PROPOSED THYSPUNT TRANSMISSION LINES INTEGRATION PROJECT …€¦ · PROPOSED THYSPUNT TRANSMISSION LINES INTEGRATION PROJECT Environmental Impact Assessment – EIA Phase: Final

PROPOSED THYSPUNT TRANSMISSION LINES INTEGRATION PROJECT Environmental Impact Assessment – EIA Phase: Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report (FEIR)

Page 1

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT: PROPOSED THYSPUNT TRANSMISSION LINES INTEGRATION PROJECT (TTLIP)

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES, CONCERNS AND SUGGESTIONS RAISED BY INTERESTED AND/OR AFFECTED PARTIES

SEPTEMBER 2009 – JANUARY 2013

• This Issues and Responses Report (I&RR) is a record of all the contributed issues raised by Stakeholders and I&APs ranging across all sectors of society. • Full record of every issue raised is available from SiVEST’s website and is also included in Appendix 12J, 12K and 12L of the FEIR. • Comments raised on the Revised DEIR is included in Appendix 12R of the FEIR • Comments raised at meetings held is also included and copies of the minutes are included in Appendix 12M of the FEIR • Many stakeholders raised the same issue and these have been arranged into groups of similar issues. • The name, affiliation (as at that time) and date of the commentator are also indicated. • The comments under each category have been captured alphabetically according to surname. • Issues raised by technical specialists and Eskom, the project proponent, are not included in the I&RR. • Issues that were raised by I&APs regarding the proposed TTLIP during the EIA process that was conducted by Arcus GIBB on the Thyspunt Nuclear-1 Project (a

separate EIA application) have been included in this I&RR. • For easy reference comments / issues received have been categorised and have been captured according to the commenter’s surname to assist stakeholder’s in their

verification process that their comment(s) / concern(s) / issue(s) have been captured.


Page 2

INDEX TO ISSUES IN THIS DOCUMENT

1. Agricultural Comments/Issues ................................................................................................................................... 3 2. Avifauna Comments/Issues ..................................................................................................................................... 10 3. Biodiversity Comments/Issues ................................................................................................................................. 13 4. Surface Water Related Comments/Issues ................................................................................................................ 16 5. Aquatic Related Comments/Issues ........................................................................................................................... 17 6. GIS (Mapping) Comments/Issues ............................................................................................................................ 18 7. Social and Socio-Economic Comments/Issues/Issues .............................................................................................. 21 8. Tourism Impact Comments/Issues .......................................................................................................................... 38 9. Heritage Impact Related Comments/Issues ............................................................................................................. 40 10. Conservation Comments/Issues ............................................................................................................................... 43 11. Visual Comments/Issues .......................................................................................................................................... 44 12. EIA Process Comments/Issues ................................................................................................................................. 46 13. Route Corridor Comments/Issues ............................................................................................................................ 57 14. Proposed EIA Team-preferred Alignment Comments/Issues .................................................................................... 65 15. Substation Sites Comments/Issues .......................................................................................................................... 72 16. Technical Related Comments/Issues ........................................................................................................................ 72 17. Existing Infrastructure Related Comments/Issues ................................................................................................... 79 18. Proposed Future Developments / Infrastructure Related Comments/Issues ........................................................... 80 19. Servitude Negotiation and Compensation Related Comments/Issues ...................................................................... 81 20. Communication Comments/Issues ........................................................................................................................... 81 21. Authority Comments/Issues ..................................................................................................................................... 94 22. General Comments/Issues ....................................................................................................................................... 95 23. Electro Magnetic Fields (EMFs) Comments/Issues ................................................................................................. 100 24. Negotiations and Compensation (Servitude) Comments/Issues ............................................................................. 102 25. Comments on Revised DEIR .................................................................................................................................... 104 26. Nuclear-1 Project Comments/Issues ...................................................................................................................... 160 27. Thyspunt Access Road Comments/Issues .............................................................................................................. 167


Page 3

ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS ISSUES AND RESPONSES REPORT: ATNS: Air Traffic and Navigation Services CBA: Critical Biodiversity Area DEIR: Draft Environmental Impact Report DWA: Department of Water Affairs EAP: Environmental Assessment Practitioner ECPTA Eastern Cape Parks & Tourism Agency EIA Environmental Impact Assessment ERC: Elands River Conservancy ERV: Elands River Valley I&APs Interested and/or Affected Parties I&RR Issues and Response Report IMP: Integrated Management Plan MTO: Mountain To Ocean Forestry (Pty) Ltd NC Northern Corridor NMBM Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality NWA: National Water Act SANRAL: South African National Roads Agency Limited SC Southern Corridor TAA Thornhill Agricultural Association Tx: Transmission

Issue/Comment Raised By Response

1. Agricultural Comments/Issues Verskeie voorleggings is aan jouself, mnre Chris le Roux en Themba Skonje gemaak oor sekere klien veranderings mbt die roete wat die transimissie lyne oor die plaas Doringrug van Michda Trust. Verneem graag: (1) of die vorige versoeke nog steeds geldig is (verwys na vorige voorleggings); en (2) wat die proses nou vorentoe gaan wees? Gaan daar weer 'n geleentheid wees om kommentaar te lewer, of is die vorige verslag waarin versoek vervat is, die verslag wat nou gebruik sal word, of gaan daar nog 'n verslag uitkom? Versoek om met mnr De Villiers te ontmoet op die plaas om die voorstelle soos vervat in die verslag en die situasie op die grond verduidelik kan word. Ek sou ook wil verneem of SiVest verdere terplaatse ondersoek gaan doen? Translation: Previous submissions regarding minor deviations to the corridors affecting the farms Doringrug of the Micha Trust have been submitted to yourself (SiVEST), Chris le Roux and Themba Skonje and enquire: (1) Whether the previous recommendations made are still valid; and (2) What is the process forward? Will there be another opportunity to comment or

is the previous Report in which their recommendations are captured the Report that will be submitted to the Authorities or will another Report be issued for comment.

Requested to meet with Mr De Villiers (Economic Specialist) on the farm to discuss, first hand, the recommendations made in their report. Also requested whether any further environmental studies will be conducted.

BARNARD, Dr Wolsey Independent Energy Consultant E-mail: 22 September 2010

Previous recommendations made by Dr. Barnard have been taken into consideration during the scoping phase and the SiVEST’s environmental team as well as Eskom’s technical team are informed thereof. These recommendations will be assessed in details in the impact assessment phase. A series of feedback meetings were conducted during October 2010 to discuss the route corridors that were assessed by the environmental specialists. The specialist studies will be included in the draft EIR which will be made available for review and comment. Mr De Villiers and/or Ms Nonka Byker will be attending the series of feedback meetings to answer any social and economic questions that may be raised by the attendees. Consequently to the series of Feedback Meetings held, a series of Landowner Open Houses were held during February 2011 with landowners affected by the EIA Team-preferred route where landowners had the opportunity to interact with the project team. Nicolene Venter, SiVEST (e-mail dated 22 September 2010)


Page 4


It was mentioned that there are now a new generation of farmers that emerged after the wheat farmers and they take cognisance of the environmental and try to adapt their farming activities to be more environmental friendly.

DODD, Llize Secretariat: Elands River Conservancy FGM: 17 September 2012

Comment noted.

Objects to the proposed power lines over his property in Kruisrivier (Portion 22 of 337), considering the environmental impact and the effects on agriculture.

HABRON, Mr Albert Muller Land owner EIA Comment Form (Arcus GIBB) :10 May 2010

The potential impacts of the power lines on agricultural potential have been addressed in detail in the agricultural potential and socio-economic studies. These studies recommend the avoiding of areas of intensive agricultural production, especially where centre pivots are located. One such area is the Kruisrivier area. Both the socio-economic and agricultural potential studies have suggested alignments of the Northern Corridor lines to avoid these areas within Kruisrivier. These recommendations have been taken into account in the creation of the EIA Team-preferred alignment for the Northern Corridor, and this alignment avoids the areas of agricultural production as far as possible. Further Response to Comment The current EIA Team-preferred alignment traverses the western boundary of Portion 204 and Portion 237 and exits Portion 237 on its northern boundary.

Informed that their farm borders onto the Groendal area. Expressed their objection to the construction of the power line that will go through Kruisrivier and informed the project team that their farm is under irrigation, cattle and game farm and is not too big.

HUMAN, Mr & Mrs Landowner: Brandkloof Arcus GIBB Comment Form: 5 June 2010

The potential impacts of the power lines on agricultural potential have been addressed in detail in the agricultural potential and socio-economic studies. These studies recommend the avoiding of areas of intensive agricultural production, especially where centre pivots are located. One such area is the Kruisrivier area. Both the socio-economic and agricultural potential studies have suggested alignments of the Northern Corridor lines to avoid these areas within Kruisrivier. These recommendations have been taken into account in the creation of the EIA Team-preferred alignment for the Northern Corridor, and this alignment avoids the areas of agricultural production as far as possible. It should also be noted that the proposed power lines should not cross any nature reserves as far as possible, and thus the EIA Team-preferred route avoids traversing the Groendal Wilderness Area.


Page 5


Expressed concern about the construction of power lines on his farm which is situated between Wincanton and Springfield. Stated that he has a dairy farm and irrigates daily. Further expressed concern about the effect of radiation of the lines on his cattle.

KEMP, Mr VG Farmer: Kaastaiing Boom Arcus GIBB Comment Form :10 May 2010

The potential impacts of the power lines on agricultural potential have been addressed in detail in the agricultural potential and socio-economic studies. These studies recommend the avoiding of areas of intensive agricultural production, especially where centre pivots are located. One such area is the Kruisrivier area. Both the socio-economic and agricultural potential studies have suggested alignments of the Northern Corridor lines to avoid these areas within Kruisrivier. These recommendations have been taken into account in the creation of the EIA Team-preferred alignment for the Northern Corridor, and this alignment avoids the areas of agricultural production as far as possible. The potential impact of electric magnetic fields (EMF’s) associated with power lines are addressed in section 8 of the EIR.

The attendee raised the concern of the negative impact the power lines will have on agriculture as most of the area is agricultural land and it is important that the EIA team go out to the specific farming areas where the power lines are going to traverse on agriculture land which could result in them losing productive land.

LEEN, Petrus Ward Representative PM Sea Vista, St Francis Bay: 29 September 2011

Post-meeting note:From an agricultural perspective the loss of high value farm land and production, as a result of the proposed activities, is a primary concern. Due to the extensive nature of the project an agricultural delineation and rating system was developed in order to classify areas of high agricultural value. The output from this process is mapped, which indicate the position and value of current agricultural activities and has allowed a low agricultural impact to be developed. If the recommended low agricultural impact route for the power lines is selected (i.e. skirting high value agricultural land as defined in the specialist agricultural report) then the crossing of agricultural land by these lines will have a very limited impact on agricultural production as normal crop production / grazing can still take place. Kurt Barichievy, SiVEST

Op grond van die detail op die aangehegde kaart, kan julle voortgaan met die ondersoek van die suidelike corridor. Die MTO voorwaardes bly egter onveranderd. Die lyn moet in die brandbaan bly en mag geensins oor enige deel van plantasie strek nie. Translation:

MALHERBE, Mr Deon Corporate Services Manager MTO Forestry (Pty) Ltd E-mail: 07 October 2010

Bedank vir e-pos en terugvoer dat die spesialiste kan voortgaan met hul ondersoek rakende die suidelike alternatief wat MTO se suidelike brandbaan volg. Eskom, en spesifiek Dean Wilson, Eskom se Onderhandelaar, word op hoogte gehou van grondeienaarsse situasies soos die.


Page 6


In terms of the detail provided on the map, SiVEST can proceed with the assessment of the southern corridor. MTO’s conditions stay unchanged. The power lines have to stayin (follow) the fire breaks and cannot, under any circumstances, impact on the forestry.

Nicolene Venter Email: 07 October 2010 Translation: Expressed appreciation for the feedback as provided via e-mail stating that the specialists can proceed with the assessment of the Southern Corridor through Longmore’s southern firebreak. Eskom, especially Dean Wilson, Eskom’s Negotiator, are kept informed of landowners’ situations such as these. Further Response to Comment The creation of the EIA Team-preferred alignment for both the Northern and Southern Corridors has taken the presence of the Longmore firebreaks into account, and power lines have been placed along the firebreaks as far as possible. However in certain areas, the alignment of the power lines has had to take other factors such as impact on biodiversity and visual and tourism-related impact into account; these have been prioritised over the requirement to not impact on areas of forestry under the obligation of the EIA Team to find an alignments with the least degree of environmental impact, and thus in certain areas the EIA Team-preferred alignments run through areas of forestry. It should be noted that should areas of forestry be traversed by the finalised alignments, a process of compensation will be entered into between Eskom and the landowner (and forestry operator).

Met verwysing na ons gesprek vanoggend, wil ek vra dat my voorlegging rakende die ekonomiese impak op my melkboerdery op plase Doringrug en Stillerus, Humansdorp, soos beїnvloed deur die moontlike konstruksie van die hoogspanningslyne en beplande roete daarvan regdeur spilpuntbesproeiingstelsels en oor Doringrug melkstal ondersoek en evalueer sal word, asook die voorgestelde rigtingverandering van die lyne om besproeiing en melkstal te mis. Dit is slegs geringe rigtingveranderings wat voorgestel word en hiermee sal die ekonomiese impak op die boerdery en sy mense en koeie dramaties minder wees. Ek vra verder dat nadat jy die voorlegging bestudeer het, dat jy met my kontak sal maak vir moontlike afspraak.

MEYER, Mr Migo Landowner: Geelhoutboom E-mail: 22 September 2010

The potential impacts of the power lines on agricultural potential have been addressed in detail in the agricultural potential and socio-economic studies. These studies recommend the avoiding of areas of intensive agricultural production, especially where centre pivots are located. The area in which Mr Migo’s farm is located is one such area. Both the socio-economic and agricultural potential studies have suggested alignments of the Northern Corridor lines to avoid these centre pivots within this area. These recommendations and the comments made by Mr Migo have been taken into account in the creation of the EIA Team-preferred alignment for bothcorridors, and this alignment avoids the areas of


Page 7


Translation: Enquired whether the submission made regarding the economic impact on the farms Doringrug and Stillerus due to the impacts of the proposed construction of the Transmission power lines will be investigated and assessed. Recommendation was also submitted regarding a possible routing over these farms that will avoid the centre pivots and the milking sheds that will result in minimising the economic impact and social impact on the farm workers. Requested that after the recommendation has been assessed, that he be contacted to secure an appointment to discuss these matters.

agricultural production as far as possible.

Concurs with Mr Elba Strydom’s comment submitted during a one-on-one visit that the Mondplaas and surrounding areas are one of the highest potential agricultural irrigation land and is economically valuable land. It was suggested that the Northern Corridor be moved approximately 10km north where it will have lesser impact as the land there has lower production potential and it would be economically cheaper to run Transmission power lines more north. Volunteered to show the team a possible option that could be taken.

MEYER, Mr Manus Landowner: Groen Akkers Mondplaas Newsletter Comment Form Fax: 01 January 2010

The Gamtoos River Valley has been identified as one of the most critical areas within the Southern Corridor in terms of agricultural production and value by both the agricultural potential and socio-economic specialist studies. The socio-economic study identified the Mondplaas part of the Gamtoos Valley as a fatal flaw and for this reason the study thus recommended that the Southern Corridor alignment through the Gamtoos Valley be shifted to an upstream part of the valley (to the north-west) where intensively cultivated land is less likely to be affected. Accordingly the Southern Corridor and associated EIA Team-preferred alignment is now proposed to run through the Gamtoos Valley in the region of the Bodker and Togo sidings where there are fewer centre pivots. Under the latest alignment, the Gamtoos Valley in the Mondplaas area will not be affected by the proposed power lines.

The Scoping Report does not have any photos illustrating the intensive farming that takes place in Kruisrivier such as game, beef, ostrich, chicken, lucerne, sheep and vegetable farming. Requested that the impact of such a power line in an area of intensive farming activity must be investigated.

MULLER, Mr Peter Board Member Kruisrivier Residents E-mail: 25 May 2010

The potential impacts of the power lines on agricultural potential have been addressed in detail in the agricultural potential and socio-economic studies. These studies recommend the avoiding of areas of intensive agricultural production, especially where centre pivots are located. One such area is the Kruisrivier area. The agricultural potential specialist study (Appendix 7 of the FEIR) has detailed the areas of agricultural potential through photographs and through maps of differing areas of varying agricultural value.


Page 8


Both the socio-economic and agricultural potential studies have suggested alignments of the Northern Corridor lines to avoid these areas within Kruisrivier. These recommendations have been taken into account in the creation of the EIA Team-preferred alignment for the Northern Corridor, and this alignment avoids the areas of agricultural production as far as possible.

Stated that the property borders onto the Groendal Wilderness area. Expressed his objection to the proposed developments due to the following reasons: irrigation areas, cattle farmers, game farmers and protected areas.

PIETERSEN, Mr Fanie Landowner: Grootkloof Arcus GIBB Comment Form: 5 June 2010

The potential impacts of the power lines on agricultural potential in the Kruisrivier area have been addressed in detail in the agricultural potential and socio-economic studies. These studies recommend the avoiding of areas of intensive agricultural production, especially where centre pivots are located. One such area is the Kruisrivier area. Both the socio-economic and agricultural potential studies have suggested alignments of the Northern Corridor lines to avoid these areas within Kruisrivier. These recommendations have been taken into account in the creation of the EIA Team-preferred alignment for the Northern Corridor, and this alignment avoids the areas of agricultural production as far as possible. It should also be noted that the proposed power lines should not cross any nature reserves, and thus the EIA Team-preferred route avoids traversing the Groendal Wilderness Area.

The project team was informed that DAFF is taking the routing of the proposed power lines extremely serious as the country is losing too much forestry land to developments and this has a serious financial income loss for Government.

SQWABE, Ms Gwendoline Manager: Regulations & Support DAFF FGM: 18 September, Humewood

Comment noted.

It was pointed out that no provision on the Agricultural questionnaire has been made for landowners to provide information on future potential agriculture.

VERMAAK, Mr Tinus Chairman: Elands River Valley Conservation & Tourism Route Letter:11 January 2010

The agricultural potential study(Appendix 7 of the FEIR) is focused on mitigating impacts on current agricultural production by avoiding high potential and value agricultural land. In terms of this assessment irrigated lands and broiler farms form the bulk of the identified high value agriculture. However this report has also identified areas of high potential based on soil and land characteristics. In the most part, however, these areas are already under high value agriculture e.g. The Gamtoos River Valley.


Page 9


It should be noted that the agricultural questionnaire provides a section which allows any concerns relating to agricultural impacts to be formalised in writing. It is hoped that this section is used for this type of concern. Kurt Barichievy: SiVEST It should be noted that where comments have been made by landowners regarding future proposed development, these have been taken into account in the routing of the EIA Team-preferred alignment.

It was enquired as to how the Agricultural Specialist could investigate the impacts without the interaction with the community.

High value areas were identified using high resolution satellite imagery. These, in the context of this assessment, are defined as areas of high agricultural value which cover large portion/sections of a proposed corridor which makes finding a low impact route through this area problematic. The affected parties in these areas were contacted in order to discuss and workshop low impact solutions. Kurt Barichievy: SiVEST Further to this comment extensive consultation with potentially affected landowners has been undertaken though a series of landowner open houses that were held in February 2011. In these open houses landowners were encouraged to indicate areas of important agricultural production and farming infrastructure that should be avoided by the proposed power lines. Feedback received in this regard was taken into account in the creation of the EIA Team-preferred alignment. The agricultural specialist will be attending the open houses in parts of the route where intensive agricultural production occurs, and will be available for consultation. Further Response to Comment: The Agricultural Specialist attended the series of open houses held


Page 10


during 25 July and 04 August 2011. Nicolene Venter, SiVEST

2. Avifauna Comments/Issues It was commented that the Avifaunal study does not have up to date information. It is understood that the document was peer-reviewed and if so, why is the reviewed document not included in the study. This is a fatal flaw on Eskom’s behalf. It was mentioned that it does not matter what studies are being conducted, the power lines will have a huge impact on the birds. The question was raised as to why EWT undertakes all the Avifaunal studies for EIAs and then they are also sponsored by Eskom. Three (3) of the species mentioned in the Report will not minimize the impact by erecting bird flappers.

MALAN, Trudi Chairman: Thyspunt Alliance & Cape St Francis Civics PM Sea Vista, St Francis Bay: 29 September 2011

Comment noted. Post-meeting note: EWT was appointed by SiVEST for the proposed project and the contract in question is between EWT and SiVEST accordingly. Furthermore, EWT has signed a Declaration of Interest and Independence in relation to Thyspunt Transmission Lines integration Project. Eskom on a national level provides sponsors to various Non Government Organisations (NGOs), with EWT as a company being one of them. The work being undertaken by EWT is at a specialist level by an employee who has declared their independence in respect to the proposed project. Rebecca Thomas, SiVEST Study was done using the best and most recent available information at the time (Nov 2010). The study made use of the following data sources:

• Bird distribution data of the Southern African Bird Atlas

Project (SABAP – Harrison, Allan, Underhill, Herremans, Tree, Parker & Brown, 1997) obtained from the Avian Demography Unit of the University of Cape Town, in order to ascertain which species occur in the study area. A separate data set was obtained for each quarter degree square within the study area (marginal overlaps were discounted).

• Data from the Co-ordinated Avifaunal Road count project (CAR – Young, Harrison, Navarro, Anderson & Colahan, 1997) for the “Humansdorp precinct” was used, the data was taken from counts conducted between 1998 and


Page 11


2003. • The Important Bird Areas project data (Barnes 1998) was

consulted to determine its relevance to this project. • The conservation status of all bird species occurring in the

study area were then determined with the use of The Eskom Red Data book of birds of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland (Barnes, 2000).

• The power line - bird mortality incident database of the Eskom/Endangered Wildlife Trust Strategic Partnership (1996 to present) was consulted to determine which of the species occurring in the study area are typically impacted upon by power lines, and the extent of the impact.

• Information on the micro habitat level was obtained through visiting the area and obtaining a first-hand perspective.

• The National Land Cover database was consulted for information on biomes and vegetation type (CSIR, 2000).

• Electronic 1:50 000 maps were obtained from the Surveyor General.

Andrew Pearson, EWT The EWT agrees that in all likelihood there will be negative impacts on Avifauna, however we stand by the Author’s recommendation in the report that “ the proposed project can proceed with acceptable impacts on avifauna should the recommendations in this report be followed. In particular these are that a site specific “walk down” be conducted once the preferred alternative has been chosen” Andrew Pearson, EWT The EWT is aware that bird flappers may not always be 100% effective in mitigating collision of all species. The EWT recently reviewed (see attached letter) a paper (Martin & Shaw, 2010) which showed that certain species may be particularly vulnerable. While we acknowledge the findings of the paper and the fact that


Page 12


in some cases power line marking may not prove to be an effective deterrent for certain species (e.g. Ludwig's Bustard), it is the only form of utility-approved mitigation that we have to date. The EWT is currently busy with the second phase of this research project which involves the testing of both the dynamic and static devices at a test site in the Karoo to assess each device’s ability to deter birds away from the over head conductors. Preliminary results suggest that the marking devises are in fact effective, particularly for Blue Cranes. Data collection is still underway and we are hoping to present the results of this research in the next year or so. It is also important to note that although mitigation (in the form of bird flappers/diverters) may prove to be ineffective for various bustard species because of their narrow field of vision, the recommended devices may well be effective for a variety of other species. Furthermore, no evidence could be found that the suggested alternative mitigations mentioned in the paper (e.g. the supply of alternative roosts or placement of conspecifics in order to distract the bird from the obstacle) had been tested or implemented to date. We therefore stand by the recommendations made in the original avifaunal specialist reports, which can be seen in the letter above and/or the final avifaunal report. Andrew Pearson, EWT

It was enquired whether an extensive study has been conducted and compilation of a list of the current bird life within the study area, and if such a list was compiled whether a copy could be forwarded to them.

VERMAAK, Mr Tinus Chairman: Elands River Valley Conservation & Tourism Route Letter: 11 January 2010

A stand-alone avifaunal report has been compiled. The investigations conducted by the Avifauna specialist have also been incorporated into the DEIR which will be available for public review and comment. The availability of the DEIR and the review period will be advertised and communicated to registered I&APs on the project database. Nicolene Venter, SiVEST Further Response to Comment: The Avifaunal Report is also included in the FEIR which is available for public review from Monday 28 January 2013 to Monday 11 February 2013. Nicolene Venter, SiVEST


Page 13


3. Biodiversity Comments/Issues It was enquired as to how the relocation of plants will be undertaken. CORRIGAN, Mr Brian

Director: Hopewell Conservation (Pty) Ltd Olivia Hall: 23 February 2011

The draft EMP has covered the translocation of plants. Before commencement of the construction of the power lines, an environmental walk down will take place by specialists such as surface water, heritage, fauna, avifauna, etc – depending on the terrain. Where plants of botanical significance are identified in the footprint of towers and other related infrastructure such as new roads, a relocation plan for these will be included in the construction EMP (CEMP). Paul da Cruz: SiVEST Post-Open House Note: Should the Hopewell Conservancy Development wish to engage the proponent (Eskom) on the potential relocation of plants that would need to be removed / disturbed (should the proposed project be granted environmental authorisation), they should contact Eskom and Eskom’s ECO at the onset of the project construction.

It was enquired whether a register will be drafted of recipients that are interested in the plants that will need to be relocated.

This is a possibility that can be considered and be seen as a positive impact. Paul da Cruz: SiVEST

In the Conservancy’s extensive comments submitted on the Draft Scoping Report, it was pointed out the possible detrimental affect the power lines could have on agricultural activities, especially on bees.

DODD, Mark Chairman: Elands River Conservancy FGM: 17 September 2012

It is difficult to provide an answer on long term impact i.e EMF as this is the only impact that could be associated with bees. It needs to be mentioned that Eskom has commissioned additional research to be done regarding EMFs and the Report compiled has been peer reviewed and is now available to the public. It is not an easy task to research something that is mobile i.e. you can pick it up and move it somewhere else. Paul da Cruz, Royal Haskoning Post- meeting note: In addition further information regarding EMFshas beenprepared by an independent scientist, Dr PH Pretorius and is included in the Revised Draft EIR - Appendix 15 Electric and Magnetic Fields. Lerato Mokgwatlheng, Eskom


Page 14


Requests a separate meeting with the project team when conducting the Open Houses in the Eastern Cape where ECPTA can provide further inputs into the EIA specifically concerning biodiversity offsets for the Thyspunt area and the potential effects of power lines from the reactor site to the start of the power lines at the substation.

ERLANK, Mr Wayne Regional Manager: West ECPTA E-mail: 25 May 2011

Request acknowledged. The ECPTA have been requested to attend the Key Stakeholders Meeting in the comment period on the draft EIR in order to raise any concerns

The concern was raised regarding the Biodiversity Report as it seems that a non-academic study was conducted. There are critical biodiversity areasin the studyarea and the Report immediately raised a red flag. Statements are made in the Report that are not accurately reflected on the ground. Strongly disagreement was raised in reference to the study being done on national scale and not site specific i.e. minute scale. The power lines will cross sensitive eco system services. The Biodiversity Report is presented as if a positive ROD would be received. It is recommended in the Report that only the tower footprint will have an impact and mitigation measure recommended but no mitigation measures for the study area. Alien vegetation can encroach and the Report mentioned that no reddata species were found.However, together with Richard and Shirley Cowling, seven (7) red-data species have been found in the study area A full report on the shortcomings of the Biodiversity Report will be submitted to SiVEST


Post-meeting note: The biodiversity study included intensive site investigations particularly from a flora perspective. No red data species were observed during the investigation which does not negate their presence. The pure scale of the project does not allow for each and every piece of land along the route to be assessed in detail however the study has ensured that all habitats present have been assessed. All the specialist studies conducted assume a worst case scenario and provide mitigation measures should the development go ahead. This provides the authorities with the process that would be followed if the construction were to occur. It must be remembered that more intensive walk downs will take place once a final route alignment is in place (should the development go ahead) and the sensitive areas will be highlighted in more detail and avoided. Each tower position will be assessed by specialists. Liesl Koch, SiVEST

Asked that no towers be placed within the kloof on his property, as there are indigenous yellowwood trees in the kloof that may have to be felled.

MEYER, Mr Migo Landowner: Geelhoutboom One-on-one Consultation: 11 October 2010

The remnant indigenous vegetation in this kloof has been highlighted as being sensitive, as most of the area has been transformed by agricultural activities, and as such the kloof has been treated as a ‘no-go’ area for power line routing Due to technical constraints, towers are not usually placed on steep topography such as that on the slopes of this kloof. In topography such as this, the kloof would be likely to be able to be spanned by the power lines, even if the kloof was wider than the typical 400m-wide span, Towers are likely to be placed on the


Page 15


(transformed) edges of the kloof, thus not affecting vegetation.

Daar is ‘n baie besonderse plant wat in die Kabeljous area voorkom, waar die kraglyne sal oorbeweeg. Die plant is Gasteria Nitada variasie Armstrongii [nou ‘n groep op sy eie "Armstongii"). Die plant is die mees bedreigste van al die Gasteria species en ook ‘n bedreigte specie. Gelukkig is dit maklik om uit- en oor te plant. Dit moet noodwendig top aandag kry in die EIA. Indien verdere besonderhede verlang, skakel my gerus. Translation: There is an exquisite plant that is present in the Kabeljous area where the power lines are proposed to traverse. The plant is the Gasteria Nitada variety of the Armstrongii [now a group on its own known as Armstongii"). This plant is the most endangered variety of all of the Gasteria species and is now also an endangered species. Luckily it can easily be replanted. Naturally this fact needs to get priority attention in the EIA. Should additional information be required, he can be contacted.

SMITH, Mr Johan Resident: Jeffrey’s Bay E-mail: 2 February 2010

The floral specialist has conducted a thorough inventory of all species occurring within the study area. In addition the mitigation measures and Environmental Management Plan stipulate the requirement for a walk down of the route by a qualified specialist, particularly where vegetation will need to be cleared. This will ensure that should this species be encountered that it will be relocated prior to construction. The proposed power lines are likely to span the parts of the study area where this species could potentially occur i.e. river banks and floodplains. The routing of the corridor more to the north of the study also reduces the potential occurrence of this species. Liesl Koch: SiVEST

It was mentioned that questionnaires for Flora, Fauna, Aquatic Life, Wild Life and registered Conservancies were not distributed.


The investigations conducted by the Flora specialist will form part of the DEIR which will be available for public review and comment. The availability of the DEIR and the review period will be advertised and communicated to registered I&APs on the project database. Questionnaires sent out were at the request of specialists which required them for their specific studies. Each specialist has unique approaches to their studies and may not require the use of questionnaires and make use of other avenues for their research. Nicolene Venter: SiVEST

There are no invasive species in the area where a hiking and cycling trail is operated on the Longmore Forest property. Power lines would adversely affect this pristine area.

Land Owner Open House Van Stadens Farmers Association Hall: 22 February 2011

Information noted and will be taken into consideration. The EIA Team-preferred alignment has been routed to the south of the Elands River Valley to avoid this area as far as possible.

It is believed that the Elands River Valley can be referred to as pristine and to confirm why this statement is made is that on a walk a few days ago six mountain reedbucks were spotted. Also, DWA’s Working for Water team is in the area busy clearing out the alien invasions.

WOZNIAK, Dr Nina Vice Chairman: Elands River Conservancy FGM: 17 September 2012

In principle, the word pristine is used for an area where there is absolutely no development in sight at all and the natural habitat was never disturbed. Raoul de Villiers, World-Wize


Page 16


It is also important to note that the baseline of the area has been changing over the past five years due to the removing of the alien invasions which resulted in changing the aesthetics of the area. Paul da Cruz, Royal Haskoning

4. Surface Water Related Comments/Issues Dams: A dam is defined in the National Water Act (NWA) as any existing or proposed structure which is capable of containing, storing or impounding water (including temporary impoundment or storage). Any chemical, solid waste and contaminated water which may be generated from the above proposed activity must not pose any adverse impact on the identified Dams. Chemical or ablution toilets facilities to be used on-site during construction phase of the project to be used by construction workers must be located more than 100 meters away from the edge of the identified Dams. Storm water: The storm water drainage network system must be kept separate from the sewage effluent and wastewater system. These networks must be designed and constructed in such a manner that storm water will drain into a watercourse or into the Municipal Storm Water System, if available in the area. After construction, the site should be grated to ensure free flow of runoff and to prevent ponding of water. Drainage must be controlled to ensure that runoff from the site will not culminate in off-site pollution or cause water damage to properties further down from the site. Storm Water Management Plan should ensure that the ultimate flow from the development does not result in any negative impacts on downstream properties or watercourse and must therefore ensure that storm water is managed within the overall site as effective as possible. This Storm Water Management Plan must be submitted to this Department or comment prior to construction. Sanitation during construction: Ablution toilet facilities to be used by construction workers during construction phase of the project must be regularly empties ad their content must be disposed off into a permitted Wastewater Treatment Works.

BLOEM, M Chief Director: Eastern Cape Department of Water Affairs (DWA) Letter: 05 October 2011

These recommendations and issues raised are addressed in the EMP which is attached as Appendix 14of the FEIR. A copy of letter was also forwarded to the Applicant to take cognisance of DWA’s requirements during construction. Nicolene Venter, SiVEST


Page 17


Notwithstanding the above, the responsibilities rests with the applicant to identify any sources of pollution from his undertaking and to take appropriate measures to prevent any pollution of the environment in terms of the National Water Act 1998 (Act 36 of 1998) could lead to legal action being instituted against the applicant. The farm’s water source is found in springs within the kloof on his and Fatman’s farms. The proposed power lines should be routed away from this area.

DE LANGE, Mr Barend Landowner: Boschfontein LO Open House Van Stadens Farmers Association Hall: 22 February 2011

The EMP states that power lines should avoid wells, springs and boreholes. It also stipulates that a detailed survey of all natural water sources in the proposed servitude be undertaken and these be avoided by the lines, In this specific case the lines should be able to span the kloof, but the water supply should be avoided by the lines.

The project team was informed that their water supply emanates from fountains on their property; expressed great concern that the proposed power lines (during construction and operation) would negatively impact the water source.

DODD, Mrs Maria Farm Eikenek LO Open House Van Stadens Farmers Association Hall: 22 February 2011

Water sources such as springs, seeps or fountains are typically not affected by power lines as towers do not have a footprint over the length of the line, and towers are placed to avoid such wetlands or water sources. A detailed set of environmental procedures developed by Eskom Transmission guides the construction of power lines and associated infrastructure such as access roads as they relate to water resources, in order to protect the water resources. The EMP states that power lines should avoid wells, springs and boreholes. It also stipulates that a detailed survey of all natural water sources in the proposed servitude be undertaken and these be avoided by the lines, The EIA team preferred alignment has taken into account the environmental sensitivity of the Elands River Valley; as such the alignment has avoided any area to the north of the southern ridge of the valley, and the revised corridor does not traverse the Elands River Valley, being located to the south of the watershed formed by the southern ridge of the valley. As such these water sources are unlikely to be affected by the proposed power lines.

The project team was informed that their water resource is from the mountain range where the proposed power lines are recommended to be constructed.

5. Aquatic Related Comments/Issues Red Fin Minnows are present in the streams in the Elands River and Longmore Forest areas.

VERMAAK, Tinus Member: Elands River Valley Conservancy & Tourism

Water resources such as springs, seeps and streams are typically not affected by power lines as towers do not have a footprint over the length of the line, and towers are placed to avoid such


Page 18


Chairman: Elands River Fire Protection LO Open House Van Stadens Farmers Association Hall: 22 February 2011

wetlands or water sources. A detailed set of environmental procedures developed by Eskom Transmission guides the construction of power lines and associated infrastructure such as access roads as they relate to water resources, in order to protect the water resources. In the Longmore and Elands River Valley area, the highly hilly and incised nature of the terrain entails that all rivers and streams in which the Red Fin Minnow occurs are able to be spanned. However in these areas, the risk of erosion and associated siltation of watercourses has been identified to be a significant environmental factor (please refer to the Geotechnical Specialist and Surface Water Specialist Reports) that may adversely affect the aquatic biota. Due to the presence of the endangered Hewitt’s Ghost Frog in the streams in the Longmore area, the surface water specialist report has recommended that all streams and rivers in the Longmore area are highly sensitive, and are not to be directly or indirectly affected by the proposed power lines. The EMP for power line construction thus addresses this issue and includes mitigation measures to ensure that any erosion and associated siltation in to these streams is minimised.

6. GIS (Mapping) Comments/Issues Further to the letter attached to the e-mail, urgent confirmation was requested regarding the proposed alignment of the power lines in the vicinity of Hopewell Nature Reserve. The plans that have been made available bySiVESTon their website do not reflect the conversation held between SiVEST and the I&AP when last met at Kruisrivier, Uitenhage, when it was stated that the powerlines would avoid the traditional heritage park along the southern boundary of KwaNobuhle and would rather remain on the western side of the Rocklands road and cross through the middle of KwaNobuhle.

CORRIGAN, Mr Brian Director: Hopewell Conservation (Pty) Ltd E-mail: 18 May 2011

Confirmation was sourced from the stakeholder whether reference to the correct maps have been made as the EIA Team-preferred route avoid the areas of concern raised by the stakeholder. Nicolene Venter, SiVEST (e-mail: 12 June 2011) The latest Southern Corridor and associated EIA Team-preferred alignment do not affect the area of Hopewell Conservancy, and adjacent to the Hopewell Conservancy, as they now run to the north through a vacant area within KwaNobuhle. Faith Kalibbala, SiVEST Further Response to Comment: Through the consultation process the NMBM provided inputs into


Page 19


the corridors proposed for the Tx power lines through their municipal areas, and as the proposed Tx power lines need to not only consider all developments (approved and in approval stage) but also that of the NMBM’s electricity network planning. All relevant stakeholders’ comments and concerns have been taken into consideration and weighted when the corridor traversing KwaNobuhle has been decided. This proposed corridor need to link up with the proposed new Port Elizabeth’s Tx Substation.

An electronic copy of the detailed map indicating the EIA team preferred alignment through property was requested.

DE LANGE, Seppie Landowner: Boschfontein LO Open House Loerie Ruskamp: 21 February 2011

An electronic copy of the map was e-mailed on 19 May 2011 as part of Feedback Letter #5 (Appendix D).

MEYER, Migo Landowner: Geelhoutboom LO Open House Humansdorp: 21 February 2011

An electronic copy of the map was e-mailed during the LO OH. Post-LO Open House note: Updated EIA Team-preferred route was e-mailed on 19 May 2011 as part of Feedback Letter #5 (Appendix D).

VAN HEERDEN, Joe Landonwer: Limebank (Loerie Ruskamp) LO Open House Loeries Ruskamp: 21 February 2011

An electronic copy of the map was e-mailed on 19 May 2011 as part of Feedback Letter #5 (Appendix D).

Het ‘n versoek gerig vir ‘n duideliker kaart aangesien die kaart ingesluit by die OIE Nuusbrief onleesbaar is, selfs met vergrootglas. Dit is genoem dat hy nie kan bepaal hoeveel van sy grond in gedrang is nie en of die Korridor naby sy huis verby loop nie. Translation: Requested to be provided with a clearer map as the one included in the EIA Newsletter is not clear enough to identify how much of his property will be affected and whether the Corridor is close to his house.

DODD, Mr Keith Property Owner EIA Newsletter Comment Form Fax: 27 January 2010

Detailed maps were available at the various FGMs, Open Days and PMs held. A map has been send as requested. Nicolene Venter, SiVEST

In order for ATNS to evaluate the impact that these lines may have on its service provision you are requested to please provide the coordinates of the starting, end and any turning points along the centre of the proposed South and North Corridors. Please provide the coordinates in degrees, minutes, seconds and decimal of seconds in geographical WGS-84 format e.g. S282313.77 E0251629.23

HORAK, Thys ATNS: ATM Planning Department E-mail: 19 May 2011

Information forwarded via e-mail to ATNS on 06 June 2011.


Page 20


Once ATNS is in possession of the aforementioned info the evaluation process will commence culminating in the formulation of an ATNS position. It was commented that there was not a standard set of maps used by the various specialists in their reports and this was extremely confusing to I&APs and requested that SiVEST standardise their mapping to be used in reports.

MALAN, Trudi Member: Thyspunt Alliance Cape St Francis Civics Feedback Meeting: 11 October 2010

Request noted and will be brought under the attention of SiVEST GIS specialist and the team of environmental specialists Liesl Koch, SiVEST

KML maps requested where the proposed power lines could negatively impact Sovereign Foods’ properties.

RALPH, Mark Environmental Manager: Sovereign Foods LO Open House Van Stadens Farmers Association Hall: 21 February 2011

KML files (Google Earth) were e-mailed on the 21 February 2011.

Referred to previous correspondence regarding the proposed route of the power lines. Please submit a formal application in terms of section 53 of the Mineral Resources Development Act, 28 of 2002, to this office (Department of Mineral Resources) in the format as provided in the SAMRAD on line system on the web site of the Department. (www.dmr.gov.za) Please note that currently the application cannot be lodged on-line, however, the guidelines and templates that are available on the system must be used. Please ensure that a list of all affected farms with their registration numbers is included.

VAN DEN BERG, Samuel Acting Regional Manager Dept. Mineral Resources Eastern Cape Region E-mail: 23 May 2011

Acknowledged previous correspondence on 7 April 2011. A formal application will be lodged to DRM once the preferred corridor has been approved by Department of Environmental Affairs and the route finalised within the corridor. Dean Wilson: Eskom

It was enquired as to when clear maps and demarcations for the proposed Transmission lines will be distributed as they cannot make rational decisions or provide inputs without clearly defined lines. It was mentioned that currently the corridors are just rumours and not clearly defined to them.


As was mentioned at previous meetings and stated in various public documents, SiVEST is assessing an environmentally suitable 2km corridor for submission to DEA for their decision in terms of an Environmental Authorisation. A defined route alignment is the responsibility of Eskom, should an Environmental Authorisation be granted based on the environmental recommendations. The 2km corridor allows Eskom the flexibility to avoid structures or other sensitive areas should they arise during the negotiation phase as opposed to reapplying to DEA for a route deviation which delays the process of construction. However at the request of a number of I&APs, especially landowners, SiVEST created the EIA Team-preferred alignment for the proposed power lines. These proposed alignments were given to the potentially-affected landowners and to the public for comment (There are


Page 21


detailed maps available on SiVEST’s website (http://www.sivest.co.za/Download.aspx, scroll down to 9520 Eskom EIA). Nicolene Venter: SiVEST

Requested to be provided with the relevant diagram reflecting the property ownership within the relevant 2km corridors and the information requested in an e-mail that was sent dated 29 July 2010.

WALKER, Mr Dean Calvus Properties Pty (Ltd) E-mail: 29 July 2010 E-mail: 3 September 2010

Corridor information provided during October 2010 to Calvus Properties. The EIA Team-preferred alignment of the proposed power lines was presented during Landowner Open Houses held during February 2011. Maps indicating the cadastral boundaries were available at these workshops.

Commented that he tried to download the maps (preferred corridor) without much luck due to the size of the files and requested whether it could be e-mailed to him. His property is on the Elands River Road, farm 388/4 northeast of Longmore Forest.

WEBB, Tony Owner: Offcamber Adventures E-mail: 19 May 2011

A section of the map was e-mailed indicating the property as per information provided on 26 May 2011.

7. Social and Socio-Economic Comments/Issues/Issues Die projekspan was meegedeel dat die Raad bekommerd is oor dit wat hulle aan hul nageslag gaan nalaat en spreek die kommer uit oor hoe hulle aan hul nageslag moet verduidelik hoekom hierdie besluite geneem is. Dit was ook onder die projekspan se aandag gebring dat hy die 6de geslag is wat in die area woon en dit is met leedwese dat hy die moontlike verandering ervaar. Translation: The project team was informed that the Council is concerned about what the inheritance of their descendants will be and expressed concern about how they will explain to their descendants the decisions taken by the Council. It was also brought to the attention of the team that he is the 6th generation living in the area and it is with regret that he experienced the possible change.

BAARTMAN, J Council Member, Gamtkswa Khoisan Council

The team acknowledged the comment.

The project team was informed that it would be MTO’s last resort to have the power lines traversing commercially viable pockets of forestry land. Other impacts would be associated and mitigated should the power lines traverse commercially viable forest land i.e. fires, operations of the forestry (if pockets are bisected), etc. Reference was also made of MTO experiences of Eskom’s unwillingness to work

BRINK, Mr Willie Regional Manager: MTO FGM: 18 September 2012, Humewood

Where possible, the team would try and make use of MTO fire breaks and to ensure this, SiVEST once again request that the latest GIS data be forwarded to them to be able to see exactly where the planted areas are. The current routing has been done on the GIS data previously received from Cape Pine. Paul da Cruz, Royal Haskoning It needs to be noted that there is still more work that needs to be


Page 22


together. done regarding the routing i.e technical design including Lidar survey. Eskom’s design engineer will have to work closely with Cape Pine as to where the power lines cannot be build. Bernadette Solomon, Eskom

How will the job issue be communicated to the Residents of Sea Vista and who will be hired to do the work?

BUSEKWE, Mr Edward Member: SANCO Sea Vista Community Meeting Tuesday, 21 June 2011

Eskom appoints a contractor to build the power line and the contractor will be advised that should labour be required, to appoint those workers through existing structures / databases i.e. Local Municipalities. Lerato Mokgwatlheng, Eskom Transmission MENGU, Mr Chwayita

Resident: Sea Vista Sea Vista Community Meeting Tuesday, 21 June 2011

It was asked why does these studies take so long or are there other people holding the project back so that the people who need work and food do not get the opportunity to work. The community need work and food.

BUSEKWE, Mr Edward Member: SANCO Sea Vista Community Meeting, Tuesday, 21 June 2011

The environmental studies (done by specialists in their field of expertise) need to ensure that all possible impacts are investigated and should there be any negative impacts that these needs to be mitigate and any positive impact to be enhanced i.e. make what is good even better. I&APs also plays a role in the lengthening of such studies and the process. It is therefore very important that as many people as possible be informed of the project, provide an opportunity to comment on any issue they are concerned about and last but not least to ensure that the positive and negative impacts associated with a project is understood by I&APs. Nicolene Venter, SiVEST Environmental

Comment supported by all attendees Sea Vista Community Meeting Tuesday, 21 June 2011

The project team was informed of the following proposed cultural activities in the KwaNobuhle area: • Patch of land to be made available for cultivating traditional medicine • Cultural site where the preparation of traditional Xhosa food will be reintroduced

to the community • Showcasing of the Xhosa traditions • Initiation ceremonies to take place

CORRIGAN, Brian Director: Hopewell Conservation (Pty) Ltd Olivia Hall: 23 February 2011

Information has been forwarded to the Social Specialist to address. Post-Open House note: The proposed activities and facilities planned for this part of the Hopewell Conservancy was treated as a socially-sensitive part of the study area. The power line corridor and associated EIA Team-preferred alignment was thus shifted to the north to avoid these areas

It was stated that the moment there are pylons erected, land value drops. DODD, Llise Secretariat: Elands River Conservancy

Initially there could be a decline in property value but studies have indicated that, depending on the use of the land, power value increase after a period of time.


Page 23


Raoul de Villiers, World-Wize It is recommended that much more studies needs to be done as the authorities need more information to be able to make an informed decision.

One needs to quantify the level of economic study to be conducted and SiVEST discussed this with Eskom and the economic study conducted was prioritised. The Economic Report will be made available once the Revised DEIR is out for public review and this will be indicated in the Revised DEIR notification letter. Rebecca Thomas, SiVEST Post-meeting note: Eskom further requested quotations for the undertaking of primary research field surveys in an effort to quantify impacts of power lines on tourism activities. Due to the fact there has been no precedent set with regards to such research, quotations were not received timeously. The consultants requested additional time to develop potential methodologies to achieve the task. One proposal was received for the undertaking of a baseline study, to serve as a standard for power line development across South Africa. The study proposed would require 9 to 12 months of work and would aim to quantify the impacts on tourism, by means of percentage increase or decrease over certain period from pre-construction to a number of years after construction of power lines. Eskom would be willing to commission such a study for consideration in future power line developments.

It was asked whether there is a graph / scale available that indicates what impact pylon (indicating single power line and multiple power lines) will have on land value.

There are no such table available as each area in the country has difference property values. It can be mentioned that power lines do have an impact on property value. Wimpie Henning, Eskom

If the nuclear generation plant is constructed at Coega it will have an economic benefit for Eskom as they will save R3m per power line (as per information previously provided).

DODD, Mark Chairman: Elands River Conservancy

Comment noted. Information regarding this question and comment has been recorded in Nuclear-1 Project Reports. Nicolene Venter, SiVEST

Informed us that the property is situated between Wincanton and Springfield. Even though there isn’t any certainty as where the servitude in the corridor will be, she expressed objection to the construction of the 400kVpower line for the following reasons:

FITCHAT, Mrs AA Landowner: Kaastiingboom Arcus GIBB Comment Form: 10 May 2010

The socio-economic and agricultural potential specialist reports have addressed in detail the potential impact of the proposed power lines on properties and property values. Both reports have identified the Kruisrivier area to be sensitive from this perspective, and both reports have recommended route


Page 24


• Kruisrivier is a densely populated area • Farms are small and the servitude will take up a large area • The value of property will drop • Health • Security

alignments to avoid these impacts as far as possible. The EIA Team-preferred alignment through the Kruisrivier area has been based as closely on these proposed alignments from the specialists as possible in order to avoid affecting the smallholdings

Requested that she be advised as to how her queries have been dealt with as she has yet to receive ANY information from SiVEST about the economic impact of the Nuclear Station. It was stated that it must be assumed then that her queries have not been dealt with by either SiVEST or the team on the Transmission Lines.

FREEBURY, Ms Carianne Retail Africa (Pty) Ltd Planning, Infrastructure and Environment E-mail: 20 August 2009

As was previously mentioned, from the start of the public participation process and SiVEST’s communication to Retail Africa (Pty) Ltd it has been made clear that Arcus GIBB is the independent EIA Consultants for the proposed Nuclear-1 Project (Eskom Nuclear Power Station) and not SiVEST. However, as the two projects (Eskom Transmission power lines) are closely interlinked, SiVEST noted the concerns / comments/issues / recommendations raised regarding the Nuclear-1 Project by I&APs and Stakeholders such as Retail Africa (Pty) Ltd and, as communicated, forwarded these concerns / comments/issues / recommendations to Eskom Transmission’s Project Manager who in turn had forwarded it to Eskom Generation – as the proposed Nuclear-1 Project is managed by Eskom Generation and not Eskom Transmission. I&AP were requested to download Appendix F (Issues & Responses Report (I&RR) on SiVEST’s website (http://www.sivest.co.za/Download.aspx); to select 9520 Eskom Thyspunt EIA); to go to page 35 of the I&RR and it will be noticed that SiVEST’s response (submitted via e-mail) regarding Retail Africa (Pty) Ltd’s request “economic impact of the Nuclear Station” has been noted and forwarded to the relevant EAP. An agreed understanding with Retail Africa (Pty) Ltd was reached that SiVEST dealt with their query in the following manner: 1. Request for a full economic impact assessment for the

proposed Nuclear-1 Project: a. As SiVEST is not the appointed independent EIA

Consultant, we are not attending or responding to this request. However, it was forwarded to Arcus GIBB

Stated that she has looked at the response to her issues and mentioned that it is so vague and generic that she could not actually tell whether there was an undertaking to do an Economic Impact Assessment or not. Mentioned that she therefore went to the report and looked at everything and it seems that a Social Impact Study would be done as part of the EIA, enquired if that was true? She also stated that it looked as though economic impact would be assessed in the report, requested that this be confirmed.

E-mail: 21 August 2009


Page 25


through Eskom Transmission. 2. Request for an economic impact assessment for the proposed

Transmission Power Lines Integration Project (TTLIP): a. This has been responded to via e-mail and is also

captured in the I&RR, as mentioned above. Nicolene Venter: SiVEST (e-mail: 21 August 2009) Further Response to Comment: A Socio-economic study was done and the Economic Addendum Report (Appemdix 11) was included in the Revised DEIR which was available for public review and comment from Friday 21 September to Wednesday 11 November 2012. Nicolene Venter, SiVEST

Die stelling was gemaak dat Eskom mense se lewens negatief gaan beinvloed deur die kraglyne oor hulle huise te bou en dan verwag dat hulle hulle huise moet verlaat. Translation: It was stated that Eskom would impact negatively on their lives by constructing the power lines over their houses and expect the residents to move.

HAMMOND, Kevin Resident: Pellsrus PM: 28 September 2011

There will be no power lines constructed over houses or permanent infrastructures and Eskom would rather route the lines around such infrastructures. The proposed power lines is not near Jeffrey’s Bay and the corridor is currently north of the N2. The residents of Jeffrey’s Bay would therefore not be affected at all. Paul da Cruz, SiVEST

Stated that it is against the law to have power lines running near schools, hospitals and old age homes. Further raised a question as to why residents in the 100km corridor should be subjected to the environmental/ health problems.

HARDIE, George and Sandra Arcus GIBB Comment E-mail: 15 August 2010

The only laws that controls the distance to power lines is the Occupational Health & Safety dealing with distance to buildings. The Occupational Health & Safety indicates that a distance of 5.6 metres to any building must not be encroached. However, Eskom acquires 27.5 meter servitude from the centre line and a typical 400kV line has a 8 meter phase to phase spacing, therefore from the nearest conductor to the edge of our servitude the distance will be 19.5 meters which comfortably complies with the 5.6 meters from the Occupational Health & Safety. Therefore power lines can run near schools, hospitals and old age homes, as long as they are outside our servitude. Lerato Mokgwatlheng, Eskom Transmission It needs to be noted that the route corridors for environmental


Page 26


assessment are 2km wide and not 100km. Nicolene Venter, SiVEST Section 8 of the DEIR should be consulted with respect to queries on electric and magnetic fields associated with power lines and possible associated health risks.

Informed the project team that he has a Bed and Breakfast(B&B) establishment on the Oyster Bay Road (between St Francis Bay and Oyster Bay) that is 80% complete, and would prefer not to continue with the development until there is clarity whether or not the proposed power lines might traverse his property. Should the power lines traverse his property it could negatively impact the return on his investment.

HORLOCK, Mr Clive Landowner: St Francis Bay E-mail: 05 January 2010

Responded that all possibly affected landowners are identified, notified and their properties are “mapped” on the project’s landowners map. Property details were requested to ensure that property is mapped. The EIA process could take up the first half of 2010 and DEA (decision-making authority) has 105 days to either grant or refuse an Environmental Authorisation. From the EIA process side, and as also mentioned by Eskom representatives, I&AP was advised to proceed with planned developments, especially if the development received approval from the relevant local authority. Nicolene Venter: SiVEST (e-mail: 05 January 2010) The aforementioned property falls within a section of the Southern Corridor that has been discarded due to fatal flaws identified with this part of the route from a socio-economic, visual and tourism perspective. The property thus no longer falls within a corridor and will thus not be directly affected by the proposed power lines. In a general context, the socio-economic specialist study has addressed the potential impacts of the proposed power lines on development opportunities and the potential inhibition of these.

Informed the project team that the proposed project will have significant financial implications. Authorisation for the development (to operate an accommodation establishment) was secured. However, shortly after the property was bought, new power lines (Dx) were erected on the property of which he was not informed, notified nor compensated for.

Concern has been forwarded to the SIA specialist for consideration during their economic assessment. Nicolene Venter: SiVEST (e-mail: 06 January 2010) Please refer to comment above


Page 27


Enquired if he decided to continue with the development on his property, as suggested, how would he be compensated if the proposed Transmission Lines becomes a factor?

As the negotiation and compensation process falls outside SiVEST’s Scope of Work, the question has been forwarded to Eskom for a response. Nicolene Venter: SiVEST (e-mail: 06 January 2010) Eskom will enter into negotiations for compensation with property owners for a property on which power line servitude is proposed to be developed, however this will not occur in this case as the aforementioned property no longer falls within the corridor.

Local people who have experience on energy and skills on power lines, what will they benefit from the project. The project team was also informed that some form of upliftment and/or upliftment benefits (empowering local community members) should form part of the social responsibilities of this proposed project

HOTE, Clr Mewandile NMBM UDF Community Meeting Monday, 20 June 2011

It is believed that there will not be a large number of jobs available during the construction of the power lines and it is a highly skilled work. Those present were requested to make themselves, and the skills they have, known to their local authorities so that when a contractor is appointed and local workers are required, they will have access to the local skills available. The indirect benefit from this project, should it be approved by the DEA, is the strengthening of the electricity network in the Eastern Cape Province and the National Grid. Lerato Mokgwatlheng, Eskom Transmission Eskom Development Forum has an incubator programme and various criteria is in place to establish which community(ties) will form part of the programme(s). Sea Vista has been identified through the Nuclear-1 Project as a beneficiary by Eskom Development Forum. It was further mentioned that the Eskom Development Forum is also investigating satellite incubator programmes in partnership with SEDA to train people with skills to enable them to tender professionally for projects. This might be taken forward to the Kouga Local Municipality as well. Pearl Joseph, Eskom Development Forum

MOJALEFA, Mr Vingi Member: SANGOCO KwaDwezi/Motherwell Community Meeting Tuesday, 21 June 2011 SIKWEYIYA, Ms Ethel Member: UDF UDF Community Meeting Monday, 20 June 2011 WILLIAMS, Chief Gamtkwa Khoisan Meeting, Tuesday, 21 June 2011

MOTHERWELL Councillors Community Meeting Wednesday, 22 June 2011

All present at the meeting raised this key point and the response provided above was given at this meeting by Lerato Mokgwatlheng and Pearl Joseph from Eskom.

MOTHERWELL NU2 (NGOs/CBOs & Community Leaders) Community Meeting


Page 28


Thursday, 23 June 2011

KWADWESI (NGOs/CBOs & Community Leaders) Community Meeting Thursday, 23 June 2011 ROSEDALE, Kamesh, Tiryville & Mountain View Community Leaders Friday 24 June 2011 UMZAMOWETHU (Oyster Bay) Residents Community Meeting Wednesday, 22 June 2011

Eskom Development Forum has an incubator programme and various criteria is in place to establish which community(ties) will form part of the programme(s). Umzamowethu has been identified through the Nuclear-1 Project as a beneficiary by Eskom Development Forum. It was further mentioned that the Eskom Development Forum is also investigating satellite incubator programmes in partnership with SEDA to train people with skills to enable them to tender professionally for projects. This might be taken forward to the Kouga Local Municipality as well. Pearl Joseph, Eskom Development Forum

Concern raised regarding the possible decline in property value should power lines traverse their property.

HUMAN, Mr & Mrs Landowner Brandkloof Arcus GIBB Comment Form: 5 June 2010

The socio-economic specialist study (Appendix 11 in the FEIR) has addressed in detail the potential impacts of the proposed power lines on development opportunities and the potential inhibition of these opportunities The study has identified sensitive areas along the corridors from a social and economic perspective. A number of recommendations were made in the study to avoid such areas, including the discarding of certain parts of the Southern Corridor. The EIA Team –preferred alignment has followed these recommendations and has avoided these sensitive areas as far as possible

VILJOEN, Mr ML Farm Owner Arcus GIBB Comment Form: 10 May 2010

In confirming that only a 100 people from Kouga could be employed while a total of 500 skilled workers would be brought in, this will be an additional burden on Kouga for housing, sewages, kids, and families.

KRAAK, Cheron Resident: Jeffreys Bay Business Woman

It is unlikely that all skilled workers will be housed in one local community due to the length of the line. The contractor will decide how the work team will be split and housed. Once the construction


Page 29


Thyspunt Alliance Representing Surfers of the World PM: 28 September 2011

is completed, they will move out. It also needs to be mentioned that the construction workers do not bring their families. It is also recommended that should there be a need for construction camps, that these be constructed close to the power line construction area. Nonka Byker, MasterQ The appointed construction company has to adhere to Eskom’s standard of construction camps, if these are required, such as running water, electricity and good accommodation structures. However, Eskom prefer to have construction camps in urban areas and temporary in nature. Should the project be granted an Environmental Authorisation and Eskom can start with negotiating a line, Land Owners will be approached for making a portion of land available for the construction sites. Dean Wilson, Eskom

It was recommended the team must speak to the local people living and working on the farms to inform them what potential negative impactsthere could be, especially from a social point of view, and to answer questions that they may have.


Comment noted

It was asked that with the outcome of the existing EMF study, if someone should live under a power line what would the result be and is it a fact or just an assumption.

The 765kV Tx power lines along the N1 were built in the late 1980s and landowners (Los)who have high voltage power lines on their properties for 20 odd years, no medical problems have been reported to Eskom to date. Should it become known and Eskom made aware of such medical cases, then Eskom would need to consider it. Dean Wilson, Eskom Post-note meeting: Reference is made to the “Electric and Magnetic Fields from Overhead Power Line -A Summary of Technical and Biological Aspects” prepared by EMPETUS CC”, in the Revised Draft EIR - Appendix 15 Electric and Magnetic Fields. Lerato Mokgwatlheng, Eskom

People raise job opportunities as a key point but the jobs will not be sustainable if there is not water resource

MALAN, Trudi Chairman: Thyspunt Alliance & Cape St Francis Civics

Post-meeting note:The construction process followed by Eskom whilst erecting the power lines is complicated and requires highly skilled technical


Page 30


PM Sea Vista, St Francis Bay: 29 September 2011

people; therefore locals would not be employed for that process, but by law local businesses and individuals will have to be employed wherever possible. Karin Bowler: Karin Bowler Enterprises (Scoping Phase Comments and Response Report) It is has been well documented and notified that jobs would not be long term or sustainable jobs. Jobs would largely be limited to the construction phase of the project. Details of the estimated job opportunities expected during the various phases of the project can further be found in Table 3.3 of the Social Impact Assessment Specialist Study. Rebecca Thomas, SiVEST

It was commented that exception is taken regarding the EMF Report as included in the DEIR. SiVEST has taken the study done by Eskom in 2006, which was done in line with the Equator Principle. This is seen as a ‘cut and paste’. There are signs of leukaemia in children that has been caused by power lines. These power lines are going to affect people in Kruisfontein and that is a fatal flaw.

The attendee was thanked for her comment and expressed the team’s appreciation for the time spent to research this issue. It is certainly not something that the team will discard. SiVEST had to refer to the independent study undertaken on behalf of Eskom regarding the EMF and take note of the attendee’s comment regarding the validity of the study. As stated in the EMF Report, EMFs are negligible at the boundary of the 55m servitude and it is likely it would decrease the further one moved away from the servitude boundary. SiVEST’s recommendation will be that the power lines be constructed as far away as possible to limit or avoid any possible impact on human health in the Kruisfontein area. Paul da Cruz, SiVEST

It was stated that the same context regarding EMF in the Agricultural Report has been picked up. This area is a dairy industry and the specialist refers back to a study done in 1989. She has evidence of six (6) court cases where power lines are running over dairy farms and its affect on cattle. The Precautionary principle should be addressed because it is not in the Report. Studies from America and Canada show that there is an influence, even on employment, by the reduction of milk production and as stated, this is a prime dairy area in the country. The Agriculture Study is perceived as being a desk top study and that the specialist used the ‘cut and paste’ method. This is one of the Reports were SiVEST slipped up and needs

Post-meeting note:An agricultural rating system has been developed to avoid high value agricultural centres, which includes dairy farms and associated centre pivots. It is hoped that this low impact routing will avoid such centres and thus mitigate the suggested impacts. Kurt Barichievy, SiVEST


Page 31


to be redone. Eskom needs to take responsibility by acknowledging that “yes” there is an impact on human life and milk production. Mentioned that he has no objection to the project, and further wished success thereof as the community needs work opportunities.

MEI, Mr Andile Resident: KwaNobuhle, Uitenhage EIA Newsletter Comment Form Post: 11 January 2010

The project team thanked the attendee for the positive comment raised regarding the proposed project.

Met verwysing na ons gesprek vanoggend, wil ek vra dat my voorlegging rakende die ekonomiese impak op my melkboerdery op plase Doringrug en Stillerus, Humansdorp, soos beїnvloed deur die moontlike konstruksie van die hoogspanningslyne en beplande roete daarvan regdeur spilpuntbesproeiingstelsels en oor Doringrug melkstal ondersoek en evalueer sal word, asook die voorgestelde rigtingverandering van die lyne om besproeiing en melkstal te mis. Dit is slegs geringe rigtingveranderings wat voorgestel word en hiermee sal die ekonomiese impak op die boerdery en sy mense en koeie dramaties minder wees. Ek vra verder dat nadat jy die voorlegging bestudeer het, dat jy met my kontak sal maak vir moontlike afspraak. Translation: With reference to the telephonic discussion it was requested that the recommendations submitted regarding the economic impact on the diary farm activities on the farms Doringrug en Stillerus, Humansdorp, that would be possibly affected by the construction of high voltage power lines as per the planned routing through the centre pivots on the Doringrug dairy be investigated and evaluated, to be rerouted to avoid the dairy and the centre pivots. Through slight re-alignment these negative impacts can be avoided

MEYER, Mr Migo E-mail: 22 September 2010

Met verwysing na ondergenoemde e-pos en die daaropvolgende e-pos wat jy verlede week gestuur het, deel ek jou graag mee dat ons Sosiale en Socio-Ekonomiese spesialiste (Nonka Byer en Raoul de Villiers) die besluit moet neem of hulle jou versoek vir ‘n afspraak gaan toestaan al dan nie. Ons bevestig wel, dat die verslag soos saamgestel deur Dr Wolsley Barnard rakende die ekenomiese impak op die melkboeredry op die plase Doringrug en Stillerus wat in die omgewingsondersoeke ingesluit is en aangespreek sal word. Nicolene Venter- SiVEST – 16 November 2010 Translation: The request for a meeting as per the two e-mails has been forwarded to the SIA specialist for consideration. It was confirmed that the Report, as drafted by Dr Wolsley Barnard in terms of the economic impact on the diary activities on the farms Doringrug and Stillerus will be addressed by the environmental team.

To add to the comment made by Mr Hammond, it was mentioned that people are being relocated as a result of development and this negative impact is further enhanced by the fact that there will be no sustainable job opportunities during the construction and operation of these power lines

MEYER, Mike Resident: Jeffrey’s Bay PM Pellsrus, Jefxfrey’s Bay

It was reiterated that relocation of people due to the power lines will be avoided at all costs – not only due to the social impact on the people who need to be relocated, but it also has a huge cost implication for Eskom. Paul da Cruz, SiVEST

In terms of the map included in the EIA Newsletter, it is not possible to exactly determine the potential impact on the Crossway/Sunnyvale project, the neighbouring farms as well as Thornhill Townships. Mentioned that his observation is that the newly proposed corridor is completely

MULDER, Dr Chris Chairman: Crossways and Sunnyvale Development Company Letter: 15 December 2009

Detailed maps are available on SiVEST’s website (http://www.sivest.co.za/Download.aspx, scroll to 9520 Thyspunt EIA). A Property Data Form was forwarded to I&AP to enable SiVEST’s GIS Specialist mapping the info on the Landowners’ map.


Page 32


running over: • The town/village of Thornhill which has in excess of 3000 inhabitants in a

signed agreement with C&S (Crossways and Sunnyvale Development Company) will contribute in excess of R15 million to a Thornhill trust.

• Thornhill will also benefit in terms of job opportunities with an excess of 4 900 will be created during and post construction.

• The corridor runs over four more proclaimed and existing townships surrounding the proposed C&S development.

• C&S development is situated exactly in the middle of the proclaimed and already existing townships, Woodridge College and in the middle of the cluster of the existing townships in the rural mode surrounding the proposed C&S development

All registered developments will be taken into consideration during the environmental specialists’ investigation and where possible such registered developments will be avoided. Nicolene Venter: SiVEST The socio-economic specialist study has addressed in detail the potential impacts of the proposed power lines on development opportunities and proclaimed and approved developments in the study area. The study has identified sensitive areas along the corridors from a social and economic perspective. A number of recommendations were made in the study to avoid such areas, including the discarding of certain parts of the Southern Corridor. The part of the Southern Corridor in the vicinity of the Crossways Farm development was identified as a fatal flaw by the socio-economic specialists as the development occupied the entire width of the corridor. Routing the power lines through this area was also identified as problematic from a visual perspective. The recommendation was made by the socio-economic specialists to shift this part of the Southern Corridor north into the southern firebreak alternative of the Northern Corridor, with the Northern Corridor shifting to the northern firebreak alternative. These recommendations have been accepted by the EIA team, and this part of the Southern Corridor has been discarded under the latest corridors. The EIA Team–preferred alignment thus avoids the Crossways development completely and is not associated with any visual impact as it is proposed to run behind the Van Stadens mountains.

Commented that any development that could benefit the community is a good initiative and will be supported by the community. The project team was informed that a development that will benefit the community is being proposed and falls within the corridor and enquired whether or not the power line project will affect the development and if so to what extent.

MZWANDILE, Mr Stanley Chairman: Uitenhage Development Forum Feedback Meeting: 14 October 2010

Consultation has been done with the Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality. SiVEST are aware of this development. The corridor has been narrowed significantly especially to avoid the Hopewell Conservancy and the associated development. Liesl Koch, SiVEST


Page 33


Post meeting note: The Southern Corridor has been shifted north to avoid the Hopewell Conservancy

Informed the project team that a nature reserve project between St Albans and KwaNobuhle has already been established. A concern was raised in terms of the impact that the power lines could have on the project.

The project team was made aware of the HopewellConservancy and planned development and consultation with the landowner / developer had taken place. Nicolene Venter, SiVEST

A request was made to consider another route option as there are concerns regarding the impacts the power lines might have on children, animals (i.e. safety and health) etc. This alternative could run closer to the existing power lines

Request regarding possible alternative routing will be included in the environmental studies. Concern expressed regarding the possible negative impacts on children and animals will be forwarded to the Social and Socio-Economic Specialist. Liesl Koch, SiVEST

It was commented that at the previous community meeting held at Sea Vista, the community understood the power line project. Eskom took a group of community members to Koeberg to see how things work and what they saw is that everything is fine. It was asked as to why the project is back again as it seems nothing gets done other than just having meetings and our people need work. Come and build the nuclear power station. There arepower lines crossing the area already and we don’t see people dying. It was requested that the difference between the power lines that is presented at the meeting and those that are currently in the area be explained, and especially the electro-magnetic frequency(EMF) impact.

NTENLTWANE, Nomalungelo Resident: Sea Vista PM Sea Vista, St Francis Bay: 29 September 2011

The comments regarding the proposed Nuclear Power Station is noted and will be forwarded to Arcus GIBB. The difference between the existing power lines in the area and those being proposed by this proposed project is: • Existing power lines: They are smaller lines with lower voltage and are usually

constructed with wooden poles. These are the ones that distribute power from a Eskom

Distribution (Dx) substation to the Local Municipalities. These smaller lines have a smaller span between the

towers. • Proposed Tx power lines: These are huge steel structures. Approximately 33m high. These high voltage lines general have a span of 400m between the towers, it could be less or it could be more, depending on the terrain.


Page 34


Paul da Cruz, SiVEST A report in Eskom’s possession indicates that the level of exposure at the edge of the servitude is not hazardous. One of the reasons why Eskom has a registered servitude and does not allow humans to live under the power lines is to protect them should the towers collapse and to also place them where EMF is known to be within guidelines. Caswell Ndlovu, Eskom As mentioned, the smaller power lines do have a narrower servitude compared to the bigger lines but the exposure to EMFs under both these voltage lines are the same. Liesl Koch, SiVEST Post meeting: The power lines in the area are reticulation lines and are between 11kV and 22kV and people can live close to these voltage lines. The higher the voltage, the higher the EMF and it is for this reason why a much larger servitude is required. Eskom does not allow people to live under these power lines because of the hazards of high voltage should the line break or collapse. The measured EMF’s at the edge of the servitudes are within the required (ICNIRP and IEEE) guidelines. Caswell Ndlhovu, Eskom

Referred to photos on page 50 of section B (draft Scoping Report) Farm Syfergat is 86 hectares. 44Ha agricultural ground that is used for intensive farming. 42 Ha Swartkopsrivier where Habron Quarries is mining. Informed us that he is a bona-fide farmer and farming is his only income. There are 7 families living on Syfergat and he provides employment for 20 of those people.

PETOUT, Mr Marius Syfergat, Gasteplaas and Boerdery Arcus GIBB Comment Form: 10 May 2010

The potential impacts of the power lines on agricultural potential have been addressed in detail in the agricultural potential and socio-economic studies. These studies recommend the avoiding odf areas of intensive agricultural production, especially where centre pivots are located. One such area is the Kruisrivier area. Both the socio-economic and agricultural potential studies have suggested alignments of the Northern Corridor lines to avoid these areas within Kruisrivier. These recommendations have been taken into account in the creation of the EIA Team-preferred alignment for the Northern Corridor, and this alignment avoids the areas of agricultural production as far as possible.


Page 35


The productivity of the dairy farms will be impacted negatively by the proposed power lines and as part of the loss in productivity goes unemployment as farm workers will lose their jobs. It was asked as to how many jobs will be lost in the tourism and agriculture sectors as it is understood that it would be thousands.

DENNIS, Robbie Community Leader: Pellsrus

No job losses are currently foreseen as farming activities can proceed under power lines as normal. Sensitive agricultural areas and activities such as centre pivots have been taken into account by the EIA and have been avoided as far as possible. There is no real hard evidence that there will be a loss of jobs in the tourism industry due to the presence of power lines. Paul da Cruz, SiVEST

Frustration has been expressed that the power lines will come whatever the community say. They know what the socio–economic impact will be as Eskom will advertise a few jobs and then there will be an influx of people into the area and the community will sit with them. Informal settlement is already a problem in the area as there is currently no electricity or water supply from Kouga Local Municipality. The residents understand the need for electricity but that the few jobs that will be available be given to the communities within Kouga.

It was asked as to how many farm workers are there on each of the farms that are impacted by the power lines and what would the impact on that particular farm be. .

The effects of job loss versus job creation is a very valid issue. Should agricultural land be sterilized, i.e. traversing over irrigated land, then there could be job losses. That potential has been assessed and is in the Agricultural Specialist Report that gives much more detail, especially around agricultural potential. The point has been taken into account and the agricultural and social economic of dairy productions which has a higher output of products, has been identified as hot spots. SiVEST’s recommendation is to avoid these impacts as far as possible. Paul da Cruz, SiVEST

Spreek haar kommer uit oor die impak wat die kraglyne op hulle as inwoners kan hê, veral omdat dit van die kernkragstasie af kom. Translation: Express his concern that the power line will have on them as residents especially since the lines are coming from the nuclear power station.

SWARTZ, Rowanda SWARTZ, Natasha Residents: Tiryville Tiryville Community Meeting: Thursday 26 January 2012

Soos per die aanbieding van Eskom se Kernkrag Fisikus is die voorgestelde kraglyne nie radio-aktief nie aangesien dit gewone elektrisiteit is wat die lyne voorsien, ongeag of dit van ‘n kern kragstasie of steenkool kragstasie af kom. Nicolene Venter, SiVEST Translation: As per Eskom’s Nuclear Physicist’s presentation the proposed power lines are not radio-active as it is normal electricity that is provided through the lines whether the power is generated by a nuclear power station or a coal fired power station.

It was asked as to how close will the power lines be to the residents of Kruisfontein. He expressed his concern that it is believed that no study has been done regarding the impact of the power lines on humans of the power lines.

THUYLMAN, Andrew Resident: Pellsrus PM Pellsrus, Jeffrey’s Bay: 28

The Corridor runs relatively close to the western side of Kruisfontein and if one has a closer look at the detailed maps it will be noted that there are no human settlements or urban areas


Page 36


September 2011 included in the Corridor. The EIA-Team preferred routing is also not adjacent to the outer edge of Kruisfontein and does not traverse / go over the community. Information received from Kouga Local Municipality shows that the areas of expansion of Kruisfontein and Humansdorp are proposed to be south east rather than to the north north-west. It is important to note that the boundary of edge of Kruisfontein is 100m from the edge of the Corridor. Paul da Cruz, SiVEST

Acknowledged a late receipt of email due to email being directed to spam folder.Raised a concern that the impact studies exclude relocation and also that the Transmission Power line could go over the owner’s property. Indicated that for the documents read on the website it seems that the owner’s property falls outside the proposed Fitcher's Corner substation but right in the middle of the Southern Corridor’s 2km grid. However, the studies conducted fail to address the individual owner's concerns. For example, the property owner plansto erect a cottage, new fences and to clear some bush. As a smallholding owner (not a business) the position of the route is of utmost importance. Queried who will make the final decision and how (when) will it be known?

VAN DER MERWE, Mr Andre Landowner: Brakkefontein Email: 10 October 2010

Believed it could be size of the documents that might have diverted the response email to spam folder. Re-sent and Invitation to Feedback Meeting to be held on Thursday’s meetings, but I&AP is welcome to attend any one of the Feedback Meetings. In response to “who will make the final decision and how (when) will it be known”:

• “who” - The competent authority that will make the final decision is the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA), they will either accept o reject the Environmental application.

• “how” – DEA will take all the specialists’ studies as well as the Comments/Issues and concerns received from interested and/or affected parties (I&APs) into consideration. Environmental legislation will also be considered by the relevant authority

• “when” – after completion of the EIA, envisaged to be around April 2010 when the final Environmental Impact Assessment Report will be submitted to DEA

In addition, by the end of the environmental specialists’ studies, will SiVEST be able to indicate where there are sensitive areas are that need to be avoided as far as possible and it is envisaged that the draft Environmental Impact Report, in which this information


Page 37


will be, will be available for your review and comment probably from mid-January to end February 2011. Nicolene Venter Email: 10 October 2010 Further Response to Comment: The socio-economic study has addressed the potential effects of the proposed power lines on smallholdings and new farm infrastructure (development potential).

Stated that there are too many small holdings in Kruisrivier and so many people and animals will get affected by the construction of power lines. Informed us that he irrigates 40Ha of ground and there are about 20 families that make a living from this farm.

VOIGT, Mr CA Kruisrivier Inwoners Vereniging Arcus GIBB Comment Form: 5 June 2010

The potential impacts of the power lines on agricultural potential and smallholdings have been addressed in detail in the agricultural potential and socio-economic studies. These studies recommend the avoiding of areas of intensive agricultural production, especially where centre pivots are located. Areas of smallholdings have also been identified as sensitive areas by the socio-economic study. One such area is the Kruisrivier area. Both the socio-economic and agricultural potential studies have suggested alignments of the Northern Corridor lines to avoid these areas within Kruisrivier. These recommendations have been taken into account in the creation of the EIA Team-preferred alignment for the Northern Corridor, and this alignment avoids the areas of agricultural production and smallholdings as far as possible

It was asked as to how MTO calculated their investment as the forest burnt down completely in 2005 and it is believed that this fact needs to be taken into account.


Comparisons are not made directly between one figure to the next. There should be a judgement call in line of an argument. Forestry value is generally based on effort and purchase, and the investment made to get to 1ha of forestry to grow trees, i.e. roads and firebreaks. The calculation of investment on forestry was done by taking the current South African figures, on average, for pine forestry. Raoul de Villiers, World-Wize

The following financial questions were raised: • what the expenses are for growing trees over a 20 year period; and has the calculation been done with the current figures in place or over a 20 year period.

No expenses are associated with growing forestry. The investment made is probably more associated with the establishment and maintenance of roads and other structures to ensure productive yields. It needs to be noted that should established forestry areas be lost or potential forestry land, compensation needs to be paid. The production cycle is very important as on average land is only


Page 38


productive every 10 years. By calculating the average revenue per hectare per year for every 10 years, and that would be the possible compensation figure. Raoul de Villiers, World-Wize

The project team was informed that the forestry labours are lowly paid and asked whether this will count against Elands River Valley when a decision regarding the power line routing is made.

Forestry does not require an intensive work force. On average it is 0.5 jobs per hectare i.e. should about 405 hectares of forestry be lost it is envisaged that there would be about 25 job losses. Raoul de Villiers, World-Wize

In response to SiVEST’s notification that the Economic Report will be included in the Revised DEIR for review, it was asked whether this would be another desktop study.

It needs to be noted that the specialist report as per the Revised DEIR and FEIR are not desktop study reports but detailed assessments. Rebecca Thomas, SiVEST To do an in-depth Economic Study one will have to do a door-to-door survey and at this stage of the EIA it would not be feasible to undertake such a study. The information gather and assessed as per the Economic Report cover what is required for the Department to make an informed-decision. However, it is recommended, as mentioned in the presentation that Eskom consider a Tourism Impact Study on the same basis as the EMF. Raoul de Villiers, World-Wize

The project team was informed that the attendee is also the Traditional Healer. Dit was genoem dat dit wat Eskom wegneem kan nie weer terug gegee word nie en daar moet gekyk word na hoe mense voel. Translation: It was mentioned that what Eskom is taking away cannot be replaced and they need to take people’s feelings into consideration.

!KROTÕA, August Chief: Gamtkwa Khoisan FGM: Saturday 28 January 2012

Information appreciated and noted and Eskom is listening to the concerns and feelings expressed by the Council. Lerato Mokgwatlheng, Eskom

8. Tourism Impact Comments/Issues Expressed the Conservancy’s thank and appreciation that Eskom is looking at undertaking further studies regarding the impact of power lines on Tourism.


Comment noted. Post-meeting note: Eskom further requested quotations for the undertaking of primary research field surveys in an effort to quantify impacts of power lines on tourism activities. Due to the fact there has been no precedent set with regards to such research, quotations were not

The project team was informed that the Elands River Conservancy Committee represents 13 000ha and within one year the tourism ventures in the area grew from nine (9) to 14 and these are all loose entities. It would therefore be more difficult to do a comprehensive study on Tourism income/loss than that of Cape Pines.


Page 39


It was commented that it is more difficult to assess the impact on tourism than the impact on possible income loss that might be endured by Cape Pines.

received timeously. The consultants requested additional time to develop potential methodologies to achieve the task. One proposal was received for the undertaking of a baseline study, to serve as a standard for power line development across South Africa. The study proposed would require 9 to 12 months of work and would aim to quantify the impacts on tourism, by means of percentage increase or decrease over certain period from pre-construction to a number of years after construction of power lines. Eskom would be willing to commission such a study for consideration in future power line developments.

The project team was informed that what the specialists see from the road are neglected municipal areas next to the road. There is a treasure further from the road onto the farm and the studies cannot be done in 2 or 3 hours. It is believed that the point has now been reached where the services of students need to be called in to do 5 to 10 year studies of real potential impacts.

Comment noted.

The project team was informed that on a certain base cost, 15% could be profit or you could loose 15% of visitors and not make money. One would need 85% occupancy to cover input cost.


In agreement that 15% could make all the difference in profit or loss. Raoul de Villiers, World-Wize

It was commented that a point that has not been discussed or mentioned in the DEIR is the fact that the area is now turning into an industrial area as the change would have a negative impact on tourism.

KRAAK, Cheron Resident: Jeffreys Bay Business Woman Thyspunt Alliance Representing Surfers of the World PM Pellsrus, Jeffrey’s Bay: 28 September 2011

It was asked for clarification that the change as mentioned by the attendee is unavoidable. If so, it can be state that it is not the case as visual would be the only impact. Paul da Cruz, SiVEST

The project team was informed that the two entities’ nature of business differ vastly i.e. in the Elands River Valley there are a wide range of tourism facilities and it would be difficult for the Economic Specialist to evaluate their income.

SMITH, Graham Member: Elands River conservancy FGM: 17 September 2012

The attendees were informed that there would be no need for them to open their books to him as an Economist, and that the figures can be aggravated from information such as how many beds does the establishment have multiply by their daily cost. Raoul de Villiers, World-Wize

It was stated that there are 18 Tourism enterprises in the Elands River Valley Conservation and Tourism Route, and enquired whether all enterprises have been notified of the proposed TTLIP project.


To date 13 tourism enterprises were identified in the area mentioned and it is requested that the Elands River Valley Conservation & Tourism Route provide SiVEST with their list of members and those in the Valley that are not members. Nicolene Venter: SiVEST


Page 40


Further Response to Comment: The tourism and visual specialist studies identified the Elands River Valley as a highly sensitive area and thus a fatal flaw for routing of the proposed power lines due to the density of power lines. It was thus recommended that the proposed Northern Corridor power lines avoid traversing the Elands River Valley as far as possible. The latest version of the corridor and the EIA Team-preferred alignment for the Northern Corridor were moved away from the Elands River valley, and do not run on the southern ridge of the valley where the lines would be highly visible. The degree of impact on the Elands River valley would thus be minimised.

In possession of a signed agreement to operate: • Hiking trails • Cycling trail (trails follow existing trails within the Longmore Property) • Farther-Son & Mother-Daughter weekends • These tourism activities may be negatively affected by the proposed power

lines if these traverse this area.

LO Open House Van Stadens Farmers Association Hall: 22 February 2011

The presence of these tourism activities has been noted in the routing of the EIA Team-preferred route, and has been noted by the tourism study. The EIA Team Preferred Alignment for the Northern Corridor has been moved to the south of the ridge so that these activities would not affected by the proposed power lines.

9. Heritage Impact Related Comments/Issues The project team was informed that the whole study area for the Tx power lines is littered with KhoiSan heritage.

Cynthia Council Member: Gamtkwa Khoisan Council FGM: Saturday 28 January 2012

Comment noted and will be forwarded to the Heritage Specialist.

It was commented that the Heritage Report oppose an immediate stop to the Eskom Tx project as a proper Heritage survey south of Humansdorp and the Hankey area has not been properly survey for heritage sites and artefacts.

HJUL, Paul Resident: Jeffreys Bay PM Pellsrus, Jeffrey’s Bay: 28 September 2011

SiVEST take note of the concerns and recommendations made and will provide feedback in the draft minutes. Paul da Cruz, SiVEST

It was mentioned that heritage sites will be avoided as far as possible, and it was asked whether with respect to those heritage sites that were not identified prior to construction, would the contractor dug up the artifacts / fosils found and throw their hands up Will the whole length of the line be walked down by specialists?


It is recommended in the Draft EMP (that forms part of the DEIR) that a walk down must take place prior to construction and this process is supported by SAHRA. SAHRA also requested more detailed studies. The EMP is explicit in terms of the process to be followed if a heritage site or artefacts are encountered accidently by the construction team. Should such an event occur, the construction will stop immediately, the area would be cordoned off


Page 41


and SAHRA notified. A suitable qualified Heritage Specialist will assess the site prior to construction. Paul da Cruz, SiVEST

Enquired about the expertise and knowledge of the Heritage specialist, specifically with regards to his knowledge of coastal heritage and the Eastern Cape itself.

REICHERT, Kobus Representative: Gamtkwa Khoisan Council Feedback Meeting: 11 October 2010

Johnny van Schalkwyk is the newly appointed Heritage specialist and his field of expertise will be confirmed, Liesl Koch, SiVEST Post-meeting note: Johnny van Schalkwyk’s CV is attached to the Minutes as Appendix D.

The various applications have been read and it was found that no local archaeologists have been consulted or made used of.

See comment above.

The project team was informed that it needs to be made clear that the Heritage Assessment has to be done the right way. A Heritage Specialist who done an assessment for a 132kV, has no experience as was realised with the assessment done by the specialist for Red Cap. An example of what we are dealing with is:

• You need early, middle and late Stone Age specialist and not an Iron Age specialist.

• The Heritage Specialists used on project in the area have no experience regarding coastal heritage, and this issue has been raised over and over.

• A local specialist, Dr Johan Binneman, is either ignored or not even consulted by the project Heritage Specialists.

• The above resulted in incorrect information reaching the decision-makers i.e. SAHRA gave permission for the Red Cap Development based on information provided by the Archaeologist. This has resulted that 3 – 4 turbines were proposed on a sensitive cultural landscape. Misleading info has resulted in a successful EA. The Red Cap Development was put on hold until SAHRA had revised their decision

It is the perception that EAPs such as Arcus GIBB allowed misleading information to go to decision-makers. It is recommended that local specialists with local knowledge be used; Dr Johhny van Schalkwyk’s assessment is not accepted and it needs to be pointed out that he has not consulted with any one local. This needs to be done as soon as possible as the community would like to avoid another “Red Cap” situation.

PM Pellsrus, Jeffrey’s Bay: 28 September 2011

SiVEST take note of the concerns and recommendations made and will provide feedback in the draft minutes. Paul da Cruz, SiVEST Post-meeting note: A Focus Group Meeting was convened with the Gamtkwa KhoiSan Council on Saturday 28 January 2012 to acquire more information and feedback from the Council on heritage issues relating to the proposed power lines. In order to address heritage issues relating to KhoiSan Heritage, an additional study to address this has been convened.

It was enquired as to what would the procedure be should a heritage site i.e. a burial site be identified and it turns out to be impossible to move the tower, what is the legal procedure in such a situation.

FGM: Saturday 28 January 2012 Eskom will attempt every effort possible to avoid heritage sites and would rather move a tower than destroy such a site. If such a site cannot be avoided by moving the tower, SAHRA will be notified


Page 42


and consulted. Paul da Cruz, SiVEST Should such a situation occur, Eskom’s construction team will stop the construction, cordon off the area, and contact SAHRA immediately. SAHRA, as the legal authority, will, after evaluating the situation request Eskom to apply for a permit to have the remains removed and/or relocated. This process will take place through a consultation process with i.e. the Council or the party concerned. Lerato Mokgwatlheng, Eskom

It was asked as to how many such cases were formally reported to SAHRA since 2000.

The information requested is not at hand and an enquiry would have to be made to both Eskom Tx and Eskom Dx. This information will be requested and included in the I&RR that will form part of the FEIR. Lerato Mokgwatlheng, Eskom Further Response to Comment: No previous record could be traced or found. It appears that the sites were avoided during planning and construction phase of power lines. The only heritage issue that has been reported to SAHRA is that of the graves found within the new Mookodi substation boundary site in Vryburg, North West Province. This happened in 2012. The six graves were identified when construction was about to commence. The graves were fenced-off. SAHRA and Naledi Local Municipality were contacted. Eskom met with SAHRA and it (Eskom) was informed that an independent heritage specialist must be appointed to undertake the permit application on behalf of Eskom. Currently Eskom is in the process of appointing a heritage specialist to do the work. Lerato Mokgwatlheng, Eskom

The project team was informed that heritage sites would be found throughout the whole study area. There is a lot of oral history in the study area and a large amount of rock art has been found by mountain climbers. It is believed that iron age sites could also be found in the study area.

Comment noted. It was confirmed that SiVEST is in the process of drafting a ToR for the appointment of a Heritage Practitioner with Coastal Heritage experience to assess and write-up an addendum to the HIAR with the focus on the KhoiSan aspects. Paul da Cruz, SiVEST

It was mentioned that in the presentation reference was made to ‘local specialist’. It needs to be noted that no local specialist has been approached and the Council has put forward Johan Binneman as a local specialist to be approached and a SoW be forwarded to him.

It can be confirmed that Johan Binneman has been approached and the request to provide a quote for the undertaking of the addendum study was declined by him. This has been confirmed by e-mail to which Mr Reichert was copied.


Page 43


Paul da Cruz, SiVEST It was stated that the project must adhere to the minimum requirements as set out by SHARA for the HIA.

As previously mentioned, SiVEST is in the process of appointing a Coastal Archaeologist and the Terms of Reference will include consultation with local structures as the Council, 5km from costal to inland. It is also confirmed that the appointed Coastal Archaeologist must be accredited with SAHRA and ASACA. Bernadette Solomon, Eskom

Reference was made to material from the United Nations Conference held on 25 August 2001 in terms of indigenous people in North America which was attended by the delegate. The view raised at the conference is supported by the Gamtkwa KhoiSan Council. Upon request from the team to inform them of known sensitive heritage sites within the Tx power line study area to ensure that these sites are mapped, assessed and addressed by the Heritage Specialist, the delegate informed the team that the Council will not assist in this matter.

SWARTS, Dr N Chairman: Gamtkwa Khoisan Council FGM: Saturday 28 January 2012

United Nations Conference reference material noted. Refusal noted.

The project team was informed that both the proposed corridors run through Khoisan territory and requested that the culture and heritage of the Khoisan people are respected especially during the construction period. This relates specifically to the Khoisan’s cleansing and healing ceremonies that could take place during the construction period.

WILLIAMS, Chief Gamtkwa Khoisan Meeting Tuesday, 21 June 2011

This information was acknowledged and the information regarding the cleansing and healing ceremonies will be forwarded to the Social and Heritage Specialists. Nicolene Venter, SiVEST

10. Conservation Comments/Issues

The project team was informed that the landowners adjacent to Groendal Nature Reserve were informed that there is a buffer zone around the Groendal Nature Reserve restricting any development within the buffer zone.

BLUMENTHAL, Freek Landowner LO Open House Olivia Hall: 23 February 2011

During the consultation process with the Eastern Cape Parks and Tourism Agency the team was not informed of such a buffer zone but written enquiries will be made to confirm this information. Groendal is part of a proposed World Heritage Site, and if declared, there would be a buffer zone attached to the World Heritage Site which would affect the area around Kruisrivier, however this is not yet operational.

Eastern Cape Parks has recently purchased a piece of land within the Longmore Forest adjacent to his farm (Cypherfontein) as the land is in a relatively pristine condition.

INGRAM, Clive Director: Cyperfontein LO Open House Olivia Hall: 23 February 2011

Information noted and will be taken into consideration. The EIA Team-preferred alignment has been routed to avoid traversing this property, and runs along part of the boundary. Post-Open House Note: Wayne Erlank of Eastern Cape Parks was contacted to confirm


Page 44


the boundaries of this property. The EIA Team-preferred alignment for the Southern Corridor avoids this property.

11. Visual Comments/Issues

Indicated that his property is visually sensitive and that he would not want to view the power lines from his house or his hunting farm

BARNARD, Gert Landwoner: Weltevreden LO Open House Van Stadens Farmers’ Association Hall: 22 February 2011

Information noted and will be taken into consideration. The EIA Team-preferred alignment for the Northern Corridor has been re-routed to the south of the property so as to avoid exerting a visual impact on the hunting operations on the project.

Pointed out that the visual pollution of the power lines will be detrimental to his farm that is a retreat private nature reserve and further pointed out the energy pollution as a result of the power lines (sacred ground) is not acceptable.

BARRETT, Mr John Landowner: Honeyville 304 EIA Newsletter Comment Form Fax: 01 February 2010

The EIA Team-preferred alignment for the Northern Corridor has been re-routed as far to the south of the property as possible so as to avoid exerting a visual impact on the property and the planned developments in that area.

Enquired if 3D modelling takes into account the number of people who are affected by visual impact e.g. will an area that is sparsely populated have a different weighting than an area that is densely populated?

CORRIGAN, Mr Brian Hopewell Conservation (Pty)Ltd Feedback Meeting: 14 October 2010

3D modelling is subjective. Sensitive receptors have been identified but it also depends on the types of activities. Visual absorption capacity is also taken into account but is difficult to quantify. Dependant on where the area is. It was stated that the Visual Specialist will be requested to provide detailed information during the next round of Public Meetings. Liesl Koch, SiVEST Further Response to Comment: Unfortunately 3D visual modelling cannot be undertaken for all sensitive receptor locations across the study area due to time and budget limitations. The locations to be modelled have been chosen based on areas of visual sensitivity. Representative views in areas where a number of sensitive receptor locations are located have been modelled.

Informed the project team that the corridor to the south of KwaNobuhle is earmarked for a proposed traditional practices park which has been designed to cater for initiation, growing of medicinal plants and potential tourism business for KwaNobuhle.

Requested that information regarding the location of this proposed traditional park be forwarded to SiVEST so it can be forwarded onto the relevant specialists for assessment. Liesl Koch, SiVEST Please refer to the comment in section 7 above on this issue


Page 45


The project team was informed that it would be impossible to carry on with her artwork as a painter of the natural environment if there are these monstrosities sticking out.


Comment noted.

The concern is now raised that the proposed Transmission lines appear to be a reality, and they would be unsightly and will certainly chase away customers from an ethnic/rural accommodation establishment.

HORLOCK, Mr Clive Landowner: St Francis Bay E-mail: 06 January 2010

Visual impacts will be investigated during the impact phase of the EIA and a response has been requested and will be forwarded when received. Nicolene Venter: SiVEST (e-mail: 06 January 2010) The proposed power lines are not a fait accompli and their development is subject to a number of authorisations. The visual impact of the power lines across different parts of the study area has been addressed in the visual impact assessment report. The socio-economic study has assessed the socio-economic issues relating to visual impact.

If possible, he would prefer power lines to be routed to the south of the high point (ridge) to south of his property so that the power lines are not visible on this ridge.

INGRAM, Clive Director: Cyperfontein Van Stadens Farmers’ Association Hall: 22 February 2011

Information noted and will be taken into consideration. The EIA Team-preferred alignment is routed to the south of this point. The Visual Impact Assessment report has identified this property as a sensitive receptor location and has assessed the potential visual impact associated with the power lines accordingly.

Kruisrivier consists of smallholdings, not large farms; therefore the impact of a 5km radius corridor will be very significant, both in terms of land usage and aesthetics. Stated that his business (function venue) success depends on (to a large extent) on the rustic country atmosphere and cables (with a 55m open channel) will seriously affect the viability of my business.

JONKER, Mr Jano Business owner Plumbago Hills Venue Arcus GIBB Comment Form:: 5 June 2010

Plumbago Hills has been identified as a sensitive receptor location, and the visual impact of the proposed Northern Corridor lines on the venue has been assessed in the visual impact report.

It was enquired whether there are any methods in which the 30m high towers can be screened to mitigate the negative visual impact.


The only way of mitigating power lines visual impact is to put them as far away from visual sensitive receptors as possible. Paul da Cruz, SiVEST


Page 46


Dit is genoem dat hy hewig gekant is teen die twee Suidelike Korridors aangesien hul eiendom reeds ontsier word deur kragpale en kraglyne van Eskom en Kouga Munisipaliteit. Translation: Voiced discontentment that he is very much against the two Southern Corridor lines as there are already two power lines belonging to Eskom and Kouga Local Municipality that are spoiling the land.

MALAN, Mr Rob Member: JJZ Innovations CC EIA Newsletter Comment Form Fax: 20 January 2010

The presence of existing power lines in the vicinity of the Southern Corridor is acknowledged. Due to a number of environmental factors, including potential visual impact, the Southern Corridor has been shifted northwards into the southern firebreak alternative of the Northern Corridor under the latest EIA Team-preferred corridor. The proposed lines would run through the Longmore Forest and thus would not cause a cumulative visual impact along with the existing lines.

Commented on the large negative visual impact that the transmission lines will have. Wished to know if there was anartistic rendition of the lines on SiVEST’s website.

MUNNINGS, Mr Bruce Africoast Engineers SA E-mail: 31 August 2010

Comment regarding the negative visual impact is noted and will be assessed during the EIA phase. Visual simulations will be conducted during the EIA phase and will be available on SiVEST’s website when the draft EIR is made available for public review. Nicolene Venter, SiVEST

Dit is genoem dat verskeie gesprekke persoonlik en van Elandsrivier Bewarea met SiVEST gevoer is. Dit was baie duidelik gestel dat hulle nie hierdie kraglyne oor of in sig van hul eiendom wil hê nie. Translation: It was mentioned that various discussions, personally and through the Elands River Conservancy, have been held with SiVEST. During these discussions it was categorically stated that they do not want the power lines traversing their properties or within sight.

PILCHER, Dr Deon Land owner: Elandsrivier EIA Newsletter Comment Form Fax: 14 January 2010

The visual sensitivity of the Eland River has been recognised in the visual impact assessment report. The proposed power lines in the Northern Corridor have thus been proposed to run to the south of the ridge on the southern side of the Elands River Valley, thus the power lines will not traverse the visually-sensitive parts of the valley and will be unlikely to be visually intrusive.

Reference was made to the meeting that took place on the 13th of October 2010. Wished to re-iterate his objection due to the visual impact created by the proposed power line towers and further stated that it will in turn affect his proposed eco-tourism project.

WALKER, Mr DT Land Owner Calvus Properties E-mail: 15 October 2010

Comment Noted. The Southern Corridor has been shifted northwards into the southern firebreak alternative of the Northern Corridor under the latest EIA Team-preferred corridor. The proposed lines would run through the Longmore Forest and thus would not cause a visual impact in the Thornhill area.

12. EIA Process Comments/Issues It was asked whether Eskom has provided SiVEST with reasons as to why the nuclear power station is proposed at the specific site and if so, are there a paper trail where the public can view this input.

BARRAT, Chris Chairman: St Francis Kromme Trust PM Sea Vista, St Francis Bay

Eskom’s motivation was included in the FSR but if required it could be included in the FEIR. Paul da Cruz, SiVEST Post-meeting note: Eskom requires power stations on the coast for a number of


Page 47


reasons, including the stabilisation of the transmission network and the improvement in the reliability and security of supply at the coastal area and particularly the coastal areas of high growth (e.g. the Eastern Cape) in the demand for electricity, and the reduction in transmission line losses. Apart from these objectives, there are also other advantages of locating a power station on the coast, the primary one being the use of seawater for cooling of the turbine exhaust steam and condensing it back to water. The report that provides the rational for the Thyspunt site can be obtained on the Nuclear 1 EIA website: www.eskom.co.za/eia Under List of Assessments, click on the Nuclear 1 Generation in Section 14 the attached report/s is/are published.

It was asked that how can the TTLIP be so accurately with the power lines if the EIA for the power station project has not been approved yet.

Eskom provided SiVEST with the layout plan for the proposed HV yard and that was the point of departure for the proposed Tx power lines. SiVEST’s scope does not include the Tx power lines between the nuclear power station and the HV yard as this forms part of Arcus GIBB’s scope of work. Paul da Cruz, SiVEST

The project team was informed that members of such a committee as suggested by Eskom will have certain mandates and MTO has shareholders to which they are accountable for. A simple ‘yes’ to the suggestion would not be possible.

BRINK, Mr Willie Regional Manager: MTO FGM: 18 September 2012

Comment noted.

It was asked as what impact this proposed project will have on the areas around Die Berg and Kruisfontein.

CAMPHER, Clr Freddy Kouga Local Municipality Councillors’ Community Meeting Wednesday, 22 June 2011

It is believed that there will be no direct impact as the community members from Die Berg and Kruisfontein is quite a distance away from the EIA Team-preferred alignment as it currently stands. These two communities do fall within the two proposed corridors. The attendees was informed that it is not Eskom’s reference to construct a power line over existing communities and would try and avoid at all cost to go around existing communities. However, should this not be possible, Eskom will through their Land and Rights Department liaise with the relevant local municipality and affected landowners regarding any relocation, should this be necessary. But, looking at the study area, this seems very unlikely. It was also mentioned that a key point that was raised by communities are the possible impact of EMF. The Die Berg and Kruisfontein communities are currently well away from the


Page 48


proposed power lines and should not be impacted by EMF. Nicolene Venter, SiVEST Post-note meeting: For safety and health purposes, no building structures are allowed within the declared servitudes. Lerato Mokgwatlheng, Eskom.

Request for community participation and to inform the offices of meeting dates etc. and offered assistance with regards to community facilitation.

CARRIDICE, Mr Rod Assistant Director Community Outreach NMBM E-mail: 30 August 2010

Comment noted. Community consultation in the EIA phase has taken place in June 2011.

Expressed concern regarding the non-use of local specialists. COWLING, Mrs Shirley Friends of St Francis Nature Reserve Feedback Meeting: 11 October 2010

External specialists are used due to the quality of their work known to SiVEST Liesl Koch, SiVEST

Enquired as to when the specialist studies will be undertaken The specialist studies in the EIA phase were initiated at the beginning of September 2010. Liesl Koch, SiVEST

Frustration is expressed that whatever the community say will be noted but there is no guarantee that the view of the people of Kouga will be taken seriously.

DENNIS, Robbie Community Leader: Pellsrus PM Pellsrus, Jeffrey’s Bay: 28 September 2011

EAPs have an ethical responsibility towards I&APs and the EIA process stipulates that we are bound by law to take recommendations made by I&APs into consideration. We have signed a Declaration of Independence which gives us the mandate to find a corridor that is socially and environmentally acceptable. DEA has sufficient resourceful and knowledgeable people who can make an informed decision as to whether this project is sustainable or not. Paul da Cruz, SiVEST

Why is this project being proposed in the Kouga area? As mentioned in the presentation the power lines are considered to be constructed to evacuate the power from the proposed Nuclear Power Station at Thyspunt, should it be built. Paul da Cruz, SiVEST

The project team was informed that a cost comparison regarding the construction of the Nuclear Generation project at Coega vs the long distance of transmission power lines required to evacuate the power generated at the Nuclear plant. To date this information was not received.


Renewable energy comes with its own negative impacts i.e a large size of property is required for a much reduced electricity capacity, power lines are still required to evacuate the power generated by solar or wind. Rebecca Thomas, SiVEST


Page 49


It was recommended that the saving of the cost on the much shorter power lines be invested in renewable energy.

It would be interesting to take note that most of the renewable energy companies are looking at properties / sites close to Nuclear-1 or any other generation site and transmission power line grids. Wimpie Henning, Eskom Post-meeting note: Even though a cost comparison for the construction of Nuclear Projects (i.e.Nuclear power plant and Nuclear power lines) at Coegainstead of Oyster Bay could proof to be less, it is important to note that cost is not the only consideration. Other factors considered to determine sites for Nuclear power plants included requirements in terms of legislation and authorities (including NERSA). Such information has been provided in Nuclear-1 site application report. Lerato Mokgwatlheng, Eskom

It was mentioned at a previous meeting, Eskom said that once power lines are erected in an area, that area is considered degraded, which means it opens the area up for additional lines to be constructed, probably parallel or close by.

This is correct. Generally when looking at a power line route Eskom does consider placing it next to an existing power line especially for maintenance purposes. Wimpie Henning, Eskom

The project team was informed that the Conservancy is carefully looking at the various BA & EIA Reports of environmental studies being conducted in the area as all these developments will have a cumulative impact.

Comment noted.

It was said that a number of factors are also at play and not purely forestry’s possible economic loss vs tourism economic loss. Fauna also needs to be considered and it is believed that should fauna be brought into the equation that it would tip the scale.

It needs to be noted that all environmental factors (biophysical and social) are considered through an EIA process and fauna has been addressed for the area in question and is reported on accordingly within the DEIR. The comparison between Tourism and Economic impacts was a specific request by the DEA and to be considered accordingly and as such it was a stand-alone assessment. Rebecca Thomas, SiVEST

It was enquired whether there is a possibility of a conflict between the EIAs being conducted in the TTLIP application to DEA and the other EIA applications also to DEA meaning that DEA could approve a wind farm located within the TTLIP corridors.

DUCIE, Mr Greg Head: Planning Department Cacadu District Municipality Feedback Meeting: 11 October 2010

Comment noted and SiVEST will recommend that Eskom liaise with DEA regarding this possible threat. Liesl Koch, SiVEST


Page 50


It was asked whether the power lines will be built even if the Nuclear Power Station is not going ahead.


If there is no Nuclear Power Station at Thyspunt, then there will be no power lines in the Northern Corridor and the Southern Corridor will be discarded from the Nuclear Power Station site to KwaNobuhle. Irrespective of the proposed Nuclear Power Station at Thyspunt, the new PE Substation and its associated 2 x 400kV power lines (KwaNobuhle to Grassridge/Dedisa) will be the only power lines to be constructed. Paul da Cruz, SiVEST

It was enquired whether DEA has accepted the final Scoping Report and PoS for EIA.

KIRBY, Mr Keith Chief Executive Officer FGM: 17 September 2012

Yes the FSR was accepted and the PoS for EIA approved. The comment period for the DEIR was from June to September 2011. Paul da Cruz, Royal Haskoning

It was enquired whether alternative routes have been considered. Alternatives to the proposed corridors were addressed during the scoping phase. In terms of alternative power line alignments, it needs to be noted that there are various alternatives within the 2km wide corridors. SiVEST’s scope was to identify and assess corridors and not specifically a route alignment. Paul da Cruz, Royal Haskoning

It was asked what are the project time lines for the TTLIP. The power lines proposed in the Northern Corridor are directly associated with the proposed Nuclear-1 Project and information received from DEA is that a decision will not be issued on these power lines until a decision regarding Nuclear-1 has been taken. Paul da Cruz, Royal Haskoning Eskom is not sure when an EA will be issued for the Nuclear-1 Project, but Eskom’s Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) indicates that TTLIP should be constructed for operation by 2022. Lerato Mokgwatlheng, Eskom

Ons teken hiermee heftig beswaar aan teen die oprigting van enige vorm van oorhoofse kraglyne oor of op ons eiendom en sal indien daar voortgegaan word met die beplanning en of oprigting van sulke oorhoofse kraglyne oor of op ons eiendom, dit met alles tot ons beskikking teenstaan. Translated: Refer to SiVEST letter dated 26 August 2010.

MALAN, Mr Rob Simso Simmentalers E-mail: 13 Septmeber 2010

Objection noted and recorded.


Page 51


Strongly object to the construction of any form of overhead power lines over or on their property and should the project go ahead and the power lines are over or on their property, it will be opposed with all available means. In terms of the timeframe of the EIA process, where do the alternatives now being proposed fit in as these alternatives were not included in the final scoping report. This change constitutes the need to re-do the scoping study and/or the re-start of the project.

MALAN, Ms Trudi Member: Thyspunt Alliance Cape St Francis Civics Feedback Meeting: 11 October 2010

The information of these additional corridor alternatives have been included in the EIA Newsletter that was distributed to all registered I&APs and is now presented at the Feedback Meetings. The process followed to date has been an open and transparent process. The majority of areas were assessed as part of the original 5km corridors otherwise it was indicated the full EIA studies would be conducted on these areas regardless. Liesl Koch, SiVEST

It was stated that procedurally this EIA process is not correct as there should be three separate EIA and public participation processes, as the projects in are located within different local authorities.

In terms of the NEMA regulations, the EIA and PPP can be conducted concurrently as the three EIAs have been registered with DEA in terms of a Class Application. Regular liaison takes place between SiVEST and DEA which ensures that the process being followed is in terms of NEMA and the EIA Regulations. The reason for the Class Application was that should one Application be lagging behind, the others can proceed and it is a smoother process. Liesl Koch, SiVEST

In response to the answer provided, it was stated that the project team is using the process to the benefit of the developer and not the public and run the risk for appeals.

Comment noted.

Stated that the socio-economic issues have been given the highest weighting in general and wanted to know what method has been used to do the impact ratings.

Socio-economic impacts generally are the front runner when impacts are rated; however, no fatal flaws have been identified. Re-iterated that it is a preliminary statement at this stage. Liesl Koch, SiVEST Post meeting note: A procedure recognised by the authorities is used to rate impacts according to intensity, probability, extent and duration.

The project team was informed that at a public meeting held by CES, the public was informed that SiVEST’s scope includes the Thypsunt dune field and the HV Yard.

The Tx power lines from the proposed Nuclear Power Station to the HV yard, situated to the north of the sand dunes are part of Arcus GIBB’s scope as the EAPs for the Thyspunt Nuclear 1 EIA. SiVEST’s scope of assessment starts from the HV yard and does


Page 52


not include the dunes to the south of the HV Yard. Liesl Koch, SiVEST Post-meeting note: The matter has been taken up with CES and the outcome was that the information provided to I&APs at their meeting was incorrect. It is confirmed that the Tx power lines from the proposed Nuclear-1 Power Station to the HV yard falls under the EIA being conducted by Arcus GIBB.

Enquired whether or not the 400kVpower lines are to be used for other purposes. The 2 x 400kV Tx power lines between the proposed new PE substation and Grassridge substationare proposed to be built regardless of whether the Nuclear Power Station is approved or not, in order to supply power to NMBM. Liesl Koch, SiVEST

In terms of the above-mentioned response, it was re-iterated that in terms of NEMA, the EIA processes should not be conducted as separate EIAs and should be run as one as the cumulative impacts cannot be assessed properly. It was further re-iterated that it is the EIA consultant’s responsibility to advise their client, Eskom that it should not be a stand-alone study.

DEA are satisfied with the process that is being followed and SiVEST is working on the assumption that the Nuclear Power Station will be built. This EIA will fall away should the Nuclear Power Station not be built. Objections must be lodged with DEA and it will filter it down to this EIA. The attendees were informed that a legal opinion will be sought on the independence of the EIA processes. Liesl Koch, SiVEST

Expressed concern on the year lapse of the project and stated that it is procedurally not correct and unfair to stakeholders as there are new I&APs, landowners etc.

SiVEST updates the database on a regular basis to ensure that the I&APs / landowners / stakeholders are still relevant. It is also the I&APs’ responsibility to keep the project team informed of changes in their organisations, if properties are sold etc. We are following a robust process to ensure that all landowners in the corridor are informed. Nicolene Venter, SiVEST

Enquired as to whether all of these options are still being considered or were some eliminated.

The corridors have been refined and a number of options, through the consultation process, has been widened / narrowed for further assessment. Liesl Koch, SiVEST

It was asked as to what percentage of the project cost for environmental specialists has come to local environmental specialists in the Eastern Cape. There are local environmental specialists available to do the job.


The environmental specialists are all well qualified in their respective fields of expertise. SiVEST does not believe that the outcome of the studies would have been different if local


Page 53


specialists have been used. Local information has been sourced by the specialists and used in their assessments. If the attendees have a problem with studies undertaken, they have been requested to please raise it in writing to SiVEST. Paul da Cruz, SiVEST

It was enquired when the specialist studies will start and what are the requirements for the studies listed.

MKETSHANI, Mr Lazola Resident: KwaNobuhle EIA Newsletter Comment Form E-mail: 04 January 2010

Specialist studies will be carried out to find out what the effect of the proposed Transmission power lines on the environment will be. Specialists will look at plants, animals, birds, rivers, settlements, soils, etc. Some of the environmental specialists had started their detailed investigations (field work) in November 2009 and it is envisaged that this will carry on until February 2010. Nicolene Venter: SiVEST

Reference was made to the photographs in SiVEST “Impakstudiebundels” stating that they are selective, in the extreme and show only valley bushveld. Further stated that there are no photos illustrating the intensive farming that takes place in Kruisrivier.


The Kruisrivier area has been assessed as part of a number of the specialist studies in the EIR. The potential environmental impacts on the proposed power lines on the Kruis Rivier area have thus been assessed.

Acknowledged receipt of notification letter. Requested the reference numbers for the proposed projects.

NGOVENI, Mr Niyiko Principal Environmental Officer Department of Environmental Affairs E-mail: 20 September 2010

Referenced numbers provided: • DEA Ref No.: 12/12/20/1211 – Southern Corridor • DEA Ref No.: 12/12/20/1212 – Northern Corridor • DEA Ref No.: 12/12/20/1213 – New PE Substation

A copy of the Background Information Document and EIA Newsletter was sent. Nicolene Venter: SiVEST (email: 20 September 2010)

It was asked what benefits will there be for the community from this proposed project.

QUPE, Ms Thelma Member: UDF

In reference to job opportunities, there will be limited to no permanent job opportunities available during the construction phase as the construction of power lines is a highly skilled activity. It also needs to be noted that during the construction phase of the power lines that machinery would mostly be used. There could be spin-offs during the construction phase i.e. possible housing to construction workers, supplying of food, cleaning services (overalls, etc). The indirect benefit of this project to all communities within the greater study area is the strengthening of electricity supply to the area, should the Nuclear Power Station at Thyspunt be granted an


Page 54


EA. Nicolene Venter, SiVEST

Requested additional information regarding the proposed Thyspunt Transmission Lines Integration Project (TTLIP)

RAUTENBACH, Mr G Councillor Nelson Mandela Bay Metro E-mail: 7 September 2010

The following documents were e-mailed: • Background Information Document (BID) • Update on Technical Project details (Thyspunt Feedback

Letter #1) – including overview map showing the changes (A3 Overview3 Combined Corridors rev3)

• EIA Newsletter (EIA Newsletter (English)) and overview map (A3 EIAPhase CombinedCorridors 23Nov09)

• Announcing restart of the EIA Phase (Thuyspunt Restart of EIA Phase – Letter to IAPs)

Informed that the Final Scoping Report can also be downloaded from SiVEST’s website or the specialist studies that he might be interested in (http://www.sivest.co.za/Download.aspx) SiVEST are in the process of planning a Feedback Meeting with stakeholders such as the Nelson Mandela Bay Metro (Clrs and Officials) during the week of 11 October 2010 and will include him in the list of invitees. Nicolene Venter: SiVEST (email: 7 September 2010)

It was enquired as to why HIA are always at the bottom of the list of specialist studies.

REICHERT, Mr Kobus Representative: Gamtkwa Khoisan Council Feedback Meeting: 11 October 2010

The order of environmental studies to be undertaken and by whom, as per the presentation has not been listed in in terms of importance, but purely a list drafted to indicate to I&APs what will be assessed. Liesl Koch, SiVEST

Expressed concern as to why the Transmission Lines EIA was put on hold and now been restarted. Requested us to elaborate as to this "internal strategic meeting" and what the reasoning is for now commencing with this project?

ROYAL, Ms Renee Planner & Environmental Consultant E-mail: 6 September 2010

The suspension and subsequent recommencement of the process was requested by Eskom to allow them to resolve certain internal financial/contractual matters. Paul da Cruz: SiVEST

Expressed and raised very strong objections and concerns over the Draft EIA for the Nuclear Power Station. It was further stated that fatal flaws and many errors have been identified in respect of the Draft EIA rendering the way forward questionable. As noted above, the Transmission Lines and the Nuclear Power Plant are linked, as one will not go ahead without the other. Mentioned that it is considered logically inappropriate to undertake a study for transmission lines to service a nuclear power plant at this time.

E-mail: 28 September 2010 It is through the consultation process with I&APs and Stakeholders for the proposed Nuclear Power Plant that I&APs and Stakeholders raised questions regarding the Transmission power lines and requested that an EIA be undertaken. It needs to be understood that if a power station is constructed, it must be feasible to get the power generated from such a power station into the electricity network grid. As mentioned previously, the EIA for


Page 55


Why have Eskom decided to proceed with this study at this time of uncertainty? the TTLIP has been commissioned on “risk” by the proponent. Nicolene Venter: SiVEST Further Response to Comment: It should be noted that even should the Thyspunt Power Station not be authorised, the lines in the Southern Corridor between Grassridge and the proposed Port Elizabeth Substation will be developed as the power is required by the NMBM from the national grid in order to meet their future development needs.

Mentioned that while the funding issue is being resolved, the media reported negotiations between the Government and Eskom with China in respect of the funding and building of Nuclear Facilities in SA. Further noted that the Transmission Lines and the Nuclear Power Plant are linked, as one will not go ahead without the other.

The “funding issue” as responded in theI&RR relates to project specific i.e. funds to be made available to continue with the EIA for the proposed TTLIP. As previously mentioned and being reiterated, the EIA for the TTLIP has been commissioned‘on risk’ by Eskom. SiVEST cannot comment on media reports and this point has been forwarded to Eskom Transmission. Nicolene Venter: SiVEST No funding is being sourced at this pointing time.

The project team was informed that all the comments, concerns and issues raised as well as recommendations made by MTO needs to receive serious consideration as DAFF will not make a decision without consulting MTO as the Lessee of the land.

SQWABE, Ms Gwendoline Manager: Regulations & Support DAFF FGM: 17 September 2012

All comments and concerns raised by stakeholder and I&APs receives the consideration from the team that is required. Nicolene Venter, SiVEST

The team’s attention was drawn to the fact that not only are those present responsible to inform MTO’s shareholders and obtain their opinion and approval, but the most important stakeholder is DAFF, the owners of the land.

SODERLUND, Mr Erik General Manager: Commercial & Legal MTO FGM: 17 September 2012

Comment noted.

It was asked whether the team is expecting a favouralble ROD (EA) and whether this is a foregone conclusion or just lipservice.

THORPE, Hilton Chairman: St Francis Bay Resident’s Association Member: Thyspunt Alliances PM Sea Vista, St Francis Bay: 29 September 2011

SiVEST are not under pressure by Eskom or any other party that the EIA process should be wrapped up as soon as possible. The attendees were reminded that this project has stretched over three (3) years already as a result of various issues raised by I&APs and needingto be considered. It needs to be noted that SiVEST’s ‘client’ is the environment and to find a sustainable solution is foremost in our mind. The team is confident that negative impacts identified within the


Page 56


study area have been mitigated. Should the attendees find any other environmental impacts and no mitigation measures have been proposed to please submit it urgently to the project team and the team will go back and reconsider these. Paul da Cruz, SiVEST

It was mentioned, in no uncertain terms, that the Thyspunt site is wrong and that the I&APs are fed up with the fact that the Eskom Tx power lines project has been separated from the main EIA (reference to Nuclear-1 Project). It was reiterated that the Nuclear-1 site is totally wrong as none of the associated infrastructures i.e Tx lines, roads, etc, have been taken into account. It was also asked whether this project will be sustainable.

The attendee is not the first person and will not be the last to express this concern. Unfortunately SiVEST are in the situation where the two EIAs were put out to tender as two separate EIAs. It is SiVEST’s understanding that the decision was taken by DEA to allow and proceed with it. SiVEST has addressed the need and desirability of the proposed TTLIP in the DEIR. SiVEST as EAPs cannot change the scope of the terms of reference of the study, and as such have been appointed to find the most environmentally sustainable corridors to connect to the proposed nuclear power station. Paul da Cruz, SiVEST

MTO believes that there are no further EIA legal issues associated with this proposed project. However, it is believed that legal matters could arise with the final routing.

TRUTER, Mr Jan MTO FGM: 18 September 2012

Comment noted.

It was commented that a more detailed EIA and technical exercise has to be done before the project can proceed.

The attendees were requested to pin areas that may be traversed, if any and forward the information to SiVEST for inclusion in the FEIR. This could assist the DEA in its decision-making process. Lerato Mokgwatlheng, Eskom Post-meeting note: It is noted that agreement cannot be reached in this regard until such time that a decision is provided by DEA regarding the applications submitted and technical studies (technical designs including Lidar survey) areconcluded to indicate where servitudes within these corridors should be negotiated and proclaimed. Lerato Mokgwatlheng, Eskom

Requested information regarding the proposed project. VAN DER MERWE, Mr Andre Land owner Brakkefontein E-mail: 11 September 2010

Attached the following documents: • Background Information Document (BID) • Update on Technical Project details (Thyspunt Feedback


Page 57



• EIA Newsletter (EIA Newsletter (English)) and overview map (A3 EIAPhase Combined Corridors 23Nov09)


Nicolene Venter: SiVEST (email: 14 September 2010) It was enquired whether the project was aware of the recent earthquake at Plettenberg Bay and Knysna that happened on the 14th of May which was of a 4.3 magnitude and what effects does this have on Thyspunt? Also what studies are being done for earthquakes at Thyspunt as slight tremors often happens in the area.

WEBSTER, Mr Jayson Resident: St Francis E-mail: 24 May 2011

It was establish that the enquiry is relevant to both the TTLIP and Nuclear-1 Project. The geotechnical study has assessed the seismological risk to the lines associated with the Coega Fault, an area of seismological risk. The impact of earthquake on Nuclear-1: Referred to Arcus GIBB (see Point 25 of the I&RR)

If the Servitude be over a land owner’s land will the land owner be compensated on his land?

WILLIAMS, Clr Brenton Kouga Local Municipality Councillors’ Community Meeting Wednesday 22 June 2011

Comment noted. Post-note meeting: Yes, the landowner will be compensated in accordance to the value of his land for the extent of the declared servitude. Lerato Mokgwatlheng, Eskom

It was mentioned that at a previous key meeting it was said that there is already a clear indication that in the future several other lines may follow the Thyspunt Transmission Lines and this is why the Conservancy needs to prepare themselves to prevent the Thyspunt Transmission Lines from being constructed.


Comment noted.

It was recommended that Eskom consider focusing on renewable energy progressively.

Eskom does have a Renewable and Sustainability Department in Eskom which looks at this type of developments. At the latest COP17 conference held, Eskom committed to look at an energy mix. Bernadette Solomons, Eskom

13. Route Corridor Comments/Issues Enquired as to whether the lines transverse her property and request additional information regarding the proposed project.

BLUMENTHAL, Mrs Property Owner Telephone: 10 September 2010

A Property Data form has been sent and additional information i.e • Background Information Document (BID) • Update on Technical Project details (Thyspunt Feedback



Page 58


• EIA Newsletter (EIA Newsleeter (English)) and overview map (A3 EIAPhase Combined Corridors 23Nov09) and


Andrea GIBB : SiVEST (Email 10 September 2010) It was established that Mrs Blumenthal’s property could be affected by the proposed power lines and the team entered into a consultation process with the landowner.

Enquired about the current proposed route for the Thyspunt power lines in the vicinity of Uitenhage. Further stated that he was initially informed (in a meeting with the consultants) that the initial proposed alignment constituted a “fatal flaw” as it ran through the Hopewell Conservation nature reserve and that it would need to be amended. Requested that we confirm the current proposed alignment in this area

CORRIGAN, Mr Brian Hopewell Conservation (Pty)Ltd E-mail: 29 September 2010

A route refinement was introduced after the meeting mentioned whereby the proposed route corridor will follow the western property boundary of Hopewell Conservancy. A map indicating the current proposed corridor will be forwarded. Nicolene Venter, SiVEST As stated above, the latest revision of the Southern Corridor has been amended to run to the north of the Hopewell Conservancy, thus it will not be affected by the proposed power lines.

Enquired about the previous corridor alternatives as presented during the scoping phase and commented that they were plausible, but are now no longer being considered.

Feedback Meeting: 14 October 2010 Comparative assessments were done and it was found that there are major space constraints south of KwaNobuhle but in order to provide a proper response, SiVEST will consult its records. A full register on the changes to the corridor will be included in the EIR and the reasons for elimination included. Liesl Koch, SiVEST The route change register is included in section 6 of the Draft EIR

It was suggested that the Southern Corridor revert to the previous Alternative 1, such that the route would pass to the west of Rocklands Road, therefore avoiding KwaNobuhle, and pass to the west and north of Uitenhage.

Requested that suggestions be forwarded to SiVEST in writing. Liesl Koch, SiVEST

In terms of the previous Alternative 1 of the Southern Corridor, it showed an alignment from Fitches Corner, in a northern direction that allowed the Southern Corridor to link up with the eastern part of the current Northern Corridor. It was enquired as to why this alignment was disregarded

A formal response will be provided in writing. Liesl Koch, SiVEST Further Response to Comment: A formal response was put on hold as a route change register was being drafted. The Route Change Register is included in Section 6 of the Draft EIR.


Page 59


Requested an explanation regarding the proposed routing “loop” at the Stinkhoutberg area.

COWLING, Mrs Shirley Friends of St Francis Nature Reserve Feedback Meeting: 11 October 2010

The corridor routing (referred to as the Northern Corridor – Alternative 2) has been included for detailed assessment to avoid the Stinkhoutberg Nature Reserve, as to avoid any possible impacts on the nature reserve. Liesl Koch, SiVEST

It was requested that the team inform the attendees which one of the three alternatives within the Southern Corridor traversing MTO’s property is the preferred one.


Alternative two, which avoids forestry compartments as far as possible, but also set back from the ridge’s top/edge – where possible – to minimise any possible negative visual impact from the valley. Paul da Cruz, Royal Haskoning

With reference to the discussion with SiVEST, Eastern Cape Parks has an issue with the proposed Northern Corridor that will cut across a section of the Stinkhoutberg Nature Reserve that is part of the proposed Baviaanskloof World Heritage site. Further indicated that ECP would like the proposed line to be moved south to avoid the area and the reserve.

ERLANK, Mr Wayne Regional Manager: Western Region Eastern Cape Parks Newsletter Comment Form Fax: 12 January 2010

Environmental specialists investigations are being conducted to ensure environmentally feasible refined corridors are proposed in the DEIR. Nicolene Venter: SiVEST

Reviewed the updated alignment map. It appears that ECPTA’s concerns have been implemented and the proposed route now avoids the Baviaanskloof and associated reserves as well as the Honeyville cultural development close to Humansdorp.

E-mail: 25 May 2011 Comment noted.

It was stated that where the proposed Transmission power lines cross the National Road, these crossings have to be approved by SANRAL.

GOUWS, Ms Nanna Statutory Control Officer: SANRAL EIA Newsletter Comment Form E-mail: 18 December 2009

Request acknowledged and way leave information requested and received. Eskom negotiators will ensure that all way leave applications are attended to. Nicolene Venter: SiVEST


Page 60


Stated that the Southern Corridor passes directly through Sunnyside Farm (Farm 895 Humansdorp). The land is in the final stages of planning for a wind generating project, EIA passed etc. Mentioned that this issue is raised at every public meeting, but it appears that each time SiVEST neglects to minute the fact. Enquired if the matter is being deliberately ignored, so that it can later be pretended that nothing was said.

HOLLIDAY, Mr Mark Property Owner E-mail: 01 October 2009

The omission of Mr Rademeyer comments raised at the Open Day held at Kruisfontein on Tuesday 3 December 2008 is acknowledged and this omission will be rectified. SiVEST would like to point out that the information received regarding the wind generating project on Sunnyside Farm (Humansdorp 895) has been noted and has been incorporated in the EIA and public participation process as follows: • In the Draft Scoping Report that was out for public review (6

May to 30 June 2009) and the Final Scoping Report submitted to DEA (7 August 2009), the information in question is reflected in Annexure 14, Appendix F (Issues & Response Report): o Page 40 o Page 71

Nicolene Venter: SiVEST

The project team was informed that looking at the maps, it seems that Die Berg community would not be directly affected as the power lines will not go over or in between of their houses.

LAPPERT, Burivett (Burn) Community Leader: Die Berg Community Meeting Thursday, 23 June 2011

The attendees was informed that it is not Eskom’s reference to construct a power line over existing communities and would try and avoid at all cost to go around existing communities. However, should this not be possible, Eskom will through their Land and Rights Department liaise with the relevant local municipality and affected landowners regarding any relocation, should this be necessary. But, looking at the study area, this seems very unlikely. It was also mentioned that at previous meetings community members raised the concern regarding the possible impact of EMF. The Die Berg community is currently well away from the proposed power lines and should not be impacted by EMF. Nicolene Venter, SiVEST Post-note meeting: For safety and health purposes, no building structures are allowed within the declared servitudes. Lerato Mokgwatlheng, Eskom.


Page 61


Expressed objection to the proposed line across his 5 Ha land. Further stated that it will have a huge impact on his land.

LE ROUX, Mr Stephanus Land Owner Arcus GIBB Comment Form: 5 June 2010

The Kruisrivier area has been identified to be a sensitive area by the socio-economic report due to the prevalence of agricultural production and smallholdings. As a result the recommendations to avoid these smallholdings made in the socio-economic report are followed as closely as possible by the EIA Team-preferred alignment.

Dit is voorgestel dat die Suidelike Korridor, die gedeelte tussen die Kabeljous- en Gamtoosriviere moet ±4 km noord skuif om die valleie te kruis waar dit die nouste is. Translation: Made a suggestion to move the Southern Corridor ±4km north in the area between Kabeljous and Gamtoos Rivers where the valley is narrow.

LOTTER, Mr Frank Trustee: Krantzplaas Trust EIA Newsletter Comment Form Letter: 18 January 2010

Suggestion noted and forwarded to the environmental specialists for consideration. Nicolene Venter: SiVEST

Mentioned that Mainstream Renewable Power has been developing a wind farm in the Jeffrey’s Bay area since 2006 under Genesis Eco Energy. An Environmental Authorisation to go ahead with the 16 – 20 MW wind farm was received in 2008. It was also mentioned that Mainstream Renewable Power South Africa has been planning to expand the project to about 125MW and are in an advanced stage of planning with all the land that has been secured with long term options and leases with the landowners. The EIA for the expanded project will start in early September and are set to be ready for construction at the beginning of 3rd quarter of next year. It was further stated that Mainstream Renewable Power South Africa will be most probably connecting into the 132kV line that runs across the project site. A proposed substation for the project could be built to the north of the project on land that they would be leasing. Stated that they have, to date, had numerous discussions with the local distribution network planning section of Eskom in East London and they mentioned that they are aware of the proposal and is of the view that planning section of Eskom in East London has indicated support thereof. Mentioned that Mainstream Renewable Power have become aware of the 400kV corridor project and after investigation they have found that their project is situated at the confluence of the 2 proposed corridors in the Jeffrey’s Bay area. Also provided an overlay of their proposed 125MW wind farm onto the 400kV corridor map provided in the EIA reports to be found on SiVEST website. Indicated

MAHOMED-WEIDEMAN, Ms Leila Director: Mainstream Renewable Power South Africa JV Genesis Eco Energy E-mail: 25 August 2009

Acknowledged comments and the copy of the information forwarded to Eskom, Nicolene Venter: SiVEST (e-mail: 05 October 2009) With reference to subsequent emails and conversations, SiVEST has received and acknowledged information regarding the planned expansion of the wind turbine plant. SiVEST is in the process of assessing the refinement of the corridor to minimise impacts on the wind turbine development. Nicolene Venter: SiVEST


Page 62


that it shows clearly that the wind farm and proposed 400kV transmission line corridors occupy the same location. On the maps provided to SiVEST, the red dots represent turbines to be installed in the first phase and the green dots represent the proposed turbines for the expansion of the project. Highlighted that large structures may impact negatively on the wind regime and thus the wind farm. Further made a proposal that the servitude be north west of the proposed corridor piece that conflicts with the wind farm. (Map indicating the red and green dots referred to attached for easy reference) Indicated that Mainstream Renewable Power South Africa did another overlay of the proposed corridors and has noticed that the Southern Corridor (Thyspunt) still falls within their project area (Jeffrey's Bay Wind Farm - Proposed Extension).

E-mail: 18 January 2010

Pointed out to the I&AP that on recollection, the last information received from EIA Consultants (CSIR) was that an application to DEA was not yet submitted while the TTLIP EIA was already in the impact phase of the TTLIP’s EIA. Mentioned that the Sunnyvale Wind Farm project that was granted an Environmental Authorisation had been taken into consideration and it can be noticed that the Southern Corridor has been adjusted to accommodate the development. It was also mentioned that the details (properties affected) of the extension phase of the Wind Farm was only made known to SiVEST in October 2009 – It was pointed out that SiVEST was informed by I&APs of the planned expansions, but no details could be provided at that stage. SiVEST therefore recommends that the extension of the existing Wind Farm be part of current consultation process. Affected stakeholders will be invited to a series of Focus Group Meetings (FGMs) planned to take place from 8 -12 March 2010. Requested that if the extension of the approved Wind Farm received a DEA reference number, SiVEST be informed thereof and forwarded a copy of BID and all relevant public documents distributed to date, or a website address where such documents can be viewed. Further requested that SiVEST be registered on the Sunnyvale Wind Farm project’s database as an I&AP / Stakeholder.


Page 63


Nicolene Venter: SiVEST (e-mail: 21 January 2010)

It was stated in the presentation that the NMBM indicated a 100m restriction for the power lines through KwaNobuhle and enquired whether a similar request has been made by the Kouga Local Municipality where the proposed power lines bend easterly at Kruisfontein?

MALAN, Trudi Member: Thyspunt Alliance Cape St Francis Civics Feedback Meeting: 11 October 2010

The Kouga Local Municipality did not request any restrictions in or around Kruisfontein. SiVEST has been informed of the planned extension of Kruisfontein and this information is being taken into consideration. The project team need to be informed about proposed developments. The reason for assessing 2km – 5km corridors is to provide Eskom the flexibility to negotiate servitudes around approved developments and dwellings. Liesl Koch, SiVEST

Op grond van die detail op die aangehegde kaart, kan daar voortgegaan word met die ondersoek van die suidelike corridor. MTO voorwaardes bly egter onveranderd nl die kraglyne moet in die brandbaan bly en mag geensins oor enige deel van plantasie strek nie. Translation: SiVEST can proceed with the assessment of the Southern Corridor in terms of the details as per the map attached to the e-mail. MTO’s conditions stays unchanged i.e. that the power lines have to stay within the fire break and under no circumstances traverse any portion of the forest.

MALHERBE, Mr Deon Corporate Services Manager MTO Forestry (Pty) Ltd E-mail: 07 October 2010

Baie dankie vir jou e-pos en terugvoer dat die spesialiste kan voortgaan met hul ondersoek rakende die suidelike alternatief wat MTO se suidelike brandbaan volg. Ons hou ook vir Eskom, en spesifiek vir Dean Wilson, Eskom se Onderhandelaar, op hoogte van grondeienaar situasies soos die. Nicolene Venter Email: 07 October 2010 Translation: Thanked Mr Malherbe for the e-mail and feedback that the specialists can proceed with their assessment on the southern alternative through MTO’s southern fire break. Eskom, especially Dean Wilson – Eskom’s negotiator, are kept informed of all landowners’ issues.

Confirmed that they received Feedback Letter #5 and downloaded the maps. Crossways Farm Village marked in Red to indicate to Crossways Farms’ Shareholders the proximity of their property to the Southern Corridor; an alignment which they now prefer.

MARAIS, Mr Eugene Landowner: Crossways Farm Village E-mail: 20 May 2011

Comment noted.

Dit bekommernis was geopper dat die Suidelike Deurgang ‘n negatiewe impak op die kwekery, wat die hoofverskaffer van groente-saailinge in die Oos-Kaap is, sal hê. Translation: The concern was raised that the Southern Corridor will negatively impact on the

MOORE, Dr Arno Owner: Farms De Woudt & Nocton EIA Newsletter Comment Form Fax: 06 January 2010

Comment noted. The environmental specialists are currently investigating the various positive and negative impacts relating to the proposed Northern and Southern Corridors and concerns as this one raised will be taken into consideration. Nicolene Venter: SiVEST Further Response to Comment:


Page 64


nursery which is one of the main suppliers of vegetable seedlings to the Eastern Cape.

The Southern Corridor has been shifted northwards and will thus no longer affect the Nocton area.

Mentioned that the latest Southern Corridor proposed as per the EIA Newsletter is NOT in line with what was represented in the scoping phase nor in the specialist’s report accessed and read. It was highlighted that the proposed Southern Corridor will negatively impact the Crossway and Sunnyvale Development (C&S). (Note: Detailed correspondence will be included in DEIR)

MULDER, Dr Chris Chairman: Crossways and Sunnyvale Development Company Letter: 15 December 2009

Acknowledged correspondence and informed I&AP that a formal reply will be submitted shortly. Nicolene Venter: SiVEST (e-mail: 17 December 2009) It needs to be noted that the alternatives proposed to the Northern and Southern Corridors were introduced after the FSR was submitted to DEA and was the outcome of continued consultation with I&APs. It is envisaged that more refined Corridors will be presented for comment to I&APs, Landowners and Stakeholders in the DEIR. Nicolene Venter: SiVEST

The attendance of Ms Sunette Maree was requested to present the proposed EIA Team-preferred routing and obtained clarification whether the proposed expansion of Kruisfontein would be impacted by the proposed TTLIP.

OLIPHANT, Clr Phumzile Kouga Local Municipality Councillors’ Community Meeting Wednesday, 22 June 2011

Confirmation was received from the Kouga Local Municipality (e-mail dated 25 July 2012) that the planned expansion of Kruisfontein is to the south and south-east of Kruisfontein and not to the west. Faith Kalibbala, SiVEST

Dit is genoem dat die Elandsrivier Bewarea glad nie oortuig is dat alternatiewe vir die kraglyne behoorlik en deeglik nagevors is nie. Translation: He stated that they are not convinced that alternative for the transmission lines were researched properly.


Route corridors have been identified, assessed at desk-top level during the scoping phase, and have been investigated by a number of environmental specialists. Thesehave been further assessed and investigated during the remainder of the impact phase. Nicolene Venter: SiVEST Further Response to Comment: The various changes to the route corridors and alternatives through the EIA process are detailed in the route change register in section 6 of the Draft EIR.

It was enquired whether Eskom can confirm that the corridors are the only areas of possible impact and would not change when a route is negotiated.

REICHERT, Kobus Representative: Gamtkwa Khoisan Council FGM: Saturday 28 January 2012

With reference to the presentation and a previous response, the Application for an EA is for the corridors and the corridors can still change through consultation. However, should an EA be granted for the corridors, Eskom cannot negotiate a routing outside the corridors. Should there be a serious technical constraint in an area


Page 65


within the corridors and Eskom needs to go outside the EA approved corridors, then Eskom will have to submit an Amendment Application to the DEA and the required BA/EIA process, as decided by DEA, will have to be followed. Paul da Cruz, SiVEST

It was commented that the entire project is a fatal flaw as the Corridors go through natural beauty and tourism sensitive areas.


Comment noted. Paul da Cruz, SiVEST

Expressed concern that his property may fall within the EIA corridor. Further expressed his concern about the impact which the lines may have on the private nature reserve on his property.

VAN DE RIET, Prof Landowner Telephonic: 18 October 2010

A property data form and a map showing the route corridors were forwarded to Mr Van Riet to ascertain whether the lines go through his property or not. Andrea Gibb Email: 18 October 2010 E-mail was followed up with a phone call, explaining the background to the project and the status of the EIA process. Further Response to Comment: The Southern Corridor has been shifted north from the Van Stadens Area; thus the property in question will not be affected.

Wished to know why the line cannot go across Uitenhage airfield, as there are only 5 planes.

VOIGHT, Mr CA Kruisrivier Inwoners Vereniging Arcus GIBB Comment Form: 6 June 2010

Existing infrastructure, such as airfields, are avoided as far as possible and it can also be mentioned that from a civil aviation point of view it would not be feasible to run transmission lines across airfields.

14. Proposed EIA Team-preferred Alignment Comments/Issues Reading the comments received from other stakeholders, as per the I&RR, it is perceived that the corridor has been pushed further into Longmore Forest.

BRINK, Mr Willie Regional Manager: MTO FGM: 18 September 2012, Humewood

Comments from various stakeholders throughout the EIA process were received such as from the EC P&TA and all comments and recommendations received from stakeholders need to be evaluated and addressed (where applicable). It is the team’s understanding that there is different areas of yield and it would be appreciated if MTO can forward their GIS data to SiVEST to see where the TTLIP can make use of these yields. Paul da Cruz, Royal Haskoning


Page 66


The team notes and is fully aware of MTO concerns and undertakes to walk away from this meeting with the comments, concerns and recommendations made to find the best possible routing and a way forward. Bernadette Solomon, Eskom

The project team was requested that the routing matter need to be addressed on a macro and not on a micro basis.

Comment noted. It can be confirmed that due to the nature of this proposed project, all impacts are being considered on local, provincial and national level, Paul da Cruz, Royal Haskoning

It was stated that the Southern Corridor is a great concern to MTO as it is their high yield area. The Northern Corridor can be ‘fine tuned’, to an extent, during negotiations with Eskom. It is recommended that MTO, SiVEST and Eskom do a site visit for the Southern Corridor prior to an EIA Team-preferred routing is submitted to DEA for decision-making.

It was pointed out to the attendees that this would be a risk to Eskom as should an EA be granted and one of DEA’s Conditions is that the EIA Team-preferred routing as per the Southern Corridor and with specific reference to Longmore Forest is that the routing is ‘approved’ as is, and when Eskom’s design team is on board and it is found that there are some technical constraints, it could result in an Amendment Application. Paul da Cruz, Royal Haskoning Post-meeting note: The EIA Team referred routing is the indication of the extent to be covered by the proposed power lines and the avoidance of some sensitive aspects,where possible in terms of the specialists’ studies. It should be noted that more work still needs to be done regarding the routing i.e technical design including Lidar survey. Therefore, approval being sought at DEA is for a corridor (i.e. of approximately 2km) not a power line routing. Lerato Mokgwatlheng, Eskom

To accommodate the concern raised by the specialist MTO recommended that a narrower Southern Corridor be looked at and a preliminary survey on the corridor to be undertaken to eliminate any possible technical constraint areas.

It was recommended that the width of the Southern Corridor be kept as is as a route would not be decided upon without MTO inputs. Lerato Mokgwatlheng, Eskom


Page 67


It was commented that the project team contradicted themselves by saying the five (5) power lines cannot be placed together, although in the section from the Nuclear Power Station to north of Humandsdorp the five (5) power lines run together.


As a risk aversion measure Eskom prefers not to have all five (5) power lines running together from Thuyspunt to Grassridge/Dedisa. However, it needs to be mentioned that there are areas with constraints that force the five (5) power lines to run parallel, such as the coastal belt, and the running of the five (5) power lines together can only be for short sections/distances. Paul da Cruz, SiVEST

It was asked as to who was present at the specialist workshop where the Southern Corridor, as it now stands, has been chosen.

FORTUIN, Adam Resident: Pellsrus PM Pellsrus, Jeffrey’s Bay: 28 September 2011

All the environmental specialists as mentioned in the presentation were present. As presented they had to indicate areas that are sensitive or a fatal flaw, and with these inputs a technical and environmentally feasible Southern Corridor was identified. The Southern Corridor, as previously indicated that passed north of St Francis Bay and crossing the Kromme River has been discarded by the EIA team as a fatal flaw. Paul da Cruz, SiVEST

Informed the project team that they would prefer the proposed power lines not to cross their property as they have existing municipal power lines on their property.

GOOSEN, Ms Hendrika Landowner: Welverdiend Van Stadens Farmers Association Hall: 22 February 2011

Comment noted.

It was asked if Eskom will be bound to the EIA proposed alignment as presented to DEA.

HJUL, Paul Resident: Jeffreys Bay PM Pellsrus, Jeffrey’s Bay: 28 September 2011

It also needed to be noted that SiVEST applied to the DEA on behalf of the Applicant (Eskom) for authorisation for a 2km wide corridor (lesser or wider in areas where there are environmental constraints), providing Eskom the leeway to negotiate the servitude they require for the power lines. Should Eskom need to route a line(s) outside the authorised corridor, then they will have to seek an amendment to the EA granted (if granted) and embark on a new EIA and PP process for that specific section where the deviation is required. Paul da Cruz, SiVEST It was mentioned that SiVEST mandate is only to seek an environmentally acceptable corridor and ensure that a robust process is followed when submitting the FEIR to DEA for EA. It will be an unfair practice to dictate to LOs an alignment without their inputs as they are the directly affected people. The route


Page 68


alignment as being proposed stands a very good chance of being the negotiated route in the end. Dean Wilson, Eskom

It was asked as to how wide is the proposed corridors. KIRBY, Mr Keith Chief Executive Officer: Ventusa Energy FGM: 17 September 2012

The Northern and Southern Corridors are an average of 2km wide. In some areas it is narrower or wider to accommodate constraints such as wind farms, proposed developments, environmental sensitivities, etc. It needs to be noted that each proposed power line, should the project be granted an EA, would have a 55m wide registered servitude. This results in the Northern Corridor (3 x 400kV) having a 165m wide registered servitude, should the power lines be constructed parallel, and 110m wide registered servitude in the Southern Corridor (2 x 400kV) if constructed parallel. Paul da Cruz, Royal Haskoning

The project team was informed that it is Venutsa Energy’s understanding the the proposed power lines would go through the ‘saddle’. Should this be the case then there is a possibility that it should not impact the proposed wind turbine positioning as they will be placed on the highest point. It was also mentioned that it seems there could be a fair distance from the ‘saddle’ to the highest point

It was mentioned that Ventusa Energy need to keep in mind that three (3) Transmission power lines needs to go through that area and the ‘saddle’ might not provide sufficient space. However, when both parties received the various GIS information, a more detailed assessment can be made. Wimpie Henning, Eskom

It was commented that SiVEST can recommend a routing for the power lines but Eskom does have the right to move those lines within the Corridor, i.e. they can put them any where they want.


SiVEST’s application to DEA is for an authorisation of a 2km wide Corridor. However, there are environmentally sensitive areas where the Corridor is wider than the 2km. This is also relevant to areas where housing / estate developments are proposed. The attendees were reminded that there is also a construction EMP that is developed in which tower locations are assessed in the field in order to check whether they are located within environmentally sensitive areas. . DEA also typically states as a condition of environmental authorisations that an independent ECO be appointed to monitor the construction. Paul da Cruz, SiVEST It is to Eskom’s advantage to consider the EIA-Team preferred routing as they had already taken sensitive receptors into consideration. As previously mentioned, should an alternative route be taken which falls outside the approved Corridor, then


Page 69


Eskom will need to apply for an Amendment to the EA. Lerato Mokwathleng, Eskom

The community ISquite happy that the alignment has been moved away from densely populated area.


Comment noted.

It was commented that the power lines were moved away from Thornhill but now the new proposed alignment are closer to Kruisfontein and this will impact the direct need of low cost housing which was identified for that area


SiVEST approached Kouga LM (Planners) as SiVEST took cognisance of the fact that there are huge issuesregarding space constraints in the study area to route the power lines. Since the EIA started immense amount of changes took place in the study area of which the main constraints were proposed developments, i.e. housing developments, expansion of suburbs, wind farms, etc. The question of whether Kruisfontein would expand to the west was posed to the Planning Department of the Kouga LM. These inputs were taken into consideration during the corridor and EIATeam preferred routing identification. Everyone can give inputs regarding housing developments planned in the area and this will be taken into account. Kouga LM indicated that their key growth area is to the south east and to the north west of Jeffreys Bay along the R102 ‘corridor’. The Corridors have been selected and refined by taking human settlement into account. Paul da Cruz, SiVEST Post-meeting note: The attendee will be requested to provide SiVEST with the official information she received from Kouga LM to confirm the IDP/SPF of the Kouga LM. Post-meeting note: In an email dated 25 July 2012 (Appendix 12 C(b), Danie Rautenbachof Kouga Municipality confirmed that there are no


Page 70


plans to extend the Kruisfontein township to the west. He however indicated that the EIA team preferred alignment traverses the Kruisfontein cemetery and suggested that the alignment be to the west of the cemetery. Faith Kalibbala, SiVEST

Versoek dat kontak so spoedig moontlik gemaak word aangesien dit wil voorkom of die kraglyne presies op die plek waar ‘n vliegtuig aanloopbaan beplan word, sal loop. Die plaas is spesifiek vir die rede aangekoop, en dit is die enigste deel op die plaas wat vir die doel geskik is. Tans reeds besig om die skuur vir die doel te bou. Translation: Requested that contact be made as soon as possible as it appears that the proposed power line might traverse the farm in the area that has been earmarked for a landing strip and that the farm has been purchased specifically for this purpose. A hanger has already been erected for this purpose.

NAUDE, Mr Siegfriedt Landowner E-mail: 24 May 2011

Contact has been made and it was agreed that the team will meet with Mr Naude the week of the 20th June 2011. Meeting note: Should the proposed 3 x 400kV power lines be constructed over the farm (Geelhoutboom) it would negatively impact on the airstrip to be constructed on the farm. A barn has already been constructed and the hanger is in the process of being constructed.

The team was informed that it is believed that through the consultation with landowners that the routing has been redrawn to suit the farmers. It was also mentioned that the study area is part of the Garden Route.

SWARTS, Dr N Chairman: Gamtkwa Khoisan Council FGM: Saturday 28 January 2012

The Application for EA is still for a corridor and not proposed power line routings/alignments. As mentioned during the presentation the EIA Team-Preferred Routing was introduced after receiving request from a number of stakeholders as it was mentioned that it would enable them to add more comments. Comments are not only obtained and sourced from directly affected landowners whose property(ies) falls within the corridors, but also from surrounding landowners, communities and Government Officials. Paul da Cruz, SiVEST

It was asked for clarification: • During the initial and ongoing consultation MTO (MTO) made sufficient

provision for the power lines in the fire belt • Now, at this late stage and the latest corridors, it appears there is a

problem with the fire belt from an environmental view point Should MTO recommendations not be considered it would, in the end, become MTO problem.

SODERLUND, Mr Erik General Manager: Commercial & Legal MTO FGM: 17 September 2012

SiVEST EIA team had broadened the corridor to accommodate all possible impacts and it can be confirmed that the corridor “as is” is the latest and it is envisaged that it would not change again. It must also be remembered that at the start of the scoping phase both corridors were 5km wide and various constraints and limitations were identified during that phase which resulted in the 2km EIA corridors (some areas wider and some areas narrower to accommodate environmental and technical constraints). SiVEST acknowledged that MTO did inform the project team that it


Page 71


is their preference that the power lines, especially the Northern Corridor, be placed within their fire breaks. Paul da Cruz, Royal Haskoning Eskom will not decide on a route without prior consultation, discussions and negotiations with the affected landowner. It is for this reason that a wider corridor, than the width of the required servitude(s), is important. Dean Wilson, Eskom

It was asked whether the proposed routing through Longmore Forest, with specific reference to the Northern Corridor, has changed due to objections received from the ERC in terms of possible Visual and Tourism impacts. Also, is this routing a matter of green vs commercial.

It was confirmed that objections were received from the ERC but it needs to be noted that all environmental parameters, including social and economics, need to be taken in consideration and assessed. Paul da Cruz, Royal Haskoning To establish the sustainability of the forestry industry, the team will endeavour to find solutions to ensure that Cape Forest lose as little as possible commercial viable land. It is important to note that the FEIR needs to clearly demonstrate that the EAP’s recommendations are not linked to green vs commercial. Bernadette Solomon, Eskom

Appreciation was expressed for the manner in which the tourism and visual aspect in terms of the Kromme River has been addressed.


Comment noted.

It was asked for clarification that should the corridor be narrowed, as requested, would the specialists need to go back for another assessment.

WILSON, Dean Negotiator: Land and Rights Eskom FGM: 18 September 2012

No, it would not be required. Paul da Cruz, Royal Haskoning


Page 72


15. Substation Sites Comments/Issues Enquired if only one alternative is required as, according to the Scoping Report, the proposed PE substation site was located at Fitches Corner and a second site was not mentioned or investigated at that time. Enquired about the need for a second alternative substation site.


Comparative assessments were done and it was found that there are major space constraints south of KwaNobuhle but in order to provide a proper response, SiVEST will consult its records. A full register on the changes to the corridor will be included in the EIR and the reasons for elimination included. Liesl Koch, SiVEST Further Response to Comment: The Draft EIR for the Southern Corridor has undertaken a comparative assessment of the two substation sites, at Fitches Corner and east of KwaNobuhle. The Route change register is included in section 6 of the Draft EIR.

16. Technical Related Comments/Issues

Eskom was informed that a 55m servitude in forestry area would not be sufficient and it was requested that a wider servitude be considered.

BRINK, Mr Willie Regional Manager: MTO FGM: 18 September 2012

Eskom assess the maximum height of the trees planted in the relevant forestry area, at Longmore Forest it is pine trees, and depending on the height of the trees (approximately 30m) the servitude could be extended to include an additional 8m. This would be to protect the power lines should a tree (or trees) falls over. Dean Wilson, Eskom MTO also need to remember that should an EA be granted, Eskom’s Negotiator (for this project, Wimpie Henning) will deal with this matter in detail when negotiating for the servitudes. As a reminder, SiVEST’s appointment is to identify and assess an environmentally feasible corridor. Paul da Cruz, Royal Haskoning

Requested details of the 400kV lines from Thuyspunt, specifically the power capability of each line or the number and type of conductors per circuit.

CROSSLEY, Ms Suzi GIS Manager: Afri-Coast Engineers SA (Pty) Ltd E-mail: 23 May 2011

Each line will be design for 1400MW under normal conditions. There will be 5 circuits, each with a capacity of 1930MVA (2786 Amps). Each line will be strung with triple Bersfort conductor per


Page 73


phase. Caswell Ndlhovu: Eskom

Eskom was informed that by placing the power lines on top of the ridge would be more hazardous as the power lines could be hit by lighting.


It is for that reason why an alternative is being considered that is not right on top of the ridge. Weather patterns of the area will also be taken into consideration. Sanjeev Hirachund, Eskom

It was enquired whether Eskom has Norms and Standards (i.e. restrictions) in terms of Wind Farms.

DUCIE, Mr Greg Head: Planning Department Cacadu District Municipality Feedback Meeting: 11 October 2010

Request will be forwarded to Eskom for response. Post-Meeting note: The wind generator / turbine should be of a distance from the transmission line that should it fall, it would not encroach the Eskom servitude of 27.5m from the centreline for 400kV transmission lines. Dean Wilson: Eskom

The project team was informed that Cacadu DM is aware of 32 BA and EIA applications for Wind Farms of which ±12 falls within the Kouga Local Municipality and enquired whether SiVEST is aware of these applications.

SiVEST is aware of five applications. Liesl Koch, SiVEST

Cacadu DM is in the process of drafting a Locational Policy Document on Renewable Energy projects within the Cacadu DM boundaries and it is envisaged that the first draft will be available towards the end of January 2011 or beginning of February 2011.

Information noted and it was requested that a copy of the document be forwarded to SiVEST. Liesl Koch, SiVEST Post-meeting note: After follow-ups by the project team, no documentation of this type has been received to date from Cacadu DM.

It was mentioned that Eskom does make provision for some leeway regarding distances from structures. However, looking at the current maps it seems that the area where the EIA Team-preferred alignment is being proposed could be the only crossing points for the Transmission power lines.

HENNING, Mr Wimpie Eskom FGM: 17 September 2012

Ventusa Energy will have to overlay the proposed Northern Corridor on their maps to assess the request. It was mentioned that should Ventusa Energy looses two (2) turbines it could result in a 10% drop in energy generation. Ventusa Energy will discuss the possibility of an MOU with its Directors. Keith Kirby, Ventusa Energy

It was asked whether the wind turbine positions are fixed or is there still a possibility to adjust the design to accommodate the proposed power lines.

The wind turbine positions are not yet fixed as geotechnical work still needs to be undertaken. A problem that is usually experienced


Page 74


with the layout of a wind farm is that a distance of 300m to 500m is required between each wind turbine and this is critical in the layout design. Keith Kirby, Ventusa Energy

The attendees were informed that Eskom is weary of the objections raised. Fire is a huge risk to Eskom especially in terms of its network stability and it is for this reason that Eskom would like to stay clear of forestry. For this proposed project, there are areas that the power lines are going into forestry areas and this pose a huge risk for Eskom.

HIRACHUND, Sanjeev Technical Engineer, Eskom FGM: 17 September 2012

In response it was asked whether this risk out-weight all the other risks. Dr Nina Wozniak, Elands River Conservancy All risks were evaluated equally and in accordance to the required legislation. Sanjeev Hirachund, Eskom

In the process of starting a sand quarry and believes the dust and irrigation will be bad for the power lines.

KEMP, Mr VG Farmer Kaastaiing Boom EIA Comment Form (Arcus GIBB):10 May 2010

Dust has a negatively effect on the insulators but can be mitigated by using a composite type. Dean Wilson: Eskom

There are currently pine trees on his property, enquired whether Eskom will sell the pine trees that need to be removed to accommodate the servitude for the power lines.

KIETZMANN, Mr Ross Landowner: Platberg Loeries Ruskamp: 21 February 2011

Eskom has a Vegetation Policy addressing issues such as this and feedback will be provided in the Discussion Document. Dean Wilson: Eskom Post-Open House note: Should it be necessary to remove trees, this will be done in consultation with the landowner. What generally happens with commercial type trees is that the owner prefers the trees to be professionally felled and stacked neatly outside the servitude for commercial disposal by the landowner. The trees and proceeds belong to the landowner. Dean Wilson: Eskom

It was asked if the power lines could be constructed underground. KOTA, Clr Patrick Kouga Local Municipality Councillors’ Community Meeting Wednesday, 22 June 2011

Underground cabling is always a possibility but it is very costly (costs times 10 of the over-head cabling) and it was mentioned at previous meetings that it would take Eskom longer to find the fault on the line than with over-head lines. Also, once the fault has been found, the cables need to be dug up again. From an environmental view point, should a power line be constructed


Page 75


underground the environment impact is quite substantial i.e. the whole servitude has to be cleared of all vegetation (except grass) ventilation shafts would need to be constructed, the area is sterilised, etc. Nicolene Venter, SiVEST

It was asked whether the power lines will be constructed by making use of helicopters.


Where there are sensitive areas, such as rocky areas or natural fynbos, a helicopter would be used. This also ensures that new access roads for construction and maintenance are limited. Paul da Cruz, SiVEST When negotiating and applying for a servitude, the LOs usually indicate and decide on access to his property. There are quite strict regulations associated with the building of access roads and should this be required, it will be managed together with the EMP. Dean Wilson, Eskom

What is the financial reasoning as to why Eskom could not bury the power lines? It was previously stated that Eskom cannot afford it.

It is believed as per information received and included in the DEIR that constructing a power line underground will cost ten times more than constructing the power lines overhead. There are issues related to maintenance needing to be undertaken, then the ground needs to be re-excavated. Paul da Cruz, SiVEST

It was asked as to where is the Coega fault line as mentioned in the presentation.

The Coega Fault is located to the north of the town of Motherwell, and as such runs across the Southern Corridor in this area. Paul da Cruz, SiVEST

It was asked what is the safety zone for trees to grow in a servitude.


Trees of 4m and higher are not allowed in the registered servitude. Dean Wilson, Eskom Post meeting note: Trees planted within the servitude that could reach a height that would affect the conductors is not allowed nor trees alongside a line where branches could grow into the conductors. This is a safety precaution to prevent outages. Dean Wilson, Eskom

It was enquired as to what the minimum distance is between two power lines.

MALAN, Ms Trudi Member: Thyspunt Alliance Cape St Francis Civics

The registered servitude required per power line is 55m and one power line can be located adjacent to the next one, although this is not a preferred option for Eskom from a technical and safety


Page 76


Feedback Meeting: 11 October 2010 point of view. Should two power lines run parallel to each other the registered servitude will be 110m. It needs to be noted that the power lines will not cross over housing or any other permanent structures as these will be avoided as far as possible. For the Kruisfontein area, it is proposed that the power lines will run on the outskirts of Kruisfontein. Liesl Koch, SiVEST

It was requested that the width of the servitude be explained.


The registered servitude per 400kV Tx power line will be 55m Paul da Cruz, SiVEST

As a follow-up it was said that the distance calculated for the five (5) Tx power lines are not correct as the distance between the lines have not been calculated and this fact is not included in the DEIR.

The five (5) power lines will not run parallel and in the section where it runs close to one another i.e. 3 x 400kV Tx power lines will have a registered servitude 165m wide. A detailed calculation will be provided in the draft minutes. Dean Wilson, Eskom Post-meeting note: 1) Average cost per km for 400kV = R2 million 2) Approximate length Northern Corridor = 140 km 3) Approximate length Southern Corridor = 130km 4) Average cost per bend tower for 400kV = R800,000 Please note that the above are average estimates as it was during the year: 2010. Alwyn Marais, Eskom

The concern regarding corrosion impact on the power lines (conductors and insulators), especially in this marine environment. This impact was not identified and was not addressed or included in the DEIR. It was mentioned that MTN towers has to be moved due to corrosion problems.

This impact has not been considered at this is the first time thatthis issue is raised and it is a very well made point. This matter will be looked at and included in the FEIR. It needs to be noted that the FEIR will be made available to I&APs for review to ensure that I&APs comments have been included and consider. Paul da Cruz, SiVEST Post-meeting note:


Page 77


Eskom’s approach in mitigating against corrosion, especially in marine environments, is to apply the appropriate level of corrosion protection hot dip galvanising to towers and hardware. Corrosion rate maps are utilised to estimate the rate of reduction of zinc coating thickness, as a result of corrosion, and then a zinc coating thickness is specified which will aim to achieve the design life of the asset. Where the design life of the tower or hardware cannot be achieved with what is practically possible in terms of zinc coating thickness, or where the lifespan of the asset needs to be extended, a strategy or maintenance program, which may include painting of the towers and hardware with corrosion resistant paint amongst other measures, may be implemented. Conductors will typically be grease coated in marine or high corrosion environments to protect the conductor against corrosion. While greased Aluminium Conductors with steel reinforcement (ACSR) are generally used in corrosive environments, other technologies such as All Aluminium Alloy Conductors (ACCC) may also be considered for application during the detailed design stage. A full analysis of the level of corrosion of the environment and corrosion protection level to be applied to equipment will be conducted during the detailed design phase of the project. It must be noted that Eskom has successfully designed and built powerlines in far more corrosive areas such as the Cape Peninsula area. Eskom has its own corrosion test station (KIPS) in the Koeberg area and indoor corrosion laboratory (Rosherville) which it uses to evaluate corrosion performance of equipment and coatings. Knowledge and experience gained from this research is used in the design of powerlines and other assets to protect them against corrosion. Ravi Singh, Chief Engineer: Electrical, Eskom

Has the use of power pipelines been considered for the Thyspunt Transmission lines?

MUNNINGS, Mr Bruce Africoast Engineerings SA (Pty)Ltd

The Eskom standard for transmitting 400kV voltages is overhead lines. Therefore, underground cables will not be considered. The


Page 78


http://www.amsc.com/products/powerpipelines/index.html?parent=1 E-mail: 26 May 2011 capital and operational costs of cabling such high voltages cannot be justified and the capacity that they carry does not compare to the capacity of overhead power lines. Ernest Grunewald: Eskom

As a formality the servitude will be 27.5m either side of the 400kv line, but ESKOM will request that no development is done along the boundaries of these servitudes. The height of these lines is 40-43m separated by 400m of line with sag of 9.3m from the ground. I would like to highlight two further points: 1) With this low sag height of the lines, should they cross over our poultry houses,

there would only be a clearance distance of 4m to the lines which would not be acceptable especially given the uncertainty of the EMF on poultry health; 1. Should the masks of ~40m fall down either side of the servitude, essentially

ESKOM is expecting landowners to forfeit an additional 13m of their property where development cannot occur, yet would not be reimbursed by ESKOM for this land outside of the servitudes sterilized as a result of contingencies for the powerlines.

RALPH, Mr Mark Environmental Manager Sovereign Foods E-mail: 22 February 2011

Cross Rope suspension towers will be the likely structure used and they can be up to 38m high. The self-supporting towers will be used for bends and are generally 30m high. Minimum clearance to ground other than beneath roads, railways and townships is 8.1m. Eskom require servitudes clear of buildings, large trees and where stacking (e.g. timber, hay, etc.) occurs. If buildings/structures cannot be avoided the minimum vertical clearance would be 5.6 m. Eskom however strives to avoid going over structures when finalising the routes and if unavoidable, would relocate the structure at Eskom’s cost. Lines are designed to comply with the OHS Act. Studies have shown that EMF readings taken on the extremity of the servitude are within allowable limits. Therefore, no impact of EMF will be experienced on poultry.Eskom compensates the landowner for the entire servitude (i.e. the full length over the property x the servitude widths). The servitude is registered for transmission of electricity and communication lines only. The only restriction within the servitude for landowners is stacking, structures and planting tall tress – also a 10 m restriction of a structure from the Eskom tower infrastructure such as anchors is required for safety. Furthermore, power lines do not fall over and the width of 27.5m for a 400kV is ample to accommodate the power line. Dean Wilson: Eskom

2) Given the uncertainty of the EMF impacts, a conservative buffer to any poultry houses should be accommodated within the final corridor planning

A very valid request and this will be included in the EMP and has been forwarded to Eskom in the interim. Nicolene Venter, SiVEST EMF radiation from power lines are designed not to affect humans and animals, therefore this is taken care of. Final routes would avoid poultry houses within the servitudes.


Page 79


Ernest Grunewald: Eskom It was asked whether electricity generated by wind farms be connected to the power lines.

RHEEDER, Clr Ben Kouga Councillors Community Meeting Wednesday 22 June 2011

The electricity generated by a wind farm can be connected to existing or new power lines, depending on kV. The IPP will negotiate with Eskom on how this will be done. Lerato Mokgwatlheng, Eskom

It was suggested that a MOU could be drafted where all relevant technical information is included. It was mentioned that it seems that Ventusa Energy and SiVEST have time constraints on their respective projects i.e. Ventusa Energy needs to submit their application in May 2013 by SiVEST needs all relevant information for inclusion in Revised DEIR.

SOLOMONS, Ms Bernadette Eskom FGM: 17 September 2012

Ventusa Energy will have to overlay the proposed Northern Corridor on their maps to assess the request. It was mentioned that should Ventusa Energy looses two (2) turbines it could result in a 10% drop in energy generation. Ventusa Energy will discuss the possibility of an MOU with its Directors. Keith Kirby, Ventusa Energy

It was requested whether Ventusa Energy would be able to sacrifice turbines 10 & 11, should it be impacted.

THOMAS, Ms Rebecca Acting Project Manager: SiVEST FGM: 17 September 2012

Informed us that Uitenhage’s Flying Club practice and fly above his land every day, and wished to know what will happen if one of the planes hit the lines and crashes onto his property.

VILJOEN, Mr ML Farm Owner Arcus GIBB Comment Form

All measures humanly possible are made to avoid collisions with power lines i.e. planes, birds, etc. One of the mitigation measures used by Eskom is the erection of aviation spheres on the power lines, making them visible to pilots. Issue raisednot relevant to proposed activity, but power lines are erected where there is no danger to aviation. Part of Eskom’s duties before constructing transmission lines is to apply to the South African Civil Aviation Authority for statutory approval. Dean Wilson: Eskom

17. Existing Infrastructure Related Comments/Issues

Informed the project team that he runs a commercial hunting farm in the Honeyville Area. Game is bred and hunted on his farm. He has invested large amounts of money on the property and in the operation, and on upgrading his homestead to create luxury accommodation for hunters who visit the farm. He does not wish that the proposed power lines cross his farm as proposed on the maps at the meeting as this would negatively affect his operations and compromise his investments.

BARNARD, Mr Gert LO Open House Humansdorp: 21 February 2011

Information noted and will be taken into consideration. The EIA Team-preferred alignment has been subsequently re-routed to the south to avoid his property. It should be noted that the socio-economic assessment has investigated the potential impact of power lines on capital investments such as this.

The project team was informed that there are existing centre pivots situated to the south of his property that must be avoided by the proposed power lines

KIETZMANN, Mr Ross Landowner: Platberg LO Open House

Information noted and will be taken into consideration. The EIA Team-preferred alignment avoids these centre pivots.


Page 80


Loerie Ruskamp: 21 February 2011 Informed the project team that they breed game on their farm. They do not wish that the power lines traverse their property and interfere with the game breeding activities. The EIA team preferred alignment also runs very close to the house of a tenant.

ROSENKRANZ, Dr H Landowner LO Open House Humansdorp Boutique Hotel: 21 February 2011

Information noted and will be taken into consideration. The EIA Team-preferred alignment has subsequently been re-routed to not directly traverse the game breeding area.

18. Proposed Future Developments / Infrastructure Related Comments/Issues

Submitted shape files to SiVEST of Red Caps’ proposed Wind Farm locations to be overlaid on the TTLIP corridor maps.

BLAINE, Mr Lance E-mail: 24 May 2011

SiVEST overlaid your proposed route changes from you onto our GIS system and the changed would appear to be acceptable from an environmental perspective, as there do not appear to be any environmentally sensitive areas that are affected. The proposed revised alignment of the southern corridor lines may even be more beneficial from an environmental perspective as it spans a wetland to the north of the HV at a narrower part of the wetland than the current alignment does, thus improving the potential for the wetland to remain unaffected. Paul da Cruz, SiVEST via return e-mail Detailed response attached to Appendix D

The project team was informed that an indigenous plant species nursery is planned south of KwaNobuhle in the area where the proposed cultural activities are planned.

CORRIGAN, Mr Brian Director: Hopewell Conservation (Pty) Ltd Olivia Hall: 23 February 2011

Please refer to comments above in section 1 (Biodiversity-related comments)

The project team was informed that centre pivots are plannedon his property and indicated on the maps where these are proposed.

McHUGH, Mr Peter Landowner: Emerald Pastures Humansdorp Boutique Hotel: 21 February 2011

Information noted and will be taken into consideration. The EIA Team-preferred alignment avoids these planned centre pivots

It was suggested that once the exact corridors have been finalised and the lines are ‘finalised’ in terms of the EIA (obviously this will still change based on landowner consultation on the ground), that ESKOM meets with Mr Blaine van Rensburg of Sovereign Foods (details provided at the open day), and the exact location of the poultry houses on the affected farms are accurately defined and accommodated in the final route determination prior to construction.


There will be no “finalised” lines in terms of the EIA but merely an EIA Team-preferred routing within the corridors submitted to DEA for Environmental Authorisation. We will set-up a meeting with Sovereign Foods as requested and it is envisaged that this meeting might take place around mid-April but SiVEST will be in contact with Sovereign Foods regarding a proposed date and time.


Page 81


Nicolene Venter, SiVEST (e-mail: 08 March 2011) Further Response to Comment: It is proposed that the a meeting between Sovereign Foods and Eskom’s negotiator takes place during the series of Open Houses scheduled for the end of July, beginning of August 2011.

19. Servitude Negotiation and Compensation Related Comments/Issues

It was enquired whether landowners will still be responsible to pay property tax although Eskom had a registered servitude for the power lines.

PIETERSEN, Mr Fanie Landowner Landowners’ Open House Olivia Hall: 23 February 2011

Post-Open House note: Property tax payable will decline by the area of servitude registered and Eskom would then become liable. Dean Wilson: Eskom

20. Communication Comments/Issues The project team was requested to hold a meeting with the residents of Tiryville, as they are very close to the proposed power lines, to inform them of the possible impacts.

ALEXANDER, Frans Community Leader: Tiryville Rosedale, Kamesh, Tiryville & Mountain View Community Meeting Friday 24 June 2011

The request was acknowledged and the team agreed to schedule such a meeting. Nicolene Venter, SiVEST

Die versoek was gerig dat ‘n afskrif van die Kernkrag aanbieding en die EMF verslag waarna Mnr Hubbard verwys het, by die konsepnotule aangeheg moet word. Translation: The request was made that a copy of the Nuclear presentation and the EMF report referred to Mr. Hubbard, to be attached to the draft Minutes.

ALL ATTENDEES Resident, Tiryville Tiryville Community Meeting: 27 January 2012

Request noted. Nicolene Venter, SiVEST

The project team was informed, that in response to the previous question raised as to what impact the proposed project would have on communities such as Die Berg and Kruisfontein that Die Berg community will be fully informed about the project by him.

CAMPHER, Clr Freddy Kouga Local Municipality Councillors’ Community Meeting Wednesday, 22 June 2011

Appreciation was expressed at the commitment made by Clr Campher and the attendees were informed that a Community Consultation Meeting is scheduled for the following evening (23 June 2011) at Kruisfontein Community Hall as a venue could not be secured at Die Berg. The name and contact number of Die Berg’s community representative was provided to the team by Clr Campher and requested that his attendance be secured. Nicolene Venter, SiVEST


Page 82


Requested that information should be made known to his office, including details of the approach, dates and how his office can facilitate a meaningful process.

CORRIDGE, Mr Rod Assistant Director Community Outreach NMBM E-mail: 30 August 2010

Comment Noted

Informed SiVEST that Property Hunt Scheme - east of KwaNobuhle, are building 5000 units as an extension to the community and recommend that the team consult with the developers. Brian to email SiVEST development manager’s details.

Feedback Meeting: 14 October 2010 Information regarding the proposed extension of KwaNobuhle was received from the NMBM and has been taken into consideration. It is this proposed development that caused the narrowing of the corridor between Hopewell Conservancy and KwaNobuhle. Nicolene Venter, SiVEST

The contact details of the Environmental Officer at DEA were requested. COWLING, Mrs Shirley Friends of St Francis Nature Reserve Feedback Meeting: 11 October 2010

Information forwarded via e-mail on 23 November 2010.

Requested information as to who the environmental specialists are that form part of the EIA team for this project and which studies are being conducted.

The list will be attached to the draft minutes. Nicolene Venter, SiVEST Post-meeting note: List of Environmental Specialists attached to the Minutes as Appendix E.

Verneem waar volgende fase gaan wees. Translation: Enquired what the next phase will be.

DODD, Mr Keith Landowner: Farm Eikenek EIA Newsletter Comment Form Fax: 27 January 2010

The EIA process is currently in the impact phase which consists of the environmental specialist doing detailed investigations on the Corridors and the proposed new Port Elizabeth Substation site. Nicolene Venter: SiVEST

Mentioned that they at "For A Safe Tomorrow “ (FAST) disagree with and protest to the statement made in response to their question on page 8 of Annexure C, Final draft minutes for the Thyspunt Transmission Lines Project, Key Stakeholder Workshop Kelway Hotel PE. Further said that the statement is in breach of NEMA regulations with regard to the integrity of the independence of the public EIA process and its factual content. Mentioned that the argument for nuclear and against renewable in the fashion is often put out to the public during public EIA's by Eskom representatives who he said are the developer and not independent. Also mentioned that the response in question is clearly not objective, factual or informative and further said it obviously serves to benefit the developer. He thus

DONNELLY, Mr Ryan Chairperson: For A Safe Tomorrow E-mail: 15 November 2009

E-mail acknowledged and I&AP informed that their protest has been forwarded to Arcus GIBB as it relates to the Nuclear-1 Project. Also forwarded Arcus GIBB's Nuclear-1 EIA consultants’ email address ([email protected]) Nicolene Venter: SiVEST (e-mail: 16 November 2009) SiVEST confirms that the public participation process followed for the TTLIP adheres to NEMA and Guideline 4 of the Regulations. SiVEST therefore cannot consider the request made that the EIA process be abandoned and restarted. It is the I&AP’s right to formally lodge such a request with specific references as to where the public participation process did not


Page 83


said responses to the public must be factual and not serve to support the developer‘s interest during a public EIA. Cited Eskom's response to their question, whether conditions are not highly unpredictable in many areas like Upington, and that there are base load renewable technologies such as thermal and concentrated Solar power. Further mentioned that FAST finds this public EIA process flawed as it is driven by the developers interest, and that there are no independent experts present as should be when taking NEMA regulations into account. They as FAST suggest to all related higher authorities that this EIA process be abandoned and restarted in accordance with NEMA regulations.

adhere to NEMA and Guideline 4. Nicolene Venter: SiVEST

It was stated that the reference for their argument is an example, and it needs to be understood that it is not the essence of their protest, but FAST does want it documented. It was also mentioned that there are no independent experts at either the Nuclear -1 Project or the Transmission line EIAs. NEMA regulations also apply to SiVEST's Thyspunt Transmission Lines EIA. It was requested that FAST's entire protest as (both e-mails – 15 & 17 November 09) be included in the Thyspunt Transmission Lines Public EIA as relevant comments.

E-mail: 17 November 2009

I&AP informed that both comments received from FAST and Mike Kantey of CANE have already been included in the Issues and Responses Report. Nicolene Venter: SiVEST (e-mail: 16 November 2009) Request acknowledged.

It was stated that although correspondence and phone calls were received that Eskom will engage with him regarding the proposed TTLIP project and the possibility that the power lines might traverse his property, no contact from Eskom’s side was made to date.

FROST, Adv Alan Landowner: Mimosadale West Correspondence: 25 March 2011

Correspondence acknowledged and a one-on-one consultation took place on Tuesday 29 March 2011.

Requested details regarding the relevant person/s from whom authority can be obtained for independent review of the specialist studies.

GARBETT, Ms Christine Professional Aviation Coalition Against Nuclear Energy E-mail: 30 August 2010

Contact must be made with the Environmental Case Office at the Dept of Environmental Affairs, Ms Lene Grobbelaar at 012 310 3087 or [email protected]. Nicolene Venter, SiVEST Further Response to Comment: The TTLIP has been assigned a new Case Officer: Ms Gabisile Hlongwane at 012 310 3805 or [email protected]


Page 84


It was requested that landowners’ inputs and comments be taken into consideration during the impact phase.

GERBER, Mr Roedolf Landowner: Farm Klein River Humansdorp Boutique Hotel: 21 February 2011

All inputs and concerns raised by landowners and I&APs are taken into consideration by the EIA team and the outcome of these inputs and concerns raised is responded to in the I&RR. Nicolene Venter: SiVEST

It was suggested that attendees at meetings need to be given a DVD or recorded tapes of the presentation. He voiced interest in knowing how the issue of transmission lines traversing on people’s properties would be dealt with, made reference to farmers who might be affected in the process.

GQOMO, Mr Thando Resident: KwaNobuhle Letter: 15 October 2009

SiVEST thank the I&AP for the valid suggestion. However, to distribute the presentation of the meeting to all the attendees, whether on DVD or tape, will be a costly excursion, and provision in the project’s budget has not been made for this expense. Comprehensive consultation is taking place with all affected property owners (farmers and communities) and the consultation process was outlined in the draft Scoping Report. Nicolene Venter: SiVEST

Commented that it would be wiser for the project team to consult with the officials (Local Municipality and related government departments) whom he said are more knowledgeable and not with the farmers.

Public Participation Process entails consultation with all Interested and/or Affected Parties (I&APs) (community members as well as property owner such as farmers) including Stakeholders (Local Municipality and other related government department officials). Consultation has up to this point been conducted with all I&APs and Stakeholders. Themba Skonje: SiVEST

Mentioned that he has noticed that their Comments/Issues raised on the DSR have not been included in the document sent to him via email on the 29 September 2009. Acknowledged correspondence and mentioned that the response is quite clear and acceptable.

HENN, Mr Richard Director: Torin Investment (Pty) Ltd & Soutvlei Landgoed Consortium E-mail: 12 October 2009

Responded by clarifying that the Open Day Discussion Document distributed to I&APs on the 29th of September 2009 included the Comments/Issues and/or concerns raised during the series of Open Days held the last week of November 2008 and the first week of December 2008. Mentioned that however the Comments/Issues raised on the DSR were captured in the Issues and Responses Report that was submitted to the Department of Environmental Affairs for decision-making (scoping phase). Also indicated that the information provided regarding the process of rezoning the property owned by Soutvlei Landgoed and Torine Investments has been submitted to SiVEST’s GIS specialist to capture the information on landowners’ map.


Page 85


Further requested him to forward Comments/Issues if any were not captured as to update the document accordingly. Nicolene Venter: SiVEST (e-mail: 13 October 2009)

Mentioned that Coalition Against Nuclear Energy supports the views of FAST in the matters mentioned above, and wishes the record to state that the deviations from the scientific principles expressed in NEMA have been noted.

KANTEY, Mr Mike National Chairperson: Coalition Against Nuclear Energy E-mail: 16 November 2009

E-mail acknowledged and I&AP informed that their Comments/Issues have been forwarded to Arcus GIBB as it relates to the Nuclear-1 Project. I&AP informed that that the e-mail was CC to those for whom SiVEST has e-mail addresses of, and that those not included are not registered I&APs for the proposed Thyspunt Transmission Lines Integration Project) Nicolene Venter: SiVEST (e-mail: 16 November 2009)

It was enquired as to what extend the Kouga Local Municipality has been consulted. KATE, Clr Pumelelo Portfolio Councillor Cacadu District Municipality Feedback Meeting: 11 October 2010

A summary of the consultation process was given as: • Focus Group Meeting: 16 September 2008 • One-on-One: Planning Department – 2008 & 2009 • Open Day: November 2008 • Key Stakeholder Workshop: May 2009 • Public Meeting: May 2009 Kouga LM was also invited to this Feedback Meeting.

A copy of the map indicating the cadastral of the adjoining properties to the Happy Valley Wind Farm Project was requested.

KIRBY, Mr Keith Chief Executive Officer: Ventusa Energy FGM: 17 September 2012

The electronic copy of the map was presented to the attendee after the meeting

A copy of Eskom’s document Eskom general requirements for work in or near Eskom servitudes WIND was requested.

The requested document was e-mailed to the attendee on 17 September 2012.

A meeting was requested between SiVEST and Mainstream Renewable Power South Africa JV to help speed up a resolution and requested to put on TTLIP database as an I&AP.

MAHOMED-WEIDEMAN, Ms Leila Director: Mainstream Renewable Power South Africa JV Genesis Eco Energy E-mail: 25 August 2009

Mainstream Renewable Power South Africa has been registered as an I&AP on the TTLIP database. Nicolene Venter: SiVEST (e-mail: 05 October 2009) Mainstream Renewable Power South Africa, the CSIR and their proponent will be invited to the series of FGMs that is envisaged to take place during March 2010 and a second round of FGMs in May 2010. Nicolene Venter: SiVEST


Page 86


In response to an invitation to attend a feedback meeting Leila Mahomed-Weideman indicated she will not be able to make these meetings but would like to be kept informed. Feedback is also requested on the proposed resolution made about 4 months ago regarding one southern corridor potentially crossing our site and impacting on the wind farm project, whose EIA Application is currently underway. Information and further discussions is also requested on the route refinements an impact on the wind farm to be discussed in the meetings.

E-mail: 12 October 2010 Noted that the project was onhold during the last communication. Further noted that as Stakeholders SiVEST and Eskom as a stakeholder informed of the progress of the EIA for Mainstream’s wind farm project. In response to impact on the wind farm, environmental specialists are currently doing their detailed assessment and they are informed of various constraints i.e. wind farms and they will identify other constraints associated with their field of expertise. A revised overview area map that has been issued to the specialist for their studies will be forwarded. Lastly indicated that the EAP’s involved in the 3 EIAs for wind farms in our study area have been notified by I&APs and Stakeholders of this EIA. Nicolene Venter Email: 14 October 2010

Requested that the project team pursue the possibility of a narrower corridor through Kruisfontein.


Request noted and will be considered during investigations. Liesl Koch, SiVEST

Concern was expressed that the community of Kruisfontein might not be aware or understand the magnitude of the power lines that will traverse Kruisfontein.

One of the consultation methodology followed was to inform the Councillors of the proposed project and the Councillors then inform their constituencies i.e. Kruisfontein. The Open Day held during the scoping phase of the proposed project took place in Kruisfontein and was widely advertised through the distribution of flyers and posters. Liesl Koch, SiVEST Further Response to Comment: The community at Kruisfontein was consulted during community consultation meetings in June 2011.


Page 87


The project team was notified that Die Berg is a small community situated north-west of Kruisfontein and will be affected by the Northern Corridor.

Information noted and the PP team will ensure that the community are consulted. Nicolene Venter, SiVEST Further Response to Comment: The community at Die Berg was consulted during community consultation meetings in June 2011.

The project team was informed that Public Process (Sandy Wren) is dealing with the new Township Application at Kruisfontein.

Thanked the attendee for the Information and will be followed up. Nicolene Venter, SiVEST

At the Jeffreys Bay Meeting it was mentioned that a meeting between Eskom and the Department of Environmental Affairs took place where Eskom with regards to the separation of the two EIAs. It was requested that a copy of these minutes please be provided.

E-mail: 01 March 2011 Eskom would like to set the record straight that there are no minutes or record of the meeting between Eskom and DEA with regard to the separations of the two EIAs. What did transpire in the that Eskom had with DEA regarding new applications for power stations and transmission lines was that the EIA applications (i.e. for newly proposed power stations and transmission power lines) can be separated, but Eskom should ensure that these separate projects do run con-currently or parallel to one another to ensure that final reports, which in this instances will be the EIRs are submitted at most the same time to DEA. DEA will therefore be able to align both projects for decision-making purpose. This became a norm for Eskom, dating back to Medupi applications’ era-to-date. So when these applications (i.e. proposed Nuclear power station and transmission power lines) were submitted to DEA, Eskom was reminded of the agreed-practice / norm and that is why Eskom is striving for these projects to be finalised more or less at the same time. Lerato Mokgwatlheng: Eskom

Requested that all the key stakeholders be consulted with. MBTIYO, Mr Bambo Member: Uitenhage Development Forum Feedback Meeting: 14 October 2010

Consultation commenced in July 2008 and many stakeholders have been identified and consulted to date. It was pointed out that I&APs also have a responsibility to ensure that they inform the public participation office of any other I&AP and stakeholder that needs to be included in the consultation process. Nicolene Venter, SiVEST


Page 88


Mentioned that he has no objection to the project, and further wished success thereof as he needs a job, and that he can be contacted if necessary.

MEI, Mr Andile Resident: KwaNobuhle, Uitenhage EIA Newsletter Comment Form Post: 11 January 2010

Comment noted.

A site visit to the property was requested to discuss possible impacts. MOORE, Dr Arno Owner: Farm De Woudt & Nocton Newsletter Comment Form Fax: 06 January 2010

Request acknowledged and arrangement will be made for a visit during the series of FGMs to be held during March 2010. Nicolene Venter: SiVEST Property visited and one-on-one discussion held and the team established first had the possible impact a power line could have on the production of vegetable seedlings. SIA specialist was also present during these discussions. Nicolene Venter, SiVEST

Expressed that there has been no consultation with the farming community of Kruisrivier about the possible construction of a power line and stated further that the procedure is not transparent and may as such give rise to litigation.


Consultation has taken place through the Chairperson of the Kruisrivier Residents’ Association, the Kruisrivier Farmers’ Association and during a site visit during which the team has requested all parties concerned to inform their neighbours who might be affected and their friends and family who might be interested in the proposed project. A series of feedback meetings were held during October 2010. Nicolene Venter: SiVEST Further Response to Comment: A land owner open house was held at Kruisrivier in February 2011.

Requested information regarding the current status of TTLIP as her last correspondence was when she was notified of the FSR having been submitted to DEA.

OOSTHUIZEN, Ms René Regional Content Researcher Private Projects E-mail: 08 December 2009

E-mail acknowledged and a copy of the EIA Newsletter, an updated map and the Comment Form was forwarded. Nicolene Venter: SiVEST (e-mail: 10 December 2009)

Incorrectly quoted the project as proposed construction of seven (7) high voltage transmission power lines.

Corrected the I&AP that the proposed TTLIP consist of five (5) proposed 400kV Transmission power lines and not seven (7). Nicolene Venter: SiVEST (e-mail: 10 December 2009)

Further requested to be provided with the contact details of the professional project team members involved with the project.

I&AP were forwarded contact details of SiVEST’s EIA Project Manager and Eskom’s Technical Engineer. Nicolene Venter: SiVEST (e-mail: 10 December 2009)


Page 89


Indicated that a number of Comments/Issues that were raised at the open day that were sent to SiVEST have not been included in the open day comment report.

RALPH, Mr Mark Environmental Officer: Sovereign Foods E-mail: 30 September 2009

It was confirmed with Sovereign Foods that their Comments/Issues received via e-mail after the Open Day have been captured in the I&RR and that there is no need to duplicate it in the Open Day Discussion document. Nicolene Venter: SiVEST (e-mail:29 September 2009)

Frustration has been expressed for the burden placed on communities to comment on all the fragmented BA and EIA processes in the area. Communities must deal with applications such as wind farms, Nuclear, 132kV construction village outside Humansdorp, quarries etc. How can SiVEST expect communities to contribute and evaluate what is being presented. This issue was also raised previously and we get to a point where we are provided with misleading information.

REICHERT, Kobus Heritage Representative: Gamtkwa KhoiSan Council PM Pellsrus, Jeffrey’s Bay: 28 September 2011

Frustration is understandable but as previously mentioned, this concern needs to be addressed with DEA. Paul da Cruz, SiVEST

The question was raised as to whether only landowners’ concerns and comments are being taken into consideration.

REICHERT, Kobus Representative: Gamtkwa Khoisan Council FGM: 28 January 2012

No, all I&APs and stakeholders, such as the Gamtkwa KhoiSan Council, are taken into consideration. Paul da Cruz: SiVEST

The project team was informed that the Council is a member of the Thyspunt Alliance, and if the Council have known that Eskom’s legal representative would’ve been present, the Council would have invited Mr Cormac Cullinan, their legal representative to the meeting. SiVEST was informed that, in future, it would be appreciated if the Council are informed of which project team members will be attending the meeting.

As the EIA process is an legal independent process, the presence of Eskom’s legal representative is purely to observe as at the end of the day the infrastructure would be Eskom’s responsibility to operate and maintained. Bernadette Solomon, Eskom Request noted and will be attended to should another meeting be required. Nicolene Venter, SiVEST

It was enquired as to why the Heritage Specialist, Mr Johnny van Schalkwyk, is not present at the meeting.

The Heritage Specialist has declined any further involvement in the project as he believes that his professional integrity as a Heritage Specialist with years of experience is constantly being questioned. SiVEST cannot force their specialist to attend meetings. Paul da Cruz, SiVEST

The project team was informed that “Karin” (Arcus GIBB Heritage Specialist) refused to consult the Elderly Board and this approach is not conducive as the Council’s inputs are not recorded or taken into consideration. It is believed that the Heritage Specialists work with ‘heritage’ but not the people who the heritage belongs to.

Comment noted. Once SiVEST appoint a coastal experienced Heritage Specialist, the specialist’s Scope of Works (SoW) will include one-on-one consultation with the Council to ensure that all heritage knowledge from the Council is recorded and addressed in the HIA Report. Paul da Cruz, SiVEST

It was requested that copies of SAHRA’s communication be forwarded. Copies of SAHRA’s correspondence received to date will be distributed with the draft minutes of the meeting. Nicolene Venter, SiVEST


Page 90


Nicolene Venter of SiVEST phoned me yesterday to inform me that they have lost the minutes of the key focus group meeting with the Gamtkwa Khoisan Council held in January 2012. She suggested that she will forward her notes to me and that I should add anything that I feel that was not addressed. This was their first contact with me in the 8 months after the meeting. I initially agreed to assist in order to accommodate your request for a meeting, but after reviewing all my previous correspondence with SiVEST, I regret to inform you that the Gamtkwa is considering withdrawing from the Public Participation Phase and to address their future comments directly to the Department of Environmental Affairs due the following reasons:- SiVEST have failed to provide us with the amended minutes for the Humansdorp Public meeting and the Cape St Francis Feed-back meeting despite numerous requests and at various stages alleged that they have either lost our comments or that they have not received any comments while we have proof to the contrary based on their own e-mail responses to us.-SiVEST have failed to provide us with the minutes of the Jeffreys Bay Public meeting held on 28 September 2011 and to date we did not have an opportunity to review or comment on the minutes -SiVEST have lost the minutes of the key-focus group meeting with us in January 2012 and they now expect us to rectify the matter. Although the above issues are not part of your scope of work, we are of the opinion that the consultation process with you does form part of the PPP and as such we requested that the above matters should be rectified prior to our meeting since it makes little sense to repeat comments that we have made during the course of this EIA process to date. This has clearly not been done. We are further of the opinion that SiVest have failed to conduct the PPP with regard to us in an open an transparent way and specifically to assist a disadvantaged community to participate in the process by accurately recording their comments and by failing to address their legitimate requests as part of this process. In the circumstances we are in not in a position to meet with you due to the conduct of the EIA consultant. Please provide us with a copy of your report as soon as it becomes available.

REICHERT, Kobus Representative: Gamtkwa Khoisan Council E-mail: 29 August 2012

As previously, SiVEST (Nicolene Venter) acknowledged the situation with the Humansdorp Public Meeting minutes and in the process to rectify it, the assistance of Mr Reichert was requested. As soon as SiVEST receive the amendment that was requested to be made to the minutes in question, it will be updated and distributed to all attendees. The draft minutes of the Jeffrey’s Bay Public Meeting, as mentioned, was included in the Revised DEIR for comment. To date not comments were received and the minutes have been made ‘final’ and included in the FEIR (Appendix 12O). SiVEST regrets that the opportunity that was provided to the Gamtkwa KhoiSan Council, as was requested by them, to interact with the Specialist was declined as it would have also provided the Gamtkwa KhoiSan Council to confirm and validate the information that the Specialist had at hand. The two entities should not influence one another as one is focused on Heritage and all the issues associated with it and the consultation process is a much broader process.


Page 91


ESKOM pointed out that they respect the rights of the KhoiSan community and their link to the KhoiSan heritage in the area,

SOLOMON, Bernadette Eskom FGM: 28 January 2012

It was asked if within ESKOM does the one hand know what the other hand does? Because the consultants in the Thyspunt nuclear project are arguing exactly the opposite by saying there is no link between the archaeological heritage and Gamtkwa Khoisan community. Kobus Reichert, Heritage Representative: Gamtkwa KhoiSan Council

A brief background to the official status of the KhoiSan Council been presented as summarised:

• 1994: with the establishment of the House of Traditional Leaders, the KhoiSan was excluded

• Until now the KhoiSan has no recognition • Since the inception of the National KhoiSan Council, the situation has

changed • In the study area, there are two (2) KhoiSan groups

• The registered MPO registered as Section 21 Company. As per the First Nation, a Leader can be removed in terms of the Constitution

• The unofficial KhoiSan group represented by Chief Williams

SWARTS, Dr N Chairman: Gamtkwa Khoisan Council FGM: 28 January 2012

Information noted and appreciated.

I was pointed out that ESKOM has got a loan for another project provided by the World Bank and he asked if ESKOM is aware that the World Bank has got a Policy on Indigenous Peoples Rights. He also stated that we will write to the World Bank to inform them of ESKOM’s plans in other parts of the country and what disregard they are showing to our cultural rights.

The comment regarding communication to the World Bank in terms of Eskom’s proposed developments are noted.

The project was requested that a site visit be arranged for the UDF members to the proposed PE Substation Site and the corridor area proposed through KwaNobuhle so that they can familiarise themselves with the area.

SIKWEYIYA, Mrs Ethel Member: SANCO & UDF UDF Community Meeting Monday, 20 June 2011

It was agreed that the team will meet key representatives on Saturday morning, 30 July 2011 and take them to the site. Attendees were also informed that they will be invited to the series of Open Houses that is scheduled to take place the week of 25 July to 4 August 2011. Nicolene Venter, SiVEST and Lerato Mokgwatlheng, Eskom

A KML file and coordinates of the turbines positioning within the Northern Corridor was requested from Ventusa Energy.

THOMAS, Ms Rebecca Acting Project Manager: SiVEST FGM: 17 September 2012

It was enquired in which round is Ventusa Energy planning to submit their application for Happy Valley Wind Farm.

It will be in round 3 which have been pushed out by NERSA until May 2013. Post-meeting note: NERSA has further postponed Round 3 submissions to August 2013.


Page 92


A copy of Ventusa Energy’s approved Final Scoping Report was requested. A CD containing the Scoping Report was requested. THORPE, Hilton

Chairman: St Francis Residents Association Feedback Meeting: 11 October 2010

A CD will be made available. Liesl Koch, SiVEST Post-meeting note: The CD was posted on 24 November 2010.

It was enquired as to when the list of affected properties can be expected in the Department of Minerals and Energy Office in Port Elizabeth. It was indicated that further attention would be given to the matter upon receipt of the information required regarding the list of affected properties.

VAN DEN BERG, Mr Samuel Regional Manager: Eastern Cape Department of Minerals and Energy Letter : 02 October 2009

DEED search is currently being undertaken and has not yet been completed. List of properties will be forwarded once DEED search has been completed. Nicolene Venter: SiVEST

It was clearly noted that the comment previously raised regarding the specialists’ field work dates, that it seems as if a railroad approach is being taken with regards to all aspects both commercial and none commercial in the Elands River Valley with disregard for the community and landowners. It was enquired whether the specialists’ studies and the results from those field work are available for review.

VERMAAK, Mr Tinus Chairman: Elands River Valley Conservation & Tourism Route EIA Newsletter Comment Form E-mail:11 January 2010

The investigations of the various environmental specialists will form part of the DEIR which will be available for public review and comment. The availability of the DEIR and the review period will be advertised and communicated to registered I&APs on the project database. Nicolene Venter: SiVEST

Commented that the required return period for the: • Property data form • Tourism Questionnaire • Agricultural Potential Assessment Form • Avifauna Questionnaire areunreasonable as the e-mail with the attachments was only sent out on 4th January 2010 and with most enterprises being either closed or extremely busy over the year end the correspondence has only been received on the 11 January 2010. Extension of the deadline was requested.

These forms were distributed to all landowners registered on the project database as follows: • Property data form • Tourism Questionnaire • Agricultural Potential Assessment Form • Avi-Fauna Questionnaire on 8 December 2009 and re-send on the 4th of January 2010. It is therefore believed than an extension is not necessary but any forms received after the 29th of January 2010 will be accepted. Nicolene Venter: SiVEST

It was mentioned that questionnaires for Flora, Fauna, Aquatic Life, Wild Life and registered Conservancies were not distributed.

Questionnaires sent out were at the request of specialists which required them for their specific studies. Each specialist has unique approaches to their studies and may not require the use of questionnaires and make use of other avenues for their research. Nicolene Venter: SiVEST

It was enquired as to how the responsible Council and future Council have been notified (Cacadu & Sundays River).

Please refer to the FSR that is available on SiVEST’s website (http://www.sivest.co.za/Download.aspx, scroll down to 9520 Eskom EIA) where the public participation and consultation process is described in detail. The current Provincial, District


Page 93


(Cacadu) and Local Authorities have been notified and consulted. Sundays River does not fall within the study area and has not been included in the consultation process. SiVEST cannot respond to how future council be notified. Nicolene Venter: SiVEST

It was stated that SiVEST must use the proper Government and Council structures to notify all landowners when meetings are scheduled in order for Government and Council to interact with their constituents with regard to attendance and discussions at meetings. This is to ensure clear representation is given to landowners, community and any parties with a vested interest in the study area, should the need for mediation arise. It is a function of the Council to have the best interest of the community and ratepayers at heart. To date nothing from our Council or Speaker has come forth despite numerous previous requests made to SiVEST to involve and communicate with our elected representative Councillor, Mr Nel.

As responded above, the FSR clearly indicates the consultation process, which is an on-going process, with authorities. The EIA, and public participation as part of the EIA process, is an independent process and mediation does not form part of this process. SiVEST cannot respond to or provide a reason as to why NMBM, through the respective Councillor, has not communicated the proposed TTLIP to its constituencies. SiVEST also follows an independent consultation process by holding FGS and PMs and/or Open Days. Nicolene Venter: SiVEST

It was mentioned that the legislature Elands River Fire Protection Association has not been consulted with regard to fire breaks or fire safety measures to be in place during the process.

The consultation referred to will form part of Eskom’s consultation process should an Environmental Authorisation be granted for the proposed TTLIP. It also needs to be noted that consultation has taken place with the Elands River Fire Protection Association, (through the I&AP representing the Association) and no comments regarding fire safety that the team could respond to was received. Nicolene Venter: SiVEST

It was mentioned that if there were any planned interaction with affected parties during the specialists’ field trip, that this could be arranged through the Cacadu Councillor, Mr Nel

Suggestion noted.

The project team was informed that the following landowners / representatives need to be contacted: • Landela Christian Camp • Deon Bezuidenhout • Mr Kritzinger • Stefan Gerike (River Cottage) • Thobi Pieters (Dell Farm) • Mr Fatman • Jacky Berry (Jnr)

WEBB, Anthony Landowner: Solitude (Offcamber Adventures) Van Stadens Farmers Association Hall: 22 February 2011

All avenues possible will be used to ensure that the list of stakeholders provided is followed up to ensure that they are informed regarding the proposed TTLIP.


Page 94


• Septimus van der Meulen • Wally Haywood • Charlie Horn • Steven Ndondola (Uitenhage Development Forum) • Dedizi Sethole (UDPI) • Blaine van Rensburg, Director Group and Risk, Sovereign Foods It was requested where the EIA report could be reviewed (hard copy) and not an electronic copy on the website. It was also enquired as to when the next public meetings will be held.

WEBSTER, Jayson Resident: St Francis E-mail: 17 May 2011

It was responded that the draft EIR is not yet available for public review and notifications will be send to all registered I&APs when the draft EIR is available, as well as the series of open houses that is envisaged to take place towards the end of July and the beginning of August 2011.

Enquired whether he is a registerd I&AP on the proposed TTLIP database and the Nuclear-1 Project’s database, and if not, who does he contact to register as an I&AP.

E-mail: 01 June 2011 Confirmed that he is only registered as an I&AP on the TTLIP EIA project database and Nuclear-1 Project e-mail address was forwarded to him, and Arcus GIBB was copied in the response e-mail. Nicolene Venter: SiVEST

The project team was informed that the correct protocol was not followed as the Chief should have been informed of the proposed project up front before any public meetings could have taken place.

WILLIAMS, Chief Gamtkwa Khoisan Meeting, Tuesday, 21 June 2011

Apologies regarding the incorrect protocol followed were submitted to the attendees and that the Chief will be informed prior to any future public meetings scheduled to take place. Nicolene Venter, SiVEST

The project team was informed that they had requested Arcus GIBB and Eskom’s Generation Division to secure a meeting with the Eastern Cape Province Khoi Khoi Council and the National Khoisan Council. SiVEST has been advised to ensure that they partake in this meeting.

This information has been noted and will be followed-up with Arcus GIBB, who SiVEST believes will be the custodian for arranging the meeting. Nicolene Venter, SiVEST Post-meeting note: SiVEST has informed Arcus GIBB of Chief William’s request and should such meeting be arranged, SiVEST and Eskom TTLIP Technical Team will participate. SiVEST and Lerato Mokgwatlheng

21. Authority Comments/Issues It was stated that where the proposed Transmission power lines crosses the National Road, these crossings have to be approved by SANRAL.

GOUWS, Ms Nanna Statutory Control Officer: SANRAL EIA Newsleeter Comment Form E-mail: 18 December 2009

Request acknowledged and way leave information requested and received. Eskom negotiators will ensure that all way leave applications are attended to. Nicolene Venter: SiVEST


Page 95


22. General Comments/Issues It was asked as to what does the other stakeholders surrounding Longmore Forest are giving up.

BASSON, Klaas Forestry Manager: Longmore

Details of the land and land uses being traversed by the length of both the Northern and Southern Corridors is detailed within the EIR. Rebecca Thomas, SiVEST

The project team was thanked for the information and confirm that any comments and/or concerns that they may have will be submitted in writing.

BOOYSEN, Clifton Branch Chairperson: Ward 4 Die Berg Community Meeting Thursday, 23 June 2011

Comment noted.

CAMEALIO-BENJAMIN, Clr Virginia Kouga Local Municipality Die Berg Community Meeting Thursday, 23 June 2011

Expressed happiness regarding Eskom’s explanation of the project and stated that progress is needed.

BUSAKWE, Mr Edward Resident: St Francis Bay EIA Newsletter Comment Form Fax: 23 December 2009

Comment noted.

Expressed his objection to the current proposed corridor (alignment of the power lines, especially in the context of the previous Alternative 1 of the Southern Corridor which would have avoided highly populated areas).


Objection noted.

It was commented that EAPs must listen to the inputs provided to local communities and the comments and recommendations to be reflected with the outcome of the EIA.


Comment noted Paul da Cruz, SiVEST

The project team was informed that international material that is available it is a well-known fact that home owners are allowed to put up generation units to generate electricity for their own use and any excess are put into the local electricity network. It is recommended that Eskom assess such an option.


Eskom is committed to renewable energy and it was mentioned that mills are using renewable energy and any excess electricity generated is purchased by Eskom. Wimpie Henning, Eskom

Further suggested that during construction, tools that are going to be used be accounted for by the people who will be using them

GQOMO, Mr Thando Resident: KwaNobuhle Letter: 15 October 2009

SiVEST will not be involved in construction activities of the power lines. Eskom will appoint a construction company and it will be their responsibility to implement the EMP through the use of an ECO. This recommendation will be included in the EMP. Themba Skonje: SiVEST


Page 96


It was commented that the problem that the community is experiencing is that there are various agendas driving the generation process, and the open interaction between I&APs and SiVEST is the exception to the rule. I&APs have been made aware that Eskom Dx has nothing to do with Eskom Tx, they both wear their own hats, and then there is Eskom Generation who has been caught with their pants down. It is believed that Eskom Generation has a hidden agenda as both Thyspunt and Melkbos Strand are environmental sensitive areas. Companies such as Telkom, Neotel etc are all parastatals and semi parastatals which have a monopoly. The public cannot see how the EIA being conducted by Arcus GIBB can be independent as Eskom already owns the land and the nature reserve. In terms of renewable energy, it seems that those EIAs are running fast and high and most of the wind farms proposed are south of Humansdorp. SiVEST’s approach of listening, assessing and providing feedback shows themselves as being independent.

HJIL, Paul Resident: Jeffreys Bay PM Pellsrus, Jeffrey’s Bay: 28 September 2011

Comment noted. Paul da Cruz, SiVEST

Voiced support for the TTLIP if it will serve and support Eastern Cape area in the future.

KIRKBY, Mrs Lynne Resident: St Francis Bay EIA Newsletter Comment Form Fax: 17 December 2010

Comment acknowledged.

It was commented that the minutes received from SiVEST are correct and this cannot be said of Arcus GIBB.


The attendees are encouraged look read through the minutes and to confirm that the issues and comments captured are fair or not. Paul da Cruz, SiVEST

It was stated that everyone present have the right to give inputs and they must not influence one another. The information received is for his own sake and it is his right to make a decision and request those present to please give them an opportunity to give one’s own opinion in order so that by tomorrow he makes wrong choice, he is responsible for it.


Request noted

It was mentioned that he is satisfied with the information received thus far and requested that communication be forwarded to contact details provided.

LLOYD, Mr Trevor Chairman: Friends of Groendal EIA Newsletter Comment Form Fax: 26 January 2010

Request acknowledged and database updated.


Page 97


Die projekspan was ingelig dat hy graag bevestiging wil hê rakende stories wat rondgaan dat nl. net twee dae na die vergaderings was daar berigte in die koerante dat die hele projek afgestel is en versoek meer inligting. Translation: Requested confirmation whether the project has been terminated. Confirmation required as rumours have been going around two days after the feedback meetings that the project has been terminated.

LOUW, Mr Petrus Grondeienaar: Fitches’ Corner E-mail 24 November 2010

The EIA for the proposed Thyspunt Transmission Lines Integration Project (TTLIP) has not been stopped and the EIA process is going ahead. Should the situation change, SiVEST will inform all registered I&APs thereof (per letter and per e-mail).

It was enquired whether the public documents are being published in Afrikaans and Xhosa.


Xhosa flyers, public meeting notices and DSR availability have been distributed in KwaNobuhle and Rosedale and the minutes of meetings held with communities have been translated into English (if the meeting took place in Xhosa) and Afrikaans (where required). Liesl Koch, SiVEST

It was mentioned that the quality of the maps on SiVEST’s server is low in resolution which make it difficult to read.

Comment noted and maps with a higher resolution will be placed on the website. It needs to be noted that these would be large files which might cause difficulty when downloading Liesl Koch, SiVEST

Enquired on the commencement date of the Bantamsklip project. The EIA for this project is being conducted by Arcus GIBB and the question will be forwarded to them. Liesl Koch, SiVEST

Enquired the status of the Gamma-Grassridge Environmental Authorisation. All the appeals were dismissed by the Minister on 2010/02/05, letter faxed 2010/02/17. The Minister’s decision can be accessed on the following Eskom’s website: http://recruitment.eskom.co.za/live/content.php?Category_ID=77; under Gamma Grassridge - Appeal Decision

The project team was informed that a thesis is being done by an Eskom employee, Hennie de Beer, on Die Berg community.

Information noted.

It was commented that Eskom must not say EMF is a small little thing. There are proven incidents that children living in the vicinity of 400kV and 765kV power lines are affected. The EMF document in the DEIR is an Eskom document. Just because there is not sufficient data available it must not be said that the EMF impact is small. People are getting the incorrect information on which an informed decision needs to be made.


There is no Law in South Africa that say one cannot stay under a power line. It is Eskom’s standards that to ensure that people are not affected negatively that no dwellings are allowed under the power lines. Instrumental measures have been taken and it is found that EMF under the power lines are high and as you moved to the outer edge of the servitude it tapers down. Dean Wilson, Eskom


Page 98


Post-note meeting: The report was prepared by an independent scientist, Dr PH Pretorius. In addition further information regarding EMFs is included in the Revised Draft EIR - Appendix 15 Electric and Magnetic Fields. Lerato Mokgwatlheng, Eskom

Requested an on-site assessment of the potential impact on our business in particular and subsequently, vegetable production in the East Cape.

MOORE, Mr Arno BioInsect SA E-mail: 31 August 2010

Informed Arno that a one-on-one consultation for the week of 11 October 2010 will be done and that SiVEST is scheduling a series of Feedback Meetings for that week with all possibly affected landowners and chairpersons of i.e. ratepayers association. Nicolene Venter: SIVEST (email: 31 August 2010) Further Response to Comment: The socio-economic specialist report has examined the potential impact of the proposed power lines on agricultural potential.

Expressed his disapproval to the proposed construction of a distribution line across or in the vicinity of Kruisrivier.


Disapproval noted.

Stated that the project is essential for both business and community purposes. Further state that these meetings are technical and local residents do not understand the mapping etc. Suggested that a meeting be held on the ground.

MZWANDILE, Mr Stanley Chairman: Uitenhage Development Forum Feedback Meeting: 14 October 2010

In agreement with suggestion and informed the attendees that community consultation is integral to the public participation process. Information and suggestions as to how the community consultation could be conducted were requested. Nicolene Venter, SiVEST

Expressed objection to the construction of this power line in the Kruisrivier area. PIETERSEN, Mr Lourens Daniel Land Owner: Balivia Arcus GIBB Comment Form: 7 May 2010

Comment noted.

A request was made for a copy of the Public Meeting minutes that were previously commented on as a copy of the revised minutes was not received.


Copy of the minutes will be forwarded Nicolene Venter, SiVEST

It needs to be noted that when communities raise issue it is not a laughing matter and EAPs need to consider whether it is fair or not. This approach was not done by

PM Pellsrus, Jeffrey’s Bay: 28 September 2011

Comments raised by I&APs are taken into consideration throughout the EIA process for the proposed TTLIP project.


Page 99


any of the projects. Paul da Cruz, SiVEST

Voiced appreciation for the continuous feedback on TTLIP project’s progress, and forwarded his name for any employment opportunities that might arise.

ROOILAND, Mr Mawethu Resident: KwaNobuhle EIA Newsletter Comment Form Fax: 26 January 2010

Appreciation acknowledged and copy of letter forwarded to Eskom regarding possible employment.

Informed the team that a TAA Meeting has been scheduled for 16 November and requested SiVEST’s attendance.

ROUSSEAU, Ms Maggi E-mail: 31 October 2010

Informed the member that the team will be unable to attend and that notification regarding further landowner meetings will be sent. Nicolene Venter- SiVEST – 1 November 2010

Mentioned that the town was once a garden town and with time, lost what it had. The goal of the UDF is to regain Uitenhage’s former glory and heritage to attract more tourists. Stated that the involvement must not hamper economical input but at the same time must not be done at the expense of the environment.

SAHLULO, Mr Tokozile Member: Uitenhage Development Forum Feedback Meeting: 14 October 2010

Comments noted.

The attendees were requested that should the power lines be constructed ‘out of sight’ would that be an agreeable option to the Conservancy.

THOMAS, Rebecca Project Manager: SiVEST FGM: 17 September 2012

The Conservancy prefers that no power lines be constructed at all, whether they are visual or not. All Members of the Elands River Conservancy

It was stated that there are fatal flaws in the Report, as some of the impacts cannot be mitigated and it was asked whether the project team is satisfied that all impacts have been addressed in the Report.


SiVEST believes that through the EIA process that negative impacts have been successfully addressed. The environmental specialists have been asked to independently look at their particularly areas of expertise and to identify any fatal flaws; the EIA-Team preferred routing has been proposed by taking those sensitive areas into consideration. The attendees were referred to Section 6 (6.4) of the report for the Corridor change register showing the changes made to the corridors since 2008 - these changes were primarily made due to the inputs received from I&APs. SiVEST believes that in terms of the routing of the power lines from the HV yard through to Grassridge/Dedisa that the most optimal EIA route has been identified. Paul da Cruz, SiVEST

Thanked for all the updates and offered any assistance regarding the project. VAN ZYL, Ms Nita Property Consultant Huizemark Jefferys Bay E-mail: 16 July 2010

Comment acknowledged and appreciated


Page 100


Stated that when the Eskom line route has been finalised, an objection will be made VERWEY, Mr Willem Land Owner: Olivia Plaas Arcus GIBB Comment Form

Comment noted.

It was commented that the Conservancy is pleased to see that the assessments and considerations has not only been done around figures.


Comment noted.

The project team was cautioned not to buy out only certain individuals in the Conservancy, but to look at the Conservation area as a whole.

It is noted that land is people’s best investment and one would like to try and avoid losing that invest. Raoul de Villiers, World-Wize

23. Electro Magnetic Fields (EMFs) Comments/Issues The concern was expressed regarding the health impact that the proposed power lines could have on the community at Tiryville due to the close proximity to the power lines. The project team was informed that nuclear is dangerous and people exposed to nuclear will die and also can become very ill.

ALEXANDER, Frans Community Leader: Tiryville Rosedale, Kamesh, Tiryville & Mountain View Community Meeting Friday 24 June 2011

With the knowledge gain at previous meetings held and where the concern regarding EMF has been raised, the attendees was informed that the difference between the existing power lines in the area and those being proposed by this proposed project is that the existing power lines have a much lower voltage (power) than what is being proposed. The existing power lines in the area (mainly wooden poles) are distributions lines (Eskom or the NMBM). The proposed power lines will have huge steel structures and would be approximately 33m high. Eskom register a servitude where no houses or permanent structures can be build – this is to prevent exposure to EMF. According to an independent study done, the EMF is much lower at the edge of the servitude. There is a document available that would give more information regarding EMF and this will be made available to the Representatives at venues identified by them. Nicolene Venter, SiVEST

Informed us that his property is in Kruisrivier. Objection to the construction of the proposed 400kV power line that will go through Kruisrivier. It is general knowledge that there is health risks involved if you stay close to a power line and it has been proven in America. Stated that the reason why he is against this is because he is a farmer and farm with chickens, cattle and sheep. Wished to know who will be held responsible if his cattle/stock get sick because of the Electro-magnetic field of the powerlines? My portion is 101/337. Stated that there are alternative energy sources that can be used like wind and sun energy, which are environmentally friendly.

BARNARD, Mr Pieter Farmer: Hopedale Farm Arcus GIBB Comment Form: 19 May 2010

EMF radiation will not affect humans or animals and poultry. The lines are designed according to world standards’ compliance. Ernest Grunewald: Eskom A number of specialist studies have identified Kruisrivier to be a sensitive area (including the socio-economic and agricultural potential studies). The recommendations of these studies in terms of routing (to avoid the smallholdings at Kruisrivier as far as possible) have been followed by the proposed EIA Team-preferred


Page 101


alignment.

The concern was raised that communities still don’t know what the impact of radiation on humans living close to a substation will be especially the site near KwaNobuhle. Cancer caused by EMFs is a real danger to humans and cattle.


Throughout the EIA process two sites for the proposed new PE substation were proposed and the site at Fitches corner was discarded due to its social impact. As with the Substation, Eskom declares a servitude (55m per 400kV power line) where no permanent dwellings are allowed to be constructed to address the possible impact of EMF. An independent study of EMFs associated with power lines was done on request from Eskom; the findings were that at the edge of the servitude the EMFs are close to zero. In terms of cattle and livestock, it is more difficult to assess as it depends on number of factors e.g. how long lwoud a cow remain under the power line with exposure just being temporary in nature;. Paul da Cruz, SiVEST

Die kwessie rondom gesondheid was geopper veral as daar ‘n fout op die kraglyn ontstaan en naby gelee inwoners kan gesondheid gewys nadelig geraak word. Translation: The issue was raised regarding health, especially if there is a fault on the power line and could adversely affect the health of those residents in close proximity.

MAART, Jennifer Resident, Tiryville Tiryville Community Meeting: 27 January 2012

There will be no negative health impacts associated with a faulty power line as there are no nuclear associated with the power lines and the distance from the power line to the nearest house is over a km away. Loyiso Tyabashe, Eskom

Dit word verneem hoe ver mag ‘n huis van die kraglyn af wees om ‘n veilige afstand te wees. Translation: It was enquired as to what is a safe distance between the power line and a house.

Each 400kv power line will have a registered servitude of 55m which means a house can be build (or if an existing house) from the 55m servitude outwards. Translation: Elke 400kV kraglyn sal 'n geregistreerde serwituut van 55m hê wat beteken dat 'n huis vanaf die 55m buitekant toe gebou kan word (of indien 'n bestaande huis). Paul da Cruz, SiVEST

Dit word genoem dat navorsing aan die Universititeit van Duisburg-Essen, Duitsland gedoen is wat bewys dat hoogspanningskraglyne herkouers se magentisme beïnvloed en kan gevolglik sellulêre en molekulêre veranderings versoorsaak. Translation: Made reference to studies done by the University of Duisburg-Essen in Germany where it was discovered that high voltage power lines influence the magnetism of livestock and as a result can change the cellular and molecular of livestock.

MALAN, Mr Rob Member: JJZ Innovations cc EIA Newsletter Comment Form Fax: 20 January 2010

Power lines are designed not to affect animals with EMF. Therefore there will be no problem in this regard. Ernest Grunewald: Eskom


Page 102


It was asked whether there was not enough research done on the impacts of EMF.

MANYAKA, Solly Facilitator PM Sea Vista, St Francis Bay: 29 September 2011

Reference was made to an incident reported to the Agricultural Research Council at Irene where it was reported that the cows’ milk production dried up. Despite efforts, no evidence to support these findings can be found on this matter. Dean Wilson, Eskom

Does the Sea Vista community need to be concern regarding the negative impact that the power lines could have on their lives? Reference was made to EMFs.

NTSHOTA, Mr Mvuyisi Resident: Sea Vista Sea Vista Community Meeting Tuesday, 21 June 2011

The smaller power lines that the community members are more familiar with have a narrower servitude compared to the bigger lines being proposed, but the exposure to EMFs directly under both these voltage lines are the same. It is for this reason that Eskom register a servitude (for this project it will be 55m per power line) under which no structures can be build or people living there – this is to protect them from any direct EMF impacts. As per an independent study done by Eskom, it was said that at the edge of the registered servitude the EMF is not significant. Lerato Mokgwatlheng, Eskom Transmission Post-note meeting: For safety and health purposes, no building structures are allowed within the declared servitudes. Lerato Mokgwatlheng, Eskom.

Discussions with Dean Wilson of ESKOM at the LO Open House regarding the EMF was that no-one really knows what the impact will be on poultry health, but it was expressed that a microwave would produce the same degree of EMF as a power line. He stated that he is dubious as to how this analogy was derived. However, Eskom has compiled a report with all relative specialist studies worldwide on this topic, and as discussed it will be provided this to Sovereign Foods for review. Please could this be facilitated?


The EMF report that was referred to by Dean Wilson from Eskom was part of our DSR that was made available for public review and also included in the FSR that was submitted to the DEA and which is still available on our website. For easy reference a copy of the report was attached to the e-mail. Nicolene Venter, SiVEST (e-mail: 08 March 2011)

My farm is only 2HA. I farm with pigs, chickens and in future with sheep. Wished to know what the disadvantages are of electric irradiation on cattle’s reproduction?

VILJOEN, Mr ML Farm Owner Arcus GIBB Comment Form

Power lines are designed not to affect animals with EMF. From all available research on EMF’s there is no conclusive evidence to suggest that reproduction in animals is affected. Ernest Grunewald: Eskom

24. Negotiations and Compensation (Servitude) Comments/Issues

Clarity was requested regarding the process of securing a servitude prior to the issuing of an EA, should an EA be granted.

DUCIE, Mr Greg Head: Planning Department

It is envisaged that Eskom will commence with servitude negotiations at risk and secure draft agreements with landowners.


Page 103


Cacadu District Municipality Feedback Meeting: 11 October 2010

The outcome of these negotiations might result in amendments to the DEIR. However, it will be in Eskom’s interest to be aware of all proposed developments that pose a risk to the proposed or final corridor. Liesl Koch, SiVEST

Dit is genoem dat hulle as stoettelers geheel en al gekant teen die voorgestelde kraglyne en indien die projek voortgaan, sal hulle wyer om ‘n serwituut toe te staan. Translation: It was mentioned that as stud breeders, they are totally opposed to the proposed power lines, and should the project proceed, they will refuse the registration of servitude.

MALAN, Mr Rob Member: JJZ Innovations cc EIA Newsletter Comment Form Fax: 20 January 2010

From all available research on EMF’s there is no conclusive evidence to suggest that reproduction in animals is affected Dean Wilson: Eskom Note that this matter will be resolved after DEA has given a decision to either grant or refuse the proposed project. Should an Environmental Authorisation be granted and the lodged appeals if anybe dismissed by the Minister, Eskom will therefore enter into negotiations with the landowner. Failure of both parties to reach a consensus will result in the initiation of the Expropriation Process. This process is costly and lengthy, seen as a last alternative. Lerato Mokgwatlheng: Eskom

Eskom kan hulle nie vergoed vir die geld en moeite wat in die ontwikkeling en bewaring van hul grond en vallei ingegaan het nie. Translation: It was mentioned that Eskom cannot compensate them for the money and efforts invested with development and conservation of their land and the valley.

PILCHER, Dr Deon Land owner: Elands Rivier EIA Newsletter Comment Form Fax: 14 January 2010

Eskom’s strives to ensure that landowners are compensated for servitude at market related property prices. Dean Wilson: Eskom Any investment and efforts are considered by professional land valuers when the specific property is valued for the granting of servitude. In this specific case a before and after valuation will take care of these issues. Ernest Grunewald: Eskom

My title deed –Portion 105/337 T000086138/2004 carried over T6587/1962 “But not subject to the endorsement of the said deed of Transfer No 14735/1955 relating to the servitude for electric power line services”

PIETERSEN, Mr Fanie Landowner: Grootkloof Arcus GIBB Comment Form: 5 June 2010

From the information provided the property seems to be free of an existing servitude which probably affected the parent property, the property in this scenario was probably subdivided from the parent property and the new subdivision does not have the existing power line on it. In these cases the title deed will indicate that the servitude in the old title deed does not affect the new title deed. Any new power lines on the new property will be negotiated as it will happen with all other properties. It means that upon


Page 104


registration of the servitude, the title deed will be updated to describe the extent and nature of the servitude. Ernest Grunewald& Dean Wilson: Eskom

25. Comments on Revised DEIR

0.1. Avifauna Expressed the Organisation’s concern regarding the construction of the proposed power lines and stated that according to studies done by Heroldt (1998); Johnsgard (1991) and Allan (1997), the collision of large terrestrial birds with the wires of utility structures and especially power lines, has been determined to be one of the most important mortality factors for this group of birds in South Africa. As shown in the bird list of the ERC, the Elands River Valley hosts many species that will be endangered by transmission lines.

• Of significance are various species of ducks, wild geese, raptors and owls. The White Stork, Stanley’s Bustard, Secretary birds and the Blue Crane are some of the species that have been identified as vulnerable to collisions.

• During the construction phase and maintenance of power lines habitat destruction and alteration inevitably takes place.

• Many birds are highly susceptible to disturbance and should this disturbance take place during or just prior to the chick fledging period, it could lead to temporary or permanent abandonment of the nest by the adult birds or premature fledging with fatal results for the chick.

• Such a sequence of events can have far-reaching implications for certain large, rare species that only breed once a year or once every two to three years.

ERASMUS, Ms Corné Chairperson – BirdLife Eastern Cape Letter: 29 September 2012

The BirdLife Eastern Cape’s concerns regarding avifauna are noted. A stand-alone avifaunal report has been compiled. The investigations conducted by the Avifauna specialist have also been incorporated into the FEIR which is available for public review from Monday 28 January 2013 to Monday 11 February 2013. The impact on the species as identified have been assessed within the avifaunal report and mitigation measures provided where possible, including the recommendation for bird flappers where necessary. The mitigation measures proposed are further included in the EMP which is in Appendix 14 of the FEIR. Rebecca Thomas, SiVEST

0.2. Biodiversity While acknowledging the difficulties of conducting a flora assessment for a large and often inaccessible area, and hence the need for a largely desk-top based assessment, there are nonetheless serious flaws in the report that need to be addressed. My concerns appear below. The reliance on Mucina and Rutherford’s vegetation map is unacceptable, given the availability of more detailed and accurate vegetation and transformation maps

COWLING, Dr Shirley On behalf of Thyspunt Alliances Letter: 22 November 2012

Mucina & Rutherford are the standard vegetation mapping / reference utilised for vegetation studies and is used as the benchmark hence the constant reference to these vegetation types. In the assessment of all the sections of the route, use was made of the STEP information, NNMOSS (list of databases referenced in the FEIR Appendix 3) as well as several other conservation planning documents. This was utilised to determine


Page 105


produced by the Subtropical Ecosystem Planning Project (STEP), the Nelson Bay Muncipal Open Space System (NMMOSS) and the Garden Route Initiative (GRI) conservation planning report. Mucina and Rutherford’s map is inaccurate (e.g. mobile dunefields are classified as fynbos) and it fails to map the complexity of vegetation types, namely Humansdorp Shale Renosterveld and all types of thicket biome vegetation. It is, therefore, not surprising that the report often recorded as much variation within floristic vegetation types as between them. While I appreciate the floristic sampling and subsequent analyses, these results are hardly informative for the assessment. The sampling intensity is just too low to provide a realistic survey for identifying hotspots of rarity and endemism. It would have been more helpful to use existing databases of Red Data Book species compiled by CREW members, especially for the Nelson Mandela Bay Metropole. The total tally of species recorded in the tenth-hectare plots are – on average – about a third lower than recorded by Cowling (1983). It is clear that many of the rare and difficult-to-identify species (which may have included RDB taxa), were overlooked. In conclusion, the desktop analyses should be repeated, using the digital data sets mentioned above.

critical biodiversity areas. It must be stressed that, should the project proceed, the walk down will take place and that tower locations will be strategically placed to avoid sensitive areas. Should any of the cryptic species be identified at this stage, a reroute cannot be ruled out in order to avoid. Without a detailed design of the line, site specific surveys are very difficult. Liesl Koch, SiVEST

The report has not responded to my earlier critical comments aimed at the biodiversity assessment. My comments pointed out that more detailed vegetation maps and surveys were available than those used by the report. The report used the broad vegetation types of Mucina and Rutherford. In this revised version, the report simply pays lip service to the fine-scale planning provided by STEP, the Garden Route Initiative and the Nelson Mandela Metropole Open Space System (NMMOSS) by simply mentioning the existence of such detailed maps. Instead, the revised report continues to rely on the inadequately broad scale mapping units of Mucina and Rutherford. This scale is so large as to completely overlook the sensitive stinkwood forests near Loerie. No ‘walk through’ can determine the impact of the proposed transmission lines. The Landbouweekblad of 1 June 2012, p11 features an article on ten new animal species (some are critically endangered) which have recently been discovered in the Western Cape. The scientists involved state that knowledge about South Africa’s biodiversity is far from complete.

ELANDS RIVER CONSERVANCY (ERC) Letter: 27 November 2012 (posted 19 November 2012)

It would be naive to think that a project of this magnitude would not have a negative impact, but with mitigation an impact can be reduced. The ERC has been identified as sensitive and it has been avoided to a large extent.. The servitude can also be minimised in areas identified in the walk through as having


Page 106


The ERC is committed to conservation of the biodiversity of the Elands River Valley. The existence of any mitigation programme (to bring the 9impact down to ‘acceptable levels’) is in itself an admission that there will be a negative impact on the environment. By then it is too late since the damage will already be done. This is totally unacceptable to the ERC.

sensitive indigenous species. Liesl Koch, SiVEST

Although the ERC has raised concerns about the effect of electro magnetic fields on apiculture on several occasions, to date our questions remain unanswered. No feedback has been received from specialists working on so-called ‘desk top studies’ or ‘field studies’. This is a very serious omission as tons of honey is produced by several bee farmers in the ERC. In some instances the income from apiculture is the primary source of income of these farmers. The price of honey has escalated due to various factors including the occurrence of a virus attached on bees during 2008/2009. The Elands River Valley was one of the few areas that was largely unaffected by the virus. There are a number of fruit farmers in the Elands River Valley and the role played by bees in the pollination of fruit trees is immense. Any negative impact on bee colonies in the valley would be disastrous.

The documented impacts of EMFs on the surrounding environment are included in the updated electric and magnetic fields from overhead power lines report prepared for Eskom included in Appendix 14 of the FEIR. Studies in the field of EMF are on going to better understand the association between EMFs and the biophysical environment. The decades of studies undertaken to date have shown no conclusive results on the impacts on animals. From Human health perspectives, the levels of EMF or reported as within statutory guidelines from the boundary of the servitude outwards.

0.3. GIS (Mapping) Comments/Issues Requested KML files for Google indicating the proposed alignments and corridors for the area around Red-Cap’s wind farm.

BLANE, Lance Red-Cap E-mail: 02 October 2012

Request acknowledged and shapfile(s) with the overlay information was e-mailed on 02 October 2012. Rebecca Thomas, SiVEST

Based on the information received, one of the southern corridor alternatives traverses their site. Please could you overlay the attached shape file of our development boundary onto your drawings and send me the shape file of the corridor that is traversing our site (yellow line below). Please also send me the I&AP’s communication for CEN and Jacobs Trust as listed in Appendix 12 on your website. I am unable to download this from the website due to an error. Jacobs Trust is the landowner and CEN is the environmental consultant on the project.

ERENS, Mr Alex Civil Engineer: PD Naidoo & Associates Consulting Engineers (Pty)Ltd E-mail: 02 October 2012

Request acknowledged and shapfile(s) with the overlay information was e-mailed on 02 October 2012. Rebecca Thomas, SiVEST Proof of correspondence with CEN and Jacobs Trust was sent via e-mail on 10 October 2012 (13h23pm). Nicolene Venter, SiVEST

The project team was informed that the proposed Southern Corridor runs over the centre pivots on his farm.

KIETZMANN, Ross Landowner Telephone call: 24 October 2012

It was requested that GPS coordinates be provided to assess whether the EIA Team-preferred routing would impact the centre pivots. Nicolene Venter, SiVEST (telephonic conversation on 24 October 2012)


Page 107


Coordinates received: 33 52 13.46S and 25 09 02.24 E, at an elevation of 283m. The centre pivot has a radius of 350m. Further Response to Comment: Centre pivot points noted and provided to Eskom. During final alignment, It is general practice that Eskom avoid centre pivot irrigation as far as possible. Nicolene Venter, SiVEST

0.4. Social and Socio-Economic The proposal will result in the inevitable reduction of available forestry land. It is believed it is incumbent on Eskom, in collaboration with the Department, to find suitable alternative land to replace the areas that forestry in general and Cape Pine specifically, stands to lose. Of primary concern to Cape Pine, and one of the most important ways to help mitigate the negative impact of the proosed scheme, is to successfully recover the area that will be taken up by the proposed power line servitudes, from forestry land situated elsewhere (possibly by including it in existing lease agreement between Cape Pine and the State regarding forestry land). We would not consider agreeing to the recommendations in the EIA Report, unless it addresses this very specifically and includes it in the recommendations to the Minister as part of the authorisation that is required of her. NOTE: For full context of letter, please refer Appendix 12K – Communications IAPs

BONKEMEYER, Patch Group DEO Cape Pine Letter: 20 November 2012

For an alignment through forestry compartments due process will be followed as required (i.e. compensation or off-sets if feasible). Wimpie Henning, Eskom

Please find attached a draft concept document outlining the proposed framework and key project objectives w.r.t Tinarha Community Cultural Precinct or Cluster project earmarked for Kwanobuhle. Although the project is still in early development and planning phase, consultation with various stakeholders is ongoing, and various potential funders has been approached and engaged re possible partnerships. The attached aims to give the team some insight into the nature of the project. Both Hopewell and UDDI continue to work together with all stakeholders, including the community structures and Cllrs and potential partners in the hope of securing key partners for project implementation, which we envisage will be rolled out in a

DINIE, Nafeesa Senior Project Manager: Uitenhage Despatch Development Initiative E-mail: 15 November 2012

The UDDI was thanked for the documents provided and confirmed that it has been forwarded to the Social Specialist. Nicolene Venter, SiVEST


Page 108


phased in approach. Therefore, the attached summary provides you with a snapshot of the project elements, and the potential impact the Line Re alignment could have on the project, and therefore the potential impact on the livelihoods of the communities. I have a vision to expand my studio area which will enable me to host exhibitions for fellow artists and to expand the workshop side of my business. Along with this, we run a teagarden from the studio gallery area. This expansion will enable me to employ a full time assistant and one more general worker.

DODD, Llise Resident: Elands River Valley Letter not dated Posted: 19 November 2012 Received: 28 November 2012

The visual ambience of the area has been taken into consideration by the Visual Specialist, including the Elands River Valley, and can be reviewed Appendix 8 of the FEIR. Nicolene Venter, SiVEST

The power line would furthermore lead to the devaluation of privately owned land, as can be seen in related scoping reports where specialists use the term ‘degraded environments’


The socio-economic specialist study (Appendix 11 in the FEIR) has addressed in detail the potential impacts of the proposed power lines on development opportunities and the potential inhibition of these opportunities The study has identified sensitive areas along the corridors from a social and economic perspective. A number of recommendations were made in the study to avoid such areas, including the discarding of certain parts of the Northern Corridor. The EIA Team –preferred alignment has followed these recommendations and has avoided these sensitive areas as far as possible.

During a public meeting at Ankervas Primary School on the 3rd of February 2009 and a public meeting at Van Stadens Farmers’ Association on the 14th May 2009, it was confirmed by Eskom delegates that such areas will be targeted should the need arise for further energy-related infrastructure placements.

Eskom acknowledge the fact that should there be an additional line in the area, an EIA will have to be conducted and it might determine that the area area adjacent to the existing line(s) are environmentally feasible. There are a number of factors that will come into place that will determine the placement of any future power lines, whether in the Elands River Valley or any other place. Lerato Mokgwatlheng, Eskom

Due to the relatively small size of the farm, the proposed routes have had a huge negative effect on the value of the property. The impact on the financial viability of the farm is immense. I have stopped all further development and have had offers of purchase withdrawn due to the presence of the published and proposed power lines. The farm has been my project in my retirement and to see all my work nullified by the proposed power lines is heartbreaking. I believe the only and honourable

PERRY, Garth Landowner Letter: 6 December 2012

The statement is an emotive one that cannot be assessed objectively. Nonka Byker, Roos Consulting It is envisaged that there could be a possibility of a marginal decline in property value due to the presence of the proposed power lines, but this can only be assessed in detail once a full


Page 109


solution is for Eskom to purchase the property. assessment has been done by a property valuator. Raoul de Villiers, World-Wize

A list indicating properties sold/bought-out since the announcement of the first SiVEST Public Awareness meetings wrt Thyspunt Power Line Routes.

VERMAAK, Thinus E-mail: 23 October 2012

These maps are available and can be down loaded from SiVEST’s web (http://www.sivest.co.za/Download.aspx) as they are too big to e-mail (10MB – 15MB). Nicolene Venter, SiVEST (e-mail dated 22 January 2013)

0.5. Tourism The Garden Route does not have a “Mediterranean climate” as stated in the Tourism chapter pg 26. Also, the Humansdorp war memorial was trashed several years ago and no longer exists.

COWLING, Dr Shirley Letter: 22 November 2012

This information is noted and read as such in conjunction with the Tourism Report.

It is strongly believed that the presence of pylons in the valley will spoil one of the most beautiful parts of the Eastern Cape and it will destroy area sensitive business and the dreams we have for a tourism route/meander.


The potential tourism and visual impacts of the proposed power lines on the Elands River Valley in the context of the impact of the proposed power lines on the aesthetic quality of the valley and in terms of the future visitation of tourists to the valley has been addressed in the Elands River Visual and Tourism Specialist Study Addendum Report. Due to a lack of primary data and case studies in a South African context, more (primary) research is required to assess whether the development of power lines within the viewshed of the Elands River would result in decreased tourism visitation to the area. The Slipper Way Tourism Route has been taken into account by the Elands River Visual and Tourism Specialist Study Addendum Report, in terms of the tourism growth potential of the Elands River Valley. Different alignments within the Northern Firebreak of the Longmore Forest would have differing degrees and intensity of visual impact. Paul da Cruz, Royal Haskoning

There has been talk of the Elands River Valley becoming a corridor for a planned Mega Reserve linking Addo National Park, Groendal and Baviaanskloof Wilderness Areas. Power lines would certainly have a negative impact on such a project. We believe that present as well as future tourism ventures in the Elands River Valley will be negatively affected by the erection of transmission lines in the area.


The potential inclusion of the Elands River Valley into the Baviaanskloof Mega Reserve has been discussed in the Elands River Visual and Tourism Specialist Study Addendum Report. The implications of this potential inclusion on tourism growth in the valley have also been discussed.


Page 110


We further strongly believe that birdlife as well as nature in general will suffer devastating consequences should the project go ahead.

The potential tourism and visual impacts of the proposed power lines on the Elands River Valley in the context of the future visitation of tourists to the valley has been addressed in the Elands River Visual and Tourism Specialist Study Addendum Report. There is a possibility that tourism growth potential could be adversely affected due to negative perceptions of power lines, but there are many unknowns in this regards. Due to a lack of primary data and case studies in a South African context, more (primary) research is required to assess whether the development of power lines within the viewshed of the Elands River would result in decreased tourism visitation to the area. Paul da Cruz, Royal Haskoning

0.6. Heritage It appears that public participation has been inadequate and failed to determine the impact of the proposed Sarah Baartman Centre of Rememberance outside Hankey. This place of dignity, a National Heritage Site, will be severely compromised by the nearby transmission lines. This centre has been planned over the last few years and has a budget of R143 million granted by the National Department of Arts and Culture. The assessor must consult with the relevant stakeholders and consider the impacts on this Centre.


The consultation process through the public participation process to identify and consult with heritage groups throughout the EIA process has been sufficient. The Heritage Specialist also conducted discussions with the relevant stakeholders regarding possible heritage impacts such as the Sarah Baartman Centre of Remembrance. It also needs to be noted that the Sarah Baartman Centre of Remembrance falls outside the proposed Northern Corridor. Nicolene Venter, SiVEST

The current HIA report is talso lacking in the following: The regional heritage synopsis for the area is poorly described with regard to the colonial period heritage of the KhoiSan people. The history of the area did not receive the necessary attention to provide an accurate picture of the cultural landscape. The Gamkwa is not even mentioned in the report but houses and cemeteries from the colonial period have been photographed as if the KhoiSan people did not even exist during the colonial period. We therefore insist that:

REICHERT, Kobus Heritage Representative Gamtkwa Khoisan Council Letter: 21 January 2013

In context of the proposed TTLIP a detailed description of any historically disadvantaged group such as the KhoiSan people does not warrant the level of any further detail studies. This must not be read that the importance of community heritage and culture is being ignored. For a site specific project the comment and concern raised would be relevant. The HIA Report does cover all the key factors of heritage sites and their level of importance. As the TTLIP covers a vast area, the HIA and the EAP recommended that a ‘walk down’be undertaken, should and EA be


Page 111


• further research must be done to describe the presence of the Gamtobakwa people (Gamtkwa is an abbreviation of the original tribal name), or the so called “Gamtousch nation” (as described by early travelers such as Ensign August Beutler in 1752) within the regional heritage context.

• further information must be supplied on what causes ended the long “occupation” of the area by Khoikhoi people and what factors led to their eventual presence at Missionary Stations in Bethelsdorp, Hankey, and Clarkson.

• the living heritage associated with the KhoiSan people with specific reference to medicinal and other useful plants that occur within the study area be investigated further.

granted, as the tower positions would be known. It is important that the EMP must be read with the HIA Report to have a clear picture of what mitigation measures, if required, have been put forward for the placement of towers and the construction period. All National, Provincial and Local legislation will be adhered to before and during construction. The history of the Khoisan in the broader study area and the events leading to their occupation or settlement patterns does not form part of the Scope of Work for the project. The EIA aims to identify project specific impacts which may be caused by the project or impacts on the project itself. As proposed to Eastern Cape Provincial Heritage Resoucres Authority and SAHRA, additional site specific investigations will be uncertaken prior to construction to specifically focus on aspects such as medicinal plants, artefacts and sites of interest, in an attempt to ensure, where possible, that these are avoided and considered.

The following statement was issued on 8 August 2005 in Pretoria by the Special Rapporteur of the UN on the Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Indigenous People: “… All indigenous peoples of South Africa were brutally oppressed by the colonial system and the apartheid regime up to 1994. The Khoi-San were dispossessed of their lands and territories and their communities and cultures were destroyed. The tragic consequences of apartheid cannot be overcome in a few years and the Special Rapporteur is fully conscious of the tremendous efforts that have been made by the democratic government of South Africa to redress the many injustices inherited from the old regime. Through his conversations with Government authorities and Khoi-San people, he is also aware of the challenges faced by these communities and their longstanding demands for land rights, official statutory recognition, respect of their cultural identities and full and equal access to social services. The Special Rapporteur is encouraged by the government’s declared commitment to meet the demands of the indigenous groups in the country and by the ongoing efforts to formulate and implement appropriate legislation and policies to address

SiVEST acknowledges the information provided and is captured accordingly for DEA’s consideration.


Page 112


issues such as land restitution, multilingual and multicultural education, the representation of traditional authorities in public life and the delivery of health and other services… “ Without the above information the regional heritage synopsis is incomplete and misleading. The KhoiSan people did not just “occupy” the area for thousands of years and then disappear from the face of the earth. They lost their land by force and through conflict, and the current government recognizes the genocide that took place in colonial times. We, the descendants of these people are very much alive today and represented by various organizations, a fact that should be recognized in the HIA. The information provided about the archaeology of the area is nothing more than a desktop study and despite the lack of a proper survey it substantiates the fact that the KhoiSan community does have a vested interest and rights with regard to the majority of the cultural heritage situated within the study area. We do not regard mitigation measures proposed as acceptable since a proper survey was not conducted. The main impact has been described as visual and we want to make it clear that we simply do not want power lines running across our heritage sites since we regard our ancestral remains as sacred.

Throughout the EIA process for TTLIP, it has been acknowledged that that corridor investigated is too large an area for site specific identification of heritage sites, particularly for such sites which may occur below the ground and for areas which may not be impacted by the proposed power lines. The site specific walk down for the identification of heritage sites and artefacts was specifically included to address this once tower positions have been finalised, should the project receive authorisation. It has been stated within the EMP and to EC PHRA / SAHRA that Eskom would endeavour to avoid heritage sites, artefacts, and remains as far as possible. Power line tower positions are able to be moved to avoid certain constraints on the ground. Should any sites be unavoidable during construction, Eskom would be required to follow due legal processes in ensuring either the removal, protection or documentation of the sites.

As far as the removal of Khoikhoi and San artefacts are concerned it will have no benefits for our community if it is removed, and in our view it should be preserved in context for future generations. We are of the opinion that the powerline project cannot be separated from the Thyspunt nuclear project since the cumulative impact of both projects will therefore not be adequately considered. In the Thyspunt nuclear project the specialist concludes that the cost to the National Estate is going to be high, unless properly mitigated (In the case of Thyspunt all indications are that there are severe constraints for proper mitigation). In our view it has not be shown to date how mitigation can achieved successfully and the cumulative impact on the heritage resources of the area are not acceptable. We also reject the argument of national interest since there are other less sensitive sites available for both projects.

Should any sites or artefacts need to be removed or impacted on, there are procedures in place which have been determined by the relevant heritage authorities and these would need to be followed accordingly. Should the Gamtkwa KhoiSan council feel in disagreement with any of SAHRA’s protocols, this should be addressed with SAHRA directly.


Page 113


It appears that Eskom is under the impression that by meeting South African legal criteria there is no obligation on them to act in terms of the UN’s declaration of indigenous peoples rights (of which the South – African Government is a co-signatory), the UNESCO or ICOMOS : Burra Charter guidelines, and the Kari-Ocha and Kimberley declarations . These declarations and guidelines all require “informed consent” before any development can take place on indigenous peoples land. The following articles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples are applicable: Article 11 Indigenous Peoples have the right to practice and revitalize their cultural traditions and customs. This includes the right to maintain, protect and develop the past, present and future manifestations of their cultures, such as archaeological and historical sites, artefacts, designs, ceremonies, technologies and visual and performing arts and literature. Article 25 Indigenous Peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinctive spiritual relationship with their traditionally owned or otherwise occupied and used lands, territories, waters and coastal seas and other resources, and to uphold their responsibilities to future generations in this regard. Article 29 2. States shall take effective measures to ensure that no storage or disposal of hazardous materials shall take place in lands and territories of indigenous peoples without their free, prior and informed consent. Article 32 2. States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain free and

The information provided is noted. It must be remembered that should the project be authorised, Eskom would be required to meet certain legislation, particlalrly where it is identified to be relevant to the project, and will do so as such.


Page 114


informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories or other resources … Several other articles are also applicable, and although many of these articles bind the state it does not mean that it does not have implications for Eskom. To ignore the principles contained in this declaration will have far reaching effects in future. The Government is already in the process of implementing these principles and the White Paper on the recognition of Khoi and San structures has already been published. This will provide our communities with far stronger rights in future than provided for in current legislation. We have also participated in the public hearings about the Traditional Affairs Bill and since it can be expected that it will be promulgated within the near future it is necessary for ESKOM to start acknowledging the fact that our rights needs to be respected. The ANC has also announced that land claims will be re-opened specifically to allow for Khoisan land claims prior to 1913 including cultural heritage sites. Please note that the Gamtkwa Khoisan Council will lodge claims for Thyspunt and several other properties situated within our ancestral land along the proposed route for the powerlines as soon as the land claim process is re-opened. The Khoi and San people regard all archaeological material and sites linked to their culture as of spiritual significance and sacred. These heritage resources are equally deserving of protection similar to the protection offered to other religious minorities in the country (See the Supreme Court of Appeal decision in: Oudekraal Estates (Pty) Ltd v. City of Cape Town and others) We therefore want to place on record that we are opposed to the proposed project and that neither Eskom nor the Government have approached us to date to obtain free and informed consent to develop a Nuclear Station and Powerlines on our ancestral land.

Gamtkwa KhoiSan Council’s notification of lodging for land claims is acknowledged and has been forwarded to Eskom for their information. Gamtkwa KhoiSan Councils objection is noted. The EIA process being undertaken for the TTLIP is one of the preliminary processes undertaken in the development of the proposed project. It is not guaranteed that the project will proceed and as such consent for land uses or land negotiations are not undertaken at this stage. What the EIA process does provide, is an initial platform for I&APs to be notified of the potential development of power lines and to solicit comment thereon, not necessarily gain consent.


Page 115


0.7. Visual As an artist working in the Elands River Valley for the past 20 years, paintings are created from the studio on the farm and distributed to galleries, private buyers and exhibitors. Inspiration is the essence of any art work and inspiration is drawn from the surroundings of the Elands River Valley. To me, as a visual artist, it is unthinkable to have to face monstrous, industrial pylons in the valley every day. For the art workshops that is conducted on the farm by the team is the biggest attraction for artists to this beautiful area. The en plain air (outdoor) painting sessions usually take place from a high vantage point on the farm, with the artists facing west, thus overlooking our 100 year old farmhouse with the mountain behind it. As shown in the Visual Specialist’s Visual and Tourism Report (Appendix 8), this scene will now be destroyed by hideous pylons.


The potential impact of the proposed power lines being placed along the Northern Firebreak of the Longmore Forest on sensitive receptor locations such as the Llise Dodd Art Gallery has been addressed by the Elands River Visual and Tourism Specialist Study Addendum Report. The report takes into account the potential impact on tourism activities such as outdoor painting, and whether the viewing of the power lines would such activities to be discontinued. In mitigation of the impact, the alignment of the proposed lines along an alignment set further back from the edge of the southern ridge would greatly reduce the visual impact of the lines on such receptor locations. Paul da Cruz, Royal Haskoning

The ERC strongly opposed to the erection of any transmission power lines from Thyspunt to the existing substations at Dedisa and Grassridge. These power lines will inevitably have a negative and irreversible impact, visually as well as environmentally, on some of the most beautiful parts of the Eastern Cape.


The Visual Specialist Report and the Visual and the Elands River Visual and Tourism Specialist Study Addendum Report have both addressed the potential visual (aesthetic) impact of the proposed Northern Corridor power lines on the Elands River Valley. The Elands River Visual and Tourism Specialist Study Amendment Report has addressed the visual implications of three proposed alignments on the valley, and the intensity of the respective impact of each. From a visual perspective, the Alternative 1 – Eskom-proposed alignment (technical alignment) will generally be associated with the greatest degree of impact, and Alternative 3 – EIA Team-preferred alignment at the time of the DEIR comment period will be associated with the least amount of visual impact. The EIA Team Preferred Alignment (Alternative 2) will have a lesser impact than Alternative 1 in certain parts of the valley, but a greater impact than the former EIA Team-preferred alignment. Paul da Cruz, Royal Haskoning

The proposed pylons are the Guyed Suspension type tower (double circuit), which requires 95m registered servitude per tower, thus totalling a registered servitude of 285m for 180km. In order to be able to carry the 400kV transmission lines, the pylons will have to be

As per the Revised DEIRs (page 43) and FEIR (page XX) it is currently proposed (but not finalised) that the Cross Rope Suspension-type tower will be used and not the Guyed Suspension type tower (double circuit), The registered servitude required for a Cross Rope Suspension tower is 55m per power line


Page 116


an average of 33m tall with a minimum conductor clearance of 8.5m. Should these lines be erected on the northern fire break of Cape Pine it would cause an absolute, non-acceptable visual impact of the ERC.

and should the three proposed 400kV power lines be constructed parallel it would require a servitude width of 165m. The average height of a Cross Rope Suspension tower is 29m. Please see the above response for information on how the respective proposed alignments within the Longmore Northern Firebreak will exert differing degrees of visual impact on the valley. The nature and intensity of the visual impact of the power lines will be dependent on which alignment would be developed. Paul da Cruz, Roayl Haskoning

It was with great interest that we read the Visual Impact Assessment addendum (Appendix 8) and the Tourism Impact Assessment (Appendix 9) and the economic Impact Assessment addendum (Appendix 11). These three entities cannot be separated as is proved by letters from Inge Konik, and ERC members’ daughter in regards with their vision for their farm, Cypherfontein, a letter from Roger Cooney, owner of an operating tourism farm and a letter from BirdLife Eastern Cape, regular visitors to the valley. The psychological effect of industrialisation must also be taken into consideration. The residents currently living in the area have chosen the Elands River Valley as an escape from urban life styles. The beauty of the area generates energy for these residents of which many have found physical healing, are practicing sustainable farming or invested in tourism operations. Since the ERC’s involvement in the EIA the tourism operations in the Elands River Valley as was listed in our report of 2008, have grown from 10 to 14 operations. The Slipper Way, the brain child of Gary Gradwell and Selva Pillay, has also seen the light. The Slipper Way is an initiative to drive upliftment and promote our area by establishing a collection of arranged routes that offer visitors a variety of accommodation, local events, restaurants, outdoor activities, arts and crafts, wildlife conservation and much more. The vision is to establish a permanent tourism route or meander.

The psychological impact of the proposed development on residents of the Elands River Valley is outside the scope of the visual impact assessment, however the reasons for people settling in, and establishing tourism operations in the Elands River Valley has been addressed by the Elands River Visual and Tourism Specialist Study Addendum Report, as well as the potential indirect impact of the power line development on the tourism growth potential and tourism capital expenditure in the valley. Paul da Cruz, Royal Haskoning The Slipper Way Tourism Route has been taken into account by the Elands River Visual and Tourism Specialist Study Addendum Report, in terms of the tourism growth potential of the Elands River Valley. Paul da Cruz, Royal Haskoning


Page 117


Note:Addendums A and B for the mentioned documents is attached under Appendix 12K – Communications IAPs Also of concern is the visual impact the 33m high pylons will have on the nature loving visitors to the valley. The areas sought after by nature loving visitors are areas that are largely undeveloped. The Elands River Valley offers the serene beauty nature lovers long for. Sadly this serene beauty will be spoiled by the erection of transmission lines as proposed by Eskom. It will result in nature lovers seeking alternate venues in other areas and will definitely impact their decision to visit the Elands River Valley.


The potential tourism and visual impacts of the proposed power lines on the Elands River Valley in the context of the future visitation of tourists to the valley has been addressed in the Elands River Visual and Tourism Specialist Study Addendum Report. Due to a lack of primary data and case studies in a South African context, more (primary) research is required to assess whether the development of power lines within the viewshed of the Elands River would result in decreased tourism visitation to the area. Paul da Cruz, Royal Haskoning

Having had a look at the visual impact again, I am again very concerned that the visual impact will have a major negative impact in the area. There are in my opinion more suitable electricity generation options than a relatively large nuclear power plant at Thuyspunt for which the transmission lines are required. One of the options are small modular nuclear reactors for which major transmission lines will not be required as the relatively smaller generators are located closer to the load and are in some instances considerably safer (www.thorium100.comandhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/advanced.html). Other options include natural gas fired generators http://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/which are more suited to peak power generation when renewables are not available compared to large nuclear power plants.

MANNINGS, Bruce E-mail: 14 January 2013

Acknowledged comment regarding the visual impact of power lines and forwarded to the Visual Specialist for a response. Comments regarding the suitable electricity generation option have been forwarded to Arcus GIBB as this relates to the Nuclear-1 Project. Nicolene Venter, SiVEST (e-mail dated 15 Jan 2013 The Visual Specialist Report and the Visual and the Elands River Visual and Tourism Specialist Study Addendum Report have both addressed the potential visual (aesthetic) impact of the proposed Northern Corridor power lines on the Elands River Valley. The Elands River Visual and Tourism Specialist Study Amendment Report have addressed the visual implications of three proposed alignments on the valley, and the intensity of the respective impact of each. Paul da Cruz, Royal Haskoning

The southern corridor has been moved further east off the property but will have a dramatic negative visual impact from the house.


The impact of the proposed power lines on the farmstead / homestead of Mr Perry in a visual context can be examined in terms of a number of factors that are used to examine visual impact of an infrastructural development such is proposed on a receptor location. The first such factor is distance of the lines away from the receptor location. The Northern lines that run across the property to the west of the farmstead (in terms of the latest EIA


Page 118


Team-preferred alignment) are located approximately 330m away from the farmstead. The close proximity of the lines to the farmstead entail that the farmstead would lie in a zone of highest visual exposure and thus visual impact. Another factor that should be considered is the typical orientation of the receptor location, in terms of the important views from the locality. Although the typical ‘orientation’ of the receptor location is not known, the position of the farmstead on the northern side of a steep river valley (the Krom River), and the statements made by the landowner seem to indicate the important view is towards the east and south-east (i.e. down the valley). In spite of the close proximity of the farmstead to the northern lines, the position of the farmstead on the valley sides suggests that the view towards the west may be partially restricted by the topography, thus potentially limiting / restricting views to the northern lines to the west, although this would need to be confirmed in the field. It is not certain what activities take place on the property and whether these would be ‘visually sensitive’, but a viewer located on the property on the flatter, higher lying ground (as compared to the farmstead) would have a much clearer view of the northern lines and importantly a view of a wider stretch of the power lines, thus a much greater degree of visual exposure would be exerted by the lines.

In terms of the southern corridor lines, the lines would be visible within a range of view in which importance is placed by the landowner. The alignment of the lines in terms of the latest EIA Team-preferred corridor entails that the lines would be located at a much greater distance away (approximately 1.2km to the closest point of the alignment). The greater distance of the lines from the farmstead would entail that the visual exposure of the power lines would be much less than the closer northern corridor lines, as the degree of visual exposure drops exponentially with an increase in distance. In addition the terrain position of the farmstead located on the valley sides of a steep valley suggests that the viewshed from the farmstead would be limited by the terrain position. This appears to be confirmed by analysis in Google Earth using


Page 119


ground-level view that suggests that only a certain length (number of spans) of the southern lines would be visible from the farmstead, and that much of the lines would be screened by higher-lying terrain between the farmstead and the alignment. This factor would also reduce the visual exposure factor and thus visual impact associated with the lines. It should be noted that the Red Cap wind farm will be developed shortly, and a number of turbines (at least the upper parts of the turbines) would be likely to be visible from the farmstead. These turbines will become part of the visual baseline of the area and of views to the south, and the potential introduction of power lines must be viewed in this context.

In this context, it appears unlikely that the southern corridor lines would exert a “dramatic negative visual impact from the house” as stated by the landowner. A certain number of spans of the lines would be visible within a certain range of view, thus being responsible for a certain degree of visual impact, but not the intense visual impact as stated by the landowner. The northern lines are likely to exert a greater visual impact due to their greater proximity to the farmstead, although this may be mitigated by the primary orientation being away from these lines and the partial screening of the lines by the topography. Paul da Cruz, Royal Haskoning

While I am writing, what I was trying to do for the Chronicle was to show them the pictures on p. 81 & 83 of the Visual Assessment Report, to give an idea of how the lines would look. However, it has been pointed out to me that the way they are presented suggests that they are not much bigger than the telephone pole in the foreground. A telephone pole is about 6 metres high, whilst the pylons will be 40 metres high - nearly 7 times the size! I have asked someone here who is good with Photoshop to give a more accurate portrayal of what they will look like. Will send this with our submission

THORPE, Hilton Chairman: St Francis Residents Association E-mail: 12 November 2012

The visual modelling of the proposed power lines was undertaken as part of the study in an attempt to allow all stakeholders to get an idea of how the proposed power lines would appear in the landscape. Due to budgetary and information availability (power line model availability at the time of undertaking the visual modelling) constraints, the modelling is largely indicative of the appearance of the proposed power lines, rather than being 100% life-like. However it must be stressed that the dimensions of the models are realisitic, and thus the size of the power lines as they appear in the visual models as projected onto the landscapes are realistic. Visual modelling was undertaken using Photoshop software. It is important to note that during the time of the taking of

The person I mentioned who is good on Photoshop has come back to me and admitted defeat. I am forwarding to you his email to me. This raises the question of what should be done about this, because the pictures in Appendix 8 p. 81 & 83 are definitely misleading - almost as bad as the Chronicle ones. I think that you should


Page 120


speak to whoever did the pictures, point out our criticism, and get him to do something about it. This could mean a further request for an extension, but as GIBB have missed the pre-Christmas deadline for the Nuclear 1 DEIR this might not be a train smash. You simply cannot allow a misleading illustration to appear in a DEIR. What is needed is a new photo-montage of the appearance of the lines, with the telephone pole in proportion, so as to indicate what we are actually talking about. The ration should be 6.5:1. These will then have to be sent to all I & APs and hard copy venues, with an opportunity to people to respond.

the photographs to form the basis of the models, objects appearing in the photographs were geo-referenced (by recording their height and geographical position / co-ordinates with a GPS), in order to ensure that power lines could be correctly scaled in the image in relation to these objects. The alignment of the proposed lines was based on the EIA Team-preferred alignment at the time of the DEIR comment period, and this was plotted as a shapefile in GIS in order to allow it to be correctly placed within the photo montages. In terms of the comment regarding the relative heights of the power lines and an existing telephone pole in what is presumed to be figures 37 and 39, it must be stated that that photographs are inherently limited in that they are only 2-dimensional, rather than being 3-dimensional. Due to the 2-dimensional nature of the photograph, there is no representation of depth or distance. Objects that are distant in the photograph will appear ‘smaller’ than their actual size, due to diminishing appearance of size over distance. In both of the said models, there is a telephone pole in the foreground of the image – i.e. close to the position of the photographer (at about 10m distant). In both figures, the power lines are situated much further distant than the telephone pole, hence objects that are in reality much larger than the telephone pole appear the same size or even smaller due to their greater distance from the viewer. In figure 37, the closest (Northern Corridor power lines) tower is about 150m away from the viewer, hence in a 2-dimensional photograph they appear a similar size to the closer, but smaller telephone pole. In Figure 39 the closest (southern corridor) lines are about 1.4km distant, hence the power lines appear much smaller that the foreground telephone pole. As such there is no inaccuracy in the depiction of the size of the power line towers and the towers as they appear in the photographs are not misleading, and there is no issue with the size of the towers in the models. In addition, in response to your comment made, I would like to


Page 121


make two salient points that are relevant in this context: • Firstly, since the time that the modelling was undertaken in

mid 2011, the Red Cap windfarm has been approved, and will shortly be constructed. This factor will significantly alter the visual baseline of the area, and in the context of the comment, the baseline of the views as represented particularly by Figures 38 and 39. In this area numerous wind turbines will be built. It is not part of our scope to compare the respective degree of visual intrusion of power lines and wind turbines, but when one includes the height of the rotors, wind turbines are typically 3-4 times the size of a 400kV power line tower, and thus arguably more visually prominent. Numerous wind turbines that are significantly larger than the power lines will be visible in this view and thus will be arguably more visually prominent than the power lines. The visual intrusion and impact of the power lines must now be considered in this altered visual context.

• Secondly, it is worth remembering that the Southern Corridor lines were moved to run parallel to the northern corridor lines in the area between the shifting dunes north of Thyspunt and Humansdorp in order to prevent a visually impacting a much more visually sensitive area around the Krom River just upstream of St Francis Bay. This was done in response to the findings of the visual assessment and comments received by stakeholders in the St Francis Bay area. In this context the lines were moved to a much less visually sensitive area, especially when one considers the altered visual baseline due to the imminent presence of the Red Cap wind turbines.

Paul da Cruz, Royal Haskoning This submission focuses largely on the visual impact of the proposed lines. The proposal is to take five transmission lines, in two corridors, with 40 metre-high pylons every 400 metres, across 150 kilometres of countryside, much of which will be highly visible and described in the report as “areas of high scenic beauty” and having “wide-ranging vistas”, with “low visual absorption capacity”. It is accepted in the report that the visual impact could extend for up to 2 kilometres on either side of

Letter: 22 November 2012 The potential visual impact of the power lines in areas of high scenic beauty and this a high degree of visual sensitivity has been addressed in the visual impact specialist study, and it is recognised that a number of parallel-running high voltage power lines could be associated with significant visual impacts. In order to mitigate this, the routing of the respective corridors and the


Page 122


the lines. This means that, where there are two corridors, which is for much of the route, the combined width of visual impact could be between 4 & 8 kilometres. This will certainly be the case in the areas described as “high scenic beauty”, with “wide-ranging vista”, such as is the case from the High Voltage Yard to the hills behind Loerie. The total affected area could be as much as 1000 square kilometres. In our view, this is completely unacceptable.

alignment of the EIA Team-preferred alignment has taken the potential impacting of visually-sensitive areas into account. In a number of such areas corridors have been changed to run avoid visually sensitive areas (e.g. the discarding of the Southern Corridor alternative that traversed the lower Krom River) near St Francis Bay), and the EIA Team-preferred alignment has been routed to avoid sensitive receptors as far as possible. In this way the potential visual impact of the lines has been reduced. Paul da Cruz, Royal Haskoning

Visual report, item 3.2.1, page 18 - 19 Attention is drawn to this criterion, which is, in our view, highly relevant, and not being given sufficient consideration in the Revised DEIR:

“The visual absorption capacity (VAC) of an area / landscape refers to the ability of the area / landscape to absorb the development without any noticeable intrusion or change to the visual character of the area. It is measured on a scale from high (an area which has a high capacity to absorb the development) to low (an area in which a development would be highly visible and importantly incongruent with its surroundings).”

“The majority of the study area could be assigned a low VAC due to the largely natural visual character of the study area as well as the limited human settlement and lack of existing electrical infrastructure. Only in limited urban areas to the north of Uitenhage and in the Grassridge Area (which is characterised by a density of existing powerline infrastructure) would the VAC be higher.”

Visual Absorption Capacity has been used in the context of the visual specialist report as part of the identification of visually sensitive areas. VAC provides an understanding of the capacity of that landscape to accept structures such as a power line, and as such is useful in the identification of wider areas of visual sensitivity based on their levels of development and `landscape change’. The report has attempted to assess visual impacts at the level of the individual receptor location, and thus while VAC is a very useful tool in helping to assign visual sensitivity over a wider area, other factors at the level of the individual receptor have been used to assess the degree of visual intrusion posed by the power lines at the level of the individual receptor. Paul da Cruz, Royal Haskoning

The visual impact of the appearance of these lines, as given in figures 37 & 39 of the Visual Impact Assessment Study (Appendix 8), is totally misleading, and could reasonably be described as fraudulent. The pictures give the impression that the pylons will be not much larger than the telephone poles shown in the photographs. A telephone pole is approximately 6 metres tall, whereas the pylons will be 40 metres tall: a ratio of 6.5:1. This portrayal of the visual impact requires to be completely re-drawn and distributed to all I & APs, and to venues where hard copies have been distributed, to correctly inform the public, and enable them to respond. An additional response time is needed to achieve this

The visual modelling of the proposed power lines was undertaken as part of the study in an attempt to allow all stakeholders to get an idea of how the proposed power lines would appear in the landscape. Due to budgetary and information availability (power line model availability at the time of undertaking the visual modelling) constraints, the modelling is largely indicative of the appearance of the proposed power lines, rather than being 100% life-like. However it must be stressed that the dimensions of the models are realistic, and thus the size of the power lines as they appear in the visual models as projected onto the landscapes are realistic.


Page 123


In terms of the comment regarding the relative heights of the power lines and an existing telephone pole in what is presumed to be figures 37 and 39 in the visual report, it must be stated that that photographs are inherently limited in that they are only 2-dimensional, rather than being 3-dimensional. Due to the 2-dimensional nature of the photograph, there is no representation of depth or distance. Objects that are distant in the photograph will appear ‘smaller’ than their actual size, due to diminishing appearance of size over distance. In both of the said models, there is a telephone pole in the foreground of the image – i.e. close to the position of the photographer (at about 10m distant). In both figures, the power lines are situated much further distant than the telephone pole, hence objects that are in reality much larger than the telephone pole appear the same size or even smaller due to their greater distance from the viewer. The visual representation of the proposed power lines is thus neither fraudulent nor misleading. Paul da Cruz, Royal Haskoning

0.8. EIA Process Comments/Issues The report uses the term “mitigation” liberally without providing details of how this can be done, or else making spurious claims eg the growth of vegetation will hide the unsightly pylons. In a treeless environmnet this is impossible. Also, the report admits that the cumulative effects of the Transmission lines and the Nuclear power station could necessitate the translocation of human settlements, but that this will be mitigated. As EIA practitioners, Sivest should be aware that all human translocations are detrimental to social and mental health and should acknowledge this honestly, and not offer the palliative measure of “mitigation”.


It is believed that the term “mitigation” in EIAs is not used loosely as a specialist needs to assess an impact and if it can be mitigated, it should be clearly described in the EMP how the mitigation measure(s) will have a positive impact on the negative impact. SiVEST Social Specialist addresses the impact and mitigation measures should any human translocation due to the proposed Tx power lines need to take place. The mitigation measures can be reviewed in Appendix 14 of the FEIR. It needs to be noted that Eskom aim to avoid human translocations as far as possible, not only to address the possible impacts as mentioned by the stakeholder but also the cost involved with relocating residents.

Mitigation programmes ELANDS RIVER CONSERVANCY It is believed that the term “mitigation” in EIAs is not used loosely


Page 124


Of utmost importance to the ERC is the environmental conservation of the Elands River Valley. It is alarming to see that environmental specialists see mitigation programmes as a solution to possible problems. The ERC would much rather prefer the prevention of the problem, thereby doing away with the necessity of any mitigation programmes. No ‘walk through’ can determine the impact of the proposed transmission lines. The Landbouweekblad of 1 June 2012, p11 features an article on ten new animal species (some are critically endangered) which have recently been discovered in the Western Cape. The scientists involved state that knowledge about South Africa’s biodiversity is far from complete.

(ERC) Letter: 27 November 2012 (posted 19 November 2012)

as a specialist needs to assess an impact and if it can be mitigated, it should be clearly described in the EMP how the mitigation measure(s) will have a positive impact on the negative impact. There are environmental conditions that can be successfully mitigated. SiVEST specialist did undertake field work studies and it needs to be noted that not each square metre of an area needs to be visited. The biodiversity specialist has a very good knowledge of the type of fauna and flora in the study area and previous environmental studies and research documents have been consulted. Liesl Koch, SiVEST

All of our previous comments made on the scoping report still hold true. We believe that in most instances no in depth studies were conducted and that at best it was a ‘drive through’ study. Very little time, if any, was spent in the veld; looking under rocks, climbing our hills or crawling around the valleys. Many of our concerns and questions have not adequately been addressed. We enclose a copy for easy reference under addendum C. Note:Addendum C for the mentioned documents is attached under Appendix 12K – Communications IAPs

Extensive field work was undertaken along the route. Given the extent of the project, sampling was conducted taking this into consideration. Sampling ensured that the different habitat types present along the route were assessed. Liesl Koch, SiVEST

There is a fundamental assumption throughout both the current EIAs that the Thyspunt site is pre-determined, and that the role of the EIAs is to reduce as far as possible the negative impacts of such a project. We challenge this assumption. The site was selected within a political context which no longer applies, and prior to new Constitutional and NEMA requirements, which have significantly altered the authorisation criteria. The site is provisional, based on incomplete criteria.

THORPE, Hilton Chairman: St Francis Bay Residents Association Letter: 22 November 2012

Reference needs to be made to FSR, paragraph 1.2 Alternatives Assessment, page 27. Responses to this comment were also made at various meetings held during the EIA process. Nicolene Venter, SiVEST

An objection which has been raised repeatedly in both EIA processes for Nuclear 1 has been the fragmentation of the process. This applies very strongly to the current EIA, which only focuses on one component, namely transmission lines. This is clearly part of the cumulative impact of the overall proposal, but is being diluted by removal from the Nuclear 1 EIA. This fragmentation is now taken a step further by presenting the northern and southern corridors separately, thus reducing the cumulative impact of the two corridors. Fig 3 of Appendix 8 for both corridors gives an overall impression of the EIA consultants preferred routes, but does not trace the visual impact all along the lines.

Cumulative impacts was one of the criteria given to all SiVEST’s specialists to assess and this does not only include the Nuclear-1 Project but also all the other wind farm projects in the study area. References to cumulative impacts are captured in each of the Specialists’ Reports as per the FEIR. Rebecca Thomas, SiVEST


Page 125


It is our view that, in terms of the criteria outlined in this report, the proposed transmission lines are fatally flawed in ways which are not given sufficient weighting by the consultants. Fatal flaws are discussed in more detail in section 3 below.

Comment noted. Further comment on the matter of fatal flaws raised is addressed in subsequent sections below.

The “No-go” option is discussed in section 4.3 of the Revised DEIR. The gist of the argument is that placing a nuclear power station at Thyspunt is in the national interest, and that it should therefore be authorized, despite the massive environmental impacts which this will have, and the clear non-viability of the site in terms of emergency planning. Dire predictions on the implications of failure to authorize the plant are spelt out in terms of lack of power for the Eastern Cape.

We challenge that assumption on a number of grounds. We do not contest the fact that South Africa requires more power, or that the Eastern Cape would benefit fromhaving its own power station; or that transmission lines are an unavoidable accompaniment to a power station. However, none of this justifies disregarding the NEMA requirements. The first point to make is that so-called “national interest” is a political concept, which has no place in an EIA, and should be left to the politicians, not to environmental consultants. If perceived national interest and the environmental impact are irreconcilably opposed, a decision may have to be made at a political level, but this should not lead to watering down of NEMA requirements. It is a red herring in an EIA, and should be discounted.

Secondly, the implication of the argument is that if something is perceived to be in the national interest, it over-rules all other considerations, anything goes, and there are no parameters to what is and is not acceptable. This could be true in such extreme circumstances as national defence. It is not the case in a civil context, and should most certainly not be used where a utility is seeking a decision to cover up for its own lack of forward planning. Thirdly, it is completely illogical to rule that, since it is in the national interest to provide more power, therefore the Thyspunt site must be used. It may be possible to justify the use of nuclear power in the interests of power security. This has

The comment relating to the nuclear power station has been forwarded (via e-mail) to Arcus GIBB, the independent EIA consultants for the Nuclear-1 Project, as it does not form part of SiVEST’s scope of work. Nicolene Venter, SiVEST Nuclear power station related comment attended to as per the above-mentioned response. It is the EAP’s believe that the TTLIP EIA has not at any stage been ‘watered down’ the NEMA requirements as a robust process has been followed. The “No-go” option is a NEMA requirement and must be included in all EIA processes. The referring to the national interest of the project is only one criteria / factor in the EIA process. As it is well known an investigation and assessment needed to be undertaken to see whether the power that would be generated by the proposed nuclear power station, should it be approved by the authority, can be evacuated into Eskom’s national electricity grid. Nuclear power station related comment attended to as per the above-mentioned response.


Page 126


nothing to do with ruling on the suitability of a particular site for that purpose. Clearly there have to be parameters with regard to site suitability, and there has to be the possibility of a negative ROD, based on the evidence before the decision-making authority, no matter how desirable the perceived outcome. Hitherto some sound decisions have been made regarding proposed industrialization of areas of environmental sensitivity. The proposal to mine titanium in the dunefields at St Lucia in KZN was turned down on environmental grounds, even though this would have been a profitable venture in the short term. Suggestions that coal should be mined in the Kruger Park have been rejected for obvious reasons. In our view this is a similar case.

It is not in the national interest to proceed with projects for short-term advantage, which reflect lack of adequate forward planning; despoil parts of our natural heritage, when other options may exist; and short-circuit measures designed to protect people and property from health and environmental damage. Nor is it in the national interest to have a government which specifically instructs its power utility not to investigate alternative sites, as was the case from approximately 1997 to 2007 Of course, a “no-go” decision would be a temporary set-back to the provision of power to the Eastern Cape, but in the longer term it would confirm the integrity of the EIA & NNR processes, and probably lead to a far more appropriate choice of site. Responsibility for the delay would rest entirely with government and Eskom.

We therefore demand that the decision-making authority dismisses the rejection of the “No Go” option, as contained in the DEIR. This decision should be made purely in terms of NEMA requirements, and not influenced by any external political or other considerations.

Comment noted. Nuclear power station related comment attended to as per the above-mentioned response. The St Francis Bay Residents Association statement on the No Go is noted and captured for consideration in the decision making process.

Fatal flaws These are defined in the Glossary of terms, p. 27 (unnumbered on page), with minor variations between the Northern and Southern Corridors An (environmental) fatal flaw is defined as an impact or series of impacts that can be associated with a certain defined area that are of such a magnitude, intensity or significance that it cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level. In this context an environmental fatal flaw would result in a proposed

SiVEST takes note of the omission and has corrected the definition in the Southern Corridor accordingly.


Page 127


development resulting in an unacceptably high level of impact, if it was not able to be avoided; this could result in an alignment being rejected or stopped. (underlined section omitted from Southern Corridor definition). The determination of whether or not a negative impact is a fatal flaw is done in terms of the rating impact criteria which are discussed in the next section.

The lines in question will have very high negative impact, be unmitigable and permanent. Under these criteria, we believe that the entire route proposal is fatally flawed, and should be rejected. It should be remembered that this is the best the consultants are able to recommend, despite having eliminated a number of smaller fatal flaws in the revised report.

We believe that the underlying assumption that the “No-go” option is ruled out on the grounds of “national interest” has led to a very relaxed and inadequate interpretation of fatal flaws in this particular project.

Furthermore the integration DEIR in its present form considers fatal flaws on details of the route, but never considers whether the entire route, with the visual impact of these massive transmission lines over such a long stretch of scenic open countryside, is not in itself a fatal flaw.

While it is noted that sections of the corridor have been determined as fatally flawed by specific specialist studies, they have not been determined as fatally flawed by all environmental aspects or technical aspects. The FEIR acknowledges that such impacts in sections of the corridor may not necessarily be able to be mitigated to within acceptable levels, however that they can be mitigated to some level of improvement. The full consideration of all aspects in relation to the study area assessed throughout the project will serve as an indication of the best possible options for the proposed project in question should it be granted Environmental Authorisation.

Impact Rating Criteria These criteria use a partially objective scoring system, covering geographical extent, probability, reversibility, irreplaceable loss of resources, duration and cumulative impact, multiplied by the magnitude/intensity of the project, which leads to a significance rating. All of these are defined on pages 197 – 199 of the revised DEIR. It is this which determines the significance of the impact, which in turn should determine the Record of Decision. Each of these needs to be considered in detail. In commenting on these, we have assumed that our criticism of the wording of fig 26 on p. 201 of the Revised DEIR is correct. Geographical extent This is a huge project, covering 150 kilometres of mainly scenic landscape, having 5 lines with a combined width of 450 metres, and an acknowledged visual impact over 2 kilometres on either side of the lines. The fact that these will be split into two corridors increases the affected area. This could impact on a total of some 1000 square kilometres.

The impact rating system utilised in the EIA process is accepted by the DEA and has been used on a variety of EIA projects to date. The impact rating has been applied per identified impact per specialist study undertaken and assesses the significance of identified impacts. Specialists in the field of each study apply their specialist skills to their areas of expertise in making a correct assessment of the identified impacts. Each impact can then be considered individually in making an overall decision on the


Page 128


There could be debate here as to whether the proposed lines will affect the district or the whole region, depending on how these are defined. It will certainly have a major impact on the whole route from the High Voltage Yard to the sub-station at Grassridge. The minimum score for this would be 2, and should really be 3. Probability There is no debate about this one. There is a 100% chance of occurrence of the impact, and the score has to be 4. Reversibility Since the proposal is to operate a power station at Thyspunt for 60 years, and the transmission lines are an integral part of the project, the impact is irreversible for at least 60 years. This is of such long duration that it should be regarded as permanent and irreversible, and no mitigation measures exist in the section between the High Voltage Yard and the Loerie Valley. This should also be given a score of 4. Irreplaceable loss of resources The major resource which would be lost would be sense of place across countryside which must be described as highly sensitive and scenic, with ultra-low visual absorption capacity. This would apply to the entire length of the line, with minor variations towards Grassridge.

The consultants suggest that the possible wind farms in the region will reduce the natural quality of the area, and that this will mitigate to some extent the impact of the transmission lines. The argument appears to be that, because the wind farms will have a visual impact, this justifies Eskom’s destroying completely the sense of place of the area. We would argue that this is an aggravating, rather than a mitigating factor. This argument only applies to a relatively small part of the proposed lines.

It is inexplicable to us that no attention at all appears to be paid to the impact of the lines on the small town of Kruisfontein, west of Humansdorp. This will be completely dominated by the lines. It scarcely features in the DEIR.

At the very least this would be a significant loss of resources, and should be given a score of 3. Duration A minimum of 60 years is sufficient to have it declared as permanent, justifying a

project.


Page 129


score of 4. Cumulative effect The obvious point to be made here is the cumulative impact on the overall environment of every component of the proposed Nuclear 1 project. This would include the site itself, and all the associated infra-structure, including roads and transmission lines. The lines themselves will have a significant cumulative impact, when spread over some 1000 square kilometres. In conjunction with other components the cumulative impact will be massive, in an area which is currently unspoilt and has high visual and tourism value.

No ROD for the lines should be given without reference to their cumulative impact with Nuclear 1 itself. The score here has to be 4.

Combined score Based on the reasoning above, the combined score will be at least 21, and could be as high as 22. Intensity/Magnitude Based on the definition contained on p. 199, the impact will clearly severely impair the quality and integrity of the area. At the very least this should be classed as high, with a score of 3. However, category 3 expects high costs of mitigation or remediation. In the case of the majority of the route there is little or no prospect of mitigation or remediation. This being the case, the rating should move up to 4. Significance Multiplying by the score given above, this would give a minimum score of 63, placing it in the negative high impact category, and a maximum of 88, placing it in the negative very high impact category. However, the negative high impact category requires significant mitigation measures to achieve an acceptable level of impact. No mitigation at all is possible in large tracts of the proposed routes, so this should place the project in the Negative very high impact category, and should be considered a fatal flaw. Conclusion Considering the invalidity of rejection of the “No Go” option as argued in 3 above; the definition of “fatal flaw” as outlined in 4 above; and the impact Rating criteria, as outlined in 5 above, it is clear to the Thyspunt Alliance that the proposed transmission lines, as outlined in the revised DEIR, do not conform with NEMA requirements, and as such should be rejected in toto.

SiVEST believes the EIA process, associated specialist studies and impact rating system applied has been undertaken in accordance with acceptable environmental practices and assesses the identified impacts associated with the proposed project.

0.9. Route Corridor Comments/Issues


Page 130


It was asked whether SiVEST you confirm if the agreement we made with Eskom was taken into account in determining the revised preferred environmental alignment through their wind farm?

BLAINE, Lance RedCap E-mail: 24 September 2012

I have been informed the A0 Grid maps should be ready and made available today. I will notify as soon as I have uploaded. Lance, I will then just need to attend to an overlay of the RedCap windfarm with the EIA team preferred route and will revert as soon as done. Rebecca Thomas, SiVEST (e-mail dated 1 October 2012) The A0 grid maps are completed. I will upload first thing in the morning. Please also see the snapshot below which shows the turbine positions with a 170m buffer (as provided by RedCap) in relation to the new alignments. I hope this helps. Please advise if this addresses your question/concern. From what I can tell the new alignments have been routed to avoid the turbines (including the buffer). I have requested feedback from Eskom with regards to the MoU and will advise accordingly, although the project manager is on leave until next week. Rebecca Thomas, SiVEST (e-mail dated 01 October 2012)

At this high level it looks fine but would you be able to send me KML files for Google with the alignments and corridors for this area as that is the best way for me to be able to check? Our agreement with Eskom is that their lines would be no closer than 202.5m from our turbines and 52.5m from our substation. The 202.5m was at their request they felt they needed to reduce this to 170m I dont foresee it being a problem. Please send through the KML's.

E-mail: 02 October 2012 The KML’s were sent to Mr Blaine on 02 October 2012 via email.

Cape Pine is unable to support the notion of corridor areas in the absence of a clearly defined routing for the proposed Thyspunt Transmission lines. The two corridors crossing Longmore State Forest to the south and north, effectively representing the EIA study area, take up significantly more land than just the power line servitudes alone. Without knowing exactly where the power line servitudes will cross the plantation in detail (accepting minor variations due to micro site position during the final engineering design and construction phases of the project), Cape

BONKEMEYER, Patch Group DEO Cape Pine Letter: 20 November 2012

Throughout the EIA process and consultation held with Cape Pine (then MTO) the reasoning behind the corridors was explained and it needs to be reiteratedthat ‘confirmed’ routing does not form part of SiVEST’s scope of work. However, SiVEST do understand Cape Pine’s need for a more refined and/or definite routing and it is our believe that this needs to be addressed with Eskom directly.


Page 131


Pine is unable to determine the impact it will have on its operations. NOTE: For full context of letter, please refer Appendix 12K – Communications IAPs

SiVEST appreciated Cape Pine participation and valuable comments and recommendations submitted to date and believe that these comments, together with those from other stakeholders, had assisted SiVEST in determining a more defined corridor. Nicolene Venter, SiVEST

Northern servitude: We prefer the routing referred to as the technical alignment for the northern corridor, given the limited impact this would result in for productive plantation compartments. We reject the routing referred to as the EIA Team-preferred northern route. One of the reasons given by the EAP for their recommendation about this route was the considerable weight afforded to the negative visual impact that the technical route alternative holds for surrounding visual receptors to the north of Longmore. We disagree with some of the EAP’s findings and conclusions, notably their opinion about the visual impact that the power lines will have on receptors stationed north and south of Longmore and the weight attributed to these impacts as opposed to the impact forestry will have to bear as a consequence of aligning the routing inside productive forestry areas and away from these receptors’ view. Having had an opportunity to consider the implications of the third alternative (referred to as the Revised EIA Team-preferred route), we are of the opinion that it offers some compromise between the need to avoid productive compartments and to mitigate any of the visual implications arising from the power lines’ routing along the north of Longmore. Hence our support for the third option, namely as the Revised EIA Team-preferred route, as depicted, but subject to its final site-position. Southern servitude: We agree with the proposed alignment referred to as the “EIA Team-preferred Southern Route Alignment (Option 1)” in the September 2012, revised EIA Report for the Southern Corridor. We maintain our position that an alignment within the bounds of Longmore Plantation will have a more negative impact on forestry than what the impact will be on surrounding activities. The decrease in forestry area as a result of the installation will add to the cumulative negative impact already in progress as a result of an ongoing reduction of plantation forestry land throughout the eastern and western

Cape Pine’s selection of a preferred alignment and rejection of the EIA Team preferred northern route is noted. The negative visual impact associated with the various alignments through the Longmore region on the northern corridor was identified by the appointed independant visual specialist on the project and is detailed within the Visual and Tourism Addendum included in Appendix 8 of the FEIR. The Report explains how the specialist arrives at the high negative visual findings. The impact on foresty has also been considered and is addressed within the Economic Addendum Report included in Appendix 11 of the FEIR. The third alternative was provided as a compromise between the two aspects, and it is noted that Cape Pine considers this as such.It is further noted that Cape Pine comment is subject to the final site position, should the project be authroised. Cape Pine’s acknowledgment and acceptance of the EIA Team preferred Southern Route Alignment (Option 1) is noted. Cape Pine’s comments with regards to loss of productive forestry land have been forwarded to Eskom for consideration, should the proposed power lines be approved.


Page 132


Cape. The total area lost to forestry in the mentioned regions, together with the proposed power line servitude on the table, amounts to 44 360 ha (43 000 ha exit area, 500 ha at Longmore, 750 ha as a result of Koukamma SDF, 110 ha at Kruisfontein). The forestry sector as a whole and Cape Pine specifically, cannot afford to lose a single hectare more of productive forestry land, regardless of its location NOTE: For full context of letter, please refer Appendix 12K – Communications IAPs Recommendation: Based on the assessments mentioned, the following can be taken as a way, in their opinion, of taking the process forward: 1. Cape Pine accepts the northern and southern corridors only in relation to the

specific alignment presented by the Revised EIA Team-preferred route for the northern servitude and the EIA Team-preferred route alignment (Option1) and only in so far as what the corridor areas defines a general spatial demarcation for the alignments described by the routings we support.

2. We completely reject EIA Team-preferred northern route on account of the negative impact it will have on ongoing forestry operations at Longmore specifically and on decreasing the extent of available forestry areas in general.

3. We support the Revised EIA Team-preferred route for the northern servitude and the EIA Team-preferred southern route alignment (Option 1) based on the least amount of impact the alignment will have on forestry operations in general and specifically at Longmore. We maintain though thatthe proposed alignments will still result in a reduction of plantation land areas and would require theState tomitigate the impact of this reduction by making alternative forestry land available to Cape Pine; and

4. In the finalisation of the alignments for the power line routings and further implementation of the outcome thereof, provision will have to be made for: a) Determining and costing the current and future losses of anyproductive

forestry area that will have to be cleared and taken out of production and an agreement by Eskom for compensating Cape Pine for its current standing loss as well as future losses, including any costs incurred in calculating these losses;

b) Determining and costing any negative financial implication that may arise from installing the power lines, including additional operational measures to be taken by Cape Pine elsewhere at Longmore to absorb the impact of the

The recommendations provided by Cape Pine have been noted and provided to Eskom accordingly, particularly with regards to negotiation issues, should the project be approved. The land negotiation process does not fall within the ambit of the EIA process and such recommendations would need to be taken up directly with Eskom.


Page 133


installations, additional insurance premiums etc. and an agreement by Eskom for compensating Cape Pine for these additional costs;

c) Detailing and concluding an agreement between Eskom and Cape Pine with regards to Eskom’s obligations toward the ongoing management of the cleared areas underneath the power lines, including the standards to which such maintenance is to be undertaken in compliance with FSC accreditation and NVFFA requirements;

d) Detailing and concluding an agreement between Eskom and Cape Pine with regards to a standing protocol affective during incidents of fire and fire-fighting procedures, and in particular with regards to the de-activation of the power line for the duration of the incident; and

e) Detailing and concluding a licensing agreement incorporating the above set of agreements i compliance with the provisions of sections 23 and 24 of the NFA, subject to the payment of an annual licensing fee in accordance with the prescribed tariff scales (R9 725.00/ha/yr – DAFF tariff schedule dated 19 December 2011, Fire BR. 4.5.1.3 (12/13).

NOTE: For full context of letter, please refer Appendix 12K – Communications IAPs Submitted objection to Option 2 of the proposed alignment of the Thyspunt transmission lines, as shown in the latest Revised DEIR. The objection is based on substantive environmental grounds, as outlined below. In addition, we wish to highlight significant procedural matters that have arisen during the course of the environmental impact assessment, which have resulted in the illogical and inconsistent conclusions of the Revised DEIR, further details of which will be outlined below. Hopewell has been a registered Interested & Affected Party since the outset of the assessment process and has engaged regularly with Sivest throughout the EIA. Notwithstanding this registration, Hopewell was not invited to the landowners consultation meetings held in the Uitenhage area towards the end of the last consultation round, on the grounds that Hopewell was not deemed to have been affected by the proposed transmission lines, since the EIA project team’s preferred alignment was being routed through (rather than around) Kwanobuhle.

CORRIGAN, Brian Hopewell Conservation Estate Letter: 20 November 2012

Letter was acknowledged per e-mail on 22 November 2011. Objection regarding Option 2 of the Southern Corridor through KwaNobuhle is noted. The meetings referred to was series of open houses held with possibly directly affected landowners that were directly affected by the proposed EIA Team-preferred routing. This fact was communicated telephonically to Mr Corrigan during a telephone enquiry from him as to whether his attendance is required or not. As Hopewell Conservancy’s property was not affected at that stage of the EIA and as mentioned above, the purpose of the open houses was to consult with those landowners who are directly


Page 134


Based on conversations with Mr Paul da Cruz, it was Hopewell’s understanding that the then preferred alignment resulted from the presence of a number of fatal flaws associated with the previous alignment running between Kwanobuhle and Hopewell’s boundary (Option 2 of the Southern Corridor). It was therefore with surprise that Hopewell has noted the Revised DEIR has reintroduced the alignment between Hopewell and Kwanobuhle and has described this alignment as a “preferred alignment”, despite the inherent illogicality of the existence of two “preferred” alignments. Furthermore, it is apparent that this Option 2 has been subjected to a different standard of assessment to the remainder of the proposed transmission route and specific fatal flaws associated with this alignment appear to have been ignored. It was also noted that the Revised DEIR describes Hopewell as a “proposed conservancy”, despite the fact that it is well known to Sivest that Hopewell is an established nature reserve subject to a long term biodiversity stewardship agreement with Eastern Cape Parks and Tourism (ref page 48). To address this issue, following receipt of the Revised DEIR, in email correspondence dated 19/10/2012 and 25/10/2012, Hopewell requested a meeting with Sivest, in conjunction with Mr Wayne Erlank of ECPTA and with Mr Joram Mkosana of the Environmental department of the Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Municipality, to address any remaining queries that may have existed regarding Hopewell’s conservation status. No response to this request has been received from Sivest to date. Turning to Hopewell’s substantive grounds for objection, we refer to page 49 of the Scoping Report dated 7 August 2009, which states that “power lines should avoid conservation areas regardless of status. Key reserves with formal conservation status and which could be affected by the routing are the Groendal Wilderness Area, the Loerie Dam Local Authority Nature Reserve and the Springs Nature Reserve.” On page 136 of the same Scoping Report, it states that “biodiversity

affected by the proposed EIA Team-preferred routing. The dates and times of the open-houses were provided to him. The ‘fatal flaws’ referred to by Mr Paul da Cruz related to only one aspect of the EIA i.e. Social. Other environmental paramaters has also been taken into consideration. It needs to be noted that Option 2 of the Southern Corridor was at no stage completely disgarded and was re-introduced after key information from the NMBM was received. Both Option 1 and Option 2 have been made known to all registered I&APs through the availability of the Revised DEIR. To date SiVEST has still not received documentation from Hopewell indicating the conservation status of the property. Until such time, SiVEST has identified the property as a proposed conservancy and recognises the conservation activities currently being undertaken on the property. A response to this request was provided telephonically whereby Mr Corrigan was informed that regrettably his request cannot be accommodated by the team as the status of the conservancy is not in question and all Hopewell’s concerns have been addressed throughout the EIA process. Nicolene Venter, SiVEST Both the Scoping Report and EIR endeavour to identify and as far as possible avoid areas of conservation value. The EIA process, as well as identifying all suites of biophysical aspects which may be impacted on also identifies socio-economic, heritage, tourism and other aspects which need to be taken into consideration. When weighing up the study area in question in relation to the


Page 135


hotspots have been identified, as well as important biophysical features. The preservation of these features as well as the conservation of biodiversity should be maximised through the selection of a route that avoids areas of concern as highlighted in the report”. It is Hopewell’s view that the standards identified in the Scoping Report have not been applied to the Revised DEIR with regard to the alternative alignment to the south of Kwanobuhle (Option 2), since this is clearly shown as being located on Hopewell land. As an example of this point, the Scoping Report identified specific conservation areas (similar to Hopewell) as tourist destinations and recommended that they “should be avoided”. In particular the “high negative visual impact on conservation and wilderness areas” was taken into account in reaching these recommendations – including the impact of access roads, construction and maintenance infrastructure. The Revised DEIR does not appear to take these considerations into account in the context of the alignment on Hopewell land. In addition to the consideration (or lack thereof) of the cconservation status of the Hopewell land and the high visual impact of the transmission lines, the Revised DEIR does not accurately assess the social and economic impact of the proposed transmission lines on the community cultural activities which currently take place along Hopewell’s northern boundary. For example, the southern boundary of Kwanobuhle is an area that is used extensively for initiation activities. Despite conveying this information to Sivest on numerous occasions, this activity has not been taken into account in the Revised DEIR. Similarly, the negative impact on the proposed cultural activities for this area, for which funding proposals have been submitted by the Uitenhage & Despatch Development Initiative, has not been analysed in the revised DEIR. Turning to more technical considerations, the impact of Option 2 alignment on the existing municipal water reservoir (under which the line may pass) and the existing sports field have also not been taken into account.

proposed project, the EIA them aims to identify the most environmentally acceptable placement of the development, taking into account all the impacts identified. Due to the nature of the proposed development in is inevitable that certain environmental parameters will be impacted on and the next step is finding the best means in which to mitigate those inevitable impacts to lessen the impact and undertake the development in the most environmentally (biophysical and socio-economic) feasible way available. If still then, the impacts are considered to outweigh the benfits of the development, the project may not proceed. Before any such decision can be made, all impact s related to the project neeed to be assessed and based on all a final decision made regarding the powerlines. SiVEST acknowledged the receipt of information pertaining to Hopewell as well as initiative plans around the southern boundary of KwaNobuhle. As far as possible, data has been captured and overlayed on the project maps for consideration in the EIA process. Through the socio-economic assessment, types of land uses identied in the study area are discussed and implications of the proposed project theron considered.


Page 136


It is Hopewell’s view that these omissions are fundamental in nature and do not represent a “best practice approach”, thereby compromising the overall integrity of the Revised DEIR. With regard to specific matters contained within the Revised DEIR, under the Visual Assessment section on page 7, it is stated that “by compromising the aesthetic quality of the area, many outdoor based activities could be compromised”. In Hopewell’s case, such existing activities include mountain biking, trail running, horse safaris and game viewing, yet the potential impact of the transmission lines on these activities has not been considered. Specific recommendations within the Revised DEIR include the avoidance of areas of intact thicket vegetation and not clearing the servitude of bush in areas of intact thicket vegetation. These recommendations would be impossible to achieve in the context of the proposed Option 2 alignment, as shown in the Revised DEIR. Similarly, under the Tourism Assessment, it is recommended that “areas with significant tourism facilities in the study area should be avoided completely”. Again, this standard does not appear to have been applied to Hopewell. Under the Social Assessment section, the Revised DEIR however states there are fatal flaws present in the area to the south of Kwanobuhle. Assuming such fatal flaws exist, it is difficult to reconcile the proposed Option 2 alignment. It is however understood that the EIA team preferred alignment is the one traversing the Brak river through Kwanobuhle towards the proposed PE substations (Option 1) – presumably on the grounds of the analysis carried out in the Scoping Report phase and repeated in sections of the Revised DEIR. This viewpoint appears to be substantiated by comments on page 91 of the Revised DEIR, in which a route change was made to avoid “tourism visual and social impacts related to the area to the south of Kwanobuhle and the adjacent Hopewell Conservancy”. On page 92 of the Revised DEIR, a fatal flaw is defined as an impact or series of

The impacts of power lines on eco tourism activities are discusswed within the visual, tourism and socio-economic specialist reports included in Appendices 8, 9 and 11. The rationale for the inclusion of alignment option 1 and aligmnment option 2 are discussed in Section 6.4 of the FEIR. Through the individual specialist studies, specialist identified impacts are addressed for the full study area in question. This has been undertaken for the following specialist studies: • Geology and Geohydrological Assessment • Avifaunal Assessment • Surface Water Assessment • Biodiversity Assessment • Visual Assessment • Socio-Economic Assessment • Tourism Assessment • Heritage and Palaeontology Assessment • KhoiSan Heritage Assessment • Agricultural Potential Assessment Due to the size of the study area and uncertainty of the final placement of power line towers shuld the project be authorised, a full identification of impact categories are identified and assessed. This can not and has not been done for all individual establishments within the proposed study area. Provision for final


Page 137


impacts that cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level. Fatal flaws associated with tourism, visual and social factors were identified along the overall transmission route and specific affected properties were listed. Hopewell does not however appear to have been considered in the compilation of this analysis, even though the revised route is shown on Hopewell land. As an example, there is no mention of Hopewell on page 161 of the Revised DEIR. The Revised DEIR does however describe the area south east of Kwanobuhle as being fatally flawed due to the existence of informal houses. As stated above, no consideration appears to have been made in respect of existing cultural uses or proposed community activities along the southern boundary of Kwanobuhle. Under the avifauna and biodiversity categories, Hopewell has not been considered in the Revised DEIR, despite its protected area status and its extensive avifauna populations (with over 130 bird species having been identified on the property, including the Blue Crane, Denhams Bustard and Secretary Bird). It is however noted that numerous other areas along the proposed transmission route were discarded on biodiversity/CBA grounds. Page 254 of the Revised DEIR demonstrates the inherent illogicality of having two “preferred alignments” in that it analyses the impact on thicket vegetation from the implementation of the Option 2 alignment and states that “this part of the corridor has been discarded and thus will not be affected” (fig 96 : Southern Biodiversity S.11). It is therefore apparent that the summary of the DEIR (contemplating an alternative to the south of Kwanobuhle) is inconsistent with the main body of the report – potentially highlighting the late (re-) introduction of the alternative route and the failure to properly assess its environmental impact. A similar material inconsistency occurs on page 328 of the Revised DEIR, where it is stated that Red Flag Area 7 (sect.1.9) will be avoided as it has been shifted north into Kwanobuhle. This section of the report analysed the presence of initiation sites, albeit to the east of Kwanobuhle. As previously communicated, a far

site specific walk downs is included within the EMP to manage and mitigate such site specific impacts accordingly. Based on final walk downs, Eskom will also consider careful placement of towers, to ensure they are still adhering to environmental requirements SiVEST appreciates the error noted here and has correct the report accordingly. SiVEST appreciates the error noted here and has correct the report accordingly. The report still serves to demonstrate the sensitivities associated with the option to the south of KwaNobuhle and those findings still stand under the assessment of the study area. For further impacts identified on the option traversing the Brak River, the alignment south of KwaNobuhle is there still a technically feasible option within the southern corridor The large portion of the southern corridor referred to is largely associated with the original southern corridor options along the coastline.


Page 138


greater prevalence of this activity, particularly during the months of June and December, occurs to the south of Kwanobuhle (along the proposed Option 2 alignment). This fatal flaw is repeated on page 387 of the Revised DEIR. On page 388, it is stated that “the nature of land use and spatial constraints entailed that a route realignment would need to be considered to avoid the fatal flaw associated with the area between KwaNobuhle to the north and the Hopewell Conservancy to the south. This part of the corridor has been shifted northwards and now runs through an open area that bisects KwaNobuhle. In this way the fatal flaw associated with the area to the south of KwaNobuhle has been negated.” These occurrences highlight the problems associated with the Option2 alignment and provide context for the statement on page 342 of the Revised DEIR that “it is strongly recommended that the EIA team preferred alignment be used as far as possible in the design of the final alignment for the proposed lines.” Based on the above, it is clear that the construction of transmission lines along the Option 2 alignment would amount to development in an area known to be fatally flawed. It is also clear that Option 1 is the preferred alignment. Further evidence of this viewpoint is contained in Chapter 13 of the revised DEIR (page 406) where it is stated that “significant areas of the corridor have been discarded, perhaps most importantly in the latter part of the EIA phase when large parts of the Southern Corridor were discarded due to the presence of multiple fatal flaws that were identified by certain of the socio-cultural specialist studies”. It is further noted that “the Sivest EIA team strongly believes that the utilisation of the preferred alignment would avoid as many environmental issues as possible, and is an optimal routing from an environmental perspective.” Notwithstanding the above recommendations, the very final section of the Revised DEIR attempts to suggest that there can be two preferred alignments (Option1 and Option 2), as shown on the map on page 408). However, to suggest that Option 2 enjoys a similar or equal “preference” to Option 1 would require the findings of the various specialist studies to be viewed as irrelevant

The two alignment options in the southern corridor experience two very different yet significant impacts. Hopewells objection is noted and captured accordingly for the DEA’s consideration.


Page 139


and/or inconsequential which would, in our opinion, undermine the legal framework for this environmental impact assessment under NEMA. Option 1 was originally preferred due to material fatal flaws identified with Option 2. Hopewell’s objection to the Option 2 alignment is therefore based on substantive environmental grounds, as also acknowledged by various specialist consultants engaged by Sivest. Hopewell further believes that on procedural grounds, the Revised DEIR (as it relates to the Option 2 alignment) is itself fatally flawed, since is attempts to afford equal “preferred” status to two different alignments, while ignoring the chronology of events that has taken place whereby Option 1 was created as a result of fatal flaws previously identified with Option 2. For these reasons, we request that the Option 2 alignment is discarded. In order to protect its position, Hopewell reserves all its legal rights in this regard.

In 2005 the Elands River Valley had devastating fires that caused millions of rand’s damage to farms and to Cape Pine plantations. As recently as 4 April 2009 lightning caused a fire in the valley (included in the report of the Elands River Fire Protection Association). Erecting high pylons and transmission lines in the area will inevitably attract lightning which will consequently increase the occurrence of veld fires.


It must be understood that powerlines do not increase the occurrence or frequency of lightning in an area. Lightning strokes when they do occur, terminates at some point on ground level. Typically they will terminate at the tallest structure which provides the least electrical resistance to the earth. If the termination of the lightning stroke is on trees, buildings or other structures which have combustible material, there is potential for veld or other fires to be initiated. Powerlines are well earthed structures and are generally built with non-combustible materials such as steel and aluminium. In the event that they are struck by lightning they safely divert and dissipate the energy contained in the lightning bolt into the earth. In effect, due to their height and being very well earthed, thus having very low electrical resistances to ground, they actually protect the area in close proximity to the powerline from direct lightning strikes and potential fires. Good examples of application of tall well earthed masts for


Page 140


protection from lighting and potential damage to equipment and fires include tall masts erected in close proximity to houses with thatch roofs as well as masts erected in power utility substations to provide a cone of protection of expensive equipment in substations from direct lightning strikes. Ravi Singh, Chief Engineer: Electrical, Eskom

On inspection of your corridor, I see that it is unchanged from the original plan.Please be aware that this still crosses through the Jeffreys Bay Wind Farm.Can you assure me that the final path will not cross the site.

HOLLIDAY, Mark Landowner E-mail: 25 October 2012

Discussions were held with Mainstream, the wind farm developer, and the Revised EIA Team-preferred alignment does not impact on the wind farm development. Rebecca Thomas, SiVEST

I have studied your maps left at the Thornhill hotel and would like some clarity from you as to how your proposed power lines are going to affect the farm Cazley Meadows / Clifton Meadows also known as Platberg North 431.

This farm is North of Thornhill and we are a dairy farm with centre pivot irrigation. Please could you email a clear, detailed map of the proposed northern line and the southern line.

• Portion 1 of the farm Bersig North no 431 • Portion 4 [ Platberg] of the farm diepe Kloof no 428 • Portion 7 of Bersig North 431 • Portion 8 of farm Bersig North no 431 • Klaarefontein Kloof no 430 portion 1

The farm is now known as Clifton Meadows and it was Cazley Meadows just North of Thornhill bordering on the Longmore forest station.

KIETZMANN, Pam Landowner E-mail: 03 October 2012

The cadastral maps have been updated and is now also available on SiVEST’s website http://www.SiVEST.co.za/Download.aspx then scroll down to 9520 Eskom Thyspunt EIA. I will forward you the folder name shortly. For the interim, below is a snap shot of your properties that falls within the proposed Southern Corridor – the two solid blue lines are the EIA Team-Preferred routing that was undertaken as requested by stakeholders and possibly affected landowners.

We would just like to remind you that the Application to the Department of Environmental Affairs is for a corridor and not a route.

Your written comments on the contents of the Revised DEIR and specifically the corridor in your area of interest would be appreciated. Nicolene Venter, SiVEST (e-mail dated 12 October 2012

Just a few questions that are not clear in our minds • Is the entire shaded area proposed for expropriation? • On the previous maps it does not show a centre pivot of ours on portion 9

of 430-76. The proposed line appears to go through the middle of it. • Is this map now the final proposals.

E-mail: 12 October 2012 No, the shaded area on the snap shot provided below indicates the corridor as per the Application submitted to the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA). As per previous correspondence, through the consultation process it was requested that the EIA team provides an indication as to where the lines could go – especially for landowners to enable them to provide written comments.


Page 141


Should an Environmental Authorisation be granted, then Eskom will negotiate a route and a registered servitude with each registered landowner. Expropriation might only be entered into should an agreement between the two parties not be reached and all avenues have been exhausted through Eskom’s negotiation process. You will notice that I’ve CC Eskom in this e-mail to confirm / correct this fact as it falls outside SiVEST Scope of Work. The 1:50 000 maps used are the latest versions as per the Surveyor General’s Office and it seems that the centre pivots on the said property also does not show on Google Earth. However, Eskom prefers to avoid centre pivots as far as possible. We’ve received the co-ordinates of the centre pivot this afternoon from Ross and it has been forwarded to our GIS Specialist as well as Eskom. As you are aware, the Revised DEIR is out for public review and depending on the written comments received there could be a change or two, it is all dependent on the comments received on the Revised DEIR. Should this be the case, all registered I&APs will be alluded to the change in the notification letter of the Final EIR. The point raised regarding the centre pivot on the said property has now been recorded and the EIA team and Eskom have been made aware of this fact. Nicolene Venter, SiVEST (e-mail dated 25 October 2012)

It was enquired whether both the proposed corridors would be approved and how much flexibility is there to position the power lines within the corridors.

MANGNALL, Mike Mainstream Renewable Power E-mail: 12 November 2012

Three power lines are proposed in the Northern Corridor and two power lines are proposed in the Southern Corridor. Approval is being sought for both corridors. The corridors in question are approximately 2km wide, with slight variations along the corridors. The power lines in the northern corridor would require a servitude of approximately 165m (should they run parallel) and the power lines in the southern corridor would require an approximately 110m servitude (should they run parallel).


Page 142


Rebecca Thomas, SiVEST (e-mail dated 12 November 2012)

Op SIVEST se webwerf kry ons niks van die plaas Geelhoutboom 169 nie. Dit is die vallei tussen Loeriedam en die ou Loerie Bosboustasie (naby Cypherfontein van Clive Ingram). Ons wil graag weet of ons plaas ge-affekteer gaan word deur die Eskom-kraglyn. Translation: Information regarding the farm Geelhoutboom 169 cannot be found on SiVEST’s website. It is the valley between Loeriedam and Old Loerie Forestry Station (near Cypherfontein – propertyof Clive Ingram). We would like to know if our farm is affected by the proposed power line.

MARX, Pierre Landowner: Geelhoutboom E-mail: 19 November 2012

A snap shot of the property in question was e-mail. Nicolene Venter, SivEST (e-mail dated 20th November 2012)

Portions 3, 6 and 13 is behoort aan my, Pierre Marx en ek boer op Restant van Geelhoutboom 169 wat behoort aan Egmont Marx (my broer). My bure is Geelhoutboom 169 Gedeelte 11, boedel van CE Marx. Ek merk dat die lyn deur die middel van my gedeelte 12 gaan. Indien die lyn wel so opgerig word, sal daar nie verder op hierdiegedeelte boer kan word nie. Wat gebeur is so 'n geval? Translation: Portions 3, 6 & 13 are owned by me, Pierre Marx and are farming on Remainder of Geelhoutboom 169 which is owned by Egmont Marx (my brother). Our neighbour is Geelhoutboom 169 Portion 11 and is part of the Late Estate of CE Marx. I noticed that the power line is going through the middle of Portion 12. If the line is pretty much set, I would not be able to continue farming on this portion of the farm. What happens in this situation.

E-mail: 21 November 2012 Ek glo dat jy teen hierdie tyd ons e-pos en SMS ontvang het dat die Finale Omgewingsimpakverslag aan die Departement van Omgewingsake op Maandag 28 Januarie 2013 ingedien gaan word. Om seker te maak dat alle navrae wel beantwoord is het ek deur die e-poste gewerk en kry nie ‘n antwoord van ons wat aan jou gestuur is oor jou ondergenoemde vraag nie. As ons reeds geantwoord het, geen probleem nie dan is hierdie net ‘n bevestigiging daarvan – indien nie, hiermee die antwoord op jou vraag: SiVEST bevestig graag weereens dat die Omgewingsmagting Aansoek wat deur SiVEST aan die Departement van Omgewingsake ingedien is, is vir ‘n korridor (deurgang) en nie ‘n roete / belyning nie. Tydens die konsultasie proses het van die rolspelers en grondeienaars versoek dat ‘n voorgestelde roete vir die beoogde lyne op ‘n kaart geplaas word sodat meningvolle kommentaar gelewer kan word. SiVEST het ‘n EIA Team-preferred alignment geidentifiseer en op die kaarte aangebring as riglyn waar die lyne, vanuit ‘n omgewingsoogpunt geplaas kan word. Sou ‘n Omgewingsmagtiging aan die projek toegestaan word, sal


Page 143


Eskom met elke grondeienaar in onderhandeling tree, met die omgewingsbelyning as riglyn, en deur ‘n konsultasie proses bepaal waar so ‘n kraglyn / kraglyne die grondeienaar se eiendom kan kruis. Dit is tydens die onderhandelingsproses wat jy die geleentheid sal he om hierdie tipe detail sake te bespreek. Die kaart en jou e-pos is aan Wimpie Henning, Eskom se onderhandelaar deurgestuur. Moet asseblief nie huiwer om my te kontak indien daar enige verdere vrae is nie. Nicolene Venter, SiVEST (e-mail dated 23 January 2013) Additional Information: Should an Environmental Authorisation be granted, then Eskom will negotiate a route and a registered servitude with each registered landowner. Negotiation could include sitable placing the line such that farming activities can continue accordingly or purchasing the land or other possible solutions. The land negotiation process does not fall within the ambit of the EIA process and such recommendations would need to be taken up directly with Eskom.

As has been stated in previous submissions, transmission lines, whilst being essential to link power generation to the national grid, are visually catastrophic, defacing large tracts of countryside. Logically, therefore, they should, wherever possible, be limited to areas of low conservation value, and power stations should if possible be situated where transmission lines can be kept to an absolute minimum.

THORPE, Mr Hilton Chairman: St Francis Rate Payers’ Association Letter: 22 November 2012

The visual impact of the power lines across different parts of the study area has been addressed in the visual impact assessment report. The socio-economic study has assessed the socio-economic issues relating to visual impact.

Whilst we applaud the consultants for having identified areas of particular sensitivity and even fatal flaws, and for adjusting the proposed route accordingly, there is nothing fixed about their recommendations. This is simply the consultants “preferred” route. What happens if Eskom decides to ignore this and follow a route which is more convenient to them, but less environmentally acceptable? If a favourable ROD is to be given, it should be on the basis of strict adherence to the consultants’ preferred route.

It needs to be noted, as communicated throughout the EIA process that the EIA Team-preferred routing was done on request of various possibly affected landowners to enable them to comment fruitfully on the proposed corridors. The EIA Team-preferred routing is merely an indication as to where the proposed power lines can be constructed from an environmental point of view. Technical constraints have not been fully taken into account as this can only be done ones Eskom completed their design and the servitude negotiations has been


Page 144


conducted, should an EA be granted.

If possible could you please make available by email the newest/most recently revised map, indicating the changes of the proposed over-head line routes.

VERMAAK, Thinus E-mail: 23 October 2012

SiVEST’s website link was provided as the size of the maps are too large to e-mail. Nicolene Venter, SiVEST (e-mail dated 22 January 2013)

0.10. Communication Congratulations on getting to this point after a long process. I am just a bit concerned as I got this email via someone else and Nicolene I am sure you remember me and that I was very involved in giving input re our wind farm to you and Paul and interacting extensively with Eskom and finally signing an agreement with Eskom. Is there any reason I am not on your EIA email list and can you confirm if the agreement we made with Eskom was taken into account in determining the revised preferred environmental alignment through our wind farm? Please could you send a CD to me at Lance Blaine, Red Cap, Unit B5, Mainstream Shopping Centre, Main Road, 7806.

BLAINE, Lance RedCap E-mail: 24 September 2012

With reference to your e-mail below (and my subsequent replies via BlackBerry) I noticed that you are not on the Thyspunt (TTLIP) project’s database. I’ve submitted an enquiry to find out whether your details are on our database management programme (Maximizer) and if so that you be linked immediately to the TTLIP project database. You will recall that Paul had CC me on your e-mail correspondence and from the first e-mail I personally captured you on the project database. Thank you for bringing this under our attention – the matter is receiving attention. Can I please ask that you forward us your full contact details i.e. Postal Address, telephone nos (office, fax & Cell). As per your request below for a electronic copy of the Revised DEIR on DVD, one will be posted to you shortly to the address provided below. Nicolene Venter, SiVEST (e-mail dated 02 October 2012)

It was requested that Cape Pine’s comments on the Revised Draft EIR (DEA Ref: 12/12/20/1212) be attached to SiVEST’s formal correspondence to DEA.

BONKEMEYER, Patch Group CEO Cape Pine Letter: 20 November 2012

All written submissions received are included in the Appendixes of the FEIR to DEA.

Link to website not working. BARRATT, Chris Chairman: St Francis Kromme Trust E-mail: 19 October 2012

SiVEST technical staff attended to the matter and the problem was resolved And I&APs were informed accordingly.

CORRIGAN, Brian E-mail: 21 September 2012 MAGNALL, Mike Mainstream E-mail: 18 October 2012 MALAN, Trudi Co-ordinator: Thyspunt Alliance


Page 145


E-mail: 08 October 2012

REICHERT, Kobus Representative: Gamtkwa KhoiSan Counjcil E-mail: 3 Octoberr 2012 VAN DYK, Carel NMBM E-mail 25 September 2012

Requested copies of the Revised DEIR on CD. COWLING, Dr Shirley E-mail: 16 September 2012

DVDs weresent on 5th of Octoberr 2012.

BLANE, Lance Red-Cap E-mail: 24 September 2012 MALAN, Trudi Co-ordinator: Thyspunt Alliance E-mail: 02 October 2012

Informed the project team that they are interested in purchasing a property in the Elands River Valley area and received information that the proposed power lines would cross over tourism establishments such as Offcamber and Waverley Hills Conference Centre. It was enquired whether this can be confirmed and also the time frames of the project.

DAVIES, Charlotte Telephonic: 22 January 2013 E-mail: 22 January 2013

Visual Assessment Amendment maps (east and west) as well as the cadastral map indicating the boundaries of the various properties and the proposed Northern Corridor were e-mailed. The I&AP was also informed that the FEIR will be made available for comment from Monday 28 January 2013 tot Monday 11 February 2013 and that this would be the last opportunity to comment on the EIA process and specialist assessments as per the FEIR. Also, that all comments on the FEIR will have to be submitted to DEA and a copy to SiVEST and/or Eskom. This information will also be communicated to all I&APs on the project database. It was also recommend that time be taken to read through the issues and responses report (I&RR – Appendix 12P) to familiarize herself with comments raised by the Elands River Conservancy and Tourism establishment in the area. Nicolene Venter, SiVEST (e-mail dated 23 January 2013

Request that the comment period on the revised DEIR be extended. KRAAK, Cheron Letter: 03 October 2012

Request acknowledged and all I&APs were informed on 23 October 2012 that the review period has been extended to 21st November 2012. The letter also informed the I&APs of the Key Changes in the Revised DEIR.

MALAN, Trudi Co-ordinator: Thyspunt Alliance


Page 146


Letter: 08 October 2012 E-mail: 22 October 2012 ROYAL, Rene John Royal Architects Planner and Environmental Consultant E-mail: 21 September 2012 THORPE, Hilton Chairman: St Francis Residents Association E-mail 08 October 2012

I would like to refer you to our letter dated 08 October 2012 in which we requested an extention of the comment period for the above mentioned project. To date we have had no feed back withregard to this request. As registered Interested and Affected Parties we have been trying to participate in this process in an active and meaningful way, but we are finding it extremely difficult. We have alerted Sivest to the fact that we have had problems in accessing the report from their web-site. We have also not been able to source the copy of the document that was supposed to be in the St Francis Bay Library. The first request for three CD copies of the report was made on 28 August 2012, by Shirley Cowling, one of our members. Trudi Malan requested a CD on 02 October 2012. We all received the CD’s on 13 October 2012, effectively leaving us with only 18 days in which to prepare our comments and responses. We have complained in the past that we are not receiving the minutes of the Public Meetings timeously in order to check that the minutes are a true reflection of the meeting. We now note thatthese unchecked minutes are included in this Draft of the report. Not only do we have to comment on the various special reports we also have to check the correctness of minutes of meetings that took place nearly a year ago. We find this situation procedurally unfair. Please would you advise as soon as possible whether you will allow for an extended comment period or not?

MALAN, Trudi Co-ordinator: Thyspunt Alliance E-mail: 14 November 2012

I am missing some documents from the “Authority Correspondence” appendix. I cannot find a copy of the Sivest letter dated 02 August 2012 that were sent to the DEA.

Email: 14 November 2012 Copy of letter sent via e-mail on 07 December 2012. Copy of the letter will also be included in the FEIR under Appendix 12J – DEA. Rebecca Thomas, SiVEST


Page 147


Please provide us with all correspondence sent to and received from SAHRA. Email: 14 November 2012 Copy of all correspondence sent to and received from SAHRA to date, including proof of deliveries of Reports to SAHRA was sent via e-mail on 07 December 2012. Rebecca Thomas, SiVEST

Please can you provide us with the response from the DEA to your request to split the two projects.

Email: 14 November 2012 Copy of letter sent via e-mail on 07 December 2012. It needs to be noted that this letter was not included in the Revised DEIR as it was received after SiVEST had completed the printing of the Revised DEIR. Rebecca Thomas, SiVEST

Can you please provide me with the written comments from the Biodiversity Department?

Email: 14 November 2012 SiVEST to date has not received any comments from the Biodiversity Department, after various requests for these comments. SiVEST will be following up again to try and solicit these on the EIA documentation submitted to DEA to date (DEIR and Revised DEIR). Rebecca Thomas, SiVEST (e-mail dated 07 December 2012)

Please provide or indicate where I can find the consultation that took place with the residents of “Die Berg”.

Email: 14 November 2012 Copy of the signed Attendance Register of the meeting held on 22 June 2012 at the Kouga Local Municipality’s Offices in Jeffrey’s Bay on with the Councillors of the following communities: Thornhill, Loeriesfontein, Kruisfontein, Sea Vista, Die Berg and Oyster Bay Please note: For the protection of individuals’ rights, we do not include signed attendance registers in public documents but an ATTENDANCE RECORD. We are in the process of sourcing the minutes that was distributed to the Councillors and will be forwarded to you by Monday 10 December 2012 before end of business day. a. It was at this meeting that Clr Campher (Ward 4 Councillor)

committed to inform the “Die Berg” community of the proposed project.

b. A Focus Group Meeting was held with the “Die Berg” community at Kruisfontein Community Centre. The signed register will be forwarded to you by Monday 10 December 2012 before end of business day.

Thank you for pointing out these omissions and please be informed that these documents will be included in the FEIR


Page 148


(excluding the signed Attendance Registers, but rather the Attendance Records). SiVEST has furthermore contact Clr Campher, who has committed to providing a consolidated response from Die Berg community with regards to the Thyspunt Transmission Line Integration Project and we will make that available once received. Rebecca Thomas, SiVEST (e-mail dated 07 December 2012)

At the Jeffrey’s Bay public meeting one of the SiVEST consultants (I think Liesl Koch, but there is people speaking together so I could only hear the name Liesl) made the following statement with regard to the fragmentation of the projects: Direct transcription from recording: “The reasoning behind the splitting, Eskom wanted to do them together, it is a huge scale project but what happened is Eskom consulted with the DEA and based on those outcomes, we can provide the minutes for you, the DEA recommended that they follow 2 processes for the two EIA’s, it is based on recommendations and advice from the DEA.” Please can you forward the minutes and /or communications between Eskom and the DEA with regard to this recommendation by the DEA to me as soon as possible? We have asked for this minutes/correspondence several times and to date have not received anything.

Email: 14 November 2012 SiVEST has endeavoured to obtain a copy of the minutes in question on various occasions. SiVEST was finally informed that no minutes of this meeting were formally recorded. For further details on this matter, SiVEST recommends that the Thyspunt Alliance take this matter up with the DEA and/or Eskom directly as this meeting was held prior to SiVEST’s appointment. Rebecca Thomas, SiVEST (e-mail dated 07 December 2012)

I would also like to enquire as to how you want us to deal with the minutes. You have included “minutes” of meetings in this draft, but some of those minutes are incorrect. We have never been afforded the opportunity to query the minutes as we never received the minutes after the meeting. I find this procedurally unfair and unjust according to the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act and regulations. These meetings were held over a year ago and we have only now been allowed the opportunity to review these minutes.

Email: 14 November 2012 SiVEST acknowledges the comments raised by the Thyspunt Alliances on the minutes at question. SiVEST realises the delay in providing the draft minutes for finalisation and for this reason the minutes were included, still in draft format within the Revised DEIR to allow for comments and changes to the minutes to still be affected.

Should the Thyspunt Alliance not feel that sufficient review has been allowed on these draft minutes through the review period, SiVEST will allow and accept comment on the minutes up until 07 January 2013 in order to allow the matter to be addressed accordingly. Rebecca Thomas, SiVEST (e-mail dated 07 December 2012)


Page 149


Do I also understand correctly from the minutes of the last set of public meetings (September 2011) that some of the issues and concerns raised will only be addressed in the Final Environmental Impact Report? Some of these issues are extremely relevant and should have been addressed in this revision of the EIR.

Email: 14 November 2012 Yes, your understanding is correct. SiVEST is currently finalizing these outstanding responses as a matter of priority and will provide these to the attendees prior to the availability of the Final EIR for a reasonable review period. We are hoping to have these finalized by Monday 10 December and will advise a review period accordingly once available. SiVEST trusts the responses and attached documents allows the Thyspunt Alliance to comment accordingly prior to finalization of the EIR. These documents will also be uploaded to the website accordingly and all I&APs informed. It is suggested that given the quantity of documents provided and slight changes to the minutes that a period of 2 weeks will be sufficient. Rebecca Thomas, SiVEST (e-mail dated 07 December 2012)

I am unable to open several files if I use the link provided by you. Iwill therefore appreciate it if you can provide me with the following: 1. The minutes of the public meeting held in Pellsrus, Jeffreys Bay2. The issues and responses report 3. SAHRA's review comments on the Heritage Report

REICHERT, Kobus Heritage Representative Gamtkwa Khoisan Council E-mail: 10 October 2012

The minutes of the Public Meeting held in Pellsrus, Jeffrey’s Bay and the Issues and Responses Report was e-mailed on Tuesday 27 November 2012 at 14h56. Nicolene Venter, SiVEST. A letter was sent to all registered I&APs on the 23 October 2012 informing them of additional and updated documents that has been uploaded on SiVEST’s website. SAHRA’s document was included in this uploading. Nicolene Venter, SiVEST

We refer to the e-mail correspondence below. Today is the closing datefor comments on the Revised DEIR for the above project. We haverequested documentation from the EIA consultant to enable us to commenton the project. On 15 October 2012 the consultant informed us that theywill attend to our request as a matter of priority. We followed thematter up on 9 November 2012 and to date we have not received thedocumentation. It is not possible to participate in the EIA process inthe circumstances and I request that the Department note our formalobjection against the project on procedural grounds. We will only be ina position to submit our further objections against the project once wehave been provided with the required information.

E-mail: 22 November 2012 I had done some research and would like to inform DEA that the documents as requested by Kobus Reichert are included in the Revised DEIR under the following Appendices (in both the Northern and Southern Corridor folders on SiVEST’s website): • Minutes of the Public Meeting held in Pellsrus, Jeffreys Bay

Appendix 12O – Minutes of Meetings • Public Meetings • Issues and Responses Report -Appendix 12P Regarding the request for SAHRA’s reviewed comments on the Heritage Report: We are in the process tracking down any comments received


Page 150


from SAHRA. We did received detail comments from SAHRA on the Scoping Report and these were included in the Final Scoping Report Please be informed that the Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report (Final EIR) will be made available for public review and the Team believes that the review period for the Final EIR together with the documents attached for Mr Reichert’s attention, would be sufficient to receive Mr Kobus Reichert’s comments. Attached was the following documents as requested:

• Please note, they are still in draft format. Once comments have been received it would be included in the Final EIR as the final minutes.

• Issues and Responses Report An electronic copy of SAHRA’s comments will be forwarded to you, once received. Nicolene Venter, SiVEST (e-mail dated 27 November 2012)

It is clear from the correspondence below that SiVest undertook to provide us with the information "as a matter of priority" during the comment period. They have failed to do this and have now provided me with the information a couple of days after the closing date. It is unfair towards us to now state that the comment period on the final EIR will be sufficient to submit our comments. We have not been provided the same opportunity as other I&A parties to submit our comments on the Draft EIR and we request that we be provided with reasonable time to submit our comments on the Draft EIR. We further request that the Department should not accept the Final EIR until we have been given a fair chance to participate in the process on the same level as other I&AP's

E-mail: 27 November 2012 The documents were uploaded on SiVEST’s website and an extended review period was provided Nicolene Venter, SiVEST

SiVEST appointed a specialist at the beginning of the process to do a HIA. After several objections about the quality of the report another specialist was appointed to re-do the survey. Both archaeologists failed to consult with us as required by section 38 of the National Heritage Resources Act due to reasons of their own. We pointed out to the EIA consultants that the second report was also unacceptable since the survey did not identify any archaeological sites as required by SAHRA and that the specialist was not accredited by his professional body ASAPA to do coastal archaeology. The EIA undertook to rectify the matter and appointed a third

Letter: 21 January 2013 The appointment of Ms Mary Patrick’s was done to address the written request received from the Gamtkwa Khoisan Council and her request for a meeting was outlined in her telephone conversation and e-mail addressed to the representative of the Gamtkwa Khoisan Council. It is regrettable that this opportunity offered to the Gamtkwa Khoisan Council was not utilised to its advantage.


Page 151


specialist with coastal experience to consult with us. At that stage we refused to attend the meeting since there was several outstanding requests that the EIA consultants failed to address for more than a year. Please see annexures “A” and “B” to our comments for the legitimate reasons for our refusal. The purpose of the consultation by the third specialist was nothing more than a fact finding exercise that failed because of the way SiVEST conducted the PPP and it also failed to address our main concern namely that the HIA report was compiled by someone who is not accredited to coastal archaeological work. The report therefore excludes important information that is required in terms of SAHRA’s Standard Minimum Guidelines. We do not understand how it is possible that the archaeologists only found a few artefacts at Grasridge but not a single archaeological site over the long distance of the transmission line routes that starts at Thyspunt (that has been described in detail) and runs across an area that is regarded as an archaeological sensitive area. The fact that the specialist admits in his report that he did only visit some landowners due to time and financial restrictions but not all provides an explanation. Despite our concerns the same report was submitted to SAHRA and their comments are still not part of the Draft EIA despite the fact that the report was submitted to SiVEST more than a year ago. The appointment of the third specialist was therefore a thin veiled attempt to address the consultation issue and not the main issue of the quality of the report despite SiVEST’s undertaking to address the issue (Please see the Issues and Responses report).

Rebecca Thomas, SiVEST

We have indicated that we find the public participation process lacking with regard to the KhoiSan community. It is of even bigger concern that National KhoiSan structures were not consulted as part of this process. This has been pointed out to the consultants at community meetings but no attempt was made to contact them and inform them of the process.

Through the EIA and public consultation procecess, opportunities are provided to any organisation or stakeholder grouping to request a meeting with the project team or for documents related to the proposed development.

The Department of Provincial and Local Government is in the process of negotiations with the National Khoisan Council (N.K.C) and the National Khoi-San Conference Facilitating Agency (N.K.C.F.A) about various First Nation matters. These two structures are however unaware of this EIA process.

A consolidated meeting with the National KhoiSan Council is on the table that will be arranded by Arcus GIBB, the independent EAP for the Nuclear-1 Project EIA. SiVEST is in contact with Arcus GIBB to keep track of these arrangements.

The N.K.C represents all the major Khoi and San groupings in South – Africa, while N.K.C.F.A has a membership of more than 70 indigenous organizations.

SiVEST requested the relevant representatives’ names and contact details from the KhoiSan Council and contact will be made with the organisations mentioned. It is believed that Regional Councils will also inform their Leaders of proposed developments in their respective areas. It needs to be noted that stakeholders and I&APs can be part of the consultation up to the issueing of the


Page 152


EA by DEA. The information received, or meetings held, will be submitted to DEA as an Addendum to the FEIR.

The HIA results show that a project of this nature will not only have an impact on the resources of a local KhoiSan community, but that the cost to the national estate may be high. It is therefore also a national issue, requiring consultations with national Khoi and San structures as specified above. The fact that this has not been done to date constitutes a serious flaw in the public participation process. The power line routes also does not affect the Gamtkwa KhoiSan tribe alone, it also runs across the territories of several other groups especially in the Nelson Mandela Metropole. No attempt was made to consult these communities despite the fact that the EIA consultants were aware of their existence.

A series of community consultation meetings as well as meeting with Local Authorities were held during the EIA process throughout the study area. Minutes of these meetings are included in the FEIR in Appendix 12O. Reference can also be made to the FSR that also included minutes of meetings held during the scoping phase.

The PPP process for this project was a disaster. It was at times difficult to distinguish if this was done on purpose or if the EIA consultants were ill equipped to deal with a project of this nature. Annexures “A” and “B” gives a clear picture of how the consultants approached our community and how difficult they made it for us to participate in the process in a meaningful way. In annexure “A” SiVest indicated on 2 September 2011 that they will do their research and to get back to me. More than a year later we were still waiting for them to get back to us and in the mean time the draft EIAR has been published . Can this be regarded as due process? The minutes of the meeting with the Gamtkwa Khoisan Council that appears in the draft EIAR is still in a draft format more than a year after the meeting similar to several other documents. We were only afforded an opportunity to comment on the minutes after the publication of the draft EIAR. Minutes were lost, meetings weren’t recorded or circulated for comments, and in the cases where we did receive the minutes the EIA team failed to correct the minutes after several requests to do so. This type of negligence along with important information being excluded from the draft EIAR caused the comment period to be extended three times and on the closing date of today we once again received an attendance register on the closing date with the

SiVEST Public Participation team complied with the EIA Regulations by notifying, inform and consult with various stakeholder groupings. This was done through an open and transparent process. However, it is acknowled that at some instances there was a delay in responding to request and these received attentioned. Although it is not acceptable, it is understandable that a comment or document could be mislaid by the public participation team and it is for this reason that Reports and draft Minutes are distributed to I&APs to identify these and correct where relevant. SiVEST’s appointed independent Environmental Specialists are reputable specialist and should any “important information” as mentioned, has been omitted it is the I&APs right and duty to draw the EAP’s attention to this fact and be provided the opportunity to rectify, if applicable.


Page 153


names of people who are not members of the Gamtkwa Khoisan Council (Please see annexure “C”). The EIA team is well aware of this fact since it has been pointed out to them in an e-mail dated 4 August 2011. The minutes of the meeting with the Gamtkwa Khoisan Council , and by this we mean this organization, omitted several statements that are of importance to this process namely: • The legal representative for ESKOM pointed out that they respect the rights of

the KhoiSan community and their link to the KhoiSan heritage in the area, to which I replied by asking if in ESKOM the one hand knows what the other hand does ? because the consultants in the Thyspunt nuclear project are arguing exactly the opposite by saying there is no link between the archaeological heritage and Gamtkwa Khoisan community.

• Dr. Nealroy Swarts pointed out that ESKOM has got a loan for another project provided by the World Bank and he asked if ESKOM is aware that the World Bank has got a Policy on Indigenous Peoples Rights. He also stated that we will write to the World Bank to inform them of ESKOM’s plans in other parts of the country and what disregard they are showing to our cultural rights

• He also strongly objected against this project since it is part and parcel of the Thyspunt nuclear project and therefore we refused our co-operation to identify cultural sites since we are not prepared to do the specialists work for him.

Draft Minutes are a record of key issues and the purpose of distributing a set of draft minutes is to provide the attendees to verify the content there of. The minutes have been updated with the information provided by the Gamtkwa KhoiSan Couldin and made as final and included in the FEIR (Appendix 12O)

The third specialist who attempted to consult with us after the above meeting indicated that our reasons for refusing the consultation will be addressed in the Issues and Responses report. This was not done. Annexure “B” specifies our reasons and it still needs to be addressed. Annexure “D” includes our most recent correspondence with DEA and SiVest once again illustrating the way the EIA consultants dealt with the PPP. This is another example of the way the process has been approached and it substantiates the fact that we do not regard the PPP process as transparent. The draft EIAR tries to convince the decision making authority that all efforts were made to assist a community such as ourselves to participate in the process, however the facts show that they did everything in their power to frustrate the process and to make it as difficult and confusing as possible to participate. We therefore also object against this project on procedural grounds.

The matter has been rectivitied and is included in this I&RR. Nicolene Venter, SiVEST

Not able to open documents on SiVEST’s website (Notificatin letter of updated and newly requested documents)

ROYAL, Renee Planner and Environmental Consultant:

Documents were e-mail separately while SiVEST attended to the technical problem. Due to the large size of the Visual Report, this


Page 154


John Royal Architects, E-mail 12 January 2013

was e-mail to I&AP via LARGEFiles ASAP. Nicolene Venter, SiVEST (e-mail dated 15 January 2013)

Suggested that clearer labelling be included on the web stating Additoinal / Revised Information 14 January 2013, as it is confusing and misleading to include the documents with the September 2012 information.

Request noted and the website was update to indicat which documents were uploaded additionally. Nicolene Venter, SiVEST

Thank you - I have received the CD. It arrived on Friday, but I was only able to access it on Saturday. Presumably others who asked for it, such as Shirley Cowling, will have received theirs. Last week I went into the Municipal Offices and library to see the hard copy. There was no sign of it, and no-one seemed to know anything about it. Do you know who the recipient was? I will circulate members of the Thyspunt Alliance to see if anyone has removed it. Both this, and the late arrival of the CD reinforce our request for an extension of the response time until at least the end of November

THORPE, Hilton Chairman: St Francis Residents Association E-mail 08 October 2012

As per the advertisement placed and communicated per the notification letter distributed to registered I&APs, no hard copies of Reports were placed at the Municipal Offices but at the Community Library in St Francis Bay. Comment regarding the extended review period is addressed above.

Requested the contact details of Eskom’s representative(s) for the proposed TTLIP as an application for authorisation in terms of Article 53 of the Mineral Resources Act needs to be obtained from the Minister.

VAN DEN BERG, Samuel Regional Manager: Mineral Resources Dept of Mineral Resources E-mail: 16 October 2012

Contact details of: Ms Lerato Mokgwatlheng, Snr Environmental Advisor: TTLIP; Mr Wimpie Henning, Negotiator: Land and Rights; and Ms Bernadette Solomon, Legal Advisor: Land and Rights were provided. Nicolene Venter, SiVEST (e-mail dated 17 October 2012)

I refer to your email sent on 23 October 2012 regarding the revised comment period for the EIA. As I understand, you discussed this matter with Mr Jordan Mann and said that you would forward us a plan. Please could you forward us the information.

WATTS, Yvette Nuway Development E-mail 13 November 2012

Snap shot of map e-mailed on 15 November 2012 and link description provided as to where the full set of cadastral maps can be downloaded from SiVEST’s website.

The project team was informed that the correct protocol was not followed as the Chief should have been informed of the proposed project up front before any public meetings could have taken place.

WILLIAMS, Chief Gamtkwa Khoisan Meeting, Tuesday, 21 June 2011

Apologies regarding the incorrect protocol followed were submitted to the attendees and that the Chief will be informed prior to any future public meetings scheduled to take place. Nicolene Venter, SiVEST

The project team was informed that they had requested Arcus GIBB and Eskom’s Generation Division to secure a meeting with the Eastern Cape Province Khoi Khoi Council and the National Khoisan Council. SiVEST has been advised to ensure that they partake in this meeting.

This information has been noted and will be followed-up with Arcus GIBB, who SiVEST believes will be the custodian for arranging the meeting. Nicolene Venter, SiVEST Post meeting: SiVEST has informed Arcus GIBB of Chief William’s request and


Page 155


should such meeting be arranged, SiVEST and Eskom TTLIP Technical Team will participate. SiVEST and Lerato Mokgwatlheng

0.11. Authorities The ECPTA welcomed the realignment away from the Groendal Wilderness area and the Stinkhouberg Nature Reserve along the NC as recommended. The concern was raised regarding the SC that is traversing the reserve within the NMBM that extends between Perseverance and the Motherwell canal, namely the Swartkops River Valley Nature Reserve (SRVNR). The SRVNR is in an advanced state of a biodiversity stewardship agreement with ECPTA & NMBM. The concern is raised due to the possible environmental and tourism impacts that can ensue from the Tx power lines. It is important to note that the biodiversity stewardship agreement will contribute towards Protected Area Expansion Targets, as approved by Cabinet.

BALFOUR, Dr Dave Executive Director: Biodiversity Conservation ECP&TA Letter: Undated Received per e-mail: 21 November 2012

The proposed Southern Corridor has been discussed in detail with the NMBM Environmental Department and concerns raised have been addressed in the Biodiversity Report (Appendix 3) of the FEIR.

It was mentioned that according to the IMP for the Swartkops Estuary, Swartkops River Valley and Aloes Nature Reserves, the area has been identified as an important focus area for biodiversity conservation in the Metro and forms part of the NMM Open space System (NM MOSS). ECPTA therefore recommends that the portion of the SC crossing over SVNR be realigned to move away from the reserve as the area is a designated CBA which needs to be protected. Although this reserve is small and in an urban setting, it has high biodiversity value in that it serves as an important buffer zone between the urban area and the Swartkops River.

These suggestions from the ECP&TA are noted and forwarded to Eskom accordingly.

The Office has no objections to the proposed development, subject to the following conditions: • Dams

A dam is defined in the NWA as any existing or proposed structure which is capable of containing, storing or impounding water (including temporary impoundment or storage) Any chemical solid waste and contaminated water which may be generated from t he above proposed activity must not pose any adverse impact on the identified Dams. Chemical or ablution toilets facilities to be used on-site during construction phase of the project to be used by construction workers must be located more

BLOEM, Mr M Acting Chief Director: Eastern Cape Dept of Water Affairs Letter: 05 October 2012

The comments and recommendations submitted by DWA are included in the EMP (Appendix 14) of the FEIR and a copy of the letter was forwarded to Eskom for their attention.


Page 156


than 100m away from the edge of the identified Dams. • Stormwater

The storm water drainage network system must be kept separate from the sewage effluent and wastewater system. These networks must be designed and constructed in such a manner that storm water drain into a watercourse or into the Municipal Storm Water system, if available in the area. After construction, the site should be graded to ensure free flow of runoff and to prevent ponding of water. Drainage must be controlled to ensure that runoff from the site will not culminate in off-site pollution or cause water damage to properties further down from the site. Storm Water Management Plan should ensure that the ultimate flow from the development does not result in any negative impacts on downstream properties or watercourse and must therefore ensure that storm water is managed within the overall site as effective as possible. This Storm Water Management Plan must be submitted to this Department for comment prior to construction.

• Sanitation during construction Ablution toilet facilities to be used by construction workers during construction phase of the project must be regularly emptied and their content must be disposed off into a permitted Waste Water Treatment Works.

Notwithstanding the above, the responsibility rests with the applicant to identify any sources of pollution from this undertaking and to take appropriate measures to prevent any pollution of the environment in terms of the National Water Act 1998 (Act 36 of 1998) could lead to legal action being instituted against the Applicant. The systematic conservation planning assessment considered the extent of loss of natural features in terms of biodiversity pattern, ecological processes, species of special concern and habitat riverine integrity due to various land uses. The assessment considered options for conserving a representative proportion of all biodiversity in the NMBM and derived a conservation network of optimal Critical Biodiversity Areas avoiding the NMBM’s land use requirements. During interactive consultation processes with the NMBM, an alternative route Option 2 to the south of KwaNobuhle and through the new proposed private housing development adjacent to KwaNobuhle was identified on the basis that it would have to meet both technical requirements and avoid developments within the

NMBM (Environmental, Electrical &Stretegic Planning & Convener: NMBM Multi-Disciplanry Technical Task Team) Letter: 20 November 2012

Preference of Option 2 noted and environmental sensitivities in Option 1 noted. The biodiversity Specialist Study included in Appendix 3 of the FEIR does address areas classified as CBAs.


Page 157


broader area. Both route options have been highlighted as a Critical Biodiversity Area (CBA) in terms of the 2009 Conservation Assessment of the NMBM. Further investigations have confirmed that Option 2 is more environmentally sensitive than route Option 1 through the open area in the middle of KwaNobuhle. The proposed site that was identified for the Port Elizabeth substation is positioned within a CBA. The ecological assessment undertaken as part of the integrated Jachtvlakte development confirms the conservation value of the CBA. Environmental Management has been an active participant throughout the duration of the EA process and has consistently requested that the EAP overlay the proposed Thyspunt corridors and proposed Port Elizabeth substation site with the NMBM’s Open Space System Critical Biodiversity layers. The NMBM has an obligation to achieve conservation targets and there we insist that the viability of the CBA corridor be taken into consideration to determine the final positioning of the substation. The size of this infrastructure will contribute immensely tothe fragmentation of the CBA network. The NMBM preferred option within theKwaNobuhle area remains Option 2. Despite this fact we cannot ignore that Option 2 is more ecologically sensitive than Option 1. We therefore recommend that the EAP considers this in the final report. We request that issues be address and adequately mitigated. Would your office be in a position to please supply if not the finalised route, some information in the form of a Google earth .kml file indicating the intended routing of the planned transmission lines( as per the items mentioned under the heading “The key issues in revised DEIRs are:”), as reflected in the letter of the 23rd, together with proposed heights of the pylons, in order to allow the CAA to review the proposal and provide comment on the routing , should this be relevant to our sphere of interest.

ROBERTS, Harry Aviation Obstacle Analyst Air Navigation Services SACAA

SIVEST

Herewith acknowledging the receipt of the letter dated 23 October 2012, (reference 9520 Thyspunt). In following up on the content of the letter, the only information available to the CAA, is the content of email correspondence between SiVest and Chris Isherwood of this office advising on the delay of the project.

Project database updated to reflect the SACAA’s correct contact person.

0.12. General Comments My love for nature and the inspiration derived from the ERV are clearly documented in newspaper report on my art. (Letter and clippings included in Appendix12K)

DODD, Llise Resident: Elands River Valley Letter not dated

Comments noted


Page 158


Posted: 19 November 2012 Received: 28 November 2012

Inge Konik mentions in her letter (addendum) that there are numerous ways to cater for the energy needs of the South African population. First it would be necessary for government to start questioning their continued provision of the world’s cheapest electricity to some of the world’s most ecological damaging companies. According to Die Burger, Wednesday, 12 September 2012, BHP Billiton is using 7.5% of South Africa’s generated power at a current purchasing rate of between 8,8c and 10c. These rates must be lower than Eskom’s generation costs! Eskom furthermore sells electricity to neighbouring countries for less than what South Africans must pay. We believe that the only solution for South Africa and the world is to invest in alternative energy solutions. The sooner this is done, the more the environment and us as humans will benefit. Alternative energy is unlimited and constantly replenished while fossil fuels are being depleted at staggering rates. The South African climate is ideal for the utilisation of alternative energy sources and we have the opportunity to become world leaders in this regard


The electricity generation mix for South Africa is undertaken at a National Level between the Department of Energy and Eskom accordingly. It is at this level that the queries around energy price and energy mix should be addressed.

I have had no further communication as to the revised or otherwise route of the power lines for the wind farms in the area. Could I please have an update on this matter?


This matter needs to be addressed directly with the Developer(s) of the proposed wind farm(s).

No ROD can be given until a final decision on the Thyspunt site has been reached, and that will not be for some months (or years?).

THORPE, Hilton Chairman: St Francis Residents Association E-mail: 15 October 2012

SiVEST has been informed by the DEA that a decision on the Northern Corridor and the Southern Corridor (from the HV yard up to the newly proposed PE Substation) will only be made once the decision on the Nuclear-1 project has been made. Nicolene Venter, SiVEST

As you are well aware, the Thyspunt Alliance is strongly opposed to the proposed transmission lines for Nuclear 1, and we are working on a submission to the Revised DEIR, which will be forwarded to you in good time. I was asked by a local paper, the St Francis Chronicle, to write an article for its November edition, drawing attention to the response period, and expressing the views of the Thyspunt Alliance, which I did. Included with the article were pictures taken from p. 81 & 83 of the Visual Assessment Report, depicting the appearance of the lines along the Oyster Bay road. For some reason, the owner of the paper, Bev Mortimer, decided to use a different picture, which portrayed monstrous

Letter: 09 November 2012 Letter acknowledged. Letter with comments on the Revised DEIR was received and responded to in this I&RR. The matter regarding the misrepresentation of the visual of power lines are noted.


Page 159


transmission lines somewhere in Germany, which bear no relation at all to the type of structure which you are recommending. In my view, this gives completely the wrong impression, and undermines the credibility of what we are trying to do. I have taken issue with her over this. My reason for writing to you is to explain the circumstances, and to apologise for any wrong impression that may have been created. We are doing our best to correct this, but unfortunately no correction can be published in the Chronicle for a whole month, as it only appears monthly. The Alliance is scrupulously careful to ensure that what we publish is factually correct, and we do not appreciate this kind of irresponsible journalism. I hope you will understand. The attention of the consultants is drawn to the wording of the “Rating of impacts” in Table 26, p. 201 of the Revised DEIR. Some of the definitions here have clearly been misplaced. • The category “extent” is defined as a brief description indicating the chances

of the impact occurring. This should clearly be under “probability”. This means that “extent” is never properly considered.

• The category “Probability” is defined as a brief description of the ability of the environmental components recovery after a disturbance as a result of the proposed activity. This should clearly come under “reversibility”.

• The category “reversibility” is defined as a brief description of the environmental aspect likely to be affected by the proposed activity. This should presumably have come under the heading of “environmental parameter”, or “extent”.

This is a most unfortunate mistake at such a crucial phase of the assessment. It is likely to have caused confusion to I & A Ps seeking to give a reasoned response.

Letter: 22 November 2012 The impact rating system utilised in the EIA process is accepted by the DEA and has been used on a variety of EIA projects to date.

0.13. Electro Magnetic Field Due to the geographical structure of the area and the absence of landlines, many residents and businesses are dependent on radio waves for communication and safety as well as internet access. Wave interference from the transmission lines will generate copious amounts of noise (QRM) on the radios and have a negative effect on the residents’ safety, communication and businesses.


As part of the detailed design done by Eskom for the powerline, corona, EMF and radio interference levels are calculated, predicted and designed to comply with stringent international accepted standards (IEC CISPR 18-3) with regards to each of these electrical phenomenon before a line may be constructed. Ravi Singh, Chief Engineer: Electrical, Eskom


Page 160


26. Nuclear-1 Project Comments/Issues These Comments/Issues would be submitted to Eskom Transmission, and in turn to be forwarded to the Nuclear-1 Project team and the Nuclear-1 Project EIA consultants, Arcus

GIBB Acknowledged receipt of the email and thanked for the communication. Will support the EIA and public participation. Commented that he would like to see the creation of jobs and local empowerment. Requested Eskom’s details as he had questions regarding the local business community

BOUWER, Mr John President Kouga Black Chamber of Commerce E-mail: 6 July 2010

E-mail was forwarded to ArcusGIBB

Made reference to the map attached to the Newsletter sent to I&APs and raised a question as to why the station (Eskom Nuclear Power Station)is not constructed at Coega right next to Dedisa substation. Further mentioned that abandonment of the Thyspunt project would save Eskom enormously if the Nuclear power station is constructed in Coega.

BYRON, Mr Andrews Resident: St Francis EIA Newsletter Comment Form

EIA Newsletter Comment Form forwarded to Arcus GIBB

Enquired about the status of the EIA process for the Nuclear power station. CORRIGAN, Mr Brian Hopewell Conservation (Pty)Ltd Feedback Meeting: 14 October 2010

SiVEST is not involved in the Nuclear-1 Project EIA process. However, it is our understanding that the project is in the impact phase and that a draft EIR has been compiled and distributed for comments. The Consultants have been requested to re-do some of the environmental studies and the report will be put out for another review period. Recommended that attendee register as an I&AP on this project with the environmental consultant, Arcus GIBB. Liesl Koch, SiVEST

It was requested that the impact on the Sand River dune system between Thyspunt and Humansdorp need to be assessed during the EIA phase.

COWLING, Mr Chris Chairman: Cape St. Francis Civic Association EIA Newsletter Comment Form Fax: 22 December 2009

Informed I&AP that the proposed Transmission Power Lines will not be crossing the Sand River dune system. The proposed Transmission Power Lines will exit the Thyspunt HV yard. His request has been forwarded to Eskom and Arcus GIBB, as the sand dunes fall within the scope of study of the Nuclear power station EIA. Nicolene Venter: SiVEST (e-mail: 23 December 2009)

Raised a concern in relation to Transmission Lines crossing the Sand River dune system between Thyspunt and Humansdorp.

I&AP was notified that that his comment and SiVEST response will be captured in the Issues and Responses Report. It was also highlighted that the proposed Transmission Power Lines will not


Page 161


be crossing the Sand River dune system. The proposed Transmission Power Lines will run north from the Thyspunt HV yard which is located away from the dune fields. I&AP was informed that a copy of his comment form will be forwarded to Arcus GIBB who are the EIA consultants for the Thyspunt Power Station project and the Transmission Power Lines from the power station to the HV yard falls within their scope of work. It was mentioned that SiVEST cannot therefore respond to his request that the impact on the Sand River dune system be assessed during the EIA phase for the TTLIP. Nicolene Venter: SiVEST (e-mail: 23 December 2009)

The project team was informed that they are aware that the Conservancy is not directly affected by the power lines and their concern lies mostly with the Nuclear Generation project at Thyspunt. It is believed that it needs to be raised again. It is believed that there could be something sinister regarding the energy generation world in that they rely so heavily on fossil fuel. There is a constant drive towards oil and coal and those resources are not safe or clean. The Conservancy strongly support that Eskom moves away from nuclear and rather look at renewable energy. If nuclear is unavoidable and there is really no other alternative, the Conservancy recommends that the generation facility be moved closer to Grassridge as that area is already industrialized. By constructing the nuclear facility in that area it will do away with the transmission power lines and the visual issue will disappear and from an economic point of view


Comment will be forwarded to Arcus GIBB, the independent environmental consultants conducting the EIA for the Nuclear-1 Project. Nicolene Venter, SiVEST Attendees attention is drawn to the fact that Nuclear-1’s updated report is currently out for public review and informed the attendees that they take the matter regarding Nuclear-1 issues up with Arcus GIBB. Lerato Mokgwatlheng, Eskom

It was stated, in a follow-up e-mail, that the reference for their argument is an example, and it needs to be understood that it is not the essence of their protest, but FAST does want it documented. It was also mentioned that there are no independent experts at either the Nuclear -1 Project or the Transmission line EIAs. NEMA regulations also apply to SiVEST's Thyspunt Transmission Lines EIA.

DONNELLY, Mr Ryan Chairperson: For A Safe Tomorrow E-mail: 15 November 2009

I&AP informed that both Comments/Issues received from FAST and Mr Mike Kantey of CANE have already been included in the Issues and Responses Report. Nicolene Venter: SiVEST (e-mail: 17 November 2009)

Requested that she be advised as to how her queries have been dealt with as she has yet to receive ANY information from SiVEST about the economic impact of the

FREEBURY, Ms Carianne Planning, Infrastructure and

As was previously mentioned, from the start of the public participation process and SiVEST’s communication to Retail Africa


Page 162


Nuclear Station. It was stated that it must be assumed then that her queries have not been dealt with by either SiVEST or the team on the Transmission Lines. In response to SiVEST’s e-mail dated 21 August 2009, it was mentioned that the request relates to the proposed Nuclear Power Station, and that they would submit that a full study on the Economic Impact of such a large development must be done to give the community a sense of the job creation or otherwise of this development which she said in turn would impact on the growth of JBAY. It was further mentioned that as managers of Retail Centre in Jeffreys Bay, they are going to decide what impact, if any, the development would have on them, and they must understand the economic impact in the sense of what this development will provide in terms of jobs, demographic and growth for the town. Without the information they must assume the development would only have a negative impact. Requested information to try and assess whether the development would be a positive for the local business community, rather than a negative.

Environment Retail Africa (Pty) Ltd E-mail: 20 August 2009 AND E-mail: 22 August 2009

(Pty) Ltd it has been made clear that Arcus GIBB is the independent EIA Consultants for the proposed Nuclear-1 Project (Eskom Nuclear Power Station) and not SiVEST. However, as the two projects (Eskom Transmission power lines) are closely interlinked, SiVEST noted the concerns / Comments/Issues / recommendations raised regarding the Nuclear-1 Project by I&APs and Stakeholders such as Retail Africa (Pty) Ltd and, as communicated, forwarded these concerns / Comments/Issues / recommendations to Eskom Transmission’s Project Manager who in turn had forwarded it to Eskom Generation – as the proposed Nuclear-1 Project is managed by Eskom Generation and not Eskom Transmission. I&AP was advised to download Appendix F (Issues & Responses Report (I&RR) on SiVEST’s website (http://www.sivest.co.za/Download.aspx); to select 9520 Eskom Thyspunt EIA); to go to page 35 of the I&RR and it will be noticed that SiVEST’s response (submitted via e-mail) regarding Retail Africa (Pty) Ltd’s request “economic impact of the Nuclear Station” has been noted and forwarded to the relevant EAP. An agreed understanding with Retail Africa (Pty) Ltd was reached that SiVEST dealt with their query in the following manner:

1. Request for a full economic impact assessment for the proposed Nuclear-1 Project:

a. As SiVEST is not the appointed independent EIA Consultants, we are not attending or responding to this request. However, it was forwarded to Arcus GIBB through Eskom Transmission.

2. Request for an economic impact assessment for the proposed Transmission Power Lines Integration Project (TTLIP): a. This has been responded to via e-mail and is also

captured in the I&RR, as mentioned above. Replied via e-mail: 21 August 2009

Teenwoordige spreek sy teenkanting teenoor die kernkrag kragstasie onomwonde uit deur te sê dat hy die SiVEST Projekleier soos gif haat. Vissermanne en hul gesinne het ‘n geskiedenis van TB en Eskom moet weggejaag word. Daar gaan te veel sand in die see gegooi word wat die visbedryf nadelig sal raak.

HAMMOND, Kevin Resident: Pellsrus PM Pellsrus, Jeffrey’s Bay: 28 September 2011

The attendees were requested not to make personal insults towards the project team as each person needs to respect one another.


Page 163


Translation: Attendee strongly expressed his objections against the nuclear power station my stating to the SiVEST Project Leader that he hates him as strongly as poison. There is a history of TB amongst the fishermen and their families and Eskom needs to be chased away. There is going to be much sand dumped in the sea and this will have a negative impact on the fishing industry.

The comment and concern raised will be forwarded to Arcus GIBB.

A copy of the motivation provided by Eskom for the building of the Nuclear Power Station Thuyspunt near Humansdorp in particular, was requested and it was also enquired why a site at any other point in South Africa was not considered. Also wanted to know if there are any costs involved for obtaining such information as he is prepared to pay for it.

HOBBS, Mr Geoff Property Owner: St Francis Bay E-mail: 19 November 2009

Responded and informed him that SiVEST is not the EIA Consultants that can respond to the question raised as SiVEST are the independent consultants conducting the EIA for the proposed Eskom Transmission power lines (400kV) exiting from the proposed Thyspunt Nuclear Power Station. Also informed and referred to SiVEST’s website with the prompts (http://www.sivest.co.za/Download.aspx - go to 9520 Eskom Thyspunt EIA) for information regarding this project. However was further informed that Arcus GIBB are the independent EIA Consultants conducting the EIA for the proposed Nuclear Power Station at Thyspunt and that the comment was thus forwarded to the Arcus GIBB email address: [email protected] in turn would be able to provide an answer to his question. Requested him to forward SiVEST his contact details as this would afford him an opportunity to be informed of his rights as an Interested and/or Affected Party by participating in an EIA process (and the public participation process). It was further clarified that he does not have to pay for any information regarding proposed projects undergoing an EIA process. Nicolene Venter: SiVEST (e-mail: 16 November 2009)

From documentation previously provided and located on your web site it appears that a study is currently in place regarding this Nuclear facility. In view of the fact that ATNS is an Interested and possibly an affected party you are respectfully requested to provide ATNS with as much information on this

HORAK, Thys ATNS: ATM Planning Department E-mail: 29 May 2011

E-mail forwarded to Arcus GIBB.


Page 164


proposed facility – Exact location ( Geographical position Degrees, Minutes, Seconds and decimals of a second in WGS-84 format ) etc. The establishment of such a facility normally goes hand in hand with the establishment of a Restricted area as is the case with the “Koeberg Nuclear Power Station” – FAR36 GND/2,000 FT AGL See SA Aeronautical Information publication (SA AIP) ENR 5-11 It was commented that there was a lot of confusion as to who is conducting the EIA for the power lines across sand dunes.


It was acknowledged that in the early stages of the proposed TTLIP there was confusion as under which EIA application the Tx lines from the Nuclear Power Station to the HV yard falls, and it has been clarified with Eskom Tx and Eskom Generation that the Tx lines crossing the sand dunes are part of Arcus GIBB’s EIA process. Paul da Cruz, SiVEST Post-meeting note: This point has been clarified shortly after the first round of public meeting held in September 2008 and was communicated to all registered I&APs.

It was mentioned that during a field trip to Koeberg by Community Members, it was noted that people who are living close to Koeberg are still alive and healthy and if that is the situation, what is going to kill them here. People need jobs and we are oing to die still waiting.


Comment forwarded to Arcus GIBB

The project team was requested to submit a recommendation to Eskom for an alternative feasible site that is located closer to existing infrastructure such as Coega. Stated that the alternative must take into account socio-economic and biodiversity issues etc and not only in terms of a corridor.


Informed the member that Eskom have indicated that they cannot put a power station in Coega as it is not technically feasible. The project team has recommended alternatives etc and it will be re-iterated. Liesl Koch, SiVEST

Comments/Issues on DEIR Expressed his strongest disapproval of the construction of a nuclear power station at Thyspunt Other Comments/Issues Let the nuclear power station be constructed in the proper place for it, which is north of Coega and south of Rochester. This is the cheaper option with fewer risks, because the prevailing winds will blow any nuclear fallout away over the ocean.


Comment acknowledged.


Page 165


Suggested that the nuclear generation station be placed at Coega and further indicated that this is closer to the Eskom Grassridge Substation. Recommended that the regulator needs to ensure that the design is very safe as this is an extremely high concern for residents. Another option is to build nuclear plants far away from any cities on the West Coast where the sea water is cooler, e.g. Koekenaap, which is relatively close to a major Eskom 400kV substation

MUNNINGS, Mr Bruce Africoast Engineers SA E-mail: 31 August 2010

Comment acknowledged and forwarded to Arcus GIBB

Dit is genoem dat die Elandsrivier Bewarea glad nie oortuig is dat alternatiewe vir die kragstasie behoorlik en deeglik nagevors is nie. Translation: He stated that they are not convinced that alternative for the power station were researched properly.


SiVEST responded to the Transmission power line comment in Point 9. Nicolene Venter, SiVEST Nuclear-1 Power Station comment submitted to Arcus GIBB to respond.

It was asked what the distance of the Tx power line is between the nuclear power station and the HV yard.

RAUTENBACH, Peter Property Owner: Farms Grassmere & Santuli PM Sea Vista, St Francis Bay: 29 September 2011

The distance is not known to the SiVEST team. As previously mentioned the TX HV yard forms part of the Nuclear-1 EIA project. There was a lot of confusion previously, but this matter has been clarified by Eskom that this section of Tx power lines forms part of the Nuclear-1 Project EIA. This question will be forwarded to Arcus GIBB for a response. Paul da Cruz, SiVEST

Reference was made to the comments submitted by SAHRA and it is the assumption that SAHRA’s comments have not been taken into consideration, especially in terms of a Palaeontology Assessment.


SiVEST cannot comment on the Nuclear EIA process. Comment will be forwarded to Arcus GIBB.

It was re-iterated that SAHRA did object to the Nuclear-1 Project but it seems that the comments/ objection have not been considered.

THORPE, Mr Hilton Chairman: St Francis Rate Payers’ Association Feedback Meeting: 11 October 2010

The Thyspunt Alliance adopts the view that the selection of Thyspunt as a site for a nuclear power station is fatally flawed for a variety of environmental, regulatory, cost and procedural reasons. One of these is the environmental impact of the proposed transmission lines

Letter: 22 November 2012

Stated the whole process associated with the Nuclear Power Plant is questionable as the overall cumulative impact of the development is fragmented into a number of different applications making it very difficult for the receiving community to assimilate the project information and respond in respect of the numerous EIA applications that have been made in respect of the proposed Nuclear Power

ROYAL, Ms Renee Planner and Environmental Consultant E-mail: 28 September 2010

The EIA for the proposed TTLIP includes cumulative impacts as per the Scoping Report. Comment noted regarding the various EIA applications Nicolene Venter: SiVEST


Page 166


Plant. Further stated that this is considered unacceptable.

The project team was informed that two to three years ago Eskom was informed of the document drafted after the Wisconsin Summit that racism still exists when environmental studies are conducted where indigenous people are being ignored. He would like to repeat the question raised as to why is the Nuclear Power Station planned in the back yard of the KhoiSan indigenous people. It needs to be noted that the KhoiSan people are totally oppose to the Nuclear Power Station.

SWARTS, Dr N Chairman: Gamtkwa Khoisan Council FGM: 28 January 2012

As the Nuclear-1 Project is not part of SiVEST’s SoW the comment is noted and will be forwarded to Arcus GiBB, the independent environmental consultants for Nuclear-1. Paul da Cruz, SiVEST

It was stated that the GamtKwa KhoiSan Council has First Nation Status. If the situation of the Nuclear Power site continues at the selected site, it will destroy the heritage of the KhoiSan people. It is the wrong site and the site was chosen during the apartheid time. No respect is shown to the indigenous people.

He also strongly objected against this project since it is part and parcel of the Thyspunt nuclear project and therefore we refused our co-operation to identify cultural sites since we are not prepared to do the specialists work for him.

‘n Kernkragstasie is ‘n gevaalike plek om by te werk en dit word verneem wat word van die klere van die mense wat daar werk. Translation: A Nuclear Power Station is a dangerous place to work and it was asked as to what happens to the clothes of the people who work there.

SWARTZ, Rowanda Resident: Tiryville Tiryville Community Meeting: 26 January 2012

People working in the plant wear protective clothes as prescribed and regulated by Law and these protective clothes stay on the premises. Translation: Mense wat in die aanleg werk dra beskermende klere wat voorgeskryf en gereguleer word deur die Wet en hierdie beskermende klere bly op die perseel. Loyiso Tyabashe, Eskom

Irritation was expressed that the site investigation for the Nuclear-1 project has never been finished. The site was selected in the old apartheid regime and things have changed. It was commented that who in his right mind would want to put a nuclear power station in the area.


Comment forwarded to Arcus GIBB.

Request was made for the full Botanical Assessment and Dune Study that was completed for the Eskom Site selection process and a copy of the Environmental Authorisation.

WALTON, Mr Benjamin Scientist: Production Grade A Cape Nature E-mail: 27 September 2010

Was informed that the EIA phase of the proposed project is currently underway and therefore, the Final Environmental Impact Report has not as yet been submitted to the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) nor have they made a decision regarding whether or not to grant an Environmental Authorisation.


Page 167


The full specialist investigations conducted as part of the EIA phase of this proposed project are currently being completed, however a Floral, Faunal and Avifaunal Report were compiled during the scoping phase of the proposed project. These reports are available on the SiVEST website at the following address http://www.sivest.co.za/Download.aspx. Andrea GIBB: SiVEST (email: 27 September 2010) Further Response to Comment: It should be noted that the proposed transmission power lines do not traverse the dune fields, thus they have not been assessed as part of the TTLIP EIA. Floral studies have been undertaken as part of the Nuclear 1 EIA, and these should be consulted.

What studies are being done for earthquakes at Thyspunt as slight tremors often happens in the area.

WEBSTER, Mr Jayson Resident: St Francis E-mail: 24 Mary 2011

Referred to Arcus GIBB

27. Thyspunt Access Road Comments/Issues Requested a map showing the proposed access road/s between Humansdorp and Thyspunt.

JOUBERT, Mr Pierre CEO: Gamtoos Irrigation Board E-mail: 05 December 2009

E-mail acknowledged and I&AP informed that their comments/Issues have been forwarded to Eskom as the access road referred to does not form part of TTLIP EIA and Scope of Work. Nicolene Venter: SiVEST (e-mail: 07 December 2009)

Enquired whether there is information on the routes and specification of proposed Thyspunt access roads.

MARTIN, Mr Pete Property Owner E-mail: 20 November 2009

The e-mail has been forwarded to Eskom awaiting reply. Nicolene Venter: SiVEST (e-mail: 16 November 2009)