Appendix D - Pre-DEIAR Comments and Response Report.pdf

PROPOSED HYDRO SA RIEMVASMAAK RUN-OF-RIVER HYDRO ENERGY FACILITY & ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE, NORTHERN CAPE PROVINCE Draft Environmental impact Assessment Report April 2015

Comments & Response Report

ISSUES TRAIL

Issues submitted post Scoping Phase for inclusion in the Draft Environmental

Impact Assessment Report

Notes on the Issues Trail:

Issues submitted are listed in alphabetical order of the surname of the person that submitted that issue.

Some issues were submitted by I&APs in PDF format and had to be retyped by Sustainable FuturesZA (SFZA). Minor typing errors may have

occurred.

For some issues, headings were added or words highlighted to make it easier for the reader to identify the focus of that issue.

The response from EAP refers to a response from the EAP team, which includes SFZA.

For the Issues Trail, issues were translated from Afrikaans to English. The original issues submitted are included in Appendix E

No. Issue Raised by Response from CES EIA team or Hydro SA

Access for specialist studies

1. Morning Mercia,

I contacted Frans van Rooyen at SANParks to notify that I was

coming through. He told me that I require written permission

from the community of Melkbosrant, who are the owners of

the land that SAN Parks merely manage on their behalf as part

of the reserve. SANParks will not grant me access without

this. Would you know how I would go about doing this? I am

booked to go through there tomorrow, so would like to get this

done ASAP if possible.

Kind regards,

Mathew Ross (Pr Sci Nat, MSc)

Kind regards,

Mathew Ross (Pr

Sci Nat, MSc),

comment by e-

mail, 17 March

2015

Good morning Frans van Rooyen

Please find attached the requested letter.

Your positive response will be highly appreciated.

Kind regards

Lloyd Theunissen, Trustee, Riemvasmaak Community

Development Trust, comment by e-mail, 17 March 2015.

Please allow Mathew Ross and his team access to the park,

tomorrow, 18 March 2015.

2. From: Frans Van Rooyen

[mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: 02/04/2015 07:52 AM

To: Lloyd Theunissen Subject: RE: ACCESS TO THE PARK 09 APRIL 2015

Hi Lloyd,

Lloyd Theunissen,

Trustee,

Riemvasmaak

Community Development

Trust, comment

From: "Lloyd Theunissen" <[email protected]>

To: "'Frans Van Rooyen'"

<[email protected]>

Cc: <[email protected]>, "'Mercia Grimbeek'" <[email protected]>, "'Niel Theron'" <niel@hydro-

sa.com>, <[email protected]>

Subject: RE: ACCESS TO THE PARK 09 APRIL 2015




I’ll need a request and you be specific where access is needed

and the reason access is needed for also the amount of time

they’ll spend.

Access to the Park will need to be approved by Park Manager.

I just need from you the OK that you give authorization to

whoever to access Melkbosrant area.

Regards!

Frans

by e-mail, 02

April 2015.

Date: 2 April 2015 09:38:16 GMT+2

Good morning Frans

1. I do not understand your e-mail.

2. This is not the first time that access is requested

and granted.

3. Hydro-SA is in the process of applying to install a

hydro power plant in this specific area and need to do the

necessary inspections and comply with the necessary

requirements as stipulated by the relevant Governmental

Department.

4. As trustee of the Riemvasmaak Community

Development Trust, I, Lloyd Wilfred Theunissen, on behalf

of the trustees and the Riemvasmaak community, hereby

give authorisation to Niel Theron and his team to gain

access to the Melkbosrand area of the park on 09 April

2015. The time, gate of entry and period need for the day,

Hydro-SA will communicate directly with you and or a

designated member your team.

5. I hope and trust that the above request is clear and

in order.

6. Kind regards and should you be travelling over the

long weekend, please travel safely.

Lloyd Theunissen

Benefits of the Project

3. As a community member of Riemvasmaak I have concerns. If

the the project starts, will there be job opportunities for the

people of Riemvasmaak?

Willl the hydro power station benefit tourism?

Bennie Kordom,

Marchand

Community, comment by

comment form,

20 March 2015

The power plant will create jobs during construction and

operations. During the construction phase approximately

150 -200 jobs will be available for the local cimmunity. This includes the Riemvasmaak community.




What are the direct benefits for the people of Riemvasmaak? The hydro power plant has the potential to benefit tourism

through the Economic Development spend which it will be

obligated to spend as part of the Renewable Energy

Independent Power Producer Program(REIPPP).

The Riemvasmaak people can benefit in three ways:

Rental Income as the Developer will lease the land

on which the power plant is to be constructed.

Direct job creation

Dividend Income – the community has the

opportunity to purchase between 1% and 5%

shareholding in the project. This is another

condition of the REIPPP

General

4. Hi Shawn,

I would like to renew my status as I&AP

Regards

Nardus du Plessis

Section Ranger

SANParks: Augrabies Falls National Park

Nardus du Plessis

Section Ranger

SANParks:

Augrabies Falls

National Park,

comment by e-

mail, 10 March

2015

Dear Nardus,

Thank you for your e-mail regarding the proposed

Riemvasmaak Hydro Power environmental impact

assessment. Nardus you and all of the key SANPArks staff

at Augrabies National Park, SANParks Regional, SANParks

Head Office and SANParks Planning have been registered

as interested and affected parties. My team is currently

updating the database of all interested and affected

parties.

I hereby confirm that you have been registered as a

interested and affected party. If there are any additional

persons who would like to register please feel free to send

me their contact details.

Sincerely,

Shawn Johnston

5. WESSA in the Northern Cape is not able to deal with these matters.

Wildlife and Environmental

Society of South

Africa, Northern

Comment noted.




Please do not send faxes or hard copies of documents to us.

They will be destroyed.

Registered mail will NOT be collected.

Please consult the website for other WESSA contact details, or

direct your e-mail to [email protected] or

[email protected]

Cape Branch,

comment by e-

mail, 19 March

2015

6. We thank you for showing interest in one of our amazing

adventures. Our office will be in contact shortly to discuss your

booking.

Please note we have recently moved servers and upgraded our

website. If you have not had a response within 24 hours please

contact us directly on +27 (0)54 453 0001 or +27 (0)82 476

8213, alternatively [email protected]

We look forward to seeing in the Green Kalahari.

Kind Regards

The Kalahari Team.

The Kalahari

Team, comment

by e-mail, 13

March 2015

Comment noted.

7. Hi Shawn

I am already an IAP. I assume I don’t need to register again?

Luel Culwick,

Sidale Energy Solutions

Luel Culwick,

Sidale Energy

Solutions,

comment by e-

mail, 16 March

2015

Dear Luel,

Thank you for your e-mail. You are a registered interested

and affected party.

Sincerely,

Shawn Johnston

8. Eskom’s rights and infrastructure affected by the proposal. Owen Peters,

Eskom, comment

by e-mail, 19

March 2015.

Dear Owen Peters,

You have been registered as an interested and affected

party and your comment has been noted. Sincerely, Shawn

Johnston.

9. Please register me as an interested and affected party. Eskom

representative.

Ramon Odendal,

Eskom Land and

Rights, comment

by e-mail, 25

March 2015

Dear Ramon,

Thank you for registering as an interested and affected

party. Our team will keep you informed regarding the

availability of the DEIR.

Sincerely,




Shawn Johnston

10. The weir is extremely close to my property and I live on the

island adjacent to the proposed weir.

Gert Heese,

Orleans Boerdery,

Groot Vaalkop

Eiland, comment

by e-mail, 15

March 2015

Dear Mr. Gert Heese,

Thank you for your e-mail. You have been registered as an

affected party on the project database. I’m forwarding your

comments onto the environmental team and will convene

a meeting with you shortly. Sincerely, Shawn Johnston.

11. Hi Shawn,

Please register or re-register as per attached the 4 persons

from SANParks side as I&EP. With any communications please

send to all 4 of these persons.

Also find attached previous comments/concerns document of

SANParks.

Regards!

Frans van Rooyen

Park Manager: Augrabies Falls National Park

Frans van

Rooyen,

Park Manager:

Augrabies Falls

National Park,

comment by e-

mail, 16 March

2015

Dear Mr. Frans van Rooyen,

Thank you for your e-mail. I hereby acknowledge receiving

your e-mail and registration of the following persons:

1. Howard Hendricks;

2. Andre Riley;

3. Frans van Rooyen; and,

4. Lucius Moolman.

I hereby confirm that the above mentioned person have

been registered as interested and affected parties (I&APs)

for the proposed Riemvasmaak Hydro-Power Station EIA.

Mr. Frans van Rooyen, I acknowledge receiving your five

page document and will forward it to Ted Avis and Bill

Rowlston (of EOH CES, the project EAP).

Sincerely,

Shawn Johnston

12. Information on the social, labour and plans. Communication

and public sector meetings.

Alfred Tieties,

Director Technical

Services, Z.F.

Mgcawu District

Municipality –

Upington,

comment by

comment form, 19 March 2015

Comment noted.

Presentation was scheduled to be made to the ZF Mgawu

District Municipality on Friday 17 April to provide more

detail about the proposed project.

Unfortunately the ZFM District Municipality cancelled and

we are awaiting confirmation of a new date.

Department of Environmental Affairs, SANParks & Hydro SA Meeting/Site Visit 23 October 2014




13. Hi Niel and Mercia,

Below are my notes from the recent meeting with DEA and

SANParks, focusing on the questions raised.

1. During culvert construction will game still have access to

the river? Will need to allow for this. Is it possible to also

provide watering holes along pipeline. Will need to map game

paths and ensure access during construction.

2. Pipeline to follow existing road/track. Disturbances during

construction to be rehabilitated.

3. The small drainage lines to Orange river will need to

continue functioning so pipeline cannot block these. A storm

water management plan approved by DWA will be required.

Where these drainage lines occur culverts may need to be

deeper to avoid the pipeline been exposed.

4. Road width will be 6m and servitude about 20m wide.

5. Danie- have approved many renewable energy projects.

Third time they have been engaged with this project and have

great concern about the falls. Whether activity takes place

outside park the effect will be on the park. EIA needs to deal

with this and must have guarantee that falls and national park

cannot be compromised. It’s a Schedule 1 protected area.

Mitigation is easy but the fundamental issue that there must

be measures to sustain the falls and hence the park.

6. The holistic and sustainable perspective is NB to DEA. When

water bypasses falls this is seen as a key issue.

7. Gap in EIA was lack of flow data, short and long term/ and

risk of low flows. Must be properly managed as if not can be a

fatal flaw. Second largest water fall in Africa.

8. DEA need assurances from developer that they will not

affect the falls. Water availability over the falls over a long

Department of

Environmental

Affairs, SANParks

& Hydro SA

meeting and site

visit, 23 October

2014. Notes

recorded by Dr.

Ted Avis, CES

The attendance register, notes, and SANParks Position

Paper are recorded as a record of the meeting and included

into environmental impact assessment process.

The South African National Parks Position Paper, August

2014, 7 page document is hereby appended as part of the

record of the notes of the National Department of

Environmental Affairs, SANParks and Hydro SA meeting

and site visit.

1. This aspect has been dealt with in the Faunal

Specialist Study and the impact section of the EIAR.

2. Noted and recommended

3. A Stormwater management Plan would need to be

produced as a condition of approval. Detailed

design will determine where the pipeline needs to

be deeper to achieve the mitigation measure of

minimizing visual impacts through burial.

4. This relates to the required servitude for the

pipeline/conveyance system.

5. Recommendations in the EMP and mitigation

measures in the EIAR deal with this issue, which

has been a central focus of the EIA.

6. Noted and addressed.

7. More detailed flow data and analyses are included.

See for example Section 3.3 of the EIAR.

8. This has been addressed in the DEIR, the

development will not avail istelf of any water once

the flow is reduced to 30m3/s. This is the

environmental flow required and the power plant

will be not operate at this level.

9. The design of the weir is such that it will guarantee

30 cumecs of water over the falls.

10. The Hydrological Model looked at the past sixty

years (although the banking model will only be based on the last 20 years – as this more accurately

reflects the current flow regime – based on controls

at Van Der Kloof and Gariep Dams) Over the last




term period needs to be investigated. Must consider long term

trends especially extended dry periods and also climate

change.

9. HydroSA will be able to guarantee 30 cumecs over the falls,

based on the weir design.

10. Need to look at last 20 to 50 years when there was less

than 30 cumecs over the falls. Need to interrogate data and

include a more detailed analysis of hydrology and flows in the

system.

11. HydroSA – the option of designing an additional sluice gate

that is under the control of the park and after a protocol is

followed they could shut down the plant (over-ride switch).

Give them a physical mechanism to control flows and hence

guarantee flow.

12. SANPARKS- support renewable energy but Augrabies is a

national park and therefore cannot support the

construction of a weir or power lines within the park.

13. RVM community have been asking if SANPARKS is

approving the HEP scheme. Have received questions from

public about this. SANPARKS concerns are not included in the

FSR as they were received after FSR was completed.

14. SANPARKS needs to provide a list of their concerns so it

can be incorporated into the project design.

15. RVM community – they are in favour of project, subject to

acceptable environmental impacts.

16. DEA Minister is responsible for settlement of land in

protected areas and protected status must continue. A settled land claim must take protected status into account and

SANPARKS has jurisdiction over the area.

20 years there have been 561 days (out of 7300

days) where the flows have been less than

30m3/sec (7.7%) whereas there has been 233 days

over the last 10 years (3650 days - 6.4%)

11. An emergency shutdown procedure is decribed in

Section 3.3.2 of the EIAR.

12. Noted

13. SANParks concerns have been received and are

dealt with in various and many places within the

EIAR.

14. As above

15. Noted

16. Noted. A legal review relating to land ownership

and management of the land was undertaken and

the results are presented in Section 2.4 of the EIAR.

17. Noted

18. Noted. Dealt with in Section 2.4 aqnd elsewhere in

the EIAR.

19. Noted. The EIA has focused on all aspects of the

project’s potential impacts.

20. As for response 18 above.

21. Noted with concern

22. See asection 3.3.1 of the EIAR.

23. A legal review relating to land ownership and

management of the land was undertaken and the

results are presented in Section 2.4 of the EIAR.

24. Has been done

25. Noted




17. Niel Theron (HydroSA) is aware of all the rights they need

to get. Prerequisite to bid is the environmental authorization.

18. DEA Kalie Naude. National Park authority sits with

SANPARKS and there is no other act that overrides this.

Deproclamation can only be done by parliament. Management

authority (SANParks) must give permission for activities that

take place in a national park. DEA look negatively at

developments in National Parks. If SANPARKS as

management authority is opposed to development then

approval is unlikely. Their management plan is a legislated

instrument that must be complied with. If the project is not

part of the management plan then changing the plan could

delay the project by years.

19. SANPARKS Hugo Bezuidenhout - Need to also adhere to

management plan in park as it is not all about the falls.

20. SANPARKS comments relate to remoteness, zonation of

areas. If project required changes to zonation then

management plan needs must be changed and Minister must

approve it.

21. Danie Smit of DEA. Would like all parties to work together

but once they receive report and if it has negative comments

from SANPARKS then approval highly unlikely.

22. The 30 cumecs figures need to be fully justified. How did

HydroSA determine this as the minimum flow required for the

falls? Elucidate in the EIA.

23. Land claim on Portion 497/0 could take a number of years

to remove. Land is currently zoned remote in terms of

SANParks management plan.

24. Need to check listing notice 3 because if protected area

then there are much lower thresholds.




25. Option of approving the EIA subject to changes to

management plan - not an option according to Danie Smit.

End of questions

Minutes prepared by Ted Avis

The South African National Parks Position Paper,

August 2014, 7 page document is hereby appended as

part of the record of the notes of the National

Department of Environmental Affairs, SANParks and

Hydro SA meeting and site visit.

Eskom Network Planning

13. Dear Lebogang,

I trust this finds you well.

As you are aware, Tom Bezuidenhout recently submitted the

Grid Application for the proposed project. I am currently

finalising the Environmental Impact Assessment for the

project and one of the conditions imposed by the Department

of Environmental Affairs (“DEA”) is that we obtain a letter from

Eskom expressing the need or desireability for such a project

in the area. This is not a request usually imposed on an IPP.

Discussions with Robin Buske at the Brackenfell office have

lead me to you.

For ease of reference I insert the clause from the letter

received from DEA below. Given the current status quo and

the fact that the project would feed into the National Grid - a

national rather than even provincial shortage would be

relevant.

Kindly advise if you would be able to assist with such a letter

and if not would you kindly point me in the direction of

someone that could assist please.

Best regards

Lebohang Motoai

Grid access Unit,

Eskom Holdings

SOC, comment by

e-mail, 07 April

Dear Mercia,

We do not write such letters to all IPP`S, We do not even

have a template for such letters.

I am sorry cannot assist you with such letter.

Regards,

Lebohang Motoai

Grid access Unit




Mercia Grimbeek

Project Manager

14. Good Day Mercia,

Please find a summary of our discussion for the meeting

regarding Hydro SA’s RVM project.

Please note that the attached minutes do not bind or commit

Eskom to anything but merely reflect a record our discussion.

Formal commitment and costing for your connection is only

done when you officially apply and pay for your CEL and Eskom

provides you with a CEL. I believe this has been done and

Eskom GAU has received

your official application on the 2nd April 2015 as it was

sent to me.

This discussion also ignores the preferred connection of any

selected bidder approved in Round 4, for which no

announcement has been made yet by the DoE.

Regards,

Robin

Robin Buske,

Network

Development

Planning

Engineer, Eskom

Holdings SOC,

comment by e-

mail, 07 April

2015

Meeting minutes of the Eskom-Hydro SA meeting

regarding the transmission integration of the project are

appended. Six page document.

Issues Raised By Kobus van Coppenhagen, Gerhard Smit & Andrew Hockly

15. To whom it may concern

We have been informed several months ago by AURECON, that

they are no longer acting as consultants for the above

mentioned application and that they are currently involved in

litigation with the applicant. This follows more than 18 months

of requests from us for a copy of the so called upgraded

application form, which they have refused to provide, citing

invalid reasons.

We have come to the conclusion that the DEA is either indulging the applicants tardiness, for unknown reasons, or

just don't care about our National Heritage, both of which are

Kobus van

Coppenhagen,

Augrabies,

comment by e-

mail, 05 March

2015.

Dear Mr van Coppenhagen

Many thanks for your email. As you note, we are the new

EAP on the project, and assure you that we will execute the

EIA in a fair and transparent manner. Mr Bill Rowlston of

CES is responsible for writing the EIA, as he has a large

amount of expertise in this field, and I act as study leader.

Public consultation is undertaken by Shawn Johnston, who

specialises in this field, and has worked extensively in the

area. I copy them both in. Further correspondence should

be addressed to Shawn.

I wish to confirm that we have all previous information,

reports, communications and data from Aurecon to enable




intolerable situations. Failing a prompt response from this

department in due course, we will have no option

but to approach the office of the Minister of Environmental

Affairs directly, for relief. We are also putting on record the

fact that it seems as if no water license application has been

submitted, because we have also requested that document,

without success.

We want to re-iterate our prior concern that the application is

procedurally and administratively flawed, because it seems as

if the applicant is conducting this "upgraded" procedure on

their own Terms of Reference, i.e. without the proper

directions/instructions of the DEA and without any deadline for

conclusion of the procedure and even without a consultant! If

the DEA did issue a new set of instructions for this upgrade,

after requesting the revised application on 18 June 2013, we

would like to receive a copy of the full documentation.

Regards

Kobus van Coppenhagen

0836564498

us to complete the EIA process. All of your previous

comments were dealt with and incorporated into the Final

Scoping Report, which we have reviewed together with the

specialist studies to ensure all issues have been or will be

dealt with. Would you like Shawn to give you a list of your

communications we received from Aurecon, just to be

certain?

Currently we are updating and finalising the specialist

reports to ensure that they address all issues and concerns

raised by IAP’s, and that they deal with the single, 40

Mwatt project. We are currently initiating the drafting of

the EIA report, and hope to circulate this towards the end

of April. Shawn will notify all registered IAP’s of the exact

date, and will also circulate an email updating everyone on

the current status of the EIA phase. We will also schedule

focus group meetings with key stakeholders during the EIA

phase.

We are not involved in the WULA application but I will ask

Mercia, the HydroSA environmental manager (and copied

herein), to send this to you when available.

The other documents you refer to will be available as part

of the DEIR.

You will note that I have not copied all the parties you

included in your email. In my experience the authorities

and other officials prefer not to be copied in, as all

correspondence is codified and included in the EIA report

and its annexures. You are, of course, free to continue

copying them in if you so choose.

Regards

Ted Avis

16. Subject: Hydro-electric power station in the Augrabies Falls National Park

Dr. Avis

Kobus & Hannecke van

Coppenhagen,

Augrabies,

We confirm that we have all the relevant details of previously registered IAPs.




We are a registered affected party for the above mentioned

application, which was launched by three separate SPE's in

Dec 2012 and which was subsequently "upgraded" to double

the capacity of the proposed installation.

For the sake of brevity we will not elaborate any further,

assuming that your company is in possession of the details of

all the registered IAP's together with all the correspondence

which was exchanged between IAP's and AURECON. As a

matter of interest; we have suggested 2 years ago that

AURECON should be replaced as the consultants because they

were conducting a procedurally flawed and administratively

unfair process. This happened a few months ago and your

company has the unenviable task of concluding the process in

a transparent and fair manner. As a matter of record it must

be noted that a precedent was set several years ago when

another applicant was directed by the Competent Authority,

to allow the IAP's to participate in the appointment of the

consultants due to the impacts of the proposal, which was also

our notion in this case, from the outset. Details of this directive

can be provided on request and which would then serve as

proof of precedent.

We do respectfully request that your facilitator contact us (and

perhaps others) to confirm our status as affected parties,

especially due to our many valid concerns and the

incompetent manner in which it was being dealt with. We also

need to verify with the facilitator that your company is in

possession of a full record our correspondence, for

consideration.

In the meantime we do need a copy of the valid upgraded

application (requested by DEA 18 June 2013) together with

the subsequent instructions and directives issued by this competent authority, which would have validated the

application and which would lead the consultants in the design

of the Scoping and EIA Reports. We also need a copy of the

comment by e-

mail, 09 March

2015.

We note your comment that another applicant was directed

by the Competent Authority; to allow the IAP's to

participate in the appointment of the consultants, but

confirm that this was not a requirement in this case.

Based on a perusal of the Issues and Response trail in the

Final Scoping Report, it appears that a large amount of

comemnts from you are included. However, we are not in

a position to undertake an audit of your comemnts, as we

do not have the original communications. You would be

best placed to do so.




water license application, together with the instructions and

directives issued by DWA.

Regards

Kobus & Hannecke van Coppenhagen

Augrabies.

0836564498

17. Subject: Re: Application for Hydroscheme in the Augrabies

Falls National Park

Good day

We are not sure whether this e-mail is actually meant for the

office of Mr. Gordon although his name appears on the related

documents. In order to remove any ambiguity this e-mail is

adressed to the Director General; Ms. Nosipho Ngcaba, for

attention. Regards


0836564498

Kobus &

Hannecke van

Coppenhagen,

Augrabies,

comment by e-

mail, 10 March

2015.

Noted

18. Good day Shawn

Our telecon of this morning refers;

Mr G Smit forwarded contact details of EOH CES on 9 March,

after this e-mail was sent.

Attached below is a copy of an e-mail which was sent to DEA

on 5 March and which we redirected to the DG after

discovering that M Gordon's portfolio did not include

environmental authorization, although his details have been

listed since the launch of the application. The same was true

of DWA where the name of an official, which has retired years

before the application, was used, but we cleared that issue up

by ourselves and notified the EAP. We want to bring your attention to the fact that documents should not be littered with

obvious mistakes if you want to conduct a fair and transparent

process. The trend of the document is self explanatory and

Kobus van

Coppenhagen,

Augrabies,

comment by e-

mail, 11 March

2015.

Dear Mr. Kobus & Mrs Hannecke van Coppenhagen,

Thank you for our telephone conversation early this

morning. I wish to thank you both for highlighting your

concerns about the proposed project. I look forward to

engaging with you and other affected parties during the

environmental impact assessment phase.

I hereby acknowledge receiving your e-mail highlighting

the communications with the National Department of

Environmental Affairs and the concerns you have raised

regarding the quality of reports and the correct facts. I will

make sure these comments are passed onto Dr. Ted Avis

and Dr. Bill Rowlston at EOH Coastal & Environmental

Services.

I look forward to meeting with you and other affected

parties during the EIA phase. Sincerely,




now that we have your contact info, you could share it with

the applicant.

Regards


0836564498

Shawn Johnston

19. Good day Shawn and Ted

The new BID which was forwarded for our attention refers;

(1) Firstly, we do not want to have to correct you on certain

aspects of this "application" on a constant basis. We have

referred to the fact (to AURECON) that the PROJECT TITLE

was ambiguous, because the public would not know that the

site is located within the Augrabies Falls National Park (AFNP)

and that the proposed activities would directly affect the

status of this National Park, i.e. that the Park must be de-

proclaimed in order to give effect to an approval. This would

be a major upheaval and quite similar to what the Tasman

Government wanted to do in a Tasman National Park in the

recent past; to be able to conduct logging operations inside

the National Park and then to re-proclaim it as a National Park

again, afterwards. In actual fact, there is another example

where they did exactly that, in order to achieve their goals.

The IUCN opposed their latest proposal and we have also

approached the IUCN in respect of this application inside the

AFNP, but are still waiting for a response. (2) (You must be

aware that the Tasman Government, via their wholly owned

HYDRO ELECTRIC CORPORATION (HEC), which trades under

the names Hydro Tasmania (HT) and Entura are partners in

this (and other) applications and that they would be benefiting

heavily from these projects? This is probably the origin of the

culture of intolerance by the applicant to any form of

objection, if you have investigated their modus operandi?). Anyway, the DEA accepted our objections regarding the

naming of the project and their suggestion is reflected in the

letter below and we have also used it in the subject title above.

Kobus &

Hannecke van

Coppenhagen,

Augrabies,

comment by e-

mail, 13 March

2015.

Dear Mr. Kobus van Coppenhagen,

Thank you for your e-mail.

I hereby acknowledge receiving your correspondence and

will clarify it with the environmental impact assessment

practitioner and the developer and revert back to you as

soon as possible.

Sincerely,

Shawn Johnston

1. Project title - We note your comemnts, and refer

you to section 2.4 of the EIAR, which provides

details on a legal review and matters pertaining to

land ownership and the management thereof which

has a bearing opn the project’s title.

2. Proponent - We are aware of the associate

between HydroSa and HydroTasmania, and note

your reservations.

3. Changes to the application and applicant –

4. Fatally flawed application – The Department of

Energy (DOE) initially had a 10MW cap on small

hydro projects in the REIPPPP. Hydro SA therefore

submitted three Basic Assessment Applications for

three separate 10MW projects. The DOE

subsequently increased the cap to 40MW. This

prompted Hydro SA to have only one project which can generate 40MW instead of three smaller

projects. It would also reduce the environmental

footprint substantially. As a result two of the three




We propose that you confirm that this is the correct name in

order to be able to move forward from the title page!

(3) Secondly, the letter (below) dated 18/6/2013 requests

that the RVM 1 Hydro Electric Power (Pty) Ltd, application

document must be revised to reflect the increased capacity

applied for, which has to be done in order for the Department

to confirm the ToR for the continuation of the application. (We

have asked for copies of this revised document for the last 18

months, with no success). However, this letter from DEA is

silent regarding the activities applied for by RVM 3 Hydro

Electric Power (Pty) Ltd (weir and conveyance infrastructure)

which the consultants are attempting to transfer to RVM

1Hydro Electric Power (Pty) Ltd (a separate SPE) as it would

become apparent in a letter of 3 June 2013, to DEA. A meeting

between the applicant and DEA was held on 7 May and

followed up by a letter from AURECON, dated 3 June 2013,

addressed to Mrs. Linda Poll-Jonker (DEA) where the EAP

falsely states on page 2 "Withdrawal of two application forms:

Initially RVM1 applied for 3 separate projects ......."

Which is patently false, because the notice dated 21/12/2012

(and many other docs) states on page one:

"1) Introduction:

RVM 1 Hydro Electric Power (Pty) Limited, RVM 2 Hydro

Electric Power (Pty) Limited and RVM 3 Hydro Electric Power

(Pty) Limited, (RVM 1, 2 and 3) wishes to construct..........."

Thus 3 separate legal entities (Special Project Vehicles/Entities

as Mr Theron referred to it in the first public meeting) !!!!!!!!

(4) This clearly demonstrates that the EAP/applicant made a

false statement, but the contractual relationship between the

three SEPARATE ENTITIES is clearly illustrated in a Powerpoint

presentation document titled: RVM Hydro Electric Project,

Overview 30 July 2012, Kimberley on page 15, section 8. This document can be forwarded if required.

Thus, the closure of the application which provides for the

water conveyance infrastructure activities and weir, cannot be

Basic Assessment applications were withdrawn and

the remaining application was upgraded to a full

Environmental Impact Assessment. The correct

procedures were followed with the Department of

Environmntal Affairs to execute this. Copies of all

application forms are attached as appendices to the

DEIR

5. Water balance aspects – Information on flow

duration and hydrology are presented in Section

3.3 of the EIAR and elsewhere. Please note

however, that this is a run of river scheme and

hence is non consumptive. Nevertheless, the

project is based on an annual power generation

capacity of 235 gigawatt-hours (GWh). There will

be periods when no power can be generated, as run

of river is below the threshold of 30 cumecs

required for the falls, but the financial model

considers this. A positive IRR and NPV will be

generated.

6. Turbidity – The risks of increased turbidity have

been assessed as low in the EIAR.

7. Height of the weir – The weir will not be higher

than 5m – see Section 3.2.1 of the EIAR.




"revived/inherited immediately" by another entity, according

to the regulations. In a document to AURECON, titled

Hydrology of the Orange river, we did allude to the fact that

the old Bophutatswana Government built a coal fired power

station somewhere in what is now Northwest Province, but did

not make allowance for the water needed and thus the plant

never started up. From a procedural/administrative point of

view this is a fatal flaw and if approved the RVM 1 application

will have to be reviewed on this ground alone, because it has

NEVER applied for the water conveyance infrastructure related

activities, which also affects other properties.

(5) Thirdly, if your specialist investigations does not include a

full water balance investigation this application would be

useless, because we have already shown (hydrology doc and

others) that there would be a deficit of more than 660 million

cumec per annum in the Lower Orange River Valley in the near

future, just because of Lesotho Highlands Water Scheme

Phase II, which would transfer an additional 21 cumec/second

to the Vaal Catchment Area. There are other increases in

consumption which we have also alluded to, which the EAP

seemed to ignore, because the viability of the project and also

the rationale for the doubling of the capacity of the plant would

have no scientific/reasonable basis. This was clearly

demonstrated in a letter dated 2 July 2014, to AURECON by

Dr. Riaan Wolhuter, who is an electrical engineer! On the other

hand, it is possible that the applicant is only interested in the

construction phase profits and does not care if the investors

and community are saddled with a non-profitable installation.

Obviously, this would be valid comments for the other planned

installations too. (6) Not a word has been mentioned by the

EAP/applicant about the turbidity of the water of the Orange

River, which is the highest in Africa and 4th highest in the

world, which would not be good news for a water driven

turbine operator, especially for higher elevation run-of-river type systems.




(7) Fourthly, the height of the weir is now suddenly increased

to 5 m again, according to the BID. Are you busy with a copy

and paste exercise, because if you are not serious, you might

eventually regret becoming involved in this application!

For the moment this will suffice and we would expect a proper

response to the above-mentioned issues, because skirting

around the them will not make it disappear?

<DEA let re Upgrade to EIA 190613.pdf>

Regards

Kobus and van Coppenhagen

0836564498

20. Dr. Avis' e-mail regarding comments of IAP's refer;

Please consult the correspondence below, to verify that our

comments were not considered for the FSR, due to

unavailability of the documents.

Regards

Kobus and Hannecke van Coppenhagen

0836564498

Begin forwarded message:

From: Louise Corbett <[email protected]>

Date: 09 Oktober 2013 7:43:14 nm. SAST

To: Nelis Bezuidenhout

<[email protected]>, "Kobus van

Coppenhagen" <[email protected]>

Cc: Simon Clark <[email protected]>

Subject: RE: PROPOSED HYDROPOWER STATION ON THE

FARM RIEMVASMAAK, AUGRABIES, NORTHERN CAPE - RVM 1:

DEA Ref: 14/12/16/3/3/1/681; NEAS Ref: DEA/EIA/0001403/2012 - AVAILABILITY OF THE FINAL

SCOPING REPORT FOR REVIEW

Kobus van

Coppenhagen,

Augrabies,

comment by e-

mail, 16 March

2015.

Dear Mr Kobus van Coppenhagen,

Thank you for informing our team that your comments

submitted to Aurecon during the final scoping phase have

not been incorporated. I will incorporate your comments

into the draft environmental impact assessment phase. Mr.

van Coppenhagen, can you please submit the mentioned

comments directly to me.

Sincerely,

Shawn Johnston




Dear Kobus

As noted on site today there will still be further opportunities

to comment on the EIA Process. However, should you still wish

to comment on the FSR you are welcome to do so. We will

then forward your comment to DEA for their information and

we will include and respond to it in our next report (the Draft

Environmental Impact Assessment Report, unless DEA require

us to revise the FSR).

Kind regards

Louise

Louise Corbett

Associate I Environmental Services I Aurecon

T +27 21 526 6027 I F +27 86 667 3532 I

E [email protected]

Aurecon Centre 1 Century City Drive, Waterford Precinct

Century City I South Africa

aurecongroup.com

From: Nelis Bezuidenhout

Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2013 8:03 AM

To: Kobus van Coppenhagen

Cc: Simon Clark; Louise Corbett

Subject: RE: PROPOSED HYDROPOWER STATION ON THE


DEA Ref: 14/12/16/3/3/1/681; NEAS Ref:

DEA/EIA/0001403/2012 - AVAILABILITY OF THE FINAL


Dear Mr Van Coppenhagen

Please find attached the email correspondence with regards to

the matter in your email below.

The first email was sent on 23 September 2013 (11h32)

followed shortly by a follow-up email (15h23).




Kind Regards

Nelis

Nelis Bezuidenhout I MPhil Cum Laude, BA Development &

Environment

From: Kobus van Coppenhagen [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 7:21 PM

To: Nelis Bezuidenhout; Simon Clark

Subject: Fwd: PROPOSED HYDROPOWER STATION ON THE


DEA Ref: 14/12/16/3/3/1/681; NEAS Ref:



Good day Nelis & Simon

We have still not received the courtesy of a reply to the matter

below, would you be so kind to respond.

Regards


0836564498

From: Kobus van Coppenhagen <[email protected]>

Date: 23 September 2013 10:51:04 MGT+02:00

To: Simon Clark <[email protected]>

Cc: Nelis Bezuidenhout

<[email protected]>

Subject: Re: PROPOSED HYDROPOWER STATION ON THE


DEA Ref: 14/12/16/3/3/1/681; NEAS Ref:



Good day Simon




We are still not able to access the FSR for the abovementioned

project on your website and request if you would extend the

review period accordingly.

Regards


0836564498

On 18 Sep 2013, at 14:58, Simon Clark

<[email protected]> wrote:


We apologise for the inconvenience, the entire site is currently

down, we have technicians currently working on rectifying the

access issues to the documentation. We will notify as soon as

the website becomes available.

Kind regards

Simon Clark ,Aurecon

From: Kobus van Coppenhagen [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2013 12:23 PM

To: Simon Clark

Subject: Re: PROPOSED HYDROPOWER STATION ON THE


DEA Ref: 14/12/16/3/3/1/681; NEAS Ref:



Good day Simon

Thank you for the e-mail, but the FSR & several other

documents are not yet posted to the website. Would you be so kind to inform us when this has been posted?

Regards





0836564498

On 17 Sep 2013, at 16:44, Simon Clark

<[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Sir/ Madam

PROPOSED HYDROPOWER STATION ON THE FARM

RIEMVASMAAK (REMAINDER OF FARM NO. 497 AND PORTION

OF FARM NO. 498), ON THE ORANGE RIVER IN THE VICINITY

OF AUGRABIES FALLS NATIONAL PARK, NORTHERN CAPE

RVM 1: DEA Ref: 14/12/16/3/3/1/681; NEAS Ref:

DEA/EIA/0001403/2012;

AVAILABILITY OF THE FINAL SCOPING REPORT FOR REVIEW

The abovementioned project refers.

This email serves to notify I&APs of the availability of the Final

Scoping Report (FSR) for the above mentioned project for

comment.

1. Introduction

Following the comment period on the DSR, the Final Scoping

Report (FSR) was compiled. The FSR includes comments and

concerns that were raised by Interested and Affected Parties

(I&APs) during the comment period of 40 days which stretched

from 19 July 2013 until 28 August 2013.

2. Changes made to FSR

This FSR is an update of the DSR, including additional

information on the current status of the public participation process and amendments made in light of some of the

comments made. Substantive changes to the Draft Scoping

Report are reflected as underlined text, while deletions are




reflected with strikethrough text. For your convenience we

have attached the non-technical summaries (English &

Afrikaans) to this email.

The following annexures have been updated:

Annexure B (includes updated database and proof of I&AP

correspondence); and Annexure C (includes Comments and

Response Report 2 and comments received).

3. Way forward

The FSR will be available from 16 September 2013 until 7

October 2013 for a 21-day review and comment period at the

Kakamas Public Library, at Reception at Augrabies Falls

National Park and on Aurecon’s website

(www.aurecongroup.com please change the current location

to “South Africa” and follow the “public participation”- link).

The FSR is also available at each of the three Riemvasmaak

Community Trust offices or alternatively contact Mr Bennie

Kordom on 071 443 9277.

If the proposed project crosses your land and you are the

landowner, but not the occupier of the property, please inform

the occupier of the land on which the proposed project is

located or advise us of their contact details so that we may do

so. To ensure that all Interested and or Affected Parties

(I&APs) are informed of the proposed project we kindly

request that, should you know of someone that would be

interested in or affected by the proposed project, you ask

them to contact us. Alternatively please inform us and we will

contact them directly.

If you would like to obtain more information, submit any

comments or register as an I&AP, please contact Nelis

Bezuidenhout at Aurecon: Tel: 021 526 6031, Fax: 021 526 9500, E-mail: [email protected] or P.O.

Box 494, Cape Town, 8000 on or before 7 October 2012. Any

comments received on the FSR will not be captured in a




Comments and Response Report, but will be forwarded

directly to the Department of Environmental Affairs for their

consideration and responded to in the EIA Phase only.

Should you have any further queries, please contact the

undersigned.

Yours sincerely, AURECON

Simon Clark on behalf of Nelis Bezuidenhout

21. Dr Avis

Subject: Proposed Augrabies Hydro Power Plant, Northern

Cape.(2)

We believe that you need to be informed that we are not

against any type of renewable energy project, as a matter of

principle, but rather that applications should only be launched

in appropriate areas, which would exclude National Parks from

the outset. We have been living in challenging conditions, with

no services (off-grid and brackish drinking water), for the last

7 years, with only our own resources to rely on. Thus, the

need for the generation of renewable energy from sustainable

sources, weigh heavily on our minds. In that regard, the

record will show that we have suggested to the DEA and the

applicant that the site alternatives to the Augrabies Falls

National Park, being Neusberg and Boegoeberg, should be

considered for approval, since they are brownfield sites. It is

also quite clear from authoritative documents that the

development of conservation areas for non-aligned activities,

in biodiversity priority areas are unacceptable e.g.

1) Study Name: Orange River Integrated Water Resources

Management Plan

Report Title: Environmental Considerations Pertaining to the

Orange River (p61) Authors: R Heath, C Brown Date of issue:

August 2007

Kobus &

Hannecke van

Coppenhagen,

Augrabies,

comment by e-

mail, 17 March

2015.


I hereby acknowledge receiving your correspondence date

17 March 2015, at 11:09:36 SAST. I will process these

comments into the draft environmental impact assessment

report's comments and response report.

Thank you for placing these comments on record for the

EIA phase.

Sincerely,

Shawn Johnston


Find attached the response I have received from HydroSA

relating to your request for information on the WULA

Application.

Sincerely,

Shawn Johnston

Dear Shawn,




"Due to electric power generation (that is between Gariep and

Vanderkloof Dams and below Vanderkloof Dam for some 200

km) loss of species diversity is severe. The river immediately

below Vanderkloof has been described above as an ecological

desert. The creation of further "ecological deserts" would not

be desirable. They would be unacceptable in parts of the river

of particular conservation importance."

2) Siyanda Environmental Management Framework Report

2008 (p76)

In the instance of the Lower Gariep Alluvial Vegetation,

conservation is the only acceptable use of the area because it

represents:

vegetation type with a conservation target

that can already not be attained anymore due to the extent of

transformation that has already occurred; and

and subject to natural physical change over time due to the

interaction between the alluvial nature of the area and flood

events.

3) We would also appreciate your comment on the legitimacy

of this application against the background of the Park

Management Plan and exactly how the NEM: PAA and its

regulations must be waived to allow for this installation, which

would initiate the dismantling of our protected areas system,

if approved. The notion that the lease of a protected area can

be negotiated for non-aligned activities (for up to 100 years,

according to Mr Theron in press), is fraught with unimaginable

complications. Soon, applications for wind farms on Table

Mountain National Park and Solar installations in other

National Parks would follow JUST BECAUSE THE POTENTIAL EXIST and a precedent would have been set for its approval.

In response to Mr Van Copenhagen’s request for a copy of

the WULA for RVM. We are quite happy to oblige once the

application is complete.

The developers met with the Department of Water Affairs

on 10 February 2015 to discuss the draft application.

This application is now being finalised for submission and

once submitted we will supply a copy for Mr Van

Copenhagen’s perusal.

Kind regards

Mercia Grimbeek

Project Manager

(1 & 2) Ww note with thanks the references provided

relating to the conservation importance of the Orange River

and related habitats. Imopacts associated with weir

construction and the off-channel imtake are discussed and

assessed in the EIAR.

(3) The role and function of SANParks and the Augrabies

falls Management Plan are discussed, inter alia, in the

Fauna Specialist Report and the EIAR.




As far as we are concerned one of the most important aspects

of this project is the diversion of water away from the currently

active river channel and waterfall (over a distance of 9km)

together with the impact of that proposal on the environment,

which is a protected area. A water license have not been

applied for, according to your submission. Whenever this

happens we would also want to register as an IAP for that

process. We do also continue to insist on receiving a copy of

the "upgraded" application from the EAP/applicant (as

provided for in the application form, note 8 on page 1)

You must please also check on the "RVM1" application

document page 8, where it states:

Please note that any authorisation that may result from this

application will only cover activities applied for

For your convenience we are recording the details of what is

being applied for (page 8 of application form), etc. Please

make your own conclusions, considering the above statement.

(Is it possible to entrust someone with the care of our National

Heritage if they cannot grasp this most basic information, even

after 18 months of requests?)

3.0 OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS REQUIRED,

3.1 Do you need any authorizations in terms of any of the

following laws?

3.1.1 National Environmental Management : Waste Act

....................applicant stated: No???

3.1.2 National Environmental Management : Air

Quality Act .............applicant stated: No

3.1.3 National Environmental Management : Protected

Areas Act ....applicant stated: No???

3.1.4 National Environmental Management : Biodiversity Act ...........applicant stated: No???

3.1.5 ........

We have carefully perused the regulations and listed

activities, and are confident all possible listed activities are

included in the application and the EIAR.




3.1.6 National Water Act

......................................................................ap

plicant stated: Yes

3.1.7 National Heritage Resources Act

............................................... applicant stated:

Yes

3.1.8 ...

3.2 Have such applications been launched

already?...........................applicant stated: N/A???

Notwithstanding note 5 on page one, which specifically warns

against the use of N/A, because the application can be rejected

if it relates to material information, the applicant used the

term N/A. We hope that the deficiencies in this "RVM

1"application are now apparent to you as the new EAP and

that our contentions in the next paragraph starts to make

sense to you. It is clear that the applicant also wants to collect

a water license without specifically applying for it and following

the licensing procedure. We have requested that an IWULA

(integrated water use license application) procedure must be

conducted because of the impact on the Augrabies Falls

National Park. This would require a full verification process by

Department of Water Affairs, to determine whether the

quantity of water could be allocated. Thus, a (future) water

balance determination is crucial, because of the quantity of

water applied for and the statement of the EAP (AURECON),

that all future water allocations upstream, would have to

consider the requirements (power factor) of the proposed

installation, which is a misconception and shows a lack of

knowledge of the NWA and its regulations. This highlights the

general lack of a professional approach to this very

controversial proposal in an area of the highest protected

status in South Africa.

Another matter of concern is that investors might be led to

believe that the schemes are viable because for example in

the case of Neusberg, ENTURA (a beneficiary) has been




appointed to evaluate the feasibility of the proposed project.

(CDM Validation Report, p18). IS THE EAP AWARE OF THIS

PRACTICE OF THE APPLICANT, APPOINTING ITS PARTNERS

FOR VERIFICATION PURPOSES? The applicant has admitted in

a meeting that they have only considered historical records for

the determination of the "dispatchability/power factor" of the

proposed Hydro power installation, which is a grave error in

the case of the Lower Orange River, due to planned changes

in the water balance upstream.

As far as our correspondence is concerned we need to inform

you that AURECON published the FSR too late for all the

comments to be submitted timeously and was thus not

incorporated into the FSR. (We have forwarded

correspondence to that effect). It would be essential to receive

a list of all our correspondence (in your possession) in date

order to determine whether you have all the documents. We

are however convinced of the fact that the "application" has

lapsed or is invalid, at least due to the inadequate

documentation, lack of ToR from DEA and that the starting

point, for the Scoping Report, should have been timeous

rectification of this document. We are very concerned about

DEA's tolerance/indulgence of the "tardiness" of the applicant

to revise and submit the application in due time, because the

application lapses if an instruction is not complied within 6

months (21 months have elapsed in the meantime). We are

committed to the administrative process but then it MUST be

fair and transparent. In the meantime we have approached

the office of the DG of DEA for action in this regard. Failing a

proper response we would be forced to approach the office of

the Minister of Environmental Affairs in due course.

If the applicant was the owner of the land and it was situated

outside of the protected area and its buffer zones, the scenario

would be different (as far as location is concerned) and we expect that the EAP must always keep this in mind.

Regards

The banks (lenders) accepted the verification provided by

Entura – Neusberg was successfully constructed within time and within budget

The applicant was granted an extension to 30 April 2015.





0836564498

22. From: Kobus van Coppenhagen [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: 15 April 2015 12:44 PM

To: Ted Avis

Cc: M Gordon; Danie Smit; A B Abrahams; Howard Hendricks;

Lucius Moolman;

Frans Van Rooyen; Mike Knight; Gene Visser; Gerhard Smit;

Andrew Hockley; Angus Tanner

Subject: Re: Hydro-electric power station in the Augrabies

Falls NationalPark

Dr Avis

We have requested more than 4 weeks ago, that you should

furnish us with the copy of the valid application form date

stamped by the DEA and according to which the ToR for your

EIA has been determined. You have failed to provide us with

this document, without which the application is invalid and the

procedurally flawed. Do you refuse to provide this document?

Your response is urgently required.

Regards


0836564498

Kobus &

Hannecke van

Coppenhagen,

Augrabies,

comment by e-

mail, 15 April

2015.


Thanks you for your email. My apologise for the late

response, but we are in the final stages of completing all

documents for the HydroSA project and somewhat busy.

Our engagement process, and indeed that of the EIA

process, is to gather all correspondence from IAPs and

integrate this into a comments and response trail, in

preference to individual and piece-meal responses. The

latter is an inefficient and somewhat exclusive way of

engaging, whereas including concerns and responses in the

comments trail of the EIAR is a more transparent and

inclusive manner of engaging with IAPs. This way everyone

is privy to the debate, rather than a select few.

With regard to the application form, it will be included in

the Draft EIAR as an appendix for all to see.

Regards

Ted Avis

23. From: Gerhard Smit [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: 09 March 2015 12:20 PM

To: Dr T Avis

Subject: Augrabies hydro-electric power station.

Good afternoon,

I watched the TV News last night and noticed that the Planned

Hydro-electric power station in the Orange River is still on-

going. I would herewith request to be registered as an I&AP for this

project.

Gerhard Smit,

comment by e-

mail, 09 March

2015

Dear Mr. Gerhard Smit,

Thank you for your e-mail dated 09 March 2015. I hereby

confirm that you are registered as a interested and affected

party

for the proposed Riemvasmaak Hydro Project EIA.

The project is now in the environmental impact assessment

phase. EOH Coastal & Environmental Services are the new environmental impact assessment practitioners on the

project. Their team are lead by Dr. Ted Avis and Dr. Bill

Rolston. EOH Coastal & Environmental Services are




Please confirm to this email address receipt of this message

and also that I have been registered as requested.

Please also advise me at what stage the process is and also

please forward all relevant documentation to me.

Your kind co-operation in this matter is appreciated.

Kind regards

Gerhard Smit

0164283497

currently drafting the draft environmental impact

assessment report for release towards the end of April

2015. A copy of this document will be sent to you as soon

as it becomes available.

Sincerely,

Shawn Johnston

24. Hi Shawn, Dankie Gerhard

Please register me as an interested and affected party for this

unsolicited proposal of a Hydro Electric Scheme in the

primitive and remote areas of the Augrabies Falls National

Park and the Riemvasmaak Community Conservancy.

In order for a realistic assesmanty of the proposal I hereby

request the documents from which this new set of consultants

will be referring to in making this assessment.

In particular:

Any document calculating the amount of water which could be

available. Preferably from DWAF.

Any Geological data, in particular the Earthquake Risk

assessment.

A fine scale contour map of the proposed Diversion Weir and

Outtake structures, covering the full island, the island and in

particular the potential for the erosion of the entire island.

A n assessment of the noise pollution inevitability during

construction covering all weather variations and wind

directions. Particularly important is the winter cold periods

when any sound stays low and carries.

An assessment of the water quality as returned to the river

just above the man made lake from Vredesvallei. Adding dead

water to dead water appears unadvisable.

Andrew Hockly,

comment by e-

mail, 11 March

2015

Dear Mr. Andrew Hockly,

Thank you for your e-mail. I hereby acknowledge receiving

your request to register as an interested and affected party

and confirm that you have been registered on the

stakeholder database. I will be forwarding you a copy of

the draft environmental impact assessment report when it

becomes available. The environmental impact assessment

practitioner (EAP) is currently draft the report. I'm passing

your request for information onto EOH Coastal &

Environmental Services.

I look forward to engaging with you during the EIA phase

of the proposed project assessment.

Sincerely,

Shawn Johnston

The EIAR report needs to be circulated, and the validity of

the report assessed by IAPs. It is not a requirement to send

IAPs the reports and data which the EIAR draws from, if

this is indeed the nature of this (unclear) request.




Any research on the Cape Clawless Otter.

Thanks and regards

Andrew Hockly

P.O.Box 20

Augrabies 8874

079 888 9502

Job Creation

25. Will there be enough job opportunities for the Riemvasmaak

Community? What are the timeframe for developing and

building the project? What about job creation amngst the

youth? What about developing ourselves and having

sustainable livelihoods? Most of us are unemployed and in

need of skills.



150 -200 jobs will be available for the local community.

This includes the Riemvasmaak community.

26. Our biggest concern is unemployment and job creation. We

need clarity on what the job opportunities for the

Riemvasmaak community will be. Please clarify this issue for

us.

Patrick Regent,

Nolukholo

Nkuphu,

Nomthandazo

Masheqa,

Thandiswa

Macando, Welma

Kariato, Wendall

Jors, Gcobani

Mapikana and

John Cloete,

comment by reply

form, 19 March

2015.



150 -200 jobs will be available for the local community.

This includes the Riemvasmaak community.

Project Support

27. Renewable energy decision.

The community agreed that the bid of Hydro SA must be

supported and added that a renewable energy mobilising

committee be established which will ensure that Riemvasmaak

has developers submitting compatible bids for solar power and hydro-electricity. The Development Committee must engage

the Augrabies Falls, SANParks and all other stakeholders.

Riemvasmaak

Committee

Meeting decision,

held at Sending

Hall, 27 November 2014

The communities project support are noted as an affected

party input.




28. The Riemvasmaak community support the development of the

proposed hydro energy facility and the community provided

the various Riemvasmaak committees to persue and

investigate renewable energy opportunities further.

Ben Vass at

information

session with

Riemvasmaak

Development

Committee,

Governance

Committee,

Repatritation

Committee,

Planning

Committee, 10

February 2015

Comment noted.

29. In our area there is a shortage of power. It would be a good

idea to have a power station here. We will have less power

cuts in the area. Our community support the project.

Antonia Vass &

Zolike Hoorn,

comment by reply

form, 20 March

2015

Comment noted.

30. We support the Riemvasmaak hydro project. Theresia Hampira,

Ketelien Kotze,

Nomule Mafikata,

Mzingisi Nkupu,

Eunice, Niklaas

Tieties, Dennis

Vass, Christopher

Kotze, Dawid van

Wyk, Loot

Kariato, Yekani

Mate, Norman

Rhyn, Masixole

Booi, Leonard

Roman, Christina

Hendricks, Ethel

Vass, Silvester

Frans, Sinethemba

Mathe, Isak

Green, Magdalene

Comment noted.




Bostander,

comment by reply

form, 20 March

2015

31. I like the idea that you would want to assist the community of

Riemvasmaak with te project. It would assist us when we have

a major power cut. I hope the work can start so that the

Riemvasmaak community can benefit from it.

Leon Kopers,

comment by reply

form, 20 March

2015

Comment noted.

32. I’m quite excited about te project. Ihave visited the Neusberg

project and have seen what have been achieved there. I hope

they can do the same on our property at Riemvasmaak. It will

assist us greatly in dealing with unemployment and job

creation for our families and children.

Gloria Adams,

comment by reply

form, 20 March

2015

Comment noted.

33. We do not have any concerns about the animal life as it will

adapt to the noise and the people will make a plan with the

plants. This will be a very good job creation opportunity for

the community of Riemvasmaak. We need the power station

here. There is enough space to locate the project on the site.

L J

Mblankomo,Noms

a Vass, Frans

Blaauw, Nwabisa

Damane &

Desmond Blaauw,

comment by reply

form, 19 March

2015

Comment noted.

34. I do not have a problem with the project. My wish is that our

community benefit from the project during construction to

create jobs.

Regina Jaar,

comment by reply

form, 19 March

2015

Comment noted.

35. I support the idea of the project as it holds numerous benefits

for the community of Riemvasmaak, such as job creation and

to reduce power cuts. Please conduct a information session in

Vredes Valley as soon as possible. I hope we can cooperate in

the future. Lets proceed with the project.

Isak Vass,

Demetheo

Beukes, daniel

van Weyers,

Norbert Coetzee,

Petronella Basson,

Ricardo Malgas,

Claudia Lukas,

Andreas Adams, Henry Augus, Jan

Frans, Benjamin

Vass, Dirk van

Comment noted.




Wyk, Jacobus

Basson, comment

by reply form, 20

March 2015

36. We are extremely positive about the development. I hope the

project contribute to more stable and sustainable energy

needs of Blouputs and Augrabies.

Alwyn Dippenaar

and Namein

Gagiano, Blouputs

Framers

Association,

comment by reply

form, 10 March

2015

Comment noted.

Melkbosrant Community Concerns

37. My problem is that the original Melkbosrant community was

not involved in this project. What happenes to the graves and

nature on Melkbosrant? The Melkbosrant Committee

representing the Melkbosrant Community need to be engaged.

Conduct a workshop with the Marchand community. It is a

large project and it can destroy the forna and flora.

Bernard

Bezuidenhout &

Markus Basson,

Melkbosrant

Community,

comment by reply

form, 19 March

2015

Meetings will take place during the review period of the

EIAR, during which these issues can be discussed.

38. My concerns is the community conflict that might delay the

development of the project.

Feitjie Basson,

comment by reply

form, 20 March

2015

The PPP will deal with this process related issue.

39. My concern is the long lead time to develop the project and

the relationship and agreement between the park and the

community.

Michael Basson,

comment by reply

form, 20 March

2015

Noted. Unfortunately large complex projects take a long

time to develop.

40. The process must be completed as soon as possibe ad the

community need to be provided with all of the project

information.

Charlotte Dawids,

Governance

Committee

Riemvasmaak, comment by reply

form, 20 March

2015.

Comment noted.




Road Network

41. Good morning Shawn,

Thank you for your email. Thank you for the google map. Will

it be possible to forward me a map indicating the national road

and properties involved. Kind regards, Rene,

Rene de Kock,

South African

National Roads

Agency

(SANRAL),

comment by e-

mail, 31 March

2015

Dear Rene,

Thank you for your e-mail. This project is about 60km away

from the N14 and not near the National Road. It is off the

road to Riemvasmaak. Do you deal with the district roads

in this area?

Sincerely,

Shawn Johnston

Thank you Shawn,

Please take note that SANRAL must be consulted before

the transport of abnormal loads on national roads.

Please forward Transport Plan to Garth Julius from this

office at [email protected] if SANRAL is affected.

Kind regards

Rene

SANParks Submission (Frans van Rooyen)

42. 1, The destruction of the habitat in which at least one endemic

species (Augrabies Flat lizard) occurs. This lizard does not

occur anywhere else in the world, only in a small radius around

the waterfall.

2. The destruction of the geology and possible weakening of

the wall of the canyon on the northern side in the construction.

Especially when considering that this area is already prone to

earth tremours and that the river is situated on a fault line.

3. Flow of the waterfall – This waterfall is a MAJOR attraction

not only in the Northern Cape but also in South Africa. During the 2010/11 floods, people travelled from all over SA to come

and see the falls. Once the project is completed then there will

be no control over how much water is diverted, the cost of the

Frans van

Rooyen,

Park Manager:

Augrabies Falls

National Park,

comment by e-

mail, 16 March

2015

The re submission of this four page document by Frans van

Rooyen, Park Manager: Augrabies Falls National Park is

hereby acknowledge.

1. The faunal specialist report investigated this and

Impact 4 of section 7.3.4 of the EIAR discusses this.

2. A specialist study to investigate seismic risks was

undertaken. Section 6.5 of the EIAR presents a

summary of the findings, and Sections 7.2.9; 7.3.9.

and 7.4.9 of the EIAR respectively assess design,

construction and operatyional phase impacts. 3. The weir is designed with a broad crested profile at

level 616.0m, and a 7.5m-wide low-flow slot left of

the channel centreline, which will allow the agreed




project and the need to supply electricity will be more

important.

4. Destruction and disturbance to ecology and biodiversity

during construction. This is a sensitive arid environment where

rehabilitation will be very difficult if not almost impossible.

5. The ethics of the Park will be compromised.

6. SA does not have many waterfalls therefore they should be

protected in their pristine state. Surely, at dams (where

destruction has already taken place) hydo projects can be put

in place.

7. The noise and disturbance during the long construction

period will chase tourists away and they will probably not

return as they will conjure up their own ideas/pictures of what

the falls and park will look like afterwards.

8. For the small amount of electricity to be produced the total

destruction is not worth it. It should not even be considered

within a National park

9. The different Cormorants that nest and breed close to the

area were the proposed weir is planned is a big concern, they

will be disturb.

10. The forebay will be above ground level, how will they

camouflaged it to prevent visibility once people visit the

lookout points?

11. The place where they planned to put the water back in a

dry stream is also a concern because there is currently no

water the plants and trees will die if you put water all of a

sudden there the plants are well adapted to the dryness of the stream.

Dear Nelis Bezuidenhout and Louise Corbett

environmental flow of 30m3/sec to pass through the

weir structure unimpeded to ensure that to ensure

that at least 30m³/s flows through the low-flow slot

before water is diverted into the HPP headrace. See

Figure 3.7 and Section 3.3 of the EIAR for further

details.

4. This issue is addressed in both the Faunal and

Botanical specialist studies, and impacts are

discussed in Chapter 7 of the EIAR.

5. Deproclamation would not be required. However,

the project will occur in areas classified by the

SANParks Management Plan as remote.

6. Most of the suitable sites for HEP generation in

South Africa have already been developed. Chapter

13 of the EIAR provides further details.

7. A specialist study on noise impacts was

undertaken, and the impacts are discussed in

Chapter 7 of the EIAR. The outcome of increased

noise stated here is conjecture. There are no

indications that this will or will not be an outcome,

although it is highly unlikely given the low impacts

associated with noise.

8. The justification for the project is discussd in

Chapter 4 of the EIAR.

9. This issue is dicussed in the Faunal specialist

study, and impacts of the weir are discussed in

sections 7.2.4.and 7.3.of the EIAR. See for example

impact 3 in section 7.3.4.

10. The headpond and forebay – the intake to the

penstocks – is located at the downstream end of

the headrace, immediately upstream of and

adjacent to the site of the power chamber. There is

no need to camouflage it as it is a small structure

and will only be visible when one is close to it.

11. This has been assessed in the Aquatic specialist study, and in Section 7.4.2 of the EIAR as an impact

of low significance.




South African National Parks (SANParks) acknowledge the

opportunity to comment on the Draft Scoping Report for the

Proposed Hydropower Station on the farm Riemvasmaak

(Remainder of Farm no.497 and Portion of Farm no. 498) on

the Orange River, in the vicinity of Augrabies, Northern Cape

Province.

SANParks submits that South Africa’s economy is energy

intensive, mainly from mining, pulp and paper, and smelting.

To date, almost 90% of South Africa’s current Electricity

Generation Capacity is provided by coal. There is almost no

renewable energy generation. It is for this reason that South

Africa explores and invest in generating alternative electricity

from renewable resources. SANParks therefore supports

renewable energy generation traditionally provided by

technologies such as hydro, wind, solar and biogas.

To this effect, SANParks seeks an alignment between the

proposed hydropower station development and the National

Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act, 2003 (Act

No. 57 of 2003), (NEM:PAA) being the primary Act for

managing protected areas in the country for the following

reasons;

1. Discrepancies between the proposed development and

SANParks mandate must be regarded within all the

applicable environmental legislation both nationally and

internationally, not just NEM:BA as the draft scoping report

alludes;

2. The draft scoping report provides no procedural

explanation for the valid application upgrade from

approximately two 10 x 10 MW substations to one 40 MW

substation, including the regulatory framework that provided for three applications which were lodged by

RVM1Hydro Electric (Pty) Ltd, RVM 2 Hydro Electric (Pty)

Ltd and RVM 3 Hydro Electric (Pty) Ltd, respectively in

The following responses the numbered comments to the

left:

1. Legislative issues are discussed in the EMPr.

2. The Department of Energy (DOE) initially had a

10MW cap on small hydro projects in the REIPPPP.

Hydro SA therefore submitted three Basic

Assessment Applications for three separate 10MW

projects. The DOE subsequently increased the cap

to 40MW. This prompted Hydro SA to have only one

project which can generate 40MW instead of three

smaller projects. It would also reduce the

environmental footprint substantially. As a result

two of the three Basic Assessment applications

were withdrawn and the remaining application was

upgraded to a full Environmental Impact

Assessment. The correct procedures were followed

with the Department of Environmntal Affairs to

execute this. Copies of all application forms are

attached as appendices to the DEIR

3. Section 2.6 of the EIAR, based on a legal opinion,

explains the issue of land ownership and land

management.

4. Construction of the project-related infrastructure

across Remainder of farm Waterval No 497 will

require the establishment of a servitude or

servitudes, for which application must be made to

the Department of Public Works. Construction of

the project-related infrastructure on Portion 1 of

Farm Riemvasmaak 498 will require the Applicant

and the Trust to enter into a long term Lease

Agreement. Such an arrangement has been

drafted and currently is being reviewed prior to

approval via a special general meeting of the Trustees and beneficiaries of the Trust. See section

2.6 of the EIAR.




comparision with Department of Energy lifting the cap of

≤10 MW;

3. Whilst the draft scoping report provides the fundamental

arguments for “Riemvasmaak land, owned by the

Riemvasmaak Community Trust, located within the

borders of the Augrabies Falls National Park” followed their

forced removal in 1973/1974 during Apartheid, the report

uses such notion of land ownership interchangeable to

avoid referencing the cabinet decision of parliament that

such land must be used for the purpose of conservation,

hence the current contractual agreement between

SANParks and the Riemvasmaak Trust including the

acceptance of an annual ex gratia payment – this

highlights the need for clarity on land ownership and the

appropriate landuse thereof;

4. While not explicitly forbidden in the NEM:PAA, the

provision of land for infrastructure linked to the

commercial generation of power is not listed as one of the

functions of SANParks and it is therefore questioned if

SANParks is in a position to lease or otherwise provide

rights for power generation infrastructure such as those

contained in the proposed development;

5. The difference of opinion between DEA and the Aurecon

regarding Listing Notice 2 (GN No. R545) of the NEMA EIA

Regulations must be resolved with immediate effect,

rather than just prior to the submission of the final EIA

Report for decision-making;

6. The draft scoping report ignored SANParks concern about

diverting a sizable portion of the river’s flow from the falls

that would have a negative impact on the visitor

experience to the falls – instead, the report confuses this concern with the visual impact group rather than a tourism

experience which highlight the shortcoming of the draft

5. This issue has been resolved, and has no significant

bearing on the EIA, since a full Scoping and EIA

study is, in any avent, required.

6. SANParks concern about diverting a sizable portion

of the river’s flow from the falls that would have a

negative impact on the visitor experience to the

falls has been assessed. See especially section

7.3.2, 7.3.7 and 7.4.7. These impacts are low as a

minimum flow regime will be guaranteed.

7. Please refer to Section 3.2 for details on this. The

maximum rate of diversion from the river to the

hydropower station will be 38m3/s. A 7.5m-wide

low-flow slot left of the channel centreline, with a

broad crested profile at level 616.0m, will allow the

agreed environmental flow of 30m3/sec to pass

through the weir structure unimpeded

8. The AFNP Management Plan has been carefully

considered in the EIA process. As explained in

section 2.6 there is no need to change the current

environmental zoning of primitive and remote, and

this is not recommended.

9. This has been noted.

10. Please refer to Chapter 5 of the EIAR for a

discussion on alternatives.

11. The land ownership issues are discussed in Section

2.6. Chapter 4 discusses the need and desirability

of the project, in accordance with the EIA

regulations.

12. The issues raised here are all comprehensively

discussed in the Faunal specialist study.

13. A Socio-economic and tourism specialist study has

been prepared to deal with this issue.




scoping report in defining a tourism experience as merely

a visual impact;

7. The draft scoping report is silent on the planned volume of

water to be diverted during the low flow period; the

minimum reserve flow is required to maintain ecosystem

integrity whilst an additional amount of volume of water

will be required to provide a heightened tourism

experience at the falls;

8. The revision of an approved Park Management Plan is the

prerogative of the Minister in accordance to NEM:PAA

Section 40 (2), whereas the change of a particular zone

within a National Park is subject to Section 41 (g) of the

same Act compelling SANParks to change such zones with

predetermined conservation objectives and activities for all

the national parks in the country to allow for the proposed

project – the conservation objective is to maintain remote

and primitive zones in as near to a natural state as possible

with no impact on biodiversity pattern or processes,

essentially these areas retaining an intrinsically wild

appearance and character, or capable of being restored to

such and which is undeveloped, there are no permanent

improvements or any form of human habitation, and

provides outstanding opportunities for solitude with awe

inspiring natural characteristics;

9. SANParks notes that the proposed development is not in

accordance with the spirit of the National Strategy on

Buffer Zones around National Parks;

10. The draft scoping report uses location alternatives

interchangeable between alternatives sites along the

Orange River versus alternative sites in the country which

limits a proper understanding of what feasibility studies were done towards alternatives sites for the waterfall, no

indication is given as to where the 12 sites along the

Orange River were located (Ps. both Neusberg and




Boegoeberg are ideal alternative sites to the Augrabies

Falls National Park site which together is likely to deliver

at least 30% of the 75MW allocation for small hydro

stations);

11. It is a grave concern that the draft scoping report down

plays the status of a National Park with the high positive

social impact that the project will have (especially for the

landowners, i.e. Riemvasmaak Community), as well as the

contribution it will make to the energy grid in South Africa

as the best practicable environmental option for the

proposed site of development thereby disregarding

regrettably the importance of a National Park and the legal

status thereof;

12. From a species management point of view, the scoping

report falls short on the importance the park provides

towards the conservation of many species to this

environment, including large breeding colony of birds

nesting in trees along the river and on a small islands

whilst the disturbance of normal riverine habitat and the

interference with the flow and stratum of the river bed and

bank are likely to permanently flood many large rocks in

the vicinity of the weir thereby disturbing a watercourse

that would otherwise have been used as perching sites for

birds such as cormorants which constitutes a prohibition in

NEM:PAA Regulations;

13. SANParks submits grave concern about the fact that

the draft scoping report incorporates the impact on

tourism synonymous with the visual impact of the

proposed development and loosely as part of the impact

on the socio-economic environment – the impact on

tourism has merit to be investigated on its own, hence a

separate and additional specialist study will be required.

In anticipation that these comments receive your

consideration it will allow SANParks to optimally manage




Augrabies Falls National Park within the confines of the

regulatory framework for protected areas in the country as

well as international obligations.

43.

Telkom

44. Good Day Shawn

We acknowledge receipt of your application. Our reference is

CAHS0170-15 for further enquiries in this regard.

Regards, Aletta Gabaitumele, NIP: Wayleave Management

Mantwa

Gabaitumele,

Telkom Wayleave

Management,

comment by e-

mail, 19 March

2015

Dear Mantwa,

Thank you for your e-mail, your commnent are noted.

Sincerely,

Shawn Johnston

45. Good Day Shawn,

Attached find our cover letter for your application. Although

we are not affected, Mr. Vivian Groenewald must be contacted

at 054-338 6501 / 081 362 6738 before any commencement

of work

Regards, Aletta Gabaitumele

NIP: Wayleave Management

Your letter dated 13 March 2015. I hereby inform you that

Telkom SA SOC Ltd approves the proposed work on your

drawing in principle in terms of Section 29 of the Electronic

Communications Act No. 36 of 2005 as amended.

Although we are not affected, Mr. Vivian Groenewald must be

contacted at 054 338 6501/081 362 6738 before any

commencement work.

As per supplied sketches it would appear as if Telkom S Ltd

infrastructure would not be affected. However care should be

taken should it become evident that there is in fact Telkom

network present at the actual sites. Such lines should be

treated in accordance with, and clearance stipulated in the Occupational Health and Safety Act no 85 of 1993, Electrical

Machinery regulations 20 – Crossings, and Electrical

Machinery Regulations 15 – Clearance of Power Lines. If the

Mantwa

Gabaitumele,

Telkom Wayleave

Management,

comment by e-

mail, 26 March

2015

Dear Mantwa,

Thank you for your e-mail and attached Telkom letter, your

comments are noted and will be clarified within the

environmental impact assessment.

Sincerely,

Shawn Johnston




specifications could not be met, all deviations costs will be for

the applicant’s account. We also refer to section 25 of the

Electronic Communications Act 36 of 2005.

Any changes/deviations from the original planning or prior to

construction must immediately be communicated to this

office.

On completion of this project, please certify that all

requirement as stipulated in this letter have been met. Please

note that should any of Telkom SA SOC Ltd infrastructure has

to be relocated or altered as a result of your activities the cost

for such an alteration or relocation will be for the account in

terms of section 25 of the Electronic Communications Act.

This approval is valid for 6 months only, after which re-

application must be made if the work has not been completed.

Please notify this office and forward an as built plan, within 30

days of completion of construction.

Although we are not affected, Mr. Vivian Groenewald must be

contacted at 0543386501/081 362 6738 before any

commencement of work. Should Telkom SA SOC Ltd

infrastructure be damaged while work is undertaken, kindly

call the Toll free number – 0800 203957.

Appendix D - Pre-DEIAR Comments and Response Report.pdf

Documents

Transcript of Appendix D - Pre-DEIAR Comments and Response Report.pdf