The Proposed Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm Final Environmental Impact Report DEA Ref: 12/12/20/1928 September 2011

Prepared for: Prepared by: CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd Environmental Evaluation Unit P.O. Box 13 University of Cape Town Darling Private Bag X3, Rondebosch 7345 Cape Town 7701

PROJECT INFORMATION

PROJECT: Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm

REPORT TITLE: Final Environmental Impact Report

EEU REPORT REFERENCE: 5/11/312

ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORITY: The Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA)

DEA REFERENCE NO: 12/12/20/1928

APPLICANT: CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS: Environmental Evaluation Unit, University of Cape Town

DATE: 20 September 2011

STATEMENT OF INDEPENDENCE

The Environmental Evaluation Unit (EEU) has been commissioned by CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd to undertake an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in terms of the National Environmental Management Act (107 of 1998) EIA Regulations (Government Notice (GN) R385, GN R386 and GN R387 of April 2006). The EEU has complied with the general requirements for Environmental Assessment Practitioners (EAPs) as set out below, from Chapter 3 (18):

An EAP appointed in terms of regulation 17(1) must –

(a) be independent; (b) have expertise in conducting environmental impact assessments, including knowledge of the Act, these Regulations and any guidelines that have relevance to the proposed activity; (c) perform the work relating to the application in an objective manner, even if this results in views and findings that are not favourable to the applicant; (d) comply with the Act, these Regulations and all other applicable legislation; (e) take into account, to the extent possible, the matters listed in regulation 8(b) when preparing the application and any report relating to the application; and (f) disclose to the applicant and the competent authority all material information in the possession of the EAP that reasonably has or may have the potential of influencing – (i) any decision to be taken with respect to the application by the competent authority in terms of these Regulations; or (ii) the objectivity of any report, plan or document to be prepared by the EAP in terms of these Regulations for submission to the competent authority.

iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd is planning to develop the ‘Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm’ on a site located at the junctions of the R27 and the R315 between Yzerfontein and Darling, approximately 85km north of Cape Town. It falls within the jurisdiction of the Swartland Local Municipality. The Project will be a wind farm with a capacity of 20‐21 MW for national distribution and will contribute to targets for renewable energy generation in South Africa and the Province.

The proposed Project is located on the farms Slangkop (3/552) and Kerrie Fontein (0/555) and will be an extension of the existing four turbines comprising the Darling National Demonstration Wind Farm. This existing wind farm was conceptualised in 1996 by the Oelsner Group and was developed by the Darling Independent Power Producer (Pty) Ltd (known as DARLIPP) and operational by 2008.

As the Project will be related to electricity generation where “(i) the electricity output is 20 megawatts or more; and (ii) the elements of the facility cover a combined area in excess of 1 hectare”, under the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations, (GN R387) a Scoping and EIA are triggered. The Environmental Evaluation Unit (EEU) have been commissioned to manage the Scoping and EIA environmental authorisation process.

Scoping was undertaken between June and December 2010 and concluded with an approval of the Final Scoping Report from the Department of Environmental Affairs. The EIA commenced in March 2011 and followed the Plan of Study (PoS) which set out the methodology for this Phase. The EIA has been an iterative process involving: botanical; avifaunal; visual; heritage; noise and social specialist studies and a Public Participation Process (PPP). The key deliverables of the EIA phase are an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Environmental Management Programme (EMP). The Draft EIR and EMP were made available for public comment to allow the registered I&APs an opportunity to comment on the findings. I&APs were notified of the review period and encouraged to provide written comment to the EEU. Comments are documented in the IRR and recommendations have been updated in the body of the report where necessary.

ROLEPLAYERS The Applicant The applicant, also referred to as the developer, is CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd. This entity has been created for this purpose, by the Oelsner Group (Pty) Ltd, a South African company active in research, development and implementation of new energy projects, in particular technologies from Renewable Energy sources. The Environmental Assessment Practitioner The Environmental Assessment Practitioner (EAP) is the EEU who will manage the application for environmental authorisation on behalf of the applicant. The EEU is an independent, self‐funded, research, consulting and training unit based at the University of Cape Town (UCT) which focuses on various aspects of sustainability. Specialists Independent Specialists have been commissioned by the EEU to undertake studies specific to their discipline: botanical; avifaunal; visual; heritage; noise and social.

Interested and Affected Parties I&APs are any person, group or organisation interested in or affected by the proposed activity; and any organ of state that may have jurisdiction over any aspect of the activity. The environmental authorisation process aims to provide opportunities for everyone to contribute to the process. Commenting Authorities Commenting authorities are those organisations or bodies whose focus or mandate is relevant to the Project and associated activities. They are required to issue comments and recommendations to ensure the process is robust and all aspects are considered. Competent Authority The competent authority is the decision‐making authority and in this case the listed activities require a decision at the national level. The Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) is therefore the competent authority for this Project.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Background The proposed Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm will be an extension of the existing Darling National Demonstration Wind Farm which was conceptualised in 1996 by the Oelsner Group. Darling Independent Power Producer (Pty) Ltd (known as DARLIPP) was established to develop the wind farm as an Independent Power Producer (IPP). The environmental authorisation process was contested and protracted and included appeals. The original proposal was for 10 turbines of 1.3MW output; however only a first phase of four turbines was approved and became known officially as the Darling National Demonstration Wind Farm. The Record of Decision (RoD) was issued in February 2005. The Danish agency DANIDA, the Central Energy Fund (CEF) and the Development Bank of Southern Africa (DBSA) were funders of the development. A new company, Darling Wind Power (Pty) Ltd was then formed to develop the wind farm, equity holders being CEF, DBSA and DARLIPP. In 2006, Darling Wind Power (Pty) Ltd entered into a Power Purchase Agreement with the City of Cape Town for a term of 20 years and contributes towards the City achieving its targets for renewable energy. The applicant for the Darling Demonstration Wind Farm was DARLIPP, while the present applicant is the CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd. Technology Wind turbines are made up of three key components: a steel tower, a nacelle which is positioned on top of the tower; and the rotor which comprises the three blades and a hub in the centre. Energy is produced when wind blows over the turbine blades, causing them to lift and rotate. Components in the nacelle convert this kinetic ‘movement’ energy to electrical energy and control the operation of the machine. The electricity that is produced is converted to a voltage that can be fed into the national electricity grid. The capacity of the Project will be 20‐21 MW depending on the technology and the number of turbines used.

Nordex, a German manufacturer of wind turbines, is the preferred supplier and the N77 or N60 models have been considered. Depending on the model, either 14 or 16 turbines respectively, will be erected, each with a nominal power of 1.5 or 1.3 MW each.

Infrastructure There are two sets of components to the Project as it falls onto two different farm portions, this is summarised below:

Slangkop (3/552) / ‘Windhoek Farm’ Kerrie Fontein (0/555) 5‐6 Nordex turbines 9‐10 Nordex turbines Underground cabling linking turbines to Underground cabling linking turbines to (existing) substation substation Internal roads ‐ stabilised dirt tracks to access Internal roads ‐ stabilised dirt tracks to access each turbine each turbine N/A New 66/11kV substation N/A Direct connection with existing overhead power lines linking substation to national electricity grid (no new overhead power lines required)

Construction Phase Construction is proposed for 6‐9 months commencing first half of 2012, commissioning and testing of the individual turbines will require one month thereafter. Construction will be done in phases, initially access will need to be established to accommodate the various loads of the materials and components. It is proposed that heavy vehicles will enter the site from the existing road off the R315. A temporary construction compound area is required in support of the staff and labour and includes offices, storage areas and welfare facilities. A temporary laydown area will be required alongside each proposed turbine, approximately 1,600 m2 becoming 875 m2 permanently during operation. This will support the cranes, allow for blade storage and provide an area in which the parts can be assembled. A storage and laydown area is also required for civil engineering components during construction (2,000m2). The turbines will be constructed one at a time, commencing with the construction of the foundation, the erection of the tower in sections by cranes, the positioning of the nacelle by cranes, assembly of the rotor on the ground and erection of the nacelle into position by cranes. Trenches will be dug to accommodate the cabling connecting these turbines with the substation. Where cabling crosses drainage lines, ducting will be installed. The substation will require construction involving civil works and assembly of equipment. A direct connection to the existing overhead transmission lines will be required and, therefore, a new overhead line is not required. Site remediation will ensure that temporary areas are returned to their original condition and improved upon where practical and viable. Based on other studies, it is estimated that between 90‐95 jobs will be generated during this phase. Operational Phase Operation is expected from early 2013 for a design life of 25 years. There will be either 14 or 16 turbines erected, each with a nominal power of 1.5 MW or 1.3 MW. At the base of each turbine there will be an area of permanent hard standing (875 m2) for servicing, alongside the foundations, as well as a medium‐voltage transformer (mini‐substation). These are connected to the 11kV to 66kV substation via underground cabling most likely following the route of the internal roads. The substation will be in the ‘West Coast Vernacular’ architectural style to blend in with the character of the area and will be similar to the existing substation. The footprint for this substation platform is 840 m², of which the building is 110.5 m2. It is proposed that the new substation will be located along the alignment of the existing overhead transmission line to make use of the connection to the grid. Stabilised dirt tracks will be 5 m wide and will provide access to each turbine and the

vii

substation. Access to the turbines will be via the existing road off the R27, or for heavy vehicles, via the Slangkop (3/552) farm access from the R315.

Maintenance activities include remote monitoring by Nordex. The operational office in Langefontein Farm which services the existing turbines will be expanded to accommodate the team of mechatronic engineers and additional technical equipment. A maintenance schedule usually involves an initial inspection after commissioning, a semi‐annual inspection, an annual inspection and two and five year inspections but this varies between types of turbine. Typical activities during maintenance include changing of oil, replacement of brake lining and cleaning of components. Traffic during operation is expected to be limited and largely light vehicles. Personnel recruited for the estimated 14‐15 jobs created (based on other studies), are likely to be recruited from the West Coast area and trained by the manufacturer. These would include mechatronic engineers as well as less skilled services such as safety and security, and mechatronic assistants. The Oelsner Group (Pty) Ltd plans to develop a training centre on Langefontein Farm which would provide various levels of training relating to the servicing of operational wind energy facilities. After 25 years, the proposed Project will be extended in use by 5 years or decommissioned by disassembly and removal of the components.

The Proposed Darling Education, Training and Visitor Centre

A Visitor Centre is proposed on Windhoek Farm (Slangkop 3/552) and is subject to a separate environmental authorisation process. However, the Centre is linked to this Project as it is also a component of the application for the Kyoto Protocol CDM, see below. The aim is that the building would exemplify sustainability and include conference facilities; education and training rooms; a library; exhibition spaces; a restaurant; and a shop. Other elements include parking; a village to accommodate visitors; a demonstration turbine; a demonstration reed filtration bed; rural energy demonstration; demonstration farm; demonstration gardens; bird hide; picnic sites; and a lake and river walk. It is intended that the facility will create an awareness of, and promote renewable energy, through the provision of tangible demonstrations of renewable technology applications. An important component of the Project would be the rehabilitation of the 20 ha site, which is former agricultural land, to its natural state, as well as providing basic training and employment for locals through the tourism and service related trades. International Carbon Offset Mechanisms and Funding The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) established under the Kyoto Protocol of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1997 allows an industrialised country to implement an emission‐reduction project in a developing country to earn saleable certified emission reduction (CER) credits. These CERs can be counted towards a country’s official emission counts and hence towards meeting Kyoto targets. The Gold Standard certification is an independently audited methodology for project development which delivers carbon credits through a framework more rigorous than the CDM project requirements. Achieving CDM approval and the Gold Standard will allow the Project to qualify for ‘atmosfair gGmbH’ funding. atmosfair is a German organisation whose key market is providing a voluntary service to travellers who wish to offset the greenhouse gas emissions of their individual flights through the sale of an atmosfair certificate. The donations are invested in climate change projects in developing countries. It is intended that this Project will be a registered CDM projects and adhere to the CDM Gold Standard certification.

viii

PROJECT ALTERNATIVES

Alternatives have been considered and assessed in order to identify the most effective way to meet the need and purpose of the Project. The No‐Go Option which involves maintaining the Status Quo has been assessed. In terms of site location alternatives, the Project is the extension of an existing facility and it has been agreed in pre‐application meetings with Department of Environmental and Development Planning (DEA&DP) that site alternatives will not be considered on this basis.

Technology and site layout has formed the basis of the assessment of alternatives. Two types of turbines have been considered, the N77 (Option 1) and the N60 (Option 2). The N77 is slightly larger having a 70 m high mast, a blade length of ±37.5 m, and has a greater output of 1.5 MW, therefore 14 are required to reach the 20 MW capacity. The N60 are smaller with a 60 m high mast, a blade length of 29 m, and a lower output of 1.3 MW, requiring 16 turbines to achieve the desired capacity. The positioning of the turbines has been undertaken in collaboration with Nordex, who have modelled the efficiency of the wind resource for each configuration. This was the starting point; from here the turbines for both options were rearranged to avoid the areas of botanical sensitivity identified during the Scoping Phase. The preferred option is the N77 model. This is based on favourable yield performance; reduced footprint; and avoidance of highly sensitive vegetation for the turbine positions. The internal access road linking the northern and southern rows of turbines has also been realigned to avoid the medium sensitivity vegetation as far as possible.

NEED AND DESIRABILITY

Need or ‘timing’ of the development can be seen in light of the present global trend towards renewable energy which is largely based on initiatives to reduce the dependency on fossil fuels, the emission of greenhouse gases and their impacts on climate change. South Africa is actively seeking to reduce impacts on climate change and has made commitments to international initiatives such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (1992), the Kyoto Protocol (1997), the Johannesburg Declaration (2002), and the Copenhagen Accord (2009). This is also reflected in the national and provincial policy framework. The promotion of renewable energy is part of this drive to reduce emissions through diversification of electricity supply and energy security. The proposed Project is a wind energy facility that converts kinetic ‘movement’ energy into electricity for contribution to the national electricity grid. Wind energy is one of a number of freely available sources for renewable power generation and considered a mature technology in developed countries. However, in South Africa, the industry is in its infancy and would rely on imported technology for some time to achieve the full potential of the existing wind resources. This form of renewable energy technology often has a low impact on the surrounding environment in terms of land take; emissions; water usage; and waste.

Desirability or ‘placing’ of the development is based on the fact that the Project is an extension to an existing facility, the Darling National Demonstration Wind Farm. At the time (1996), there were no established criteria on which to guide the siting of wind turbines and the reasons for siting the original Demonstration Wind Farm relate to the following: wind resources; access; proximity to grid; potential willing landowner; avoidance of existing and planned residential areas; avoidance of coastal and sensitive nature areas by also remaining east of R27. The Wind Farm was also originally intended to comprise a second phase of six turbines, should the first be considered successful. To qualify for the REFIT subsidies (see below), a minimum of 20 MW is required and this forms the basis for the proposed capacity of the Project. While the Swartland Municipality and the West Coast

District Municipality both realise the importance of tourism in the area, and the designation of the R27 as a regional transport corridor, they also realise the importance of renewable energy and list other important criteria such as protection of biodiversity, agricultural and cultural resources. The EIA process has therefore aimed to ensure the net benefits from harvesting renewable energy outweigh the site specific impacts, in order to render this development desirable.

LEGAL, PLANNING AND POLICY CONTEXT

Environmental Management Various acts, regulations, policies and planning documents provide the framework and context for this Project and associated activities. In terms of environmental management, compliance with the provisions in the following Acts will ensure that the environment is not adversely affected through the development of the Project:  The Constitution, Act 108 of 1996;  National Environmental Management Act (107 of 1998) (NEMA);  Environment Conservation Act (73 of 1989) (ECA);  National Heritage Resources Act (25 of 1999) (NHRA);  National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (10 of 2004);  National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act (57 of 2003);  National Water Act (No 36 of 1998);  National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act (39 of 2004);  National Environmental Management: Waste Act (59 of 2008); and  Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act (43 of 1983) (CARA);  Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act (70 of 1970);  National Veld and Forest Fire Act (101 of 1998);  Occupational Health and Safety Act (85 of 1993; and  Hazardous Chemical Substances Regulations (1995).

Renewable Energy Generation Other national legislation and policy which is relevant to the renewable energy context are as follows:  National Energy Act (Act 34 of 2008);  White Paper on the Energy Policy of the Republic of South Africa (1998);  White Paper on Renewable Energy (2003);  NERSA Renewable Energy Feed‐In Tariff (REFIT) Guidelines (2009); and  National Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) (2011).

Other provincial policy, plans and guidelines provide the context for the Project and verify the support for renewable energy and serve to guide the implementation thereof.

Developmental and spatial policy at the provincial and municipal level also provides the framework within which this Project is being proposed. The principles and objectives behind these documents have been considered. It is evident that while the Project contributes towards sustainable development through mitigating climate change, the spatial context of the site indicates that it is located along a development corridor; within a biodiversity area; and on land zoned as agricultural. The tourism potential of the area is also identified and taken into account within the EIA.

EIA PROCESS AND METHODOLOGY

The NEMA EIA Regulations require a two phased environmental authorisation process comprising Scoping and an EIA. Scoping Phase The Scoping Phase was conducted between June 2010 and December 2010 and identified issues relevant to the Project, potential environmental impacts of the activity; reasonable and feasible alternatives to the Project; and proposed an approach to the EIA through a ‘Plan of Study’. During the Scoping Phase, the Public Participation Process (PPP) commenced and included various methods of notification calling for potential Interested and Affected Parties (I&APs) to register and /or provide written comment and to invite attendance at a public meeting. A Background Information Document (BID) was produced to summarise the Project and the process and to provide a basis for any input. Specialists in the fields of botany; avifauna; visual; heritage; noise; and social, undertook Scoping studies to identify impacts and issues relevant to their discipline and proposed the methods for assessment in the EIA Phase. The process and findings were documented in the Draft Scoping Report (DSR) which was made available to the I&APs for a 40 day review period allowing I&APs to comment on the findings, the proposed methods and the process. The Final Scoping Report (FSR) included responses to the comments received within this period and was submitted to the DEA as the competent authority for approval, which was then granted in March 2011. EIA Phase The EIA Phase commenced in March 2011 and the aim of this Phase was to address issues that were raised during the scoping process; assess alternatives to the proposed activity in a comparative manner; assess all identified impacts and determine the significance of each impact; and formulate mitigation measures. Each specialist applied the methodology proposed in the Scoping Report and in general, the assessment of significance took into account the following criteria: nature and status; extent; duration; intensity; probability and effect on decision‐making. Further PPP activities included a public meeting in Darling, meetings and consultations with neighbouring landowners, and telephonic or email communications with other I&APS. The findings of the EIA were documented in the Draft EIR and accompanied by a Draft EMP (Ecosense, 2011). I&APs were notified of the review period which was from 26 July 2011 to 4 September 2011 and encouraged to provide written comment to the EEU. These comments are documented in the Issues and Responses Report (IRR) and have been integrated into the report where necessary. This Final EIR and EMP are for submission to DEA as the competent authority for approval. Thereafter it may be accepted, rejected, referred for review or amendments may be requested. Further to this, environmental authorisation is either granted or refused.

DESCRIPTION OF THE BASELINE ENVIRONMENT

Geographical and Administrative The proposed site for the Project is located approximately 85 km north of Cape Town between the towns of Yzerfontein and Darling and falls within the Swartland Local Municipality, Western Cape. The study area is located within Ward 5. The Project also falls within the jurisdiction of the West Coast District Municipality. Land Use The study area lies within portions of two different farms: Slangkop (3/552) and Kerrie Fontein (0/555). The predominant land use on the site is agriculture. Vegetation is mostly disturbed and now partly rehabilitated, but also includes pristine areas as well as fallow agricultural land of low value. Agricultural activities on surrounding farms include ostrich camps; cereal farming; beef and dairy farming; sheep farming; and wine farming. Adjoining the proposed study area, on the Windhoek Farm between the existing turbines and the R315, is an existing open cast sand mine. Topography Topographical features in the study area includes a prominent hill (Moedmaag Hill) with west facing slopes, a broad saddle, and a lower hill with west and north‐western facing slopes, leading into a sandy coastal plain. Geology and Soils The study area is located on the Darling Pluton of the Cape Granite Suite. Granite derived clays and sandy loams are the primary soil type in the central and eastern area, but in the western parts these give way to deep, well leached acid sands of much lower fertility. There are two main granite outcrops, with various scattered granite exposures of less than 10 m2 each, but otherwise there is little outcropping rock on site. Water Resources There is a single major drainage line, with four tributaries, plus a vlei area (Segarevlei). The seasonal drainage lines are unlikely to hold surface water for more than six months a year, but the soils are significantly damper than surrounding areas for extended periods. There is a windmill to the south‐ west of the existing turbines and the 2001 EIA (EEU, 2001) has identified the water table on the vicinity of this windmill being 1.05 m deep. Climate This is an area of winter rainfall and summer drought. The highest average rainfall occurs between May – August (approximately 65‐84 mm per month). There are on average, 8‐9 rain days in these months. In the spring and summer months, between September and April, average monthly rainfall is between 8‐34 mm. Temperatures in winter range between 7 and 19oC, with summer temperatures between 12 and 28 oC. Fog is a characteristic of the area and is usually more prevalent during the winter months. Wind data gathered in 2001 by the CSIR indicates that the wider area experiences higher wind speeds which are more frequent during the months of October to March; wind conditions are more moderate during the months of May, June and September; the predominant wind direction is southerly between August and April; and the average wind speed over a 12 month period was between 5.8 and 6.45 m/s.

xii

Botany There were originally two vegetation types in the study area, about 40% of the overall study area supported Swartland Granite Renosterveld, with the sandy western parts supporting Hopefield Sand Fynbos (Mucina and Rutherford, 2006). Both are nationally recognised as threatened, with the former being ‘Critically Endangered’ and the latter ‘Endangered’, according to the National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment (Rouget et al 2004). The Draft National List of Threatened Ecosystems lists Swartland Granite Renosterveld as Critically Endangered and Hopefield Sand Fynbos as Vulnerable (DEA 2009). Thus all remaining natural vegetation in the study area is of high sensitivity and conservation value. About 16% of the study area is essentially fallow agricultural land with very little natural vegetation, and this is the low botanical sensitivity portion of the study area. Natural vegetation in moderate or good condition covers an estimated 84% of the study area, and most of the vegetation in good condition is either on previously uncultivated small, rocky outcrops, in drainage lines (wetlands), or in the western parts, dominated by infertile sandy soils, which are not suitable for cultivation. The medium sensitivity vegetation occurs in those areas previously disturbed and now partly rehabilitated (about 67%) and the high sensitivity vegetation in those areas that are botanically largely pristine (about 27%, or 125ha). It is possible that upwards of 35 plant species of conservation concern could occur within the medium and high sensitivity areas within the study area, although only a few would co‐occur in any one 1000 m2 area. This indicates the sensitivity and conservation importance of both the general Darling area and the natural areas within the study area. Disturbance includes past and current cultivation (mainly for cereals and grazing for sheep and cattle), heavy grazing and trampling by cattle and sheep, and alien vegetation invasion. The most heavily disturbed areas are those that have been regularly ploughed and sown with crops, and these areas generally have very little botanical value. Alien invasive vegetation is most severe in seasonally and permanently damp places, around homesteads, and in areas where there has been previous soil disturbance. Avifauna

Habitats within the site have been described above, however in terms of potential avifauna, it is widely accepted that vegetation structure is more critical in determining bird habitat, than the actual plant species composition. Fynbos is dominated by low shrubs and can be divided into two categories, fynbos proper and renosterveld, both of which occur on the study site. Despite having a high diversity of plant species, fynbos and renosterveld has a relatively low diversity of bird species. Records indicate that 13 priority bird species potentially occur within the site or on adjacent areas of habitat; eight of these classified as Near Threatened and four classified as Vulnerable according to the Red Data List; and one endemic to the area. Visual The rolling hills constitute a scenic rural landscape in an area famed for its spring wild flowers. This aspect, together with the recreation activities of the nearby West Coast, mean that the area is an important visitor and tourist destination. The following routes and protected areas tend to increase landscape value in visual terms of the site environs, and therefore the visual sensitivity:

 The R27 and R315 Routes, which can be considered as scenic corridors, and therefore visually sensitive;  The Tienie Versveld Wild Flower Reserve located adjacent to the R315 Route, about 2 km from the wind farm site;

xiii

 The Yzerfontein Soutpan and Rooipan, which are important wetland and bird sites, are 5 to 7 km away from the site;  The West Coast National Park, which lies some 5km to the north of the site on the R27, the entrance gate to the Park being 10 km away; and  The West Coast Biosphere Reserve, which stretches from the Diep River in Cape Town to the Berg River in the north, and therefore includes the entire visual catchment of the Project.

The proposed wind farm is visible to a number of farmsteads in the area, as well as to the settlement of Yzerfontein, about 8 km to the west. Two historic lime kilns are located on the R315 to Yzerfontein, about 3 km from the wind farm site. The wind farm is, however, not visible to the settlement of Darling, which is some 13 km away to the east, and in a view shadow. Heritage The area has a history of agriculture and ploughing has transformed much of the natural landscape. The archaeology of the area is not well known. The Darling Hills would undoubtedly have been used extensively by the Khoekhoen for grazing their stock and their settlements would likely have dotted the open landscape. The local geology is not conducive to the formation of rock shelters and none are known. One does routinely come across stone artefacts of various ages in the wheat lands of the Cape and such finds would be expected here. The presence of Stone Age people in the general area is well documented by the excavations of both Middle and Later Stone Age archaeological sites at Yzerfontein, some 9 km to the south‐west (Avery et al, 2008; Halkett et al, 2003; Klein et al, 2004; Orton, 2007; in press). Two other surveys in the vicinity of the study area found no heritage resources (Halkett, 2001; Hart, 2008). Noise The Project is proposed on the farms Slangkop (3/552) and Kerriefontein (0/555), located at the north‐east corner of the junction of the R27 and the R315. The site is situated in a rural farming community. Several homesteads are located on the property where the turbines will be erected as well as on neighbouring farms. The farms and much of the surrounding land is zoned agricultural. In terms of SANS 10103 this is described as a “rural district” with typical outdoor rating levels for noise of 45 dBA during daytime and 35 dBA during night time.

Measurements indicate that the ambient noise is approximately between 41 and 45 dB(A) at between 2 ‐4 m/s wind speed at the farmhouse and workers houses on Windhoek Farm (Slangkop (3/552). The general ambient noise at each location varies substantially as the ambient sound is influenced by human activities as well as vehicles and animal sounds. It is thus extremely difficult to isolate just the wind component. Social The Swartland Municipality is predominantly a rural area with the economy dominated by the agricultural sector as the key contributor and employer. Tourism potential has been recognised although it is not a significant contributor at present. The West Coast District is mostly a destination in itself with its own attractions, but is also a gateway to the Northern Cape and Namibia via the N7 (D. Cornelius, 4/5/2011). The area is valued by stakeholders for its rural qualities and described as ‘quiet’, ‘unspoilt’, ‘unaffected’ and ‘laid back’ with low levels of crime and an abundance of natural beauty (including the flowers and cultural heritage). The West Coast in general is also appreciated for its ‘vast openness’ and ‘simplicity’ (M. Daiber, 7/6/2011). In Darling, the main attraction is the

xiv

wildflowers; culture; wine; and events such as the Darling Marathon and Voorkamer Fest. In Yzerfontein the attraction is the beach (blue flag) and watersports, fishing, whale watching, the greenbelt and ‘fantastic accommodation’ (A. Van Ellewee, W. Badenhorst and B. Geel, 3/5/2011). Recently, the CWCBR has launched Cape West Coast Trails which includes walks, hikes, canoeing and cycling through the wider Biosphere Reserve. There is also a current initiative to establish the West Coast as a ‘place of heritage’ through a network of living heritage, fossils and rock art linking places like the !Khwa ttu San Centre, the Fossil Park, and rock art sites. This evidence shows that there is already a nascent tourism industry in the area which has considerable social, cultural and environmental assets, and the potential to develop this further.

The local population is characterised by low levels of education and skills and low incomes however unemployment levels are moderate in comparison to national levels. There is an increasing trend of out‐migration of white youth for employment elsewhere and in‐migration of White mature age groups for retirement or commuting lifestyle; whilst the black youth are in‐migrating to seek employment. It is evident that there is an increasing disparity between the rich and the poor. The town of Darling itself is divided by the railway line which also delineates two socio‐economic groups. On the one side there are predominantly white residents, many of which are retirees. A new trend is that young people able to work from home, and commute on the odd occasion, are moving to Darling (A. Thoma, 4/5/2011). In Darling East, on the other side of the tracks is a predominantly coloured population. Unemployment in the town is a problem and a large number of people live in government housing and are reliant on social grants (G. Adams, 21/4/2011). The surrounding rural areas provide seasonal jobs for some residents of Darling, such as ploughing, planting, pruning, spraying and harvesting. However, the majority of farm work is provided by the labour stock of the farm workers and their extended families (G. Adams, 21/4/2011 and A. Thoma, 4/5/2011). Yzerfontein is a holiday town with nearly half of all residents being permanent (A. Van Ellewee, W. Badenhorst, and B. Geel, 3/5/2011). It is said to be expanding and developing as is evident by the number of active building sites within the town. Jacobuskraal is located in the north west quadrant of the Junction between the R27 and the R315 and comprises approximately 25 small holding plots of about 10 ha each.

Land uses around the site specifically are mostly rural, however, there are a number of other land uses including the following: Bambe Zonke B&B in Jacobuskraal Estate; the West Coast Farm Stall on the south west quadrant of the junction which also houses a CWCBR information hub; and the Tienie Versveld Wildflower Reserve under the custodianship of SANBI, ±2.5 km south east of the site. Within a 10 km radius, there are also a number of nature / game reserves such as the !Khwa ttu San Cultural and Education Centre; the West Coast National Park; Buffelsfontein Game and Nature Reserve; Jakkalsfontein Nature Reserve; and Rondeberg Nature Reserve.

In the wider area, in terms of infrastructure and services, there is considered to be a good transport network despite a lack of public transport in rural areas. There are relatively high levels of access to energy and piped water, with sanitation less widespread. Human immunodeficiency virus/ Acquired immune deficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS) and Tuberculosis (TB) are key health concerns, although not as critical compared to national levels. There is reported that crime linked to alcohol and substance abuse is a key social problem.

ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

The environmental impacts have been assessed by the respective specialists and the findings are summarised below:

Botany

During construction, there will be a loss of natural vegetation which is the primary direct botanical impact. About half will be permanent, and the other half will be temporary, as trampled and partly disturbed areas should eventually recover. A subset of the primary direct impact is loss of portions of the local populations of some of the plant Species of Conservation Concern. Reduction in often already small population numbers below a certain (usually unknown) threshold is known to have negative consequences for that population, and may lead to local extinction of that species. Option 1 would require the loss of 3 ha and this is assessed as a low‐medium negative impact. Option 2 would require the loss of 4 ha and this is assessed as a medium‐high negative impact. Option 1 is the preferred development option, and may have a low positive overall botanical impact if all mitigation proposed is enforced.

During operation, indirect negative impacts such as habitat fragmentation; disruption of natural fire regime; and possible introduction and spread of alien invasive plants and insects, are likely to occur, but will probably be relatively insignificant, especially in the context of the ongoing farming operations in the area. For Option 1 this negative impact is assessed as low‐medium without mitigation, for Option 2 this is assessed as medium‐high without mitigation. Fortunately these impacts are relatively easily managed.

During decommissioning, disturbance to surrounding natural vegetation and associated facilitated alien plant invasion is assessed as low‐medium significance without mitigation for both Options 1 and 2.

Cumulative negative effects are likely to be important (although not critical), given the number of similar proposed projects in the region.

Potentially positive ecological impacts have been identified, namely the opportunity to formally conserve significant priority areas of natural habitat in the study area (basically on‐site offsets or conservation contributions), by registering the medium and high sensitivity portions of the property with CapeNature’s Stewardship Programme for private landowners. The Applicant has expressed their willingness to commit to reasonable and feasible conservation measures in partnership with CapeNature or an alternative organisation that can independently guide and monitor the management of the land. Most of the natural vegetation in the study area is not currently being adequately or optimally managed in ecological terms.

Another positive impact could arise through the opportunity to fund and implement an Operational Environmental Management Plan (OEMP) throughout the site, focussing on the most important issues, which are alien vegetation control, fire management, rehabilitation of ecological corridors, and grazing impacts (livestock).

On this basis, the status quo is not positive for the remaining natural vegetation on site, as the alien vegetation problem in the study area is not being managed, many areas show signs of being heavily grazed and trampled by livestock, fire management is not optimal, and there is no guarantee that the important areas of remaining natural vegetation on site will continue to be conserved. On balance the status quo is deemed to have a low negative impact on the natural vegetation on site.

xvi

Avifauna

Impacts on avifauna could result from collisions with turbines; displacement of priority species; or habitat loss which may also result in displacement of priority species due to the footprint of the Project.

Estimated collision rates have been calculated based on monitoring of priority bird species and all raptor species commuting over the development site. It would seem from analysing the data collected that the Project will not pose a significant collision mortality risk to priority species, with Jackal Buzzards emerging as the highest potential risk at an estimated 0.49 mortalities per year. The greatest collision risk is posed by the seven turbines on the slope of Moedmaag Hill (i.e. four existing and three proposed), in the following conditions: between 11h00 and 17h00; in spring/early summer i.e. between October and December; and in moderate to strong winds with a southerly and westerly orientation.

With Jackal Buzzards specifically, the estimated avoidance rate may be more than 98%, as the birds observed on site are most likely a resident pair. They have not displayed any behaviour to avoid the moving blades, and have clearly become used to the four existing turbines. Whether this would also be the case with inexperienced, juvenile birds remains to be seen.

Fortunately, the phenomenon of mass migrations involving thousands of birds is not a feature of the Project site, however, migratory raptors, i.e. Steppe Buzzard Buteo vulpinus and Yellow‐billed Kite Milvus aegyptius were recorded during the summer and autumn monitoring period, when the species are present in southern Africa. This translates into an estimated collision rate of 0.61 and 0.63 birds per year for kites and buzzards respectively.

In terms of existing information, raptors, and particularly species constantly migrating over and through a turbine string, are particularly prone to collision with the blades. While Yellow‐billed Kite and Steppe Buzzard are not threatened species, if the Project causes high numbers of casualties of these migrant raptors, this would constitute a significant negative impact of the facility.

The potential for collisions with the turbines due to lights is not envisaged to be significant, primarily because the phenomenon of mass nocturnal passerine migrations is not a feature of the study area. However, the potential effect on nocturnal flamingo movement is unknown.

Bird mortality due to collisions with the turbine blades is assessed as a negative impact of low significance to decision‐making, without mitigation. Given the potential inaccuracy of the predicted collision rates as a rough indicator of risk, and the basis on which these assessments have been made, the only way to verify this would be to conduct carcass searches during the period when the above birds are present, as described under ‘Conclusions and Recommendations’ below.

International studies have been employed to establish the likelihood of displacement of birds due to the presence of the facility. Although more studies are needed and more should be peer‐reviewed in the public domain, research indicates that, with few exceptions, the displacement effect of wind developments on raptors is low to negligible (Madders and Whitfield, 2008). This trend seems to be supported by the results of the limited post‐construction monitoring conducted at the existing four turbines, and the significance of the negative impact has been assessed as low.

At the Project site, direct habitat loss is not regarded as a major impact on avifauna, relative to other potential impacts such as disturbance or collisions. The impact is assessed as a negative impact of low significance to decision‐making, without mitigation.

xvii

From a potential bird impact perspective, there is very difference between the two proposed alternatives. The seven turbines on slope of Moedmaag Hill are likely to pose the biggest risk of collision, and the position of these is identical for both lay‐outs. The potential displacement footprint of the two alternative lay‐outs are also very similar, resulting in no clear preference from a bird impact perspective.

Visual

The visual impact assessment focussed on a number of criteria to assess the turbine configurations for Option 1 and 2; the substation; and the internal access roads. These are briefly set out below:

Visibility of facilities: Views from the R27 and R315 adjacent to the site are the most significant and could affect the most receptors including tourists. The visibility of the wind turbines is limited from some viewpoints because of being screened by Moedmaag Hill and view shadows created by the hilly topography generally.

Visibility of navigation and security lights at night: Visibility, particularly at night, depends on the amount of security lighting.

Visual exposure (zone of visual influence or view catchment): The Project will be visible for up to about a 10 km radius. The visibility is determined by ridgelines. The view catchment is partly confined by topography and includes view shadow areas. However, wind turbines are tall but slender. The view catchment area would only be marginally increased by the addition of 14 to 16 wind turbines over the original four turbines.

Visual sensitivity (landscape features): The landscape is open, and exposed to the west. Turbines are visible on the skyline and the existing wind farm intrudes on the rural landscape and scenic routes.

Landscape integrity (effect on character of the area): The Project contrasts with the rural landscape. The existing four turbines and power lines tend are considered as existing disturbance and reduce the visual significance.

Cultural landscape (Heritage value of the landscape): The area is traditionally a farming area and the site contains minimal heritage features.

Visual absorption capacity (VAC) (lack of concealment): The open landscape has a moderately low potential to visually absorb the wind turbines and infrastructure. There is some screening by topography, but little opportunity for screening with trees.

Cumulative visual impact: The Project would add to the four existing turbines, but remains a fairly small facility. An additional facility is proposed nearby at Rheboksfontein.

Overall this results in a visual impact rating of medium‐high for both for both Option 1 and 2 turbines; a medium rating for the substation; and a medium rating for the internal access roads.

The difference between the Option 1 and Option 2 layouts are assessed as marginal in terms of visual impact, the viewsheds and visibility as shown in photomontages being similar in both cases.

xviii

However, Option 1 would have fewer turbines and be further from the R27 Route, and although the turbines are slightly higher, Option 1 would create marginally less visual clutter on the skyline. Heritage No significant issues aside from those related to the visual impacts were noted during the scoping assessment and thus an assessment was scoped out of the process.

Noise

Various types of construction equipment would result in noise impacts at the nearest noise sensitive receptors. This could typically include overhead and mobile cranes; front end loaders; excavators; bull dozer; and piling machine. When a number of pieces of equipment are used simultaneously, the recorded noise levels for each one can be added logarithmically. Since noise is attenuated by distance, this has been calculated at various distances from the site to determine the distance at which the ambient level will be reached. Noise will also be attenuated by topography and atmospheric conditions such as temperature, humidity, wind speed and direction but is ignored for this purpose. Therefore, the distance calculated would be representative of maximum distances to reach ambient noise levels and indicates a worst case scenario. It was calculated that if the ambient noise level is at 45dB(A), the construction noise will be similar to the ambient level at approximately 1,280 m from the noise source, if the noise characteristics are similar. This indicates that all receptors within this range are likely experience this temporary noise impact. Beyond this distance, the noise level will be below the ambient noise and will therefore have little impact. This, however, applies to the construction noise and light wind conditions. In all likelihood, the construction noise will have little impact on the surrounding community as it will most likely occur during the day when the ambient noise is louder and there are unstable atmospheric conditions. The impact of construction noise on the surrounding environment is assessed as having a medium negative significance without mitigation. This is considered to be the same for decommissioning.

During operation, the effects of low frequency noise (including sleep disturbance, nausea, and vertigo) are unlikely to impact upon residents due to the distance between the plant and the nearest communities. Sources of low frequency noise also include wind, train movements and vehicular traffic, which are all sources that are closer to the residential areas.

Ten noise sensitive receptors were identified around the site, ranging from the Windhoek Worker’s Cottage at 523 m away, to the Droeivlei Farm at 4822 m away. For Option 1 and 2, it was calculated that the noise produced by the wind turbines will exceed the 45dB(A) day/night limit only at the Windhoek Farm Workers homes at the 12m/s wind speed which was the maximum speed used. As the wind speed increases, the ambient noise also increases and masks the wind turbine noise. The critical wind speeds are thus between 4‐6 m/s when there is a possibility of little masking. At 12m/s the wind speed is such that it is highly unlikely that the turbine noise will be heard. The location of the Option 1 and 2 wind turbine generators all met the recommended 500 m setback distance from the existing noise sensitive receptors. The impact of the operational noise on the surrounding environment is assessed as having a medium negative significance to decision‐making, without mitigation.

Social

The main benefits during all phases of the Project are the employment training and skills development opportunities with associated benefits to the economy through the multiplier effect.

xix

However, the highly specialised wind energy industry and lack of local skills could mean that most the benefits for locals can not be maximised. The significance is assessed as low positive for all phases of the Project.

Potential negative impacts could include those to property prices; and to community cohesion, however these have both been assessed as neutral and therefore no mitigation is proposed. Impacts on tourism are assessed to be negative low significance. The negative impact on noise has been assessed as having a medium significance. The impact on road safety has been assessed as low. The VIA has indicated that the visual impact during the construction phase would be medium (substation and roads) to high‐medium (turbines).

The cumulative impacts on tourism are negative and assessed as medium‐high. The cumulative impacts in terms of renewable energy generation are positive and assessed as medium‐high, similarly the cumulative impacts on employment and the economy are positive and medium‐high.

In terms of social impacts, the assessment has found no difference in significance of impacts arising from both Option 1 and Option 2. While the majority of stakeholders did express a preference for Option 1 as it is considered less disruptive in terms of landtake and number of turbines. The No‐Go Option would benefit to social environment in that it would maintain the status quo and not incur disruption, noise, visual, road safety, and tourism impacts. The impact is therefore neutral. However, there would be an opportunity cost in terms of contributing to the renewable energy targets for the Western Cape Province and nationally and also terms of job creation, skills development and indirect economic benefits. This is assessed to be a low negative impact because of the scale of the Project and the fairly insignificant permanent employment opportunities.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Botany

In order to reduce negative impacts and enhance the positive impacts, the detailed mitigation measures recommended by Helme (2011) have been summarised below. All mitigation requirements refer to Option 1 as the preferred option.

 During construction and decommissioning an ECO must be present on‐site.  Prior to development, block burns should be undertaken in the main patches of high and medium sensitivity natural vegetation, and this should be repeated on a 12 to 15 year cycle.  During construction, and prior to development within high or medium sensitivity areas a major plant Search and Rescue programme should be undertaken.  Construction methodology, including trench excavation, and location of laydown and storage areas, must be done in accordance with the botanists recommendations and supervised by the ECO.

 Rehabilitation should only commence once all construction related disturbance associated with the Project has been completed. Compacted areas that are no longer needed after construction may need to be ripped or scarified to break up the compacted surface. The areas should then be sown with seeds indigenous to the site.  It is strongly recommended that the landowners sign an agreement indicating that they would refrain from grazing livestock in the high and medium sensitivity vegetation areas in the main winter and spring growing and flowering periods (1 May – end October). This will facilitate natural rehabilitation.  Ongoing alien plant monitoring and removal should be undertaken on all areas of natural vegetation on an annual basis applying Department of Water Affairs approved methodology. All high and medium sensitivity areas of natural vegetation on site must be fully cleared of invasive aliens within three years of project approval (for the initial clearing), and thereafter there should support less than 1% alien cover in these areas in all following years. Following decommissioning, alien plant management should continue for three years.  All feasible (as determined by CapeNature) areas of high and medium botanical sensitivity (estimated to be at least 250ha in extent) must be formally registered as conservation areas with CapeNature’s Stewardship Programme, within one year of project initiation (subject to CapeNature capacity, and the level of agreement/contract will be at CapeNature’s discretion). Associated with this contract will be a requirement for an environmental management plan and environmental auditing to ensure that management (the rehabilitation and alien vegetation management) is adequately carried out. In this case all costs associated with rezoning and management of these areas will remain the responsibility of the applicant and/or landowners. The Applicant is willing to commit to reasonable and feasible conservation measures in partnership with CapeNature or an alternative organisation that can independently guide and monitor the management of the land.

The study area presents a viable opportunity for the construction and operation of a wind energy facility that will not have major negative botanical impacts, provided that the important mitigation requirements identified by the botanist are implemented. Option 1 is the preferred development option, and this is in turn preferable to the No‐Go Option, provided that the important mitigation requirements detailed by the botanist are adequately implemented.

Avifauna

Bird mortality due to collisions with the turbine blades was assessed as an impact of low negative significance. However, because the estimated collision rate is merely a rough indicator of risk it, it is necessary to verify this estimate with actual carcass searches on site. These should be done in accordance with the ‘Best practice guidelines for avian monitoring and impact mitigation at proposed wind energy development sites in southern Africa – Version 1’ (Jenkins et al, 2011). The frequency of these surveys will be informed by assessments of scavenge and decomposition rates conducted in the initial stages of the monitoring period. Subject to the results of the decomposition/scavenge trials, it is proposed that a site survey is conducted twice a month for an initial minimum period of 12 months. After the initial 12 month period, the need for further monitoring will be evaluated again. If the results of the monitoring indicate a significant mortality rate for priority species, appropriate mitigation measures would need to be implemented. These could include any or a combination of the following:

xxi

 Relocation of turbines responsible for particular collision mortality;  Halting operation during peak flight periods, or reducing rotor speed, to reduce the risk of collision mortality; and  Negotiating appropriate off‐set compensation for turbine related collision mortality. Displacement of priority species by the presence of the turbines was assessed to have a negative impact of low significance. Due to the relatively minor significance of this impact on priority species, no specific mitigation measures are recommended.

Habitat loss and resulting displacement of priority species was also assessed as a low negative impact. In order to minimise loss of habitat, the infrastructure footprint must be restricted to the minimum, in accordance with the botanist’s recommendations.

In terms of cumulative impacts, it is imperative that pre‐construction and post‐construction monitoring is implemented at all the new proposed sites on the West Coast to establish a baseline. This should be undertaken in accordance with the ‘Best practice guidelines for avian monitoring and impact mitigation at proposed wind energy development sites in southern Africa – Version 1’ (Jenkins et al, 2011).

In terms of potential impacts on avifauna resulting from the Project, there is no preference for either Option 1 or 2 because they both have very similar layouts and footprints.

Visual

It is difficult to mitigate the visual effects of the wind turbines, however a number of general mitigation recommendations for the wind farm infrastructure are set out below:

xxii

 Outdoor lighting should be minimised and confined to the substation. Lights should be low‐ level and fitted with reflectors to minimise light spillage.  Unnecessary signage on the site should be avoided. No corporate signage or billboards should be permitted, except for discrete signage at the entrance to the site. Where mandatory signage is required, this should be fixed to buildings where possible to avoid free‐ standing signs in the landscape.  Drainage from the access roads should be led to grassed swales and siltation ponds to prevent unsightly dongas forming on the site. All site disturbance and construction areas should be rehabilitated / revegetated to avoid unsightly scars in the landscape. The significance of the impacts for the turbines in both Option 1 and 2 will remain as medium‐high as they cannot be mitigated. The visual impact of the substation would be reduced from medium to medium‐low through application of the recommendations above, similarly the visual impact from the internal access roads would be reduced to medium‐low.

In conclusion, it is not anticipated that the proposed Project would have any fatal flaws from a visual perspective, given that one portion is already a wind farm, and provided the recommended mitigation measures are adopted. Option 1 is preferred to Option 2 However Option 1 would have fewer turbines and be further from the R27 Route, and although the turbines are slightly higher, Option 1 would create marginally less visual clutter on the skyline. Monitoring, especially during the construction phase, is essential.

Heritage

No significant issues aside from those related to the visual impacts were noted during the scoping assessment and thus an assessment was scoped out of the process.

Noise

To reduce the negative impact of the construction noise (and similarly the decommissioning noise) on the surrounding environment from a medium significance to a low significance, the following recommendations are made:

 All construction operations should only occur during daylight hours if possible.  No construction piling should occur at night. Piling should only occur during the day to take advantage of unstable atmospheric conditions.  Construction staff should receive “noise sensitivity” training.  An ambient noise survey should be conducted during the construction phase. There is no preference between the options. To reduce the negative impact of the operational noise on the surrounding environment from a medium significance to a low significance, the following recommendations are made:

 The noise impact from the wind turbine generators should be measured during the operational phase, to ensure that the impact is within the recommended limits.

Social

The employment, training and skills development opportunities with associated benefits to the economy through the multiplier effect, could be enhanced through implementation of local employment and procurement policy. This could increase the benefits construction to low‐medium.

xxiii

During construction, disruption to neighbouring farms as a result of additional farm workers, introduction of crime and other social ills from new workers and general construction damage and disruption have all been assessed to have a low negative impact. This can be reduced to a negligible impact in all cases through the implementation of a comprehensive employee induction programme; measures to control dust and noise; a complaints procedure; and rehabilitation. These best practice measures are typically covered in more detail in the CEMP. The VIA has indicated that the visual impact during the construction phase would be medium (substation and roads) to high‐medium (turbines). The visual impact of the turbines cannot be mitigated through screening, however, the substation could be screened by berms and access roads could be blended with contours which would reduce the those impacts to medium‐low. The social impacts arising from decommissioning are similar and have the same significance as those predicted during construction.

The social benefits during operation have been discussed above, however, there are a number of potential negative impacts. Impacts on property prices and community cohesion have both been assessed as neutral and therefore no mitigation is proposed. Impacts on tourism are assessed to be negative low significance and could be mitigated through site tours and publicity, and will remain low. The impact on noise has been assessed as having a negative medium significance, which could be mitigated through noise monitoring to reduce to low significance. The impact on road safety has been assessed as low and site tours could assist in reducing driver distraction. The VIA has indicated that the visual impact during the construction phase would be medium (substation and roads) to high‐medium (turbines). The visual impact of the turbines cannot be mitigated through screening, however, the substation could be screened by berms and access roads could be blended with contours which would reduce the those impacts to medium‐low.

The cumulative impacts on tourism are negative and assessed as medium‐high. The cumulative impacts in terms of renewable energy generation are assessed as medium‐high positive, similarly the cumulative impacts on employment and the economy are medium‐high positive. No mitigation is proposed.

The Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm is to date the smallest wind farm proposed on the Cape West Coast and the extension to an existing facility, the Darling National Demonstration Project, which has not revealed any material social impacts to date. In terms of potential social impacts arising from the Project, the SIA has found that there is no reason for the competent authority to reject the application on social grounds.

Impact Statement for the Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm

The avoidance of negative environmental impacts, wherever possible, has been adopted as the approach for this environmental assessment process, with mitigation measures as a secondary

xxiv

reaction to those impacts which cannot be prevented. Residual negative impacts which remain after mitigation are mostly of low or negligible significance for the avifaunal, social and noise impacts. Those remaining impacts which cannot be mitigated include the permanent loss of sensitive vegetation; 3 ha for Option 1 (assessed as low‐medium); and 4 ha for Option 2 (assessed as medium‐ high), and the visual impacts of the turbines (medium‐high), the substation (medium‐low) and the internal access roads (medium‐low).

An important benefit will be the employment, training and skills development, and associated indirect benefits for the local economy generated during all phases of the Project, although this is considered to be of low significance during operation, or low‐medium significance during construction, because of the limited number of jobs and the requirement for skills that may not be readily available in the area. In comparison to the status quo, the botanical environment would be enhanced mainly through the management of the existing alien vegetation; control of trampling and grazing by livestock; fire management; and conservation of remaining natural vegetation.

Option 1 and Option 2 were comparatively assessed by the specialists. In most cases it was found that there was no preference, or that the difference was marginal. However the botanical impact assessment found that Option 1 was more favourable on the basis that there would be fewer turbines and therefore a smaller footprint, and also in terms of turbine location, the highly sensitive areas could be avoided to a greater extent. There is also a technical preference for Option 1 which yields a higher energy output based on the locations of N77 turbines in relation to the wind resources; this is when compared to the efficiency of the N60 turbines used in Option 2.

There are a number of potentially significant cumulative impacts which would arise from the development when considered in conjunction with the numerous other renewable energy proposals in the West Coast District Municipality. The impacts on botany are assessed as low negative with the possibility of low positive should Option 1 be pursued and the ecological mitigation successful in conserving remaining natural vegetation. The cumulative impacts on avifauna are potentially significant although a lack of knowledge requires monitoring to confirm this. The cumulative impacts on the economy and employment would be a high positive impact for the region with many indirect socio‐economic benefits. Cumulative visual impacts of the turbines are negative and assessed as medium‐high because of their scale in the landscape.

The Project is further supported by the current policy context and contributes to climate change mitigation through the investment in clean, renewable energy generation and this cumulative impact is assessed has being of high significance.

The No‐Go Option results in no change to the status quo which would be preferable for avifauna, noise, and some social aspects of the development such as impact on tourism and road safety. However the No‐Go Option may not necessarily be preferable for all disciplines such as botany which would benefit from the opportunity for management and conservation. Social benefits such as the employment, training and business opportunities would not be realised. At a broader level, the No‐ Go Option would represent a lost opportunity for South Africa to supplement its current energy needs with clean, renewable energy.

On the basis of the information above, the EEU finds no reason or fatal flaw which should prevent the Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm from being granted environmental authorisation on the basis that the recommendations within this EIR are adhered to. Option 1 is supported as the preferred option.

xxv

xxvi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACRONYMS

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 BACKGROUND TO THE PROJECT ...... 1 1.2 THE SCOPING PHASE ...... 5 1.3 ASSESSMENT PHASE ...... 5 1.4 PURPOSE OF THE EIR ...... 6 ROLEPLAYERS ...... 7 1.5 INTRODUCTION ...... 7 1.6 APPLICANT ...... 7 1.7 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PRACTITIONER ...... 7 1.8 INTERESTED AND AFFECTED PARTIES (I&APS) ...... 8 1.9 COMMENTING AUTHORITIES ...... 9 1.10 COMPETENT AUTHORITY ...... 10 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...... 11 2.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ...... 11 2.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...... 13 2.3 WIND TURBINE TECHNOLOGY ...... 13 2.4 CONSTRUCTION ...... 14 2.4.1 Construction Period ...... 14 2.4.2 Construction Activities ...... 15 2.4.3 Construction Labour and Working Hours ...... 18 2.5 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ...... 18 2.5.1 Permanent Infrastructure ...... 18 2.5.2 Operational and Maintenance Activities ...... 19 2.5.3 Operational Labour ...... 20 2.5.4 Surrounding Land Uses ...... 20 2.5.5 Operational Period ...... 20 2.6 DECOMMISSIONING ...... 20 2.7 THE PROPOSED DARLING EDUCATION, TRAINING AND VISITOR CENTRE ...... 21 2.8 INTERNATIONAL CARBON OFFSET MECHANISMS AND FUNDING ...... 22 3 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES ...... 25 3.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 25 3.2 NO‐GO ALTERNATIVE ...... 25

xxvii

3.3 SITE AND LOCATION ALTERNATIVES ...... 26 3.4 TECHNOLOGY ALTERNATIVES ...... 26 3.5 SITE LAYOUT ALTERNATIVES ...... 27 4 NEED AND DESIRABILITY ...... 29 4.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 29 4.2 NEED ...... 29 4.3 DESIRABILITY ...... 32 5 LEGAL, PLANNING AND POLICY CONTEXT ...... 35 5.1 SUMMARY OF LEGAL, PLANNING AND POLICY FRAMEWORK ...... 35 5.2 ENVIRONMENTAL LEGAL AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK...... 36 5.2.1 The Constitution, Act 108 of 1996 ...... 36 5.2.2 National Environmental Management Act (107 of 1998) (NEMA) ...... 37 5.2.3 Environment Conservation Act (73 of 1989) (ECA) ...... 39 5.2.4 National Heritage Resources Act (25 of 1999) (NHRA) ...... 39 5.2.5 National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (10 of 2004) ...... 39 5.2.6 National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act (57 of 2003) ...... 40 5.2.7 National Water Act (36 of 1998) ...... 40 5.2.8 National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act (39 of 2004)...... 40 5.2.9 National Environmental Management: Waste Act (59 of 2008) ...... 41 5.2.10 Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act (43 of 1983) (CARA) ...... 41 5.2.11 National Veld and Forest Fire Act (101 of 1998) ...... 41 5.2.12 Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act (70 of 1970) ...... 42 5.2.13 Occupational Health and Safety Act (85 of 1993) ...... 42 5.2.14 Hazardous Chemical Substances Regulations (1995) ...... 42 5.3 ENERGY LEGAL AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK ...... 43 5.3.1 National Energy Act (34 of 2008) ...... 43 5.3.2 White Paper on the Energy Policy of the Republic of South Africa (1998) ...... 43 5.3.3 White Paper on Renewable Energy (2003) ...... 43 5.3.4 Renewable Energy Feed‐In Tariff (REFIT) ...... 44 5.3.5 Integrated Resources Plan (IRP) 2011 ...... 44 5.3.6 Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan for the Western Cape (2008)...... 45 5.3.7 White Paper on Sustainable Energy for the Western Cape (2008) ...... 46 5.3.8 Strategic Initiative to Introduce Commercial Land Based Wind Energy Development to the Western Cape (2006) ...... 46 5.4 DEVELOPMENTAL AND SPATIAL POLICY ...... 49 5.4.1 Western Cape Provincial Spatial Development Plan (2009) ...... 49 5.4.2 West Coast District Spatial Development Framework (WCDM‐SDF) (2007) ...... 49 5.4.3 West Coast District Municipality Integrated Development Plan (2010‐2014) ...... 50 5.4.4 West Coast Tourism Implementation Strategy (2010‐2015) ...... 50 5.4.5 Swartland Municipality Integrated Development Plan (2007‐2011) ...... 50 5.4.6 Cape West Coast Biosphere Reserve Spatial Planning ...... 51

xxviii

5.5 EIA SPECIFIC GUIDANCE ...... 52 5.5.1 National ...... 52 5.5.2 Provincial ...... 52 6 EIA PROCESS AND METHODOLOGY ...... 55 6.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 55 6.2 SCOPING PHASE ...... 56 6.2.1 Public Participation ...... 56 6.2.2 Specialist Studies ...... 58 6.2.3 Draft Scoping Report ...... 59 6.3 EIA PHASE ...... 59 6.3.1 Public Participation ...... 59 6.3.2 Methodology for Assessing Significance ...... 60 6.3.3 Specialist’s Detailed Methodologies ...... 62 6.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ...... 68 7 DESCRIPTION OF THE BASELINE ENVIRONMENT ...... 71 7.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 71 7.2 GEOGRAPHICAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE CONTEXT ...... 71 7.3 LAND USE AND OWNERSHIP ...... 71 7.4 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT ...... 71 7.5 BOTANY ...... 72 7.5.1 Vegetation Types ...... 72 7.5.2 Main Habitats ...... 74 7.5.3 Ecological Drivers within these Vegetation Types ...... 78 7.5.4 Ecological Corridors ...... 79 7.5.5 Rare Plants and Areas of Specific Sensitivity ...... 81 7.6 AVIFAUNA ...... 84 7.6.1 Vegetation Types and Bird Habitats ...... 84 7.6.2 Avifauna in the Study Area ...... 87 7.7 VISUAL ...... 90 7.8 HERITAGE ...... 93 7.8.1 The Receiving Environment ...... 93 7.8.2 Heritage Context ...... 95 7.9 NOISE ...... 96 7.9.1 Sensitive Receptors ...... 96 7.9.2 Ambient Noise ...... 96 7.10 SOCIAL ...... 98 7.10.1 Overview of the Area ...... 98 7.10.2 Statistical Profile of the Study Area ...... 99 7.10.3 Social Environment ...... 107 8 IMPACTS ON BOTANY ...... 111

xxix

8.1 CONSTRUCTION PHASE (MOSTLY DIRECT IMPACTS) ...... 111 8.2 OPERATIONAL PHASE (MOSTLY INDIRECT BOTANICAL IMPACTS) ...... 114 8.2.1 Habitat Fragmentation ...... 114 8.2.2 Fire Regime ...... 114 8.2.3 Alien Invasives ...... 114 8.3 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ...... 114 8.4 ASSESSMENT OF NO‐GO ALTERNATIVE ...... 115 8.5 STATEMENT OF IMPACT ...... 115 8.6 MITIGATION ...... 115 9 IMPACTS ON AVIFAUA ...... 121 9.1 COLLISIONS WITH THE TURBINES ...... 121 9.1.1 Analysis of Monitoring Data ...... 121 9.1.2 Impact Assessment ...... 127 9.1.3 Mitigation Measures ...... 128 9.2 COLLISIONS WITH THE PROPOSED POWER LINE ...... 128 9.2.1 Nature of Impact ...... 128 9.2.2 Impact Assessment ...... 129 9.2.3 Mitigation Measures ...... 129 9.3 DISPLACEMENT ...... 129 9.3.1 Nature of impact ...... 129 9.3.2 Impact Assessment ...... 131 9.3.3 Mitigation Measures ...... 131 9.4 HABITAT LOSS ...... 131 9.4.1 Nature of Impact ...... 131 9.4.2 Impact Assessment ...... 131 9.4.3 Recommendations ...... 132 9.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ...... 132 10 VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ...... 135 10.1 POTENTIAL IMPACTS ...... 135 10.2 MITIGATION ...... 137 11 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT ...... 141 11.1 PALAEONTOLOGY ...... 141 11.2 STONE AGE ARCHAEOLOGY ...... 141 11.3 CULTURAL LANDSCAPES, SCENIC ROUTES AND VISUAL IMPACTS ...... 141 11.4 MITIGATION MEASURES ...... 142 12 NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT ...... 143 12.1 CONSTRUCTION PHASE ...... 143 12.2 OPERATIONAL PHASE ...... 144 12.2.1 Predicted Noise Levels for the Wind Turbines ...... 144

xxx

12.3 DECOMMISSIONING ...... 149 12.4 MITIGATION ...... 149 12.4.1 Construction Activities ...... 149 12.4.2 Operational Activities ...... 149 12.4.3 Decommissioning Activities ...... 149 13 SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ...... 151 13.1 SUMMARY OF INTERNATIONAL LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 151 13.2 SUMMARY OF CONSULTATIONS ...... 153 13.3 CONSTRUCTION PHASE ...... 154 13.3.1 Direct Employment and Skills Development ...... 154 13.3.2 Economic Multiplier Effects ...... 154 13.3.3 Indirect Effects of Additional Workers on Site ...... 155 13.3.4 Impacts of a non‐local workforce on society ...... 155 13.3.5 Landscape and Visual Disturbance ...... 156 13.3.6 Disruption or Damage to Adjacent Properties ...... 156 13.4 OPERATIONAL PHASE ...... 157 13.4.1 Direct Employment and Skills Development ...... 157 13.4.2 Economic Multiplier Effects ...... 158 13.4.3 Landowner Revenue ...... 158 13.4.4 Diversification of the Local Economy ...... 158 13.4.5 Visual Impacts on the Rural Character of the Area ...... 159 13.4.6 Road Safety ...... 159 13.4.7 Noise Impacts on the Quality of Life of Nearby Receptors ...... 160 13.4.8 Impact on Property Prices ...... 160 13.4.9 Impact on Community Identity and Cohesion ...... 161 13.4.10 Impact on Local and Regional Tourism as a Result of Visual Intrusion ...... 162 13.4.11 Potential Negative or Positive Cumulative Effects within the Region ...... 163 13.5 DECOMMISSIONING ...... 165 13.6 ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVES ...... 165 13.6.1 Assessment of Impacts for Option 1 and Option 2 ...... 165 13.6.2 Assessment of Impacts for the No‐Go Option ...... 165 14 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 171 14.1 BOTANY ...... 175 14.2 AVIFAUNA ...... 176 14.3 VISUAL ...... 178 14.4 HERITAGE ...... 179 14.5 NOISE ...... 179 14.6 SOCIAL ...... 180 14.7 IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE KERRIE FONTEIN AND DARLING WIND FARM ...... 181 15 REFERENCES ...... 183

xxxi

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 0.1: DETAILS OF THE APPLICANT ...... 7 TABLE 0.2: DETAILS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PRACTITIONER ...... 8 TABLE 0.3: INDEPENDENT SPECIALIST CONSULTANTS ...... 8 TABLE 0.4: COMMENTING AUTHORITIES RELEVANT TO THE KERRIE FONTEIN AND DARLING WIND FARM ...... 9 TABLE 0.5: DETAILS OF THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY ...... 10 TABLE 2.1: HISTORY OF THE DARLING NATIONAL DEMONSTRATION PROJECT ...... 11 TABLE 3.1: TURBINE MODELS AND CAPACITY ALTERNATIVES ...... 26 TABLE 4.1: SUSTAINABLE ENERGY GOALS ...... 32 TABLE 5.1: RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL AND DEVELOPMENT LEGISLATION AND POLICY ...... 35 TABLE 5.2: RELEVANT ENERGY LEGISLATION AND POLICY ...... 36 TABLE 5.3: ACTIVITIES REQUIRING SCOPING AND EIA ...... 38 TABLE 5.4: ACTIVITIES REQUIRING BASIC ASSESSMENT ...... 38 TABLE 5.5: LIST OF REGIONAL CRITERIA FOR WIND FARMS ...... 48 TABLE 6.1: RATING OF EXTENT ...... 60 TABLE 6.2: RATING OF DURATION ...... 61 TABLE 6.3: RATING OF INTENSITY ...... 61 TABLE 6.4: RATING OF PROBABILITY ...... 61 TABLE 6.5: EFFECT OF SIGNIFICANCE ON DECISION‐MAKING ...... 62 TABLE 7.1: SPECIES OF CONSERVATION CONCERN IN THE STUDY AREA ...... 82 TABLE 7.2: ADDITIONAL SPECIES OF CONSERVATION CONCERN KNOWN FROM NEARBY PROPERTIES ...... 84 TABLE 7.3: RED LISTED SPECIES (EXCLUDING MARINE SPECIES) AND OTHER PRIORITY SPECIES RECORDED IN 3318AD AND 3318AC QDGCS BY SABAP1 AND SABAP2 ...... 88 TABLE 7.4: LANDSCAPE DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE ...... 90 TABLE 7.5: POTENTIAL VISIBILITY FROM SELECTED VIEW POINTS ...... 92 TABLE 7.6: LOCATION OF NOISE SENSITIVE RECEPTORS ...... 96 TABLE 7.7: AMBIENT NOISE RESULTS (DAYTIME) ...... 97 TABLE 7.8: AMBIENT NOISE RESULTS (NIGHT) ...... 97 TABLE 7.9: 2010 PROJECTED POPULATION ‐ RACE ...... 100 TABLE 7.10: GENDER RATIO IN THE SWARTLAND MUNICIPALITY (2001) ...... 100 TABLE 7.11: POPULATION STRUCTURE IN THE SWARTLAND MUNICIPALITY (2001) ...... 100 TABLE 7.12: EDUCATION LEVELS ATTAINED BY ‘OVER 20 YEAR OLDS’ IN THE SWARTLAND MUNICIPALITY (2001) ...... 101 TABLE 7.13: EMPLOYMENT STATUS (2001) ...... 101 TABLE 7.14: INDIVIDUAL MONTHLY INCOME IN THE SWARTLAND MUNICIPALITY (2001) ...... 102 TABLE 7.15: INDUSTRY AMONGST THE EMPLOYED IN THE SWARTLAND MUNICIPALITY (2001) ...... 103 TABLE 7.16: OCCUPATIONS IN THE SWARTLAND MUNICIPALITY (2001) ...... 103 TABLE 7.17: TENURE STATUS IN THE SWARTLAND MUNICIPALITY (2001) ...... 104 TABLE 7.18: MODE OF TRAVEL IN THE SWARTLAND MUNICIPALITY (2001) ...... 104 TABLE 7.19: ACCESS TO PIPED WATER IN THE SWARTLAND MUNICIPALITY (2001) ...... 105 TABLE 7.20: ACCESS TO ENERGY IN THE SWARTLAND MUNICIPALITY (2001) ...... 105 TABLE 7.21: TOILET FACILITIES IN THE SWARTLAND MUNICIPALITY (2001) ...... 106 TABLE 8.1: SIGNIFICANCE OF (PRIMARY) BOTANICAL IMPACTS – OPTION 1 AND OPTION 2 ...... 119 TABLE 9.1: SIGNIFICANCE OF AVIFAUNAL IMPACTS ...... 133 TABLE 10.1: ASSESSMENT CRITERIA AND POTENTIAL VISUAL IMPACTS / BENEFITS ...... 136 TABLE 10.2: SUGGESTED CRITERIA FOR VISUAL BUFFERS AT THE KERRIE FONTEIN AND DARLING WIND FARM SITE...... 138 TABLE 10.3: SIGNIFICANCE OF VISUAL IMPACTS ...... 139

xxxii

TABLE 12.1: TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION NOISE ...... 143 TABLE 12.2: COMBINING DIFFERENT CONSTRUCTION NOISE SOURCES – HIGH IMPACTS (WORST CASE) ...... 143 TABLE 12.3: COMBINING DIFFERENT CONSTRUCTION NOISE SOURCES ‐ LOW IMPACTS ...... 143 TABLE 12.4: ATTENUATION BY DISTANCE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE (WORST CASE) ...... 144 TABLE 12.5: SUMMARY OF NOISE IMPACTS ON NOISE SENSITIVE RECEPTORS AT VARIOUS WIND SPEEDS FOR OPTION 1 ...... 145 TABLE 12.6: SUMMARY OF NOISE IMPACTS ON NOISE SENSITIVE RECEPTORS AT VARIOUS WIND SPEEDS FOR OPTION 2 ...... 147 TABLE 12.7: SIGNIFICANCE OF NOISE IMPACTS ...... 150 TABLE 13.1: SIGNIFICANCE OF SOCIAL IMPACTS ...... 167 TABLE 14.1: SUMMARY OF THE SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS ARISING DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE ...... 172 TABLE 14.2: SUMMARY OF THE SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS ARISING DURING THE OPERATIONAL PHASE ...... 173 TABLE 14.3: SUMMARY OF THE SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS ARISING DURING THE DECOMMISSIONING PHASE ...... 174

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1.1: LOCALITY MAP ...... 2 FIGURE 1.2: OPTION 1 (14 X N77 TURBINES) ...... 3 FIGURE 1.3: OPTION 2 (16 X N60 TURBINES) ...... 4 FIGURE 2.1: NORDEX TURBINE (ADAPTED FROM NORDEX SE PHOTO) ...... 14 FIGURE 4.1: ANNUAL AVERAGE WIND SPEEDS AT 10M ABOVE GROUND IN MS‐1 (HAGEMANN, 2008) ...... 31 FIGURE 6.1: THE SCOPING AND EIA PROCESS ...... 55 FIGURE 6.2: RENEWABLE ENERGY FACILITY PROPOSALS IN THE WEST COAST DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY, MAY 2011 (SOURCE: WCDM)...... 69 FIGURE 7.1: EXTRACT OF THE SA VEGETATION MAP (MUCINA AND RUTHERFORD, 2006), SHOWING PATTERN OF ORIGINAL NATURAL VEGETATION TYPES IN THE AREA. APPROXIMATE STUDY AREA OUTLINED IN YELLOW, CADASTRES AS PURPLE LINES...... 73 FIGURE 7.2: MAP OF STUDY AREA SHOWING BOTANICAL SENSITIVITY OF VEGETATION CURRENTLY ON SITE. ALL UNHATCHED AREAS ARE OF LOW SENSITIVITY, AND ARE MOSTLY CULTIVATED LANDS OR HOMESTEADS. TOTAL WIDTH OF THE STUDY AREA HERE IS ABOUT 3 KM...... 80 FIGURE 7.3: OBLIQUE AERIAL IMAGE SHOWING EXISTING TURBINES AND SCHEMATIC BOTANICAL SENSITIVITY MAP. UNHATCHED AREAS WITHIN STUDY AREA ARE OF LOW SENSITIVITY...... 81 FIGURE 7.4: PRIORITY SPECIES RECORDED AT THE SITE DURING 116 HOURS OF MONITORING ...... 87 FIGURE 7.5: AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF THE STUDY AREA SHOWING THE DIFFERENT STATES OF THE LAND AS WELL AS POSITIONS OF FINDS AND THE WALK PATHS CREATED DURING THE SURVEY...... 93 FIGURE 7.6: LOCATION OF NOISE SENSITIVE RECEPTORS ...... 97 FIGURE 8.1: OPTION 1 (14 X N77 TURBINES) – BOTANICAL SENSITIVITY ...... 112 FIGURE 8.2: OPTION 2 (16 X N60 TURBINES) – BOTANICAL SENSITIVITY ...... 113 FIGURE 9.1: PASSAGE RATE FOR PRIORITY SPECIES FOR DIFFERENT WIND DIRECTIONS ...... 121 FIGURE 9.2: 4: HORIZONTAL ZONING OF SITE ...... 122 FIGURE 9.3: ELEVATION PROFILE OF THE TURBINE AREA ...... 122 FIGURE 9.4: RECORDED FLIGHTS RELATIVE TO THE HORIZONTAL ZONING FOR PRIORITY SPECIES (%) ...... 122 FIGURE 9.5: RECORDED MEDIUM HEIGHT FLIGHTS RELATIVE TO THE HORIZONTAL ZONING FOR PRIORITY SPECIES (%) ...... 123 FIGURE 9.6: PASSAGE RATE FOR PRIORITY SPECIES RELATIVE TO TIME OF YEAR ...... 123 FIGURE 9.7: THE PASSAGE RATE OF PRIORITY SPECIES RELATIVE TO TIME OF DAY...... 124 FIGURE 9.8: PASSAGE RATE PER PRIORITY SPECIES, ALL FLIGHTS AND ZONES COMBINED ...... 124 FIGURE 9.9: PERCENTAGE OF FLIGHT TIME SPENT BY EACH PRIORITY SPECIES AT MEDIUM HEIGHT ON THE SLOPE...... 124 FIGURE 9.10: THE ESTIMATED PASSAGE RATE P/H FOR PRIORITY SPECIES AT MEDIUM HEIGHT ON THE SLOPE ...... 125 FIGURE 9.11: ESTIMATED ANNUAL COLLISION RATE FOR PRIORITY SPECIES ...... 126 FIGURE 11.1: AN EARLY STONE AGE CORE FOUND NEAR THE TOP OF MOEDMAAG HILL. SCALE = 5 CM...... 142 FIGURE 11.2: LATER STONE AGE ARTEFACTS FOUND ON THE LOWER SLOPES OF MOEDMAAG HILL. SCALE = 3 CM...... 142

xxxiii

FIGURE 12.1: RASTER IMAGE OF OPTION 1 (8 M/S WIND SPEED) ...... 146 FIGURE 12.2: RASTER IMAGE OF OPTION 2 (8 M/S WIND SPEED) ...... 148

LIST OF PLATES

PLATE 7.1: VIEW FROM MOEDMAAG HILL LOOKING WEST, SHOWING DEGRADED (VERY HEAVILY GRAZED) NATURAL VEGETATION IN FOREGROUND AMONGST GRANITE OUTCROPS, AND CULTIVATED LANDS LEFT OF AND BEYOND THE EXISTING TURBINES...... 75 PLATE 7.2: VIEW OF PROMINENT GRANITE OUTCROP IN CENTRE OF SITE, LOOKING EAST TOWARDS MOEDMAAG HILL AND EXISTING TURBINES. A DENSE COLONY OF ALOE MITRIFORMIS IS PROMINENT ON THESE ROCKS, BUT THE ROCKS ALSO SUPPORT A DIVERSITY OF OTHER SPECIES NOT GENERALLY FOUND ELSEWHERE ON THE SITE (LACHENALIA ALOOIDES, PAURIDIA MINUTA, ETC.)...... 76 PLATE 7.3: ONE OF THE SEASONAL DRAINAGE LINES AND ASSOCIATED WETLAND VEGETATION ON SITE. THE TALL RESTIO IS ELEGIA ELEPHANTINA...... 77 PLATE 7.4: LEUCOSPERMUM TOMENTOSUM (FOREGROUND; RED LISTED AS VULNERABLE) GROWING IN PRISTINE HOPEFIELD SAND FYNBOS, LOOKING TOWARDS SEGAREVLEI AND THE R27...... 78 PLATE 7.5: GEISSORHIZA RADIANS (KELKIEWYN) IS A SPECTACULAR SPRING BULB FROM SEASONALLY WET CLAY AND LOAMY FLATS IN THE DARLING AND SWARTLAND AREA. THE SPECIES IS RED LISTED AS ENDANGERED, AND IS KNOWN TO OCCUR IN THE STUDY AREA ALONG THE DRAINAGE LINES...... 82 PLATE 7.6: LEUCOSPERMUM TOMENTOSUM IS A THREATENED SPECIES COMMON ON THE SANDY PORTIONS OF THE SITE, AND ESPECIALLY IN LESS DISTURBED SECTIONS OF THE SAND FYNBOS (MAPPED AS HIGH SENSITIVITY IN FIGURE 7.2) ...... 83 PLATE 7.7: PHYLICA PLUMOSA (FOREGROUND; HEAVILY PRUNED BY GRAZING CATTLE) IS A DECLINING SPECIES FAIRLY COMMON ON THE BETTER REHABILITATED SECTIONS OF PREVIOUSLY CULTIVATED LOAMY SOILS (MAPPED AS MEDIUM SENSITIVITY)...... 83 PLATE 7.8: VIEW WEST IN THE NORTH‐EASTERN PART OF THE STUDY AREA...... 94 PLATE 7.9: VIEW WEST ALONG THE STREAM THAT TRAVERSES THE SITE...... 94 PLATE 7.10: VIEW SOUTH ACROSS THE NORTH‐EASTERN PART OF THE STUDY AREA...... 94 PLATE 7.11: AN UNPLOUGHED OR RECOVERED AREA IN THE CENTRE OF THE STUDY AREA...... 94 PLATE 7.12: THE LARGE GRANITE OUTCROP BETWEEN THE TWO TURBINE ROWS...... 94 PLATE 7.13: VIEW EAST ALONG THE SOUTHERN ROW SHOWING AGRICULTURAL LAND AND SMALL GRANITE OUTCROPS...... 94 PLATE 7.14: VIEW EAST ALONG THE SOUTHERN ROW SHOWING AGRICULTURAL LAND...... 95 PLATE 7.15: VIEW WEST ALONG THE CABLE SERVITUDE IN THE SOUTH‐WEST PART OF THE STUDY AREA...... 95

xxxiv

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1.1: Constraints Maps Appendix 1.2: Department of Environmental Affairs’ Letter of Acceptance of the Final Scoping Report Appendix 2.1: CV of EEU staff members:  Merle Sowan  Richard Hill  Sandra Rippon  Kirsten Scott Appendix 2.2: Specialist CV:  Botanical – Nick Helme (Nick Helme Botanical Surveys)  Avifaunal – Chris van Rooyen (Chris van Rooyen Consulting)  Visual – Bernard Oberholzer (independent landscape consultant) and Quinton Lawson (MLB Architects)  Heritage – Jayson Orton (UCT Archaeology Contracts Office)  Noise – Brett Williams (Safetech)  Social – Kirsten Scott (EEU, UCT) Appendix 2.3: I&AP Database Appendix 3.1: Nordex Crane Hardstanding Appendix 3.2: Layout of Proposed Darling Education, Training and Visiting Centre Appendix 6.1: 2006 and 2010 EIA Listed Activities Appendix 7.1: Site Notices Appendix 7.2: Newspaper Advertisements Appendix 7.3: Written Notices Appendix 7.4: Background Information Document (BID):  BID in English  BID in Afrikaans Appendix 7.5: Minutes of Stakeholder Meetings Appendix 7.6: Issues and Response Report Appendix 8.1: Botanical Impact Assessment Appendix 8.2: Avifaunal Impact Assessment Appendix 8.3: Visual Impact Assessment Appendix 8.4: Heritage Scoping Assessment Appendix 8.5: Noise Impact Assessment Appendix 8.6: Social Impact Assessment

xxxv

ACRONYMS

ABBREVIATION TERM ADU Animal Demography Unit AIDS Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome ARV Antiretroviral BID Background Information Document BIRP Birds in Reserves Project BEE Black Economic Empowerment CAR Coordinated Avifaunal Roadcounts CARA Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act CBA Critical Biodiversity Area CDM Clean Development Mechanism CEF Central Energy Fund CEMP Construction Environmental Management Plan CER Certified Emission Reduction CPV Concentrating Photovoltaic CSP Concentrated Solar Power CV Curriculum Vitae CWCBR Cape West Coast Biosphere Reserve DANCED Danish Cooperation for Environment and Development DANIDA Danish International Development Agency DARLIPP Darling Independent Power producer DBSA Development Bank of Southern Africa DEA Department of Environmental Affairs (formerly DEAT) DEA&DP Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (Western Cape) DEAT Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism DECAS Department of Cultural Affairs and Sport DNA Designated National Authority DNDWF Darling National Demonstration Wind Farm DoE Department of Energy DSM Demand‐Side Management DSR Draft Scoping Report DTM Digital Terrain Model DWA Department of Water Affairs (formerly Department of Water Affairs and Forestry) DWP Darling Wind Power (Pty) Ltd EAP Environmental Assessment Practitioner ECA Environmental Conservation Act (Act No. 73 of 1989) EEU Environmental Evaluation Unit, University of Cape Town EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EIR Environmental Impact Report EMP Environmental Management Programme ERC Energy Research Centre, University of Cape Town ESA Early Stone Age EWT Endangered Wildlife Trust FSR Final Scoping Report GEF Global Environmental Facility GN Government Notice ha Hectares HIA Heritage Impact Assessment

xxxvi

ABBREVIATION TERM HIV Human Immunodeficiency Virus HWC Heritage Western Cape I&AP Interested and Affected Party IAIA International Association of Impact Assessment IBA Important Bird Area IDP Integrated Development Plan IEM Integrated Environmental Management IPP Independent Power Producer IRP Integrated Resource Plan IRR Issues and Response Report LED Local Economic Development LSA Later Stone Age LUPO Land Use Planning Ordinance MPA Marine Protected Area MW Megawatts NEMA National Environmental Management Act (Act No. 107 of 1998) NERSA National Energy Regulator of South Africa NFSD National Framework for Sustainable Development NGO Non‐Governmental Organisation NHRA National Heritage Resources Act NIA Noise Impact Assessment OEMP Operational Environmental Management Plan PoS Plan of Study PPA Power Purchase Agreement PPP Public Participation Process PSDF Provincial Spatial Development Framework QDGC Quarter Degree Grid Cell REFIT Renewable Energy Feed‐In Tariffs RoD Record of Decision S&R Search and Rescue SABAP1 Southern African Bird Atlas Project 1 SABAP2 Southern African Bird Atlas Project 2 SAHRA South African Heritage Resources Agency SANBI South Africa National Biodiversity Institute SDF Spatial Development Framework SDIP Sustainable Development Implementation Plan SEES Sustainable Energy and Employment Scheme SIA Social Impact Assessment SWOT Strength, Weaknesses, Opportunity and Threat Analysis TB Tuberculosis UCT University of Cape Town UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change VIA Visual Impact Assessment WCDM West Coast District Municipality WCNP West Coast National Park WESSA Wildlife and Environment Society of SA WHO World Health Organisation WWF Worldwide Fund for Nature

xxxvii

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

TERM DEFINITION Alien organisms Plants, animals and micro‐organisms which do not naturally occur in an area, and which have been deliberately or accidentally introduced by humans to ecosystems outside of their natural range. Alternative The different means or possible action course of action that would meet the same purpose and need. Alternatives may include alternatives to: ∙ The property on which or location where it is proposed to undertake the activity ∙ The type of activity to be undertaken ∙ The design or layout of the activity ∙ The technology to be used in the activity ∙ The operational aspects of the activity Ambient Noise The totally encompassing sound in a given situation at a given time, and is usually composed of sound from many sources, both near and far. It includes the noise from the noise source(s) under investigation. Applicant The person or entity that intends to undertake a listed activity and is applying for permission.

A‐weighted intensity level, LIA The intensity level, in decibels, relative to a reference sound (often referred to as sound intensity, and incorporating an electrical filter network (A‐ level or noise level) weighted) in the measuring instrument corresponding to the human ear’s different sensitivity to sound at different frequencies. Baseline Conditions that currently exist, also called ‘existing conditions’. Basic Assessment Basic Assessment is the level of environmental assessment applied to activities in Listing 1. These are smaller scale activities; the impacts of these activities are generally known and can be easily managed. It is a more concise analysis of the environmental impacts of the proposed activity than a scoping and EIA report. Biodiversity The variability amongst living organisms from all sources including terrestrial, marine, and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes biodiversity within and between species and of ecosystems. Bonn Convention Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals Clean Development The Clean Development Mechanism defined in Article 12 of the Mechanism Kyoto Protocol allows a country with an emission reduction or emission limitation commitment under the Protocol to implement an emission reduction project in developing countries. The mechanism stimulates sustainable development and emission reductions, while giving industrialised countries some flexibility in how they meet their emission reduction or limitation targets. Climate Change Climate change means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.

xxxviii

TERM DEFINITION Copenhagen Accord The Copenhagen Accord is an international agreement among 25 nations attending the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP15). The 193 countries at COP15 agreed to take note of the accord. It includes all the major issues debated in the negotiations leading to the event‐ such as mitigation, adaption, financing and technology‐ but it is not legally binding like the Kyoto Protocol or other treaties. Cumulative Impacts These are the impacts which, on their own, may not be significant. However, when added to many other similar impacts, the cumulative effect may be significant. Decommissioning The process of removing a facility from service. In the case of a wind farm this would involve dismantling of the component infrastructure and return of the land to its former state where feasible. Distribution The electricity network infrastructure operating at nominal voltage of 132kV or below. District As referred to in respect to Noise. For example ‘rural district’. This is related to, but not necessarily equal to, “land‐use zoning” applied in urban and regional planning. For example, mixed‐use zoning may comprise a central business district and a residential district. Environment The environment has been defined as “The external circumstances, conditions and objects that affect the existence and development of an individual, organism or group”. These circumstances include biophysical, social, economic, historical, cultural and political aspects. Environment Impact In the NEMA regulations this is defined as the process of collecting, Assessment organising, analysing, interpreting and communicating information that is relevant to the consideration of that application. Traditionally, however, EIA is defined as the process of predicting and assessing the consequences of a proposed development, and identifying measures to minimise negative impacts and maximise benefits. In so doing, it is necessary to collect, analyse, interpret and communicate information. Environmental Assessment Person or company, independent of the applicant (developer), that Practitioner manages the environmental assessment process of a proposed project on behalf of the applicant. Equivalent continuous A‐ A formal definition is contained in SANS 10103. The term weighted sound level, LAeq,T “equivalent continuous” may be understood to mean the “average” A‐weighted sound level measured continuously, or calculated, over a period of time, T.

Equivalent continuous rating The equivalent continuous A‐weighted sound level, LAeq,T, level, LReq,T measured or calculated during a specified time interval T, to which is added adjustments for tonal character, impulsiveness of the sound and the time of day. An adjustment of 5 dB is added for any tonal character, if present, plus a further 5 dB if the noise is also of an impulsive nature. Where neither is present, the LReq,T is equal to the LAeq,T. Hub Component of a wind turbine, central part onto which the blades are fixed.

xxxix

TERM DEFINITION Independent Power Producer Any undertaking by any person or entity, in which the government of South Africa does not hold a controlling ownership interest (direct or indirect), of new energy generation capacity at a generating facility following a determination made by the Minister in terms of Section 34(1) of the Electricity Regulation Act (4 of 2006). Integrated Environmental A philosophy which prescribes a code of practice for ensuring that Management environmental considerations are fully integrated into all stages of the development process in order to achieve a sustainable balance between conservation and development. Interested and Affected Party Any person, group of persons or organisation interested in or affected by an activity contemplated in an application; or any organ of state that may have jurisdiction over any aspect of the activity. Kyoto Protocol Adopted in December 1997, this protocol to the United Framework Convention on Climate Change highlights the international community’s new attitude towards the phenomenon of climate change. Under the protocol, the industrialised countries have undertaken to reduce their emissions of six greenhouse gases by at least 5% during the period 2008‐2012 compared to 1990 levels. Megawatt Hour 1000 kilowatts or 1 million watts; standard measure of electric power plant generating capacity. Nacelle Component of a wind turbine, an enclosure housing the gearbox, shafts, generator, controller and brake. National Grid The network of high‐voltage power lines from the energy generating facilities to the areas where the electricity is used. The grid is operated by Eskom and all electricity generated by Eskom (and other future IPPs) is fed into this grid for national distribution. No‐Go option This is the option of not proceeding with the activity, implying a continuation of the current situation/ status quo. Overhead transmission lines Transmission lines usually consist of overhead conductors suspended from transmission towers and are the main infrastructure used by Eskom for distributing high voltage electricity (See National grid). Public Participation Process A process in which potential interested and affected parties are given an opportunity to comment on, or raise issues relevant to, specific matters. QDGC Quarter Degree Grid Cell Quarter corresponds to the area shown on a 1:50 000 map (15' x 15') and is approximately 27 km long (north‐south) and 23 km wide (east‐west). Reference Time Interval The time interval to which an equivalent continuous A‐weighted sound level, LAeq,T, or rating level of noise, LReq,T, is referred. Unless otherwise indicated, the reference time interval is interpreted as follows: – Day‐time: 06:00 to 22:00hrs T=16 hours when LReq,T is denoted LReq,d – Night‐time: 22:00 to 06:00hrs T=8 hours when LReq,T is denoted LReq,n Renewable Energy Feed‐In A tariff approved by NERSA for a renewable energy generator or Tariff cogeneration.

TERM DEFINITION Residual Noise The ambient noise that remains at a given position in a given situation when one or more specific noises (usually those under investigation) are suppressed. Rotor Component of a wind turbine, comprising three blades and a hub in the centre. Scoping The identification of issues and alternatives that require investigation in the EIA. Scoping is therefore the process whereby the scope of the EIA is determined. Substation A substation is the part of an electricity transmission and distribution system where voltage is transformed from low to high and vice versa using transformers. This project involves the transformation of electricity from 11kV to 66kV for transmission purposes as it is more efficient to transmit electricity over long distances at higher voltages. Sustainable Development Development that meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Swept area Is the area swept by the wind turbine blades (excluding the hub). It directly relates to the amount of electrical power the turbine is capable of converting. Transformer An electrical device that converts between low and high voltages. Vlei Certain classes of bodies of inland waters

xli

xlii

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND TO THE PROJECT

The proposed Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm will be an extension of the existing Darling National Demonstration Wind Farm which was conceptualised in 1996 by the Oelsner Group (Pty) Ltd. Darling Independent Power Producer (Pty) Ltd (known as DARLIPP) was established to develop the wind farm as an Independent Power Producer (IPP) and the Oelsner Group is the controlling shareholder. Being the first commercial renewable energy facility of its type in South Africa, and proposed by an IPP, there were no criteria or planning guidelines against which the Project could be assessed and the environmental authorisation process was contested and protracted. The original proposal was phased and included four 1.3 MW turbines, followed by an additional 5‐7.8MW of power comprising no more than 10 turbines in total for both phases. However only the first phase, known officially as the Darling National Demonstration Wind Farm was approved and the Record of Decision (RoD) was issued in February 2005. DARLIPP was originally the developer and part owner of the wind farm, intended to operate and maintain the wind farm. The Danish agency DANIDA (formerly DANCED), the Central Energy Fund (CEF) and the Development Bank of Southern Africa (DBSA) were funders of the development. A new company, Darling Wind Power (Pty) Ltd was then formed to develop the wind farm, equity holders being CEF, DBSA and DARLIPP. In 2006, Darling Wind Power (Pty) Ltd entered into a Power Purchase Agreement with the City of Cape Town for a term of 20 years and contributes towards the City achieving its targets for renewable energy. In 2010, the City made Green Electricity Certificates available for purchase which allows electricity consumers to participate in the generation of ‘green’ electricity and the income from the sale of these certificates covers the premium the City has to pay for the electricity. The applicant for the Darling Demonstration Wind Farm was DARLIPP. Section 3.1 sets out the background of the previous process in more detail.

The applicant for the Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm is CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd. The current proposal is for a further 14 to 16 wind turbines which will generate 20‐21 MW of electricity for national distribution. The proposed wind farm is located on the farms Slangkop (3/552) and Kerrie Fontein (0/555) and includes associated infrastructure such as underground cabling, internal access roads and a new substation which will be connected to the existing overhead power lines. Figure 1.1 overleaf depicts the locality of the proposed Project and Figure 1.2 and Figure 1.3 depict the proposed options for the number of turbines. Additional constraints maps are set out in Appendix 1.1.

The Project involves a number of ‘listed activities’ in terms of Section 24(5) of the National Environmental Management Act (107 of 1998) (NEMA), ‘EIA Regulations’ published in Government Notice (GN) R385, GN R386 and GN R387 of April 21 2006. As the Project will be related to electricity generation where “(i) the electricity output is 20 megawatts or more; and (ii) the elements of the facility cover a combined area in excess of 1 hectare”, under GN R387, a Scoping and EIA are triggered. This Project also includes a number of activities listed under R386 which collectively form part of the proposal and are listed in detail within Section 6.2.6.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 1 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011 Langebaan Lagoon To Saldanha

Legend

Proposed Site Proposed Rheboksfontein Wind Energy Facility

Nature Reserve Urban Area Arterial Route Railway Line West Coast National Park !!! Powerline

Buffelsfontein Game Reserve

R27

Project Location

5 Tienie Versfeld Jacobuskraal Km R315 Wildflower Reserve Estate 0361.5 ¯ Scale: 1:64,000 !Khwa ttu San Centre Yzerfontein Applicant: Oelsner Group (Pty) Ltd Date: July 2011

Darling Environmental Evaluation Unit University of Cape Town Private Bag X3 Rondebosch 7700 Cape Town Jakkalsfontein Tel: +27 21 650 2866 Private Fax: +27 21 650 3971 Nature Reserve Rondeberg Private Projection: GCS WGS 1984 Datum: Geographic (WGS 1984) Nature Reserve Dassen Data Source: Department of Surverys and Mapping Cape Town Island SANBI 2004 from BGIS website

To Cape Town

Figure 1.1: Locality Map ¯ Km Project Location Project Project Location Project Proposed Substation Existing Substation Dam Proposed Turbines Existing Turbines Cadastral Boundaries Arterial Route Other Access Roads AccessProposed Roads Internal Seasonal Drainage Line Proposed Crossing Water Power Line Cables Underground Date: September 2011 September Date: Scale: 1:6500 Legend Applicant: Oelsner Group (Pty) Ltd (Pty) Group Oelsner Applicant: 0.15 !!! Environmental Evaluation Unit Evaluation Environmental Town of Cape University Bag X3 Private 7700 Rondebosch Town Cape 2866 650 +27 21 Tel: 650 3971 +27 21 Fax: 00.30.6 Projection: GCS WGS 1984 WGS GCS Projection: 1984) (WGS Geographic Datum: Mapping and Surverys of Department Source: Data Town Cape Hill

Moedmaag

3 R (3/552) Slangkop Farm Slangkop (14 x N77 Turbines) N77 (14 x

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

(0/555) ! 5 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Kerrie Fontein Farm Fontein Kerrie ! ! ! !

! 1.2: Option 1 Figure ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! R27 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! (0/555) Jacobuskraal Estate Kerrie Fontein Farm Fontein Kerrie ¯ Km Project Location Project Project Location Project Proposed Substation Existing Substation Dam Proposed Turbines Existing Turbines Cadastral Boundaries Arterial Route Other Access Roads AccessProposed Roads Internal Seasonal Drainage Line Proposed Crossing Water Power Line Cables Underground Date: September 2011 September Date: Scale: 1:6500 Legend Applicant: Oelsner Group (Pty) Ltd (Pty) Group Oelsner Applicant: 0.15 !!! Environmental Evaluation Unit Evaluation Environmental Town of Cape University Bag X3 Private 7700 Rondebosch Town Cape 2866 650 +27 21 Tel: 650 3971 +27 21 Fax: 00.30.6 Projection: GCS WGS 1984 WGS GCS Projection: 1984) (WGS Geographic Datum: Mapping and Surverys of Department Source: Data Town Cape Hill

Moedmaag

3 R (3/552) Slangkop Farm Slangkop (16 x N60 Turbines) N60 (16 x

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

(0/555) ! 5 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Kerrie Fontein Farm Fontein Kerrie ! ! ! !

! 1.3: Option 2 Figure ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! R27 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! (0/555) Jacobuskraal Estate Kerrie Fontein Farm Fontein Kerrie

1.2 THE SCOPING PHASE

Scoping was undertaken between June and December 2010 and involved a number of specialist studies: botanical; avifaunal; visual; heritage; noise and social, and the Public Participation Process (PPP). The outcomes of this process were synthesised and presented in the Draft Scoping Report (DSR) which was made available for public comment between 12 October and 21 November 2010. All written comments received in the report, where included in the Issues and Responses Report (IRR). The Final Scoping Report (FSR) was submitted to Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) on 15 December 2010 and set out a Plan of Study (PoS) for the EIA Phase based on the main conclusions set out below:

The main constraints include the presence of sensitive vegetation on parts of the site which can largely be mitigated through avoidance of these areas. Bird mortality and displacement is a potential impact and this requires further investigation through monitoring. The visual impacts are an important factor and require detailed consideration into site layout and configuration of the turbines and other infrastructure. Due to the proximity of the wind turbines and both sensitive receptors and neighbouring land, the operational noise impacts are potentially significant. Key social impacts are expected to be related to visual impacts and associated effects on tourism. As development of wind energy facilities progresses elsewhere along the West Coast, cumulative impacts are a key issue especially with regards to avifauna, visual and tourism impacts. The project will make a contribution to renewable energy generation in the Province and is in line with national priorities to mitigate the impacts on climate change.

The EEU received a letter of acceptance dated 7 March 2011 that indicated acceptance of the FSR in accordance with the tasks in the PoS. This letter is attached as Appendix 1.2.

1.3 ASSESSMENT PHASE

The purpose of an EIA is as follows:

 Consider and assess alternatives which would most effectively meet the need and purpose of the Project and the goal of sustainable development;  To assess the identified impacts and to establish their significance using a specific framework (see Section 7.3.2 below);  To identify and recommend appropriate mitigation measures to reduce the significance of impacts; and  To carry out an effective and inclusive Public Participation Process.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 5 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

During the EIA Phase, the specialists undertook their studies as set out in the FSR, each assessment has defined the significance of the potential impacts and proposed mitigation measures where necessary, and enhancement if possible. The following specialist studies have been undertaken as part of the impact assessment exercise:

 Botanical – Nick Helme (Nick Helme Botanical Surveys);  Avifaunal – Chris van Rooyen (Chris van Rooyen Consulting);  Visual – Bernard Oberholzer (independent landscape consultant) and Quinton Lawson (MLB Architects);  Noise – Brett Williams (Safetech); and  Social – Kirsten Scott (EEU, UCT). During Scoping, the Heritage Study found that aside from the visual impacts associated with the proposed development, no other significant impacts to heritage resources were foreseen (see Appendix 8.4). It was believed that no further heritage assessments, aside from the Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) were required. Therefore the heritage component has not been furthered during the EIA Phase. Similarly, a bat study has not been undertaken and this is justified in Section 7.3.3 below.

During the EIA Phase further public participation events were held including an Open Day on 2 July 2011 and meetings with landowners and other key I&APs as part of the Social Impact Assessment (SIA) consultation. The site alternatives were refined and turbine locations were identified primarily on the basis of the botanical recommendations and the wind modelling exercise undertaken by Nordex. The alternatives are reported on in further detail in Section 4 below. The process has been iterative process and accommodated changes to the site layout.

An Environmental Management Programme (EMP) for the construction, operational and decommissioning phases has been produced on the basis of the recommendations within the specialist studies as best practice measures. This should be considered alongside the EIR.

1.4 PURPOSE OF THE EIR

These findings have informed the content of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The purpose of the EIR is to integrate the findings of the specialist studies and the PPP into a document which will ultimately form the basis of DEA’s decision when authorising the Project. This is accompanied by an Environmental Management Programme (EMP) which was produced by Ecosense (2011). A Draft EIR and EMP was made available for public comment to allow the registered I&APs an opportunity to comment on the findings and bring attention to any issues that parties believe are of significance to the consideration of the application. I&APs were notified of the review period from 26 July 2011 to 4 September 2011 and encouraged to provide written comment to the EEU. Comments are documented in the IRR attached as Appendix 7.6 and recommendations have been updated in the body of the report where necessary.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 6 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

ROLEPLAYERS

1.5 INTRODUCTION

There are a number of roleplayers involved in the environmental application process. The details of each are set out below, based on the definitions and requirements within GN 385 2006, Section 24(5) of NEMA (No. 107 of 1998), hereafter referred to as ‘The EIA Regulations’.

1.6 APPLICANT

The ‘applicant’ is a person or organisation who has submitted or intends to submit an application for an environmental authorisation in terms of the Regulations, with the intention of developing the named project. CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd is the applicant for the proposed wind farm and has been set up for this purpose by the Oelsner Group (Pty) Ltd. The Oelsner Group is a shareholder of DARLIPP, the developer of the Darling National Demonstration Wind Farm. The Oelsner Group is active in research, development and implementation of new energy projects especially renewable energy generation, namely through wind, wave and solar. The Darling Sustainable Energy and Employment Scheme (SEES) has been established by the Oelsner Group to promote employment through renewable energy generation projects. Oelsner Group’s level of activity stretches beyond the Cape as they founded AfriWea (African Wind Energy Association), a non‐profit organisation to promote and support wind energy projects on the African continent.

Table 0.1: Details of the applicant Name: CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd Contact: Hermann Oelsner Postal Address: P.O. Box 13, Darling, 7345 Telephone Number : + 27 224923095 Fax Number: + 27 224923096 E‐mail Address: [email protected]

1.7 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PRACTITIONER

The role of the environmental assessment practitioner (EAP) is “to manage the application for an environmental authorisation on behalf of the applicant” (NEMA, GN 385 2006).

The Environmental Evaluation Unit (EEU) of the University of Cape Town (UCT) has been appointed by the Applicant to manage the environmental authorisation process as an independent consultant.

The EEU is an independent, self‐funded, research, consulting and training unit based at UCT. Founded in 1985, the EEU has established itself as a leader in the fields of integrated environmental management and sustainable development responding to local, regional and global environmental challenges using an interdisciplinary and participatory approach. During this time, the EEU has undertaken work throughout South Africa and southern Africa, has participated in global research and policy initiatives, and has provided expertise to leading private and public corporations, research

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 7 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

institutions, planning and development organisations, state departments, local authorities and communities. Achieving environmental sustainability represents a major challenge, and the EEU is well placed to contribute to achieving this as one of the longest standing environmental consultancies and research institutions in southern Africa. The EEU is involved in environmental planning, management and assessment through both consulting and research, which ranges from policy and strategic review through to project‐level assessments. The CVs of the EEU project team are set out in Appendix 2.1.

Table 0.2: Details of the Environmental Assessment Practitioner Name: Environmental Evaluation Unit (EEU) Contact: Sandra Rippon Postal Address: University of Cape Town (UCT) Private Bag X3 Rondebosch, 7701 South Africa Telephone Number : 021 650 2871 Fax Number: 021 650 3791 E‐mail Address: [email protected]

A number of specialists have been appointed as independent consultants to undertake specialist studies in relation to the disciplines identified as relevant to this Project. These are set out in Table 2.3 below. Their respective Curriculum Vitae (CVs) are attached in Appendix 2.2.

Table 0.3: Independent Specialist Consultants Discipline Specialist Botany Nick Helme (Nick Helme Botanical Surveys) Avifauna Chris van Rooyen (Chris van Rooyen Consulting) Visual Bernard Oberholzer (independent landscape consultant) and Quinton Lawson (MLB Architects) Heritage Jayson Orton (Dept. of Archaeology, UCT) Noise Brett Williams (Safetech) Social Kirsten Scott (EEU, UCT)

1.8 INTERESTED AND AFFECTED PARTIES (I&APS)

The NEMA principles aim to ensure an equitable environmental authorisation process through providing opportunities for all people to express their interests or concerns relating to the Project.

In accordance with the definitions set out in the EIA Regulations, an I&AP may include either:

a) ‘Any person, group of persons or organisation interested in or affected by an activity; and

b) Any organ of state that may have jurisdiction over any aspect of the activity’.

More details of the principles and processes for engagement are set out in Section 7 (EIA Process and Methodology) and a database of all I&APs involved in the Scoping Phase thus far is included in Appendix 2.3.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 8 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

1.9 COMMENTING AUTHORITIES

During the environmental assessment process, the role of commenting authorities is to issue comments and recommendations on environmental authorisation applications.

Each authority will play a different role with regard to the development based on their particular focus or mandate. The following authorities, as listed in Table 0.4 below, have been identified as relevant to this development and hence to the environmental application process.

Table 0.4: Commenting Authorities relevant to the Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm

Commenting Authority Role Department of Environmental In most cases, the environmental departments of provincial Affairs and Development government are responsible for evaluating applications that have Planning Western Cape been submitted in terms of the NEMA EIA Regulations. However, the national Department of Environmental Affairs is the competent authority responsible for taking decisions on this project as it is considered to be of national importance. In this case provincial departments such as DEA&DP are required to comment on the application. Department of Water Affairs The Department of Water Affairs is the custodian of South Africa’s water resources. It is primarily responsible for the formulation and the implementation of policy governing this sector. It also has overarching responsibility for water services provided by local government. Department of Agriculture: The Western Cape Department of Agriculture provides a wide range Western Cape of development, research and support services to the agricultural community in the Western Cape. Amongst their services, they provide agricultural advice and guidance to the agricultural community and all users of natural resources, and they focus on conservation of natural resources and agricultural engineering services. The Department is responsible for enforcing the Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act (Act 43 of 1983). CapeNature CapeNature is a public institution with the statutory responsibility for biodiversity conservation in the Western Cape. It is governed by the Western Cape Nature Conservation Board Act 15 of 1998 and mandated to: promote and ensure nature conservation; render services and provide facilities for research and training; and generate income. Heritage Western Cape Heritage Western Cape was established in terms of the National Heritage Resources Act, Act 25 of 1999. It is mandated to promote co‐operative governance between national, provincial and local authorities for the identification, conservation and management of provincial heritage resources. Since the Project is subject to an EIA, Heritage Western Cape (HWC) is required to provide comment on the proposed Project in order to facilitate final decision making by DEA.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 9 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

Commenting Authority Role Western Cape: Department of The department aims to deliver an integrated, accessible, safe, Transport and Public Works reliable, affordable and sustainable transport system and quality property infrastructure provision through socially just, developmental and empowering processes, to improve the quality of life for all. Swartland Local Municipality The Municipality has a review role in the EIA process and provides comment and input to the development of project proposals in order to ensure that they comply with legislative and policy requirements. The Municipality is a source of local knowledge and expertise and is therefore a key commenting authority. Note: The National Department of Energy was removed as a commenting authority because when contacted they stated they would not comment on environmental matters. Eskom has been included instead to comment in terms of the grid and network planning issues; and in terms of land and rights.

1.10 COMPETENT AUTHORITY

GN 387 of April 21 2006 in terms of Section 24(5) of NEMA (Act No. 107 of 1998) has identified the competent authority for listed activities included within this application as DEA. DEA is therefore the decision‐making authority for this application and their details are set out in Table 2.5 below, whilst their duties are described further in Section 7 (EIA Process and Methodology).

Table 0.5: Details of the Competent Authority Name: Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) Contact: Samkelisiwe Dlamini Postal Address: Private Bag X 447, Pretoria, 0001 Telephone Number : +27 12 395 1783 Fax Number: +27 12 320 7539 E‐mail Address: [email protected]

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 10 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Being the first commercial renewable energy facility of its type in South Africa proposed by an IPP, the environmental authorisation process was contested and protracted. Table 3.1 below sets out the history of the process.

Table 2.1: History of the Darling National Demonstration Project Timeframe Activity July 1996 Mr Hermann Oelsner conceptualises the project and begins to search for an appropriate site. 1997 DARLIPP set up June 1997 – July 1998 Initial wind measurements are undertaken. 1998 The EIA Regulations of September 1997 listed ‘facilities for commercial electricity generation and supply’ as an activity that would trigger the requirements for a Scoping and EIA1. The EEU was commissioned and Scoping undertaken. The original proposal was phased and included four 1.3 MW turbines, followed by an additional 5‐7.8 MW of power comprising no more than 10 turbines in total for both phases. April 1999 Project delays as a result of the failure to secure Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with Eskom. Financial modelling indicated the need for subsidy in order to sell the electricity to local municipalities. 1999 The Danish Co‐operation for Environment and Development (DANCED), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) jointly agreed to provide funding to ensure project viability. June 2000 Minister for Minerals and Energy declared the Darling Wind Farm as a National Demonstration Project. July 2001 Funding for the EIA made available by DANCED. July 2001 – Jan 2002 EIA Phase July 2002 Positive Record of Decision (RoD) issued by previous Western Cape Department of Cultural Affairs and Sport (DECAS) for four 1.3MW turbines.

1 The EIA Regulations were amended in May 2002 and the activity was described as ‘the construction, erection or upgrading of facilities for commercial electricity generation with an output of at least 10megawatts and infrastructure for bulk supply’.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 11 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

Timeframe Activity 2002 Appeals by Cape West Coast Biosphere Reserve, ME Halvorsen (private landowner) and Yzerfontein Urban Conservancy. The main motivations were:  No alternatives had been investigated;  Concerns with regard to the potential impact on birds; and  Concerns with regard to the visual impact of turbines. Feb 2003 Acting minister of DEA&DP upheld the appeal on the basis of concerns regarding alternatives and impacts on birds. The ruling held that the proponent should lodge a new application with the same department for authorisation if they wish to proceed. March 2004 Proponent motivated decision to refer the decision to the national Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT):  The project has implications for national environmental policy;  The project has the potential to affect the environment across the borders of provinces (due to the clean production of electricity);  The project is taking place in an area of national and international importance, namely the buffer zone of the CWCBR. March 2004 DEAT was identified as the appropriate authorising agency and a Scoping process was initiated to fulfil legislative and DEAT requirements. Oct 2004 Scoping Report was submitted to DEAT (in conjunction with the findings from the 2002 EIA). Feb 2005 RoD was issued for Phase 1 of the project (four 1.3MW turbines). 2006 Darling Wind Power (Pty) Ltd was set up as a public private partnership between DARLIPP, CEF and DBSA. 2006 Darling Wind Power (Pty) Ltd entered into a Power Purchase Agreement with the City of Cape Town. This is a 20 year agreement and contributes towards the City achieving its targets for renewable energy. Nov 2006 Construction EMP and draft Operational EMP completed. Dec 2006 OEMP and draft OEMP submitted to DEAT. Feb 2007 Construction EMP approved by DEAT. Draft operational EMP approved, final version to be submitted to DEAT. Feb 2007 Construction of the project commenced including monitoring as set out in the CEMP. March 2008 Environmental closure and completion of compliance review of the construction of the project. March 2008 Operational Management Plan drafted by Ecosense for the short to medium term management of the project. May 2008 Operation of the Darling National Demonstration Wind Farm

Darling Wind Power (Pty) Ltd (DWP) is a public private partnership between the private developer DARLIPP, CEF (Pty) Ltd which manages renewable energy interests on behalf of the Government and the Development Bank of Southern Africa (DBSA). The DWP was responsible for providing the finance for the operation and maintenance of the Project. A management services agreement was signed in terms of which DWP was to pay DARLIPP a fee for the “services in relation to the project on a day to day and continuous basis, which services include all work, functions or tasks in furthering the project”. Within DWP, DBSA passed financial responsibility to CEF in May 2008.

It is reported by the applicant that due to the funds not being made available by DWP, DARLIPP has

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 12 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

been unable to fulfil legal environmental requirements and contractual commitments. There is currently a legal dispute between DARLIPP and DWP.

Therefore although the project achieved compliance with the Record of Decision (Clause 3.2.14 of RoD), there has been a lack of compliance with respect to certain conditions:

3.2.3 Monitoring programme; 3.2.5 “Develop and implement an OEMP”: this was developed and approved by DEAT, but not implemented; 3.2.15 An independent post‐construction audit must be conducted… before operation commences. In particular, the monitoring of specific environmental impacts such as those on birds and noise would have proved beneficial in guiding decision‐making with respect to further expansion of a wind energy facility in this location and identifying suitable mitigation measures. However, given that certain financial agreements were not honoured, monitoring as required by the RoD has not been undertaken. Determining how to go forward on this issue is complex as the matter is currently being investigated and pending the outcome of a legal dispute.

2.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

There are two components to the Project as it falls onto two different farm portions. The proposed infrastructure on Slangkop (3/552), commonly known as Windhoek Farm, is as follows:

 5‐6 Nordex turbines;  Underground cabling linking turbines to (existing) substation; and  Internal roads ‐ stabilised dirt tracks to access each turbine.

The proposed infrastructure on Kerrie Fontein (0/555) is as follows:

 9‐10 Nordex turbines;  New 66/11kv substation;  Underground cabling linking turbines to substation;  Direct connection with existing overhead power lines linking substation to national electricity grid, no new overhead power lines required;  Internal roads – stabilised dirt tracks to access each turbine.

2.3 WIND TURBINE TECHNOLOGY

Wind turbines are made up of three key components: a steel tower, a nacelle which is positioned on top of the tower and includes the gearbox, shafts, generator, controller and brake; and the rotor which comprises the three blades and a hub in the middle. See Figure 2.1 below.

Electricity is produced when wind blows over the turbine blades, causing them to lift and rotate. The rotation of the rotor, which includes the blades and the hub, spins the shaft/s in the nacelle, which connects to the generator to make electricity. The gearbox assists in achieving a higher rotational

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 13 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

speed through a connection between a low speed and high speed shaft. Kinetic “movement” energy is converted to electrical energy.

The controller ensures that the machine only operates between certain wind speeds, and the braking system includes rotor blades and hydraulic disc brakes to stop the machine when maintenance is required or in an emergency. The generators are connected to transformers that change the voltage for distribution purposes. The electricity produced can be fed into the national electricity grid.

The capacity of the Project will be 20‐21 MW depending on the technology and the number of turbines used. At this stage Nordex, a German manufacturer of wind turbines, is the preferred supplier. Depending on the technology alternatives selected in the EIA phase, there will be either 14 or 16 turbines erected, each with a nominal power of 1.5 or 1.3 MW each. Each turbine will have a hub height of 60‐70 m and a blade length between 29 m and 37.5 m. See Section 4.4 which describes the ‘Technology Alternatives’ for the Project.

Figure 2.1: Nordex turbine (adapted from Nordex SE photo)

2.4 CONSTRUCTION

2.4.1 Construction Period

The Project is planned for construction commencing first half of 2012, and is expected to take approximately 6‐9 months. Commissioning and testing of the individual turbines will require one month thereafter.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 14 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

2.4.2 Construction Activities

Site Preparation

Prior to any civil works, site preparation is required and will involve a survey, soils investigations and setting out.

Access Roads

Access within the site needs to be established prior to any other construction activities taking place. The alignment of these roads will depend on the final site layout as they will remain as part of the operational infrastructure. Access to the site for the construction phase will be via the existing road off the R315 across Windhoek Farm. The access roads will be required to accommodate vehicles of varying loads and dimensions transporting heavy machinery including cranes as well as the turbine components and may need upgrading. Long low loaders will be used to transport the components from Cape Town and the largest truck will require a minimum access radius of 15 m and a width of 5 m. The manoeuvrability of these vehicles has been taken into account when aligning the roads straight up Moedmaag Hill instead of meandering along the contours. The roadworks plant will most likely require a grader, digger loader, excavator, rollers, a water cart and tippers.

Temporary Facilities and Laydown Areas

A temporary construction compound will be required to provide support facilities for the staff and labour involved in construction. Facilities required will include a site office, stores, and welfare facilities (including facilities such as ablutions and change rooms).

A temporary laydown area will be required alongside each proposed turbine, approximately 1,600 m2 becoming 875 m2 permanently during operation (see Appendix 3.1). This will support the cranes, allow for blade storage and provide an area in which the parts can be assembled. A storage and laydown area is also required for civil engineering components during construction (2,000m2) and associated plant is likely to require a dumper, a rough‐ terrain, mobile crane and a truck for transport of materials and labour.

Turbines

Prior to turbine assembly, foundations works will be required. The foundations would require excavation, they would be approximately 3.5 ‐ 4 m deep with an average diameter of 21 m depending on the ground conditions. Each turbine would generate approximately 1,386 m3 of excavated material, which along with the other spoil generated, would be used on site to level and build up the turbine platforms and used in road construction. There are also possibilities to use spoil to fill erosion dongas and old sand mining areas elsewhere on the farm which can then be capped with topsoil for rehabilitation. Any soil removed from site would need to meet the requirements of the waste management specifications of the EMP. Foundations will be constructed from steel, gravel and concrete. See Plate 3.1 below for a photo during foundation construction of the Darling Wind Farm. Topsoil and subsoil will be removed and stored during this process and will be backfilled upon completion.

One turbine will be erected at a time. The tower will be erected section by section, using two cranes. The nacelle will be lifted into position at the top of the tower. The rotor (including the blades and the hub) will be assembled on the ground and then lifted into position and secured using two cranes.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 15 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

Whilst there are no combustible materials stored within the turbines, fire breaks around the base of each turbine would be required to protect the tower from the risk of fire.

Plate 3.1: Construction of the foundations for the Darling Wind Farm turbines

Plate 3.2: Erection of the turbines for the Darling Wind Farm

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 16 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

Medium‐voltage transformers (mini‐substations) will be constructed at the base of each turbine to transform the voltage to 11 kV. See Plate 3.3 below. Underground cabling will be required to link each mini‐substation with the respective substation and is likely to be positioned alongside access roads to reduce disturbance. Where cabling is required to cross drainage lines, this will be housed in ducting. Trenches will be dug to an approximate depth of 1‐1.5 m

Plate 3.3: Installation of a mini‐substation for the Darling Wind Farm

Electrical Infrastructure and Connections

A new electrical 66/11kV substation will be constructed which will be similar to the existing substation. Construction works will involve site clearance, construction of foundations and other structures, and assembly and installation of the electrical equipment. The construction area for the substation will be clearly demarcated, with a buffer zone and No‐Go zone for protection of the vegetation surrounding the area. This will be monitored and enforced in terms of the EMP.

An existing 66 kV line running parallel to the R27 connects the existing substation to the national grid. It is proposed that the new substation on the Kerrie Fontein Farm is located along this alignment to facilitate a new connection.

Site Remediation

Upon completion of construction and removal of equipment, the temporary works areas will be rehabilitated. Those areas that have been degraded by grazing may be restored to a more natural state and therefore improved. For all temporary or permanent areas of land take, a search, rescue

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 17 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

and replanting of indigenous, valuable and protected species will be undertaken, where practical and viable to enhance the integrity of the site.

2.4.3 Construction Labour and Working Hours

The exact number of construction jobs has not yet been established; however a recent study by Greenpeace has indicated that in South Africa, construction and installation of wind energy facilities accounts for approximately 4.5 job years per MW (Rutovitz, 2010). This would equate to between approximately 90‐ 95 job years generated by this Project.

2.5 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

2.5.1 Permanent Infrastructure

The permanent infrastructure components on the farm portions Slangkop (3/552) and Kerrie Fontein (0/555) has been described in Section 3.4 above and is as follows:

Turbines

As described in Section 3.4 above, the number and type of turbines has not yet been determined. At this stage Nordex, a German manufacturer of wind turbines, is the preferred supplier. There will be either 14 or 16 turbines erected, each with a nominal power of 1.5 or 1.3 MW. Refer to Section 4 which describes the alternatives for the Project. Micro‐siting of the individual turbines will be undertaken once the preferred technology is confirmed and the contractor has been appointed. At the base of each turbine there will be an area of permanent hard standing (875 m2) alongside the foundations for servicing, as well as a medium‐voltage transformer (mini‐substation).

Underground Cabling

Underground 11kV cables will be required to connect the turbines to either the existing or new substation 66/11kV substation. These are likely to be at a depth of 1‐1.5 m and run parallel to the access roads to reduce disturbance. It is proposed that ducts across the drainage lines for cable services are installed.

Substation

The turbines on the portion of Slangkop Farm will be connected to the existing substation on the same farm and the turbines on the Kerrie Fontein Farm will be connected to a new substation on the Kerrie Fontein Farm. The location of the new substation will be along the existing 66 kV line and at the end of the new row of turbines. The substation platform would be approximately 36.5 m x 23 m with an approximate footprint of 840 m² and would be bunded. The substation would convert the electricity from 11kV to 66kV and would comprise a switchyard and building accommodating the control room/s, battery room and ablutions. The building would be approximately 6.5 m x 17 m (110.5 m2) and located within the platform footprint. The architectural style of the new substation will be similar to the existing substation, which is built in a ‘West Coast Vernacular’ style, see Plate 3.4 overleaf.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 18 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

Plate 3.4: The existing substation for the Darling Wind Farm

Overhead Transmission Lines

Eskom overhead transmission lines already exist on the respective portions of Slangkop and Kerrie Fontein farms and form part of the national grid. The new Kerrie Fontein substation will be located along this alignment to make use of the connection direct to the grid.

Internal Roads

As on the portion of the Slangkop Farm, stabilised dirt tracks of 5 m width to access each new turbine will be required, as well as to access the substation. Location of the internal access roads will also be dependent on the micro‐siting of the turbines.

Site Access

The access to turbines located on the Kerrie Fontein Farm will be via the existing access to the site from the R27, while access to those on Slangkop Farm will be via the existing road from R315. Access for heavy transport and construction vehicles during the operational phase will be from the R315 via the existing road on Windhoek Farm (portion of Slangkop 552).

2.5.2 Operational and Maintenance Activities

After commissioning, the operation and maintenance of the turbines will be monitored remotely by Nordex. There is an operational office in Langefontein Farm servicing the existing turbines and this will be expanded to accommodate additional technical equipment. See Section 3.5.3 below for the additional staffing requirements.

Maintenance will be carried out throughout the lifetime of the turbines. A maintenance schedule usually involves an initial inspection after commissioning, a semi‐annual inspection, an annual

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 19 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

inspection and two and five year inspections but this varies between types of turbine. Typical activities during maintenance include changing of oil, replacement of brake lining and cleaning of components.

Operational traffic will therefore be limited and typically involve light vehicles.

2.5.3 Operational Labour

A recent study commissioned by Greenpeace has indicated that in South Africa, operation and maintenance of wind energy facilities accounts for approximately 0.72 jobs per MW (Rutovitz, 2010). This would equate to between 14 and 15 jobs generated by this Project. These include skilled mechatronics engineers (specialised in both electrical and mechanical engineering) likely to be recruited from the West Coast, Darling area and trained by the manufacturer, as well as less skilled services such as safety and security, and mechatronic assistants.

The Oelsner Group is planning on developing a training centre on Langefontein Farm which would provide various levels of training relating to the servicing of operational wind energy facilities. It is intended that this would increase the local skills base and support this Project and others of its kind within the region.

2.5.4 Surrounding Land Uses

The current agricultural and mining activities on Windhoek (the portion of Slangkop) will continue within the respective areas on the farm, whilst the adjacent areas of the Kerrie Fontein farm will be conserved in a natural state and managed accordingly. The portion of Kerrie Fontein farm falling east of the R27 is subject to a Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act (Act 70 of 1970) application with the Department of Agriculture, and would be managed separately to the rest of the farm with the aim of promoting conservation.

2.5.5 Operational Period

The Project is expected to be operational from early 2013 and a 20 year lease has been signed with the landowner/s on Windhoek. As described in Section 3.5.4 above, there are plans to subdivide and purchase the relevant land areas of the Kerrie Fontein Farm. The facility has an estimated lifespan of 25 years after which it will be:

 Extended in use for a minimum of five years dependent on a lease extension; or  Decommissioned.

2.6 DECOMMISSIONING

The infrastructure has a design life of a minimum of 25 years. At the end of this period, or at the end of the lease period decommissioning will occur.

Decommissioning involves the removal of all of the component parts of the turbines (towers, nacelles, rotors and transformers). The concrete footings will remain in the ground and will be covered with soil of a sufficient depth to allow farming to continue. Only the small centre section will be visible which is similar to a crop of rock formation. The scrap value of the turbines is sufficient to fund decommissioning. Supporting infrastructure that is no longer required will also be removed from the site and either disposed of or recycled.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 20 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

2.7 THE PROPOSED DARLING EDUCATION, TRAINING AND VISITOR CENTRE

Although not part of this application for the Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm, a Visitor Centre is proposed on Windhoek Farm. The Centre is subject to a separate environmental authorisation process and an amendment application is pending a decision from DEA&DP. The Project cost is estimated as R35 million and there has been investment in the design involving various studies by a consultant team, including: architects, engineers (civil, acoustical engineers, electrical and mechanical), landscape design, land surveyors, management consultants, and wind technology consultants.

The Visitor Centre conceptualised by the Oelsner Group in 2003 is a component of the application for the Kyoto Protocol CDM (as described in Section 3.8 below) through the Gold Standard certification. The British High Commission funded a preliminary design produced by Edward Cullinan Architects (a London based firm) subsequently revised by Fagan and Fagan. The architects have a world‐wide reputation for the design of low energy buildings that are responsive to the climate and to local conditions. The aim is that the building would exemplify sustainability so that it comes to form part of the exhibition itself. Materials will be largely selected for their durability and maintainability as well as ensuring as far as possible that they originate from sustainable and local sources. The Centre itself is divided into three principal areas:

 Visitor Facilities: entrance area, shop, exhibition space and restaurant;  Education and Training: seminar rooms for two groups of thirty students and library; and  Conference: main lecture room for up to 100 delegates with break out spaces.

Sustainable Design elements include inter alia thatch rooves, stone floors, natural ventilation, use of grey water and renewable energy generation. An important component of the Project would be the rehabilitation of the 20 ha site, which is former agricultural land, to its natural state. This would include measures to eradicate alien vegetation, burning, hydro‐seeding and plant propagation involving local species and eventually reintroduction of selected fauna. Other elements include parking, a village to accommodate visitors, a demonstration turbine, a demonstration reed filtration bed, rural energy demonstration, demonstration farm, demonstration gardens, bird hide, picnic sites, lake and river walk. See Appendix 3.2 for the proposed layout of the Centre.

The site for the Visitor Centre comprises a 20ha portion of the Windhoek Farm (Slangkop 3/552). At present a large area of the site is considered degraded from ploughing and grazing; and plant diversity has been largely reduced with many areas having no vegetation cover. Heavy alien infestation is also an issue for biodiversity. As a key component of the Visitor Centre, it is proposed that 18 ha of the site would be rehabilitated with local indigenous vegetation which is expected to take 6‐7 years. R4 million has been allocated towards the rehabilitation programme. There are synergies in having the Darling Demonstration Project and potentially the Kerrie Fontein Project linked to Centre, namely through the educational initiatives, including the demonstration models listed above.

In line with the Oelsner Group’s Darling Sustainable Energy and Employment Scheme (SEES) it is intended that the Centre would provide basic training and employment for local residents encompassing trades as builders, electricians, plumbers, mechanics, and other associated trades. Furthermore, training will be facilitated through the rehabilitation process with the aim of setting up local contracting businesses to work on similar developments in the area; and the restaurant,

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 21 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

kitchen, and canteen facility would provide a venue for training for students in the catering and tourism business. Estimates of visitor numbers to the Centre range from 30,000 to 50,000 visitors in the first year of operation and it is expected that the Centre would become a key tourist attraction within the region. In terms of education, it is anticipated that the facility will create an awareness of and promote renewable energy through the provision of tangible demonstrations of renewable technology applications.

2.8 INTERNATIONAL CARBON OFFSET MECHANISMS AND FUNDING

The present global trend towards renewable energy is largely based on initiatives to reduce the dependency on fossil fuels, the emission of greenhouse gases and their impacts on climate change. One of the mechanisms to reduce the impacts of climate change on an international scale is the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) established under the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1997. The CDM allows an industrialised country to implement an emission‐reduction project in developing countries to earn saleable certified emission reduction (CER) credits, which can be counted towards a country’s official emission counts and hence towards meeting Kyoto targets (UNFCCC, 2010)

Each host country is required to establish a Designated National Authority (DNA) to evaluate and approve the operation of each project through consideration of sustainability criteria and indicators (economic, social, environmental and general project acceptability). Further to this, the Project must qualify for CDM through a “rigorous and public registration and issuance process designed to ensure real, measurable and verifiable emission reductions that are additional to what would have occurred without the project” (UNFCCC, 2010)

The DME are the South African Designated National Authority for the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) of the Kyoto Protocol. The Oelsner Group submitted a Project Identification Note to the DME in April 2009 and received a Letter of No Objection in response. The documentation states that the Project will result in an estimated emissions reduction of 63,360 tCO2e per year.

In addition, the Project in combination with the proposed ‘Darling Education, Training and Visitor Centre’ (described in Section 3.7 above) is seeking Gold Standard certification which is “an independently audited, globally applicable best practice methodology for project development that delivers high quality carbon credits of premium value along with sustainable development co‐benefits associated with the projects”. The certification is issued by the Gold Standard Foundation which was established in 2003 by non‐governmental organisations (NGOs), including the Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF), SouthSouthNorth and Helio International. The environmental and social requirements of Projects applying for the Gold Standard are higher than those set out in the framework of the Kyoto Protocol. There has been widespread support of the standards as evident by the number of NGOs that have since joined the Gold Standard signifying a general acceptance of the standard of the certification process amongst environmental communities. Gold Standard projects “cut back on emissions from the very beginning by promoting renewable energy and energy efficiency projects that serve to improve environmental, economic and social conditions for recipient communities, while at the same time addressing climate change” (Gold Standard, 2010).

Achieving CDM approval will allow the Project to qualify for funding from ‘atmosfair gGmbH’.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 22 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

atmosfair gGmbH was founded in Germany in 2005 as a joint initiative of ‘forum anders reisen’2 and the environment and development organisation Germanwatch3 with the support of the German Federal Environment Agency (atmosfair, 2010). atmosfair provides a voluntary service to travellers who wish to offset the greenhouse gas emissions of their individual flights through the sale of an atmosfair certificate. The donations are invested in climate change projects in developing countries. These projects are registered CDM projects and adhere to the CDM Gold Standard certification. atmosfair projects are therefore certified by UN‐accredited monitoring organisations (atmosfair, 2010).

2 ‘Forum anders reisen’ is an association of German tour operators promoting sustainable development www.forumandersreisen.de 3 Germanwatch is a German North‐South initiative that is committed to economic and ecological reorientation in the North. Germanwatch provides the foundation for necessary policy changes in the North which preserve the interests of people in the South) www.germanwatch.org

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 23 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 24 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

3 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES

3.1 INTRODUCTION

Alternatives are defined in the NEMA EIA Regulations as “different means of meeting the general purpose and requirements of the activity”. It is the duty of the competent authority to consider “any feasible and reasonable alternatives to the activity which is the subject of the application and any feasible and reasonable modifications or changes to the activity that may minimise harm to the environment”. It is also recommended that alternatives should be identified as early on in the process as possible, although the iterative nature of the process allows new alternatives to be addressed should they arise through the PPP.

Alternatives may include location or site alternatives, activity alternatives, design layout, technology alternatives and operational aspects. Broadly, there are two types of alternatives:

 Discrete alternatives – different means of achieving the general purpose, e.g. wind power instead of solar power; and  Incremental alternative – modifications of the proposed activity in terms of design, layout in order to prevent and/or mitigate environmental impacts identified during the assessment process.

Categorising the 10 types of alternatives presented in DEAT’s (2004) Information Series on ‘Alternatives in EIA’, two of the ten would constitute ‘discrete alternatives’, namely, activity and demand alternatives. The other eight would fall into the domain of ‘incremental alternatives’, specifically location, process, scheduling, input, routing, site layout, scale, and design alternatives.

With respect to discrete alternatives, these are generally identified in the early pre‐feasibility and feasibility stages of a project. The strategic level alternatives of the mix and contribution of renewable energy generation types in South Africa has been considered in the draft National Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) published by the Department of Energy (DoE) in consultation with National Energy Regulator of South Africa (NERSA) discussed in Section 5 (Need and Desirability). This Scoping process only considers the generation of wind energy.

According to the Guidelines on Alternatives issued by DEA&DP (2006), it is best practice to consider at least two alternatives against the No‐Go Option. This Scoping and EIA will include consideration of the No‐Go Option, Technology alternatives and Design and Layout alternatives.

3.2 NO‐GO ALTERNATIVE

The No‐Go alternative assumes that the Project is not developed and the activity does not go ahead. This alternative can provide the baseline scenario against which other alternatives can be compared. In this case the benefits of the Project would be foregone and the opportunity to generate renewable energy for reaching provincial and national targets would not be achieved in this instance and the feasibility of the existing wind farm would be compromised. Similarly any direct and indirect socio‐economic benefits for the wider area would not be realised. Although, no negative environmental or social impacts would arise as a result of the Project, the continued grazing on the

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 25 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

Kerrie Fontein Farm east of the R27 would accelerate transformation and degradation of the natural vegetation.

3.3 SITE AND LOCATION ALTERNATIVES

The Darling Demonstration Project has been operational on the farm Slangkop (3/552) since 2008. As described in Section 1.1 and Section 3.1, the original proposal for this site was a maximum of 10 turbines and approval was only granted for four. It is therefore the intention to expand the original wind farm to its original planned capacity, with an additional number of turbines to match this capacity proposed on the adjoining farm Kerrie Fontein (0/555). A pre‐application meeting was held with DEA&DP (Pre‐application meeting, Feb 2010) and it emerged that there will be no other site location alternatives for consideration in the EIA as the Project is associated with extension of an existing wind farm.

3.4 TECHNOLOGY ALTERNATIVES

The preferred manufacturer and supplier for the wind turbines is a German company named Nordex. Two types of turbines have been considered, the N60 and N77. The N60 is smaller with a lower output per turbine which would require more turbines to achieve the desired capacity. The N77 is slightly larger with an increased capacity per turbine. Table 3.1 below sets out the two alternatives, or options, which have been considered and assessed. Option 1 is technically preferable based on technical performance, namely grid stability (Eskom) and yield performance. See Figure 1.2 and Figure 1.3 which depict the proposed layouts for both options.

Table 3.1: Turbine models and capacity alternatives Option 1 Option 2 Type of Turbine N77 N60 Design configuration Low and moderate High wind conditions wind conditions Total No.Turbines 14 16 No. Turbines on Slangkop 5 6 No. Turbines on Kerrie 9 10 Fontein Capacity per Turbine 1.5 MW 1.3 MW Total Capacity 21 MW 20.8 MW Rotor speed 9.9/17.3 rpm 12.8 /19.2 rpm Rotor diameter 77 m 60 m Swept area 4,657 m2 2,828 m2 Blade length ±37.5 m 29 m Hub height 70 m 60 m

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 26 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

3.5 SITE LAYOUT ALTERNATIVES

Site layout alternatives allow for consideration of different spatial configurations of the activity on a particular site. For this Project, site layout alternatives are directly related to the technology which is selected. The preferred technology has dictated the number of turbines required and hence the potential layout for Option 1 and 2. The positioning of the turbines has been undertaken in collaboration with Nordex, who have modelled the efficiency of the wind resource for each configuration. From there, the turbines for both options were rearranged to avoid the areas of botanical sensitivity identified during the Scoping Phase by Helme (2010). The preferred option is the N77. This is based on favourable yield performance; reduced footprint; and avoidance of highly sensitive vegetation for the turbine positions. The internal access road linking the northern and southern rows of turbines has also been realigned to avoid the medium sensitivity vegetation as far as possible. Although it has been recommended by the visual specialist that the new substation be located as close as possible to the existing station, or combined with the existing substation, this is not feasible as the Project falls across two farms with different lease arrangements.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 27 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 28 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

4 NEED AND DESIRABILITY

4.1 INTRODUCTION

According to the DEA&DP Guideline on Need and Desirability (August 2010), the EIA process is responsible for evaluating whether the Project is justified in terms of environmental, social and economic sustainability. Consideration of the strategic context of the proposed Project along with the broader societal needs and the public interest is required. The guidelines go further to state that the need and desirability of the Project must be measured against the contents of the current developmental and spatial planning documents, thus aligning with the vision for the area. Specifically, “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”(p:9).

4.2 NEED

The legislation and policy context for energy and specifically renewable energy in South Africa is listed in Table 5.2 and also discussed in Section 6.3 (Energy Legal and Regulatory Framework). The key legislation and policy is briefly reiterated here. The National Energy Act (Act 34 of 2008) aims to ensure that diverse energy resources are available, in sustainable quantities and at affordable prices, to the South African economy in support of economic growth and poverty alleviation. The Act recognises that environmental management requirements are taken into account in planning and that increased generation of renewable energies is required.

The White Paper on Renewable Energy (2003) recognises that the potential for renewable energy in South Africa is significant and is a policy setting out how renewable energy will be promoted and implemented. The White Paper sets a target of 10,000 GWh renewable energy contribution to final energy consumption by 2013. This renewable energy is to be produced mainly from biomass, wind, solar and small‐scale hydro.

The strategic level mix and contribution of renewable energy generation types in South Africa has been considered in the National Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) published by the Department of Energy (DoE) in consultation with National Energy Regulator of South Africa (NERSA). The IRP was promulgated in May 2011 and is a long‐term electricity capacity plan that directs expansion of the

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 29 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

electricity supply over the period of 20 years. Its stated objective is to provide a mechanism by which electricity systems, sustainability and government policy requirements are met, and more specifically what the appropriate mix of technologies is to meet the needs of the country.

The NERSA Renewable Energy Feed‐In Tariff (REFIT) Guidelines published in 2009 under the Electricity Regulation Act (Act 4 of 2006) guarantee attractive rates of payment for renewable energy sold back to the grid, thereby encouraging investment in the various sub‐sectors of renewable energy. In 2010, NERSA published ‘Rules on Selection Criteria for Renewable Energy Projects under the REFIT Programme’ which sets out criteria with which Independent Power Producers (IPPs) must comply in order to qualify for licences. It is the intention for this Project to qualify for REFIT. For wind energy projects, the preferred size for such a project is ≥ 20 MW and this threshold has provided the justification for the proposed capacity of this Project. However, at present the 2009 rates are under review.

In the Western Cape, the White Paper on Sustainable Energy for the Western Cape Province (2010) sets out a target for the Province. It is stipulated that 15% of electricity consumed in the Province will come from renewable energy sources by 2014 (measured against 2006 Provincial consumption).

As this legal and policy framework depicts, it has been recognised that in order to fulfil international commitments to sustainable development and climate change, renewable energy is to be promoted and this will ensure a diversification of electricity supply and energy security. As stated by Edkins et al (2010a, p:v), “it seems that the renewable energy market in South Africa is set to go, especially since the announcement of REFIT”.

More specifically, wind energy is one of a number of freely available sources for renewable power generation. Hagemann (2008) has produced a Wind Atlas for South Africa through modelling the climatological wind speeds. This is shown in Figure 4.1 overleaf. The research has shown that overall the country’s wind resource “is comparable to some of the windiest markets overseas” (Hagemann, 2008). The Wind Atlas has also shown that all three Cape Provinces have a significant inland wind resource. Although Edkins et al (2010b) have asserted that wind power is one of the most mature new renewable technologies in use throughout the world today, the industry is still in its infancy in South Africa. Given the wind resources and the policy framework above the wind industry has huge potential.

The key environmental benefit of wind energy generation is climate change mitigation. Although wind energy generation may have a number of potential site specific impacts on the environment, as assessed within this EIR, other important benefits are as follows:

 Very small footprint for turbines and associated infrastructure;  Allows for co‐use of land in either agricultural or natural areas;  Minimal water consumption; and  No direct atmospheric emissions.

In terms of implementation, the technology is mature and considered low‐risk in comparison to other types of renewable energy (Edkins et al, 2010b). Economic benefits are often limited, as suggested by the findings of a recent publication by Greenpeace Africa (Rutovitz, 2010). The study has shown that in South Africa it is estimated that about 4.5 jobs/MW will be generated during the construction, manufacture and installation of wind turbines which is the lowest of all forms of energy generation. However, the potential for job creation through manufacturing is significant and

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 30 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

the highest of all energy generation sectors at about 22.5 jobs/MW, with the next highest being PV at 16.8 jobs/MW. Operational jobs are estimated to be 0.72 jobs/MW which is average over the range of generation technologies and only fractionally superseded by PV at 0.73 jobs/MW.

In South Africa technology and skills would be imported initially, however, there would be some local economic opportunities in the long term, for example, developing the component manufacture industry would be the first step towards retaining some of these benefits (Edkins et al, 2010b). Section 13 (Social Impact Assessment) addresses the likely socio‐economic impacts of this Project in particular and the estimated number of jobs per MW.

Figure 4.1: Annual average wind speeds at 10m above ground in ms‐1 (Hagemann, 2008)

Renewable energy production is recognised as a way of meeting sustainability objectives. A number of sustainable energy goals of the Western Cape are set out Table 4.1 overleaf (as identified in the Western Cape White Paper on Sustainable Energy, 2010).

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 31 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

Table 4.1: Sustainable energy goals Social sustainability Goal 1: Alleviate energy poverty. The links between energy poverty and under‐development clearly exist. While the poor do have electricity, households either have no or few electrical appliances. If they do these are typically very inefficient appliances for example old refrigerators or hot plates for heating and cooking. Many of the informal settlements are regularly the scenes of large scale fires caused by the use of paraffin stoves in unsafe conditions. The cost of preparing meals or heating a room is typically higher for the poor than for people who can afford efficient and appropriate technologies. Time spent to access energy also disadvantages the poor. Goal 2: Improve the health of the nation. Energy efficiency and increased use of renewable energy reduces the atmospheric emission of harmful substances such as smoke, oxides of sulphur and oxides of nitrogen. Such substances are known to have an adverse effect on health and are frequently a primary cause of common respiratory ailments. The health of the nation includes improving the health of the individual through improved indoor climate as well as the outdoor climate. Poor air quality (pollution) impacts on health and contributes to increases in respiratory diseases. Environmental sustainability Goal 3: Reduce harmful emissions. Improved energy efficiency and increased use of renewable energy are cost effective methods to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, thereby combating climate change. Addressing climate change opens the door to utilising additional finance mechanisms such as the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) to reduce CO2 emissions Goal 4: Reduce negative footprints in our environment. The use of fossil fuels has a documented negative impact on the regional and local environment and biodiversity. The negative impact includes but is not limited to, ground water pollution and air pollution. Any reduction in the use of fossil fuels through switching to cleaner energy sources and more efficient energy uses is a success. Economic sustainability Goal 5: Enhance Energy Security. The South African power black‐outs that started first in the Western Cape in early 2006 alerted the Province to its energy vulnerability. It is essential that the Western Cape increases its resilience against external energy supply disruptions and the massive price fluctuations caused by national or international decisions. Goal 6: Improve economic competitiveness and job creation. It has been demonstrated internationally that one of the ways to improve economic competitiveness is by improving industrial and commercial energy efficiency. Support of industrial best practice energy management as a tool to stay competitive and improve the economy is important. Source: Western Cape White Paper on Sustainable Energy, 2010

It is therefore evident that the current environment for renewable energy is an enabling one and IPPs for wind energy in particular would be able to play a part in providing a more socially, environmentally and economically sustainable form of energy.

4.3 DESIRABILITY

Desirability or ‘placing’ of the development has been assessed on more than one level. It must first be reiterated that this Project is an extension to an existing facility, the Darling National Demonstration Wind Farm. At the time (1996), there were no established criteria on which to guide the siting of wind turbines and the reasons for siting the Demonstration Wind Farm in its current location are as follows as (EEU, 2004):

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 32 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

i. Maximum remoteness from existing and planned residential areas; ii. Maximum remoteness from coastal and sensitive nature areas; iii. Close proximity to the national grid; iv. Good wind regime of location – determined by observing existing plant and tree structures; v. Elevated terrain with wind pressure and wind speed build‐up; vi. Easy access from public roads; vii. Preferably east of the R27 for environmental reasons (the area west of the R27 is close to the coast and is currently regarded as a key area for the establishment of conservancies); and viii. Potential to secure an arrangement with the landowner in order to enable development and operation of the wind farm.

As described in Section 3.1 (Background Information), the Darling National Demonstration Project was always comprised of two phases, with the second phase to follow should the first be considered successful. Phase 2 was originally intended to deliver a further six turbines on the same site. However, the publication of the NERSA ‘Rules on Selection Criteria for Renewable Energy Projects under the REFIT Programme’ (2010) has stipulated that the minimum size of a wind energy facility is 20 MW. To qualify for these subsidies, the applicant has progressed with a wind farm proposal that will involve the minimum number of turbines to achieve the required 20 MW. The Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm is therefore considered desirable in order to reach the original capacity intended for the Darling National Demonstration Project.

The review of developmental and spatial plans and their relevance to the Project is documented in Section 6.4 (Development and Spatial Policy). While the Swartland Municipality and the West Coast District Municipality both realise the importance of tourism in the area, and the designation of the R27 as a regional transport corridor, they also realise the importance of renewable energy and list other important criteria such as protection of biodiversity, agricultural and cultural resources. For the Project there is an opportunity to manage the biodiversity of the site which would otherwise be compromised by alien vegetation, grazing and trampling by livestock and other activities continuing on the two farms. With this in mind, it is considered that despite the visual impact of the facility, the net benefits make the facility desirable, especially since it is currently the smallest renewable energy proposal in the West Coast District and involves the extension of an existing facility.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 33 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 34 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

5 LEGAL, PLANNING AND POLICY CONTEXT

5.1 SUMMARY OF LEGAL, PLANNING AND POLICY FRAMEWORK

All legislation, plans and policies relating to the proposed Project, either in terms of environmental management, renewable energy or spatial planning, has been included in the tables below. Table 5.1 provides a summary of the relevant environmental legislation and policy, and spatial planning documents. Table 5.2 thereafter sets out the relevant energy legislation and policy. Only the key legislation and policy, is described in relation to the Project in Sections 6.2, 6.3 and 6.4 below. Guidelines specifically applicable to EIA are referred to in Section 6.5 thereafter.

Table 5.1: Relevant environmental and development legislation and policy International Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development in (2002): Johannesburg Declaration National Legislation Constitution of the Republic of South Africa ( 1996) National Environmental Management Act (107 of 1998): EIA Regulations, 2006 & 2010 Environment Conservation Act (73 of 1989) (ECA) National Heritage Resources Act (25 of 1999) (NHRA) National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (10 of 2004) National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act (57 of 2003) National Water Act (36 of 1998) National Environment Management: Air Quality Act (Act 39 of 2004) National Environmental Management: Waste Act (59 of 2008) Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act (43 of 1983) National Veld and Forest Fire Act (101 of 1998) Occupational Health and Safety Act (85 of 1993) Hazardous Chemical Substances Regulations (1995) Policy and Planning White Paper on Environmental Management Policy for SA (1997) White Paper on Conservation and Sustainable Utilisation of Biodiversity (1997) National Framework for Sustainable Development (NFSD) (2008) Provincial Legislation Land Use Planning Ordinance (LUPO) (1985) Western Cape Nature Conservation Board Act (15 of 1998) Western Cape Planning and Development Act (1999) Western Cape Nature Conservation Laws Amendment Act (3 of 2000) Western Cape Planning and Development Amendment Bill (2002) Western Cape National Environmental Management Protected Areas Bill (2003) Western Cape Tourism Act (2004) Policy and Planning Bioregional Planning Framework for the Western Cape Province (2000) White Paper on Sustainable Tourism Development and Promotion in the Western Cape (2001) Western Cape Sustainable Development Implementation Plan (SDIP) (2007) Ikapa Growth and Development Strategy (2008) Western Cape Provincial Spatial Development Framework (PSDF) (2009)

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 35 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

Municipal Policy and Planning West Coast District Spatial Development Framework (Draft, 2007) West Coast District Integrated Development Plan (IDP) (2010‐2014) West Coast Tourism Implementation Strategy (2010‐2015) Swartland Municipality Spatial Development Framework (2002) Swartland Municipality Integrated Development Plan (IDP) (2007‐2011) Swartland Municipality Ward 5 Plan (2011)

Table 5.2: Relevant energy legislation and policy International The Copenhagen Accord (2009) Kyoto Protocol (1997) (Including Clean Development Mechanism 2006) Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development in (2002): Johannesburg Declaration United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (1992) National Electricity Act (41 of 1987) White Paper on the Energy Policy of the Republic of SA (1998) Implementation Strategy for Renewable Energy in South Africa (2000) White Paper on Renewable Energy (2003) Electricity Regulation Act (4 of 2006) National Energy Act (34 of 2008) Energy Security Master Plan – Electricity: 2007‐2025 (2008) Electricity Regulations on New Generation Capacity (2009) NERSA, South Africa Renewable Energy Feed‐In Tariff (REFIT): Regulatory Guidelines, 26 March 2009 (Phase 1) NERSA, South Africa Renewable Energy Feed‐In Tariff (REFIT): 29 October 2009 (Phase 2) NERSA, Rules on Selection Criteria for Renewable Energy Projects under the REFIT Programme (2010) NERSA, Consultation Paper, Review of Renewable Energy Feed‐In Tariffs (REFIT) (2011) Final Integrated Resource Plan for Electricity (2011) Provincial White Paper on Sustainable Energy for The Western Cape Province (2010) A Proposed Renewable Energy Plan of Action for the Western Cape: Resource Assessment, Scenarios, Proposed Objectives and Actions (May 2007) Western Cape Sustainable Development Implementation Plan (August, 2007) Western Cape Sustainable Energy Strategy and Programme of Action (March 2008) A Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan for the Western Cape (March 2008) Strategic Initiative to Introduce Commercial Land Based Wind Energy Development to the Western Cape: Towards a Regional Methodology for Wind Energy Site Selection (2006) (Not legislated)

5.2 ENVIRONMENTAL LEGAL AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

The applicable environmental legislation and its relevance to the Project is summarised below.

5.2.1 The Constitution, Act 108 of 1996

The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (Act 108 of 1996) has been adopted as the supreme law of the country and forms the foundations for a democratic society in which fundamental human rights are protected. In terms of the environment, Chapter 2 Section 24 states that everyone has a right:

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 36 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

a) To an environment that is not harmful to their health or well‐being; and b) To have the environment protected, for the benefit of present and future generations, through reasonable legislative and other measures that ‐ i. prevent pollution and ecological degradation; ii. promote conservation; and iii. secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources while promoting justifiable economic and social development.

Relevance to the Project

Encouraging investment in the renewable energy sector demonstrates government commitment to protecting the environment from future resource depletion, as well as conservation of natural resources while promoting economic development.

5.2.2 National Environmental Management Act (107 of 1998) (NEMA)

NEMA (107 of 1998) is the key legislation setting out the framework for environmental management in South Africa. The Act promotes cooperative environmental governance and establishes principles for decision‐making on matters affecting the environment. An overarching principle in Chapter 1 emphasizes that development must be socially, environmentally and economically sustainable. Sustainable development is considered to include the following:

i) That the disturbance of ecosystems and loss of biological diversity are avoided, or, where they cannot be altogether avoided, are minimised and remedied;

ii) That pollution and degradation of the environment are avoided, or, where they cannot be altogether avoided, are minimised and remedied; iii) That the disturbance of landscapes and sites that constitute the nation’s cultural heritage is avoided, or where it cannot be altogether avoided, is minimised and remedied; iv) That waste is avoided, or where it cannot be altogether avoided, minimised and reused or recycled where possible and otherwise disposed of in a responsible manner; v) That the use and exploitation of non‐renewable natural resources is responsible and equitable, and takes into account the consequences of the depletion of the resource; vi) That the development, use and exploitation of renewable resources and the ecosystems of which they are part do not exceed the level beyond which their integrity is jeopardised; vii) That a risk‐averse and cautious approach is applied, which takes into account the limits of current knowledge about the consequences of decisions and actions; and viii) That negative impacts on the environment and on people’s environmental rights be anticipated and prevented, and where they cannot be altogether prevented, are minimised and remedied. Specifically, Chapter 5 deals with Integrated Environmental Management and promotes the application of appropriate tools. The ‘EIA Regulations’ published in GN R385 of April 21 2006 in terms of Section 24(5) of NEMA require that certain activities listed in GN R386 of April 21 2006 will require a ‘Basic Assessment’, and those in and GN R387 of April 21 2006 will require a ‘Scoping and EIA’ respectively before they can proceed.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 37 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

Relevance to the Project

This Project includes a number of listed activities which collectively form part of the proposal. Those activities falling under GN R387 trigger the requirement for a Scoping and EIA and are described in Table 5.3 whilst those falling under GN R386 are set out in Table 5.4 thereafter.

Table 5.3: Activities requiring Scoping and EIA Government Notice 387, 1 (a) The construction of facilities or infrastructure, including associated structures or infrastructure, for– (a) the generation of electricity where – (i) the electricity output is 20 megawatts or more; or (ii) the elements of the facility cover a combined area in excess of 1 hectare;

Table 5.4: Activities requiring Basic Assessment Government Notice 386, 1 (l) the transmission and distribution of electricity above ground with a capacity of more than 33 kilovolts and less than 120 kilovolts; Government Notice 386, 14 The construction of masts of any material or type and of any height, including those used for telecommunication broadcasting and radio transmission, but excluding ‐ (a) masts of 15 metres and lower exclusively used (i) by radio amateurs; or (ii) for lighting purposes (b) flag poles; and (c) lightning conductor poles. Government Notice 386, 15 The construction of a road that is wider than 4 metres or that has a reserve wider than 6 metres, excluding roads that fall within the ambit of another listed activity or which are access roads of less than 30 metres long.

Amended EIA Regulations – 2010

The NEMA EIA Amendment Regulations of 2010 were promulgated on 18 June 2010 and came into effect on 2 August 2010 to replace the previous EIA Regulations promulgated on 21 April 2006. These Regulations appear in Government Notice No. R 543, R 544, R 545, R 546 and R 547 in Government Gazette No. 33306 of 18 June 2010. The procedure and criteria for the submission, processing and consideration of, and decision on, applications for environmental authorisations is set out in GN R543 and the three new Listing Notices are set out as follows: Listing Notice 1 (R544), Listing Notice 2 (R545) and Listing Notice 3 (R546).

GN543 (76) makes provision for transitional arrangements in relation to applications that are pending. If the situation arises whereby the application involves listed activities similar to those set out in the 2006 EIA Listing Notices, then the competent authority may authorise the application under the previous 2006 EIA Regulations as if they had not been repealed. If there is an activity not listed under the previous EIA Regulations, then the application may only be dispensed on the condition that all impacts of the newly listed activity and requirements of these regulations have also been considered and adequately assessed by the applicant.

Appendix 6.1 sets out a comparison of the 2006 Listed Activities relevant to the Project and compares the activities to those listed in the 2010 Regulations. All activities are considered and adequately assessed as required by the Regulations.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 38 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

5.2.3 Environment Conservation Act (73 of 1989) (ECA)

The Environment Conservation Act (ECA) has been partially superseded by the promulgation of NEMA. There are however some chapters of the Act that remain in force (until specifically repealed by NEMA) and these relate to the protection of the natural environment and the control of environmental pollution.

Relevance to the Project

Section 8 of the ECA refers to national noise regulations with regard to the control of noise, vibration and shock. These regulations define noise, vibration and shock and make provision for the prevention, reduction or elimination of them. The Western Cape Province has however, promulgated their own Provincial Noise Control Regulations, adopted in Provincial Notice 627 of 1998 in terms of Section 25 of the ECA.

Section 20 of the ECA sets out waste disposal requirements however most of this has been repealed by the Waste Act (59 of 2008).

5.2.4 National Heritage Resources Act (25 of 1999) (NHRA)

The purpose of the NHRA is to introduce an integrated and interactive system for the protection of South Africa’s heritage resources including paleontological, prehistoric and historical material (including ruins) more than 100 years old (Section 35), human remains (Section 36) and non‐ruined structures older than 60 years (Section 34). Landscapes with cultural significance are also protected under the definition of the National Estate (Section 3 (3.2d)). South African National Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA) is the enforcing authority and in the Western Cape, the authority has been delegated to Heritage Western Cape (HWC) for most cases.

Relevance to the Project

In terms of Section 38 of the Act, for certain categories of development, the authority requires notification of the intent to develop. The aim is to provide the necessary information to enable Heritage Western Cape to decide whether a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) will be required, and to establish the appropriate scope of and range of skills required for the HIA. This form was submitted to Heritage Western Cape along with the Draft EIR and they have commented that no further studies are required.

5.2.5 National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (10 of 2004)

The Act provides for the management and conservation of South Africa’s biodiversity within the framework of the NEMA; the protection of species and ecosystems that warrant national protection; the sustainable use of indigenous biological resources; the fair and equitable sharing benefits arising from bio‐prospecting involving indigenous biological resources; and the establishment and functions of a South African National Biodiversity Institute.

Relevance to the Project

Chapter 4 in particular relates to threatened and protected ecosystems and species and related threatening processes and restricted activities. The EIA has taken into consideration those indigenous species listed as threatened or protected species in terms of Section 56(1) of the Act.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 39 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

5.2.6 National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act (57 of 2003)

The Protected Areas Act relates to the declaration and management of protected areas, nature reserves and World Heritage Sites. In terms of this Act, no person may enter or reside in the reserve or site without the written permission of the management authority.

Relevance to the Project

Although the proposed site does not fall within a protected area, the West Coast National Park (WCNP) is within 5 km of the site to the north‐west. The WCNP extends west towards the coast and northwards to Langebaan and is adjacent to the Sixteen Mile Beach Marine Protected Area (MPA) which falls within 10 km of the Project. The Yzerfontein Local Nature Reserve is located approximately 10 km to the west of the Project. The Tienie Versveld Wild Flower Reserve belonging to the National Botanical Institute adjoins the R315 1‐2 km south of the site. The proximity of these reserves has been taken into account in the EIA where relevant.

5.2.7 National Water Act (36 of 1998)

The Act provides the framework for the sustainable management of South Africa’s water resources. It aims to protect, use, develop, conserve, manage and control water resources as a whole, promoting integrated water resource management that involves participation of all stakeholders. The Act declares the national government to be the public trustee of the nation’s water (and groundwater) resources as well as prioritising socio‐economic and environmental needs. The Act is administered by the national Department of Water Affairs (DWA) via regional offices.

Relevance to the Project

Section 19 refers to pollution prevention and places responsibility on the person who owns, controls or uses the land to take all reasonable measures to prevent pollution of a water resource from occurring, continuing to occur or recurring as a result of activities on land. Prescribed waste standard or management practices require compliance.

Section 21 classifies ‘water use’ in respect of requiring a license and these include (a) taking water from a water source; (i) altering the bed, banks, course or characteristics of a watercourse and (j) removing, discharging or disposing of water found underground if it is necessary for the efficient continuation of an activity or for the safety of people. Should the Project require the abstraction of water through the borehole on the site or require access roads which may require crossings over the watercourses on the site, the relevant licensing procedures may apply as set out in Sections 40‐42.

5.2.8 National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act (39 of 2004)

The Act aims to protect the environment and the health and well‐being of people, through prevention of air pollution and ecological degradation whilst promoting justifiable economic and social development. The Act makes provision for national, provincial and local ambient air quality and emission standards.

Relevance to the Project

Although Regulations have not yet been promulgated, Section 32 and 34 set out measures relating to the control of dust and noise which would be applicable to the construction phase of the Project.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 40 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

5.2.9 National Environmental Management: Waste Act (59 of 2008)

In order to protect the environment, the Waste Act regulates waste management by providing reasonable measures for pollution prevention and ecological degradation thus securing ecological sustainable development. Some of its key objectives are listed below:

(a) Minimising the consumption of natural resources; (b) Avoiding and minimising the generation of waste; (c) Reducing, re‐using, recycling and recovering waste; (d) Preventing pollution and ecological degradation; and (e) Securing ecologically sustainable development while promoting justifiable economic and social development.

Relevance to the Project

Chapter 4 sets out waste management measures. In particular, Part 3 (reduction, re‐use, recycling and recovery of waste) and Part 5 (storage, collection and transportation of waste) are of relevance to the construction phase of the Project and are referred to in the Draft EMP (Ecosense, 2011).

5.2.10 Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act (43 of 1983) (CARA)

The Act provides the framework for control of utilisation of the natural agricultural resources in South Africa to promote the conservation of soil and water resources and vegetation (including wetlands) and aims to combat and control weeds and the elimination of invader plant species.

Relevance to the Project

Section 5 relates to the prohibition of the spreading of weeds and invader plants and Regulation 15 makes provision for these types of plants. The botanical survey identified alien invasive species in the wider area as classified in the Act. The EIA has therefore considered management of alien species. Section 6 of the Act refers to control measures and this is further detailed in the Regulations R1048, GG9238 of 25 May 1984. Measures relating to conservation of agricultural resources also related to the management of wetlands and water courses; run‐off; vegetation; veld fires; veld which has been burned; and soil erosion, may also be applicable to the Project.

5.2.11 National Veld and Forest Fire Act (101 of 1998)

This Act serves a dual purpose being firstly established to prevent and combat veld, forest and mountain fires throughout South Africa and secondly to provide for a variety of institutions, methods and practices for the achieving this. It has numerous implications for fire prevention and fire fighting.

Relevance to the Project

Section 12(1) relates to the duty of the landowner to prevent fire from spreading to adjoining properties. The veld on site may be prone to veld fires in the dry summer months, as documented in the Draft EMP, and fire prevention procedures have been set out in the to reduce the risk of fire and to respond accordingly during both construction and operational phases (Ecosense, 2011).

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 41 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

5.2.12 Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act (70 of 1970)

The original aim of the Act was to prevent the subdivision of agricultural land to the extent where the new portions created are too small to support economically viable farming. The Act requires that owners of agricultural land obtain consent from the Minister of Agriculture to subdivide agricultural land. Any sale of a proposed subdivision is invalid if it is entered into before ministerial consent is granted. The Act was repealed by the Subdivision of Agricultural Land Repeal Act (64 of 1998) but that Act has not been put into operation yet.

Relevance to the Project

The Project falls within land zoned as Agricultural owned by two separate landowners. A subdivision and rezoning is therefore required. To support and inform the Land Use Planning Ordinance (15 of 1985) application for subdivision and rezoning of agricultural land, the Applicant is commissioning a study which addresses the potential land value and takes into account the potential agricultural value of the land. Consent from the Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries will be sought.

5.2.13 Occupational Health and Safety Act (85 of 1993)

This Act provides the legal framework for the health and safety of persons at work and for those in connection with the use of plant and machinery. According to the Act, the ‘health and safety standard’ is defined as any standard, irrespective of whether or not the force of the law, which if applied for the purpose of this act will in the opinion of the Minister promote the attainment of an object of this Act.

Relevance to the Project

The Act is primarily aimed at ensuring the health and safety of persons at work and visitors and specifies the basic systems that need to be in place and measures that need to be taken (Ecosense, 2011). Section 9(1) in particular relates to the responsibility of the employers to provide and maintain as far as reasonably realistic a safe working environment that is not detrimental to the health of the employees and this would be applicable throughout the lifespan of the Project.

5.2.14 Hazardous Chemical Substances Regulations (1995)

According to regulations, a hazardous chemical substance is defined as “any toxic, harmful, corrosive, irritant or asphyxiant substance, or a mixture of substances for which:

(a) An occupational exposure limit is prescribed (b) An occupational exposure is not prescribed, but which creates a hazard to health”

The regulations provide guidelines for the employers and employees on various ways to prevent health hazards and thus maintain the well‐being of those involved in the proposed development.

Relevance to the Project

Section 9A(1) relates to handling of hazardous chemical substances and in terms of the Project, the safety of people working with hazardous chemicals (specifically fuels), as well as safe storage, use and disposal of containers needs to be ensured (Ecosense, 2011).

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 42 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

5.3 ENERGY LEGAL AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

5.3.1 National Energy Act (34 of 2008)

This Act aims to ensure that diverse energy resources are available, in sustainable quantities and at affordable prices, to the South African economy in support of economic growth and poverty alleviation.

Relevance to the Project

The Act recognises that environmental management requirements are taken into account in planning and that increased generation of renewable energies is required.

5.3.2 White Paper on the Energy Policy of the Republic of South Africa (1998)

The White Paper (national energy policy) aims to ensure that national energy resources will be efficiently used and developed to provide for the needs of the South African people. It was formulated to address the supply and consumption of energy over the following 10 years. The policy lays out a set of Energy Sector Policy Objectives which include: increasing access to affordable energy services, improving energy governance, stimulating economic development, managing energy‐related environmental and health impacts and securing supply through diversity. These objectives have been formulated to help with the transformation of certain industries and governance systems. Energy policy priorities have also been developed to help in achieving these policy objectives. The document identifies the significance of the medium and long‐term potential of renewable energy, with the advantages of minimal environmental impacts and higher labour intensities than conventional energy generation technology.

Relevance to the Project

The White Paper is in support of renewable energy as indicated above and acknowledges that Projects such as this one could contribute to sustainable economic growth and development.

5.3.3 White Paper on Renewable Energy (2003)

The White Paper on Renewable Energy follows on from the White Paper on the Energy Policy of the Republic of South Africa and reinforces South Africa’s commitment to promoting renewable energy through the Johannesburg Declaration as part of the Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development (2002). The Government’s vision, policy principles, strategic goals and objectives for promoting and implementing renewable energy in South Africa are outlined and discussed within this White Paper. The White Paper further informs the public and international community of the Government’s vision and how it intends to achieve these objectives, and ensures that any Government organisations and organs are notified of their roles in attaining these objectives. The main purpose of this document is to ensure that the renewable energy resources are used most effectively. According to Section 5 of the White Paper, the South African government has set a 10‐ year target for renewable energy in order to achieve a sustainable renewable energy industry:

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 43 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

“10 000 GWh (0.8 Mtoe) renewable energy contribution to final energy consumption by 2013, to be produced mainly from biomass, wind, solar and small‐scale hydro. The renewable energy is to be utilised for power generation and non‐electric technologies such as solar water heating and bio‐fuels. This is approximately 4% (1667 MW) of the projected electricity demand for 2013 (41539 MW)” (Executive Summary, ix).

Relevance to the Project The Project has the potential to contribute 20‐21 MW of solar‐generated energy towards the national renewable energy targets as set out in the Paper.

5.3.4 Renewable Energy Feed‐In Tariff (REFIT)

The NERSA Renewable Energy Feed‐In Tariff (REFIT) Guidelines published in 2009 under the Electricity Regulation Act (Act 4 of 2006) guarantees attractive rates of payment for renewable energy sold back to the grid, thereby encouraging investment in the various sub‐sectors of renewable energy and supporting the national renewable energy targets for 2013. The REFIT Phase I tariffs include quotas for wind, small hydro, landfill gas and concentrated solar power (CSP) and following public commentary was expanded to include additional technologies under REFIT Phase II. The REFIT Phase II tariffs include quotas for CSP: solar trough without storage and central tower, and photovoltaic systems: large ground or roof based and concentrating photovoltaic (CPV), biomass solid, and biogas. These regulations present a barrier to renewable energy deployment in South Africa as capacity will be capped once the targets are reached (Edkins et al, 2010a).

In March 2011 NERSA published a Consultation Paper on the Review of REFIT Tariffs. It was intended that rates would be revised ‘on the basis of technological and price developments internationally’ would be significantly lower than those rates published in 2009 (Creamer, 2011). In terms of wind energy, it was proposed that the rate for wind energy set at R1.25/kWh, would be reduced to R0,95/kWh by 2013. Recently, NERSA failed to meet the mid‐June deadline for releasing the revised rates and at present there is also uncertainty regarding the authority of NERSA and the legality of a fixed price procurement process which has caused doubt within the industry.

Relevance to the Project

REFIT would provide incentives to renewable energy developers, rendering developments economically feasible, and would enable the achievement of national renewable energy targets. It is understood that the Project would be able to generate power for sale under the R1.25/kWh tariff (potentially reduced to R0.95/kWh) for wind energy projects.

5.3.5 Integrated Resources Plan (IRP) 2011

The strategic level mix and contribution of renewable energy generation types in South Africa has been considered in the draft National Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) published by the Department of Energy (DoE) in consultation with National Energy Regulator (NERSA). The IRP is a long‐term electricity capacity plan that directs expansion of the electricity supply over the period of 20 years. Its stated objective is to provide a mechanism by which electricity systems, sustainability and government policy requirements are met, and more specifically what the appropriate mix of technologies is to meet the needs of the country. The investment strategy includes implications arising from demand‐side management (DSM) and pricing, as well as capacity provided by all generators (Eskom and independent producers).

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 44 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

The first plan, IRP1, was approved in January 2010; however due to strong debate across many sectors, IRP2 underwent a public participation process mid 2010. Modelling and scenario analysis was refined and the draft IRP2010 was published October 2010 and underwent a further extended period of public consultation, closing late 2010. The Final IRP2010 was promulgated on 6 May 2011.

In sum, the IRP includes the following with regards to renewable energy:  “The construction of Eskom’s 100 MW Sere wind farm;  Phase 1 of the Renewable Energy power purchase programme linked to the NERSA Renewable Energy Feed‐In Tariff (REFIT1) programme amounting to 1,025 MW (made up from wind, concentrated solar power (CSP), landfill and small hydro options);  A wind programme in addition to the REFIT1 wind capacity, commencing in 2014, of a minimum 3,8 GW;  A solar programme in addition to the REFIT1 solar capacity, commencing in 2016, of a minimum 400 MW;  A renewable programme from 2020, incorporating all renewable options, inclusive of wind, CSP, solar photo‐voltaic, landfill, and hydro, amongst others) of an additional 7,2 GW” (Draft Report, October 2010, p: vii).

Relevance to the Project

The IRP2010 recognises renewable energy as a critical component of the energy mix going forward. There has however been criticism that the build up to renewable energy is slower than anticipated and that there is a reliance on nuclear and coal for baseload scenarios (Creamer, 2010).

5.3.6 Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan for the Western Cape (2008)

The aim of this strategy is to strengthen the Western Cape’s resilience and adaptability to climate change especially within vulnerable economic sectors and communities, and maintain relatively low greenhouse gas emissions within the Province. This strategy is divided into two parts, the first part ‘The need for a response to climate change in the Western Cape’ considers climate change and the socio‐economic context of the Western Cape and sets out the need for a climate change response in the Province (p:29).

The Western Cape is a relatively low emitter compared to other parts of the country. Most of the electricity produced in South Africa comes from coal‐fired stations in Mpumalanga and this sector contributes significantly to South Africa being the 19th largest global emitter of greenhouse gases.… There is sufficient evidence that reliance on fossil fuel‐based energy sources is no longer a solution to the Western Cape’s energy security issues, nor to local air quality problems.

The second part of the strategy ‘The response strategy and action plan’ sketches the actions required to implement the Western Cape’s climate response strategy. The goals of the strategy are as follows:  Maximised and strengthened provincial resources;  Improved knowledge and monitored progress;  Developed and managed resources for a vibrant economy: establish clear linkages between stewardship, livelihoods and the economy; and  Reduced carbon footprint.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 45 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

Relevance to the Project

One of the goals of the Response Strategy and Action Plan is to reduce the carbon footprint of the Province, and this includes the support of clean and renewable technologies to generate energy. This Project is a renewable energy facility and directly responds to this call for a more sustainable form of energy generation. Furthermore the creation of jobs will raise community awareness and contribute to livelihood goals of the strategy.

5.3.7 White Paper on Sustainable Energy for the Western Cape (2008)

In response to national initiatives and a provincial commitment to reducing reliance on fossil fuels, the White Paper on Sustainable Energy signifies a move towards a more sustainable path of energy production and use. The 2014 Sustainable Energy Vision for the Western Cape is as follows (p:8):

“The Western Cape has a secure supply of quality, reliable, clean and safe energy, which delivers social, economic and environmental benefits to the Province’s citizens, while also addressing the climate change challenges facing the region and the eradication of energy poverty.”

The vision of the White Paper is therefore to balance energy use within the three spheres of sustainability, seeking to reduce the negative impacts of energy usage on human health development and to encompass efficient energy use practices, through promotion of a more affordable energy use. The White Paper supports a mix of renewable and clean energy technologies set out as follows: the “target for renewable energy electricity generation for the Western Cape must equal 15% of the baseline energy consumption by 2014. This is effectively 9.45 million GJ or 2650 GWh”.

Relevance to the Project

The Project has the potential to contribute 20‐21 MW of wind‐generated energy towards the provincial renewable energy targets as set out in the White Paper.

5.3.8 Strategic Initiative to Introduce Commercial Land Based Wind Energy Development to the Western Cape (2006)

The PGWC developed the ‘Strategic Initiative to Introduce Commercial Land Based Wind Energy Development to the Western Cape: Towards a Regional Methodology for Wind Energy Site Selection’ in 2006. This was in response to the increasing wind energy proposals and the need to find a balance between national and provincial renewable energy initiatives and local planning and environmental considerations. Subsequently, as a follow on from this work, PGWC (DEA&DP) commissioned a ‘Regional Strategic Environmental Assessment of sites suitable for wind farms’ and the outcomes are pending.

As set out in Oberholzer and Lawson (2011), the PGWC Report of 2006 provides a broad guiding framework for the location of wind energy development in both urban and rural areas, based on the sensitivity and capacity of landscape types and the scale of the Project. The Report indicates that, in the rural context, where most commercial wind farms will be located, large scale ‘open’ landscapes and/or ‘disturbed’ rural landscapes are preferred for the siting of wind farms. The Report further states the following in the Executive Summary:

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 46 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

“A. Commercial Wind Energy development should be excluded from:

 Areas of high aesthetic landscape value, particularly national parks and provincial nature reserves and other wilderness areas; and  Areas where technical and safety considerations apply. B. Wind energy should be encouraged:

 At strategic locations identified in a Regional Wind Plan to be prepared by the relevant planning authority;  Where they are well located in terms of visual impact, technical and safety criteria and landscape, environmental and planning criteria;  In large concentrated wind farms rather than small dispersed locations where the distance between large wind farms is at least 30km, and ideally exceeding 50km;  In appropriate urban and industrial “brownfield” sites;  Where visual disturbance to the landscape has already occurred (e.g. power transmission lines); and  At the local scale where individual turbines (not exceeding 50m in total height) could provide power to small users”. Table 5.5 overleaf, from the 2006 Report and cited in Oberholzer and Lawson (2011), provides a list of regional criteria, including key criteria to be mapped at a local project level, for proposed wind farms. These criteria have, however, not been legislated and only serve as guidelines.

Relevance to the Project

According to Oberholzer and Lawson (2011), through application of the above guidelines for wind farms as a yardstick, the proposed Project meets all of the criteria in Table 5.5 above apart from the following:

 The facility is located in proximity to two ‘Local Tourist Routes’ namely the R27 and the R315 and falls outside the recommended 2.5 km buffer, although this buffer is an assumption made for local importance and can be reduced.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 47 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

Table 5.5: List of regional criteria for wind farms Criteria Buffer Notes 1 Urban Areas 800 m This distance adequately covers noise and flicker criteria at the local level 2 Residential Areas (including rural *400 m Threshold adequately covers noise and flicker at the local dwellings) level 3 Transport Routes 3a National Roads 13 km Depends on scenic value of route. Can be reduced. 3b Local Roads *500 m Review if high scenic value 3c Provincial Tourist Routes 4 km Statutory scenic drives 3d Local Tourist Route 2.5 km Assumption made for local importance. Can be reduced. 3e Railway Lines 250 m No distinction drawn between passenger and goods lines. Also, rail corridors usually visually disturbed 4 Transmission Lines 4a Major Power Lines 250 m 4b Cell Phone Masts + *500 m To be captured at local scale Communication Towers 4c Radio + Navigation Beacons *250 m Capture at local scale 5 Key Infrastructure/Airports 5a Airport with Primary Radar 25 km Should be eliminated at regional level 5b Local Airfield 2.5 km To be confirmed with agency. 5c National Security Sites (e.g. 15 km To be discussed with agency concerned. Should be eliminated Koeberg) at regional level. 6 National Parks + Provincial 2 km Should be eliminated at regional level Nature Reserves 7 Protected Areas 7a Mountain Catchments *500 m To be captured at local level 7b Protected Natural Environment 2 km Should be eliminated at local level 7c Private Nature Reserves *500 m Could be negotiated at local level 8 Coast and Rivers 8a Distance to Coastlines of 4 km Should be eliminated at regional level Undisturbed Scenic Value 8b Distance to Rivers *500 m Only perennial rivers mapped at regional level‐site level to account for all hydrology and geology 8c Distance to 1:100 Year Floodline *200 m To be mapped at local level 9 Sensitive Areas (Avian) 9a Distance to Major Wetlands 2 km Should be eliminated at regional level (Ramsar Sites) 9b Distance to Local Wetlands *500 m Map at local level 9c Distance to Bird Habitats or Avian *1 km Assumed specific breeding sites dealt with at EIA level Flight Paths where known 10 Topographical 10a Slope and elevation * Key considerations at local level; see visual and site assessment criteria 10b Distance from Ridge Lines * Major ridgelines eliminated at regional levels, local level to identify ridgelines/skyline issues 11 Vegetation * Distance to Important * To be mapped at local scale Indigenous/Remnant Vegetation (*) Key Criteria to be Mapped at Local Project Level. Source: Provincial Government of the W. Cape and CNdV Africa, 2006.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 48 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

5.4 DEVELOPMENTAL AND SPATIAL POLICY

5.4.1 Western Cape Provincial Spatial Development Plan (2009)

The Provincial Spatial Development Plan (PSDF) is a provincial wide structure plan that guides the spatial development of the Western Cape addressing challenges such as “urban sprawl, environmental recklessness and inequality”. The PSDF provides for directives and guidelines to aid decision‐makers in the land use planning and environmental sector to consider whether or not the proposed development would be desirable in terms of economic, social and ecological sustainability. The Plan sets out a number of objectives and action plans.

Relevance to the Project

Objective 5 aims to conserve and strengthen the sense of place of important natural, cultural and productive landscapes, artefacts and buildings and the environmental sustainability. This is of relevance to the Project as the landscape is valued for its rural / natural characteristics and visual intrusion of the facility may impact this sense of place. This is addressed in the Visual Impact Assessment.

Objective 8 aims to protect biodiversity and agricultural resources which is relevant to the Project and has been addressed through a botanical assessment that has indicated no significant impacts on these resources, whilst co‐use with existing agricultural activities will be maintained.

Objective 9 sets out to minimise the consumption of scarce environmental resources, particularly water, fuel, building materials, mineral resources, electricity and land are objectives related to minimising landscape impacts. Although the detail design of the Project is not yet available, considerations have been set out in the EIR and EMP to reduce the impact on environmental resources.

5.4.2 West Coast District Spatial Development Framework (WCDM‐SDF) (2007)

The overarching aim of the West Coast District Spatial Development Framework (WCDM‐SDF) is to provide a spatial framework within which the sustainable development of the district and its specific resources can be carried out. The Framework is intended to be broad‐scaled and centred on principles and significant issues to the district as a whole. The principle focus of the SDF is on spatial elements. The WCDM‐SDF consists of six main objectives namely: aligning future settlement and investment with places of economic and resource potential‐ also taking into account efficiency at the regional level; facilitating job creation, correction of existing negative developmental legacies of the past; conservation and strengthening of a sense of place for all; and ensuring the wise use of existing resources and conservation of biodiversity resources.

Relevance to the Project

The Saldanha to Cape Town corridor, namely the West Coast Road, has been identified as a development corridor with important biodiversity areas. It has also been recognised that there are areas of heritage / palaeontological and tourism importance which need to be accounted for in strategic planning. Particular issues identified which are relevant to this Project are as follows:

 Inappropriate location, planning and design of developments threaten tourism;  There is a need to harness wind energy;

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 49 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

 The fragmentation of agricultural land, e.g. smallholdings and ‘rural living’ has negative effects;  Integration of biodiversity aspects with planning and development exercises;  Inadequate conservation practices, e.g. fire management, harvesting, alien invasion. All of these issues are considered within the EIR.

5.4.3 West Coast District Municipality Integrated Development Plan (2010‐2014)

The integrated planning approach for the West Coast District is documented in the IDP which focuses on bulk service delivery as well as major and future developments in the region and the associated potential to alleviate poverty and enhance economic growth. The vision of the Municipality is based on the promotion of social and economic development whilst also facilitating a safe and healthy environment.

Relevance to the Project

The IDP recognises national targets for renewable energy and indicates the possibility of a wind facility near Darling. The IDP therefore supports the Project in principle. At a more local level, the !Khwa ttu Centre is identified as a heritage tourism node which is in proximity to the Project. Potential impacts have been addressed through the VIA and SIA.

5.4.4 West Coast Tourism Implementation Strategy (2010‐2015)

The Tourism Implementation Strategy for the West Coast region was drafted with the intent that it would be implemented by the West Coast District Municipality and tourism stakeholders in the West Coast to help increase the development of the Tourism Industry within the region. The strategy includes a Strength, Weaknesses, Opportunity and Threat Analysis (SWOT) analysis, a proposed shared vision and goals, and a strategy and action plan for implementation.

Relevance to the Project

The Strategy identifies the West Coast National Park as one of the core tourism products of the West Coast and the proximity of this Park is a consideration of the Project. Other strengths are based on the diversity of landscape, topography and natural attributes which allow for nature and adventure based tourism. The EIR addresses the landscape, visual and potential tourism impacts of the Project through a VIA and SIA. Although not directly relevant to this Project but rather relevant to the associated Visitors Centre proposed on the Windhoek farm, the Strategy has identified a limited supply of conference and meeting venues with accommodation, which this associated proposal would address.

5.4.5 Swartland Municipality Integrated Development Plan (2007‐2011)

The Swartland Municipality Integrated Development Plan (IDP) is the fundamental strategic plan for the Municipality through which development planning is managed. The IDP takes into account the issues and problems unique to the area and proposes appropriate strategies and projects to address these in a manner which supports long term sustainable development. The long term vision supports diversification the economy to redirect the focus on secondary and tertiary industries in order to reduce the percentage of people active in elementary occupations and to increase the average

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 50 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

income. This would also reduce the reliance on agriculture as the dominant sector. The town of Darling has been recognised as an increasingly popular tourist and retirement village in a rural setting and co‐operation with the tourism assets of Yzerfontein is recommended. The R27 is also identified as a regional transport corridor.

Relevance to the Project

The IDP does not address the emerging industry of renewable energy. However, the IDP documents the key social and economic characteristics and aspirations for the Municipal area. The proposed Project lies between two recognised tourism nodes, Darling and Yzerfontein, and at the intersection of the R27 (a regional transport corridor) and the R315. It is therefore important that the Project does not detract from the vision of the Plan to develop this tourism focus. Although not directly relevant to this Project but rather relevant to the associated Visitors Centre proposed on the Windhoek farm, there exists the potential to assist with job creation and add to the tourism offer which accords with the vision for the area.

5.4.6 Cape West Coast Biosphere Reserve Spatial Planning

A report by Dennis Moss (1999) sets out the proposed conceptual zoning of the Cape West Coast Biosphere Reserve (CWCBR) in the application submitted to UNESCO: ‘Proposed Cape West Coast Biosphere Reserve, Application for Nomination’. Transition areas are those areas zoned for development (ranging from farming to resort to urban (residential, commercial and industrial) development). They are seen as areas for ‘cooperation’ where the area's natural resources are sustainably developed for the benefit of those who live there. The Report stated that renewable energy enterprises such as the proposed Darling Wind Farm “would in principle, be promoted strongly in the transition zones of the Biosphere Reserve” (Dennis Moss, 1999:78). These projects would be supported and valued on the basis of reducing emissions from the burning of fossil fuels.

According to CWCBR (2010), the conceptual zonation plan of the CWCBR, which was developed for the designation will change as planning for conservation within the biosphere develops. At present there is a Spatial Development Plan underway which may well reconsider the current zonations.

Relevance to the Project

According to the current zoning for the CWCBR, the Project is proposed within a transition area and is therefore supported and promoted in this location.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 51 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

5.5 EIA SPECIFIC GUIDANCE

5.5.1 National

DEAT has published a series of guidance documents to assist role‐players within the environmental authorisation process set out in the EIA Regulations (Chapter 5 of NEMA, 2006). This is known as the Integrated Environmental Management (IEM) Guidelines Series (2002) and the following documents have been chosen based on their relevancy to guide implementation of this EIA:

 Information Series 2: Scoping;  Information Series 3: Stakeholder Engagement;  Information Series 4: Specialist Studies;  Information Series 7: Cumulative Effects Assessment;  Information Series 11: Alternatives in EIA;  Information Series 12: Environment Management Plans;  Information Series 13: Review in EIA; and  Information Series 15: Environment Impact Reporting.

Other DEAT Environmental Management Guidelines (2006) which are more process specific are set out below:

 Guideline 3: General Guide to the EIA Regulations;  Guideline 4: Public Participation;  Guideline 5: Assessment of Alternatives and Impacts; and  Guideline 6: Environmental Management Frameworks. These guidelines have been referred to during the Scoping and EIA Phases where relevant.

5.5.2 Provincial

The Western Cape DEA&DP published a set of guidelines which should be taken into account when undertaking an EIA in line with NEMA. These were published in August 2010 in response to the NEMA EIA 2010 Regulations and are considered applicable even though the EIA is being undertaken in accordance with the 2006 Regulations:

 Guideline on Transitional Arrangements;  Guideline on Public Participation;  Guideline on Alternatives;  Guideline on Need and Desirability;  Guideline on Exemptions;  Guideline on Appeals; and  Guideline on Generic Terms of Reference for EAP’s and Project Schedules.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 52 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

There are also a number of guidelines published by DEA&DP (2005) which particularly relate to specialists involved in EIAs:

 Guideline for Determining the Scope of Specialist Involvement in EIA Processes (Munster, 2005);  Guideline for the Review of Specialist Input into the EIA Process (Keatimilwe and Ashton, 2005);  Guideline for Involving Biodiversity Specialists in EIA Processes (Brownlie, 2005);  Guideline for Involving Heritage Specialists in EIA Processes (Winter and Baumann, 2005);  Guideline for Involving Visual and Aesthetic Specialists in EIA Processes (Oberholzer, 2005);  Guideline for Involving Economists in EIA Processes (Van Zyl et al, 2005);  Guideline for Involving Hydrogeologists in EIA Processes (Saayman, 2005);  Guideline for Environmental Management Plans (Lochner, 2005); and  Guideline for Involving Social Assessment Specialists in EIA Processes (Barbour, 2005).

These guidelines have been applied where necessary in the Scoping and EIA Phases of the Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm environmental authorisation process.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 53 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 54 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

6 EIA PROCESS AND METHODOLOGY

6.1 INTRODUCTION

The nature of activities included in the development proposal under consideration in this report requires a two phased environmental authorisation process comprising Scoping and an EIA. This Section sets out the aims and objectives of each phase and the steps required to comply with the NEMA EIA Regulations. Figure 6.1 below depicts the activities and responsibilities of the key roleplayers throughout the process ‐ more detail is provided in Sections 7.2 and 7.3 below.

Figure 6.1: The Scoping and EIA process

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 55 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

6.2 SCOPING PHASE

Prior to Scoping, an application was submitted to DEA including a declaration of interest, written consent of landowner and application fee on 21 May 2010. Acknowledgement thereof was received on 26 May 2010. As part of the PPP, the public was notified of the proposed development through a number of channels (see Section 7.2.1) and the Scoping Phase officially commenced on 5 June 2010.

The aim of the scoping process is to determine the ‘scope’ of the EIA. NEMA Chapter 5(28)(e) states that following submission of an application, and integrated with the PPP, the EAP must:

Subject the application to scoping by identifying:

i) issues that will be relevant for consideration of the application;

ii) the potential environmental impacts of the proposed activity; and

iii) alternatives to the proposed activity that are feasible and reasonable.

The parties responsible for input into this process include the EAP, the specialist team of independent consultants and I&APs (persons, organisations or organs of state). The PPP is fundamental to the environmental authorisation process, the channels through which the I&APs were involved are outlined below.

6.2.1 Public Participation

DEAT’s Public Participation Guidelines (2005:2) introduce public participation as follows:

“Public participation is one of the most important aspects of the environmental authorisation process… This stems from the requirement that people have a right to be informed about potential decisions that may affect them and that they must be afforded an opportunity to influence those decisions.”

Public participation is an iterative two way process between the applicant and the EAP, and the I&APs, whether these be individuals, organisations, or organs of state. Within the Scoping Phase the focus as to ensure that all I&APs have been identified and informed as early on in the process as possible, to identify issues based on local or expert knowledge of I&APs, to collect information relating to public needs, values and expectations, and to explore alternatives.

The following channels of communication were used to initiate response from I&APs.

Site Notices

Two site notices, one in English and one in Afrikaans, have been attached to the gate of the portion of the Slangkop Farm (Windhoek) on the R315 to inform the general public using the area of the proposed activities and the environmental authorisation process. Appendix 7.1 contains a copy of the information displayed on the notice boards.

Advertisements

Advertisements have been placed in local and provincial newspapers informing the general public of the proposed activities and the environmental authorisation process (See Appendix 7.2 for the content of the advertisements). The details of publication of these advertisements are listed below:

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 56 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

 Weekend Argus (English), 5 and 6 June 2010;  Die Burger (Afrikaans), 8 June 2010; and  Swartland Monitor (Afrikaans), 10 June 2010. Public notices were posted in the Spar retail outlet in Darling, as well as other locations including local shops and the library in north Darling, Darling Library (Church Street) and the Yzerfontein Municipal Offices (Main Road) to notify the local public of the Project and the environmental authorisation process.

Written Notices

Written notices have been distributed by post to the following (See Appendix 7.3):

 Owners or occupiers of land adjacent to the property (and within 100m of the boundary) on which the proposed activity is to be sited for which an e‐mail address was not available. Written notices have been distributed by e‐mail to the following (See Appendix 7.3):  Owners or occupiers of land adjacent to the property (and within 100m of the boundary) on which the proposed activity is to be sited for which an e‐mail address was available; and additional landowners in the wider vicinity;  National Government: DEA; Department of Energy (DoE);  Provincial Government of the Western Cape: DEA&DP;  West Coast District Municipality: Planning;  Swartland Local Municipality: Municipal Manager; Planning; Development Services, Corporate Services; Strategic Manager; Ward 5 Representative;  Other Municipalities: Saldanha Bay Municipality and City of Cape Town;  Environmental bodies: West Cape Nature Conservation Board; Cape West Coast Biosphere Reserve (CWCBR); SANParks (Regional Manager and Planning and Environmental Coordination); Wildlife and Environment Society of SA (WESSA); Botanical Society of SA; Birdlife South Africa; West Coast Bird Club; Cape Nature; Endangered Wildlife Trust; West Coast Fossil Park; South Africa National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI); Darling Wildflower Society;  Tourism organisations: Western Cape Tourism Board; West Coast Tourism; Darling Tourism; Yzerfontein Tourist Bureau;  Residents: Yzerfontein Urban Conservancy; Residents Association for Darling;  Other: HWC; Energy Research Centre (ERC, UCT); and  Local tourism operators (various).

The e‐mail notices were sent between 14 June 2010 and 21 June 2010 as the process in identifying further I&APs was iterative. The written notices included a copy of the BID which provided all the key information relating to the proposed development, the process, and the opportunities for involvement.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 57 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

Background Information Document

The BID is attached in Appendix 7.4. It includes a Comment Form which encourages I&APs to register and invites initial responses. The BID has also been made available to the general public through deposit in the Darling Library (Church Street) and the Yzerfontein Municipal Office (Main Road). The BID has also been made available on the EEU website.

Public Open Day

A public open day was held at Darling Focus Community Centre on 23 June 2010. Posters were displayed to provide information on the Project and its proposed location. Persons representing the applicant and the EAP team were available to provide further information and answer technical or environmental questions. The aim was to provide the I&APs with an opportunity to query aspects of the development and to provide comments and responses. BIDs were also made available, as where comment sheets. The meeting minutes and attendees are attached as Appendix 7.5.

6.2.2 Specialist Studies

Scoping studies were undertaken by the team of specialists which comprised the following:

 Botanical – Nick Helme (Nick Helme Botanical Surveys);  Avifaunal – Chris van Rooyen (Chris van Rooyen Consulting);  Visual – Bernard Oberholzer (independent landscape consultant) and Quinton Lawson (MLB Architects);  Heritage – Jayson Orton (Archaeology Contracts Office, UCT);  Noise – Adrian Jongens (Jongens Keet Associates); and  Social – Kirsten Scott (EEU, UCT). Impacts on other fauna (other than bats) was scoped out of the assessment, as it was not considered as a significant impact on the following basis:  Previous work undertaken on the Windhoek Farm for the Darling Demonstration Project EIA states that no medium sized fauna were observed on Windhoek Farm, nor evidence thereof (such as burrows), however the smaller fauna such as rare lizards are most likely confined to the koppie. It was scoped out of this study, although it is acknowledged that the current study extends to the neighbouring Kerrie Fontein Farm.  For the current Project, in terms of loss of habitat, the total permanent landtake required for the development is small in comparison to the total site area. In terms of habitats, the Botanical Scoping Study by Helme (2010) has indicated that the majority of the vegetation on site (67%) is of moderate sensitivity as it is transformed through previous cultivation. Furthermore it is recommended that the pristine areas will be avoided for siting of the infrastructure.  During construction, there will be some temporary disturbance however it is anticipated that the smaller fauna which could be displaced would reoccupy the site where natural vegetation remains or is rehabilitated, or remain in similar adjacent natural areas.  Operational activities on the site will be infrequent and will result in minimal disruption to fauna post‐construction. It is therefore expected that there will be no material impacts on fauna during operation.  Furthermore the issue of faunal impacts has not evoked a strong public opinion through the PPP undertaken to date.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 58 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

6.2.3 Draft Scoping Report

The Draft Scoping Report (DSR) was subject to review by I&APs for a 40 day period (12 October 2010 to 12 November 2010). Comments received were collated within the IRR including the formal responses issued by the EEU (see Appendix 7.6). The Final Scoping Report (FSR) was submitted to DEA for approval on 15 December 2010 and received on 3 January 2011. DEA issued a letter of acceptance of the FSR and PoS on 7 March 2011 (see Appendix 1.2).

6.3 EIA PHASE

The EIA Guidelines (DEAT, 2005:11) state that the purpose of the EIA is to:

 Address issues that have been raised during the scoping phase;  Assess alternatives to the proposed activity in a comparative manner;  Assess all identified impacts and determine the significance of each impact; and  Formulate mitigation measures.

The EIA Phase has included a number of detailed specialist studies and has provided I&APs with further opportunities for input. Details are set out below.

6.3.1 Public Participation

A current database of registered I&APs has been compiled and attached as Appendix 2.3. The database has been updated as further I&APs register with the EAP or provided comments. The consultation activities are summarised below:

Meetings

Meetings with the following commenting authorities were held (see Appendix 7.5 for minutes):

 CapeNature (8 November 2010)

Specialist Consultations

As part of the Social Impact Assessment (Appendix 8.6), face‐to‐face and telephonic interviews were undertaken with a number key stakeholders described in further detail in Section 14.

Public Open Day

A public open day was held at The Marmalade Cat in Darling on 2 July 2011. Posters were displayed to provide information on the Project and the findings of the impact assessment. Persons representing the applicant and the EAP team were available to provide further information and answer technical or environmental questions. A short presentation was given to provide information on the Project and the findings of the EIA. A consultant representing ‘atmosfair gGmbH’ presented the Gold Standard accreditation process and undertook an exercise to assess the sustainable development impacts, by using the Sustainable Development Matrix developed by the Gold Standard. The meeting was well attended by members of the local community and I&APs. Comment sheets were made available. The meeting minutes and attendees are attached as Appendix 7.5.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 59 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

Advertisements Advertisements were placed in local and provincial and national newspapers informing the general public of the public meeting and also of the impending comment period for the Draft EIR (see Appendix 7.2 for the content of the advertisements). The details of publication of these advertisements are listed below:

 Swartland Monitor, 16 June 2011, in Afrikaans and English; and  Die Burger, 17 June 2011, in Afrikaans. Review of Draft EIR The Draft EIR was made available to the public for review between 26 July 2011 to 4 September 2011, in hard copy at the Darling Library (Church Street) and the Yzerfontein Municipal Office (Main Road). The report was also made available on the EEU website: http://www.eeu.org.za/thematic‐areas/environmental‐management‐and‐sustainability/kerrie‐ fontein‐and‐darling‐wind‐farm All relevant state authorities and registered I&APs were notified of the comment period by letter and/or email (see Appendix 7.3). The commenting authorities and key I&APs were sent a CD of the report and hard copy on request.

Comments received have been included in the IRR (Appendix 7.6) and where applicable have been the basis for revisions to the Final EIR for issue to the competent authority. Late comments from Heritage Western Cape and Department of Water Affairs have been included in the IRR but not responded to.

6.3.2 Methodology for Assessing Significance

The specialist studies were undertaken in accordance with the Plan of Study set out in the Final Scoping Report. Generic terms of reference were adhered to and standard significance criteria were adopted in line with the Regulations. The methodology for assessing the significance of impacts is largely guided by the DEAT EIA Regulations Guideline Document (DEAT, 1998). The assessment considers construction, operation and decommissioning both before and after the proposed mitigation measures have been implemented according to the following criteria:

Nature and Status

The ‘nature’ of the impact describes what is being affected and how. The ‘status’ is based on whether the impact is positive, negative or neutral. Extent ‘Extent’ defines the spatial or geographical scale of the impact. Table 6.1: Rating of extent Rating Descriptor Local Specified by specialist studies, limited to site and/or immediate surrounds District Cape Winelands Provincial Western Cape National South Africa International Outside South Africa

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 60 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

Duration

‘Duration’ gives the temporal scale of the impact.

Table 6.2: Rating of duration Rating Descriptor

Temporary 0‐1 Short term 1‐5 years Medium term 5‐15 years Long term Where the impact will cease after the operational life of the activity either because of natural process or by human intervention Permanent Where mitigation either by natural process or by human intervention will not occur in such a way or in such a time span that the impact can be considered as transient

Intensity

‘Intensity’ defines whether the impact is destructive or benign, in other words the level of impact on the environment.

Table 6.3: Rating of intensity Rating Descriptor

Low Where the impact affects the environment in such a way that natural, cultural and social functions and processes are not affected. Medium Where the affected environment is altered in terms of natural, cultural and social functions and processes continue albeit in a modified way. High Where natural, cultural or social functions or processes are altered to the extent that they will temporarily or permanently cease.

Probability

The ‘probability’ describes the likelihood of the impact actually occurring.

Table 6.4: Rating of probability Rating Descriptor

Improbable Where the possibility of the impact materialising is very low either because of design or historic experience. Probable Where there is a distinct possibility that the impact will occur. Highly Probable Where it is most likely that the impact will occur. Definite Where the impact will occur regardless of any prevention measures.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 61 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

Effect of Significance on Decision‐making

Table 6.5 will determine whether the significance rating will have an effect on decision‐making or not.

Table 6.5: Effect of significance on decision‐making Rating Effect on decision‐making

Low Where it will not have an influence on the decision. Medium Where it should have an influence on the decision unless it is mitigated. High Where it would influence the decision regardless of any possible mitigation.

Mitigation

To avoid or minimise impacts, each of the negative impacts identified includes details of possible mitigation measures and the degree to which these measures would influence the significance and status of each impact.

6.3.3 Specialist’s Detailed Methodologies

The detailed methodology for each specialist study is set out below and extracted from the respective studies attached as Appendices 8.1 to 8.6.

Bats

Impacts on bats was not identified as a significant issue during Scoping, until CapeNature submitted a comment on the bat issue in response to the Scoping Report. During the last year, the EEU has been following the debate amongst the scientific community around the issue of impact on birds and bats from wind energy facilities. The EEU was aware of the draft best practice guidelines for avian monitoring at wind energy facilities produced by the Endangered Wildlife Trust (EWT) and Birdlife SA and at the time of undertaking the EIA, a similar set of guidelines for bats was not yet published. There was thus uncertainty as to the methodology and the appropriate intensity of bat studies for the EIA process. While the DEA confirmed to us in response to a letter that these guidelines were not yet applicable, they have been endorsed in principle by CapeNature. However, at this late stage in the EIA process, to adopt the protocol for inclusion in the EIA would have significant time and financial implications and represent a long term commitment from the applicant with associated risk given the lack of certainty regarding the potential success in qualifying for the Phase 1 REFIT.

The decision has therefore been taken not to pursue a bat study, given the low significance of the issue, and the risk to the applicant in terms of qualifying for REFIT. If the decision is taken that the guidelines for bat studies and monitoring are a requirement for all wind farm applications then the applicant would address the need for such a study.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 62 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

Botany For the purposes of this assessment, study area boundaries are indicated in Figure 7.1, which is an area of about 450 ha in extent.

A site visit was undertaken on 15 June 2010, and the main areas where infrastructure is proposed were walked, and all identifiable plant species were noted, relevant photographs were taken, and habitats were mapped directly onto a satellite image. The November 2009 Google Earth imagery for this area was used as a basis for the sensitivity mapping, along with some recent, provided aerial imagery.

Given that all extant natural vegetation in the study area is classified either as Critically Endangered or Endangered on a national basis (Rouget et al 2004) it was assumed that all remaining areas of natural vegetation on site were of high botanical sensitivity and conservation value, and this assumption was then tested against on the ground observation. Conservation value and sensitivity of habitats are a product of diversity, rarity of habitat, rarity of species, ecological viability and connectivity, vulnerability to impacts, and reversibility of threats.

The author was able to access the GIS based rare species information (CapeRares database) maintained by CREW (Custodians of Rare and Endangered Wildflowers, based at SANBI, Kirstenbosch), which helped supplement the species information in this report (to a small degree). Confidence levels in the botanical sensitivity mapping is regarded as high, except in some areas where it is difficult to tell the difference between high and medium sensitivity areas, where there has been either light disturbance or particularly good natural rehabilitation

For purposes of this assessment the No‐Go (no development) Option is deemed to mean the continuance of the status quo, which involves use of the existing cultivated land for cultivation, and the use of the extensive areas of natural and partly natural vegetation for livestock grazing. In spite of legislation requiring landowners to manage alien invasive vegetation on their land (Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act) the invasive vegetation on the site is not currently being managed at all, and this situation is likely to continue.

Note that for purposes of this assessment development layout alteration is not considered a form of mitigation, as technically that constitutes a different alternative (or option). Mitigation thus refers to other aspects of the proposed development, such as minimising negative impacts by means of management, and by enhancing positive impacts.

The assessment has been undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the NEMA Regulations as set out 6.3.26.3.2 above. Avifauna

Sources of Information

The following information sources were consulted in the compilation of the report:

 Bird distribution data of the Southern African Bird Atlas Project (SABAP – Harrison et al, 1997) obtained from the Animal Demography Unit of the University of Cape Town, as a point of departure and this data was supplemented with the updated SABAP2 data (May 2007). Additional information on avifaunal habitat use in the Swartland was obtained from the Coordinated Avifaunal Roadcounts (CAR) and Birds in Reserves Project (BIRP) project of the Animal Demographic Unit (ADU) of the University of Cape Town (UCT). Information on

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 63 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

Important Bird Areas such as Dassen Island and the West Coast National Park was obtained from the Important Bird Areas of Southern Africa (Barnes 1998). The national conservation status of all bird species occurring in the area was determined with the use of Eskom Red Data Book of Birds of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland (Barnes 2000). A classification of the vegetation types from an avifaunal perspective was obtained from SABAP1.  An extensive review of relevant international literature on birds and wind farm impacts was conducted in order to contextualise the current proposed development from an international perspective.  The bird impact assessment study completed in February 2003 by Dr. Andrew Jenkins, and the subsequent review by Dr. Andre Boshoff, was consulted.  In addition to the 86 hours of avifaunal monitoring done on site by Jenkins (2003), two additional monitoring periods were implemented in November 2010 and February 2011, totalling 30 hours, using the same protocol as Jenkins.  Information on Black Harrier nesting sites on the West Coast was obtained from Dr. Rob Simmons at the Percy FitzPatrick Institute at University of Cape Town.  The results of observations done by students from the University of Cape Town in 2010 under the guidance of Dr. Rob Simmons at the project site was used as supplementary information.  Information on power line impacts on avifauna in the vicinity of the Project site was obtained from the Endangered Wildlife Trust’s central incident register, for the period 1996 ‐ 2007.

Assumptions and Limitations

The study made the basic assumption that the sources of information used are reliable. However, it must be noted that there are factors that may potentially detract from the accuracy of the information.

The SABAP1 data covers the period 1986 ‐1997. Bird distribution patterns fluctuate continuously according to availability of food and nesting substrate. There are sources of error in the SABAP1 database, particularly inadequate coverage of some areas.

Wind facilities are a relatively new development in South Africa and thus an extensive body of knowledge of avian interactions with wind generation facilities has yet to emerge. Some speculation with regard to how South African birds are likely to interact with the proposed wind facility is therefore unavoidable.

With certain classes of birds, including cranes and bustards, very little research has been conducted on potential impacts with wind facilities world‐wide. The precautionary principle was therefore applied in assessing the potential impacts on species belonging to these classes.

Jenkins (2003) made the recommendation that further monitoring of impacts both during and especially after the construction of the facility should be undertaken. Unfortunately, the recovering and recording all avian casualties at the site did not happen, therefore scientifically verifiable information on actual casualties that may have occurred at the experimental facility is not available.

The monitoring focused primarily on the site itself, specifically with regard to movement through the site, but the occurrence of important habitat adjacent to the Project site was noted. The assumption was made that birds could be moving through the proposed Project site en route to suitable roosting

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 64 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

and foraging habitat outside the Project site. e.g. flamingos commuting between Yzerfontein, Slangkop, Swartwater and Droëvlei pans.

In calculating estimated collision rates, an avoidance rate of 98% was assumed, based on the default recommended by the Scottish Natural Heritage Avoidance Rate Information and Guidance Note. It is recognised that avoidance rates are key to the calculation of estimated collision rates, and that variations of as little as 1% can result in significant variation in estimated collision rates. No estimated collision rates for southern African bird species exist at this point in time.

Recording and Analysis of Data

Up until November 2010, the 86 hours of observations conducted by Jenkins in 2002 – 2003 constituted the only pre‐construction avifaunal data ever recorded in South Africa at a proposed wind farm site. It was therefore decided to continue with the same monitoring protocol for the additional 30 hours of monitoring, conducted over four days in November 2010 and February 2011, for the sake of continuity and comparison. In total 116 hours of monitoring at the site was completed between January 2002 and February 2011. Counts of priority bird species and all raptor species commuting over the development site were conducted from the crest of Moedmaag Hill, facing west along the proposed turbine line. Estimated climatic conditions on the site were recorded at the start of and throughout each count period. In 14 counts, details of the mode of flight (flapping, gliding, soaring), direction of travel, and approximate horizontal (crest, slope, plain) and vertical zoning of bird flight paths was also recorded.

The following analyses were performed to assist in the assessment of collision risk (see results and discussion under Section 10 ‐ Avifauna Impact Assessment):

 Total number of individual birds (priority species and all raptors)  Passage rate (priority species and all raptors)  Passage rate (priority species)  Passage rate vs wind direction (priority species)  Relative use of horizontal and vertical zones (priority species)  Percentage of site use for medium height zone only (priority species)  Percentage of site use for medium height zone only vs wind direction (priority species)  Passage rate per season (priority species)  Passage rate vs time of day (priority species)  Passage rate vs wind strength (priority species)  Potential annual collision rate (priority species and two species of migratory raptors) Visual For the purpose of this study, the ‘site’ is defined as the farms Kerrie Fontein (0/555) and Slangkop (3/552). The larger ‘study area’ includes the surrounding area, specifically the view catchment area, or viewshed, of the proposed wind farm. This is the area from which the proposed Project would be visible (see Figures 6 and 7 in Appendix 8.3).

The visual assessment is based on a field trip undertaken on 15 June 2010, and on information provided in the Final Scoping Report by the Environmental Evaluation Unit (EEU, 2010). The findings of the earlier visual scoping study, as well as the Botanical and the Heritage Scoping Studies, have also been taken into account.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 65 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

During the field trip a number of critical viewpoints were identified, including those relating to intersections of major arterial / scenic routes. Panoramic photographs were taken from these viewpoints as a record, in order to determine the potential visibility of the wind energy facilities.

Two possible layouts for the proposed wind turbines and access roads, as well as a new substation, were provided by the EEU. No alternative sites have been investigated as the Project is an extension to an existing facility. The wind farm facilities are modelled in 3D and turned into a montage with the existing surroundings to give an idea of ‘before’ and ‘after’ visual simulations to Interested and Affected Parties (I&APs).

Besides the determination of the viewshed, distance circles are mapped with the radii centred on the wind farm site, as distance is a major factor in determining visibility. Landforms, landscape value and protection status are taken into consideration in the visual assessment. The guidelines prepared by the Provincial Government of the Western Cape for wind farms (set out in Table 5.5) are used as a benchmark for determining thresholds and mitigations.

Based on the viewshed mapping and photographic montages, a series of both quantitative and qualitative criteria are used to determine potential visual impacts. These are rated to determine both the expected level and significance of the visual impacts. These are as follows (and described in more detail in Appendix 8.3):

 Viewpoints;  Visibility;  Visual Exposure;  Visual Sensitivity;  Landscape Integrity;  Visual Absorption Capacity; and  Potential Visual Impact. Heritage During the Scoping Phase, a survey of the site was conducted on 15 June 2010. Only the approximate footprint area was examined. Finds were photographed and their positions recorded using a hand‐held GPS‐receiver set to the WGS84 datum. Although the Project was only at the scoping phase, it was felt that a fairly extensive survey could be carried out in the time available.

The exact footprints for the new turbines were not yet known so estimates were made. For the southern row the alignment was simply extended towards the west, while for the northern row an alignment between about 250 m and 350 m north of the existing line was chosen for the survey. Despite these assumptions, it is felt that the survey will have provided an adequate reflection of heritage resources present in the study area.

A brief literature review was also conducted so as to inform on aspects of heritage likely to be encountered within the study area.

No significant issues aside from those related to the visual impacts were noted during the Scoping Phase and a full assessment was not considered necessary during the EIA Phase.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 66 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

Noise A Noise Impact Assessment (NIA) for the EIA phase has been conducted in accordance with Section 8 of SANS 10328. The detailed methodology is set out in Appendix 8.5 and the scope is summarised below:

 Determination of the land use zoning on surrounding land and identify noise sensitive receptors that could be impacted upon by activities relating to the construction, operation and decommissioning of the wind farm.  Determination of the existing ambient levels of noise within the study area.  Determination of the typical rating level for noise on surrounding land at identified noise sensitive receptors.  Identification of all noise sources, relating to the establishment and operation of the proposed wind farm that could potentially result in a noise impact on surrounding land and at the identified noise sensitive receptors.  Determination of the sound power emission levels and nature of the sound emission from the identified noise sources.  Calculation of the expected rating level of noise on surrounding land and at the identified noise sensitive receptors from the combined sound power levels emanating from identified noise sources in accordance with procedures contained in SANS 10357 or similar, see below.  Numerical calculations using EMD WindPro Software Version 2.7 which is specifically developed for wind turbine noise. The method described in SANS 10357:2004 version 2.1 (The calculation of sound propagation by the Concawe method) was used a reference for further calculations where required. WindPro uses the methods described in ISO 9613‐2 (Acoustics – Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors. Part 2 – General method of calculation). This method is very comparable to SANS 10357:2004.  Calculation and assessment of the noise impact on surrounding land and at the identified noise sensitive receptors in terms of SANS 10103; the Noise Control Regulations (1992); and the World Health Organisation (WHO, 1999).  Investigation of alternative noise mitigation procedures and an estimation of the impact of noise upon implementation of such procedures. Social The SIA applied a qualitative methodology which focused on the collection of data and included the following activities:

 International literature review relating to wind energy developments;  Integration with the PPP, namely through the written and verbal comments from I&APs, and communication with adjacent landowners ;  Cross‐reference to other specialist studies, namely NIA and VIA;  In depth interviews (face to face and telephonic) with stakeholders, namely neighbouring landowners; tourism operators / local businesses; local and district government officials; recreational groups and community representatives; and estate agents.  Site visits and observations; and  Using professional judgement, the application of standard EIA significance criteria to assess the significance of potential impacts; and recommendation of mitigation measures.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 67 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

6.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

The EIA Regulations provides the following definition:

‘“cumulative impact”, in relation to an activity, means the impact of an activity that in itself may not be significant but may become significant when added to the existing and potential impacts eventuating from similar or diverse activities or undertakings in the area’.

There is the potential for cumulative impact as the wind energy industry becomes more established in South Africa and further sites are identified and developed, particularly in the regions which have favourable conditions for wind energy generation, such as the West Coast. As the industry is only now emerging, no guidance exists which directly relates to the strategic growth of the wind power industry. However, as set out in Section 5.3.8, the Provincial Government of the Western Cape has developed a ‘Strategic Initiative to Introduce Commercial Land Based Energy Development to the Western Cape’ (May, 2006) in order to provide a regional methodology for wind energy site selection. The guidelines recognised the Darling Wind Farm as an existing wind farm and it was therefore taken as a point of departure, from which a minimum buffer of 30 km apart was proposed, and up to and beyond a preferred margin of 50 km for large wind farms. However, other emerging proposals have not been aligned with the hypothetical location of preferred sites as is evident in Figure 6.2 overleaf. The assessment of cumulative impacts has been based on this Figure which sets out the most current information of proposed locations for renewable energy facilities in the District.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 68 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

Figure 6.2: Renewable Energy Facility Proposals in the West Coast District Municipality, May 2011 (Source: WCDM)

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 69 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 70 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

7 DESCRIPTION OF THE BASELINE ENVIRONMENT

7.1 INTRODUCTION

This Section aims to provide a profile of the existing environment relating to the proposed development which has provided the context for the Scoping and EIA studies, as well as a baseline against which potential environmental impacts can be assessed.

The administrative, land use, physical, ecological and socio‐economic environmental conditions are described and have been collated using various desk based sources, field work undertaken between June 2010 and June 2011 and the field work and information documented within the specialist studies.

7.2 GEOGRAPHICAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE CONTEXT

The Project is located in the Swartland Municipality, in the West Coast District of the Western Cape. It is located within Ward 5 of the Municipality which includes the towns of Darling (the portion west of Pastorie, Cole, Donkin and Smith Streets), Yzerfontein, Jakkalsfontein, Grottobaai, Ganzekraal, as well as Dassen Island and the rural area surrounding the towns. The Project site is located at the junctions of the R27 and the R315 between Yzerfontein and Darling, and is approximately 85 km north of Cape Town.

7.3 LAND USE AND OWNERSHIP

The study area lies within portions of two different farms: Slangkop (3/552) and Kerrie Fontein (0/555). There is no fixed boundary or site area as the turbines will not be fenced and will remain in co‐use with existing activities. The respective land portions are owned by Mr H.H. Smit and Mr C. Brendel. The four existing wind turbines are owned by Darling Wind Power and operated by DARLIPP. The wider area has been defined in the Botanical Impact Assessment (Appendix 8.1) and described in more detail in Section 8.5 below. The report states that within the wider study area there is a portion of totally transformed agricultural land or fallow agricultural land with very little natural vegetation (about 16% of the area, or 75 ha), to previously disturbed and now partly rehabilitated (about 67%, or 301ha), to largely pristine (about 27%, or 125 ha. Agricultural activities on surrounding farms include ostrich camps; cereal farming; beef and dairy farming; sheep farming; and wine farming (Scott, 2011). Adjoining the proposed study area, on the Windhoek Farm between the existing turbines and the R315, is an existing open cast sand mine registered as JJJ Sand Mine owned by the Sibathathu Mining CC (Infomine, 2010).

7.4 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT

The study area is topographically a fairly simple area, being a prominent hill (Moedmaag Hill) with west facing slopes, a broad saddle, and a lower hill with west and north‐western facing slopes,

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 71 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

leading into a sandy coastal plain. The 2001 EIA for the Darling Demonstration Project (EEU, 2001) has identified that study area is located on the Darling Pluton of the Cape Granite Suite. Granite derived clays and sandy loams are the primary soil type in the central and eastern area, but in the western parts these give way to deep, well leached acid sands of much lower fertility. There are two main granite outcrops, with various scattered granite exposures of less than 10 m2 each, but otherwise there is little outcropping rock on the site.

In terms of wetlands there is a single major drainage line, with four tributaries, plus a vlei area (Segarevlei). The seasonal drainage lines are unlikely to hold surface water for more than six months a year, but the soils are significantly damper than surrounding areas for extended periods. Soil moisture and depth differences are a fairly important driver of plant community dynamics on site. The small vlei area is located within the acid sands just south of the Segarevlei farm buildings, and is not very obvious, but is, like all wetlands, ecologically important. There is a windmill to the south‐ west of the existing turbines and the 2001 EIA (EEU, 2001) has identified the water table in the vicinity of this windmill being 1.05 m deep.

This is an area of winter rainfall and summer drought. The highest average rainfall occurs between May – August (approximately 65‐84 mm per month). There are on average, 8‐9 rain days in these months. In the spring and summer months, between September and April, average monthly rainfall is between 8‐34 mm. Temperatures in winter range between 7 and 19oC, with summer temperatures between 12 and 28 oC. Fog has been identified as a characteristic of the area (through the PPP and in the IDP) and is usually more prevalent during the winter months.

The 2001 CSIR information that was published in the 2002 EIA Report summarises the wind patterns as follows:

 Higher wind speeds are more frequent during the months of October to March;  Wind conditions are more moderate during the months of May, June and September;  The predominant wind direction is southerly between August and April; and  The average wind speed over a 12 month period was between 5.8 and 6.45 m/s.

7.5 BOTANY

The botanical baseline information is documented in the Botanical Impact Assessment Report (Helme, 2011) attached as Appendix 8.1.

7.5.1 Vegetation Types

Figure 7.1 below depicts the original natural vegetation patterns (prior to human influence) in the study area. It is evident that there were originally two vegetation types in the study area. About 40% of the overall study area supported Swartland Granite Renosterveld, with the sandy western parts supporting Hopefield Sand Fynbos (Mucina and Rutherford, 2006). These vegetation types are both still present, although the Renosterveld is severely reduced in extent due to extensive agriculture.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 72 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

Figure 7.1: Extract of the SA Vegetation Map (Mucina and Rutherford, 2006), showing pattern of original natural vegetation types in the area. Approximate study area outlined in yellow, cadastres as purple lines.

Swartland Granite Renosterveld has been very heavily impacted by agriculture within the region where it occurs (north‐west of Darling to south‐east of Malmesbury) and today less than 20% of its original extent remains (Rouget et al, 2004). The vegetation type is regarded as a Critically Endangered vegetation type, with an unachievable national conservation target of 26%, and only 1% conserved (virtually all of this in private reserves; Rouget et al, 2004). Intact examples of this vegetation type are typically home to a high number of rare and threatened plant species, many of which are endemic (restricted) or near endemic to the vegetation type. The Draft National List of Threatened Ecosystems (DEA, 2009) has also classified this vegetation type as Critically Endangered (due to high levels of species endemism and due to extent of habitat loss). About 5% of the remaining vegetation in the study area is of this type, with a further 10% of the remaining vegetation having elements of this vegetation type.

Hopefield Sand Fynbos is as its name suggests restricted to sandy soils in the Hopefield region, extending as far south as the study area. Some 41% of the original extent of this vegetation type has been lost, with a conservation target of 30%. Nothing (0%) is formally conserved (Rouget et al, 2004), although recent acquisitions by the West Coast National Park (WCNP) have incorporated sections of this habitat, and this figure is now probably closer to 5% (pers. obs.). The unit is classified as Endangered on a national basis by the national Spatial Biodiversity Assessment (Rouget et al, 2004). The Draft National List of Threatened Ecosystems (DEAT, 2009) has recently classified this vegetation type as Vulnerable (due to irreversible loss of habitat and high levels of species endemism), and this takes precedence over all preceding classifications. About 95% of the remaining

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 73 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

vegetation in the study area is of this type, although some 10% of this shows elements of the Granite Renosterveld as well.

Both vegetation types are shrublands, typically dominated by low shrubs, herbs and grasses, with a high diversity of bulbs (geophytes) and succulents common in the Renosterveld. Small trees and larger shrubs often occur in moist gulleys and in fire protected areas. Renosterveld is most visually attractive in the first few years after a fire, especially in spring, when a high percentage of the flora may be in flower at the same time.

The vegetation in the study area ranges in condition from totally transformed agricultural land or fallow agricultural land (about 16% of the area, or 75 ha), to previously disturbed and now partly rehabilitated (about 67%, or 301ha), to largely pristine (about 27%, or 125 ha).

Alien invasive vegetation is most severe in seasonally and permanently damp places, around homesteads, and in areas where there has been previous soil disturbance. The density of alien invasive shrubs and trees is generally fairly low across the natural portions of the site, and all woody alien plant invasions are regarded as fully reversible. The primary woody invasive aliens in the area are Acacia saligna (Port Jackson willow) and Acacia cyclops (rooikrans). Alien invasive herbs and grasses are a significant problem in Renosterveld (arguably more significant than the woody invasives), and can rapidly smother many of the smaller Renosterveld bulbs, succulents and annuals. Amongst the most serious are various commercial cereals such as Lolium (ryegrass varieties, especially in damp areas) and Avena (oats). Invasive alien grasses are difficult to control within natural vegetation, and their spread is facilitated by fire, soil disturbance, grazing, and the use of commercial fertilizers. After loss to agriculture, alien invasive grasses and herbs are acknowledged to be the primary threat to remnant Renosterveld vegetation (Von Hase et al, 2003).

Long term alien invasion degrades the soil structure and alters the soil chemistry and moisture regime, making it difficult for many indigenous species to re‐establish, and for this reason alone they should be removed. All woody invasive alien vegetation must legally be controlled by landowners, according to existing Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act (CARA) legislation, although in reality most landowners simply choose to ignore this.

7.5.2 Main Habitats

The Botanical Impact Assessment has identified the main habitats on site from a botanical perspective, and these are cultivated lands; old ploughed lands that are now partly rehabilitated; rocky outcrops; wetlands on the loamy (granite derived) soils; Segarevlei (on acid sands); and Hopefield Sand Fynbos on well drained, deep, acid sands. These are briefly outlined below.

Cultivated lands

About 30‐40% of the study area has been recently cultivated (within last ten years), or is currently cultivated, and these areas support negligible indigenous vegetation, and are of low botanical sensitivity (Plate 7.1). The dominant vegetation in these areas would originally have been Swartland Granite Renosterveld, but is now cultivated cereals and herbs, many of which are invasive in the adjacent or remnant Renosterveld patches.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 74 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

Old ploughed lands

About 25‐30% of the study area has been previously cultivated, but has lain fallow for at least ten years (and often much longer), and has consequently rehabilitated naturally to varying degrees. Indigenous plant diversity in these areas is significantly lower than in pristine examples of the original habitat, and is typically only 20 to 40% as diverse as the original habitat. However, some Species of Conservation Concern may be present in these areas (see Plate 7.6 and Plate 7.7), and these are indicative of the medium levels of conservation value that have been assigned to these areas. It is likely that over time, all else being equal, these areas will rehabilitate further. One of the primary constraints on this natural rehabilitation is the presence of livestock, which has a significant negative impact on the young plants that may move into the area (pers. obs.).

Plate 7.1: View from Moedmaag Hill looking west, showing degraded (very heavily grazed) natural vegetation in foreground amongst granite outcrops, and cultivated lands left of and beyond the existing turbines.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 75 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

Rocky Outcrops

Relatively few rocky outcrops are present on site, and only one is of any size (indicated in Plate 7.2 and both Figure 7.2 and Figure 7.3 overleaf as an isolated area of high sensitivity). These exposed granites are home to many species not found elsewhere on site, such as Aloe mitriformis, Pauridia minuta, Lachenalia alooides, Gladiolus priorii, Ornithogalum multifolium, Othonna quercifolia, Cheiridopsis rostrata and Adromischus hemisphaericus.

Plate 7.2: View of prominent granite outcrop in centre of site, looking east towards Moedmaag hill and existing turbines. A dense colony of Aloe mitriformis is prominent on these rocks, but the rocks also support a diversity of other species not generally found elsewhere on the site (Lachenalia alooides, Pauridia minuta, etc.).

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 76 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

Plate 7.3: One of the seasonal drainage lines and associated wetland vegetation on site. The tall restio is Elegia elephantina.

Wetlands on Loamy Soils

This habitat is illustrated in Plate 7.3. The habitat is seasonally wet, and in places sufficient moisture accumulates to allow the development of ponds, which support various frogs, such as Strongylopus grayii (clicking stream frog). Typical plant species include Elegia elephantina, Juncus sp., Conyza scabrida, Cynodon dactylon (kweekgras), Athanasia crithmifolia, Fuirena coerulescens, and Zantedeschia aethiopica (arum lily). This habitat is very likely to support the Endangered kelkiewyn (Geissorhiza radians; see Plate 8.5). The invasive Acacia saligna and A. cyclops are easily removed, and have not yet compromised this important habitat

Segarevlei

Segarevlei is the only vlei area within the acid sands on site, and thus also supports a number of species not found elsewhere on site. The vlei was unfortunately bisected by the R27, and only a small portion is present east of the R27. Typical species include Leucadendron foedum (Vulnerable), Elegia elephantina, Berzelia abrotanoides, Serruria decipiens (Vulnerable), Myrica quercifolia and Erica hispidula. The invasive Acacia saligna and A. cyclops are easily removed, and have not yet compromised this important habitat. Various frogs were heard calling in this area.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 77 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

Plate 7.4: Leucospermum tomentosum (foreground; Red Listed as Vulnerable) growing in pristine Hopefield Sand Fynbos, looking towards Segarevlei and the R27.

Hopefield Sand Fynbos

This vegetation type occurs on deep, acid sands, and is best represented on site in the western areas (See Plate 7.4). The dominant species is usually the restio Thamnochortus punctatus, and additional species include Leucospermum tomentosum, Willdenowia incurvata (zonkwasriet), Willdenowia sulcata, Phylica cephalanatha, Calopsis impolitus, Diospyros lycioides, Restio quinquefarius, Leucadendron salignum (geelbos), Trichogyne ambigua, Lachnaea capitata and Staavia radiata (altydbossie). This habitat support significant numbers of Species of Conservation Concern, in spite of the fact that parts of it have been invaded by light to moderately dense stands of alien Acacia cyclops (rooikrans) and Acacia saligna (Port Jackson). These stands are easily removable, and in fact the landowner is legally obliged to do so.

7.5.3 Ecological Drivers within these Vegetation Types

Fire is acknowledged to be one of the primary drivers of Fynbos and Renosterveld ecosystem dynamics (de Villiers et al, 2005) and is one of three extremely important ecological drivers on this site. The other two key drivers are soil moisture, and soil type (including rockiness), although these cannot be easily manipulated.

Optimum fire frequency for Renosterveld in this region is once every ten to fifteen years, whilst in the Fynbos areas it is probably closer to once every twelve to eighteen years (pers. obs.). Most of the natural vegetation on site is senescent or nearly so, and is thus due or even overdue for a fire (judging by some of the Leucospermum tomentosum shrubs that are dying of old age, and are probably at least 25 years old).

Fire dynamics and the ecological implications thereof are extremely complicated, but a few basic principles apply, which are outlined as follows.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 78 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

Fire more often than at the optimum frequency will result in certain slow growing species being eliminated, and will change plant community structure. Many Renosterveld and Fynbos species germinate only immediately after a fire, and in the absence of fire will not establish young plants. Lack of fire also means that many bulbs and annuals that normally flourish only in the first few years after a fire, when there is plenty of light and open space, struggle to flower and hence set seed. These species can persist for long periods as bulbs and seeds underground, but obviously they have a limited life span, and the longer they go without fire the greater the chance that they will succumb to pathogens or seed or bulb predators (such as mole rats, common on site). Infrastructure development within natural vegetation that requires fire on a regular basis is thus not usually advisable or compatible, as the infrastructure owners would prefer to prevent fire, but this is ecologically problematic in areas of natural vegetation.

Alien Acacia saligna (Port Jackson) and Acacia cyclops (rooikrans) have a negative effect on soil moisture, as the former tends to establish in areas of increased soil moisture (along streams, in seepage areas, etc.), and both use more water than Fynbos species. These moister areas naturally support an indigenous plant community that is dependent on shallow water tables and seasonal moisture. However, a dense infestation of Acacia can substantially reduce the available water, it can change the soil chemistry, and it also shades out the shorter indigenous vegetation, leading to substantial indigenous plant die‐off in these sensitive habitats. Once the aliens are cleared the indigenous species should recover, as light is restored and soil moisture levels increase.

Soil (edaphic) interfaces are an important element of ecological process (Von Hase et al, 2003; de Villiers et al, 2005), and are present on site where the acid, sandy coastal soils (nutrient poor) meet the granite‐derived clays and loams (nutrient rich). The transitional (ecotonal) areas are special habitats where different floristic elements come together, and are often characterised by rare or localised plant species. On this site this boundary (ecotone) is extremely diffuse, and occurs over a distance of at least 300 m, which roughly corresponds to the boundary between the Hopefield Sand Fynbos and the Granite Renosterveld in Figure 7.1.

7.5.4 Ecological Corridors

Ecological corridors are regarded as key elements of a “living landscape” and of ecological process, in that they allow for animal and plant movement across the partly fragmented landscape. Insects and birds are key pollinators of many plant species, and it is important that they be able to move from one patch of natural vegetation to the next relatively easily, without having to cross large areas of hostile, barren terrain with little or no natural vegetation. These corridors also allow for seed movement, which may be by means of animals or by the wind.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 79 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

Figure 7.2: Map of study area showing botanical sensitivity of vegetation currently on site. All unhatched areas are of low sensitivity, and are mostly cultivated lands or homesteads. Total width of the study area here is about 3 km.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 80 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

Figure 7.3: Oblique aerial image showing existing turbines and schematic botanical sensitivity map. Unhatched areas within study area are of low sensitivity.

Existing ecological corridors can be inferred wherever there is natural or even partly natural vegetation, and thus one should not take a single line on a map too seriously – in reality it is more like a web than a corridor, with numerous lateral connections and interconnections, and it is important to maintain as many of these as possible, and the broader and more numerous the links the better.

In an ecologically highly fragmented landscape, such as the Renosterveld portions of this area, it is usually desirable to allow and plan for rehabilitation of certain key ecological linkages that have been broken by agriculture, and this would indeed be appropriate on this site.

7.5.5 Rare Plants and Areas of Specific Sensitivity

As previously noted all Renosterveld and Fynbos patches in decent to good condition can be regarded as being of high sensitivity (See Figure 7.2) and all can be expected to support plant Species of Conservation Concern. Just some of these species are highlighted in this section. No attempt has been made to plot the known distributions of these species on site at this stage, as all occur within areas of medium and especially within the high sensitivity natural vegetation, and provided that all such areas are avoided by the bulk of the proposed development there should not be a major issue.

Habitats of particular importance include seasonal and permanent wetlands (such as vleis, streams, seeps, and pans), rocky outcrops, undisturbed Sand Fynbos, and the interface between acid sands and granite‐derived soils.

Species of Conservation Concern known to occur in the study area (mostly pers. obs., supplemented by CREW GIS data) include the following thirteen species in Table 7.1. Red List status assessments are included (Raimondo et al, 2009), and the main habitat in which they occur on site is noted.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 81 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

Table 7.1: Species of Conservation Concern in the study area Scientific Name Red Data Status Habitat Geissorhiza radians (Plate 7.5) Endangered Loamy wetlands Leucospermum tomentosum (Plate 7.6) Endangered Sand Fynbos Aspalathus albens Vulnerable; Sand Fynbos Aspalathus ternata Vulnerable Sand Fynbos, including old lands Cotula duckittiae Vulnerable Sand Fynbos Calopsis impolitus Vulnerable Sand Fynbos Serruria decipiens Vulnerable Sand Fynbos near Segarevlei Leucadendron foedum Vulnerable Sand Fynbos near Segarevlei Lachnaea capitata Vulnerable Sand Fynbos Ruschia firma Data Deficient Sand Fynbos Phylica plumose (Plate 8.7) Declining Loamy areas Otholobium bolusii Near Threatened Loamy areas Geissorhiza monanthos Near Threatened Loamy areas

Plate 7.5: Geissorhiza radians (kelkiewyn) is a spectacular spring bulb from seasonally wet clay and loamy flats in the Darling and Swartland area. The species is Red Listed as Endangered, and is known to occur in the study area along the drainage lines.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 82 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

Plate 7.6: Leucospermum tomentosum is a threatened species common on the sandy portions of the site, and especially in less disturbed sections of the Sand Fynbos (mapped as high sensitivity in Figure 7.2)

Plate 7.7: Phylica plumosa (foreground; heavily pruned by grazing cattle) is a Declining species fairly common on the better rehabilitated sections of previously cultivated loamy soils (mapped as medium sensitivity).

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 83 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

Additional Species of Conservation Concern known from adjacent or nearby properties (partly from CREW GIS data, partly pers. obs.) are set out in Table 7.2 below.

Table 7.2: Additional Species of Conservation Concern known from nearby properties Scientific Name Red Data Status Notes Only known from the Tienie Versfeld Geissorhiza darlingensis Critically Endangered Reserve and one other locality Babiana pygmaea Critically Endangered Probably not on this site Only known from the Tienie Versfeld Lachenalia purpureo‐caerulea Critically Endangered Reserve and one other locality Xiphotheca reflexa Endangered Agathosma glandulosa Endangered Babiana rubrocyanea Endangered Disa hallackii Endangered Macrostylis cassiopoides Endangered Monsonia speciosa Endangered Romulea eximia Endangered Roella arenaria Vulnerable Lampranthus sociorum Vulnerable Ixia curta Vulnerable Lampranthus filicaulis Vulnerable Isoetes stellenbosiensis Near Threatened Lampranthus tegens Data Deficient

If even half these additional species are in fact present on site then upwards of twenty Species of Conservation Concern would occur on site. This is an exceptionally high figure, even for the Fynbos biome, and is indicative of the conservation importance and sensitivity of all remaining natural habitat in the area.

7.6 AVIFAUNA

The Avifauna Impact Assessment (van Rooyen, 2011) attached as Appendix 8.2 has identified the vegetation types in the study area and the bird habitats that are represented.

7.6.1 Vegetation Types and Bird Habitats

The land use in the Swartland is mostly a mixture of wheat and pastures and it has been that way for decades. The 1999 figures indicate that 61% of the region is under dry‐land cultivation, while irrigated crops occur on 4%. The remaining area is covered by 24% natural vegetation and 11% other (i.e. alien trees, plantations etc.). Wheat is the predominant form of dry‐land cultivation (36%), followed by old lands (24%), hay and silage crops (10%), fallow land (8%), medic pastures (7%), oats (5%), lupin (4%), barley (3%) and canola (2%). Dry‐land cultivation is practised over the whole region whereas irrigation farming ‐ table grapes and, to a lesser degree, deciduous fruit – is confined to the river valleys and the foothills of the mountains. The high percentage of old lands (lands left after the last harvest and not cultivated for some time) is indicative of the economic instability of wheat farming. Along the coast and river courses, alien invasive plants (mostly Australian Eucalyptus and Acacia species) have become established (Young et al, 2003).

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 84 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

About 16% of the Project site is essentially fallow agricultural land with very little natural vegetation. Natural vegetation in moderate or good condition thus covers an estimated 84% of the study area defined in the Botanical Impact Assessment Report (Appendix 8.1), and most of the vegetation in good condition is either on previously uncultivated small, rocky outcrops, in drainage lines (wetlands), or in the western parts, dominated by infertile sandy soils, which are not suitable for cultivation (Helme, 2011).

It is widely accepted that vegetation structure is more critical in determining bird habitat, than the actual plant species composition (Harrison et al, 1997). The description of vegetation presented in this report therefore concentrates on factors relevant to the bird species present, and is not an exhaustive list of plant species present. The description of the vegetation types occurring in the study area makes extensive use of information presented in SABAP1 (Harrison et al, 1997). The criteria used by the SABAP1 authors to amalgamate botanically defined vegetation units, or to keep them separate were (1) the existence of clear differences in vegetation structure, likely to be relevant to birds, and (2) the results of published community studies on bird/vegetation associations. The natural vegetation in the greater study area where the proposed wind facility is located is classified as fynbos vegetation (Harrison et al, 1997).

Fynbos is dominated by low shrubs and can be divided into two categories, fynbos proper and renosterveld, both of which occur on the study site. Despite having a high diversity of plant species, fynbos and renosterveld has a relatively low diversity of bird species. The only Red listed priority species that is closely associated with fynbos in this study area, is the Black Harrier Circus maurus (which often breeds in fynbos), (Harrison et al 1997). An estimated 5‐10 pairs breed in the West Coast National Park (Barnes 1998.) At least one breeding pair is located on the edge of the Yzerfontein Pan (Jenkins 2003; Simmons pers. com). Black Harriers made up 1.2% of priority species sightings during the 116 hour monitoring period at the site. A Black Harrier was also recorded by Van Beuningen and Retief during their three hour stint of monitoring of the site in September 2010. An average of 4‐6 pairs of Black Harrier breed annually on Jakkalsfontein Nature Reserve and neighbouring Rondeberg Flats, which are situated roughly 5km to the south of the study site (Marais 2010).

Other Red listed species that sometimes use this habitat are Secretarybirds Sagittarius serpentarius (1.8% of priority species recorded) which are sometimes found in fynbos and renosterveld (pers. obs.), while Martial Eagles Polemaetus bellicosus (3.6% of priority species recorded) on occasion forage in this habitat. Other priority species which were recorded on site foraging in this habitat are Lanner Falcon Falco biarmicus (20% of priority species recorded), Jackal Buzzard Buteo rufofuscus (39% of priority species recorded) and Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrines (4.2% of priority species recorded). Much of the fynbos and renosterveld in the Swartland have been transformed for agriculture. Whilst this obviously resulted in substantial natural habitat being destroyed, several species have in fact adapted well to this transformation. One such species, which is relevant to this study, is the Blue Crane Anthropoides paradiseus. This species has thrived on the grain lands and pastures in the southern and western Cape. This will be further discussed when the micro‐habitats are discussed below.

In addition to natural vegetation, the following bird micro‐habitats are present at the Project site and within a 5 km radius around the site:

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 85 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

Cereal Crops and Pastures

The natural vegetation at the study area at the Project is surrounded by a typical mosaic of grain fields interspersed with pastures. It is of specific importance to the endemic, Red listed Blue Crane.

The Swartland holds an important population of Blue Cranes (Young et al, 2003), probably second only in importance to the Overberg Wheatbelt. The Blue Crane has relatively recently expanded its range into the Swartland, where it feeds on inter alia fallen grain and recently germinated crops. They also feed on supplementary food put out for small stock, and can congregate in huge numbers around these feed lots. The Blue Cranes favour agricultural areas above natural vegetation. Blue Cranes were recorded in pastures and fallow fields within a radius of around 5km from the proposed Project site, mostly to the east of the actual site (Jenkins 2003, Van der Westhuizen 2011, Van Rooyen pers. obs). According to Jenkins (2003), at least one pair of Blue Cranes breeds very close to the eastern edge of the site and occasionally moves through the area to croplands below and to the west of Moedmaag. Relatively few Blue Cranes were recorded at the site itself during 116 hours of monitoring (6.6% of priority species recorded).

During the site visits in June and November 2010, the following priority species were recorded in croplands and pastures adjacent to the study site, to the east behind Moedmaag Hill:

 Blue Crane  Jackal Buzzard  Secretarybird  Lanner Falcon

In addition, Jackal Buzzard, African Marsh Harrier Circus ranivorus, Black Harrier and Lanner Falcon were all recorded “quite commonly” foraging in pastures and croplands both east and west of the Project site by Jenkins (2003).

Drainage Lines and Wetlands

The Swartland contains many drainage lines and associated wetlands, some of which are sometimes used as roosting areas for Blue Cranes, as well as for foraging and breeding African Marsh‐Harrier. Apart from these Red listed species, wetlands are also important for several common species such as Egyptian Goose Alopochen aegyptiacus, White Stork Ciconia ciconia and Spur‐winged Goose Plectropterus gambensis.

There is a single main seasonal drainage line on the Project site, with four tributaries. A small vlei area, Segarevlei, is also present south of the homestead adjacent to the R27. None of these are of particular importance for priority species, with the possible exception of the African Marsh‐harrier, which may on occasion forage at Segarevlei if conditions are favourable. However, the species was not recorded at the Project site itself during 116 hours of observation which means that the habitat is probably not suitable.

Of more importance are the large wetlands adjacent surrounding the study site, namely Yzerfontein, Slangkop, Swartwater and Droëvlei pans. Greater Flamingo is also occasionally observed during particularly wet winters on pans in the Jakkalsfontein Nature Reserve (Marais, 2010). These pans hold significant numbers of Great White Pelican Pelecanus onocrotalus and both species of flamingo (Jenkins 2003), and movement to and fro between these water bodies could be expected, particularly in winter (see also Section 10 below).

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 86 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

7.6.2 Avifauna in the Study Area

The proposed wind facility is located within 3318AD and 3318AC. Table 7.3 overleaf lists the Red listed species that have been recorded in these QDGCs. It also states the national conservation status, habitat preferences as well as whether it was recorded flying over the site during 116 hours of observation between 2002 and 2011. Figure 7.4 below depicts this information graphically.

Jenkins (2003) identified the following priority species potentially occurring at the Project site, or in suitable habitat adjacent to the site:

 White Pelican Pelecanus onocrotalus  Greater Flamingo Phoenicopterus ruber  Lesser Flamingo Phoeniconaias minor  Secretarybird Sagittarius serpentarius  Martial Eagle Polemaetus bellicosus  Jackal Buzzard Buteo rufofuscus  African Marsh Harrier Circus ranivorus  Black Harrier C. maurus  Lanner Falcon Falco biarmicus  Peregrine Falcon F. peregrinus  Lesser Kestrel F. naumanni  Blue Crane Anthropoides paradiseus

Figure 7.4: Priority species recorded at the site during 116 hours of monitoring

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 87 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

Table 7.3: Red Listed species (excluding marine species) and other priority species recorded in 3318AD and 3318AC QDGCs by SABAP1 and SABAP2 % of records of National priority species Common Conservation Habitat requirements (Barnes, 1998; Barnes, 2000; Hockey et al, 2005; Young et al, Scientific Name recorded at site. No. Name Status 2003; Harrison et al, 1997; personal observations) of individual (Barnes, 2000) sightings in brackets Sagittarius Grassland, old lands, open woodland. Most likely to be encountered in pastures and old Secretarybird NT 1.8% (3) serpentarius agricultural areas, but also in degraded fynbos. Large permanent wetlands with dense reed beds. Sometimes forages over smaller African wetlands and grassland. Could be present at wetlands associated with pans adjacent to the Circus ranivorus VU Not recorded Marsh‐Harrier study area. Recorded by Jenkins in croplands adjacent to the Project site. There is a small likelihood of the species occurring at Segarevlei when conditions are favourable. Forages both over fynbos and agricultural land. An average of 4‐6 pairs of Black Harrier Black Harrier Circus maurus NT 1.2% (2) breed annually on Jakkalsfontein Nature Reserve and neighbouring Rondeberg Flats, which are situated roughly 5km to the south of the study site. Peregrine A wide range of habitats, but cliffs (or tall buildings) are a prerequisite for breeding. May Falco peregrinus NT 4.2% (7) Falcon hunt over agricultural areas and to a lesser extent fynbos. Generally prefers open habitat, but exploits a wide range of habitats. May hunt over Lanner Falcon Falco biarmicus NT 20% (33) agricultural areas and to a lesser extent fynbos. Lesser Kestrel Falco naumanni VU Not recorded Summer migrant most likely to be encountered hunting over agricultural areas. Anthropoides Blue Crane VU 6.6% (11) Cereal crops, old lands, pastures, wetlands, dams and pans for roosting. paradiseus Great White Pelecanus NT 23% (38) Large dams and estuaries. Occurs on Dassen Island and at pans adjacent to the Project site. Pelican onocrotalus Calendulauda Barlow’s Lark NT Not recorded Arid scrubland and vegetated dunes. barlowi Not recorded at the Greater Phoenicopterus The species is present at Yzerfontein, Slangkop, Swartwater and Droëvlei pans. May NT site, but recorded in Flamingo ruber commute over the Project site, but this has to be confirmed. adjacent wetlands Not recorded at the Lesser Phoenicopterus The species is present at Yzerfontein, Slangkop, Swartwater and Droëvlei pans. May NT site, but recorded in Flamingo minor commute over the Project site, but this has to be confirmed. adjacent wetlands

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 88 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

% of records of National priority species Common Conservation Habitat requirements (Barnes, 1998; Barnes, 2000; Hockey et al, 2005; Young et al, Scientific Name recorded at site. No. Name Status 2003; Harrison et al, 1997; personal observations) of individual (Barnes, 2000) sightings in brackets Polemaetus Most likely to be encountered over fynbos and old agricultural lands habitat at the Project Martial Eagle V 3.6% (6) bellicosus site. Not Most likely to be encountered over fynbos and old agricultural lands habitat at the Project Jackal Buzzard Buteo rufofuscus threatened 39% (65) site. endemic Source: (Harrison et al, 1997; http://sabap2.adu.org.za) Notes: VU = Vulnerable; NT = Near threatened

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 89 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

7.7 VISUAL

The visual baseline information has been sourced from the Visual Impact Assessment (Oberholzer and Lawson, 2011) in Appendix 8.3. The site and study area are briefly described in Table 7.4 below, including the visual/scenic significance, along with visual constraints and opportunities in relation to the siting of wind energy facilities. Viewpoints and viewsheds are indicated on Figures 6 and 7 (in Appendix 8.3), and a number of panorama photographs from identified viewpoints are shown in Figures 10 to 13 (in Appendix 8.3).

Table 7.4: Landscape description of the site The site is located on the West Coast of the Western Cape, some 8 km east of the Location town of Yzerfontein, and at the intersection of the R27 West Coast Road and the R315 between Yzerfontein and Darling. The actual site is composed of two farms, being Slangkop (3/552) and Kerriefontein (0/555). The area is underlain by granite of the Cape Granite Suite, which give rise to the Geology typical rolling topography ‐ a characteristic feature of the rural landscape around Darling, with granite rock outcrops in places. The study area includes two main landscape types: Physical 1) the relatively flat coastal plain to the west of the R27 Route, consisting of Landscape quaternary sand deposits, typical of the West Coast; 2) the hilly topography to the east of the R27 Route, rising to between 160 and 260m above sea level. The site for the proposed Project straddles the Moedmaag Hill. In response to the geology and soils of the study area, two main vegetation types Vegetation occur on the site, being the Swartland Granite Renosterveld and the Hopefield Cover Sand Fynbos. Much of the natural vegetation of the area has been displaced by agricultural activities, including dairy farming and sheep. The botanical study (Helme, 2011), indicates areas of important biodiversity and botanical sensitivity, which add to the landscape value. The granite hills create some visual enclosure, as well as view shadows, from Viewshed and where the turbines would not be seen, as shown on the viewshed maps (Figures view corridors 6 and 7 in Appendix 8.3). On the other hand the crests of the hills are visually exposed and the proposed wind turbines would tend to stand out on the skyline. The sparse vegetation cover means that the turbines tend to be visible over long distances. The visibility of the proposed wind farm from the R27 and R315 visual corridors is shown on Figure 9 in Appendix 8.3. A section of the R315 Route to Darling is in a view shadow. The rolling hills constitute a scenic rural landscape in an area famed for its spring Visual wild flowers. This aspect, together with the recreation activities of the nearby Significance West Coast, and the West Coast National Park, mean that the area is an important visitor and tourist destination. The proposed wind farm is visible to a number of farmsteads in the area, as well as to the settlement of Yzerfontein, about 8 km to the west.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 90 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

The following routes and protected areas tend to increase landscape value in Opportunities visual terms, and therefore the visual sensitivity: and  The R27 and R315 Routes, which can be considered as scenic corridors, Constraints and therefore visually sensitive.  The Tienie Versveld Wild Flower Reserve located adjacent to the R315 Route, about 2km from the wind farm site.  The Yzerfontein Soutpan and Rooipan, which are important wetland and bird sites, are 5 to 7km away from the site.  The West Coast National Park, which lies some 5km to the north of the site on the R27, the entrance gate to the Park being 10km away.  The West Coast Biosphere Reserve, which stretches from the Diep River in Cape Town to the Berg River in the north, and therefore includes the entire visual catchment of the Project. Two historic limekilns are located on the R315 to Yzerfontein, about 3km from the wind farm site. The wind farm is, however, not visible to the settlement of Darling, which is some 13km away to the east, and in a view shadow.

Viewpoints were selected based on prominent viewing positions in the area, where uninterrupted views of the proposed energy facilities could be obtained. The proposed facilities would be potentially visible from the R27 and R315 Routes, from Yzerfontein and a number of farms. See Table 7.5 below.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 91 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

Table 7.5: Potential visibility from selected view points View Pt Location Distance Comments V1 From Moedmaag Hill looking SW at existing four wind 207m Existing turbines clearly visible at close range from Moedmaag Hill turbines within Slangkop Farm. V2 Droevlei Farm looking SW 4.2km Wind turbines partly visible on skyline, mainly obscured by Moedmaag Hill. V3 Slangkop Farm looking NW 2.5km Slangkop turbines visible on skyline, Kerrie Fontein turbines partly obscured by Moedmaag Hill. V4 Wildschutsvlei Farm looking NW 4.8km Slangkop turbines visible on skyline, Kerrie Fontein turbines partly obscured by Moedmaag Hill. V5 R315 Route to Darling 4.4km Slangkop turbines visible on skyline, Kerrie Fontein turbines partly obscured by Moedmaag Hill. V6 R315 Route Tienie Versveld Wildflower Reserve 2.2km Slangkop turbines visible on skyline, Kerrie Fontein turbines partly obscured by Moedmaag Hill. V7 West Coast National Park entrance looking SE 9.4km Wind turbines visible on skyline in the far distance. V8 West Coast National Park access road 9.8km Wind turbines visible on skyline in the far distance. V9 R27 Route at Denneburg Farm Gate looking SE 2.8km Wind turbines visible on skyline in the middle distance, partly obscured by foreground topography and vegetation. V10 R27 Route opposite Denneburg Farm 2.2km Wind turbines visible on skyline in the middle distance. V11 R27 Route opposite Kerrie Fontein Farm at Segarevlei 884m Wind turbines highly visible in the foreground. V12 R27 Route entrance to existing substation road 1.1km Wind turbines highly visible in the foreground. V13 Yzerfontein residential area looking east 7.5km Wind turbines visible in the distance against Moedmaag Hill. V14 R315 Route opposite de le Rey Farm near old lime kilns 2.8km Wind turbines clearly visible on Moedmaag Hill. V15 R27 Route layby picnic site looking NE 4.1km Wind turbines clearly visible in the near distance on the skyline. Note: The mapping and table have abbreviated the farm names to exclude the portion numbers.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 92 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

7.8 HERITAGE

7.8.1 The Receiving Environment

The site lies on a westwards‐facing slope between Moedmaag Hill and the R27. Much of it is transformed land, having been ploughed in the past, but some areas may not have been ploughed and still others are in a state of recovery (see Figure 7.5 below). Plate 7.8 to Plate 7.15 show various views of the study area and its vegetation cover.

Figure 7.5: Aerial photograph of the study area showing the different states of the land as well as positions of finds and the walk paths created during the survey.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 93 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

Plate 7.8: View west in the north‐eastern part Plate 7.9: View west along the stream that of the study area. traverses the site.

Plate 7.10: View south across the north‐ Plate 7.11: An unploughed or recovered area eastern part of the study area. in the centre of the study area.

Plate 7.12: The large granite outcrop Plate 7.13: View east along the southern row between the two turbine rows. showing Agricultural land and small granite outcrops.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 94 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

Plate 7.14: View east along the southern Plate 7.15: View west along the cable row showing agricultural land. servitude in the south‐west part of the study area.

7.8.2 Heritage Context

This part of the Cape has been farmed for many years and is a well established agricultural landscape revolving primarily around dairy cattle and wheat. The vast majority of the land area has been transformed through ploughing such that little remains of the natural environment. Farmsteads dot the region, mostly lying towards the east among the Darling Hills. These are mostly late 19th century and the nearby town of Darling was only established in 1853 (Fransen, 2006). Since the late 1600s, however, the area was well used as grazing land by the Dutch East India Company. A more extensive background to the region has already been compiled by Webley and Hart, 2010). Two little‐known aspects of Darling’s history are that the town saw action during the Anglo‐Boer War in 1901 and an airforce base operated from the local airfield during World War II (Route 27, n.d.). Since then the area has become well known for its Spring flowers.

The archaeology of the area is not well known. The Darling Hills would undoubtedly have been used extensively by the Khoekhoen for grazing their stock and their settlements would likely have dotted the open landscape. The local geology is not conducive to the formation of rock shelters and none are known. One does routinely come across stone artefacts of various ages in the wheat lands of the Cape and such finds would be expected here. The presence of Stone Age people in the general area is well documented by the excavations of both Middle and Later Stone Age archaeological sites at Yzerfontein, some 9 km to the south‐west (Avery et al, 2008; Halkett et al, 2003; Klein et al, 2004; Orton, 2007; in press).

Two other surveys in the vicinity of the study area found no heritage resources (Halkett, 2001; Hart, 2008).

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 95 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

7.9 NOISE

The noise baseline environment has been sourced from the NIA Report (Williams, 2011) attached as Appendix 8.5.

The Project site is situated is zoned for agricultural land use. The potential sensitive receptors are discussed below. The main noise sensitive receptors that could be impacted by noise pollution are the terrestrial fauna, the avifauna and human receptors. The NIA Report only deals with the human receptors.

7.9.1 Sensitive Receptors

Human Sensitive Receptors

The site is situated in a rural farming community. Several homesteads are located on the property where the turbines will be erected as well as on neighbouring farms. The farms and much of the surrounding land is zoned agricultural. In terms of SANS 10103 this is described as a “rural district” with typical outdoor rating levels for noise of 45 dBA during daytime and 35 dBA during night time.

The locations of the various human sensitive receptors are indicated in Figure 7.6.

Table 7.6: Location of noise sensitive receptors Distance to NSA Longitude (E) Latitude (S) closest WTG (m) NSA 1 ‐ Windhoek (Main House) 18°15'23.43" 33°19'29.54" 634 NSA 2 – Windhoek (Workers Cottage) 18°15'16.80" 33°19'28.68" 523 NSA 3 – Klein Windhoek 18°14'42.14" 33°19'55.48" 956 NSA 4 – Tumbleweed 18°14'18.39" 33°19'39.75" 844 NSA 5 – Jacobuskraal Estate 18°14'02.42" 33°19'45.91" 1233 NSA 6 – West Coast Farm Stall 18°14'19.52" 33°20'04.80" 1821 NSA 7 – Slangkop 18°17'01.98" 33°19'49.64" 2621 NSA 8 – Droevlei 18°18'34.33" 33°17'54.93" 4822 NSA 9 – Swartwater 18°15'49.93" 33°17'01.05" 3120 NSA 10 – Grootberg 18°17'03.00" 33°20'33.48" 3638

Natural Environment Receptors

The fauna includes bats, birds, commercial livestock and a variety of buck. These impacts are dealt with in separate studies.

7.9.2 Ambient Noise

The ambient noise was measured at two locations and results thereof are contained in the tables overleaf.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 96 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

Table 7.7: Ambient noise results (daytime)

Start Duration L10 L90 Location L dB(A) Comments Time (minutes) eq dB(A) dB(A) Windhoek 13:15 15 41.6 44.6 36.4 Music in background Farmworkers Houses Windhoek Main 3 turbines running 14:00 15 39.9 41.8 34.8 Farm House (not audible) Note: Wind from the south at 4m/s Temperature 17oC

Table 7.8: Ambient noise results (night)

Start Duration L10 L90 Location L dB(A) Comments Time (minutes) eq dB(A) dB(A) Windhoek Cars on R27 very 22:00 15 41.4 46.0 32.1 Farmworkers Houses audible; Dogs Barking Cars on R27 very Windhoek Main audible; Dogs 22:15 15 44.9 40.8 34.5 Farm House Barking; Turbines not operational Note: Wind from the south east at 2m/s Temperature 10oC

The results indicate that the ambient noise is approximately between 41 and 45 dB(A) at between 2‐ 4 m/s wind speed. The general ambient noise at each location varies substantially as the ambient sound is influenced by human activities as well as vehicles and animal sounds. It is thus extremely difficult to isolate just the wind component.

Figure 7.6: Location of noise sensitive receptors

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 97 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

7.10 SOCIAL

The social baseline information has been sourced from the Social Scoping Study (Scott, 2010) attached as Appendix 8.6.

7.10.1 Overview of the Area

The Swartland Municipality is predominantly a rural area with the economy dominated by the agricultural sector as the key contributor and employer. However, Malmesbury as the administrative centre is the focus of non‐agricultural economic activity in the Municipality. The economy is fairly diversified with other key contributors including the manufacturing, trade and services sectors. The Swartland economy is both the fastest growing economy in the West Coast District as well as the main employment area. It is the second highest contributor in terms of GDP (second to Saldanha) (Swartland Municipality, 2007b).

Agricultural activities in the Swartland are diverse and dominated by wheat, grapes, sheep, beef and dairy, with olive, canola, and legume farming to a smaller degree. It is on this basis that the agricultural sector is believed to be stable and sustainable although individual sectors, such as wheat can be volatile (Swartland Municipality, 2007b). Manufacturing, as the second largest sector, is based on a number of light industries and manufacturers of agricultural based products found in the area. The category of economic activity classified as trade and services, is related to other sectors such as manufacturing and residential development in the Municipality. Although tourism does not play a major role, the Local Economic Development Strategy has identified the niche potential of tourism in the coastal zone and farm tourism (Swartland Municipality, 2007b). A number of attributes of the Swartland will allow for growth in this sector:

 Its scenic beauty;  Its rural qualities that offer opportunities for relaxation;  Its many tourist attractions (such as game farms, 4x4 trails, bike trails, olive festival, and Evita se Perron);  The advancement of its reputation as an area with good wines and wine farms;  Its coastal beauty along Yzerfontein;  Attractive places of accommodation; and  Its cultural and historical towns such as Darling, Koringberg and Riebeek Kasteel.

In general, the population of the Swartland is less formally schooled than both the District and the Province respectively and this is partly attributed to the high rates of in‐migration which are mostly unskilled Africans seeking employment (Swartland Municipality, 2005). As of 2005, a mismatch between labour demand ‐ in terms of both numbers of jobs and skills – and labour supply was identified as a potential issue with regards to future trends in the Swartland. The implications of this include a reduced marketability of the labour force both locally and to neighbouring areas and a reduced likelihood of entrepreneurship (Swartland Municipality, 2005). The trend of in‐migration of unskilled labour would further exacerbate these problems, driving local employers to seek skills from outside the Swartland.

The white population is characterised by out‐migration of younger age groups and in‐migration of

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 98 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

‘older professionals, less intensively economically engaged and retired people’ (Swartland Municipality, 2005:30). This further dictates the skill set within the local labour force. Yzerfontein in particular has become a destination for such older, retired residents.

The towns of Darling and Yzerfontein are the closest settlements to the Project. Darling was founded in 1853 and named after Charles Henry Darling, a Governor of the Cape. The town’s main function has historically been as an agricultural service centre, based on the surrounding rural activities including wheat, grape, potato and dairy farming. However, other activities have since led to the diversification of the town’s economy. Tourism is a growing sector, and is based on attractions such as the wildflowers, music and the arts, wine routes, produce and crafts and ecotourism. At a broader scale, Darling is located within the Cape West Coast Biosphere ‐ the coastal lowland plains of the West Coast ‐ recognised for its environmental integrity, character, and protection value. Darling’s strategic location on the West Coast corridor, within easy reach of Cape Town has also contributed to the recent growth in tourism. As of 2001, the population of Darling was 7,544. At present, the population comprises a number of commuters as well as retirees which is a growing trend (Swartland Municipality, 2007b). The Swartland IDP recognises that the availability of land for industries related to light agricultural services presents a further opportunity to strengthen the town’s growth potential (Swartland Municipality, 2007a). However, this could jeopardise the town’s unique rural character.

The town of Yzerfontein has always been associated with recreation and was originally a farm popular with local farmers as a holiday location. In 1937 Abraham Katz formally established the town which became part of Yzerfontein Seaside Estates (‘Yzerfontein Info’ Website, 9 June 2010). With the construction of the R27, improved access fuelled further growth of the town. Yzerfontein was also historically linked with maritime activities including whaling, fishing, abalone harvesting and crayfishing. Despite limited harbour facilities, at present the town is the main line fishing harbour on the West Coast. Snoek is the dominant catch and the associated fish market is a key source of economic activity. Currently the fishing industry is playing a smaller role in the local economy characterised by the reduction in commercial vessel usage and the increase in recreational boating (Swartland, 2007b). In 2001, Yzerfontein had a population of 1,200 and has attracted holidaymakers, tourists and retirees with permanent residents accounting for 60% of the population (Swartland Municipality, 2007a and 2007b). Tourism is on the increase and related business activities include restaurants, cafes and guest houses. The LEDS (Swartland Municipality, 2007b) attributes the tourism potential to the famous scenic unspoilt beaches, proximity to Dassen Island, flora and fauna, beautiful views and whale watching. The challenge is to balance the growth in tourism alongside opportunities relating to fishing.

7.10.2 Statistical Profile of the Study Area

The statistical profile documents the demography, the education levels, employment levels and labour force, housing, transport, services, health and crime to provide an overview of the socio‐ economic context of the study area. Census 2001 is the most recent source of official secondary data available and this has been supplemented with other data where available.

Demography

The Swartland Municipality accounts for most of the total population in the West Coast District (25.5%), followed by the Saldanha Bay local Municipality (24.9%) and Matzikama Local Municipality (17.8%) (West Coast District Municipality, 2006).

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 99 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

As set out in Table 7.9 overleaf, the 2010 projected population in the Swartland Municipality is 85,500 people, with approximately 6,500 people residing in Ward 5 which is the ward in which the Project is located. The Swartland Municipality is predominantly comprised of coloured people (72%), which is slightly lower in Ward 5 at 67.3%. The Municipality has equal representation of both black African and white groups which each represent 14% each of the population. Ward 5 has slightly lower levels of black Africans at 11% and a higher population of whites at 21.1%. There is only a very small representation of Indian or Asian populations within the Municipality and the Ward.

Table 7.9: 2010 Projected population ‐ race Ethnicity Ward 5 Swartland Municipality Black African 11% 14% Coloured 67.3% 72% Indian or Asian 0.6% (< 1%) White 21.1% 14% Total 6,459 85,500 Source: Swartland IDP (2007) and Ward 5 Profile (May 2010)

Table 7.10 below sets out the most recent gender statistics from 2001. These indicate an even representation whereby the population was 49.9% male and 50.1% female.

Table 7.10: Gender ratio in the Swartland Municipality (2001) Gender Number % Composition Male 36,049 49.9% Female 36,067 50.1% Total 72,116 100% Source: Census, 2001

In terms of the population structure in the Swartland Municipality, there is a higher concentration in the lower age groups which are considered characteristic of a ‘normal’ age profile (Swartland Municipality, 2005). Table 7.11 below indicates that that in 2001 there were 28.7% in the 0‐15 year group, with 66% in the 15‐64 year group (which is the potential labour force) and 5.3% over 65 years. Therefore, approximately 35% of the population is not part of the potential labour force and is therefore dependant on the remaining 66% of the population.

The issue of in‐migration and out‐migration of various ethnic groups and age groups is discussed in Section 8.10.1 above.

Table 7.11: Population structure in the Swartland Municipality (2001) Age Group Number Percentage 0 – 14 20,728 28.7% 15 – 64 47,582 66% 65+ 3,806 5.3% Total 72,116 100% Source: Census, 2001

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 100 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

Education

Table 7.12 overleaf sets out the level of education in the Swartland Municipality during 2001. Over 30% of the population had either ‘no schooling’ or ‘some primary’ education. This generally poor level of education can be attributed to limited access to secondary schooling (linked to a high dropout rate at the secondary level) and an exodus of skilled people, coupled with an influx of unskilled persons (Swartland Municipality, 2007a).

Table 7.12: Education levels attained by ‘over 20 year olds’ in the Swartland Municipality (2001) Level Number Percentage No schooling 4,452 10.0% Some primary 10,318 23.2% Complete primary 4,439 10.0% Some secondary 13,674 30.7% Std 10/Grade 12 8,355 18.8% Higher 3,319 7.4% Total 44,557 100 Source: Census, 2001

Employment Levels and Labour Force

Table 7.13 below sets out the employment status of the Ward and the Municipality in 2001. The Municipality had a slightly higher level of employment (57.2%) than the Ward (54.4%), which is also reflected in the level of unemployment in the Municipality (6.5%) and the Ward (6.1%). These levels of unemployment are, however, relatively lower than national estimates (Swartland Municipality, 2007b). There is a particularly high level of people who are ‘Not Economically Active’, suggesting a high level of early retirees, or homes characterised by a single breadwinner. The Swartland IDP (2007a) has indicated that the black African population has a much higher unemployment rate than the other groups and this could be largely related to immigration for employment opportunities.

Table 7.13: Employment status (2001) Status Ward 5 Swartland Employed 54.4% 57.2% Unemployed 6.1% 6.5% Not Economically Active* 39.5% 36.3% Source: Census, 2001 % is a proportion of those of working age (15 – 65 yrs) * People who are neither in employment nor unemployed and therefore not seeking work. This group includes, for example, all those who were looking after a home, studying or retired.

The individual monthly income of the Swartland population indicates that income levels were fairly low in 2001 as indicated in Table 7.14 overleaf. Almost 50% of the population earned no income, while approximately 30% earned only R1,600 or less per month. The low incomes in rural areas can be attributed to the limited value adding potential of primary industries (such as agriculture) and the limited skills required to do this work (Swartland Municipality, 2007a). The Swartland IDP (2007a) has identified the black population as the lowest earners and this is indicative of low skills levels, whilst the white population are the highest earners. This can be quantified through comparison of

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 101 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

the 2001 mean income per ethnic group showing that the black population had a mean income of R1,290 per month; coloureds, R1,655; and whites, R 9,720 (Swartland Municipality, 2005).

The Swartland Economic Profile (2005) reported that for 2005, social grants were received by 6,000 people which equates to 8% of the estimated Swartland population and 12% of the potential labour force. Although this facilitates additional spend in the local economy, the Swartland Economic Profile (2005) noted that it was not sustainable and may act as a disincentive to engage in the local economy.

The West Coast Poverty Alleviation Strategy (2006) has indicated that the average household in Swartland spends most of their monthly income on food and clothing as well as housing followed by education. Furthermore, in Swartland 15% of households cannot afford transport, 70% food, and 10% housing, while 5% indicated that basic services are unaffordable (West Coast District Municipality, 2006).

Table 7.14: Individual monthly income in the Swartland Municipality (2001) Income Bracket Persons Percentage None 35940 49.8% R1 ‐ 400 3619 5.0% R401 ‐ 800 13258 18.4% R801 – 1,600 8358 11.6% R1,601 – 3,200 5265 7.3% R3,201 – 6,400 3317 4.6% R6,401 – 12,800 1542 2.1% R12,801 – 25,600 463 0.6% R25,601 – 51,200 176 0.2% R51,201 – 10,2400 98 0.1% R10,2401 – 204,800 62 0.1% Over R204,801 20 0.0% Source: Census, 2001

Table 7.15 overleaf, sets out the distribution of employment by sector and it is evident that the predominant sector is agriculture (35.3%), followed by community, social and personal services (11.1%), manufacturing (10.8%) and wholesale/retail (10.8%). The predominance of agriculture has been discussed in Section 8.10.1 above, while the employment in the community, social and personal services relates largely to Government jobs. Wholesale and retail trade employment can be attributed to tourism activities to some degree.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 102 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

Table 7.15: Industry amongst the employed in the Swartland Municipality (2001) Industry Number Percentage Agriculture/Forestry/Fishing 9,683 35.3% Community/Social/Personal 3,052 11.1% Construction 1,640 6.0% Electricity/Gas/Water 122 0.4% Financial/Insurance/Real Estate/Business 1,001 3.7% Manufacturing 2,970 10.8% Mining/Quarrying 59 0.2% Other 0 0.0% Private Households 1,784 6.5% Transport/Storage/Communication 569 2.1% Undetermined 3,564 13.0% Wholesale/Retail 2,974 10.8% Total 27,418 100% Source: Census, 2001; Note: % is a proportion of all of those employed of working age (15 – 65 yrs)

Table 7.16 below sets out the composition of occupations within the Municipality in 2001. Elementary occupations are dominant (27.3%) which largely comprises labourers in the sectors of agriculture, fishery, mining, construction, manufacturing and transport, and other low skilled sales and services occupations such as vendors, domestic workers, and garbage collectors. This is followed by a small percentage of craft and related trades workers (4.9%), clerks (4.3%) and pant and machine operators and assemblers (3.6%). Overall it shows that only a small proportion of the formally employed population are in remunerative managerial or professional positions. These trends in occupation are consistent with the low average monthly incomes in the Municipality as well as high level of employment in the agricultural sector (Swartland Municipality, 2007a).

Table 7.16: Occupations in the Swartland Municipality (2001) Occupation Number Percentage Legislators, senior officials and managers 1,038 2.2% Professionals 763 1.6% Technicians and associate professionals 1,348 2.8% Clerks 2,070 4.3% Service workers, ship and market sales workers 1,566 3.3% Skilled agricultural and fishery workers 1,201 2.5% Craft and related trades workers 2,352 4.9% Plant and machine operators and assemblers 1,718 3.6% Elementary occupations 13,083 27.3% Undetermined 2,272 4.7% Total 47,893 100% Source: Census, 2001; Note: % is a proportion of all of those employed of working age (15 – 65 yrs)

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 103 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

Housing

The most common type of accommodation in the Swartland in 2001 was a ‘house or brick structure on a separate stand or yard’ which accounted for 76.8% of all households. Table 7.17 overleaf sets out the tenure status of households in the Swartland Municipality in 2001. According to the data, 39.6% of all households are owned and fully paid off. As many as 21.5% are occupied rent free, and this was followed by rented accommodation accounting for 18.9% of the households. This indicates that there is a relatively high level (52.4%) of home ownership in the Swartland Municipality. The IDP indicates that there is a backlog of 7,000 houses to be subsidised within the Municipality. Darling has the second highest need for housing at 908 houses, however, only 400 are proposed within the Plan period. This has implications for existing infrastructure capacity.

Table 7.17: Tenure status in the Swartland Municipality (2001) Tenure Status Number Percentage Owned and fully paid off 7,431 39.6% Owned but not yet paid off 2,393 12.8% Rented 3,550 18.9% Occupied rent‐free 4,029 21.5% Not applicable 1,355 7.2% Total 18,758 100% Source: Census, 2001

Transport

Table 7.18 below sets out the mode of transport used by the resident Swartland population in 2001. According to the data, the predominant mode of travel which individuals use to travel to work and school is by foot (34.8%). This is followed by travel by bus (7%), as a passenger in a private vehicle (6.8%), and by car as a driver (6.2%). The West Coast Poverty Alleviation Strategy (2006) states that the transport network in the Swartland Municipal area is fairly well developed in comparison to the other municipalities in the West Coast District, however, there is still the requirement to upgrade much of this infrastructure. The Strategy highlights that it is difficult to implement public transport infrastructure and services to serve settlements which can only be reached via a dirt road (West Coast District Municipality, 2006). Transport is therefore a constraint to employment in terms of access. Table 7.18: Mode of travel in the Swartland Municipality (2001) Mode of Travel Number Percentage On foot 25,087 34.8% By bicycle 326 0.5% By motorcycle 138 0.2% By car as a driver 4,447 6.2% By car as a passenger 4,887 6.8% By minibus / taxi 3,077 4.3% By bus 5,024 7.0% By train 439 0.6% Other 1,030 1.4% Not applicable 27,661 38.4% Total 72,116 100% Source: Census, 2001

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 104 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

Services

As set out in Table 7.19 overleaf, in 2001, most of the population residing in the Swartland (72.2%) had access to water in the form of piped water inside their dwellings. This was followed by 15.8% of individuals who had piped water inside their yards. A further 5.1% of the population had access to piped water on a community stand less than 200 meters away from their dwelling. The West Coast Poverty Alleviation Strategy (2006) indicates that according to the poverty criteria 93.2% of individuals living in the Swartland Municipal area have access to water and are above the poverty line.

Table 7.19: Access to piped water in the Swartland Municipality (2001) Level of Access Number Percentage No access to piped (tap) water 272 1.5% Piped (tap) water to community stand: distance 999 greater than 200m from dwelling 5.3% Piped (tap) water to community stand: distance less 964 than 200m from dwelling 5.1% Piped (tap) water inside yard 2,966 15.8% Piped (tap) water inside dwelling 13,539 72.2% Not applicable 18 0.1% Total 18,758 100% Source: Census, 2001

Energy is required for basic needs such as cooking, heating and lighting. As set out in Table 7.20 below approximately 91% of the population residing in Swartland have access to electricity for lighting (and therefore energy) and are above the poverty line. The next most prevalent form of energy used is candles which are used by 5.7% of the population, followed by paraffin which accounts for 2.6%. Cooking and heating use other sources of energy such as wood, coal, and animal dung. This data indicates that there is a relatively high level of services for basic needs in the Municipality.

Table 7.20: Access to energy in the Swartland Municipality (2001) Type of Energy Used for Lighting Number Percentage Electricity 17,070 91.0% Gas 36 0.2% Paraffin 483 2.6% Candles 1,071 5.7% Solar 15 0.1% Other 67 0.4% Not applicable (institutions) 18 0.1% Total 18,760 100% Source: Census, 2001

Table 7.21 overleaf sets out the sanitation available to the residents in the Municipality in 2001. Only 73.7% of households had access to a flush toilet connected to a sewerage system and the remaining residents did not have access to a proper sanitation facility.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 105 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

Table 7.21: Toilet facilities in the Swartland Municipality (2001) Type of Toilet Number Percentage Flush toilet (connected to sewerage system) 13,824 73.7% Flush toilet (with septic tank) 2,150 11.5% Chemical toilet 84 0.4% Pit latrine with ventilation (VIP) 396 2.1% Pit latrine without ventilation 358 1.9% Bucket latrine 983 5.2% None 945 5.0% Not applicable 18 0.1% Total 18,758 100% Source: Census, 2001 Health

The Swartland IDP (2007a) identifies TB and HIV/AIDS as the two primary health issues in the area. The Swartland LED Strategy (2007b) identified that there was an estimated 5% HIV prevalence in the Municipality which was lower than provincial and national estimates. This equates to approximately 8,581 people as HIV positive. At present all towns and settlements have access to part or full time clinic services, while Antiretrovirals (ARV) are distributed from the Swartland Hospital. According to the Swartland LED Strategy (2007b), life expectancy in the area may currently be above the national average. However, future negative trends may be expected as a result of an increase in HIV and crime.

Crime

According to the Swartland LED Strategy (2007b), the number of crimes per 1,000 individuals has been estimated to be 78, which is the second highest in the West Coast. The IDP (2007) links a number of serious crimes to alcohol and substance abuse which is a key social issue in the Municipality. Other safety issues in the Municipality relate to land invasion and road safety.

Summary of the Socio‐Economic Profile

In summary, the Swartland Municipality was found to have the following general characteristics:  Dominant agricultural sector;  Potential for growth in tourism;  Low levels of education and skills;  Low incomes;  Moderate levels of unemployment (relative to national levels);  Out‐migration of White youth for employment elsewhere and in‐migration of White mature age groups for retirement or commuting lifestyle;  In‐migration of Black youth seeking employment;  Increasing disparity between the rich and the poor;  Good transport network with a lack of public transport in rural areas;  Relatively high levels of access to energy and piped water, with sanitation less widespread;  HIV/AIDS and TB are key health concerns; and  Crime linked to alcohol and substance abuse is a key social problem.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 106 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

7.10.3 Social Environment

A profile of the character and land use of the surrounding area was generated through interviews with local stakeholders and this provides a rich data set which is summarised here. This supplements the desk based research done through scoping as set out in Section 8.10.2 above. Respondents were asked what they believed were the attributes of the area; what people liked most about living in the area; and what people would like to change about the area. The demographic profile of the area was discussed, and the social context in terms of community facilities; social networks; migration patterns; and trip generators were also considered. In terms of land uses, knowledge of land uses and activities in the area and potential changes thereof were explored.

Social issues have the potential to transcend geographical boundaries, and the profile for the Project has been considered at the District, Local and settlement level. Respondents were asked to define the area of potential impact. In particular, the communities within the ‘area of influence’ of the proposed wind farm were identified by some interviewees as falling into the Darling, Yzerfontein and Jacobuskraal area. Other respondents felt that Darling was outside the zone as it was ±13 km from the site and the wind farm was not visible from the town. However, some respondents felt that Yzerfontein was also outside the zone of influence at ±8 km distance even though the existing turbines are visible from some houses and from the jetty.

The Darling and Yzerfontein area, within the context of the Swartland Municipality and West Coast District Municipality, is appreciated for its rural qualities and described as ‘quiet’, ‘unspoilt’, ‘unaffected’ and ‘laid back’ with low levels of crime and an abundance of natural beauty (including the flowers and cultural heritage). The West Coast in general is also appreciated for its ‘vast openness’ and ‘simplicity’ (M. Daiber, 7/6/2011). Other attributes recognised by the interviewees include the low population density; proximity to Cape Town; climate; and diversity of offer. The area is seen to suffer from unemployment and poverty with large disparities between the rich and poor. Improvements recommended in Darling, in particular, include improving the limited public transport, improving access to adequate high schooling and a hospital; and the need for beautification of the main road as the central business area. Yzerfontein is a holiday town with a smaller proportion of permanent residents with the needs of the town mostly orientated towards tourism, see Section 8.10.1 above.

Around the site specifically, the area is predominantly rural and the surrounding commercial farms support wheat, beef and dairy cattle, sheep, ostriches, corn and wine (C. Basson, J.F Kirsten, E. Loedolff, 23/5/2011 and A. Bosch, 10/6/2011). The farms employ between three and 20 people depending on their size and some of these also accommodate the families of the employees. See Appendix A (of Appendix 8.6) for a summary of the neighbouring land uses. Some of the farms, for example Klein Windhoek, Elsana, and Tumbleweed (Jacobuskraal 5/554) although zoned as agricultural, have no commercial agricultural activities at present.

The town of Darling is divided by the railway line which also delineates two cultural groups. It was acknowledged that more integration between these two communities is required (H. Cleophas, 4/5/2011). On the one side there are predominantly white residents, many of which are retirees. A new trend is that young people able to work from home and commute on the odd occasion are moving to Darling (A. Thoma, 4/5/2011). In Darling East, on the other side of the tracks is a predominantly coloured population. Unemployment in the town is a problem (G. Adams, 21/4/2011) and a large number of people live in government housing and are reliant on social grants. The surrounding rural areas provide seasonal jobs for some residents of Darling, such as ploughing,

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 107 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

planting, pruning, spraying and harvesting. However, the majority of farm work is provided by the labour stock of the farm workers and their extended families (G. Adams, 21/4/2011 and A. Thoma, 4/5/2011).

Yzerfontein is a holiday town with nearly half of all residents being permanent (A. Van Ellewee, W. Badenhorst, and B. Geel, 3/5/2011). It is said to be expanding and developing as is evident by the number of active building sites within the town. Jacobuskraal is located in the north west quadrant of the Junction between the R27 and the R315 and comprises approximately 25 small holding plots of about 10 ha each. Each 10 ha plot is allocated 3 ha for agricultural activities and residential accommodation and the remaining 7 ha is conserved in its natural state (J. Pocock, 29/6/2011). Two of the plots provide tourism accommodation and these are the only commercial activities within the Estate. There are some small scale farming activities, with limited commercial farming ventures. Only about eight or nine of the plots are occupied, although this is increasing (J. Pocock, 29/6/2011).

Reasons that people travel out of Darling include commuting for formal and informal employment (the Yzerfontein workforce is mostly from Darling), to attend high schools, shopping , travelling to a hospital or 24 hour medical facility or to access the services of the Department of Home Affairs in Malmesbury. Recreationally, residents travel to Yzerfontein for day trips to the beach, or into Cape Town on occasions. However, it has been noted that the R27 is not the shortest route to Cape Town and therefore not always the preferred route for residents or tourists (G. Adams, 21/4/2011).

Land uses around the site are mostly rural, however, there are a number of other land uses. As already mentioned, there are small holdings in Jacobuskraal which signify residential receptors. See

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 108 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

Figure 1.1. Other land uses and activities include the following:  Bambe Zonke B&B in Jacobuskraal Estate  The West Coast Farm Stall on the south west quadrant of the junction which also houses a CWCBR information hub  The Tienie Versveld Wildflower Reserve under the custodianship of SANBI, ±2.5 km south east of the site Further afield are the following nature / game reserves:

 The !Khwa ttu San Cultural and Education Centre, ±4 km south of the side along the R27;  The West Coast National Park, located north west of the site, with the closest section being the coastal strip north of Yzerfontein ±7.5km west of the site;  Buffelsfontein Game and Nature Reserve, ±8.5 km north of the site along the R27;  Jakkalsfontein Nature Reserve (8‐10km) south west of the site on the coast; and  Rondeberg Nature Reserve (10km) south east of the site. Future development proposals in the vicinity of the site include: garages for fishing boats opposite the existing West Coast Farm Stall, which is said to be more of a longer term proposal, as well as low cost housing along the R27 which is also not likely to go ahead in the next 15‐20 years (H. Cleophas, 4/5/2011). There were also rumours of a proposed filling station at the junction (H. Jansie, 21/4/2011) but these were not confirmed. The farm Elsana at the south east quadrant of the junction has an approval from the local Municipality for a padstal and light farming (H. Louw, 29/6/2011). The construction of the cable station at Yzerfontein and cable runs for the West African Cable System from Europe is currently underway. In terms of renewable energy proposals, there is the 138 MW Rheboksfontein Wind Energy Facility which comprises 80 wind turbines and associated infrastructure on seven farm portions farms (39 km2) to the south of the R315, the nearest being Grootberg 1199 approximately 1.5 km from the site (Savannah Environmental, 2010). This development has been included in the assessment of cumulative impacts (see Section 14.4.11).

The stakeholders provided a range of information on the tourism potential of the area. The qualities of the area that were tourist assets include the following:

In Darling, the main attraction is the wildflowers (and flower route; culture (such as Evita Perron4 and the arts); wine; and events such as the Darling Marathon and Voorkamer Fest (M. Ashford, 21/4/2011 and H. Jansie, 21/4/2011). It was identified that there is the potential for more events which have significant indirect benefits for the local economy (M. Ashford, 21/4/2011). The West Coast Farm Stall near the site has an aviary, nursery and lion tours. In Yzerfontein the attraction is the beach (blue flag) and watersports, fishing, whale watching, the greenbelt and ‘fantastic accommodation’ (A. Van Ellewee, W. Badenhorst and B. Geel, 3/5/2011). Another attraction is the Strandkombuis which is a restaurant, accommodation and wedding venue. The potential for tourism related activities to Dassen Island is also recognised and being pursued by the Yzerfontein Tourism Committee. The lack of a show ground or conference facilities is recognised as a hindrance to hosting additional events in the area (A. Van Ellewee, W. Badenhorst and B. Geel, 3/5/2011). Other improvements such as roads, public transport and events in the wider Swartland and West Coast District were also suggested as a means of increasing the tourism potential of the area (D. Cornelius, 4/5/2011 and M. Ashford, 21/4/2011). Recently, the CWCBR has launched Cape West Coast Trails

4 A local theatre based on the persona of Evita Bezuidenhout, a fictional political figure.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 109 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

which includes walks, hikes, canoeing and cycling through the wider Biosphere Reserve. There is also a current initiative to establish the West Coast as a ‘place of heritage’ through a network of living heritage, fossils and rock art linking places like !Khwa ttu, the Fossil Park, and rock art sites. It was also noted that to maintain and enhance the tourism potential in the West Coast it is vital to retain the ‘right aesthetics’ and ‘character’ of the area (M. Daiber, 7/6/2011).

It is reported that in the towns and the broader Swartland and West Coast District, the tourists are local, national and international. The international tourists originate mostly from the UK, Germany, and Netherlands, with Yzerfontein reporting Americans as well. National tourists travel to this area from ‘upcountry’ which includes Gauteng and the Free State (H. Jansie, 21/4/2011, A. Van Ellewee, W. Badenhorst and B. Geel, 3/5/2011). Local tourists include residents from the Western Cape, a large portion travelling north from Cape Town. Tourism peaks include the festive season (November ‐ January) for longer stays especially in Yzerfontein; the Easter break mostly for tourism from within the Western Cape; the flower season (June‐September) which attracts both local and international tourists for short stays; and smaller tourism peaks over long weekends and school holidays and related to special events (H. Jansie, 21/4/2011, A. Van Ellewee, W. Badenhorst and B. Geel, 3/5/2011, M. Ashford, 21/4/2011 and D. Cornelius, 4/5/2011). The West Coast District is mostly a destination in itself with its own attractions, but is also a gateway to the Northern Cape and Namibia via the N7 (D. Cornelius, 4/5/2011). This evidence shows that there is already a nascent tourism industry in the area which has considerable social, cultural and environmental assets, and the potential to develop this further. Increasingly the value of natural and cultural assets is being recognised as a means to stimulate the local economy.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 110 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

8 IMPACTS ON BOTANY

The Botanical Impact Assessment (Helme, 2011) attached as Appendix 8.1 has set out and assessed a number of potential botanical impacts and proposed the necessary mitigation to reduce any negative impacts and enhance the positive impacts. These are summarised in Table 8.1 at the end of the section. The mapping of the botanical sensitivity in relation to the siting of the Project infrastructure for both Option 1 and 2 is depicted overleaf, in Figure 8.1 and Figure 8.2.

8.1 CONSTRUCTION PHASE (MOSTLY DIRECT IMPACTS)

Option 1 will result in permanent loss of at least 2.7 ha of medium sensitivity vegetation and about 0.4 ha of high sensitivity vegetation, whereas for Option 2 this would also be 2.7 ha of medium sensitivity vegetation, but with at least 1.1 ha of high sensitivity vegetation. At least 150 ha of high sensitivity natural vegetation is present on the Kerrie Fontein property, and total loss of high sensitivity vegetation on the property is thus not more than 1%, even for Option 2.

However, in Option 2 two of the proposed turbines are located right within the seasonal drainage lines, which could be problematic from an erosion and geotechnical perspective, but is also problematic from an ecological perspective. These drainage lines are seasonal wetlands, and all infrastructure should be located at least 32 m from the outer edge of any wetland, according to DWA guidelines, and standard best practise. Secondly, these drainage lines can be viewed as ecological corridors, particularly for moisture dependant species (such as frogs), and no development should thus be located in these areas. Thirdly, the drainage lines are likely to support a number of rare and localised plant species, such as the Endangered Geissorhiza radians (kelkiewyn), and turbine placement in these areas is thus likely to result in loss of an estimated 20% of the local populations of such species.

Overall, Option 1 will have a lower direct botanical impact than Option 2, as the former does not have any turbines positioned directly within seasonal drainage lines of high botanical sensitivity, whereas the latter has two turbines in such areas. Option 1 is likely to have a low to medium negative direct impact, and Option 2 a medium to high negative direct impact, prior to mitigation.

The existing natural vegetation will be severely disturbed (but not totally lost) in various areas, mostly as a result of heavy machinery movement through some sensitive areas, road construction, cable trench excavation through sensitive areas, and the associated piling and scraping of soil for foundations where this is close to or in natural vegetation. Most of these areas should eventually recover to a significant degree (if natural vegetation is retained in the adjacent areas), but the crushed and dug up vegetation will take at least 12 years (and possibly much longer if rainfall is below normal) in order to recover to a point where at least 80% of the original diversity is once again present. Certain species may not return for many additional years, due to changes in soil structure (compaction or chemical changes). The impacts in this case thus rate as being long term.

Primary sources of disturbance will be the large crane that is used to put up the machinery, which has caterpillar tracks and a width of 10 m; laydown areas next to the turbines; turning circles for long trucks; and the burying of the underground cabling on site. Areas where most of the on site impacts are likely to occur are illustrated in Figure 7.3.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 111 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011 ¯ Km Project Location Project Sensitivity Areas Sensitivity High Medium Proposed Substation Substation Existing Dam Turbines Proposed Turbines Existing Boundaries Cadastral Arterial Route Access Other Roads Access Roads Internal Proposed Power Line Lines Electrical Underground Seasonal Drainage Line 20m Contours Date: September 2011 September Date: Scale: 1:6500 Note: UnshadedNote:denote areas areas of low sensitivity Applicant: Oelsner Group (Pty) Ltd (Pty) Group Oelsner Applicant: 0.15 Environmental Evaluation Unit Evaluation Environmental Town of Cape University Bag X3 Private 7700 Rondebosch Town Cape 2866 650 +27 21 Tel: 650 3971 +27 21 Fax: Legend !!!! 00.30.6 Projection: GCS WGS 1984 WGS GCS Projection: 1984) (WGS Geographic Datum: Mapping and Surverys of Department Source: Data Town Cape Hill

Moedmaag R315 (3/552) Slangkop Farm Slangkop Botanical Sensitivity Botanical

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! (0/555) ! ! ! ! 5 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Kerrie Fontein Farm Fontein Kerrie ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Figure 8.1: Option 1- ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! R27 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Jacobuskraal Estate Jacobuskraal ¯ Km Project Location Project Sensitivity Areas Sensitivity High Medium Proposed Substation Substation Existing Dam Turbines Proposed Turbines Existing Boundaries Cadastral Arterial Route Access Other Roads Access Roads Internal Proposed Power Line Lines Electrical Underground Seasonal Drainage Line 20m Contours Date: September 2011 September Date: Scale: 1:6500 Note: UnshadedNote:denote areas areas of low sensitivity Applicant: Oelsner Group (Pty) Ltd (Pty) Group Oelsner Applicant: 0.15 Environmental Evaluation Unit Evaluation Environmental Town of Cape University Bag X3 Private 7700 Rondebosch Town Cape 2866 650 +27 21 Tel: 650 3971 +27 21 Fax: Legend !!!! 00.30.6 Projection: GCS WGS 1984 WGS GCS Projection: 1984) (WGS Geographic Datum: Mapping and Surverys of Department Source: Data Town Cape Hill

Moedmaag R315 (3/552) Slangkop Farm Slangkop Botanical Sensitivity Botanical

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! (0/555) ! ! 5 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Kerrie Fontein Farm Fontein Kerrie ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! Figure 8.2: Option 2- ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! R27 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Jacobuskraal Estate Jacobuskraal

8.2 OPERATIONAL PHASE (MOSTLY INDIRECT BOTANICAL IMPACTS)

8.2.1 Habitat Fragmentation

Habitat fragmentation is likely to be of relatively minor significance, although it will undoubtedly be higher for Option 2 than for Option 1, as the former includes two turbines within natural wetland corridors.

8.2.2 Fire Regime

The impact of the proposed infrastructure on the natural fire regime could be significant, although with an appropriate management plan that requires fire in areas of natural vegetation once every 12‐15 years this impact could be minimised. The developers will naturally want to avoid fires in the immediate vicinity of any of the new infrastructure, but in reality if a firebreak can be maintained 100 m north of the infrastructure then the bulk of the priority vegetation on site (which lies north of the infrastructure) can be appropriately managed. In the absence of fire in these natural vegetation areas many species will become locally extinct, and optimal ecological functioning will not be possible, and this would naturally be a significant impact.

8.2.3 Alien Invasives

The soil disturbance caused by the proposed development will definitely encourage the spread and establishment of invasive alien vegetation, which could potentially have a significant negative impact. Fortunately this is relatively easily managed, but it does require ongoing adherence to an appropriate Environmental Management Plan (EMP). In the absence of accurate information on where the large amount of concrete required for the turbine foundations will come from and the exact environmental impact thereof this cannot be assessed, but is nevertheless noted as a potential negative indirect impact (the limestone required for cement manufacture often comes from botanically sensitive areas).

8.3 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Cumulative impacts occur at both construction and operational phases. To some extent a cumulative impact is a regional impact, rather than the local site scale impact, i.e. if something has a regional impact it also has a cumulative impact.

The impacts of this type of development will be significantly less than for various existing and ongoing agricultural operations in the region, as well as for the many unmanaged and expanding alien plant invasions on numerous properties.

The proposed Project thus has a fairly small but still important low negative cumulative impact in the region, but this can be mitigated by specifying Option 1 as the preferred layout, and by formal conservation and active management of the natural areas on the overall site. If effectively mitigated (by appropriate and successful ecological management of the approximately 150 ha of high and 100 ha of medium sensitivity areas on the site), the overall net effect could be low positive, which would thus mean a slightly positive cumulative impact as well.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 114 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

8.4 ASSESSMENT OF NO‐GO ALTERNATIVE

The status quo is not positive for the remaining natural vegetation on site, as the alien vegetation problem in the study area is not being managed, many areas show signs of being heavily grazed and trampled (by livestock), fire management is not optimal, and there is no guarantee that the important areas of remaining natural vegetation on site will continue to be conserved. On balance the status quo is deemed to have a low negative impact on the natural vegetation on site.

8.5 STATEMENT OF IMPACT

Option 1 is likely to have a low to medium negative botanical impact overall, prior to mitigation, whereas Option 2 is likely to have a medium to high negative impact, before mitigation. Option 1 is thus the preferred development option (alternative).

With appropriate environmental management of the development area, as well as of the remaining areas of natural vegetation on the greater study area (including at least 150 ha of high sensitivity vegetation and at least 100 ha of medium sensitivity vegetation), the overall impact of Option 1 could be reduced to low positive. The environmental management of the overall site would have to be audited by annual monitoring in order to ensure compliance. If not adequately managed then the preferred development alternative (Option 1) would not necessarily be clearly preferable to the No‐Go alternative, as the latter is likely to have a low negative impact over time (due mainly to ongoing alien plant invasion and inappropriate fire management).

8.6 MITIGATION

The mitigation measures in this section are proposed on the basis that Option 1 will be the preferred development alternative, and that Option 2 will not be authorised or further considered. All mitigation requirements thus refer to Option 1, and are considered feasible, reasonable and mandatory.

i. The proposed internal link road between the two turbine rows should be moved 150m to the east to minimize the impact on medium sensitivity vegetation in this area. ii. Prior to any development within high or medium sensitivity areas a major plant Search and Rescue programme should be undertaken. Search and Rescue (S&R) of certain translocatable, selected succulents, shrubs and bulbs occurring in long term and permanent, hard surface development footprints (i.e. all buildings, new roads and tracks, laydown areas, and turbine positions) should take place. All such development footprints must be surveyed and pegged out as soon as possible, with coloured rope strung between the pegs to indicate the approved development footprints. A horticulturist with West Coast Search and Rescue experience should be appointed to undertake the S&R, in consultation with the specialist botanist. All rescued species should be bagged (and cuttings taken where appropriate) and kept in an on‐site shade nursery (if water can be provided; otherwise off‐site) and should be returned to site once all construction is completed and rehabilitation of disturbed areas is required. Replanting should only occur in autumn or early winter (late April – May), once the first rains have fallen, in order to facilitate establishment. Genera that can be considered for rescue are all bulbs and tuberous

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 115 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

species (Haemanthus, Brunsvigia, Babiana, Lachenalia, Trachyandra, Albuca, Veltheimia, Arctopus, etc.), plus selected specimens of succulents such as Ruschia and Lampranthus species, and shrubs and restios such as Thamnochortus species.

iii. An ECO must be present during the duration of the construction phase.

iv. Any excavation or road building within designated high sensitivity areas, including those for cables, must be supervised by the ECO. No excavations may be left open for more than one week, and they should preferably be closed up within one day, using the carefully stockpiled soil that came out of the trench.

v. All cable trenches, etc,. through sensitive areas should be dug carefully in order to minimise damage to surrounding areas; all stockpiled sand should be replaced within one week of trench opening; all disturbed areas to be immediately mulched and sown with previously stockpiled local mulch containing indigenous seed.

vi. No dumping or temporary storage of any materials may take place outside designated and demarcated laydown areas. Laydown areas may be located only within areas of low botanical sensitivity. vii. Compacted areas that are no longer needed after construction (e.g. parts of the laydown areas, and the crane tracks) may need to be ripped or scarified to break up the compacted surface (at the discretion of the horticultural / rehabilitation contractor). The areas should then be sown with seed mix collected in the patches of indigenous vegetation on site. viii. ECO should liaise with botanist and horticulturist after completion of main construction phase to identify main areas of compaction in need of ripping and discuss best methodology; ripping may need to be done by tractor, followed by immediate mulching and sowing of previously stockpiled local mulch containing indigenous seed, and possibly hydroseeding with selected local seed.

ix. The appointed horticulturist must collect a locally indigenous seed mix from the natural vegetation on site (preferably by means of vacuum harvesting) and must store this for later use in areas in need of rehabilitation.

x. Only suitable locally indigenous Hopefield Sand Fynbos or Swartland Granite Renosterveld species should be used for rehabilitation or planting anywhere on site. This means that no exotic or invasive species should be used for rehabilitation, and this includes commonly used invasive grass species such as ryegrass (Lolium spp).

xi. Areas requiring rehabilitation will include all areas of natural or partly natural vegetation (i.e. areas mapped as high or medium sensitivity) disturbed during the construction phase and that are not required for regular maintenance operations, or for cultivation. The main areas thus requiring rehabilitation will be recent disturbance to the edges of roads that pass through natural vegetation, the crane tracks alongside the permanent 6m roads, and any cable routings where these fall within areas of natural vegetation. xii. Rehabilitation should only commence once all construction related disturbance associated with the Project has been completed. xiii. The applicant should appoint an expert environmental manager to plan, coordinate and carry out the required block burns in the main patches of high and medium sensitivity natural

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 116 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

vegetation on site, which should ideally be undertaken prior to infrastructure development. This should be done in conjunction with and in line with the management plan to be prepared by CapeNature as part of the Stewardship Programme. All areas of existing natural vegetation should be burnt on a cycle of once every 12 to 15 years. The best time to undertake block burns is in late autumn, as plant recovery will then be best. All areas to be burnt must be cleared of alien vegetation at least two years before. Extensive inputs needed from fire specialist. Local authority fire services should assist, as should local landowners and CapeNature. A windless day in March or April is recommended, with no wind predicted for following two days. Minimum areas burnt at any one time should be 10ha, in order to reduce edge effects. Site can be burnt sequentially in blocks, over a period of five years. xiv. It is strongly recommended that the landowners should refrain from grazing livestock in the high and medium sensitivity vegetation areas in the main winter and spring growing and flowering periods (1 May – end October). The best means of securing this would be by requiring the applicant to sign an agreement to this effect with the landowner, and this should be done within one year of any project approvals. One of the primary reasons for this recommendation is that removal of livestock grazing pressure will have a beneficial effect on the remaining natural vegetation, particularly in terms of natural rehabilitation, in that flowering and seed set of the remaining natural plants (especially pioneers such as the annuals) will be significantly better in the absence of grazing (which removes the flowers). If the nearby annuals and other plants are not grazed this means that natural rehabilitation of the areas disturbed by the Project will be significantly improved, as there will be much more locally indigenous seed available nearby for establishment in the disturbed areas, and the site may also act as a seed source for some nearby overgrazed areas.

xv. Ongoing alien plant monitoring and removal should be undertaken on all areas of natural vegetation on an annual basis. Department of Water Affairs (DWA) approved methodology should be employed for all alien clearing operations. Areas should not be burnt until an area has been clear for at least two years, in order to prevent coppicing and massive seed germination. Acacia cyclops (rooikrans) and Acacia saligna (Port Jackson) are the primary invasive aliens, and both provide valuable firewood that can be sold to defray costs. No bulldozing or mechanical removal is allowed, as this disturbs the soil and creates ideal conditions for re‐invasion. All stems must be cut as close to ground level as possible, using loppers or chainsaws (depending on size), and stumps must be immediately hand painted with a suitable Triclopyr herbicide (e.g. Garlon, Timbrel, with colour dye) to prevent resprouting. If this is not done within five minutes of being cut Port Jackson will resprout, wasting the original effort. Rooikrantz does not usually resprout, but it may do so in some situations, and it is safer to paint herbicide on all stumps. No herbicide spraying should be undertaken anywhere within natural vegetation on site, due to the extensive collateral damage. All cut branches should be stacked into a pyramid (cut ends up) and left to dry – where rodents will eat the available seed under the pile, reducing seed germination. Annual follow‐ups are required in all areas that have been previously cleared. Small seedlings may be hand pulled. All alien clearing should take place in the period October to April, to minimize damage to seasonal species. xvi. All high and medium Sensitivity areas of natural vegetation on site must be fully cleared of invasive aliens within three years of project approval (for the initial clearing), and thereafter there should support less than 1% alien cover in these areas in all following years.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 117 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

xvii. All feasible (as determined by CapeNature) areas of high and medium botanical sensitivity (identified in the Scoping study of Helme, 2010; estimated to be at least 250 ha in extent) must be formally registered as conservation areas with CapeNature’s Stewardship Programme, within one year of project initiation (defined as installation of the first project related infrastructure; subject to CapeNature capacity, and the level of agreement/contract will be at CapeNature’s discretion). This recommendation was one of the primary recommendations of the Scoping Report (Helme, 2010). This may entail a rezoning of these areas (to Open Space), and will require that a management plan for these areas is drawn up, which should include the clause that these areas may not be grazed by livestock between 1 May and end October. In some cases small, isolated patches or strips of mapped high sensitivity habitat may not be deemed feasible or suitable by CapeNature, and in this case these areas could then be excluded from the final conservation area. Associated with this contract will be a requirement for an environmental management plan and environmental auditing to ensure that management is adequately carried out. In this case all costs associated with rezoning and management of these areas will remain the responsibility of the applicant and/or landowners. xviii. The contract between the landowner/s and the applicant must include the relevant clauses concerning the need for CapeNature Stewardship Programme involvement in the identified priority conservation areas on the site (as outlined in the previous bullet). The independent botanist and the CapeNature Stewardship Programme coordinator must both confirm in writing that these clauses are in the contract, within three months of any authorisation.

xix. Both the botanist and the CapeNature Stewardship Coordinator must verify in writing, within one year of project inception, that the Stewardship Programme commitments involving both the landowner/s and the applicants have in fact been adequately implemented.

xx. A botanist (or CapeNature representative) familiar with the vegetation of the area should monitor and audit the rehabilitation and alien vegetation management on an annual basis in August or September, and make recommendations to the applicant (and landowners) on how to improve any problem areas. This monitoring need not take more than two days annually (one day on site, one day write‐up). The applicant should be required to address any problems identified within six months of the annual audit.

xxi. The applicant must ensure that there is sufficient budget to implement all management and monitoring requirements.

The EEU is in support of the botanical measures as recommended by Helme (2011) above. However wishes to note two points. With respect to the fire management proposed, the wind regime on the West Coast and the proximity of neighbouring property and adjacent infrastructure such as Telkom and Eskom lines, and the proposed turbines represents a risk and would need to be assessed at the time with input from the relevant authorities.

Secondly, with regards to the proposed stewardship agreement; the Applicant realises that the potential for a stewardship agreement is at the discretion of CapeNature and does not want to limit a potential intervention or opportunity for biodiversity conservation to that with CapeNature alone. The Applicant is willing to commit to reasonable and feasible conservation measures in partnership with CapeNature or an alternative organisation that can independently guide and monitor the management of the land. For this reason, the Applicant suggests that at DEA’s discretion, an alternative management body or intervention can be agreed and would become part of the OEMP.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 118 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

Table 8.1: Significance of (primary) botanical impacts – Option 1 and Option 2 SIGNIFICANCE SIGNIFICANCE DESCRIPTION NATURE / EXTENT DURATION INTENSITY PROBABILITY (WITHOUT MITIGATION (WITH OF THE IMPACT STATUS MITIGATION) MITIGATION) CONSTRUCTION On site ECO; Option 1: Loss of up to possible Search & 3ha of sensitive Rescue of certain vegetation and portions Local and Low – Medium Negative Permanent Low ‐Medium Definite Low ‐ Medium species; move link of local populations of regional Negative road between plant Species of turbine roads Conservation Concern 150m east On site ECO; Option 1: Loss of up to possible Search & 4ha of sensitive Rescue of certain vegetation and portions Local and Medium–High Negative Permanent Medium‐High Definite Medium‐High species; move link of local populations of regional Negative road between plant Species of turbine roads Conservation Concern 150m east OPERATION Adherence to appropriate EMP; Option 1: Habitat annual environ. fragmentation; disruption Medium term ‐ auditing; priority Negative Local Low‐Medium Highly probable Low‐Medium Low Positive of optimal fire regime; Permanent areas signed up alien plant invasion with Stewardship Programme of CapeNature Adherence to appropriate EMP; Option 2: Habitat annual environ. fragmentation; disruption Medium term ‐ auditing; priority Negative Local Medium‐High Highly probable Medium‐High Neutral of optimal fire regime; Permanent areas signed up alien plant invasion with Stewardship Programme of CapeNature

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 119 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

SIGNIFICANCE SIGNIFICANCE DESCRIPTION NATURE / EXTENT DURATION INTENSITY PROBABILITY (WITHOUT MITIGATION (WITH OF THE IMPACT STATUS MITIGATION) MITIGATION) DECOMMISSIONING Option 1: Disturbance to On site ECO; surrounding natural subsequent alien vegetation and associated Negative Local Medium Term Low‐Medium Highly probable Low‐Medium vegetation Low Negative facilitated alien plant management for invasion three years Option 2: Disturbance to On site ECO; surrounding natural subsequent alien vegetation and associated Negative Local Medium Term Low‐Medium Highly probable Low‐Medium vegetation Low Negative facilitated alien plant management for invasion three years

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 120 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

9 IMPACTS ON AVIFAUA

The issues and potential impacts have been sourced from the Avifauna Impact Assessment Study (van Rooyen, 2011) attached as Appendix 8.2. These are broadly the risk of collisions; displacement; and habitat change and loss.

9.1 COLLISIONS WITH THE TURBINES

9.1.1 Analysis of Monitoring Data

The protocol originally designed by Jenkins (2003) was aimed primarily at assessing the collision risk posed by the proposed wind farm development. The analyses that have been performed on the dataset gathered during 116 hours of monitoring therefore focus primarily on quantifying this risk.

A total of 513 individual raptors and priority species were recorded. The passage rate for a number of classes of birds travelling cross the Project site was also calculated. The passage rate for the priority species and all raptors combined is 4.44 birds per hour. The rate for priority species only is 1.42 birds per hour. A passage rate for priority species in different wind directions was also calculated (see Figure 9.1 below).

Figure 9.1: Passage rate for priority species for different wind directions

It is clear from Figure 9.1 above that the Project site is used most by priority species when winds with a westerly and southerly orientation prevail. This is to be expected as these wind conditions create maximum lift conditions against the slope of Moedmaag Hill.

As mentioned earlier, the turbine area was delineated in horizontal zones for data capture purposes. The zones are as follows:

 plain  slope  crest

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 121 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

crest

slope

Figure 9.2: 4: Horizontal zoning of site

crest

slope

Figure 9.3: Elevation profile of the turbine area

The use of the site relative to the horizontal zoning for priority species was calculated. Most priority species flights were recorded on the plain and slope, with a combined figure of 82% of all recorded priority species flights. The slope is used most with 50% of recorded flights.

Figure 9.4: Recorded flights relative to the horizontal zoning for priority species (%)

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 122 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

In order to assess the risk to priority species more accurately, the percentage of priority species flights recorded at medium height, i.e. potentially within the rotor swept area, was calculated for each of the horizontal zones. 27% of all priority species flights were at medium height on the plain and slope (slope = 23% and plain = 4%). This translates into a passage rate of 0.44 priority species flights per hour for priority species flights at medium height for the slope and plain combined, and 0.33 and 0.06 priority species flights per hour for priority species at medium height for the slope and the plain respectively.

Figure 9.5: Recorded medium height flights relative to the horizontal zoning for priority species (%)

The passage rate for priority species at different wind strengths was also analysed. The passage rates for moderate and strong winds was the highest, namely 1.44 and 1.63 birds per hour respectively.

An analysis of seasonal usage of the site was also done. The results showed that most flights of priority species happen in spring/early summer, followed by late summer/autumn (see Figure 9.6 below).

Figure 9.6: Passage rate for priority species relative to time of year

Lastly, the time of day when most flights of priority species take place was analysed. The results are given in Figure 9.7 overleaf.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 123 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

Figure 9.7: The passage rate of priority species relative to time of day

In order to gain an idea of the potential risk to specific priority species, the passage rate for individual priority species (all flights and all horizontal zones combined) was calculated. The passage rates are given below in Figure 9.8:

Figure 9.8: Passage rate per priority species, all flights and zones combined

The recorded flights for each priority species at medium height on the slope was then calculated as a percentage of that priority species total flights. This is given in Figure 9.9 below:

Figure 9.9: Percentage of flight time spent by each priority species at medium height on the slope.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 124 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

A passage rate per hour for each species at medium height on the slope was calculated by multiplying the overall passage rate of the species with the percentage of time that the species spent at medium height on the slope. This is given in Figure 9.10 below:

Figure 9.10: The estimated passage rate p/h for priority species at medium height on the slope

Finally an estimated collision rate for each species per year was calculated in the following manner: The passage rate was multiplied by 12 to arrive at an average passage rate per day, assuming an average of 12 hours per day potential flight time. This rate was multiplied by 365 to get to an annual passage rate. The surface area of the slope covered by the observer was estimated to be approximately 100 hectares. Within this slope area, there are four existing turbines, and another three are planned. It was assumed that the blades would cover a radius of 40m around the centre of the turbine, which is effectively the area in which a bird could be killed through collision with the blades (the high risk area). The surface area covered by the combined high risk areas of the seven turbines amounts to 7 x 0.5 hectares, i.e 3.5 hectares. This is 3.5% of the total slope area. Based on this it was assumed that a bird that entered the slope area at medium height, had a 96.5% chance of finding itself in safe airspace, regardless of whether it took any evasive action to avoid the turbines, or put differently, 3.5% of birds entering the slope air space at medium height could potentially collide with one of the turbines. This figure was then multiplied by 0.02, on the assumption that 98% of all birds will avoid the turbines by taking evasive action (SNH, 2010). The results are given in Figure 9.11 overleaf:

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 125 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

Figure 9.11: Estimated annual collision rate for priority species

It is important to note the estimated collision rates should be qualified:

 The rates do not take into account nocturnal collisions, as no data on nocturnal flights are available for that at this stage;  The rates do not take into account the fact that the turbines may not be operating for 12 hours per day for 365 days per year;  The rates do not take into account that different species will have different avoidance rates, based on different flight characteristics; and  The rates do not take into account that a bird will not be automatically collide if it entered the high risk zone of a turbine (as defined above).

The estimated collision rate as calculated above is therefore a rough indicator and should not be taken as exact figure by any means, but merely as a guideline.

In summary then, it would seem from the analysis above that the wind facility will not pose a significant collision mortality risk to priority species. The greatest collision risk is posed by the seven turbines on the slope of Moedmaag Hill (i.e. four existing and three proposed), in the following conditions:

 Between 11h00 and 17h00  In spring/early summer i.e. between October and December  In moderate to strong winds with a southerly and westerly orientation

With Jackal Buzzards specifically, the estimated avoidance rate may me more than 98%, as the birds observed on site are most likely a resident pair. These birds have clearly become used to the four existing turbines and are even using them as hunting perches when stationary (pers. obs., Van der Westhuizen, 2011). During 30 hours of monitoring no instances were observed where Jackal Buzzards exhibited any “flaring” behaviour i.e. panicky behaviour to avoid the moving blades, they always seem to be aware of the moving blades and avoided them seemingly with ease. Whether this

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 126 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

would also be the case with inexperienced, juvenile birds remains to be seen. It is therefore essential for carcass searches to commence as soon as possible to verify the estimates made in this study.

Fortunately, the phenomenon of mass migrations involving thousands of birds is not a feature of the Project site, as this can result in significant mortality risks. However, migratory raptors, i.e. Steppe Buzzard Buteo vulpinus and Yellow‐billed Kite Milvus aegyptius were recorded at passage rates of 0.74 and 1.39 birds per hour during the summer and autumn monitoring period, when the species are present in southern Africa. This translates into an estimated collision rate of 0.61 and 0.63 birds per year for kites and buzzards respectively. In terms of existing information on the impacts of wind farm developments, raptors, and particularly species constantly migrating over and through a turbine string, are particularly prone to collision with the blades (Madders and Whitfield, 2006). While Yellow‐billed Kite and Steppe Buzzard are not threatened species, if the Project causes high numbers of casualties of these migrant raptors, this would constitute a significant negative impact of the facility. Given the potential inaccuracy of the predicted collision rate, the only way to verify this would again be to conduct carcass searches during the period when the birds are present.

The effects of night‐time illumination on collision risks have not been adequately tested, and the results of studies are contradictory (Gregory et al, 2007). Studies involving lighted objects or towers indicate that lights may attract birds, rather than disorient or repel them, resulting in collision mortality (Johnson et al, 2007). This is mostly a problem for nocturnal migrants (primarily passerines) during poor visibility conditions. Different colour lights vary in their attractiveness to birds and their effect on orientation. Several studies have shown that intermittent lights have less than an effect on birds than constant lights, with reduced rates of mortality. In addition, some studies suggest that replacing white lights with red coloured lights may reduce mortality by up to 80%. This may be due to the change in light intensity rather than the change in wavelength (Johnson et al, 2007). However, Ugoretz (2001) suggest that birds are more sensitive to red lights and may be attracted to them. Quickly flashing white strobe lights appear to be less attractive. The issue is however far from settled ‐ a study at Buffalo Ridge, Minnesota, where most of the collision fatalities were classified as nocturnal migrants, found little difference between lighted and unlighted turbines (Johnson et al, 2000).The consensus among researchers is to avoid lighting the turbines if possible, but that is against South African civil aviation regulations (Civil Aviation Regulations, 1997). The potential for collisions with the wind turbines due to presence of lights is not envisaged to be significant, primarily because the phenomenon of mass nocturnal passerine migrations is not a feature of the study area. However, the potential effect on nocturnal flamingo movement is unknown. Post – construction monitoring (carcass searches) will be required to assess, if possible, the extent (if any) of nocturnal fatalities that may be linked to the lighting on the turbines.

9.1.2 Impact Assessment

An evaluation of the expected collision impact is provided in summary form below and in Table 9.1.

During operation, bird mortality due to collisions with the turbine blades is considered to be a negative impact, local in extent, long term in duration, medium intensity, probable and of low significance to decision‐making. With the proposed mitigation set out below, the significance of the negative impact would remain as low.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 127 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

9.1.3 Mitigation Measures

Because the estimated collision rate is merely a rough indicator of risk it, it is necessary to verify this estimate with actual carcass searches on site. It is particularly important to commence carcass searches in the winter season to assess whether here are any flamingo casualties due to nocturnal collisions with the existing turbines. These searches must take place according to the attached protocol (see Appendix 1 of Appendix 8.2), which is in accordance with the ‘Best practice guidelines for avian monitoring and impact mitigation at proposed wind energy development sites in southern Africa – Version 1’ (Jenkins et al, 2011). The frequency of these surveys will be informed by assessments of scavenge and decomposition rates conducted in the initial stages of the monitoring period. Subject to the results of the decomposition/scavenge trials, it is proposed that a site survey is conducted twice a month for an initial minimum period of 12 months. After the initial 12 month period, the need for further monitoring will be evaluated again. If the results of the monitoring indicate a significant mortality rate for priority species, appropriate mitigation measures would need to be implemented. These could include any or a combination of the following (Smallwood, 2008):

9.2 COLLISIONS WITH THE PROPOSED POWER LINE

9.2.1 Nature of Impact

Because of their size and prominence, electrical infrastructures constitute an important interface between wildlife and man. Negative interactions between wildlife and electricity structures take many forms, but two common problems in southern Africa are electrocution of birds (and other animals) and birds colliding with power lines (Ledger and Annegarn 1981; Ledger 1983; Ledger 1984; Hobbs and Ledger 1986a; Hobbs and Ledger 1986b; Ledger at el, 1992; Verdoorn 1996; Kruger and Van Rooyen 1998; Van Rooyen 1998; Kruger 1999; Van Rooyen 1999; Van Rooyen 2000).

Collisions kill far more birds annually in southern Africa than electrocutions (Van Rooyen 2007). Most heavily impacted upon are bustards, storks, cranes and various species of water birds. These species are mostly heavy‐bodied birds with limited maneuverability, which makes it difficult for them to take the necessary evasive action to avoid colliding with power lines (van Rooyen 2004, Anderson 2001). Unfortunately, many of the collision sensitive species are considered threatened in southern Africa ‐ of the 2369 avian mortalities on distribution lines recorded by the Endangered Wildlife Trust (EWT) between August 1996 and October 2007, 1512 (63.8%) were Red listed species (Van Rooyen 2007).

In the Overberg region of the Western Cape, which has a very similar Red listed species composition and habitat use as the current study area, power line collisions have long been recorded as a major source of avian mortality (Van Rooyen 2007). Most numerous amongst power line collision victims are Blue Crane and Denham’s Bustard (Shaw 2007). It has been estimated that as many as 10% of the Blue Crane population in the Overberg are killed annually on power lines, and figure for Denham’s Bustard might be as high as 30% of the Overberg population (Shaw 2009). These figures are extremely concerning, as it represents a possible unsustainable source of unnatural mortality.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 128 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

Unfortunately, the dynamics of the collision problem is poorly understood. In the most recent study on this problem in the Overberg, Shaw (2009) identified cultivated land and region as the significant factors influencing power line collision risk. Lines that cross cultivated land pose a higher risk, as expected, as this is the preferred habitat of Blue Cranes in the Overberg. In the current study area, it can be postulated that the old lands and pastures will be higher risk from a power line collision perspective, as this constitutes primary habitat for Blue Crane. Collision rates are higher for birds in flocks, as they may panic, or lack visibility and room for maneuver because of the close proximity of other birds (APLIC, 1994). Other factors, such as proximity to dams, wind direction and proximity to roads and dwellings did not emerge as significant factors, but she readily admits that her broad‐scale analysis may have been too crude to demonstrate their effects. It is for example a well known fact that cranes are particularly vulnerable to power lines skirting water bodies used as roosts, as they often arrive there or leave again in low light conditions (pers. obs.).

Flamingos are another group of birds that is particularly vulnerable to collisions with power lines. Between November 1996 and March 1997, at least twenty‐four Greater Flamingos were killed by collisions with transmission lines running through the large wetlands adjacent to the Project site, namely Slangkop, Swartwater and Droëvlei pans (Van Rooyen, 2007). It is not known what the actual mortality figures are, but it could be significant as regular monitoring of the site has not taken place since, but it is likely to be an ongoing cause of mortality.

The Project will make use of underground cabling to link each turbine with the respective substation, therefore no collision risk will be posed by these cables. An existing 66 kV line running parallel to the R27 connects the existing substation to the national grid. It is proposed that the new substation on the Kerrie Fontein Farm is located along this alignment to facilitate a new connection. The positive result of this arrangement is that no new overhead power lines will need to be constructed, which means that this additional potential source of unnatural mortality is effectively negated.

9.2.2 Impact Assessment

This impact is not expected to materialise.

9.2.3 Mitigation Measures

No mitigation will be required for this impact, as it is not expected to materialise.

9.3 DISPLACEMENT

9.3.1 Nature of impact

Although the 116 hours of monitoring at the site was primarily designed to assess the collision risks to priority species, it also provides an indication of the suitability of the site for foraging and breeding purposes. Amongst the priority species, raptors are the birds most likely to be using the site for foraging purposes, and therefore are potentially most susceptible to this impact. No indication of raptor or other priority species breeding activity was recorded during any of the monitoring periods. The following raptors have been recorded at the site:

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 129 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

 African Fish Eagle Haliaeetus vocifer  Black‐chested Snake‐eagle Circaetus pectoralis  Booted Eagle Aquila pennatus  Black‐shouldered Kite Elanus caeruleus  Black Sparrowhawk Accipiter melanoleucus  African Harrier‐hawk Polyboroides typus  Jackal Buzzard Buteo rofufuscus  Lanner Falcon Falco biarmicus  Martial Eagle Polemaetus bellicosus  Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus  Rock Kestrel Falco rupicolus  Steppe Buzzard Buteo buteo  Secretarybird Sagittarius serpentarius  Yellow‐billed Kite Milvus migrans  Black Harrier Circus maurus Although more studies are needed and more should be peer‐reviewed in the public domain, research indicates that, with few exceptions, the displacement effect of wind developments on raptors is low to negligible (Madders and Whitfield, 2008). This trend seems to be supported by the results of the limited post‐construction monitoring conducted at the existing four turbines. The following raptor species were recorded at the site during 30 hours of formal post‐construction monitoring and three hours of informal post‐construction monitoring (Van Beuningen and Retief, 2010).

 Booted Eagle  Black‐shouldered Kite  Jackal Buzzard  Lanner Falcon  Martial Eagle  Peregrine Falcon  Rock Kestrel  Steppe Buzzard  Secretarybird  Yellow‐billed Kite In the present study area, it can be reasonably postulated that sensitive species such as Blue Crane could be affected by the noise (and the movement) of the construction and operation of the turbines. Morrison (1998) found that the probability of finding Blue Crane nests decrease as the number of roads in an area increase. She further found that Blue Cranes actively avoided tar and gravel roads, houses and areas of agricultural activity when selecting a nest site. The habitat at the Project site is not particularly suitable for Blue Cranes as a foraging and nesting area, as they prefer agricultural areas to natural vegetation in the Swartland (Young, 2003). Only 16% of the current Project site is agricultural land, therefore the displacement effect on Blue Cranes should be relatively minimal.

A review of the literature suggests that none of the barrier effects identified so far have significant impacts on populations (Drewitt and Langston, 2006). However, there are circumstances where the barrier effect might lead indirectly to population level impacts; for example where a wind farm

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 130 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

effectively blocks a regularly used flight line between nesting and foraging areas, or where several wind farms interact cumulatively to create an extensive barrier which could lead to diversions of many tens of kilometres, thereby incurring increased energy costs. It has to be assumed that it could be a factor for several species, including Red listed species such as Blue Crane, Great White Pelican and both species of flamingo, but it is very difficult to measure. As mentioned earlier, raptors and vultures may be less prone to displacement and avoidance effects (Madders and Whitfield, 2006), which unfortunately put them at a greater risk of collision.

9.3.2 Impact Assessment

An evaluation of the expected displacement impact on priority species is provided in summary form below and in Table 9.1.

During construction, displacement of priority species is considered to be a negative impact, local in extent, temporary in duration, low intensity, probable and of low significance to decision‐making.

During operation, displacement of priority species is considered to be a negative impact, local in extent, long term in duration, low intensity, improbable and of low significance to decision‐making.

During decommissioning, displacement of priority species is considered to be a negative impact, local in extent, temporary in duration, low intensity, probable and of low significance to decision‐ making.

9.3.3 Mitigation Measures

Due to the relatively minor significance of this impact on priority species, no specific mitigation measures are recommended.

9.4 HABITAT LOSS

9.4.1 Nature of Impact

The scale of direct habitat loss resulting from the construction of a wind farm and associated infrastructure depends on the size of the project but, generally speaking, is likely to be small per turbine base. Typically, actual habitat loss amounts to 2–5% of the total development area (Fox et al, 2006 as cited by Drewitt and Langston, 2006), though effects could be more widespread where developments interfere with hydrological patterns or flows on wetland or peatland sites (unpublished data). Some changes could also be beneficial. For example, habitat changes following the development of the Altamont Pass wind farm in California led to increased mammal prey availability for some species of raptor (for example through greater availability of burrows for Pocket Gophers Thomomys bottae around turbine bases), though this may also have increased collision risk (Thelander et al, 2003 as cited by Drewitt and Langston, 2006). At the Project site, direct habitat loss is not regarded as a major impact on avifauna, relative to other potential impacts such as disturbance or collisions.

9.4.2 Impact Assessment

An evaluation of the expected impact from habitat loss and displacement of priority species due to footprint of the Project is provided in summary form below and in Table 9.1.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 131 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

During construction, displacement of priority species is considered to be a negative impact, local in extent, long term in duration, low intensity, definite and of low significance to decision‐making.

During operation, displacement of priority species is considered to be a negative impact, local in extent, long term in duration, low intensity, definite and of low significance to decision‐making.

During decommissioning, displacement of priority species is considered to be a negative impact, local in extent, long term in duration, low intensity, definite and of low significance to decision‐ making.

9.4.3 Recommendations

The infrastructure footprint must be restricted to the minimum, in accordance with the recommendations in the Botanical Impact Assessment Report (Helme, 2011).

9.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

In his review of the original bird impact assessment study by Jenkins, Boshoff (2004) made the following comment for the Darling National Demonstration Wind Farm (DNDWF):

“Based on current knowledge, bird mortalities resulting from collisions with wind turbine blades occur, in general, relatively infrequently. This, taken together with the characteristics of the proposed DDWF site, strongly suggests that the proposed DDWF will not have a significant impact on populations of the priority bird species in the vicinity… given the situation described above, it can be safely assumed that the many hundreds of kilometers of powerlines (from rural 11kV lines to large 400kV lines) in the Swartland, and its adjacent coastal strip, pose a far greater threat to the priority species (especially pelicans, flamingos and cranes) listed by Jenkins (2003) than will the four wind turbines, affecting a linear area of less than 800 metres, that will operate during the first phase of the proposed DDWF project.”

Since this statement was made, the wind farm industry has undergone significant changes, and the number of applications for wind farms along the West Coast has increased more than tenfold. Figure 6.2 in the Section 7.4 (Cumulative Impacts) gives an indication of proposed wind farm developments as at May 2011.

In view of the huge increase in proposed wind farm developments along the West Coast, the statement by Boshoff (2004) needs to be approached with caution. It is impossible to say at this stage what the cumulative impact of all these developments will be on birds, firstly because there is no baseline to measure it against, and secondly because the extent of actual impacts will only become known once a few wind farms are developed. It is therefore imperative that pre‐ construction and post‐construction monitoring is implemented at all the new proposed sites, in accordance with the ‘Best practice guidelines for avian monitoring and impact mitigation at proposed wind energy development sites in southern Africa – Version 1’ (Jenkins et al, 2011), which was released by the Endangered Wildlife Trust and Birdlife South Africa in April 2011. This will provide the necessary data to better assess the cumulative impact of wind development along the West Coast.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 132 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

Table 9.1: Significance of avifaunal impacts SIGNIFICANCE SIGNIFICANCE DESCRIPTION NATURE / EXTENT DURATION INTENSITY PROBABILITY (WITHOUT MITIGATION (WITH OF THE IMPACT STATUS MITIGATION) MITIGATION) CONSTRUCTION Due to the relatively minor significance of this Displacement of priority impact on priority Negative Local Temporary Low Probable Low Low species species, no specific mitigation measures are recommended. Habitat loss: Apply mitigation as displacement of priority prescribed in the Negative Local Long term Low Definite Low Low species due to footprint Botanical Impact of wind farm Assessment Study OPERATION Post‐construction monitoring; Relocation of turbines responsible for particular collision mortality; Halting operation Bird mortality due to during peak flight collisions with the turbine Negative Local Long term Medium Probable Low periods, or Low blades reducing rotor speed, to reduce the risk of collision mortality; Negotiating appropriate off‐set compensation for turbine related collision mortality.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 133 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

SIGNIFICANCE SIGNIFICANCE DESCRIPTION NATURE / EXTENT DURATION INTENSITY PROBABILITY (WITHOUT MITIGATION (WITH OF THE IMPACT STATUS MITIGATION) MITIGATION) Due to the relatively minor significance of this Displacement of priority impact on priority Negative Local Long term Low Improbable Low Low species species, no specific mitigation measures are recommended. Habitat loss: Apply mitigation as displacement of priority prescribed in the Negative Local Long term Low Definite Low Low species due to footprint Botanical Impact of wind farm Assessment Study DECOMMISSIONING Due to the relatively minor significance of this Displacement of priority impact on priority Negative Local Temporary Low Probable Low Low species species, no specific mitigation measures are recommended. Habitat loss: Apply mitigation as displacement of priority prescribed in the Negative Local Long term Low Definite Low Low species due to footprint Botanical Impact of wind farm Assessment Study

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 134 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

10 VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

The Visual Impact Assessment in Appendix 8.3 (Oberholzer and Lawson, 2011) sets out sets out the potential visual impact arising from the Project and corresponding mitigatory measures.

10.1 POTENTIAL IMPACTS

During the scoping stage and from site visits, the visual specialists identified a number of visual issues. In addition, the PPP has provided a number of visual issues detailed in Appendix 7.6 and summarised below. These issues are not seen as impacts, but more as concerns that have been addressed in the VIA.

 The rural character of the surrounding countryside and serenity of the open landscape, including the West Coast National Park, could be potentially affected by the additional wind turbines.  The industrial nature of wind farms could result in the loss of scenic views and sense of place.  Security and navigational lights at night from the wind farm could have an effect on the 'dark skies' of the West Coast.  Construction activities on the Project site, and the transport of large components to the site, could have significant visual effects.  At the decommissioning stage, the remains of foundations and roads may remain visible in the relatively open landscape.  The Tourism industry is at risk from the possible proliferation of wind farms.  The application for a nearby wind farm site, with up to 80 large turbines, could increase the cumulative visual impact.  A buffer corridor along all main roads should be considered to mitigate the visual effect on tourism, motorist safety and visual experience of local residents.  Internal service roads should be routed so as to minimise the visual impact on main roads.  Photographic montages showing the proposed wind farm from various viewpoints and various distances need to be provided in the EIA process.

Table 10.1 below sets out the assessment criteria and potential visual impacts / benefits arising from the various components of the Project.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 135 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

Table 10.1: Assessment criteria and potential visual impacts / benefits

Wind turbines Wind turbines Internal access Criteria Comments Alt.1 layout 14 Alt.2 layout 16 Substation roads x N77 turbines x N60 turbines Visibility of facilities Views from the R27 and R315 adjacent to the site are the most High High Moderate Moderate Distance from selected significant and could affect the most receptors including tourists (particularly from (particularly from (from R27) (from R27) viewpoints (See Table 7.5). R27) R27) Visibility of navigation Visibility, particularly at night, depends on amount of security Medium Medium Medium n/a and security lights at lighting. (particularly from (particularly from (particularly from night R27) R27) R27) Visual exposure Up to about 10km radius. Determined by ridgelines. View Medium‐high Medium‐high Medium‐low Medium Zone of visual influence or catchment is partly confined by topography and includes view (mainly to the (mainly to the (limited view (visible from a view catchment shadow areas. Wind turbines are tall but slender. west) west) catchment) distance) Visual sensitivity Open, exposed landscape to the west. Turbines visible on the Medium‐High Medium‐High Medium Medium Landscape features skyline. Wind energy facility intrudes on the rural landscape and scenic routes. Landscape integrity Contrasts with rural landscape. Present disturbance from existing Medium‐High Medium‐High Medium Medium‐High Effect on character of the four turbines and power lines tend to reduce the visual significance. area

Cultural landscape Traditionally a farming area. The site contains minimal heritage Medium Medium Low Low Heritage value of the features (see HIA). landscape Visual absorption Moderately low potential of the open landscape to visually absorb High High High High capacity (VAC) the wind turbines and infrastructure. Some screening by Lack of concealment topography. Little opportunity for screening with trees. Cumulative visual impact Would add to the four existing turbines, but remains a fairly small Medium‐High Medium‐High Medium Medium‐Low facility. An additional facility proposed nearby at Rheboksfontein. Overall impact rating Medium‐High Medium‐High Medium Medium

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 136 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

10.2 MITIGATION

No alternative sites are being assessed in the current application. Two alternative layouts within the site are, however, being considered. The alternatives are limited by the alignment of the existing four wind turbines, optimum air flow between turbines, prevailing wind conditions, property boundaries and the existing Eskom powerline.

The fact that an existing wind farm with four wind turbines and a substation has been established on one of the farm portions, is to some extent a mitigating factor, in that the site is already a wind farm. The following guideline recommendations are based on the two options that have been provided.

 A visual buffer between the Project and the main arterial R27 and R315 routes should be provided, given their scenic value. The setback is constrained by farm boundaries and spacing between turbines, but should be as large as possible.  The light colour of the existing wind turbines shows up strongly in the landscape. Ideally the turbines should be light grey when seen against the sky, and a darker greenish grey colour on the lower half when seen against a landscape backdrop.  A more meandering alignment for the connecting internal access roads should be considered so that they follow the curve of the hillslope rather than a straight line against the grain of the topography. (Re‐alignment should take into account the botanical constraints).  A visual buffer between the proposed new substation and the R27 Route should be provided. The location of the substation is determined by a number of engineering factors, including the existing Eskom powerline, but should not be nearer to the R27 than the existing substation. It should also be placed as close to the existing substation as possible to contain the visual impact. Consideration should be given to combining it with the existing substation.  The architectural character of the substation building should be similar to that of the existing substation, to be in sympathy with the West Coast architectural idiom. The transformer infrastructure should be placed on the inland side of the substation, away from the R27. Cables should be located underground as far as possible. Berms and planting could be used to screen transformers and other infrastructure.  Outdoor lighting should be minimised and confined to the substation. Lights should be low‐ level and fitted with reflectors to minimise light spillage.  Unnecessary signage on the site should be avoided. No corporate signage or billboards should be permitted, except for discrete signage at the entrance to the site. Where mandatory signage is required, this should be fixed to buildings where possible to avoid free‐ standing signs in the landscape.  Drainage from the access roads should be led to grassed swales and siltation ponds to prevent unsightly dongas forming on the site. All site disturbance and construction areas should be rehabilitated / revegetated to avoid unsightly scars in the landscape.

The PGWC criteria have been applied to the Project and this is set out in Table 10.2 overleaf.

Table 10.3 thereafter summarises the significance of the visual impacts (before and after mitigation) in accordance with the generic EIA methodology for assessing significance described in Section 7.3.2

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 137 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

Table 10.2: Suggested criteria for visual buffers at the Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm site Criteria PGWC Regional Level Mapping: Local Project Level Mapping for Kerrie Fontein and Darling site: Recommended Buffers for Wind suggested buffers Farms (2006) Urban Areas 800 m Yzerfontein is 8km away. Residential Areas, including rural 400 m The nearest farm buildings on Slangkop (Windhoek Farm) are approx 520 m away. dwellings National Roads 13 km buffer. n/a Depends on scenic value. Can be reduced. Local Public Roads 500 m n/a (district roads) Review if high scenic value. Provincial Tourist Route 4 km buffer. Statutory scenic drives. n/a Local Tourist Route 2.5 km The existing wind farm (4 turbines) is 1.6 km from the R315. Assumption. Can be reduced. The proposed Kerriefontein wind farm would be 500 to 700 m from the R27. Railway lines 250 m n/a Local airfield To be confirmed with agency. There is a landing strip 5 km to the east of the site, and an aerodrome 43km away at Malmesbury. National Parks, Provincial Nature 2 km The West Coast National Park is 5 km away. Reserves Should be eliminated at regional level. Private Nature Reserves 500 m The Tienie Versveld Wild Flower Reserve is 2 km away. Could be negotiated at local level. Rivers 500 m Relates to Botanical Impact Assessment, (see Helme, 2011). For perennial rivers at regional level. External farm boundaries No indication Relates to safety, noise, and tourist facilities.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 138 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

Table 10.3: Significance of visual impacts SIGNIFICANCE SIGNIFICANCE DESCRIPTION NATURE / EXTENT DURATION INTENSITY PROBABILITY (WITHOUT MITIGATION (WITH OF THE IMPACT STATUS MITIGATION) MITIGATION) CONSTRUCTION Option 1 layout Minimal mitigation Negative Local Short Term Medium‐High Highly probable Medium‐High Medium‐High 14 x N77 turbines possible Option 2 layout Minimal mitigation Negative Local Short Term Medium‐High Highly probable Medium‐High Medium‐High 16 x N60 turbines possible Substation Screen with berms Negative Local Short Term Medium Highly probable Medium Medium‐Low and planting Internal access roads Blend with Negative Local Short Term Medium Highly probable Medium Medium‐Low contours OPERATION Option 1 layout Minimal mitigation Negative Local Long term Medium‐High Highly probable Medium‐High Medium‐High 14 x N77 turbines possible Option 2 layout Minimal mitigation Negative Local Long term Medium‐High Highly probable Medium‐High Medium‐High 16 x N60 turbines possible Substation Screen with berms Negative Local Long term Medium Highly probable Medium Medium‐Low and planting Internal access roads Blend with Negative Local Long term Medium Highly probable Medium Medium‐Low contours DECOMMISSIONING Option 1 layout Remove structures Negative Local Permanent Medium‐Low Probable Medium‐Low Low 14 x N77 turbines and re‐vegetate Option 2 layout Remove structures Negative Local Permanent Medium‐Low Probable Medium‐Low Low 16 x N60 turbines and re‐vegetate Substation Screen with berms Negative Local Permanent Medium Probable Medium and planting if Medium retained Internal access roads Scarify roads and Negative Local Permanent Medium‐Low Probable Medium‐Low Low re‐vegetate

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 139 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 140 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

11 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT

The issues and potential impacts have been sourced from the Heritage Scoping Study (Orton, 2010) attached as Appendix 8.4 and no further studies were required as part of the EIA Phase. It has not been necessary to apply the standard EIA significance criteria set out in Section 6.3.2 as the impacts are not considered significant.

11.1 PALAEONTOLOGY

Fossils are completely unknown from the Cape Granite Suite rocks that cover most of the study area, but in the low‐lying areas to the west important fossils are known from the Cenozoic deposits (Almond and Pether, 2008). Most of the sand on the slopes below the granite hills in the study area, however, is windblown and unlikely to contain any significant fossil heritage. Impacts to fossil resources would take place during the construction phase only.

11.2 STONE AGE ARCHAEOLOGY

Stone artefacts were observed in several areas ranging from the top of Moedmaag Hill to the lower, sandy slopes. With one exception, where three artefacts were encountered, these were isolated occurrences and do not reflect archaeological sites in the conventional sense. The distribution of these artefacts is shown in Figure 7.5. They include an Early Stone Age (ESA) core in silcrete (Figure 11.1), and several Later Stone Age (LSA) artefacts, mostly in quartz. One of the latter appeared to be a formal scraper (right hand artefact in Figure 11.2) and was accompanied by the only silcrete flake seen during the survey. An isolated Bullia shell was also found but its age is unknown. None of these finds is of any significance but they demonstrate the presence of people in the landscape during pre‐ colonial times. Impacts to archaeological resources would take place during the construction phase only.

11.3 CULTURAL LANDSCAPES, SCENIC ROUTES AND VISUAL IMPACTS

The agricultural landscape of the area is well entrenched but a precedent has already been set through installation of the four original turbines. However, the additional turbines will further decrease the landscape qualities of the area. In general the visual impacts are likely to be of greatest concern in this development. Both the R27 and the R315 are regarded as scenic routes. These will be negatively impacted by the proposed development, although the additions should be considered in light of the fact that four existing wind turbines are already in place. A separate VIA has been undertaken and has assessed these impacts. It should be noted that the existing turbines have in fact been something of an attraction in the area but this feature will soon diminish as more and more similar projects are implemented across the province. Visual impacts to the landscape would take place during the construction and operational phases of the Project.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 141 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

Figure 11.1: An Early Stone Age core found near the top of Moedmaag Hill. Scale = 5 cm.

Figure 11.2: Later Stone Age artefacts found on the lower slopes of Moedmaag Hill. Scale = 3 cm.

11.4 MITIGATION MEASURES

Aside from the visual impacts associated with the proposed development, no other significant impacts to heritage resources are foreseen. The VIA has quantified the degree of visual impact that will be experienced.

Subject to the approval of Heritage Western Cape and to the outcome of the VIA, the proposed Project should be allowed to proceed with no further heritage intervention required. It should be noted, however, that unmarked human burials can occur anywhere, particularly in sandy substrates, and that should such a find be made during construction then work in its vicinity should be halted and the find reported to Heritage Western Cape.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 142 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

12 NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT

The Noise Impact Assessment (NIA) attached as Appendix 8.5 (Williams, 2011) predicts noise levels for both options and assesses the impacts on noise sensitive receptors. This is assessed according to each phase of the Project and summarised in Table 12.7 thereafter.

12.1 CONSTRUCTION PHASE

The construction noise at the various sites will have a local impact. Safetech has conducted noise tests at various construction sites in South Africa and have recorded the noise emissions of various pieces of construction equipment. The results are presented in Table 12.1 below.

Table 12.1: Typical construction noise

Type of Equipment LReq.T dB(A) CAT 320D Excavator measured at approximately 50 m. 67.9 Mobile crane measured at approximately 70 m 69.6 Drilling rig measured at approximately 70 m 72.6

The impact of the construction noise that can be expected at the proposed site can be extrapolated from Table 12.1. As an example, if a number of pieces of equipment are used simultaneously, the noise levels can be added logarithmically and then calculated at various distances from the site to determine the distance at which the ambient level will be reached.

Table 12.2: Combining different construction noise sources – high impacts (worst case) Typical Sound Description Power Level (dB) Overhead and mobile cranes 109 Front end loaders 100 Excavators 108 Bull Dozer 111 Piling machine (mobile) 115 Total* 117 * The total is a logarithmic total and not a sum of the values.

Table 12.3: Combining different construction noise sources ‐ low impacts Typical Sound Description Power Level (dB) Front end loaders 100 Excavators 108 Trucks 95 Total 111

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 143 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

The information in the tables has been used to calculate the attenuation by distance. Noise will also be attenuated by topography and atmospheric conditions such as temperature, humidity, wind speed and direction but this is ignored for this purpose. Therefore, the distance calculated in Table 12.4 below would be representative of maximum distances to reach ambient noise levels.

Table 12.4 below gives an illustration of attenuation by distance from a noise of 117dB measured from the source.

Table 12.4: Attenuation by distance for the construction phase (worst case) Distance from Sound Pressure Level noise source (metres) dB(A) 10 89 20 83 40 77 80 71 160 65 320 59 640 53 1280 47

What can be inferred from Table 12.4 is that if the ambient noise level is at 45dB(A), the construction noise will be similar to the ambient level at approximately 1280 m from the noise source, if the noise characteristics are similar. Beyond this distance, the noise level will be below the ambient noise and will therefore have little impact. The above only applies to the construction noise and light wind conditions. In all likelihood, the construction noise will have little impact on the surrounding community as it will most likely occur during the day when the ambient noise is louder and there are unstable atmospheric conditions.

12.2 OPERATIONAL PHASE

The effects of low frequency noise include sleep disturbance, nausea, and vertigo. These effects are unlikely to impact upon residents due to the distance between the plant and the nearest communities. Sources of low frequency noise also include wind, train movements and vehicular traffic, which are all sources that are closer to the residential areas.

12.2.1 Predicted Noise Levels for the Wind Turbines

Table 12.5 and Table 12.6 overleaf set out the predicted noise generated by the turbines at the various noise sensitive receptors at wind speeds from 3 m/s to 12 m/s, for each Option. Figure 12.1 and Figure 12.2 indicate the isopleths for each option.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 144 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

Table 12.5: Summary of noise impacts on noise sensitive receptors at various wind speeds for Option 1 Turbine 500 m NSA 3m/s 4m/s 6m/s 8m/s 10m/s 12m/s setback distance criteria met Option 1 NSA 1 – Windhoek       Yes (Main House) NSA 2 – Windhoek      X Yes (Workers Cottage) NSA 3 – Klein Windhoek       Yes

NSA 4 ‐ Rory Richard       Yes

NSA 5 – Jacobuskraal       Yes

NSA 6 ‐ Die Padstal       Yes

NSA 7 – Slangkop       Yes

NSA 8 – Droevlei       Yes

NSA 9 – Swartwater       Yes

NSA 10 – Grootberg       Yes

 = Within Recommended Noise Limit X = Exceeds 45dB (A) day/night Recommended Limit

The noise produced by the wind turbines will exceed the 45dB(A) day/night limit at the Windhoek Farm Workers homes at 12 m/s wind speed.

The location of the Option 1 wind turbine generators all met the recommended 500 m setback distance.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 145 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

Figure 12.1: Raster image of Option 1 (8 m/s wind speed)

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 146 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

Table 12.6: Summary of noise impacts on noise sensitive receptors at various wind speeds for Option 2 Turbine 500 m NSA 3m/s 4m/s 6m/s 8m/s 10m/s 12m/s setback distance criteria met Option 2 NSA 1 – Windhoek       Yes (Main House) NSA 2 – Windhoek      X Yes (Workers Cottage) NSA 3 – Klein Windhoek       Yes

NSA 4 ‐ Rory Richard       Yes

NSA 5 – Jacobuskraal       Yes

NSA 6 ‐ Die Padstal       Yes

NSA 7 – Slangkop       Yes

NSA 8 – Droevlei       Yes

NSA 9 – Swartwater       Yes

NSA 10 – Grootberg       Yes

For Option 2, the noise produced by the wind turbines will exceed the 45dB(A) day/night limit at the Windhoek Farm Workers homes at 12 m/s wind speed.

The location of the Option 1 wind turbine generators all met the recommended 500 m setback distance.

As the wind speed increases, the ambient noise also increases and masks the wind turbine noise. The critical wind speeds are thus between 4‐6 m/s when there is a possibility of little masking. At 12 m/s the wind speed is such that it is highly unlikely that the turbine noise will be heard.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 147 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

Figure 12.2: Raster image of Option 2 (8 m/s wind speed)

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 148 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

12.3 DECOMMISSIONING

The decommissioning noise impacts will be the same as for the construction phase.

12.4 MITIGATION

The following mitigation measures are recommended, the significance of the impacts are presented before and after mitigation in Table 12.7 overleaf:

12.4.1 Construction Activities

The following recommendations are made for the construction phase:

12.4.2 Operational Activities

The following general recommendation is made for the operational phase:

 The noise impact from the wind turbine generators should be measured during the operational phase, to ensure that the impact is within the recommended limits.

12.4.3 Decommissioning Activities

The recommendations for the decommissioning phase are the same as for the construction phase.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 149 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

Table 12.7: Significance of noise impacts SIGNIFICANCE SIGNIFICANCE DESCRIPTION NATURE / EXTENT DURATION INTENSITY PROBABILITY (WITHOUT MITIGATION (WITH OF THE IMPACT STATUS MITIGATION) MITIGATION) CONSTRUCTION All activities only during daytime; No piling at Impact of the night; “Noise construction noise on Negative Local Short Term Medium Probable Medium sensitivity” Low the surrounding training for staff; environment Conduct an ambient noise survey. OPERATION Impact of the operational noise on Negative Local Short Term Medium Probable Medium Monitoring Low the surrounding environment DECOMMISSIONING All activities only during daytime; Impact of the No piling at decommissioning night; “Noise noise on the Negative Local Short Term Medium Probable Medium sensitivity” Low surrounding training for staff; environment Conduct an ambient noise survey.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 150 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

13 SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

During the Scoping Phase, the potential issues and impacts were identified for the different phases of development. The Social Impact Assessment (see Appendix 8.6) draws on the findings of an international literature review and primary data generated through a number of in depth interviews which are summarised below. Thereafter the application of the framework for assessing significance (see Section 6.3.2) establishes the environmental significance of these potential impacts. The impacts are summarised in Table 13.1 at the end of this section.

13.1 SUMMARY OF INTERNATIONAL LITERATURE REVIEW

There are several socio‐economic impacts that can arise from wind farm development, some of which are negative and some positive. However, many of these impacts are also reliant on the perceptions of the local public. Research indicates that many of these negative perceptions are actually based on fears rather than experience. Or as Dent and Sims (2007) suggest, often it is the ‘threat’ of wind farm development that ‘may have a more significant impact than the actual presence of one’ (p: 7).

Visual impact is usually the primary impact identified by the public due to the sheer size of wind turbines. These impacts are both negatively and positively perceived and influenced by a number of factors such as the proximity to communities; sensitivity of landscape; magnitude of wind farm; and the relative comparison to other infrastructure such as power lines (TNS, 2003; Wolsink, 2007; SEAI, 2003; van der Horst, 2007; Lee et al, 1989). Studies to establish the validity of the NIMBY Hypothesis (based on increased opposition when close to people’s homes) and the Proximity Hypothesis (people living closest to the developments perceive them more negatively) have had contradictory findings (Elliot, 1997; BWEA, 2005; Simon, 1996; Hoepman, 1998; Devine‐Wright, 2005; Thayer and Freeman, 1987; Anderson et al, cited in Krohn and Damborg, 1997; Braunholtz, 2003; TNS, 2003). And more commonly, people’s experience knowledge and social influences has a significant bearing on how people view wind energy facilities. For example, social processes and networks could include the opinions of friends and family, as well was local media exposure (Devine‐Wright, 2005; Boyle, 2004). Furthermore, people who had greater knowledge of wind energy subsequently are more supportive of proposals (BWEA, 2005).

These social constructions also affect the way people perceive tourism impacts. Studies have showed that tourism operators and tourists themselves have differing views on whether wind farms are positive or negative for tourism and thus it is difficult to draw conclusions (NFO System Three, 2002; AusWEA, 2003; NFO WorldGroup, 2003; BWEA, 2006; CanWEA, 2008).

Similarly, although noise impacts are quantifiable, the effect on people is often a social construct as evidenced by the low level of complaints documented in studies in the UK and Scotland/Ireland (Moorhouse et al, 2007; Warren et al, 2005). These studies suggest that people are concerned with the ‘threat’ of noise impacts because it is a new technology, but these threats are often not realised once a wind farm is up and running.

Property values are also linked to people’s perceptions and the most negative responses have been documented during the planning phases. The few studies that have been conducted reveal

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 151 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

conflicting results relating to the extent to which wind farms impact property value (Dent and Sims, 2007; BWEA, 2004; Sterzinger et al, 2003). But likewise, to date, there is little evidence to support that property values will decline if located close to a wind farm (Dent and Sims, 2007; Hoen et al, 2009), indicating that there is no conclusive evidence that wind farms reduce property values

International experience shows that there is huge potential for economic growth and employment through the wind industry. For example, currently in Europe, the wind energy industry is considered one of the highest‐growth industries and it is still on the increase (Blanco and Rodrigues, 2009). Other countries such as Canada and Australia are similarly benefitting from high levels of job creation attributed to this industry.

Wind farm proposals are often met with organised opposition, much of which is based on the perception of environmental impacts of wind farms (Klick and Smith, 2010). The environmental impacts are therefore, often closely linked to the social impacts as evidenced in many countries.

Specifically, comparisons have been made between local perceptions before construction of the wind farm and afterwards. BWEA (2005) argues that there is a “general shift in attitude towards the positive and that many fears of the potential impact of the development of the wind farm prove unfounded” (p: 1). Similarly, a Scottish/Irish survey found that the public’s perceived impacts of the wind farms decreased after construction (Warren et al, 2005). Contradicting results, where respondents became more negative towards the wind farm after construction have also emerged (Bishop and Proctor, 1994). However, the dominant findings show that there is a decline of negative perceptions over time, suggesting that many initial concerns of wind farms impacts are not realised post‐construction.

The public is often sceptical of commercial developers, which can often cause resistance towards the proposed developments (Bell et al, 2005). There is a growing body of research which sheds light on the importance of generating trust among stakeholders and how this mutual trust can be established (Wolsink, 2007; Aitken, 2010; Walker et al, 2010). Eltham et al (2008) explain that people often have “a distrust of the planning system or a suspicion of the developer’s intent” (p: 30). Likewise, Devine‐Wright et al (2001) also maintain that negative perceptions can be generated by a sense of ‘lack of control’ in the planning process on the part of local people, as well as dissatisfaction with the planning process. Such dissatisfaction is usually related to whether or not the community views the process and outcomes as ‘fair’ (Gross, 2007).

The evidence indicates that it is often difficult to draw conclusions regarding social impacts as they are closely linked to people’s constructions of reality. Regardless, it is important that local communities be involved in the planning process from the beginning in order to educate but also include them in the decision‐making process. The more involved the local community is, the greater the local support for wind energy. And once more positive perceptions and local support is generated, it can aid in the approval and implementation of wind farms, ultimately helping many countries reach their emission targets to combat climate change.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 152 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

13.2 SUMMARY OF CONSULTATIONS

The District and Local Municipal areas are appreciated for their rural qualities and quiet, unaffected environment with areas of natural beauty. It is therefore not surprising that the potential visual impact of the proposed Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm is one of the greatest concerns amongst some of the stakeholders. Although it is acknowledged that this Project is small by comparison to other proposals along the West Coast, it is the cumulative effect which causes concern as the landscape and the sense of place would be permanently altered. The site has been chosen as it is the site of an existing wind farm, the Darling Demonstration Project, and for this reason the planner from the WCDM stated that she was “not keen on the siting, but since there are already four turbines there, would rather see this site extended than develop a new one next door” (Kotze, 2011).

In terms of the general attitude of the public, it appears the community falls into three main groups, the majority being apathetic, those that do not support the proposal on the basis of the visual impact and associated change to sense of place and tourism potential, and the final group that supports the proposal, seeing it as a sign of progress, a solution to the energy crisis and a suitable alternative to nuclear.

While the stakeholders’ opinions on visual impact are clearly divided, the principle of renewable energy development in South Africa and along the West Coast more specifically was largely supported.

In terms of socio‐economic impacts specifically, employment although minimal, was identified as a benefit of the Project, and impacts on property prices was identified by some as a potential issue although the majority of estate agents themselves felt that this was not an issue. Road safety at the junction was raised as an existing problem which could be exacerbated by the Project. There are perceived to be no planning implications of the development, however, the District recognises the R27 as a scenic route and this could be in conflict with the siting of the Project.

Various suggestions to enhance the opportunities presented by the Project include support for the associated Visitors and Education Centre both in terms of adding to the tourism product mix, creating jobs and providing exposure and generating awareness of the benefits of renewable energy. It was also identified that the establishment of a community trust would allow benefits to filter down to the grassroots level. Mitigation measures include monitoring of impacts, contribution to the upgrade of the junction, and education as already described. It was acknowledged that there was no potential to mitigate the visual impacts.

In terms of alternatives, the responses were mixed, however, there was more preference for the option that was more efficient in terms of wind resources, which has been proven to be Option 1 (14 x N77).

Overall the majority of stakeholders were very supportive of the Project identifying few perceived social impacts, with the most emphasis being on the permanent change in landscape.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 153 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

13.3 CONSTRUCTION PHASE

The potential positive and negative impacts which could arise as a result of the construction activities are assessed as follows.

13.3.1 Direct Employment and Skills Development

The construction of the Project will require a workforce and therefore direct employment will be generated. Although the exact number of construction jobs has not yet been established; a recent study by Greenpeace has indicated that in South Africa, construction and installation of wind energy facilities accounts for approximately 4.5 job years per MW (Rutovitz, 2010). This would equate to between approximately 94 ‐ 95 job years generated by this Project over a period of 6‐10 months. However, this number is likely to be lower based on other existing wind farm proposals and their estimations. In terms of skills, it is common that highly skilled or skilled labour such as engineers, technical staff and project managers constitute about 20‐25% of the work force; while low skilled construction and security staff constitute the majority of the workforce at around 40‐70%. Semi‐ skilled staff would typically be required to operate machinery and these usually comprise 30‐40% of the work force. It is likely that a general contractor will be appointed by the developer who will hire the necessary subcontractors with expertise in civil works, electrical work and mechanical assembly.

Statistics set out in Section 7.10.2 indicate a poor level of education in the Swartland Municipality linked to a limited skills base. This is coupled with a high level of unemployment. Although the more specialised tasks are likely to require skills from outside the Swartland Municipal area, there are potential opportunities for low skilled local security staff and construction workers which would require associated training. This, however, depends on the policies and the location of the contracting company.

The impact is therefore assessed to be positive; local, district and provincial in extent; temporary in duration; low intensity; and highly probable. However, the extent to which the local workforce will benefit will depend on the contractor and is assessed with less confidence. The impact is assessed to be of low significance to the decision‐making process.

Mitigation Measures

It is recommended that a local employment policy is adopted by the developer to maximise the opportunities made available to the local labour force and to set recruitment targets. This would increase the significance to an impact of low‐medium significance to the decision‐making process.

13.3.2 Economic Multiplier Effects

There are likely to be economic multiplier effects from the use of local goods and services which includes, but is not limited to, construction materials and equipment and workforce essentials such as food, clothing, safety equipment, and other goods. Off site accommodation would also be required for those construction staff not located in the area, and there is a good stock of accommodation in Darling and Yzerfontein. Transport services to the site from these urban centres would also be required as there is a lack of public transport in the area. This additional spend would provide an indirect boost to the local economy but the extent to which these benefits can be achieved would also depend on the location of the contractor and the subcontractors and their preferred suppliers.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 154 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

The impact is therefore assessed to be positive; local, district and provincial in extent; temporary in duration; low intensity; and highly probable. However, the extent to which the local economy will benefit will depend on the contractor and is assessed with less confidence. The impact is assessed to be of low significance to the decision‐making process.

Mitigation Measures

It is recommended that a local procurement policy is adopted by the developer to maximise the benefit to the local economy. The general contractor could be responsible for making available to the sub‐contractors the contact details for all the local businesses offering related good and services. This would increase the significance to an impact of low‐medium significance.

13.3.3 Indirect Effects of Additional Workers on Site

Additional workers on the site during construction may have indirect effects, such as increased security issues for neighbouring farms and damage to property, such as the risk of veld fire;, stock theft and so forth. The site would not accommodate construction workers overnight apart from security staff if necessary and is fairly small and by no means isolated. The impact is therefore assessed to be negative; local in extent; temporary in duration; low intensity; and improbable. The impact is assessed to be of low significance to the decision‐making process.

Mitigation Measures

The site should be secured and livestock restricted from such areas. A comprehensive employee induction programme would cover land access protocols, fire management and so forth. This would normally be addressed in the Construction EMP as best practice. The impact is assessed to be of negligible significance to the decision‐making process.

13.3.4 Impacts of a non‐local workforce on society

It was identified that the introduction of a non‐local workforce has the potential to result in social disruption both physical and emotional during construction. Such disruption could result in an increased demand on social infrastructure such as accommodation, health facilities, transport facilities and so forth. Social ills including the spread of diseases (such as HIV/AIDS), crime and social conflict are also a potential risk. However, the degree to which society is disrupted largely depends on the level of local employment achievable and in the case of this Project a portion of the workforce is expected to be sourced locally and the overall number of outsiders would not be significant. The infrastructure within Darling and Yzerfontein would have the capacity to absorb the additional people. In terms of social ills, however, there is an existing alcohol and drug problem in the area which is often linked to crime and this has the potential to be exacerbated by newcomers.

The impact is therefore assessed to be negative; local in extent; temporary in duration; low intensity; and improbable. The impact is assessed to be of low significance to the decision‐making process.

Mitigation Measures

A comprehensive employee induction programme would address issues such as HIV/ AIDS and TB as well as alcohol and substance abuse. The induction could also address a code of behaviour for employees that would align with community values. This would reduce the impact to be of negligible significance to the decision‐making process.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 155 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

13.3.5 Landscape and Visual Disturbance

There is likely to be some temporary landscape and visual disturbance as a result of the presence of heavy machinery and transportation to and from, and within the site. Temporary land take is also required for the construction camp and the laydown areas; the turbine components themselves are very large and would be conspicuous on the site during assembly. Receptors would include vehicle drivers along the R27 and R315 as well as residents of Jacobuskraal, and parts of Yzerfontein.

The Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) undertaken by Oberholzer and Lawson (2011) has found the visual impacts of the wind turbines (both Option 1 and 2) erected during construction to be medium‐ high. The visual impacts of the substation construction is assessed as medium, and the construction of the internal access roads also assessed as medium.

Mitigation Measures

As assessed by the visual impact specialists there is minimal mitigation available to reduce the impacts from the erection of the wind turbines, however, the visual impact of the substation can be reduced to medium‐low through screening with berms and planting; and the impact of the internal access roads could be reduced to medium‐low through the blending with contours.

13.3.6 Disruption or Damage to Adjacent Properties

Disruption or damage to adjacent properties (including access arrangements) is a potential issue. This may include a temporary increase in noise and dust, or the wear and tear on private farm roads for access to the site. Access during construction will be via the farm access road to Windhoek Farm (Slangkop 3/552) and this access has been agreed with the landowner, permanent access will also be constructed on the Kerrie Fontein Farm for light vehicles. No other neighbouring farms will be required to provide access. It is reported that the road on Tumbleweed Farm is still used by Eskom to access the existing substation and this arrangement would need to be reconsidered as it is in breach of the original agreement. Potential noise impacts from typical construction equipment such as an excavator, mobile crane or drilling rig would impact on the sensitive receptors especially if used simultaneously. This has been assessed by Williams (2011) in the NIA and predicted to be of medium negative significance. However, since the activities and access arrangements are largely restricted to the two farms, the works will be somewhat set back from adjacent farms, with very few receptors being within range of these impacts. During the construction of the Darling Demonstration Wind Farm, however, an infringement was reported on the farm Klein Windhoek whereby survey pegs were disrupted.

The impact is therefore assessed to be negative; local in extent; temporary in duration; low intensity; and probable. The impact is assessed to be of low significance to the decision‐making process.

Mitigation Measures

The Construction EMP would typically address noise and dust control through best practice measures. Incidences and complaints would be reported via a dedicated phone line to the contractor or ECO. Any disturbed areas will be reinstated during rehabilitation of the site. The EMP should also contain measures to protect and maintain legal survey pegs. Noise impacts would be reduced to low. Eskom will need to be consulted to establish the access arrangements to the substations. The overall impact from disruption would be reduced to be of negligible significance to the decision‐making process.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 156 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

13.4 OPERATIONAL PHASE

The potential positive and negative impacts which could arise as a result of the operation of the Project include the following:

13.4.1 Direct Employment and Skills Development

The operation of the Project will require a workforce and therefore direct employment will be generated. Although the exact number of construction jobs has not yet been established; a recent study by Greenpeace has indicated that in South Africa, the operation and maintenance of wind energy facilities accounts for approximately 0.72 job years per MW (Rutovitz, 2010). This would equate to between approximately 15 job years generated by this Project during its design life of a minimum of 25 years. However, based on the estimations of other wind farm proposals, it is likely to be much lower than this. At present there is an operational office on Langefontein Farm servicing the existing turbines and this will be expanded to accommodate additional technical equipment and employees. It is likely that highly skilled personnel would need to be recruited from outside the Swartland Municipal area. The employees would include skilled mechatronics engineers (specialised in both electrical and mechanical engineering) likely to be recruited from the West Coast, Darling area and trained by the manufacturer, as well as less skilled services such as safety and security and mechatronic assistants. Maintenance will be carried out throughout the lifetime of the turbines. A maintenance schedule usually involves an initial inspection after commissioning, a semi‐annual inspection, an annual inspection and two and five year inspections but this varies according to the type of turbine. Typical activities during maintenance include changing of oil, replacement of brake lining and cleaning of components.

Although not part of this application and with an unknown probability of implementation, a training centre on Langefontein Farm is planned by the Oelsner Group. This would provide various levels of training relating to the servicing of operational wind energy facilities. It is intended that this would increase the local skills base and support this Project and others of its kind within the region.

During the environmental authorisation process, care has been taken to avoid the local creation of expectations of employment as this is a potential negative indirect impact that could arise during the planning stage of the Project.

The impact is assessed to be positive; local, district, and provincial in extent; long term in duration; low intensity; and probable. The impact is assessed to be of low significance to the decision‐making process.

Mitigation Measures

It is recommended that a local employment policy is adopted by the developer to maximise the Project opportunities being made available to the local labour force. Due to the small number of opportunities created and the limited skills base, the extent to which these local benefits could be enhanced is not large, and therefore the significance of the impact to the decision‐making process would remain as low.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 157 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

13.4.2 Economic Multiplier Effects

Economic multiplier effects generated from the supply of local goods and services to the Project during operation would include maintenance tools, supplies and equipment which may be technology specific and therefore not necessarily available locally as the manufacturer is based in Europe. Local requirements, however, could include items such as employee essentials, namely food, clothing, safety equipment, and other goods. Although the number of new employees is small, the new income earned would result in additional spend within the local economy.

The impact is therefore assessed to be positive; local, district and provincial in extent; long term; low intensity; and probable. However, the extent to which the local economy will benefit will depend on how many new positions are created for local residents which would reduce the potential for leakage. The impact is assessed to be of low significance to the decision‐making process.

Mitigation Measures

It is recommended that the developer adopts a local procurement policy which would maximise the benefit to the local economy and minimise leakage. Due to the small number of opportunities created, the extent to which these local benefits could be enhanced is not large, and therefore the significance of the impact to the decision‐making process would remain as low.

13.4.3 Landowner Revenue

The Project will increase the profitability of the land leased from farmers and will provide an additional income for the landowners of the two farms Slangkop (3/552), also known as Windhoek, and Kerrie Fontein (0/555). Although this direct financial benefit is fairly limited as it will only profit the two landowners in question, this income could be used to upscale the agricultural activities on these farms with benefits for the local economy, or it could enter the local economy through additional spend.

The impact is therefore assessed to be positive; local in extent; long term; low intensity; and highly probable. The impact is assessed to be of low significance to the decision‐making process.

Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures are recommended.

13.4.4 Diversification of the Local Economy

Increasing the contribution of the renewable energy sector to the Swartland local economy may contribute to the diversification of the local economy and provide greater stability. It is acknowledged that the economy of the Swartland Municipality is dominated by the agricultural sector as the main contributor and employer. Agricultural activities in the Swartland are diverse and dominated by wheat, grapes, sheep, beef and dairy, with olive, canola, and legume farming to a lesser degree. Although the sector is believed to be stable and sustainable, individual sectors such as wheat, can be volatile (Swartland Municipality, 2007b). It is also reported that skills are being lost to areas with greater opportunities, such as to Cape Town. The growth in the wind energy sector could serve to retain some of these skills. The development of a wind energy industry could therefore add to the stability of the economy, and even though this Project is small scale in comparison to the overall potential of the sector, it could contribute to the local economy.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 158 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

The impact is therefore assessed to be positive; local and district in extent; long term; low intensity; and probable. The impact is assessed to be of low significance to the decision‐making process.

Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures are recommended.

13.4.5 Visual Impacts on the Rural Character of the Area

The presence of additional turbines on the site is likely to result in visual intrusion given the rural nature of the area. This has been assessed in the VIA and also reflected in the critical views of the stakeholders interviewed. The area is appreciated for its rural qualities and described as having ‘natural beauty’, being ‘quiet’, ‘unspoilt’ and ‘unaffected’ and is therefore considered to be a sensitive landscape. The wind turbine as an element in the landscape is a subjective topic, with the stakeholders and the general public being divided in their opinions, describing a wind farm as ‘majestic’, a ‘beacon’ and a ‘landmark’ with a certain ‘curiosity value’, with others using the term ‘eyesore’ and ‘monsters’ to refer to wind turbines. This is also mirrored by the findings of the international literature review summarised in Section 14.1. With regards to the existing farm it has been evident that time was a mitigating factor, and this was also reflected in the literature when considering public perceptions.

The VIA undertaken by Oberholzer and Lawson (2011) has found the significance of the visual impacts of the wind turbines (both Option 1 and 2) during operation to be medium‐high. The significance of the visual impacts of the substation and the internal access roads during operation are both assessed as medium.

Mitigation Measures

As assessed by the visual impact specialists there is minimal mitigation available to reduce the impacts from the erection of the wind turbines, however, the significance of the visual impact of the substation can be reduced to medium‐low through screening with berms and planting and the significance of the impact of the internal access roads could be reduced to medium‐low through the blending with contours.

13.4.6 Road Safety

Road safety is a potential issue as the landscape feature may create a distraction to drivers particularly when the facility is new and has a ‘curiosity value’ described by the stakeholders. The VIA has assessed the visual impact of the turbines as medium‐high. The R27 is a regional transport corridor as recognised by the Swartland IDP and it has been identified that this road is ‘notorious for its high accident frequency’ (Swartland Municipality, 2007a). Furthermore the junction of the R315 and the R27 is also believed to be a high accident zone. It has, however, been reported that the original Darling Demonstration Wind Farm did not have an impact on road safety along this stretch of road.

The impact is therefore assessed to be negative; local in extent; short to medium term; low intensity; with an unknown level of probability. The impact is assessed to be of low significance to the decision‐making process. This is, however, assessed with a low degree of confidence in the absence of a specialist traffic impact assessment, and therefore the precautionary principle has been applied.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 159 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

Mitigation Measures

The VIA has acknowledged that minimal mitigation is possible to reduce the impacts from the wind turbines and the significance of the impacts remain as medium‐high.

The proposed Darling Education, Training and Visitor Centre which is a current proposal of the Oelsner Group would provide a platform for the general public to learn more about renewable energy and to explore demonstration technology. Whether this development is approved or not, it is recommended that the developer provide pre‐arranged tours of the site for the general public and interest groups. This would allow people to view the wind farm up close and hopefully allay some of their fears and satisfy their curiosity when driving past in the future.

The impact would remain with a low significance to the decision‐making process.

13.4.7 Noise Impacts on the Quality of Life of Nearby Receptors

Noise generated from the turbines may reduce the quality of life of receptors in the immediate vicinity. The literature review shows that international studies reveal that the turbines have received complaints from local residents focusing around health issues due to noise, such as headaches, dizziness, sleep deprivation, anxiety and vertigo (Colby et al, 2009). However, other scientific evidence reveals that wind farms have no harmful effects on human health (Pedersen and Högskolan, 2003; Colby et al, 2009; NHMRC, 2010). The Darling Demonstration Project has received no complaints of operational noise and the neighbouring farmers confirm that this was their original perception prior to construction. These farmers have not experienced wind turbine noise as an impact. Furthermore, there is also anecdotal evidence from these landowners that noise did not affect their livestock and the productivity of their farms. This Project , however, would be larger in capacity, with bigger turbines and this has been modelled in the NIA by Williams (2011). The NIA has assessed the impact at 10 noise sensitive receptors with the two closest receptors (to the nearest turbine) being the workers cottage at Windhoek Farm (523 m distance) and the Windhoek Farm House (634 m), which are both on the portion of Slangkop (3/552) known as Windhoek. Other receptors are further afield.

The findings of the NIA reveal that for both proposed options, the noise at the workers cottage may exceed the recommended noise limit of 45 dB(A) during high wind speeds. On this basis the impact is assessed to be negative; local in extent; short term; medium intensity; and probable. The impact is assessed to be of medium significance to the decision‐making process without mitigation.

Mitigation Measures

The mitigation measures as recommended in the NIA apply here and this includes the measurement of the wind turbine noise to ensure that the impact is within the recommended limits. These measures reduce the significance of the noise impact to the decision‐making process, to low.

13.4.8 Impact on Property Prices

The potential negative impact on property prices was identified as a potential issue. The international literature review reflects conflicting findings. On the one the hand, the majority of estate agents reported that negative impacts would arise, namely during the planning phases which they predicted would lessen with time (Dent and Sims, 2007). Another study based on quantitative findings from actual property transactions in the United States found no evidence to support the

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 160 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

proposed impact on property prices (Sterzinger et al, 2003), such as the more recent study in the US by Hoen et al (2009). It is therefore difficult to assess the potential impact on property and apply international literature, given that the unique socio‐economic context for each study.

Local estate agents, with experience in the Darling and Yzerfontein property markets (Yzerfontein Seaside Estates (Pty) Ltd, Whalescape Properties, Chas Everitt, Yzerfontein and Dormehl Property Group Darling) gave their opinion on whether the existing wind farm had affected property prices and whether the new proposal would impact prices. They were unanimous in their opinion, that there had been no impact. It was also predicted the proposed Project would not impact property values either and would not deter future investors nor cause people to move out of the area. However, the representative of Jacobuskraal Estate, across the R27, was concerned that the Project could have an impact on property values. Given that the surrounding land uses are predominantly agricultural, it is not likely that the proposed wind farm would impact property values as it will not in any way affect the agricultural activities or productivity on these properties. This was also the view of the neighbouring landowners themselves.

The impact is therefore assessed to be of neutral significance to the decision‐making process.

Mitigation Measures

Not relevant.

13.4.9 Impact on Community Identity and Cohesion

Although the Project will most definitely result in a visual impact on the landscape and rural character of the area, an attribute valued by residents, it is not likely to impact on the identity of the community itself. This is an assumption made on the basis that the community is itself divided. It was found that there is little cohesions between the two towns of Darling and Yzerfontein, which operate as two separate communities with Darling itself being divided along socio‐economic lines. The residents of Jacobuskraal Estate and the other farmers in the wider area seem to have separate identities as well. Within these groups themselves, different individuals supported the hypotheses from the various theories such as ‘NIMBYism’ (they did not want the turbines near them but agreed with renewable energy), ‘proximity hypothesis’ (those living closer to the project had a more negative perceptions of them) and ‘experience, knowledge and social influence’ (those in support of wind energy had a more positive attitude towards the proposal) as described in Section 14.2. Other underlying factors influencing perceptions of this particular Project were also detected and these were based on the renewable energy versus nuclear energy debate where stakeholders argued for renewable energy as they believed it was a more favourable alternative to nuclear energy. While there seem to be different factions supporting or opposing wind farms for various reasons, basing their perceptions on various beliefs on their respective worldviews it is not believed that this Project in particular would undermine the cohesion of the local community.

The impact is therefore assessed to be of neutral significance to the decision‐making process.

Mitigation Measures

Not relevant.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 161 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

13.4.10 Impact on Local and Regional Tourism as a Result of Visual Intrusion

The visual impact of both the turbines and associated infrastructure is one of the main environmental and social impacts of the Project and linked to this is the potential impact on tourism. The visual impact has already been explored above and assessed in the VIA as medium‐high. However, to identify whether the visual impact and the impact on tourism is positive or negative has been a challenge throughout the SIA as the key stakeholders and public in general have been clearly divided on this matter. Impacts of wind turbines are perception based or socially constructed. The terms provided by stakeholders to describe wind turbines, such as ‘majestic’, are opposite in meaning to terms such as ‘monsters’, This depicts the subjective nature of the issue and the importance to understand that the context, experiences and activities of stakeholders will impact on their understandings and opinions over time (see Sections 14.1 and 14.2).

The change in the sense of place was considered by some a negative impact which would directly affect tourism and the ‘Darling brand’ (M. Ashford, 21/4/2011). However, tourism stakeholders at the District level believed that “because it is new and novel it might add to the tourism product mix” (D. Cornelius, 4/5/2011). International examples, however, also identified the positive impact or tourism potential of wind farms, building on the notion of ‘green tourism’ and as a reflection of progress within a region or a country (see Section 14.1). Furthermore, it was a critical finding of the interviews that the Project would not deter visitors from the area and in doing so would not affect the income generated by nearby tourism businesses. In essence, it would not quantitatively impact the tourism industry as a sector within the local or regional economy. It is also acknowledged that to begin with the Project would have a positive ‘curiosity value’, which would also decrease and probably become neutral over time. The knowledge provided in the international literature and the findings of the primary research report a greater emphasis on the positive impact of wind farms on tourism, However, in this case the impact of wind farms is assessed as a negative impact because of the potential transformation of the ‘sense of place’ in the immediate vicinity of the site which is considered a long term impact (over the life span of the Project). This impact is assessed to potentially erode the natural beauty and the remoteness which is an intangible and immeasurable asset of the area.

The impact is therefore assessed to be negative; local in extent; long term; low intensity; and is highly probable. The impact is assessed to be of low significance to the decision‐making process.

Mitigation Measures

As recommended in Section 14.4.10 above, the tourism and educational opportunities and benefits of a ‘green energy’ development in the area should be maximised. Tourism depends on strong marketing which has the potential to raise awareness and education which would in the long term assist in generating acceptance.

The proposed Darling Education, Training and Visitor Centre, which is a current proposal of the Oelsner Group, would provide a platform for the general public to learn more about renewable energy and to view the models of wind turbines and other renewable energy demonstrations up close. Whether this development is approved or not, it is recommended that the developer provide pre‐arranged tours of the site for the general public and interest groups. This would allow the public to realise the benefits of wind energy which would improve perceptions of wind energy developments in general and provide an additional tourist attraction for the area. The significance of the impact to decision‐making would remain low as the visual presence of the turbines will always

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 162 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

be a social construction in terms of tourism and will remain indefinitely.

13.4.11 Potential Negative or Positive Cumulative Effects within the Region

The sudden spate of renewable energy development proposals along the West Coast in particular, and South Africa in general, has been driven by national government as part of global environmental governance, as a solution to the energy crisis and to mitigate climate change. Renewable Energy Feed‐In Tariffs (REFIT) have been proposed by NERSA and the South African Government as an incentive for Independent Power Producers (IPPs) to develop such facilities. An abundant wind resource on the West Coast has led to a high concentration of wind farm proposals in this area with associated concerns regarding the potential cumulative impact on the environment. According to the DEAT Guidelines on ‘Cumulative Effects Assessment’ (2004, p: 3):

“Cumulative effects are commonly understood as the impacts which combine from different projects and which result in significant change, which is larger than the sum of all the impacts.”

Figure 6.2 indicates the sites of the renewable energy proposals up to May 2011 as mapped by the West Coast District Municipality. It should be noted the certainty of all of these being developed is low as each proposal requires a number of approvals and authorisations issued by various governmental bodies.

In terms of cumulative impacts, the visual impact of renewable energy developments on the West Coast is the major concern of stakeholders and linked to this is the potential impact on tourism especially since the district is known for its remote landscapes and is marketed on the basis of its natural assets. Other potential negative cumulative impacts relate to the effect on birds, bats, botany, and micro‐climate patterns which is outside the scope of this SIA. There are however also potential positive impacts which may arise from the reduction in dependence on fossil fuels; the diversification of the regional economy; and associated employment and multiplier effects.

Tourism and Visual Impacts

The VIA has assessed the potential cumulative impacts as medium‐high (for the turbines) given the facility would remain a relatively small facility in comparison to the Rheboksfontein facility which is the closest proposed development site. As per the findings presented in Section 14.1 and 14.2, it is a common theme that people are adaptable and therefore the impact would diminish over time. In terms of tourism, a number of stakeholders believed that the integrity of the West Coast would be lost and it would become synonymous with wind farms. These sentiments are also consistent with the findings of a number of international studies particularly by tourism operators in areas offering outdoor activities and known for their natural environments (NFO WorldGroup, 2003 and NFO System Three, 2002). However, other international studies have shown that the majority of tourists surveyed are not bothered by the presence of wind farms (NFO System Three, 2002; NFO WorldGroup, 2003; BWEA, 2006).

In the international studies, the sensitive siting of wind farms has been documented as the main mitigating factor (NFO System Three, 2002); this was also expressed by the stakeholders. It was the opinion of a number of stakeholders that the wind farms needed to be sited away from tourism corridors and nodes and at least a fair distance apart so that visitors would not view a constant montage of wind turbines when travelling up the coast. Although the proposed Project is a small facility and likely to have a low negative impact on tourism which would be confined to the local

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 163 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

area (as assessed in Section 13.4.10 above), in conjunction with the other proposals within the West Coast District it could well result in a higher cumulative impact especially due to its location on the R27 which is one of the main coastal routes. The impact on tourism cannot be quantified in economic terms, however, there is no doubt that the presence of a number of wind energy facilities would result in a negative impact to the ‘sense of place’ of the West Coast, the essence of many tourism establishments .

The cumulative impact on tourism is therefore assessed to be negative; local, district, and provincial in extent; long term to permanent in duration; medium intensity; and is highly probable. The impact is assessed to be of medium‐high significance to the decision‐making process.

Not many measures are available at the project level for mitigating cumulative impacts over and above the project level recommendations relating to site layout and screening. It is more of a challenge for decision‐makers at the various tiers of government to approve those developments which are considered more socially and environmentally acceptable.

Renewable Energy

As set out in the Integrated Resource Plan for Electricity (IRP) 2010, renewable energy forms an important component of the energy mix going forward over the next 30 years with wind a significant component thereof. The cabinet approved policy (the ‘policy‐adjusted IRP’) indicates that renewable energy has a capacity of 17.8 GW out of a total energy capacity of 42.5 GW. Of this, wind comprises 8.4 GW and this is proposed to come on stream from 2014 onwards, over and above an already committed 700 MW for 2012 and 2013. In particular, the White Paper on Sustainable Energy for the Western Cape Province (2010) sets out a target for the Province. It is stipulated that 15% of electricity consumed in the Province will come from renewable energy sources by 2014. The potential total capacity of all the proposed wind projects (excluding the wind and solar hybrids) in the West Coast District is roughly calculated to be 2,300‐2,350 MW. This would more than meet the requirements of the provincial energy targets, over the following 30 years.

The cumulative impact on renewable energy development and associated climate change mitigation is therefore assessed to be positive; provincial and national in extent; long term to permanent in duration; medium intensity; and is highly probable. The impact is assessed to be of medium‐high significance to the decision‐making process.

No mitigation is recommended.

Economic and Employment Impacts

Although the Project itself would yield relatively minor benefits for the local economy, given the appropriate enabling environment and in combination with the projected capacity of renewable energy generation, the impacts could be significant. Of importance is the fact that the renewable energy sector would require a wide range of skills to implement the various technologies (Agama Energy, 2003). Experience from the EU has shown that the wind energy sector creates the following direct employment: manufacturers (37%); component manufacturers (22%); developers (16%); installation, repair, operation and maintenance (11%); utilities and IPPs (9%); consultancy / engineering (3); research and development (1%); financial / insurance (0.3%) and other (1%) (EWEA, 2009). This highlights the significant potential in the manufacturing sector (specifically for wind turbine components) which is not yet established in South Africa and would require a high number of artisans. The findings of the a study undertaken by Agama Energy (2003: p.ii) shows that

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 164 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

“renewable energy technologies offer a quantifiable potential for creating and sustaining new and decentralised employment in South Africa, which can offset some of the employment attrition that is a current trend in the conventional energy sectors”. This has associated economic benefits as well as skills development and training opportunities.

The cumulative impact on the economy is therefore assessed to be positive; local, district, provincial and national in extent; long term to permanent in duration; medium intensity; and is highly probable. The impact is assessed to be of medium‐high significance to the decision‐making process.

No mitigation is recommended.

13.5 DECOMMISSIONING

Decommissioning and restoration activities are likely to have similar impacts as those identified for the construction phase. There are likely to be fewer skills and training opportunities available because at the end of the projected design life of 25 years, more skills would are likely to be established. The only major difference would be that the removal of infrastructure would have an overall positive visual impact and should some infrastructure remain, it would be a lasting visual impact.

13.6 ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVES

Three options have been assessed, Option 1 (14 x larger N77 turbines), Option 2 (16 x smaller N60 turbines) and the No‐Go Option.

13.6.1 Assessment of Impacts for Option 1 and Option 2

Options 1 and 2 are assessed to have the same impact for all the identified potential impacts in Sections 13.3, 13.4 and 13.5. The only material difference is the size (height) and number of turbines which has been assessed as having the same impact in the VIA; medium‐high during operation. However the VIA (Oberholzer and Lawson, 2011: 23) also concludes that:

The difference between the layouts assessed is marginal in terms of visual impact, the viewsheds and visibility as shown in the photomontages being similar in both cases. However Option 1 would have fewer turbines and be further from the R27 Route, and although the turbines are slightly higher, Option 1 would create marginally less visual clutter on the skyline.

Table 13.1 summarises the social impacts which are the same for both Options 1 and 2. The SIA indicates no preference for either of these options. Although it must be noted that in terms of social acceptability, stakeholders interviewed largely preferred the option with the least environmental impacts which would be Option 1 because of the reduced landtake.

13.6.2 Assessment of Impacts for the No‐Go Option

The impacts of pursuing the No‐Go Option are both positive and negative as follows:

The benefits would be that there is no change in status quo in terms of the negative impacts described above during all project phases which would be experienced by neighbours, society and

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 165 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

the landscape – namely through disruption, noise, visual, road safety, and tourism impacts. The impact is therefore neutral.

There would be an opportunity loss in terms of contributing to the renewable energy targets for the Western Cape Province and nationally. This is assessed to be a low negative impact because of the scale of the Project which is considered small in comparison to other renewable energy facilities.

There would also be an opportunity loss in terms of job creation, skills development and associated economic multipliers for the local economy. This is assessed to be a low negative impact because of the scale of the Project and the limited numbers of jobs created.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 166 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

Table 13.1: Significance of social impacts

SIGNIFICANCE SIGNIFICANCE DESCRIPTION NATURE / EXTENT DURATION INTENSITY PROBABILITY (WITHOUT MITIGATION (WITH STATUS OF THE IMPACT MITIGATION) MITIGATION)

CONSTRUCTION Employment, training Local; District; Implement local Positive Temporary Low High Probability Low Low‐Medium and skills development Provincial employment policy Economic multiplier Local; District; Implement local Positive Temporary Low High Probability Low Low‐Medium effects Provincial procurement policy Indirect effects of additional workers on Implement comprehensive site – eg. damage or Negative Local Temporary Low Improbable Low Negligible employee induction loss to neighbouring programme farms Impacts of non‐local workforce on society Implement (introduction of social comprehensive Negative Local Temporary Low Improbable Low Negligible ills such as competition employee induction for services, disease programme and crime) Turbines: Turbines: Turbines: Screening substation Medium‐High; Medium‐High; Medium‐High; with berms; blend Visual impact* Negative Local Short Term Highly Probably Substation & Substation & Substation & access roads with Roads: Roads: Medium Roads: Medium contours Medium‐Low Disruption and damage CEMP to address to adjacent properties noise and dust Negative Local Temporary Low Probable Low control; complaints Negligible from construction procedure; activities rehabilitation

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 167 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

SIGNIFICANCE SIGNIFICANCE DESCRIPTION NATURE / EXTENT DURATION INTENSITY PROBABILITY (WITHOUT MITIGATION (WITH STATUS OF THE IMPACT MITIGATION) MITIGATION)

OPERATION Employment, training Local; District; Implement local Positive Long term Low Probable Low Low and skills development Provincial employment policy Economic multiplier Local; District; Implement local Positive Long term Low Probable Low Low effects Provincial procurement policy Landowner revenue Positive Local Long term Low Highly probable Low None Low Diversification of local Positive Local; District Long term Low Probable Low None Low economy and stability Turbines: Turbines: Turbines: Screening substation Medium‐High; Medium‐High; Medium‐High; with berms; blend Visual impact* Negative Local Long term Highly probable Substation & Substation & Substation & access roads with Roads: Roads: Medium Roads: Medium contours Medium‐Low Short to medium VIA Mitigation; Road safety Negative Local Low Unknown Low Low term Site tours Noise impacts* Negative Local Short term Medium Probable Medium Noise monitoring Low Impact on property Neutral N/A N/A N/A N/A Neutral N/A Neutral prices Impact on community Neutral N/A N/A N/A N/A Neutral N/A Neutral identity and cohesion Impact on tourism Negative Local Long term Low Highly probable Low Site tours Low Cumulative impacts: Local; District; Long term to Negative Medium Highly probable Medium‐High N/A Medium‐High tourism and visual Provincial permanent Cumulative impacts: Provincial; Long term to renewable energy and Positive Medium Highly probable Medium‐High N/A Medium‐High National permanent climate change Cumulative impacts: Local; District; Long term to economy and Positive Provincial; Medium Highly probable Medium‐High N/A Medium‐High permanent employment National

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 168 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

SIGNIFICANCE SIGNIFICANCE DESCRIPTION NATURE / EXTENT DURATION INTENSITY PROBABILITY (WITHOUT MITIGATION (WITH STATUS OF THE IMPACT MITIGATION) MITIGATION)

DECOMMISSIONING Local; District; Implement local Employment Positive Temporary Low High Probability Low Low‐Medium Provincial employment policy Economic multiplier Local; District; Implement local Positive Temporary Low High Probability Low Low‐Medium effects Provincial procurement policy Indirect effects of additional workers on Implement comprehensive site – eg. damage or Negative Local Temporary Low Improbable Low Negligible employee induction loss to neighbouring programme farms Introduction of social Implement ills such as competition comprehensive Negative Local Temporary Low Improbable Low Negligible for services, disease employee induction and crime programme Turbines & Turbines & Remove structures, Turbines & Roads: Roads: scarify roads and Roads: Low; Visual impact* Negative Local Short Term Medium‐Low; Probable Medium‐Low; revegetate; Screen Substation: Substation: Substation: substation if Medium Medium Medium remaining Disruption and damage CEMP to address to adjacent properties noise and dust Negative Local Temporary Low Probable Low control; complaints Negligible from construction procedure; activities rehabilitation * Based on the assessments undertaken as part of the VIA (Oberholzer and Lawson, 2011) and the NIA (Williams, 2011)

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 169 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 170 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

14 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Scoping and EIA process for the Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm has been undertaken by the Environmental Evaluation Unit (EEU) in terms of the National Environmental Management Act (107 of 1998) EIA Regulations (GN R385, GN R386 and GN R387 of April 2006). The process has involved working closely with the relevant specialists, liaising with the commenting authorities, consulting with the public, as well as iteratively feeding back to the applicant to inform the Project design.

This Scoping and EIA process has assessed the Project at one location only, since this is an existing wind farm. The No‐Go Option which involves maintaining the Status Quo has also been assessed. In addition, the EIA process has comparatively assessed two layout options. The Scoping and EIA process has also considered, although not comparatively assessed, Technology and Input Alternatives.

Through an iterative process the alternatives have been considered, environmental impacts have been identified and assessed, and the specialists have recommended mitigation measures to address these impacts. Table 14.1, Table 14.2, and Table 14.3 summarise the impacts identified for construction, operation and decommissioning respectively and are followed by the general conclusions from each specialist study. Note that the Botanical Impact Assessment was the only study to establish different significance ratings for each Option and this is included in the tables to allow for a comparison.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 171 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

Table 14.1: Summary of the significance of impacts arising during the construction phase

DESCRIPTION WITHOUT MITIGATION WITH MITIGATION OF THE IMPACT NATURE SIGNIFICANCE NATURE SIGNIFICANCE BOTANICAL IMPACTS Loss of up to 3 ha of sensitive vegetation and Low ‐ Low – portions of local populations of plant Species Option 1 Negative Negative Medium Medium of Conservation Concern Loss of up to 4 ha of sensitive vegetation and Medium ‐ Medium – portions of local populations of plant Species Option 2 Negative Negative High High of Conservation Concern AVIFAUNAL IMPACTS

Displacement of priority species Negative Low Negative Low Displacement of priority species due to footprint of wind Negative Low Negative Low farm (habitat loss) SOCIAL IMPACTS Low – Employment, training and skills development Positive Low Positive Medium Low – Economic multiplier effects Positive Low Positive Medium Indirect effects of additional workers on site – e.g. damage Negative Low Negative Negligible or loss to neighbouring farms Impacts of non‐local workforce on society (introduction of social ills such as competition for services, disease and Negative Low Negative Negligible crime) Visual impact See Visual Impacts below Disruption and damage to adjacent properties from Negative Low Negative Negligible construction activities VISUAL IMPACTS Medium‐ Medium‐ Turbines Negative Negative High High Medium‐ Substation Negative Medium Negative Low Medium‐ Internal access roads Negative Medium Negative Low NOISE IMPACTS Impact of the construction noise on the surrounding Negative Medium Negative Low environment

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 172 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

Table 14.2: Summary of the significance of impacts arising during the operational phase

DESCRIPTION WITHOUT MITIGATION WITH MITIGATION OF THE IMPACT NATURE SIGNIFICANCE NATURE SIGNIFICANCE BOTANICAL IMPACTS Habitat fragmentation; disruption of optimal Low ‐ Option 1 Negative Positive Low fire regime; alien plant invasion Medium Habitat fragmentation; disruption of optimal Medium ‐ Option 2 Negative Negative Neutral fire regime; alien plant invasion High Low negative to low positive impact provided Option 1 Cumulative impacts on botany pursued and ecological mitigation successful AVIFAUNAL IMPACTS

Bird mortality due to collisions with the turbine blades Negative Low Negative Low

Displacement of priority species Negative Low Negative Low Displacement of priority species due to footprint of wind Negative Low Negative Low farm (Habitat loss) Cumulative impacts on avifauna Potentially significant, monitoring required to confirm

SOCIAL IMPACTS

Employment, training and skills development Positive Low Positive Low

Economic multiplier effects Positive Low Positive Low

Landowner revenue Positive Low Positive Low

Diversification of local economy and stability Positive Low Positive Low

Visual impact See Visual Impacts below

Road safety Negative Low Negative Low

Noise impacts See Noise Impacts below

Impact on tourism Negative Low Negative Low Medium‐ Medium‐ Cumulative impacts: tourism and visual Negative Negative High High Medium‐ Medium‐ Cumulative impacts: renewable energy and climate change Positive Positive High High Medium‐ Medium‐ Cumulative impacts: economy and employment Positive Positive High High VISUAL IMPACTS Medium‐ Medium‐ Turbines Negative Negative High High Medium‐ Substation Negative Medium Negative Low Medium‐ Internal access roads Negative Medium Negative Low Cumulative visual impacts Negative and Medium High (Based on Turbines)

NOISE IMPACTS Impact of the operational noise on the surrounding Negative Medium Negative Low environment

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 173 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

Table 14.3: Summary of the significance of impacts arising during the decommissioning phase

DESCRIPTION WITHOUT MITIGATION WITH MITIGATION OF THE IMPACT NATURE SIGNIFICANCE NATURE SIGNIFICANCE BOTANICAL IMPACTS Disturbance to surrounding natural vegetation Low ‐ Option 1 Negative Negative Low and associated facilitated alien plant invasion Medium Disturbance to surrounding natural vegetation Low ‐ Option 2 Negative Negative Low and associated facilitated alien plant invasion Medium AVIFAUNAL IMPACTS

Displacement of priority species Negative Low Negative Low Displacement of priority species due to footprint of wind Negative Low Negative Low farm (habitat loss) SOCIAL IMPACTS Low‐ Employment Positive Low Positive Medium Low‐ Economic multiplier effects Positive Low Positive Medium Indirect effects of additional workers on site – eg. damage Negative Low Negative Negligible or loss to neighbouring farms Introduction of social ills such as competition for services, Negative Low Negative Negligible disease and crime Visual impact See Visual Impacts below Disruption and damage to adjacent properties from Negative Low Negative Negligible construction activities VISUAL IMPACTS Medium‐ Turbines Negative Negative Low Low Substation Negative Medium Negative Medium Medium‐ Internal access roads Negative Negative Low Low NOISE IMPACTS Impact of the decommissioning noise on the surrounding Negative Medium Negative Low environment

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 174 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

14.1 BOTANY

Option 1 is the preferred development option (low ‐ medium negative impact before mitigation, low positive after mitigation), and this is in turn preferable to the No‐Go Option (low negative), provided that the important mitigation requirements identified in this report are adequately implemented.

With appropriate environmental management of the development area, as well as of the remaining areas of natural vegetation on the greater study area (including at least 150 ha of high sensitivity vegetation and at least 100 ha of medium sensitivity vegetation), the overall impact of Option 1 could be reduced to low positive. The environmental management of the overall site would have to be audited by annual monitoring in order to ensure compliance. If not adequately managed then the preferred development alternative (Option 1) would not necessarily be clearly preferable to the No‐Go Option, as the latter is likely to have a low negative impact over time (due mainly to ongoing alien plant invasion and inappropriate fire management).

Extensive mandatory mitigation measures are proposed, including ongoing environmental management (notably alien vegetation, fire and grazing management) of the medium and high sensitivity areas in the study area; signing these areas up with CapeNature’s Stewardship Programme within one year of project initiation; annual monitoring of the environmental management; moving the internal access road linking the two turbine roads to the east by 150 m (which has been undertaken and is indicated on Figure 1.2 and Figure 1.3) and an extensive plant Search and Rescue operation prior to construction.

If the proposed mitigation measures are followed the development may have positive impact on the natural environment, as current ongoing farming activities continue to result in the degradation of the area.

The EEU is in support of the botanical measures as recommended by Helme (2011) above; however wishes to note certain points. With respect to the fire management proposed, the wind regime on the West Coast and the proximity of neighbouring property and adjacent infrastructure such as Telkom and Eskom lines, and the proposed turbines represents a risk and would need to be assessed at the time with input from the relevant authorities.

Lastly, the landowner/s and the Applicant would have responsibility for their respective parts of the farm/s and would be required to comply with the provisions of CARA with respect to alien clearing and other provisions.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 175 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

14.2 AVIFAUNA

In summary, the Avifaunal specialist has found that the wind facility will not pose a significant collision mortality risk to priority species and this negative impact is assessed to have a low significance to decision‐making. The greatest collision risk is posed by the seven turbines on the slope of Moedmaag Hill (i.e. four existing and three proposed), in the following conditions

 Between 11h00 and 17h00;  In spring/early summer i.e. between October and December; and  In moderate to strong winds with a southerly and westerly orientation.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 176 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

(Johnson et al, 2000).The consensus among researchers is to avoid lighting the turbines if possible, but that is against South African civil aviation regulations (Civil Aviation Regulations, 1997). The potential for collisions with the wind turbines due to presence of lights is not envisaged to be significant, primarily because the phenomenon of mass nocturnal passerine migrations is not a feature of the study area. However, the potential effect on nocturnal flamingo movement is unknown. Post – construction monitoring (carcass searches) will be required to assess, if possible, the extent (if any) of nocturnal fatalities that may be linked to the lighting on the turbines.

Because the estimated collision rate is merely a rough indicator of risk it, it is necessary to verify this estimate with actual carcass searches on site. It is particularly important to commence carcass searches in the winter season to assess whether here are any flamingo casualties due to nocturnal collisions with the existing turbines. These searches must take place according to the recommended protocol, which is in accordance with the ‘Best practice guidelines for avian monitoring and impact mitigation at proposed wind energy development sites in southern Africa – Version’ (Jenkins et al, 2011). The frequency of these surveys will be informed by assessments of scavenge and decomposition rates conducted in the initial stages of the monitoring period. Subject to the results of the decomposition/scavenge trials, it is proposed that a site survey is conducted twice a month for an initial minimum period of 12 months. After the initial 12 month period, the need for further monitoring will be evaluated again. If the results of the monitoring indicate a significant mortality rate for priority species, appropriate mitigation measures would need to be implemented. These could include any or a combination of the following (Smallwood 2008):

With respect to displacement of avifauna, more studies are needed and should be peer‐reviewed in the public domain. Research indicates that, with few exceptions, the displacement effect of wind developments on raptors is low to negligible (Madders and Whitfield, 2008). This trend seems to be supported by the results of the limited post‐construction monitoring conducted at the existing four turbines. The significance of this negative impact is assessed as low and no specific mitigation measures are recommended.

At the Project site, direct habitat loss is not regarded as a major impact on avifauna, relative to other potential impacts such as disturbance or collisions. This negative impact is assessed having a low significance to decision‐making. However, it is recommended that the infrastructure footprint must be restricted to the minimum, in accordance with the botanical recommendations.

It is impossible to say at this stage what the cumulative impact of all the proposed developments along the West Coast will be on birds, firstly because there is no baseline to measure it against, and secondly because the extent of actual impacts will only become known once a few wind farms are developed. It is therefore imperative that pre‐construction and post‐construction monitoring is implemented at all the new proposed sites, in accordance with the ‘Best practice guidelines for avian monitoring and impact mitigation at proposed wind energy development sites in southern Africa – Version 1’ (Jenkins et al, 2011), which was released by the Endangered Wildlife Trust and Birdlife

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 177 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

South Africa in April 2011. This will provide the necessary data to better assess the cumulative impact of wind development along the West Coast.

From a potential bird impact perspective, there is very little to choose between the two proposed alternatives. The seven turbines on slope of Moedmaag Hill are likely to pose the biggest risk of collision, and the position of these is identical for both lay‐outs. The potential displacement footprint of the two alternative lay‐outs are also very similar, resulting in no clear preference from a bird impact perspective.

14.3 VISUAL

From field surveys it was evident that the scale of the proposed wind turbines tends to make them visible for more than 10 km away, although there is a drop in the significance of this visibility beyond 10 km because of their slender form.

The proposed wind turbines would be visually prominent in the local area, being located on the skyline of Moedmaag hill, and close to two important arterial routes with scenic significance in the region.

There are a number of important wetlands and protected natural areas in the general area. However, except for the Tienie Versveld Wild Flower Reserve, which is 2 km away, most of the protected areas are 5 km or more from the proposed wind farm project.

The visibility of the wind turbines is limited from some viewpoints because of being screened by Moedmaag Hill and view shadows created by the hilly topography generally.

The view catchment area would only be marginally increased by the addition of 14 to 16 wind turbines over the original four turbines and this has been modelled.

An earlier visual impact assessment of the Darling Demonstration Wind Farm was carried out in 2001 and included an assessment of 10 wind turbines, with a first phase of four turbines. No fatal flaws were identified in this visual assessment.

The fact that four wind turbines have been established on the site means that the locality has already become a bona fide wind farm site. Furthermore, a complement of 18 to 20 wind turbines is not considered large in comparison to wind farms being proposed elsewhere.

The difference between the two layouts assessed is marginal in terms of visual impact, the viewsheds and visibility as shown in the photomontages being similar in both cases. However Option 1 would have fewer turbines and be further from the R27 Route, and although the turbines are slightly higher, Option 1 would create marginally less visual clutter on the skyline.

The prospect of a larger wind farm of some 80 wind turbines at Rheboksfontein, not far from the site, would increase the cumulative visual impacts on the general area, but at the same time would reduce the significance of this Project which is smaller.

The siting of the proposed second substation close to the R27 Route would add additional visual impacts of medium significance. The combining of the two substations, on the other hand, would result in limited or no additional visual impacts.

It is difficult to mitigate the visual effects of the wind turbines, given their large vertical size, and the

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 178 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

constraints of the farm boundaries at this particular site, although consideration could be given to using more muted colours. The visual specialists have recommended a number of general mitigation measures for the wind energy infrastructure.

14.4 HERITAGE

Aside from the visual impacts associated with the proposed development, no other significant impacts to heritage resources are foreseen. The VIA will need to quantify the degree of visual impact that will be experienced.

This report was intended to be a scoping assessment, but included a field component. It is believed that no further heritage assessments (aside from the VIA) are required.

14.5 NOISE

The impact of the noise pollution that can be expected from the site during the construction and operational phase will largely depend on the climatic conditions at the site. The ambient noise increases as the wind speed increases.

During the construction phase, there will be an impact on the immediate surrounding environment from the construction activities, especially if pile driving is to be done. This however will only occur if the underlying geological structure requires this. The area surrounding the construction site will be affected for short periods of time in all directions, should a number of main pieces of equipment be used simultaneously. The number of construction vehicles that will be used in the Project will add to the existing ambient levels and will most likely cause a disturbing noise.

For the operational phase, Options 1 and 2 were assessed. For both options respectively, the noise produced by the wind turbines will exceed the 45dB(A) day/night limit at the Windhoek Farm Workers homes at 12 m/s wind speed. As the wind speed increases, the ambient noise also increases and masks the wind turbine noise. The critical wind speeds are thus between 4‐6 m/s when there is a possibility of little masking. At 12 m/s the wind speed is such that it is highly unlikely that the turbine noise will be heard. The location of the Option 1 and Option 2 wind turbine generators all met the recommended 500 m setback distance.

Recommendations for the construction phase were that all construction operations should only occur during daylight hours if possible; piling should only occur during the day to take advantage of unstable atmospheric conditions; construction staff should receive “noise sensitivity” training; and

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 179 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

an ambient noise survey should be conducted during the construction phase.

For the operational phase it is recommended that the noise impact from the wind turbine generators should be measured to ensure that the impact is within the recommended limits. The recommendations for the decommissioning phase are the same as for the construction phase.

14.6 SOCIAL

The main benefits during all phases of the Project are the employment training and skills development opportunities with associated benefits to the economy through the multiplier effect. The significance is assessed as low positive for all phases of the Project, while during construction the implementation of a local employment and procurement policy could increase these benefits to low‐medium.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 180 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

there would be an opportunity cost in terms of contributing to the renewable energy targets for the Western Cape Province and nationally and also terms of job creation, skills development and indirect economic benefits. This is assessed to be a low negative impact because of the scale of the Project and the fairly insignificant permanent employment opportunities.

14.7 IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE KERRIE FONTEIN AND DARLING WIND FARM

The avoidance of negative environmental impacts, wherever possible, has been adopted as the approach for this environmental assessment process, with mitigation measures as a secondary reaction to those impacts which cannot be prevented. Residual negative impacts which remain after mitigation are mostly of low or negligible significance for the avifaunal, social and noise impacts. Those remaining impacts which cannot be mitigated include the permanent loss of sensitive vegetation; 3 ha for Option 1 (assessed as low‐medium); and 4 ha for Option 2 (assessed as medium‐ high), and the visual impacts of the turbines (medium‐high), the substation (medium‐low) and the internal access roads (medium‐low).

An important benefit will be the employment, training and skills development, and associated indirect benefits for the local economy generated during all phases of the Project, although this is considered to be of low significance during operation and low‐medium significance during construction because of the limited number of jobs and the requirement for skills that may not be readily available in the area. In comparison to the status quo, the botanical environment would be enhanced mainly through the management of the existing alien vegetation; control of trampling and grazing by livestock; fire management; and conservation of remaining natural vegetation.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 181 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

The No‐Go Option results in no change to the status quo which would be preferable for avifauna, noise, and some social aspects of the development such as impact on tourism and road safety. However, the No‐Go Option may not necessarily be preferable for all disciplines such as botany which would benefit from the opportunity for management and conservation, instead of being allowed to degrade further under current management practices. Social benefits such as the employment, training and business opportunities would not be realised. At a broader level, the No‐ Go Option would represent a lost opportunity for South Africa to supplement its current energy needs with clean, renewable energy.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 182 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

15 REFERENCES

General

Atmosfair. 2010. [Online]. Available: www.atmosfair.de/en/home/ [2010, 08].

Barbour, T. 2005. Guideline for involving social assessment specialists in EIA processes. Republic of South Africa, Provincial Government of the Western Cape, Department of Environmental Affairs & Development Planning, Cape Town.

Brownlie, S. 2005. Guideline for involving biodiversity specialists in EIA processes: Edition 1. CSIR Report No ENV‐S‐C 2005 053 C. Republic of South Africa, Provincial Government of the Western Cape, Department of Environmental Affairs & Development Planning, Cape Town.

Cape West Coast Biosphere Reserve. 2010. Spatial Planning [Online]. Available: http://www.capebiosphere.co.za/html/Biosphere/spatialplanning.html [2010, 12].

Creamer. 2010. Electricity plan clings to pragmatism over aspiration, 22 October 2010 [Online]. Available: http://www.polity.org.za/article/electricity‐plan‐clings‐to‐pragmatism‐over‐aspiration‐2010‐10‐22 [2010, 10].

Creamer. 2011. Fresh concern that SA is poised to abandon Refit in favour of competitive bidding [Online]. Available: http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/fresh‐concern‐that‐sa‐is‐poised‐to‐abandon‐refit‐in‐ favour‐of‐competitive‐bidding‐2011‐06‐23 [2011, 06].

Dennis Moss. 1999. Proposed Cape West Coast Biosphere Reserve, Application for Nomination. Submitted by Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, November 1999.

Department of Energy. 2010. Integrated Resource Plan for Electricity [Online]. Available: http://www.doe‐ irp.co.za/content/IRP_for_Electricity.pdf [2010, 07].

Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning. 2010. 24.06.2010‐last update Environmental Impact Assessments [Online]. Available: http://www.capegateway.gov.za/eng/yourgovernment/gsc/406/services/11537/10199#scoping [2010, 07].

Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning. 2007. Sustainable Energy Strategy and Programme of Action for the Western Cape [Online]. Available: http://www.capegateway.gov.za/Text/2008/3/1.sustenrgstrat_mainsummary_22jan_2008.pdf [2010,07].

Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning. 2008. A Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan for the Western Cape [Online]. Available: http://www.capegateway.gov.za/other/2009/1/cc_strategy_and_action_plan_finaljanuary_09.pdf [2010,07].

Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning. 2009. NEMA Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations Guideline and Information Document Series: Guideline on Public Participation.

Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. 1998. Guideline Document, EIA Regulations. Implementation of Sections 21 22 and 26 of the Environment Conservation Act. April 1998.

Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. 2002. Integrated Environmental Management Guidelines Series. Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT). Pretoria.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 183 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. 2006. General Guide to the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2006. Pretoria.

Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. 2006. Integrated Environmental Management Series, in support of the EIA Regulations, 2005. Pretoria.

Department of Minerals and Energy. 2007. Energy Security Master Plan: Electricity. 2007‐2025 [Online]. Available: http://www.dme.gov.za/pdfs/energy/electricity/energy_sec_msp_elec.pdf [2010,07].

Ecosense. 2011. Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm. Draft Environmental Management Programme. Prepared for Oelsner Group.

Edkins, M., Marquard, A. and H. Winkler. 2010a. Assessing the effectiveness of national solar and wind energy policies in South Africa. Prepared for the United Nations Environment Programme Research Project Enhancing information for renewable energy technology deployment in Brazil, China and South Africa, by the Energy Research Centre (UCT). Final Report June 2010.

Edkins, M., Marquard, A. and H. Winkler. 2010b. South Africa’s renewable energy policy roadmaps. Prepared for the United Nations Environment Programme Research Project Enhancing information for renewable energy technology deployment in Brazil, China and South Africa, by the Energy Research Centre (UCT). Final Report June 2010.

EEU. 2001. EIA for Darling National Demonstration Wind Farm. Dec 2001. Draft for Public Comment.

EEU. 2004. Final Scoping Report for Darling National Demonstration Wind Farm. October 2004.

EEU. 2010. The Proposed Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm. Final Scoping Report. DEA Ref: 12/12/20/1928EEU. University of Cape Town.

Hagemann, K. 2008. Mesoscale Wind Atlas of South Africa. PhD Thesis, UCT. November 2008.

Helme, N. 2010. Botanical scoping assessment of proposed Kerrie Fontein and Darling Phase 2 Wind Farm. Unpublished report for the EEU, UCT. Nick Helme Botanical Surveys, Scarborough.

Heritage Western Cape 2010. 04/05/2010‐last update. What is the heritage Western Cape? [Online]. Available: http://www.capegateway.gov.za/eng/directories/public_entities/1063/72512 [2010, 07].

Infomine. 2010. Operating Mines and Quarries and Mineral Processing Plants in the Republic of South Africa, 2006 [Online]. Available: http://www.infomine.com/publications/docs/DMESouthAfrica/OperatingMines&Quarries.pdf [2010, 07].

Keatimilwe, K. and Ashton, P.J. 2005. Guideline for the review of specialist input in EIA processes: Edition 1. CSIR Report No ENV‐S‐C 2005 053 B. Republic of South Africa, Provincial Government of the Western Cape, Department of Environmental Affairs & Development Planning, Cape Town.

Kyoto Protocol on the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. UN Doc FCCC/CP/1997/Add, 1, December 10, 1997; 37 ILM 22; 1998.

Lochner, P. 2005. Guideline for Environmental Management Plans. CSIR Report No ENV‐S‐C 2005‐053 H. Republic of South Africa, Provincial Government of the Western Cape, Department of Environmental Affairs & Development Planning, Cape Town.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 184 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

Münster, F. 2005. Guideline for determining the scope of specialist involvement in EIA processes: Edition 1. CSIR Report No ENV‐S‐C 2005 053 A. Republic of South Africa, Provincial Government of the Western Cape, Department of Environmental Affairs & Development Planning, Cape Town.

National Energy Regulator of South Africa. 2009. South Africa renewable Energy feed‐In Tariff (REFIT) [Online]. Available: http://www.innovent.com.uy/site/content/legislacion/south_africa_renewable_energy_feed_in_tariff.pdf [2010,07].

Nordex. 2010. [Homepage of Nordex] [Online]. Available: http://www.nordex‐online.com/en [2010, 08].

Oberholzer, B. 2005. Guideline for involving visual & aesthetic specialists in EIA processes: Edition 1. CSIR Report No ENV‐S‐C 2005 053 F. Republic of South Africa, Provincial Government of the Western Cape, Department of Environmental Affairs & Development Planning, Cape Town.

Provincial Government Western Cape. 1998. Western Cape Nature Conservation Board Act (No. 15 of 1998).

Provincial Government Western Cape. 1999. Western Cape Planning and Development Act (No. 7 of 1999).

Provincial Government Western Cape. 2000. Bioregional Planning Framework for the Western Cape Province.

Provincial Government Western Cape. 2000. Western Cape Nature Conservation Laws Amendment Act (No. 3 of 2000).

Provincial Government Western Cape. 2001. White Paper on Sustainable Tourism Development and Promotion in the Western Cape.

Provincial Government Western Cape. 2002. Western Cape Planning and Development Amendment Bill.

Provincial Government Western Cape. 2004. Western Cape Tourism Act (No. 1 of 2004).

Provincial Government Western Cape. 2007. The Western Cape Sustainable Development Implementation Plan.

Provincial Government Western Cape. 2008. The IKAPA Growth and Development Strategy.

Republic of S.A. 1998. National Environmental Management Act (No. 107 of 1998).

Republic of S.A. 1998. National Environmental Water Act (No. 36 of 1998).

Republic of S.A. 1998. National Veld and Forest Fire Act (No. 101 of 1998).

Republic of S.A. 1998. White Paper on the Energy Policy of the Republic of SA (No. 36 of 1998).

Republic of S.A. 1999. Electricity Act (No.41 of 1987).

Republic of S.A. 1999. National Heritage Resources Act (No.25 of 1999).

Republic of S.A. 2003. National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act (No. 57 of 2003).

Republic of S.A. 2004. National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act (No.10 of 2004).

Republic of S.A. 2004. National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act (No.39 of 2004).

Republic of S.A. 2006. Electricity Regulation Act (No.4 of 2006).

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 185 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

Republic of S.A. 2006. Electricity Regulation Act: Electricity Regulations on New Generation Capacity (No.4 of 2006).

Republic of S.A. 2008. National Environmental Energy Act (No.34 of 2008).

Republic of S.A. 2008. National Environmental Management: Waste Act (No. 59 of 2008).

Rutovitz, J. 2010. South African energy sector jobs to 2030. Prepared for Greenpeace Africa by the Institute for Sustainable Futures. University of Technology, Sydney, Australia.

Saayman, I. 2005. Guideline for involving hydrogeologists in EIA processes: Edition 1. CSIR Report No ENV‐S‐C 2005 053 D. Republic of South Africa, Provincial Government of the Western Cape, Department of Environmental Affairs & Development Planning, Cape Town.

The Gold Standard: Premium Quality Carbon Credits. [Homepage of The Gold Standard] [Online]. Available: http://www.cdmgoldstandard.org/ [2010, 07].

UNFCCC, 2010. About CDM [Online]. Available: http://cdm.unfccc.int/about/index.html [2010, 08].

Van Zyl, H.W., de Wit, M.P. & Leiman, A. 2005. Guideline for involving economists in EIA processes: Edition 1. CSIR Report No ENV‐S‐C 2005 053 G. Republic of South Africa, Provincial Government of the Western Cape, Department of Environmental Affairs & Development Planning, Cape Town.

Winter, S. & Baumann, N. 2005. Guideline for involving heritage specialists in EIA processes: Edition 1. CSIR Report No ENV‐S‐C 2005 053 E. Republic of South Africa, Provincial Government of the Western Cape, Department of Environmental Affairs & Development Planning, Cape Town.

Botanical

DEA. 2009. The Draft National List of Threatened Ecosystems. Government Gazette Vol. 533: No. 32689. National Printer, Pretoria.

De Villiers, C., Driver, A., Brownlie, S., Day, E., Euston‐Brown, D., Helme, N., Holmes, P., Job, N., and A. Rebelo. 2005. Fynbos Forum Ecosystem Guidelines for Environmental Assessment in the Western Cape. Fynbos Forum, c/o Botanical Society of South Africa, Conservation Unit, Kirstenbosch, Cape Town.

Mucina, L. and M. Rutherford. (eds.) 2006. Vegetation map of South Africa, Lesotho, and Swaziland. Strelitzia 19. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.

Raimondo, D., Von Staden, L., Foden, W., Victor, J.E., Helme, N.A., Turner, R.C., Kamundi, D.A., and P.A. Manyama. (eds.) 2009. Red List of South African Plants 2009. Strelitzia 25. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.

Rouget, M., Reyers, B., Jonas, Z., Desmet, P., Driver, A., Maze, K., Egoh, B. and R.M. Cowling. 2004. South African National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment 2004: Technical Report. Vol. 1: Terrestrial Component. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.

Von Hase, A., Rouget, M., Maze, K. and N. Helme. 2003. A fine‐scale conservation plan for Cape Lowlands Renosterveld: Technical report. CCU Report # 2/03, Botanical Society of South Africa, Kirstenbosch.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 186 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

Avifaunal

Avian Powerline Interation Committee (APLIC). 1994. Mitigating bird collisions with power lines: the state of the art in 1994. Edison Electric Institute. Washington DC.

Barnes, K.N. (ed.) 2000. The Eskom Red Data Book of Birds of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. BirdLife South Africa, Johannesburg.

Barnes, K.N. 1998. The Important Bird Areas of southern Africa. BirdLife South Africa, Johannesburg.

Boshoff, A. 2004. Commissioned to estimate the potential impact of a demonstration wind farm on the birds of the Darling‐Yzerfontein area, Western Cape Province. Report to Environmental Evaluation Unit (EEU), University of Cape Town.

Drewitt, A.L. and R.H.W. Langston. 2006. ‘Assessing the impacts of wind farms on birds’. Ibis. 148: 29‐42.

Fox, A.D., Desholm, M., Kahlert, J., Christensen, T.K. and I.B.K. Petersen. 2006. Information needs to support environmental impact assessments of the effects of European marine offshore wind farms on birds. In Special Issue: Wind, Fire and Water: Renewable Energy and Birds. Ibis. 148 (1): 129–144.

Harrison, J.A., Drewitt, D.G., Underhill, L.G., Herremans, M., Tree, A.J., Parker, V. and C.J. Brown (eds). 1997. The atlas of southern African birds. Vol. 1&2. BirdLife South Africa, Johannesburg.

Hobbs, J.C.A. and J.A. Ledger. 1986a. The Environmental Impact of Linear Developments; Power lines and Avifauna. Third International Conference on Environmental Quality and Ecosystem Stability. Israel, June 1986.

Hobbs, J.C.A. and J.A. Ledger. 1986b. Power lines, Birdlife and the Golden Mean. Fauna and Flora 44:23‐27.

Jenkins, A. 2003. Populations and movements of priority bird species in the vicinity of the proposed Darling National Demonstration Wind Farm facility. Results of pre‐construction monitoring supplementary to the initial EIA, completed on contract to the Environmental Evaluation Unit, UCT.

Jenkins ,A. R., Van Rooyen, C. S., Smallie, J. J., Anderson, M. D. and H.A. Smit. 2011. Best practice guidelines for avian monitoring and impact mitigation at proposed wind energy development sites in southern Africa. Endangered Wildlife Trust and Birdlife South Africa.

Kruger, R. and C.S. Van Rooyen. 1998. Evaluating the risk that existing power lines pose to large raptors by using risk assessment methodology: the Molopo Case Study. 5th World Conference on Birds of Prey and Owls: 4 ‐ 8 August 1998. Midrand, South Africa.

Kruger, R. 1999. Towards solving raptor electrocutions on Eskom Distribution Structures in South Africa. M. Phil. Mini‐thesis. University of the Orange Free State. Bloemfontein. South Africa.

Ledger, J. 1983. Guidelines for Dealing with Bird Problems of Transmission Lines and Towers. Escom Test and Research Division Technical Note TRR/N83/005.

Ledger, J.A. and H.J. Annegarn. 1981. Electrocution Hazards to the Cape Vulture (Gyps coprotheres) in South Africa. Biological Conservation. 20:15‐24.

Ledger, J.A. 1984. Engineering Solutions to the problem of Vulture Electrocutions on Electricity Towers. The Certificated Engineer. 57:92‐95.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 187 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

Ledger, J.A., Hobbs, J.C.A. and T.V. Smith. 1992. Avian Interactions with Utility Structures: Southern African Experiences. Proceedings of the International Workshop on Avian Interactions with Utility Structures, Miami, Florida, 13‐15 September 1992. Electric Power Research Institute.

Madders, M. and D.P. Whitfield. 2006. ‘Upland raptors and the assessment of wind farm impacts’. Ibis. 148: 43 – 56.

Marais, S. 2010. Issues and Responses Report (Draft Scoping Comment Period): 12 October – 21 November 2010. Environmental Evaluation Unit. UCT.

Shaw, J.M. 2009. The End of the Line for South Africa's National Bird? Modelling power line collision risk for the Blue Crane. Unpublished MSc Thesis. Percy FitzPatrick Institute of African Ornithology University of Cape Town.

Smallwood, S. 2008. Mitigation in US wind farms. In: Documentation of International Workshop on Birds of Prey and Wind Farms. 21st and 22nd of October 2008, Berlin. Michael Otto Institute in NABU.

Southern African Bird Atlas Project 2. 2010. [Online]. Available. http://sabap2.adu.org.za [2010, 07].

Thelander, C.G., Smallwood, K.S. and L. Rugge. 2003. Bird Risk Behaviours and Fatalities at the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area . Report to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Colorado.

Van der Westhuizen, A. 2011. Proposed wind farm development: Kerrie fontein 555 and Darling national demonstration wind farm phase 2 (Slangkop 552) Darling, Western Cape. Monitoring Report. Arnwalt Enviro Watch.

Van Rooyen, C.S. 1998. Raptor mortality on power lines in South Africa. 5th World Conference on Birds of Prey and Owls: 4 ‐ 8 August 1998. Midrand, South Africa.

Van Rooyen, C.S. 1999. An overview of the Eskom ‐ EWT Strategic Partnership in South Africa. EPRI Workshop on Avian Interactions with Utility Structures 2‐3 December 1999, Charleston, South Carolina.

Van Rooyen, C.S. 2000. An overview of Vulture Electrocutions in South Africa. Vulture News 43: 5‐22. Vulture Study Group, Johannesburg, South Africa.

Van Rooyen, C.S. 2004. The Management of Wildlife Interactions with overhead lines. In: The Fundamentals and practice of Overhead Line Maintenance (132kV and above), pp217‐245. Eskom Technology, Services International, Johannesburg 2004.

Van Rooyen, C.S. 2007. Eskom‐EWT Strategic Partnership: Progress Report April‐September 2007. Endangered Wildlife Trust, Johannesburg.

Verdoorn, G.H. 1996. Mortality of Cape Griffons Gyps coprotheres and African Whitebacked Vultures Pseudogyps africanus on 88kV and 132kV power lines in Western Transvaal, South Africa, and mitigation measures to prevent future problems. 2nd International Conference on Raptors: 2‐5 October 1996. Urbino, Italy.

Visual

Orton, J. 2010. Heritage Scoping Assessment for the Kerrie Fontein and Darling Phase 2 Wind Farm, Malmesbury Managerial District, Western Cape. Archaeology Contracts Office, UCT.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 188 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

Provincial Government of the Western Cape and CVdV Africa, 2006. Strategic Initiative to Introduce Commercial Land Based Energy Development to the Western Cape. Issued by provincial Government of the Western Cape.

Heritage

Almond, J. And J. Pether. 2008. Heritage Western Cape Interim Technical Report (May 2008): Palaeontological Heritage of the Western Cape. Unpublished report prepared for Heritage Western Cape.

Avery, G, Halkett, D, Orton, J, Steele, T and R. Klein. 2008. The Ysterfontein 1 Middle Stone Age Rockshelter and the evolution of coastal foraging. South African Archaeological Society Goodwin Series 10:66‐89.

Fransen, H. 2006. Old towns and villages of the Cape. Jeppestown: Jonathan Ball Publishers.

Halkett, D. 2001. An assessment of impacts on heritage sites at the Darling Demonstration Wind Farm. Unpublished report prepared for Environmental Evaluation Unit. University of Cape Town, Archaeology Contracts Office.

Halkett, D., Hart, T., Yates, R., Volman, T.P., Parkington, J., Orton, J., Klein, R.G., Cruz‐Uribe, K. And G. Avery. 2003. First excavation of intact Middle Stone Age layers at Ysterfontein, Western Cape Province, South Africa: implications for Middle Stone Age ecology. Journal of Archaeological Science 30: 955‐971.

Hart, T. 2008. Initial Heritage Statement and Notification of Intent to Develop Proposed development 553/5 Denneberg, Yzerfontein, West Coast District. Unpublished report prepared for Guilaaume Nel Environmental Consultants. University of Cape Town, Archaeology Contracts Office.

Klein, RG, Avery, G, Cruz‐Uribe, C, Halkett, D, Parkington, JE, Steele, T, Volman, TP and R. Yates. 2004. The Ysterfontein 1 Middle Stone Age site, South Africa, and early human exploitation of coastal resources. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 101:5708‐5715.

Orton, J 2007. Final report on excavations at erven 2149, 2157 and 2158 (Bakoond), Yzerfontein, Malmesbury Magisterial District, Western Cape Province. Unpublished report prepared for Yzerfontein Seaside Estates. Archaeology Contracts Office, University of Cape Town.

Orton, J. In press. Hunters or herders? Evidence from the cultural assemblages at Bakoond, Western Cape, South Africa. Before Farming.

Route 27. 2010. [Online]. Available. http://www.route27sa.com/airfield.html & http://www.route27sa.com/ hildebrand.html [2010, 06].

Webley, L. And T. Hart. 2010. Scoping heritage assessment: proposed Rheboksfontein Wind Energy Facility on remaining extent of Farm 568 (Rheboksfontein), Farm 567 (Nieuwe Plaats), remaining extent of Farm 571 (Bonteberg), Portion 1 of Farm 574 (Doornfontein), Portion 1 of Farm 551 (Plat Klip), Farm 1199 (Groot Berg) and Portion 2 of Farm 552 (Slang Kop), Malmesbury District, Western Cape. Unpublished report prepared for Savannah Environmental (Pty) Ltd. University of Cape Town, Archaeology Contracts Office.

Noise

ISO 9613‐2 ‐ Acoustics – Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors. Part 2 – General method of calculation.

South Africa Gazette, 1992. GNR.154 of January 1992: Noise control regulations in terms of section 25 of the Environment Conservation Act (ECA), 1989 (Act No. 73 of 1989).

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 189 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

South Africa Gazette, 1992. GNR.155 of 10 January 1992: Application of noise control regulations made under section 25 of the Environment Conservation Act, 1989 (Act No. 73 of 1989).

South African National Standard 10357. 2004. SANS 10357:2004 Version 2.1 ‐ The calculation of sound propagation by the Concawe method.

South African National Standard 10103. 2008. SANS 10103:2008 Version 6 ‐ The measurement and rating of environmental noise with respect to annoyance and to speech communication.

Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. Noise Annoyance from Wind Turbines – a Review. Authors: Eja Pedersen, Högskolan i Halmstad. August 2003.

World Health Organization, 1999. Guidelines for Community Noise.

Social

Agama Energy. 2003. Employment Potential of Renewable Energy in South Africa. Prepared for The Sustainable Energy and Climate Change Partnership, Johannesburg.

DEAT, 2004. Cumulative Effects Assessment. Integrated Environmental Management, Information Series 7, Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT), Pretoria.

Pre‐application Meeting, 2010. DEA&DP (Paul Hardcastle; Birgit Moiloa; Marek Kedzieja), Oelsner Group (Hermann Oelsner) and EEU (Sandra Rippon), DEA (Apologies), 24 February 2010.

Public Open Day, 23 June 2010. Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm, Public Open Day: Meeting Minutes, EEU.

Savannah Environmental Pty Ltd, 2010. Draft Environmental Impact Report, Proposed Rheboksfontein Wind Energy Facility and associated infrastructure on site near Darling, September 2010 [Online]. Available: http://www.savannahsa.com/documents/1155/Rheboksfontein%20DEIR%20%20(Main%20Report).pdf [2011,05]

Site Visit, 18 May 2010 (Visit to Project site and Darling); 15 June 2010 (Visit to Project site with specialist team); and 27 June 2010 (Visit to Yzerfontein).

Statistics South Africa, 2010. Census 2001 [Online]. Available: http://www.statssa.gov.za/ [2010, 06].

Swartland Municipality, 2005. Swartland Municipality Economic Profile, University of Stellenbosch in association with Octagonal Development, August 2005.

Swartland Municipality, 2007a. Swartland Municipality Integrated Development Plan, May 2007.

Swartland Municipality, 2007b. Swartland Municipality Local Economic Development Strategy, Social Development Resource Centre, May 2007.

West Coast District Municipality, 2006. Poverty Alleviation Strategy, Urban‐Econ, December 2006.

Yzerfontein Info Website. 2010. [Online]. Avaliable: http://www.yzerfontein.info/history/European_history.html [2010, 06].

Personal Communications

Adams, G. 2011. Darling Working Group and Ward 4 Committee Member. 21 April.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 190 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

Ashford, M. 2011. Swartland Tourism Representative. 21 April.

Basson, C. 2011. Owner of Swartwater Farm (454/2): Landowners Meeting. 23 May.

Bosch, A. 2011. Owner Slangkop (552/0): Telephone Conversation. 10 June.

Claassen, J. 2011. Dormehl Property Group, Darling: Telephone Conversation. 28 June.

Cleophas, H. 2011. Swartland Ward 5 Councillor. 4 May.

Cornelius, D and H. van Rooyen. 2011. West Coast District Municipality, Tourism Officer. 4 May.

Daiber, M. 2011. CEO !Khwa ttu San Education and Culture Centre. 7 June.

Jansie, H. 2011. Darling Tourism Chair. 21 April.

Kirsten, J.F. 2011. Owner of Grootberg Farm (1199): Landowners Meeting. 23 May.

Kotze, D. 2011. West Coast District Municipality, Planner. 4 May.

Loedolff, E. 2011. Owner of Denneburg Farm (553/3) and Suurfontein Farm: Landowners Meeting. 23 May.

Louw, H. 2011. Owner of Elsana Farm: Telephone Conversation. 29 June.

Pocock, J. 2011. Chairman of Jacobuskraal Homeowners Association: Telephone Conversation. 29 June.

Thoma, A. 2011. Committee member of the previous Darling Residents Association. 4 May.

Van Ellewee, A, Badenhorst, W and B. Geel. 2011. Yzerfontein Tourism Committee Members. 3 May.

Literature Review

Aitken, M. 2010. ‘Wind power and community benefits: challenges and opportunities’. Energy Policy 38: 6066 – 6075.

Anderson et al. (1997), ‘Rapport om hvordan en dansk commune blev selvforsynende med ren vindenergyi og skabte ny indkomst til kommunens borgere’, Nordvestjysk Folkecenter for Vedvarende Energyi, Cited in: Krohn, S. and Damborg, S. (Eds.) On Public Attitudes to Wind Power.

Renewable Energy 1999; 16: 954‐960.

AusWEA (Australian Wind Energy Association).2003. Wind Farms and Tourism [Online]. Available: http://www.windri.org/survey/references/tourism.pdf [2011, 03].

Bell, D., Gray, T. and C. Haggett. 2005. ‘The social gap in wind farm siting decisions: explanations and policy responses’, Environmental Politics. 14 (4): 460 – 477.

Bishop, K. and A, Proctor. 1994. Love Them or Loathe Them? Public Attitudes towards Wind Farms in Wales. University of Cardiff: Cardiff.

Blanco, M.I. and G. Rodrigues. 2009. ‘Direct employment in the wind energy sector: An EU study’. Energy Policy. 37: 2847 – 2857.

Boyle, G. 2004. Renewable Energy: Power for a Sustainable Future. Oxford University Press: Oxford.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 191 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

Braunholtz, S. 2003. Public Attitudes to Windfarms: A Survey of Local Residents in Scotland, prepared by Scottish Executive Social Research [Online]. Available. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/47133/0014639.pdf [2011, 04].

BWEA (British Wind Energy Association). 2004. New research shows no evidence to limit wind farms and house prices [Online]. Available. http://www.bwea.com/media/news/houseprices.htmL [2011, 04].

BWEA (British Wind Energy Association). 2005. Public Attitudes to Wind Energy in the UK [Online]. Available. http://www.bwea.com/pdf/briefings/attitudes‐2005.pdf [2011, 04].

BWEA (British Wind Energy Association). 2006. The Impact of Wind Farms on the Tourist Industry in the UK [Online]. Available. http://www.bwea.com/pdf/tourism.pdf [2011, 03].

CanWEA (Canadian Wind Energy Association). 2008. Wind Facts: What are the Benefits? [Online]. Available. http://www.canwea.ca/wind‐energy/index7_e.php [2011, 04].

Dent, P. and S. Sims. 2007. What is the impact of wind farms on house prices? The Royal Institutional of Chartered Surveyors [Online]. Available. http://www.rics.org/site/download_feed.aspx?fileID=3524&fileExtension=PDF [2011, 04].

Devine‐Wright, P., McAlpine, G. and S. Bately‐White (2001), Wind turbines in the landscape: an evaluation of local community involvement and other considerations in UK wind farm development. Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Environmental Design Research Association. Edinburgh, 133–137.

Devine‐Wright, P. 2005. ‘Beyond NIMBYism: towards an Integrated Framework for Understanding Public Perceptions of Wind Energy’. Wind Energy. 8: 125 – 139.

Elliot, D. 1997. Energy, Society and Environment. Routledge: London.

Eltham, D.C., Harrison, G.P. and S.J. Allen. 2008. ‘Change in public attitudes towards a Cornish wind farm: Implications for planning’. Energy Policy. 36: 23 – 33.

European Wind Energy Association, 2009. Wind at Work: Wind Energy and Job Creation in the EU, January 2009. [Online]. Available. http://www.ewea.org/fileadmin/ewea_documents/documents/publications/Wind_at_work_FINAL.pdf [2010, 08].

Gross, C. 2007. ‘Community perspective of wind energy in Australia: the application of a justice community fairness framework to increase social acceptance’. Energy Policy. 35: 2727 – 2736.

Hoen, B., Wiser, R., Capper, P., Thayer, M. and G. Sethi. 2009. The Impact of Wind Power Projects on Residential Property Values in the United States: A Multi‐Site Hedonic Analysis [Online]. Available. http://eetd.lbl.gov/EA/EMP [2011, 04].

Hoepman, N. 1998. Foar de wyn, Provinsje Friesland.

Klick, H. and E. Smith. 2010. ‘Public understanding of and support for wind power in the United States’. Renewable Energy. 35: 1585 – 1591.

Lee, T., Wren, B. and M. Hickman. 1989. ‘Public responses to the siting and operation of wind turbines’. Wind Engineering. 13: 188 – 195.

Moorhouse, A., Hayes, M., von Hünerbein, S., Piper, B. and M. Adams. 2007. Research into aerodynamic modulation of wind turbine noise. Prepared for DEFRA, DBERR and DCLG by the University of Salfor.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 192 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

NFO System Three. 2002. Investigation into the Potential Impact of Wind Farms on Tourism in Scotland: Final Report [Online]. Available. http://www.viewsofscotland.org/library/docs/VS_Survey_Potential_Impact_of_WF_02.pdf [2011, 03].

NFO WorldGroup. 2003. Investigation into the Potential Impact of Wind Farms on Tourism in Wales [Online]. Available. www.ecodyfi.org.uk/tourism/Windfarms_research_eng.pdf, [2011, 03].

SEAI (Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland). 2003. Attitudes towards the Development of Wind Farms in Ireland [Online]. Available. http://www.seai.ie/Renewables/Wind_Energy/Attitudes_towards_Wind_Energy_in_Ireland/, [2011, 03].

Simon, A.M. 1996. A Summary of Research Conducted into Attitudes to Wind Power from 1990–1996 [Online]. Available. www.bwea.com/ref/survey.html, [2011, 04].

Sterzinger, G., Beck, F. and D. Kostiuk. 2003. The Effect of Wind Development on Local Property Values: Analytical Report: Renewable Energy Policy Project [Online]. Available. http://www.repp.org/articles/static/1/binaries/wind_online_final.pdf, [2011, 04].

Thayer, R.L. and C.N. Freeman. 1987. ‘Altamont: Public perception of a wind energy landscape’. Landscape and Urban Planning. 14: 379 – 398.

TNS (Taylor Nelson Sofres). 2003. Attitudes and Knowledge of Renewable Energy amongst the General Public: Report of Findings [Online]. Available. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file15478.pdf, [2011, 03].

Walker, G., Devine‐Wright, P., Hunster, S., High, H. and B. Evans. 2010. ‘Trust and community: exploring the meanings, contexts and dynamics of community renewable energy’. Energy Policy. 38 (6): 2655 – 2663.

Warren, C.R., Lumsden, C., O’Dowd, S. and R.V. Birnie. 2005. ‘Green On Green: Public perceptions of wind power in Scotland and Ireland’. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. 48 (6): 853 – 875.

Wolsink, M. 2007. ‘Wind power implementation: the nature of public attitudes: equity and fairness instead of backyard motives’. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 11: 1188 – 1207.

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 193 Prepared by EEU, UCT CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011