The Proposed Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm Final ...

The Proposed Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 

Final Environmental Impact Report 

DEA Ref: 12/12/20/1928 

September 2011 

Prepared for: 

CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd 

P.O. Box 13 

Darling 

7345 

Prepared by: 

Environmental Evaluation Unit 

University of Cape Town 

Private Bag X3, Rondebosch 

Cape Town 

7701

PROJECT INFORMATION 

PROJECT: Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 

REPORT TITLE: Final Environmental Impact Report 

EEU REPORT REFERENCE: 5/11/312 

ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORITY: The Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) 

DEA REFERENCE NO: 12/12/20/1928 

APPLICANT: CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS: Environmental Evaluation Unit, University of Cape Town 

DATE: 20 September 2011 

i

STATEMENT OF INDEPENDENCE 

The Environmental Evaluation Unit (EEU) has been commissioned by CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd to 

undertake an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in terms of the National Environmental 

Management Act (107 of 1998) EIA Regulations (Government Notice (GN) R385, GN R386 and GN 

R387 of April 2006). The EEU has complied with the general requirements for Environmental 

Assessment Practitioners (EAPs) as set out below, from Chapter 3 (18): 

An EAP appointed in terms of regulation 17(1) must – 

(a) be independent; 

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

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

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

views and findings that are not favourable to the applicant; 

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

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

the application and any report relating to the application; and 

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

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

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

terms of these Regulations; or 

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

these Regulations for submission to the competent authority. 

iii

INTRODUCTION 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd is planning to develop the ‘Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm’ on a site 

located at the junctions of the R27 and the R315 between Yzerfontein and Darling, approximately 

85km north of Cape Town. It falls within the jurisdiction of the Swartland Local Municipality. The 

Project will be a wind farm with a capacity of 20‐21 MW for national distribution and will contribute 

to targets for renewable energy generation in South Africa and the Province. 

The proposed Project is located on the farms Slangkop (3/552) and Kerrie Fontein (0/555) and will be 

an extension of the existing four turbines comprising the Darling National Demonstration Wind 

Farm. This existing wind farm was conceptualised in 1996 by the Oelsner Group and was developed 

by the Darling Independent Power Producer (Pty) Ltd (known as DARLIPP) and operational by 2008. 

As the Project will be related to electricity generation where “(i) the electricity output is 20 

megawatts or more; and (ii) the elements of the facility cover a combined area in excess of 1 

hectare”, under the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations, (GN R387) a Scoping and 

EIA are triggered. The Environmental Evaluation Unit (EEU) have been commissioned to manage the 

Scoping and EIA environmental authorisation process. 

Scoping was undertaken between June and December 2010 and concluded with an approval of the 

Final Scoping Report from the Department of Environmental Affairs. The EIA commenced in March 

2011 and followed the Plan of Study (PoS) which set out the methodology for this Phase. The EIA 

has been an iterative process involving: botanical; avifaunal; visual; heritage; noise and social 

specialist studies and a Public Participation Process (PPP). The key deliverables of the EIA phase are 

an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Environmental Management Programme (EMP). The Draft 

EIR and EMP were made available for public comment to allow the registered I&APs an opportunity 

to comment on the findings. I&APs were notified of the review period and encouraged to provide 

written comment to the EEU. Comments are documented in the IRR and recommendations have 

been updated in the body of the report where necessary. 

ROLEPLAYERS 

The Applicant 

The applicant, also referred to as the developer, is CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd. This entity has been 

created for this purpose, by the Oelsner Group (Pty) Ltd, a South African company active in research, 

development and implementation of new energy projects, in particular technologies from 

Renewable Energy sources. 

The Environmental Assessment Practitioner 

The Environmental Assessment Practitioner (EAP) is the EEU who will manage the application for 

environmental authorisation on behalf of the applicant. The EEU is an independent, self‐funded, 

research, consulting and training unit based at the University of Cape Town (UCT) which focuses on 

various aspects of sustainability. 

Specialists 

Independent Specialists have been commissioned by the EEU to undertake studies specific to their 

discipline: botanical; avifaunal; visual; heritage; noise and social. 

v

Interested and Affected Parties 

I&APs are any person, group or organisation interested in or affected by the proposed activity; and 

any organ of state that may have jurisdiction over any aspect of the activity. The environmental 

authorisation process aims to provide opportunities for everyone to contribute to the process. 

Commenting Authorities 

Commenting authorities are those organisations or bodies whose focus or mandate is relevant to the 

Project and associated activities. They are required to issue comments and recommendations to 

ensure the process is robust and all aspects are considered. 

Competent Authority 

The competent authority is the decision‐making authority and in this case the listed activities require 

a decision at the national level. The Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) is therefore the 

competent authority for this Project. 

PROJECT DESCRIPTION 

Background 

The proposed Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm will be an extension of the existing Darling 

National Demonstration Wind Farm which was conceptualised in 1996 by the Oelsner Group. Darling 

Independent Power Producer (Pty) Ltd (known as DARLIPP) was established to develop the wind 

farm as an Independent Power Producer (IPP). The environmental authorisation process was 

contested and protracted and included appeals. The original proposal was for 10 turbines of 1.3MW 

output; however only a first phase of four turbines was approved and became known officially as the 

Darling National Demonstration Wind Farm. The Record of Decision (RoD) was issued in February 

2005. The Danish agency DANIDA, the Central Energy Fund (CEF) and the Development Bank of 

Southern Africa (DBSA) were funders of the development. A new company, Darling Wind Power (Pty) 

Ltd was then formed to develop the wind farm, equity holders being CEF, DBSA and DARLIPP. In 

2006, Darling Wind Power (Pty) Ltd entered into a Power Purchase Agreement with the City of Cape 

Town for a term of 20 years and contributes towards the City achieving its targets for renewable 

energy. The applicant for the Darling Demonstration Wind Farm was DARLIPP, while the present 

applicant is the CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd. 

Technology 

Wind turbines are made up of three key components: a steel tower, a nacelle which is positioned on 

top of the tower; and the rotor which comprises the three blades and a hub in the centre. Energy is 

produced when wind blows over the turbine blades, causing them to lift and rotate. Components in 

the nacelle convert this kinetic ‘movement’ energy to electrical energy and control the operation of 

the machine. The electricity that is produced is converted to a voltage that can be fed into the 

national electricity grid. The capacity of the Project will be 20‐21 MW depending on the technology 

and the number of turbines used. 

Nordex, a German manufacturer of wind turbines, is the preferred supplier and the N77 or N60 

models have been considered. Depending on the model, either 14 or 16 turbines respectively, will be 

erected, each with a nominal power of 1.5 or 1.3 MW each. 

vi

Infrastructure 

There are two sets of components to the Project as it falls onto two different farm portions, this is 

summarised below: 

Slangkop (3/552) / ‘Windhoek Farm’ Kerrie Fontein (0/555) 

5‐6 Nordex turbines 9‐10 Nordex turbines 

Underground cabling linking turbines to Underground cabling linking turbines to 

(existing) substation 

substation 

Internal roads ‐ stabilised dirt tracks to access Internal roads ‐ stabilised dirt tracks to access 

each turbine 

each turbine 

N/A New 66/11kV substation 

N/A Direct connection with existing overhead power 

lines linking substation to national electricity 

grid (no new overhead power lines required) 

Construction Phase 

Construction is proposed for 6‐9 months commencing first half of 2012, commissioning and testing 

of the individual turbines will require one month thereafter. Construction will be done in phases, 

initially access will need to be established to accommodate the various loads of the materials and 

components. It is proposed that heavy vehicles will enter the site from the existing road off the 

R315. A temporary construction compound area is required in support of the staff and labour and 

includes offices, storage areas and welfare facilities. A temporary laydown area will be required 

alongside each proposed turbine, approximately 1,600 m 2 becoming 875 m 2 permanently during 

operation. This will support the cranes, allow for blade storage and provide an area in which the 

parts can be assembled. A storage and laydown area is also required for civil engineering 

components during construction (2,000m 2 ). The turbines will be constructed one at a time, 

commencing with the construction of the foundation, the erection of the tower in sections by 

cranes, the positioning of the nacelle by cranes, assembly of the rotor on the ground and erection of 

the nacelle into position by cranes. Trenches will be dug to accommodate the cabling connecting 

these turbines with the substation. Where cabling crosses drainage lines, ducting will be installed. 

The substation will require construction involving civil works and assembly of equipment. A direct 

connection to the existing overhead transmission lines will be required and, therefore, a new 

overhead line is not required. Site remediation will ensure that temporary areas are returned to 

their original condition and improved upon where practical and viable. Based on other studies, it is 

estimated that between 90‐95 jobs will be generated during this phase. 

Operational Phase 

Operation is expected from early 2013 for a design life of 25 years. There will be either 14 or 16 

turbines erected, each with a nominal power of 1.5 MW or 1.3 MW. At the base of each turbine 

there will be an area of permanent hard standing (875 m 2 ) for servicing, alongside the foundations, 

as well as a medium‐voltage transformer (mini‐substation). These are connected to the 11kV to 66kV 

substation via underground cabling most likely following the route of the internal roads. The 

substation will be in the ‘West Coast Vernacular’ architectural style to blend in with the character of 

the area and will be similar to the existing substation. The footprint for this substation platform is 

840 m², of which the building is 110.5 m 2 . It is proposed that the new substation will be located 

along the alignment of the existing overhead transmission line to make use of the connection to the 

grid. Stabilised dirt tracks will be 5 m wide and will provide access to each turbine and the 

vii

substation. Access to the turbines will be via the existing road off the R27, or for heavy vehicles, via 

the Slangkop (3/552) farm access from the R315. 

Maintenance activities include remote monitoring by Nordex. The operational office in Langefontein 

Farm which services the existing turbines will be expanded to accommodate the team of 

mechatronic engineers and additional technical equipment. A maintenance schedule usually involves 

an initial inspection after commissioning, a semi‐annual inspection, an annual inspection and two 

and five year inspections but this varies between types of turbine. Typical activities during 

maintenance include changing of oil, replacement of brake lining and cleaning of components. 

Traffic during operation is expected to be limited and largely light vehicles. Personnel recruited for 

the estimated 14‐15 jobs created (based on other studies), are likely to be recruited from the West 

Coast area and trained by the manufacturer. These would include mechatronic engineers as well as 

less skilled services such as safety and security, and mechatronic assistants. The Oelsner Group (Pty) 

Ltd plans to develop a training centre on Langefontein Farm which would provide various levels of 

training relating to the servicing of operational wind energy facilities. After 25 years, the proposed 

Project will be extended in use by 5 years or decommissioned by disassembly and removal of the 

components. 

The Proposed Darling Education, Training and Visitor Centre 

A Visitor Centre is proposed on Windhoek Farm (Slangkop 3/552) and is subject to a separate 

environmental authorisation process. However, the Centre is linked to this Project as it is also a 

component of the application for the Kyoto Protocol CDM, see below. The aim is that the building 

would exemplify sustainability and include conference facilities; education and training rooms; a 

library; exhibition spaces; a restaurant; and a shop. Other elements include parking; a village to 

accommodate visitors; a demonstration turbine; a demonstration reed filtration bed; rural energy 

demonstration; demonstration farm; demonstration gardens; bird hide; picnic sites; and a lake and 

river walk. It is intended that the facility will create an awareness of, and promote renewable 

energy, through the provision of tangible demonstrations of renewable technology applications. An 

important component of the Project would be the rehabilitation of the 20 ha site, which is former 

agricultural land, to its natural state, as well as providing basic training and employment for locals 

through the tourism and service related trades. 

International Carbon Offset Mechanisms and Funding 

The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) established under the Kyoto Protocol of the United 

Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1997 allows an industrialised 

country to implement an emission‐reduction project in a developing country to earn saleable 

certified emission reduction (CER) credits. These CERs can be counted towards a country’s official 

emission counts and hence towards meeting Kyoto targets. The Gold Standard certification is an 

independently audited methodology for project development which delivers carbon credits through 

a framework more rigorous than the CDM project requirements. Achieving CDM approval and the 

Gold Standard will allow the Project to qualify for ‘atmosfair gGmbH’ funding. atmosfair is a German 

organisation whose key market is providing a voluntary service to travellers who wish to offset the 

greenhouse gas emissions of their individual flights through the sale of an atmosfair certificate. The 

donations are invested in climate change projects in developing countries. It is intended that this 

Project will be a registered CDM projects and adhere to the CDM Gold Standard certification. 

viii

PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 

Alternatives have been considered and assessed in order to identify the most effective way to meet 

the need and purpose of the Project. The No‐Go Option which involves maintaining the Status Quo 

has been assessed. In terms of site location alternatives, the Project is the extension of an existing 

facility and it has been agreed in pre‐application meetings with Department of Environmental and 

Development Planning (DEA&DP) that site alternatives will not be considered on this basis. 

Technology and site layout has formed the basis of the assessment of alternatives. Two types of 

turbines have been considered, the N77 (Option 1) and the N60 (Option 2). The N77 is slightly larger 

having a 70 m high mast, a blade length of ±37.5 m, and has a greater output of 1.5 MW, therefore 

14 are required to reach the 20 MW capacity. The N60 are smaller with a 60 m high mast, a blade 

length of 29 m, and a lower output of 1.3 MW, requiring 16 turbines to achieve the desired capacity. 

The positioning of the turbines has been undertaken in collaboration with Nordex, who have 

modelled the efficiency of the wind resource for each configuration. This was the starting point; 

from here the turbines for both options were rearranged to avoid the areas of botanical sensitivity 

identified during the Scoping Phase. The preferred option is the N77 model. This is based on 

favourable yield performance; reduced footprint; and avoidance of highly sensitive vegetation for 

the turbine positions. The internal access road linking the northern and southern rows of turbines 

has also been realigned to avoid the medium sensitivity vegetation as far as possible. 

NEED AND DESIRABILITY 

Need or ‘timing’ of the development can be seen in light of the present global trend towards 

renewable energy which is largely based on initiatives to reduce the dependency on fossil fuels, the 

emission of greenhouse gases and their impacts on climate change. South Africa is actively seeking 

to reduce impacts on climate change and has made commitments to international initiatives such as 

the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (1992), the Kyoto Protocol (1997), the 

Johannesburg Declaration (2002), and the Copenhagen Accord (2009). This is also reflected in the 

national and provincial policy framework. The promotion of renewable energy is part of this drive to 

reduce emissions through diversification of electricity supply and energy security. The proposed 

Project is a wind energy facility that converts kinetic ‘movement’ energy into electricity for 

contribution to the national electricity grid. Wind energy is one of a number of freely available 

sources for renewable power generation and considered a mature technology in developed 

countries. However, in South Africa, the industry is in its infancy and would rely on imported 

technology for some time to achieve the full potential of the existing wind resources. This form of 

renewable energy technology often has a low impact on the surrounding environment in terms of 

land take; emissions; water usage; and waste. 

Desirability or ‘placing’ of the development is based on the fact that the Project is an extension to an 

existing facility, the Darling National Demonstration Wind Farm. At the time (1996), there were no 

established criteria on which to guide the siting of wind turbines and the reasons for siting the 

original Demonstration Wind Farm relate to the following: wind resources; access; proximity to grid; 

potential willing landowner; avoidance of existing and planned residential areas; avoidance of 

coastal and sensitive nature areas by also remaining east of R27. The Wind Farm was also originally 

intended to comprise a second phase of six turbines, should the first be considered successful. To 

qualify for the REFIT subsidies (see below), a minimum of 20 MW is required and this forms the basis 

for the proposed capacity of the Project. While the Swartland Municipality and the West Coast 

ix

District Municipality both realise the importance of tourism in the area, and the designation of the 

R27 as a regional transport corridor, they also realise the importance of renewable energy and list 

other important criteria such as protection of biodiversity, agricultural and cultural resources. The 

EIA process has therefore aimed to ensure the net benefits from harvesting renewable energy 

outweigh the site specific impacts, in order to render this development desirable. 

LEGAL, PLANNING AND POLICY CONTEXT 

Environmental Management 

Various acts, regulations, policies and planning documents provide the framework and context for 

this Project and associated activities. In terms of environmental management, compliance with the 

provisions in the following Acts will ensure that the environment is not adversely affected through 

the development of the Project: 

The Constitution, Act 108 of 1996; 

National Environmental Management Act (107 of 1998) (NEMA); 

Environment Conservation Act (73 of 1989) (ECA); 

National Heritage Resources Act (25 of 1999) (NHRA); 

National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (10 of 2004); 

National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act (57 of 2003); 

National Water Act (No 36 of 1998); 

National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act (39 of 2004); 

National Environmental Management: Waste Act (59 of 2008); and 

Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act (43 of 1983) (CARA); 

Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act (70 of 1970); 

National Veld and Forest Fire Act (101 of 1998); 

Occupational Health and Safety Act (85 of 1993; and 

Hazardous Chemical Substances Regulations (1995). 

Renewable Energy Generation 

Other national legislation and policy which is relevant to the renewable energy context are as 

follows: 

National Energy Act (Act 34 of 2008); 

White Paper on the Energy Policy of the Republic of South Africa (1998); 

White Paper on Renewable Energy (2003); 

NERSA Renewable Energy Feed‐In Tariff (REFIT) Guidelines (2009); and 

National Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) (2011). 

Other provincial policy, plans and guidelines provide the context for the Project and verify the 

support for renewable energy and serve to guide the implementation thereof. 

x

Developmental and spatial policy at the provincial and municipal level also provides the framework 

within which this Project is being proposed. The principles and objectives behind these documents 

have been considered. It is evident that while the Project contributes towards sustainable 

development through mitigating climate change, the spatial context of the site indicates that it is 

located along a development corridor; within a biodiversity area; and on land zoned as agricultural. 

The tourism potential of the area is also identified and taken into account within the EIA. 

EIA PROCESS AND METHODOLOGY 

The NEMA EIA Regulations require a two phased environmental authorisation process comprising 

Scoping and an EIA. 

Scoping Phase 

The Scoping Phase was conducted between June 2010 and December 2010 and identified issues 

relevant to the Project, potential environmental impacts of the activity; reasonable and feasible 

alternatives to the Project; and proposed an approach to the EIA through a ‘Plan of Study’. During 

the Scoping Phase, the Public Participation Process (PPP) commenced and included various methods 

of notification calling for potential Interested and Affected Parties (I&APs) to register and /or provide 

written comment and to invite attendance at a public meeting. A Background Information Document 

(BID) was produced to summarise the Project and the process and to provide a basis for any input. 

Specialists in the fields of botany; avifauna; visual; heritage; noise; and social, undertook Scoping 

studies to identify impacts and issues relevant to their discipline and proposed the methods for 

assessment in the EIA Phase. The process and findings were documented in the Draft Scoping Report 

(DSR) which was made available to the I&APs for a 40 day review period allowing I&APs to comment 

on the findings, the proposed methods and the process. The Final Scoping Report (FSR) included 

responses to the comments received within this period and was submitted to the DEA as the 

competent authority for approval, which was then granted in March 2011. 

EIA Phase 

The EIA Phase commenced in March 2011 and the aim of this Phase was to address issues that were 

raised during the scoping process; assess alternatives to the proposed activity in a comparative 

manner; assess all identified impacts and determine the significance of each impact; and formulate 

mitigation measures. Each specialist applied the methodology proposed in the Scoping Report and in 

general, the assessment of significance took into account the following criteria: nature and status; 

extent; duration; intensity; probability and effect on decision‐making. Further PPP activities included 

a public meeting in Darling, meetings and consultations with neighbouring landowners, and 

telephonic or email communications with other I&APS. The findings of the EIA were documented in 

the Draft EIR and accompanied by a Draft EMP (Ecosense, 2011). I&APs were notified of the review 

period which was from 26 July 2011 to 4 September 2011 and encouraged to provide written 

comment to the EEU. These comments are documented in the Issues and Responses Report (IRR) 

and have been integrated into the report where necessary. This Final EIR and EMP are for 

submission to DEA as the competent authority for approval. Thereafter it may be accepted, rejected, 

referred for review or amendments may be requested. Further to this, environmental authorisation 

is either granted or refused. 

xi

DESCRIPTION OF THE BASELINE ENVIRONMENT 

Geographical and Administrative 

The proposed site for the Project is located approximately 85 km north of Cape Town between the 

towns of Yzerfontein and Darling and falls within the Swartland Local Municipality, Western Cape. 

The study area is located within Ward 5. The Project also falls within the jurisdiction of the West 

Coast District Municipality. 

Land Use 

The study area lies within portions of two different farms: Slangkop (3/552) and Kerrie Fontein 

(0/555). The predominant land use on the site is agriculture. Vegetation is mostly disturbed and now 

partly rehabilitated, but also includes pristine areas as well as fallow agricultural land of low value. 

Agricultural activities on surrounding farms include ostrich camps; cereal farming; beef and dairy 

farming; sheep farming; and wine farming. Adjoining the proposed study area, on the Windhoek 

Farm between the existing turbines and the R315, is an existing open cast sand mine. 

Topography 

Topographical features in the study area includes a prominent hill (Moedmaag Hill) with west facing 

slopes, a broad saddle, and a lower hill with west and north‐western facing slopes, leading into a 

sandy coastal plain. 

Geology and Soils 

The study area is located on the Darling Pluton of the Cape Granite Suite. Granite derived clays and 

sandy loams are the primary soil type in the central and eastern area, but in the western parts these 

give way to deep, well leached acid sands of much lower fertility. There are two main granite 

outcrops, with various scattered granite exposures of less than 10 m 2 each, but otherwise there is 

little outcropping rock on site. 

Water Resources 

There is a single major drainage line, with four tributaries, plus a vlei area (Segarevlei). The seasonal 

drainage lines are unlikely to hold surface water for more than six months a year, but the soils are 

significantly damper than surrounding areas for extended periods. There is a windmill to the south‐ 

west of the existing turbines and the 2001 EIA (EEU, 2001) has identified the water table on the 

vicinity of this windmill being 1.05 m deep. 

Climate 

This is an area of winter rainfall and summer drought. The highest average rainfall occurs between 

May – August (approximately 65‐84 mm per month). There are on average, 8‐9 rain days in these 

months. In the spring and summer months, between September and April, average monthly rainfall 

is between 8‐34 mm. Temperatures in winter range between 7 and 19 o C, with summer temperatures 

between 12 and 28 o C. Fog is a characteristic of the area and is usually more prevalent during the 

winter months. Wind data gathered in 2001 by the CSIR indicates that the wider area experiences 

higher wind speeds which are more frequent during the months of October to March; wind 

conditions are more moderate during the months of May, June and September; the predominant 

wind direction is southerly between August and April; and the average wind speed over a 12 month 

period was between 5.8 and 6.45 m/s. 

xii

Botany 

There were originally two vegetation types in the study area, about 40% of the overall study area 

supported Swartland Granite Renosterveld, with the sandy western parts supporting Hopefield Sand 

Fynbos (Mucina and Rutherford, 2006). Both are nationally recognised as threatened, with the 

former being ‘Critically Endangered’ and the latter ‘Endangered’, according to the National Spatial 

Biodiversity Assessment (Rouget et al 2004). The Draft National List of Threatened Ecosystems lists 

Swartland Granite Renosterveld as Critically Endangered and Hopefield Sand Fynbos as Vulnerable 

(DEA 2009). Thus all remaining natural vegetation in the study area is of high sensitivity and 

conservation value. About 16% of the study area is essentially fallow agricultural land with very little 

natural vegetation, and this is the low botanical sensitivity portion of the study area. Natural 

vegetation in moderate or good condition covers an estimated 84% of the study area, and most of 

the vegetation in good condition is either on previously uncultivated small, rocky outcrops, in 

drainage lines (wetlands), or in the western parts, dominated by infertile sandy soils, which are not 

suitable for cultivation. The medium sensitivity vegetation occurs in those areas previously disturbed 

and now partly rehabilitated (about 67%) and the high sensitivity vegetation in those areas that are 

botanically largely pristine (about 27%, or 125ha). It is possible that upwards of 35 plant species of 

conservation concern could occur within the medium and high sensitivity areas within the study 

area, although only a few would co‐occur in any one 1000 m 2 area. This indicates the sensitivity and 

conservation importance of both the general Darling area and the natural areas within the study 

area. Disturbance includes past and current cultivation (mainly for cereals and grazing for sheep and 

cattle), heavy grazing and trampling by cattle and sheep, and alien vegetation invasion. The most 

heavily disturbed areas are those that have been regularly ploughed and sown with crops, and these 

areas generally have very little botanical value. Alien invasive vegetation is most severe in seasonally 

and permanently damp places, around homesteads, and in areas where there has been previous soil 

disturbance. 

Avifauna 

Habitats within the site have been described above, however in terms of potential avifauna, it is 

widely accepted that vegetation structure is more critical in determining bird habitat, than the actual 

plant species composition. Fynbos is dominated by low shrubs and can be divided into two 

categories, fynbos proper and renosterveld, both of which occur on the study site. Despite having a 

high diversity of plant species, fynbos and renosterveld has a relatively low diversity of bird species. 

Records indicate that 13 priority bird species potentially occur within the site or on adjacent areas of 

habitat; eight of these classified as Near Threatened and four classified as Vulnerable according to 

the Red Data List; and one endemic to the area. 

Visual 

The rolling hills constitute a scenic rural landscape in an area famed for its spring wild flowers. This 

aspect, together with the recreation activities of the nearby West Coast, mean that the area is an 

important visitor and tourist destination. The following routes and protected areas tend to increase 

landscape value in visual terms of the site environs, and therefore the visual sensitivity: 

The R27 and R315 Routes, which can be considered as scenic corridors, and therefore visually 

sensitive; 

The Tienie Versveld Wild Flower Reserve located adjacent to the R315 Route, about 2 km from 

the wind farm site; 

xiii

The Yzerfontein Soutpan and Rooipan, which are important wetland and bird sites, are 5 to 7 

km away from the site; 

The West Coast National Park, which lies some 5km to the north of the site on the R27, the 

entrance gate to the Park being 10 km away; and 

The West Coast Biosphere Reserve, which stretches from the Diep River in Cape Town to the 

Berg River in the north, and therefore includes the entire visual catchment of the Project. 

The proposed wind farm is visible to a number of farmsteads in the area, as well as to the settlement 

of Yzerfontein, about 8 km to the west. Two historic lime kilns are located on the R315 to 

Yzerfontein, about 3 km from the wind farm site. The wind farm is, however, not visible to the 

settlement of Darling, which is some 13 km away to the east, and in a view shadow. 

Heritage 

The area has a history of agriculture and ploughing has transformed much of the natural landscape. 

The archaeology of the area is not well known. The Darling Hills would undoubtedly have been used 

extensively by the Khoekhoen for grazing their stock and their settlements would likely have dotted 

the open landscape. The local geology is not conducive to the formation of rock shelters and none 

are known. One does routinely come across stone artefacts of various ages in the wheat lands of the 

Cape and such finds would be expected here. The presence of Stone Age people in the general area 

is well documented by the excavations of both Middle and Later Stone Age archaeological sites at 

Yzerfontein, some 9 km to the south‐west (Avery et al, 2008; Halkett et al, 2003; Klein et al, 2004; 

Orton, 2007; in press). Two other surveys in the vicinity of the study area found no heritage 

resources (Halkett, 2001; Hart, 2008). 

Noise 

The Project is proposed on the farms Slangkop (3/552) and Kerriefontein (0/555), located at the 

north‐east corner of the junction of the R27 and the R315. The site is situated in a rural farming 

community. Several homesteads are located on the property where the turbines will be erected as 

well as on neighbouring farms. The farms and much of the surrounding land is zoned agricultural. In 

terms of SANS 10103 this is described as a “rural district” with typical outdoor rating levels for noise 

of 45 dBA during daytime and 35 dBA during night time. 

Measurements indicate that the ambient noise is approximately between 41 and 45 dB(A) at 

between 2 ‐4 m/s wind speed at the farmhouse and workers houses on Windhoek Farm (Slangkop 

(3/552). The general ambient noise at each location varies substantially as the ambient sound is 

influenced by human activities as well as vehicles and animal sounds. It is thus extremely difficult to 

isolate just the wind component. 

Social 

The Swartland Municipality is predominantly a rural area with the economy dominated by the 

agricultural sector as the key contributor and employer. Tourism potential has been recognised 

although it is not a significant contributor at present. The West Coast District is mostly a destination 

in itself with its own attractions, but is also a gateway to the Northern Cape and Namibia via the N7 

(D. Cornelius, 4/5/2011). The area is valued by stakeholders for its rural qualities and described as 

‘quiet’, ‘unspoilt’, ‘unaffected’ and ‘laid back’ with low levels of crime and an abundance of natural 

beauty (including the flowers and cultural heritage). The West Coast in general is also appreciated 

for its ‘vast openness’ and ‘simplicity’ (M. Daiber, 7/6/2011). In Darling, the main attraction is the 

xiv

wildflowers; culture; wine; and events such as the Darling Marathon and Voorkamer Fest. In 

Yzerfontein the attraction is the beach (blue flag) and watersports, fishing, whale watching, the 

greenbelt and ‘fantastic accommodation’ (A. Van Ellewee, W. Badenhorst and B. Geel, 3/5/2011). 

Recently, the CWCBR has launched Cape West Coast Trails which includes walks, hikes, canoeing and 

cycling through the wider Biosphere Reserve. There is also a current initiative to establish the West 

Coast as a ‘place of heritage’ through a network of living heritage, fossils and rock art linking places 

like the !Khwa ttu San Centre, the Fossil Park, and rock art sites. This evidence shows that there is 

already a nascent tourism industry in the area which has considerable social, cultural and 

environmental assets, and the potential to develop this further. 

The local population is characterised by low levels of education and skills and low incomes however 

unemployment levels are moderate in comparison to national levels. There is an increasing trend of 

out‐migration of white youth for employment elsewhere and in‐migration of White mature age 

groups for retirement or commuting lifestyle; whilst the black youth are in‐migrating to seek 

employment. It is evident that there is an increasing disparity between the rich and the poor. The 

town of Darling itself is divided by the railway line which also delineates two socio‐economic groups. 

On the one side there are predominantly white residents, many of which are retirees. A new trend is 

that young people able to work from home, and commute on the odd occasion, are moving to 

Darling (A. Thoma, 4/5/2011). In Darling East, on the other side of the tracks is a predominantly 

coloured population. Unemployment in the town is a problem and a large number of people live in 

government housing and are reliant on social grants (G. Adams, 21/4/2011). The surrounding rural 

areas provide seasonal jobs for some residents of Darling, such as ploughing, planting, pruning, 

spraying and harvesting. However, the majority of farm work is provided by the labour stock of the 

farm workers and their extended families (G. Adams, 21/4/2011 and A. Thoma, 4/5/2011). 

Yzerfontein is a holiday town with nearly half of all residents being permanent (A. Van Ellewee, W. 

Badenhorst, and B. Geel, 3/5/2011). It is said to be expanding and developing as is evident by the 

number of active building sites within the town. Jacobuskraal is located in the north west quadrant 

of the Junction between the R27 and the R315 and comprises approximately 25 small holding plots 

of about 10 ha each. 

Land uses around the site specifically are mostly rural, however, there are a number of other land 

uses including the following: Bambe Zonke B&B in Jacobuskraal Estate; the West Coast Farm Stall on 

the south west quadrant of the junction which also houses a CWCBR information hub; and the Tienie 

Versveld Wildflower Reserve under the custodianship of SANBI, ±2.5 km south east of the site. 

Within a 10 km radius, there are also a number of nature / game reserves such as the !Khwa ttu San 

Cultural and Education Centre; the West Coast National Park; Buffelsfontein Game and Nature 

Reserve; Jakkalsfontein Nature Reserve; and Rondeberg Nature Reserve. 

In the wider area, in terms of infrastructure and services, there is considered to be a good transport 

network despite a lack of public transport in rural areas. There are relatively high levels of access to 

energy and piped water, with sanitation less widespread. Human immunodeficiency virus/ Acquired 

immune deficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS) and Tuberculosis (TB) are key health concerns, although 

not as critical compared to national levels. There is reported that crime linked to alcohol and 

substance abuse is a key social problem. 

xv

ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

The environmental impacts have been assessed by the respective specialists and the findings are 

summarised below: 

Botany 

During construction, there will be a loss of natural vegetation which is the primary direct botanical 

impact. About half will be permanent, and the other half will be temporary, as trampled and partly 

disturbed areas should eventually recover. A subset of the primary direct impact is loss of portions of 

the local populations of some of the plant Species of Conservation Concern. Reduction in often 

already small population numbers below a certain (usually unknown) threshold is known to have 

negative consequences for that population, and may lead to local extinction of that species. Option 1 

would require the loss of 3 ha and this is assessed as a low‐medium negative impact. Option 2 would 

require the loss of 4 ha and this is assessed as a medium‐high negative impact. Option 1 is the 

preferred development option, and may have a low positive overall botanical impact if all mitigation 

proposed is enforced. 

During operation, indirect negative impacts such as habitat fragmentation; disruption of natural fire 

regime; and possible introduction and spread of alien invasive plants and insects, are likely to occur, 

but will probably be relatively insignificant, especially in the context of the ongoing farming 

operations in the area. For Option 1 this negative impact is assessed as low‐medium without 

mitigation, for Option 2 this is assessed as medium‐high without mitigation. Fortunately these 

impacts are relatively easily managed. 

During decommissioning, disturbance to surrounding natural vegetation and associated facilitated 

alien plant invasion is assessed as low‐medium significance without mitigation for both Options 1 

and 2. 

Cumulative negative effects are likely to be important (although not critical), given the number of 

similar proposed projects in the region. 

Potentially positive ecological impacts have been identified, namely the opportunity to formally 

conserve significant priority areas of natural habitat in the study area (basically on‐site offsets or 

conservation contributions), by registering the medium and high sensitivity portions of the property 

with CapeNature’s Stewardship Programme for private landowners. The Applicant has expressed 

their willingness to commit to reasonable and feasible conservation measures in partnership with 

CapeNature or an alternative organisation that can independently guide and monitor the 

management of the land. Most of the natural vegetation in the study area is not currently being 

adequately or optimally managed in ecological terms. 

Another positive impact could arise through the opportunity to fund and implement an Operational 

Environmental Management Plan (OEMP) throughout the site, focussing on the most important 

issues, which are alien vegetation control, fire management, rehabilitation of ecological corridors, 

and grazing impacts (livestock). 

On this basis, the status quo is not positive for the remaining natural vegetation on site, as the alien 

vegetation problem in the study area is not being managed, many areas show signs of being heavily 

grazed and trampled by livestock, fire management is not optimal, and there is no guarantee that 

the important areas of remaining natural vegetation on site will continue to be conserved. On 

balance the status quo is deemed to have a low negative impact on the natural vegetation on site. 

xvi

Avifauna 

Impacts on avifauna could result from collisions with turbines; displacement of priority species; or 

habitat loss which may also result in displacement of priority species due to the footprint of the 

Project. 

Estimated collision rates have been calculated based on monitoring of priority bird species and all 

raptor species commuting over the development site. It would seem from analysing the data 

collected that the Project will not pose a significant collision mortality risk to priority species, with 

Jackal Buzzards emerging as the highest potential risk at an estimated 0.49 mortalities per year. The 

greatest collision risk is posed by the seven turbines on the slope of Moedmaag Hill (i.e. four existing 

and three proposed), in the following conditions: between 11h00 and 17h00; in spring/early summer 

i.e. between October and December; and in moderate to strong winds with a southerly and westerly 

orientation. 

With Jackal Buzzards specifically, the estimated avoidance rate may be more than 98%, as the birds 

observed on site are most likely a resident pair. They have not displayed any behaviour to avoid the 

moving blades, and have clearly become used to the four existing turbines. Whether this would also 

be the case with inexperienced, juvenile birds remains to be seen. 

Fortunately, the phenomenon of mass migrations involving thousands of birds is not a feature of the 

Project site, however, migratory raptors, i.e. Steppe Buzzard Buteo vulpinus and Yellow‐billed Kite 

Milvus aegyptius were recorded during the summer and autumn monitoring period, when the 

species are present in southern Africa. This translates into an estimated collision rate of 0.61 and 

0.63 birds per year for kites and buzzards respectively. 

In terms of existing information, raptors, and particularly species constantly migrating over and 

through a turbine string, are particularly prone to collision with the blades. While Yellow‐billed Kite 

and Steppe Buzzard are not threatened species, if the Project causes high numbers of casualties of 

these migrant raptors, this would constitute a significant negative impact of the facility. 

The potential for collisions with the turbines due to lights is not envisaged to be significant, primarily 

because the phenomenon of mass nocturnal passerine migrations is not a feature of the study area. 

However, the potential effect on nocturnal flamingo movement is unknown. 

Bird mortality due to collisions with the turbine blades is assessed as a negative impact of low 

significance to decision‐making, without mitigation. Given the potential inaccuracy of the predicted 

collision rates as a rough indicator of risk, and the basis on which these assessments have been 

made, the only way to verify this would be to conduct carcass searches during the period when the 

above birds are present, as described under ‘Conclusions and Recommendations’ below. 

International studies have been employed to establish the likelihood of displacement of birds due to 

the presence of the facility. Although more studies are needed and more should be peer‐reviewed in 

the public domain, research indicates that, with few exceptions, the displacement effect of wind 

developments on raptors is low to negligible (Madders and Whitfield, 2008). This trend seems to be 

supported by the results of the limited post‐construction monitoring conducted at the existing four 

turbines, and the significance of the negative impact has been assessed as low. 

At the Project site, direct habitat loss is not regarded as a major impact on avifauna, relative to other 

potential impacts such as disturbance or collisions. The impact is assessed as a negative impact of 

low significance to decision‐making, without mitigation. 

xvii

It is impossible to say at this stage what the cumulative impact of all the proposed developments 

along the West Coast will be on birds, firstly because there is no baseline to measure it against, and 

secondly because the extent of actual impacts will only become known once a few wind farms are 

developed. It is therefore imperative that pre‐construction and post‐construction monitoring is 

implemented at all the new proposed sites. 

From a potential bird impact perspective, there is very difference between the two proposed 

alternatives. The seven turbines on slope of Moedmaag Hill are likely to pose the biggest risk of 

collision, and the position of these is identical for both lay‐outs. The potential displacement footprint 

of the two alternative lay‐outs are also very similar, resulting in no clear preference from a bird 

impact perspective. 

Visual 

The visual impact assessment focussed on a number of criteria to assess the turbine configurations 

for Option 1 and 2; the substation; and the internal access roads. These are briefly set out below: 

Visibility of facilities: Views from the R27 and R315 adjacent to the site are the most significant and 

could affect the most receptors including tourists. The visibility of the wind turbines is limited from 

some viewpoints because of being screened by Moedmaag Hill and view shadows created by the 

hilly topography generally. 

Visibility of navigation and security lights at night: Visibility, particularly at night, depends on the 

amount of security lighting. 

Visual exposure (zone of visual influence or view catchment): The Project will be visible for up to 

about a 10 km radius. The visibility is determined by ridgelines. The view catchment is partly 

confined by topography and includes view shadow areas. However, wind turbines are tall but 

slender. The view catchment area would only be marginally increased by the addition of 14 to 16 

wind turbines over the original four turbines. 

Visual sensitivity (landscape features): The landscape is open, and exposed to the west. Turbines are 

visible on the skyline and the existing wind farm intrudes on the rural landscape and scenic routes. 

Landscape integrity (effect on character of the area): The Project contrasts with the rural landscape. 

The existing four turbines and power lines tend are considered as existing disturbance and reduce 

the visual significance. 

Cultural landscape (Heritage value of the landscape): The area is traditionally a farming area and the 

site contains minimal heritage features. 

Visual absorption capacity (VAC) (lack of concealment): The open landscape has a moderately low 

potential to visually absorb the wind turbines and infrastructure. There is some screening by 

topography, but little opportunity for screening with trees. 

Cumulative visual impact: The Project would add to the four existing turbines, but remains a fairly 

small facility. An additional facility is proposed nearby at Rheboksfontein. 

Overall this results in a visual impact rating of medium‐high for both for both Option 1 and 2 

turbines; a medium rating for the substation; and a medium rating for the internal access roads. 

The difference between the Option 1 and Option 2 layouts are assessed as marginal in terms of 

visual impact, the viewsheds and visibility as shown in photomontages being similar in both cases. 

xviii

However, Option 1 would have fewer turbines and be further from the R27 Route, and although the 

turbines are slightly higher, Option 1 would create marginally less visual clutter on the skyline. 

Heritage 

No significant issues aside from those related to the visual impacts were noted during the scoping 

assessment and thus an assessment was scoped out of the process. 

Noise 

Various types of construction equipment would result in noise impacts at the nearest noise sensitive 

receptors. This could typically include overhead and mobile cranes; front end loaders; excavators; 

bull dozer; and piling machine. When a number of pieces of equipment are used simultaneously, the 

recorded noise levels for each one can be added logarithmically. Since noise is attenuated by 

distance, this has been calculated at various distances from the site to determine the distance at 

which the ambient level will be reached. Noise will also be attenuated by topography and 

atmospheric conditions such as temperature, humidity, wind speed and direction but is ignored for 

this purpose. Therefore, the distance calculated would be representative of maximum distances to 

reach ambient noise levels and indicates a worst case scenario. It was calculated that if the ambient 

noise level is at 45dB(A), the construction noise will be similar to the ambient level at approximately 

1,280 m from the noise source, if the noise characteristics are similar. This indicates that all 

receptors within this range are likely experience this temporary noise impact. Beyond this distance, 

the noise level will be below the ambient noise and will therefore have little impact. This, however, 

applies to the construction noise and light wind conditions. In all likelihood, the construction noise 

will have little impact on the surrounding community as it will most likely occur during the day when 

the ambient noise is louder and there are unstable atmospheric conditions. The impact of 

construction noise on the surrounding environment is assessed as having a medium negative 

significance without mitigation. This is considered to be the same for decommissioning. 

During operation, the effects of low frequency noise (including sleep disturbance, nausea, and 

vertigo) are unlikely to impact upon residents due to the distance between the plant and the nearest 

communities. Sources of low frequency noise also include wind, train movements and vehicular 

traffic, which are all sources that are closer to the residential areas. 

Ten noise sensitive receptors were identified around the site, ranging from the Windhoek Worker’s 

Cottage at 523 m away, to the Droeivlei Farm at 4822 m away. For Option 1 and 2, it was calculated 

that the noise produced by the wind turbines will exceed the 45dB(A) day/night limit only at the 

Windhoek Farm Workers homes at the 12m/s wind speed which was the maximum speed used. As 

the wind speed increases, the ambient noise also increases and masks the wind turbine noise. The 

critical wind speeds are thus between 4‐6 m/s when there is a possibility of little masking. At 12m/s 

the wind speed is such that it is highly unlikely that the turbine noise will be heard. The location of 

the Option 1 and 2 wind turbine generators all met the recommended 500 m setback distance from 

the existing noise sensitive receptors. The impact of the operational noise on the surrounding 

environment is assessed as having a medium negative significance to decision‐making, without 

mitigation. 

Social 

The main benefits during all phases of the Project are the employment training and skills 

development opportunities with associated benefits to the economy through the multiplier effect. 

xix

However, the highly specialised wind energy industry and lack of local skills could mean that most 

the benefits for locals can not be maximised. The significance is assessed as low positive for all 

phases of the Project. 

During construction, disruption to neighbouring farms as a result of additional farm workers, 

introduction of crime and other social ills from new workers and general construction damage and 

disruption have all been assessed to have a low negative impact. Construction activities are 

temporary and the small workforce would not be accommodated on site. The Visual Impact 

Assessment (VIA) has indicated that the visual impact during the construction phase would be 

medium (substation and roads) to high‐medium (turbines). The social impacts arising from 

decommissioning are similar and have the same significance as those predicted during construction. 

Potential negative impacts could include those to property prices; and to community cohesion, 

however these have both been assessed as neutral and therefore no mitigation is proposed. Impacts 

on tourism are assessed to be negative low significance. The negative impact on noise has been 

assessed as having a medium significance. The impact on road safety has been assessed as low. The 

VIA has indicated that the visual impact during the construction phase would be medium (substation 

and roads) to high‐medium (turbines). 

The cumulative impacts on tourism are negative and assessed as medium‐high. The cumulative 

impacts in terms of renewable energy generation are positive and assessed as medium‐high, 

similarly the cumulative impacts on employment and the economy are positive and medium‐high. 

In terms of social impacts, the assessment has found no difference in significance of impacts arising 

from both Option 1 and Option 2. While the majority of stakeholders did express a preference for 

Option 1 as it is considered less disruptive in terms of landtake and number of turbines. The No‐Go 

Option would benefit to social environment in that it would maintain the status quo and not incur 

disruption, noise, visual, road safety, and tourism impacts. The impact is therefore neutral. However, 

there would be an opportunity cost in terms of contributing to the renewable energy targets for the 

Western Cape Province and nationally and also terms of job creation, skills development and indirect 

economic benefits. This is assessed to be a low negative impact because of the scale of the Project 

and the fairly insignificant permanent employment opportunities. 

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

Botany 

In order to reduce negative impacts and enhance the positive impacts, the detailed mitigation 

measures recommended by Helme (2011) have been summarised below. All mitigation 

requirements refer to Option 1 as the preferred option. 

During construction and decommissioning an ECO must be present on‐site. 

Prior to development, block burns should be undertaken in the main patches of high and 

medium sensitivity natural vegetation, and this should be repeated on a 12 to 15 year cycle. 

During construction, and prior to development within high or medium sensitivity areas a 

major plant Search and Rescue programme should be undertaken. 

Construction methodology, including trench excavation, and location of laydown and 

storage areas, must be done in accordance with the botanists recommendations and 

supervised by the ECO. 

xx

Rehabilitation should only commence once all construction related disturbance associated 

with the Project has been completed. Compacted areas that are no longer needed after 

construction may need to be ripped or scarified to break up the compacted surface. The 

areas should then be sown with seeds indigenous to the site. 

It is strongly recommended that the landowners sign an agreement indicating that they 

would refrain from grazing livestock in the high and medium sensitivity vegetation areas in 

the main winter and spring growing and flowering periods (1 May – end October). This will 

facilitate natural rehabilitation. 

Ongoing alien plant monitoring and removal should be undertaken on all areas of natural 

vegetation on an annual basis applying Department of Water Affairs approved methodology. 

All high and medium sensitivity areas of natural vegetation on site must be fully cleared of 

invasive aliens within three years of project approval (for the initial clearing), and thereafter 

there should support less than 1% alien cover in these areas in all following years. Following 

decommissioning, alien plant management should continue for three years. 

All feasible (as determined by CapeNature) areas of high and medium botanical sensitivity 

(estimated to be at least 250ha in extent) must be formally registered as conservation areas 

with CapeNature’s Stewardship Programme, within one year of project initiation (subject to 

CapeNature capacity, and the level of agreement/contract will be at CapeNature’s 

discretion). Associated with this contract will be a requirement for an environmental 

management plan and environmental auditing to ensure that management (the 

rehabilitation and alien vegetation management) is adequately carried out. In this case all 

costs associated with rezoning and management of these areas will remain the responsibility 

of the applicant and/or landowners. The Applicant is willing to commit to reasonable and 

feasible conservation measures in partnership with CapeNature or an alternative 

organisation that can independently guide and monitor the management of the land. 

The study area presents a viable opportunity for the construction and operation of a wind energy 

facility that will not have major negative botanical impacts, provided that the important mitigation 

requirements identified by the botanist are implemented. Option 1 is the preferred development 

option, and this is in turn preferable to the No‐Go Option, provided that the important mitigation 

requirements detailed by the botanist are adequately implemented. 

Avifauna 

Bird mortality due to collisions with the turbine blades was assessed as an impact of low negative 

significance. However, because the estimated collision rate is merely a rough indicator of risk it, it is 

necessary to verify this estimate with actual carcass searches on site. These should be done in 

accordance with the ‘Best practice guidelines for avian monitoring and impact mitigation at 

proposed wind energy development sites in southern Africa – Version 1’ (Jenkins et al, 2011). The 

frequency of these surveys will be informed by assessments of scavenge and decomposition rates 

conducted in the initial stages of the monitoring period. Subject to the results of the 

decomposition/scavenge trials, it is proposed that a site survey is conducted twice a month for an 

initial minimum period of 12 months. After the initial 12 month period, the need for further 

monitoring will be evaluated again. If the results of the monitoring indicate a significant mortality 

rate for priority species, appropriate mitigation measures would need to be implemented. These 

could include any or a combination of the following: 

xxi

Relocation of turbines responsible for particular collision mortality; 

Halting operation during peak flight periods, or reducing rotor speed, to reduce the risk of 

collision mortality; and 

Negotiating appropriate off‐set compensation for turbine related collision mortality. 

Displacement of priority species by the presence of the turbines was assessed to have a negative 

impact of low significance. Due to the relatively minor significance of this impact on priority species, 

no specific mitigation measures are recommended. 

Habitat loss and resulting displacement of priority species was also assessed as a low negative 

impact. In order to minimise loss of habitat, the infrastructure footprint must be restricted to the 

minimum, in accordance with the botanist’s recommendations. 

In terms of cumulative impacts, it is imperative that pre‐construction and post‐construction 

monitoring is implemented at all the new proposed sites on the West Coast to establish a baseline. 

This should be undertaken in accordance with the ‘Best practice guidelines for avian monitoring and 

impact mitigation at proposed wind energy development sites in southern Africa – Version 1’ 

(Jenkins et al, 2011). 

In terms of potential impacts on avifauna resulting from the Project, there is no preference for either 

Option 1 or 2 because they both have very similar layouts and footprints. 

Visual 

It is difficult to mitigate the visual effects of the wind turbines, however a number of general 

mitigation recommendations for the wind farm infrastructure are set out below: 

A visual buffer between the Project and the main arterial R27 and R315 routes should be 

provided, given their scenic value. The setback is constrained by farm boundaries and 

spacing between turbines, but should be as large as possible. 

The light colour of the existing wind turbines shows up strongly in the landscape. Ideally the 

turbines should be light grey when seen against the sky, and a darker greenish grey colour 

on the lower half when seen against a landscape backdrop. 

A more meandering alignment for the connecting internal access roads should be 

considered so that they follow the curve of the hillslope rather than a straight line against 

the grain of the topography. (Re‐alignment should take into account the botanical 

constraints). 

A visual buffer between the proposed new substation and the R27 Route should be 

provided. The location of the substation is determined by a number of engineering factors, 

including the existing Eskom powerline, but should not be nearer to the R27 than the 

existing substation. It should also be placed as close to the existing substation as possible to 

contain the visual impact. Consideration should be given to combining it with the existing 

substation. 

The architectural character of the substation building should be similar to that of the existing 

substation, to be in sympathy with the West Coast architectural idiom. The transformer 

infrastructure should be placed on the inland side of the substation, away from the R27. 

Cables should be located underground as far as possible. Berms and planting could be used 

to screen transformers and other infrastructure. 

xxii

Outdoor lighting should be minimised and confined to the substation. Lights should be low‐ 

level and fitted with reflectors to minimise light spillage. 

Unnecessary signage on the site should be avoided. No corporate signage or billboards 

should be permitted, except for discrete signage at the entrance to the site. Where 

mandatory signage is required, this should be fixed to buildings where possible to avoid free‐ 

standing signs in the landscape. 

Drainage from the access roads should be led to grassed swales and siltation ponds to 

prevent unsightly dongas forming on the site. All site disturbance and construction areas 

should be rehabilitated / revegetated to avoid unsightly scars in the landscape. 

The significance of the impacts for the turbines in both Option 1 and 2 will remain as medium‐high 

as they cannot be mitigated. The visual impact of the substation would be reduced from medium to 

medium‐low through application of the recommendations above, similarly the visual impact from 

the internal access roads would be reduced to medium‐low. 

In conclusion, it is not anticipated that the proposed Project would have any fatal flaws from a visual 

perspective, given that one portion is already a wind farm, and provided the recommended 

mitigation measures are adopted. Option 1 is preferred to Option 2 However Option 1 would have 

fewer turbines and be further from the R27 Route, and although the turbines are slightly higher, 

Option 1 would create marginally less visual clutter on the skyline. Monitoring, especially during the 

construction phase, is essential. 

Heritage 

No significant issues aside from those related to the visual impacts were noted during the scoping 

assessment and thus an assessment was scoped out of the process. 

Noise 

To reduce the negative impact of the construction noise (and similarly the decommissioning noise) 

on the surrounding environment from a medium significance to a low significance, the following 

recommendations are made: 

All construction operations should only occur during daylight hours if possible. 

No construction piling should occur at night. Piling should only occur during the day to take 

advantage of unstable atmospheric conditions. 

Construction staff should receive “noise sensitivity” training. 

An ambient noise survey should be conducted during the construction phase. 

There is no preference between the options. To reduce the negative impact of the operational noise 

on the surrounding environment from a medium significance to a low significance, the following 

recommendations are made: 

Social 

The noise impact from the wind turbine generators should be measured during the 

operational phase, to ensure that the impact is within the recommended limits. 

The employment, training and skills development opportunities with associated benefits to the 

economy through the multiplier effect, could be enhanced through implementation of local 

employment and procurement policy. This could increase the benefits construction to low‐medium. 

xxiii



disruption have all been assessed to have a low negative impact. This can be reduced to a negligible 

impact in all cases through the implementation of a comprehensive employee induction programme; 

measures to control dust and noise; a complaints procedure; and rehabilitation. These best practice 

measures are typically covered in more detail in the CEMP. The VIA has indicated that the visual 

impact during the construction phase would be medium (substation and roads) to high‐medium 

(turbines). The visual impact of the turbines cannot be mitigated through screening, however, the 

substation could be screened by berms and access roads could be blended with contours which 

would reduce the those impacts to medium‐low. The social impacts arising from decommissioning 

are similar and have the same significance as those predicted during construction. 

The social benefits during operation have been discussed above, however, there are a number of 

potential negative impacts. Impacts on property prices and community cohesion have both been 

assessed as neutral and therefore no mitigation is proposed. Impacts on tourism are assessed to be 

negative low significance and could be mitigated through site tours and publicity, and will remain 

low. The impact on noise has been assessed as having a negative medium significance, which could 

be mitigated through noise monitoring to reduce to low significance. The impact on road safety has 

been assessed as low and site tours could assist in reducing driver distraction. The VIA has indicated 

that the visual impact during the construction phase would be medium (substation and roads) to 

high‐medium (turbines). The visual impact of the turbines cannot be mitigated through screening, 

however, the substation could be screened by berms and access roads could be blended with 

contours which would reduce the those impacts to medium‐low. 


impacts in terms of renewable energy generation are assessed as medium‐high positive, similarly the 

cumulative impacts on employment and the economy are medium‐high positive. No mitigation is 

proposed. 










The Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm is to date the smallest wind farm proposed on the Cape 

West Coast and the extension to an existing facility, the Darling National Demonstration Project, 

which has not revealed any material social impacts to date. In terms of potential social impacts 

arising from the Project, the SIA has found that there is no reason for the competent authority to 

reject the application on social grounds. 

Impact Statement for the Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 

The avoidance of negative environmental impacts, wherever possible, has been adopted as the 

approach for this environmental assessment process, with mitigation measures as a secondary 

xxiv

eaction to those impacts which cannot be prevented. Residual negative impacts which remain after 

mitigation are mostly of low or negligible significance for the avifaunal, social and noise impacts. 

Those remaining impacts which cannot be mitigated include the permanent loss of sensitive 

vegetation; 3 ha for Option 1 (assessed as low‐medium); and 4 ha for Option 2 (assessed as medium‐ 

high), and the visual impacts of the turbines (medium‐high), the substation (medium‐low) and the 

internal access roads (medium‐low). 

An important benefit will be the employment, training and skills development, and associated 

indirect benefits for the local economy generated during all phases of the Project, although this is 

considered to be of low significance during operation, or low‐medium significance during 

construction, because of the limited number of jobs and the requirement for skills that may not be 

readily available in the area. In comparison to the status quo, the botanical environment would be 

enhanced mainly through the management of the existing alien vegetation; control of trampling and 

grazing by livestock; fire management; and conservation of remaining natural vegetation. 

Option 1 and Option 2 were comparatively assessed by the specialists. In most cases it was found 

that there was no preference, or that the difference was marginal. However the botanical impact 

assessment found that Option 1 was more favourable on the basis that there would be fewer 

turbines and therefore a smaller footprint, and also in terms of turbine location, the highly sensitive 

areas could be avoided to a greater extent. There is also a technical preference for Option 1 which 

yields a higher energy output based on the locations of N77 turbines in relation to the wind 

resources; this is when compared to the efficiency of the N60 turbines used in Option 2. 

There are a number of potentially significant cumulative impacts which would arise from the 

development when considered in conjunction with the numerous other renewable energy proposals 

in the West Coast District Municipality. The impacts on botany are assessed as low negative with the 

possibility of low positive should Option 1 be pursued and the ecological mitigation successful in 

conserving remaining natural vegetation. The cumulative impacts on avifauna are potentially 

significant although a lack of knowledge requires monitoring to confirm this. The cumulative impacts 

on the economy and employment would be a high positive impact for the region with many indirect 

socio‐economic benefits. Cumulative visual impacts of the turbines are negative and assessed as 

medium‐high because of their scale in the landscape. 

The Project is further supported by the current policy context and contributes to climate change 

mitigation through the investment in clean, renewable energy generation and this cumulative 

impact is assessed has being of high significance. 

The No‐Go Option results in no change to the status quo which would be preferable for avifauna, 

noise, and some social aspects of the development such as impact on tourism and road safety. 

However the No‐Go Option may not necessarily be preferable for all disciplines such as botany which 

would benefit from the opportunity for management and conservation. Social benefits such as the 

employment, training and business opportunities would not be realised. At a broader level, the No‐ 

Go Option would represent a lost opportunity for South Africa to supplement its current energy 

needs with clean, renewable energy. 

On the basis of the information above, the EEU finds no reason or fatal flaw which should prevent 

the Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm from being granted environmental authorisation on the 

basis that the recommendations within this EIR are adhered to. Option 1 is supported as the 

preferred option. 

xxv

xxvi

ACRONYMS 

GLOSSARY OF TERMS 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 1 

1.1 BACKGROUND TO THE PROJECT ............................................................................................. 1 

1.2 THE SCOPING PHASE ............................................................................................................... 5 

1.3 ASSESSMENT PHASE ................................................................................................................ 5 

1.4 PURPOSE OF THE EIR ............................................................................................................... 6 

ROLEPLAYERS .......................................................................................................................................... 7 

1.5 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 7 

1.6 APPLICANT .............................................................................................................................. 7 

1.7 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PRACTITIONER .................................................................... 7 

1.8 INTERESTED AND AFFECTED PARTIES (I&APS) ........................................................................ 8 

1.9 COMMENTING AUTHORITIES .................................................................................................. 9 

1.10 COMPETENT AUTHORITY ...................................................................................................... 10 

2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................................. 11 

2.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION .............................................................................................. 11 

2.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................................... 13 

2.3 WIND TURBINE TECHNOLOGY .............................................................................................. 13 

2.4 CONSTRUCTION .................................................................................................................... 14 

2.4.1 Construction Period ...................................................................................................... 14 

2.4.2 Construction Activities .................................................................................................. 15 

2.4.3 Construction Labour and Working Hours ..................................................................... 18 

2.5 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ......................................................................................... 18 

2.5.1 Permanent Infrastructure ............................................................................................. 18 

2.5.2 Operational and Maintenance Activities ...................................................................... 19 

2.5.3 Operational Labour ....................................................................................................... 20 

2.5.4 Surrounding Land Uses ................................................................................................. 20 

2.5.5 Operational Period ........................................................................................................ 20 

2.6 DECOMMISSIONING .............................................................................................................. 20 

2.7 THE PROPOSED DARLING EDUCATION, TRAINING AND VISITOR CENTRE ............................ 21 

2.8 INTERNATIONAL CARBON OFFSET MECHANISMS AND FUNDING ........................................ 22 

3 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................................... 25 

3.1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 25 

3.2 NO‐GO ALTERNATIVE ............................................................................................................ 25 

xxvii

3.3 SITE AND LOCATION ALTERNATIVES ..................................................................................... 26 

3.4 TECHNOLOGY ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................... 26 

3.5 SITE LAYOUT ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................................. 27 

4 NEED AND DESIRABILITY ............................................................................................................... 29 

4.1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 29 

4.2 NEED ...................................................................................................................................... 29 

4.3 DESIRABILITY ......................................................................................................................... 32 

5 LEGAL, PLANNING AND POLICY CONTEXT .................................................................................... 35 

5.1 SUMMARY OF LEGAL, PLANNING AND POLICY FRAMEWORK .............................................. 35 

5.2 ENVIRONMENTAL LEGAL AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK................................................. 36 

5.2.1 The Constitution, Act 108 of 1996 ................................................................................ 36 

5.2.2 National Environmental Management Act (107 of 1998) (NEMA) ............................... 37 

5.2.3 Environment Conservation Act (73 of 1989) (ECA) ....................................................... 39 

5.2.4 National Heritage Resources Act (25 of 1999) (NHRA) ................................................. 39 

5.2.5 National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (10 of 2004) .......................... 39 

5.2.6 National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act (57 of 2003) ................... 40 

5.2.7 National Water Act (36 of 1998) ................................................................................... 40 

5.2.8 National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act (39 of 2004)............................ 40 

5.2.9 National Environmental Management: Waste Act (59 of 2008) .................................. 41 

5.2.10 Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act (43 of 1983) (CARA) ................................. 41 

5.2.11 National Veld and Forest Fire Act (101 of 1998) ........................................................... 41 

5.2.12 Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act (70 of 1970) ......................................................... 42 

5.2.13 Occupational Health and Safety Act (85 of 1993) ......................................................... 42 

5.2.14 Hazardous Chemical Substances Regulations (1995) ................................................... 42 

5.3 ENERGY LEGAL AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK ................................................................ 43 

5.3.1 National Energy Act (34 of 2008) .................................................................................. 43 

5.3.2 White Paper on the Energy Policy of the Republic of South Africa (1998) ................... 43 

5.3.3 White Paper on Renewable Energy (2003) ................................................................... 43 

5.3.4 Renewable Energy Feed‐In Tariff (REFIT) ...................................................................... 44 

5.3.5 Integrated Resources Plan (IRP) 2011 ........................................................................... 44 

5.3.6 Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan for the Western Cape (2008)...................... 45 

5.3.7 White Paper on Sustainable Energy for the Western Cape (2008) ............................... 46 

5.3.8 Strategic Initiative to Introduce Commercial Land Based Wind Energy Development to 

the Western Cape (2006) .............................................................................................................. 46 

5.4 DEVELOPMENTAL AND SPATIAL POLICY ............................................................................... 49 

5.4.1 Western Cape Provincial Spatial Development Plan (2009) ......................................... 49 

5.4.2 West Coast District Spatial Development Framework (WCDM‐SDF) (2007) ................ 49 

5.4.3 West Coast District Municipality Integrated Development Plan (2010‐2014) ............. 50 

5.4.4 West Coast Tourism Implementation Strategy (2010‐2015) ........................................ 50 

5.4.5 Swartland Municipality Integrated Development Plan (2007‐2011) ............................ 50 

5.4.6 Cape West Coast Biosphere Reserve Spatial Planning .................................................. 51 

xxviii

5.5 EIA SPECIFIC GUIDANCE ........................................................................................................ 52 

5.5.1 National ......................................................................................................................... 52 

5.5.2 Provincial ....................................................................................................................... 52 

6 EIA PROCESS AND METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................. 55 

6.1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 55 

6.2 SCOPING PHASE .................................................................................................................... 56 

6.2.1 Public Participation ....................................................................................................... 56 

6.2.2 Specialist Studies ........................................................................................................... 58 

6.2.3 Draft Scoping Report ..................................................................................................... 59 

6.3 EIA PHASE .............................................................................................................................. 59 

6.3.1 Public Participation ....................................................................................................... 59 

6.3.2 Methodology for Assessing Significance ....................................................................... 60 

6.3.3 Specialist’s Detailed Methodologies ............................................................................. 62 

6.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ......................................................................................................... 68 

7 DESCRIPTION OF THE BASELINE ENVIRONMENT .......................................................................... 71 

7.1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 71 

7.2 GEOGRAPHICAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE CONTEXT ............................................................... 71 

7.3 LAND USE AND OWNERSHIP ................................................................................................. 71 

7.4 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT ..................................................................................................... 71 

7.5 BOTANY ................................................................................................................................. 72 

7.5.1 Vegetation Types .......................................................................................................... 72 

7.5.2 Main Habitats ................................................................................................................ 74 

7.5.3 Ecological Drivers within these Vegetation Types ........................................................ 78 

7.5.4 Ecological Corridors ...................................................................................................... 79 

7.5.5 Rare Plants and Areas of Specific Sensitivity ................................................................ 81 

7.6 AVIFAUNA ............................................................................................................................. 84 

7.6.1 Vegetation Types and Bird Habitats .............................................................................. 84 

7.6.2 Avifauna in the Study Area ........................................................................................... 87 

7.7 VISUAL ................................................................................................................................... 90 

7.8 HERITAGE .............................................................................................................................. 93 

7.8.1 The Receiving Environment .......................................................................................... 93 

7.8.2 Heritage Context ........................................................................................................... 95 

7.9 NOISE .................................................................................................................................... 96 

7.9.1 Sensitive Receptors ....................................................................................................... 96 

7.9.2 Ambient Noise ............................................................................................................... 96 

7.10 SOCIAL ................................................................................................................................... 98 

7.10.1 Overview of the Area .................................................................................................... 98 

7.10.2 Statistical Profile of the Study Area .............................................................................. 99 

7.10.3 Social Environment ..................................................................................................... 107 

8 IMPACTS ON BOTANY ................................................................................................................. 111 

xxix

8.1 CONSTRUCTION PHASE (MOSTLY DIRECT IMPACTS) .......................................................... 111 

8.2 OPERATIONAL PHASE (MOSTLY INDIRECT BOTANICAL IMPACTS) ...................................... 114 

8.2.1 Habitat Fragmentation ................................................................................................ 114 

8.2.2 Fire Regime ................................................................................................................. 114 

8.2.3 Alien Invasives ............................................................................................................. 114 

8.3 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ....................................................................................................... 114 

8.4 ASSESSMENT OF NO‐GO ALTERNATIVE .............................................................................. 115 

8.5 STATEMENT OF IMPACT ...................................................................................................... 115 

8.6 MITIGATION ........................................................................................................................ 115 

9 IMPACTS ON AVIFAUA ................................................................................................................ 121 

9.1 COLLISIONS WITH THE TURBINES ....................................................................................... 121 

9.1.1 Analysis of Monitoring Data ........................................................................................ 121 

9.1.2 Impact Assessment ..................................................................................................... 127 

9.1.3 Mitigation Measures ................................................................................................... 128 

9.2 COLLISIONS WITH THE PROPOSED POWER LINE ................................................................ 128 

9.2.1 Nature of Impact ......................................................................................................... 128 



9.3 DISPLACEMENT ................................................................................................................... 129 

9.3.1 Nature of impact ......................................................................................................... 129 



9.4 HABITAT LOSS ..................................................................................................................... 131 

9.4.1 Nature of Impact ......................................................................................................... 131 


9.4.3 Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 132 

9.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ....................................................................................................... 132 

10 VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................. 135 

10.1 POTENTIAL IMPACTS ........................................................................................................... 135 

10.2 MITIGATION ........................................................................................................................ 137 

11 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................ 141 

11.1 PALAEONTOLOGY ................................................................................................................ 141 

11.2 STONE AGE ARCHAEOLOGY ................................................................................................ 141 

11.3 CULTURAL LANDSCAPES, SCENIC ROUTES AND VISUAL IMPACTS ...................................... 141 

11.4 MITIGATION MEASURES ..................................................................................................... 142 

12 NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT .................................................................................................. 143 

12.1 CONSTRUCTION PHASE ....................................................................................................... 143 

12.2 OPERATIONAL PHASE .......................................................................................................... 144 

12.2.1 Predicted Noise Levels for the Wind Turbines ............................................................ 144 

xxx

12.3 DECOMMISSIONING ............................................................................................................ 149 

12.4 MITIGATION ........................................................................................................................ 149 

12.4.1 Construction Activities ................................................................................................ 149 

12.4.2 Operational Activities .................................................................................................. 149 

12.4.3 Decommissioning Activities ........................................................................................ 149 

13 SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................. 151 

13.1 SUMMARY OF INTERNATIONAL LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................ 151 

13.2 SUMMARY OF CONSULTATIONS ......................................................................................... 153 

13.3 CONSTRUCTION PHASE ....................................................................................................... 154 

13.3.1 Direct Employment and Skills Development ............................................................... 154 

13.3.2 Economic Multiplier Effects ........................................................................................ 154 

13.3.3 Indirect Effects of Additional Workers on Site ............................................................ 155 

13.3.4 Impacts of a non‐local workforce on society .............................................................. 155 

13.3.5 Landscape and Visual Disturbance .............................................................................. 156 

13.3.6 Disruption or Damage to Adjacent Properties ............................................................ 156 

13.4 OPERATIONAL PHASE .......................................................................................................... 157 

13.4.1 Direct Employment and Skills Development ............................................................... 157 

13.4.2 Economic Multiplier Effects ........................................................................................ 158 

13.4.3 Landowner Revenue ................................................................................................... 158 

13.4.4 Diversification of the Local Economy .......................................................................... 158 

13.4.5 Visual Impacts on the Rural Character of the Area ..................................................... 159 

13.4.6 Road Safety ................................................................................................................. 159 

13.4.7 Noise Impacts on the Quality of Life of Nearby Receptors ......................................... 160 

13.4.8 Impact on Property Prices ........................................................................................... 160 

13.4.9 Impact on Community Identity and Cohesion ............................................................ 161 

13.4.10 Impact on Local and Regional Tourism as a Result of Visual Intrusion ................... 162 

13.4.11 Potential Negative or Positive Cumulative Effects within the Region .................... 163 

13.5 DECOMMISSIONING ............................................................................................................ 165 

13.6 ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVES ......................................................................................... 165 

13.6.1 Assessment of Impacts for Option 1 and Option 2 ..................................................... 165 

13.6.2 Assessment of Impacts for the No‐Go Option ............................................................ 165 

14 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................. 171 

14.1 BOTANY ............................................................................................................................... 175 

14.2 AVIFAUNA ........................................................................................................................... 176 

14.3 VISUAL ................................................................................................................................. 178 

14.4 HERITAGE ............................................................................................................................ 179 

14.5 NOISE .................................................................................................................................. 179 

14.6 SOCIAL ................................................................................................................................. 180 

14.7 IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE KERRIE FONTEIN AND DARLING WIND FARM .................... 181 

15 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 183 

xxxi

LIST OF TABLES 

TABLE 0.1: DETAILS OF THE APPLICANT ............................................................................................................................ 7 

TABLE 0.2: DETAILS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PRACTITIONER ............................................................................ 8 

TABLE 0.3: INDEPENDENT SPECIALIST CONSULTANTS .......................................................................................................... 8 

TABLE 0.4: COMMENTING AUTHORITIES RELEVANT TO THE KERRIE FONTEIN AND DARLING WIND FARM ..................................... 9 

TABLE 0.5: DETAILS OF THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY ....................................................................................................... 10 

TABLE 2.1: HISTORY OF THE DARLING NATIONAL DEMONSTRATION PROJECT ........................................................................ 11 

TABLE 3.1: TURBINE MODELS AND CAPACITY ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................... 26 

TABLE 4.1: SUSTAINABLE ENERGY GOALS ....................................................................................................................... 32 

TABLE 5.1: RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL AND DEVELOPMENT LEGISLATION AND POLICY ........................................................... 35 

TABLE 5.2: RELEVANT ENERGY LEGISLATION AND POLICY ................................................................................................... 36 

TABLE 5.3: ACTIVITIES REQUIRING SCOPING AND EIA ....................................................................................................... 38 

TABLE 5.4: ACTIVITIES REQUIRING BASIC ASSESSMENT ..................................................................................................... 38 

TABLE 5.5: LIST OF REGIONAL CRITERIA FOR WIND FARMS .................................................................................................. 48 

TABLE 6.1: RATING OF EXTENT ..................................................................................................................................... 60 

TABLE 6.2: RATING OF DURATION ................................................................................................................................. 61 

TABLE 6.3: RATING OF INTENSITY ................................................................................................................................. 61 

TABLE 6.4: RATING OF PROBABILITY .............................................................................................................................. 61 

TABLE 6.5: EFFECT OF SIGNIFICANCE ON DECISION‐MAKING ............................................................................................... 62 

TABLE 7.1: SPECIES OF CONSERVATION CONCERN IN THE STUDY AREA ................................................................................. 82 

TABLE 7.2: ADDITIONAL SPECIES OF CONSERVATION CONCERN KNOWN FROM NEARBY PROPERTIES .......................................... 84 

TABLE 7.3: RED LISTED SPECIES (EXCLUDING MARINE SPECIES) AND OTHER PRIORITY SPECIES RECORDED IN 3318AD AND 3318AC 

QDGCS BY SABAP1 AND SABAP2 ..................................................................................................................... 88 

TABLE 7.4: LANDSCAPE DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE ............................................................................................................ 90 

TABLE 7.5: POTENTIAL VISIBILITY FROM SELECTED VIEW POINTS .......................................................................................... 92 

TABLE 7.6: LOCATION OF NOISE SENSITIVE RECEPTORS ...................................................................................................... 96 

TABLE 7.7: AMBIENT NOISE RESULTS (DAYTIME) .............................................................................................................. 97 

TABLE 7.8: AMBIENT NOISE RESULTS (NIGHT) ................................................................................................................. 97 

TABLE 7.9: 2010 PROJECTED POPULATION ‐ RACE ......................................................................................................... 100 

TABLE 7.10: GENDER RATIO IN THE SWARTLAND MUNICIPALITY (2001) ............................................................................ 100 

TABLE 7.11: POPULATION STRUCTURE IN THE SWARTLAND MUNICIPALITY (2001) .............................................................. 100 

TABLE 7.12: EDUCATION LEVELS ATTAINED BY ‘OVER 20 YEAR OLDS’ IN THE SWARTLAND MUNICIPALITY (2001) ....................... 101 

TABLE 7.13: EMPLOYMENT STATUS (2001) ................................................................................................................. 101 

TABLE 7.14: INDIVIDUAL MONTHLY INCOME IN THE SWARTLAND MUNICIPALITY (2001) ...................................................... 102 

TABLE 7.15: INDUSTRY AMONGST THE EMPLOYED IN THE SWARTLAND MUNICIPALITY (2001) ............................................... 103 

TABLE 7.16: OCCUPATIONS IN THE SWARTLAND MUNICIPALITY (2001) ............................................................................ 103 

TABLE 7.17: TENURE STATUS IN THE SWARTLAND MUNICIPALITY (2001) .......................................................................... 104 

TABLE 7.18: MODE OF TRAVEL IN THE SWARTLAND MUNICIPALITY (2001) ........................................................................ 104 

TABLE 7.19: ACCESS TO PIPED WATER IN THE SWARTLAND MUNICIPALITY (2001) ............................................................... 105 

TABLE 7.20: ACCESS TO ENERGY IN THE SWARTLAND MUNICIPALITY (2001) ...................................................................... 105 

TABLE 7.21: TOILET FACILITIES IN THE SWARTLAND MUNICIPALITY (2001) ........................................................................ 106 

TABLE 8.1: SIGNIFICANCE OF (PRIMARY) BOTANICAL IMPACTS – OPTION 1 AND OPTION 2 .................................................... 119 

TABLE 9.1: SIGNIFICANCE OF AVIFAUNAL IMPACTS ........................................................................................................ 133 

TABLE 10.1: ASSESSMENT CRITERIA AND POTENTIAL VISUAL IMPACTS / BENEFITS ................................................................. 136 

TABLE 10.2: SUGGESTED CRITERIA FOR VISUAL BUFFERS AT THE KERRIE FONTEIN AND DARLING WIND FARM SITE...................... 138 

TABLE 10.3: SIGNIFICANCE OF VISUAL IMPACTS ............................................................................................................ 139 

xxxii

TABLE 12.1: TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION NOISE ................................................................................................................. 143 

TABLE 12.2: COMBINING DIFFERENT CONSTRUCTION NOISE SOURCES – HIGH IMPACTS (WORST CASE) ..................................... 143 

TABLE 12.3: COMBINING DIFFERENT CONSTRUCTION NOISE SOURCES ‐ LOW IMPACTS ........................................................... 143 

TABLE 12.4: ATTENUATION BY DISTANCE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE (WORST CASE) ....................................................... 144 

TABLE 12.5: SUMMARY OF NOISE IMPACTS ON NOISE SENSITIVE RECEPTORS AT VARIOUS WIND SPEEDS FOR OPTION 1 ................ 145 

TABLE 12.6: SUMMARY OF NOISE IMPACTS ON NOISE SENSITIVE RECEPTORS AT VARIOUS WIND SPEEDS FOR OPTION 2 ................ 147 

TABLE 12.7: SIGNIFICANCE OF NOISE IMPACTS ............................................................................................................. 150 

TABLE 13.1: SIGNIFICANCE OF SOCIAL IMPACTS ............................................................................................................ 167 

TABLE 14.1: SUMMARY OF THE SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS ARISING DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE ................................... 172 

TABLE 14.2: SUMMARY OF THE SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS ARISING DURING THE OPERATIONAL PHASE ..................................... 173 

TABLE 14.3: SUMMARY OF THE SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS ARISING DURING THE DECOMMISSIONING PHASE ............................. 174 

LIST OF FIGURES 

FIGURE 1.1: LOCALITY MAP .......................................................................................................................................... 2 

FIGURE 1.2: OPTION 1 (14 X N77 TURBINES) .................................................................................................................. 3 

FIGURE 1.3: OPTION 2 (16 X N60 TURBINES) .................................................................................................................. 4 

FIGURE 2.1: NORDEX TURBINE (ADAPTED FROM NORDEX SE PHOTO) .................................................................................. 14 

FIGURE 4.1: ANNUAL AVERAGE WIND SPEEDS AT 10M ABOVE GROUND IN MS‐1 (HAGEMANN, 2008) ...................................... 31 

FIGURE 6.1: THE SCOPING AND EIA PROCESS ................................................................................................................. 55 

FIGURE 6.2: RENEWABLE ENERGY FACILITY PROPOSALS IN THE WEST COAST DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY, MAY 2011 (SOURCE: 

WCDM)......................................................................................................................................................... 69 

FIGURE 7.1: EXTRACT OF THE SA VEGETATION MAP (MUCINA AND RUTHERFORD, 2006), SHOWING PATTERN OF ORIGINAL NATURAL 

VEGETATION TYPES IN THE AREA. APPROXIMATE STUDY AREA OUTLINED IN YELLOW, CADASTRES AS PURPLE LINES. ............... 73 

FIGURE 7.2: MAP OF STUDY AREA SHOWING BOTANICAL SENSITIVITY OF VEGETATION CURRENTLY ON SITE. ALL UNHATCHED AREAS 

ARE OF LOW SENSITIVITY, AND ARE MOSTLY CULTIVATED LANDS OR HOMESTEADS. TOTAL WIDTH OF THE STUDY AREA HERE IS 

ABOUT 3 KM. ................................................................................................................................................... 80 

FIGURE 7.3: OBLIQUE AERIAL IMAGE SHOWING EXISTING TURBINES AND SCHEMATIC BOTANICAL SENSITIVITY MAP. UNHATCHED AREAS 

WITHIN STUDY AREA ARE OF LOW SENSITIVITY. ........................................................................................................ 81 

FIGURE 7.4: PRIORITY SPECIES RECORDED AT THE SITE DURING 116 HOURS OF MONITORING ................................................... 87 

FIGURE 7.5: AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF THE STUDY AREA SHOWING THE DIFFERENT STATES OF THE LAND AS WELL AS POSITIONS OF FINDS 

AND THE WALK PATHS CREATED DURING THE SURVEY. ............................................................................................... 93 

FIGURE 7.6: LOCATION OF NOISE SENSITIVE RECEPTORS .................................................................................................... 97 

FIGURE 8.1: OPTION 1 (14 X N77 TURBINES) – BOTANICAL SENSITIVITY ............................................................................ 112 

FIGURE 8.2: OPTION 2 (16 X N60 TURBINES) – BOTANICAL SENSITIVITY ............................................................................ 113 

FIGURE 9.1: PASSAGE RATE FOR PRIORITY SPECIES FOR DIFFERENT WIND DIRECTIONS ............................................................ 121 

FIGURE 9.2: 4: HORIZONTAL ZONING OF SITE ................................................................................................................ 122 

FIGURE 9.3: ELEVATION PROFILE OF THE TURBINE AREA .................................................................................................. 122 

FIGURE 9.4: RECORDED FLIGHTS RELATIVE TO THE HORIZONTAL ZONING FOR PRIORITY SPECIES (%) ......................................... 122 

FIGURE 9.5: RECORDED MEDIUM HEIGHT FLIGHTS RELATIVE TO THE HORIZONTAL ZONING FOR PRIORITY SPECIES (%) .................. 123 

FIGURE 9.6: PASSAGE RATE FOR PRIORITY SPECIES RELATIVE TO TIME OF YEAR ..................................................................... 123 

FIGURE 9.7: THE PASSAGE RATE OF PRIORITY SPECIES RELATIVE TO TIME OF DAY................................................................... 124 

FIGURE 9.8: PASSAGE RATE PER PRIORITY SPECIES, ALL FLIGHTS AND ZONES COMBINED ......................................................... 124 

FIGURE 9.9: PERCENTAGE OF FLIGHT TIME SPENT BY EACH PRIORITY SPECIES AT MEDIUM HEIGHT ON THE SLOPE. ........................ 124 

FIGURE 9.10: THE ESTIMATED PASSAGE RATE P/H FOR PRIORITY SPECIES AT MEDIUM HEIGHT ON THE SLOPE ............................. 125 

FIGURE 9.11: ESTIMATED ANNUAL COLLISION RATE FOR PRIORITY SPECIES .......................................................................... 126 

FIGURE 11.1: AN EARLY STONE AGE CORE FOUND NEAR THE TOP OF MOEDMAAG HILL. SCALE = 5 CM. .................................. 142 

FIGURE 11.2: LATER STONE AGE ARTEFACTS FOUND ON THE LOWER SLOPES OF MOEDMAAG HILL. SCALE = 3 CM. .................... 142 

xxxiii

FIGURE 12.1: RASTER IMAGE OF OPTION 1 (8 M/S WIND SPEED) ..................................................................................... 146 

FIGURE 12.2: RASTER IMAGE OF OPTION 2 (8 M/S WIND SPEED) ..................................................................................... 148 

LIST OF PLATES 

PLATE 7.1: VIEW FROM MOEDMAAG HILL LOOKING WEST, SHOWING DEGRADED (VERY HEAVILY GRAZED) NATURAL VEGETATION IN 

FOREGROUND AMONGST GRANITE OUTCROPS, AND CULTIVATED LANDS LEFT OF AND BEYOND THE EXISTING TURBINES. ......... 75 

PLATE 7.2: VIEW OF PROMINENT GRANITE OUTCROP IN CENTRE OF SITE, LOOKING EAST TOWARDS MOEDMAAG HILL AND EXISTING 

TURBINES. A DENSE COLONY OF ALOE MITRIFORMIS IS PROMINENT ON THESE ROCKS, BUT THE ROCKS ALSO SUPPORT A 

DIVERSITY OF OTHER SPECIES NOT GENERALLY FOUND ELSEWHERE ON THE SITE (LACHENALIA ALOOIDES, PAURIDIA MINUTA, 

ETC.). ............................................................................................................................................................. 76 

PLATE 7.3: ONE OF THE SEASONAL DRAINAGE LINES AND ASSOCIATED WETLAND VEGETATION ON SITE. THE TALL RESTIO IS ELEGIA 

ELEPHANTINA. .................................................................................................................................................. 77 

PLATE 7.4: LEUCOSPERMUM TOMENTOSUM (FOREGROUND; RED LISTED AS VULNERABLE) GROWING IN PRISTINE HOPEFIELD SAND 

FYNBOS, LOOKING TOWARDS SEGAREVLEI AND THE R27. .......................................................................................... 78 

PLATE 7.5: GEISSORHIZA RADIANS (KELKIEWYN) IS A SPECTACULAR SPRING BULB FROM SEASONALLY WET CLAY AND LOAMY FLATS IN 

THE DARLING AND SWARTLAND AREA. THE SPECIES IS RED LISTED AS ENDANGERED, AND IS KNOWN TO OCCUR IN THE STUDY 

AREA ALONG THE DRAINAGE LINES. ....................................................................................................................... 82 

PLATE 7.6: LEUCOSPERMUM TOMENTOSUM IS A THREATENED SPECIES COMMON ON THE SANDY PORTIONS OF THE SITE, AND 

ESPECIALLY IN LESS DISTURBED SECTIONS OF THE SAND FYNBOS (MAPPED AS HIGH SENSITIVITY IN FIGURE 7.2) .................... 83 

PLATE 7.7: PHYLICA PLUMOSA (FOREGROUND; HEAVILY PRUNED BY GRAZING CATTLE) IS A DECLINING SPECIES FAIRLY COMMON ON 

THE BETTER REHABILITATED SECTIONS OF PREVIOUSLY CULTIVATED LOAMY SOILS (MAPPED AS MEDIUM SENSITIVITY). ............ 83 

PLATE 7.8: VIEW WEST IN THE NORTH‐EASTERN PART OF THE STUDY AREA. ........................................................................... 94 

PLATE 7.9: VIEW WEST ALONG THE STREAM THAT TRAVERSES THE SITE. ............................................................................... 94 

PLATE 7.10: VIEW SOUTH ACROSS THE NORTH‐EASTERN PART OF THE STUDY AREA. ................................................................ 94 

PLATE 7.11: AN UNPLOUGHED OR RECOVERED AREA IN THE CENTRE OF THE STUDY AREA. ........................................................ 94 

PLATE 7.12: THE LARGE GRANITE OUTCROP BETWEEN THE TWO TURBINE ROWS. ................................................................... 94 

PLATE 7.13: VIEW EAST ALONG THE SOUTHERN ROW SHOWING AGRICULTURAL LAND AND SMALL GRANITE OUTCROPS. ............... 94 

PLATE 7.14: VIEW EAST ALONG THE SOUTHERN ROW SHOWING AGRICULTURAL LAND. ............................................................ 95 

PLATE 7.15: VIEW WEST ALONG THE CABLE SERVITUDE IN THE SOUTH‐WEST PART OF THE STUDY AREA. ..................................... 95 

xxxiv

LIST OF APPENDICES 

Appendix 1.1: Constraints Maps 

Appendix 1.2: Department of Environmental Affairs’ Letter of Acceptance of the Final Scoping Report 

Appendix 2.1: CV of EEU staff members: 

Merle Sowan 

Richard Hill 

Sandra Rippon 

Kirsten Scott 

Appendix 2.2: Specialist CV: 

Botanical – Nick Helme (Nick Helme Botanical Surveys) 

Avifaunal – Chris van Rooyen (Chris van Rooyen Consulting) 

Visual – Bernard Oberholzer (independent landscape consultant) and Quinton 

Lawson (MLB Architects) 

Heritage – Jayson Orton (UCT Archaeology Contracts Office) 

Noise – Brett Williams (Safetech) 

Social – Kirsten Scott (EEU, UCT) 

Appendix 2.3: I&AP Database 

Appendix 3.1: Nordex Crane Hardstanding 

Appendix 3.2: Layout of Proposed Darling Education, Training and Visiting Centre 

Appendix 6.1: 2006 and 2010 EIA Listed Activities 

Appendix 7.1: Site Notices 

Appendix 7.2: Newspaper Advertisements 

Appendix 7.3: Written Notices 

Appendix 7.4: Background Information Document (BID): 

BID in English 

BID in Afrikaans 

Appendix 7.5: Minutes of Stakeholder Meetings 

Appendix 7.6: Issues and Response Report 

Appendix 8.1: Botanical Impact Assessment 

Appendix 8.2: Avifaunal Impact Assessment 

Appendix 8.3: Visual Impact Assessment 

Appendix 8.4: Heritage Scoping Assessment 

Appendix 8.5: Noise Impact Assessment 

Appendix 8.6: Social Impact Assessment 

xxxv

ACRONYMS 

ABBREVIATION TERM 

ADU Animal Demography Unit 

AIDS Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome 

ARV Antiretroviral 

BID Background Information Document 

BIRP Birds in Reserves Project 

BEE Black Economic Empowerment 

CAR Coordinated Avifaunal Roadcounts 

CARA Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act 

CBA Critical Biodiversity Area 

CDM Clean Development Mechanism 

CEF Central Energy Fund 

CEMP Construction Environmental Management Plan 

CER Certified Emission Reduction 

CPV Concentrating Photovoltaic 

CSP Concentrated Solar Power 

CV Curriculum Vitae 

CWCBR Cape West Coast Biosphere Reserve 

DANCED Danish Cooperation for Environment and Development 

DANIDA Danish International Development Agency 

DARLIPP Darling Independent Power producer 

DBSA Development Bank of Southern Africa 

DEA Department of Environmental Affairs (formerly DEAT) 

DEA&DP Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (Western Cape) 

DEAT Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism 

DECAS Department of Cultural Affairs and Sport 

DNA Designated National Authority 

DNDWF Darling National Demonstration Wind Farm 

DoE Department of Energy 

DSM Demand‐Side Management 

DSR Draft Scoping Report 

DTM Digital Terrain Model 

DWA Department of Water Affairs (formerly Department of Water Affairs and Forestry) 

DWP Darling Wind Power (Pty) Ltd 

EAP Environmental Assessment Practitioner 

ECA Environmental Conservation Act (Act No. 73 of 1989) 

EEU Environmental Evaluation Unit, University of Cape Town 

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment 

EIR Environmental Impact Report 

EMP Environmental Management Programme 

ERC Energy Research Centre, University of Cape Town 

ESA Early Stone Age 

EWT Endangered Wildlife Trust 

FSR Final Scoping Report 

GEF Global Environmental Facility 

GN Government Notice 

ha Hectares 

HIA Heritage Impact Assessment 

xxxvi

ABBREVIATION TERM 

HIV Human Immunodeficiency Virus 

HWC Heritage Western Cape 

I&AP Interested and Affected Party 

IAIA International Association of Impact Assessment 

IBA Important Bird Area 

IDP Integrated Development Plan 

IEM Integrated Environmental Management 

IPP Independent Power Producer 

IRP Integrated Resource Plan 

IRR Issues and Response Report 

LED Local Economic Development 

LSA Later Stone Age 

LUPO Land Use Planning Ordinance 

MPA Marine Protected Area 

MW Megawatts 

NEMA National Environmental Management Act (Act No. 107 of 1998) 

NERSA National Energy Regulator of South Africa 

NFSD National Framework for Sustainable Development 

NGO Non‐Governmental Organisation 

NHRA National Heritage Resources Act 

NIA Noise Impact Assessment 

OEMP Operational Environmental Management Plan 

PoS Plan of Study 

PPA Power Purchase Agreement 

PPP Public Participation Process 

PSDF Provincial Spatial Development Framework 

QDGC Quarter Degree Grid Cell 

REFIT Renewable Energy Feed‐In Tariffs 

RoD Record of Decision 

S&R Search and Rescue 

SABAP1 Southern African Bird Atlas Project 1 

SABAP2 Southern African Bird Atlas Project 2 

SAHRA South African Heritage Resources Agency 

SANBI South Africa National Biodiversity Institute 

SDF Spatial Development Framework 

SDIP Sustainable Development Implementation Plan 

SEES Sustainable Energy and Employment Scheme 

SIA Social Impact Assessment 

SWOT Strength, Weaknesses, Opportunity and Threat Analysis 

TB Tuberculosis 

UCT University of Cape Town 

UNDP United Nations Development Programme 

UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 

VIA Visual Impact Assessment 

WCDM West Coast District Municipality 

WCNP West Coast National Park 

WESSA Wildlife and Environment Society of SA 

WHO World Health Organisation 

WWF Worldwide Fund for Nature 

xxxvii

GLOSSARY OF TERMS 

TERM DEFINITION 

Alien organisms Plants, animals and micro‐organisms which do not naturally occur 

in an area, and which have been deliberately or accidentally 

introduced by humans to ecosystems outside of their natural 

range. 

Alternative The different means or possible action course of action that would 

meet the same purpose and need. Alternatives may include 

alternatives to: 

∙ The property on which or location where it is proposed to 

undertake the activity 

∙ The type of activity to be undertaken 

∙ The design or layout of the activity 

∙ The technology to be used in the activity 

∙ The operational aspects of the activity 

Ambient Noise The totally encompassing sound in a given situation at a given 

time, and is usually composed of sound from many sources, both 

near and far. It includes the noise from the noise source(s) under 

investigation. 

Applicant The person or entity that intends to undertake a listed activity and 

is applying for permission. 

A‐weighted intensity level, LIA 

(often referred to as sound 

level or noise level) 

The intensity level, in decibels, relative to a reference sound 

intensity, and incorporating an electrical filter network (A‐ 

weighted) in the measuring instrument corresponding to the 

human ear’s different sensitivity to sound at different frequencies. 

Baseline Conditions that currently exist, also called ‘existing conditions’. 

Basic Assessment Basic Assessment is the level of environmental assessment applied 

to activities in Listing 1. These are smaller scale activities; the 

impacts of these activities are generally known and can be easily 

managed. It is a more concise analysis of the environmental 

impacts of the proposed activity than a scoping and EIA report. 

Biodiversity The variability amongst living organisms from all sources including 

terrestrial, marine, and other aquatic ecosystems and the 

ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes 

biodiversity within and between species and of ecosystems. 

Bonn Convention Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild 

Animals 

Clean Development 

Mechanism 

The Clean Development Mechanism defined in Article 12 of the 

Kyoto Protocol allows a country with an emission reduction or 

emission limitation commitment under the Protocol to implement 

an emission reduction project in developing countries. The 

mechanism stimulates sustainable development and emission 

reductions, while giving industrialised countries some flexibility in 

how they meet their emission reduction or limitation targets. 

Climate Change Climate change means a change of climate which is attributed 

directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition 

of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural 

climate variability observed over comparable time periods. 

xxxviii


Copenhagen Accord The Copenhagen Accord is an international agreement among 25 

nations attending the UN Framework Convention on Climate 

Change Conference of the Parties (COP15). The 193 countries at 

COP15 agreed to take note of the accord. It includes all the major 

issues debated in the negotiations leading to the event‐ such as 

mitigation, adaption, financing and technology‐ but it is not legally 

binding like the Kyoto Protocol or other treaties. 

Cumulative Impacts These are the impacts which, on their own, may not be significant. 

However, when added to many other similar impacts, the 

cumulative effect may be significant. 

Decommissioning The process of removing a facility from service. In the case of a 

wind farm this would involve dismantling of the component 

infrastructure and return of the land to its former state where 

feasible. 

Distribution The electricity network infrastructure operating at nominal voltage 

of 132kV or below. 

District As referred to in respect to Noise. For example ‘rural district’. 

This is related to, but not necessarily equal to, “land‐use zoning” 

applied in urban and regional planning. For example, mixed‐use 

zoning may comprise a central business district and a residential 

district. 

Environment The environment has been defined as “The external circumstances, 

conditions and objects that affect the existence and development 

of an individual, organism or group”. These circumstances include 

biophysical, social, economic, historical, cultural and political 

aspects. 

Environment Impact 

Assessment 

Environmental Assessment 

Practitioner 

Equivalent continuous A‐ 

weighted sound level, LAeq,T 

Equivalent continuous rating 

level, LReq,T 

In the NEMA regulations this is defined as the process of collecting, 

organising, analysing, interpreting and communicating information 

that is relevant to the consideration of that application. 

Traditionally, however, EIA is defined as the process of predicting 

and assessing the consequences of a proposed development, and 

identifying measures to minimise negative impacts and maximise 

benefits. In so doing, it is necessary to collect, analyse, interpret 

and communicate information. 

Person or company, independent of the applicant (developer), that 

manages the environmental assessment process of a proposed 

project on behalf of the applicant. 

A formal definition is contained in SANS 10103. The term 

“equivalent continuous” may be understood to mean the 

“average” A‐weighted sound level measured continuously, or 

calculated, over a period of time, T. 

The equivalent continuous A‐weighted sound level, LAeq,T, 

measured or calculated during a specified time interval T, to which 

is added adjustments for tonal character, impulsiveness of the 

sound and the time of day. An adjustment of 5 dB is added for any 

tonal character, if present, plus a further 5 dB if the noise is also of 

an impulsive nature. Where neither is present, the LReq,T is equal to 

the LAeq,T. 

Hub Component of a wind turbine, central part onto which the blades 

are fixed. 

xxxix


Independent Power Producer Any undertaking by any person or entity, in which the government 

of South Africa does not hold a controlling ownership interest 

(direct or indirect), of new energy generation capacity at a 

generating facility following a determination made by the Minister 

in terms of Section 34(1) of the Electricity Regulation Act (4 of 

2006). 

Integrated Environmental 

Management 

A philosophy which prescribes a code of practice for ensuring that 

environmental considerations are fully integrated into all stages of 

the development process in order to achieve a sustainable balance 

between conservation and development. 

Interested and Affected Party Any person, group of persons or organisation interested in or 

affected by an activity contemplated in an application; or any 

organ of state that may have jurisdiction over any aspect of the 

activity. 

Kyoto Protocol Adopted in December 1997, this protocol to the United Framework 

Convention on Climate Change highlights the international 

community’s new attitude towards the phenomenon of climate 

change. Under the protocol, the industrialised countries have 

undertaken to reduce their emissions of six greenhouse gases by at 

least 5% during the period 2008‐2012 compared to 1990 levels. 

Megawatt Hour 1000 kilowatts or 1 million watts; standard measure of electric 

power plant generating capacity. 

Nacelle Component of a wind turbine, an enclosure housing the gearbox, 

shafts, generator, controller and brake. 

National Grid The network of high‐voltage power lines from the energy 

generating facilities to the areas where the electricity is used. The 

grid is operated by Eskom and all electricity generated by Eskom 

(and other future IPPs) is fed into this grid for national distribution. 

No‐Go option This is the option of not proceeding with the activity, implying a 

continuation of the current situation/ status quo. 

Overhead transmission lines Transmission lines usually consist of overhead conductors 

suspended from transmission towers and are the main 

Public Participation Process 

infrastructure used by Eskom for distributing high voltage 

electricity (See National grid). 

A process in which potential interested and affected parties are 

given an opportunity to comment on, or raise issues relevant to, 

specific matters. 

QDGC Quarter Degree Grid Cell Quarter corresponds to the area shown 

on a 1:50 000 map (15' x 15') and is approximately 27 km long 

(north‐south) and 23 km wide (east‐west). 

Reference Time Interval The time interval to which an equivalent continuous A‐weighted 

sound level, LAeq,T, or rating level of noise, LReq,T, is referred. Unless 

otherwise indicated, the reference time interval is interpreted as 

follows: 

– Day‐time: 06:00 to 22:00hrs T=16 hours when 

LReq,T is denoted LReq,d 

– Night‐time: 22:00 to 06:00hrs T=8 hours when 

Renewable Energy Feed‐In 

Tariff 

LReq,T is denoted LReq,n 

A tariff approved by NERSA for a renewable energy generator or 

cogeneration. 

xl


Residual Noise The ambient noise that remains at a given position in a given 

situation when one or more specific noises (usually those under 

investigation) are suppressed. 

Rotor Component of a wind turbine, comprising three blades and a hub 

in the centre. 

Scoping The identification of issues and alternatives that require 

investigation in the EIA. Scoping is therefore the process whereby 

the scope of the EIA is determined. 

Substation A substation is the part of an electricity transmission and 

distribution system where voltage is transformed from low to high 

and vice versa using transformers. This project involves the 

transformation of electricity from 11kV to 66kV for transmission 

purposes as it is more efficient to transmit electricity over long 

distances at higher voltages. 

Sustainable Development Development that meets the needs of the present generation 

without compromising the ability of future generations to meet 

their own needs. 

Swept area Is the area swept by the wind turbine blades (excluding the hub). It 

directly relates to the amount of electrical power the turbine is 

capable of converting. 

Transformer An electrical device that converts between low and high voltages. 

Vlei Certain classes of bodies of inland waters 

xli

xlii

1 INTRODUCTION 

1.1 BACKGROUND TO THE PROJECT 


National Demonstration Wind Farm which was conceptualised in 1996 by the Oelsner Group (Pty) 

Ltd. Darling Independent Power Producer (Pty) Ltd (known as DARLIPP) was established to develop 

the wind farm as an Independent Power Producer (IPP) and the Oelsner Group is the controlling 

shareholder. Being the first commercial renewable energy facility of its type in South Africa, and 

proposed by an IPP, there were no criteria or planning guidelines against which the Project could be 

assessed and the environmental authorisation process was contested and protracted. The original 

proposal was phased and included four 1.3 MW turbines, followed by an additional 5‐7.8MW of 

power comprising no more than 10 turbines in total for both phases. However only the first phase, 

known officially as the Darling National Demonstration Wind Farm was approved and the Record of 

Decision (RoD) was issued in February 2005. DARLIPP was originally the developer and part owner of 

the wind farm, intended to operate and maintain the wind farm. The Danish agency DANIDA 

(formerly DANCED), the Central Energy Fund (CEF) and the Development Bank of Southern Africa 

(DBSA) were funders of the development. A new company, Darling Wind Power (Pty) Ltd was then 

formed to develop the wind farm, equity holders being CEF, DBSA and DARLIPP. In 2006, Darling 

Wind Power (Pty) Ltd entered into a Power Purchase Agreement with the City of Cape Town for a 

term of 20 years and contributes towards the City achieving its targets for renewable energy. In 

2010, the City made Green Electricity Certificates available for purchase which allows electricity 

consumers to participate in the generation of ‘green’ electricity and the income from the sale of 

these certificates covers the premium the City has to pay for the electricity. The applicant for the 

Darling Demonstration Wind Farm was DARLIPP. Section 3.1 sets out the background of the 

previous process in more detail. 

The applicant for the Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm is CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd. The current 

proposal is for a further 14 to 16 wind turbines which will generate 20‐21 MW of electricity for 

national distribution. The proposed wind farm is located on the farms Slangkop (3/552) and Kerrie 

Fontein (0/555) and includes associated infrastructure such as underground cabling, internal access 

roads and a new substation which will be connected to the existing overhead power lines. Figure 1.1 

overleaf depicts the locality of the proposed Project and Figure 1.2 and Figure 1.3 depict the 

proposed options for the number of turbines. Additional constraints maps are set out in Appendix 

1.1. 

The Project involves a number of ‘listed activities’ in terms of Section 24(5) of the National 

Environmental Management Act (107 of 1998) (NEMA), ‘EIA Regulations’ published in Government 

Notice (GN) R385, GN R386 and GN R387 of April 21 2006. As the Project will be related to 

electricity generation where “(i) the electricity output is 20 megawatts or more; and (ii) the elements 

of the facility cover a combined area in excess of 1 hectare”, under GN R387, a Scoping and EIA are 

triggered. This Project also includes a number of activities listed under R386 which collectively form 

part of the proposal and are listed in detail within Section 6.2.6. 

Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 1 Prepared by EEU, UCT 

CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011

Langebaan Lagoon 

Dassen 

Island 

To Saldanha 

West Coast National Park 

Yzerfontein 

Buffelsfontein 

Game Reserve 

R27 

Jacobuskraal 

Estate 

5 

R315 

Jakkalsfontein 

Private 

Nature Reserve 

Tienie Versfeld 

Wildflower Reserve 

!Khwa ttu 

San Centre 

Figure 1.1: Locality Map 

Rondeberg 

Private 


To Cape Town 

Darling 

Legend 

Proposed Site 

Proposed Rheboksfontein Wind Energy Facility 


Urban Area 

Arterial Route 

Railway Line 

! ! ! Powerline 

Project Location 

0 1.5 3 

Km 

6 

Scale: 1:64,000 

Applicant: Oelsner Group (Pty) Ltd 

Date: July 2011 



Private Bag X3 

Rondebosch 7700 

Cape Town 

Tel: +27 21 650 2866 

Fax: +27 21 650 3971 

¯ 

Projection: GCS WGS 1984 

Datum: Geographic (WGS 1984) 

Data Source: Department of Surverys and Mapping 

Cape Town 

SANBI 2004 from BGIS website

Kerrie Fontein Farm 

(0/555) 

Jacobuskraal Estate 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

R27 


(0/555) 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! 

5 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

Slangkop Farm 

(3/552) 

Figure 1.2: Option 1 (14 x N77 Turbines) 

R315 

Moedmaag 

Hill 

Legend 

Proposed Substation 

Existing Substation 

Dam 

Proposed Turbines 

Existing Turbines 

Cadastral Boundaries 


Other Access Roads 

! ! ! Power Line 

Proposed Internal Access Roads 

Seasonal Drainage Line 

Proposed Water Crossing 

Underground Cables 


0 0.15 0.3 

Km 

0.6 

Scale: 1:6500 


Date: September 2011 





Cape Town 

Tel: +27 21 650 2866 

Fax: +27 21 650 3971 


¯ 




Cape Town


(0/555) 


! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

R27 


(0/555) 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! 

5 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 


(3/552) 

Figure 1.3: Option 2 (16 x N60 Turbines) 

R315 

Moedmaag 

Hill 

Legend 



Dam 






! ! ! Power Line 



Proposed Water Crossing 

Underground Cables 


0 0.15 0.3 

Km 

0.6 

Scale: 1:6500 







Cape Town 

Tel: +27 21 650 2866 

Fax: +27 21 650 3971 


¯ 




Cape Town

1.2 THE SCOPING PHASE 

Scoping was undertaken between June and December 2010 and involved a number of specialist 

studies: botanical; avifaunal; visual; heritage; noise and social, and the Public Participation Process 

(PPP). The outcomes of this process were synthesised and presented in the Draft Scoping Report 

(DSR) which was made available for public comment between 12 October and 21 November 2010. 

All written comments received in the report, where included in the Issues and Responses Report 

(IRR). The Final Scoping Report (FSR) was submitted to Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) 

on 15 December 2010 and set out a Plan of Study (PoS) for the EIA Phase based on the main 

conclusions set out below: 

The main constraints include the presence of sensitive vegetation on parts of the site which can 

largely be mitigated through avoidance of these areas. Bird mortality and displacement is a 

potential impact and this requires further investigation through monitoring. The visual impacts 

are an important factor and require detailed consideration into site layout and configuration of 

the turbines and other infrastructure. Due to the proximity of the wind turbines and both 

sensitive receptors and neighbouring land, the operational noise impacts are potentially 

significant. Key social impacts are expected to be related to visual impacts and associated 

effects on tourism. As development of wind energy facilities progresses elsewhere along the 

West Coast, cumulative impacts are a key issue especially with regards to avifauna, visual and 

tourism impacts. The project will make a contribution to renewable energy generation in the 

Province and is in line with national priorities to mitigate the impacts on climate change. 

The EEU received a letter of acceptance dated 7 March 2011 that indicated acceptance of the FSR in 

accordance with the tasks in the PoS. This letter is attached as Appendix 1.2. 

1.3 ASSESSMENT PHASE 

The purpose of an EIA is as follows: 

Consider and assess alternatives which would most effectively meet the need and purpose 

of the Project and the goal of sustainable development; 

To assess the identified impacts and to establish their significance using a specific framework 

(see Section 7.3.2 below); 

To identify and recommend appropriate mitigation measures to reduce the significance of 

impacts; and 

To carry out an effective and inclusive Public Participation Process. 



During the EIA Phase, the specialists undertook their studies as set out in the FSR, each assessment 

has defined the significance of the potential impacts and proposed mitigation measures where 

necessary, and enhancement if possible. The following specialist studies have been undertaken as 

part of the impact assessment exercise: 

Botanical – Nick Helme (Nick Helme Botanical Surveys); 

Avifaunal – Chris van Rooyen (Chris van Rooyen Consulting); 

Visual – Bernard Oberholzer (independent landscape consultant) and Quinton Lawson (MLB 

Architects); 

Noise – Brett Williams (Safetech); and 

Social – Kirsten Scott (EEU, UCT). 

During Scoping, the Heritage Study found that aside from the visual impacts associated with the 

proposed development, no other significant impacts to heritage resources were foreseen (see 

Appendix 8.4). It was believed that no further heritage assessments, aside from the Visual Impact 

Assessment (VIA) were required. Therefore the heritage component has not been furthered during 

the EIA Phase. Similarly, a bat study has not been undertaken and this is justified in Section 7.3.3 

below. 

During the EIA Phase further public participation events were held including an Open Day on 2 July 

2011 and meetings with landowners and other key I&APs as part of the Social Impact Assessment 

(SIA) consultation. The site alternatives were refined and turbine locations were identified primarily 

on the basis of the botanical recommendations and the wind modelling exercise undertaken by 

Nordex. The alternatives are reported on in further detail in Section 4 below. The process has been 

iterative process and accommodated changes to the site layout. 

An Environmental Management Programme (EMP) for the construction, operational and 

decommissioning phases has been produced on the basis of the recommendations within the 

specialist studies as best practice measures. This should be considered alongside the EIR. 

1.4 PURPOSE OF THE EIR 

These findings have informed the content of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The purpose of 

the EIR is to integrate the findings of the specialist studies and the PPP into a document which will 

ultimately form the basis of DEA’s decision when authorising the Project. This is accompanied by an 

Environmental Management Programme (EMP) which was produced by Ecosense (2011). A Draft EIR 

and EMP was made available for public comment to allow the registered I&APs an opportunity to 

comment on the findings and bring attention to any issues that parties believe are of significance to 

the consideration of the application. I&APs were notified of the review period from 26 July 2011 to 4 

September 2011 and encouraged to provide written comment to the EEU. Comments are 

documented in the IRR attached as Appendix 7.6 and recommendations have been updated in the 

body of the report where necessary. 



ROLEPLAYERS 

1.5 INTRODUCTION 

There are a number of roleplayers involved in the environmental application process. The details of 

each are set out below, based on the definitions and requirements within GN 385 2006, Section 

24(5) of NEMA (No. 107 of 1998), hereafter referred to as ‘The EIA Regulations’. 

1.6 APPLICANT 

The ‘applicant’ is a person or organisation who has submitted or intends to submit an application for 

an environmental authorisation in terms of the Regulations, with the intention of developing the 

named project. CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd is the applicant for the proposed wind farm and has been set 

up for this purpose by the Oelsner Group (Pty) Ltd. The Oelsner Group is a shareholder of DARLIPP, 

the developer of the Darling National Demonstration Wind Farm. The Oelsner Group is active in 

research, development and implementation of new energy projects especially renewable energy 

generation, namely through wind, wave and solar. The Darling Sustainable Energy and Employment 

Scheme (SEES) has been established by the Oelsner Group to promote employment through 

renewable energy generation projects. Oelsner Group’s level of activity stretches beyond the Cape 

as they founded AfriWea (African Wind Energy Association), a non‐profit organisation to promote 

and support wind energy projects on the African continent. 

Table 0.1: Details of the applicant 

Name: CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd 

Contact: Hermann Oelsner 

Postal Address: P.O. Box 13, Darling, 7345 

Telephone Number : + 27 224923095 

Fax Number: + 27 224923096 

E‐mail Address: oelsnergrp@wcaccess.co.za 

1.7 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PRACTITIONER 

The role of the environmental assessment practitioner (EAP) is “to manage the application for an 

environmental authorisation on behalf of the applicant” (NEMA, GN 385 2006). 

The Environmental Evaluation Unit (EEU) of the University of Cape Town (UCT) has been appointed 

by the Applicant to manage the environmental authorisation process as an independent consultant. 

The EEU is an independent, self‐funded, research, consulting and training unit based at UCT. 

Founded in 1985, the EEU has established itself as a leader in the fields of integrated environmental 

management and sustainable development responding to local, regional and global environmental 

challenges using an interdisciplinary and participatory approach. During this time, the EEU has 

undertaken work throughout South Africa and southern Africa, has participated in global research 

and policy initiatives, and has provided expertise to leading private and public corporations, research 



institutions, planning and development organisations, state departments, local authorities and 

communities. Achieving environmental sustainability represents a major challenge, and the EEU is 

well placed to contribute to achieving this as one of the longest standing environmental 

consultancies and research institutions in southern Africa. The EEU is involved in environmental 

planning, management and assessment through both consulting and research, which ranges from 

policy and strategic review through to project‐level assessments. The CVs of the EEU project team 

are set out in Appendix 2.1. 

Table 0.2: Details of the Environmental Assessment Practitioner 

Name: Environmental Evaluation Unit (EEU) 

Contact: Sandra Rippon 

Postal Address: University of Cape Town (UCT) 


Rondebosch, 7701 

South Africa 

Telephone Number : 021 650 2871 

Fax Number: 021 650 3791 

E‐mail Address: Sandra.Rippon@uct.ac.za 

A number of specialists have been appointed as independent consultants to undertake specialist 

studies in relation to the disciplines identified as relevant to this Project. These are set out in Table 

2.3 below. Their respective Curriculum Vitae (CVs) are attached in Appendix 2.2. 

Table 0.3: Independent Specialist Consultants 

Discipline Specialist 

Botany Nick Helme (Nick Helme Botanical Surveys) 

Avifauna Chris van Rooyen (Chris van Rooyen Consulting) 

Visual Bernard Oberholzer (independent landscape consultant) and 

Quinton Lawson (MLB Architects) 

Heritage Jayson Orton (Dept. of Archaeology, UCT) 

Noise Brett Williams (Safetech) 

Social Kirsten Scott (EEU, UCT) 

1.8 INTERESTED AND AFFECTED PARTIES (I&APS) 

The NEMA principles aim to ensure an equitable environmental authorisation process through 

providing opportunities for all people to express their interests or concerns relating to the Project. 

In accordance with the definitions set out in the EIA Regulations, an I&AP may include either: 

a) ‘Any person, group of persons or organisation interested in or affected by an activity; and 

b) Any organ of state that may have jurisdiction over any aspect of the activity’. 

More details of the principles and processes for engagement are set out in Section 7 (EIA Process 

and Methodology) and a database of all I&APs involved in the Scoping Phase thus far is included in 

Appendix 2.3. 



1.9 COMMENTING AUTHORITIES 

During the environmental assessment process, the role of commenting authorities is to issue 

comments and recommendations on environmental authorisation applications. 

Each authority will play a different role with regard to the development based on their particular 

focus or mandate. The following authorities, as listed in Table 0.4 below, have been identified as 

relevant to this development and hence to the environmental application process. 

Table 0.4: Commenting Authorities relevant to the Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm 

Commenting Authority Role 

Department of Environmental 

Affairs and Development 

Planning Western Cape 

Department of Water Affairs 

Department of Agriculture: 

Western Cape 

In most cases, the environmental departments of provincial 

government are responsible for evaluating applications that have 

been submitted in terms of the NEMA EIA Regulations. However, 

the national Department of Environmental Affairs is the competent 

authority responsible for taking decisions on this project as it is 

considered to be of national importance. In this case provincial 

departments such as DEA&DP are required to comment on the 

application. 

The Department of Water Affairs is the custodian of South Africa’s 

water resources. It is primarily responsible for the formulation and 

the implementation of policy governing this sector. It also has 

overarching responsibility for water services provided by local 

government. 

The Western Cape Department of Agriculture provides a wide range 

of development, research and support services to the agricultural 

community in the Western Cape. Amongst their services, they 

provide agricultural advice and guidance to the agricultural 

community and all users of natural resources, and they focus on 

conservation of natural resources and agricultural engineering 

services. The Department is responsible for enforcing the 

Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act (Act 43 of 1983). 

CapeNature CapeNature is a public institution with the statutory responsibility 

for biodiversity conservation in the Western Cape. It is governed by 

the Western Cape Nature Conservation Board Act 15 of 1998 and 

mandated to: promote and ensure nature conservation; render 

services and provide facilities for research and training; and 

generate income. 

Heritage Western Cape Heritage Western Cape was established in terms of the National 

Heritage Resources Act, Act 25 of 1999. It is mandated to promote 

co‐operative governance between national, provincial and local 

authorities for the identification, conservation and management of 

provincial heritage resources. Since the Project is subject to an EIA, 

Heritage Western Cape (HWC) is required to provide comment on 

the proposed Project in order to facilitate final decision making by 

DEA. 



Commenting Authority Role 

Western Cape: Department of 

Transport and Public Works 

The department aims to deliver an integrated, accessible, safe, 

reliable, affordable and sustainable transport system and quality 

property infrastructure provision through socially just, 

developmental and empowering processes, to improve the quality 

of life for all. 

Swartland Local Municipality The Municipality has a review role in the EIA process and provides 

comment and input to the development of project proposals in 

order to ensure that they comply with legislative and policy 

requirements. The Municipality is a source of local knowledge and 

expertise and is therefore a key commenting authority. 

Note: The National Department of Energy was removed as a commenting authority because when contacted 

they stated they would not comment on environmental matters. Eskom has been included instead to 

comment in terms of the grid and network planning issues; and in terms of land and rights. 

1.10 COMPETENT AUTHORITY 

GN 387 of April 21 2006 in terms of Section 24(5) of NEMA (Act No. 107 of 1998) has identified the 

competent authority for listed activities included within this application as DEA. DEA is therefore the 

decision‐making authority for this application and their details are set out in Table 2.5 below, whilst 

their duties are described further in Section 7 (EIA Process and Methodology). 

Table 0.5: Details of the Competent Authority 

Name: Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) 

Contact: Samkelisiwe Dlamini 

Postal Address: Private Bag X 447, Pretoria, 0001 

Telephone Number : +27 12 395 1783 

Fax Number: +27 12 320 7539 

E‐mail Address: sdlamini@environment.gov.za 



2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 

2.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 


National Demonstration Wind Farm which was conceptualised in 1996 by the Oelsner Group. Darling 

Independent Power Producer (Pty) Ltd (known as DARLIPP) was established to develop the wind 

farm as an Independent Power Producer (IPP) and the Oelsner Group is the controlling shareholder. 

The applicant for the Darling Demonstration Wind Farm was DARLIPP, while the present Applicant is 

CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd. 

Being the first commercial renewable energy facility of its type in South Africa proposed by an IPP, 

the environmental authorisation process was contested and protracted. Table 3.1 below sets out the 

history of the process. 

Table 2.1: History of the Darling National Demonstration Project 

Timeframe Activity 

July 1996 Mr Hermann Oelsner conceptualises the project and begins to search for an 

appropriate site. 

1997 DARLIPP set up 

June 1997 – July 1998 Initial wind measurements are undertaken. 

1998 The EIA Regulations of September 1997 listed ‘facilities for commercial 

electricity generation and supply’ as an activity that would trigger the 

requirements for a Scoping and EIA 1 . The EEU was commissioned and 

Scoping undertaken. The original proposal was phased and included four 

1.3 MW turbines, followed by an additional 5‐7.8 MW of power comprising 

no more than 10 turbines in total for both phases. 

April 1999 Project delays as a result of the failure to secure Power Purchase 

Agreement (PPA) with Eskom. Financial modelling indicated the need for 

subsidy in order to sell the electricity to local municipalities. 

1999 The Danish Co‐operation for Environment and Development (DANCED), the 

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the Global 

Environmental Facility (GEF) jointly agreed to provide funding to ensure 

project viability. 

June 2000 Minister for Minerals and Energy declared the Darling Wind Farm as a 

National Demonstration Project. 

July 2001 Funding for the EIA made available by DANCED. 

July 2001 – Jan 2002 EIA Phase 

July 2002 Positive Record of Decision (RoD) issued by previous Western Cape 

Department of Cultural Affairs and Sport (DECAS) for four 1.3MW turbines. 

1 The EIA Regulations were amended in May 2002 and the activity was described as ‘the construction, erection 

or upgrading of facilities for commercial electricity generation with an output of at least 10megawatts and 

infrastructure for bulk supply’. 



Timeframe Activity 

2002 Appeals by Cape West Coast Biosphere Reserve, ME Halvorsen (private 

landowner) and Yzerfontein Urban Conservancy. The main motivations 

were: 

No alternatives had been investigated; 

Concerns with regard to the potential impact on birds; and 

Concerns with regard to the visual impact of turbines. 

Feb 2003 Acting minister of DEA&DP upheld the appeal on the basis of concerns 

regarding alternatives and impacts on birds. The ruling held that the 

proponent should lodge a new application with the same department for 

authorisation if they wish to proceed. 

March 2004 Proponent motivated decision to refer the decision to the national 

Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT): 

The project has implications for national environmental policy; 

The project has the potential to affect the environment across the 

borders of provinces (due to the clean production of electricity); 

The project is taking place in an area of national and international 

importance, namely the buffer zone of the CWCBR. 

March 2004 DEAT was identified as the appropriate authorising agency and a Scoping 

process was initiated to fulfil legislative and DEAT requirements. 

Oct 2004 Scoping Report was submitted to DEAT (in conjunction with the findings 

from the 2002 EIA). 

Feb 2005 RoD was issued for Phase 1 of the project (four 1.3MW turbines). 

2006 Darling Wind Power (Pty) Ltd was set up as a public private partnership 

between DARLIPP, CEF and DBSA. 

2006 Darling Wind Power (Pty) Ltd entered into a Power Purchase Agreement 

with the City of Cape Town. This is a 20 year agreement and contributes 

towards the City achieving its targets for renewable energy. 

Nov 2006 Construction EMP and draft Operational EMP completed. 

Dec 2006 OEMP and draft OEMP submitted to DEAT. 

Feb 2007 Construction EMP approved by DEAT. Draft operational EMP approved, 

final version to be submitted to DEAT. 

Feb 2007 Construction of the project commenced including monitoring as set out in 

the CEMP. 

March 2008 Environmental closure and completion of compliance review of the 

construction of the project. 

March 2008 Operational Management Plan drafted by Ecosense for the short to 

medium term management of the project. 

May 2008 Operation of the Darling National Demonstration Wind Farm 

Darling Wind Power (Pty) Ltd (DWP) is a public private partnership between the private developer 

DARLIPP, CEF (Pty) Ltd which manages renewable energy interests on behalf of the Government and 

the Development Bank of Southern Africa (DBSA). The DWP was responsible for providing the 

finance for the operation and maintenance of the Project. A management services agreement was 

signed in terms of which DWP was to pay DARLIPP a fee for the “services in relation to the project on 

a day to day and continuous basis, which services include all work, functions or tasks in furthering 

the project”. Within DWP, DBSA passed financial responsibility to CEF in May 2008. 

It is reported by the applicant that due to the funds not being made available by DWP, DARLIPP has 



een unable to fulfil legal environmental requirements and contractual commitments. There is 

currently a legal dispute between DARLIPP and DWP. 

Therefore although the project achieved compliance with the Record of Decision (Clause 3.2.14 of 

RoD), there has been a lack of compliance with respect to certain conditions: 

3.2.3 Monitoring programme; 

3.2.5 “Develop and implement an OEMP”: this was developed and approved by DEAT, but not 

implemented; 

3.2.15 An independent post‐construction audit must be conducted… before operation 

commences. 

In particular, the monitoring of specific environmental impacts such as those on birds and noise 

would have proved beneficial in guiding decision‐making with respect to further expansion of a wind 

energy facility in this location and identifying suitable mitigation measures. However, given that 

certain financial agreements were not honoured, monitoring as required by the RoD has not been 

undertaken. Determining how to go forward on this issue is complex as the matter is currently being 

investigated and pending the outcome of a legal dispute. 

2.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 

There are two components to the Project as it falls onto two different farm portions. The proposed 

infrastructure on Slangkop (3/552), commonly known as Windhoek Farm, is as follows: 

5‐6 Nordex turbines; 

Underground cabling linking turbines to (existing) substation; and 

Internal roads ‐ stabilised dirt tracks to access each turbine. 

The proposed infrastructure on Kerrie Fontein (0/555) is as follows: 

9‐10 Nordex turbines; 

New 66/11kv substation; 

Underground cabling linking turbines to substation; 

Direct connection with existing overhead power lines linking substation to national 

electricity grid, no new overhead power lines required; 

Internal roads – stabilised dirt tracks to access each turbine. 

2.3 WIND TURBINE TECHNOLOGY 

Wind turbines are made up of three key components: a steel tower, a nacelle which is positioned on 

top of the tower and includes the gearbox, shafts, generator, controller and brake; and the rotor 

which comprises the three blades and a hub in the middle. See Figure 2.1 below. 

Electricity is produced when wind blows over the turbine blades, causing them to lift and rotate. The 

rotation of the rotor, which includes the blades and the hub, spins the shaft/s in the nacelle, which 

connects to the generator to make electricity. The gearbox assists in achieving a higher rotational 



speed through a connection between a low speed and high speed shaft. Kinetic “movement” energy 

is converted to electrical energy. 

The controller ensures that the machine only operates between certain wind speeds, and the 

braking system includes rotor blades and hydraulic disc brakes to stop the machine when 

maintenance is required or in an emergency. The generators are connected to transformers that 

change the voltage for distribution purposes. The electricity produced can be fed into the national 

electricity grid. 

The capacity of the Project will be 20‐21 MW depending on the technology and the number of 

turbines used. At this stage Nordex, a German manufacturer of wind turbines, is the preferred 

supplier. Depending on the technology alternatives selected in the EIA phase, there will be either 14 

or 16 turbines erected, each with a nominal power of 1.5 or 1.3 MW each. Each turbine will have a 

hub height of 60‐70 m and a blade length between 29 m and 37.5 m. See Section 4.4 which describes 

the ‘Technology Alternatives’ for the Project. 

2.4 CONSTRUCTION 

2.4.1 Construction Period 

Figure 2.1: Nordex turbine (adapted from Nordex SE photo) 

The Project is planned for construction commencing first half of 2012, and is expected to take 

approximately 6‐9 months. Commissioning and testing of the individual turbines will require one 

month thereafter. 



2.4.2 Construction Activities 

Site Preparation 

Prior to any civil works, site preparation is required and will involve a survey, soils investigations and 

setting out. 

Access Roads 

Access within the site needs to be established prior to any other construction activities taking place. 

The alignment of these roads will depend on the final site layout as they will remain as part of the 

operational infrastructure. Access to the site for the construction phase will be via the existing road 

off the R315 across Windhoek Farm. The access roads will be required to accommodate vehicles of 

varying loads and dimensions transporting heavy machinery including cranes as well as the turbine 

components and may need upgrading. Long low loaders will be used to transport the components 

from Cape Town and the largest truck will require a minimum access radius of 15 m and a width of 5 

m. The manoeuvrability of these vehicles has been taken into account when aligning the roads 

straight up Moedmaag Hill instead of meandering along the contours. The roadworks plant will most 

likely require a grader, digger loader, excavator, rollers, a water cart and tippers. 

Temporary Facilities and Laydown Areas 

A temporary construction compound will be required to provide support facilities for the staff and 

labour involved in construction. Facilities required will include a site office, stores, and welfare 

facilities (including facilities such as ablutions and change rooms). 

A temporary laydown area will be required alongside each proposed turbine, approximately 1,600 

m 2 becoming 875 m 2 permanently during operation (see Appendix 3.1). This will support the cranes, 

allow for blade storage and provide an area in which the parts can be assembled. A storage and 

laydown area is also required for civil engineering components during construction (2,000m 2 ) and 

associated plant is likely to require a dumper, a rough‐ terrain, mobile crane and a truck for 

transport of materials and labour. 

Turbines 

Prior to turbine assembly, foundations works will be required. The foundations would require 

excavation, they would be approximately 3.5 ‐ 4 m deep with an average diameter of 21 m 

depending on the ground conditions. Each turbine would generate approximately 1,386 m 3 of 

excavated material, which along with the other spoil generated, would be used on site to level and 

build up the turbine platforms and used in road construction. There are also possibilities to use spoil 

to fill erosion dongas and old sand mining areas elsewhere on the farm which can then be capped 

with topsoil for rehabilitation. Any soil removed from site would need to meet the requirements of 

the waste management specifications of the EMP. Foundations will be constructed from steel, 

gravel and concrete. See Plate 3.1 below for a photo during foundation construction of the Darling 

Wind Farm. Topsoil and subsoil will be removed and stored during this process and will be backfilled 

upon completion. 

One turbine will be erected at a time. The tower will be erected section by section, using two cranes. 

The nacelle will be lifted into position at the top of the tower. The rotor (including the blades and 

the hub) will be assembled on the ground and then lifted into position and secured using two cranes. 



Whilst there are no combustible materials stored within the turbines, fire breaks around the base of 

each turbine would be required to protect the tower from the risk of fire. 

Plate 3.1: Construction of the foundations for the Darling Wind Farm turbines 

Plate 3.2: Erection of the turbines for the Darling Wind Farm 



Medium‐voltage transformers (mini‐substations) will be constructed at the base of each turbine to 

transform the voltage to 11 kV. See Plate 3.3 below. Underground cabling will be required to link 

each mini‐substation with the respective substation and is likely to be positioned alongside access 

roads to reduce disturbance. Where cabling is required to cross drainage lines, this will be housed in 

ducting. Trenches will be dug to an approximate depth of 1‐1.5 m 

Plate 3.3: Installation of a mini‐substation for the Darling Wind Farm 

Electrical Infrastructure and Connections 

A new electrical 66/11kV substation will be constructed which will be similar to the existing 

substation. Construction works will involve site clearance, construction of foundations and other 

structures, and assembly and installation of the electrical equipment. The construction area for the 

substation will be clearly demarcated, with a buffer zone and No‐Go zone for protection of the 

vegetation surrounding the area. This will be monitored and enforced in terms of the EMP. 

An existing 66 kV line running parallel to the R27 connects the existing substation to the national 

grid. It is proposed that the new substation on the Kerrie Fontein Farm is located along this 

alignment to facilitate a new connection. 

Site Remediation 

Upon completion of construction and removal of equipment, the temporary works areas will be 

rehabilitated. Those areas that have been degraded by grazing may be restored to a more natural 

state and therefore improved. For all temporary or permanent areas of land take, a search, rescue 



and replanting of indigenous, valuable and protected species will be undertaken, where practical 

and viable to enhance the integrity of the site. 

2.4.3 Construction Labour and Working Hours 

The exact number of construction jobs has not yet been established; however a recent study by 

Greenpeace has indicated that in South Africa, construction and installation of wind energy facilities 

accounts for approximately 4.5 job years per MW (Rutovitz, 2010). This would equate to between 

approximately 90‐ 95 job years generated by this Project. 

2.5 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

2.5.1 Permanent Infrastructure 

The permanent infrastructure components on the farm portions Slangkop (3/552) and Kerrie Fontein 

(0/555) has been described in Section 3.4 above and is as follows: 

Turbines 

As described in Section 3.4 above, the number and type of turbines has not yet been determined. At 

this stage Nordex, a German manufacturer of wind turbines, is the preferred supplier. There will be 

either 14 or 16 turbines erected, each with a nominal power of 1.5 or 1.3 MW. Refer to Section 4 

which describes the alternatives for the Project. Micro‐siting of the individual turbines will be 

undertaken once the preferred technology is confirmed and the contractor has been appointed. At 

the base of each turbine there will be an area of permanent hard standing (875 m 2 ) alongside the 

foundations for servicing, as well as a medium‐voltage transformer (mini‐substation). 

Underground Cabling 

Underground 11kV cables will be required to connect the turbines to either the existing or new 

substation 66/11kV substation. These are likely to be at a depth of 1‐1.5 m and run parallel to the 

access roads to reduce disturbance. It is proposed that ducts across the drainage lines for cable 

services are installed. 

Substation 

The turbines on the portion of Slangkop Farm will be connected to the existing substation on the 

same farm and the turbines on the Kerrie Fontein Farm will be connected to a new substation on the 

Kerrie Fontein Farm. The location of the new substation will be along the existing 66 kV line and at 

the end of the new row of turbines. The substation platform would be approximately 36.5 m x 23 m 

with an approximate footprint of 840 m² and would be bunded. The substation would convert the 

electricity from 11kV to 66kV and would comprise a switchyard and building accommodating the 

control room/s, battery room and ablutions. The building would be approximately 6.5 m x 17 m 

(110.5 m 2 ) and located within the platform footprint. The architectural style of the new substation 

will be similar to the existing substation, which is built in a ‘West Coast Vernacular’ style, see Plate 

3.4 overleaf. 



Overhead Transmission Lines 

Plate 3.4: The existing substation for the Darling Wind Farm 

Eskom overhead transmission lines already exist on the respective portions of Slangkop and Kerrie 

Fontein farms and form part of the national grid. The new Kerrie Fontein substation will be located 

along this alignment to make use of the connection direct to the grid. 

Internal Roads 

As on the portion of the Slangkop Farm, stabilised dirt tracks of 5 m width to access each new 

turbine will be required, as well as to access the substation. Location of the internal access roads will 

also be dependent on the micro‐siting of the turbines. 

Site Access 

The access to turbines located on the Kerrie Fontein Farm will be via the existing access to the site 

from the R27, while access to those on Slangkop Farm will be via the existing road from R315. Access 

for heavy transport and construction vehicles during the operational phase will be from the R315 via 

the existing road on Windhoek Farm (portion of Slangkop 552). 

2.5.2 Operational and Maintenance Activities 

After commissioning, the operation and maintenance of the turbines will be monitored remotely by 

Nordex. There is an operational office in Langefontein Farm servicing the existing turbines and this 

will be expanded to accommodate additional technical equipment. See Section 3.5.3 below for the 

additional staffing requirements. 

Maintenance will be carried out throughout the lifetime of the turbines. A maintenance schedule 

usually involves an initial inspection after commissioning, a semi‐annual inspection, an annual 



inspection and two and five year inspections but this varies between types of turbine. Typical 

activities during maintenance include changing of oil, replacement of brake lining and cleaning of 

components. 

Operational traffic will therefore be limited and typically involve light vehicles. 

2.5.3 Operational Labour 

A recent study commissioned by Greenpeace has indicated that in South Africa, operation and 

maintenance of wind energy facilities accounts for approximately 0.72 jobs per MW (Rutovitz, 2010). 

This would equate to between 14 and 15 jobs generated by this Project. These include skilled 

mechatronics engineers (specialised in both electrical and mechanical engineering) likely to be 

recruited from the West Coast, Darling area and trained by the manufacturer, as well as less skilled 

services such as safety and security, and mechatronic assistants. 

The Oelsner Group is planning on developing a training centre on Langefontein Farm which would 

provide various levels of training relating to the servicing of operational wind energy facilities. It is 

intended that this would increase the local skills base and support this Project and others of its kind 

within the region. 

2.5.4 Surrounding Land Uses 

The current agricultural and mining activities on Windhoek (the portion of Slangkop) will continue 

within the respective areas on the farm, whilst the adjacent areas of the Kerrie Fontein farm will be 

conserved in a natural state and managed accordingly. The portion of Kerrie Fontein farm falling east 

of the R27 is subject to a Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act (Act 70 of 1970) application with the 

Department of Agriculture, and would be managed separately to the rest of the farm with the aim of 

promoting conservation. 

2.5.5 Operational Period 

The Project is expected to be operational from early 2013 and a 20 year lease has been signed with 

the landowner/s on Windhoek. As described in Section 3.5.4 above, there are plans to subdivide and 

purchase the relevant land areas of the Kerrie Fontein Farm. The facility has an estimated lifespan of 

25 years after which it will be: 

Extended in use for a minimum of five years dependent on a lease extension; or 

Decommissioned. 

2.6 DECOMMISSIONING 

The infrastructure has a design life of a minimum of 25 years. At the end of this period, or at the end 

of the lease period decommissioning will occur. 

Decommissioning involves the removal of all of the component parts of the turbines (towers, 

nacelles, rotors and transformers). The concrete footings will remain in the ground and will be 

covered with soil of a sufficient depth to allow farming to continue. Only the small centre section will 

be visible which is similar to a crop of rock formation. The scrap value of the turbines is sufficient to 

fund decommissioning. Supporting infrastructure that is no longer required will also be removed 

from the site and either disposed of or recycled. 



2.7 THE PROPOSED DARLING EDUCATION, TRAINING AND VISITOR CENTRE 

Although not part of this application for the Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm, a Visitor Centre is 

proposed on Windhoek Farm. The Centre is subject to a separate environmental authorisation 

process and an amendment application is pending a decision from DEA&DP. The Project cost is 

estimated as R35 million and there has been investment in the design involving various studies by a 

consultant team, including: architects, engineers (civil, acoustical engineers, electrical and 

mechanical), landscape design, land surveyors, management consultants, and wind technology 

consultants. 

The Visitor Centre conceptualised by the Oelsner Group in 2003 is a component of the application 

for the Kyoto Protocol CDM (as described in Section 3.8 below) through the Gold Standard 

certification. The British High Commission funded a preliminary design produced by Edward Cullinan 

Architects (a London based firm) subsequently revised by Fagan and Fagan. The architects have a 

world‐wide reputation for the design of low energy buildings that are responsive to the climate and 

to local conditions. The aim is that the building would exemplify sustainability so that it comes to 

form part of the exhibition itself. Materials will be largely selected for their durability and 

maintainability as well as ensuring as far as possible that they originate from sustainable and local 

sources. The Centre itself is divided into three principal areas: 

Visitor Facilities: entrance area, shop, exhibition space and restaurant; 

Education and Training: seminar rooms for two groups of thirty students and library; and 

Conference: main lecture room for up to 100 delegates with break out spaces. 

Sustainable Design elements include inter alia thatch rooves, stone floors, natural ventilation, use of 

grey water and renewable energy generation. An important component of the Project would be the 

rehabilitation of the 20 ha site, which is former agricultural land, to its natural state. This would 

include measures to eradicate alien vegetation, burning, hydro‐seeding and plant propagation 

involving local species and eventually reintroduction of selected fauna. Other elements include 

parking, a village to accommodate visitors, a demonstration turbine, a demonstration reed filtration 

bed, rural energy demonstration, demonstration farm, demonstration gardens, bird hide, picnic 

sites, lake and river walk. See Appendix 3.2 for the proposed layout of the Centre. 

The site for the Visitor Centre comprises a 20ha portion of the Windhoek Farm (Slangkop 3/552). At 

present a large area of the site is considered degraded from ploughing and grazing; and plant 

diversity has been largely reduced with many areas having no vegetation cover. Heavy alien 

infestation is also an issue for biodiversity. As a key component of the Visitor Centre, it is proposed 

that 18 ha of the site would be rehabilitated with local indigenous vegetation which is expected to 

take 6‐7 years. R4 million has been allocated towards the rehabilitation programme. There are 

synergies in having the Darling Demonstration Project and potentially the Kerrie Fontein Project 

linked to Centre, namely through the educational initiatives, including the demonstration models 

listed above. 

In line with the Oelsner Group’s Darling Sustainable Energy and Employment Scheme (SEES) it is 

intended that the Centre would provide basic training and employment for local residents 

encompassing trades as builders, electricians, plumbers, mechanics, and other associated trades. 

Furthermore, training will be facilitated through the rehabilitation process with the aim of setting up 

local contracting businesses to work on similar developments in the area; and the restaurant, 



kitchen, and canteen facility would provide a venue for training for students in the catering and 

tourism business. Estimates of visitor numbers to the Centre range from 30,000 to 50,000 visitors in 

the first year of operation and it is expected that the Centre would become a key tourist attraction 

within the region. In terms of education, it is anticipated that the facility will create an awareness of 

and promote renewable energy through the provision of tangible demonstrations of renewable 

technology applications. 

2.8 INTERNATIONAL CARBON OFFSET MECHANISMS AND FUNDING 

The present global trend towards renewable energy is largely based on initiatives to reduce the 

dependency on fossil fuels, the emission of greenhouse gases and their impacts on climate change. 

One of the mechanisms to reduce the impacts of climate change on an international scale is the 

Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) established under the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations 

Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1997. The CDM allows an industrialised 

country to implement an emission‐reduction project in developing countries to earn saleable 

certified emission reduction (CER) credits, which can be counted towards a country’s official 

emission counts and hence towards meeting Kyoto targets (UNFCCC, 2010) 

Each host country is required to establish a Designated National Authority (DNA) to evaluate and 

approve the operation of each project through consideration of sustainability criteria and indicators 

(economic, social, environmental and general project acceptability). Further to this, the Project must 

qualify for CDM through a “rigorous and public registration and issuance process designed to ensure 

real, measurable and verifiable emission reductions that are additional to what would have occurred 

without the project” (UNFCCC, 2010) 

The DME are the South African Designated National Authority for the Clean Development 

Mechanism (CDM) of the Kyoto Protocol. The Oelsner Group submitted a Project Identification Note 

to the DME in April 2009 and received a Letter of No Objection in response. The documentation 

states that the Project will result in an estimated emissions reduction of 63,360 tCO2e per year. 

In addition, the Project in combination with the proposed ‘Darling Education, Training and Visitor 

Centre’ (described in Section 3.7 above) is seeking Gold Standard certification which is “an 

independently audited, globally applicable best practice methodology for project development that 

delivers high quality carbon credits of premium value along with sustainable development co‐benefits 

associated with the projects”. The certification is issued by the Gold Standard Foundation which was 

established in 2003 by non‐governmental organisations (NGOs), including the Worldwide Fund for 

Nature (WWF), SouthSouthNorth and Helio International. The environmental and social 

requirements of Projects applying for the Gold Standard are higher than those set out in the 

framework of the Kyoto Protocol. There has been widespread support of the standards as evident by 

the number of NGOs that have since joined the Gold Standard signifying a general acceptance of the 

standard of the certification process amongst environmental communities. Gold Standard projects 

“cut back on emissions from the very beginning by promoting renewable energy and energy 

efficiency projects that serve to improve environmental, economic and social conditions for recipient 

communities, while at the same time addressing climate change” (Gold Standard, 2010). 

Achieving CDM approval will allow the Project to qualify for funding from ‘atmosfair gGmbH’. 



atmosfair gGmbH was founded in Germany in 2005 as a joint initiative of ‘forum anders reisen’ 2 and 

the environment and development organisation Germanwatch 3 with the support of the German 

Federal Environment Agency (atmosfair, 2010). atmosfair provides a voluntary service to travellers 

who wish to offset the greenhouse gas emissions of their individual flights through the sale of an 

atmosfair certificate. The donations are invested in climate change projects in developing countries. 

These projects are registered CDM projects and adhere to the CDM Gold Standard certification. 

atmosfair projects are therefore certified by UN‐accredited monitoring organisations (atmosfair, 

2010). 

2 

‘Forum anders reisen’ is an association of German tour operators promoting sustainable development 

www.forumandersreisen.de 

3 

Germanwatch is a German North‐South initiative that is committed to economic and ecological reorientation 

in the North. Germanwatch provides the foundation for necessary policy changes in the North which preserve 

the interests of people in the South) www.germanwatch.org 





3 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 


Alternatives are defined in the NEMA EIA Regulations as “different means of meeting the general 

purpose and requirements of the activity”. It is the duty of the competent authority to consider “any 

feasible and reasonable alternatives to the activity which is the subject of the application and any 

feasible and reasonable modifications or changes to the activity that may minimise harm to the 

environment”. It is also recommended that alternatives should be identified as early on in the 

process as possible, although the iterative nature of the process allows new alternatives to be 

addressed should they arise through the PPP. 

Alternatives may include location or site alternatives, activity alternatives, design layout, technology 

alternatives and operational aspects. Broadly, there are two types of alternatives: 

Discrete alternatives – different means of achieving the general purpose, e.g. wind power 

instead of solar power; and 

Incremental alternative – modifications of the proposed activity in terms of design, layout in 

order to prevent and/or mitigate environmental impacts identified during the assessment 

process. 

Categorising the 10 types of alternatives presented in DEAT’s (2004) Information Series on 

‘Alternatives in EIA’, two of the ten would constitute ‘discrete alternatives’, namely, activity and 

demand alternatives. The other eight would fall into the domain of ‘incremental alternatives’, 

specifically location, process, scheduling, input, routing, site layout, scale, and design alternatives. 

With respect to discrete alternatives, these are generally identified in the early pre‐feasibility and 

feasibility stages of a project. The strategic level alternatives of the mix and contribution of 

renewable energy generation types in South Africa has been considered in the draft National 

Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) published by the Department of Energy (DoE) in consultation with 

National Energy Regulator of South Africa (NERSA) discussed in Section 5 (Need and Desirability). 

This Scoping process only considers the generation of wind energy. 

According to the Guidelines on Alternatives issued by DEA&DP (2006), it is best practice to consider 

at least two alternatives against the No‐Go Option. This Scoping and EIA will include consideration of 

the No‐Go Option, Technology alternatives and Design and Layout alternatives. 

3.2 NO‐GO ALTERNATIVE 

The No‐Go alternative assumes that the Project is not developed and the activity does not go ahead. 

This alternative can provide the baseline scenario against which other alternatives can be compared. 

In this case the benefits of the Project would be foregone and the opportunity to generate 

renewable energy for reaching provincial and national targets would not be achieved in this instance 

and the feasibility of the existing wind farm would be compromised. Similarly any direct and indirect 

socio‐economic benefits for the wider area would not be realised. Although, no negative 

environmental or social impacts would arise as a result of the Project, the continued grazing on the 



Kerrie Fontein Farm east of the R27 would accelerate transformation and degradation of the natural 

vegetation. 

3.3 SITE AND LOCATION ALTERNATIVES 

The Darling Demonstration Project has been operational on the farm Slangkop (3/552) since 2008. 

As described in Section 1.1 and Section 3.1, the original proposal for this site was a maximum of 10 

turbines and approval was only granted for four. It is therefore the intention to expand the original 

wind farm to its original planned capacity, with an additional number of turbines to match this 

capacity proposed on the adjoining farm Kerrie Fontein (0/555). A pre‐application meeting was held 

with DEA&DP (Pre‐application meeting, Feb 2010) and it emerged that there will be no other site 

location alternatives for consideration in the EIA as the Project is associated with extension of an 

existing wind farm. 

3.4 TECHNOLOGY ALTERNATIVES 

The preferred manufacturer and supplier for the wind turbines is a German company named 

Nordex. Two types of turbines have been considered, the N60 and N77. The N60 is smaller with a 

lower output per turbine which would require more turbines to achieve the desired capacity. The 

N77 is slightly larger with an increased capacity per turbine. Table 3.1 below sets out the two 

alternatives, or options, which have been considered and assessed. Option 1 is technically preferable 

based on technical performance, namely grid stability (Eskom) and yield performance. See Figure 1.2 

and Figure 1.3 which depict the proposed layouts for both options. 

Table 3.1: Turbine models and capacity alternatives 

Option 1 Option 2 

Type of Turbine N77 N60 

Design configuration Low and moderate 

wind conditions 

High wind conditions 

Total No.Turbines 14 16 

No. Turbines on Slangkop 5 6 

No. Turbines on Kerrie 

Fontein 

9 10 

Capacity per Turbine 1.5 MW 1.3 MW 

Total Capacity 21 MW 20.8 MW 

Rotor speed 9.9/17.3 rpm 12.8 /19.2 rpm 

Rotor diameter 77 m 60 m 

Swept area 4,657 m 2 2,828 m 2 

Blade length ±37.5 m 29 m 

Hub height 70 m 60 m 



3.5 SITE LAYOUT ALTERNATIVES 

Site layout alternatives allow for consideration of different spatial configurations of the activity on a 

particular site. For this Project, site layout alternatives are directly related to the technology which is 

selected. The preferred technology has dictated the number of turbines required and hence the 

potential layout for Option 1 and 2. The positioning of the turbines has been undertaken in 

collaboration with Nordex, who have modelled the efficiency of the wind resource for each 

configuration. From there, the turbines for both options were rearranged to avoid the areas of 

botanical sensitivity identified during the Scoping Phase by Helme (2010). The preferred option is 

the N77. This is based on favourable yield performance; reduced footprint; and avoidance of highly 

sensitive vegetation for the turbine positions. The internal access road linking the northern and 

southern rows of turbines has also been realigned to avoid the medium sensitivity vegetation as far 

as possible. Although it has been recommended by the visual specialist that the new substation be 

located as close as possible to the existing station, or combined with the existing substation, this is 

not feasible as the Project falls across two farms with different lease arrangements. 





4 NEED AND DESIRABILITY 


According to the DEA&DP Guideline on Need and Desirability (August 2010), the EIA process is 

responsible for evaluating whether the Project is justified in terms of environmental, social and 

economic sustainability. Consideration of the strategic context of the proposed Project along with 

the broader societal needs and the public interest is required. The guidelines go further to state that 

the need and desirability of the Project must be measured against the contents of the current 

developmental and spatial planning documents, thus aligning with the vision for the area. 

Specifically, “the concept of need and desirability can be explained in terms of the general meaning 

of its two components in which need refers to time and desirability to place – i.e. is this the right 

time and is it the right place for locating the type of land‐use/activity being proposed”(p:9). 

4.2 NEED 

Need or ‘timing’ of the development can be seen in light of the present global trend towards 

renewable energy which is largely based on initiatives to reduce the dependency on fossil fuels, the 

emission of greenhouse gases and their impacts on climate change. South Africa has made a 

commitment to the promotion of renewable energy in the Johannesburg Declaration as part of the 

Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002. Furthermore, South Africa has 

already ratified the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (1992) and the Kyoto 

Protocol (1997), which creates international incentives to invest in emission reduction projects in 

developing countries such as South Africa. More recently, South Africa has submitted an emission 

mitigation pledge to the UNFCCC under the Copenhagen Accord (2009) which sets out emission 

reduction targets. 

The legislation and policy context for energy and specifically renewable energy in South Africa is 

listed in Table 5.2 and also discussed in Section 6.3 (Energy Legal and Regulatory Framework). The 

key legislation and policy is briefly reiterated here. The National Energy Act (Act 34 of 2008) aims to 

ensure that diverse energy resources are available, in sustainable quantities and at affordable prices, 

to the South African economy in support of economic growth and poverty alleviation. The Act 

recognises that environmental management requirements are taken into account in planning and 

that increased generation of renewable energies is required. 

The White Paper on Renewable Energy (2003) recognises that the potential for renewable energy in 

South Africa is significant and is a policy setting out how renewable energy will be promoted and 

implemented. The White Paper sets a target of 10,000 GWh renewable energy contribution to final 

energy consumption by 2013. This renewable energy is to be produced mainly from biomass, wind, 

solar and small‐scale hydro. 

The strategic level mix and contribution of renewable energy generation types in South Africa has 

been considered in the National Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) published by the Department of 

Energy (DoE) in consultation with National Energy Regulator of South Africa (NERSA). The IRP was 

promulgated in May 2011 and is a long‐term electricity capacity plan that directs expansion of the 



electricity supply over the period of 20 years. Its stated objective is to provide a mechanism by which 

electricity systems, sustainability and government policy requirements are met, and more 

specifically what the appropriate mix of technologies is to meet the needs of the country. 

The NERSA Renewable Energy Feed‐In Tariff (REFIT) Guidelines published in 2009 under the 

Electricity Regulation Act (Act 4 of 2006) guarantee attractive rates of payment for renewable energy 

sold back to the grid, thereby encouraging investment in the various sub‐sectors of renewable 

energy. In 2010, NERSA published ‘Rules on Selection Criteria for Renewable Energy Projects under 

the REFIT Programme’ which sets out criteria with which Independent Power Producers (IPPs) must 

comply in order to qualify for licences. It is the intention for this Project to qualify for REFIT. For 

wind energy projects, the preferred size for such a project is ≥ 20 MW and this threshold has 

provided the justification for the proposed capacity of this Project. However, at present the 2009 

rates are under review. 

In the Western Cape, the White Paper on Sustainable Energy for the Western Cape Province (2010) 

sets out a target for the Province. It is stipulated that 15% of electricity consumed in the Province 

will come from renewable energy sources by 2014 (measured against 2006 Provincial consumption). 

As this legal and policy framework depicts, it has been recognised that in order to fulfil international 

commitments to sustainable development and climate change, renewable energy is to be promoted 

and this will ensure a diversification of electricity supply and energy security. As stated by Edkins et 

al (2010a, p:v), “it seems that the renewable energy market in South Africa is set to go, especially 

since the announcement of REFIT”. 

More specifically, wind energy is one of a number of freely available sources for renewable power 

generation. Hagemann (2008) has produced a Wind Atlas for South Africa through modelling the 

climatological wind speeds. This is shown in Figure 4.1 overleaf. The research has shown that overall 

the country’s wind resource “is comparable to some of the windiest markets overseas” (Hagemann, 

2008). The Wind Atlas has also shown that all three Cape Provinces have a significant inland wind 

resource. Although Edkins et al (2010b) have asserted that wind power is one of the most mature 

new renewable technologies in use throughout the world today, the industry is still in its infancy in 

South Africa. Given the wind resources and the policy framework above the wind industry has huge 

potential. 

The key environmental benefit of wind energy generation is climate change mitigation. Although 

wind energy generation may have a number of potential site specific impacts on the environment, as 

assessed within this EIR, other important benefits are as follows: 

Very small footprint for turbines and associated infrastructure; 

Allows for co‐use of land in either agricultural or natural areas; 

Minimal water consumption; and 

No direct atmospheric emissions. 

In terms of implementation, the technology is mature and considered low‐risk in comparison to 

other types of renewable energy (Edkins et al, 2010b). Economic benefits are often limited, as 

suggested by the findings of a recent publication by Greenpeace Africa (Rutovitz, 2010). The study 

has shown that in South Africa it is estimated that about 4.5 jobs/MW will be generated during the 

construction, manufacture and installation of wind turbines which is the lowest of all forms of 

energy generation. However, the potential for job creation through manufacturing is significant and 



the highest of all energy generation sectors at about 22.5 jobs/MW, with the next highest being PV 

at 16.8 jobs/MW. Operational jobs are estimated to be 0.72 jobs/MW which is average over the 

range of generation technologies and only fractionally superseded by PV at 0.73 jobs/MW. 

In South Africa technology and skills would be imported initially, however, there would be some 

local economic opportunities in the long term, for example, developing the component manufacture 

industry would be the first step towards retaining some of these benefits (Edkins et al, 2010b). 

Section 13 (Social Impact Assessment) addresses the likely socio‐economic impacts of this Project in 

particular and the estimated number of jobs per MW. 

Figure 4.1: Annual average wind speeds at 10m above ground in ms‐1 (Hagemann, 2008) 

Renewable energy production is recognised as a way of meeting sustainability objectives. A number 

of sustainable energy goals of the Western Cape are set out Table 4.1 overleaf (as identified in the 

Western Cape White Paper on Sustainable Energy, 2010). 



Table 4.1: Sustainable energy goals 

Social sustainability 

Goal 1: Alleviate energy poverty. The links between energy poverty and under‐development clearly exist. 

While the poor do have electricity, households either have no or few electrical appliances. If they do these are 

typically very inefficient appliances for example old refrigerators or hot plates for heating and cooking. Many 

of the informal settlements are regularly the scenes of large scale fires caused by the use of paraffin stoves in 

unsafe conditions. The cost of preparing meals or heating a room is typically higher for the poor than for 

people who can afford efficient and appropriate technologies. Time spent to access energy also disadvantages 

the poor. 

Goal 2: Improve the health of the nation. Energy efficiency and increased use of renewable energy reduces 

the atmospheric emission of harmful substances such as smoke, oxides of sulphur and oxides of nitrogen. Such 

substances are known to have an adverse effect on health and are frequently a primary cause of common 

respiratory ailments. The health of the nation includes improving the health of the individual through 

improved indoor climate as well as the outdoor climate. Poor air quality (pollution) impacts on health and 

contributes to increases in respiratory diseases. 

Environmental sustainability 

Goal 3: Reduce harmful emissions. Improved energy efficiency and increased use of renewable energy are 

cost effective methods to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, thereby combating climate change. Addressing 

climate change opens the door to utilising additional finance mechanisms such as the Clean Development 

Mechanism (CDM) to reduce CO2 emissions 

Goal 4: Reduce negative footprints in our environment. The use of fossil fuels has a documented negative 

impact on the regional and local environment and biodiversity. The negative impact includes but is not limited 

to, ground water pollution and air pollution. Any reduction in the use of fossil fuels through switching to 

cleaner energy sources and more efficient energy uses is a success. 

Economic sustainability 

Goal 5: Enhance Energy Security. The South African power black‐outs that started first in the Western Cape in 

early 2006 alerted the Province to its energy vulnerability. It is essential that the Western Cape increases its 

resilience against external energy supply disruptions and the massive price fluctuations caused by national or 

international decisions. 

Goal 6: Improve economic competitiveness and job creation. It has been demonstrated internationally that 

one of the ways to improve economic competitiveness is by improving industrial and commercial energy 

efficiency. Support of industrial best practice energy management as a tool to stay competitive and improve 

the economy is important. 

Source: Western Cape White Paper on Sustainable Energy, 2010 

It is therefore evident that the current environment for renewable energy is an enabling one and 

IPPs for wind energy in particular would be able to play a part in providing a more socially, 

environmentally and economically sustainable form of energy. 

4.3 DESIRABILITY 

Desirability or ‘placing’ of the development has been assessed on more than one level. It must first 

be reiterated that this Project is an extension to an existing facility, the Darling National 

Demonstration Wind Farm. At the time (1996), there were no established criteria on which to guide 

the siting of wind turbines and the reasons for siting the Demonstration Wind Farm in its current 

location are as follows as (EEU, 2004): 



i. Maximum remoteness from existing and planned residential areas; 

ii. Maximum remoteness from coastal and sensitive nature areas; 

iii. Close proximity to the national grid; 

iv. Good wind regime of location – determined by observing existing plant and tree structures; 

v. Elevated terrain with wind pressure and wind speed build‐up; 

vi. Easy access from public roads; 

vii. Preferably east of the R27 for environmental reasons (the area west of the R27 is close to 

the coast and is currently regarded as a key area for the establishment of conservancies); 

and 

viii. Potential to secure an arrangement with the landowner in order to enable development and 

operation of the wind farm. 

As described in Section 3.1 (Background Information), the Darling National Demonstration Project 

was always comprised of two phases, with the second phase to follow should the first be considered 

successful. Phase 2 was originally intended to deliver a further six turbines on the same site. 

However, the publication of the NERSA ‘Rules on Selection Criteria for Renewable Energy Projects 

under the REFIT Programme’ (2010) has stipulated that the minimum size of a wind energy facility is 

20 MW. To qualify for these subsidies, the applicant has progressed with a wind farm proposal that 

will involve the minimum number of turbines to achieve the required 20 MW. The Kerrie Fontein 

and Darling Wind Farm is therefore considered desirable in order to reach the original capacity 

intended for the Darling National Demonstration Project. 

The review of developmental and spatial plans and their relevance to the Project is documented in 

Section 6.4 (Development and Spatial Policy). While the Swartland Municipality and the West Coast 

District Municipality both realise the importance of tourism in the area, and the designation of the 

R27 as a regional transport corridor, they also realise the importance of renewable energy and list 

other important criteria such as protection of biodiversity, agricultural and cultural resources. For 

the Project there is an opportunity to manage the biodiversity of the site which would otherwise be 

compromised by alien vegetation, grazing and trampling by livestock and other activities continuing 

on the two farms. With this in mind, it is considered that despite the visual impact of the facility, the 

net benefits make the facility desirable, especially since it is currently the smallest renewable energy 

proposal in the West Coast District and involves the extension of an existing facility. 





5 LEGAL, PLANNING AND POLICY CONTEXT 

5.1 SUMMARY OF LEGAL, PLANNING AND POLICY FRAMEWORK 

All legislation, plans and policies relating to the proposed Project, either in terms of environmental 

management, renewable energy or spatial planning, has been included in the tables below. Table 5.1 

provides a summary of the relevant environmental legislation and policy, and spatial planning 

documents. Table 5.2 thereafter sets out the relevant energy legislation and policy. Only the key 

legislation and policy, is described in relation to the Project in Sections 6.2, 6.3 and 6.4 below. 

Guidelines specifically applicable to EIA are referred to in Section 6.5 thereafter. 

Table 5.1: Relevant environmental and development legislation and policy 

International 

Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development in (2002): Johannesburg Declaration 

National 

Legislation 

Constitution of the Republic of South Africa ( 1996) 

National Environmental Management Act (107 of 1998): EIA Regulations, 2006 & 2010 

Environment Conservation Act (73 of 1989) (ECA) 

National Heritage Resources Act (25 of 1999) (NHRA) 

National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (10 of 2004) 

National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act (57 of 2003) 

National Water Act (36 of 1998) 

National Environment Management: Air Quality Act (Act 39 of 2004) 

National Environmental Management: Waste Act (59 of 2008) 

Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act (43 of 1983) 

National Veld and Forest Fire Act (101 of 1998) 

Occupational Health and Safety Act (85 of 1993) 

Hazardous Chemical Substances Regulations (1995) 

Policy and Planning 

White Paper on Environmental Management Policy for SA (1997) 

White Paper on Conservation and Sustainable Utilisation of Biodiversity (1997) 

National Framework for Sustainable Development (NFSD) (2008) 

Provincial 

Legislation 

Land Use Planning Ordinance (LUPO) (1985) 

Western Cape Nature Conservation Board Act (15 of 1998) 

Western Cape Planning and Development Act (1999) 

Western Cape Nature Conservation Laws Amendment Act (3 of 2000) 

Western Cape Planning and Development Amendment Bill (2002) 

Western Cape National Environmental Management Protected Areas Bill (2003) 

Western Cape Tourism Act (2004) 


Bioregional Planning Framework for the Western Cape Province (2000) 

White Paper on Sustainable Tourism Development and Promotion in the Western Cape (2001) 

Western Cape Sustainable Development Implementation Plan (SDIP) (2007) 

Ikapa Growth and Development Strategy (2008) 

Western Cape Provincial Spatial Development Framework (PSDF) (2009) 




Municipal 

West Coast District Spatial Development Framework (Draft, 2007) 

West Coast District Integrated Development Plan (IDP) (2010‐2014) 

West Coast Tourism Implementation Strategy (2010‐2015) 

Swartland Municipality Spatial Development Framework (2002) 

Swartland Municipality Integrated Development Plan (IDP) (2007‐2011) 

Swartland Municipality Ward 5 Plan (2011) 

Table 5.2: Relevant energy legislation and policy 

International 

The Copenhagen Accord (2009) 

Kyoto Protocol (1997) (Including Clean Development Mechanism 2006) 

Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development in (2002): Johannesburg Declaration 

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (1992) 

National 

Electricity Act (41 of 1987) 

White Paper on the Energy Policy of the Republic of SA (1998) 

Implementation Strategy for Renewable Energy in South Africa (2000) 

White Paper on Renewable Energy (2003) 

Electricity Regulation Act (4 of 2006) 

National Energy Act (34 of 2008) 

Energy Security Master Plan – Electricity: 2007‐2025 (2008) 

Electricity Regulations on New Generation Capacity (2009) 

NERSA, South Africa Renewable Energy Feed‐In Tariff (REFIT): Regulatory Guidelines, 26 March 2009 (Phase 1) 

NERSA, South Africa Renewable Energy Feed‐In Tariff (REFIT): 29 October 2009 (Phase 2) 

NERSA, Rules on Selection Criteria for Renewable Energy Projects under the REFIT Programme (2010) 

NERSA, Consultation Paper, Review of Renewable Energy Feed‐In Tariffs (REFIT) (2011) 

Final Integrated Resource Plan for Electricity (2011) 

Provincial 

White Paper on Sustainable Energy for The Western Cape Province (2010) 

A Proposed Renewable Energy Plan of Action for the Western Cape: Resource Assessment, Scenarios, 

Proposed Objectives and Actions (May 2007) 

Western Cape Sustainable Development Implementation Plan (August, 2007) 

Western Cape Sustainable Energy Strategy and Programme of Action (March 2008) 

A Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan for the Western Cape (March 2008) 

Strategic Initiative to Introduce Commercial Land Based Wind Energy Development to the Western Cape: 

Towards a Regional Methodology for Wind Energy Site Selection (2006) (Not legislated) 

5.2 ENVIRONMENTAL LEGAL AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK 

The applicable environmental legislation and its relevance to the Project is summarised below. 

5.2.1 The Constitution, Act 108 of 1996 

The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (Act 108 of 1996) has been adopted as the supreme 

law of the country and forms the foundations for a democratic society in which fundamental human 

rights are protected. In terms of the environment, Chapter 2 Section 24 states that everyone has a 

right: 



a) To an environment that is not harmful to their health or well‐being; and 

b) To have the environment protected, for the benefit of present and future generations, 

through reasonable legislative and other measures that ‐ 

i. prevent pollution and ecological degradation; 

ii. promote conservation; and 

iii. secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources while 

promoting justifiable economic and social development. 

Relevance to the Project 

Encouraging investment in the renewable energy sector demonstrates government commitment to 

protecting the environment from future resource depletion, as well as conservation of natural 

resources while promoting economic development. 

5.2.2 National Environmental Management Act (107 of 1998) (NEMA) 

NEMA (107 of 1998) is the key legislation setting out the framework for environmental 

management in South Africa. The Act promotes cooperative environmental governance and 

establishes principles for decision‐making on matters affecting the environment. An overarching 

principle in Chapter 1 emphasizes that development must be socially, environmentally and 

economically sustainable. Sustainable development is considered to include the following: 

i) That the disturbance of ecosystems and loss of biological diversity are avoided, or, where 

they cannot be altogether avoided, are minimised and remedied; 

ii) That pollution and degradation of the environment are avoided, or, where they cannot be 

altogether avoided, are minimised and remedied; 

iii) That the disturbance of landscapes and sites that constitute the nation’s cultural heritage is 

avoided, or where it cannot be altogether avoided, is minimised and remedied; 

iv) That waste is avoided, or where it cannot be altogether avoided, minimised and reused or 

recycled where possible and otherwise disposed of in a responsible manner; 

v) That the use and exploitation of non‐renewable natural resources is responsible and 

equitable, and takes into account the consequences of the depletion of the resource; 

vi) That the development, use and exploitation of renewable resources and the ecosystems of 

which they are part do not exceed the level beyond which their integrity is jeopardised; 

vii) That a risk‐averse and cautious approach is applied, which takes into account the limits of 

current knowledge about the consequences of decisions and actions; and 

viii) That negative impacts on the environment and on people’s environmental rights be 

anticipated and prevented, and where they cannot be altogether prevented, are minimised 

and remedied. 

Specifically, Chapter 5 deals with Integrated Environmental Management and promotes the 

application of appropriate tools. The ‘EIA Regulations’ published in GN R385 of April 21 2006 in 

terms of Section 24(5) of NEMA require that certain activities listed in GN R386 of April 21 2006 will 

require a ‘Basic Assessment’, and those in and GN R387 of April 21 2006 will require a ‘Scoping and 

EIA’ respectively before they can proceed. 




This Project includes a number of listed activities which collectively form part of the proposal. Those 

activities falling under GN R387 trigger the requirement for a Scoping and EIA and are described in 

Table 5.3 whilst those falling under GN R386 are set out in Table 5.4 thereafter. 

Table 5.3: Activities requiring Scoping and EIA 

Government Notice 387, 1 (a) 

The construction of facilities or infrastructure, including associated structures or infrastructure, for– 

(a) the generation of electricity where – 

(i) the electricity output is 20 megawatts or more; or 

(ii) the elements of the facility cover a combined area in excess of 1 hectare; 

Table 5.4: Activities requiring Basic Assessment 

Government Notice 386, 1 

(l) the transmission and distribution of electricity above ground with a capacity of more than 33 

kilovolts and less than 120 kilovolts; 


The construction of masts of any material or type and of any height, including those used 

for telecommunication broadcasting and radio transmission, but excluding ‐ 

(a) masts of 15 metres and lower exclusively used 

(i) by radio amateurs; or 

(ii) for lighting purposes 

(b) flag poles; and 

(c) lightning conductor poles. 


The construction of a road that is wider than 4 metres or that has a reserve wider than 6 metres, 

excluding roads that fall within the ambit of another listed activity or which are access roads of less 

than 30 metres long. 

Amended EIA Regulations – 2010 

The NEMA EIA Amendment Regulations of 2010 were promulgated on 18 June 2010 and came into 

effect on 2 August 2010 to replace the previous EIA Regulations promulgated on 21 April 2006. 

These Regulations appear in Government Notice No. R 543, R 544, R 545, R 546 and R 547 in 

Government Gazette No. 33306 of 18 June 2010. The procedure and criteria for the submission, 

processing and consideration of, and decision on, applications for environmental authorisations is 

set out in GN R543 and the three new Listing Notices are set out as follows: Listing Notice 1 (R544), 

Listing Notice 2 (R545) and Listing Notice 3 (R546). 

GN543 (76) makes provision for transitional arrangements in relation to applications that are 

pending. If the situation arises whereby the application involves listed activities similar to those set 

out in the 2006 EIA Listing Notices, then the competent authority may authorise the application 

under the previous 2006 EIA Regulations as if they had not been repealed. If there is an activity not 

listed under the previous EIA Regulations, then the application may only be dispensed on the 

condition that all impacts of the newly listed activity and requirements of these regulations have 

also been considered and adequately assessed by the applicant. 

Appendix 6.1 sets out a comparison of the 2006 Listed Activities relevant to the Project and 

compares the activities to those listed in the 2010 Regulations. All activities are considered and 

adequately assessed as required by the Regulations. 



5.2.3 Environment Conservation Act (73 of 1989) (ECA) 

The Environment Conservation Act (ECA) has been partially superseded by the promulgation of 

NEMA. There are however some chapters of the Act that remain in force (until specifically repealed 

by NEMA) and these relate to the protection of the natural environment and the control of 

environmental pollution. 


Section 8 of the ECA refers to national noise regulations with regard to the control of noise, vibration 

and shock. These regulations define noise, vibration and shock and make provision for the 

prevention, reduction or elimination of them. The Western Cape Province has however, 

promulgated their own Provincial Noise Control Regulations, adopted in Provincial Notice 627 of 

1998 in terms of Section 25 of the ECA. 

Section 20 of the ECA sets out waste disposal requirements however most of this has been repealed 

by the Waste Act (59 of 2008). 

5.2.4 National Heritage Resources Act (25 of 1999) (NHRA) 

The purpose of the NHRA is to introduce an integrated and interactive system for the protection of 

South Africa’s heritage resources including paleontological, prehistoric and historical material 

(including ruins) more than 100 years old (Section 35), human remains (Section 36) and non‐ruined 

structures older than 60 years (Section 34). Landscapes with cultural significance are also protected 

under the definition of the National Estate (Section 3 (3.2d)). South African National Heritage 

Resources Agency (SAHRA) is the enforcing authority and in the Western Cape, the authority has 

been delegated to Heritage Western Cape (HWC) for most cases. 


In terms of Section 38 of the Act, for certain categories of development, the authority requires 

notification of the intent to develop. The aim is to provide the necessary information to enable 

Heritage Western Cape to decide whether a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) will be required, and 

to establish the appropriate scope of and range of skills required for the HIA. This form was 

submitted to Heritage Western Cape along with the Draft EIR and they have commented that no 

further studies are required. 

5.2.5 National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (10 of 2004) 

The Act provides for the management and conservation of South Africa’s biodiversity within the 

framework of the NEMA; the protection of species and ecosystems that warrant national protection; 

the sustainable use of indigenous biological resources; the fair and equitable sharing benefits arising 

from bio‐prospecting involving indigenous biological resources; and the establishment and functions 

of a South African National Biodiversity Institute. 


Chapter 4 in particular relates to threatened and protected ecosystems and species and related 

threatening processes and restricted activities. The EIA has taken into consideration those 

indigenous species listed as threatened or protected species in terms of Section 56(1) of the Act. 



5.2.6 National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act (57 of 2003) 

The Protected Areas Act relates to the declaration and management of protected areas, nature 

reserves and World Heritage Sites. In terms of this Act, no person may enter or reside in the reserve 

or site without the written permission of the management authority. 


Although the proposed site does not fall within a protected area, the West Coast National Park 

(WCNP) is within 5 km of the site to the north‐west. The WCNP extends west towards the coast and 

northwards to Langebaan and is adjacent to the Sixteen Mile Beach Marine Protected Area (MPA) 

which falls within 10 km of the Project. The Yzerfontein Local Nature Reserve is located 

approximately 10 km to the west of the Project. The Tienie Versveld Wild Flower Reserve belonging 

to the National Botanical Institute adjoins the R315 1‐2 km south of the site. The proximity of these 

reserves has been taken into account in the EIA where relevant. 

5.2.7 National Water Act (36 of 1998) 

The Act provides the framework for the sustainable management of South Africa’s water resources. 

It aims to protect, use, develop, conserve, manage and control water resources as a whole, 

promoting integrated water resource management that involves participation of all stakeholders. 

The Act declares the national government to be the public trustee of the nation’s water (and 

groundwater) resources as well as prioritising socio‐economic and environmental needs. The Act is 

administered by the national Department of Water Affairs (DWA) via regional offices. 


Section 19 refers to pollution prevention and places responsibility on the person who owns, controls 

or uses the land to take all reasonable measures to prevent pollution of a water resource from 

occurring, continuing to occur or recurring as a result of activities on land. Prescribed waste standard 

or management practices require compliance. 

Section 21 classifies ‘water use’ in respect of requiring a license and these include (a) taking water 

from a water source; (i) altering the bed, banks, course or characteristics of a watercourse and (j) 

removing, discharging or disposing of water found underground if it is necessary for the efficient 

continuation of an activity or for the safety of people. Should the Project require the abstraction of 

water through the borehole on the site or require access roads which may require crossings over the 

watercourses on the site, the relevant licensing procedures may apply as set out in Sections 40‐42. 

5.2.8 National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act (39 of 2004) 

The Act aims to protect the environment and the health and well‐being of people, through 

prevention of air pollution and ecological degradation whilst promoting justifiable economic and 

social development. The Act makes provision for national, provincial and local ambient air quality 

and emission standards. 


Although Regulations have not yet been promulgated, Section 32 and 34 set out measures relating 

to the control of dust and noise which would be applicable to the construction phase of the Project. 



5.2.9 National Environmental Management: Waste Act (59 of 2008) 

In order to protect the environment, the Waste Act regulates waste management by providing 

reasonable measures for pollution prevention and ecological degradation thus securing ecological 

sustainable development. Some of its key objectives are listed below: 

(a) Minimising the consumption of natural resources; 

(b) Avoiding and minimising the generation of waste; 

(c) Reducing, re‐using, recycling and recovering waste; 

(d) Preventing pollution and ecological degradation; and 

(e) Securing ecologically sustainable development while promoting justifiable economic and 

social development. 


Chapter 4 sets out waste management measures. In particular, Part 3 (reduction, re‐use, recycling 

and recovery of waste) and Part 5 (storage, collection and transportation of waste) are of relevance 

to the construction phase of the Project and are referred to in the Draft EMP (Ecosense, 2011). 

5.2.10 Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act (43 of 1983) (CARA) 

The Act provides the framework for control of utilisation of the natural agricultural resources in 

South Africa to promote the conservation of soil and water resources and vegetation (including 

wetlands) and aims to combat and control weeds and the elimination of invader plant species. 


Section 5 relates to the prohibition of the spreading of weeds and invader plants and Regulation 15 

makes provision for these types of plants. The botanical survey identified alien invasive species in 

the wider area as classified in the Act. The EIA has therefore considered management of alien 

species. Section 6 of the Act refers to control measures and this is further detailed in the Regulations 

R1048, GG9238 of 25 May 1984. Measures relating to conservation of agricultural resources also 

related to the management of wetlands and water courses; run‐off; vegetation; veld fires; veld 

which has been burned; and soil erosion, may also be applicable to the Project. 

5.2.11 National Veld and Forest Fire Act (101 of 1998) 

This Act serves a dual purpose being firstly established to prevent and combat veld, forest and 

mountain fires throughout South Africa and secondly to provide for a variety of institutions, 

methods and practices for the achieving this. It has numerous implications for fire prevention and 

fire fighting. 


Section 12(1) relates to the duty of the landowner to prevent fire from spreading to adjoining 

properties. The veld on site may be prone to veld fires in the dry summer months, as documented in 

the Draft EMP, and fire prevention procedures have been set out in the to reduce the risk of fire and 

to respond accordingly during both construction and operational phases (Ecosense, 2011). 



5.2.12 Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act (70 of 1970) 

The original aim of the Act was to prevent the subdivision of agricultural land to the extent where 

the new portions created are too small to support economically viable farming. The Act requires that 

owners of agricultural land obtain consent from the Minister of Agriculture to subdivide agricultural 

land. Any sale of a proposed subdivision is invalid if it is entered into before ministerial consent is 

granted. The Act was repealed by the Subdivision of Agricultural Land Repeal Act (64 of 1998) but 

that Act has not been put into operation yet. 


The Project falls within land zoned as Agricultural owned by two separate landowners. A subdivision 

and rezoning is therefore required. To support and inform the Land Use Planning Ordinance (15 of 

1985) application for subdivision and rezoning of agricultural land, the Applicant is commissioning a 

study which addresses the potential land value and takes into account the potential agricultural 

value of the land. Consent from the Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries will be sought. 

5.2.13 Occupational Health and Safety Act (85 of 1993) 

This Act provides the legal framework for the health and safety of persons at work and for those in 

connection with the use of plant and machinery. According to the Act, the ‘health and safety 

standard’ is defined as any standard, irrespective of whether or not the force of the law, which if 

applied for the purpose of this act will in the opinion of the Minister promote the attainment of an 

object of this Act. 


The Act is primarily aimed at ensuring the health and safety of persons at work and visitors and 

specifies the basic systems that need to be in place and measures that need to be taken (Ecosense, 

2011). Section 9(1) in particular relates to the responsibility of the employers to provide and 

maintain as far as reasonably realistic a safe working environment that is not detrimental to the 

health of the employees and this would be applicable throughout the lifespan of the Project. 

5.2.14 Hazardous Chemical Substances Regulations (1995) 

According to regulations, a hazardous chemical substance is defined as “any toxic, harmful, 

corrosive, irritant or asphyxiant substance, or a mixture of substances for which: 

(a) An occupational exposure limit is prescribed 

(b) An occupational exposure is not prescribed, but which creates a hazard to health” 

The regulations provide guidelines for the employers and employees on various ways to prevent 

health hazards and thus maintain the well‐being of those involved in the proposed development. 


Section 9A(1) relates to handling of hazardous chemical substances and in terms of the Project, the 

safety of people working with hazardous chemicals (specifically fuels), as well as safe storage, use 

and disposal of containers needs to be ensured (Ecosense, 2011). 



5.3 ENERGY LEGAL AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK 

5.3.1 National Energy Act (34 of 2008) 

This Act aims to ensure that diverse energy resources are available, in sustainable quantities and at 

affordable prices, to the South African economy in support of economic growth and poverty 

alleviation. 


The Act recognises that environmental management requirements are taken into account in 

planning and that increased generation of renewable energies is required. 

5.3.2 White Paper on the Energy Policy of the Republic of South Africa (1998) 

The White Paper (national energy policy) aims to ensure that national energy resources will be 

efficiently used and developed to provide for the needs of the South African people. It was 

formulated to address the supply and consumption of energy over the following 10 years. The policy 

lays out a set of Energy Sector Policy Objectives which include: increasing access to affordable 

energy services, improving energy governance, stimulating economic development, managing 

energy‐related environmental and health impacts and securing supply through diversity. These 

objectives have been formulated to help with the transformation of certain industries and 

governance systems. Energy policy priorities have also been developed to help in achieving these 

policy objectives. The document identifies the significance of the medium and long‐term potential of 

renewable energy, with the advantages of minimal environmental impacts and higher labour 

intensities than conventional energy generation technology. 


The White Paper is in support of renewable energy as indicated above and acknowledges that 

Projects such as this one could contribute to sustainable economic growth and development. 

5.3.3 White Paper on Renewable Energy (2003) 

The White Paper on Renewable Energy follows on from the White Paper on the Energy Policy of the 

Republic of South Africa and reinforces South Africa’s commitment to promoting renewable energy 

through the Johannesburg Declaration as part of the Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable 

Development (2002). The Government’s vision, policy principles, strategic goals and objectives for 

promoting and implementing renewable energy in South Africa are outlined and discussed within 

this White Paper. The White Paper further informs the public and international community of the 

Government’s vision and how it intends to achieve these objectives, and ensures that any 

Government organisations and organs are notified of their roles in attaining these objectives. The 

main purpose of this document is to ensure that the renewable energy resources are used most 

effectively. According to Section 5 of the White Paper, the South African government has set a 10‐ 

year target for renewable energy in order to achieve a sustainable renewable energy industry: 



“10 000 GWh (0.8 Mtoe) renewable energy contribution to final energy consumption by 2013, to 

be produced mainly from biomass, wind, solar and small‐scale hydro. The renewable energy is to 

be utilised for power generation and non‐electric technologies such as solar water heating and 

bio‐fuels. This is approximately 4% (1667 MW) of the projected electricity demand for 2013 

(41539 MW)” (Executive Summary, ix). 


The Project has the potential to contribute 20‐21 MW of solar‐generated energy towards the 

national renewable energy targets as set out in the Paper. 

5.3.4 Renewable Energy Feed‐In Tariff (REFIT) 

The NERSA Renewable Energy Feed‐In Tariff (REFIT) Guidelines published in 2009 under the 

Electricity Regulation Act (Act 4 of 2006) guarantees attractive rates of payment for renewable 

energy sold back to the grid, thereby encouraging investment in the various sub‐sectors of 

renewable energy and supporting the national renewable energy targets for 2013. The REFIT Phase I 

tariffs include quotas for wind, small hydro, landfill gas and concentrated solar power (CSP) and 

following public commentary was expanded to include additional technologies under REFIT Phase II. 

The REFIT Phase II tariffs include quotas for CSP: solar trough without storage and central tower, and 

photovoltaic systems: large ground or roof based and concentrating photovoltaic (CPV), biomass 

solid, and biogas. These regulations present a barrier to renewable energy deployment in South 

Africa as capacity will be capped once the targets are reached (Edkins et al, 2010a). 

In March 2011 NERSA published a Consultation Paper on the Review of REFIT Tariffs. It was intended 

that rates would be revised ‘on the basis of technological and price developments internationally’ 

would be significantly lower than those rates published in 2009 (Creamer, 2011). In terms of wind 

energy, it was proposed that the rate for wind energy set at R1.25/kWh, would be reduced to 

R0,95/kWh by 2013. Recently, NERSA failed to meet the mid‐June deadline for releasing the revised 

rates and at present there is also uncertainty regarding the authority of NERSA and the legality of a 

fixed price procurement process which has caused doubt within the industry. 


REFIT would provide incentives to renewable energy developers, rendering developments 

economically feasible, and would enable the achievement of national renewable energy targets. It is 

understood that the Project would be able to generate power for sale under the R1.25/kWh tariff 

(potentially reduced to R0.95/kWh) for wind energy projects. 

5.3.5 Integrated Resources Plan (IRP) 2011 

The strategic level mix and contribution of renewable energy generation types in South Africa has 

been considered in the draft National Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) published by the Department 

of Energy (DoE) in consultation with National Energy Regulator (NERSA). The IRP is a long‐term 

electricity capacity plan that directs expansion of the electricity supply over the period of 20 years. 

Its stated objective is to provide a mechanism by which electricity systems, sustainability and 

government policy requirements are met, and more specifically what the appropriate mix of 

technologies is to meet the needs of the country. The investment strategy includes implications 

arising from demand‐side management (DSM) and pricing, as well as capacity provided by all 

generators (Eskom and independent producers). 



The first plan, IRP1, was approved in January 2010; however due to strong debate across many 

sectors, IRP2 underwent a public participation process mid 2010. Modelling and scenario analysis 

was refined and the draft IRP2010 was published October 2010 and underwent a further extended 

period of public consultation, closing late 2010. The Final IRP2010 was promulgated on 6 May 2011. 

In sum, the IRP includes the following with regards to renewable energy: 

“The construction of Eskom’s 100 MW Sere wind farm; 

Phase 1 of the Renewable Energy power purchase programme linked to the NERSA 

Renewable Energy Feed‐In Tariff (REFIT1) programme amounting to 1,025 MW (made up 

from wind, concentrated solar power (CSP), landfill and small hydro options); 

A wind programme in addition to the REFIT1 wind capacity, commencing in 2014, of a 

minimum 3,8 GW; 

A solar programme in addition to the REFIT1 solar capacity, commencing in 2016, of a 

minimum 400 MW; 

A renewable programme from 2020, incorporating all renewable options, inclusive of wind, 

CSP, solar photo‐voltaic, landfill, and hydro, amongst others) of an additional 7,2 GW” (Draft 

Report, October 2010, p: vii). 


The IRP2010 recognises renewable energy as a critical component of the energy mix going forward. 

There has however been criticism that the build up to renewable energy is slower than anticipated 

and that there is a reliance on nuclear and coal for baseload scenarios (Creamer, 2010). 

5.3.6 Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan for the Western Cape (2008) 

The aim of this strategy is to strengthen the Western Cape’s resilience and adaptability to climate 

change especially within vulnerable economic sectors and communities, and maintain relatively low 

greenhouse gas emissions within the Province. This strategy is divided into two parts, the first part 

‘The need for a response to climate change in the Western Cape’ considers climate change and the 

socio‐economic context of the Western Cape and sets out the need for a climate change response in 

the Province (p:29). 

The Western Cape is a relatively low emitter compared to other parts of the country. Most of the 

electricity produced in South Africa comes from coal‐fired stations in Mpumalanga and this 

sector contributes significantly to South Africa being the 19th largest global emitter of 

greenhouse gases.… There is sufficient evidence that reliance on fossil fuel‐based energy sources 

is no longer a solution to the Western Cape’s energy security issues, nor to local air quality 

problems. 

The second part of the strategy ‘The response strategy and action plan’ sketches the actions 

required to implement the Western Cape’s climate response strategy. The goals of the strategy are 

as follows: 

Maximised and strengthened provincial resources; 

Improved knowledge and monitored progress; 

Developed and managed resources for a vibrant economy: establish clear linkages between 

stewardship, livelihoods and the economy; and 

Reduced carbon footprint. 




One of the goals of the Response Strategy and Action Plan is to reduce the carbon footprint of the 

Province, and this includes the support of clean and renewable technologies to generate energy. 

This Project is a renewable energy facility and directly responds to this call for a more sustainable 

form of energy generation. Furthermore the creation of jobs will raise community awareness and 

contribute to livelihood goals of the strategy. 

5.3.7 White Paper on Sustainable Energy for the Western Cape (2008) 

In response to national initiatives and a provincial commitment to reducing reliance on fossil fuels, 

the White Paper on Sustainable Energy signifies a move towards a more sustainable path of energy 

production and use. The 2014 Sustainable Energy Vision for the Western Cape is as follows (p:8): 

“The Western Cape has a secure supply of quality, reliable, clean and safe energy, which delivers 

social, economic and environmental benefits to the Province’s citizens, while also addressing the 

climate change challenges facing the region and the eradication of energy poverty.” 

The vision of the White Paper is therefore to balance energy use within the three spheres of 

sustainability, seeking to reduce the negative impacts of energy usage on human health 

development and to encompass efficient energy use practices, through promotion of a more 

affordable energy use. The White Paper supports a mix of renewable and clean energy technologies 

set out as follows: the “target for renewable energy electricity generation for the Western Cape 

must equal 15% of the baseline energy consumption by 2014. This is effectively 9.45 million GJ or 

2650 GWh”. 


The Project has the potential to contribute 20‐21 MW of wind‐generated energy towards the 

provincial renewable energy targets as set out in the White Paper. 

5.3.8 Strategic Initiative to Introduce Commercial Land Based Wind Energy Development 

to the Western Cape (2006) 

The PGWC developed the ‘Strategic Initiative to Introduce Commercial Land Based Wind Energy 

Development to the Western Cape: Towards a Regional Methodology for Wind Energy Site Selection’ 

in 2006. This was in response to the increasing wind energy proposals and the need to find a balance 

between national and provincial renewable energy initiatives and local planning and environmental 

considerations. Subsequently, as a follow on from this work, PGWC (DEA&DP) commissioned a 

‘Regional Strategic Environmental Assessment of sites suitable for wind farms’ and the outcomes are 

pending. 

As set out in Oberholzer and Lawson (2011), the PGWC Report of 2006 provides a broad guiding 

framework for the location of wind energy development in both urban and rural areas, based on the 

sensitivity and capacity of landscape types and the scale of the Project. The Report indicates that, in 

the rural context, where most commercial wind farms will be located, large scale ‘open’ landscapes 

and/or ‘disturbed’ rural landscapes are preferred for the siting of wind farms. The Report further 

states the following in the Executive Summary: 



“A. Commercial Wind Energy development should be excluded from: 

Areas of high aesthetic landscape value, particularly national parks and provincial nature 

reserves and other wilderness areas; and 

Areas where technical and safety considerations apply. 

B. Wind energy should be encouraged: 

At strategic locations identified in a Regional Wind Plan to be prepared by the relevant 

planning authority; 

Where they are well located in terms of visual impact, technical and safety criteria and 

landscape, environmental and planning criteria; 

In large concentrated wind farms rather than small dispersed locations where the distance 

between large wind farms is at least 30km, and ideally exceeding 50km; 

In appropriate urban and industrial “brownfield” sites; 

Where visual disturbance to the landscape has already occurred (e.g. power transmission 

lines); and 

At the local scale where individual turbines (not exceeding 50m in total height) could provide 

power to small users”. 

Table 5.5 overleaf, from the 2006 Report and cited in Oberholzer and Lawson (2011), provides a list 

of regional criteria, including key criteria to be mapped at a local project level, for proposed wind 

farms. These criteria have, however, not been legislated and only serve as guidelines. 


According to Oberholzer and Lawson (2011), through application of the above guidelines for wind 

farms as a yardstick, the proposed Project meets all of the criteria in Table 5.5 above apart from the 

following: 

The facility is located in proximity to two ‘Local Tourist Routes’ namely the R27 and the R315 

and falls outside the recommended 2.5 km buffer, although this buffer is an assumption 

made for local importance and can be reduced. 



Table 5.5: List of regional criteria for wind farms 

Criteria Buffer Notes 

1 Urban Areas 800 m This distance adequately covers noise and flicker criteria at 

the local level 

2 Residential Areas (including rural *400 m Threshold adequately covers noise and flicker at the local 

dwellings) 

level 

3 Transport Routes 

3a National Roads 13 km Depends on scenic value of route. Can be reduced. 

3b Local Roads *500 m Review if high scenic value 

3c Provincial Tourist Routes 4 km Statutory scenic drives 

3d Local Tourist Route 2.5 km Assumption made for local importance. Can be reduced. 

3e Railway Lines 250 m No distinction drawn between passenger and goods lines. 

Also, rail corridors usually visually disturbed 

4 Transmission Lines 

4a Major Power Lines 250 m 

4b Cell Phone Masts + 

Communication Towers 

*500 m To be captured at local scale 

4c Radio + Navigation Beacons *250 m Capture at local scale 

5 Key Infrastructure/Airports 

5a Airport with Primary Radar 25 km Should be eliminated at regional level 

5b Local Airfield 2.5 km To be confirmed with agency. 

5c National Security Sites (e.g. 15 km To be discussed with agency concerned. Should be eliminated 

Koeberg) 

at regional level. 

6 National Parks + Provincial 

Nature Reserves 

2 km Should be eliminated at regional level 

7 Protected Areas 

7a Mountain Catchments *500 m To be captured at local level 

7b Protected Natural Environment 2 km Should be eliminated at local level 

7c Private Nature Reserves *500 m Could be negotiated at local level 

8 Coast and Rivers 

8a Distance to Coastlines of 

Undisturbed Scenic Value 


8b Distance to Rivers *500 m Only perennial rivers mapped at regional level‐site level to 

account for all hydrology and geology 

8c Distance to 1:100 Year Floodline *200 m To be mapped at local level 

9 Sensitive Areas (Avian) 

9a Distance to Major Wetlands 

(Ramsar Sites) 


9b Distance to Local Wetlands *500 m Map at local level 

9c Distance to Bird Habitats or Avian 

Flight Paths where known 

*1 km Assumed specific breeding sites dealt with at EIA level 

10 Topographical 

10a Slope and elevation * Key considerations at local level; see visual and site 

assessment criteria 

10b Distance from Ridge Lines * Major ridgelines eliminated at regional levels, local level to 

identify ridgelines/skyline issues 

11 Vegetation * 

Distance to Important 

Indigenous/Remnant Vegetation 

* To be mapped at local scale 

(*) Key Criteria to be Mapped at Local Project Level. 

Source: Provincial Government of the W. Cape and CNdV Africa, 2006. 



5.4 DEVELOPMENTAL AND SPATIAL POLICY 

5.4.1 Western Cape Provincial Spatial Development Plan (2009) 

The Provincial Spatial Development Plan (PSDF) is a provincial wide structure plan that guides the 

spatial development of the Western Cape addressing challenges such as “urban sprawl, 

environmental recklessness and inequality”. The PSDF provides for directives and guidelines to aid 

decision‐makers in the land use planning and environmental sector to consider whether or not the 

proposed development would be desirable in terms of economic, social and ecological sustainability. 

The Plan sets out a number of objectives and action plans. 


Objective 5 aims to conserve and strengthen the sense of place of important natural, cultural and 

productive landscapes, artefacts and buildings and the environmental sustainability. This is of 

relevance to the Project as the landscape is valued for its rural / natural characteristics and visual 

intrusion of the facility may impact this sense of place. This is addressed in the Visual Impact 

Assessment. 

Objective 8 aims to protect biodiversity and agricultural resources which is relevant to the Project 

and has been addressed through a botanical assessment that has indicated no significant impacts on 

these resources, whilst co‐use with existing agricultural activities will be maintained. 

Objective 9 sets out to minimise the consumption of scarce environmental resources, particularly 

water, fuel, building materials, mineral resources, electricity and land are objectives related to 

minimising landscape impacts. Although the detail design of the Project is not yet available, 

considerations have been set out in the EIR and EMP to reduce the impact on environmental 

resources. 

5.4.2 West Coast District Spatial Development Framework (WCDM‐SDF) (2007) 

The overarching aim of the West Coast District Spatial Development Framework (WCDM‐SDF) is to 

provide a spatial framework within which the sustainable development of the district and its specific 

resources can be carried out. The Framework is intended to be broad‐scaled and centred on 

principles and significant issues to the district as a whole. The principle focus of the SDF is on spatial 

elements. The WCDM‐SDF consists of six main objectives namely: aligning future settlement and 

investment with places of economic and resource potential‐ also taking into account efficiency at the 

regional level; facilitating job creation, correction of existing negative developmental legacies of the 

past; conservation and strengthening of a sense of place for all; and ensuring the wise use of existing 

resources and conservation of biodiversity resources. 


The Saldanha to Cape Town corridor, namely the West Coast Road, has been identified as a 

development corridor with important biodiversity areas. It has also been recognised that there are 

areas of heritage / palaeontological and tourism importance which need to be accounted for in 

strategic planning. Particular issues identified which are relevant to this Project are as follows: 

Inappropriate location, planning and design of developments threaten tourism; 

There is a need to harness wind energy; 



The fragmentation of agricultural land, e.g. smallholdings and ‘rural living’ has negative 

effects; 

Integration of biodiversity aspects with planning and development exercises; 

Inadequate conservation practices, e.g. fire management, harvesting, alien invasion. 

All of these issues are considered within the EIR. 

5.4.3 West Coast District Municipality Integrated Development Plan (2010‐2014) 

The integrated planning approach for the West Coast District is documented in the IDP which 

focuses on bulk service delivery as well as major and future developments in the region and the 

associated potential to alleviate poverty and enhance economic growth. The vision of the 

Municipality is based on the promotion of social and economic development whilst also facilitating a 

safe and healthy environment. 


The IDP recognises national targets for renewable energy and indicates the possibility of a wind 

facility near Darling. The IDP therefore supports the Project in principle. At a more local level, the 

!Khwa ttu Centre is identified as a heritage tourism node which is in proximity to the Project. 

Potential impacts have been addressed through the VIA and SIA. 

5.4.4 West Coast Tourism Implementation Strategy (2010‐2015) 

The Tourism Implementation Strategy for the West Coast region was drafted with the intent that it 

would be implemented by the West Coast District Municipality and tourism stakeholders in the West 

Coast to help increase the development of the Tourism Industry within the region. The strategy 

includes a Strength, Weaknesses, Opportunity and Threat Analysis (SWOT) analysis, a proposed 

shared vision and goals, and a strategy and action plan for implementation. 


The Strategy identifies the West Coast National Park as one of the core tourism products of the West 

Coast and the proximity of this Park is a consideration of the Project. Other strengths are based on 

the diversity of landscape, topography and natural attributes which allow for nature and adventure 

based tourism. The EIR addresses the landscape, visual and potential tourism impacts of the Project 

through a VIA and SIA. Although not directly relevant to this Project but rather relevant to the 

associated Visitors Centre proposed on the Windhoek farm, the Strategy has identified a limited 

supply of conference and meeting venues with accommodation, which this associated proposal 

would address. 

5.4.5 Swartland Municipality Integrated Development Plan (2007‐2011) 

The Swartland Municipality Integrated Development Plan (IDP) is the fundamental strategic plan for 

the Municipality through which development planning is managed. The IDP takes into account the 

issues and problems unique to the area and proposes appropriate strategies and projects to address 

these in a manner which supports long term sustainable development. The long term vision supports 

diversification the economy to redirect the focus on secondary and tertiary industries in order to 

reduce the percentage of people active in elementary occupations and to increase the average 



income. This would also reduce the reliance on agriculture as the dominant sector. The town of 

Darling has been recognised as an increasingly popular tourist and retirement village in a rural 

setting and co‐operation with the tourism assets of Yzerfontein is recommended. The R27 is also 

identified as a regional transport corridor. 


The IDP does not address the emerging industry of renewable energy. However, the IDP documents 

the key social and economic characteristics and aspirations for the Municipal area. The proposed 

Project lies between two recognised tourism nodes, Darling and Yzerfontein, and at the intersection 

of the R27 (a regional transport corridor) and the R315. It is therefore important that the Project 

does not detract from the vision of the Plan to develop this tourism focus. Although not directly 

relevant to this Project but rather relevant to the associated Visitors Centre proposed on the 

Windhoek farm, there exists the potential to assist with job creation and add to the tourism offer 

which accords with the vision for the area. 

5.4.6 Cape West Coast Biosphere Reserve Spatial Planning 

A report by Dennis Moss (1999) sets out the proposed conceptual zoning of the Cape West Coast 

Biosphere Reserve (CWCBR) in the application submitted to UNESCO: ‘Proposed Cape West Coast 

Biosphere Reserve, Application for Nomination’. Transition areas are those areas zoned for 

development (ranging from farming to resort to urban (residential, commercial and industrial) 

development). They are seen as areas for ‘cooperation’ where the area's natural resources are 

sustainably developed for the benefit of those who live there. The Report stated that renewable 

energy enterprises such as the proposed Darling Wind Farm “would in principle, be promoted 

strongly in the transition zones of the Biosphere Reserve” (Dennis Moss, 1999:78). These projects 

would be supported and valued on the basis of reducing emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. 

According to CWCBR (2010), the conceptual zonation plan of the CWCBR, which was developed for 

the designation will change as planning for conservation within the biosphere develops. At present 

there is a Spatial Development Plan underway which may well reconsider the current zonations. 


According to the current zoning for the CWCBR, the Project is proposed within a transition area and 

is therefore supported and promoted in this location. 



5.5 EIA SPECIFIC GUIDANCE 

5.5.1 National 

DEAT has published a series of guidance documents to assist role‐players within the environmental 

authorisation process set out in the EIA Regulations (Chapter 5 of NEMA, 2006). This is known as the 

Integrated Environmental Management (IEM) Guidelines Series (2002) and the following documents 

have been chosen based on their relevancy to guide implementation of this EIA: 

Information Series 2: Scoping; 

Information Series 3: Stakeholder Engagement; 

Information Series 4: Specialist Studies; 

Information Series 7: Cumulative Effects Assessment; 

Information Series 11: Alternatives in EIA; 

Information Series 12: Environment Management Plans; 

Information Series 13: Review in EIA; and 

Information Series 15: Environment Impact Reporting. 

Other DEAT Environmental Management Guidelines (2006) which are more process specific are set 

out below: 

Guideline 3: General Guide to the EIA Regulations; 

Guideline 4: Public Participation; 

Guideline 5: Assessment of Alternatives and Impacts; and 

Guideline 6: Environmental Management Frameworks. 

These guidelines have been referred to during the Scoping and EIA Phases where relevant. 

5.5.2 Provincial 

The Western Cape DEA&DP published a set of guidelines which should be taken into account when 

undertaking an EIA in line with NEMA. These were published in August 2010 in response to the 

NEMA EIA 2010 Regulations and are considered applicable even though the EIA is being undertaken 

in accordance with the 2006 Regulations: 

Guideline on Transitional Arrangements; 

Guideline on Public Participation; 

Guideline on Alternatives; 

Guideline on Need and Desirability; 

Guideline on Exemptions; 

Guideline on Appeals; and 

Guideline on Generic Terms of Reference for EAP’s and Project Schedules. 



There are also a number of guidelines published by DEA&DP (2005) which particularly relate to 

specialists involved in EIAs: 

Guideline for Determining the Scope of Specialist Involvement in EIA Processes (Munster, 

2005); 

Guideline for the Review of Specialist Input into the EIA Process (Keatimilwe and Ashton, 

2005); 

Guideline for Involving Biodiversity Specialists in EIA Processes (Brownlie, 2005); 

Guideline for Involving Heritage Specialists in EIA Processes (Winter and Baumann, 2005); 

Guideline for Involving Visual and Aesthetic Specialists in EIA Processes (Oberholzer, 2005); 

Guideline for Involving Economists in EIA Processes (Van Zyl et al, 2005); 

Guideline for Involving Hydrogeologists in EIA Processes (Saayman, 2005); 

Guideline for Environmental Management Plans (Lochner, 2005); and 

Guideline for Involving Social Assessment Specialists in EIA Processes (Barbour, 2005). 

These guidelines have been applied where necessary in the Scoping and EIA Phases of the Kerrie 

Fontein and Darling Wind Farm environmental authorisation process. 





6 EIA PROCESS AND METHODOLOGY 


The nature of activities included in the development proposal under consideration in this report 

requires a two phased environmental authorisation process comprising Scoping and an EIA. This 

Section sets out the aims and objectives of each phase and the steps required to comply with the 

NEMA EIA Regulations. Figure 6.1 below depicts the activities and responsibilities of the key 

roleplayers throughout the process ‐ more detail is provided in Sections 7.2 and 7.3 below. 

Figure 6.1: The Scoping and EIA process 



6.2 SCOPING PHASE 

Prior to Scoping, an application was submitted to DEA including a declaration of interest, written 

consent of landowner and application fee on 21 May 2010. Acknowledgement thereof was received 

on 26 May 2010. As part of the PPP, the public was notified of the proposed development through a 

number of channels (see Section 7.2.1) and the Scoping Phase officially commenced on 5 June 2010. 

The aim of the scoping process is to determine the ‘scope’ of the EIA. NEMA Chapter 5(28)(e) states 

that following submission of an application, and integrated with the PPP, the EAP must: 

Subject the application to scoping by identifying: 

i) issues that will be relevant for consideration of the application; 

ii) the potential environmental impacts of the proposed activity; and 

iii) alternatives to the proposed activity that are feasible and reasonable. 

The parties responsible for input into this process include the EAP, the specialist team of 

independent consultants and I&APs (persons, organisations or organs of state). The PPP is 

fundamental to the environmental authorisation process, the channels through which the I&APs 

were involved are outlined below. 

6.2.1 Public Participation 

DEAT’s Public Participation Guidelines (2005:2) introduce public participation as follows: 

“Public participation is one of the most important aspects of the environmental authorisation 

process… This stems from the requirement that people have a right to be informed about potential 

decisions that may affect them and that they must be afforded an opportunity to influence those 

decisions.” 

Public participation is an iterative two way process between the applicant and the EAP, and the 

I&APs, whether these be individuals, organisations, or organs of state. Within the Scoping Phase the 

focus as to ensure that all I&APs have been identified and informed as early on in the process as 

possible, to identify issues based on local or expert knowledge of I&APs, to collect information 

relating to public needs, values and expectations, and to explore alternatives. 

The following channels of communication were used to initiate response from I&APs. 

Site Notices 

Two site notices, one in English and one in Afrikaans, have been attached to the gate of the portion 

of the Slangkop Farm (Windhoek) on the R315 to inform the general public using the area of the 

proposed activities and the environmental authorisation process. Appendix 7.1 contains a copy of 

the information displayed on the notice boards. 

Advertisements 

Advertisements have been placed in local and provincial newspapers informing the general public of 

the proposed activities and the environmental authorisation process (See Appendix 7.2 for the 

content of the advertisements). The details of publication of these advertisements are listed below: 



Weekend Argus (English), 5 and 6 June 2010; 

Die Burger (Afrikaans), 8 June 2010; and 

Swartland Monitor (Afrikaans), 10 June 2010. 

Public notices were posted in the Spar retail outlet in Darling, as well as other locations including 

local shops and the library in north Darling, Darling Library (Church Street) and the Yzerfontein 

Municipal Offices (Main Road) to notify the local public of the Project and the environmental 

authorisation process. 

Written Notices 

Written notices have been distributed by post to the following (See Appendix 7.3): 

Owners or occupiers of land adjacent to the property (and within 100m of the boundary) on 

which the proposed activity is to be sited for which an e‐mail address was not available. 

Written notices have been distributed by e‐mail to the following (See Appendix 7.3): 

Owners or occupiers of land adjacent to the property (and within 100m of the boundary) on 

which the proposed activity is to be sited for which an e‐mail address was available; and 

additional landowners in the wider vicinity; 

National Government: DEA; Department of Energy (DoE); 

Provincial Government of the Western Cape: DEA&DP; 

West Coast District Municipality: Planning; 

Swartland Local Municipality: Municipal Manager; Planning; Development Services, 

Corporate Services; Strategic Manager; Ward 5 Representative; 

Other Municipalities: Saldanha Bay Municipality and City of Cape Town; 

Environmental bodies: West Cape Nature Conservation Board; Cape West Coast Biosphere 

Reserve (CWCBR); SANParks (Regional Manager and Planning and Environmental 

Coordination); Wildlife and Environment Society of SA (WESSA); Botanical Society of SA; 

Birdlife South Africa; West Coast Bird Club; Cape Nature; Endangered Wildlife Trust; West 

Coast Fossil Park; South Africa National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI); Darling Wildflower 

Society; 

Tourism organisations: Western Cape Tourism Board; West Coast Tourism; Darling Tourism; 

Yzerfontein Tourist Bureau; 

Residents: Yzerfontein Urban Conservancy; Residents Association for Darling; 

Other: HWC; Energy Research Centre (ERC, UCT); and 

Local tourism operators (various). 

The e‐mail notices were sent between 14 June 2010 and 21 June 2010 as the process in identifying 

further I&APs was iterative. The written notices included a copy of the BID which provided all the 

key information relating to the proposed development, the process, and the opportunities for 

involvement. 



Background Information Document 

The BID is attached in Appendix 7.4. It includes a Comment Form which encourages I&APs to 

register and invites initial responses. The BID has also been made available to the general public 

through deposit in the Darling Library (Church Street) and the Yzerfontein Municipal Office (Main 

Road). The BID has also been made available on the EEU website. 

Public Open Day 

A public open day was held at Darling Focus Community Centre on 23 June 2010. Posters were 

displayed to provide information on the Project and its proposed location. Persons representing the 

applicant and the EAP team were available to provide further information and answer technical or 

environmental questions. The aim was to provide the I&APs with an opportunity to query aspects of 

the development and to provide comments and responses. BIDs were also made available, as where 

comment sheets. The meeting minutes and attendees are attached as Appendix 7.5. 

6.2.2 Specialist Studies 

Scoping studies were undertaken by the team of specialists which comprised the following: 

Botanical – Nick Helme (Nick Helme Botanical Surveys); 

Avifaunal – Chris van Rooyen (Chris van Rooyen Consulting); 

Visual – Bernard Oberholzer (independent landscape consultant) and Quinton Lawson (MLB 

Architects); 

Heritage – Jayson Orton (Archaeology Contracts Office, UCT); 

Noise – Adrian Jongens (Jongens Keet Associates); and 

Social – Kirsten Scott (EEU, UCT). 

Impacts on other fauna (other than bats) was scoped out of the assessment, as it was not considered 

as a significant impact on the following basis: 

Previous work undertaken on the Windhoek Farm for the Darling Demonstration Project EIA 

states that no medium sized fauna were observed on Windhoek Farm, nor evidence thereof 

(such as burrows), however the smaller fauna such as rare lizards are most likely confined to 

the koppie. It was scoped out of this study, although it is acknowledged that the current 

study extends to the neighbouring Kerrie Fontein Farm. 

For the current Project, in terms of loss of habitat, the total permanent landtake required for 

the development is small in comparison to the total site area. In terms of habitats, the 

Botanical Scoping Study by Helme (2010) has indicated that the majority of the vegetation 

on site (67%) is of moderate sensitivity as it is transformed through previous cultivation. 

Furthermore it is recommended that the pristine areas will be avoided for siting of the 

infrastructure. 

During construction, there will be some temporary disturbance however it is anticipated 

that the smaller fauna which could be displaced would reoccupy the site where natural 

vegetation remains or is rehabilitated, or remain in similar adjacent natural areas. 

Operational activities on the site will be infrequent and will result in minimal disruption to 

fauna post‐construction. It is therefore expected that there will be no material impacts on 

fauna during operation. 

Furthermore the issue of faunal impacts has not evoked a strong public opinion through the 

PPP undertaken to date. 



6.2.3 Draft Scoping Report 

The Draft Scoping Report (DSR) was subject to review by I&APs for a 40 day period (12 October 2010 

to 12 November 2010). Comments received were collated within the IRR including the formal 

responses issued by the EEU (see Appendix 7.6). The Final Scoping Report (FSR) was submitted to 

DEA for approval on 15 December 2010 and received on 3 January 2011. DEA issued a letter of 

acceptance of the FSR and PoS on 7 March 2011 (see Appendix 1.2). 

6.3 EIA PHASE 

The EIA Guidelines (DEAT, 2005:11) state that the purpose of the EIA is to: 

Address issues that have been raised during the scoping phase; 

Assess alternatives to the proposed activity in a comparative manner; 

Assess all identified impacts and determine the significance of each impact; and 

Formulate mitigation measures. 

The EIA Phase has included a number of detailed specialist studies and has provided I&APs with 

further opportunities for input. Details are set out below. 

6.3.1 Public Participation 

A current database of registered I&APs has been compiled and attached as Appendix 2.3. The 

database has been updated as further I&APs register with the EAP or provided comments. The 

consultation activities are summarised below: 

Meetings 

Meetings with the following commenting authorities were held (see Appendix 7.5 for minutes): 

CapeNature (8 November 2010) 

Specialist Consultations 

As part of the Social Impact Assessment (Appendix 8.6), face‐to‐face and telephonic interviews were 

undertaken with a number key stakeholders described in further detail in Section 14. 

Public Open Day 

A public open day was held at The Marmalade Cat in Darling on 2 July 2011. Posters were displayed 

to provide information on the Project and the findings of the impact assessment. Persons 

representing the applicant and the EAP team were available to provide further information and 

answer technical or environmental questions. A short presentation was given to provide information 

on the Project and the findings of the EIA. A consultant representing ‘atmosfair gGmbH’ presented 

the Gold Standard accreditation process and undertook an exercise to assess the sustainable 

development impacts, by using the Sustainable Development Matrix developed by the Gold 

Standard. The meeting was well attended by members of the local community and I&APs. Comment 

sheets were made available. The meeting minutes and attendees are attached as Appendix 7.5. 



Advertisements 

Advertisements were placed in local and provincial and national newspapers informing the general 

public of the public meeting and also of the impending comment period for the Draft EIR (see 

Appendix 7.2 for the content of the advertisements). The details of publication of these 

advertisements are listed below: 

Swartland Monitor, 16 June 2011, in Afrikaans and English; and 

Die Burger, 17 June 2011, in Afrikaans. 

Review of Draft EIR 

The Draft EIR was made available to the public for review between 26 July 2011 to 4 September 

2011, in hard copy at the Darling Library (Church Street) and the Yzerfontein Municipal Office (Main 

Road). The report was also made available on the EEU website: 

http://www.eeu.org.za/thematic‐areas/environmental‐management‐and‐sustainability/kerrie‐ 

fontein‐and‐darling‐wind‐farm 

All relevant state authorities and registered I&APs were notified of the comment period by letter 

and/or email (see Appendix 7.3). The commenting authorities and key I&APs were sent a CD of the 

report and hard copy on request. 

Comments received have been included in the IRR (Appendix 7.6) and where applicable have been 

the basis for revisions to the Final EIR for issue to the competent authority. Late comments from 

Heritage Western Cape and Department of Water Affairs have been included in the IRR but not 

responded to. 

6.3.2 Methodology for Assessing Significance 

The specialist studies were undertaken in accordance with the Plan of Study set out in the Final 

Scoping Report. Generic terms of reference were adhered to and standard significance criteria were 

adopted in line with the Regulations. The methodology for assessing the significance of impacts is 

largely guided by the DEAT EIA Regulations Guideline Document (DEAT, 1998). The assessment 

considers construction, operation and decommissioning both before and after the proposed 

mitigation measures have been implemented according to the following criteria: 

Nature and Status 

The ‘nature’ of the impact describes what is being affected and how. The ‘status’ is based on 

whether the impact is positive, negative or neutral. 

Extent 

‘Extent’ defines the spatial or geographical scale of the impact. 

Table 6.1: Rating of extent 

Rating Descriptor 

Local Specified by specialist studies, limited to site and/or immediate 

surrounds 

District Cape Winelands 

Provincial Western Cape 

National South Africa 

International Outside South Africa 



Duration 

‘Duration’ gives the temporal scale of the impact. 

Intensity 

Table 6.2: Rating of duration 


Temporary 0‐1 

Short term 1‐5 years 

Medium term 5‐15 years 

Long term Where the impact will cease after the operational life of the activity 

either because of natural process or by human intervention 

Permanent Where mitigation either by natural process or by human intervention 

will not occur in such a way or in such a time span that the impact can 

be considered as transient 

‘Intensity’ defines whether the impact is destructive or benign, in other words the level of impact on 

the environment. 

Table 6.3: Rating of intensity 


Low Where the impact affects the environment in such a way that natural, 

cultural and social functions and processes are not affected. 

Medium Where the affected environment is altered in terms of natural, cultural 

and social functions and processes continue albeit in a modified way. 

High Where natural, cultural or social functions or processes are altered to 

the extent that they will temporarily or permanently cease. 

Probability 

The ‘probability’ describes the likelihood of the impact actually occurring. 

Table 6.4: Rating of probability 


Improbable Where the possibility of the impact materialising is very low either 

because of design or historic experience. 

Probable Where there is a distinct possibility that the impact will occur. 

Highly Probable Where it is most likely that the impact will occur. 

Definite Where the impact will occur regardless of any prevention measures. 



Effect of Significance on Decision‐making 

Table 6.5 will determine whether the significance rating will have an effect on decision‐making or 

not. 

Mitigation 

Table 6.5: Effect of significance on decision‐making 

Rating Effect on decision‐making 

Low Where it will not have an influence on the decision. 

Medium Where it should have an influence on the decision unless it is mitigated. 

High Where it would influence the decision regardless of any possible 

mitigation. 

To avoid or minimise impacts, each of the negative impacts identified includes details of possible 

mitigation measures and the degree to which these measures would influence the significance and 

status of each impact. 

6.3.3 Specialist’s Detailed Methodologies 

The detailed methodology for each specialist study is set out below and extracted from the 

respective studies attached as Appendices 8.1 to 8.6. 

Bats 

Impacts on bats was not identified as a significant issue during Scoping, until CapeNature submitted 

a comment on the bat issue in response to the Scoping Report. During the last year, the EEU has 

been following the debate amongst the scientific community around the issue of impact on birds 

and bats from wind energy facilities. The EEU was aware of the draft best practice guidelines for 

avian monitoring at wind energy facilities produced by the Endangered Wildlife Trust (EWT) and 

Birdlife SA and at the time of undertaking the EIA, a similar set of guidelines for bats was not yet 

published. There was thus uncertainty as to the methodology and the appropriate intensity of bat 

studies for the EIA process. While the DEA confirmed to us in response to a letter that these 

guidelines were not yet applicable, they have been endorsed in principle by CapeNature. However, 

at this late stage in the EIA process, to adopt the protocol for inclusion in the EIA would have 

significant time and financial implications and represent a long term commitment from the applicant 

with associated risk given the lack of certainty regarding the potential success in qualifying for the 

Phase 1 REFIT. 

The decision has therefore been taken not to pursue a bat study, given the low significance of the 

issue, and the risk to the applicant in terms of qualifying for REFIT. If the decision is taken that the 

guidelines for bat studies and monitoring are a requirement for all wind farm applications then the 

applicant would address the need for such a study. 



Botany 

For the purposes of this assessment, study area boundaries are indicated in Figure 7.1, which is an 

area of about 450 ha in extent. 

A site visit was undertaken on 15 June 2010, and the main areas where infrastructure is proposed 

were walked, and all identifiable plant species were noted, relevant photographs were taken, and 

habitats were mapped directly onto a satellite image. The November 2009 Google Earth imagery for 

this area was used as a basis for the sensitivity mapping, along with some recent, provided aerial 

imagery. 

Given that all extant natural vegetation in the study area is classified either as Critically Endangered 

or Endangered on a national basis (Rouget et al 2004) it was assumed that all remaining areas of 

natural vegetation on site were of high botanical sensitivity and conservation value, and this 

assumption was then tested against on the ground observation. Conservation value and sensitivity 

of habitats are a product of diversity, rarity of habitat, rarity of species, ecological viability and 

connectivity, vulnerability to impacts, and reversibility of threats. 

The author was able to access the GIS based rare species information (CapeRares database) 

maintained by CREW (Custodians of Rare and Endangered Wildflowers, based at SANBI, 

Kirstenbosch), which helped supplement the species information in this report (to a small degree). 

Confidence levels in the botanical sensitivity mapping is regarded as high, except in some areas 

where it is difficult to tell the difference between high and medium sensitivity areas, where there 

has been either light disturbance or particularly good natural rehabilitation 

For purposes of this assessment the No‐Go (no development) Option is deemed to mean the 

continuance of the status quo, which involves use of the existing cultivated land for cultivation, and 

the use of the extensive areas of natural and partly natural vegetation for livestock grazing. In spite 

of legislation requiring landowners to manage alien invasive vegetation on their land (Conservation 

of Agricultural Resources Act) the invasive vegetation on the site is not currently being managed at 

all, and this situation is likely to continue. 

Note that for purposes of this assessment development layout alteration is not considered a form of 

mitigation, as technically that constitutes a different alternative (or option). Mitigation thus refers to 

other aspects of the proposed development, such as minimising negative impacts by means of 

management, and by enhancing positive impacts. 

The assessment has been undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the NEMA Regulations 

as set out 6.3.26.3.2 above. 

Avifauna 

Sources of Information 

The following information sources were consulted in the compilation of the report: 

Bird distribution data of the Southern African Bird Atlas Project (SABAP – Harrison et al, 

1997) obtained from the Animal Demography Unit of the University of Cape Town, as a point 

of departure and this data was supplemented with the updated SABAP2 data (May 2007). 

Additional information on avifaunal habitat use in the Swartland was obtained from the 

Coordinated Avifaunal Roadcounts (CAR) and Birds in Reserves Project (BIRP) project of the 

Animal Demographic Unit (ADU) of the University of Cape Town (UCT). Information on 



Important Bird Areas such as Dassen Island and the West Coast National Park was obtained 

from the Important Bird Areas of Southern Africa (Barnes 1998). The national conservation 

status of all bird species occurring in the area was determined with the use of Eskom Red 

Data Book of Birds of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland (Barnes 2000). A classification of 

the vegetation types from an avifaunal perspective was obtained from SABAP1. 

An extensive review of relevant international literature on birds and wind farm impacts was 

conducted in order to contextualise the current proposed development from an 

international perspective. 

The bird impact assessment study completed in February 2003 by Dr. Andrew Jenkins, and 

the subsequent review by Dr. Andre Boshoff, was consulted. 

In addition to the 86 hours of avifaunal monitoring done on site by Jenkins (2003), two 

additional monitoring periods were implemented in November 2010 and February 2011, 

totalling 30 hours, using the same protocol as Jenkins. 

Information on Black Harrier nesting sites on the West Coast was obtained from Dr. Rob 

Simmons at the Percy FitzPatrick Institute at University of Cape Town. 

The results of observations done by students from the University of Cape Town in 2010 

under the guidance of Dr. Rob Simmons at the project site was used as supplementary 

information. 

Information on power line impacts on avifauna in the vicinity of the Project site was 

obtained from the Endangered Wildlife Trust’s central incident register, for the period 1996 ‐ 

2007. 

Assumptions and Limitations 

The study made the basic assumption that the sources of information used are reliable. However, it 

must be noted that there are factors that may potentially detract from the accuracy of the 

information. 

The SABAP1 data covers the period 1986 ‐1997. Bird distribution patterns fluctuate continuously 

according to availability of food and nesting substrate. There are sources of error in the SABAP1 

database, particularly inadequate coverage of some areas. 

Wind facilities are a relatively new development in South Africa and thus an extensive body of 

knowledge of avian interactions with wind generation facilities has yet to emerge. Some speculation 

with regard to how South African birds are likely to interact with the proposed wind facility is 

therefore unavoidable. 

With certain classes of birds, including cranes and bustards, very little research has been conducted 

on potential impacts with wind facilities world‐wide. The precautionary principle was therefore 

applied in assessing the potential impacts on species belonging to these classes. 

Jenkins (2003) made the recommendation that further monitoring of impacts both during and 

especially after the construction of the facility should be undertaken. Unfortunately, the recovering 

and recording all avian casualties at the site did not happen, therefore scientifically verifiable 

information on actual casualties that may have occurred at the experimental facility is not available. 

The monitoring focused primarily on the site itself, specifically with regard to movement through the 

site, but the occurrence of important habitat adjacent to the Project site was noted. The assumption 

was made that birds could be moving through the proposed Project site en route to suitable roosting 



and foraging habitat outside the Project site. e.g. flamingos commuting between Yzerfontein, 

Slangkop, Swartwater and Droëvlei pans. 

In calculating estimated collision rates, an avoidance rate of 98% was assumed, based on the default 

recommended by the Scottish Natural Heritage Avoidance Rate Information and Guidance Note. It is 

recognised that avoidance rates are key to the calculation of estimated collision rates, and that 

variations of as little as 1% can result in significant variation in estimated collision rates. No 

estimated collision rates for southern African bird species exist at this point in time. 

Recording and Analysis of Data 

Up until November 2010, the 86 hours of observations conducted by Jenkins in 2002 – 2003 

constituted the only pre‐construction avifaunal data ever recorded in South Africa at a proposed 

wind farm site. It was therefore decided to continue with the same monitoring protocol for the 

additional 30 hours of monitoring, conducted over four days in November 2010 and February 2011, 

for the sake of continuity and comparison. In total 116 hours of monitoring at the site was 

completed between January 2002 and February 2011. Counts of priority bird species and all raptor 

species commuting over the development site were conducted from the crest of Moedmaag Hill, 

facing west along the proposed turbine line. Estimated climatic conditions on the site were recorded 

at the start of and throughout each count period. In 14 counts, details of the mode of flight 

(flapping, gliding, soaring), direction of travel, and approximate horizontal (crest, slope, plain) and 

vertical zoning of bird flight paths was also recorded. 

The following analyses were performed to assist in the assessment of collision risk (see results and 

discussion under Section 10 ‐ Avifauna Impact Assessment): 

Visual 

Total number of individual birds (priority species and all raptors) 

Passage rate (priority species and all raptors) 

Passage rate (priority species) 

Passage rate vs wind direction (priority species) 

Relative use of horizontal and vertical zones (priority species) 

Percentage of site use for medium height zone only (priority species) 

Percentage of site use for medium height zone only vs wind direction (priority species) 

Passage rate per season (priority species) 

Passage rate vs time of day (priority species) 

Passage rate vs wind strength (priority species) 

Potential annual collision rate (priority species and two species of migratory raptors) 

For the purpose of this study, the ‘site’ is defined as the farms Kerrie Fontein (0/555) and Slangkop 

(3/552). The larger ‘study area’ includes the surrounding area, specifically the view catchment area, 

or viewshed, of the proposed wind farm. This is the area from which the proposed Project would be 

visible (see Figures 6 and 7 in Appendix 8.3). 

The visual assessment is based on a field trip undertaken on 15 June 2010, and on information 

provided in the Final Scoping Report by the Environmental Evaluation Unit (EEU, 2010). The findings 

of the earlier visual scoping study, as well as the Botanical and the Heritage Scoping Studies, have 

also been taken into account. 



During the field trip a number of critical viewpoints were identified, including those relating to 

intersections of major arterial / scenic routes. Panoramic photographs were taken from these 

viewpoints as a record, in order to determine the potential visibility of the wind energy facilities. 

Two possible layouts for the proposed wind turbines and access roads, as well as a new substation, 

were provided by the EEU. No alternative sites have been investigated as the Project is an extension 

to an existing facility. The wind farm facilities are modelled in 3D and turned into a montage with the 

existing surroundings to give an idea of ‘before’ and ‘after’ visual simulations to Interested and 

Affected Parties (I&APs). 

Besides the determination of the viewshed, distance circles are mapped with the radii centred on 

the wind farm site, as distance is a major factor in determining visibility. Landforms, landscape value 

and protection status are taken into consideration in the visual assessment. The guidelines prepared 

by the Provincial Government of the Western Cape for wind farms (set out in Table 5.5) are used as a 

benchmark for determining thresholds and mitigations. 

Based on the viewshed mapping and photographic montages, a series of both quantitative and 

qualitative criteria are used to determine potential visual impacts. These are rated to determine 

both the expected level and significance of the visual impacts. These are as follows (and described in 

more detail in Appendix 8.3): 

Viewpoints; 

Visibility; 

Visual Exposure; 

Visual Sensitivity; 

Landscape Integrity; 

Visual Absorption Capacity; and 

Potential Visual Impact. 

Heritage 

During the Scoping Phase, a survey of the site was conducted on 15 June 2010. Only the 

approximate footprint area was examined. Finds were photographed and their positions recorded 

using a hand‐held GPS‐receiver set to the WGS84 datum. Although the Project was only at the 

scoping phase, it was felt that a fairly extensive survey could be carried out in the time available. 

The exact footprints for the new turbines were not yet known so estimates were made. For the 

southern row the alignment was simply extended towards the west, while for the northern row an 

alignment between about 250 m and 350 m north of the existing line was chosen for the survey. 

Despite these assumptions, it is felt that the survey will have provided an adequate reflection of 

heritage resources present in the study area. 

A brief literature review was also conducted so as to inform on aspects of heritage likely to be 

encountered within the study area. 

No significant issues aside from those related to the visual impacts were noted during the Scoping 

Phase and a full assessment was not considered necessary during the EIA Phase. 



Noise 

A Noise Impact Assessment (NIA) for the EIA phase has been conducted in accordance with Section 8 

of SANS 10328. The detailed methodology is set out in Appendix 8.5 and the scope is summarised 

below: 

Social 

Determination of the land use zoning on surrounding land and identify noise sensitive 

receptors that could be impacted upon by activities relating to the construction, operation 

and decommissioning of the wind farm. 

Determination of the existing ambient levels of noise within the study area. 

Determination of the typical rating level for noise on surrounding land at identified noise 

sensitive receptors. 

Identification of all noise sources, relating to the establishment and operation of the 

proposed wind farm that could potentially result in a noise impact on surrounding land and 

at the identified noise sensitive receptors. 

Determination of the sound power emission levels and nature of the sound emission from 

the identified noise sources. 

Calculation of the expected rating level of noise on surrounding land and at the identified 

noise sensitive receptors from the combined sound power levels emanating from identified 

noise sources in accordance with procedures contained in SANS 10357 or similar, see below. 

Numerical calculations using EMD WindPro Software Version 2.7 which is specifically 

developed for wind turbine noise. The method described in SANS 10357:2004 version 2.1 

(The calculation of sound propagation by the Concawe method) was used a reference for 

further calculations where required. WindPro uses the methods described in ISO 9613‐2 

(Acoustics – Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors. Part 2 – General method of 

calculation). This method is very comparable to SANS 10357:2004. 

Calculation and assessment of the noise impact on surrounding land and at the identified 

noise sensitive receptors in terms of SANS 10103; the Noise Control Regulations (1992); and 

the World Health Organisation (WHO, 1999). 

Investigation of alternative noise mitigation procedures and an estimation of the impact of 

noise upon implementation of such procedures. 

The SIA applied a qualitative methodology which focused on the collection of data and included the 

following activities: 

International literature review relating to wind energy developments; 

Integration with the PPP, namely through the written and verbal comments from I&APs, and 

communication with adjacent landowners ; 

Cross‐reference to other specialist studies, namely NIA and VIA; 

In depth interviews (face to face and telephonic) with stakeholders, namely neighbouring 

landowners; tourism operators / local businesses; local and district government officials; 

recreational groups and community representatives; and estate agents. 

Site visits and observations; and 

Using professional judgement, the application of standard EIA significance criteria to assess 

the significance of potential impacts; and recommendation of mitigation measures. 



6.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

The EIA Regulations provides the following definition: 

‘“cumulative impact”, in relation to an activity, means the impact of an activity that in itself may 

not be significant but may become significant when added to the existing and potential impacts 

eventuating from similar or diverse activities or undertakings in the area’. 

There is the potential for cumulative impact as the wind energy industry becomes more established 

in South Africa and further sites are identified and developed, particularly in the regions which have 

favourable conditions for wind energy generation, such as the West Coast. As the industry is only 

now emerging, no guidance exists which directly relates to the strategic growth of the wind power 

industry. However, as set out in Section 5.3.8, the Provincial Government of the Western Cape has 

developed a ‘Strategic Initiative to Introduce Commercial Land Based Energy Development to the 

Western Cape’ (May, 2006) in order to provide a regional methodology for wind energy site 

selection. The guidelines recognised the Darling Wind Farm as an existing wind farm and it was 

therefore taken as a point of departure, from which a minimum buffer of 30 km apart was proposed, 

and up to and beyond a preferred margin of 50 km for large wind farms. However, other emerging 

proposals have not been aligned with the hypothetical location of preferred sites as is evident in 

Figure 6.2 overleaf. The assessment of cumulative impacts has been based on this Figure which sets 

out the most current information of proposed locations for renewable energy facilities in the 

District. 



Figure 6.2: Renewable Energy Facility Proposals in the West Coast District Municipality, May 2011 

(Source: WCDM) 





7 DESCRIPTION OF THE BASELINE ENVIRONMENT 


This Section aims to provide a profile of the existing environment relating to the proposed 

development which has provided the context for the Scoping and EIA studies, as well as a baseline 

against which potential environmental impacts can be assessed. 

The administrative, land use, physical, ecological and socio‐economic environmental conditions are 

described and have been collated using various desk based sources, field work undertaken between 

June 2010 and June 2011 and the field work and information documented within the specialist 

studies. 

7.2 GEOGRAPHICAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE CONTEXT 

The Project is located in the Swartland Municipality, in the West Coast District of the Western Cape. 

It is located within Ward 5 of the Municipality which includes the towns of Darling (the portion west 

of Pastorie, Cole, Donkin and Smith Streets), Yzerfontein, Jakkalsfontein, Grottobaai, Ganzekraal, as 

well as Dassen Island and the rural area surrounding the towns. The Project site is located at the 

junctions of the R27 and the R315 between Yzerfontein and Darling, and is approximately 85 km 

north of Cape Town. 

7.3 LAND USE AND OWNERSHIP 

The study area lies within portions of two different farms: Slangkop (3/552) and Kerrie Fontein 

(0/555). There is no fixed boundary or site area as the turbines will not be fenced and will remain in 

co‐use with existing activities. The respective land portions are owned by Mr H.H. Smit and Mr C. 

Brendel. The four existing wind turbines are owned by Darling Wind Power and operated by 

DARLIPP. The wider area has been defined in the Botanical Impact Assessment (Appendix 8.1) and 

described in more detail in Section 8.5 below. The report states that within the wider study area 

there is a portion of totally transformed agricultural land or fallow agricultural land with very little 

natural vegetation (about 16% of the area, or 75 ha), to previously disturbed and now partly 

rehabilitated (about 67%, or 301ha), to largely pristine (about 27%, or 125 ha. Agricultural activities 

on surrounding farms include ostrich camps; cereal farming; beef and dairy farming; sheep farming; 

and wine farming (Scott, 2011). Adjoining the proposed study area, on the Windhoek Farm between 

the existing turbines and the R315, is an existing open cast sand mine registered as JJJ Sand Mine 

owned by the Sibathathu Mining CC (Infomine, 2010). 

7.4 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 

The study area is topographically a fairly simple area, being a prominent hill (Moedmaag Hill) with 

west facing slopes, a broad saddle, and a lower hill with west and north‐western facing slopes, 



leading into a sandy coastal plain. The 2001 EIA for the Darling Demonstration Project (EEU, 2001) 

has identified that study area is located on the Darling Pluton of the Cape Granite Suite. Granite 

derived clays and sandy loams are the primary soil type in the central and eastern area, but in the 

western parts these give way to deep, well leached acid sands of much lower fertility. There are two 

main granite outcrops, with various scattered granite exposures of less than 10 m 2 each, but 

otherwise there is little outcropping rock on the site. 

In terms of wetlands there is a single major drainage line, with four tributaries, plus a vlei area 

(Segarevlei). The seasonal drainage lines are unlikely to hold surface water for more than six months 

a year, but the soils are significantly damper than surrounding areas for extended periods. Soil 

moisture and depth differences are a fairly important driver of plant community dynamics on site. 

The small vlei area is located within the acid sands just south of the Segarevlei farm buildings, and is 

not very obvious, but is, like all wetlands, ecologically important. There is a windmill to the south‐ 

west of the existing turbines and the 2001 EIA (EEU, 2001) has identified the water table in the 

vicinity of this windmill being 1.05 m deep. 

This is an area of winter rainfall and summer drought. The highest average rainfall occurs between 

May – August (approximately 65‐84 mm per month). There are on average, 8‐9 rain days in these 

months. In the spring and summer months, between September and April, average monthly rainfall 

is between 8‐34 mm. Temperatures in winter range between 7 and 19 o C, with summer temperatures 

between 12 and 28 o C. Fog has been identified as a characteristic of the area (through the PPP and in 

the IDP) and is usually more prevalent during the winter months. 

The 2001 CSIR information that was published in the 2002 EIA Report summarises the wind patterns 

as follows: 

Higher wind speeds are more frequent during the months of October to March; 

Wind conditions are more moderate during the months of May, June and September; 

The predominant wind direction is southerly between August and April; and 

The average wind speed over a 12 month period was between 5.8 and 6.45 m/s. 

7.5 BOTANY 

The botanical baseline information is documented in the Botanical Impact Assessment Report 

(Helme, 2011) attached as Appendix 8.1. 

7.5.1 Vegetation Types 

Figure 7.1 below depicts the original natural vegetation patterns (prior to human influence) in the 

study area. It is evident that there were originally two vegetation types in the study area. About 40% 

of the overall study area supported Swartland Granite Renosterveld, with the sandy western parts 

supporting Hopefield Sand Fynbos (Mucina and Rutherford, 2006). These vegetation types are both 

still present, although the Renosterveld is severely reduced in extent due to extensive agriculture. 



Figure 7.1: Extract of the SA Vegetation Map (Mucina and Rutherford, 2006), showing pattern of 

original natural vegetation types in the area. Approximate study area outlined in yellow, 

cadastres as purple lines. 

Swartland Granite Renosterveld has been very heavily impacted by agriculture within the region 

where it occurs (north‐west of Darling to south‐east of Malmesbury) and today less than 20% of its 

original extent remains (Rouget et al, 2004). The vegetation type is regarded as a Critically 

Endangered vegetation type, with an unachievable national conservation target of 26%, and only 1% 

conserved (virtually all of this in private reserves; Rouget et al, 2004). Intact examples of this 

vegetation type are typically home to a high number of rare and threatened plant species, many of 

which are endemic (restricted) or near endemic to the vegetation type. The Draft National List of 

Threatened Ecosystems (DEA, 2009) has also classified this vegetation type as Critically Endangered 

(due to high levels of species endemism and due to extent of habitat loss). About 5% of the 

remaining vegetation in the study area is of this type, with a further 10% of the remaining vegetation 

having elements of this vegetation type. 

Hopefield Sand Fynbos is as its name suggests restricted to sandy soils in the Hopefield region, 

extending as far south as the study area. Some 41% of the original extent of this vegetation type has 

been lost, with a conservation target of 30%. Nothing (0%) is formally conserved (Rouget et al, 

2004), although recent acquisitions by the West Coast National Park (WCNP) have incorporated 

sections of this habitat, and this figure is now probably closer to 5% (pers. obs.). The unit is classified 

as Endangered on a national basis by the national Spatial Biodiversity Assessment (Rouget et al, 

2004). The Draft National List of Threatened Ecosystems (DEAT, 2009) has recently classified this 

vegetation type as Vulnerable (due to irreversible loss of habitat and high levels of species 

endemism), and this takes precedence over all preceding classifications. About 95% of the remaining 



vegetation in the study area is of this type, although some 10% of this shows elements of the Granite 

Renosterveld as well. 

Both vegetation types are shrublands, typically dominated by low shrubs, herbs and grasses, with a 

high diversity of bulbs (geophytes) and succulents common in the Renosterveld. Small trees and 

larger shrubs often occur in moist gulleys and in fire protected areas. Renosterveld is most visually 

attractive in the first few years after a fire, especially in spring, when a high percentage of the flora 

may be in flower at the same time. 

The vegetation in the study area ranges in condition from totally transformed agricultural land or 

fallow agricultural land (about 16% of the area, or 75 ha), to previously disturbed and now partly 

rehabilitated (about 67%, or 301ha), to largely pristine (about 27%, or 125 ha). 

Alien invasive vegetation is most severe in seasonally and permanently damp places, around 

homesteads, and in areas where there has been previous soil disturbance. The density of alien 

invasive shrubs and trees is generally fairly low across the natural portions of the site, and all woody 

alien plant invasions are regarded as fully reversible. The primary woody invasive aliens in the area 

are Acacia saligna (Port Jackson willow) and Acacia cyclops (rooikrans). Alien invasive herbs and 

grasses are a significant problem in Renosterveld (arguably more significant than the woody 

invasives), and can rapidly smother many of the smaller Renosterveld bulbs, succulents and annuals. 

Amongst the most serious are various commercial cereals such as Lolium (ryegrass varieties, 

especially in damp areas) and Avena (oats). Invasive alien grasses are difficult to control within 

natural vegetation, and their spread is facilitated by fire, soil disturbance, grazing, and the use of 

commercial fertilizers. After loss to agriculture, alien invasive grasses and herbs are acknowledged to 

be the primary threat to remnant Renosterveld vegetation (Von Hase et al, 2003). 

Long term alien invasion degrades the soil structure and alters the soil chemistry and moisture 

regime, making it difficult for many indigenous species to re‐establish, and for this reason alone they 

should be removed. All woody invasive alien vegetation must legally be controlled by landowners, 

according to existing Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act (CARA) legislation, although in 

reality most landowners simply choose to ignore this. 

7.5.2 Main Habitats 

The Botanical Impact Assessment has identified the main habitats on site from a botanical 

perspective, and these are cultivated lands; old ploughed lands that are now partly rehabilitated; 

rocky outcrops; wetlands on the loamy (granite derived) soils; Segarevlei (on acid sands); and 

Hopefield Sand Fynbos on well drained, deep, acid sands. These are briefly outlined below. 

Cultivated lands 

About 30‐40% of the study area has been recently cultivated (within last ten years), or is currently 

cultivated, and these areas support negligible indigenous vegetation, and are of low botanical 

sensitivity (Plate 7.1). The dominant vegetation in these areas would originally have been Swartland 

Granite Renosterveld, but is now cultivated cereals and herbs, many of which are invasive in the 

adjacent or remnant Renosterveld patches. 



Old ploughed lands 

About 25‐30% of the study area has been previously cultivated, but has lain fallow for at least ten 

years (and often much longer), and has consequently rehabilitated naturally to varying degrees. 

Indigenous plant diversity in these areas is significantly lower than in pristine examples of the 

original habitat, and is typically only 20 to 40% as diverse as the original habitat. However, some 

Species of Conservation Concern may be present in these areas (see Plate 7.6 and Plate 7.7), and 

these are indicative of the medium levels of conservation value that have been assigned to these 

areas. It is likely that over time, all else being equal, these areas will rehabilitate further. One of the 

primary constraints on this natural rehabilitation is the presence of livestock, which has a significant 

negative impact on the young plants that may move into the area (pers. obs.). 

Plate 7.1: View from Moedmaag Hill looking west, showing degraded (very heavily grazed) natural 

vegetation in foreground amongst granite outcrops, and cultivated lands left of and beyond the 

existing turbines. 



Rocky Outcrops 

Relatively few rocky outcrops are present on site, and only one is of any size (indicated in Plate 7.2 

and both Figure 7.2 and Figure 7.3 overleaf as an isolated area of high sensitivity). These exposed 

granites are home to many species not found elsewhere on site, such as Aloe mitriformis, Pauridia 

minuta, Lachenalia alooides, Gladiolus priorii, Ornithogalum multifolium, Othonna quercifolia, 

Cheiridopsis rostrata and Adromischus hemisphaericus. 

Plate 7.2: View of prominent granite outcrop in centre of site, looking east towards Moedmaag hill 

and existing turbines. A dense colony of Aloe mitriformis is prominent on these rocks, but the 

rocks also support a diversity of other species not generally found elsewhere on the site 

(Lachenalia alooides, Pauridia minuta, etc.). 



Plate 7.3: One of the seasonal drainage lines and associated wetland vegetation on site. The tall 

restio is Elegia elephantina. 

Wetlands on Loamy Soils 

This habitat is illustrated in Plate 7.3. The habitat is seasonally wet, and in places sufficient moisture 

accumulates to allow the development of ponds, which support various frogs, such as Strongylopus 

grayii (clicking stream frog). Typical plant species include Elegia elephantina, Juncus sp., Conyza 

scabrida, Cynodon dactylon (kweekgras), Athanasia crithmifolia, Fuirena coerulescens, and 

Zantedeschia aethiopica (arum lily). This habitat is very likely to support the Endangered kelkiewyn 

(Geissorhiza radians; see Plate 8.5). The invasive Acacia saligna and A. cyclops are easily removed, 

and have not yet compromised this important habitat 

Segarevlei 

Segarevlei is the only vlei area within the acid sands on site, and thus also supports a number of 

species not found elsewhere on site. The vlei was unfortunately bisected by the R27, and only a 

small portion is present east of the R27. Typical species include Leucadendron foedum (Vulnerable), 

Elegia elephantina, Berzelia abrotanoides, Serruria decipiens (Vulnerable), Myrica quercifolia and 

Erica hispidula. The invasive Acacia saligna and A. cyclops are easily removed, and have not yet 

compromised this important habitat. Various frogs were heard calling in this area. 



Plate 7.4: Leucospermum tomentosum (foreground; Red Listed as Vulnerable) growing in pristine 

Hopefield Sand Fynbos, looking towards Segarevlei and the R27. 

Hopefield Sand Fynbos 

This vegetation type occurs on deep, acid sands, and is best represented on site in the western areas 

(See Plate 7.4). The dominant species is usually the restio Thamnochortus punctatus, and additional 

species include Leucospermum tomentosum, Willdenowia incurvata (zonkwasriet), Willdenowia 

sulcata, Phylica cephalanatha, Calopsis impolitus, Diospyros lycioides, Restio quinquefarius, 

Leucadendron salignum (geelbos), Trichogyne ambigua, Lachnaea capitata and Staavia radiata 

(altydbossie). This habitat support significant numbers of Species of Conservation Concern, in spite 

of the fact that parts of it have been invaded by light to moderately dense stands of alien Acacia 

cyclops (rooikrans) and Acacia saligna (Port Jackson). These stands are easily removable, and in fact 

the landowner is legally obliged to do so. 

7.5.3 Ecological Drivers within these Vegetation Types 

Fire is acknowledged to be one of the primary drivers of Fynbos and Renosterveld ecosystem 

dynamics (de Villiers et al, 2005) and is one of three extremely important ecological drivers on this 

site. The other two key drivers are soil moisture, and soil type (including rockiness), although these 

cannot be easily manipulated. 

Optimum fire frequency for Renosterveld in this region is once every ten to fifteen years, whilst in 

the Fynbos areas it is probably closer to once every twelve to eighteen years (pers. obs.). Most of the 

natural vegetation on site is senescent or nearly so, and is thus due or even overdue for a fire 

(judging by some of the Leucospermum tomentosum shrubs that are dying of old age, and are 

probably at least 25 years old). 

Fire dynamics and the ecological implications thereof are extremely complicated, but a few basic 

principles apply, which are outlined as follows. 



Fire more often than at the optimum frequency will result in certain slow growing species being 

eliminated, and will change plant community structure. Many Renosterveld and Fynbos species 

germinate only immediately after a fire, and in the absence of fire will not establish young plants. 

Lack of fire also means that many bulbs and annuals that normally flourish only in the first few years 

after a fire, when there is plenty of light and open space, struggle to flower and hence set seed. 

These species can persist for long periods as bulbs and seeds underground, but obviously they have 

a limited life span, and the longer they go without fire the greater the chance that they will succumb 

to pathogens or seed or bulb predators (such as mole rats, common on site). Infrastructure 

development within natural vegetation that requires fire on a regular basis is thus not usually 

advisable or compatible, as the infrastructure owners would prefer to prevent fire, but this is 

ecologically problematic in areas of natural vegetation. 

Alien Acacia saligna (Port Jackson) and Acacia cyclops (rooikrans) have a negative effect on soil 

moisture, as the former tends to establish in areas of increased soil moisture (along streams, in 

seepage areas, etc.), and both use more water than Fynbos species. These moister areas naturally 

support an indigenous plant community that is dependent on shallow water tables and seasonal 

moisture. However, a dense infestation of Acacia can substantially reduce the available water, it can 

change the soil chemistry, and it also shades out the shorter indigenous vegetation, leading to 

substantial indigenous plant die‐off in these sensitive habitats. Once the aliens are cleared the 

indigenous species should recover, as light is restored and soil moisture levels increase. 

Soil (edaphic) interfaces are an important element of ecological process (Von Hase et al, 2003; de 

Villiers et al, 2005), and are present on site where the acid, sandy coastal soils (nutrient poor) meet 

the granite‐derived clays and loams (nutrient rich). The transitional (ecotonal) areas are special 

habitats where different floristic elements come together, and are often characterised by rare or 

localised plant species. On this site this boundary (ecotone) is extremely diffuse, and occurs over a 

distance of at least 300 m, which roughly corresponds to the boundary between the Hopefield Sand 

Fynbos and the Granite Renosterveld in Figure 7.1. 

7.5.4 Ecological Corridors 

Ecological corridors are regarded as key elements of a “living landscape” and of ecological process, in 

that they allow for animal and plant movement across the partly fragmented landscape. Insects and 

birds are key pollinators of many plant species, and it is important that they be able to move from 

one patch of natural vegetation to the next relatively easily, without having to cross large areas of 

hostile, barren terrain with little or no natural vegetation. These corridors also allow for seed 

movement, which may be by means of animals or by the wind. 



Figure 7.2: Map of study area showing botanical sensitivity of vegetation currently on site. All 

unhatched areas are of low sensitivity, and are mostly cultivated lands or homesteads. Total width 

of the study area here is about 3 km. 



Figure 7.3: Oblique aerial image showing existing turbines and schematic botanical sensitivity 

map. Unhatched areas within study area are of low sensitivity. 

Existing ecological corridors can be inferred wherever there is natural or even partly natural 

vegetation, and thus one should not take a single line on a map too seriously – in reality it is more 

like a web than a corridor, with numerous lateral connections and interconnections, and it is 

important to maintain as many of these as possible, and the broader and more numerous the links 

the better. 

In an ecologically highly fragmented landscape, such as the Renosterveld portions of this area, it is 

usually desirable to allow and plan for rehabilitation of certain key ecological linkages that have been 

broken by agriculture, and this would indeed be appropriate on this site. 

7.5.5 Rare Plants and Areas of Specific Sensitivity 

As previously noted all Renosterveld and Fynbos patches in decent to good condition can be 

regarded as being of high sensitivity (See Figure 7.2) and all can be expected to support plant Species 

of Conservation Concern. Just some of these species are highlighted in this section. No attempt has 

been made to plot the known distributions of these species on site at this stage, as all occur within 

areas of medium and especially within the high sensitivity natural vegetation, and provided that all 

such areas are avoided by the bulk of the proposed development there should not be a major issue. 

Habitats of particular importance include seasonal and permanent wetlands (such as vleis, streams, 

seeps, and pans), rocky outcrops, undisturbed Sand Fynbos, and the interface between acid sands 

and granite‐derived soils. 

Species of Conservation Concern known to occur in the study area (mostly pers. obs., supplemented 

by CREW GIS data) include the following thirteen species in Table 7.1. Red List status assessments 

are included (Raimondo et al, 2009), and the main habitat in which they occur on site is noted. 



Table 7.1: Species of Conservation Concern in the study area 

Scientific Name Red Data Status Habitat 

Geissorhiza radians (Plate 7.5) Endangered Loamy wetlands 

Leucospermum tomentosum (Plate 7.6) Endangered Sand Fynbos 

Aspalathus albens Vulnerable; Sand Fynbos 

Aspalathus ternata Vulnerable Sand Fynbos, including old lands 

Cotula duckittiae Vulnerable Sand Fynbos 

Calopsis impolitus Vulnerable Sand Fynbos 

Serruria decipiens Vulnerable Sand Fynbos near Segarevlei 

Leucadendron foedum Vulnerable Sand Fynbos near Segarevlei 

Lachnaea capitata Vulnerable Sand Fynbos 

Ruschia firma Data Deficient Sand Fynbos 

Phylica plumose (Plate 8.7) Declining Loamy areas 

Otholobium bolusii Near Threatened Loamy areas 

Geissorhiza monanthos Near Threatened Loamy areas 

Plate 7.5: Geissorhiza radians (kelkiewyn) is a spectacular spring bulb from seasonally wet clay and 

loamy flats in the Darling and Swartland area. The species is Red Listed as Endangered, and is 

known to occur in the study area along the drainage lines. 



Plate 7.6: Leucospermum tomentosum is a threatened species common on the sandy portions of 

the site, and especially in less disturbed sections of the Sand Fynbos (mapped as high sensitivity in 

Figure 7.2) 

Plate 7.7: Phylica plumosa (foreground; heavily pruned by grazing cattle) is a Declining species 

fairly common on the better rehabilitated sections of previously cultivated loamy soils (mapped as 

medium sensitivity). 



Additional Species of Conservation Concern known from adjacent or nearby properties (partly from 

CREW GIS data, partly pers. obs.) are set out in Table 7.2 below. 

Table 7.2: Additional Species of Conservation Concern known from nearby properties 

Scientific Name Red Data Status Notes 

Geissorhiza darlingensis Critically Endangered 

Only known from the Tienie Versfeld 

Reserve and one other locality 

Babiana pygmaea Critically Endangered Probably not on this site 

Lachenalia purpureo‐caerulea Critically Endangered 

Only known from the Tienie Versfeld 

Reserve and one other locality 

Xiphotheca reflexa Endangered 

Agathosma glandulosa Endangered 

Babiana rubrocyanea Endangered 

Disa hallackii Endangered 

Macrostylis cassiopoides Endangered 

Monsonia speciosa Endangered 

Romulea eximia Endangered 

Roella arenaria Vulnerable 

Lampranthus sociorum Vulnerable 

Ixia curta Vulnerable 

Lampranthus filicaulis Vulnerable 

Isoetes stellenbosiensis Near Threatened 

Lampranthus tegens Data Deficient 

If even half these additional species are in fact present on site then upwards of twenty Species of 

Conservation Concern would occur on site. This is an exceptionally high figure, even for the Fynbos 

biome, and is indicative of the conservation importance and sensitivity of all remaining natural 

habitat in the area. 

7.6 AVIFAUNA 

The Avifauna Impact Assessment (van Rooyen, 2011) attached as Appendix 8.2 has identified the 

vegetation types in the study area and the bird habitats that are represented. 

7.6.1 Vegetation Types and Bird Habitats 

The land use in the Swartland is mostly a mixture of wheat and pastures and it has been that way for 

decades. The 1999 figures indicate that 61% of the region is under dry‐land cultivation, while 

irrigated crops occur on 4%. The remaining area is covered by 24% natural vegetation and 11% other 

(i.e. alien trees, plantations etc.). Wheat is the predominant form of dry‐land cultivation (36%), 

followed by old lands (24%), hay and silage crops (10%), fallow land (8%), medic pastures (7%), oats 

(5%), lupin (4%), barley (3%) and canola (2%). Dry‐land cultivation is practised over the whole region 

whereas irrigation farming ‐ table grapes and, to a lesser degree, deciduous fruit – is confined to the 

river valleys and the foothills of the mountains. The high percentage of old lands (lands left after the 

last harvest and not cultivated for some time) is indicative of the economic instability of wheat 

farming. Along the coast and river courses, alien invasive plants (mostly Australian Eucalyptus and 

Acacia species) have become established (Young et al, 2003). 



About 16% of the Project site is essentially fallow agricultural land with very little natural vegetation. 

Natural vegetation in moderate or good condition thus covers an estimated 84% of the study area 

defined in the Botanical Impact Assessment Report (Appendix 8.1), and most of the vegetation in 

good condition is either on previously uncultivated small, rocky outcrops, in drainage lines 

(wetlands), or in the western parts, dominated by infertile sandy soils, which are not suitable for 

cultivation (Helme, 2011). 

It is widely accepted that vegetation structure is more critical in determining bird habitat, than the 

actual plant species composition (Harrison et al, 1997). The description of vegetation presented in 

this report therefore concentrates on factors relevant to the bird species present, and is not an 

exhaustive list of plant species present. The description of the vegetation types occurring in the 

study area makes extensive use of information presented in SABAP1 (Harrison et al, 1997). The 

criteria used by the SABAP1 authors to amalgamate botanically defined vegetation units, or to keep 

them separate were (1) the existence of clear differences in vegetation structure, likely to be 

relevant to birds, and (2) the results of published community studies on bird/vegetation 

associations. The natural vegetation in the greater study area where the proposed wind facility is 

located is classified as fynbos vegetation (Harrison et al, 1997). 

Fynbos is dominated by low shrubs and can be divided into two categories, fynbos proper and 

renosterveld, both of which occur on the study site. Despite having a high diversity of plant species, 

fynbos and renosterveld has a relatively low diversity of bird species. The only Red listed priority 

species that is closely associated with fynbos in this study area, is the Black Harrier Circus maurus 

(which often breeds in fynbos), (Harrison et al 1997). An estimated 5‐10 pairs breed in the West 

Coast National Park (Barnes 1998.) At least one breeding pair is located on the edge of the 

Yzerfontein Pan (Jenkins 2003; Simmons pers. com). Black Harriers made up 1.2% of priority species 

sightings during the 116 hour monitoring period at the site. A Black Harrier was also recorded by Van 

Beuningen and Retief during their three hour stint of monitoring of the site in September 2010. An 

average of 4‐6 pairs of Black Harrier breed annually on Jakkalsfontein Nature Reserve and 

neighbouring Rondeberg Flats, which are situated roughly 5km to the south of the study site (Marais 

2010). 

Other Red listed species that sometimes use this habitat are Secretarybirds Sagittarius serpentarius 

(1.8% of priority species recorded) which are sometimes found in fynbos and renosterveld (pers. 

obs.), while Martial Eagles Polemaetus bellicosus (3.6% of priority species recorded) on occasion 

forage in this habitat. Other priority species which were recorded on site foraging in this habitat are 

Lanner Falcon Falco biarmicus (20% of priority species recorded), Jackal Buzzard Buteo rufofuscus 

(39% of priority species recorded) and Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrines (4.2% of priority species 

recorded). Much of the fynbos and renosterveld in the Swartland have been transformed for 

agriculture. Whilst this obviously resulted in substantial natural habitat being destroyed, several 

species have in fact adapted well to this transformation. One such species, which is relevant to this 

study, is the Blue Crane Anthropoides paradiseus. This species has thrived on the grain lands and 

pastures in the southern and western Cape. This will be further discussed when the micro‐habitats 

are discussed below. 

In addition to natural vegetation, the following bird micro‐habitats are present at the Project site 

and within a 5 km radius around the site: 



Cereal Crops and Pastures 

The natural vegetation at the study area at the Project is surrounded by a typical mosaic of grain 

fields interspersed with pastures. It is of specific importance to the endemic, Red listed Blue Crane. 

The Swartland holds an important population of Blue Cranes (Young et al, 2003), probably second 

only in importance to the Overberg Wheatbelt. The Blue Crane has relatively recently expanded its 

range into the Swartland, where it feeds on inter alia fallen grain and recently germinated crops. 

They also feed on supplementary food put out for small stock, and can congregate in huge numbers 

around these feed lots. The Blue Cranes favour agricultural areas above natural vegetation. Blue 

Cranes were recorded in pastures and fallow fields within a radius of around 5km from the proposed 

Project site, mostly to the east of the actual site (Jenkins 2003, Van der Westhuizen 2011, Van 

Rooyen pers. obs). According to Jenkins (2003), at least one pair of Blue Cranes breeds very close to 

the eastern edge of the site and occasionally moves through the area to croplands below and to the 

west of Moedmaag. Relatively few Blue Cranes were recorded at the site itself during 116 hours of 

monitoring (6.6% of priority species recorded). 

During the site visits in June and November 2010, the following priority species were recorded in 

croplands and pastures adjacent to the study site, to the east behind Moedmaag Hill: 

Blue Crane 

Jackal Buzzard 

Secretarybird 

Lanner Falcon 

In addition, Jackal Buzzard, African Marsh Harrier Circus ranivorus, Black Harrier and Lanner Falcon 

were all recorded “quite commonly” foraging in pastures and croplands both east and west of the 

Project site by Jenkins (2003). 

Drainage Lines and Wetlands 

The Swartland contains many drainage lines and associated wetlands, some of which are sometimes 

used as roosting areas for Blue Cranes, as well as for foraging and breeding African Marsh‐Harrier. 

Apart from these Red listed species, wetlands are also important for several common species such as 

Egyptian Goose Alopochen aegyptiacus, White Stork Ciconia ciconia and Spur‐winged Goose 

Plectropterus gambensis. 

There is a single main seasonal drainage line on the Project site, with four tributaries. A small vlei 

area, Segarevlei, is also present south of the homestead adjacent to the R27. None of these are of 

particular importance for priority species, with the possible exception of the African Marsh‐harrier, 

which may on occasion forage at Segarevlei if conditions are favourable. However, the species was 

not recorded at the Project site itself during 116 hours of observation which means that the habitat 

is probably not suitable. 

Of more importance are the large wetlands adjacent surrounding the study site, namely Yzerfontein, 

Slangkop, Swartwater and Droëvlei pans. Greater Flamingo is also occasionally observed during 

particularly wet winters on pans in the Jakkalsfontein Nature Reserve (Marais, 2010). These pans 

hold significant numbers of Great White Pelican Pelecanus onocrotalus and both species of flamingo 

(Jenkins 2003), and movement to and fro between these water bodies could be expected, 

particularly in winter (see also Section 10 below). 



7.6.2 Avifauna in the Study Area 

The proposed wind facility is located within 3318AD and 3318AC. Table 7.3 overleaf lists the Red 

listed species that have been recorded in these QDGCs. It also states the national conservation 

status, habitat preferences as well as whether it was recorded flying over the site during 116 hours 

of observation between 2002 and 2011. Figure 7.4 below depicts this information graphically. 

Jenkins (2003) identified the following priority species potentially occurring at the Project site, or in 

suitable habitat adjacent to the site: 

White Pelican Pelecanus onocrotalus 

Greater Flamingo Phoenicopterus ruber 

Lesser Flamingo Phoeniconaias minor 

Secretarybird Sagittarius serpentarius 

Martial Eagle Polemaetus bellicosus 

Jackal Buzzard Buteo rufofuscus 

African Marsh Harrier Circus ranivorus 

Black Harrier C. maurus 

Lanner Falcon Falco biarmicus 

Peregrine Falcon F. peregrinus 

Lesser Kestrel F. naumanni 

Blue Crane Anthropoides paradiseus 

Figure 7.4: Priority species recorded at the site during 116 hours of monitoring 



Table 7.3: Red Listed species (excluding marine species) and other priority species recorded in 3318AD and 3318AC QDGCs by SABAP1 and SABAP2 

Common 

Name 

Secretarybird 

African 

Marsh‐Harrier 

Scientific Name 

Sagittarius 

serpentarius 

National 

Conservation 

Status 

(Barnes, 2000) 

NT 1.8% (3) 

% of records of 

priority species 

recorded at site. No. 

of individual 

sightings in brackets 

Circus ranivorus VU Not recorded 

Black Harrier Circus maurus NT 1.2% (2) 

Peregrine 

Falcon 

Falco peregrinus NT 4.2% (7) 

Lanner Falcon Falco biarmicus NT 20% (33) 

Habitat requirements (Barnes, 1998; Barnes, 2000; Hockey et al, 2005; Young et al, 

2003; Harrison et al, 1997; personal observations) 

Grassland, old lands, open woodland. Most likely to be encountered in pastures and old 

agricultural areas, but also in degraded fynbos. 

Large permanent wetlands with dense reed beds. Sometimes forages over smaller 

wetlands and grassland. Could be present at wetlands associated with pans adjacent to the 

study area. Recorded by Jenkins in croplands adjacent to the Project site. There is a small 

likelihood of the species occurring at Segarevlei when conditions are favourable. 

Forages both over fynbos and agricultural land. An average of 4‐6 pairs of Black Harrier 

breed annually on Jakkalsfontein Nature Reserve and neighbouring Rondeberg Flats, which 

are situated roughly 5km to the south of the study site. 

A wide range of habitats, but cliffs (or tall buildings) are a prerequisite for breeding. May 

hunt over agricultural areas and to a lesser extent fynbos. 

Generally prefers open habitat, but exploits a wide range of habitats. May hunt over 

agricultural areas and to a lesser extent fynbos. 

Lesser Kestrel Falco naumanni VU Not recorded Summer migrant most likely to be encountered hunting over agricultural areas. 

Blue Crane 

Great White 

Pelican 

Barlow’s Lark 

Greater 

Flamingo 

Lesser 

Flamingo 

Anthropoides 

paradiseus 

Pelecanus 

onocrotalus 

Calendulauda 

barlowi 

Phoenicopterus 

ruber 

Phoenicopterus 

minor 

VU 6.6% (11) Cereal crops, old lands, pastures, wetlands, dams and pans for roosting. 

NT 23% (38) Large dams and estuaries. Occurs on Dassen Island and at pans adjacent to the Project site. 

NT Not recorded Arid scrubland and vegetated dunes. 

NT 

NT 

Not recorded at the 

site, but recorded in 

adjacent wetlands 

Not recorded at the 

site, but recorded in 

adjacent wetlands 

The species is present at Yzerfontein, Slangkop, Swartwater and Droëvlei pans. May 

commute over the Project site, but this has to be confirmed. 

The species is present at Yzerfontein, Slangkop, Swartwater and Droëvlei pans. May 

commute over the Project site, but this has to be confirmed. 



Common 

Name 

Martial Eagle 

Scientific Name 

Polemaetus 

bellicosus 

Jackal Buzzard Buteo rufofuscus 

National 

Conservation 

Status 

(Barnes, 2000) 

V 3.6% (6) 

Not 

threatened 

endemic 

% of records of 

priority species 

recorded at site. No. 

of individual 

sightings in brackets 

39% (65) 

Source: (Harrison et al, 1997; http://sabap2.adu.org.za) Notes: VU = Vulnerable; NT = Near threatened 

Habitat requirements (Barnes, 1998; Barnes, 2000; Hockey et al, 2005; Young et al, 

2003; Harrison et al, 1997; personal observations) 

Most likely to be encountered over fynbos and old agricultural lands habitat at the Project 

site. 

Most likely to be encountered over fynbos and old agricultural lands habitat at the Project 

site. 



7.7 VISUAL 

The visual baseline information has been sourced from the Visual Impact Assessment (Oberholzer 

and Lawson, 2011) in Appendix 8.3. The site and study area are briefly described in Table 7.4 below, 

including the visual/scenic significance, along with visual constraints and opportunities in relation to 

the siting of wind energy facilities. Viewpoints and viewsheds are indicated on Figures 6 and 7 (in 

Appendix 8.3), and a number of panorama photographs from identified viewpoints are shown in 

Figures 10 to 13 (in Appendix 8.3). 

Table 7.4: Landscape description of the site 

Location 

Geology 

Physical 

Landscape 

Vegetation 

Cover 

Viewshed and 

view corridors 

Visual 

Significance 

The site is located on the West Coast of the Western Cape, some 8 km east of the 

town of Yzerfontein, and at the intersection of the R27 West Coast Road and the 

R315 between Yzerfontein and Darling. The actual site is composed of two farms, 

being Slangkop (3/552) and Kerriefontein (0/555). 

The area is underlain by granite of the Cape Granite Suite, which give rise to the 

typical rolling topography ‐ a characteristic feature of the rural landscape around 

Darling, with granite rock outcrops in places. 

The study area includes two main landscape types: 

1) the relatively flat coastal plain to the west of the R27 Route, consisting of 

quaternary sand deposits, typical of the West Coast; 

2) the hilly topography to the east of the R27 Route, rising to between 160 and 

260m above sea level. 

The site for the proposed Project straddles the Moedmaag Hill. 

In response to the geology and soils of the study area, two main vegetation types 

occur on the site, being the Swartland Granite Renosterveld and the Hopefield 

Sand Fynbos. Much of the natural vegetation of the area has been displaced by 

agricultural activities, including dairy farming and sheep. 

The botanical study (Helme, 2011), indicates areas of important biodiversity and 

botanical sensitivity, which add to the landscape value. 

The granite hills create some visual enclosure, as well as view shadows, from 

where the turbines would not be seen, as shown on the viewshed maps (Figures 

6 and 7 in Appendix 8.3). On the other hand the crests of the hills are visually 

exposed and the proposed wind turbines would tend to stand out on the skyline. 

The sparse vegetation cover means that the turbines tend to be visible over long 

distances. 

The visibility of the proposed wind farm from the R27 and R315 visual corridors is 

shown on Figure 9 in Appendix 8.3. A section of the R315 Route to Darling is in a 

view shadow. 

The rolling hills constitute a scenic rural landscape in an area famed for its spring 

wild flowers. This aspect, together with the recreation activities of the nearby 

West Coast, and the West Coast National Park, mean that the area is an 

important visitor and tourist destination. 

The proposed wind farm is visible to a number of farmsteads in the area, as well 

as to the settlement of Yzerfontein, about 8 km to the west. 



Opportunities 

and 

Constraints 

The following routes and protected areas tend to increase landscape value in 

visual terms, and therefore the visual sensitivity: 

The R27 and R315 Routes, which can be considered as scenic corridors, 

and therefore visually sensitive. 

The Tienie Versveld Wild Flower Reserve located adjacent to the R315 

Route, about 2km from the wind farm site. 

The Yzerfontein Soutpan and Rooipan, which are important wetland and 

bird sites, are 5 to 7km away from the site. 

The West Coast National Park, which lies some 5km to the north of the 

site on the R27, the entrance gate to the Park being 10km away. 

The West Coast Biosphere Reserve, which stretches from the Diep River 

in Cape Town to the Berg River in the north, and therefore includes the 

entire visual catchment of the Project. 

Two historic limekilns are located on the R315 to Yzerfontein, about 3km from 

the wind farm site. The wind farm is, however, not visible to the settlement of 

Darling, which is some 13km away to the east, and in a view shadow. 

Viewpoints were selected based on prominent viewing positions in the area, where uninterrupted 

views of the proposed energy facilities could be obtained. The proposed facilities would be 

potentially visible from the R27 and R315 Routes, from Yzerfontein and a number of farms. See 

Table 7.5 below. 



Table 7.5: Potential visibility from selected view points 

View Pt Location Distance Comments 

V1 From Moedmaag Hill looking SW at existing four wind 

turbines 

207m Existing turbines clearly visible at close range from Moedmaag Hill 

within Slangkop Farm. 

V2 Droevlei Farm looking SW 4.2km Wind turbines partly visible on skyline, mainly obscured by Moedmaag 

Hill. 

V3 Slangkop Farm looking NW 2.5km Slangkop turbines visible on skyline, Kerrie Fontein turbines partly 

obscured by Moedmaag Hill. 

V4 Wildschutsvlei Farm looking NW 4.8km Slangkop turbines visible on skyline, Kerrie Fontein turbines partly 


V5 R315 Route to Darling 4.4km Slangkop turbines visible on skyline, Kerrie Fontein turbines partly 


V6 R315 Route Tienie Versveld Wildflower Reserve 2.2km Slangkop turbines visible on skyline, Kerrie Fontein turbines partly 


V7 West Coast National Park entrance looking SE 9.4km Wind turbines visible on skyline in the far distance. 

V8 West Coast National Park access road 9.8km Wind turbines visible on skyline in the far distance. 

V9 R27 Route at Denneburg Farm Gate looking SE 2.8km Wind turbines visible on skyline in the middle distance, partly obscured 

by foreground topography and vegetation. 

V10 R27 Route opposite Denneburg Farm 2.2km Wind turbines visible on skyline in the middle distance. 

V11 R27 Route opposite Kerrie Fontein Farm at Segarevlei 884m Wind turbines highly visible in the foreground. 

V12 R27 Route entrance to existing substation road 1.1km Wind turbines highly visible in the foreground. 

V13 Yzerfontein residential area looking east 7.5km Wind turbines visible in the distance against Moedmaag Hill. 

V14 R315 Route opposite de le Rey Farm near old lime kilns 2.8km Wind turbines clearly visible on Moedmaag Hill. 

V15 R27 Route layby picnic site looking NE 4.1km Wind turbines clearly visible in the near distance on the skyline. 

Note: The mapping and table have abbreviated the farm names to exclude the portion numbers. 



7.8 HERITAGE 

7.8.1 The Receiving Environment 

The site lies on a westwards‐facing slope between Moedmaag Hill and the R27. Much of it is 

transformed land, having been ploughed in the past, but some areas may not have been ploughed 

and still others are in a state of recovery (see Figure 7.5 below). Plate 7.8 to Plate 7.15 show various 

views of the study area and its vegetation cover. 

Figure 7.5: Aerial photograph of the study area showing the different states of the land as well as 

positions of finds and the walk paths created during the survey. 



Plate 7.8: View west in the north‐eastern part 

of the study area. 

Plate 7.10: View south across the north‐ 

eastern part of the study area. 

Plate 7.12: The large granite outcrop 

between the two turbine rows. 

Plate 7.9: View west along the stream that 

traverses the site. 

Plate 7.11: An unploughed or recovered area 

in the centre of the study area. 

Plate 7.13: View east along the southern row 

showing Agricultural land and small granite 

outcrops. 



Plate 7.14: View east along the southern 

row showing agricultural land. 

7.8.2 Heritage Context 

Plate 7.15: View west along the cable 

servitude in the south‐west part of the study 

area. 

This part of the Cape has been farmed for many years and is a well established agricultural landscape 

revolving primarily around dairy cattle and wheat. The vast majority of the land area has been 

transformed through ploughing such that little remains of the natural environment. Farmsteads dot 

the region, mostly lying towards the east among the Darling Hills. These are mostly late 19th century 

and the nearby town of Darling was only established in 1853 (Fransen, 2006). Since the late 1600s, 

however, the area was well used as grazing land by the Dutch East India Company. A more extensive 

background to the region has already been compiled by Webley and Hart, 2010). Two little‐known 

aspects of Darling’s history are that the town saw action during the Anglo‐Boer War in 1901 and an 

airforce base operated from the local airfield during World War II (Route 27, n.d.). Since then the 

area has become well known for its Spring flowers. 

The archaeology of the area is not well known. The Darling Hills would undoubtedly have been used 

extensively by the Khoekhoen for grazing their stock and their settlements would likely have dotted 

the open landscape. The local geology is not conducive to the formation of rock shelters and none 

are known. One does routinely come across stone artefacts of various ages in the wheat lands of the 

Cape and such finds would be expected here. The presence of Stone Age people in the general area 

is well documented by the excavations of both Middle and Later Stone Age archaeological sites at 

Yzerfontein, some 9 km to the south‐west (Avery et al, 2008; Halkett et al, 2003; Klein et al, 2004; 

Orton, 2007; in press). 

Two other surveys in the vicinity of the study area found no heritage resources (Halkett, 2001; Hart, 

2008). 



7.9 NOISE 

The noise baseline environment has been sourced from the NIA Report (Williams, 2011) attached as 

Appendix 8.5. 

The Project site is situated is zoned for agricultural land use. The potential sensitive receptors are 

discussed below. The main noise sensitive receptors that could be impacted by noise pollution are 

the terrestrial fauna, the avifauna and human receptors. The NIA Report only deals with the human 

receptors. 

7.9.1 Sensitive Receptors 

Human Sensitive Receptors 

The site is situated in a rural farming community. Several homesteads are located on the property 

where the turbines will be erected as well as on neighbouring farms. The farms and much of the 

surrounding land is zoned agricultural. In terms of SANS 10103 this is described as a “rural district” 

with typical outdoor rating levels for noise of 45 dBA during daytime and 35 dBA during night time. 

The locations of the various human sensitive receptors are indicated in Figure 7.6. 

Table 7.6: Location of noise sensitive receptors 

NSA Longitude (E) Latitude (S) 

Distance to 

closest WTG (m) 

NSA 1 ‐ Windhoek (Main House) 18°15'23.43" 33°19'29.54" 634 

NSA 2 – Windhoek (Workers Cottage) 18°15'16.80" 33°19'28.68" 523 

NSA 3 – Klein Windhoek 18°14'42.14" 33°19'55.48" 956 

NSA 4 – Tumbleweed 18°14'18.39" 33°19'39.75" 844 

NSA 5 – Jacobuskraal Estate 18°14'02.42" 33°19'45.91" 1233 

NSA 6 – West Coast Farm Stall 18°14'19.52" 33°20'04.80" 1821 

NSA 7 – Slangkop 18°17'01.98" 33°19'49.64" 2621 

NSA 8 – Droevlei 18°18'34.33" 33°17'54.93" 4822 

NSA 9 – Swartwater 18°15'49.93" 33°17'01.05" 3120 

NSA 10 – Grootberg 18°17'03.00" 33°20'33.48" 3638 

Natural Environment Receptors 

The fauna includes bats, birds, commercial livestock and a variety of buck. These impacts are dealt 

with in separate studies. 

7.9.2 Ambient Noise 

The ambient noise was measured at two locations and results thereof are contained in the tables 

overleaf. 



Table 7.7: Ambient noise results (daytime) 

Location 

Windhoek 

Farmworkers Houses 

Windhoek Main 

Farm House 

Start 

Time 

Duration 

(minutes) 

Leq dB(A) 

L10 

dB(A) 

L90 

dB(A) 

Comments 

13:15 15 41.6 44.6 36.4 Music in background 

14:00 15 39.9 41.8 34.8 

Note: Wind from the south at 4m/s Temperature 17 o C 

Table 7.8: Ambient noise results (night) 

Location 

Windhoek 

Farmworkers Houses 

Windhoek Main 

Farm House 

Start 

Time 

Duration 

(minutes) 

Leq dB(A) L10 

dB(A) 

L90 

dB(A) 

22:00 15 41.4 46.0 32.1 

22:15 15 44.9 40.8 34.5 

Note: Wind from the south east at 2m/s Temperature 10 o C 

3 turbines running 

(not audible) 

Comments 

Cars on R27 very 

audible; Dogs Barking 

Cars on R27 very 

audible; Dogs 

Barking; Turbines not 

operational 

The results indicate that the ambient noise is approximately between 41 and 45 dB(A) at between 2‐ 

4 m/s wind speed. The general ambient noise at each location varies substantially as the ambient 

sound is influenced by human activities as well as vehicles and animal sounds. It is thus extremely 

difficult to isolate just the wind component. 

Figure 7.6: Location of noise sensitive receptors 



7.10 SOCIAL 

The social baseline information has been sourced from the Social Scoping Study (Scott, 2010) 

attached as Appendix 8.6. 

7.10.1 Overview of the Area 

The Swartland Municipality is predominantly a rural area with the economy dominated by the 

agricultural sector as the key contributor and employer. However, Malmesbury as the administrative 

centre is the focus of non‐agricultural economic activity in the Municipality. The economy is fairly 

diversified with other key contributors including the manufacturing, trade and services sectors. The 

Swartland economy is both the fastest growing economy in the West Coast District as well as the 

main employment area. It is the second highest contributor in terms of GDP (second to Saldanha) 

(Swartland Municipality, 2007b). 

Agricultural activities in the Swartland are diverse and dominated by wheat, grapes, sheep, beef and 

dairy, with olive, canola, and legume farming to a smaller degree. It is on this basis that the 

agricultural sector is believed to be stable and sustainable although individual sectors, such as wheat 

can be volatile (Swartland Municipality, 2007b). Manufacturing, as the second largest sector, is 

based on a number of light industries and manufacturers of agricultural based products found in the 

area. The category of economic activity classified as trade and services, is related to other sectors 

such as manufacturing and residential development in the Municipality. Although tourism does not 

play a major role, the Local Economic Development Strategy has identified the niche potential of 

tourism in the coastal zone and farm tourism (Swartland Municipality, 2007b). A number of 

attributes of the Swartland will allow for growth in this sector: 

Its scenic beauty; 

Its rural qualities that offer opportunities for relaxation; 

Its many tourist attractions (such as game farms, 4x4 trails, bike trails, olive festival, and 

Evita se Perron); 

The advancement of its reputation as an area with good wines and wine farms; 

Its coastal beauty along Yzerfontein; 

Attractive places of accommodation; and 

Its cultural and historical towns such as Darling, Koringberg and Riebeek Kasteel. 

In general, the population of the Swartland is less formally schooled than both the District and the 

Province respectively and this is partly attributed to the high rates of in‐migration which are mostly 

unskilled Africans seeking employment (Swartland Municipality, 2005). As of 2005, a mismatch 

between labour demand ‐ in terms of both numbers of jobs and skills – and labour supply was 

identified as a potential issue with regards to future trends in the Swartland. The implications of this 

include a reduced marketability of the labour force both locally and to neighbouring areas and a 

reduced likelihood of entrepreneurship (Swartland Municipality, 2005). The trend of in‐migration of 

unskilled labour would further exacerbate these problems, driving local employers to seek skills from 

outside the Swartland. 

The white population is characterised by out‐migration of younger age groups and in‐migration of 



‘older professionals, less intensively economically engaged and retired people’ (Swartland 

Municipality, 2005:30). This further dictates the skill set within the local labour force. Yzerfontein in 

particular has become a destination for such older, retired residents. 

The towns of Darling and Yzerfontein are the closest settlements to the Project. Darling was 

founded in 1853 and named after Charles Henry Darling, a Governor of the Cape. The town’s main 

function has historically been as an agricultural service centre, based on the surrounding rural 

activities including wheat, grape, potato and dairy farming. However, other activities have since led 

to the diversification of the town’s economy. Tourism is a growing sector, and is based on 

attractions such as the wildflowers, music and the arts, wine routes, produce and crafts and 

ecotourism. At a broader scale, Darling is located within the Cape West Coast Biosphere ‐ the coastal 

lowland plains of the West Coast ‐ recognised for its environmental integrity, character, and 

protection value. Darling’s strategic location on the West Coast corridor, within easy reach of Cape 

Town has also contributed to the recent growth in tourism. As of 2001, the population of Darling 

was 7,544. At present, the population comprises a number of commuters as well as retirees which is 

a growing trend (Swartland Municipality, 2007b). The Swartland IDP recognises that the availability 

of land for industries related to light agricultural services presents a further opportunity to 

strengthen the town’s growth potential (Swartland Municipality, 2007a). However, this could 

jeopardise the town’s unique rural character. 

The town of Yzerfontein has always been associated with recreation and was originally a farm 

popular with local farmers as a holiday location. In 1937 Abraham Katz formally established the town 

which became part of Yzerfontein Seaside Estates (‘Yzerfontein Info’ Website, 9 June 2010). With the 

construction of the R27, improved access fuelled further growth of the town. Yzerfontein was also 

historically linked with maritime activities including whaling, fishing, abalone harvesting and 

crayfishing. Despite limited harbour facilities, at present the town is the main line fishing harbour on 

the West Coast. Snoek is the dominant catch and the associated fish market is a key source of 

economic activity. Currently the fishing industry is playing a smaller role in the local economy 

characterised by the reduction in commercial vessel usage and the increase in recreational boating 

(Swartland, 2007b). In 2001, Yzerfontein had a population of 1,200 and has attracted holidaymakers, 

tourists and retirees with permanent residents accounting for 60% of the population (Swartland 

Municipality, 2007a and 2007b). Tourism is on the increase and related business activities include 

restaurants, cafes and guest houses. The LEDS (Swartland Municipality, 2007b) attributes the 

tourism potential to the famous scenic unspoilt beaches, proximity to Dassen Island, flora and fauna, 

beautiful views and whale watching. The challenge is to balance the growth in tourism alongside 

opportunities relating to fishing. 

7.10.2 Statistical Profile of the Study Area 

The statistical profile documents the demography, the education levels, employment levels and 

labour force, housing, transport, services, health and crime to provide an overview of the socio‐ 

economic context of the study area. Census 2001 is the most recent source of official secondary data 

available and this has been supplemented with other data where available. 

Demography 

The Swartland Municipality accounts for most of the total population in the West Coast District 

(25.5%), followed by the Saldanha Bay local Municipality (24.9%) and Matzikama Local Municipality 

(17.8%) (West Coast District Municipality, 2006). 



As set out in Table 7.9 overleaf, the 2010 projected population in the Swartland Municipality is 

85,500 people, with approximately 6,500 people residing in Ward 5 which is the ward in which the 

Project is located. The Swartland Municipality is predominantly comprised of coloured people (72%), 

which is slightly lower in Ward 5 at 67.3%. The Municipality has equal representation of both black 

African and white groups which each represent 14% each of the population. Ward 5 has slightly 

lower levels of black Africans at 11% and a higher population of whites at 21.1%. There is only a very 

small representation of Indian or Asian populations within the Municipality and the Ward. 

Table 7.9: 2010 Projected population ‐ race 

Ethnicity Ward 5 Swartland Municipality 

Black African 11% 14% 

Coloured 67.3% 72% 

Indian or Asian 0.6% (< 1%) 

White 21.1% 14% 

Total 6,459 85,500 

Source: Swartland IDP (2007) and Ward 5 Profile (May 2010) 

Table 7.10 below sets out the most recent gender statistics from 2001. These indicate an even 

representation whereby the population was 49.9% male and 50.1% female. 

Table 7.10: Gender ratio in the Swartland Municipality (2001) 

Gender Number % Composition 

Male 36,049 49.9% 

Female 36,067 50.1% 

Total 72,116 100% 

Source: Census, 2001 

In terms of the population structure in the Swartland Municipality, there is a higher concentration in 

the lower age groups which are considered characteristic of a ‘normal’ age profile (Swartland 

Municipality, 2005). Table 7.11 below indicates that that in 2001 there were 28.7% in the 0‐15 year 

group, with 66% in the 15‐64 year group (which is the potential labour force) and 5.3% over 65 

years. Therefore, approximately 35% of the population is not part of the potential labour force and is 

therefore dependant on the remaining 66% of the population. 

The issue of in‐migration and out‐migration of various ethnic groups and age groups is discussed in 

Section 8.10.1 above. 

Table 7.11: Population structure in the Swartland Municipality (2001) 

Age Group Number Percentage 

0 – 14 20,728 28.7% 

15 – 64 47,582 66% 

65+ 3,806 5.3% 

Total 72,116 100% 




Education 

Table 7.12 overleaf sets out the level of education in the Swartland Municipality during 2001. Over 

30% of the population had either ‘no schooling’ or ‘some primary’ education. This generally poor 

level of education can be attributed to limited access to secondary schooling (linked to a high 

dropout rate at the secondary level) and an exodus of skilled people, coupled with an influx of 

unskilled persons (Swartland Municipality, 2007a). 

Table 7.12: Education levels attained by ‘over 20 year olds’ 

in the Swartland Municipality (2001) 

Level Number Percentage 

No schooling 4,452 10.0% 

Some primary 10,318 23.2% 

Complete primary 4,439 10.0% 

Some secondary 13,674 30.7% 

Std 10/Grade 12 8,355 18.8% 

Higher 3,319 7.4% 

Total 44,557 100 


Employment Levels and Labour Force 

Table 7.13 below sets out the employment status of the Ward and the Municipality in 2001. The 

Municipality had a slightly higher level of employment (57.2%) than the Ward (54.4%), which is also 

reflected in the level of unemployment in the Municipality (6.5%) and the Ward (6.1%). These levels 

of unemployment are, however, relatively lower than national estimates (Swartland Municipality, 

2007b). There is a particularly high level of people who are ‘Not Economically Active’, suggesting a 

high level of early retirees, or homes characterised by a single breadwinner. The Swartland IDP 

(2007a) has indicated that the black African population has a much higher unemployment rate than 

the other groups and this could be largely related to immigration for employment opportunities. 

Table 7.13: Employment status (2001) 

Status Ward 5 Swartland 

Employed 54.4% 57.2% 

Unemployed 6.1% 6.5% 

Not Economically Active* 39.5% 36.3% 


% is a proportion of those of working age (15 – 65 yrs) 

* People who are neither in employment nor unemployed and therefore not seeking 

work. This group includes, for example, all those who were looking after a home, 

studying or retired. 

The individual monthly income of the Swartland population indicates that income levels were fairly 

low in 2001 as indicated in Table 7.14 overleaf. Almost 50% of the population earned no income, 

while approximately 30% earned only R1,600 or less per month. The low incomes in rural areas can 

be attributed to the limited value adding potential of primary industries (such as agriculture) and the 

limited skills required to do this work (Swartland Municipality, 2007a). The Swartland IDP (2007a) 

has identified the black population as the lowest earners and this is indicative of low skills levels, 

whilst the white population are the highest earners. This can be quantified through comparison of 



the 2001 mean income per ethnic group showing that the black population had a mean income of 

R1,290 per month; coloureds, R1,655; and whites, R 9,720 (Swartland Municipality, 2005). 

The Swartland Economic Profile (2005) reported that for 2005, social grants were received by 6,000 

people which equates to 8% of the estimated Swartland population and 12% of the potential labour 

force. Although this facilitates additional spend in the local economy, the Swartland Economic 

Profile (2005) noted that it was not sustainable and may act as a disincentive to engage in the local 

economy. 

The West Coast Poverty Alleviation Strategy (2006) has indicated that the average household in 

Swartland spends most of their monthly income on food and clothing as well as housing followed by 

education. Furthermore, in Swartland 15% of households cannot afford transport, 70% food, and 

10% housing, while 5% indicated that basic services are unaffordable (West Coast District 

Municipality, 2006). 

Table 7.14: Individual monthly income in the Swartland Municipality (2001) 

Income Bracket Persons Percentage 

None 35940 49.8% 

R1 ‐ 400 3619 5.0% 

R401 ‐ 800 13258 18.4% 

R801 – 1,600 8358 11.6% 

R1,601 – 3,200 5265 7.3% 

R3,201 – 6,400 3317 4.6% 

R6,401 – 12,800 1542 2.1% 

R12,801 – 25,600 463 0.6% 

R25,601 – 51,200 176 0.2% 

R51,201 – 10,2400 98 0.1% 

R10,2401 – 204,800 62 0.1% 

Over R204,801 20 0.0% 


Table 7.15 overleaf, sets out the distribution of employment by sector and it is evident that the 

predominant sector is agriculture (35.3%), followed by community, social and personal services 

(11.1%), manufacturing (10.8%) and wholesale/retail (10.8%). The predominance of agriculture has 

been discussed in Section 8.10.1 above, while the employment in the community, social and 

personal services relates largely to Government jobs. Wholesale and retail trade employment can be 

attributed to tourism activities to some degree. 



Table 7.15: Industry amongst the employed in the Swartland Municipality (2001) 

Industry Number Percentage 

Agriculture/Forestry/Fishing 9,683 35.3% 

Community/Social/Personal 3,052 11.1% 

Construction 1,640 6.0% 

Electricity/Gas/Water 122 0.4% 

Financial/Insurance/Real Estate/Business 1,001 3.7% 

Manufacturing 2,970 10.8% 

Mining/Quarrying 59 0.2% 

Other 0 0.0% 

Private Households 1,784 6.5% 

Transport/Storage/Communication 569 2.1% 

Undetermined 3,564 13.0% 

Wholesale/Retail 2,974 10.8% 

Total 27,418 100% 

Source: Census, 2001; Note: % is a proportion of all of those employed of working age (15 – 65 yrs) 

Table 7.16 below sets out the composition of occupations within the Municipality in 2001. 

Elementary occupations are dominant (27.3%) which largely comprises labourers in the sectors of 

agriculture, fishery, mining, construction, manufacturing and transport, and other low skilled sales 

and services occupations such as vendors, domestic workers, and garbage collectors. This is followed 

by a small percentage of craft and related trades workers (4.9%), clerks (4.3%) and pant and machine 

operators and assemblers (3.6%). Overall it shows that only a small proportion of the formally 

employed population are in remunerative managerial or professional positions. These trends in 

occupation are consistent with the low average monthly incomes in the Municipality as well as high 

level of employment in the agricultural sector (Swartland Municipality, 2007a). 

Table 7.16: Occupations in the Swartland Municipality (2001) 

Occupation Number Percentage 

Legislators, senior officials and managers 1,038 2.2% 

Professionals 763 1.6% 

Technicians and associate professionals 1,348 2.8% 

Clerks 2,070 4.3% 

Service workers, ship and market sales workers 1,566 3.3% 

Skilled agricultural and fishery workers 1,201 2.5% 

Craft and related trades workers 2,352 4.9% 

Plant and machine operators and assemblers 1,718 3.6% 

Elementary occupations 13,083 27.3% 

Undetermined 2,272 4.7% 

Total 47,893 100% 

Source: Census, 2001; Note: % is a proportion of all of those employed of working age (15 – 65 yrs) 



Housing 

The most common type of accommodation in the Swartland in 2001 was a ‘house or brick structure 

on a separate stand or yard’ which accounted for 76.8% of all households. Table 7.17 overleaf sets 

out the tenure status of households in the Swartland Municipality in 2001. According to the data, 

39.6% of all households are owned and fully paid off. As many as 21.5% are occupied rent free, and 

this was followed by rented accommodation accounting for 18.9% of the households. This indicates 

that there is a relatively high level (52.4%) of home ownership in the Swartland Municipality. The IDP 

indicates that there is a backlog of 7,000 houses to be subsidised within the Municipality. Darling has 

the second highest need for housing at 908 houses, however, only 400 are proposed within the Plan 

period. This has implications for existing infrastructure capacity. 

Transport 

Table 7.17: Tenure status in the Swartland Municipality (2001) 

Tenure Status Number Percentage 

Owned and fully paid off 7,431 39.6% 

Owned but not yet paid off 2,393 12.8% 

Rented 3,550 18.9% 

Occupied rent‐free 4,029 21.5% 

Not applicable 1,355 7.2% 

Total 18,758 100% 


Table 7.18 below sets out the mode of transport used by the resident Swartland population in 2001. 

According to the data, the predominant mode of travel which individuals use to travel to work and 

school is by foot (34.8%). This is followed by travel by bus (7%), as a passenger in a private vehicle 

(6.8%), and by car as a driver (6.2%). The West Coast Poverty Alleviation Strategy (2006) states that 

the transport network in the Swartland Municipal area is fairly well developed in comparison to the 

other municipalities in the West Coast District, however, there is still the requirement to upgrade 

much of this infrastructure. The Strategy highlights that it is difficult to implement public transport 

infrastructure and services to serve settlements which can only be reached via a dirt road (West 

Coast District Municipality, 2006). Transport is therefore a constraint to employment in terms of 

access. 

Table 7.18: Mode of travel in the Swartland Municipality (2001) 

Mode of Travel Number Percentage 

On foot 25,087 34.8% 

By bicycle 326 0.5% 

By motorcycle 138 0.2% 

By car as a driver 4,447 6.2% 

By car as a passenger 4,887 6.8% 

By minibus / taxi 3,077 4.3% 

By bus 5,024 7.0% 

By train 439 0.6% 

Other 1,030 1.4% 

Not applicable 27,661 38.4% 

Total 72,116 100% 




Services 

As set out in Table 7.19 overleaf, in 2001, most of the population residing in the Swartland (72.2%) 

had access to water in the form of piped water inside their dwellings. This was followed by 15.8% of 

individuals who had piped water inside their yards. A further 5.1% of the population had access to 

piped water on a community stand less than 200 meters away from their dwelling. The West Coast 

Poverty Alleviation Strategy (2006) indicates that according to the poverty criteria 93.2% of 

individuals living in the Swartland Municipal area have access to water and are above the poverty 

line. 

Table 7.19: Access to piped water in the Swartland Municipality (2001) 

Level of Access Number Percentage 

No access to piped (tap) water 272 1.5% 

Piped (tap) water to community stand: distance 

999 

greater than 200m from dwelling 

5.3% 

Piped (tap) water to community stand: distance less 

964 

than 200m from dwelling 

5.1% 

Piped (tap) water inside yard 2,966 15.8% 

Piped (tap) water inside dwelling 13,539 72.2% 

Not applicable 18 0.1% 

Total 


18,758 100% 

Energy is required for basic needs such as cooking, heating and lighting. As set out in Table 7.20 

below approximately 91% of the population residing in Swartland have access to electricity for 

lighting (and therefore energy) and are above the poverty line. The next most prevalent form of 

energy used is candles which are used by 5.7% of the population, followed by paraffin which 

accounts for 2.6%. Cooking and heating use other sources of energy such as wood, coal, and animal 

dung. This data indicates that there is a relatively high level of services for basic needs in the 

Municipality. 

Table 7.20: Access to energy in the Swartland Municipality (2001) 

Type of Energy Used for Lighting Number Percentage 

Electricity 17,070 91.0% 

Gas 36 0.2% 

Paraffin 483 2.6% 

Candles 1,071 5.7% 

Solar 15 0.1% 

Other 67 0.4% 

Not applicable (institutions) 18 0.1% 

Total 18,760 100% 


Table 7.21 overleaf sets out the sanitation available to the residents in the Municipality in 2001. Only 

73.7% of households had access to a flush toilet connected to a sewerage system and the remaining 

residents did not have access to a proper sanitation facility. 



Health 

Table 7.21: Toilet facilities in the Swartland Municipality (2001) 

Type of Toilet Number Percentage 

Flush toilet (connected to sewerage system) 13,824 73.7% 

Flush toilet (with septic tank) 2,150 11.5% 

Chemical toilet 84 0.4% 

Pit latrine with ventilation (VIP) 396 2.1% 

Pit latrine without ventilation 358 1.9% 

Bucket latrine 983 5.2% 

None 945 5.0% 

Not applicable 18 0.1% 

Total 18,758 100% 


The Swartland IDP (2007a) identifies TB and HIV/AIDS as the two primary health issues in the area. 

The Swartland LED Strategy (2007b) identified that there was an estimated 5% HIV prevalence in the 

Municipality which was lower than provincial and national estimates. This equates to approximately 

8,581 people as HIV positive. At present all towns and settlements have access to part or full time 

clinic services, while Antiretrovirals (ARV) are distributed from the Swartland Hospital. According to 

the Swartland LED Strategy (2007b), life expectancy in the area may currently be above the national 

average. However, future negative trends may be expected as a result of an increase in HIV and 

crime. 

Crime 

According to the Swartland LED Strategy (2007b), the number of crimes per 1,000 individuals has 

been estimated to be 78, which is the second highest in the West Coast. The IDP (2007) links a 

number of serious crimes to alcohol and substance abuse which is a key social issue in the 

Municipality. Other safety issues in the Municipality relate to land invasion and road safety. 

Summary of the Socio‐Economic Profile 

In summary, the Swartland Municipality was found to have the following general characteristics: 

Dominant agricultural sector; 

Potential for growth in tourism; 

Low levels of education and skills; 

Low incomes; 

Moderate levels of unemployment (relative to national levels); 

Out‐migration of White youth for employment elsewhere and in‐migration of White mature 

age groups for retirement or commuting lifestyle; 

In‐migration of Black youth seeking employment; 

Increasing disparity between the rich and the poor; 

Good transport network with a lack of public transport in rural areas; 

Relatively high levels of access to energy and piped water, with sanitation less widespread; 

HIV/AIDS and TB are key health concerns; and 

Crime linked to alcohol and substance abuse is a key social problem. 



7.10.3 Social Environment 

A profile of the character and land use of the surrounding area was generated through interviews 

with local stakeholders and this provides a rich data set which is summarised here. This supplements 

the desk based research done through scoping as set out in Section 8.10.2 above. Respondents were 

asked what they believed were the attributes of the area; what people liked most about living in the 

area; and what people would like to change about the area. The demographic profile of the area was 

discussed, and the social context in terms of community facilities; social networks; migration 

patterns; and trip generators were also considered. In terms of land uses, knowledge of land uses 

and activities in the area and potential changes thereof were explored. 

Social issues have the potential to transcend geographical boundaries, and the profile for the Project 

has been considered at the District, Local and settlement level. Respondents were asked to define 

the area of potential impact. In particular, the communities within the ‘area of influence’ of the 

proposed wind farm were identified by some interviewees as falling into the Darling, Yzerfontein and 

Jacobuskraal area. Other respondents felt that Darling was outside the zone as it was ±13 km from 

the site and the wind farm was not visible from the town. However, some respondents felt that 

Yzerfontein was also outside the zone of influence at ±8 km distance even though the existing 

turbines are visible from some houses and from the jetty. 

The Darling and Yzerfontein area, within the context of the Swartland Municipality and West Coast 

District Municipality, is appreciated for its rural qualities and described as ‘quiet’, ‘unspoilt’, 

‘unaffected’ and ‘laid back’ with low levels of crime and an abundance of natural beauty (including 

the flowers and cultural heritage). The West Coast in general is also appreciated for its ‘vast 

openness’ and ‘simplicity’ (M. Daiber, 7/6/2011). Other attributes recognised by the interviewees 

include the low population density; proximity to Cape Town; climate; and diversity of offer. The area 

is seen to suffer from unemployment and poverty with large disparities between the rich and poor. 

Improvements recommended in Darling, in particular, include improving the limited public transport, 

improving access to adequate high schooling and a hospital; and the need for beautification of the 

main road as the central business area. Yzerfontein is a holiday town with a smaller proportion of 

permanent residents with the needs of the town mostly orientated towards tourism, see Section 

8.10.1 above. 

Around the site specifically, the area is predominantly rural and the surrounding commercial farms 

support wheat, beef and dairy cattle, sheep, ostriches, corn and wine (C. Basson, J.F Kirsten, E. 

Loedolff, 23/5/2011 and A. Bosch, 10/6/2011). The farms employ between three and 20 people 

depending on their size and some of these also accommodate the families of the employees. See 

Appendix A (of Appendix 8.6) for a summary of the neighbouring land uses. Some of the farms, for 

example Klein Windhoek, Elsana, and Tumbleweed (Jacobuskraal 5/554) although zoned as 

agricultural, have no commercial agricultural activities at present. 

The town of Darling is divided by the railway line which also delineates two cultural groups. It was 

acknowledged that more integration between these two communities is required (H. Cleophas, 

4/5/2011). On the one side there are predominantly white residents, many of which are retirees. A 

new trend is that young people able to work from home and commute on the odd occasion are 

moving to Darling (A. Thoma, 4/5/2011). In Darling East, on the other side of the tracks is a 

predominantly coloured population. Unemployment in the town is a problem (G. Adams, 21/4/2011) 

and a large number of people live in government housing and are reliant on social grants. The 

surrounding rural areas provide seasonal jobs for some residents of Darling, such as ploughing, 



planting, pruning, spraying and harvesting. However, the majority of farm work is provided by the 

labour stock of the farm workers and their extended families (G. Adams, 21/4/2011 and A. Thoma, 

4/5/2011). 

Yzerfontein is a holiday town with nearly half of all residents being permanent (A. Van Ellewee, W. 

Badenhorst, and B. Geel, 3/5/2011). It is said to be expanding and developing as is evident by the 

number of active building sites within the town. Jacobuskraal is located in the north west quadrant 

of the Junction between the R27 and the R315 and comprises approximately 25 small holding plots 

of about 10 ha each. Each 10 ha plot is allocated 3 ha for agricultural activities and residential 

accommodation and the remaining 7 ha is conserved in its natural state (J. Pocock, 29/6/2011). Two 

of the plots provide tourism accommodation and these are the only commercial activities within the 

Estate. There are some small scale farming activities, with limited commercial farming ventures. 

Only about eight or nine of the plots are occupied, although this is increasing (J. Pocock, 29/6/2011). 

Reasons that people travel out of Darling include commuting for formal and informal employment 

(the Yzerfontein workforce is mostly from Darling), to attend high schools, shopping , travelling to a 

hospital or 24 hour medical facility or to access the services of the Department of Home Affairs in 

Malmesbury. Recreationally, residents travel to Yzerfontein for day trips to the beach, or into Cape 

Town on occasions. However, it has been noted that the R27 is not the shortest route to Cape Town 

and therefore not always the preferred route for residents or tourists (G. Adams, 21/4/2011). 

Land uses around the site are mostly rural, however, there are a number of other land uses. As 

already mentioned, there are small holdings in Jacobuskraal which signify residential receptors. 

See 



Figure 1.1. Other land uses and activities include the following: 

Bambe Zonke B&B in Jacobuskraal Estate 

The West Coast Farm Stall on the south west quadrant of the junction which also houses a 

CWCBR information hub 

The Tienie Versveld Wildflower Reserve under the custodianship of SANBI, ±2.5 km south 

east of the site 

Further afield are the following nature / game reserves: 

The !Khwa ttu San Cultural and Education Centre, ±4 km south of the side along the R27; 

The West Coast National Park, located north west of the site, with the closest section being 

the coastal strip north of Yzerfontein ±7.5km west of the site; 

Buffelsfontein Game and Nature Reserve, ±8.5 km north of the site along the R27; 

Jakkalsfontein Nature Reserve (8‐10km) south west of the site on the coast; and 

Rondeberg Nature Reserve (10km) south east of the site. 

Future development proposals in the vicinity of the site include: garages for fishing boats opposite 

the existing West Coast Farm Stall, which is said to be more of a longer term proposal, as well as low 

cost housing along the R27 which is also not likely to go ahead in the next 15‐20 years (H. Cleophas, 

4/5/2011). There were also rumours of a proposed filling station at the junction (H. Jansie, 

21/4/2011) but these were not confirmed. The farm Elsana at the south east quadrant of the 

junction has an approval from the local Municipality for a padstal and light farming (H. Louw, 

29/6/2011). The construction of the cable station at Yzerfontein and cable runs for the West African 

Cable System from Europe is currently underway. In terms of renewable energy proposals, there is 

the 138 MW Rheboksfontein Wind Energy Facility which comprises 80 wind turbines and associated 

infrastructure on seven farm portions farms (39 km 2 ) to the south of the R315, the nearest being 

Grootberg 1199 approximately 1.5 km from the site (Savannah Environmental, 2010). This 

development has been included in the assessment of cumulative impacts (see Section 14.4.11). 

The stakeholders provided a range of information on the tourism potential of the area. The qualities 

of the area that were tourist assets include the following: 

In Darling, the main attraction is the wildflowers (and flower route; culture (such as Evita Perron 4 

and the arts); wine; and events such as the Darling Marathon and Voorkamer Fest (M. Ashford, 

21/4/2011 and H. Jansie, 21/4/2011). It was identified that there is the potential for more events 

which have significant indirect benefits for the local economy (M. Ashford, 21/4/2011). The West 

Coast Farm Stall near the site has an aviary, nursery and lion tours. In Yzerfontein the attraction is 

the beach (blue flag) and watersports, fishing, whale watching, the greenbelt and ‘fantastic 

accommodation’ (A. Van Ellewee, W. Badenhorst and B. Geel, 3/5/2011). Another attraction is the 

Strandkombuis which is a restaurant, accommodation and wedding venue. The potential for tourism 

related activities to Dassen Island is also recognised and being pursued by the Yzerfontein Tourism 

Committee. The lack of a show ground or conference facilities is recognised as a hindrance to 

hosting additional events in the area (A. Van Ellewee, W. Badenhorst and B. Geel, 3/5/2011). Other 

improvements such as roads, public transport and events in the wider Swartland and West Coast 

District were also suggested as a means of increasing the tourism potential of the area (D. Cornelius, 

4/5/2011 and M. Ashford, 21/4/2011). Recently, the CWCBR has launched Cape West Coast Trails 

4 A local theatre based on the persona of Evita Bezuidenhout, a fictional political figure. 



which includes walks, hikes, canoeing and cycling through the wider Biosphere Reserve. There is also 

a current initiative to establish the West Coast as a ‘place of heritage’ through a network of living 

heritage, fossils and rock art linking places like !Khwa ttu, the Fossil Park, and rock art sites. It was 

also noted that to maintain and enhance the tourism potential in the West Coast it is vital to retain 

the ‘right aesthetics’ and ‘character’ of the area (M. Daiber, 7/6/2011). 

It is reported that in the towns and the broader Swartland and West Coast District, the tourists are 

local, national and international. The international tourists originate mostly from the UK, Germany, 

and Netherlands, with Yzerfontein reporting Americans as well. National tourists travel to this area 

from ‘upcountry’ which includes Gauteng and the Free State (H. Jansie, 21/4/2011, A. Van Ellewee, 

W. Badenhorst and B. Geel, 3/5/2011). Local tourists include residents from the Western Cape, a 

large portion travelling north from Cape Town. Tourism peaks include the festive season (November 

‐ January) for longer stays especially in Yzerfontein; the Easter break mostly for tourism from within 

the Western Cape; the flower season (June‐September) which attracts both local and international 

tourists for short stays; and smaller tourism peaks over long weekends and school holidays and 

related to special events (H. Jansie, 21/4/2011, A. Van Ellewee, W. Badenhorst and B. Geel, 

3/5/2011, M. Ashford, 21/4/2011 and D. Cornelius, 4/5/2011). The West Coast District is mostly a 

destination in itself with its own attractions, but is also a gateway to the Northern Cape and Namibia 

via the N7 (D. Cornelius, 4/5/2011). This evidence shows that there is already a nascent tourism 

industry in the area which has considerable social, cultural and environmental assets, and the 

potential to develop this further. Increasingly the value of natural and cultural assets is being 

recognised as a means to stimulate the local economy. 



8 IMPACTS ON BOTANY 

The Botanical Impact Assessment (Helme, 2011) attached as Appendix 8.1 has set out and assessed a 

number of potential botanical impacts and proposed the necessary mitigation to reduce any 

negative impacts and enhance the positive impacts. These are summarised in Table 8.1 at the end of 

the section. The mapping of the botanical sensitivity in relation to the siting of the Project 

infrastructure for both Option 1 and 2 is depicted overleaf, in Figure 8.1 and Figure 8.2. 

8.1 CONSTRUCTION PHASE (MOSTLY DIRECT IMPACTS) 

Option 1 will result in permanent loss of at least 2.7 ha of medium sensitivity vegetation and about 

0.4 ha of high sensitivity vegetation, whereas for Option 2 this would also be 2.7 ha of medium 

sensitivity vegetation, but with at least 1.1 ha of high sensitivity vegetation. At least 150 ha of high 

sensitivity natural vegetation is present on the Kerrie Fontein property, and total loss of high 

sensitivity vegetation on the property is thus not more than 1%, even for Option 2. 

However, in Option 2 two of the proposed turbines are located right within the seasonal drainage 

lines, which could be problematic from an erosion and geotechnical perspective, but is also 

problematic from an ecological perspective. These drainage lines are seasonal wetlands, and all 

infrastructure should be located at least 32 m from the outer edge of any wetland, according to 

DWA guidelines, and standard best practise. Secondly, these drainage lines can be viewed as 

ecological corridors, particularly for moisture dependant species (such as frogs), and no 

development should thus be located in these areas. Thirdly, the drainage lines are likely to support a 

number of rare and localised plant species, such as the Endangered Geissorhiza radians (kelkiewyn), 

and turbine placement in these areas is thus likely to result in loss of an estimated 20% of the local 

populations of such species. 

Overall, Option 1 will have a lower direct botanical impact than Option 2, as the former does not 

have any turbines positioned directly within seasonal drainage lines of high botanical sensitivity, 

whereas the latter has two turbines in such areas. Option 1 is likely to have a low to medium 

negative direct impact, and Option 2 a medium to high negative direct impact, prior to mitigation. 

The existing natural vegetation will be severely disturbed (but not totally lost) in various areas, 

mostly as a result of heavy machinery movement through some sensitive areas, road construction, 

cable trench excavation through sensitive areas, and the associated piling and scraping of soil for 

foundations where this is close to or in natural vegetation. Most of these areas should eventually 

recover to a significant degree (if natural vegetation is retained in the adjacent areas), but the 

crushed and dug up vegetation will take at least 12 years (and possibly much longer if rainfall is 

below normal) in order to recover to a point where at least 80% of the original diversity is once again 

present. Certain species may not return for many additional years, due to changes in soil structure 

(compaction or chemical changes). The impacts in this case thus rate as being long term. 

Primary sources of disturbance will be the large crane that is used to put up the machinery, which 

has caterpillar tracks and a width of 10 m; laydown areas next to the turbines; turning circles for long 

trucks; and the burying of the underground cabling on site. Areas where most of the on site impacts 

are likely to occur are illustrated in Figure 7.3. 




! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

R27 


(0/555) 

! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! 

5 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

Figure 8.1: Option 1- Botanical Sensitivity 


(3/552) 

R315 

Moedmaag 

Hill 

Legend 

Sensitivity Areas 

High 

Medium 



Dam 





! ! ! ! Power Line 



Underground Electrical Lines 


20m Contours 

Note: Unshaded areas denote areas of low sensitivity 


0 0.15 0.3 

Km 

0.6 

Scale: 1:6500 







Cape Town 

Tel: +27 21 650 2866 

Fax: +27 21 650 3971 

¯ 




Cape Town


! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

R27 


(0/555) 

! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! 

5 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

Figure 8.2: Option 2- Botanical Sensitivity 


(3/552) 

R315 

Moedmaag 

Hill 

Legend 

Sensitivity Areas 

High 

Medium 



Dam 





! ! ! ! Power Line 



Underground Electrical Lines 


20m Contours 

Note: Unshaded areas denote areas of low sensitivity 

0 0.15 0.3 

Km 

0.6 

Scale: 1:6500 








Cape Town 

Tel: +27 21 650 2866 

Fax: +27 21 650 3971 

¯ 




Cape Town

8.2 OPERATIONAL PHASE (MOSTLY INDIRECT BOTANICAL IMPACTS) 

8.2.1 Habitat Fragmentation 

Habitat fragmentation is likely to be of relatively minor significance, although it will undoubtedly be 

higher for Option 2 than for Option 1, as the former includes two turbines within natural wetland 

corridors. 

8.2.2 Fire Regime 

The impact of the proposed infrastructure on the natural fire regime could be significant, although 

with an appropriate management plan that requires fire in areas of natural vegetation once every 

12‐15 years this impact could be minimised. The developers will naturally want to avoid fires in the 

immediate vicinity of any of the new infrastructure, but in reality if a firebreak can be maintained 

100 m north of the infrastructure then the bulk of the priority vegetation on site (which lies north of 

the infrastructure) can be appropriately managed. In the absence of fire in these natural vegetation 

areas many species will become locally extinct, and optimal ecological functioning will not be 

possible, and this would naturally be a significant impact. 

8.2.3 Alien Invasives 

The soil disturbance caused by the proposed development will definitely encourage the spread and 

establishment of invasive alien vegetation, which could potentially have a significant negative 

impact. Fortunately this is relatively easily managed, but it does require ongoing adherence to an 

appropriate Environmental Management Plan (EMP). In the absence of accurate information on 

where the large amount of concrete required for the turbine foundations will come from and the 

exact environmental impact thereof this cannot be assessed, but is nevertheless noted as a potential 

negative indirect impact (the limestone required for cement manufacture often comes from 

botanically sensitive areas). 


Cumulative impacts occur at both construction and operational phases. To some extent a cumulative 

impact is a regional impact, rather than the local site scale impact, i.e. if something has a regional 

impact it also has a cumulative impact. 

The impacts of this type of development will be significantly less than for various existing and 

ongoing agricultural operations in the region, as well as for the many unmanaged and expanding 

alien plant invasions on numerous properties. 

The proposed Project thus has a fairly small but still important low negative cumulative impact in the 

region, but this can be mitigated by specifying Option 1 as the preferred layout, and by formal 

conservation and active management of the natural areas on the overall site. If effectively mitigated 

(by appropriate and successful ecological management of the approximately 150 ha of high and 100 

ha of medium sensitivity areas on the site), the overall net effect could be low positive, which would 

thus mean a slightly positive cumulative impact as well. 



8.4 ASSESSMENT OF NO‐GO ALTERNATIVE 

The status quo is not positive for the remaining natural vegetation on site, as the alien vegetation 

problem in the study area is not being managed, many areas show signs of being heavily grazed and 

trampled (by livestock), fire management is not optimal, and there is no guarantee that the 

important areas of remaining natural vegetation on site will continue to be conserved. On balance 

the status quo is deemed to have a low negative impact on the natural vegetation on site. 

8.5 STATEMENT OF IMPACT 

Option 1 is likely to have a low to medium negative botanical impact overall, prior to mitigation, 

whereas Option 2 is likely to have a medium to high negative impact, before mitigation. Option 1 is 

thus the preferred development option (alternative). 

With appropriate environmental management of the development area, as well as of the remaining 

areas of natural vegetation on the greater study area (including at least 150 ha of high sensitivity 

vegetation and at least 100 ha of medium sensitivity vegetation), the overall impact of Option 1 

could be reduced to low positive. The environmental management of the overall site would have to 

be audited by annual monitoring in order to ensure compliance. If not adequately managed then 

the preferred development alternative (Option 1) would not necessarily be clearly preferable to the 

No‐Go alternative, as the latter is likely to have a low negative impact over time (due mainly to 

ongoing alien plant invasion and inappropriate fire management). 

8.6 MITIGATION 

The mitigation measures in this section are proposed on the basis that Option 1 will be the preferred 

development alternative, and that Option 2 will not be authorised or further considered. All 

mitigation requirements thus refer to Option 1, and are considered feasible, reasonable and 

mandatory. 

i. The proposed internal link road between the two turbine rows should be moved 150m to the 

east to minimize the impact on medium sensitivity vegetation in this area. 

ii. Prior to any development within high or medium sensitivity areas a major plant Search and 

Rescue programme should be undertaken. Search and Rescue (S&R) of certain translocatable, 

selected succulents, shrubs and bulbs occurring in long term and permanent, hard surface 

development footprints (i.e. all buildings, new roads and tracks, laydown areas, and turbine 

positions) should take place. All such development footprints must be surveyed and pegged out 

as soon as possible, with coloured rope strung between the pegs to indicate the approved 

development footprints. A horticulturist with West Coast Search and Rescue experience should 

be appointed to undertake the S&R, in consultation with the specialist botanist. All rescued 

species should be bagged (and cuttings taken where appropriate) and kept in an on‐site shade 

nursery (if water can be provided; otherwise off‐site) and should be returned to site once all 

construction is completed and rehabilitation of disturbed areas is required. Replanting should 

only occur in autumn or early winter (late April – May), once the first rains have fallen, in order 

to facilitate establishment. Genera that can be considered for rescue are all bulbs and tuberous 



species (Haemanthus, Brunsvigia, Babiana, Lachenalia, Trachyandra, Albuca, Veltheimia, 

Arctopus, etc.), plus selected specimens of succulents such as Ruschia and Lampranthus species, 

and shrubs and restios such as Thamnochortus species. 

iii. An ECO must be present during the duration of the construction phase. 

iv. Any excavation or road building within designated high sensitivity areas, including those for 

cables, must be supervised by the ECO. No excavations may be left open for more than one 

week, and they should preferably be closed up within one day, using the carefully stockpiled soil 

that came out of the trench. 

v. All cable trenches, etc,. through sensitive areas should be dug carefully in order to minimise 

damage to surrounding areas; all stockpiled sand should be replaced within one week of trench 

opening; all disturbed areas to be immediately mulched and sown with previously stockpiled 

local mulch containing indigenous seed. 

vi. No dumping or temporary storage of any materials may take place outside designated and 

demarcated laydown areas. Laydown areas may be located only within areas of low botanical 

sensitivity. 

vii. Compacted areas that are no longer needed after construction (e.g. parts of the laydown areas, 

and the crane tracks) may need to be ripped or scarified to break up the compacted surface (at 

the discretion of the horticultural / rehabilitation contractor). The areas should then be sown 

with seed mix collected in the patches of indigenous vegetation on site. 

viii. ECO should liaise with botanist and horticulturist after completion of main construction phase 

to identify main areas of compaction in need of ripping and discuss best methodology; ripping 

may need to be done by tractor, followed by immediate mulching and sowing of previously 

stockpiled local mulch containing indigenous seed, and possibly hydroseeding with selected 

local seed. 

ix. The appointed horticulturist must collect a locally indigenous seed mix from the natural 

vegetation on site (preferably by means of vacuum harvesting) and must store this for later use 

in areas in need of rehabilitation. 

x. Only suitable locally indigenous Hopefield Sand Fynbos or Swartland Granite Renosterveld 

species should be used for rehabilitation or planting anywhere on site. This means that no 

exotic or invasive species should be used for rehabilitation, and this includes commonly used 

invasive grass species such as ryegrass (Lolium spp). 

xi. Areas requiring rehabilitation will include all areas of natural or partly natural vegetation (i.e. 

areas mapped as high or medium sensitivity) disturbed during the construction phase and that 

are not required for regular maintenance operations, or for cultivation. The main areas thus 

requiring rehabilitation will be recent disturbance to the edges of roads that pass through 

natural vegetation, the crane tracks alongside the permanent 6m roads, and any cable routings 

where these fall within areas of natural vegetation. 

xii. Rehabilitation should only commence once all construction related disturbance associated with 

the Project has been completed. 

xiii. The applicant should appoint an expert environmental manager to plan, coordinate and carry 

out the required block burns in the main patches of high and medium sensitivity natural 



vegetation on site, which should ideally be undertaken prior to infrastructure development. This 

should be done in conjunction with and in line with the management plan to be prepared by 

CapeNature as part of the Stewardship Programme. All areas of existing natural vegetation 

should be burnt on a cycle of once every 12 to 15 years. The best time to undertake block 

burns is in late autumn, as plant recovery will then be best. All areas to be burnt must be 

cleared of alien vegetation at least two years before. Extensive inputs needed from fire 

specialist. Local authority fire services should assist, as should local landowners and 

CapeNature. A windless day in March or April is recommended, with no wind predicted for 

following two days. Minimum areas burnt at any one time should be 10ha, in order to reduce 

edge effects. Site can be burnt sequentially in blocks, over a period of five years. 

xiv. It is strongly recommended that the landowners should refrain from grazing livestock in the 

high and medium sensitivity vegetation areas in the main winter and spring growing and 

flowering periods (1 May – end October). The best means of securing this would be by requiring 

the applicant to sign an agreement to this effect with the landowner, and this should be done 

within one year of any project approvals. One of the primary reasons for this recommendation 

is that removal of livestock grazing pressure will have a beneficial effect on the remaining 

natural vegetation, particularly in terms of natural rehabilitation, in that flowering and seed set 

of the remaining natural plants (especially pioneers such as the annuals) will be significantly 

better in the absence of grazing (which removes the flowers). If the nearby annuals and other 

plants are not grazed this means that natural rehabilitation of the areas disturbed by the Project 

will be significantly improved, as there will be much more locally indigenous seed available 

nearby for establishment in the disturbed areas, and the site may also act as a seed source for 

some nearby overgrazed areas. 

xv. Ongoing alien plant monitoring and removal should be undertaken on all areas of natural 

vegetation on an annual basis. Department of Water Affairs (DWA) approved methodology 

should be employed for all alien clearing operations. Areas should not be burnt until an area has 

been clear for at least two years, in order to prevent coppicing and massive seed germination. 

Acacia cyclops (rooikrans) and Acacia saligna (Port Jackson) are the primary invasive aliens, and 

both provide valuable firewood that can be sold to defray costs. No bulldozing or mechanical 

removal is allowed, as this disturbs the soil and creates ideal conditions for re‐invasion. All 

stems must be cut as close to ground level as possible, using loppers or chainsaws (depending 

on size), and stumps must be immediately hand painted with a suitable Triclopyr herbicide (e.g. 

Garlon, Timbrel, with colour dye) to prevent resprouting. If this is not done within five minutes 

of being cut Port Jackson will resprout, wasting the original effort. Rooikrantz does not usually 

resprout, but it may do so in some situations, and it is safer to paint herbicide on all stumps. No 

herbicide spraying should be undertaken anywhere within natural vegetation on site, due to the 

extensive collateral damage. All cut branches should be stacked into a pyramid (cut ends up) 

and left to dry – where rodents will eat the available seed under the pile, reducing seed 

germination. Annual follow‐ups are required in all areas that have been previously cleared. 

Small seedlings may be hand pulled. All alien clearing should take place in the period October to 

April, to minimize damage to seasonal species. 

xvi. All high and medium Sensitivity areas of natural vegetation on site must be fully cleared of 

invasive aliens within three years of project approval (for the initial clearing), and thereafter 

there should support less than 1% alien cover in these areas in all following years. 



xvii. All feasible (as determined by CapeNature) areas of high and medium botanical sensitivity 

(identified in the Scoping study of Helme, 2010; estimated to be at least 250 ha in extent) must 

be formally registered as conservation areas with CapeNature’s Stewardship Programme, within 

one year of project initiation (defined as installation of the first project related infrastructure; 

subject to CapeNature capacity, and the level of agreement/contract will be at CapeNature’s 

discretion). This recommendation was one of the primary recommendations of the Scoping 

Report (Helme, 2010). This may entail a rezoning of these areas (to Open Space), and will 

require that a management plan for these areas is drawn up, which should include the clause 

that these areas may not be grazed by livestock between 1 May and end October. In some cases 

small, isolated patches or strips of mapped high sensitivity habitat may not be deemed feasible 

or suitable by CapeNature, and in this case these areas could then be excluded from the final 

conservation area. Associated with this contract will be a requirement for an environmental 

management plan and environmental auditing to ensure that management is adequately 

carried out. In this case all costs associated with rezoning and management of these areas will 

remain the responsibility of the applicant and/or landowners. 

xviii. The contract between the landowner/s and the applicant must include the relevant clauses 

concerning the need for CapeNature Stewardship Programme involvement in the identified 

priority conservation areas on the site (as outlined in the previous bullet). The independent 

botanist and the CapeNature Stewardship Programme coordinator must both confirm in writing 

that these clauses are in the contract, within three months of any authorisation. 

xix. Both the botanist and the CapeNature Stewardship Coordinator must verify in writing, within 

one year of project inception, that the Stewardship Programme commitments involving both 

the landowner/s and the applicants have in fact been adequately implemented. 

xx. A botanist (or CapeNature representative) familiar with the vegetation of the area should 

monitor and audit the rehabilitation and alien vegetation management on an annual basis in 

August or September, and make recommendations to the applicant (and landowners) on how 

to improve any problem areas. This monitoring need not take more than two days annually 

(one day on site, one day write‐up). The applicant should be required to address any problems 

identified within six months of the annual audit. 

xxi. The applicant must ensure that there is sufficient budget to implement all management and 

monitoring requirements. 

The EEU is in support of the botanical measures as recommended by Helme (2011) above. However 

wishes to note two points. With respect to the fire management proposed, the wind regime on the 

West Coast and the proximity of neighbouring property and adjacent infrastructure such as Telkom 

and Eskom lines, and the proposed turbines represents a risk and would need to be assessed at the 

time with input from the relevant authorities. 

Secondly, with regards to the proposed stewardship agreement; the Applicant realises that the 

potential for a stewardship agreement is at the discretion of CapeNature and does not want to limit 

a potential intervention or opportunity for biodiversity conservation to that with CapeNature alone. 

The Applicant is willing to commit to reasonable and feasible conservation measures in partnership 

with CapeNature or an alternative organisation that can independently guide and monitor the 

management of the land. For this reason, the Applicant suggests that at DEA’s discretion, an 

alternative management body or intervention can be agreed and would become part of the OEMP. 



Table 8.1: Significance of (primary) botanical impacts – Option 1 and Option 2 

DESCRIPTION 

OF THE IMPACT 

Option 1: Loss of up to 

3ha of sensitive 

vegetation and portions 

of local populations of 

plant Species of 

Conservation Concern 

Option 1: Loss of up to 

4ha of sensitive 

vegetation and portions 

of local populations of 

plant Species of 

Conservation Concern 

Option 1: Habitat 

fragmentation; disruption 

of optimal fire regime; 

alien plant invasion 

Option 2: Habitat 

fragmentation; disruption 

of optimal fire regime; 

alien plant invasion 

NATURE / 

STATUS 

Negative 

Negative 

EXTENT DURATION INTENSITY PROBABILITY 

Local and 

regional 

Local and 

regional 

Negative Local 

Negative Local 

CONSTRUCTION 

SIGNIFICANCE 

(WITHOUT 

MITIGATION) 

Permanent Low ‐Medium Definite Low ‐ Medium 

Permanent Medium‐High Definite Medium‐High 

Medium term ‐ 

Permanent 

Medium term ‐ 

Permanent 

OPERATION 

Low‐Medium Highly probable Low‐Medium 

Medium‐High Highly probable Medium‐High 

MITIGATION 

On site ECO; 

possible Search & 

Rescue of certain 

species; move link 

road between 

turbine roads 

150m east 

On site ECO; 

possible Search & 

Rescue of certain 

species; move link 

road between 

turbine roads 

150m east 

Adherence to 

appropriate EMP; 

annual environ. 

auditing; priority 

areas signed up 

with Stewardship 

Programme of 

CapeNature 

Adherence to 

appropriate EMP; 

annual environ. 

auditing; priority 

areas signed up 

with Stewardship 

Programme of 

CapeNature 

SIGNIFICANCE 

(WITH 

MITIGATION) 

Low – Medium 

Negative 

Medium–High 

Negative 

Low Positive 


CK Darling IPP (Pty) Ltd September 2011 

Neutral

DESCRIPTION 

OF THE IMPACT 

Option 1: Disturbance to 

surrounding natural 

vegetation and associated 

facilitated alien plant 

invasion 

Option 2: Disturbance to 

surrounding natural 

vegetation and associated 

facilitated alien plant 

invasion 

NATURE / 

STATUS 


DECOMMISSIONING 

SIGNIFICANCE 

(WITHOUT 

MITIGATION) 

Negative Local Medium Term Low‐Medium Highly probable Low‐Medium 

Negative Local Medium Term Low‐Medium Highly probable Low‐Medium 

MITIGATION 

On site ECO; 

subsequent alien 

vegetation 

management for 

three years 

On site ECO; 

subsequent alien 

vegetation 

management for 

three years 

SIGNIFICANCE 

(WITH 

MITIGATION) 

Low Negative 

Low Negative 



9 IMPACTS ON AVIFAUA 

The issues and potential impacts have been sourced from the Avifauna Impact Assessment Study 

(van Rooyen, 2011) attached as Appendix 8.2. These are broadly the risk of collisions; displacement; 

and habitat change and loss. 

9.1 COLLISIONS WITH THE TURBINES 

9.1.1 Analysis of Monitoring Data 

The protocol originally designed by Jenkins (2003) was aimed primarily at assessing the collision risk 

posed by the proposed wind farm development. The analyses that have been performed on the 

dataset gathered during 116 hours of monitoring therefore focus primarily on quantifying this risk. 

A total of 513 individual raptors and priority species were recorded. The passage rate for a number 

of classes of birds travelling cross the Project site was also calculated. The passage rate for the 

priority species and all raptors combined is 4.44 birds per hour. The rate for priority species only is 

1.42 birds per hour. A passage rate for priority species in different wind directions was also 

calculated (see Figure 9.1 below). 

Figure 9.1: Passage rate for priority species for different wind directions 

It is clear from Figure 9.1 above that the Project site is used most by priority species when winds 

with a westerly and southerly orientation prevail. This is to be expected as these wind conditions 

create maximum lift conditions against the slope of Moedmaag Hill. 

As mentioned earlier, the turbine area was delineated in horizontal zones for data capture purposes. 

The zones are as follows: 

plain 

slope 

crest 



crest 

slope 

slope 

Figure 9.2: 4: Horizontal zoning of site 

Figure 9.3: Elevation profile of the turbine area 

The use of the site relative to the horizontal zoning for priority species was calculated. Most priority 

species flights were recorded on the plain and slope, with a combined figure of 82% of all recorded 

priority species flights. The slope is used most with 50% of recorded flights. 

Figure 9.4: Recorded flights relative to the horizontal zoning for priority species (%) 



crest

In order to assess the risk to priority species more accurately, the percentage of priority species 

flights recorded at medium height, i.e. potentially within the rotor swept area, was calculated for 

each of the horizontal zones. 27% of all priority species flights were at medium height on the plain 

and slope (slope = 23% and plain = 4%). This translates into a passage rate of 0.44 priority species 

flights per hour for priority species flights at medium height for the slope and plain combined, and 

0.33 and 0.06 priority species flights per hour for priority species at medium height for the slope and 

the plain respectively. 

Figure 9.5: Recorded medium height flights relative to the horizontal zoning for priority species (%) 

The passage rate for priority species at different wind strengths was also analysed. The passage 

rates for moderate and strong winds was the highest, namely 1.44 and 1.63 birds per hour 

respectively. 

An analysis of seasonal usage of the site was also done. The results showed that most flights of 

priority species happen in spring/early summer, followed by late summer/autumn (see Figure 9.6 

below). 

Figure 9.6: Passage rate for priority species relative to time of year 

Lastly, the time of day when most flights of priority species take place was analysed. The results are 

given in Figure 9.7 overleaf. 



Figure 9.7: The passage rate of priority species relative to time of day 

In order to gain an idea of the potential risk to specific priority species, the passage rate for 

individual priority species (all flights and all horizontal zones combined) was calculated. The passage 

rates are given below in Figure 9.8: 

Figure 9.8: Passage rate per priority species, all flights and zones combined 

The recorded flights for each priority species at medium height on the slope was then calculated as a 

percentage of that priority species total flights. This is given in Figure 9.9 below: 

Figure 9.9: Percentage of flight time spent by each priority species at medium height on the slope. 



A passage rate per hour for each species at medium height on the slope was calculated by 

multiplying the overall passage rate of the species with the percentage of time that the species 

spent at medium height on the slope. This is given in Figure 9.10 below: 

Figure 9.10: The estimated passage rate p/h for priority species at medium height on the slope 

Finally an estimated collision rate for each species per year was calculated in the following manner: 

The passage rate was multiplied by 12 to arrive at an average passage rate per day, assuming an 

average of 12 hours per day potential flight time. This rate was multiplied by 365 to get to an annual 

passage rate. The surface area of the slope covered by the observer was estimated to be 

approximately 100 hectares. Within this slope area, there are four existing turbines, and another 

three are planned. It was assumed that the blades would cover a radius of 40m around the centre of 

the turbine, which is effectively the area in which a bird could be killed through collision with the 

blades (the high risk area). The surface area covered by the combined high risk areas of the seven 

turbines amounts to 7 x 0.5 hectares, i.e 3.5 hectares. This is 3.5% of the total slope area. Based on 

this it was assumed that a bird that entered the slope area at medium height, had a 96.5% chance of 

finding itself in safe airspace, regardless of whether it took any evasive action to avoid the turbines, 

or put differently, 3.5% of birds entering the slope air space at medium height could potentially 

collide with one of the turbines. This figure was then multiplied by 0.02, on the assumption that 98% 

of all birds will avoid the turbines by taking evasive action (SNH, 2010). The results are given in 

Figure 9.11 overleaf: 



Figure 9.11: Estimated annual collision rate for priority species 

It is important to note the estimated collision rates should be qualified: 

The rates do not take into account nocturnal collisions, as no data on nocturnal flights are 

available for that at this stage; 

The rates do not take into account the fact that the turbines may not be operating for 12 

hours per day for 365 days per year; 

The rates do not take into account that different species will have different avoidance rates, 

based on different flight characteristics; and 

The rates do not take into account that a bird will not be automatically collide if it entered 

the high risk zone of a turbine (as defined above). 

The estimated collision rate as calculated above is therefore a rough indicator and should not be 

taken as exact figure by any means, but merely as a guideline. 

In summary then, it would seem from the analysis above that the wind facility will not pose a 

significant collision mortality risk to priority species. The greatest collision risk is posed by the seven 

turbines on the slope of Moedmaag Hill (i.e. four existing and three proposed), in the following 

conditions: 

Between 11h00 and 17h00 

In spring/early summer i.e. between October and December 

In moderate to strong winds with a southerly and westerly orientation 

With Jackal Buzzards specifically, the estimated avoidance rate may me more than 98%, as the birds 

observed on site are most likely a resident pair. These birds have clearly become used to the four 

existing turbines and are even using them as hunting perches when stationary (pers. obs., Van der 

Westhuizen, 2011). During 30 hours of monitoring no instances were observed where Jackal 

Buzzards exhibited any “flaring” behaviour i.e. panicky behaviour to avoid the moving blades, they 

always seem to be aware of the moving blades and avoided them seemingly with ease. Whether this 



would also be the case with inexperienced, juvenile birds remains to be seen. It is therefore essential 

for carcass searches to commence as soon as possible to verify the estimates made in this study. 


Project site, as this can result in significant mortality risks. However, migratory raptors, i.e. Steppe 

Buzzard Buteo vulpinus and Yellow‐billed Kite Milvus aegyptius were recorded at passage rates of 

0.74 and 1.39 birds per hour during the summer and autumn monitoring period, when the species 

are present in southern Africa. This translates into an estimated collision rate of 0.61 and 0.63 birds 

per year for kites and buzzards respectively. In terms of existing information on the impacts of wind 

farm developments, raptors, and particularly species constantly migrating over and through a 

turbine string, are particularly prone to collision with the blades (Madders and Whitfield, 2006). 

While Yellow‐billed Kite and Steppe Buzzard are not threatened species, if the Project causes high 

numbers of casualties of these migrant raptors, this would constitute a significant negative impact of 

the facility. Given the potential inaccuracy of the predicted collision rate, the only way to verify this 

would again be to conduct carcass searches during the period when the birds are present. 

The effects of night‐time illumination on collision risks have not been adequately tested, and the 

results of studies are contradictory (Gregory et al, 2007). Studies involving lighted objects or towers 

indicate that lights may attract birds, rather than disorient or repel them, resulting in collision 

mortality (Johnson et al, 2007). This is mostly a problem for nocturnal migrants (primarily 

passerines) during poor visibility conditions. Different colour lights vary in their attractiveness to 

birds and their effect on orientation. Several studies have shown that intermittent lights have less 

than an effect on birds than constant lights, with reduced rates of mortality. In addition, some 

studies suggest that replacing white lights with red coloured lights may reduce mortality by up to 

80%. This may be due to the change in light intensity rather than the change in wavelength (Johnson 

et al, 2007). However, Ugoretz (2001) suggest that birds are more sensitive to red lights and may be 

attracted to them. Quickly flashing white strobe lights appear to be less attractive. The issue is 

however far from settled ‐ a study at Buffalo Ridge, Minnesota, where most of the collision fatalities 

were classified as nocturnal migrants, found little difference between lighted and unlighted turbines 

(Johnson et al, 2000).The consensus among researchers is to avoid lighting the turbines if possible, 

but that is against South African civil aviation regulations (Civil Aviation Regulations, 1997). The 

potential for collisions with the wind turbines due to presence of lights is not envisaged to be 

significant, primarily because the phenomenon of mass nocturnal passerine migrations is not a 

feature of the study area. However, the potential effect on nocturnal flamingo movement is 

unknown. Post – construction monitoring (carcass searches) will be required to assess, if possible, 

the extent (if any) of nocturnal fatalities that may be linked to the lighting on the turbines. 

9.1.2 Impact Assessment 

An evaluation of the expected collision impact is provided in summary form below and in Table 9.1. 

During operation, bird mortality due to collisions with the turbine blades is considered to be a 

negative impact, local in extent, long term in duration, medium intensity, probable and of low 

significance to decision‐making. With the proposed mitigation set out below, the significance of the 

negative impact would remain as low. 



9.1.3 Mitigation Measures 

Because the estimated collision rate is merely a rough indicator of risk it, it is necessary to verify this 

estimate with actual carcass searches on site. It is particularly important to commence carcass 

searches in the winter season to assess whether here are any flamingo casualties due to nocturnal 

collisions with the existing turbines. These searches must take place according to the attached 

protocol (see Appendix 1 of Appendix 8.2), which is in accordance with the ‘Best practice guidelines 

for avian monitoring and impact mitigation at proposed wind energy development sites in southern 

Africa – Version 1’ (Jenkins et al, 2011). The frequency of these surveys will be informed by 

assessments of scavenge and decomposition rates conducted in the initial stages of the monitoring 

period. Subject to the results of the decomposition/scavenge trials, it is proposed that a site survey 

is conducted twice a month for an initial minimum period of 12 months. After the initial 12 month 

period, the need for further monitoring will be evaluated again. If the results of the monitoring 

indicate a significant mortality rate for priority species, appropriate mitigation measures would need 

to be implemented. These could include any or a combination of the following (Smallwood, 2008): 





9.2 COLLISIONS WITH THE PROPOSED POWER LINE 

9.2.1 Nature of Impact 

Because of their size and prominence, electrical infrastructures constitute an important interface 

between wildlife and man. Negative interactions between wildlife and electricity structures take 

many forms, but two common problems in southern Africa are electrocution of birds (and other 

animals) and birds colliding with power lines (Ledger and Annegarn 1981; Ledger 1983; Ledger 1984; 

Hobbs and Ledger 1986a; Hobbs and Ledger 1986b; Ledger at el, 1992; Verdoorn 1996; Kruger and 

Van Rooyen 1998; Van Rooyen 1998; Kruger 1999; Van Rooyen 1999; Van Rooyen 2000). 

Collisions kill far more birds annually in southern Africa than electrocutions (Van Rooyen 2007). Most 

heavily impacted upon are bustards, storks, cranes and various species of water birds. These species 

are mostly heavy‐bodied birds with limited maneuverability, which makes it difficult for them to take 

the necessary evasive action to avoid colliding with power lines (van Rooyen 2004, Anderson 2001). 

Unfortunately, many of the collision sensitive species are considered threatened in southern Africa ‐ 

of the 2369 avian mortalities on distribution lines recorded by the Endangered Wildlife Trust (EWT) 

between August 1996 and October 2007, 1512 (63.8%) were Red listed species (Van Rooyen 2007). 

In the Overberg region of the Western Cape, which has a very similar Red listed species composition 

and habitat use as the current study area, power line collisions have long been recorded as a major 

source of avian mortality (Van Rooyen 2007). Most numerous amongst power line collision victims 

are Blue Crane and Denham’s Bustard (Shaw 2007). It has been estimated that as many as 10% of 

the Blue Crane population in the Overberg are killed annually on power lines, and figure for 

Denham’s Bustard might be as high as 30% of the Overberg population (Shaw 2009). These figures 

are extremely concerning, as it represents a possible unsustainable source of unnatural mortality. 



Unfortunately, the dynamics of the collision problem is poorly understood. In the most recent study 

on this problem in the Overberg, Shaw (2009) identified cultivated land and region as the significant 

factors influencing power line collision risk. Lines that cross cultivated land pose a higher risk, as 

expected, as this is the preferred habitat of Blue Cranes in the Overberg. In the current study area, it 

can be postulated that the old lands and pastures will be higher risk from a power line collision 

perspective, as this constitutes primary habitat for Blue Crane. Collision rates are higher for birds in 

flocks, as they may panic, or lack visibility and room for maneuver because of the close proximity of 

other birds (APLIC, 1994). Other factors, such as proximity to dams, wind direction and proximity to 

roads and dwellings did not emerge as significant factors, but she readily admits that her broad‐scale 

analysis may have been too crude to demonstrate their effects. It is for example a well known fact 

that cranes are particularly vulnerable to power lines skirting water bodies used as roosts, as they 

often arrive there or leave again in low light conditions (pers. obs.). 

Flamingos are another group of birds that is particularly vulnerable to collisions with power lines. 

Between November 1996 and March 1997, at least twenty‐four Greater Flamingos were killed by 

collisions with transmission lines running through the large wetlands adjacent to the Project site, 

namely Slangkop, Swartwater and Droëvlei pans (Van Rooyen, 2007). It is not known what the actual 

mortality figures are, but it could be significant as regular monitoring of the site has not taken place 

since, but it is likely to be an ongoing cause of mortality. 

The Project will make use of underground cabling to link each turbine with the respective substation, 

therefore no collision risk will be posed by these cables. An existing 66 kV line running parallel to the 

R27 connects the existing substation to the national grid. It is proposed that the new substation on 

the Kerrie Fontein Farm is located along this alignment to facilitate a new connection. The positive 

result of this arrangement is that no new overhead power lines will need to be constructed, which 

means that this additional potential source of unnatural mortality is effectively negated. 


This impact is not expected to materialise. 


No mitigation will be required for this impact, as it is not expected to materialise. 

9.3 DISPLACEMENT 

9.3.1 Nature of impact 

Although the 116 hours of monitoring at the site was primarily designed to assess the collision risks 

to priority species, it also provides an indication of the suitability of the site for foraging and 

breeding purposes. Amongst the priority species, raptors are the birds most likely to be using the 

site for foraging purposes, and therefore are potentially most susceptible to this impact. No 

indication of raptor or other priority species breeding activity was recorded during any of the 

monitoring periods. The following raptors have been recorded at the site: 



African Fish Eagle Haliaeetus vocifer 

Black‐chested Snake‐eagle Circaetus pectoralis 

Booted Eagle Aquila pennatus 

Black‐shouldered Kite Elanus caeruleus 

Black Sparrowhawk Accipiter melanoleucus 

African Harrier‐hawk Polyboroides typus 

Jackal Buzzard Buteo rofufuscus 

Lanner Falcon Falco biarmicus 

Martial Eagle Polemaetus bellicosus 

Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus 

Rock Kestrel Falco rupicolus 

Steppe Buzzard Buteo buteo 

Secretarybird Sagittarius serpentarius 

Yellow‐billed Kite Milvus migrans 

Black Harrier Circus maurus 

Although more studies are needed and more should be peer‐reviewed in the public domain, 

research indicates that, with few exceptions, the displacement effect of wind developments on 

raptors is low to negligible (Madders and Whitfield, 2008). This trend seems to be supported by the 

results of the limited post‐construction monitoring conducted at the existing four turbines. The 

following raptor species were recorded at the site during 30 hours of formal post‐construction 

monitoring and three hours of informal post‐construction monitoring (Van Beuningen and Retief, 

2010). 

Booted Eagle 

Black‐shouldered Kite 

Jackal Buzzard 

Lanner Falcon 

Martial Eagle 

Peregrine Falcon 

Rock Kestrel 

Steppe Buzzard 

Secretarybird 

Yellow‐billed Kite 

In the present study area, it can be reasonably postulated that sensitive species such as Blue Crane 

could be affected by the noise (and the movement) of the construction and operation of the 

turbines. Morrison (1998) found that the probability of finding Blue Crane nests decrease as the 

number of roads in an area increase. She further found that Blue Cranes actively avoided tar and 

gravel roads, houses and areas of agricultural activity when selecting a nest site. The habitat at the 

Project site is not particularly suitable for Blue Cranes as a foraging and nesting area, as they prefer 

agricultural areas to natural vegetation in the Swartland (Young, 2003). Only 16% of the current 

Project site is agricultural land, therefore the displacement effect on Blue Cranes should be relatively 

minimal. 

A review of the literature suggests that none of the barrier effects identified so far have significant 

impacts on populations (Drewitt and Langston, 2006). However, there are circumstances where the 

barrier effect might lead indirectly to population level impacts; for example where a wind farm 



effectively blocks a regularly used flight line between nesting and foraging areas, or where several 

wind farms interact cumulatively to create an extensive barrier which could lead to diversions of 

many tens of kilometres, thereby incurring increased energy costs. It has to be assumed that it could 

be a factor for several species, including Red listed species such as Blue Crane, Great White Pelican 

and both species of flamingo, but it is very difficult to measure. As mentioned earlier, raptors and 

vultures may be less prone to displacement and avoidance effects (Madders and Whitfield, 2006), 

which unfortunately put them at a greater risk of collision. 


An evaluation of the expected displacement impact on priority species is provided in summary form 

below and in Table 9.1. 

During construction, displacement of priority species is considered to be a negative impact, local in 

extent, temporary in duration, low intensity, probable and of low significance to decision‐making. 

During operation, displacement of priority species is considered to be a negative impact, local in 

extent, long term in duration, low intensity, improbable and of low significance to decision‐making. 

During decommissioning, displacement of priority species is considered to be a negative impact, 

local in extent, temporary in duration, low intensity, probable and of low significance to decision‐ 

making. 


Due to the relatively minor significance of this impact on priority species, no specific mitigation 

measures are recommended. 

9.4 HABITAT LOSS 

9.4.1 Nature of Impact 

The scale of direct habitat loss resulting from the construction of a wind farm and associated 

infrastructure depends on the size of the project but, generally speaking, is likely to be small per 

turbine base. Typically, actual habitat loss amounts to 2–5% of the total development area (Fox et al, 

2006 as cited by Drewitt and Langston, 2006), though effects could be more widespread where 

developments interfere with hydrological patterns or flows on wetland or peatland sites 

(unpublished data). Some changes could also be beneficial. For example, habitat changes following 

the development of the Altamont Pass wind farm in California led to increased mammal prey 

availability for some species of raptor (for example through greater availability of burrows for Pocket 

Gophers Thomomys bottae around turbine bases), though this may also have increased collision risk 

(Thelander et al, 2003 as cited by Drewitt and Langston, 2006). At the Project site, direct habitat loss 

is not regarded as a major impact on avifauna, relative to other potential impacts such as 

disturbance or collisions. 


An evaluation of the expected impact from habitat loss and displacement of priority species due to 

footprint of the Project is provided in summary form below and in Table 9.1. 



During construction, displacement of priority species is considered to be a negative impact, local in 

extent, long term in duration, low intensity, definite and of low significance to decision‐making. 

During operation, displacement of priority species is considered to be a negative impact, local in 

extent, long term in duration, low intensity, definite and of low significance to decision‐making. 

During decommissioning, displacement of priority species is considered to be a negative impact, 

local in extent, long term in duration, low intensity, definite and of low significance to decision‐ 

making. 

9.4.3 Recommendations 

The infrastructure footprint must be restricted to the minimum, in accordance with the 

recommendations in the Botanical Impact Assessment Report (Helme, 2011). 


In his review of the original bird impact assessment study by Jenkins, Boshoff (2004) made the 

following comment for the Darling National Demonstration Wind Farm (DNDWF): 

“Based on current knowledge, bird mortalities resulting from collisions with wind turbine 

blades occur, in general, relatively infrequently. This, taken together with the characteristics of 

the proposed DDWF site, strongly suggests that the proposed DDWF will not have a significant 

impact on populations of the priority bird species in the vicinity… given the situation described 

above, it can be safely assumed that the many hundreds of kilometers of powerlines (from 

rural 11kV lines to large 400kV lines) in the Swartland, and its adjacent coastal strip, pose a far 

greater threat to the priority species (especially pelicans, flamingos and cranes) listed by 

Jenkins (2003) than will the four wind turbines, affecting a linear area of less than 800 metres, 

that will operate during the first phase of the proposed DDWF project.” 

Since this statement was made, the wind farm industry has undergone significant changes, and the 

number of applications for wind farms along the West Coast has increased more than tenfold. Figure 

6.2 in the Section 7.4 (Cumulative Impacts) gives an indication of proposed wind farm developments 

as at May 2011. 

In view of the huge increase in proposed wind farm developments along the West Coast, the 

statement by Boshoff (2004) needs to be approached with caution. It is impossible to say at this 

stage what the cumulative impact of all these developments will be on birds, firstly because there is 

no baseline to measure it against, and secondly because the extent of actual impacts will only 

become known once a few wind farms are developed. It is therefore imperative that pre‐ 

construction and post‐construction monitoring is implemented at all the new proposed sites, in 

accordance with the ‘Best practice guidelines for avian monitoring and impact mitigation at 

proposed wind energy development sites in southern Africa – Version 1’ (Jenkins et al, 2011), which 

was released by the Endangered Wildlife Trust and Birdlife South Africa in April 2011. This will 

provide the necessary data to better assess the cumulative impact of wind development along the 

West Coast. 



Table 9.1: Significance of avifaunal impacts 

DESCRIPTION 

OF THE IMPACT 

Displacement of priority 

species 

Habitat loss: 

displacement of priority 

species due to footprint 

of wind farm 

Bird mortality due to 

collisions with the turbine 

blades 

NATURE / 

STATUS 


CONSTRUCTION 

SIGNIFICANCE 

(WITHOUT 

MITIGATION) 

Negative Local Temporary Low Probable Low 

Negative Local Long term Low Definite Low 

OPERATION 

Negative Local Long term Medium Probable Low 

MITIGATION 

Due to the 

relatively minor 

significance of this 

impact on priority 

species, no specific 

mitigation 

measures are 

recommended. 

Apply mitigation as 

prescribed in the 

Botanical Impact 

Assessment Study 

Post‐construction 

monitoring; 

Relocation of 

turbines 

responsible for 

particular collision 

mortality; 

Halting operation 

during peak flight 

periods, or 

reducing rotor 

speed, to reduce 

the risk of collision 

mortality; 

Negotiating 

appropriate off‐set 

compensation for 

turbine related 

collision mortality. 

SIGNIFICANCE 

(WITH 

MITIGATION) 



Low 

Low 

Low

DESCRIPTION 

OF THE IMPACT 


species 

Habitat loss: 



of wind farm 


species 

Habitat loss: 



of wind farm 

NATURE / 

STATUS 


SIGNIFICANCE 

(WITHOUT 

MITIGATION) 

Negative Local Long term Low Improbable Low 





MITIGATION 

Due to the 





mitigation 

measures are 

recommended. 





Due to the 





mitigation 

measures are 

recommended. 





SIGNIFICANCE 

(WITH 

MITIGATION) 



Low 

Low 

Low 

Low

10 VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

The Visual Impact Assessment in Appendix 8.3 (Oberholzer and Lawson, 2011) sets out sets out the 

potential visual impact arising from the Project and corresponding mitigatory measures. 

10.1 POTENTIAL IMPACTS 

During the scoping stage and from site visits, the visual specialists identified a number of visual 

issues. In addition, the PPP has provided a number of visual issues detailed in Appendix 7.6 and 

summarised below. These issues are not seen as impacts, but more as concerns that have been 

addressed in the VIA. 

The rural character of the surrounding countryside and serenity of the open landscape, 

including the West Coast National Park, could be potentially affected by the additional wind 

turbines. 

The industrial nature of wind farms could result in the loss of scenic views and sense of 

place. 

Security and navigational lights at night from the wind farm could have an effect on the 'dark 

skies' of the West Coast. 

Construction activities on the Project site, and the transport of large components to the site, 

could have significant visual effects. 

At the decommissioning stage, the remains of foundations and roads may remain visible in 

the relatively open landscape. 

The Tourism industry is at risk from the possible proliferation of wind farms. 

The application for a nearby wind farm site, with up to 80 large turbines, could increase the 

cumulative visual impact. 

A buffer corridor along all main roads should be considered to mitigate the visual effect on 

tourism, motorist safety and visual experience of local residents. 

Internal service roads should be routed so as to minimise the visual impact on main roads. 

Photographic montages showing the proposed wind farm from various viewpoints and 

various distances need to be provided in the EIA process. 

Table 10.1 below sets out the assessment criteria and potential visual impacts / benefits arising from 

the various components of the Project. 



Table 10.1: Assessment criteria and potential visual impacts / benefits 

Criteria Comments 

Visibility of facilities 

Distance from selected 

viewpoints 

Visibility of navigation 

and security lights at 

night 

Visual exposure 

Zone of visual influence or 

view catchment 

Visual sensitivity 

Landscape features 

Landscape integrity 

Effect on character of the 

area 

Cultural landscape 

Heritage value of the 

landscape 

Visual absorption 

capacity (VAC) 

Lack of concealment 

Views from the R27 and R315 adjacent to the site are the most 

significant and could affect the most receptors including tourists 

(See Table 7.5). 

Visibility, particularly at night, depends on amount of security 

lighting. 

Up to about 10km radius. Determined by ridgelines. View 

catchment is partly confined by topography and includes view 

shadow areas. Wind turbines are tall but slender. 

Open, exposed landscape to the west. Turbines visible on the 

skyline. Wind energy facility intrudes on the rural landscape and 

scenic routes. 

Contrasts with rural landscape. Present disturbance from existing 

four turbines and power lines tend to reduce the visual significance. 

Traditionally a farming area. The site contains minimal heritage 

features (see HIA). 

Moderately low potential of the open landscape to visually absorb 

the wind turbines and infrastructure. Some screening by 

topography. Little opportunity for screening with trees. 

Cumulative visual impact Would add to the four existing turbines, but remains a fairly small 

facility. An additional facility proposed nearby at Rheboksfontein. 

Wind turbines 

Alt.1 layout 14 

x N77 turbines 

High 

(particularly from 

R27) 

Medium 


R27) 

Medium‐high 

(mainly to the 

west) 

Medium‐High 

Medium‐High 

Wind turbines 

Alt.2 layout 16 

x N60 turbines 

High 


R27) 

Medium 


R27) 

Medium‐high 

(mainly to the 

west) 

Medium‐High 

Medium‐High 

Substation 

Moderate 

(from R27) 

Medium 


R27) 

Medium‐low 

(limited view 

catchment) 



Medium 

Internal access 

roads 

Moderate 

(from R27) 

n/a 

Medium 

(visible from a 

distance) 

Medium 

Medium Medium‐High 

Medium Medium Low Low 

High High High High 

Medium‐High Medium‐High Medium Medium‐Low 

Overall impact rating Medium‐High Medium‐High Medium Medium


No alternative sites are being assessed in the current application. Two alternative layouts within the 

site are, however, being considered. The alternatives are limited by the alignment of the existing 

four wind turbines, optimum air flow between turbines, prevailing wind conditions, property 

boundaries and the existing Eskom powerline. 

The fact that an existing wind farm with four wind turbines and a substation has been established on 

one of the farm portions, is to some extent a mitigating factor, in that the site is already a wind farm. 

The following guideline recommendations are based on the two options that have been provided. 

A visual buffer between the Project and the main arterial R27 and R315 routes should be 

provided, given their scenic value. The setback is constrained by farm boundaries and 

spacing between turbines, but should be as large as possible. 

The light colour of the existing wind turbines shows up strongly in the landscape. Ideally the 

turbines should be light grey when seen against the sky, and a darker greenish grey colour 

on the lower half when seen against a landscape backdrop. 

A more meandering alignment for the connecting internal access roads should be 

considered so that they follow the curve of the hillslope rather than a straight line against 

the grain of the topography. (Re‐alignment should take into account the botanical 

constraints). 

A visual buffer between the proposed new substation and the R27 Route should be 

provided. The location of the substation is determined by a number of engineering factors, 

including the existing Eskom powerline, but should not be nearer to the R27 than the 

existing substation. It should also be placed as close to the existing substation as possible to 

contain the visual impact. Consideration should be given to combining it with the existing 

substation. 

The architectural character of the substation building should be similar to that of the existing 

substation, to be in sympathy with the West Coast architectural idiom. The transformer 

infrastructure should be placed on the inland side of the substation, away from the R27. 

Cables should be located underground as far as possible. Berms and planting could be used 

to screen transformers and other infrastructure. 

Outdoor lighting should be minimised and confined to the substation. Lights should be low‐ 

level and fitted with reflectors to minimise light spillage. 

Unnecessary signage on the site should be avoided. No corporate signage or billboards 

should be permitted, except for discrete signage at the entrance to the site. Where 

mandatory signage is required, this should be fixed to buildings where possible to avoid free‐ 

standing signs in the landscape. 

Drainage from the access roads should be led to grassed swales and siltation ponds to 

prevent unsightly dongas forming on the site. All site disturbance and construction areas 

should be rehabilitated / revegetated to avoid unsightly scars in the landscape. 

The PGWC criteria have been applied to the Project and this is set out in Table 10.2 overleaf. 

Table 10.3 thereafter summarises the significance of the visual impacts (before and after mitigation) 

in accordance with the generic EIA methodology for assessing significance described in Section 7.3.2 



Table 10.2: Suggested criteria for visual buffers at the Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm site 

Criteria PGWC Regional Level Mapping: 

Recommended Buffers for Wind 

Farms (2006) 

Urban Areas 800 m Yzerfontein is 8km away. 

Residential Areas, including rural 

dwellings 

National Roads 

Local Public Roads 

(district roads) 

Local Project Level Mapping for Kerrie Fontein and Darling site: 

suggested buffers 

400 m The nearest farm buildings on Slangkop (Windhoek Farm) are approx 520 m away. 

13 km buffer. 

Depends on scenic value. Can be reduced. 

500 m 

Review if high scenic value. 

Provincial Tourist Route 4 km buffer. Statutory scenic drives. n/a 

Local Tourist Route 

2.5 km 

Assumption. Can be reduced. 

Railway lines 250 m n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

The existing wind farm (4 turbines) is 1.6 km from the R315. 

The proposed Kerriefontein wind farm would be 500 to 700 m from the R27. 

Local airfield To be confirmed with agency. There is a landing strip 5 km to the east of the site, and an aerodrome 43km away at 

Malmesbury. 

National Parks, Provincial Nature 

Reserves 

2 km 

Should be eliminated at regional level. 

Private Nature Reserves 500 m 

Could be negotiated at local level. 

Rivers 500 m 

For perennial rivers at regional level. 

The West Coast National Park is 5 km away. 

The Tienie Versveld Wild Flower Reserve is 2 km away. 

Relates to Botanical Impact Assessment, (see Helme, 2011). 

External farm boundaries No indication Relates to safety, noise, and tourist facilities. 



Table 10.3: Significance of visual impacts 

DESCRIPTION 

OF THE IMPACT 

Option 1 layout 

14 x N77 turbines 



Substation 

Internal access roads 





Substation 






Substation 


NATURE / 

STATUS 


CONSTRUCTION 

SIGNIFICANCE 

(WITHOUT 

MITIGATION) 

Negative Local Short Term Medium‐High Highly probable Medium‐High 

Negative Local Short Term Medium‐High Highly probable Medium‐High 

Negative Local Short Term Medium Highly probable Medium 

Negative Local Short Term Medium Highly probable Medium 

OPERATION 

Negative Local Long term Medium‐High Highly probable Medium‐High 

Negative Local Long term Medium‐High Highly probable Medium‐High 

Negative Local Long term Medium Highly probable Medium 

Negative Local Long term Medium Highly probable Medium 


Negative Local Permanent Medium‐Low Probable Medium‐Low 


Negative Local Permanent Medium Probable Medium 


MITIGATION 

Minimal mitigation 

possible 


possible 

Screen with berms 

and planting 

Blend with 

contours 


possible 


possible 


and planting 

Blend with 

contours 

Remove structures 

and re‐vegetate 

Remove structures 

and re‐vegetate 


and planting if 

retained 

Scarify roads and 

re‐vegetate 

SIGNIFICANCE 

(WITH 

MITIGATION) 

Medium‐High 

Medium‐High 

Medium‐Low 

Medium‐Low 

Medium‐High 

Medium‐High 

Medium‐Low 

Medium‐Low 



Low 

Low 

Medium 

Low



11 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

The issues and potential impacts have been sourced from the Heritage Scoping Study (Orton, 2010) 

attached as Appendix 8.4 and no further studies were required as part of the EIA Phase. It has not 

been necessary to apply the standard EIA significance criteria set out in Section 6.3.2 as the impacts 

are not considered significant. 

11.1 PALAEONTOLOGY 

Fossils are completely unknown from the Cape Granite Suite rocks that cover most of the study area, 

but in the low‐lying areas to the west important fossils are known from the Cenozoic deposits 

(Almond and Pether, 2008). Most of the sand on the slopes below the granite hills in the study area, 

however, is windblown and unlikely to contain any significant fossil heritage. Impacts to fossil 

resources would take place during the construction phase only. 

11.2 STONE AGE ARCHAEOLOGY 

Stone artefacts were observed in several areas ranging from the top of Moedmaag Hill to the lower, 

sandy slopes. With one exception, where three artefacts were encountered, these were isolated 

occurrences and do not reflect archaeological sites in the conventional sense. The distribution of 

these artefacts is shown in Figure 7.5. They include an Early Stone Age (ESA) core in silcrete (Figure 

11.1), and several Later Stone Age (LSA) artefacts, mostly in quartz. One of the latter appeared to be 

a formal scraper (right hand artefact in Figure 11.2) and was accompanied by the only silcrete flake 

seen during the survey. An isolated Bullia shell was also found but its age is unknown. None of these 

finds is of any significance but they demonstrate the presence of people in the landscape during pre‐ 

colonial times. Impacts to archaeological resources would take place during the construction phase 

only. 

11.3 CULTURAL LANDSCAPES, SCENIC ROUTES AND VISUAL IMPACTS 

The agricultural landscape of the area is well entrenched but a precedent has already been set 

through installation of the four original turbines. However, the additional turbines will further 

decrease the landscape qualities of the area. In general the visual impacts are likely to be of greatest 

concern in this development. Both the R27 and the R315 are regarded as scenic routes. These will be 

negatively impacted by the proposed development, although the additions should be considered in 

light of the fact that four existing wind turbines are already in place. A separate VIA has been 

undertaken and has assessed these impacts. It should be noted that the existing turbines have in fact 

been something of an attraction in the area but this feature will soon diminish as more and more 

similar projects are implemented across the province. Visual impacts to the landscape would take 

place during the construction and operational phases of the Project. 



Figure 11.1: An Early Stone Age core found near the top of Moedmaag Hill. Scale = 5 cm. 

Figure 11.2: Later Stone Age artefacts found on the lower slopes of Moedmaag Hill. Scale = 3 cm. 

11.4 MITIGATION MEASURES 

Aside from the visual impacts associated with the proposed development, no other significant 

impacts to heritage resources are foreseen. The VIA has quantified the degree of visual impact that 

will be experienced. 

Subject to the approval of Heritage Western Cape and to the outcome of the VIA, the proposed 

Project should be allowed to proceed with no further heritage intervention required. It should be 

noted, however, that unmarked human burials can occur anywhere, particularly in sandy substrates, 

and that should such a find be made during construction then work in its vicinity should be halted 

and the find reported to Heritage Western Cape. 



12 NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

The Noise Impact Assessment (NIA) attached as Appendix 8.5 (Williams, 2011) predicts noise levels 

for both options and assesses the impacts on noise sensitive receptors. This is assessed according to 

each phase of the Project and summarised in Table 12.7 thereafter. 

12.1 CONSTRUCTION PHASE 

The construction noise at the various sites will have a local impact. Safetech has conducted noise 

tests at various construction sites in South Africa and have recorded the noise emissions of various 

pieces of construction equipment. The results are presented in Table 12.1 below. 

Table 12.1: Typical construction noise 

Type of Equipment LReq.T dB(A) 

CAT 320D Excavator measured at approximately 50 m. 67.9 

Mobile crane measured at approximately 70 m 69.6 

Drilling rig measured at approximately 70 m 72.6 

The impact of the construction noise that can be expected at the proposed site can be extrapolated 

from Table 12.1. As an example, if a number of pieces of equipment are used simultaneously, the 

noise levels can be added logarithmically and then calculated at various distances from the site to 

determine the distance at which the ambient level will be reached. 

Table 12.2: Combining different construction noise sources – high impacts (worst case) 

Description 

Typical Sound 

Power Level (dB) 

Overhead and mobile cranes 109 

Front end loaders 100 

Excavators 108 

Bull Dozer 111 

Piling machine (mobile) 115 

Total* 117 

* The total is a logarithmic total and not a sum of the values. 

Table 12.3: Combining different construction noise sources ‐ low impacts 

Description 

Typical Sound 

Power Level (dB) 

Front end loaders 100 

Excavators 108 

Trucks 95 

Total 111 



The information in the tables has been used to calculate the attenuation by distance. Noise will also 

be attenuated by topography and atmospheric conditions such as temperature, humidity, wind 

speed and direction but this is ignored for this purpose. Therefore, the distance calculated in Table 

12.4 below would be representative of maximum distances to reach ambient noise levels. 

Table 12.4 below gives an illustration of attenuation by distance from a noise of 117dB measured 

from the source. 

Table 12.4: Attenuation by distance for the construction phase (worst case) 

Distance from 

noise source (metres) 

10 89 

20 83 

40 77 

80 71 

160 65 

320 59 

640 53 

1280 47 

Sound Pressure Level 

dB(A) 

What can be inferred from Table 12.4 is that if the ambient noise level is at 45dB(A), the 

construction noise will be similar to the ambient level at approximately 1280 m from the noise 

source, if the noise characteristics are similar. Beyond this distance, the noise level will be below the 

ambient noise and will therefore have little impact. The above only applies to the construction noise 

and light wind conditions. In all likelihood, the construction noise will have little impact on the 

surrounding community as it will most likely occur during the day when the ambient noise is louder 

and there are unstable atmospheric conditions. 

12.2 OPERATIONAL PHASE 

The effects of low frequency noise include sleep disturbance, nausea, and vertigo. These effects are 

unlikely to impact upon residents due to the distance between the plant and the nearest 

communities. Sources of low frequency noise also include wind, train movements and vehicular 

traffic, which are all sources that are closer to the residential areas. 

12.2.1 Predicted Noise Levels for the Wind Turbines 

Table 12.5 and Table 12.6 overleaf set out the predicted noise generated by the turbines at the 

various noise sensitive receptors at wind speeds from 3 m/s to 12 m/s, for each Option. Figure 12.1 

and Figure 12.2 indicate the isopleths for each option. 



Table 12.5: Summary of noise impacts on noise sensitive receptors at various wind speeds for 

Option 1 

NSA 1 – Windhoek 

(Main House) 


(Workers Cottage) 

NSA 3m/s 4m/s 6m/s 8m/s 10m/s 12m/s 

NSA 3 – Klein Windhoek 

NSA 4 ‐ Rory Richard 

NSA 5 – Jacobuskraal 

NSA 6 ‐ Die Padstal 

NSA 7 – Slangkop 

NSA 8 – Droevlei 

NSA 9 – Swartwater 

NSA 10 – Grootberg 

Option 1 

Turbine 500 m 

setback distance 

criteria met 

Yes 

X Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

= Within Recommended Noise Limit X = Exceeds 45dB (A) day/night Recommended Limit 

The noise produced by the wind turbines will exceed the 45dB(A) day/night limit at the Windhoek 

Farm Workers homes at 12 m/s wind speed. 

The location of the Option 1 wind turbine generators all met the recommended 500 m setback 

distance. 



Figure 12.1: Raster image of Option 1 (8 m/s wind speed) 



Table 12.6: Summary of noise impacts on noise sensitive receptors at various wind speeds for 

Option 2 


(Main House) 


(Workers Cottage) 

NSA 3m/s 4m/s 6m/s 8m/s 10m/s 12m/s 

NSA 3 – Klein Windhoek 

NSA 4 ‐ Rory Richard 

NSA 5 – Jacobuskraal 

NSA 6 ‐ Die Padstal 

NSA 7 – Slangkop 

NSA 8 – Droevlei 

NSA 9 – Swartwater 

NSA 10 – Grootberg 

Option 2 

Turbine 500 m 

setback distance 

criteria met 

Yes 

X Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

For Option 2, the noise produced by the wind turbines will exceed the 45dB(A) day/night limit at the 

Windhoek Farm Workers homes at 12 m/s wind speed. 

The location of the Option 1 wind turbine generators all met the recommended 500 m setback 

distance. 

As the wind speed increases, the ambient noise also increases and masks the wind turbine noise. 

The critical wind speeds are thus between 4‐6 m/s when there is a possibility of little masking. At 12 

m/s the wind speed is such that it is highly unlikely that the turbine noise will be heard. 



Figure 12.2: Raster image of Option 2 (8 m/s wind speed) 




The decommissioning noise impacts will be the same as for the construction phase. 


The following mitigation measures are recommended, the significance of the impacts are presented 

before and after mitigation in Table 12.7 overleaf: 

12.4.1 Construction Activities 

The following recommendations are made for the construction phase: 

All construction operations should only occur during daylight hours if possible. 

No construction piling should occur at night. Piling should only occur during the day to take 

advantage of unstable atmospheric conditions. 

Construction staff should receive “noise sensitivity” training. 

An ambient noise survey should be conducted during the construction phase. 

12.4.2 Operational Activities 

The following general recommendation is made for the operational phase: 

The noise impact from the wind turbine generators should be measured during the 

operational phase, to ensure that the impact is within the recommended limits. 

12.4.3 Decommissioning Activities 

The recommendations for the decommissioning phase are the same as for the construction phase. 



Table 12.7: Significance of noise impacts 

DESCRIPTION 

OF THE IMPACT 

Impact of the 

construction noise on 

the surrounding 

environment 

Impact of the 

operational noise on 

the surrounding 

environment 

Impact of the 

decommissioning 

noise on the 

surrounding 

environment 

NATURE / 

STATUS 


CONSTRUCTION 

SIGNIFICANCE 

(WITHOUT 

MITIGATION) 

Negative Local Short Term Medium Probable Medium 

OPERATION 

MITIGATION 

All activities only 

during daytime; 

No piling at 

night; “Noise 

sensitivity” 

training for staff; 

Conduct an 

ambient noise 

survey. 

SIGNIFICANCE 

(WITH 

MITIGATION) 

Negative Local Short Term Medium Probable Medium Monitoring Low 


Negative Local Short Term Medium Probable Medium 

All activities only 

during daytime; 

No piling at 

night; “Noise 

sensitivity” 

training for staff; 

Conduct an 

ambient noise 

survey. 



Low 

Low

13 SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

During the Scoping Phase, the potential issues and impacts were identified for the different phases 

of development. The Social Impact Assessment (see Appendix 8.6) draws on the findings of an 

international literature review and primary data generated through a number of in depth interviews 

which are summarised below. Thereafter the application of the framework for assessing significance 

(see Section 6.3.2) establishes the environmental significance of these potential impacts. The 

impacts are summarised in Table 13.1 at the end of this section. 

13.1 SUMMARY OF INTERNATIONAL LITERATURE REVIEW 

There are several socio‐economic impacts that can arise from wind farm development, some of 

which are negative and some positive. However, many of these impacts are also reliant on the 

perceptions of the local public. Research indicates that many of these negative perceptions are 

actually based on fears rather than experience. Or as Dent and Sims (2007) suggest, often it is the 

‘threat’ of wind farm development that ‘may have a more significant impact than the actual 

presence of one’ (p: 7). 

Visual impact is usually the primary impact identified by the public due to the sheer size of wind 

turbines. These impacts are both negatively and positively perceived and influenced by a number of 

factors such as the proximity to communities; sensitivity of landscape; magnitude of wind farm; and 

the relative comparison to other infrastructure such as power lines (TNS, 2003; Wolsink, 2007; SEAI, 

2003; van der Horst, 2007; Lee et al, 1989). Studies to establish the validity of the NIMBY Hypothesis 

(based on increased opposition when close to people’s homes) and the Proximity Hypothesis (people 

living closest to the developments perceive them more negatively) have had contradictory findings 

(Elliot, 1997; BWEA, 2005; Simon, 1996; Hoepman, 1998; Devine‐Wright, 2005; Thayer and Freeman, 

1987; Anderson et al, cited in Krohn and Damborg, 1997; Braunholtz, 2003; TNS, 2003). And more 

commonly, people’s experience knowledge and social influences has a significant bearing on how 

people view wind energy facilities. For example, social processes and networks could include the 

opinions of friends and family, as well was local media exposure (Devine‐Wright, 2005; Boyle, 2004). 

Furthermore, people who had greater knowledge of wind energy subsequently are more supportive 

of proposals (BWEA, 2005). 

These social constructions also affect the way people perceive tourism impacts. Studies have 

showed that tourism operators and tourists themselves have differing views on whether wind farms 

are positive or negative for tourism and thus it is difficult to draw conclusions (NFO System Three, 

2002; AusWEA, 2003; NFO WorldGroup, 2003; BWEA, 2006; CanWEA, 2008). 

Similarly, although noise impacts are quantifiable, the effect on people is often a social construct as 

evidenced by the low level of complaints documented in studies in the UK and Scotland/Ireland 

(Moorhouse et al, 2007; Warren et al, 2005). These studies suggest that people are concerned with 

the ‘threat’ of noise impacts because it is a new technology, but these threats are often not realised 

once a wind farm is up and running. 

Property values are also linked to people’s perceptions and the most negative responses have been 

documented during the planning phases. The few studies that have been conducted reveal 



conflicting results relating to the extent to which wind farms impact property value (Dent and Sims, 

2007; BWEA, 2004; Sterzinger et al, 2003). But likewise, to date, there is little evidence to support 

that property values will decline if located close to a wind farm (Dent and Sims, 2007; Hoen et al, 

2009), indicating that there is no conclusive evidence that wind farms reduce property values 

International experience shows that there is huge potential for economic growth and employment 

through the wind industry. For example, currently in Europe, the wind energy industry is considered 

one of the highest‐growth industries and it is still on the increase (Blanco and Rodrigues, 2009). 

Other countries such as Canada and Australia are similarly benefitting from high levels of job 

creation attributed to this industry. 

Wind farm proposals are often met with organised opposition, much of which is based on the 

perception of environmental impacts of wind farms (Klick and Smith, 2010). The environmental 

impacts are therefore, often closely linked to the social impacts as evidenced in many countries. 

Specifically, comparisons have been made between local perceptions before construction of the 

wind farm and afterwards. BWEA (2005) argues that there is a “general shift in attitude towards the 

positive and that many fears of the potential impact of the development of the wind farm prove 

unfounded” (p: 1). Similarly, a Scottish/Irish survey found that the public’s perceived impacts of the 

wind farms decreased after construction (Warren et al, 2005). Contradicting results, where 

respondents became more negative towards the wind farm after construction have also emerged 

(Bishop and Proctor, 1994). However, the dominant findings show that there is a decline of negative 

perceptions over time, suggesting that many initial concerns of wind farms impacts are not realised 

post‐construction. 

The public is often sceptical of commercial developers, which can often cause resistance towards the 

proposed developments (Bell et al, 2005). There is a growing body of research which sheds light on 

the importance of generating trust among stakeholders and how this mutual trust can be 

established (Wolsink, 2007; Aitken, 2010; Walker et al, 2010). Eltham et al (2008) explain that people 

often have “a distrust of the planning system or a suspicion of the developer’s intent” (p: 30). 

Likewise, Devine‐Wright et al (2001) also maintain that negative perceptions can be generated by a 

sense of ‘lack of control’ in the planning process on the part of local people, as well as dissatisfaction 

with the planning process. Such dissatisfaction is usually related to whether or not the community 

views the process and outcomes as ‘fair’ (Gross, 2007). 

The evidence indicates that it is often difficult to draw conclusions regarding social impacts as they 

are closely linked to people’s constructions of reality. Regardless, it is important that local 

communities be involved in the planning process from the beginning in order to educate but also 

include them in the decision‐making process. The more involved the local community is, the greater 

the local support for wind energy. And once more positive perceptions and local support is 

generated, it can aid in the approval and implementation of wind farms, ultimately helping many 

countries reach their emission targets to combat climate change. 



13.2 SUMMARY OF CONSULTATIONS 

The District and Local Municipal areas are appreciated for their rural qualities and quiet, unaffected 

environment with areas of natural beauty. It is therefore not surprising that the potential visual 

impact of the proposed Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm is one of the greatest concerns 

amongst some of the stakeholders. Although it is acknowledged that this Project is small by 

comparison to other proposals along the West Coast, it is the cumulative effect which causes 

concern as the landscape and the sense of place would be permanently altered. The site has been 

chosen as it is the site of an existing wind farm, the Darling Demonstration Project, and for this 

reason the planner from the WCDM stated that she was “not keen on the siting, but since there are 

already four turbines there, would rather see this site extended than develop a new one next door” 

(Kotze, 2011). 

In terms of the general attitude of the public, it appears the community falls into three main groups, 

the majority being apathetic, those that do not support the proposal on the basis of the visual 

impact and associated change to sense of place and tourism potential, and the final group that 

supports the proposal, seeing it as a sign of progress, a solution to the energy crisis and a suitable 

alternative to nuclear. 

While the stakeholders’ opinions on visual impact are clearly divided, the principle of renewable 

energy development in South Africa and along the West Coast more specifically was largely 

supported. 

In terms of socio‐economic impacts specifically, employment although minimal, was identified as a 

benefit of the Project, and impacts on property prices was identified by some as a potential issue 

although the majority of estate agents themselves felt that this was not an issue. Road safety at the 

junction was raised as an existing problem which could be exacerbated by the Project. There are 

perceived to be no planning implications of the development, however, the District recognises the 

R27 as a scenic route and this could be in conflict with the siting of the Project. 

Various suggestions to enhance the opportunities presented by the Project include support for the 

associated Visitors and Education Centre both in terms of adding to the tourism product mix, 

creating jobs and providing exposure and generating awareness of the benefits of renewable energy. 

It was also identified that the establishment of a community trust would allow benefits to filter 

down to the grassroots level. Mitigation measures include monitoring of impacts, contribution to 

the upgrade of the junction, and education as already described. It was acknowledged that there 

was no potential to mitigate the visual impacts. 

In terms of alternatives, the responses were mixed, however, there was more preference for the 

option that was more efficient in terms of wind resources, which has been proven to be Option 1 (14 

x N77). 

Overall the majority of stakeholders were very supportive of the Project identifying few perceived 

social impacts, with the most emphasis being on the permanent change in landscape. 



13.3 CONSTRUCTION PHASE 

The potential positive and negative impacts which could arise as a result of the construction 

activities are assessed as follows. 

13.3.1 Direct Employment and Skills Development 

The construction of the Project will require a workforce and therefore direct employment will be 

generated. Although the exact number of construction jobs has not yet been established; a recent 

study by Greenpeace has indicated that in South Africa, construction and installation of wind energy 

facilities accounts for approximately 4.5 job years per MW (Rutovitz, 2010). This would equate to 

between approximately 94 ‐ 95 job years generated by this Project over a period of 6‐10 months. 

However, this number is likely to be lower based on other existing wind farm proposals and their 

estimations. In terms of skills, it is common that highly skilled or skilled labour such as engineers, 

technical staff and project managers constitute about 20‐25% of the work force; while low skilled 

construction and security staff constitute the majority of the workforce at around 40‐70%. Semi‐ 

skilled staff would typically be required to operate machinery and these usually comprise 30‐40% of 

the work force. It is likely that a general contractor will be appointed by the developer who will hire 

the necessary subcontractors with expertise in civil works, electrical work and mechanical assembly. 

Statistics set out in Section 7.10.2 indicate a poor level of education in the Swartland Municipality 

linked to a limited skills base. This is coupled with a high level of unemployment. Although the more 

specialised tasks are likely to require skills from outside the Swartland Municipal area, there are 

potential opportunities for low skilled local security staff and construction workers which would 

require associated training. This, however, depends on the policies and the location of the 

contracting company. 

The impact is therefore assessed to be positive; local, district and provincial in extent; temporary in 

duration; low intensity; and highly probable. However, the extent to which the local workforce will 

benefit will depend on the contractor and is assessed with less confidence. The impact is assessed to 

be of low significance to the decision‐making process. 

Mitigation Measures 

It is recommended that a local employment policy is adopted by the developer to maximise the 

opportunities made available to the local labour force and to set recruitment targets. This would 

increase the significance to an impact of low‐medium significance to the decision‐making process. 

13.3.2 Economic Multiplier Effects 

There are likely to be economic multiplier effects from the use of local goods and services which 

includes, but is not limited to, construction materials and equipment and workforce essentials such 

as food, clothing, safety equipment, and other goods. Off site accommodation would also be 

required for those construction staff not located in the area, and there is a good stock of 

accommodation in Darling and Yzerfontein. Transport services to the site from these urban centres 

would also be required as there is a lack of public transport in the area. This additional spend would 

provide an indirect boost to the local economy but the extent to which these benefits can be 

achieved would also depend on the location of the contractor and the subcontractors and their 

preferred suppliers. 



The impact is therefore assessed to be positive; local, district and provincial in extent; temporary in 

duration; low intensity; and highly probable. However, the extent to which the local economy will 

benefit will depend on the contractor and is assessed with less confidence. The impact is assessed to 

be of low significance to the decision‐making process. 


It is recommended that a local procurement policy is adopted by the developer to maximise the 

benefit to the local economy. The general contractor could be responsible for making available to 

the sub‐contractors the contact details for all the local businesses offering related good and services. 

This would increase the significance to an impact of low‐medium significance. 

13.3.3 Indirect Effects of Additional Workers on Site 

Additional workers on the site during construction may have indirect effects, such as increased 

security issues for neighbouring farms and damage to property, such as the risk of veld fire;, stock 

theft and so forth. The site would not accommodate construction workers overnight apart from 

security staff if necessary and is fairly small and by no means isolated. 

The impact is therefore assessed to be negative; local in extent; temporary in duration; low intensity; 

and improbable. The impact is assessed to be of low significance to the decision‐making process. 


The site should be secured and livestock restricted from such areas. A comprehensive employee 

induction programme would cover land access protocols, fire management and so forth. This would 

normally be addressed in the Construction EMP as best practice. The impact is assessed to be of 

negligible significance to the decision‐making process. 

13.3.4 Impacts of a non‐local workforce on society 

It was identified that the introduction of a non‐local workforce has the potential to result in social 

disruption both physical and emotional during construction. Such disruption could result in an 

increased demand on social infrastructure such as accommodation, health facilities, transport 

facilities and so forth. Social ills including the spread of diseases (such as HIV/AIDS), crime and social 

conflict are also a potential risk. However, the degree to which society is disrupted largely depends 

on the level of local employment achievable and in the case of this Project a portion of the 

workforce is expected to be sourced locally and the overall number of outsiders would not be 

significant. The infrastructure within Darling and Yzerfontein would have the capacity to absorb the 

additional people. In terms of social ills, however, there is an existing alcohol and drug problem in 

the area which is often linked to crime and this has the potential to be exacerbated by newcomers. 


and improbable. The impact is assessed to be of low significance to the decision‐making process. 


A comprehensive employee induction programme would address issues such as HIV/ AIDS and TB as 

well as alcohol and substance abuse. The induction could also address a code of behaviour for 

employees that would align with community values. This would reduce the impact to be of negligible 

significance to the decision‐making process. 



13.3.5 Landscape and Visual Disturbance 

There is likely to be some temporary landscape and visual disturbance as a result of the presence of 

heavy machinery and transportation to and from, and within the site. Temporary land take is also 

required for the construction camp and the laydown areas; the turbine components themselves are 

very large and would be conspicuous on the site during assembly. Receptors would include vehicle 

drivers along the R27 and R315 as well as residents of Jacobuskraal, and parts of Yzerfontein. 

The Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) undertaken by Oberholzer and Lawson (2011) has found the 

visual impacts of the wind turbines (both Option 1 and 2) erected during construction to be medium‐ 

high. The visual impacts of the substation construction is assessed as medium, and the construction 

of the internal access roads also assessed as medium. 


As assessed by the visual impact specialists there is minimal mitigation available to reduce the 

impacts from the erection of the wind turbines, however, the visual impact of the substation can be 

reduced to medium‐low through screening with berms and planting; and the impact of the internal 

access roads could be reduced to medium‐low through the blending with contours. 

13.3.6 Disruption or Damage to Adjacent Properties 

Disruption or damage to adjacent properties (including access arrangements) is a potential issue. 

This may include a temporary increase in noise and dust, or the wear and tear on private farm roads 

for access to the site. Access during construction will be via the farm access road to Windhoek Farm 

(Slangkop 3/552) and this access has been agreed with the landowner, permanent access will also be 

constructed on the Kerrie Fontein Farm for light vehicles. No other neighbouring farms will be 

required to provide access. It is reported that the road on Tumbleweed Farm is still used by Eskom 

to access the existing substation and this arrangement would need to be reconsidered as it is in 

breach of the original agreement. Potential noise impacts from typical construction equipment such 

as an excavator, mobile crane or drilling rig would impact on the sensitive receptors especially if 

used simultaneously. This has been assessed by Williams (2011) in the NIA and predicted to be of 

medium negative significance. However, since the activities and access arrangements are largely 

restricted to the two farms, the works will be somewhat set back from adjacent farms, with very few 

receptors being within range of these impacts. During the construction of the Darling Demonstration 

Wind Farm, however, an infringement was reported on the farm Klein Windhoek whereby survey 

pegs were disrupted. 


and probable. The impact is assessed to be of low significance to the decision‐making process. 


The Construction EMP would typically address noise and dust control through best practice 

measures. Incidences and complaints would be reported via a dedicated phone line to the 

contractor or ECO. Any disturbed areas will be reinstated during rehabilitation of the site. The EMP 

should also contain measures to protect and maintain legal survey pegs. Noise impacts would be 

reduced to low. Eskom will need to be consulted to establish the access arrangements to the 

substations. The overall impact from disruption would be reduced to be of negligible significance to 

the decision‐making process. 



13.4 OPERATIONAL PHASE 

The potential positive and negative impacts which could arise as a result of the operation of the 

Project include the following: 

13.4.1 Direct Employment and Skills Development 

The operation of the Project will require a workforce and therefore direct employment will be 

generated. Although the exact number of construction jobs has not yet been established; a recent 

study by Greenpeace has indicated that in South Africa, the operation and maintenance of wind 

energy facilities accounts for approximately 0.72 job years per MW (Rutovitz, 2010). This would 

equate to between approximately 15 job years generated by this Project during its design life of a 

minimum of 25 years. However, based on the estimations of other wind farm proposals, it is likely 

to be much lower than this. At present there is an operational office on Langefontein Farm servicing 

the existing turbines and this will be expanded to accommodate additional technical equipment and 

employees. It is likely that highly skilled personnel would need to be recruited from outside the 

Swartland Municipal area. The employees would include skilled mechatronics engineers (specialised 

in both electrical and mechanical engineering) likely to be recruited from the West Coast, Darling 

area and trained by the manufacturer, as well as less skilled services such as safety and security and 

mechatronic assistants. Maintenance will be carried out throughout the lifetime of the turbines. A 

maintenance schedule usually involves an initial inspection after commissioning, a semi‐annual 

inspection, an annual inspection and two and five year inspections but this varies according to the 

type of turbine. Typical activities during maintenance include changing of oil, replacement of brake 

lining and cleaning of components. 

Although not part of this application and with an unknown probability of implementation, a training 

centre on Langefontein Farm is planned by the Oelsner Group. This would provide various levels of 

training relating to the servicing of operational wind energy facilities. It is intended that this would 

increase the local skills base and support this Project and others of its kind within the region. 

During the environmental authorisation process, care has been taken to avoid the local creation of 

expectations of employment as this is a potential negative indirect impact that could arise during the 

planning stage of the Project. 

The impact is assessed to be positive; local, district, and provincial in extent; long term in duration; 

low intensity; and probable. The impact is assessed to be of low significance to the decision‐making 

process. 


It is recommended that a local employment policy is adopted by the developer to maximise the 

Project opportunities being made available to the local labour force. Due to the small number of 

opportunities created and the limited skills base, the extent to which these local benefits could be 

enhanced is not large, and therefore the significance of the impact to the decision‐making process 

would remain as low. 



13.4.2 Economic Multiplier Effects 

Economic multiplier effects generated from the supply of local goods and services to the Project 

during operation would include maintenance tools, supplies and equipment which may be 

technology specific and therefore not necessarily available locally as the manufacturer is based in 

Europe. Local requirements, however, could include items such as employee essentials, namely 

food, clothing, safety equipment, and other goods. Although the number of new employees is small, 

the new income earned would result in additional spend within the local economy. 

The impact is therefore assessed to be positive; local, district and provincial in extent; long term; low 

intensity; and probable. However, the extent to which the local economy will benefit will depend on 

how many new positions are created for local residents which would reduce the potential for 

leakage. The impact is assessed to be of low significance to the decision‐making process. 


It is recommended that the developer adopts a local procurement policy which would maximise the 

benefit to the local economy and minimise leakage. Due to the small number of opportunities 

created, the extent to which these local benefits could be enhanced is not large, and therefore the 

significance of the impact to the decision‐making process would remain as low. 

13.4.3 Landowner Revenue 

The Project will increase the profitability of the land leased from farmers and will provide an 

additional income for the landowners of the two farms Slangkop (3/552), also known as Windhoek, 

and Kerrie Fontein (0/555). Although this direct financial benefit is fairly limited as it will only profit 

the two landowners in question, this income could be used to upscale the agricultural activities on 

these farms with benefits for the local economy, or it could enter the local economy through 

additional spend. 

The impact is therefore assessed to be positive; local in extent; long term; low intensity; and highly 

probable. The impact is assessed to be of low significance to the decision‐making process. 


No mitigation measures are recommended. 

13.4.4 Diversification of the Local Economy 

Increasing the contribution of the renewable energy sector to the Swartland local economy may 

contribute to the diversification of the local economy and provide greater stability. It is 

acknowledged that the economy of the Swartland Municipality is dominated by the agricultural 

sector as the main contributor and employer. Agricultural activities in the Swartland are diverse and 

dominated by wheat, grapes, sheep, beef and dairy, with olive, canola, and legume farming to a 

lesser degree. Although the sector is believed to be stable and sustainable, individual sectors such as 

wheat, can be volatile (Swartland Municipality, 2007b). It is also reported that skills are being lost to 

areas with greater opportunities, such as to Cape Town. The growth in the wind energy sector could 

serve to retain some of these skills. The development of a wind energy industry could therefore add 

to the stability of the economy, and even though this Project is small scale in comparison to the 

overall potential of the sector, it could contribute to the local economy. 



The impact is therefore assessed to be positive; local and district in extent; long term; low intensity; 

and probable. The impact is assessed to be of low significance to the decision‐making process. 


No mitigation measures are recommended. 

13.4.5 Visual Impacts on the Rural Character of the Area 

The presence of additional turbines on the site is likely to result in visual intrusion given the rural 

nature of the area. This has been assessed in the VIA and also reflected in the critical views of the 

stakeholders interviewed. The area is appreciated for its rural qualities and described as having 

‘natural beauty’, being ‘quiet’, ‘unspoilt’ and ‘unaffected’ and is therefore considered to be a 

sensitive landscape. The wind turbine as an element in the landscape is a subjective topic, with the 

stakeholders and the general public being divided in their opinions, describing a wind farm as 

‘majestic’, a ‘beacon’ and a ‘landmark’ with a certain ‘curiosity value’, with others using the term 

‘eyesore’ and ‘monsters’ to refer to wind turbines. This is also mirrored by the findings of the 

international literature review summarised in Section 14.1. With regards to the existing farm it has 

been evident that time was a mitigating factor, and this was also reflected in the literature when 

considering public perceptions. 

The VIA undertaken by Oberholzer and Lawson (2011) has found the significance of the visual 

impacts of the wind turbines (both Option 1 and 2) during operation to be medium‐high. The 

significance of the visual impacts of the substation and the internal access roads during operation 

are both assessed as medium. 


As assessed by the visual impact specialists there is minimal mitigation available to reduce the 

impacts from the erection of the wind turbines, however, the significance of the visual impact of the 

substation can be reduced to medium‐low through screening with berms and planting and the 

significance of the impact of the internal access roads could be reduced to medium‐low through the 

blending with contours. 

13.4.6 Road Safety 

Road safety is a potential issue as the landscape feature may create a distraction to drivers 

particularly when the facility is new and has a ‘curiosity value’ described by the stakeholders. The 

VIA has assessed the visual impact of the turbines as medium‐high. The R27 is a regional transport 

corridor as recognised by the Swartland IDP and it has been identified that this road is ‘notorious for 

its high accident frequency’ (Swartland Municipality, 2007a). Furthermore the junction of the R315 

and the R27 is also believed to be a high accident zone. It has, however, been reported that the 

original Darling Demonstration Wind Farm did not have an impact on road safety along this stretch 

of road. 

The impact is therefore assessed to be negative; local in extent; short to medium term; low 

intensity; with an unknown level of probability. The impact is assessed to be of low significance to 

the decision‐making process. This is, however, assessed with a low degree of confidence in the 

absence of a specialist traffic impact assessment, and therefore the precautionary principle has been 

applied. 




The VIA has acknowledged that minimal mitigation is possible to reduce the impacts from the wind 

turbines and the significance of the impacts remain as medium‐high. 

The proposed Darling Education, Training and Visitor Centre which is a current proposal of the 

Oelsner Group would provide a platform for the general public to learn more about renewable 

energy and to explore demonstration technology. Whether this development is approved or not, it 

is recommended that the developer provide pre‐arranged tours of the site for the general public and 

interest groups. This would allow people to view the wind farm up close and hopefully allay some of 

their fears and satisfy their curiosity when driving past in the future. 

The impact would remain with a low significance to the decision‐making process. 

13.4.7 Noise Impacts on the Quality of Life of Nearby Receptors 

Noise generated from the turbines may reduce the quality of life of receptors in the immediate 

vicinity. The literature review shows that international studies reveal that the turbines have received 

complaints from local residents focusing around health issues due to noise, such as headaches, 

dizziness, sleep deprivation, anxiety and vertigo (Colby et al, 2009). However, other scientific 

evidence reveals that wind farms have no harmful effects on human health (Pedersen and 

Högskolan, 2003; Colby et al, 2009; NHMRC, 2010). The Darling Demonstration Project has received 

no complaints of operational noise and the neighbouring farmers confirm that this was their original 

perception prior to construction. These farmers have not experienced wind turbine noise as an 

impact. Furthermore, there is also anecdotal evidence from these landowners that noise did not 

affect their livestock and the productivity of their farms. This Project , however, would be larger in 

capacity, with bigger turbines and this has been modelled in the NIA by Williams (2011). The NIA has 

assessed the impact at 10 noise sensitive receptors with the two closest receptors (to the nearest 

turbine) being the workers cottage at Windhoek Farm (523 m distance) and the Windhoek Farm 

House (634 m), which are both on the portion of Slangkop (3/552) known as Windhoek. Other 

receptors are further afield. 

The findings of the NIA reveal that for both proposed options, the noise at the workers cottage may 

exceed the recommended noise limit of 45 dB(A) during high wind speeds. On this basis the impact 

is assessed to be negative; local in extent; short term; medium intensity; and probable. The impact is 

assessed to be of medium significance to the decision‐making process without mitigation. 


The mitigation measures as recommended in the NIA apply here and this includes the measurement 

of the wind turbine noise to ensure that the impact is within the recommended limits. These 

measures reduce the significance of the noise impact to the decision‐making process, to low. 

13.4.8 Impact on Property Prices 

The potential negative impact on property prices was identified as a potential issue. The 

international literature review reflects conflicting findings. On the one the hand, the majority of 

estate agents reported that negative impacts would arise, namely during the planning phases which 

they predicted would lessen with time (Dent and Sims, 2007). Another study based on quantitative 

findings from actual property transactions in the United States found no evidence to support the 



proposed impact on property prices (Sterzinger et al, 2003), such as the more recent study in the US 

by Hoen et al (2009). It is therefore difficult to assess the potential impact on property and apply 

international literature, given that the unique socio‐economic context for each study. 

Local estate agents, with experience in the Darling and Yzerfontein property markets (Yzerfontein 

Seaside Estates (Pty) Ltd, Whalescape Properties, Chas Everitt, Yzerfontein and Dormehl Property 

Group Darling) gave their opinion on whether the existing wind farm had affected property prices 

and whether the new proposal would impact prices. They were unanimous in their opinion, that 

there had been no impact. It was also predicted the proposed Project would not impact property 

values either and would not deter future investors nor cause people to move out of the area. 

However, the representative of Jacobuskraal Estate, across the R27, was concerned that the Project 

could have an impact on property values. Given that the surrounding land uses are predominantly 

agricultural, it is not likely that the proposed wind farm would impact property values as it will not in 

any way affect the agricultural activities or productivity on these properties. This was also the view 

of the neighbouring landowners themselves. 

The impact is therefore assessed to be of neutral significance to the decision‐making process. 


Not relevant. 

13.4.9 Impact on Community Identity and Cohesion 

Although the Project will most definitely result in a visual impact on the landscape and rural 

character of the area, an attribute valued by residents, it is not likely to impact on the identity of the 

community itself. This is an assumption made on the basis that the community is itself divided. It 

was found that there is little cohesions between the two towns of Darling and Yzerfontein, which 

operate as two separate communities with Darling itself being divided along socio‐economic lines. 

The residents of Jacobuskraal Estate and the other farmers in the wider area seem to have separate 

identities as well. Within these groups themselves, different individuals supported the hypotheses 

from the various theories such as ‘NIMBYism’ (they did not want the turbines near them but agreed 

with renewable energy), ‘proximity hypothesis’ (those living closer to the project had a more 

negative perceptions of them) and ‘experience, knowledge and social influence’ (those in support of 

wind energy had a more positive attitude towards the proposal) as described in Section 14.2. Other 

underlying factors influencing perceptions of this particular Project were also detected and these 

were based on the renewable energy versus nuclear energy debate where stakeholders argued for 

renewable energy as they believed it was a more favourable alternative to nuclear energy. While 

there seem to be different factions supporting or opposing wind farms for various reasons, basing 

their perceptions on various beliefs on their respective worldviews it is not believed that this Project 

in particular would undermine the cohesion of the local community. 

The impact is therefore assessed to be of neutral significance to the decision‐making process. 


Not relevant. 



13.4.10 Impact on Local and Regional Tourism as a Result of Visual Intrusion 

The visual impact of both the turbines and associated infrastructure is one of the main 

environmental and social impacts of the Project and linked to this is the potential impact on tourism. 

The visual impact has already been explored above and assessed in the VIA as medium‐high. 

However, to identify whether the visual impact and the impact on tourism is positive or negative has 

been a challenge throughout the SIA as the key stakeholders and public in general have been clearly 

divided on this matter. Impacts of wind turbines are perception based or socially constructed. The 

terms provided by stakeholders to describe wind turbines, such as ‘majestic’, are opposite in 

meaning to terms such as ‘monsters’, This depicts the subjective nature of the issue and the 

importance to understand that the context, experiences and activities of stakeholders will impact on 

their understandings and opinions over time (see Sections 14.1 and 14.2). 

The change in the sense of place was considered by some a negative impact which would directly 

affect tourism and the ‘Darling brand’ (M. Ashford, 21/4/2011). However, tourism stakeholders at 

the District level believed that “because it is new and novel it might add to the tourism product mix” 

(D. Cornelius, 4/5/2011). International examples, however, also identified the positive impact or 

tourism potential of wind farms, building on the notion of ‘green tourism’ and as a reflection of 

progress within a region or a country (see Section 14.1). Furthermore, it was a critical finding of the 

interviews that the Project would not deter visitors from the area and in doing so would not affect 

the income generated by nearby tourism businesses. In essence, it would not quantitatively impact 

the tourism industry as a sector within the local or regional economy. It is also acknowledged that to 

begin with the Project would have a positive ‘curiosity value’, which would also decrease and 

probably become neutral over time. The knowledge provided in the international literature and the 

findings of the primary research report a greater emphasis on the positive impact of wind farms on 

tourism, However, in this case the impact of wind farms is assessed as a negative impact because of 

the potential transformation of the ‘sense of place’ in the immediate vicinity of the site which is 

considered a long term impact (over the life span of the Project). This impact is assessed to 

potentially erode the natural beauty and the remoteness which is an intangible and immeasurable 

asset of the area. 

The impact is therefore assessed to be negative; local in extent; long term; low intensity; and is 

highly probable. The impact is assessed to be of low significance to the decision‐making process. 


As recommended in Section 14.4.10 above, the tourism and educational opportunities and benefits 

of a ‘green energy’ development in the area should be maximised. Tourism depends on strong 

marketing which has the potential to raise awareness and education which would in the long term 

assist in generating acceptance. 

The proposed Darling Education, Training and Visitor Centre, which is a current proposal of the 

Oelsner Group, would provide a platform for the general public to learn more about renewable 

energy and to view the models of wind turbines and other renewable energy demonstrations up 

close. Whether this development is approved or not, it is recommended that the developer provide 

pre‐arranged tours of the site for the general public and interest groups. This would allow the public 

to realise the benefits of wind energy which would improve perceptions of wind energy 

developments in general and provide an additional tourist attraction for the area. The significance of 

the impact to decision‐making would remain low as the visual presence of the turbines will always 



e a social construction in terms of tourism and will remain indefinitely. 

13.4.11 Potential Negative or Positive Cumulative Effects within the Region 

The sudden spate of renewable energy development proposals along the West Coast in particular, 

and South Africa in general, has been driven by national government as part of global environmental 

governance, as a solution to the energy crisis and to mitigate climate change. Renewable Energy 

Feed‐In Tariffs (REFIT) have been proposed by NERSA and the South African Government as an 

incentive for Independent Power Producers (IPPs) to develop such facilities. An abundant wind 

resource on the West Coast has led to a high concentration of wind farm proposals in this area with 

associated concerns regarding the potential cumulative impact on the environment. According to 

the DEAT Guidelines on ‘Cumulative Effects Assessment’ (2004, p: 3): 

“Cumulative effects are commonly understood as the impacts which combine from different 

projects and which result in significant change, which is larger than the sum of all the impacts.” 

Figure 6.2 indicates the sites of the renewable energy proposals up to May 2011 as mapped by the 

West Coast District Municipality. It should be noted the certainty of all of these being developed is 

low as each proposal requires a number of approvals and authorisations issued by various 

governmental bodies. 

In terms of cumulative impacts, the visual impact of renewable energy developments on the West 

Coast is the major concern of stakeholders and linked to this is the potential impact on tourism 

especially since the district is known for its remote landscapes and is marketed on the basis of its 

natural assets. Other potential negative cumulative impacts relate to the effect on birds, bats, 

botany, and micro‐climate patterns which is outside the scope of this SIA. There are however also 

potential positive impacts which may arise from the reduction in dependence on fossil fuels; the 

diversification of the regional economy; and associated employment and multiplier effects. 

Tourism and Visual Impacts 

The VIA has assessed the potential cumulative impacts as medium‐high (for the turbines) given the 

facility would remain a relatively small facility in comparison to the Rheboksfontein facility which is 

the closest proposed development site. As per the findings presented in Section 14.1 and 14.2, it is a 

common theme that people are adaptable and therefore the impact would diminish over time. In 

terms of tourism, a number of stakeholders believed that the integrity of the West Coast would be 

lost and it would become synonymous with wind farms. These sentiments are also consistent with 

the findings of a number of international studies particularly by tourism operators in areas offering 

outdoor activities and known for their natural environments (NFO WorldGroup, 2003 and NFO 

System Three, 2002). However, other international studies have shown that the majority of tourists 

surveyed are not bothered by the presence of wind farms (NFO System Three, 2002; NFO 

WorldGroup, 2003; BWEA, 2006). 

In the international studies, the sensitive siting of wind farms has been documented as the main 

mitigating factor (NFO System Three, 2002); this was also expressed by the stakeholders. It was the 

opinion of a number of stakeholders that the wind farms needed to be sited away from tourism 

corridors and nodes and at least a fair distance apart so that visitors would not view a constant 

montage of wind turbines when travelling up the coast. Although the proposed Project is a small 

facility and likely to have a low negative impact on tourism which would be confined to the local 



area (as assessed in Section 13.4.10 above), in conjunction with the other proposals within the West 

Coast District it could well result in a higher cumulative impact especially due to its location on the 

R27 which is one of the main coastal routes. The impact on tourism cannot be quantified in 

economic terms, however, there is no doubt that the presence of a number of wind energy facilities 

would result in a negative impact to the ‘sense of place’ of the West Coast, the essence of many 

tourism establishments . 

The cumulative impact on tourism is therefore assessed to be negative; local, district, and provincial 

in extent; long term to permanent in duration; medium intensity; and is highly probable. The impact 

is assessed to be of medium‐high significance to the decision‐making process. 

Not many measures are available at the project level for mitigating cumulative impacts over and 

above the project level recommendations relating to site layout and screening. It is more of a 

challenge for decision‐makers at the various tiers of government to approve those developments 

which are considered more socially and environmentally acceptable. 

Renewable Energy 

As set out in the Integrated Resource Plan for Electricity (IRP) 2010, renewable energy forms an 

important component of the energy mix going forward over the next 30 years with wind a significant 

component thereof. The cabinet approved policy (the ‘policy‐adjusted IRP’) indicates that renewable 

energy has a capacity of 17.8 GW out of a total energy capacity of 42.5 GW. Of this, wind comprises 

8.4 GW and this is proposed to come on stream from 2014 onwards, over and above an already 

committed 700 MW for 2012 and 2013. In particular, the White Paper on Sustainable Energy for the 

Western Cape Province (2010) sets out a target for the Province. It is stipulated that 15% of 

electricity consumed in the Province will come from renewable energy sources by 2014. The 

potential total capacity of all the proposed wind projects (excluding the wind and solar hybrids) in 

the West Coast District is roughly calculated to be 2,300‐2,350 MW. This would more than meet the 

requirements of the provincial energy targets, over the following 30 years. 

The cumulative impact on renewable energy development and associated climate change mitigation 

is therefore assessed to be positive; provincial and national in extent; long term to permanent in 

duration; medium intensity; and is highly probable. The impact is assessed to be of medium‐high 

significance to the decision‐making process. 

No mitigation is recommended. 

Economic and Employment Impacts 

Although the Project itself would yield relatively minor benefits for the local economy, given the 

appropriate enabling environment and in combination with the projected capacity of renewable 

energy generation, the impacts could be significant. Of importance is the fact that the renewable 

energy sector would require a wide range of skills to implement the various technologies (Agama 

Energy, 2003). Experience from the EU has shown that the wind energy sector creates the following 

direct employment: manufacturers (37%); component manufacturers (22%); developers (16%); 

installation, repair, operation and maintenance (11%); utilities and IPPs (9%); consultancy / 

engineering (3); research and development (1%); financial / insurance (0.3%) and other (1%) (EWEA, 

2009). This highlights the significant potential in the manufacturing sector (specifically for wind 

turbine components) which is not yet established in South Africa and would require a high number 

of artisans. The findings of the a study undertaken by Agama Energy (2003: p.ii) shows that 



“renewable energy technologies offer a quantifiable potential for creating and sustaining new and 

decentralised employment in South Africa, which can offset some of the employment attrition that 

is a current trend in the conventional energy sectors”. This has associated economic benefits as well 

as skills development and training opportunities. 

The cumulative impact on the economy is therefore assessed to be positive; local, district, provincial 

and national in extent; long term to permanent in duration; medium intensity; and is highly 

probable. The impact is assessed to be of medium‐high significance to the decision‐making process. 

No mitigation is recommended. 


Decommissioning and restoration activities are likely to have similar impacts as those identified for 

the construction phase. There are likely to be fewer skills and training opportunities available 

because at the end of the projected design life of 25 years, more skills would are likely to be 

established. The only major difference would be that the removal of infrastructure would have an 

overall positive visual impact and should some infrastructure remain, it would be a lasting visual 

impact. 

13.6 ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVES 

Three options have been assessed, Option 1 (14 x larger N77 turbines), Option 2 (16 x smaller N60 

turbines) and the No‐Go Option. 

13.6.1 Assessment of Impacts for Option 1 and Option 2 

Options 1 and 2 are assessed to have the same impact for all the identified potential impacts in 

Sections 13.3, 13.4 and 13.5. The only material difference is the size (height) and number of turbines 

which has been assessed as having the same impact in the VIA; medium‐high during operation. 

However the VIA (Oberholzer and Lawson, 2011: 23) also concludes that: 

The difference between the layouts assessed is marginal in terms of visual impact, the 

viewsheds and visibility as shown in the photomontages being similar in both cases. However 

Option 1 would have fewer turbines and be further from the R27 Route, and although the 

turbines are slightly higher, Option 1 would create marginally less visual clutter on the skyline. 

Table 13.1 summarises the social impacts which are the same for both Options 1 and 2. The SIA 

indicates no preference for either of these options. Although it must be noted that in terms of social 

acceptability, stakeholders interviewed largely preferred the option with the least environmental 

impacts which would be Option 1 because of the reduced landtake. 

13.6.2 Assessment of Impacts for the No‐Go Option 

The impacts of pursuing the No‐Go Option are both positive and negative as follows: 

The benefits would be that there is no change in status quo in terms of the negative impacts 

described above during all project phases which would be experienced by neighbours, society and 



the landscape – namely through disruption, noise, visual, road safety, and tourism impacts. The 

impact is therefore neutral. 

There would be an opportunity loss in terms of contributing to the renewable energy targets for the 

Western Cape Province and nationally. This is assessed to be a low negative impact because of the 

scale of the Project which is considered small in comparison to other renewable energy facilities. 

There would also be an opportunity loss in terms of job creation, skills development and associated 

economic multipliers for the local economy. This is assessed to be a low negative impact because of 

the scale of the Project and the limited numbers of jobs created. 



Table 13.1: Significance of social impacts 

DESCRIPTION 

OF THE IMPACT 

Employment, training 

and skills development 

Economic multiplier 

effects 

Indirect effects of 

additional workers on 

site – eg. damage or 

loss to neighbouring 

farms 

Impacts of non‐local 

workforce on society 

(introduction of social 

ills such as competition 

for services, disease 

and crime) 

NATURE / 

STATUS 

Positive 

Positive 


Local; District; 

Provincial 


Provincial 

CONSTRUCTION 

SIGNIFICANCE 

(WITHOUT 

MITIGATION) 

Temporary Low High Probability Low 


Negative Local Temporary Low Improbable Low 


Visual impact* Negative Local Short Term 

Disruption and damage 

to adjacent properties 

from construction 

activities 

Turbines: 

Medium‐High; 

Substation & 

Roads: Medium 

Highly Probably 

Turbines: 


Substation & 

Roads: Medium 


MITIGATION 

Implement local 

employment policy 


procurement policy 

Implement 

comprehensive 

employee induction 

programme 

Implement 

comprehensive 


programme 

Screening substation 

with berms; blend 

access roads with 

contours 

CEMP to address 

noise and dust 

control; complaints 

procedure; 

rehabilitation 

SIGNIFICANCE 

(WITH 

MITIGATION) 

Low‐Medium 

Low‐Medium 

Negligible 

Negligible 

Turbines: 


Substation & 

Roads: 

Medium‐Low 

Negligible 



DESCRIPTION 

OF THE IMPACT 

Employment, training 

and skills development 


effects 

NATURE / 

STATUS 

Positive 

Positive 



Provincial 


Provincial 

OPERATION 

SIGNIFICANCE 

(WITHOUT 

MITIGATION) 

Long term Low Probable Low 

Long term Low Probable Low 

MITIGATION 





SIGNIFICANCE 

(WITH 

MITIGATION) 

Landowner revenue Positive Local Long term Low Highly probable Low None Low 

Diversification of local 

economy and stability 

Positive Local; District Long term Low Probable Low None Low 

Visual impact* Negative Local Long term 

Road safety Negative Local 

Short to medium 

term 

Turbines: 


Substation & 

Roads: Medium 

Highly probable 

Turbines: 


Substation & 

Roads: Medium 

Low Unknown Low 

Screening substation 

with berms; blend 

access roads with 

contours 

VIA Mitigation; 

Site tours 



Low 

Low 

Turbines: 


Substation & 

Roads: 

Medium‐Low 

Noise impacts* Negative Local Short term Medium Probable Medium Noise monitoring Low 

Impact on property 

prices 

Impact on community 

identity and cohesion 

Neutral N/A N/A N/A N/A Neutral N/A Neutral 

Neutral N/A N/A N/A N/A Neutral N/A Neutral 

Impact on tourism Negative Local Long term Low Highly probable Low Site tours Low 

Cumulative impacts: 

tourism and visual 


renewable energy and 

climate change 


economy and 

employment 

Negative 

Positive 

Positive 


Provincial 

Provincial; 

National 


Provincial; 

National 

Long term to 

permanent 

Long term to 

permanent 

Long term to 

permanent 

Medium Highly probable Medium‐High N/A Medium‐High 



Low

DESCRIPTION 

OF THE IMPACT 

NATURE / 

STATUS 

Employment Positive 


effects 

Indirect effects of 

additional workers on 

site – eg. damage or 

loss to neighbouring 

farms 

Introduction of social 

ills such as competition 

for services, disease 

and crime 

Positive 



Provincial 


Provincial 


SIGNIFICANCE 

(WITHOUT 

MITIGATION) 





Visual impact* Negative Local Short Term 

Disruption and damage 

to adjacent properties 

from construction 

activities 

Turbines & 

Roads: 

Medium‐Low; 

Substation: 

Medium 

MITIGATION 





Implement 

comprehensive 


programme 

Implement 

comprehensive 


programme 

SIGNIFICANCE 

(WITH 

MITIGATION) 

Low‐Medium 

Low‐Medium 

Negligible 

Negligible 



Probable 

Turbines & 

Roads: 

Medium‐Low; 

Substation: 

Medium 


* Based on the assessments undertaken as part of the VIA (Oberholzer and Lawson, 2011) and the NIA (Williams, 2011) 

Remove structures, 

scarify roads and 

revegetate; Screen 

substation if 

remaining 

CEMP to address 

noise and dust 

control; complaints 

procedure; 

rehabilitation 

Turbines & 

Roads: Low; 

Substation: 

Medium 

Negligible



14 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

The Scoping and EIA process for the Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm has been undertaken by 

the Environmental Evaluation Unit (EEU) in terms of the National Environmental Management Act 

(107 of 1998) EIA Regulations (GN R385, GN R386 and GN R387 of April 2006). The process has 

involved working closely with the relevant specialists, liaising with the commenting authorities, 

consulting with the public, as well as iteratively feeding back to the applicant to inform the Project 

design. 

This Scoping and EIA process has assessed the Project at one location only, since this is an existing 

wind farm. The No‐Go Option which involves maintaining the Status Quo has also been assessed. In 

addition, the EIA process has comparatively assessed two layout options. The Scoping and EIA 

process has also considered, although not comparatively assessed, Technology and Input 

Alternatives. 

Through an iterative process the alternatives have been considered, environmental impacts have 

been identified and assessed, and the specialists have recommended mitigation measures to 

address these impacts. Table 14.1, Table 14.2, and Table 14.3 summarise the impacts identified for 

construction, operation and decommissioning respectively and are followed by the general 

conclusions from each specialist study. Note that the Botanical Impact Assessment was the only 

study to establish different significance ratings for each Option and this is included in the tables to 

allow for a comparison. 



Table 14.1: Summary of the significance of impacts arising during the construction phase 

DESCRIPTION 

OF THE IMPACT 

Loss of up to 3 ha of sensitive vegetation and 

portions of local populations of plant Species 

of Conservation Concern 

Loss of up to 4 ha of sensitive vegetation and 

portions of local populations of plant Species 

of Conservation Concern 

BOTANICAL IMPACTS 

Option 1 Negative 


AVIFAUNAL IMPACTS 

WITHOUT MITIGATION WITH MITIGATION 

NATURE SIGNIFICANCE NATURE SIGNIFICANCE 

Low ‐ 

Medium 

Medium ‐ 

High 

Negative 

Negative 

Low – 

Medium 

Medium – 

High 

Displacement of priority species Negative Low Negative Low 

Displacement of priority species due to footprint of wind 

farm (habitat loss) 

SOCIAL IMPACTS 

Negative Low Negative Low 

Employment, training and skills development Positive Low Positive 

Economic multiplier effects Positive Low Positive 

Indirect effects of additional workers on site – e.g. damage 

or loss to neighbouring farms 

Impacts of non‐local workforce on society (introduction of 

social ills such as competition for services, disease and 

crime) 

Low – 

Medium 

Low – 

Medium 

Negative Low Negative Negligible 


Visual impact See Visual Impacts below 

Disruption and damage to adjacent properties from 

construction activities 

VISUAL IMPACTS 

Turbines Negative 


Medium‐ 

High 

Negative 

Substation Negative Medium Negative 

Internal access roads Negative Medium Negative 

Impact of the construction noise on the surrounding 

environment 

NOISE IMPACTS 

Medium‐ 

High 

Medium‐ 

Low 

Medium‐ 

Low 

Negative Medium Negative Low 



Table 14.2: Summary of the significance of impacts arising during the operational phase 

DESCRIPTION 

OF THE IMPACT 

Habitat fragmentation; disruption of optimal 

fire regime; alien plant invasion 

Habitat fragmentation; disruption of optimal 

fire regime; alien plant invasion 

Cumulative impacts on botany 





Low ‐ 

Medium 

Positive Low 

Medium ‐ 


Negative Neutral 

High 

Low negative to low positive impact provided Option 1 

pursued and ecological mitigation successful 


Bird mortality due to collisions with the turbine blades Negative Low Negative Low 



farm (Habitat loss) 


Cumulative impacts on avifauna Potentially significant, monitoring required to confirm 


Employment, training and skills development Positive Low Positive Low 

Economic multiplier effects Positive Low Positive Low 

Landowner revenue Positive Low Positive Low 

Diversification of local economy and stability Positive Low Positive Low 


Road safety Negative Low Negative Low 

Noise impacts See Noise Impacts below 

Impact on tourism Negative Low Negative Low 

Cumulative impacts: tourism and visual Negative 

Cumulative impacts: renewable energy and climate change Positive 

Cumulative impacts: economy and employment Positive 



Medium‐ 

High 

Medium‐ 

High 

Medium‐ 

High 

Medium‐ 

High 

Negative 

Positive 

Positive 

Negative 

Substation Negative Medium Negative 

Internal access roads Negative Medium Negative 

Medium‐ 

High 

Medium‐ 

High 

Medium‐ 

High 

Medium‐ 

High 

Medium‐ 

Low 

Medium‐ 

Low 

Cumulative visual impacts Negative and Medium High (Based on Turbines) 

Impact of the operational noise on the surrounding 

environment 

NOISE IMPACTS 




Table 14.3: Summary of the significance of impacts arising during the decommissioning phase 

DESCRIPTION 

OF THE IMPACT 

Disturbance to surrounding natural vegetation 

and associated facilitated alien plant invasion 

Disturbance to surrounding natural vegetation 

and associated facilitated alien plant invasion 







Low ‐ 

Medium 

Low ‐ 

Medium 

Negative Low 

Negative Low 



farm (habitat loss) 



Employment Positive Low Positive 

Economic multiplier effects Positive Low Positive 

Indirect effects of additional workers on site – eg. damage 

or loss to neighbouring farms 

Introduction of social ills such as competition for services, 

disease and crime 

Low‐ 

Medium 

Low‐ 

Medium 




Disruption and damage to adjacent properties from 

construction activities 




Medium‐ 

Low 

Negative Low 

Substation Negative Medium Negative Medium 

Internal access roads Negative 

Impact of the decommissioning noise on the surrounding 

environment 

NOISE IMPACTS 

Medium‐ 

Low 

Negative Low 




14.1 BOTANY 

The study area presents a viable opportunity for the construction and operation of a wind energy 

facility that will not have major negative botanical impacts, provided that the important mitigation 

requirements identified in the report are adequately implemented. 

Option 1 is the preferred development option (low ‐ medium negative impact before mitigation, low 

positive after mitigation), and this is in turn preferable to the No‐Go Option (low negative), provided 

that the important mitigation requirements identified in this report are adequately implemented. 

With appropriate environmental management of the development area, as well as of the remaining 

areas of natural vegetation on the greater study area (including at least 150 ha of high sensitivity 

vegetation and at least 100 ha of medium sensitivity vegetation), the overall impact of Option 1 

could be reduced to low positive. The environmental management of the overall site would have to 

be audited by annual monitoring in order to ensure compliance. If not adequately managed then 

the preferred development alternative (Option 1) would not necessarily be clearly preferable to the 

No‐Go Option, as the latter is likely to have a low negative impact over time (due mainly to ongoing 

alien plant invasion and inappropriate fire management). 

Extensive mandatory mitigation measures are proposed, including ongoing environmental 

management (notably alien vegetation, fire and grazing management) of the medium and high 

sensitivity areas in the study area; signing these areas up with CapeNature’s Stewardship 

Programme within one year of project initiation; annual monitoring of the environmental 

management; moving the internal access road linking the two turbine roads to the east by 150 m 

(which has been undertaken and is indicated on Figure 1.2 and Figure 1.3) and an extensive plant 

Search and Rescue operation prior to construction. 

If the proposed mitigation measures are followed the development may have positive impact on the 

natural environment, as current ongoing farming activities continue to result in the degradation of 

the area. 

The EEU is in support of the botanical measures as recommended by Helme (2011) above; however 

wishes to note certain points. With respect to the fire management proposed, the wind regime on 

the West Coast and the proximity of neighbouring property and adjacent infrastructure such as 

Telkom and Eskom lines, and the proposed turbines represents a risk and would need to be assessed 

at the time with input from the relevant authorities. 

Secondly, with regards to the proposed stewardship agreement; the Applicant realises that the 

potential for a stewardship agreement is at the discretion of CapeNature and does not want to limit 

a potential intervention or opportunity for biodiversity conservation to that with CapeNature alone. 

The Applicant is willing to commit to reasonable and feasible conservation measures in partnership 

with CapeNature or an alternative organisation that can independently guide and monitor the 

management of the land. For this reason, the Applicant suggests that at DEA’s discretion, an 

alternative management body or intervention can be agreed and would become part of the OEMP. 

Lastly, the landowner/s and the Applicant would have responsibility for their respective parts of the 

farm/s and would be required to comply with the provisions of CARA with respect to alien clearing 

and other provisions. 



14.2 AVIFAUNA 

In summary, the Avifaunal specialist has found that the wind facility will not pose a significant 

collision mortality risk to priority species and this negative impact is assessed to have a low 

significance to decision‐making. The greatest collision risk is posed by the seven turbines on the 

slope of Moedmaag Hill (i.e. four existing and three proposed), in the following conditions 

Between 11h00 and 17h00; 

In spring/early summer i.e. between October and December; and 

In moderate to strong winds with a southerly and westerly orientation. 

With Jackal Buzzards specifically, the estimated avoidance rate may me more than 98%, as the birds 

observed on site are most likely a resident pair. These birds have clearly become used to the four 

existing turbines and are even using them as hunting perches when stationary (pers. obs., Van der 

Westhuizen, 2011). During 30 hours of monitoring no instances were observed where Jackal 

Buzzards exhibited any “flaring” behaviour i.e. panicky behaviour to avoid the moving blades, they 

always seem to be aware of the moving blades and avoided them seemingly with ease. Whether this 

would also be the case with inexperienced, juvenile birds remains to be seen. It is therefore essential 

for carcass searches to commence as soon as possible to verify the estimates made in this study. 


Project site, as this can result in significant mortality risks. However, migratory raptors, i.e. Steppe 

Buzzard Buteo vulpinus and Yellow‐billed Kite Milvus aegyptius were recorded at passage rates of 

0.74 and 1.39 birds per hour during the summer and autumn monitoring period, when the species 

are present in southern Africa. This translates into an estimated collision rate of 0.61 and 0.63 birds 

per year for kites and buzzards respectively. In terms of existing information on the impacts of wind 

farm developments, raptors, and particularly species constantly migrating over and through a 

turbine string, are particularly prone to collision with the blades (Madders and Whitfield, 2006). 

While Yellow‐billed Kite and Steppe Buzzard are not threatened species, if the Project causes high 

numbers of casualties of these migrant raptors, this would constitute a significant negative impact of 

the facility. Given the potential inaccuracy of the predicted collision rate, the only way to verify this 

would again be to conduct carcass searches during the period when the birds are present. 

The effects of night‐time illumination on collision risks have not been adequately tested, and the 

results of studies are contradictory (Gregory et al, 2007). Studies involving lighted objects or towers 

indicate that lights may attract birds, rather than disorient or repel them, resulting in collision 

mortality (Johnson et al, 2007). This is mostly a problem for nocturnal migrants (primarily 

passerines) during poor visibility conditions. Different colour lights vary in their attractiveness to 

birds and their effect on orientation. Several studies have shown that intermittent lights have less 

than an effect on birds than constant lights, with reduced rates of mortality. In addition, some 

studies suggest that replacing white lights with red coloured lights may reduce mortality by up to 

80%. This may be due to the change in light intensity rather than the change in wavelength (Johnson 

et al, 2007). However, Ugoretz (2001) suggest that birds are more sensitive to red lights and may be 

attracted to them. Quickly flashing white strobe lights appear to be less attractive. The issue is 

however far from settled ‐ a study at Buffalo Ridge, Minnesota, where most of the collision fatalities 

were classified as nocturnal migrants, found little difference between lighted and unlighted turbines 



(Johnson et al, 2000).The consensus among researchers is to avoid lighting the turbines if possible, 

but that is against South African civil aviation regulations (Civil Aviation Regulations, 1997). The 

potential for collisions with the wind turbines due to presence of lights is not envisaged to be 

significant, primarily because the phenomenon of mass nocturnal passerine migrations is not a 

feature of the study area. However, the potential effect on nocturnal flamingo movement is 

unknown. Post – construction monitoring (carcass searches) will be required to assess, if possible, 

the extent (if any) of nocturnal fatalities that may be linked to the lighting on the turbines. 

Because the estimated collision rate is merely a rough indicator of risk it, it is necessary to verify this 

estimate with actual carcass searches on site. It is particularly important to commence carcass 

searches in the winter season to assess whether here are any flamingo casualties due to nocturnal 

collisions with the existing turbines. These searches must take place according to the recommended 

protocol, which is in accordance with the ‘Best practice guidelines for avian monitoring and impact 

mitigation at proposed wind energy development sites in southern Africa – Version’ (Jenkins et al, 

2011). The frequency of these surveys will be informed by assessments of scavenge and 

decomposition rates conducted in the initial stages of the monitoring period. Subject to the results 

of the decomposition/scavenge trials, it is proposed that a site survey is conducted twice a month 

for an initial minimum period of 12 months. After the initial 12 month period, the need for further 

monitoring will be evaluated again. If the results of the monitoring indicate a significant mortality 

rate for priority species, appropriate mitigation measures would need to be implemented. These 

could include any or a combination of the following (Smallwood 2008): 





With respect to displacement of avifauna, more studies are needed and should be peer‐reviewed in 

the public domain. Research indicates that, with few exceptions, the displacement effect of wind 

developments on raptors is low to negligible (Madders and Whitfield, 2008). This trend seems to be 

supported by the results of the limited post‐construction monitoring conducted at the existing four 

turbines. The significance of this negative impact is assessed as low and no specific mitigation 

measures are recommended. 

At the Project site, direct habitat loss is not regarded as a major impact on avifauna, relative to other 

potential impacts such as disturbance or collisions. This negative impact is assessed having a low 

significance to decision‐making. However, it is recommended that the infrastructure footprint must 

be restricted to the minimum, in accordance with the botanical recommendations. 

It is impossible to say at this stage what the cumulative impact of all the proposed developments 

along the West Coast will be on birds, firstly because there is no baseline to measure it against, and 

secondly because the extent of actual impacts will only become known once a few wind farms are 

developed. It is therefore imperative that pre‐construction and post‐construction monitoring is 

implemented at all the new proposed sites, in accordance with the ‘Best practice guidelines for avian 

monitoring and impact mitigation at proposed wind energy development sites in southern Africa – 

Version 1’ (Jenkins et al, 2011), which was released by the Endangered Wildlife Trust and Birdlife 



South Africa in April 2011. This will provide the necessary data to better assess the cumulative 

impact of wind development along the West Coast. 

From a potential bird impact perspective, there is very little to choose between the two proposed 

alternatives. The seven turbines on slope of Moedmaag Hill are likely to pose the biggest risk of 

collision, and the position of these is identical for both lay‐outs. The potential displacement footprint 

of the two alternative lay‐outs are also very similar, resulting in no clear preference from a bird 

impact perspective. 

14.3 VISUAL 

From field surveys it was evident that the scale of the proposed wind turbines tends to make them 

visible for more than 10 km away, although there is a drop in the significance of this visibility beyond 

10 km because of their slender form. 

The proposed wind turbines would be visually prominent in the local area, being located on the 

skyline of Moedmaag hill, and close to two important arterial routes with scenic significance in the 

region. 

There are a number of important wetlands and protected natural areas in the general area. 

However, except for the Tienie Versveld Wild Flower Reserve, which is 2 km away, most of the 

protected areas are 5 km or more from the proposed wind farm project. 

The visibility of the wind turbines is limited from some viewpoints because of being screened by 

Moedmaag Hill and view shadows created by the hilly topography generally. 

The view catchment area would only be marginally increased by the addition of 14 to 16 wind 

turbines over the original four turbines and this has been modelled. 

An earlier visual impact assessment of the Darling Demonstration Wind Farm was carried out in 2001 

and included an assessment of 10 wind turbines, with a first phase of four turbines. No fatal flaws 

were identified in this visual assessment. 

The fact that four wind turbines have been established on the site means that the locality has 

already become a bona fide wind farm site. Furthermore, a complement of 18 to 20 wind turbines is 

not considered large in comparison to wind farms being proposed elsewhere. 

The difference between the two layouts assessed is marginal in terms of visual impact, the 

viewsheds and visibility as shown in the photomontages being similar in both cases. However Option 

1 would have fewer turbines and be further from the R27 Route, and although the turbines are 

slightly higher, Option 1 would create marginally less visual clutter on the skyline. 

The prospect of a larger wind farm of some 80 wind turbines at Rheboksfontein, not far from the 

site, would increase the cumulative visual impacts on the general area, but at the same time would 

reduce the significance of this Project which is smaller. 

The siting of the proposed second substation close to the R27 Route would add additional visual 

impacts of medium significance. The combining of the two substations, on the other hand, would 

result in limited or no additional visual impacts. 

It is difficult to mitigate the visual effects of the wind turbines, given their large vertical size, and the 



constraints of the farm boundaries at this particular site, although consideration could be given to 

using more muted colours. The visual specialists have recommended a number of general mitigation 

measures for the wind energy infrastructure. 

In conclusion, it is not anticipated that the proposed Project would have any fatal flaws from a visual 

perspective, given that one portion is already a wind farm, and provided the recommended 

mitigation measures are adopted. Option 1 is preferred to Option 2 for reasons given above. 

Monitoring, especially during the construction phase, is essential. 

14.4 HERITAGE 

Aside from the visual impacts associated with the proposed development, no other significant 

impacts to heritage resources are foreseen. The VIA will need to quantify the degree of visual impact 

that will be experienced. 

This report was intended to be a scoping assessment, but included a field component. It is believed 

that no further heritage assessments (aside from the VIA) are required. 

Subject to the approval of Heritage Western Cape and to the outcome of the VIA, the proposed 

Project should be allowed to proceed with no further heritage intervention required. It should be 

noted, however, that unmarked human burials can occur anywhere, particularly in sandy substrates, 

and that should such a find be made during construction then work in its vicinity should be halted 

and the find reported to Heritage Western Cape. 

14.5 NOISE 

The impact of the noise pollution that can be expected from the site during the construction and 

operational phase will largely depend on the climatic conditions at the site. The ambient noise 

increases as the wind speed increases. 

During the construction phase, there will be an impact on the immediate surrounding environment 

from the construction activities, especially if pile driving is to be done. This however will only occur if 

the underlying geological structure requires this. The area surrounding the construction site will be 

affected for short periods of time in all directions, should a number of main pieces of equipment be 

used simultaneously. The number of construction vehicles that will be used in the Project will add to 

the existing ambient levels and will most likely cause a disturbing noise. 

For the operational phase, Options 1 and 2 were assessed. For both options respectively, the noise 

produced by the wind turbines will exceed the 45dB(A) day/night limit at the Windhoek Farm 

Workers homes at 12 m/s wind speed. As the wind speed increases, the ambient noise also increases 

and masks the wind turbine noise. The critical wind speeds are thus between 4‐6 m/s when there is 

a possibility of little masking. At 12 m/s the wind speed is such that it is highly unlikely that the 

turbine noise will be heard. The location of the Option 1 and Option 2 wind turbine generators all 

met the recommended 500 m setback distance. 

Recommendations for the construction phase were that all construction operations should only 

occur during daylight hours if possible; piling should only occur during the day to take advantage of 

unstable atmospheric conditions; construction staff should receive “noise sensitivity” training; and 



an ambient noise survey should be conducted during the construction phase. 

For the operational phase it is recommended that the noise impact from the wind turbine 

generators should be measured to ensure that the impact is within the recommended limits. The 

recommendations for the decommissioning phase are the same as for the construction phase. 

14.6 SOCIAL 

The main benefits during all phases of the Project are the employment training and skills 

development opportunities with associated benefits to the economy through the multiplier effect. 

The significance is assessed as low positive for all phases of the Project, while during construction 

the implementation of a local employment and procurement policy could increase these benefits to 

low‐medium. 



disruption have all been assessed to have a low negative impact. This can be reduced to a negligible 

impact in all cases through the implementation of a comprehensive employee induction programme; 

measures to control dust and noise; a complaints procedure; and rehabilitation. These best practice 

measures are typically covered in more detail in the CEMP. The VIA has indicated that the visual 

impact during the construction phase would be medium (substation and roads) to high‐medium 

(turbines). The visual impact of the turbines cannot be mitigated through screening, however, the 

substation could be screened by berms and access roads could be blended with contours which 

would reduce the those impacts to medium‐low. The social impacts arising from decommissioning 

are similar and have the same significance as those predicted during construction. 

The social benefits during operation have been discussed above, however, there are a number of 

potential negative impacts. Impacts on property prices and community cohesion have both been 

assessed as neutral and therefore no mitigation is proposed. Impacts on tourism are assessed to be 

negative low significance and could be mitigated through site tours and publicity, and will remain 

low. The impact on noise has been assessed as having a negative medium significance, which could 

be mitigated through noise monitoring to reduce to low significance. The impact on road safety has 

been assessed as low and site tours could assist in reducing driver distraction. The VIA has indicated 

that the visual impact during the construction phase would be medium (substation and roads) to 

high‐medium (turbines). The visual impact of the turbines cannot be mitigated through screening, 

however, the substation could be screened by berms and access roads could be blended with 

contours which would reduce the those impacts to medium‐low. 


impacts in terms of renewable energy generation are assessed as medium‐high positive, similarly the 

cumulative impacts on employment and the economy are medium‐high positive. No mitigation is 

proposed. 












The Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm is to date the smallest wind farm proposed on the Cape 

West Coast and the extension to an existing facility, the Darling National Demonstration Project, 

which has not revealed any material social impacts to date. In terms of potential social impacts 

arising from the Project, the SIA has found that there is no reason for the competent authority to 

reject the application on social grounds. 

14.7 IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE KERRIE FONTEIN AND DARLING WIND FARM 

The avoidance of negative environmental impacts, wherever possible, has been adopted as the 

approach for this environmental assessment process, with mitigation measures as a secondary 

reaction to those impacts which cannot be prevented. Residual negative impacts which remain after 

mitigation are mostly of low or negligible significance for the avifaunal, social and noise impacts. 

Those remaining impacts which cannot be mitigated include the permanent loss of sensitive 

vegetation; 3 ha for Option 1 (assessed as low‐medium); and 4 ha for Option 2 (assessed as medium‐ 

high), and the visual impacts of the turbines (medium‐high), the substation (medium‐low) and the 

internal access roads (medium‐low). 

An important benefit will be the employment, training and skills development, and associated 

indirect benefits for the local economy generated during all phases of the Project, although this is 

considered to be of low significance during operation and low‐medium significance during 

construction because of the limited number of jobs and the requirement for skills that may not be 

readily available in the area. In comparison to the status quo, the botanical environment would be 

enhanced mainly through the management of the existing alien vegetation; control of trampling and 

grazing by livestock; fire management; and conservation of remaining natural vegetation. 

Option 1 and Option 2 were comparatively assessed by the specialists. In most cases it was found 

that there was no preference, or that the difference was marginal. However the botanical impact 

assessment found that Option 1 was more favourable on the basis that there would be fewer 

turbines and therefore a smaller footprint, and also in terms of turbine location, the highly sensitive 

areas could be avoided to a greater extent. There is also a technical preference for Option 1 which 

yields a higher energy output based on the locations of N77 turbines in relation to the wind 

resources; this is when compared to the efficiency of the N60 turbines used in Option 2. 

There are a number of potentially significant cumulative impacts which would arise from the 

development when considered in conjunction with the numerous other renewable energy proposals 

in the West Coast District Municipality. The impacts on botany are assessed as low negative with the 

possibility of low positive should Option 1 be pursued and the ecological mitigation successful in 

conserving remaining natural vegetation. The cumulative impacts on avifauna are potentially 

significant although a lack of knowledge requires monitoring to confirm this. The cumulative impacts 

on the economy and employment would be a high positive impact for the region with many indirect 

socio‐economic benefits. Cumulative visual impacts of the turbines are negative and assessed as 

medium‐high because of their scale in the landscape. 



The Project is further supported by the current policy context and contributes to climate change 

mitigation through the investment in clean, renewable energy generation and this cumulative 

impact is assessed has being of high significance. 

The No‐Go Option results in no change to the status quo which would be preferable for avifauna, 

noise, and some social aspects of the development such as impact on tourism and road safety. 

However, the No‐Go Option may not necessarily be preferable for all disciplines such as botany 

which would benefit from the opportunity for management and conservation, instead of being 

allowed to degrade further under current management practices. Social benefits such as the 

employment, training and business opportunities would not be realised. At a broader level, the No‐ 

Go Option would represent a lost opportunity for South Africa to supplement its current energy 

needs with clean, renewable energy. 

On the basis of the information above, the EEU finds no reason or fatal flaw which should prevent 

the Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm from being granted environmental authorisation on the 

basis that the recommendations within this EIR are adhered to. Option 1 is supported as the 

preferred option. 



15 REFERENCES 

General 

Atmosfair. 2010. [Online]. Available: www.atmosfair.de/en/home/ [2010, 08]. 

Barbour, T. 2005. Guideline for involving social assessment specialists in EIA processes. Republic of South 

Africa, Provincial Government of the Western Cape, Department of Environmental Affairs & Development 

Planning, Cape Town. 

Brownlie, S. 2005. Guideline for involving biodiversity specialists in EIA processes: Edition 1. CSIR Report No 

ENV‐S‐C 2005 053 C. Republic of South Africa, Provincial Government of the Western Cape, Department of 

Environmental Affairs & Development Planning, Cape Town. 

Cape West Coast Biosphere Reserve. 2010. Spatial Planning [Online]. Available: 

http://www.capebiosphere.co.za/html/Biosphere/spatialplanning.html [2010, 12]. 

Creamer. 2010. Electricity plan clings to pragmatism over aspiration, 22 October 2010 [Online]. Available: 

http://www.polity.org.za/article/electricity‐plan‐clings‐to‐pragmatism‐over‐aspiration‐2010‐10‐22 [2010, 

10]. 

Creamer. 2011. Fresh concern that SA is poised to abandon Refit in favour of competitive bidding [Online]. 

Available: http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/fresh‐concern‐that‐sa‐is‐poised‐to‐abandon‐refit‐in‐ 

favour‐of‐competitive‐bidding‐2011‐06‐23 [2011, 06]. 

Dennis Moss. 1999. Proposed Cape West Coast Biosphere Reserve, Application for Nomination. Submitted by 

Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, November 1999. 

Department of Energy. 2010. Integrated Resource Plan for Electricity [Online]. Available: http://www.doe‐ 

irp.co.za/content/IRP_for_Electricity.pdf [2010, 07]. 

Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning. 2010. 24.06.2010‐last update Environmental 

Impact Assessments [Online]. Available: 

http://www.capegateway.gov.za/eng/yourgovernment/gsc/406/services/11537/10199#scoping [2010, 07]. 

Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning. 2007. Sustainable Energy Strategy and 

Programme of Action for the Western Cape [Online]. Available: 

http://www.capegateway.gov.za/Text/2008/3/1.sustenrgstrat_mainsummary_22jan_2008.pdf [2010,07]. 

Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning. 2008. A Climate Change Strategy and Action 

Plan for the Western Cape [Online]. Available: 

http://www.capegateway.gov.za/other/2009/1/cc_strategy_and_action_plan_finaljanuary_09.pdf 

[2010,07]. 

Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning. 2009. NEMA Environmental Impact 

Assessment Regulations Guideline and Information Document Series: Guideline on Public Participation. 

Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. 1998. Guideline Document, EIA Regulations. 

Implementation of Sections 21 22 and 26 of the Environment Conservation Act. April 1998. 

Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. 2002. Integrated Environmental Management Guidelines 

Series. Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT). Pretoria. 



Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. 2006. General Guide to the Environmental Impact 

Assessment Regulations, 2006. Pretoria. 

Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. 2006. Integrated Environmental Management Series, in 

support of the EIA Regulations, 2005. Pretoria. 

Department of Minerals and Energy. 2007. Energy Security Master Plan: Electricity. 2007‐2025 [Online]. 

Available: http://www.dme.gov.za/pdfs/energy/electricity/energy_sec_msp_elec.pdf [2010,07]. 

Ecosense. 2011. Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm. Draft Environmental Management Programme. 

Prepared for Oelsner Group. 

Edkins, M., Marquard, A. and H. Winkler. 2010a. Assessing the effectiveness of national solar and wind energy 

policies in South Africa. Prepared for the United Nations Environment Programme Research Project 

Enhancing information for renewable energy technology deployment in Brazil, China and South Africa, by 

the Energy Research Centre (UCT). Final Report June 2010. 

Edkins, M., Marquard, A. and H. Winkler. 2010b. South Africa’s renewable energy policy roadmaps. Prepared 

for the United Nations Environment Programme Research Project Enhancing information for renewable 

energy technology deployment in Brazil, China and South Africa, by the Energy Research Centre (UCT). Final 

Report June 2010. 

EEU. 2001. EIA for Darling National Demonstration Wind Farm. Dec 2001. Draft for Public Comment. 

EEU. 2004. Final Scoping Report for Darling National Demonstration Wind Farm. October 2004. 

EEU. 2010. The Proposed Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm. Final Scoping Report. DEA Ref: 

12/12/20/1928EEU. University of Cape Town. 

Hagemann, K. 2008. Mesoscale Wind Atlas of South Africa. PhD Thesis, UCT. November 2008. 

Helme, N. 2010. Botanical scoping assessment of proposed Kerrie Fontein and Darling Phase 2 Wind Farm. 

Unpublished report for the EEU, UCT. Nick Helme Botanical Surveys, Scarborough. 

Heritage Western Cape 2010. 04/05/2010‐last update. What is the heritage Western Cape? [Online]. Available: 

http://www.capegateway.gov.za/eng/directories/public_entities/1063/72512 [2010, 07]. 

Infomine. 2010. Operating Mines and Quarries and Mineral Processing Plants in the Republic of South Africa, 

2006 [Online]. Available: 

http://www.infomine.com/publications/docs/DMESouthAfrica/OperatingMines&Quarries.pdf [2010, 07]. 

Keatimilwe, K. and Ashton, P.J. 2005. Guideline for the review of specialist input in EIA processes: Edition 1. 

CSIR Report No ENV‐S‐C 2005 053 B. Republic of South Africa, Provincial Government of the Western Cape, 

Department of Environmental Affairs & Development Planning, Cape Town. 

Kyoto Protocol on the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. UN Doc FCCC/CP/1997/Add, 1, 

December 10, 1997; 37 ILM 22; 1998. 

Lochner, P. 2005. Guideline for Environmental Management Plans. CSIR Report No ENV‐S‐C 2005‐053 H. 

Republic of South Africa, Provincial Government of the Western Cape, Department of Environmental Affairs 

& Development Planning, Cape Town. 



Münster, F. 2005. Guideline for determining the scope of specialist involvement in EIA processes: Edition 1. 

CSIR Report No ENV‐S‐C 2005 053 A. Republic of South Africa, Provincial Government of the Western Cape, 


National Energy Regulator of South Africa. 2009. South Africa renewable Energy feed‐In Tariff (REFIT) [Online]. 

Available: 

http://www.innovent.com.uy/site/content/legislacion/south_africa_renewable_energy_feed_in_tariff.pdf 

[2010,07]. 

Nordex. 2010. [Homepage of Nordex] [Online]. Available: http://www.nordex‐online.com/en [2010, 08]. 

Oberholzer, B. 2005. Guideline for involving visual & aesthetic specialists in EIA processes: Edition 1. CSIR 

Report No ENV‐S‐C 2005 053 F. Republic of South Africa, Provincial Government of the Western Cape, 


Provincial Government Western Cape. 1998. Western Cape Nature Conservation Board Act (No. 15 of 1998). 

Provincial Government Western Cape. 1999. Western Cape Planning and Development Act (No. 7 of 1999). 

Provincial Government Western Cape. 2000. Bioregional Planning Framework for the Western Cape Province. 

Provincial Government Western Cape. 2000. Western Cape Nature Conservation Laws Amendment Act (No. 3 

of 2000). 

Provincial Government Western Cape. 2001. White Paper on Sustainable Tourism Development and Promotion 

in the Western Cape. 

Provincial Government Western Cape. 2002. Western Cape Planning and Development Amendment Bill. 

Provincial Government Western Cape. 2004. Western Cape Tourism Act (No. 1 of 2004). 

Provincial Government Western Cape. 2007. The Western Cape Sustainable Development Implementation 

Plan. 

Provincial Government Western Cape. 2008. The IKAPA Growth and Development Strategy. 

Republic of S.A. 1998. National Environmental Management Act (No. 107 of 1998). 

Republic of S.A. 1998. National Environmental Water Act (No. 36 of 1998). 

Republic of S.A. 1998. National Veld and Forest Fire Act (No. 101 of 1998). 

Republic of S.A. 1998. White Paper on the Energy Policy of the Republic of SA (No. 36 of 1998). 

Republic of S.A. 1999. Electricity Act (No.41 of 1987). 

Republic of S.A. 1999. National Heritage Resources Act (No.25 of 1999). 

Republic of S.A. 2003. National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act (No. 57 of 2003). 

Republic of S.A. 2004. National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act (No.10 of 2004). 

Republic of S.A. 2004. National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act (No.39 of 2004). 

Republic of S.A. 2006. Electricity Regulation Act (No.4 of 2006). 



Republic of S.A. 2006. Electricity Regulation Act: Electricity Regulations on New Generation Capacity (No.4 of 

2006). 

Republic of S.A. 2008. National Environmental Energy Act (No.34 of 2008). 

Republic of S.A. 2008. National Environmental Management: Waste Act (No. 59 of 2008). 

Rutovitz, J. 2010. South African energy sector jobs to 2030. Prepared for Greenpeace Africa by the Institute for 

Sustainable Futures. University of Technology, Sydney, Australia. 

Saayman, I. 2005. Guideline for involving hydrogeologists in EIA processes: Edition 1. CSIR Report No ENV‐S‐C 

2005 053 D. Republic of South Africa, Provincial Government of the Western Cape, Department of 

Environmental Affairs & Development Planning, Cape Town. 

The Gold Standard: Premium Quality Carbon Credits. [Homepage of The Gold Standard] [Online]. Available: 

http://www.cdmgoldstandard.org/ [2010, 07]. 

UNFCCC, 2010. About CDM [Online]. Available: http://cdm.unfccc.int/about/index.html [2010, 08]. 

Van Zyl, H.W., de Wit, M.P. & Leiman, A. 2005. Guideline for involving economists in EIA processes: Edition 1. 

CSIR Report No ENV‐S‐C 2005 053 G. Republic of South Africa, Provincial Government of the Western Cape, 


Winter, S. & Baumann, N. 2005. Guideline for involving heritage specialists in EIA processes: Edition 1. CSIR 

Report No ENV‐S‐C 2005 053 E. Republic of South Africa, Provincial Government of the Western Cape, 


Botanical 

DEA. 2009. The Draft National List of Threatened Ecosystems. Government Gazette Vol. 533: No. 32689. 

National Printer, Pretoria. 

De Villiers, C., Driver, A., Brownlie, S., Day, E., Euston‐Brown, D., Helme, N., Holmes, P., Job, N., and A. Rebelo. 

2005. Fynbos Forum Ecosystem Guidelines for Environmental Assessment in the Western Cape. Fynbos 

Forum, c/o Botanical Society of South Africa, Conservation Unit, Kirstenbosch, Cape Town. 

Mucina, L. and M. Rutherford. (eds.) 2006. Vegetation map of South Africa, Lesotho, and Swaziland. Strelitzia 

19. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria. 

Raimondo, D., Von Staden, L., Foden, W., Victor, J.E., Helme, N.A., Turner, R.C., Kamundi, D.A., and P.A. 

Manyama. (eds.) 2009. Red List of South African Plants 2009. Strelitzia 25. South African National 

Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria. 

Rouget, M., Reyers, B., Jonas, Z., Desmet, P., Driver, A., Maze, K., Egoh, B. and R.M. Cowling. 2004. South 

African National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment 2004: Technical Report. Vol. 1: Terrestrial Component. 

South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria. 

Von Hase, A., Rouget, M., Maze, K. and N. Helme. 2003. A fine‐scale conservation plan for Cape Lowlands 

Renosterveld: Technical report. CCU Report # 2/03, Botanical Society of South Africa, Kirstenbosch. 



Avifaunal 

Avian Powerline Interation Committee (APLIC). 1994. Mitigating bird collisions with power lines: the state of 

the art in 1994. Edison Electric Institute. Washington DC. 

Barnes, K.N. (ed.) 2000. The Eskom Red Data Book of Birds of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. BirdLife 

South Africa, Johannesburg. 

Barnes, K.N. 1998. The Important Bird Areas of southern Africa. BirdLife South Africa, Johannesburg. 

Boshoff, A. 2004. Commissioned to estimate the potential impact of a demonstration wind farm on the birds of 

the Darling‐Yzerfontein area, Western Cape Province. Report to Environmental Evaluation Unit (EEU), 

University of Cape Town. 

Drewitt, A.L. and R.H.W. Langston. 2006. ‘Assessing the impacts of wind farms on birds’. Ibis. 148: 29‐42. 

Fox, A.D., Desholm, M., Kahlert, J., Christensen, T.K. and I.B.K. Petersen. 2006. Information needs to support 

environmental impact assessments of the effects of European marine offshore wind farms on birds. In 

Special Issue: Wind, Fire and Water: Renewable Energy and Birds. Ibis. 148 (1): 129–144. 

Harrison, J.A., Drewitt, D.G., Underhill, L.G., Herremans, M., Tree, A.J., Parker, V. and C.J. Brown (eds). 1997. 

The atlas of southern African birds. Vol. 1&2. BirdLife South Africa, Johannesburg. 

Hobbs, J.C.A. and J.A. Ledger. 1986a. The Environmental Impact of Linear Developments; Power lines and 

Avifauna. Third International Conference on Environmental Quality and Ecosystem Stability. Israel, June 

1986. 

Hobbs, J.C.A. and J.A. Ledger. 1986b. Power lines, Birdlife and the Golden Mean. Fauna and Flora 44:23‐27. 

Jenkins, A. 2003. Populations and movements of priority bird species in the vicinity of the proposed Darling 

National Demonstration Wind Farm facility. Results of pre‐construction monitoring supplementary to the 

initial EIA, completed on contract to the Environmental Evaluation Unit, UCT. 

Jenkins ,A. R., Van Rooyen, C. S., Smallie, J. J., Anderson, M. D. and H.A. Smit. 2011. Best practice guidelines for 

avian monitoring and impact mitigation at proposed wind energy development sites in southern Africa. 

Endangered Wildlife Trust and Birdlife South Africa. 

Kruger, R. and C.S. Van Rooyen. 1998. Evaluating the risk that existing power lines pose to large raptors by 

using risk assessment methodology: the Molopo Case Study. 5th World Conference on Birds of Prey and 

Owls: 4 ‐ 8 August 1998. Midrand, South Africa. 

Kruger, R. 1999. Towards solving raptor electrocutions on Eskom Distribution Structures in South Africa. M. 

Phil. Mini‐thesis. University of the Orange Free State. Bloemfontein. South Africa. 

Ledger, J. 1983. Guidelines for Dealing with Bird Problems of Transmission Lines and Towers. Escom Test and 

Research Division Technical Note TRR/N83/005. 

Ledger, J.A. and H.J. Annegarn. 1981. Electrocution Hazards to the Cape Vulture (Gyps coprotheres) in South 

Africa. Biological Conservation. 20:15‐24. 

Ledger, J.A. 1984. Engineering Solutions to the problem of Vulture Electrocutions on Electricity Towers. The 

Certificated Engineer. 57:92‐95. 



Ledger, J.A., Hobbs, J.C.A. and T.V. Smith. 1992. Avian Interactions with Utility Structures: Southern African 

Experiences. Proceedings of the International Workshop on Avian Interactions with Utility Structures, 

Miami, Florida, 13‐15 September 1992. Electric Power Research Institute. 

Madders, M. and D.P. Whitfield. 2006. ‘Upland raptors and the assessment of wind farm impacts’. Ibis. 148: 43 

– 56. 

Marais, S. 2010. Issues and Responses Report (Draft Scoping Comment Period): 12 October – 21 November 

2010. Environmental Evaluation Unit. UCT. 

Shaw, J.M. 2009. The End of the Line for South Africa's National Bird? Modelling power line collision risk for 

the Blue Crane. Unpublished MSc Thesis. Percy FitzPatrick Institute of African Ornithology University of 

Cape Town. 

Smallwood, S. 2008. Mitigation in US wind farms. In: Documentation of International Workshop on Birds of 

Prey and Wind Farms. 21st and 22nd of October 2008, Berlin. Michael Otto Institute in NABU. 

Southern African Bird Atlas Project 2. 2010. [Online]. Available. http://sabap2.adu.org.za [2010, 07]. 

Thelander, C.G., Smallwood, K.S. and L. Rugge. 2003. Bird Risk Behaviours and Fatalities at the Altamont Pass 

Wind Resource Area . Report to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Colorado. 

Van der Westhuizen, A. 2011. Proposed wind farm development: Kerrie fontein 555 and Darling national 

demonstration wind farm phase 2 (Slangkop 552) Darling, Western Cape. Monitoring Report. Arnwalt 

Enviro Watch. 

Van Rooyen, C.S. 1998. Raptor mortality on power lines in South Africa. 5th World Conference on Birds of Prey 

and Owls: 4 ‐ 8 August 1998. Midrand, South Africa. 

Van Rooyen, C.S. 1999. An overview of the Eskom ‐ EWT Strategic Partnership in South Africa. EPRI Workshop 

on Avian Interactions with Utility Structures 2‐3 December 1999, Charleston, South Carolina. 

Van Rooyen, C.S. 2000. An overview of Vulture Electrocutions in South Africa. Vulture News 43: 5‐22. Vulture 

Study Group, Johannesburg, South Africa. 

Van Rooyen, C.S. 2004. The Management of Wildlife Interactions with overhead lines. In: The Fundamentals 

and practice of Overhead Line Maintenance (132kV and above), pp217‐245. Eskom Technology, Services 

International, Johannesburg 2004. 

Van Rooyen, C.S. 2007. Eskom‐EWT Strategic Partnership: Progress Report April‐September 2007. Endangered 

Wildlife Trust, Johannesburg. 

Verdoorn, G.H. 1996. Mortality of Cape Griffons Gyps coprotheres and African Whitebacked Vultures 

Pseudogyps africanus on 88kV and 132kV power lines in Western Transvaal, South Africa, and mitigation 

measures to prevent future problems. 2nd International Conference on Raptors: 2‐5 October 1996. 

Urbino, Italy. 

Visual 

Orton, J. 2010. Heritage Scoping Assessment for the Kerrie Fontein and Darling Phase 2 Wind Farm, 

Malmesbury Managerial District, Western Cape. Archaeology Contracts Office, UCT. 



Provincial Government of the Western Cape and CVdV Africa, 2006. Strategic Initiative to Introduce 

Commercial Land Based Energy Development to the Western Cape. Issued by provincial Government of the 

Western Cape. 

Heritage 

Almond, J. And J. Pether. 2008. Heritage Western Cape Interim Technical Report (May 2008): Palaeontological 

Heritage of the Western Cape. Unpublished report prepared for Heritage Western Cape. 

Avery, G, Halkett, D, Orton, J, Steele, T and R. Klein. 2008. The Ysterfontein 1 Middle Stone Age Rockshelter 

and the evolution of coastal foraging. South African Archaeological Society Goodwin Series 10:66‐89. 

Fransen, H. 2006. Old towns and villages of the Cape. Jeppestown: Jonathan Ball Publishers. 

Halkett, D. 2001. An assessment of impacts on heritage sites at the Darling Demonstration Wind Farm. 

Unpublished report prepared for Environmental Evaluation Unit. University of Cape Town, Archaeology 

Contracts Office. 

Halkett, D., Hart, T., Yates, R., Volman, T.P., Parkington, J., Orton, J., Klein, R.G., Cruz‐Uribe, K. And G. Avery. 

2003. First excavation of intact Middle Stone Age layers at Ysterfontein, Western Cape Province, South 

Africa: implications for Middle Stone Age ecology. Journal of Archaeological Science 30: 955‐971. 

Hart, T. 2008. Initial Heritage Statement and Notification of Intent to Develop Proposed development 553/5 

Denneberg, Yzerfontein, West Coast District. Unpublished report prepared for Guilaaume Nel 

Environmental Consultants. University of Cape Town, Archaeology Contracts Office. 

Klein, RG, Avery, G, Cruz‐Uribe, C, Halkett, D, Parkington, JE, Steele, T, Volman, TP and R. Yates. 2004. The 

Ysterfontein 1 Middle Stone Age site, South Africa, and early human exploitation of coastal resources. 

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 101:5708‐5715. 

Orton, J 2007. Final report on excavations at erven 2149, 2157 and 2158 (Bakoond), Yzerfontein, Malmesbury 

Magisterial District, Western Cape Province. Unpublished report prepared for Yzerfontein Seaside Estates. 

Archaeology Contracts Office, University of Cape Town. 

Orton, J. In press. Hunters or herders? Evidence from the cultural assemblages at Bakoond, Western Cape, 

South Africa. Before Farming. 

Route 27. 2010. [Online]. Available. http://www.route27sa.com/airfield.html & http://www.route27sa.com/ 

hildebrand.html [2010, 06]. 

Webley, L. And T. Hart. 2010. Scoping heritage assessment: proposed Rheboksfontein Wind Energy Facility on 

remaining extent of Farm 568 (Rheboksfontein), Farm 567 (Nieuwe Plaats), remaining extent of Farm 571 

(Bonteberg), Portion 1 of Farm 574 (Doornfontein), Portion 1 of Farm 551 (Plat Klip), Farm 1199 (Groot 

Berg) and Portion 2 of Farm 552 (Slang Kop), Malmesbury District, Western Cape. Unpublished report 

prepared for Savannah Environmental (Pty) Ltd. University of Cape Town, Archaeology Contracts Office. 

Noise 

ISO 9613‐2 ‐ Acoustics – Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors. Part 2 – General method of 

calculation. 

South Africa Gazette, 1992. GNR.154 of January 1992: Noise control regulations in terms of section 25 of the 

Environment Conservation Act (ECA), 1989 (Act No. 73 of 1989). 



South Africa Gazette, 1992. GNR.155 of 10 January 1992: Application of noise control regulations made under 

section 25 of the Environment Conservation Act, 1989 (Act No. 73 of 1989). 

South African National Standard 10357. 2004. SANS 10357:2004 Version 2.1 ‐ The calculation of sound 

propagation by the Concawe method. 

South African National Standard 10103. 2008. SANS 10103:2008 Version 6 ‐ The measurement and rating of 

environmental noise with respect to annoyance and to speech communication. 

Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. Noise Annoyance from Wind Turbines – a Review. Authors: 

Eja Pedersen, Högskolan i Halmstad. August 2003. 

World Health Organization, 1999. Guidelines for Community Noise. 

Social 

Agama Energy. 2003. Employment Potential of Renewable Energy in South Africa. Prepared for The Sustainable 

Energy and Climate Change Partnership, Johannesburg. 

DEAT, 2004. Cumulative Effects Assessment. Integrated Environmental Management, Information Series 7, 

Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT), Pretoria. 

Pre‐application Meeting, 2010. DEA&DP (Paul Hardcastle; Birgit Moiloa; Marek Kedzieja), Oelsner Group 

(Hermann Oelsner) and EEU (Sandra Rippon), DEA (Apologies), 24 February 2010. 

Public Open Day, 23 June 2010. Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm, Public Open Day: Meeting Minutes, 

EEU. 

Savannah Environmental Pty Ltd, 2010. Draft Environmental Impact Report, Proposed Rheboksfontein Wind 

Energy Facility and associated infrastructure on site near Darling, September 2010 [Online]. Available: 

http://www.savannahsa.com/documents/1155/Rheboksfontein%20DEIR%20%20(Main%20Report).pdf 

[2011,05] 

Site Visit, 18 May 2010 (Visit to Project site and Darling); 15 June 2010 (Visit to Project site with specialist 

team); and 27 June 2010 (Visit to Yzerfontein). 

Statistics South Africa, 2010. Census 2001 [Online]. Available: http://www.statssa.gov.za/ [2010, 06]. 

Swartland Municipality, 2005. Swartland Municipality Economic Profile, University of Stellenbosch in 

association with Octagonal Development, August 2005. 

Swartland Municipality, 2007a. Swartland Municipality Integrated Development Plan, May 2007. 

Swartland Municipality, 2007b. Swartland Municipality Local Economic Development Strategy, Social 

Development Resource Centre, May 2007. 

West Coast District Municipality, 2006. Poverty Alleviation Strategy, Urban‐Econ, December 2006. 

Yzerfontein Info Website. 2010. [Online]. Avaliable: 

http://www.yzerfontein.info/history/European_history.html [2010, 06]. 

Personal Communications 

Adams, G. 2011. Darling Working Group and Ward 4 Committee Member. 21 April. 



Ashford, M. 2011. Swartland Tourism Representative. 21 April. 

Basson, C. 2011. Owner of Swartwater Farm (454/2): Landowners Meeting. 23 May. 

Bosch, A. 2011. Owner Slangkop (552/0): Telephone Conversation. 10 June. 

Claassen, J. 2011. Dormehl Property Group, Darling: Telephone Conversation. 28 June. 

Cleophas, H. 2011. Swartland Ward 5 Councillor. 4 May. 

Cornelius, D and H. van Rooyen. 2011. West Coast District Municipality, Tourism Officer. 4 May. 

Daiber, M. 2011. CEO !Khwa ttu San Education and Culture Centre. 7 June. 

Jansie, H. 2011. Darling Tourism Chair. 21 April. 

Kirsten, J.F. 2011. Owner of Grootberg Farm (1199): Landowners Meeting. 23 May. 

Kotze, D. 2011. West Coast District Municipality, Planner. 4 May. 

Loedolff, E. 2011. Owner of Denneburg Farm (553/3) and Suurfontein Farm: Landowners Meeting. 23 May. 

Louw, H. 2011. Owner of Elsana Farm: Telephone Conversation. 29 June. 

Pocock, J. 2011. Chairman of Jacobuskraal Homeowners Association: Telephone Conversation. 29 June. 

Thoma, A. 2011. Committee member of the previous Darling Residents Association. 4 May. 

Van Ellewee, A, Badenhorst, W and B. Geel. 2011. Yzerfontein Tourism Committee Members. 3 May. 

Literature Review 

Aitken, M. 2010. ‘Wind power and community benefits: challenges and opportunities’. Energy Policy 38: 6066 

– 6075. 

Anderson et al. (1997), ‘Rapport om hvordan en dansk commune blev selvforsynende med ren vindenergyi og 

skabte ny indkomst til kommunens borgere’, Nordvestjysk Folkecenter for Vedvarende Energyi, Cited in: 

Krohn, S. and Damborg, S. (Eds.) On Public Attitudes to Wind Power. 

Renewable Energy 1999; 16: 954‐960. 

AusWEA (Australian Wind Energy Association).2003. Wind Farms and Tourism [Online]. Available: 

http://www.windri.org/survey/references/tourism.pdf [2011, 03]. 

Bell, D., Gray, T. and C. Haggett. 2005. ‘The social gap in wind farm siting decisions: explanations and policy 

responses’, Environmental Politics. 14 (4): 460 – 477. 

Bishop, K. and A, Proctor. 1994. Love Them or Loathe Them? Public Attitudes towards Wind Farms in Wales. 

University of Cardiff: Cardiff. 

Blanco, M.I. and G. Rodrigues. 2009. ‘Direct employment in the wind energy sector: An EU study’. Energy 

Policy. 37: 2847 – 2857. 

Boyle, G. 2004. Renewable Energy: Power for a Sustainable Future. Oxford University Press: Oxford. 



Braunholtz, S. 2003. Public Attitudes to Windfarms: A Survey of Local Residents in Scotland, prepared by 

Scottish Executive Social Research [Online]. Available. 

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/47133/0014639.pdf [2011, 04]. 

BWEA (British Wind Energy Association). 2004. New research shows no evidence to limit wind farms and house 

prices [Online]. Available. http://www.bwea.com/media/news/houseprices.htmL [2011, 04]. 

BWEA (British Wind Energy Association). 2005. Public Attitudes to Wind Energy in the UK [Online]. Available. 

http://www.bwea.com/pdf/briefings/attitudes‐2005.pdf [2011, 04]. 

BWEA (British Wind Energy Association). 2006. The Impact of Wind Farms on the Tourist Industry in the UK 

[Online]. Available. http://www.bwea.com/pdf/tourism.pdf [2011, 03]. 

CanWEA (Canadian Wind Energy Association). 2008. Wind Facts: What are the Benefits? [Online]. Available. 

http://www.canwea.ca/wind‐energy/index7_e.php [2011, 04]. 

Dent, P. and S. Sims. 2007. What is the impact of wind farms on house prices? The Royal Institutional of 

Chartered Surveyors [Online]. Available. 

http://www.rics.org/site/download_feed.aspx?fileID=3524&fileExtension=PDF [2011, 04]. 

Devine‐Wright, P., McAlpine, G. and S. Bately‐White (2001), Wind turbines in the landscape: an evaluation of 

local community involvement and other considerations in UK wind farm development. Proceedings of the 

32nd Annual Conference of the Environmental Design Research Association. Edinburgh, 133–137. 

Devine‐Wright, P. 2005. ‘Beyond NIMBYism: towards an Integrated Framework for Understanding Public 

Perceptions of Wind Energy’. Wind Energy. 8: 125 – 139. 

Elliot, D. 1997. Energy, Society and Environment. Routledge: London. 

Eltham, D.C., Harrison, G.P. and S.J. Allen. 2008. ‘Change in public attitudes towards a Cornish wind farm: 

Implications for planning’. Energy Policy. 36: 23 – 33. 

European Wind Energy Association, 2009. Wind at Work: Wind Energy and Job Creation in the EU, January 

2009. [Online]. Available. 

http://www.ewea.org/fileadmin/ewea_documents/documents/publications/Wind_at_work_FINAL.pdf 

[2010, 08]. 

Gross, C. 2007. ‘Community perspective of wind energy in Australia: the application of a justice community 

fairness framework to increase social acceptance’. Energy Policy. 35: 2727 – 2736. 

Hoen, B., Wiser, R., Capper, P., Thayer, M. and G. Sethi. 2009. The Impact of Wind Power Projects on 

Residential Property Values in the United States: A Multi‐Site Hedonic Analysis [Online]. Available. 

http://eetd.lbl.gov/EA/EMP [2011, 04]. 

Hoepman, N. 1998. Foar de wyn, Provinsje Friesland. 

Klick, H. and E. Smith. 2010. ‘Public understanding of and support for wind power in the United States’. 

Renewable Energy. 35: 1585 – 1591. 

Lee, T., Wren, B. and M. Hickman. 1989. ‘Public responses to the siting and operation of wind turbines’. Wind 

Engineering. 13: 188 – 195. 

Moorhouse, A., Hayes, M., von Hünerbein, S., Piper, B. and M. Adams. 2007. Research into aerodynamic 

modulation of wind turbine noise. Prepared for DEFRA, DBERR and DCLG by the University of Salfor. 



NFO System Three. 2002. Investigation into the Potential Impact of Wind Farms on Tourism in Scotland: Final 

Report [Online]. Available. 

http://www.viewsofscotland.org/library/docs/VS_Survey_Potential_Impact_of_WF_02.pdf [2011, 03]. 

NFO WorldGroup. 2003. Investigation into the Potential Impact of Wind Farms on Tourism in Wales [Online]. 

Available. www.ecodyfi.org.uk/tourism/Windfarms_research_eng.pdf, [2011, 03]. 

SEAI (Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland). 2003. Attitudes towards the Development of Wind Farms in 

Ireland [Online]. Available. 

http://www.seai.ie/Renewables/Wind_Energy/Attitudes_towards_Wind_Energy_in_Ireland/, [2011, 03]. 

Simon, A.M. 1996. A Summary of Research Conducted into Attitudes to Wind Power from 1990–1996 [Online]. 

Available. www.bwea.com/ref/survey.html, [2011, 04]. 

Sterzinger, G., Beck, F. and D. Kostiuk. 2003. The Effect of Wind Development on Local Property Values: 

Analytical Report: Renewable Energy Policy Project [Online]. Available. 

http://www.repp.org/articles/static/1/binaries/wind_online_final.pdf, [2011, 04]. 

Thayer, R.L. and C.N. Freeman. 1987. ‘Altamont: Public perception of a wind energy landscape’. Landscape and 

Urban Planning. 14: 379 – 398. 

TNS (Taylor Nelson Sofres). 2003. Attitudes and Knowledge of Renewable Energy amongst the General Public: 

Report of Findings [Online]. Available. 

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file15478.pdf, [2011, 03]. 

Walker, G., Devine‐Wright, P., Hunster, S., High, H. and B. Evans. 2010. ‘Trust and community: exploring the 

meanings, contexts and dynamics of community renewable energy’. Energy Policy. 38 (6): 2655 – 2663. 

Warren, C.R., Lumsden, C., O’Dowd, S. and R.V. Birnie. 2005. ‘Green On Green: Public perceptions of wind 

power in Scotland and Ireland’. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. 48 (6): 853 – 875. 

Wolsink, M. 2007. ‘Wind power implementation: the nature of public attitudes: equity and fairness instead of 

backyard motives’. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 11: 1188 – 1207.

The Proposed Kerrie Fontein and Darling Wind Farm Final ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?