Latest environmental setback for Greyton

It would appear that the proposed Scholz River storm water management scheme will result in the destruction of one of our very few local wetlands - click on the attached Google Earth image for a mock up.

Ecosense, the environmental practitioners will soon be holding a stakeholders meeting - go and have your say!

COMMENTS ON FINAL SCOPING REPORT FOR CALEDON WIND FARM

Mr Jan-Willem de Jager,

Arcus Gibb (Pty) Ltd

By email to: jdejager@gibb.co.za

21 September 2010

COMMENTS ON FINAL SCOPING REPORT AND EIA FOR PROPOSED CALEDON WIND FARM

DEA Ref: 12/12/20/1701.

Dear Mr de Jager,

1. We were dismayed to note that in addition to the changes outlined in your letter dated 17 September 2010, the following significant changes were made to the FSR, thereby downgrading the previously stated commitment:

DSR “Avoiding, at all costs, the placement of wind turbines within Renosterveld vegetation occurring within the study area, regardless of the wind data in those regions”

FSR “Avoiding the placement of wind turbines within Renosterveld vegetation occurring within the study area”

Quite apart from the above, all turbines and infrastructure should avoid Renosterveld.

2. EIA Plan of Study

This chapter is lacking in detail and methodologies.

Fauna

• Frog and bat studies are highly specialized areas of zoology, and should be performed by different experts, not only by your Faunal Specialist (who is in fact a botanist).

• The report 'lumps' bats with frogs seemingly with little understanding that the two taxa are very different in every aspect of their natural history. Designing surveys for frogs has no relevance for a taxon that has an aerial and migratory lifestyle, with a likely territory of many kilometers and if their migrational range is considered, this may be more than a thousand kms. There should be a separate section for the consideration of the impacts on bats.

• There is no mention of such studies. Will they be undertaken, and if so by whom? If not, why not?

• Our previous question regarding the Cape Dwarf Chameleons which are native to renosterveld remains unanswered. Will these Chameleons be subject of a specialist study? If not, why not?

Bats

Dr Sandie Sowler PhD MIEEM, an international authority on bats has contributed the following comments:

“Bats may be affected in different ways – collision or death by barotrauma, and loss of foraging have been mentioned in the Fauna Report. Additional effects are interruption of commuting routes, which may be a major threat, and the emission of ultrasound by turbines. The migratory routes to and from the De Hoop Reserve are unknown at present, but wind farms may pose significant threats.

Surveys should not only be undertaken in the summer to identify local foraging bats, but also in the spring and autumn when bats may be migrating into and out of the Western Cape, to or from their hibernation sites. In view of the agricultural role of bats, all species, not only ‘Red Data species should be considered.

In the UK, the duration of surveys demanded would cover several years in order to gain a full picture of how the proposed site is being used. To inform survey design, thorough data trawls should be undertaken including information regarding the bats of De Hoop and their known movements. Survey techniques may include automated bat detector surveys as well as perhaps some radio tracking.

I would suggest that whoever wrote this scoping report has only read a fraction of the considerable weight of literature that is out there regarding bats and wind turbines. It would be interesting to speculate if this wind farm (and others) was to adversely affect migrating bats travelling to De Hoop, whether the local farmers who use the ecosystem services of bats for insect control, could legitimately sue the wind farms for the increased cost of pesticides!!”

Because of the lack of knowledge about bats in South Africa, the precautionary approach to impact assessment should be adopted.

Avifauna

The scoping reports have relied on desktop data from programmes which were not intended or designed for use in EIAs. Extensive field work will have to be undertaken over an extended period covering all seasons for a proper assessment to be made. The Terms of Reference for the bat and avifaunal studies must include ongoing monitoring programmes for injuries and mortalities during the operational phase.

Below are some selected quotations from the “Briefing Document on best practice for pre-construction assessment of the impacts of onshore wind farms on birds”, written by Mike Jordan and Jon Smallie for The Endangered Wildlife Trust’s Wildlife and Energy Programme. It is compiled from international information, guidelines and experience. Much of it also applies to bats. Until the definitive best practice document has been published this current document should inform the EIA process and the avifaunal and bat studies.

a)      “Onshore wind farm developments have the potential to adversely affect bird populations in three main ways; displacement & disturbance, habitat loss & fragmentation, and direct mortality through collision. This briefing document discusses best practice from Australia, Canada, the EU, the UK and the USA with regard to pre-construction assessment of the potential impacts. It does not discuss offshore developments or post-construction assessment of affects.”

b)      “There is a general consensus that in virtually all cases baseline information has to be collected by actual observations at the proposed wind farm development site and that quantitative data on actual bird usage of the site is required to adequately assess the potential impacts.”

c)       “There is a complete consensus that the duration of bird studies at a potential wind farm site must as a MINIMUM cover all of the normal variation in bird usage at the site; including breeding, wintering/non-breeding and passage/migratory movements through the site; normally at least a minimum of one year of field observations, and generally if species of particular concern are present studies should span longer periods than a year.”

d)      “There is a general consensus that baseline information has to be collected from across the entire proposed wind farm site and including a buffer area dependent upon the species of concern for which data is being collected. Point observations specifically for the calculation of collision risk should cover the entire site and a small buffer to allow for observer error.”

e)      The UK minimum guidance for observations to assess collision risks are:

“The recommended minimum is that 36 hours of watches should be conducted at each VP (Vantage Point) for each season (breeding, non-breeding, migratory) when the species is present. Each season should be regarded as a discrete observation period. Within each season, each part of the wind farm should be watched for at least 36 hours. If half of the proposed wind farm area has been watched for 36 hours, for example, and the other half has been watched for 36 hours (with no overlap in visibility areas), then the proposed wind farm area has been watched over for 36 hours (the time spent observing each part of the proposed wind farm), and NOT 72 hours (the total time spent in observation).”

f)        “There are well established protocols for the collection of normal ornithological survey data, however there is a general consensus that special emphasis should be placed on the observations necessary to provide the data required to calculate predictions of collision risk. These observations are unique to the assessments of wind farm impacts and may involve special protocols and additional skills.”

g)      “There are common features to the criteria used in most regions to identify target/key species for EIA. These criteria typically comprise a combination of species deemed to be at risk from wind farms, globally/nationally red listed species, species listed under protection in national legislation; international migratory species and species occurring at low/very low density. Such criteria could easily be applied in a South African context.”

h)      “Collision mortality may be an ongoing impact for the entire operational life of the wind farm and if affecting wide ranging species then may have the potential to adversely affect whole regional, national or international populations of a species.”

i)        “There is general consensus that merely predicting whether or not an impact will occur is insufficient. Assessing the actual significance of predicted impacts is critical to the planning approval/refusal process. This presents particular challenges for wind farms and birds where the impacts may be ongoing for the entire operational life of the wind farm and also affecting large wide ranging populations. Increasingly Population Viability Analysis is used to put these impacts into perspective.”

j)        “There is a general consensus that assessing the impacts for each wind farm in isolation does not adequately assess the true significance of the impacts for bird populations. Greater attention needs to be placed on assessing the cumulative impacts of all operational, consented or planned wind farms (and other relevant developments) on target/key bird species. In some cases insignificant impacts at individual wind farms will accumulate across all wind farm developments to have a significant adverse impact upon birds.”

Visual

Notwithstanding the proposed Specialist Visual Report, TWK Municipality’s Mr. Jan Visagie has given assurance to the DEADP that no wind energy facilities be allowed in the 2 km buffer zone along the N2 (which has been classified as a scenic route within this area), especially in the area where the road descends the Houw Hoek Pass towards Caledon. In addition, it is the stated intention of the municipality that wind energy facilities should not be visible along the N2. How are these undertakings to be satisfied?

As a general comment, the blithe statements that “Data Gaps” should be highlighted and discussed are just not good enough – best practice would dictate that every effort should be made to fill those gaps.

We expect that all comments in this letter will be taken into account during the EIA phase, and will be circulated to other I&APs. We reserve the right to revise these comments and to make more comments if considered necessary.

Yours sincerely,

Stuart Shearer

Birdlife Overberg

Secretarybird in danger?

2010-04-21	Les Underhill
The Secretarybird – the range change maps send the warning lights flashing
The Eskom Red Data Book of Birds of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland, published in 2000, states: "A survey is urgently needed to determine the current conservation status of the Secretarybird, particularly regarding its relative density inside and outside conservation areas." In 2000 the Secretarybird was classified as "Near-threatened." In SABAP1, the Secretarybird species text says: "It is sensitive to habitat degradation due to overgrazing, bush encroachment, disturbance and loss of habitat to afforestation and crop cultivation" and "Its conservation status provides cause for concern." A decade later the comparison map between SABAP1 and SABAP2 sends some serious red lights flashing for this charismatic species, one of the icons of Africa. The range change map is mostly RED (where the species seems to have gone missing) and ORANGE (where the species is apparently rarer). Particularly alarming is the RED and ORANGE in the Kruger National Park. Interpretation note: The pentad data for SABAP2 have been amalgamated to quarter degree grid cells for easy comparison with SABAP1. The colours BLUE and GREEN denote quarter degree grid cells (QDGCs) where the species seems to be more abundant than in SABAP1. GREEN indicates that the SABAP2 reporting rate is greater than the SABAP1 reporting rate. BLUE indicates QDGCs where the species was not recorded in SABAP1 but has been recorded in SABAP2. RED and ORANGE indicate QDGCs where the species might be less abundant. ORANGE indicates that the SABAP2 reporting rate is smaller than the SABAP1 reporting rate, and YELLOW indicates that both reporting rates are equal. RED indicates that the species was recorded in SABAP1 but has not been recorded on SABAP2 checklists already received for the QDGC; the RED QDGCs are suggestive that the species might have disappeared from the area. Finally, PINK indicates QDGCs where the species occurred in SABAP1, but for which we do not yet have any SABAP2 data, and where we would dearly love atlasers to go and do fieldwork.

RAPTOR IDENTIFICATION COURSE IN CAPE TOWN

RAPTORS OF SOUTHERN AFRICA - AN ID COURSE

Friday 16 April (evening) and Saturday 17 April (full day)

Ulrich Oberprieler, known for his superb courses on nature and related topics, will present an ID course, based on his recently published “Raptor Guide of Southern Africa”. The course will provide an overview of Southern Africa’s raptors and will teach a systematic, step-by-step approach to raptor identification and appreciation. It will be based on the fact that the key to raptor identification is a thorough knowledge of South Africa’s 11 raptor groups. These groups will be discussed in detail, with special emphasis on a number of representative species within each group. A mixture of regional species occurring in the Western Cape and raptors that occur elsewhere in Southern Africa will be described, with emphasis on those that are less readily identified. In addition to the broad overview of species, Ulrich will cover roughly one third of Southern Africa’s 83 raptors in more detail.

Venue: Nassau Centre, Groote Schuur High School, Palmyra Road, Newlands.

Don’t miss this opportunity to learn from a master in his field. Bookings are now open. To register or make enquiries, contact Judith Crosswell on 021 - 6711787 after 19h00. Or e-mail Judith@kingsley.co.za

Haemanthus sanguineus

There is a wonderful flush of H.sanguineus in the burnt area around the Gifkloof track, just before the gun club. Also some Brunsvigia orientalis. They look even more attractive seen against the black background. They are usually  mostly hidden from view in the long grass.

NGOs RESPOND TO GROWTH IN SOUTH AFRICAN WIND ENERGY SECTOR

A media release from EWT and BirdLife was published yesterday. To read it go to: NGOs RESPOND TO GROWTH IN SOUTH AFRICAN WIND ENERGY SECTOR

GREYTON AREA BIRD LIST

The bird list has been updated to include the recent sightings of African Openbills.

HAPPY NEW YEAR FROM THE BLAZING SOUTH

In response to the previous blog, if only it were as simple as that! The power from this development is destined for Cape Town, not the Overberg. Greytonian has also extensively researched the subject and come to the conclusion that these industrial wind farms (as opposed to small domestic or community projects) are an enormous con. Too many people just blindly accept the so-called facts put out by environmental lobbyists, and it is a sad fact of modern society that anyone who has the temerity to question 'the environmental establishment' is branded a heretic. So much for scientific honesty and integrity. Greytonian has briefly stated his views in the Greyton Sentinel, January 2010. It can be read at: Greyton Sentinel January 2010

By the way another little advertised fact is that wind turbines consume electricity from the grid just to keep going, and as a consequence they grind to a halt during a blackout - very handy.

Has anyone calculated the carbon cost of the two recent climate change conference farces?

Greytonian is, and always has been, despite being brought up in Cumbria,  strongly in favour of clean and safe nuclear power. By the time that any residual nuclear waste might be a problem Homo so-called sapiens will have long destroyed this planet and moved on to wreck another place.

Carbon footprints – wind turbines – letter from West Cumbria 2

Happy New Year from the frozen North.

I have blogged at length on the fact that wherever I go in Cumbria I can see a wind turbine or 2 or 3 or more. I actually quite like windmills and I also am a supporter of energy from renewable sources – 1 of them being ‘the wind’. I think we need a mix of energy sources and our UK government for some reason has dubbed West Cumbria ‘Britain’s Energy Coast’ – (the cynic in me also sees this as a cloak for ‘The World’s Nuclear Waste Dump’). I also wonder why the Cumbria based Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (the NDA) doesn’t  just call itself ‘The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority’ and have done with it.
I digress and refer the reader to previous blogs.

So: …cutting from www.overberg.co.zaBack to my point for discussion and comparison – wind turbines.

Currently Cumbria has 200 turbines and to make Cumbria energy self sufficient, using just wind, we would need some 2,000 more. 
The visual impact of 2,200 wind turbines scattered over the most beautiful county in England is……well… It just won’t happen – will it?

However if we are to keep down carbon emissions and control temperature rise to less then 2degC we need to have a mix: nuclear, tidal, hydro, wind and solar and bio-fuels of course. The mix is really dependant on what is available and, for Cumbria, that seems to be water (tide and hydro), wind, bio-fuels (and nuclear).
For the Western Cape it’s got to be solar, wind, bio-fuels and nuclear.

I’ve googled some statistics and my web-based research reveals the following:

• The Western Cape is approx 22 times bigger than Cumbria.
• The Overberg (4,340 sq miles) is 2 times the size of Cumbria.
• Cumbria has a population of 500,000 compared to 220,000 in the Overberg i.e. Cumbria although one of the most sparsely populated parts of Britain has more than 4 times the density of the Overberg
• Now here’s a beauty: Cumbria gets 23million day/night visits a year; compared to 1.1million to the Overberg (or 15million to the Western Cape).
• Based on population the Overberg could stand another 1million or so visitors – can we/you cope??

Trying to find sensible energy requirements and usage is much more difficult. Cumbria, though similarly rural, is more industrialised than the Overberg and of course … much colder. The best I can work out is as follows:

• Cumbria needs 25TerawattHours per annum
• The Overberg will need less even pro-rata so I assume backing off the industrial/developed apportionment that it should be approx. 8 Terawatt Hours per annum
• 600 wind turbines in a field near Botrivier should just about do it.
• The 100 MW plant proposed by Eskom is only about 40 Turbines….. so think about that.
• The Nuclear plant at Koeberg is an 18 times bigger producer of electricity than the 100MW wind plant but still only produces 6% of SA’s energy needs.

We all have to do something to control temperature rise:

• use less – spend less - compromise
• burn less coal – or move to clean coal
• use solar
• use the wind
• use the tides
• Use bio-fuels
• use the hydro schemes
• use safe nuclear

My next letter will be on a different subject..Water again!

The Big Fire

Hope all is well -