Comments and Responses Report Eskom Phantom Substation Project

BACKGROUND TO THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAMME

The undertaking of a Basic Assessment Report for the proposed Phantom Substation is a result of an appeal raised by the Phantom Homtini Nature Conservancy (PHNC). The appeal was raised against the environmental authorisation issued by the Department of Environmental Affairs to Eskom on 20 September 2009 for the proposed Blanco-Knysna 132kV Project. The main grounds of their appeal were that the EIA process followed did not meet legal requirements in terms of both procedural and substantive issues in terms of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (NEMA):

All relevant listed activities were not applied for.

The advertising of the project was flawed in that no mention was made of the proposed Leeuwenbosch and Phantom Substations.

Authority comment (Cape Nature and Heritage Western Cape) addressed only the powerline.

SANParks was not consulted during the EIA process. These issues had been communicated thoroughly between the key stakeholders (the PHNC; Eskom and the Department of Environmental Affairs). The outcome was that the Minister of Environmental Affairs gave instruction that a Basic Assessment process be undertaken for the purpose of the Phantom Substation. This letter with reference number LSA 124 319 signed on 14 November 2013 by the Minister is included in Addendum E-6 of the BAR. Please not that a request for an extension of the deadlines was granted by DEA. The procedures followed in the Public Participation Process were based on the Guideline on Public Participation, March 2013 as issued by the Department of Environmental Affairs & Development Planning as well as the NEMA EIA Regulations which came into effect on 2 August 2010.

Please Note Numerous comments were received during the initial advertising period as well as during and after the Public Open Day and is summarised below. The original comment as received from the different participants is added under Addendum E6. Due to the similar nature of some comments, the responses thereto are grouped under Paragraph 4 “Response to similar comment received” of this document.

COMMENT RECEIVED ON INITIAL NOTIFICATION OF THE PROJECT

(21 August 2013 up to the Public Open Day)

Phantom Homtini Conservancy, the Secretary, Ms Petra Ten Velde A copy of the site notices should be forwarded to her via e-mail as well as confirmation of the local newspapers in which the project were advertised. The project should also be advertised in the Action Ads. Ms Ten Velde also provided names that should be added to the IAP list. Response:

She was provided with the info as requested. She was informed that newspaper advertisements were placed in the following publications:

o The Knysna-Plett Harold - 23 August 2013 o The Gremlin (electronic newspaper) – 27 August 2013 o Action Ads

2

Five onsite notifications had been placed at the N2 and Rheenendal Road Crossing; at the Totties Country Store and along the Rheenendal Road at the road accesses to the three site alternatives. All people on the list of stakeholders and I&APs had been notified in writing of the proposed project - the initial stakeholder list was emailed to her for perusal.

Detail regarding the planned open day as well as the planned PPP was given.

The names were added to the IAP list as requested. She provided the official comment from the PHNC that is summarised (with responses) as follows: The PHNC requested that the Environmental, Visual & Heritage Impact Assessment(s) together with the Public Participation Process must consider the following relevant facts:

All three current location alternatives being within the Buffer Area of the Garden Route National Park.

The current absence of technology alternatives.

Disturbance or degradation of the recognised cultural landscape cannot be easily mitigated, and will be a permanent loss of our nation’s heritage.

Rheenendal is a nationally important tourist asset and relies on the unique cultural landscape for their livelihood.

Many tourists travel along the historic "The Seven Passes Route", via the main Rheenendal Road. This road and surrounding landscape is thus sensitive to change, and changes will affect regional tourism.

An alternative substation site can mitigate / avoid similar impacts as caused by the Leeuwenbosch Substation, which had a significant negative impact on the cultural landscape.

The Knysna Sand Fynbos vegetation is critically endangered, near extinct, and totally endemic to the Knysna Municipal area and the PHNC strongly objects to any development within this vegetation type.

The need and desirability of the project must be explicitly and comprehensively detailed. PHNC's concern that the alleged rationale for the Phantom substation is for unspecified urban growth to the south (Brenton) of the proposed sites. A full and detailed technical explanation should be given as to the need for a second substation within the Rheenendal area. Such alleged growth must be clearly presented, including the foundations of such a statement.

o The need and desirability should include consideration with regards to wisdom of facilitating further supply of fossil-fuel based energy, given the internationally-recognised reality of climate change. It is not possible, or ethical, or in line with the precautionary approach, to view the Phantom Substation separately from the fossil fuel-based energy supply that it facilitates.

o It is noted that indirect cumulative impacts of GHG emissions remain effective in the atmosphere-ocean system on the order of 1000 years.

Alternatives should also address technology, i.e. how else can the demand for energy, if indeed there is a demand, in this area be met? Is this the best practicable environmental option, for this area, at this time? Provide consideration of alternative energy sources such as photovoltaic micro-grids etc. Also, given the long-running issue of Eskom electricity capacity, has the effect of possible grid overload and rolling blackouts been factored into the consideration of technology alternatives? Including the effect on the local businesses and livelihoods. Many technology alternatives can have a relatively lower detrimental effect on the cultural landscape of the area, as well as significantly lower or near-zero environmental impacts.

In comparative assessment of alternatives, the cumulative global impact of fossil-fuel based energy, which will indirectly tie into this project in the form of the coal-based energy flowing through the substation, including potential future capacity and supply, must be reported and assessed. Furthermore, the negative impact must be avoided, and if it cannot be avoided, it must be mitigated. This statement does not imply that the Eskom substation is the only possible technology alternative to address the alleged need for increased energy supply.

EIA Guidelines as developed by DEA&DP should be considered as well as the South African National Climate Change Response Strategy and National Strategy for Sustainable Development.

Response o Refer to Paragraph 4: “Response to similar comment received” under the following headings:

o Issue: Heritage and Cultural Landscape o Issue: Technology Alternatives

3

o Issue: Visual Impact o Issue: Critically Endangered Vegetation (Knysna Sand Fynbos) o Issue: Need and Desirability

The South African National Roads Agency (SANRAL), Statutory Control, Ms Colene Runkel They requested to be registered as an I&AP and stated they will supply comment as soon as they have received details on the preferred route and the location thereof. They further advised that SANRAL has a proclaimed road reserve (road has not yet been built, but the property is owned) in the area of the Phantom quarry and should any further service impact on the alignment, a wayleave application should be directed to SANRAL via the statutory process before any construction takes place. Response o SANRAL will be provided with an electronic copy of the Draft BAR to enable informed comment and

instruction for further action if required.

CapeNature, Scientist Land Use Advise, Mr Benjamin Walton Cape Nature sent their standard response letter indicating their reporting requirements on EIA applications. Further comment will be provided upon receipt of the Draft BAR.

In short, the standard response letter states that the main functions of Cape Nature are to o Minimizing negative impacts on biodiversity o Ensure compliance with guidelines and biodiversity plans o Ensure that development that will result in negative impact does not take place in biodiversity “red flags”

in the Western Cape. This includes amongst others sensitive and endangered ecosystems, habitats, corridors and Mountain Catchment Areas as well as fire risk management and water management.

CapeNature does not support activities that may negatively impact on the following habitats and their ecological functioning: o Rivers, wetlands, groundwater-dependent communities or ecosystems, flood plains and estuaries, tidal

flats or salt marshes. o Viable and/or connected habitat in Critically Endangered and Endangered ecosystems. o Any area that has been identified as a Critical Biodiversity Area or Ecological Support Areas as identified

by the most recent systematic conservation planning initiative. o Any other special habitats that may contain a unique assemblage of species. This could include inter alia,

dolomite outcrops, quartz or ferri-crete patches. o Any habitat that may contain rare, threatened or range-restricted floral or faunal species. o Natural habitat in an ecological corridor or along a vegetation boundary (including frontal dune systems). o Formally declared Mountain Catchment Areas.

Response

The requirements are noted and are being adhered to. A hard copy of the Draft BAR (this document) will be delivered to Cape Nature for further comment.

SANParks: Garden Route National Park, Environmental Planner, Ms Maretha Alant A site visit must be arranged with the PHNC, CapeNature, SANParks and the Knysna Municipality before they could comment. Response

A site visit was planned and undertaken on the day of and prior to the Public Open Day held 12 October 2013.

4

The Breede-Overberg Catchment Management Agency (BOCMA), Ms Natasha van der Merwe They confirmed that BOCMA is not the commenting authority, since the process of the Breede and Gouritz merger has not yet been complete. They stated that the Department of Water Affairs is still the commenting authority for the Gouritz (Knysna) Water Management Area.

Response

The stakeholder records were amended accordingly

Requests to be added to the IAP lists / requests for further information Requests to be added to the IAP lists, or more information regarding the project were received from the following people / organisations:

Adela Staegemann – Elephant Rest

Mark de Bruyn – The Lazy Leopard

Chris Gow – Chairman of the Western Heads / Goukamma Conservancy

Ron Kluegner – Phantom Riverview Estate

Mr Ivan Keir

Mr Grant McAlpine, Chairman of the Farmwatch

Mr Hub Sandburg, Farmers’ Association Response

Comments noted and done

Comment from, and correspondence with Heritage Western Cape (HWC)

The NID was submitted to HWC and they responded by requesting a paleontological desktop study. Regarding possible impact on heritage / cultural resources, the following was acknowledged in their written response:

o The area is near a scenic route; o The Phantom Homtini Nature Conservancy protested against the construction of the Phantom

Substation. The protest was based on the lack of a visual impact assessment and the possible impact on the view of the Knysna Lagoon from the Rheenendal Road.

No further mention was made regarding the possible impact on any type of cultural / heritage resources and no further studies were requested.

Landscape Dynamics contacted HWC to discuss the issues (mainly the negative visual impact on an important cultural and heritage area) as mentioned by the PHNC and others during the public participation process.

HWC agreed to assess the Visual Impact Assessment (findings of which are being discussed below) and the VIA was submitted together with the comment from the PHNC.

The paleontological desktop study (findings of which are being discussed below) was also submitted to HWC for further comment.

The Final Comment from HWC stated that visual and paleontological impacts were expected and mitigation was given to mitigate impacts on the paleontological component. No mention was made regarding the visual impact on possible heritage resources.

Landscape Dynamics contacted HWC to discuss the lack of comment regarding the visual impact and it was stated telephonically that the finding of the VIA is supported. This was subsequently confirmed via email.

5

PUBLIC OPEN DAY (held on 15 October 2013)

Mr Neville Louw of 39 Westford Bridge, Knysna

Attendees at the meeting should also be concerned about the alien vegetation that covers the study area and not only the visual impact and impact on plants.

He has been negatively affected by an erratic Eskom supply along the Rheenendal Farm line for the past 10 years and he cannot wait for the supply to be upgraded. He added that he would recommend either Site 1 or Site 2.

Response

Comment noted

Mr R. Legg from Feryn Gully Farm 187/3

He confirmed his preference for Site 1. Response

Comment noted

Ms Heather Daly from Shamrock Farm

She stated their preference for Site 1 with screening for visual impact as the best option. Response

Comment noted

Dr C. Gow, the Chairman of “sister’ conservancy, the Western Heads Goukamma Conservancy

He confirmed that the EIA process previously undertaken for Blanco-Knysna 123kV Project was badly managed and that the independent reviewer did not pick up the substations.

He added that the Site 3 was probably the best option but has associated problems. He said Site 2 is his second option, but he understands there are also challenges. He concluded that ironically Site 1 might be the best. He trusts that Maretha from SANParks would come up with the best compromised solution and added that more work was needed.

Response

Comment noted

Mr Mark De Bruyn from Portions 4, 13, 34, 35 Charlesford Nr 192

None of the three sites presented are suitable. He identified two suitable sites – both south of the existing line and west of the Rheenendal Road on portion 44/192. Both sites are not visible from the road and have access via an existing track which might have to be shifted. They are preferred because of the fact that they are less visible; situated in areas already disturbed and close to the existing line. The only disadvantages are that the line needs to cross the Rheenendal Road and the track needs an upgrade.

The sites were discussed briefly with the team at the open day and apparently they had taken a look there but had dismissed it because of the following: the road would require upgrading, a line would be required to cross over the Rheenendal Road to the existing 11kV line and the owner was not keen to sell. All of these issues can be overcome and these sites have great advantages over the initial site.

6

The proposed site 1 would be very detrimental to the character of this scenic drive and as such will have

direct negative economic consequences. This valuable asset should be protected and the additional cost that Eskom would possibly need to incur would be well justified.

Response o Refer to Paragraph 4: “Response to similar comment received” under the following headings:

o Issue: Investigation of Substation Site Alternatives

Mr Alan Crocker – property owner of a property in close proximity to the site

Site 1 will be visible from various points on nature walking trails in the proclaimed Westford Bridge Private Nature Reserve. The Reserve has been cleared of alien vegetation, restored to its natural state and is maintained as such, all of this at a considerable expense.

Site 1 will largely destroy the appreciation of the natural surroundings – the mitigation measures will not be effective to minimise impact on the Reserve.

Response

The VIA assessed several Key Observation Points and concluded that Site 1 (with mitigation) is the preferred site from a visual perspective.

Several other possible sites for the substation were investigated but unfortunately the landowners refused to sell their land to Eskom for this purpose.

Also refer to Paragraph 4: “Response to similar comment received” for comment in this regard.

SANParks: Garden Route National Park, Environmental Planner, Ms Maretha Alant as well as The Manager: Planning and Implementation, Mr Len du Plessis - After the site visit as undertaken on 15 October 2013, SANParks supports Alternative Site 3, with some

modifications. - Two alternative sites that could be acceptable beyond the quarry were visited with Eskom, the project

botanist and the PHNC. - SANParks takes note that Eskom continue to favour Site 1 and that Site 3 is on private land. - Site 3 should be further investigated because:

o It is outside of the Knysna Protected Environment footprint. o It contains at least 2 disturbed footprints. The length of the 1.3km can also be reduced by moving the

substation beyond the quarry. Response o Refer to Paragraph 4: “Response to similar comment received” under the following headings:

o Issue: Investigation of Substation Site Alternatives

Mr Mike Morris

None of the sites are acceptable

Site 1 impact on a heritage view-site and will destroy the sense-of-place that characterises the area.

All sites create an unacceptable environmental impact on the severely endangered Fynbos.

All sites create an unacceptable visual impact on a route clearly identified in regional structure planning documents as a tourism corridor where "industrial development is to be avoided".

The gratuitous photo-shopping of a tree to mask the proposed Site 1 installation is an insult to the intelligence of residents and only serves to harm Eskom's case.

It is clear that NO other alternative sites have been investigated. Areas to the West of the Rheenendal road, a distance away from the road should be investigated.

It is abundantly evident that Eskom's only concern - and hence their very strong persuasion that Site 1 is the "best" alternative - has been the minimisation of their cost. The cost to Fynbos conservation and to the destruction of sense-of-place is of clearly no interest or consequence to them.

The current proposals cannot be allowed to go ahead under any circumstances.

7

Eskom's argument that the Fynbos will somehow benefit from the establishment of a substation is

completely bogus and without merit. The fact that there is a degree of alien infestation on the sites does not support their conclusion that the Fynbos will be improved by the removal of said aliens. The landowner's neglect of their legal obligations to clear the alien vegetation bears no relation to the establishment of a substation and cannot be used to support arguments in favour of establishing a substation site. The alien vegetation can be cleared (and legally should be) and the area rehabilitated to Fynbos. This would have a very high likelihood of complete success. Such rehabilitation becomes completely impossible if the area is stripped bare to provide for a substation.

The existence of Fynbos infected with aliens is a better outcome for the health, sustainability and footprint of the Fynbos than the establishment of a substation, since there is at least the potential for remediation. There is no case where the health of the ecosystem is improved or the threat to the Fynbos viability decreased by establishing a substation in the Fynbos area.

What are the hazards of siting a substation and associated infrastructure in the midst of a fire-driven ecosystem? Fires will occur periodically, and are essential to the health of the Fynbos ecology. What would the impacts on the Fynbos be as a result of fire-prevention interventions made by Eskom in order to protect their substation?

What would be the hazards to fire disaster management (fire-fighter access, helicopter operations, water bombing, etc.) in the area as a result of such fire-sensitive infrastructure development? Any interventions that interfere with the natural and necessary fire cycle of the Fynbos are completely unacceptable and cannot under any circumstances be tolerated.

According to the Fynbos Forum Guidelines, development or clearing of Critically Endangered or Endangered Vegetation should not be permitted and there is no acceptable trade-off for the loss of these habitats.

Response o Refer to Paragraph 4: “Response to similar comment received” under the following headings:

o Issue: Investigation of Substation Site Alternatives

A Heritage Impact Assessment, Visual Impact Assessment, Freshwater Impact Assessment, Bird Impact Assessment as well as the Fauna & Flora Impact Assessment were undertaken for this project in order to address impacts and to determine the most suitable mitigation measures.

It is general practise for Eskom to engage with CapeNature and/or SANParks and/or other applicable organisations in environmentally / fire sensitive areas. Together they compile the best fire management plan for the specific affected area. This is also stipulated in the EMP.

PHNC, Chairperson: Mr Rob Ellis

The fundamental purpose of the project is to ensure supply of energy to the Rheenendal and Brenton areas for the future. The Phantom Substation is not a critical project (it is not urgent nor an item of national priority), and no development is held back as a result of this project. There is thus an obligation to very carefully consider the most environmentally sensible and socially just alternative, as the current proposal will have a design life of several decades.

Response Rheenendal substation was established in about 1983, making it 30 years old. The substation is in need of refurbishment and therefore the best location to service all existing load is being considered, also taking future requirements into account. All facts need to be considered, load centre, local community needs and existing customers, future needs, municipal requirements, potential developers, etc. The Phantom Substation is required to accommodate the current load as well as future demand for electricity in the macro area. Phantom Substation will replace the old Rheenendal Substation which is no longer at the centre of its supply area. By placing the new substation closer to the centre of the supply area the 11kV network can be split into two and thereby de-load the demand on the current network. This will ensure a more reliable electricity supply to the customers in the supply area. The project itself is not of national priority. It forms however part of the total network strengthening between Blanco and Knysna to service the larger area between Blanco and Plettenberg Bay. It is a complex integrated solution to address network capacity, refurbishment of plant and quality of supply. It is therefore important to understand the role of Phantom in the future network.

8

The three alternatives presented are all for a large scale substations, which will supply energy sourced from the national grid which is currently dominated by fossil fuel-based energy with resulting greenhouse gas emissions. This project, while not directly for electricity generation, does indirectly facilitate the distribution of mostly (approx. 90%) fossil-fuel energy. Thus the indirect and cumulative environmental impacts in terms of greenhouse gas emission and long-term climate change must be factored into the assessment as well as consideration of the best practicable environmental option, for the short and long term. The construction of a further centralised substation to supply mostly fossil fuel-based energy cannot be considered the best practicable environmental option, in this particular area and at this particular time. It is considered prudent and responsible to consider alternative sources of supplying energy to this low-key, ecologically and culturally sensitive and environmentally progressive area. The construction of a further centralised substation to supply mostly fossil fuel-based energy cannot be considered the best practicable environmental option, in this particular area and at this particular time. It is considered prudent and responsible to consider alternative sources of supplying energy to this low-key, ecologically and culturally sensitive and environmentally progressive area.

Response

Refer to Paragraph 4: “Response to similar comment received” under the following headings: o Issue: Investigation of Substation Site Alternatives

It is the view of the PHNC that the Applicant’s representative was directly persuading the public during the Open Day to believe that Site Alternative 1 was the only viable alternative, and that no viable technology alternatives were suitable. During the Open Day, the emphatic reasons given were clearly lacking in objectivity and reason, and displayed a strong bias on the part of the Applicant’s representatives. It is a very serious concern that the public present at the Open Day were subjected to such a biased perspective, and are therefore considered to have been pre-conditioned to believe that the Applicant’s preferred alternative is in fact the only feasible and reasonable alternative. Response The purpose of an Open Day is to provide background information for an open debate. It is important that the public should be enabled to give informed comment, taking the technical facts offered also into account.

The Applicant’s representative also communicated that one other alternative location presented for the substation, was in fact not a feasible alternative, yet had been included only because the PHNC had requested consideration of that site. This clearly indicates that alternatives have in fact not been duly considered as is legally required. Response

Refer to Paragraph 4: “Response to similar comment received” under the following headings: o Issue: Investigation of Substation Site Alternatives

While the Applicant’s preferred alternative, in terms of technology, can be understood due to the role of Eskom in providing large-scale centralised energy infrastructure, itis the role of DEA, as the competent authority, to administer EIA applications in terms of the Principles of NEMA including the requirements for sustainable development and integrated environmental management, and ensure that the best practicable environmental option, for the short and long term, is authorised. We are further fully cognisant and appreciative that an EAP has been appointed that is required to hold an independent and objective viewpoint in reporting and assessing the application, and conducting the public participation process.

9

Response All actions are undertaken to ensure that all legal requirement are followed in terms of environmental authorisation to prevent any further delays in the finalisation of the project.

The purpose, being to ensure the supply of energy, is proposed in a highly environmentally sensitive area, of limited development potential, and deep cultural heritage. The local community is also environmentally progressive.

The project is also proposed within the Western Cape, where Green Economy solutions are supported by Provincial Government.

The latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2013, highlights the fact that, at the current rate of technology innovation, global average temperatures will exceed the critical limit of a 2C. Response A Heritage Impact Assessment, Visual Impact Assessment, Freshwater Impact Assessment, Bird Impact Assessment as well as the Fauna & Flora Impact Assessment were undertaken for this project in order to address impacts and to determine the most suitable mitigation measures.

Also refer to Paragraph 4: “Response to similar comment received” under the following headings:

o Issue: Heritage and Cultural Landscape o Issue: Technology Alternatives o Issue: Visual Impact o Issue: Critically Endangered Vegetation (Knysna Sand Fynbos)

The PHNC furthermore states that comment in terms of potential alternative energy measures, including the potential for co-funded energy efficiency and / or solar or mixed-energy source micro-grid technology, as well as other responsible alternatives in terms of long term impacts, will be presented in subsequent comment. Response Comment noted

Ms Petra Ten Velde

The comment was written in her personal capacity and not as member of the PHNC.

The biological integrity of the Rheenendal area should be protected and she volunteered time and responsibilities to uphold this. The greater Rheenendal area as a whole is of huge value to the Knysna area and it is in everyone's best interest that the wilderness spaces are maintained with sensitivity.

Having to face the reality of the immensity of the Leeuwenbosch substation in the landscape, which will now stand as a reminder and example of an unlawful and insensitive development approach by Eskom, a second substation built close to the side of the road, on a piece of incredibly diverse Knysna sand fynbos, is really unacceptable. Though a smaller substation, a still bigger footprint.

Some things cannot be explained through the technicalities or science of it, neither by the professionals who are supposed to know it all. Some things are felt, and hold our human truth of connection to the land. From the very first time of seeing the planned area of the Phantom substation, there was a deep resistance to any such development happening there. Where aliens used to be infested, after the fires in 2010, the underground magic really appeared, and up came all the fynbos species waiting for fire, so they could grow. If anything, Site 1 is a number one example of what a fire can do to a relatively disturbed area, and how bulbs and seeds of the fynbos and its relative species, will burst forth again.

In order to offset the negative impacts of the Leeuwenbosch substation, Site 1 should be donated by Eskom as a biodiversity offset, and protected for its botanical diversity. A viewpoint can be created to add value to the Rheenendal road, an information sign on fynbos species found, as well as a walking trail, which could be extended to connect to neighbouring properties and the Westford Bridge Nature Reserve.

10

She does not believe that sufficient and in-depth study or ground-truthing was done in to alternative sites, as was clearly the case at the information presented at the Public Open Day.

Site 1 must be removed from even being an option anymore. Response

Refer to Paragraph 4: “Response to similar comment received” under the following headings: o Issue: Investigation of Substation Site Alternatives

Mr Craig Bester – CB Bester Consulting This comment is submitted from an integrated environmental management and sustainable development perspective (a Statement from Leading Climate and Energy Scientists was attached to the email).

The Eskom electrical substation will draw energy from the national grid, which currently relies on approximately 95% fossil fuel based energy sources with resulting greenhouse gas emissions and associated global climate change impacts.

Eskom has recently been granted Cabinet approval to construct a further large (4.8GW) coal power station to feed into the national grid. Thus, at the current trajectory, the 95% dominance of fossil fuel based energy sources cannot reasonably be considered to reduce significantly relative to renewable sources the medium-term (50 years) future. It is thus considered that South Africa will experience significant difficulty in meeting its international obligation of a 34% decrease in emissions by 2020, unless significant alternatives are implemented within the next 6 years.

In terms of the indirect and cumulative environmental impacts of the proposed Phantom substation, the connection between the proposed operation of the substation structure and the environmental impacts of the fossil fuel-based energy such operation will facilitate, cannot be viewed in isolation. The substation will clearly facilitate the transmission of fossil fuel-based energy, with associated greenhouse gas emissions of the combustion of fossil fuels and global impact on the climate system, global ecosystems and human lives and livelihoods.

In addition, operation of the proposed Phantom substation will facilitate local community reliance on majority fossil fuel-based energy for the operational lifetime (conservatively assumed approx. 10-30 years) of the substation, thereby introducing a significant opportunity cost in terms of not timeously decoupling energy supply from greenhouse gas emissions. Such opportunity cost now will also affect future generations negatively.

The attached Statement by Leading Climate and Energy Scientists, as well as the IPCC AR5, includes, but is not limited to, the following scientific consensus regarding fossil fuels and associated greenhouse gas emissions: o Avoiding dangerous climate change requires that the majority of fossil fuel reserves need to stay

underground. o Current trends in coal use are harbouring catastrophic climate change. o To keep global warming to less than 2°c above pre-industrial, use of unabated coal has to go down in

absolute terms from now on. o Anthropogenic climate change will affect the most vulnerable people the hardest. o Alternatives are available and affordable: Electricity from renewable energy sources has become cost

competitive in most parts of the world. When the external costs of health and climate damage are taken into account, electricity from renewable sources is cheaper than fossil fuel-based electricity, including coal.

The global scientific consensus regarding the urgent and critical need to divest from fossil fuel-based energy should be given serious consideration. It must be borne in mind that a mere 2C increase in global average temperatures will have catastrophic impacts on the global ecosystem and human livelihoods. At the current developmental trajectory, human activity is on track towards a 4C to 6C increase in global average temperature (IPCC, 2013). Although the energy use associated with the proposed Phantom substation will have a relatively minimal effect on global average temperatures, this nevertheless represents a cumulative effect. Cumulative effects by nature sum to produce substantial global impacts. It is thus prudent to factor in the climate change impacts and resulting knock-on effects in the strategic consideration of yet another fossil fuel dominated substation.

11

Given the severity of the current global climate change situation, from an integrated environmental management and sustainable development perspective that conceptually accounts for market externalities in terms of the costs of climate change mitigation, adaptation and relief, it is my professional view that the facilitation of fossil-fuel impacts and reliance through construction of an additional national grid substation cannot reasonably be considered to be the best practicable environmental option, relative to fully renewable or partially renewable energy, in this area and at this time.

It thus appears prudent and environmentally just that alternatives be considered, including for instance, but not limited to: o Local, decentralised (i.e. not linked to national grid), neighbourhood-scale alternative energy solutions. o Facilitating innovative energy efficiency within the local community. o Innovative combinations of the above.

It must be reiterated that there is scientific consensus that above broad-based categories of alternatives are considered affordable relative to the current proposal, when the market externalities in terms of the true and total environmental and economic costs of greenhouse gas emissions and associated climate change impacts are prudently factored into the impact assessment.

It is also noted that a possible mitigation measure exists in implementing an actual greenhouse gas emissions offset (i.e. creation of carbon sink habitat rather than purchase of carbon credits) for the sum of energy to be distributed, and therefore utilised, during the operational lifetime of the substation.

Response

It is important to note this project is for the distribution of electricity which is already available and comments above fall mostly outside of the scope of the Basic Assessment process. Also refer to Paragraph 4: “Response to similar comment received” under the following headings:

o Issue: Technological Alternatives

Birdlife SA – Policy and Advocacy Birdlife SA only registers for and comments on applications that fall within or adjacent to important Bird and Biodiversity Areas, or for very large projects that could have a significant impact on birds. As this project does not fully meet these criteria they decline to register or comment in this EIA process. They trust that all the avifauna specialist’s recommendations will be followed and included in the EMP. Regular monitoring for collisions along the line should be a requirement in the EMP, and should there be bird mortalities as result of collisions, appropriate steps taken to improve mitigation measures. Response

Birdlife SA was removed from the IAP List

These recommendations are included in the EMP

Western Cape Department of Environmental Affairs & Development Planning: Ms Shireen Pullen

A copy of the Application Form was received by the Department.

The Department awaits the Draft BAR in order to provide comment. Response

Both a hard and electronic copy of the Draft BAR are being delivered to the DEA&DP

Delegate to the Chairperson of the Lakes Bird Club - Mr Robert Smith The area along the Rheenendal Road has been monitored and observed for the purpose of updating the 1977 Atlas of Southern African Birds by members of the Club for the past four and half years. The following observations were made:

A pair of African Fish Eagles is nesting in the Knysna River area in close proximity to the proposed development site and their area of territoriality includes the Rheenendal Road Ridge.

12

Annually a group of Amur Falcons are observed in the area of the Rheenendal Road ridge in numbers of up to 30 individuals on their migration to and stay in this area.

Forest Buzzards frequent the wooded areas around the Rheenendal road ridge (and in particular the area proposed to be developed) for either nesting and/or foraging purposes.

Egyptian Geese, African Sacred Ibis, various duck species, Cattle Egrets, Cormorants and other species are frequently observed flying over or along the Rheenendal Road ridge on their daily commute from their nesting sites (which tend to be in or around the Knysna Lagoon area) and their foraging areas which tend to be in the uplands towards Rheenendal and further.

The strip of land is aligned atop a watershed and as such this ridge is an important form-giving element in the dynamic of avian movement over and along this crest. The substation and associated powerline will be aligned along or close to this important watershed.

As far as the Lakes Bird Club is concerned it would be preferable that the sub-station is placed as close as possible to the existing main line and for this reason the location of the proposed Site 1 would be preferable comparing to Sites 2 and 3. Appropriate bird warning marionettes / figurines should be fitted on all lines which break or are aligned along the watershed.

Response

The Bird Impact Assessment undertaken for this project concluded as follows: “Both alternatives one and two are regarded as acceptable options with proper mitigation through the fitting of bird flight diverters to the earth wire of powerline. As far as the LILO lines are concerned, the alignments associated with site alternative one or two would be acceptable with proper mitigation from a bird impact perspective.”

Above-mentioned mitigation is stipulated in the EMP.

PHNC – Ms Petra Ten Velde The PHNC would appreciate an update regarding the distribution of the Draft BAR as well as the outcome of the VIA and what steps would be taken based on the ruling from DEA dated 14 November 2013. Response It was stated that a meeting with the PHNC is planned for March in order to facilitate feedback on the investigations and specialist studies undertaken. However, it was determined at a later stage that such a meeting would not serve a constructive purpose at this stage, and it was determined that the Draft BAR (this document) should be distributed for comment instead.

PHNC – Mr Rob Ellis Before committing to the proposed meeting, to be held in March as recommended by Landscape Dyanmics, the PHNC would like to know the following:

The real purpose of the meeting, bearing in mind (a) that the draft Basic Assessment Report has yet to be published following the Open Day & (b) the prospect of a full Eskom presence;

Whether or not all registered I&AP's are being invited to the meeting;

The agenda for the meeting;

Whether or not the PHNC and/or other I&AP's will be invited to add agenda points for discussion;

If Landscape Dynamics intends to distribute the Comment Responses document to the PHNC & all other I&AP's ahead of the meeting

To allow for early notification of the meeting, the PHNC should have answers within the next two business days. Response Landscape Dynamics apologised for not meeting their date for a response. It was stated that the meeting date for March was no longer applicable and that they will be kept informed of future decisions taken regarding the process for this project.

13

RESPONSE TO SIMILAR COMMENT RECEIVED All of the above comment not yet responded to above, could be grouped

and combined responses are provided below.

Issue: Technology Alternatives South Africa In South-Africa, the energy mix (energy derived from coal, nuclear, gas and renewable energy) and future of electricity generation is determined via the Integrated Resource Plan as compiled by the Department of Energy. The plan is to add 17 500 MW of renewable energy by 2030. Sources that could be used are Concentrated Solar Power, Onshore Wind, Solar Photovoltaic, Small Hydro, Biomass and Landfill Gas. Energy derived from these sources feeds into the national energy grid, from where it is being distributed throughout the country. Whilst several technological alternatives exist in terms of energy generation (such as the use of renewable resources, i.e. the wind and sun) it is important to realise that electricity created in such more environmentally friendly ways also needs to be distributed from its source to ultimately, the end user. At present, distribution of high voltage electricity worldwide takes place via a network of powerlines and substations. There are no alternative ways of distributing electricity from the generation plant to the end user. Phantom Project The Phantom project forms part of the total network strengthening between Blanco and Knysna in order to service the larger area between Blanco and Plettenberg Bay. The Phantom Substation forms part of a complex integrated solution to address network capacity, refurbishment of infrastructure and quality of supply and plays an integral part in the success of the total network. The existing and future electricity supply to service the Rheenendal and Brenton-on-Sea areas as well as its surrounds already exists. This demand was catered for during the planning and construction of the Blanco-Knysna 132kV Powerline. The electricity has to be distributed from the Blanco-Knysna line to a central point (the proposed Phantom Substation) from where it will feed into the existing 66kV and 11kV powerlines, from where it will ultimately reach the end user. In terms of technology alternatives for this project, it will therefore be necessary to consider different distribution alternatives, since the electricity supply is already available (derived from the national energy pool). As mentioned above, electricity is being distributed via a network of powerlines and substations. The function of a substation is to, amongst other, receive power at some voltage through incoming powerlines and transmit it at some other voltage through outgoing lines. The voltages are changed with the help of transformers. In the case of the proposed Phantom substation, the incoming voltage is 132kV (as derived from the Blanco-Knysna line) and will be transformed to be fed into the 66kV and 11kV powerlines. This process cannot be done without a substation or without powerlines. Technology alternatives are therefore not a possible option to consider for the Phantom Project. In order to ensure the optimal functioning of the entire Knysna-Plettenberg Bay electrical network, it is required that a substation, with associated powerlines be constructed as near as possible to the middle of the load centre (where the power will be actually consumed) with a spacing of more or less equal between other substations / load centres.

14

Issue: Heritage and Cultural Landscape A Notification of Intent to Develop was compiled and submitted to Heritage Western Cape for their comment and the following applies: - It was stated in the NID that no paleontological or archaeological issues were identified on, or in close proximity to

the alternative sites and associated powerline routes. - It was further stated that visual impact of the substation should be an important consideration due to the position

of the proposed sites being on an important scenic path to various historical sites within the area. Comment from, and correspondence with Heritage Western Cape (HWC)

The NID was submitted to HWC and they responded by requesting a paleontological desktop study. Regarding possible impact on heritage / cultural resources, the following was acknowledged in their written response:

o The area is near a scenic route; o The Phantom Homtini Nature Conservancy protested against the construction of the Phantom Substation.

The protest was based on the lack of a visual impact assessment and the possible impact on the view of the Knysna Lagoon from the Rheenendal Road.

No further mention was made regarding the possible impact on any type of cultural / heritage resources and no further studies were requested.

Landscape Dynamics contacted HWC to discuss the issues (mainly the negative visual impact on an important cultural and heritage area) as mentioned by the PHNC and others during the public participation process.

HWC agreed to assess the Visual Impact Assessment (findings of which are being discussed below) and the VIA was submitted together with the comment from the PHNC.

The paleontological desktop study (findings of which are being discussed below) was also submitted to HWC for further comment.

The Final Comment from HWC stated that visual and paleontological impacts were expected and mitigation was given to mitigate impacts on the paleontological component. No mention was made regarding the visual impact on possible heritage resources.

Landscape Dynamics contacted HWC to discuss the lack of comment regarding the visual impact and it was stated telephonically that the finding of the VIA is supported. This was subsequently confirmed via email.

Notwithstanding the above comment from HWC, it was decided that an Integrated Heritage Impact Assessment should be undertaken. Perception Planning was appointed as they were also the heritage consultants whom undertook the heritage studies which was done in 2013 for the Rheenendal Local Area Structure Plan are therefore well acquainted with heritage issues within the macro area of the proposed development site. The study concluded as follows:

The substation site alternatives would negatively impact on the overall natural and/or rural cultural landscape character of the study area - in particular along the Rheenendal Road and upward-facing views from the Knysna River corridor.

It is however reasonable to assume that infrastructural upgrades of the sort proposed, are necessary and it is highly probable that alternative placement of such infrastructure elsewhere within this region would also result in negative impacts similar to that presented through this Integrated HIA process. Siting the proposed substation within close proximity to existing infrastructure would therefore seem sensible in that it would (a) save costs and (b) mitigate the severity of the anticipated visual encroachment as the proposed substation would be more likely to be viewed within the context of said existing infrastructure within its direct proximity.

Taken in conjunction with the heritage assessment, Site 1 is therefore supported as a preferred alternative site, but strictly subject to the detailed recommendations and detailed mitigation measures put forward in the VIA by VRM Africa, 2014.

Having regard to the above assessment, it is recommended: o That the report be made available to focussed public participation to solicit heritage related comments; o That the recommendations of this HIA and outcomes of focussed public participation be incorporated into the

Final Integrated HIA; o Taken in conjunction with its Final Comments dated 20th November 2013, no further submission needs to be

made to Heritage Western Cape.

15

Issue: Visual Impact A Visual Impact Assessment was undertaken by Visual Resource Management Africa and is attached in Appendix D of this report. Three submission were made, namely

Visual Impact Assessment, July 2014 (distributed in the Draft BAR, dated July 2014)

Executive Summary (included in correspondence to all IAPs on 21 August 2014, under the heading “Impact Significant Summary for Site 1”)

Addendum to the VIA, February 2015 (Assessment of Site 3 and detail mitigation measures for Site 1). In order to ensure clarity regarding the main findings of the VIA, the final recommendations and conclusions of the combined three reports are given below. Terminology used and the VIA process that was followed, site descriptions, landscape context and status quo, landscape character of the alternative sites, Key Observation Points (KOPs) and contrast rating as well as before and after mitigation photo montages can be found in the VIA, July 2014 as attached in Appendix E. The Impact Assessment and in-depth mitigation measures are supplied in the Impact Assessment (attached in Appendix F) as well as in the EMP (attached in Appendix G). The opinion of Landscape Dynamics on the findings of the VIA is supplied at the end of this summary. Please note As explained in detail under “Alternatives” in Section A, Paragraph 2, pages 8 – 22 of this report, the only viable and feasible sites for the construction of the Phantom Substation are Site Alternative 1 and Site Alternative 2. Even though Site Alternative 3 is technically and financially acceptable to Eskom, it cannot be considered as an option due to landowner constraints to the north and east of this site. However, a short description of the findings of the Site 3 VIA is summarised below. SUMMARY OF SITE ALTERNATIVES 1, 2 AND 3 Due to the high scenic quality of the surrounding landscape, high receptor sensitivity and close proximity, a Class II visual objective was defined for all sites and routings. The VRM Class II visual objective is to retain the existing character of the landscape and the level of change to the characteristic landscape should be low. Management activities may be seen, but should not attract the attention of the casual observer, and should repeat the basic elements of form, line, colour and texture found in the predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape.

Site 1 (without mitigation) The initial development scenario proposed by Eskom would involve the construction of the substation by cutting the required platform low so as to reduce visibility as seen from the Rheenendal Road receptors. This would require an approximate six metre retaining wall to the east as the terrain drops off steeply to the northeast down to the Knysna River valley. The retaining walls to the east and north would be supported with a Loffelstein structure. The excess from the cut would be used to create a low berm to the east to further reduce the visibility as seen from the Rheenendal road receptors. The nature of the Loffelstein design significantly limits the potential of growing effective cover vegetation, which would result in strong visual impacts of the stabilising wall as seen from the Knysna Valley. The findings of the VIA assessment is that the visual significance of the probable change in landscape character for the receiving environment would be unacceptably high and is not recommended.

Site 1 (with mitigation: redesign and planting of the retaining wall) There is potential to mitigate by replacing the 6m high cement retaining walls with terraced stone filled gabions or Terraforce blocks which can be planted into, and the planting of small to medium sized indigenous screening bushes around the site. This would reduce the visual significance from medium/high in the short term to medium

16

in the long term. From a visual perspective, this would be acceptable and would not significantly degrade the visual resources of the region which includes the Knysna River Valley. The mitigation as proposed with this option is however not acceptable to Eskom and cannot be considered as a viable option since, amongst other, it will compromise the safety of the structure due to the following: o Civil Engineering does not recommend the use of gabions or the planting of vegetation anything larger than

creepers with shallow root (no deeper than 100mm). o Even creating two platforms on the retaining slope will compromise the structure. o The double row of Terraforce blocks with a 25% overlap will expose a larger catchment area for rain to collect,

further compromised the structure. Further to the above, the following also applies: o The proposal that the retaining wall be “terraced” to create platforms to plant shrubs / trees on will increase

the cost of the retaining wall by around 50% because the same reinforcing method will have to be applied 3 times (once at the bottom and twice at the two platforms).

o The toe of the retaining wall will also extend the wall beyond the property boundary.

Site 1 (with mitigation: planting of screening trees below the brown coloured Terraforce retaining wall) The option is rated high without mitigation and medium with successful mitigation. Eskom supports the recommendations made by the civil engineer to use Terraforce blocks with a 50-75% overlap without any platforms and planted with creepers. The use of a single row should be strong enough to retain the wall and the blocks should allow for open space to plant in. Due to the high costs that would be incurred by Eskom for the negotiation of extra land and the redesign of the retaining wall, the possibility of planting screening trees below the wall were assessed. Although it is possible to grow alien trees around the site (as is evident by the existing alien trees around the site), the probability of successfully growing indigenous trees at the base of the retaining wall to a height where they would offer suitable screening, is reduced. This is due to the sandy and dry soils of the surrounds which are more suited to fynbos type vegetation growth. The second risk to the successful growth of screening trees below the retaining wall is from fire. The area surrounding the site is vegetated with mainly fynbos and alien trees which increase the probability of fire. SANParks has indicated that they would like to retain the area as a Knysna Sand Fynbos area. With successful mitigation the magnitude of the visual impact could be reduced to medium. However, due to the probability rating defined as medium and the confidence low, the visual significance of successful mitigation is rated medium/high due to the higher risks and complicated nature of the mitigation. The disadvantages of this proposed mitigation is that the proposed mitigations are complicated, the retaining wall would only be screened once the trees grew to a suitable size (five years +), the risk of fire destroying the screening trees, as well as the planting of trees not aligning with SANParks planned vision for the area to be rehabilitated back to fynbos.

Site 2 (with and without mitigation) The visual significance of Substation Site 2 was found to be high without and with mitigation due to the large fill surface required to build up the substation platform. The large face generated for the fill with steep slope limits rehabilitation potential would result in strong levels of contrast as seen from the Knysna River valley and White Bridge.

Site 2 is not recommended.

17

Site 3 (without mitigation) The visual significance of the substation and powerlines without mitigation for Site 3 was found to exceed the Class II visual objective and is not recommended. The extension of the powerline along the road to the southern proposed site would be routed over a prominent ridgeline. Skyline visual intrusion would be generated on the ridgeline as seen from Rheenendal Road which would detract from the Rheenendal Road experience which currently does not have views of powerlines from this location. The routing of the powerline directly in front of residential dwellings and across the valley would significantly degrade the landscape character which would result in a significant loss in property value.

Site 3 (with mitigation) As the western section of substation Site 3 was originally located on steep fynbos covered slopes, a 40m site shift could be accommodated to the east of the site. Although the initial northern views from the Rheenendal Road receptors would be impacted, the intrusion could be reduced over the medium to long term with the growth of screening trees. The key visual impact of this site is to the adjacent Rheenendal Road receptors which would have clear views in the locality of the crossing of the three powerlines (2x 11kV and 1x 66kV) over the Rheenendal Road. Any large vegetation under the lines should be clear and kept clean. Due to the close proximity of the substation to the road, the clearing of the vegetation for the powerlines would result in high exposure views to the substation without any potential for mitigation.

The intrusion of the powerlines and substation infrastructure would be further exacerbated by the location of the site above the road receptors, resulting if skyline intrusion of the three powerline structures, as well as the substation busbar structures and security fence. Although contained at a local level, this effect is not recommended for a tourist route and would not meet the Class II visual objectives which require low levels of landscape change to protect the visual resources of the area.

This issue is more associated with the routing of the powerline located to the east of the road. Should the line be routed to the west of the road, this effect would be abated, allowing for a reduction of the visual significance to high.

It is the finding of the visual impact study that of the three sites assessed, the preferred site from a visual perspective is Site 1 with redesign of the retaining wall. Although higher visual impacts will be experienced in the short-term, with mitigation the potential does exist to moderate visual intrusion of the proposed substation. However, it is to be noted that this option is not acceptable to Eskom from a technical perspective and these mitigation measures will not be implemented. The second best alternative is Site 1 with planting of trees around the retaining wall planted with creepers and a strict long term fire and vegetation control management plan. Conclusion The following is concluded from the VIA:

Site 1 (without mitigation): The visual impact is unacceptable.

Site 1 (with mitigation: redesign and planting of the retaining wall) is the preferred option from a visual perspective. It involves the construction of terraced stone filled gabions or a double row Terraforce blocks with a 25% overlap and platforms planted with small shrubs. It is however not acceptable to Eskom due to, among other reasons listed above, the fact that the safety of the substation structured would be compromised. The visual impact after mitigation is rated as medium.

Site 1 (with mitigation: planting of screening trees below the brown coloured Terraforce retaining wall planted with creepers) involves the construction of a single row with a 50-75% overlap planted with creepers and screening trees as the base of the retaining wall. This is the best option from a technical point of view. The visual impact after successful mitigation is rated as medium, but not preferred by the visual specialist because of the perceived challenges (i.e. fire risks, etc.) of the proposed mitigation measures.

18

Site 3 (with and without mitigation) is not a feasible option due to the unwillingness of the landowners of the properties to the north and east of this site to allow any further Eskom powerlines crossing their properties. Site 3 can therefore not be used because it will not be possible to connect the powerline to the existing Blanco-Knysna line.

Apart from the above, it is also important to note that Site 3 is not preferred by the visual specialist, which concluded that the substation as well as the powerline for Site 3 will have high levels of permanent visual intrusion and is not recommended.

OPINION OF LANDSCAPE DYNAMICS ON THE VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT Landscape Dynamics first became involved with this project in May 2013. During the past two years, every reasonable effort was made to address the concerns made in terms of the visual impact and the impact this could have on the heritage, natural and tourism resources of the area. It is acknowledged and understood that the Rheenendal public is passionate about the area they live in and that they want to protect the natural and built environment at all cost. Based on significant effort, communication with role players, the professional team members as well as HIA and VIA specialists, Landscape Dynamics is confident to support the use of Substation Site 1 with mitigation that involves the construction of brown coloured Terraforce blocks with a 50-75% overlap without any platforms and planted with creepers combined with screening trees at the base of the retaining wall. The use of a single row should be strong enough to retain the wall and blocks would be placed to have open space to plant in which is viable from a technical point of view to ensure that the stability of the structure is not jeopardised. The successful mitigation as proposed will reduce the visual impact to medium. It is however strongly recommended that Eskom ensures continuous monitoring and communication with the key stakeholders with specific reference to the landscape rehabilitation plan as well as the fire management plan for the site. These key stakeholders must include SANParks, CapeNature and the PHNC. This recommendation is now included as a requirement in the Final Environmental Management Plan.

Issue: Critically Endangered Vegetation (Knysna Sand Fynbos) A Fauna & Flora Impact Assessment was undertaken by Douglas Euston-Brown in order to determine the impact of the project on the fauna and flora of the area and to determine appropriate mitigation measures to lessen the identified impacts. General Site Description

The vegetation on both the sites is the indigenous Knysna Sand Fynbos, an Endangered kind of fynbos. About 3% of this vegetation type is conserved and about 68% is already transformed. Most of the species recorded on the proposed development sites are indicative of Knysna Sand Fynbos.

Both Site 1 and Site 2 are situated within Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBA’s). Site 1 has part of the roadside edge within an Ecological Support Area, but the majority of the substation is within a CBA.

Much of the fynbos at the sites and along the proposed routes is heavily or partly invaded with alien vegetation. However, the fynbos is still intact in most parts, as indicated by the numerous fynbos species recorded at the sites and along the proposed powerline routes.

Conclusion

Both alternative sites support Knysna Sand Fynbos and both are within a CBA. However, Site 2 will have the least impact on the fynbos plant diversity. This is because considerably less species were recorded at Site 2 relative to Site 1 and no species of conservation concern were found here. Thus, from a botanical perspective, Site 2 is the preferred alternative.

19

However, if the other disciplines establish that Site 1 is the preferred alternative, it is still possible for the substation to be built here. There is no doubt that this is a highly sensitive fynbos area that should be protected if possible, but after mitigation the significance of the impact is considered to be low enough to allow the development to proceed.

It is noted that CapeNature supports development on Site 2, although the findings of the Botanical Assessment are supported and development on Site 1 can continue with the proposed mitigation measures put in place.

Issue: Need and Desirability The Phantom Substation is part of the 132kV Blanco-Knysna Powerline and forms part of the total network strengthening between Blanco and Knysna to service the larger area between Blanco and Plettenberg Bay. It is a complex integrated solution to address network capacity, refurbishment of plant and quality of supply:

The Phantom Substation will supply electricity very specifically to the towns of Rheenendal, Brenton-on-Sea and Buffels Bay. As demand for electricity within these towns increases, the current infrastructure will not be able to supply a reliable and sufficient electrical load. A firm and adequate supply of electricity is in support of development and growth within these areas.

The Phantom Substation is required to accommodate the current load as well as future demand for electricity in the macro area. The Phantom Substation will replace the old Rheenendal Substation which is no longer at the centre of its supply area. By placing the new substation closer to the centre of the supply area, the 11kV network can be split into two and thereby de-load the demand on the current network. This will ensure a more reliable electricity supply to the customers in the supply area.

The potential for additional new customers (including new developments) and significant expansion activities on farms to be connected to the network is already at maximum supply and this directly impacts on development potential of the greater area.

Further to the above, the proposed Site 1 favourably meets all the technical requirements, thereby making it highly desirable as a chosen site:

It is situated as near as possible to the middle of the load centre.

It is more or less equally spaced between other substation / load centres.

It is relatively close to the existing supply line (Rheenendal-Eastford 66kV) and the 11kV powerline it must feed into.

It is technically favourably situated south of the Rheenendal-Eastford 66kV powerline so that it could easily T-off from the powerline to extend in a southerly direction. If the new site is situated north of the powerlines additional structures would be required to pass under the existing 132kV powerline to extend in a northerly direction.

It is situated as close as possible to a public road. Any additional access road to the site must be able to accommodate a truck with low bed trailer and transformer that weighs around 35 tons – resulting in increased footprint and construction of access road and vegetation clearance.

To minimise earth moving the site should be as flat as possible. However, the site is located close enough to the public road to haul excavated material out and bring in material if needed.

The site soil is suitable for “earthing” the substation.

Eskom already owns the site.

20

DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT The Draft BAR was distributed for a 40-day commenting period (15 July 2014 to 26 August 2014)

and extended by another 21 days, ending on 17 September 2014

CapeNature: Manager: Scientific Services: Land Use Advice: Mr Benjamin Walton 1. The proposed Sites 1 and 2 fall within and on the boundary of the Knysna Protected Environment. The sites appear

to fall within the Outeniqua Sensitive Coastal Area Extension (OSCAE) boundary, and are subject to the Outeniqua Sensitive Coastal Area Extension Regulations list of scheduled activities, for inter alia, “disturbance of vegetation” and “earthworks”; for which permission is required following, or during the environmental authorisation process, as agreed to by the competent authority.

2. Vegetation: primary biodiversity informants The mapped vegetation units occurring at Site 1 are Hardly protected Critically Endangered Knysna Sand Fynbos, a threatened ecosystem listed i.t.o. the NEM:BA containing three (3) threatened plant species with < 1% formally conserved; whereas the receiving environment at Site 2 is mapped as Southern Cape Afrotemperate Forest, protected i.t.o. the National Forest Act, 1998 (Act No. 84 of 1998) as amended. The specialist biodiversity report stated that forest vegetation occurs only lower down the slopes at Site 2 and otherwise Knysna Sand Fynbos in varying degrees of an infestation by Invasive Alien Plant species occurs there instead.

3. Designated sensitive areas: FEPAs The Rheenendal road along the crest of the undulating landscape forms the catchment line between two River Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas (FEPAs) and associated sub-quaternary catchment areas draining towards the Largely Natural Homtini and Knysna Rivers respectively. The implication for management here is that ground water and surface watercourses must not be contaminated by pollutants, and measures placed to prevent erosion and increased storm water runoff impacting on land and watercourses elsewhere. Three artificial bench wetlands (dams) are mapped as occurring in the vicinity of Sites 1 and 2; with two west of the Rheenendal Road within watercourse drainage lines, and one north of Site 2.

4. Designated sensitive areas: CBAs & ESAs CapeNature will not support further loss of threatened ecosystems, neither the transformation of identified sensitive areas or untransformed natural areas; and nor support incompatible land uses for biodiversity conservation objectives. Selected remaining areas of natural vegetation and habitat have been designated as either: declared Protected Areas; Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBAs) or Ecological Support Areas (ESAs), and Other Natural Areas. Intact CBAs and ESAs are required to prevent further degradation of the landscape, and ecosystem functioning and services by maintaining ecological and hydrological corridor linkages. Degraded lands within identified sensitive areas have also been selected to maintain ecological connectivity. Both Site 1 and Site 2 falls within a designated degraded Critical Biodiversity Area. The overarching management objectives for CBAs / ESAs is to maintain natural land, rehabilitate degraded land to a natural or near-natural condition and manage for no further degradation. In this regard the area is an important habitat for Critically Endangered Knysna Sand Fynbos and threatened species. Based on the available information and findings of the botanical assessment CapeNature does not object to the construction of the Phantom substation at either Site 1 or Site 2, with preference for construction at Site 2 having the least intact biodiversity; subject to:

o The implementation of all recommendations and mitigation measures provided by the botanist during and after construction and throughout the operational lifespan of the facility.

o Recommendations to move Site 2 away from the drainage line as suggested by the Visual Impact Assessor and Avifaunal Assessor are supported and should be adhered to.

o The implementation of all recommendations and mitigation measures provided by the heritage, archaeological, avifaunal and palaeontological specialists, that are not in conflict with above.

21

o The provision of an Invasive Alien Plant removal and control strategy. o Joining the Southern Cape Fire Protection Association.

Response It is noted that CapeNature supports development on Site 2, although the findings of the Botanical Assessment are supported and development on Site 1 can continue with the proposed mitigation measures put in place. The provision of an Invasive Alien Plant removal and control strategy as well as the joining of the Southern Cape Fire Protection Association is stipulated in the EMP.

WC Department of Environmental Affairs & Development Planning, George: Head of the Department: For Attention Ms Shireen Pullen 1. Although both Site 1 and Site 2 are situated in a CBA and comprises of Knysna Sand Fynbos, which is still in a

pristine condition, Site Alternative 2 will have the least impact on the fynbos plant diversity and is therefore supported by the DEA&DP.

2. A fynbos rehabilitation plan must be developed in conjunction with and to the satisfaction of CapeNature. 3. It is acknowledged that the impact on water courses for both alternatives will be medium to low. 4. It is noted that Site 1 (with mitigation) is preferred from a visual perspective, however, considering the sensitivity

of the site in terms of vegetation, however, the DEA&DP is of the opinion that Site 2 is a better environmental option and do not concur with the conclusive summary that Site 1 would be the best option in terms of the project.

5. In light of the above, the Department has no objection to the implementation of Site 2, provided that all mitigation measures are implemented and strictly adhered to.

6. It is recommended that an on-going management plan must be incorporated into the EMP to preserve the fynbos surrounding the site. This plan must be strictly implemented to ensure the long term survival of the fynbos surrounding and within close proximity of the site.

Response 1. Comment noted. 2. This is stipulated in the EMP. 3. Comment noted. 4. Vegetation is only one of the many factors to be taken into account while alternatives are being assessed. For this

project, the visual impact plays a crucial role on the effect on the cultural and natural landscapes of the area. When all factors are considered, Site 1 will be the best site to balance the needs of all components assessed.

5. Comment noted. 6. This is stipulated in the EMP.

Department of Water & Sanitation: Provincial Head: Western Cape: Ms Bonelwa Mabovu 1. It is noted that both sites will cross smaller drainage lines. 2. The Department supports comment made in the Freshwater Assessment which states that “The two alternative

sites, Site 1 and Site 2 would cross one drainage line each with no pylons needed for Site 1, hence no authorisation will be needed from the Department”.

3. Should Site 2 be chosen then it will constitute a water use in terms of Section 21 of the National Water Act that requires authorisation from this Department before commencement of any activities.

4. Surface and/or groundwater pollution incidents that may possibly occur must be dealt with in accordance with Section 19 and 20 of the National Water Act, 1998.

5. Should there be any deviations from the EMP or any incident or potential incident that might impact on any water

resources, this office must be notified immediately.

22

Response 1. Comment noted 2. Comment noted 3. Comment noted. Should the Department of Environmental Affairs approve Site 2, a Water Use License Application

will be made. 4. This is stipulated as such in the EMP. 5. This is stipulated as such in the EMP.

SANParks: Garden Route National Park (Regional Office): Environmental Planner: Ms Maretha Alant

SANParks continue to object to the substation being on the preferred Site 1.

They requested a fieldtrip to visit Site 2 and to look for additional options on RE 488 (north of the quarry site) and 191/44. It is important to find an appropriate site for the substation where Knysna Sand Fynbos will not be compromised and where the visual impact will be acceptable. Eskom continues to favour Alternative 1 and keeps motivating why other alternatives can’t work. SANParks supports that other alternatives should be investigated.

Response Landscape Dynamics have again received confirmation from both landowners (Farms 191/44 and RE 488) that they will unfortunately but definitely not engage in any negotiations with Eskom regarding a substation site or a powerline on their properties. Taking technical requirements in consideration, the only farm where the substation can therefore be built is on Farm 191/45. SANParks (14 September 2014) SANParks had had discussions with Mr Owen Morgan of RE 488 and he stated that he was at that time actually willing to enter into negotiations with Eskom. SANParks and Mr Morgan found a potentially suitable site on RE 488. The site seems to comply with all the technical requirements set out page 15 of the Draft BAR, except that the site was not already owned by Eskom. Response Landscape Dynamics requested from Ms Alant to please get Mr Morgan’s consent in writing since an email was received on 29 August 2014 from Mr Gerald Logan from Logan-Martin Attorneys, the attorneys acting on behalf of Mr Morgan. It was stated in the email that they have taken instructions from Mr Morgan that their client would still not consider any Eskom structures on his land. Mr Morgan subsequently confirmed via email on 19 September 2014 that he was now willing to enter into negotiations with Eskom. Correspondence between Landscape Dynamics and the applicable landowners are attached Appendix E. Based on Mr Morgan’s willingness to enter into negotiations, further sites on his property were investigated (Site Alternatives 3 & 4) during an additional site visit with Mr Morgan, Eskom and Landscape Dynamics. The above-mentioned situation was communicated with all IAPs, stating that:

Potential additional site alternatives on Mr Morgan’s land are now being assessed, firstly by Eskom in terms of technical viability after which the relevant specialists will confirm environmental feasibility. These findings will be factored into the Basic Assessment process.

An Amended Draft BAR will be compiled and distributed for public input. This document will present the specialists’ assessments of the new substation site(s), assessments of the new powerline routes as well as recommendations made by the EAP.

However, and as explained in detail under Section A, Paragraph 2, page 8 – 22 of the Final BAR, the landowners to the north and east of the Remainder of Farm 488 are not willing to enter into negotiations with Eskom, which means that the substation cannot be constructed on this property because it is required that the powerline connects with the substation and would therefor has to cross the properties to the north and east of the Remainder of Farm 488.

23

Mr Mark De Bruyn from Portions 4, 13, 34, 35 Charlesford Nr 192 Mr De Bruyn stated that his comments were not satisfactorily addressed in the Draft BAR. His objections regarding the unsuitability of Sites 1 – 3 were not addressed and the response from Landscape Dynamics that Eskom cannot force a landowner to sell land to them is not acceptable. He also required more information regarding the zoning of Site 1. Response

Assessment of alternatives The assessment of alternatives is discussed in detail in the Final BAR, Section A, paragraph 2, pages 8 – 22. The single biggest issue with the selection of alternative sites for the substation is the stipulations made by the landowners. The only property on which the substation could be build is on Portion 45 of the Farm 191 – the property on which Site 1 and Site 2 are situated.

Willing sellers of land As stated before, the following applies with regards to available land: It is important to note that Eskom cannot force anybody to sell land to them. Court proceedings (expropriation) are an option only if Eskom can prove that no alternative sites that could fulfil the need of the activity exist. Expropriation is a lengthy and costly process and not a preferred approach by Eskom. In the case of the Phantom Substation, alternative sites, although not desirable, do exist. In the case of this project, Eskom can therefore only negotiate with landowners who are willing sellers.

Zoning of the substation site As an organ of state Eskom was exempt from LUPO, meaning from rezoning and subdivision. Very few substation sites all over the country are on sites rezoned for this purpose and consent use is generally obtained; this being a precedent even set by the Knysna Municipality, as they signed off and stamped the subdivision diagram for the Leeuwenbosch Substation. However, it may be that the new legislation (SPLUMA) does no longer exempt organs of state from rezoning requirements, in which case Eskom will comply with the rezoning process. This is applicable to the Phantom Substation because construction has not yet commenced.

Westford Bridge Private Nature Reserve Trust: Trustee, Mr Alan Crocker 1. The Westford Bridge Private Nature Reserve was proclaimed on 25 Feb 2000. The reserve adjoins the Westford

Bridge residential estate comprising 60 properties. Estate residents have devoted considerable resources over many years to clearing alien vegetation and restoring the natural fynbos and forest on the reserve land. Well maintained nature trails which are used extensively by residents and nature interest groups cross the reserve. The proposed substation site is approximately 1.2km from the boundary of the reserve.

2. The proposed site is on the top of a hill and the installation will stand out against the skyline when viewed from the nature reserve. The number of receptors is significant and the visual impact will be extremely high. The impact on this observation point has not been considered in the impact assessment study. The visual impact of the Eskom unmitigated proposal will destroy the view from many parts of the nature reserve.

3. The Eskom mitigation proposal suffers flaws which in the long term will return the installation to the unmitigated state. Soft shallow rooted vegetation cover on concrete block retainers requires regular regeneration or renewal in perpetuity. There is no means of ensuring that maintenance will be maintained for any period of time.

4. The visual mitigation measures proposed by Visual Resource Management comprising terraced gabion retainers will not assure long term mitigation. Woody fynbos associated vegetation becomes senescent and requires regeneration in the medium term. The recommended method of regeneration is by burning. Burning of vegetation adjoining a substation is unlikely to be permitted. ln the long term the screening effect of the vegetation will diminish, the vegetation will become a fire risk and it is likely to be cleared. There is no means of ensuring that mitigation measures will be effective in the long term.

5. Concrete blocks are permanent but vegetation is not. The visual impact of Site 1 is considered to be unacceptably high.

6. Alternatives: The selection of Site 1 appears to have been driven by expediency. Although the property from which Site 1 was subdivided has development rights, it is by no means certain that development of the property will ever take place. The site is claimed to be near the middle of the load centre. No data is presented to substantiate this claim. One would expect that the current load centre is closer to the more densely developed areas within the

24

service area such as Brenton. Only two alternative landowners close to Site 1 were approached and on that basis it is claimed that there are no willing sellers.

7. The selection of a site on uneven ground at a prominent point overlooking a sensitive nature area is completely inappropriate.

Response Considerable effort was made in the selection of alternative sites (also refer to the Final BAR, Section A, Paragraph 2, pages 8 – 22). This was done whilst keeping in mind the sensitive landscapes of the Rheenendal area. The VIA, dated February 2015 recommends mitigation measures which will screen the retaining wall to some extent. These mitigation measures include a strict vegetation management plan as well as a fire management regime. This is recommended to better ensure the long term success of the mitigation plans. As part of electricity network planning and development, Eskom’s Planning Department conducts load flow studies, looking at existing network whilst considering environmental constraints, demand growth in the area, development applications to the municipality and the Municipal NMD (Notified Maximum Demand). Load flow studies are done to assess the thermal constraints on the existing network as well as network growth simulations are done. Once the voltage regulators become thermally constrained, the solution is to strengthen the network with higher voltages therefore the need for another substation within the load centre, in this case new 66kV substation. The existing network in the Rheenendal area is currently thermally constrained, the load centre has shifted from where the old Rheenendal substation used to be and the farm feeders are experiencing low voltages, resulting in low reliability and quality of supply. The demand from existing customers has grown significantly and the supply to existing customers as well as future demand cannot be strengthened from the existing network which is already constrained. The selection of Site 1 was not chosen specifically for any specific future development project, Site 1 and Site 2 falls within the load centre area and from a technical point of view the best point to integrate into the Blanco-Knysna powerline, which is over a shorter route, reducing the need for longer additional powerlines to substation sites further away and is subsequently also financially viable (less costly). Eskom has a panel of highly qualified people with years of in-depth experience that determines the present and future electrical demand / need of an area. They also work together with professionals in this field at the Knysna Local Municipality. Engineers that specialise in electrical distribution determine the optimal distribution network, inclusive of positions for substations. The environmental impact assessment process can however cause that powerlines are being rerouted, but all must take place within a technically feasible option. Should the ultimate route / substation position that is approved by DEA not fulfil Eskom’s technical requirements, the No-Go option will have to be applied.

Knysna Local Municipality: The Municipal Manager, For attention: Ms Lauren Waring An Acknowledgement of Receipt of the Draft BAR was received from Mr Waring, stating that a reply will be forthcoming in the near future. No comment from the Municipality was however received.

Phantom Homtini Nature Conservancy (PHNC): Mr Rob Ellis / Ms Petra Ten Velde / Mr Craig Bester First comment received from the PHNC Under which authority or legislation is Eskom, as an organ of state, exempted from complying with normal land usage change formalities as they would apply, in this instance, to the Leeuwenbosch & Phantom substation sites? Response

As an organ of state Eskom was exempt from LUPO, meaning from rezoning and subdivision. Very few substation sites all over the country are on sites rezoned for this purpose and consent use is generally obtained; this being a precedent even set by the Knysna Municipality, as they signed off and stamped the subdivision diagram for the Leeuwenbosch Substation. Eskom will not apply for the rezoning of the Leeuwenbosch Substation. At the time of application the Municipality deemed Eskom to have been exempted from the provision to rezone and subsequently endorsing the SG Survey Diagram for the Leeuwenbosch Substation. It was only when the PHNC raised this issue when the Municipality changed its view on the matter.

25

Regarding the Phantom Substation, it may be that the new legislation (SPLUMA) does no longer exempt organs of state from rezoning requirements, in which case Eskom will comply with the rezoning process. This will however only be applicable to the Phantom Substation because construction has not yet commenced.

Second comment received from the PHNC The PHNC submitted a comprehensive 8 page request for extension of the 40-day commenting period as well as requesting additional information which should be incorporated into an Amended Draft BAR, which should be made available to the public for a 40-day commenting period. The additional information requested were: 1. Independent comparative socio-economic specialist input. 2. Independent heritage and visual specialist input. 3. Detail regarding the design and path of all known structures supporting power distribution from the new Phantom

Substation to Buffels, Brenton, Belvidere and Rheenendal as well as clear communication of all relevant information upon which Eskom has based the assumption of future energy demand in these areas.

4. Consideration of the cumulative impacts Response

Amended Draft BAR and additional information An Amended Draft BAR, as requested by the PHNC, could not be drafted without the input of all role players (in other words, after all comment on the Draft BAR has been received). Responses received on the Draft BAR (as distributed in July) will be responded to in the Final BAR. The Draft BAR will not be re-drafted and resubmitted as an Amended Draft BAR.

Extension of commenting period The PHNC noted Landscape Dynamics’ response to the Amended Draft BAR and requested an extension of at least 21 days to the 40-day commenting period. The commenting period was extended as requested, and accepted by the PHNC

Third comment received from the PHNC (comment on the Draft BAR) 1. Context

Based on the history of the project (approval of the Phantom Substation as part of the Blanco-Knysna Project), it appears that the Applicant continues to approach the project under the assumption that the proper legal processes were followed and that Site 1 is the only reasonable and feasible site. It is the view of the local community that significant negative biodiversity, cultural, visual and socio-economic impacts would occur should development of the “Site 1” proceed. The independent terrestrial flora and fauna, heritage and visual specialists confirmed this view. The current Basic Assessment process thus represents an important opportunity to re-consider the location of the proposed Phantom 66kV Substation through due process and consideration ito the NEMA.

Response Alternatives for the Phantom Substation Project was investigated and assessed in length, as explained in detail in the Final BAR, Section A, Paragraph 2, pages 8 – 22 and the Preferred Site remains Site Alternative 1. Detail mitigation measures were supplied in the various specialist studies in order to lessen the impact. 2. Aspects requiring due consideration

The DRAFT BAR is a substantial document, and contains numerous relevant aspects for consideration. There are however several additional aspects that should be taken into consideration: These include the following: a) Relevant Principles of NEMA (Section 2) as well as of Integrated Environmental Management (Section 23)

26

b) Relevant provincial policy and reports, including the Western Cape Provincial Spatial Development Framework, (Western Cape Government 2009), the State of the Environment Outlook Report for the Western Cape Province (Western Cape Government 2013) as well as the DRAFT Heritage and Scenic Resources: Inventory and Policy Framework for the Western Cape, Version 5, May 2013 (Western Cape Government 2013), particularly, but not limited to, in terms of appropriate development within remaining authentic rural / natural / cultural landscapes.

c) Relevant local policy and reports, including the Knysna Integrated Development Plan 2012-2017 (Knysna Municipality 2012), the Rheenendal Local Area Structure Plan DRAFT 2 Status Quo Report (Knysna Municipality 2013) and the Rapid Conservation Assessment and Corridor Design for the Knysna Municipality (Lombard et al. 2005), particularly, but not limited to, in terms of ecological, cultural and visual aspects.

d) The recent shift in thinking from “triple bottom-line” environmental management which perceives environmental management through a perspective of trade-offs between social, economic and ecological aspects, to the complex systems perspective adopted in multiple recent policy documents, including but not limited to the cabinet-approved National Strategy for Sustainable Development and Action Plan 2011-2014, the National Development Plan: Vision for 2030 (National Planning Commission 2011), and the State of the Environment Outlook Report for the Western Cape Province (Western Cape Government 2013).

e) The current transitional context of policy and strategic environmental management in the Rheenendal area, including but not limited to the ongoing Local Area Structure Plan (LASP) process and the identified potential for the unique Cultural Landscape of Rheenendal area to be proclaimed a Provincial Heritage Site.

f) It must be acknowledged the both the Critically Endangered Knysna Sand Fynbos, the unique sense of place of the Rheenendal area (which forms an integral part of the identified Cultural Landscape), and the iconic and internationally-regarded scenic views of and from the Knysna Estuary Basin, are highly sensitive environmental aspects which cannot be replicated once lost.

g) There is a significant gap in information regarding the potential socio-economic impacts of the proposed “Site 1” and “Site 2”, and to a lesser extent, “Site 3”, in respect of current and future tourism in the Rheenendal area.

h) There is an uncertainty regarding the ability of the Applicant to implement the recommended mitigation measures recommended by the independent specialists, as well as of the mitigation measures themselves to be achievable to the extent proposed, and to have the proposed significance of effect, documented in the independent specialist reports.

Response a) to e) Landscape Dynamics is of the opinion that all relevant plans and policies were taken into account during the

assessment process and that the assessment of further policies will not change the outcome of this project. f) The mitigation measures as proposed are attempting to protect the sensitive landscapes of the Rheenendal area. g) The issue of socio-economic impact should be considered in context with both negative visual impact on the scenic

Rheenendal Road and sensitive landscape of the area, together with the positive impact associated with an upgrade of the electricity network in the area that will ensure a secure supply with less outages to the macro area. An important consideration is also that the Rheenendal area is, although considered a sensitive landscape, not in a pristine state anymore because of human interference, existing infrastructure and disturbance to, and destruction of, the natural vegetation in most places within this landscape. The existing Blanco-Knysna Powerline is in very close proximity to the Phantom site and this increases the ability of the landscape to absorb a degree of landscape change without significant degradation of the scenic quality, as the local landscape character is compromised by the existing powerline corridor (as confirmed by the Visual Impact Specialist). As illustrated in the previous communication regarding the expected negative visual and heritage impact, the impact on the proposed Site 1 could be mitigated to medium levels. Based on the above as supported by the environmental specialist team and some of the key stakeholders that include some landowners in the direct vicinity of the site, Heritage Western Cape as well as CapeNature, the EAP is of the opinion that this proposed Phantom Substation if built on Site 1 WITH MITIGATION, will not cause a significant additional negative impact on the socio-economy of the area. The positive socio-economic impact of an upgraded and secure electricity supply to the area should not be disregarded.

h) Eskom confirmed their willingness to implement the final mitigation measures as proposed. Mitigation measures suggested by specialists that are neither practical nor feasible to Eskom do not form part of the final mitigation plans.

27

3. Need and Desirability It is noted that the general consideration of need and desirability in the DRAFT BAR appears to be that the provision of the Substation will facilitate socio-economic improvement and that the negative impacts are acceptable given the potential benefits. The provision of electrical distribution infrastructure should however be contextually-sensitive, in order that the proposed socio-economic benefits can actually be realised. Rheenendal is an area in which the socio-economic activity is primarily dependent on tourism and agriculture. Tourism, and agriculture to an extent, depends upon natural, cultural and visual resources. Thus, the construction of a substation in a specific location which has significant negative impacts to the natural, cultural and visual resources of the area, as currently proposed, ultimately degrades the specific form of socio-economic activity upon which Rheenendal is dependent. In addition to the uncertain effects on local economic activity, the currently proposed “Site 1” is located within a remnant fragment of Knysna Sand Fynbos, along a visually prominent ridgeline overlooking the Knysna Estuary Basin, and within an identified Cultural Landscape of significant value. Furthermore, in terms of precedence, it is noted that the controversial construction of the nearby Leeuwenbosch Substation, approx. 7km further along the Rheenendal road, has already created an unmanaged precedence of large industrial type development directly adjacent to the primary tourism route through Rheenendal. This Leeuwenbosch Substation resulted in the irreversible destruction of a portion of the Cultural Landscape of Rheenendal, with associated, and as yet undetermined, negative impacts on the local socio-economic activity and future tourism potential. The currently proposed “Site 1” for the Phantom Substation not only builds upon this precedence of questionable legality, but generates the subjective sense of tipping over the ‘carrying capacity’ of the Rheenendal tourism route, into a completely different order of sense of place. There is thus a significant risk that the authentic rural character, Cultural Landscape and scenic resources of the Rheenendal road will not only be significantly degraded, but that a precedence enabling further trajectories of degradation will be facilitated by the currently proposed “Site 1”. It must be recognized that these negative impacts and precedence are largely dependent upon siting the proposed substation directly adjacent to, or nearby, the primary tourism route through Rheenendal. Furthermore, alternative sites do exist, and while these alternative sites may not satisfy all of the technical criteria perfectly, they can satisfy most, if not all, of the critical technical criteria, and arguably may ultimately be less threatening to the long-term socio-economic, ecological, cultural and visual sustainability of the Rheenendal area. It must also be noted that the currently proposed “Site 1” requires substantial earthmoving through the removal of approximately 6m height of hilltop, and thus does not satisfy all technical criteria either. The difference with “Site 1” relative to the other identified, and as yet un-investigated sites, is that “Site 1” carries definite and significant negative ecological, cultural and visual impacts, including visual impacts deemed by the independent visual specialists to be “unacceptably high”. The other identified and as yet un-investigated sites do not carry nearly the same order of magnitude of negative impacts to these environmental aspects as the currently proposed “Site 1”.

Response

Detail mitigation measures were supplied in the various specialist studies in order to lessen the impact of the substation on the sensitive Rheenendal Landscapes. The Botanist concluded that the significance of the impact, after mitigation has been applied is considered to be low enough to allow the development to proceed. Please note that this view is supported by CapeNature. With the latest mitigation measures proposed by the visual specialist, and accepted by Eskom, it is concluded that the visual impact will be medium to high.

Alternatives for the Phantom Substation Project were investigated and assessed in length, as explained in detail in the Final BAR, Section A, Paragraph 2, pages 8 – 22 and the Preferred Site remains Site Alternative 1.

4. Additional alternative site: The area adjacent to the existing Rheenendal Substation

Based upon a rapid environmental site visit conducted by Mr. Craig Bester, an independent environmental assessment practitioner and sustainability consultant, on 15 September 2014, it is considered that the ecological, heritage and visual impacts of the existing Rheenendal Substation site are preliminary considered to be significant

28

lower than those of both the pre- and post-mitigation currently proposed alternative “Site 1”. The substantial lower impacts make this site an alternative that is closer to the best practicable environmental option. This alternative site is thus considered to be a reasonable and feasible alternative.

Response The option to upgrade the existing substation was investigated, but it is not a feasible option due to the following:

Rheenendal Substation was established in about 1983, making it 30+ years old and is in need of refurbishment.

A new substation is thus required to accommodate the current load as well as future demand for electricity in the macro area. All facts need to be considered: load centre, local community needs and existing customers, future needs, municipal requirements, potential developers, etc.

The best location to service all existing load, whilst taking future requirements into account is being considered. A substation has to be constructed as near as possible to the middle of the load centre (where the power will actually be consumed) with a spacing of more or less equal between other substations / load centres.

The Phantom Substation will replace the old Rheenendal Substation which is no longer at the centre of its supply area – it is approximately 9km away from the proposed Phantom Substation site and is too far away from the centre of the load to be considered as feasible or practical.

By placing the new substation closer to the centre of the supply area the 11kV network can be split into two and thereby de-load the demand on the current network. This will ensure a more reliable electricity supply to the customers in the supply area.

The fact that there is no alternative supply for electricity distribution if this substation is out of commission during the construction period, makes this option not feasible. This will add to the already constrained system in the area and result in lengthy outages. In other words, the substation cannot be ‘switched off’ to replace the infrastructure. It is also much more costly to upgrade and refurbish an existing substation than constructing a new one, which makes this option not cost effective: the existing Rheenendal substation site is low-lying and wet during the rainy season. Soil will have to be imported in order to raise the ground level of the existing site to be higher than the surrounding levels in order to effectively drain the site because the substation is a safety risk when it comes to operating in rainy weather; the existing access road will have to be upgraded for a distance of approximately 1km and powerlines would have to be constructed back to where it would have to feed into the Leeuwbosch-Eastford line which increases the footprint considerably. The continued use of the Rheenendal Substation is not an option. 5. Additional alternative site: Site within RE/488 identified by SANParks

It is noted that SANParks has identified a willing seller within RE/488, and that this site is of significantly lower ecological, cultural and visual potential negative impacts. From an integrated environmental systems management perspective, the substantial lower impacts associated with the identified site on RE/488, makes this an alternative that is closer to the best practicable environmental option. This alternative site is thus also considered to be a reasonable and feasible alternative.

Response The investigation into alternatives for this project is discussed in detail in the Final BAR, Section A, Paragraph 2, pages 8 – 22. Site 4, as identified by SANParks is not a technical feasible option. Site 3 is however a technically and financially viable option, but the refusal of the landowners to the north and east of this site to allow any Eskom structures on their properties makes this option not viable and cannot be considered. 6. Conclusion

a) Alternative sites exist that carry far lower negative environmental impacts while satisfying many, if not all, of the technical criteria of the proposed Substation.

29

b) The fact that Eskom has purchased land for development prior to engaging in the proper depth of detailed investigation of environmental impacts, should not be used as substantial justification to develop upon high sensitivity land resulting in significant negative impacts.

c) The fact that the areas considered for development feature invasive alien vegetation, cannot be used to justify development of the underlying and pre-existing Critically Endangered and near-extinct Knysna Sand Fynbos.

d) We object to development on Site 1 (and Site 2), as the site is of critical sensitivity in terms of biodiversity, culture and visual impact, and feature “unacceptably high” negative visual impacts even with mitigation. These sites are not supported as the best practicable environmental option and thus we request that alternative locations be prudently investigated and considered.

e) It is noted that the support of the Applicant for Site 1 and / or Site 2 appears to be based upon the satisfaction of only a few, and not all, of the technical criteria. It must be noted that Site 1 and Site 2 both require substantial earthmoving, and in the case of Site 1, excavating the top of the visually-prominent ridgeline by approximately 6m. Thus “Site 1” cannot be regarded as an optimal site satisfying all technical criteria. This must be taken into account when comparatively assessing the identified other alternative sites.

f) The statement in the DRAFT BAR that the ecological integrity of the proposed development on Site 1 can be ensured is critically drawn into question.

g) We object to the statement that the mitigation proposed for Site 1 (and Site 2) can mitigate the negative impacts to “acceptable levels”. In addition, the subsequent ‘Impact Significance Summary for Site 1’ issued by the independent visual specialists and distributed to I&APs on 21 August 2014, clearly states that the negative impacts of Site 1 with mitigation will be “unacceptably high”.

h) The Applicant is legally required to subject the authorised site to Rezoning in terms of the relevant land use planning legislation.

i) It is requested that the recommendations presented below be implemented. Response a) Kindly refer to the Final BAR, Section A, Paragraph 2, pages 8 – 22 where the investigation into alternatives are

discussed in detail. The only viable sites are Site 1 and Site 2. b) The fact that Eskom has already purchased the land on which Site 1 is situated has never been used as a

justification to develop on this site. This is clear when looking at the considerable effort that was exercised in the investigation of viable alternative sites.

c) The fact that Site 1 contains alien vegetation is not being used to justify development on this site. d) In depth studies were conducted to recommend mitigation measures that could protect the natural and cultural

resources of the area. The Botanist concluded that the significance of the impact, after mitigation has been applied is considered to be low enough to allow the development on Site 1 to proceed. Please note that this view is supported by CapeNature. With the latest mitigation measures proposed by the visual specialist, and accepted by Eskom, it is concluded that the visual impact after the successful implication of the proposed mitigation measures, will be medium. Also taking into consideration that the existing Blanco-Knysna Powerline is in very close proximity to the Phantom site and this increases the ability of the landscape to absorb a degree of landscape change without significant degradation of the scenic quality, as the local landscape character is compromised by the existing powerline corridor.

e) Site 1, Site 2 as well as Site 3 is technical feasible options. f) The view of the Botanist is supported by CapeNature. g) According to the latest mitigation measures as proposed in the VIA dated February 2015, the impact is rated as

medium after the successful implementation of the mitigation measures and not ‘unacceptable high’. h) It may be that the new legislation (SPLUMA) does no longer exempt organs of state from rezoning requirements, in

which case Eskom will comply with the rezoning process. 7. Recommendations

a) The identified alternative sites, being the area adjacent to the existing Rheenendal substation site, as well as the site identified by SANParks within RE/488, need to be considered and investigated, including with comparative consideration of need and desirability and comparative assessment of impacts.

b) It is requested that the EAP ensure that the additional aspects presented in items a-h in section 3 above are considered in due depth.

30

c) It is requested that independent specialist input regarding Need and Desirability of the proposed development,

and in particular the proposed development sites and alternatives with respect to the authentic rural character, local tourism-based economy, Cultural Landscape and sense of place, be commissioned and incorporated into the impact assessment documentation.

d) The recommendations of the Rapid Conservation Assessment and Corridor Design for the Knysna Municipality (Lombard et al 2005) that no further degradation of the Knysna Sand Fynbos occur, are supported and should be adhered to. It is requested that the effect of the removal of Knysna Sand Fynbos for the proposed “Site 1” on the ecological integrity of the remnant Knysna Sand Fynbos population be determined in line with a risk-averse approach, prior to further consideration of “Site 1”.

e) It is requested that the load centre for the relevant electrical catchment area be mapped and presented to I&APs for comment, as well as the assumptions upon which such load centre is based, including but not limited to the potential developments and growth referred to in the report.

f) It is requested that detail regarding the maximum deviation from the load centre be presented to I&APs for consideration, for instance to justify the statement that the existing Rheenendal Substation (9km from apparent load centre) is not technically feasible, and that serious negative impacts to biodiversity, culture and visual aspects are reasonable and feasible.

g) Please provide detail of the proposed and potential future pylons / powerlines radiating from the proposed substation, including detail of pylon type.

h) Clarity is requested regarding the current source of the electricity supply for Brenton, and if the current source is outside of Rheenendal, why the relevant substation is being shifted into Rheenendal. In addition, please clarify whether the construction of a separate, smaller substation been considered for Brenton.

i) It is requested that proof of investigation of alternative locations be presented to I&APs, including proof of correspondence and / or negotiations with Landowners, as well as proof of landowners decisions not to allow development on their land. It is noted that SANParks has identified a willing seller where the Applicant indicated the seller was unwilling.

j) The uncertainty regarding the guidelines for the Knysna Protected Environment, within which the currently identified sites are located, needs to be clarified with SANParks. It is requested that any such guidelines / requirements regarding the Knysna Protected Environment be presented in the BAR documentation for comment.

k) It is requested that the findings of the independent heritage specialist, specifically with regards to the identification of the Rheenendal area as being of high significance in terms of heritage resources and Cultural Landscape, and that no heritage inventory exists despite Section 30(5) of the National Heritage Resources Act, 1999 (Act No. 25 of 1999), be presented to Heritage Western Cape for comment.

l) It is requested that the socio-economic impact on tourism, of both the direct and indirect effects of the proposed Phantom Substation, as well as the cumulative effects of the Leeuwenbosch and Phantom Substations adjacent to the primary tourism route on the tourism potential, be determined and incorporated into the comparative impact assessment, including consideration of the alternative sites identified in this correspondence. An independent socio-economic specialist study, as well as potentially an independent social impact assessment is recommended.

m) It is recommended that an independent specialist input regarding the cumulative effects on the sense of place of the Rheenendal authentic rural landscape and Cultural Landscape, of the Leeuwenbosch and Phantom Substations adjacent to the primary tourism route on the tourism potential, be conducted and incorporated into the Basic Assessment, including consideration of the alternative sites identified in this correspondence.

Response a) The area adjacent to the Rheenendal substation is not a viable option. Sites on RE/488 are not viable because of

landowners’ constraints to the north and east of the RE/488.

b) Landscape Dynamics is of the opinion that all relevant plans and policies were taken into account during the assessment process and that the assessment of further policies will not change the outcome of this project.

c) Independent specialist input regarding the Need & Desirability of the project is not required. Eskom has a panel of highly qualified people with years of in-depth experience that determines the present and future electrical demand / need of an area. The desirability of the project was determined by hand of various municipal and provincial policy documents. Further assessment will not change the outcome of this project.

31

d) The Botanist appointed for the project concluded that the significance of the impact, after mitigation has been applied is considered to be low enough to allow the development on Site 1 to proceed. This view is supported by CapeNature. Further botanical studies will not be undertaken.

e) Considerable effort was made in the selection of alternative sites (also refer to the Final BAR, Section A, Paragraph 2, pages 8 – 22). This was done whilst keeping in mind the sensitive landscapes of the Rheenendal area. The VIA, dated February 2015 recommends mitigation measures which will screen the retaining wall to some extent. These mitigation measures include a strict vegetation management plan as well as a fire management regime. This is recommended to better ensure the long term success of the mitigation plans. As part of electricity network planning and development, Eskom’s Planning Department conducts load flow studies, looking at existing network whilst considering environmental constraints, demand growth in the area, development applications to the municipality and the Municipal NMD (Notified Maximum Demand). Load flow studies are done to assess the thermal constraints on the existing network as well as network growth simulations are done. Once the voltage regulators become thermally constrained, the solution is to strengthen the network with higher voltages therefore the need for another substation within the load centre, in this case new 66kV substation. The existing network in the Rheenendal area is currently thermally constrained, the load centre has shifted from where the old Rheenendal substation used to be and the farm feeders are experiencing low voltages, resulting in low reliability and quality of supply. The demand from existing customers has grown significantly and the supply to existing customers as well as future demand cannot be strengthened from the existing network which is already constrained. The selection of Site 1 was not chosen specifically for any specific future development project, Site 1 and Site 2 falls within the load centre area and from a technical point of view the best point to integrate into the Blanco-Knysna powerline, which is over a shorter route, reducing the need for longer additional powerlines to substation sites further away and is subsequently also financially viable (less costly). Eskom has a panel of highly qualified people with years of in-depth experience that determines the present and future electrical demand / need of an area. They also work together with professionals in this field at the Knysna Local Municipality. Engineers that specialise in electrical distribution determine the optimal distribution network, inclusive of positions for substations. The environmental impact assessment process can however cause that powerlines are being rerouted, but all must take place within a technically feasible option. Should the ultimate route / substation position that is approved by DEA not fulfil Eskom’s technical requirements, the No-Go option will have to be applied.

f) See e) above.

g) A 66kV line will run from the existing Blanco-Knysna line to the new Phantom Substation; existing and new 11kV farm feeders will be strengthened by Phantom substation into surrounding existing farm feeders, to supply customers. Also important to note is that, depending on future demand, powerlines and farm feeders that are now not foreseen may connect to the substation in the future. Substations have a lifespan of 30 to 35 years, depending on what it is designed for and the predicted growth in the area, it must therefore not only be built to accommodate today’s need, but also that of future expansion and strengthening. As per standard practice, pylon types will only be determined by the Eskom engineers once the detail route planning are being done, which is after the issuing of the Environmental Authorisation. The 66kV powerline will be constructed using steel monopoles or steel lattice structures, similar to what is already constructed for Blanco-Knysna powerline. However, this will be finally decided based on engineering designs and geotechnical and other civil studies. The 11kV powerlines will be wooden poles. Note also that any future lines to be constructed would have to obtain environmental authorisation in compliance with the amended NEMA regulations published in 2014.

h) See e) above.

i) Correspondence between the landowners / their attorneys and Landscape Dynamics are included in Addendum E.

32

j) As per information obtained from SANParks, the proposed development site falls within the Knysna Protected

Environment (map attached in Appendix A). According to the map, the ‘Biodiversity Control Area’ includes the lake and rivers; the ‘Development Control Area’ includes a small area directly adjacent to the lake and rivers and the ‘Knysna Protected Environment’ includes a wide area encompassing the above zones and more. The development site is on the north-western periphery of this demarcation. Significant development has taken place within this demarcated environment that includes extensive road infrastructure, agricultural activities as well as the town of Knysna and all its associated uses. At this stage, it is unclear what the development guidelines for the ‘Knysna Protected Environment’ are (if any) and what the implications thereof are for the Phantom Substation Project.

k) Heritage Western Cape is an IAP in this process. A detailed description of correspondence with HWC is provided in Section B, Paragraph 7 of the Final BAR.

l) Eskom has already committed to a significant number of relevant specialist studies associated with significant financial and cost implications. Even though the Visual Impact Specialist appointed for this study was recommended by Mr Craig Bester, the PHNC continues to disagree with and discredit the findings of the independent specialists in their field. The EAP is of the opinion that the PHNC cannot continue to require additional studies and investigations and thereby continuously delay the finalisation of the project. All reasonable measures had already been taken to identify the best technical as well as environmentally acceptable solution to a preferred site for the project. The project has to be implemented, even though and unfortunately it is not possible to keep all the role players completely satisfied. Furthermore, the issue of socio-economic impact should be considered in context with both negative visual impact on the scenic Rheenendal Road and sensitive landscape of the area, together with the positive impact associated with an upgrade of the electricity network in the area that will ensure a secure supply with less outages to the macro area. An important consideration is also that the Rheenendal area is, although considered a sensitive landscape, not in a pristine state anymore because of human interference, existing infrastructure and disturbance to, and destruction of, the natural vegetation in most places within this landscape. The existing Blanco-Knysna Powerline is in very close proximity to the proposed Phantom Substation site (Site 1) and this increases the ability of the landscape to absorb a degree of landscape change without significant degradation of the scenic quality, as the local landscape character is compromised by the existing powerline corridor - as has been confirmed by the Visual Impact Specialist. As illustrated in all the previous communication regarding the expected negative visual and heritage impact, the impact could be mitigated to acceptable levels. The Department of Environmental Affairs should consider the continuous objection of the PHNC in context with the development of the proposed Site 1 as supported by the environmental specialist team and some of the key stakeholders that include some landowners in the direct vicinity of the site, Heritage Western Cape as well as CapeNature. Based on the above the EAP is of the opinion that this proposed Phantom Substation if built on Site 1 WITH MITIGATION, will not cause a significant additional negative impact on the socio-economy of the area. The positive socio-economic impact of an upgraded and secure electricity supply to the area would however result in a significant positive impact on this component which cannot be ignored. The provision and upgrade of infrastructure (that includes electricity) in an area is directly related to social upliftment and a sense of well-being.

m) The issue of the Leeuwenbosch Substation falls outside of the scope of the application for environmental

authorisation for the Phantom Substation. Specialist studies have already been undertaken, discussed and mitigatory measures proposed as per the appeal decision by the Minister of Environmental Affairs. The mandate of Eskom Distribution is to distribute power and cannot fund studies for the macro area that is not directly related to the Eskom project. A Heritage Impact Assessment, even though not required by Heritage Western Cape, was already undertaken for the proposed Phantom Substation. It is not recommended, nor envisioned, that any further studies will have any impact on the outcome of this project.

33

COMMENT RECEIVED ON CORRESPONDENCE DISTRIBUTED ON 13 FEBRUARY 2015, WITH SUBJECT “STATUS UPDATE ON THE BASIC ASSESSMENT PROCESS”

The Phantom Homtini Nature Conservancy: Mr Rob Ellis and Mr Craig Bester 1. Introduction

The EIA process is proceeding along a procedurally flawed and detrimental course, due to the absence of objective consideration of alternatives put forward by the IAPs during the public participation process.

Response from Landscape Dynamics Landscape Dynamics is in complete disagreement with this statement – all procedures as per the NEMA and the EIA Regulations have been followed and applied. The investigation of alternatives was comprehensive; time consuming and costly and is described in detail in Section A, Paragraph 2 of the Final BAR. Alternatives that are not technically and financially feasible cannot be considered by Eskom or by the EAP’s or DEA for that matter as a viable alternative.

2. The issue and context

The EAPs choose to not consider the strategic need and desirability of the activity and the identified alternatives put forward by IAPs, in terms of: i. an innovative coupling of potentially co-funded and co-managed energy efficiency measures and decentralised

community-scale micro grid alternative energy systems, and / or; ii. the area identified by the PHNC on the land directly adjacent to the existing Rheenendal Substation, being

portion 26 of 185. Subsequent independent investigation has identified that portions 32 of 185 and 33 of 185 are also considered potentially feasible and reasonable.

This submission is founded on, amongst other, the Western Cape EIA Guidelines regarding the Need & Desirability and Alternatives as well as the following: i. The Constitutional Rights of the community and visitors to the area, in terms of securing ecologically

sustainable development and the promotion of conservation. ii. The Constitutional Rights of the community and visitors to the area to participate in the cultural life of their

choice. iii. The overarching Principles of the NEMA. iv. The existing ecological and cultural character and dynamics of the Rheenendal area and Knysna Basin as well as

the Knysna Sand Fynbos ecosystem and the indirectly associated socio-economic tourism potential. v. The ecological and socio-economic requirements for energy supply. vi. The management objectives of the Garden Route Environmental Management Framework (GR EMF). vii. The long-term life span of the proposed activity within the context of the local, regional and global socio-

ecological dynamics and crises. viii. The potential for long-term (30+ years) infrastructural ‘lock-in’ into infrastructure systems which facilitate a

continuation of current unsustainable patterns of pollution and consumption, and hinder the implementation of adaptive and innovative energy infrastructure systems.

ix. The viewpoint of the Applicant and absence of the required integration of the environmental context into the “complex integrated solution” developed by the Applicant for energy supply, distribution and transmission, from which the Eskom Phantom Substation Project has emerged and the ‘activity’ of the project defined. There is thus an identified fatal flaw in the “complex integrated solution” of Eskom, particularly in light of the long term lifespan of the proposed development.

x. The recent emergence of current medium to long term critical constraints in the availability of energy supply from Eskom, as well as in Eskom’s financial feasibility. This presents a serious question as to the assumption that Eskom has the capacity to provide ecologically sustainable energy during the operational lifetime of the proposed substation, and in addition brings the question as to whether the decoupling and decentralisation of a low energy use area such as the affected area is a better strategic decision in that this can potentially also cumulatively assist facilitating Eskom’s attempt at recovery as a functional utility.

34

Response

Alternatives as given by the IAPs and mentioned above are discussed in the report under Section A, Paragraph 2, page 8 – 22 of the Final BAR: sites close to the existing Rheenendal Substation are NOT technically or financially viable and will not be further assessed. Technology alternatives do not form part of this Basic Assessment process. Note that the objective of this project is to distribute electricity, not to generate electricity.

• The comment received from the PHNC is in context a repeat from previous correspondence received from them of which the relevant issues had been dealt with in significant detail on the previous pages and in the Draft BAR.

3. Alternatives: From a NEMA-centric or Eskom-centric perspective?

The Applicant / EAP’s definition of the proposed ‘activity’ is described as being “a 10MVA Substation” for the distribution of energy. In terms of the NEMA and the relevant Guidelines, the proposed 10 MVA Substation is clearly a project, rather than an activity. The construction of a 10MVA Substation can be regarded as to primarily meet the needs of the Applicant’s solution, rather than needs of the people and the environment. The activity can instead be better (i.e. in line with the NEMA legislation and associated relevant Guidelines) defined as: the provision of ecologically sustainable energy security to the Rheenendal, Brenton and Buffels Bay areas, for a 30-year period. This establishes an activity from which alternatives can be investigated to achieve the best practicable environmental option and to place people and their needs at the forefront, rather than the limited objectives of a development company. The perceived need for this activity, from the perspective of the Applicant, is in order to secure the distribution of allegedly available Eskom sourced energy supply to the Rheenendal, Buffels Bay and Brenton areas, including servicing alleged future energy expansion needs. The absence of applied, reasoned and transparent consideration by the Applicant / EAP of identified technology and location alternatives put forward by the PHNC and I&APs during the public participation process to date can be regarded as stemming from the limitation of the Eskom-centric perspective of the Applicant and associated oversight of the actual content and requirements of integrated environmental management. Until such time as the identified alternatives put forward by I&APs during the public participation process are investigated, and such investigation transparently documented and based on an objective assessment of the facts from within the integrated environmental management perspective rather than from the perspective of the Eskom-centric, limited, and thus flawed, “complex integrated solution”, the apparent EIA process underway will be operating outside of the NEMA and associated EIA Regulations, and thus arguably unconstitutional.

Response

This project is for the distribution of available electricity and not the generation thereof.

Site alternatives were investigated in depth during the BA process. • The comment regarding alternatives is in principle a repeat from previous correspondence received from them

of which the relevant issues had been dealt with in significant detail on the previous pages and in the Draft BAR.

4. Relevant policy objectives of the Garden Route Environmental Management Framework

The GR EMF highlights the context and relevance of a policy framework guiding contextually-appropriate development within the Garden Route region; essentially defining the clear unsuitability of the currently proposed Site Alternatives 1 and 2. The requirement that the threshold integrity of an ecosystem should not be transgressed is directly relevant to the proposed negative ecological impacts of Site Alternatives 1 and 2 to the Critically Endangered Knysna Sand Fynbos, for which it has been scientifically established that no further transformation or disturbance should occur.

35

In terms of Management Guidelines for Ecologically Sensitive Geographical Areas, Objective 4.6 of the GR EMF is of relevance to the unacceptably high negative visual and scenic impacts of the currently proposed Site Alternatives 1 and 2. In terms of Management Guidelines for Visually Sensitive Landscape Geographical Areas, Objective 4.7 of the GR EMF is of relevance due to the unacceptably high negative visual and scenic impacts of the currently proposed Site Alternatives 1 and 2.

Response

The final proposed mitigation measures to reduce the visual impact were not known to the PHNC when this comment was written. Note that the final impact is rated by the visual impact specialist as being medium.

5. The Applicant’s currently proposed Site Alternatives 1 and 2

The two proposed site alternatives are considered by Eskom to meet the technical criteria of a national grid-tied substation satisfactorily. Both Site Alternatives 1 and 2 are identified in the DRAFT BAR to result in critical negative ecological impacts which can, in the stated view of the Terrestrial Fauna and Flora Specialist, be mitigated to within an allegedly acceptable level. The PHNC disagree with this view. Both Site Alternatives 1 and 2 are further identified to result in critical negative visual impacts which are considered to be unacceptably high in the view of the Visual Specialist. Both Site Alternatives 1 and 2 as proposed result in the destruction of a critical remnant fragment of Critically Endangered Knysna Sand Fynbos. The relevant Rapid Conservation Assessment and Corridor Design for the Knysna Municipality (KM RCA) states that Knysna Sand Fynbos is a near-extinct species of fynbos that is entirely endemic to the Knysna Municipal area. Less than 8% (some 10km2) of the original extent of the Knysna Sand Fynbos remains, of that only approximately 0.4% is protected. Due to this remnant and uniquely endemic nature within the Knysna Municipality, these remaining patches of the Knysna Sand Fynbos habitat can be regarded as being a near-extinct fragment of our global natural heritage. The KM RCA assigns the scientifically-determined management status Knysna Sand Fynbos as being: “Management Status 2: Close to extinction, require restoration, no further transformation”. This contrasts with the view put forward by the independent Terrestrial Fauna and Flora Specialist in the DRAFT BAR that further transformation of the Knysna Sand Fynbos is acceptable. The KM RCA identifies that the Knysna Sand Fynbos can reach a stable conservation target, yet only on condition that extensive restoration of all plantation or reversibly transformed land, and “no further transformation” of the Knysna Sand Fynbos take place at all. In terms of the critically negative visual impacts, the independent Visual Specialists state in their Executive Summary distributed to I&APs on 21 August 2014, that the impact summary for visual impacts of the as ‘Eskom proposed’ (prior to mitigation) and ‘with Eskom mitigation’ for Site 1 are “Unacceptably High” including with negative impacts to the internationally-iconic Knysna Basin. The PHNC thus reiterate their objection to the visual and scenic negative impacts of the currently proposed Site Alternatives 1 and 2. Site Alternatives 1 and 2 are in terms of the NEMA and the GR EMF, clearly critically unsuitable in terms of ecological, topographical and visual environmental aspects. It is the view of the PHNC that best practicable environmental option alternatives can be found through the applied, objective, transparent, and participative process of integrated environmental management, which arguably has not yet occurred. They are fully in support of assisting with the process and seek alternatives.

36

Response

Landscape Dynamics supports the conclusions made by the visual impact specialist, botanist as well as CapeNature. The Botanist concluded that the significance of the impact, after mitigation has been applied is considered to be low enough to allow the development on Site 1 to proceed. Please note that this view is supported by CapeNature. The final proposed mitigation measures to reduce the visual impact were not known to the PHNC when their comment was written.

6. Alternatives identified by I&APs during Public Participation 6.1 Alternative technology

Proposals were put forward by I&APs for the investigation of alternative energy technologies to satisfy the energy security needs of the affected area. These proposals have not yet been adequately investigated or addressed in the EIA process to date. These proposals are based upon two primary considerations from the people-centric, rather than Eskom-centric, perspectives of the Constitutional and NEMA frameworks: i. Securing ecologically-sustainable development; ii. Protecting the critically endangered ecological and unique cultural landscape foundations, upon which the

socio-economic vitality of the Rheenendal area is primarily dependent. As a result, the proposal of the substation within areas of substantial negative impacts to ecological and visual aspects will have the effect of significantly eroding the current, and future, natural, visual and cultural capital of the socio-economic activity within the affected area. The NEMA framework should be applied in assessing the impacts of the substation from a perspective that recognises the actual complexity and interrelatedness of socio-economic activity and the ecological and visual / cultural foundations within the affected area. Based upon recent events since the inception of the EIA process, the assumption that the Applicant has available energy supply capacity to provide the Rheenendal, Brenton and Buffels Bay areas with energy security is no longer accurate. The South African Institute of Race Relations highlights the high risk associated with reliance upon the national grid, and the projected shortfall in supply in the long term, even along best case scenarios in terms of Eskom’s response to the current short to medium term capacity, maintenance, financial and new build crises. The assumption made in the DRAFT BAR that the Applicant can provide a secure energy supply for the Rheenendal, Brenton and Buffels Bay areas, for the long term, is now factually incorrect. The Applicant can more accurately supply an increasingly intermittent supply of energy over the long term. In addition to the high risk shortfall in supply, the financial cost to consumers of the Eskom-derived energy is projected to increase significantly over this same period, placing additional burden on an area of relatively low economic activity. This dynamic increases the relative feasibility of alternative energy options which supply secure, reliable, consistent and sustainable energy in terms of the objective and participative determination of the best practicable environmental option, for this area, at this time. Financial feasibility for initial capital outlay for a distributed ‘household scale microgrid’ solar power facility could for instance be considered through a combination of the costs of the proposed 10MVA Substation, innovative use of an alternative energy financial services facility, and existing local consumer monthly energy payments. Response

This is not the platform to discuss the current Eskom situation or to attempt to give solutions to a country wide problem.

To generate enough electricity by means of renewable energy to service the proposed area is not an alternative to the construction of a substation to distribute existing electricity effectively.

37

6.2 Area adjacent to the existing Rheenendal Substation

The site adjacent to the existing Rheenendal substation has been put forward by I&APs as a potential feasible alternative location to be investigated, considered and comparatively assessed. The area, including Portions 26 (with appropriate screening), 32 and / or 33 of Farm 185, has arguably not yet been objectively considered by the Applicant / EAP and has been inappropriately dismissed based upon alleged technical criteria which have not been transparently communicated to I&APs. The argument put forward in the DRAFT BAR dismissing these ecologically and visually low impact sites, is that the 10MVA Substation would be unacceptably far from the load centre. No factual data regarding the load centre, assumed developmental growth defining this new load centre, or efficiency losses per km from the load centre, are supplied for I&APs to independently consider. This is arguably in conflict with the requirement for open and transparent access to information for decision-making purposes, as required by Section 2(4)(k) of the NEMA. No alternatives for splitting the transmission across a smaller substation in Rheenendal, and a similar smaller substation in the Brenton or Buffels Bay area have yet been investigated or considered. It is considered that the ecological, heritage and visual potential impacts of the area surrounding the existing Rheenendal Substation are preliminary considered to be significantly lower than those of both the proposed Site Alternatives 1 and 2, as well as potentially requiring less substantial and less costly mitigation measures. This alternative site is thus considered to be a reasonable and feasible alternative.

Response Considerable effort was made in the selection of alternative sites (also refer to the Final BAR, Section A, Paragraph 2, pages 8 – 22). This was done whilst considering the sensitive landscapes of the Rheenendal area. The VIA dated February 2015 recommends mitigation measures which will screen the retaining wall to some extent. These mitigation measures include a strict vegetation management plan as well as a fire management regime. This is recommended to better ensure the long term success of the mitigation plans. As part of electricity network planning and development, Eskom’s Planning Department conducts load flow studies, looking at existing network whilst considering environmental constraints, demand growth in the area, development applications to the municipality and the Municipal NMD (Notified Maximum Demand). Load flow studies are done to assess the thermal constraints on the existing network as well as network growth simulations are done. Once the voltage regulators become thermally constrained, the solution is to strengthen the network with higher voltages therefore the need for another substation within the load centre, in this case new 66kV substation. The existing network in the Rheenendal area is currently thermally constrained, the load centre has shifted from where the old Rheenendal substation used to be and the farm feeders are experiencing low voltages, resulting in low reliability and quality of supply. The demand from existing customers has grown significantly and the supply to existing customers as well as future demand cannot be strengthened from the existing network which is already constrained. The selection of Site 1 was not chosen specifically for any specific future development project, Site 1 and Site 2 falls within the load centre area and from a technical point of view the best point to integrate into the Blanco-Knysna powerline, which is over a shorter route, reducing the need for longer additional powerlines to substation sites further away and is subsequently also financially viable (less costly). Eskom has a panel of highly qualified people with years of in-depth experience that determines the present and future electrical demand / need of an area. They also work together with professionals in this field at the Knysna Local Municipality. Engineers that specialise in electrical distribution determine the optimal distribution network, inclusive of positions for substations. The environmental impact assessment process can however cause that powerlines are being rerouted, but all must take place within a technically feasible option. Should the ultimate route / substation position that is approved by DEA not fulfil Eskom’s technical requirements, the No-Go option will have to be applied.

38

7. Rapid preliminary comparative impact assessment Based upon the information contained in the DRAFT BAR as well as above, a rapid preliminary comparative impact assessment is presented. The two sites as proposed by the PHNC have much lower impacts than those two sites as proposed in the DRAFT BAR.

Response

The two sites as proposed above are not technically or financially feasible to Eskom and cannot be considered as viable alternatives.

Also refer to the explanation given in point 6 above.

This comment is in principle a repeat from previous correspondence received from the PHNC of which the relevant issues had been dealt with in significant detail on the previous pages and in the Draft BAR.

8. Conclusion

In conclusion, the EIA process at present is proceeding along a route outside of the legislative and policy frameworks, and this is arguably unconstitutional. Significantly objective and participative effort will be required in order to realign the process to within the NEMA and Constitutional frameworks and towards the determination of a people-centric best practicable environmental option. The PHNC object to the currently proposed Site Alternatives 1 and 2, due to the established unacceptably high negative impacts to ecological, topographical, cultural and visual aspects, and request that the content of this correspondence be considered and integrated into the EIA process. They furthermore request that the Competent Authority assist in ensuring that the EIA process proceed within a NEMA-centric perspective, in line with the promulgated requirements of the NEMA Principles and objectives for integrated environmental management as well as the sensible guidelines of the Garden Route EMF. This is required in order to prevent the unnecessary and undesirable degradation of the Garden Route region and the erosion of the cultural landscape and tourism livelihoods of the local community, now and for future generations.

Response Landscape Dynamics is of the opinion that all legislative requirements were followed and that all reasonable steps were followed during this Basic Assessment process.

COMMENT ON THE FINAL BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT

All comment received on the Final Basic Assessment Report will be included in the Final BAR that will be submitted to DEA for comment. Landscape Dynamics will not respond to any further comments received, but will refer the final documentation to DEA for their consideration and subsequent authorisation or refusal of the application based on the information supplied. All registered Interested & Affected Parties will be informed of the Departmental decision.

*********************************************************************************************