Savannah Environmental Pty Ltd

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT PROCESS FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE

DEA REF NO.: 14/12/16/3/3/2/961

MARCH 2017

Prepared for:

Hartebeest Wind Farm (Pty) Ltd 7 Walter Sisulu Avenue Foreshore Cape Town 8001

Prepared by: Savannah Environmental Pty Ltd

Unit 10, Block 2 5 Woodlands Drive Office Park, Corner Woodlands Drive & Western Service Road, WOODMEAD, Gauteng po box 148, sunninghill, 2157 Tel: +27 (0)11 656 3237

Fax: +27 (0)86 684 0547 E-mail: [email protected] www.savannahsa.com PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

PROJECT DETAILS

DEA Reference No. : 14/12/16/3/3/2/916

Title : Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report: Proposed Hartebeest Wind Farm near Moorreesburg, Western Cape Province

Authors : Savannah Environmental (Pty) Ltd Thalita Botha Karen Jodas Gabriele Wood

Specialists : Simon Todd of Simon Todd Consulting cc Ricardo Ramalho of Bioinsight Christo Lubbe Toni Belcher of Blue Science Tim Hart of ACO-Associates Jon Marshall of Afzelia Environmental Consultants Gabriele Wood of Savannah Environmental Morné de Jager of Enviro-Acoustic Research cc Tony Barbour of Environmental Consulting and Research Hermanus Steyn of Aurecon

Client : Hartebeest Wind Farm (Pty) Ltd

Report Status : Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for submission to the Department of Environmental Affairs

Review Period : March 2017

When used as a reference this report should be cited as: Savannah Environmental (2017) Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report: Proposed Hartebeest Wind Farm near Moorreesburg, Western Cape Province. COPYRIGHT RESERVED This technical report has been produced for Hartebeest Wind Farm (Pty) Ltd. The intellectual property contained in this report remains vested in Savannah Environmental. No part of the report may be reproduced in any manner without written permission from Savannah Environmental (Pty) Ltd or Hartebeest Wind Farm (Pty) Ltd

Project Details Page i PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

PURPOSE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT

Hartebeest Wind Farm (Pty) Ltd is proposing to establish a commercial wind energy facility and associated infrastructure on a site located approximately 4km south-south east of Moorreesburg in the Swartland Local Municipality of the Western Cape Province and within the greater West Coast District Municipality. The proposed project will include a maximum of 32 wind turbines with a combined installed generation capacity of 160MW (described as a wind energy facility or a wind farm) and associated infrastructure to be constructed over an area of approximately 3288ha in extent. The project is to be known as the Hartebeest Wind Farm.

The proposed project development site is considered suitable and favourable by the developer for the construction of a wind energy facility from a technical perspective due to the following site characteristics:

» Wind resource: This is considered to be the main criteria determining the feasibility of the proposed development on the identified site, as the resource will affect the efficiency and economic viability of the facility. » Topographic conditions: The local site conditions are optimum for a development of this nature, with the project area being of a suitable gradient for a wind energy facility. The region within which the site is located can be described as undulating, with a series of koppies running more-or-less north-south through the centre of the study area. » Extent of the site: Significant land area is required for the proposed development. The site is larger than the area required for development which allows for the avoidance of any identified environmental and/or technical constraints. The wind energy facility is to be constructed within an area of approximately 3288ha in extent, and together with all associated infrastructure will constitute a permanent development footprint of 0.7% of the total site. » Proximity: This site is located in close proximity to an existing Eskom substation, which minimises the need for a long power line connection. This is preferred from an environmental and technical perspective.

The nature and extent of the wind energy facility, as well as the potential environmental impacts associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning phases are explored in more detail in this EIA Report. The final EIA Report consists of eleven chapters, which include:

Purpose of the EIA report Page ii PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

» Chapter 4 describes wind energy as a power generation option and provides insight to technologies for wind energy. » Chapter 5 outlines the strategic regulatory and legal context for energy planning in South Africa and specifically for the project. » Chapter 6 outlines the approach to undertaking the environmental impact assessment process. » Chapter 7 describes the existing biophysical and socio-economic environment within and surrounding the project development footprint. » Chapter 8 provides an assessment of the potential issues and impacts associated with the project and presents recommendations for mitigation of significant impacts. » Chapter 9 provides an assessment of the potential for cumulative impacts. » Chapter 10 presents the conclusions and recommendations based on the findings of the EIA. » Chapter 11 provides references used in the compilation of the final EIA Report.

The Scoping Phase of the EIA process identified potential issues associated with the proposed project, and defined the extent of the studies required within the EIA Phase. The EIA Phase addresses those identified potential environmental impacts and benefits associated with all phases of the project including design, construction and operation, and recommends appropriate mitigation measures for potentially significant environmental impacts. The EIA report aims to provide the environmental authorities with sufficient information to make an informed decision regarding the proposed project.

The release of an EIA Report for a 30-day public review period provided stakeholders with an opportunity to verify that the issues they have raised to date have been captured and adequately considered within the study. This Final EIA Report incorporates all issues and responses raised prior to submission to the National Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA), the decision-making authority for the project. .

Purpose of the EIA report Page iii PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

DEA REQUIMENT FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT

Savannah Environmental has compiled a table (refer to Table 1 below) which outlines the comments received from DEA on the EIA Report (dated 23 February 2017) and the DEA requirements as outlined in the acceptance of the scoping report dated 31 October 2016, and where in the final EIR the requirements have been addressed within this report for ease of reference. The comments received from DEA on the EIA Report as well as acceptance of the scoping report is included in Appendix B.

TABLE 1: INFORMATION REQUESTED BY DEA NO. INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS CROSS REFERENCE IN THIS EIA REPORT DEA COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE EIA REPORT i) Please ensure that all relevant listed activities are All relevant listed activities applied for, are specific applied for, are specific and that it can be linked to and can be linked to the development activity or the development activity or infrastructure as infrastructure as described in the project described in the project description. description. Please refer to Table 6.1 of Chapter 6 of this report. ii) If the activities applied for in the application form The activities applied for in the application form differ from those mentioned in the final ElAr, an are the same as those mentioned in the final EIAr. amended application form must be submitted. Please note that the Department's application form template has been amended and can be downloaded from the following link: https://www.environment.gov.zaklocuments/form s. iii) A detailed cumulative impact assessment A cumulative impact assessment within a 30km statement from all the specialists must be radius from the project site has been undertaken included in the final ElAr and must indicate the in Chapter 9 of the final EIA report. All specialist following: reports undertaken as part of the Hartebeest Wind - Clearly defined cumulative impacts and Farm consider cumulative impacts. where possible the size of the identified impact must be quantified and indicated, i.e. All cumulative impacts have been defined in terms hectares of cumulatively transformed land. of the nature of the impact. All recommendations - A detailed process flow to indicate how the regarding cumulative impacts have been included specialist's recommendations, mitigation in the final EIA report and specifically Chapter 9, measures and conclusions from the various which focusses only on cumulative impacts. The similar developments in the area were taken significance of the cumulative impact has also into consideration in the assessment of been taken into consideration in terms of the need cumulative impacts and when the conclusion and desirability of the wind energy. Section 9.5 of and mitigation measures were drafted for Chapter 9 provides an indication of the this project. acceptability of the development proceeding when - Identified cumulative impacts associated considering the potential for cumulative impacts. with the proposed development must be rated with the significance rating methodology approved with the acceptance of the scoping report. - The significance rating must also inform the need and desirability of the proposed development.

DEA Requirements for the EIA Report Page iv PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

NO. INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS CROSS REFERENCE IN THIS EIA REPORT - A cumulative impact environmental statement on whether the proposed development must proceed. iv) The preferred Layout Plan with the preferred The preferred layout plan for the Hartebeest Wind substation, service routes, existing roads and new Farm has been included in Chapter 10 as Figure roads, and construction camp must be indicated in 10.3. This plan includes: the final ElAr. A map combining the final Layout - The preferred layout alternative (25 Map superimposed (overlain) on the turbine layout) and its associated access environmental sensitivity map must also be road layout. included in the final ElAr - Location of the on-site substation and the existing substations. - Existing roads. - Temporary laydown areas which includes a construction camp.

A map combining the final layout map superimposed (overlain) on the environmental sensitivity map has been included in the final EIAr – (refer to Figure 10.4 in Chapter 10, and Appendix Q of this report). v) Recommendations provided by specialist reports Recommendations provided by all specialists have must be considered and used to inform the been considered and informed the preferred layout preferred layout alternative. alternative (including the turbine layout and the power line alternative). vi) The specialist studies conducted must comply with The specialist studies conducted complies with Appendix 6 of the EIA Regulations, 2014 and proof Appendix 6 of the EIA Regulations, 2014. A of compliance must be provided in the final ElAr. checklist has been included in each specialist study and indicates where in the specialist report, the requirements have been met. vii) In the acceptance of scoping report letter dated 31 Comments from Cape Nature have been received October 2016, this Department required the terms on 27-02-2017 and it was confirmed that of reference of the ecological study to take into CapeNature agrees with the preferred layout consideration the comments from Cape Nature alternative presented in the Draft Environmental regarding the season in which the fieldwork of the Impact Assessment Report. ecological study was undertaken as well as comments from Cape Nature to be sought in this Further comments were requested from Cape regard. Nature, specifically relating to the season in which viii) However, the draft ElAr and the ecological study the fieldwork of the ecological study was dated January 2017 indicate that the season in undertaken. Cape Nature has confirmed that which the fieldwork of the ecological study is whilst a late winter/early spring survey is usually immaterial as the remnants of the renosterveld at desirable in the Western Cape, it is apparent that the site are all considered highly sensitive in this particular instance, the Hartebeest Wind regardless of composition and due to their high Farm will not have any components which conservation value are considered irreplaceable. significantly impact on any of the natural vegetation remnants on the site. The information ix) The draft ElAr and the ecological study dated provided by the botanical specialist is sufficient to January 2017 further indicate that as there is no determine the exact extent of these remnants. infrastructure presently planned within the intact patches, it is not considered to be directly CapeNature therefore does not request an important to evaluate their condition as they additional botanical survey providing the would not be impacted by the development development proposal is not further amended. (contrary to the timing of the fieldwork of this study being cited as a limitation). This Department

DEA Requirements for the EIA Report Page v PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

NO. INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS CROSS REFERENCE IN THIS EIA REPORT reiterates that comments from Cape Nature must be sought in this regard, and must form part of the final ElAr. x) Comments from the South African Bat Assessment Additional comments as required by the DEA have Association (SABAA) regarding the operational been requested from SABAA on 27 February 2017 fatality minimisation, roosts as well as cumulative as well as a follow-up email on 02 March 2017 impacts must be considered and addressed. (refer to Appendix C4). Any comment received Further comments from SABAA must be sought in will be submitted to DEA as a late comment. this regard. xi) Please ensure that all issues raised and comments All issues raised during the 30-day review period received during the circulation of the ElAr from from 27 January 2017 to 27 February 2017 from registered l&APs and organs of state which have all I&APs and Organs of State have been jurisdiction (including this Department's considered, included and addressed in the final Biodiversity Section) in respect of the proposed EIA report for consideration by DEA. Proof of all activity are adequately addressed and included in correspondence and comments received have the final ElAr. Proof should be submitted to the been included in Appendix C4. Proof that the Department of the attempts that were made to proposed development was advertised in a local obtain comments and proof that the proposed newspaper (Die Weslander) and two regional development was advertised in at least one local newspapers (Die Burger and the Cape Times) is newspaper. included in Appendix C2. xii) The EMPr must include a provision to audit the The EMPr (refer to Appendix N) includes provision effectiveness of the mitigation measures and to audit the effectiveness of the mitigation recommendations for amongst others the measures and recommendations. following: grievance incidents; waste management, alien and open space management, re-vegetation and rehabilitation, plant rescue and protection and traffic and transportation. The results must be made available to the Department and relevant competent authority on request and must be part of monitoring and audit reports. xiii) Please note that the final ElAr must comply with The final EIAr complies with all conditions of the all conditions of the acceptance of the scoping acceptance of the scoping report dated 31 October report signed on 31 October 2016 and must 2016, and addresses all comments contained in address all comments contained in this comments the comments letter. letter. xiv) In terms of Appendix 3 of the EIA Regulations, An affirmation by the EAP on the completeness 2014, the report must include an undertaking and the correctness of the included information in under oath or affirmation by the EAP in relation the final EIA report is included in Appendix O. to: - the correctness of the information provided in the reports; - the inclusion of comments and inputs from stakeholders and l&APs; - the inclusion of inputs and recommendations from the specialist reports where relevant; - any information provided by the EAP to l&APs; and, - responses by the EAP to comments or inputs made by l&APs. xv) The ElAr must provide the technical details of the The technical details available at the time of the proposed facility in a table format as well as their compilation of this final EIA report has been description and/or dimensions. A sample of the included in Table 4.1, and within Chapter 1 –

DEA Requirements for the EIA Report Page vi PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

NO. INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS CROSS REFERENCE IN THIS EIA REPORT minimum information required was listed under Chapter 4. point 2 of the EIA information required in the acceptance of SR. xvi) You are further reminded that the final ElAr to be The final EIA Report submitted to the DEA submitted to this Department must comply with all complies with all the requirements in terms of the the requirements in terms of the scope of content of EIAr in accordance with Appendix 3 (3) assessment and content of the ElAr in accordance and Regulation 23 (1) of the Environmental with Appendix 3 of the EIA Regulations, 2014. Impact Assessment Regulations (2014). xvii) Further note that in terms of Regulation 45 of the The application meets the timeframes prescribed EIA Regulations 2014, this application will lapse if in terms of Regulation 45 of the EIA Regulations the applicant fails to meet any of the timeframes 2014. prescribed in terms of these Regulations, unless an extension has been granted in terms of Regulation 3(7). xviii) Failure to comply with the requirements of the This EIAr addressed all conditions of the acceptance of the SR, the comments of this letter Acceptance of the Scoping Report dated 31 as well as the requirements of the EIA October 2016, the comments on the EIAR dated Regulations, 2014, a negative Environmental 23 February 2017, as well as Appendix 3 of the Authorisation may be issued by this Department. EIA Regulations, 2014. xix) The EAP is requested to contact the Department to The Department was formally contacted via email make the necessary arrangements to conduct a on Monday 27 February 2017 at 12:17 to make site visit prior to the submission of the final ElAr. the required arrangements for the requested site visit. Ms. Thabile Sangweni was contacted on [email protected]. 16 May 2017 has been identified as the preferred date for the undertaking of the site visit. ACCEPTANCE OF SCOPING (GENERAL) All comments and recommendations made by all All comment received from I&APs are included in stakeholders and Interested and Affected Parties Appendix C5. All mitigation measure and (I&APs) in the draft SR and submitted as part of recommendations in specialist reports forms part the final SR must be taken into consideration of the EIAr report chapter 8, 9 and 10 and the when preparing an Environmental Impact EMPr (Appendix N) Assessment report (EIAr) in respect of the proposed development. Please ensure that all mitigation measures and recommendations in the specialist studies are addressed and included in the final EIAr and Environmental Management Programme (EMPr). Please ensure that comments from all relevant All comments received from the relevant stakeholders are submitted to the Department Departments will form part of the FEIAr with the final ElAr. This includes but is not limited to the Western Cape Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning, the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF), the provincial Department of Agriculture, the South African Civil Aviation Authority (SACAA), the Department of Transport, the West Coast District Municipality, the Swartland Local Municipality, the Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS), the South African National Roads Agency Limited (SANRAL), the South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA), the

DEA Requirements for the EIA Report Page vii PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

NO. INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS CROSS REFERENCE IN THIS EIA REPORT Endangered Wildlife Trust (EWT), BirdLife SA, Cape Nature, the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform, the Department of Environmental Affairs: Directorate Biodiversity and Conservation, and the South African Astronomy Observation (SAAO). You are also required to address all issues raised Comment noted, issues raised by Organs of State by Organs of State and I&APs prior to the and I&APs will form part of the FEIAr prior to the submission of the EIAr to the Department. submission to the Department. Proof of correspondence with the various Proof of correspondence with the various stakeholders must be included in the EIAr. Should stakeholder associated with the project is included you be unable to obtain comments, proof should in Appendix C4. be submitted to the Department of the attempts that were made to obtain comments. The EAP must, in order to give effect to Regulation I&APs were given 30 day i.e. 27 January 2017 – 8, give registered I&APs access to, and an 27 February 2017 to comment on the report opportunity to comment on the report in writing before submission to DEA. within 30 days before submitting the final EIAr to the Department. i) The ElAr must provide an assessment of the The EIAr provides an assessment of the impacts impacts and mitigation measures for each of the and mitigation measures for each of the listed listed activities applied for. activities applied for in Chapter 8, 9 and 10 of this report. ii) The listed activities represented in the EIAr and The application form has been updated and the application form must be the same and submitted with the EIAr. correct. iii) The EIAr must provide the technical details for the The technical details for the proposed facility in a proposed facility in a table format as well as their table format as well as their description and/or description and/or dimensions. A sample for the dimensions have been included in Chapter 4. minimum information required is listed under point 2 of the EIA information required for wind energy facilities below. iv) The ElAr must provide the four corner coordinate The corner coordinate points for the proposed points for the proposed development site (note project site and all linear infrastructure have been that if the site has numerous bend points, at each included in Appendix Q of this report. bend point coordinates must be provided) as well as the start, middle and end point of all linear activities. v) The ElAr must provide the following: The EIAr provides a clear indication of the - Clear indication of the envisioned area for envisioned area for the proposed wind energy the proposed wind energy facility; i.e. facility and a description of all associated placing of wind turbines and all associated infrastructure (refer to Chapter 2 and Chapter 4). infrastructure should be mapped at an appropriate scale. - Clear description of all associated infrastructure. This description must include, but is not limited to the following: • Power lines; • Internal roads infrastructure; and • All supporting onsite infrastructure such as laydown

DEA Requirements for the EIA Report Page viii PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

NO. INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS CROSS REFERENCE IN THIS EIA REPORT area, guard house and control room etc. • All necessary details regarding all possible locations and sizes of the proposed satellite substation and the main substation. vi) The ElAr must also include a comments and The EIAr includes a comment and response report response report in accordance with Appendix 2 h in accordance with Appendix 2h (ii) of the EIA (iii) of EIA Regulations, 2014. Regulations, 2014 - refer to Appendix C7 of this report. vii) The EIAr must include the detail inclusive of the Detail inclusive of the PPP in accordance with PPP in accordance with Regulation 41 of the EIA Regulation 41 of the EIA Regulations have been Regulations. included in Chapter 6. viii) Details of the future plans for the site and Details of the future plans for the site and infrastructure after decommissioning in 20-30 infrastructure after decommissioning has been years and the possibility of upgrading the included in Chapter 2, section 2.7.3. proposed infrastructure to more advanced technologies. ix) It is imperative that the relevant authorities are A graphical representation of the proposed continuously involved throughout the ElAr process development within the respective geographical as the development property possibly falls within areas have been included as Figure 7.8 in Chapter geographically designated areas in terms of GN R. 7. 985. In addition, a graphical representation of the proposed development within the respective geographical areas must be provided. x) The terms of reference for the ecological Comments from Cape Nature has been considered assessment must also investigate the following: and a response has been included in Appendix C. • Take into consideration the comments The competing land uses in the area has been from Cape Nature regarding the season in described in Appendix E as well as in Section 7.3 which the fieldwork of the ecological of this report. study was undertaken. Comments from Cape Nature must be sought in this regard. • Must indicate and describe the competing land uses in the area. xi) The terms of reference for the visual assessment The Hartebeest Wind Farm project site is located must also investigate the following: outside of the Geographical Advantage Area, and • Assess and rate the cumulative impact of therefore comments from SAAO will note be multiple WEFs in the landscape. applicable. However, the SAAO has been added to • The South African Astronomy the project database. Observatory must be thoroughly engaged and their comments included as part of the ElAr. xii) Should the property be located on land with high The Department of Agriculture has been added to potential and/or pivoted or active agricultural the project database and their comments have land, the Department of Agriculture must be been included in Appendix C. included in the public participation process for this development. xiii) The Bat and Avifaunal specialist assessment must Bat and Avifaunal Impact Assessment Report has assess and make recommendations for definite made recommendations for definite measurements for the preferred hub heights and measurements for the preferred hub heights and rotor diameter. rotor diameter and is included as Appendix E and

DEA Requirements for the EIA Report Page ix PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

NO. INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS CROSS REFERENCE IN THIS EIA REPORT F respectively. xiv) The 12 months Bird and Bat Monitoring must be The Bat and Bird Monitoring has been conducted conducted in line with the latest guidelines. It is in line with the latest guidelines and a checklist of noted that monitoring was done between May where these requirements were addressed in the 2013 and September 2014. As such, this must be Bat and Bird Impact Assessment Report has been amended to include the updated requirements. A included as Appendix M2. Furthermore, comments copy of the latest guidelines can be found on the from SABAAP and BirdLife South African have BirdLife South Africa's and SABAAP's website. been considered and included in Appendix C5 and proof of correspondence has been included in Appendix C. xv) Where specialist studies are conducted in-house or Comment noted. No in-house specialists form by a specialist other than a suitably qualified part of the assessment undertaken for the specialist in the relevant field, such specialist Hartebeest Wind Farm. reports must be peer reviewed by a suitably qualified external specialist in the relevant field. The terms of reference for the peer review must include: • A CV clearly showing expertise of the peer reviewer; • Acceptability of the terms of reference; • Is the methodology clearly explained and acceptable; • Evaluate the validity of the findings (review data evidence); • Discuss the suitability of the mitigation measures and recommendations; • Identify any short comings and mitigation measures to address the short comings; • Evaluate the appropriateness of the reference literature; • Indicate whether a site-inspection was carried out as part of the peer review; and • Indicate whether the article is well written and easy to understand. xvi) Information on required on the site e.g. sewage These services have been confirmed and/or refuse removal, water and electricity. Who will agreed on with the Swartland Local Municipality supply these services and has an agreement and and proof has been included in Appendix M4. confirmation of capacity been obtained? Proof of these agreement must be provided. xvii) The ElAr must provide a detailed description of the The ElAr provides a detailed description of the need and desirability, not only providing need and desirability of the project within the motivation on the need for clean energy in South region - refer to Chapter 2, section 2.2. Africa of the proposed activity. The need and desirability must also indicate if the proposed development is needed in the region and if the current proposed location is desirable for the proposed activity compared to other sites. The need and desirability must take into account cumulative impacts of the proposed development in the area xviii) The EIAr must include a cumulative impact The EIAr includes a cumulative impact assessment assessment of the facility if there are other similar of the facility including other similar facilities

DEA Requirements for the EIA Report Page x PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

NO. INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS CROSS REFERENCE IN THIS EIA REPORT facilities within a 30km radius of the proposed within a 30km radius of the proposed project site development site. The specialist studies e.g. in Chapter 9. The specialist studies have also biodiversity, visual, heritage etc. in the PoSEIA assessed the facility in terms of potential which is incorporated as part of the SR must also cumulative impacts. assess the facility in terms of potential cumulative impacts. The cumulative impact assessment for all The cumulative impact significance rating has identified and assessed impacts must indicate the informed the need and desirability of the proposed following: wind energy facility. • Identified cumulative impacts must be clearly defined, and where possible the size of the identified impact must be quantified and indicated, i.e. hectares of cumulatively transformed land. • Detailed process flow and proof must be provided, to indicate how the specialist's recommendations, mitigation measures and conclusions from the various developments in the area were taken into consideration in the assessment of cumulative impacts and when the conclusion and mitigation measures were drafted for this project. • Identified cumulative impacts associated with the proposed development must be rated with the significance rating methodology approved with the acceptance of the scoping report. • The cumulative impact significance rating must also inform the need and desirability of the proposed development. • A cumulative impact environmental statement on whether the proposed development must proceed. xix) Please note that information on location of Comment noted. renewable energy developments can be accessed from https://www.environment.gov.za/mapsgraphics. xx) A copy of the final site layout map. All available A copy of the final site layout map is included in biodiversity information must be used in the Appendix Q (A3 Maps) of this report. It must be finalization of the layout map. Existing noted that this design is subject to change infrastructure must be used as far as possible e.g. dependent on the specifications of the project roads. The layout map must indicate the awarded by the Department of Energy through the following: REIPPP Programme. Therefore, the EIAr includes a • Wind turbine positions and its associated recommendation for a final layout to be submitted infrastructure; to the DEA for approval prior to construction. • Permanent laydown area footprint; • Internal roads indicating width (construction period width and operation period width) and with numbered sections between the other site elements which they serve (to make commenting on sections possible); • Wetlands, drainage lines, rivers, stream

DEA Requirements for the EIA Report Page xi PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

NO. INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS CROSS REFERENCE IN THIS EIA REPORT and water crossing of roads and cables indicating the type of bridging structures that will be used; • The location of sensitive environmental features on site e.g. CBAs, heritage sites, wetlands, drainage lines etc. that will be affected by the facility and its associated infrastructure; • Substation(s) and/or transformer(s) sites including their entire footprint; • Connection routes (including pylon positions) to the distribution/transmission network; • All existing infrastructure on the site, especially roads; • Buffer areas; • Buildings, including accommodation; and • All "no-go" areas. xxi) An environmental sensitivity map indicating An environmental sensitivity map indicating environmental sensitive areas and features environmental sensitive areas and features identified during the EIA process. identified during the EIA process is included in Appendix Q (A3 Maps) of this report. xxii) A map combining the final layout map The final site layout map superimposed (overlain) superimposed (overlain) on the environmental on the environmental sensitivity map has been sensitivity map. included in Appendix Q. xxiii) A shapefile of the preferred development Shapefiles has been submitted to the Department layout/footprint must be submitted to this with the submission of the FEIAr. Department. The shapefile must be created using the Hartebeesthoek 94 Datum and the data should be in Decimal Degree Format using the WGS 84 Spheroid. The shapefile must include at a minimum the following extensions i.e . shp; .shx; .dbf; .prj; and, .xml (Metadata file). If specific symbology was assigned to the file, then the .avl and/or the .Iyr file must also be included. Data must be mapped at a scale of 1: 10 000 (please specify if an alternative scale was used). The metadata must include a description of the base data used for digitizing. The shapefile must be submitted in a zip file using the EIA application reference number as the title.

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME (EMPr) i) All recommendations and mitigation measures All recommendations and mitigation measures recorded in the ElAr and the specialist studies recorded in the EIAr and the specialist studies conducted. conducted are included in this EMPr document. ii) The final site layout map. The final site layout map is included as Figure 2.3 and in Appendix A. iii) Measures as dictated by the final site layout map Included in the EMPr as a whole. and micro-siting. iv) An environmental sensitivity map indicating An environmental sensitivity map indicating environmental sensitive areas and features environmental sensitive areas and features

DEA Requirements for the EIA Report Page xii PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

NO. INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS CROSS REFERENCE IN THIS EIA REPORT identified during the EIA process. identified during the EIA process is included as Figure 2.2 and in Appendix A. v) A map combining the final layout map The final site layout map superimposed (overlain) superimposed (overlain) on the environmental on the environmental sensitivity map has been sensitivity map. included as Figure 2.4 and in Appendix A. vi) An alien invasive management plan to be An alien invasive management plan is included in implemented during construction and operation of the EMPr as Appendix E. the facility. The plan must include mitigation measures to reduce the invasion of alien species and ensure that the continuous monitoring and removal of alien species is undertaken. vii) A plant rescue and protection plan which allows A plant rescue and protection plan is included in for the maximum transplant of conservation the EMPr as Appendix H. important species from areas to be transformed. This plan must be compiled by a vegetation specialist familiar with the site and be implemented prior to commencement of the construction phase. viii) A post construction avifaunal monitoring plan to A post construction avifaunal monitoring plan is be implemented during the operational phase of included in the EMPr as Appendix C. the facility. This plan must be compiled by an avifaunal specialist familiar with the site and the plan must adhere to Birdlife's most recent avifaunal guideline. ix) A re-vegetation and habitat rehabilitation plan to A re-vegetation and habitat rehabilitation plan is be implemented during the construction and included in the EMPr as Appendix G. operation of the facility. Restoration must be undertaken as soon as possible after completion of construction activities to reduce the amount of habitat converted at any one time and to speed up the recovery to natural habitats. x) An open space management plan to be An open space management plan is included in the implemented during the construction and EMPr as Appendix F. operation of the facility. xi) A traffic management plan for the site access A traffic management plan for the site access roads to ensure that no hazards would result from roads is included in the EMPr as Appendix I. the increased truck traffic and that traffic flow would not be adversely impacted. This plan must include measures to minimize impacts on local commuters e.g. limiting construction vehicles travelling on public roadways during the morning and late afternoon commute time and avoid using roads through densely populated built-up areas so as not to disturb existing retail and commercial operations. xii) A transportation plan for the transport of A transportation plan for the transport of components, main assembly cranes and other components is included in the EMPr as Appendix I. large pieces of equipment. xiii) A storm water management plan to be A stormwater management plan is included in the implemented during the construction and EMPr as Appendix J. operation of the facility. The plan must ensure compliance with applicable regulations and

DEA Requirements for the EIA Report Page xiii PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

NO. INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS CROSS REFERENCE IN THIS EIA REPORT prevent off-site migration of contaminated storm water or increased soil erosion. The plan must include the construction of appropriate design measures that allow surface and subsurface movement of water along drainage lines so as not to impede natural surface and subsurface flows. Drainage measures must promote the dissipation of storm water run-off xiv) A fire management plan to be implemented during A fire management plan is included in the EMPr as the construction and operation of the facility. Appendix M. xv) An erosion management plan for monitoring and An erosion management plan is included in the rehabilitating erosion events associated with the EMPr as Appendix K. facility. Appropriate erosion mitigation must form part of this plan to prevent and reduce the risk of any potential erosion. xvi) An effective monitoring system to detect any Refer to Objective 13 of Section 6.2 and Objective leakage or spillage of all hazardous substances 8 of Section 8.1. during their transportation, handling, use and storage. This must include precautionary measures to limit the possibility of oil and other toxic liquids from entering the soil or storm water systems. xvii) Measures to protect hydrological features such as Refer to Objective 8 of Section 6.2. streams, rivers, pans, wetlands, dams and their catchments, and other environmental sensitive areas from construction impacts including the direct or indirect spillage of pollutants. xviii) Measures to protect archaeological sites, artefacts, Refer to Objective 11 of Section 6.2. paleontological fossils or graves from construction and operational impacts. The EAP must provide detailed motivation if any of All the above requirements are met within this the above requirements is not required by the EIAr and EMPr document. proposed development and not included in the EMPr.

DEA Requirements for the EIA Report Page xiv PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT FOR SUBMISSION TO DEA

This final EIA Report has been prepared by Savannah Environmental in order to assess the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed activities. This process is being undertaken in support of an application for Environmental Authorisation from the National Department of Environmental Affairs in terms of the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA; Act 107 of 1998).

Members of the public, local communities and stakeholders were invited to comment on the EIA Report for the Hartebeest Wind Farm which was made available for 30-day public review comment period at the following locations from 27 January 2017 – 27 February 2017:

» Moorreesburg Public Library (Hoofstraat) » West Coast District Municipal Office (58 Long Street) » www.savannahSA.com

This final EIA Report includes all comments received as well as responses to those comments. Where applicable, this final EIA Report has been amended to address these comments. All amendments and/or additions to this report have been underlined for ease of reference.

Invitation to Comment on EIA Report Page xv PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposed Hartebeest Wind Farm site is proposed to accommodate the following Hartebeest Wind Farm (Pty) Ltd is infrastructure: proposing to establish a commercial wind energy facility and associated » A maximum of 32 wind turbines, with infrastructure on a site located a maximum hub height of 130m and a approximately 4km south-south east of maximum rotor diameter of 160m. Moorreesburg in the Swartland Local » Concrete foundations to support the Municipality of the Western Cape Province turbines. and within the greater West Coast District » Cabling between the turbines, to be Municipality. The proposed project will laid underground where practical. include a maximum of 32 wind turbines » An on-site substation of approximately with a combined installed generation 100m x 100m in extent to facilitate capacity of 160MW (described as a wind the connection between the wind energy facility or a wind farm) and energy facility and the electricity grid. associated infrastructure to be » An overhead power line to connect the constructed over an area of approximately facility to the electricity grid. Two 3288ha in extent. The project is to be alternatives are being considered: known as the Hartebeest Wind Farm. ∗ Alternative 1: A connection to the existing Moorreesburg 132/66kV The facility is proposed within the substation at 132kV via a 132 kV following farm portions (refer to Figure power line. The length of the 1): power line required to be constructed for this connection » Farm Zwartfontein 414 will be ~4km. ∗ Portion 20, 21 and 23 ∗ Alternative 2: A connection to the ∗ Remainder of Portion 8, 11, 12, 13, existing Moorreesburg 132/66kV 17 and 18 substation at 66kV via a 132 kV » Farm Zwartfontein 416 power line (operated at 66kV but ∗ Portion 1 and 7 built and permitted to 132kV ∗ Remainder of Portion 3 specification to cater for the » Farm Hartebeestfontein 412 option of connecting to the 132 » Portion 2 and 6 kV feeder bay within the » Portion 0 of Farm 10661 substation should this be » Portion 1 of the Farm Tontelberg 424 required). The length of the » Portion 9 of the Farm Biesjesfontein power line required to be 413 constructed for this connection will be ~3.5km. » Internal access roads to each turbine

1 Portion 0 of the Farm 1066 consist of Portion 3 of and to the on-site substation. the Farm Zwartfontein 416, Portion 7 of the Farm » Access roads to the site and between Zwartfontein 416 and Portion 26 of the Farm project components. Zwartfontein 414 and will be referred to as Portion 0 of the Farm 1066 in this report.

Executive summary Page xvi PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

» Temporary infrastructure including a » The potential to harness and utilise concrete batching plant of 50m x 50m wind energy resources within the in extent to facilitate with the concrete Western Cape Province. requirements for turbine foundations » The wind energy facility will assist the and/or towers construction and South African government in reaching laydown areas. their set targets for renewable energy. » Workshop area / office for control, » The wind energy facility will assist the maintenance and storage, construction South African government in the camp. implementation of its renewable energy and job creation targets. The nature and extent of this facility, as » The wind energy facility will assist the well as potential environmental impacts district and local municipalities in associated with the construction and reducing the level of unemployment operation of a facility of this nature are through the creation of jobs and explored in more detail in this supporting local business in a Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Municipality with a 14.6% Report unemployment rate. » The National electricity grid in the Refer to Figure 2 and Figure 3 for the Western Cape Province will benefit two layout and power line alternatives from the additional generated power. that have been assessed along with the » Promotion of clean, renewable energy sensitive areas/environmental features in South Africa that have been identified within the » Creation of local employment, project site. In summary, the following business opportunities and skills conclusions have been drawn from the development for the surrounding specialist studies undertaken (refer to): communities including Moorreesburg.

The findings of the specialist studies OVERALL CONCLUSION (IMPACT undertaken within this EIA to assess both the benefits and potential negative STATEMENT) impacts anticipated as a result of the proposed project conclude that there are The technical viability of establishing a no environmental fatal flaws that wind energy facility with a net generating should prevent the proposed Hartebeest capacity of 160MW on a site located Wind Farm from proceeding, provided approximately 4km south-south east of that the recommended mitigation and Moorreesburg in the Swartland Local management measures are Municipality has been proposed by implemented. The significance levels of Hartebeest Wind Farm (Pty) Ltd. The the majority of identified negative impacts positive implications of establishing the have been reduced by consideration of the wind energy facility on the identified site development footprint in relation to include the following: sensitivities identified. The power line route Alternative 1 traversed a section of

Executive summary Page xvii PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

the 500m confirmed bat roost buffer as well as a wide valley bottom wetland area The following key conditions would be near the Moorreesburg Substation. In required to be included within an order to minimise impacts on bats and authorisation issued for the project: aquatic habitat, Power Line Alternative 1 has been slightly realigned to avoid most » All mitigation measures detailed within of the identified valley bottom wetland this report as well as the specialist near the Moorreesburg Substation and the reports contained within Appendices 500m confirmed bat roost buffer. The D to L are to be implemented. turbine locations of the preferred layout » The Environmental Management alternative (i.e. Layout Alternative 1) Programme (EMPr) as contained avoids all no-go areas identified during within Appendix N of this report the EIA process. The avoidance of areas should form part of the contract with of sensitivity by the optimised and the Contractors appointed to construct preferred layout is illustrated in Figure 4. and maintain the proposed wind energy facility, and will be used to With reference to the information ensure compliance with environmental available at this planning approval stage specifications and management in the project cycle, the confidence in measures. The implementation of this the environmental assessment undertaken EMPr for all life cycle phases of the is regarded as acceptable provided all proposed project is considered key in measures are taken to protect and achieving the appropriate preserve the surrounding environment, environmental management standards including intact Renosterveld fragments. as detailed for this project. » Following the final design of the facility, a revised layout must be OVERALL RECOMMENDATION submitted to DEA for review and approval prior to commencing with Based on the nature and extent of the construction. No development is proposed wind energy facility, the local permitted within the identified no-go level of disturbance predicted as a result areas as detailed in Figure 10.3. of the construction and operation of the » The final layout including roads and facility and associated infrastructure, the underground cables should be checked findings of the EIA, and the understanding by an ecological specialist to confirm of the significance level of potential whether there are any areas where a environmental impacts, it is the opinion of preconstruction walk through is the EIA project team that the impacts required. Permits from CapeNature associated with the development of the will be required to relocate and/or Hartebeest Wind Farm can be mitigated to disturb listed plant species. an acceptable level. In terms of this » In additional, an on-going monitoring conclusion, the EIA project team support programme should be established to the decision for environmental detect and quantify any alien species. authorisation.

Executive summary Page xviii PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

» During construction, unnecessary alternative roosting location is built, or disturbance to habitats should be an existing suitable roosting location is strictly controlled and the footprint of recovered and improved in terms of the impact should be kept to a increasing its suitability for bat minimum. utilisation as a roost. » The construction phase should be » Any new road crossings through the accompanied by a Zoologist in order watercourses should cross to identify any conflictive situations, perpendicular to the channels and namely active breeding nests in the should not impede or concentrate flow immediate surroundings of the known in the channels. An ongoing and long- nest locations. If the raptors and term monitoring and management of other large terrestrial sensitive species aquatic features should be are detected breeding, mitigation implemented to prevent the impacts measures (if necessary) should be of erosion and invasive alien discussed with the avifaunal specialist vegetation growth. and implemented. » Disturbed areas should be kept to a » All power lines linking wind turbines to minimum and rehabilitated as quickly each other and to the internal as possible. substation should be buried. In cases » Adequate stormwater management where this is not feasible, lines must measures to be put in place as the be fitted with bird flight diverters and soils on the site are prone to erosion. bird flappers, which are especially » Implement site specific erosion and visible at night and under low-light water control measures to prevent conditions. Eskom-approved bird excessive surface runoff from the site friendly pole structures should be (turbines and roads). used. » The final road alignments must be » Establish an on-going monitoring referred to the heritage consultant, programme to detect, quantify and and design mitigation proposed if manage any alien plant species that necessary. No historical structures may become established as a result of may be demolished without approval disturbance. from Heritage Western Cape. » Bird and bat monitoring programmes, » Ambient sound measurements prior to in line with the latest version of the the construction and during the South African best practice bird and operation phase should be recorded at bat monitoring guidelines, should be NSD04/NSD05, NSD11/NSD12, commissioned during the construction NSD14/NSD15 and NSD22 before the and operational phase to further development of this facility using a understand impacts of the project on methodology such as one defined by bird and bats. ETSU-R97. Additional measurements » Due to the closing down of a roost should be collected if a valid and situated on the Remaining Extent of reasonable noise complaint is Portion 11 of the Farm Zwartfontein registered relating to the operation of 414, it is recommended that an the facility additional noise monitoring

Executive summary Page xix PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

should be conducted by an acoustic consultant during the noise measurement. Noise monitoring must be continued as long as noise complaints are registered. » Use of fire prevention and fire management strategies for the wind energy facility, to reduce risks to landowners. » Construction managers should be informed before construction starts on the possible types of heritage sites that may be encountered and the procedures to follow should they encounter subsurface heritage artefacts/ sites (as detailed in the EMPr). » Applications for all other relevant and required permits, if required, to be obtained by the developer must be submitted to the relevant regulating authorities. This includes permits for the transporting of all components (abnormal loads) to site, water use licencing for disturbance to any water courses/ drainage lines and, permit to remove heritage artefacts and/ disturbance of protected vegetation.

Executive summary Page xx PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Figure 1: Locality map showing the location and study area of the proposed Hartebeest Wind Farm project site

Executive Summary Page xxi PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Figure 2: Layout Alternative 1 considered through the EIA overlain on the identified environmental sensitivity map (refer to Appendix Q for A3 map).

Executive Summary Page xxii PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Figure 3: Layout Alternative 2 considered through the EIA overlain on the identified environmental sensitivity map (refer to Appendix Q for A3 map).

Executive Summary Page xxiii PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Figure 4: Final preferred and optimised layout for the Hartebeest Wind Farm

Executive Summary Page xxiv PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

PURPOSE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT...... II

DEA REQUIMENT FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT ..IV

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT FOR SUBMISSION TO DEA XV

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... XVI

APPENDICES ...... XXXI

DEFINITIONS AND TERMINOLOGY ...... XXXII

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS...... XXXVII

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1

1.1. REQUIREMENT FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT PROCESS ...... 2 1.2. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS AS PER THE EIA REGULATIONS FOR THE UNDERTAKING OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT, 2014...... 4 1.3. BACKGROUND TO THE PROJECT ...... 4 1.4. CONCLUSIONS FROM THE SCOPING PHASE...... 9 1.5. OBJECTIVES OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT PROCESS...... 14 1.6. DETAILS OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PRACTITIONER AND EXPERTISE TO CONDUCT THE SCOPING AND EIA...... 15

CHAPTER 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...... 17

2.1. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS AS PER THE EIA REGULATIONS FOR THE UNDERTAKING OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT, 2014...... 17 2.2. NEED AND DESIRABILITY OF THE DEVELOPMENT AT THE PREFERRED SITE LOCATION...... 18 2.2.1. Need for the Project at a National Level ...... 18 2.2.2. Need for the Project at a Provincial Level ...... 19 2.2.3. Need for the Project at a Local Level ...... 20 2.3. BENEFITS OF RENEWABLE ENERGY ...... 20 2.4. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION ...... 22 2.5. PROJECT CONSTRUCTION PHASE ...... 29 2.5.1. Conduct Surveys ...... 29 2.5.2. Establishment of Access Roads to the Site ...... 29 2.5.3. Undertake Site Preparation ...... 30 2.5.4. Establishment of Laydown Areas and Batching Plant on Site...... 30 2.5.5. Construction of Foundation ...... 31 2.5.6. Transport of Components and Equipment to Site ...... 32 2.5.7. Erection of Turbine...... 33 2.5.8. Construction of Substation ...... 33 2.5.9. Connection of Wind Turbines to the Substation...... 34 2.5.10. Establishment of Ancillary Infrastructure...... 34

Table of Contents Page xxv PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

2.5.11. Connect Substation to Power Grid ...... 34 2.5.12. Temporary Infrastructure...... 34 2.5.13. Undertake Site Rehabilitation ...... 34 2.6. PROJECT OPERATION PHASE ...... 35 2.7. PROJECT DECOMMISSIONING PHASE...... 35 2.7.1. Site Preparation...... 35 2.7.2. Disassemble and Remove Turbines ...... 35 2.7.3. Future plans for the site and infrastructure after decommissioning...... 35

CHAPTER 3 SITE SELECTION AND ALTERNATIVES...... 37

3.1. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS AS PER THE EIA REGULATIONS FOR THE UNDERTAKING OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT, 2014...... 37 3.2. IDENTIFICATION OF THE MOORREESBURG AREA FOR A WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ...... 37 3.3. RECEPTIVENESS OF THE PROPOSED SITE TO DEVELOPMENT OF THE WIND ENERGY FACILITY41 3.4. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR THE WIND ENERGY FACILITY ...... 43 3.4.1. Layout Footprint Design Alternatives ...... 43 3.4.2. Technology Alternatives...... 44 3.4.3. Grid Connection Alternatives ...... 45 3.4.4. The ‘do-nothing’ Alternative ...... 46

CHAPTER 4 WIND AS A POWER GENERATION TECHNOLOGY ...... 47

4.1. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS AS PER THE EIA REGULATIONS FOR THE UNDERTAKING OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT, 2014...... 47 4.2. THE IMPORTANCE OF WIND RESOURCE AS POWER GENERATION ...... 48 4.2.1. How do wind turbines function...... 49 4.2.2. Main Components of a Wind Turbine ...... 51 4.2.3. Description of associated infrastructure ...... 53 4.2.4. Operating Characteristics of a Wind Turbine ...... 54

CHAPTER 5 REGULATORY AND PLANNING CONTEXT ...... 56

5.1. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS AS PER THE EIA REGULATIONS FOR THE UNDERTAKING OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT, 2014...... 56 5.2. STRATEGIC ELECTRICITY PLANNING IN SOUTH AFRICA...... 56 5.3. NATIONAL POLICY AND PLANNING...... 59 5.3.1 The Kyoto Protocol, 1997...... 59 5.3.2. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and COP21 – Paris Agreement ...... 59 5.3.3. National Climate Change Response Policy 2011 ...... 61 5.3.4. White Paper on the Renewable Energy Policy of the Republic of South Africa (2003) ...... 62 5.3.5. The National Energy Act (2008)...... 63 5.3.6. The Electricity Regulation Act, 2006 (Act No. 4 of 2006), as amended...63 5.3.7. Renewable Energy Policy in South Africa...... 63 5.3.8. National Development Plan ...... 64 5.3.8. Integrated Energy Plan...... 65

Table of Contents Page xxvi PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

5.3.9. Final Integrated Resource Plan 2010 - 2030 ...... 66 5.3.10. Strategic Integrated Projects...... 66 5.4. PROVINCIAL AND LOCAL LEVEL DEVELOPMENTAL POLICY ...... 67 5.4.1. White Paper on Sustainable Energy for the Western Cape (2010) ...... 67 5.4.2. Western Cape Draft Strategic Plan (WCDSP) (2014-2019) ...... 68 5.4.4. Western Cape Provincial Spatial Development Framework (2014) ...... 68 5.4.5. Guidelines for the Management of Development on Mountains, Hills and Ridges in the Western Cape (2002)...... 69 5.5. DISTRICT AND LOCAL LEVEL DEVELOPMENTAL POLICY ...... 70 5.5.1. West Coast District Municipality Spatial Development Framework (WCSDF) (2012-2016) ...... 70 5.5.2. Swartland Integrated Development Plan (2012-2017) ...... 71 5.6. LEGISLATION AND GUIDELINES ...... 72

CHAPTER 6 APPROACH TO UNDERTAKING THE EIA PHASE ...... 86

6.1. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS AS PER THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 ...... 86 6.2. RELEVANT LISTED ACTIVITIES ...... 87 6.3. SCOPING PHASE ...... 90 6.4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT PHASE ...... 90 6.4.1. Tasks completed during the EIA Phase ...... 91 6.4.2. Authority Consultation and Application for Authorisation in terms of GNR982 of 2014...... 91 6.4.3. Public Participation Process ...... 92 6.4.4. Identification and Recording of Issues and Concerns ...... 97 6.4.5. Assessment of Issues Identified through the EIA Process ...... 98 6.4.6. Assumptions and Limitations ...... 100

CHAPTER 7 DESCRIPTION OF THE RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT.102

7.1 LEGAL REQUIREMENTS AS PER THE EIA REGULATIONS FOR THE UNDERTAKING OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT, 2014...... 102 7.2. REGIONAL SETTING: LOCATION OF THE STUDY AREA ...... 102 7.3. EXISTING LAND-USES ...... 103 7.4. CLIMATIC CONDITIONS ...... 105 7.5. BIOPHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE STUDY AREA ...... 105 7.5.1. Topography...... 105 7.5.2. Hydrology ...... 106 7.5.3. Geology and Soils ...... 107 7.5.4 Agricultural Potential ...... 109 7.5.5. Ecological Profile of the Study Area ...... 109 7.6. HERITAGE AND PALAEONTOLOGY ...... 117 7.6.1. Palaeontology...... 117 7.6.2. Archaeology ...... 117 7.7. VISUAL QUALITY ...... 118 7.8. NOISE QUALITY ...... 120

Table of Contents Page xxvii PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

7.9. SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE STUDY AREA AND SURROUNDS...... 120 7.9.1. Socio-demographic profile of the study area population ...... 120

CHAPTER 8 ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS ...... 122

8.1. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS AS PER THE EIA REGULATIONS FOR THE UNDERTAKING OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT, 2014...... 126 8.2. QUANTIFICATION OF AREAS OF DISTURBANCE ON THE SITE...... 128 8.3. POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON ECOLOGY (ECOLOGY, FLORA AND FAUNA) ...... 129 8.3.1. Results of the Ecological Study ...... 129 8.3.2 Description of Ecological Impacts ...... 134 8.3.3 Impact tables summarising the significance of impacts on ecology during construction and operation (with and without mitigation)...... 135 8.3.4 Comparative Assessment of Alternatives...... 141 8.3.5 Implications for Project Implementation ...... 142 8.4. POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON AVIFAUNA...... 142 8.4.1 Results of the Avifaunal Study ...... 142 8.4.2 Description of Avifaunal Impacts...... 148 8.4.3 Impact tables summarising the significance of impacts on avifauna (with and without mitigation) ...... 149 8.4.4 Comparative Assessment of Alternatives...... 153 8.4.5 Implications for Project Implementation ...... 154 8.5. POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON BATS ...... 155 8.5.1. Results of the Bat Impact Study ...... 155 8.5.2 Description of Bat Impacts ...... 160 8.5.3 Impact tables summarising the significance of impacts on bats (with and without mitigation) ...... 162 8.5.4 Comparative Assessment of Alternatives...... 166 8.5.5 Implications for Project Implementation ...... 167 8.6. ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS ON SURFACE WATER FEATURES ...... 169 8.6.1. Results of the Surface Water Study ...... 169 8.6.2 Description of Surface Water Impacts...... 177 8.6.3 Impact tables summarising the significance of impacts on freshwater during construction and operation (with and without mitigation)...... 178 8.6.4 Comparative Assessment of Alternatives...... 182 8.6.5 Implications for Project Implementation ...... 183 8.7. ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS ON HERITAGE SITES ...... 183 8.7.1 Results of the Heritage Survey ...... 183 8.7.2 Description of Heritage Impacts...... 188 8.7.3 Impact tables summarising the significance of impacts on heritage resources related to the wind turbines and associated infrastructure (with and without mitigation) ...... 189 8.7.4 Comparative Assessment of Alternatives...... 193 8.7.5 Implications for Project Implementation ...... 193 8.8. ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS ON LAND USE, SOIL AND AGRICULTURAL POTENTIAL ...... 194

Table of Contents Page xxviii PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

8.8.1. Results of the Land Use, Soil and Agricultural Potential Study...... 194 8.8.2 Description of Land Use, Soil and Agricultural Potential Impacts ...... 194 8.8.3 Impact tables summarising the significance of impacts on Land Use, Soil and Agricultural Potential (with and without mitigation)...... 195 8.8.4 Comparative Assessment of Alternatives...... 201 8.8.5 Implications for Project Implementation ...... 202 8.9. ASSESSMENT OF VISUAL IMPACTS ...... 202 8.9.1 Results of the Visual Impact Assessment ...... 202 8.9.2 Visual Assessment ...... 204 8.9.3 Impact table summarising the significance of visual impacts (with and without mitigation) ...... 210 9.8.4 Comparative Assessment of Alternatives...... 226 8.9.5 Implications for Project Implementation ...... 227 8.10. ASSESSMENT OF SOCIAL IMPACTS ...... 227 8.10.1 Results of the Social Study...... 228 8.10.2 Description of Social Impacts ...... 228 8.10.3 Impact tables summarising the significance of social impacts associated with the construction phase (with and without mitigation measures) ...... 229 8.10.4 Comparative Assessment of Alternatives...... 249 8.10.5 Implications for Project Implementation ...... 250 8.11. ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS ON NOISE ...... 251 8.11.1. Results of the Noise Monitoring...... 251 8.11.2 Description of Noise Impacts ...... 252 8.11.3 Impact tables summarising the significance of impacts on Noise (with and without mitigation) ...... 256 8.11.4 Comparative Assessment of Alternatives...... 258 8.11.5 Implications for Project Implementation ...... 259 8.12. ASSESSMENT OF THE DO NOTHING ALTERNATIVE...... 259

CHAPTER 9 ASSESSMENT OF CUMULATIVE IMPACTS...... 265

9.1. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS AS PER THE EIA REGULATIONS FOR THE UNDERTAKING OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT, 2014 ...... 266 9.2. APPROACH TAKEN TO ASSESS POTENTIAL CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ...... 266 9.3. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE HARTEBEEST WIND FARM ...... 270 9.3.1 Cumulative Impacts on Ecological Processes ...... 271 9.3.2 Cumulative Impacts on Avifauna...... 272 9.3.3 Cumulative Impacts on Bats...... 276 9.3.4 Cumulative Impacts on Surface Water...... 279 9.3.5 Cumulative Impact on Heritage Resources ...... 281 9.3.6 Cumulative Impacts on Soils, Land Use, Land Capability and Agricultural Potential ...... 282 9.3.7 Cumulative Visual Impacts...... 283 9.3.8 Cumulative Socio-Economic Impacts ...... 291

Table of Contents Page xxix PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

9.3.9 Cumulative Noise Impacts...... 294 9.4. CONTRIBUTION OF THE HARTEBEEST WIND FARM TO CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION ..... 294 9.5. CONCLUSION REGARDING CUMULATIVE IMPACTS...... 295

CHAPTER 10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 299

10.1. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS AS PER THE EIA REGULATIONS FOR THE UNDERTAKING OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT, 2014...... 300 10.2. ASSESSMENT PROCESS...... 302 10.3. EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT ...... 303 10.3.1 Impacts on Visual Quality of the area ...... 304 10.3.2 Impacts on Ecology...... 305 10.3.3 Impacts on Avifauna ...... 306 10.3.4 Impacts on Bats ...... 307 10.3.5 Impacts on Surface Water...... 308 10.3.6 Impacts on Soil and Agricultural Potential ...... 309 10.3.7 Impacts on Heritage Resources ...... 309 10.3.8 Social and Economic Impacts ...... 310 10.3.9 Noise Impacts ...... 311 10.3.10 Assessment of Potential Cumulative Impacts...... 311 10.4. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES...... 312 10.4.1. Layout Alternatives ...... 312 10.4.2. Power line Alternatives ...... 314 10.5. ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITY MAPPING ...... 316 10.6. ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS OF THE PROJECT VERSUS BENEFITS OF THE PROJECT ...... 320 10.7. OVERALL CONCLUSION (IMPACT STATEMENT)...... 321 10.8. OVERALL RECOMMENDATION...... 325

CHAPTER 11 REFERENCES ...... 328

Table of Contents Page xxx PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

APPENDICES

Appendix A: EIA Project Consulting Team CVs Appendix B: Correspondence with Authorities Appendix C: Public Participation Information Appendix C1: I&AP Database Appendix C2: Site Notices and Newspaper Advertisements Appendix C3: Organs of State Correspondence Appendix C4: Stakeholder Correspondence Appendix C5: Comments Received Appendix C6: Minutes of Meetings Appendix C7: Comments and Responses Report Appendix D: Ecology Impact Assessment Report Appendix E: Avifaunal Impact Assessment Report Appendix F: Bats Impact Assessment Report Appendix G: Freshwater Impact Assessment Report Appendix H: Heritage Impact Assessment Report Appendix I: Soil & Agricultural Potential Impact Assessment Report Appendix I1: Soil & Agricultural Potential Impact Assessment Review Appendix J: Visual Impact Assessment Report Appendix K: Social Impact Assessment Report Appendix L: Noise Impact Assessment Report Appendix M: Additional Information Appendix M1: Pre-construction Bird and Bat Monitoring Checklist Appendix M2: Letter of validity for Bat and Bird Monitoring Appendix M3: Confirmation Letter from Landowner Appendix M4: Confirmation Letter for services required Appendix N: Environmental Management Programme Appendix O: EAP Affirmation and Declaration Appendix P: Specialist Declarations Appendix Q: A3 Maps and Site Coordinates

Appendices Page xxxi PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

DEFINITIONS AND TERMINOLOGY

Alternatives: Alternatives are different means of meeting the general purpose and need of a proposed activity. Alternatives may include location or site alternatives, activity alternatives, process or technology alternatives, temporal alternatives or the ‘do nothing’ alternative.

Betz Limit: It is the flow of air over the blades and through the rotor area that makes a wind turbine function. The wind turbine extracts energy by slowing the wind down. The theoretical maximum amount of energy in the wind that can be collected by a wind turbine's rotor is approximately 59%. This value is known as the Betz Limit.

Commence: The start of any physical activity, including site preparation and any other activity on site furtherance of a listed activity or specified activity, but does not include any activity required for the purposes of an investigation or feasibility study as long as such investigation or feasibility study does not constitute a listed activity or specified activity.

Commercial Operation date: The date after which all testing and commissioning has been completed and is the initiation date to which the seller can start producing electricity for sale (i.e. when the project has been substantially completed).

Commissioning: Commissioning commences once construction is completed. Commissioning covers all activities including testing after all components of the wind turbine are installed.

Construction: Construction means the building, erection or establishment of a facility, structure or infrastructure that is necessary for the undertaking of a listed or specified activity. Construction begins with any activity which requires Environmental Authorisation.

Cumulative impacts: Impacts that result from the incremental impact of the proposed activity on a common resource when added to the impacts of other past, present or reasonably foreseeable future activities (e.g. discharges of nutrients and heated water to a river that combine to cause algal bloom and subsequent loss of dissolved oxygen that is greater than the additive impacts of each pollutant). Cumulative impacts can occur from the collective impacts of individual minor actions over a period and can include both direct and indirect impacts.

Cut-in speed: The minimum wind speed at which the wind turbine will generate usable power.

Definitions and Terminology Page xxxii PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Cut-out speed: The wind speed at which shut down occurs.

Decommissioning: To take out of active service permanently or dismantle partly or wholly, or closure of a facility to the extent that it cannot be readily re-commissioned. This usually occurs at the end of the life of a facility.

Direct impacts: Impacts that are caused directly by the activity and generally occur at the same time and at the place of the activity (e.g. noise generated by blasting operations on the site of the activity). These impacts are usually associated with the construction, operation, or maintenance of an activity and are generally obvious and quantifiable.

Disturbing noise: A noise level that exceeds the ambient sound level measured continuously at the same measuring point by 7 dB or more.

‘Do nothing’ alternative: The ‘do nothing’ alternative is the option of not undertaking the proposed activity or any of its alternatives. The ‘do nothing’ alternative also provides the baseline against which the impacts of other alternatives should be compared.

Endangered species: Taxa in danger of extinction and whose survival is unlikely if the causal factors continue operating. Included here are taxa whose numbers of individuals have been reduced to a critical level or whose habitats have been so drastically reduced that they are deemed to be in immediate danger of extinction.

Emergency: An undesired/ unplanned event that results in a significant environmental impact and requires the notification of the relevant statutory body, such as a local authority.

Endemic: An "endemic" is a species that grows in a particular area (is endemic to that region) and has a restricted distribution. It is only found in a particular place. Whether something is endemic or not depends on the geographical boundaries of the area in question and the area can be defined at different scales.

Environment: the surroundings within which humans exist and that are made up of: i. The land, water and atmosphere of the earth; ii. Micro-organisms, plant and animal life; iii. Any part or combination of (i) and (ii) and the interrelationships among and between them; and iv. The physical, chemical, aesthetic and cultural properties and conditions of the foregoing that influence human health and well-being.

Definitions and Terminology Page xxxiii PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Environmental impact: An action or series of actions that have an effect on the environment.

Environmental impact assessment: Environmental Impact Assessment, as defined in the NEMA EIA Regulations and in relation to an application to which scoping must be applied, means the process of collecting, organising, analysing, interpreting and communicating information that is relevant to the consideration of that application.

Environmental management: Ensuring that environmental concerns are included in all stages of development, so that development is sustainable and does not exceed the carrying capacity of the environment.

Environmental management programme: An operational plan that organises and coordinates mitigation, rehabilitation and monitoring measures in order to guide the implementation of a proposal and its ongoing maintenance after implementation.

Generator: The generator is what converts the turning motion of a wind turbine's blades into electricity.

Heritage: That which is inherited and forms part of the National Estate (Historical places, objects, fossils as defined by the National Heritage Resources Act of 2000).

Indigenous: All biological organisms that occurred naturally within the study area prior to 1800.

Indirect impacts: Indirect or induced changes that may occur because of the activity (e.g. the reduction of water in a stream that supply water to a reservoir that supply water to the activity). These types of impacts include all the potential impacts that do not manifest immediately when the activity is undertaken or which occur at a different place because of the activity.

Interested and affected party: Individuals or groups concerned with or affected by an activity and its consequences. These include the authorities, local communities, investors, work force, consumers, environmental interest groups, and the public.

Method statement: A written submission to the ECO and the site manager (or engineer) by the EPC Contractor in collaboration with his/her EO.

Nacelle: The nacelle contains the generator, control equipment, gearbox and anemometer for monitoring the wind speed and direction.

Definitions and Terminology Page xxxiv PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

No-go areas: Areas of environmental sensitivity that should not be impacted on or utilised during the development of a project as identified in any environmental reports.

Pollution: A change in the environment caused by substances (radio-active or other waves, noise, odours, dust or heat emitted from any activity, including the storage or treatment or waste or substances.

Pre-construction: The period prior to the commencement of construction, this may include activities which do not require Environmental Authorisation (e.g. geotechnical surveys).

Rare species: Taxa with small world populations that are not at present Endangered or Vulnerable, but are at risk as some unexpected threat could easily cause a critical decline. These taxa are usually localised within restricted geographical areas or habitats or are thinly scattered over a more extensive range. This category was termed Critically Rare by Hall and Veldhuis (1985) to distinguish it from the more generally used word "rare.”

Red data species: Species listed in terms of the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species, and/or in terms of the South African Red Data list. In terms of the South African Red Data list, species are classified as being extinct, endangered, vulnerable, rare, indeterminate, insufficiently known or not threatened (see other definitions within this glossary).

Rotor: The portion of the wind turbine that collects energy from the wind is called the rotor. The rotor converts the energy in the wind into rotational energy to turn the generator. The rotor has three blades that rotate at a constant speed of about 15 to 28 revolutions per minute (rpm).

Significant impact: An impact that by its magnitude, duration, intensity, or probability of occurrence may have a notable effect on one or more aspects of the environment.

Tower: The tower, which supports the rotor, is constructed from tubular steel. It is between 80m and 120m tall. The nacelle and the rotor are attached to the top of the tower. The tower on which a wind turbine is mounted is not just a support structure. It also raises the wind turbine so that its blades safely clear the ground and so it can reach the stronger winds at higher elevations. The tower must be strong enough to support the wind turbine and to sustain vibration, wind loading and the overall weather elements for the lifetime of the wind turbine.

Wind power: A measure of the energy available in the wind.

Definitions and Terminology Page xxxv PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Wind rose: The term given to the diagrammatic representation of joint wind speed and direction distribution at a particular location. The length of time that the wind comes from a particular sector is shown by the length of the spoke, and the speed is shown by the thickness of the spoke.

Wind speed: The rate at which air flows past a point above the earth's surface.

Definitions and Terminology Page xxxvi PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

BID Background Information Document CBOs Community Based Organisations CDM Clean Development Mechanism CSIR Council for Scientific and Industrial Research

CO2 Carbon dioxide D Diameter of the rotor blades DAFF Department of Forestry and Fishery DEA National Department of Environmental Affairs DME Department of Minerals and Energy DOT Department of Transport DWS Department of Water and Sanitation EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EMP Environmental Management Plan GIS Geographical Information Systems GG Government Gazette GN Government Notice GWh Giga Watt Hour Ha Hectare I&AP Interested and Affected Party IDP Integrated Development Plan IEP Integrated Energy Planning km2 Square kilometres km/hr Kilometres per hour kV Kilovolt m2 Square meters m/s Meters per second MW Mega Watt NEMA National Environmental Management Act (Act No 107 of 1998) NERSA National Energy Regulator of South Africa NHRA National Heritage Resources Act (Act No 25 of 1999) NGOs Non-Governmental Organisations NIRP National Integrated Resource Planning NWA National Water Act (Act No 36 of 1998) SAHRA South African Heritage Resources Agency SANBI South African National Biodiversity Institute SANRAL South African National Roads Agency Limited SDF Spatial Development Framework WC DEADP Western Cape Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning

Abbreviations and Acronyms Page xxxvii PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Abbreviations and Acronyms Page xxxviii PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

INTRODUCTION CHAPTER 1

The development of the project is in response to the requirement for additional electricity generation capacity at a national level, and in response to identified objectives of the national and provincial government, and local and district municipalities to develop renewable energy facilities for power generation purposes. From a regional perspective, the ridge upon which the project is situated is one of only a few areas in the Moorreesburg region considered competitive enough to successfully participate in the Renewable Energy Independent Power Producer Procurement (REIPPP) Programme. This area is also considered favourable for the development of a wind energy facility due to the availability of wind (i.e. the fuel source), wind characteristics (including speed), availability of suitable land (extent and topography of the site), and the availability of a direct grid connection (i.e. point of connection to the Eskom National grid).

It is the developer’s intention to bid the Hartebeest Wind Farm under the Department of Energy’s (DoE) Renewable Energy Independent Power Producer Procurement (REIPPP) Programme. The power generated from the project will be sold to Eskom and will feed into the national electricity grid. Ultimately, the project is intended to be a part of the renewable energy projects portfolio for South Africa, as contemplated in the promulgated Integrated Resource Plan 2010 and again in the draft 2016 IRP update currently under review.

The nature and extent of the proposed facility, as well as potential environmental impacts associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning phases of a facility of this nature are explored in detail in this Environmental Impact Assessment Report. Site specific environmental issues are considered within specialist studies in order to test the environmental suitability of the site for the proposed development, delineate areas of sensitivity within the site, and ultimately inform the placement of the wind turbines and associated infrastructure on the site.

Introduction Page 1 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

This final Environmental Impact Assessment Report consists of the following sections:

» Chapter 1 provides background to the proposed project and the environmental impact assessment process and an introduction to the rationale behind the selected project site and technology proposed. » Chapter 2 provides a description of the project. » Chapter 3 provides the site selection information and identified project alternatives. » Chapter 4 describes wind energy as a power generation option and provides insight to technologies for wind energy. » Chapter 5 outlines the strategic regulatory and legal context for energy planning in South Africa and specifically for the project. » Chapter 6 outlines the approach to undertaking the environmental impact assessment process. » Chapter 7 describes the existing biophysical and socio-economic environment within and surrounding the project development footprint. » Chapter 8 provides an assessment of the potential issues and impacts associated with the project and presents recommendations for mitigation of significant impacts. » Chapter 9 provides an assessment of the potential for cumulative impacts. » Chapter 10 presents the conclusions and recommendations based on the findings of the EIA. » Chapter 11 provides references used in the compilation of the final EIA Report.

1.1. Requirement for an Environmental Impact Assessment Process

The construction and operation of the proposed Hartebeest Wind Farm is subject to the requirements of the EIA Regulations published in terms of Section 24(5) of the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) 107 of 1998. An application for authorisation for the Hartebeest Wind Farm has been accepted by the DEA (under the application reference number: 14/12/16/3/3/2/961). This section provides a brief overview of the EIA Regulations and their application to this project.

NEMA is the national legislation that provides for the authorisation of ‘listed activities’. In terms of Section 24(1) of NEMA, the potential impact on the environment associated with these activities must be considered, investigated, assessed and reported on to the competent authority that has been charged by NEMA with the responsibility of granting environmental authorisations. As this is a proposed electricity generation project and thereby considered to be of national importance, the National Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) is the competent authority9 and the Western Cape Department of Environmental and Development Planning (DEA&DP) will act as a commenting authority.

9 In terms of GNR779 of July 2016, the DEA is the competent authority for all energy related applications.

Introduction Page 2 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

A previous Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process was undertaken for the same project (previously known as the Moorreesburg Wind Farm) in accordance with the EIA Regulations of 2010 (GNR543) (DEA Ref 12/12/20/2200). This process was however not completed. A new EIA process is currently being undertaken in accordance with the EIA Regulations published on 08 December 2014.

The need to comply with the requirements of the EIA Regulations ensures that the competent authority is provided with the opportunity to consider the potential environmental impacts of a project early in the project development process and to assess if potential environmental impacts can be avoided, minimised or mitigated to acceptable levels. Comprehensive, independent environmental studies are required in accordance with the EIA Regulations to provide the competent authority with sufficient information in order to make an informed decision. Hartebeest Wind Farm (Pty) Ltd appointed Savannah Environmental as the independent environmental consultants to conduct an EIA process for the proposed project.

An EIA is an effective planning and decision-making tool for the project developer as it allows for the identification and management of potential environmental impacts. It provides the opportunity for the developer to be forewarned of potential environmental issues, and allows for resolution of the issues reported on in the Scoping and EIA Reports as well as dialogue with interested and affected parties (I&APs).

The EIA process comprises two phases – i.e. Scoping and Impact Assessment - and involves the identification and assessment of environmental impacts though specialist studies, as well as public participation. The process followed in these two phases is as follows:

» The Scoping Phase includes the identification of potential issues associated with the proposed project through a desktop study and consultation with affected parties and key stakeholders. Areas of sensitivity within the broader site are identified and delineated in order to identify any environmental fatal flaws, and sensitive or no go areas. Following a public review period of the scoping report, this phase culminates in the submission of a final Scoping Report and Plan of Study for EIA to the competent authority for acceptance. » The EIA Phase involves a detailed assessment of potentially significant positive and negative impacts (direct, indirect, and cumulative) identified in the Scoping Phase. This phase includes detailed specialist investigations and public consultation. Following a public review period of the EIA report, this phase culminates in the submission of a final EIA Report and an Environmental Management Programme (EMPr), including recommendations of practical and achievable mitigation and management measures, to the competent authority for final review and decision- making.

Introduction Page 3 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

1.2. Legal Requirements as per the EIA Regulations for the undertaking of an Environmental Impact Assessment Report, 2014

This EIA report has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the EIA Regulations published on 08 December 2014 promulgated in terms of Chapter 5 of the National Environmental Management Act (Act No 107 of 1998). This chapter of the EIA report includes the following information required in terms of Appendix 3: Content of Environmental Impact Assessment Reports:

Requirement Relevant Section Page Reference 3(a) the details of the EAP The details and expertise of 15 who prepared the report and the EAP who prepared the (ii) the expertise of the EAP, report has been included in including a curriculum vitae. section 1.6 and Appendix A of this EIA report. 3(b) the location of the The location of the proposed 4 activity including (i) the 21 Hartebeest Wind Farm is digit Surveyor General code of included in section 1.3 and each cadastral land parcel, (ii) Table 1.1. The information where available the physical provided includes the 21-digit address and farm name and Surveyor General code of the (iii) where the required affected properties and farm information in items (i) and names. Additional information (ii) is not available, the co- is also provided regarding the ordinates of the boundary of location of the development the property or properties. which includes the relevant province, local and district municipalities, ward and current land zoning.

1.3. Background to the project

In responding to electricity demand within South Africa, as well as the country’s targets for renewable energy, Hartebeest Wind Farm (Pty) Ltd is proposing the establishment of the Hartebeest Wind Farm to add new capacity to the national electricity grid. The project is proposed to be part of the Department of Energy’s (DoE) Renewable Energy Independent Power Producer Procurement Programme (REIPPPP) and is expected to be bid in the next bidding round. Should the project be selected by the DoE for implementation, Hartebeest Wind Farm will be required to apply for a generation license from the National Energy Regulator of South Africa (NERSA), as well as a power purchase agreement from Eskom (typically for a period of 20 - 25 years) in order to build and operate the proposed wind energy facility. As part of the agreement, Hartebeest Wind Farm will be remunerated by Eskom per kWh. Eskom will be financially backed by government. Depending on the economic conditions following the lapse of

Introduction Page 4 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017 this period, the facility can either be decommissioned or the power purchase agreement may be renegotiated and extended.

The proposed project entails the development of the Hartebeest Wind Farm on a site located approximately 4km south-south east of Moorreesburg, in the Western Cape. The wind energy facility is to be constructed within an area of approximately 3288ha in extent, and together with all associated infrastructure will constitute a permanent development footprint of 0.7% of the total site. The facility is proposed within the following farm portions (refer to Figure 1.1):

» Farm Zwartfontein 414 ∗ Portion 20, 21 and 23 ∗ Remainder of Portion 8, 11, 12, 13, 17 and 18 » Farm Zwartfontein 416 ∗ Portion 1 and 7 ∗ Remainder of Portion 3 » Farm Hartebeestfontein 412 » Portion 2 and 6 » Portion 0 of Farm 106610 » Portion 1 of the Farm Tontelberg 424 » Portion 9 of the Farm Biesjesfontein 413

The proposed Hartebeest Wind Farm site is proposed to accommodate the following infrastructure:

10 Portion 0 of the Farm 1066 consist of Portion 3 of the Farm Zwartfontein 416, Portion 7 of the Farm Zwartfontein 416 and Portion 26 of the Farm Zwartfontein 414 and will be referred to as Portion 0 of the Farm 1066 in this report.

Introduction Page 5 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

bay within the substation should this be required). The length of the power line required to be constructed for this connection will be ~3.5km. » Internal access roads to each turbine and to the on-site substation. » Access roads to the site and between project components. » Temporary infrastructure including a concrete batching plant of 50m x 50m in extent to facilitate with the concrete requirements for turbine foundations and/or towers construction and laydown areas. » Workshop area / office for control, maintenance and storage, construction camp.

Hartebeest Wind Farm has confirmed the proposed development site to be particularly suitable for wind energy development from a technical perspective due to the strength of the prevailing wind resources, access to the electricity grid, current land use and land availability (refer to Chapter 2 for more details in this regard). Hartebeest Wind Farm has been measuring the wind resource at the project site for more than a year and has determined the wind resource to be feasible for the development of a wind energy facility on the project site. The site has been identified by the developer as a suitable project site which has the potential to accommodate the development of a wind energy facility (refer to Table 1.1). Depending on the final turbine selection, the estimated total generating capacity for the proposed facility is 160MW.

Table 1.1: A detailed description of the project Province Western Cape Province District Municipality West Coast District Municipality Local Municipality Swartland Local Municipality Ward number(s) 1, 3 and 4 Nearest town(s) Moorreesburg Farm name(s) and number(s) Farm Zwartfontein 414 Farm Zwartfontein 416 Farm Hartebeestfontein 412 Farm 1066 Farm Tontelberg 424 Farm Biesjesfontein 413 Portion number(s) Farm Zwartfontein 414 - Portion 20, 21, 23 and Remainder of Portion 8, 11, 12, 13, 17 and 18 Farm Zwartfontein 416 – Portion 1, 7 and Remainder of Portion 3 Farm Hartebeestfontein 412- Portions 2 and 6 Farm 1066 – Portion 0 Farm Tontelberg 424 – Portion 1 Farm Biesjesfontein 413 – Portion 9 Farm Zwartfontein 414 - SG 21 C04600100000041400020 Digit Code (s) C04600100000041400021 C04600100000041400023 C04600100000041400008

Introduction Page 6 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

C04600100000041400011 C04600100000041400012 C04600100000041400013 C04600100000041400017 C04600100000041400018 Farm Zwartfontein 416 - SG 21 C04600100000041600001 Digit Code (s) C04600100000041600007 C04600100000041600003 Farm Hartebeestfontein 412 - C04600100000041200002 SG 21 Digit Code (s) C04600100000041200006

Farm 1066 - SG 21 Digit Code C04600100000106600000 (s) Farm Tontelberg 424 - SG 21 C04600100000042400001 Digit Code (s) Farm Biesjesfontein 413 - SG C04600100000041300009 21 Digit Code (s) Current zoning Agricultural

Site Co-ordinates Northern-most extent: 33°8’47.37’’ S 18°42’ 46.29’’ E Eastern-most extent: 33°13’6.12’’ S 18°46’35.03’’ E Southern-most extent: 33°13’34.15’’ S 18°44’51.22’’ E Western-most extent: 33°10’11.05’’ S 18°40’27.52’’ E Centre point: 33°11’10.74’’ S 18°43’ 48.09’’ E

The overarching objective for the planning process is to maximise electricity production through exposure to the wind resource, while minimising infrastructure, operational and maintenance costs, as well as social and environmental impacts. As local level environmental and planning issues were not assessed in sufficient detail through the regional level site identification process undertaken by the developer, these issues must now be considered within site-specific studies and assessments through the EIA process in order to delineate areas of sensitivity within the broader site and ultimately inform the placement of the wind turbines and associated infrastructure on the site.

The detailed project description and the scope of the proposed Hartebeest Wind Farm (for the construction, operation and decommissioning phases) is discussed in more detail in Chapter 2.

Introduction Page 7 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Figure 1.1: Locality map showing the location and study area of the proposed Hartebeest Wind Farm project site

Introduction Page 8 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

1.4. Conclusions from the Scoping Phase

Several desktop specialist studies were undertaken during the scoping phase for the purposes of identifying potential impacts and potential fatal flaws relating to the proposed wind energy facility. In addition, a one year bird and bat monitoring programme has been undertaken and concluded. The majority of potential impacts identified to be associated with the construction of the wind energy facility and associated infrastructure were anticipated to be localised and restricted to the proposed site itself (apart from social impacts – job creation which could have more of a regional positive impact), while operational phase impacts range from local to regional and national (being the positive impact of contribution of clean energy as part of the energy mix in South Africa).

Although no environmental fatal flaws were identified to be associated with the project, no-go areas and areas of potential environmental high sensitivity were identified through the scoping phase.

A preliminary sensitivity map for the project site was developed to illustrate the sensitivities identified during the scoping phase studies (refer to Figure 1.2). The full site was subjected to ground-truthing during the EIA phase of the project. These potentially sensitive areas have, therefore, been further investigated and assessed through detailed specialist studies (including field surveys) in order to identify and confirm exclusion or no-go areas (refer to Chapter 6 for more details). Specific sensitivities identified within the scoping study are summarised below.

» Ecologically sensitive features on the site: The intact vegetation fragments within the project site are classified as Very High sensitivity on account of their high threat status as well as the likely presence of high numbers of species of conservation concern. As the large Renosterveld remnant towards the eastern half of the site has also been identified as part of a regionally significant Renosterveld cluster, development within this fragment would generate impacts which would be deemed to have very high significance and would be considered to constitute a fatal flaw for the development if not avoided. The site presents a highly contrasting sensitivity, with the transformed areas being considered to be of low sensitivity, with little risk of significant ecological impact and the intact areas being considered essentially no-go areas of exceptional sensitivity.

» Avifaunal sensitivities: The project site defined is considered as a medium sensitivity location in terms of general sensitivity for the avifauna community in the area. A community of raptors such as the Black Harrier or the Lanner Falcon utilises the area while there is also an important presence of Blue Cranes within the

Introduction Page 9 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

project site. Pairs with juveniles have been observed on site, which points towards the species breeding in the area.

Areas of natural vegetation are restricted to hills and slopes and are frequently used by raptors. The natural vegetation represents important habitat for sensitive, endangered species, such as the Black Harrier. These areas must be considered as no-go areas and no development footprint are to be sited in these areas.

A 300m buffer around water bodies is considered as sensitive, as these features may attract birds under certain conditions and are the only places where certain sensitive species such as Greater and Lesser Flamingos were observed on site. These areas must be avoided and are considered as no-go areas. A 500-1000m buffer around the active Jackal Buzzard nests identified on site must also be applied. The 500m buffer should be considered as no-go areas and the 1000m buffer should be considered as being of medium to high sensitivity within which limited infrastructure could be placed.

» Bat sensitivities: Several areas that are considered to be sensitive have been identified within the project site and include areas that are associated with Natural and Woodland Vegetation. A 200m moderate sensitive buffer is recommended around all potentially bat important features. A 500m high sensitive buffer is recommended around all confirmed roosts, including both permanent and seasonal roosts.

» Hydrological sensitivities: Due to the limited footprint of the proposed Hartebeest Wind Farm, the impact on the surface water features will be minimal. It is recommended that a buffer of at least 100m should be maintained adjacent to the streams in which valley bottom wetlands occur as well as adjacent to the vernal pool (as measured from the outer edge of the wetland area). A buffer of at least 50m is recommended for the smaller drainage lines due to the poor vegetative cover as well as the slopes and erodible soils in the area.

» Soils, land use, land capability and agricultural potential: Impacts on soils and agricultural potential during the construction and operational phase will be at a site level. The overall impacts of the proposed facility on agriculture and soil conditions will be low, principally because of the actual footprint of disturbance of the Hartebeest Wind Farm is very small in relation to the available agricultural land on the affected farm portions and the limited potential for irrigation. There is the potential for the loss of soil resources through erosion, particularly during the construction phase and additional mitigation measures would be required during this phase. No

Introduction Page 10 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

areas of sensitivity were identified within the project site through the Scoping Study.

» Visual sensitive receptors: The proposed development is likely to have minimal impact on protected landscapes. Impacts from these areas will be mitigated by distance and the fact that the development will be viewed against the landform and not the skyline. The ridgeline on which the wind farm is proposed on, separates an area of relatively cohesive rural agricultural landscape on its eastern side from a landscape that is more influenced by urban development and infrastructure on its western side. Whilst the rural agricultural landscape is not protected, the need to minimise impacts on this area are highlighted. This is likely to be best achieved by ensuring that the clutter associated with related infrastructure is minimised on the eastern side of the ridge. The assessment found that whilst views of the development will be possible over a wide area, it is only likely to be receptors within a ring of intervening ridgelines close to the site that are likely to be adversely impacted to a significant degree. Shadow flicker may affect a number of homesteads in the vicinity of the wind farm.

» Heritage: Heritage impacts include impacts on archaeological and palaeontological resources.

∗ Impacts on archaeological resources: Five areas of possible heritage significance have been identified. It is expected that much of the impacts to surface archaeological heritage (pre-colonial and colonial) will be controllable through avoidance of sensitive areas in the unlikely event that any have survived the historical agricultural activities in the area. There is possibility that archaeological material and graves may be exposed during excavations for the facility and access roads. The impacts are likely to be of medium-low significance as such finds are infrequent is this landscape.

∗ Impacts on palaeontological resources: No known palaeontological resources are present in this area as it is all underlain by Malmesbury Shale. The shales are among the oldest rocks in the Cape Province and pre-date most life forms. This indicates that they are very unlikely to contain fossil remains.

» Social Impacts: The impacts for the construction and operational phase range from local to regional level. The most significant positive potential impacts expected are the creation of employment and business opportunities, and opportunity for skills development and on-site training. The most significant negative

Introduction Page 11 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

potential impacts expected are the influx of job seekers to the area, increased safety risk to farmers, risk of stock theft and damage to farm infrastructure associated with presence of construction workers on the site. Other negative impacts include the impact of heavy vehicles, including damage to roads, safety and dust.

» Noise Impacts: There are a number of such developments that occurs in the area. The impacts for the construction and operational phase will be at a local level. The most significant potential impacts expected are increase in noise levels at closest receptors - increased noises or disturbing noises as closest receptors.

It was recommended that the placement of infrastructure should consider the identified sensitive areas to minimise the potential for environmental impact. Through the micro-siting process, the sensitive environmental features that were identified during the Scoping phase have been taken into consideration by the developer in designing the layout of the wind energy facility. The number of turbines as indicated in the Scoping Report has been reduced from up to 40 turbines to a maximum of 32 turbines. The proposed alternative layouts of infrastructure for the wind energy facility are discussed further in Chapter 3.

Introduction Page 12 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Figure 1.2: Preliminary sensitivity map of the Wind Energy Facility based on sensitivities identified at Scoping Phase.

Introduction Page 13 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

1.5. Objectives of the Environmental Impact Assessment Process

The Scoping phase was completed in October 2016 with the submission of a Final Scoping Report to the DEA, and the acceptance of scoping received from DEA on 31 October 2016. The Scoping phase included desk-top studies and limited field-survey and served to identify potential impacts associated with the proposed development and to define the extent of studies required within the EIA phase. Input from the project developer, specialists with experience in the broader study area and in EIAs for similar projects, as well as a public consultation process with key stakeholders, which included both government authorities and interested and affected parties (I&APs), was included in the evaluation of impacts.

Appendix 3 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Process of the EIA Regulations, 2014, contains the objectives to be achieved through the undertaking of an EIA process. The following objectives have been considered and undertaken through a consultative process within this final EIA report for the Hartebeest Wind Farm:

» The policies and legislative context associated with the location of the wind energy facility and the manner in which the proposed development complies with and responds to the relevant policies and legislative context. » The need and desirability of the proposed Hartebeest Wind Farm in the context of the preferred location. » The location of the preferred development footprint within the site based on an impact and risk assessment process including cumulative impacts and a ranking process of the development footprint focusing on the geographical, physical, biological, social, economic, heritage and cultural aspects of the environment in order to determine the nature, significance, consequence, extent, duration, and probability of the impacts occurring to inform identified preferred alternatives and the degree to which these impacts can be reversed, may cause irreplaceable loss of resources, and can be avoided, managed or mitigated. » Identify the most ideal location for the Hartebeest Wind Farm within the preferred site based on the lowest level of environmental sensitivity identified during the assessment. » Identify, assess and rank the impacts that the wind energy facility will have on the preferred location through the life of the development. » Identify suitable and appropriate measures to avoid, manage or mitigate identified impacts and identify residual risks which need to be managed and monitored.

The release of the EIA report for a 30-day review period has provided stakeholders with an opportunity to review and provide input in terms of potential issues and concerns that may be associated with the establishment of the wind energy facility. This final EIA report for submission to the DEA considers and incorporates all issues, concerns and responses raised during the review period of the EIA report. The DEA will also consider

Introduction Page 14 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017 these issues, concerns and responses in their decision-making of the application for Environmental Authorisation.

1.6. Details of Environmental Assessment Practitioner and Expertise to conduct the Scoping and EIA

Savannah Environmental was contracted by Hartebeest Wind Farm (Pty) Ltd as an independent consultant to undertake an EIA process for the proposed project, as required by the NEMA EIA Regulations. Neither Savannah Environmental, nor any of its specialist sub-consultants on this project are subsidiaries of or affiliated to Hartebeest Wind Farm (Pty) Ltd. Furthermore, Savannah Environmental does not have any interests in secondary developments that may arise out of the authorisation of the proposed project.

Savannah Environmental is a specialist environmental consulting company providing a holistic environmental management service, including environmental assessment and planning to ensure compliance and evaluate the risk of development; and the development and implementation of environmental management tools. Savannah Environmental benefits from the pooled resources, diverse skills and experience in the environmental field held by its team.

The Savannah Environmental team have considerable experience in environmental impact assessments and environmental management, and have been actively involved in undertaking environmental studies, for a wide variety of projects throughout South Africa, including those associated with electricity generation.

» Thalita Botha, the principle author of this report holds a BSc degree with Honours in Environmental Management and has one year of experience in environmental consulting. Her key focus is on environmental impact assessments, public participation, mapping (using ArcGIS), environmental management plans and programmes. » Gabriele Wood, the public participation consultant for this project, holds an Honours Degree in Anthropology, obtained from the University of Johannesburg. She has 9 years consulting experience in public participation and social research. Her experience includes the design and implementation of public participation programmes and stakeholder management strategies for numerous integrated development planning and infrastructure projects. Her work focuses on managing the public participation component of Environmental Impact Assessments and Basic Assessments undertaken by Savannah Environmental. » Jo-Anne Thomas, the lead Environmental Assessment Practitioner (EAP) for the project, is a registered Professional Natural Scientist and holds a Master of Science degree. She has 18 years of consulting experience in the environmental field. Her key focus is on strategic environmental assessment and advice; management and co-ordination of environmental projects, which includes integration of environmental

Introduction Page 15 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

studies and environmental processes into larger engineering-based projects and ensuring compliance to legislation and guidelines; compliance reporting; the identification of environmental management solutions and mitigation/risk minimising measures; and strategy and guideline development. She is currently responsible for the project management of EIAs for several renewable energy projects across the country.

In order to adequately identify and assess potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed project, Savannah Environmental has appointed several specialist consultants to conduct the specialist studies, as required. In order to adequately identify and assess potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed project, the following specialist consultants have conducted specialist assessments:

Specialist Area of Expertise Simon Todd Ecology Ricardo Ramalho (Bioinsight South Africa) Avifauna Ricardo Ramalho (Bioinsight South Africa) Bats Toni Belcher (Blue Science) Surface Water Tim Hart (ACO Associates) Heritage Christo Lubbe (independent specialist with external Soil and Agricultural Potential review from Johann Lanz) Jon Marshall (Afzelia Environmental Consultants & Visual Environmental Planning and Design) Tony Barbour and Schalk van der Merwe Social (Environmental Consulting and Research) Morné de Jager (Enviro-Acoustic Research cc) Noise Hermanus Steyn (Aurecon) Traffic

Appendix A includes the curricula vitae for the environmental assessment practitioners from Savannah Environmental and the specialist consultants.

Introduction Page 16 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

PROJECT DESCRIPTION CHAPTER 2

This chapter provides an overview of the planned Hartebeest Wind Farm and details the project scope which includes the planning/design, construction, operation and decommissioning activities. This chapter also explores the need and desirability of the project at the preferred site location.

2.1. Legal Requirements as per the EIA Regulations for the undertaking of an Environmental Impact Assessment Report, 2014

This chapter of the EIA report includes the following information required in terms of the EIA Regulations, 2014 - Appendix 3: Content of Environmental Impact Assessment Reports:

Requirement Relevant Section Page reference 3(c) a plan which locates the The preliminary layout for the 26 proposed activity or activities development of the applied for as well as the Hartebeest Wind Farm is associated structures and included as Figure 2.2 and infrastructure at an section 2.3. appropriate scale, or, if it is a linear activity, a description and coordinates of the corridor in which the proposed activity or activities is to be undertaken 3(d)(ii) a description of the A description of the wind 22-27 and 53 proposed activity, including a energy facility and the description of the associated infrastructure and structures structures and infrastructure associated with the related to the development. development is included in section 2.3. and section 4.2.3 of Chapter 4 3(f) a motivation for the need The need and desirability for 18-20 and desirability for the the development of the proposed development, Hartebeest Wind Farm, including the need and including the consideration of desirability of the activity in the technology as well as the the context of the preferred proposed location is included location. in section 2.2.

Project Description Page 17 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

2.2. Need and Desirability of the Development at the preferred site location

The need and desirability of the development of the wind energy facility is evident within national, provincial and local level policy and planning. The overarching objective for the wind energy facility planning process is to maximise electricity production through exposure to the wind resource, while minimising infrastructure, operational and maintenance costs, as well as social and environmental impacts. The Hartebeest Wind Farm is proposed to be constructed outside of the urban edge on properties currently zoned for agricultural use. The affected farm portions have not been considered for an alternative land use such as urban development and are currently under cultivation. With appropriate placement of the wind farm infrastructure within the property, the current land use can continue on the property.

2.2.1. Need for the Project at a National Level

The need for the proposed wind energy facility at a National Level is linked to increasing pressure on most countries to increase their share of renewable energy generation due to concerns such as exploitation of non-renewable resources, ensuring national energy supply meets our economic growth and the rising cost of fossil fuels. In addition, as South Africa has ratified the Paris Agreement regarding Climate Change, there is an international obligation to reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions through, inter alia, the use of renewable technologies for power generation.

In order to meet the long-term goal of a sustainable renewable energy industry, a target of 17.8 GW of renewables by 2030 has been set by the Department of Energy (DoE) within the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) 20104 and incorporated in the REIPPP Programme initiated by the DoE. The plan contributes towards socio-economic and environmentally sustainable growth, and will further stimulate the renewable industry in South Africa. The energy procured through this programme will be produced mainly from wind, solar, biomass, and small-scale hydro (with wind and solar comprising the bulk of the power generation capacity). The IRP 2010 projected that an additional capacity of up to 56 539MW of generation capacity will be required to support the country’s economic development and ensure adequate reserves over the next twenty years. The current iteration of the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) for South Africa, initiated by the Department of Energy (DoE) after a first round of public participation in June 2010, led to the Revised Balanced Scenario (RBS) that was published in October 2010. In addition to all existing and committed power plants, the RBS included a nuclear fleet of 9.6 GW; 6.3 GW of coal; 17.8 GW of renewables (including wind and solar); and 8.9 GW of other generation sources.

4 Note that an updated IRP is currently available for public review and includes a larger allocation to renewable energy.

Project Description Page 18 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

2.2.2. Need for the Project at a Provincial Level

At present, a significant quantity of power supplied to the Western Cape is generated in the Eskom coal-fired power stations elsewhere in the country (predominantly located in Mpumalanga) and transferred to the Cape via the national transmission network. A portion of the Province’s electricity is however generated locally, including energy from the Koeberg Nuclear Power Plant, the Acacia Gas Turbines, the Palmiet Pumped Storage Facility, the Open Cycle Gas Turbine plants at Atlantis and Mossel Bay (peaking power) and several IPP-operated renewable energy facilities. The City of Cape Town also produces a small amount of electricity through the Steenbras Pumped Storage facility and local gas turbines. Although Eskom has transmission power line strengthening plans in place to assist in securing electricity supply for the Western Cape, there are a range of other options that may be preferable. This includes the diversification of the energy supply mix and the broadening of the localised energy generation options.

At a provincial level, the proposed project would contribute towards the target of 15% renewable energy for the province and reduction in carbon emissions as set by the White Paper on Sustainable Energy (the purpose of which is to create an enabling policy environment in the Western Cape in order to promote and facilitate energy generation from renewable sources, as well as efficient energy use technologies and initiatives). In addition, the project is in line with the Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan for the Western Cape in that it would contribute to one of the four programmes which are prioritised (i.e. the reduction of the Province’s carbon footprint which is identified as the key mitigatory response) and its associated strategies (including promotion of energy efficiency (including demand management), and the development of renewable and alternate sustainable energy resources).

The Western Cape Provincial Growth and Development Strategy (PGDS) lays great emphasis on the extreme vulnerability of the province to climate change (generally hotter, drier conditions are generally predicted for the WC), and is aligned with the Western Cape Climate Change Strategy. The PGDS notes that, with current available budgeting, a key necessary intervention is that, “assistance needs to be provided in the development of new economic sectors e.g. renewable energy sector, solar, wind and wave energy and water sector.” The proposed project is in line with this identified intervention.

Renewable energy projects are currently under development within the Western Cape as part of the Department of Energy’s Renewable Energy Independent Power Producer Programme (REIPPP). The proposed project would provide a further opportunity for a wind energy development, with the aim of contributing to the Provincial target for renewable energy.

Project Description Page 19 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

2.2.3. Need for the Project at a Local Level

At a local level, the proposed project will assist the municipality in meeting the objectives and actions for the 7 Strategic Outcomes identified within the Swartland Integrated Development Plan (IDP) for the period 2012 – 2017 (adopted by the Municipal Council on 31 May 2011).

The IDP identifies the following existing trends and concerns with regard to the Swartland Local Municipality:

» unemployment and under-employment; » an increasing gap between rich and poor; » inequitable patterns of spatial development; and » islands of poverty.

A number of root causes are identified, including the prevailing poor economic climate and high levels of local unemployment, which are often linked to low levels of education and skills. The development of the proposed Hartebeest Wind Farm will be associated with economic benefits including economic growth and development (economic opportunities such as jobs and expenditure in the local area). Therefore, the Hartebeest Wind Farm will contribute towards diversifying the local economy with a relatively new industry and creating employment opportunities for the local community which will assist in alleviating the poverty and unemployment levels.

At a local level, the wind resources are believed to be amongst the best in South Africa. Therefore, the potential to develop wind energy facilities as part of the Western Cape Sustainable Energy Strategy is considered to be high. In terms of the Wind Atlas for South Africa (WASA), the average wind speed as measured across the Province at a height of 12 m is between 5 and 7 m/s.

2.3. Benefits of Renewable Energy

The generation of electricity from renewable energy resources offers a range of potential socio-economic and environmental benefits for South Africa. These benefits include:

Increased energy security: Given that renewables can often be deployed in a short timeframe and in a decentralised manner close to consumers, they offer the opportunity for improving grid strength and supply quality in the short-term, while reducing expensive distribution losses. As a result of the power constraints in the first half of 2015, power generators meant to be the “barely-ever-used” safety net for the system (diesel-fired gas turbines) were running at > 30% average load factor in the first half of 2015. Load shedding occurred during 82 days in the first half of 2015 (out of 181 days). Results of a CSIR Energy Centre study for the period January to June 2015 (CSIR,

Project Description Page 20 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

August 2015), concluded that the already implemented renewable projects (wind and solar) within the country avoided 203 hours of so-called 'unserved energy'. During these hours the supply situation was so tight that some customers' energy supply would have had to be curtailed ('unserved') if it had not been for the renewables. The avoidance of unserved energy cumulated into the effect that during 15 days from January to June 2015 load shedding was avoided entirely, delayed, or a higher stage of load shedding prevented thanks to the contribution of the wind and PV projects5.

Resource saving: It is estimated that the achievement of the targets in the Renewable Energy White Paper will result in water savings of approximately 16.5 million kilolitres per annum. As an already water-stressed nation, it is critical that South Africa engages in a variety of water conservation measures, particularly due to the detrimental effects of climate change on water availability. Renewable energy also translates into revenue savings, as fuel for renewable energy facilities is free while compared to the continual purchase of fuel for conventional power stations. Results of a CSIR Energy Centre study for January – June 2015 (CSIR, August 2015) have quantified the contribution from renewable energy to the national power system and the economy over the first 6 months of 2015 compared to the 12 months of 2014:

2015 (6 months) 2014 (12 months) R3.60 billion saving in diesel and coal fuel costs R3.64 billion saving in diesel and coal fuel costs 200 hours of unserved energy avoided, saving 120 hours of unserved energy avoided, saving at least an additional R1.20 billion–R4.60 billion at least an additional R1.67 billion for the for the economy economy Generated R4.0 billion more financial benefits Generated R0.8 billion more financial benefits than cost than cost

Exploitation of our significant renewable energy resource: At present, valuable renewable resources including biomass by-products, solar radiation and wind power remain largely unexploited. The use of these energy flows will strengthen energy security through the development of a diverse energy portfolio in South Africa.

Economics: As a result of the excellent resource and competitive procurement processes, both wind power and solar PV power are now proven in South Africa as cheaper forms of energy generation than coal power. They offer excellent value for money to the economy and citizens of South Africa.

Pollution reduction: The releases of by-products through the burning of fossil fuels for electricity generation have a particularly hazardous impact on human health and contribute to ecosystem degradation. The use of solar radiation or wind for power generation is a non-consumptive use of a natural resource which produces zero emissions during its operation.

5(http://ntww1.csir.co.za/plsql/ptl0002/PTL0002_PGE157_MEDIA_REL?MEDIA_RELEASE_NO=7526896)

Project Description Page 21 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Climate friendly development: The uptake of renewable energy offers the opportunity to address energy needs in an environmentally responsible manner and thereby allows South Africa to contribute towards mitigating climate change through the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. South Africa is estimated to be currently responsible for approximately 1% of global GHG emissions (and circa half of those for which Africa is responsible) and is currently ranked 9th worldwide in terms of per capita carbon dioxide emissions. The renewable energy sector saved South Africa 1.4 million tons of carbon emissions over the first 6 months of 20156.

Support for international agreements: The effective deployment of renewable energy provides a tangible means for South Africa to demonstrate its commitment to its international agreements under the Kyoto Protocol, and for cementing its status as a leading player within the international community.

Employment creation: The development, procurement, installation, maintenance and management of renewable energy facilities have significant potential for job creation and skills development in South Africa. Until now, the REIPPP Programme has contributed to more than 109,443 employment opportunities during both construction and operational phases (Department of Energy, 2015).

Acceptability to society: Renewable energy offers a number of tangible benefits to society including reduced pollution concerns, improved human and ecosystem health and climate friendly development.

Support to a new industry sector: The development of renewable energy offers the opportunity to establish a new industry within the South African economy, which will create jobs and skill local communities which have potential for further renewable energy projects.

Protecting the natural foundations of life for future generations: Actions to reduce our disproportionate carbon footprint can play an important part in ensuring our role in preventing dangerous anthropogenic climate change; thereby securing the natural foundations of life for generations to come. This is the basis of sustainable development.

2.4. Project and Site Description

The proposed project site is located approximately 4km south-south east of Moorreesburg in the Swartland Local Municipality of the Western Cape Province and within the greater West Coast District Municipality. The purpose of the proposed wind energy facility will be to generate electricity to be fed into the National electricity grid. The facility is proposed within the following farm portions:

6 http://www.iol.co.za/capetimes/renewable-energy-saving-sa-billions-csir-1.1903409#.VkNjdJq6FeU

Project Description Page 22 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

» Farm Zwartfontein 414 ∗ Portion 20, 21 and 23 ∗ Remainder of Portion 8, 11, 12, 13, 17 and 18 » Farm Zwartfontein 416 ∗ Portion 1 and 7 ∗ Remainder of Portion 3 » Farm Hartebeestfontein 412 » Portion 2 and 6 » Portion 0 of Farm 10667 » Portion 1 of the Farm Tontelberg 424 » Portion 9 of the Farm Biesjesfontein 413

The proposed development footprint of the Hartebeest Wind Farm will be ~47ha in extent, and excludes development within the Remaining Extent of Portion 12 and 18 of Farm Zwartfontein 414, Portion 8, 20 and 21 of Farm Zwartfontein 414.

Landowner negotiations and land use considerations have resulted in a reduction in size of the proposed project site envisaged for the development of the project during the scoping phase. The original development footprint for the Hartebeest Wind Farm has decreased from 3830ha to approximately 3288ha in extent. The project site will no longer include Portion 5 of the Farm Zwartfontein 416. The full extent of the project site (i.e. 3288ha) has been considered through the Scoping Phase of the EIA process, within which the development footprint for the wind energy facility (approximately 47ha in extent) has been located.

The number of turbines as indicated in the Scoping Report has been reduced from 40 to the maximum of 32 turbines in response to environmental sensitivities identified within the project site during the scoping phase as well as land use considerations. The proposed wind energy facility considers two different layouts: one comprising 25 wind turbines (preferred layout) and a second comprising 32 wind turbines (alternative layout) (refer to Figure 2.2 and Figure 2.3).

Table 2.1 below provides the details of the project site proposed for the Hartebeest Wind Farm, including the main infrastructure and services.

Table 2.1: Details of the proposed project site for the Hartebeest Wind Farm Province Western Cape Province District Municipality West Coast District Municipality Local Municipality Swartland Local Municipality Ward number(s) 1, 3 and 4

7 Portion 0 of the Farm 1066 consist of Portion 3 of the Farm Zwartfontein 416, Portion 7 of the Farm Zwartfontein 416 and Portion 26 of the Farm Zwartfontein 414 and will be referred to as Portion 0 of the Farm 1066 in this report.

Project Description Page 23 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Nearest town(s) Moorreesburg (~4km north-north west), Koringberg (~18km north-north west), Saron (~26km east), and Porterville (~30km north east) Farm name(s) and number(s) Farm Zwartfontein 414 Farm Zwartfontein 416 Farm Hartebeestfontein 412 Farm 1066 Farm Tontelberg 424 Farm Biesjesfontein 413 Portion number(s) Farm Zwartfontein 414 - Portion 20, 21, 23 and Remainder of Portion 8, 11, 12, 13, 17 and 18 Farm Zwartfontein 416 – Portion 1, 7 and Remainder of Portion 3 Farm Hartebeestfontein 412- Portions 2 and 6 Farm 1066 – Portion 0 Farm Tontelberg 424 – Portion 1 Farm Biesjesfontein 413 – Portion 9 Extent of the facility The development footprint will be ~47ha. development footprint Current zoning Agricultural Contracted capacity of facility 160MW Farm Zwartfontein 414 - SG 21 C04600100000041400020 Digit Code (s) C04600100000041400021 C04600100000041400023 C04600100000041400008 C04600100000041400011 C04600100000041400012 C04600100000041400013 C04600100000041400017 C04600100000041400018 Farm Zwartfontein 416 - SG 21 C04600100000041600001 Digit Code (s) C04600100000041600007 C04600100000041600003 Farm Hartebeestfontein 412 - C04600100000041200002 SG 21 Digit Code (s) C04600100000041200006

Farm 1066 - SG 21 Digit Code C04600100000106600000 (s) Farm Tontelberg 424 - SG 21 C04600100000042400001 Digit Code (s) Farm Biesjesfontein 413 - SG 21 C04600100000041300009 Digit Code (s) Site Co-ordinates Northern-most extent: 33°8’47.37’’ S 18°42’ 46.29’’ E Eastern-most extent: 33°13’6.12’’ S 18°46’35.03’’ E Southern-most extent: 33°13’34.15’’ S 18°44’51.22’’ E

Project Description Page 24 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Western-most extent: 33°10’11.05’’ S 18°40’27.52’’ E Centre point: 33°11’10.74’’ S 18°43’ 48.09’’ E Services required: Additional » Water will be sourced/from the Swartland Local information on services required Municipality or from the quarry situated within the on the project site have been project site. It has been confirmed that the included in Appendix M4. Swartland Local Municipality will be able to provide the project with 5kl – 40kl per day during the construction phase. » Refuse material disposal - all refuse material generated from the proposed development (100kg – 800kg per week) will be collected by a contractor and will be disposed of at the Highland Landfill in Malmesbury. » Sanitation – all sewage waste (~10kl sewer per week) will be collected by a contractor and will be disposed of at a licensed waste disposal site. This service has been arranged with the municipality and proof has been included in Appendix M4.

The broader site is proposed to accommodate both the wind turbines as well as the associated infrastructure which is required for such a facility including, but not limited to:

» A maximum of 32 wind turbines, with a maximum hub height of 130m and a maximum rotor diameter of 160m. » Concrete foundations to support the turbines. » Cabling between the turbines, to be laid underground where practical. » An on-site substation of 100m x 100m in extent to facilitate the connection between the wind energy facility and the electricity grid. » An overhead power line to connect the facility to the electricity grid. Two alternatives are being considered: ∗ Alternative 1: A connection to the existing Moorreesburg 132/66kV substation at 132kV via a 132 kV power line. The length of the power line required to be constructed for this connection will be ~4km. ∗ Alternative 2: A connection to the existing Moorreesburg 132/66kV substation at 66kV via a 132 kV power line (operated at 66kV but built and permitted to 132kV specification to cater for the option of connecting to the 132 kV feeder bay within the substation should this be required). The length of the power line required to be constructed for this connection will be ~3.5km. » Access roads to the site (8m in width). » Internal access roads (8m in width, 13m in width at certain sections to accommodate the crawler crane) to each turbine and to the on-site substation. » Temporary infrastructure including a concrete batching plant of 50m x 50m in extent to facilitate with the concrete requirements for turbine foundations and/or towers construction and laydown areas (~6ha). » Workshop area / office for control, maintenance and storage, construction camp.

Project Description Page 25 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Project Description Page 26 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Figure 2.2: Preliminary layout map for the Hartebeest Wind Farm showing Layout Alternative 1 (25 turbine layout option) and power line alternatives (refer to Appendix Q for A3 Map).

Project Description Page 27 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Figure 2.3: Preliminary layout map for the Hartebeest Wind Farm showing Layout Alternative 2 (32 turbine layout option) and power line alternatives (refer to Appendix Q for A3 Map).

Project Description Page 28 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

2.5. Project Construction Phase

The construction phase of the wind farm is dependent on the number of turbines to be erected, but is estimated at 18 months. The project will create direct construction employment opportunities over this period.

No on-site labour camps are envisaged during the construction period. The most suitable accommodation for construction workers will be identified nearer the time, however it is envisaged that they will be accommodated in the nearby towns such as Moorreesburg, and transported to and from site on a daily basis. Overnight on-site worker presence would be limited to security staff. Services such as waste removal and sanitation will be handled by a contractor whereas electricity will be generated from generators and/or conventional grid supply, water will be supplied by the municipality and/or sourced from the onsite quarry.

Construction is envisaged to begin in 2019 should the project receive the necessary approvals, including Environmental Authorisation approved by DEA, allocation granted by Department of Energy, a generating license issued by NERSA, and a Power Purchase Agreement secured with Eskom. In order to construct the proposed wind farm and associated infrastructure, a series of activities will need to be undertaken. The construction process is discussed in more detail below.

2.5.1. Conduct Surveys

Prior to initiating construction, a number of surveys will be required including, but not limited to, a geotechnical survey, site survey and confirmation of the turbine micro-siting footprint, survey of the on-site substation site and survey of power line servitude to determine tower locations and all other associated infrastructure (including access roads).

2.5.2. Establishment of Access Roads to the Site

The proposed project site is accessible from the Main Road which transects the northern portion of the project site. Access/haul roads to the site as well as internal access roads within the site are required to be established prior to the commencement of construction. As far as possible, existing access roads would be utilised to minimise impact, and upgraded where required. Within the site itself, access will be required between the turbines for construction purposes (and later limited access for maintenance). Special haul roads, of 13m in width in places if a ‘crawler crane’ is used, may need to be constructed to and within the site to accommodate abnormally loaded vehicle access and circulation during the construction period. The internal service road alignment will be informed by the final micro-siting/positioning of the wind turbines and will be 8m wide.

Project Description Page 29 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

These access roads will have to be constructed in advance of any components being delivered to site, and will remain in place after completion for future access and for maintenance purposes. It is proposed that in preparing the access road, a portion of it (8m in width) will be constructed as a permanent access road and the remainder as a temporary access road that can be de-compacted and returned to its pre-construction condition through rehabilitation.

2.5.3. Undertake Site Preparation

Site preparation activities will include clearance of vegetation at the footprint of each turbine, establishment of the laydown areas (refer to Section 2.5.4 below), the establishment of internal access roads and excavations for foundations. These activities will require the stripping of topsoil, which will need to be stockpiled, backfilled and/or spread on site. It is important to note that no natural vegetation will be cleared.

Site preparation will be undertaken in a systematic manner to reduce the risk of open ground to erosion. In addition, site preparation will include identification and excavation of any sites of cultural/heritage value (where required).

2.5.4. Establishment of Laydown Areas and Batching Plant on Site

Laydown areas will need to be established at each turbine position for the storage of wind turbine components. The laydown area will need to accommodate the cranes required in tower/turbine assembly. Laydown and storage areas will be required to be established for the normal civil engineering construction equipment which will be required on site.

A large laydown area will be required at each position where the main lifting crawler crane may be required to be erection and/or disassembled. This laydown area will include a construction camp. Each turbine needs a flat and hardened laydown area of approximately 40m x 40m, needed during the construction phase. This area would be required to be compacted and levelled to accommodate the assembly crane, which would need to access the crawler crane from all sides.

No borrow pits will be located on site. Any infilling or depositing materials will be sourced from licenced borrow pits within the surrounding areas.

Due to the volume of concrete that will be required, an on-site batching plant is required to ensure a continuous concreting operation. The concrete batching plant of 50m x 50m in extent will be required to facilitate the concrete requirements for turbine foundations and/or towers construction.

Project Description Page 30 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

2.5.5. Construction of Foundation

Concrete foundations will be constructed at each turbine location. Foundation holes will be mechanically excavated to a depth of approximately 3m. Concrete will be sourced from the onsite batching plant or be batched at an appropriate location off-site and brought to site when required via ready-mix cement trucks if the batching plant on-site is not approved. The reinforced concrete foundation of approximately 15m x 15m x 3m will be poured to support a mounting ring (Figure 2.3 and Figure 2.4). The foundation will then be left for up to a week to cure.

Figure 2.3: Photograph illustrating the construction of the foundation for a wind turbine (photo sourced from www.blm.gov).

Project Description Page 31 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Figure 2.4: Photograph illustrating a completed foundation for a wind turbine (photo sourced from www.juwi.com).

2.5.6. Transport of Components and Equipment to Site

The wind turbine, including the tower, will be brought to the site by the turbine supplier in sections on flatbed trucks. Turbine units which must be transported to site consist of: the tower (in segments), hub, nacelle, and three rotor blades. The individual components are defined as abnormal loads in terms of Road Traffic Act (Act No 29 of 1989)8 by virtue of the dimensional limitations (abnormal length of the blades) and load limitations (i.e. the nacelle). In addition, components of various specialised construction and lifting equipment are required on site to erect the wind turbines and need to be transported to site. In addition to the specialised lifting equipment/cranes, the normal civil engineering construction equipment will need to be brought to the site for the civil works (e.g. excavators, trucks, graders, compaction equipment, cement trucks, site offices etc.).

The components required for the establishment of the substation (including transformers) as well as the associated infrastructures will also be transported to site as required.

The dimensional requirements of the load during the construction phase (length/height) may require alterations to the existing road infrastructure (e.g. widening on corners), accommodation of street furniture (e.g. street lighting, traffic signals, telephone lines etc.) and protection of road-related structures (i.e. bridges, culverts, portal culverts,

8 A permit will be required for the transportation of these abnormal loads on public roads.

Project Description Page 32 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017 retaining walls etc.) as a result of abnormal loading. These alterations will be undertaken in consultation with the relevant roads authorities.

The equipment will be transported to the site using appropriate National and Provincial roads, and the dedicated access/haul road to the site itself.

2.5.7. Erection of Turbine

A large lifting crane will be brought on site. It will lift the tower sections into place. The nacelle, which contains the gearbox, generator, and yawing mechanism, will then be placed onto the top of the assembled tower. The next step will be to assemble or partially assemble the rotor (i.e. the blades of the turbine) on the ground. It will then be lifted to the nacelle and bolted in place. A small crane will likely be needed for the assembly of the rotor while a large crane will be needed to put it in place. It will take approximately 1 week to erect a single turbine, although this will depend on the climatic conditions as a relatively wind-free day will be required for the installation of the rotor.

The lifting cranes will be required to move between the turbine sites. The crawler crane is self-powered and can “crawl” between locations should the ground conditions allow. When assembled, the crawler crane has a track width of approximately 11m, and would require a track of 13m in width to move on.

2.5.8. Construction of Substation

One substation will be constructed within the site footprint. The turbines will be connected to the substation via underground cabling. The final position of the substation will be informed by the final micro-siting/positioning of the wind turbines as the layout of the turbines will determine the optimum position for the construction of a substation. The internal substation will be constructed with a high-voltage (HV) yard footprint of up to 100m x 100m.

The proposed substation would be constructed in the following simplified sequence:

Step 1: Survey of the site Step 2: Site clearing and levelling and construction of access road to substation site Step 3: Construction of terrace and substation foundation Step 4: Assembly, erection and installation of equipment (including transformers) Step 5: Connection of conductors to equipment Step 6: Rehabilitation of any disturbed areas and protection of erosion sensitive areas.

Project Description Page 33 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

2.5.9. Connection of Wind Turbines to the Substation

Each wind turbine will be connected to the optimally positioned substation on site by underground electrical cables. The installation of these cables will require the excavation of trenches, approximately 1-2m in depth within which these cables can then be laid. The underground cables will be planned to follow the internal access roads, as far as possible.

2.5.10. Establishment of Ancillary Infrastructure

A workshop, contractor’s equipment camp, temporary storage areas and a construction compound may be required to be constructed. Service buildings for site offices, storage and safe refuelling areas are also required. The establishment of these facilities/buildings will require the clearing of vegetation and levelling of the development site and the excavation of foundations prior to construction. A laydown area for building materials and equipment associated with these buildings will also be required. It is important to note that no natural vegetation will be cleared.

2.5.11. Connect Substation to Power Grid

The on-site substation will connect either to the existing Moorreesburg 132/66kV substation at 132kV via a 4km overhead 132kV power line or at 66kV via a 3.5km overhead 132kV power line. As the substation is operated at 66kV and built to 132kV specification, permitting for 132kV will be necessary. Therefore, the Moorreesburg Substation will require the installation of a new electrical transformer capable of handling 160MW of energy. Prior to the commencement of construction, the authorised route for the power line will be technically assessed, surveyed, and pegged prior to construction.

2.5.12. Temporary Infrastructure

A contractor’s camp is likely to be required to be constructed to accommodate offices, stores, workshops, fuel storage etc. The establishment of these facilities will require the clearing of vegetation (which excludes natural vegetation) and levelling of the site and the preparation of hardened areas suitable for the placing of porta-cabins and containers and the construction of stores and workshops. A laydown area for building materials and equipment associated with the construction of the wind farm will also be required (i.e. a construction camp).

2.5.13. Undertake Site Rehabilitation

As construction is completed in an area, and as all construction equipment is removed from the site, the site will be rehabilitated to pre-construction conditions as specified in the Environmental Management Programme (EMPr). On full commissioning of the

Project Description Page 34 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017 facility, any access points to the site which are not required during the operation phase will be closed and prepared for rehabilitation.

2.6. Project Operation Phase

It is not known at this stage exactly how many people will be responsible for monitoring and maintenance of the facility. It is anticipated that there will be full time security, maintenance and control room staff required on site.

Each turbine within the wind energy facility will be operational except under circumstances of mechanical breakdown, inclement weather conditions, or maintenance activities. The wind turbine will be subject to periodic maintenance and inspection. Periodic oil changes will be required. Any waste products (e.g. oil) will be disposed of in accordance with relevant waste management legislation.

2.7. Project Decommissioning Phase

The turbine infrastructure which will be utilised for the proposed wind farm is expected to have a lifespan of approximately 20 - 25 years (with maintenance). Equipment associated with this facility would only be decommissioned once it has reached the end of its economic life or a decision to repower the facility is considered. The following decommissioning activities have been considered to form part of the project scope.

2.7.1. Site Preparation

Site preparation activities will include confirming the integrity of the access to the site to accommodate required equipment and lifting cranes, preparation of the site (e.g. lay down areas, construction platform) and the mobilisation of construction equipment.

2.7.2. Disassemble and Remove Turbines

A large crane will be brought on site. It will be used to disassemble the turbine and tower sections. These components will be reused, recycled, or disposed of in accordance with regulatory requirements. All parts of the turbine would be considered reusable or recyclable except for the blades. The concrete will be removed to a depth as defined by an agricultural specialist and the area rehabilitated, and cables excavated and removed.

Any decommissioning activities will be required to comply with the legislation relevant at the time.

2.7.3. Future plans for the site and infrastructure after decommissioning

Wind energy technology is fundamentally reversible, when compared to the decommissioning of a nuclear, coal or gas power plant and current land use practices

Project Description Page 35 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017 continue below the wind turbines throughout the lifetime of the facility. If the wind energy facility is decommissioned (12-24 months), and all infrastructure (wind turbines, foundations, crane pads, roads and electrical cables) are removed. Another option would be repowering (12-24 months) the wind energy facility which involves the disassembly and replacement of the existing components with next generation technology. If the wind energy facility is decommissioned, the project site will be rehabilitated to return to the initial land use. This will ensures that all current land use can continue unimpeded.

Project Description Page 36 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

SITE SELECTION AND ALTERNATIVES CHAPTER 3

This chapter provides an overview of the site selection process for the planned Hartebeest Wind Farm and details the preferred site location, site and technology alternatives as well as the ‘do nothing’ option.

3.1. Legal Requirements as per the EIA Regulations for the undertaking of an Environmental Impact Assessment Report, 2014

This chapter of the EIA report includes the following information required in terms of the EIA Regulations, 2014 - Appendix 3: Content of Environmental Impact Assessment Reports:

Requirement Relevant Section Page reference 3(d)(ii) a description of the A description of the wind 3 and 53 proposed activity, including a energy facility and the description of the associated infrastructure and structures structures and infrastructure associated with the related to the development. development is included in section 3.2 and section 4.2.3 of Chapter 4. 3(g) a motivation for the A motivation for the location 18-20 and 43 preferred development of the identified development footprint within the approved footprint within the project site. site is included in section 2.2 of Chapter 2 and section 3.4 3(h)(i) details of the The details of the 37, 41 and 53 development footprint development footprint considered. considered for the Hartebeest Wind Farm is included in section 3.2, section 3.3. and Table 4.1 in Chapter 4. 3(h)(ix) if no alternative A motivation for not 43 development locations for the considering any alternative activity were investigated, the development locations is motivation for not considering included in section 3.4. such.

3.2. Identification of the Moorreesburg Area for a Wind Energy Development

As a prospective Independent Power Producer, Hartebeest Wind Farm (Pty) Ltd is seeking suitable sites for wind energy facilities across South Africa and has identified suitable sites using the following drivers:

Project Description Page 37 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

» Wind characteristics (including speed); » Site accessibility; » Distance to the nearest grid connection point: a function of power line limits, substation capacity and load flows; and » An environmental fatal flaws analysis.

Due to the nature of the development (i.e. a wind energy facility), the location of the project site is largely dependent on technical factors such as the availability of wind (i.e. the fuel source), wind characteristics (including speed), availability of suitable land (extent and topography of the site), suitable proximity in relation to the existing electricity grid, estimated grid capacity available at the nearest Eskom substation and construction and technical point of view.

The developer has determined the proposed project site to be technically suitable for the development of a wind energy facility due to the prevailing wind resources based on on- site data collected for more than a 12-month period using strategically placed 80m and 100m wind monitoring masts. The monitoring confirmed the wind resource and regime on the project site.

Wind resources in the Western Cape are believed to be amongst the best in South Africa. Therefore, the potential to develop wind energy facilities as part of the Western Cape Sustainable Energy Strategy is considered to be high. In terms of the Wind Atlas for South Africa (WASA), the average wind speed as measured across the Province at a height of 12 m is between 5 and 7 m/s (refer to Figure 3.1).

Figure 3.1: WASA map. The Moorreesburg area is indicated by the black circle.

Project Description Page 38 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Four sites were initially considered in the lead up to the selection of the project site and were subjected to internal screening for sites appropriate for wind energy facilities. An internal naming protocol was used, specific to the developer and only used for filing and tracking purposes. Considered sites situated within the Koringberg (Moorreesburg) and within the Akkisberg (Elim) were discarded primarily due to biodiversity concerns, as both sited were confirmed as being located within critically endangered vegetation types. Two areas in the vicinity of Veldrift and an area along the West Coast close to Kleinsee were discarded due to capacity constraints of the national grid.

The Hartebeest Wind Farm project site was selected as the preferred site due to: » Short distance to a connection point at the Moorreesburg 132/66 kV substation » Available transformation capacity; » Project site is close to harbour (in terms of shipping components); » The least environmental constraints compared to other sites considered; and » The area is largely transformed and used for wheat farming. Due to the nature of the wind energy facility, farming practices could still continue without a significant reduction in agricultural output.

The Hartebeest Wind Farm project site was therefore the only site in the area identified by the developer as being technically feasible and viable to take forward to further investigation. The developer has determined the proposed project site to be technically suitable for the development of a wind energy facility due to the prevailing wind resources based on on-site data collected for more than a 12-month period using strategically placed 80m and 100m wind monitoring masts. The monitoring confirmed the wind resource and regime on the project site as being technically feasible to support the sustainable development of a wind energy facility.

The proposed wind energy facility site falls within an area identified as being Negotiable, Preferred or Highly Preferred for wind energy development, with some small areas indicated as being Restricted (refer to Figure 3.2) in terms of the Western Cape Regional Methodology for Wind Energy Site Selection (May, 2006) . The methodology as tested within the DEA&DP assessment is intended to be used as a tool for regulating wind energy developments in the Province through an effective method of determining appropriate locations for such projects based on a combined “criteria based” and “landscape based” assessment method. A key step in the generation of the final output map (refer Figure 3.2) is the merging of positive and negative criteria relating to technical and environmental 'thresholds' with landscape issues related to visibility, landform and land cover.

The use of colour shading is used to illustrate the degree of “positive” or the extent of “negative” factors. The dark green areas illustrate areas where wind turbines would face the least constraints in terms of all environmental and planning criteria considered.

Project Description Page 39 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Figure 3.2: Final output map from the DEA&DP assessment illustrating the results from the merging of positive and negative criteria relating to technical and environmental 'thresholds' (extracted from Western Cape Regional Methodology for Wind Energy Site Selection (May, 2006)). The site near Moorreesburg is contained within the black circle and shows ratings of

Project Description Page 40 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Highly Preferred, Preferred and Negotiable, with small areas shown as Restricted.

The environmental feasibility of the identified preferred site for the proposed development is to be determined through the EIA process currently being undertaken for the site.

3.3. Receptiveness of the proposed site to development of the Wind Energy facility

The use of wind power for electricity generation is essentially a non-consumptive use of a natural resource. The site located south south-east of the town of Moorreesburg has been identified by the developer as a desirable site based on extensive pre-feasibility analysis of significant areas in the Western Cape Province (refer to Section 3.4 below for more details in this regard). The site displays characteristics which make it a preferred site for a wind energy facility and include:

Extent of site: Availability of land of sufficient area for wind energy development can be a restraining factor. The properties desirable and available for wind farm development cover an area of 3288 ha. This area is sufficient for the proposed development and allows for avoidance of environmental sensitivities.

The wind energy facility will have a maximum development footprint (including temporary and permanent infrastructure) of ~47ha which is approximately 1.4% of the land surface area across all the farm portions which allows for sufficient space for the wind energy facility. The landowners have confirmed the availability of the land for the development of the wind energy facility to take place on the properties and an agreed land lease agreement allows the developer to lease the portion proposed for the development area.

Site access: Access to the site is currently possible via existing farm access from the Main Road which transects the northern portion of the project site.

Current land use: The proposed development area was identified as being an area which is potentially suitable for a development of this nature from a land use perspective. The site is currently being utilised for agricultural purposes (wheat) and only a small portion of the farm comprises natural vegetation. As the proposed infrastructure can be planned in such a way as to limit impacts on agricultural activities, the proposal for the establishment of a wind energy facility is not viewed to be in conflict (or result in unacceptable opportunity costs) with current and/or planned future land uses. Due to the nature of the facility, the land occupied by the facility is able to be utilised for agriculture once the turbines are in place and operational and therefore, the Hartebeest Wind Farm will result in a limited loss of cultivated agricultural land in the study area.

Project Description Page 41 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Grid Connection: The existing Eskom Moorreesburg substation and Eskom power line infrastructure is located within the proposed project site which provides a direct connection point to the electricity grid. Two alternatives are being considered within this assessment process: » Alternative 1: A connection to the existing Moorreesburg 132/66kV substation at 132kV via a 132 kV power line. The length of the power line required to be constructed for this connection will be ~4km. » Alternative 2: A connection to the existing Moorreesburg 132/66kV substation at 66kV via a 132 kV power line (operated at 66kV but built and permitted to 132kV specification to cater for the option of connecting to the 132 kV feeder bay within the substation should this be required). The length of the power line required to be constructed for this connection will be ~3.5km.

The capacity of the power line to be constructed to accommodate the transmission of the power generated at the proposed facility to the electricity grid is to be established by Hartebeest Wind Farm (Pty) Ltd in consultation with Eskom but will be up to 132kV.

Wind resource: This is considered to be the main criteria determining the feasibility of the proposed development on the identified site, as the resource will affect the efficiency and economic viability of the facility. Wind monitoring is currently taking place on site using an 80m and a 100m wind monitoring mast to confirm the wind resource and regime on the site and inform the turbine selection process. Based on more than 12- months of monitoring data, the average wind speed is confirmed as being above 7 m/s at hub height, and is considered to be an excellent resource for wind farm development.

Topographic conditions: The site conditions are optimal for a development of this nature, with the project area being of a suitable gradient for a wind energy facility. The region within which the site is located can be described as undulating, typical of the west coastal plain, with a series of koppies running more-or-less north-south through the centre of the study area. The proposed project site is located on land that ranges in elevation from 35m above sea level (a.s.l.) to approximately 320m a.s.l. on the hill crests.

Proximity to Towns with a Need for Socio-Economic Upliftment: The project site is located approximately 4km south-south east to the town of Moorreesburg, which will act as a ready source of local labour during construction of the proposed wind energy facility. The Hartebeest Wind Farm is situated within a 50km radius of Malmesbury, Hopefield, Saron and Porterville. Consequently, local labour would be easy to source, which fits in well with the REIPPP Programme’s economic development criteria for socio- economic upliftment.

The Swartland Local Municipality’s unemployment rate is 14.6% and is likely to be linked to the influx of job seekers to the West Coast District Municipality and the Swartland Local Municipality and their inability to find employment. The development of the proposed

Project Description Page 42 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017 wind energy facility will create a new avenue for economic and skills development within the West Coast District Municipality and the Swartland Local Municipality.

Proximity to Access Road for Transportation of Material and Components: As material and components would need to be transported to the site during the construction phase of the proposed development, accessibility was a key factor in determining the viability of the project, particularly taking transportation costs (direct and indirect) into consideration and the impact of this on project economics.

Sufficient access is available in the surrounding areas and in close proximity to the site for a development of this nature (i.e. a development which is heavily dependent on the transportation of materials and components). The N7 is located on the western boundary and traverses the north western section of the project site. The regional road, R311, is located adjacent to the western boundary and traverses the north western area of the project site. Direct access to the site is possible through a main road which traverses the northern area of the project site. A railway line is located along the western boundary of the project site. The site is therefore easily accessible for transportation of project components.

3.4. Project Alternatives under consideration for the Wind Energy Facility

In accordance with the requirements outlined in Appendix 3 of the EIA Regulations 2014, the consideration of alternatives including site, activity, technology and site access alternatives, as well as the “do-nothing” alternative should be undertaken. The following sections provide a description of project specific alternatives under consideration (refer to Chapter 8 for assessment of these alternatives).

3.4.1. Layout Footprint Design Alternatives

The consideration of the suitability of the site for the proposed project was in line with a typical mitigation hierarchy:

1. First Mitigation: avoidance of adverse impacts as far as possible by use of preventative measures. 2. Second Mitigation: Further minimisation or reduction of adverse impacts. 3. Third Mitigation: remedy or compensation for adverse residual impacts, which are unavoidable and cannot be reduced further.

In determining the development area and development footprint/facility layout for the proposed Hartebeest Wind Farm, a ‘funnel-down approach’ was used and commenced with the consideration of the larger ~3288ha project site.

A broader project site of approximately 3830ha was considered in the Scoping Phase undertaken as part of the EIA process for the Hartebeest Wind Farm. Landowner

Project Description Page 43 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017 negotiations and land use considerations has resulted in a reduction in size of the proposed project site envisaged for the development of the project during the scoping phase and has decreased from 3830ha to approximately 3288ha in extent. During the scoping phase, desktop specialist studies were undertaken in order to provide the developer and the competent authority with site specific information regarding the larger project site considered for the development.

The Scoping Phase studies and the identified sensitivities were utilised as a tool by the developer to identify and locate the development footprint of the wind energy facility within the broader project site. This was undertaken with the aim of avoiding all no-go areas within the development footprint in order to minimise impacts which will be associated with the development.

A technically viable preliminary layout (i.e. development footprint) was designed by the developer for the Hartebeest Wind Farm, whilst considering the sensitivities identified in the Scoping Phase. Two alternative layouts have been proposed for consideration in the EIA phase of the process (refer to Figure 2.2 in Chapter 2):

» Alternative 1: 25 wind turbines (technically preferred alternative) and » Alternative 2: 32 wind turbines

Based on the specialist investigations within the EIA, a preferred alternative will be recommended and the preliminary layout/development footprint to be optimised (as a mitigation strategy) in order to create an optimised and preferred development footprint/optimised layout which is considered as the least intrusive on the environment and most suitable.

3.4.2. Technology Alternatives

Hartebeest Wind Farm (Pty) Ltd as an IPP, only considered renewable energy technologies. Considering the local resources available (i.e. wind and solar irradiation) for such technologies, the footprint requirements for such developments and the current land use on the site, the site is considered most suitable for the establishment of a wind energy facility. This has been confirmed through the on-site wind measurement campaign undertaken by the developer.

Solar energy technology would not be viable within the preferred site location due to the undulating topography of the landscape as well as the larger development footprint and associated impact it poses on agricultural land. As confirmed by on-site wind measurement campaigns, the wind resource available is greater than the predicted solar irradiance in terms of energy generation capacity per m². Hartebeest Wind Farm therefore confirmed wind energy technology as the preferred technology alternative.

Project Description Page 44 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

There is a limited range of alternative technologies (turbines) for commercial-scale wind energy facilities. In addition, the technology is constantly evolving. Table 3.1 summarises the types of variables associated with existing wind turbine technologies. There are no significant differences from an environmental perspective between technologies. The technology provider has not yet been confirmed and will be decided after further wind analysis and a tender process. The developer would utilise the same make and model (and size) of turbine across the whole site.

Table 3.1: Variables associated with existing wind turbine technologies. Variables Description Type The horizontal axis wind turbine completely dominates the commercial scale wind turbine market. Size Typical land-based utility scale wind turbines are currently in the 600 kW to 6MW range internationally. Foundation The foundation is usually poured re-inforced concrete. Its size and shape is dictated by the size of the wind turbine and local geotechnical considerations. The foundation will be 15m x 15m and 3m in depth. Tower Towers are typically constructed from steel and/or concrete. The towers used for the Hartebeest Wind Farm will be 130m. Rotor 3- Bladed rotor is standard. Rotor Speed Control Fixed or variable speed rotors. Gears Geared and Gearless. Generator Standard high speed generator (geared) or custom low-speed ring generator (gearless). Other variables Yaw gears, brakes, control systems, lubrication systems and all other turbine components are similar on modern wind turbines.

Once environmental constraining factors have been determined through the EIA process, and more detailed site-specific wind data is available from the wind monitoring on site, Hartebeest Wind Farm (Pty) Ltd will be considering various wind turbine options. The preferred option will be informed by efficiency as well as environmental impact (such as noise associated with the turbine). In addition, the most optimal layout will be determined in order to maximise the capacity of the site while minimising environmental impacts. The capacity of the proposed Hartebeest Wind Farm will be a maximum of 160MW.

3.4.3. Grid Connection Alternatives

In order to establish a connection between the Hartebeest Wind Farm on-site substation and the grid connection point where the generated electricity will be evacuated into the Eskom national electricity grid, a connection needs to be created. The connection between the on-site substation and the grid connection point will be established through the construction of new overhead power line, up to 132kV in capacity. The grid

Project Description Page 45 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017 connection for the project will be finalised based on input from Eskom and the outcome of the environmental assessment.

Two alternative grid connection points, and therefore two alternative power line routes are being considered for the wind energy facility. The following grid connection power line alternatives have been considered:

» Alternative 1: A connection to the existing Moorreesburg 132/66kV substation at 132kV via a 132 kV power line. The length of the power line required to be constructed for this connection will be ~4km. » Alternative 2: A connection to the existing Moorreesburg 132/66kV substation at 66kV via a 132 kV power line (operated at 66kV but built and permitted to 132kV specification to cater for the option of connecting to the 132 kV feeder bay within the substation should this be required). The length of the power line required to be constructed for this connection will be ~3.5km.

The evacuation of the generated energy via Power Line Alternative 2 would require the installation of a new electrical transformer capable of handling 160MW of energy at Eskom’s Moorreesburg substation. This may require significant construction amendments within the Eskom substation yard to accommodate these upgrades, with associated elevated costs. Furthermore, the same electrical conductor, operating at a lower voltage (66kV) increases the electrical energy losses on the power line, resulting in less energy being fed into the grid. This is considered to be counterintuitive in the attempt to achieve a technical, economical and sustainable project. Therefore, Power Line Alternative 2 is technically more challenging to implement.

3.4.4. The ‘do-nothing’ Alternative

The ‘do-nothing’ alternative is the option of Hartebeest Wind Farm (Pty) Ltd not constructing the Hartebeest Wind Farm. This would result in no environment or social impacts as a result of a wind energy facility in this area. This alternative is assessed in detail within Chapter 8 of this EIA Report.

Project Description Page 46 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

WIND AS A POWER GENERATION TECHNOLOGY CHAPTER 4

Compared with other renewable energy sources such as solar and bio-energy, wind turbines generate the highest energy yield while affecting the smallest physical land space. Wind technologies convert the energy of moving air masses at the earth's surface to mechanical power that can be used directly for mechanical needs (e.g. milling or water pumping) or converted to electric power in a generator (i.e. a wind turbine).

Use of wind for electricity generation is essentially a non-consumptive use of a natural resource, and produces an insignificant quantity of greenhouse gases in its life cycle. A wind energy facility also qualifies as a Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) project (i.e. a financial mechanism developed to encourage the development of low carbon generating technologies technologies) as it meets all international requirements in this regard.

Environmental pollution and the emission of CO2 from the combustion of fossil fuels constitute a threat to the environment. The use of fossil fuels is reportedly responsible for ~70% of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide. The climate change challenge needs to include a shift in the way that energy is generated and consumed. Worldwide, many solutions and approaches are being developed to reduce emissions. However, it is important to acknowledge that the most cost-effective solution in the short-term is not necessarily the least expensive long-term solution. This holds true not only for direct project cost, but also indirect project cost such as impacts on the environment. Renewable energy is considered a ‘clean source of energy’ with the potential to contribute greatly to a more ecologically, socially and economically sustainable future. The challenge now is ensuring wind energy projects are able to meet all economic, social and environmental sustainability criteria.

This chapter explores the use of wind energy as a means of power generation.

4.1. Legal Requirements as per the EIA Regulations for the undertaking of an Environmental Impact Assessment Report, 2014

This chapter of the EIA report includes the following information required in terms of the EIA Regulations, 2014 - Appendix 3: Content of Environmental Impact Assessment Reports:

Requirement Relevant Section Page reference 3(d)(ii) a description of the A description of the wind 22 and 53 proposed activity, including a energy facility and the description of the associated infrastructure and structures structures and infrastructure associated with the

Wind as a Power Generation Technology Page 47 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Requirement Relevant Section Page reference related to the development. development is included in section 2.4 of Chapter 2 and section 4.2.3 of this Chapter.

4.2. The Importance of Wind Resource as Power Generation

The importance of using the wind resource for energy generation has the attractive attribute in that the fuel is free. The economics of a wind energy project crucially depend on the wind resource at the project site. Detailed and reliable information about the speed, strength, direction, and frequency of the wind resource is vital when considering the installation of a wind energy facility, as the wind resource is a critical factor to the success of the installation.

» Wind power is the conversion of wind energy into a useful form, such as electricity, using wind turbines.

» Wind speed is the rate at which air flows past a point above the earth's surface. Average annual wind speed is a critical siting criterion, since this determines the cost of generating electricity. The doubling of wind speed increases the wind power by a factor of 8, so even small changes in wind speed can produce large changes in the economic performance of a wind farm. Wind turbines can start generating electricity at wind speeds of between ~3 m/s to 4 m/s, with wind speeds greater than 6 m/s currently required for a wind energy facility to be economically viable. Wind speed can be highly variable and is also affected by a number of factors, including surface roughness of the terrain. The effect of height variation/relief in the terrain is seen as a speeding-up/slowing-down of the wind due to the topography. Elevation in the topography influences the flow of air, and results in turbulence within the air stream, and this has to be considered in the placement of turbines.

» Wind direction at a site is important to understand as it influences the turbulence over the site, and therefore the potential energy output. However, wind turbines can extract energy from any wind direction as the nacelle automatically turns to face the blades into the predominant wind direction at any point in time.

A wind resource measurement campaign and analysis programme must be conducted for the site proposed for development, as only measured data will provide a robust prediction of the facilities expected energy production over its lifetime. This is being undertaken for the proposed site through the on-site monitoring of the wind resource.

The placement of the individual turbines within a wind energy facility must consider the following technical factors:

» Predominant wind direction, wind strength and frequency

Wind as a Power Generation Technology Page 48 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

» Topographical features or relief affecting the flow of the wind (e.g. causing shading effects and turbulence of air flow) » Effect of adjacent turbines on wind flow and speed – specific spacing is required between turbines in order to reduce the effects of wake turbulence.

Wind turbines typically need to be spaced approximately 3 to 5 times the rotor diameter apart in order to minimise the induced wake effect the turbines might have on each other (refer to Figure 4.1). Once a viable footprint for the establishment of the wind energy facility has been determined (through the consideration of both technical and environmental criteria) the spacing requirements will be considered through the process of micro-siting the turbines on the site.

4.2.1. How do wind turbines function

Wind turbines are mounted on a tower to capture the most energy. The kinetic energy of wind is used to turn a wind turbine to generate electricity. At increased height above ground, they can take advantage of the faster and less turbulent wind. Turbines catch the wind's energy with their propeller-like blades. Usually, two or three blades are mounted on a shaft to form a rotor. Generally a wind turbine consists of three rotor blades and a nacelle mounted at the top of a tapered steel or concrete tower. The mechanical power generated by the rotation of the blades is transmitted to the generator within the nacelle via a gearbox and drive train.

Turbines are able to operate at varying speeds. The amount of energy a turbine can harness depends on both the wind velocity and the length of the rotor blades. It is anticipated that the turbines utilised for the proposed wind energy facility will have a hub height of 130m, and a maximum rotor diameter of 160m. The capacity of the wind energy facility will depend on the wind turbine chosen by Hartebeest Wind Farm (Pty) Ltd (turbine capacity and model that will be deemed most suitable for the site). A maximum of 32 turbines are proposed for the project site.

Other infrastructure associated with the facility includes internal service roads, an access road, power line and a small on-site collector substation. The construction phase of the wind farm is dependent on the number of turbines erected and is estimated at a maximum of approximately 18 months (including all infrastructure). The lifespan of the facility is approximated at 20 to 25 years.

Wind as a Power Generation Technology Page 49 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Figure 4.1: Artist’s impression of a portion of a wind energy facility, illustrating the various components and associated infrastructure. Note that distances and measurements shown are indicative and for illustrative purposes only.

Wind as a Power Generation Technology Page 50 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

4.2.2. Main Components of a Wind Turbine

The turbine consists of the following major components (as shown in Figure 4.2): » The foundation unit » The tower » The rotor » The nacelle

The foundation The foundation is used to secure each wind turbine to the ground. These structures are commonly made of reinforced concrete and are designed to withstand the vertical loads (weight) and lateral loads (wind).

The tower The tower is a hollow structure (steel or concrete or a combination of the two materials) allowing access to the nacelle (approximately 130m in height). The height of the tower is a key factor in determining the amount of electricity a turbine can generate. Small transformers may occur outside each turbine tower, depending on what make and model of turbine is deemed most suitable for the site. Such a transformer would have its own foundation and housing around it. Alternatively, the transformer could be housed within the tower. The transformers convert the electricity to the correct voltage for transmission into the national energy grid.

The tower on which a wind turbine is mounted is not just a support structure. It also raises the wind turbine so that its blades safely clear the ground and so it can reach the stronger winds at higher elevations. The tower must be strong enough to support the wind turbine and to sustain vibration, wind loading and the overall weather elements for the lifetime of the wind turbine.

The Rotor The portion of the wind turbine that collects energy from the wind is called the rotor. The rotor comprises of three rotor blades (the approximate rotor diameter is in the range of 160m). The rotor blades use the latest advances in aeronautical engineering materials science to maximise efficiency. The greater the number of turns of the rotor the more electricity is produced. The rotor converts the energy in the wind into rotational energy to turn the generator. The rotor has three blades that rotate at about 15 to 28 revolutions per minute (rpm). The speed of rotation of the blades is controlled by turning the blades to face into the wind (‘yaw control’), and changing the angle of the blades (‘pitch control’) to make the most use of the available wind.

The rotor blades function in a similar way to the wing of an aircraft, utilising the principles of lift (Bernoulli). When air flows past the blade, a wind speed and pressure differential is created between the upper and lower blade surfaces. The pressure at the

Wind as a Power Generation Technology Page 51 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017 lower surface is greater and thus acts to "lift" the blade. When blades are attached to a central axis, like a wind turbine rotor, the lift is translated into rotational motion. Lift- powered wind turbines are well suited for electricity generation.

The rotation of the rotor blades produces a characteristic ‘swishing’ sound as the blades pass in front of the tower roughly once a second. The other moving parts, the gearbox and generator, cannot be heard unless the observer is physically inside the turbine tower.

Figure 4.2: Illustration of the main components of a wind turbine

The nacelle The nacelle at the top of the tower accommodates the gears, the generator, anemometer for monitoring the wind speed and direction, cooling and electronic control devices, and yaw mechanism. Geared nacelles generally have a longer form/ structure than gearless turbines (as shown in Figure 4.3).

Wind as a Power Generation Technology Page 52 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Figure 4.3: Detailed structure of a typical nacelle of a wind turbine (refer to windenergypros.org)

4.2.3. Description of associated infrastructure

Associated infrastructure includes the concrete foundations to support the turbines, cabling between the turbines, an on-site collector substation, an overhead power line to connect the facility to the national electricity grid, internal access roads to each turbine; and between project components, on-site collector substation, concrete batching plant, laydown areas and workshop area / office for control, maintenance and storage and access roads onto the site.

A summary of the details and dimensions of the planned infrastructure associated with the project is provided in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1: Details or dimensions of typical structures required for the Hartebeest Wind Farm. Infrastructure Footprint and dimensions Location of the site District Municipality - West Coast District Municipality Local Municipality - Swartland Local Municipality Ward number(s) - 1, 3 and 4 Farm Zwartfontein 414 - SG 21 Digit C04600100000041400020 Code (s) C04600100000041400021 C04600100000041400023 C04600100000041400008 C04600100000041400011 C04600100000041400012 C04600100000041400013 C04600100000041400017 C04600100000041400018

Wind as a Power Generation Technology Page 53 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Farm Zwartfontein 416 - SG 21 Digit C04600100000041600001 Code (s) C04600100000041600007 C04600100000041600003 Farm Hartebeestfontein 412 - SG 21 C04600100000041200002 Digit Code (s) C04600100000041200006 Farm 1066 - SG 21 Digit Code (s) C04600100000106600000 Farm Tontelberg 424 - SG 21 Digit C04600100000042400001 Code (s) Farm Biesjesfontein 413 - SG 21 Digit C04600100000041300009 Code (s) Number of turbines A maximum of 32 turbines Hub Height 130m Rotor Diameter 160m Project Size 160 MW; 3288ha (project site) Area occupied by on-site substation 100m x 100m Capacity of on-site substation 33kV/132kV Area occupied by construction 6ha laydown areas (including construction camp) Internal access roads ~28km of internal road linking a maximum of 32 turbine locations 8m in width, 13m in width at certain sections to accommodate the crawler crane Concrete bathing plant 50m x 50m O&M Building 1ha Temporary Hardstand Area (boom ~15ha erection, storage and assembly area) Turbines Reinforced Foundation – 15m x 15m x 3m Crane Platform – ~3,4ha Site Access Access to the site is currently possible via existing farm access from the Main Road which transects the northern portion of the project site. Proximity to grid connection Less than 200m from Moorreesburg Substation. Fencing Fencing will be required round the O&M Building and on- site substation and will be a maximum of 5m high.

4.2.4. Operating Characteristics of a Wind Turbine

A turbine is designed to operate continuously, unattended and with low maintenance for more than 20 years or >120 000 hours of operation. Once operating, a Wind Energy Facility can be monitored and controlled remotely, with a mobile team for maintenance, when required.

Wind as a Power Generation Technology Page 54 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

The cut-in speed is the minimum wind speed at which the wind turbine will generate usable power. This wind speed is typically between ~3 m/s and 4 m/s.

At very high wind speeds, typically over 25 m/s, the wind turbine will cease power generation and shut down. The wind speed at which shut down occurs is called the cut- out speed. Having a cut-out speed is a safety feature which protects the wind turbine from damage. Normal wind turbine operation usually resumes when the wind drops back to a safe level.

It is the flow of air over the blades and through the rotor area that makes a wind turbine function. The wind turbine extracts energy by slowing the wind down. The theoretical maximum amount of energy in the wind that can be collected by a wind turbine's rotor is approximately 59%. This value is known as the Betz Limit. If the blades extracted 100% of the wind’s energy, a wind turbine would not work because the air, having given up all its energy, would entirely stop. So, if a blade were 100% efficient then it would theoretically extract 59% of the energy as this is the maximum (due to Betz law). In practice, the collection efficiency of a rotor is not 100%. A more typical efficiency is 35% to 45%. A complete wind energy system incurs losses through friction etc. and modern systems end up converting between 20-25% of the energy in the air into electricity which equates to 34-42% of the maximum (due to Betz Law).

However, because the energy in the air is free, describing how efficiently the energy is converted is only useful for system improvement and monitoring purposes. A more useful measurement is the Capacity Factor which is also represented as a percentage. The Capacity Factor percentage is calculated from the actual MWh output of electricity from the entire wind farm over 1 year divided by the nameplate maximum theoretical output for the same period. It therefore also takes wind resource, wind variability and system availability (downtime, maintenance and breakdowns) into account.

Wind turbines can be used as stand-alone applications, or they can be connected to a utility power grid. For utility-scale sources of wind energy, a large number of wind turbines are usually erected close together to form a wind energy facility.

Wind as a Power Generation Technology Page 55 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

REGULATORY AND PLANNING CONTEXT CHAPTER 5

This chapter provides insight into the policy and legislative context within which the Hartebeest Wind Farm is located and document the manner in which the development of the wind energy facility complies with and responds to these policies and legislation.

5.1. Legal Requirements as per the EIA Regulations for the undertaking of an Environmental Impact Assessment Report, 2014

This chapter of the EIA report includes the following information required in terms of Appendix 3: Content of Environmental Impact Assessment Reports:

Requirement Relevant Section Page Reference 3(e) a description of the policy The policies and legislation 59-85 and legislative context within associated with the which the development is development is included in located and an explanation of sections 5.3-5.6. how the proposed development complies with and responds to the legislation and policy context.

5.2. Strategic Electricity Planning in South Africa

The need to expand electricity generation capacity in South Africa is based on national policy and is informed by on-going strategic planning undertaken by the Department of Energy (DoE). The hierarchy of policy and planning documentation that support the development of renewable energy projects such as wind energy facilities is illustrated in Figure 5.1. These policies are discussed in more detail in the following sections, along with the provincial and local policies or plans that have relevance to the development of the proposed Hartebeest Wind Farm.

Regulatory and Planning Context Page 56 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Figure 5.1: Hierarchy of electricity policy and planning documents

The regulatory hierarchy for an energy generation project of this nature consists of three tiers of authority who exercise control through both statutory and non-statutory instruments – that is National, Provincial and Local levels.

At National Level, the main regulatory agencies are:

» Department of Energy (DoE): This Department is responsible for policy relating to all energy forms, including renewable energy, and is responsible for forming and approving the IRP (Integrated Resource Plan for Electricity). » National Energy Regulator of South Africa (NERSA): This body is responsible for regulating all aspects of the electricity sector, and will ultimately issue licenses for renewable energy developments to generate electricity. » Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA): This Department is responsible for environmental policy and is the controlling authority in terms of NEMA and the EIA Regulations. The DEA is the competent authority for this project, and charged with granting the relevant environmental decision on the project. » The South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA): SAHRA is a statutory organisation established under the National Heritage Resources Act, No 25 of 1999, as the national administrative body responsible for the protection of South Africa’s cultural heritage. » Department of Transport – South African Civil Aviation Authority (SACAA): This department is responsible for aircraft movements and radar, which are aspects that influence renewable energy development location and planning. » South African National Roads Agency Limited (SANRAL): This Agency is responsible for the regulation and maintenance of all national routes.

Regulatory and Planning Context Page 57 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

» Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS): This Department is responsible for water resource protection, water use licensing and permits. » The Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF): This Department is the custodian of South Africa’s agriculture, fisheries and forestry resources and is primarily responsible for the formulation and implementation of policies governing the Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Sector. This Department is also responsible for the issuing of permits for impacts on protected tree species. » The Department of Science and Technology: This department is the administrating authority for the Astronomy Geographical Advantage Act (Act 21 of 2007). » Department of Mineral Resources (DMR): Approval from the DMR is required to use land surface contrary to the objects of the Act in terms of Section 53 of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act, (Act No 28 of 2002): In terms of the Act approval from the Minister of Mineral Resources is required to ensure that proposed activities do not sterilise a mineral resource that might occur on site.

At Provincial Level, the main regulatory agencies are:

» Provincial Government of the Western Cape – Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (DEA&DP): This department is the responsible authority for review of environmental assessments and development planning applications within the Western Cape. They are the commenting authority for this project. » Department of Transport and Public Works (Western Cape): This department is responsible for Provincial roads within the Western Cape, and for the granting of exemption permits for the conveyance of abnormal loads on public roads. » CapeNature: This Department’s involvement relates specifically to the biodiversity and ecological aspects of the proposed development activities on the receiving environment to ensure that developments do not compromise the biodiversity value of an area. The Department considers the significance of impacts specifically in threatened ecosystems as identified by the National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment or systematic biodiversity plans. » Western Cape Department of Agriculture: This Department’s involvement relates specifically to sustainable agricultural resource management and land care. » Heritage Western Cape: The provincial heritage resources authority within the Western Cape. This public entity seeks to identify, protect and conserve the rich and diverse heritage resources of the Western Cape. HWC is mandated to promote co- operative governance between national, provincial and local authorities for the identification, conservation and management of heritage resources. » Catchment Management Agencies (CMA): Berg – Olifants Proto-Catchment Management Agency is responsible for evaluating and issuing licenses pertaining to water use.

At Local Level the local and municipal authorities are the principal regulatory authorities responsible for planning, land use and the environment. In the Western Cape, both the

Regulatory and Planning Context Page 58 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017 local and district municipalities play a role. The local municipality is the Swartland Local Municipality which forms part of the West Coast District Municipality.

In terms of the Municipal Systems Act (Act No 32 of 2000) it is compulsory for all municipalities to go through an Integrated Development Planning (IDP) process to prepare a five-year strategic development plan for the area under their governance.

5.3. National Policy and Planning

Further to the South African government’s commitment in August 2011 to support the development of 3 725MW of renewable energy capacity, the Department of Energy (“DoE”) initiated the Renewable Energy Independent Power Producer Procurement Program (“REIPPPP”) to procure renewable energy from the private sector in a series of rounds. To date, the DoE has procured more than 6 000MW of renewable energy capacity from 92 independent producers, with 37 having started commercial operation, adding 1 860MW to the grid.

5.3.1 The Kyoto Protocol, 1997

South Africa’s electricity is mainly generated from coal-based technologies. South Africa accounts for ~38% of Africa’s CO2 (a greenhouse gas contributing to climate change) from burning of fossil fuels and industrial processes. The Kyoto Protocol is an international agreement linked to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. South Africa ratified the Kyoto Protocol in 2002. The Kyoto Protocol requires developing countries to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions through actively cutting down on using fossil fuels, or by utilising more renewable resources. Therefore, certain guidelines and policies (discussed further in the sections below) were put in place for the Government's plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The development of renewable energy projects (such as the proposed Hartebeest Wind Farm) is therefore in line with South Africa’s international obligations in terms of the Kyoto Protocol. A second commitment period commenced from 1 January 2013, and extends to 31 December 2020.

5.3.2. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and COP21 – Paris Agreement

Climate change is one of the major global challenges of the 21st century that require global response. The adverse impacts of climate change include persistent drought and extreme weather events, rising sea levels, coastal erosion and ocean acidification, further threatening food security, water, energy and health, and more broadly, efforts to eradicate poverty and achieving sustainable development. Combating climate change would require substantial and sustained reductions in greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs), which, together with adaptation, can limit climate change risks. The convention

Regulatory and Planning Context Page 59 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017 responsible for dealing with climate change is called United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

The UNFCCC was adopted in 1992 and entered into force in 1994. It provides the overall global policy framework for addressing the climate change issue and marks the first international political response to climate change. The UNFCCC sets out a framework for action aimed at stabilizing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases to avoid dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.

The Convention has established a variety of arrangements to govern, coordinate and provide for oversight of the arrangements described in this document. The oversight bodies take decisions, provide regular guidance, and keep the arrangements under regular review in order to enhance and ensure their effectiveness and efficiency. The Conference of Parties (COP), established by Article 7 of the Convention, is the supreme body and highest decision-making organ of the Convention. It reviews the implementation of the Convention and any related legal instruments, and takes decisions to promote the effective implementation of the Convention.

COP 21 was held in Paris from 30 November to 12 December 2015. From this conference, an agreement to tackle global warming was reached between 195 countries. This Agreement is open for signature and subject to ratification, acceptance or approval by States and regional economic integration organizations that are Parties to the Convention from 22 April 2016 to 21 April 2017. Thereafter, this Agreement shall be open for accession from the day following the date on which it is closed for signature. The agreement can only enter into force once it has been ratified by 55 countries, representing at least 55% of emissions.

This Agreement, in enhancing the implementation of the Convention, including its objective, aims to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change, in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty, by:

(a) Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change; (b) Increasing the ability to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change and foster climate resilience and low greenhouse gas emissions development, in a manner that does not threaten food production; (c) Making finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development.

In order to achieve the long-term temperature goal set out in Article 2 of the Agreement, Parties aim to reach global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible. Recognizing that peaking will take longer for a developing country and to undertake

Regulatory and Planning Context Page 60 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017 rapid reductions thereafter in accordance with best available science, so as to achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century, on the basis of equity, and in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty.

The Paris Agreement requires all Parties to put forward their best efforts through “nationally determined contributions” (NDCs) and to strengthen these efforts in the years ahead. This includes requirements that all Parties report regularly on their emissions and on their implementation efforts. In 2018, Parties will take stock of the collective efforts in relation to progress towards the goal set in the Paris Agreement and to inform the preparation of NDCs. There will also be a global stocktake every 5 years to assess the collective progress towards achieving the purpose of the Agreement and to inform further individual actions by Parties.

In working towards this goal, advanced economies have already included renewables in their energy mix and have planned to increase their use in order to meet their mitigation goals: Japan aims to derive 22-24% of its electricity production from renewable sources by 2030 and the European Union plans for them to reach 27% of its final energy consumption. Developing countries are also playing their part, including South Africa which has included a goal of 17,8GW of renewables by 2030 within the IRP.

South Africa signed the Agreement in April 2016, and ratified the agreement on 01 November 2016. The Agreement was assented to by the National Council of Provinces on 27 October 2016, and the National Assembly on 1 November 2016. The Agreement came into force on 04 November 2016, thirty days after the date on which at least 55 Parties to the Convention accounting in total for at least an estimated 55 % of the total global greenhouse gas emissions have deposited their instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession with the Depositary.

5.3.3. National Climate Change Response Policy 2011

South Africa’s National Climate Change Response Policy (NCCRP) establishes South Africa’s approach to addressing climate change, including adaptation and mitigation responses. The NCCRP formalises Government’s vision for a transition to a low carbon economy, through the adoption of the ‘Peak, Plateau and Decline’ (PPD) GHG emissions trajectory whereby South Africa’s emissions should peak between 2020 and 2025, plateau for approximately a decade, and then decline in absolute terms thereafter, and based on this the country has pledged to reduce emissions by 34% and 42% below Business As Usual (BAU) emissions in 2020 and 2025, respectively.

Regulatory and Planning Context Page 61 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

5.3.4. White Paper on the Renewable Energy Policy of the Republic of South Africa (2003)

The White Paper on Renewable Energy Policy supplements the Government’s overarching policy on energy as set out in its White Paper on the Energy Policy of the Republic of South Africa (DME, 1998). The White Paper on Renewable Energy Policy recognises the significance of the medium and long-term potential of renewable energy. The main aim of the policy is to create the conditions for the development and commercial implementation of renewable technologies. The position of the White Paper on Renewable Energy is based on the integrated resource planning criterion of:

“Ensuring that an equitable level of national resources is invested in renewable technologies, given their potential and compared to investments in other energy supply options.”

The White Paper on Renewable Energy sets out Government’s vision, policy principles, strategic goals and objectives for promoting and implementing renewable energy in South Africa. It also informs the public and the international community of the Government’s vision, and how the Government intends to achieve these objectives; and informs Government agencies and organs of their roles in achieving the objectives.

South Africa relies heavily on coal to meet its energy needs because it is well-endowed with coal resources in particular. However South Africa is endowed with renewable energy resources that can be sustainable alternatives to fossil fuels, but which have so far remained largely untapped. This White Paper fosters the uptake of renewable energy in the economy and has a number of objectives that include:

» ensuring that equitable resources are invested in renewable technologies; » directing public resources for implementation of renewable energy technologies; » introducing suitable fiscal incentives for renewable energy and; » creating an investment climate for the development of renewable energy sector.

The objectives of the White Paper are considered in six focal areas, namely: financial instruments, legal instruments, technology development, awareness raising, capacity building and education, and market based instruments and regulatory instruments. The policy supports the investment in renewable energy facilities as they contribute towards ensuring energy security through the diversification of energy supply, reducing GHG emissions and the promotion of renewable energy sources.

The White Paper set a target of 10 000GWh to be generated from renewable energy by 2013. The target was reviewed during the renewable energy summit of 2009 held in Pretoria. The summit raised the issue over the slow implementation of renewable energy projects and the risks to the South African economy of committing national

Regulatory and Planning Context Page 62 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017 investments in the energy infrastructure to coal technologies. Other matters that were raised include potential large scale roll out of solar water heaters and enlistment of Independent Power Producers (IPP) to contribute to the diversification of the energy mix.

5.3.5. The National Energy Act (2008)

The National Energy Act was promulgated in 2008 (Act No 34 of 2008). One of the objectives of the Act was to promote diversity of supply of energy and its sources. In this regard, the preamble makes direct reference to renewable resources, including wind:

“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, taking into account environmental management requirements; to provide for increased generation and consumption of renewable energies (Preamble).”

The National Energy Act provides the legal framework which supports the development of renewable energy facilities for the greater environmental and social good.

5.3.6. The Electricity Regulation Act, 2006 (Act No. 4 of 2006), as amended

The Electricity Regulation Act, 2006, replaced the Electricity Act, 1987 (Act No. 41 of 1987), as amended, with the exception of Section 5B, which provides for the funds for the energy regulator for the purpose of regulating the electricity industry. The Act establishes a national regulatory framework for the electricity supply industry & introduces the National Energy Regulator as the custodian and enforcer of the National Electricity Regulatory Framework. The Act also provides for licences & registration as the manner in which generation, transmission, distribution, trading and the import & export of electricity are regulated.

5.3.7. Renewable Energy Policy in South Africa

Internationally there is increasing development of the use of renewable technologies for the generation of electricity due to concerns such as climate change and exploitation of resources. In response, the South African government ratified the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in August 1997 and acceded to the Kyoto Protocol, the enabling mechanism for the convention, in August 2002. In addition, national response strategies have been developed for both climate change and renewable energy.

Investment in renewable energy initiatives, such as the proposed wind energy facility, is supported by the National Energy Policy (DME, 1998). This policy recognises that renewable energy applications have specific characteristics which need to be considered.

Regulatory and Planning Context Page 63 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

The Energy Policy is “based on the understanding that renewables are energy sources in their own right, and are not limited to small-scale and remote applications, and have significant medium- and long-term commercial potential.” In addition, the National Energy Policy states that “Renewable resources generally operate from an unlimited resource base and, as such, can increasingly contribute towards a long-term sustainable energy future”.

The support for the Renewable Energy Policy is guided by a rationale that South Africa has a very attractive range of renewable resources, particularly solar and wind, and that renewable applications are, in fact, the least cost energy service in many cases from a fuel resource perspective (i.e. the cost of fuel in generating electricity from such technology); more so when social and environmental costs are taken into account. In spite of this range of resources, the National Energy Policy acknowledges that the development and implementation of renewable energy applications has been neglected in South Africa.

Government policy on renewable energy is therefore concerned with meeting the following challenges:

» Ensuring that economically feasible technologies and applications are implemented; » Ensuring that an equitable level of national resources is invested in renewable technologies, given their potential and compared to investments in other energy supply options; and » Addressing constraints on the development of the renewable industry.

5.3.8. National Development Plan

The National Development Plan (NDP) contains a plan aimed at eliminating poverty and reducing inequality by 2030. The NDP identifies 9 key challenges and associated remedial plans. Managing the transition towards a low carbon national economy is identified as one of the 9 key national challenges. Expansion and acceleration of commercial renewable energy is identified as a key intervention strategy.

The proposed project will support many of the objectives of the National Development Plan (NDP). Some of these objectives are listed below:

» Create 11 million jobs by 2030; and » Procuring about 20 000MW of renewable electricity by 2030.

Infrastructure is a key priority of the NDP, which identifies the need for South Africa to invest in a strong network of economic infrastructure to support the country’s medium- and long-term economic and social objectives. The NDP has been approved and adopted by government and has received strong endorsement from broader society. The plan sets out steps that aim to ensure that, in 20 years, South Africa's energy system looks

Regulatory and Planning Context Page 64 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017 very different to the current situation: coal will contribute proportionately less to primary-energy needs, while gas and renewable energy resources – especially wind, solar and imported hydroelectricity – will play a much larger role.

5.3.8. Integrated Energy Plan

The development of a national Integrated Energy Plan (IEP) was envisaged in the White Paper on Energy Policy of 1998 and the Minister of Energy, as entrenched in the National Energy Act of 2008 (Act No. 34 of 2008), is mandated to develop and publish the IEP on an annual basis. The IEP takes existing policy into consideration and provides a roadmap of the future energy landscape for South Africa which guides future energy infrastructure investments and policy development.

The IEP takes into consideration the crucial role that energy plays in the entire economy of the country and is informed by the output of analyses founded on a solid fact base. It is a multi-faceted, long-term energy framework which has multiple aims, some of which include:

» To guide the development of energy policies and, where relevant, set the framework for regulations in the energy sector. » To guide the selection of appropriate technologies to meet energy demand (i.e. the types and sizes of new power plants and refineries to be built and the prices that should be charged for fuels). » To guide investment in and the development of energy infrastructure in South Africa. » To propose alternative energy strategies which are informed by testing the potential impacts of various factors such as proposed policies, introduction of new technologies, and effects of exogenous macro-economic factors.

Eight key objectives for energy planning were identified:

» Objective 1: Ensure the security of supply » Objective 2: Minimise the cost of energy » Objective 3: Promote the creation of jobs and localisation » Objective 4: Minimise negative environmental impacts from the energy sector » Objective 5: Promote the conservation of water Minimise emissions from the energy sector » Objective 6: Diversify supply sources and primary sources of energy » Objective 7: Promote energy efficiency in the economy » Objective 8: Increase access to modern energy

The IEP recognises the potential of renewable energy for power generation. The IEP also recognises wind as an alternative source of power, even though it is limited to windy areas on the coast.

Regulatory and Planning Context Page 65 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

5.3.9. Final Integrated Resource Plan 2010 - 2030

The Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) 2010-30 was promulgated in March 2011. The primary objective of the IRP 2010 is to determine the long term electricity demand and detail how this demand should be met in terms of generating capacity, type, timing and cost. However, the IRP 2010 also serves as input to other planning functions, inter alia economic development, and funding, environmental and social policy formulation. The accuracy of the IRP 2010 is to be improved by regular reviews and updates, and a draft revised Plan is currently available for public comment. The IRP 2010 projected that an additional capacity of up to 56 539MW of generation capacity will be required to support the country’s economic development and ensure adequate reserves over the next twenty years. The required expansion is more than two times the size of the existing capacity of the system.

The current iteration of the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) for South Africa, initiated by the Department of Energy (DoE) after a first round of public participation in June 2010, led to the Revised Balanced Scenario (RBS) that was published in October 2010. The document outlines the proposed generation new build fleet for South Africa for the period 2010 to 2030. This scenario was derived based on the cost-optimal solution for new build options (considering the direct costs of new build power plants), which was then “balanced” in accordance with qualitative measures such as local job creation. In addition to all existing and committed power plants, the RBS included a nuclear fleet of 9.6 GW; 6.3 GW of coal; 17.8 GW of renewables (including wind and solar); and 8.9 GW of other generation sources. This means that 75% of new generation capacity by 2030 will be derived from energy sources other than coal.

The updated IRP currently available for public review is produced by updating the optimisation model (using IRP 2010-30 as a base) with the latest assumptions and input parameters. A number of Government policy positions imposed in the IRP 2010-30 are maintained, inter alia, the annual build constraints for new capacity for Wind (1600 MW) and PV (1000 MW) and emissions constraints. This indicates that at any given year the optimisation model is not able to build more the stipulated quantum of wind and PV.

5.3.10. Strategic Integrated Projects

In 2010, a National Development Plan was drafted to address socio economic issues affecting development in South Africa. These issues were identified and placed under 18 different Strategic Integrated Projects (SIPs) 9 to address the spatial imbalances of the past by addressing the needs of the poorer provinces and enabling socio-economic

9 The South African Government adopted a National Infrastructure Plan in 2012 with the objective that government aims to transform South Africa’s economic landscape whilst simultaneously creating significant numbers of new jobs, and strengthening the delivery of basic services. The plan also supports the integration of African economies. The SIPs cover social and economic infrastructure across all nine provinces (with an emphasis on lagging regions). The SIPs include catalytic projects that can fast-track development and growth.

Regulatory and Planning Context Page 66 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017 development. Amongst these is the green energy in support of South African Economy i.e. SIP 8 (Green energy in support of the South African economy). The SIP aims at supporting sustainable green energy initiatives on national scale through a diverse range of clean energy options as envisaged in the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP, 2010). The proposed Hartebeest Wind Farm is a potential Strategic Infrastructure Project

» SIP 8: Green energy in support of the South African economy: The proposed Hartebeest Wind Farm is a potential SIP 8 Project and would only become a SIP project if selected as a preferred bidder project by the Department of Energy. SIP 8 supports sustainable green energy initiatives on a national scale through a diverse range of clean energy options as envisaged in the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP 2010).

» SIP 9: Electricity generation to support socioeconomic development: The proposed Hartebeest Wind Farm is a potential SIP 9 Project and would only become a SIP 9 project if selected as a preferred bidder project by the Department of Energy. SIP 9 supports the acceleration the construction of new electricity generation capacity in accordance with the IRP2010 to meet the needs of the economy and address historical imbalances.

5.4. Provincial and Local Level Developmental Policy

5.4.1. White Paper on Sustainable Energy for the Western Cape (2010)

The White Paper on Sustainable Energy compliments the Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan, specifically by inter alia setting targets for renewable energy generation. The White Paper is currently in Final Draft form. Once approved by Provincial cabinet, it will constitute the formal Western Cape’s policy document on which the Western Cape Sustainable Energy Facilitation Bill will be based. The purpose of the White Paper and the envisaged Bill is to create an enabling policy environment in the Western Cape in order to promote and facilitate energy generation from renewable sources, as well as efficient energy use technologies and initiatives.

The White Paper forms part of PGWC’s strategy to aimed at removing a number of barriers (e.g. energy pricing, legal, institutional, low levels of investment confidence, insufficient knowledge) currently frustrating the Province’s energy goals by preventing the adoption and commercialization of clean energy (including electricity generation from renewable sources such as wind and solar) technologies and initiatives. The White Paper notes that, with regard to sources of renewable energy, wind and solar both represent commercially viable options in the Province. The document proposes that special focus should be given to these renewables subsectors and specific associated technologies in particular in order to achieve critical mass of installation, and thus drive down establishment costs and ensure permanent employment opportunities.

Regulatory and Planning Context Page 67 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

In summary, the purpose of the White Paper on Sustainable Energy (further referred to as the “White Paper” in this subsection) is to create an enabling policy environment in the Western Cape in order to promote and facilitate energy generation from renewable sources, as well as efficient energy use technologies and initiatives. This objective forms an integrated part of the Province’s overarching energy policy objectives, namely:

• To ensure medium-term energy security, sufficient in order to support economic growth; • To reduce energy poverty; • To increase the efficient use of energy; • To limit the greenhouse emissions footprint (associated with the use of fossil fuels); • To decrease reliance on finite fossil fuel resources and associated unpredictable commodity markets.

The White Paper notes that, with regard to sources of renewable energy, wind and solar both represent commercially viable options in the Province. The document proposes that special focus should be given to these renewables subsectors and specific associated technologies in particular in order to achieve critical mass of installation, and thus drive down establishment costs and ensure permanent employment opportunities.

5.4.2. Western Cape Draft Strategic Plan (WCDSP) (2014-2019)

The Western Cape Provincial Strategic Plan (WCPSP) was adopted by Cabinet in 2014. It builds upon the 2009-2014 Draft Provincial Strategic Plan (‘Building an Open Opportunity Society for All’) which formed the overarching strategic framework during the incumbent provincial government’s first term in office. The WCDSP 2014-2019 sets out the overarching vision and priorities for its second term in office, i.e. until 2019. It is hoped that the systems, structures and budgets which were put in place during the first term would help facilitate implementation of the new Plan. At the same time, the current Plan reflects provincial government’s (PGWC) shift from a ‘silo-based’ (single department) to a transversal (cross-cutting) approach to government. The five strategic goals identified for the 2014-2019 period are:

» Creating opportunities for growth and jobs; » Improving education outcomes and opportunities for youth development; » Increasing wellness and safety, and tackling social skills; » Enabling a resilient, sustainable, quality and inclusive living environment; and » Embedding good governance and integrated service delivery through partnerships and spatial alignment.

5.4.4. Western Cape Provincial Spatial Development Framework (2014)

The Western Cape Provincial Spatial Development Framework (PSDF) was approved by MEC Bredell (Local Government, Environmental Affairs and Development Planning) in

Regulatory and Planning Context Page 68 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

April 2014. In his Preface to the 2014 PSDF, the MEC indicated that the 2014 PSDF carries the buy-in of all the Provincial Departments to inform and guide their sector planning/spatial development strategies, and is therefore ‘owned’ by all Heads of Department. The 2014 PSDF reflects Provincial Government Western Cape’s (PGWC) new transversal (cutting across departments) approach to government, while providing greater clarity with regard to the planning responsibilities of the three spheres of government.

The PSDF is based on guiding principles, namely: » Spatial justice » Sustainability and resilience; » Spatial efficiency; » Accessibility; and » Quality and Liveability.

Under sustainability and resilience, the PSDF notes that land development should be spatially compact, resource-frugal, compatible with cultural and scenic landscapes, and should not involve the conversion of high potential agricultural land or compromise ecosystems.

The PSDF is in response to a number of associated escalating risks, including understanding the spatial implications of known risks (e.g. climate change and its economic impact and sea level rise, flooding and wind damage associated with extreme climatic events); and energy insecurity, high levels of carbon emissions, and the economic impacts of the introduction of a carbon tax.

5.4.5. Guidelines for the Management of Development on Mountains, Hills and Ridges in the Western Cape (2002)

The aim of the Guideline is to provide a decision-making framework with regard to developments which include listed activities in terms of National Environmental Management Act Regulations, and which are proposed in an environment which is characterised by mountains, hills and ridges. The Guideline notes that mountains, hills and ridges are subject to a range of development pressures. A guiding framework is therefore needed to control development in these areas. Key reasons listed are:

» Provide catchment areas for valuable water resources; » Often characterized by unique and sensitive ecosystems; » Have aesthetic / scenic value; and » Provide “wilderness” experience opportunities.

The Guideline defines a mountain, hill or ridge as “a physical feature that is elevated above the surrounding landscape”.

Regulatory and Planning Context Page 69 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

The Guideline is divided into 2 sections. The second deals with key decision-making criteria which need to be taken into account when adjudicating the suitability of developments in such areas. Key criteria which are of specific relevance to the proposed wind energy facility include:

» Development on the crest of a mountain, hill or ridge should be strongly discouraged; » Preserve landform features through ensuring that the siting of facilities is related to environmental resilience and visual screening capabilities of the landscape; » Adopt the precautionary principle to decision making; and » The criteria used to assess developments in these areas include, amongst others, density of the development, aesthetics, location, value in terms of “sense of place”, character of adjacent land use, character of the general area, and cumulative impacts which may arise from other existing and planned developments in the area.

It should be noted that the proposed Hartebeest Wind Farm project site is located in a landscape characterised by rolling hills in an agricultural setting.

5.5. District and Local Level Developmental Policy

These strategic policies at the district and local level have similar objectives for the respective areas, namely to accelerate economic growth, create jobs, uplift communities and alleviate poverty. The proposed development is considered to align with the aims of these policies.

5.5.1. West Coast District Municipality Spatial Development Framework (WCSDF) (2012-2016)

The vision of the West Coast District IDP (2012-2016) is to provide “A quality destination of choice through an open opportunity society”. The spatial vision contained in WCSDF is “to Promote Sustainable Development, prioritise development in highest growth potential areas, encourage and facilitate development along the key corridors within the West Coast District”. The SDF lists three goals that underpin the West Coast District Spatial Strategy and Vision, namely:

» Goal 1: Enhance the capacity and quality of infrastructure in the areas with the highest economic growth potential, while ensuring continued provision of sustainable basic services to all residents in the District; » Goal 2: To facilitate and create an enabling environment for employment, economic growth and tourism development, while promoting access to public amenities such as education and health facilities; and » Goal 3: Enhance and protect the key biodiversity and agricultural assets in the district and plan to minimise the human footprint on nature, while also mitigating the potential impact of nature (climate change) on the residents of the district.

Regulatory and Planning Context Page 70 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

A sectoral analysis and assessment of the West Coast District Economy identified the key sectors for future growth. Renewable energy has been identified as a key sector. The SDF notes that “wind and solar projects can become a key sector in the study area” and that the manufacturing and distribution of renewable energy components, such as wind turbines, can further promote this sector. With regard to manufacturing, although the sector has contracted since 2008 that there is potential to grow, especially in the context of the Saldanha Bay IDZ, which will enhance industrial development in the area and will create more employment opportunities.

With specific reference to renewable energy the SDF states that the wind resources in the West Coast District are substantial and comparably high in relation to the rest of the country. The region also leads the country in terms of implementation experience with regards to the establishment of a number of wind farms in the WCDM. In addition the Saldanha Harbour, the West Coast District has sufficient infrastructure and capacity to facilitate the import of wind turbines.

5.5.2. Swartland Integrated Development Plan (2012-2017)

The 2012 - 2017 Swartland IDP constitutes the last annual revision of the current 5-year IDP cycle (2012-2017). The IDP was adopted by Council in May 2012.

The mission of the Swartland Municipality is to “promote social and economic stability and growth through the sustainable delivery of services in terms of our legal powers and functions to all our interested parties”.

The most relevant aspect for the proposed wind energy facility is linked to Strategic Outcome 8: Local economic development that is conducive to job opportunities and an improved quality of life.

The IDP identifies the following existing trends and concerns with regard to the Municipality: unemployment and under-employment; an increasing gap between rich and poor; inequitable patterns of spatial development; and islands of poverty. A number of root causes are identified, including the prevailing poor economic climate and high levels of local unemployment, which are often linked to low levels of education and skills. Proposed intervention strategies include support and promotion of education, skills development and training, the growth of the Municipality’s economic sectors with comparative advantage (agriculture, tourism, manufacture), and the promotion of local business development.

Regulatory and Planning Context Page 71 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

5.6. Legislation and Guidelines

The following legislation and guidelines have informed the scope and content of this EIA Report:

» National Environmental Management Act (Act No. 107 of 1998). » EIA Regulations, published under Chapter 5 of NEMA (GNR R982 in Government Gazette No 38282 of December 2014). » Guidelines published in terms of the NEMA EIA Regulations. » Provincial Government Western Cape, Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning: Guideline for Environmental Management Plans, 2005. » Provincial Government Western Cape, Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning: Guideline for the Management of Development on Mountains, Hills and Ridges in the Western Cape (2002). » International guidelines – the Equator Principles and the International Finance Corporation and World Bank Guidelines.

Table 5.1 overleaf provides an outline of the legislative permitting requirements applicable to the Hartebeest Wind Farm as identified at this stage in the project process.

Regulatory and Planning Context Page 72 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Table 5.1: Relevant legislative permitting requirements applicable to the Hartebeest Wind Farm Legislation Applicable Requirements Relevant Authority Compliance requirements National Legislation National Environmental The EIA Regulations have been promulgated in terms of » National Department of The listed activities triggered Management Act (Act No Chapter 5 of the Act. Listed activities which may not Environmental Affairs – by the proposed Hartebeest 107 of 1998) commence without an environmental authorisation are Competent Authority. Wind Farm have been identified within these Regulations. » Western Cape DEA&DP identified and assessed in the EIA process being undertaken In terms of S24(1) of NEMA, the potential impact on the (i.e. Scoping and EIA). This environment associated with these listed activities must be EIA Report will be submitted assessed and reported on to the competent authority to the competent and charged by NEMA with granting of the relevant commenting authority in environmental authorisation. support of the application for authorisation. In terms of GN R982, R983, R984 and R985 of December 2014, a Scoping and EIA Process is required to be undertaken for the proposed project. National Environmental In terms of the Duty of Care provision in S28(1) the Department of While no permitting or Management Act (Act No project proponent must ensure that reasonable measures Environmental Affairs (as licensing requirements arise 107 of 1998) are taken throughout the life cycle of this project to ensure regulator of NEMA). directly by virtue of the that any pollution or degradation of the environment proposed project, this section associated with this project is avoided, stopped or will find application during the minimised. EIA phase and will continue to apply throughout the life cycle In terms of NEMA, it has become the legal duty of a project of the project. proponent to consider a project holistically, and to consider the cumulative effect of a variety of impacts. National Environmental The Minister may by notice in the Gazette publish a list of » Hazardous Waste – » As no waste disposal site Management: Waste Act, waste management activities that have, or are likely to National DEA is to be associated with 2008 (Act No. 59 of 2008) have, a detrimental effect on the environment. » General Waste –DEA&DP the proposed project, no permit is required in this The Minister may amend the list by – regard.

Regulatory and Planning Context Page 73 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Legislation Applicable Requirements Relevant Authority Compliance requirements » Waste handling, storage » Adding other waste management activities to the list. and disposal during » Removing waste management activities from the list. construction and » Making other changes to the particulars on the list. operation is required to be undertaken in In terms of the Regulations published in terms of this Act accordance with the (GN 921 of November 2013), a Basic Assessment or requirements of this Act, Environmental Impact Assessment is required to be to be detailed in the EMPr undertaken for identified listed activities. (refer to Appendix N).

Any person who stores waste must at least take steps, unless otherwise provided by this Act, to ensure that: » The containers in which any waste is stored, are intact and not corroded or in any other way rendered unlit for the safe storage of waste. » Adequate measures are taken to prevent accidental spillage or leaking. » The waste cannot be blown away. » Nuisances such as odour, visual impacts and breeding of vectors do not arise; and » Pollution of the environment and harm to health are prevented. Environment Conservation In terms of section 25 of the ECA, the national noise- » National Department of There is no requirement for a Act (Act No 73 of 1989) control regulations (GN R154 in Government Gazette No. Environmental Affairs noise permit in terms of the 13717 dated 10 January 1992) were promulgated. The (DEA) legislation. A Noise Impact NCRs were revised under Government Notice No R55 of 14 » Western Cape DEA&DP Assessment is required to be January 1994 to make it obligatory for all authorities to » Swartland Local undertaken in accordance apply the regulations. Municipality with SANS 10328. This was completed as part of the EIA Subsequently, in terms of Schedule 5 of the Constitution of process for the project in South Africa of 1996, legislative responsibility for Appendix L).

Regulatory and Planning Context Page 74 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Legislation Applicable Requirements Relevant Authority Compliance requirements administering the noise control regulations was devolved to provincial and local authorities. Provincial Noise Control Regulations exist in the Western Cape Province. National Water Act (Act No Water uses under S21 of the Act must be licensed unless Department of Water and A Water Use Licence (WUL) or 36 of 1998) such water use falls into one of the categories listed in S22 Sanitation (DWS) General Authorisation (GA) is of the Act or falls under general authorisation in terms of required as some drainage S39 and GN 1191 of GG 20526 October 1999. lines on the site will be impacted upon by road In terms of Section 19, the project proponent must ensure crossings. Application for a that reasonable measures are taken throughout the life WUL or GA will be made to cycle of this project to prevent and remedy the effects of the DWS in terms of Section pollution to water resources from occurring, continuing or 21 of the Act. recurring. Minerals and Petroleum A mining permit or mining right may be required where a Department of Mineral Should material not be Resources Development mineral in question is to be mined (e.g. materials from a Resources (DMR) sourced from a commercial Act (Act No 28 of 2002) borrow pit) in accordance with the provisions of the Act. source and a borrow pit(s) be considered necessary, the Section 53 Department of Mineral Resources: Approval Contractor shall source and from the Department of Mineral Resources (DMR) may be apply for the relevant permit required to use land surface contrary to the objects of the from the DMR. Act in terms of Section 53 of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act, (Act No 28 of 2002): In terms of the Act approval from the Minister of Mineral Resources is required to ensure that proposed activities do not sterilise a mineral resource that might occur on site. National Environmental » S18, S19 and S20 of the Act allow certain areas to be » Swartland Local While no permitting or Management: Air Quality declared and managed as “priority areas” Municipality licensing requirements are Act (Act No 39 of 2004) » Declaration of controlled emitters (Part 3 of Act) and » West Coast District applicable to this project, this controlled fuels (Part 4 of Act) with relevant emission Municipality Act will find application during standards. the construction phase of the

Regulatory and Planning Context Page 75 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Legislation Applicable Requirements Relevant Authority Compliance requirements » Dust Control Regulations promulgated in November project in terms of dust 2013 requires the implementation of a dust monitoring management. plan should this be deemed necessary by the air emissions officer. » The Act provides that an air quality officer may require any person to submit an atmospheric impact report if there is reasonable suspicion that the person has failed to comply with the Act. National Heritage Section 38 states that Heritage Impact Assessments (HIAs) South African Heritage A Heritage Impact Resources Act (Act No 25 are required for certain kinds of development including Resources Agency (SAHRA) Assessment (HIA) was of 1999) » the construction of a road, power line, pipeline, canal Northern Cape Heritage undertaken as part of the EIA or other similar linear development or barrier Resources Authority Process to identify heritage exceeding sites. The overall area is 300 m in length; considered as having a low » any development or other activity which will change archaeological significance. the character of a site exceeding 5 000 m2 in extent. The relevant mitigation measures are included in the The relevant Heritage Resources Authority must be notified EMPr (refer to Appendix N). of developments such as linear developments (such as roads and power lines), bridges exceeding 50 m, or any development or other activity which will change the character of a site exceeding 5 000 m2; or the re-zoning of a site exceeding 10 000 m2 in extent. This notification must be provided in the early stages of initiating that development, and details regarding the location, nature and extent of the proposed development must be provided.

Standalone HIAs are not required where an EIA is carried out as long as the EIA contains an adequate HIA component that fulfils the provisions of Section 38. In such

Regulatory and Planning Context Page 76 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Legislation Applicable Requirements Relevant Authority Compliance requirements cases only those components not addressed by the EIA should be covered by the heritage component. National Environmental » Provides for the MEC/Minister to identify any process or National Department of Under this Act, a permit Management: Biodiversity activity in such a listed ecosystem as a threatening Environmental Affairs (DEA) would be required for any Act (Act No 10 of 2004) process (S53). activity which is of a nature » A list of threatened and protected species has been that may negatively impact published in terms of S 56(1) - Government Gazette on the survival of a listed 29657. protected species. » Three government notices have been published, i.e. GN R 150 (Commencement of Threatened and Protected Specialist flora and fauna Species Regulations, 2007), GN R 151 (Lists of critically studies have been undertaken endangered, vulnerable and protected species) and GN as part of the EIA process. A R 152 (Threatened or Protected Species Regulations). permit may be required » Provides for listing threatened or protected ecosystems, should any listed plant in one of four categories: critically endangered (CR), species on site be disturbed endangered (EN), vulnerable (VU) or protected. The or destroyed as a result of the first national list of threatened terrestrial ecosystems proposed development, has been gazetted, together with supporting although none are expected information on the listing process including the purpose (refer to Appendix D). and rationale for listing ecosystems, the criteria used to identify listed ecosystems, the implications of listing ecosystems, and summary statistics and national maps of listed ecosystems (National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act: National list of ecosystems that are threatened and in need of protection, (G 34809, GN 1002), 9 December 2011). » This Act also regulates alien and invader species. » A permit is required to be obtained to impact on any species listed in terms of this Act or associated Regulations.

Regulatory and Planning Context Page 77 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Legislation Applicable Requirements Relevant Authority Compliance requirements The Proponent has a responsibility for: » The conservation of endangered ecosystems and restriction of activities according to the categorisation of the area (not just by listed activity as specified in the EIA regulations). » Promote the application of appropriate environmental management tools in order to ensure integrated environmental management of activities thereby ensuring that all development within the area are in line with ecological sustainable development and protection of biodiversity. » Limit further loss of biodiversity and conserve endangered ecosystems. Conservation of » Prohibition of the spreading of weeds (S5) Department of Agriculture, This Act will find application Agricultural Resources Act » Classification of categories of weeds and invader plants Forestry and Fisheries during the EIA and will (CARA) (Act No 43 of (Regulation 15 of GN R1048) and restrictions in terms (DAFF) continue to apply throughout 1983) of where these species may occur. the life cycle of the project. » Requirement and methods to implement control In this regard, soil erosion measures for alien and invasive plant species prevention and soil (Regulation 15E of GN R1048). conservation strategies must be developed and implemented. In addition, a weed control and management plan must be implemented.

Permission from CARA and SALA (Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act 70 of 1970) will be required.

Regulatory and Planning Context Page 78 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Legislation Applicable Requirements Relevant Authority Compliance requirements The relevant mitigations measures were identified and are included in the EMPr (refer to Appendix N). National Forests Act (Act Protected trees: According to this act, the Minister may Department of Agriculture, A permit would need to be No. 84 of 1998) declare a tree, group of trees, woodland or a species of Forestry and Fisheries obtained for any protected trees as protected. The prohibitions provide that ‘ no trees that are affected by the person may cut, damage, disturb, destroy or remove any proposed project. No protected tree, or collect, remove, transport, export, protected trees have been purchase, sell, donate or in any other manner acquire or identified on site (refer to dispose of any protected tree, except under a licence Appendix D). granted by the Minister’.

Forests: Prohibits the destruction of indigenous trees in any natural forest without a licence.in terms of this Act or associated Regulations. National Veld and Forest In terms of S12 the applicant must ensure that the Department of Agriculture, While no permitting or Fire Act (Act 101 of 1998) firebreak is wide and long enough to have a reasonable Forestry and Fisheries licensing requirements arise chance of preventing the fire from spreading, not causing (DAFF). from this legislation, this act erosion, and is reasonably free of inflammable material. will find application during the operational phase of the In terms of S17, the applicant must have such equipment, project in terms of fire protective clothing, and trained personnel for extinguishing prevention and management. fires. The relevant management and mitigation measures have been included in the EMPr (refer to Appendix N). Hazardous Substances Act This Act regulates the control of substances that may cause Department of Health. It is necessary to identify and (Act No 15 of 1973) injury, or ill health, or death due to their toxic, corrosive, list all the Group I, II, III and irritant, strongly sensitising or inflammable nature or the IV hazardous substances that

Regulatory and Planning Context Page 79 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Legislation Applicable Requirements Relevant Authority Compliance requirements generation of pressure thereby in certain instances and for may be on the site and in the control of certain electronic products. To provide for what operational context they the rating of such substances or products in relation to the are used, stored or handled. degree of danger; to provide for the prohibition and control If applicable, a license is of the importation, manufacture, sale, use, operation, required to be obtained from modification, disposal or dumping of such substances and the Department of Health. products.

Group I and II: Any substance or mixture of a substance that might by reason of its toxic, corrosive etc., nature or because it generates pressure through decomposition, heat or other means, cause extreme risk of injury etc., can be declared as Group I or Group II substance • Group IV: any electronic product; and • Group V: any radioactive material.

The use, conveyance, or storage of any hazardous substance (such as distillate fuel) is prohibited without an appropriate license being in force. National Road Traffic Act » The technical recommendations for highways (TRH 11): » Provincial Department of An abnormal load/vehicle (Act No 93 of 1996) “Draft Guidelines for Granting of Exemption Permits for Transport (provincial permit may be required to the Conveyance of Abnormal Loads and for other roads) transport the various Events on Public Roads” outline the rules and conditions » South African National components to site for which apply to the transport of abnormal loads and Roads Agency Limited construction. These include: vehicles on public roads and the detailed procedures to (national roads) » Route clearances and be followed in applying for exemption permits are permits will be required described and discussed. for vehicles carrying » Legal axle load limits and the restrictions imposed on abnormally heavy or abnormally heavy loads are discussed in relation to the abnormally dimensioned damaging effect on road pavements, bridges, and loads. culverts. » Transport vehicles

Regulatory and Planning Context Page 80 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Legislation Applicable Requirements Relevant Authority Compliance requirements » The general conditions, limitations, and escort exceeding the requirements for abnormally dimensioned loads and dimensional limitations vehicles are also discussed and reference is made to (length) of 22m. speed restrictions, power/mass ratio, mass distribution, » Depending on the trailer and general operating conditions for abnormal loads configuration and height and vehicles. Provision is also made for the granting of when loaded, some of the permits for all other exemptions from the requirements power station of the National Road Traffic Act and the relevant components may not Regulations. meet specified » A permit is required to be obtained for the dimensional limitations transportation of abnormal loads. (height and width). Aviation Act (Act No 74 of Any structure exceeding 45m above ground level or » Civil Aviation Authority This Act will find application 1962) 13th amendment of structures where the top of the structure exceeds 150m (CAA) during the operational phase the Civil Aviation above the mean ground level, the mean ground level of the project. Appropriate Regulations (CARS) 1997 considered to be the lowest point in a 3km radius around marking is required to meet such structure. the specifications as detailed in the CAR Part 139.01.33. Structures lower than 45m, which are considered as a An obstacle approval for the danger to aviation shall be marked as such when specified. wind energy facility is Overhead wires, cables etc., crossing a river, valley or required to be obtained from major roads shall be marked and in addition their the CAA. supporting towers marked and lighted if an aeronautical study indicates it could constitute a hazard to aircraft.

» Section 14 of Obstacle limitations and marking outside aerodrome or heliport – CAR Part 139.01.33 relates specifically to appropriate marking of wind energy facilities. Astronomy Geographic The Astronomy Geographic Advantage Act (No. 21 of 2007) Department of Science and The project site does not fall Advantage Act (Act No. 21 provides for the preservation and protection of areas within Technology within the Sutherland Central of 2007) South Africa that are uniquely suited for optical and radio Astronomy Advantage Area

Regulatory and Planning Context Page 81 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Legislation Applicable Requirements Relevant Authority Compliance requirements astronomy; for intergovernmental co-operation and public gazetted in GN R140 of 28 consultation on matters concerning nationally significant February 2015 and it astronomy advantage areas and for matters connected therefore not impacted on by thereto. the development of the wind energy facility. Chapter 2 of the Act allows for the declaration of astronomy advantage areas while Chapter 3 pertains to the management and control of astronomy advantage areas. Management and control of astronomy advantage areas include, amongst others, the following: * Restrictions on use of radio frequency spectrum in astronomy advantage areas; * Declared activities in core or central astronomy advantage area; * Identified activities in coordinated astronomy advantage area; and * Authorisation to undertake identified activities. Provincial Legislation/ Policies / Plans Western Cape Noise The control of noise in the Western Cape Province is Western Cape DEA&DP In terms of Regulation 4 of Control Regulations of legislated in the form of Noise Control Regulations in terms the Noise Control 2013 (Provincial Notice of section 25 of the Environment Conservation Act No. 73 Regulations: “No person shall 200/2013) of 1989, applicable to the Province of the Western Cape as make, produce or cause a Provincial Notice 200 of 20 June 2013. disturbing noise (greater than 5 dBA), or allow it to be In terms of Regulation 4 of the Noise Control Regulations: made, produced or caused by “No person shall make, produce or cause a disturbing noise any person, animal, machine, (greater than 5 dBA), or allow it to be made, produced or device or apparatus or any caused by any person, animal, machine, device or combination thereof” (refer to apparatus or any combination thereof”. Appendix L). The Nature and The Nature and Environmental Ordinance 19 of 1974, (as Cape Nature Removal or relocation of

Regulatory and Planning Context Page 82 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Legislation Applicable Requirements Relevant Authority Compliance requirements Environmental Ordinance amended by the Western Cape Nature Conservation Laws protected plant or animal 19 of 1974, (as amended Amendment Act, Act 2 of 2000) defines the protection species requires a permit to by the Western Cape status of plants as follows: be obtained from the Cape Nature Conservation Laws » ‘‘endangered flora’’ means flora of any species which is Nature. No protected plant or Amendment Act, Act 2 of in danger of extinction and is specified in Schedule 3 or animal species will be 2000) Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in relocated. Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, Washington, 1973; provided that it shall not include flora of any species specified in such Appendix and Schedule 4; (thus all Schedule 3 species) » ‘‘protected flora’’ means any species of flora specified in Schedule 4 or Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, Washington, 1973; provided that it shall not include any species of flora specified in such Appendix and Schedule 3 ‘‘indigenous unprotected flora’’ means any species of indigenous flora not specified in Schedule 3 or 4. Western Cape Land Use Details land subdivision and rezoning requirements and » Western Cape DEA&DP Given that the wind energy Planning Ordinance 15 of procedures. » Swartland Local development is proposed on 1985 Municipality land that is zoned for In terms of Section 9(2) of the Land Use Planning agricultural use, a consent Ordinance 1985, the “maximum height of 200m for a wind use application in terms of turbine, measured from the mean ground level of the Section 17 of LUPO to an footprint of each structure to the highest point of the alternative appropriate zone blade”. will be required.

Rezoning is required to be undertaken following the issuing of an Environmental Authorisation for the

Regulatory and Planning Context Page 83 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Legislation Applicable Requirements Relevant Authority Compliance requirements proposed project.

The maximum height for the wind turbines proposed for the Hartebeest Wind Farm is 210m. After the project has received environmental authorisation, a consent use application, including exemption from the maximum height of 200m, will be lodged with the municipality. Standards Noise Standards Four South African Bureau of Standards (SABS) scientific Swartland Local Municipality The recommendations that standards are considered relevant to noise from a Wind the standards make are likely Energy Facility. They are: to inform decisions by » SANS 10103:2008. ‘The measurement and rating of authorities, but non- environmental noise with respect to annoyance and to compliance with the speech communication’. standards will not necessarily » SANS 10210:2004. ‘Calculating and predicting road render an activity unlawful traffic noise’. per se. » SANS 10328:2008. ‘Methods for environmental noise impact assessments’. » SANS 10357:2004. ‘The calculation of sound propagation by the Concave method’.

The relevant standards use the equivalent continuous rating level as a basis for determining what is acceptable. The levels may take single event noise into account, but single event noise by itself does not determine whether

Regulatory and Planning Context Page 84 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Legislation Applicable Requirements Relevant Authority Compliance requirements noise levels are acceptable for land use purposes.

Regulatory and Planning Context Page 85 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

APPROACH TO UNDERTAKING THE EIA PHASE CHAPTER 6

An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process refers to that process (in line with the EIA Regulations) which involves the identification of and assessment of direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts associated with a proposed project/activity. The EIA process comprises two main phases: i.e. Scoping Phase and EIA Phase. The EIA process culminates in the submission of an EIA Report (including an Environmental Management Programme (EMPr)) to the competent authority for decision-making. The EIA process is illustrated below in Figure 6.1:

Figure 6.1: The phases of an EIA process as per the EIA Regulations, 2014.

The EIA process for the proposed Hartebeest Wind Farm is being undertaken in accordance with section 24(5) of NEMA (No 107 of 1998). In terms of the EIA Regulations (2014) of GN R982 as well as GN R983, GN R984 and GN R985, a Scoping and EIA Study are required to be undertaken for this proposed wind energy facility. In order to ensure that a comprehensive assessment is provided to the competent authority and I&APs regarding the impacts of the proposed wind energy facility, environmental studies were undertaken within the two phases of the EIA process (Scoping Phase and EIA Phase).

6.1. Legal Requirements as per the EIA Regulations, 2014

This chapter of the EIA report includes the following information required in terms of Appendix 3: Content of Environmental Impact Assessment Reports:

Requirement Relevant Section Page reference 3(h)(ii) details of the public The public participation 92 participation process process followed throughout undertaken in terms of the EIA process of the regulation 41 of the Hartebeest Wind Farm is Regulations, including included in section 6.4.3. copies of the supporting and copies of the

Description of the Receiving Environment Page 86 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Requirement Relevant Section Page reference documents and inputs. supporting documents and inputs are included in Appendix C. 3(h)(iii) a summary of the The main issues raised 97 issues raised by interested through the undertaking of and affected parties, and an the public participation indication of the manner in process within the EIA which the issues were Phase including consultation incorporated, or the with I&APs will be included reasons for not including in section 6.4.4 of the final them. EIA report (including all comments raised during the review period) and the Comments and Responses Report included in Appendix C. 3(h)(vi) the methodology The methodology used to 98 used in determining and determine and rank the ranking the nature, nature, significance, significance, consequences, consequences, extent, extent, duration and duration and probability of probability of potential potential environmental environmental impacts and impacts and risks is risks. included in section 6.4.5.

6.2. Relevant Listed Activities

In terms of the EIA Regulations, 2014 (GN R983, GN R984 and GN R985), the following listed activities are triggered by the proposed facility:

Table 6.1: Listed activities triggered by the proposed Hartebeest Wind Farm Relevant Activity Listed activity Description of project activity notice: No: that triggers listed activity GN 983, 08 11 (i) The development of facilities or The project will entail December infrastructure for the transmission construction of a substation 2014 and distribution of electricity – and power line with a capacity (i) outside urban areas or of 33kV<275kV (outside an industrial complexes with a urban area). capacity of more than 33 but less than 275 kilovolts. GN 983, 08 12 The development of – The wind energy facility will December (xii)(a)(c) (xii) infrastructure or structures include the construction of 2014 with a physical footprint of 100 infrastructure within a square metres or more; watercourse and/or within where such development occurs- 32m of a watercourse. (a) Within a watercourse

Description of the Receiving Environment Page 87 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Relevant Activity Listed activity Description of project activity notice: No: that triggers listed activity (c) if no development setback exists, within 32 metres of a watercourse, measured from the edge of a watercourse. GN 983, 08 19 (i) The infilling or depositing of any The upgrade or construction of December material of more than 5 cubic access and internal access 2014 metres into, or the dredging, roads will lead to material excavation, removal or moving of being deposited into or soil, sand, shells, shell grit, removed from watercourses. pebbles or rock of more than 5 cubic metres from- (i) a watercourse. GN 983, 08 24 (ii) The development of- The wind energy facility will December (ii) a road with a reserve wider require access roads with parts 2014 than 13,5 meters, or where no wider than 8m, to be reserve exists where the road is constructed outside urban wider than 8 metres areas as a result of logistical construction vehicle specification and operational requirements. GN 983, 08 56 (ii) The widening of a road by more The facility will require the December than 6 metres, or the lengthening widening of existing roads by 2014 of a road by more than 1 more than 6 metres to kilometre – accommodate the logistical (ii) where no reserve exists, construction requirements to where the existing road is wider access the site and associated than 8 metres; excluding where infrastructure during the widening or lengthening occur construction phase. inside urban areas. GN 984, 08 1 The development of facilities or The wind energy facility will December infrastructure for the generation generate an electricity output 2014 of electricity from a renewable of more than 20MW. It is resource where the electricity expected to generate a output is 20 megawatts or more. maximum of 160MW. GN 985, 08 4 (f)(aa) The development of a road wider Roads wider than 4 m will be December than 4 metres with a reserve less constructed. The project site 2014 than 13,5 metres. is located in the Western Cape: (f) In Western Cape: » Outside urban areas; (aa) Areas outside urban areas. » In areas containing indigenous vegetation. GN 985, 08 14 The development of - Infrastructure with a physical December (xii)(a)(c)( (xii) infrastructure or structures footprint of 10 square metres 2014 f)(ff) with a physical footprint of 10 or more within a watercourse or/and within 32m of a square metres or more; watercourse will be required to where such development occurs- be constructed. The site is

Description of the Receiving Environment Page 88 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Relevant Activity Listed activity Description of project activity notice: No: that triggers listed activity (a) within a watercourse; located: (c) if no development setback has » Outside urban areas. been adopted, within 32 metres » In Critical Biodiversity of a watercourse, measured from Areas as identified in the edge of a watercourse; systematic biodiversity (f) In Western Cape: plans. Outside urban areas, in: (ff) Critical biodiversity areas or ecosystem service areas as identified in systematic biodiversity plans adopted by the competent authority or in bioregional plans. GN 985, 08 18(f)(i)(aa The widening of a road by more The wind energy facility will December ) than 4 metres, or the lengthening require access roads to be 2014 of a road by more than 1 upgraded, which will include kilometre. the widening of the roads as (f) In Western Cape: well and lengthening of roads (i) Outside urban areas, in: in some areas, thus triggering (aa) Areas containing indigenous this activity. The site is vegetation. located in the Western Cape: » Outside urban areas » In areas containing indigenous vegetation.

On the basis of the above listed activities, a Scoping and an EIA Process is required to be undertaken for the proposed project. This process is to be undertaken in two phases as follows:

» The Scoping Phase includes the identification of potential issues associated with the proposed project through a desktop study and consultation with I&APs and key stakeholders through a public participation process. The entire farm portion is considered within this process at a desk-top level. Through this study, areas of sensitivity within the broader site are identified and delineated in order to identify any environmental fatal flaws, and sensitive or no go areas. Following a 30-day review period of the Scoping report, this phase culminates in the submission of a final Scoping Report and Plan of Study for EIA to the DEA. » The EIA Phase involved a detailed assessment of potentially significant positive and negative impacts (direct, indirect, and cumulative) identified in the Scoping Phase. This phase included consideration of a proposed facility layout through detailed specialist investigations and public consultation. Following public review of the report, this phase will culminate in the submission of a Final EIA Report and an Environmental Management Programme (EMPr), including recommendations of

Description of the Receiving Environment Page 89 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

practical and achievable mitigation and management measures, to DEA for decision- making.

6.3. Scoping Phase

A Scoping Report was released from 09 September 2016 – 10 October 2016 for a 30-day public review and comment period. Following the review period, a final scoping report was submitted to DEA in October 2016. This together with the Plan of Study for the EIA was accepted by the DEA, as the competent authority, in October 2016. In terms of this acceptance, an EIA was required to be undertaken for the proposed project.

The Scoping Study provided interested and affected parties (I&APs) with the opportunity to receive information regarding the proposed project, participate in the process, and raise issues of concern. The Scoping Report aimed at detailing the nature and extent of the proposed wind energy facility, identifying potential issues associated with the proposed project, and defining the extent of studies required within the EIA. This was achieved through an evaluation of the proposed project, involving the project proponent, specialist consultants, and a consultation process with key stakeholders that included both relevant government authorities and I&APs.

6.4. Environmental Impact Assessment Phase

The EIA Phase aims to achieve the following:

» Provide a comprehensive assessment of the social and biophysical environments affected by the proposed phases put forward as part of the project. » Assess potentially significant impacts (direct, indirect, and cumulative, where required) associated with the proposed wind energy facility. » Comparatively assess any alternatives put forward as part of the project. » Identify and recommend appropriate mitigation measures for potentially significant environmental impacts. » Undertake a fully inclusive public participation process to ensure that I&APs are afforded the opportunity to participate, and that their issues and concerns are recorded.

This final EIA Report addresses potential direct, indirect, and cumulative10 impacts (both positive and negative) associated with all phases of the project including design, construction, operation and decommissioning. In this regard this final EIA Report aims to provide the relevant authorities with sufficient information to make an informed decision regarding the proposed Hartebeest Wind Farm.

10 “Cumulative environmental change or cumulative effects may result from the additive effect of individual actions of the same nature or the interactive effect of multiple actions of a different nature” (Spaling and Smit, 1993).

Description of the Receiving Environment Page 90 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

6.4.1. Tasks completed during the EIA Phase

The EIA Phase for the proposed wind energy facility has been undertaken in accordance with the EIA Regulations published in GN 38282 in December 2014, in terms of NEMA. Key tasks undertaken within the EIA phase included:

» Consultation with relevant decision-making and regulating authorities (at National, Provincial and Local levels). » Undertaking a public participation process throughout the EIA process in accordance with Chapter 6 of Government Notice R982 of 2014 in order to identify any additional issues and concerns associated with the proposed project. » Preparation of a Comments and Response Report detailing key issues raised by I&APs as part of the EIA Process. » Undertaking of independent specialist studies in accordance with Appendix 6 of Government Notice R982 of 2014. » Preparation of an EIA Report in accordance with Appendix 3 of Government Notice R982 of 2014.

These tasks are discussed in detail below.

6.4.2. Authority Consultation and Application for Authorisation in terms of GNR982 of 2014

In terms of the Energy Response Plan, the DEA is the competent authority for all energy related projects. As the project falls within the Western Cape, the Department of Environmental and Development Planning (DEA&DP) is the commenting authority for the project. A record of all authority consultation undertaken is included within this final EIA report. Consultation with the regulating authorities (i.e. DEA and Western Cape DEA&DP) has continued throughout the EIA process. On-going consultation included the following:

» Submission of the application for authorisation to DEA; » Submission of the Scoping Report for review by the competent authority from 09 September 2016 to 10 October 2016. » The Final Scoping Report for the proposed project was submitted in October 2016. The Scoping Report was accepted by DEA on 31 October 2016. » Notification and consultation with Organs of State (refer to Table 6.2) that may have jurisdiction over the project, including: ∗ Provincial departments ∗ Parastatals and Non-Governmental Organisations ∗ Local Municipality and District Municipality

The following consultations have also been undertaken as part of this EIA process:

Description of the Receiving Environment Page 91 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

» Submission of the EIA Report for review by the competent authority and other relevant authorities for a 30-day period. » Receipt of comments from the Competent Authority on the EIA report, to be addressed and adequately reflected in the Final EIA report. » Submission of a final EIA Report to DEA following the 30-day public review period for the EIA and the receipt of the comments from the DEA on the EIA report. » Provision of an opportunity for DEA and Western Cape DEA&DP representatives to visit and inspect the proposed project site.

A record of consultation undertaken with the competent authority will be contained in Appendix B of the EIA Report. A record of authority consultation undertaken with organ of state departments undertaken during the Scoping and EIA Phase is included within Appendix C.

6.4.3. Public Participation Process

Public participation is an essential and regulatory requirement for an environmental authorisation process and is guided by Regulations under NEMA, specifically Regulations 41 - 44 of the EIA Regulations (GN R982 of December 2014).

The sharing of information forms the basis of the public participation process and offers the opportunity to Interested and Affected Parties (I&APs) to become actively involved in the EIA Process from the outset. The public participation process is designed to provide sufficient and accessible information to I&APs in an objective manner. The public participation process affords I&APs opportunities to provide input into and receive information on the EIA process in the following ways:

» During the Scoping Phase: ∗ Identify and record issues of concern and suggestions for enhanced benefits; ∗ verify that their issues have been recorded; ∗ assist in identifying reasonable alternatives, where required; and ∗ contribute relevant local information and knowledge to the environmental assessment.

» During the EIA Phase: ∗ contribute relevant local information and knowledge to the environmental assessment; ∗ verify that their issues have been considered in the environmental investigations; and ∗ comment on the findings of the environmental assessments.

» During the decision making phase:

Description of the Receiving Environment Page 92 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

∗ be advised of the outcome of the competent authority’s decision, and how and by when the decision can be appealed.

The public participation process therefore aims to ensure that: » Information containing all relevant facts in respect of the application is made available to stakeholders and I&APs. » Participation is facilitated in such a manner that I&APs are provided with a reasonable opportunity to comment on the proposed development. » Adequate review periods are provided to I&APs to comment on the findings of the Scoping and EIA Reports.

In order to accommodate the varying needs of stakeholders and I&APs within the study area, as well as capture their inputs regarding the project, various opportunities for stakeholders and I&APs to be involved in the EIA Phase of the process have been provided, as follows:

» Focus group meetings (pre-arranged and stakeholders invited to attend - for example with directly affected and surrounding landowners). » Telephonic consultation sessions (consultation with various parties from the EIA project team, including the public participation consultant, lead EIA consultant as well as specialist consultants). » Written, faxed or e-mail correspondence. » The EIA Report has been released for a 30-day public review period from 27 January 2017 to 27 February 2017. » All comments received from I&APs are captured within a Comments and Response Report, and have been included and addressed to the extent necessary within this final EIA Report, for submission to the authorities for decision-making (refer to Appendix C).

In terms of the requirement of Chapter 6 of the EIA Regulations of December 2014, the following key public participation tasks have been required to be undertaken:

» Fixing a notice board at a place conspicuous to the public at the boundary or on the fence of— (i) the site where the activity to which the application relates is or is to be undertaken; and (ii) any alternative site mentioned in the application; » Giving written notice to: (i) the owner or person in control of that land if the applicant is not the owner or person in control of the land; (ii) the occupiers of the site where the activity is or is to be undertaken or to any alternative site where the activity is to be undertaken;

Description of the Receiving Environment Page 93 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

(iii) owners and occupiers of land adjacent to the site where the activity is or is to be undertaken or to any alternative site where the activity is to be undertaken; (iv) the municipal councillor of the ward in which the site or alternative site is situated and any organisation of ratepayers that represent the community in the area; (v) the municipality which has jurisdiction in the area; (vi) any organ of state having jurisdiction in respect of any aspect of the activity; and (vii) any other party as required by the competent authority. » Placing an advertisement in: (i) one local newspaper; and (ii) in at least one provincial newspaper. » Open and maintain a register/ database of interested and affected parties and organs of state. » Release of a Draft EIA Report for Public Review » Preparation of a Comments and Responses Report which documents all of the comments received and responses from the project team.

In compliance with the requirements of Chapter 6 of the EIA Regulations, 2014, the following summarises the key public participation activities conducted to date. i. Placement of Site Notices

Site notices (in English and Afrikaans) were placed on 31 August 2016, in accordance with the requirements of the EIA Regulations, at visible points at the entrance to or boundaries of the affected farm portions. Additional site notices were places at visible points within the project site on 17 February 2017. Further notices were placed at the Moorreesburg Public Library and the West Coast District Municipal Offices. Copies of all the site notices are included within Appendix C. ii. Identification of I&APs and establishment of a database

I&APs have been identified through a process of networking and referral, obtaining information from Savannah Environmental’s existing stakeholder databases, liaison with potentially affected parties in the study area and a registration process involving completion of a registration and comment sheet. The key stakeholder groups identified include authorities, local and district municipalities, ward councillors, government bodies and state owned companies, directly affected and adjacent landowners and non- governmental organisations (refer to Table 6.2 below):

Table 6.2: Summary of Stakeholders identified for inclusion in the project database during the Public Participation Process of the Hartebeest Wind Farm EIA Process National Government Departments

Description of the Receiving Environment Page 94 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF) Department of Energy (DoE) Department of Environmental Affairs (including the Conservation & Biodiversity Directorate) Department of Mineral Resources (DMR) Department of Public Works (DPW) Department of Rural Development and Land Reform (DRDLR) Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS) Government Bodies and State Owned Companies Eskom Holdings SOC Limited Heritage Western Cape National Energy Regulator of South Africa (NERSA) Sentech South African Astronomical Observatory (SAAO) South African Civil Aviation Authority (SACAA) South African National Roads Agency Limited (SANRAL) Square Kilometre Array: Southern Africa (SKA) Telkom SA Ltd Transnet Provincial Government Departments CapeNature DEA&DP Western Cape Department of Agriculture and Rural Development Western Cape Department of Economic Development and Tourism Western Cape Department of Local Government, Environmental Affairs and Development Planning Western Cape Department of Roads and Public Works Local Government Departments Swartland Local Municipality (SLM) West Coast District Municipality Key Stakeholders BirdLife South Africa Endangered WildLife Trust Landowners Affected landowners and tenants Neighbouring landowners and tenants

As per Regulation 42 of the EIA Regulations, 2014 all relevant stakeholder and I&AP information has been recorded within a register of I&APs (refer to Appendix C for a listing of recorded parties). While I&APs were encouraged to register their interest in the EIA process from the onset, the identification and registration of I&APs has been ongoing for the duration of the EIA process.

Description of the Receiving Environment Page 95 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017 iii. Newspaper Advertisements

During the scoping phase, a newspaper advertisement was placed to notify and inform the public of the proposed project and EIA Process, invite members of the public to register as I&APs on the project database, and inform the public of the availability of the Scoping report for a 30-day review period. These advertisements were placed in the following newspapers: » The Weslander newspaper on the 09 September 2016; and » The Cape Times newspaper on the 09 September 2016.

During the EIA phase, a second round of newspaper advertisements were placed to inform the public of the availability of the Draft EIA report in the following newspapers: » The Weslander newspaper on the 02 February 2017; » The Cape Times newspaper on the 27 January 2017; and » Die Burger newspaper on the 27 January 2017. iv. Consultation

In order to accommodate the varying needs of stakeholders and I&APs, the following opportunities have been provided for I&AP issues to be recorded and verified through the EIA process as outlined in Table 6.3 below:

Table 6.3: Consultation undertaken with I&APs for the Hartebeest Wind Farms Scoping Activity Date Phase Distribution of the letters announcing the EIA process 29 August 2016 and inviting I&APs to register on the project’s database. These letters were distributed to organs of state departments, ward councillors, affected landowners, neighbouring landowners within the study area and key stakeholder groups. Placement of site notices on-site and at public venues 31 August 2016 located within the study area. Distribution of notification letters announcing the 09 September 2016 availability of the Scoping Report for review to I&APs via email notifications and registered post. Distribution of the Scoping Report and notification 09 September 2016 letters inviting comment on the report via courier to organ of state departments. Placement of advertisements in the Weslander and 09 September 2016 the Cape Times at the onset of the review period of the Scoping Report 30-day review period for the Scoping Report for 09 September 2016 – 10 comment. October 2016 EIA Phase Distribution of letters announcing the availability of 27 January 2017 the EIA Report for review for a 30-day comment

Description of the Receiving Environment Page 96 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

period. These letters will be distributed to organs of state departments, ward councillors, landowners within the study area, neighbouring landowners and key stakeholder groups. The availability of the EIA Report will be advertised in 27 January 2017 and 02 the Weslander, Cape Times and Die Burger February 2017 newspapers. 30-day review period of the EIA Report for public 27 January 2017 – 27 comment February 2017 Public Participation meetings to be held during the 16 February 2017 – 17 30-day review period: February 2017 » Focus Group meetings will be held with the Swartland Local Municipality,relevant ward councillors and key stakeholders » One-on-one meetings to be held with impacted and adjacent landowners

Records of all consultation undertaken are included in Appendix C.

6.4.4. Identification and Recording of Issues and Concerns

Issues and comments raised by I&APs over the duration of the EIA process have been synthesised into a Comments and Response Report, and summarised in Table 6.4 below. The Comments and Responses Report includes detailed responses from members of the EIA project team and/or the project proponent. This is included in Appendix C.

Table 6.4: Summary of issues raised during the public participation process Summary of main issues raised by I&APs Summary of response from EAP Louis Henze Carstens raised concerns regarding The proposed Hartebeest Wind Farm is the loss of soil with a high agricultural proposed to be constructed within an area of potential, especially for wheat production. approximately 3288ha in extent. The total footprint of all infrastructure, including the turbines will be approximately 1.4% of that area. Concerns regarding dust and noise emissions Management measures for dust and noise generated during various construction phases emissions are included in the EMPr (refer to of the proposed development have been raised. Appendix N). A noise impact assessment has been undertaken as part of the EIA process. Noise levels have been assessed to ensure that any emissions are in line with provincial regulations. The West Coast District Municipality Public participation process is being undertaken recommended that Public Participation must go in terms of Chapter 6 of the EIA Regulations, beyond the usual open days and meetings. It 2014. Focus group meetings and one-on-one was also recommended that the developer be meetings will be held with key stakeholders, encouraged to reach a wider audience by: i) affected and adjacent landowners during the

Description of the Receiving Environment Page 97 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Summary of main issues raised by I&APs Summary of response from EAP including information regarding the project in 30-day review period of the EIA Report. Swartland municipal accounts distributed to Moorreesburg households and / or ii) extensive A wider audience was reached by placing an coverage in local newspapers. advert in Die Burger newspaper.

The Municipality also requested that comments SANRAL and the Department of Transport and must be obtained from SANRAL and the Public Works are included as stakeholders on Department of Transport and Public Works the project and have been requested to provide since heavy vehicle traffic to the wind farm will comment on the project. A Traffic and increase significantly during construction thus Transportation Management Plan is also impacting existing roads. included as Appendix I in the EMPr. The Swartland Local Municipality advised that A consent use application will be undertaken as the farms referred to are zoned Agricultural a separate process by the developer and all zone 1 in terms of the Swartland Integrated other relevant legislation governing land use in zoning scheme regulations. A consent use the province will be observed. application for a renewable energy structure needs to be made in order to obtain the correct land use rights for the proposed wind farm. The 12 months bird and bat monitoring must be The bird and bat monitoring undertaken is in conducted in line with latest guidelines. It is line with the latest guidelines. A letter of noted that monitoring was done between May validity, in line with the latest regulations, 2013 and September 2014. As such this must provided by the specialist is included in be amended to include the updated Appendix N of this report. Comments from requirements. SABAAP and BirdLife SA have been received and is included in Appendix C. Ground-truthing of the preliminary turbine It was confirmed by CapeNature during the EIA layout should occur during the appropriate phase that whilst a late winter/early spring season (end July to September) as the survey is usually desirable in the Western Cape, fieldwork that the Ecology Scoping Report was it is apparent that in this particular instance, based on was conducted in late summer. the Hartebeest Wind Farm will not have any components which significantly impact on any of the natural vegetation remnants on the site. The information provided by the botanical specialist is sufficient to determine the exact extent of these remnants. CapeNature therefore does not request an additional botanical survey.

6.4.5. Assessment of Issues Identified through the EIA Process

Issues which require investigation within the EIA Phase, as well as the specialists involved in the assessment of these impacts are indicated in Table 6.5 below.

Table 6.5: Specialist consultants appointed to evaluate the potential impacts associated with the Hartebeest Wind Farm Specialist Area of Expertise Refer Appendix

Description of the Receiving Environment Page 98 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Specialist Area of Expertise Refer Appendix Simon Todd of Simon Todd Consulting Ecology Appendix D Ricardo Ramalho Bioinsight South Africa Avifauna Appendix E Ricardo Ramalho of Bioinsight South Africa Bats Appendix F Toni Belcher of Blue Science Freshwater Appendix G Tim Hart of ACO-Associates Heritage Appendix H Christo Lubbe (independent specialist with external Soil and Agricultural Appendix I review from Johann Lanz) Potential Jon Marshall of Afzelia Environmental Consultants & Visual Appendix J Environmental Planning and Design Tony Barbour and Schalk van der Merwe Social Appendix K (Environmental Consulting and Research) Morné de Jager of Enviro-Acoustic Research cc Noise Appendix L Hermanus Steyn of Aurecon Traffic Appendix I of the EMPr

Specialist studies considered direct and indirect environmental impacts associated with the development of all components of the wind energy facility. Issues were assessed in terms of the following criteria:

» The nature, a description of what causes the effect, what will be affected, and how it will be affected » The extent, wherein it is indicated whether the impact will be local (limited to the immediate area or site of development), regional, national or international. A score of between 1 and 5 is assigned as appropriate (with a score of 1 being low and a score of 5 being high) » The duration, wherein it is indicated whether: ∗ The lifetime of the impact will be of a very short duration (0–1 years) – assigned a score of 1 ∗ The lifetime of the impact will be of a short duration (2-5 years) - assigned a score of 2 ∗ Medium-term (5–15 years) – assigned a score of 3 ∗ Long term (> 15 years) - assigned a score of 4 ∗ Permanent - assigned a score of 5 » The magnitude, quantified on a scale from 0-10, where a score is assigned: ∗ 0 is small and will have no effect on the environment ∗ 2 is minor and will not result in an impact on processes ∗ 4 is low and will cause a slight impact on processes ∗ 6 is moderate and will result in processes continuing but in a modified way ∗ 8 is high (processes are altered to the extent that they temporarily cease) ∗ 10 is very high and results in complete destruction of patterns and permanent cessation of processes » The probability of occurrence, which describes the likelihood of the impact actually occurring. Probability is estimated on a scale, and a score assigned:

Description of the Receiving Environment Page 99 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

∗ Assigned a score of 1–5, where 1 is very improbable (probably will not happen) ∗ Assigned a score of 2 is improbable (some possibility, but low likelihood) ∗ Assigned a score of 3 is probable (distinct possibility) ∗ Assigned a score of 4 is highly probable (most likely) ∗ Assigned a score of 5 is definite (impact will occur regardless of any prevention measures) » The significance, which is determined through a synthesis of the characteristics described above (refer formula below) and can be assessed as low, medium or high » The status, which is described as either positive, negative or neutral » The degree to which the impact can be reversed » The degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable loss of resources » The degree to which the impact can be mitigated

The significance is determined by combining the criteria in the following formula: S = (E+D+M) P; where

S = Significance weighting E = Extent D = Duration M = Magnitude P = Probability

The significance weightings for each potential impact are as follows:

» < 30 points: Low (i.e. where this impact would not have a direct influence on the decision to develop in the area) » 30-60 points: Medium (i.e. where the impact could influence the decision to develop in the area unless it is effectively mitigated) » > 60 points: High (i.e. where the impact must have an influence on the decision process to develop in the area)

As the developer has the responsibility to avoid or minimise impacts and plan for their management (in terms of the EIA Regulations), the mitigation of significant impacts is discussed. Assessment of impacts with mitigation is made in order to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation measures. An EMPr is included as Appendix N.

6.4.6. Assumptions and Limitations

The following assumptions and limitations are applicable to the studies undertaken within this EIA Phase: » All information provided by the developer and I&APs to the environmental team was correct and valid at the time it was provided. » The development site identified by the developer represents a technically suitable site for the establishment of the proposed wind energy facility.

Description of the Receiving Environment Page 100 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

» The proposed connection to the National Grid is correct in terms of viability and need. » Conclusions of studies assume that any potential impacts on the environment associated with the proposed development will be avoided, mitigated, or offset. » This report and its investigations are project-specific, and consequently the environmental team did not evaluate any other power generation alternatives.

Refer to the specialist studies in Appendices D – L for specialist study specific limitations.

Description of the Receiving Environment Page 101 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

DESCRIPTION OF THE RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT CHAPTER 7

This section of the EIA Report provides a description of the environment that may be affected by the proposed Hartebeest Wind Farm. This information is provided in order to assist the reader in understanding the possible effects of the proposed project on the environment. Aspects of the biophysical, social and economic environment that could be directly or indirectly affected by, or could affect, the proposed development have been described. This information has been sourced from both existing information available for the area as well as collected field data, and aims to provide the context within which this EIA is being conducted. A comprehensive description of each aspect of the affected environment is included within the specialist reports contained within the Appendices D -L.

7.1 Legal Requirements as per the EIA Regulations for the undertaking of an Environmental Impact Assessment Report, 2014

This chapter of the EIA report includes the following information required in terms of the EIA Regulations, 2014 - Appendix 3: Content of Environmental Impact Assessment Reports:

Requirement Relevant Section Page Reference 3(h)(iv) the environmental The environmental attributes 102 attributes associated with the associated with the development footprint surrounding areas and the alternatives focusing on the project development footprint geographical, physical, is included in this chapter as a biological, social, economic, whole. A comprehensive heritage and cultural aspects description of each aspect of the affected environment is included within the specialist reports contained within the Appendices D - L.

7.2. Regional Setting: Location of the Study Area

The proposed project site for the Hartebeest Wind Farm is located approximately 4km south-south east of Moorreesburg, approximately 35km north east of Malmesbury, approximately 40km south east of Hopefield and approximately 58km south west of Porterville in the Western Cape Province (refer to Figure 7.1). The project site falls within the Swartland Local Municipality (SLM) under the jurisdiction of the West Coast District Municipality (WCDM) and is situated within the farming lands of Moorreesburg (zoned Agriculture I). The Swartland Local Municipality (SLM) is one of the five Local Municipalities that make up the West Coast District Municipality (WCDM). The town of

Description of the Receiving Environment Page 102 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Malmesbury is the administrative seat of the SLM and is located ~ 35km to the south of Moorreesburg.

The N7 and R311 national and regional roads transect the area proposed for the wind farm in the south-west, with a main road (gravel) transecting the site from the west to the east. The N7, situated west of the project site, carries significant traffic that would influence the ambient sound levels up to 500 m from this road. There are other small gravel roads leading from the identified larger roads traversing the area. Access to the site is currently possible via existing farm access from the main road which transects the northern portion of the project site.

Within the vicinity of the project site and the surrounding areas other power lines and a substation are present. The Moorreesburg Substation is situated within Portion 24 of the Farm Zwartfontein 414 which is enclosed by the project site but does not form part of the project site. The Moorreesburg/Ongegund No.1 66kV power line and the decommissioned Gouda/Moorreesburg No.1 66kV power line traverses the central section of the project site. Adjacent to the existing Moorreesburg Substation, a small section in the western portion of the project site is traversed by the Kerschbosch/Moorreesburg No.1 132kV power line and the Malmesbury/Moorreesburg No.1 132kV power line. The Misverstand/Moorreesburg No.1 66kV and Moorreesburg/Withoogte Linking Station 1 power lines traverse the Remainder of Portion 17 of the Farm Zwartfontein 414.

7.3. Existing land-uses

The site is located within the farming lands of Moorreesburg and is zoned Agriculture I. Apart from the steep, uncultivated parts that are not used for agriculture, land use over the vast majority of the site is dryland cultivation of small grains in rotation with grazing. This is by far the dominant land use of the entire surrounding Swartland region. There is no irrigated land on site. Infrastructure present within the boundaries of the project site include a number of small earth dams as well as a water-filled quarry. As detailed above, the project site is traversed by five overhead power lines and includes the Moorreesburg/Ongegund No.1 66kV power line, the Moorreesburg/Withoogte Linking Station 1, the Kerschbosch/Moorreesburg 132kV power line, the Malmesbury/Moorreesburg No.1 132kV power line and the Misverstand/Moorreesburg No.1 66kV power line.

Services on or in close proximity to the site include: » Small residential area/homesteads located within the project site; » Roads including the N7, R311 and a main road (gravel); » Town of Moorreesburg situated north west of the project site; » A railway line located to the west of the project site; and » Existing electrical infrastructure including overhead power lines and Eskom Substation.

Description of the Receiving Environment Page 103 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Figure 7.1: Map indicating the regional setting of the proposed Hartebeest Wind Farm (shown in red).

Description of the Receiving Environment Page 104 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

7.4. Climatic Conditions

The average precipitation in this region of the Western Cape is 408 mm per annum, with a peak typically in the winter months. The Mediterranean climate of the Moorreesburg area has the following characteristics (as illustrated in Figure 7.2): i) the mean annual rainfall is about 408 mm, with June typically being the wettest month, averaging at about 64 mm and January being the driest with an average of only 10 mm; ii) the average annual temperature in Moorreesburg is 17.7°C, with February being the warmest (ave. 23°C) and July being the coldest (ave. 12°C). The annual evaporation of the site is between 2000 mm and 2200 mm per annum according to Agricultural Geographical Information Systems (AGIS).

Figure 7.2 Climate graph for the town of Moorreesburg, Western Cape Province.

7.5. Biophysical Characteristics of the Study Area

The following section provides an overview and description of the biophysical characteristics of the study area.

7.5.1. Topography

The project site is located on land that ranges in elevation from 35m above sea level (a.s.l.) to approximately 320m a.s.l. on the hill crests. The topography of the study area can be described as undulating, typical of the west coastal plain, with a series of koppies

Description of the Receiving Environment Page 105 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017 running more-or-less north-south through the centre of the study area which form part of an undulating ridge.

7.5.2. Hydrology

The main aquatic features within the project site are the Moorreespruit and Sandspruit Tributaries of the middle reaches of the Berg River as well as a smaller tributary at Karnmelksvlei. The tributaries flow in a north easterly direction to join the Berg River upstream of Misverstand Weir. Valley bottom wetland areas occur largely along the Moorreespruit River with small areas within the upper reaches in the other two tributaries in the project site. A small vernal pool also occurs near Krabrivier.

The northern-most and largest tributary, the Moorreespruit, rises in the low hills of the Swartland to the south-east of Moorreesburg and along the western boundary of the project site. The stream flows in a north-westerly and north-easterly direction for approximately 40km over a relatively low gradient catchment that has been largely altered by agricultural activities before joining the Berg River at Misverstand Dam. Moorreesburg is the only large town in the catchment and is situated in the middle reaches of the river.

The other larger tributary and the southern-most tributary in the project site is the Sandspruit River (Figure 7.3). The Sandspruit River is a north easterly flowing seasonal tributary of the Berg River that originates in the western slopes of the Kasteelberg, approximately 4km west of Riebeek-Wes. The river flows for approximately 32km until it discharges into the Berg River downstream of Kleindrif. Much of the catchment of the river has been transformed by agricultural activities and for much of the river’s length the riparian zone is reduced to a narrow strip on either side of the river.

Figure 7.3 The Upper Sandspruit River at Hartebeestfontein in the south eastern extent of the project site.

Description of the Receiving Environment Page 106 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

The smaller Karnmelksvlei River (Figure 7.4) is located between the Moorreespruit and Sandspruit Rivers. It is approximately 17 km in length and discharges into the Berg River at Die Pont just upstream of Misverstand Dam. It consists of a number of smaller tributaries within its upper reaches that drain the low hills of the project site and flow in a north-easterly direction towards the Berg River. As for the Sandspruit and Moorreesspruit Rivers, it is seasonally flowing over a low-gradient catchment that has largely been altered by agricultural activities.

Figure 7.4 The Upper Karnmelksvlei Stream at Biesjesfontein.

7.5.3. Geology and Soils

The soils of the site are residual soils developed on underlying schist, greywacke and phyllite of the Moorreesburg Formation, Malmesbury Group. All soils grade into partially weathered underlying rock with depth, and are limited in depth by this and/or by the development of clay horizons above the rock.

There are six land type classifications across the site (refer Figure 7.5)11. The most important land types in terms of area of coverage and likely impact are Ab23, Ab24, and Fb548. The three other land types cover only small parts of the site which are unlikely to be impacted by the proposed development. The turbines are ideally proposed to be located toward the higher lying, steeper ground, associated with the north-south running ridge identified with land type Fb548, though this land type can be found on all three of the above land types.

The soils of land type Fb548 are associated with higher lying steeper land where there is less soil development on shallow underlying rock. Soils are shallow (30-40cm), well- drained, sandy loams. Rock outcrops cover 45% of the surface area of the land type. In the remaining area, the dominant soil form is Swartland which is followed by other soil

11 The land type classification is a nation-wide survey that groups areas of similar soil and terrain conditions into different land types.

Description of the Receiving Environment Page 107 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017 forms in order of occurrence namely, Glenrosa and Mispah.

Ab24

Ab23

Fb554

Figure 7.5: The site (black outline) showing the five different land type classification.

The soils of land types Ab24 and Ab23 are predominantly moderately deep to shallow (15 - 120 cm), well-drained, predominantly sandy loams (15-20% clay), but with lighter and heavier soils also occurring. The terrain is divided into units reflecting changes in slope (refer to Figure 7.6).

The dominant soil on the ridge is a shallow Mispah (<300mm) with sandy texture. The soil profile has limited water and nutrient storage capacity and high erosion susceptablity. The dominant soils found on the upper mid-slope are Hutton and Clovelly which occur on relatively steep areas (>8%). The effective soil depth is shallow (less than 500mm) and the soil profile has more than 40% stone in the top as well as in the sub soil. The Oakleaf and sub-dominant Hutton soils can be found on the lower mid- slope and has an effective depth ranging from 40 cm to 90 cm on 5 % slope. The weakly structured B-horizon of the Oakleaf and luvic character in the Hutton may restrict root development. The dominant soil on the footslope is Avalon with effective depth of

Description of the Receiving Environment Page 108 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

50cm. The soft plinthic limiting layer restricts root development and cause impeded drainage. The slope is 2% and concave that could lead to drainage problem.

1 1 Crestline 2 2 Shoulder 3 3 Fall face (>45%) 4 4 Upper Mid slope 5 6 5 Lower Mid slope 7 6 Foot slope Terrain type 7 Riparian zone Figure 7.6: Classification of terrain units found within the project site.

7.5.4 Agricultural Potential

The project site is located on rolling, cultivated lands and includes some uncultivated land on the steeper hill slopes. Steep slopes of up to 38% occur on the hills.

Land use over the vast majority of the site (but excluding the marginal steep, uncultivated parts that are not used for agriculture) is dryland cultivation of small grains in rotation with grazing. This is by far the dominant land use of the entire surrounding Swartland region. There are no irrigated lands within the project site. Urban and residential areas are present near the site, in the vicinity of Moorreesburg.

Land capability is the combination of soil suitability and climate factors. Land capability of the different land types within the project site varies from class 3 to class 6 (refer to Appendix I). The agricultural potential on the ridges on site is limited to natural grazing. The natural grazing capacity of the site is given as 26-30 hectares per large stock unit. The soils present on the upper mid-slope have a small water holding capacity which makes them sensitive to erosion with limited agricultural potential. These soils fall in capability class 4. Potential wheat yield provides a good indication of agricultural potential across the site and is illustrated in Appendix I. It varies from 0 to 4.4 tons per hectare.

7.5.5. Ecological Profile of the Study Area i. Vegetation

Despite there being a fairly wide variety of vegetation types in the broad area around the project site, the whole site falls within the Swartland Shale Renosterveld vegetation type category/field (Figure 7.7). The other vegetation types are some distance from the site and are not likely to be affected by the development. Swartland Shale Renosterveld forms a large, more or less continuous unit covering the Swartland and Boland lowlands, from Het Kruis in the north, southwards between Piketberg and Olifantsrivierberge, widening appreciably in the region around Moorreesburg between Gouda and Hopefield,

Description of the Receiving Environment Page 109 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017 and encompassing Riebeck-Kasteel, Klipheuwel, Philadephia, Durbanville, Stellenbosch to the south and Sir Lowry’s Pass Village. The majority of the site has been transformed for agriculture with the remaining small pockets of indigenous vegetation located on small sections of the steeper areas of the site. Swartland Shale Renosterveld occurs on moderately undulating plains and valleys, supporting low to moderately tall leptophyllous shrubland of varying canopy cover as well as low, open shrubland dominated by renosterbos. Heuweltjies are a typical and prominent feature of the vegetation with low trees and thicket often being associated with the heuweltjies. ii. Conservation Status

The 2014 Western Cape Biodiversity Framework indicates that all the intact fragments of Swartland Shale Renosterveld at the site are mapped as CBAs. In addition, the Cape Lowlands Renosterveld Project (2003) identified Renosterveld priority clusters in the area. The priority clusters consist of Renosterveld remnants which were identified as priority areas based on their known plant and animal species richness, presence of intact ecological process, and habitat connectivity. As such, the priority areas consist of relatively large renosterveld fragments in proximity to one another or positioned along ecological gradients, which are deemed to be critical for conserving biodiversity pattern and process in the Cape Lowlands. Part of the Renosterveld remnants within the site fall within some of the priority clusters, as identified by the Cape Lowlands project, suggesting that these fragments are both locally and regionally significant and any impact to these fragments should be avoided.

Although it does not assign priority to different Renosterveld fragments, the National List of Threatened Terrestrial Ecosystems (2011), with associated GIS layers, is also highly relevant to the current project site, given the high threat status of the vegetation types in certain locations within the area. The remaining extent coverage available from the BGIS website is based on various landcover maps and provides a map of the current remaining extent of listed vegetation types. Less than 10% of the original extent of Swartland Shale Renosterveld remains and this vegetation type is classified as Critically Endangered within the project site. According to the coverage, there are approximately 114ha of intact remnants remaining within the site. The most significant remnant, which is that identified as part of the priority cluster is 110ha in total extent, about half of which is within the site. Therefore, ~1.5% of the project site is covered by these remnants. The remaining extent of threatened ecosystems and the priority Renosterveld clusters are depicted in Figure 7.8.

Description of the Receiving Environment Page 110 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Figure 7.7: Broad-scale overview of the vegetation in and around the Hartebeest Wind Farm project site. This is the original vegetation of the area and does not reflect the current levels of transformation.

Description of the Receiving Environment Page 111 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Figure 7.8: Critical biodiversity areas and ecological support areas for the project site.

Description of the Receiving Environment Page 112 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017 ii. Terrestrial Fauna

Mammals The site falls within the distribution range of 47 terrestrial mammals, indicating that the mammalian diversity at the site is potentially moderate, but given the high level of transformation in the area, the actual number of species present is likely to be fairly low. Furthermore, there is likely to be a limited variety of habitats present at the site and as a result, this is also likely to reduce the number of species which are likely to occur at the project site. Diversity of mammals is likely to be closely linked to the level of vegetation transformation at the site, while diversity within the cultivated areas are very low compared to the Renosterveld fragments. Species present in the cultivated areas are likely to be restricted to nocturnal species able to tolerate low vegetation cover such as Steenbok, Cape Gerbil and African Mole Rat. Within the intact fragments, Cape Porcupine, Aardvark and Cape Grey Mongoose were observed to be common.

Two Red-listed species occur in the area, the Honey Badger (SARDB Endangered) and the White-tailed Mouse (Endangered). As both these species are widely distributed in the country, the development of the site would not constitute significant habitat loss for these species. In addition, given the high conservation value of the remaining Renosterveld fragments in the area, the likelihood of currently intact habitat that could be lost as a result of the development is likely to be very low.

Reptiles The site lies in or near the distribution range of 43 reptile species, indicating that the reptile diversity at the site is likely to be of moderate diversity. Based on distribution maps and habitat requirements, the composition of the reptile fauna is likely to comprise the following species: 2 tortoises, 1 terrapin, 19 snakes, 14 lizards and skinks, 1 chameleon and 6 geckos. Given the low variety of habitats present at the site, as well as the high level of transformation, the diversity of reptiles at the site is likely to be significantly lower than the potential diversity. The intact remnants would clearly be the most important areas for reptiles and even through the site is heavily fragmented, the larger patches are likely to harbour fairly diverse reptile communities, which appear to be more resistant to fragmentation effects than mammals.

Two Red listed species are known from the area, the Cape Sand Snake (Vulnerable) and Geometric Tortoise. Although the Geometric Tortoise is known from the wider area, it is known from east of the site and is not known to occur within the site itself. As this is a fairly well studied species, it is not likely that it occurs at the site. If the Cape Sand Snake is present, it would be associated with the intact remnants and other areas with significant vegetation cover and would not occur within the transformed parts of the site that would be affected by the current development.

Description of the Receiving Environment Page 113 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Amphibians The site lies within the distribution range of eight amphibian species, of which at least five are highly likely to occur at the site. The only listed species which may occur in the area is the Cape Caco which is restricted to low lying flat or gently undulating areas with poorly drained clay or loamy soils. There does not appear to be any suitable breeding habitat for this species at the site as all such lowlands are transformed and no pans were observed within the lowlands of the site. There are a number of small earth dams at the site as well as a water-filled quarry, all of which would provide breeding habitat for amphibians. Species likely to be present include the Raucous Toad, Cape River Frog and Common Plantanna. The proximity of the dams and drainage lines as well as the intact vegetation fragments in general are likely to be the most important areas for amphibians at the site. The major threats to amphibians would stem from increased erosion risk resulting from disturbance associated with the construction phase of the development, as well as pollution related to construction activities and the presence of heavy machinery with the associated risk of fuel and oil spills. iii. Bats

Bats are broadly divided into two groups, insect- and fruit-eating bats. Fruit-eating bats are generally found in the warmer, eastern parts of the country where fruit trees, often of a commercial nature, are commonly found. A number of species do, however, occur in the Western Cape Province and it is possible that some may occur at the study site. Insect-eating bats are found across the entire country, including the study site. Therefore, anything that attracts insects is likely to, in turn, attract bats. For example, wetlands, pans, rivers, dumping sites, and animals such as cows, sheep and horses are all likely to attract both insects and bats.

Possible bat species that may be present in the vicinity of the project site include up to 18 species. One Vulnerable species has been identified namely - the Angolan wing-gland bat. Six species with a conservation status of Near Threatened have been identified, namely the Natal long-fingered bat, Temminck's myotis bat, Cape horseshoe bat, Geoffory’s horseshoe bat, and the Lesueur's wing-gland bat. Eight Least Concern species have been identified and include the Egyptian free-tailed bat, the Cape Serotine bat, the Egyptian Rousette bat, Long-tailed Serotine bat, the Egyptian silt-faced bat, Wahlberg's epauletted fruitbat, Robert’s flat-headed bat and Mauritian tomb bat. Both the Egyptian free-tailed bat and the Cape Serotine bat are common and widespread species in South Africa. Other bat species with uncertain conservation status include the Namibian long-eared bat and African straw-coloured fruit bat.

The vegetation description and land use types partially assists in describing the species likely to occur in the study area. Specific features within the landscape will further affect which species occur there. These specifics, or “micro” habitats, are formed by a combination of factors such as vegetation, land cover and man-made structures. Micro habitats has been critically important in siting the proposed turbines within the affected

Description of the Receiving Environment Page 114 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017 farms. Vegetation structure within the landscape will affect the bat distribution in the area. The project site is highly transformed and the natural vegetation is restricted to small pockets in the limits of some drainage areas, steep slopes and hill tops. The area is, therefore, mainly characterized by transformed habitats, represented by agricultural lands used for dry crops in rotation with sheep grazing. Intact Renosterveld (Fynbos biome) pockets could provide refuge and suitable foraging habitat for certain bat species.

The following micro habitats were identified during the site surveys and desktop analysis of the area:

» Wetlands and dams: The project site contains several small farm dams which may be important for certain bat species, as they tend to use them for obtaining drinking water. Depending on the dam characteristics, if natural vegetation is gathered in the vicinities then insect communities may be present which will attract bats and constitute an activity hotspot. » Hills and mounts: Natural vegetation can be found at the top of hills and mounts. These natural areas also have some rocky outcrops which may provide shelter for some crevice dwelling bats. » Houses and other buildings: Being a farming area, there are several houses and storage buildings within the area as well as its immediate surroundings. These buildings may serve as suitable bat roosts and could therefore be important for the bat community on site if these roosts are used for reproduction and/or hibernation purposes. » Exotic Trees: Scattered trees, such as those present in few parts of the project site, are utilised by the different bat species for roosting by tree-dwelling species such as the Egyptian silt-faced bat, the Cape serotine, the Egyptian free-tailed bat, or the Robert's flat-headed bat. Trees may also be used as feeding roosts during the night by other bat species, such as the Geoffroy’s horseshoe bat, which then roost during the day at separate locations (usually caves or mines). » Old quarry (active): The steep rocky faces of this feature could be used by certain bat species for roosting (i.e. crevice-roosting bats). » Cultivated land: Agricultural fields in the area are highly seasonal. These are dominated by dry croplands, such as wheat, which in the same year the area is likely to be ploughed, with no vegetation, having tall, complete vegetation in the following months and then cut again. These different phases shelter different insect communities, which are likely to attract bats at key moments (e.g. cereal harvest, ploughing). iv. Avifauna

The bird community in the area is likely to be comprised of several diurnal and nocturnal raptor species, bustard species, several waterbirds, as well as a diverse passerines and small birds. Possible bird species that may be present in the project site include up to 17 species of special conservation concern. Ten of these species have been confirmed

Description of the Receiving Environment Page 115 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017 during field work, of which six of these species are raptors and include African Marsh Harrier, Black Harrier, Martial Eagle, Verreaux’s Eagle, Secretary bird and Lanner Falcon. Two species are considered waterbirds and include Greater Flamingo and Lesser Flamingo. The remaining two species include the Blue Crane, considered Near Threatened, and the Ludwig’s Bustard, considered Endangered.

The most abundant bird species group recorded on site were ciconids, such as Western Cattle Egret, Hadeda Ibis or African Sacred Ibis; crows, such as Pied Crow or Cape Crow; and waterbirds such as Spur-winged and Egyptian Goose. Most of these species are not of conservation concern.

Species confirmed at the project site which are endemic to South Africa include the Black Harrier and Jackal Buzzard, which are especially important as sensitive species, as well as the Large-billed Lark and the Cape Long-billed Lark.

Regarding passerines and small bird species, the communities are represented by open habitat species, well adapted to relatively altered habitats, such as pastures and dry cereal crops. Larks are especially common and abundant, including the Cape Long-billed Lark, which is an endemic, range restricted species.

The project site is associated with the Fynbos biome vegetation type and major biotope. This biome is characteristic of higher altitudes and is present in the bottom and top of the mountains. The main land use in the area is for cereal production combined with sheep and cattle grazing, which have resulted in the natural habitats being highly transformed. Some tree stands appear scattered throughout the project site and hills covered with natural vegetation add steep slopes to the otherwise gently undulated landscape.

“Micro” habitats are formed by a combination of factors such as vegetation, land use, and other features. These micro habitats will be critically important in siting the proposed turbines within the affected farms. The following micro habitats are present in the project site:

» Wetlands and dams: Farm dams, such as those identified in the project site, accommodate communities of large bird species which may use them as stepping stones during their movements or as feeding or roosting areas. These water bodies may attract predatory birds trying to feed on the waterbirds. » Hills and mounts: Raptors and other aerial species may find suitable currents for flight near hills and mounts, which may be used for undertaking regular movements across the project site. These areas will usually present natural vegetation that may well serve as shelter for species raptors may prey upon. Other smaller bird species conditioned by the occurrence of natural vegetation may be found in the area as well. » Exotic trees: Exotic trees, such as Eucalyptus trees, create attractive habitat for priority species such as Black Sparrowhawk, Yellowbilled Kite and Jackal Buzzard.

Description of the Receiving Environment Page 116 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

These stands can also provide roosts and nesting sites for different species such as raptors, geese or ibises. » Old Quarry (active): An old quarry is situated to the north of the proposed project site. The steep rocky faces of this feature could be used by certain raptor as well as swallows, swifts and martins as a nesting and/or roosting habitat. » Agricultural fields: Highly seasonal, these transformed habitats, dominated by wheat, may attract seed eaters such as Blue Cranes after the harvesting and also foraging raptors during and immediately after ploughing. Wheat can also give an appropriate nesting shelter for some species such as the Blue Crane. Food and water supplements given to cattle and sheep may attract large number of birds, such as Egyptian and Spurwinged Geese and also Blue Cranes, storks, egrets or herons.

7.6. Heritage and Palaeontology

7.6.1. Palaeontology

No known palaeontological resources are present in this area, as it is all underlain by Malmesbury Shale known to be poor in palaeontological resources. The shales are among the oldest rocks in the Cape Province and pre-date most life forms. This means that they are very unlikely to contain fossil remains. The superficial deposits in the project site are soils that are derived from un-fossiliferous Malmsbury shale. Later fossils are known from the calcareous deposits on the West Coast near Hopefield and Duynefontein emanating from sediments relating to the Springfontein formation. However, there are no Springfontein or calcareous deposits in the project site. In addition no-limestone or calcrete formations of an age that would bear fossils, are situated within the project site.

7.6.2. Archaeology

The environment within the study area has been transformed by agriculture for more than 2 centuries. In-situ archaeological resources are extremely sparse, but it is expected that at least some Early Stone Age artefacts, could be present in the fields. Later Stone Age sites may be found along watercourses. It is possible that some historical archaeological resources may be present close to the various farmsteads within the project site.

Built environment A survey of deeds of the land parcels involved in the project indicates that all the land that makes up the project site derives from 3 parent farms namely Zwartfontein, Biesjiesfontein and Tontelfontein, which were formalised as grants from quitrent farms in 1818-1835. It is therefore possible that the farms were inhabited and worked before this time.

Description of the Receiving Environment Page 117 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

The historical built environment within the project site is in poor condition, although there is plenty of evidence of farms (werfs) that contain vestigial historical fabric – stone or mud brick barns, kraals and abandoned structures. Indications are that most of the early farm residences have been demolished and rebuilt, or modernised beyond recognition.

Graves and graveyards Farm graveyards are known to occur in the area. A cemetery is situated close to the southern boundary of the project site. Isolated unmarked pre-colonial graves are very unlikely to occur.

Landscape The cultural landscape is one of agriculture (wheat and livestock) with farmsteads and blue gum plantations dotted around and on the various hills. The gum plantations, although not very tall, add vertical components to the landscape and increase the visual clutter. Farms tend to be quite small, and therefore farmyards are more numerous than in other areas. There is a central spine of rolling hills that run through the study area. All but the steepest slopes are cultivated. The steeper slopes and rocky ridges that cannot be plowed still retain enclaves of Renosterveld vegetation.

7.7. Visual Quality

Landscape character is defined as “a distinct, recognisable and consistent pattern of elements in the landscape that makes one landscape different from another”. Landscape Character is a composite of a number of influencing factors including: • Landform and drainage; • Nature and density of development; and • Vegetation pattern.

Landform and Drainage The study area is located on the eastern edge of the Western Cape coastal plain. The dominant topographical unit or terrain type is slightly undulating plains, with a series of koppies running in a roughly north-south direction through the centre of the project site. The proposed site is also located on a series of ridgelines that run through the koppies. There are several secondary ridgelines with a similar elevation to the main landform. These run in an approximate east-west direction and are likely to have a modifying effect on visibility of the proposed development.

Approximately 30km to the west of the site, a remnant dune formation rises above the coastal plain to a level of approximately 150 – 300 m a.s.l. With the ridgeline located within the proposed project site, this has the effect of creating a broad north south running valley. Approximately 25km to the east of the site is the Cederberg mountain range. This landform is steep sided and rises to an elevation in excess of 1000m a.s.l. This range also forms a broad north south running valley with the ridgeline on which the

Description of the Receiving Environment Page 118 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017 site is located. The Koringberg Mountain lies further to the north, approximately 10.2km from the site.

Nature and Density of the Development Development within the study area can be divided into the following types namely:

» Urban development including the settlement of Moorreesburg that lies approximately 4km to the north west of the proposed projects site. Moorreesburg is a thriving rural town with a reasonably diverse economy and has a district centre with District and Local Municipal offices. Its largest economic sector is probably agricultural servicing but it also has a small light industrial component being the home of one of the largest window and door manufacturers in the country. There is a small tourism sector evident with a limited number of guest houses. The town is laid out in a standard grid format with roads running both along contours as well as directly down the slope on which they are located. This results in some roads having channelled views towards the proposed project site. The numerous street trees do however minimise this view of the surrounding landscape from within the settlement.

» Agricultural development is the main development type surrounding the project site. The main agricultural activity surrounding and including the site is wheat production. This results in an open arable landscape within which the main elements that are likely to influence visibility of the proposed development are the minor ridgelines and valleys that bisect it. Within the matrix of wheat fields, numerous farmsteads are located that include farmhouses, workers accommodation, storage and farm working areas. The farm houses and accommodation areas are often surrounded by trees that were possibly planted as wind breaks as well as for ornamental reasons.

» Industrial development is not very obvious in the landscape outside Moorreesburg however, there are four industrial facilities that are worthy of note including; • A large quarry area that is active and located within the north eastern section of the site ~2km from Moorreesburg. • The substation into which the proposed wind project will connect. This is a relatively large facility in excess of 1ha in extent located on the R311 close to its junction with the N7. There are currently five existing power lines that connect to the Moorreesburg Substation. • Two existing wind farm developments namely one at Hopefield approximately 30km to the north west of the proposed site and one close to Gouda approximately 30km to the south east of the proposed site.

Description of the Receiving Environment Page 119 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

7.8. Noise Quality

The topography can be described as slightly undulating plains. There are no topographical features that will limit the propagation of noise from the facility. The N7 and R311 national and provincial roads transect the area proposed for the wind energy facility in the south-west with a gravel road transecting the site from the west to the east. Apart from the N7, there are no other noise sources of significance currently in the area. Based on the available information, the study area would have a rural character in terms of the ambient sound levels. The N7 carries significant traffic that could increase the ambient sound levels up to 500m from this road wherein the effect of any noise generated by the wind farm will be reduced. There are other small gravel roads leading from the identified larger roads which traverse the area, however traffic on them is considered to be insignificant.

As the night-time noise environment is of particular interest, current agricultural land use activities are not expected to impact on the current ambient sound environment. Apart from the N7, there are no other noise sources of significance in the area. Based on the available information, the study area would have a rural character in terms of the ambient sound levels.

7.9. Social Characteristics of the Study Area and Surrounds

7.9.1. Socio-demographic profile of the study area population

The proposed Hartebeest Wind Farm is situated in the Swartland Local Municipality (SLM) in the Western Cape Province. The SLM is one of five constituent Local Municipalities that make up the West Coast District Municipality (WCDM). The administrative seat of the WCDM and SLM are located in Moorreesburg (located within the SLM area) and Malmesbury respectively. i. Population

The population of the SLM increased from 72 115 in 2001 to 113 762 in 201112 with an average annual growth rate of 3.5%. The population of the WCDM increased from 282 672 in 2001 to 391 766 in 2011 with an average annual growth rate of 3.26%. The increase in the population in both the WCDM and SLM was largely linked to an increase in the economically active 15-65 year age group.

Swartland LM was the second fastest growing municipality in the Western Cape over this period (apart from the Cape Town metro) and is now the sixth largest municipality in the Western Cape of the 24 municipalities (apart from the Cape Town metro). In terms of

12 Information was obtained from the latest census available.

Description of the Receiving Environment Page 120 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017 demographics, 64.8% of the population is Coloured, 18.3% Black African, 15.6% White and 1.3% Other. ii. Education

The education levels in both the WCDM and SLM improved between 2001 and 2011, with the percentage of the population over 20 years of age with no schooling in the SLM decreasing from 10.6% to 6.0%. For the WCDM, the decrease was from 9.51% to 5.4%. The percentage of the population over the age of 20 with matric also increased in both the WCDM and SLM, from 19.1% to 23.7% in the WCDM and 19.7% to 24.2% in the SLM. The matric pass level in the WCDM and SLM is however lower than the provincial average of 28.1 %. iii. Employment and skills levels

The official unemployment rate in both the WCDM and SLM increased between 2001 and 2011. In the WCDM the rate increased from 13.8% to 14.6% whereas in the SLM the rate increased from 10.2% to 12.7%. Youth unemployment in both the WCDM and SLM also increased over the same period with increases likely to be linked to the influx of job seekers to the WCDM and SLM and their inability to find employment. However, the unemployment and youth unemployment rates in the WCDM and SLM are lower than the provincial figures of 21.6% and 29.0% respectively. In addition, job losses are likely to be associated with the decline in the role of the agriculture sector and the subsequent loss of employment opportunities in this sector. iv. Household Incomes

Based on the data from the 2011 Census, 10.5% of the population of the SLM have no formal income, 1.7% earn between R1 and R 4 800, 2.6% earn between R4 801 and R9 600 per annum, 13.4% between R9 601 and R19 600 per annum and 21.7% between R19 600 and R38 200 per annum (Census 2011). The poverty income datum for households is linked to the number of household members. According to this yardstick, the average poor South African household (5.1 people) requires R1 637/ month just to subsist, and R3 162/ month to meet the most basic of food and other needs. Based on this measure ~ 50% of the SLMs population lives close to or below the poverty line. The low income levels are a major concern given that an increasing number of individuals and households are likely to be dependent on social grants. The low income levels also result in reduced spending in the local economy and less tax and rates revenue for the district and local municipality.

Description of the Receiving Environment Page 121 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS CHAPTER 8

This chapter serves to assess the significance of the positive and negative environmental impacts (direct, indirect, and cumulative) expected to be associated with the development of the Hartebeest Wind Farm and associated infrastructure. This assessment has considered the construction of a wind energy facility of up to 160MW, within a development footprint13 of approximately 47ha. The wind energy facility and associated infrastructure includes:

» A maximum of 32 wind turbines, with a maximum hub height of 130m and a maximum rotor diameter of 160m; » Concrete foundations to support the turbines; » Cabling between the turbines, to be laid underground where practical; » An on-site substation of 100m x 100m in extent to facilitate the connection between the wind energy facility and the electricity grid; » An overhead power line to connect the facility to the electricity grid. Two alternatives are being considered: ∗ Alternative 1: A connection to the existing Moorreesburg 132/66kV substation at 132kV via a 132 kV power line. The length of the power line required to be constructed for this connection will be ~4km. ∗ Alternative 2: A connection to the existing Moorreesburg 132/66kV substation at 66kV via a 132 kV power line (operated at 66kV and built to 132kV specification, therefore permitting for 132 kV is required). The length of the power line required to be constructed for this connection will be ~3,5km. » Access roads to the site and between project components; » Internal access roads to each turbine and to the on-site substation; » Temporary infrastructure including a concrete batching plant of 50m x 50m in extent to facilitate with the concrete requirements for turbine foundations and/or towers construction and laydown areas; » Workshop area / office for control, maintenance and storage, construction camp.

The full extent of the project site was considered through the Scoping Phase of the EIA process. On-site sensitivities were identified through the review of existing information, desk-top evaluations, on-site inspections of impacts identified by specialists and seasonal field work (refer to Figure 1.2 in Chapter 1). These sensitivities included:

» Areas with intact vegetation fragments which are classified as Very High sensitivity on account of their high threat status as well as the likely presence of high numbers of species of conservation concern.

13 The total development footprint (including temporary and permanent infrastructure) located within the project site for the wind energy facility, including associated infrastructure is ~47ha in extent.

Assessment of Impacts Page 122 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

» Important features for bat populations considered to be highly sensitive as well as confirmed permanent and seasonal roosts. » Areas of natural vegetation are restricted to fragments on certain hills and slopes and represents important habitat for sensitive, endangered bird species and must be considered as no-go areas. Other avifaunal no-go areas include water bodies and the active Jackal Buzzard nest identified within the project site. » Areas of hydrological significance considered to be highly sensitive and regarded as no-go areas include the valley bottom wetlands and the vernal pool. Smaller drainage lines due to the poor vegetative cover as well as the slopes and erodible soils in the area are considered to be highly sensitive. » Five areas of possible heritage significance which have been identified within the project site.

Following the recommendations from the scoping phase, the development footprint for the wind energy facility was appropriately located to avoid the sensitive no-go areas. The specialist assessments undertaken within this EIA phase have considered the 3288ha project site as well as the project development footprint alternatives (refer to Figure 8.1 and Figure 8.2) which has been provided by the developer.

The development of the wind energy facility will comprise the following phases:

» Pre-Construction and Construction – will include pre-construction surveys; site preparation; establishment of access roads, facility infrastructure, power line servitudes, construction of foundations involving excavations and cement pouring, construction camps, batching plant, laydown areas, transportation of components/construction equipment to site, manoeuvring and operating cranes for unloading and installation of equipment; laying cabling; and commissioning of new equipment and undertaking site rehabilitation including implementation of a stormwater management plan. The construction phase for the Hartebeest Wind Farm is dependent on the number of turbines to be erected, but is estimated at 18 months. » Operation – will include the operation of the wind energy facility and the generation of electricity which will be fed into the national grid via the facility on-site substation and an overhead power line. The operation phase of the wind energy facility is expected to be for approximately 20 - 25 years (with maintenance).

Assessment of Impacts Page 123 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Figure 8.1: Map showing the preliminary 25 turbine layout as well as the power line alternatives for the Hartebeest Wind Farm and associated infrastructure located within the project site (refer to Appendix Q for A3 maps).

Assessment of Impacts Page 124 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Figure 8.2: Map showing the preliminary 32 turbine layout as well as the power line alternatives for the Hartebeest Wind Farm and associated infrastructure located within the project site (refer to Appendix Q for A3 maps).

Assessment of Impacts Page 125 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

» Decommissioning – depending on the economic viability of the wind energy facility, the length of the operation phase may be extended beyond a 20 year period. At the end of the project’s life, decommissioning will include site preparation; disassembling of the components of the facility; clearance of the relevant infrastructure at site and rehabilitation. Note that impacts associated with decommissioning are expected to be similar to those associated with construction activities. Therefore, these impacts are not considered separately within this chapter. Environmental issues associated with construction and decommissioning activities may include, among others, threats to biodiversity and ecological processes, including habitat alteration and impacts to wildlife through mortality, injury and disturbance; impacts to sites of heritage value; soil erosion; and nuisance noise from the movement of vehicles transporting equipment and materials during construction.

8.1. Legal Requirements as per the EIA Regulations for the undertaking of an Environmental Impact Assessment Report, 2014

This chapter of the EIA report includes the following information required in terms of Appendix 3: Content of Environmental Impact Assessment Reports:

Requirement Relevant Section Page Reference 3(h)(v) the impacts and risks The impacts and risks 127 - 257 identified including the nature, identified to be associated with significance, consequence, the construction and operation extent, duration and of the Hartebeest Wind Farm probability of the impacts, and the associated including the degree to which infrastructure is included these impacts (aa) can be within this chapter. This reversed, (bb) may cause assessment of the impacts and irreplaceable loss of resources, risks includes the nature, and (cc) can be avoided, significance, magnitude, managed or mitigated. extent, duration and probability of the impacts as well as the degree to which the impacts can be reversed, may cause irreplaceable loss of resources and can be avoided or mitigated. This is included in the sections 8.3.3, 8.4.3, 8.5.3, 8.6.3, 8.7.3, 8.8.3, 8.9.3, 8.10.3 and 8.11.3. 3(h)(viii) the possible Possible mitigation measures 127 - 257 mitigation measures that could and the residual risks are be applied and the level of included in sections 8.3.3, residual risk. 8.4.3, 8.5.3, 8.6.3, 8.7.3, 8.8.3, 8.9.3, 8.10.3 and 8.11.3.

Assessment of Impacts Page 126 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Requirement Relevant Section Page Reference 3(i) a full description of the A description of the 128 - 259 process undertaken to identify, environmental issues and risks assess and rank the impacts, that were identified during the the activity and associated environmental impact structures and infrastructure assessment process and an will impose on the preferred assessment of the significance location through the life of the of each issue and risk and an activity, including (i) a indication of the extent to description of the which the issue and risk could environmental issues and risks be avoided or addressed by that were identified during the the adoption of mitigation environmental impact measures are included in assessment process and (ii) an sections 8.3.2, 8.3.3, 8.4.2, assessment of the significance 8.4.3, 8.5.2, 8.5.3, 8.6.2, of each issue and risk and an 8.6.3, 8.7.2, 8.7.3, 8.8.2, indication of the extent to 8.8.3, 8.9.2, 8.9.3, 8.10.2, which the issue and risk could 8.10.3, 8.11.2 and 8.11.3. be avoided or addressed by the adoption of mitigation measures,. 3(j) an assessment of each An assessment of each 128 - 259 identified potentially significant potentially significant impact impact and risk, including (i) and risk including the, the cumulative impacts, (ii) the nature, extent, and nature, extent, and consequences of the impact consequences of the impact and risk, the extent and and risk, (iii) the extent and duration of the impact and duration of the impact and risk, the probability of the risk, (iv) the probability of the impact and risk occurring, the impact and risk occurring, (v) degree to which the impact the degree to which the impact and risk can be reversed, the and risk can be reversed, (vi) degree to which the impact the degree to which the impact and risk may cause and risk may cause irreplaceable loss of resources irreplaceable loss of resources and the degree to which the and (vii) the degree to which impact and risk can be the impact and risk can be mitigated is included in mitigated. sections 8.3.3, 8.4.3, 8.5.3, 8.6.3, 8.7.3, 8.8.3, 8.9.3, 8.10.3 and 8.11.3. A separate cumulative assessment is included in Chapter 9. 3(m) based on the Recommendations from the 128 - 259 assessment, and where specialists and mitigation applicable, recommendations measures from the specialist from the specialist reports, the reports for inclusion in the

Assessment of Impacts Page 127 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Requirement Relevant Section Page Reference recording of proposed impact EMPr is within sections 8.3.3, management objective and, 8.4.3, 8.5.3, 8.6.3, 8.7.3, the impact management 8.8.3, 8.9.3, 8.10.3 and outcomes for the development 8.11.3. and within the EMPr for inclusion in the EMPr as which is included as Appendix well as for inclusion as N. The EMPr also includes the conditions for authorisation. recording of the management objective and the impact management outcomes.

8.2. Quantification of Areas of Disturbance on the Site

Site-specific impacts associated with the construction and operation of the proposed wind energy facility relate to the direct loss of vegetation and species of special concern, disturbance of animals and loss of habitat and impacts on soils. A wind energy facility is, however, dissimilar to most other power generation facilities in that it does not result in whole-scale disturbance to a site. In order to assess the impacts associated with the proposed Hartebeest Wind Farm, it is necessary to understand the extent of the affected area.

Permanently affected areas comprise turbine footprints (maximum of 32 foundation areas of 15m x 15m in the worst-case scenario), access roads (up to 8m in width), one 132kV substation footprint (maximum of 100m x 100m) and an operations and service building area (maximum of 100m x 100m). The maximum area of permanent disturbance is approximated as follows:

Facility component - permanent Approximate area/extent (in m2) 32 turbine foundation (each 15m x 15m, 3m deep) 21 137 Crane platform 34 848 Permanent access roads within the site (8m width and 159 060 ~28km in length) One on-substation footprint (100m x 100m) 10 000 Operations and maintenance building area (100m x 10 000 100m) TOTAL 235 045m2 (of a total area of 32 880 000m2) i.e. 0.7 % of project site

It should be noted that the site currently has several existing access roads which are used for farming activities. It is planned that where existing access roads are able to be utilised within the development footprint, these are utilised, widened and upgraded.

Assessment of Impacts Page 128 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Based on the above, it can be concluded that approximately 0.7% of the entire extent of the site can be anticipated to be permanently transformed for the development footprint of the proposed Hartebeest Wind Farm, should the 32 turbine layout be authorised. A reduced turbine layout is however the preferred layout option from a technical perspective. Temporarily affected areas comprise general laydown areas and a temporary crane travel track and construction access roads utilising the same route as the permanent access road (an additional 5m in width to the permanent road of 8m (i.e. taking the total roadway to be used during construction to 13m in width at specific areas to accommodate the crawler crane). The area of temporary disturbance is as follows:

Facility component - temporary Approximate area/extent (in m2) Temporary hardstand area (boom erection, storage and 152 203 assembly area) Temporary general laydown areas (3 x 2ha) 60 000 Temporary road area (turning circles) 16 102 Batching plant (50m x 50m) 2 500 TOTAL 230 805m2 (of a total area of 32 880 000 m2) ~0.7% of project site

Therefore, ~0.7% of the entire extent of the site can be anticipated to be temporarily disturbed to some extent during the construction of the Hartebeest Wind Farm. Considering permanent and temporary footprints, approximately 1.4% of the total extent of 3288ha will be disturbed by the construction and operation phases of the project (based on the 32 turbine layout). This excludes the footprint of the proposed power line routes.

8.3. Potential Impacts on Ecology (Ecology, Flora and Fauna)

The project site of ~3288ha has been assessed for the 160MW wind energy facility, which includes the development footprint of the facility (~47ha). The majority of impacts associated with the development would occur during the construction phase as a result of the disturbance associated with site clearance, excavations, the operation of heavy machinery at the site and the presence of construction personnel. Potential impacts and the relative significance of the impacts are summarised below (refer to Appendix D for more details).

8.3.1. Results of the Ecological Study

Vegetation:

The majority of the project site is transformed for wheat production and there are limited areas of remnant Renosterveld remaining. Even the drainage lines are badly degraded and the majority no longer have any remaining natural flanking vegetation or are

Assessment of Impacts Page 129 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017 invaded by alien plant species such as Acacia saligna. There are a lot of alien and weedy plant species present in disturbed areas at the site including species such as Dittrichia graveolens, Conyza bonariensis, Hypochaeris radicata, Lactuca serriola, Heliotropium europaeum, Salsola kali, Acacia saligna, Avena fatua, Atriplex semibacata, Bromus japonicus, Bromus pectinatus, Ricinus communis, Nicotiana glauca, well as indigenous disturbance-associated species such as Cynodon dactylon, Asclepias fruticosa, Galenia africana and Athanasia trifurcata.

There are however a number of remnant Renosterveld patches (refer to Figure 8.3) present within the site of variable size and condition. The most important of these is a large Renosterveld remnant of just over 100ha that has been identified as a priority fragment. As such large fragments are no longer common, it should not be further fragmented and disturbed as it is only in such large fragments that many ecological processes are still functional and able to continue. Dominant species within the Renosterveld patches include species such as Dicerothamnus rhinocerotis, Searsia incisa var. incisa, Searsia undulata, Asparagus capensis var. capensis, Eriocephalus africanus var. africanus, Hyparrhenia hirta, Pentaschistis patula, Wiborgia fusca, Merxmuellera arundinacea, Heeria argentea, Haemanthus coccineus, Maytenus oleoides, Lebeckia cytisoides, Aspalathus aculeata, Athanasia trifurcata, Felicia filifolia subsp. filifolia, Galenia africana, Pteronia divaricata, Pteronia incana, Stachys aethiopica, Salvia africana-caerulea, Cynodon dactylon, Ehrharta calycina, Merxmuellera arundinacea and Ischyrolepis capensis.

Figure 8.3: Part of the 100ha Renosterveld patch which occurs within the project site.

Assessment of Impacts Page 130 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

According to the SANBI SIBIS database, 783 plant species have been recorded from the two quarter degree squares 3318BA and BB within which the site occurs. In itself this is not very remarkable, but the fact that this includes almost 70 species of high conservation concern and 33 species of moderate concern, highlights the botanical sensitivity of the area. The listed species are dominated by species within the Iridaceae (26 species), Mesembryanthemaceae (15), Fabaceae (13) and Proteaceae (12). It is highly likely that some listed species occur at the site within the remaining natural Renosterveld fragments. The intact vegetation fragments are classified as very high sensitivity on account of their high threat status as well as the likely presence of high numbers of species of conservation concern. As the large Renosterveld remnant towards the eastern half of the project site has also been identified as part of a regionally significant Renosterveld cluster, development within this fragment would generate impacts which would be deemed to have very high significance.

Overall, the project site presents a highly contrasting sensitivity, with the transformed areas considered to be of generally low sensitivity, with little risk of significant ecological impact and the intact natural areas being considered essentially no-go areas of exceptional sensitivity. No turbines or access roads from both layout and power line alternatives are situated within the intact natural fragments. As such, the development would not result in a direct impact on any intact Renosterveld. Consequently, the impacts of the development on vegetation are likely to be low and restricted to transformed areas only, with little intact remaining biodiversity.

Fauna:

Two listed mammal species occur in the area and includes the Honey Badger (SARDB Endangered) and the White-tailed Mouse (Endangered). As both these species are widely distributed in the country, the development of the site would not constitute significant habitat loss for these species, especially as they would occur in the intact Renosterveld areas and would not be significantly affected by development within the transformed area. The major impacts on mammals resulting from the development are likely to be associated with the construction phase of the development, when a large amount of noise and disturbance are likely to be generated at the site. This phase of the development is however transient and during the operational phase, impacts to mammals are likely to be low.

Two listed reptile species are known to occur in the area and include the Cape Sand Snake (Vulnerable) and Geometric Tortoise. The only listed amphibian species which may occur in the area is the Cape Caco which is restricted to low lying flat or gently undulating areas with poorly drained clay or loamy soils. The intact remnants would clearly be the most important areas for reptiles and even through the site is heavily fragmented; the larger patches are likely to harbour fairly diverse reptile communities, which appear to be more resistant to fragmentation effects than mammals. The major

Assessment of Impacts Page 131 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017 threats to amphibians would stem from increased erosion risk resulting from disturbance associated with the construction phase of the development, as well as pollution related to construction activities and the presence of heavy machinery with the associated risk of fuel and oil spills.

There are several drainage lines identified within the project site. These drainage lines are highly degraded and the primary risk is due to erosion and not directly on biodiversity within this area.

Figure 8.4 provides the detail of the ecological sensitivities located within the project site of the Hartebeest Wind Farm, the Layout Alternative 1 and 2 as well as Power Line Alternative 1 and 2. The map confirms that turbines and access roads avoid no-go areas. Therefore, with the avoidance of no-go areas, the significance of impacts on ecology would be low.

Assessment of Impacts Page 132 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Figure 8.4: Ecological sensitivity map of the Hartebeest Wind Farm overlain with Layout Alternative 1 (25 turbine layout) and 2 (32 turbine layout), as well as the grid connection alternatives.

Assessment of Impacts Page 133 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

8.3.2 Description of Ecological Impacts

The following impacts are identified as the major impacts associated with the development of both the wind energy facility and the associated infrastructure which are assessed, for the preconstruction, construction and operational phases of the development.

» Impacts on vegetation and listed or protected plant species: There are many listed plant species present within the intact Renosterveld fragments which would be impacted if any development were to occur in these areas. Under the current layout alternatives assessed, impacts are however likely to be very low as no infrastructure is within the intact areas. Consequences associated with the impact, should it occur, include:

i) a general loss of habitat for sensitive species; ii) loss in variation within habitat due to loss of portions thereof; iii) general reduction in biodiversity; iv) increased fragmentation; v) disturbance to processes maintaining biodiversity and ecosystem goods and services; vi) a loss of ecosystem goods and services; vii) reduction in area of occupancy of affected species; and viii) loss of genetic variation within affected species.

Although the footprint avoids direct impact to intact Renosterveld fragments, many parts of the footprint are in close proximity to intact areas and it would be very easy for some of these areas to be affected by vehicles etc. In addition, many impacts such as noise will affect fauna regardless of whether the footprint is within the intact areas or not.

» Degradation of ecosystems: The large amount of disturbance created during construction will leave disturbed parts of the site vulnerable to alien plant invasion and soil erosion. This is likely to be an issue largely during the construction phase as there would be a lot of disturbance and exposed soil present at this time which would be vulnerable to erosion. However, this would be restricted to transformed areas only based on the proposed layout. Consequences associated with the impact, should it occur, include:

i) a loss of ecosystem goods and services; ii) disturbance to processes maintaining biodiversity and ecosystem goods and services; and iii) Increased erosion leading to siltation and degradation of drainage systems.

Assessment of Impacts Page 134 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

» Direct faunal impacts: Increased levels of noise, pollution, disturbance and human presence will be detrimental to fauna especially during construction. Sensitive and shy fauna would move away from the area during the construction phase as a result of the noise and human activities present, while some slow-moving species would not be able to avoid the construction activities and might be killed. Some mammals and reptiles such as tortoises would be vulnerable to illegal collection or poaching during the construction phase as a result of the large number of construction personnel that are likely to be present. During operation, the turbines would generate noise and movement which may deter some fauna from their vicinity, but most species would be likely to become habituated in the long-term, especially as most fauna present is likely to be tolerant of human activity. Consequences of this impact may include:

i) Depressed local populations of affected fauna; ii) Fragmentation of populations of affected species; iii) Reduction in area of occupancy of affected species; iv) Loss of genetic variation of affected species; and v) Impaired ability to respond to environmental changes.

» Impacts on Broad-Scale Ecological Processes: The development is located in the vicinity of a 100ha remnant Renosterveld patch which has been identified as a priority patch for conservation. The presence and operation of the wind energy facility may impact processes within the adjacent intact areas due to noise and disturbance, especially during construction. Processes such as dispersal of fauna may be impacted due to noise and the presence of turbines which may negatively impact some fauna which may avoid the area.

8.3.3 Impact tables summarising the significance of impacts on ecology during construction and operation (with and without mitigation)

The impacts assessed below apply to the development area, including the turbines and associated infrastructure, as well as the grid connection infrastructure for Hartebeest Wind Farm. The primary purpose of the high pre-mitigation impacts is to demonstrate that uncontrolled activity at the project site is highly likely to impact intact areas and the significance of this is potentially high. All of the post-mitigation impacts are very low and it is clear that with the mitigation applied, the overall impact of the development would be low.

Construction Phase Impacts

Nature: Potential impacts on vegetation due to construction activities associated with the wind energy facility. Impacts on vegetation could occur due to disturbance and vegetation clearing associated with the construction of the facility. Although the footprint avoids intact natural areas,

Assessment of Impacts Page 135 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017 some parts of the development are in close proximity to intact areas and some impact could potentially occur. Relevant Listed activities: GNR 983 Activity: 11(i), 12 (xii)(c), 19 (i), 24 (ii), 56(ii) GNR 984 Activity: 1, 15 GNR 985 Activity: 4(f)(aa), 12(a)(ii),14(xii)(a)(f)(ff), 18(f)(i)(aa) Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Without With Without With mitigation mitigation mitigation mitigation Extent Local (1) Local (1) Local (1) Local (1) Duration Long-term (4) Short-term (2) Long-term (4) Short-term (2) Magnitude Low to Minor (2) Low to Minor to Low Moderate (5) Moderate (5) (3) Probability Probable (3) Probable (3) Probable (3) Probable (3) Significance Medium (30) Low (15) Medium (30) Low (18) Status (positive or Negative Negative Negative Negative negative) Reversibility Low High Low High Irreplaceable loss of Low Low Low Low resources? Can impacts be Provided that the intact remnants are avoided, then any potential mitigated? impacts are likely to be easily mitigated. Mitigation: » No infrastructure such as roads should traverse intact Renosterveld patches, even along existing farm roads as the roads required for wind energy facilities are much larger and generate a fundamentally different impact to farm tracks. » The final layout including roads and underground cables should be checked by an ecological specialist to confirm whether there are any areas where a preconstruction walkthrough is required. » All intact fragments should be considered no-go areas for vehicles as well as personnel during construction. » All construction vehicles should adhere to clearly defined and demarcated roads. No off-road driving to be allowed. » Temporary laydown areas should be located within previously transformed areas or areas that have been identified as being of low sensitivity (as is currently the case for the assessed layout). Residual Impacts: Provided that the intact patches are avoided, there should be no residual impacts.

Nature: Faunal impacts due to construction activities. Disturbance, transformation and loss of habitat will have a negative effect on resident fauna during construction. Relevant Listed activities: GNR 983 Activity: 11(i), 12 (xii)(c), 19 (i), 24 (ii), 56(ii) GNR 984 Activity: 1, 15 GNR 985 Activity: 4(f)(aa), 12(a)(ii),14(xii)(a)(f)(ff), 18(f)(i)(aa) Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Assessment of Impacts Page 136 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Without With Without With mitigation mitigation mitigation mitigation Extent Local (1) Local (1) Local (1) Local (1) Duration Short-term (2) Short-term (2) Short-term (2) Short-term (2) Magnitude Low (4) Minor to Low Low to Minor to Low (3) Moderate (5) (3) Probability Highly Probable Probable (3) Highly Probable Probable (3) (4) (4) Significance Low (28) Low (12) Medium (32) Low (18) Status (positive or Negative Negative Negative Negative negative) Reversibility Moderate High Moderate High Irreplaceable loss of No No No No resources? Can impacts be Although the large amounts of noise and disturbance generated at the mitigated? site during construction is largely unavoidable, impacts such as those resulting from the presence of construction personnel at the site can be easily mitigated. Mitigation: » Site access should be controlled and no unauthorised persons should be allowed onto the site. » All intact Renosterveld patches should be considered no-go areas for vehicles and personnel. » Any fauna directly threatened by the construction activities should be removed to a safe location by the ECO or other suitably qualified person. » The collection, hunting or harvesting of any indigenous plants or animals at the site should be strictly forbidden. Personnel should not be allowed to wander off the demarcated construction site. » Fires should not be allowed on site. » All hazardous materials should be stored in the appropriate manner to prevent contamination of the site. Any accidental chemical, fuel and oil spills that occur at the site should be cleaned up in the appropriate manner as related to the nature of the spill. » All construction vehicles should adhere to a low speed limit to avoid collisions with susceptible species such as snakes and tortoises. » If any parts of the facility are to be fenced, then no electrified strands should be placed within 30cm of the ground as come species such as tortoises are susceptible to electrocution from electric fences as they do not move away when electrocuted but rather adopt defensive behaviour and are killed by repeated shocks. Residual Impacts: Provided that the intact fragments can be avoided, then there would be little residual impact for fauna from construction activities, although the operation of the facility would generate some impact.

Nature: Degradation of ecosystems. Disturbance created during construction would potentially result in ecosystem degradation as a result of erosion and alien plant invasion. Relevant Listed activities: GNR 983 Activity: 11(i), 12 (xii)(c), 19 (i), 24 (ii), 56(ii) GNR 984 Activity: 1, 15

Assessment of Impacts Page 137 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

GNR 985 Activity: 4(f)(aa), 12(a)(ii),14(xii)(a)(f)(ff), 18(f)(i)(aa) Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Without With Without With mitigation mitigation mitigation mitigation Extent Local (1) Local (1) Local (1) Local (1) Duration Medium-term Short-term (2) Medium-term Short-term (2) (3) (3) Magnitude Low (4) Minor (2) Low to Minor to Low Moderate (5) (3) Probability Probable (3) Improbable (3) Probable (3) Improbable (3) Significance Low (24) Low (10) Low (27) Low (12) Status (positive or Negative Negative Negative Negative negative) Reversibility Moderate High Moderate High Irreplaceable loss of No No No No resources? Can impacts be Yes. mitigated? Mitigation: » Due to the disturbance at the site as well as the increased runoff generated by the hard infrastructure associated with the wind energy facility, woody alien plant species may increase in run-on areas (areas that receive run-off). A long-term control plan should be implemented to control species such as Acacia saligna which may increase along drainage lines. » Where there is disturbance on slopes, runoff control structures must be used to ensure that erosion does not occur. » Silt traps may be necessary in some places to ensure that large amounts of soil and silt do not erode into drainage channels. » There should be regular dust suppression within disturbed areas during construction as the operation of heavy vehicles and the relatively high winds of the area are likely to generate significant amounts of dust. Residual Impacts: With mitigation there would be little residual impact.

Nature: Impacts on vegetation due to construction activities associated with the grid connection. Impacts on vegetation would occur due to disturbance and vegetation clearing associated with the construction of the grid connection. No section of the proposed power line alternatives traverse any section of natural vegetation. Relevant Listed activities: GNR 983 Activity: 11(i), 12 (xii)(c) GNR 984 Activity: 1 GNR 985 Activity: 14(xii)(a)(f)(ff) Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Without With Without With mitigation mitigation mitigation mitigation Extent Local (1) Local (1) Local (1) Local (1) Duration Medium-term Short-term (2) Medium-term Short-term (2)

Assessment of Impacts Page 138 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

(3) (3) Magnitude Minor to Low Minor to Low Minor to Low Low (2) (3) (3) (3) Probability Probable (3) Improbable (2) Probable (3) Improbable (2) Significance Low (21) Low (12) Low (21) Low (10) Status (positive or Negative Negative Negative Negative negative) Reversibility High High High High Irreplaceable loss of Low Low Low Low resources? Can impacts be Provided that the intact remnants are avoided, then any potential mitigated? impacts are likely to be easily mitigated. Mitigation: » No infrastructure such as roads should traverse intact Renosterveld patches. » The final layout of the power line including roads should be checked by an ecological specialist. » If the preferred power line traverses any intact remnants, there should be a preconstruction walkthrough of the affected sections. » All construction vehicles should adhere to clearly defined and demarcated roads. No off-road driving to be allowed. Residual Impacts: Provided that the intact patches are avoided, there should be no residual impacts.

Operation Phase Impacts

Nature: Faunal impacts to operation. The operation and presence of the facility may lead to disturbance or persecution of fauna within or adjacent to the facility. Relevant Listed activities: GNR 983 Activity: 11(i), 12 (xii)(c), 19 (i), 24 (ii), 56(ii) GNR 984 Activity: 1, 15 GNR 985 Activity: 4(f)(aa), 12(a)(ii),14(xii)(a)(f)(ff), 18(f)(i)(aa) Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Without With Without With mitigation mitigation mitigation mitigation Extent Local (1) Local (1) Local (1) Local (1) Duration Long-term (4) Long-term (4) Long-term (4) Long-term (4) Magnitude Low to Minor (2) Moderate (6) Minor (2) moderate (5) Probability Probable (3) Probable (3) Probable (3) Probable (3) Significance Medium (30) Low (21) Medium (33) Low (21) Status (positive or Negative Negative Negative Negative negative) Reversibility Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Irreplaceable loss of No No No No resources? Can impacts be To a large extent, but some low-level residual impact due to turbine mitigated? noise and human disturbance is likely. Mitigation:

Assessment of Impacts Page 139 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

» No unauthorised persons should be allowed onto the site. » Any potentially dangerous fauna such as snakes or fauna threatened by the maintenance and operational activities should be removed to a safe location. » The collection, hunting or harvesting of any plants or animals at the site or in the surrounding area should be strictly forbidden. » If the site must be lit at night for security purposes, this should be done with low-UV type lights (such as most LEDs), which do not attract insects. » All hazardous materials should be stored in the appropriate manner to prevent contamination of the site. Any accidental chemical, fuel and oil spills that occur at the site should be cleaned up in the appropriate manner as related to the nature of the spill. » All vehicles accessing the site should adhere to a low speed limit (30km/h max) to avoid collisions with susceptible species such as snakes and tortoises. » If new fencing is needed, then no electrified strands should be placed within 30cm of the ground as some species such as tortoises are susceptible to electrocution from electric fences as they do not move away when electrocuted but rather adopt defensive behaviour and are killed by repeated shocks. Residual Impacts: As the intact habitats at the site will not be affected, residual risks on fauna would be very low.

Nature: Negative impact on broad-scale ecological processes. Development of the wind farm may impact broad-scale ecological processes such as the ability of fauna to disperse between Renosterveld patches. . Relevant Listed activities: GNR 983 Activity: 11(i), 12 (xii)(c), 19 (i), 24 (ii), 56(ii) GNR 984 Activity: 1, 15 GNR 985 Activity: 4(f)(aa), 12(a)(ii),14(xii)(a)(f)(ff), 18(f)(i)(aa) Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Without With Without With mitigation mitigation mitigation mitigation Extent Local (2) Local (1) Local (2) Local (1) Duration Long term (4) Long term (4) Long term (4) Long term (4) Magnitude Low (4) Minor (2) Low to Minor to Low Moderate (5) (3) Probability Probable (3) Probable (3) Highly Probable Probable (3) (4) Significance Medium (30) Low (21) Medium (44) Low (24) Status (positive or Negative Negative Negative Negative negative) Reversibility High High High High Irreplaceable loss of No No No No resources? Can impacts be Yes, The major mitigation measure is to ensure that no intact habitat mitigated? is lost and this has been achieved under the layouts assessed. Mitigation: » An open space management plan should be developed for the site, which should include management of biodiversity within the affected areas, as well as that in the adjacent intact

Assessment of Impacts Page 140 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Renosterveld. » This should also include a fire management plan to be implemented on the intact Renosterveld patches, which should be developed with input from someone with recognised expertise in this area. Residual Impacts: The presence of the facility will potentially generate some impact but this is likely to be very low as the ecological integrity of the area has already been significantly compromised and the additional impact of the wind farm is low.

8.3.4 Comparative Assessment of Alternatives

Layout Alternatives: In terms of the wind farm development, Layout Alternative 1 considers 25 turbine locations and is preferred simply because it has fewer turbines than Layout Alternative 2 and would have less potential impact on fauna. However, both layout alternatives are considered acceptable from an ecological perspective as the critical mitigation measure of avoiding impact on intact Renosterveld has been achieved under both layouts.

Aspect Layout Alternative 1 Layout Alternative 2 Ecology Acceptable – preferred Acceptable » Least turbines; will have the » Most turbines; will have a higher lowest impact on fauna impact on fauna » No turbines located within » No turbines located within Renosterveld patches Renosterveld patches

Grid Connection Alternatives: In terms of the grid connection options, there is little to differentiate the two alternatives. Alternative 2 is considered the preferred alternative as it is shorter than Alternative 1. From a technical perspective, Power Line Alternative 1 is preferred and as there is little difference in impact on sensitive features between the two alternatives, Alternative 1 is considered an acceptable alternative and the development can proceed with Alternative 1 as the preferred alternative.

Aspect Grid connection solution Grid connection solution Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Ecology Acceptable Acceptable » Substation position avoids » Substation position avoids sensitive areas sensitive areas » Traverse minor drainage lines » Traverse minor drainage lines » Traverse a highly degraded lowland area.

Assessment of Impacts Page 141 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

8.3.5 Implications for Project Implementation

With the implementation of mitigation measures by the developer, contractors, and operational staff, the significance of ecological impacts of the Hartebeest Wind Farm can be reduced from moderate to low. From the outcomes of the studies undertaken, it is concluded that the wind energy facility can be developed, with on-site mitigation viewed as the most practical and appropriate action, and a viable option for reducing the overall impact of the development on these areas is detailed below:

» Due to the high level of transformation that the Swartland Shale Renosterveld has experienced, it is classified as Critically Endangered and all remnants are therefore considered to be irreplaceable and of exceptional sensitivity. No infrastructure should be located within the intact remnants and these should essentially be considered to be no-go areas for development. » The final layout including roads and underground cables should be checked by an ecological specialist to see if there are any areas where a pre-construction walkthrough is required. » Permits will be required to relocate and/or disturb listed plant species should these be impacted by the proposed development.

8.4. Potential Impacts on Avifauna

The project site of ~3288ha has been assessed for the Hartebeest Wind Farm, which includes the development footprint of the facility (~47ha). The impact of the proposed development on avifauna has been assessed as moderate to low with the implementation of mitigation measures. There are no fatal flaws associated with the proposed Hartebeest Wind Farm. Potential impacts and the relative significance of the impacts are summarised below (refer to Appendix E for more details).

8.4.1 Results of the Avifaunal Study

The bird pre-construction monitoring at the proposed Hartebeest Wind Farm started in May 2013. In October 2013 an additional area was added for potential development and consequently for monitoring. The pre-construction bird monitoring programme spanned over a period of 16 months, as additional areas were considered for potential development after the 4 first months of monitoring. Thus, with the 16 month programme it is guaranteed that all areas would be covered for a period of at least 12 months.

Twenty eight bird species that were confirmed at the site and its surroundings are considered sensitive. Ten of these species are especially sensitive due to their conservation status and include the Greater Flamingo, Lesser Flamingo, Secretarybird,

Assessment of Impacts Page 142 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Verreaux’s Eagle, Martial Eagle, African Marsh Harrier, Black Harrier, Lanner Falcon, Blue Crane and Ludwig's Bustard.

Passerine and small bird communities Fifty nine percent (59%) of the total bird species detected in the broader study area are passerines and other small sized birds. The most abundant groups in this respect were weavers and bishops, larks and cisticolas. Doves, pigeons and chats were also abundant in the project site.

Five sensitive passerine species were recorded during the pre-construction bird monitoring. Four of these species are endemic and near endemic lark species, namely the Cape Long-billed Lark, Large-billed Lark, Cape Clapper Lark and the Black-eared Sparrow-lark. The Common Swift, a species from the swift family has also been detected.

All these species are adapted to human environments and therefore no important habitat related impact is likely to affect them.

Raptors and large birds Seven species from the ciconid group were identified during the pre-construction monitoring period, although only the African Sacred Ibis is considered sensitive because of its declining numbers and because its flight characteristics could potentially pose it at risk of collision. This species was quite abundant compared to other species but appeared to be very widespread in the study area.

Sixteen species of waterbirds were recorded although only the Greater Flamingo and Cape Shoveler are considered sensitive because of their conservation status, rareness or declining numbers. Both species were observed in very low numbers during the monitoring and never within 1km from the area defined for the installation of the wind energy facility.

Three crow species confirmed within the project site, none of which are considered sensitive and include: » Pied Crow; » Cape Crow; and » White-necked Raven.

Blue Cranes, classified as Vulnerable at a global scale (IUCN 2016) and Near Threatened in South Africa (Taylor, 2015), are considered to be potentially prone to collision with turbines, as they are heavy fliers, known to be able to fly at rotor height and at low light conditions. Juveniles have been observed in the area during the summer months, pointing towards the area being used for the species’ reproduction.

Assessment of Impacts Page 143 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Seventeen (17) raptor species have been observed, all of them considered sensitive. None of these species are particularly abundant in the area. None of these species have been identified to be roosting within the project site. This group includes 3 species considered Endangered in South Africa (Taylor, 2014): Black Harrier, African Marsh Harrier and Martial Eagle; as well as another 3 species considered Vulnerable: Lanner Falcon, Secretarybird and Verreaux’s Eagle. Only the Black Harrier was detected with some regularity in the area.

Within the broader project site, exclusion or no-go areas and an area of sensitivity were identified and categorised. These are:

» Areas of fragmented natural vegetation are restricted to hills and slopes and are frequently used by raptors. The natural vegetation represents important habitat for sensitive, endangered species, such as the Black Harrier. These areas must be considered as no-go areas and no turbines are to be placed in these areas. » 300m buffer around water bodies is considered as sensitive, as these features may attract birds under certain conditions and are the only places where certain sensitive species such as Greater and Lesser Flamingos were observed on site. These areas must be avoided and are considered as no-go areas. » A 500m buffer around the water body identified on Portion 2 of the Farm Hartebeestfontein 412 must also be considered as a no-go area, because it is the water body were the highest number of bird contacts were recorded and where the Greater Flamingos were observed. No turbines are to be sited in this area. » A 500m buffer around the active Jackal Buzzard nests identified on site must be applied. The 500m buffer should be considered as being a no-go area. » The 500m – 100m buffer around the active Jackal Buzzard nests are considered to be of medium to high sensitivity. If turbines are to be placed within these buffer areas, additional mitigation must be implemented. » A 300m buffer around hills and slopes dominated by natural vegetation is considered as being of medium sensitivity. These areas still provide adequate habitat to ensure the persistence of many bird species by providing areas for foraging, refuge and potentially nesting. It is recommended that additional mitigation must be implemented. » A 300m buffer around an old quarry considered to be of medium sensitivity is implemented due to the potential of the feature to provide nesting and refuge sites for bird species, including sensitive raptors. It is recommended that additional mitigation is implemented.

In terms of the proposed layout alternatives, no turbines are located within any of the above-listed no-go areas. The following turbines are located both within 1000m from the confirmed Jackal Buzzard nesting site and within the 300m buffer from the natural vegetation areas which are considered to be of medium sensitivity:

Assessment of Impacts Page 144 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

» Turbine 18 (Layout Alternative 1); » Turbine 20 (Layout Alternative 1); » Turbine 28 (Layout Alternative 2); » Turbine 29 (Layout Alternative 2); and » Turbine 23 (Layout Alternative 2).

The following turbines from Layout Alternative 1 are located within areas considered to be of medium sensitivity; 03, 06, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 20, 22 and 23. Fifteen turbines from Layout Alternative 2 are located in areas of medium sensitivity and include turbine 03, 07, 16, 17, 18, 20, 23, 24, 28, 29, 30, 34, 35, 38, 29 and 40. These turbine locations will require post-construction monitoring and may require additional mitigation measures if high fatality is detected during operation.

The development of the Hartebeest Wind Farm and associated infrastructure is likely to have a moderate to low impact on the avifauna after mitigation, and as such, is considered to be acceptable. Figure 8.5 and Figure 8.6 provides an avifaunal sensitivity map for the larger project site, inclusive of the 25 turbine layout, the 32 turbine layout and the two power line alternatives.

Assessment of Impacts Page 145 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Figure 8.5: Map illustrating the avifaunal sensitivity within the Hartebeest Wind Farm project site with the 25 turbine layout.

Assessment of Impacts Page 146 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Figure 8.6: Map illustrating the avifaunal sensitivity within the Hartebeest Wind Farm project site with the 32 turbine layout.

Assessment of Impacts Page 147 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

8.4.2 Description of Avifaunal Impacts

Potential impacts on avifauna associated with the proposed Hartebeest Wind Farm could include:

» Increased bird fatality due to collision with wind turbines and power lines Large birds with low manoeuvrability in flight are usually more prone to collide with wind turbines and power lines. Raptors and Falcons, species that fly at rotor height and exhibit hunting behaviours are also very susceptible to collide with man-made structures (De Lucas, Janss & Ferrer 2008). Two alternatives are considered for the power line corridors. Both power line alternative run very closely together and are proposed alongside already existing power lines. Both power line alternatives cause a similar impact and do not traverse any no-go areas.

The most negative and significant impacts associated with the operation phase which will likely (unless mitigated against) be caused by the Hartebeest Wind Farm are mostly related with bird fatality due to collision with turbine blades. The collision risk is not the same for all species and it varies according to the species’ habits and ecology. Certain bird habits, such as migration, soaring using wind currents, nocturnal flight, hunting or foraging in mid-air, contribute to species susceptibility to collision. Wind turbine operation is likely to cause fatalities on several bird species, especially those which have already shown some tendency to fly at the impact zone (the Rotor Swept Area - RSA). However, though this impact cannot be eliminated, it can be mitigated. In terms of abundance and calculated potential collision risk in the area, the groups presenting the behaviours with highest potential collision risk were the ciconids, crows and waterbird groups. This collision risk is highly related to their abundance in the area and is produced by Western Cattle Egrets, Pied Crows and Spur-winged Goose. Impacts on these species associated with wind energy facilities is not considered significant because they are not of conservation concern and they are common species.

The impact caused by wind turbine operation and power line presence is considered to be of moderate significance, although with the appropriate mitigation it can be reduced to a low significance impact.

» Disturbance of birds and habitat destruction during construction and maintenance of the facility and associated infrastructure There are several important features for birds within the proposed project site, including not only potential breeding locations but also waterbodies of considerable dimensions which provide habitat for several sensitive species. Although the Martial Eagle’s breeding location and utilisation of the site was not confirmed in the year of the monitoring programme, it is likely that it will be used in subsequent years, and thus disturbance of the area surrounding waterbodies should be avoided. The

Assessment of Impacts Page 148 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

construction of the wind energy facility involves a great number of activities in the area, as well as land movements and construction works. Noise generated is very likely to disturb the birds and reduce their breeding fitness. This impact is expected to occur mostly during the construction phase of the project (low significance impact), although some level of impact (with a low significance) may also occur during the operational phase (especially for breeding species).

» Displacement of birds due to habitat alteration The natural habitat on the site and in the surrounding area has already been heavily transformed and the presence of human activity has been constant for a long time due to agricultural activities (mainly wheat, with some cattle and sheep farming). Therefore, the habitat-related impacts associated with the wind energy facility development are not foreseen to have an important concern at ground level. However, the preservation of as much natural area as possible is very important for certain species, such as the Black Harrier. Natural Renosterveld areas are very important for this species and their disappearance in the Western Cape is of major concern. For other raptors, the Natural Renosterveld is also used as shelter from prey species.

This impact is likely to be caused mostly during the construction phase and is considered to be of low significance, as it is very species-specific and the general community will not be affected.

8.4.3 Impact tables summarising the significance of impacts on avifauna (with and without mitigation)

The impacts assessed below apply to the development area, including the turbines and access roads from both layout alternatives, associated infrastructure, as well as the grid connection infrastructure for Hartebeest Wind Farm.

Construction Phase Impacts

Nature: Habitat loss during the construction phase. Destruction of vegetation areas due to platforms construction, workstation and substation construction, internal access roads construction, and turbines, underground cabling and overhead power lines installation may lead to habitat loss. Relevant Listed activities: GNR 983 Activity: 11(i), 12 (xii)(c), 19 (i), 24 (ii), 56(ii) GNR 984 Activity: 1, 15 GNR 985 Activity: 4(f)(aa), 12(a)(ii),14(xii)(a)(f)(ff), 18(f)(i)(aa) Without mitigation With mitigation Extent Local (1) Local (1) Duration Very short (1) Very short (1) Magnitude Moderate (6) Minor (2)

Assessment of Impacts Page 149 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Probability Probable (3) Probable (3) Significance Low (24) Low (12) Status (positive or negative) Negative Negative Reversibility Irreversible Reversible Irreplaceable loss of resources? Yes Yes Can impacts be mitigated? Yes Mitigation: The minimisation of this impact is mainly achieved through the » Avoidance of infrastructure siting, especially turbines, in the no-go areas, in the layout planning phase. » Minimisation of the affected areas as far as possible in the activities of clearance and removal of vegetation. » Existing roads and infrastructure should be used in order to minimise landscape changes. » If large portions of natural vegetation are affected, measures should be taken to restore vegetation as soon as possible after construction is completed. » Movements of machinery, vehicles and persons should be restricted to the approved roads and avoid the existing natural areas. Residual Impacts: Once the construction ceases and the mitigation measures are implemented, no residual impacts are expected.

Nature: Disturbance and/or displacement effects on bird community. Disturbance and/or displacement effects on bird community due to construction works, noise, human presence and machinery movements. Relevant Listed activities: GNR 983 Activity: 11(i), 12 (xii)(c), 19 (i), 24 (ii), 56(ii) GNR 984 Activity: 1, 15 GNR 985 Activity: 4(f)(aa), 12(a)(ii),14(xii)(a)(f)(ff), 18(f)(i)(aa) Without mitigation With mitigation Extent Local (1) Local (1) Duration Very short (1) Very short (1) Magnitude Low (4) Minor (2) Probability Probable (3) Improbable (2) Significance Low (18) Low (8) Status (positive or negative) Negative Negative Reversibility Reversible Reversible Irreplaceable loss of resources? Yes Yes Can impacts be mitigated? Yes Mitigation: The minimisation of this impact is can be achieved through » Avoiding the presence of people and vehicles in the no-go areas as far as possible; » Whenever technically possible, schedule activities should minimise disturbance during the breeding season (spring to summer season, dependent on the species considered) – the breeding season interruption must be adjusted to the species ecology; » Lower the levels of noise whenever possible; and » Avoid the destruction or disturbance of identified important features, including waterbodies

Assessment of Impacts Page 150 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

and/or nests. Residual Impacts: Once the construction ceases and the mitigation measures are implemented, no residual impacts are expected.

Operation Phase Impacts The impacts assessed below apply to the development area, including the turbines and access roads from both layout alternatives, associated infrastructure, as well as the grid connection infrastructure for Hartebeest Wind Farm.

Nature: Fatalities caused by collision with turbines. Bird Fatalities due to collision with operating wind turbines. Large birds with low manoeuvrability in flight are usually more prone to collide with wind turbines. Raptors and Falcons, species that fly at rotor height and exhibit hunting behaviours are also very susceptible to collide with man-made structures (De Lucas, Janss & Ferrer 2008). Relevant Listed activities: GNR 983 Activity: 11(i), 12 (xii)(c), 19 (i) GNR 984 Activity: 1 Without mitigation With mitigation Extent Local (2) Local (1) Duration Permanent (5) Permanent (5) Magnitude High (8) Low (4) Probability Highly Probable (4) Probable (3) Significance High (60) Medium (30) Status (positive or negative) Negative Negative Reversibility Irreversible Irreversible Irreplaceable loss of resources? Yes Yes Can impacts be mitigated? Yes Mitigation: The minimisation of this impact is mainly achieved through the » Avoidance of infrastructure siting, especially turbines, in the no-go areas, during the layout planning phase. Additionally, it is recommended that a layout option with fewer turbines which are not placed within no-go areas is considered in order to minimise the collision risk, i.e. layout Alternative 1 after mitigation measures are implemented. If fatalities are observed, then additional mitigation may be required, such as the implementation of habitat management actions which have the ability to change some species activity areas and deviate them from risk locations. » Other mitigation measures may include the installation of deterrence systems in problematic wind turbines. An operational monitoring programme is essential to determine the necessity of additional mitigation measures. Residual Impacts: Once the operational phase ceases, some residual impacts are expected due to the reduction of the population effectives. Recovery of the number of individuals is likely to happen, although the timeframe will be variable, depending on the species affected and its breeding rate.

Nature: Disturbance and/or displacement of bird communities. Disturbance and/or displacement

Assessment of Impacts Page 151 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017 effects on bird community due to human presence during maintenance activities. Relevant Listed activities: GNR 983 Activity: 11(i), 12 (xii)(c), 19 (i), 24 (ii), 56(ii) GNR 984 Activity: 1, 15 GNR 985 Activity: 4(f)(aa), 12(a)(ii),14(xii)(a)(f)(ff), 18(f)(i)(aa) Without mitigation With mitigation Extent Local (1) Local (1) Duration Permanent (5) Permanent (5) Magnitude Low (4) Minor (2) Probability Probable (3) Improbable (2) Significance Medium (30) Low (16) Status (positive or negative) Negative Negative Reversibility Irreversible Reversible Irreplaceable loss of Yes Yes resources? Can impacts be mitigated? Yes Mitigation: » Avoid the presence of people and vehicles in the no-go areas, especially during the breeding season; » Lower the levels of noise whenever possible; and » Avoid the destruction or disturbance of identified important features, including waterbodies and/or nests as confirmed in the layouts assessed. Residual Impacts: Once the operational phase ceases, some residual impacts are expected for a short period of time, until the community restores the full utilisation of the project site.

Nature: Potential impacts on bird community during operation, associated with the power line alternatives. The power lines can cause several impacts in the bird community both by the habitat loss and fatalities caused by the collision with the infrastructure. Relevant Listed activities: GNR 983 Activity: 11(i), 12 (xii)(c) GNR 984 Activity: 1, 15 GNR 985 Activity: 4(f)(aa), 12(a)(ii), 14(xii)(a)(f)(ff) Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Without With Without With mitigation mitigation mitigation mitigation Extent Local (1) Local (1) Local (1) Local (1) Duration Permanent (5) Permanent (5) Permanent (5) Permanent (5) Magnitude Moderate (6) Low (4) Moderate (6) Low (4) Probability Highly Probable Probable (3) Highly Probable Probable (3) (4) (4) Significance Medium (48) Medium (30) Medium (48) Medium (30) Status (positive or Negative Negative Negative Negative negative) Reversibility Irreversible Irreversible Irreversible Irreversible Irreplaceable loss of Yes Yes Yes Yes

Assessment of Impacts Page 152 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017 resources? Can impacts be Yes mitigated? Mitigation: » Avoidance of infrastructure siting, in the no-go areas during the planning phase. If fatalities are observed, then additional mitigation may be required, such as the implementation of habitat management actions which have the ability to change some species activity areas and deviate them from risk locations. Residual Impacts: Once the operational phase ceases some residual impacts are expected due to the reduction of the population effectives. Recovery of the number of individuals is likely to happen, though the timeframe will be variable, depending on the species affected and its breeding rate.

Decommissioning Phase Impacts

During the decommissioning phase it is expected that the dismantling of wind turbines, associated infrastructure, and power lines, can lead to disturbance of bird communities, in all ways similar to that resulting from the construction phase. The dismantling of the project will eventually contribute to the removal of all the implemented structures which may have been a cause for negative impacts on the bird community and this would, therefore, be considered a positive impact.

8.4.4 Comparative Assessment of Alternatives

Layout Alternatives: Two turbine layout alternatives were analysed and are very similar. Layout Alternative 1 consists of 25 turbine locations and Layout Alternative 2 consists of 32 turbines locations, 25 of which are in the same locations as the Layout Alternative 1. Layout Alternative 1 is preferred since it consists of fewer turbines and, consequently, presents a lower risk of collision. Considering the impacts identified, it can be concluded that the preferred layout alternative in relation to bird sensitivity of the area is Layout Alternative 1, in order to avoid the sensitive areas identified.

Aspect Layout Alternative 1 Layout Alternative 2 Avifauna Acceptable – preferred Least preferred » Least turbines will have the lowest » Most turbines will have a higher collision risk collision risk » Less turbines are located within areas of medium sensitivity

Grid Connection Alternatives: Two power line alternative routes are considered to connect the wind energy facility to the grid. Both alternatives are situated very closely together and are proposed alongside already existing power lines. Considering that both power line options cause a similar

Assessment of Impacts Page 153 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017 impact and do not cross any no-go areas, both options are considered feasible to be implemented.

Aspect Power line Alternative 1 Power line Alternative 2 Avifauna Acceptable Acceptable » Adjacent to already existing » Adjacent to already existing power lines. power lines. » Do not cross any no-go areas. » Do not cross any no-go areas.

8.4.5 Implications for Project Implementation

With the implementation of mitigation measures by the developer, contractors, and operational staff, the significance of avifauna impacts associated with the wind energy facility and power line can be reduced to, moderate to low. Areas of avifaunal significance considered to be highly sensitive and regarded as no-go areas including areas that are linked to Natural Renosterveld, active Jackal Buzzard nest, and sensitive water bodies.

From the outcomes of the studies undertaken, it is concluded that the wind energy facility can be developed and impacts on avifauna managed by taking the following into consideration:

» The recommended no-go areas should be strictly enforced. » The footprint of all construction related activities should be restricted to designated areas and minimised wherever practically possible. » All power lines linking wind turbines to each other and to the on-site substation should be buried. In cases where this is not feasible, lines must be fitted with bird flight diverters and bird flappers that are especially visible at night and under low- light conditions. Eskom-approved bird friendly pole structures should be used for all overhead power lines. » Ensure the implementation of a construction monitoring plan to survey bird communities on the Hartebeest Wind Farm and the impacts resulting from the infrastructure installation. This plan should have a minimum duration of at least 1 year and should focus on assessing the displacement and disturbance effects of the development on the bird communities, as well as continue to gather information on the bird communities present in the area. » Ensure the implementation of a post-construction monitoring (operation phase) plan to survey bird communities on the project site and the impacts resulting from the installed infrastructure. This plan should have a minimum duration of at least one year and will only include specific sensitive areas. The continuity of the monitoring programme should be revised accordingly to the results obtained.

Assessment of Impacts Page 154 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

8.5. Potential Impacts on Bats

The project site of ~3288ha has been assessed for the Hartebeest Wind Farm, which includes the development footprint of the facility (~47ha). The impacts of the proposed development on bats have been assessed as moderate to low with the implementation of mitigation measures. There are no fatal flaws associated with the proposed Hartebeest Wind Farm. Potential impacts and the relative significance of the impacts are summarised below (refer to Appendix F for more details).

8.5.1. Results of the Bat Impact Study

The bat pre-construction monitoring started in June 2013. In October 2013, an additional area was added for potential development and monitoring of bat activity. The whole project site was surveyed during a 12-month period; however, it must be noted that the monitoring of the referred extension started three months later and finished three months later. Hence, the results presented below are derived from data obtained from 16 months, spanning over more than 1 year for each proposed development area.

The occurrence of 10 bat species and the potential occurrence of 8 additional species in the project site have been confirmed on the site. Three of the species confirmed in the study area have high risk of collision with wind turbines due to their behaviour (i.e. Tadarida aegyptiaca, Sauromys petrophilus and Taphozous mauritianus). Although the three species are considered as “Least Concern”, their potential higher risk of collision is related to their foraging behaviour as open-air foragers, which increases the likelihood of individuals using the turbine blade swept area, therefore increasing the probability of collision.

Two other species with confirmed presence in the area raise concerns regarding their probability of fatalities, as they both have a medium to high risk of collision with wind turbines and are the most abundant species in the study area (i.e. Neoromicia capensis and Miniopterus natalensis). These species are in general clutter-edge foragers with known wind turbine collisions in Europe and USA, from the same or similar genus, such as Miniopterus sp., Pipistrellus sp. (also similar to Neoromicia sp.). Although Neoromicia capensis is a species of least concern, it also has known fatality records in South Africa.

Bat species identified within the project site can be divided into two groups:

» Echolocating bat species: During the pre-construction monitoring, ten echolocating bat species were identified within the study area. Four of these species are classified as Near Threatened, according to the South African Red List, i.e.: Miniopterus natalensis, Myotis tricolor, Rhinolophus capensis and Rhinolophus clivosus. Two other species considered to be

Assessment of Impacts Page 155 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

present in the study area include the Cistugo lesueuri and the Cistugo seabrai. However, the analysis of the recordings collected was not clear enough to confirm the presence of these two species with certainty.

» Non-echolocating bat species: Three fruit-eating bat species including the Egyptian Fruit bat, the Wahlberg’s Epauletted Fruit Bat and the African straw-coloured fruit bat could possibly occur in the study area, but with low to high likelihood of occurrence in the study area. During the field surveys, no suitable foraging sites for these species were observed within the project site, as it is mostly occupied by cereal croplands. Therefore, the proposed Hartebeest Wind Farm project site does not present the required potential for these species to occur regularly. Nonetheless, it is possible that any Egyptian Fruit bats roosting at Die Hel Cave (located at less than 40km from the site) may cross the area during migration or searching periods for suitable foraging areas.

Within the broader project site, exclusion or no-go areas and an area of sensitivity were identified (refer to Figure 8.7 and Figure 8.8). These are:

» Confirmed roosts (permanent or seasonal roosts), where 1 to 50 Least Concern bats were found. A 500m buffer around these areas should be implemented and considered as No-Go areas. No turbines should be placed within 500m of these areas. Associated infrastructure may be built within the 500m buffer. » The confirmed roost identified within the Remaining Extent of Portion 11 of the Farm Zwartfontein 414 (refer to Figure 8.7 and Figure 8.8) will be completely closed off for bat utilisation, as per developer communication on the 14-12-2016. For this reason, from the date this roost is closed off, the 500m buffer will not apply. No turbines are located within the 500m buffer. » Bat activity was seasonally related to areas of natural vegetation. Additionally, the ultrasound detection indicated that species with higher collision risk were more frequently detected in these areas. A 200m buffer of moderate sensitivity has been considered to be sufficient. » Bats usually forage in Woodland vegetation, preferentially in forest openings, or along the vertical or horizontal edge created by the junction of forest stands with other type of vegetation, roads, lakes and ponds. These areas are considered as medium sensitive areas. A 200m buffer of moderate sensitivity has been considered to be sufficient. » Confirmed roosts, where bat presence was not observed but evidence of their presence was found (e.g. bat droppings) are considered to be medium sensitive areas. A 200m buffer of moderate sensitivity has been considered to be sufficient.

No turbines from both Layout Alternative 1 and Layout Alternative 2 are located within no-go areas or areas of high sensitivity. The following turbines are located within areas of medium sensitivity:

Assessment of Impacts Page 156 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

» Turbine 3, 4, 7, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 22 and 23 from Layout Alternative 1; and » Turbine 3, 7, 17, 18, 20, 23, 24, 28, 29, 30, 34, 35, 38 and 40 from Layout Alternative 2.

Assessment of Impacts Page 157 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Figure 8.7: Map illustrating the bat sensitivity within the Hartebeest Wind Farm project site with Layout Alternative 1 (25 turbine layout).

Assessment of Impacts Page 158 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Figure 8.8: Map illustrating the bat sensitivity within the Hartebeest Wind Farm project site with Layout Alternative 2 (32 turbine layout).

Assessment of Impacts Page 159 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

8.5.2 Description of Bat Impacts

The main impacts resulting from the construction phase will consist of habitat destruction due to the clearance of vegetation (this excludes natural vegetation), and the disturbance of bats due to the increase of people and vehicles in the area, high levels of noise and machinery movements. The most important impacts on bat populations occurring during the operation phase are mostly related to bat fatalities usually associated with collision with spinning turbine blades, collision with power lines or barotrauma.

Wind energy facilities have three primary types of impact on bats – habitat destruction, population displacement, and, mortality through collisions. The following impacts are identified as the major impacts associated with the development and which are assessed, for the pre-construction, construction and operation phases of the development site alternatives as well its associated infrastructure.

» Bat fatalities caused by collision with wind turbines, turbine blades or barotrauma: Several hypotheses have been suggested by international research, regarding the possible causes that lead bats to collide with wind turbines: migration over long distances may be one aspect of bat biology that influences collisions; bat attraction to wind turbines, through sound, lights or movement; or bat attraction to wind turbines as roosting locations (Cryan & Barclay, 2009).

These hypotheses are supported by the observation of migrant species flying higher above the ground than other bats, and high-flying migrants being less likely to echolocate and detect spinning turbine blades due to the absence of predicted obstacles (Barclay et al., 2007; Kunz et al., 2007b). Studies have revealed greater echolocation activity of migratory species higher above the ground compared with other species (Baerwald & Barclay, 2009). This higher tendency of migrant bats colliding with wind turbines has been hypothesised to be due to the fact that these bats fly at approximately 65m from ground level, which coincides with the airspace/rotor height of many wind turbines (Barclay et al., 2007).

Bats may also be attracted to the sights, sounds, or movements of wind turbines, since some studies have shown bats possibly being attracted to the “swishing sound” of sticks waved through the air (Barbour & Davis, 1969 in Cryan & Barclay, 2009), or unknown cues at roosts previously used by congeners (Constantine, 1958 in Cryan & Barclay, 2009; Downes, 1964 in Cryan & Barclay, 2009), as well as thermal images of bats apparently chasing moving turbine blades (Horn et al., 2008).

The hypothesis involving the attraction of bats to wind turbines as potential roosts seem plausible considering that the species of bats killed most often by wind turbines tend to rely on trees as their primary natural roost structures. Many species of bats

Assessment of Impacts Page 160 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

favour taller trees as roosts (Kalcounis-Rüppell et al., 2005) and fatalities at turbines appear to be correlated with turbine height (Barclay et al. 2007).

Three of the potentially occurring species in the project site have a high risk of collision with wind turbines and include the Tadarida aegyptiaca, Sauromys petrophilus and Taphozous mauritianus. These species are particularly prone to collision due to their flight characteristics as open-air foragers, which allow them to fly at higher altitudes and enter the rotor swept area (these have already been detected in the rotor height detector during pre-construction monitoring), increasing the probability of collision. Although having a conservation status of Least Concern; one of these species, Sauromys petrophilus, is an endemic species to southern Africa. All three of these species were confirmed in the study area during the bat monitoring programme.

Of the 18 bat species possible to occur in the study area, approximately 7 species are considered to have low risk of collision with wind turbines, due to their flight and foraging behaviour. In this group of species with low risk of collision, 5 are considered to have a conservation status of Concern (i.e. Near Threatened - Cistugo lesueuri, Rhinolophus capensis, Rhinolophus clivosus, Rhinolophus darling; Vulnerable - Cistugo seabrai), although only two have confirmed presence within the study area.

» Bat displacement from feeding areas: Considering the bat activity recorded within the study area and the assumption that this may be an important area for the bat communities, including its utilisation as a feeding area, it may be considered that a large alteration of the current agricultural practices and availability of natural areas may affect the foraging and feeding behaviours. This impact will depend mostly on the type and extent of the areas affected during the construction phase that will be occupied by the turbines and new access roads. Considering the proposed layout, the impact is considered of low significance provided the proposed recommendations are implemented. The implementation of an adequate monitoring protocol during operation, including the assessment at a similar and suitable control area, will contribute to determining the extent of this impact.

» Disturbance and/or destruction of roosts: Impacts to bat populations can be caused by affecting existing roosts, such as temporary night or daytime use roosts, or more importantly roosts for reproduction or hibernation that have an important role in a bat’s life cycle. No reproduction or hibernation roosts have been identified within the study area; however at least two confirmed daytime roosts were identified. Most are located at a reasonable enough distance from the project site to state that they are not expected to be affected. With the current information collected up to date this impact is considered to have a

Assessment of Impacts Page 161 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

medium to low significance, provided the proposed recommendations are implemented.

» Fatality of frugivorous bat species by collision with power lines: Considering that no fruit eating bats were confirmed within the study area, this is not considered to be a likely impact to occur. In addition, no negative impacts are foreseen between power lines and echolocating bats. There are no known mortalities associated with the collision of insectivorous bats with power lines in Europe or elsewhere in the world (Rodrigues et al. 2008). There are, however, known impacts of power lines on fruit eating bats, but no suitable habitat for these species was found at the project site, making their occurrence highly unlikely. This impact is therefore considered to have very low significance.

» Reduction of ecosystem services provided by bats: Bats provide important services for the human population, such as food, guano for fertilization, and through arthropod suppression, forest regeneration and maintenance via seed dispersal and pollination of a wide variety of plants (Kunz et al., 2011). The Hartebeest Wind Farm is to be established within an area that is strongly influenced by agricultural practices, such as cereal cultivation. As bats play an important role in controlling pests by consuming several times their weight on arthropods per night, the maintenance of a healthy ecosystem will provide lower losses in crop yield and reduce pesticide use by farmers (Cleveland et a!. 2006; Kalka, Smith & Kalko 2008). Bats can also play a significant role in disease control, considering they can prey upon insects that are disease vectors (Monadjem et al. 2010).

It can be assumed that any significant impact on bat populations that play an important ecological role on the ecosystem will have an important impact on the ecosystem services provided by these species. However, this is an impact difficult to assess with the information collected to date. Nevertheless, the mitigation measures proposed for the other identified impacts will be applicable for the mitigation of this particular impact as well.

8.5.3 Impact tables summarising the significance of impacts on bats (with and without mitigation)

The impacts assessed below apply to the development area, including both the layout alternatives, and associated infrastructure, as well as the grid connection infrastructure for the Hartebeest Wind Farm.

Assessment of Impacts Page 162 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Construction Phase Impacts

Nature: Potential impacts on bat communities due to loss of agricultural lands. Destruction of agricultural areas due to platforms construction, workstation and substation construction, internal access roads construction, and turbines, underground cabling and overhead power line installation. Relevant Listed activities: GNR 983 Activity: 11(i), 12 (xii)(c), 19 (i), 24 (ii), 56(ii) GNR 984 Activity: 1, 15 GNR 985 Activity: 4(f)(aa), 12(a)(ii),14(xii)(a)(f)(ff), 18(f)(i)(aa) Without mitigation With mitigation Extent Local (1) Local (1) Duration Permanent (5) Medium-term (3) Magnitude Low (4) Minor (2) Probability Definite (5) Definite (5) Significance Medium (50) Medium (30) Status (positive or negative) Negative Negative Reversibility Reversible Reversible Irreplaceable loss of resources? Yes No Can impacts be mitigated? Yes Mitigation: The minimisation of this impact is mainly achieved through the » Avoidance of infrastructure siting in the layout planning phase. » Minimisation of the affected areas as far as possible in the activities of clearance and removal of vegetation (excluding all intact Renosterveld). » Existing roads and infrastructure should be used as far as possible in order to minimise landscape changes. » Movements of machinery, vehicles and persons should be restricted to the existing roads. Residual Impacts: Once the construction ceases and the mitigation measures are implemented, no residual impacts are expected.

Nature: Potential impacts on bat communities due to destruction of vegetated areas and water features. Destruction of natural vegetated areas, forest areas and water features due to platforms construction, workstation and substation construction, internal access roads construction, and turbines, underground cabling and overhead power lines installation. Relevant Listed activities: GNR 983 Activity: 11(i), 12 (xii)(c), 19 (i), 24 (ii), 56(ii) GNR 984 Activity: 1, 15 GNR 985 Activity: 4(f)(aa), 12(a)(ii),14(xii)(a)(f)(ff), 18(f)(i)(aa) Without mitigation With mitigation Extent Local (1) Local (1) Duration Very Short (1) Very Short (1) Magnitude Moderate (6) Minor (2) Probability Probability (3) Probability (3) Significance Low (24) Low (12) Status (positive or negative) Negative Negative

Assessment of Impacts Page 163 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Reversibility Irreversible Reversible Irreplaceable loss of resources? Yes No Can impacts be mitigated? Yes Mitigation: The minimisation of this impact is mainly achieved through the » Avoidance of infrastructure siting, especially turbines, in the sensitive areas (refer to Figure 8.7 and 8.8), in the layout planning phase. » The minimisation of the affected areas as far as possible in the activities of clearance and removal of vegetation which excludes all intact Renosterveld. » Existing roads and infrastructure should be used as far as possible in order to minimise landscape changes. » The beneficiation of existing accesses should be conducted strictly to the extent necessary. As the Bat Impact Assessment Report did not intended to conduct an intensive vegetation mapping of the development area, in order to accurately avoid areas with vegetation considered important to the bat community it is advised that a more precise zonation of such areas of interest is conducted prior to the beginning of the construction work. » Movement of machinery, vehicles and persons should be restricted to the new and existing roads and avoid the existing natural vegetation. Residual Impacts: Once the construction ceases and the mitigation measures are implemented, no residual impacts are expected.

Nature: Disturbance of bat community and roost destruction. Disturbance of bat community due to the increase of people and vehicles in the area, and destruction or disturbance of roost locations during the construction phase. Relevant Listed activities: GNR 983 Activity: 11(i), 12 (xii)(c), 19 (i), 24 (ii), 56(ii) GNR 984 Activity: 1, 15 GNR 985 Activity: 4(f)(aa), 12(a)(ii),14(xii)(a)(f)(ff), 18(f)(i)(aa) Without mitigation With mitigation Extent Local (1) Local (1) Duration Very short (1) Very short (1) Magnitude Low (4) Minor (2) Probability Probable (3) Probable (3) Significance Low (18) Low (12) Status (positive or negative) Negative Negative Reversibility Reversible Reversible Irreplaceable loss of resources? No No Can impacts be mitigated? Yes Mitigation: The minimisation of this impact is mainly achieved through » Avoiding the presence of people and vehicles in the high sensitivity areas; » Whenever technically possible, scheduled activities should minimise disturbance during the breeding season (for most of the species, breeding season occurs between autumn and early winter seasons, being the most abundant species in the area in breeding season during March and April or in August, while births will occur between October and December, during spring.

Assessment of Impacts Page 164 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

The highest peak of activity was observed in October which corresponds to the birth season of most species); » Lower the levels of noise whenever possible around the high sensitivity areas; » Avoid construction works during the night; and » Avoid the destruction or disturbance of identified roosting sites. For roosting sites that may have to be closed down, it is recommended that an alternative roosting location, at least 5 km from the closest wind turbine, is built or an existing structure is improved to compensate for the loss of the roosting site. This will also contribute to attract the bats to use areas further away from the wind farm further reducing the potential collision risk. Residual Impacts: Not likely once construction ceases.

Operation Phase Impacts

Nature: Bat fatalities due to collision or barotrauma. Fatality of individuals due to collision with turbine blades or barotrauma caused by turbines operation. Relevant Listed activities: GNR 983 Activity: 11(i), 12 (xii)(c), 19 (i) GNR 984 Activity: 1, 15 Without mitigation With mitigation Extent Local (1) Local (1) Duration Permanent (5) Permanent (5) Magnitude Moderate (6) Low (4) Probability Highly Probable (4) Probable (3) Significance Medium (48) Medium (30) Status (positive or negative) Negative Negative Reversibility Irreversible Irreversible Irreplaceable loss of resources? Yes Yes Can impacts be mitigated? Yes Mitigation: The minimisation of this impact is mainly achieved through » From the proposed layout alternatives, 11 turbines of Layout Alternative 1 and 12 turbines of the Layout Alternative 2 are sited within moderately sensitive areas. Relocation of these turbines could minimise fatalities. » Additionally, all turbines located at less than 200m from vegetated areas will need additional mitigation to reduce the suitability of the areas with wind turbines for bat foragers. » A bat monitoring programme should be implemented during operation in order to determine the actual impacts of the wind energy facility on the bat community, as well as the need for implementation of additional mitigation measures, such as the utilisation of red lights in the turbines, instead of white, in order to minimise insect attraction and bat foraging behaviours near the turbines. Residual Impacts: Some level of collisions and fatality will occur, despite the implementation of mitigation. This will result in bat fatalities which will result in residual impacts.

Assessment of Impacts Page 165 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Nature: Disturbance of bat communities. Disturbance of bat communities due to noise and movement generated by turbine operation and increase of people and vehicles in the area associated with maintenance activities. Relevant Listed activities: GNR 983 Activity: 11(i), 12 (xii)(c), 19 (i), 24 (ii), 56(ii) GNR 984 Activity: 1, 15 GNR 985 Activity: 4(f)(aa), 12(a)(ii),14(xii)(a)(f)(ff), 18(f)(i)(aa) Without mitigation With mitigation Extent Local (1) Local (1) Duration Permanent (5) Permanent (5) Magnitude Low (4) Minor (2) Probability Probable (3) Improbable (2) Significance Medium (30) Low (16) Status (positive or negative) Negative Negative Reversibility Reversible Reversible Irreplaceable loss of resources? Yes Yes Can impacts be mitigated? Yes Mitigation: The minimisation of this impact is mainly achieved through » Avoidance of presence of people and vehicles in the sensitive areas. » Maintenance operations, during the operation phase, should avoid being conducted during the night time hours during the periods most sensitive for bats if possible (e.g. spring and summer - breeding season). Residual Impacts: Some species will move away from the area regardless of any mitigation measures implemented. A bat monitoring programme should be implemented during operation in order to determine the extent of the impacts of the wind energy facility on the bat community

Decommissioning Phase Impacts

During the decommissioning phase, the dismantling of turbines and associated infrastructure, as well as the dismantling of power lines, will disturb bat communities in a similar way as the one resulting from construction phase and is classified as an impact of low significance. The dismantling of the project will remove all of the implemented structures which will cause temporary negative impacts on the bat communities (while dismantling process is undergoing). Upon completion the bat community will recover a suitable habitat which is a positive impact.

8.5.4 Comparative Assessment of Alternatives

Layout Alternatives: Two turbine layout alternatives were analysed and are very similar. Layout Alternative 1 consists of 25 turbines locations and Layout Alternative 2 consists of 32 turbines locations, where 25 of which are in the same locations as the Layout Alternative 1. Layout Alternative 1 is preferred since it consists of fewer turbines situated within areas of medium sensitivity. No turbines are situated within no-go areas for either layout

Assessment of Impacts Page 166 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017 alternative. Layout Alternative 1 is preferred following recommendations made in Appendix F.

Aspect Layout Alternative 1 Layout Alternative 2 Bats Acceptable – most preferred Acceptable - least preferred » Least turbines » Most turbines. » Fewer turbines are located within » No turbines located within no-go areas of medium sensitivity. areas. » No turbines located within no-go areas.

Grid Connection Alternatives: Two power line alternative routes are considered for the wind energy facility. Both alternatives are situated very closely together and are proposed alongside already existing power lines. If Power Line Alternative 1 is shifted to avoid the no-go area (500m buffer for confirmed roost), there is no preference in terms of the two power line options being both acceptable.

Aspect Power line Alternative 1 Power line Alternative 2 Bats Acceptable Acceptable » Adjacent to already existing » Adjacent to already existing power lines. power lines. » Power line route is approximately » Power line route is the shortest 4km in length, at least 500m alternative. longer than Alternative 2. » If Power Line Alternative 1 is shifted to avoid the 500m confirmed roost buffer, there is no preference in terms of the two power line alternatives.

8.5.5 Implications for Project Implementation

With the implementation of mitigation measures by the developer, contractors, and operational staff, the significance of bat impacts of the wind energy facility can be reduced to moderate to low.

Areas of bat significance considered to be highly sensitive and regarded as no-go areas include two confirmed roosts and a 500m buffer area around these roosts. The roost identified within the Remaining Extent of Portion 11 of the Farm Zwartfontein 414 will be completely closed off for bat utilisation. For this reason, from the date this roost is closed off, the 500m buffer will not apply. No turbines are proposed to be located within the 500m buffer.

Assessment of Impacts Page 167 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

From the findings of the studies undertaken, it is concluded that the wind energy facility can be developed and impacts on bat species managed by taking the following into consideration:

» All high sensitivity areas and no-go areas identified should be avoided by wind turbines. » If high collision risk areas are identified during the operational phase, or a high number of bat fatalities due to wind turbines are recorded, this should be evaluated by the designated bat specialists as soon as possible. Subsequent mitigation measures, adjusted to the risk situation identified, should be then proposed and implemented; » In the case that any confirmed or potential bat roost need to be affected (e.g. utilisation conversion, demolition, recuperation), a bat specialist should confirm bat occupancy and define the necessary measures to be implemented to minimise the impact if necessary. » The results of the operational phase monitoring programme must be taken into account for the implementation of further mitigation measures, if necessary. The post-construction monitoring programme should have a minimum duration of 2 years, start as soon as the wind energy facility becomes operational and be revised upon completion. » Additional mitigation measures regarding the operation phase should be implemented for turbines located in medium sensitive areas, especially if high levels of bat activity are observed during the monitoring programme of the operation phase. • Due to the closing down of the roost within the Remaining Extent of Portion 11 of the farm Zwartfontein 414, it is recommended that an alternative roosting location is built, or an existing suitable roosting location is recovered and improved in terms of increasing its suitability for bat utilisation as a roost. The new/upgraded roosting infrastructure should be located at a minimum of 5km away from the proposed wind farm. This recommendation aims to compensate for the loss of one roosting structure in the area proposed for development and, simultaneously, will contribute to drive bat utilisation to areas away from the collision risk zone (wind farm) and contribute to the overall reduction of collision risk of the wind farm. The exact location of the new/upgraded roost must be decided and implemented before the commencement of the operation phase. This must be informed by a bat specialist that at the time will evaluate the best solution for the alternative roosting location (as there are many options to consider, from deciding if there is the possibility to upgrade existing infrastructure or building new bat roost to finding a suitable location and gathering authorisations from land owners -a decision that will not be possible to make this at this stage). • If high collision risk areas are identified during the operational phase, or a high number of bat fatalities due to wind turbines are recorded, this should be evaluated by the designated bat specialists as soon as possible. Subsequent

Assessment of Impacts Page 168 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

mitigation measures, adjusted to the risk situation identified, should be then proposed and implemented. • If turbines are to be lit at night, lighting should be kept to a minimum. For example security lights should be kept to a minimum and should be directed downwards (with the exception of avian security lighting); • The results of the operational phase monitoring programme must be taken into account for the implementation of further mitigation measures, if necessary.

8.6. Assessment of Impacts on Surface Water Features

The project site of ~3288ha has been assessed for the 160MW wind energy facility, which includes the development footprint of the facility (~47ha). Potential impacts will be localised and the significance of these impacts are considered to be low with the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures and are summarised below (refer to Appendix G for more details).

8.6.1. Results of the Surface Water Study

The main aquatic features within the study area are the Moorreespruit and Sandspruit Tributaries of the middle reaches of the Berg River, as well as a smaller tributary at Karnmelksvlei. The tributaries flow in a north-easterly direction to join the Berg River upstream of Misverstand Weir. Valley bottom wetland areas occur largely along the Moorreespruit River with small areas within the upper reaches in the other two tributaries in the study area. A small vernal pool also occurs near Krabrivier

The rivers have all been significantly modified by agriculture. The riparian zones of the areas surrounding the rivers are usually ploughed for the planting of crops and in many cases the river channel has also been straightened. Very little of the indigenous riparian vegetation still remains and that remaining consists mostly of the common reed Phragmites australis together with rushes Juncus krausii, patches of bulrushes Typha capensis and some sedges such as Bolboschoenus maritimus and kweek grass Cynodon dactylon that occur within the river channel. Invasive alien plants such as Port Jackson willows, river gums and kikuyu grass occur on the river bank together with cultivated old man saltbush.

The ecological importance and sensitivity of the rivers assessed are considered to be moderate to low. There were no features within the river reaches in the study area that were considered of a high ecological importance. Due to the seasonal nature of the flow within the rivers and the fact that the study area is in the very upper reaches of the rivers it is unlikely that there are any indigenous fish species present in the rivers within the study area. In terms of amphibians, the Cape Caco, Cape River frog, common Platanna and Raucous Toad are known to occur in the area of which the Cape Caco is the

Assessment of Impacts Page 169 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017 only listed species. The habitats for these amphibians have however been significantly transformed by the surrounding farming activities.

The wetlands are considered to be valley bottom wetlands with a channel or in the case of the vernal pool, a depression wetland based on wetland type. The vernal pool only receives a small contribution of surface water runoff. Flow into and out of the valley bottom wetland areas is associated with the tributaries of the Berg River within the study area. The hillslope seeps and vernal pool are considered to be largely natural to moderately modified while the valley bottom wetlands are moderately modified as a result of the surrounding agricultural activities, where modification to the indigenous vegetation has been the most impacted. The valley bottom wetlands provide the larger goods and services due to the size of the wetlands and their location in the landscape as well as their association with the rivers in the area. The hillslope seeps and vernal pool are important in terms of providing habitat for biodiversity, however provide little in terms of ecological goods and services.

The wetland features within the study area are considered of the moderate to low ecological importance and sensitivity. The hillslope seeps and valley bottom wetlands are closely associated with the rivers in the area and the importance of the habitat in providing ecological corridors within a landscape transformed by agriculture. The vernal pool contains a unique aquatic habitat and specific associated biota.

Table 8.1 below summarises the details pertaining to freshwater features identified in the different properties within the project site.

Assessment of Impacts Page 170 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Table 8.1: Summary of freshwater features identified within the Hartebeest Wind Farm project site Location Description Portion 2 Freshwater features within these properties consist of and 6 of the upper reaches of the Sandspruit River and its Farm associated valley bottom wetlands as well as the upper Hartebeest- reaches of the Karnmelksvlei River and some associated fontein 412 valley bottom wetlands. The locations proposed for the wind turbines and their platform areas are mostly on the watershed between the various watercourses and do not occur within 100m of any delineated drainage line/river or 100m of the wetland areas for both layout alternatives as it has been recommended in the scoping phase. This buffer is aimed at protecting the valley bottom wetlands. A buffer of at least 50m was also recommended for the smaller drainage lines due to the poor vegetative cover as well as the slopes and erodible soils in the area.

The internal access roads for both layouts will need to cross two small drainage lines. These crossings are however on the existing farm roads and will therefore not have an impact on the small drainage lines. The 32 turbine access road layout would also be located immediately upstream of a small seep to access turbines 39 and 40. This road should be placed at least 35m northwards of its current location adjacent to the wetland in order to reduce impacts.

The impact of these activities on the freshwater features would be of a very low significance if the recommended mitigation measures provided are implemented.

Assessment of Impacts Page 171 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Portion 9 of Freshwater features within these properties consist of the Farm the upper reaches of the Karnmelksvlei River and some Biesjes- associated valley bottom wetlands, as well as the vernal fontein 413 pond. None of the locations proposed for the wind turbines and their platform areas are within 100m of a river/drainage line or wetland for both layout alternatives as recommended in the scoping phase.

This buffer is aimed at protecting the valley bottom wetlands. A buffer of at least 50m was also recommended for the smaller drainage lines due to the poor vegetative cover as well as the slopes and erodible soils in the area. The internal access roads for both the 25 and 32 turbine layouts will need to cross four watercourses. Two of the crossings will be on existing farm roads. The two new crossings should be avoided if possible (crossing between turbine 19/30 and 20/29 could be placed further upstream to avoid the crossing). The crossings should also avoid being placed at an angle to the watercourse or being placed directly adjacent to the channel as is the case for the crossing between turbine 24/16 and 17/31.

The impact of these activities on the freshwater features would be of a low significance without mitigation and of a very low significance if the recommended mitigation measures provided are implemented.

Assessment of Impacts Page 172 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Northern Freshwater features within these properties consist of part of Farm the upper reaches of the Karnmelksvlei River and some Zwartfontein associated valley bottom wetlands, as well as within the 414 and 416 upper reaches of the Moorreespruit Tributary with its valley bottom wetland. None of the locations proposed for the wind turbines and their platform areas are within 50m of a river/drainage line or 100m of a wetland for both layout alternatives as recommended in the scoping phase.

The 100m buffer is aimed at protecting the valley bottom wetlands. A buffer of at least 50m was also recommended for the smaller drainage lines due to the poor vegetative cover as well as the slopes and erodible soils in the area. The internal access roads for both the 25 and 32 turbine layouts will need to cross one watercourse that will be on an existing farm road.

The power line will need to cross the wide valley bottom wetland area and river channel associated with the Moorreespruit Tributary (relevant to both alternatives). The proposed power line alternatives are located adjacent to existing Eskom lines but Alternative 2 will need to span approximately 200m over the tributary and associated wetland area while Alternative 1 would need a span of ~100m over the watercourse and wetland. The Alternative 1 will also need to be placed within the valley bottom wetland area associated with the Moorreespruit at the existing Moorreesburg Eskom Substation. If Alternative 1 is able to adequately span the wetland areas such that the pylons for the line are placed outside of the delineated aquatic habitat (as

Assessment of Impacts Page 173 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Recommended alternative powerline route to minimise aquatic habitat impacts shown by the yellow line in the second image to the – red line indicates current proposed route for Alternative 1 and the yellow left), this line would have a very similar potential line the freshwater recommended alternative route. The green polygon freshwater impact to Alternative 2. indicates the delineated wetland area. The on-site substation is located more than 100m away from a small drainage channel. The recommended buffers as provided above would also apply to the substation. The Operation and Maintenance building, temporary laydown area and concrete batching plant are all located more than 300m from any watercourse or wetland area.

Assessment of Impacts Page 174 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Southern Freshwater features within these properties consist part of Farm largely of the upper reaches of the Moorreespruit River Zwartfontein and its tributaries as well as part of the upper reaches 414 and 416 Karnmelksvlei River. The Moorreespruit River itself has relatively large valley bottom wetland areas within this section of the proposed development area; however none of the proposed works is located near the river with the exception of the link to the existing substation.

There are no wind turbines or associated infrastructure located within this section of the project site. There would thus be no impact associated with the proposed Hartebeest Wind Farm within this section.

Assessment of Impacts Page 175 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Portion 1 of Freshwater features within these properties consist of the Farm the upper reaches of the Moorreespruit River and some Tontelberg associated valley bottom wetlands. 424 None of the locations proposed for the wind turbines, their platform areas or the access roads are within 100m of a wetland or within 50m of a delineated drainage line/river or wetland for the 32 or 25-turbine layout.

The impact of these activities on the freshwater features would be of a very low significance if the recommended mitigation measures provided are implemented.

Assessment of Impacts Page 176 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

8.6.2 Description of Surface Water Impacts

The turbines and foundations, power line and the on-site substation as well as any internal roads for the proposed layout alternatives have the potential to impact on the freshwater features if located within or immediately adjacent to the aquatic features. Associated infrastructure such as roads associated with the wind energy facility usually need to cross some/a few freshwater features. Such crossings and disturbances of the freshwater features need to be minimised and mitigated as far as possible.

Impacts of the Hartebeest Wind Farm on freshwater species are expected to occur during the construction and operation phase.

» Construction and operation phase impacts associated with turbines and on-site substation: Activities during the construction phase of the project could result in some disturbance of vegetation cover for clearing and preparation of the turbine and substation footprints. No natural vegetation will be disturbed. There is also the potential for some water quality impacts associated with the batching of concrete, from hydrocarbon spills or associated with the other construction activities on the project site. Only a limited amount of water is consumed during construction for the batching of cement for wind turbines and other construction activities.

No turbine or the associated infrastructure from both layout alternatives would be placed inside of the recommended buffer areas of 100m from the delineated edge of the wetland areas or at least 50m from the smaller drainage lines. The collector substation is located more than 100m away from a small drainage channel. The O&M building, temporary laydown area and concrete batching plant are all located more than 300m from any watercourse or wetland area.

A localised short term impact of medium to low intensity could be expected that has a low to very low overall significance in terms of its impact on the identified aquatic ecosystems in the area.

During the operation phase the turbines will operate continuously, unattended and with low maintenance required for more than 20 years. The wind energy facility would be monitored and controlled remotely, with maintenance only taking place when required.

The hard surfaces created by the development may lead to increased runoff, in particular on surfaces with a steeper gradient. This may lead to increased erosion and sedimentation of the downslope areas. A localised longer term impact (more than 20 years) of low intensity (depending on the distance between the turbines and

Assessment of Impacts Page 177 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

the freshwater features) could be expected that would have a very low overall significance in terms of its impact on the identified aquatic ecosystems in the area.

The only potentially toxic or hazardous materials which would be present in relatively small amounts during operation would be of lubricating oils and hydraulic and insulating fluids. Therefore, contamination of surface or ground water or soils is highly unlikely. There is no water consumption impact associated with the operation of wind turbines.

» Construction and operation phase impacts related to associated infrastructure The internal access roads for both layout alternatives will need to cross seven watercourses, five of which will be on existing farm roads. The major impacts are associated with the internal roads and relate to loss of habitat within rivers, riparian areas and wetland habitats, loss of indigenous vegetation within riparian zones and potential invasive alien plant growth as well as the potential for flow and water quality impacts and the direct impacts on the soil (erosion of drainage channels). The power line alternatives would also need to cross the wide valley bottom wetland area and river channel associated with the Moorreespruit Tributary.

A localised short and longer term impact of low significance is expected on the identified aquatic ecosystems in the area at the points at which the infrastructure will need to cross of rivers/drainage lines or wetland areas, during and after the construction phase. The disturbance would largely take place during the construction phase; however a long term disturbance of the aquatic habitat at the road crossings could also be expected during the operation phase.

8.6.3 Impact tables summarising the significance of impacts on freshwater during construction and operation (with and without mitigation)

The impacts assessed below apply to the wind energy facility and associated infrastructure from both layout alternatives, as well as the grid connection infrastructure for the Hartebeest Wind Farm.

Construction and operation phase impacts

Nature: Overall potential impact of turbines and on-site substation on freshwater features. Disturbance of aquatic habitat; modification to flow and water quality as a result of proposed activities in or adjacent to aquatic ecosystems. Indirect impacts associated with the construction phase include invasive alien plant growth in riparian zones and wetland areas and potential for erosion of watercourses as a result of disturbance of aquatic habitat and modification of runoff characteristics. Relevant Listed activities: GNR 983 Activity: 11(i), 12 (xii)(c), 19 (i), 24 (ii), 56(ii) GNR 984 Activity: 1, 15

Assessment of Impacts Page 178 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

GNR 985 Activity: 4(f)(aa), 12(a)(ii),14(xii)(a)(f)(ff), 18(f)(i)(aa) Without mitigation With mitigation Extent Local (2) Local (1) Duration Long term (4) Short -term (4) Magnitude Low to Moderate (5) Minor (2) Probability Probable (3) Improbable (2) Significance Medium (33) Low (8) Status (positive or negative) Negative Negative Reversibility Medium to low Yes Irreplaceable loss of resources? Yes No Can impacts be mitigated? Yes Mitigation: » A buffer of at least 100m between the delineated aquatic ecosystems and all the proposed project activities should be maintained adjacent to the river in which valley bottom wetlands occur as well as adjacent to the vernal pool (as measured from the outer edge of the wetland area). A buffer of at least 50m is recommended for the smaller drainage lines. » During the construction phase, proposed site management must be undertaken at the laydown area, batching plant and the individual turbine construction area. This should specifically address onsite stormwater management and prevention of pollution measures from any potential pollutions sources during the construction activities such as hydrocarbon spills. Residual Impacts: Residual risks are associated with the indirect impacts of the proposed activities, that is, the potential for further erosion of the watercourses and invasion of the aquatic habitats with alien plant species. It is important that these aspects be monitored and managed on an ongoing and long term basis.

Nature: Overall impact of associated infrastructure on freshwater features. Disturbance of aquatic habitat; modification to flow and water quality as a result of proposed activities in or adjacent to aquatic ecosystems. Indirect impacts will include invasive alien plant growth in riparian zones and wetland areas and potential for erosion of watercourses as a result of disturbance of aquatic habitat and modification of runoff characteristics. Relevant Listed activities: GNR 983 Activity: 11(i), 12 (xii)(c), 19 (i) GNR 984 Activity: 1, 15 GNR 985 Activity: 14(xii)(a)(f)(ff) Without mitigation With mitigation Extent Local (2) Local (1) Duration Long term (4) Long term (4) Magnitude Moderate (6) Minor to Low (3) Probability Highly Probable (4) Improbable (2) Significance Medium (48) Low (16) Status (positive or negative) Negative Negative Reversibility Medium to low Medium to Low Irreplaceable loss of resources? Yes Yes Can impacts be mitigated? Yes. Mitigation:

Assessment of Impacts Page 179 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

» The existing road infrastructure should be utilised as far as possible to minimise the overall disturbance created by the proposed project. Where new roads need to be constructed, the existing road infrastructure should be rationalised and any unnecessary roads decommissioned and rehabilitated to reduce the disturbance of the area and within the river beds. » For new roads to the turbines, these should rather these should be located at least 50m outside of the drainage/river beds. Where access routes need to be constructed through rivers/drainage lines, the disturbance of the channel should be limited. » Wetland areas should be avoided and any road adjacent to a wetland feature should also remain outside of the 100m buffer zone as far as possible. » All crossings over drainage channels or river beds should be such that the flow within the drainage channel is not impeded and should be constructed perpendicular to the river channel. » Road infrastructure, power lines and cable alignments should coincide as far as possible to minimise the impact. » Any disturbed areas should be rehabilitated and monitored to ensure that these areas do not become subject to erosion or invasive alien plant growth. Residual Impacts: Residual risks are associated with the indirect impacts of the proposed activities, that is, the potential for further erosion of the watercourses and invasion of the aquatic habitats with alien plant species. It is important that these aspects be monitored and management on an ongoing and long term basis.

Nature: Comparison between layout alternatives (with mitigation). The potential impact of the turbines for both alternatives is likely to be very similar and very low as the locations of the turbines have taken into account the recommended buffers for the watercourses and wetland areas. Relevant Listed activities: GNR 983 Activity: 12 (xii)(c), 19 (i), 24 (ii), 56(ii) GNR 984 Activity: 1, 15 GNR 985 Activity: 4(f)(aa), 12(a)(ii),14(xii)(a)(f)(ff), 18(f)(i)(aa) Layout Alternative 1 Layout Alternative 2 Extent Local (1) Local (1) Duration Long term (4) Long term (4) Magnitude Small (0) Small to Minor (1) Probability Probable (3) Probable (3) Significance Low (15) Low (18) Status (positive or negative) Negative Negative Reversibility Medium to low Medium to Low Irreplaceable loss of resources? Medium to low Medium to Low Can impacts be mitigated? High Mitigation: » Placement of turbines and associated infrastructure to minimise disturbance of aquatic features within the site and allow for adequate buffers to ensure protection of the aquatic features. » The potential stormwater impacts of the proposed development areas should be mitigated on- site to address any erosion or water quality impacts. » Good housekeeping measures as stipulated in the EMPr for the project should be in place where construction activities take place to prevent contamination of any freshwater features.

Assessment of Impacts Page 180 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

» Where possible, infrastructure should coincide with existing infrastructure or areas of disturbance (such as existing roads). Disturbed areas should be rehabilitated through reshaping of the surface to resemble that prior to the disturbance and vegetated with suitable local indigenous vegetation. » Any new road crossings through the watercourses should cross perpendicular to the channels and should not impede or concentrate flow in the channels. » Undertake ongoing and long term monitoring and management of aquatic features to prevent the impacts of erosion and invasive alien vegetation growth. Residual Impacts: Residual risks are associated with the indirect impacts of the proposed activities, that is, the potential for further erosion of the watercourses and invasion of the aquatic habitats with alien plant species. It is important that these aspects be monitored and management on an ongoing and long term basis.

Nature: Comparison between power line alternatives (with mitigation). Both Alternative 1 and 2 will traverse Moorreespruit tributary and associated wetland area. Relevant Listed activities: GNR 983 Activity: 11(i), 12 (xii)(c), 19 (i) GNR 984 Activity: 1, 15 GNR 985 Activity: 12(a)(ii),14(xii)(a)(f)(ff) Power line Alternative Power line Alternative 1 2 Extent Local (2) Local (1) Duration Long term (4) Long term (4) Magnitude Minor to Low (3) Small (1) Probability Probable (3) Improbable (2) Significance Low (27) Low (12) Status (positive or negative) Negative Negative Reversibility Medium Medium to Low Irreplaceable loss of resources? Medium to low Medium to Low Can impacts be mitigated? High Mitigation: » The power line towers should be placed at least 50m outside of the delineated river channels and wetland areas. » Where the pylons and access routes for power line needs cross the drainage channels, the area should be spanned and disturbance of the channels should be limited. These areas should be rehabilitated after construction complete and monitored for growth of invasive alien plants. Residual Impacts: Residual risks are associated with the indirect impacts of the proposed activities, that is, the potential for further erosion of the watercourses and invasion of the aquatic habitats with alien plant species. It is important that these aspects be monitored and management on an ongoing and long term basis.

Assessment of Impacts Page 181 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

8.6.4 Comparative Assessment of Alternatives

Layout Alternatives: The potential impact of the turbines for both alternatives is likely to be very similar and very low. The Layout Alternative 2 will however result in increased disturbance of the larger area and will require more new access roads. One of the access roads associated with Layout Alternative 2 is located immediately upstream of a small seep to access turbines 39 and 40. It could thus be expected that a slight increase in the potential impact to the freshwater ecosystems in the area would occur, that would be of a low significance.

Aspect Layout Alternative 1 Layout Alternative 2 Surface Water Acceptable – most preferred Acceptable - least preferred features » Least turbines; will have the » Length of access roads will be lowest disturbance longer due to more turbines and » Access roads are acceptable will therefore have an increased disturbance » Section of access road located immediately upstream of a small seep » Slight increase in potential impact

Grid Connection Alternatives: Both of the proposed power line alternatives cross the wide valley bottom wetland area and river channel associated with the Moorreespruit Tributary. The proposed alternatives are located adjacent to existing Eskom lines. Alternative 2 would need to span approximately 200m over the tributary and associated wetland area while Alternative 1 would need a span of ~100m over the watercourse and wetland. Alternative 1 would also need to be placed within the valley bottom wetland area associated with the Moorreespruit at the existing Moorreesburg Substation. If Alternative 1 is realigned such that it is able to adequately span the wetland areas with the pylons for the line being placed outside of the delineated aquatic habitat, this line would have a lesser potential freshwater impact and equivalent to that of Alternative 2.

Aspect Power line Alternative 1 Power line Alternative 2 Surface Water Acceptable – most preferred Acceptable – least preferred features » Cross the wide valley bottom » Cross the wide valley bottom wetland area and river channel wetland area and river channel associated with the Moorreespruit associated with the Moorreespruit Tributary Tributary » Would need to span ~100m over » Would need to span ~200m over watercourse and wetland. watercourse and wetland. » If realigned such that it is able to adequately span the wetland

Assessment of Impacts Page 182 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Aspect Power line Alternative 1 Power line Alternative 2 areas with the pylons for the line being placed outside of the delineated aquatic habitat, this line would have a lesser potential freshwater impact and equivalent to that of Alternative 2.

8.6.5 Implications for Project Implementation

With the implementation of mitigation measures by the developer, contractors, and operation staff, the significance of impacts on freshwater features can be reduced to low. From the outcomes of the studies undertaken, it is concluded that the wind energy facility can be developed and impacts managed by taking the following into consideration:

» Placement of turbines and associated infrastructure (specifically access roads) should minimise disturbance of aquatic features within the project site and allow for adequate buffers to ensure protection of the aquatic features. » The potential stormwater impacts of the proposed development should be mitigated on-site to address any erosion or water quality impacts. » Measures should be in place where construction activities take place to prevent contamination. » Disturbed areas should be rehabilitated through reshaping of the surface to resemble that prior to the disturbance and vegetated with suitable local indigenous vegetation. » Any new road crossings through the watercourses should cross perpendicular to the channels and should not impede or concentrate flow in the channels. » Undertake ongoing and long term monitoring and management of aquatic features to prevent the impacts of erosion and invasive alien vegetation growth.

8.7. Assessment of Impacts on Heritage Sites

The project site of ~3288ha has been assessed for the 160MW wind energy facility, which includes the development footprint of the facility (~47ha). Negative impacts on heritage resources will be due to loss during construction activities. Potential impacts and the relative significance of the impacts are summarised below (refer to Appendix H).

8.7.1 Results of the Heritage Survey

Archaeology The project site has been transformed by agriculture for more than 2 centuries. In-situ archaeological resources are extremely sparse with only three recorded occurrences being located. This consisted of a single quartzite flake (refer to Figure 8.9) that may

Assessment of Impacts Page 183 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017 have been of Early Stone Age origin, as well as two river cobbles (refer to Figure 8.10), both found outside of their natural context, and on different farm portions. The physical survey of the project site has shown that archaeological material is insignificant and dispersed, which means that the extent of impacts are likely to be highly localised (if at all), with no regional implications for heritage of this kind.

Graves and graveyards A farm cemetery has been identified at Biesjesfontein (33°13'15.60"S 18°46'20.56"E), and a local informant provided information about another cemetery possibly at Swartfontein. Generally most land parcels farmed since before the 1960s are likely to have a farm cemetery on the property. Given the shale substrate, isolated unmarked pre-colonial graves are very unlikely to occur. No farm cemeteries will be directly affected by the proposed Hartebeest Wind Farm.

Figure 8.9: A single quartzite flake identified within the project site.

Figure 8.10: River cobbles found outside of their natural context.

Built Environment

Assessment of Impacts Page 184 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

A survey of deeds of the land parcels involved indicated that the project site, consisting of all the farm portions, derives from 3 parent farms: Zwartfontein, Biesjesfontein and Tontelberg. These farms were formalised as grants from quitrent farms in 1818-1835 and it is therefore possible that the farms were inhabited and worked on before this time. Locations of historic farms and cemeteries are depicted in Table 8.2).

Table 8.2: Historical built environment within the project site Location Description Field Grading

Klein An intact historical farmyard with buildings of a variety lllB Swartfontein: of ages is Klein Swartfontein where a variety of stone (33° 9'34.01"S walled kraals, barns and residences have survived. 18°42'55.18"E) Notable is the late 19th-early 20th century Karoo style farm house (resided in) (refer to Figure 8.11) and an adjacent smaller 19th century dwelling with a curvilinear iron roofed stoep with Victorian ironwork still intact (refer to Figure 8.12 and Figure 8.13). It is in an abandoned condition. Biesjesfontein: Farm with early 19th century origins contains a number Not assigned due (33°13'7.98"S of vernacular barns of interest; however the farmhouse to lack of 18°46'36.79") was demolished some years ago to make way for a information large agricultural shed.

Historical built environment within the project site is in poor condition, although there is plenty of evidence of farms werfs that contain vestigial historical fabric – stone or mud brick barns, kraals and abandoned structures. Indications are that most of the early farm residences have been demolished and rebuilt, or modernised beyond recognition. None of the built environment is of a grade that would be publically celebrated as heritage places therefore the impact of the wind energy facility on their heritage values is low.

Figure 8.11: Panorama of structures at Klein Swartfontein.

Assessment of Impacts Page 185 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Figure 8.12 and 8.13: The barn and 19th century dwelling on Klein Swartfontein.

Landscape The impact of wind turbines on the landscape from a heritage perspective is difficult to quantify as this is an aesthetic judgement. However, the Visual Impact Assessment has assessed this in detail in section 8.9 and Appendix J. The visual impact will generally be high when experienced from farms within and close to the project site and outskirts of Moorreesburg. It is felt that of all landscape in South Africa the presence of wind turbines in the study area are compatible with the manicured and swept quality of the surrounds, meaning that although the turbines will be highly visible, the sense of change or diminishment of the significance of the landscape will not necessarily be negative in status. The landscape is considered worthy of grading at the lllB-C level. A grading is justified on the grounds that the landscape is typical of a particular region and has a certain amount of aesthetic appeal.

Figure 8.14 and Figure 8.15 refers to all the heritage sites identified within the project site overlain with Layout Alternative 1 and 2 respectively.

Assessment of Impacts Page 186 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Figure 8.14: Identified heritage sites overlain by Layout Alternative 1 (25 turbine layout).

Figure 8.15: Identified heritage sites overlain by Layout Alternative 2 (32 turbine layout).

Assessment of Impacts Page 187 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

8.7.2 Description of Heritage Impacts

Wind energy facilities are big developments that can produce a wide range of impacts that will affect the heritage qualities of an area. Each turbine site needs road access that can be negotiated by a heavy lift crane(s) which means that in undulating topography, deep cuttings and contoured roads will have to be cut into the landscape to create workable gradients. During the construction phase, each of the turbine sites will have to be levelled off to create a solid platform for cranes as well as a laydown area for materials. This will involve earthmoving and road construction, followed by the bringing in of materials and plant. The actual construction of the turbines will involve excavation into the land surface to a depth of 3m and over an area of 15m x 15m for the concrete base. The turbines are connected to underground cables, where possible, to an on-site substation(s) where after the generated current will be fed to the national grid via power lines.

During the construction phase the following activities will result in impacts to the landscape and any heritage that lies on it can be expected:

» Bulldozing of roads to turbines sites with a possibility of cut and fill operations in places; » Upgrading of existing farm tracks; » Creation of working and laydown areas close to each turbine site; » Excavation of foundations for each tower; » Excavation of many kilometres of linear trenches for cables; » Erection of a 132 kV overhead power line; and » Construction of electrical infrastructure in the form of an on-site substation.

Heritage and archaeological sites which are highly context sensitive are most vulnerable to the alteration of the land surface. The best way to manage impacts to archaeological material is to avoid these impacts. This is achieved through micro-adjusting turbine positions where feasible, or routing access roads around any identified sensitive areas. If primary avoidance of the heritage resource is not possible, then some degree of mitigation can be achieved by systematically removing the archaeological material form the landscape. This is generally considered a second best approach as the process that has to be used is exacting and time-consuming, and therefore expensive.

During the operational life of the wind farm, it is expected that physical impacts to heritage will diminish or cease. Impacts to intangible heritage are expected to occur. Such impacts relate to changes to the feel, atmosphere and identity of a place or landscape. Such changes are evoked by visual intrusion, noise, changes in land use and population density. In the case of this project, impacts to remote and rural landscape and wilderness qualities are possibly of most concern. The point at which a wind turbine

Assessment of Impacts Page 188 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017 may be perceived as being “intrusive” from a given visual reference point is a subjective judgment, however it can be anticipated that the presence of such facilities close to (for example) wilderness and heritage areas will destroy many of the intangible and aesthetic qualities for which an area is valued. The fact that turbines are continuously revolving results in a visual impact that can be very disturbing and to the landscape quality of a place.

» Due to the size of the turbines, the visual impacts are largely not easily mitigated (they are easily visible from 10km and up to 20km in ideal conditions) in virtually all landscapes (personal observations), however indications are (PGWC, 2006) that they are perceived to aesthetically/artistically more acceptable in agricultural or manicured landscapes. » The turbines are in continuous motion and therefore create a visual impact more severe than that caused by static objects and buildings. » Shadow flicker – an impact particular to wind turbines, comprises very large moving shadows created by the giant blades when the sun is low on the horizon. Such shadows can extend considerable distances from the turbine. Continuous shadow flicker will have a serious impact on the sense of place of a heritage site. In terms of the proposal under consideration with a rotor diameter of 160m, this would mean that shadow flicker would be possible within 1600m of the turbines. » Visual impact of road cuttings into the sides of slopes will affect the cultural, natural and wilderness qualities of the area. » Residual impacts can occur after the cessation of operations. The large concrete turbine bases will remain buried in the ground indefinitely.

While it is not expected that physical impacts will result, changes to the way in which the area is used by people can result in impacts. If the intangible qualities of a place are affected in such a way that it becomes an undesirable place to visit or reside, the sustainable use of the buildings will diminish. There is merit in making sure that no structures are affected by shadow flicker or noise which may result in them being uninhabitable.

8.7.3 Impact tables summarising the significance of impacts on heritage resources related to the wind turbines and associated infrastructure (with and without mitigation)

The impacts assessed below apply to the both layout alternatives proposed for the wind energy facility and associated infrastructure, as well as the grid connection infrastructure for the Hartebeest Wind Farm.

Nature: Potential impacts on Archaeological sites. The main cause of impacts to archaeological sites is physical disturbance of the material itself and its context. The heritage and scientific potential of an archaeological site is highly dependent on its geological and spatial context. This

Assessment of Impacts Page 189 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017 means that even though, for example, a deep excavation may expose archaeological artefacts, the artefacts are relatively meaningless once removed from the area in which they were found. In the case of the proposed activity, the main source of impact is likely to be the construction of access roads, laydown areas and excavation of the foundations of the turbines. Relevant Listed activities: GNR 983 Activity: 11(i), 24 (ii), 56(ii) GNR 984 Activity: 1, 15 GNR 985 Activity: 4(f)(aa), 12(a)(ii), 18(f)(i)(aa) Without mitigation With mitigation Extent Local (2) N/A Duration Permanent (5) N/A Magnitude Small to Minor (1) N/A Probability Very Improbable (1) N/A Significance Low (7) N/A Status (positive or negative) Neutral N/A Reversibility Low reversibility N/A Irreplaceable loss of resources? No N/A Can impacts be mitigated? Not required Mitigation: No mitigation required prior to construction. During construction or operation, any accidentally discovered graves or human remains must be reported to the police (specifically graves) and/or Heritage Western Cape. Residual Impacts: N/A.

Nature: Potential impacts on colonial period heritage. Historic structures are sensitive to physical damage such as demolition as well as neglect. These structures are also context sensitive, in that changes to the surrounding landscape will affect their significance. Relevant Listed activities: GNR 983 Activity: 11(i), 12 (xii)(c), 24 (ii), 56(ii) GNR 984 Activity: 1, 15 GNR 985 Activity: 4(f)(aa), 12(a)(ii), 18(f)(i)(aa) Without mitigation With mitigation Extent Local (1) N/A Duration Very Short (1) N/A Magnitude Small to Minor (1) N/A Probability Very Improbable (1) N/A Significance Low (3) N/A Status (positive or negative) Neutral N/A Reversibility N/A N/A Irreplaceable loss of resources? No N/A Can impacts be mitigated? Not required. Mitigation: No mitigation will be required. Residual Impacts:

Assessment of Impacts Page 190 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

N/A

Nature: Potential Impacts on Cultural Landscape. A cultural landscape may include a natural landscape of high rarity value, aesthetic and scientific significance. The construction of a large facility can result in profound changes to the overall sense of place of a locality, if not a region. Relevant Listed activities: GNR 983 Activity: 11(i), 12 (xii)(c), 24 (ii), 56(ii) GNR 984 Activity: 1, 15 GNR 985 Activity: 4(f)(aa), 12(a)(ii), 18(f)(i)(aa) Without mitigation With mitigation Extent Local (2) N/A Duration Long term (4) N/A Magnitude Minor (2) N/A Probability Probable (3) N/A Significance Low (24) N/A Status (positive or negative) Neutral - Negative N/A Reversibility Reversible after closure of N/A facility Irreplaceable loss of resources? No N/A Can impacts be mitigated? Not possible Mitigation: Not possible. Residual Impacts: N/A

Nature: Potential Impact of access roads on heritage. There is a chance that the clearing of access roads could impact material that lies buried in the surface sand. Potential impacts caused by proposed access roads are likely to be limited and local. The physical survey of the project site has shown that archaeological material is insignificant and dispersed, which means that the extent of impacts are likely to be highly localised (if at all), with no regional implications for heritage of this kind. Relevant Listed activities: GNR 983 Activity: 12 (xii)(c), 19 (i), 24 (ii), 56(ii) GNR 984 Activity: 1, 15 GNR 985 Activity: 4(f)(aa), 12(a)(ii),14(xii)(a)(f)(ff), 18(f)(i)(aa) Without mitigation With mitigation Extent Local (1) N/A Duration Long term (4) N/A Magnitude Small to Minor (1) N/A Probability Improbable (2) N/A Significance Low (12) N/A Status (positive or negative) Neutral N/A Reversibility Reversible N/A Irreplaceable loss of resources? No N/A

Assessment of Impacts Page 191 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Can impacts be mitigated? No mitigation required Mitigation: None required. Residual Impacts: N/A

Nature: Potential Impact of power line alternatives on heritage.

Two alternative routes are considered and a 200m corridor have been assessed.

» Alternative 1: A connection to the existing Moorreesburg 132/66kV substation at 132kV via a 132 kV power line. The length of the power line required to be constructed for this connection will be ~4km. » Alternative 2: A connection to the existing Moorreesburg 132/66kV substation at 66kV via a 132 kV power line (operated at 66kV and built to 132kV specification, therefore permitting for 132 kV is required). The length of the power line required to be constructed for this connection will be ~3.5km.

This impact is likely to occur only within the construction phase. No impacts are expected to occur during the operation phase. Relevant Listed activities: GNR 983 Activity: 11(i) GNR 984 Activity: 1, 15 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Without With mitigation Without With mitigation mitigation mitigation Extent Local (1) N/A Local (1) N/A Duration Long term (4) N/A Long term (4) N/A Magnitude Low (1) N/A Low (1) N/A Probability Possible(2) N/A Possible(2) N/A Significance Low (12) N/A Low (12) N/A Status (positive Neutral N/A Neutral N/A or negative) Reversibility Reversible after closure of facility and removal of the power line Irreplaceable loss of resources No Can impacts be mitigated Not necessary Mitigation No mitigation is required. Residual impacts N/A

Assessment of Impacts Page 192 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

8.7.4 Comparative Assessment of Alternatives

Layout Alternatives: In terms of the existing heritage on the project site and immediate environs, both the 25 turbine layout and the 32 turbine layout are acceptable. However, Layout Alternative 1 would be preferred from a visual perspective as a result of the lower number of turbines proposed.

Aspect Layout Alternative 1 Layout Alternative 2 Archaeology Acceptable - most preferred Acceptable- least preferred » Alternative with the lower number » Alternative with the highest of turbines number of turbines

Grid Connection Alternatives: Impacts of the power line alternative routes to physical heritage are considered to be unlikely. Both proposed power line routes are acceptable from a heritage perspective. No preference is offered.

Aspect Grid connection solution Grid connection solution Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Archaeology Acceptable Acceptable » Power line route is acceptable » Power line route is acceptable » No significant heritage finds. » No significant heritage finds.

8.7.5 Implications for Project Implementation

With the implementation of mitigation measures by the developer, contractors, and operational staff, the significance of impacts of the wind energy facility are considered to be low. No mitigation will be required. From the outcomes of the studies undertaken, it can be concluded that the wind energy facility can be developed and impacts on heritage resources managed by taking the following into consideration:

» Impacts to ruins, the identified historical farm building and cemeteries must be avoided. » The final road routes must be referred to the heritage consultant, and design mitigation proposed if necessary. » No historical structures may be demolished without approval from Heritage Western Cape. » If any unmarked graves or human remains are uncovered during the construction of the site, work should stop in that area and Heritage Western Cape must be notified. » If there are any significant changes to the layout of the Hartebeest Wind Farm as considered through the Heritage Impact Assessment, further archaeological survey work may be necessary.

Assessment of Impacts Page 193 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

8.8. Assessment of Impacts on Land Use, Soil and Agricultural Potential

The project site of ~3288ha has been assessed for the 160MW wind energy facility, which includes the development footprint of the facility (~47ha). The impact of the proposed development on the soils, land use, land capability and agricultural potential has been assessed as low to moderate (after mitigation). Potential impacts and the relative significance of the impacts are summarised below (refer to Appendix I – Soils report for more details).

8.8.1. Results of the Land Use, Soil and Agricultural Potential Study

Land use is primary the cultivation of dryland small grains on these farming units. This is by far the dominant land use of the entire Swartland region, although livestock farming is practised. Crop rotation is essential to increase wheat yields. It reduces insect and weed problems and enables livestock farming.

Several sensitive features have been identified with the project site which includes the natural drainage channels (considered to be highly sensitive), a wetland camp (28ha) and an old mining area (13ha). The mining area and its surrounds are particularly sensitive during the construction phase. It should be ensured that construction near this area will be safe from landslides. Both the wetland camp and old mining area are considered to be of low sensitivity.

The area where wind farm infrastructure for Hartebeest Wind Farm is situated, falls within land capability classes III, IV and VI along with slopes in excess of 20%. This indicates that the majority of the wind farm footprint is situated in areas with a low suitability rating for crop production and steep slopes. Some of these ridges are cultivated although mainly Mispah and shallow Hutton soils with effective depth < 30cm occur within these areas.

The ridges and upper mid slopes were identified as possible positions to host the turbines, so as not to encroach on cultivated land. Land that can be used for producing specific high value crops, is usually not high potential soils but important to agriculture due to the combination of location, climate or soil properties.

8.8.2 Description of Land Use, Soil and Agricultural Potential Impacts

The following activities, associated with the pre-construction, construction and operation phases of the project will have an impact on the soils located within the project site:

Assessment of Impacts Page 194 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Pre-construction: » Clearance of vegetation and related activities for site establishment could have a negative impact on the soil and the overall stability if not conducted appropriately. Clearance of vegetation will be kept to a minimum.

Construction and operation: » The loss of grazing and areas of cultivation potential due to the exclusion of such activities from the area and the direct impact by the development footprint during the construction and operation phases of the project. » A change in the natural condition of the development footprint will lead to erosion of the soils. Once the surface characteristics are changed through anthropogenic means, wind and water will change the land surface of the site. » Construction of roads – gravel or tar, will subject large surface areas of the land to erosion and transportation vulnerability and this could potentially be the biggest potential impact during the construction phase. » Vegetation removal (excluding intact vegetation) will definitely occur and may lead to open patches, which are susceptible to the elements. Erosion will cause loss and deterioration of soil resources and may occur during all phases of the project. » Poor topsoil management may lead to the loss of nutrient rich topsoil and adversely affect soil resources. » Soil contamination due to accidental hydrocarbon spills » Soil compaction by heavy vehicle movement, excavation operations, soil removal and restoration. » Wind erosion through disturbance of topsoil, which leads to structural degradation.

Specific impacts that may occur during the construction and decommissioning phase include: » Destruction of habitat and loss of arable soil » Disturbance of cultivating practises » Alteration and degradation of soil » Increased erosion potential

Impacts likely to occur during the operation phase of the wind energy facility will be associated with disturbance of cultivating practices.

8.8.3 Impact tables summarising the significance of impacts on Land Use, Soil and Agricultural Potential (with and without mitigation)

Construction Phase Impacts

Nature: Degradation of soil through soil pollution due to the placement of associated infrastructure in sensitive areas. Soil pollution with contaminants during the construction phase may take place, including spillages of hydrocarbon (fuel oil) and cement. This is possible

Assessment of Impacts Page 195 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017 during the construction of all facets of the facility: laydown area, concrete foundations of the turbines, subterranean cabling, substation and buildings, main access and internal service roads. Relevant Listed activities: GNR 983 Activity: 11(i), 12 (xii)(c), 19 (i), 24 (ii), 56(ii) GNR 984 Activity: 1, 15 GNR 985 Activity: 4(f)(aa), 12(a)(ii),14(xii)(a)(f)(ff), 18(f)(i)(aa) Without mitigation With mitigation Extent Local (1) Local(1) Duration Medium term (2) Very short (1) Magnitude Low (4) Minor (2) Probability Probable (3) Probable (3) Significance Low (21) Low (12) Status (positive or negative) Negative Negative Reversibility Partly reversible Irreplaceable loss of resources? Yes Can impacts be mitigated? Yes Mitigation: » Refuelling normally takes place in the laydown area. Proactive measures must be taken which include constructing of a designated area where refuelling can take place. This area must have an impervious floor with low wall that will keep the spillage inside. This area should be cleaned with absorbent material on a regular basis. » The use of cut-off drains must be incorporated to divert upslope clean storm water around the site into a natural drainage system. » On the down slope, polluted water must be collected via a cut-off drain into a leachate collection and recovery system. When spillage accidently takes place, it should be removed and replaced with unpolluted soil. » The clean soil can be sourced from excavations nearby. The polluted soil must be piled at a temporary storage facility with a firm waterproof base and is protected from inflow of storm water. It must have an effective drainage system to a waterproof spillage collection area. Contaminated soil must be disposed of at a hazardous waste storage facility. Residual Impacts: Yes, it is impossible to clear the affected area completely.

Nature: Loss of agricultural soil. The establishment of the wind farm will be done at the expense of cultivated land or other high potential soil. Areas to be lost include some of the foundations of the turbines, the substation and buildings and internal service roads. Relevant Listed activities: GNR 983 Activity: 11(i), 12 (xii)(c), 19 (i), 24 (ii), 56(ii) GNR 984 Activity: 1, 15 GNR 985 Activity: 4(f)(aa), 12(a)(ii),14(xii)(a)(f)(ff), 18(f)(i)(aa) Without mitigation With mitigation Extent Local – Regional (3) Local (2) Duration Long-term (4) Long-term (4) Magnitude Moderate (6) Low (4) Probability Improbable (2) Very improbable (1) Significance Low (26) Low (10)

Assessment of Impacts Page 196 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Status (positive or negative) Negative Negative Reversibility Low reversible Irreplaceable loss of resources? No Can impacts be mitigated? Yes Mitigation: » The general objective is to place turbines on the lowest potential soil and not in positions that may have impact on agricultural activities, drainage lines and soil conservation measures. Agricultural activities include normal cultivation practices as well as outsourced practices such as crop spraying. The spacing of turbines is of such nature that wheat production still can take place. » After the construction phase, the upgraded road system could be an asset to the farm. If this is the case, the loss decreases with the area occupied by the roads. Residual Impacts: No, after decommissioning this impact will be gone.

Nature: Impact of crossing sensitive areas (i.e. drainage lines). When a road is crossing a drainage channel, it alters the catchment by changing the shape from a long narrow shape to a short square shape. The effect is that the flow intensity increases with higher erosion potential. Relevant Listed activities: GNR 983 Activity: 11(i), 12 (xii)(c), 19 (i), 24 (ii), 56(ii) GNR 984 Activity: 1, 15 GNR 985 Activity: 4(f)(aa), 12(a)(ii),14(xii)(a)(f)(ff), 18(f)(i)(aa) Without mitigation With mitigation Extent Regional (4) Local (2) Duration Long-Term (4) Long-Term (4) Magnitude Moderate (6) Low (4) Probability Probable (3) Improbable (2) Significance Medium (42) Low (20) Status (positive or negative) Negative Positive Reversibility Low reversible Irreplaceable loss of resources? Yes Can impacts be mitigated? Yes Mitigation: » Roads will be constructed with specifications including roadway preparation, stormwater controls and placing gravel where needed. Where possible, gravel from areas of excavation (cut) will be used to provide material where it is required (fill) and to surface the road. » Where roads have to cross existing wetlands or drainage lines, drainage features must be incorporated into the design to control overland flow and minimise the erosion risk. If there are major gullies or other erosion features to be crossed, culverts must be installed to convey storm water under the road. Residual Impacts: Yes, cannot rehabilitate to original state.

Nature: Placement of spoil material generated from construction related excavations. This relates to all construction areas, but is particularly important at the foundations of the turbines, where

Assessment of Impacts Page 197 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017 spoil material will not be returned. Placement of spoil material accumulated during construction can have logistic problems in the rehabilitation phase. As far as the subterranean cabling and service roads are concerned, spoil material will be removed temporarily and probably be returned. Relevant Listed activities: GNR 983 Activity: 11(i), 12 (xii)(c), 19 (i), 24 (ii), 56(ii) GNR 984 Activity: 1, 15 GNR 985 Activity: 4(f)(aa), 12(a)(ii),14(xii)(a)(f)(ff), 18(f)(i)(aa) Without mitigation With mitigation Extent Regional (4) Local (2) Duration Long-Term (4) Long-Term (4) Magnitude Moderate (6) Low (4) Probability Probable (3) Improbable (2) Significance Medium (42) Low (20) Status (positive or negative) Negative Negative Reversibility Low reversible Irreplaceable loss of resources? Yes Can impacts be mitigated? Yes Mitigation: » When preparing the hard setting area, cuts should be used for fill with little or no wastages. » The wastages can then be removed from the site and used as material combatting erosion in gullies. Residual Impacts: No.

Operation Phase Impacts

Nature: Degradation of soil through soil pollution due to the placement of associated infrastructure in sensitive areas. Soil pollution with contaminants during the operational phase may take place, including spillages of hydrocarbon (fuel oil) and lubricants. This is possible during the maintenance operations of the facility. Special care must be taken when a spillage takes place near wetlands and drainage channels. Relevant Listed activities: GNR 983 Activity: 11(i), 12 (xii)(c), 19 (i), 24 (ii), 56(ii) GNR 984 Activity: 1, 15 GNR 985 Activity: 4(f)(aa), 12(a)(ii),14(xii)(a)(f)(ff), 18(f)(i)(aa) Without mitigation With mitigation Extent Local (1) Local (1) Duration Long Term (4) Long-Term(4) Magnitude Low (4) Minor (2) Probability Probable (3) Probable (3) Significance Low (27) Low (21) Status (positive or negative) Negative Negative Reversibility Partly reversible Irreplaceable loss of resources? Yes Can impacts be mitigated? Yes Mitigation: » Refuelling normally takes place in the workshop of the control building. A designated area for

Assessment of Impacts Page 198 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

refuelling must be constructed with an impervious floor and low wall that will keep the spillage inside. Any spillage must be cleaned with absorbent material and disposed into clearly marked containers. » Where spillage takes place, contaminated soil must be excavated and replaced with unpolluted soil. The contaminated soil should be collected by a licenced landfill contractor. Residual Impacts: Very low, not possible to clear the affected area completely.

Decommissioning Phase Impacts

Nature: Degradation of soil through soil pollution due to the placement of associated infrastructure in sensitive areas. Soil pollution with contaminants during the decommissioning phase may take place, including spillages of hydrocarbon (fuel oil). This is possible during the decommissioning of all facets of the facility, removing wind turbines and ancillary infrastructure and rehabilitation to agricultural land. Relevant Listed activities: GNR 983 Activity: 19 (i) Without mitigation With mitigation Extent Local (1) Local (1) Duration Medium Term (2) Very short (1) Magnitude Low (4) Minor (2) Probability Probable (3) Probable (3) Significance Low (21) Low (12) Status (positive or negative) Negative Negative Reversibility Partly reversible Irreplaceable loss of resources? Yes Can impacts be mitigated? Yes Mitigation: » Spillages should be cleared soon after the spillage had occurred. The polluted soil must be piled up on a temporary storage site. This site requires a firm waterproof base and protected from run-off from surrounding areas. If the storage is longer than 90 days a permit must be obtained. The polluted waste must be collected by a licenced contractor. Residual Impacts: Yes It is impossible to clear the affected area completely.

Nature: Overall impact between two layout alternatives. Two alternative layouts are proposed and includes a 25-turbine layout and a 32-turbine layout. Impacts to be compared include: Loss of high potential soil and run-off. » Loss of high potential soil » Increase in run-off. Relevant Listed activities: GNR 983 Activity: 12 (xii)(c), 19 (i), 24 (ii), 56(ii) GNR 984 Activity: 1, 15 GNR 985 Activity: 4(f)(aa), 12(a)(ii),14(xii)(a)(f)(ff), 18(f)(i)(aa) Layout Alternative 1 Layout Alternative 2

Assessment of Impacts Page 199 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Without With mitigation Without With mitigation mitigation mitigation Extent Local (3) Local (2) Local (3) Local (2) Duration Long term (4) Long Term (4) Long term (4) Long Term (4) Magnitude Moderate (6) Low (4) Moderate (6) Low (4) Probability Probable (3) Improbable (2) Highly Probable Probable (3) (4) Significance Medium (39) Low (20) Medium (52) Medium (30) Status (positive Negative Positive Negative Positive or negative) Reversibility Yes Irreplaceable loss of resources Yes Can impacts be mitigated Yes Mitigation Strive to use as much possible transformed land or non-arable areas. Use existing roads and servitudes. Keep to the stormwater management plan. Residual impacts Yes, rehabilitation to original state is not completely possible

Nature: Overall impact of power line alternatives. Two alternative options for connecting the collector station to the Eskom substation are assessed. Both follow the existing power line alignment westward along the Moorreesburg/Malmesbury gravel road. Alternative 2 turns with the existing 66kV overhead line alignment South to the substation through cultivated land. Alternative 1 continues pass this junction until reaching the next existing 66kV overhead line where it turns South towards the substation. Up to this stage, low impact is expected because of the existing alignment. With the stretch from the road through the cultivated land, an area is excluded from cultivation and specified as a sensitive wetland with drainage lines. This will be traversed. Alternative 1 will cover a smaller distance through this portion than Alternative 2. Relevant Listed activities: GNR 983 Activity: 11(i), 12 (xii)(c), 19 (i), 24 (ii), 56(ii) GNR 984 Activity: 1 GNR 985 Activity: 4(f)(aa), 12(a)(ii),14(xii)(a)(f)(ff), 18(f)(i)(aa) Power line Layout Alternative 1 Power line Layout Alternative 2 Without With mitigation Without With mitigation mitigation mitigation Extent Regional (4) Local (2) Regional (4) Local (2) Duration Long term (4) Long Term (4) Long term (4) Long Term (4) Magnitude Moderate (6) Low (2) Moderate (6) Low (2) Probability Probable (3) Improbable (2) Probable (3) Improbable (2) Significance Medium (42) Low (20) Medium (42) Low (20) Status (positive Negative Positive Negative Positive or negative) Reversibility Yes

Assessment of Impacts Page 200 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Irreplaceable loss of resources Yes Can impacts be mitigated Yes Mitigation Use culverts to convey storm water underneath constructed roads. Maintain culverts by clearing any debris from the catchment. Pylons can be spaced as to avoid sensitive areas such as drainage lines Residual impacts Yes, erosion never stops and needs to be managed continuously. Silt will always build-up at the back of a weir.

8.8.4 Comparative Assessment of Alternatives

Layout Alternatives: Two layout alternatives were considered. Layout Alternative 1 is the preferred alternative due to the following reasons; the high percentage of use of capability VI soils and lowest sensitivity. This alternative will also have the lowest impact on cultivating practices.

Aspect Layout Alternative 1 Layout Alternative 2 Soil and Acceptable – most preferred Acceptable - least preferred Agricultural » Alternative with the lower number » Alternative with the highest Potential of turbines number of turbines » Lowest impact on cultivating practices » In areas with lowest cultivation potential and sensitivity

Grid Connection Alternatives: Two power line alternatives were considered. Both alternatives follow the existing alignment westward along the Moorreesburg/Malmesbury dirt road. Power line Alternative 2 turn with the existing Misverstand/Moorreesburg 1 66kV overhead power line alignment south to the Moorreesburg substation through cultivated land. Alternative 1 continues past this junction until reaching the existing Moorreesburg/Withoogte 1 66kV overhead line where it turns south towards the substation. Up to this stage the significance of the impact is low because of the existing alignments.

With the stretch from the road through the cultivated land, an area is excluded from cultivation and specified as a wetland with drainage lines, and will be traversed. Alternative 1 will cover a smaller distance through this portion than Alternative 2. The impact is allocated to this stretch traversing the sensitive area.

Aspect Grid connection solution Grid connection solution Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Assessment of Impacts Page 201 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Soil and Acceptable – most preferred Acceptable – least preferred Agricultural » Alternative traverses a smaller » Alternative traverses a larger Potential section of the wetland than section of the wetland than Alternative Alternative » Less run-off » More run-off

8.8.5 Implications for Project Implementation

With the implementation of mitigation measures by the developer, contractors, and operational staff, the significance of impacts of the Hartebeest Wind Farm can be reduced. This site is considered suitable for the development as a result of the small footprint within the overall project site as well as the siting of turbines within areas of low cultivation potential. From the outcomes of the studies undertaken, it is concluded that the wind energy facility can be developed and impacts on soils managed by taking the following into consideration:

» Use existing roads and servitudes as far as possible. » Regular erosion monitoring and a control programme needs to be implemented as part of the EMPr. » All areas disturbed by construction related activities such as access roads, construction platforms and workshop area should be rehabilitated at the end of the construction phase.

8.9. Assessment of Visual Impacts

The Hartebeest Wind Farm has a project site of ~3288ha, with a development footprint of ~47ha (including temporary and permanent), predominantly to be occupied by the turbines (with a maximum height of ~210m) and the access roads. Negative impacts on visual receptors will occur during the undertaking of construction activities and the operation of the facility. Potential impacts and the relative significance of the impacts are summarised below (refer to Appendix J - Visual Report for more details).

8.9.1 Results of the Visual Impact Assessment

The development of the Hartebeest Wind Farm might be visible for approximately 52km. There are view shadows that are provided by major ridgelines particularly to the north and west of the development and just between the 4km and 10km buffers. Visibility will be limited to the south to approximately 18 – 20km and to approximately 30km to the east by landform. Between 4km and approximately 25km from the development, visibility will be intermittent due to the numerous minor ridgelines that cut through the landscape.

The proposed on-site substation is located in a minor valley on the western side of the main ridgeline. This is likely to result in the structure being largely hidden, however it

Assessment of Impacts Page 202 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017 will be visible to limited areas to the east. The modifying effect of distance is likely to result in the structure not being obvious to receptors. The surrounding ridgelines play a major role in defining impact areas and three levels of area have been identified:

» Area in the immediate vicinity of the Ridgeline on which the site is located (Close Range Views, within the 4km buffer) Within the area immediately surrounding the project site and extending between 4km from the edge of the development are impacted to some degree and over the majority of the zone, all proposed turbines will be visible and are likely to be a prominent feature. There is a band running in a north west to south east direction, in close proximity to and roughly in line with the turbine development, within which visibility is limited to a number of turbines. This band expands towards the northern and southern extremities of the 4km buffer. This is to be expected given that the ridge on which development is proposed is approximately 7km long and runs in a north west to south east direction. Within this area, the turbines are likely to be highly obvious to the majority of the area and dominate the view. This area is considered likely to be subject to the highest impact due to the effect of the turbines and the likely degree of clarity with which the infrastructure at a lower level within the development is likely to be viewed.

» Valley Floor (Mid to Long Range Views, between 4km and 10km) This refers to the valley floor below the project site and is generally separated from the project site by at least one minor ridgeline. Where visible, the development is likely to be a relatively prominent feature. The topography within this zone is undulating and as the viewer moves across it, views of the facility are likely to be intermittent. The main visibility is greatest at or just below the crests of the minor ridgelines that bisect the valley floor. To the north, south and west not all turbines will be visible. In general closer to the site less than 33% of turbines will be visible and further away as the land rises, up to 66% of turbines will be visible. Close to the 10km buffer, between 66% and 100% of turbines will be visible. To the east, a larger proportion of the turbines are likely to be visible and is probably due to the fact that the majority of proposed turbines are on the eastern side of the ridgeline and the valley floor is generally higher.

» Higher plateau/elevated valley floor to the east and west of the site (Long Range Views between 10km and 20km) As the valley floor is higher in these areas, generally views over the entire project site are possible, and hence the majority of all of the proposed turbines are likely to be visible. However within this zone, the development will only be prominent in clear visibility and it will be seen as part of the wider landscape. From the eastern sector, the turbines are likely to largely be viewed against the skyline and from the west they will largely be viewed against the backdrop of landform (Cederberg Mountains). Whilst a larger proportion of the development is likely to be visible from these areas

Assessment of Impacts Page 203 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

the modifying effects of distance, lighting and weather conditions are likely to significantly mitigate impacts particularly when the development is viewed against the landform.

» Higher plateau / elevated valley floor to the east and west of the site (Long Range Views, between 20km and 30+km) Within this zone the development is only likely to be seen in very clear visibility and then as a minor element in the landscape. In other words, it will not be prominent in any condition and in the majority of cases is unlikely to be obvious particularly the closer to the limit of visibility that it is viewed from. Zones of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) are defined as “a map usually digitally produced showing areas of land within which a development is theoretically visible”. The ZTV analysis indicates that the development could possibly be visible in its entirety from wide areas to the north east and east up to the limit of visibility. However, when visible, in addition to mitigation provided by distance, the development will be seen against a high landform against which it is likely to be indiscernible. The ZTV analysis also indicated intermittent visibility is likely from the north east, east and south east. From lower levels, the turbines may be seen on a ridgeline, however, they are likely to appear as small elements that might easily blend or be screened by natural features. From the Cederberg ridgeline, the turbines will be viewed against landform and in the context of larger and more obvious settlement and agricultural patterns which is likely to make the turbines largely unnoticeable.

8.9.2 Visual Assessment

Key viewpoints (VP) that are adjudged to provide an indication of typical views towards the proposed development and are representative of views of the identified visual receptors/LCAs are illustrated in Figure 8.16 and Figure 8.17 inclusive. These viewpoints include:

1. VP1 is a long distance view towards the project site from approximately 15km. The viewpoint is located at the crest of the first ridge on the N7 between Malmesbury and Moorreesburg. It is the first point on this route that a clear view of the project site is possible. Although a broad section of the development could be visible, only in the favourable weather and lighting conditions will it be obvious. Even then a large proportion of the structures will be partly screened and given their relative scale compared with the undulations in the topography, they are unlikely to be obvious unless the viewer is looking out for them. This view is indicative of distance views from higher ground (refer to Figure 8.18 for the existing and future views). 2. VP2 is a middle distance view on the N7 between Malmesbury and Moorreesburg. Whilst the viewpoint is at the crest of a minor ridge, the viewpoint was taken to illustrate the moderating effect of the landform from this distance. This view is indicative of views from the undulating valley floor surrounding the project site. The

Assessment of Impacts Page 204 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

development could be visible, only in the favourable weather and lighting conditions will it be obvious. A large proportion of the structures will be totally screened and those that are visible will be partially screened. Given their relative scale compared with the undulations in the topography they are unlikely to be obvious unless the viewer is looking out for them (refer to Figure 8.19 for the existing and future views). 3. VP3 is a short range view from the N7 just as the road crests the final ridge before the project site. This viewpoint is in the high impact zone and is intended to illustrate the worst case scenario for people travelling north on the N7. This view is indicative of views from the high impact zone. From within the high impact zone, views of the proposed wind farm will be highly obvious and are likely to dominate the landscape. The structures will break the skyline at all times from this view point (refer to Figure 8.20 for the existing and future views). 4. VP4 is located on the south western edge of Mooreesburg. This viewpoint is intended to illustrate the worst case scenario for people within the town. It has to be stated however that this view is unlikely to be typical due to the extent of street vegetation. This view is also indicative of views from the high impact zone. Wind turbines will be highly obvious and will break the ridgeline on which they are set. On clear days the Cederberg Mountains will form a backdrop to the structures (refer to Figure 8.21 for the existing and future views).

Viewpoints 1 to 3 inclusive were also selected in order to illustrate the likely progression of impacts as a traveller moves northwards towards the site across the depressed valley area that is bisected by numerous minor ridge lines and valleys.

Figure 8.18: The existing view (left) and the future view (right) from VP1.

Assessment of Impacts Page 205 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Figure 8.19: The existing view (left) and the future view (right) from VP2.

Figure 8.20: The existing view (left) and the future view (right) from VP3.

Figure 8.21: The existing view (left) and the future view (right) from VP4.

The following impacts are assessed in detail in section 8.9.3 below: » Impact of the proposed development on the scenic visual character of the landscape and the sense of place of the region, with specific reference to the high quality pastoral landscape. » Impact of the proposed development on users of arterial and secondary roads to which the proposed facility will be visible. » The potential visual impact on urban centres and populated places in close proximity to the proposed wind farm (i.e. Moorreesburg).

Assessment of Impacts Page 206 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

» The visibility of the proposed wind farm from, and the potential visual impact on homesteads in close proximity to the wind farm and within the region. » The potential visual impact of ancillary infrastructure (i.e. access roads, workshop, wind monitoring masts, telecommunications masts, the substation and the power line) on observers in close proximity to the infrastructure. » The potential visual impact of shadow flicker on observers residing on or in close proximity to the proposed wind farm. » The potential visual impact of operational, safety and security lighting of the facility at night.

Assessment of Impacts Page 207 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Figure 8.16: A map illustrating the zone of theoretical visibility (ZTV) associated with the 25 turbine layout, mid to long distance views.

Assessment of Impacts Page 208 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Figure 8.17: A map illustrating the zone of theoretical visibility (ZTV) associated with the 32 turbine layout, mid to long distance views.

Assessment of Impacts Page 209 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

8.9.3 Impact table summarising the significance of visual impacts (with and without mitigation)

The impacts assessed below apply to the development footprint and the proposed power line alternative routes. It should be noted that the impacts identified will all gradually increase from the current situation to the impact level indicated during the construction phase, be consistent at the impact levels indicated during the operational phase and decrease again from the levels indicated to close to the current situation during the decommissioning phase.

Construction, Operation and Decommissioning phase impacts

Nature: Impact of the wind energy facility and ancillary infrastructure (including power line), on the General Landscape Character and Sense of Place

The landscape in which the development is proposed is a relatively cohesive rural agricultural landscape which in general has been little affected by infrastructure or built development. The significance of this landscape is made greater by its relationship with the rugged upland landscape of the Cederberg with which it provides a strong contrast.

The greatest degree of impact is likely to be limited to approximately 4km by distance and by a series of ridgelines. Outside of these ridgelines, the visibility of the proposed development is intermittent and partial until the viewer is approximately 20km away. From this distance whilst the development will be visible, the impact is mitigated by distance and possibly by atmospheric and lighting conditions. Relevant Listed activities: GNR 983 Activity: 11(i), 12 (xii)(c), 24 (ii), 56(ii) GNR 984 Activity: 1, 15 GNR 985 Activity: 4(f)(aa), 12(a)(ii),14(xii)(a)(f)(ff), 18(f)(i)(aa) Without mitigation With mitigation Extent Local landscape - Local (2) Local landscape - Local (2)

Medium range views from within Medium range views from within the surrounding valley floor - Local the surrounding valley floor - Local to Regional (3) to Regional (3)

Medium range views from the Medium range views from the elevated areas to the east and west elevated areas to the east and west - Local to Regional (3) - Local to Regional (3)

Medium / Long range views from Medium / Long range views from

Assessment of Impacts Page 210 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

valley floor areas - Local to valley floor areas - Local to Regional (3) Regional (3)

Long range views from the Long range views from the elevated areas to the east and west elevated areas to the east and west - Local to Regional (3) - Local to Regional (3) Duration Local landscape - Long term (4) Local landscape - Long term (4)

Medium range views from the Medium range views from the elevated areas to the east and west elevated areas to the east and west - Long term(4) - Long term(4)

Medium/Long range views from Medium/Long range views from valley floor areas - Long term(4) valley floor areas - Long term(4)

Long range views from the Long range views from the elevated areas to the east and west elevated areas to the east and west - Long term (4) - Long term (4) Magnitude Local landscape - High (8) Local landscape - Moderate to High (7) Medium range views from the elevated areas to the east and west Medium range views from the - Low (4) elevated areas to the east and west - Minor to Low (3) Medium / Long range views from valley floor areas - Minor to Low Medium / Long range views from (3) valley floor areas - Minor (2)

Long range views from the Long range views from the elevated areas to the east and west elevated areas to the east and west - Small to Minor (1) - Small (0) Probability Local landscape -Definite (5) Local landscape -Definite (5)

Medium range views from the Medium range views from the elevated areas to the east and west elevated areas to the east and west - Highly Probable (4) - Highly Probable (4)

Medium / Long range views from Medium / Long range views from valley floor areas - Probable (3) valley floor areas - Probable (3)

Long range views from the Long range views from the elevated areas to the east and west elevated areas to the east and west - Improbable (2) - Improbable (2) Significance Local landscape - High (70) Local landscape - High (65)

Medium range views from the Medium range views from the elevated areas to the east and west elevated areas to the east and west - Medium (44) - Medium (40)

Assessment of Impacts Page 211 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Medium / Long range views from Medium / Long range views from valley floor areas - Medium (30) valley floor areas - Low (27)

Long range views from the Long range views from the elevated areas to the east and west elevated areas to the east and west - Low (16) - Low (14) Status (positive or The character of the rural Negative to positive negative) landscape will be changed. Within the “high impact zone” (4km buffer) it is likely that the loss of rural characteristics will be highly obvious to the majority of people. It is therefore likely that the change viewed from within this area is likely to cause greatest concern to receptors, the most sensitive are likely to include: » People involved in tourism related businesses. » Residential homeowners that overlook the development. » Tourism related travellers particularly those using the N7.

From outside the “high impact zone” the change in character is likely to be significantly less obvious

It is likely that there will be mixed opinions over the development even amongst sensitive receptors. Some will welcome the development for the clean energy opportunity that it provides, some may appreciate the aesthetic of the development and some are likely to have concerns regarding the change in character of the view

Negative to positive Reversibility High High Irreplaceable loss Impacts are greatest in the vicinity No of resources? of Moorreesburg. This area has been impacted by development already including the settlement, a quarry site adjacent to the

Assessment of Impacts Page 212 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

proposed development and a substation with numerous associated overhead power lines. The area is therefore not the most cohesive example of a rural landscape in the region. The proposed development can also be removed in the future and it is assumed that productive agriculture can replace the development again. No irreplaceable loss. Can impacts be Yes, the impact within 4km can be part mitigated by minimising ground mitigated? level development and maintaining existing rural land uses below the turbines. The adoption of the 25 turbine alternative will also slightly reduce the magnitude of the impact. The impact at greater distances can be mitigated through the use of non-reflective finishes particularly for the rotor blades. This could help to prevent intermittent flashes from spinning rotors. This mitigation measure is covered addressed by the US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management14. However, in this document they do make the point that; Non-reflective paints and coatings may not be available for some pre-manufactured facility components. Wind turbines are not painted after erection, and the use of radar-absorbing materials on turbines (where applied) may preclude the use of non-reflective coatings.

Subject to the level of finish to rotor blades it may also not be necessary to undertake a special non-reflective coating. The Environmental Protection and Heritage Council of the Commonwealth of Australia in their guideline documentation15 have indicated that; All major wind turbine blade manufacturers coat their blades with a low reflectivity treatment which prevents reflective glint from the surface of the blade. The risk of blade glint from modern wind turbines is considered to be very low

The applicant has agreed to investigate both the need and feasibility for this mitigation measure. Mitigation: Planning and construction: » Adoption of the 25 turbine layout will help to reduce the magnitude of impacts particularly within the 4km, high impact zone. » Ensure that ground level development is minimised. » Investigate the possible use of non-reflective finishes on rotor blades (if not already

14 US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 2013. Best Management Practices for Reducing Visual Impacts of Renewable Energy Facilities. 15 Environmental Protection and Heritage Council, Commonwealth of Australia, 2010. Wind Turbines and Health, A Rapid Review of the Evidence.

Assessment of Impacts Page 213 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

implemented by manufacturer).

Operation: » Maintain existing uses below the development.

Decommissioning: » Remove infrastructure not required for the post-decommissioning use of the site. » Return all affected areas to productive agricultural use after decommissioning. Residual Risks: The residual risk relates to loss of vegetation cover being obvious on decommissioning of the proposed project. It is therefore critical that effective rehabilitation is undertaken.

Nature: Potential visual impact on users of arterial and secondary roads (wind energy facility and ancillary infrastructure)

Impact on linear receivers (roads) that run through the area. These include: » The N7 Cape to Namibia Route; » The R311 which is a surfaced road between Moorreesburg and Riebeeck Kasteel to the south east and Moorreesburg and Hopefield to the north west; » The R307 which is largely an unsurfaced road in the vicinity of Moorreesburg between Moorreesburg and Darling to the west; and » A local gravel road that runs between Moorreesburg and the R44 close to the settlement of Gouda.

The N7 is by far the busiest route carrying a mix of local and regional traffic. It is a key international tourism route and is being promoted as an activity route particularly for local tourism. The R311 also has importance for tourism. Other routes predominantly carry local traffic. The outlook from all of these roads is scenic as a result of the contrast between the agricultural lowland and the steep mountainous backdrop provided by the Cederberg.

The impact relates to the possible change in the character of the view from the road from a rural agricultural landscape to an industrialised/developed landscape. Impacts will be experienced over approximately 25km of the N7 and approximately 28km of the R311. Impacts will be intermittent and only a part of the development will be visible until the viewer is in relatively close proximity to the site. The largest impacts are expected over approximately 5km of the N7 and approximately 10km of the R31. These impacts will be within the 4km buffer and all turbines will be obvious. It is also likely that the substation and power line will be visible to these sections of road. The 25 turbine layout will reduce the number of turbines obvious to adjacent sections of the R311 but it is likely to have limited effect in reducing impacts on the N7. Relevant Listed activities: GNR 983 Activity: 11(i), 12 (xii)(c), 19 (i), 24 (ii), 56(ii) GNR 984 Activity: 1, 15 GNR 985 Activity: 4(f)(aa), 12(a)(ii),14(xii)(a)(f)(ff), 18(f)(i)(aa) Without mitigation With mitigation Extent Inside the 4km buffer - Local (2) Inside the 4km buffer - Local (2)

Assessment of Impacts Page 214 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Outside the 4km buffer and inside Outside the 4km buffer and inside the 10km buffer - Local (2) the 10km buffer - Local (2)

Outside the 10km buffer and inside Outside the 10km buffer and inside the 20km buffer - Local to Regional the 20km buffer - Local to Regional (3) (3)

Outside the 20km buffer - Local to Outside the 20km buffer - Local to Regional (3) Regional (3) Duration Long term (4) Long term (4) Magnitude Inside the 4km buffer - High (8) Inside the 4km buffer - Moderate to High (7) Outside the 4km buffer and inside the 10km buffer - Low (4) Outside the 4km buffer and inside the 10km buffer - Minor to low (3) Outside the 10km buffer and inside the 20km buffer - Minor (2) Outside the 10km buffer and inside the 20km buffer - Small to minor Outside the 20km buffer - Small to (1) Minor (1) Outside the 20km buffer and inside the 20km buffer - Small (0) Probability Inside the 4km buffer - Definite (5) Inside the 4km buffer - Definite (5)

Outside the 4km buffer and inside Outside the 4km buffer and inside the 10km buffer - Highly Probable the 10km buffer - Probable (3) (4) Outside the 10km buffer and inside Outside the 10km buffer and inside the 20km buffer - Improbable (2) the 20km buffer - Probable (3) Outside the 20km buffer - Very Outside the 20km buffer - Improbable (1) Improbable (2) Significance Inside the 4km buffer - High (70) Inside the 4km buffer - High (65)

Outside the 4km buffer and inside Outside the 4km buffer and inside the 10km buffer - Medium (40) the 10km buffer - Medium (30)

Outside the 10km buffer and inside Outside the 10km buffer and inside the 20km buffer - Low (27) the 20km buffer - Low (16)

Outside the 20km buffer - Low Outside the 20km buffer - Low (7) (14) Status (positive or The character of the rural Negative to positive negative) landscape will be changed. Within the “high impact zone” (4km buffer) it is likely that the loss of

Assessment of Impacts Page 215 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

rural characteristics will be highly obvious to the majority of people. It is therefore likely that the change viewed from within this area is likely to cause greatest concern to receptors, the most sensitive are likely to include: » Tourism related travellers particularly those using the N7.

A proportion of these people are likely to view the development in a negative light. It is also likely that a proportion of affected parties, particularly those that may benefit will view the development as a positive addition to the local landscape. From outside the “high impact zone” the change in character is likely to be significantly less obvious and may be seen as a negligible impact by many people. Reversibility High High Irreplaceable loss Impacts are greatest in the vicinity No irreplaceable loss. of resources? of Moorreesburg. This area has been impacted by development already including the settlement, a quarry site adjacent to the propose development and a substation with numerous associated overhead power lines. It is therefore not the most cohesive example of a rural landscape in the region.

The proposed development can also be removed in future and it is assumed that productive agriculture might replace the development again. No irreplaceable loss. Can impacts be Yes, the impact within 4km can be part mitigated by minimising ground mitigated? level development and maintaining existing rural land uses below the turbines. This is only likely to have a significant benefit from areas in the immediate vicinity of the project. However from beyond this range, impacts are at least part mitigated by landform. The impact at greater distances (outside the 4km buffer) can be mitigated through the use of non-reflective finishes particularly for the rotor blades. This should help to make the facility less obvious in the landscape.

Assessment of Impacts Page 216 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Mitigation: Planning and construction: » Adoption of the 25 turbine layout will help to reduce the magnitude of impacts particularly within the 4km, high impact zone. (if not already implemented by manufacturer » Ensure that ground level development is minimised. » Investigate the possible use of non-reflective finishes on rotor blades (if not already implemented by manufacturer).

Operation: » Maintain existing uses below the development.

Decommissioning: » Remove infrastructure not required for the post-decommissioning use of the site. » Return all affected areas to productive agricultural use. » Monitor rehabilitated areas post-decommissioning and implement remedial actions. Residual Risks: The residual risk relates to loss of vegetation cover being obvious on decommissioning of the proposed project. It is therefore critical that effective rehabilitation is undertaken.

Nature: Potential visual impact on urban centres and populated places in close proximity to the proposed wind farm (wind energy facility and ancillary infrastructure)

The town of Moorreesburg is largely located on an east facing slope overlooking the project site. Whilst occasional views over the entire ridgeline on which the wind farm is proposed will be possible as indicated in the VP 4, the most common type of view will be one that is channelled down a road that runs directly downhill towards the development. This will produce views of small sections of the wind farm at any one time. This will be partly mitigated by street trees which in areas could largely screen views of the development.

The area of the town from which views are likely to be most obvious is the south eastern edge. The uses within this area are largely industrial in nature. Relevant Listed activities: GNR 983 Activity: 11(i), 12 (xii)(c), 19 (i), 24 (ii), 56(ii) GNR 984 Activity: 1, 15 GNR 985 Activity: 4(f)(aa), 12(a)(ii),14(xii)(a)(f)(ff), 18(f)(i)(aa) Without mitigation With mitigation Extent Local (2) Local (2) Duration Long term (4) Long term (4) Magnitude The rural landscape will still be Moderate (6) evident and the majority of uses in Moorreesburg, particularly in areas closest to the development, are unlikely to be sensitive to the change in view - Moderate to High (7).

Assessment of Impacts Page 217 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Probability Highly Probable (4) Highly Probable (4) Significance Medium (52) Medium (48) Status (positive or The character of the rural Negative/positive negative) landscape will be changed. Within the “high impact zone” it is likely that the loss of rural characteristics will be highly obvious to the majority of people. It is therefore likely that the change viewed from within this area is likely to cause greatest concern to receptors, the most sensitive are likely to include: » Residents that overlook the development, and » Tourism related establishments including guest houses.

A proportion of these people are likely to view the development in a negative light. It is also likely that a proportion of the population, particularly those that may benefit will view the development as a positive addition to the local landscape. Reversibility High High Irreplaceable loss Impacts are greatest in the vicinity No irreplaceable loss. of resources? of the southern access to Moorreesburg and on roads within the town that run directly downhill towards the development. Views from this area have been impacted by development already including the settlement, a quarry site adjacent to the propose development and a substation with numerous associated overhead power lines. It is therefore not the most cohesive example of a rural landscape in the region.

The proposed development can also be dismantled and that productive agriculture can replace the development again. No irreplaceable loss. Can impacts be Yes, the proposed impact can be partly mitigated by minimising ground mitigated? level development and maintaining existing rural land uses below the

Assessment of Impacts Page 218 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

turbines. The adoption of the 25 turbine layout will also slightly reduce the magnitude of the impact. Mitigation: Planning and construction: » Adoption of the 25 turbine layout will help to reduce the magnitude of impacts particularly within the 4km, high impact zone. » Ensure that ground level development is minimised.

Operation: » Maintain existing uses below the development.

Nature: Potential visual impact on homesteads in close proximity to the wind farm and within the region

Six farmsteads are located within the area that the turbines are proposed. A further fifteen farmsteads are located within 1km and a further thirteen farmsteads will have a view over the wind farm from within the high impact zone (4km buffer).

The level of impact for each of these groups will differ significantly: » Residents within the turbine field will have their outlook changed the most. Turbine structures and associated infrastructure will dominate and industrialise the landscape. » Residents close to the edge of the turbine field will experience a similar degree of impact over approximately 50% of their outlook. They will at least be able to maintain their rural outlook over the remainder of their view. » Residents outside the immediate vicinity of the turbines are likely to read the rural landscape between the structures more readily and to some extent the turbines will recede (the greater the distance the more this will occur). Associated lower level infrastructure is likely to be the main hindrance in this regard. Relevant Listed activities: GNR 983 Activity: 11(i), 12 (xii)(c), 19 (i), 24 (ii), 56(ii) GNR 984 Activity: 1, 15 GNR 985 Activity: 4(f)(aa), 12(a)(ii),14(xii)(a)(f)(ff), 18(f)(i)(aa) Without mitigation With mitigation Extent Local (2) Local (2) Duration Long term (4) Long term (4) Magnitude Residents located in the turbine Residents located in the turbine field - Very High (10). field - High to Vey High (9).

Assessment of Impacts Page 219 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Residents located close to the Residents located close to the turbine field (1km) - High to Very turbine field (1km) - High (8). High (9). Residents located outside the Residents located outside the immediate vicinity of the turbine immediate vicinity of the turbine field up to the 4km buffer - field up to the 4km buffer - Moderate (6) Moderate to High (7) Residents located outside the 4km Residents located outside the 4km and inside the 10km buffer - Low and inside the 10km buffer - Low (4) to moderate (5) Residents located outside the 10km Residents located outside the 10km buffer - Small (0) buffer - Minor (2) Probability Residents located in the turbine Residents located in the turbine field - Definite (5). field - Definite (5).

Residents located close to the Residents located close to the turbine field (1km) - Highly turbine field (1km) - Highly Probable (4). Probable (4).

Residents located outside the Residents located outside the immediate vicinity of the turbine immediate vicinity of the turbine field up to the 4km buffer - field up to the 4km buffer - Probable (3) Probable (3)

Residents located outside the 4km Residents located outside the 4km and inside the 10km buffer - and inside the 10km buffer - Improbable (2) Improbable (2)

Residents located outside the 10km Residents located outside the 10km buffer - Improbable (2) buffer - Improbable (2) Significance Residents located in the turbine Residents located in the turbine field - High (80) field - High (75)

Residents located close to the Residents located close to the turbine field (1km) - High (60) turbine field (1km) - Medium (56)

Residents located outside the 4km Residents located outside the 4km and inside the 10km buffer - Low and inside the 10km buffer - Low (22) (20)

Assessment of Impacts Page 220 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Residents located outside the 10km Residents located outside the 10km buffer - Low (16) buffer - Low (12) Status (positive or The character of the rural Negative/positive negative) landscape will be changed. Within the “high impact zone” it is likely that the loss of rural characteristics will be highly obvious to the majority of people. It is therefore likely that the change viewed from within this area is likely to cause greatest concern to receptors, the most sensitive are likely to include: » Residents that overlook the development, and » Tourism related establishments including guest houses.

A proportion of these people are likely to view the development in a negative light. It is also likely that a proportion of the population, particularly those that may benefit (such as those within the wind farm boundary) will view the development as a positive addition to the local landscape. Reversibility High High Irreplaceable loss This area has been impacted by No irreplaceable loss. of resources? development already including the settlement, a quarry site adjacent to the propose development and a substation with numerous associated overhead power lines. It is therefore not the most cohesive example of a rural landscape in the region. The proposed development can also be dismantled in the future and it is assumed that productive agriculture might replace the development again. There will therefore be no irreplaceable loss. However, given the long term nature of the project, it is likely that a proportion of residents will view the loss of view as irreplaceable. Can impacts be Yes, the proposed impact can be partly mitigated by minimising ground mitigated? level development and maintaining existing rural land uses below the

Assessment of Impacts Page 221 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

turbines. The adoption of the 25 turbine layout will also slightly reduce the magnitude of the impact. The impact at greater distances can be mitigated through the use of non-reflective finishes particularly for the rotor blades. This could help to prevent intermittent flashes from spinning rotors. This mitigation measure is covered addressed by the US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. However, in this document they do make the point that; Non-reflective paints and coatings may not be available for some pre-manufactured facility components. Wind turbines are not painted after erection, and the use of radar-absorbing materials on turbines (where applied) may preclude the use of non-reflective coatings.

Subject to the level of finish to rotor blades it may also not be necessary to undertake a special non-reflective coating. The Environmental Protection and Heritage Council of the Commonwealth of Australia in their guideline documentation have indicated that; All major wind turbine blade manufacturers coat their blades with a low reflectivity treatment which prevents reflective glint from the surface of the blade. The risk of blade glint from modern wind turbines is considered to be very low

Operation: » Maintain existing uses below the development.

Nature: Potential visual impact of shadow flicker on observers

The term “shadow flicker‟ refers to the flickering effect caused when rotating wind turbine blades periodically cast shadows over neighbouring properties as they turn, through constrained openings such as windows.

Assessment of Impacts Page 222 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

The analysis has shown that a number of farmsteads could be affected by the shadow cast by the turbine structures. If buildings are in shadow during clear weather when the turbine is turning then they are likely to be affected by shadow flicker. Nineteen farmsteads are at risk.

It has to be stated that farmsteads close to the edges of the defined areas are only likely to be subject to shadow for short periods of the year and so the risk of shadow flicker is low. Whereas farmsteads over which shadow is cast for long periods of the year are at greater risk of the impact.

Several mitigation measures are indicated as being possible including sensitive site design, installation of blinds, and wind turbine shut-down strategies.

Shadow flicker is primarily a nuisance related impact which has the potential to last as long as shadow is cast on the subject. It is also possible that in some people suffering from epilepsy an epileptic seizure may be triggered by light flickers (photosensitive epilepsy). Relevant Listed activities: GNR 983 Activity: 11(i), 12 (xii)(c), 19 (i), 24 (ii), 56(ii) GNR 984 Activity: 1, 15 GNR 985 Activity: 4(f)(aa), 12(a)(ii),14(xii)(a)(f)(ff), 18(f)(i)(aa) Without mitigation With mitigation Extent Local (2) Local (2) Duration Long term (4) Long term (4) Magnitude Residents located within and close Residents located within and close to the southern edge of the turbine to the southern edge of the turbine field - Moderate (6) field - Minor (2)

Residents located within and close Residents located within and close to the east north eastern and west to the east north eastern and west north western edges of the turbine north western edges of the turbine field - Low (4) field - Minor (2) Probability Residents located within and close Residents located within and close to the southern edge of the turbine to the southern edge of the turbine field - Highly probable (4) field - Probable (3)

Residents located within and close Residents located within and close to the east north eastern and west to the east north eastern and west north western edges of the turbine north western edges of the turbine field - Improbable (2) field - Improbable (2) Significance Residents located within and close Residents located within and close to the southern edge of the turbine to the southern edge of the turbine field - Medium (48) field - Medium (24)

Residents located within and close Residents located within and close to the east north eastern and west to the east north eastern and west north western edges of the turbine north western edges of the turbine field - Low (20) field - Low (16) Status (positive or All affected parties are likely to All affected parties are likely to negative) consider this to be a negative consider this to be a negative

Assessment of Impacts Page 223 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

impact. impact. Reversibility High High Irreplaceable loss The proposed development can be No irreplaceable loss. of resources? dismantled in future and if this occurs then the impact will be removed. There will therefore be no irreplaceable loss. However, given the long term nature of the project, it is likely that a proportion of residents will view the loss of view as irreplaceable. Can impacts be Yes mitigated? Mitigation: General: » Installation of blinds on affected windows. » Placement of turbines in positions to minimise the risk of shadow flicker affecting occupied homesteads.

Planning: » Undertake consultation with affected parties to inform them and offer mitigation. » Sensitive design to minimise risk of impact.

Operation: » Install blinds on affected windows. » If all other measures are ineffective, shut down individual turbines in high risk conditions in order to ensure that nuisance created by shadow flicker remains within acceptable levels.

Decommissioning: » No mitigation necessary. Residual Risks: None.

Nature: Potential visual impact of operational, safety and security lighting of the facility at night

From reference to manufacturer’s specifications, it appears that wind turbine aviation warning lighting that is likely to be required on each turbine hub has an intensity and performance requirement range of up to 4 nautical miles which is approximately 8km. Subject to weather conditions, lighting at night may be visible at a greater distance but the performance is likely to deteriorate significantly with distance.

The areas that are likely to be most sensitive to lighting are the mountainous wilderness areas that overlook the coastal plain. These areas are in excess of 30km from the proposed wind energy facility.

Wind turbine aviation warning lighting and security lighting will also be visible from areas surrounding the proposed site. If security lighting is located to the west of the ridgeline on which

Assessment of Impacts Page 224 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017 the turbines are proposed, this will not be out of keeping with lights from the near-by urban area, lights from traffic on the relatively busy N7 as well as security lighting at the adjacent quarry and Moorreesburg substation. However if security lighting is on the eastern side of the hill, this area is more tranquil and is less developed hence the general level of lighting is relatively low. The addition of a bright patch of security lighting on this side of the ridgeline is likely to be more obvious. Relevant Listed activities: GNR 983 Activity: 11(i), 12 (xii)(c), 19 (i), 24 (ii), 56(ii) GNR 984 Activity: 1, 15 GNR 985 Activity: 4(f)(aa), 12(a)(ii),14(xii)(a)(f)(ff), 18(f)(i)(aa) Without mitigation With mitigation Extent Aviation warning lighting - Local - Aviation warning lighting - Local - Regional (3). Regional (3).

Security lighting – Local (2). Security lighting – Local (2). Duration Aviation warning lighting - Long Aviation warning lighting - Long term (4). term (4).

Security lighting - Long term (4). Security lighting - Long term (4). Magnitude Aviation warning lighting - Small Aviation warning lighting, (0) improbable impact, (2)

Security lighting, could have a low Security lighting - Small to Minor, impact - (4) (1) Probability Aviation warning lighting, Aviation warning lighting, Improbable - (2) Improbable - (2)

Security lighting - Probable (3) Security lighting - Improbable (2) Significance Aviation warning lighting – Low Aviation warning lighting – Low (14). (14)

Security lighting - Medium (30) Security Lighting - Low (14) Status (positive or Aviation warning lighting - there is Security Lighting - Neutral negative) unlikely to be an impact, if there is it will be negligible given the extent of lights in the area that are likely to be visible from the mountain range. This is likely to be seen as a neutral impact.

Security Lighting – creating additional light pollution in an area that is relatively dark on the eastern side of the ridge would be seen as a negative impact. However additional lighting is likely to occur on the western side of the ridge where it will be viewed in the

Assessment of Impacts Page 225 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

context of other lighting. This is likely to be viewed by most people as a neutral impact. Reversibility High High Irreplaceable loss No irreplaceable loss. No irreplaceable loss. of resources? Can impacts be Yes mitigated? Mitigation:

Planning: » Aviation warning lighting – the use of pilot activated lighting is possible which would mean that lighting would only be visible when an aircraft is in the vicinity. This is the only mitigation measure possible and is included for information. Due to the likely level of impact and relatively low sensitivity it is likely to be unnecessary and is therefore not considered as a mitigation measure in the table above. » Security Lighting – use of technology such as: ∗ Infra-red systems; and ∗ Sensors to trigger lighting when necessary. ∗ Careful lighting design should also be undertaken to prevent un-necessary light pollution. Residual Risks: None.

9.8.4 Comparative Assessment of Alternatives

Layout Alternatives: The wind turbines are likely to be visible over a wide area. However, there are view shadows that are provided by major ridgelines particularly to the north and west of the development and just between the 4km and 10km buffers. Visibility will be limited to the south to approximately 18 – 20km and to approximately 30km to the east by landform. Between 4km and approximately 25km from the development, visibility will be intermittent due to the numerous minor ridgelines that cut through the landscape. The only difference between the 25 turbine layout and the 32 turbine layout is likely to be the numbers of turbines that are visible from any view point; the 25 turbine alternative will result in fewer turbines being visible from north, east and west particularly within close proximity to the facility (within the 4km buffer). Therefore, the Layout Alternative 1 is the preferred alternative from a visual perspective.

Aspect Layout Alternative 1 Layout Alternative 2 Visual Acceptable – most preferred Acceptable – least preferred » Fewer turbines will be visible » More turbines will be visible than » Limited landscape character Layout Alternative 1 benefits » Limited landscape character benefits

Grid Connection Alternatives:

Assessment of Impacts Page 226 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

From a visual perspective both of the proposed power line alternatives are considered as visually acceptable as there is already existing power line infrastructure located within the vicinity. Both alternatives will largely be visible to the west of the development to the R311, N7 and Moorreesburg. The difference in visibility between the proposed 132kV overhead power lines alignments is negligible, and therefore there is no reason why one alternative should be preferred above the other.

Aspect Grid connection solution Grid connection solution Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Visual Acceptable Acceptable » Substation position avoids sensitive » Substation position avoids sensitive areas areas » Power line route is acceptable » Power line route is acceptable » Located in close proximity to » Located in close proximity to existing power infrastructure existing power infrastructure

8.9.5 Implications for Project Implementation

With the implementation of mitigation measures by the developer, contractors, and operational staff, the significance of impacts of the Hartebeest Wind Farm (including the power line alternatives) can be reduced, depending on the viewpoint. Key mitigation measures required to minimise impacts include:

» Minimising and reinstating vegetation loss in order to ensure that the existing landscape is seen to continue to flow through the development area. » Maintain existing uses below the development » Ensure finished surfaces particularly turbine blades do not reflect light as this will help to ensure that the development is not made obvious particularly over a distance. It seems likely that turbine blades may be finished with a non- reflective surface. The applicant has agreed to investigate the issue and if a non-reflective surface is not provided then they will investigate the feasibility of applying a non-reflective finish. » Manage facility to minimise shadow flicker affecting adjacent receptors, this will require ongoing consultation with residents of homesteads within and close to the development as well as positive measures to address shadow flicker that may occur from time to time. » Minimise lighting impacts from security and operational lighting. This will be particularly important for close views. » Remove structures and rehabilitate site on decommissioning in order to ensure that the development does not result in long term impacts.

8.10. Assessment of Social Impacts

Assessment of Impacts Page 227 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Potential social impacts and the relative significance of the impacts associated with the development of the Hartebeest Wind Farm are summarised below (refer to Appendix K - Social Report for more details).

8.10.1 Results of the Social Study

The assessment of the key issues indicated that there are no negative impacts that can be classified as fatal flaws and which are of such significance that they cannot be successfully mitigated. Positive impacts could be enhanced by implementing appropriate enhancement measures and through careful planning.

The development of the proposed Hartebeest Wind Farm will create employment and business opportunities for locals during both the construction, operational and decommissioning phase of the project. The establishment of a Community Trust will benefit the local community. The enhancement measures should be implemented in order to maximise the potential benefits of the proposed wind energy facility. The proposed development also represents an investment in clean, renewable energy infrastructure, which, given the challenges created by climate change, represents a positive social benefit for society as a whole.

From a social perspective is concluded that the development of the Hartebeest Wind Farm is supported, but that mitigation measures should be implemented and adhered to. Positive and negative social impacts have been identified.

8.10.2 Description of Social Impacts

The following impacts are identified as the potential impacts associated with a development of this nature, and which are assessed for the construction and operation phases.

The key social issues associated with the construction phase include the following potential positive impacts: » Creation of employment and business opportunities, and the opportunity for skills development and on-site training; and

The key social issues associated with the construction phase include the following potential negative impacts: » Impacts associated with the presence of construction workers on local communities; » Impacts related to the potential influx of job-seekers; » Increased risks to livestock and farming infrastructure associated with the construction related activities and presence of construction workers on the site; » Increased risk of grass fires associated with construction related activities; » Noise, dust, waste and safety impacts of construction related activities and vehicles;

Assessment of Impacts Page 228 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

» Impact on productive farmland.

The key social issues affecting the operation phase include the following potential positive impacts: » Creation of employment and business opportunities. The operational phase will also create opportunities for skills development and training; » Benefits associated with the establishment of a Community Trust; and » The establishment of renewable energy infrastructure.

The key social issues affecting the operation phase include the following potential negative impacts: » Impact on productive farmland; » The visual impacts and associated impact on sense of place; and » Potential impact on tourism (could be positive and negative).

8.10.3 Impact tables summarising the significance of social impacts associated with the construction phase (with and without mitigation measures)

The impacts assessed below apply to the wind energy facility, access roads as well as the grid connection infrastructure for the Hartebeest Wind Farm.

Construction Phase Impacts

Direct employment and skills development The construction phase for a single 160MW wind energy facility is expected to extend over a period of 18-24 months and create approximately ~ 300 employment opportunities. It is anticipated that approximately 55% (165) of the employment opportunities will be available to low skilled workers (construction labourers, security staff etc.), 30% (90) to semi-skilled workers (drivers, equipment operators etc.) and 15% (45) for skilled personnel (engineers, land surveyors, project managers etc.). The majority of the low and semi-skilled employment opportunities can be available to local residents in the area, specifically residents from Moorreesburg, Piketburg and Malmesbury. The majority of the beneficiaries are likely to be historically disadvantaged (HD) members of the community. This would represent a significant positive social benefit in an area with limited employment opportunities. In order to maximise the potential benefits the developer should stick to employing local community members to fill the low and medium skilled jobs.

The capital expenditure associated with the construction phase will be ~R 2.8 billion (2016 Rand value). The total wage bill for a typical 160MW wind energy facility will be ~R61.5 million (2016 Rand value). A percentage of the wage bill will be spent in the local economy which will create opportunities for local businesses in the towns of Moorreesburg, Piketburg and Malmesbury. The sector of the local economy that is most

Assessment of Impacts Page 229 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017 likely to benefit from the proposed development is the local service industry. The potential opportunities for the local service sector would be linked to accommodation, catering, cleaning, transport and security, etc. associated with the construction workers on the site.

The hospitality industry in the area is also likely to benefit from the provision of accommodation and meals for professionals (engineers, quantity surveyors, project managers, product representatives etc.) and other (non-construction) personnel involved on the project. Experience from other renewable energy projects indicates that the potential opportunities are not limited to on-site construction workers but also to consultants and product representatives associated with the project. These potential benefits would also apply to the period prior to construction, i.e. the project development and application phase.

Nature: Creation of employment and business opportunities during the construction phase. Relevant Listed activities: GNR 983 Activity: 11(i), 12 (xii)(c), 24 (ii), 56(ii) GNR 984 Activity: 1 GNR 985 Activity: 4(f)(aa), 14(xii)(a)(f)(ff), 18(f)(i)(aa) Without enhancement With enhancement Extent Local – Regional (3) Local – Regional (4) Duration Short term (2) Short term (2) Magnitude Moderate (6) High (8) Probability Highly probable (4) Highly probable (4) Significance Medium (44) Medium (56) Status (positive or negative) Positive Positive Reversibility N/A N/A Irreplaceable loss of resources? N/A N/A Can impacts be mitigated? Yes Enhancement: Employment: » Where reasonable and practical, the proponent should appoint local contractors and implement a ‘locals first’ policy, especially for semi and low-skilled job categories. Due to the low skills levels in the area, the majority of skilled posts are likely to be filled by people from outside the area. » Where feasible, efforts should be made to employ suitably qualified and experienced local contactors that are compliant with Broad Based Black Economic Empowerment (BBBEE) criteria. » Before the construction phase commences, the proponent should establish the existence of a skills database for the area. If such as database exists it should be made available to the contractors appointed for the construction phase. » The local authorities and relevant community representatives should be informed of the final decision regarding the project and the potential job opportunities for locals and the employment procedures that the proponent intends following for the construction phase of the project. » The need to implement training and skills development programmes for local workers should

Assessment of Impacts Page 230 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

be investigated prior to the initiation of the construction phase. The aim of the programme would be to maximise local employment opportunities. » The recruitment selection process should seek to promote gender equality and the employment of women wherever possible.

Business: » The proponent should establish a database of local companies, specifically BBBEE companies, which qualify as potential service providers (e.g. construction companies, catering companies, waste collection companies, security companies etc.) prior to the commencement of the tender process for construction contractors. These companies should be notified of the tender process and invited to bid for project-related work. » Where possible, the proponent should assist local BBBEE companies to complete and submit the required tender forms and associated information. Residual Impacts: Improved pool of skills and experience in the local area.

Impact of construction workers on local communities The presence of construction workers poses a potential risk to family structures and social networks in the town of Moorreesburg. While the presence of construction workers does not in itself constitute a social impact, the manner in which construction workers conduct themselves can impact on local communities. The most significant negative impact is associated with the disruption of existing family structures and social networks. This risk is linked to potentially risky behaviour, including:

» An increase in alcohol and drug use; » An increase in crime levels; » The loss of partners and/or spouses to construction workers; » An increase in teenage and unwanted pregnancies; » An increase in prostitution; and » An increase in sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including HIV.

As indicated above, all of the low-skilled and the majority of the semi-skilled work opportunities associated with the construction of the wind energy facility is likely to benefit members from the local community. If these opportunities are taken up by local residents, the potential impact on the local community will be low as these workers will form part of the local family and social network. Employing members from the local community to fill the low-skilled job categories will therefore reduce the risk and mitigate the potential impact on the local communities. The use of local residents to fill the low skilled job categories will also reduce the need to provide accommodation for construction workers in Moorreesburg. The skilled workers are likely to be accommodated in local guest houses in Moorreesburg and surrounds.

While the risks associated with construction workers at a community level will be low, at an individual and family level they may be significant, especially in the case of contracting a sexually transmitted disease or an unplanned pregnancy.

Assessment of Impacts Page 231 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

In terms of potential threat to the families of local farm workers in the vicinity of the project site, the risk is likely to be low. This is due to the low number of permanent workers residing on local farms in the area. The potential risk is therefore likely to be limited. The risk can also be effectively mitigated by ensuring that the movement of construction workers on and off the site is carefully controlled and managed. However, given the nature of construction projects it is not possible to totally avoid these potential impacts at an individual or family level.

Nature: Potential impacts on family structures and social networks associated with the presence of construction workers. Relevant Listed activities: GNR 983 Activity: 11(i), 12 (xii)(c), 24 (ii), 56(ii) GNR 984 Activity: 1 GNR 985 Activity: 4(f)(aa), 14(xii)(a)(f)(ff), 18(f)(i)(aa) Without mitigation With mitigation Extent Local (2) Local (1) Duration Short term for community Short term for as a whole (2) community as a whole (2) Magnitude Low for the community as Low for community as a a whole (4) whole (4) Probability Probable (3) Probable (3) Significance Low for the community Low for the community as a whole – Low (24) as a whole – Low (21) Status (positive or negative) Negative Negative Reversibility No in case of HIV and No in case of HIV and AIDS AIDS Irreplaceable loss of resources? Yes, potentially if people contract HIV/AIDS. Human capital plays a critical role in communities that rely on farming for their livelihoods Can impacts be mitigated? Yes Mitigation: » Where possible, the proponent should make it a requirement for contractors to implement a ‘locals first’ policy for construction jobs, specifically for semi and low-skilled job categories. » Establish a Monitoring Forum (MF) in order to monitor the construction phase and the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures. The MF should be established before the construction phase commences, and should include key stakeholders, including representatives from the SLM, farmers and the contractor(s). The MF should also be briefed on the potential risks to the local community and farm workers associated with construction workers; » The proponent and the contractor(s) should develop a code of conduct for the construction phase. The code should identify which types of behaviour and activities are not acceptable. Construction workers in breach of the code should be dealt with. In compliance with the South African labour legislation. » The proponent should consider the need for establishing a policy for construction jobs,

Assessment of Impacts Page 232 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

specifically for semi and low-skilled job categories. » The proponent and contractor (s) should implement an HIV/AIDS awareness programme for all construction workers at the outset of the construction phase. » No workers should be permitted to trespass onto adjacent properties. Failure to adhere to this should be made a dismissible offence. » The contractor should provide transport to and from the site on a daily basis for low and semi- skilled construction workers. This will enable the contactor to effectively manage and monitor the movement of construction workers on and off the site. » Where necessary and feasible, the contractors should make the necessary arrangements to enable low and semi-skilled workers from outside the area to return home over pay weekends and/ or on a regular basis. This would reduce the risk posed to local family structures and social networks. » It is recommended that no construction workers, with the exception of security personnel, should be permitted to stay over-night on the site. However, some staff may be accommodated in houses located on local farms in the area. Residual Impacts: Residual impacts would include costs to local individuals and families associated with having to raised children from unplanned pregnancies, costs associated with living with STD, specifically HIV/AIDs, and costs associated with becoming dependent on drugs and or alcohol.

Influx of job seekers Large construction projects tend to attract people to the area in the hope that they will secure a job, even if it is temporary. These job seekers can in turn become “economically stranded” in the area or decide to stay on irrespective of finding a job or not. As in the case of construction workers employed on the project, the actual presence of job seekers in the area does not in itself constitute a social impact. However, the manner in which they conduct themselves can impact on the local community.

The families of job seekers may also accompany individual job seekers or follow them at a later date. In many cases the families of the job seekers that become “economically stranded” and the construction workers that decided to stay in the area, subsequently moved to the area. The influx of job seekers to the area and their families can also place pressure on the existing services in the area, specifically low income housing. In addition to the pressure on local services, the influx of construction workers and job seekers can also result in competition for scarce employment opportunities. Further secondary impacts included increase in crime levels, especially property crime, as a result of the increased number of unemployed people. These impacts can result in increased tensions and conflicts between local residents and job seekers from outside the area.

In some instances the potential impact on the community may be greater given that they are unlikely to have accommodation and may decide to stay on in the area. In addition, they will not have a reliable source of income. The risk of crime associated with the influx of job seekers it therefore likely to be greater. However, the potential

Assessment of Impacts Page 233 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017 for economically motivated in-migration and subsequent labour stranding in Moorreesburg is likely to be low. The majority of job seekers from outside of these towns are likely to come from nearby towns in the area, such as Piketburg, Porterville, Malmesbury etc. Due to the proximity of these towns to the project site, the risk of labour stranding is likely to be low. The risks associated with the influx of job seekers are therefore likely to be of low significance.

Nature: Potential impacts on family structures, social networks and community services associated with the influx of job seekers. Relevant Listed activities: GNR 983 Activity: 11(i), 12 (xii)(c), 24 (ii), 56(ii) GNR 984 Activity: 1 GNR 985 Activity: 4(f)(aa), 14(xii)(a)(f)(ff), 18(f)(i)(aa) Without mitigation With mitigation Extent Local (2) Local (1) Duration Permanent (5) Permanent (5) (For job seekers that stay (For job seekers that stay on the town) on the town) Magnitude Minor (2) Minor (2) Probability Probable (3) Probable (3) Significance Low (27) Low (24) Status (positive or negative) Negative Negative Reversibility No in case of HIV and No in case of HIV and AIDS AIDS Irreplaceable loss of resources? Yes, if people contract HIV/AIDS. Human capital plays a critical role in communities that rely on farming for their livelihoods. Can impacts be mitigated? Yes, to some degree. However, the risk cannot be eliminated. Mitigation: » The proponent should implement a “locals first” policy, specifically with regard to unskilled and low skilled opportunities. » The proponent should implement a policy that no employment will be available at the gate in Moorreesburg. Residual Impacts: Impacts on family and community relations that may, in some cases, persist for a long period of time. Also in cases where unplanned/unwanted pregnancies occur or members of the community are infected by an STD, specifically HIV and or AIDS, the impacts may be permanent and have long term to permanent impacts on the affected individuals and/or their families and the community.

Risk to safety, livestock and farm infrastructure The presence and movement of construction workers on and off the site poses a potential safety threat to local farmers and farm workers in the vicinity of the site. In addition, farm infrastructure, such as fences and gates, may be damaged and stock

Assessment of Impacts Page 234 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017 losses may also result from gates being left open and/or fences being damaged or stock theft linked either directly or indirectly to the presence of farm workers on the site. The local farmers in the area interviewed indicated that the presence of construction workers on the site increased the exposure of their farming operations and livestock to the outside world, which, in turn, increased the potential risk of stock theft and crime. The local farmers did, however, indicate that the potential risks (safety, livestock and farm infrastructure) can be effectively mitigated by careful planning and managing the movement of construction on the site workers during the construction phase.

Nature: Potential risk to safety of farmers and farm workers, livestock and damage to farm infrastructure associated with the movement of construction workers on and to the site. Relevant Listed activities: GNR 983 Activity: 11(i), 12 (xii)(c), 24 (ii), 56(ii) GNR 984 Activity: 1 GNR 985 Activity: 4(f)(aa), 14(xii)(a)(f)(ff), 18(f)(i)(aa) Without mitigation With mitigation Extent Local to Regional (3) Local (2) Duration Short-term (2) Short-term (2) Magnitude Moderate (6) Low (4) Probability Probable (3) Probable (3) Significance Medium (33) Low (24) Status (positive or negative) Negative Negative Reversibility Yes, compensation paid for Yes, compensation paid stock losses and damage for stock losses and to farm infrastructure damage to farm proven to be associated infrastructure proven to with the project, etc. be associated with the project, etc. Irreplaceable loss of resources? No No Can impacts be mitigated? Yes Mitigation: » The proponent should enter into an agreement with the local farmers in the area whereby damages to farm property etc. during the construction phase proven to be associated with the construction activities for the wind energy facility will be compensated for, if evidence can be provided. The agreement should be signed before the construction phase commences. » No workers should be permitted to trespass onto adjacent properties. Failure to adhere to this should be made a dismissible offence. » Contractors appointed by the proponent should provide daily transport for low and semi-skilled workers to and from the site. This would reduce the potential risk of trespassing on the remainder of the farm and adjacent properties; » The proponent should consider the option of establishing a MF that includes local farmers and develop a Code of Conduct for construction workers. This committee should be established prior to commencement of the construction phase. The Code of Conduct should be signed by the proponent and the contractors before the contractors move onto site. » The proponent should hold contractors liable for compensating farmers in full for any stock losses and/or damage to farm infrastructure that can be linked to construction workers. This

Assessment of Impacts Page 235 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

should be contained in the Code of Conduct to be signed between the proponent, the contractors. The agreement should also cover loses and costs associated with fires caused by construction workers or construction related activities. » The Environmental Management Programme (EMP) should outline procedures for managing and storing waste on site, specifically plastic waste that poses a threat to livestock if ingested. » Contractors appointed by the proponent must ensure that all workers are informed at the outset of the construction phase of the conditions contained on the Code of Conduct, specifically consequences of stock theft and trespassing on adjacent farms. » Contractors appointed by the proponent must ensure that construction workers who are found guilty of trespassing, stealing livestock and/or damaging farm infrastructure are dismissed and charged. This should be contained in the Code of Conduct. All dismissals must be in accordance with South African labour legislation. » No construction workers, with the exception of security personnel, should be permitted to stay over-night on the project site. However, some staff may be accommodated in houses located on local farms in the area. Residual Impacts: None, provided losses are compensated for.

Increased risk of grass fires The presence of construction workers and construction-related activities on the site poses an increased risk of grass fires that could in turn pose a threat to livestock, crops, and farmsteads in the area. In the process, farm infrastructure may also be damaged or destroyed and human lives threatened. The issue of fire risks was raised by local farmers in the area who did indicate that measures should be implemented to reduce the potential risk of fires developing. This included the provision of fire-fighting equipment on the site during the construction phase. They also indicated that the potential risk of grass fires was heightened by the windy conditions in the area, specifically during the dry, summer months from December to March.

Assessment of Impacts Page 236 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Irreplaceable loss of resources? No No Can impacts be mitigated? Yes Mitigation: » The proponent should enter into an agreement with the local farmers in the area whereby damages to farm property etc. during the construction phase proven to be associated with the construction activities for the wind energy facilities will be compensated for, if evidence can be provided. The agreement should be signed before the construction phase commences. In addition, the landowners should be encouraged to join the local Fire Protection Association. » Contractor should ensure that open fires on the site for cooking or heating are not allowed except in designated areas. » Contractor to ensure that construction related activities that pose a potential fire risk, such as welding, are properly managed and are confined to areas where the risk of fires has been reduced. Measures to reduce the risk of fires include avoiding working in high wind conditions when the risk of fires is greater. In this regard special care should be taken during the high risk dry, windy summer months. » Contractor to provide adequate fire-fighting equipment on-site. » Contractor to provide fire-fighting training to selected construction staff. » No construction staff, with the exception of security staff, to be accommodated on site over- night. However, some staff may be accommodated in houses located on local farms in the area. » As per the conditions of the Code of Conduct, in the event of a fire proven to be caused by construction workers and or construction activities, the appointed contractors must compensate farmers for any damage caused to their farms. The contractor should also compensate the fire-fighting costs borne by farmers and local authorities. Residual Impacts: None, provided losses are compensated for.

Impacts associated with construction vehicles including dust The movement of heavy construction vehicles during the construction phase has the potential to damage local farm roads and create dust and safety impacts for other road users in the area. The project components will be transported to the project site via the N7. The N7 provides the key link between the Western Cape and Namibia and is an important commercial and tourist route. The transport of components of the wind energy facility to the site therefore has the potential to impact on other road users travelling along the N7. Measures will need to be taken to ensure that the potential impact on motorist using the N7 is minimised.

The transportation of construction workers to and from the site can result in the generation of waste along the route (packaging and bottles etc. thrown out of windows etc.).

Nature: Potential dust and safety impacts and damage to road surfaces associated with movement of construction related traffic to and from the site. Relevant Listed activities: GNR 983 Activity: 11(i), 12 (xii)(c), 24 (ii), 56(ii) GNR 984 Activity: 1

Assessment of Impacts Page 237 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

GNR 985 Activity: 4(f)(aa), 14(xii)(a)(f)(ff), 18(f)(i)(aa) Without mitigation With mitigation Extent Local to Regional (3) Local (1) Duration Short-Term (2) Short-Term (2) Magnitude Moderate (6) Minor (2) Probability Highly Probable (4) Probable (3) Significance Low (24) Low (15) Status (positive or negative) Negative Negative Reversibility Yes Yes Irreplaceable loss of resources? No No Can impacts be mitigated? Yes Mitigation: » As far as possible, the transport of components to the site along the N7 should be planned to avoid weekends and holiday periods if possible. » Dust suppression measures must be implemented for heavy vehicles such as wetting of gravel roads on a regular basis and ensuring that vehicles used to transport sand and building materials are fitted with tarpaulins or covers. » The contractor must ensure that damage caused by construction related traffic to local farm roads is repaired on a regular basis throughout the construction phase. The costs associated with the repair must be borne by the contractor. » All vehicles must be road-worthy and drivers must be qualified and made aware of the potential road safety issues and need for strict speed limits. » The Contractor should ensure that workers are informed that no waste can be thrown out of the windows while being transported to and from the site. Workers who throw waste out windows should be fined. » The Contractor should be required to collect waste along the road reserve on-site on a weekly basis. » Waste generated during the construction phase should be transported to an appropriately licensed landfill site. Residual Impacts: If damage to roads is not repaired then this will affect the farming activities in the area and result in higher maintenance costs for vehicles of local farmers and other road users. The costs will be borne by road users who were not responsible for the damage.

Impacts associated with loss of farmland The activities associated with the construction phase have the potential to result in the loss of land available for grazing and other agricultural activities. Avoiding or minimising potential impacts on wheat cropping operations is the key and overriding concern of all farmers interviewed.

Assessment of Impacts Page 238 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

The proposed site is located in one of the best winter wheat cropping areas in South Africa and it would appear that the majority of the soils have a low agricultural potential. The farming operations are highly mechanised which require large clearance distances. Aerial crop spraying operations will require an obstacle-free environment for pilot safety reasons. In addition, the no/limited tillage systems require the least possible disturbance to surface and sub-surface soils in order to avoid a 1-2 decade restoration period and associated localised losses in productivity. The development footprint of the Hartebeest Wind Farm will be ~47ha for both the construction and operation phase, which is approximately 1.4% of the project site.

The final disturbance footprint can be reduced by careful site design and placement of components. The impact on farmland associated with the construction phase can therefore be mitigated by minimising the footprint of the construction related activities and ensuring that disturbed areas are fully rehabilitated on completion of the construction phase.

Nature: The activities associated with the construction phase, such as establishment of access roads and the construction camp, movement of heavy vehicles and preparation of foundations for the wind energy facility and power lines will damage farmlands and result in a loss of farmlands for grazing. Relevant Listed activities: GNR 983 Activity: 11(i), 12 (xii)(c), 24 (ii), 56(ii) GNR 984 Activity: 1 GNR 985 Activity: 4(f)(aa), 14(xii)(a)(f)(ff), 18(f)(i)(aa) Without mitigation With mitigation Extent Regional (4) Local (1) Duration Permanent if disturbed Medium term if damaged areas are not effectively areas are rehabilitated rehabilitated (5) (3) Magnitude High (8) Minor (2) Probability Highly Probable (4) Highly Probable (4) Significance High (68) Low (24) Status (positive or negative) Negative Negative Reversibility Yes, disturbed areas can Yes, disturbed areas can be rehabilitated be rehabilitated Irreplaceable loss of resources? Yes, loss of farmland, if Yes, loss of farmland. disturbed areas are not However, disturbed areas rehabilitated can be rehabilitated Can impacts be mitigated? Yes Mitigation: » The location of wind turbines, access roads, laydown areas etc. should be informed by the findings of a soil study. » The final location of wind turbines, access roads, laydown areas etc. should be discussed with and confirmed with the locally affected landowners before being finalised. » The footprint areas for the establishment of individual wind turbines should be clearly demarcated prior to commencement of construction activities. All construction related

Assessment of Impacts Page 239 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

activities should be confined to the demarcated area and minimised where possible. » An Environmental Control Officer (ECO) should be appointed to monitor the establishment phase of the construction phase. » All areas disturbed by construction related activities, such as access roads on the project site, construction platforms, workshop area etc. not required for operation, should be rehabilitated at the end of the construction phase. The rehabilitation plan should be informed by input from an appropriately qualified professional with experience in arid regions. » The implementation of a rehabilitation programme should be included in the terms of reference for the contractor/s appointed. The specifications for the rehabilitation programme should be drawn up by an appropriate specialist. » The implementation of the Rehabilitation Programme should be monitored by the ECO. Residual Impacts: Loss of productive farmland and impact on farming operations if rehabilitation is not successful.

Increase in traffic on existing routes

Should concrete towers be used, the number of abnormal loads would increase, with heavy loads increasing. The personnel during construction is estimated to total 200 - 400 persons. The personnel will most likely reside in Moorreesburg or Piketberg as the closest communities. The majority of construction personnel should be transported to and from project site by means of busses. This personnel transport will total approximately 10 to 20 daily trips. The impact of this on the general traffic would therefore also be considered negligible, as the peak hour traffic would be increased by 10 trips at most.

It is estimated that the number of expected trips per turbine would be: » Abnormal vehicles: 10 (turbine components for steel towers) or 24 abnormal vehicles (for concrete towers); » Heavy vehicles: 60 (reinforcement and concrete); and » Heavy Vehicles: 90 (road layer works).

Assessment of Impacts Page 240 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Irreplaceable loss of resources? No No Can impacts be mitigated? Yes Mitigation: » Construction traffic should be distributed throughout the day, which will minimise the impact on the existing traffic patterns. » Additional traffic control measures should be implemented at the site accesses during higher demand periods. Residual Impacts: Residual impacts will be negligible. Traffic impact during the construction phase will be minimal and that the additional generated traffic is negligible.

Traffic impact of accesses on existing routes

The total trips for a 32 turbine wind energy facility is estimated to be 320 abnormal and 4800 heavy vehicle trips for a steel towered turbine or 768 abnormal loads and 4800 heavy vehicle trips for a concrete towered turbine , over an estimated period of 12-18 months. If the cement and road building materials could be sourced from newly developed sources (sourcing material on-site) in proximity to the project site, the number of heavy vehicles on the access roads could be reduced substantially.

Nature: Routes to be utilised to transport equipment likely from Saldanha to Moorreesburg, using major routes such as N7, R45 and R311. Relevant Listed activities: GNR 983 Activity: 11(i), 24 (ii), 56(ii) GNR 984 Activity: 1 GNR 985 Activity: 4(f)(aa), 14(xii)(a)(f)(ff), 18(f)(i)(aa) Without mitigation With mitigation Extent Local (1) Local (1) Duration Short term (2) Short term (2) Magnitude Low (4) Low (4) Probability Highly Probable (4) Highly Probable (4) Significance Low (28) Low (28) Status (positive or negative) Negative Negative Reversibility Low Low Irreplaceable loss of resources? No No Can impacts be mitigated? Yes Mitigation: » Construction traffic should be distributed throughout the day, which will minimise the impact on the existing traffic patterns. » Additional traffic control measures should be implemented at the site accesses during higher demand periods. Residual Impacts: Residual impacts will be negligible. Traffic impact during the construction phase will be minimal and that the additional generated traffic is negligible.

Operation Phase Impacts

Assessment of Impacts Page 241 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

The wind energy facility is designed to be operational for at least ~20-25 years. The potential positive and negative social impacts which could arise as a result of the operation of the proposed project include the following:

Creation of employment and business opportunities and support for local economic development The Hartebeest Wind Farm would create ~20 employment opportunities over a 20 year period. Of this total approximately 10 will be low skilled, 8 semi-skilled and 2 high skilled positions. The annual wage bill for the operational phase would be ~R 3 million. The majority of employment opportunities associated with the operational phase is likely to benefit historically disadvantaged (HD) members of the community. However, given that the wind energy sector in South Africa is relatively new, the skilled positions may need to be filled by people from other parts of South Africa or even overseas.

It will also be possible to increase the number of local employment opportunities through the implementation of a skills development and training programme linked to the operational phase. Such a programme would support the strategic goals of promoting employment and skills development contained in the SLM IDP.

Given the location of the proposed wind energy facility, the majority of permanent staff is likely to reside in Moorreesburg, Piketburg and or Malmesbury. In terms of accommodation options, a percentage of the non-local permanent employees may purchase houses in one of these towns, while others may decide to rent. Both options would represent a positive economic benefit for the region. In addition, a percentage of the monthly wage bill earned by permanent staff would be spent in the regional and local economy, which will benefit local businesses in these towns. The benefits to the local economy will extend over the 20 year operational lifespan of the project. The local hospitality industry in Moorreesburg is also likely to benefit from the operational phase. These benefits are associated with site visits by company staff members and other professionals (engineers, technicians etc.) who are involved in the company and the project but who are not linked to the day-to-day operations.

Nature: Creation of employment and business opportunities associated with the operational phase. Relevant Listed activities: GNR 983 Activity: 11(i), 12 (xii)(c), 24 (ii), 56(ii) GNR 984 Activity: 1 GNR 985 Activity: 4(f)(aa), 14(xii)(a)(f)(ff), 18(f)(i)(aa) Without enhancement With enhancement Extent Local (2) Regional (3) Duration Long term (4) Long term (4) Magnitude Minor (2) Minor (2) Probability Probable (3) Highly Probable (4)

Assessment of Impacts Page 242 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Significance Low (24) Medium (36) Status (positive or negative) Positive Positive Reversibility N/A Irreplaceable loss of resources? No Can impacts be mitigated? Yes Mitigation: » The proponent should implement or support existing initiatives that provide a training and skills development programme for locals to increase employment opportunity for locals during operation phase. » The proponent, should investigate all the options available for the establishment of a Community Development Trust. Residual Impacts: Residual impacts associated with wage spending in local economy.

Benefits associated with the establishment of a Community Trust In terms of the current Request for Proposal document prepared by the Department of Energy, all bidders for operating licences for renewable energy projects must demonstrate how the proposed development will benefit the local community. This can be achieved by establishing a Community Trust which is funded by revenue generated from the sale for energy.

Community Trusts provide an opportunity to generate a steady revenue stream that is guaranteed for a 20 year period. This revenue can be used to fund development initiatives in the area and support the local community. The long term duration of the revenue stream also allows local municipalities and communities to undertake long term planning for the area. The revenue from the proposed wind energy facility can be used to support a number of social and economic initiatives in the area, including:

» Creation of jobs; » Education; » Support for and provision of basic services; » School feeding schemes; » Training and skills development; and » Support for SMMEs.

In addition, the establishment of a wind energy facility is not likely to have a significant impact on the current agricultural land uses that underpin the local economic activities in the area. The loss of this relatively small area will not impact on the current and future farming activities. Experience has however also shown that Community Trusts can be mismanaged. This issue will need to be addressed in order to maximise the potential benefits associated with the establishment of a Community Trust.

Nature: Establishment of a community trust funded by revenue generated from the sale of energy. The revenue can be used to fund local community development.

Assessment of Impacts Page 243 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Relevant Listed activities: GNR 983 Activity: 11(i), 12 (xii)(c), 24 (ii), 56(ii) GNR 984 Activity: 1 GNR 985 Activity: 4(f)(aa), 14(xii)(a)(f)(ff), 18(f)(i)(aa) Without enhancement With enhancement Extent Local (2) Regional (4) Duration Long term (4) Long term (4) Magnitude Low (4) Moderate (6) Probability Probable (3) Definite (5) Significance Medium (30) High (70) Status (positive or negative) Positive Positive Reversibility N/A Irreplaceable loss of resources? No Can impacts be mitigated? Yes Enhancement: » The key departments in the SLM that should be consulted include the Municipal Managers Office, IDP Manager and LED Manager. » Clear criteria for identifying and funding community projects and initiatives in the area should be identified. The criteria should be aimed at maximising the benefits for the community as a whole and not individuals within the community. » Strict financial management controls, including annual audits, should be instituted to manage the funds generated for the Community Trust from the wind energy facility. Residual Impacts: Promotion of social and economic development and improvement in the overall well-being of the community.

Development of infrastructure for the generation of clean, renewable energy South Africa currently relies on coal-powered energy to meet approximately 90% of its energy needs. As a result, South Africa is the nineteenth largest per capita producer of carbon emissions in the world, and Eskom, as an energy utility, has been identified as the world’s second largest producer of carbon emissions.

The overall contribution to South Africa’s total energy requirements of the proposed Hartebeest Wind Farm is relatively small. However, the development of a single 160 MW (maximum MW) produced will help to offset the total carbon emissions associated with energy generation in South Africa. Given South Africa’s reliance on Eskom as a power utility, the benefits associated with an IPP based on renewable energy are regarded as an important contribution.

Nature: Promotion of clean, renewable energy. Relevant Listed activities: GNR 983 Activity: 11(i), 12 (xii)(c), 24 (ii), 56(ii) GNR 984 Activity: 1 GNR 985 Activity: 4(f)(aa), 14(xii)(a)(f)(ff), 18(f)(i)(aa) Without mitigation With mitigation Extent Local, Regional and Local, Regional and

Assessment of Impacts Page 244 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

National (4) National (4) Duration Long term (4) Long term (4) Magnitude Low (4) Low (4) Probability Highly Probable (4) Definite (5) Significance Medium (48) High (60) Status (positive or negative) Negative Positive Reversibility Yes Irreplaceable loss of resources? Yes, impact of climate change on ecosystems Can impacts be mitigated? Yes Mitigation: » Use the project to promote and increase the contribution of renewable energy to the national energy supply. » The proponent should implement or support initiatives that spread awareness to clean energy alternatives. Residual Impacts: Reduced carbon emissions via the use of renewable energy and associated benefits in terms of global warming and climate change.

Impact on sense of place and rural character of the landscape The components associated with the proposed wind energy facility will have a visual impact and, in so doing, impact on the landscape and rural sense of the place of the area. A number of turbines will be clearly visible from the N7 and local farms roads in the area. The visual integrity of the area has to some extent been impacted by the existing substation and power lines that cross sections of the site.

While a number of turbines will be visible, the issue of visual impact is a complex issue and is not simply linked to visibility, but also to individual perceptions. While some may view the turbines as a negative impact on the existing landscape, others may perceive them as a positive addition to the landscape. The visual impact and the significance thereof associated with a wind energy facility on the areas sense of place is likely to vary from individual to individual.

Nature: Visual impact associated with the proposed wind energy facility and the potential impact on the areas rural sense of place. Relevant Listed activities: GNR 983 Activity: 11(i), 12 (xii)(c), 24 (ii), 56(ii) GNR 984 Activity: 1 GNR 985 Activity: 4(f)(aa), 14(xii)(a)(f)(ff), 18(f)(i)(aa) Without mitigation With mitigation Extent Local to Regional (3) Local (2) Duration Long term (4) Long term (4) Magnitude Moderate (6) Moderate (6) Probability Probable (3) Probable (3) Significance Medium (39) Medium (36) Status (positive or negative) Negative Negative

Assessment of Impacts Page 245 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Reversibility Yes, the facility can be removed. Irreplaceable loss of resources? No Can impacts be mitigated? Yes Mitigation: The recommendations contained in the Visual Impact Assessment (refer to Appendix J) should be implemented. The selection of Layout Alternative 1 would also assist to reduce the overall impact on the areas sense of place and is therefore the preferred option. Residual Impacts: None as the visual impact would be removed with the decommissioning of the facility.

Potential impacts on tourism The N7 is an important tourism route linking Cape Town with Namibia. However the area is not a tourism destination in itself. The N7 also provides access to a number of established tourism destinations, including the Cederberg, Namakwaland and areas of the West Coast. There appear to be no major tourism activities and/or destinations in the immediate vicinity of the site and the town of Moorreesburg. The potential impact on tourism may be linked to the visual impact of the site on motorists travelling along the N7. However, the establishment of the proposed wind energy facility is not likely to impact on the decision of tourists to use the N7 to access tourist destinations located north of Moorreesburg. The impact is therefore likely to be limited.

Nature: Potential impact of the wind energy facility on local tourism Relevant Listed activities: GNR 983 Activity: 11(i), 12 (xii)(c), 24 (ii), 56(ii) GNR 984 Activity: 1 GNR 985 Activity: 4(f)(aa), 14(xii)(a)(f)(ff), 18(f)(i)(aa) Without mitigation With mitigation/enhancement Extent Local (2) Local (2) Duration Long term (4) Long term (4) Magnitude Low (2) Low (2) Probability Probable (3) Probable (3) Significance Low (24) (Applies to Low (24) (Applies to both both – and +) – and +) Status (positive or negative) Negative Negative (Potential to distract from (Potential to distract from the tourist experience of the tourist experience of the area) the area)

Positive Positive (Potential to attract (Potential to attract people people to the area) to the area) Reversibility Yes Yes Irreplaceable loss of resources? No No Can impacts be mitigated? Yes

Assessment of Impacts Page 246 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Enhancement: The recommendations contained in the Visual Impact Assessment (refer to Appendix J) should be implemented. The selection of Layout Alternative 1 would also assist to reduce the overall impact on the areas sense of place and is therefore the preferred option. Residual Impacts: None as the visual impact would be removed with the decommissioning of the facility.

Increase in traffic on existing routes and accesses on existing routes

After construction, the generated site traffic would be limited to maintenance support, with only a few light vehicles, transporting approximately 20 employees, accessing the site per day.

Nature: Routes to be utilised to transport equipment likely from Saldanha to Moorreesburg, using major routes such as N7, R45 and R311 during maintenance of the wind farm. Relevant Listed activities: GNR 983 Activity: 11(i), 24 (ii), 56(ii) GNR 984 Activity: 1 GNR 985 Activity: 4(f)(aa), 14(xii)(a)(f)(ff), 18(f)(i)(aa) Without mitigation With mitigation Extent Local (1) Local (1) Duration Long term (4) Long term (4) Magnitude Minor (2) Minor (2) Probability Highly Probable (4) Highly Probable (4) Significance Low (28) Low (28) Status (positive or negative) Negative Negative Reversibility Low Low Irreplaceable loss of resources? No No Can impacts be mitigated? Yes Mitigation: » Construction traffic should be distributed throughout the day, which will minimise the impact on the existing traffic patterns. » Additional traffic control measures at the site accesses during higher demand periods. Residual Impacts: Residual impacts will be negligible. Traffic impact during the construction phase will be minimal and that the additional generated traffic is negligible.

Comparative assessment of impacts associated with the power line alternatives during operation Two alternative power lines options have been identified for the Hartebeest Wind Farm. The two alternatives follow the same alignment for the first part of the route and then split towards the west. Alternative 1 and 2 are ~4km and ~3.5km in length respectively. The potential social impacts associated with both alternatives are likely to be low.

Nature: Two alternative power lines options have been identified for the Hartebeest Wind Farm.

Assessment of Impacts Page 247 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Alternative 1 and 2 are ~4km and ~3.5km in length respectively. The potential social impacts associated with both alternatives are likely to be low. Relevant Listed activities: GNR 983 Activity: 11(i) GNR 984 Activity: 1 Power line Alternative 1 Power line Alternative 2 Without With Without With mitigation mitigation mitigation mitigation Extent Local (1) Local (1) Local (1) Local (1) Duration Long term (4) Long term (4) Long term (4) Long term (4) Magnitude Low (4) Low (4) Low (4) Low (4) Probability Probable (3) Probable (3) Probable (3) Probable (3) Significance Low (27) Low (27) Low (27) Low (27) Status (positive or Negative Negative Negative Negative negative) Reversibility Yes Yes Yes Yes Irreplaceable loss of No No No No resources? Can impacts be Yes mitigated? Mitigation: The recommendations contained in the Visual Impact Assessment (refer to Appendix J) should be implemented. Residual Impacts: None as impacts would be removed with decommissioning of the power line.

Decommissioning Phase Impacts

Impacts associated with decommissioning Typically, the major social impacts associated with the decommissioning phase are linked to the loss of jobs and associated income. This has implications for the households who are directly affected, the communities within which they live, and the relevant local authorities. However, in the case of the proposed wind energy facility the decommissioning phase it can possible involve the disassembly and replacement of the existing components with more modern technology. This is likely to take place in the 20 - 25 years post commissioning. The decommissioning phase is therefore likely to create additional, construction type jobs, as opposed to the jobs losses typically associated with decommissioning. The number of people employed during the operational phase of a single 160MW wind energy facility will be ~20. Given the relatively low number of people employed during the operational phase the decommissioning of the facility is unlikely to have a significant negative social impact on the local community. The potential impacts associated with the decommissioning phase can also be effectively managed with the implementation of a retrenchment and downscaling programme. The decommissioning phase will also create temporary employment opportunities. This would represent a positive social impact.

Assessment of Impacts Page 248 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Nature: Social impacts associated with the decommissioning phase are linked to the loss of jobs and associated income once decommissioning is complete. Relevant Listed activities: GNR 983 Activity: 11(i), 12 (xii)(c), 24 (ii), 56(ii) GNR 984 Activity: 1 GNR 985 Activity: 4(f)(aa), 14(xii)(a)(f)(ff), 18(f)(i)(aa) Without mitigation With mitigation Extent Local (2) Local (1) Duration Medium-term (3) Short-term (2) (depending on how long people take to find a new job) Magnitude Low (4) Low (4) Probability Highly Probable (4) Highly Probable (4) Significance Medium (36) Low (28) Status (positive or negative) Negative Negative Reversibility N/A N/A Irreplaceable loss of resources? N/A N/A Can impacts be mitigated? Yes Mitigation: » The proponent should ensure that retrenchment packages are provided for all staff retrenched when the wind energy facility is decommissioned. » All structures and infrastructure associated with the proposed facility should be dismantled and transported off-site on decommissioning. » The proponent should establish a fund to cover the costs of rehabilitation following decommissioning. Residual Impacts: Contribution of current high levels of unemployment in the area and associated social impacts.

8.10.4 Comparative Assessment of Alternatives

Layout Alternatives: There are no material differences between the nature and significance of the social impacts associated with the construction and operational phase for the layout alternatives. Considering impacts on the sense of place and other visual impacts, Layout Alterative 1 is preferred.

It is therefore recommended that Layout Alternative 1 for the proposed Hartebeest Wind Farm be supported, subject to the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures and management actions contained in the Social Impact Assessment (refer to Appendix K).

Aspect Layout Alternative 1 Layout Alternative 2 Social Acceptable – most preferred Acceptable – least preferred

Assessment of Impacts Page 249 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Aspect Layout Alternative 1 Layout Alternative 2 » Fewer turbines will be visible. » More turbines will be visible than Layout Alternative 1.

Grid Connection Alternatives: Two power line alternatives are proposed for the Hartebeest Wind Farm. Power Line Alternative 1 and 2 are ~4km and ~3.5km in length respectively. The two alternatives follow the same alignment for the first part of the route and then split towards the west.

From a social perspective, Power Line Alternative 1 and 2 are regarded as suitable options. The potential social impacts associated with both alternatives are likely to be low. Given that both Alternatives share the bulk of their relatively short alignments, there is no social preferred Alternative.

Aspect Grid connection solution Grid connection solution Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Social Acceptable Acceptable » Substation position avoids sensitive » Substation position avoids sensitive areas. areas. » Power line route is acceptable. » Power line route is acceptable. » Located in close proximity to » Located in close proximity to existing power infrastructure existing power infrastructure. » Length of the power line: ~4km (longest power line alternative).

8.10.5 Implications for Project Implementation

With the implementation of mitigation measures and enhancement measures by the developer, contractors, and operational staff, the significance of negative impacts can be mitigated and can be reduced, and the benefits of the development enhanced. From the outcomes of the studies undertaken, it is concluded that the wind energy facility can be developed and impacts on the social environment managed by taking the following into consideration:

» The establishment of a Community Trust, as per the REIPPP Programme will create an opportunity to support local economic development in the area. » While there are no material difference between the nature and significance of the social impacts associated with the operational phase for both layout alternatives, given the visual issues associated with wind energy facilities, Layout Alternative 1 (25 turbine layout) is the preferred option.

Assessment of Impacts Page 250 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

8.11. Assessment of Impacts on Noise

Wind turbines produce sound, primarily due to mechanical operations and aerodynamic effects of the blades. Modern wind turbine manufacturers have virtually eliminated the noise impact caused by mechanical sources and instituted measures to reduce the aerodynamic effects. But, as with many other activities, the wind turbines emit sound power levels at a level that can impact on areas at some distance away. When potentially sensitive receptors are nearby, care must be taken to ensure that the operations at the wind farm do not cause undue annoyance or otherwise interfere with the quality of life of the receptors. Potential noise impacts and the relative significance of the impacts are summarised below (refer to Appendix L).

8.11.1. Results of the Noise Monitoring

Ambient sound levels were measured at three locations for three night-time periods during March 2015. The sound measuring equipment was calibrated directly before, and directly after the measurements were collected. In all cases drift16 was less than 0.2 dBA between these two measurements. Measurements took place in 10-minute bins for at least two full night-time periods.

» Noise Sensitive Development (NSD) 04 (Measuring Point IEMASL0117): The location represents the sound levels at a typical farm dwelling in the area. The location was selected on an open area in front of the stoep, an area typical to be used in the afternoon by the residents.

Generally sounds in the area were dominated by birds, though leaves rustling dominated during windy periods. Traffic from the N7 was just audible at times. Voices were audible from the house, but the measurement location was considered naturally quiet. The average daytime difference between the LAeq,i and LAeq,f18 variables was 3.6 dBA while the night-time average difference was 4.4 dBA. There are therefore very little impulsive noises in the area.

While the area has a rural development character, ambient sound level measurements indicated an area where wind-induced and insect sounds raised the ambient sound levels significantly, more typical of an urban district. The character of these noises however is very different from urban areas with sounds from natural origin mainly dominating.

16 Changes in instrument readings due to a change in altitude (air pressure), temperature and humidity. 17 Monitoring location code used by the Noise specialist. 18 LAeq, T refers to the value of the average A-weighted sound pressure level measured continuously within a reference time interval T, which have the same mean-square sound pressure as a sound under consideration for which the level varies with time.

Assessment of Impacts Page 251 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

» NSD22 (Measuring Point IEMASL02): While close to the gravel road, traffic on this road was sporadic and contributed little to the soundscape. The Sound Level Meter (SLM) was installed in the garden to measure ambient sound levels. The house was on the south-eastern side of a small hill and relatively exposed to the elements. The farmer has removed most of the invasive trees in the area with this being the only measurement location where there were no large eucalyptus trees in the near vicinity.

The local soundscape was dominated with bird sounds, and, although there were dogs and sheep in the area, they were relevant relatively quiet. A second weather station was installed at this location due to the exposed nature of the location.

While the character of the area is rural, measurements indicate an increased sound level from wind induced noises and insects. Ambient sound levels are higher than the typical SANS 10103:2008 rating level for a “Rural district”; (45/35 dBA day/night rating) and closer to that of an urban area. The spectral character however is far different from a typical urban area and the location can be considered naturally quiet.

» NSD18 (Measuring Point IEMASL03): The measurement location is approximately 1 300m from the R311 and traffic on this road was audible during passing. There were numerous trees close to the house. The trees and other structures slightly shielded the microphone from the direct effects of wind. There were a small wall within 1m from the microphone and massive eucalyptus trees within 10m.

The local soundscape were dominated with bird sounds and leaves rustling in the wind. There were sheep and cattle close to the house although they were silent during the deployment and collection of the instrument.

While the character of the area is rural, measurements indicate an increased sound level from farming activities (during the day), wind induced noises and insects. Ambient sound levels are higher than the typical SANS 10103:2008 rating level for a “Rural district”; (45/35 dBA day/night rating) and closer to that of an urban area. The spectral character of night-time measurements however is different from a typical urban area and the location can be considered naturally quiet at night.

8.11.2 Description of Noise Impacts

Various activities during the construction phase of the Hartebeest Wind Farm can cause noise impacts. During the construction of the power line and wind energy facility, it is possible that receptors would hear construction noises during quiet periods during the construction phase, however it is considered unlikely that the noise levels will change the

Assessment of Impacts Page 252 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017 ambient sound levels sufficiently to result in complaints. Noise sources during construction include the following:

» General work at a temporary workshop area. This would be activities such as equipment maintenance, off-loading and material handling. All vehicles will travel to this site where most equipment and material will be off-loaded (general noise, crane). Material, such as aggregate and building sand, will be taken directly to the construction area (foundation establishment). It was assumed that activities will be taking place for 16 hours during the 16-hour daytime period. » Surface preparation prior to civil work. This could be the removal of topsoil and levelling with compaction, or the preparation of an access road (bulldozer/grader). Activities will be taking place for 8 hours during the 16-hour daytime period. » Preparation of foundation area (sub-surface removal until secure base is reached – excavator, compaction, and general noise). Activities will be taking place for 10 hours during the 16-hour daytime period. » Pouring and compaction of foundation concrete (general noise, electric generator/compressor, concrete vibration, mobile concrete plant, TLB). As foundations must be poured in one go, the activity is projected to take place over the full 16-hour day time period. » Erecting of the wind turbine generator (general noise, electric generator/compressor and a crane). Activities will be taking place for 16 hours during the 16-hour daytime period. » Traffic on the site (trucks transporting material, aggregate/concrete, work crews) moving from the workshop/store area to the various activity sites. All vehicles to travel at less than 60 km/h, with a maximum of five (5) trucks and vehicles per hour to be modelled travelling to the areas where work is taking place.

Construction activities that may occur during night time: » Concrete pouring: Large portions of concrete do require pouring and vibrating to be completed once started, and work is sometimes required until the early hours of the morning to ensure a well-established concrete foundation. However, the workforce working at night for this work will be considerably smaller than during the day. » Working late due to time constraints: Weather plays an important role in time management in construction. A spell of bad weather can cause a construction project to fall behind its completion date. Therefore, it is hard to judge beforehand if a construction team would be required to work late at night.

Several noise-sensitive developments (NSD) have been identified within and surrounding the project site. These NSDs are illustrated in proximity to the layout alternatives in Figure 8.22 and Figure 8.23.

Assessment of Impacts Page 253 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Figure 8.22: NSDs identified within the project site overlain by Layout Alternative 1 (25 turbine layout).

Assessment of Impacts Page 254 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Figure 8.23: NSDs identified within the project site overlain by Layout Alternative 2 (32 turbine layout).

Assessment of Impacts Page 255 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

8.11.3 Impact tables summarising the significance of impacts on Noise (with and without mitigation)

Construction Phase Impacts

Nature: Noise impacts associated with Construction of both power line alternatives. Change in ambient sound levels would not extend further than 1km from activities. Relevant Listed activities: GNR 983 Activity: 11(i), 12 (xii)(c), 24 (ii), 56(ii) GNR 984 Activity: 1 GNR 985 Activity: 4(f)(aa), 14(xii)(a)(f)(ff), 18(f)(i)(aa) Without mitigation With mitigation Extent Local (2) N/A Duration Very Short (1) N/A Magnitude Minor (2) N/A Probability Improbable (2) N/A Significance Low (10) N/A Status (positive or negative) Negative N/A Reversibility High Reversibility N/A Irreplaceable loss of resources? Not relevant N/A Can impacts be mitigated? Mitigation will not be required Mitigation: No mitigation will be required. Residual Impacts: This impact will only disappear once construction activities cease.

Nature: Noise impacts associated with construction of wind turbines and associated infrastructure. Numerous simultaneous construction activities that could impact on receptors. Change in ambient sound levels would not extend further than 1km from activities. Relevant Listed activities: GNR 983 Activity: 11(i), 12 (xii)(c), 24 (ii), 56(ii) GNR 984 Activity: 1 GNR 985 Activity: 4(f)(aa), 14(xii)(a)(f)(ff), 18(f)(i)(aa) Without mitigation With mitigation Extent Local (2) N/A Duration Short (2) N/A Magnitude Minor (2) N/A Probability Improbable (2) N/A Significance Low (12) N/A Status (positive or negative) Negative N/A Reversibility High Reversibility N/A Irreplaceable loss of resources? Not relevant N/A Can impacts be mitigated? Mitigation will not be required Mitigation:

Assessment of Impacts Page 256 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

No mitigation will be required. Residual Impacts: This impact will only disappear once construction activities cease.

Operation Phase Impacts

Nature: Potential impacts on noise receptors within 700m of more than 2 wind turbines. Numerous wind turbines operating simultaneously during a period when a quiet environment is desirable. Noise levels are 44 – 46 dBA and higher than the Ministry of Environment (MoE) in Canada noise limit for all wind speeds up to 8 m/s at these receptors (NSD03 and 28). The noise level will not be higher than 7 dBA the likely ambient sound level (considering the effect of wind).

The relocation of the people living in these areas where the 42dBA acceptable rating level is exceeded (NSD03 and NSD28), an agreement with the landowner has been undertaken so that these dwellings will no longer be used for residential purposes. Refer to Appendix M3. Relevant Listed activities: GNR 983 Activity: 11(i), 12 (xii)(c), 24 (ii), 56(ii) GNR 984 Activity: 1 GNR 985 Activity: 4(f)(aa), 14(xii)(a)(f)(ff), 18(f)(i)(aa) Without mitigation With mitigation Extent Local - Regional (3) Local - Regional (3) Duration Long term (4) Long term (4) Magnitude NDS03 – High (8) Minor (2) NSD28 – Very High (10) Probability Probable (3) Improbable (2) Significance NSD03 - Medium (45) Low (18) NSD28 – Medium (51) Status (positive or negative) Negative Negative Reversibility High Reversibility High Reversibility Irreplaceable loss of resources? Not relevant Not relevant Can impacts be mitigated? Yes Mitigation: » It is critical that the developer discuss the projected noise levels with the people identified in this report (farming communities) that could experience increased noises so that they understand the potential of the noise impact. » It was reported that dwellings at NSD03 and NSD28 may no longer be used for residential purposes in the future. The developer should obtain confirmation for the owner of the dwellings NSD28 and NSD03 that these houses will not be used for residential purposes once the project is approved and the wind farm developed. Residual Impacts: This impact will only disappear once the operation of the facility stops, or the sensitive receptor no longer exists.

Nature: Potential impacts on noise receptors further than 700m from wind turbines. Numerous wind turbines operating simultaneously during a period when a quiet environment is desirable. Noise levels are less than 40 dBA (at 6 m/s) and below the SANS 10103 night-time rating level for

Assessment of Impacts Page 257 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017 rural areas. Relevant Listed activities: GNR 983 Activity: 11(i), 12 (xii)(c), 24 (ii), 56(ii) GNR 984 Activity: 1 GNR 985 Activity: 4(f)(aa), 14(xii)(a)(f)(ff), 18(f)(i)(aa) Without mitigation With mitigation Extent Local - Regional (3) N/A Duration Long term (4) N/A Magnitude Minor (2) N/A Probability Improbable (2) N/A Significance Low (18) N/A Status (positive or negative) Negative N/A Reversibility High Reversibility N/A Irreplaceable loss of resources? Not relevant N/A Can impacts be mitigated? Not required Mitigation: No mitigation required. Residual Impacts: This impact will only disappear once the operation of the facility stops, or the sensitive receptor no longer exists.

8.11.4 Comparative Assessment of Alternatives

Layout Alternatives: There will be no difference in the significance of noise impacts for either of the layout alternatives. Therefore, either of the two proposed alternatives are considered acceptable from a noise perspective. There is a slight preference for Layout Alternative 1.

Aspect Layout Alternative 1 Layout Alternative 2 Noise Acceptable – slight preference Acceptable » Alternative with the lower number » Alternative with the highest of turbines number of turbines » Low noise impact » Low noise impact

Grid Connection Alternatives: Impacts of the power line alternative routes on noise sensitive receptors are considered to be low. Both proposed power line routes are acceptable and there is no preference between the two powerline alternatives from a noise perspective.

Aspect Grid connection solution Grid connection solution Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Noise Acceptable Acceptable » Further than 300m from any » Further than 300m from any potential noise-sensitive potential noise-sensitive

Assessment of Impacts Page 258 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

receptors. receptors. » Potential noise impact will be low » Potential noise impact will be low

8.11.5 Implications for Project Implementation

The significance of noise during the construction phase is low and no additional mitigation measures are recommended or required. The noise impact is considered to be of a medium significance for a number of receptors staying within 650 meters from the closest wind turbines. Projected noise levels could be 44 - 46 dBA at a number of receptors (NSD28 and NSD03) and the noise levels could be considered disturbing at times (in terms of the Western Cape Noise Control Regulations). As these are promulgated and active regulations, mitigation is recommended considering the limits set by these regulations. The mitigation measures could be one or more of the following measures:

» It was reported that dwellings at NSD03 and NSD28 may no longer be used for residential purposes in the future. The developer have obtain confirmation for the owner of the dwellings NSD28 and NSD03 that these houses will not be used for residential purposes once the project is approved and the wind farm developed (refer to Appendix M3).

8.12. Assessment of the Do Nothing Alternative

The ‘Do-Nothing’ alternative is the option of not constructing the proposed Hartebeest Wind Farm. Should this alternative be selected, there would be no environmental impacts on the site due to the construction and operation activities of a wind energy facility. a) Land use and agriculture

The agricultural potential of the project site is mainly determined by climatic parameters such as rainfall distribution and frequency as well as wind prevalence. The site is considered to have moderate to high agricultural potential. The current land-use on the site is agriculture (dryland cultivation of small grains in rotation with grazing). The development of the wind energy facility would allow the on-going current crop production on areas of the farm portions which will not be occupied by wind turbines and associated infrastructure. The operation development footprint (permanent footprint) for the proposed Hartebeest Wind Farm is ~0.7% of the total extent of the project site. Therefore the current land-use will be retained, while also generating renewable energy from the wind. The impact on agricultural activities as a result of the project is therefore expected to be low.

In addition, the landowner would obtain an income from the facility (as the developer would pay a percentage of the revenue generated to the landowner in accordance with

Assessment of Impacts Page 259 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017 the lease agreement for the use of the land). This would contribute towards the financial stability of the landowner which would in turn contribute to the financial viability of the farming practices on the property. The “do nothing” alternative would retain the current land-use, fore-going the opportunity to generate renewable energy from the wind and at the same time continue current agricultural activities on areas that fall outside of the proposed wind energy facility infrastructure.

The do nothing alternative would result in a lost opportunity for the landowner (in terms of revenue) and the country (in terms of renewable energy). From this perspective the no-go alternative is not preferred. b) Socio-economic impact

Social: The impacts of pursuing the No-go Alternative are both positive and negative as follows: » The benefits would be that there is no disruption from an influx of jobseekers into the Moorreesburg area, nuisance impacts (noise and dust during construction), visual impacts and safety and security impacts. The impact is therefore neutral. » There would also be an opportunity lost in terms of job creation, skills development and associated economic business opportunities for the local economy, as well as a loss of the opportunity to generate energy from a renewable resource without creating detrimental effects on the environment.

Foregoing the proposed development would not necessarily compromise the development of renewable energy facilities in South Africa. However, the socio- economic benefits for local communities at this location would be forfeited.

New Business: Some of the positive spin off effects that are to ensue from the project expenditure will be localised in the communities located near the site, such as the town of Moorreesburg. The local services sector and specifically the trade, transportation, catering and accommodation, renting services, personal services and business services are expected to benefit the most because of project activities during the construction phase. New business sales that will be stimulated as a result of the establishment of the project, albeit for a temporary period, will be lost with the implementation of the do nothing alternative.

Employment: Approximately 300 full time equivalent jobs will be created during the 18-24 months construction phase. The majority of low-skilled and semi-skilled opportunities are likely to be available to local workers. The Swartland Local Municipality’s employment rate stands at 12.7%. The development of the Hartebeest Wind Farm within the Swartland Local Municipality will aid in a reduction of the unemployment rate, however if the wind energy facility is not developed then the unemployment rate will not be influenced by this development. The upliftment and

Assessment of Impacts Page 260 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017 socio-economic benefits for individuals within local communities would be forfeited with the implementation of the do nothing alternative.

Skills development: The establishment of the Hartebeest Wind Farm will offer numerous opportunities for skills transfer and development. This is relevant for both on- site activities and manufacturing activities. Various wind energy facilities are already being constructed in the Western Cape Province, which means that the transfer of skills from foreign experts to the local engineers and construction workers already takes place. The skills training and transfer benefits for individuals within local communities would be forfeited with the implementation of the do nothing alternative.

Municipal goals: The opportunity to contribute to the development and growth goals of the West Coast District Municipality (in terms of energy development, manufacturing growth through energy development and techno-tourism) will not be met should the Hartebeest Wind Farm not be constructed with the implementation of the do nothing alternative.

The no-go alternative will therefore result in the above economic benefits not being realised and a subsequent loss of income and opportunities to local people. From this perspective the no-go alternative is not preferred. c) Regional scale impact

At a broader scale, the benefits of additional capacity to the electricity grid and those associated with the introduction of renewable energy would not be realised. The Western Cape Province has an ample wind resource. Although the facility is only proposed to contribute a maximum of 160MW to the grid capacity, this would assist in meeting the electricity demand throughout the country and would also assist in meeting the government’s goal for renewable energy. The generation of electricity from renewable energy resources offers a range of potential socio-economic and environmental benefits for South Africa. These benefits include:

» Increased energy security: The current electricity crisis in South Africa highlights the significant role that renewable energy can play in terms of power supplementation. In addition, given that renewables can often be deployed in a decentralised manner close to consumers, they offer the opportunity for improving grid strength and supply quality, while reducing expensive transmission and distribution losses.

» Resource saving: Conventional coal fired plants are major consumers of water during their requisite cooling processes. It is estimated that the achievement of the targets in the Renewable Energy White Paper will result in water savings of approximately 16.5 million kilolitres, when compared with wet cooled conventional

Assessment of Impacts Page 261 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

power stations. As an already water-stressed nation, it is critical that South Africa engages in a variety of water conservation measures, particularly due to the detrimental effects of climate change on water availability. Renewable energy also translates into revenue savings, as fuel for renewable energy facilities is free while compared to the continual purchase of fuel for conventional power stations. Results of a CSIR Energy Centre study for January – June 2015 (CSIR, August 2015) have quantified the contribution from renewable energy to the national power system and the economy over the first 6 months of 2015 compared to the 12 months of 2014:

» Exploitation of South Africa’s significant renewable energy resource: At present, valuable national resources including biomass by-products, solar radiation and wind power remain unexploited to their full extent. The use of these energy flows will strengthen energy security through the development of a diverse energy portfolio.

» Pollution reduction: The releases of by-products through the burning of fossil fuels for electricity generation have a particularly hazardous impact on human health and contribute to ecosystem degradation. The use of wind for power generation is a non- consumptive use of a natural resource which produces zero emissions during its operation.

» Climate friendly development: The uptake of renewable energy offers the opportunity to address energy needs in an environmentally responsible manner and thereby allows South Africa to contribute towards mitigating climate change through the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. South Africa is estimated to be responsible for approximately 1% of global GHG emissions and is currently ranked 9th

worldwide in terms of per capita CO2 emissions. The renewable energy sector saved South Africa 1.4 million tons of carbon emissions over the first 6 months of 201519.

» Support for international agreements: The effective deployment of renewable energy provides a tangible means for South Africa to demonstrate its commitment to its international agreements under the Paris Agreement, and for cementing its status as a leading player within the international community.

19 http://www.iol.co.za/capetimes/renewable-energy-saving-sa-billions-csir-1.1903409#.VkNjdJq6FeU

Assessment of Impacts Page 262 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

» Employment creation: The sale, development, installation, maintenance and management of renewable energy facilities have significant potential for job creation in South Africa. Until now, the REIPPP Programme has contributed to more than 109,443 employment opportunities during both construction and operational phases (Department of Energy, 201520).

» Acceptability to society: Renewable energy offers a number of tangible benefits to society including reduced pollution concerns, improved human and ecosystem health and climate friendly development.

» Support to a new industry sector: The development of renewable energy offers the opportunity to establish a new industry within the South African economy.

At present, South Africa is some way off from fully exploiting the diverse gains from renewable energy and from achieving a considerable market share in the renewable energy industry. South Africa’s electricity supply remains heavily dominated by coal- based power generation, with the country’s significant renewable energy potential largely untapped to date.

Within a policy framework, the development of renewable energy in South Africa is supported by the White Paper on Renewable Energy, which has set a target of 10,000 GWh renewable energy contribution to final energy consumption by 2013. DoE’s macroeconomic study on renewable energy, developed under the now completed Capacity Building in Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (CaBEERE) project, has established that the achievement of this target would provide a number of economic benefits, including increased government revenue amounting to R299 million, increased GDP of up to R1 billion per year and the creation of an estimated 20 500 new jobs. In addition, the development of renewable energy beyond the 10 000 GWh target holds further employment benefits and would maximise the number of jobs created per TWh (NERSA, March 2009).

The Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan for the Western Cape (2008) identified solar and wind energy as suitable renewable technologies for the Western Cape. The White Paper on Sustainable Energy for the Western Cape (2008) compliments the Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan, specifically by setting targets for renewable energy generation for the province. Through research, the technical viability of the Hartebeest Wind Farm has been established, and the developer proposes that a maximum of 32 turbines can be established as part of the facility. The ‘do nothing’ alternative will not assist the Western Cape government in reaching the set targets for renewable energy. In addition the Western Cape’s power supply will not be strengthened by the additional generated power being evacuated directly into the Provinces’ electricity

20 Department of Energy (2015) State of Renewable energy in South Africa. http://www.energy.gov.za/files/media/Pub/State-of-Renewable-Energy-in-South-Africa.pdf

Assessment of Impacts Page 263 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017 grid. South African Government has recognised the need to move towards cleaner energy and has therefore set targets for cleaner energy technologies (including of 17GW renewable energy contribution to new power generation capacity) by 2030 (IRP, 2011). This is to be produced from wind, solar, biomass, gas and small-scale hydro facilities

The ‘do nothing’ alternative will do little to influence the macro-level renewable energy targets set by government due to competition in the sector, and the number of renewable energy projects being bid to the DoE. However, as the project site experiences ample wind resource and optimal grid connection opportunities are available, and not developing the Hartebeest Wind Farm would see such an opportunity being lost. As current land use activities can continue on the site once the project is operational, the loss of the land to this project during the operation phase (~ 0.7% of the larger property) is not considered significant. In addition, the Western Cape Province will not benefit from additional generated power being evacuated directly into the Province’s grid.

From the specialist studies undertaken, no environmental fatal flaws were identified to be associated with the Hartebeest Wind Farm. All impacts associated with the project can be mitigated to acceptable levels. If the wind energy facility is not developed the following positive impacts will not be realised: » Job creation from the construction and operational phases. » Economic benefit to participating landowners due to the revenue that will be gained from leasing the land to the developer. » Meeting of pent up demand for additional generation in a most economic and rapid manner. » Provision of clean, renewable energy in an area where it is optimally available.

As detailed above, the do nothing will result in a number of lost opportunities. It is considered that the negative impacts in this regard outweigh the impacts of project implementation. The “Do Nothing” alternative is therefore not preferred.

Assessment of Impacts Page 264 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

ASSESSMENT OF CUMULATIVE IMPACTS CHAPTER 9

Cumulative impacts in relation to an activity are defined in the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations (GN952) as meaning “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”. The preceding impact assessment chapter has reported on the assessment of the direct and indirect impacts associated with the Hartebeest Wind Farm largely in isolation (from other similar developments). Wind energy facilities may have effects (positive and negative) on natural resources, the social environment and on the people living in the broader project area (i.e. the town of Moorreesburg and the surrounding area in this instance).

There has been a steady increase in utility-scale renewable energy developments recently in South Africa as a result of the DoE’s Renewable Energy Independent Power Producer Procurement (REIPPP) Programme and the Integrated Resource Plan, both of which have facilitated the introduction of Independent Power Producers (IPPs) and renewable energy into the electricity generation mix. The Department of Energy, through the REIPPP Programme, released in 2011 a request for proposals (RFP) to contribute towards Government’s renewable energy target and to stimulate the industry in South Africa. The REIPPP Programme has been rolled out in bid windows (rounds) over the past 5 years, in which developers submit proposed renewable energy projects for evaluation and selection.

As result of the REIPPP Programme, there has been a steady increase in interest in renewable energy facility developments in South Africa (largely in areas which have an ample wind or solar resource). As detailed within Chapter 5 of this report, the development of renewable energy generation capacity is supported at a National and Provincial level from a policy perspective.

Due to the appropriateness of the project site and the surrounding areas for the development and operation of wind energy facilities (as detailed in Chapter 3 of this report), it can be expected that projects of a similar nature will be developed within this area which will ultimately lead to a concentration of the impacts (both positive and negative).

It is important to follow a precautionary approach in accordance with NEMA to ensure that the potential for cumulative impacts are considered and avoided where possible, even if the cumulative impacts expected are limited in extent and considered as being of a low significance. This chapter provides an assessment of the cumulative impacts expected to be associated with the Hartebeest Wind Farm when considered together with other similar developments (wind energy developments) in the area.

Assessment of Potential Cumulative Impacts Page 265 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

9.1. Legal Requirements as per the EIA Regulations for the undertaking of an Environmental Impact Assessment Report, 2014

This chapter of the EIA report includes the following information required in terms of Appendix 3: Content of Environmental Impact Assessment Reports:

Requirement Relevant Section Page reference 3(j) an assessment of each This chapter focuses on the 266 - 298 identified potentially significant assessment of the cumulative impact and risk , including (i) impacts associated with the cumulative impacts, (ii) the Hartebeest Wind Farm as a nature, extent, and whole. consequences of the impact and risk, (iii) the extent and duration of the impact and risk, (iv) the probability of the impact and risk occurring, (v) the degree to which the impact and risk can be reversed, (vi) the degree to which the impact and risk may cause irreplaceable loss of resources and (vii) the degree to which the impact and risk can be mitigated.

9.2. Approach Taken to Assess Potential Cumulative Impacts

A cumulative impact, in relation to an activity, means the past, current and reasonably foreseeable future impact of an activity, considered together with the impact of activities associated with that activity that in itself may not be significant, but may become significant when added to the existing and reasonably foreseeable impacts eventuating from similar or diverse activities.

The cumulative impacts that have the potential to be compounded through the development of the Hartebeest Wind Farm in proximity to other similar developments include impacts such as those listed below. The role of the cumulative assessment is to test if such impacts are relevant to the development of the Hartebeest Wind Farm in the proposed location/project site when considered together with other similar developments:

» Unacceptable loss of threatened or protected vegetation types or species through clearing or disturbance, resulting in an impact on the conservation status of such flora or ecological functioning;

Assessment of Potential Cumulative Impacts Page 266 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

» Unacceptable risk to avifauna and bats through mortality, loss of habitat, infringement on breeding areas, or priority species; » Complete or whole-scale change in the sense of place and character of an area and unacceptable visual intrusion; » Unacceptable loss of heritage resources; » Unacceptable loss of or impact to the soil and agricultural potential in the area; » Unacceptable noise impacts on the noise sensitive receptors; » Positive contribution from a socio-economic perspective; and » Contribution to climate change mitigation.

The scale at which the cumulative impacts are assessed is important. For example, the significance of the cumulative impact on the regional or national economy will be influenced by wind developments throughout South Africa, while the significance of the cumulative impact on visual quality may only be influenced by wind developments that are in close proximity to each other. In this instance, the approximate limit of visibility of the turbines are approximately 52km from the Hartebeest Wind Farm. The approximate limit of visibility of the proposed 132kV overhead power lines are approximately 19km.

It should be noted that not all the renewable energy projects presently under consideration by various developers in the area would be built for operation. In addition, not all proposed developments will be granted the relevant permits by the relevant authorities (DEA, DOE, NERSA and Eskom) in order to undertake the construction of the facilities and evacuate the generated electricity into the national grid. This is the result of the following reasons:

» Not all applications will be able to reduce negative environmental and social impacts to acceptable levels or able to mitigate adequately (without fatal flaw) and may therefore not receive a positive environmental authorisation. » There are stringent requirements to be met by applicants in terms of the REIPPP Programme and a highly competitive process that only rewards the most competitive and efficient projects; » Not all proposed facilities will eventually be granted a generation license by NERSA and be able to sign a Power Purchase Agreement with Eskom; » Not all developers will be successful in securing financial support to advance their projects further; and » There may be limitations to the capacity of the existing or future Eskom grid, or the timing of expansion of the grid.

The cumulative impacts of the Hartebeest Wind Farm and other known wind energy developments in the broader area are qualitatively assessed in this Chapter. Where available, assessment of impacts from EIAs undertaken for the other facilities in the area has been considered. For practical purposes a sub-regional scale has been selected for

Assessment of Potential Cumulative Impacts Page 267 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017 this cumulative evaluation. As these cumulative impacts are explored in more detail, the trade-offs between promoting renewable energy (and the associated benefits in terms of a reduction in CO2 emissions– a national interest, and reliability, flexibility and cost effective) versus the local and regional environmental and social impacts and benefits can be considered. It is only when these trade-offs are fully understood at a National level, that the true benefits of renewable energy can be assessed.

The potential for cumulative impacts as a result of the development of the Hartebeest Wind Farm and the associated infrastructure in proximity to other wind energy facilities could include:

» Loss of vegetation and impacts on ecology, including fauna and avifauna or sensitive ecosystems; » Impacts on surface water and wetlands; » Impacts to soil and agricultural potential; » Impacts on heritage resources; » Visual impacts; » Socio-economic impacts; » Noise impacts; and » Traffic impacts.

Figure 9.1 illustrates the location of the Hartebeest Wind Farm in relation to other known renewable energy projects within a 30km radius of the project site. The surrounding renewable energy projects were identified through the use of the DEA’ s Geographic Information System digital database developed by the CSIR21 as well as current knowledge of projects being proposed in the area. There are five wind energy projects of varying capacities within this area, of which two are already operational and one is a preferred bidder (refer to Figure 9.1 and Table 9.1). The potential for cumulative impacts are summarised in the sections which follow, and have been considered within the detailed specialist studies where applicable (refer to Appendices D–L).

21 Available online at https://dea.maps.arcgis.com/

Assessment of Potential Cumulative Impacts Page 268 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Figure 9.1: Map showing other projects in the broader area (i.e. within a 30km radius of the project site under consideration – shown in green). These projects were identified using the Department of Environmental Affairs’ Geographic Information System digital database developed by the CSIR.

Assessment of Potential Cumulative Impacts Page 269 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

9.3. Cumulative Impacts Associated with the development of the Hartebeest Wind Farm

The area surrounding Moorreesburg has been identified as a technically feasible area for the implementation of renewable energy projects. Of the five projects that are proposed in the area, two of these are operational and one has been awarded preferred bidder status under REIPPP Programme, a) Gouda Wind Farm, located 22km south east of the project site (operational); b) Hopefield Wind Farm located 21km south east of the site (operational); and c) Hopefield Small Wind Farm (preferred bidder in small projects IPP programme). The projects in the vicinity of the Hartebeest Wind Farm include (refer to Table 9.1 below):

Table 9.1: Wind energy projects located within a 30km radius from the Hartebeest Wind Farm project site (based on information available at the time of compiling this report). Approximate distance from Project Project Name DEA Ref. No Location the Hartebeest Status Wind Farm project site 30MW Wind 12/12/20/2227 Portion 1 and 2 of 22km south east Authorised Energy Facility Farm 397 near Gouda Gouda Wind 12/12/20/1859 Portion 0, 4, 6 ,7, 8, 22km east Preferred Farm 9, 10, 11 and 14 of Bidder (Round Farm La Bonne 2 REIPPP) Esperance 397, Farm Operational Bellevue 94 and Farm Bellevue 409 Hopefield Small 14/12/16/3/3/1/1 Portion 1 of Farm 24km north west Authorised Wind Farm 099 Leliefontein 317 Preferred Bidder – Small Projects REIPPP Hopefield Wind 14/12/16/3/3/2/4 Remaining Extent 21km south east Preferred Farm 07 and Portion 8 of Bidder (Round Farm 1 REIPPP) Schafplaatsfontein Operational 345, Remaining Extent of Farm Koperfontein 346 and the Remaining Extent of Farm Gazekraal 386 Zen Wind Farm 14/12/16/3/3/2/3 Portion 1 and 2 of 17 km east Authorised 22 Farm Bonne Esperance 83, Portion 9 of the Farm

Assessment of Potential Cumulative Impacts Page 270 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Approximate distance from Project Project Name DEA Ref. No Location the Hartebeest Status Wind Farm project site 88, Remaining Extent of Portion 4 Farm Kleinbergrivier 1, Remaining Extent of Farm Moolenaars Drift 85 and the Remaining Extent of Portion 1 of the Farm Moolenaars Drift 85.

In the sections below, the potential cumulative impacts of the proposed Hartebeest Wind Farm when considered together with the other renewable energy projects within a 30km radius of the project site are assessed.

9.3.1 Cumulative Impacts on Ecological Processes

Cumulative impacts in the area result from the presence of several developments (including wind energy developments), as well as the existing high level of transformation resulting from agricultural activities. The overall abundance of wind energy developments in the area can still be considered relatively low. The contribution of wind farm developments to cumulative habitat loss is not significant in comparison to agricultural activities which have resulted in the near-total transformation of the Swartland. The wind farm developments could however impact the remaining extent of these vegetation types, which would have significant consequences.

The total direct footprint occupied by wind energy infrastructure in the cumulatively assessed area is currently less than 200ha, the vast majority of which is within transformed habitat. The contribution of wind energy developments to transformation and cumulative impact on Swartland Shale Renosterveld is minimal overall. Based on the proposed layouts assessed within this EIA, the Hartebeest Wind Farm would not contribute to further transformation of this vegetation. Although the Gouda Wind Farm and Zen Wind Farm are located partly within this vegetation type, no intact Swartland Shale Renosterveld would be affected on these sites due to the location of these Department of Environmental Affairs approved infrastructure, outside of the remaining remnants of this vegetation.

Given the low potential for broad-scale cumulative impacts on vegetation and ecology, the major potential cumulative impact would be on the local environment and effects on fauna and flora within the local area, due to cumulative disturbance and noise generated

Assessment of Potential Cumulative Impacts Page 271 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017 during construction and operation. However, as the resident fauna are likely those species which are able to persist in the face of human activity, it seems unlikely that there would be any long-term cumulative impact on fauna as a result of the operation of the Hartebeest Wind Farm. Therefore, it is clear that the overall contribution of the development to cumulative impacts is considered to be low, driven specifically by the avoidance of any impact to the intact remnants of Renosterveld vegetation at the site.

Nature: The development of the Hartebeest Wind Farm will potentially contribute to cumulative habitat loss and other cumulative impacts in the Swartland. Overall impact of the Cumulative impact of the proposed project considered project and other projects in in isolation the area Extent Local (1) Local (2) Duration Long-term (4) Long-term (4) Magnitude Minor (2) Minor to Low (3) Probability Improbable (2) Probable (3) Significance Low (14) Low (27) Status Negative Negative Reversibility High High Irreplaceable loss of Low Low resources Can impacts be mitigated Yes, to a large degree, but through direct avoidance with little other avenue for mitigation. Mitigation: » Avoid any further habitat loss and degradation of any intact vegetation fragments, especially of Critically Endangered vegetation types such as Swartland Shale Renosterveld. » Promote sustainable land use practices in the area and especially on wind farm properties to improve the quality of the habitat for fauna and flora. Reducing grazing pressure on intact remnants is identified as a particularly important mitigation measure to improve habitat quality. » Ensure that alien species of flora as well as fauna are managed to ensure that they do not have a broadly negative impact.

9.3.2 Cumulative Impacts on Avifauna

The effects of a number of projects in the area would add to impacts on the bird communities of the region and would affect similar avifauna species in similar contexts to wind development such as Blue Crane and Black Harrier. Impacts are expected to relate to loss of habitat as a result of construction activities, and impacts as a result of mortality during the operational phase.

Cumulative impacts are considered to be of medium to low significance, since only two projects located within a 30km radius from the proposed project site are operational. It

Assessment of Potential Cumulative Impacts Page 272 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017 is considered feasible that the impacts associated with projects, not yet implemented, could be effectively reduced through the implementation of appropriate mitigation.

Nature: Habitat loss during construction

The available habitat for bird species is expected to be reduced and therefore the general displacement from the area of the most sensitive species is likely to occur. The Blue Crane utilises agricultural areas and therefore the installation of the turbines may reduce the availability of suitable habitat. The Black Harrier uses fynbos and Renosterveld as well as agricultural lands and pastures. While the effects on the Blue Crane are still unknown, it is obvious that a species with serious habitat loss concerns, such as the Black Harrier, would be negatively affected by the destruction of its scarce habitat at a local level. Although the footprint of a wind energy facility is not significant, the construction of roads and building platforms can affect significant portions of natural vegetation and habitat.

The contribution of the Hartebeest Wind Farm to this impact is expected to be limited as a result of the avoidance of placing infrastructure within areas of natural vegetation. However, as it is important to limit the potential impact as far as possible, and therefore the construction of fewer turbines would be favoured. As a result Layout Alternative 1 is expected to have a lower impact than layout Alternative 2. Overall impact of the Cumulative Impact of the proposed project considered project and other projects in in isolation the area Extent Local (1) Local (2) Duration Very Short (1) Very Short (1) Magnitude Minor (2) Minor (2) Probability Probable (3) Probable (3) Significance Low (12) Low (15) Status Negative Negative Reversibility Reversible Irreversible Irreplaceable loss of Yes Yes resources? Can impacts be Yes mitigated? Mitigation: » The least impact layout should be implemented for projects which have not yet been implemented. In this regard, Alternative layout 1 proposed for the Hartebeest Wind Farm (25 turbines) should be selected as the preferred option. » All mitigation measures recommended for projects in the area should be implemented.

Nature: Disturbance and/or displacement

Disturbance and/or displacement effects on bird community due to construction works, noise, human presence and machinery movements. A cumulative impact associated with wind energy facilities within a 30km radius from the project site are expected, especially if the construction

Assessment of Potential Cumulative Impacts Page 273 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017 works occur simultaneously. This will result in bird population having fewer suitable areas for refuge in the proximity of the study area and might affect some natural processes. Overall impact of the Cumulative Impact of the proposed project considered project and other projects in in isolation the area Extent Local (1) Local (2) Duration Very Short (1) Short-term (2) Magnitude Minor (2) Moderate (6) Probability Improbable (2) Probable (3) Significance Low (8) Medium (30) Status Negative Negative Reversibility Reversible Reversible Irreplaceable loss of Yes Yes resources? Can impacts be Yes mitigated? Mitigation: » The least impact layout should be implemented for projects which have not yet been implemented. In this regard, Alternative layout 1 proposed for the Hartebeest Wind Farm (25 turbines) should be selected as the preferred option. » All mitigation measures recommended for projects in the area should be implemented.

Nature: Bird fatalities due to collision with operating wind turbines. Overall impact of the Cumulative Impact of the proposed project considered project and other projects in in isolation the area Extent Local (1) Local (2) Duration Permanent (5) Permanent (5) Magnitude Low (4) Moderate (6) Probability Probable (3) Probable (3) Significance Medium (30) Medium (39) Status Negative Negative Reversibility Irreversible Irreversible Irreplaceable loss of Possible Possible resources? Can impacts be Yes mitigated? Mitigation: » The least impact layout should be implemented for projects which have not yet been implemented. In this regard, Alternative layout 1 proposed for the Hartebeest Wind Farm (25 turbines) should be selected as the preferred option. » All mitigation measures recommended for projects in the area should be implemented.

Nature: Disturbance and/or displacement effects on bird community due to human presence

Assessment of Potential Cumulative Impacts Page 274 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017 during maintenance activities. Overall impact of the Cumulative Impact of the proposed project considered project and other projects in in isolation the area Extent Local (1) Local (2) Duration Permanent (5) Permanent (5) Magnitude Minor (2) Minor (2) Probability Improbable (2) Improbable (2) Significance Low (16) Low (18) Status Negative Negative Reversibility Reversible Reversible Irreplaceable loss of Possible Possible resources? Can impacts be Yes mitigated? Mitigation: » Avoid the presence of people and vehicles in identified no-go areas as far as possible especially during the breeding season; » Lower the levels of noise whenever possible; and » Avoid the destruction or disturbance of identified important features, including waterbodies and/or nests.

Nature: The power lines can cause several impacts in the bird community both by the habitat loss and fatalities caused by the collision with the infrastructure Overall impact of the proposed project Cumulative considered in isolation Impact of the Power Line Power Line project and other Alternative 1 Alternative 2 projects in the area Extent Local (1) Local (1) Regional (5) Duration Permanent (5) Permanent (5) Permanent (5) Magnitude Low (4) Low (4) Low (4) Probability Probable (3) Probable (3) Probable (3) Significance Medium (30) Medium (30) Medium (42) Status Negative Negative Negative Reversibility Irreversible Irreversible Irreversible Irreplaceable loss of Yes Yes Yes resources? Can impacts be Yes mitigated? Mitigation: » Avoid the presence of people and vehicles in identified no-go areas as far as possible especially during the breeding season; » Lower the levels of noise whenever possible; and » Avoid the destruction or disturbance of identified important features, including waterbodies and/or nests.

Assessment of Potential Cumulative Impacts Page 275 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

9.3.3 Cumulative Impacts on Bats

The main activities or projects, relevant to the cumulative impacts analysis known in the broader area of the Hartebeest Wind Farm study area are as a result of human activities, primarily agriculture activities, as well as other proposed wind energy facilities. In general, cumulative impacts on bat communities are considered to be of medium to low significance, since only two project located within a 30km buffer area from the proposed project site are operational. It is considered feasible that the impacts associated with projects not yet implemented, could be effectively reduced through the implementation of appropriate mitigation.

Considering the potential for habitat loss in the Western Cape due to the installation of wind energy and other renewables energy developments, it is important to keep the effects/ impacts of each individual project to a minimum, starting by considering the least impact layout during the layout definition phase. This will most probably have a large contribution in decreasing the cumulative impacts uptake of the area.

Nature: Habitat destruction - Loss of agricultural land:

Loss of agricultural areas due to platform construction, workstation and substation construction, internal access roads construction, and turbines, underground cabling and overhead power line installation. Other wind energy facilities are being planned close to the study area (within a 30km radius) and there are two facilities already operational. Habitat destruction is therefore a cumulative impact between all these locations, since more areas will be affected and the bat population will have less suitable area to forage in the proximity of the study area. Overall impact of the Cumulative Impact of the proposed project considered project and other projects in in isolation the area Extent Local (1) Regional (5) Duration Medium-term (3) Medium-term (3) Magnitude Minor (2) Low (4) Probability Definite (5) Probable (3) Significance Medium (30) Low (36) Status Negative Negative Reversibility Reversible Reversible Irreplaceable loss of No No resources? Can impacts be Yes mitigated? Mitigation: » Avoidance of infrastructure siting, in the layout planning phase, or through the minimisation of the affected areas with importance to the bat community as far as possible in the activities of clearance and removal of vegetation.

Assessment of Potential Cumulative Impacts Page 276 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

» Existing roads and infrastructure should be used as far as possible in order to minimise landscape changes. » Movements of machinery, vehicles and persons should be restricted to the approved wind farm roads.

Nature: Destruction of natural vegetation and water features

Destruction of natural vegetation and water features due to platform construction, workstation and substation construction, internal access roads construction, and turbines, underground cabling and overhead power line installation. Other wind energy facilities are being planned close to the study area (within a 30km radius) and there are two facilities already operational. Habitat destruction is therefore a cumulative impact between all these locations, since more areas will be affected and bat population will have less suitable area to forage in the proximity of the study area. Overall impact of the Cumulative Impact of the proposed project considered project and other projects in in isolation the area Extent Local (1) Local (2) Duration Very short (1) Very short (1) Magnitude Minor (2) Minor (2) Probability Probable (3) Probable (3) Significance Low (12) Low (15) Status Negative Negative Reversibility Reversible Irreversible Irreplaceable loss of No Yes resources? Can impacts be Yes mitigated? Mitigation: » Avoidance of infrastructure siting, especially turbines, in identified sensitive areas, in the layout planning phase, or through minimisation of the affected area as far as possible as a result of the activities of clearance and removal of natural vegetation. » Existing accesses should be used to the extent possible. As this study did not intended to conduct an intensive vegetation mapping of the development area, in order to accurately avoid areas with vegetation considered important to the bat community it is advised that a more precise zonation of such areas of interest is conducted prior to the beginning of the construction work. » Movement of machinery, vehicles and persons should be restricted to the approved wind farm roads and avoid the existing natural areas.

Nature: Disturbance of bat communities and roost destruction during construction

Disturbance of bat community due to the increase of people and vehicles in the area, and destruction of roost locations. Overall impact of the Cumulative Impact of the

Assessment of Potential Cumulative Impacts Page 277 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

proposed project considered project and other projects in in isolation the area Extent Local (1) Local (2) Duration Very short (1) Short (2) Magnitude Minor (2) Moderate (6) Probability Probable (3) Probable (3) Significance Low (12) Medium (30) Status Negative Negative Reversibility Reversible Irreversible Irreplaceable loss of No Possible resources? Can impacts be Yes mitigated? Mitigation: » Avoid the presence of people and vehicles in the identified high sensitivity areas as possible; » Whenever technically possible, scheduled activities should minimise disturbance during the breeding season and during the night; » Lower the levels of noise whenever possible around the high sensitivity areas; » Avoid the destruction or disturbance of identified roosting sites; and » For roosting sites that may have to be closed down it is recommended that an alternative roosting location, at least 5 km from the closest wind turbine, is built or an existing structure is improved to compensate for the loss of the roosting site. This will also contribute to attract the bats to use areas further away from the wind farm further reducing the potential collision risk.

Nature: Fatalities due to collision or barotrauma

Fatality of individuals may be caused by the collision with turbine blades or barotrauma caused by turbine operation. Two wind farms are already operational within 30km of the proposed project site and other wind farms are being planned close to the study area (within a 30km radius). Cumulative impacts result from fatalities of bats caused by the operation of all facilities simultaneously. As the number of currently and future projected operating wind turbines within a 30km area of the proposed project site is low, and since the collision probability is directly linked to the available infrastructure which can be collided with, although a permanent impact, the magnitude is considered to be lower than if considering the area had many approved or constructed wind energy facility sites. Overall impact of the Cumulative Impact of the proposed project considered project and other projects in in isolation the area Extent Local (1) Local (2) Duration Permanent (5) Permanent (5) Magnitude Low (4) Moderate (6) Probability Probable (3) Probable (3) Significance Medium (30) Medium (39) Status Negative Negative Reversibility Irreversible Irreversible

Assessment of Potential Cumulative Impacts Page 278 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Irreplaceable loss of Yes Possible resources? Can impacts be Yes mitigated? Mitigation: » A bat monitoring programme should be implemented during operation and should allow for the determination of the further impacts of the wind energy facility on the bat community. Data from monitoring programmes at other operational facilities in the area should be considered in order to determine the actual cumulative impact of wind farms in the area and determine the need for additional mitigation.

Nature: Disturbance of bat community during operation

Disturbance of the bat community due to noise and movement generated by turbine operation and the increase of people and vehicles in the area associated with maintenance activities. Cumulative impacts resulting from operation of all facilities simultaneously will occur. Overall impact of the Cumulative Impact of the proposed project considered project and other projects in in isolation the area Extent Local (1) Local (2) Duration Permanent (5) Permanent (5) Magnitude Minor (2) Minor (2) Probability Improbable (2) Improbable (2) Significance Low (16) Low (18) Status Negative Negative Reversibility Reversible Reversible Irreplaceable loss of Yes Possible resources? Can impacts be Yes mitigated? Mitigation: » A bat monitoring programme during operation should be implemented and should allow for the determination of the further impacts of the wind energy facility on the bat community. Data from monitoring programmes at other operational facilities in the area should be considered in order to determine the actual cumulative impact of wind farms in the area and determine the need for additional mitigation.

9.3.4 Cumulative Impacts on Surface Water

The nature of the wind energy facilities within the broader area allows them to have minimal impact on the surface water features, since the turbines can be placed far enough away from the freshwater features so as to not impact on them. This is evident in the two operational wind energy facilities which are located adjacent to the Sout River (Hopefield Wind Energy Facility) and Klein Berg River (Gouda Wind Energy Facility).

Assessment of Potential Cumulative Impacts Page 279 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

The largest potential impact of these and the other proposed projects in the area is as a result of the associated infrastructure such as roads. Appropriate design can mitigate such impact on the aquatic ecosystems to one of low significance. It could thus be expected that the cumulative impact of the proposed project, over and above the existing agricultural impacts, would not be significant, provided that recommended mitigation measures are implemented.

From a freshwater perspective, the cumulative impacts are considered to be low and therefore, no unacceptable loss or risks are considered with the development of the Hartebeest Wind Farm and other wind energy facilities within the surrounding area.

Nature: Impacts on surface water

Direct impacts such as the disturbance of aquatic habitat; modification to flow and water quality as a result of proposed activities in or adjacent to aquatic ecosystems may be possible. Indirect impacts such as invasive alien plant growth in riparian zones and wetland areas and potential for erosion of watercourses as a result of disturbance of aquatic habitat and modification of runoff characteristics can be expected. Overall impact of the Cumulative Impact of the proposed project considered project and other projects in in isolation the area Extent Site only (1) Local (2) Duration Long term (4) Long term (4) Magnitude Minor (2) Minor - Low (3) Probability Improbable (2) Improbable (2) Significance Low (14) Low (18) Status Negative Negative Reversibility Medium to low Medium to Low Irreplaceable loss of No No resources? Can impacts be Yes mitigated? Mitigation: » Placement of turbines and associated wind farm infrastructure to minimise disturbance of aquatic features within the project site and allow for adequate buffers to ensure protection of the aquatic features. » The potential stormwater impacts of the proposed development areas should be mitigated on- site to address any erosion or water quality impacts. » Good housekeeping measures as stipulated in the EMPr for the project should be in place where construction activities take place to prevent contamination of any freshwater features. » Where possible, infrastructure development should coincide with existing infrastructure or areas of disturbance (such as existing roads). Disturbed areas should be rehabilitated through reshaping of the surface to resemble that prior to the disturbance and vegetated with suitable local indigenous vegetation. » Any new road crossings through the watercourses should cross perpendicular to the channels and should not impede or concentrate flow in the channels.

Assessment of Potential Cumulative Impacts Page 280 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

» Undertake ongoing and long-term monitoring and management of aquatic features to prevent the impacts of erosion and invasive alien vegetation growth.

9.3.5 Cumulative Impact on Heritage Resources

Development of a wind farm on the study site would have an impact on the rural landscape character of the site and its environs. The combined effect of wind energy facilities will impact the aesthetic qualities of the region, which could diminish the value of the landscape as an aesthetic and heritage resource.

The proposed Hartebeest Wind Farm lies between the Hopefield and Gouda Wind Farm. Due to distance between facilities and topography within the area, more than one of the wind farms is unlikely to be obvious to a viewer at any one time. Although there will be local change in character of the landscape, the proposed activity does not however represent an unreasonable densification of wind farm activity that will impact the character of the Swartland. Any further developments of this kind in the Swartland however, are likely to have a high cumulative impact in terms of landscape quality and setting, as it is likely that wind farms will be visible from each other, which will result in a negative impact to the cultural landscape.

Within the context of the wheat lands where the earth is turned on a yearly basis, cumulative impacts to physical heritage are not expected.

The cumulative impact on fossils as a result of the Hartebeest Wind Farm and other projects in the area is not seen to have a significant impact on paleontological resources due to the low sensitivity of the area in this regard. The site is underlain by shales, which generally do not contain fossils.

Nature: Impact on the aesthetic qualities of the region which will diminish the value of the landscape as an aesthetic and heritage resource. Overall Impact of the Cumulative impact of the proposed project project and other projects considered in isolation within the area Extent Local (1) Local (1) Duration Long term (4) Long term (4) Magnitude Small to Minor (1) Small to Minor (1) Probability Improbable (2) Improbable (2) Significance Low (12) Low (12) Status Neutral Neutral Reversibility Reversible Reversible Irreplaceable loss of No No resources Can impacts be mitigated No mitigation required. Mitigation: No mitigation required.

Assessment of Potential Cumulative Impacts Page 281 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

9.3.6 Cumulative Impacts on Soils, Land Use, Land Capability and Agricultural Potential

Cumulative impacts on soils and agricultural potential can be considered possible due to the likelihood of other projects (renewable energy or other) in the area that will also lead to loss of agricultural land. From a soils and agriculture perspective, the cumulative impacts of the development would be of a low - moderate significance considering the decrease in quantity and quality of soil, as well as the rate and quality of run-off. Land use is primarily the cultivation of dryland small grains on these farming units. This is by far the dominant land use of the entire Swartland Local Municipality, although livestock farming is practised. Crop rotation is essential in order to increase wheat yields, as it reduces insect and weed problems and enables livestock farming.

Cumulative soil impacts associated with the development of the Hartebeest Wind Farm in relation to future renewable energy developments is considered acceptable in terms of loss and risk, without an unacceptable increase in impact.

Nature: Decrease in quantity and quality of soil

The quantity of available soil for agricultural production decreases as result of the size footprint structures and associated infrastructure occupy. The quality of soil decreases since the construction of these infrastructure developments alters the workability of the soil. This includes the physical deformation in the soil profile, surface layout and interference with cultivation practices. During the lifespan of the facilities, unproductive portions of land, not available for agricultural use, will increase. Overall Impact of the Cumulative impact of the proposed project project and other projects considered in isolation within the area Extent Local – regional (limited) (1) Regional (2) Duration Long Term (4) Long Term (4) Magnitude Low (4) Moderate (6) Probability Probable (3) Probable (3) Significance Low (27) Medium (36) Status Negative Negative Reversibility Low reversible Low reversible Irreplaceable loss of No No resources Can impacts be mitigated Yes Mitigation: » Ensure that most infrastructure features are erected on transformed or non-arable areas. » Implement stormwater management as an integral planning and guideline for positioning of structures. » Use existing roads and conservation structures to the maximum in the planning and operation phases.

Assessment of Potential Cumulative Impacts Page 282 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

» Rehabilitate disturbed areas as soon as possible after construction.

Nature: Impacts that would change the rate and quality of run-off:

Wind Farm facilities within a 30km radius of the Hartebeest facility area are located in the Berg Olifants Water catchment area. The projects Hartebeest, Gouda, Zen and 30MW Wind Farm near Gouda are located in the G10J quaternary catchment area, with the projects Hopefield and Hopefield Small Wind Farms being located in the G10L Quaternary catchment area. The watershed is on the N7. To the west, water drains to Sout River and east to the Berg River. The rivers converge and end in St Helena Bay at Velddrift. Potential impacts that would change rate and quality of run-off: » Clearing of vegetation : increase flow speed, lower infiltration tempo increase silt transport; and » Pollution by chemicals, hazardous substances and waste. Overall Impact of the Cumulative impact of the proposed project project and other projects considered in isolation within the area Extent Local (1) Local - Regional (2) Duration Long Term (4) Long Term (4) Magnitude Low (4) Low (4) Probability Improbable (2) Probable (3) Significance Low (18) Medium (30) Status Negative Negative Reversibility Low reversible Low reversible Irreplaceable loss of No No resources Can impacts be mitigated Yes Mitigation: » Erosion and sediment control with proper water run-off control planning. » Appropriate handling and storage of chemicals and hazardous substances and waste.

9.3.7 Cumulative Visual Impacts

From a cumulative perspective, the proposed Hartebeest Wind Farm will increase the influence of wind farms in the regional landscape and transform the overall impression of the landscape as being influenced on an increasing scale by wind farm developments. There are two operational wind farms within approximately 30km of the proposed site as well as three additional wind farm developments proposed in their vicinity. These facilities are located along roads that run parallel with the north south running N7 and, whilst they are connected by minor roads, it is likely that the majority of people passing through the area would use one or other of the parallel running roads. Another key consideration is the fact that due to distance between facilities and topography within the area, more than one of the wind farms is unlikely to be obvious to a viewer at any one time.

Assessment of Potential Cumulative Impacts Page 283 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

The influence of the proposed development in extending the influence of wind farm development across the landscape was considered. The proposed development is located approximately equidistant between two existing windfarms (Gouda and Hopefield). The proposed Hartebeest Wind Farm could be visible from the same view point as one of the existing wind farms. Given the distance, however, it is possible that neither of the visible facilities would be highly obvious. Also, given the juxtaposition of the three developments, a traveller on one of the roads traversing the region or a resident of a local homestead is highly unlikely to be able to view two wind farms in the same view.

Therefore, more than one wind farm may be visible from the same viewpoint, however they will not be seen in the same view and views will be at sufficient distance to ensure that the impact will not be high and possibly will not be obvious.

Nature: Landscape Change

The proposed wind farm will increase the influence of wind farms in the landscape and transform the overall impression of the landscape as being influenced on an increasing scale by wind farm development. There are two operational wind farms within approximately 30km of the proposed site as well as three additional wind farm developments proposed in their vicinity. These facilities are located along roads that run parallel with the north south running N7 and whilst they are connected by minor roads, it is likely that the majority of people passing through the area would use one or other of the parallel running roads. Another key consideration is the fact that due to distance between facilities and topography within the area, more than one of the wind farms is unlikely to be obvious to a viewer at any one time. Overall impact of the Cumulative impact of the proposed project project and other projects considered in isolation within the area Extent Local landscape - Local (2) Local landscape - Local (2)

Medium range views from Medium range views from within the surrounding valley within the surrounding valley floor - Local – Regional (3) floor - Local – Regional (3)

Medium range views from the Medium range views from the elevated areas to the east and elevated areas to the east and west - Local - Regional (3) west - Local - Regional (3)

Medium/Long range views - Medium/Long range views - Local – Regional (3) Local – Regional (3)

Long range views - Local – Long range views - Local – Regional (3) Regional (3) Duration Long-term (4) Long-term (4) Magnitude Local landscape - Moderate to Local landscape - Moderate (6)

Assessment of Potential Cumulative Impacts Page 284 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

High (7) Medium range views - Minor to Medium range views - Minor to Low (3) Low (3) Medium/Long range views from Medium/Long range views - valley floor areas - Minor (2) Minor (2) Long range views - Small (0) Long range views - Small (0) Probability Local landscape – Definite (5) Local landscape – Definite (5)

Medium range views – Highly Medium range views – Highly Probable (4) Probable (4)

Medium/Long range views – Medium/Long range views – Probable (3) Probable (3)

Long range views –Improbable Long range views –Improbable (2) (2) Significance Local landscape – High (65) Local landscape – High (60)

Medium range views – Medium range views – Medium Medium (40) (40)

Medium/Long range views – Medium/Long range views – Low (27) Low (27)

Long range views – Low (14) Long range views – Low (14) Status Negative to positive Negative to positive Reversibility High Reversibility High Reversibility Irreplaceable loss of No No resources Can impacts be mitigated Yes Mitigation: Planning and construction: » Adoption of the 25 turbine layout for the Hartebeest wind farm will help to reduce the magnitude of impacts particularly within the 4km, high impact zone. » Ensure that ground level development is minimised. » Investigate the need and feasibility of using non-reflective finishes on turbine rotors (if not already implemented by manufacturer).

Operations: » Maintain existing uses below the development as much as possible.

Decommissioning: » Remove infrastructure not required for the post-decommissioning use of the site; » Return all affected areas to productive agricultural use as much as possible; and » Monitor rehabilitated areas post-decommissioning and implement remedial actions.

Assessment of Potential Cumulative Impacts Page 285 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Nature: Impact on users of arterial and secondary roads to which the proposed facility will be visible

There are two existing wind farms within 30km of the proposed facility as well as three additional wind farm developments in their vicinity. These existing facilities are located along roads that run parallel with the north south running N7 and whilst they are connected by minor roads, it is likely that the majority of people passing through the area would use one or other of the parallel running roads. In areas it may be possible to view two wind farms from the same section of road, however they will be viewed at a distance in excess of 10km and the viewer will have to turn away from the view of one wind farm to see the second wind farm. They will therefore not be seen in the same view.

The cumulative impact therefore will relate to a possible increase in the number of wind farms that are visible to travellers through the area all be it that it is highly unlikely that two facilities will be viewed at the same time. Overall impact of the Cumulative impact of the proposed project project and other projects considered in isolation within the area Extent Inside the 4km buffer - Local Inside the 4km buffer - Local (2) (2) Outside the 4km buffer and Outside the 4km buffer and inside the 10km buffer - Local inside the 10km buffer - Local (2) (2) Outside the 10km buffer and Outside the 10km buffer and inside the 20km buffer - Local to inside the 20km buffer - Local Regional (3) to Regional (3) Outside the 20km buffer - Local Outside the 20km buffer - to Regional (3) Local to Regional (3) Duration Long-term (4) Long-term (4) Magnitude Inside the 4km buffer - Inside the 4km buffer - Moderate Moderate to High (7) to High (7)

Outside the 4km buffer and Outside the 4km buffer and inside the 10km buffer - Minor inside the 10km buffer - Minor to to Low (3) Low (3)

Outside the 10km buffer and Outside the 10km buffer and inside the 20km buffer - Small inside the 20km buffer - Small to to Minor (1) Minor (1)

Outside the 20km buffer and Outside the 20km buffer and inside the 20km buffer - Small inside the 20km buffer - Small (0) (0)

Assessment of Potential Cumulative Impacts Page 286 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Probability Inside the 4km buffer - Inside the 4km buffer - Definite Definite (5) (5)

Outside the 4km buffer and Outside the 4km buffer and inside the 10km buffer - inside the 10km buffer - Probable (3) Probable (3)

Outside the 10km buffer and Outside the 10km buffer and inside the 20km buffer - inside the 20km buffer - Improbable (2) Improbable (2)

Outside the 20km buffer - Very Outside the 20km buffer - Very Improbable (1) Improbable (1) Significance Inside the 4km buffer - High Inside the 4km buffer - High (65) (65)

Outside the 4km buffer and Outside the 4km buffer and inside the 10km buffer - inside the 10km buffer - Medium (30) Medium (30)

Outside the 10km buffer and Outside the 10km buffer and inside the 20km buffer - Low inside the 20km buffer - Low (16) (16)

Outside the 20km buffer - Low Outside the 20km buffer - Low (7) (7) Status Negative/Positive Negative/Positive Reversibility High Reversibility High Reversibility Irreplaceable loss of No No resources Can impacts be mitigated Yes Mitigation: Planning and construction: » Adoption of the 25 turbine layout for the Hartebeest Wind Farm will help to reduce the magnitude of impacts particularly within the 4km, high impact zone. » Ensure that ground level development is minimised. » Plan to use non reflective finishes.

Operations: » Maintain existing uses below the development as much as possible.

Decommissioning: » Remove infrastructure not required for the post-decommissioning use of the site; » Return as much as possible of affected areas to productive agricultural use; and » Monitor rehabilitated areas post-decommissioning and implement remedial actions.

Assessment of Potential Cumulative Impacts Page 287 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Nature: Impact on urban centres and populated places in close proximity to the proposed wind farm (i.e. Moorreesburg)

It is highly unlikely that there would be a cumulative impact on views from Mooreesburg as the two existing wind farms and the proposed Hartebeest Wind Farm in their vicinity will not be visible / obvious at the same time from a single view. This is as a result of the distances between facilities and the topography in the area. Overall impact of the Cumulative impact of the proposed project project and other projects considered in isolation within the area Extent Local (2) Local (2) Duration Long-term (4) Long-term (4) Magnitude Moderate (6) Small (0) Probability Probable (3) Very Improbable (1) Significance Medium (36) Low (6) Status Negative/Positive Negative/Positive Reversibility High Reversibility High Reversibility Irreplaceable loss of No No resources Can impacts be mitigated Yes Mitigation: Planning and construction: » Adoption of the 25 turbine layout for the Hartebeest Wind Farm will help to reduce the magnitude of impacts particularly within the 4km, high impact zone. » Ensure that ground level development is minimised. » Investigate the need and feasibility for non-reflective finishes on rotor blades (if not already implemented by manufacturer).

Operations: » Maintain existing uses below the development as much as possible.

Nature: Impact on homesteads in close proximity to the wind farm and within the region

It is highly unlikely that there would be a significant cumulative impact on homesteads in the vicinity of wind farms within the region as the two existing windfarms are unlikely to be visible / obvious at the same time as the proposed development. In areas it may be possible to view two windfarms as well as additional wind farm development proposed in their vicinity from the same homestead, however they will be viewed at a distance in excess of 10km and the viewer will have to turn away from the view of one windfarm to see the second windfarm. They will therefore not be seen in the same view. At the distances involved it is likely that neither wind farm will be highly obvious and subject to weather and light conditions it is possible that neither windfarm will be visible.

Assessment of Potential Cumulative Impacts Page 288 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Overall impact of the Cumulative impact of the proposed project considered project and other projects in isolation within the area Extent Local (2) Local (2) Duration Long-term (4) Long-term (4) Magnitude Residents located in the turbine Residents located in the turbine field - High to Very High (9). field – Small (0).

Residents located close to the Residents located close to the turbine field (1km) - High (8). turbine field (1km) - Small (0).

Residents located outside the Residents located outside the immediate vicinity of the turbine immediate vicinity of the field up to the 4km buffer - turbine field up to the 4km Moderate (6) buffer - Minor (2)

Residents located outside the Residents located outside the 4km and inside the 10km buffer 4km and inside the 10km - Low (4) buffer - Minor (2)

Residents located outside the Residents located outside the 10km - Small (0) 10km - Minor (2) Probability Residents located in the turbine Residents located in the turbine field - Definite (5) field – Very Improbable (1)

Residents located close to the Residents located close to the turbine field (1km) - Highly turbine field (1km) – Very Probable (4) Improbable (1)

Residents located outside the Residents located outside the immediate vicinity of the turbine immediate vicinity of the field up to the 4km buffer - turbine field up to the 4km Probable (3) buffer - Probable (3)

Residents located outside the Residents located outside the 4km and inside the 10km buffer 4km and inside the 10km - Improbable (2) buffer - Probable (3)

Residents located outside the Residents located outside the 10km buffer - Improbable (2) 10km buffer - Improbable (2) Significance Residents located in the turbine Residents located in the turbine field - High (75) field - Low (6)

Residents located close to the Residents located close to the turbine field (1km) - Medium turbine field (1km) - Low (6) (56) Residents located outside the Residents located outside the immediate vicinity of the

Assessment of Potential Cumulative Impacts Page 289 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

immediate vicinity of the turbine turbine field up to the 4km field up to the 4km buffer - buffer - Low (24) Medium (36) Residents located outside the Residents located outside the 4km and inside the 10km 4km and inside the 10km buffer buffer - Low (24) - Low (20) Residents located outside the Residents located outside the 10km buffer - Low (24) 10km buffer - Low (12) Status Negative to Positive Negative to Positive Reversibility High Reversibility High Reversibility Irreplaceable loss of No No resources Can impacts be mitigated Yes Mitigation: Planning and construction: » Adoption of the 25 turbine layout for the Hartebeest Wind Farm will help to reduce the magnitude of impacts particularly within the 4km, high impact zone. » Ensure that ground level development is minimised. » Investigate the need and feasibility of using non-reflective finishes on rotor blades (if not already implemented by manufacturer).

Operations: » Maintain existing uses below the development as much as possible.

Impact of shadow flicker on observers residing on or in close proximity to the proposed wind farm

There will be no cumulative impact as the distances are too great between the wind farms.

Nature: Impact of operational, safety and security lighting of the facility at night

Lighting of the Hartebeest Wind Farm will add to the degree of lighting in the vicinity of Mooreesburg. It is unlikely however to extend the area of impact. It is highly unlikely that there will be a cumulative effect due to lighting associated with other wind farms due to the distance between facilities. However, the project could add to local lighting levels associated with other industrial elements in the urban fringe including the Mooreesburg Substation and the adjacent quarry. Overall impact of the Cumulative impact of the

Assessment of Potential Cumulative Impacts Page 290 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

proposed project considered project and other projects in isolation within the area Extent Aviation warning lighting - Local Aviation warning lighting - to Regional (3). Local to Regional (3).

Security lighting - Local (2). Security lighting - Local (2). Duration Long-term (4) Long-term (4) Magnitude Aviation warning lighting – Small Aviation warning lighting – (0). Small (0).

Security lighting - Low (4). Security lighting - Low to Moderate (5). Probability Aviation warning lighting - Aviation warning lighting - Improbable (2) Improbable (2)

Security lighting - Probable (3) Security lighting - Probable (3) Significance Aviation warning lighting - Low Aviation warning lighting - Low (14) (14)

Security lighting - Medium (30) Security lighting - Medium (33) Status Neutral Neutral Reversibility High Reversibility High Reversibility Irreplaceable loss of There will be no irreplaceable There will be no irreplaceable resources loss. loss. Can impacts be mitigated Yes Mitigation: Planning: Careful lighting design should be undertaken to prevent un-necessary light pollution. Security Lighting – possible use of technology such as » Infra-red systems; and » Sensors to trigger lighting when necessary.

9.3.8 Cumulative Socio-Economic Impacts

Possible cumulative impacts as a result of other similar projects and associated infrastructure in the area could have cumulative negative and positive socio-economic impacts. Cumulative impacts have been considered as part of the social impact assessment and identified where relevant. The cumulative impacts of the project are related to the construction and operation phases.

The Hartebeest Wind Farm and other wind energy facilities within the area could result in positive permanent impacts on the economy, business development, employment and education in the area and the Province. It may also result in some negative impacts such as an influx of jobseekers and change of the landscape and the area’s sense of place. However, the cumulative impacts for the Hartebeest Wind Farm have been

Assessment of Potential Cumulative Impacts Page 291 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017 assessed to be acceptable, without any unacceptable loss, and with positive contributions.

Cumulative impacts on sense of place The Hartebeest Wind Farm and wind energy facilities within a 30km radius are likely to have an influence on landscape character at least in close vicinity to the projects. However, this influence is likely to occur close to existing wind energy facilities extending the area of influence of this type of development.

Given the location of the proposed and existing wind energy facilities, there is a risk of combined visibility (whether two or more wind farms will be visible from one location) and sequential visibility (e.g. the effect of seeing two or more wind farms along a single journey, e.g. road or walking trail).

The Visual Impact Assessment (refer to Appendix J) indicates that the proposed wind farm will increase the influence of wind energy facilities in the regional landscape and transform the overall impression of the landscape as being influenced on an increasing scale. The wind energy facilities are located along roads that run parallel with the north south running N7 and whilst they are connected by minor roads, it is likely that the majority of people passing through the area would use one or other of the parallel running roads. Due to distance between facilities and topography of the area, more than one of the wind energy facilities is unlikely to be obvious to a viewer at any one time.

Nature: Visual impacts associated with the establishment of wind energy facilities on the areas rural sense of place and character of the landscape Overall impact of the Cumulative impact of the proposed project considered project and other projects in isolation within the area Extent Local-Regional (3) Local-Regional (3) Duration Long term (4) Long term (4) Magnitude Minor to Low (3) Minor to Low (3) Probability Probable (3) Probable (3) Significance Low (27) Low (27) Status Negative Negative Reversibility Yes Yes Irreplaceable loss of No resources Can impacts be Yes mitigated Mitigation: Planning and construction: » Adoption of the 25 turbine layout for the Hartebeest wind farm will help to reduce the magnitude of impacts particularly within the 4km, high impact zone. » Ensure that ground level development is minimised. » Investigate the need and feasibility of using non-reflective finishes on turbine rotors.

Assessment of Potential Cumulative Impacts Page 292 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Operations: » Maintain existing uses below the development as much as possible.

Cumulative impacts on local economy The establishment of the proposed Hartebeest Wind Farm and other renewable energy facilities in the West Coast District Municipality (WCDM) has the potential to result in significant positive cumulative socio-economic opportunities for the region, which, in turn, will result in a positive social benefit. The positive cumulative impacts include creation of employment, skills development and training opportunities, and downstream business opportunities during the construction and operational phases of the projects.

Nature: The establishment of a number of renewable energy facilities in the WCDM will create employment, skills development and training opportunities, creation of downstream business opportunities. Overall impact of the Cumulative impact of the proposed project considered project and other projects in isolation within the area Extent Local - Regional (3) Regional (4) Duration Long term (4) Long term (4) Magnitude Low (4) Moderate (6) Probability Highly Probable (4) Definite (5) Significance Medium (44) High (70) Status Positive Positive Reversibility Yes Yes Irreplaceable loss of No resources Can impacts be Yes mitigated Enhancement: The proposed establishment of suitably sited renewable energy facilities within the WCDM should be supported.

Cumulative impacts associated with an increase in traffic:

“Cumulative impact”, in relation to an activity, means the past, current and reasonably foreseeable future impact of an activity, considered together with the impact of activities associated with that activity that in itself may not be significant, but may become significant when added to existing and reasonably foreseeable impacts eventuating from similar or diverse activities”.

Assessment of Potential Cumulative Impacts Page 293 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

The cumulative impact associated with an increase in traffic on existing routes are considered to be negligible. The cumulative impact of other REIPPPP in the area (Gouda Wind Farm and Hopefield Wind Farm considered) will only have a noticeable impact if the construction timelines as well as components, manufacturing centre, importation ports, etc. are exactly aligned, which is unlikely as the majority in the immediate area are already completed. Even in that case, the impact still be considered as negligible.

9.3.9 Cumulative Noise Impacts

Cumulative noise impacts generally only occur when noise sources (such as other wind turbines) are closer than 2 000m from each other (around 1 000m from the conceptual receptor located between them). The cumulative impact also only affects the area between the wind turbines of the various wind farms. If the wind turbines of one wind farm are further than 2 000m from the wind turbines of the other wind farm, the magnitude (and subsequently the significance) of the cumulative noise impact is reduced. If the distance between the wind turbines of two wind farms are further than 4 000m, as is the case in this instance, cumulative noise impacts are non-existent.

Nature: Various wind turbines operating simultaneously within the Hartebeest Wind Farm as well as the surrounding wind energy facilities. Overall impact of the Cumulative impact of the proposed project considered project and other projects in isolation within the area Extent Local to Regional (3) Local to Regional (3) Duration Long-term (4) Long-term (4) Magnitude Minor (2) Minor (2) Probability Improbable (2) Improbable (2) Significance Low (18) Low (18) Status Negative Negative Reversibility High Reversibility High Reversibility Irreplaceable loss of There will be no irreplaceable There will be no irreplaceable resources loss. loss. Can impacts be mitigated Not required. Mitigation: Not required.

9.4. Contribution of the Hartebeest Wind Farm to Climate Change mitigation

South Africa is a country with an economy dependent on coal for the majority of its electricity, an energy-intensive industrial sector and an energy sector responsible for 82% of total GHG emissions, making it the 12th highest world emitter of GHG22.

22 Greenhouse Gas Inventory for South Africa: 2000-2010

Assessment of Potential Cumulative Impacts Page 294 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

It has been reported internationally that the move towards renewable energy for electricity generation needs has resulted in decreased greenhouse gas emissions. The International Energy Agency announced in March 2015 that 2014 carbon dioxide emissions from the energy sector levelled off for the first time in 40 years without being linked to an economic downturn. This was attributed to the increase in the use of renewable energy sources by China and OECD countries23. As GHG emissions associated with the provision of energy services are a major cause of climate change, the move to renewable energy and subsequent reduction in CO2 emissions is considered as a positive and necessary contribution towards climate change mitigation.

The South African Government recognises the need to diversify the mix of energy generation technologies within the country and to reduce the country’s reliance on fossil fuels which contribute towards climate change and are therefore not environmentally friendly. This is in accordance with the prescriptions of the United Nations Convention on Climate Change 1994 (UNFCCC) and the associated Paris Agreement of 2015.

Consequently, the South African Government has recognised the need to move towards cleaner energy and has therefore set targets for cleaner energy technologies (including 17GW renewable energy contribution to new power generation capacity) by 2030 (IRP, 2010). This is to be produced from wind, solar, biomass, gas and small-scale hydro facilities. Renewable energy plays a key role in mitigating global greenhouse gas emissions by radically lowering the emissions profile of the global energy system (International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), 2015). The proposed Hartebeest

Wind Farm will assist in reducing the country’s CO2 emissions associated with energy supply relative to fossil fuels (e.g. coal). Development of numerous such facilities will have a cumulative positive impact on CO2 emissions as this will reduce reliance on power generation from fossil fuels. This will aid the country in meeting the commitments made under the COP 21 Agreement, to which the Government is a signatory.

This is considered to be a significant positive impact for the environment and society at an international level.

9.5. Conclusion regarding Cumulative Impacts

23 http://ecowatch.com/2015/03/23/renewables-mitigate-climate-change/

Assessment of Potential Cumulative Impacts Page 295 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017 facilities within the region on the basis of current and best available information, with precautionary assumptions taken into account.

The alignment of renewable energy developments with the IRP and the global drive to move away from the use of non-renewable energy resources and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is undoubtedly positive. The economic benefits of renewable energy developments at a local, regional and national level have proven to be significant through the construction and development of Round 1 – 3 REIPPP Programme projects. However, there is a lack of understanding of the cumulative impacts on other environmental and social receptors such as birds and bats, visual amenity and landscape character of the affected areas.

Considering the findings of the specialist assessments undertaken for the project, the cumulative impacts for the proposed Hartebeest Wind Farm are considered to be acceptable, without any unacceptable loss or risks and the majority are rated as being of moderate to low significance.

Table 9.2 provides a summary of the assessed cumulative impacts associated with the proposed wind energy facility on the identified project site and other wind energy projects within a 30km radius of the site.

Table 9.2: Summary of the cumulative impact significance for the Hartebeest Wind Farm Specialist assessment Cumulative Impact Cumulative Impact Significance (proposed Significance (proposed project in isolation) project and other projects) Ecology Low Low Avifauna Moderate Moderate Bats Moderate Moderate Freshwater Low Low Heritage Low Low Soils, land use, land capability Low Moderate and agricultural potential Visual intrusion High to Moderate to Low High to Moderate to Low (depending on proximity of (depending on proximity of the receptor to the facility) the receptor to the facility) Socio-Economic Negative – Medium Negative – Medium Positive - Medium Positive - High Noise Low Low

The role of the cumulative assessment is to test if such impacts are relevant to the Hartebeest Wind Farm in the proposed location. The cumulative assessments undertaken for ecology, avifauna, bats, freshwater, soils, archaeology, visual, noise and social concluded that the development of the Hartebeest Wind Farm and other proposed

Assessment of Potential Cumulative Impacts Page 296 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017 wind energy facilities in the region are acceptable and will not result in an unacceptable loss or risk or an increase of the impacts. The following can be concluded considering the Hartebeest Wind Farm:

» Unacceptable loss of threatened or protected vegetation types or species through clearing, resulting in an impact on the conservation status of such flora or ecological functioning: The construction of the project will not result in any clearing of threatened or protected plant species nor will it have an impact on the CBA and ESA areas. The proposed development is acceptable from an ecological perspective. » Unacceptable risk to avifauna through loss of habitat, infringement on breeding areas, or risk to collision-prone species. The construction of the project together with other projects proposed in the area will not result in an unacceptable risk to birds. The proposed development is considered acceptable from an avifaunal perspective, and has been supported through pre-construction monitoring. » Unacceptable risk to bats through loss of habitat, infringement on roosting or breeding areas, or risk to collision-prone species: The construction of the project together with other projects proposed in the area will not result in an unacceptable risk to bats. The proposed development is considered acceptable from a bat perspective and has been supported by pre-construction monitoring. » Unacceptable risk to aquatic habitat, modification to flow and water quality resulting from the Hartebeest Wind Farm and other wind energy facilities in the greater area. The construction of the project together with other projects in the area will not result in an increased risk to aquatic habitat, modification to flow and water quality. The proposed development is considered acceptable from a surface water perspective. » The development will not significantly increase the negative impact on the social environment when considered together with other similar developments in the area. However, an increase in positive impacts, specifically as a result of job creation and socio-economic benefits, can be expected. » The proposed wind farm will increase the influence of wind energy facilities in the regional landscape and transform the overall impression of the landscape as being influenced on an increasing scale. Due to distance between facilities and topography of the area, more than one wind farm is unlikely to be obvious to a viewer at any one time. Cumulative impacts are therefore expected to be limited. » The proposed development together with other projects in the area will not present an unacceptable loss of or impact to the soil and agricultural potential in the area. » Unacceptable loss of heritage resources: The construction of the project together with other projects in the area will not result in unacceptable loss of heritage resources, both cultural and paleontological. Impacts on the cultural landscape will be limited as a result of distances between facilities and local topography. The proposed development is considered acceptable from a heritage perspective. » The construction of the project together with other projects in the area will not result in the unacceptable increase in ambient noise levels, based on the distances between

Assessment of Potential Cumulative Impacts Page 297 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

facilities. The proposed development is considered acceptable from a noise perspective. » The development of the Hartebeest Wind Farm together with numerous such facilities will contribute towards a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from energy generation and will aid the country in meeting the commitments made under the COP 21 Agreement, to which the Government is a signatory.

Based on a detailed evaluation, the cumulative impacts associated with the construction and operation of the Hartebeest Wind Farm and other proposed renewable energy facilities in the region are considered to be acceptable. The low potential for cumulative impacts and risks makes the location of this project site a desirable location for further consideration provided that environmental impacts are mitigated to suitable standards by strict control and implementation of EMPr, as recommended within this final EIA Report. Therefore, the cumulative impact assessment contributes to the need and desirability of the project on a national, regional and local level.

Assessment of Potential Cumulative Impacts Page 298 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CHAPTER 10

Hartebeest Wind Farm (Pty) Ltd is proposing to establish a commercial wind energy facility and associated infrastructure on a site located approximately 4km south-south east of Moorreesburg in the Swartland Local Municipality of the Western Cape Province, and within the greater West Coast District Municipality. The proposed project (described as a wind energy facility or a wind farm) will include a maximum of 32 wind turbines with a maximum installed generation capacity of 160MW, and associated infrastructure to be constructed within an area of approximately 3288ha in extent. The project will constitute a development footprint 1.4% (permanent and temporary) of the total project site. The facility is proposed within the following farm portions:

» Farm Zwartfontein 414 • Portion 20, 21 and 23 • Remainder of Portion 8, 11, 12, 13, 17 and 18 » Farm Zwartfontein 416 • Portion 1 and 7 • Remainder of Portion 3 » Farm Hartebeestfontein 412 • Portion 2 and 6 » Portion 0 of Farm 1066 » Portion 1 of the Farm Tontelberg 424 » Portion 9 of the Farm Biesjesfontein 413

The Hartebeest Wind Farm site is proposed to accommodate the following infrastructure:

Conclusions and Recommendations Page 299 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

» Access roads to the site. » Temporary infrastructure including a concrete batching plant of 50m x 50m in extent to facilitate with the concrete requirements for turbine foundations and/or towers construction and laydown areas. » Workshop area / office for control, maintenance and storage, construction camp.

Hartebeest Wind Farm (Pty) Ltd has confirmed the proposed development site to be suitable for wind energy development from a technical perspective due to the quality of the prevailing wind resources (based on site data collected for more than a 12-month period using strategically placed 80m and 100m wind monitoring masts), access to the electricity grid, current land use, and land availability.

A summary of the recommendations and conclusions for the proposed project is provided in this Chapter.

10.1. Legal Requirements as per the EIA Regulations for the undertaking of an Environmental Impact Assessment Report, 2014

This chapter of the EIA report includes the following information required in terms of Appendix 3: Content of Environmental Impact Assessment Reports:

Requirement Relevant Section Page Reference 3(c) a plan which locates the Both layout alternatives and 318 and 319 proposed activity or activities power line alternatives for the applied for as well as the development of the associated structures and Hartebeest Wind Farm are infrastructure at an included as Figure 10.1 and appropriate scale, or, if it is a Figure 10.2. linear activity, a description and coordinates of the corridor in which the proposed activity or activities is to be undertaken. 3(k) where applicable, a A summary of the findings of 303 summary of the findings and the specialist reports are recommendations of any included within section 10.3. specialist report complying The recommendations made with Appendix 6 to these by the specialists are included Regulations and an indication in chapter 8. A summary of as to how these findings and the recommendations for the recommendations have been Hartebeest Wind Farm is included in the final included in section 10.8. assessment report. 3(h)(x) a concluding No preferred alternative 321 statement indicating the development locations within

Conclusions and Recommendations Page 300 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Requirement Relevant Section Page Reference preferred alternative the preferred project site have development location within been identified for the the approved site. Hartebeest Wind Farm. The reasoning behind the exclusion is included in Chapter 3. 3(l) an environmental impact An environmental impact 321 statement which contains (i) a statement (overall conclusion) summary of the key findings is included in section 10.7. A of the environmental impact summary of the key findings assessment, (ii) a map at an of the environmental impact appropriate scale which assessment is included in superimposes the proposed sections 10.3.1 – 10.3.10. A activity and its associated map superimposing the structures and infrastructure proposed activities and its on the environmental associated infrastructure on sensitivities of the preferred the environmental sensitivities site indicating any areas that of the preferred development should be avoided, including area indicating the area that buffers and (iii) a summary of should be avoided, including the positive and negative buffers are included in section impacts and risks of the 10.5, Figure 10.1 and Figure proposed activity and 10.2. A summary of the identified alternatives. positive and negative impacts and risks of the proposed activity and identified alternatives of the proposed Hartebeest Wind Farm is included in section 10.6. 3(n) the final proposed The final proposed alternatives 312 alternatives which respond to for the Hartebeest Wind Farm the impact management which responds to the impact measures, avoidance and management measures, mitigation measures identified avoidance and mitigation are through the assessment. included in section 10.4. 3(o) any aspects which were Conditions to be included in 325 conditional to the findings of the authorisation of the the assessment either by the Hartebeest Wind Farm are EAP or specialist which are to included in section 10.8. be included as conditions of authorisation. 3(q) a reasoned opinion as to A reasoned opinion as to 321 whether the proposed activity whether the Hartebeest Wind should or should not be Farm should receive authorised, and if the opinion authorisation and the is that it should be authorised, conditions that should form

Conclusions and Recommendations Page 301 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Requirement Relevant Section Page Reference any conditions that should be part of the authorisation is made in respect of that included in section 10.8. authorisation.

10.2. Assessment process

The EIA process for the proposed Hartebeest Wind Farm has been undertaken in accordance with the EIA Regulations of 2014, in terms of Section 24(5) of NEMA (Act No. 107 of 1998), and includes an assessment of the activities associated with the construction and operation of the wind energy facility. The EIA Phase aimed to achieve the following:

» Provide an overall assessment of the social and biophysical environments affected by the proposed development footprint as part of the project; » Assess potentially significant impacts (direct, indirect and cumulative, where required) associated with the proposed wind energy facility; » Identify and recommend appropriate mitigation measures for potentially significant environmental impacts; and » Undertake a fully inclusive public involvement process to ensure that I&APs are afforded the opportunity to participate, and that their issues and concerns are recorded.

An EIA process, as defined in the NEMA EIA Regulations, is a systematic process of identifying, assessing, and reporting environmental impacts associated with an activity. The EIA process forms part of the planning of a project and informs the final design of a development. In terms of the EIA Regulations published in terms of Section 24(5) of the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA, Act No. 107 of 1998), Hartebeest Wind Farm (Pty) Ltd requires authorisation from the National Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) for the construction of the Hartebeest Wind Farm. In terms of sections 24 and 24D of NEMA, as read with the EIA Regulations of R982, R983, R984 and R985, a Scoping and an EIA Phase have been undertaken for the proposed wind energy facility. As part of this EIA process comprehensive, independent environmental studies have been undertaken in accordance with the EIA Regulations. The following key phases have been undertaken in the EIA Process.

» Public Notification Phase - organs of state, stakeholders, and interested and affected parties (I&APs) were notified of the EIA process being undertaken for the proposed Hartebeest Wind Farm using adverts, site notices, and stakeholder letters. Details of registered parties have been included within an I&AP database for the project. » Scoping Phase – identification of potential issues associated with the proposed wind energy facility and environmental sensitivities (i.e. over the broader project site), as well as the extent of studies required within the EIA Phase were defined.

Conclusions and Recommendations Page 302 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

» EIA Phase – potentially significant biophysical and social impacts24 associated with the project and identified feasible alternatives have been comprehensively assessed through specialist investigations. Appropriate mitigation measures have been recommended and included within an Environmental Management Programme (EMPr) (refer to Appendix N).

The conclusions and recommendations of this EIA are the result of the assessment of identified impacts by specialists and a parallel public participation process.

10.3. Evaluation of the Proposed Project

The preceding chapters of this report together with the specialist studies contained within Appendices D-L provide a detailed assessment of the potential impacts that may result from the proposed wind energy facility. This chapter concludes the environmental assessment of the wind energy facility by providing a summary of the conclusions of the assessment of the proposed development area for the Hartebeest Wind Farm, including the power line alternatives and the layout alternatives considered for the turbines. In so doing, it draws on the information gathered as part of the EIA process and the knowledge gained by the environmental specialist consultants and presents an informed opinion of the environmental impacts associated with the proposed project.

From the conclusions of the detailed specialist studies undertaken no environmental fatal flaws were identified to be associated with the proposed wind energy facility provided that the recommended mitigation measures are implemented, specifically in terms of avoidance of impacts on remaining patches of natural vegetation as has been achieved in both layouts. Two turbine layout alternatives and two grid connection alternatives for the connection of the wind energy facility to the national grid have been assessed. Turbines from both layout alternatives considered for the development avoid all no-go areas. Therefore, it is concluded that the development footprint of both layout alternatives are suitable and appropriate from an environmental perspective for the development and will not have a detrimental impact on any sensitive features present.

The potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed wind energy facility identified at scoping, and assessed through the EIA phase include:

» Visual impacts on the area imposed by the components of the facility. » Impacts on ecology, flora and fauna. » Impacts on avifauna and bats. » Impacts on surface water and wetlands. » Impacts to soils and agricultural potential. » Impacts on heritage resources.

24 Direct, indirect, cumulative that may be either positive or negative.

Conclusions and Recommendations Page 303 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

» Social and economic impacts. » Traffic impacts, including increased pressure on the existing road network.

10.3.1 Impacts on Visual Quality of the area

The most significant impact associated with the proposed wind energy facility and associated infrastructure is the visual impact on the surrounding area imposed by the components of the facility. Visual impacts might include:

» General landscape change or degradation which might entail the introduction of elements that would modify the character of the landscape. Of all the Landscape Character Areas (LCAs) identified, the mountainous wilderness areas far to the north, east and south of the study area are the most important as these generally have a protected status. The simple and open character of the agricultural LCA in which the proposed site is located also has some importance due to its cohesive consistent nature and the fact that it provides a strong contrast with the adjacent mountainous zone. Due to distances between the wind energy facility and these mountainous areas, impacts are expected to be of low significance. » Change in specific views of identified visual receptors that might spoil the enjoyment of a view or restrict a current or potential use of the area. Identified receptors include: ∗ Area Receptors such as urban areas and the wilderness landscape to the northeast and south. Due to distances between the wind energy facility and these wilderness landscapes, as well as the topography of the area and nature of the urban areas, impacts are expected to be limited. ∗ Linear Receptors which include main routes through the area. It is likely that these routes will be mainly used by local people however, the N7 Cape to Namibia Route is used extensively by tourists. The R311 and R44 are also likely to carry a proportion of tourist traffic. From the studies undertaken, it is expected that visual impacts will be limited to short sections of these roads from where the wind farm may be visible. » Point Receptors that include isolated and small groups of homesteads that are generally associated with and located within the Agricultural Landscape that surrounds the proposed project site. As these receptors are located within close proximity to the development, impacts are expected to be of high significance.

Whilst the proposed Hartebeest Wind Farm will be visible over a wide area, topography will significantly modify its impact to the extent that high levels of impact may only be experienced in a relatively small area that is defined by surrounding ridgelines. The landscape of a large part of the likely highest impact area (within 4km of the development) has already been modified by development. Impacts on protected areas are low and are not likely to be highly obvious in most weather/lighting conditions. Whilst more than one wind farm may be visible from the same viewpoint, they will not

Conclusions and Recommendations Page 304 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017 be seen in the same view, and views will be at sufficient distance to ensure that the impact will not be high and possibly, not be obvious.

In terms of the preferred alternative (25 turbine or 32 turbine alternative), the 32 turbine alternative is likely to predominantly increase impacts over the 25 turbine alternative within the high impact zone. The difference between the alternatives is likely to be reduced with distance as smaller sections of the development are obvious due to the undulating topography. Therefore the preferred layout alternative is Layout Alternative 1 (25 turbines). The difference in visibility between power lines alternatives are low, and therefore there is no reason why one power line alternative should be preferred above the other.

10.3.2 Impacts on Ecology

The site is typical of the Swartland, with the majority of the area transformed for agriculture. Isolated remnants of the intact Renosterveld remain on shallow soils and steep slopes. The drainage lines within the area are badly degraded and the majority no longer have any remaining natural flanking vegetation or are invaded by alien plant species. Due to the high level of transformation that the Swartland Shale Renosterveld has experienced, it is classified as Critically Endangered and all remnants are considered to be irreplaceable and of exceptional sensitivity.

Overall and with the suggested mitigation measures implemented, the project site presents a highly contrasting sensitivity, with the transformed areas considered to be of generally low sensitivity, with little risk of significant ecological impact and the intact Renosterveld areas being considered essentially no-go areas of exceptional sensitivity. In terms of the layouts assessed for the facility, all infrastructure associated with the project is located within areas already disturbed through agricultural activities. No infrastructure is located within the intact remnants and no highly sensitive features are impacted upon by the development footprint. Therefore, impacts on ecology (vegetation and faunal habitats) are expected to be limited.

In terms of the preferred layout alternative (25 turbine or 32 turbine alternative), Layout Alternative 2 is likely to predominantly increase impacts over the 25 turbine alternative due to the larger area of disturbance associated with the construction of more turbines. In terms of the grid connection options, there is little to differentiate the two power line alternatives. Power Line Alternative 2 is considered the preferred alternative from an ecological perspective as it is shorter than Alternative 1. From a technical perspective, Power Line Alternative 1 is preferred and as there is little difference in impact on sensitive features between the two alternatives, Power Line Alternative 1 is considered an acceptable alternative and the development can proceed with Alternative 1 as the preferred alternative.

Conclusions and Recommendations Page 305 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

10.3.3 Impacts on Avifauna

Potential impacts on avifauna as a result of the proposed project include disturbance during construction and operation, displacement, loss of habitat and potential for collision with turbines and associated power line infrastructure.

Twenty eight bird species that are considered sensitive were confirmed at the project site and its surroundings. Ten of these species are especially sensitive due to their sensitive conservation status. These include: Greater Flamingo, Lesser Flamingo, Secretarybird, Verreaux’s Eagle, Martial Eagle, African Marsh Harrier, Black Harrier, Lanner Falcon, Blue Crane and Ludwig's Bustard. The most abundant bird species group recorded within the project site were ciconids, such as Western Cattle Egret, Hadeda Ibis or African Sacred Ibis; crows, such as Pied Crow or Cape Crow; and waterbirds such as Spur-winged and Egyptian Goose. Most of these species are not of conservation concern.

No turbines within either layout alternative considered are located within identified no go areas. Impacts associated with the proposed project have been reduced through the placement of infrastructure outside of identified sensitive areas on the site. Impacts can be further reduced through the implementation of other mitigation measures proposed within this EIA study. There are no fatal flaws associated with the development of Hartebeest Wind Farm and the development will not cause irreplaceable loss of bird biodiversity. The development of the Hartebeest Wind Farm and associated infrastructure is likely to have a moderate to low impact on the avifauna, specifically after mitigation, and as such, is considered to be acceptable.

Layout Alternative 1, with 25 turbines proposed, is recommended to be implemented as it is considered to present lower risks to bird communities in comparison to layout Alternative 2 (with 32 wind turbines proposed). An adequate monitoring of the impacts during the operational phase of the facility is recommended in order to supplement the completed pre-construction monitoring programmes’ understanding of the effects of subsequent phases of the project on the bird communities and prevent and/or mitigate any negative effects. The pre-construction bird monitoring programme spanned over a period of 16 months, as additional areas were considered for potential development after the 4 first months of monitoring. Thus, with the 16 month programme it is guaranteed that all areas have been covered for a period of at least 12 months.

Both power line alternatives are located near already existing power lines and will have a similar impact on the bird community within the area. Considering that none of the power line alternatives traverse an avifaunal no-go area, both options are considered to be feasible.

Conclusions and Recommendations Page 306 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

10.3.4 Impacts on Bats

Potential impacts on bats as a result of the proposed project include disturbance during construction and operation, displacement, loss of habitat, barotrauma and potential for collision with turbines and associated power line infrastructure.

The occurrence of 10 bat species and the potential occurrence of 8 additional species in the project site have been confirmed. Three of the species confirmed in the study area have high risk of collision with wind turbines due to their behaviour (Tadarida aegyptiaca, Sauromys petrophilus and Taphozous mauritianus). Although these three species are considered as “Least Concern”, their potential higher risk of collision is related with their foraging behaviour as open-air foragers, which increases the likelihood of individuals using the turbine blade swept area, therefore increasing the probability of collision.

There are no fatal flaws associated with the development of Hartebeest Wind Farm and the development will not cause irreplaceable loss of bat biodiversity. The development of the Hartebeest Wind Farm and associated infrastructure is likely to have a moderate to low impact on the avifauna, specifically after mitigation, and as such, is considered to be acceptable.

Layout Alternative 1, with 25 turbines proposed, is recommended to be implemented as it is considered to present lower risks to bat communities in comparison to layout Alternative 2 (with 32 wind turbines proposed). An adequate monitoring of the impacts during the operational phase of the facility is recommended in order to supplement the completed pre-construction monitoring programmes’ understanding of the effects of subsequent phases of the project on the bird communities and prevent and/or mitigate any negative effects. The bat pre-construction monitoring programme spanned over a period of 16 months, as additional areas were considered for potential development after the 4 first months of monitoring. Thus, with the 16 month programme it is guaranteed that all areas have been covered for a period of at least 12 months.

Both alternatives are situated very closely together and are proposed alongside already existing power lines. If Power Line Alternative 1 is shifted to avoid the no-go area (500m buffer for confirmed roost), there is no preference in terms of the two power line options being both acceptable.

Conclusions and Recommendations Page 307 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

10.3.5 Impacts on Surface Water

The habitat integrity of the rivers within the study area is generally in a moderately modified state, with the riparian habitat condition tending to be more degraded as a result of the surrounding land use activities that have modified the channel, removed indigenous vegetation and brought about the invasion of the riparian zone by exotic plants such as Port Jackson willows. The ecological importance and sensitivity of the rivers assessed is considered to be moderate to low.

Similarly, the valley bottom wetland areas, which are closely associated with the rivers in the study area, are considered to be in a moderately modified ecological state. The vernal pond identified on the site is largely natural to moderately modified. Both the vernal pool and the valley bottom wetland areas are considered to have a moderate ecological importance and sensitivity. The key services provided by the valley bottom wetland areas that should be maintained relate to flow regulation/flood attenuation and sediment trapping. These services are limited for the vernal pool due to the small size of the pool. However, it is considered important from a biodiversity point of view since it contains rare and critically endangered Cape Vernal Pools vegetation, rather than other ecological services. These wetland areas are also considered as being of biodiversity conservation value.

Land use in the area surrounding Moorreesburg consists of cultivated agriculture. Current land and water use impacts on the tributaries of the Berg River within the larger study area are of moderate significance. The nature of the proposed Hartebeest Wind Farm allows there to be minimal impact on the surface water features as the turbines can be placed far enough away from the freshwater features so as not to impact on them.

With the implementation of mitigation measures, the potential impacts of the proposed project, as well as the potential risk of degrading the current ecological condition of the aquatic features in the area, the impacts of the proposed project are considered to be of low significance. As such, there is no reason why the proposed activity cannot be approved.

The potential impact of the turbines for both alternatives is likely to be very similar and very low. The Layout Alternative 2 will however result in increased disturbance of the larger area and will require more new access roads. It could thus be expected that a slight increase in the potential impact to the freshwater ecosystems in the area would occur, that would be of a low significance. Overall, the preferred layout alternative will be Layout Alternative 1. Both of the proposed power line alternatives are acceptable. If Power Line Alternative 1 is realigned such that it is able to adequately span the wetland areas with the pylons for the line being placed outside of the delineated aquatic habitat,

Conclusions and Recommendations Page 308 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017 this line would have a lesser potential freshwater impact and equivalent to that of Alternative 2 and is therefore the preferred power line alternative.

10.3.6 Impacts on Soil and Agricultural Potential

A site of 3288ha was considered for the facility, the bulk of which would not suffer any level of disturbance as a result of the required activities on site and the limited extent of the facility footprint. In the worst-case scenario (considering the construction of 32 wind turbines), approximately 0.7% of the entire extent of the site can be anticipated to be permanently transformed for the development footprint of the proposed Hartebeest Wind Farm, while a further ~0.7% of the entire extent of the site can be anticipated to be temporarily disturbed to some extent during construction.

The overall impacts of the proposed Hartebeest Wind Farm on agriculture potential and soil conditions will be low, both locally and regionally. Soil types within the project site are of moderate to low capability due to limitations that reduce choice of plants or require special conservation practices, or both. The impacts for the construction and operation phase will be confined to the project site. Therefore, the Hartebeest Wind Farm will have a low significance impact on the agricultural potential of the area.

Layout Alternative 1 is the preferred alternative due to the high percentage of use of capability VI soils and lowest sensitivity. This alternative will also have the lowest impact on cultivating practices. Both power line alternatives follow the existing alignment westward along the Moorreesburg/Malmesbury dirt road. Power line Alternative 2 turn with the existing Misverstand/Moorreesburg 1 66kV overhead power line alignment south to the Moorreesburg substation through cultivated land. Alternative 1 continues past this junction until reaching the existing Moorreesburg/Withoogte 1 66kV overhead line where it turns south towards the substation. With the stretch from the road through the cultivated land, the area is excluded from cultivation and is in a process of rehabilitation and will be traversed. Alternative 1 will cover a smaller distance through this portion than Alternative 2. The impact is allocated to this stretch traversing the sensitive area. When run-off is obstructed by the construction of a service road, it intensifies the force of flood water up to such a point that the obstruction will be eroded away or alternative drainage lines are made. When mitigation is applied, the impact can be modified from a negative to a positive. The reasons being is that the structure acts as a weir, retaining silt and would rehabilitates the gully. From a soil and agricultural potential perspective, both alternatives are acceptable however Power Line Alternative 1 is preferred.

10.3.7 Impacts on Heritage Resources

Impacts on heritage sites associated with the proposed facility include disturbance and destruction of sites of significance and impacts on the rural landscape.

Conclusions and Recommendations Page 309 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

The project site has been transformed by agriculture for more than 2 centuries. In-situ archaeological resources are extremely sparse with only three recorded occurrences being located. Historical built environment within the project site is in poor condition, although there is evidence of farm werfs that contain vestigial historical fabric – stone or mud brick barns, kraals and abandoned structures. Indications are that most of the early farm residences have been demolished and rebuilt, or modernised beyond recognition. None of the built environment is of a grade that would be publically celebrated as heritage places therefore the impact of the wind energy facility on their heritage values is low. Given the shale substrate, isolated unmarked pre-colonial graves are very unlikely to occur. No farm cemeteries will be directly affected by the proposed Hartebeest Wind Farm.

The impact of wind turbines on the landscape from a heritage perspective is difficult to quantify as this is an aesthetic judgement. The visual impact will generally be high when experienced from farms within and close to the project site and outskirts of Moorreesburg. It is felt that of all landscape in South Africa the presence of wind turbines in the study area are compatible with the manicured and swept quality of the surrounds, meaning that although the turbines will be highly visible, the sense of change or diminishment of the significance of the landscape will not necessarily be negative in status. The landscape is considered worthy of grading at the lllB-C level. A grading is justified on the grounds that the landscape is typical of a particular region and has a certain amount of aesthetic appeal.

Given the generally low heritage sensitivity of the project site, the Hartebeest Wind Farm is acceptable from a heritage perspective. Both layout alternatives are acceptable from a heritage perspective. However, Layout Alternative 1 would be preferred from a visual perspective as a result of the lower number of turbines proposed. Impacts of the power line alternative routes to physical heritage are considered to be unlikely. Both proposed power line routes are acceptable from a heritage perspective.

10.3.8 Social and Economic Impacts

The development of the proposed Hartebeest Wind Farm will create employment and business opportunities for locals during both the construction and operational phase of the project. The establishment of a Community Trust will also benefit the local community. The enhancement measures listed in Appendix K should be implemented in order to maximise the potential benefits. The proposed development also represents an investment in clean, renewable energy infrastructure, which, given the challenges created by climate change, represents a positive social benefit for society as a whole.

With respect to the turbine layout alternatives, there are no material differences between the nature and significance of the social impacts associated with the construction and operational phase for the layout alternatives. Considering impacts on

Conclusions and Recommendations Page 310 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017 the sense of place and other visual impacts, Layout Alterative 1 is preferred. Both Power Line Alternative 1 and 2 are regarded as suitable options. The potential social impacts associated with both alternatives are likely to be low. Given that both alternatives share the bulk of their relatively short alignments, there is no social preferred alternative.

10.3.9 Noise Impacts

The Noise Impact Assessment (refer to Appendix L) used the noise emission characteristics a modern commercial utility-scale wind turbine. With the input data as used, this assessment indicated that the potential noise impact would be of a low significance during the construction phase, and the noise impact could be of medium significance for NSD03 and NSD28 during the operational phase. It was reported that the landowner of NSD03 and NSD28 confirmed that the properties will not be used for residential purposes. If these properties are not used for residential purposes, the significance of the noise impact will be reduced to a low significance.

There will be no difference in the significance of noise impacts for either of the layout alternatives and therefore, both layout alternatives are considered acceptable from a noise perspective, but there is a slight preference for Layout Alternative 2. The impacts of the power line alternative routes on noise sensitive receptors are considered to be low. Both proposed power line routes are acceptable from a noise perspective.

10.3.10 Assessment of Potential Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impacts and benefits on various environmental and social receptors will occur to varying degrees with the development of several renewable energy facilities in South Africa. The degree of significance of these cumulative impacts is difficult to predict without detailed studies based on more comprehensive data/information on each of the receptors and the site specific developments. The alignment of renewable energy developments with South Africa’s National Energy Response Plan and the global drive to move away from the use of non-renewable energy resources and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is undoubtedly positive. The economic benefits of renewable energy developments at a local, regional and national level have the potential to be significant.

The Hartebeest Wind Farm falls within an area which has become a node for renewable energy projects. Of the five projects that are proposed in the area, two of these are operational and one has been awarded preferred bidder status under REIPPP Programme – a) the Gouda Wind Farm (operational), located 22km south east of the project site; b) Hopefield Wind Farm (operational) located 21km north west of the site; c) Hopefield Small Wind Farm (preferred bidder) located 24km north west of the site, d) the 30MW Wind Farm near Gouda (authorised) located 22km south east of the project site; and e) Zen Wind Farm (authorised) located 17km south east of the project site. The cumulative

Conclusions and Recommendations Page 311 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017 impacts for the proposed wind energy facility have been assessed to be acceptable, with no unacceptable loss or risk expected (refer to Table 10.1).

Table 10.1: Summary of the cumulative impact significance for the Hartebeest Wind Farm Specialist assessment Cumulative Impact Cumulative Impact Significance (proposed Significance (proposed project in isolation) project and other projects) Ecology Low Low Avifauna Moderate Moderate Bats Moderate Moderate Freshwater Low Low Heritage Low Low Soils, land use, land capability Low Moderate and agricultural potential Visual intrusion High to Moderate to Low High to Moderate to Low (depending on proximity of (depending on proximity of receptor to facility) receptor to facility) Socio-Economic Negative – Medium Negative – Medium Positive - Medium Positive - High Noise Low Low

Considering the findings of the specialist assessments undertaken for the project, the cumulative impacts for the proposed Hartebeest Wind Farm will be acceptable, without any unacceptable loss or risks, and the majority are rated as being of moderate to low significance and can be considered as both positive and negative. Implementation of recommended mitigation measures would assist in minimising negative impacts and enhancing positive impacts.

10.4. Comparison of Alternatives

10.4.1. Layout Alternatives

Two layout alternatives have been assessed for the Hartebeest Wind Farm and includes

» Alternative 1: 25 turbine layout; and » Alternative 2: 32 turbine layout.

In terms of the specialist studies undertaken, the following conclusions were made regarding the layout alternatives:

Conclusions and Recommendations Page 312 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Table 10.2: Layout alternatives and conclusions from specialist studies Aspect Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Ecology Acceptable – Most preferred Acceptable » Least turbines; will have the » Most turbines; will have a higher lowest impact on fauna impact on fauna » No turbines located within » No turbines located within Renosterveld patches Renosterveld patches Avifauna Acceptable – preferred Least preferred » Least turbines will have the lowest » Most turbines will have a higher collision risk collision risk » Less turbines are located within areas of medium sensitivity Bats Acceptable – most preferred Acceptable - least preferred » Least turbines » Most turbines. » Fewer turbines are located within » No turbines located within no-go areas of medium sensitivity. areas. » No turbines located within no-go areas. Surface Acceptable – most preferred Acceptable - least preferred Water » Least turbines; will have the » Length of access roads will be longer features lowest disturbance due to more turbines and will » Access roads are acceptable therefore have an increased disturbance » Section of access road located immediately upstream of a small seep » Slight increase in potential impact Heritage Acceptable – Most preferred Acceptable – least preferred » Alternative with the lower number » Alternative with the highest number of turbines of turbines Soil and Acceptable – most preferred Acceptable - least preferred Agricultural » Alternative with the lower number » Alternative with the highest number Potential of turbines of turbines » Lowest impact on cultivating practices » In areas with lowest cultivation potential and sensitivity Visual Acceptable – most preferred Acceptable – least preferred impacts » Fewer turbines will be visible » More turbines will be visible than » Limited landscape character Layout Alternative 1 benefits » Limited landscape character benefits Social Acceptable – most preferred Acceptable – least preferred » Fewer turbines will be visible. » More turbines will be visible than Layout Alternative 1. Noise Acceptable – slight preference Acceptable » Alternative with the lower number » Alternative with the highest number

Conclusions and Recommendations Page 313 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Aspect Alternative 1 Alternative 2 of turbines of turbines » Low noise impact » Low noise impact

On the basis of the above summary, Layout Alternative 1 (25 turbine layout) is nominated as the preferred alternative.

10.4.2. Power line Alternatives

For the Hartebeest Wind Farm to connect into the national grid two grid connection alternatives are being considered. These grid connection alternatives include:

In terms of the specialist studies undertaken, the following conclusions were made regarding the grid connection route alternatives:

Table 10.3: Grid connection route alternatives and conclusions from specialist studies. Aspect Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Ecology Acceptable Acceptable » Substation position avoids » Substation position avoids sensitive sensitive areas areas » Traverse minor drainage lines » Traverse minor drainage lines » Traverse a highly degraded lowland area. Avifauna Acceptable Acceptable » Adjacent to already existing power » Adjacent to already existing power lines. lines. » Do not cross any no-go areas. » Do not cross any no-go areas. Bats Acceptable Acceptable » Adjacent to already existing power » Adjacent to already existing power lines. lines. » Power line route is approximately » Power line route is the shortest 4km in length, at least 500m alternative. longer than Alternative 2. » If Power Line Alternative 1 is shifted to avoid the 500m confirmed roost buffer, there is no

Conclusions and Recommendations Page 314 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Aspect Alternative 1 Alternative 2 preference in terms of the two power line alternatives. Surface Acceptable – most preferred Acceptable – least preferred Water » Cross the wide valley bottom » Cross the wide valley bottom features wetland area and river channel wetland area and river channel associated with the Moorreespruit associated with the Moorreespruit Tributary Tributary » Would need to span ~100m over » Would need to span ~200m over watercourse and wetland. watercourse and wetland. » If realigned such that it is able to adequately span the wetland areas with the pylons for the line being placed outside of the delineated aquatic habitat, this line would have a lesser potential freshwater impact and equivalent to that of Alternative 2. Heritage Acceptable Acceptable » Power line route is 4km, at least » Power line route is acceptable 500m longer than Alternative 2 » No significant heritage finds. » No significant heritage finds. Soil and Acceptable – most preferred Acceptable – least preferred Agricultural » Alternative traverses a smaller » Alternative traverses a larger section Potential section of the wetland than of the wetland than Alternative Alternative » More run-off » Less run-off Visual Acceptable Acceptable impacts » Substation position avoids » Substation position avoids sensitive sensitive areas areas » Power line route is acceptable » Power line route is acceptable » Located in close proximity to » Located in close proximity to existing existing power infrastructure power infrastructure Social Acceptable Acceptable » Substation position avoids » Substation position avoids sensitive sensitive areas. areas. » Power line route is acceptable. » Power line route is acceptable. » Located in close proximity to » Located in close proximity to existing existing power infrastructure power infrastructure. » Length of the power line: ~4km (longest power line alternative). Noise Acceptable Acceptable » Further than 300m from any » Further than 300m from any potential noise-sensitive potential noise-sensitive receptors. receptors. » Potential noise impact will be low » Potential noise impact will be low

Conclusions and Recommendations Page 315 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

The majority of specialist studies indicate that both power line alternatives is acceptable, with Power line Alternative 1 being the preferred alternative in terms of soil and agricultural potential as well as from a surface water perspective. On the basis of the above summaries, Power line Alternative 1 (a connection to the existing Moorreesburg 132/66kV substation at 132kV via a 132 kV power line) is nominated as the preferred alternative. This is largely due to this alternative being acceptable to all specialist studies and will have the least impact on the environment and most feasible from a technical perspective.

10.5. Environmental Sensitivity Mapping

From the specialist investigations undertaken for the proposed Hartebeest Wind Farm, the following sensitive areas/environmental features have been identified (refer to Figure 10.1 and Figure 10.2 and Appendix Q):

» Ecology: The majority of the project site comprises transformed habitats of low sensitivity. There are however some significant remnant patches of Swartland Shale Renosterveld at the site. This vegetation type is classified as Critically Endangered. Furthermore, the large Renosterveld remnant present at the site has been identified as being part of a priority Renosterveld cluster with regional significance for biodiversity pattern and process. Almost 70 species of high conservation concern and 33 species of moderate concern, highlights the botanical sensitivity of the area. It is highly likely that some listed species occur at the site within the remaining natural Renosterveld fragments. These areas are regarded as no-go areas.

» Bird Habitat and Sensitive Areas: • Areas of natural vegetation are restricted to hills and slopes and are frequently used by raptors. The natural vegetation represents important habitat for sensitive, endangered species, such as the Black Harrier. These areas must be considered as no-go areas and no turbines are to be placed in these areas. • A 300m buffer around hills and slopes dominated by natural vegetation is considered as being of medium sensitivity. These areas still provide adequate habitat to ensure the persistence of many bird species by providing areas for foraging, refuge and potentially nesting. It is recommended that additional mitigation must be implemented. • A 300m buffer around water bodies, as these features may attract birds under certain conditions and are the only places were certain sensitive species such as Greater and Lesser Flamingos were observed. These areas must be avoided and are considered no-go areas. • A 500m buffer around the water body identified on Portion 2 of the Farm Hartebeestfontein 412, because it is the water body were the highest number of bird contacts were recorded and were the Greater Flamingos were observed must also be considered as a no-go area and no turbines are to be sited in this area.

Conclusions and Recommendations Page 316 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

• A 500m buffer around the active Jackal Buzzard nests identified on site must be applied. The 500m buffer should be considered as being a no-go area. • The 500m – 100m buffer around the active Jackal Buzzard nests are considered to be of medium to high sensitivity. If turbines are to be placed within these buffer areas, additional mitigation must be implemented.

» Bat Habitat and Sensitive Areas: • Confirmed roosts (permanent or seasonal roosts) where 1 to 50 Least Concern Bats were found. A 500m buffer around these areas should be implemented and considered as no-go areas. No turbines should be placed within 500m of these areas. Associated infrastructure may be built within the 500m buffer. • The confirmed roost identified within the Remaining Extent of Portion 11 of Farm Zwartfontein 414 will be completely closed off for bat utilisation, as per developer communication on the 14-12-2016. For this reason, from the date this roost is closed off, the 500m buffer will not apply.

» Surface Water features: • A buffer of at least 100m should be maintained adjacent to the river in which valley bottom wetlands occur as well as adjacent to the vernal pool (as measured from the outer edge of the wetland areas). This buffer should be considered as a no-go area for turbines and their associated infrastructure. • A buffer of at least 50m is recommended for the smaller drainage lines and is considered to be a no-go area for turbines and their associated infrastructure.

» Noise Sensitive Developments (NSDs): Noise sensitive developments do occur in and around the site and may be impacted by the proposed development where turbines are located within 1000m thereof (dependent on the final layout).

Conclusions and Recommendations Page 317 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Figure 10.1: Layout Alternative 1 considered through the EIA overlain on the identified environmental sensitivity map (refer to Appendix Q for A3 map).

Conclusions and Recommendations Page 318 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Figure 10.2: Layout Alternative 2 considered through the EIA overlain on the identified environmental sensitivity map (refer to Appendix Q for A3 map).

Conclusions and Recommendations Page 319 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

10.6. Environmental Costs of the Project versus Benefits of the Project

Environmental (natural environment, economic and social) costs can be expected at a local and site level and are considered acceptable provided the mitigation measures as outlined in the EIA report and the EMPr are adhered to. These could include

» Loss of biodiversity, flora and fauna due to the clearing of land for the construction and utilisation of land for the wind energy facility. The cost of loss of biodiversity has been minimised/avoided through the careful location of the development to avoid key areas of sensitivity, especially the intact Renosterveld remnants. » Traffic impacts associated with the development of the Hartebeest Wind Farm which relate mainly to an increase in traffic. The proposed Hartebeest Wind Farm construction and future operations traffic volumes are low and can be accommodated on the affected road network with ease. » Visual impacts associated with the wind energy facility. Hartebeest Wind Farm will be visible over a wide area, topography will significantly modify its impact to the extent that high levels of impact may only be experienced in a relatively small area that is defined by surrounding ridgelines. The landscape of a large part of the likely highest impact area (within 4km of the development) has already been modified by other developments. » Change in land-use and loss of land available for cultivation and grazing on the development footprint. The cost in this regard is expected to be limited due to the limited development area of the facility (a total of 1.4% of the broader site), the limited (low to moderate) agricultural potential of the property and the fact that current agricultural activities can continue on the remainder of the property during construction and operation.

These costs are expected to occur at a local and site level and are considered acceptable provided the mitigation measures as outlined in the EIA report and EMPr are adhered to. No fatal flaws associated with the proposed project have been identified.

Benefits of the project include the following: » The project will result in important economic benefits at the local and regional scale through job creation, procurement of materials and provision of services and other associated downstream economic development. These will persist during the preconstruction, construction, operational and decommissioning phases of the project. » The use of water for a wind energy facility is fairly low compared to the levels of water used by coal-based technologies. » The project contributes towards the Provincial and Local goals for the development of renewable energy as outlined in the respective SDFs and IDPs. » The project serves to diversify the economy and electricity generation mix of South Africa by the addition of wind energy to the mix.

Conclusions and Recommendations Page 320 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

» South Africa’s per capita greenhouse gas emissions are amongst the highest in the world due to reliance on fossil fuels. The proposed project will contribute to South Africa achieving goals for implementation of renewable energy and sustaining a ‘green’ economy.

The benefits of the project are expected to occur at a national, regional and local level. As the costs to the environment at a site specific level have been largely limited through the appropriate placement of infrastructure on the site within lower sensitive areas, the expected benefits of the project are expected to partially offset the localised environmental costs of the project.

10.7. Overall Conclusion (Impact Statement)

The technical viability of establishing a wind energy facility with a net generating capacity of 160MW on a site located approximately 4km south-south east of Moorreesburg in the Swartland Local Municipality has been proposed by Hartebeest Wind Farm (Pty) Ltd. The positive implications of establishing the wind energy facility on the identified site include the following:

» The potential to harness and utilise wind energy resources within the Western Cape Province. » The wind energy facility will assist the South African government in reaching their set targets for renewable energy. » The wind energy facility will assist the South African government in the implementation of its renewable energy and job creation targets. » The wind energy facility will assist the district and local municipalities in reducing the level of unemployment through the creation of jobs and supporting local business in a Municipality with a 14.6% unemployment rate. » The National electricity grid in the Western Cape Province will benefit from the additional generated power. » Promotion of clean, renewable energy in South Africa » Creation of local employment, business opportunities and skills development for the surrounding communities including Moorreesburg.

The findings of the specialist studies undertaken within this EIA to assess both the benefits and potential negative impacts anticipated as a result of the proposed project conclude that there are no environmental fatal flaws that should prevent the proposed Hartebeest Wind Farm from proceeding, provided that the recommended mitigation and management measures are implemented. The significance levels of the majority of identified negative impacts have been reduced by consideration of the development footprint in relation to sensitivities identified. The power line route Alternative 1 traversed a section of the 500m confirmed bat roost buffer as well as a wide valley bottom wetland area near the Moorreesburg Substation. In order to

Conclusions and Recommendations Page 321 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017 minimise impacts on bats and aquatic habitat, Power Line Alternative 1 has been slightly realigned to avoid most of the identified valley bottom wetland near the Moorreesburg Substation and the 500m confirmed bat roost buffer. The turbine locations of the preferred layout alternative (i.e. Layout Alternative 1) avoids all no-go areas identified during the EIA process. The avoidance of areas of sensitivity by the optimised and preferred layout is illustrated in Figure 10.3 and Figure 10.4.

With reference to the information available at this planning approval stage in the project cycle, the confidence in the environmental assessment undertaken is regarded as acceptable provided all measures are taken to protect and preserve the surrounding environment, including intact Renosterveld fragments.

Conclusions and Recommendations Page 322 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Figure 10.3: Final preferred and optimised layout for the Hartebeest Wind Farm (A3 map included in Appendix Q).

Conclusions and Recommendations Page 323 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Figure 10.4: Final preferred and optimised layout for the Hartebeest Wind Farm overlain by the environmental sensitivities identified within the project site (A3 map included in Appendix Q).

Conclusions and Recommendations Page 324 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

10.8. Overall Recommendation

Based on the nature and extent of the proposed wind energy facility, the local level of disturbance predicted as a result of the construction and operation of the facility and associated infrastructure, the findings of the EIA, and the understanding of the significance level of potential environmental impacts, it is the opinion of the EIA project team that the impacts associated with the development of the Hartebeest Wind Farm can be mitigated to an acceptable level. In terms of this conclusion, the EIA project team support the decision for environmental authorisation.

The following infrastructure would be included within an authorisation issued for the project:

» A maximum of 25 wind turbines with a maximum generating capacity of 160MW • Turbine hub height: maximum of 130m • Concrete or steel towers • Turbine rotor diameter: maximum of 160m » Cabling between the turbines, to be laid underground where practical; » An on-site substation of 100m x 100m in extent to facilitate the connection between the wind energy facility and the electricity grid » Preferred grid connection: the preferred power line route for the connection to the national grid is Alternative 1, a connection to the existing Moorreesburg 132/66kV substation at 132kV via a 4km 132kV power line. » Access roads to the site. » Internal access roads to each turbine and to the on-site substation. » Temporary infrastructure including a concrete batching plant of 50m x 50m in extent to facilitate with the concrete requirements for turbine foundations and/or towers construction and laydown areas. » Workshop area / office for control, maintenance and storage, construction camp.

The following key conditions would be required to be included within an authorisation issued for the project:

» All mitigation measures detailed within this report as well as the specialist reports contained within Appendices D to L are to be implemented. » The Environmental Management Programme (EMPr) as contained within Appendix N of this report should form part of the contract with the Contractors appointed to construct and maintain the proposed wind energy facility, and will be used to ensure compliance with environmental specifications and

Conclusions and Recommendations Page 325 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

management measures. The implementation of this EMPr for all life cycle phases of the proposed project is considered key in achieving the appropriate environmental management standards as detailed for this project. » Following the final design of the facility, a revised layout must be submitted to DEA for review and approval prior to commencing with construction. No development is permitted within the identified no-go areas as detailed in Figure 10.4. » The final layout including roads and underground cables should be checked by an ecological specialist to confirm whether there are any areas where a preconstruction walk through is required. Permits from CapeNature will be required to relocate and/or disturb listed plant species. » In additional, an on-going monitoring programme should be established to detect and quantify any alien species. » During construction, unnecessary disturbance to habitats should be strictly controlled and the footprint of the impact should be kept to a minimum. » The construction phase should be accompanied by a Zoologist in order to identify any conflictive situations, namely active breeding nests in the immediate surroundings of the known nest locations. If the raptors and other large terrestrial sensitive species are detected breeding, mitigation measures (if necessary) should be discussed with the avifaunal specialist and implemented. » All power lines linking wind turbines to each other and to the internal substation should be buried. In cases where this is not feasible, lines must be fitted with bird flight diverters and bird flappers, which are especially visible at night and under low-light conditions. Eskom-approved bird friendly pole structures should be used. » Establish an on-going monitoring programme to detect, quantify and manage any alien plant species that may become established as a result of disturbance. » Bird and bat monitoring programmes, in line with the latest version of the South African best practice bird and bat monitoring guidelines, should be commissioned during the construction and operational phase to further understand impacts of the project on bird and bats. » Due to the closing down of a roost situated on the Remaining Extent of Portion 11 of the Farm Zwartfontein 414, it is recommended that an alternative roosting location is built, or an existing suitable roosting location is recovered and improved in terms of increasing its suitability for bat utilisation as a roost. » Any new road crossings through the watercourses should cross perpendicular to the channels and should not impede or concentrate flow in the channels. An ongoing and long-term monitoring and management of aquatic features should be implemented to prevent the impacts of erosion and invasive alien vegetation growth.

Conclusions and Recommendations Page 326 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

» Disturbed areas should be kept to a minimum and rehabilitated as quickly as possible. » Adequate stormwater management measures to be put in place as the soils on the site are prone to erosion. » Implement site specific erosion and water control measures to prevent excessive surface runoff from the site (turbines and roads). » The final road alignments must be referred to the heritage consultant, and design mitigation proposed if necessary. No historical structures may be demolished without approval from Heritage Western Cape. » Ambient sound measurements prior to the construction and during the operation phase should be recorded at NSD04/NSD05, NSD11/NSD12, NSD14/NSD15 and NSD22 before the development of this facility using a methodology such as one defined by ETSU-R97. Additional measurements should be collected if a valid and reasonable noise complaint is registered relating to the operation of the facility additional noise monitoring should be conducted by an acoustic consultant during the noise measurement. Noise monitoring must be continued as long as noise complaints are registered. » Use of fire prevention and fire management strategies for the wind energy facility, to reduce risks to landowners. » Construction managers should be informed before construction starts on the possible types of heritage sites that may be encountered and the procedures to follow should they encounter subsurface heritage artefacts/ sites (as detailed in the EMPr). » Applications for all other relevant and required permits, if required, to be obtained by the developer must be submitted to the relevant regulating authorities. This includes permits for the transporting of all components (abnormal loads) to site, water use licencing for disturbance to any water courses/ drainage lines and, permit to remove heritage artefacts and/ disturbance of protected vegetation.

Conclusions and Recommendations Page 327 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

REFERENCES CHAPTER 11

Ecology Report

Alexander, G. & Marais, J. 2007. A Guide to the Reptiles of Southern Africa. Struik Nature, Cape Town.

Branch W.R. 1998. Field guide to snakes and other reptiles of southern Africa. Struik, Cape Town.

Du Preez, L. & Carruthers, V. 2009. A Complete Guide to the Frogs of Southern Africa. Struik Nature., Cape Town.

IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.2. . Downloaded on 19 January 2012.

Kirkwood, D., Pence, G.Q.K. & von Hase, A. 2010 Western Cape Biodiversity Framework: Critical Biodiversity Areas and Ecological Support Areas of the Western Cape. A C.A.P.E. Land-use planning project. Unpublished Project Report.

Marais, J. 2004. Complete Guide to the Snakes of Southern Africa. Struik Nature, Cape Town.

Nel, J.L., Murray, K.M., Maherry, A.M., Petersen, C.P., Roux, D.J., Driver, A., Hill, L., Van Deventer, H., Funke, N., Swartz, E.R., Smith-Adao, L.B., Mbona, N., Downsborough, L. and Nienaber, S. (2011). Technical Report for the National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas project. WRC Report No. K5/1801.

Mucina L. & Rutherford M.C. (eds) 2006. The Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Strelitzia 19. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.

Pence, G Q.K. 2014. Western Cape Biodiversity Framework 2014 Status Update: Critical Biodiversity Areas of the Western Cape. Unpublished CapeNature project report. Cape Town, South Africa.

Skinner, J.D. & Chimimba, C.T. 2005. The mammals of the Southern African Subregion. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Threatened Ecosystems in South Africa: Descriptions and Maps (available on BGIS website: http://bgis.sanbi.org.

Conclusions and Recommendations Page 328 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Von Hase, A. et al., 2003. A Fine-scale Conservation Plan for Cape Lowlands Renosterveld. Conservation Unit, Report 2/03. See Section 13. Botanical Society of SA, Cape Town. Available on http://bgis.sanbi.org.

Avifauna Report

APLIC. (2012) Reducing Avian Collisions with Power Lines. The State of the Art in 2012. Washintong, D.C.

Arnett, E.B. (2006) A Preliminary Evaluation on the Use of Dogs to Recover Bat Fatalities at Wind Energy Facilities. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 34, 1440–1445.

Arnett, E.B., Inkley, D.B., Johnson, D.H., Larkin, R.P., Manes, S., Manville, A.M., Mason, R., Morrison, M., Strickland, M.D. & Thresher, R. (2007) Impacts of Wind Energy Facilities on Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat. Bethesda, Maryland.

Atienza, J.C., Martín Fierro, I., Infante, O., Valls, J. & Domínguez, J. (2011) Directrices Para La Evaluación Del Impacto de Los Parques Eólicos En Aves Y Murciélagos (Vérsion 3.0). Madrid.

AWWI. (2015) Wind Turbine Interactions with Wildlife and Their Habitats: A Summary of Research Results and Priority Questions. (Updated May 2015). Washington, DC.

Band, W., Madders, M. & Whitfield, D.P. (2007) Developing field and analytical methods to assess avian collision risk at wind farms. Birds and wind farms: risk assessment and mitigation (eds M. de Lucas),, G.F.E. Janss), & M. Ferrer), pp. 259–275. Quercus, Madrid. Barrios, L. (1995) No Energía eólica y aves en el Campo de Gibraltar. La Garcilla, 93, 39–41.

Barrios, L. & Rodríguez, A. (2004) Behavioural and environmental correlates of soaring- bird mortality at on-shore wind turbines. Journal of Applied Ecology, 41, 72–81. Bernardino, J., Bispo, R., Costa, H. & Mascarenhas, M. (2013) Estimating bird and bat fatality at wind farms: a practical overview of estimators, their assumptions and limitations. New Zealand Journal of Zoology, 40, 63–74.

Bibby, C.J., Burgess, N.D., Hill, D.A. & Mustoe, H. (2000) Bird Census Techniques. Academic Press, London.

Bio3. (2009) Parque Eólico Do Caramulo. Monitorização Da População de Tartaranhão- Caçador (Circus Pygargus). Relatório Final (Fase de Exploração - Ano 2008). Almada.

Conclusions and Recommendations Page 329 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

BirdLife International. (2014a) Species factsheet: Greater Flamingo, http://www.birdlife.org

BirdLife International. (2014b) Species factsheet: Sagittarius serpentarius, http://www.birdlife.org

BirdLife International. (2014c) Species factsheet: Circus ranivorus, http://www.birdlife.org

BirdLife International. (2014d) Species factsheet: Anthropoides paradiseus, http://www.birdlife.org

BirdLife South Africa & EWT. (2012) BirdLife South Africa and Endangered Wildlife Trust recommended conditions of approval for all wind energy facilities to monitor and reduce potential impacts on avifauna. , 4.

Buckland, S.T., Anderson, D.R., Burnham, K.P. & Laake, J.L. (1993) Distance Sampling. Estimating Abundance of Biological Populations. Chapman and Hall, London.

Calvert, A.M., Bishop, C.A., Elliot, R.D., Krebs, E.A., Kydd, T.M., Machtans, C.S. & Robertson, G.J. (2013) A synthesis of human-related avian mortality in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology, 8, 11.

Christensen, T.K., Hounisen, J.P., Clausager, I. & Petersen, I.K. (2004) Visual and Radar Observations of Birds in Relation to Collision Risk at the Horns Rev. Offshore Wind Farm. Annual Status Report 2003. Rønde, Denmark.

DEA. (2016) Renewable Energy EIA Applications Map. Third Quarter 2016, http://egis.environment.gov.za

Desholm, M., Fox, A.D., Beasley, P.D.L. & Kahlert, J. (2006) Remote techniques for counting and estimating the number of bird-wind turbine collisions at sea: a review. Ibis, 148, 76–89.

Doty, A. & Martin, A. (2013) Assessment of bat and avian mortality at a pilot wind turbine at Coega, Port Elizabeth, Eastern Cape, South Africa. New Zealand Journal of Zoology, 40, 75–80.

Drewitt, A.L. & Langston, R.H.W. (2006) Assessing the impacts of wind farms on birds. Ibis, 148, 29–42.

European Commision. (2010) Wind Energy Developments and Natura 2000.

Conclusions and Recommendations Page 330 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Ferrer, M., De Lucas, M., Janss, G.F.E., Casado, E., Munoz, A.R., Bechard, M.J. & Calabuig, C.P. (2012) Weak relationship between risk assessment studies and recorded mortality in wind farms. Journal of Applied Ecology, 49, 38–46.

Gsänger, S. & Pitteloud, J.D. (2013) Annual Report 2012. Bonn.

Harrison, J.A., Allan, D.G., Underhill, L.G., Herremans, M., Tree, A.J., Parker, V.. & Brown, C.J. (eds). (1997) The Atlas of Southern African Birds. BirdLife South Africa, Johannesburg.

Hockey, P.A.R., Dean, W.R.J. & Ryan, P.G. (eds). (2005) Roberts – Birds of Southern Africa. The Trustees of the John Voelcker Bird Book Fund, Cape Town.

Homan, H.J., Linz, G. & Peer, B.D. (2001) Dogs increase recovery of passerine carcasses in dense vegetation. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 29, 292–296.

Hotker, H., Thomsen, K.-M. & Jeromin, H. (2006) Impacts on Biodiversity of Exploitation of Renewable Energy Sources : The Example of Birds and Bats - Facts, Gaps in Knowledge, Demands for Further Research, and Ornithological Guidelines for the Development of Renewable Energy Exploitation. Bergenhusen.

Hurlbert, S.H. (1984) Pseudoreplication and the Design of Ecological Field Experiments. Ecological Monographs, 54, 187–211.

IUCN. (2016) The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2015-4, http://www.iucnredlist.org

Janss, G. (2000) Bird Behavior In and Near a Wind Farm at Tarifa, Spain : Management Considerations.

Jenkins, A.R., Van Rooyen, C.S., Smallie, J.J., Anderson, M.D., Smit, H.A., Harrison, J.A. & Diamond, M. (2012) BirdLife South Africa / Endangered Wildlife Trust Best Practice Guidelines for Avian Monitoring and Impact Mitigation at Proposed Wind Energy Development Sites in Southern Africa.

Jenkins, A.R., van Rooyen, C.S., Smallie, J.J., Harrison, J.A., Diamond, M., Smit- Robinson, H.A. & Ralston, S. (2015) Best- Practice Guidelines for Assessing and Monitoring the Impact of Wind-Energy Facilities on Birds in Southern Africa.

Jenkins, A.R., Shaw, J.M., Smallie, J.J., Gibbons, B., Visagie, R. & Ryan, P.G. (2011) Estimating the impacts of power line collisions on Ludwig’s Bustards Neotis ludwigii. Bird Conservation International, 21, 303–310.

Conclusions and Recommendations Page 331 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Jordan, M. & Smallie, J. (2010) A Briefing Document on Best Practice for Pre- Construction Assessment of the Impacts of Onshore Wind Farms on Birds.

Lekuona, J.M. & Ursúa, C. (2007) Avian mortality in wind power plants of Navarra (northern Spain). Birds and wind farms: risk assessment and mitigation (eds M. de Lucas),, G. Janss), & M. Ferrer), pp. 177–192. Quercus, Madrid.

Loss, S.R., Will, T. & Marra, P.P. (2013) Estimates of bird collision mortality at wind facilities in the contiguous United States. Biological Conservation, 168, 201–209.

De Lucas, M., Ferrer, M. & Janss, G.F.E. (2012) Using wind tunnels to predict bird mortality in wind farms: the case of griffon vultures. PloS one, 7, e48092.

De Lucas, M., Janss, G.F.E. & Ferrer, M. (eds). (2008) Birds and Wind Farms: Risk Assessment and Mitigation. Quercus.

De Lucas, M., Janss, G.F.E., Whitfield, D.P. & Ferrer, M. (2008) Collision fatality of raptors in wind farms does not depend on raptor abundance. Journal of Applied Ecology, 45, 1695–1703.

Malan, G. (2009) Raptor Survey and Monitoring – a Field Guide for African Birds of Prey. Briza Publications, Pretoria, South Africa.

Martin, G.R. & Shaw, J.M. (2010) Bird collisions with power lines: Failing to see the way ahead? Biological Conservation, 143, 2695–2702.

Masden, E.A., Fox, A.D., Furness, R.W., Bullman, R. & Haydon, D.T. (2010) Cumulative impact assessments and bird/wind farm interactions: Developing a conceptual framework. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 30, 1–7.

May, R., Hamre, O., Vang, R. & Nygard, T. (2012) Evaluation of the DTBird Video- System at the Smøla Wind-Power Plant Behaviour. Detection Capabilities for Capturing near-Turbine Avian Behaviour. NINA Report 910, Trondheim.

Meine, C.D. & Archibald, G.W. (1996) Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan – the Cranes.

Mucina, L. & Rutherford, M.C. (eds). (2006) The Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.

Mukasa, A.D., Mutambatsere, E., Arvanitis, Y. & Triki, T. (2013) Development of Wind Energy in Africa. Belvédère.

Conclusions and Recommendations Page 332 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

NRC. (2007) Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy Projects. Washington, D.C., USA.

Orloff, S. & Flannery, A. (1992) Wind Turbine Effects on Avian Activity, Habitat Use and Mortality in Altamont Pass and Solano County Wind Resource Areas. California, USA.

Paula, J., Leal, M.C., Silva, M.J., Mascarenhas, R., Costa, H. & Mascarenhas, M. (2011) Dogs as a tool to improve bird-strike mortality estimates at wind farms. Journal for Nature Conservation, 19, 202–208.

Pearson, A. (2012) Moorreesburg Wind Energy Facility. Avifaunal Impact Assessment. Scoping Study.

R Development Core Team. (2012) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.

Ralph, C.J., Sauer, J.R. & Droege, S. (1995) Monitoring Bird Populations by Point Counts.

Retief, E.F., Diamond, M., Anderson, M.D., Smit, H.A., Jenkins, A., Brooks, M. & Simmons, R. (2012) Avian Wind Farm Sensitivity Map for South Africa. Criteria and Procedures Used.

SAWEA (2016). South Africa Wind Energy Association. http://www.sawea.org.za.

Savannah Environmental. (2013) Final Scoping Report for the Proposed Moorreesburg Wind Farm, near Moorreesburg, Western Cape Province (DEA Ref: 12/12/20/2200).

Shaw, J.M. (2013) Power Line Collisions in the Karoo: Conserving Ludwig’s Bustard. University of Cape Town.

Shaw, J.M., Jenkins, A.R., Ryan, P.G. & Smallie, J.J. (2010a) A preliminary survey of avian mortality on power lines in the Overberg, South Africa. Ostrich, 81, 109–113.

Shaw, J.M., Jenkins, A.R., Smallie, J.J. & Ryan, P.G. (2010b) Modelling power-line collision risk for the Blue Crane Anthropoides paradiseus in South Africa. Ibis, 152, 590– 599.

Smallie, J. (2015) Verreaux’s Eagle Aquila Verreauxii Wind Turbine Collision Fatalities. Short Note.

Smallie, J. (2016) Blue Crane Anthropoides Paradiseus Wind Turbine Collision Fatalities. Short Note.

Conclusions and Recommendations Page 333 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Smallwood, K.S. & Thelander, C.G. (2004) Developing Methods to Reduce Bird Mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Sacramento, California, USA.

SNH. (2009) Guidance on Methods for Monitoring Bird Populations at Onshore Wind Farms.

SNH. (2012) Assessing the Cumulative Impact of Onshore Wind Energy Developments.

Strickland, M.D., Arnett, E.B., Erickson, W.P., Johnson, D.H., Johnson, G.D., Morrison, M.L., Shaffer, J.A. & Warren-Hicks, W. (2011) Comprehensive Guide to Studying Wind Energy/Wildlife Interactions. Washington, D.C., USA.

Sutherland, W.J. (2006) Ecological Census Techniques: A Handbook. Cambridge University Press, New Jork.

Taylor, P.B., Navarro, R.A., Wren-Sargent, M., Harrison, J.A. & Kieswetter, S.L. (1999) TOTAL CWAC Report: Coordinated Waterbird Counts in South Africa, 1992-97. Cape Town.

Taylor, M.R., Peacock, F. & Wanless, R.M. (eds). (2015) The 2015 Eskom Red Data Book of Birds of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. BirdLife South Africa, Johannesburg, South Africa.

Thomson, S.K. (2012) Sampling, 3rd ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey.

USFWS. (2012) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines. Arlington.

Voltura, K. & Davenport, J. (2012) Advances In Avian Radars For Protecting Birds At Challenging Wind Energy Sites.

Voltura, K., Kelly., T.A., West, T., Smith, A., Lewis, J., Vidao, J. & Davenport, J. (2012) Roadmap for Mitigating Raptor Risk at Windfarms: Application of Advanced Avian Radar Technology.

Walker, L.J. & Johnston, J. (1999) Guidelines for the Assessment of Indirect and Cumulative Impacts as Well as Impact Interactions. Luxembourg.

Whitfield, D.P. & Madders, M. (2006) A Review of the Impacts of Wind Farms on Hen Harrier Circus Cyaneys and an Estimation of Collision Avoidance Rates. Natural Research Information Note 1 (Revised). Banchory, UK.

Conclusions and Recommendations Page 334 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Winkelman, J.E. (1992) The Impact of the Sep Wind Park near Oosterbierum, the Netherlands on Birds 3: Flight Behaviour during Daylight. Arnhem, the Netherlands.

Young, D.J., Harrison, J.., Navarro, R.A., Anderson, M.A. & Colahan, B.D. (eds). (2003) Big Birds on Farms: Mazda CAR Report 1993-2001. Avian Demography Unit, Cape Town.

Bat Report

ACR. (2012) African Chiroptera Report 2012 (ed AfricanBats). Pretoria, South Africa.

Arnett, E.B., Brown, W.K., Erickson, W.P., Fiedler, J.K., Hamilton, B.L., Henry, T.H., Jain, A., Johnson, G.D., Kerns, J., Koford, R.R., Nicholson, C.P., O’Connell, T.J., Piorkowski, M.D. & Tankersley, R.D. (2008) Patterns of Bat Fatalities at Wind Energy Facilities in North America. Journal of Wildlife Management, 72, 61–78.

Arnett, E.B., Huso, M.M.P., Schirmacher, M.R. & Hayes, J.P. (2011) Altering turbine speed reduces bat mortality at wind-energy facilities. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 9, 209–214.

Arnett, E.B., Johnson, G.D., Erickson, W.P. & Hein, C.D. (2013) A Synthesis of Operational Mitigation Studies to Reduce Bat Fatalities at Wind Energy Facilities in North America. A Report Submitted to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Austin, Texas, USA.

Aronson, J.B., Thomas, A.J. & Jordaan, S.L. (2013) Bat Fatality at a wind energy facility in the Western Cape, South Africa. African Bat Conservation News, 31, 9–12.

Atienza, J.C., Fierro, I.M., Infante, O., Valls, J. & Domínguez, J. (2011) Directrices Para La Evaluación Del Impacto de Los Parques Eólicos En Aves Y Murciélagos (versíon 3.0). Madrid.

Baerwald, E.F. & Barclay, R.M.R. (2009) Geographic variation in activity and fatality of migratory bats at wind energy facilities. Journal of Mammalogy, 90, 1341–1349.

Baerwald, E.F., D’Amours, G.H., Klug, B.J. & Barclay, R.M.R. (2008) Barotrauma is a significant cause of bat fatalities at wind turbines. Current biology : CB, 18, R695–6.

Barclay, R.M.R., Baerwald, E.F. & Gruver, J.C. (2007) Variation in bat and bird fatalities at wind energy facilities: assessing the effects of rotor size and tower height. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 85, 381–387.

Barrios, L. & Rodríguez, A. (2004) Behavioural and environmental correlates of soaring- bird mortality at on-shore wind turbines. Journal of Applied Ecology, 41, 72–81.

Conclusions and Recommendations Page 335 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Berthinussen, A., Richardson, O.C. & Altringham, J.D. (2014) Bat Conservation - Global Evidence for the Effects of Interventions. Synopses of Conservation Evidence. Volume 5, 1st ed. Pelagic Publishing, Exeter, UK.

Bolker, B.M., Brooks, M.E., Clark, C.J., Geange, S.W., Poulsen, J.R., Stevens, M.H.H. & White, J.-S.S. (2009) Generalized linear mixed models: a practical guide for ecology and evolution. Trends in ecology & evolution, 24, 127–35.

Brooks, R.T. (2009) Habitat-associated and temporal patterns of bat activity in a diverse forest landscape of southern New England, USA. Biodiversity and Conservation, 18, 529– 545.

Carrete, M., Sánchez-Zapata, J.A., Benítez, J.R., Lobón, M. & Donázar, J.A. (2009) Large scale risk-assessment of wind-farms on population viability of a globally endangered long-lived raptor. Biological Conservation, 142, 2954–2961.

Cleveland, C.J., Betke, M., Federico, P., Frank, J.D., Hallam, T.G., Horn, J., López Jr, J.D., Mccracken, G.F., Medellín, R.A., Moreno-Valdez, A., Sansone, C.G., Westbrook, J.K. & Kunz, T.H. (2006) Economic value of the pest control service provided by Brazilian free-tailed bats in south-central Texas. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 4, 238–243.

Cryan, P.M. & Barclay, R.M.R. (2009) Causes of bat fatalities at wind turbines: Hypothesis and predictions. Journal of Mammalogy, 90, 1330–1340.

CSIR. (2013) Renewable Energy EIA Application Mapping. Report Version 1.

DEA. (2016) Renewable Energy EIA Applications Map. First Quarter 2016

Doty, A.C. & Martin, A.P. (2013) Assessment of bat and avian mortality at a pilot wind turbine at Coega, Port Elizabeth, Eastern Cape, South Africa. New Zealand Journal of Zoology, 40, 75–80.

Drewitt, A.L. & Langston, R.H.W. (2006) Assessing the impacts of wind farms on birds. Ibis, 148, 29–42.

Drewitt, A.L. & Langston, R.H.W. (2008) Collision effects of wind-power generators and other obstacles on birds. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1134, 233–66.

Eichhorn, M. & Drechsler, M. (2010) Spatial Trade-Offs between Wind Power Production and Bird Collision Avoidance in Agricultural Landscapes. Ecology and Society, 15, 10.

Conclusions and Recommendations Page 336 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Erickson, W., Johnson, G., Young, D., Strickland, D., Rhett, G., Bourassa, M., Bay, K. & Sernka, K. (2002) Synthesis and Comparison of Baseline Avian and Bat Use, Raptor Nesting and Mortality Information from Proposed and Existing Wind Developments.

Erickson, J.L. & West, S.D. (2002) The Influence of Regional Climate and Nightly Weather Conditions on Activity Patterns of Insectivorous Bats. Acta Chiropterologica, 4, 17–24.

EUROBATS. (2013) Progress Report of the IWG on ‘Wind Turbines and Bat Populations’. 18th Meeting of the Advisory Committee. Sofia, Bulgaria.

European Commission. (2011) Wind Energy Developments and Natura 2000. Guidance Document. European Union, Luxembourg.

EWT. (2013) Bat Impact Desktop Study for Proposed Moorreesburg Wind Farm, Western Cape Province.

Fiedler, J.K. (2004) Assessment of Bat Mortality and Activity at Buffalo Mountain Windfarm, Eastern Tennessee. University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

Friedmann, Y. & Daly, B. (2004) Red Data Book of the Mammals of South Africa: A Conservation Assessment (eds CBSG Southern Africa, Conservation Breeding Specialist Group (SSC/IUCN), and Endangered Wildlife Trust (EWT) South Africa).

Gauteng & Northern Regions Bat Interest Group. Call parameters of some southern african bats.

Gsänger, S. & Pitteloud, J.D. (2013) Annual Report 2012. Bonn.

Hauge, K.B. (2010) Bat (Chiroptera) Activity and Community Composition in Contrasting Agricultural Landscapes and the Adjacent Budongo Forest Reserve, Uganda. University of Bergen.

Hayes, J.P. (2000) Assumptions and practical considerations in the design and interpretation of echolocation-monitoring studies. Acta chiropterologica, 2, 225–236.

Hein, C.D., Gruver, J. & Arnett, E.B. (2013) Relating Pre-Construction Bat Activity and Post-Construction Bat Fatality to Predict Risk at Wind Energy Facilities: A Synthesis. A Report Submitted to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Austin, Texas, USA.

Horn, J.W., Arnett, E.B. & Kunz, T.H. (2008) Behavioral Responses of Bats to Operating Wind Turbines. Journal of Wildlife Management, 72, 123–132.

Conclusions and Recommendations Page 337 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Hundt, L. (2012) Bat Surveys: Good Practice Guidelines, 2nd ed. Bat Conservation Trust.

IUCN. (2016) The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2016.1, http://www.iucnredlist.org

Kalka, M.B., Smith, A.R. & Kalko, E.K. V. (2008) Bats limit arthropods and herbivory in a tropical forest. Science, 320, 71.

Kikuchi, R. (2008) Adverse impacts of wind power generation on collision behaviour of birds and anti-predator behaviour of squirrels. Journal for Nature Conservation, 16, 44– 55.

Kopsinis, Y., Aboutanios, E., Waters, D.A. & McLaughlin, S. (2010) Time-frequency and advanced frequency estimation techniques for the investigation of bat echolocation calls. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 127, 1124–34.

Kunz, T.H., Arnett, E.B., Erickson, W.P., Hoar, A.R., Johnson, G.D., Larkin, R.P., Strickland, M.D., Thresher, R.W. & Tuttle, M.D. (2007) Ecological impacts of wind energy development on bats : questions, research needs, and hypotheses. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 5, 315–324.

Kunz, T.H., Braun de Torrez, E., Bauer, D., Lobova, T. & Fleming, T.H. (2011) Ecosystem services provided by bats. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1223, 1–38.

MacEwan, K. (2015) Wind Turbine Bat Impacts in SA: Findings from Operational Monitoring conducted by Inkululeko Wildlife Services. Windaba Conference

Madders, M. & Whitfield, D.P. (2006) Upland raptors and the assessment of wind farm impacts. Ibis, 148, 43–56.

Van Der Merwe, M. (1975) Preliminary Study on the Annual Movements of the Natal Clinging Bat. South African Journal of Scince, 71, 237–241.

Meyer, C.F.J., Schwarz, C.J. & Fahr, J. (2004) Activity patterns and habitat preferences of insectivorous bats in a West African forest-savanna mosaic. Journal of Tropical Ecology, 20, 397–407.

Monadjem, A., Taylor, P.J., Cotterill, F.P.D. (Woody) & Schoeman, M.C. (2010) Bats of Southern and Central Africa. A Biogeographic and Taxonomic Synthesis. Wits University Press, Johannesburg.

Mucina, L. & Rutherford, M.C. (2006) The Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.

Conclusions and Recommendations Page 338 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Murray, K.L., Britzke, E.R. & Robbins, L.W. (2001) Variation in Search Phase Calls of Bats. Journal of Mammalogy, 82, 728–737.

Nakagawa, S. & Schielzeth, H. (2013) A general and simple method for obtaining R 2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models (ed RB O’Hara). Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 4, 133–142.

O’Donnell, C. (2000) Influence of season, habitat, temperature, and invertebrate availability on nocturnal activity of the New Zealand long-tailed bat (Chalinolobus tuberculatus). New Zealand Journal of Zoology, 27, 207–221.

O’Hara, R.B. & Kotze, D.J. (2010) Do not log-transform count data. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 1, 118–122.

Obrist, M.K. (1995) Flexible bat echolocation: the influence of individual, habitat and conspecifics on sonar signal design. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 36, 207–219.

Pierce, M.W. (2012) Assessing Bat (Chiroptera) Diversity: Determinants of Assemblage and Ensemble Structure at Kwalata Game Ranch, Gauteng, South Africa. University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg.

Preatoni, D.G., Nodari, M., Chirichella, R., Tosi, G., Wauters, L.A. & Martinoli, A. (2005) Identifying Bats from time-expanded recordings of search calls: Comparing Classification methods. Journal of Wildlife Management, 69, 1601–1614.

R Core Team. (2014) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.

Rodrigues, L., Bach, L., Dubourg-Savage, M.-J., Goodwin, J. & Harbusch, C. (2008) Guidelines for Consideration of Bats in Wind Farm Projects. Bonn, Germany.

Savannah Environmental. (2013) Final Scoping Report for the Proposed Moorreesburg Wind Farm, near Moorreesburg, Western Cape Province (DEA Ref: 12/12/20/2200).

Schnitzler, H.-U. & Kalko, E.K. V. (2001) Echolocation by Insect-Eating Bats. BioScience, 51, 557–569.

SNH. (2012) Assessing the Cumulative Impact of Onshore Wind Energy Developments.

Sowler, S. & Stoffberg, S. (2012) South African Good Practice Guidelines for Surveying Bats in Wind Farm Developments.

Conclusions and Recommendations Page 339 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Sowler, S. & Stoffberg, S. (2014) South African Good Practice Guidelines for Surveying Bats at Wind Energy Facility Developments - Pre-Construction.

Sowler, S., Stoffberg, S., MacEwan, K., Aronson, J., Ramalho, R., Forssman, K. & Lötter, C. (2016) South African Good Practice Guidelines for Surveying Bats at Wind Energy Facility Developments - Pre-Construction: 4th Edition.

Taylor, P.J., Geiselman, C., Kabochi, P., Agwanda, B. & Turner, S. (2005) Intraspecific variation in the calls of some African bats (Order Chiroptera). Durban Natural Science Museum Novitates, 30, 24–37.

Thomas, D.W., Bell, G.P. & Fenton, M.B. (1987) Variation in Echolocation Call Frequencies Recorded From North American Vespertilionid Bats: A Cautionary Note. Journal of Mammalogy, 68, 842–847.

USFWS. (2012) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines.

Walters, C.L., Freeman, R., Collen, A., Dietz, C., Fenton, M.B., Jones, G., Obrist, M.K., Puechmaille, S.J., Sattler, T., Siemers, B.M., Parsons, S. & Jones, K.E. (2012) A continental-scale tool for acoustic identification of European bats (ed J Minderman). Journal of Applied Ecology, 49, 1064–1074.

Weller, T.J. & Baldwin, J.A. (2012) Using echolocation monitoring to model bat occupancy and inform mitigations at wind energy facilities. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 76, 619–631.

Hydrology (Surface Water) Report

Department of Water Affairs and Forestry. (1998). National Water Act. Act 36. South Africa.

Department of Water Affairs and Forestry. (1999a). Resource Directed Measures for Protection of Water Resources. Volume 4: Wetland Ecosystems Version 1.0. Resource Directed Measures for Protection of Water Resources, Pretoria, South Africa.

Department of Water Affairs and Forestry. (1999b). Resource Directed Measures for Protection of Water Resources. Volume 3: River Ecosystems Version 1.0. Resource Directed Measures for Protection of Water Resources, Pretoria, South Africa.

Conclusions and Recommendations Page 340 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Department of Water Affairs and Forestry. (2005a). A practical field procedure for identification and delineation of wetland and riparian areas. DWAF, Pretoria.

Department of Water Affairs and Forestry. (2005b). River Ecoclassification: Manual for Ecostatus Determination (Version 1). Water Research Commission Report Number KV 168/05. Pretoria.

Department of Water Affairs and Forestry. (2009). Government Gazette No. 32805. Impeding or Diverting the Flow of Water in a Watercourse [Section 21(c)] and Altering the Bed, Banks, Course or Characteristics of a Watercourse [Section 21(i)]. Pp66-71, Pretoria.

Driver, Nel, Snaddon, Murray, Roux, Hill. (2011). Implementation Manual for Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas. Draft Report for the Water Research Commission.

Ellis, F. (2009). Wetland soils variation in the Cape, Department of Soil Science, University of Stellenbosch, Elsenburg

Kotze, D., Marneweck, G.C., Batchelor, A.L., Lindley, D.S. And Collins, N.B. (2005). WET-EcoServices: A technique for rapidly assessing ecosystem services supplied by wetlands. Dept. Tourism, Environmental and Economic Affairs, Free State.

Macfarlane, D. M., Kotze, D. C., Ellery, W. N., Walters, D., Koopman, V., Goodman, P., et al. (2008). WETHealth: A technique for rapidly assessing wetland health. WRC report TT340/08. South Africa: WRC.

Marneweck, G.C. and Batchelor, A. (2002). Wetland inventory and classification. In: Ecological and economic evaluation of wetlands in the upper Olifants River catchment. (Palmer, R.W., Turpie, J., Marneweck, G.C and Batchelor (eds.). Water Research Commission Report No. 1162/1/02.

Middleton, B.J., Midgley, D.C and Pitman, W.V., (1990). Surface Water Resources of South Africa. WRC Report No 298/1.2/94.

Mucina, L. and Rutherford, M. C. (eds.) (2004) Vegetation map of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Strlitzia 18. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.

SANBI (2009). Further Development of a Proposed National Wetland Classification System for South Africa. Primary Project Report. Prepared by the Freshwater Consulting Group (FCG) for the South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI).SANBI Biodiversity GIS 2012. http://bgis.sanbi.org/capetown/bionetwork.asp

Conclusions and Recommendations Page 341 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Savanah Environmental. (2014). Environmental Impact Assessment Process: Revised Final Scoping Report: Proposed Moorreesburg Wind Farm near Moorreesburg in the Western Cape Province

River Health Programme (2004). State-of-Rivers Report: Berg River System

Van Ginkel, C. E., Glen, R. P., Gordon-Gray, K. D., Cilliers, C. J., Muasya, M. and P. P. van Deventer (2011) Easy identification of some South African wetland plants. WRC Report No TT 479/10

WRC. (2011). Atlas for Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas – Maps to support sustainable development of water resources (WRC Report No. TT 500/11).

Heritage Report

ACO 2009. Heritage impact assessment of the Hopefield Win Energy Facility, West Coast Disrict. Unpublished report prepared for Savannah Environmental (Pty) Ltd.

ACO 2010. Heritage Impact Assessment for the proposed Gouda wind energy facility, Tulbagh magisterial district, Western Cape. Unpublished report prepared for Savannah Environmental (Pty) Ltd.

ACO 2013. Heritage Impact Assessment for proposed Zen Wind Energy Facility, Tulbagh Magisterial District, Western Cape. Unpublished report for Savannah Environmental (Pty) Ltd.

ACO 2013. Heritage Impact assessment for the proposed Hopefield Community Wind Farm, Hopefield, West Coast. Unpublished report for Savannah Environmental (Pty) Ltd.

Athiros, G and L, Turner., M. 2011. Riebeeks Castle. Tokai: Historical Media.

Baumann, N. & Winter, S. 2005. Guideline for involving heritage specialists in EIA process. Edition 1. CSIR report No ENV-S-C 2005 053E. Provincial Government of the Western Cape: Department of Environmental Affairs and Developmental Planning. 1 Worden, N, Van Heyningen, E & V. Bickford-Smith, 1998: Cape Town: The Making of a City: an Illustrated Social History, D. Philip, South Africa.

Deacon, HJ. July 2007. St Dicks Aeroport. Proposal to develop a ‘Fly In Estate’ with runways, hangers and housing on parts of two farm properties, Nassau and Windhoek, 7 km south of Malmesbury, adjacent to the R302.

Conclusions and Recommendations Page 342 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Deacon, HJ. April 2008. Majuba Cattle Housing. Proposal to develop two sheds to house 1000 cattle and an evaporation pond for wastewater on the farm Majuba, 10 km outside Malmesbury.

Deacon, HJ. April 2008. Proposal to manage the clearing of the channel of the No Go River passing through the town of Moorreesburg to prevent flooding.

Fransen, H. 2004. A guide to the old buildings of the Cape. Cape Town: Jonathan Ball. Fransen, H. 2006. Old Towns and Villages of the Cape. Cape Town: Jonathan Ball. Halket, D. March 1995. Report On The Phase One Archaeological Investigation Of Aspects Of The Site Known As Die Bron In Malmesbury.

Halket, D. March 2009. An Assessment Of The Impacts On Heritage Of The Proposed Storm Water Detention Pond And Associated Infrastructure On The Farm Dassenberg (Farm No 15), Chatsworth.

Hart, T. June 2012. Heritage Baseline Study For The Proposed Expansion Of The N7 Between Philadephia (Km 26) And Leliefontein (Km 43). Malmesbury Magisterial District, Western Cape.

Hart, T.J.G. 1987. Porterville survey. In Parkington, J & Hall, M.J. eds. Papers in the Prehistory of the Western Cape, South Africa. Oxford: BAR International Series 332

Hart, T. August 2013. Heritage Baseline Study For The Proposed Upgrade Of The N7, Phase 3, (Lelliefontein – Abottsdale – Malmsbury- Hopefield Intersection).

Kaplan, J. July 2005. Phase 1 Archaeological Impact Assessment Proposed Development Of A Portion Of Farm 688 Malmesbury Western Cape Province.

Kaplan, J. August 2006. Phase 1 Archaeological Impact Assessment. Proposed Sand Mining on a Part of the Farm Olyvenhoek 818, Remainder Malmesbury Western Cape Province.

Kaplan, J. December 2006. Phase 1 Archaeological Impact Assessment. Proposed development Schoonspruit Country estate. Portion of erf 317, Protion of erf 7455 & Erf 882. Malmesbury. Western Cape Province.

Kaplan, J. January 2007. Phase 1 Archaeology Impact Assessment. Proposed Development. Portion 2 of Farm 690 and Remainder of the Farm Klipfontein 688 (Glen Lily) Malmesbury Western Cape Province.

Kaplan, J. June 2007. Phase 1 Archaeological Impact Assesment Proposed development Precinct 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6. Malmesbury Western Cape.

Conclusions and Recommendations Page 343 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Portion of erf 317, Portion of erf 7455, a Portion of Farm Oranje Fontein 113, Portion of farm 771 Rozenburg. Portion of Portion 1 of Farm 697 and a Portion of Portion 2 of Farm 695 Malmesbury.

Kaplan, J. May 2008. Phase 1 Archaeological Impact Assessment Proposed Elsana Quarry (Farm No. 701 Lange Kloof) Malmesbury Western Cape Province.

Molsbergen, 1916:45-62 & Mosop 1931: 6-11, in Rookmaker, L.C. Zoological Exploration of Southern Africa 1650-1790, Balkema, Rotterdam

Penn, N. 1987. The Frontier in the Western Cape, 1700-1740. In Parkington, J.E. & Hall, M. (eds). Papers in the Prehistory of the Western Cape, South Africa. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports International Series 332, 462-503.

Worden, N, Van Heyningen, E & V. Bickford-Smith, 1998: Cape Town: The Making of a City: An Illustrated Social History, D. Philip, South Africa.

Materials from the Surveyor Generals Office, Cape Town.

Soil and Agricultural Potential Report

Conservation Management Services for the Ostrich Industry Biodiversity Management. Veld Rehabilitation.

Fey M, 2010. Soils of South Africa. Cambridge University Press, Cape Town

Soil Classification Working Group, 1991. Soil Classification: A Taxonomic System for South Africa. Department of Agricultural Development, Pretoria.

Van der Watt H.v.H and Van Rooyen, T.H., 1995. A Glossary of Soil Science. Soil Science Society of South Africa, Pretoria. Blackwell, Oxford.

ARC-Institute for Soil, Climate and Water, 2002. Development and Application of a Land Capability Classification System for South Africa. Pretoria

ARC-Small Grain Institute, 2014. Guideline: Production of Small Grain in the Winter Rainfall area

DAFF, 2010. Wheat Production Guideline

Visual Report

Guidelines for involving visual and aesthetic specialists in EIA processes, Author; Bernard Oberhozer. Published by the Provincial Government of the Western Cape: Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning, 2005

Conclusions and Recommendations Page 344 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Guidelines for landscape and visual impact assessment (third edition), authors; the Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Assessment and Management, published by E & FN Spon, 2013.

Landscape Character Assessment, Guidance for England and Scotland, Department of Landscape University of Sheffield and Land Use Consultants, 2002. Methods of Environmental Impact Assessment, edited by; Peter Morris and Riki Therivel, Oxford Brookes University, UCL Press, 2000.

Photography and photomontage in landscape and visual impact assessment, Landscape Institute Advice Note 01/11, 2011.

Visual Assessment of Windfarms Best Practice. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report F01AA303A, University of Newcastle, 2002.

Visual Representation of Windfarms Good Practice Guidance, Report No: FO3 AA 308/2, horner & maclennan and Envision, 2006.

Visual Representation of Wind Farms, Scottish Natural Heritage, 2014.

A Visual Effects Assessment Guidebook for Wind Energy Developments in British Columbia, Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural resource Operations, 2016.

Visual Impact Assessment Guidebook, Second Edition. Province of British Colombia. January 2001

Update of UK Shadow Flicker Evidence Base. Department of Energy and climate Change. Parsons Brinkerhoff, March 2011

Wind Turbines and Health. American Wind Energy Association, 2010

Shadow Flicker Analysis for the University of Delaware. Sustainable Energy Developments, 2002

Shadow Hindrance by Wind Turbines. Proceedings of European Wind Energy Association, Verkuijlen E. & Westra C.A. 1984

Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy Projects, National Research Council, Washington, DC, 2007

Wind Turbines, Flicker, And Photosensitive Epilepsy, Graham Harding, 2008

Conclusions and Recommendations Page 345 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Public Health Impacts of Wind Turbines. Minnesota Department of Health, 2009

Wind Power and Human Health. Grand Valley State University (Michigan), 2010

Best Management Practices for Reducing Visual Impacts of Renewable Energy Facilities, United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 2013.

Social Report

Aitken, M., McDonald, S. & Strachan, P. (2008) Locating ‘ power’ in wind power planning processes: the (not so) influential role of local objectors, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 51(6), pp. 777–799;

Australian Environment Protection and Heritage Council (EPHC), National Wind Farm Development Guidelines DRAFT - July 2010;

Australian Health and Medical Research Council. Literature review of health impacts of wind farms (July 2010).

Braunholtz, S. (2003) Public Attitudes to Windfarms: A Survey of Local Residents in Scotland (Edinburgh: MORI Scotland for Scottish Executive Social Research);

Campbell, L. (2008) On-shore wind farms landscape visual and cumulative impacts – the SNH approach, in: C. A. Galbraith & J. M. Baxter (Eds) Energy and the Natural Heritage, pp. 195–203 (Edinburgh: TSO Scotland).

Growth Potential of Towns in the Western Cape (2004);

Guideline for the Management of Development on Mountains, Hills and Ridges in the Western Cape (2002);

Krohn, S. & Damborg, S. (1999). On public attitudes towards wind power,

Provincial Government Western Cape: Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (2009). Western Cape Provincial Spatial Development Framework.

Provincial Government Western Cape: Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (2008). Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan (Final Draft);

Provincial Government Western Cape: Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (2008). White Paper on Sustainable Energy for the Western Cape – Final Draft.

Conclusions and Recommendations Page 346 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Provincial Government Western Cape: Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (2007). Sustainable Energy Strategy and Programme of Action for the Western Cape.

Provincial Government Western Cape: Provincial Treasury (2006). Socio-economic profile: West Coast District Municipality.

Meyer, N. I. (2007) Learning from wind energy policy in the EU: lessons from Denmark, Sweden and Spain. European Environment, 17(5), pp. 347–362.

NFO System Three (2002) Investigation into the Potential Impact of Windfarms on Tourism in Scotland (Edinburgh: VisitScotland);

Nielsen, F. B. (2002) A formula for success in Denmark, in: M. J. Pasqualetti, P. Gipe & R. W. Righter (Eds) Wind Power in View: Energy Landscapes in a Crowded World, pp. 115–132 (San Diego, CA: Academic Press).

Pasqualetti,M. J., Gipe, P. & Righter, R. W. (2002) A landscape of power, in:M. J. Pasqualetti, P. Gipe & R. W. Righter (Eds) Wind Power in View: Energy Landscapes in a Crowded World, pp. 3–16 (San Diego, CA: Academic Press).

Penn, Nigel (2005). The Northern Frontier (Atens, Ohio: Ohio University Press).

Redlinger, R. Y., Andersen, P. D. & Morthorst, P. E. (2002) Wind Energy in the 21st Century: Economics, Policy, Technology and the Changing Electricity Industry (Basingstoke: Palgrave).

National Energy Act (2008);

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

The White Paper on Renewable Energy (November 2003);

Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) for South Africa (2010-2030);

The National Development Plan (2011);

New Growth Path Framework (2010);

National Infrastructure Plan (2012);

Conclusions and Recommendations Page 347 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Szarka, J. (2007) Wind Power in Europe: Politics, Business and Society (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan).

Swartland Integrated Development Plan (2007/2011) and review (2011/2012);

Warren, Charles R. and Birnie, Richard V.(2009) 'Re-powering Scotland: Wind Farms and the 'Energy or Environment?' Debate', Scottish Geographical Journal, 125: 2, 97 — 126;

Wolsink, M. (2007a) Planning of renewables schemes: deliberative and fair decision- making on landscape issues instead of reproachful accusations of non-cooperation, Energy Policy, 35(5), pp. 2692–2704.

Wolsink, M. (2007b) Wind power implementation: the nature of public attitudes: equity and fairness instead of ‘backyard motives’, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 11(6), pp. 1188–1207.

Western Cape Amended Zoning Scheme Regulations for the establishment of Commercial Renewable Energy Facilities (2011);

West Coast District Municipality (2010). West Coast District Municipality Integrated Development Plan 2010-2014.

Western Cape Amended Zoning Scheme Regulations for the establishment of Commercial Renewable Energy Facilities (2011);

Noise Report

Acoustics, 2008: A review of the use of different noise prediction models for wind farms and the effects of meteorology

Acoustics Bulletin, 2009: Prediction and assessment of wind turbine noise

Ambrose, SE and Rand, RW, 2011. The Bruce McPherson Infrasound and Low Frequency Noise Study: Adverse health effects produced by large industrial wind turbines confirmed. Rand Acoustics, December 14, 2011.

Audiology Today, 2010: Wind-Turbine Noise – What Audiologists should know

Autumn, Lyn Radle, 2007: The effect of noise on Wildlife: A literature review

Atkinson-Palombo, C and Hoen, B. 2014: Relationship between Wind Turbines and Residential Property Values in Massachusetts – A Joint Report of University of Connecticut and Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory. Boston, Massachusetts

Conclusions and Recommendations Page 348 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Bakker, RH et al. 2011: Effects of wind turbine sound on health and psychological distress. Science of the Total Environment (in press, 2012)

Bolin et al, 2011: Infrasound and low frequency noise from wind turbines: exposure and health effects. Environ. Res. Lett. 6 (2011) 035103

Bowdler, Dick, 2008: Amplitude modulation of wind turbine noise: a review of the evidence

Bray, W and James, R. 2011. Dynamic measurements of wind turbine acoustic signals, employing sound quality engineering methods considering the time and frequency sensitivities of human perception. Noise-Con 2011.

BWEA, 2005: Low Frequency Noise and Wind Turbines – Technical Annex

Chapman et al. 2013: Spatio-temporal differences in the history of health and noise complaints about Australian wind farms: evidence for the psychogenic, “communicated disease” hypothesis. Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney

Chief Medical Officer of Health, 2010: The Potential Health Impact of Wind Turbines, Canada

Cooper, 2012: Are Wind Farms too close to communities, The Acoustic Group (date posted on Wind-watch.org: Referenced on various anti-wind energy websites)

Crichton et al. 2014: Can expectations produce symptoms from infrasound associated with wind turbines?. Health Psychology, Vol 33(4), Apr 2014, 360-364

Cummings, J. 2012: Wind Farm Noise and Health: Lay summary of new research released in 2011. Acoustic Ecology Institute, April 2012 (online resource: http://www.acousticecology.org/wind/winddocs/AEI_WindFarmsHealthResearch2011.pdf ) Cummings, J. 2009: AEI Special Report: Wind Energy Noise Impacts. Acoustic Ecology Institute, (online resource: http://acousticecology.org/srwind.html)

DEFRA, 2003: A Review of Published Research on Low Frequency Noise and its Effects, Report for Defra by Dr Geoff Leventhall Assisted by Dr Peter Pelmear and Dr Stephen Benton

DEFRA, 2007: Research into Aerodynamic Modulation of Wind Turbine Noise: Final Report

Conclusions and Recommendations Page 349 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

DELTA, 2008: EFP-06 project: Low Frequency Noise from Large Wind Turbines, a procedure for evaluation of the audibility for low frequency sound and a literature study. Danish Energy Authority

Delta, 2014: Measurement of Noise Emission from a Vestas V117-3.3 MW-Mk2-IEC2A- 50Hz in Mode 0 wind turbine; serial no 201303, Performed for Vestas Wind Systems A/S. Delta, Denmark. Report ID. DANAK 100/1854 Rev 2.

Duncan, E. and Kaliski, K. 2008: Propagation Modelling Parameters for Wind Power Projects

Enercon GmbH, 2014: Sound Power Level of the ENNERCON E-115, Operational Mode 0 / OM 0 (Data Sheet). ENERCON GmbH, Germany. Doc. D0331018-3.doc, Rev. 1.2

Enertrag, 2008: Noise and Vibration. Hempnall Wind Farm (http://www.enertraguk.com/technical/noise-and-vibration.html)

ETSU R97: 1996. ‘The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms: Working Group on Noise from Wind Turbines’

Garrad Hassan, 2013: Summary of results of the noise emission measurement, in accordance with IEC 61400-11, of a WTGS of the type N117/3000. Doc. GLGH-4286 12 10220 258-S-0002-A (extract from GLGH-4286 12 10220 258-A-0002-A)

Gibbons, S. 2014: Gone with the Wind: Valuing the Visual Impacts of Wind turbines through House Prices, Spatial Economics Research Centre

Hanning, 2010: Wind Turbine Noise, Sleep and Health. (referenced on a few websites, especially anti-wind energy. No evidence that the study has been published formally.)

Havas, M and Colling, D. 2011: Wind Turbines Make Waves: Why Some Residents Near Wind Turbines Become Ill. Bulletin of Science Technology & Society published online 30 September 2011

Hessler, D. 2011: Best Practices Guidelines for Assessing Sound Emissions From Proposed Wind Farms and Measuring the Performance of Completed Projects. Prepared for the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, under the auspices of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC)

HGC Engineering, 2006: Wind Turbines and Infrasound, report to the Canadian Wind Energy Association

Conclusions and Recommendations Page 350 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

HGC Engineering, 2007: Wind Turbines and Sound, report to the Canadian Wind Energy Association

HGC Engineering, 2011: Low frequency noise and infrasound associated with wind turbine generator systems: A literature review. Ontario Ministry of the Environment RFP No. OSS-078696.

ISO 9613-2: 1996. ‘Acoustics – Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors – Part 2: General method of calculation’

Jeffery et al, 2013: Adverse health effects of industrial wind turbines, Can Fam Physician, 2013 May. 59(5): 473-475

Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 2009: Response to noise from modern wind farms in the Netherlands

Kamperman, GW. and James, RR, 2008: The “How to” guide to siting wind turbines to prevent health risks from sound

Knopper, LD and Ollsen, CA. 2011. Health effects and wind turbines: A review of the literature. Environmental Health 2011, 10:78

Kroesen and Schreckenberg, 2011. A measurement model for general noise reaction in response to aircraft noise. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 129 (1), January 2011, 200-210.

McMurtry, RY. 2011: Toward a Case Definition of Adverse Health Effects in the Environs of Industrial Wind Turbines: Facilitating a Clinical Diagnosis. Bulletin of Science Technology Society. August 2011 vol. 31 no. 4 316-320

Minnesota Department of Health, 2009: Public Health Impacts of Wind Farms

Ministry of the Environment, 2008: Noise Guidelines for Wind Farms, Interpretation for Applying MOE NPC Publications to Wind Power Generation Facilities

Møller, H. 2010: Low-frequency noise from large wind turbines. J. Acoust. Soc. Am, 129(6), June 2011, 3727 – 3744

Nissenbaum, A. 2012: Effects of industrial wind turbine noise on sleep and health. Noise and Health, Vol. 14, Issue 60, p 237 – 243.

Noise-con, 2008: Simple guidelines for siting wind turbines to prevent health risks

Conclusions and Recommendations Page 351 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Noise quest, Aviation Noise Information &Resources, 2010: http://www.noisequest.psu.edu/pmwiki.php?n=Main.HomePage

Norton, M.P. and Karczub, D.G.: Fundamentals of Noise and Vibration Analysis for Engineers, Second Edition, 2003

Oud, M. 2012:: Low-frequency noise: a biophysical phenomenon (http://www.leefmilieu.nl/sites/www3.leefmilieu.nl/files/imported/pdf_s/2012_OudM_Lo w-frequency%20noise_0.pdf) (unpublished webresource)

O'Neal, et al. 2011: Low frequency noise and infrasound from wind turbines. Noise Control Eng. J. 59 (2), March-April 2011.

Pedersen, Eja; Halmstad, Högskolan I, 2003: ‘Noise annoyance from wind turbines: a review’. Naturvårdsverket, Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Stockholm

Pedersen, E. 2011: Health aspects associated with wind turbine noise—Results from three field studies. Noise Control Eng. J. 59 (1), Jan-Feb 2011

Phillips, CV, 2011: Properly Interpreting the Epidemiologic Evidence About the Health Effects of Industrial Wind Turbines on Nearby Residents. Bulletin of Science Technology & Society 2011 31: 303 DOI: 10.1177/0270467611412554

Pierpont, N. 2009: Wind Turbine Syndrome: A Report on a Natural Experiment. K Select Books, 2009

Punch, et al. 2010: Wind Turbine Noise. What Audiologists should know. Audiology Today. JulAug2010

Renewable Energy Research Laboratory, 2006: Wind Turbine Acoustic Noise

Report to Congressional Requesters, 2005: Wind Power – Impacts on Wildlife and Government Responsibilities for Regulating Development and Protecting Wildlife

SANS 10103:2008. ‘The measurement and rating of environmental noise with respect to annoyance and to speech communication’.

SANS 10210:2004. ‘Calculating and predicting road traffic noise’.

SANS 10328:2008. ‘Methods for environmental noise impact assessments’.

SANS 10357:2004 The calculation of sound propagation by the Concave method’.

Conclusions and Recommendations Page 352 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

Sheperd, D and Billington, R. 2011: Mitigating the Acoustic Impacts of Modern Technologies: Acoustic, Health, and Psychosocial Factors Informing Wind Farm Placement. Bulletin of Science Technology & Society published online 22 August 2011, DOI: 10.1177/0270467611417841

Shepherd. D et al. 2011: Evaluating the impact of wind turbine noise on health related quality of life. Noise & Health, September-October 2011, 13:54,333-9.

Smith. M (et al) (2012): “Mechanisms of amplitude modulation in wind turbine noise“; Proceedings of the Acoustics 2012 Nantes Conference

Stigwood (et al) (2013): “Audible amplitude modulation – results of field measurements and investigations compared to psycho-acoustical assessments and theoretical research”; Paper presented at the 5th International Conference on Wind Turbine Noise, Denver 28 – 30 August 2013

Tachibana, H (et al) (2013): “Assessment of wind turbine noise in immission areas”; Paper presented at the 5th International Conference on Wind Turbine Noise, Denver 28 – 30 August 2013

Thorne et al, 2010: Noise Impact Assessment Report Waubra Wind Farm Mr & Mrs N Dean Report No 1537 - Rev 1

Thorne, 2010: The Problems with "Noise Numbers" for Wind Farm Noise Assessment. Bulletin of Science Technology and Society, 2011 31: 262

USEPA, 1971: Effects of Noise on Wildlife and other animals

Van den Berg, G.P., 2003. ‘Effects of the wind profile at night on wind turbine sound’. Journal of Sound and Vibration

Van den Berg, G.P., 2004. ‘Do wind turbines produce significant low frequency sound levels?’. 11th International Meeting on Low Frequency Noise and Vibration and its Control

Wang, Z. 2011: Evaluation of Wind Farm Noise Policies in South Australia: A Case Study of Waterloo Wind Farm. Masters Degree Research Thesis, Adelaide University 2011

Whitford, Jacques, 2008: Model Wind Turbine By-laws and Best Practices for Nova Scotia Municipalities

World Health Organization, 2009: Night Noise Guidelines for Europe

Conclusions and Recommendations Page 353 PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WIND FARM NEAR MOORREESBURG, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE Environmental Impact Assessment Report March 2017

World Health Organization, 1999: Protection of the Human Environment; Guidelines for Community Noise

Conclusions and Recommendations Page 354