Background Need & desirability • Eskom is running out of excess capacity Nampower: • There is a definite need for additional generation capacity in the region (Eskom and NamPower) • Namibia gas field at Kudu • Namaqua is supplied with a single line from Kenhardt to Land & Rights Alexander Bay through a single point • Plans to construct a new 800MW power – If line is faulty, supply to Namaqualand is lost, if line needs station at Oranjemund maintenance the line will be shut down – aging infrastructure, operating in a harsh environment will • Requires only 200MW to secure their own cause major refurbishment and resulting in major outrages • Namaqualand, Southern & Western Cape provinces are supply supplied through a single point from De Aar • This is already heavily loaded and will reach full capacity soon • Nampower has offered the balance to – new transmission lines need to be built soon to Presentation on the Kudu Eskom for integration into the SA National Namaqualand, the Southern & Western Cape • It is preferable to have more reliable, local generation supply Integration Project Grid • Even if existing transmission infrastructure was adequate, nationally running out of capacity – need a new power station 1 2 3 Project description Current lines Study area • Two lines (400kV & 200kV) across river to Oranjemond substation at Alexander Bay Alexander Bay • Single line (400kV) from Oranjemond Existing Gri d substation to Juno substation at 220kV 275kV Vredendal 400kV 765kV Vredendal 4 5 6 1 EIA process EIA process cont. EIA process cont. • Public participation began on 23 • Site notices including pamphlets and BIDs were erected at visible locations within towns throughout the study area (24- • Approval of Scoping Report by DEAT January 2006 27 January 2006) June 2006 • Newspaper advertisements (Die • Direct notification - key stakeholders directly informed by email, post and fax on 23 January 2006 (e.g. authorities, • Meeting with Sanparks in September Burger, Ons Kontrei & Volksblad) service providers, residential associations, NGOs and 2006 to discuss NNP planning – indicated notifying the public of the EIA process & conservation agencies) unwillingness to allow any line through the • Four alternatives (A-D) identified during Scoping requesting I&AP’s to register • Draft Scoping Re port provided for comment on 8 April area earmarked for park expansion 2006 • 5th alternative (E) identified during authority integration • Approval of PoS (July 2006) for EIA meeting in May 2006 required additional alternatives around the • Registered I&APs were informed of 5th alternative by fax, NNP to be investigated post and email on 25 May and comment period extended to 9 June 2006 • Alternatives F & G identified 7 8 9 EIA process cont. EIA process cont. Site notices (see handout) N U MBER OF SITE TOWN NAME N U MBER OF IP & BID P AC KAGES[2] NOTICES[1] Vanrhynsdorp 2 30 • Draft EIR sent directly to all key • Deeds search to identify owners along Nuwerus 2 20 Bitterfontein 1 20 stakeholders, incl. DEAT, N. Cape, new alternatives and added to the I&AP Garies 2 40 Kamieskroon 1 20 Springbok 4 90[3 W.Cape, Sanparks, CapeNature, Botsoc, database & informed Nababeep 1 20 WESSA and to other I&APs on request Okiep 1 20 • Draft EIR provided for public comment Steinkopf 1 20 Eksteenfontein 1 20 • Meeting for discussion of draft EIR - on from 22 November 2006 to 21 January Kuboes 1 20 Alexanderbaai 2 40 request: three meetings held on 8 & 9 2007 – extended for those I&APs that Port Nolloth 4 50 Kleinzee (at security entrance) 1 20 February 07 (De Beers, Knersvlakte requested it Gromis Substation 1 0 Buffelsrivier 2 40 Bewaringskommittee & Farmers at Garies Kommagas 1 20 Soebatsfontein 1 20 - latter also attended by Sanparks & Koiingnaas 1 20 Hondeklipbaai 1 30 CapeNature) Koekenaap 1 30 Lutzville 1 30 Vredendal 2 40[4] TOTAL 23 towns 35 Site notices 660 BID’s 10 11 12 2 Meetings held Key stakeholders (see handout for full list) Type of meeting / participants Venues Date Open day & publi c meeti ng Port Nolloth 7 Feb 2006 • Sanparks (Richtersveld & Namaqua National Parks) Alternatives Open day & publi c meeti ng Garies x 2 9 Feb 2006 • CapeNature Focus group: Sanparks, CapeNature, Kamieskroon Hotel Kamieskroon 2 Mar 2006 • All local and district municipalities (Nama Khoi, Matzikamma, Richtersveld, West Coast, Namaqua, Kamiesberg, CapeNature, Griekwa Ratelgat Ontwikkelingstrust, Vanrhynsdorp 2 Mar 2006 Cederberg) Knersvlakte Biostreek, Matzikamma Toerisme, individuals • Ward councillors Authority meeting: Specialists, DEA&DP, DEAT (N. Cape Cape Town 5 May 2006 • Alexkor & De Beers invited) to present draft scoping report • Community-based organisations (e.g. Richtersveld Traditional Key stakeholder meeting Sanparks, Pta 12 Sep 2006 Nama Council & Richtersveld Community Property Knersvlakte Bewaringskomittee (CapeNature, Matzikamma Vanrhynsdorp 8 Feb 2007 Association) Municipality, Dept. of Agriculture) • Farmers associations & organised agriculture Key stakeholder: De Beers Garies 8 Feb 2007 • Conservation NGOs: Botsoc & WESSA Publ i c meeti ng: Indi vi dual farmers & farmers associ ations, Garies 9 Feb 2007 • SA Heritage Resource Agency (provincial offices) Cape Nature, Sanparks 13 14 15 Alternatives Main issues & recommendations Main issues & recommendations Social impacts: • E sko m mu st se ri ou sl y Alt. Reason for inclusion Status • Lack of benefi ts (no electrici ty) investigate the possibility for • Biophysical impacts: A Shortest & cheapest route Not preferred. Hi gh impact on NNP & quartz to local inhabitants and providing electricity to locals – Succulent Karoo is a • Compensation to Sanparks by communities • High-level negotiations between globally important centre of providing area of land at least patches. E sko m an d mining houses the same in size as the area of • Impact on mining activities endemis m – esp. quartz B Mostl y aligned along Preferred (together with E) regarding route over mining the servitude through the NN • Disruption of farming activities l and patches are sensitive existing disturbance. – Impacts on existing and • Compensation for servitude • Combination of alternatives in Identified by CapeNature disturbed area, mainly closer to planned conservation registration C Along N7 (existing Very expensive, erosion impact in mountains. Main coast recommended areas (NNP and disturbance) – identified by tourist route. High visual impact -large no. of strain • Visual impacts: experts • 2nd stage assessment prior to Knersvlakte) consider impact highest on the i ssu e o f Re co rd of De ci si on • Construction materials to be Sanparks towers. – Very sensitive area flow n in al ong Oranj emond- coastal plain, but locals –To confirm whether impacts betw een Oranjemond and Gromis section to prevent D Avoids Namaqual and Di stance, unacceptabl e botani cal impacts on consider it highest along can be mi ti gated to acceptabl e Gromis substations – need levels trampling & erosion (Sanparks) Hardeveld & Knersvlakte. Impacts not necessarily mountainous areas next to N7 to establish offset lower just because it crosses through Bushmanland. –to be undertaken i n the form conservation area (tourist route) of a specialist walk-down of E Mostl y aligned along Mostly through disturbed mining areas. Southern • Heritage impacts probably recommended route to assess – Bird strikes - can be easily mitigated existing disturbance variation near Juno along existing roads & other minimal but uncertain – can impacts in detail Conservation disturbance. Avoids quarts patches. offset for northern portion – Soil erosion (sandy soils only be confirmed during between Oranjemond and walkdown of preferred route near the coast and F Avoidance of Namaqua Unacceptable impacts on endemics in Kamiesberg Gromis mountainous areas) Nati onal Park • Impact on tourism (current and G Avoids Soebatsfontein Unacceptable to Sanparks due to tourism impact – planned) (hub of NNP) scenic mountainous area in NNP 16 17 18 3 Current status alternative Recommended • Comments on draft EIR incorporated in comments & response report • Final EIR to be finalised, provided for information and submitted to authorities • Subject to further comments received 19 20 4.