EIA for the Proposed Eskom Bantamsklip Transmission Lines and - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

EIA for the Proposed Eskom Bantamsklip Transmission Lines and Associated Infrastructure

Multi-Stakeholder Workshop Overberg Agri Training Centre Bredasdorp 27 November 2009

Workshop Agenda

REGISTRATION

1. Introduction and Objectives of the Workshop (NMA) 2. Overview of the EIA process leading up to the Workshop (Arcus GIBB) 3. Discussions regarding way forward 4. Technical Considerations and Challenges

• Environmental (Arcus GIBB)
• Technical (Eskom)

5. Input of stakeholders and review of information provided (Arcus GIBB) 6. Development of alternative corridors (All) 7. Summary of outcomes, and closure (NMA)

Ground Rules

This Multi-Stakeholder Workshop brings together key stakeholder organisations from the Overberg area to develop alternative corridors. These ground rules are offered as a guide to conducting the workshop so that participants are able to take part effectively and achieve the desired

• utcomes within the timeframes provided.

Ground Rules

• Only one person speaks at a time, no one to interrupt

whilst someone else is speaking (Avoid side conversations please!).

• Signal the facilitator and wait to be acknowledged.
• Everybody agrees to make a strong effort to keep on

track with the agenda and move deliberations forward.

• Each person reserves the right to disagree with

proposals and may offer alternatives.

• Avoid “grandstanding” (i.e. extended comments/

speaking) so that every one has a fair chance to speak.

Objectives of the Workshop

• Present the EIA process to date to put the MSW in context
• Present an overview of the environmental and technical

considerations in the routing of transmission lines

• Report back on the input provided by key stakeholders into

the MSW process and the review of this input by Eskom and the independent specialists

• The above steps are in preparation for the main objective
• f the workshop which is to develop, through consensus,

section by section, alternative corridors for the Bacchus – Bantamsklip - Kappa transmission lines

Role Players

Interested and Affected Parties

• Raise comments and issues regarding the

proposed project for inclusion in the relevant documentation Arcus GIBB (Pty) Ltd

• Independent

Environmental Assessment Practitioner NMA Effective Social Strategists

• Public Participation Consultant

Department of Environmental Affairs

• Decision-maker

for the Environmental Authorization Application Eskom Holdings (Pty) Ltd

• Applicant

What Does the EIA Process Entail?

• The EIA process can be divided into 4 distinct phases:
• 1. Application and Initial Notification
• 2. Scoping Phase
• 3. Impact Assessment Phase
• 4. Environmental Authorisation

The EIA Process

Study Area

Alternatives

• Tower Alternatives

– Compact Cross Rope Suspension Tower – Cross Rope Suspension Tower – Guyed Suspension Type Tower – Self Supporting Strain Tower – Self Supporting Tower

• Corridor Alternatives

– A number of revisions have taken place over the course of the scoping studies

• Mitigation Alternatives

Public Participation in Scoping Phase

• Posted project notification posters at substations, municipal buildings, libraries, shops, etc.

(August 2008)

• Placed adverts in 19 local and regional newspapers (26 July – 2 August 2008)
• Distributed I&AP letter, BID & comments sheet to 1286 I&APs on project database
• Distributed BID at local libraries & municipal buildings in study area
• Meetings with relevant ward councillors & municipalities to inform them about the project &
• ur processes and to gain information
• Interviewed relevant community leaders & key stakeholders
• Registering of I&APs (ongoing)
• 24 “information sharing” meetings (ward councillors, municipal officials, business and

tourism leaders, agricultural association representatives, etc)

• 22 Focus Group Meetings held with agricultural associations (25 AAs), community groups

and organisations (includes ABI & OICG workshop)

• Minutes of all meetings distributed to attendees

DSR Comment Period

• 60-day comment period (2 March – 30 April 2009)
• Adverts in 24 local and regional newspapers (20 Feb – 6 Mar)
• Sent notification letters to 1732 I&APs on database (Reminder of meetings

by email and SMS plus contact with key stakeholders)

• Sent registered letters to 106 key stakeholders (ward councillors, municipal

managers and organs of state)

• Distributed DSR in 40 local libraries and public places in study area and

placed on Eskom and Arcus GIBB websites

• Held Key Stakeholder Meeting in Cape Town
• Held 15 Public Meetings (Robertson, Villiersdorp, Caledon, Stanford, Pearly

Beach, Bredasdorp, Swellendam, Barrydale, Riviersonderend, Wolseley, Worcester, Koo, Touws River, Wellington, Tesselaarsdal)

• Extended Comment Period by 3 weeks to 22 May (Total of 81 days)

Comments on DSR

• 234 written submissions received by close of comment period
• All issues from written submissions and minutes of meetings entered in IRR

KEY CONCERNS

• Process issues: want to submit alternative alignments, request workshop to

develop alternatives, extension of comment period, inadequate PPP

• Biophysical: Concerns for fauna/avifauna, flora, National Parks, nature reserves
• Visual: Visual impact / sense of place
• Socio-Economic: Decrease in land / property values, job creation – important to

PDI communities / ward councillors but feared by landowners (crime), EMF impacts on human health

• Agricultural: Loss of agricultural land, impact on intensively used and/or small

farming areas, space needed to manoeuvre farming equipment, EMF impacts

• n animals and crops, impacts on crop spraying / centre pivot irrigation /

precision farming methods, burning and clearing of vegetation, shock factor under lines (vineyard trellises, humid and misty days)

PPP Way Forward

Until Submission of Final Scoping Report (FSR)

• Multi-Stakeholder Workshops on Alternative Corridors
• Eskom to determine alternative crossing points for mountain

ranges

• Specialists to assess mountain crossing points and linkages
• PPP for deviations (identify and contact I&APs, focus group

meetings, IRR)

• Specialist screening studies of corridors and deviations
• Produce Revised DSR
• Revised DSR made available for 30-day comment period
• Notify I&APs on database
• Complete and submit FSR and POS-EIA

Multi-Stakeholder Workshops

Multi-Stakeholder Workshops on Alternative Corridors

• 2 workshops: Witzenberg and Overberg
• Mandated representatives of key stakeholder organisations

invited to attend (AAs, Municipalities, Representative CBOs, Nature Conservation, Tourism, other directly impacted stakeholders – SAAF, etc.)

• Distribute Proposed Process document
• Respond to comments and requests for additional participants
• 4 weeks for key stakeholder organisations to develop

alternative corridors and identify areas of high sensitivity within their area of interest / influence with written motivation for start / end points, route, and high sensitivity areas

Multi-Stakeholder Workshops

• Collate information & consolidate overlay map - distribute

to specialists / Eskom

• Workshop: Eskom and specialists develop viable

alternative corridors and critique key stakeholder input

• Workshop with key stakeholders to develop alternative

corridors

• Eskom and specialists screen key stakeholder alternatives

for possible inclusion in the EIA

EIA Phase

• Specialist Studies
• Produce Draft EIR and put out for 60-day comment period
• Draft EIR in libraries and public places, notices in local and

regional newspapers, notify I&APs on register

• Key Stakeholder Meeting
• Public Open Days with Public Meetings (±13)
• Complete IRR and Final EIR

ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORISATION

• Notify I&APs of authorisation and appeal process

Technical Considerations and Challenges

ENVIRONMENTAL

Specialist criteria used to inform specialist assessment of transmission lines:

• Land capability Impact Assessment
• Botanical Assessment
• Fauna Assessment
• Avifauna Assessment
• Social Impact Assessment
• Heritage Impact Assessment
• Visual Impact Assessment

Stakeholder Inputs

MAP 1 – Baardskeerdersbos Home Owners Association

• Social (1 + 2):
• Impact on small holdings used for small scale farming / country lifestyle properties

(Water catchment area (Boskloofspruit) main water supply

• Visual / sense of place (1)
• DR1205 & DR 1211 important scenic routes
• Tourism / Heritage (1 + 3)
• BBos areas high sensitivity tourism and social
• Skyline is undisturbed with panoramic views over the valley and surrounding mountains

– negative impact on tourists visiting the area / tourist-related business

• Retention of the unique and unspoilt rural village
• Survey commissioned by Overstrand Municipality on heritage resources within the whole

municipal area to comply with NHRA. Heritage overlay zone has been demarcated for BBos (includes all properties and historical buildings)

• Agriculture (4, 5 + 6) – high sensitive agricultural areas
• Biodiversity (6)
• Boesmans River and surrounding wetlands – high sensitivity biodiversity area, and

important water resource

• Grain land and planted pastures near the river is a well-known congregation area for

Blue Cranes

Stakeholder Inputs

MAP 2: BONNIEVALE LBV AND TOURISM (1)

• Tourism
• Objections received from Breede Escape, Jan Harmsgat Country House,

Mardouw Country House, A Place in Thyme, Bonnies B & B, Angora Stud Guest Farm, Toy Cottages, Peet se Plek, Bordeaux River Cottages, Arendsnes Guest House, Otters Bend, Asher Riverside Cottage, Matzikamma, Leopard Trail Guest Farm, Tortoise Crossing Farm, D’Wijnstok Guest Cottage, Wageboomsheuwel, Middel River Estates

• Visual
• Breede Escape: impact on existing views
• Wagenboomsheuvel: negative impact for agri-tourism
• Heritage
• Jan Harmsgat: one of the oldest farms in the region and Sam proclaimed in

1723

• Socio-economic
• Development and provision of local labour in the area, as well as attracting

external funding to the area

Stakeholder Inputs

MAP 3: DEPT OF AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY AND FISHERIES

• BIODIVERSITY / FLORA (4, 5, 6 +7):
• Marked forests protected under section 7 (1) of the National Forest

Act No. 84 of 1998 (NFA) – mainly consists of low forests dominated by White Milkwood and occasionally White Stinkwood trees.

• Fragmentation of already vulnerable forest (loss of biodiversity and

spp richness)

• Platbos forest not directly affected, but is an approved Contract

Nature Reserve with CapeNature

• Power lines create threat of forest fires (clearing of forest)

MAP 4: KLIPDALE COMMUNITY

• SOCIAL (1)
• Number of residents in Klipdale has increased over the last few

years

• Several farms / areas impacted by the power lines-

Blue Cranes present in the area

Stakeholder Inputs

MAP 5: OVERBERG AGRI

• TOURISM (1) – tourist activities
• PROTECTED AREAS (2) – Klein Swartberg Protected area, future protected areas
• AGRCULTURAL (3, 4 + 5) – Agricultural land, and pivot points

MAP 6: OVERBERG DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY

• BIODIVERSITY:
• Impact on extensive portions of critical endangered and sensitive ecosystems and veld

types

• Adverse impact on Overberg landscapes as a major tourist destination
• No one route proposed – Overberg character, landscapes and people

MAP 7: OVERBERG INTEGRATED CONSERVATION GROUP

• BIODIVERSITY/ TOURISM / VISUAL (1, 2 + 3)
• Hagelkraal: recognized international endemic vegetation hot spot, Nuwejaars wetland

PPE, Agulhas National Park, De Mond Nature Reserve, Elim, De Hoop and Potberg Nature Reserve,

• Vulture colony and Limestone Fynbos

Stakeholder Inputs

MAP 8: SOUTH AFRICAN AIR FORCE

• AVIATION (1)
• Bantamsklip – Bacchus lines no major concern
• Area between Cape Town and Pearly Beach is becoming more active with

small aircraft flying along the coastline

• Area directly north of the Air Force –runway 17 and 35
• Need to consider current approach lines and the fact that increased

foreign visits are being made to the Air Force Base (lost revenue for South Africa)

• AVIATION (2)
• Prime low level test area, where line-of-sight conditions, regarding radio

transmissions are concerned is very important.

• Losing this test area will have a financial impact – find new testing area.

Stakeholder Inputs

MAP 9: PEARLY BEACH HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION

• SOCIAL / TOURISM / BIODIVERSITY / AGRICULTURE (1)
• Pearly Beach 7km from the proposed Bantamsklip Nuclear Power Station

(adversely affected)

• Bantamsklip and Pearly Beach clearly shown as sensitive areas on maps

(agriculture, aquaculture, biodiversity, social, tourism) – to be added human rights and law

• Experts have also identified these areas as sensitive

Stakeholder Inputs

MAP 10 – RUGGENS LANDBOU VERENIGING

• AGRICULTURE (8)
• Sensitive agriculture – profit ceilings very low. Expropriation of land will have a further

negative impact. Need consider the feasibility of these farming activities, to be impacted by the proposed power lines

• Farmers in area concerned about the impact of magnetic fields on the plants and animals, as

well as power lines crossing over workers houses and homesteads;

• Specialized buffalo breeding farm along the Breede River
• BIODIVERSITY (1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11)
• Breede River rich with endangered plant, animal and bird life. Fish Eagles breed along the
• river. Largest population of Blue Cranes in the area.
• Bontebok Park and De Hoop Nature Reserve
• Stormsvlei mountains – sensitive area
• SOCIAL
• Impact on owners of land adjacent to the river, specifically bought land to escape from the

city, to be closer to nature

• TOURISM (4 & 5)
• Spitzkop/De Hoop and Malagas/Infanta gravel roads used by tourists to access guest houses,

NR, etc. will be impacted. Area will become less attractive to tourists

Stakeholder Inputs

MAP12: CALEDON JONGENSKLIP LANDBOU VERENIGING

• AGRICULTURE (1)
• BIODIVERSITY (2)

Sensitive areas

• TOURISM (3)

MAP 13: NAPIER LANDBOU VERENIGING AGRICULTURE (1, 2 + 3)

• Impact on the working agricultural soils and thus the grain producing areas north of

Napier – Bredasdorp mountains will be impacted in the same way

• The route that has the least impact on agriculturally viable soils will be the most

suitable

• Massive lines on this route (BK Alt 2 and 3) will be seen for miles will impact on

tourism

• Trend which shows that the value of properties from West to East decreases slightly,

will affect the buying out of servitude

• Impact of the 4 X 765kV lines is a big crisis for landowners
• Consideration of impact on aircraft due to height of the towers

Stakeholder Inputs

Map 14A – STRANDVELD TOURISM & CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION (STCA): BIODIVERSITY

• Map 14B – STRANDVELD TOURISM & CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION

(STCA): TOURISM Map 14C – STRANDVELD TOURISM & CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION (STCA): AGRICULTURE Map 14D – STRANDVELD TOURISM & CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION (STCA): SOCIAL

Stakeholder Inputs

MAP 15 – SWELLENDAM MUNCIPALITY

• AGRICULTURE (1, 2, 3)
• Large areas covering intensive orchards at Buffeljagsrivier are affected.

Buffeljags Agricultural Society should be consulted in this regard

• Milk and intensive feed farming operations in area
• 4 X 765kV lines will sterilize 30 000ha
• BIODIVERSITY (1, 2, 19, 20, 21)
• Municipal council recently adopted A Spatial Development Framework (SDF)

for the municiapl area. SDF contains

• SOCIAL (11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18)
• Bontebok NP – high lying, visibility of the power lines from more than 50% of

the park

• Impact on Stormsvlei community, N2 (main tourist route from CT to Southern

and Eastern cape), R319 (Bredasdorp/Swellendam Road), R314, Tradouws Pass, R 317 & R62

• TOURISM (4-10)
• Various holiday resorts will be affected by the proposed power lines

Stakeholder Inputs

MAP 16 – SWELLENGREBEL FLYING CLUB AVIATION

• High mast transmission lines poses a real threat to general aviation activities

in the are. The Flying Club also operates fixed-wing gliders. The transmission lines would pose a real threat to these activities. MAP 17A – TESSELAARSDAL ACTION GROUP: AGRICULTURE

• (1) Tesselaarsdal / Farm 811-diversity of agricultural land uses ranges from

subsistence farming to intensive, specialist farming practices

• (2) Eastern portion of Hemel & Aarde Valley up to Tesselaarsdal – smaller

farms (fruit, vineyards, lavender, olives, dairy farming)

• (3) Caledon middle Ruens: large scale small-grain farming, plus sheep and

cattle farming, high quality soil

• (4) Mountain fynbos – portions cultivated and harvested for commercial

purposes

Stakeholder Inputs

• MAP 17B – TESSELAARSDAL ACTION GROUP: BIODIVERSITY
• Threatened ruens shale Renosterveld areas outside Tesselaarsdal
• Agreement with the specialist flora report included in the Draft Scoping report
• Fauna on ‘plains’, the moutains and on lower slopes / kloofs / water courses to be

considered

• Avifauna include Blue Crane, Black Harriers, falcons and hawks, etc. Also consider

smaller species along the river courses / wetland areas, slopes of mountains, undisturbed land, agricultural lands.

• MAP 17C – TESSELAARSDAL ACTION GROUP: TOURISM
• Various existing agri-tourism guest houses or places of accommodation. Impact to

be taken into account (list provided).

• Potential for heritage, eco-and agri-tourism is significant.
• MAP 17D – TESSELAARSDAL ACTION GROUP: SOCIAL
• Tesselaarsdal /Farm 811 and adjacent small farms – historical concentration of
• people. Potential socio-economic benefits associated with tourism are important.
• Visual aspects with high social relevance, mainly along the three main access

routes to Tesselaarsdal (sense of place, tourism potential).

Stakeholder Inputs

MAP 18 – THEEWATERSKLOOF MUNICIPALITY

• SOCIAL / VISUAL (1)
• Visual impact assessment: The whole area of TWK Municipality falls under

category of class 1 and 2. No areas can be classified as class 4

• TOURISM (2)
• Whole of Overberg a sensitive area – wherever lines traverse, will impact on

sensitive areas. MAP 19 – WOLWENGAT ACTION GROUP

• AGRICULTURE (3) – Corridors impact on large tracts of arable land. Main

practice in the area, Fynbos harvesting. Provides ongoing employment for many pickers.

• BIODIVERSITY (2) – No municipal water supply. Various springs and

fountains used. Rare fynbos vegetation and avifauna spp.

• SOCIAL & TOURISM (1) – small town, quality of life important. Concern

regarding loss of homes and livelihoods. Visual impact – need to take into account the human factor. Noise generated from ‘buzzing of the lines’.

• Area currently or potentially involved in tourism (various ventures in the

process of being set up.

Preliminary Specialist Feedback

MAP 1: Agriculture: Shifting of powerlines to be considered. Avifauna-agree, true for the whole area MAP 4: No agricultural concerns MAP 5: Agriculture – sift around centre pivots MAP 6: No agricultural concerns MAP 7: Avifauna – Potberg vulture colony, not threatened by transmission power line MAP 9: Agriculture – low sensitivity from agricultural point of view MAP 10: Agriculture – small impact on small grain production, pastures. Should not affect profit margins directly. MAP 12: Agriculture – Genadendal – Helderstroom planted to sensitive perennial fruit, vines and annual vegetables MAP 13: Agriculture – small impact of footprint of towers. Refer to Muldersvlei-Agter Paarl (more than 1 line going through the area) MAP 14A: Avifauna – agree, true for whole area

Overberg Route Alignment Suggestions

• SANPARKS: More direct route away from the generating plant be underground to at

least the first horizon of the Wolfhuiskop, Klein Hagelkraal limestone ridge and Carruthers Hill, but ideally behind (north) id the Koude and Bredasdorp Mountains.

• OVERBERG AIR FORCE: B – K transmission lines run together initially with the B – B

lines in a north easterly direction. At first bend of the BB Alternative 3 route, B – K splits

• ff in an easterly direction, to coincide with the line as proposed north of the town of
• Napier. Then divert into various lines. From Aviation safety point of view, much easier

to manage risk of power lines running in one corridor.

• KLIPDALE: Propose that the new power line runs adjacent to the existing power line

(west of Klipdale).

• STRANDVELD TOURISM AND CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION: provision route,

subject to further investigation

• SWELLENDAM MUNICIPALITY: No support for either of corridors for 4X 765kV lines.

Shortest route through area preferred.

• TESSELAARSDAL ACTION GROUP: Reluctant to select alternatives, need to

consider impact holistically

• WOLVENGAT ACTION GROUP: suggested coastal routes, to avoid Wolvengat

Way Forward

• Eskom has agreed to extend comment period to 31

January 2010.

• Counter proposal of 28 February 2010 to be considered

by Eskom

• I&APs to establish contact with specialists by sending

request / information to NMA

• Eskom, Arcus GIBB and specialists to determine least

sensitive route, suing input from stakeholders, and present at similar workshop in 2010

• Report back document to be distributed for comment for

14 days

• Specialists will do fieldwork following the MSW in 2010
• Project team to discuss and confirm date for MSW, and

give feedback to key stakeholders