Final EIA Report - CSIR

CSIR – February 2012 

pg 1

Changes made to the Draft EIA Report 

SECTION CHANGES 

Summary Changes to contact details to which comments should be 

sent. DEA to receive comments. 

Chapter 5 Added section 5.6 on other renewable energy projects in 

the area. 

Chapter 6 Added section 6.10 and 6.11 on reversibility and 

irreplaceability 

Chapter 7 Added section 7.8 on reversibility and irreplaceability 






Chapter 14 Updated issues and response trail to include all comments 

received on the Draft EIA Report. 

Appendix D Updated I&AP database 

Appendix E Included all project related correspondance after the 

release of the Draft EIA Report 

Appendix F Added Appendix F on the public meeting held in 

Vredendal on 16 January 2012 

Appendix G Added Appendix G - the Advertisement of Draft EIA 

Report and Public Meeting 


pg 2

PART A: FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT 

Chapter 1 Introduction 

Chapter 2 Project Description 

Chapter 3 Project Alternatives 

Chapter 4 Approach to the EIA Phase 

Chapter 5 Description of the Receiving Environment 

Chapter 6 Botanical and Terrestrial Faunal Impact Assessment 

Chapter 7 Bird Impact Assessment 

Chapter 8 Bat Impact Assessment 

Chapter 9 Archaeological Impact Assessment 

Chapter 10 Palaeontological Impact Assessment 

Chapter 11 Visual Impact Assessment 

Chapter 12 Agricultural Impact Assessment 

Chapter 13 Freshwater Resources Impact Assessment 

Chapter 14 Issues and Responses Trail 

Chapter 15 Conclusions 

APPENDICES Appendix A EIA Team Details and Declarations 

Appendix B Site details 

Appendix C DEA Acceptance of the Final Scoping Report 

Appendix D Vredendal I&AP Database 

Appendix E Correspondence from I&APs 

Appendix F Public Meeting Minutes 

Appendix G Advertising of Draft EIA Report and Public Meeting 

PART B: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 


pg 3

Title: Environmental Impact Assessment for the proposed iNca Vredendal Wind project 

in the Western Cape Province: Final EIA Report 

Purpose of this report: This Final Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Report forms part of a series of 

reports and information sources that are being provided during the EIA process 

for the proposed iNca Vredendal Wind project in the Western Cape Province. In 

accordance with the EIA Regulations, the purpose of the EIA Report is to: 

Present the proposed project, including project alternatives and the need 

for the project; 

Describe the affected environment, including the planning context, at a 

sufficient level of detail to facilitate informed decision making; 

Provide an overview of the EIA process being followed, including public 

consultation; 

Assess the predicted positive and negative impacts of the project on the 

environment; 

Provide recommendations to avoid or mitigate negative impacts and to 

enhance the positive benefits of the project; 

Provide a draft EMP for the design, construction and operational phases of 

the project. 

The Final EIA Report and EMP are being made available to all stakeholders for a 

review period extending from 10 February 2012 to 02 March 2012. All comments 

on the Final EIA and EMP will be considered for decision-making and are to be 

submitted to the National Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) as well as 

the Environmental Assessment Practitioner (EAP). 

Prepared for: iNca Vredendal Wind (Pty) Ltd 

Contact person: Mr Ian McGregor 

Published by: CSIR, P O Box 320, Stellenbosch, 7599, South Africa 

Tel: +27-21-888 2400 

Fax: +27-21-888 2693 

Lead Authors: Cornelius van der Westhuizen & Paul Lochner 

CSIR Report Number: 

CSIR Project Number: 

DEA Ref Number 12/12/20/2255 

CSIR/CAS/EMS/ER/2011/0032/B 

CASKG92 

Date: 10 February 2012 

To be cited as: CSIR, 2012. Environmental Impact Assessment for the proposed iNca Vredendal 

Wind project in the Western Cape: Final EIA Report. CSIR Report Number: 

CSIR/CAS/EMS/ER/2011/0032/B. Stellenbosch. 


pg 4

CSIR has been commissioned by iNca Vredendal Wind (Pty) Ltd to undertake an environmental 

impact assessment in terms of the 2010 EIA Regulations R.543, R.544, R.545 and R.546 under the 

National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act 107 of 1998, with amendments). CSIR 

complies with the general requirements set out below in the Regulations: 

General requirements for EAPs or a person compiling a specialist report or undertaking a 

specialised process 

17. An EAP appointed in terms of regulation 16(1) must - 

(a) be independent; 

(b) have expertise in conducting environmental impact assessments, including knowledge 

of the Act, these Regulations and any guidelines that have relevance to the proposed 

activity; 

(c) perform the work relating to the application in an objective manner, even if this results 

in views and findings that are not favourable to the applicant; 

(d) comply with the Act, these Regulations and all other applicable legislation; 

(e) take into account, to the extent possible, the matters referred to in regulation 8 when 

preparing the application and any report relating to the application; and 

(f) disclose to the applicant and the competent authority all material information in the 

possession of the EAP that reasonably has or may have the potential of influencing- 

(i) any decision to be taken with respect to the application by the competent 

authority in terms of these Regulations; or 

(ii) the objectivity of any report, plan or document to be prepared by the EAP in 

terms of these Regulations for submission to the competent authority. 


pg 5

I. INLEIDING 7 

II. DIE VOORSTELLER 8 

III. III BEHOEFTE AAN DIE PROJEK 9 

IV. OMGEWINGSASSESSERINGSPROSES 10 

V. VOORGESTELDE INFRASTRUKTUUR 11 

VI. OPSOMMING VAN IMPAKASSESSERING 12 

A. Plantkunde en aard-fauna 12 

B. Voëls 12 

C. Vlermuise 13 

D. Argeologie 14 

E. Paleontologie 14 

F. Visueel 14 

G. Landbou 15 

H. Water 16 


pg 6

I. Inleiding 

iNca Vredendal Wind (Edms.) Bpk. –filiaal van iNca Energy (Edms.) Bpk. – is van voorneme om 

elektrisiteit met behulp van windenergie op die Restant van Plaas 293, Groot Draaihoek, en die 

Resterende Gedeeltes 1, 7 en 8 van Plaas 293, net buite die dorp Vredendal in die Wes-Kaap op te 

wek (sien Figuur 1). Die aanleg en die gepaardgaande infrastruktuur sal bestaan uit tot 15 

turbines met ŉ opwekings kapasiteit van 2 tot 3 MW elk, om 30 MW elektrisiteit op te wek. Die 

alternatiewe wat in hierdie ondersoek oorweeg is, is soos volg: 

● Geen projek alternatief, 

● 15 turbines van 2 MW elk; en 

● 10 turbines van 3 MW elk. 

Die totale oppervlak beskikbaar vir die voorgestelde aanleg bestaan uit sowat 3 530 ha, waarvan 

nagenoeg 7 ha fisiese wysiging sal ondergaan vir die bou van toegangspaaie, ondergrondse 

bekabeling, bergingsgebiede en betonfondasies vir die turbines. Die aanleg sal ook die oprigting 

van ’n 66 kV-lyn van nagenoeg 8 km na die bestaande Vredendal-substasie benodig. ’n Gebied van 

minder as 35 ha sal deur die voorgestelde ontwikkeling ingesluit word (sien Figuur 2). 

Figuur 1: Ligging van iNca Vredendal-windaanleg(in rooi omlyn) 

(Google Earth-beeld) 


pg 7

Figuur 2: Voorlopige terreinuitleg vir 15 × 2 MW-turbines met: beheerkamer, meetmas, harde staanoppervlakke 

(grys), bestaande paaie (groen), paaie wat gebou moet word (oranje), kraglyne (wit), buffer van 1.5 keer die 

tuimelafstand (geel), en grens van die eiendom (rooi). 

(Bron: Google Earth) 

II. Die Voorsteller 

iNca Energy se hooffokusarea is om wind- en sonkragprojekte in Suid-Afrika te ontwikkel en te 

bedryf met die uiteindelike doel om ŉ toonaangewende, onafhanklike kragvoorsiener in Suider- 

Afrika te word. Die maatskappy se meerderheidsaandeelhouer is Nu Age Energy (deur die Kopano 

Ke Matla Investment Company – KKM), die beleggingsarm van die kontinent se grootste 

vakbondfederasie, COSATU, waarby meer as 2 miljoen lede en hulle gesinne baat vind. KKM se 

hoofdoelstellings is om beleggingsmoontlikhede op ŉ sosiaal-verantwoordelike wyse na te streef. 

Die maatskappy is op soek na beleggingsgeleenthede wat regstreeks sal bydra tot die bemagtiging 

van werkers en die gemeenskap waarin hulle woon. 

iNca Vredendal Wind (Edms.) Bpk. het die WNNR aangestel om die Omgewingsimpakassesseringsproses 

van die voorgestelde windenergie-aanleg te onderneem en die 

biofisiese, sosiale en ekonomiese impakte wat met die onderneming van die voorgestelde 

aktiwiteite verband hou, te bepaal. 


pg 8

III. Behoefte aan die Projek 

Die Wes-Kaap loop tans kwaai deur onder beperkings wat die beskikbaarheid en stabiliteit van 

elektrisiteitstoevoer betref. Dit is ŉ gevolg van die oorbelasting van Suid-Afrika se 

elektrisiteitopwekking-en-voorsieningstelsel, en die feit dat die Wes-Kaap die meeste van sy krag 

moet invoer. Die transmissielyne wat die Wes-Kaap met die nasionale netwerk verbind, kan nie in 

die provinsie se maksimum elektrisiteitsaanvraag van ongeveer 3 500 tot 3 900 MW voorsien nie. 

Druk op die plaaslike ontwikkelingskapasiteit – veral op die Koebergkernkragsentrale (2 eenhede 

met ŉ gesamentlike maksimum kapasiteit van 1 800 MW) – is sodanig dat, as een reaktor by 

Koeberg nie gekoppel is nie, die hele provinsie toevoertekorte ondervind. Die behoefte om 

bykomende krag in die provinsie op te wek, is gevolglik aangetoon. 

Die tradisionele steenkoolgebaseerde elektrisiteitsontwikkeling voorsien tans ongeveer 90% van 

Suid-Afrika se toevoer. Die ontwikkeling van nuwe krag uit windenergie gaan na verwagting 

alreeds in 2020 tot 2025, en dalk selfs vroeër, goedkoper steenkoolgebaseerde 

elektrisiteitsontwikkeling raak. Daarna gaan windenergie na verwagting steeds goedkoper word 

in vergelyking met die stygende koste van steenkoolkrag (NERSA, 2009). Dit toon die ekonomiese 

behoefte om windenergie-aanlegte in Suid-Afrika te ontwikkel. 

Die ontwikkeling van windenergie is ook vir Suid-Afrika belangrik ten einde sy algemene 

omgewingsvoetspoor uit kragopwekking (sosiale, ekonomiese en omgewings 

eksternaliteitskostes ingereken) te verklein, en die land daardeur op die weg na volhoubaarheid 

te plaas. Steenkoolgebaseerde kragopwekking is wêreldwyd ŉ groot bron van 

koolstofdioksiedemissies, wat tot aardverwarming bydra. Indien die iNca Vredendal-windprojek 

realiseer, kan dit toekomstige koolstofemissies met 125 000 ton per jaar verminder (bereken as 

2.5 GWh kragopwekking per geïnstalleerde MW, met ŉ emissiefaktor van 1 ton CO2/MW). 

Windopwekking skakel ook die waterverbruik wat met die opwekking van krag uit steenkool 

gepaardgaan uit, wat belangrik is gegewe dat Suid-Afrika ŉ droë land met streng waterbeperkings 

is. Eskom gebruik tans ongeveer 2% van Suid-Afrika se totale varswaterbronne om krag op te 

wek, hoofsaaklik met behulp van natverkoelde steenkoolkragsentrales. Versnelde 

klimaatsverandering het die potensiaal om die beskikbaarheid van water en die hoeveelheid 

water in Suid-Afrika te beïnvloed. Dit skep ŉ risiko vir waterafhanklike kragopwekking. In 

vergelyking daarmee behels windenergie geen direkte waterverbruik gedurende die operationele 

fase nie. 

Die Wes-Kaap beoog om die provinsie se huidige energiesamestelling te verander sodat dit teen 

2014 15% hernubare energiebronne sal bevat (Witskrif oor Volhoubare Energie, Wes-Kaap, 

2008), wat ongeveer 500 tot 600 MW van die beskikbare hernubare energie is. Daar word verwag 

dat die Wes-Kaapse windregime minstens ŉ 30%-kapasiteitsfaktor sal voorsien (d.w.s. 30% van 

die tyd voldoende windenergie by geskikte terreine sal opwek). Indien hierdie hernubare 

energieteiken volledig uit windenergie sou moes bestaan, sou dit dus ŉ geïnstalleerde kapasiteit 

van ongeveer 1 600 tot 2 000 MW benodig. Die iNca Vredendal-projek sal tot hierdie teiken bydra. 

Nagenoeg 60 werksgeleenthede oor verskeie vaardigheidsvlakke heen sal ook gedurende die 

konstruksiefase van die projek oor ongeveer 12 maande geskep word. Bykomende sekondêre 

sakegeleenthede vir die plaaslike en streeksekonomieë sal verskaf word. Alhoewel minder mense 

(tussen 2 en 5) in diens geneem sal word gedurende die operasionele fase, sal dit geleenthede vir 

vaardigheidsopleiding en sakeontwikkeling in die gebied verskaf. 


pg 9

IV. Omgewingsassesseringsproses 

Regulasies vir Omgewingsimpakassesserings (OIA) is kragtens hoofstuk 5 van die Wet op 

Nasionale Omgewingsbestuur (NEMA), Wet 107 van 1998, in 1997 en 2006 afgekondig en, meer 

onlangs, in 2010. Die voorgestelde projek benodig ingevolge Regeringskennisgewing R545 

volledige Bestekopname- en Omgewingsimpakverslagdoening, en sluit aktiwiteite in wat in 

Regeringskennisgewing R544 (wat Basiese Assessering vereis) en Regeringskennisgewing R546 

(vir geografiese gebiede) gelys is. Gegewe die strategiese belang van energie, benodig die projek 

magtiging van die nasionale Departement van Omgewingsake (DOS). Openbare betrokkenheid 

maak ŉ belangrike komponent van hierdie proses uit deur bystand te verleen met die 

identifisering van kwessies en alternatiewe wat geëvalueer moet word. 

Hierdie OIA-verslag is voorafgegaan deur ’n omvattende bestekopnameproses wat gelei het tot 

die voorlegging op 14 Oktober 2011 van ’n Finale Bestekopnameverslag (en Studieplan vir die 

OIA) aan die Departement van Omgewingsake (DOS) vir goedkeuring. Goedkeuring is op 08 

Desember 2011 ontvang, wat die einde van die Bestekopnamefase aangedui het, waarna die OIAproses 

na die impakassessering en verslagdoeningfase beweeg het. Vir agtergrond oor die 

bestekopnameproses word die leser na die Finale Bestekopnameverslag verwys. 

As deel van die Bestekopnameproses is alle Belanghebbendes en Geaffekteerde Partye (B&GP’e) 

genooi om op die Konsep- Omgewingsassesseringsverslag kommentaar te lewer. Kommentaar 

ontvang gedurende hierdie kommentaar periode is in hierdie finale verslag ingesluit. Hierdie 

finale verslag is weereens vir openbare inspeksie beskikbaar by die openbare biblioteke te 

Vredendal, Klawer en Lutzville. ŉ Elektroniese weergawe van hierdie verslag is op die internet 

beskikbaar by: 

http://www.csir.co.za/eia/vredendal.html 

Hierdie verslag is vir ŉ tydperk van 21 dae vir kommentaar beskikbaar. Alle kommentare 

en reaksies moet teen 02 Maart 2012 aan die Nationale Departement van Omgewingsake 

en die Omgewingsassesseringspraktisyn gerig word by die onderstaande 

kontakbesonderhede. 

Mpho Morudu 

Nasionale Departement van Omgewingsake 

Privaatsak X 447 

Pretoria 

Tel: 012 395 1775 

Faks:012 320 7539 

E-pos: Mmorudu@environment.gov.za 


pg 10 

Cornelius van der Westhuizen 

WNNR 

Posbus 320 

Stellenbosch 

Tel: 021 888 2408 

Faks: 021 888 2693 

E-pos: CvdWesthuizen1@csir.co.za

V. Voorgestelde Infrastruktuur 

Die aanleg en die gepaargaande infrastruktuur sal uit die onderstaande infrastruktuur bestaan: 

Paaie 

● Deur minder as een kilometer pad deur droëland- landbougrond te bou, kan die voorgestelde 

terrein vanaf die R363- openbare pad bereik word. Afgesien van die een kilometer pad wat 

gebou moet word, sal ’n bestaande pad van ongeveer 7.5 km wat tot die terrein lei, waar 

nodig opgegradeer word. 

● ŉ Interne padnetwerk na die turbines en ander infrastruktuur (substasie en beheerkamer) 

word benodig. Die padnetwerk kan draaisirkels vir groot vragmotors, en verbysteekpunte 

insluit. 

Elektriese aansluitings 

● Twee oorhoofse 11 kV-lyne van ongeveer 8 km sal die aanleg met die bestaande 66 kV- 

Vredendal-substasie, wat op die terrein geleë is, verbind. Vanaf die terrein tot by die substasie 

sal die kraglyne in die bestaande padreserwe en in bestaande kraglynserwitute geïnstalleer 

word. 

● Elektriese transformators sal langs elke turbine geplaas word. 

● Die windturbines sal deur ondergrondse mediumspanningskabels langs die interne 

padnetwerk met mekaar verbind word, behalwe waar tegniese assessering daarop dui dat 

oorhoofse lyne geskik is. Hierdie kraglyne sal in die interne padserwitute geïnstalleer word. 

Windturbines 

● Daar is nog nie op turbinetegnologie besluit nie, maar tot 15 turbines met ŉ geïnstalleerde 

kapasiteit van tussen 2 MW en 3 MW elk, na gelang van die finale ontwerp, word in die 

vooruitsig gestel. Moontlike turbines wat oorweeg word, is die 3 MW Alstorm ECO 100 en die 

3 MW Vestas V112 met ŉ naafhoogte van tot 94 m en ŉ rotordiameter van tot 112 m. Die 

turbines sal ondersteun word deur verspreide fondasies van gewapende beton (maksimum 

18 m x 18 m x 4 m diep). Die operasionele lewensduur van die windturbines is na verwagting 

minstens 25 jaar. Die turbineleeftyd kan deur gereelde onderhoud en/of 

tegnologieopgraderings verleng word om langer as 25 jaar te hou. 

● Harde staanareas met ŉ gruisoppervlak (maksimum 40 m x 20 m) langs elke turbine sal 

gedurende konstruksie deur hyskrane gebruik en vir die volle projekleeftyd vir 

instandhouding behou word. 

Ander infrastruktuur 

● ŉ Enkele beheerkamer (10 m x 10 m groot) word vir die windplaas benodig. 

● Omheining word benodig om substasie en beheerkamer. 

● ŉ Permanente windmeetmas van 80 m (die windmas is reeds op die terrein opgerig en 

registreer winddata reeds sedert Desember 2010) 


pg 11

VI. Opsomming van Impakassessering 

A. PLANTKUNDE EN AARD-FAUNA 

Daar is bevind dat die aardekologiese sensitiwiteit oor die terrein heen uiteenlopend is en 

grootliks van die vlak van landbouverwante transformasie en degradering afhanklik is. Die meeste 

van die turbine-infrastruktuur is geleë in gebiede met ŉ lae sensitiwiteit. Degradering in die vorm 

van indringende uitheemse plantinfestasies op die terrein is geneig om baie beperk en 

onreëlmatig te wees. Gebiede met ŉ matige sensitiwiteit kom aanliggend aan die voorgestelde 

toegangspad voor. Die enigste geaffekteerde gebied wat potensieel ŉ hoë sensitiwiteit het, sou die 

Kritiese Biodiversiteitsarea wees wat deur die bestaande pad wat wyer gemaak en opgegradeer 

sal moet word, gekruis word. Die voorgestelde pad sal ŉ ongeteerde bestaande plaaspad volg en 

bykomende verlies van plantegroei weens verbreding van die pad sal redelik beperk wees. In die 

aanvanklike ontwerpfase is meer sensitiewe areas baie doeltreffend vermy en impakte sal dus 

minimaal wees. 

Van ŉ gronddier-perspektief is daar bevind dat party spesies wat van besondere belang is, in die 

gebied teenwoordig is en deur die voorgestelde ontwikkeling geraak sal word. Daar is bevind dat 

alle amfibieë teenwoordig op die terrein van die minste belang is en dat hulle elders goed 

beskerm is. Die spesies wat gedurende die konstruksie van hierdie projek die meeste geraak sal 

word, is die spesies wat nie self die geaffekteerde gebied kan ontruim nie, bv. skilpaaie, grawende 

reptiele en grawende soogdiere. Hierdie spesies kan direkte sterftes ervaar. Verkeer op die 

toegangspaaie na en van die bouterreine sal hoogs waarskynlik daartoe lei dat diere doodgery 

word. Selfs alhoewel die oprigting van die windturbines sekere impakte sal hê, kan sodanige 

impakte, met die toepassing van versagtende maatreëls, tot die minimum beperk of heeltemal 

verwyder word. Die oprigting van die windturbines het die potensiaal om positiewe impakte, soos 

bewaring van habitat, ens. te stimuleer. Die ontwikkeling van hierdie projek sal positief wees, 

m.a.w. ŉ verbode alternatief sal lei tot nie-bewaring van die gebied en sal negatief wees. 

Daar is bevind dat met doeltreffende versagtingsmaatreëls impakte op die grond-fauna en flora 

beperk kan word tot lae belang, beide gedurende die oprigting en gedurende die operasionele 

fases van die voorgestelde ontwikkeling. 

B. VOËLS 

Die Vredendal-windenergieterrein is ŉ relatief klein windplaasterrein, met beperkte intrinsieke 

voëlbiodiversiteitswaarde. Dit bevat nie enige unieke habitats of landskapeienskappe nie, en dit 

raak ook nie enige bekende, groot vliegpaaie van voëls nie. Daar is egter (ten minste seisoenaal), 

streeks- en/of nasionaal belangrike populasies spesies teenwoordig (bv. Ludwig se pou) wat 

vatbaar kan wees vir die impak, en die voorgestelde aanleg kan moontlik ŉ beduidende nadelige 

uitwerking op hierdie voëls hê, in die besonder gedurende die operasionele fase van die 

ontwikkeling. Daar is in 2007 opgeteken dat ŉ paar breëkoparende in een van die Aurora-Juno 

400kV-torings nagenoeg 3 km van die naaste voorgestelde windturbine nes maak. Dit is nie tans 

bekend of hierdie nes steeds aktief is nie. Dit sal gedurende die 12-maande- moniteringsfase voor 

konstruksie ondersoek word soos alreeds deur die voorsteller ooreengekom. 


pg 12

Die totale aantal turbines en die grootte van die spasiëring tussen hulle kan moontlik die 

belangrikste faktor wees by die bepaling van die botsingsrisiko op hierdie spesifieke terrein, in die 

besonder met die oog op die moontlikheid van gereelde vlugaktiwiteit van grondspesies. 

Daarbenewens behoort die vlakke van steurnis geskep deur die geraas en beweging van die 

turbines minder te wees met minder turbines. Vanuit ŉ voëlimpak-perspektief behoort tien 3 

MW-turbines dus bo vyftien 2 MW-turbines verkies te word. 

Implementering van die nodige versagtingsmaatreëls behoort impakte gedurende die boufase tot 

Laag, en impakte gedurende die operasionele fase tot laag of laag-medium te verminder. 

C. VLERMUISE 

Die voorgestelde Vredendal-windenergieprojek val binne die verspreidingsgebiede van 9 spesies 

wat in die gebied oorvleuel. Die belangrikste aspek van die projek wat vlermuise nadelig sou raak, 

is die windturbines self en, in besonder, die draaiende lemme wanneer in werking. Daar is verder 

ŉ kumulatiewe impak wat verband hou met die feit die Klawer-windprojek nagenoeg 13 km van 

die Vredendal-windenergieprojek geleë is. 

Afgesien van ŉ bouvallige huis sowat 1.6 km noordoos van die noordoostelike grens van die 

voorgestelde terrein, lyk dit nie asof die terrein habitat bevat wat aantreklik is vir vlermuise nie. 

Die naaste terreinvoorwerpe wat ’n aanduiding gee van vlermuise is die opstalgeboue en damme 

op Groot Draaihoek. Blomme gedurende die lente kan moontlik insekte lok, wat, as ŉ voedselbron 

van insektivore, vlermuise kan lok. Verder tref ’n mens ook op plekke waar daar vee en skape wei, 

meer vlieë aan wat dien as ŉ voedselbron vir vlermuise. 

Die volgende spesies is op die terrein opgeteken: Neoromicia capensis (Minste Bedreig), 

Miniopterus natalensis (Byna Bedreig), Tadarida aegyptiaca (Minste Bedreig) en Eptesicus 

hottentotus (Minste Bedreig). Die hoogste aantal verbyvlugte deur vlermuise is opgeteken vir 

Neoromicia capensis en Tadarida aegyptiaca. Laasgenoemde soek kos in die ope lug en sal 

waarskynlik kos soek in die omgewing van die werkende lemme van die turbines. Dit kan nie 

buite rekening gelaat word nie dat die ander spesies ook kos in die omgewing van die turbinelemme 

sal soek, óf wanneer hulle kos soek óf oor die terrein vlieg wanneer hulle migreer. 

Die voorsteller het alreeds ŉ vlermuisspesialis betrek by die ontwerpfase van die projek en het 

hom tot monitering voor konstruksie verbind. Verdere monitering sal vlermuisaktiwiteit bevestig. 

Op die oomblik is die belangrikste versagting wat voorgestel word om dakke van nuwe geboue 

asook dié van bestaande geboue naby die terrein waar daar nie tans enige vlermuise slaap nie, 

volkome te verseël. Dit sal voorkom dat vlermuise intrek en dit meer waarskynlik sal maak dat 

hulle met die turbines in die omliggende gebied in aanraking sal kom. Indien moniteringsdata in 

die toekoms hoë aktiwiteit toon, sal die kliënt tesame met ŉ vlermuisspesialis verdere 

versagtingsmaatreëls ondersoek. Dit sluit in verfyning van operasionele prosedures soos 

vermindering van die spoed van turbines. 

Die geen-projek scenario, wat geen dramatiese direkte of indirekte impakte het nie, is natuurlik 

vanuit ŉ vlermuisperspektief die dwingendste opsie, maar aangesien aansoek om ontwikkeling 

voorgelê word, is die voorgestelde windplaasontwikkeling ondersoek. Literatuur doen aan die 

hand dat vlermuis-ongevalle eksponensieel toeneem met toringhoogte, wat daarop dui dat groter 

turbines die lugruim van migrerende vlermuise bereik. Tans is daar geen optekenings op hoogte 

by die studie geïnkorporeer nie. Dit is dus onseker of die verskil (10 – 20 m) in hoogte tussen die 2 


pg 13

MW en 3 MW alternatiewe ŉ effek op vlermuis mortaliteit sal hê. Vanuit ŉ vlermuis-perspektief, 

is daar dus geen voorkeur alternatief vir hierdie projek nie. 

Met inagneming van data wat tot op hede ingesamel is, word voorspel dat die impak wat die windturbines 

op vlermuise by die voorgestelde Vredendal-windenergieprojek sal hê van medium 

belang met versagting sal wees. Vertrouensvlakke is laag aangesien beperkte data geïnkorporeer 

is, maar die verslag sal bygewerk word met bykomende inligting uit die toekomstige 

moniteringsresultate. 

D. ARGEOLOGIE 

Gedurende die veldwerk wat in Oktober 2011 gedoen is, is een (aar-) kwartsskilfer uit die Laat 

Steentydperk en een kwartsstukkie en een kwartsietskilfer uit die Middel Steentydperk in die 

voetspoorgebied van die voorgestelde windenergieplaas gedokumenteer. Een kwartsietskilfer uit 

die Middel Steentydperk en twee silkreetskilfers uit die Laat Steentydperk (met inbegrip van een 

bygewerkte skilfer) is in die toegangspad (moet opgegradeer word), wat langs die voorgestelde 

kraglynserwituut geleë is, gedokumenteer. Geen argeologiese oorblyfsels is in die voorgestelde 

kraglynserwituut gekry nie. 

Die lae getalle en geïsoleerde opset beteken dat die argeologiese oorblyfsels as van lae belang 

geskat word en basislynstudie het getoon dat die voorgestelde ontwikkeling van die iNca 

Vredendal-windenergieplaas ŉ lae belang impak op die argeologiese erfenis sal hê nie. 

Aanduidings is dat die voorgestelde terrein vir die windenergieplaas nie ŉ sensitiewe 

argeologiese landskap is nie. Daar is tot die gevolgtrekking gekom dat geen argeologiese 

versagting vereis word nie en daar word aanbeveel dat die voorgestelde kontrakteursterrein 

sodra dit geïdentifiseer is, vir argeologiese oorblyfsels ondersoek sal word. 

E. PALEONTOLOGIE 

’n Paleontologiese lessenaarstudie is deur dr. John Almond uitgevoer. Afgesien van verspreide 

klein blootleggings van fluviale kwartsiete van die Skiereilandformasie (Tafelberggroep) uit die 

Ordovisium-tyd, is die ontwikkelingsgebied bedek met ŉ reeks oppervlakkige afsettings uit die 

Laat-Kainosoïkum-tyd, met inbegrip van eoliese sandsoorte en verskeie grondsoorte. 

Die algemene paleontologiese sensitiwiteit van die Tafelberggroep en die “gletser”-sedimente uit 

die Laat-Kainosoïkum-tyd wat in die studiegebied gekarteer is, is laag tot baie laag. Die 

paleontologiese impak sal dus van lae belang wees. Om hierdie rede word geen verdere 

paleontologiese studies of versagtende maatreëls vir hierdie ontwikkeling aanbeveel nie. 

F. VISUEEL 

Die voorgestelde windplaas is geleë op ŉ landskap wat as matig tot hoogs visueel sensitief beskryf 

word, met ŉ betekenis wat plaaslik is eerder as regionaal. Die landskap is relatief yl bevolk na die 

suide en digter bevolk na die noorde langs die Olifantsrivier, met inbegrip van Vredendal. Die 

windplaas, meer spesifiek die windturbines, sal vanaf die meeste dele binne ŉ 20 km-radius van 

die terrein af gesien kan word aangesien die landskap relatief plat is. ’n Mate van afskerming word 


pg 14

verskaf deur plaaslike landvorme soos die Sederberg, sandsteeninselberge, laagliggende valleie en 

laagliggende kusplatforms. 

Die ontvangers sluit in inwoners van 8 opstalle tussen 2 en 7 km van die voorgestelde windplaasterrein 

en gebruikers van plaaslike paaie wat die dorpe en plase bedien. Die dorp Vredendal is 7– 

15 km van die terrein en sal die voorgestelde turbines van sekere dele af sien, in die besonder die 

Vredendal-Noord-omgewing en die suidelike rand van die dorp. Die windplaas sal ook vanaf ŉ 

baie kort gedeelte van die N7 twintig kilometer daarvandaan gesien word. Daar is geen 

ontvangers binne 1 km van die terrein waar skadu-geflikker aansienlik geag word nie met die 

naaste ontvangers die Groot Draaihoek-opstal, 2 km daarvandaan, en gebruikers op ŉ 2 kmstrook 

gruispad wat tussen Vredendal/Klawer en Lambertsbaai, 3 km daarvandaan, loop. 

Beligting sal sigbaar wees vir bogemelde ontvangers en behoort tot die minimum beperk te wees, 

m.a.w. verminder tot ŉ minimum van 8 turbines op die Alternatief met 15 turbines en 6 turbines 

op die Alternatief met 10 turbines. 

Die voorgestelde Alternatief 2, m.a.w. 10 turbines, 94 m-hoë naafhoogtes met 60 m-rotorlemme, 

sal nie die aantal ontvangers verminder nie maar sal daartoe lei dat minder turbines gesien kan 

word. Daar sal geen groot visuele wins of beduidende versagting wees deur vermindering van die 

aantal turbines van 15 tot 10 nie; daarom is beide alternatiewe aanvaarbaar. 

Die beperkte aantal van hierdie hoë turbines (10–15) in ŉ uitgestrekte lig golwende landskap 

alhoewel naby berge aan die een kant, is visueel indringend vir ŉ paar ontvangers, maar 

oorwegend opmerkbaar vir die meeste ontvangers. Dit lei daartoe dat die algemene visuele impak 

matig tot hoog is. 

G. LANDBOU 

Die grondondersoek is gebaseer op grondontledingputte. Alle grondsoorte het onder dor 

klimaatstoestande in sanderige alluvium-moedermateriaal gevorm. Die boonste grondhorisonne 

(A- en B-horisonne) is baie uniform oor die gebied heen. Hulle is rooi, sanderige (

aanvullende voedselbron vir die skape. Baie van die vorige strookverbouingslanderye word vir 

baie jare reeds nie bewerk nie. 

Alle landbou-impakte word beskou as van lae belang, hoofsaaklik as gevolg van die klein 

voetspoor van die ontwikkeling en die minimale versteuring van landbou-aktiwiteite, en die feit 

dat dit op grond met baie lae landbouproduktiwiteit geleë is. Die effektiewe verlies van 

landbougrond is bepaal as slegs 6 hektaar, wat ŉ skamele 0.17% van die grondoppervlak van die 

plaas uitmaak. Die algemene landbou-impak van die voorgestelde ontwikkeling is laag. 

H. WATER 

Die voorgestelde projek is geleë op die waterskeiding tussen die E33G en G30H kwaternêre 

opvanggebiede en in die Olifants D en Sandveld sub-waterbestuursgebiede. Die terrein waar die 

turbines opgerig sal word, is nagenoeg 8 km suid van die Olifantsrivier geleë. ŉ Toegangspad wat 

opgegradeer moet word, is verder as 1.5 km van die rivier geleë. Volgens die fynskaal- Kritiese 

Biodiversiteitskaarte asook die Nasionale Varswater- Ekologiese Beskermde Gebiede-kaarte is 

daar ŉ moerasland op die westelike grens van die plaas, geleë nagenoeg 900 m van die naaste 

projekverwante infrastruktuur. Met inspeksie is bevind, in ŉ niespesialiskapasiteit, dat die gebied 

afgebaken as ŉ moerasland geen moeraslandeienskappe toon nie. 

Aangesien die terrein geleë is op ŉ rif wat optree as ŉ skeiding tussen twee wateropvanggebiede, 

is daar geen vlak watertafel wat deur die ontwikkeling geaffekteer kan word nie. Die afwesigheid 

van ŉ watertafel is deur die grondeienaar bevestig aangesien daar geen water aangetref is toe 

boorgate vir vee-doeleindes geboor is nie. Daar is voorgestel dat water vir die boufase van die 

plaaslike munisipaliteit verkry word. 

ŉ Kunsmatige kanaal wat besproeiingswater van die Bulshoekdam verder af in die vallei oorbring, 

kruis die plaas op die noordoostelike deel. Daar is ook ŉ kunsmatige, uitgevoerde dam langs die 

kanaal wat water vir die plaas se besproeiingsbehoeftes opberg. ŉ Bestaande toegangspad wat 

opgegradeer gaan word, kruis hierdie kanaal by ŉ bestaande brug. Dit is nog nie bekend of die 

bestaande brug die las van die boutoerusting en turbinekomponente sal kan dra nie. Indien nodig, 

sal die brug versterk word. 

In ooreenstemming met die definisie van ŉ ‘waterloop’ soos verskaf deur beide die Wet op 

Nasionale Omgewingsbestuur (107 van 1998) (soos gewysig 2010) asook die Nasionale Waterwet 

(36 van 1998) maak die kanaal nie ŉ waterloop uit nie. 

Aangesien daar nie verwag word dat die voorgestelde windenergie-aanleg enige fisiese voetspoor 

binne 500 m van ŉ waterloop sal laat nie en water van die plaaslike munisipaliteit verkry sal 

word, word daar verwag dat dit ŉ lae belang impak op enige varswaterhulpbronne sal hê nie. Die 

projek vereis nie ŉ watergebruikaansoek nie. 


pg 16

I. INTRODUCTION 18 

II. THE PROPONENT 19 

III. NEED FOR THE PROJECT 20 

IV. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS 21 

V. PROPOSED INFRASTRUCTURE 22 

VI. SUMMARY OF IMPACT ASSESSMENT 23 

A. botany and terrestrial fauna 23 

B. Birds 23 

C. Bats 24 

D. Archaeology 25 

E. Palaeontology 25 

F. Visual 25 

G. Agriculture 26 

H. Water 27 


pg 17

I. Introduction 

Nca Vredendal Wind (Pty) Ltd (a subsidiary of iNca Energy (Pty) Ltd), proposes to generate 

electricity with wind energy on the Remainder of Farm 293, Groot Draaihoek, and Remainder 

Portions 1, 7 and 8 of Farm 293 just outside the town of Vredendal in the Western Cape Province 

(see Figure 1). The facility and its associated infrastructure will comprise up to 15 turbines of 2 to 

3 MW installed capacity each, to generate have a total installed capacity of 30 MW. The 

alternatives considered for this EIA are as follow: 

No-go (i.e. the project does not proceed); 

15 turbines of 2 MW each; and 

10 turbines of 3 MW each. 

The total area available for the proposed facility comprises about 3530 ha, of which 

approximately 7 ha will undergo physical alteration for the construction of access roads, 

underground cabling, lay-down areas and concrete foundations for the turbines. The facility will 

also require the construction of a 66 kV line of approximately 8 km to the existing Vredendal 

Substation. An area of less than 35 ha will be enclosed by the proposed development (see Figure 

2). 

Figure 1: Location of iNca Vredendal Wind facility 


pg 18

(Google Earth image) 

Figure 2: Provisional site layout for 15 × 2 MW turbines with: control room; measuring mast; hard standing 

areas (grey); existing roads (green); roads to be constructed (orange); power lines (white); 1.5 times toppling 

distance buffer (yellow); and property boundary (red). 

(Source: Google Earth) 

II. The Proponent 

iNca Energy's main area of focus is to develop and operate wind and solar energy projects in 

South Africa, with the ultimate goal of becoming a leading independent power producer in 

Southern Africa. Its majority shareholder is Nu Age Energy, through the Kopano Ke Matla 

Investment Company (KKM), the investment arm of the continent’s largest trade union federation, 

COSATU, benefiting over 2 million members and their families. KKM’s primary objectives are to 

pursue investment opportunities in a socially responsible manner. It seeks investment ventures 

that will directly contribute to the empowerment of workers and the communities in which they 

live. 

The CSIR has been appointed by iNca Vredendal Wind (Pty) Ltd to undertake the EIA process of 

the proposed wind energy facility, to determine the biophysical, social and economic impacts 

associated with undertaking the proposed activity. 


pg 19

III. Need for the Project 

The Western Cape Province is currently facing considerable constraints in the availability and 

stability of electricity supply. This is a consequence of South Africa’s electricity generation and 

supply system being overstretched and that the Western Cape is reliant on the import of 

electricity for the majority of its requirements. The province’s maximum electricity demand of 

approximately 3500 to 3900 MW cannot be met by the transmission line connecting the Western 

Cape to the national grid. Accordingly, pressure on local generation capacity, most notably the 

Koeberg Nuclear Power Station (2 units with combined maximum capacity of 1800 MW), is such 

that if one reactor at Koeberg is offline, the entire province experiences supply shortages. 

Accordingly, the need has been identified to generate additional power in the province. 

Traditional coal-based electricity generation currently contributes approximately 90% of South 

Africa’s supply. Generation of new power from wind is predicted to become cheaper than coal by 

as early as 2020 to 2025, and possibly sooner. Thereafter, wind energy is predicted to continue to 

become cheaper relative to rising costs of coal power (NERSA, 2009). This indicates the economic 

need to develop wind energy facilities in South Africa. 

The development of wind energy is also important for South Africa to reduce its overall 

environmental footprint from power generation (including environmental, social and economical 

externality costs), and thereby to steer the country on a pathway towards sustainability. Coalbased 

power generation is a major 

global source of carbon dioxide emissions, which contributes to global warming. If realized, the 

iNca Vredendal Wind project could reduce future carbon emissions by 125 000 tonnes per year 

(calculated as 2.5 GWh power generation per installed MW, with an emissions factor of 1 tonne 

CO2/MW). 

Wind generation also avoids the water consumption associated with generation of power from 

coal, which is important given that South Africa is an arid country with severe water constraints. 

Eskom currently uses approximately 2% of South Africa’s total fresh water resources to produce 

power largely from wet-cooled coal power stations. Accelerated climate change has the potential 

to impact on the availability and quantity of water in South Africa. This creates a risk for waterdependent 

power generation. By comparison, wind energy projects have no direct water 

consumption during the operational phase. 

The Western Cape Province aims to change the province's current energy mix to include 15% 

renewable energy sources by 2014 (White Paper on Sustainable Energy, Western Cape 2008), 

which is approximately 500 to 600 MW of available renewable energy. The Western Cape wind 

regime is anticipated to provide at least a 30% capacity factor (i.e. generate sufficient wind energy 

30% of the time at suitable sites). If this renewable energy target was to be met entirely by wind 

energy, this would therefore require an installed capacity of approximately 1600 to 2000 MW. 

The iNca Vredendal project would contribute to this target. 

Approximately 60 employment opportunities, including various skill levels, will be created during 

the construction phase of the project, which will extend for between 12 and 18 months. It is 

certain that additional secondary business opportunities for the local and regional economies will 

be generated as a result of the project. Although fewer staff (between 2 and 5) will be employed 


pg 20

during the project’s operational phase, opportunities will be provided for skills training and 

business development in the area. 

IV. Environmental Assessment Process 

Regulations for EIAs were promulgated under Chapter 5 of the National Environmental 

Management Act (NEMA, Act 107 of 1998) in 1997 and 2006 and, most recently, in 2010. The 

proposed project requires full Scoping and Environmental Impact Reporting (S&EIR) in terms of 

GN.R545, and includes activities listed in GN.R544 (requiring Basic Assessment) and GN.R546 (for 

geographical areas). Given the strategic importance of energy, the project requires authorisation 

from the national Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA). Public involvement forms an 

important component of this process, by assisting in the identification of issues and alternatives to 

be evaluated. 

This EIA Report was preceded by a comprehensive scoping process that led to the submission of a 

Final Scoping Report (and Plan of study for the EIA) to the Department of Environmental Affairs 

(DEA) for approval on 14 October 2011. Approval was received on 08 December 2011 which 

marked the end of the Scoping phase, after which the EIA process moved into the impact 

assessment and reporting phase. For background on the scoping process, the reader is referred to 

the Final Scoping Report 

As part of the EIA process all Interested and Affected Parties were invited to provide comment on 

this Draft Environmental Assessment Report. Comments received are included in this Final EIA 

Report. This final report is one more available for public review at the Vredendal, Klawer and 

Lutzville public libraries. An electronic version of this report is available on the internet at: 

http://www.csir.co.za/eia/vredendal.html 

This report is available for commenting for a 21-day period. All comments and responses 

should be submitted to the National Department of Environmental Affairs as well as the 

Environmental Assessment Practitioner at the contact details below by the 02 March 2012. 

Mpho Morudu 

National Department of Environmental Affairs 

Private Bag X 447 

Pretoria 

Tel: 012 395 1775 

Fax:012 320 7539 

E-mail: Mmorudu@environment.gov.za 


pg 21 


CSIR 

Posbus 320 

Stellenbosch 

Tel: 021 8882408 

Faks: 021 8882693 

E-pos: CvdWesthuizen1@csir.co.za

V. Proposed Infrastructure 

The facility and its associated infrastructure will comprise the following infrastructure: 

Roads 

● By constructing a road less than 1 km in length through dryland agricultural fields, the 

proposed site can be accessed from the R363 public road. In addition to construction of this 

new road, an existing road leading to the site, of approximately 7.5 km in length, will be 

upgraded where necessary. 

● An internal road network connecting the turbines and other infrastructure (substation and 

control room) is necessary and will be provided. The road network may include turning 

circles for large trucks and passing points. 

Electrical connections 

● Two overhead 11 kV lines, approximately 8 km in length, will connect the facility to the 

existing 66 kV Vredendal substation located on the property. The powerlines will be installed 

in the existing road reserve and in existing power line servitudes. 

● Electrical transformers will be placed beside each turbine. 

● The wind turbines will be connected to each other by underground medium voltage cables, 

except where a technical assessment suggests that overhead lines are appropriate. These 

power lines will be installed within the internal road servitudes. 

Wind turbines 

● Turbine technology has not at this stage been finally selected; however, up to 15 turbines 

with an installed capacity of between 2 MW and 3 MW each, depending on the final design, 

are envisaged. Possible turbines considered are the 3 MW Alstorm ECO 100 and the 3 MW 

Vestas V112, with a hub height of up to 94 m and a rotor diameter of up to 112 m. Turbines 

will be supported on reinforced concrete spread foundations (maximum 18 m x 18 m x 4 m 

deep). The operational life of the wind turbines is expected to be a minimum of 25 years. 

Turbine life can be extended beyond 25 years through regular maintenance and/or 

technology upgrades. 

● Gravel-surfaced hard standing areas (maximum 40 m x 20 m) adjacent to each turbine will be 

used by cranes during construction and retained for maintenance use throughout the life 

span of the project. 

Other infrastructure 

● A single control room (size 10 m x 10 m) is required for the wind farm. 

● Fencing will be erected, as required, around the substation and the control room. 

● Permanent wind measuring mast of 80 m. The wind mast has been erected on the site and 

has been recording wind data since December 2010. 


pg 22

VI. Summary of Impact Assessment 

A. BOTANY AND TERRESTRIAL FAUNA 

It was found that the terrestrial ecological sensitivity is variable across the site and is largely 

influenced by the level of agriculture-related transformation and degradation. The majority of the 

turbine infrastructure will be sited in areas having a low sensitivity. Degradation in the form of 

invasive alien plant infestations tends to be very limited and patchy on the site. Areas with a 

moderate sensitivity occur adjacent to the proposed access road. The only affected area 

potentially having a high sensitivity would be the Critical Biodiversity area traversed by the 

existing road that needs to be widened and upgraded. The proposed road will follow the route of 

an unsurfaced existing farm road. Loss of vegetation due to road widening will therefore be quite 

limited. In the initial design phase the sensitive areas on the property have been avoided with the 

result that potential impacts on botany and fauna will be minimal. 

From a terrestrial faunal perspective it was found that some species of special concern are present 

in the area and will be affected by the proposed development. All amphibians present on the site 

were found to be of least concern and are well protected elsewhere. The species that will be 

mostly affected during the construction of this project are the species that cannot vacate the 

affected area themselves, e.g. tortoises, burrowing reptiles and burrowing mammals. These 

species can suffer direct mortality. Traffic on the access roads to and from the construction sites 

would most likely result in road kills. Even though the erection of the wind turbines will have 

certain impacts, with the enforcement of mitigating measures, these impacts can be minimised or 

eliminated entirely. The erection of the wind turbines has the potential to stimulate positive 

impacts, such as habitat preservation. The development of this project will be positive; i.e. a no-go 

alternative will lead to non preservation to the area and will be negative. 

It was found that with effective mitigation measures impacts on terrestrial fauna and flora can be 

reduced to low significance, both during the construction and operational phases of the proposed 

development. 

B. BIRDS 

The Vredendal wind energy site is a relatively small wind farm site, with limited intrinsic avian 

biodiversity value. It does not contain any unique habitats or landscape features, nor does it affect 

any known, major avian fly-ways. However, there are (at least seasonally), regionally and/or 

nationally important populations of impact-susceptible species present (e.g. Ludwig’s Bustard) 

and the proposed facility may have a significant detrimental effect on these birds, particularly 

during the operational phase of the development. A pair of Martial Eagles has been recorded in 

2007 to nest in one of the Aurora-Juno 400kV towers approximately 3 km from the nearest 

proposed wind turbine. It is not currently known whether this nest is still active. This will be 

investigated during the 12 month pre-construction monitoring phase as already agreed to by the 

project proponent. 

The absolute number of turbines and the size of the spacing between them may be the most 

important factor in determining the risk of collision at this particular site, especially in view of the 

likelihood of regular flight activity of terrestrial species. In addition, the levels of disturbance 


pg 23

created by the noise and movement of the turbines should be less with fewer turbines. From a 

bird impact perspective, ten 3 MW turbines would be preferable to fifteen 2 MW turbines. 

Implementation of the required mitigation measures should reduce construction phase impacts to 

Low, and operational phase impacts to low or low-medium. 

C. BATS 

The Proposed Vredendal Wind Energy Project falls within the distributional ranges of at least 9 

species that overlap in the area. The most important aspect of the project that would affect bats 

adversely is the wind turbines themselves, in particular, the operational turning blades. There is 

furthermore a cumulative impact related to the fact the Klawer Wind Project is situated 

approximately 13 km from the Vredendal Wind Energy project. 

Except for a derelict house about 1.6 km north-east from the north-eastern border of the 

proposed site, the site does not seem to contain habitat that is attractive to bats. The closest 

features that are indicative of bats are the Groot Draaihoek farmstead buildings and dams. 

Flowers during spring time might attract insects, which, as a food source of insectivores, attract 

bats. Furthermore, wherever cattle and sheep graze one will also find more flies which serves as a 

food source for bats. 

The following species were recorded on site: Neoromicia capensis (Least Concern), Miniopterus 

natalensis (Near Threatened), Tadarida aegyptiaca (Least Concern) and Eptesicus hottentotus 

(Least Concern). The highest number of bat passes was recorded for Neoromicia capensis and 

Tadarida aegyptiaca. The latter is an open air forager and highly likely to forage in the vicinity of 

the operating turbine blades. It is not ruled out that the other species will also forage in the 

vicinity of the turbine blades, either when they are foraging or crossing the site while migrating. 

The proponent has already involved a bat specialist in the design phase of the project and 

committed himself to pre-construction monitoring. Further monitoring will confirm bat activity. 

At present the main mitigation proposed is to completely seal off roofs of new buildings as well as 

those of existing buildings close to the site that do not have any bats roosting in them at present. 

This will prevent bats from moving into the area for roosting purposes, which would make it more 

likely that they could come into contact with the turbines in the surrounding area. If future 

monitoring data shows high activity, the client together with a bat specialist should investigate 

further mitigation measures. This includes refining operational procedures such as cut in speed of 

turbines. 

The no-go scenario, being without any dramatic direct or indirect impacts, is of course from a bat 

perspective the most compelling option, but as a development application is being submitted, the 

proposed wind farm development has been investigated. Literature suggests that bat fatalities 

increase exponentially with tower height, suggesting that larger turbines are reaching the airspace 

of migrating bats. At present no recordings at height have been incorporated in the study. Also, no 

research has been conducted concerning the impact of different size turbines on southern African 

bat species and there is, therefore, uncertainty as to whether the difference (10 – 20 m) in height 

between the 2 MW and 3 MW options will have any effect on bat mortality. From a bat perspective, 

no preferred alternative is provided in terms of this study. If monitoring indicates that the 

proposed wind farm is on a bat migration route, the project design and operation may need to be 

revisited. 


pg 24

Considering data collected up to now the impact of the wind turbines on bats at the proposed 

Vredendal Wind Energy Project is predicted to be of medium significance with mitigation. 

Confidence levels are low since limited data have been incorporated, but the report will be 

updated with additional information from the forthcoming monitoring results. 

D. ARCHAEOLOGY 

During the fieldwork conducted October 2011 one Later Stone Age (vein) quartz flake, one quartz 

chunk and one Middle Stone Age quartzite flake was documented in the footprint area of the 

proposed wind energy farm. One Middle Stone Age quartzite flake and two Later Stone Age 

silcrete flakes (including one retouched flake) were documented in the access road (to be 

upgraded), which is situated alongside the proposed powerline servitude. No archaeological 

remains were found in the proposed powerline servitude. 

The small numbers and isolated context means that the archaeological remains have been rated as 

having low significance and baseline study has shown that the proposed development of the iNca 

Vredendal Wind Energy Farm will have a low significance impact of great significance on the 

archaeological heritage. 

Indications are that the proposed site for the wind energy farm is not a sensitive archaeological 

landscape. It has been concluded that no archaeological mitigation is requited and recommended 

that the proposed contractor’s site must be inspected for archaeological remains once it has been 

identified. 

E. PALAEONTOLOGY 

A palaeontological desktop study of the project area was conducted. Apart from scattered small 

exposures of fluvial quartzites of the Peninsula Formation (Table Mountain Group) of Ordovician 

age, the development area is blanketed in a range of Late Caenozoic superficial deposits, including 

aeolian sands and various soils. 

The overall palaeontological sensitivity of the Table Mountain Group and Late Caenozoic “drift” 

sediments mapped within the study region is low to very low. The palaeontological impact is thus 

of low significance. For this reason, no further palaeontological studies or mitigation measures 

were recommended for this development. 

F. VISUAL 

The proposed windfarm is situated on a landscape that is described as moderately to highly 

visually sensitive, with a significance that is local rather than regional. The landscape is relatively 

sparsely populated to the south and more densely populated to the north along the Olifants River, 

including Vredendal. The windfarm, more particularly, the wind turbines, will be seen from most 

parts within a 20 km radius of the site as the landscape is relatively flat. Some screening is 

provided by local landforms such as the Cederberg Mountains, sandstone inselbergs, low lying 

valleys and low lying coastal platforms. 


pg 25

The receptors include residents of 8 farmsteads between 2 and 7 km of the proposed windfarm 

site and users of local roads servicing the towns and farms. The town of Vredendal is 7 – 15 km 

from the site and will see the proposed turbines from certain areas, in particular the Vredendal 

North area and the southern edge of the town. The windfarm will also be seen from a very short 

section of the N7 twenty kilometers away. There are no receptors within 1 km of the site where 

shadow flicker is considered significant with the closest receptors being the Groot Draaihoek 

farmstead, 2 kms away, and users on a 2 km stretch of a gravel road, which runs between 

Vredendal/Klawer and Lamberts Bay, which is 3 km away. 

Lighting will be visible to the above mentioned receptors and should be minimized, i.e. reduced to 

a minimum of 8 turbines on the Alternative with 15 turbines and 6 turbines on the Alternative 

with 10 turbines. 

The proposed Alternative 2, i.e. 10 turbines, 94 m high hub heights with 60 m rotor blades, will 

not reduce the number of receptors but will result in less turbines being seen. There will be no 

major visual gain or significant mitigation by reducing the number of turbines from 15 to 10, 

therefore either alternative would be acceptable. 

The limited number of these high turbines (10 -15) in a landscape that is extensive and gently 

undulating albeit near to mountains on one side, is visually intrusive to a few receptors but 

predominantly noticeable to most receptors results in the overall visual impact being medium to 

high significance. 

G. AGRICULTURE 

The soil investigation was based on soil test pits. All soils have formed under arid climatic 

conditions within sandy alluvium parent material. The upper soil horizons (A and B horizons) are 

very uniform across the area. They are red, sandy (

All agricultural impacts are considered to be of low significance, predominantly because of the 

small footprint of the development and its minimal disturbance of agricultural activities, and the 

fact that it is situated on land of very low agricultural productivity. The effective loss of 

agricultural land was determined as only 6 hectares, which represents a mere 0.17% of the land 

surface of the farm. The overall agricultural impact of the proposed development is of low 

significance. 

H. WATER 

The proposed project is located on the divide between the E33G and G30H quaternary catchments 

and in the Olifants D and Sandveld sub-Water Management Areas. The site where the turbines 

will be constructed is located approximately 8 km south of the Olifants River. An access road that 

needs to be upgraded is located more than 1.5 km away from the river. According to the fine scale 

Critical Biodiversity maps as well as the National Freshwater Ecological Protected Areas maps 

there is a wetland on the western boundary of the farm, located approximately 900 m from the 

nearest project related infrastructure. Upon inspection (in a non-specialist capacity) it was found 

that the area demarcated as a wetland does not show any wetland characteristics. 

Since the site is located on a ridge acting as a divide between two water catchment areas there is 

no shallow water table that can be affected by the development. The absence of a water table has 

been confirmed by the land owner as there was no water to be found when drilling boreholes for 

livestock purposes. It is proposed to source water for the construction phase from the local 

municipality. 

An artificial canal transferring irrigation water from the Bulshoek Dam farther down the valley 

traverses the north-eastern portion of the farm. There is also an artificial lined dam next to the 

canal that stores off-stream water for the farm’s irrigation needs. An existing access road 

proposed to be upgraded crosses this canal at an existing bridge. It is not yet know whether the 

existing bridge can handle the load of the construction equipment and turbine components. If 

necessary, the bridge will be reinforced. 

According to definition of a ‘watercourse’ as provided by both the National Environmental 

Management Act, (107 of1998) (as amended 2010) as well as the National Water Act (36 of 1998) 

the canal does not constitute a watercourse. 

Since the proposed wind energy facility is not expected to have any physical footprint within 

500 m of a watercourse and water will be sourced from the local municipality it is expected to 

have low significance impact on any freshwater resource. The project does not trigger a water use 

application. 


pg 27


pg 1-1 

Chapter 1: Introduction 

1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1-3 

1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW 1-4 

1.2 THE PROJECT PROPONENT 1-4 

1.3 PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT 1-5 

1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS 1-5 

1.5 DETAILS AND EXPERTISE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

PRACTITIONER (EAP) 1-5 

1.6 EIA TEAM 1-6 

1.7 OBJECTIVES FOR THIS EIA REPORT 1-6


pg 1-2 


Table 1-1 The EIA Management Team 1-6 

Table 1-2 Summary of where requirements of an Environmental Impact Assessment Report (in terms of 

Regulations 31(2), 32 and 33 of the NEMA 2010 EIA Regulations) are provided in this EIA 

Report 1-7 

Figure 1-1 Location of the proposed wind energy project (bordered in red) near Vredendal 1-3 

Figure 1-2 Representation of the shareholders of iNca Energy (Pty) Ltd (at the top) 1-4


pg 1-3 


1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 

iNca Vredendal Wind (Pty) Ltd - a subsidiary of iNca Energy (Pty) Ltd - proposes to establish a 

wind farm for the generation of electricity on the farm Groot Draaihoek Remainder Farm 293 and 

Remainder Portions 1, 7 and 8 of Farm 293 near the town of Vredendal in the Western Cape 

Province. The facility will comprise of up to 15 turbines with an installed generation capacity of 

between 2 MW to 3 MW each, in order to attain a total installed capacity of 30 MW of power. The 

total number of turbines to be installed will depend on the individual turbine capacity. The facility 

and its associated infrastructure will have a footprint of less than 35 hectares. 

The CSIR has been appointed by iNca Vredendal Wind (Pty) Ltd to undertake the Environmental 

Impact Assessment (EIA) of the proposed wind energy facility to determine the biophysical, social 

and economic impacts associated with undertaking the proposed activity. The impacts associated 

with its construction and operation are assessed in this EIA report. 

Figure 1-1 Location of the proposed wind energy project (bordered in red) near Vredendal 

(Source: Google Earth)

1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW 


pg 1-4 


The applicant proposes to generate 30 MW of electricity from wind energy on the farm Groot 

Draaihoek Remainder of Farm 293 and Remainder Portions 1, 7 and 8. The farm is located in the 

Vredendal administrative district and the Matzikama municipal area. The current landuse is 

agricultural, with a portion of the farm having been cultivated and the rest grazed by domestic 

livestock. The project details are discussed in Chapter 2 of this report. 

1.2 THE PROJECT PROPONENT 

The proponent for the proposed wind energy facility is iNca Vredendal Wind (Pty) Ltd, a 

subsidiary of iNca Energy (Pty) Ltd. iNca Energy's main area of focus is to develop and operate 

wind and solar energy projects in South Africa, with the ultimate goal of becoming a leading 

independent power producer in Southern Africa. 

Its majority shareholder (51%) is Nu Age 

Energy, through the Kopano Ke Matla 

Investment Company (KKM) The latter is the 

investment arm of the continent’s largest trade 

union federation, COSATU, benefiting over 2 

million members and their families. KKM’s 

primary objectives are to pursue investment 

opportunities in a socially and environmentally 

responsible manner. It seeks investment 

ventures that will directly contribute to the 

empowerment of workers and the communities 

in which they live. The remaining shareholder is 

iNca Energy France, with 49% shareholding, 

This company brings with it vast experience of 

the wind energy industry through their 

partnership with a major utility. 

Nu Age Energy (Pty) Ltd plays an active role as 

a BEE Partner, and will ensure that good social 

practices are applied and that disadvantaged 

people will be empowered. 

Figure 1-2 Representation of the 

shareholders of iNca Energy (Pty) Ltd 

(at the top)

1.3 PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT 


pg 1-5 


The purpose for the proposed project is to feed electricity from the wind energy facility into the 

national electricity grid. This is supported by purchase tariffs known as the Renewable Energy 

Feed-in Tariff, which the national energy regulator, NERSA, announced in 2009 to incentivise the 

growth of renewable energy. The project is aimed at overcoming rolling blackouts anticipated by 

the Medium Term Risk Mitigation Plan (MTRM) 1 for electricity in South Africa from 2011 to 2016 

if non-Eskom power generation projects are not realised. The need and desirability of this project 

are discussed in Chapter 2 of this report. 

1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS 

Regulations for EIAs were promulgated under Chapter 5 of the National Environmental 

Management Act (NEMA, Act 107 of 1998) in 1997 2 and 2006 3 and, most recently, in 2010 4 . The 

proposed project requires full Scoping and Environmental Impact Reporting (S&EIR) in terms of 

GN.R545, published in June 2010, and includes Basic Assessments required for activities listed in 

GN.R544 and GN.R546. Given that energy related projects have been elevated to national strategic 

importance in terms of the environmental authorisation process, the proposed project requires 

authorisation from the National Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA), acting in 

consultation with other spheres of government. Public involvement forms an important 

component of this process, by assisting in the identification of issues and alternatives to be 

evaluated. The listed activities included in the proposed project are discussed in detail in Chapter 

5 of this report. 

1.5 DETAILS AND EXPERTISE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

PRACTITIONER (EAP) 

The EIA Project Team is being led by Paul Lochner, who has 19 years experience in environmental 

assessment and management studies, primarily in the leadership and integration functions. He is 

a certified Environmental Assessment Practitioner for South Africa (EAPSA). Paul is supported by 

a CSIR Project Manager, Cornelius van der Westhuizen. Cornelius completed an MSc 

Environmental Management at the Christian Albrecht Universität zu Kiel, Germany (refer to 

Appendix A for EAP CVs). 

1 Medium Term Risk Mitigation Plan (MTRM) for Electricity in South Africa - 2010 to 2016. Department of Energy. Available 

online: http://www.doe-irp.co.za/content/Medium_Term_Risk_Mitigation_Project_Phase_1.pdf. Accessed 11 July 2011. 

2 Government Notice No. R. 1182 of 5 September 1997 (as amended) 

3 Government Notice No. R. 385, R386 and R387 of 21 April 2006 (as amended) 

4 Government Notice No. R. 543, R544, R545 and R546 of 18 June 2010 (as amended)

1.6 EIA TEAM 


pg 1-6 


This report includes a Plan of Study for EIA (PSEIA) that outlines how the EIA is being undertaken 

and prescribes the roles and responsibilities of parties involved. Public involvement forms an 

important component of this process, by assisting in the identification of issues and alternatives to 

be evaluated. The CSIR team appointed to undertake the EIA is presented in Table 1-1. The 

specialists are familiar with the environment or have done similar specialist studies for other 

EIAs. 

Table 1-1 The EIA Management Team 

NAME ORGANISATION ROLE 

Paul Lochner CSIR Project Leader (EAPSA) 


Specialist Team 

CSIR Project Manager 

Jamie Pote (botany) and Mark Marshal 

(desktop terrestrial faunal input) 

Private Consultants Botany and terrestrial fauna 

Chris van Rooyen, Chris van Rooyen Consultants Avifauna (birds) 

Stephanie Dippenaar Private Consultant Bats 

Megan Anderson Megan Anderson Landscape 

Architects 

Visual 

Jonathan Kaplan Agency for Cultural Resource 

Heritage (archaeology) 

Management 

Dr John Almond Natura Viva Palaeontology (desktop study) 

Johann Lanz Private Consultant Agriculture 

1.7 OBJECTIVES FOR THIS EIA REPORT 



(DEA) for approval on the 14th of October 2011. Approval was received on 08 December 2011 

which marked the end of the Scoping phase, after which the EIA process moved into the impact 


the Final Scoping Report (CSIR, 2011) 5. 

The primary objective of this EIA Report is to present the competent authority (i.e. DEA) and 

interested and affected parties (I&APs), with the predicted impacts and associated management 

actions required to avoid or mitigate the negative impacts; or to enhance the benefits of the 

proposed project. 

5 CSIR, 2011. Environmental Impact Assessment for the proposed iNca Vredendal Wind project in the Western 

Cape: Final Scoping Report. CSIR Report Number: CSIR/CAS/EMS/ER/2011/0018/B. Stellenbosch. Available 

online at: http://www.csir.co.za/eia/vredendal.html


pg 1-7 


In terms of legal requirements, a crucial objective of the EIA Report is to satisfy the requirements 

of Regulations 31, 32 and 33 of the NEMA EIA Regulations of 18 June 2010 which came into effect 

on 2 August 2010. These regulations determine/prescribe the content of the EIA Report and 

specify the type of supporting information that must accompany the submission of the report to 

the authorities. An overview of where the requirements are addressed in this report is presented 

in Table 1.2. 

This process is also designed to satisfy the requirements of Regulations 55, 56 and 57 of the 

NEMA 2010 EIA Regulations relating to the public participation process and, specifically, the 

registration of I&APs and recording their submissions. All I&APs on the current database for this 

EIA (Appendix D) have been informed of the release of the final EIA Report for a 21-day 

commenting period. All comments on the Draft EIA Report are recorded and addressed in this 

Final EIA Report. Comments received on this Final EIA Report will be considered by DEA for 

decision-making. 

The draft Environmental Management Plan (EMP) that is required as part of the EIA process 

(Regulation 33) is provided in Section B of this EIA Report. 

Table 1-2 Summary of where requirements of an Environmental Impact Assessment Report (in terms of 

Regulations 31(2), 32 and 33 of the NEMA 2010 EIA Regulations) are provided in this EIA Report 

SECTION REQUIREMENT FOR EIA REPORT 

WHERE THIS IS 

PROVIDED IN THIS 

EIA REPORT 

(2) (a) (i) The EAP who compiled the report Chapter 1, Appendix A 

(2) (a) (ii) The expertise of the EAP to carry out an environmental impact 

assessment 

Appendix A 

(2) (b) A detailed description of the proposed activity Chapter 2 

(2) (c) A description of the property on which the activity is to be 

Chapter 5 and 

undertaken and the location of the activity on the property, or if it is: Chapters 6 to 13 

(2) (c) (i) A linear activity, a description of the route of the activity N/A 

(2) (c) (ii) An ocean-based activity, the coordinates where the activity is to be 

undertaken 

N/A 

(2) (d) A description of the environment that may be affected by the activity Chapter 5 and 

and the manner in which the physical, biological, social, economic 

and cultural aspects of the environment may be affected by the 

proposed activity 

Chapters 6 to 13 

(2) (e) Details of the public participation process conducted in terms of 

sub-regulation (1), including: 

Chapter 4 

(2) (e) (i) Steps undertaken in accordance with the plan of study Chapter 4 

(2) (e) (ii) A list of persons, organisations and organs of state that were 

registered as interested and affected parties 

Appendix D 

(2) (e) (iii) A summary of comments received from, and a summary of issues 

raised by registered interested and affected parties, the date of 

receipt of these comments and the response of the EAP to those 

comments 

Chapter 14 

(2) (e) (iv) Copies of any representation, objections and comments received Appendix E

SECTION REQUIREMENT FOR EIA REPORT 


pg 1-8 


WHERE THIS IS 

PROVIDED IN THIS 

EIA REPORT 

(2) (f) 

from registered interested and affected parties 

A description of the need and desirability of the proposed activity Chapter 2 

(2) (g) A description of identified potential alternatives to the proposed Chapter 3 and 

activity, including advantages and disadvantages that the proposed 

activity or alternatives may have on the environment and the 

community that may be affected by the activity 


(2) (h) An indication of the methodology used in determining the 

significance of potential environmental impacts 

Chapter 4 

(2) (i) A description and comparative assessment of all alternatives Chapter 3, 4 and 

identified during the environmental impact assessment process Chapters 6 to 13 

(2) (j) A summary of the findings and recommendations of any specialist 

report or report on a specialised process 

Chapter 15 

(2) (k) A description of all environmental issues that were identified during 

the environmental impact assessment process, an assessment of the 

significance of each issue and an indication of the extent to which 

the issue could be addressed by the adoption of mitigation measures 


(2) (l) An assessment of each identified potentially significant impact, 

including: 


(2) (l) (i) Cumulative impacts Chapters 6 to 13 

(2) (l) (ii) The nature of the impact Chapters 6 to 13 

(2) (l) (iii) The extent and duration of the impact Chapters 6 to 13 

(2) (l) (iv) The probability of the impact occurring Chapters 6 to 13 

(2) (l) (v) The degree to which the impact can be reversed Chapters 6 to 13 

(2) (l) (vi) The degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable loss of 

resources 


(2) (l) (vii) The degree to which the impact can be mitigated Chapters 6 to 13 

(2) (m) A description of any assumptions, uncertainties and gaps in 

knowledge 


(2) (n) A reasoned opinion as to whether the activity should or should not 

be authorised, and if the opinion is that it should be authorised, any 

conditions that should be made in respect of that authorisation 

Chapter 15 

(2) (o) An environmental impact statement which contains Chapter 15 

(2) (o) (i) A summary of the key findings of the environmental impact 

assessment 

Chapter 15 

(2) (o) (ii) A comparative assessment of the positive and negative implications 

of the proposed activity 

Chapter 15 

(2) (p) A draft environmental management programme containing the 

aspects contemplated in regulation 33 

Section B 

(2) (q) Copies of any specialist reports and reports on specialised processes 

complying with regulation 32 


(2) (r) Any specific information that may be required by the competent 

authority 

N/A 

(2) (s) Any other matters required in terms of sections 24 (4) (a) and (b) of 

the Act 

N/A


pg 2-1 

Chapter 2: Project Description 

2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2-3 

2.1 KEY COMPONENTS OF THE PROPOSED ENERGY FACILITY 2-3 

2.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF A WIND TURBINE 2-6 

2.3 PROJECT ACTIVITIES 2-8 

2.3.1 Construction 2-8 

2.3.2 Operation and maintenance 2-12 

2.3.3 Period of operation 2-12 

2.3.4 Decommissioning 2-12 

2.4 NEED AND DESIRABILITY OF THE PROJECT 2-12


pg 2-2 


Table 2-1 Need and desirability of the proposed project in terms of the Matzikama and West Coast 

District Municipality IDP 2-15 

Figure 2-1 Overview of proposed wind farm (A) and enlargement of site access and power station (B) 

showing: existing roads (green); roads to be constructed (orange); power lines to be 

constructed (white); Existing power lines (blue): 1.5 times toppling distance buffer proposed 

by the amended LUPO (yellow); and property boundary (red). 2-4 

Figure 2-2 Provisional site layout for 15 × 2 MW turbines with: control room; measuring mast; hard 

standing areas (grey); existing roads (green); roads to be constructed (orange); power lines 

(white); 1.5 times toppling distance buffer proposed by the amended LUPO (yellow); and 

property boundary (red). 2-5 

Figure 2-3 Generic design for a horizontal axis wind turbine 2-7 

Figure 2-5 Concrete base for the turbine 2-10 

Figure 2-4 Turbine tower being transported 2-10 

Figure 2-6 Turbine tower being transported 2-10 

Figure 2-7 Internal access roads to turbine sites 2-10 

Figure 2-9 Top of tower placed into position 2-10 

Figure 2-8 Tower section being lifted 2-10 

Figure 2-13 Rotor blades placed into position 2-11 

Figure 2-12 Nacelle placed into position 2-11 

Figure 2-11 Nacelle being lifted 2-11 

Figure 2-10 Rotor blade hub being lifted 2-11

2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 


pg 2-3 


This chapter incorporates project-related information provided by iNca Energy (Pty) Ltd. 

2.1 KEY COMPONENTS OF THE PROPOSED ENERGY FACILITY 

The facility and its associated infrastructure will comprise the following: 

Roads 

o By constructing a road less than 1 km in length through dryland agricultural fields, 

the proposed site can be accessed from the R363 public road. In addition to 

construction of this new road, an existing road leading to the site, of approximately 

7.5 km in length, will be upgraded where necessary. 

o An internal road network connecting the turbines and other infrastructure 

(substation and control room) is necessary and will be provided. The road network 

may include turning circles for large trucks and passing points (see Figure 2-1). 

Electrical connections 

o Two overhead 11 kV lines, approximately 8 km in length, will connect the facility to 

the existing 66 kV Vredendal substation located on the property. The powerlines 

will be installed in the existing road reserve and in existing power line servitudes. 

o Electrical transformers will be placed beside each turbine. 

o The wind turbines will be connected to each other by underground medium voltage 

cables, except where a technical assessment suggests that overhead lines are 

appropriate. These power lines will be installed within the internal road servitudes 

(see Figure 2-1). 

Wind turbines 

o Turbine technology has not at this stage been finally selected; however, up to 15 

turbines with an installed capacity of between 2 MW and 3 MW each, depending on 

the final design, are envisaged. Possible turbines considered are the 3 MW Alstorm 

ECO 100 and the 3 MW Vestas V112, with a hub height of up to 94 m and a rotor 

diameter of up to 112 m. Turbines will be supported on reinforced concrete spread 

foundations (maximum 18 m x 18 m x 4 m deep). The operational life of the wind 

turbines is expected to be a minimum of 25 years. Turbine life can be extended 

beyond 25 years through regular maintenance and/or technology upgrades. 

o Gravel-surfaced hard standing areas (maximum 40 m x 20 m) adjacent to each 

turbine will be used by cranes during construction and retained for maintenance 

use throughout the life span of the project (see Figure 2-2). 

Other infrastructure 

o A single control room (size 10 m x 10 m) is required for the wind farm. 

o Fencing will be erected, as required, around the substation and the control room. 

o Permanent wind measuring mast of 80 m. The wind mast has been erected on the 

site and has been recording wind data since December 2010 (see Figure 2-2).

A B 

i 

ii 


pg 2-4 


Figure 2-1 Overview of proposed wind farm (A) and enlargement of site access and power station (B) showing: existing roads (green); roads to be constructed (orange); power lines to be constructed (white); Existing power lines (blue): 1.5 times toppling 

distance buffer proposed by the amended LUPO (yellow); and property boundary (red). 

(Source: Google Earth 

iii 

i 

iv 

ii 

iii 

iv


pg 2-5 


Figure 2-2 Provisional 

site layout for 15 × 2 MW 

turbines with: control room; 

measuring mast; hard 

standing areas (grey); 

existing roads (green); 

roads to be constructed 

(orange); power lines 

(white); 1.5 times toppling 

distance buffer proposed by 

the amended LUPO (yellow); 

and property boundary 

(red). 



pg 2-6 


Approximately 60 employment opportunities, including various skill levels, will be created during 

the construction phase of the project, which will extend for between 12 and 18 months. It is 

certain that additional secondary business opportunities for the local and regional economies will 

be generated as a result of the project. Although fewer staff (between 2 and 5) will be employed 

during the project’s operational phase, opportunities will be provided for skills training and 

business development in the area. 

2.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF A WIND TURBINE 

Modern wind energy turbines are mounted on either a vertical or horizontal axis. Because vertical 

axis wind turbines are generally less efficient than horizontal axis turbines, all commercially 

produced wind turbines used for electricity generation are mounted on a horizontal axis. This will 

also apply to the proposed Vredendal wind energy facility. A typical horizontal-axis turbine 

consists of the following components, shown in Figure 2-3: 

When rotor blades are forced by the wind to move, they produce kinetic energy that 

converts to rotational energy. These blades are bolted to a hub. 

The nacelle is a casing that contains the shaft, gearbox, electronic control unit, yaw 

controller, brakes and the generator. The shaft is connected to the centre of the rotor and 

spins in concert with the rotor at a low speed, about 30-60 rpm. It is connected through a 

gearbox to a high speed shaft (operational capacity of 1000-1800 rpm) that connects to an 

electrical generator at its other end, which is an assembly of permanent magnets that 

surrounds a coil of wire. When the rotor spins the shaft, the shaft spins the assembly of 

magnets, which generates voltage in the coil of wire. This voltage provides alternating 

electrical current for distribution through power lines 

The tower supports the rotor and nacelle and provides the height for the rotor blades to 

clear the ground safely. 

The turbine has electrical equipment to carry the electricity from the generator down 

through the tower. This equipment also powers the safety controls on the turbine.


pg 2-7 


Figure Fig re 22-3 3 Generic design for a horizontal hori ontal axis a is wind ind turbine t rbine 

(Source: Encyclopaedia of Renewable Energy and Sustainable Living)


pg 2-8 


The output of a wind turbine depends on the velocity of the wind, height of the hub and the length 

of the rotor blades. The turbines envisaged for Vredendal will have a maximum hub height of 94 

m, a maximum rotor blade diameter of 112 m and maximum rotor sweep (circular area available 

for producing power) of 9852 m 2. Each turbine will have an installed power generation capacity of 

between 2 MW and 3 MW. 

Wind turbines are designed to deliver peak efficiency at a specific wind speed, and manufacturers 

provide power curves that show how output varies with wind speed. Turbines have a start-up 

speed, which is the speed at which the rotor and blades start to rotate, and a cut-in speed, the 

minimum wind speed at which usable power is generated. This is typically about 3 - 4 metres per 

second. The cut-out speed is a safety feature that protects the wind turbine from mechanical 

damage, and is the highest wind speed at which the turbine will stop producing power. This is 

typically about 25 metres per second. As soon as the wind drops back to a safe level, the turbine 

usually resumes normal operation. The rated speed is the minimum wind speed at which the 

turbine delivers peak efficiency to generate its designated rated power. The rated speed of the 

proposed 3 MW turbines is 10 to 12 metres per second. 

Power output from a turbine increases as the wind speed increases, and usually levels off above 

the rated speed. This is the furling speed, which is the amount of wind required to produce the 

maximum power that a turbine is capable of generating. Any wind that blows in excess of that 

speed will not generate more than this maximum power generation capacity. 

2.3 PROJECT ACTIVITIES 

2.3.1 Construction 

Construction is planned to start in early 2013, and will take up to 12 months (possibly as long as 

18 months). After construction, a further month will be devoted to commissioning and testing of 

each turbine. 

Site Preparation 

A geotechnical survey will be undertaken before each turbine is set out. 

Access roads 

The existing access road to the site from the R363 will need to be upgraded. Additional 

internal roads will provide access to each turbine (see Figure 2-1). It is proposed to use 

earth from the turbine base excavation for the construction and upgrading of roads. 

The load on these roads will include cranes and separate turbine components. 

Upgrading of existing roads and construction of new internal roads will be required to 

accommodate a grader, digger loader, excavator, rollers, water carts and tippers. 

Workforce facilities and laydown areas 

Facilities for a site office, first aid station, ablution and change facilities, and any other 

support the workforce may need, will be established for the construction phase. At each 

turbine site, vegetation will be cleared to create a laydown area for temporary storage 

of equipment and supplies. This will include space for parking and loading/offloading of


pg 2-9 


trucks and dumpers, assembling turbine components and a concrete standing pad for 

the crane that will erect the turbine towers. 

Turbines 

Vegetation will be cleared for excavation of foundations for the turbines. The earth 

removed will be used for road construction. Geotechnical and structural engineers will 

assess the site conditions and design suitable foundations. Foundations are constructed 

from steel, gravel and concrete and are usually about the size of an Olympic swimming 

pool (for each turbine tower). 

Turbines will be erected one at a time. The tower is erected first, in sections, using two 

cranes. The nacelle will be lifted into position at the top of the tower. The rotor 

(including the blades and the hub) will be assembled on the ground and then lifted into 

position and secured using two cranes. Figure 2-4 to Figure 2-13 show how this is done. 

Electrical infrastructure and connections 

Two overhead 11 kV lines, approximately 8 km in length, need to be constructed to 

connect the facility to the existing 66 kV Vredendal substation located on the property. 

The wind turbines will be connected to each other by underground medium voltage 

cables, except where a technical assessment suggests that overhead lines are 

appropriate. Underground cables will be installed alongside service roads at a depth of 

up to 1.5 metres. 

Site remediation 

Temporary work areas will be rehabilitated and restored when construction has ended 

and equipment removed. The goal will be to restore the integrity of the site so as not to 

compromise alternative land-uses in the long term.


pg 2-10 


Figure 2-4 Turbine tower being transported Figure 2-5 Concrete base for the turbine 

Figure 2-6 Turbine tower being transported Figure 2-7 Internal access roads to turbine sites 

Figure 2-8 Tower section being lifted Figure 2-9 Top of tower placed into position


pg 2-11 


Figure 2-10 Rotor blade hub being lifted Figure 2-11 Nacelle being lifted 

Figure 2-12 Nacelle placed into position Figure 2-13 Rotor blades placed into position

2.3.2 Operation and maintenance 


pg 2-12 


The turbine manufacturer will remotely monitor the operation and maintenance of the turbines. 

Over the lifetime of the turbines, the maintenance schedule includes an initial inspection, a semiannual, 

annual and two and five year inspections, depending on the type of turbine. Maintenance 

requires general cleaning of all components, changing of oil and replacement of brake linings. 

2.3.3 Period of operation 

The operational life of the wind turbines is expected to be a minimum of 25 years. Turbine life can 

be extended beyond 25 years through regular maintenance and/or technology upgrades. The land 

on which the facility will be established will be leased from the owners by the developer for the 

period of operation. Consented use for renewable energy as contemplated in the Land Use 

Planning Ordinance (LUPO), ordinance 15 of 1985 as amended July 2011 (published in the 

Provincial Gazette Nr 6894 of 2011) 1, will be applied for by the proponent at the Matzikama 

Municipality. 

2.3.4 Decommissioning 

Decommissioning involves removing the turbines, and covering the concrete footings with soil to 

a depth sufficient for natural vegetation re-growth. The landowners have agreed that turbine 

foundations do not need to be removed during decommissioning as the foundations are deep 

enough underground as to not hamper normal agricultural activities. Whether the turbine 

foundations will be removed still needs to be confirmed by the Matzikama Municipality. Any other 

supporting infrastructure no longer in use will be removed from the site and either disposed of at 

a registered disposal facility or recycled if possible. Since it is not at this time known which 

disposal facilities will be available at the time of disposal it is not possible to identify specific 

facilities at this stage. When the time for decommissioning comes, the nearest facilities registered 

to receive waste and recycle material from the find farm will be identified and utilised. 

Prior to the commencement of the project, funding to cover the cost of decommissioning has to be 

made available to the Matzikama Municipality. These funds will be utilised to decommission the 

facility should the developer no longer be capable of doing so. This security can either be in the 

form of insurance or a fund managed by the municipality. 

2.4 NEED AND DESIRABILITY OF THE PROJECT 

The Western Cape Province is currently facing considerable constraints in the availability and 

stability of electricity supply. This is a consequence of South Africa’s electricity generation and 

supply system being generally overstretched and due to the Western Cape’s reliance on imported 

electricity for the majority of its power demand. The province’s maximum electricity demand of 

approximately 3500 to 3900 MW cannot be met by the transmission lines connecting the Western 

Cape to the national grid. Accordingly, pressure on local generation capacity, most notably the 

1 Province of Western Cape Provincial Gazette 6894 Friday, 29 July 2011. Available online at: 

http://greengazette.co.za/documents/provincial-gazette-for-western-cape-6894-of-29-jul-2011_20110729-WCP-06894.pdf 

Assessed 09 November 2011


pg 2-13 


Koeberg Nuclear Power Station (2 units with combined maximum capacity of 1800 MW), is such 

that if one reactor at Koeberg is offline, the entire province experiences supply shortages. 

Accordingly, the need has been identified to generate additional power in the province. This 

project is aimed at overcoming rolling blackouts anticipated by the Medium Term Risk Mitigation 

Plan 2 for electricity in South Africa from 2011 to 2016 if non-Eskom power generation projects 

are not realised. 

Traditional coal-based electricity generation currently contributes approximately 90% of South 

Africa’s supply. Generation of new power from wind is predicted to become cheaper than coal by 

as early as 2020 to 2025. Thereafter, wind energy is predicted to continue to become cheaper 

relative to rising costs of coal power (NERSA, 2009) 3. This indicates the economic need to develop 

wind energy facilities in South Africa. 

The development of wind energy is also important for South Africa to reduce its overall 

environmental footprint from power generation (including externality costs), and thereby to steer 

the country on a pathway towards sustainability. Coal-based power generation is a major global 

source of carbon dioxide emissions, which contributes to global warming. Coal power also leads to 

releases of harmful emissions such as oxides of sulphur and nitrogen. If realized, the iNca 

Vredendal Wind project could reduce future carbon emissions by 125 000 tonnes per year 

(calculated as 2.5 GWh power generation per installed MW, with an emissions factor of 1 tonne 

CO2/MW). 

Wind generation also avoids the water consumption associated with generation of power from 

coal, which is important given that South Africa is an arid country with severe water constraints. 

Eskom currently uses approximately 2% of South Africa’s total fresh water resources to produce 

power largely from wet-cooled coal power stations. These power stations typically use 

approximately 10 000 m 3 of fresh water per MW per annum (Eskom presentation, Water Security 

Africa, 18-20 May 2009). Accelerated climate change has the potential to impact on the availability 

and quantity of water in South Africa, with decreases in summer rainfall predicted in the interior 

and increasing instances of droughts and floods. This creates a risk for water-dependent power 

generation. By comparison, wind energy has no direct water consumption, which reduces the 

demand on South Africa’s already over-stretched water resources while also avoiding the risks 

posed by drought on the country’s ability to generate power. 

The Western Cape Province aims to change the regional current energy mix to include 15% 

renewable energy sources by 2014 (White Paper on Sustainable Energy, Western Cape, 2010) 4, 

which equates to approximately 500 to 600 MW of available renewable energy. The Western Cape 

wind regime is anticipated to provide at least a 30% capacity factor (i.e. generate sufficient wind 

energy 30% of the time at suitable sites). If this renewable energy target was to be met entirely by 

2 

Medium Term Risk Mitigation Plan (MTRM) for Electricity in South Africa - 2010 to 2016. Department of Energy. Available 

online at: http://www.doe-irp.co.za/content/Medium_Term_Risk_Mitigation_Project_Phase_1.pdf. Assessed 09 November 

2011 

3 

NERSA. 2009. Renewable Energy Feed-In Tariffs Phase II: Reasons for Decisions. Available online 

www.remtproject.org/FileDownload.aspx?FileID=47. Assessed 20 July 2011 

4 

DEA&DP. White Paper on Sustainable Energy, Western Cape, 2010 Available online: 

http://www.westerncape.gov.za/Text/2010/7/white_paper_-_sustainable_energy_western_cape.pdf 

Assessed 09 November 2011


pg 2-14 


wind energy, this would require an installed capacity of approximately 1 600 to 2 000 MW. The 

iNca Vredendal project would contribute to this target. 

DEA&DP (2010) 5 describes need and desirability as components of the “wise use of land”, where 

need refers to time, and desirability to place. In other words, need and desirability answer the 

question of whether the activity is being proposed at the right time and in the right place. 

DEA&DP (2010) provides guidance with a series in questions, listed in Box 2.1. 

Box 2.1: Need and desirability of the proposed project 

Is the proposed activity needed? 

● Is the proposed development in line with the projects and 

programmes identified as priorities within the IDP? 

● Should there be development here at this time? 

● Is the proposed activity and its associated land use a local 

priority? 

● Are the necessary services with adequate capacity currently 

available, or must additional capacity be created to cater for the 

development? 

● Is this development provided for in the infrastructure planning of 

the municipality and, if not, what are the implications in respect of 

priority and placement of services and opportunity costs? 

● Is the proposed activity part of a national programme that 

addresses an issue of national concern or importance? 

Is the proposed activity desirable? 

● Is the proposed activity the best practicable environmental option 

for this site? 

● Would authorisation of this activity compromise the integrity of 

the existing municipal IDP and SDF as agreed to by the relevant 

authorities. 

● Would authorisation of this activity compromise the integrity of 

the existing environmental management priorities for the area. If 

so, is its justification that it promotes sustainability? 

● Are there factors at this place that favour the land use associated 

with the proposed activity? 

● How will the activity or its associated land use impact on sensitive 

natural and cultural areas? 

● How will the proposed activity impact on people’s health and 

wellbeing, e.g., noise, odours, visual character and sense of place, 

5 

DEA&DP (2010) Guideline on Need and Desirability, EIA Guideline and Information Document Series. Western Cape 

Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (DEA&DP).


pg 2-15 


Table 2-1 Need and desirability of the proposed project in terms of the Matzikama and West Coast District 

Municipality IDP 

IS THE PROPOSED ACTIVITY NEEDED? 

Aspect Matzikama IDP (2007 – 2011) West Coast District Municipality 

(WCDM) IDP (2010 – 2014) 

Is the proposed 

development in line 

with the projects and 

programmes 

identified as priorities 

within the IDP? 

Should there be 

development here at 

this time? 


activity and its 

associated land use a 

local priority? 

In Vredendal the housing shortage is 

approximately 2 060 units (pg 19). In 

order to extend electricity reticulation 

to the new houses, an extension to the 

high voltage ring was completed. 

A budget of R2.2m was allocated in 

2007/08 for the expansion of a 

substation (pg 20). The provision of 

electricity is one of the priority needs in 

the local municipality. 

Entrepreneurial Development was 

undertaken as part of the municipality’s 

projects and programmes. The concept 

saw the clustering of small business 

structures which are either centrally 

located or along main roads in the 

residential areas (pg24). 

It may be assumed that in order to 

expand the reach of entrepreneurs they 

would have to find locations away from 

the main roads and central locations. 

The provision of electricity would aid 

the dispersal of business opportunities 

throughout the municipality. 

The current IDP was compiled prior to 

2007 at a time when renewable energy 

was not extensively pursued. Therefore 

this document does not make specific 

reference to renewable energy (and 

specifically to wind energy). 

According to the WCDM IDP 

approximately 2 000 more houses 

are required for the Matzikama 

municipal area (pg 33). While most 

households are electrified, 

additional power to service 

approximately 2 000 new 

households will need to be sourced. 

Eskom Holdings Limited is 

investigating renewable energy 

projects, which include a proposed 

wind energy facility in the 

Matzikama municipal area. This 

proposed facility will be comprised 

of a cluster of up to 100 wind energy 

turbines (pg 101). 

According to the WCDM IDP one of 

the strategic goals of the Matzikama 

municipality is to attract external 

investment and encourage local 

economic development through 

business development (pg 37); one 

of the major economic and social 

projects is the Eskom Wind Farm 

(pg 38). This indicates that there is 

potential to contribute to both the 

renewable energy initiatives of the 

government as well as contribute to 

the social and economic 

development of the area. 

. 

According to the WCDM IDP the 

Matzikama municipal area has been 

identified as a potential area for the 

development of wind energy 

facilities.

IS THE PROPOSED ACTIVITY NEEDED? 


pg 2-16 



Are the necessary 

services with adequate 

capacity currently 

available, or must 

additional capacity be 

created to cater for the 

development? 

Is this development 

provided for in the 

infrastructure 

planning of the 

municipality and, if 

not, what are the 

implications in respect 

of priority and 

placement of services 

and opportunity costs? 


activity part of a 

national programme 

that addresses an 

issue of national 

concern or 

importance? 

Upgrades to substations have already 

taken place. 

Yes 

IS THE PROPOSED ACTIVITY DESIRABLE? 

Yes – the project is part of the REFIT initiative. 

(WCDM) IDP (2010 – 2014) 



activity the best 

practicable 

environmental option 

(BPEO) for this site? 

Would authorisation of 

this activity 

compromise the 

integrity of the 

existing municipal IDP 

and SDF as agreed to 

by the relevant 

authorities? 

(WCDM) IDP (2010 – 2014) 

Yes. According to the West Coast District Municipality Spatial Development 

Framework (2007) Vredendal was identified as a Leader Town and a 

development corridor (Conceptual Spatial Plan – Appendix B) 

No

IS THE PROPOSED ACTIVITY DESIRABLE? 


pg 2-17 



Would authorisation of 

this activity 

compromise the 

integrity of the 

existing environmental 

management priorities 

for the area. If so, is its 

justification that it 

promotes 

sustainability? 

Are there factors at 

this place that favour 

the land use associated 

with the proposed 

activity? 

How will the activity or 

its associated land use 

impact on sensitive 

natural and cultural 

areas? 

How will the proposed 

activity impact on 

people’s health and 

wellbeing, e.g., noise, 

odours, visual 

character and sense of 

place, etc? 

Will the proposed 

activity or its 

associated land use 

result in unacceptable 

opportunity costs? 

Will the proposed land 

use result in 

unacceptable 

cumulative impacts? 

No 

Yes – the area has a favourable wind regime 

(WCDM) IDP (2010 – 2014) 

The activity has the potential to impact on the visual characteristics of the area. 

Wind turbines do not generate significant levels of noise. This project is 

situated away from residential areas and is also proposed within an identified 

development corridor. 

No 

The assessment of potential cumulative impacts needs to be undertaken on a 

regional level and should include other proposed wind projects in the area as 

well.


pg 3-1 

Chapter 3: Project Alternatives 

3. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 3-3 

3.1 LOCATION ALTERNATIVE 3-3 

3.2 ACTIVITY ALTERNATIVE 3-5 

3.2.1 Agricultural Use 3-5 

3.2.2 Light Industry 3-6 

3.2.3 Renewable Energy Facilities 3-6 

3.2.4 “No Project” alternative 3-8 

3.3 LAYOUT AND TECHNOLOGY ALTERNATIVES 3-8


pg 3-2 


Table 3-1 Suitability of the preferred site in terms of the SEF for Wind Farms Spatial Assessment Criteria 3-5 

Figure 3-1 Framework for location of wind energy projects based on land character. (Source: Provincial 

Government of the Western Cape, 2006) 3-4 

Figure 3-2 Representation of yearly sum of global irradiation and generation potential 3-7 

Figure 3-3 Provisional turbine layout alternative with 15 × 2 MW turbines. 3-9

3. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 


pg 3-3 


Sections 24(4)(b)(i) and 24(4A) of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act 107 of 

1998, as amended) require an EIA to include investigation and assessment of impacts associated 

with alternatives to the proposed project. In addition, Section 24O (1)(b)(iv) also requires that the 

competent authority, when considering an application for environmental authorisation, must take 

into account “where appropriate, any feasible and reasonable alternatives to the activity which is 

the subject of the application and any feasible and reasonable modifications or changes to the 

activity that may minimise harm to the environment”. DEA&DP (2010) 1 advises that, if no feasible 

and reasonable alternatives are identified, only the comparative assessment of the preferred 

alternative and the option of not proceeding (“No-go” alternative), is required during the 

assessment phase. Alternatives of relevance for this project and discussed in this chapter are: 

The property on which it is proposed to undertake the project; 

The type of activity to be undertaken; 

No Project alternative; and 

The design, layout and technology of the activity. 

3.1 LOCATION ALTERNATIVE 

According to the Strategic Environmental Framework for the Optimal Location of WIND FARMS in 

the Coastal Provinces of South Africa (Phase 1 for Refit 1) (DEA, February 2011) 2, “the site selection 

process has to be in line with the REFIT programmes as they are introduced over time. The reason 

is that the development of wind farms is highly unlikely to occur outside the context of REFIT 

programmes because it would not be financially viable. Because of the high number of 

applications that have already been received and the limited provision in REFIT 1, government is 

now in a position to select the projects that will have the least environmental impact while 

achieving the best degree of efficiency at the same time”. 

The environmental suitability index of the Vredendal site ranks high with regard to agriculture 

(map on page 11 of the wind farm Strategic Environmental Framework) (i.e. it is seen as a 

compatible landuse in that area), it has no ranking in terms of the ecologically sensitive areas as 

well as visual sensitivity index. The site is located within the area of high technical suitability. It is 

also located within the substation buffer of 17.5 km. Lastly, the site is located in an area that has 

an average wind speed of about 7.5 m.s -1 at 80 m height, which makes it very favourable for wind 

energy generation. Figure 3-1 (adapted from the Strategic Initiative to Introduce Commercial Land- 

Based Wind Energy Development to the Western Cape (2006 3)) and Table 3-1 (adapted from the 

SEF for Wind Farms site selection criteria; Appendix A of the SEF report) show the aspects of the 

preferred site in relation to the suitability criteria for the location of wind farms. 

1 

DEA&DP (2010) Guideline on Alternatives, EIA Guideline and Information Document Series, p.10. Western Cape 

Department of Environmental Affairs & Development Planning (DEA&DP) 

2 

DEA. 2011. Strategic environmental framework for the optimal location of wind farms in the coastal provinces of South 

Africa (phase 1 for refit 1). Prepared by Environomics and MetroGIS 

3 

Provincial Government of the Western Cape, 2006. Strategic Initiative to Introduce Commercial Land Based Wind Energy 

Development to the Western Cape: Towards a regional site selection. Report 5: Proposed regional methodology. Prepared 

by CNdV. Available online: http://www.capegateway.gov.za/eng/pubs/reports_research/S/138757. Assessed 20 July 2011


pg 3-4 


Figure 3-1 Framework for location of 

wind energy projects based on land 

character. (Source: Provincial 

Government of the Western Cape, 2006)


pg 3-5 


Table 3-1 Suitability of the preferred site in terms of the SEF for Wind Farms Spatial Assessment Criteria 

SELECTION CRITERIA RANKING 

Land use Suitability Highly suitable 

Ecological Suitability No ranking/ Not applicable 

Visual Suitability No ranking/ Not applicable 

Technical Suitability Highly suitable 

Connectivity Potential High potential 

iNca Energy Vredendal identified the proposed site for the wind facility on the farm Groot 

Draaihoek by evaluating the wider area according to the following criteria: 

Evaluating the wind potential as measured since June 2010 by wind mast instrumentation 

installed adjacent to the site. The wind regime has been found to be highly suitable for 

wind energy generation; 

The suitability of the site for connection to the Eskom grid and the connection costs 

involved. With an upgraded substation with sufficient capacity on the property, the site 

was found to be highly suitable for connection to the existing Eskom grid. The Vredendal 

substation that this wind facility is planned to feed into is also earmarked for further 

upgrade to resolve the current electricity shortage in Vredendal; 

Accessibility of the site was evaluated. With existing site access from the R363 the site was 

found to be easily accessible; 

Current and potential landuse was evaluated since the loss of high potential agricultural 

land for renewable energy generation is an issue in South Africa. The preferred site was 

found to be suitable for a wind facility since it has a very low agricultural potential; 

The proximity of visual and audible receptors was evaluated. It was found that there were 

no receptors in the immediate vicinity of the proposed site. 

3.2 ACTIVITY ALTERNATIVE 

There are several landuse options for the farm: 

Agricultural; 

Light commercial; 

Renewable Energy facilities (solar); and 

The “no-go” option. 

3.2.1 Agricultural Use 

The current landuse is agricultural. Most of the farm has been cultivated for growing dryland 

wheat and livestock feed. About 60 ha of land near the Olifants River is developed for irrigated 

crop production. The rest of the farm is grazed by domestic livestock. With an estimated dryland 

wheat yield potential of 0.5 tons per hectare and a grazing potential of 41 to 60 ha per large stock


pg 3-6 


unit, the potential expansion of agricultural activities on the farm is not likely to be economically 

viable. Therefore the option to iNca Energy to utilize the land for agricultural activities will not be 

considered further. The land owner will, however, continue with current agricultural activities on 

the farm after the wind facility has been established. According to the Consented Use landuse, as 

contemplated in the amended LUPO, agriculture (i.e. wheat growing and livestock grazing) will be 

allowed between the turbines. No infrastructure development will, however, be permitted 

between the turbines. 

3.2.2 Light Industry 

The eastern farm boundary is situated close to the urban edge of Vredendal. The site identified for 

establishing the wind facility is, however, on the far side of the property 8 km from the urban 

edge. The land earmarked for this project is thus not suitably situated for development of light 

industry. 

The development of light commercial industry on the portion of the property bordering 

Vredendal would be compatible with the surrounding landuse (which is residential). In order to 

make full use of the complete property, a number of light industries will need to be established 

and will require substantial capital investment. According to StatsSA Community Survey (2007) it 

was found that 45% of the inhabitants of the Matzikama municipal area are dependent on social 

grants. This indicates that there are unlikely to be a significant number of entrepreneurs that will 

set up businesses. This in turn implies that outside investment will be necessary to set up a 

substantial business hub. 

The portion of the farm bordering Vredendal can still be utilized for light industry development 

regardless of whether the wind facility realizes or not. In fact, the establishment of the wind farm 

would elevate the current energy shortage in Vredendal that is preventing commercial 

development, thereby supporting the establishment of light industry on this property and in the 

surrounding area. 

The applicant, iNca Energy, specializes in renewable energy and is therefore not considering the 

establishment of light industry. This alternative will thus not be considered further. 

3.2.3 Renewable Energy Facilities 

Solar irradiance potential along South Africa’s west coast ranks from low to moderate 

(http://www.renewbl.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/SA-solar-map-.jpg). While renewable 

solar energy facilities are indeed attractive options, wind energy is the most preferred option on 

the site in question since the wind regime is highly suitable for a wind energy facility whilst the 

solar regime is only of average status. According to the above reference, solar energy projects are 

more suited to areas such as the North West Province, Northern Cape and Gauteng (see Figure 3- 

2).


pg 3-7 


Figure 3-2 Representation of yearly sum of global irradiation and generation potential 

(Source: http://www.renewbl.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/SA-solar-map-.jpg) 

Further comparison between solar and wind energy options is summarized below: 

Compared to the rest of the country, the wind resource on the site is of exceptionally high 

suitability; there are widespread opportunities elsewhere in South Africa for locating a 

solar facility of equivalent suitability.


pg 3-8 


According to the NERSA Renewable Energy Feed In Tariff Phase II: Reasons for Decision 

(2009) 4 , the levelised cost of electricity production from solar energy in 2009 is 

significantly higher, at 3.94 R/kWh for Photovoltaic (PV) and 3.15 R/kWh for 

Concentrated Solar Power (CSP), than that of wind energy at 1.25 R/kWh; 

The Independent Power Producer (IPP) Procurement Programme makes provision for 

1850 MW onshore wind energy , 200 MW CSP energy and 1 450 MW PV solar energy. The 

demand for wind energy under the REFIT programme is thus higher than for solar 

energy; 

CSP projects require substantial water usage, and flat land to generate power, and PV 

projects require water for quarterly washing of panels. Water limitations in the Vredendal 

area therefore make solar projects less attractive; and 

Solar projects have extensive physical footprints of about 2 hectares per installed MW for 

PV, and even more for CSP. Therefore solar projects are less suited to sites containing 

cultivated land, such as the site for the proposed iNca wind energy project on Groot 

Draaihoek farm. 

Therefore in terms of project and location compatibility, wind energy is considered more feasible 

than solar energy. Solar energy will therefore not be considered further in this report. 

3.2.4 “No-go” alternative 

The No Project alternative assumes that the project as proposed does not go ahead. This 

alternative provides the baseline against which other alternatives are compared and will be 

considered throughout the report. The implications of the “no project” alternative are: 

The landuse remains only agricultural; 

There is no development of wind energy facilities at that location – although other wind 

energy facilities are planned for the Matzikama municipal area; 

There is no change in the landscape; 

There is no renewable energy generation, implying that energy demand will have to be 

met via, for example, a coal fired power plant (new or upgraded existing facility); 

CO2 emissions are not reduced; 

Government goals to source renewable energy are not reached – at least, not through the 

project as proposed; 

The energy shortage in Vredendal continues; and 

There is no opportunity for indirect and direct (albeit temporary) job creation in an area 

where approximately 45% of the local population is unemployed (Matzikama IDP 2007). 

3.3 LAYOUT AND TECHNOLOGY ALTERNATIVES 

Different spatial configurations are considered when investigating site layout alternatives. The 

electricity production from a wind turbine generator is simultaneously dependent on many 

factors. The most significant among these are the mean wind speed at the site and the 

characteristics of the turbine itself, especially the hub height and the cut-in, rated and furling wind 

4 NERSA Renewable Energy Feed-In Tariffs Phase II: Reasons for Decisions. 2009 Available online 

www.remtproject.org/FileDownload.aspx?FileID=47. Assessed 20 July 2011


pg 3-9 


speeds. The matching of turbine to site is based on identifying the optimum turbine speed 

parameters, known as the power curve, for a particular site. These configurations should also take 

account of the power curves for turbines from different manufacturers. Technology alternatives 

are, therefore, an intrinsic part of this evaluation. Other opportunities and constraints that 

determine layout are environmental factors, e.g., vegetation sensitivities, and infrastructural 

factors, e.g., location of the electrical substation. 

Two layout and technology alternatives are currently considered to achieve the 30 MW capacity 

planned for the Vredendal wind energy facility. The same site layout will be used for both 

alternatives where, for the alternative with fewer turbines, the most sensitive turbine locations 

will be avoided. The two alternatives are: 

10 turbines with an installed generation capacity of 3 MW each. Possible turbine 

technologies considered for this layout are the 3 MW Alstorm ECO 100 and the 3 MW 

Vestas V112 turbines with a hub height of up to 94 m and a rotor diameter of up to 112 m. 

15 turbines with an installed generation capacity of 2 MW each. Possible turbine 

technologies for this layout have not been identified, but turbines will have a hub height of 

about 80 m.


pg 3-10 


Figure 3-3 

Provisional turbine 

layout alternative with 

15 × 2 MW turbines. 


Chapter 4: Approach to the EIA Phase 

4. APPROACH TO THE EIA PHASE 4-3 

4.1 IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES 4-3 

4.2 OVERVIEW OF APPROACH TO PREPARING THE EIA REPORT AND EMP 4-3 

4.3 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS 4-4 

4.3.1 Task 1: Review of Draft EIA Report and EMP 4-4 

4.3.2 Task 2: Comments and Responses Trail 4-4 

4.3.3 Task 3: Compilation of Final EIA Report for submission to Authorities (Current task) 4-5 

4.3.4 Task 4: Environmental Authorisation and Appeal Period 4-5 

4.4 SCHEDULE FOR EIA 4-5 

4.5 AUTHORITY CONSULTATION DURING THE EIA PHASE 4-7 

4.6 APPROACH TO SPECIALIST STUDIES AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT 4-7 

4.7 SPECIFIC ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED BY SPECIALIST STUDIES 4-10 

4.7.1 Birds 4-11 

4.7.2 Bats 4-11 

4.7.3 Archaeology 4-11 

4.7.4 Palaeontology 4-12 

4.7.5 Visual 4-12 

4.7.6 Agriculture 4-12 

4.7.7 Flora and Fauna 4-13 


pg 4-1


Table 4-1 EIA schedule for the iNca Vredendal Wind Project 4-6 

Table 4-2 Authority consultation schedule for the EIA phase 4-7 

Table 4-3 Example of Table for assessment of impacts 4-9 


pg 4-2

4. APPROACH TO THE EIA PHASE 


This chapter sets out the process followed during the EIA phase. The EIA phase is shaped by the findings 

of the Scoping process. The EIA phase consists of three parallel and overlapping processes: 

Public participation process whereby findings of the EIA phase are communicated and 

discussed with I&APs and responses are documented; and 

Specialist studies that provide additional information required to address the issues raised in 

the Scoping phase. 

Central assessment process through which inputs are integrated and presented in documents 

that are submitted for approval by authorities; 

4.1 IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES 

The DEA General Guide to the EIA Regulations (Guideline 3, 2006) states that when the competent 

authority has accepted the Final Scoping Report and Plan of Study for EIA, the EIA phase may 

commence. The purpose of the EIA phase is to: 

Address issues that have been raised through the Scoping Process; 

Assess alternatives to the proposed activity in a comparative manner; 

Assess all identified impacts and determine the significance of each impact; and 

Formulate mitigation measures. 

4.2 OVERVIEW OF APPROACH TO PREPARING THE EIA REPORT AND EMP 

The results of the specialist studies and other relevant project information are summarized and 

integrated into this EIA Report. The Draft EIA Report was released for a 40 day I&AP and 

authority review period, as outlined in Section 4.3.1. 

All I&APs on the project database are notified in writing of the release of the Draft EIA for review 

and simultaneously invited to a public meeting. The public meeting as well as focus group 

meetings with key I&APs will be held during the review period. The purpose of these meetings is 

to communicate the outcome and recommendations of the specialist studies and to provide 

opportunity for comment. Comments raised through the meetings (public meeting and focus 

group meetings) and through written correspondence (emails, comments, forms) will be captured 

in a Comments and Responses Trail for inclusion in the Final EIA Report. Comments raised will be 

responded to by the CSIR EIA team and/or the applicant. These responses will indicate how the 

issue has been dealt with in the EIA process. Should received comments fall beyond the scope of 

this EIA, clear reasoning will be provided why this is so. All comments received will be attached as 

an appendix to the Final EIA Report. 

This EIA Report includes a draft Environmental Management Plan (EMP), which has been 

prepared in compliance with the relevant regulations. This EMP is based broadly on the 

environmental management philosophy presented in the ISO 14001 standard, which embodies an 

approach of continual improvement. Actions in the EMP are drawn primarily from the proposed 

management actions contained in the specialist studies for the construction and operational 

phases of the project. If the project components are decommissioned or re-developed, this will 


pg 4-3


need to be done in accordance with the relevant environmental standards and cleanup/remediation 

requirements applicable at the time. 

4.3 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS 

The key steps in the public participation process for the EIA phase are described below. This 

approach has been confirmed as adequate with the DEA through their review of the PSEIA. 

4.3.1 Task 1: Review of Draft EIA Report and EMP 

The first stage in the process entails the release of a Draft EIA Report for a 40 day public and 

authority review period. Relevant organs of state and I&APs are informed of the review process in 

the following manner: 

Advertisements placed in one local and one regional newspaper, e.g. Ons Kontrei and Die 

Burger; 

Letters to all I&APs (including authorities), with notification of the 40 day public review 

period for the Draft EIA and invitation to attend the public meeting(s). This letter includes 

the summary of the Draft EIA Report in Afrikaans and English and commenting 

instructions; 

A Public Meeting on the Draft EIA Report, at which key findings of the EIA report will be 

communicated and I&APs will have the opportunity to provide comments and engage 

with the EIA team and project proponent, will be held in Vredendal on 16 January 2012 

Focus Group Meeting(s) with I&APs, if requested; and 

Meeting(s) with key authorities involved in decision-making for this EIA, if requested. 

The Draft EIA and EMP report has been made available and distributed through the following 

mechanisms to ensure access to information on the project and to communicate the outcome of 

specialist studies: 

Copies of the report have been placed in the public libraries in Vredendal, Klawer and 

Lutzville; 

Relevant organs of state and key I&APs have been provided with a hard copy or CD 

version of the report; and 

Report has been placed on the project website: www.csir.co.za/EIA 

4.3.2 Task 2: Comments and Responses Trail 

A key component of the EIA process is documenting and responding to the comments received 

from I&APs and the authorities. The following comments on the Draft EIA Report and EMP are 

documented: 

Written and email comments (e.g. letters and completed comment forms); 

Comments made at public meetings; 

Comments made at focus group meetings; 

Telephonic communication with CSIR contact person; and 

One on one meetings with key authorities and/or I&APs. 


pg 4-4


The comments received will be compiled into a Comments and Responses Trail for inclusion in 

the Final EIA Report. The Comments and Responses Trail will indicate the nature of the comment, 

when and who raised the comment. The comments received will be considered by the EIA team 

and appropriate responses provided by an appropriate member of the team and/or by one or 

more specialists. The response provided will indicate how the comment received has been 

considered in the Final EIA Report, in the project design or EMP for the project. 

4.3.3 Task 3: Compilation of Final EIA Report for submission to Authorities (Current task) 

The Final EIA Report, including the Comments and Responses Trail and EMP, are submitted to the 

authorities for decision making. Letters have been sent to all I&APs on the project database 

notifying them of the submission of the final report and a 21-day commenting period. The Final 

EIA Report was distributed as follows: 

Copies of the report were placed at the public libraries in Vredendal, Klawer and Lutzville; 

Relevant organs of state and key I&APs will be provided with a hard copy or CD version of 

the report; and 

Report has been placed on the project website: www.csir.co.za/EIA 

4.3.4 Task 4: Environmental Authorisation and Appeal Period 

All I&APs on the project database will be notified of the issuing of the Environmental 

Authorisation and the Appeal period. The following process will be followed for the distribution of 

Environmental Authorisation and notification of appeal period: 

Copies of the Environmental Authorisation will be placed at the public libraries in 

Vredendal, Klawer and Lutzville; 

Letters will be sent to all I&APs (including organs of state), with a copy of the 

Environmental Authorisation and information on the Appeal Period and procedure; 

Advertisements will be placed in one local and one regional newspaper (e.g. Ons Kontrei 

and Die Burger) with information on where the Environmental Authorisation has been 

made available and what the Appeal Period and procedure entail; and 

Environmental Authorisation will be placed on the project website: www.csir.co.za/EIA 

4.4 SCHEDULE FOR EIA 

The proposed schedule for the EIA, based on the legislated EIA process, is presented in Table 8-1. 

It should be noted that this schedule might be revised during the EIA process, depending on 

factors such as the time required for decisions from authorities. 


pg 4-5

TASKS 

1 Notify authorities and submit EIA application 

2 Establish I&AP database, prepare BID and announce EIA 

3 I&AP registration & meetings with key stakeholders to source issues 

4 Prepare Draft Scoping Report (DSR) and Plan of Study for EIA 

(PSEIA) 

5 Public comments period (40 days) on DSR and stakeholder meetings 

6 Prepare Final Scoping Report and release for 21-day public 

commenting period 

7 Submit Final Scoping Report (FSR) and PSEIA to authorities for 

decision (44 days plus X-mas closed period) 

8 Communicate authority decision to I&APs and process for next 

phase 

9 Specialist studies (including fieldwork) 

10 Prepare Draft EIA Report and EMP 

11 Public review of Draft EIA Report and EMP (40 days) 

12 Prepare Final EIA Report and release for 21-day commenting period 

13 Submit Final EIA Report and Draft EMP to authorities 

14 Decision by authorities 

15 Appeal process 

Table 4-1 EIA schedule for the iNca Vredendal Wind Project 

2011 

April 

2011 

April 


pg 4-6 


EIA SCHEDULE (MONTH) 

May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec 

2012 

Jan 

Feb Mar Apr May 

May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec 

2012 

Jan 

Feb Mar Apr May

4.5 AUTHORITY CONSULTATION DURING THE EIA PHASE 


Authority consultation is integrated into the public consultation process, with additional one-onone 

meetings held with the lead authorities where necessary. It is proposed that the competent 

authority (DEA) as well as other lead authorities be consulted at various stages during the EIA 

process. The Table below indicates the proposed consultation schedule for the EIA phase. 

Table 4-2 Authority consultation schedule for the EIA phase 

STAGE IN EIA PHASE FORM OF CONSULTATION (INCLUDING PROVISIONAL DATES) 

REVIEW OF DRAFT EIA 

REPORT AND DRAFT EMP 

Review of draft reports: Authorities, together with other 

stakeholders, have the opportunity to review the Draft EIA and EMP 

reports during the 40 day review period; and to attend the public 

meeting. If requested, CSIR can present the Draft EIA and EMP reports 

to the authorities at a dedicated authority meeting during this review 

period. 

Site visit: The CSIR will arrange a site visit for authorities, as and when 

required. We suggest that, if required, this take place at the same time 

as the public meeting on the 16 January 2012 for the Draft EIA and 

EMP reports. 

FINAL EIA REPORT PHASE Presentation: CSIR is available to present the Final EIA Report to the 

provincial and national Environmental Authorities and discuss any 

queries. If requested, CSIR is available to meet with other departments 

with jurisdiction over particular aspects of the project (e.g. Local 

Authority). 

4.6 APPROACH TO SPECIALIST STUDIES AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

This section outlines the assessment methodology and legal context for specialist studies, in 

accordance with Section 3: Assessment of Impacts, in DEA Guideline 5, June 2006. 

The identification of potential impacts includes impacts that may occur during the construction 

and operational phases of the activity. The assessment of impacts includes direct, indirect as well 

as cumulative impacts. In order to identify potential impacts (both positive and negative) it is 

important that the nature of the proposed activity is well understood so that the impacts 

associated with the activity can be understood. The process of identification and assessment of 

impacts includes: 

Determine the current environmental conditions in sufficient detail so that there is a 

baseline against which impacts can be identified and measured; 

Determine future changes to the environment that will occur if the activity does not 

proceed; 

An understanding of the activity in sufficient detail to understand its consequences; and 


pg 4-7


The identification of significant impacts which are likely to occur if the activity is 

undertaken. 

As per DEA Guideline 5: Assessment of Alternatives and Impacts the following methodology is to be 

applied for the predication and assessment of impacts. Potential impacts should be rated in terms 

of the direct, indirect and cumulative significance: 

Direct impacts are impacts that are caused directly by the activity and generally occur at 

the same time and at the place of the activity. These impacts are usually associated with 

the construction, operation or maintenance of an activity and are generally obvious and 

quantifiable. 

Indirect impacts of an activity are indirect or induced changes that may occur as a result 

of 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 

as a result of the activity. 

Cumulative impacts are 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. Cumulative impacts can occur from the collective 

impacts of individual minor actions over a period of time and can include both direct and 

indirect impacts. 

Spatial extent – The size of the area that will be affected by the impact: 

o Site specific; 

o Local (


Significance – Will the impact cause a notable alteration of the environment? 

o Low to very low (the impact may result in minor alterations of the environment 

and can be easily avoided by implementing appropriate mitigation measures, and 

will not have an influence on decision-making); 

o Medium (the impact will result in moderate alteration of the environment and 

can be reduced or avoided by implementing the appropriate mitigation 

measures, and will only have an influence on the decision-making if not 

mitigated); or 

o High (the impacts will result in major alteration to the environment even with the 

implementation on the appropriate mitigation measures and will have an 

influence on decision-making). 

Status - Whether the impact on the overall environment will be: 

o positive - environment overall will benefit from the impact; 

o negative - environment overall will be adversely affected by the impact; or 

o neutral - environment overall not be affected. 

Confidence – The degree of confidence in predictions based on available information and 

specialist knowledge: 

o Low; 

o Medium; or 

o High. 

Management Actions and Monitoring of the Impacts (EMP) 

o Where negative impacts are identified, mitigatory measures will be identified to 

avoid or reduce negative impacts. Where no mitigatory measures are possible 

this will be stated; 

o Where positive impacts are identified, augmentation measures will be identified 

to potentially enhance positive impacts; and 

o Quantifiable standards for measuring and monitoring mitigatory measures and 

enhancements will be set. This will include a programme for monitoring and 

reviewing the recommendations to ensure their ongoing effectiveness. 

The Table below has been used by specialists for the assessment of impacts. 

Table 4-3 Example of Table for assessment of impacts 

Impact Status Extent Duration Intensity Probability Significance 

Operations 

phase: 

Visual 

impact of 

the facility 

on scenic 

resources 

Negative Turbines 

are 

visible 

from 4 

km away 

Long 

Term 

(life of 

project) 

without 

mitigation 


pg 4-9 

Mitigation Significance 

Low Definite Medium Site turbines in 

such a way that 

they are visible 

from as few 

receptors as 

possible. Paint 

them to be as 

inconspicuous as 

possible. 

with 

mitigation 

Confidence 

level 

Low High


Other aspects that have been taken into consideration in the assessment of impact significance 

are: 

Impacts have been evaluated for the construction and operation phases of the 

development. The assessment of impacts for the decommissioning phase is brief or 

lacking, as there is limited understanding at this stage of what this might entail. The 

relevant rehabilitation guidelines and legal requirements applicable at the time will need 

to be applied; 

The impact evaluation has, where possible, taken into consideration the cumulative 

effects associated with this and other facilities/projects which exist, or have been 

authorised in the local area at the time when this EIA process commenced. Projects in the 

local area that are in the process of obtaining authorisation (i.e. in the EIA process) could 

be noted as having a potential to contribute to cumulative impacts; and 

The impact assessment attempts to quantify the magnitude of potential impacts (direct 

and cumulative effects) and outlines the rationale used. Where appropriate, national 

standards are used as a measure of the level of impact. 

4.7 SPECIFIC ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED BY SPECIALIST STUDIES 

Based on an evaluation of issues to date, the following Specialist Studies have been conducted as 

part of the EIA process: 

SPECIALIST STUDY SPECIALIST 

Birds Chris van Rooyen, Chris van Rooyen Consulting 

Bats Stephanie Dippenaar, Private Consultant 

Visual Megan Anderson, Megan Anderson Landscape Architects 

Archaeology Jonathan Kaplan, Agency for Cultural Resource Management 

Palaeontology (Desktop input) Dr John Almond, Naturiviva 

Agriculture Johann Lanz, Private Consultant 

Flora and Terrestrial Fauna Jamie Pote (botany), Private Consultant and 

Mark Marshal (desktop faunal input), Private Consultant 

The Terms of Reference (TORs) for the specialist studies essentially consist of the generic 

assessment requirements and the specific issues identified for each study. These issues have been 

identified through the baseline studies, I&AP and authority consultation, as well as input from the 

proposed specialists based on their experience. As part of the review of the Draft Scoping Report, 

specialists proposed additional issues for inclusion in the specialist studies. Additional issues, 

identified through public and authority consultation during the Scoping phase, as well as specialist 

inputs, have been included in the final Terms of Reference for specialists. 


pg 4-10

4.7.1 Birds 

4.7.2 Bats 

The bird study entails the following terms of reference: 


Contact the key birding organisations involved in the study area for their insights and 

monitoring experience; 

Describe the existing environment and identify the bird species and communities that are 

most likely to be affected by the project (in particular, identify rare and endangered 

species); 

Describe different bird micro-habitats for the site, as well as the species associated with 

those habitats; 

List typical impacts that could be expected from the development as well as the expected 

impact on the bird communities. Impacts will be quantified (if possible) and a full 

description of predicted impacts (direct, indirect and cumulative) will be provided; 

Highlight and discuss gaps in baseline data. 

An indication of the confidence levels must be given. The best available data sources will 

be used to predict the impacts, and extensive use will be made of local knowledge; and 

Provide a monitoring programme, linking with existing monitoring programmes where 

relevant. 

The bat study entails the following: 

4.7.3 Archaeology 

Identify the potential impacts of the wind project on bats and bat mortality; 

Conduct a study to establish which bat species may occur in the area, their conservation 

status, potential seasonal movements, areas of foraging activity and the presence of any 

large bat roosts or maternity colonies; 

Assess direct as well as cumulative impacts of the proposed facility on bats; 

Identify potential management interventions to reduce the impact of the wind farm on the 

local bat communities; and 

Given that there is limited information on bats in South Africa and the effects of wind 

turbines, provide recommendations for monitoring of potential impacts on bats. 

The archaeological study entails the following: 

Conduct a desk-top review and high-level field survey to identify significant 

archaeological features at the proposed wind farm sites, showing the location of key 

features (if any) on a map; 

Establish the range and importance of the heritage features on the Vredendal site; 

Specify the potential impact as well as potential cumulative impact of the development; 

and 

Provide management or mitigation recommendations in order to address the impacts 

identified, if necessary. 


pg 4-11

4.7.4 Palaeontology 

The desktop paleontological study entails the following: 

4.7.5 Visual 


Conduct a desktop review of relevant paleontological and geological literature, including 

geological maps and previous reports, to identify the potential paleontological value of the 

project sites. 

The visual study entails the following: 

4.7.6 Agriculture 

Conduct a desktop review of available information that can support and inform the 

specialist study, in particular the “Regional Methodology for Wind Energy Site Selection” 

published by the Western Cape DEA&DP in 2006; 

Characterize the current visual quality of the area (i.e. sense of place), taking into 

consideration existing developments, in particular dominant vertical structures in the 

landscape; 

Identify visual catchment (i.e. zone of visual influence) for the site; 

Identify the key receptors of visual impacts (e.g. motorists on main roads, residents in 

nearby towns, tourists using scenic routes, visitors driving the access routes to game 

farms, tourist viewpoints); 

Identify the key viewpoints from which to prepare photomontages that will be used in the 

visual assessment; 

Consider the night-time impact of lighting from the turbines, in the context of existing 

night time impacts; 

Assess the potential impact/impacts, both positive and negative, associated with the 

proposed project for the construction, operation and decommissioning phases; 

Consider cumulative impacts; and 

Identify management actions to avoid or reduce negative impacts and to enhance positive 

benefits of the project. 

The agricultural assessment entails the following: 

Assess the slope/gradient and impacts on run-off, contours and waterways; 

Assess general land use practices of the region and what agricultural practices could be 

practiced on the identified area; 

Assess the risk associated with the development of the site and surrounding area and 

mitigation measures, e.g., for wind and water erosion; 

Assess the potential for irrigation and the availability of water; 

Assess the limitations on agriculture as a result of the proposed facility (e.g. crop spraying, 

food production, cultivation methods, etc); 

Conduct a survey to determine the soils’ physical properties. 


pg 4-12


Discuss all potential direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of all alternatives, including 

the no-project alternative; 

Identify management actions to avoid or reduce negative impacts; and to enhance positive 

benefits of the project. 

4.7.7 Flora and Fauna 

The botanical study entails the following: 

Carry out fieldwork to locate and describe the vegetation on the study area, key focus on 

the impact footprint(s) for the site(s); 

Determine the species present and localities within each vegetation type; 

Determine whether the study area falls wholly or partially within the distribution range of 

species listed as Vulnerable, Endangered or Critically Endangered and Protected; 

Provide a description of the current state of the vegetation on site supported by relevant 

photographs; 

Identify and describe the conservation value and conservation planning frameworks 

relevant to this site (Regional Planning) for represented vegetation units; 

Describe the areas where indigenous vegetation has been transformed; 

Determine alien species present; their distribution within the study area and 

recommended management actions; 

Note and record the position of unusually large specimens of trees; 

Provide a detailed vegetation sensitivity map of the site, including mapping of disturbance 

and transformation on site; 

A terrestrial faunal assessment (mammal and reptile) will be integrated into Ecological 

(Biodiversity) Assessment Report; 

Identify and rate potential impacts, outline mitigation measures and additional 

management guidelines; and 

An Environmental Management Plan (EMP), including generic rehabilitation and revegetation 

guideline will be provided in the report. 

The desktop terrestrial faunal study integrated into the botanical study entails the following: 

Establish which species may occur in the area and their relevant conservation status; 

Identify the potential impacts of the wind project on fauna and faunal mortality; and 

Identify potential management plans to reduce the impact of the wind farm on the local 

terrestrial faunal community. 


pg 4-13


pg 5-1 

Chapter 5: Description of the 

Receiving Environment 

5. DESCRIPTION OF THE RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT 5-3 

5.1 SITE DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION 5-3 

5.1.1 Regional Setting 5-3 

5.1.2 Proposed Site 5-3 

5.2 CLIMATE 5-6 

5.2.1 Wind Regime 5-6 

5.2.2 Temperature 5-6 

5.2.3 Rainfall 5-7 

5.3 LAND COVER 5-11 

5.4 CRITICAL BIODIVERSITY AREAS 5-12 

5.5 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT- MATZIKAMA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY 5-14 

5.5.1 Population 5-14 

5.5.2 Education 5-14 

5.5.3 Healthcare 5-15 

5.5.4 Employment 5-15 

5.5.5 Access to energy 5-16 

5.5.6 Access to sanitation 5-17 

5.6 OTHER RENEWABLE ENERGY PROJECTS IN THE AREA 5-17


pg 5-2 



Figure 5-1 Locality map and features of the project. 5-4 

Figure 5-2 Elevation map of proposed site 5-5 

Figure 5-3 Illustration of the directional wind distribution on the proposed site 5-6 

Figure 5-4 Representation of the average (A) monthly rainfall, (B) monthly maximum temperatures, (C) 

monthly night-time maximum temperatures for Vredendal. Source: SA Explorer, 2011. 5-7 

Figure 5-5 Regional mean maximum annual temperature 5-8 

Figure 5-6 Regional mean minimum annual temperature 5-9 

Figure 5-7 Regional mean annual rainfall 5-10 

Figure 5-8 Land cover map of the proposed site 5-11 

Figure 5-9 Fine scale Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBA) map of the project area. 5-13 

(Addapted from CBA map: http://bgis.sanbi.org) 5-13 

Figure 5-10 Level of Education for the Matzikama Local Municipality, 2001 5-15 

Figure 5-11 Employment Status for Matzikama Local Municipality, 2001 5-16 

Figure 5-12 Access to Electricity in the Matzikama Local Municipality, 2001 5-17 

Figure 5-13 Map of proposed renewable energy projects in the West Coast District Municipality as for 

December 2011. 5-18

5. DESCRIPTION OF THE RECEIVING 

ENVIRONMENT 


pg 5-3 



This section of the report provides a broad overview of the receiving environment that may be 

affected by the proposed Wind Energy Facility. It aims at providing the reader with a better 

understanding of the biophysical and socio-economic environment in which this proposed project 

could be located. Chapters 6 to 13 of this report provide a more in-depth assessment of specific 

aspects of the receiving environment that could potentially be affected by the development. 

5.1 SITE DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION 

5.1.1 Regional Setting 

The site of the proposed development is located on the farm Groot Draaihoek Remainder 293 and 

Remainder Portions 1, 7 and 8 of farm 293. It is situated approximately 3 km west of Vredendal in 

the Western Cape Province. The farm is located within the Matzikama local municipality, within 

the West Coast District Municipality. 

Matzikama is an arid and sparsely populated area. The population is concentrated along the 

Olifants River, which flows through Vredendal. According to the Matzikama IDP, Vredendal has 

been identified as a Leader Town due to it being an economic hub of the region. 

The surrounding land-uses are predominantly agricultural and the main crop cultivated is 

irrigated grapes. There are several wine producing farms in the region and the area is therefore 

known as the Olifants River Wine Route. 

5.1.2 Proposed Site 

The extent of the property is estimated to be 3 530 hectares (ha); however, the proposed 

development will, in total, cover an area of less than 35 ha (equivalent to 1% of the total area 

available). The site is accessed from the R363 provincial road located to the east of the farm. The 

location of the farm in a regional context is shown on the locality map (see Figure 5-1). 

Features of interest that are present on the proposed site include a 66 kV powerline and 

substation (shown in Figure 5-1). The proposed facility will feed electricity into this substation, 

which is located about 8 km from the site where the facility will be established. 

The proposed site is located on the far south-western side of the property, approximately 8 km 

from the urban edge. The turbines will be sited on a ridge traversing the property with the aim of 

capturing an optimal wind regime (see Figure 5-2).

Figure 5-1 Locality map and features of the project. 


pg 5-4 

Chapter 5: Description of the Receiving Environment

Figure 5-2 Elevation map of proposed site 


pg 5-5 


Receiving Environment

5.2 CLIMATE 


pg 5-6 



Vredendal is on the boundary between the Mediterranean climate to the south and semi-arid 

climate towards the north. Winters are mild with occasional rainy days. Summers can be warm to 

very hot and very dry. 

5.2.1 Wind Regime 

Wind data has been measured on the proposed site by a CSIR wind mast since June 2010. Since 

December 2010 iNca energy has also been measuring wind data on the site with a 80 m wind 

mast. The wind regime has been found to be highly suitable for a wind facility. 

The average wind speed has been measured as 7.5 m.s -1 and the directional distribution as 

illustrated in Figure 5-3. 

5.2.2 Temperature 

Figure 5-3 Illustration of the directional wind distribution on the proposed site 

Vredendal experiences very hot summers and mild to cool winters. Monthly average midday 

temperatures range from 19.2°C in July to 31.5°C in February. The region is coldest during July


pg 5-7 



when temperatures drop to 6.3°C on average during the night. Maximum summer temperatures 

occasionally exceed 40°C. Refer to Figure 5-5 and Figure 5-6 for average maximum summer 

temperatures and average minimum winter temperatures of the region. 

5.2.3 Rainfall 

Vredendal receives the majority of its 105 mm average precipitation during the winter months, 

from June to August. It receives the lowest average montly rainfall (0 mm) in January and the 

highest (23 mm) in June. Refer to Figure 5-4 for average annual precipitation for the region. 

A B C 

Figure 5-4 Representation of the average (A) monthly rainfall, (B) monthly maximum temperatures, (C) 

monthly night-time maximum temperatures for Vredendal. Source: SA Explorer, 2011.

Temperature - Mean maximum 

annual 

Towns 

Proposed site 

Chapter 5: Description of the Receiving Environment 

Figure 5-5 Regional mean maximum annual temperature 

(Source: http://www.agis.agric.za/agismap_atlas) 


pg 5-8

Temperature - Mean minimum 

annual 

Towns 

Proposed site 


Figure 5-6 Regional mean minimum annual temperature 



pg 5-9

Rainfall - Mean annual 

Towns 

Proposed site 


Figure 5-7 Regional mean annual rainfall 



pg 5-10

5.3 LAND COVER 


pg 5-11 



From a 2009 land cover map (Figure 5-8) it appears that about half of the proposed site has been 

cultivated, with the rest comprising natural vegetation. The wind energy facility and its supporting 

infrastructure will be located predominantly on agriculturally cultivated land. Chapter 12 of this report 

focuses more on soil and agricultural potential of the area that could potentially be affected by the 

proposed project. 

According to this map there are no urban areas, mines, plantations or water bodies on the proposed site. 

Figure 5-8 Land cover map of the proposed site

5.4 CRITICAL BIODIVERSITY AREAS 


pg 5-12 



The Biodiversity Sector Plan for the Saldanha Bay, Bergrivier, Cederberg and Matzikama 

Municipalities (2010) 1 provides planners and land-use managers with a synthesis of biodiversity- 

related information that should be integrated into land-use planning and decision-making. This 

project had the broad objective of ensuring appropriate land-use for the best possible sustainable 

benefits to society, and to promote integrated use and management of natural resources. 

An outcome of this project is that scientists have identified Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBA) 

requiring special safeguarding in order to ensure sustainable development. According to the 

authors, the fine scale CBA Maps created by this project should be used as the biodiversity 

informant by all sectors involved in municipal and multisectoral planning procedures. These 

include planning and environmental professionals, national and provincial departments of 

environment, agriculture, water affairs, forestry, minerals, energy, land affairs, local government, 

housing and public works as well as catchment management agencies, and all organs of state 

preparing guidelines in terms of section 74 of the Environmental Impact Assessment regulations. 

In Figure 5-9 the fine scale Critical Biodiversity Areas map for the project area illustrates that the 

proposed facility will not encroach on any areas requiring special safeguarding. The turbines are 

predominantly sited on land classified as irreversibly transformed through development (e.g. 

urban development, plantation, agriculture) or poor land management (e.g. erosion) and as a 

result, no longer contributes significantly to the biodiversity of the area. 

1 Maree, K.S. and Vromans, D.C. 2010. The Biodiversity Sector Plan for the Saldanha Bay, Bergrivier, Cederberg and 

Matzikama Municipalities: Supporting land-use planning and decision-making in Critical Biodiversity Areas and 

Ecological Support Areas. Produced by CapeNature as part of the C.A.P.E. Fine-scale Biodiversity Planning Project. 

Kirstenbosch. Available at: 

http://www.bergmun.org.za/media/Biodiversity/BIODIVERSITY%20SECTOR%20PLAN%20WEST%20COAST.pdf Assessed 18 

July 2011

Figure 5-9 Fine scale Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBA) map of the project area. 

(Addapted from CBA map: http://bgis.sanbi.org) 


pg 5-13 

Chapter 5: Description of the Receiving Environment

Chapter 5: Receiving Environment 

5.5 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT- MATZIKAMA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY 

5.5.1 Population 

According to the West Coast IDP, “The West Coast Region population, according to the Quantec 

2008 and StatsSA Community Survey 2007 was estimated to be 286 751. In the population 

distribution Map it is evident that the population of the West Coast is thinly spread and major towns 

identified population rarely surpass 30 000”. The Matzikama population growth rate for 2010 was 

estimated to be 3.7%. The total population of the municipality decreased between 2001 and 2007. 

The reason for this trend is unclear. As at 2007 the total population was 46 362. 

Most people live on farms (approximately 40%) and the remainder of the population lives in 

towns. Vredendal is the largest town and accounts for approximately 32% of the population. The 

demographic of the town is: 

Coloured – 76% 

White - 18% 

Black – 6% 

5.5.2 Education 

There is a high degree of illiteracy in the West Coast region. It is estimated that 29% of the 

population older than 14 years is illiterate. The learner educator ratio is projected to be 37%. 

Educational facilities on a regional scale are limited and at municipal level this situation also 

applies 2. The number and type of educational facilities in the Matzikama municipality are listed 

below 

Crèches: 1 

Pre-Primary: 1 

Primary: 22 

High/Secondary: 3 

Colleges: 1 

Adult learning centres : 2 

The percentage of persons who completed Primary Level education is 10.5%, whilst those who 

completed some Secondary education amounts to 33.6%. Grade 12 graduates in the area amount 

to 17.1% of the population. Only 6.2% of people in the Matzikama Municipal area completed some 

form of higher education. Ten percent of the population in the Matzikama Municipal area has no 

schooling. 

Based on Census data (2001), the level of education for the population of Matzikama Municipal 

area is shown in Figure 5-10. 

2 http://www.westcoastdm.co.za/Documents/PART%203%20-%20WCPAS%20Urban-Econ.pdf Assessed 14 July 2011 


pg 5-14

5.5.3 Healthcare 


Figure 5-10 Level of Education for the Matzikama Local Municipality, 2001 

There are several levels of healthcare available in the local municipality. These include: 

5 Fixed clinics (a fixed clinic can be defined as a clinic which is open 5 days a week and is 

managed by a nurse. A doctor will be present 2 days a week). 

3 Satellite clinics (a satellite clinic is managed by a nurse and is open less than 5 days a 

week). 

4 Mobile clinics 

1 Hospital 

Clearly, the number of facilities is inadequate to meet the demand for healthcare in the area. 

5.5.4 Employment 

Approximately 84.2% of the population was employed in 2001 (Source: Census 2001 - Quantec 

Data, 2006). The majority (25.3%) of the residents in the Matzikama Local Municipality earn 

between R9 601 - R19 200 per year 3. Figure 5-11 shows that the percentage of employed citizen 

is 78.1 % and the unemployed is 21.9%. 

3 http://www.westcoastdm.co.za/Documents/PART%203%20-%20WCPAS%20Urban-Econ.pdf Assessed 14 July 2011 


pg 5-15


Figure 5-11 Employment Status for Matzikama Local Municipality, 2001 

The above figure shows that Matzikama rural areas and Strandfontein have the most employed 

individuals. Unemployment is the highest in Doringbaai, where 54.3% of the individuals are 

unemployed, as well as Koekenaap which has a 39.9% unemployment rate. 

5.5.5 Access to energy 

Figure 5-12 illustrates that 84.9% of individuals living in the Matzikama Municipal area have 

access to electricity. The type of energy which is mostly used besides electricity includes candles, 

which are used by 12.8% of individuals, followed by other sources such as fire wood, etc. which 

contributes 1.1%. Many of the settlements in Matzikama have 100% access to electricity. 

According to the survey data 80% of individuals make use of gas as well as paraffin. Therefore 

most individuals living in Matzikama have access to a form of energy. This situation along with the 

other basic services has to be improved to ensure that 100% individuals have access to basic 

services to alleviate poverty, effectively starting with the basic needs which have to be met. 


pg 5-16

5.5.6 Access to sanitation 


Figure 5-12 Access to Electricity in the Matzikama Local Municipality, 2001 

Not all the individuals living in the area have access to a proper sanitation facility. According to 

statistics, 70.3% of households in Matzikama Municipal area have access to a flush toilet 

connected to a sewerage system, with 9.1% having access to a toilet connected to a septic tank 

and 0.6% to a chemical toilet. Therefore 80% have access to a sanitary facility. Around 11.4% of 

individuals have no access to any type of sanitary facility. In this regard, the local municipality is 

aiming for 100% access for all households in the near future. 

5.6 OTHER RENEWABLE ENERGY PROJECTS IN THE AREA 

Several more renewable energy projects are proposed around the iNca Vredendal project (see 

Figure 5-13). The nearest ones that need to be considered for cumulative impacts are (numbers as 

indicated on map below): 

3) Juno Windfarm (25 turbines with 50 MW capacity proposed by Mulilo Renewable 

Energy) 

17) Klawer Windfarm (12 turbines with 36 MW capacity proposed by G7 Renewable 

Energies. Environmental Authorisation obtained) 

25) Vredendal Solar (20 MW solar PV facility proposed by iNca Vredendal Solar) 

27 & 35) Matzikama Solar (10 MW solar PV facility proposed by Solaire Direct. Environmental 

Authorisation obtained) 


pg 5-17


Figure 5-13 Map of proposed renewable energy projects in the West Coast District Municipality as for 

December 2011. 


pg 5-18


g 6-1 

Chapter 6:Botany and 

Terrestrial Fauna


g 6-2 


Terrestrial Fauna 

6. BOTANICAL AND TERRESTRIAL FAUNAL IMPACT 

ASSESSMENT __________________________________________________ 6-5 

SUMMARY 6-5 

6.1 INTRODUCTION 6-6 

6.1.1 Approach to the study 6-6 

6.1.2 Assumptions and limitations 6-6 

6.1.3 Information sources 6-6 

6.2 DESCRIPTION OF AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 6-6 

6.2.1 Site Location 6-6 

6.2.2 Site Topography 6-6 

6.2.3 Vegetation 6-8 

6.2.4 Flora 6-8 

6.2.5 Site Properties According to Regional Planning Frameworks 6-12 

6.2.5.1 Vegetation of Southern Africa 6-12 

6.2.5.2 Succulent Karroo Ecosystem Planning (SKEP) 6-13 

6.2.5.3 Cape Action Plan for the Environment (CAPE) 6-13 

6.2.5.4 Fine Scale Planning 6-13 

6.3 PERCEIVED REFERENCE STATE 6-17 

6.3.1 Leipoldtville Sand Fynbos 6-17 

6.3.2 Namaqualand Strandveld 6-18 

6.3.3 Knersvlakte Quartz Vygieveld 6-19 

6.4 PRESENT ECOLOGICAL STATE (PES) 6-20 

6.4.1 Namaqualand Strandveld 6-20 

6.4.2 Leipoldtville Sand Fynbos 6-21 

6.4.3 Transformed and severely degraded vegetation 6-21 

6.5 TERRESTRIAL HABITAT VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT 6-24 

6.5.1 Assessment Criteria 6-24 

6.5.2 Present Ecological State Indicators 6-25 

6.5.2.1 Landscape Description 6-26 

6.5.2.2 Community Description 6-26


g 6-3 



6.5.2.3 Disturbances, current land uses and sources of degradation 6-26 

6.5.2.4 Sensitivities 6-26 

6.5.2.5 Ecological Processes 6-27 

6.5.2.6 Conservation importance 6-28 

6.5.3 Floral diversity 6-28 

6.6 TERRESTRIAL FAUNAL ASSESSMENT 6-30 

6.6.1 Amphibians 6-34 

6.6.2 Reptiles 6-35 

6.6.3 Mammals 6-37 

6.7 COMPONENTS OF THE PROJECT WHICH COULD IMPACT ON THE 

TERRESTRIAL FAUNA AND FLORA 6-39 

6.7.1 Wind turbine generators 6-39 

6.7.2 Electrical connections 6-39 

6.7.3 Other potential infrastructure 6-39 

6.7.4 Roads 6-40 

6.7.5 Temporary activities during construction 6-40 

6.7.6 Cumulative Impacts 6-40 

6.8 PERMIT REQUIREMENTS 6-41 

6.9 ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS AND IDENTIFICATION OF MANAGEMENT 

ACTIONS 6-41 

6.10 REVERSIBILITY AND IRREPLACEABILITY OF IMPACTS ON 

VEGETATION 6-51 

6.11 REVERSIBILITY AND IRREPLACEABILITY OF IMPACTS ON 

TERRESTRIAL FAUNA 6-51 

6.12 CONCLUSIONS 6-51 

Table 6-1 List of plant species recorded within the site or known to occur in the vicinity or 

in the vegetation units present. 6-8 

Table 6-2 VegMap vegetation units and conservation status. 6-13 

Table 6-3 Present Ecological State indicators of the study area. 6-26


g 6-4 



Table 6-4 Indigenous Species of Special Concern. 6-28 

Table 6-5 Alien Invasive plants and common weeds present and CARA classification. 6-30 

Table 6-6 List of species recorded or likely to occur in the general study area, together with 

the conservation status. 6-30 

Table 6-7 Impact assessment and mitigation 6-42 

Figure 6-1 Aerial photo of the site with proposed layout 6-7 

Figure 6-2 VegSA (Mucina & Rutherford) vegetation units and conservation status. 6-14 

Figure 6-3 SKEP vegetation units and conservation status. 6-15 

Figure 6-4 Fine Scale Planning Landcover and Critical Biodiversity Areas Map. 6-16 

Figure 6-5 Typical Namaqualand Strandveld 6-21 

Figure 6-6 Typical Namaqualand Strandveld with scattered shrubs, tufted grasses and bare 

sandy soil. 6-21 

Figure 6-7 Typical Sand Fynbos 6-21 

Figure 6-8 Typical Sand Fynbos with Restio and shrub clumps 6-21 

Figure 6-9 Transformed area with cultivated areas interspersed with vegetated rows in 

vicinity of wind turbines 6-22 

Figure 6-10 Cultivated land with some regeneration of pioneer shrub elements in vicinity of 

wind turbines 6-22 

Figure 6-11 Typical regenerating cultivated lands dominated by pioneer shrub species. 

Absence of succulent and woody flora noted. 6-22 

Figure 6-12 Extensive transformed agricultural fields predominantly along proposed access 

road. 6-22 

Figure 6-13 Mapped Vegetation communities with respective ecological sensitivity indicated. 6-23 

Figure 6-14 Armidillo girdled lizard (Cordylus cataphractus) [pic:L. KLOSE] 6-36 

Figure 6-15 Tent tortoise (Psammobates tentorius trimeni) [pic:L. KLOSE] 6-36 

Figure 6-16 Namaqua chameleon(Chamaeleo namaquensis) [pic: L. KLOSE] 6-36 

Figure 6-17 Southern spiny agama (Agama hispida) [pic: L. KLOSE] 6-36 

Figure 6-18 Karoo girdled lizard (Cordylus polyzonus) [pic: L. KLOSE] 6-37 

Figure 6-19 Cape crag lizard (Pseudocordylus m. microlepidotus) [pic: L. KLOSE] 6-37 

Figure 6-20 Striped Pole Cat (Ictonyx striatus) [pic: L. KLOSE] 6-38 

Figure 6-21 Steenbok (Raphicerus campestris) 6-38 

Figure 6-22 Extralimital introduced Gemsbok 6-38 

Figure 6-23 Suricate (Suricata suricatta) diggings 6-38


g 6-5 



6. BOTANICAL AND TERRESTRIAL FAUNAL 

IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

SUMMARY 

This chapter has been adapted from a terrestrial ecological assessment of the proposed iNca 

Vredendal Wind Energy Project near Vredendal, Western Cape conducted by Jamie Pote. A site 

visit was conducted during October 2011. Mark Marshall of Sandula Conservation assisted with a 

desktop faunal assessment (Terrestrial Mammals, Reptiles and Amphibians). 


influenced by the level of agriculture-related transformation and degradation. The majority of 

the turbine infrastructure will be sited in areas having a low sensitivity. Degradation in the form 

of invasive alien plant infestations tends to be very limited and patchy on the site. Areas with a 






result that potential impacts on botany and fauna will be minimal 

From a terrestrial faunal perspective it was found that some species of special concern are 

present in the area and will be affected by the proposed development. All amphibians present on 

the site were found to be of least concern and are well protected elsewhere. The species that will 

be mostly affected during the construction of this project are the species that cannot vacate the 









reduced to low levels of significance, both during the construction and operational phases of the 

proposed development.

6.1 INTRODUCTION 

6.1.1 Approach to the study 


g 6-6 



Mr Jamie Pote undertook a terrestrial ecological assessment of the site of the proposed iNca 

Vredendal Wind Energy Facility. This included a site visit, which was conducted during October 

2011. Mr Mark Marshall of Sandula Conservation assisted with a desktop faunal assessment 

(Terrestrial Mammals, Reptiles and Amphibians). 

6.1.2 Assumptions and limitations 

The following limitations apply to the study from which the substance of this chapter is drawn: 

Flora 

Botanical surveys based upon a limited sampling time period may not reflect the actual 

species composition of the site because of seasonal variations in flowering times. 

While all reasonable attempts were made, the author of the specialist study cannot 

guarantee that all plant species were recorded during the assessment because of the 

rapid sampling and assessment techniques employed. 

Fauna 

Faunal surveys based upon a limited sampling time period may not reflect the actual 

species composition of the site because of seasonal variations. 

An amphibian survey was conducted in the autumn, thus actual presence/absence of 

species could not necessarily be verified and reliance on literature sources was necessary. 

6.1.3 Information sources 

Information was obtained from literature sources for the desktop component of the study. 

Fieldwork was conducted to obtain site-specific information and local expert knowledge was also 

obtained where pertinent and available. 

6.2 DESCRIPTION OF AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

6.2.1 Site Location 

The proposed site for the establishment of the wind energy facility falls within the Matzikama 

Local Municipality and the West Coast District Municipality. The farm, Groot Draaihoek borders 

to the west of the town of Vredendal in the Western Cape and is approximately 3 530 ha in size. 

The wind energy facility will only comprise about 1% of the farm’s area and will be located 

approximately 8 km south-west of the urban edge of Vredendal. 

6.2.2 Site Topography 

In general the site is located in the middle of a slightly undulating plateau along the banks of the 

Olifants River. In general soils on the plateau are well developed sandy soils with shallower 

soils, underlain with shallow bedrock in places, although this is only visible on the surface 

where the soils have been disturbed (see Chapter 12: Agriculture for a more detailed 

description of soil properties).


g 6-7 



Figure 6-1 Aerial 

photo of the site with 

proposed layout

6.2.3 Vegetation 

6.2.4 Flora 


g 6-8 



Vegetation on the proposed site can be classified as Cape Floral Kingdom, typically referred to 

as Fynbos. This kingdom is generally characterised by three elements: the tough, wiry restioids 

(Cape Reeds) form the graminoid (grass-like) layer; the heath component is composed of small, 

narrow-leafed shrubs (the most famous examples are the Ericas); the proteoid component of 

proteas, cone-bushes and pin-cushions (Cowling and Heijnis 2001). Within the study area, the 

dominant component is a Strandveld and Sand Fynbos, with a high dominance of restios grasses 

and typical fynbos type shrubs. The grasses tend to be common and widespread species that are 

fairly drought-hardy (C4 grasses). 

The plant species recorded on the site or known to occur in the vicinity or in vegetation units 

present are listed in Table 6-1. 

Table 6-1 List of plant species recorded within the site or known to occur in the vicinity or in 

the vegetation units present. 

Botanical Name Family Status* 

Afrolimon sp. Plumbaginaceae 

Agathosma insignis Rutaceae Endemic, IUCN (Rare) 

Agathosma involucrata Rutaceae Endemic, IUCN (CR 

PE) 

Albuca clanwilliamae-gloriae Hyacinthaceae Endemic, IUCN (EN) 

Albuca maxima Hyacinthaceae 

Anthospermum spathulatum Rubiaceae 

Argyrolobium velutinum Fabaceae Endemic, IUCN (EN) 

Aristida congesta Poaceae 

Aspalathus quinquefolia ssp. virgata Fabaceae 

Aspalathus rostripetala Fabaceae 

Aspalathus spinescens ssp. lepida Fabaceae 

Asparagus capensis Asparagaceae 

Asparagus capensis Asparagaceae 

Athanasia sertulifera Asteraceae Endemic, IUCN (EN) 

Babiana confusa Iridaceae WC, Endemic 

Babiana scabrifolia Iridaceae WC, Endemic, IUCN 

(LC) 

Berzelia lanuginosa Amaranthaceae 

Boophone haemanthoides Amaryllidaceae 

Bromus catharticus Poaceae 

Chaetobromus involucratus Poaceae 

Chrysanthemoides incana Asteraceae


g 6-9 




Cissampelos capensis Menispermaceae 

Cliffortia ferruginea Rosaceae 

Cliffortia strobilifera Rosaceae 

Cliffortia teretifolia Rosaceae 

Clutia daphnoides Capparaceae 

Conicosia elongata Mesembryanthemaceae WC 

Cullumia floccosa Asteraceae Endemic, IUCN (CR) 

Cullumia micracantha Asteraceae Endemic, IUCN (EN) 

Cynodon dactylon Poaceae 

Cynodon dactylon Poaceae 

Didelta carnosa Asteraceae 

Diosma acmaeophylla Rutaceae 

Diospyros austro-africana Ebenaceae 

Dischisma squarrosum Scrophulariaceae Endemic, IUCN (EN) 

Dodonaea angustifolia Sapindaceae 

Dovea macrocarpa Restionaceae WC 

Drimia sp. Hyacinthaceae WC 

Ehrharta brevifolia Poaceae 

Ehrharta calycina Poaceae 

Ehrharta calycina Poaceae 

Ehrharta ramosa Poaceae 

Ehrharta rupestris Poaceae 

Ehrharta thunbergii Poaceae 

Elegia fistulosa Restionaceae WC, IUCN (LC) 

Elegia recta Restionaceae WC, IUCN (NT) 

Eleusine coracana Poaceae 

Eragrostis curvula Poaceae 

Eriocephalus racemosus Asteraceae 

Eriospermum arenosum Asteraceae Endemic, IUCN (Vu) 

Euchaetis tricarpellata Rutaceae Endemic, IUCN (Rare) 

Euclea acutifolia Ebenaceae 

Euclea racemosus Ebenaceae 

Euphorbia Arceuthobioides Euphorbiaceae 

Euphorbia burmanii Euphorbiaceae 

Euphorbia caput-medusae Euphorbiaceae 

Euphorbia schoenlandii Euphorbiaceae Endemic, IUCN (Vu) 

Felicia heterophylla Asteraceae


g 6-10 




Felicia josephinae Asteraceae Endemic, IUCN (EN) 

Geissorhiza barkerae Iridaceae WC, IUCN (EN), 

Endemic 

Geissorhiza louisabolusiae Iridaceae WC, IUCN (EN), 

Endemic 

Gnidia clavata Thymelaeaceae 

Gnidia imbricata Thymelaeaceae 

Gymnosporia buxifolia Celastraceae 

Helichrysum hebelepis Asteraceae 

Helichrysum tricostatum Asteraceae 

Heliophila elata Brassicaceae 

Hermannia scordifolia Sterculiaceae 

Jasminum glaucum Oleaceae 

Justicia cuneata Acanthaceae 

Kedrostis psammophila Cucurbitaceae 

Lachenalia unifolia Hyacinthaceae WC 

Lachnaea capitata Thymelaeaceae Endemic, IUCN (VU) 

Lachnaea grandiflora Thymelaeaceae 

Lebeckia leucoclada Fabaceae Endemic 

Lebeckia sericea Fabaceae 

Limonium sp. nov. Plumbaginaceae Endemic 

Lotononis bolusii Fabaceae Endemic, IUCN (Cr PE) 

Lotononis racemiflora Fabaceae Endemic, IUCN (CR 

PE) 

Lycium cinereum Solanaceae 

Macrostylis hirta Rutaceae Endemic, IUCN (VU) 

Manochlamys albicans Chenopodiaceae 

Manulea cinerea Scrophulariaceae 

Merxmuellera cincta Poaceae 

Metalasia densa Asteraceae 

Nenax arenicola Rubiaceae 

Nidorella foetida Asteraceae 

Nylandtia scoparia Polygalaceae 

Nylandtia spinosa Polygalaceae 

Orphium frutescens Gentianaceae 

Othonna coronopifolia Asteraceae 

Othonna cylindrica Asteraceae


g 6-11 




Oxalis flava Oxalidaceae 

Panicum maximum Poaceae 

Panicum repens Poaceae 

Paspalum dilatatum Poaceae 

Passerina corymbosa Thymelaeaceae 

Pelargonium appendiculatum Geraniaceae Endemic, IUCN (EN) 

Pelargonium attenuatum Geraniaceae Endemic, IUCN (EN) 

Pelargonium fasciculaceum Geraniaceae Endemic, IUCN (NT) 

Phragmites australis Poaceae 

Phylica cephalantha Rhamnaceae 

Phylica cuspidata Rhamnaceae Endemic, IUCN (VU) 

Plantago crassifolia Plantaginaceae 

Platycaulos compressus Restionaceae WC, IUCN (LC) 

Pteronia divaricata Asteraceae 

Pteronia onobromoides Asteraceae 

Rhus glauca Anacardiaceae 

Rhus laevigata Anacardiaceae 

Rhus lucida Anacardiaceae 

Romulea sinispinosensis Iridaceae WC, IUCN (EN) 

Ruschia floribunda Mesembryanthemaceae WC, IUCN (DDT) 

Salvia africana-lutea Lamiaceae 

Salvia chamelaeagnea Lamiaceae 

Salvia lanceolata Lamiaceae 

Schoenus nigricans Cyperaceae 

Setaria pumila Poaceae 

Steirodiscus capillaceus Asteraceae Endemic, IUCN (LC) 

Stipagrostis ciliata Poaceae 

Stipagrostis namaquensis Poaceae 

Stipagrostis zeyheri Poaceae 

Stoebe nervigera Asteraceae 

Stoeberia utilis Mesembryanthemaceae WC, IUCN (LC) 

Struthiola ciliata Thymelaeaceae 

Tetragonia fruticosa Aizoaceae 

Thamnochortus platypteris Restionaceae WC, IUCN (LC) 

Trachyandra divaricata Asphodelaceae WC, IUCN (LC) 

Trachyandra falcata Asphodelaceae WC, IUCN (LC) 

Trichocephalus stipularis Rhamnaceae


g 6-12 




Tylecodon paniculatus Crassulaceae 

Tylecodon wallichii Crassulaceae 

Typha capensis Typhaceae 

Vanzijlia annulata Mesembryanthemaceae WC, IUCN (LC) 

Wahlenbergia constricta Campanulaceae Endemic, IUCN (DDD) 

Willdenowia incurvata Restionaceae WC, IUCN (LC) 

Zygophyllum morgsana Celastraceae 

*Status: Endemic - recorded as being endemic to the region or vegetation unit; IUCN - IUCN status as per the National Red List of South 

African Plants (2009); WC - listed as protected as per the Nature and Environmental Conservation Ordinance No. 19 of 1974. 

6.2.5 Site Properties According to Regional Planning Frameworks 

Systematic Conservation Planning provides a framework that highlights national and regional 

conservation planning processes. At a national level and regional planning level the Vegetation 

of Southern Africa (2006) and the regional Fine Scale Planning serve to 'assist land-use planners 

and decision-makers, especially in municipalities, to integrate biodiversity information into 

land-use planning and decision-making'. No local planning frameworks currently exist for the 

site that would identify those areas that are critical for conserving biodiversity and facilitate the 

integration of biodiversity into decision-making (i.e. mainstreaming biodiversity). In general 

local conservation frameworks aim to minimise the loss of natural habitat in Critical 

Biodiversity Areas (CBA) and prevent the degradation of Ecological Support Areas (ESA), while 

encouraging sustainable development in other natural areas. In general the guidelines for local 

conservation plans designate habitats having an elevated conservation status as being Critical 

Biodiversity Areas with Ecological Support Areas, tending to include corridors along drainage 

lines and rivers. For the purposes of this report important drainage features are designated as 

ESAs and vegetation units deemed to have an elevated conservation status as CBAs 

A summary of the affected vegetation units and conservation/ecosystem status as per the 

various National and Regional Bioregional Plan are provided for Mucina & Rutherford 

Vegetation of Southern Africa in (VegSA; Table 6-1 & Figure 6-2); Succulent Karroo Ecosystem 

Planning (SKEP; Figure 6-3) and Fine Scale Planning (FSP; Figure 6-4). These national and 

regional plans provide the most recent available descriptions of the general floral environment 

present within the area, as well as the respective conservation status of the respective 

vegetation units. 

6.2.5.1 Vegetation of Southern Africa 

At a national scale, Mucina & Rutherford (2006) 1 classify vegetation units present within the 

wind farm site as indicated in Table 6-1 and Figure 6-2. Leipoldtville Sand Fynbos is classified as 

Endangered at a National Level. The proposed wind farm project layout indicates that 

Namaqualand Strandveld will be affected by the upgrading of the access road and the turbine 

sites will be located in Leipoldtville Sand Fynbos. 

1 

Mucina, L., & Rutherford, M. 2006. The Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Pretoria: South 

African Biodiversity Institute

Table 6-2 VegMap vegetation units and conservation status. 

Vegetation Unit Conservation 

Status 

Leipoldtville Sand Fynbos Endangered 

Namaqualand Strandveld Least Threatened 

Knersvlakte Quartz Vygieveld Least Threatened 

6.2.5.2 Succulent Karroo Ecosystem Planning (SKEP) 


g 6-13 



At a regional scale SKEP provides regional planning guidelines for the Western Cape Succulent 

Karroo region. The respective SKEP vegetation units are indicated in Figure 6-3. According to 

SKEP vegetation classification, three priority areas are located in the vicinity of the site, namely: 

Knersvlakte Limestone; 

Knersvlakte Quartz fields; and 

Knersvlakte Spiny grasslands. 

None of these priority areas will be directly affected by the proposed wind farm development, 

although flora components found in these priority areas (including endemic species) may occur 

within the site, where suitable habitat is present. 

6.2.5.3 Cape Action Plan for the Environment (CAPE) 

CAPE identifies the following vegetation types as being present within or adjacent to the site: 

Knersvlakte Vygieveld; 

Klawer Vygieveld; and 

Leipoldtville Sand Plain Fynbos. 

Areas most suited for siting of windfarm infrastructure include the transformed (cultivated) 

areas and Namaqualand Strandveld, which has a low conservation rating. Intact Leipoldtville 

Sand Fynbos should preferably be avoided as it has an endangered conservation status. Where 

Leipoldtville Sand Fynbos is severely degraded or has been transformed (cultivated), windfarm 

infrastructure can be accommodated, with minimal loss of vegetation and habitat or loss of 

species of special concern. Knersvlakte vegetation types, as per SKEP mapping, do not appear to 

be present, although they do occur in adjacent areas, and components of these specialised 

habitats may be present. Any development planned for within intact Leipoldtville Sand Fynbos 

will need to be assessed accordingly. 

6.2.5.4 Fine Scale Planning 

At a local scale, the Fine Scale Planning (FSP) recognises the presence of Mostly Natural/ Near 

Natural, Critically Endangered or Endangered vegetation remnant passing through the centre of 

the site, as indicated in Figure 6-4 below.


g 6-14 



Figure 6-2 VegSA 

(Mucina & 

Rutherford) 

vegetation units 

and conservation 

status.


g 6-15 



Figure 6-3 SKEP 

vegetation units 

and conservation 

status.


g 6-16 



Figure 6-4 

Fine Scale 

Planning 

Landcover and 

Critical 

Biodiversity 

Areas Map.

6.3 PERCEIVED REFERENCE STATE 


g 6-17 



The Perceived Reference State (PRS) refers to the original vegetation that would have occurred in 

an area in the absence of any anthropogenic changes that may have occurred. The designated 

conservation status of these units is based on the percentage of intact habitat that remains 

relative to the original extent. No fine scale mapping for the area is available, so the best available 

data is from the national Vegetation of Southern Africa (Munica & Rutherford 2006). 

6.3.1 Leipoldtville Sand Fynbos 

Synonyms: Strandveld of West Coast; Sand Plain Fynbos; Mountain Fynbos; Leipoldtville Sand 

Plain Fynbos; Lambert’s Bay Strandveld 

Position and Features of the Landscape: This vegetation type is restricted to the study area 

and is one of the ones most heavily targeted for agriculture, as the deep, acid sandy soils are ideal 

for rooibos and potato (mostly seed potato) cultivation. Exposed rock is rare, although occasional 

small sandstone inselbergs occur. 

The unit occupies the sandy coastal plain, plus areas of extensive, deep acid sands in the Olifants 

river valley, northern Swartland, and the Olifants river mountains - where there is significant 

overlap with Graafwater Sandstone Fynbos (GSF). The difference between the two in some cases 

comes down to one of scale, as GSF may also have patches with deep sandy soils, and only where 

these areas are big enough to map separately are they regarded as Leipoldtville Sand Fynbos. 

Thus, small patches (


g 6-18 



areas may feature Berzelia lanuginosa, Orphium frutescens, Restio tetragona, Elegia fistulosa, Elegia 

tectorum, Elegia recta, Platycaulos compressus, Cliffortia ferruginea, C. strobilifera, Merxmuellera 

cincta, Typha capensis, Phragmites australis, Plantago crassifolia, Cynodon dactylon, Nidorella 

foetida, Schoenus nigricans and Limonium sp. nov. 

Special species: This vegetation type is exceptionally rich in special species, which is one of the 

primary reasons for concern about the high rate of habitat loss in the area. Species totally or 

largely restricted to this unit include Albuca clanwilliamae-gloriae, Athanasia sertulifera, Cullumia 

floccosa, C. micracantha, Felicia josephinae, Heterorhachis sp. nov., Steirodiscus capillaceus, 

Wahlenbergia constricta, Erica dregei, Pelargonium appendiculatum, P. attenuatum, P. 

fasciculaceum, Babiana confusa, Geissorhiza barkerae, G. louisabolusiae, Limonium sp. nov., 

Leucadendron brunioides var. flumenlupinum, Leucospermum arenarium, Lotononis racemiflora, 

Agathosma insignis, A. involucrata, Macrostylis hirta, Dischisma squarrosum and Manulea pillansii. 

Additional rare and/or threatened species found within this unit include Caesia sp.nov., Babiana 

scabrifolia, Euchaetis tricarpellata, Leucadendron procerum, L. loranthifolium, Serruria fucifolia, S. 

decipiens, Leucospermum rodolentum, Lachnaea capitata, L. grandiflora, Eriospermum arenosum, 

Lebeckia leucoclada, Argyrolobium velutinum, Lotononis bolusii and Phylica cuspidata. Aspalathus 

rostripetala is known only from one collection, possibly in this habitat, north of Citrusdal. 

Key areas requiring conservation: This unit is clearly poorly known botanically, with both 

Cullumia micracantha and C. floccosa (fairly large perennial shrubs) not having been collected for 

over 100 years until last year. Most areas investigated in detail contained special species, 

suggesting that the bulk of the remaining habitat is irreplaceable. This being said, particularly 

important areas for conservation of endemic species seem to be around Aurora, between 

Redelinghuys and the Engelsman se Baken area (Driefonteinberg and areas to south), the area 

from Redelinghuys to Paleisheuwel (including Ratelrug) and from Paleisheuwel north to 

Alexandershoek (including Boekenberg and Bergvlei). 

Management Guidelines: Given the exceptional concentration of rare, threatened and localised 

species in this unit the ongoing and rapid transformation of this habitat by agriculture is of major 

national conservation concern, made worse by the fact that no formal conservation areas protect 

this vegetation type. In this regard the Greater Cederberg Biodiversity Corridor (GCBC) project is 

of critical importance, as it seeks to involve private landowners in conserving key portions of 

natural habitat in this area. Agricultural transformation, primarily for potatoes and rooibos, is by 

far the most important pressure on this habitat, along with the associated effects such as a drop in 

the water table, which can result in the elimination of entire groundwater dependant ecosystems. 

No further transformation of good quality examples of this vegetation type should be authorised, 

unless offset by significant conservation gains, in accordance with the latest regional guidelines 

for biodiversity offsets (Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning 2007). 

These guidelines suggest that for every 1 ha of intact habitat lost at least 15 ha of the same quality 

should be conserved. Overgrazing of certain areas is also a major problem, and alien invasive 

plants (primarily Acacia) are an issue in places, especially in wetlands. This is a fire maintained 

system, with an appropriate fire frequency of once every 15-25 years (relatively dry climate 

permits relatively slow growth rates). 

6.3.2 Namaqualand Strandveld 

Synonyms: Succulent Karoo; Lowland Succulent Karoo; Strandveld


g 6-19 



Position and Features of the Landscape: This unit is not restricted to the study area, and in fact 

extends over a vast portion of coastal Namaqualand to the north, and could quite easily be further 

subdivided. Outcropping rock is very rare. Soils are generally brown, yellow, or reddish loamy 

sands, slightly alkaline to neutral. Occasional small pans occur in loamier soils. 

Climate: Semi-arid, with cool to warm and dry summers and cool winters, with significant fog all 

year round. Coastal winds can be strong and persistent. Significant berg winds possible in cooler 

months. 

Vegetation structure: Low to medium shrubland, dominated by deciduous shrubs and leaf 

succulents. Annuals can be abundant. Generally few geophytes and lacking in diversity. No trees. 

Restioids very rare. 

Typical species: Zygophyllum morgsana, Othonna cylindrica, O. coronopifolia, Didelta carnosa, 

Euphorbia burmanii, E. caput-medusae, Tetragonia fruticosa, Justicia cuneata, , Lycium cinereum, 

Salvia africana-lutea, S. lanceolata, Tylecodon wallichii, T. paniculatus, Stoeberia utilis, Lebeckia 

sericea, Ruschia floribunda, Vanzijlia annulata, Chrysanthemoides incana, Manulea cinerea, 

Manochlamys albicans, Kedrostis psammophila, Cissampelos capensis, Conicosia elongata, 

Afrolimon sp. nov., Helichrysum tricostatum, H. hebelepis, Eriocephalus racemosa, Asparagus 

capensis, Nenax arenicola, Pteronia onobromoides, P. divaricata, Gnidia clavata and Hermannia 

scordifolia. Scattered larger woody shrubs are a feature in some areas, and may include Rhus 

glauca, Gymnosporia buxifolia, Diospyros austro-africana and Euclea racemosa. Grasses may be 

prominent after rains, with Stipagrostis zeyheri, Ehrharta calycina, and E. ramose prominent. 

Bulbs include Babiana spp., Lachenalia unifolia, Oxalis flava, Trachyandra divaricata, Albuca 

maxima, Trachyandra falcata, Drimia sp., and Boophone haemanthoides. 

Special species: Within the study area, habitats support few special species. Euphorbia 

schoenlandii is a localised species, most common around Strandfontein. Aloe framesii is seldom 

common, except around the Olifants river mouth and near Port Nolloth, while Aloe arenicola is 

less common. An undescribed species of Afrolimon is a conspicuous component in some areas. 

Romulea sinispinosensis is very localised within the ecotone with Namaqualand Sand Fynbos, 

south-east of Doringbaai. Oscularia ebracteata is restricted to rocky areas within this vegetation 

type around the Olifants River mouth. 

Key areas requiring conservation: The primary areas of concern within the planning domain 

are around Doringbaai and Strandfontein (see Special Features) and at the Olifants River mouth 

(especially the rocky areas), which are outside of the immediate study area. 

Management Guidelines: North–south corridors should be identified and kept intact. This is 

not a system prone to burning , and transformation levels are fairly low. Small stock farming the 

traditional land use resulting in some areas being heavily overgrazed. Large scale heavy mineral 

sand mining is a major pressure in the area north of the Olifants River. Invasions by alien 

vegetation is generally not an issue. This larger unit within the planning domain is surprisingly 

poorly known botanically and is worth further exploration. 

6.3.3 Knersvlakte Quartz Vygieveld 

Distribution: Slightly undulating landscape with slopes and broad ridges covered by prominent 

though very patchy white layer of quartzite. The succulent shrublands supported by this


g 6-20 



relatively young (Tertiary) plain area mostly dwarf, with a high proportion of compact and 

subterranean Vygies (Aizoaceae), often imitating their surroundings. This is probably the most 

extensive area of 'living stones' in the world. The mosaic of floristically and ecologically distinct 

quartz Vygieveld communities and the matrix of low succulent shrublands, with Ruschia and 

Drosanthemum as the most prominent structure-determining genera, are very intricate and 

small-scale in places. Spectacular flower displays of both perennial and annual species flowering 

en masse and simultaneously are a common sight after good winter rain. The increased 

occurrence of indigenous Caulipsolon rapaceum, Drosanthemum hispidum, Malephora purpureacrocea, 

Mesembryanthemum guerichianum as well as of the alien Atriplex lindleyi subsp. inflata is a 

good indicator of local veld disturbance. Large number of endemic species are present within this 

unit, which carries one of the largest local densities of endemic plants (60 species and 3 genera). 

Conservation – A conservation target of 28% has been established. In places still utilised for 

grazing by goats. About 5% is statutorily conserved in Moedverloren Nature Reserve. The area is 

disturbed by prospecting for diamonds in the past and gypsum mining, leaving behind mine spoil 

heaps in places. Alien plants are not a big problem, although Atriplex lindleyi subsp. inflata is 

invading where saline quartz fields have been disturbed by trampling or off-road driving. 

6.4 PRESENT ECOLOGICAL STATE (PES) 

The present Ecological State describes the current ecological condition, taking into account levels 

of land degradation, alien infestation, transformation and such activities that will have altered the 

vegetation from its original state. The following broad communities can be identified in the site: 

Namaqualand Strandveld 

Leipoldtville Sand Fynbos 

Transformed vegetation 

Knersvlakte Quartz Vygieveld – occurs in surrounding areas, but none present within the 

site footprint. 

The current habitat where the wind energy facility is proposed is primarily dominated by 

transformed and semi-transformed agricultural lands (both irrigated and dry-lands), with 

remnant pockets of Leipoldtville Sand Fynbos along the southern boundary and large areas of 

intact Namaqualand Strandveld in the northern portion of the site. The central portion of the site 

(where the wind farm may be situated) consists of transformed cultivated lands and disturbed 

vegetation. According to the current site layout the majority of the proposed turbine 

infrastructure is sited within transformed areas, with only the access road passing through intact 

vegetation (including a designated CBA area). During final micro-siting, intact areas of vegetation 

should be retained in favour of more degraded or transformed patches. 

6.4.1 Namaqualand Strandveld 

Where it is intact, this is the dominant vegetation unit present within the site. The vegetation 

community is comprised of a relatively sparse and a widely spaced cover of predominantly shrub 

clumps with scattered tufts of perennial grasses and some geophytes and succulents also present, 

interspersed with bare sandy soil. Perennial annual herbs and geophytes sporadically appear 

after seasonal rainfall.


g 6-21 



Figure 6-5 Typical Namaqualand Strandveld Figure 6-6 Typical Namaqualand Strandveld with 

scattered shrubs, tufted grasses and bare sandy soil. 

6.4.2 Leipoldtville Sand Fynbos 

Isolated patches resembling this unit are present within the site, and where intact, is as described 

above. The vegetation community is comprised of a cover of predominantly shrub, Restio and 

perennial grass tufts with some geophytes and succulents also present, interspersed with bare 

sandy soil. The vegetation tends to be far denser and has a greater Restio and grass composition 

that the Strandveld described above. Perennial annual herbs and geophytes sporadically appear 

after seasonal rainfall. 

Figure 6-7 Typical Sand Fynbos Figure 6-8 Typical Sand Fynbos with Restio and shrub 

clumps 

6.4.3 Transformed and severely degraded vegetation 

The transformed areas where crop cultivation has taken place within the site tend to have a 

significantly lower biodiversity (predominantly pioneer shrubs and annuals) than intact areas, 

and are thus of limited conservation importance and most suited to be used for the proposed 

development (in the context of siting choices). Most of the areas where the turbines may be sited 

have been transformed for agriculture.

Figure 6-9 Transformed area with cultivated areas 

interspersed with vegetated rows in vicinity of wind 

turbines 

Figure 6-11 Typical regenerating cultivated lands 

dominated by pioneer shrub species. Absence of 

succulent and woody flora noted. 


g 6-22 



Figure 6-10 Cultivated land with some regeneration 

of pioneer shrub elements in vicinity of wind turbines 

Figure 6-12 Extensive transformed agricultural fields 

predominantly along proposed access road.


g 6-23 



Figure 6-13 Mapped 

Vegetation 

communities with 

respective ecological 

sensitivity indicated.

6.5 TERRESTRIAL HABITAT VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT 

6.5.1 Assessment Criteria 


g 6-24 



An overall vulnerability assessment incorporating key vegetation and ecological indicators 

(summarised in Table 6-3), based on the following key criteria: 

Relative levels of intactness i.t.o. overall loss of indigenous vegetation cover; 

Presence, diversity and abundance of species of special concern (weighted in favour of 

local endemic species); 

Extent of infestation (severity and overall ecological impact), as well as the degree to 

which successful rehabilitation could take place; 

Overall degradation incorporating above factors; and 

Relative importance of the vegetation communities relative to their regional conservation 

status - indicated as vulnerability of the area as a result of loss. 

Intactness - Three basic classes are differentiated: 

Low: < 25 % of original vegetation has been removed/lost; and/or no species of special 

concern present that are critically endangered, endangered or having highly localised 

endemicity. 

Moderate: 25 - 75 % of original vegetation has been removed/lost; and or species of 

special concern present but not having high conservation status or high levels of 

endemicity. 

High: > 75 % of original vegetation has been removed/lost; and/or presence of species 

with a highly endemicity and/or high conservation status (endangered or critically 

endangered). 

Alien infestation - Three classes are differentiated: 

Low: no or a few scattered individuals of alien species; 

Moderate: individual clumps of invasive species present, but cover less than 50% or 

original area; 

High: dense, impenetrable stands of invasive species present, or cover > 50 % of area 

with substantial loss functioning. Rehabilitation will most likely require specialised 

techniques over an extended period (> 5 years). 

Degradation - Overall degradation is determined from the above alien infestation and intactness 

scores according to the following matrix: 

Intactness 

Low 

Infestation 

Moderate High 

High Pristine Near Pristine Moderately Degraded 

Moderate Near Pristine Moderately Degraded Severely Degraded 

Low Moderately 

Degraded 

Severely Degraded Transformed


g 6-25 



Overall Sensitivity score - Overall sensitivity of the vegetation within the site is calculated 

according to the following matrix which combines degradation and overall conservation status of 

the vegetation units of the site. 

Conservation Status 

Degradation 

Least Vulnerable Endangered Critically 

threatened 

Endangered 

Severely degraded/ 

Transformed 

Low Low Moderate Moderate - High 

Moderately degraded Low Moderate High High 

Ecologically Pristine or near Moderate Moderate - High Very High (No-Go 

Pristine 

High 

area) 

Low sensitivity areas are: 

highly degraded or transformed and it is unlikely that they could be rehabilitated to a 

normal functioning state without extreme effort and expense; and 

includes areas that have a low conservation status. 

This includes the portions of the site that are associated with agricultural infrastructure, 

cultivated areas, irrigated lands and pastures, or where there is very dense alien infestation. Loss 

of these areas will furthermore not significantly compromise the current conservation status of 

the vegetation unit. 

Moderate sensitivity areas: 

contain a reasonably intact habitat; 

have moderate, low or no alien infestation; and 

present a vulnerable or lower conservation score and with minimal loss of ecological 

functioning. 

High sensitivity areas are: 

an important ecological function (including ephemeral wetland pans), including 

specialized habitats (rocky outcrops with associated specialised flora and/or fauna) or 

steep slopes; and 

a critically endangered conservation status or an endangered conservation status where 

ecological processes have not been irreversibly compromised. 

High sensitivity areas would include Critical Biodiversity Areas, wetlands, seeps and riparian 

areas, which although they may have a low regional conservation status they provide a 

specialised habitat that is absent from the surrounding general vegetation units. Intact wetland 

areas have been scored as having a High Sensitivity as they tend to have an important ecological 

function in the general area. 

6.5.2 Present Ecological State Indicators 

A summary of key Present Ecological State indicators for the area are presented in Table 6-3 

below. Since historical data are lacking, some assumptions have been made where necessary.

Table 6-3 Present Ecological State indicators of the study area. 

Aspect Description 

6.5.2.1 Landscape Description 

Aspect, Slope, Topography A relatively flat to gently undulating plain 

Substrate Sandy soils 

6.5.2.2 Community Description 


g 6-26 



Vegetation units Predominantly Namaqualand Strandveld with Leipoldtville Sand Fynbos 

patches. 

Total Cover (%) ± 50 % (remainder includes roads, excavations and areas where bare soil 

is present 

Tree Canopy Cover (%) < 1 % 

Shrub Cover (%) ± 40 % (within Sand Fynbos) 

Herb Cover (%) ± 20 % 

Grass Cover (%) < 10 % 

Bare soil/rock (%) ± 5 % (includes outcrops, dams and excavated areas) 

Estimated Tree Height (m) < 5 m where present 

6.5.2.3 Disturbances, current land uses and sources of degradation 

Human disturbances/impacts Cattle and sheep grazing and cultivation related disturbances, pastures, 

excavations, dams, roads, dwellings and other buildings 

Habitat fragmentation Extensive in pasture areas and relating to existing gravel roads and dams 

along drainage lines and seeps and fenced areas where some constraints 

on faunal movement may occur. 

Invasive Alien Plants Some isolated clumps of Prickly pear present 

Relative remaining intact Areas largely transformed, with managed pastures accounting most of the 

habitat 

site 

Grazing (livestock) Site used extensively for cattle and sheep grazing, but at low density, with 

some game farming 

Hunting None evident 

Conservation (flora) No formalised conservation within the site, but fenced game farm 

present. 

Wetlands/Seeps Dominated by grasses and herbaceous species with sedges and other 

facultative wetland species. 

Wetlands and seep areas are localised and outside the impacted area 

within the site 

Recreational (sport) None observed 

6.5.2.4 Sensitivities 

Conservation importance Moderate to Low for Namaqualand Strandveld and Leipoldtville Sand 

Fynbos at a regional level 

Topography Topography relatively flat to gently undulating 

Rehabilitation potential Rehabilitation after disturbance possible, where loss of topsoil is not 

extensive.


g 6-27 




Community structure Cultivated pastures and historical grazing has impacted community 

structure. Some degradation indicators present. 

Flora Natural indigenous vegetation with some pastures and transformed 

areas. 

Fauna Some reptiles present in outcrops indicated as being of special concern as 

per faunal recommendations. Amphibians associated with wetlands and 

seeps likely to occur within in the greater study area and may migrate 

during rainfall periods. 

Indigenous Species of Special See Table 6-4 below this list 

Concern 

Alien invasion Few scattered clumps aliens throughout the area, tending to be noninvasive 

when occurring. 

6.5.2.5 Ecological Processes 

Coastal dunes None present on the site 

Climatic gradients None present on the site 

Drainage Lines/ 

Important from an ecological process perspective within rivers and 

Riparian Vegetation 

associated drainage lines. No Riparian vegetation likely to impacted by 

the proposed development 

Refugia Distinct rocky outcrops absent 

Fire The frequency of fires has probably changed significantly in relation to 

the PRS. The frequency of fires in the study area is unknown, but expected 

to be relatively low. 

Ecotones/Tension zones Habitat fragmentation (pastures and roads) has increased the area 

covered by ecotones in relation to the PRS 

Erosion Serious erosion largely absent due to levelness of the site, some surface 

erosion evident around severely disturbed areas such as farm dams, but 

these are outside of the proposed development site. 

Carbon storage Strandveld is a moderate to low carbon accumulator 

Medicinal plants No medicinal species were noted in abundance, but some species 

occurring have been recorded for medicinal uses. 

Food The value of the study area as a source of food is expected to be 

insignificant, with food plants being limited to a few tree species. 

Extensive loss of indigenous vegetation cover would have been 

accompanied by loss of indigenous food plants 

Fuelwood (availability) No collection observed, although bush clearing would have generated 

wood which may have been used historically 

Building materials None evident, trees largely confined to ravines 8 km from the proposed 

development site 

Grazing Livestock present , but current stocking density is low to very low) 

Barriers to gene dispersal The erection of fences and roads will prevent the movement of some 

fauna (terrestrial) and hence plant propagules (i.e. as their agents of 

dispersal) 

Corridors for gene dispersal Fences and utility structures (e.g. transmission lines and telephone lines) 

that act as perches for birds may be viewed as corridors for bird 

mediated seed dispersal. These may not follow the dispersal routes in the 

PRS (e.g. ridges and drainage lines) and increase dispersal of certain 

species (bird dispersed)


6.5.2.6 Conservation importance 


g 6-28 



Current Distribution (extent) Relatively widespread in the region, but tending to be transformed and 

degraded through agricultural activities. 

Relative Conservation 

Moderate to High local conservation importance 

importance 

Overall Intactness Historical agricultural activities have altered the unit from the PRS, and 

besides localised areas and specialised habitats, the general vegetation 

tends to be degraded and transformed rather than intact. 

6.5.3 Floral diversity 

Plant species were recorded within the site during a site visit in October 2011. Due to the fact that 

field sampling was undertaken in the late spring/early summer the assembled inventory may not 

be comprehensive in that certain plants are only visible for short periods of time sporadically 

during the course of the year. This, however, is unlikely to be a significant issue since sites should 

be surveyed before construction and micro-siting, should it be necessary to avoid any populations 

of species of special concern (SSC) found to occur that could be deemed to be of significant 

conservation importance. 

A number of protected plant species (see Table 6-4) were found within the site during field 

sampling. Most of the species are widely distributed and it is unlikely that the proposed 

development would have any significant impact on populations. 

Table 6-4 Indigenous Species of Special Concern. 

Botanical Name* Family Status** Regional Distribution/ Endemism + 

Lebeckia leucoclada Fabaceae Endemic WC 

Limonium sp. nov. Plumbaginaceae Endemic 

Agathosma involucrata Rutaceae Endemic, IUCN 

(CR PE) 

WC Olifants River Valley 

Lotononis bolusii Fabaceae Endemic, IUCN 

(Cr PE) 

Oliphant's River Valley to Hopefield 

Lotononis racemiflora Fabaceae Endemic, IUCN 

(CR PE) 

WC Bokwater west of Clanwilliam 

Cullumia floccosa Asteraceae Endemic, IUCN 

(CR) 

WC, Redelinghuys 

Wahlenbergia constricta Campanulaceae Endemic, IUCN WC Olifants River Valley and 

(DDD) 

Graafwater to Redelinghuys 

Albuca clanwilliamae- Hyacinthaceae Endemic, IUCN WC Redelinghuys to Olifants River 

gloriae 

(EN) 

Valley. 

Argyrolobium velutinum Fabaceae Endemic, IUCN 

(EN) 

WC Lambert's Bay to Cape Peninsula 

Athanasia sertulifera Asteraceae Endemic, IUCN WC South-west of Klawer to Aurora 

(EN) 

and Paleisheuwel


g 6-29 




Cullumia micracantha Asteraceae Endemic, IUCN 

(EN) 

WC, Sandveld east of Redelinghuys 

Dischisma squarrosum Scrophulariaceae Endemic, IUCN WC Southern Namaqualand to 

(EN) 

Clanwilliam 

Felicia josephinae Asteraceae Endemic, IUCN 

(EN) 

WC Aurora to Leipoldtville 

Pelargonium 

Geraniaceae Endemic, IUCN WC Leipoldtville 

appendiculatum 

(EN) 

Pelargonium attenuatum Geraniaceae Endemic, IUCN 

(EN) 

WC Olifants River Valley 

Steirodiscus capillaceus Asteraceae Endemic, IUCN 

(LC) 

NC, WC 

Pelargonium fasciculaceum Geraniaceae Endemic, IUCN WC Olifants River Valley to 

(NT) 

Nieuwoudtville 

Agathosma insignis Rutaceae Endemic, IUCN WC Elandskloof Mountains and Upper 

(Rare) 

Olifants River Valley (rocky areas) 

Euchaetis tricarpellata Rutaceae Endemic, IUCN Piketberg to Olifants River Mountains 

(Rare) 

and Redelinghuys. 

Eriospermum arenosum Asteraceae Endemic, IUCN 

(Vu) 

WC, NC Velddrif to Wallekraal 

Euphorbia schoenlandii Euphorbiaceae Endemic, IUCN 

(Vu) 

Vanrhynsdorp to Vredendal. 

Lachnaea capitata Thymelaeaceae Endemic, IUCN 

(VU) 

WC 

Macrostylis hirta Rutaceae Endemic, IUCN 

(VU) 

WC 

Phylica cuspidata Rhamnaceae Endemic, IUCN 

(VU) 

WC 

Conicosia elongata Mesembryanthemaceae WC Widespread WC, NC 

Dovea macrocarpa Restionaceae WC WC Cedarberg to Picketberg 

Drimia sp. Hyacinthaceae WC 

Lachenalia unifolia Hyacinthaceae WC WC, NC 

Babiana confusa Iridaceae WC, Endemic WC Lambert's Bay, Knersvlakte to 

Babiana scabrifolia Iridaceae WC, Endemic, 

IUCN (LC) 

Nardous Mountain 

WC, Oliphant's River 

Ruschia floribunda Mesembryanthemaceae WC, IUCN (DDT) WC 

Romulea sinispinosensis Iridaceae WC, IUCN (EN) WC Doringbaai and Velddrif 

Geissorhiza barkerae Iridaceae WC, IUCN (EN), WC Piketberg and southern Olifants 

Endemic 

River Valley 

Geissorhiza louisabolusiae Iridaceae WC, IUCN (EN), WC Olifants River Valley and Koue 

Endemic 

Bokkeveld 

Elegia fistulosa Restionaceae WC, IUCN (LC) EC, WC 

Platycaulos compressus Restionaceae WC, IUCN (LC) WC EC 

Stoeberia utilis Mesembryanthemaceae WC, IUCN (LC) WC, NC


g 6-30 




Thamnochortus platypteris Restionaceae WC, IUCN (LC) WC, NC 

Trachyandra divaricata Asphodelaceae WC, IUCN (LC) WC, EC, NC 

Trachyandra falcata Asphodelaceae WC, IUCN (LC) Namibia, WC, NC 

Vanzijlia annulata Mesembryanthemaceae WC, IUCN (LC) WC, NC 

Willdenowia incurvata Restionaceae WC, IUCN (LC) WC, NC 

Elegia recta Restionaceae WC, IUCN (NT) WC Malmesbury to Agulhas Plain 

* Status: Endemic - recorded as being endemic to the region or vegetation unit; IUCN - IUCN status as per the National Red List of South 

African Plants (2009); WC - listed as protected as per the Nature and Environmental Conservation Ordinance No. 19 of 1974 and 

the Western Cape Conservation Law Amendment Act; +Distribution: EC - Eastern Cape, WC - Western Cape, NC - Northern Cape. 

A single invasive alien plant species was noted to be present within the sites (see Table 6-5), but 

not in great abundance. Ruderal weeds present in cultivated pastures were observed as being 

common; however, no invasive species or declared weeds were noted in these areas. 

Disturbances resulting from construction could result in proliferation of weedy and other 

invasive species. 

Table 6-5 Alien Invasive plants and common weeds present and CARA classification. 

Botanical Name Common 

name 

Family Category * Extent 

Opuntia sp. Prickly Pear Cactaceae CARA Isolated clumps 

* CARA 1: Declared Weed; CARA 2: Declared Invader. 

6.6 TERRESTRIAL FAUNAL ASSESSMENT 

The faunal assessment provides a review of the surviving terrestrial fauna and its diversity, the 

presence of threatened species and those of special concern, and the habitat associations of the 

species. A list of terrestrial faunal species recorded or likely to occur in the general study area is 

presented in Table 6-6 below. 

Table 6-6 List of species recorded or likely to occur in the general study area, together 

with the conservation status. 

* CE: Critically endangered; E: Endangered; VU: Vulnerable; LC: Least concern. 

Taxon(Scientific name) 

Amphibia 

Common Name 

Conservation 

Status* 

Presence 

Amietophrynus rangeri Raucous toad LC X 

Vandijkophrynus angusticeps Cape sand toad LC X 

Vandijkophrynus gariepensis Karoo toad LC X 

Hyperolius marmoratus Painted reed frog LC 

Hyperolius horstockii Arum lily frog LC 

Kassina senegalensis Kassina LC 

Semnodactylus wealii Rattling frog LC


g 6-31 



Taxon(Scientific name) Common Name 

Conservation 

Status* 

Presence 

Breviceps adspersus pentheri Penther’s rain frog LC X 

Xenopus laevis Common platanna LC 

Cacosternum karooicum Karoo dainty frog LC 

Cacosternum boettgeri Common caco LC 

Cacosternum namaquense Namaqua caco LC X 

Strongylopus fasciatus Striped stream frog LC 

Strongylopus grayii Clicking stream frog LC 

Tomopterna delalandii Cape sand frog LC X 

Breviceps montanus Cape mountain Rain frog LC 

Breviceps namaquensis Namaqua rain frog LC X 

Strongylopus bonaspei) Banded stream frog LC 

Rana fuscigula Cape river frog LC 

(Poyntonia paludicola) Marsh frog 

LC 

(Cacosternum capense) Cape caco 

Arthroleptella lightfooti) Cape chirping frog LC 

Breviceps rosei) Sand rain frog 

LC 

Breviceps gibbosus) Cape rain frog LC 

Reptilia 

Cherisina angulata Angulate tortoise CITES App. 2. X 

Homopus signatus Speckled padloper Near threatened, 

CITES App. 2 

X 

Psammobates tentorius trimeni) Tent tortoise CITES App 2 X 

Pelomedusa subrufa Marsh terrapin LC 

Homopus areolatus Parrot beaked tortoise Cites App. 2 X 

Rhinotyphlops lalandei Delalande’s beaked blind 

snake 

LC X 

Leptotyphlops gracilir Slender thread snake LC 

Homorolapse lacteus Harlequin snake LC 

Crotaphopeltis hotamboeia Herald snake LC 

Dipsina multimaculata Dwarf beaked snake LC 

Dasypeltis scabra Rhombic egg eater LC X 

Dispholidus typus Boomslang LC 

Duberria lutrix Slug eater LC 

Lamprophis aurora Aurora house snake LC 

Telescopus beetzii Beetz’s tiger snake LC 

Lamprophis capensis Brown house snake LC X 

Lamprophis guttatus Spotted house snake LC 

Lycodonomorphus rufulus Brown water snake LC 

Lycophidion capense capense Cape wolf snake LC 

Philothamnus natalensis occidentalus Natal green snake LC 

Prosymna sundevallii Sundevalle’s shovel snout LC 

Psammophis crucifer Crossed marked/Montane LC X 

LC


g 6-32 




sand snake 

Conservation 

Status* 

Presence 

Psammophis leightoni Cape whip snake LC X 

Psammophis notostictus Karroo whip snake LC X 

Psammophis namibensis Namib grass/sand snake LC X 

Psammophylax rhombeatus Rhombic skaapsteker LC X 

Pseudaspis cana Mole snake LC X 

Aspidelapse lubricus lubricus Cape coral snake LC 

Hemachatus haemachatus Rinkhals LC 

Naja nivea Cape cobra LC X 

Naja nigricollis woodi Black spitting cobra LC 

Bitis cordylus Horned adder LC 

Bitis cornuta Many horned adder LC 

Bitis arientans Puff adder LC X 

Acontias lineatus lineatus Striped legless skink LC X 

Scelotes caffer Cape 

skink 

dwarf burrowing 

LC X 

Scelotes sexlineatus Striped dwarf burrowing 

skink 

LC X 

Trachylepis capensis Cape skink LC X 

Trachylepis sulcata Western rock skink LC X 

Trachylepis varia varie Variable skink LC X 

Meroles knoxii Knox’s desert lizard LC X 

Nucras tessellata tessellata Striped sandveld lizard LC X 

Nucras tessellate Western sandveld lizard LC X 

Lacerta australis Southern rock lizard LC X 

Pedioplanis pulchella Pulchell’s sand lizard LC X 

Tropidosaura montana montana Common mountain lizard LC 

Pseudocordylus capensis Graceful crag lizard LC 

Pedioplanis lineoocellata pulchella Spotted sand lizard LC X 

Cordylosaurus subtessellatus) Dwarf plated lizard LC X 

Gerrhosaurus typicus Namaqua plated lizard Near threatened X 

Cordylus polyzonus Karoo girdled lizard Cites appendix 2 

protected 

X 

Cordylus cataphractus Armidillo girdled lizard VU, CITES 

appendix 2 

protected 

TOPS (Protected 

species) 

X 

Pseudocordylus m. microlepidotus Cape crag lizard Cites appendix 2 

protected 

Agama atra Southern rock agama LC 

Agama hispida 

Southern spiny agama LC X 

Bradypodion occidentale Western Dwarf chameleon CITES, appendix 2 

protected 

X 

Chamaeleo namaquensis Namaqua chameleon LC X


g 6-33 




Conservation 

Status* 

Presence 

Afrogecko porphyreus Marbled leaf toed gecko LC 

Chondrodactylus angulifer Giant ground gecko LC X 

Pachydactylus labialis Western Cape thick toed 

gecko 

LC X 

Goggia lineate Striped 

gecko 

dwarf leaf toed 

LC X 

Pachydactylus formosus Karoo gecko LC X 

Pachydactylus geitje Occellated gecko LC X 

Pachydactylus weberi Webers thick toed gecko LC X 

Goggia hexaphora Cederberg leaf toed gecko LC X 

Pachydactylus bibroni Bibrons thick toed gecko LC X 

Pachydactylus mariquensis Marico thick toed gecko LC X 

Pachydactylus rugosus formosus Rough thick toed gecko LC X 

Phelsuma ocellata Namaqua day gecko Near threatened X 

Mammalia 

Papio ursinus Chacma baboon LC 

Forest shrew Myosorex varius LC 

Lesser dwarf shrew Suncus varilla V 

Macroscelides proboscideus Round 

shrew 

eared elephant 

LC X 

Orycteropus afer Aardvark LC 

Procavia capensis Rock hyrax LC 

Lepus saxatilis Scrub hare LC 

Pronolagus rupestris Smiths red rock rabbit LC 

Cryptomys hottentotus African mole rat LC X 

Bathyergus suillus Cape dune mole rat LC X 

Steatomys krebsii Krebs fat mouse LC X 

Georychus capensis Cape mole rat LC X 

Hystrix africaeaustralis Cape porcupine LC 

Petrmus typicus Dassie rat LC X 

Graphiurus ocularis Spectacled dormouse LC 

Otomys saundersiae Saunders’ vlei rat LC 

Parotomys brantsii Brants whistling rat LC X 

Parotomys littledalei Littledal’s whisteling rat LC X 

Dendromus melanotis Grey climbing mouse LC 

Mystromys albicaudatus White tailed mouse LC X 

Micaelamys (Aethomys) namaquensis Namaqua rock mouse LC X 

Mus minutoides Pygmy mouse LC X 

Mus musculus House mouse Alien X 

Acomys subspinosus Cape spiny mouse LC X 

Malacothrix typica Gerbil mouse LC X 

Praomys verreauxii Verreaux’s mouse LC X 

Aethomys granti Grants rock mouse LC X 

Otomys unisulcatus Bush karoo rat LC X


g 6-34 




Conservation 

Status* 

Presence 

Otomys irroratus Vlei rat LC 

Otomys unisulcatus Bush vlei rat LC 

Rattus rattus House rat LC X 

Rhabdomys pumilio Four striped grass mouse LC X 

Cercopithecus pygerythrus Vervet monkey LC X 

Lepus capensis Cape hare LC X 

Crocidura cyanea Reddish-grey musk shrew DD X 

Crocidura flavescens Greater red musk shrew DD X 

Macroscelides proboscideus Round 

shrew 

eared elephant 

LC X 

Myosorex varius Forest shrew DD X 

Chrysochloris asiatica Cape golden mole LC X 

Eremitalpa granti Grants golden mole LC X 

Chlorotalpa sclateri Sclater’s golden mole LC X 

Elephantulus edwardii Cape rock elephant shrew LC X 

Cryptomys hottentotus Common mole rat LC X 

Desmodillus auricularis Short tailed girbil LC X 

Gerbillurus paeba Hairy footed girbil LC X 

Tatera afra Cape girbil LC X 

Caracal caracal Caracal LC 

Canis mesomelas Black backed jackal LC 

Felis cattus Feral cat Feral (Alien) X 

Genetta genetta Small spotted genet LC X 

Suricata suricatta Suricate LC X 

Atilax paludinosus Marsh mongoose LC 

Cynictis penicillata Yellow mongoose LC X 

Atilax paludinosus Water mongoose LC 

Galerella pulverulenta Small cape grey mongoose LC X 

Aonyx capensis Cape clawless otter TOPS (protected 

species) 

Canis vulgaris Domestic dog Feral(Alien) X 

Otocyon megalotis Bat eared fox LC 

Vulpes chama Cape fox LC 

Ictonyx striatus Striped polecat LC X 

Mellivora capensis Honey badger NT 

TOPS(Protected) 

Oreotragus oreotragus Klipspringer VU 

Raphicerus campestris Steenbok LC X 

Pelea capreolus Grey rhebok LC 

Raphicerus melanotis Grysbok LC X 

Sylvicapra grimmia Common duiker LC X 

6.6.1 Amphibians 

There are approximately 24 species of amphibians which could occur within the local area of the 

development site. Of the 24 species, 7 species are likely to occur on the site. All the amphibians


g 6-35 



expected within the site are considered as least concern in terms of conservation status. The 

amphibians in the proposed development site include amphibians which are semi water 

dependant and amphibians such as frogs which rely exclusively on permanent water. Raucous 

toad(Amietophrynus rangeri) and rain frogs such as Namaqua rain frogs (Breviceps namaquensis) 

are common in the area, but may escape observation as a result of deep burrowing in dry periods 

in order to escape from the day’s heat. In these conditions, they emerge after dark when 

temperatures are lowered and to absorb falling dew. They also emerge after rains. These 

amphibians are known as explosive breeders, in other words, they emerge gregariously during 

times of heavy rainfall to breed. Water dependant amphibians such as the clicking stream frog 

(Strongylopus grayii) and platanna (Xenopus laevis) need permanent water to survive. These 

species will be found near permanent/perennial water sources. 

There may be few amphibians obvious on site due to the lack of permanent water, however, 

species may enter the site after dark. Amphibians may traverse the site, for example, using roads, 

especially after rainfall or when standing water is present providing habitat. Non water 

dependant amphibians will be found throughout the entire site proposed for development due to 

their ability to withstand the lack of water. There are a number of human made water outlets 

(provided by the farmer for his live stock) and spillage from these water sources may create 

habitat for amphibians, thereby increasing their presence. However, this is micro site specific and 

of anthropogenic cause. 

6.6.2 Reptiles 

There are 69 species of reptiles recorded from the area, of which 10 are species of special 

concern. Some of the species known from the area are illustrated in the figures below. In terms of 

the greater area (the Succulent Karoo), climate together with the geology of the area offers many 

habitats for reptiles. The existing habitats range from fossorial, terrestrial, rocky, sandy, grassy, 

riverine, etc. These habitats offer shelter, breeding grounds and food for reptiles. The fossorial 

habitat, for example, provides habitat for reptiles such as Striped legless skink (Acontias lineatus 

lineatus) and Delalande’s beaked blind snake (Rhinotyphlops lelandii). The terrestrial habitats 

such as rocky outcrops offer habitat for Armadillo lizards (Cordylus cataphractus), which wedge 

themselves deep into rock crevices to shelter from predators. This species is considered as 

vulnerable (IUCN 2) and is listed on Appendix 2 of CITES 3. They are also listed as protected in 

terms of TOPS (Threatened or Protected Species). Armadillo lizards are micro site specific; i.e. the 

entire colony will remain on one area of rocky habitat, which implies that the removal of event an 

individual rocky outcrop will destroy the entire colony of lizards that resides there. Reptiles are 

also attracted to these areas due to the abundance of prey items available, such as mice, rats and 

geckos themselves. 

The reptiles can be divided into two groups, namely nocturnal species and diurnal species. 

Nocturnal species will hide between and under rocks, small shrubs, etc. during the day, but will 

emerge at night to hunt, etc. The many horned adder (Bitis cornuta) will not be seen during the 

day, but as soon as temperatures drop (onset of dusk) they will actively hunt, etc. Because of this 

factor, they, together with many other nocturnal snakes in the area, are detrimentally affected by 

vehicle and road-use activity. Large reptiles such as Puff adders (Bits arientans) and Black spitting 

2 IUCN: International Union for Conservation of Nature - Red List of Threatened Species (2009) 

3 CITES: protected in terms of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species


g 6-36 



cobras (Naja nigricollis woodi) will be present as they use rocks, small shrubs, etc. for habitat and 

hunting grounds. The arboreal habitat is occupied by Cape dwarf chameleons (Bradypodion 

occidentale), which are category 2 listed species of CITES. These chameleons are often preyed 

upon by boomslang (Dispholidus typus). 

The thicker vegetation provides habitat for snakes such as Boomslang (Dispholidus typus). The 

vegetation, which is characterised by grass tufts and a dominance of small shrubs, also provide 

habitat for snakes such as rhombic skaapstekers (Psammophylax rhombeatus) and grass snakes 

such as crossed marked sand snake(Psammophis crucifer). The area is rich in gecko species, with 

one species listed as near threatened. 

One exotic gecko may occur within the area, the tropical house gecko (Hemidactylus mabouia). 

Since many South African tourists frequent the area for recreational purposes, there is a chance 

that this gecko has been introduced to the Vredendal area from vehicles arriving from parts of the 

country where the gecko occurs. This gecko is nocturnal and is often found on walls under 

burning lights at night, preying insects attracted to the light. Karoo Girdled Lizard (Cordylus 

polyzonus), which is listed on Appendix 2 of CITES will occur within the immediate area. All the 

lizards are diurnal. There are 5 chelonian species occurring within the area, all of which are 

diurnal and one aquatic. Four species are protected under the CITES, category 2. The specked 

padloper (Homopus signatus) is listed as near threatened by the IUCN. 

Figure 6-14 Armidillo girdled lizard (Cordylus 

cataphractus) [pic:L. KLOSE] 

Figure 6-16 Namaqua chameleon(Chamaeleo 

namaquensis) [pic: L. KLOSE] 

Figure 6-15 Tent tortoise (Psammobates tentorius 

trimeni) [pic:L. KLOSE] 

Figure 6-17 Southern spiny agama (Agama hispida) 

[pic: L. KLOSE]

Figure 6-18 Karoo girdled lizard (Cordylus polyzonus) 

[pic: L. KLOSE] 


g 6-37 



Figure 6-19 Cape crag lizard (Pseudocordylus m. 

microlepidotus) [pic: L. KLOSE] 

The habitats, depicted by vegetation, on the proposed development site can be divided into three 

categories: natural relatively untouched intact vegetation; previously disturbed but pioneering 

vegetation; and, disturbed crop vegetation. 

The relatively intact vegetation (north-eastern side of the site) offers habitat for reptiles, but due 

to the lack of features such as rocky outcrops, the reptile biodiversity will be limited. This natural 

vegetation is interrupted by the remaining two vegetation types, namely the previously disturbed 

and disturbed vegetation. The previously disturbed vegetation may have reptiles present, 

however this is a result of animals traversing through this vegetation to reach the natural 

vegetation; i.e. the presence of reptiles in this vegetation is of a temporary nature. Reptile 

presence in the disturbed crop lines is highly unlikely due to the lack of natural habitat on the site 

and the disturbed habitats/vegetation and agricultural practices in this immediate area. 

6.6.3 Mammals 

There are approximately 66 species of mammals which could possibly occur within the area and 

its surrounds. Four of these species are species of special concern. Some examples are illustrated 

in the figures below. The one is a near threatened species, namely the honey badger (Mellivora 

capensis), which is also listed as protected under the Threatened or protected species Act. The 

Cape Clawless otter (Aonyx capensis) is listed under the Threatened or Protected Species Act. The 

mammals can be divided into groups: small mammals (including predators), medium sized 

mammals(including predators) and large mammals(including predators).

Figure 6-20 Striped Pole Cat (Ictonyx striatus) [pic: L. 

KLOSE] 


g 6-38 



Figure 6-21 Steenbok (Raphicerus campestris) 

Figure 6-22 Extralimital introduced Gemsbok Figure 6-23 Suricate (Suricata suricatta) diggings 

Small mammals such the four striped mouse (Rhabdomys pumilio) and pygmy mouse (Mus 

minutoides) occupy the habitat created between the planted crops; i.e.: the previously disturbed 

vegetation and the natural untouched vegetation. They will also frequent the planted vegetation 

in search of food or will traverse through this vegetation type. Scrub hare (Lepus saxatilis) are 

known to occupy all habitats within the study area and have adapted to the agricultural 

environment. Small predators such as small spotted genet (Genetta genetta) are not habitatspecific 

and their occurrence is subject to the availability of prey items. Medium sized mammals 

such as common duiker (Sylvicapra grimmia) and porcupine (Hystrix africaeaustralis) occupy 

habitats ranging from grassland to shrubby areas, all of which occur within the proposed 

development site. Medium sized predators, for example caracal (Felis caracal) occur in this 

habitat, which, even though it may not provide shelter, may support prey items. Large mammals 

such as honey badges (Mellivora capensis), with near threatened status, may occur within this 

area; however, due to the loss of significant habitat, this is highly unlikely. 

Extralimital species such as Gemsbok (see Figure 6-22) and Eland are not naturally occurring in 

the area, but have been introduced for game farming purposes. 

Due to the use of the land (agricultural farming), the mammalian diversity is lowered in the 

natural, undisturbed and disturbed environment. However, due to the farming methods where 

wide rows of natural pioneer vegetation occur between the present crop lines, semi-natural 

habitat is still present and this will lead to an increased presence of small mammals. The presence


g 6-39 



of suricate scratching (see Figure 6-23) indicates that small mammals occur throughout the 

development site. These mammals will frequent the area in search of food in the form of, for 

example, millipedes, scorpions and centipedes. 

6.7 COMPONENTS OF THE PROJECT WHICH COULD IMPACT ON THE 

TERRESTRIAL FAUNA AND FLORA 

The key components of the project and their respective impacts upon the terrestrial faunal and 

floral environment are: 

Wind farm component Ecological impacts 

6.7.1 Wind turbine generators 

Turbines will be supported on reinforced concrete 

spread foundations 

Electrical transformers will be placed beside each 

turbine. 

Gravel surfaced hard standing areas (adjacent to each 

turbine for use by cranes during construction and 

retained for maintenance use throughout life span of the 

project. 

6.7.2 Electrical connections 

The wind turbines typically will be connected to each 

other and to the substation using, in most cases, buried 

(1 m deep) medium voltage cables, except where a 

technical assessment of the proposed design suggests 

that overhead lines are appropriate. 

A new sub-station and transformer to the 132 kV 

Eskom grid will be built. Preferably close to the 132 kV 

line. 

The connection from the substation to the Eskom grid 

line is a stretch of over head line with a pole, 

depending on the location of the substation relative to 

the 132 kV line. 

6.7.3 Other potential infrastructure 

The terrestrial environment will be impacted 

where vegetation clearing is required for 

constructing turbine foundations and lay 

down areas. 



electrical transformers 


where vegetation clearing is required for hard 

standing areas 


where vegetation clearing is required for cable 

trenches outside of road reserve 



substation construction 

Any ecological impacts will be localised and 

isolated to disturbances to habitat (this 

assessment does not apply to birds and bats) 

Operations and maintenance building. The terrestrial environment will be impacted 

where vegetation clearing is required for the 

warehouse/ workshop (0.5 ha) 

Fencing as required. Dependent on the type and extent of fencing it 

may act as a barrier to ecological processes 

and cause mortalities to animals (especially if 

the fence is electrified) 

Permanent wind measuring mast of 100 m height. The terrestrial environment is affected by 

mast base footprint

6.7.4 Roads 


g 6-40 



Gravel access roads onto the site from the public road The terrestrial environment will be impacted 

where vegetation clearing is required for road 

construction 

An internal road network to the turbines and other 

infrastructure (substation and operation and 

maintenance building). The road network may include 

turning circles for large trucks, passing points and 

culverts over gullies and rivers. 


where vegetation clearing is required for road 

construction. 

Ecological processes may be impacted where 

linear features impact ecological corridors 

The road network may result in barriers to 

faunal movement and result in mortalities 

All roads width 6 m plus cabling and drainage. Road width, extent and final design will 

influence the overall degree of impact upon 

the terrestrial environment. 

Upgrading of certain existing roads may take place. Upgrading of existing roads, and rehabilitation 

of old roads will reduce the overall impact on 

the terrestrial environment (i.e. compared to 

new routes being opened up in order to 

establish access roads) 

6.7.5 Temporary activities during construction 

Lay down area, besides an access route The terrestrial environment will be impacted 


hard-standing area (1 ha) if permanent. 

The overall site compound for all contractors The terrestrial environment will be impacted 

where vegetation clearing is required for the 

site compound. 

6.7.6 Cumulative Impacts 

Terrestrial impacts are likely to be low due to 

the limited footprint of the proposed wind 

energy project

6.8 PERMIT REQUIREMENTS 


g 6-41 



Plant species identified for which permits will be required in terms of the Nature and 

Environmental Conservation Ordinance No. 19 of 1974 (WC), and those classified as threatened 

or near threatened according to IUCN 2002 (Golding, 2002) 4 are listed in Table 6-4. Protected 

species will be removed from the construction areas and relocated to a designated relocation 

area. Plant search and rescue should be conducted within the areas where construction/ 

vegetation clearing activities are to occur. Permits for the protected flora and fauna (including 

CITIES and TOPS) must be obtained timeously from the respective Western Cape Conservation 

authorities as follows: 

Cape Nature 

Cape Nature House, Belmont Office Park, Belmont Rd, Rondebosch 

Phone: (021) 483 0118/20/21/22/23; Web: www.capenature.org.za 

It is recommended that before the clearing of the proposed site is authorized, the appropriate 

permission be obtained timeously from the respective departments for the destruction of both 

protected animal and plant species. In order to obtain permission to remove or destroy species 

occurring under the respective legislation, an application letter needs to be sent together with a 

Flora and Fauna Relocation Plan and accompanying forms. This letter must list the species 

(separate fauna and flora applications) that will be removed, destroyed or relocated and the 

reason for their removal or destruction. These permits may be subject to certain conditions, for 

example allowing various nurseries to collect plants before vegetation clearance commences, the 

removal of certain species for rehabilitation purposes, etc. The project proponent will be 

informed of these conditions after the application has been received by the respective 

departments and a possible site visit undertaken. On completion of the relocation operation an 

audit report will be required by the department. 

6.9 ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS AND IDENTIFICATION OF MANAGEMENT ACTIONS 

Potential terrestrial faunal and floral impacts of the proposed wind energy facility have been 

assessed according to the assessment criteria provided in Chapter 4 (Approach to the EIA Phase) 

of this report. Potential terrestrial faunal and floral impacts, an assessment thereof and proposed 

mitigation measures are provided in Table 6-7 below. 

4 

Golding, J. 2002. Workshop Proceedings: Revision of the national list of protected trees as per section 12, 

National Forests Act of 1998. Roodeplaat. Pretoria.

Nature of impact 

CONSTRUCTION PHASE 

Loss of vegetation habitat in: 

Leipoldtville Sand 

Fynbos 

Namaqualand 

Strandveld 

Status 

(Negative 

or 

positive) 

Table 6-7 Impact assessment and mitigation 

Extent Duration Intensity Probability 


g 6-42 

Significance 

(no 

mitigation) 

Mitigation/Management 

Actions 

Negative localised permanent Low definite medium Vegetation clearing must be 

limited to the required 

footprint. 

Micro-siting of footprints 

should avoid more sensitive 

vegetation during final site 

planning as far as possible. 

Negative localised permanent low probable medium Vegetation clearing must be 


footprint. 

Micro-siting of footprints 

should avoid more sensitive 

vegetation during final site 

planning as far as possible. 

Reduction or changes to ecological processes and functioning in: 


Fynbos 

Namaqualand 

Strandveld 

Temporary 

fragmentation of 

habitats (wetlands or 

ecological corridors) 

Negative localised long-term medium definite medium Road network to be kept to 

minimum width and avoid 

more sensitive seep areas 

and drainage lines 

Negative localised permanent low improbable medium Loss of Strandveld likely to 

occur 

Negative localised long term medium probable medium Vegetation clearing must be 


footprint and rehabilitated 

immediately after 

construction 



Significance 

(with 

mitigation) 

Confidence 

level 

low high 

low high 

low high 

low high 

low high


Increased risk of alien 

invasion in disturbed 

areas 

Reduction of ecosystem 

functioning 

Status 

(Negative 

or 

positive) 

Loss of species of special concern and its habitat 


Fynbos 

Namaqualand 

Strandveld 



g 6-43 

Significance 

(no 

mitigation) 


Actions 

Negative localised long term medium probable medium Alien invasive management 

plan to be implemented 

during operational phase 

Rehabilitation to be 

implemented in a phased 

manner directly after 

construction for a given 

area is completed 

Negative localised long term low probable medium Alien species should be 

monitored and cleared 

when necessary 

Avoid direct loss of natural 

vegetation outside of 

required footprints where 

possible 

Final planning to avoid 

ecologically more sensitive 

areas 

Negative localised permanent medium definite medium Vegetation clearing must be 


footprint 

Negative localised permanent low improbable medium Vegetation clearing must be 


footprint 

Habitat destruction may affect terrestrial faunal diversity and composition 

Reptiles Negative Site/Footprint Permanent Medium Definite Medium Search and rescue 

operations conducted 

before construction phase 

begins. 

Reptiles must be relocated 



Significance 

(with 

mitigation) 

Confidence 

level 

low high 

low high 

low high 

low high 

Low High


Status 

(Negative 

or 

positive) 



g 6-44 

Significance 

(no 

mitigation) 


Actions 

to a place similar to the 

place where they were 

found. 

Reptiles which enter the 

construction zone must be 

relocated as soon as 

possible from the site. 

A professional reptile 

handler must be used when 

removing and relocating a 

reptile. 

Habitats near the 

construction site where no 

construction is to take place 

must be clearly demarcated 

as no-go areas. 

Clearly marked buffer zones 

should be in place between 

the construction zone and 

no-go areas. 

Materials, such as rocks, 

taken from the construction 

zone must be stored and 

kept to be used in the 

rehabilitation process to 

create new habitats for the 

reptiles. 

Amphibians Negative Site/Footprint Permanent Medium Improbable Medium Search and rescue 



begins. 

Amphibians must be 

relocated to a place similar 



Significance 

(with 

mitigation) 

Confidence 

level 

Low High


Status 

(Negative 

or 

positive) 



g 6-45 

Significance 

(no 

mitigation) 


Actions 

Mammals Negative Site/Footprint Permanent Low Improbable Low 

to the place where they 

were found. 

Amphibians which enter the 









Search and rescue 



begins. 

Mammals must be relocated 

to a place similar to the 

place where they were 

found. 

Mammals which enter the 









Road mortality from truck/vehicle and other service vehicles 

Reptiles Negative Site/Roads Shortterm 

Medium Definite High Search and rescue 

conducted before or during 

this activity. 



Significance 

(with 

mitigation) 

Confidence 

level 

Very Low High 

Medium High


Status 

(Negative 

or 

positive) 

Amphibians Negative Site/Roads Shortterm 

Mammals Negative Site/Roads Shortterm 



g 6-46 

Significance 

(no 

mitigation) 

Medium Probable High (when 

raining) 

Low when 

not raining 


Actions 

Care should be taken when 

working in this area. 

Care must be taken to 

ensure slow driving on the 

site, speed limits should be 

enforced. 

Should areas be noted 

where Death on Road 

incidents are excessive, 

traffic calming measures 

should be implemented. 






site during rainfall periods. 







notably after rainfall, traffic 

calming measures should be 

implemented or roads 

temporarily closed. 

Medium Improbable Low Search and rescue 


this activity for small 

mammals only, large 



Significance 

(with 

mitigation) 

Medium 

(when 

raining) 

Confidence 

level 

High 

Very Low High


Poaching 

Status 

(Negative 

or 

positive) 



g 6-47 

Significance 

(no 

mitigation) 


Actions 

mammals will move away 

from the site. 



site, speed limits should be 

enforced. 

Dead animals found on the 

roads must be removed to 

prevent scavengers from 

being attracted to the road 

and harmed. 




traffic calming measures 

should be implemented. 

Mammals Negative Site Permanent Low Probable Medium Worker education, 

monitoring and removal of 

snares to be implemented 

Fauna harmed by fences (mammals/reptiles) 

Reptiles/ Mammals Negative Site/Fence 

lines 

Permanent High Probable Low The fence used to surround 

the footprint must be of a 

nature to allow fauna to 

pass through it, especially 

electrified fences. 

Use of Bonox type fencing 

that allows through 

movement of fauna. 

Regular visits to the site to 

check if any fauna are 



Significance 

(with 

mitigation) 

Confidence 

level 

Very Low High 

Very Low High


Status 

(Negative 

or 

positive) 

Corridor disruptions as a result of habitat fragmentation for: 



g 6-48 

Significance 

(no 

mitigation) 


Actions 

indeed trapped. 

Access gates into the fenced 

off areas to be closed at all 

times. 

Reptiles Negative Site Permanent Low Probable Low Road design must be such 

that it allows free 

movement of fauna 

Do not places fences on the 

side of the roads 

Amphibians Negative Site Permanent Low Improbable Low Road design must be such 





Construction of roads over 

wetlands/rivers/streams 

must be of the nature that 

the water is allowed to flow 

under the road, this will 

secure corridor continuity 

for amphibians. 

Mammals Negative Site Permanent Low Improbable Low Road design must be such 







Significance 

(with 

mitigation) 

Confidence 

level 

Very Low High 

Very Low High 

Very Low High


OPERATIONAL PHASE 

Status 

(Negative 

or 

positive) 

Reduction or changes to ecological processes and functioning in: 



g 6-49 

Significance 

(no 

mitigation) 


Actions 

Leipoldtville Sand Fynbos negative localised long-term medium definite high Road network to be kept 

to minimum width 

through intact vegetation 

and CBA 

Namaqualand Strandveld negative localised permanent low improbable medium Road network to be kept 

to minimum width 

through intact vegetation 

and CBA 

Increased risk of alien 

invasion in disturbed areas 


functioning 

negative localised long term medium probable medium Alien invasive 

management plan to be 

implemented during 

operational phase 

negative localised long term low probable medium Alien species should be 

monitored and cleared 

when necessary 

Habitat destruction may affect faunal diversity and composition for: 

Reptiles Positive Site Permanent Medium Improbable Low Habitat may be created 

after construction 

Amphibians Negative Site Permanent Medium Improbable Low Road mortalities to be 

monitored 

Mammals Negative Site Permanent Medium Improbable Low Mammals likely to adapt 

to new environment 

Road mortality from truck/vehicle and other service vehicles 

Reptiles Negative Site/Roads Permanent High Probable Medium Must be audited and 

monitored and traffic 



Significance 

(with 

mitigation) 

Confidence 

level 

medium high 

low high 

low high 

low high 

Low High 

Very Low High 

Very Low High 

Low High


Status 

(Negative 

or 

positive) 



g 6-50 

Significance 

(no 

mitigation) 

Amphibians Negative Site/Roads Permanent High Improbable High (when 

raining) 

Low when 

not raining 


Actions 

calming measures 

implemented 

Must be audited and 



implemented 

Mammals 

Poaching 

Negative Site/Roads Permanent High Improbable High Must be audited and 



implemented 

Mammals Negative Site Permanent Low Probable Low Education, Monitoring 

and removal of snares to 

be implemented 

Fauna harmed by fences (mammals/reptiles) 

Reptiles/ Mammals Negative Site Permanent Medium Improbable Low Fences design to be fauna 

friendly 

Corridor disruptions as a result of habitat fragmentation 

Reptiles Positive Site Permanent Medium Improbable Low Habitat may be created 

after construction 

Amphibians Negative Site Permanent Low Improbable High (for Road mortalities to be 

wetland 

area) 

monitored 

Mammals Negative Site Permanent Low Improbable Low Mammals likely to adapt 

to new environment 

Road mortalities to be 

monitored 



Significance 

(with 

mitigation) 

Confidence 

level 

Medium High 

(when 

raining) 

Low (when 

not raining) 

Very Low High 

Very Low High 

Very Low High 

Very Low High 

Medium (for High 

wetland 

area) 

Very Low High


g 6-51 



6.10 REVERSIBILITY AND IRREPLACEABILITY OF IMPACTS ON VEGETATION 

The reversibility of impacts on vegetation is considered to be moderate. The main impacts on 

vegetation, as a result of the proposed project, are the removal and clearing of vegetation, and the 

transformation of habitat. Recommendations provided in this study will ensure that some degree 

of reversibility is maintained, while the recommendations of the site specific EMP which makes 

provisions for site rehabilitation (i.e. rehabilitating the project area to its ‘natural state’) will allow 

for an increased degree of reversibility. Furthermore, due to the fact that the majority of the 

proposed turbine locations and road network is situated within areas of transformed and 

degraded vegetation, returning the site to its pre-development or ‘natural state’ will assist in 

reversing some of the impacts associated with habitat loss and fragmentation. 

The irreplaceability of resources likely to have been impacted upon by the proposed project is 

considered to be low. This is due to the fact that a number of the proposed turbine locations are 

situated within areas of degraded and transformed vegetation. The removal of protected plant 

species prior to construction for use in rehabilitation processes will contribute towards replacing 

some of that which was lost as a result of the proposed project. 

6.11 REVERSIBILITY AND IRREPLACEABILITY OF IMPACTS ON TERRESTRIAL 

FAUNA 

The reversibility of impacts on terrestrial fauna is considered to be moderate. The main impacts 

on terrestrial fauna as a result of the proposed project, is loss and fragmentation of habitat and 

mortality as a result of road deaths and construction activities. Rehabilitation of the site to its 

natural state will return some of the habitat which was lost as a result of the proposed project, 

and will also assist to a degree in reversing some of the habitat fragmentation. 

The irreplaceability of resources likely to have been impacted upon by the proposed project is 

considered to be low. Depending on the impact that the proposed project has on Vulnerable, 

Threatened or Endangered species with regards to habitat loss and mortality, the irreplaceability 

of resources is considered to be low. 

6.12 CONCLUSIONS 

Within the context of the original vegetation of the area, dominant vegetation communities 

include Leipoldtville Sand Fynbos and Namaqualand Strandveld with a designated Critical 

Biodiversity Area (CBA) being of an Endangered or Critically Endangered nature passing in an 

east-west direction through the centre of the site. These areas outside of the designated CBA area 

have largely been transformed and degraded to a varying extent predominantly through 

agriculture, although there has been limited invasion of the area by alien plants. 


dependent on the level of agriculture-related transformation and degradation. The majority of 



moderate sensitivity occur adjacent to the proposed access road. The only affected area


g 6-52 



potentially having a high sensitivity would be the Critical Biodiversity Area traversed by the 

existing road that needs to be widened and upgraded. The proposed road will follow an 

unsurfaced existing farm road and additional vegetation loss due to road widening will be 

reasonably limited. In the initial design phase more sensitive areas have been avoided very 

effectively and thus impacts will be minimal 









removed entirely. The erection of the wind turbines has the potential to stimulate positive 

impacts, such as habitat preservation. The development of this project will be positive; i.e.: a no 

project alternative will lead to non preservation to the area and will be negative. 


reduced to low significance, both during the construction and during the operational phases of 

the proposed development. Although the extent to which additional wind farms are planned for 

the area are unknown, cumulative terrestrial flora and fauna impacts as a result of the proposed 

wind energy project are likely to be low for the site and wider area due to the relatively low 

footprint of wind farms.


pg 7-0 

Chapter 7: Birds


pg 7-1 

Chapter 7: Birds 

7. BIRD IMPACT ASSESSMENT 7-3 

7.1 SUMMARY 7-3 


7.2.1 Approach to the bird impact assessment study 7-3 




7.3.1 Natural environment 7-6 

7.3.2 Modified environment 7-7 

7.4 AVIFAUNAL SPECIES POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT 7-10 

7.5 IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES AND IMPACTS 7-21 

7.5.1 Mortalities from collisions with wind turbines 7-21 

7.5.2 Displacement due to disturbance 7-25 

7.5.3 Habitat change and loss 7-27 

7.5.4 Collision mortality with associate power lines 7-27 


7.7 ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS AND IDENTIFICATION OF MANAGEMENT ACTIONS 7-29 

7.7.1 Mortalities from collisions with wind turbines 7-29 

7.7.2 Displacement due to disturbance 7-30 

7.7.3 Habitat change and loss 7-31 

7.7.4 Mortality due to collisions with associate power lines 7-31 

7.7.5 Cumulative impacts 7-31 

7.7.6 Management actions 7-34 

7.7.7 Impact assessment 7-35 

7.8 REVERSIBILITY AND IRREPLACEABILITY 7-41 

7.9 CONCLUSIONS 7-41


pg 7-2 


Table 7-1 Priority species (BLSA 2011) potentially occurring at the development site (confirmed 

sightings included). Species recorded during the site visit are in bold. 7-11 

Table 7-2 Impact assessment table for construction phase 7-37 

Table 7-3 Impact assessment table for operational phase 7-38 

Figure 7-1 The bird habitat at the wind farm site, and the proposed wind farm turbine lay-out 7-8 

Figure 7-2 The location of the proposed wind farm site, relative to the Olifants River Mouth IBA and a 

Martial Eagle nest that was recorded on the Aurora – Juno 400kV line on tower 401 7-9 

Figure 7-3 Proposed wind farms in along the West Coast (Source: Rapport) Management actions 7-33

7. BIRD IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

7.1 SUMMARY 


pg 7-3 


This chapter has been adapted from a bird impact assessment and a site visit in October 2011 

conducted by Chris van Rooyen as part of the EIA for the proposed Vredendal Wind Energy 

Project. 

He concluded that the Vredendal wind energy site is a relatively small wind farm site, with limited 

intrinsic avian biodiversity value. It does not contain any unique habitats or landscape features, 

nor does it affect any known, major avian fly-ways. However, there are (at least seasonally), 

regionally and/or nationally important populations of impact susceptible species present (e.g. 

Ludwig’s Bustard) and the proposed facility may have a significant detrimental effect on these 

birds, particularly during the operational phase of the development. A pair of Martial Eagles have 

been recorded in 2007 nesting in one of the Aurora-Juno 400kV towers approximately 3 km from 

the nearest proposed wind turbine. It is not currently known whether this nest is still active. This 

will be investigated during the 12 month pre-construction monitoring phase as already agreed to 

by the proponent. 



likelihood of regular flight activity of certain species. In addition, the levels of disturbance created 

by the noise and movement of the turbines should be less with fewer turbines. From a bird 

impact perspective, ten 3 MW turbines would therefore be preferable to fifteen 2 MW turbines. 

Implementation of the required mitigation measures should reduce construction phase impacts 

to Low, and operational phase impacts to Low or Low-Medium. 


7.2.1 Approach to the bird impact assessment study 

The investigation of potential impacts on birds caused by wind farms is a new field of study in 

South Africa, and has only been the focus of much attention since the middle of 2010. The 

concept of wind energy suddenly and rapidly gained momentum in South Africa in the latter part 

of 2010, resulting in a plethora of proposed wind farm applications which caught the 

ornithological community completely by surprise. The pace of new developments is such that 

both developers and specialist ornithological consultants are still struggling to come to grips with 

the enormity of the task ahead, namely to ensure that scientifically robust studies are 

implemented at all proposed development sites to assess the potential impact on avifauna. 

The basic approach to this study is to present findings and recommendations based on the 

knowledge which is currently available in a South African context, while acknowledging that


pg 7-4 


there is still much to learn in this field. As the results of pre-and post-construction monitoring 

programmes which currently are being implemented become available, those results will be 

applied to future developments in order to predict with increasing confidence what the likely 

impact of a particular wind farm development will be on avifauna. At present it has to be 

acknowledged that there is much to be learnt and this situation is likely to continue for some 

time. In circumstances where there is uncertainty and the precautionary principle may be 

relevant, evidence, expert opinion, best practice guidance and professional judgement is applied 

to evaluate what is ornithologically likely to occur if the development is authorised. 

The chapter focuses on the potential site specific, negative impacts of the development on birds. 

The benefits to birds at the development site stemming from the contribution made by the wind 

farm towards countering climate change through renewable energy generation cannot yet be 

quantified at a local scale. Nevertheless it is clear that a large wind farm will potentially make a 

beneficial contribution to reducing CO2 emissions. Climate change is widely perceived to be the 

single most important long-term threat to the global environment, particularly to birds. Thus, the 

continued rise in mean global temperatures could ultimately affect the size, distribution, survival 

and breeding productivity of many bird species (Huntley et al. 2007) 1. Therefore, these clearly 

important beneficial effects have been recognized but scoped out of further consideration within 

this study. 

Right at the onset it must be noted that no pre-construction monitoring has as yet been 

implemented at the site. The conclusions in this report should therefore be viewed as preliminary 

and should be supplemented by the results of a dedicated pre-construction monitoring 

programme to be conducted over 12 months prior to construction (see Jenkins et al 2011) 2. 


This study made the basic assumption that the sources of information used are reliable. 

However, it must be noted that there are certain limitations: 

The most important development from an avifaunal impact perspective as far as wind 

farms developments are concerned was the publication of “Best practice guidelines for 

avian monitoring and impact mitigation at proposed wind energy development sites in 

southern Africa” (Jenkins et al. 2011) by the Endangered Wildlife Trust (EWT) and 

BirdLife South Africa (BLSA). Version 1 of this document was placed in the public domain 

on 31 March 2011, and was slightly amended in August 2011. The guidelines propose a 

pre-construction period that should cover a minimum of 12 months and should include 

all major periods of bird usage in that period, as well as a post-construction component. 

To date, this has not been implemented at the site, which means that the conclusions in 

the report are based largely on secondary sources (e.g CAR, SABAP1 and 2) and not on 

systematic sampling of bird usage and occurrence at the site itself over a lengthy period 

1 Huntley, B., Green, R. E., Collingham, Y. and Willis, S. G. 2007. A climatic atlas of European breeding birds. 

Durham, Sandy and Barcelona: Durham University, RSPB and Lynx Edicions. 

2 Jenkins AR; Van Rooyen C S; Smallie J J; Anderson M D & Smit H A. 2011. Best practice guidelines for avian 

monitoring and impact mitigation at proposed wind energy development sites in southern Africa. Endangered 

Wildlife Trust and Birdlife South Africa.


pg 7-5 


of time. The only primary data available was collected during the two day site visit 

(instantaneous sampling). 

With certain classes of birds, particularly cranes and bustards, very little research has 

been conducted on potential impacts associated with wind facilities worldwide. The 

precautionary principle is therefore applied throughout for this current study. The World 

Charter for Nature, which was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1982, was the first 

international endorsement of the precautionary principle (http://www.unep.org). The 

principle was implemented in an international treaty as early as the 1987 Montreal 

Protocol and, among other international treaties and declarations, is reflected in the 1992 

Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. Principle 15 of the 1992 Rio 

Declaration states that: “in order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach 

shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats 

of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall be not used as a 

reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.” 

Inevitably, few comprehensive studies (other than a few environmental impact reports), 

and no peer-reviewed scientific papers, are available on the impacts wind farms have on 

birds in South Africa at this point in time. It is therefore inevitable that an element of 

speculation will enter the conclusions in this report. 


The following information sources were consulted for this report: 

Bird distribution data of the Southern African Bird Atlas Project (SABAP1 – Harrison et al. 

1997) 3 obtained from the Animal Demography Unit of the University of Cape Town, as a 

means to ascertain which species occur within the study area. A data set was obtained for 

the QDGCs (quarter degree grid cells) within which the development will take place, 

namely 3118CB and 3118CD. A QDGC corresponds to the area shown on a 1:50 000 map 

(15' x 15') and is approximately 27 km long (north-south) and 23 km wide (east-west). 

The SABAP data were supplemented with SABAP2 data for the relevant QDGCs. These 

datasets are much more recent, as SABAP2 was only launched in May 2007, and should 

therefore be more representative. For SABAP, QDGCs were the geographical sampling 

units. For SABAP2 the sampling unit has been reduced to pentad grid cells (or pentads); 

these cover 5 minutes of latitude by 5 minutes of longitude (5'× 5'). Each pentad is 

approximately 8 × 7.6 km. This finer scale has been selected for SABAP2 to obtain more 

detailed information on the occurrence of species and to give a clearer and better 

understanding of bird distributions. There are nine pentads in a QDGC. For purposes of 

comparison with SABAP1 and to get a better impression of the birdlife in a larger area, 

the SABAP2 data for 3118CBB and 3118CD was obtained in QDGC format. 

Additional information on large terrestrial avifauna and habitat use was obtained from 

the Coordinated Avifaunal Roadcounts (CAR) project of the Animal Demography Unit 

(ADU) of the University of Cape Town. 

3 Harrison, J.A., Drewitt, D.G., Underhill, L.G., Herremans, M., Tree, A.J., Parker, V & Brown, C.J. (eds). 1997. 

The atlas of southern African birds. Vol. 1&2. BirdLife South Africa, Johannesburg.


pg 7-6 


The conservation status of all bird species occurring in the aforementioned QDGC was 

determined with the use of the 2000 edition of the Eskom Red Data Book of Birds of 

South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. 

A classification of the vegetation types in the relevant QDGCs from an avifaunal 

perspective was obtained from SABAP1. 

Detailed satellite imagery from Google Earth was used in order to view the study area on 

a landscape level and to help identify bird habitat on the ground. 

Information on the micro habitat level was obtained through a site visit on 8 -9 October 

2011. An attempt was made to investigate the total study area as far as was practically 

possible, and to visit potentially sensitive areas identified from Google Earth imagery. 

Emphasis was placed on the proposed turbine area. 

Priority species were identified using version 2 of the BLSA list of priority species for 

wind farms (Retief 2011) 4. Version 2 of the list was finalised in September 2011 and was 

used to rank the priority species. 

The owner of the farm Groot Draaihoek, Mr Kobus Visser, was interviewed with regard to 

birds occurring on his property as well as agricultural practices on the farm and in the 

district. 

An avifaunal impact assessment study for the Klawer Renewable Energy Facility 

compiled by Dr Andrew Jenkins of Avisense Consulting in March 2011 was consulted to 

gain additional information on bird occurrence and habitat in the Klawer/Vredendal 

region. 


7.3.1 Natural environment 

The majority of the wind farm site consists of natural vegetation of two types of low lying shrub 

namely Namaqualand Strandveld and Leipoldtville Sand Fynbos (Mucina & Rutherford 2006) 5. 

Vegetation structure is more critical in determining bird habitat than actual plant composition 

(Harrison et al. 1997). Therefore, the description of the habitat presented in this study 

concentrates on factors relevant to birds, and does not give an exhaustive list of plant species 

which occur in the study area (see Chapter 6: Botany and Terrestrial Fauna for a detailed 

discussion of vegetation types). The vegetation classification system presented in the Atlas of 

southern African birds (SABAP1) (Harrison et al. 1997) is used for purposes of this report. The 

criteria used by the authors to amalgamate botanically defined vegetation units, or to keep them 

separate were (1) the existence of clear differences in vegetation structure, likely to be relevant to 

birds, and (2) the results of published community studies on bird/vegetation associations. It is 

4 

Retief, E.F. 2011. List of Priority Species for Wind Farms. Birdlife South Africa Johannesburg. Unpublished 

report. 

5 

Mucina. L. & Rutherford, M.C. (Ed). 2006. The vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Strelitzia 19. 

South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.


pg 7-7 


important to note that no new vegetation unit boundaries were created, with use being made 

only of previously published data. 

The proposed wind farm site is situated in a transitional zone between the succulent Karoo and 

Fynbos biomes (Harrison et al. 1997). The Fynbos biome is characterized by a high diversity in 

plant species composition and endemism. This diversity is not paralleled in its avifaunal 

composition, and Fynbos is regarded as relatively poor in avifaunal diversity compared to other 

southern African biomes. The Succulent Karoo falls within the winter-rainfall region in the far 

west, and is characterized by succulent shrubs and a paucity of grass cover and trees (Harrison et 

al. 2007). The Karoo supports a particularly high diversity of species endemic to southern Africa. 

Its avifauna characteristically comprises ground-dwelling species of open habitats; however, the 

many tree-lined watercourses allow penetration of several species characteristic of arid 

woodland (Harrison et al. 1997). 

7.3.2 Modified environment 

Whilst most of the distribution and abundance of the bird species at the wind farm site are 

associated with natural vegetation, as this comprises the vast majority of habitat, it is also 

necessary to examine the modified environment available to birds. 

The following modified habitats were identified at or immediately adjacent the wind farm site: 

Cultivated fields. There are a number of cultivated fields within the boundaries of the 

wind farm site. The fields consist of strips of oats planted as fodder on a 2-3 year 

rotational basis for sheep (Kobus Visser pers. comm). The same suite of priority species 

which utilise the natural vegetation may also from time to time forage in these cultivated 

fields (see Table 7-1). In the extreme north-eastern section of the site, there are a number 

of irrigated pivots where grapes and potatoes are cultivated. The Olifants River valley to 

the east of the site is intensely cultivated with vineyards which are irrigated with water 

from the river. These irrigated areas are of lesser importance to priority avifauna. 

Wetlands, dams and rivers. The wind farm site does not contain any major dams and 

water bodies, either man made or natural and seasonal. There is an artificial water 

channel which is used for irrigation purposes, but the channel itself is constructed from 

concrete with steep slopes and therefore would have little attraction to the majority of 

waterbirds. The Olifants River flows approximately 9 km to the east of the actual 

proposed turbine locations, and the Olifants River Mouth Important Bird Area (IBA) is 

located approximately 20 km north-west of the site (see Figure 7-2). The possibility of 

birds commuting over the site between the river and the mouth is possible, although not 

very likely. Bird movement is likely to happen along the coast and along the river itself, to 

important waterbird resource areas further south, e.g. Bird Island (Lamberts Bay) IBA 

and Verloren Vlei IBA (Elands Bay). This will however have to be verified through actual 

pre-construction monitoring. 

See Figures 7-1 and 7-2 below for maps of the wind farm site.

Existing power 

line 

Lands 

Turbine rows 

Natural 

shrub 


pg 7-8 

Irrigation 

Existing power 

line 

Figure 7-1 The bird habitat at the wind farm site, and the proposed wind farm turbine lay-out 

Olifants River and 

associated 

agriculture 

Chapter 7: Birds

Figure 7-2 The location of the proposed wind farm site, relative to the Olifants River Mouth IBA and a Martial Eagle nest that was recorded 

on the Aurora – Juno 400kV line on tower 401 


pg 7-9 

Chapter 7: Birds


pg 7-10 


7.4 AVIFAUNAL SPECIES POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT 

It is estimated that a minimum of 101 avian species could occur at the wind farm site. Of these, 26 

are included in the latest version of the BLSA list of priority species (Retief 2011). The priority 

species at the wind farm site can be broadly classified in three groupings namely large terrestrial 

species, soaring species and small birds (see Table 7-1 below). 

Large terrestrial species: Medium to large birds that spend most of the time foraging on 

the ground. They are generally reluctant to fly, and generally fly short distances at low to 

medium altitude, usually through powered flight. Some species undertake longer distance 

flights at higher altitudes, when commuting between foraging and roosting areas. At the 

wind farm site, cranes, bustards, francolins and Secretarybirds are included in this 

category. 

Soaring species: Species that spend a significant time on the wing in a variety of flight 

modes including soaring, kiting, hovering and gliding at medium to high altitudes. At the 

wind farm site, these are mostly raptors, but Blue Cranes and Secretarybirds are also 

included in this category. 

Small birds: At the wind farms site these are mainly several species of passerines. These 

species generally spend most of the time on the ground or calling from perches, but 

display flights at medium height are also undertaken by some species, while swallows 

spend most of the time flying. Sandgrouse undertake long distance flights. 

Table 7-1 below shows the list of priority species that may potentially occur on the site, based on 

the author’s personal experience and various other sources (SABAP1, SABAP2, Jenkins 2011, 

Young et al. 2003 6, Young 2008 7, Young 2009a 8, Young 2009b 9, Young 2010a 10, Young 2010b 11, 

Hockey et al. 2007 12, personal observations). 

Only species that are likely to occur on site (to be confirmed by pre-construction surveys) 

have been included – marine and coastal species was omitted due to the low likelihood of 

them occurring on the site. 

6 

Young, D.J. Harrison, J.A. Navarro, R.A. Anderson, M.D. & Colahan, B.D. (ed). 2003. Big Birds on Farms: Mazda 

CAR Report 1993 – 2001. Avian Demography Unit. University of Cape Town. 

7 

Young, D.J. 2008. Coordinated Avifaunal Roadcounts. Newsletter 25. Animal Demography Unit. University of 

Cape Town. 

8 

Young, D.J. 2009a. Coordinated Avifaunal Roadcounts. Newsletter 26. Animal Demography Unit. University of 

Cape Town. 

9 Young, D.J. 2009b. Coordinated Avifaunal Roadcounts. Newsletter 27. Animal Demography Unit. University of 

Cape Town. 

10 

Young, D.J. 2010a. Coordinated Avifaunal Roadcounts. Newsletter 28. Animal Demography Unit. University 

of Cape Town. 

11 

Young, D.J. 2010b. Coordinated Avifaunal Roadcounts. Newsletter 29. Animal Demography Unit. University 

of Cape Town. 

12 

Hockey P.A.R., Dean W.R.J., and Ryan P.G. 2005. Robert’s Birds of Southern Africa, seventh edition. Trustees 

of the John Voelcker Bird Book Fund, Cape Town.


pg 7-11 


Table 7-1 Priority species (BLSA 2011) potentially occurring at the development site (confirmed sightings included). Species recorded during the site visit are in bold. 

Abbreviations: VU= Nationally vulnerable (Barnes 2000) 13 NT = Nationally near threatened (Barnes 2000) E = Southern African endemic 

Common Name Scientific Name Status 

Secretarybird Sagittarius 

serpentarius 

Black Harrier Circus maurus NT 

E 

Likelihood of 

occurrence at the 

site 

General habitat 

requirements and 

preferred habitat at 

site. 

NT Low Grassland, old lands, 

open woodland. Most 

likely to be 

encountered in 

natural shrubland 

and fallow lands. 

Medium Grassland, fynbos, 

Karoo shrubland and 

croplands. Highest 

expected densities in 

natural shrubland, 

but also in fallow 

lands. 

Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus NT Low A wide range of 

habitats, but cliffs (or 

tall buildings) are a 

prerequisite for 

breeding. May hunt 

over fallow lands and 

shrubland. 

Large terrestrial 

species 

Aerial 

species 

x x 

13 Barnes, K.N. (ed.) 2000. The Eskom Red Data Book of Birds of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. BirdLife South Africa, Johannesburg. 

x 

x 

Small passerine


Likelihood of 


site 



preferred habitat 

at site. 

Lanner Falcon Falco biarmicus NT Medium Generally prefers 

open habitat, but 

exploits a wide 

range of habitats. 

May hunt over 

fallow lands and 

shrubland. 

Blue Crane Anthropoides 

paradiseus 

Ludwig’s 

Bustard 

VU 

E 

Neotis ludwigii VU 

Near endemic 

Low Karoo shrub, 

croplands and short 

grassland. Most 

likely to be 

recorded in fallow 

lands and some 

irrigated areas. 

High Mostly Karoo 

shrub, also in dry 

grassland and 

fynbos. 

Highest expected 

densities in 


but also in fallow 

lands. Landowner 

confirmed 

increase in 

numbers in 

winter. 


pg 7-12 


species 

x x 

x 


Aerial species Small passerine 

x


Likelihood of 


site 




at site. 

Jackal Buzzard Buteo rufofuscus E Medium Hilly and 

mountainous areas, 

mature wander into 

flat country. Highest 

expected densities 

in natural 

shrubland, but also 

in fallow lands. 

Steppe Buzzard Buteo vulpinus - Medium Open woodland, 

grassland and 

agricultural lands. 


densities in natural 



Rock Kestrel Falco rupicolus - High Wide variety of 

habitats, usually 

near rocky 

outcrops. Highest 


in natural 




pg 7-13 


species 



x 

x 

x


Spotted Eagle- 

Owl 

Martial Eagle Polemaetus 

bellicosus 

Likelihood of 


site 




at site. 

Bubo africanus - High Wide variety of 

habitats. Highest 


in natural 



VU High Open woodland and 

semi-desert. May 

forage on occasion 

in natural 

shrubland and 

fallow lands. There 

is a pair breeding on 

the Aurora – Juno 

400kV line on tower 

401 (31° 46.256’S; 

18° 23.796’E). This 

is about 1.7km from 

the western border 

of the site, and 

approximately 3km 

from the closest 

proposed turbines. 


pg 7-14 


species 



x 

x


Greater Kestrel Falco 

rupicoloides 

Likelihood of 


site 




at site. 

- High Open dry grassland. 





Booted Eagle Aquila pennatus - Low Hilly and 

mountainous areas. 



shrubland and 

fallow lands. 

Southern Black 

Korhaan 

Afrotis afra E High Fynbos and Karoo 

shrub. Highest 


in natural 

shrubland and 

fallow lands. 

Commonly 

recorded during 

site visit. 


pg 7-15 


species 

x 



x 

x


Southern Pale 

Chanting 

Goshawk 

Cape Clapper 

Lark 

Melierax 

canorus 

Karoo Lark Calendulauda 

albescens 

Likelihood of 


site 




at site. 

Near endemic High Arid to semi-arid 

shrublands. 


densities in 



Mirafra apiata E High Shrublands and 

grassy Karoo. 


densities in 



E High Shrublands and 

arid fynbos. 


densities in 


recorded 

commonly at the 

site. 


pg 7-16 


species 



x 

x 

x


Large-billed Lark Galerida 

magnirostris 

Cape Long-billed 

Lark 

Certhilauda 

curvirostris 

Pied Starling Lamprotornis 

bicolor 

Likelihood of 


site 




at site. 

E High Semi-arid sparse 

grassland, 

shrublands and 

fallow fields. 



shrubland and 

fallow lands. 

E High Short coastal scrub, 

including sand-plain 

fynbos, strandveld, 

renosterveld and 

sparsely vegetated 

coastal dunes. 



shrubland. 

E Low Associated with 

agriculture; often on 

open ground 

around farm 

homesteads, on 

cultivated lands, 

and near domestic 

stock. Most likely to 

be attracted to 

agricultural areas. 


pg 7-17 


species 



x 

x 

x


Black-headed 

Canary 

Namaqua 

Sandgrouse 

Likelihood of 


site 




at site. 

Serinus alario E Low Arid to semi-arid 

shrublands on 

rocky hillsides, 

coastal karroid 

shrubland, 

perennial desert. 



shrubland and 

fallow lands. 

Pterocles 

namaqua 

Near endemic Low Gravel desert and 

sandy semi-desert, 

open arid and semiarid 

dwarf 

shrubland with or 

without grass, 

sandy savanna with 

denser vegetation, 

but generally where 

average annual 

rainfall < 300 mm. 



shrubland and 

fallow lands. 


pg 7-18 


species 



x 

x


Black-shouldered 

Kite 

Lark-like Bunting Emberiza 

impetuani 

Likelihood of 


site 




at site. 

Elanus caeruleus - High Occurs in most 

habitats, but most 

abundant in 

grassland and 

transformed fynbos. 

Present in arid and 

semi-arid areas 

where there are 

irrigated croplands. 



shrubland and 

fallow lands. 

- Low Open, dry 

shrubland, desert 

grassland, sparse 

shrubland and 

grassland. Mostly in 

strandveld during 

irruptions to 

Western Cape 

coastal lowlands. 



shrubland and 

fallow lands. 


pg 7-19 


species 



x 

x


Grey-winged 

Francolin 

Scleroptila 

africanus 

Likelihood of 


site 




at site. 

E Low In Western Cape in 

Karoo scrub, 

renosterbos and 

strandveld down to 

sea level. Highest 


in natural 

shrubland 

Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica - Medium All habitats in 

southern Africa. 

Scarce in semi-arid 

and desert habitats. 

Could be 

encountered 

anywhere on the 

site. 


pg 7-20 


species 

x 



x

7.5 IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES AND IMPACTS 


pg 7-21 


The effects of a wind farm on birds are highly variable and depend on a wide range of factors 

including the specification of the development, the topography of the surrounding land, the 

habitats affected and the number and species of birds present. With so many variables involved, 

the impacts of each wind farm must be assessed individually. Each of these potential effects can 

interact, either increasing the overall impact on birds or, in some cases, reducing a particular 

impact (for example where habitat loss causes a reduction in birds using an area which might 

then reduce the risk of collision). The principal areas of concern are: 

Mortality due to collision with the wind turbines; 

Displacement due to disturbance; 

Habitat loss due to the footprint of the wind farm; and 

Mortalities due to collision with associated power line infrastructure. 

7.5.1 Mortalities from collisions with wind turbines 

Internationally, it is widely accepted that bird mortalities from collisions with wind turbines 

contribute a relatively small proportion of the total mortality from all causes. The US National 

Wind Coordinating Committee (NWCC) conducted a comparison of wind farm bird mortality with 

that caused by other man-made structures in the USA (Anon. (b) 2000) 14. The NWCC did not 

conduct its own study, but analysed all of the research done to date on various causes of avian 

mortality, including commercial wind farm turbines. It reports that "data collected outside 

California indicate an average of 1.83 avian fatalities per turbine (for all species combined), and 

0.006 raptor fatalities per turbine per year. Based on current projections of 3,500 operational 

wind turbines in the US by the end of 2001, excluding California, the total annual mortality was 

estimated at approximately 6,400 bird fatalities per year for all species combined". The NWCC 

report states that its intent is to "put avian mortality associated with windpower development 

into perspective with other significant sources of avian collision mortality across the United 

States". It further reports that: "Based on current estimates, windplant related avian collision 

fatalities probably represent from 0.01% to 0.02% (i.e. 1 out of every 5,000 to 10,000) of the 

annual avian collision fatalities in the United States". That is, commercial wind turbines cause the 

direct deaths of only 0.01% to 0.02% of all of the birds killed by collisions with man-made 

structures and activities in the USA. 

Also in the USA, a Western EcoSystems Technology Inc. study found a range of between 100 

million to 1 billion bird fatalities due to collisions with artificial structures such as vehicles, 

buildings and windows, power lines and communication towers, in comparison to 33,000 

fatalities attributed to wind turbines. The study (see Anon. (a) 2003) 15 reports that “windplantrelated 

avian collision fatalities probably represent from 0.01% to 0.02% (i.e. one out of every 

5,000 to 10,000 avian fatalities) of the annual avian collision fatalities in the United States, while 

14 Anon. (b) 2000. National Wind Co-ordinating Committee – Avian Collisions with Turbines: A summary of 

existing studies and comparisons to other sources of avian collision mortality in the United States. 

www.awea.org. 

15 Anon. (a) 2003. Wind Energy – The Facts. Volume 4: Environment. The European Wind Energy Association 

(EWEA), and the European Commission’s Directorate General for Transport and Energy (DG TREN). pp182-184. 

(www.ewea.org/documents/).


pg 7-22 


some may perceive this level of mortality as small, all efforts to reduce avian mortality are 

important”. A Finnish study reported 10 bird fatalities from turbines, and 820,000 birds killed 

annually from colliding with other structures such as buildings, electricity pylons and lines, 

telephone and television masts, lighthouses and floodlights (Anon. (a) 2003). 

The majority of studies on collisions caused by wind turbines have recorded relatively low 

mortality levels (Madders & Whitfield 2006) 16. This is perhaps largely a reflection of the fact that 

many of the studied wind farms are located away from large concentrations of birds. It is also 

important to note that many records are based only on finding corpses, with no correction for 

corpses that are overlooked or removed by scavengers (Drewitt & Langston, 2006) 17. Relatively 

high collision mortality rates have been recorded at several large, poorly-sited wind farms in 

areas where large concentrations of birds are present (including Important Bird Areas (IBAs)), 

especially among migrating birds, large raptors or other large soaring species, e.g. in the Altamont 

Pass in California, USA (Thelander & Smallwood 2007) 18, and in Tarifa and Navarra in Spain 

(Barrios & Rodrigues 2004) 19. In these cases actual deaths resulting from collision are high, 

notably of Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos and Eurasian Griffon Gyps fulvus, respectively. 

In a study in Spain, it was found that the distribution of collisions with wind turbines was clearly 

associated with the frequencies at which soaring birds flew close to rotating blades (Barrios & 

Rodriguez 2004). Patterns of risky flights and mortality included a temporal component (deaths 

concentrated in some seasons), a spatial component (deaths aggregated in space), a taxonomic 

component (a few species suffered most losses), and a migration component (resident 

populations were more vulnerable). Clearly, the risk is likely to be greater on or near areas 

regularly used by large numbers of feeding or roosting birds, or on migratory flyways or local 

flight paths, especially where these are intercepted by the turbines. Risk also changes with 

weather conditions, with evidence from some studies showing that more birds collide with 

structures when visibility is poor due to fog or rain, although this effect may to some extent be 

offset by lower levels of flight activity in such conditions (Madders & Whitfield 2005) 20. Strong 

headwinds also affect collision rates and migrating birds in particular tend to fly lower when 

flying into the wind (Drewitt & Langston 2006). The same applies for Blue Cranes flying between 

roosting and foraging areas (pers. obs.). 

Accepting that many wind farms may only cause low levels of mortality, even these levels of 

additional mortality may be significant for long-lived species with low productivity and slow 

maturation rates, especially when rarer species of conservation concern are affected (see for 

example all the Red Data species in table 7-1 above). In such cases there could be significant 

effects at the population level (locally, regionally or, in the case of rare and restricted species, 

16 

Madders, M. & Whitfield, D. P. 2006. Upland raptors and the assessment of wind farm impacts. Ibis (2006), 

148, 43 – 56. 

17 

Drewitt, A.L. & Langston, R.H.W. 2006. Assessing the impacts of wind farms on birds. Ibis 148, 29-42. 

18 

Thelander, C.G & Smallwood K.S. 2007. The Altamount Pass Wind Resource Area’s effects on birds: A case 

history. In: In: De Lucas M, Janss G.F.E. & Ferrer M (eds). Birds and Wind Farms: Risk Assessment and 

Mitigation. Quercus, Madrid. 

19 

Barrios, L. & Rodriguez, A. 2004. Behavioural and environmental correlates of soaring-bird mortality at onshore 

wind turbines. J. Appl. Ecol. 41: 72–81. 

20 

Madders, M. & Whitfield, D. P. 2006. Upland raptors and the assessment of wind farm impacts. Ibis (2006), 

148, 43 – 56.


pg 7-23 


nationally), particularly in situations where cumulative mortality takes place as a result of 

multiple installations (Carette et al. 2009) 21. 

Large birds with poor manoeuvrability (such as cranes, korhaans, bustards and Secretarybirds) 

are generally at greater risk of collision with structures (Jenkins et al. 2010), and species that 

habitually fly at dawn and dusk or at night are perhaps less likely to detect and avoid turbines 

(e.g. cranes arriving at a roost site after sunset, or flamingos flying at night). Collision risk may 

also vary for a particular species, depending on age, behaviour and stage of annual cycle (Drewitt 

& Langston 2006) 22. While the flight characteristics of cranes, flamingos and bustards make them 

obvious candidates for collisions with power lines (Jenkins et al. 2010), it is noted that these 

classes of birds (unlike raptors) do not feature prominently in literature as wind turbine collision 

victims. It may be that they avoid wind farms entirely, resulting in lower collision risks. However, 

this can only be verified through on-site post-construction monitoring. 

The precise location of a wind farm site can be critical. Soaring species may use particular 

topographic features for lift (Barrios & Rodriguez 2004; De Lucas et al. 2008 23) or such features 

can result in large numbers of birds being funnelled through an area of turbines (Drewitt & 

Langston 2006). For example, absence of thermals on cold, overcast days may force larger, 

soaring species (e.g. Martial Eagle and Secretarybird) to use slopes for lift, which may increase 

their exposure to turbines. Gentle slopes may also pose a bigger risk than steep slopes for large 

soaring species, as updrafts from gentle slopes are weaker than those from steeper slopes, so 

turbines situated on the top of gentle slopes should pose a bigger risk to these birds than those 

situated atop steep slopes (De Lucas et al. 2008) Birds also lower their flight height in some 

locations, for example when following the coastline or crossing a ridge (Smallwood pers.comm), 

which might place them at greater risk of collision with rotors. 

The size and alignment of turbines and rotor speed are likely to influence collision risk; however, 

physical structure is probably only significant in combination with other factors, especially wind 

speed, with moderate winds resulting in the highest risk (Barrios & Rodriguez 2004; Stewart et 

al. 2007 24) as there is less lift for birds to clear the turbines. Lattice towers are generally regarded 

as more dangerous than tubular towers because many raptors use them for perching and 

occasionally for nesting; however Barrios & Rodriguez (2004) found tower structure to have no 

effect on mortality, and that mortality may be directly related to abundance for certain species 

(e.g. Common Kestrel Falco tinnunculus). De Lucas et al. (2008) found that turbine height and 

higher elevations may heighten the risk (taller/higher = higher risk), but that abundance was not 

directly related to collision risk, at least for Eurasian Griffon Vulture Gyps fulvus. 

A review of the available literature indicates that, where collisions have been recorded, the rates 

per turbine are highly variable with averages ranging from 0.01 to 23 bird collisions annually (the 

highest figure is the value, following correction for scavenger removal, for a coastal site in 

21 Carette, M., Zapata-Sanchez, J.A., Benitez, R.J., Lobon, M. & Donazar, J.A. (In press) Large scale riskassessment 

of wind farms on population viability of a globally endangered long-lived raptor. Biol. Cons. (2009), 

doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2009.07.027. 

22 Drewitt, A.L. & Langston, R.H.W. 2006. Assessing the impacts of wind farms on birds. Ibis 148, 29-42. 

23 

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. 

24 

Stewart, G.B., Coles, C.F. & Pullin, A.S. 2004. Effects of Wind Turbines on Bird Abundance. Systematic Review 

no. 4. Birmingham, UK: Centre for Evidence-based Conservation.


pg 7-24 


Belgium and relates to gulls, terns and ducks among other species) (Drewitt & Langston 2006). 

Although providing a helpful and standardised indication of collision rates, average rates per 

turbine must be viewed with some caution as they are often cited without variance and can mask 

significantly higher (or lower) rates for individual turbines or groups of turbines (Everaert et al. 

2001 25 as cited by Drewitt & Langston 2006). 

Some of the highest mortality levels have been for raptors in the Altamont Pass in California 

(Howell & DiDonato 1991 26, Orloff & Flannery 1992 27 as cited by Drewitt & Langston 2006) and 

at Tarifa and Navarre in Spain (Barrios & Rodriguez unpublished data as cited by Drewitt & 

Langston 2006). These cases are of particular concern because they affect relatively rare and 

long-lived species such as Griffon Vulture Gyps fulvus and Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos that 

have low reproductive rates and are vulnerable to additive mortality. Golden Eagles congregate in 

Altamont Pass to feed on super-abundant prey which supports very high densities of breeding 

birds. In the Spanish cases, extensive wind farms were built in topographical bottlenecks where 

large numbers of migrating and local birds fly through a relatively confined area due to the nature 

of the surrounding landscape, for example through mountain passes, or use rising winds to gain 

lift over ridges (Barrios & Rodriguez 2004). Although the average numbers of annual fatalities per 

turbine (ranging from 0.02 to 0.15 collisions/turbine) were generally low in the Altamont Pass 

and at Tarifa, overall collision rates were high because of the large numbers of turbines involved 

(over 7 000 in the case of Altamont). At Navarre, corrected annual estimates ranging from 3.6 to 

64.3 mortalities/turbine were obtained for birds and bats (unpublished data). Thus, a minimum 

of 75 Golden Eagles are killed annually in Altamont and over 400 Griffon Vultures are estimated 

(following the application of correction factors) to have collided with turbines at Navarre. Work 

on Golden Eagles in the Altamont Pass indicated that the population was declining in this area 

thought to be due, at least in part, to collision mortality (Hunt et al. 1999 28, Hunt 2001 29 as cited 

by Drewitt & Langston 2006). 

The effects of night-time illumination in increasing the risk of collisions with the turbines has not 

been adequately tested, and the results of studies are contradictory (Johnson et al. 2007) 30. 

Studies involving lighted objects or towers indicate that lights may attract birds, rather than 

disorient or repel them, resulting in collision mortality (Cochran & Graber 1958 31; Herbert 

25 

Everaert, J., Devos, K. & Kuijken, E. 2001. Windtrubines en vogels in Vlaanderen: Voorlopige 

Onderzoeksresultaten En Buitenlandse Bevindingen [Wind Turbines and Birds in Flanders (Belgium): 

Preliminary Study Results in a European Context]. Instituut Voor Natuurbehoud. Report R.2002.03. Brussels 

B.76pp. Brussels, Belgium: Institut voor Natuurbehoud. 

26 

Howell, J.A. & DiDonato, J.E. 1991. Assessment of avian use and mortality related to wind turbine 

operations: Altamont Pass, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, California, September 1988 Through August 

1989. Final report prepared for Kenentech Windpower. 

27 

Orloff, S. & Flannery, A. 1992. Wind turbine effects on avian activity, habitat use and mortality in Altamont 

Pass and Solano County Wind Resource Areas, 1989–91. California. Energy Commission. 

28 

Hunt, W.G., Jackman, R.E., Hunt, T.L., Driscoll, D.E. & Culp, L. 1999. A Population Study of Golden Eagles in 

the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area: Population Trend Analysis 1994–97. Report to National Renewable 

Energy Laboratory, Subcontract XAT-6-16459–01. Santa Cruz: University of California. 

29 

Hunt, W.G. 2001. Continuing studies of golden eagles at Altamont Pass. Proceedings of the National Avian- 

Wind Power Planning Meeting IV. 

30 

Johnson G. D., Strickland M. D., Erickson W. P. & Young D.P. 2007. Use of data to develop mitigation 

measures for wind power development impacts on birds. In: De Lucas M, Janss G.F.E. & Ferrer M (eds). Birds 

and Wind Farms: Risk Assessment and Mitigation. Quercus, Madrid. 

31 

Cochran, W.W. & Graber, R.R. 1958. Attraction of nocturnal migranst by lights on a television tower. Wislon 

Bulletin 70(4): 378-380.


pg 7-25 


1970 32; Weir 1976 33; Crockford 1992 34; APLIC 1994 35; Johnson et al. 2007). This is mostly a 

problem for nocturnal migrants (primarily passerines) during poor visibility conditions. Different 

colour lights vary in their attractiveness to birds and their effect on orientation. Several studies 

have shown that intermittent lights have less than of an effect on birds than constant lights, with 

reduced rates of mortality (Weir 1976; Jaroslow 1979 36; EPRI 1985 37; APLIC 1994). In addition, 

some studies suggest that replacing white lights with red coloured lights may reduce mortality by 

up to 80%. This may be due to the change in light intensity rather than the change in wavelength 

(Weir 1976). However, Ugoretz (2001) suggest that birds are more sensitive to red lights and 

may be attracted to them. Quickly flashing white strobe lights appear to be less attractive. The 

issue is however far from settled - a study at Buffalo Ridge, Minnesota, where most of the collision 

fatalities were classified as nocturnal migrants, found little difference between lighted and 

unlighted turbines (Johnson et al 2000).The consensus among researchers is to avoid lighting the 

turbines if possible, but that is against civil aviation regulations (Civil Aviation Regulations 1997). 

Lighting may also indirectly contribute to avian collision risks in that it may attract insects which 

in turn attract nocturnal bird activity. 

7.5.2 Displacement due to disturbance 

The displacement of birds from areas within and surrounding wind farms due to visual intrusion 

and disturbance effectively can amount to habitat loss. Displacement may occur during both the 

construction and operational phases of wind farms, and may be caused by the presence of the 

turbines themselves through visual, noise and vibration impacts, or as a result of vehicle and 

personnel movements related to site maintenance. The scale and degree of disturbance will vary 

according to site- and species-specific factors and must be assessed on a site-by-site basis 

(Drewitt & Langston 2006). 

Unfortunately, few studies of displacement due to disturbance are conclusive, often because of 

the lack of before-and-after and control-impact (BACI) assessments. Onshore, disturbance 

distances (in other words the distance from wind farms up to which birds are absent or less 

abundant than expected) up to 800 m (including zero) have been recorded for wintering 

waterfowl (Pedersen & Poulsen 1991 38 as cited by Drewitt & Langston 2006), though 600 m is 

widely accepted as the maximum reliably recorded distance (Drewitt & Langston 2006). The 

variability of displacement distances is illustrated by one study which found lower postconstruction 

densities of feeding European White-fronted Geese Anser albifrons within 600 m of 

32 Herbert, A.D. 1970. Spatial disorientation in birds. Wilson bulletin 82(4):400-419 

33 Weir, R.D. 1976. Annotated bibliography of bird kills at man-made obstacle: a review of the state of art and 

solution. Canadian Wildlife Services, Ontario Region. Ottawa. 

34 Crockford, N.J. 1992. A review of possible impacts of wind farms on birds and other wildlife. Joint Nature 

Conservation Committee. JNCC Report No. 27. Peterborough, Unite Kingdom. 

35 Avian Powerline Interation Committee (APLIC). 1994. Mitigating bird collisions with power lines: the state of 

the art in 1994. Edison Electric Institute. Washington DC. 

36 Jaroslow,B. 1979. A review of factors involved in bird-tower kills, and mitigate procedures. In: G.A. Swanson, 

G.A. (Tech. coord.), The mitigation symposium; a national workshop on mitigation losses of fish and wildlife 

habitats, pp. 469-473. U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report RM-65. 

37 EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute). 1985. MOD-2 wind turbine field experience in Solano County, 

California. Report No. AP-4239. Preapred by PG&E, San Ramon, California. 

38 Pedersen, M.B. & Poulsen, E. 1991. Impact of a 90 m/2MW wind turbine on birds. Avian responses to the 

implementation of the Tjaereborg wind turbine at the Danish Wadden Sea. Danske Vildtunderogelser Haefte 

47. Rønde, Denmark: Danmarks Miljøundersøgelser.


pg 7-26 


the turbines at a wind farm in Rheiderland, Germany (Kruckenberg & Jaene 1999 39 as cited by 

Drewitt & Langston 2006), while another showed displacement of Pink-footed Geese Anser 

brachyrhynchus up to only 100–200 m from turbines at a wind farm in Denmark (Larsen & 

Madsen 2000 40 as cited by Drewitt & Langston 2006). Indications are that Great Bustard Otis 

tarda (a species related to the Ludwig’s Bustard) are displaced by wind farms within one 

kilometre of the facility (Langgemach 2008). 

Studies of breeding birds are also largely inconclusive or suggest lower disturbance distances, 

though this apparent lack of effect may be due to the high site fidelity and long life-span of the 

breeding species studied. This might mean that the true impacts of disturbance on breeding birds 

will only be evident in the longer term, when new recruits replace existing breeding birds. Few 

studies have considered the possibility of displacement for short-lived passerines (such as larks), 

although Leddy et al. (1999) found increased densities of breeding grassland passerines with 

increased distance from wind turbines, and higher densities in the reference area than within 

80 m of the turbines, indicating that displacement did occur at least in this case. The 

consequences of displacement for breeding productivity and survival are crucial to whether or 

not there is likely to be a significant impact on population size. A recent comparative study of nine 

wind farms in Scotland (Pearce-Higgens et al. 2009) 41 found unequivocal evidence of 

displacement: Seven of the 12 species studied exhibited significantly lower frequencies of 

occurrence close to the turbines, after accounting for habitat variation, with equivocal evidence of 

turbine avoidance in a further two. No species were more likely to occur close to the turbines. 

Levels of turbine avoidance suggest breeding bird densities may be reduced within a 500 m 

buffer of the turbines by 15–53%, with Common Buzzard Buteo buteo, Hen Harrier Circus 

cyaneus, Golden Plover Pluvialis apricaria, Snipe Gallinago gallinago, Curlew Numenius arquata 

and Wheatear Oenanthe oenanthe most affected. 

Studies show that the scale of disturbance caused by wind farms varies greatly. This variation is 

likely to depend on a wide range of factors including seasonal and diurnal patterns of use by 

birds, location with respect to important habitats, availability of alternative habitats and perhaps 

also turbine and wind farm specifications. Behavioural responses vary not only between different 

species, but between individuals of the same species, depending on such factors as stage of life 

cycle (wintering, moulting, breeding), flock size and degree of habituation. The possibility that 

wintering birds in particular might habituate to the presence of turbines has been raised 

(Langston & Pullin 2003) 42, though it is acknowledged that there is little evidence and few studies 

of long enough duration to show this, and at least one study has found that habituation may not 

happen (Altamont Pass Avian Monitoring Team 2008) 43. A systematic review of the effects of 

wind turbines on bird abundance has shown that increasing time since operations commenced 

39 Kruckenberg, H. & Jaene, J. 1999. Zum Einfluss eines Windparks auf die Verteilung weidender Bläßgänse im 

Rheiderland (Landkreis Leer, Niedersachsen). Natur Landsch. 74: 420–427. 

40 Larsen, J.K. & Madsen, J. 2000. Effects of wind turbines and other physical elements on field utilization by 

pink-footed geese (Anser brachyrhynchus): A landscape perspective. Landscape Ecol. 15: 755–764. 

41 Pearce-Higgins J.W, Stephen L, Langston R.H.W, Bainbridge, I.P.& R Bullman. The distribution of breeding 

birds around upland wind farms. Journal of Applied Ecology 2009, 46, 1323–1331 

42 Langston, R.H.W. & Pullan, J.D. 2003. Wind farms and birds: an analysis of the effects of wind farms on birds, 

and guidance on environmental assessment criteria and site selection issues. Report written by Birdlife 

International on behalf of the Bern Convention. Council Europe Report T-PVS/Inf 

43 Altamont Pass Avian Monitoring Team. 2008. Bird Fatality Study at Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area 

October 2005 – September 2007. Draft Report prepared for the Almeda County Scientific Review Committee.


pg 7-27 


resulted in greater declines in bird abundance (Stewart et al. 2004 44 as cited by Drewitt & 

Langston 2006). This evidence that impacts are likely to persist or worsen with time suggests that 

habituation is unlikely, at least in some cases (Drewitt & Langston 2006, Altamont Pass Avian 

Monitoring Team 2008). 

The effect of birds altering their migration flyways or local flight paths to avoid a wind farm is 

also a form of displacement. This effect is of concern because of the possibility of increased 

energy expenditure when birds have to fly further, as a result of avoiding a large array of turbines, 

and the potential disruption of linkages between distant feeding, roosting, moulting and breeding 

areas otherwise unaffected by the wind farm. The effect depends on species, type of bird 

movement, flight height, distance to turbines, the layout and operational status of turbines, time 

of day and wind force and direction, and can be highly variable, ranging from a slight 'check' in 

flight direction, height or speed, through to significant diversions which may reduce the numbers 

of birds using areas beyond the wind farm (Drewitt & Langston 2006). 

A review of the literature suggests that none of the barrier effects identified so far have significant 

impacts on populations (Drewitt & Langston 2006). However, there are circumstances where the 

barrier effect might lead indirectly to population level impacts; for example, where a wind farm 

effectively blocks a regularly used flight line between nesting and foraging areas, or where several 

wind farms interact cumulatively to create an extensive barrier which could lead to diversions of 

many tens of kilometres, thereby incurring increased energy costs. 

7.5.3 Habitat change and loss 

The scale of direct habitat loss resulting from the construction of a wind farm and associated 

infrastructure depends on the size of the project, but generally speaking, is likely to be small per 

turbine base. Typically, actual habitat loss amounts to 2–5% of the total development area (Fox 

et al. 2006 45 as cited by Drewitt & Langston 2006), though effects could be more widespread 

where developments interfere with hydrological patterns or flows on wetland or peatland sites 

(unpublished data). Some changes could also be beneficial. For example, habitat changes 

following the development of the Altamont Pass wind farm in California led to increased mammal 

prey availability for some species of raptor (for example through greater availability of burrows 

for Pocket Gophers Thomomys bottae around turbine bases), though this may also have increased 

collision risk (Thelander et al. 2003 46 as cited by Drewitt & Langston 2006). 

7.5.4 Collision mortality with associate power lines 

A proposed 66kV power line that will link the wind facility to the existing Vredendal 66kV 

substation could potentially pose a collision risk. The turbines will be linked through 

underground reticulation cables. 

Because of their size and prominence, electrical infrastructures constitute an important interface 

between wildlife and man. Negative interactions between wildlife and electricity structures take 

44 

Stewart, G.B., Coles, C.F. & Pullin, A.S. 2004. Effects of Wind Turbines on Bird Abundance. Systematic Review 

no. 4. Birmingham, UK: Centre for Evidence-based Conservation. 

45 

Fox, A.D., Desholm, M., Kahlert, J., Christensen, T.K. & Krag Petersen, I.B. 2006. Information needs to support 

environmental impact assessments of the effects of European marine offshore wind farms on birds. In Wind, 

Fire and Water: Renewable Energy and Birds. Ibis 148 (Suppl. 1): 129–144 

46 

Thelander, C.G., Smallwood, K.S. & Rugge, L. 2003. Bird Risk Behaviours and Fatalities at the Altamont Pass 

Wind Resource Area. Report to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Colorado.


pg 7-28 


many forms, but two common problems in southern Africa are electrocution of birds (and other 

animals) and birds colliding with power lines (Ledger & Annegarn 1981 47; Ledger 1983 48; Kruger 

& Van Rooyen 1998 49). Electrocutions are not envisaged to be a problem on the proposed 

electricity line. Collisions, on the other hand, could be a major potential problem. 

Collisions probably kill far more birds annually in southern Africa than electrocutions (Van 

Rooyen 2007) 50. Most heavily impacted upon are bustards, storks, cranes and various species of 

water birds. These species are mostly heavy-bodied birds with limited manoeuvrability, which 

makes it difficult for them to take the necessary evasive action to avoid colliding with power lines 

(van Rooyen 2004 51, Anderson 2001 52). Unfortunately, many of the collision-sensitive species are 

considered threatened in southern Africa - of the 2369 avian mortalities on distribution lines 

recorded by the Endangered Wildlife Trust since August 1996, 1512 (63.8%) were Red Data 

species (Van Rooyen 2007). 

In the Overberg region of the Western Cape power line collisions have long been recorded as a 

major source of avian mortality (Van Rooyen 2007). Most numerous amongst power line collision 

victims are Blue Crane and Denham’s Bustard (Shaw 2009 53). It has been estimated that as many 

as 10% of the Blue Crane population in the Overberg are killed annually on power lines, and the 

figure for Denham’s Bustard might be as high as 30% of the Overberg population (Shaw 2009). 

These figures are extremely concerning, as it represents a possible unsustainable source of 

unnatural mortality. 

The habitat at the Vredendal wind farm site is marginal for Blue Cranes, as they prefer the 

croplands of the Swartland to the south of the study area, but Ludwig’s Bustard, a species closely 

related to the Denham’s Bustard and highly vulnerable to power line collisions (Jenkins & Smallie 

2009) 54, occurs in flocks of 20-30 individuals at the Vredendal wind farm site during the winter 

months (K. Visser pers.comm.). 

47 Ledger, J.A. & Annegarn H.J. 1981. Electrocution Hazards to the Cape Vulture (Gyps coprotheres) in South 

Africa. Biological Conservation 20:15-24. 

48 Ledger, J. 1983. Guidelines for Dealing with Bird Problems of Transmission Lines and Towers. Escom Test and 

Research Division Technical Note TRR/N83/005. 

49 Kruger, R. & Van Rooyen, C.S. 1998. Evaluating the risk that existing power lines pose to large raptors by 

using risk assessment methodology: the Molopo Case Study. 5th World Conference on Birds of Prey and Owls: 

4 - 8 August 1998. Midrand, South Africa. 

50 Van Rooyen, C.S. 2007. Eskom-EWT Strategic Partnership: Progress Report April-September 2007. 

Endangered Wildlife Trust, Johannesburg. 

51 Van Rooyen, C.S. 2004. The Management of Wildlife Interactions with overhead lines. In: The Fundamentals 

and practice of Overhead Line Maintenance (132kV and above), pp217-245. Eskom Technology, Services 

International, Johannesburg 2004 

52 Anderson, M.D. 2001. The effectiveness of two different marking devices to reduce large terrestrial bird 

collisions with overhead electricity cables in the eastern Karoo, South Africa. Draft report to Eskom Resources 

and Strategy Division. Johannesburg. South Africa. 

53 Shaw, J.M. 2009. The End of the Line for South Africa's National Bird? Modelling power line collision risk for 

the Blue Crane. Unpublished MSc Thesis. Percy FitzPatrick Institute of African Ornithology University of Cape 

Town. 

54 Jenkins, A. & Smallie, J. 2009. Terminal velocity: the end of the line for Ludwig’s Bustard? Africa Birds and 

Birding. Vol 14, No 2.


No specific legal requirements are applicable that pertain to avifauna. 


pg 7-29 


From an international perspective, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is applicable. 

The overall objective of the CBD is the “…conservation of biological diversity, [and] the 

sustainable use of its components and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits …”. 

The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (http://www.unepaewa.org) 

is also applicable. This Convention, commonly referred to as the Bonn Convention, 

(after the German city where it was concluded in 1979), came into force in 1983. This 

Convention’s goal is to provide conservation for migratory terrestrial, marine and avian species 

throughout their entire range. This is very important, because failure to conserve these species at 

any particular stage of their life cycle could adversely affect any conservation efforts elsewhere. 

The fundamental principle of the Bonn Convention, therefore, is that the Parties to the Bonn 

Convention acknowledge the importance of migratory species being conserved and of Range 

States agreeing to take action to this end whenever possible and appropriate, paying special 

attention to those migratory species whose conservation status is unfavourable, and individually, 

or in co-operation taking appropriate and necessary steps to conserve such species and their 

habitat. Parties acknowledge the need to take action to avoid any migratory species becoming 

endangered. 

The most important guidance document from an avifaunal impact perspective that is currently 

applicable to wind energy development is the “Best practice guidelines for avian monitoring and 

impact mitigation at proposed wind energy development sites in southern Africa” (Jenkins et al 

2011) 55. This document was published by the Endangered Wildlife Trust (EWT) and Birdlife 

South Africa (BLSA) on 31 March 2011. This protocol prescribes a pre-construction period that 

stretches over a minimum of 12 months and includes all major periods of bird usage in that 

period, as well as a post-construction component. This document is not legally binding on 

developers, but has the full support of the South African Wind Energy Association (SAWEA). The 

proponent has already agreed to complying with these guidelines and conducting the prescribed 

monitoring on the proposed Vredendal wind site. 


7.7.1 Mortalities from collisions with wind turbines 

The large terrestrial species that are most likely to be receptors of this impact at the Vredendal 

wind farm site are Ludwig’s Bustard, based on the species flight characteristics and tendency to 

fly long distances between foraging and roosting areas. The species is more likely to be exposed 

to this impact during winter, when migration into the winter-rainfall Succulent Karoo takes place, 

and numbers at the site increase (K. Visser pers.comm). Movements by this species are triggered 

by rainfall (Allan 1994) 56, and so are inherently erratic and unpredictable in this semi-arid 

environment, where the quantity and timing of winter rains are highly variable between years. 

55 Jenkins A R; Van Rooyen C S; Smallie J J; Anderson M D & Smit H A. 2011. Best practice guidelines for avian 

monitoring and impact mitigation at proposed wind energy development sites in southern Africa. Endangered 

Wildlife Trust and Birdlife South Africa. 

56 Allan, D.G. 1994. The abundance and movements of Ludwig’s Bustard Neotis ludwigii. Ostrich 65: 95-105.


pg 7-30 


Hence, it is difficult to anticipate the extent to which Ludwig’s Bustard may be exposed to 

collision risk. It remains to be seen if Ludwig’s Bustard will avoid the wind farm site entirely, as 

the species is very sensitive to disturbance, in which case the collision risk should be significantly 

reduced. Blue Cranes could also be impacted, but the species is not expected to occur in high 

densities as the habitat is marginal for the species. Southern Black Korhaan could potentially be 

exposed to the turbines when undertaking territorial display flights. The latter species was 

commonly recorded during the site visit in October 2011. 

Soaring species that could be exposed to collision risk are mostly raptors that use the area for 

foraging (see Table 7-1 above). The wind farm site does not have any specific high risk 

characteristics linked to either topography or habitat. The site is situated in a flat area with no 

ridges that could potentially be used for lift by soaring species, with no specific habitat features 

that will act as focal points for birds. No specific topographic features that could act as potential 

funnelling points were identified during the site visit. A concern that remains is the extent to 

which a pair of Martial Eagles that were nesting on the Aurora-Juno 400kV line in 2007 could be 

using the area for foraging. The nest is situated in tower 401 (31° 46.256’S; 18° 23.796’E). This is 

about 1.7 km from the western border of the site, and approximately 3 km from the closest 

proposed turbines. It is not known if the nest is still active. This should be established through a 

dedicated pre-construction monitoring programme (see Section 7.6.6:Management Actions 

below). 

The potential impact of collisions on small birds is unclear. Species such as Namaqua Sandgrouse 

could potentially suffer multiple mortalities when travelling in flocks through the site area, but it 

is not known to what extent they occur at the site. Displaying larks could also be exposed to 

collisions. Unfortunately very little is known on collision mortality of passerines at wind farms, as 

the focus of most research has been large species, particularly raptors. This is likely to remain so 

for some time, partially due to the difficulty of assessing collision mortality for small species 

because carcasses are difficult to find. 

The potential for collisions with the wind turbines due to presence of lights is not envisaged to be 

significant, primarily because the phenomenon of mass nocturnal passerine migrations is not a 

feature of the study area. Post–construction monitoring (carcass searches) will be required to 

assess the extent (if any) of nocturnal fatalities that may be linked to the lighting on the turbines. 

Lighting around turbines that attracts insects could however put Spotted Eagle-Owls at risk. 

It is not anticipated that the development will affect any known or anticipated water bird flyways, 

most of which coincide with direct routes between the major coastal wetlands e.g. Olifant’s River 

mouth, Bird Island (Lambert’s Bay) and Verloren Vlei (Elands Bay). Ultimately though, the only 

reliable way of establishing the potential extent of any collision risk to priority species will be 

through the implementation of a pre-construction monitoring programme (see Section 

7.6.6:Management Actions below). 

7.7.2 Displacement due to disturbance 

Of the large terrestrial species that occur or is likely to occur on the site, the Ludwig’s Bustard is 

most likely to be affected by this impact. Bustards are very sensitive to disturbance, and will 

readily vacate an area due to the presence of human activity (pers. obs.). Cranes are also 

potentially affected, but the Blue Crane’s tolerance to farming operations is well known, which 

means it is probably less likely to vacate the area permanently once the wind farm is operational 

(if they occur at the site at all).


pg 7-31 


As far as raptors are concerned, the chances of displacement are probably low, based on research 

results elsewhere (Madders and Whitfield 2008). This trend also seems to be supported by the 

results of the limited post-construction monitoring conducted at the existing four turbines at the 

Darling Wind Farm (Van Rooyen 2011) 57. 

While the site does fall on a Fynbos/Karoo ecotone, and supports endemic species from both 

biomes/bioregions (see Table 7-1), given its small size it does not pose a significant threat in 

terms of habitat loss for endemic passerines. This is on the assumption that displacement of 

passerines and other small species will take place, which is not clear at this stage. Ultimately, the 

only reliable way of establishing whether the wind farm will lead to the displacement of priority 

species will be through the implementation of a monitoring programme, by comparing pre- and 

post-construction densities of priority species in the wind farm area (see Section 

7.6.6:Management Actions below). 

7.7.3 Habitat change and loss 

The scale of direct habitat loss resulting from the construction of a wind farm and associated 

infrastructure depends on the size of the project but, generally speaking, is likely to be small per 

turbine base. Typically, actual habitat loss amounts to 2–5% of the total development area (Fox 

et al. 2006 as cited by Drewitt & Langston 2006). Direct habitat loss is not regarded as a major 

impact on avifauna compared to the potential impact of collisions with the turbines and potential 

displacement due to disturbance. 

7.7.4 Mortality due to collisions with associate power lines 

Of the large terrestrial species, Ludwig’s Bustard is most likely to be negatively impacted by the 

proposed power line since its vulnerability to power line collisions is well known (Jenkins & 

Smallie 2009). The Secretarybird is also a vulnerable species (Van Rooyen 2007) in this regard. 

Presumably, Southern Black Korhaan could also collide with the power line, especially when 

flushed by vehicle or pedestrian traffic, or during territorial display flights. 

7.7.5 Cumulative impacts 

Currently there is no agreed method for determining significant adverse cumulative impacts on 

ornithological receptors, although clearly a more strategic approach should be followed than is 

currently the case (Jenkins et al 2011). SNH (2005) guidance on cumulative effects of wind farms 

on birds recommends a five-stage process to aid in the ornithological assessment: 

Define the species/habitat to be considered; 

Consider the limits or ‘search area’ of the study; 

Decide the methods to be employed; 

Review the findings of existing studies; and 

Draw conclusions of cumulative effects within the study area. 

At the current development site, collisions are not envisaged to be a major impact, as the site is 

small and not located along major water bird and coastal flyways. Therefore this development is 

not likely to add a significant cumulative collision mortality impact as far as developments along 

57 Van Rooyen, C.S. 2011. Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm, Western Cape. Bird Impact Assessment Study. 

Prepared for the Environmental Evaluation Unit, University of Cape Town.


pg 7-32 


the West Coast is concerned. The species that is most likely to be displaced by the Vredendal wind 

farm development is the Ludwig Bustard, but the species occurs widely in the central Karoo, 

therefore the impact of the displacement is also unlikely to be critical if viewed cumulatively with 

other wind farm developments along the West Coast, due to the size of the potential available 

habitat outside of the region. However, it must again be stressed that it is impossible to say 

conclusively at this stage what the cumulative impact of all the proposed wind developments will 

be on birds, firstly because there is no baseline to measure it against, and secondly because the 

extent of actual impacts will only become known once a few wind farms are developed. It is 

therefore imperative that pre- and post-construction monitoring is implemented at all the new 

proposed sites, in accordance with the latest Best practice guidelines for avian monitoring and 

impact mitigation at proposed wind energy development sites in southern Africa (Jenkins et al. 

2011), and that the results of the various studies are made available for research purposes. This 

will provide the data necessary to improve the assessment of the cumulative impact of wind 

development on priority species. Figure 7-3 below is a map of known proposed wind farm sites in 

the along the West Coast as at May 2011.


pg 7-33 


Figure 7-3 Proposed wind farms in along the West Coast (Source: Rapport) Management actions

7.7.6 Management actions 


pg 7-34 


Mitigation measures fall into two broad categories: best-practice measures which could be 

adopted by any wind farm development and should be adopted as an industry standard, and 

additional measures which are aimed at reducing an impact specific to a particular development 

(Drewitt & Langston 2006). 

Examples of generic best practice measures are (Drewitt & Langston 2006): 

Ensuring that key areas of conservation importance and sensitivity are avoided; 

Implementing appropriate working practices to protect sensitive habitats; 

Providing adequate briefing for site personnel and, in particularly sensitive locations, 

employing an on-site ecologist during construction; 

Implementing an agreed post-development monitoring programme; 

Siting turbines close together to minimise the development footprint (subject to technical 

constraints such as the need for greater separation between larger turbines); 

Grouping turbines to avoid alignment perpendicular to main flight paths and to provide 

corridors between clusters, aligned with main flight trajectories, within large wind farms; 

Increasing the visibility of rotor blades – research indicates that high contrast patterns 

might help reduce collision risk (McIsaac 2001 58; Hodos 2002 59), although this may not 

always be acceptable on landscape grounds. Another suggested, but untested possibility 

is to paint blades with UV paint, which may enhance their visibility to birds; 

Where possible, installing transmission cables underground (subject to habitat 

sensitivities and in accordance with existing best practice guidelines for underground 

cable installation); 

Marking overhead cables using deflectors and avoiding use over areas of high bird 

concentrations, especially for species vulnerable to collision; 

Timing construction to avoid sensitive periods; and 

Implementing habitat enhancement for species using the site. 

Other measures which may be suitable in some circumstances include the relocation of proposed 

or actual turbines responsible for particular problems, halting operation during periods of peak 

bird usage, or reducing rotor speed. Again, post-construction monitoring is essential in order to 

test the effectiveness of such mitigation measures and research is needed to provide more 

information on specific impacts and novel mitigation measures that might reduce impacts. 

Despite the fact that wind power has been a feature of the energy industry in the developed world 

for more than a decade, best practices with regard to bird mitigation are not universally clear or 

accepted. In the USA, for example, it would seem that best practices may still be lacking 

(Smallwood 2008) 60. Mitigation measures would be more effective if consistently based on 

scientifically founded conclusions of factors affecting bird collisions with wind turbines, which is 

unfortunately not always the case (at least in the USA). It is essential to perform scientifically 

58 McIsaac, H.P. 2001. Raptor acuity and wind turbine blade conspicuity. Pp. 59-87. National Avian-Wind Power 

Planning Meeting IV, Proceedings. Prepared by Resolve, Inc., Washington DC. 

59 Hodos, W. 2002. Minimization of motion smear: Reducing avian collisions with turbines. Unpublished 

subcontractor report to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL/SR 500-33249. 

60 Smallwood, S. 2008. Mitigation in US wind farms. In: Documentation of International Workshop on Birds of 

Prey and Wind Farms. 21 st and 22 nd of October 2008, Berlin. Michael Otto Institut im NABU.


pg 7-35 


rigorous pre- and post-construction monitoring of bird fatalities and flight behaviour in wind 

farms, as well as ecological investigations. These types of investigations have not been performed 

at many wind farms in the USA so the scientific basis for mitigation measures remains weak 

(Smallwood 2008). Avoidance and minimisation measures will be the most effective mitigation at 

wind farms, but these have yet to be implemented at many US wind farms. Adaptive management 

is often promised in environmental review documents, but in practice it seldom happens. Off-site 

compensation may be the only substantial means of mitigating impacts following wind farm 

development. A scientifically defensible nexus between project impacts and mitigation benefits 

still needs to be established for compensation ratios directed toward wind farms (Smallwood 

2008). 

It must be accepted that appropriate best practices and mitigation measures with regard to 

impacts on birds in a South African context will take a number of years to crystallise, and a 

measure of trial and error will inevitably be part of the process. 

The following site-specific mitigation measures are recommended for the proposed Vredendal 

wind farm: 

Habitat destruction should be limited to what is absolutely necessary for the construction 

of the infrastructure, including the construction of new roads. In this respect, the 

recommendations from the Botanical and Terrestrial Fauna Specialist Study (see Chapter 

6 of this report) should be applied strictly. Personnel should be adequately briefed on the 

need to restrict habitat destruction, and must be restricted to the actual construction 

area; 

The proposed power line should be marked with Bird Flight Diverters (BFDs) to lower 

the risk of collisions, particularly Ludwig’s Bustard, with the power line; 

The proposed pole design must be assessed by the author of this report to ensure that the 

power line design poses no potential electrocution risk of large raptors, particularly 

Martial Eagle, which may use the poles as hunting perches; and 

Implementing a pre-construction monitoring programme to establish a baseline to 

measure potential collision and displacement impacts on priority species. The monitoring 

programme should follow best practice guidelines (see Jenkins et al. 2011) and 

implemented under the guidance of a suitably qualified and experienced ornithological 

consultant, starting at least one year prior to the construction of the infrastructure, and 

the results must be used to inform the final micro-siting of the turbines. Once the turbines 

have been constructed, post-construction monitoring should be implemented to assess 

displacement and to compare actual collision rates with predicted collision rates. If actual 

collision rates indicate unsustainable mortality levels, the following mitigation measures 

will need to be considered: 

o Negotiating appropriate off-set compensation for turbine related collision 

mortality; and 

o As a last resort, halting operation of specific turbines during peak flight periods, 

or reducing rotor speed, to reduce the risk of collision mortality. 

7.7.7 Impact assessment 

The criteria for the assessment of impacts are fully explained in the Chapter 4 of this report. No 

assessment of impacts is provided for the No-Go alternative as that would preserve the status quo 

as it currently exists. For a description of the status quo, see Section 7-2: Description of the


pg 7-36 


Receiving Environment. The impacts are assessed on the status quo as it currently exists on the 

site. 

The assessment of impact significance is based on the following convention: 

Nature of impact - this reviews the type of effect that a proposed activity will have on the 

environment and includes “what will be affected and how?” 

Extent - this indicates whether the impact will be local and limited to the immediate area 

of development (the site); limited to within 5km of the development; or whether the 

impact may be realised regionally, nationally or even internationally. 

Duration - this reviews the lifetime of the impact, as being short term (0 - 5 years), 

medium (5 - 15 years), long term (>15 years but where the impacts will cease after the 

operation of the site), or permanent. 

Intensity - here it is established whether the impact is destructive or innocuous and is 

described as either low (where no environmental functions and processes are affected), 

medium (where the environment continues to function but in a modified manner) or high 

(where environmental functions and processes are altered such that they temporarily or 

permanently cease). 

Probability - this considers the likelihood of the impact occurring and is described as 

improbable (low likelihood), probable (distinct possibility), highly probable (most likely) 

or definite (impact will occur regardless of prevention measures). 

The status of the impacts and degree of confidence with respect to the assessment of the 

significance is stated as follows: 

Status of the impact: A description as to whether the impact will be positive (a benefit), 

negative (a cost), or neutral. 

Degree of confidence in predictions: The degree of confidence in the predictions, based 

on the availability of information and specialist knowledge. This is assessed as high, 

medium or low. 

Based on the above considerations, an overall evaluation of the significance of the potential 

impact is provided, which is described as follows: 

Low: Where the impact will not have an influence on the decision or require to be 

significantly accommodated in the project design 

Medium: Where it could have an influence on the environment which will require 

modification of the project design or alternative mitigation; 

High: Where it could have a ‘no-go’ implication for the project unless mitigation or redesign 

is practically achievable. 

Tables 7-2 (Construction phase) and 7-3 (Operational phase) below provide a summary of the 

envisaged impacts as well as proposed mitigation measures specifically for the proposed 

Vredendal wind farm site.



Displacement of priority species 

due to disturbance 


due to habitat destruction 

Status 

(negative 

or 

positive) 

Table 7-2 Impact assessment table for construction phase 


Negative Local Short term High Highly 

probable 

Negative Site Long term Low Highly 

probable 

Significance 

(no 

mitigation) 


pg 7-37 


Actions 

Medium Restrict the construction 

activities to the construction 

footprint area. Do not allow 

any access to the remainder 

of the property during the 

construction period. 

Low No mitigation is possible to 

prevent the permanent 

habitat transformation 

caused by the construction of 

the wind farm infrastructure. 

In order to prevent 

unnecessary habitat 

destruction (i.e. more than is 

inevitable), the 

recommendations of the 

specialist ecological study 

must be strictly adhered to. 


Significance 

(with 

mitigation) 

Confidence 

level 

Low High 

Low High



Displacement of priority 

species due to disturbance 

caused by the operation of the 

wind farm. 

Status 

(negative 

or 

positive) 

Table 7-3 Impact assessment table for operational phase 


Negative Local Medium to 

long term, 

depending 

on whether 

habituation 

takes place. 

High Highly 

probable for 

bustards, 

probable for 

Blue Cranes, 

Secretarybirds 

and korhaans, 

and 

improbable 

for raptors. 

CSIR –February 2012 

pg 7-38 

Significance 

(no 

mitigation) 


Actions 

Medium Pre-construction 

monitoring should be 

implemented as per the 

latest version of Best 

practice guidelines for avian 

monitoring and impact 

mitigation at proposed wind 

energy development sites in 

southern Africa (Jenkins et 

al 2011) to establish 

baseline conditions and to 

make pre- and postconstruction 

comparisons 

of avifaunal density 

possible. Operational 

activities should be 

restricted to the plant area. 

Maintenance staff should 

not be allowed to access 

other parts of the property 

unless it is necessary for 

wind farm related work. 

Unfortunately, no practical 

mitigation is possible for 

the potential disturbance 

caused by the turbines 

themselves (noise, 


Significance 

(with 

mitigation) 

Low, if 

habituation 

takes place, 

otherwise, 

low-medium. 

Confidence 

level 

Raptors – 

high 

Bustards, 

cranes and 

korhaans - 

medium


Collisions of priority species 

with the turbines 

Status 

(negative 

or 

positive) 

Negative Mostly local, 

but in some 

instances 

regional 

(Ludwig’s 

Bustard) and 

international 

in the case of 

migratory 

species 

( Steppe 

Buzzard, 

Barn 

Swallow) 



pg 7-39 

Significance 

(no 

mitigation) 


Actions 

Long term High Probable Medium 

movement). 

Pre-construction 


implemented as per the 

latest version of Best 

practice guidelines for avian 

monitoring and impact 

mitigation at proposed wind 

energy development sites in 

southern Africa (Jenkins et 

al 2011) to guide the 

micro-siting of the turbines 

and to make postconstruction 

comparisons 

possible. Once the turbines 

have been constructed, 

post-construction 


implemented to compare 

actual collision rates with 

predicted collision rates. If 

actual collision rates 

indicate unsustainable 

mortality levels, the 

following mitigation 

measures will have to be 

considered: 

Negotiating appropriate 

off-set compensation for 

turbine related collision 

mortality; 

As a last resort, halting 


Significance 

(with 

mitigation) 

Confidence 

level 

Low Low - 

medium


Collisions of priority species 

with the proposed 66kV power 

line 

Electrocutions of priority 

raptors, particularly Martial 

Eagle, on the proposed 66kV 

power line. 

Status 

(negative 

or 

positive) 

Negative Mostly local, 

but regional 

in the case of 

Ludwig’s 

Bustard 


Long term High Probable, 

especially for 

Ludwig’s 

Bustard 

Negative Local Long term High Probable, 

especially for 

Martial Eagle 


pg 7-40 

Significance 

(no 

mitigation) 


Actions 

operation of specific 

turbines during peak flight 

periods, or reducing rotor 

speed, to reduce the risk of 

collision mortality. 

Medium The proposed power line 

should be marked with 

Bird Flight Diverters 

(BFDs) to lower the risk of 

collisions, particularly 

Ludwig’s Bustard, with the 

power line. The 

recommended BFD is the 

Double Loop Bird Flight 

Diverter. The BFDs should 

be fitted to the earthwire, 5 

metres apart, alternating 

black and white. 

Medium The proposed pole design 

must be assessed by the 

author of this report to 

ensure that the power line 

design poses no potential 

electrocution risk of large 

raptors, particularly 

Martial Eagle, which may 

use the poles as hunting 

perches. 


Significance 

(with 

mitigation) 

Confidence 

level 

Low Medium 

Low High

7.8 REVERSIBILITY AND IRREPLACEABILITY 


pg 7-41 


Section 31 (2) (l) (v) and (vi) of GN 543 (2010 EIA Regulations) require that the overall impact 

of the development is assessed in terms of reversibility and irreplaceability. These 

assessments are to assume that the project has reached the end of its life, and what is now 

being assessed is the extent to which the impacts are reversible and the extent to which 

resource losses are irreplaceable. In this instance, the impacts can be summarised as 

displacement of priority avifauna due to disturbance and habitat destruction, and mortality of 

priority species due to collision with the turbines and associated infrastructure. 

The reversibility of the impacts is assessed to be moderate. Once the source of the disturbance 

has been removed, i.e. the noise and movement associated with the wind farm, birds could recolonise 

the areas which have not been transformed by the footprint. Although there might be 

a degree of direct mortality on the turbines and associated infrastructure, it is unlikely to lead 

to the permanent local extinction of any species. Obviously, it will be irreversible for a specific 

individual bird or pair of birds (e.g. if a pair of Southern Black Korhaans breeding on the site is 

killed, the impact would be irreversible as far as that specific pair is concerned). 

The potential for irreplaceable loss of avifauna is assessed to be low. As with reversibility, 

once the source of the disturbance has been removed (i.e. the noise and movement associated 

with the wind farm) birds could re-colonise the areas which have not been transformed by the 

footprint. Although there might be a degree of direct mortality on the turbines and associated 

infrastructure, it is unlikely to lead to the permanent local extinction of any species. This 

assessment is based on the assumption that the cumulative impact of other wind farms and 

other infrastructure do not impact severely on the priority avifauna of the region as a whole 

(i.e. that there will be resources available to replace the resources lost at the wind farm site). 


This is a relatively small wind farm site, with limited intrinsic avian biodiversity value. It does not 

contain any unique habitats or landscape features, nor does it affect any known, major avian flyways. 

However, there are regionally and/or nationally important populations of impactsusceptible 

species present (at least seasonally), and the proposed facility may have a significant 

detrimental effect on these birds, particularly during the operational phase of the development. 



The question that remains to be answered is which of the three alternatives namely No Go, fifteen 

2 MW turbines or the ten 3 MW turbines (alternative lay-out) would be preferable from a bird 

impact perspective. Obviously, because the No Go option would result in no additional impacts to 

avifauna, it would be preferable from an avifaunal perspective. Should the project proceed, the 

question is which of the preferred or the alternative lay-out would result in the least impact on 

birds. It has been persuasively argued that for soaring species, the combination of wing loading, 

topography and wind speed is more important in determining the extent risk of the collision risk 

than turbine design (Barrios & Rodriguez 2004). Generally speaking, gentle, short slopes and low 

wind speeds result in weaker declivity currents, which in turn impact on the rate of climb for 

soaring species. At sites with slopes, shorter turbines would therefore be preferable to taller 

designs. At this wind farm, the topography is generally flat, therefore in the absence of ridges 

providing declivity updrafts, topography is unlikely to play a major role in the way that soaring


pg 7-42 


species, particularly large soaring species such as Martial Eagle, would utilise the landscape. The 

absolute number of turbines and the size of the spacing between them may be a more important 

factor in determining the risk of collision at this particular site, especially in view of the likelihood 

of regular flight activity of terrestrial species. In addition, the levels of disturbance created by the 

noise and movement of the turbines should be less with fewer turbines. From a bird impact 

perspective, ten 3 MW turbines would therefore be preferable to fifteen 2 MW turbines.


pg 8-1 

Chapter 8: Bats 

8 BAT IMPACT ASSESSMENT 8-3 

SUMMARY 8-3 


8.1.1 Importance of bats 8-5 





8.3 COMPONENTS OF THE PROJECT WHICH COULD IMPACT ON BATS 8-10 

8.3.1 Loss of habitat 8-10 

8.3.2 New Roosting Habitat amongst Proposed Turbines 8-10 

8.3.3 Collision and Barotrauma 8-11 

8.4 BAT SPECIES POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT 8-11 

8.5 SITE VISITS DURING AUGUST AND SEPTEMBER 2011 8-15 



ACTIONS 8-19 

8.7.1 Loss of habitat 8-19 

8.7.2 Mortality during the operation of wind turbines 8-20 

8.7.3 Management actions to avoid or reduce negative impact 8-21 



SECTION B: PROPOSAL FOR BAT PRE-CONSTRUCTION SURVEY AND 

POST-CONSTRUCTION MONITORING 8-29


pg 8-2 


8.10 EXTERNAL FACTORS 8-29 

8.11 TIMING OF MONITORING 8-30 

8.12 ESTIMATION OF BAT ACTIVITY 8-30 

8.13 KEY OUTCOMES FOR IMPACT ASSESSMENT 8-30 

8.14 AIM OF BAT MONITORING 8-31 

8.15 STUDY APPROACH 8-31 

8.16 SCOPING FOR MONITORING 8-31 

A PRE-CONSTRUCTION MONITORING 8-32 

B POST-CONSTRUCTION MONITORING 8-33 

Table 8-1 Review of bat species that have distribution ranges that include the proposed Vredendal 

Wind Energy Site. 8-13 

Table 8-2 Bat species recorded on the site 8-18 

Table 8-3 Impact Assessment 8-26 

Figure 8-1 Typical environment of the proposed site 8-8 

Figure 8-2 Derelict house approximate 1.6 km north-east of the site. Note the broken window where 

bats could access the building 8-9 

Figure 8-3 A spectrogram of Tadarida aegyptiaca, recorded on site on 20 August 2011 8-16 

Figure 8-4 Bat recordings at the proposed site: The pink lines indicate transects done on 20 

August as well as some points of recordings in and around the site, indicated as bat 2 

to bat 7. Bat 8 indicates static recordings on 24 and 25 September 2011 (Source: 

Google Image). 8-17 

Figure 8-5 Proposed wind developments in the Eastern Province and Northern and Western Cape 

during 2010. (SAWEA, 2010) 8-25

8 BAT IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

SUMMARY 


pg 8-3 


This chapter has been adapted from a bat impact assessment that was conducted by Stephanie 

Dippenaar as part of the EIA for the proposed Vredendal Wind Energy Project. Dr. Samantha 

Stoffberg, University of Stellenbosch, served in an advisory capacity as a local bat specialist. 

According to this study Bats play important functional roles as pollinators, seed dispersers and 

insect predators. They are sensitive to changes in mortality rates and their populations tend to 

recover slowly from declines. 

The Proposed Vredendal Wind Energy Project falls within the distributional ranges of 9 species 

that overlap in the area. Bats can be classified into three broad functional groups on the basis of 

their wing morphology and echolocation call structure. Of these groups, open-air foragers, bats 

that have a wing design and echolocation call adapted to flying fast and high above the vegetation 

are mostly at risk from wind turbine developments. Species that migrate over the site of the 

proposed development will be further at risk, regardless of their foraging behaviour. 

The three project alternatives that have been investigated for the purpose of this study are: 

no-go option; 

15 × 2 MW turbine layout; and 

10 × 3 MW turbine Layout 

. 

The most important aspect of the project that would affect bats adversely is the wind turbines 

themselves, and in particular, the operational turning blades. The main direct impacts related to 

the proposed development are: 

Direct collisions with the rotating turbine blades; and 

Fatalities from barotrauma. 

Although of considerably less significance, loss of foraging habitat should can be 

added to the above. 

There is furthermore a potential cumulative impact related to the fact the Klawer Wind Project is 

situated approximately 13 km from the proposed Vredendal Wind Energy project. 





bats. Furthermore, wherever cattle and sheep graze flies are prevalent, which serve as a food 

source for bats.


pg 8-4 


On 20 August a daytime site visit was conducted and bat-recording transects were transects 

surveyed for up to three hours after sunset. On 24 and 25 September a static bat detecting 

recorder was left on site so as to record data from half an hour before sunset to sunrise. The 

following species were recorded on site: Neoromicia capensis (Least Concern), Miniopterus 




the operating turbine blades. However, it is not ruled out that the other species will also forage in 

the vicinity of the turbine blades, either when they are foraging or crossing the site while 

migrating. 

The proponent has already involved a bat specialist in the design phase of the project and is 

committed to pre-construction monitoring. Further monitoring will confirm bat activity. At 

present the main mitigation proposed is to completely seal off roofs of new buildings as well as 

those of existing buildings close to the site that do not have any bats roosting in them at present. 

This will prevent bats from moving in and thereby prevent them from coming into contact with 

the turbines in the surrounding area. If future monitoring data shows high activity, the client 

together with a bat specialist should investigate further mitigation measures. This includes 

refining operational procedures such as a reduction in the rotational speed of the turbines. 




increase exponentially with tower height, suggesting that larger turbines penetrate the airspace of 

migrating bats. At present no recordings at height have been incorporated in the study. Also, no 

research has been conducted concerning the impact of different size turbines on southern African 

bat species and there is, therefore, uncertainty as to whether the difference (10 – 20 m) in height 

between the 2 MW and 3 MW options will have any effect on bat mortality. From a bat 

perspective, no preferred alternative is provided in terms of this study. If monitoring indicates 

that the proposed wind farm is on a bat migration route, the project design and operation may 

need to be revisited. 

Considering data collected up to now, the impact of the wind turbines on bats at the proposed 


Confidence levels are low since limited data have been incorporated; however, predictive 

confidence will increase in response to additional information generated through the 

forthcoming monitoring programme.


8.1.1 Importance of bats 


pg 8-5 


Bats are long-lived mammals. With females often producing only one pup per year, their lifestrategy 

is characterized by slow reproduction (Barclay & Harder 2003) 1. Because of this, bat 

populations are sensitive to changes in mortality rates and their populations tend to recover 

slowly from declines. The impact of wind farms on bats could be higher than on birds, as 

evidenced, for example, through the results of studies undertaken in other countries in which bat 

fatalities from wind farm developments are shown to outnumber bird fatalities by 10 to 1 

(Barclay et al. 2007) 2. This could also be a manifestation of more information having been 

generated regarding the impact of wind energy developments on birds. The impacts of wind 

farms on bats have only started to draw attention since 2009 in South Africa. 

In general, bats play important functional roles as insect predators and as pollinators and seed 

dispersers. Apart from mortality and disturbance resulting from wind turbines, major threats 

faced by bats include habitat destruction and change, cave disturbance, natural disasters and the 

introduction of exotic species. 

8.1.1.1 Economic 

The economic consequences of losing bat populations could be substantial and could have severe 

implications for the South African economy. Monadjem et al. (2010) 3, mention that “some species 

of bats can consume up to 500 insects per night and, hence, a colony of 1000 individuals devours 

500 000 insects per night or approaching 200 million per year.” 

Although the loss of bats in southern Africa has not been quantified in economic terms, in Indiana 

(USA) a single colony of 150 big brown bats (Eptesicus fuscus) has been estimated to eat nearly 

1.3 million pest insects each year, possibly contributing to the disruption of population cycles of 

agricultural pests (Boyles et al. 2011) 4. Schwartzel (2011) 5, in a popular article estimates that 

bats, by consuming pest insects, save farmers millions of dollars per year per county in the USA. 

Figures such as $642,986 in Alleghen County and $277.9 million in Pennsylvania County are 

mentioned. 

Even though the southern African situation is different from that of the USA, South Africa has a 

sound agricultural sector, and the above clearly shows how bats have an enormous potential to 

1 Barclay, R.M.R., Harder, L.D., 2003. Life histories of bats: life in the slow lane. In: Kunz, T.H., Fenton, M.B. 

(Eds.), Bat Ecology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 209–253 

2 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 

3 Monadjem, A., Taylor, P.J., Cotterill, F.P.D., Schoeman, M.C., 2010: Bats of Southern and Central Africa: A 

Biogeographic and Taxonomic Synthesis. University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. 

4 Boyles, J.G., Cryan, P.M., .McCracken, G.F.,Kunz, T.H.: Economic Importance of Bats in Agriculture; AAAS; 

SCIENCE VOL 332, http://www.sciencemag.org/ downloaded on April 1, 2011. 

5 Schwartzel, E., 2011: Pa. wind turbines deadly to bats, costly to farmers. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Sunday, July 

17, 2011.


pg 8-6 


influence agricultural economics. There is no doubt that bats contribute to the economies of other 

sectors; however, few studies have been carried out to quantify this. 

8.1.1.2 Ecological 

Apart from insect control, fruit bats play a major role in the dissemination of forest tree seeds and 

habitat regeneration and restoration. In areas where fruit bats have been locally extirpated a 

reduction can be measured in the ability of forests to redevelop naturally after disturbance. 

Recent research has indicated that bats play a greater role in ecosystem functioning than 

previously realised. 

8.1.1.3 Disease control 

The consumption of large numbers of mosquitoes and flies, the most important vectors of 

diseases such as malaria and dengue, by bats play an important role in the control of these 

diseases. On a large scale malaria afflicts millions of people in Africa and the contribution bats 

make to reduce the number of insects that transmit diseases should not be underestimated. 


The approach adopted for the bat study for this EIA included the following steps: 

A review of available literature to establish which species occur in the area, including 

information gathered during previous research conducted in the area; 

Site visits to investigate the environment and availability of suitable bat habitat, and to 

record echolocation of bats on site; 

Identification and evaluation of potential impacts that the development could have on 

bats; 

Discussion of possible cumulative impacts; and 

Recommending mitigation measures and monitoring requirements. 


No monthly monitoring data have been included in this study. A comprehensive bat 

survey would require monitoring of bats in all habitats, during all seasons, from dusk 

until dawn. Confirmation of bat occurrence at the proposed site is, therefore, based only 

on the field investigations and recordings carried out on 20 August and 24 and 25 

September, 2011. Little monitoring has been done during the ‘migration period in spring, 

and none during autumn when some species are not resident at the proposed site but 

may migrate through the area. 

Given the lack of comprehensive site monitoring data, the confidence of this general EIA 

assessment is “low”. 

Limited knowledge exists on the impact of wind farms on bats in South Africa. Most 

research regarding the impacts of wind turbines on bats is found in studies conducted in 

the USA, Canada and parts of Europe. The assumptions attached to the extrapolation of 

findings from these countries to the site of current investigation must be recognised.


pg 8-7 


No data was collected at height during the two site visits. Bat recording equipment will be 

installed at height when monthly bat monitoring starts. The turbine blades will be, 

depending on the size of the turbines selected for implementation, at least 30 m above 

ground level. The ideal is to have data of bat activity in the range of the turbine blades; i.e. at 

least 30 m above ground level. 

Echolocation operates over ranges of metres. Therefore, any monitoring based on 

echolocation samples only a limited area, depending on the type and intensity of the call. 

One must therefore be cautious when extrapolating data from echolocation surveys over 

larger areas. The accuracy of the species assignation is also very dependent on the quality 

of the calls. Some species put more energy in their echolocation and are therefore more 

likely to be recorded. 

Bats do not echolocate in a uniform, monotonous way. For example, when they go into a 

feeding frenzy, it can sometimes be difficult to identify a species from a call. For this study, 

Dr. Samantha Stoffberg of the University of Stellenbosch assisted with species 

identifications where calls were not easily identifiable. For this study, if it was clear that a 

recording was a bat call but the species were not identifiable, it is stated as unidentified bat 

calls. 

Recording distance is influenced by the intensity of the bat call as well as the weather 

conditions. Furthermore, due to overlap of calls, it is not possible to provide an exact 

number of bats passing the recorder; therefore only estimations are provided. 

Due to the fact that data from various different sites are not yet available for comparison, it 

is not possible at this stage to comment on bat numbers being low, medium or high for a 

wind farm development in South Africa. As prescribed by Sowler and Stoffberg (2011) 6 an 

activity index is utilized which allows the comparison of various data sets, such as data 

from different seasons, recordings from stationary monitoring equipment situated at 

different positions on site, as well as data from other wind farms where the same index is 

used. Essentially, what we have at present is an activity index which will be relative to 

another activity index (once monitoring data is available) so that it can be compared. 

No verified information at a micro-habitat level was available on bat occurrence, densities 

or migration patterns. Until such data become available, a precautionary principle will be 

used. 


Information was gathered from the following sources in order to investigate the existing situation 

that would be affected by the project: 

Sowler and Stoffberg (2011): South African Good Practice Guidelines for Surveying Bats in 

Wind Farm Developments, Endangered Wildlife Trust; 

Other existing literature, including journal papers and the recently compiled bat atlas for 

southern and central Africa (Monadjem et al. 2010); 

Project information as provided by CSIR; 

6 Sowler, S., and Stoffberg, S., 2011: The South African Good Practice Guidelines for Surveying Bats in Wind 

Farm Development, Wildlife & Energy Programme of the Endangered Wildlife Trust, South Africa


pg 8-8 


Bat occurrence data from existing, published and unpublished studies in the Vredendal 

area; 

Consultation with people resident on and in close proximity of the proposed wind farm 

development; and 

Site visits and recordings done on 20 August 2011 and 24 and 25 September on the 

proposed site and a review of surrounding habitats. 

The impact assessment methodology applied in this chapter is presented in Chapter 4 of this 

report (Approach to the EIA Phase). 


A detailed description of the study is provided in Chapter 2 of this EIA report (Project 

Description). 

The proposed development area is zoned as agriculture. At present it is mostly used for grazing 

purposes, either natural or cultivated, often through strip cultivation (see Figure 8-1). 

The natural vegetation at the proposed site consists predominantly of Namaqualand Strandveld, 

and limited Leipoldtville Sand Fynbos (see Chapter 6: Botany and Terrestrial Fauna). No 

indigenous trees or tall aloe species, which bats sometimes use as roosts, occur on the proposed 

site. 

Figure 8-1 Typical environment of the proposed site


pg 8-9 


No open water sources occur on the site, except for a few water troughs used for watering 

livestock. The vegetation occurring on the site has many flowering species that attract insects 

during certain times of the year. Targeting this resource, even though bats might not have 

sufficient local day roosts, they might use the site to forage at night. One would expect open air 

foragers to make use of this kind of foraging habitat. 

Man-made structures (e.g. houses and sheds) near the proposed project site may provide suitable 

roosting habitat for some species (e.g. Neoromicia capensis, Tadarida aegyptiaca and Taphozous 

mauritianus). A derelict house, now used as a shed, is situated approximately 1.6 km north-east of 

the north-eastern border of the property on which the development is proposed (Figure 10-2). 

Although bats were not observed at this building, some bat rests were found, which indicate that 

they do use the building from time to time, even if it is only as a night roost. No large caves or 

derelict mines are situated in close vicinity of the site, thus precluding the presence of important 

maternal colonies. 

Figure 8-2 Derelict house approximate 1.6 km north-east of the site. Note the broken window where bats 

could access the building 

The Groot Draaihoek farmstead and all the associated buildings are situated approximately 8.3 

km from the proposed site. The fields adjacent to the farmstead, and the Olifants River, are used 

for irrigated crops. There are also two open dams situated close to the farm house. It is suggested 

that the denser vegetation, the open water bodies and the proximity of the Olifants River, account 

for a high occurrence of bats around the farmstead and workers houses.


pg 8-10 


The Olifants River is situated approximately 8.8 km from the proposed site. It is expected that the 

denser vegetation along the river bed attracts clutter and clutter-edge foragers such as 

Neoromicia capensis (Cape serotine), which has a wide-spread occurrence in the region. 

8.3 COMPONENTS OF THE PROJECT WHICH COULD IMPACT ON BATS 

As described in Chapter 3 (Project Alternatives), three alternatives have been investigated for the 

purpose of this EIA: The No-Go Option, 15 × 2 MW turbine layout and a 10 × 3 MW Turbine 

Layout 

Components of the proposed wind energy facility that could impact on bats, directly through 

mortality during the operational phase, and indirectly through the loss of foraging habitat include 

the following: 

15 wind turbines with an approximate generation capacity of 2 megawatts (MW) each and 

a hub height of about 85 m; 

An alternative investigated for 10 turbines with a generation capacity of 3 MW each and a 

hub height of 94 m; 

Any structures, such as the control room, that might provide habitat which attracts bats; 

and 

Clearance of natural vegetation for electrical connections, construction and upgrading of 

access roads and creating hard standing areas. 

The potential impact on bats, related to the project, includes the following: 

8.3.1 Loss of habitat 

Some of the bat species that might occur on the proposed site are known to roost in culverts, 

aardvark burrows, rock crevices, buildings and under the bark of trees (see Table 8-1). The 

removal of natural vegetation during the construction phase of development might alter the 

foraging and roosting habitat of some species. 

Disturbance resulting from construction activities might also deter bats and result in loss of 

feeding and roosting habitat. 

Bats are habitual animals and often some species, if not all, still visit the site after development. 

New developments might even attract more bats due to the possibility of night lights which tend 

to attract more insects. Although there is no research in South Africa indicating how different 

species react to different types of development, bats do not necessarily move away after 

developments have taken place. 

8.3.2 New Roosting Habitat amongst Proposed Turbines 

The presence of buildings within and around the study area may provide additional roost sites for 

species, such as Neoromicia capensis that make use of man-made structures (e.g. roofs of 

buildings if roofs are not properly sealed) (see Table 8-1).

8.3.3 Collision and Barotrauma 


pg 8-11 


The most important aspect of the project that would affect bats adversely are the wind turbines 

themselves, and in particular, the turning blades. Bat mortality has been attributed to direct 

collisions with the turbine blades, but approximately 90% of fatalities involve internal bleeding 

consistent with barotrauma (Baerwald et al. 2008) 7. Barotrauma refers to tissue damage to the 

lungs and is caused by rapid or excessive changes in pressure (Baerwald et al. 2008). As air 

moves over the turning turbine blades an area of low pressure is created. Barotrauma occurs 

when bats experience a sharp decrease in atmospheric pressure near rotating turbine blades. 

This pressure drop causes a rapid expansion of the lungs, which is unable to be remedied through 

proper exhalation (the decompression hypothesis) (Baerwald, et al. 2008) thus resulting in 

haemorrhaged lungs and ultimately mortality. 

Bats approach turbines (rotating or not), follow or get trapped in the blade-tip vortices, and make 

regular and repeated passes close to turbines. However, it is not yet known why bats approach 

moving turbines. Various hypotheses and questions have been established and are being tested 

to inform researchers, developers and decision makers (Kunz et al. 2007) 8. These hypotheses 

include: Acoustic attraction (bats are attracted to sounds produced by wind turbines); heat 

attraction (insects are attracted to the heat produced by the nacelles and bats are pursuing the 

insects); echolocation failure (bats cannot acoustically detect moving blades or miscalculate rotor 

velocity); electromagnetic field disorientation (moving turbine blades produce a complex 

electromagnetic field, causing bats to become disoriented); and thermal inversion (thermal 

inversions create dense fog in cool valleys, concentrating insects, and bats, on ridge tops). 

8.4 BAT SPECIES POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT 

Bats can be classified into three broad functional groups on the basis of their wing morphology 

and echolocation call structure. 

Clutter foragers, such as Nycteris thebaica, are bats that have a wing design and echolocation call 

that enables them to fly slowly and manoeuvre easily within vegetated areas. Clutter-edge 

foragers include bats that fly close to or around vegetation, and it is expected that these species 

will occur around the Olifants River. Open-air foragers are bats that have a wing design and 

echolocation call adapted to flying fast and high above the vegetation. Some open-air foragers 

have been recorded foraging 500 m above ground (Monadjem et al. 2010). These species prefer 

to forage in open spaces and are most likely to be negatively impacted by the turning turbine 

blades because the blades will be within the range of their foraging altitude. Clutter foragers are 

less likely to encounter turning turbine blades because they prefer to forage close to the ground 

and amongst vegetation. Some species do not keep strictly to their feeding pattern and the author 

of this chapter has recorded, for example, Neoromicia capensis, at a height of 40 m in the Jeffrey’s 

7 Baerwald, E.F., Edworthy, J., Holder, M., Barclay, R.M.R., 2009. A large-scale mitigation experiment to reduce 

bat fatalities at wind energy farms. Journal of Wildlife Management 73: 1077-1081 

8 Kunz, T.H., Arnett, E.B., Ecrickson, W.P., Hoar, A.R., Johnson, G.D., Larkin, R.P., Strickland, D.S., 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. 

doi:http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/1540-9295(2007)5%5B315:EIOWED%5D2.0.CO;2


pg 8-12 


Bay area, even though this species is classified as a clutter-edge forager. Furthermore, bats could 

have a completely different flying pattern when they migrate. As a precaution it is therefore 

important to note that all species may be negatively impacted upon by the turning turbines at 

some stage (e.g. whilst migrating through the proposed site, or moving between foraging sites 

and open water bodies). 

The proposed turbine site falls within the distributional ranges of 9 species (see Table 8-1). This 

follows the most recent distribution maps of Friedmann & Daly (2004) 9 and Monadjem et al. 

(2010). A further four species have been listed in Table 8-1, but it is unlikely that these species’ 

distribution overlaps with the proposed site. Some of the species mentioned prefer vegetated 

areas and would rather prefer the Olifants River valley, but they might have migration routes 

crossing the proposed wind farm. 

Of the 9 species listed in Table 8-1, Miniopterus natalensis has a global conservation status of Near 

Threatened and Cistugo seabrae of Vulnerable. Rhinolophus capensis, Rhinolophus clivosus, 

Miniopterus natalensis and Cistugo seabrae have a South African conservation status of Near 

Threatened. 

A summary of bat species, distribution, feeding behaviour, preferred roosting habitat, and 

conservation status is presented in Table 8-1. Bats that have been recorded in the Vredendal 

vicinity have also been indicated in the table. Sauromys petrophilus, Rhinolophus capensis, 

Rhinolophus clivosus, Eptesicus hottentotus and Cistugo seabrae are all endemic to southern Africa. 

Four of these species have distribution ranges in the vicinity of the Vredendal region and are thus 

expected to occur in the area. 

Open air foragers that are likely to occur at the proposed site are all identified with a conservation 

status of being of Least Concern. This classification, however, does not mean that less attention 

should be given to these species. As indicated previously, bats are of ecological and economic 

importance, regardless of their Red Data Conservation status. The presence of a wind farm, and 

particularly the cumulative effect of several wind farms situated in a sensitive bat area, might not 

only be the cause of a disruption of the ecological balance, but also a reduction in the positive 

contribution bats make to the economy. 

9 Friedmann, Y., Daly, B., (Eds) 2004. Red data book of the mammals of South Africa: a conservation 

assessment. CBSG Southern Africa, Conservation Breeding Specialist Group (SSC/IUCN), Endangered Wildlife 

Trust, South Africa. Pp 722.

Family Species 

MINIOPTERIDAE Miniopterus 

natalensis 

MOLISSIDAE Sauromys 

petrophilus 

Tadarida 

aegyptiaca 

Table 8-1 Review of bat species that have distribution ranges that include the proposed Vredendal Wind Energy Site. 

Common 

Name 

Natal longfingered 

bat 

Roberts’s flatheaded 

bat 

(endemic) 

Egyptian freetailed 

bat 

NYCTERIDAE Nycteris thebaica Egyptian slitfaced 

bat 

SA 

conservation 

status 

Global 

conservation 

status (IUCN) 


pg 8-13 

Roosting habitat 

Functional 

group (type of 

forager) 

Near Threatened Near Threatened Caves Clutter-edge, 

insectivorous 

Least Concern Least Concern Narrow cracks, Open-air, 

under slabs of 

exfoliating rock. 

insectevorous 

Least Concern Least Concern Roofs of houses, Open-air, 

caves, rock crevices, 

under exfoliating 

rocks, hollow trees 

insectivorous 

Least Concern Least Concern Cave, Aardvark Clutter, 

burrows, road insectivorous, 

culverts, hollow 

trees. Night roosts 

used. 

carnivorous 


Migratory 

behaviour 

Seasonal, up 

to 150 km 

Not known 

Bats 

confirmed 

in 

Vredendal 

vicinity 

 

Not known 

Not known 

RHINOLOPHIDAE Rhinolophus Cape horseshoe Near Threatened Least Concern Caves, old mines. Clutter, 

Not known 

capensis 

bat (endemic) 

Night roosts used insectivorous 

Rhinolophus Geoffroy’s Near Threatened Least Concern Caves, old mines. Clutter, 

Not known 

clivosus 

horseshoe bat 

(endemic) 

Night roosts* used insectivorous 

Rhinolophus Darling’s 

Least Concern Least Concern Caves, mine shafts Clutter, 

Not known 

darlingi 

horseshoe bat 

and culverts 

insectivorous 

VESPERTILIONIDAE Neoromicia Cape serotine Least Concern Least Concern Roofs of houses, Clutter-edge, Not known 

capensis 

under bark of trees, 

at basis of aloes 

insectivorous 

Eptesicus Long-tailed Least Concern Least Concern Caves, rock Clutter-edge, Not known

Family Species 

Common 

Name 

hottentotus serotine 

(endemic) 

EMBALLONURIDAE Taphozous 

mauritianus 

(noted scarce in 

the these areas) 

SA 

conservation 

status 

Global 

conservation 

status (IUCN) 


pg 8-14 

Roosting habitat 

crevices, rocky 

outcrops 

Functional 

group (type of 

forager) 

insectivorous 

Species that might occur in the area, but uncertainty exists about their distribution pattern 

Mauritian tomb 

bat 

Least Concern Least Concern Rock faces, tree 

trunks, walls 

Open air, 

insectivorous, 

usually recorded 

absent from dry 

areas 

Clutter, 

insectivorous 

Clutter-edge, 

insectivorous 

RHINOLOPHIDAE Rhinolophus Darling’s 

Least Concern Least Concern Caves, mine adits, 

darlingi 

horseshoe bat 

culverts 

VESPERTILIONIDAE Cistugo seabrae Angolan wing- Near Threatened Vulnerable Possibly buildings, 

gland bat 

but no further 

(endemic) 

information 

Laephotis 

De Winton's Least Concern Least Concern Presumably 

No information 

wintoni 

long-eared bat 

crevices in rock 

faces 

available 

From: Monadjem, et al. (2010) and Friedmann and Daly (2004), conservation status according to Monadjem, et al. (2010) 


Migratory 

behaviour 

Not known 

Not known 

Not known 

Not known 

Bats 

confirmed 

in 

Vredendal 

vicinity

8.5 SITE VISITS DURING AUGUST AND SEPTEMBER 2011 


pg 8-15 


On 20 August a daytime site visit took place and the farmsteads, workers houses, sheds, and 

derelict buildings on the nearby farms, particularly Groot Draaihoek, were investigated. Bat rests 

were found in one of the sheds. Interviews were held with the residents of the farm to establish 

whether they observe bats on the farm. The farmers as well as workers indicated that there were 

not many bats, but that they are observed from time to time. The farm workers, who have 

cottages next to a large farm dam indicated that they do have bats coming into their houses once 

a year or less. From the visit of the farmsteads it is concluded that there is bat activity on the farm, 

but no mass bat movement crossing the farmsteads at specific times of the year. 

A SM2 full spectrum bat detecting recorder was used to detect bats for three to four hours after 

sunset on 20 August on the proposed wind development site. The SM2 records calls which are 

then analysed afterwards. Calls are identified by looking at a spectrogram of the bat call, in 

Songscope and/or Analook software (see Figure 8-3). As prescribed by the South African Good 

Practice Guidelines for Surveying Bats in Wind Farm Developments (Sowler and Stoffberg 

2011) 10 active recordings started at 17:50 (half an hour before sunset) and lasted for more than 

three hours after sunset (up to around 21:20). For a once-off site visit the equipment is usually 

set up for the night so as to utilise as much of the time in the veld as possible, but although the sky 

was clear when recordings started, the weather condition deteriorated and it started to rain 

around 21:30. Due to these circumstances, another stationary recording was done during the 

nights of 24 and 25 September, so as to include some Spring data in the EIA. 

Due to time constraints each turbine position could not be covered, but the veld conditions are 

quite uniform on the proposed site. Where roads were accessible, a vehicle was used to do 

transects (see Figure 8-4). The recorder was set for each recording and the vehicle was switched 

off and in total darkness while the recordings, of more than 5 minutes each, were made. 

Recordings were made 100 to 200 m from each other, depending on the terrain. Where areas 

were inaccessible, the recorder was carried while walking. During these recordings, the bat 

detecting recorder was set to record constantly. 

10 Sowler, S., and Stoffberg, S., 2011: The South African Good Practice Guidelines for Surveying Bats in Wind 

Farm Development, Wildlife & Energy Programme of the Endangered Wildlife Trust, South Africa

22.7kHz 

15ms 


pg 8-16 


ULTRASOUND WAVEFORM 

SPECTROGRAM 

POWER SPECTRUM 

Figure 8-3 A spectrogram of Tadarida aegyptiaca, recorded on site on 20 August 2011


pg 8-17 


Figure 8-4 Bat recordings at the proposed site: The pink lines indicate transects done on 20 August as well as some points of recordings in 

and around the site, indicated as bat 2 to bat 7. Bat 8 indicates static recordings on 24 and 25 September 2011 (Source: Google Image).


pg 8-18 


The bat detecting recorder was set up in a stationary position during the nights of 24 and 25 

September and recorded from half an hour before sunset up to sunrise. Figure 8-4 indicates the 

positions of the stationary recorder as Bat 8. 

Only two sets of calls for Tadarida aegyptiaca were recorded during the transects on 20 August. 

This is an open air forager and occurs commonly at proposed wind farm developments in South 

Africa. As mentioned earlier, it started to rain around 21:30. Bats often tend to be less active in 

rainy conditions, and it is suspected that the weather has influenced the bat activity during the 

first field work session. During the stationary readings on 24 and 25 September, four species 

were recorded: Neoromicia capensis, Miniopterus natalensis and Tadarida aegyptiaca and 

Eptesicus hottentotus (see Table 8-2). Note that for each species identified, an approximate set of 

calls were recorded, for example, 29 sets of calls for Neoromicia capensis, on the night of 24 - 25 

September. This means that Neoromicia capensis passed the recorder within a recordable 

distance about 15 times that particular night. Recording distance is influenced by the intensity of 

the bat call as well as the weather conditions. It must be noted that due to overlap of calls, it is not 

possible to provide an exact number of bats passing the recorder. Sets of calls are counted and 

one set of calls can flow into another set, therefore bats counted are indicated as an approximate 

amount. 

Table 8-2 Bat species recorded on the site 

APPROXIMATE BAT OCCURRENCES DURING FIELD WORK 

Time of site visit 8 August (Transect of 24-25 September 25-26 September 

three hours) 

(sunset to sunrise (sunset to sunrise 

recording) 

recording) 

Temperature in degree 

Celsius: 

14-26 25-27 14-15 

Species Approximate number of bat passes 

Miniopterus natalensis 0 1 0 

Tadarida aegyptiaca 2 29 9 

Neoromicia capensis 0 4 62 

Eptesicus hottentotus 0 2 4 

A further 8 files could not be identified. These are not corrupt, but contain bat calls that were not 

clear enough to identify. 

Neoromicia capensis and Tadarida aegyptiaca, which is dominant on site according to this data, 

have an overall status of Least Concern, but Miniopterus natalensis has a South African as well as 

global conservation status of Near Threatened. The latter has a roost site at Steenkampskraal in 

the vicinity of Van Rhynsdorp, about 23 km from Vredendal. The species in Table 8-2 correlate 

with species which have distribution ranges overlaying the proposed site, as well as one species,


pg 8-19 


namely Neoromicia capensis, that was recorded during the Environmental Impact Assessment for 

the Klawer Wind Farm (Natural Scientific Services, 2011) 11. 

According to Sowler and Stoffberg (2011) the volume of data collected from static detectors 

provides the raw data to estimate bat activity, known as a ‘bat activity index’ for the site. This is 

calculated by dividing bat passes by time. 

Activity Index = Bat passes / unit time 

Data collected are analysed to detail the total number of bat passes for each species or species 

group (depending on level of identification possible from echolocation recordings) and total bat 

activity for each survey location and also the whole site. This information is then normalised to 

sunset so that activity levels can be compared across sites and analysed within site to provide, in 

this case, relative levels of bat activity at ground level and within the proposed turbine area. The 

bat activity index for the static recordings on site is approximately 4.19. This will provide a 

starting point to compare with further monitoring data on site. 


No permits are required for removing bats, unless for the purpose of research. If bats are to be 

collected, a permit from the Province of the Western Cape, DEADP, is required to undertake 

research or collection of biological material on privately owned land. 


The impact assessment applied the standard impact assessment criteria (see Chapter 4: 

Approach to the EIA Phase), with a summary assessment provided in Table 8-3. 

8.7.1 Loss of habitat 

Although a reliable impact assessment cannot be done by visiting a site once or twice, it does 

provide a sense of the suitability of the site for bats. As mentioned in Section 8.2, the 

Namaqualand Strandveld and patches of Leipoldtville Sand Fynbos in the area where the turbines 

will be situated provides good foraging habitat for bats feeding in open air. The Vredendal area is 

world known for its flowers during springtime. This abundance of flowers attracts insects to the 

area which in turn could attract bats. Furthermore, livestock droppings attract flies which are a 


The main attractions to bats are open water bodies and foraging territory. Bats may traverse a 

wide territory when travelling to their primary feeding locations during dusk and dawn. It is 

probable that bats visiting the proposed development could roost in the derelict building, the 

11 Natural Scientific Services, 2011: Klawer Wind Farm: Bat Assessment Report, Draft Rev 3 

http://www.erm.com/G7_Renewable_Energies, downloaded on 1 October 2011


pg 8-20 


limited clumps of trees and aardvark burrows, or fly in from roosts in the surrounding areas such 

as the Groot Draaihoek farmstead. Derelict buildings, sheds and attics provide bat habitat suitable 

for daytime roosting. Except for the derelict house there are no other dwellings on Groot 

Draaihoek in close proximity to the wind farm development. Farmsteads are all more than 8 km 

away from the closest border of the proposed development. 

Little is known about daily feeding patterns of South African bats and bats residing at the 

farmstead might feed at the proposed site. This will have to be investigated during monitoring. 

Although one would expect more open-air foragers at the proposed site, as is the case with the 

number of Tadarida aegyptiaca recorded, some bats which might be classified for example as 

clutter-edge foragers, such as Neoromicia capensis, might utilise the open areas to forage or pass 

through it during daily or seasonal migration. One would expect that bats that prefer to forage 

around denser vegetation would rather feed in the orchards and natural vegetation around the 

Olifants River. Again, these species might cross the proposed site during migration. 

No nearby nightlights or open water bodies which could attract bats are situated on property 

surrounding the proposed wind farm. 

During construction, the impact on bat fauna at the proposed project site is expected to be low 

with mitigation. This impact will be due to some of the natural vegetation, and therefore foraging 

area for bats, being removed as part of site clearance. 

Construction activities themselves will generate noise, which might cause some disturbance to 

bats and the foraging habitat of some species might be affected. 

During operations, as a precautionary measure, the developer must avoid attracting bat colonies 

to the vicinity of the wind farm site. Any buildings within the study area, as well as the nearby 

uninhabited house, should be investigated for bats. If there are no bats roosting within them the 

roofs should be sealed. This will avoid bats being attracted to the area in the future. When more is 

known of the bat population one could consider roost boxes (to attract bats) to “safe” areas away 

from any turbine developments. Pre-construction monitoring should inform the potential 

placement of bat roost boxes, if necessary and the potential need to seal off any existing buildings 

within the proposed project area. Bat roost boxes could be a joint positive effort from wind farm 

developers in the vicinity of Vredendal and Klawer. 

8.7.2 Mortality during the operation of wind turbines 

The most important aspect of the project that would affect bats is the turning blades when the 

turbines are operational. Bat mortality has largely been attributed to direct collisions with 

turbine blades, but approximately 90% of fatalities involve internal bleeding consistent with 

barotrauma (Baerwald et al. 2008) (see Section 8.3.3) Open air foragers that might be present on 

site, such as Tadarida aegyptiaca and Sauromys petrophilus, are expected to be the most affected 

as they tend to forage in the vicinity of the turning turbine blades. Tadarida aegyptiaca was 

recorded at the site in August as well as September. 

As little is known about of the foraging habitat of bat species in South Africa, it cannot be ruled 

out that Miniopterus natalensis, with a conservation classification of Near Threatened, and 

Neoromicia capensis, will forage within the vicinity of the turbine blades. A number of Neoromicia 

capensis have been recorded on site and only recordings at height will provide an idea as to


pg 8-21 


whether these species forage or migrate either daily or seasonally in the vicinity of the turning 

turbine blades. 

According to the data available at present, the proposed site has an active bat presence which 

must be monitored and mitigated with care so as to avoid unnecessary mortality. 

8.7.3 Management actions to avoid or reduce negative impact 

Management actions are proposed for the following stages of the project: 

Detailed design (pre-construction); 

Construction; and 

Operational. 

8.7.3.1 Actions to inform the detailed design (pre-construction) 

a) Pre-construction monitoring 

At national and project scale, research is needed to provide more information on specific impacts 

and novel mitigation measures that might reduce impacts of wind turbines on South African 

species of bats. The South African Good Practice Guidelines for Surveying Bats in Wind Farm 

Developments (Sowler and Stoffberg, 2011) was finalised during May 2011, at which time the EIA 

for the Vredendal Wind Project had already commenced. The guidelines recommend monitoring 

of at least “7 consecutive days (during good weather conditions) per month over a period of 12 

consecutive months.” As the EIA commenced before the guidelines were published, the 

proponent was at that stage not obligated to conduct any bat monitoring. However, the 

proponent has opted to comply with the guidelines and, accordingly, a full 12 months of preconstruction 

monitoring will be completed and the monitoring report submitted to DEA before 

construction. If the monitoring data shows high bat activity, and DEA still agrees that the 

development progresses, the client and a bat specialist will investigate possible ways to minimise 

potential bat mortality. The findings of this will be incorporated into the EMP for the project and 

inform the following actions: 

potential need to seal off existing buildings within and close to the study area; 

possible need to refine turbine operational procedures (described below); 

possible need to re-look at the turbine layout; and 

potential placement of bat roost boxes in safe areas away from turbines as a trade-off. 

8.7.3.2 Actions to reduce impacts during construction 

a) Protect existing bat habitat 

Due to time constraints during field work and the fact that the area is quite stretched out crevices 

or aardvark burrows could have been overlooked. These should be approached with care during 

construction, as they might provide roosts for bats. A bat specialist should be contacted 

immediately if there is a discovery of any structure with a bat roost during construction.

) Avoid creating bat habitat close to turbines 


pg 8-22 


Care needs to be taken to completely seal off roofs of any new buildings, such as the control room, 

within the study area to prevent bats from moving in, thus making them more prone to coming 

into contact with the turbines in the surrounding area. 

The presence of structures in close vicinity of the study area may provide roost sites for species 

such as Neoromicia capensis that make use of man-made structures, particularly if roofs are not 

properly sealed. Species which use walls and/or roofs for roosting habitats need rough surfaces 

on which to grip and thus by modifying these surfaces potential bat colonies can be either 

attracted or detracted. Consideration should be given to this mitigation if many bats occur at the 

derelict farm house situated north east of the proposed site. If no bats are found to reside in the 

building closer to construction, roofs should be carefully sealed so that no bats move into it. 

c) Avoid Creating permanent water bodies and structures 

Bats visit open water bodies to drink and therefore it is recommended that no new water bodies, 

such as open dams or reservoirs, are created on the proposed site or on any nearby neighbouring 

developments. 

d) Setbacks 

No features could be established on site that particularly attracts bats, therefore no setbacks were 

recommended. If necessary, this can be re-looked at after monitoring data is available. If high bat 

occurrence is found at any particular area on the proposed development site, or neighbouring the 

site, setback areas will be reconsidered and discussed with a bat specialist. 

8.7.3.3 Actions to reduce impacts during operations 

a) Operational management of blade speeds (curtailment) 

Nights with low wind speeds are associated with increased bat mortalities as bats are most active 

under these conditions (Hoso and Hayes 2010) 12. If monitoring indicates high bat occurrence, 

mitigation measures concerning cut-in speeds of turbines (curtailment) could be applied. This 

seems to be at present the only true effective and tested mitigation (Huso and Hayes 2010). The 

theory behind curtailment is that there is a negative correlation between bat activity and wind 

speed, causing bat activity to decrease as the wind speed increases. However, implementing 

curtailment as mitigation for bat collisions would need to be evaluated against other possible 

risks, including financial feasibility prior to being undertaken and should be based on discussion 

and agreement between the project operator and bat specialists. It may also only be applicable at 

certain times of the year such as during bat migration periods. 

12 Huso, M.P. and Hayes, J.P. 2010: Effectiveness of Changing Wind Turbine Cut-in Speed to reduce Bat 

fatalities at Wind Facilities, Final Report, Bats and Wind Energy cooperative and the Pennsylvania Game 

Commission.

) Turbine size 


pg 8-23 


Barcley et al. (2007) suggests that bat fatalities increase exponentially with tower height, 

suggesting that larger turbines are reaching the airspace of migrating bats. No research has been 

conducted concerning the impact of different size turbines on bats in southern Africa. Therefore, 

there is uncertainty as to whether the minor difference (10 – 20 m) in height between the 2 MW 

and 3 MW will have any effect on bat mortality. From a bat perspective, no preferred alternative is 

provided, but if monitoring indicates that the proposed wind farm is on a bat migration route, 

wind turbine option will have to be re-looked at. 

c) Attract bats away from turbines as a trade-off for habitat destruction 

Even though there is never certainty as to whether bats will move into artificial roost boxes, this 

could always be established as a trade-off to offset potential moralities during turbine operation. 

This would require further investigation. 

8.7.3.4 Post-construction/operational monitoring 

It is recommended that operational monitoring be undertaken to determine the extent of bat 

fatalities and the species affected. Although, due to higher predation, it is not expected to be as 

successful in South Africa as in European countries, carcass searches are the standard method 

employed to determine the level of bat mortality. Carcass searches for birds and bats could be 

done by the same person in order to save costs. 

Post-construction monitoring is especially important during the periods April to May and August 

to September when bats are migrating between summer and winter roosts. Carcass searches 

should be done early in the morning to minimize the effect of scavengers (which remove 

carcasses). Carcasses should be frozen and sent to a bat specialist for identification purposes. 

This information is critical to improve the understanding of the effect of wind farms on bat 

populations in South Africa. 

8.7.3.5 Cumulative effect of various wind farms in the area 

Figure 8-5 (SAWEA, 2010) indicates the proposed wind developments in the Eastern, Northern 

and Western Cape provinces during 2010. Whilst this bat study is only focusing on the Vredendal 

Wind Energy Project it is important for decision makers to be aware that more than 50 proposed 

wind farms’ cumulative effect significantly changes the picture in terms of the negative impact on 

bats by increasing the risk of fatalities. 

The proposed Klawer Wind Project is situated about 13 km from the Vredendal Wind Energy 

Project. There are very limited bat data available for both these developments. Furthermore, no 

bat migration data are available for this area. Although it is not possible to make confident 

predictions with the limited data available, it is expected that the combined proposed wind 

developments in the area will have a cumulative impact on the bat population, at least through a 

loss of habitat.


pg 8-24 


Miniopterus natalensis is known to regularly undertake migratory flights between bushveld caves 

and highveld caves. This species has been confirmed on the proposed site and there is a 

possibility that migratory species pass through the wider Klawer/Vredendal/Vanrhynsdorp area 

during migration between roosts. Although locations of roosting caves and migration routes in 

South Africa are poorly known and not well documented, we are aware that there is a roosting 

site of Miniopterus natalensis at Steenkampskraal near Vanrhynsdorp. Information on bat 

diversity, abundance, roost sites and migratory patterns at and near the study site is not available 

and requires monitoring to obtain a better understanding. Therefore the impacts presented below 

are difficult to evaluate with any degree of confidence at this stage, and has had to be inferred 

from observations of available habitat and limited sampling effort. 

Although some of the species, mostly open-air foragers such as Tadarida aegyptiaca that are most 

likely to be negatively impacted upon, are listed as Least Concern in terms of their conservation 

status and are fairly common, numerous wind farms erected in a particular geographic area could 

contribute to a decline in population numbers through the cumulative effect of bat fatalities. The 

review of EIAs for wind farm applications in the Vredendal region should carefully consider the 

bat situation in order to avoid a localised decline in certain bat species resulting from the 

cumulative impact of these wind farms. 

Bats are habitual animals and literature suggests that they tend to return to the same area for 

feeding and roosting. It is therefore expected that bats will still visit the wind turbine sites after 

construction. At this stage though, with the limited data available, it is not possible to make 

confident predictions concerning the effect of the cumulative impact of all these proposed wind 

farms. The author of this study believes that all role-players want to avoid mass mortality of bats 

by placing several wind farms on a migratory route.

Figure 8-5 Proposed wind developments in the Eastern Province and Northern and Western Cape during 2010. (SAWEA, 2010) 


pg 8-25 

Chapter 8: Bats



Status 

(Negative 

or 

positive) 

SCENARIO: CONSTRUCTION OF WIND TURBINES 

1.1 Loss of roosts for bat 

species using crevices and 

aardvark burrows. 

1.2. Loss of roosts for bat 

species using manmade 

structures as roosts 

1.3. Construction noise 

during night time 


SCENARIO: OPERATION OF WIND TURBINES 

Displacement or exclusion 

from foraging areas and 

the loss or shifting of flight 

paths. 

Mortality due to collision 

with turning turbine 

blades or due to 

barotrauma. 


Table 8-3 Impact Assessment 

Significance 

(no 

mitigation) 


pg 8-26 


Actions 

Negative Localised Long term Medium Definite Medium Carefully investigate crevices 

and aardvark burrows before 

Negative Localised Permanent Low Probable Medium 

they are destroyed. 

Seal all existing buildings 

within the study area which 

have not got bat roosts. 

Seal off all new building 

structures within the study 

Negative Localised Permanent Low Probable Low Night time activities and 

noise on the construction site 

should be minimised. 

Negative Localised Long Term 

(life of 

project) 

Negative Localised 

and 

Regional 

(migratory 

species) 

Medium Highly 

probable 

Permanent Medium Highly 

probable 

(may be 

species 

specific) 

Medium- 

High 

Medium- 

High 

area. 

Pre-construction monitoring 

to confirm turbines not on a 

migration pathway. 

Pre-construction monitoring 

to confirm turbines not on a 

migration pathway. 

Optimise turbine rotation 

speeds to reduce bat 

fatalities, if needed, and for 

specific times of year only. 


Significance 

(with mitigation) 

Confidence 

level 

Low High 

Low High 

Low High 

Medium 

(depending on 

pre-construction 

monitoring 

results) 

Medium 

(depending on 

pre-construction 

monitoring and 

mitigation 

actions) 

Low 

Low



pg 8-27 


An irreversible (permanent) impact is one from which recovery is not possible within a 

reasonable timescale or for which there is no reasonable chance of action being taken to reverse 

it; whereas a reversible (temporary) impact is one from which spontaneous recovery is possible 

or for which effective mitigation is both possible and an enforceable commitment has been made. 

Any mortality is non-reversible, but the irreversible impact of the Vredendal Wind Energy 

Project on a bat species as a whole needs to be taken into account. The highest numbers of bat 

passes recorded were calls similar to Tadarida aegyptiaca and Neoromicia capensis which both 

have a South African conservation status as well as a global conservation status of Least 

Concern. Other species recorded on site are common and occur widespread in the region, 

except for Miniopterus natalensis, which has a conservation status of Near Threatened in SA as 

well as globally. Moderate reversible impacts, after the project has reached the end of its life, 

is expected, if migration routes crossing the site are ruled out. 

The cumulative effect of several wind farms in the vicinity of Klawer and Vredendal is 

expected to have an effect on at least the abundance of Tadarida aegyptiaca and Neoromicia 

Capensis in the area due to the fact that these bats have been recorded on the Vredendal Wind 

Energy Project as well as other proposed wind energy developments in the close vicinity of 

Vredendal. If all the wind farms go ahead as proposed at present, they could together have a 

lower cumulative reversibility of impacts. 

Species visiting the site seem to be individual bats feeding at the site. The roost site at 

Steenkampskraal in the vicinity of Van Rhynsdorp, about 23 km from Vredendal , is situated 

too far from the proposed wind farm to be used during daily feeding, but again migration 

routes need to be verified during 12 months of monitoring. Neoromicia capensis, Tadarida 

aegyptiaca and Eptesicus hottentotus are common species found widespread in the region. It is 

therefore expected that, with the data available up to now, that there will be a low 

irreplaceability of the resource. 


The main potential impacts of the proposed Vredendal Wind Energy Project on bats are a loss of 

foraging habitat and mortality during the operational phase of the project, which is attributed 

predominantly to barotrauma (i.e. effect of a change in air pressure caused by the rotation of the 

turbines on the internal organs of the bats, such as lungs), as well as due to direct collisions with 

turbine blades. Bats are creatures of habit, and their ability to adapt to these changes is uncertain. 

Therefore, bats will most probably visit the site after the development of the wind farm. 

The site visit conducted on 20 August and 24 and 25 September 2011 as part of this specialist 

study identified four bat species present on site. Several of the species’ calls are similar to that of 

Tadarida aegyptiaca, an open air forager. It is expected that open air foragers will be mostly 

impacted upon during the operational period of the turbines. The highest number of passes was 

recorded of Neoromicia capensis, which occur wide spread in southern Africa, and which have 

been recorded foraging at the height of the proposed turbines blades. Bats change their flying 

patterns when they migrate. Consequently, those species which usually forage at a lower 

elevation might fly in the vicinity of the turbine blades when migrating or forage in these areas.


pg 8-28 


Thus the need to investigate the area for a 12 month period during all four seasons, and at height, 

is important. The proponent has already agreed to monitoring which will commence shortly. 

No large caves or maternal colonies were identified in the vicinity of the proposed turbine sites. 

Based on existing available information and the findings of the site visit, the potential impact of 

the wind turbines on bats at the proposed Vredendal Wind Energy Project is anticipated to be of 

medium significance with mitigation, and medium – high without mitigation. Confidence levels 

are low however, as only three nights of monitoring data having been incorporated into the study. 

After data from additional monitoring have been incorporated in the assessment, the confidence 

in predictions will be higher. A condition of this assessment is that pre-construction monitoring 

be conducted, in particular to verify that the turbines will not be situated in any important 

seasonal migration paths for bats. 




increase exponentially with tower height, suggesting that larger turbines are reaching the 

airspace of migrating bats. At present no recordings at height have been incorporated in the study 

as no masts are installed on site. Furthermore, no studies concerning the impact of different sizes 

of wind turbines on southern African bat species are available. Therefore, there is uncertainty as 

to whether the minor difference (10 – 20 m) in height between the 2 MW and 3 MW will have any 

effect on bat mortality. From a bat perspective, no preferred alternative is provided, but if 

monitoring indicates that the proposed wind farm is on a bat migration route, wind turbine 

option will have to be re-looked at. 

It is further recommended that post-construction monitoring be undertaken while the turbines 

are in operation to determine the extent of bat fatalities and the species affected.


pg 8-29 


SECTION B: PROPOSAL FOR BAT PRE- 

CONSTRUCTION SURVEY AND POST- 

CONSTRUCTION MONITORING 

Wind-generated electricity is renewable and generally considered environmentally clean, 

compared with other energy sources, but is not environmentally neutral (Bats and Wind Energy 

Coorperative, 2011). Bat fatalities have been recorded at wind facilities worldwide, including 

Australia (Hall and Richards 1972), North America (e.g., Johnson 2005, Kunz et al. 2007, Arnett et 

al. 2008), and Europe (Bach and Rahmel 2004, Dürr and Bach 2004, Brinkman 2006). Therefore 

bat monitoring became crucial at all wind farms, particularly in South Africa, where little is known 

about bats and their daily and seasonal migration patterns. The main impacts on bats are: 

The direct loss of roosting, flight paths and foraging habitat. 

Bat mortality through collisions with turbines or barotrauma from turning turbine blades. 

Acoustic recording of the echolocation calls of bats will be used to determine the seasonal and 

diurnal activity patterns of bats at the proposed Vredendal Wind Energy Project. Although 

international guidelines and standards are taken into account, monitoring in South Africa is 

mainly guided by the South African Good Practice Guidelines for Surveying Bats in Wind Farm 

Developments (Sowler and Stoffberg, 2011). According to this document 12 months of bat 

monitoring should take place so as to establish the impact of the wind farm on the bat population. 

8.10 EXTERNAL FACTORS 

Weather conditions 

General guidance for carrying out manual bat surveys (i.e. walked transects) suggests that they 

only take place in optimum weather conditions in order to maximise the likelihood of recording 

bats if they use the site being surveyed. It is advised to avoid heavy rain, strong winds and low 

temperatures, if possible, when bats are least likely to fly in these conditions. 

Measuring wind speed 

Whenever possible, the wind speed data that is gathered over the entire year should be compared 

with the bat data (i.e. bat activity) of the site, particularly data collected from static detectors. This 

information could be used first to help and inform the impact of the wind farm on bats, and 

potentially at a later date to inform mitigation if it is required. Research in North America has 

indicated that low-wind nights are associated with increased bat mortality at operational wind 

farms (Arnett et al. 2008) and that altering cut-in speeds for when turbines start turning can 

reduce bat mortality (Baerwald et al. 2009). As this will have an influence on the economics of the 

wind farm, it will only be proposed after mitigation if a significant bat occurrence if found on the 

proposed site.

8.11 TIMING OF MONITORING 


pg 8-30 


Both manual and static surveys will commence 30 minutes before sunset to ensure that species of 

bat that emerge early in the evening, are included within the survey period. 

8.12 ESTIMATION OF BAT ACTIVITY 

The volume of data collected from static detectors provides the raw data to estimate bat activity, 

known as a ‘bat activity index’ for the site. This is calculated by dividing bat passes by time. 

Activity Index = Bat passes / unit time 

Data collected should be analysed to detail the total number of bat passes for each species or 

species group (depending on level of identification possible from echolocation recordings) and 

total bat activity for each survey location and also the whole site. This information should also be 

normalised to sunset so that activity levels can be compared across sites and analysed within site 

to provide: 

An indication of seasonal variation in species activity and composition; 

Relative levels of bat activity at ground level and within the proposed turbine swept path 

area; this can be done by comparing data collected on bat activity at height with groundlevel 

data; and 

Variations in activity and species composition at different wind speeds; this can be used 

to inform any future mitigation. 

8.13 KEY OUTCOMES FOR IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

The following key outcomes are expected of the preconstruction monitoring: 

Updated species list: Bat species list that have distribution ranges in the proposed 

development mentioned in the EIA Report will be updated and/or confirmed. 

Effect on resource or community: Typical impacts that could be expected from the 

development will be listed as well as the expected impacts on bats that might occur in the 

area. A full description of predicted impacts (direct and indirect) will be provided. 

Possible cumulative impacts will be discussed. 

Gaps in baseline data: Gaps in baseline data will be highlighted and discussed. An 

indication of the confidence levels will be given. The best available data sources will be 

used to predict the impacts, and people that might have local knowledge of the bat 

situation will be interviewed. 

Assessment of impacts: The potential impact on the bats will be assessed, over a period of 

a year if all the monitoring data is availalble, and evaluated according to the magnitude, 

spatial scale, timing, duration, reversibility, probability and significance (or any other


pg 8-31 


criteria required). Therefore, the impact assessment table in the Environmental Impact 

Assessment Report will be updated. 

Mitigation measures: Practical mitigation measures will be recommended and discussed, 

where and if necessary. 

Residual impacts after mitigation: An impact summary table will be provided, discussing 

expected impacts before and after mitigation. 

Mapping of sensitive areas: Bat sensitive areas will be identified, and if necessary, buffer 

zones will be mapped and/or described. 

8.14 AIM OF BAT MONITORING 

The overall aim of monitoring at the proposed wind farm site is to identify and assess the 

potential impacts that the proposed development will have on the species of bats present on and 

around the proposed site. Due to the fact that the wind project commenced before the release of 

the bat protocol, bat monitoring will only start after the release of the Draft Impact Assessment 

Report. The ideal is though that 12 months of monitoring is included in the Final EIA Report, 

which will not be possible with this development. With the data available, proposals for 

appropriate mitigation could still be presented, but these will need to be refined after monitoring 

has been completed. 

8.15 STUDY APPROACH 

The proposed study approach is based on the South African Guidelines as cited above. The 

following key issues need to be addressed during monitoring: 

Assemblage of species using the site. 

Relative frequency of use by different species throughout the year. 

Location and time of activity, which must include turbine locations where known. 

Locations of roosts within and close to the site. 

Details on how the surveys have been designed to determine presence of rarer species. 

Type of use of the site by bats - at and away from turbine locations, for example foraging. 

8.16 SCOPING FOR MONITORING 

A Scoping exercise has been completed by visiting the site during August and September for EIA 

purposes. The data used for establishing the monitoring protocol, has therefore also been 

incorporated into the EIA. This information was gathered through data searches, desktop studies, 

site walkovers during daytime, transects recording echolocation during night-time, investigating 

neighbouring areas and interviewing landowners and farm workers. 

The presence species of conservation concern and the absence of large roosts on site were 

established from the outset.

Activity Surveys - Manual surveys 

A Pre-construction Monitoring 


pg 8-32 


Manual activity surveys, such as walked or driven transects, are necessary to gain an 

understanding of the bat species using the site and the features on site that the bats are using. 

They can also be used to identify key features, commuting routes and overall activity within and 

surrounding the site. These surveys should always be complimented by static monitoring. The 

frequency of manual activity surveys will be discussed with the client. At least one per month, or 

one every two months is suggested. 

Activity Surveys - Static monitoring at ground level 

Manual bat activity surveys only provide a snapshot of activity on a site and therefore automated 

bat detector systems (remote acoustic monitoring) should be used to assess bat activity at the 

proposed wind farm site. It is suggested that AnabatTM SD2 or the SM2 BAT, or updated versions 

of these, are used. 

Static detectors provide an invaluable volume of data on the bats present on the site and are 

essential in order to gauge the relative importance of features and locations, and potential 

migratory routes and how this may change throughout the year. At least two to three bat 

detecting recorders are suggested on site, as the recorders need to be situated 1.5 km to 2 km 

from each other. 

Static monitoring should occur for the minimum of a 12 consecutive month period. Static 

detectors should be left in position for a minimum of 7 consecutive nights, during each month 

when weather conditions are favourable. Timers on static detectors, determining the start and 

end times of the survey, should be regularly adjusted throughout the year to take into account the 

changing times of sunset. Where possible, static monitoring should coincide with manual 

transects to allow comparison between ground-level and at-height bat activity patterns across the 

proposed site. 

Activity Surveys - Static monitoring at height 

In addition to the ground-level monitoring, static survey detectors (acoustic monitoring) should 

also be installed at height with the aim of identifying the amount of bat activity occurring in 

habitat over the open ground, and in the rotor swept area. It is strongly recommended that the 

static detector microphones should be mounted at height within swept path area of rotor blades. 

The location of the detector microphones requires technical information regarding the type, 

height and design of the wind turbines to be erected at each location. 

Survey of possible known roost 

Little is known about daily migration of South African bats. If regular bat occurrence on site is 

found to be high during monitoring, a more intensive search for possible bat roosts in the area 

need to be done.

B Post-construction Monitoring 


pg 8-33 


In the post-construction programme, this information should be supplemented with carcass 

searches. Carcass searches are the most direct way of estimating the number of collisions and 

hence the likely impact on species of conservation importance. 

The following approach is proposed as a MINIMUM for the potential site which forms the subject 

of this proposal: 

The ECO, together with the client, should employ someone to do carcass searches. 

Relevant data on carcass searches in SA should be collected at the time of the 

commencement of the post-construction monitoring, as research is at present in progress 

in SA. 

Results will be recorded in two reports, one at the end of the pre-construction survey 

period, and a second report at the end of the first year of the post construction 

monitoring. 

If the results of the pre-construction monitoring indicates a low risk situation both in 

terms of collision and displacement, the need for post-construction monitoring will be reevaluated.


pg 9-1 

Chapter 9: Archaeology 

9 ARCHAEOLOGY 9-3 

SUMMARY 9-3 



9.1.2 Constraints and limitations 9-4 

9.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT 14 

9.3 IDENTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL RISKS 14 

9.4 PERMIT REQUIREMENTS 14 

9.5 RESULTS OF THE DESK TOP STUDY 14 

9.6 RESULTS OF THE STUDY 15 

9.6.1 Significance of the archaeological remains 16 

9.6.2 Proposed alternative wind energy farm 9-15 

9.7 ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS 9-15 


9.9 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 9-16


pg 9-2 


Table 9-1 Waypoints and description of archaeological finds 9-15 

Table 9-2 The proposed Vredendal Wind Energy Farm: Summary of impacts to archaeological 9-16 

Figure 9-1 The proposed iNca Wind Energy Farm: Turbine layout for 15 × 2 MW turbines and 

associated infrastructure 9-5 

Figure 9-2 Waypoints of archaeological finds & track paths. Red line indicates the approximate 

boundary of the footprint area for the turbine layout 9-6 

Figure 9-3 Stone tools documented during the study. Scale is in cm 16

9 ARCHAEOLOGY 

SUMMARY 


pg 9-3 


This chapter has been adapted from an Archaeological Impact Assessment (AIA) conducted by 

Jonathan Kaplan from the Agency for Cultural Resource Management as part of the EIA for the 

proposed Vredendal Wind Energy Project. 

During the fieldwork conducted in October 2011 one Later Stone Age (vein) quartz flake, one quartz 

chunk and one Middle Stone Age quartzite flake ware documented for the footprint area of the 

proposed wind energy farm. One Middle Stone Age quartzite flake and two Later Stone Age silcrete 

flakes (including one retouched flake) were documented for the access road (to be upgraded), which 

is situated alongside the proposed powerline servitude. No archaeological remains were found in the 

proposed powerline servitude. 


having low significance and baseline study has shown that the proposed development of the iNca 

Vredendal Wind Energy Farm will not have an impact of great significance on the archaeological 

heritage. 


landscape. 

It has been concluded that no archaeological mitigation is required; however, it is recommended 

that the proposed contractor’s site, once this has been identified, must be inspected for 

archaeological remains once it has been identified. 


The aim of the study is to locate and map archaeological sites that may be impacted by the 

planning, construction and implementation of the proposed project wind energy facility on the 

farm Groot Draaihoek, to assess the significance of the potential impacts and to propose 

measures to mitigate the impacts. 

The Archaeological Heritage Impact Assessment forms part of this Environmental Impact 

Assessment (EIA). A desktop Palaeontological Heritage Impact Assessment, undertaken by 

Almond (2011) (see Chapter 10 of this report) indicates that the overall palaeontological 

sensitivity within the study region is low to very low. 

The infrastructure associated with the proposed iNca Vredendal Wind Energy Farm includes the 

following: 

Fifteen turbines with a nacelle height of approximately 85 m and a generation capacity of 

2 MW each or, alternatively, ten turbines with a nacelle height of approximately 94 m and 

a generation capacity of 3 MW each. The turbine towers are to be supported on


pg 9-4 


reinforced concrete foundations of approximately 18m x 18m x 4 m deep. Gravel surface 

hard standing areas (up to 40 m x 40 m) adjacent to each turbine will be used by cranes 

during construction and retained for maintenance use. 

A single control room measuring 10 x 10 m. 

Underground cables between turbines. 

Internal access roads (including turning circles) between the turbines. Most of the road 

network will be established by upgrading existing access roads. 

Two, approximately 8 km overhead powerlines will connect the facility to the existing 66 

kV substation located on the property 


The approach followed for the archaeological study entailed the following: 

A one-day survey of the proposed wind energy farm that included an assessment of the 

location sites of the 15 wind turbines, and an assessment of the permanent wind 

measuring mast. 

An assessment of the proposed access road that links the development footprint area 

with theR363 (existing road to be upgraded). 

An assessment of the proposed 8 km long overhead transmission line that will link to the 

Eskom Vredendal substation. 

The baseline study was conducted on 20 October, 2011. GPS locations of the 15 wind turbines 

were pre-loaded into a Garmin Oregon 300 hand held GPS unit, allowing for the location sites to 

be targeted in the field. A GPS track path of the archaeological survey was created (refer to Figure 

9-2). 

9.1.2 Constraints and limitations 

In terms of access and archaeological visibility, there were no constraints or limitations 

associated with the proposed study. 

It must be noted, however, that most of the GPS locations for the proposed wind turbines 

provided by the lead environmental consultant did not correspond with the layout of the turbines 

sites that are indicated in Figure 9-1. It later transpired that the GPS co-ordinates were incorrect. 

However, the archaeologist believes that this has not affected the overall findings of the study, as 

the entire footprint area comprises cultivated lands. It must also be stressed that the survey 

covered a large portion of the surrounding landscape and the archaeologist got a `good feel’ of the 

overall receiving environment. Consequently, it is argued that a follow-up survey (of the 

proposed turbine layout) will not produce any new or significant results.

Study site 

Figure 9-1 The proposed iNca Wind Energy Farm: Turbine layout for 15 × 2 MW turbines and associated infrastructure 


pg 9-5 


Internal 

access r 

Ro


pg 9-6 


Figure 9-2 Waypoints of archaeological finds & track paths. Red line indicates the approximate boundary of the footprint area for the turbine layout 

N

9.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT 


pg 14 


The proposed site for the iNca wind energy farm is located about 3 kms south of Vredendal on the 

west of the main road (R363). The footprint area for the turbines is located on the far western side of 

the farm, about 8 kms from the urban edge. 

The receiving environment comprises agricultural land (mainly dryland wheat) that is classified as 

irreversibly transformed. A permanent wind measuring mast was erected on the property in 

December 2010. 

Current methods of farming on the property comprise wide strips of farmland interspersed with 

strips of natural (but disturbed) veld. There are no significant landscape features, or any streams, 

water courses, or pans within the footprint area. Surrounding land use is extensive dryland wheat 

and livestock grazing. 

The proposed access road from the R363 linking the proposed turbine layout area is an existing farm 

road that will be upgraded to accommodate the heavy vehicles required for the construction and 

operational phases of the project. A very small section of a new road will also need to be constructed 

(refer to Figure 9-1.) 

The proposed 8 km overhead powerline will be located alongside the proposed access road, which is 

narrow strip of natural veld that borders agricultural land. 

9.3 IDENTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL RISKS 

Based on the findings of the study, including the desk top study, there do not appear to be any 

archaeological risks associated with the proposed iNca Vredendal Wind Energy Farm. 


The National Heritage Resources Act (Act No. 25 of 1999) makes provision for a compulsory 

Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) when an area exceeding 5 000 m² is being developed. This is to 

determine if the area contains heritage sites and to take the necessary steps to ensure that they are 

not damaged or destroyed during development. 

Section 38 (1) (a) of the Act also indicates that any person constructing a powerline, pipeline or 

road, or similar linear development or barrier exceeding 300 m in length is required to notify the 

responsible heritage resources authority, who will in turn advise whether an impact assessment 

report is needed before development can take place. 

9.5 RESULTS OF THE DESK TOP STUDY 

Vredendal is an intensively cultivated area, with the Olifants River literally running though the town, 

where it discharges into the Atlantic Ocean at Papendorp about 40 km to the west. The agricultural 

activity alongside the river is dominated by vineyards, but large areas have also been planted with 

tomatoes. On the hilly slopes and foothills further to the south, central pivots (potatoes), dryland 

wheat and livestock feed dominate the rural agricultural landscape. Indications are that the


pg 15 


archaeological landscape has been quite severely compromised by agricultural activities and 

historical land use patterns. 

Several studies that have been done inside the Vredendal urban edge indicate that mainly single and 

isolated archaeological occurrences have been documented. A few Middle Stone Age (MSA) 

implements were first documented in the agricultural lands alongside the R363 as one enters 

Vredendal from the N7 (Kaplan 2008a) 1, while several other studies (a proposed housing 

development and a proposed shopping centre) did not locate a single artefact in agricultural lands 

alongside the main road (Kaplan 2008b 2, c 3). Coincidentally, these properties border the iNca wind 

farm study area. 

Later Stone Age (LSA) flakes and chunks have been documented near to a small wetland in the 

Matzikama Eco-Park in Vredendal North (Kaplan 2009) 4. These finds are not unusual as wetland 

areas would have been targeted by LSA people in the past as it provided access to fresh water, birds 

and terrestrial animals. 

North of Vredendal, the landscape is dominated by the flatlands of the Knersvlakte, and it is here that 

archaeological visibility is much higher. Orton (2011) 5 has documented dispersed scatters of mainly 

LSA (and some MSA) implements mostly associated with dry pans and heuweltjies during a study 

for a proposed landfill site north of Vredendal. 

Orton (pers. comm.) has also undertaken extensive fieldwork in the Knersvlakte, as part of his 

research for his PhD, and has mapped scatters of both Middle and Later Stone Age material 

alongside the Sout and Varsche River. He and others have also excavated MSA, and LSA rock shelters 

with contact period deposits on the Varsche River. His work has shown that Middle and Later Stone 

Age archaeological remains are strongly concentrated around the floodplains of the many drainage 

channels that occur in the surrounding landscape, and are usually revealed in eroding and deflated 

areas, while Early Stone Age occurrences tend to be found among the (older) river gravel terraces 

further away. 

9.6 RESULTS OF THE STUDY 

Only six stone implements were documented during the baseline study for the proposed iNca 

Vredendal Wind Energy Farm (refer to 

Table 9-1 and Figure 9-2). These were all single, isolated occurrences. 

1 Kaplan, 2008a. Archaeological Impact Assessment proposed shopping centre on Erf 383 Vredendal Western 

Cape. Report prepared for EnviroAfrica. ACRM Riebeek West 

2 Kaplan, 2008b. Archaeological Impact Assessment Remainder Portion of Erf 383 Vredendal Western Cape. 

Report prepared for EnviroAfrica. ACRM Riebeek West 

3 Kaplan, 2008c. Archaeological Impact Assessment Portion of Portion116 Farm 292 Vredendal. Report 

prepared for EnviroAfrica. ACRM Riebeek West 

4 Kaplan, J. 2009. Archaeological Impact Assessment of the proposed Vredendal North Waste Water Treatment 

Works. Report prepared for EnviroAfrica. ACRM Riebeek West 

5 Orton, J. 2011. Environmental Impact Assessment Identification of a regional land fill site and permit 

application for the Northern West Coast District Municipality. Heritage. Report prepared for Anel Blignaut 

Environmental Consultants. Archaeology Contracts Office, Department of Archaeology, University of Cape 

Town.


pg 16 


One (vein) quartz flake, one quartz chunk and one MSA rough quartzite flake with a prepared 

platform was found in the footprint area of the proposed wind turbines. 

Three stone implements including one broken MSA quartzite flake, and two LSA silcrete flakes, 

including one retouched piece were found in the proposed access road, directly alongside the 

powerline servitude (refer to Figure 9-3). 

9.6.1 Significance of the archaeological remains 


having low significance. 

MSA quartzite 

Quartzite 

Silcrete 

Silcrete 

retouched 

Figure 9-3 Stone tools documented during the study. Scale is in cm

Table 9-1 Waypoints and description of archaeological finds 


pg 9-15 


Name of farm Lat/long Description of finds 

Farm Groot Draaihoek Remainder of 

Erf 293 and Remainder Portion 1, 7 

and 8, Vredendal District 

S3145.254 E18 25.897 LSA quartz flake 

S3145.123 E18 26.193 Quartz chunk 

S3144.307 E18 25.579 MSA quartzite flake with prepared 

platform 

S3143.105 E18 27.616 MSA quartzite flake – broken 

S3142.451 E18 28.337 LSA Silcrete flake 

S3142.130 E18 28.692 LSA retouched silcrete flake 

9.6.2 Proposed alternative wind energy farm 

The proposed alternative for the development of the wind energy facility, which would include up to 

10 wind turbines, each with a generation capacity of 3 MW, will not have any significant impact on 

the archaeological heritage. 

9.7 ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS 

The study has shown that the extent of the impacts of the proposed iNca Vredendal Wind Energy 

Farm on the archaeological landscape is likely to low (negative) (refer to Table 9-2). 

There is the possibility of encountering archaeological remains during excavation for the turbine 

platforms and underground cables, for example, but this is also likely to be very low impact 

significance. A surface examination of the impacted area around the permanent wind measuring 

mast revealed that a little sub surface stone (mainly weathered sandstone and some limestone) 

occurs. 

It is maintained that the proposed development of the Vredendal Wind Energy Farm will not have an 

impact of great significance on potential archaeological remains that might be encountered during 

the construction phase of the proposed project.

Nature of the 

Impact 

Destruction 

or 

disturbance of 

archaeological 

sites 


pg 9-16 


Table 9-2 The proposed Vredendal Wind Energy Farm: Summary of impacts to archaeological 

Status Extent Duration Intensity Probability 

Significance 

Without 

mitigation 

Mitigation 

Negative Local Permanent Low Improbable Low No 

mitigation 

is required 


Significance 

with Confidence 

mitigation 

Low High 

There will be no loss to the archaeological heritage and the reversibility of impact is rated as being 

High. The archaeological study has shown that the irreplaceability of resource loss caused by the 

impact of the proposed project is rated as being Low (i.e. replaceable). 

9.9 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

The proposed facility will mainly be located in a habitat dominated by cultivated agricultural lands, 

and disturbed vegetation. Only six, isolated stone implements were located during the baseline study 

of the proposed iNca Wind Energy Farm near Vredendal. Indications are that the proposed site for 

the wind energy farm is not a sensitive archaeological landscape and that both alternatives for the 

proposed development will have a very low impact on the pre-colonial archaeological heritage. The 

no-go option will obviously result in maintenance of the status quo. 

There is the possibility of encountering archaeological some remains during excavation for the 

turbine platforms and underground cables, but this is likely to be very low. Should any unmarked 

human remains be uncovered, or exposed, these must immediately be reported to the archaeologist 

or to Heritage Western Cape (Att: Ms Jenna Lavin or Mr Justin Bradfield 021 483 9685). 

With regard to the proposed iNca Vredendal Wind Energy Farm, the following recommendations are 

made (in context of archaeological implications): 

The project should be allowed to proceed; 

No archaeological mitigation is requited; and 

The proposed contractor’s site must be inspected for archaeological remains, once this 

has been identified.


pg 10-1 

Chapter 10:Palaeontology 

10. PALAEONTOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 10-2 

Table 10-1 Summary of palaeontological impact 10-3 

Figure 10-1 Extract from 1: 250 000 geology sheet 3118 Calvinia showing the geology of the study area 

on the south side of the Olifants River to the southwest of Vredendal, Western Cape Province 

(red polygon). 10-4


pg 10-2 


10. PALAEONTOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

This chapter has been adapted from a palaeontological desktop study of the project area 

conducted by Dr John Almond. The geology of the study site is shown in the 1: 250 000 geological 

map 3118 Calvinia (Council for Geoscience, Pretoria) (Figure 10-1). Apart from scattered small 



aeolian sands and various soils. 

The Peninsula Formation is largely unfossiliferous, although a limited range of trace 

fossils have been recorded from heterolithic (interbedded sandstone and mudrock) 

intervals within the succession (De Beer et al. 2002 1, Almond 2008b 2). These 

heterolithic beds are unlikely to be represented at outcrops within the study site since 

they are generally recessive weathering. 

The Late Caenozoic “drift” deposits in the study area, described by De Beer et al. 

(2002), are likewise of low palaeontological sensitivity. The only fossils mentioned by 

these authors are calcretised subfossil termitaria (termite mounds or heuweltjies) that 

may be several thousand years old and reflect past, more pluvial climatic episodes. 

Recent carbon dating gives dates in the range of 30-40 000 years BP for fossil termitaria 

in the West Coast region, i.e. preceding the last glacial maximum (Midgley et al. 2002 3, 

Potts et al. 2009 4 and refs. therein). The sparse fossil record of unconsolidated 

Quaternary wind-blown sands in southern Africa also includes calcretized rhizoliths (root 

casts), invertebrate burrows, ostrich egg shells (Struthio) and shells of land snails (e.g. 

Trigonephrus) (Partridge et al. 2006 5, Almond 2008a 6, Almond & Pether 2008 7). Other 

fossil groups such as freshwater bivalves and gastropods (e.g. Corbula, Unio) and snails, 

ostracods (seed shrimps), charophytes (stonewort algae), diatoms (microscopic algae 

within siliceous shells) and stromatolites (laminated microbial limestones) are associated 

1 De Beer, C.H., Gresse, P.G., Theron, J.N. & Almond, J.E. 2002. The geology of the Calvinia area. Explanation 

to 1: 250 000 geology Sheet 3118 Calvinia, 92 pp. Council for Geoscience, Pretoria. 

2 Almond, J.E. 2008b. Palaeozoic fossil record of the Clanwilliam sheet area (1: 250 000 geological sheet 3218). 

Unpublished report for the Council for Gesocience, Pretoria, 49 pp. 

3 Midgley J.J.,Harris C., Hesse, H. & Swift, A. 2002. Heuweltjie age and vegetation change based on δ13C and 

14C analyses. South African Journal of Science 98, 202-204. 

4 Potts, A.J., Midgley, J.J. & Harris, C. 2009. Stable isotope and 14 C study of biogenic calcrete in a termite 

mound, Western Cape, South Africa, and its palaeoenvironmental significance. Quaternary Research 72, 258- 

264. 

5 Partridge, T.C., Botha, G.A. & Haddon, I.G. 2006. Cenozoic deposits of the interior. In: Johnson, M.R., 

Anhaeusser, C.R. & Thomas, R.J. (Eds.) The geology of South Africa, pp. 585-604. Geological Society of South 

Africa, Marshalltown. 

6 Almond, J.E. 2008a. Fossil record of the Loeriesfontein sheet area (1: 250 000 geological sheet 3018). 

Unpublished report for the Council for Geoscience, Pretoria, 32 pp. 

7 Almond, J.E. & Pether, J. 2008. Palaeontological heritage of the Northern Cape. Interim SAHRA technical 

report, 124 pp. Natura Viva cc., Cape Town.

Nature of the 

Impact 

Destruction or 

disturbance of 

palaeontological 

sites 


pg 10-3 


with local watercourses and pans. Microfossils such as diatoms may be blown by wind 

into nearby dune sands. Underlying calcretes might also contain trace fossils such as 

rhizoliths, termite and other insect burrows, or even mammalian trackways. 

Alluvial deposits of the Olifants River are not mapped within the study area but they 

may be buried beneath a mantle of younger superficial deposits here. Mammalian bones, 

teeth and horn cores (also tortoise remains, and fish, amphibian or even crocodiles in 

wetter depositional settings) may be occasionally expected, notably in association with 

older alluvial gravels (cf Almond 2008a). The Tertiary Olifants River Gravels at Vredendal 

have yielded a range of silicified woods of tropical angiosperms that are referred to the 

Miocene Epoch (Bamford 1999) 8. The younger (Quaternary) fluvial sands and gravels 

that might be found within the proposed development area are unlikely to contain any 

substantial fossil or subfossil remains. 


sediments mapped within the study region is low to very low (Almond & Pether 2008). For this 

reason, no further palaeontological studies were recommended for this development. 

Should substantial fossil remains (e.g. fossil vertebrate remains or petrified woods in subsurface 

alluvial gravels, calcretized termitaria) be exposed during construction, however, the ECO should 

safeguard these, preferably in situ, and alert SAHRA as soon as possible so that appropriate action 

(e.g. recording, sampling or collection) can be taken by a professional palaeontologist. 

Table 10-1 Summary of palaeontological impact 


Significance 

Without 

mitigation 

Mitigation 


mitigation 

is required 

Significance 


mitigation 

Low High 

8 Bamford, M. 1999. Tertiary fossil woods from Vredendal, southwestern Cape, South Africa. Annalen 

Economische Wetenschappen – Koninklijk Museum voor Midden-Afrika 25, 149-153.


pg 10-4 


Figure 10-1 Extract from 1: 250 000 geology sheet 3118 Calvinia showing the geology of the study 

area on the south side of the Olifants River to the southwest of Vredendal, Western Cape Province 

(red polygon). 

Op = Peninsula Formation (Table Mountain Group) 

Q-r1 = white to pale red sandy soil 

c-s = red aeolian sand 

c-r1 = loam and sandy soil

CSIR – February2012 

pg 11-1 

Chapter 11: Visual 

11. VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 11-4 

SUMMARY 11-4 



11.1.2 Constraints and limitations 11-6 

11.1.3 Information Sources 11-6 

11.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 11-7 

11.2.1 Construction phase: 11-7 

11.2.2 Operational phase 11-7 

11.2.3 Layout Alternatives 11-8 


11.3.1 Landscape Types 11-8 

11.3.2 Landscape Features 11-10 

11.3.3 Scenic Resources 11-11 

11.3.4 Landscape Sensitivity 11-13 

11.3.5 Views & View Corridors 11-14 

11.3.6 Visual Absorption Capacity 11-17 

11.4 IDENTIFICATION OF VISUAL ISSUES 11-18 

11.4.1 View Catchment 11-18 

11.4.2 Viewshed Analysis 11-19 

11-20 

11.4.3 Visibility of the Proposed Development to Receptors 11-21 

11.4.4 Visual Exposure 11-26 

11.4.5 Visual Intrusion 11-28 


11.6 ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS AND IDENTIFICATION OF MANAGEMENT ACTIONS11-34 

11.6.1 Visual Assessment Criteria 11-34 

11.6.1.1 Visual Intrusion 11-34 

11.6.1.2 Visual Impact Significance 11-34


pg 11-2 


11.6.2 Assessment of Visual Impacts 11-35 

11.6.2.1 Change in Landscape Character from the height and scale of turbines and related 

infrastructure 11-35 

11.6.2.2 Visibility of the turbines (and related infrastructure) for sensitive receptors 11-35 

11.6.2.3 Shadow Flicker 11-36 

11.6.2.4 Impact of light pollution from night lighting 11-36 

11.6.2.5 Visual impact of scarring from clearing vegetation for road and turbine related 

infrastructure 11-37 

11.6.2.6 Visual impact of construction equipment and facilities 11-37 

11.6.2.7 Cumulative Impacts 11-37 

11.6.2.8 Assessment and mitigation synthesis tables 11-39 


11.8 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 11-47


pg 11-3 


Table 11-1 Landscape types in the study area 11-9 

Table 11-2 Landscape features of the study area 11-10 

Table 11-3 Scenic Resources of the study area 11-11 

Table 11-4 Summary of impacts during construction phase 11-39 

Table 11-5 Summary of impacts during operational phase: 11-42 

Figure 11-1 Landscape types and sensitivity of the study area 11-15 

Figure 11-2 Long Open Views across the undulating landscape towards the coastline 11-16 

Figure 11-3 Long Closed Views across the undulating landscape towards the Cederberg 11-16 

Figure 11-4 Short closed views within the Olifants River 11-17 

Figure 11-5 Viewshed analysis of 15 x 2 MW turbines (1:250 000) 11-20 

Figure 11-6 Location of Receptors indicated on 1:250 000 topographic map 11-23 

Figure 11-7 Viewpoint 1 - View seen by the users of the TR27, approximately 15km from the windfarm 

and 15 km from Vredendal 11-24 

Figure 11-8 Viewpoint 2 - View seen by users on the R362 immediately outside of Vredendal North, 

approximately 13 km from the windfarm 11-24 

Figure 11-9 Viewpoint 3 - View seen from the southern edge of Vredendal, near the airstrip, approximately 

8,3 km from the windfarm 11-25 

Figure 11-10 Viewpoint 4 - View seen by users of the R363 approaching Vredendal from Lutzville in the 

west, approximately 11 km from Vredendal and 15 km from the windfarm. 11-25 

Figure 11-11 Viewpoint 5 - View seen by users of the R362 between Lutzville and Strandfontein, 

approximately20 km from the windfarm. 11-25 

Figure 11-12 Viewpoint 6 - View seen by users of the gravel road, which runs south of the windfarm, 

between Doringbaai and Graafwater, approximately12,2 km from the windfarm. 11-26 

Figure 11-13 Viewpoint 7 - View seen by users of the gravel road, which runs east of the windfarm, between 

Vredendal/Klawer and Lamberts Bay, approximately 3 km from the windfarm. 11-26 

Figure 11-14 Location of photomontage viewpoints (1:250 000 topo map) (N.T.S) 11-29

11. VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

SUMMARY 


pg 11-4 


This chapter has been adapted from a Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) conducted by Megan 

Anderson from Megan Anderson Landscape Architects cc as part of the EIA for the proposed 

Vredendal Wind Energy Project. 

It was found that the proposed windfarm is situated on a landscape that is described as 

moderately to highly visually sensitive, with a significance that is local rather than regional. The 

landscape is relatively sparsely populated to the south and more densely populated to the north 

along the Olifants River, including Vredendal. The windfarm, more particularly, the wind 

turbines, will be seen from most parts within a 20 km radius of the site as the landscape is 

relatively flat. Some screening is provided by local landforms such as the Cederberg Mountains, 

sandstone inselbergs, low lying valleys and low lying coastal platforms. 




North area and the southern edge of the town. The windfarm will also be seen from 2.5 km 

stretch of the N7 twenty kilometers away. There are no receptors within 1 km of the site where 

shadow flicker is considered significant, with the closest receptors being the Groot Draaihoek 

farmstead, 2km away, and users on a 2 km stretch of a gravel road, which runs between 

Vredendal/Klawer and Lamberts Bay, 3 km away. 

Lighting of the site and turbines will be visible to the above mentioned receptors and should be 

minimized, i.e. reduced to a minimum of 8 turbines for the alternative involving 15 turbines and 6 

turbines for the alternative with 10 turbines. 

The proposed alternative 2 involving 10 turbines (94 m high hub heights with 60 m rotor blades) 

will not reduce the number of receptors but will result in less turbines being seen. There will be 

no major visual gain or significant mitigation achieved by reducing the number of turbines from 

15 to 10, therefore either alternative would be acceptable in this context. 


undulating albeit near to mountains on one side, and is visually intrusive to a few receptors but 

predominantly noticeable to most receptors. This results in the overall visual impact being 

moderate to high. 


iNca Vredendal Wind (Pty) Ltd propose to generate 30 MW electricity with wind energy on the 

farm Groot Draaihoek just outside the town of Vredendal in the Western Cape Province. Megan 

Anderson Landscape Architects cc (MALA) contributed the Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) of 

the proposed development for this EIA.



pg 11-5 


The approach to the visual impact assessment is informed by the Guidelines for Visual Specialists 

(Oberholzer, 2005) 1 published by the Western Cape Department of Environmental Affairs and 

Development Planning (DEA&DP). These Guidelines recommend inter alia that a visual impact 

assessment consider the following concepts: 

Recognition that 'visual' implies the full range of visual, aesthetic, cultural and spiritual 

aspects of the environment that contribute to the area's sense of place; 

Inclusion of both the natural and cultural landscape, and their interrelatedness; 

Identification of all scenic resources, protected areas and sites of special interest, together 

with their relative importance in the region; 

Understanding of the landscape processes, including geological, vegetation and 

settlement patterns, which give the landscape its particular character or scenic attributes; 

Inclusion of both quantitative criteria, such as 'visibility', and qualitative criteria, such as 

aesthetic value or sense of place; and 

Need to include visual input as an integral part of the project planning and design process, 

so that the findings and recommended mitigation measures can inform the final design, 

and hopefully the quality of the project. 

The method followed to produce this visual assessment has been to: 

Collect and review existing information; 

Conduct an initial field survey (June and September 2011). This allowed for the 

opportunity to: 

determine the actual or practical extent of potential visibility of the proposed 

development, by assessing the screening effect of landscape features; 

conduct a photographic survey of the landscape surrounding the development for use in 

photomontage images; and 

identify sensitive landscape and visual receptors. 

Conduct desk-top and GIS mapping exercises to establish the scenic character, extent of 

visibility, visual exposure to viewpoints and inherent visual sensitivity of the site; 

Prepare photomontages of the proposed development from critical viewpoints. A 

photomontage is a landscape photograph onto which images of the wind turbines are 

placed. These photomontages were created using GPS co-ordinates which places the 

proposed wind turbines in Google Earth. Views from the selected viewpoints were then 

captured in Google Earth to match the photographs taken from these viewpoints on site. 

Using the Google Earth images as references, the photomontages were created in Adobe 

Photoshop CS2; 

Assess the proposed project against the visual impact criteria (visibility, visual exposure, 

sensitivity of site and receptors, visual absorption capacity and visual intrusion); 

Assess impacts based on a synthesis of criteria (nature of impact, extent, duration, 

intensity, probability and significance); and 

Recommend management actions to avoid or mitigate negative visual impacts and 

enhance positive impacts. 

1 Oberholzer, B. 2005. Guidelines for involving visual and aesthetic specialists in EIA processes: Edition 1. CSIR 

Report No ENV-S-C 2005 053 F. Republic of South Africa, Provincial Department of the Western Cape, 

Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning, Cape Town.

11.1.2 Constraints and limitations 


pg 11-6 


This visual assessment assumes that the project information that has been supplied is 

correct; 

The visual study relies on a combination of 1:500 000, 1:250 000 and 1:50 000 Topocadastral 

and Geological maps, Google Earth maps and GIS information; 

Generation of the viewsheds did not take into account the potential screening effect of 

vegetation and buildings. Due to the size and height of the wind turbines, and the relative 

low vegetation cover in the region, the screening potential of vegetation is likely to be 

minimal; and 

Within the viewshed analysis, the turbines were designated a height value of 100 m, the 

height of the turbine tower and nacelle and does not include the blade length. 

11.1.3 Information Sources 

This visual study made use of the following information sources: 

Guidelines for Visual Specialists, provided by the Western Cape Department of 

Environment Affairs and Development Planning (Oberholzer 2005). 

Strategic Initiative to Introduce Commercial Land Based Wind Energy Developments to 

the Western Cape – Towards a Regional Methodology for Wind Energy Site Selection, 

May 2006. Report 1-6 provided by CNdV Africa (2006) 2. 

Google Earth maps and data. 

Maps and information provided by CSIR and Inca Vredendal Wind (Pty) Ltd. 

Topo-cadastral and geological maps at 1:500 000, 1:250 000 and 1:50 000 scales from 

the Surveyor General 3. 

National and international literature including Cullerin Range Windfarm VIA (Scenic 

Landscape Architecture, 2006) 4 and Visual Representation of Windfarms – Good Practice 

Guidance (Horner & Maclennan and Envision, 2006) 5. 

South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) 6 Biodiversity GIS Map series. 

Ecoguide Namaqualand, 2008, John Manning 

West Coast and Beyond, 2011, Ursula Stevens 

2 

CNdV Africa planning & design, 2006. Strategic Initiative to Introduce Commercial Land Based Wind Energy 

Developments to the Western Cape – Towards a Regional Methodology for Wind Energy Site Selection, May 

2006. Report 1-6. Republic of South Africa, Provincial Government of the Western Cape, Cape Town. 

3 

Chief Directorate Surveys and Mapping (1973). Geological Survey 1:250 000 Map, 3218 Clanwilliam. 

Government Printer, Pretoria and Chief Directorate Surveys and Mapping (1990). Geological Survey 1:250 000 

Map, 3318 Cape Town. Government Printer, Pretoria. 

4 

Scenic Landscape Architecture, 2006. Cullerin Range Windfarm VIA, January 2006. Taurus Energy (Pty) Ltd. 

Available online: 

http://www.epuron.com.au/PortalData/5/Resources/02._projects/02.02._cullerin/Section_3.1_Visual_assess 

ment.pdf 

5 

Horner & Maclennan and Envision, 2006. Visual Representation of Windfarms – Good Practice Guidance. 

Scottish Natural Heritage, Scottish Renewables Forum and the Scottish Society of Directors of Planning. 

6 

South African National Biodiversity Institute, 2010. Biodiversity GIS Mapping Series. Available online: 

http://bgis.sanbi.org/services.asp.

11.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 


pg 11-7 


The proposed wind farm involves the planning, construction, operation and ultimately 

decommissioning of 10 - 15 wind turbines and associated infrastructure. The aspects of the 

proposed project that would potentially cause visual and aesthetic impacts are described below. 

11.2.1 Construction phase: 

It is anticipated that the construction and commissioning phase of the project will require 

approximately 12 months. The key stages of construction include the construction of access roads 

and hard standing surfaces followed by the construction of the turbines and the connection with 

the local Eskom grid. About 3530 ha of the Groot Draaihoek farm is available for the facility but 

only part of this (about 1% of the area) will be used for the wind energy facility. The visual 

aspects during the construction phase include: 

The transportation of the turbines and other related equipment to site; 

Establishment of a construction camp for storage of components, equipment and 

accommodation; 

Access roads to the site: An existing gravel road, with a short section of new road, will be 

used to access the farm from the R363 ; 

New, approximately 4m wide gravel access roads, will be constructed between the 

turbines. These access roads may require turning circles (i.e. road curve radii of up to 

25m inward radius and 33 m outward radius) for the large trailers and cranes used 

during construction. Passing points and culverts over gullies may also be provided. New 

gravel roads to the turbine sites will be constructed with adequate pavement layer substructure; 

Installation of electrical connections between wind turbines using underground cables; 

A new on-site control room; 

Two 66 kV overhead lines from the on-site substation to Vredendal 66 kV substation. 

These will be approximately 8 km long and partly follow the existing servitude. 

Underground cabling between the turbines and the on-site control room. 

The construction of concrete bases (approximately 18 m x 18 m) for the turbines. 

Large cranes for erecting the turbines. At each turbine site, gravel-surfaced hardstanding 

areas of 40 m x 20 m will be required for the cranes during construction, and will be 

retained for maintenance activities during the operations phase. 

11.2.2 Operational phase 

The operational life of the wind turbines is expected to be a minimum of 25 years and can be 

extended beyond 25 years through regular maintenance and/or upgrades in technology. The 

visual aspects during the construction phase include: 

The operation of 10 - 15 wind turbines, hub heights of 94 m -85 m respectively, each with 

three blades of maximum diameter 112 m with red marker lights; 

Scheduled maintenance is conducted twice a year and generally requires two working 

days per turbine. Unscheduled maintenance is expected to average around 2 days per 

year. Maintenance works on these turbines will require cranes for access to the nacelles; 

Maintenance of gravel roads between the turbines and platforms; and


pg 11-8 


Use of the control room and functioning of the power line connections linking the wind 

turbines to the existing Vredendal substation. 

11.2.3 Layout Alternatives 

Three alternatives will be assessed namely: 

Alternative 1 

The Preferred Alternative with 15 x 2 MW turbines, 85 m high hub height and 50 m rotor 

blades; 

Alternative 2 

10 x 3 MW turbines, 94 m high hub height and 60 m rotor blades. The layout will be the 

same as Alternative 1, but excluding the most sensitive turbines. From a visual impact 

perspective that would be the highest turbines; and 

The No-Go Option 


This section is a description of the existing visual environment that will be affected by the 

proposed wind energy facility. It involves the identification of landscape types, landscape 

character and sense of place, generally based on geology, landforms, vegetation cover and land 

use patterns. 

11.3.1 Landscape Types 

Landscape type classification is based on the area’s geology and landforms. The geology, which 

provides the base material of the landscape, is weathered to provide the landforms in the area. 

Different geological materials weather at different rates and in different ways under a variety of 

climatic conditions and through wind and water. This results in landforms, unique to an area and 

a range of distinct Landscape Types at the macro scale, each with particular scenic characteristics 

and 'sense of place'. In the study area for the proposed project. Three main landscape types have 

been identified (see Table 11-1.).

Sandveld 

Cederberg 

Knersvlkte 

Table 11-1 Landscape types in the study area 

Landscape Type Photographic example Mapping illustration 

In the west, the coastal plains 

known as the Sandveld, a 20 

kilometer wide coastal belt 

that is slightly undulating and 

composed of tertiary and 

quartenary sands. Sandstone 

inselbergs occasionally 

project through the sands 

forming koppies; 

In the south east, the 

mountainous country in the 

form on the northern 

Cedarberg Range, with its 

sandstone cliffs and steep 

scree slopes and deeply 

incised valleys. Because of its 

ruggedness, is mostly natural 

landscapes 

In the northeast, the 

peneplain widens onto the 

Knersvlakte, bordered in the 

east by the Bokkeveldsberge 


pg 11-9 

Chapter 11: Visual

11.3.2 Landscape Features 


pg 11-10 


Prominent features, which play a role in the particular character and scenic value of the area, are 

visually sensitive. The landscape features in the study area are presented in Table 11-2 below. 

Table 11-2 Landscape features of the study area 

Landscape Feature Illustration 

The Mountain ridges of the northern extent of the Cape 

Fold Cederberg range 

Mountain cliffs and steep slopes, which can be seen as 

buttresses in the landscape, forming an impressive scenic 

backdrop to the study area e.g. Gifberg, Matsikammberg 

The lush Olifants River corridor which meanders through 

the low lying hillocks en route to the coast 

Sandstone inselbergs that project through the 

sandy coastal plain provide relief from extensive 

areas of sand plains 

The rocky and sandy coastline with promontories and 

protected coves provide visual interest at the edge of the 

sand plains 

The estuary and lagoon of the Olifants River mouth, 

provides a unique feature where fresh river water meets 

salt sea water that provides an interesting ecosystem

11.3.3 Scenic Resources 


pg 11-11 


Besides the natural landscape features identified above, there are a range of factors which add to 

the cultural significance of the resources, including the following: The scenic resources in the 

study area are presented in below Table 11-3. 

Table 11-3 Scenic Resources of the study area 

Scenic Resource Illustration 

Semi arid rural expanses extending over the Sandveld 

plain 

Scenic corridors occur along the N7 and R362 have 

particular significance where they interfaces with areas of 

high scenic value 

The intensively cultivated Olifants River valley, and the 

irrigation canal system, contributes to the particular 

character and ambience of the study area


Nature reserves to the east, near Lutzville and in the 

north 

Doringbaai is a scenic little town on the coast with a 

lighthouse, timber jetty and crayfish factory 

Vredendal (“valley of peace”) lies in the fertile, green 

Olifants River Valley surrounded by the imposing and 

calming peaks of Gifberg, Maskam and Koebee, creating a 

beautiful and inviting setting. 

Strandfontein, "fountain on the beach", is a small coastal 

village where the San and Khoisan used to come down 

and get fresh water from the fountain, it has beautiful 

stretches of white sandy beaches and is a popular 

recreation and holiday resort. 


pg 11-12 

Chapter 11: Visual


Vanrhynsdorp is a small quiet Victorian style town on the 

TroeTroe river, (the same name it was known prior to 

1881). The Matsikama and Gifberg mountains towering 

around it to the south. 

11.3.4 Landscape Sensitivity 


pg 11-13 


The natural, scenic and cultural factors identified combine to determine the overall landscape 

significance rating and sensitivity to change for the study area. The areas with 'very high 

significance' were deemed to have regional importance and include: 

The Olifants River mouth and estuary, with ecological interest and limited yet human 

scaled development; and 

The Cederberg Mountains, a World Heritage Site. 

The other categories, i.e. high and moderate, are of local importance. Those rated as highly 

visually sensitive include: 

The narrow coastal edge, with its sandy and rocky beach edging and compact villages 

nestled into coves is highly sensitive being on the land water edge; 

The sandstone inselbergs, visually prominent and relatively rare in the coastal plain make 

these areas highly visually sensitive; and 

The Olifants River Valley, a green corridor meandering towards the Atlantic Ocean, highly 

cultivated and productive. 

The local nature reserves, Lutzville Conservation Area, Kapel Nature Reserve and 

Moedverloren Nature Reserve 

Those rated as moderately visually sensitive include: 

The Sandveld Coastal Plain, extensive and visually exposed, transformed by rural activity, 

cultivated lands with farm settlements scattered across the plains, and manmade 

structures including powerlines and railway lines traversing the plains, results in a 

moderate sensitivity; and 

The Knersvlakte, a low lying, extensive arid basin, comprised of gently rolling hills of 

mudstone, shale and limestone and vast fields of glittering quartz pebbles. These plains 

are drained by water courses that are mostly dry but evident because of the small 

scrubby trees that form a green line along these courses. Farmsteads are scattered across 

the landscape with mines also present; and 

Rural towns such as Vredendal, Lutzville and Klawer, occur inland and service the 

farming community. These towns possess some cultural significance with modern 

infrastructure e.g. silos, cell phone towers. Consequently, the visual sensitivity is 

moderate.


pg 11-14 


The proposed wind energy facility is located on the the Sandveld Plain straddling an inselberg, an 

area of moderate to high visual sensitivity (see Figure 11-1). 

11.3.5 Views & View Corridors 

When driving along the roads in the study area, N7, R362, R363 and gravel roads, views 

experienced include: 

Long open views across an undulating landscape towards the coastline (Figure 11-2); 

Long closed views across the plains towards the northern extent of the Cederberg (Figure 

11-3); and 

Short closed views within the Olifants River valley (Figure 11-4).

Figure 11-1 Landscape types and sensitivity of the study area 


pg 11-15 

Chapter 11: Visual


pg 11-16 


Figure 11-2 Long Open Views across the undulating landscape towards the coastline 

Figure 11-3 Long Closed Views across the undulating landscape towards the Cederberg

11.3.6 Visual Absorption Capacity 

Figure 11-4 Short closed views within the Olifants River 


pg 11-17 


Visual Absorption Capacity (VAC) is the capacity for the landscape to conceal the proposed 

development. The VAC of a landscape depends on its topography and on the type of vegetation 

that naturally occurs in the landscape. The size and type of the development also plays a role. 

The visually absorbing topographical features in the landscape are the sandstone inselbergs that 

occur in the Sandveld Plains, the northern extent of the Cederberg Mountains and the lower lying 

valleys and coastlines. 

The natural vegetation in the area is predominantly low and in general does not provide 

significant screening. The cultivated landscape on the plains where annual crops are produced 

also provide little to no screening. The vineyards along the Olifants River valley, while not tall, 

provide a degree of screening along roads where the immediate position of these vineyards 

adjacent to vehicles screens long views from passengers. This is a seasonal phenomenon as the 

vines are deciduous and without the leaves, the screening effect is reduced somewhat. 

The capacity of the landscape to absorb significant change also depends on its sensitivity. The 

transformed rural environment together with the short and long closed views experienced, 

render the capacity of the landscape to absorb the turbines as Low to Medium.

11.4 IDENTIFICATION OF VISUAL ISSUES 


pg 11-18 


Oberholzer (2005), in Guidelines for Visual Specialists (published by DEA&DP), identifies visual 

triggers which are used to determine the approach and scope of a visual impact study. The 

following triggers, relating to the receiving environment, are potentially applicable to this project: 

Areas with protection status, such as national parks or nature reserves (e.g. Cederberg, 

Lutzville Conservation Area, Kapel Nature Reserve, Moedverloren Nature Reserve); 

Areas with important vistas or scenic corridors (e.g. the N7); 

Areas with visually prominent ridge lines or skylines (e.g. Cederberg, sandstone 

inselbergs in Sandveld); and 

Areas of important tourism or recreational value (e.g. Strandfontein, Vredendal 

Winelands, Spring flower tourism). 

In addition, the following triggers relate to the nature of the project: 

A change in land use from the prevailing use; 

A significant change to the fabric and character of the area; 

Possible visual intrusion in the landscape; 

The proximity of the wind farm to receptors; and 

The backdrop to the wind farm. 

The wind energy facility may be perceived as negative or positive, majestic or dominant, by the 

receptor and depends on the receptor’s perception of the landscape and the value of ‘green 

energy’. Illustrations of the general principles of visual impacts of wind farms in terms of 

characteristics, possible effect and visual impact status (i.e. positive or negative) has been 

provided by CNdV’s Western Cape Guidelines (2006). 

Public concerns regarding visual issues, raised during the Scoping Phase, included the following: 

The possible health impact of the flicker of reflected light from the turbines 

The nuisance to nearby communities of lighting of the turbines at night 

Request for 3D modelling and simulation of wind turbines to enable interested and 

affected parties to make informed decisions regarding the visual impact of the proposed 

facility; and 

The visibility and flickering effect of the turbines reduce the value of neighbouring 

properties. 

The following key concepts are analysed with regards to the assessment of visual impacts . The 

key concepts are: 

View catchment and viewshed analysis; 

Visibility of the proposed development to receptors; 

Visual exposure; and 

Generation of photomontages for selected viewpoints to evaluate visibility and visual 

intrusion. 

11.4.1 View Catchment 

The View Catchment is the geographical area from which the project would theoretically be 

visible, as dictated primarily by topography. It is most likely that the wind energy facility would 

have a large catchment due to the nature of the development and the turbine height.


pg 11-19 


Various sources were investigated with the following suggestions regarding study area scale of 

analysis: 

CNdV’s Report 6: Proposed Project Level Methodology (Strategic Initiative to Introduce 

Commercial Land Based Wind Energy Development to the Western Cape: Towards a 

Regional Methodology for Wind Energy Site Selection) suggests a 15-30km radius. 

The Planisphere Report (2005) (in Scenic Landscape Architecture, 2006) 7 claims that 

wind turbines can be seen up to 20 km away in clear weather but are difficult to perceive. 

At 14 km away, a single turbine is insignificant although a collection of turbines becomes 

more significant depending on the number of towers and the area they occupy. 

Sinclair-Thomas Matrix (Sinclair, 2001) in The University of Newcastle (2002) (in Scenic 

Landscape Architecture, 2006) concludes that “15 km is considered to be the appropriate 

radius distance for study”. 

For the purposes of this study, the 15-20 km radius has been selected as the study area for visual 

influence (i.e. the area in which visual receptors will be potentially affected). 

11.4.2 Viewshed Analysis 

Coordinates were provided for the positions of 15 proposed wind turbines for the proposed site. 

The turbine coordinates were imported into ArcMap and designated a height value of 100 m (the 

maximum height of the turbine tower and nacelle). Turbines were buffered at 5 km and 50 km. 

Within 5km, viewsheds were created using a 5 m Digital Elevation Model (DEM) created from 

1:10000 contours and spot heights. Between 5 km and 50 km viewsheds were created using a 20 

m DEM created from 1:50000 contours only. Viewshed analysis in ArcMap was used to calculate a 

viewshed for each of the points of observation, returning a raster indicating the number of 

turbines available from a given map point (i.e. 0-15). The symbology of this raster was altered to 

indicate the 'degree of visibility' of the turbines for both the 5 km and 5-50 km viewsheds, 

resulting in one continuous "high-low-none" viewshed raster for the entire region. Vegetation 

was not incorporated into the generation of these viewsheds. Viewsheds for each area were 

overlaid onto 50 m contours (1:250 000) with accompanying road and town information and 

radii of 2 km, 4.5 km, 7 km, 15 km, and 20 km. These were exported as jpeg maps at scales of 

1:250 000, (see Figure 11-5). 

The 1:250 000 map indicates the maximum extent to which the wind farm will be theoretically 

visible within 20 km of the proposed wind farm facility. The facility will be seen from a large 

portion of the surrounding area within a 20 km radius. Areas that will be visually screened from 

the windfarm are those situated behind prominent landforms e.g. Katmakoep or in low lying river 

valleys e.g Olifants River or low lying coastal areas. 

The towns of Klawer, Strandfontein and Doringbaai are within 20 km of the site. The windfarm 

will, however, not be visible from these towns as they are relatively low lying and screened by 

topography. The town of Lutzville, which lies beyond the 20 km radius, is also screened by 

topography due to its low lying situation in the Olifants River valley. 

7 Scenic Landscape Architecture, 2006. Cullerin Range Windfarm VIA, January 2006. Taurus Energy (Pty) Ltd. 

Available online: 

http://www.epuron.com.au/PortalData/5/Resources/02._projects/02.02._cullerin/Section_3.1_ 

Visual_assessment.pdf


pg 11-20 


Figure 11-5 Viewshed analysis of 

15 x 2 MW turbines (1:250 000)

11.4.3 Visibility of the Proposed Development to Receptors 


pg 11-21 


The level of impact considered acceptable depends on the type of receptors. Residential areas, 

nature reserves and scenic routes or trails are considered as highly sensitive receptors. 

Sporting or recreational areas, or places of work are considered moderately sensitive 

receptors. Industrial or degraded areas are considered as low sensitivity receptors. 

The following receptors have been identified within 20 km of the proposed wind energy facility 

(only those who, according to the GIS viewshed mapping exercise, will see the windfarm, are 

listed below): 

Users of the N7 along a relatively short section, 2,5 km, of the road north east of Klawer, 

about 19 – 20 km away from the windfarm. The N7 is a scenic tourist route with a high 

carrying capacity and significant tourism value (Highly sensitive receptors); 

Users of the R27, R362 and R363 – these are all roads used by locals and tourists to the 

area. Approximately 10km of the R27 between Vredendal to Van Rhynsdorp falls within 

the viewshed. Users travelling in a south west direction, i.e. from Van Rhynsdorp to 

Vredendal, will for most of the 10 km, be able to see the windfarm. Those users travelling 

in the opposite direction will have the farm behind them. (Moderately (locals) to highly 

(tourists) sensitive receptors) 

The R362 runs from Klawer in the east, through Vredendal to Lutzville in the west, along 

the northern side of the Olifants River. The distance of road between Klawer and Lutzville 

is approximately 50 km and is generally further than 12 km from the site. Of the 50 km, 

users will be able to see the windfarm from 35 km thereof. (Moderately (locals) to highly 

(tourists) sensitive receptors) 

The R362 runs south west from Lutzville to Strandfontein, a distance of 23 km. This road 

is 20 km away from the windfarm. Users will see the windfarm from 6 km of this road. 

(Moderately (locals) to highly (tourists) sensitive receptors) 

The R363 runs between Klawer and Lutzville, via Vredendal, along the southern side of 

the Olifants River, for a distance of approximately 45 km. The closest the road comes to 

the windfarm is 7 km. Of the 45 km of road, users will only see the windfarm from 15,5 

km. (Moderately (locals) to highly (tourists) sensitive receptors) 

Gravel roads servicing surrounding rural areas (e.g. DR2187, DR2193 and DR2195) 

(Moderately sensitive receptors). These run to the south and east of the windfarm. The 

road south of the windfarm, from Doringbaai east towards Graafwater, is between 10 and 

20 km from the windfarm. It is a 20 km stretch of road of which users using the road will 

only see the windfarm for 8 km, at a distance of 10 km. (Moderately sensitive receptors) 

The road to the east of the site, which runs between the R363 (Klawer/Vredendal) and 

Lamberts Bay in the south, is a stretch of 30 km within the viewshed of the windfarm. Of 

this distance, users will only see the windfarm for 15 km. This road comes as close as 2 

km to the windfarm. (Moderately sensitive receptors) 

Surrounding farmsteads (Moderate to Highly sensitive receptors) which will see the 

windfarm include – Groot Draaihoek (2km north, farm owner), Sanddam (3 km 

southeast), Katmakoep x 2 (4,5 km north and north west), Onderputs (4,5 km south 

west), Graafwater (7 km south – may be screened), Skepklip (10 km south west). 

Numerous farms and small holdings along the southern banks of the Olifants River should 

be screened by topography, unlike those on the northern bank of the Olifants River which 

will probably see the windfarm. 

Residents of the town of Vredendal (Highly sensitive receptors) fall within the viewshed, 

10 to 15 km away. However, the windfarm will be screened from viewers by buildings


pg 11-22 


and trees. Those on the southern edge of the town will be more likely to see the windfarm 

than those in the centre of town. Likewise, those on the northern side of the river will 

probably see more of the windfarm. However, the settlement on this side is 

predominantly industrial. 

Residents of the coastal towns of Strandfontein and Doringbaai and of the inland towns 

of Klawer and Lutzville will be screened from the windfarm by topography, these 

settlements being at low elevations either at the coast or along the Olifants River. 

Two nature reserves namely the Lutzville Conservation area, 15 km north-west of the 

site, and the Kapel Nature Reserve, 15 km east of the site, will see the windfarm from 

parts of the reserve.


pg 11-23 


Figure 11-6 Location of 

Receptors indicated on 

1:250 000 topographic 

map

Figure 11-7 to Figure 11-13 illustrate views from receptors surrounding the site. 


pg 11-24 


The users of the TR27, between Van Rhynsdorp and Vredendal, are visual receptors of the 

proposed development. This photograph (see below) was taken from the TR27, 15 km north-east 

of the town of Vredendal, looking south-west. This viewpoint is approximately 15 km from the 

windfarm. 

Figure 11-7 Viewpoint 1 - View seen by the users of the TR27, approximately 15km from the windfarm and 15 

km from Vredendal 

Figure 11-8 Viewpoint 2 - View seen by users on the R362 immediately outside of Vredendal North, 

approximately 13 km from the windfarm


pg 11-25 


Figure 11-9 Viewpoint 3 - View seen from the southern edge of Vredendal, near the airstrip, approximately 8,3 

km from the windfarm 

Figure 11-10 Viewpoint 4 - View seen by users of the R363 approaching Vredendal from Lutzville in the west, 

approximately 11 km from Vredendal and 15 km from the windfarm. 

The users, locals and tourists/visitors to Strandfontein are visual receptors of the proposed 

development from isolated areas. This photograph (see below) was taken from the R362 to 

Standfontein looking in an easterly direction. This viewpoint is approximately 20 km from the 

windfarm. 

Figure 11-11 Viewpoint 5 - View seen by users of the R362 between Lutzville and Strandfontein, 

approximately20 km from the windfarm. 

The residents of the surrounding farmsteads and users of the gravel roads are visual receptors of 

the proposed development. The next two photographs (see below) were taken from the gravel 

roads which run south and east of the proposed windfarm. These viewpoints are approximately 

10 km and 2 km from the proposed windfarm.


pg 11-26 


Figure 11-12 Viewpoint 6 - View seen by users of the gravel road, which runs south of the windfarm, between 

Doringbaai and Graafwater, approximately12,2 km from the windfarm. 

Figure 11-13 Viewpoint 7 - View seen by users of the gravel road, which runs east of the windfarm, between 

Vredendal/Klawer and Lamberts Bay, approximately 3 km from the windfarm. 

11.4.4 Visual Exposure 

The Visual Exposure of the wind energy facility to receptors is based on the distance from the 

project to selected viewpoints. Exposure or visual impact tends to diminish exponentially with 

distance. If the wind turbines are dominant or clearly noticeable, then the wind energy facility 

would have high visual exposure and should be avoided. Moderate exposure is “most likely with a 

wind project” (CNdV, 2006) and exists when the turbines are recognisable to the receptor. Low 

exposure - when the turbines are not particularly noticeable to the receptor - is also possible but 

depends on “the landscape and the distance to the viewpoints exceeding 15 to 20 km” (CNdV, 

2006). 

The European Wind Energy Association (EWEA) suggests zones of theoretical visibility, according 

to distance, as follows (EWEA, 2009) 8: 

Zone I – Visually dominant: turbines are perceived as large scale and movement of blades 

is obvious. The immediate landscape is altered. Distance up to 2 km; 

Zone II – Visually intrusive: the turbines are important elements on the landscape and are 

clearly perceived. Blade movement is clearly visible and can attract the eye. Turbines are 

not necessarily dominant points in the view. Distance between 1 and 4.5 km in good 

visibility conditions; 

8 European Wind Energy Association, 2009. Wind Energy: The Facts. Available online: http://www.windenergy-the-facts.org/fr/environment/chapter-2-environmental-impacts/


pg 11-27 


Zone III – Noticeable: the turbines are clearly visible but not intrusive. The windfarm is 

noticeable as an element in the landscape. Movement of blades is visible in good visibility 

conditions but the turbines appear small in the overall view. Distance between 2 and 8 

km depending on weather conditions; and 

Zone IV – Element within distant landscape: the apparent size of the turbines is very 

small. Turbines are like any other element in the landscape. Movement of blades is 

generally indiscernible. Distance of over 7 km. 

The EWEA zones will be used to determine visual exposure of the proposed wind energy facility 

to receptors. Refer to Figure 11-6 for an illustration of these zones around the proposed site. 

There is only one receptor falling within Zone I (as defined by EWEA to be within 2 km of the 

wind energy facility), where the wind turbines will be visually dominant to the receptors. This is 

the farmstead of the farm Groot Draaihoek on which the proposed windfarm is sited and is 2km 

from the nearest wind turbine. 

Receptors falling within Zone II (between 1 and 4.5 km), where the wind turbines will be visually 

intrusive, include: 

Users of the gravel road which runs east of the site, between Vredendal/Klawer and 

Lamberts Bay; and 

Residents of the surrounding farmstead (Sanddam (+-4,5 km south-east). The Visual 

Exposure to these receptors would be moderate as the turbines will be clearly perceived 

in the landscape. 

Receptors falling within Zone III (distance between 2km and 8km depending on weather 

conditions), where the wind turbines will be noticeable, include: 

Residents of the surrounding farmsteads including Katmakoep x2 (+4,5 km north and 

northwest), Onderputs (7 km southwest), Graafwater (5 km south), Middelkas (7 km 

north east) and some small holdings on the southern edge of Vredendal. 

The Visual Exposure to these receptors would be moderate as the turbines will be clearly 

noticeable but not intrusive. 

Receptors falling within Zone IV (as defined by EWEA to be more than 7 km away), where the 

wind turbines are indiscernible elements in the landscape, include: 

Residents and visitors to Vredendal; 

Gravel roads servicing surrounding farmsteads to the south and east; 

The R27, MR362 and MR363, trunk and minor roads servicing the district, used by both 

local residents and tourists/visitors to the area; 

A small 2,5 km section of the N7, east of Klawer on route to Van Rhynsdorp; 

Visitors to and residents of Strandfontein and Doringbaai; and 

Skepklip and Kliphoek farmsteads, about 10 km from the windfarm, and numerous 

farmsteads in the Olifants River valley 

Visitors to the Lutzville Conservation Area and Kapel Nature Reserve.. 

The Visual Exposure to these receptors would be low as the apparent size of the turbines is small 

and therefore the turbines are like other vertical elements (cell phone masts, power lines) in the 

landscape.

11.4.5 Visual Intrusion 


pg 11-28 


Visual intrusion is the level of compatibility or congruence of the project with the particular 

qualities of the area, or its 'sense of place'. This is related to the idea of context and maintaining 

the integrity of the landscape. 

The visual intrusion for sensitive receptors will be addressed below, with photomontages 

depicting views of the most affected receptors. Sensitive receptors studied are: 

VP1: Users of R362 as they enter Vredendal North; 

VP2: Residents to the south of Vredendal; 

VP3: Users of the gravel road south of the proposed site; and 

VP4: Users of the gravel road east of the proposed site. 

The photomontages give an indication of the visual intrusion of the wind energy facility on the 

selected viewpoints. These photomontages were created using GPS co-ordinates which places the 

proposed wind turbines in Google Earth. Views from the selected viewpoints were then captured 

in Google Earth to match the photographs taken from these viewpoints on site. Using the Google 

Earth images as references, the photomontages were created in Adobe Photoshop CS2. Refer to 

for an illustration of the locations of the photomontages.


pg 11-29 


Figure 11-14 Location of 

photomontage 

viewpoints (1:250 000 

topo map) (N.T.S)

Viewpoint VP1 Location: S31° 39’ 41.8” E 18° 32’ 35,8” , Distance: 13 km from nearest turbine, 

Date: 16 October 2011, Time 12h00, Lens: 35mm (iNca,2011) 

Figure 11-15 Viewpoint VP1 


pg 11-30 


Viewpoint VP1: Taken from the R362, to the north of the Olifants River, looking south. Vrededal is to the right of the photograph with the eastern extent of the Katmakoep ridgeline behind Vredendal. All 15 of the 

turbines will be visible from here. The wind turbines will be viewed from this road with the sky as a backdrop, mitigating the visibility of the windfarm for receptors on the R362. Although the turbines do change the 

nature of the ridgeline, the sky as the backdrop does reduce the visibility of the turbines especially on hazy/cloudy days. The turbines will create a noticeable change in the landscape due to the introduction of significant 

vertical elements to a predominantly rural landscape resulting in a high visual intrusion rating.

Viewpoint VP2 Location: S31° 40’ 51.7” E 18° 29’ 37.3” , Distance: 8,3km from nearest turbine, 

Date: 16/10/11, Time: 12h30, Lens: 35mm (iNca,2011) 



pg 11-31 


Viewpoint VP2: Taken from the southern side of Vredendal, immediately south of the canal, looking south towards the windfarm. The airfield is just beyond the line of trees to the right of the photo. All 15 of the turbines 

will be visible from here. The wind turbines will be viewed from here, with the sky as a backdrop, mitigating the visibility of the windfarm for receptors from here and the rest of Vredendal. Although the turbines do 

change the nature of the ridgeline, the sky as the backdrop does reduce the visibility of the turbines especially on hazy/cloudy days. While the turbines are significant vertical elements, existing powerlines are also seen in 

the landscape from here. The presence of the existing power lines further mitigate the visual intrusion of the turbines so that, while they are clearly noticeable, they will result in a moderate to high visual intrusion rating.

Viewpoint VP3 Location: S 31° 50’ 24,05” E 18° 21’ 12,97”, Distance: 12,2km from nearest turbine, 

Date:16/10/11, Time: 13h30, Lens: 35mm (iNca, 2011) 



pg 11-32 


Viewpoint VP3: Taken from the gravel road which runs from Doringbaai at the coast in the southwest, eastwards towards Graafwater, looking north, Matsikamaberg visible in photo on right. All 15 of the turbines will be 

visible from here. The turbines will be viewed from here, with the sky as a backdrop, mitigating the visibility of the windfarm for receptors from here and the rest of this gravel road eastwards. Although the turbines do 

change the nature of the ridgeline, the sky as the backdrop does reduce the visibility of the turbines especially on hazy/cloudy days. The turbines will create a noticeable change in the landscape due to the introduction of 

significant vertical elements to a predominantly rural landscape resulting in a high visual intrusion rating.

Viewpoint VP4 Location: S31° 46’ 36.3” E 18° 27’ 20” , Distance: 3 km from nearest turbine, 

Date: 16/10/11, Time: 14h15, Lens: 35mm (iNca, 2011) 



pg 11-33 


Viewpoint VP4: Taken from the gravel road that links the R363 (Vredendal/Klawer) in the north to Lamberts Bay in the south west. All 15 of the turbines will be visible from here, although some are partially hidden by 

the bush in the foreground. The wind turbines will be viewed from here, with the sky as a backdrop, mitigating the visibility of the windfarm for receptors from here and the rest of Vredendal. Although the turbines do 

change the nature of the ridgeline, the sky as the backdrop does reduce the visibility of the turbines especially on hazy/cloudy days. The turbines will create a noticeable change in the landscape due to the introduction of 

significant vertical elements to a predominantly rural landscape resulting in a high visual intrusion rating.



pg 11-34 


No relevant permits or licenses are required for the visual aspects of this proposed 

development. The DEADP’s Strategic Environmental Assessment of Wind Farms in 

the Western Cape (SEAWFWC) indicates that the proposed site of the turbines, i.e. 

southernmost portion of the land, is indicated as ‘Preferred’ and ‘Highly Preferred’. 

(D Kotze, West Coast District Municipality, letter dated 27 September 2011). The 

West Coast District Municipality has indicated their support for wind energy projects 

aligned with this Strategy. 


ACTIONS 

11.6.1 Visual Assessment Criteria 

The visual impacts are assessed using the standard methodology using a synthesis of 

criteria as defined by: 

The National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) EIA Regulations (as 

described in Chapter 4); and 

The Guidelines for visual studies published by DEA&DP (Oberholzer 2005). 

11.6.1.1 Visual Intrusion 

Visual Intrusion is defined as the level of compatibility or congruence of the project 

with the particular qualities of the area, or its 'sense of place'. This is related to the 

idea of context and maintaining the integrity of the landscape or townscape. 

High visual intrusion – results in a noticeable change or is discordant with 

the surroundings; 

Medium visual intrusion – partially fits into the surroundings, but clearly 

noticeable; 

Low visual intrusion – minimal change or blends in well with the 

surroundings. 

The Western Cape Guidelines (CNdV, 2006) state that due to the size of a wind 

turbine, the notion of achieving compatibility is remote, except for existing 

“technology landscapes” or “vertically disturbed landscapes”. 

11.6.1.2 Visual Impact Significance 

The significance of impacts can be determined through a synthesis of the aspects 

produced in terms of their duration, intensity, and extent and be described as: 

Low - where it will not have an influence on the decision; 

Medium - where it should have an influence on the decision unless it is 

mitigated; or 

High - where it would influence the decision regardless of any possible 

mitigation.

11.6.2 Assessment of Visual Impacts 


pg 11-35 


Visual or aesthetic impacts will occur during the construction, operational and 

decommissioning phases of the proposed project. These impacts are discussed 

below, with the assessment synthesis presented in Table 11-4 

Table 11-5. 

11.6.2.1 Change in Landscape Character from the height and scale of turbines and 

related infrastructure 

The character of the site would change from a rural landscape with few vertical 

elements (60/400 kV powerlines and radio transmission masts) to a landscape with 

significant vertical elements as a result of the height (approx 150 m and 170 m from 

ground level to top of the blades) and scale of the turbines. The gravel roads, hard 

standing areas, powerline excavations, control room, foundations and wind turbines 

would all contribute to a change from a site with few vertical elements to an altered 

site with many, and more prominent, vertical elements. 

It should also be recognised that there is a degree of subjectivity in the visual impact 

of the turbines as some people may perceive them as positive features in the 

landscape because they represent a move towards renewable energy. 

The change in landscape character is rated as Medium-High. 

11.6.2.2 Visibility of the turbines (and related infrastructure) for sensitive receptors 

The visually dominating height and scale of the turbines would be significant at a 

local scale and within 4.5 km of the wind energy facility (Zones I and II (EWEA, 

2009). There is one highly sensitive receptor within 2 km from the site (Zone I 

(EWEA, 2009)) namely the Groot Draaihoek farmstead which is on the farm of the 

proposed site of development. 

The sensitive receptors within 4.5 km of the site include residents of surrounding 

farmstead Sanddam (3 km), and users of the gravel road which runs east of the site, 

between Vredendal/Klawer and Lamberts Bay, where, according to the viewshed 

analysis, all 15 turbines will be visible to these receptors. 

Other highly sensitive receptors beyond 4,5 km (Zones III and IV (EWEA, 2009)) 

include residents of the surrounding farmsteads including Katmakoep x 2 (4,5km 

north and north-west), Onderputs (7km south-west), Graafwater (5km south), 

Middelkas (7km north-east), and some small holdings on the southern edge of 

Vredendal, users, local and tourists (wine and flower tours), of the national, regional 

and local roads (N7, R27,MR362 and MR363), surrounding gravel roads and 

residents of surrounding farmsteads (beyond 4.5 km) including Katmakoep and 

Onderputs (4,5 km). The viewshed analysis shows that the wind energy facility will 

also be highly visible (i.e. all 15 turbines visible) to residents and visitors of 

Vredendal. 

The visibility from sensitive receptors is therefore Low-High.

11.6.2.3 Shadow Flicker 


pg 11-36 


Shadow flicker is the flicker of the sun through the turbine blades. Shadow flicker can 

be defined spatially but with some difficulty as sun angles, climate, and viewpoints 

determine the presence, duration and level of flicker (CNdV, 2006). According to 

Scenic Landscape Architects (2006), shadow flicker is considered significant within 1 

km of a turbine and a study from Planning for Renewable Energy Guide from the 

United Kingdom states: “Flicker effects have been proven to occur only within ten 

rotor diameters of a turbine. Therefore, if the turbine has 80 meter blades, the 

potential shadow flicker effect could be felt up to 800 meters from a turbine”. 

The rotor diameters of the turbines will be 100m for the 15 turbine options and 

120m for the 10 turbine option. According to the above guideline, the flicker effects 

should therefore be limited to 1km and 1,2km respectively. No sensitive receptors 

have been identified within 1,2 km of the proposed wind energy facility. 

The shadow flicker impact is therefore Low. 

11.6.2.4 Impact of light pollution from night lighting 

According to the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) lighting requirements, the windfarm 

must be lit according to section F(i) which states, for linear layout windfarms (CAA, 

date unknown): “A light should be placed on each turbine positioned at each end of 

the line or string of turbines. From those end turbines, lights should then be 

positioned such that the next lit turbine is no more than 800 m, from the last lit 

turbine. This pattern should continue until the end of the string is reached. If the last 

segment is significantly short, it may be practical to move the lit turbines back one or 

two turbines towards the starting point to present a nice, well-balanced string of 

lights. A high concentration of lights, in close proximity, should be avoided.” 

The report also states that: 

“Any array of flashing or pulsed obstruction lighting, intended to warn of a 

group of wind turbines forming an entity (i.e., a line, string, or series of units), 

shall be synchronized to flash simultaneously. ..” 

“Night time wind turbine obstruction lighting should consist of medium 

intensity type B aviation red flashing lights. Minimum intensities of 2000 

candela for nighttime red flashing or strobe lights are required.” 

In this case, due to the layout of the wind energy facility and the distance between 

turbines, 8 turbines require a lighting fixture. Although 8 lights would not create a 

large visual impact or large amount of light, these lights would contribute to the 

change in the character of the landscape at night, as the existing night sky is relatively 

free of existing night light. 

Security lighting and operational lighting during the construction and operational 

phases will also contribute to the light pollution. 

The significance of the light pollution is rated as Medium.


pg 11-37 


11.6.2.5 Visual impact of scarring from clearing vegetation for road and turbine 

related infrastructure 

Scarring resulting from vegetation clearing and earthworks for additional roads, 

turbine and crane bases, underground powerlines, on-site substation and borrow 

pits could have a negative visual impact on the receptors during the construction 

phase of the project as well as the operations and decommissioning phases should 

rehabilitation or mitigation measures not be adequate. However, the two closest 

receptors, Sanddam and Groot Draaihoek farms, which are 4,5 and 2 km away will 

see little of the scarring as it will be on the the ground surface and from these 

distances will bvlend into the existing land patterns of the farm lands. 

The significance of the scarring is rated as Low. 

11.6.2.6 Visual impact of construction equipment and facilities 

A temporary hard surfaced lay down area (70 m 2) would be required as well as a site 

compound for all contractors. It has been stated in the Scoping Report that workers 

will be accommodated at exiting local facilities. The existing workshop facilities and 

buildings on site will be used for storage. The construction equipment (such as large 

cranes) would be visible to receptors and result in a visual change in the landscape 

during the construction phase, however the lay-down area and compound may not 

be visible because of their height in the landscape and screening. 

Dust may also be a significant feature in the landscape. Construction vehicles 

servicing the site may also result in dust from the use of gravel roads as well as an 

increased amount of large vehicle traffic. 

The transportation of the turbine components along the local roads to the site be a 

visual impact on users of the respective roads because of the abnormality of the load 

and the frequency of the trips. Whether this is a negative or positive visual impact 

depends on the receptor’s perception. The transportation of the components could 

be of interest to receptors or viewed as a nuisance. 

The significance of the visual impact of the construction camp and vehicles is rated as 

Low-Medium. 

11.6.2.7 Cumulative Impacts 

The Western Cape Guidelines (CNdV, 2006) define cumulative effects as the effects 

that “may occur as a result of more than one wind farm project being constructed”. 

The degree of cumulative impact is a product of (CNdV, 2006): 

The number of and distance between individual wind farms; 

The interrelationship between their viewsheds; 

The overall character of the landscape and its sensitivity to wind farms; 

The siting and design of the wind farms themselves; 

The number and sensitivity of receptors (settlements, viewpoints, routes, 

etc.) from which the wind farms are visible together or sequentially;


pg 11-38 


The duration, frequency and nature of combined and sequential views 

(glimpses or more prolonged views; oblique, filtered or more direct views; 

time separation between sequential views); and 

The relative impact of each individual wind farm, with regard to landscape 

character. (Less valued landscapes, and those with more limited views, may 

be able to accommodate two or more sensitively designed and sited wind 

farms at closer spacing and with less overall impact than widely separated 

wind farms proposed within highly valued landscapes). 

The combined visibility occurs where the observer is able to see two or more 

developments from one viewpoint. The combined visibility may either be in 

combination (where several wind farms are within the observer’s arc of vision at the 

same time) or in succession (where the observer has to turn to see the various 

windfarms) (CNdV, 2006). 

Sequential effects occur when the observer has to move to another viewpoint to see 

different developments. Sequential effects should be assessed for travel along 

regularly used major roads or tourist routes, such as the R27. The occurrence of 

sequential effects may range from frequently sequential (the features appear 

regularly and with short time lapses between, depending on speed of travel and 

distance between the viewpoints) to occasionally sequential (long time lapses 

between appearances, because the observer is moving very slowly and/or the there 

are large distances between the viewpoints) (CNdV, 2006). 

An application has been submitted for authorization on a property approximately 

45 km north-west of this proposed windfarm. The 20 km viewsheds of both 

windfarms do not overlap so there should not be combined visibility where an 

observer may see both windfarms at once. There are no major roads between the 

two windfarms or bypassing both so sequential effects are unlikely as well.

Extent of 

Impact 

11.6.2.8 Assessment and mitigation synthesis tables 

Duration 

of 

Intensity 

of 

Probability 

of the 

Table 11-4 Summary of impacts during construction phase 

Status 

of the 

Degree of 

Confidence 

Level of 

Significance 


pg 11-39 


Mitigation Significance after 

Mitigation 

Impact Impact Impact Impact 

1. Scarring and dust resulting from clearing vegetation for road and turbine related infrastructure (e.g. power line excavation, additional roads, turbine and 

crane platforms, substations, borrow pits other lined items if they will scar) 

Alternative 1 (Preferred Layout) 15 x 2MW turbines, 85m high tower and 50m radius rotor blades 

Local Medium Medium Definite -ve High Low Construction areas must avoid visible slopes. 

Low 

Term 

Restrict road width and construction area (i.e. retain 

as much vegetation as possible). Clearly demarcate 

construction areas to minimize disturbance. 

Revegetate disturbed areas (e.g. around turbine 

sites) as part of the construction phase. Use existing 

roads. Dust suppression measures to be put in place 

if dust impacts exceed South African air quality 

standards. Accommodation of construction 

staff and workers to be in existing buildings 

or local towns e.g. Vredendal. 

Alternative 2: 10 x3MW turbines, 110m high tower and 60m radius rotor blades 

Local Medium Medium Definite -ve High Low Construction areas must avoid visible slopes. 

Low 

Term 

Restrict road width and construction area (i.e. retain 

as much vegetation as possible). Clearly demarcate 

construction areas to minimize disturbance. 

Revegetate disturbed areas (e.g. around turbine 

sites) as part of the construction phase. Use existing 

roads. Dust suppression measures to be put in place 

if dust impacts exceed South African air quality 

standards. Accommodation of construction 

staff and workers to be in existing buildings 

or local towns e.g. Vredendal. 

Alternative 3 – NO–GO Alternative 

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Summary of impacts during construction phase- continued 

2. Visual impact of construction equipment (e.g. cranes, vehicles and construction yards) 


Local 

Short Medium Definite -ve High Low- Dust suppression measures to be put in place 

Low 

Term 

Medium (e.g. dustex, watering soil/gravel areas, speed 

limits) if dust impacts exceed South African air 

quality standards. Temporary site camp to 

make use of existing buildings on site or 

locate construction yard in a visually discreet 

area away from the R27. Additional 

accommodation requirements to be satisfied at 

local towns or on existing farmsteads. 


Local 

Short Medium Definite -ve High Low- Dust suppression measures to be put in place 

Low 

Term 

Medium (e.g. dustex, watering soil/gravel areas, speed 

limits) if dust impacts exceed South African air 

quality standards. Temporary site camp to 

make use of existing buildings on site or 

locate construction yard in a visually discreet 

area away from the R27. Additional 

accommodation requirements to be satisfied at 

local towns or on existing farmsteads. 


NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 


pg 11-40 

Chapter 11: Visual

Summary of impacts during construction phase- continued 

Extent of Impact Duration 

of 

Impact 

Intensity 

of 

Impact 

Probability 

of the 

Impact 

Status 

of the 

Impact 

Degree of 

Confidence 

Level of 

Significance 

3. Light Pollution from construction yard, cranes and construction activities 


Local 

Short Medium Definite -ve High Low - 

Significant within 5 km Term 

Medium 


Local 

Significant within 5 km 

Short 

Term 

Medium Definite -ve High Low - 

Medium 


pg 11-41 



Mitigation 

No high mast or spot light security lighting 

allowed; no up-lighting allowed, downlighting 

to be used. 


allowed; no up-lighting allowed, downlighting 

to be used. 



Low 

Low

Extent of Impact Duration of Impact 

Intensity 

of Impact 

Table 11-5 Summary of impacts during operational phase: 

Probability 

of the 

Impact 

Status of the 

Impact 

1. Change in Landscape Character from the height and scale of turbines and related infrastructure 


Regional 

Long Term 

High Definite -ve or +ve 

Significant within 15km Technological changes 

The response of 

in the long term may 

observers to wind 

lead to eventual 

decommissioning of 

the wind energy 

facility 

turbines in the 

landscape is complex, 

with factors other 

than energy playing a 

role as it is often 

based on the viewer’s 

perception of wind 

energy. 


Regional 

Long Term 

High Definite -ve or +ve 

Significant within 15km Technological changes 

in the long term may 

lead to eventual 

decommissioning of 

the 

facility 

wind energy 


pg 11-42 

Degree of 

Confidence 

Level of 

Significance 

High Medium - 

High 

High Medium - 

High 

Mitigation 

For the most part, no 

mitigation measures 

would change the 

significance of the 

landscape impact other 

than avoiding the site 

entirely. 

To promote the visual 

cohesiveness and 

harmony of the wind 

energy facility, the 

turbines should all be of 

the same style and scale, 

with consistent spacing 

between turbines so far 

as possible. 

For the most part, no 

mitigation measures 

would change the 

significance of the 

landscape impact other 

than avoiding the site 

entirely. 

To promote the visual 


Significance 

after 

Mitigation 

Medium - 

High 

Medium - 

High

Extent of Impact Duration of Impact 

Intensity 

of Impact 

Probability 

of the 

Impact 

Status of the 

Impact 


pg 11-43 

Degree of 

Confidence 

Level of 

Significance 

Mitigation 

cohesiveness and 

harmony of the wind 

energy facility, the 

turbines should all be of 

the same style and scale, 

with consistent spacing 

between turbines so far 

as possible. 




Significance 

after 

Mitigation

Extent of Impact 

Summary of impacts during operational phase- continued 

Duration 

of 

Impact 

Intensity 

of 

Impact 

Probability 

of the 

Impact 

Status 

of the 

Impact 

Degree of 

Confidence 

Level of 

Significance 


pg 11-44 

Mitigation 


Significance after 

Mitigation 

2. Visibility of the turbines (and related infrastructure) for sensitive receptors (e.g. users of the local roads, residents of immediately surrounding farmsteads) beyond 

4.5km (EWEA Zones III & IV) 


Local 

Significant within 4.5km 

Long 

Term 

High Definite -ve High Low - 

Moderate 


Local 

Significant within 4.5km 

Long 

Term 

High Definite -ve High Low - 

Moderate 

The turbines will not be intrusive from 

these receptors whom are > 4,5km away. 

While these structures are very high, 

screening is not easily achieved, unless 

some form of screening is placed 

immediately next to the receptor, (e.g. 

trees, timber screens) in localized areas. 

Operational facilities should be 

incorporated into existing buildings. All 

powerlines to be underground as far as 

possible 

The turbines will not be intrusive from 

these receptors whom are > 4,5km away. 

While these structures are very high, 

screening is not easily achieved, unless 

some form of screening is placed 

immediately next to the receptor, (e.g. 

trees, timber screens) in localized areas. 

Operational facilities to be incorporated 

into existing buildings. All powerlines to be 

underground as far as possible. 



Low -Moderate 

Low - Moderate


Extent of Impact 

Duration of 

Impact 

Intensity 

of Impact 

Probability 

of the 

Impact 

Status 

of the 

Impact 

Degree of 

Confidence 

Level of 

Significance 


pg 11-45 

Mitigation 


Significance after 

Mitigation 

3. Shadow Flicker 


Local 

Significant within 1km. 

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

No sensitive receptors 

have been identified 

within 4,5km. 


Local 

Significant within 1km. 

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

No sensitive receptors 

have been identified 

within 4,5km. 


NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA


Extent of 

Impact 

Duration 

of Impact 

Intensity 

of Impact 

Probability 

of the 

Impact 

Status of 

the Impact 

Degree of 

Confidence 

Level of 

Significanc 

e 


pg 11-46 



Mitigation 

4. Impact of light pollution (from lights on each nacelle) on night-time views and sense of place. 


Local Long Medium to Definite -ve High Medium One medium intensity type B light fixture 

(within Term Low 

to be placed on turbines identified 

5km) (night) 

according to CAA requirements. Lights 

should flash simultaneously. 

No intermediate level lights to be 

installed. Down lighting on associated 

infrastructure. 


Local 

(within 

5km) 

Long 

Term 

(night) 

Medium to 

Low 

Definite -ve High Medium One medium intensity type B light fixture 

to be placed on turbines identified 

according to CAA requirements. Lights 

should flash simultaneously. 

No intermediate level lights to be 

installed. Down lighting on associated 




Low - Medium 

Low - Medium



pg 11-47 


The reversibility of the visual impact is high as the turbines and associated lights causing 

the visual impacts will be removed and no longer visible. The visual and scenic resources 

impacted by the wind turbines and associated infrastructure are wholly replaceable when 

the windfarm is removed. 

11.8 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

The proposed windfarm is situated on a landscape that is described as moderately to 

highly visually sensitive, with a significance that is local rather than regional. The 

landscape in the viewshed is relatively sparsely populated to the south and more densely 

populated to the north along the Olifants River, including Vredendal. The windfarm, more 

particularly, the wind turbines, will be seen from most parts within a 20 km radius of the 

site as the landscape is relatively flat. Some screening is provided by local landforms such 

as inselbergs, low lying valleys and coastal edges. 

The receptors include residents of 7 farmsteads between 2 and 7 km of the proposed 

windfarm site and users of local roads servicing the towns and farms. The town of 

Vredendal is 7 – 15 km from the site and will see the proposed turbines from certain 

areas, in particular the Vredendal North area and the southern edge of the town. The 

windfarm will also be seen from a 2.5 km stretch of the N7, twenty kilometers away. 

There are no receptors within 1 km of the site where shadow flicker is considered 

significant with the closest receptors being the farmstead of Groot Draaihoek, 2km away 

and users on a 2 km stretch of a gravel road, which runs between Vredendal/Klawer and 

Lamberts Bay, who are 3 km away. 

Lighting will be visible to the above mentioned receptors and should be minimized, i.e. 

reduced to a minimum of 8 turbines on the Alternative with 15 turbines and 6 turbines on 

the Alternative with 10 turbines. 

The proposed Alternative 2, i.e. 10 turbines, 94 m high hub heights with 60 m rotor 

blades, will not reduce the number of receptors but will result in less turbines being seen. 

There will be no major visual gain or significant mitigation by reducing the number of 

turbines from 15 to 10, therefore either alternative would be acceptable (in the context 

considered here. 

The response of observers to wind turbines in the landscape is complex, with factors 

other than energy playing a role (CNdV, 2006), as it is often based on the viewer’s 

perception of wind energy. Wind turbines may be perceived as interesting majestic 

sculptures in the landscape or dominating, unattractive eyesores. Wind turbines are 

significant vertical elements in the landscape and the visual impact is always anticipated 

to be high.

Chapter 12: 

Agricultural Impact Assessment 

12. AGRICULTURAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 12-3 

SUMMARY 12-3 


12.2 SOIL CONDITIONS AND AGRICULTURAL SUITABILITY OF THE SITE 12-5 

12.3 CURRENT LAND USE, IRRIGATION AND DEVELOPMENT AT THE SITE 12-11 

12.4 STATUS OF THE LAND 12-11 

12.5 POSSIBLE LAND USE OPTIONS FOR THE SITE 12-11 

12.6 IMPACTS OF THE WIND FARM DEVELOPMENT ON AGRICULTURE 12-11 

12.6.1 Loss of agricultural land 12-11 

12.6.2 Land surface disturbance and resultant potential impact on erosion 12-12 

12.6.3 Soil profile disturbance and resultant decrease in soil agricultural suitability 12-13 

12.6.4 Disturbance of current and future cultivation practices 12-13 

12.6.5 Placement of spoil material generated from excavations 12-13 

12.6.6 Yield reduction 12-13 




pg 12-1

Chapter 12: 


Table 12-1 Soil data from all investigated sample profiles on the site. All sample positions are shown on 

the site plan, and numbers in this table correspond to those in the site plan. Top soil refers to 

the A horizon and sub soil to the B horizon. 12-7 

Table 12-2 Calculation of wind farming footprint 12-12 

Table 12-3 Summary table giving assessment of all identified impacts. 12-14 

Figure 12-1 Site plan of the area where turbines will be located. Farm boundary outlined in red; area 

covered by turbines outlined in yellow, individual turbine positions in white; existing access 

roads in green; new access roads in orange; soil test pits in orange - numbers correspond to 

Table 12-1, where details of test pits are given. 12-5 

Figure 12-2 Elevation profile from the northern farm boundary, along the R363, to the southern boundary 

over the crest of the hill. 12-6 

Figure 12-3 View looking west below turbine area showing strip cultivation. 12-8 

Figure 12-4 Close up showing generally poor growth of oats in strip cultivation areas 12-8 

Figure 12-5 View of areas previously strip cultivated within the turbine area, but where no recent 

cultivation has been done. 12-9 

Figure 12-6 Typical Garies soil from with dorbank at 50cm below surface 12-9 

Figure 12-7 Typical Plooysburg soil form with hardpan carbonate horizon at 30cm below surface 12-10 

Figure 12-8 Typical soil profile in which a hardpan is absent (Hutton soil form) or occurs relatively deep. 12-10 


pg 12-2

Chapter 12: 


12. AGRICULTURAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

SUMMARY 

This chapter has been adapted from an Agricultural Impact Assessment conducted by Johann 

Lanz as part of the EIA for the proposed Vredendal Wind Energy Project. 


conditions within sandy alluvium parent material. The upper soil horizons (A and B horizons) 

are very uniform across the area. They are red, sandy (


Chapter 12: 


The evaluation of soils for agricultural suitability is an evaluation of the soil’s inherent 

physical and chemical fertility. The evaluation is done largely in terms of the presence or 

absence of soil limitations that will limit crop growth. The following factors play an important 

role in the assessment of agricultural suitability: root development potential, which is 

dependent on soil depth and structure; water holding capacity; drainage; workability; and soil 

organic matter content. An overall assessment of each soil is made taking all these factors into 

account, to give an assessment of soil suitability. A distinction is made between soil suitability 

and land capability. Soil suitability only takes soil factors into account. Land capability is the 

combination of soil suitability and climate factors to determine agricultural suitability. 

A field investigation on 14th November 2011 was conducted with the aim of achieving an 

understanding of soil conditions across the site by way of an investigation of soil test pits. The 

test pits were not laid out on a grid, as this was not considered necessary. Initial assessment 

during the field investigation indicated that soil variation across the site was minimal. Several 

test pits, distributed over the site, and dictated by ease of access (see site plan), confirmed the 

uniformity of soil conditions across the site, and so further test pit investigation was 

considered unnecessary. A total of 11 test pits were investigated and recorded across the site 


The intensity of the soil investigation used was considered completely adequate to gain a 

sufficiently accurate assessment of the agricultural soil suitability across the site. Additional 

test pits on a grid pattern are unlikely to have added anything significant to the assessment of 

agricultural soil suitability for the purposes of determining the impact of the project on 

agriculture. 


pg 12-4

Chapter 12: 


Figure 12-1 Site plan of the area where turbines will be located. Farm boundary outlined in red; 

area covered by turbines outlined in yellow, individual turbine positions in white; existing access roads 

in green; new access roads in orange; soil test pits in orange - numbers correspond to Table 12-1, where 

details of test pits are given. 

12.2 SOIL CONDITIONS AND AGRICULTURAL SUITABILITY OF THE SITE 

The positions of all investigated test pits are indicated in the site plan in Figure 12-1. Data 

from the profiles of each test pit are provided in Error! Reference source not found.. 

Photographs of site conditions and representative soil profiles are given in Figures 12-3 to 12- 

8. 

The area over which turbines are situated is on the top of a broad, fairly level ridge that lies 10 

km to the south of the Olifants River and approximately 235 meters above it. 

Figure 12-2 shows the topography of the area by way of an elevation profile from the northern 

farm boundary, along the R363, to the southern boundary over the crest of the hill. The slope 

within the turbine area varies from 0 to a maximum of 3%. All turbines and new roads have 

therefore been located on slopes of less than or equal to 3%. 


pg 12-5

Chapter 12: 


Figure 12-2 Elevation profile from the northern farm boundary, along the R363, to the southern 

boundary over the crest of the hill. 

The geology over the entire area is Quaternary sandy alluvium. All soils have formed under 

arid climatic conditions within this sandy alluvium. The upper soil horizons (A and B 

horizons) are very uniform across the area. They are red, sandy (

No 


pg 12-7 

Chapter 12: 


Table 12-1 Soil data from all investigated sample profiles on the site. All sample positions are shown on the site plan, and numbers in this 

table correspond to those in the site plan. Top soil refers to the A horizon and sub soil to the B horizon. 

Form & family 

Effective depth (depth 

to limiting horizon) 

(cm) 

Type of 

limiting 

horizon 

on / off 

heuweltjie 

Sand grade & clay % 

top soil sub soil 

Soil suitability 

category 

GPS co-ordinates 

Lat/Lon hddd.ddddd° 

1 Garies 1000 50 db off me, 3 me, 4 medium S31.74051 E18.43652 

2 Plooysburg 1000 30 hk on me, 3 me, 4 medium S31.74069 E18.43673 

3 Garies 1000 110 db on me, 3 me, 4 medium S31.74377 E18.43564 


5 Plooysburg 1000 70 hk off me, 3 me, 4 medium S31.74613 E18.43825 


7 Plooysburg 1000 60 hk off me, 3 me, 4 medium S31.75224 E18.43577 



10 Hutton 2100 >200 db on me, 3 me, 4 medium S31.74567 E18.43188 


Notes: db = dorbank; 

hk = hardpan carbonate

Chapter 12: 


Figure 12-3 View looking west below turbine area showing strip cultivation. 

Figure 12-4 Close up showing generally poor growth of oats in strip cultivation areas 


pg 12-8

Chapter 12: 


Figure 12-5 View of areas previously strip cultivated within the turbine area, but where no recent 

cultivation has been done. 

Figure 12-6 Typical Garies soil from with dorbank at 50cm below surface 


pg 12-9

Chapter 12: 


Figure 12-7 Typical Plooysburg soil form with hardpan carbonate horizon at 30cm below surface 

Figure 12-8 Typical soil profile in which a hardpan is absent (Hutton soil form) or occurs relatively 

deep. 


pg 12-10

Chapter 12: 


12.3 CURRENT LAND USE, IRRIGATION AND DEVELOPMENT AT THE SITE 

The farms have irrigated vineyards and vegetables on the northern, lower-lying parts of the 

farm, which are more than 6 kilometres from the nearest turbine. The extent of these are 

limited by the available quantity of irrigation water. The farm on the eastern side has an 

irrigation allocation of 35 hectares and the one on the west has 120 hectares, some of which is 

piped across this farm to a vineyard development on the coast at Strandfontein. All the land 

above the irrigation land is utilised only as grazing land for sheep. Oats are planted in strip 

cultivation on a proportion of the land, as a supplementary food source for the sheep, but only 

when the weather conditions of a particular season allow. Production is very marginal with 

yields of around 0.5 tons per hectare, and is therefore done without cultivation inputs such as 

fertiliser and pest control. Many of these lands which were previously strip cultivated, have 

not been cultivated for many years (See Figure 12-5). 

There is agricultural infrastructure (houses, barns etc) only on the bottom parts of the farm, 

but nothing except one small barn higher up on the land, in the vicinity of the turbines. There 

is an established farm access road to the wind farm site, but it will require upgrading for the 

wind farm development. 

12.4 STATUS OF THE LAND 

The turbines are predominantly sited on land classified as irreversibly transformed through 

agriculture (grazing and strip cultivation) which as a result, no longer contributes to the 

biodiversity of the area. The soils are susceptible to wind erosion, particularly if vegetation 

cover is sparse. Within the turbine are, vegetation cover is currently sufficient to prevent 

major erosion. 

12.5 POSSIBLE LAND USE OPTIONS FOR THE SITE 

Due to the water limitations, the land cannot be utilised for anything other than grazing of low 

carrying capacity. The soils themselves could be utilised as irrigation land - similar soils are 

irrigated lower on the farm, but the site is the least suitable area of the farm for irrigation 

given its height (pumping costs), distance from the water source, and exposure to the wind. 

There are large areas of more suitably situated land on the farm that could be used as 

irrigation land if there was more water available. 

12.6 IMPACTS OF THE WIND FARM DEVELOPMENT ON AGRICULTURE 

The following impacts on agricultural resources and productivity are identified and discussed, 

below. Further details of the assessment of all these impacts are provided in Table 12-2. 

12.6.1 Loss of agricultural land 

The footprints of turbines, new roads, and other infrastructures will be lost as agricultural 

land for the duration of the project. The calculated footprint of the wind farm is given in Table 

12-1. 


pg 12-11

Chapter 12: 


Mitigation: 

The wind farm should utilise existing roads wherever possible to minimise the length of 

required new roads, and loss of agricultural land as a result. The proposed layout already 

does this; and 

The values in Table 12-1 are maximum values. Some of these areas are likely to be 

reduced, depending on the specifics of the construction. This will further reduce the loss 

of agricultural land. 

Significance: 

This impact is considered to be of very low significance given that the area of land that will 

be lost to agriculture is very small (6 ha, representing only 0.17% of the farm), that the land 

lost is very low productive agricultural land, and that the current agricultural activities can 

be continued with very minimal disturbance. 

Table 12-1 Calculation of wind farming footprint 

length width Area (m 

(m) (m) 

2 ) number Area (ha) 

New roads 7,420 5 37,100 1 3.71 

Hard standing for crane 40 2 800 20 1.60 

Turbine foundation 18 18 324 20 0.65 

Control room 10 10 100 1 0.01 

Total 5.97 


pg 12-12 

Total farm size: 

Footprint as % of total farm: 

Footprint per turbine: 

12.6.2 Land surface disturbance and resultant potential impact on erosion 

3,530 

0.17% 

0.30 ha 

The disturbance of the land surface including clearing of vegetation will make the soil 

susceptible to wind erosion. 

Mitigation: 

The extent of and duration for which areas of land are left bare of vegetation cover should 

be minimised; 

In constructing hard standing areas, it is recommended that the natural surface is 

disturbed as little as possible before covering with material to be compacted. In other 

words stripping of vegetation and topsoil is not recommended prior to the construction 

of the hard standing areas. This is because stripped topsoil will be very difficult to protect 

against wind erosion, for the long period of time until decommissioning of the hard 

standing areas occurs; and 

When hard standing (or other) areas are decommissioned, any covering material should 

be removed, with as minimal disturbance to the underlying topsoil as possible, and the 

exposed surface should be planted as soon as possible with a cover crop, to protect the 

soil from erosion. Disturbance should be seasonally timed for cover crop establishment 

during the winter rainfall period.

Chapter 12: 


Standards for monitoring: 

The site must be visually monitored as part of the environmental management program, 

particularly during the construction phase. The occurrence of any areas denuded of vegetation 

should be recorded (GPS position and extent). These areas must be monitored on an ongoing 

basis and the extent of vegetation cover and any erosion taking place must be recorded. 

12.6.3 Soil profile disturbance and resultant decrease in soil agricultural suitability 

Excavations for any construction and related activities (eg. burying of cables) will disturb the 

soil profile. If topsoil becomes buried or subsoil that is less suitable for root growth, remains 

at the surface, the agricultural suitability of that soil will be reduced. 

Mitigation: 

For all excavations and other temporary, direct disturbances of the soil surface, the upper 

30cm of the top soil should be stripped, stockpiled, and then re-spread over the surface of 

the backfilled excavation or disturbed surface. It is probably not feasible to retain topsoil for 

rehabilitation use until after decommissioning of the project, so this will only apply to areas 

that are rehabilitated during construction. 

12.6.4 Disturbance of current and future cultivation practices 

The presence of the turbines in agricultural land may disturb cultivation practices. However 

there are very few current or likely future cultivation practices to disturb, given the limited 

water resources. Currently there is only sporadic strip cultivation taking place with no follow 

up management, and disturbance to these practices will be insignificant. 

12.6.5 Placement of spoil material generated from excavations 

The excavation of turbine foundations will generate spoil material whose storage can impact 

on agricultural land. 

Mitigation: 

Excavated spoil material should be backfilled wherever possible, and material that is not 

suitable as rooting material, should be utilised elsewhere and not spread on agricultural 

land. 

12.6.6 Yield reduction 

The only factor causing yield reductions will be section 12.6.1 above: loss of agricultural land. 

All other disturbances identified above are not expected to lead to any yield reduction. 


pg 12-13

Table 12-2 Summary table giving assessment of all identified impacts. 

Impact Status Extent Duration Intensity Probability 

Loss of agricultural land Negative Site specific Long term (life 

of project) 

Land surface disturbance 

and resultant potential 

impact on erosion 

Soil profile disturbance and 

resultant decrease in soil 

agricultural capability 

Disturbance of cultivation 

practices 

Placement of spoil material 

generated from excavations 


pg 12-14 

Significance 

without 

mitigation 

Chapter 12: 


Mitigation 

Low Definite Low Minimise footprint of new 

roads and other 


Negative Site specific Short term Medium Probable Medium Minimise extent and 

duration of bare areas. 

Protect rehabilitated bare 

areas with a cover crop 

Negative Site specific Short term Low Probable Low Strip, stockpile and respread 

topsoil over surface 

Negative Site specific Long term (life 

of project) 

Negative Site specific Long term (life 

of project) 

Yield reduction Negative Site specific Long term (life 

of project) 

Low Probable Low None, and not considered 

necessary 

Low Probable Low Spoils should not be spread 

on agricultural land. 

Low Improbable Low Minimise footprint of new 

roads and other 


Significance 

with 

mitigation 

Confidence 

level 

Low High 

Low High 

Low High 

Low High 

Low High 

Low High


Chapter 12: 


Impacts on agriculture are considered to have high reversibility because most of the 

land utilised by the wind farm can be returned to agriculture after closure with very 

little remaining impact. A small proportion of land will be minimally and irreversibly 

impacted by concrete foundations, and some impact of compaction for hard standing 

areas may remain. Impacts on agriculture are also considered to have low 

irreplaceability of resource loss because only a very small proportion of land will 

potentially be irreplaceably lost to agriculture. 


An agricultural impact assessment was done for the proposed iNca wind energy 

project near Vredendal. The aim of this study was to investigate the potential impacts 

of the proposed development on the site's agricultural production and resource base. 

This included an investigation of soils and other agricultural resources across the site. 

The soil investigation was based on soil test pits. All soils have formed under arid 

climatic conditions within sandy alluvium parent material. The upper soil horizons (A 

and B horizons) are very uniform across the area. They are red, sandy (

Chapter 12: 


Impacts on agricultural resources and productivity were identified as: 

Loss of agricultural land; 

Land surface disturbance and resultant potential impact on erosion; 

Soil profile disturbance and resultant decrease in soil agricultural suitability; 

Disturbance of cultivation practices; 

Placement of spoil material generated from excavations; and 

Yield reduction. 

All impacts are considered to be of low significance, predominantly because of the 

small footprint of the development and its minimal disturbance of agricultural 

activities, and the fact that it is situated on land of very low agricultural productivity. 

The effective loss of agricultural land was determined as only 6 hectares, which 

represents a mere 0.17% of the land surface of the farm. 


pg 12-16


pg 13-0 

Chapter 13: Freshwater 

Resource Impact Assessment


pg 13-1 


Resource Impact Assessment 

13. FRESHWATER RESOURCE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 13-3 

SUMMARY 13-3 


13.1.1 Approach to the freshwater impact assessment 13-4 




13.2.1 Location 13-4 

13.2.2 Natural environment 13-5 

13.2.3 Modified environment 13-10 

13.3 IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES AND IMPACTS 13-13 

13.3.1 Impacts on wetlands and rivers 13-13 

13.3.2 Impact on the canal and farm dam 13-13 

13.3.3 Use of water during the construction and operational phases 13-13 



13.6 CONCLUSIONS 13-15


pg 13-2 



Table 13-1 Summary of freshwater impacts 13-14 

Figure 13-1 NFEPA map indicating wetland on western boundary 900 m from proposed site 13-6 

Figure 13-2 CBA map indicating wetland on western boundary 900 m from proposed site. 13-7 

Figure 13-3 Enlargement of Figure 13-1 indicating viewpoints 13-8 

Figure 13-4 Viewpoint 1 (VP1) of area indicated as a wetland 13-8 

Figure 13-5 Viewpoint 2 (VP2) of area indicated as wetland 13-9 

Figure 13-6 Vegetation in area indicated as wetland 13-9 

Figure 13-7 Google Earth illustration of the canal (blue line) traversing the property. Area in yellow enlarged 

on next page 13-10 

Figure 13-8 Google Earth enlargement of Figure 13-7 showing the canal, farm dam and access road crossing 

the canal. 13-11 

Figure 13-9 Existent bridge where proposed access road crosses the canal 13-12

13. FRESHWATER RESOURCE IMPACT 

ASSESSMENT 

SUMMARY 


pg 13-3 



This chapter gives a short overview of the freshwater resources in the vicinity of the proposed 

project and how these might be affected by the project. It also considers where water needed 

for the construction and operation of the projects will be sourced from. 

It was found that the proposed project is located on the divide between the E33G and G30H 

quaternary catchments and in the Olifants D and Sandveld sub-Water Management Areas. The 

site where the turbines will be constructed is located approximately 8 km south of the Olifants 

River. An access road that needs to be upgraded is located further than 1.5 km from the river. 

According to the fine scale Critical Biodiversity maps as well as the National Freshwater 

Ecological Protected Areas maps there is a wetland on the western boundary of the farm, 

located approximately 900 m from the nearest project related infrastructure. Upon inspection 

it was found, from a non-specialist perspective, that the area demarcated as a wetland does 

not show any wetland characteristics. 

Since the site is located on a ridge acting as a divide between two water catchment areas there 

is no shallow water table that can be affected by the development. The absence of a water 

table has been confirmed by the land owner as there was no water to be found when drilling 

boreholes for livestock purposes. It is proposed to source water for the construction and 

operational phases from the local municipality. An application in this regard has been lodged. 

An artificial canal transferring irrigation water from the Bulshoek Dam farther down the 

valley traverses the farm on the north eastern portion. There is also an artificial lined dam 

next to the canal that stores off-stream water for the farm’s irrigation needs. An existing 

access road proposed to be upgraded crosses this canal at an existing bridge. It is not yet know 

whether the existing bridge can handle the load of the construction equipment and turbine 

components. If necessary the bridge will be reinforced. 


Management Act, (107 of1998) (as amended 2010) as well as the National Water Act (36 of 

1998) the canal does not constitute a watercourse. 


500 m of a watercourse and water will be sourced from the local municipality it is not 

expected to have an impact on any freshwater resource. The project does not trigger a water 

use application.


13.1.1 Approach to the freshwater impact assessment 


pg 13-4 



This is only a broad overview and assessment of how the proposed project could possibly 

impact on freshwater resources. This study has been prepared by the EAP and considers the 

information gathered during a site visit conducted 26 September 2011 as well as information 

gathered from available sources. 


This study made the basic assumption that the sources of information used are reliable. 

However, it must be noted that there are certain limitations. This study has been prepared by 

the EAP and not a freshwater specialist. 


The following information sources were consulted for this report: 

The National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas Maps (NFEPA) 1; 

The Biodiversity Sector Plan for the Saldanha Bay, Bergrivier, Cederberg and Matzikama 

Municipalities 2 (Fine Scale CBA maps); and 

Water use information provided by iNca Energy. 


13.2.1 Location 

The proposed site for the wind energy facility is on the farm Groot Draaihoek. The property 

borders to the south of the town Vredendal and falls within the Matzikama municipal area and 

the West Coast District Municipality. The proposed site for the wind energy facility is located 

approximately 8 km south-west of Vredendal. 

The proposed site falls within the E33G and G30H quaternary catchments and in the Olifants D 

and Sandveld sub-Water Management Area. 

1 Driver, A., Nel, J.L., Snaddon, K., Murry, K., Roux, D.J., Hill, L., Swartz, E.R., Manuel, J. and Funke, N. 

2011. National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas. Report prepared for the Water Research 

Commition. Available at: http://bgis.sanbi.org/NFEPA/NFEPA_Implementation_Manual.pdf Assessed 24 

November 2011 

2 Maree, K.S. and Vromans, D.C. 2010. The Biodiversity Sector Plan for the Saldanha Bay, Bergrivier, Cederberg and 

Matzikama Municipalities: Supporting land-use planning and decision-making in Critical Biodiversity Areas and 

Ecological Support Areas. Produced by CapeNature as part of the C.A.P.E. Fine-scale Biodiversity Planning Project. 

Kirstenbosch. Available at: 

http://www.bergmun.org.za/media/Biodiversity/BIODIVERSITY%20SECTOR%20PLAN%20WEST%20COAST.pdf 

Assessed 18 July 2011

13.2.2 Natural environment 


pg 13-5 



According to the recently released (November 2011) National Fresh Water Priority Areas 

(NFEPA) maps as well as the fine scale Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBA) maps there are no 

rivers or natural water streams on the proposed development site. The farm is, however, 

adjacent to the Olifants River. The closest the farm boundary comes to the Olifants river is 

approximately 1 km. The development site is, however, located on the other site of the farm 

approximately 8 km of the river (see Figure 13-1). 

Both the FEPA and CBA maps indicate a small wetland on the western boundary of the 

property. According to the FEPA maps this wetland has been identified as a Wetland FEPA 

(see Figure 13-1). According to the CBA maps this wetland is classified as ‘other ecological 

support area’ (see Figure 13-2). The proposed development will be located approximately 900 

metres from this wetland. 

During a site visit on 26 September 2011 the EAP visited the area indicated as a wetland. 

During the visit no signs (e.g. riparian vegetation of soil mottling) indicating the presence of a 

wetland were observable (see Figure 13-3 to Figure 13-5. According to the land owner, Mr 

Cobus Visser, he has never seen freestanding water in that area for as long as he has been on 

the farm; i.e. more than 40 years. 

With an annual rainfall of approximately 105 mm and sandy soils formed under arid climatic 

conditions within sandy alluvium parent material the probability of a wetland occurring on 

this site is unlikely. Wetlands indicated on CBA and FEPA maps are modelled from Digital 

Elevation Model (DEM) maps and can sometimes indicate wetlands where there are none and 

vice versa. 

According to the land owner there is no mentionable shallow underground water at the site 

identified for the development. There have been attempts to drill boreholes for livestock use, 

but no water was found at a depth that can be utilised by a windpump (i.e., shallower than 

approximately 70 m). The lack of underground water would make sense since the site is 

located on a ridge serving as the divide between two drainage catchments (i.e. quaternary 

catchment E33H and G30H). Water would thus not be stagnant in the form of a water table in 

this area, but rather drain towards the valleys shortly after percolation into the soil.

9 

0 

Figure 13-1 NFEPA map indicating wetland on western boundary 900 m from proposed site 


pg 13-6 



Figure 13-2 CBA map indicating wetland on western boundary 900 m from proposed site. 


pg 13-7 



VP2 

VP1 


pg 13-8 



Figure 13-3 Enlargement of Figure 13-1 indicating viewpoints 

Figure 13-4 Viewpoint 1 (VP1) of area indicated as a wetland


pg 13-9 



Figure 13-5 Viewpoint 2 (VP2) of area indicated as wetland 

Figure 13-6 Vegetation in area indicated as wetland

13.2.3 Modified environment 


pg 13-10 



The following modified environments were identified at or immediately adjacent the wind 

farm site: 

Canals – The farm is traversed in the far northern section by an concrete water chanel 

with steep slopes. This canal brings water from the Bulshoek Dam approximately 50 km 

upstream in the Olifants River. Due to the increased salinity of the Olifants River with 

proximity to the ocean the canal was constructed to provide fresher water for irrigation 

purposes further down the valley. The proposed access road crosses the canal at an 

existing bridge as indicated in Figure 13-7 to Figure 13-9. 

Farm dam - Next to the canal there is an artificial dam, with a synthetic liner, constructed 

and used by the farmer for the off-stream storage of canal water for irrigation purposes. 

The proposed development is located approximately 7 km from the canal and farm dam 


Irrigated fields - The farms have irrigated vineyards and vegetables on the northern, 

lower-lying parts, which are more than 6 km from the nearest turbine. The extent of these 

productive areas is limited by the available quantity of irrigation water. The farm on the 

eastern side has an irrigation allocation of 35 hectares and the one on the west has 120, 

for which some of the water allocated is piped across the farm to a vineyard development 

on the coast at Strandfontein. 

Figure 13-7 Google Earth illustration of the canal (blue line) traversing the property. 

Area in yellow enlarged on next page

Figure 13-8 Google Earth enlargement of Figure 13-7 showing the canal, farm dam and access road crossing the canal. 


pg 13-11 





Figure 13-9 Existent bridge where proposed access road crosses the canal 


pg 13-12

13.3 IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES AND IMPACTS 

13.3.1 Impacts on wetlands and rivers 


pg 13-13 



The area that has been identified as a wetland by the CBA and NFEPA maps is, according to the 

EAP, not a wetland. Nonetheless, the proposed wind energy facility will not have a physical 

footprint closer than 900 m from the area demarcated as such. Therefore, it is not foreseen 

that the proposed facility will have any impact on this area. 

The Olifants River flows in the vicinity of the proposed facility. The turbines will be 

established more than 8 km from the river. Supporting infrastructure such as the upgraded 

access road and power line connecting the facility to the Vredendal substation will have a 

physical footprint that does not encroach closer than 1.5 km from the river. It not foreseen 

that the construction of the overhead powerlines, upgrading of the access road of the wind 

facility itself will have any impact on the river. 

13.3.2 Impact on the canal and farm dam 

The wind facility will be located approximately 7 km from an artificial canal transferring 

irrigation water and a farm dam storing water from the canal for irrigation purposes. Access 

to the wind energy facility will also be via a road crossing the canal. 

It is currently envisaged to utilise an existing bridge over the canal to gain access to the site, 

but it is not yet clear whether this bridge is structurally strong enough to handle the load of 

the construction equipment and turbine components. If necessary, the bridge will be 

reinforced. 

Since the canal is an artificial structure with no natural fauna or flora associated with it 

neither the use of the existing bridge nor the upgrading thereof is expected to have an impact 

on the natural wetland environment. 

13.3.3 Use of water during the construction and operational phases 

It is envisaged that approximately 12 million litres of water will be needed during the 12 

month construction phase and 20 000 litres per month thereafter for use by the onsite 

personnel. The proponent proposes to source this water from the Matzikama Municipality and 

has lodged an application in this regard (see Appendix E). The Matzikama Municipality will in 

turn source water from Lower Olifants River Water User Association (LORWUA). LORWUO 

has already allocated canal water to the Matzikama Municipality for the proposed project (see 

Appendix E). 

The proponent proposes to collect water from a point designated by the municipality and 

truck it to site.

Nature of the 

Impact 

Impact on wetland 

environment 

Impact on Olifants 

River 

Use of water for 

construction and 

operational phases 

Table 13-1 Summary of freshwater impacts 


pg 13-14 




Significance 

Without 

mitigation 

Mitigation 


mitigation 

is required 


mitigation 

is required 

Negative Local Permanent Low Improbable No 

mitigation 

is required 


Significance 


mitigation 

Low High 

Low High 

Low High 

According to both the National Environmental Management Act, (107 of1998) (as amended 

2010) as well as the National Water Act (36 of 1998) the definition of a "watercourse" is: 

(a) a river or spring; 

(b) a natural channel or depression in which water flows regularly or intermittently; 

(c) a wetland, lake or dam into which, or from which, water flows; and 

(d) any collection of water which the Minister may, by notice in the Gazette, declare 

to be a watercourse as defined in the National Water Act, 1998 (Act No. 36 of 

1998) and a reference to a watercourse includes, where relevant, its bed and 

banks; 

According to this definition the artificial canal that will be crossed by the access road does not 

constitute a watercourse. Therefore, activity 11 of listing notice 2 (construction of a bridge 

within 32 m of a watercourse) and activity 18 of listing notice 2 (infilling or deposition of 

more than 5 cubic meters from a watercourse) are not applicable to the proposed project. 

According to recent guidelines by the Department of Water Affairs any development within 

500 m of a watercourse necessitates an application for a water use licence. Since the proposed 

development will not have a physical footprint within 500 m of a watercourse and is planned 

to be supplied with water for the construction phase from the local municipality the project 

does not trigger a water use application. 


The proposed project is not envisaged to impact on any water resources and reversibility of 

impacts and irreplaceability of the water resource are therefore not applicable.



pg 13-15 



The proposed project is located on the divide between the E33G and G30H quaternary 

catchments and in the Olifants D and Sandveld sub-Water Management Areas. The site where 

the turbines will be constructed is located approximately 8 km south of the Olifants River. An 

access road that needs to be upgraded is located more than 1.5 km from the river. 

According to the fine scale Critical Biodiversity maps as well as the National Freshwater 

Ecological Protected Areas maps there is a wetland on the western boundary of the farm, 

located approximately 900 m from the nearest project related infrastructure. Upon inspection 

it was found, from a non-specialist perspective, that the area demarcated as a wetland does 

not display any wetland characteristics. 

Since the site is located on a ridge acting as a divide between two water catchment areas there 

is no shallow water table that can be affected by the development. The absence of a water 

table has been confirmed by the land owner who encountered no groundwater in the course 

of previous drilling of boreholes for stock watering. 

It is proposed to source water for the construction phase from the local municipality. 

An artificial canal transferring irrigation water from the Bulshoek Dam farther down the 

valley traverses the farm on the north eastern portion. There is also an artificial lined dam 

next to the canal that stores off-stream water for the farm’s irrigation needs. An existing 

access road proposed to be upgraded crosses this canal at an existing bridge. It is not yet know 

whether the existing bridge can handle the load of the construction equipment and turbine 

components. If necessary the bridge will be reinforced. 





500 m of a watercourse and water will be sourced from the local municipality it is not 

expected to have an impact on any freshwater resource. The project does not trigger a water 

use application.

Chapter 14: Issues and Responses Trail 

14. ISSUES AND RESPONSES TRAIL 14-2 

14.1 IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES 14-2 

14.2 ISSUES AND RESPONSES TRAIL 14-3 


pg 14-1


14. ISSUES AND RESPONSES TRAIL 

This chapter presents the approach to evaluating issues and responses from authorities and 

stakeholders. It provides an overview of all issues raised following the release of the Final Scoping 

Report and responses by the EIA team to these issues. 

14.1 IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES 

An important element of the EIA process is to evaluate issues that are raised through interactions 

with authorities, the broader public, specialists on the EIA team and the project proponent. 

It is important to focus the EIA on the key issues, namely those issues that are critical for a 

decision on environmental authorisation. Therefore, a decision-making process has been 

developed to assist in identifying key issues, based on the following criteria (see Figure 14-1): 

1. Whether or not the resolution of the issue falls within the scope and responsibility of the 

Vredendal Wind EIA process; 

2. Whether or not sufficient information is available to respond to the issue raised without 

further specialist investigation. 

Figure 14-1: Framework for identification of key issues for the EIA 


pg 14-2


Issues are drawn from the following interactions after the release of the Final Scoping Report: 

Issues included in the Draft and Final Scoping reports and issues that reached the 

consultant after the close of the commenting period on the Final Scoping Report; 

Issues raised during the public meeting in Vredendal on 16 January 2012; 

Comment received on the Draft EIA Report; and 

Issues raised in telephone communication, letters and faxes and email that were received 

after the release of the Final Scoping Report, within the commenting period. 

Comments received are presented in the following categories (number in brackets indicates the 

number of issues raised): 

1. Issues related to project specifics (26); 

2. Issues related to natural fauna and flora (10); and 

3. Issues related to land-use (12). 

14.2 ISSUES AND RESPONSES TRAIL 

Issues raised after the release of the Final Scoping Report that have not been addressed during the 

Scoping Phase are provided below, together with a response from the EIA team. Some responses 

are grounded in the Specialist contributions to the EIA, which are incorporated into this Final EIA 

Report. All comments received after the release of the Final Scoping Report that have not been 

addressed during the Scoping Phase are attached as Appendix E to this report. 


pg 14-3

A. COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE FINAL SCOPING REPORT 

1) Issues related to project specifics 

NO ISSUES RAISED DATE COMMENTER RESPONSE 

1.1 Construction Civils, the foundations of 18X18X4 m. 

means that for each turbine 1296 cu.m. of material 

has to be removed, which at approximately 10 cu.m. 

per load means about 130 loads with a similar 

number of loads of concrete or components to be 

brought onto the site. 

Where will the spoil be disposed of? 

Where will the sand and gravel be obtained? 

The approximate number of vehicle movements for 

the project should be calculated and the 

environmental impact upon habitats and road 


The vehicles used by the developers, contractors and 

suppliers should be registered with the Vredendal 

Traffic Department in order that some of the license 

fee can be used to defray infrastructure maintenance 

costs. 

Letter dated 13 

October 2011 

Keith Harrison, West 

Coast Bird Club 


pg 14-4 


CSIR: 

It is planned to use excavated material for the upgrading of 

existing roads and construction of new internal road. Sand, 

gravel and cement will be sourced by the contractors 

appointed at the time of construction. The identity of these 

contractors is, therefore, not known at this stage and 

therefore they cannot be consulted to establish from where 

they will obtain their building material. However, it is to be 

expected that building at least some of the materials would 

be sourced from the nearby Cape Lime operation 

(approximately 10 km by road from site). 

Regarding the vehicle registration, once again this is 

dependent on the contractors that will be appointed, but the 

proponent aims at appointing locally as far as possible. This 

implies that vehicles used to transport gravel from Cape 

Lime, for example, will be registered with the local 

municipality. 

iNca Energy: 

At this stage a logistics/traffic specialist has been included for 

comment. However, this is just to determine the best route 

from the port to the site. A more detailed Traffic/Transport 

Assessment will be done if the project is selected as a 

preferred bidder.


1.2 At each turbine the permanent lay down area of 40 X 

20 m will increase habitat displacement. 

Re-habilitation will take 12 years with only about 80% 

species returning. 

The gravel surfaced hardened areas and internal 

roads will lead to increased storm water run-off on 

the occasions that it rains, usually heavy over very 

short periods of time. A storm water policy should be 

considered. 


October 2011 




pg 14-5 



It is true that the total project footprint predominantly 

includes the supporting infrastructure (e.g. hard standing 

areas and road). This EIA states that an area no greater than 

35 ha will be affected by the project, but this refers to the 

area that will be enclosed by the project. In reality, the direct 

footprint of 15 turbines and its supporting infrastructure will 

only be approximately 8 ha. Due to the natural hard surfaced 

(duripan) characteristic of the area runoff is naturally high 

and the construction of hard surfaced areas will not change 

runoff properties too much. Nonetheless, there will be runoff 

that should be considered by the developer. Erosion 

potential and mitigation have been discussed in the 

agricultural assessment provided as Chapter 12 of this 

report.


1.3 Employment opportunities; There should be a table 

showing labour requirements during the 

Construction and Production Phases in terms of 

skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled and whether they 

will be recruited locally. 

1.4 Since none of the portion has any lawfull water use 

rights for irrigation purposes a Water Use License 

Authorisation needs to be obtained from the 

Department of Water Affairs prior to the 

commencement of the project. Alternatively, an 

indication of usage and water source during 

(including time of the year water will be needed) 

need to be submitted to the Matzikama Municipality 

to apply for water from this municipality 


October 2011 


October 2011 



Dgi O’Neill, Matzikama 

Municipal Manager 


pg 14-6 



To date no large (i.e. comprising more than 4 turbines) wind 

facility has been constructed in South Africa. Therefore, 

there is no past experience to draw from as to estimate the 

amount of labour that will be utilised during the construction 

phase. There are few, if any, skilled local individuals in the 

field of wind farm construction. 

However, as stated in Section 2.1 of this report, it is 

estimated that approximately 60 temporary employment 

opportunities for locals across various skill levels will arise 

from the 12 – 18 month construction period. Between 2 and 

5 permanent employment opportunities will be created 

during the operational phase of the project. 


Information regarding water use has been submitted to the 

Matzikama Municipality. It is planned to source water from 

the Municipality (see Appendix E).


1.5 Detailed information regarding the position for the 

disposal of waste material at decommissioning of the 

facility and the defected parts during operation 

should be provided. 

1.6 In principle the Department of Agriculture: Western 

Cape (DoA:WC) will support development of 

Renewable Energy projects and the lease areas only 

when the DoA:WC is satisfied that the impact on 

agricultural resources are considered to be 

insignificant or can be mitigated to acceptable levels. 

Proof of this by means of an Agricultural Impact 

Assessment is the only means for this office to assess 

the possible impacts. It is suggested that an 

acknowledged agriculturist be appointed to do an 

Agricultural Impact Assessment. 

1.7 The West Coast District Municipality is satisfied that 

cognizance has been taken of the issues raised in the 

letter dated 27 September 2011 and awaits the 

submission of the Environmental Impact Report. 


October 2011 


October 2011 


October 2011 



AS Roux, Director of 

Sustainable Resource 

Management, 

Department of 

Agriculture: Western 

Cape 

Municipal Manager, 

West Coast District 

Municipality 


pg 14-7 



As discussed in Section 2.3.4 of this report it is not at this 

time known which disposal facilities will be available at the 

time of disposal. It is thus not possible to identify specific 

facilities at this stage. When the time for decommissioning 

comes, the nearest facilities registered to receive waste and 

recycle material from the wind farm will be identified and 

utilised. 

Defective parts replaced during the operational phase will 

probably be overhauled and reused. 


An acknowledged agricultural specialist has been appointed 

to conduct an Agricultural Impact Assessment. Findings of 

this assessment are presented in Chapter 12 of this report. 


Noted


1.8 It has been noted that water will be sourced from the 

farm on which the facility will be established and the 

farm sources its water for irrigation purposes from 

the Olifants River. Please clarify whether the farm has 

an authorization for taking water from the Olifants 

River from this Department. If yes, a proof of such 

authorization should be submitted to this office. 

1.9 Where and how will the wastewater which will be 

generated during the construction phase of the 

development be disposed 

1.10 No Provincial roads are directly affected by the 

position of the Wind Energy Facility. Provincial roads 

will however be affected when the equipment is 

transported to the site. The developers would need 

to apply to ourselves well in advance for the 

necessary wayleaves and for the necessary 

permission to transport abnormal loads on any 

proclaimed road before they may proceed on such a 

road. 

1.11 The site layout that was provided in the FSR is 

inadequate. A clear and detailed layout which 

illustrates the proposed access roads, turbine 

positions and associated infrastructure must be 

included in the Draft EIA Report. Site layouts must 

also be provided for all alternatives to be investigated 

and assessed 


October 2011 


October 2011 

Email dated 23 

November 2011 


December 2011 

Chief Director, 

Department of Water 

Affairs: Western Cape 




Rod Boyes, For the 

Office of the Acting 

Regional Manager : 

Provincial Roads : Ceres 

Zaahir Toefy, Director: 

Environmental and Land 

Management, Western 

Cape Department of 

Environmental Affairs & 

Developmental Planning 


pg 14-8 



The Matzikama Municipality has since informed that the 

farm does not have a water use authorisation to extract 

water from the Olifants River for irrigation purposes. It is 

now planned to source water from the local municipality and 

an application for water provision for the project has been 

submitted to the Matzikama Municipality. 


Licensed contractors will be appointed to provide ablution 

facilities and dispose of the wastewater at registered 

disposal sites. 


Comments are noted and the proponent, or the appointed 

contractor, will obtain the necessary authorisation from the 

Department of Transport and Public Works. 


Detailed site layout maps have been included in Chapter 2 

and Appendix B of this report. The alternatives considered, 

i.e. 10 × 3 MW or 15 × 2 MW turbines will make use of the 

same layout, if the 10 turbine alternative is selected the most 

least suited 5 turbine sites will just be removed.


1.12 The FSR fails to provide further details on how the 

broader site selection for the establishment of a 

potential wind farm was informed by a regional 

assessment. The Department aims to adopt a 

strategic approach in identifying sites at regional level 

for the development of wind energy facilities. A 

regional assessment should have been done in order 

to provide the strategic context for the proposal and 

to identify the most appropriate site from a regional 

perspective. Furthermore, when applying the 

Department’s Regional Methodology for Wind Energy 

Site Selection Guidelines, the following, inter alia 

must be considered: 

1. Proximity of already approved wind farms 

(Klawer and Namaquasands wind facilities) 

2. Proximity of major towns (Vredendal) 

3. Proximity of local wetlands (minimum buffer 

of 500 m) 

4. Proximity of protected areas and areas of 

sensitive biodiversity. 


December 2011 








pg 14-9 



Chapter 3 of this report gives an overview of the criteria 

considered when selecting the site identified for the 

proposed wind facility. In the same chapter the site is 

evaluated according to the document titled: Strategic 

Initiative to Introduce Commercial Land Based Wind Energy 

Development to the Western Cape: Towards a regional site 

selection. (Provincial Government of the Western Cape 2006). 

According to this document from the Department the site 

location, due to its proximity to a major town of Vredendal and 

transmission lines, is rated highly for the establishment of the 

proposed wind facility. 

1. At the time the of site evaluation and selection the wind farms 

at Klawer and Namaquasands were not yet identified and 

proposed. Therefore, it would have been impossible to take 

these facilities into consideration at the time of site selection. 

2. According to the Strategic Initiative to Introduce Commercial 

Land Based Wind Energy Development to the Western Cape: 

Towards a regional site selection (Provincial Government of the 

Western Cape 2006), the only guideline available to consultants 

and proponents at the time of site selection and still today, the 

proximity of Vredendal is a positive selection criteria for the 

proposed wind facility. 

3. The project and its associated infrastructure will not encroach 

or impact on any natural wetland (see Chapter 13 of this 

report) 

4. The CBA near the site has been identified and the possible 

impact of the proposed development discussed throughout this 

report. It has been concluded that the impact on the CBA will 

be low.


1.13 A site visit is required for the determination of the 

relevance of archaeology on the proposed site. In 

addition, comment from Heritage Western Cape must 

be included in the draft EIA report. 

1.14 Alternatives need to be considered for the proposed 

development. 


December 2011 


December 2011 

1.15 Will the substation be upgraded? Public meeting 

held on 16 

January 2012 in 

Vredendal 













S.A. Engelbrecht, Local 

resident 


pg 14-10 



An archaeological assessment of the site, including a site 

visit, has been conducted and is presented in Chapter 9 of 

this report. 

At the time of the release of this report Heritage Western 

Cape (HWC) has not commented on the project, even though 

a Notice of Intend to Develop was submitted in to (HWC) in 

June 2011 and the Draft and Final Scoping Reports have also 

been submitted for comment. Comment from HWC will be 

included in the Final EIA Report. 


Chapter 3 of this report deals with alternatives considered 

for the proposed project. Feasible alternatives have also 

been evaluated by specialists in Chapters 6 to 12 of this 

report. 

iNca Energy: 

Yes, there has been mention that Eskom will upgrade the 

substation to stisfy the electricity needs of Vredendal.


1.16 How much will iNca be paid per kW/H and who will 

pay for the difference between the current electricity 

price and renewable energy? 

1.17 Is this the only project of its kind in this municipal 

area? 

1.18 What advantage do the local community get from the 

project? 

1.19 Who guarantees the funds payable for 

decommissioning and rehabilitation in the case iNca 

suffers bankruptcy? 

Public meeting 

held on 16 


Vredendal 


held on 16 


Vredendal 


held on 16 


Vredendal 


held on 16 


Vredendal 


resident 

Christoffel van der 

Westhuizen, Municipal 

councillor. 


resident 


resident 


pg 14-11 


iNca Energy: 

The price at which iNca will sell the electricity to the 

Department of Energy (DoE) has not been finalised. It will 

only be known once the bid for the project has been 

prepared and submitted to the DoE. There will, however, be 

a difference between the current coal-based electricity price 

and wind-based energy, with wind energy being more 

expensive. The government is making funds available to 

subsidise renewable energy so that the consumer does not 

need to pay the difference. 

iNca Energy: 

There are several other projects in the area. iNca has two 

projects that are planned in the area; one solar PV and this 

wind energy project. 

iNca Energy: 

iNca will provide funds to the local municipality (via a 

development fund related to the IDP) to contribute to local 

development. Approximately R2 to5 million could be 

contributed to this fund each year. 


The municipality will guarantee that iNca makes sufficient 

funds available for this before the project can start. This 

guarantee will be in the form of funds made available to the 

municipality if iNca goes bankrupt. The guarantee will be 

reviewed annually.


1.20 What employment opportunities will be generated by 

this project? 

1.21 How then will the community benefit from this 

project? 


held on 16 


Vredendal 


held on 16 


Vredendal 

1.22 How is BBBEE promoted by the project? Public meeting 

held on 16 


Vredendal 

1.23 How will the upgrade of the road influence my ability 

to access and use the road? Will my use of the 

servitude road to my property be compromised by 

the construction of the project? 

1.24 What financial benefit is available to me given that I 

was not included during the scoping phase even 

though my property abutted the land earmarked for 

the project? The offer made by iNca to me was not 

clear regarding the financial benefit accruing to me 

(for the use/upgrade of the bridge). Can this be 

made more concrete? 


held on 16 


Vredendal 


held on 16 


Vredendal 



councillor. 



councillor. 



councillor. 

Wilfred Stephan, 

Neighbouring farmer. 




pg 14-12 



Limited employment will be generated during the 

operational phase while more short-term employment 

opportunities will be available during the construction 

phase. 


Benefit will primarily be indirectly through the multiplier 

effect resulting from increased economic activity in the 

area. 

iNca Energy: 

iNca Energy is partly owned by the COSATU investment 

arm, Kopano Ke Matla, as a BBBEE partner. 2.5% of the 

project company will also be owned by a local community 

trust. 

iNca Energy: 

Upgrade will be of such a nature that your continued use 

of the road will be guaranteed. 

iNca Energy: 

iNca is willing to negotiate such an arrangement should a 

positive RoD be issued. Should iNca obtain a positive RoD, 

iNca will pay R80 000 for the use and upgrades of the 

bridge.


1.25 Who will ensure that the conditions of the EIA and 

RoD are implemented? 

1.26 The issues raise by the West Coast District 

Municipality during the Scoping Phase of the 

project have been addressed satisfactorily in the 

Draft EIA Report. However, the cumulative impact 

of the wind energy facilities in the Matzikama 

Municipal Area may be problematic and should 

receive attention during the EIA phase of the 

project. 

For your convenience a map and table containing 

the latest information regarding renewable energy 

projects applications in the West Coast District 

Municipality are attached. 


held on 16 


Vredendal 


January 2012 


resident 

Municipal Manager, 

West Coast District 

Municipality 


pg 14-13 



The EMP will be implemented by an independent third 

party (probably the local municipality). 


Cumulative impacts of surrounding farms that were 

known at the time of the assessments were considered by 

all specialists. The map mentioned has been included in 

Section 5.6 of this report.

2) Issues related to fauna, flora and the natural environment 


2.1 The 2 X 11 kV lines, would it be possible for these to be 

put under ground? This should be covered in the AIA 

report and potential collisions. Bird diverters should 

protect all above ground cables. 

2.2 Bats:- 

A simple mitigation would be not to operate turbines 

in a wind speed below 5 m/sec. 

Or a wind speed that identified species and period of 

the day are known to be active. 

Outside lighting should be motion activated with the 

beam pointing vertically downwards so as not to 

attract insects which are prey for night flying birds and 

bats. 

2.3 In the Draft Scoping Report it has been stated that the 

road network may include turning circles for large 

trucks, passing points and culverts over rivers. Please 

note that this might require water use authorization in 

term of the National Water Act, 36 of 1998. You are 

therefore requested to enquire from this office prior 

to commencement of construction activities. 


October 2011 


October 2011 


October 2011 









pg 14-14 



For installation and maintenance reasons it is financially 

preferable to construct overhead powerlines rather than install 

underground cabling. The potential bird impact of the 

overhead powerlines has been assessed in a bird impact 

assessment as provided in Chapter 7 of this report. It has been 

advised to install bird diverters on aboveground cables. 


As discussed in Chapter 8 of this report, if it is found that bat 

mortality is unacceptably high during the operational phase, 

curtailing (restricting operational wind speeds/times) will be 

considered by the proponent with financial implications in 

mind. Decisions will be taken in consultation with a bat 

specialist. 


As discussed in Chapter 13 no infrastructure associated with 

this project will encroach within 500 meters of any natural 

wetland, water body, stream or river. The road will, however, 

cross an artificial canal. At this stage it is envisaged to use and 

existing bridge of this canal. The Department of Water Affairs 

will be consulted in this regard.


2.4 Please clarify whether the wetland located on the 

eastern boundary of the farm will be affected by the 

proposed development. Additionally, you are 

requested to assess the impacts of the proposed 

development on this wetland and provide mitigation 

measures. 

2.5 How far is the proposed development from the 

Olifants River and what are the potential impacts of 

the proposed development on the river? What are the 

proposed mitigation measures? 

2.6 The proposed site falls within an area classified as a 

Critical Biodiversity Area (CBA) by the Cape Fine Scale 

Mapping Process. The draft EIA must therefore provide 

detailed information with regards to what indigenous 

vegetation will be removed and the extent to which 

the CBA will be affected. Overhead transmission lines 

are also proposed to cross the CBA. Transmission line 

route alternatives must therefore be investigated and 

reported on. 


October 2011 


October 2011 


December 2011 














pg 14-15 



The presence of the wetland was identified from the SANBI 

National Wetland Types map. This map is a modelled map that 

is known to be incorrect in some instances. As discussed in 

Chapter 13 of this report, upon inspection it was found that 

there is no wetland on the site as depicted on the wetlands 

map. 

Furthermore, the supposed wetland is depicted as being 

approximately 900 m for the nearest project associated 

infrastructure. No impacts are foreseen and no mitigation 

proposed. 


The proposed facility is further than 8 km away from the river. 

No potential impact and mitigation measures have been 

identified. 


The impact of the upgrading of an existing road and installation 

of overhead transmission lines in the road reserve and existing 

transmission servitude through the CBA has been evaluated 

throughout this report and mitigation measures included in the 

Draft EMP. No alternative route for the access road or 

transmission lines have been evaluated since any alternatives 

would have a greater impact on the CBA that the ones 

currently proposed in existing roads and transmission 

servitudes.


2.7 CapeNature is pleased to note that the applicant has 

committed to at least one year of pre-construction 

bird and bat monitoring and we trust that the findings 

of the monitoring will inform the final layout and 

operation activities (e.g. cut in speeds or curtailment) 

of the proposed wind energy facility. Ongoing 

monitoring after construction has taken place and the 

wind turbines are operational is also essential. We are 

also pleased to note that the monitoring will be 

undertaken in accordance with the monitoring 

guidelines that have been developed by EWT and 

Birdlife Africa, although perhaps the frequency of 

mortality searches should be increased if the preconstruction 

monitoring shows there to be more bird 

and/or bat activity than what is anticipated at this 

stage. 

2.8 Cumulative impacts on wind energy facilities remain of 

high concern, especially in the West Coast region 

where there are many applications. Joint monitoring 

activities and data sharing should take place between 

the various wind farm applicants. 


January 2012 


January 2012 

Alana Duffell-Canha, 

Manager of Scientific 

Services, CapeNature 





pg 14-16 



Noted 


It is agreed that joint monitoring activities and data sharing 

should take place between the various wind farm applicants. 

This could also lower the cost of monitoring. The proponent 

will investigate this possibility.


2.9 The access road to the site does pass through an area 

of natural vegetation which has been mapped as 

Critical Biodiversity Area (CBA). An ECO should be on 

site at all times when this road is being 

upgraded/widened to supervise the clearing of natural 

vegetation and if necessary, the search and rescue of 

conservation worthy species. The road should only be 

widened to what is absolutely necessary and no 

construction camps or stockpiling may occur within 

natural vegetation. 

2.10 We note that our comments on the draft and final 

scoping reports were not included in the public 

participation section of the EIR (including the 

comments and responses report). Please rectify this in 

the final EIR. 


January 2012 


January 2012 








pg 14-17 



These recommendations are included in the Draft EMP. 


As mentioned at the beginning of chapter 14 (Issues and 

Response Trail) of the Draft EIA Report the only comments that 

were responded in the Draft EIA Report are the ones that were 

received after the close of the commenting period on the FSR 

and could not be dealt with during the scoping phase. 

Generally, comments from the scoping phase are not brought 

over into the EIA phase. It was only done to accommodate 

those who commented very late.

3) Issues related to land-use 


3.1 The reference to the scrap value of the turbines at the 

end of the project being used to 

defray re-habilitation costs is vague. An approximate 

value for trusts set up by both the developer and the 

landowner to cover re-habilitation should be 

established at the onset of the project. 

3.2 Safety, at the Caithness Windfarm Information Forum 

(June 2011) www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk the 

recommendation is that the minimum distance 

between a turbine and occupied housing should be 2 

km. 


October 2011 


October 2011 






pg 14-18 



As mentioned in Section 2.3.3 and Section2.3.4 of this report 

the proponent will have to comply with the Land Use Planning 

Ordinance (LUPO), ordinance 15 of 1985 as amended July 2011 

in order to get the land rezoned for consented land use at the 

time of project decommissioning. According to the amended 

ordinance, prior to the commencement of the project, funding 

to cover the cost of decommissioning has to be made available 

to the Matzikama Municipality. The specifics regarding the 

amount to be made available and the form in which it has to 

be made available is still being discussed by the proponent and 

the municipality. 


The nearest inhabited structures are more than 8 km from the 

proposed facility.


3.3 If it is decided to leave the turbine bases during 

decommissioning, before the construction of the 

facility the land owner of the land needs to provide 

written consent for the covering of the turbine bases 

during the decommissioning phase. This then needs to 

be drawn into the rental agreement should the owner 

of the land decide to sell. 

3.4 We understand that the ‘final’ Site Development Plan 

cannot be handed in along with the EIA report, but we 

would like you to take into consideration the above 

mentioned amended LUPO Scheme Regulations 

regarding the Height and Setback in the ‘application’ 

layout plan. The final Site Layout Plan approved by 

DEA demarcating all appurtenant structures and 

working areas on the site as per requirement in the 

regulations should then be submitted as part of the 

application for approval be the Matzikama 

Municipality. 


October 2011 


October 2011 






pg 14-19 



The land owners have agreed to the turbine bases remaining 

after decommissioning by signing a rental agreement that 

specifies this. 

iNca Energy: 

Up to 1 m down will be removed by iNca Energy. The 

remaining foundation will be left underground and will be rehabilitated. 


As illustrated in Figure 2-2 of this report the 1.5 time toppling 

distance setbacks have been considered in the provisional site 

layout. The turbine will also not exceed the 200 m height 

restriction as mentioned in the amended LUPO. 

The proponent will furnish the municipality with the final site 

layout once it has been approved by DEA.


3.5 I own a portion of the farm Groot Draaihoek and 

nobody consulted me during the planning of the wind 

energy facility. I have gathered that n road will be 

constructed on a servitude assigned to my property. A 

bridge that I built over the canal last year will be 

changed without the consultation of myself, the 

owner. Approximately 8 km from the proposed site 

there is an airfield. According to a map the wind 

facility will be within 300 meters of my property. I 

request urgent response. 

Email dated 19 

October 2011 


Neighbouring Land 

Owner 


pg 14-20 



The EIA team was unaware that a portion of the farm Groot 

Draaihoek has recently been sold to Mr. Stephan. After being 

informed of this by Mr. Visser (Groot Draaihoek Land Owner) 

the maps depicting the site boundaries were updated. The 

updated site boundaries were provided in the Final Scoping 

Report. 

Mr. Stephan has servitude on the existing road accessing the 

site from the R363 that will be upgraded. This is however only 

a servitude and the ownership, and right to upgrade, of the 

road resides with Mr. Visser, the legal owner of the road. 

The use of the bridge over the canal has been discussed with 

Mr. Stephan. As stated in a letter from the proponent to Mr 

Stephan (see Appendix E) the two parties have agreed that the 

proponent will compensate Mr Stephan for the use/upgrade of 

the bridge. 

A 2.5 km buffer around the airfield has been considered. The 

Vredendal Flying Club has been contacted and sent a 

notification of the release of this report and has the 

opportunity to comment on it. 

For both alternatives considered, not turbines or associated 

infrastructure will be erected within 300 meters of the 

boundary of the site.


3.6 The area, in which the proposed site falls, falls within a 

zone of high negative visual influence. In addition, the 

proposed site is situated approximately 3 km west of 

the town of Vredendal. Given the scale and value of 

the Western Cape landscapes to tourism and heritage, 

it is recommended that wind energy sites based on an 

overlay of the preferred wind energy areas are 

considered to ensure that a minimum distance of 30 

km and a preferred distance of 50 km separate any 

future wind farm. The proposed wind turbines will be 

situated on a ridge of a hillock, Since a hub height if 

119 m is proposed for the turbines, potential visual 

impact may be substantially increased. 

3.7 The Civil Aviation Authority has not identified any 

concerns regarding the potential negative impact of 

the proposed project on aviation. The Civil Aviation 

Authority therefore has no objection to the 

development, subject to submission of the final 

turbine layout. 

3.8 Where will the gravel for road construction be sourced 

from? 


December 2011 


November 2011 


held on 16 


Vredendal 

3.9 Will the turbine noise be heard in Vredendal? Public meeting 

held on 16 


Vredendal 







Gary Newman, Manager 

Procedure Design and 

Cartography, South 

African Aviation 

Authority 


resident 


resident 


pg 14-21 



The visual impact of the 80 to 94 m turbines located 8 km from 

the town of Vredendal has been thoroughly investigated and 

assessed in Chapter 11 of this report. 


Noted 

iNca Energy: 

It could possibly be sourced from Mr. Wilfred Stephan’s (the 

neighbour) property. 


It is not envisaged.


3.10 Should a turbine collapse; would it fall on my 

property? 

3.11 Will a rental contract or rental area be 

use/registered? 

3.12 According to our data and your images the 

proposed project is located on a land parcel where 

cultivation is occurring. DAFF does not support any 

renewable energy application that occurs on 

cultivated land as stated in our policy. It is our 

mandate to ensure food security and we cannot 

allow cultivated areas being lost due to other land 

uses. Should your proposed project's foot print 

therefore be located on cultivated land or have a 

negative impact on the agricultural activities on the 

site it will not be supported by DAFF. 


held on 16 


Vredendal 


held on 16 


Vredendal 

Email sent 17 

January 2012 



Bernette Kriek, 

Matzikama Local 

Municipality 

Anneliza Collett 

Directorate: Land Use & 

Soil Management 

Department of 

Agriculture, Forestry & 

Fisheries 


pg 14-22 


iNca Energy: 

No. At least 1.5 turbine length buffer is placed around project. 

iNca Energy: 

A lease agreement covering the entire property will be put in 

place. 


The project's footprint does fall within agriculturally cultivated 

land. For this reason an agricultural specialist study was 

requested from the Western Cape Department of Agriculture 

and conducted to evaluate the agricultural potential of the 

land and the potential impacts of the project on agriculture. 

With a total physical footprint of 6 ha in an area classified as 

non-arable land with a wheat yield potential of 0.5 t/ha that is 

only used for growing animal feed, the specialist concluded 

that the impacts will be of low significance. 

It is understood that it is your department's mandate to ensure 

food security, but on the other hand it is CapeNature's 

mandate to protect undisturbed land. This leads to all 

renewable projects being opposed by either your department 

or them.


pg 15-0 

Chapter 15: Conclusions


pg 15-1 

Chapter 15: Conclusions 

15. CONCLUSIONS 15-2 

15.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW 15-2 

15.2 EIA PROCESS 15-2 

15.3 SUMMARY OF IMPACT ASSESSMENT 15-3 

15.3.1 Botany and terrestrial fauna 15-3 

15.3.2 Birds 15-4 

15.3.3 Bats 15-4 

15.3.4 Archaeology 15-5 

15.3.5 Palaeontology 15-5 

15.3.6 Visual 15-6 

15.3.7 Agriculture 15-6 

15.3.8 Water 15-7 

15.4 EAP’S OPINION 15-8

15. CONCLUSIONS 


pg 15-2 


This chapter contains the main conclusions that can be drawn from the EIA and provides the EAP’s 

opinion on the environmental suitability of the project and whether the project should receive 

environmental authorisation. 

15.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW 

iNca Vredendal Wind (Pty) Ltd (a subsidiary of iNca Energy (Pty) Ltd), proposes to generate 

electricity with wind energy on the farm Groot Draaihoek just outside the town of Vredendal in 

the Western Cape Province. The facility and its associated infrastructure will comprise up to 15 

turbines of 2 -3 MW each, to generate 30 MW electricity. The alternatives are as follows: 

No-go i.e. the project does not proceed; 

15 turbines of 2 MW each; 

10 turbines of 3 MW each. 

The total area available for the proposed facility comprises about 3530 ha, of which 

approximately 7 ha will undergo physical alteration for the construction of access roads, 

underground cabling, lay-down areas and concrete foundations for the turbines. The facility will 

also require the construction of a 66 kV line of approximately 8 km in length, which will connect 

to the existing Vredendal Substation. 

An area of less than 35 ha will be enclosed by the proposed development. 

The purpose for the proposed project is to feed electricity from the wind energy facility into the 

national electricity grid. This is supported by purchase tariffs known as the Renewable Energy 

Feed-in Tariff, which the national energy regulator, NERSA, announced in 2009 to incentivise the 

growth of renewable energy. More recently, in 2011 the Independent Power Producer (IPP) 

Procurement Programme was announced with the aim of realising the target of 3 725 megawatts 

of renewable energies and towards socio-economic and environmentally sustainable growth, and 

to start and stimulate the renewable industry in South Africa. 

The proposed iNca Vredendal Wind project is aimed at contributing to these targets as to 

overcome rolling blackouts anticipated in South Africa if non-Eskom power generation projects 

are not realised. 

15.2 EIA PROCESS 



(DEA) for approval on 14 October 2011. Approval was received on 08 December 2011 which 

marked the end of the Scoping phase, after which the EIA process moved into the impact


pg 15-3 



the Final Scoping Report (CSIR, 2011) 1. 

The process followed for this EIA satisfies the requirements of Regulations 55, 56 and 57 of the 

NEMA 2010 EIA regulations relating to the public participation process and, specifically, the 

registration of I&APs and recording their submissions. All I&APs on the current database for this 

EIA have been informed of the release of the draft EIA Report and draft Environmental 

Management Plan (EMP) for a 40-day commenting period. Comments received on this Draft EIA 

Report and draft EMP will be recorded and addressed in the Final EIA Report. 

15.3 SUMMARY OF IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

15.3.1 Botany and terrestrial fauna 


influenced by the level of agriculture-related transformation and degradation. The majority of 








result that potential impacts on botany and fauna will be minimal 













reduced to low levels of significance, both during the construction and operational phases of the 

proposed development. 

1 CSIR, 2011. Environmental Impact Assessment for the proposed iNca Vredendal Wind project in the Western 

Cape: Final Scoping Report. CSIR Report Number: CSIR/CAS/EMS/ER/2011/0018/B. Stellenbosch. Available 

online at: http://www.csir.co.za/eia/vredendal.html

15.3.2 Birds 


pg 15-4 


The Vredendal wind energy site is a relatively small wind farm site, with limited intrinsic avian 

biodiversity value. It does not contain any unique habitats or landscape features, nor does it affect 

any known, major avian fly-ways. However, there are (at least seasonally), regionally and/or 

nationally important populations of impact-susceptible species present (e.g. Ludwig’s Bustard) 

and the proposed facility may have a significant detrimental effect on these birds, particularly 

during the operational phase of the development. A pair of Martial Eagles has been recorded in 

2007 to nest in one of the Aurora-Juno 400kV towers approximately 3 km from the nearest 

proposed wind turbine. It is not currently known whether this nest is still active. This will be 

investigated during the 12 month pre-construction monitoring phase as already agreed to by the 

project proponent. 



likelihood of regular flight activity of terrestrial species. In addition, the levels of disturbance 

created by the noise and movement of the turbines should be less with fewer turbines. From a 

bird impact perspective, ten 3 MW turbines would be preferable to fifteen 2 MW turbines. 



15.3.3 Bats 

The Proposed Vredendal Wind Energy Project falls within the distributional ranges of at least 9 

species that overlap in the area. The most important aspect of the project that would affect bats 

adversely is the wind turbines themselves, in particular, the operational turning blades. There is 

furthermore a cumulative impact related to the fact the Klawer Wind Project is situated 

approximately 13 km from the Vredendal Wind Energy project. 





bats. Furthermore, wherever cattle and sheep graze one will also find more flies which serves as a 


The following species were recorded on site: Neoromicia capensis (Least Concern), Miniopterus 




the operating turbine blades. It is not ruled out that the other species will also forage in the 

vicinity of the turbine blades, either when they are foraging or crossing the site while migrating. 

The proponent has already involved a bat specialist in the design phase of the project and 

committed himself to pre-construction monitoring. Further monitoring will confirm bat activity. 

At present the main mitigation proposed is to completely seal off roofs of new buildings as well as 

those of existing buildings close to the site that do not have any bats roosting in them at present.


pg 15-5 


This will prevent bats from moving into the area for roosting purposes, which would make it 

more likely that they could come into contact with the turbines in the surrounding area. If future 

monitoring data shows high activity, the client together with a bat specialist should investigate 

further mitigation measures. This includes refining operational procedures such as cut in speed of 

turbines. 




increase exponentially with tower height, suggesting that larger turbines are reaching the 

airspace of migrating bats. At present no recordings at height have been incorporated in the 

study. Also, no research has been conducted concerning the impact of different size turbines on 

southern African bat species and there is, therefore, uncertainty as to whether the difference (10 

– 20 m) in height between the 2 MW and 3 MW options will have any effect on bat mortality. 

From a bat perspective, no preferred alternative is provided in terms of this study. If monitoring 

indicates that the proposed wind farm is on a bat migration route, the project design and 

operation may need to be revisited. 

Considering data collected up to now the impact of the wind turbines on bats at the proposed 


Confidence levels are low since limited data have been incorporated, but the report will be 

updated with additional information from the forthcoming monitoring results. 

15.3.4 Archaeology 

During the fieldwork conducted October 2011 one Later Stone Age (vein) quartz flake, one quartz 

chunk and one Middle Stone Age quartzite flake was documented in the footprint area of the 

proposed wind energy farm. One Middle Stone Age quartzite flake and two Later Stone Age 

silcrete flakes (including one retouched flake) were documented in the access road (to be 

upgraded), which is situated alongside the proposed powerline servitude. No archaeological 

remains were found in the proposed powerline servitude. 

The small numbers and isolated context means that the archaeological remains have been rated 

as having low significance and baseline study has shown that the proposed development of the 

iNca Vredendal Wind Energy Farm will a low significance impact of great significance on the 

archaeological heritage. 


landscape. It has been concluded that no archaeological mitigation is requited and recommended 

that the proposed contractor’s site must be inspected for archaeological remains once it has been 

identified. 

15.3.5 Palaeontology 

A palaeontological desktop study of the project area was conducted. Apart from scattered small 



aeolian sands and various soils.


pg 15-6 



sediments mapped within the study region is low to very low. The palaeontological impact is thus 

of low significance. For this reason, no further palaeontological studies or mitigation measures 

were recommended for this development. 

15.3.6 Visual 

The proposed windfarm is situated on a landscape that is described as moderately to highly 

visually sensitive, with a significance that is local rather than regional. The landscape is relatively 

sparsely populated to the south and more densely populated to the north along the Olifants River, 

including Vredendal. The windfarm, more particularly, the wind turbines, will be seen from most 

parts within a 20 km radius of the site as the landscape is relatively flat. Some screening is 

provided by local landforms such as the Cederberg Mountains, sandstone inselbergs, low lying 

valleys and low lying coastal platforms. 




North area and the southern edge of the town. The windfarm will also be seen from a very short 

section of the N7 twenty kilometers away. There are no receptors within 1 km of the site where 

shadow flicker is considered significant with the closest receptors being the Groot Draaihoek 

farmstead, 2 kms away, and users on a 2 km stretch of a gravel road, which runs between 

Vredendal/Klawer and Lamberts Bay, which is 3 km away. 

Lighting will be visible to the above mentioned receptors and should be minimized, i.e. reduced to 

a minimum of 8 turbines on the Alternative with 15 turbines and 6 turbines on the Alternative 

with 10 turbines. 

The proposed Alternative 2, i.e. 10 turbines, 94 m high hub heights with 60 m rotor blades, will 

not reduce the number of receptors but will result in less turbines being seen. There will be no 

major visual gain or significant mitigation by reducing the number of turbines from 15 to 10, 

therefore either alternative would be acceptable. 


undulating albeit near to mountains on one side, and is visually intrusive to a few receptors but 

predominantly noticeable to most receptors results in the overall visual impact being moderate 

to high. 



conditions within sandy alluvium parent material. The upper soil horizons (A and B horizons) are 

very uniform across the area. They are red, sandy (


pg 15-7 


of heuweltjies. However, from an agricultural use perspective, the different soil forms present a 

largely uniform landscape. 

In terms of soil limitations to agricultural production, the soils are primarily limited by their 

sandy texture, which results in low water and nutrient holding capacity. Their depth is also 

limited by the hardpan horizons. From an agricultural point of view, the big limitation is water 

availability, and the soils themselves are not a major limitation. The site has a land capability 

classification as: non-arable; low potential grazing land, because of the severe rainfall limitations. 

Grazing capacity is given as between 41 and 60 hectares per large stock unit. Wheat production is 

no more than 0.5 tons per hectare. 

All the land at the wind farm site is utilised only as grazing land for sheep. Sporadic and marginal 

cultivation of oats takes place in strip cultivation on a proportion of the land, as a supplementary 

food source for the sheep. Many of the previously strip cultivated lands have not been cultivated 

for years. 

All agricultural impacts are considered to be of low significance, predominantly because of the 

small footprint of the development and its minimal disturbance of agricultural activities, and the 

fact that it is situated on land of very low agricultural productivity. The effective loss of 

agricultural land was determined as only 6 hectares, which represents a mere 0.17% of the land 

surface of the farm. The overall agricultural impact of the proposed development is of low 

significance. 

15.3.8 Water 

The proposed project is located on the divide between the E33G and G30H quaternary 

catchments and in the Olifants D and Sandveld sub-Water Management Areas. The site where the 

turbines will be constructed is located approximately 8 km south of the Olifants River. An access 

road that needs to be upgraded is located more than 1.5 km away from the river. According to the 

fine scale Critical Biodiversity maps as well as the National Freshwater Ecological Protected Areas 

maps there is a wetland on the western boundary of the farm, located approximately 900 m from 

the nearest project related infrastructure. Upon inspection (a non-specialist capacity) it was 

found that the area demarcated as a wetland does not show any wetland characteristics. 

Since the site is located on a ridge acting as a divide between two water catchment areas there is 

no shallow water table that can be affected by the development. The absence of a water table has 

been confirmed by the land owner as there was no water to be found when drilling boreholes for 

livestock purposes. It is proposed to source water for the construction phase from the local 

municipality. 

An artificial canal transferring irrigation water from the Bulshoek Dam farther down the valley 

traverses the north-eastern portion of the farm. There is also an artificial lined dam next to the 

canal that stores off-stream water for the farm’s irrigation needs. An existing access road 

proposed to be upgraded crosses this canal at an existing bridge. It is not yet know whether the 

existing bridge can handle the load of the construction equipment and turbine components. If 

necessary, the bridge will be reinforced.


pg 15-8 





Since the proposed wind energy facility is not expected to have any physical footprint within 500 

m of a watercourse and water will be sourced from the local municipality it is expected to have 

low significance impact on any freshwater resource. The project does not trigger a water use 

application. 

15.4 EAP’S OPINION 

After due consideration of the proposed development, associated impacts identified and assessed 

by specialist during the EIA process, and inputs from the local community, the EAP is of the 

opinion that the positive impact of producing renewable energy to prevent blackouts in South 

Africa outweighs any of the negative impacts. Negative impact should however be mitigated as far 

as possible by adhering the draft Environmental Management Plan attached to this report. 

The EAP recommends that the proposed Vredendal Wind Energy Facility receives a positive 

Environmental Authorisation from the National Department of Environmental Affairs.


pg 1 

Appendix A: EIA Team Details 

and Declarations

PROJECT LEADER: MR. PAUL LOCHNER 

Contact Details – Email: plochner@csir.co.za Tel: 021 888 2486 


pg 2 


and Declarations 

Paul Lochner commenced work at CSIR in 1992, after completing a degree in Civil Engineering 

and a Masters in Environmental Science, both at the University of Cape Town. His initial work 

at CSIR focused on sediment dynamics and soft engineering applications in the coastal zone, in 

particular, beach and dune management. He conducted several shoreline erosion analyses and 

prepared coastal zone management plans for beaches. He also prepared wetland management 

plans. 

As the market for environmental assessment work grew, he led Environmental Impact 

Assessments (EIAs), in particular for coastal resort developments and large-scale industrial 

developments located on the coast; and Environmental Management Plans (EMPs), in 

particular for wetlands, estuaries and coastal developments. He has also been involved in 

researching and applying higher-level approaches to environmental assessment and 

management, such as Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). In 1998 and 1999, he 

coordinated the SEA research programme within the CSIR, and was a lead author of the 

Guideline Document for SEA in South Africa, published jointly by CSIR and the national 

Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism in February 2000. 

In 1999 and 2000, he was the project manager for the legal, institutional, policy, financial and 

socio-economic component of the Cape Action Plan for the Environment (“CAPE”), a large-scale 

multi-disciplinary study to ensure the sustainable conservation of the Cape Floral Kingdom. 

This was funded by the Global Environmental Fund (GEF) and prepared for WWF-South Africa. 

The study required extensive stakeholder interaction, in particular with government 

institutions, leading to the development of a Strategy and Action Plan for regional 

conservation. 

In July 2003, he was certified as an Environmental Assessment Practitioner by the Interim 

Certification Board for Environmental Assessment Practitioners of South Africa. In 2004 he 

was lead author of the Overview of IEM document in the updated Integrated Environmental 

Management (IEM) Information Series published by national Department of Environmental 

Affairs and Tourism (DEAT). In 2004-2005 he was project manager for an Environmental and 

Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) conducted for a bauxite mine and alumina refinery in the 

Komi Republic (Russia), prepared in accordance with World Bank and EU policies, guidelines 

and standards. 

In 2004-2005, he was part of the CSIR team that coordinated the preparation of the series of 

Guidelines for involving specialists in EIA processes prepared for the Western Cape Department


pg 3 



of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (DEADP); and authored the Guideline for 

Environmental Management Plans published by the Western Cape government in 2005. 

In 2009, he led the EIA for a desalination plant in Namibia, as well as several EIAs for wind 

energy facilities in South Africa. 

Over the past 14 years has been closely involved with several environmental studies for 

industrial and port-related projects in Coega Industrial Development Zone (IDZ), near Port 

Elizabeth. This included the SEA for the establishment of the Coega IDZ in 1996/7, an EIA and 

EMP for a proposed aluminium smelter in 2002/3, and assistance with environmental permit 

applications for air, water and waste. At the Coega IDZ and port, he has also conducted 

environmental assessments for port development, LNG storage and a combined cycle gas 

turbine power plant, manganese export, rail development, and wind energy projects. 

PROJECT MANAGER: MR. CORNELIUS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN 

Contact Details – Email: CvdWesthuizen1@csir.co.za Tel: 021 888 2408 

Cornelius van der Westhuizen is an Environmental Assessment Practitioner, from the 

Environmental Management Services (EMS) group of the CSIR, based in Stellenbosch. 

Cornelius completed his BSc in Agriculture at the University of Stellenbosch in 2007. In 2008 

he commenced an MSc in Environmental Management at the Christian Albrechts University of 

Kiel, Germany, sponsored by the German Academic Exchange Service. In 2010 he went on to 

conduct research and write his master’s thesis in Brisbane, Australia, with the Centre for 

Mined Land Rehabilitation of the Queensland University. Upon completion of his MSc in 2010, 

Cornelius took up an internship with Foundation Chile in Chile. 

In April 2011 he joined the team at CSIR and has since been managing projects ranging from an 

Estuary Management Plan for the Stillbaai Estuary to EIAs for two Wind farms in the Western 

Cape. He recently successfully completed a BA for a solar facility in the Western Cape.


pg 4 


and Declarations


pg 5 


and Declarations


pg 6 


and Declarations


pg 7 


and Declarations


pg 8 


and Declarations


pg 9 


and Declarations


pg 10 


and Declarations


pg 11 



Short Summary of Authors of Botanical and Terrestrial Faunal impact assessment report 

Mr Jamie Pote has a BSc honours degree in Botany and Environmental Science, specialising in Ecology, 

Rehabilitation and Invasive Alien Plant management with 3 years part-time and 5 years full-time 

experience in southern Africa across a broad spectrum of habitats and operations (mining, residential and 

resort developments, conservation projects, service provision including power-lines, wind energy projects, 

roads and pipelines), conducting Biophysical Assessments and compiling Environmental Management 

Plans. 

Mr Mark Marshal of Sandula Conservation, a reptile specialist, assisted with a desktop faunal assessment 

(Terrestrial Mammals, Reptiles and Amphibians).


pg 12 



The independent PERSON WHO COMPILED A SPECIALIST REPORT OR UNDERTOOK A SPECIALIST 

PROCESS for the proposed Inca Vredendal wind project must complete the following: 

I Mr Jamie Pote as the appointed independent specialist hereby declare that I: 

act/ed as the independent specialist in this application; 

regard the information contained in this report as it relates to my specialist input/study to be true 

and correct, and 

do not have and will not have any financial interest in the undertaking of the activity, other than 

remuneration for work performed in terms of the NEMA, the Environmental Impact Assessment 

Regulations, 2010 and any specific environmental management Act; 

have and will not have no vested interest in the proposed activity proceeding; 

have disclosed, to the applicant, EAP and competent authority, any material information that have 

or may have the potential to influence the decision of the competent authority or the objectivity of 

any report, plan or document required in terms of the NEMA, the Environmental Impact Assessment 


am fully aware of and meet the responsibilities in terms of NEMA, the Environmental Impact 

Assessment Regulations, 2010 (specifically in terms of regulation 17 of GN No. R. 543) and any 

specific environmental management Act, and that failure to comply with these requirements may 

constitute and result in disqualification; 

have ensured that information containing all relevant facts in respect of the specialist input/study 

was distributed or made available to interested and affected parties and the public and that 

participation by interested and affected parties was facilitated in such a manner that all interested 

and affected parties were provided with a reasonable opportunity to participate and to provide 

comments on the specialist input/study; 

have ensured that the comments of all interested and affected parties on the specialist input/study 

were considered, recorded and submitted to the competent authority in respect of the application; 

have ensured that the names of all interested and affected parties that participated in terms of the 

specialist input/study were recorded in the register of interested and affected parties who 

participated in the public participation process; 

have provided the competent authority with access to all information at my disposal regarding the 

application, whether such information is favourable to the applicant or not; and 

am aware that a false declaration is an offence in terms of regulation 71 of GN No. R. 543. 

Signature of the specialist: 

Name of specialist: Mr Jamie Pote 

Date: 14 November 2011


pg 13 


and Declarations

DATE OF BIRTH: 30 April 1964 

Curriculum Vitae 

CHRIS VAN ROOYEN 

QUALIFICATIONS: BA Law (Rand Afrikaans University) 

LLB (Rand Afrikaans University) 

SPECIALIST FIELD Avifauna 


pg 14 



RELEVANT WORK EXPERIENCE 

1991-1995: Volunteer for the Endangered Wildlife Trust’s Raptor Conservation Group and Vulture 

Study Group. 

1996-2007: Specialist Consultant with the Endangered Wildlife Trust. Duties entailed the 

overall co-ordination and management of the Endangered Wildlife Trust's national programme to 

eliminate negative wildlife interactions with electrical utility structures in southern Africa 

November 2007 to present: Consultant specialising in the impacts of industrial developments on 

avifauna. 

CLIENTS 

Industry 

Eskom Distribution Division 

Eskom Transmission Division 

Eskom Research (Resources and Strategy) 

Eskom Generation Division 

Botswana Power Company 

NamPower (Namibia) 

Debswana (Botswana) 

SAPPI 

Texas Utility Company (USA) 

TransPower (New Zealand) 

South African Roads Agency 

Lead Consultants 

Bohlweki Environmental 

Strategic Environmental Focus 

Tswelopele Environmental 

Digby Wells Associates 

Iliso Consulting 

Savannah Environmental 

PBA International 

Arcus GIBB 

Landscape Dynamics

BKS 

Naledzi Environmental 

Eyethu Engineers 

Ninham Shand 

WSP Environmental 

Enviro Dynamics (Namibia) 

Eco Assessments 

Loci Environmental (Botswana) 

SRK 

Zitholele Consulting 

EcoPlan (Namibia) 

Groundwater Consultant Services – SA 

Synergestics 

Urgeneg 


pg 15 



ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT STUDIES, CONFERENCE PRESENTATIONS AND RESEARCH 

New power lines: 109 

Power stations: 2 

Wind-powered generation facilities: 20 

Existing electricity infrastructure: 18 

Other industrial developments 22 

Papers and Conference Presentations: 16 

Research Reports: 9 

AWARDS 

The Eskom-EWT Strategic Partnership won the Edison Electric Institute Common Goals Award in 

the USA for outstanding electric utility customer and community relations programmes in 1997, 

from a field of 61 international entries from 49 countries. 

The Eskom-EWT Strategic Partnership was a finalist in the 1998 and 2000 Green Trust Awards. 

Eskom Manager's Award in 1997 for the management of animal interactions. 

Eskom Manager's Award in 1999 for environmental management. 

Highly Commended Award in 2001 for Business Efficiency from Eskom Transmission Group. 

Nominated for Eskom Chairman's Award in 2001 in Environmental Category 

Runner-up: Eskom Resources and Strategy manager’s award 2003 

Listed in Marqui’s Who’s Who in the World 2007 edition 

Northern Cape Raptor Conservationist of the Year: 2004


pg 16 



The independent PERSON WHO COMPILED A SPECIALIST REPORT OR UNDERTOOK A SPECIALIST 

PROCESS for the proposed inca vredendal wind project must complete the following: 

I, Chris van Rooyen, as the appointed independent specialist hereby declare that I: 


regard the information contained in this report as it relates to my specialist input/study to be 

true and correct, and 

do not have and will not have any financial interest in the undertaking of the activity, other than 

remuneration for work performed in terms of the NEMA, the Environmental Impact Assessment 



have disclosed, to the applicant, EAP and competent authority, any material information that 

have or may have the potential to influence the decision of the competent authority or the 

objectivity of any report, plan or document required in terms of the NEMA, the Environmental 

Impact Assessment Regulations, 2010 and any specific environmental management Act; 

am fully aware of and meet the responsibilities in terms of NEMA, the Environmental Impact 

Assessment Regulations, 2010 (specifically in terms of regulation 17 of GN No. R. 543) and any 

specific environmental management Act, and that failure to comply with these requirements 

may constitute and result in disqualification; 

have ensured that information containing all relevant facts in respect of the specialist 

input/study was distributed or made available to interested and affected parties and the public 

and that participation by interested and affected parties was facilitated in such a manner that all 

interested and affected parties were provided with a reasonable opportunity to participate and 

to provide comments on the specialist input/study; 

have ensured that the comments of all interested and affected parties on the specialist 

input/study were considered, recorded and submitted to the competent authority in respect of 

the application; 

have ensured that the names of all interested and affected parties that participated in terms of 

the specialist input/study were recorded in the register of interested and affected parties who 

participated in the public participation process; 

have provided the competent authority with access to all information at my disposal regarding 

the application, whether such information is favourable to the applicant or not; and 



Chris van Rooyen Consulting 

Name of company: 

12 November 2011 

Date:


pg 17 


and Declarations

Abbreviated Curriculum Vitae: 

Stephanie Christia Dippenaar 


pg 18 



Name: Stephanie Christia Dippenaar 

Profession: Bat Impact Assessments/Environmental Assessment and Management 

Date of Birth: 4 February 1964 

Nationality: South African 

CONTACT DETAILS 

Postal Address: 8 Florida Street, Stellenbosch, 7600 

Telephone Number: 021-8801653 

Cell: 0822005244 

e-mail: sdippenaar@snowisp.com 

EDUCATION 

1986 BA University of Stellenbosch 

1987 BA Hon (Geography) University of Stellenbosch 

1999 MEM (Masters in Environmental Management) University of the Free State 

PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIP 

Southern African Institute of Ecologists and Environmental Scientists 

EMPLOYMENT RECORD 

1989: The Academy: University of Namibia. Temporary contract as a lecturer in the Department of 

Geography. 

1990: Windhoek College of Education. One year teaching contract as a lecturer in the 

Department of Geography. I was also involved in research work via the Namibian Institute for 

Social and Economic Research for UNICEF. 

Media officer for Earthlife Africa. 

1991: University of Limpopo. One year contract as a lecturer in the Department of Environmental 

Sciences. 

1992: Max Planc Institute (Radolfzell-Germany). Mainly involved in handling birds and assisting with 

aviary studies. Swiss Ornithological Institute (Working in the Arava valley, Negev – Israel on a 

project on Impact on Shortwave towers on bird migration patterns).


pg 19 



1992: Three month contract at Somerset West Primary School and Beaumont Primary School, as a 

rotating Xhosa teacher. 

1993 - 2004: University of Limpopo. Lecturer in the sub-discipline Geography, School of Agriculture 

and Environmental Sciences. Teaching post- and pre-graduate courses in environment related 

subjects in the Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Faculty of Law, Faculty of Health and 

the Water and Sanitation Institute. 

o Member of the Faculty Board of the Faculty of Natural Sciences and Mathematics. 

o Part of the Blue Swallow project, Birdlife SA 

o Evaluating committee for the EMEM awards (award system for environmental practice at 

mines in South Africa) 

2004 onwards: CSIR, South Africa. 

2011: Private consultancy 

PROJECT EXPERIENCE RECORD 

The following table presents an abridged list of projects involvement as well as the role played in each 

project: 

Completion 

Date 

Project description Role Client 

2011 Bat monitoring at the Banna Ba Pifhu project 

(In progress) 

Bat monitoring Windcurrent 

2011 Bat specialist study for the Banna Ba Pifhu 

project, Jeffrey’s Bay (in progress) 

Bat specialist study CSIR 

2011 Bat specialist study for Vredendal Wind Farm 

(In progress) 


2011 Basic Assessment for the development of an air 

strip outside Betty’s Bay 

Project Manager Blakeney Parker 

2011 Bat specialist study for a wind facility 

development at zone 12, Coega IDZ, Port 

Elizabeth. 


2011 Bat specialist study for an EIA for the Wind 

Energy Facility at Langefontein, Darling (In 

progress) 


2011 Bat monitoring at the Ubuntu Wind Project (In 

progress) 

Bat monitoring Windcurrent 

2011 Bat specialist study for the Ubuntu Wind 

Project. 

Bat specialist study 

2010-2011 Bat specialist study for the Environmental 

Impact Assessment for Environmental Impact 

assessment for four sites in the Western Cape. 

Bat specialist study Innowind 

2010-2011 Bat specialist study for the Environmental 

Impact assessment for the Langefontein Wind 

Farm 

Bat specialist study Kwhe Khoa


pg 20 



Completion 

Date 


2010 Bat specialist study for the Environmental 

Impact Assessment for Electrawinds Wind 

Project, Port Elizabeth 

Bat specialist study Electrawinds 

2010 Environmental Management Plan for the 

Goukou Estuary (left CSIR before completion of 

project 

Project Manager CapeNature 

2010 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Project Manager Mainstream 

180MW Jeffrey’s Bay Wind Project, Eastern 

Cape (Authorisation received) 

Renewable Power SA 

2010 Environmental Impact Assessment for 9 Wind Project Manager Mainstream 

Monitoring Masts for the Jeffrey’s Bay Wind 

Project (Authorisation received) 

Renewable Power SA 

2009-2010 Envirommental Impact Assessment for the 

NamWater Desalination Plant, Swakopmund 

(Authorisation received) 

Project Manager NamWater 

2007 -2011 EIA for the proposed Jacobsbaai Tortoise Project Manager Jacobsbaai Tortoise 

reserve, Western Cape(Draft EIA phase) 

Reserve Ltd 

2007-2008 Environmental Impact Assessment for the 

Kouga Wind Farm, Jeffrey’s Bay, Eastern Cape 

(Authorisation received) 

Project Manager Eco-Genesis 

2006-2008 Site Selection Criteria for Nuclear Power 

Stations in South Africa. 

Co-author ESKOM 

2005 Auditing the Environmental Impact Assessment Project Manager Department of 

process for the Department of Environment 

Agriculture and 

and Agriculture, Kwazulu Natal, South Africa 

Environmental Affairs, 

KZN 

2005 Background paper on Water Issues for 

discussions between OECD countries and 

Developing Countries. 

Author DST 

2005 Intergrated Environmental Education Strategy Co- author City of Tshwane 

for the City of Tshwane. 

Municipality 

2005 Developing a ranking system prioritizing Co-author Department of 

derelict mines in South Africa, steering the 

biodiversity section. 

Minerals and Energy 

2005 Policy and Legislative Section for a Strategy to Author Department of 

improve the contribution of Granite Mining to 

Sustainable Development in the Brits- 

Rustenburg Region, North-West Province, 

South Africa. 

Minerals and Energy 

2005 Environmental Management Plan: Dinaka 

Game Reserve. 

Project Leader in 

collaboration with 

Flip Schoeman 

Dinaka, Johan Bosch 

2004 Environmental Management Plan for the Project Leader in Pride of Africa, Johan


pg 21 



Completion 

Date 


introduction of lion: Pride of Africa collaboration with 

Flip Schoeman 

Malan 

2004 Environmental Management Plan for the Project Leader in Greater Kudu Safaris, 

establishment of a Conservancy: Greater Kudu collaboration with Howard Knott 

Safaris 

Flip Schoeman 

LANGUAGE CAPABILITY: Fluent in Afrikaans and English 

PEER REVIEWED PUBLICATIONS 

Dippenaar, S, and Lochner, P (2010): EIA for a proposed Wind Energy Project, Jeffrey’s Bay in SEA/EIA Case 

Studies for Renewable Energy 

Dippenaar, S. and Kotze, N. (2005): People with disabilities and nature tourism: A South African case study. 

Social work, 41(1), p96-108. 

Kotze, N.J. and Dippenaar, S.C. (2004): Accessibility for tourists with disabilities in the Limpopo Province, South 

Africa. In: Rodgerson, CM & G Visser (Eds.), Tourism and Development: Issues in contemporary South Africa. 

Institute of South Africa, Pretoria. Pages 355 -369.


pg 22 


and Declarations


pg 23 


and Declarations

Name: Jonathan Michael Kaplan 

Profession: Archaeologist 

Date of Birth: 23-09-1961 

Name of Company: Agency for Cultural Resource Management (ACRM) 

Position: Director 

Nationality: South African 

ID Number: 6109235177089 

Marital status: Married with two children 

Languages: 

First language: English 

Other: Afrikaans 

Contact details: 5 Stuart Road 

Rondebosch 

7700 

Phone/Fax (021) 685 7589 

Mobile 082 321 0172 

E-mail acrm@wcaccess.co.za 

Qualifications: 

MA (Archaeology) University of Cape Town, 1989. 

Professional registration: 


pg 24 



Association of Southern African Professional Archaeologists (ASAPA). 

Registered consultant with the South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA) 

Registered consultant with the Association of Heritage Assessment Practitioners (AHAP) 

Publications: 

Sealy, J., Maggs, T., Jerardino, A. & Kaplan, J. 2004. Excavations at three shell middens at 

Melkbosstrand: variability among herder sites on Table Bay. South African Archaeological Bulletin 

59:17-28. 

Kaplan, J. 1993. The state of archaeological information in the coastal zone from the Orange River to 

Ponta do Ouro. Report prepared for the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. Agency 

for Cultural Resource Management. 

Kaplan, J. 1990. The Umhlatuzana Rock Shelter sequence: 100 000 years of Stone Age history. Natal 

Museum Journal of Humanities 2:1-94. 

Kaplan, J. 1989. 45 000 years of hunter-gatherer history at Umhlatuzana Rock Shelter: South African 

Archaeological Society Goodwin Series 6:7-16 

Kaplan, J. 1987. Settlement and Subsistence at Renbaan Cave. In Parkington, J. & Hall, M (Eds). Papers 

in the Prehistory of the Western Cape, South Africa. British Archaeological Reports International 

Series 332:237-261

Countries of work experience: 

South Africa, Lesotho, Swaziland, Namibia, Botswana, Mozambique 

Specialisations: 

Archaeological Impact Assessments 

Heritage Conservation Management Plans 

Heritage tourism 

Rock art recording and monitoring 

Excavation and data analysis 

Archaeological monitoring 


pg 25 



Company profile: 

Jonathan Kaplan qualified with an MA in Archaeology in 1989 from the University of Cape Town. He has 

taken part in numerous archaeological impact assessments, specialising in Stone Age, rock art and herder 

studies. He has undertaken baseline studies on large infrastructure projects, including the Lesotho 

Highlands Water Project, Maguga Dam (Swaziland), Namibia/Botswana Water Transfer Project, Sasol/ACO 

Gas Pipeline (South Africa & Mozambique), Corridor Sands (Mozambique) and numerous utility projects 

for Eskom, the Department of Transport and Public Works, as well as coastal and inland surveys, research 

projects, catchment management studies, Conservation Management Plans and undertaken excavations 

of rock shelters and coastal shell middens. He has also conducted baseline studies (Scoping and full EIA) 

on alternative energy (wind and photo-voltaic) projects in the Western and Northern Cape. 

ACRM has been registered since 1992. 

Declaration: 

I confirm that the above CV is an accurate description of my experience and qualifications. 

Signature Date: 3 September, 2011

I Jonathan Kaplan, as the appointed independent specialist hereby declare that I: 



pg 26 



regard the information contained in this report as it relates to my specialist input/study to be true and correct, 

and 

do not have and will not have any financial interest in the undertaking of the activity, other than remuneration 

for work performed in terms of the NEMA, the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2010 and any 

specific environmental management Act; 


have disclosed, to the applicant, EAP and competent authority, any material information that have or may 

have the potential to influence the decision of the competent authority or the objectivity of any report, plan or 

document required in terms of the NEMA, the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2010 and any 


am fully aware of and meet the responsibilities in terms of NEMA, the Environmental Impact Assessment 

Regulations, 2010 (specifically in terms of regulation 17 of GN No. R. 543) and any specific environmental 

management Act, and that failure to comply with these requirements may constitute and result in 

disqualification; 

have ensured that information containing all relevant facts in respect of the specialist input/study was 

distributed or made available to interested and affected parties and the public and that participation by 

interested and affected parties was facilitated in such a manner that all interested and affected parties were 

provided with a reasonable opportunity to participate and to provide comments on the specialist input/study; 

have ensured that the comments of all interested and affected parties on the specialist input/study were 

considered, recorded and submitted to the competent authority in respect of the application; 

have ensured that the names of all interested and affected parties that participated in terms of the specialist 

input/study were recorded in the register of interested and affected parties who participated in the public 

participation process; 

have provided the competent authority with access to all information at my disposal regarding the application, 

whether such information is favourable to the applicant or not; and 



AGENCY FOR CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 

Name of company: 

21 October, 2011 

Date:


pg 27 


and Declarations

QUALIFICATIONS & EXPERIENCE OF THE AUTHOR 


pg 28 



Dr John Almond has an Honours Degree in Natural Sciences (Zoology) as well as a PhD in 

Palaeontology from the University of Cambridge, UK. He has been awarded post-doctoral research 

fellowships at Cambridge University and in Germany, and has carried out palaeontological research in 

Europe, North America, the Middle East as well as North and South Africa. For eight years he was a 

scientific officer (palaeontologist) for the Geological Survey / Council for Geoscience in the RSA. His 

current palaeontological research focuses on fossil record of the Precambrian - Cambrian boundary 

and the Cape Supergroup of South Africa. He has recently written palaeontological reviews for 

several 1: 250 000 geological maps published by the Council for Geoscience and has contributed 

educational material on fossils and evolution for new school textbooks in the RSA. 

Since 2002 Dr Almond has also carried out palaeontological impact assessments for developments 

and conservation areas in the Western, Eastern and Northern Cape under the aegis of his Cape 

Town-based company Natura Viva cc. He is a long-standing member of the Archaeology, 

Palaeontology and Meteorites Committee for Heritage Western Cape (HWC) and an advisor on 

palaeontological conservation and management issues for the Palaeontological Society of South 

Africa (PSSA), HWC and SAHRA. He is currently compiling technical reports on the provincial 

palaeontological heritage of Western, Northern and Eastern Cape for SAHRA and HWC. Dr Almond is 

an accredited member of PSSA and APHAP (Association of Professional Heritage Assessment 

Practitioners – Western Cape). 

Declaration of Independence 

I, John E. Almond, declare that I am an independent consultant and have no business, financial, 

personal or other interest in the proposed development project, application or appeal in respect of 

which I was appointed other than fair remuneration for work performed in connection with the 

activity, application or appeal. There are no circumstances that compromise the objectivity of my 

performing such work. 

Dr John E. Almond 

Palaeontologist 

Natura Viva cc


pg 29 


and Declarations

Short CV: Megan Anderson 


pg 30 



Megan Anderson is landscape architect with a degree from University of Pretoria, BLArch (UP) 1983. She 

has been registered with the South African Council for Landscape Architect Professionals since 1994 

(Professional No. 94063) and has been a member of the Institute of Landscape Architects of South Africa 

(P217) since 1992. 

Some of the visual impact studies include: 

Since 2010, we have undertaken a number of windfarm VIA’s in the Western Cape. 

Proposed Development of a Wind Energy Project at Langefontein Farm near Saldanha Bay, (2011) 

Four proposed windfarms in the Garden Route area (2010 – 2011) 

Proposed solar and wind energy farm at Clover Valley Farm, Darling( 2011) 

Proposed Overberg Windfarm (2010 – 2011) 

2010 VIA’s 

Ascot Residential Development, Port Elizabeth 

Caledon Residential Development 

Jacobsbaai Tortoise Reserve – residential resort development on the west coast 

3 Vodacom masts – Hermanus, Villiersdorp and Klipdale 

De Hoek, power transmission lines 

2009 

Klipland, Paarl – VIA of proposed housing development on N1 adjacent to Paarl – 2009 

Salmonsvlei, Paarl – VIA of proposed housing development on N1 adjacent to Paarl – 2009 

The Hill, Sedgefield – VIA of proposed housing development on dunes north of N2, sedgefield – 2009 

Swartland Mall – VIA of proposed mixed use development on urban edge of country town of 

Malmesbury – 2009 

2008 

Dassenberg, Noordhoek – VIA of proposed housing development on hillside adjacent to Ou Kaapse 

Weg and TMNP 

Dewaldorf, Stellenbosch – VIA of proposed mixed use development along R44 and on urban edge 

Stellenbosch Wine and Country Estate – VIA of proposed upgrading of an agricultural unit to create a 

Wine Estate development with residential and tourism opportunities 

Paarl Waterfront - VIA of proposed mixed use development on Berg River, Paarl 

Seawinds, Saldanha Bay – VIS of proposed new industrial Area at Blouwaterbaai, Saldanha 

Skoongesig, St Helena Bay – VIA of proposed new electricity line and sub-station - 

Voortrekker Camp, Wemmershoek – VIA of proposed conference and camp facility development 

Oudemolen Development – VIA of redevelopment for mixed use purposes, Pinelands 

McGregor, WC - VIA of proposed housing development - 2008 

2007 - 2006 

Residential and mixed use developments at Glencairn Erf 1, Glencairn Erf 3410, Herolds Bay, 

Rhebokskloof, Hawston – Afdaksrivier – residential development (2007)


pg 31 



Brandwacht farm No. 1049, Stellenbosch – Visual spatial analysis of historic farm ‘werf’ and proposed 

development, 

Proposed Escom Mast, Perdekop, Farm 215, Baardskeerdersbos – Visual Impact Assessment of 

proposed Escom Mast, 

Flaminkberg Vodacom Tower – VIA of proposed tower adjacent to N7 on mountain top in Knersvlakte 

2000 – 2005 

Berg River Farm 913 - Visual impact assessment of proposed development of farm on Berg River, 

Xai Xai Export Facilty visual Assessment, Mozambique 

La Cotte – Visual impact assessment of proposed development of historic farm, 

Franschhoek 

Siemens Communication mast – Kirstenbosch 

Somerset West Vodacom Tower – Visual assessment of three options 

Erf 24, St Helena Bay – VIA of proposed housing development on hillside above town 

Die Dam - Vodacom mast, 2000 

Bloubergstrand East-West Arterial Road – VIA of four alternative proposed routes 

Blaauberg City - roads and housing development, 

Sonop Winery, Paardeberg – Visual Review of Development 

Paapekuilsfontein – Struisbaai, Visual Impact Assessment of Proposed residential and 

commercial development 

‘Die Dam’ Vodacom tower – visual impact assessment 

Worcester Casino – Visual Impact Assessment of Proposed Development 

Hout Bay Main Road – Visual Scoping of proposed alternative routes 

R300 Ring Road – Visual sensitivity of proposed route 

Pringle Cove Abalone Farm – Visual Assessment for scoping phase of proposed 

development 

Pre 2000 

Cape Metropolitan Area - visual sensitivity/significance mapping, 1999 – 2000, 2002 

Capricorn Landmark - proposed landmark, 1998 

Milnerton Golf Hotel - proposed hotel development on Woodbridge Island, 1998 

Coega IDZ, Port Elizabeth - supplementary VIA of Coega harbour, 1998 

Vredekloof – Vodacom mast VIA of proposed mast 

Farm 234 – Milnerton, VIA of the proposed housing development on Diep River 

Fish Hoek By-Pass – Visual Assessment of proposed road) 

Outeniqua Pass Road – visual assessment of proposed upgrade 

Du Toit’s Kloof – Visual Assessment of Proposed upgrade


pg 32 


and Declarations


pg 33 


and Declarations

Johann Lanz 

Professional profile 

Education 


pg 34 



M.Sc. (Environmental Geochemistry) University of Cape Town 1996 - June 1997 

B.Sc. Agriculture (Soil Science, Chemistry) University of Stellenbosch 1992 - 1995 

BA (English, Environmental & Geographical Science) University of Cape Town 1989 - 1991 

Matric Exemption Wynberg Boy's High School 1983 

Professional work experience 

I fulfil the requirements for registration as a Professional Natural Scientist and my registration is currently 

being processed. 

Soil Science Consultant Self employed 2002 - present 

I run a soil science consulting business, servicing clients in both the environmental and agricultural 

industries. Typical consulting projects involve: 

Soil specialist study inputs to EIA's, SEA’s and EMPR's. These have focused on impact assessments 

and rehabilitation on agricultural land, rehabilitation and re-vegetation of mining and industrially 

disturbed and contaminated soils, as well as more general aspects of soil resource management. 

Recent clients include: CSIR; BioTherm Energy; MBB Consulting Engineers; WKN Windcurrent; 

Corobrik; Western Cape Provincial Department of Environmental Affairs and Development 

Planning; Alcan aluminium smelter (Coega); Namaqualand Restoration Initiative; AECI; Afrimat; 

Tiptrans. 

Soil resource evaluations and mapping for agricultural land use planning and management. 

Recent clients include: Thelema Mountain Vineyards; Delaire Wine estate; Newton-Johnson 

Wines; Spier Estate; Colors; Kaarsten Boerdery; Amanzi Country Estate (Port Elizabeth); Rudera 

Wines; Flagstone; Cob Creek Estate (Jeffreys Bay); Solms Delta Wines; Dornier Wines. 

I have conducted several recent research projects focused on conservation farming, soil health 

and carbon sequestration.


pg 35 



Soil Science Consultant Agricultural Consultors International (Tinie du Preez) 1998 - end 2001 

Responsible for providing all aspects of a soil science technical consulting service directly to clients in the 

wine, fruit and environmental industries all over South Africa, and in Chile, South America. 

Contracting Soil Scientist De Beers Namaqualand Mines July 1997 - Jan 1998 

Completed a contract to make recommendations on soil rehabilitation and re-vegetation of mined areas. 

Publications 

Lanz, J. in press. Soil: sustaining Stellenbosch's roots. In: M Swilling & B Sebitosi (eds). Sustainable 

Stellenbosch 2030. Stellenbosch: SunMedia. 

Lanz, J. 2010. Soil health indicators: physical and chemical. South African Fruit Journal, April / May 

2010 issue. 

Lanz, J. 2009. Soil health constraints. South African Fruit Journal, August / September 2009 issue. 

Lanz, J. 2009. Soil carbon research. AgriProbe, Department of Agriculture. 

Lanz, J. 2009. Report of the soil carbon research project. Department of Agriculture: LandCare. 

Lanz, J. 2005. Special Report: Soils and wine quality. Wineland Magazine.


pg 36 



THE INDEPENDENT PERSON WHO COMPILED A SPECIALIST REPORT OR UNDERTOOK A SPECIALIST 

PROCESS FOR THE PROPOSED INCA VREDENDAL WIND PROJECT MUST COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING: 

I Johann Lanz as the appointed independent specialist hereby declare that I: 


regard the information contained in this report as it relates to my specialist input/study to be true and correct, 

and 

do not have and will not have any financial interest in the undertaking of the activity, other than remuneration 

for work performed in terms of the NEMA, the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2010 and any 



have disclosed, to the applicant, EAP and competent authority, any material information that have or may 

have the potential to influence the decision of the competent authority or the objectivity of any report, plan or 

document required in terms of the NEMA, the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2010 and any 


am fully aware of and meet the responsibilities in terms of NEMA, the Environmental Impact Assessment 

Regulations, 2010 (specifically in terms of regulation 17 of GN No. R. 543) and any specific environmental 

management Act, and that failure to comply with these requirements may constitute and result in 

disqualification; 

have ensured that information containing all relevant facts in respect of the specialist input/study was 

distributed or made available to interested and affected parties and the public and that participation by 

interested and affected parties was facilitated in such a manner that all interested and affected parties were 

provided with a reasonable opportunity to participate and to provide comments on the specialist input/study; 

have ensured that the comments of all interested and affected parties on the specialist input/study were 

considered, recorded and submitted to the competent authority in respect of the application; 

have ensured that the names of all interested and affected parties that participated in terms of the specialist 

input/study were recorded in the register of interested and affected parties who participated in the public 

participation process; 

have provided the competent authority with access to all information at my disposal regarding the application, 

whether such information is favourable to the applicant or not; and 



Name of company: Johann Lanz - Soil Scientist


pg 1 

B1 - Locality map


pg 2 

B2 – Provisional site layout plan with: 

existing roads (green); roads to be constructed (orange); power 

lines to be constructed (white); existing power lines (blue): 1.5 

times toppling distance buffer proposed by the amended LUPO 

(yellow); and property boundary (red). (Source: Google Earth)


pg 1 

Appendix C: DEA Acceptance 

of the FSR


pg 2 


of the FSR


pg 3 


of the FSR


pg 4 


of the FSR


pg 5 


of the FSR


pg 6 


of the FSR

Institution / Farm (Position) Names 

Appendix D: Vredendal I&AP database 

BIOTA Southern Africa Gerda Kriel 

Birdlife South Africa Pam Barrett 

Cape Action for People and the Environment (C.A.P.E.) Dr M Barnett 

Cape Nature Alana Duffell-Canham 

CapeNature, Matzikama Conservation Officer W Hornimann 

Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) Prabir Badal 

Department of Agriculture, Forestry & Fisheries 

Directorate: Land Use & Soil Management 


pg 1 


Department of Mineral Resources Western Cape – Environmental Manager Jan Briers 

Department of Transport & Public Works GD Swanepoel 

Department of Water Affairs Western Cape L Kuse 

Department of Environment Affairs (DEA) 

Branch: Oceans and Coast (OC) 

Potlako Khati 

Dept of Rural Development and Land Reform – W/Cape Spatial Planning Leona Bruiners 

Die Burger – Environmental Jorisna Bonthuys 

District Roads Engineer – Ceres Lars Starke 

Environmental Monitoring Group (EMG) Noel Oettle 

Erf 292 Retshof Belleggings Bpk 

Erf 293 Mr Jan van Zyl 

Erf 294 Mnr W Nel 

Erf 299 Mnr J Brand 

Erf 300 Mnr PG & H Geldenhuys 

Erf 391 Mnr EB Burnett 

Erf 392 Mnr J Brand 

Erf 394 Mnr WB Louw 

Erf 395 Mnr RJ & SJ Kotze 

Erf 452 Mnr P & EIA Smit 

Eskom Senior Supervisor: Land & Rights Henk Landman 

Eskom W/Cape: Planning Manager Riaan Smith 

Exxaro Namakwa Sands General Manager David Southey 

Heritage Western Cape Shaun Dryers 

iNca Energy (Pty) Ltd Mr Ian McDonald 

iNca Energy (Pty) Ltd Mr Cobus Visagie 

Landowner Jan van Zyl 

Landowner Kobus Visser 

Local Resident Derick Snewe 

Local Resident Hiram Cloete 

Local Resident Mr S.A. Engelbrecht 

Local Resident B. Williams 

Local Resident R.J. Kotze 

Local Resident H. Libertrau

Appendix D: Vredendal I&AP database 

Local Resident Daan Visser 

Local Resident Wilfred Stephan 

Lower Olifants Water Use Association General Manager 

Lutzville Koekenaap Farmers Association Handré Cornelisen 

Matzikama Mun (Dir: Technical Services) Hendrik Krohn 

Matzikama Mun (Mayor – Ward 5) Rhenda Stephan 

Matzikama Mun: IDP & LED Manager Lionel Phillips 

Matzikama Mun: Municipal Manager Dean O’Neill 

Matzikama Mun: Town Planner Annalie van der Westhuizen 

Matzikama Municipality – Finances K Bruwer 

Matzikama Municipality – Town and Regional Planning B Smit 

Matzikama Municipality – Town and Regional Planning B Kriek 

Matzikama Tourism Association Dr H Hove 

Media Gazette R. Terreblanche 

Municipal Councillor Christoffel van der Westhuizen 

National Department of Environmental Affairs Mpho Morudu 

National Energy Regulator of South Africa (NERSA) Electricity Department 

Nomzamo Brick Project Belly Mantame 

Ons Kontrei S. Geldenhuys 

Public Library - Klawer Marie Mostert 

Public Library – Lutzville Susan Cronje 

Public Library - Vredendal Robert August 

Radio Namakwaland Bernard Lambrecht 

South African Civil Aviation Authority Lizell Stroh 

South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA) Mary Leslie South 

South African National Parks Sarel Yssel 

South African National Roads Agency Ltd (SANRAL) The Regional Manager 

South African Wind Energy Association (SAWEA) Johan van den Berg 

Tourism Coordinator Matzikama Thesmé van Zyl 

Vanryhnsdorp Gateway Christo Paulsen 

Vredendal Agriculture Association Cristopher Taljaard 

Vredendal Business Chamber Therese Kotze 

Vredendal Business Chamber Tollie Louw 

Vredendal Fly Club Jacques van Vuuren 

West Coast Bird Club Keith Harrison 

West Coast District Municipality Doretha Kotze 

Western Cape Department of Agriculture – LandCare Cor van der Walt 

Western Cape Department of Environmental Affairs & Development Planning D Matthews 

Wildlife & Environmental Society of SA Western Cape Sharon Bosma 

WWF – SA (Land Programme Manager) Natasha Wilson 


pg 2


pg 1 

Appendix E: 

Correspondence from I&APs 

E1 COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE DRAFT 

SCOPING REPORT 2 

E1_A WEST COAST BIRD CLUB COMMENT ON DRAFT SCOPING REPORT 3 

E1_B MATZIKAMA MUNICIPALITY COMMENT ON FINAL SCOPING REPORT 6 

E1_C DEPARTMENT OF WATER AFFAIRS COMMENT ON DRAFT SCOPING REPORT 9 

E1_D WEST COAST DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY COMMENT ON FINAL SCOPING REPORT 11 

E1_E WESTERN CAPE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE COMMENT ON DRAFT SCOPING REPORT 

12 

E1_F NEIGHBOURING FARMER COMMENT ON FINAL SCOPING REPORT 16 

E1_G INCA ENERGY RESPONSE TO NEIGHBOURING FARMER’S COMMENT 17 

E1_H PROVINCIAL ROAD ENGINEER COMMENT ON FINAL SCOPING REPORT 18 

E1_I INCA LETTER RELATING TO WATER USAGE TO MATZIKAMA MUNICIPALITY RELATING TO 

WATER USAGE 19 

E1_J WESTERN CAPE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS AND DEVELOPMENT 

PLANNING COMMENT ON FINAL SCOPING REPORT 20 

E1_K LOWER OLIFANTS RIVER USERS ASSOCIATION CONFIRMATION OF WATER ALLOCATION 23 

E2 COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE DRAFT 

EIA REPORT 24 

E2_A CIVIL AVIATION LETTER OF NO OBJECTION 25 

E2_B CAPE NATURE COMMENT ON DRAFT EIA REPORT 26 

E2_C WESTERN CAPE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMENT ON DRAFT 


E2_D DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY & FISHERIES CORRESPONDENCE 29 

E2_E WESTERN CAPE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMENT ON DRAFT 


E2_F WESTERN CAPE DEPARTMENT OF WATER AFFAIRS COMMENT ON DRAFT EIA REPORT 33 

E2_G WEST COAST DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY COMMENT ON DRAFT EIA REPORT 35 

E2_H WESTERN CAPE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE COMMENT ON FINAL SCOPING REPORT 

36


pg 2 

Appendix E: 


E1 Comments Received after the Release 

of the Draft Scoping Report


pg 3 

Appendix E: 


E1_A WEST COAST BIRD CLUB COMMENT ON DRAFT SCOPING REPORT 

From, 

Keith Harrison, 

P.O. Box. 1404, Tel. 022 – 7133026. 

Vredenburg, Email. : keithhbharrison@lando.co.za 

7380. 

To, 

Cornelius van der Westhuizen, 

CSIR, 

P.O. Box 320, Tel. 022 – 888 2408. 

Stellenbosch, Email. CvdWesthuizen1@csir.co.za 

7599. 

13 th . October 2011. 

Ref:- Proposed Wind Energy Project for iNca Vredevdal, Draft Scoping Report. 

DEA Ref. No. 12/12/20/2255 

Dear Cornelius van der Westuizen, 

“The best in the west” 

Thank you for sending to me the CD of the above project and being able to comment. 

The West Coast Bird Club supports all renewable energy projects providing that they are 

sustainable developments, with minimal effect upon the environment or human residents. 

The West Coast Bird Club supports this project and has the following comments. 

1. Construction Civils, the foundations of 18X18X4 m. means that for each turbine 1296 

cu.m. of material has to be removed, which at approximately 10 cu.m. per load means 

about 130 loads with a similar number of loads of concrete or components to be brought 

onto the site.


pg 4 

Appendix E: 


Where will the spoil be disposed of? 

Where will the sand and gravel be obtained? 

The approximate number of vehicle movements for the project should be calculated and 

the environmental impact upon habitats and road infrastructure. 

The vehicles used by the developers, contractors and suppliers should be registered with 

the Vredendal Traffic Department in order that some of the license fee can be used to 

defray infrastructure maintenance costs. 

2. At each turbine the permanent lay down area of 40X20m will increase habitat 

displacement. 

Re-habilitation will take 12 years with only about 80% species returning. 

Page 2. 

The gravel surfaced hardened areas and internal roads will lead to increased storm water 

run off on the occasions that it rains, usually heavy over very short periods of time. A 

storm water policy should be considered. 

3. The 2 X 11kV lines, would it be possible for these to be put under ground? This should be 

covered in the AIA report and potential collisions. Bird diverters should protect all above 

ground cables. 

4. The reference to the scrap value of the turbines at the end of the project being used to 

defray re-habilitation costs is vague. An approximate value for trusts set up by both the 

developer and the landowner to cover re-habilitation should be established at the onset of 

the project. 

5. Employment opportunities, there should be a table showing labour requirements during 

the 

Construction and Production Phases in terms of skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled and 

whether they will be recruited locally. 

6. Safety, at the Caithness Windfarm Information Forum (June 2011) 

www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk the recommendation is that the minimum distance 

between a turbine and occupied housing should be 2 kms..


pg 5 

Appendix E: 


7. Bats:- 

A simple mitigation would be not to operate turbines in a wind speed below 5 m/sec. 

Or a wind speed that identified species and period of the day are known to be active. 

Outside lighting should be motion activated with the beam pointing vertically 

downwards so as not to attract insects which are prey for night flying birds and bats. 

The West Coast Bird Club reserves the right to submit further comments on this Scooping 

Report as further information becomes available. 

Yours sincerely, 

K.H.B. Harrison. 

West Coast Bird Club –Conservation. 

(Sent by email 13 th October 2011)


pg 6 

Appendix E: 


E1_B MATZIKAMA MUNICIPALITY COMMENT ON FINAL SCOPING REPORT


pg 7 

Appendix E: 

Correspondence from I&APs


pg 8 

Appendix E: 



pg 9 

Appendix E: 


E1_C DEPARTMENT OF WATER AFFAIRS COMMENT ON DRAFT SCOPING REPORT


pg 10 

Appendix E: 



pg 11 

Appendix E: 


E1_D WEST COAST DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY COMMENT ON FINAL SCOPING 

REPORT


pg 12 

Appendix E: 


E1_E WESTERN CAPE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE COMMENT ON DRAFT 

SCOPING REPORT


pg 13 

Appendix E: 



pg 14 

Appendix E: 



pg 15 

Appendix E: 



pg 16 

Appendix E: 


E1_F NEIGHBOURING FARMER COMMENT ON FINAL SCOPING REPORT 

From: "Wilfred Stephan" 

To: 

CC: 

Date: 19/10/2011 07:20 

Subject: Windplaas Grootdraaihoek 

Geaffekteerde Eienaar 

Ek besit n gedeelte van die plaas Groot Draaihoek.Met die beplanning van die 

windplaas het niemand my geken in die saak nie. 

Ek verneem dat met die konstruksie n pad gebou gaan word op n serwetuut ten 

gunste van my eiendom. 

N Brug wat ek verledejaar oor die kanaal gebou het ,gaan verander word 

sonder dat ek as eienaar geken is in die saak. 

Ongeveer 8 km vanaf beoogde windplaas is n vliegveld in Vredendal Suid. 

Volgens n kaart wat ek opgespoor het gaan die windplaas ook nader as 300m 

aan my eiendom se grens wees. 

Verlang dringende verduidelikings 

Wilfred Stephan 

0832333181


pg 17 

Appendix E: 


E1_G INCA ENERGY RESPONSE TO NEIGHBOURING FARMER’S COMMENT


pg 18 

Appendix E: 


E1_H PROVINCIAL ROAD ENGINEER COMMENT ON FINAL SCOPING REPORT 

From: "Rod Boyes" 

To: 

CC: "Lars Starke" , "Colette Gatyene" 

Date: 23/11/2011 16:22 

Subject: PROPOSED WIND ENERGY FACILITY ON PORTIONS OF FARM 293 AT GROOT 

DRAAIHOEK, VREDENDAL 

Attachments: iNca Vredendal Wind (Pty) Ltd Farm 293 - Google 2011-11-23.jpg; $$$ Pro Forma Basic 

General Comments - Roads not directly affected - Wind Energy Farms 2011-11-23a.pdf 

Dear Mr van der Westhuizen 

1. Your final EIA report DEA/12/12/20/2255 dated 14 October 2011, 

refers. 

2. iNca Vredendal Wind (Pty) Ltd are your clients. 

3. Although comments have closed for your scoping report, the developers 

of the Wind Energy Facility need to take cognisance of the attached standard 

pro-forma conditions before they start transporting equipment to the site or 

providing services for the site. 

4. No Provincial roads are directly affected by the position of the Wind 

Energy Facility. See the attached image showing our roads south of 

Vredendal. 

5. Provincial roads may be affected by services to the site. 

6. Provincial roads will however be affected when the equipment is 

transported to the site. 

7. The developers would need to apply to ourselves well in advance for 

the necessary wayleaves and for the necessary permission to transport 

abnormal loads on any proclaimed road before they may proceed on such a 

road. 

Should you have any queries please contact me. 

Kind Regards 

Rod Boyes 

For the Office of the Acting Regional Manager : Provincial Roads : Ceres 

Contact Detail 

Tel : 023 312 1160 

Fax: 023 312 2633 

Cell: 078 494 1949 

eMail : rodb@pgwc.biz 

Snail Mail : Private Box X2, Ceres, 6835 

Street Address: 1 Bon Chretien Street, Oosterlig, Ceres, 6835

E1_I INCA LETTER RELATING TO WATER USAGE TO 

MATZIKAMA MUNICIPALITY RELATING TO WATER 

USAGE 

Mr J Perceur 

Technical Services 

Matzikama Municipality 

Dear Mr Perceur 

RE: Purchase of water from the Matzikama Municipality 


pg 19 

Appendix E: 


16 November 2011 

Our Company, iNca Energy is developing a 40MW Wind farm project in Vredendal that is going to be submitted for round 2 of 

the Department of Energy Request for Proposals. The DOE bid process requests that we obtain non-binding indication from 

your municipality regarding availability of water for the building and operation phase of our project. 

Please find hereafter some information: 

Name of Water resource to be utilized: Matzikama Municipality water board 

Amount of water to be taken per year: a once-off consumption of 12 million Litres during the 12 month construction 

phase used for concrete and 20000 Litres per month for the office and workshop for domestic use. 

Property descriptions where the water will be taken to from the water resource: our Wind Farm is located 10km South 

of Vredendal, on the farm Groot Draaihoek Remainder Erf 293 and Remainder Portions 1, 7 and 8 of Erf, belonging to 

Jan van Zyl and Kobus Visser. 

Name and relevant information of the legal entity who will be the water user: iNca Vredendal Wind (Pty) Ltd, which is 

a 100% subsidiary of iNca Energy (Pty) Ltd, registration number 2009/022231/07. More information on www.incaenergy.com 

How the water will be utilized: 95% of the water will be used to mix concrete for the Wind Turbine bases and 5% for 

use during the power producing phase of 25 years. 

We would like to fetch the water from a point specified by the municipality in a water truck. 

Please could you advise if you require any further information in order for the municipality to provide us with a non-binding 

indication. 

Sincere Regards, 

Cobus Visagie 

Stakeholder Manager 

CC: Annali van der Westhuizen, Matzikama Municipality 

Mr Rashid Khan, Regional Head, Department of Water Affairs, Western Cape 

Inca Energy (Pty) Ltd | Registration No.: 2009/022231/07 | Directors: B Garrivier, S Essa 

Unit 1, Ground Floor, 1 Melrose Boulevard, Melrose Arch, Johannesburg, 2193 | PO Box 654, Melrose Arch, 2076 

Tel: +27 (0)11 684 1179 | Fax: +27 (0)11 684 1076 | email: contact@inca-energy.com | web: www.inca-energy.com


pg 20 

Appendix E: 


E1_J WESTERN CAPE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS AND 

DEVELOPMENT PLANNING COMMENT ON FINAL SCOPING REPORT


pg 21 

Appendix E: 



pg 22 

Appendix E: 



pg 23 

Appendix E: 


E1_K LOWER OLIFANTS RIVER USERS ASSOCIATION CONFIRMATION OF WATER 

ALLOCATION


pg 24 

Appendix E: 


E2 Comments Received after the 

Release of the Draft EIA Report

E2_A CIVIL AVIATION LETTER OF NO OBJECTION 


pg 25 

Appendix E: 


E2_B CAPE NATURE COMMENT ON DRAFT EIA REPORT 


pg 26 

Appendix E: 



pg 27 

Appendix E: 



pg 28 

Appendix E: 


E2_C WESTERN CAPE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

COMMENT ON DRAFT EIA REPORT 

From: Faisal Fakier 

To: "cvdwesthuizen1@csir.co.za" 

Date: 17/01/2012 00:06 

Subject: DRAFT EIA - WIND FARM POWER PROJECT GROOT DRAAIHOEK, VREDENDAL 

Dear Sir, 

This Branch has commented previously on the project process. 

Further comment will be provided when the LUPO application takes place. 

Please acknowledge receipt of this email. 

Best regards 

Faisal Fakier Pr. Eng. 

On behalf of: 

Provincial Government of the Western Cape 

Department of Transport and Public Works 

Road Network Management Branch 

Chief Engineer: Land Transport 

083 - 408 9315 (Mobile)


pg 29 

Appendix E: 


E2_D DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY & FISHERIES CORRESPONDENCE 

From: Cornelius Van der Westhuizen 

To: AnnelizaC 

CC: AnnetteS; Cor Van der Walt; MakhosonkeB 

Date: 17/01/2012 15:53 

Subject: RE: Comment on Vredendal Wind Draft EIA _ Your reference – 2011_10_0088 

Dear Anneliza, 

thanks for the response and your department's concern is noted. The project's footprint does fall 

within agriculturally cultivated land. For this reason an agricultural specialist study was requested from 

the Western Cape Department of Agriculture and conducted to evaluate the agricultural potential of 

the land and the potential impacts of the project on agriculture. With a total physical footprint of 6 ha 

in an area classified as non-arable land with a wheat yield potential of 0.5 t/ha that is only used for 

growing animal feed, the specialist concluded that the impacts will be of low significance. You will find 

all of this in the report when you review it in any case. 

I do understand that it is your department's mandate to ensure food security, but on the other hand it 

is CapeNature's mandate to protect undisturbed land. This leads to all renewable projects being 

opposed by either your department or them. 

Looking forward to receiving your formal comment as soon as possible. 

Thanks and kind regards, 


Environmental Assessment Practitioner 

CSIR - Environmental Management Services 

PO Box 320 

Stellenbosch 

7599 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

------------------------- 

Dear Mr. vd Westhuizen 

With reference to your e-mail below the following: 

DAFF only received your application on the 19th of December and the department was closed during 

the festive period. 

Your file has been submitted to my office for a technical evaluation last Friday and the review has not 

yet been done as we deal with the applications per date received. Also after the completion of the 

review it needs to be submitted to the committee for final decision making. It will therefore not be 

possible to supply you with comments by your due date. 

However I had a quick look at your application and one important matter was clearly visible.


pg 30 

Appendix E: 


According to our data and your images the proposed project is located on a land parcel where 

cultivation is occurring. I unfortunately did not have time to determine whether the foot print of the 

proposed project will be located directly on the cultivated land or alongside it. DAFF does not support 

any renewable energy application that occurs on cultivated land as stated in our policy. It is our 

mandate to ensure food security and we can not allow cultivated areas being lost due to other land 

uses. Should your proposed project's foot print therefore be located on cultivated land or have a 

negative impact on the agricultural activities on the site it will not be supported by DAFF. 

I will however still conduct a comprehensive review and we will supply you with our formal comments 

in due cause. I however felt that you should be notified of the above. 

Apologies if anything is unclear. 

Pls feel free to contact me should you have any queries. 

Kind regards 


Mrs. Anneliza Collett 

Directorate: Land Use & Soil Management 

Department of Agriculture, Forestry & Fisheries 

Tel: 012 - 319 7508 

Fax: 012 - 329 5938 

e-mail: AnnelizaC@nda.agric.za 

www.agis.agric.za


pg 31 

Appendix E: 


E2_E WESTERN CAPE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

COMMENT ON DRAFT EIA REPORT


pg 32 

Appendix E: 



pg 33 

Appendix E: 


E2_F WESTERN CAPE DEPARTMENT OF WATER AFFAIRS COMMENT ON DRAFT EIA 

REPORT


pg 34 

Appendix E: 



pg 35 

Appendix E: 


E2_G WEST COAST DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY COMMENT ON DRAFT EIA REPORT


pg 36 

Appendix E: 


E2_H WESTERN CAPE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE COMMENT ON FINAL 

SCOPING REPORT

Appendix F: Public Meeting Minutes 


pg 1


Information Sharing with Stakeholders 

Vredendal 

16 January 2012 

Meeting Minutes es 


pg 1

Nr Name Affiliation 

1 Cornelius van der Westhuizen CSIR Project Manager 

2 Rudolph du Toit CSIR 

3 Cobus Visagie iNca Energy 

4 Tokkie Louw Vredendal Business Chamber 

5 Jan Ponk van Zyl Land Owner 

6 Kobus Visser Land Owner 

7 Rhenda Stephan Mazikama Local Municipality 

8 Wilfred Stephan Neighbour 

9 Bernette Kriek Mazikama Local Municipality 

10 S.A. Engelbrecht Local Farmer 

11 Christoffel van der Westhuizen Municipal Councillor 

12 Derick Snewe Community Member 

13 Hiram Cloete Community Member 

14 Belly Mantame Nomzamo Brick Project 



pg 2


18h00-18h05: Introduction and Rules for the Meeting, Cornelius van der Westhuizen (CSIR) 

18h05-18h30: Overview of the project Cobus Visagie (iNca Energy)/Cornelius van der Westhuizen 

(CSIR) 

18h30-18h45: Questions and Answers 

18h45-19h00: Overview of Environmental Impact Assessment and Findings Cornelius van der 

Westhuizen (CSIR) 

19h00-19h30: Questions and Answers 

19h30-19h45: Wrap-up and Conclusion Cornelius van der Westhuizen (CSIR) 


pg 3


1) Cornelius opened the meeting and welcomed everybody. 

Provided an overview of the public meeting and discussed the agenda 

Introduced the meeting objectives, rules and procedures 

2) Cobus presented an overview of the Inca Energy Vredendal Project 

Provided and overview of the company profile 

Introduced the site layout plan 

3) Cornelius presented the EIA process 

Discussed the aims, objectives and timeframes related to t he EIA project 

Introduced the findings of the Scoping report, including key environmental issues resulting 

from the EIA phase 


pg 4


pg 5 


4) Comments on Project Overview 

Name & Affiliation (nr) Comment Name & Affiliation (nr) Response 

S.A. Engelbrecht Will the substation be upgraded? Cobus Visagie Yes, there has been talk that Eskom will upgrade the substation. If 

this happens, iNca would like to increase the capacity of the wind 

farm, but it would be subject to new EIA. 

How much will iNca be paid per kW/H? The price at which iNca will sell the electricity to the Department of 

Energy (DoE) has not been finalised. It will only be known once the 

bid for the project has been prepared and submitted to the DoE. 

There will, however, be a difference between the current coalbased 

electricity price and wind-based energy, with wind energy 

being more expensive. 

Who will pay for the difference between 

the current electricity price and 

renewable energy? 

Christoffel van der Is this the only project of its kind in this 

Westhuizen 

municipal area? 

S.A. Engelbrecht What advantage do the local community 

get from the project? 

The government is making funds available to subsidise the 

renewable energy so that the consumer does not need to pay the 

difference. 

There are several other projects in the area. iNca has two projects 

that are planned in the area; one solar and this wind energy project. 

iNca will provide funds to the local municipality (via a development 

fund related to the IDP) to contribute to local development. 

Approximately R2 to5 million could be contributed to this fund each 

year.


pg 6 


5) Comments on Overview of Environmental Assessment and Findings 

Name & 

Affiliation (nr) 

Comment Name & Affiliation (nr) Response 

S.A. Engelbrecht Who guarantees the funds payable for decommissioning and rehabilitation Cornelius van der 

The municipality will guarantee that iNca makes sufficient 

in the case iNca suffers bankruptcy? 

Westhuizen 

funds available for this before the project can start. This 

guarantee will be in the form of funds made available to the 

municipality if iNca goes bankrupt. The guarantee will be 

reviewed annually. 

Where will the gravel for road construction be sourced from? Cobus Visagie It could possibly be sourced from Mr. Wilfred Stephan’s 

property. 

Christoffel van der What employment opportunities will be generated by this project? Cornelius van der 

Limited employment will be generated during the 

Westhuizen 

Westhuizen 

operational phase while more short-term employment 

opportunities will be available during the construction 

phase. 

How then will the community benefit from this project? Benefit will primarily be indirectly through the multiplier 

effect resulting from increased economic activity in the area. 

How is BBBEE promoted by the project? Cobus Visagie Inca Energy is owned by COSATU. 

S.A. Engelbrecht Will the turbine noise be heard in Vredendal? Cornelius van der 

Westhuizen 

No 

Wilfred Stephan How will the upgrade of the road influence my ability to access and use the Cobus Visagie 

Upgrade will be of such a nature that your continued use of 

road? 

the road will be guaranteed. 

What financial benefit is available to me given that I was not included during 

iNca is willing to negotiate such an arrangement should a 

the scoping phase even though my property abutted the land earmarked for 

the project? 

positive RoD be issued. 

The offer made by iNca to me was not clear regarding the financial benefit 

Should iNca obtain a positive RoD, it will pay R80 000 to you 

accruing to me (for the use/upgrade of the bridge). Can this be made more 

concrete? 

for the use of the bridge. 

Should a turbine collapse; would it fall on my property? No. At least 1.5 turbine length buffer is placed around 

project. 

Bernette Kriek Will a rental contract or rental area be use/registered? A lease agreement covering the entire property will be put in 

place. 

Wilfred Stephan Will my use of the servitude road to my property be compromised by the 

No, we see no reason for this to happen (see response 

construction of the project? 

above). 

S.A. Engelbrecht Who will ensure that the conditions of the EIA and RoD are implemented? Cornelius van der 

The EMP will be implemented by an independent third party 

Westhuizen 

(probably the local municipality).

Appendix G: Advertising of Draft EIA 

Report and Public Meeting 


pg 1


pg 1 

Section B: Draft EMP 

B. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 3 

1.1 INTRODUCTION 3 

1.2 APPROACH TO PREPARING THE EMP 3 

1.3 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 4 

1.3.1 Project Developer 4 

1.3.2 Environmental Control Officer 4 

1.3.3 Lead Contractor 5 

1.3.4 Operations Manager 6 

1.4 MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR DESIGN PHASE 7 

1.5 MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR CONSTRUCTION PHASE 9 

1.5.1 Overall compliance with the conditions of the environmental authorisation 9 

1.5.2 Construction noise 9 

1.5.3 On-site waste management 10 

1.5.4 Risk of fire as a result of the construction activities 10 

1.5.5 Human safety and aviation requirements 11 

1.5.6 Management of civil contractors and sub-contractors 11 

1.5.7 Soil and groundwater contamination 13 

1.5.8 Flora and terrestrial fauna 14 

1.5.9 Birds 15 

1.5.10 Bats 16 

1.5.11 Heritage 17 

1.5.12 Visual 17 

1.5.13 Agriculture 18 

1.6 MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR OPERATION PHASE 20 

1.6.1 Overall compliance with the conditions of the environmental authorisation 20 

1.6.2 On-site waste management 20 

1.6.3 Risk of fire as a result of the operational 21 

1.6.4 Human safety and aviation requirements 21 

1.6.5 Soil and groundwater contamination 22 

1.6.6 Flora and terrestrial fauna 22


pg 2 


1.6.7 Birds 23 

1.6.8 Bats 25 

1.6.9 Visual 25 

1.6.10 Agriculture 27 

1.7 MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR DECOMMISSION PHASE 28


pg 3 


B. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 

PLAN 


This Environmental Management Plan (EMP) is prepared as part of the requirements of the EIA 

Regulations promulgated under the National Environmental Management Act (Act 107 of 1998) 

as amended 2010. The EMP is to be submitted to the national Department of Environmental 

Affairs (DEA) as part of the application for environmental authorisation for the proposed iNca 

Vredendal Wind project (DEA reference no. 12/12/20/2255). 

This draft EMP is made available for public comment, as part of the Draft EIA Report. Following 

the incorporation of comments from stakeholders, the EMP is intended as a “living” document and 

should continue to be updated regularly. 

A detailed description of the proposed iNca project is contained in Chapter 2 of the EIA Report; 

and a description of the affected environment is provided in Chapters 5 to 13 of the EIA Report. 

1.2 APPROACH TO PREPARING THE EMP 

The Environmental Management Plan is divided into four phases of the project cycle: 

Detailed design phase, including micro-siting of turbines (section 4); 

Construction phase (section 5); 

Operational phase (section 6) ; and 

Decommission phase (section 7). 

The EMP is based largely on the findings and recommendations of the EIA process. However, the 

EMP is considered a “live” document and must be updated with additional information or actions 

during the design, construction and operational phases. 

The EMP follows an approach of identifying an over-arching goal and objectives, accompanied by 

management actions that are aimed at achieving these objectives. The management actions are 

presented in a table format in order to show the links between the goal and associated objectives, 

actions, responsibilities, monitoring requirements and targets. The management plans for the 

design, construction, operation and decommissioning phases consist of the following components: 

Impact: The potential positive or negative impact of the development that needs to be 

enhanced, mitigated or eliminated; 

Mitigation/Management action: The actions needed to achieve the objectives of 

enhancing, mitigating or eliminating impacts; 

Monitoring: The key monitoring actions required to check whether the objectives are 

being achieved, taking into consideration methodology, frequency and responsibility. 

Goal for environmental management:


pg 4 


The overall goal for environmental management for the iNca Vredendal Wind project is to 

construct and operate the project in a manner that: 

Minimises the ecological footprint of the project on the local environment; 

Minimises impacts on birds, bats and other fauna; 

Facilitates harmonious co-existence between the project and other land uses in the area, 

such as agriculture; and 

Contributes to the environmental baseline and understanding of environmental impacts 

of wind farms in a South African context through providing monitoring records from the 

construction and operation phases, especially with regard to potential impacts on birds 

and bats. 

1.3 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 

For the purposes of the EMP, the generic roles that need to be defined are those of the: 

Project Developer ; 

Environmental Control Officer (ECO); 

Construction Manager; and 

Operations Manager. 

Note: The specific titles for these functions will vary from project to project. The intent of this 

section is to give a generic outline of what these roles typically require. 

1.3.1 Project Developer 

The Project Developer [i.e. iNca Vredendal Wind (Pty) Ltd] is the ‘owner’ of the project and as 

such is responsible for ensuring that the conditions of the environmental authorisation issued in 

terms of NEMA (should the project receive such authorisation) are fully adhered to, as well as 

ensuring that any other necessary permits or licenses are obtained and complied with. It is 

expected that the Project Developer will appoint the Construction Manager and the Operations 

Manager. 

1.3.2 Environmental Control Officer 

The Environmental Control Officer (ECO) will be responsible for overseeing the implementation 

of the EMP during the construction and operations phases, and for monitoring environmental 

impacts, record-keeping and updating of the EMP as and when necessary. As well as a 

responsibility for implementing the EMP, the ECO is also responsible for monitoring compliance 

with the conditions of the Environmental Authorisation that may be issued to iNca Vredendal 

Wind. 

During construction, the Environmental Control Officer will be responsible for the 

following:


pg 5 


Meeting on site with the Construction Manager prior to the commencement of 

construction activities to confirm the construction procedure and designated activity 

zones; 

Weekly or bi-weekly (i.e. every two weeks) monitoring of site activities during 

construction to ensure adherence to the specifications contained in the EMP, using a 

monitoring checklist that is to be prepared by the ECO at the start of the construction 

phase; 

Preparation of the monitoring report based on the weekly or bi-weekly site visit; 

Reporting of any non-conformances within 48 hours of identification of such nonconformance 

to the relevant agents; and 

Conducting an environmental inspection on completion of the construction period and 

‘signing off’ the construction process with the Construction Manager. 

During operation, the Environmental Control Officer will be responsible for: 

Overseeing the implementation of the EMP for the operation phase; 

Ensure that the necessary environmental monitoring takes place as specified in the EMP; 

and 

Update the EMP and ensure that records are kept of all monitoring activities and results. 

During decommissioning, the Environmental Control Officer will be responsible for: 

Overseeing the implementation of the EMP for the decommissioning phase; and 

Conducting an environmental inspection on completion of decommissioning and 

‘signing off’ the site rehabilitation process. 

At the time of preparing this draft EMP, the ECO is still to be appointed by the proponent or 

the Matzikama Municipality. 

1.3.3 Lead Contractor 

The Lead Contractor will be responsible for the following: 

Overall construction programme, project delivery and quality control for the 

construction for the wind project; 

Overseeing compliance with the Health, Safety and Environmental Responsibilities 

specific to the project management related to project construction; 

Promoting total job safety and environmental awareness by employees, contractors and 

sub-contractors and stress to all employees and contractors and sub-contractors the 

importance that the project proponent attaches to safety and the environment; 

Ensuring that safe, environmentally acceptable working methods and practices are 

implemented and that sufficient plant and equipment is made available properly 

operated and maintained, to facilitate proper access and enable any operation to be 

carried out safely;


pg 6 


Meeting on site with the Environmental Control Officer prior to the commencement of 

construction activities to confirm the construction procedure and designated activity 

zones; 

Ensuring that all appointed contractors and sub-contractors are aware of this 

Environmental Management Plan and their responsibilities in relation to the plan; and 

Ensuring that all appointed contractors and sub-contractors repair, at their own cost, 

any environmental damage as a result of a contravention of the specifications contained 

in the Environmental Management Plan, to the satisfaction of the Environmental Control 

Officer. 

At the time of preparing this draft EMP, the Lead Contractor is still to be appointed by the 

proponent. 

1.3.4 Operations Manager 

The Operations Manager will be responsible for the following: 

Operation of the wind energy facility; 

Required maintenance of the turbines; and 

Ensuring that the specified environmental monitoring programmes during operations 

are undertaken effectively and that the findings are analysed and applied.

1.4 MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR DESIGN PHASE 

Design Phase 

Impact Mitigation/Management action 

Non uniform turbines, larger clusters 

of turbines, and haphazard layout in 

the landscape give rise to a strong 

visual impact and negative 

Use of older technology turbines 

could generate higher noise levels. 

Fragmentation and loss of pristine 

habitat important for ecosystem 

processes. 

Design of turbines and power lines 

to minimise risk of collisions for 

birds. Turbine rotors inconspicuous 

to birds. 

The 10 or 15 turbines selected by iNca Vredendal 

Wind should have uniform design, speed, colour, 

height, and rotor diameter. 

Use modern wind turbines to ensure minimum noise 

emissions. 

Refine the final layout of turbines and supporting 

infrastructure during the detailed design phase to 

minimise the footprint on valuable habitat (i.e. the 

Critical Biodiversity Area through which the access 

road runs) in the designated conservation areas / 

corridors. 

a) Turbine blades and towers to be white to 

maximize conspicuousness to flying birds. 

b) Plan power lines between turbines to be 

underground and minimise above-ground 

connection to the sub-station only. 

c) Conduct a pre-construction bird monitoring 


pg 7 

Monitoring 


Methodology Frequency Responsibility 

Ensure that turbine design 

and layout is uniform. 

Ensure noise from the 

turbines at the nearest 

farmsteads to be less than 

the 45 dBA presented in 

SANS 10103:2008 for rural 

areas. 

Ensure that the physical 

disturbance to the natural 

environmental is reduced to 

a minimum. 

Review final design to 

confirm that turbine design 

colour is white; and that the 

extent of above ground 

power lines has been 

minimised. 

Review the findings of the 

Once-off during design Project Developer, iNca 

Vredendal Wind 






Vredendal Wind


Manage turbines to minimise the 

risk of collision or barotrauma for 

bats. 

survey over one year to start building a 

knowledge base of actual impacts on birds at 

local wind facilities. The site would need to be 

investigated further to determine the locations 

of suitable vantage points. 

d) Results of the pre-construction survey to be 

recorded in a report. The results will determine 

the need and scope for post construction 

monitoring. If the results of the pre-construction 

monitoring indicates a low risk situation both in 

terms of collision and displacement, the need 

for post-construction monitoring will be reevaluated. 

Develop and conduct a pre-construction bat 

monitoring programme to better understand bat 

occurrences in the study area, and thereby to inform 

the management actions to minimise impacts on 

bats. 


pg 8 

Monitoring 



pre-construction bird 

survey. 

Conduct pre-construction 

bat monitoring to develop a 

baseline that can be used to 

inform management actions 

during the operations phase 


Vredendal Wind

1.5 MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR CONSTRUCTION PHASE 

Construction Phase: 


1.5.1 Overall compliance with the conditions of the environmental authorisation 

Environmental conditions of 

approval (issued by DEA) for the 

construction phase are not 

satisfied, leading to the project 

operation being delayed. 


1.5.2 Construction noise 

Vehicles, earth moving and 

terracing of site, construction of 

access roads and hard standing 

areas produce noise that could 

have an impact on nearby 

people and the natural 

environment. 

Audit the implementation of the EMP 

requirements for the construction phase. 

Avoid using old and noisy construction 

equipment and ensure equipment is well 

maintained. Limit noisy construction 

activities to daytime only. 


pg 9 

Monitoring 



Audit report on compliance 

with actions & monitoring 

requirements in the 

Construction Phase EM 

Ensure construction 

noise at the nearest 

farmsteads to be less 

than the 45 dBA 

presented in SANS 

10103:2008 for rural 

areas. 

Weekly or bi-weekly ECO 

Three times during the 

estimated 12 month 

construction period, i.e. at 3 

months, 6 months, and 9 

months. 

Project Developer, 

iNca Vredendal Wind 

& ECO



1.5.3 On-site waste management 

Solid and liquid wastes (i.e. 

wastewater from construction and 

painting activities) disposed of on 

the site could cause environmental 

problems (e.g. pollution / change 

in soil pH) 


a) All construction waste (concrete, steel, 

rubbles etc.) to be removed from the site. 

b) Other non-hazardous solid waste (e.g. 

packaging material) to be disposed of at a 

licensed landfill. 

c) All liquid waste (used oil, paints, lubricating 

compounds and grease) to be packaged and 

disposed of by appropriate means. 

d) Adequate containers for the cleaning of 

equipment and materials (paint, solvent) 

must be provided as to avoid spillages. 

e) Waste water from construction and painting 

activities must be collected in a designated 

container and disposed off at a suitable 

disposal point off site. 

1.5.4 Risk of fire as a result of the construction activities 

Workers smoking/ starting fires 

(i.e. cooking, heating purposes) in 

undesignated areas 

a) Designate smoking areas as well as areas for 

cooking, where the fire hazard could be 

regarded as insignificant. 

b) Educate workers on the dangers of open 


pg 10 

Monitoring 



Waste removal and 

disposal to be monitored 

throughout construction 

Adhoc checks to ensure 

workers are 

smoking/starting fires only 

in designated areas 

Weekly or bi-weekly 

Daily 

Construction manager 

and ECO 


and ECO



and/or unattended fires. 

1.5.5 Human safety and aviation requirements 

Risk to the turbines or mast(s) and 

surrounding environment from 

lightning and/or inadequate 

earthing. 

Ensure proper bonding is carried out inside the 

turbines; a copper ring is attached below the soil 

surface to earth down conductors and earthing 

rods. 

Risk to aircraft collusion Mount aviation warning lights on turbine hub and 

the wind monitoring mast(s), and/or such 

measures required by the Civil Aviation Authority. 


1.5.6 Management of civil contractors and sub-contractors 

Contractors and sub-contractors 

are not aware of the requirements 

of the EMP, leading to unnecessary 

impacts on the surrounding 

environment. 

a) The terms of this EMP and the potential 

conditions in the environmental 

authorisation (from DEA) will be included in 

all tender documentation and contractors 

and sub-contractors contracts. 

b) Contractors and sub-contractors will use the 

chemical toilet situated in a designated area 

of the site; no personal hygiene (e.g. 

washing) will be permitted outside the 


pg 11 

Monitoring 



Ensure that earthing and 

lightning protection are 

installed and functional 

before construction is 

completed. 

Ensure that aviation 

warning lights or other 

measures are functional 


completed. 

Check compliance with 

specified conditions using a 

report card, and allocate 

fines when necessary. 

After erection of any 


After erection of turbines or 

masts. 


Construction Manager 

Construction Manager 


and ECO


designated area 

c) Cooking will take place in a designated area 

shown on the site map and no firewood or 

kindling may be gathered from the site or 

surrounds 

d) All litter will be deposited in a clearly 

marked, closed, animal-proof disposal bin in 

the construction area; particular attention 

needs to be paid to food waste 

e) No one other than the ECO or personnel 

authorised by the ECO, will disturb or pick 

plants outside the demarcated construction 

area 

f) No one other than the ECO or personnel 

authorised by the ECO, will disturb animals 

on the site (no trapping, shooting etc.) 

g) Animals disturbed during construction 

activities should not be harmed but should 

be allowed to move off to an undisturbed 

area of the site 

h) Feral dogs and cats should not be fed or 

encouraged to visit the site 


pg 12 

Monitoring 


Methodology Frequency Responsibility



1.5.7 Soil and groundwater contamination 

Contamination of soil and risk of 

damage to vegetation and/or fauna 

through spillage of fuels and oils 

Contamination of soil (change in 

pH) and risk of damage to 

vegetation and/or fauna through 

spillage of concrete. 

a) Construction equipment is checked daily (by 

Contractor) to ensure that no fuel spillage 

takes place from construction vehicles or 

machinery, and monitored weekly by ECO. 

b) Spilled fuel, oil or grease is retrieved where 

possible, and contaminated soil removed, 

cleaned and replaced. Contaminated soil to 

be collected by the Contractor (under 

observation of ECO) and disposed of at a 

waste site designated for this purpose. 

c) Portable bioremediation kit (to remedy 

chemical spills) is to be held on site and used 

as required. 

d) Bunded containment to be provided below 

and around any fuel storage containers. 

a) Concrete mixing area (if any) is defined in 

the site map. If any concrete mixing takes 

placed on site, this is be done on board or 

plastic sheeting, which is to be removed 

from the site once concreting is completed; 

or in areas to be covered by further 

construction. 

b) Sand, stone and cement are stored in 

demarcated areas, and are covered or sealed 


pg 13 

Monitoring 



Check that no spills have 

taken place. 

Check that sand, stone and 

cement are stored and 

handled as instructed 

Daily 

Daily 


and ECO 


and ECO



1.5.8 Flora and terrestrial fauna 

to prevent wind erosion and resultant 

deposition of dust on the surrounding 

indigenous vegetation. 

c) Any excess sand, stone and cement must be 

removed from site at the completion of the 

construction period 

Loss of vegetation habitat Search and Rescue before/during construction 

and post construction rehabilitation to be 

undertaken 

Temporary fragmentation of 

habitats 


functioning 

Loss of flora species of special 

concern and SSC habitat 


pg 14 

Monitoring 



Search and Rescue to be 

audited and species 

recorded 

Construction areas to be kept to minimum Construction activities to 

be monitored and audited 

No mitigation 

a) A plant search and rescue plan to be 

implemented before construction 

commences 

b) Construction footprint and disturbance to 

within reasonable limits 

A list of relocated flora to 

be compiled as part of site 

audit 

Weekly ECO 

Search and Rescue 

contractor 

Weekly ECO 

Search and Rescue 

contractor 

Weekly ECO


Loss of Faunal Habitat a) Search and Rescue before/during 

construction and rehabilitation to be 

undertaken. 

b) Monitor for trapped/displaced fauna 

c) Monitor for injured fauna and DoR incidents 

Road mortality from truck/vehicle 

and other service vehicles 


pg 15 

Monitoring 



Pre-construction search 

and rescue 

Site Audit 

Monitor for injured fauna and DoR incidents Site Audit Weekly and during rainfall for 

amphibians 

Weekly Faunal specialist 

ECO 

Poaching Check fences for snares Site Audit Weekly ECO 

Fauna harmed by fences 

(mammals/reptiles) 

Corridor disruptions as a result of 

habitat fragmentation 


1.5.9 Birds 


due to disturbance 

Check fences for snares Site Audit Weekly ECO 

Monitor for trapped/displaced fauna Site Audit Weekly ECO 

Restrict the construction activities to the 

construction footprint area. Do not allow any 

access to the remainder of the property during 





ECO 


and ECO



due to habitat destruction 


1.5.10 Bats 

Loss of roosts for bat species using 

aardvard burrows and crevices in 

low laying out crops as roosts. 

Loss of roosts for bat species using 

manmade structures as roosts 

Construction noise during night 

time 

the construction period. fines when necessary. 

No mitigation is possible to prevent the 

permanent habitat transformation caused by the 

construction of the wind farm infrastructure. In 

order to prevent unnecessary habitat destruction 

(i.e. more than is inevitable), the 

recommendations of the specialist ecological 

study must be strictly adhered to. 

No monitoring 

Protect existing bat habitat. Investigate any features 

that could house bats 

before they are 

demolished. 

a) Seal all existing buildings close to the study 

area which have not got bat roosts. 

b) Seal off any new building structures within 

the study area. 

Construction activities should as far as possible 

take place during daytime and avoid disturbance 

of bat activity after sunset. 


pg 16 

Monitoring 



Avoid attracting bats to or 

creating any new bat 

habitat on site and monitor 

their presence. 




fines when necessary. 

Once off, during construction of 

turbines 

Once off, during construction of 

turbines 



and ECO 


and ECO 


and ECO


1.5.11 Heritage 


Damage to or destruction of 

palaeontological features (e.g. 

fossils) that may occur on the 

turbine sites. 

Irreversible damage to 

archaeological features that may 

occur on the turbine sites. 


1.5.12 Visual 

Scarring and dust resulting from 

vegetation clearing for road and 

turbine related infrastructure (e.g. 

power line excavation, control 

rooms, temporary site camps etc). 

If any substantial fossil remains are found or 

exposed, these should be safeguarded, preferably 

in situ, while SAHRA is contacted and a qualified 

palaeontologist is contracted to record and 

sample the occurrence. 

If archaeological features are uncovered 

unexpectedly during construct, stop construction 

and consult an archaeologist or SAHRA. 

a) Restrict road widths, powerline trench 

widths, substation, control rooms, turbine 

and crane base areas, borrow pits and 

associated temporary work areas. In so 

doing, as much vegetation as possible will 

be retained resulting in minimised scarring. 

b) Clearly demarcate construction areas to 

minimize disturbance. 

c) Re-vegetate disturbed areas (e.g. around 

turbine sites) as part of the construction 


pg 17 

Monitoring 



Contact the identified 

palaeontologist and 

archaeologist if any 

heritage features (or 

suspected features) are 

uncovered. 

An archaeologist must be 

informed if any 

features/sites are found 

accidentally 


specified conditions. 

During Excavation Construction manager 

and ECO 

During Excavation Construction manager 

and ECO 



and ECO


Visual impact of construction 

equipment (e.g. cranes, vehicles 

and construction yards) 

Light pollution from construction 

yard, cranes and construction 

activities. 



phase. 

d) Dust suppression measures to be put in 

place if dust impacts exceed South African 

(SA) air quality standards (e.g. dustex, 

watering soil/gravel/stockpile areas and 

speed limits). 

e) Temporary site camp to make use of 

existing buildings on site or on 

neighbouring farms. 

f) Accommodation of construction staff and 

workers to be in local towns or farms. 

No mitigation 


allowed; no up-lighting allowed. Only downlighting 

to be used. 

Loss of agricultural land Minimise footprint of new roads and other 



pg 18 

Monitoring 










and ECO 


and ECO


Land surface disturbance and 

resultant potential impact on 

erosion 

Soil profile disturbance and 

resultant decrease in soil 

agricultural capability 


practices 

Placement of spoil material 

generated from excavations 

a) Minimise extent and duration of bare 

areas. 

b) Protect rehabilitated bare areas with a 

cover crop 


pg 19 

Monitoring 





Strip, stockpile and re-spread topsoil over surface Check compliance with 


None, and not considered necessary 

Spoils should not be spread on agricultural land. Check compliance with 


Yield reduction Minimise footprint of new roads and other 









and ECO 


and ECO 


and ECO 


and ECO

1.6 MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR OPERATION PHASE 

Operational Phase: 


1.6.1 Overall compliance with the conditions of the environmental authorisation 

Environmental conditions of 

approval (issued by DEA) for the 

construction phase are not 

satisfied, leading to the project 

operation being delayed. 


1.6.2 On-site waste management 

Solid and liquid wastes (i.e. 

wastewater) disposed of on the 

site could cause environmental 

problems (e.g. pollution / change 

in soil pH) 

Audit the implementation of the EMP 

requirements for the construction phase. 

a) Other non-hazardous solid waste (e.g. 

packaging material) to be disposed of at a 

licensed landfill. 

b) All liquid waste (used oil, paints, lubricating 

compounds and grease) to be packaged and 

disposed of by appropriate means. 

c) Waste water must be collected and disposed 

off at a suitable disposal point off site. 


pg 20 

Monitoring 



Audit report on compliance 

with actions & monitoring 

requirements in the 

Construction Phase EM 

Waste removal and 

disposal to be monitored 

throughout operational 

phase 

Quarterly Operations Manager & 

ECO 

Monthly 

Operations Manager & 

ECO



1.6.3 Risk of fire as a result of the operational 

Workers smoking/ starting fires 

(i.e. cooking, heating purposes) in 

undesignated areas 


1.6.4 Human safety and aviation requirements 

Risk to the turbines or mast(s) and 

surrounding environment from 

lightning and/or inadequate 

earthing. 

a) Designate smoking areas as well as areas for 

cooking, where the fire hazard could be 

regarded as insignificant. 

b) Educate workers on the dangers of open 

and/or unattended fires. 

Ensure proper bonding is carried out inside the 

turbines; a copper ring is attached below the soil 

surface to earth down conductors and earthing 

rods. 

Risk to aircraft collusion Mount aviation warning lights on turbine hub and 

the wind monitoring mast(s), and/or such 

measures required by the Civil Aviation Authority. 


pg 21 

Monitoring 



Adhoc checks to ensure 

workers are 

smoking/starting fires only 

in designated areas 

Ensure that earthing and 

lightning protection are 

installed and functional 


completed. 

Ensure that aviation 

warning lights or other 

measures are functional. 

Monthly 

Operations Manager 

Monthly Operations Manager 

Monthly Operations Manager



1.6.5 Soil and groundwater contamination 

Contamination of soil and risk of 

damage to vegetation and/or fauna 

through spillage of fuels and oils 


1.6.6 Flora and terrestrial fauna 

Reduction or changes to ecological 

processes and functioning 

a) Maintenance equipment is checked by 

Contractor to ensure that no fuel spillage 

takes place from vehicles or machinery. 

b) Spilled fuel, oil or grease is retrieved where 

possible, and contaminated soil removed, 

cleaned and replaced. Contaminated soil to 

be collected by the Contractor and disposed 

of at a waste site designated for this 

purpose. 

c) Portable bioremediation kit (to remedy 

chemical spills) is to be held on site and used 

as required. 

d) Bunded containment to be provided below 

and around any fuel storage containers. 

Check that mitigation recommendations have 

been implemented and adhered to 


pg 22 

Monitoring 



Check that no spills have 

taken place. 

Monthly 

Operations Manager & 

ECO 

Site Audit Monthly ECO



pg 23 

Monitoring 



Loss of Habitat Monitor for trapped/displaced fauna Site Audit Monthly ECO 

Road mortality from truck/vehicle 

and other service vehicles 

Monitor for injured fauna and DoR incidents 

Implement traffic calming measures where 

necessary 

Site Audit Monthly and during/after 

rainfall for amphibians 

Poaching Check fences for snares Site Audit Monthly ECO 

Fauna harmed by fences 

(mammals/reptiles) 

Corridor disruptions as a result of 

habitat fragmentation 


1.6.7 Birds 


due to disturbance caused by the 

operation of the wind farm. 

Check fences for snares Site Audit Monthly ECO 

Monitor for trapped/displaced fauna Site Audit Monthly ECO 

Pre-construction monitoring should be 

implemented as per the latest version of Best 

practice guidelines for avian monitoring and 

impact mitigation at proposed wind energy 

development sites in southern Africa (Jenkins et al 

2011) to establish baseline conditions and to 

Post-construction 

monitoring 

Monthly 

ECO 

Bird Specialist & ECO


Collisions of priority species with 

the turbines 

Collisions of priority species with 

the proposed 66kV power line 

make pre- and post-construction comparisons of 

avifaunal density possible. Operational activities 

should be restricted to the plant area. 

Maintenance staff should not be allowed to access 

other parts of the property unless it is necessary 

for wind farm related work. Unfortunately, no 

practical mitigation is possible for the potential 

disturbance caused by the turbines themselves 

(noise, movement). 

Once the turbines have been constructed, postconstruction 

monitoring should be implemented 

to compare actual collision rates with predicted 

collision rates. If actual collision rates indicate 

unsustainable mortality levels, the following 

mitigation measures will have to be considered: 

Negotiating appropriate off-set 

compensation for turbine related 

collision mortality; 

As a last resort, halting operation of 

specific turbines during peak flight 

periods, or reducing rotor speed, to 

reduce the risk of collision mortality. 

The proposed power line should be marked with 

Bird Flight Diverters (BFDs) to lower the risk of 

collisions, particularly Ludwig’s Bustard, with the 

power line. The recommended BFD is the Double 

Loop Bird Flight Diverter. The BFDs should be 

fitted to the earthwire, 5 metres apart, alternating 


pg 24 

Monitoring 




monitoring 


monitoring 

Monthly 

Monthly 

Bird Specialist & ECO 

Bird Specialist & ECO


Electrocutions of priority raptors, 

particularly Martial Eagle, on the 

proposed 66kV power line. 


1.6.8 Bats 

Mortality due to collision with 

turning turbine blades or due to 

barotrauma. 

Compensate for possible bat 

fatalities through trade-offs 


1.6.9 Visual 

Change in Landscape Character 

from the height and scale of 

turbines and related infrastructure. 

black and white. 

The proposed pole design must be assessed by 

the author of the bird report to ensure that the 

power line design poses no potential 

electrocution risk of large raptors, particularly 

Martial Eagle, which may use the poles as hunting 

perches. 

a) Pre-construction monitoring to confirm 

turbines are not on a migration pathway. 

b) Optimise turbine rotation speeds to 

reduce bat fatalities, if needed, and for 

specific times of year only. 

c) Avoid creating bat habitat in 

surrounding areas 

Install/build artificial roost sites away from the 

proposed site. 

a) For the most part, no mitigation measures 

would change the significance of the 

landscape impact other than avoiding the 


pg 25 

Monitoring 




monitoring 


monitoring 


monitoring 

Evaluate design plans and 

development 

Monthly 

Monthly 

Monthly 

Once-off evaluation after 

construction 

Bird Specialist & ECO 

Bat Specialist & ECO 

Bat Specialist & ECO 

Landscape Architect & 

Project Developer, iNca 

Vredendal Wind


Visibility of the turbines (and 

related infrastructure) for sensitive 

receptors (e.g. users of the local 

roads, residents of immediately 

surrounding farmsteads) within 

4.5km (EWEA Zones I & II). 

Visibility of the turbines (and 

related infrastructure) for sensitive 

receptors (e.g. visitors to 

Vredendal) within the wider area 

(>4.5km) 

Impact of light pollution (from 

lights on nacelle) on night-time 

views and sense of place. 

site entirely. 

b) To promote the visual cohesiveness and 

harmony of the wind farm, the turbines 

should all be of the same style and scale, 

with consistent spacing between turbines 

so far as possible. 

Localised berming and screen planting, 

immediately adjacent to receptors, particularly 

homesteads of local farmers. 

a) Colour and material selection to fit in 

with surroundings. 

b) Siting of roads and excavations along 

contours (which will result in less cut 

and fill and visual scarring), and off 

ridgelines which are visually exposed/ 

highly visible landforms. 

c) Provision of formal erosion management 

for roads (e.g. stormwater gullies) to 

prevent erosion scars, especially on 

ridgelines and slopes. 

a) One medium intensity type B light 

fixture (according to the CAA 

regulations). Lights on each turbine 


pg 26 

Monitoring 



Evaluation of visual impact 

from nearest farm steads 


development 


development 


construction 


construction 


construction 









Vredendal Wind




practices yield reduction 


should flash simultaneously. No 

intermediate level lights to be installed. 

b) Only down lighting to be installed on 

associated infrastructure (e.g. control 

rooms) 

None, and not considered necessary No monitoring 


pg 27 

Monitoring 


Methodology Frequency Responsibility

1.7 MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR DECOMMISSION PHASE 


Decommissioning Phase 

Insufficient funds to finance 

decommissioning and the 

rehabilitation necessary. 

Develop a closure and rehabilitation plan that 

satisfies best practice requirements for wind farms 

and for habitat management. This plan should 

include the removal of wind farm infrastructure, 

with the exception of the below ground foundations. 

Prior to establishment of the windfarm, sufficient 

funds should be made available to the Matzikama 

Municipality by the developer to enable them to 

undertake decommissioning and rehabilitation if the 

developer is unable to do so. 


pg 28 

Monitoring 



Audit the implementation of 

the closure and 

rehabilitation plan 

Weekly during 

rehabilitation 

ECO

Final EIA Report - CSIR

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?