONAL APPROVAL – CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY.



APPENDIX D – 2: DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY AND FISHERIES



APPENDIX D – 3: MR CLIVE KELLY (NEIGHBOURING LAND OWNER) Mr Kelly has withdrawn his objection to the Richards Bay WEF. His objection was withdrawn on the 28 of September 2012, after submission of the final EIAR.



APPENDIX D – 4: LETTER FROM ESKOM CONFIRMING ABILITY TO CONNECT FACILITY.



APPENDIX D – 5: LETTERS FROM SANRAL AND KZN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT



APPENDIX D – 6: LETTER FROM HERITAGE KZN



APPENDIX D – 7: LETTER FROM THE BAT INTEREST GROUP OF KWAZULU NATAL



APPENDIX D – 8: LETTER FROM KATE MACEWAN OF NATURAL SCIENTIFIC SERVICES



APPENDIX D – 9: LETTER FROM UTHUNGULU DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY



APPENDIX D – 10: LETTER FROM LOCAL MUNICIPALITY CONFIRMING AVAILABILITY OF SERVICES DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE.



APPENDIX D – 11: LETTER FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF WATER AFFAIRS



APPENDIX D – 12: LETTER OF OBJECTION FROM WENDY WHITE Dear Sir, I am writing in my personal capacity to express my concern and disquiet at what appears to be a major and possibly deliberate omission from the above report. Section 7: Impact Assessment: at first reading appears to give equal weight to the findings and recommendations of the two Bat Specialist reports by NSS and BIO

3 however I note with extreme concern

the none of the Mitigation and Management recommendations from the NSS report have been included in the above EIAR report. This is of extreme concern in view of the fact that the NSS report states categorically “Due to the sensitivity of this site for bats, unless the developer adopts all the of the NSS recommendations, NSS recommends that the Richards Bay WEF is a No-Go project. There are some proven mitigation measures that can be applied to reduce the significance to Medium. NSS will only support this project if such measures are adhered to” Since the mitigation measures proposed by NSS are on the whole more stringent than those proposed by BIO

3 The report as it stands can in no way be considered as complete and a basis upon which the relevant

authorities may apply their minds. I request that this report should be immediately withdrawn and reissued with the inclusion of proposed NSS Mitigation and Management measures and a further period of comment allowed. Secondly; as a bat specialist I am aware that no other country in the world would consider placing a Wind Energy Facility in an area with such high bat diversity and numbers. If this WEF is to go ahead then it should be under the most stringent mitigation measures possible. The BIO

3 report section 2.2.2. states that “average wind speeds were generally low, averaging 7m/s”. Many

scientific reports cited by both experts have established that at wind speeds below 6.5m/s maximum bat casualties will be experienced. As I understand it wind turbines start generating electricity at wind speeds of 4 to 5 metres per second and reach maximum power output at around 15 metres/second. The wind speed at which most turbines achieve their rated output is 12 metres/second. Thus for the greater part of the year this WEF will be physically unable to produce the projected output of 108MW. Obviously with such low average wind speeds this projected WEF can be considered as marginal at best, the stringent bat mitigation measures necessary to protect this bat “hotspot” will most likely render the project financially unviable and will very likely be vigorously resisted by the developers. The object of all Renewable Energy Systems is to produce electric power at minimum risk and damage to the environment. It therefore makes no sense to allow construction of a WEF that, due to low average wind speeds, will rarely produce it’s designed capacity of electricity output. The proposed facility can be expected though to cause unacceptable and possibly unsustainable bat mortalities, largely due to the WEF having to operate for a greater proportion of the year at less than optimum capability. There are many areas of this country with far higher and more constant wind speeds than this site. Such areas also have far lower bat populations and can contribute far more than this proposed site to the national energy requirements. Such areas in the Eastern and Western Cape, Free State and the Karoo can produce electricity without the undoubted damage to the environment that will be caused by this proposed facility. Sir it is my firm opinion that this proposed Wind Energy Facility should be declared No-Go. Yours sincerely Wendy White



APPENDIX D – 13: LETTER FROM NSPCA



APPENDIX D – 14: LETTER FROM THE PROVINCIAL AUTHORITY – THE KZN DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS



APPENDIX D – 15: LETTER FROM THE KZN DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND TOURISM



APPENDIX D – 16: DEVELOPERS LETTER, EXPLAINING APPOINTMENT OF BIO 3

Key Stakeholders - CESNET Bay Wind Energy Project... · 2017. 6. 13. · Private Bag 1004,Richards...

Documents

Transcript of Key Stakeholders - CESNET Bay Wind Energy Project... · 2017. 6. 13. · Private Bag 1004,Richards...