Chris van Rooyen Consulting - GIBBprojects.gibb.co.za/Portals/3/projects/201204 SAGIT...

Environmental Impact Assessment for the Establishment of the Langhoogte Wind Farm, Western Cape Province

Preliminary Report

Environmental Impact Report

AVIFAUNAL SPECIALIST STUDY

Prepared by: Chris van Rooyen Prepared for: GIBB Pty Ltd On behalf of: Chris van Rooyen Consulting

Date: November 2012

Chris van Rooyen Consulting

14 November 2012

DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

I, Chris van Rooyen as duly authorised representative of Chris van Rooyen Consulting, hereby confirm my independence (as well as that of Chris van Rooyen Consulting) as a specialist and declare that neither I nor Chris van Rooyen Consulting have any interest, be it business, financial, personal or other, in any proposed activity, application or appeal in respect of which Arcus GIBB was appointed as environmental assessment practitioner in terms of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998), other than fair remuneration for worked performed, specifically in connection with the Environmental Impact Assessment for the proposed Langhoogte Wind Farm, Western Cape. I further declare that I am confident in the results of the studies undertaken and conclusions drawn as a result of it – within the limitations as are described in my attached report.

___________________________

Full Name: Chris van Rooyen

Title / Position: Director

Qualification(s): BA LLB

Experience: 16 years

Chris van Rooyen Consulting

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

SAGIT Energy Ventures (“SAGIT”) is proposing to establish a commercial Wind Farm and associated infrastructure on a site near Botrivier in the Theewaterskloof Municipality, Western Cape Province. The proposals, referred to as the ‘Langhoogte Wind Farm’, are expected to generate between 112 - 162 MW and will comprise 45 wind turbines. Associated infrastructure will include an on-site sub-station, underground powerlines connecting the turbines to the on-site sub-station, an overhead powerline connecting the windfarm to an existing substation and access / service roads. This is a medium-sized wind farm site, with significant intrinsic avian biodiversity value. It contains important habitat for priority species, specifically linked to the land-use, which is a rotational system of cereal crops and pastures. Information gathered to date indicates that Blue Cranes are the most likely priority species to potentially be affected by collisions with the turbines, followed by Jackal Buzzard. Displacement of Denham’s Bustard might also take place. Implementation of the proposed mitigation measures at the wind farm site should reduce construction and de-commissioning phase impacts to medium, and operational phase impacts (displacement and collisions) to medium and low. Power line collisions might be a significant impact for Blue Crane and Denham’s Bustard. The northern route alignment option is the most preferred option and would have the least impact from a bird impact perspective. Irrespective of which alignment is ultimately used, the marking the line with Bird Flight Diverters should reduce the risk from high to medium. “No-go” areas (a Blue Crane nest) have been identified which influences the current turbine lay-out (as at 14 November 2012), but should additional focal points be identified in the course of future monitoring (e.g. Denham’s Bustard display areas or more Blue Crane nests), this will require the implementation of additional no-go buffer zones.

Langhoogte Wind Farm Date: November 2012 Avifaunal Specialist Report

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE

ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PROPOSED LANGHOOGTE WIND

FARM, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE:

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

CONTENTS

Chapter Description Page

1 DETAILS OF SPECIALIST AND EXPERTISE 1

2 INTRODUCTION 2

2.1 Background 2

2.2 Legislative and Policy Context 4

2.3 Scope and limitations 5

2.4 Assessment Methodology 5

2.5 Description of any assumptions made, uncertainties or gaps in knowledge 8

3 DESCRIPTION OF AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 10

3.1 General Study Area 10 3.1.1 Langhoogte Wind Farm Site 11 3.1.2 Avifauna 11 3.1.3 Relevant bird habitat 12

Agriculture 13 Stands of alien trees 13 Dams 13 Slopes 14

3.1.4 Priority species use of bird habitat 14 3.1.5 Associated Infrastructure 16

4 IMPACTS IDENTIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT 19

4.1 Introduction 19

4.2 Identification of Impacts 19 4.2.1 Construction phase 19

(a) Impact 1: Displacement due to disturbance 19 4.2.2 Operational phase 22

(a) Impact 1: Displacement due to disturbance 22 (b) Impact 2: Mortalities due to collisions with the turbines 22 (c) Impact 3: Mortality of the priority species on the associate

power line network (electrocutions and collisions) 29


(d) Impact 4: Displacement of priority species through habitat transformation 30

4.2.3 Decommissioning phase 31 (a) Impact 1: Displacement due to disturbance 31

4.2.4 Cumulative Impacts 31

4.3 Potential Mitigation Measures 33

4.4 Impact Assessment Methodology 35

4.5 Impact Assessment – Proposed Development 37 4.5.1 Construction phase 37 4.5.2 Operational phase 38 4.5.3 Decommissioning Phase 39

4.6 Impact Assessment - Alternatives 40 4.6.1 No Go Option 40 4.6.2 Alternative site locations 40

5 MONITORING PROGRAMME 41

6 CONCLUSION 42

7 REFERENCES 56


TABLES Table 1: Priority species recorded to date at Langhoogte Wind Farm Table 2: Length of line that crosses agricultural habitat

FIGURES

Figure 1: Location of proposed wind farm, with turbine lay-out as at 21 September 2013. Figure 2: The survey transects (red lines), VPs (numbered red placemarks) and focal points

superimposed on the proposed turbine lay-out as at 14 November 2012. Figure 3: IBAs (green shaded) in relation to the proposed wind farm (blue outline). Figure 4: Relative abundance of priority species at the site, expressed as an index of kilometric

abundance (birds/km). Figure 5: Habitat species diversity index. Figure 6: Habitat species abundance index. Figure 7: Habitat abundance index for Blue Cranes. Figure 8: Blue Crane sightings recorded during transect counts and incidental sightings

(numbers indicated in yellow). Figure 9: Proposed power line alternatives. The northern alternative (purple line) is unlikely to

be pursued. The southern alternative (yellow line) has three sub-alternatives. Figure 10: Bird habitat in the survey area. Figure 11: Breakdown of priority species flights (all flight heights). Time is hours: minutes:

seconds. Figure 12: Distribution of medium height flights of all priority species over the study area. Figure 13: Distribution of medium height flights of soaring priority species over the study area

(Blue Crane soaring flights are included). Figure 14: Distribution of medium height flights of Blue Cranes over the study area. Figure 15: Distribution of medium height flights of terrestrial priority species over the study area

(mostly Blue Cranes). Figure 16: Distribution of medium height flights of Jackal Buzzards over the study area. Figure 17: Proposed wind farms Figure 18: Recommended Bird Flight Diverter

APPENDICES

Appendix 1 Bird habitats Appendix 2: Species list for Langhoogte Wind Farm Appendix 3 Priority species Appendix 4: Results of transects surveys

ABBREVIATIONS

NEMA National Environmental Management Act (Act 107 of 1998) EIA Environmental Impact Assessment CBD Convention on Biological Diversity EWT Endangered Wildlife Trust BLSA Birdlife South Africa SAWEA South African Wind Energy Association VP Vantage point CAR Avifaunal Road Counts QDGC Quarter Degree Grid Cell IBA Important Bird Area SABAP1 Atlas of Southern African Birds SABAP2 South African Bird Atlas Project 2


1

1 DETAILS OF SPECIALIST AND EXPERTISE

Chris van Rooyen has 16 years’ experience in the management of avifaunal interactions with industrial infrastructure. He was head of the Eskom-Endangered Wildlife Trust Strategic Partnership from 1996 to 2007, which has received international acclaim as a model of co-operative management between industry and natural resource conservation. He is an acknowledged global expert in this field and has worked in South Africa, Namibia, Botswana, Lesotho, New Zealand, Texas, New Mexico and Florida. Chris also has extensive project management experience and has received several management awards for his work in the Eskom-EWT Strategic Partnership. He is the author of 15 academic papers (some with co-authors), co-author of two book chapters and several research reports. To date he has been involved as ornithological consultant in numerous power line construction projects, wind generation projects and risk assessments on existing power lines and power stations. Chris also works outside the electricity industry and has completed a wide range of bird impact assessment studies associated with various residential and industrial developments. Chris left the services of the Endangered Wildlife Trust in November 2007 and has since operated as a free-lance ornithological consultant.


2

2 INTRODUCTION

2.1 Background

SAGIT Energy Ventures (“SAGIT”) is proposing to establish a commercial Wind Farm and associated infrastructure on a site near Botrivier in the Theewaterskloof Municipality, Western Cape Province. The proposals, referred to as the ‘Langhoogte Wind Farm’, are expected to generate between 112 - 162 MW and will comprise 45 wind turbines. Associated infrastructure will include an on-site sub-station, underground powerlines connecting the turbines to the on-site sub-station, an overhead powerline connecting the windfarm to an existing substation and access / service roads. The size of turbines has not been finalised, and will depend to some extent on which supplier is selected. For the purposes of the EIA the following likely range was considered:

Power: 2.3 – 3.6 MW / unit

Hub height: 80 – 110m

Blade length: 40 – 60m Chapter 5 of the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) (Act 107 of 1998) requires that an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is conducted for the proposed development. GIBB was appointed by the proponent as the independent impact assessment consultants to manage the EIA process. They in turn appointed Chris van Rooyen Consulting to investigate the potential impacts that the proposed facility could have on birds.


3

Figure 1: Location of proposed wind farm, with turbine lay-out as at 14 November 2012


4

2.2 Legislative and Policy Context

From an international perspective, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is applicable. The overall objective of the CBD is the “…conservation of biological diversity, [and] the sustainable use of its components and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits …”1. The CBD aims to effect international cooperation in the conservation of biological diversity and to promote the sustainable use of living natural resources worldwide. Cooperation in ensuring the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity is attended to in southern Africa, with all relevant role-players. International meetings are held to incorporate traditional knowledge into the implementation of the CBD and related aspects of biodiversity. The Convention also aims to bring about sharing of the benefits arising from the utilisation of natural resources. The White Paper on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of South Africa's Biodiversity (July 1997) implements this at a national level, through the use of applicable resources in the tourism industry; community participation (including industry and business) in biodiversity management; and integration of conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity into all sectors, including industry. The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals is also applicable2. This Convention, commonly referred to as the Bonn Convention, (after the German city where it was concluded in 1979), came into force in 1983. This Convention’s goal is to provide conservation for migratory terrestrial, marine and avian species throughout their entire range. This is very important, because failure to conserve these species at any particular stage of their life cycle could adversely affect any conservation efforts elsewhere. The fundamental principle of the Bonn Convention, therefore, is that the Parties to the Bonn Convention acknowledge the importance of migratory species being conserved and of Range States agreeing to take action to this end whenever possible and appropriate, paying special attention to those migratory species whose conservation status is unfavourable, and individually, or in co-operation taking appropriate and necessary steps to conserve such species and their habitat. Parties acknowledge the need to take action to avoid any migratory species becoming endangered. South Africa acceded to this convention in 1991. The most important guidance document from an avifaunal impact perspective that is currently applicable to wind energy development is the “Best practice guidelines for avian monitoring and impact mitigation at proposed wind energy development sites in southern Africa” (Jenkins et al. 2011)3. This document was published by the Endangered Wildlife Trust (EWT) and Birdlife South Africa (BLSA) on 31 March 2011. This protocol prescribes a pre-construction period that stretches over a minimum of 12 months and includes all major periods of bird usage in that period, as well as a post-construction component. This document is not legally binding on developers, but has the full support of the South African Wind Energy Association (SAWEA).


5

2.3 Scope and limitations

The scope of the avifaunal assessment report comprises the assessment of the avifaunal impacts associated with the construction and operation of the proposed plant and the provision of appropriate mitigation measures to reduce such potential impacts. This report is therefore centred on the following specific terms of reference:

Description of the receiving environment (habitat) from an avifaunal perspective;

Identification of priority avifauna that might be impacted by the proposed facility;

Identification of potential impacts on priority avifauna;

The assessment of the potential impacts; and

The provision of the mitigation measures to reduce the impacts.

2.4 Assessment Methodology

The primary source of information on bird occurrence, densities, flight patterns and habitat at the development site is a monitoring programme that commenced in March 2012, and will continue for four seasons. The objective of the pre-construction programme is to gather baseline data on bird usage of the site. Up to the present (September 2012), data have been gathered in the following sampling periods:

Late summer: March 2012

Late autumn: May 2012

The specific objectives of the monitoring programme are to record the following:

The abundance and diversity of birds at the turbine site; and

Flight patterns of priority species at the turbine site.

Monitoring at the turbine site is conducted in the following manner:

Five transects were identified totalling 14.6 km within the proposed turbine area. This is referred to in the report as the “survey area”, and comprises an approximate 750m buffer on both sides of the transect.

Two observers travelling slowly (±10km/h) in a vehicle records all priority species on both sides of the transect. The observers stop at regular intervals (every 500 m) to scan the environment with binoculars. The transect is counted three times per sampling season (see also 2.5 Assumptions and Limitations).

In addition, point counts are conducted every 500 m, where all non-priority species are recorded for a 5 minute period.

The following variables are recorded:

o Species; o Number of birds; o Date; o Start time and end time; o Distance from transect or point (0-50 m, 50-100 m, >100 m); o Wind direction;


6

o Wind strength (calm; moderate; strong); o Weather (sunny; cloudy; partly cloudy; rain; mist); o Temperature (cold; mild; warm; hot); o Behaviour (flushed; flying-display; perched; perched-calling; perched-hunting;

flying-foraging; flying-commute; foraging on the ground); and o Co-ordinates (priority species only).

Five vantage points (VPs) were selected from which the majority of the proposed

turbine area can be observed (the “VP area”), to record the flight altitude and

patterns of priority species. A total of 12 hours of observations per vantage point

per season is conducted. The following variables are recorded:

o Species; o Number of birds; o Date; o Start time and end time; o Wind direction; o Wind strength ( Beaufort scale 1-7 ); o Weather (sunny; cloudy; partly cloudy; rain; mist); o Temperature (cold; mild; warm; hot); o Flight altitude (high i.e >170 m; medium i.e. 40 -170 m; low i.e. <40 m); o Flight mode (soar; flap; glide ; kite; hover); and o Flight duration (in 15 second-intervals).

For transect monitoring and data analysis purposes, priority species were identified using the BLSA list of priority species for wind farms (Retief et al. 2012)4.

In addition to the transects and VPs, all incidental sightings of priority species are also recorded and plotted on a map of the site.

Potential focal points for bird activity (e.g. priority species nests and/or wetlands on the site) are also monitored by visiting and counting the birds once per season. Currently there are two focal points, a Blue Crane nest and a large dam, at the site. An additional potential focal point was also recorded namely a possible display area for Denham’s Bustard. A potential Black Harrier nest was also identified on a neighbouring farm, but this falls outside the survey area of the wind farm. See Figure 2 for a map of the study area, indicating the transects, VPs, focal points and the proposed turbine lay-out as at 14 November 2012.


7

Figure 2: The survey transects (red lines), VPs (numbered green placemarks) and focal points superimposed on the proposed turbine lay-out as at 14 November 2012.


8

The following information sources were also consulted for this report, as background information:

Bird distribution data of the Southern African Bird Atlas Project 2 (SABAP2)5 was obtained from the Animal Demography Unit of the University of Cape Town, as a means to ascertain which species occur in the broader study area. A data set was obtained for the QDGCs (quarter degree grid cells) within which the development will take place, namely 3419AA and 3419AB. A QDGC corresponds to the area shown on a 1:50 000 map (15' x 15') and is approximately 27 km long (north-south) and 23 km wide (east-west).

Additional information on large terrestrial avifauna and habitat use was obtained from the Coordinated Avifaunal Roadcounts (CAR) project of the Animal Demography Unit (ADU) of the University of Cape Town (Young et al 20036; 20087; 2009a8; 2009b9; 2010a10; 2010b11, 2011a12, 2011b13).

The conservation status of all bird species occurring in the aforementioned QDGCs was determined with the use of the Eskom Red Data Book of Birds of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland (Barnes 2000) and the most recent and comprehensive summary of southern African bird biology “Roberts VII”(Hockey et al. 2005)14.

A classification of the vegetation types in the QDGCs from an avifaunal perspective was obtained from Southern African Bird Atlas Project 1 (Harrison et al. 199715).

Detailed satellite imagery from Google Earth (imagery date 12 May 2011) was used in order to view the study area on a landscape level and to help identify bird habitat on the ground.

Information on the micro habitat level was obtained before the monitoring commenced through site visits by the author in September 2011 and February 2012, when the monitoring transects and VP points were defined. An attempt was made to investigate the total study area as far as was practically possible, and to visit potentially sensitive areas identified beforehand from the Google Earth imagery.

Information on Important Bird Areas (IBAs) was obtained from The Important Bird Areas of southern Africa report (Barnes 199816).

2.5 Description of any assumptions made, uncertainties or gaps in knowledge

The basic assumption made in this study is that the sources of information used are reliable. However, it must be noted that there are certain limitations:

It is inevitable that observations at vantage points will be biased towards those species that are more visible (i.e. larger species), and flights that are closer to the observer. It must therefore be accepted that the chances of a bird being missed increases with the distance from the observer. This means that information on flight paths gathered during vantage point watches must be interpreted within that context.

The spatial distribution of priority species that were recorded during transect counts and as incidental sightings may be biased towards the transects and roads in the study area. This should therefore not be viewed as being representative of the actual spatial distribution of the birds, but serve merely as an indication of where the birds could be found, in what numbers and in what habitat.


9

The analyses of the two seasons of data in this report should be viewed as descriptive and preliminary. The final EIR will contain the results of four seasons monitoring. In addition, a final pre-construction report will be compiled which will include an in depth statistical analyses of the final (four monitoring seasons) dataset.

No comprehensive studies, and published, peer-reviewed scientific papers, are available on the impacts that wind farms have on birds in South Africa. It is therefore inevitable that, because of the lack of any research on this topic in South Africa, heavy reliance had to be placed on professional judgment.

Given the lack of research on the topic in South Africa, the precautionary principle was applied throughout. The World Charter for Nature, which was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1982, was the first international endorsement of the precautionary principle. The principle was implemented in an international treaty as early as the 1987 Montreal Protocol and, among other international treaties and declarations, is reflected in the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. Principle 15 of the 1992 Rio Declaration states that: “in order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall be not used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”


10

3 DESCRIPTION OF AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

The description of the study area is divided into a general description and a site specific description. Descriptions are focused on those aspects that are likely to be relevant to birds.

3.1 General Study Area

The study area is located near the town of Botrivier in the Theewaterskloof Municipality in the Western Cape. It overlaps with two QDGCs (i.e. 1:50 000 topo-cadastral maps), namely 3419AA and 3419AB. The wind farm site is primarily located in the Overberg wheatbelt, and borders on the Eastern False Bay Mountains Important Bird Area (IBA) (Barnes 1998). The mosaic of wheat, barley and canola fields interspersed with pastures that comprises the area known as the Overberg wheatbelt, is classified as an IBA (Barnes 1998) – the study area falls marginally outside the formal IBA borders, but in similar habitat (see Figure 3). This large agricultural district stretches from Caledon to Riversdale and encompasses the area south of these two towns, running between the coastal towns of Hermanus and Stilbaai. The topography consists of low-lying coastal plains and consists primarily of cereal croplands and pastures. The extreme western section of the wind farm site displays characteristics of the Eastern False Bay Mountains i.e. fynbos on steep slopes with rocky ledges.

Figure 3: IBAs (green shaded) in relation to the proposed wind farm (blue outline).

Eastern False Bay Mountains IBA

Overberg Wheatbelt IBA


11

In addition to natural vegetation, other bird micro-habitats are present in the study area and these are discussed below.

3.1.1 Langhoogte Wind Farm Site

3.1.2 Avifauna

It is estimated that at least 197 bird species could potentially occur at the site (see Appendix 2). Of the birds potentially occurring at the site, 28 are classified as priority species for wind farm sites (Retief et al 2012) (see Appendix 3). To date, 81 species have been identified through transect surveys as part of the pre-construction monitoring programme, of which nine were priority species (see Appendix 4). Nine priority species were recorded during vantage point counts (see Figure 5). One species was recorded during a site visit in September 2011 and three more as incidental sightings after the monitoring commenced. Table 1 below lists the priority species recorded to date:

Table 1: Priority species recorded to date at Langhoogte Wind Farm

Common name Scientific name Transect counts Vantage point

counts Incidental sightings

African Fish-Eagle Haliaeetus vocifer X x

African Harrier-Hawk Polyboroides typus x

Black-Shouldered Kite Elanus caeruleus x

Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus x

Jackal Buzzard Buteo rufofuscus x x x

Martial Eagle Polemaetus bellicosus x

Blue Crane Anthropoides paradiseus x x x

Rufous-chested Sparrowhawk Accipiter rufiventris x x

Grey-winged Francolin Scleroptila africanus x

Black Sparrowhawk Accipiter melanoleucus x x

Verreaux’s Eagle Aquila verreauxii x

Denham’s Bustard Neotis denhamii x

Steppe Buzzard Buteo vulpinus x

Lanner Falcon Falco biarmicus x

Black-chested Snake-Eagle Circaetus pectoralis x

The priority species potentially occurring at the site can be broadly classified in four groupings namely large terrestrial species, soaring species, small birds and nocturnal species (see Appendix 3):

Large terrestrial species: Medium to large birds that spend most of the time foraging on the ground. They do not fly often and then generally short distances at low to medium altitude, usually powered flight. Some species undertake longer distance flights at higher altitudes, when commuting between foraging and roosting areas. At the wind farm site, cranes, bustards, francolins and korhaans are included in this category.

Soaring species: Species that spend a significant time on the wing in a variety of flight modes including soaring, kiting, hovering and gliding at medium to high altitudes. At the wind farm site, these are mostly raptors and storks. Blue Crane soaring flights are also included in this category.

Small birds: At the wind farms site these are mainly several species of passerines. These species generally spend most of the time on the ground or calling from perches.


12

Nocturnal species: The site may potentially contain at least three species of owl. Flight is usually direct, powered flight interspersed with short glides.

Figure 4 below provides an indication of the relative abundance of priority species at the site, based on transects counts.

Figure 4: Relative abundance of priority species at the site, expressed as an index of kilometric abundance (birds/km). Blue Cranes are by far the most abundant priority species, with other priority species thus far recorded in low numbers.

3.1.3 Relevant bird habitat Below follows a description of bird habitat recorded at the site, together with priority species potentially associated with each habitat type:

Scrub

It is widely accepted that vegetation structure is more critical in determining bird habitat, than the actual plant species composition (Harrison et al. 1997). The description of vegetation presented in this report therefore concentrates on factors relevant to the bird species present, and is not an exhaustive list of plant species present. The description of the vegetation types occurring in the study area follows that of the Atlas of Southern African Birds 1 (SABAP1) (Harrison et al. 1997). The criteria used by the SABAP1 authors to amalgamate botanically defined vegetation units, or to keep them separate were (1) the existence of clear differences in vegetation structure, likely to be relevant to birds, and (2) the results of published community studies on bird/vegetation associations. The natural vegetation in the QDGCs where the proposed wind facility is located is classified as fynbos vegetation (Harrison et al. 1997) and consists of low scrub. Fynbos can be divided into two categories, fynbos proper and renosterveld. Despite having a high diversity of plant species, fynbos and renosterveld has a relatively low diversity of bird species. The proposed Langhoogte Wind Farm is primarily situated in an area of agricultural activity, but there are areas of natural vegetation remaining, particularly against steeper slopes, ridges and in drainage lines.


13

Priority species that could potentially occur in natural vegetation on the site are Black Harrier Circus maurus, Denham’s Bustard, Secretarybird Sagittarius serpentarius Martial Eagle, African Marsh-Harrier, Black-shouldered Kites, Booted Eagle Aquila pennatus, Forest Buzzard Buteo trizonatus, Grey-winged Francolin, Jackal Buzzard, Lanner Falcon Falco biarmicus, Southern Black Korhaan Afrotis afra, Spotted Eagle-Owl Bubo africanus, Steppe Buzzard and Victorin’s Warbler. The mountain peaks and associated cliffs in the Eastern False Bay Mountains adjoining the site could be used by Verreaux’s Eagle, Cape Eagle Owl Bubo capensis, Peregrine Falcon and Cape Rock-jumper Chaetops frenatus. The high altitude mountain associated species are unlikely to occur regularly at the site, but could from time to time stray into the site.

Agriculture The natural vegetation at the study area at Langhoogte Wind Farm is surrounded by the typical Overberg mosaic of grain fields interspersed with pastures. It is of specific importance to the endemic, Blue Crane and Denham’s Bustard (Young 2003 - 2011b).

The Overberg holds the largest population of Blue Cranes in the world. At times the Overberg can hold nearly 20% of this species’ global population, as well as containing large numbers of resident Denham’s Bustard and White Stork Ciconia ciconia during the summer. The Blue Crane has relatively recently expanded its range into the Overberg, where it feeds on inter alia fallen grain and recently germinated crops. They also feed on supplementary food put out for small stock, and can congregate in huge numbers around these feed lots. The Blue Cranes favour agricultural areas above natural vegetation (Young 2003 - 2011b). The endemic Agulhas Long-billed Lark Certhilauda brevirostris may also occur; its preferred habitat is ploughed fields (Hockey et al. 2007), but it has not as yet been recorded at the site. Steppe Buzzards are also attracted to harvested agricultural lands, presumably when rodent prey is more accessible.

Stands of alien trees

The site contains several stands of alien trees, mainly Eucalyptus, which act as wind breaks. Species that could use this habitat are Black-shouldered Kite, Jackal Buzzard, Spotted Eagle-Owl, Steppe Buzzard, Black Sparrowhawk, Rufous-chested Sparrowhawk, Forest Buzzard, African Fish-Eagle Haliaeetus vocifer and African Harrier-Hawk Polyboroides typus.

Dams

There are several man-made dams on the site. These dams differ in their suitability to avifauna, but most have shallow sloping sides and therefore seem potentially suitable to a variety of species that forage or roost in shallow water. Priority species that could be attracted to these waterbodies are African Fish-Eagle, White Stork, Blue Crane and African Marsh-Harrier.

Farm yards The survey area contains several farm buildings and associated gardens and lawns, some with large trees. Few priority species are likely to be attracted specifically to farm yards, but Black Sparrowhawk and Rufous-chested Sparrowhawk may


14

occasionally hunt small birds converging on farm yards. Spotted Eagle-Owl may also be attracted to farm yards and farm buildings.

Slopes

The survey area contains a few fynbos covered slopes in the western section. Outside the survey area these become progressively steeper and eventually give way to the steep cliffs, gorges and deeply incised valleys of the Eastern False Bay Mountains outside the boundaries of the site. Soaring species may use particular topographic features for lift e.g. the absence of thermals on cold, overcast days may force larger, soaring species (e.g. large raptors and White Stork) to use slopes for lift. Gentle slopes may also pose a bigger risk than steep slopes for large soaring species, as updrafts from gentle slopes are weaker than those from steeper slopes, resulting in birds flying lower and therefore exposing themselves to the risk of collisions with the turbines. Figure 10 shows the habitat composition in the survey area. Appendix 1 contains photographic records of the avifaunal habitat at the site.

3.1.4 Priority species use of bird habitat An indication of habitat preference for priority species as a group was determined by calculating a habitat / species diversity index (number of species recorded for that habitat type ÷ % of habitat surface - see Figure 5 below) and a habitat / species abundance index (number of individual birds recorded for that habitat type ÷ % of habitat surface – see Figure 6) for the survey area. The former is needed to get an indication of which habitat type supports the greatest variety of priority species at the site, and the latter to get an indication of which habitat is likely to attract the highest number of priority species individuals. Birds that were recorded when flying / commuting over the site were excluded from this analysis. A habitat / abundance index was also calculated separately for Blue Cranes, as this species was overwhelmingly the most abundant priority species at the site (see Figure 4).

Figure 5: Habitat species diversity index.


15

Figure 6: Habitat species abundance index.

Figure 7: Habitat abundance index for Blue Cranes. The indices indicate that with the data gathered to date, alien trees and dams are emerging as important habitat from a priority species diversity perspective. From an abundance perspective, dams so far emerged as the habitat that proportionally attracts the highest number of individuals of priority species. For priority species as a whole, scrub and farm yards have so far emerged as relatively unimportant, both from a diversity and abundance perspective. For Blue Cranes specifically, dams and agriculture emerged so far as the most important habitat types. Dams proportionally attract the most Blue Cranes, but agriculture attracts the most cranes in absolute numbers. An important aspect which


16

needs to be highlighted is the role of agricultural activity in the concentration of Blue Crane numbers. It seems that the most important factor governing the distribution of Blue Crane numbers across the site is the presence of sheep, and specifically the practice of feeding sheep at feeding troughs. Concentrations of Blue Cranes are directly linked to the current feeding area of the sheep, and these feeding areas change annually with the crop rotation, and in the short term with camp rotation. Large flocks (100+) congregate at these livestock feeding areas, and spend most of the day in close proximity (and mixing) with the sheep. During the non-breeding season (winter) large flocks form and these are mostly seen with or near sheep flocks on grazing land, and only in the breeding season do the pairs split off and move to the then harvested wheat fields to breed. The close link between agricultural activity and Blue Crane numbers results in a dynamic situation, with Blue Cranes recorded all over the site in varying numbers, and not constantly found in a specific area of the site (see Figure 8 below).

Figure 8: Blue Crane sightings recorded during transect counts and incidental sightings (numbers indicated in yellow - ‘i’ denotes incidental sighting records). It is important to point out again that the observations of priority species habitat preferences are based on two seasons of data only, and may therefore still change when the full dataset is analysed at the end of the monitoring period. Counts for priority species were generally low, except for Blue Cranes.

3.1.5 Associated Infrastructure

The description of the study area for the wind farm site is also applicable to the associated infrastructure (access roads, temporary construction camp, turbine foundations, powerlines and lay-down areas). The most important associated infrastructure from a potential bird impact assessment perspective is the planned power line which will connect the wind farm to the grid at the Houhoek Substation. The power line structure will be a 132kV steel monopole structure of the 259 series


17

type up to 24m high. Originally there were two options considered for the power line, a northern option and a southern option. According to information received from the GIBB, the northern option is unlikely to be pursued, for various technical reasons. The southern option has been divided into three sub-alternatives, namely Option 1, Option 2 and Option 3 (see Figure 9).

Figure 9: Proposed power line alternatives. The northern alternative (purple line) is unlikely to be pursued. The southern alternative (green line) has three sub-alternatives.

Although it would have been ideal to have done intensive surveys of potential flight movement across the proposed power line alignments, this was not possible due to resource constraints. Instead it was opted to follow a pre-cautionary approach and recommend mitigation for the whole line, irrespective of the alignment which is ultimately used.


18

Figure 10: Bird habitat in the survey area.

Agriculture

Scrub

Farm yards

Alien trees

Dams

Date: November 2012 Langhoogte Wind Farm Avifaunal Specialist Report

19

4 IMPACTS IDENTIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT

4.1 Introduction

The effects of a wind farm on birds are highly variable and depend on a wide range of factors including the specification of the development, the topography of the surrounding land, the habitats affected and the number and species of birds present. With so many variables involved, the impacts of each wind farm must be assessed individually. Each of these potential effects can interact, either increasing the overall impact on birds or, in some cases, reducing a particular impact (for example where habitat loss causes a reduction in birds using an area which might then reduce the risk of collision). The principal areas of concern are:

Mortality due to collision with the wind turbines;

Displacement due to disturbance;

Displacement due to habitat loss in the footprint of the wind farm; and

Mortalities due to collision with associated power line infrastructure.

See Appendix 3 for a list of priority species and the manner in which they could potentially be impacted.

4.2 Identification of Impacts

It is important to note that the identification and assessment of the impacts is based on the environment as it was currently recorded at the site. Unforeseen long term changes to variables that may affect the avifauna (e.g. land-use and climate) cannot be considered at this stage. This should be covered by long term post-construction monitoring programmes.

4.2.1 Construction phase (a) Impact 1: Displacement due to disturbance The displacement of birds from areas within and surrounding wind farms due to visual intrusion and disturbance effectively can amount to habitat loss. Displacement may occur during both the construction and operational phases of wind farms, and may be caused by the presence of the turbines themselves through visual, noise and vibration impacts, or as a result of vehicle and personnel movements related to site construction and maintenance. The scale and degree of disturbance will vary according to site- and species-specific factors and must be assessed on a site-by-site basis (Drewitt & Langston 200617). Unfortunately, few studies of displacement due to disturbance are conclusive, often because of the lack of before-and-after and control-impact (BACI) assessments. Onshore, disturbance distances (in other words the distance from wind farms up to which birds are absent or less abundant than expected) up to 800 m (including zero) have been recorded for wintering waterfowl (Pedersen & Poulsen 199118 as cited by Drewitt & Langston 2006), though 600 m is widely accepted as the maximum reliably recorded distance (Drewitt & Langston 2006). The variability of displacement distances is illustrated by one study which found lower post-construction densities of


20

feeding European White-fronted Geese Anser albifrons within 600 m of the turbines at a wind farm in Rheiderland, Germany (Kruckenberg & Jaene 199919 as cited by Drewitt & Langston 2006), while another showed displacement of Pink-footed Geese Anser brachyrhynchus up to only 100–200 m from turbines at a wind farm in Denmark (Larsen & Madsen 200020 as cited by Drewitt & Langston 2006). Very little published literature is available on the impact of wind farms on bustards, but the little that is available seems to indicate that displacement between 600 - 1000m may occur in the case of the Great Bustard Otis tarda, a species of comparable size and behaviour to the Denham’s Bustard (Langgemach 200821; Wurm & Kollar as quoted by Raab et al. 200922).

Studies of breeding birds are also largely inconclusive or suggest lower disturbance distances, though this apparent lack of effect may be due to the high site fidelity and long life-span of the breeding species studied. This might mean that the true impacts of disturbance on breeding birds will only be evident in the longer term, when new recruits replace existing breeding birds. Few studies have considered the possibility of displacement for short-lived passerines (such as larks), although Leddy et al. (199923)http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/118619864/main.html,ftx_abs - b40 found increased densities of breeding grassland passerines with increased distance from wind turbines, and higher densities in the reference area than within 80 m of the turbines, indicating that displacement did occur at least in this case. The consequences of displacement for breeding productivity and survival are crucial to whether or not there is likely to be a significant impact on population size. A recent comparative study of nine wind farms in Scotland (Pearce-Higgens et al. 200924) found unequivocal evidence of displacement: Seven of the 12 species studied exhibited significantly lower frequencies of occurrence close to the turbines, after accounting for habitat variation, with equivocal evidence of turbine avoidance in a further two. No species were more likely to occur close to the turbines. Levels of turbine avoidance suggest breeding bird densities may be reduced within a 500-m buffer of the turbines by 15–53%, with Common Buzzard Buteo buteo, Hen Harrier Circus cyaneus, Golden Plover Pluvialis apricaria, Snipe Gallinago gallinago, Curlew Numenius arquata and Wheatear Oenanthe oenanthe most affected. At least eight studies of Hen Harrier displacement effects have been conducted, using several study designs, in USA and continental Europe. Only one study documented good evidence of displacement and it was reasonable to conclude that although further studies are highly desirable, if displacement of foraging occurs then it will likely be limited to within 100 m of wind turbines if it occurs at all. In keeping with most other studies of raptor displacement, therefore, it appears that foraging Hen Harriers have a low sensitivity to disturbance at operational wind farms. Displacement impacts on nest site selection are more poorly studied, and preliminary results from Scotland and Northern Ireland indicate that birds will nest 200 – 300 m from turbines (Whitfield & Madders 200625). Studies show that the scale of disturbance caused by wind farms varies greatly. This variation is likely to depend on a wide range of factors including seasonal and diurnal patterns of use by birds, location with respect to important habitats, availability of alternative habitats and perhaps also turbine and wind farm specifications. Behavioural responses vary not only between different species, but between individuals of the same species, depending on such factors as stage of life cycle (wintering, moulting, breeding), flock size and degree of habituation. The possibility that wintering birds in particular might habituate to the presence of turbines has been raised (Langston & Pullin 200326), though it is acknowledged that there is little evidence and few studies of long enough duration to show this, and at least one study has found that habituation may not happen (Altamont Pass Avian Monitoring Team 200827). A systematic review of the effects of wind turbines on bird abundance has

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/118619864/main.html,ftx_abs#b40

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/118619864/main.html,ftx_abs#b40


21

shown that increasing time since operations commenced resulted in greater declines in bird abundance (Stewart et al. 200428 as cited by Drewitt & Langston 2006). This evidence that impacts are likely to persist or worsen with time suggests that habituation is unlikely, at least in some cases (Drewitt & Langston 2006, Altamont Pass Avian Monitoring Team 2008). The effect of birds altering their migration flyways or local flight paths to avoid a wind farm is also a form of displacement. This effect is of concern because of the possibility of increased energy expenditure when birds have to fly further, as a result of avoiding a large array of turbines, and the potential disruption of linkages between distant feeding, roosting, moulting and breeding areas otherwise unaffected by the wind farm. The effect depends on species, type of bird movement, flight height, distance to turbines, the layout and operational status of turbines, time of day and wind force and direction, and can be highly variable, ranging from a slight 'check' in flight direction, height or speed, through to significant diversions which may reduce the numbers of birds using areas beyond the wind farm (Drewitt & Langston 2006). A review of the literature suggests that none of the barrier effects identified so far have significant impacts on populations (Drewitt & Langston 2006). However, there are circumstances where the barrier effect might lead indirectly to population level impacts; for example where a wind farm effectively blocks a regularly used flight line between nesting and foraging areas, or where several wind farms interact cumulatively to create an extensive barrier which could lead to diversions of many tens of kilometres, thereby incurring increased energy costs.

In a recent study, monitoring data from wind farms located on unenclosed upland habitats in the United Kingdom were collated to test whether breeding densities of upland birds were reduced as a result of wind farm construction or during wind farm operation. Red Grouse Lagopus lagopus scoticus, Snipe Gallinago gallinago and Curlew Numenius arquata densities all declined on wind farms during construction. Red Grouse densities recovered after construction, but Snipe and Curlew densities did not. Post-construction Curlew densities on wind farms were also significantly lower than reference sites. Conversely, densities of Skylark Alauda arvensis and Stonechat Saxicola torquata increased on wind farms during construction. There was little evidence for consistent post-construction population declines in any species, suggesting that wind farm construction can have greater impacts upon birds than wind farm operation (Pierce-Higgens et al. 201229). Langhoogte The majority of the priority species that have been recorded to date at the proposed wind farm site are raptors. As far as raptors are concerned, the chances of displacement during the construction phase are likely to be higher than during the operational phase, due to the increased activity at the site. However, this impact is likely to be temporary. Generally speaking, raptors are fairly tolerant of wind farms, and continue to use the area for foraging (Madders & Whitfield 200630). Of the 27 priority species potentially occurring at the site, two are highly susceptible to displacement, namely Denham’s Bustard Neotis denhamii and Secretarybird Sagittarius serpentarius. Secretarybird has not been recorded yet by the monitoring programme. Denham’s Bustard has been recorded, and a potential display area has been identified (see Figure 2). Should the Denham’s Bustard display high fidelity to its leks (display areas) and breeding sites (as for example the Great Bustard Otis tarda does), displacement (which is effectively habitat loss and fragmentation) caused by wind farm developments may impose a higher threat than direct mortality and may be irreversible. The potential for habituation is always there, but due to the lack of scientific proof, the application of the pre-cautionary principle is appropriate. Long


22

term monitoring is the only way to establish if Denham’s Bustard will habituate to wind farms and continue to use the habitat in the immediate vicinity. Blue Cranes may be less prone to displacement, they have adapted well to anthropogenic disturbances and agriculture activity – the birds co-exist without problems on farms with intensive agricultural operations. In fact, the birds’ presence is inextricably linked to agricultural activities (Young 2003 - 2011b; pers.obs.). Based on the data gathered so far (transect and focal point surveys), no relocation of planned turbines are required at this stage. The current lay-out incorporates a 500m buffer around the Blue Crane nest that has been discovered in the course of the monitoring (see figure 2). It must be noted that on-going monitoring may change this finding as new information comes to light, especially in terms of additional buffer zones that might be required (e.g. more priority species nests, or Denham’s Bustard display areas).

4.2.2 Operational phase (a) Impact 1: Displacement due to disturbance See the discussion above under Construction Phase. (b) Impact 2: Mortalities due to collisions with the turbines Internationally, it is widely accepted that bird mortalities from collisions with wind turbines contribute a relatively small proportion of the total mortality from all causes. The US National Wind Coordinating Committee (NWCC) conducted a comparison of wind farm bird mortality with that caused by other man-made structures in the USA (Anon. (b) 200031). The NWCC did not conduct its own study, but analysed all of the research done to date on various causes of avian mortality, including commercial wind farm turbines. It reports that "data collected outside California indicate an average of 1.83 avian fatalities per turbine (for all species combined), and 0.006 raptor fatalities per turbine per year. Based on current projections of 3,500 operational wind turbines in the US by the end of 2001, excluding California, the total annual mortality was estimated at approximately 6,400 bird fatalities per year for all species combined". The NWCC report states that its intent is to "put avian mortality associated with windpower development into perspective with other significant sources of avian collision mortality across the United States". It further reports that: "Based on current estimates, windplant related avian collision fatalities probably represent from 0.01% to 0.02% (i.e. 1 out of every 5,000 to 10,000) of the annual avian collision fatalities in the United States". That is, commercial wind turbines cause the direct deaths of only 0.01% to 0.02% of all of the birds killed by collisions with man-made structures and activities in the USA.

Also in the USA, a Western EcoSystems Technology Inc. study found a range of between 100 million to 1 billion bird fatalities due to collisions with artificial structures such as vehicles, buildings and windows, power lines and communication towers, in comparison to 33,000 fatalities attributed to wind turbines. The study (see Anon. (a) 200332) reports that “windplant-related avian collision fatalities probably represent from 0.01% to 0.02% (i.e. one out of every 5,000 to 10,000 avian fatalities) of the annual avian collision fatalities in the United States, while some may perceive this level of mortality as small, all efforts to reduce avian mortality are important”. A Finnish study reported 10 bird fatalities from turbines, and 820,000 birds killed annually from colliding with other structures such as buildings, electricity pylons and lines, telephone and television masts, lighthouses and floodlights (Anon. (a) 2003).


23

Many of the studies of buildings, communication towers, and powerlines were conducted in response to known or perceived problems with avian collisions, and therefore may not be representative of all structures in the United States. As a consequence, using averages of these estimates to project total avian fatalities in the U.S. would be biased high. The estimates provided for the sources of avian mortality listed above, except wind generation facilities, are based on subjective models and are very speculative. The majority of studies on collisions caused by wind turbines have recorded relatively low mortality levels (Madders & Whitfield 2006). This is perhaps largely a reflection of the fact that many of the studied wind farms are located away from large concentrations of birds. It is also important to note that many records are based only on finding corpses, with no correction for corpses that are overlooked or removed by scavengers (Drewitt & Langston, 2006). Relatively high collision mortality rates have been recorded at several large, poorly-sited wind farms in areas where large concentrations of birds are present (including Important Bird Areas (IBAs)), especially among migrating birds, large raptors or other large soaring species, e.g. in the Altamont Pass in California, USA (Thelander & Smallwood 200733), and in Tarifa and Navarra in Spain (Barrios & Rodrigues 200434). In these cases actual deaths resulting from collision are high, notably of Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos and Eurasian Griffon Gyps fulvus, respectively. In a study in Spain, it was found that the distribution of collisions with wind turbines was clearly associated with the frequencies at which soaring birds flew close to rotating blades (Barrios & Rodriguez 2004). Patterns of risky flights and mortality included a temporal component (deaths concentrated in some seasons), a spatial component (deaths aggregated in space), a taxonomic component (a few species suffered most losses), and a migration component (resident populations were more vulnerable). Clearly, the risk is likely to be greater on or near areas regularly used by large numbers of feeding or roosting birds, or on migratory flyways or local flight paths, especially where these are intercepted by the turbines. Risk also changes with weather conditions, with evidence from some studies showing that more birds collide with structures when visibility is poor due to fog or rain, although this effect may to some extent be offset by lower levels of flight activity in such conditions (Madders & Whitfield 2005). Strong headwinds also affect collision rates and migrating birds in particular tend to fly lower when flying into the wind (Drewitt & Langston 2006). The same applies for Blue Cranes flying between roosting and foraging areas (pers. obs.). Accepting that many wind farms may only cause low levels of mortality, even these levels of additional mortality may be significant for long-lived species with low productivity and slow maturation rates, especially when rarer species of conservation concern are affected (e.g. Denham’s Bustard, Blue Crane and Black Harrier). In such cases there could be significant effects at the population level (locally, regionally or, in the case of rare and restricted species, nationally), particularly in situations where cumulative mortality takes place as a result of multiple installations (Carette et al. 200935). Large birds with poor manoeuvrability (such as cranes, korhaans, bustards and Secretarybirds) are generally at greater risk of collision with structures (Jenkins et al. 201036), and species that habitually fly at dawn and dusk or at night are perhaps less likely to detect and avoid turbines (e.g. cranes arriving at a roost site after sunset, or flamingos flying at night). Collision risk may also vary for a particular species, depending on age, behaviour and stage of annual cycle (Drewitt & Langston 2006). While the flight characteristics of cranes, flamingos and bustards make them obvious candidates for collisions with power lines (Jenkins et al. 2010), it is noted that these


24

classes of birds (unlike raptors) do not feature prominently in literature as wind turbine collision victims. It may be that they avoid wind farms entirely, resulting in lower collision risks. A Spanish database of over 7000 recorded turbine collisions contains no Great Bustards Otis tarda (A. Camiña pers. comm37). The same seems to be the case in Austria (Raab et al. 2009). However, this can only be verified through on-site post-construction monitoring. The precise location of a wind farm site can be critical. Soaring species may use particular topographic features for lift (Barrios & Rodriguez 2004; De Lucas et al 200838) or such features can result in large numbers of birds being funnelled through an area of turbines (Drewitt & Langston 2006). For example, absence of thermals on cold, overcast days may force larger, soaring species (e.g. Martial Eagle and Secretarybird) to use slopes for lift, which may increase their exposure to turbines. Gentle slopes may also pose a bigger risk than steep slopes for large soaring species, as updrafts from gentle slopes are weaker than those from steeper slopes, so turbines situated on the tops of gentle slopes should pose a bigger risk to these birds than those situated atop steep slopes (De Lucas et al. 2008). Birds also lower their flight height in some locations, for example when following the coastline or crossing a ridge (Smallwood pers. comm39), which might place them at greater risk of collision with rotors. The size and alignment of turbines and rotor speed are likely to influence collision risk; however, physical structure is probably only significant in combination with other factors, especially wind speed, with moderate winds resulting in the highest risk (Barrios & Rodriguez 2004; Stewart et al. 200740) as there is less lift for birds to clear the turbines. Lattice towers are generally regarded as more dangerous than tubular towers because many raptors use them for perching and occasionally for nesting; however Barrios & Rodriguez (2004) found tower structure to have no effect on mortality, and that mortality may be directly related to abundance for certain species (e.g. Common Kestrel Falco tinnunculus). De Lucas et al. (2008) found that turbine height and higher elevations may heighten the risk (taller/higher = higher risk), but that abundance was not directly related to collision risk, at least for Eurasian Griffon Vulture Gyps fulvus. A review of the available literature indicates that, where collisions have been recorded, the rates per turbine are highly variable with averages ranging from 0.01 to 23 bird collisions annually (the highest figure is the value, following correction for scavenger removal, for a coastal site in Belgium and relates to gulls, terns and ducks among other species) (Drewitt & Langston 2006). Although providing a helpful and standardised indication of collision rates, average rates per turbine must be viewed with some caution as they are often cited without variance and can mask significantly higher (or lower) rates for individual turbines or groups of turbines (Everaert et. al. 200141 as cited by Drewitt & Langston 2006). Some of the highest mortality levels have been for raptors in the Altamont Pass in California (Howell & DiDonato 199142, Orloff & Flannery 199243 as cited by Drewitt & Langston 2006) and at Tarifa and Navarre in Spain (Barrios & Rodriguez unpublished data as cited by Drewitt & Langston 2006). These cases are of particular concern because they affect relatively rare and long-lived species such as Griffon Vulture Gyps fulvus and Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos that have low reproductive rates and are vulnerable to additive mortality. Golden Eagles congregate in Altamont Pass to feed on super-abundant prey which supports very high densities of breeding birds. In the Spanish cases, extensive wind farms were built in topographical bottlenecks where large numbers of migrating and local birds fly through a relatively confined area due to the nature of the surrounding landscape, for example through mountain


25

passes, or use rising winds to gain lift over ridges (Barrios & Rodriguez 2004). Although the average numbers of annual fatalities per turbine (ranging from 0.02 to 0.15 collisions/turbine) were generally low in the Altamont Pass and at Tarifa, overall collision rates were high because of the large numbers of turbines involved (over 7 000 in the case of Altamont). At Navarre, corrected annual estimates ranging from 3.6 to 64.3 mortalities/turbine were obtained for birds and bats (unpublished data). Thus, a minimum of 75 Golden Eagles are killed annually in Altamont and over 400 Griffon Vultures are estimated (following the application of correction factors) to have collided with turbines at Navarre. Work on Golden Eagles in the Altamont Pass indicated that the population was declining in this area thought to be due, at least in part, to collision mortality (Hunt et. al. 199944, Hunt 200145 as cited by Drewitt & Langston 2006).

The effects of night-time illumination in increasing the risk of collisions with the turbines has not been adequately tested, and the results of studies are contradictory (Johnson et al. 200746). Studies involving lighted objects or towers indicate that lights may attract birds, rather than disorient or repel them, resulting in collision mortality (Cochran & Graber 195847; Herbert 197048; Weir 197649; Crockford 199250; APLIC 199451; Johnson et al. 2007). This is mostly a problem for nocturnal migrants (primarily passerines) during poor visibility conditions. Different colour lights vary in their attractiveness to birds and their effect on orientation. Several studies have shown that intermittent lights have less of an effect on birds than constant lights, with reduced rates of mortality (Weir 1976; Jaroslow 197952; EPRI 198553; APLIC 1994). In addition, some studies suggest that replacing white lights with red lights may reduce mortality by up to 80%. This may be due to the change in light intensity rather than the change in wavelength (Weir 1976). However, Ugoretz (200154) suggest that birds are more sensitive to red lights and may be attracted to them. Quickly flashing white strobe lights appear to be less attractive. The issue is however far from settled - a study at Buffalo Ridge, Minnesota, where most of the collision fatalities were classified as nocturnal migrants, found little difference between lighted and unlighted turbines (Johnson et al. 200055).The consensus among researchers is to avoid lighting the turbines if possible, but that is against civil aviation regulations (Civil Aviation Regulations 199756). Lighting may also indirectly contribute to avian collision risks in that it may attract insects which in turn attract nocturnal bird activity. Langhoogte During the summer and autumn monitoring period, flight patterns of priority species were recorded for a combined total of 120 hours at five vantage points in three bands namely Low (below rotor height), Medium (within rotor height) and High (above rotor height). Flight height was visually judged by an observer with the aid of binoculars. In the 120 hours of observation to date (summer and autumn) priority species were observed for approximately 1 hour 20 minutes and 45 seconds (1.12%) of the total 120 hour observation time, and for 25 minutes and 45 seconds (0.35%) of the total observation time, priority species were observed within the rotor height band. Figure 3 presents the respective priority species flight data gathered during the 120 hours of vantage point watches during summer and autumn. The passage rate for recorded flights of priority species over the VP area (all heights) was 1.48 birds/hour. For medium altitude flights only, the passage rate was 0.29 birds/hour. Figure 11 below provide a breakdown of priority species flight behaviour recorded to date.


26

Figure 11: Breakdown of priority species flights (all flight heights). Time is hours: minutes: seconds.

The data collected for priority species for the VP counts in the two sampling periods to date provide some preliminary pointers for the following:

Based purely on the amount of time spent at medium height over the turbine area recorded to date, Blue Crane and Jackal Buzzard are most at risk of collision with the turbines.

The conclusions above must be viewed as preliminary, as another two sampling periods are yet to be completed, e.g. migratory Steppe Buzzards are likely to be recorded in high numbers in late spring (from middle October onwards) when the harvesting starts, which exposes rodents to predation (J. Walton pers. comm57). The final dataset will be subjected to rigorous statistical analysis to test the representativeness of the data i.e. can recorded information be regarded as a true reflection of the likely flight behaviour. In addition, the potential association between priority species flight behaviour and a range of environmental factors will be tested statistically. In order to form a picture of the spatial distribution of priority species flights over the turbine area, a distribution map of medium height flights recorded to date was prepared. This was done by overlaying a 100 m x 100 m grid over the survey area. Each grid square was then given a weighting score taking into account the duration of individual flight lines and the number of individual birds crossing the square (see Figures 12 - 16 for the maps of medium altitude flights of priority species recorded during the sampling period).

Flight patterns of priority species at medium height recorded to date indicate areas where flight activity was more concentrated during the monitoring periods. Based on the data gathered to date, evidence for a high concentration of Blue Crane flight activity is emerging for the extreme eastern side of the survey area. The reasons for this is not immediately clear, but may be linked to the presence of a breeding pair


27

(possibly more than one) in this area, and the feeding of sheep in the proximity. The concentration of soaring activity in the centre of the survey area may have been linked to raptors using slopes in the central part of the wind farm area. This is admittedly speculative and patterns may change as more monitoring is implemented. It must be noted clearly that it is too early to make any final recommendations with regard to micro-siting of turbines; this can only be done once the sampling has been completed over four seasons.

Figure 12: Distribution of medium height flights of all priority species over the study area.

Figure 13: Distribution of medium height flights of soaring priority species over the study area (Blue Crane soaring flights are included).


28

Figure 14: Distribution of medium height flights of terrestrial priority species over the study area (mostly Blue Cranes).

Figure 15: Distribution of medium height flights of Blue Cranes over the study area.


29

Figure 16: Distribution of medium height flights of Jackal Buzzards over the study area.

(c) Impact 3: Mortality of the priority species on the associate power line network (electrocutions and collisions)

A proposed 132kV power line that will link the wind facility to the grid could pose a collision risk, irrespective of which alignment is used (see Figure 9). The turbines will be linked to each other with underground cabling, therefore no collision risk is foreseen in that instance. Because of their size and prominence, electrical infrastructures constitute an important interface between wildlife and man. Negative interactions between wildlife and electricity structures take many forms, but two common problems in southern Africa are electrocution of birds (and other animals) and birds colliding with power lines (Ledger & Annegarn 198158; Ledger 198359; Ledger 198460; Hobbs & Ledger 1986a61; Hobbs & Ledger 1986b62; Ledger et.al. 199263; Verdoorn 199664; Kruger & Van Rooyen 199865; Van Rooyen 199866; Kruger 199967; Van Rooyen 199968; Van Rooyen 200069). Electrocutions are not envisaged to be a problem on the proposed electricity network. Collisions, on the other hand, could be a major potential problem.

Collisions kill far more birds annually in southern Africa than electrocutions (Van Rooyen 200770). Most heavily impacted upon are bustards, storks, cranes and various species of water birds. These species are mostly heavy-bodied birds with limited manoeuvrability, which makes it difficult for them to take the necessary evasive action to avoid colliding with power lines (van Rooyen 200471, Anderson 200172). Unfortunately, many of the collision sensitive species are considered threatened in southern Africa - of the 2369 avian mortalities on distribution lines recorded by the EWT since August 1996 and October 2007, 1512 (63.8%) were Red Data species (Van Rooyen 2007). In the Overberg, power line collisions have long been recorded as a major source of avian mortality (Van Rooyen 2007). Most numerous amongst power line collision victims are Blue Crane and Denham’s Bustard (Shaw 200973). It has been estimated


30

that as many as 10% of the Blue Crane population in the Overberg are killed annually on power lines, and the figure for Denham’s Bustard might be as high as 30% of the Overberg population (Shaw 2009).These figures are extremely concerning, as it represents a possible unsustainable source of unnatural mortality. However the steady increase in Blue Crane numbers since regular road counts started in 1994 provides evidence that the population is currently absorbing the collision impact without any obvious decrease in numbers (Young 2011a). Unfortunately, the dynamics of the collision problem is poorly understood. In the most recent study on this problem in the Overberg, Shaw (2009) identified cultivated land and region as the significant factors influencing power line collision risk. Lines that cross cultivated land pose a higher risk, as expected, as this is the preferred habitat of Blue Cranes in the Overberg. Interestingly, the study also found that collision rates in the Bredasdorp region are much higher than those around Caledon, which might be a function of the higher proportion of flocks, and a greater number of large flocks (50+ birds) in Bredasdorp, as opposed to Caledon in the winter. Collision rates are higher for birds in flocks, as they may panic, or lack visibility and room for manoeuvre because of the close proximity of other birds (APLIC, 199474). Other factors, such as proximity to dams, wind direction and proximity to roads and dwellings did not emerge as significant factors, but the study readily admits that its broad-scale analysis may have been too crude to demonstrate their effects. It is for example a well-known fact that cranes are particularly vulnerable to power lines skirting water bodies used as roosts, as they often arrive there or leave again in low light conditions (pers. obs.). Proximity to feeding troughs is almost certainly also an aggravating factor. Despite doubts that line marking might not be effective in certain situations for certain species (Martin et al. 201275), there are several studies which prove that marking a line with PVC spiral type Bird Flight Diverters (BFDs) can reduce the mortality rates by at least 60% (Alonso & Alonso 199976; Koops & De Jong 198277). Beaulaurier (1981)78 summarised the results of 17 studies that involved the marking of earth wires and found an average reduction in mortality of 45%. A recent study reviewed the results of 15 wire marking experiments in which transmission or distribution wires were marked to examine the effectiveness of flight diverters in reducing bird mortality. The presence of flight diverters was associated with a decrease in bird collisions. At unmarked lines, there were 0.21 deaths/1000 birds (n = 339,830) that flew among lines or over lines. At marked lines, the mortality rate was 78% lower (n = 1,060,746) (Barrientos et al 2011)79. Koops and De Jong (1982) found that the spacing of the BFDs were critical in reducing the mortality rates - mortality rates are reduced up to 86% with a spacing of 5 metres, whereas using the same devices at 10 metre intervals only reduces the mortality by 57%. Line markers should be as large as possible, and highly contrasting with the background. Colour is probably less important as during the day the background will be brighter than the obstacle with the reverse true at lower light levels (e.g. at twilight, or during overcast conditions). Black and white interspersed patterns are likely to maximise the probability of detection (Martin et al 2010). (d) Impact 4: Displacement of priority species through habitat transformation The scale of direct habitat loss resulting from the construction of a wind farm and associated infrastructure depends on the size of the project but, generally speaking, is likely to be small per turbine base. Typically, actual habitat loss amounts to 2–5% of the total development area (Fox et al. 200680 as cited by Drewitt & Langston 2006), though effects could be more widespread where developments interfere with hydrological patterns or flows on wetland or peatland sites (unpublished data). Some changes could also be beneficial. For example, habitat changes following the


31

development of the Altamont Pass wind farm in California led to increased mammal prey availability for some species of raptor (for example through greater availability of burrows for Pocket Gophers Thomomys bottae around turbine bases), though this may also have increased collision risk (Thelander et al. 200381 as cited by Drewitt & Langston 2006). The envisaged impact of habitat transformation on avifauna at the Langhoogte Wind Farm is regarded to be low relative to other impacts (e.g. power line collisions), due to the small envisaged footprint.

4.2.3 Decommissioning phase Decommissioning is expected after 20 years. The assumption is made that this entails the dismantling of the wind farm and the restoration of the status quo. It is difficult to make projections 20 years into the future, as avifaunal distribution patterns and densities are dynamic, and linked to a variety of environmental variables, which may change in the next two decades (e.g. land-use and climate). Predicting impacts is therefore based on the assumption that the environment will remain broadly similar to what it is currently, which may turn out not to be the case. (a) Impact 1: Displacement due to disturbance The impacts associated with the dismantling of the wind farm are likely to be broadly similar to the construction phase, namely the potential displacement of priority species due to the construction activities (see the discussion under 4.2.1 above). This should be a temporary impact, and depending on the species involved, re-colonisation of the site in the short to medium term is a likely scenario.

4.2.4 Cumulative Impacts

The assessment of cumulative effects on birds is a complex and specialised process, and a high degree of uncertainty can be introduced at a number of stages (SNH 200582). Broadly, there are five stages:

Define the species to be considered

Consider the limits or ’search area’ of the study

Decide the methods to be employed

Review the findings of existing studies

Draw conclusions on cumulative effects within the study area

Target species will usually be:

species considered of high conservation importance; and/or

species considered to be vulnerable to wind farms by virtue of their behaviour or ecology

A cumulative assessment can apply at a number of levels, for example:

an individual pair, or birds occupying a single breeding site;

a regional or local population

a national population Assessing cumulative effects on a national population would require widespread consideration of wind farm developments nationally, and this would normally be too


32

onerous a task to expect of the developer in one proposal which on its own is unlikely to have more than a marginal effect. Therefore, assessment of impacts on national populations is best undertaken by appropriate agencies in the context of strategic planning, and should not be required in the context of assessing a single proposal. Assessing cumulative effects on birds involves the same methods as those to assess effects on an individual proposal. Where available, use should be made of any post-construction monitoring studies on any existing development, which can reduce the uncertainty in any conclusions. Cumulative assessments require more information than individual assessments, and may require relevant authorities and developers to share data and monitoring studies which otherwise might be considered as commercial-in-confidence. Given the competitive climate in the renewable energy sector in South Africa, getting developers to share data remains a huge challenge. There are currently four wind farms planned for the area between Bot River and Caledon (see Figure 16). It is impossible to say at this stage what the cumulative impact of all the proposed wind developments will be on birds, firstly because there is no baseline as yet to measure it against, secondly because the extent of actual impacts will only become known once a few wind farms are developed, and thirdly because the number of wind farms to be developed remains uncertain. It is therefore imperative that pre-construction and post-construction monitoring are implemented at all the new proposed sites, in accordance with the latest Best practice guidelines for avian monitoring and impact mitigation at proposed wind energy development sites in southern Africa (Jenkins et al. 2011). This will provide the data necessary to improve the assessment of the cumulative impact of wind development on priority species (provided developers are prepared to share data). Two impacts that may need to be investigated on a regional level are Blue Crane collisions and Denham’s Bustard displacements. It must be stressed again that this statement is speculative and will have to be corroborated with evidence once information becomes available.

Figure 17: Proposed wind farms in the region.


33

4.3 Potential Mitigation Measures

The following management actions are proposed to minimise the impact of displacement on priority species (see also section 4.5 below):

The baseline monitoring of priority species abundance should continue as planned in order to gather additional data for the remainder of the seasons. This will assist in the formulation of the final recommendations. The additional data will also contribute towards the further refinement of the sensitivity map and the micro-siting of the turbines; e.g. if priority species focal points are discovered through further monitoring this may require the implementation of buffer zones.

Post-construction monitoring should be implemented to assess the impact of displacement, particularly on priority species. Initially, a 12 month period of post-construction monitoring should be implemented, using the same protocol as is currently implemented. Thereafter, the frequency for further monitoring will be informed by the results of the initial 12-month period.

Once the wind farm is operational, very little practical mitigation is possible other than to restrict access to the remainder of the property. Maintenance personnel and vehicles must be strictly supervised in order to ensure that no unnecessary trespassing takes place in areas which are not associated with the maintenance activities.

The following management actions are recommended to reduce the risk of collisions to priority species:

The baseline monitoring of flight activity should continue as planned in order to gather additional data for the remainder of the seasons. Once the monitoring has been completed, the dataset must be analysed in order to establish the statistical significance of potential trends that have been identified so far (e.g. the influence of wind direction and wind strength). This will assist in the formulation of the final recommendations. The additional data will also contribute towards the further refinement of the sensitivity map and the micro-siting of the turbines;

Once the turbines have been constructed, post-construction monitoring as per the latest version of the Best practice guidelines for avian monitoring and impact mitigation at proposed wind energy development sites in southern Africa (Jenkins et al. 2011) should be implemented to assess actual collision rates. If actual collision rates indicate high mortality levels, the following mitigation measures should be considered: o halting operation of specific turbines during peak flight periods (e.g. when

collisions are linked to specific environmental conditions), or reducing rotor speed, to reduce the risk of collision mortality; and

o the landowners must be sensitised to the fact that the feeding of sheep close

to a turbine may create a high risk collision potential for Blue Cranes, and should therefore be avoided if at all possible.

The following management actions are proposed to minimise the impact of power line collisions on priority species, irrespective of which alignment is followed (see also section 4.5 below):


34

The proposed 132kV power line should be marked with Bird Flight Diverters (BFDs) to lower the risk of avian collisions with the power line. The recommended BFD is the Double Loop Bird Flight Diverter (see Figure 18). The BFDs should be fitted to the earthwire, 5 metres apart, alternating black and white.

Figure 18: Recommended Bird Flight Diverter


35

4.4 Impact Assessment Methodology

Impacts are described and then evaluated in terms of the criteria given below.

Criteria Rating Scales Notes

Nature

Positive This is an evaluation of the type of effect the construction, operation and management of the proposed development would have on the affected environment. Would it be positive, negative or neutral?

Negative

Neutral

Extent This refers to the spatial scale at which the impact will occur.

Low Site-specific, affects only the development footprint

Medium Local (limited to the site and its immediate surroundings, including the surrounding towns and settlements within a 10 km radius);

High Regional (beyond a 10 km radius) to national

Duration

Low Short-term: 0-5 years, typically impacts that are quickly reversible within the construction phase of the project

Medium Medium-term, 6-10 years, reversible over time

High Long-term, 10-60 years, and continue for the operational life span of the development

Intensity This is a relative evaluation within the context of all the activities and the other impacts within the framework of the project. Does the activity destroy the impacted environment, alter its functioning, or render it slightly altered? The specialist studies must attempt to quantify the magnitude of the impacts and outline the rationale used.

Low Where the impact affects the environment in such a way that natural, cultural and social functions and processes are minimally affected

Medium

Where the affected environment is altered but natural, cultural and social functions and processes continue albeit in a modified way; and valued, important, sensitive or vulnerable systems or communities are negatively affected

High

Where natural, cultural or social functions and processes are altered to the extent that the impact will temporarily or permanently cease; and valued, important, sensitive or vulnerable systems or communities are substantially affected.

Degree of Irreversibility This considers the ability of the impacted environment to return to its pre-impacted state once the cause of the impact has been removed.

Low Impacted natural, cultural or social functions and processes will return to their pre-impacted state within the short-term.

Medium Impacted natural, cultural or social functions and processes will return to their pre-impacted state within the medium to long term.

High Impacted natural, cultural or social functions and processes will never return to their pre-impacted state.

Potential for impact on irreplaceable resources This refers to the potential for an environmental resource to be replaced, should it be impacted. A resource could possibly be replaced by natural processes (e.g. by natural colonisation from surrounding areas), through artificial means (e.g. by reseeding disturbed areas or replanting rescued species) or by providing a substitute resource, in certain cases. In natural systems, providing substitute resources is usually not possible, but in social systems substitutes are often possible (e.g. by constructing new social facilities for those that are lost). Should it not be possible to replace a resource, the resource is essentially irreplaceable e.g. red data species that are restricted to a particular site or habitat of very limited extent.

Low No irreplaceable resources will be impacted.

Medium Resources that will be impacted can be replaced, with effort.

High There is no potential for replacing a particular vulnerable resource that will be impacted.

Consequence Low A combination of any of the following


36


The consequence of the potential impacts is a summation of above criteria, namely the extent, duration, intensity and impact on irreplaceable resources.

Intensity, duration, extent and impact on irreplaceable resources are all rated low

Intensity, duration and extent are rated low but impact on irreplaceable resources is rated medium to high

Intensity is low and up to two of the other criteria are rated medium

Intensity is medium and all three other criteria are rated low

Medium

Intensity is medium and one other criteria is rated high, with the remainder being rated low

Intensity is low and at least two other criteria are rated medium or higher

Intensity is rated medium and at least two of the other criteria are rated medium or higher

Intensity is high and at least two other criteria are medium or higher

Intensity is rated low, but irreplaceability and duration are rated high

High

Intensity and impact on irreplaceable resources are rated high, with any combination of extent and duration

Intensity is rated high, with all of the other criteria being rated medium or higher

Probability The probability of the impact actually occurring, based on professional experience of the specialist with environments of a similar nature to the site and/or with similar projects. It is important to distinguish between probability of the impact occurring and probability that the activity causing a potential impact will occur. Probability is defined as the probability of the impact occurring, not as the probability of the activities that may result in the impact. The fact that an activity will occur does not necessarily imply that an impact will occur. For instance, the fact that a road will be built does not necessarily imply that it will impact on a wetland. If the road is properly routed to avoid the wetland, the impact may not occur at all, or the probability of the impact will be low, even though it is certain that the activity will occur.

Low Improbable. It is highly unlikely or less than 50 % likely that an impact will occur.

Medium Distinct possibility. It is between 50 and 70 % certain that the impact will occur.

High Most likely. It is more than 75 % certain that the impact will occur or it is definite that the impact will occur.

Significance Impact significance is defined to be a combination of the consequence (as described below) and probability of the impact occurring. The relationship between consequence and probability highlights that the risk (or impact significance) must be evaluated in terms of the seriousness (consequence) of the impact, weighted by the probability of the impact actually occurring. The following analogy provides an illustration of the relationship between consequence and probability. The use of a vehicle may result in an accident (an impact) with multiple fatalities, not only for the driver of the vehicle, but also for passengers and other road users. There are certain mitigation measures (e.g. the use of seatbelts, adhering to speed limits, airbags, anti-lock braking, etc.) that may reduce the

Low

Low consequence and low probability

Low consequence and medium probability

Low consequence and high probability

Low to medium Low consequence and high probability

Medium consequence and low probability

Medium

Medium consequence and low probability

Medium consequence and medium probability

Medium consequence and high probability

High consequence and low probability


37


consequence or probability or both. The probability of the impact is low enough that millions of vehicle users are prepared to accept the risk of driving a vehicle on a daily basis. Similarly, the consequence of an aircraft crashing is very high, but the risk is low enough that thousands of passengers happily accept this risk to travel by air on a daily basis. In simple terms, if the consequence and probability of an impact is high, then the impact will have a high significance. The significance defines the level to which the impact will influence the proposed development and/or environment. It determines whether mitigation measures need to be identified and implemented and whether the impact is important for decision-making.

Medium to high High consequence and medium probability

High High consequence and high probability

Degree of confidence in predictions Specialists are required to provide an indication of the degree of confidence (low, medium or high) that there is in the predictions made for each impact, based on the available information and their level of knowledge and expertise. Degree of confidence is not taken into account in the determination of consequence or probability.

Low

Medium

High

4.5 Impact Assessment – Proposed Development

The assessment of each impact is discussed and presented in tabular format as shown below for both “pre” and “post” mitigation. The different phases (Construction, Operation, and Decommissioning) are treated separately:

4.5.1 Construction phase

Impact

Nat

ure

Ext

ent

Dur

atio

n

Inte

nsity

Irre

vers

ibili

ty

Impa

ct o

n

Irre

plac

eabl

e

Res

ourc

es

Con

sequ

ence

Pro

babi

lity

Sig

nific

ance

Con

fiden

ce

Impact 1: Displacement of priority species due to construction activities

Impact Description: Displacement of priority species (particularly Denham’s Bustard) may occur during the construction phase of wind farms, and may be caused by the noise and movement associated with the construction activities.

Without Mitigation

Negative Medium High High Medium - High

High Medium Medium Medium High

Mitigation Description: Restrict the construction activities to the footprint area. Do not allow any access to the remainder of the properties.

With Mitigation


High Medium Low Medium Medium

Cumulative Impact: Unknown


38

4.5.2 Operational phase

Impact N

atur

e

Ext

ent

Dur

atio

n

Inte

nsity

Irre

vers

ibili

ty

Impa

ct o

n

Irre

plac

eabl

e

Res

ourc

es

Con

sequ

ence

Pro

babi

lity

Sig

nific

ance

Con

fiden

ce

Impact 1: Displacement of priority species due to operational activities

Impact Description: Displacement of priority species (particularly Denham’s Bustard) may occur during the operational phase of wind farms, and may be caused by the noise and movement associated with the operational activities.

Without Mitigation


High Medium Medium Medium Low-medium

The baseline monitoring of priority species abundance should continue as planned in order to gather additional data for the remainder of the seasons. This will assist in the formulation of the final recommendations. The additional data will also contribute towards the further refinement of the sensitivity map and the micro-siting of the turbines; e.g. if priority species focal points are discovered through further monitoring this may require the implementation of buffer zones.

Post-construction monitoring should be implemented to assess the impact of displacement, particularly on priority

species. Initially, a 12 month period of post-construction monitoring should be implemented, using the same protocol as is currently implemented. Thereafter, the frequency for further monitoring will be informed by the results of the initial 12-month period.

Once the wind farm is operational, very little practical mitigation is possible other than to restrict access to the remainder

of the property. Maintenance personnel and vehicles must be strictly supervised in order to ensure that no unnecessary trespassing takes place in areas which are not associated with the maintenance activities.

With Mitigation


High Medium Low Medium Low-medium


Impact

Nat

ure

Ext

ent

Dur

atio

n

Inte

nsity

Irre

vers

ibili

ty

Impa

ct o

n

Irre

plac

eabl

e

Res

ourc

es

Con

sequ

ence

Pro

babi

lity

Sig

nific

ance

Con

fiden

ce

Impact 2: Collisions with the turbines

Impact Description: Mortalities due to collisions with the turbines

Without Mitigation

Negative Medium High Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Low

The baseline monitoring of flight activity should continue as planned in order to gather additional data for the remainder of the seasons. Once the monitoring has been completed, the dataset must be analysed in order to establish the statistical significance of potential trends that have been identified so far (e.g. the influence of wind direction and wind strength). This will assist in the formulation of the final recommendations. The additional data will also contribute towards the further refinement of the sensitivity map and the micro-siting of the turbines;

Once the turbines have been constructed, post-construction monitoring as per the latest version of the Best practice guidelines for avian monitoring and impact mitigation at proposed wind energy development sites in southern Africa (Jenkins et al 2011) should be implemented to assess actual collision rates. If actual collision rates indicate high mortality levels, the following mitigation measures will have to be considered:

o halting operation of specific turbines during peak flight periods (e.g. when collisions are linked to specific

environmental conditions), or reducing rotor speed, to reduce the risk of collision mortality

o the landowners must be sensitised to the fact that the feeding of sheep close to a turbine may create a high risk collision potential for Blue Cranes, and should therefore be avoided if at all possible.

With Mitigation

Negative Medium High Low Medium Medium Medium Low Low Low



39

Impact

Nat

ure

Ext

ent

Dur

atio

n

Inte

nsity

Irre

vers

ibili

ty

Impa

ct o

n

Irre

plac

eabl

e

Res

ourc

es

Con

sequ

ence

Pro

babi

lity

Sig

nific

ance

Con

fiden

ce

Impact 3: Collisions with the powerline

Impact Description: Mortalities due to collisions with the powerline (all proposed alignments)

Without Mitigation

Negative Medium High High Medium Medium High High High Medium

The proposed 132kV power line should be marked with Bird Flight Diverters (BFDs) to lower the risk of avian collisions with the power line. The recommended BFD is the Double Loop Bird Flight Diverter (see Figure 18). The BFDs should be fitted to the earthwire, 5 metres apart, alternating black and white. This recommendation is applicable to all the proposed alignments.

With Mitigation

Negative Medium High Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium

Cumulative Impact: Low

Impact

Nat

ure

Ext

ent

Dur

atio

n

Inte

nsity

Irre

vers

ibili

ty

Impa

ct o

n

Irre

plac

eabl

e

Res

ourc

es

Con

sequ

ence

Pro

babi

lity

Sig

nific

ance

Con

fiden

ce

Impact 4: Displacement due to habitat transformation

Impact Description: Mortalities due to habitat transformation

Without Mitigation

Negative Low High Low Low Low Low Low Low High

No mitigation is possible other than ensuring that the footprint is kept to the absolute minimum.

With Mitigation

Negative Low High Low Low Low Low Low Low High

Cumulative Impact: Low

4.5.3 Decommissioning Phase

Impact

Nat

ure

Ext

ent

Dur

atio

n

Inte

nsity

Rev

ersi

bilit

y

Impa

ct o

n

Irre

plac

eabl

e

Res

ourc

es

Con

sequ

ence

Pro

babi

lity

Sig

nific

ance

Con

fiden

ce

Impact 1: Displacement of priority species due to de-commissioning activities

Impact Description: Displacement of priority species may occur during the de-commissioning phase of wind farms, and may be caused by the noise and movement associated with the de-commissioning activities.

Without Mitigation


High Medium Medium Medium High

Mitigation Description: Restrict the de-commissioning activities to the footprint area. Do not allow any access to the remainder of the properties.

With Mitigation


High Medium Low Medium Medium



40

4.6 Impact Assessment - Alternatives

4.6.1 No Go Option

In the case of the no-go option, the status quo as it currently stands will be preserved as far as avifauna is concerned. This should benefit priority species in that collision mortality and displacement will not happen. Depending on how long the current land-use remains the norm (crop and pasture rotation) this would particularly benefit Blue Cranes and Denham’s Bustard.

4.6.2 Alternative site locations Currently there are no alternative site locations. There are however alternative alignments for the proposed power line (see Figure 9). Both the northern option and the southern option are likely to pose a collision risk to Blue Cranes and Denham’s Bustard (see discussion under 4.2.2. c. above). The collision risk will be highest in agricultural areas. Based on the length of the alignments that cross agricultural habitat, the northern option should pose a lesser collision risk to Blue Cranes and Denham’s Bustard. Of the various sub-alignments for the southern option, alternative 1 would be the preferred alignment. Table 2: Length of line that crosses agricultural habitat (approximate)

Alignment Agricultural habitat

Northern option 4602m

Southern option alt 1 6503m




41

5 MONITORING PROGRAMME

The current pre-construction programme must be completed (see 2.4 Assessment Methodology). The results of the programme should be used to inform the micro-siting of the turbines. The expected completion date of the pre-construction programme is spring 2012. An appropriate post-construction monitoring programme will be compiled, which will be informed by the results of the pre-construction programme. The primary aims of post-construction monitoring are to (Jenkins et al. 2012):

Estimate the numbers/densities of birds regularly present or resident within the broader impact area of the operational wind farm.

Document patterns of bird movements in the vicinity of the operational wind farm.

Compare these data with baseline figures and hence quantify the impacts of displacement and/or collision mortality.

Quantify and qualify bird collisions with the turbine arrays, as well as additional mortality associated with power lines and other ancillary infrastructure.

Mitigate impacts of the development by informing on-going management of the wind farm.

The details of the post-construction programme will only be finalised once the pre-construction monitoring has been completed. If need be, monitoring during construction phase will be conducted at specific focal points.


42

6 CONCLUSION

This is a medium-sized wind farm site, with significant intrinsic avian biodiversity value. It contains important habitat for priority species, specifically linked to the land-use, which is a rotation al system of cereal crops and pastures. Information gathered to date indicates that Blue Cranes are the most likely priority species to be affected by collisions with the turbines, followed by Jackal Buzzard. Displacement of Denham’s Bustard might also happen. Implementation of the required mitigation measures at the wind farm site should reduce construction and de-commissioning phase impacts to medium, and operational phase impacts (displacement and collisions) to medium and low. Power line collisions might be a significant impact for Blue Crane and Denham’s Bustard, with the northern option being the most preferred option from a bird impact perspective. Marking the line with Bird Flight Diverters should reduce the risk from high to medium. “No-go” areas (a Blue Crane nest) has been identified which influences the current turbine lay-out (as at 14 November 2012), but should additional focal points be identified in the course of future monitoring (e.g. Denham’s Bustard display areas or more Blue Crane nests), this will require the implementation of additional no-go buffer zones.


43

APPENDIX 1 BIRD HABITATS

Figure 1: Typical mosaic of habitats at the site, showing fynbos scrub, cereal crops and pastures.

Figure 2: A small dam in a drainage line.


44

Figure 3: A stand of alien trees and a pasture in the foreground.

Figure 4: Fynbos covered slopes.


45

Figure 5: Blue cranes congregating at a sheep feeding trough.


46

APPENDIX 2 BIRD LIST

Common name Scientific name Conservation status

Acacia Pied Barbet Tricholaema leucomelas

African Black Duck Anas sparsa

African Black Swift Apus barbatus

African Darter Anhinga rufa

African Dusky Flycatcher Muscicapa adusta

African Fish-Eagle Haliaeetus vocifer

African Goshawk Accipiter tachiro

African Harrier-Hawk Polyboroides typus

African Hoopoe Upupa africana

African Marsh-Harrier Circus ranivorus VU

African Olive-Pigeon Columba arquatrix

African Openbill Anastomus lamelligerus NT

African Paradise-Flycatcher Terpsiphone viridis

African Pipit Anthus cinnamomeus

African Quailfinch Ortygospiza atricollis

African Reed-Warbler Acrocephalus baeticatus

African Sacred Ibis Threskiornis aethiopicus

African Snipe Gallinago nigripennis

African Spoonbill Platalea alba

African Stonechat Saxicola torquatus

Agulhas Long-billed Lark Certhilauda brevirostris NT

Alpine Swift Tachymarptis melba

Amethyst Sunbird Chalcomitra amethystina

Banded Martin Riparia cincta

Barn Owl Tyto alba

Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica

Bar-throated Apalis Apalis thoracica

Black Crake Amaurornis flavirostris

Black Harrier Circus maurus NT

Black Saw-wing Psalidoprocne holomelaena

Black Sparrowhawk Accipiter melanoleucus

Black-crowned Night-Heron Nycticorax nycticorax

Black-headed Heron Ardea melanocephala

Black-shouldered Kite Elanus caeruleus

Blacksmith Lapwing Vanellus armatus

Black-winged Stilt Himantopus himantopus

Blue Crane Anthropoides paradiseus VU

Bokmakierie Telophorus zeylonus

Booted Eagle Aquila pennatus

Brimstone Canary Crithagra sulphuratus

Brown-hooded Kingfisher Halcyon albiventris

Brown-throated Martin Riparia paludicola

Buff-spotted Flufftail Sarothrura elegans


47

Burchell's Coucal Centropus burchellii

Cape Batis Batis capensis

Cape Bulbul Pycnonotus capensis

Cape Bunting Emberiza capensis

Cape Canary Serinus canicollis

Cape Clapper Lark Mirafra apiata

Cape Cormorant Phalacrocorax capensis NT

Cape Crow Corvus capensis

Cape Eagle-Owl Bubo capensis

Cape Grassbird Sphenoeacus afer

Cape Long-billed Lark Certhilauda curvirostris

Cape Longclaw Macronyx capensis

Cape Robin-Chat Cossypha caffra

Cape Rock-jumper Chaetops frenatus

Cape Rock-Thrush Monticola rupestris

Cape Shoveler Anas smithii

Cape Siskin Crithagra totta

Cape Sparrow Passer melanurus

Cape Spurfowl Pternistis capensis

Cape Sugarbird Promerops cafer

Cape Teal Anas capensis

Cape Turtle-Dove Streptopelia capicola

Cape Wagtail Motacilla capensis

Cape Weaver Ploceus capensis

Cape White-eye Zosterops virens

Capped Wheatear Oenanthe pileata

Cardinal Woodpecker Dendropicos fuscescens

Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis

Chestnut-vented Tit-Babbler Parisoma subcaeruleum

Cloud Cisticola Cisticola textrix

Common Fiscal Lanius collaris

Common House-Martin Delichon urbicum

Common Moorhen Gallinula chloropus

Common Ostrich Struthio camelus

Common Quail Coturnix coturnix

Common Sandpiper Actitis hypoleucos

Common Starling Sturnus vulgaris

Common Waxbill Estrilda astrild

Crowned Lapwing Vanellus coronatus

Denham's Bustard Neotis denhami VU

Diderick Cuckoo Chrysococcyx caprius

Egyptian Goose Alopochen aegyptiacus

European Roller Coracias garrulus

Familiar Chat Cercomela familiaris

Fiery-necked Nightjar Caprimulgus pectoralis


48

Fiscal Flycatcher Sigelus silens

Forest Buzzard Buteo trizonatus

Fork-tailed Drongo Dicrurus adsimilis

Giant Kingfisher Megaceryle maximus

Glossy Ibis Plegadis falcinellus

Greater Double-collared Sunbird Cinnyris afer

Greater Honeyguide Indicator indicator

Greater Striped Swallow Hirundo cucullata

Grey Heron Ardea cinerea

Grey-backed Cisticola Cisticola subruficapilla

Grey-winged Francolin Scleroptila africanus

Ground Woodpecker Geocolaptes olivaceus

Hadeda Ibis Bostrychia hagedash

Hamerkop Scopus umbretta

Helmeted Guineafowl Numida meleagris

House Sparrow Passer domesticus

Jackal Buzzard Buteo rufofuscus

Karoo Korhaan Eupodotis vigorsii

Karoo Prinia Prinia maculosa

Karoo Scrub-Robin Cercotrichas coryphoeus

Kittlitz's Plover Charadrius pecuarius

Klaas's Cuckoo Chrysococcyx klaas

Lanner Falcon Falco biarmicus NT

Large-billed Lark Galerida magnirostris

Laughing Dove Streptopelia senegalensis

Lemon Dove Aplopelia larvata

Lesser Honeyguide Indicator minor

Lesser Swamp-Warbler Acrocephalus gracilirostris

Levaillant's Cisticola Cisticola tinniens

Little Bittern Ixobrychus minutus

Little Egret Egretta garzetta

Little Grebe Tachybaptus ruficollis

Little Rush-Warbler Bradypterus baboecala

Little Swift Apus affinis

Long-billed Crombec Sylvietta rufescens

Long-billed Pipit Anthus similis

Malachite Kingfisher Alcedo cristata

Malachite Sunbird Nectarinia famosa

Mallard Duck Anas platyrhynchos

Martial Eagle Polemaetus bellicosus VU

Namaqua Dove Oena capensis

Neddicky Cisticola fulvicapilla

Olive Thrush Turdus olivaceus

Olive Woodpecker Dendropicos griseocephalus

Orange-breasted Sunbird Anthobaphes violacea


49

Osprey Pandion haliaetus

Pearl-breasted Swallow Hirundo dimidiata

Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus NT

Pied Crow Corvus albus

Pied Kingfisher Ceryle rudis

Pied Starling Spreo bicolor

Pin-tailed Whydah Vidua macroura

Plain-backed Pipit Anthus leucophrys

Purple Heron Ardea purpurea

Red-billed Quelea Quelea quelea

Red-billed Teal Anas erythrorhyncha

Red-capped Lark Calandrella cinerea

Red-chested Cuckoo Cuculus solitarius

Red-eyed Dove Streptopelia semitorquata

Red-faced Mousebird Urocolius indicus

Red-knobbed Coot Fulica cristata

Red-winged Starling Onychognathus morio

Reed Cormorant Phalacrocorax africanus

Rock Dove Columba livia

Rock Kestrel Falco rupicolus

Rock Martin Hirundo fuligula

Rufous-chested Sparrowhawk Accipiter rufiventris

Secretarybird Sagittarius serpentarius NT

Sentinel Rock-Thrush Monticola explorator

Sombre Greenbul Andropadus importunus

South African Shelduck Tadorna cana

Southern Black Korhaan Afrotis afra

Southern Boubou Laniarius ferrugineus

Southern Double-collared Sunbird Cinnyris chalybeus

Southern Grey-headed Sparrow Passer diffusus

Southern Masked-Weaver Ploceus velatus

Southern Pale Chanting Goshawk Melierax canorus

Southern Pochard Netta erythrophthalma

Southern Red Bishop Euplectes orix

Speckled Mousebird Colius striatus

Speckled Pigeon Columba guinea

Spotted Eagle-Owl Bubo africanus

Spotted Flycatcher Muscicapa striata

Spotted Thick-knee Burhinus capensis

Spur-winged Goose Plectropterus gambensis

Steppe Buzzard Buteo vulpinus

Streaky-headed Seedeater Crithagra gularis

Swee Waxbill Coccopygia melanotis

Tambourine Dove Turtur tympanistria

Three-banded Plover Charadrius tricollaris


50

Verreaux's Eagle Aquila verreauxii

Victorin's Warbler Cryptillas victorini

White Stork Ciconia ciconia

White-backed Duck Thalassornis leuconotus

White-backed Mousebird Colius colius

White-breasted Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo

White-faced Duck Dendrocygna viduata

White-necked Raven Corvus albicollis

White-rumped Swift Apus caffer

White-throated Canary Crithagra albogularis

White-throated Swallow Hirundo albigularis

Willow Warbler Phylloscopus trochilus

Yellow Bishop Euplectes capensis

Yellow Canary Crithagra flaviventris

Yellow-bellied Eremomela Eremomela icteropygialis

Yellow-billed Duck Anas undulata

Yellow-billed Egret Egretta intermedia

Yellow-billed Kite Milvus aegyptius

Zitting Cisticola Cisticola juncidis


51

APPENDIX 3 PRIORITY SPECIES

Habitat Impact Class

Priority species Scrub Stands of aliens

Agriculture Dams Farm yard

Displacement Collision Terrestrial Soarer Small bird

Nocturnal Likelihood of occurrence

Priority Score (Retief et al 2012)

African Fish-Eagle x x x x Recorded 290

African Harrier-Hawk

x x x Recorded 190

African Marsh-Harrier

x X x x Medium 300

Agulhas Long-billed Lark

x x x x Low 235

Black Harrier x x x High 325

Black Sparrowhawk

x x x x Recorded 170

Black-shouldered Kite

x x ? x x Recorded 174

Blue Crane X x x x x Recorded 320

Booted Eagle x x x High 230

Cape Eagle-Owl x x x Medium 250

Cape Rock-jumper

x x Low 200

Denham's Bustard

x X x x x Recorded 300


52

Habitat Impact Class

Priority species Scrub Stands of aliens

Agriculture Dams Farm yard

Displacement Collision Terrestrial Soarer Small bird

Nocturnal Likelihood of occurrence

Priority Score (Retief et al 2012)

Forest Buzzard x x x x Low 170

Grey-winged Francolin

x x Recorded 190

Jackal Buzzard x x x x x Recorded 250

Lanner Falcon x x x x Recorded 280

Martial Eagle x ? ? x x Recorded 330

Peregrine Falcon x x x x Recorded 290

Rufous-chested Sparrowhawk

x x x x x Recorded 170

Secretarybird x x x x x x Low 320

Southern Black Korhaan

x x x Low 200

Spotted Eagle-Owl

x x X x x x High 170

Steppe Buzzard x x x x x Recorded 210

Verreauxs' Eagle x x x Recorded 290

Victorin's Warbler x x Low 170

White Stork x x x x x High 220


53

Black-chested Snake-Eagle

x x x x x Recorded 230


54

APPENDIX 4: RESULTS OF TRANSECTS SURVEYS

Species composition All Species 81

Priority Species 9 Non-Priority Species 72 Total count Total Mean StDev StErr

Drive transects 386 64.33 58.33 23.81

Point counts 3847 641.17 167.46 68.37

Drive transects Priority Spp Total Mean StDev StErr

African Fish-eagle 2 0.33 0.82 0.33

African Harrier-hawk 1 0.17 0.41 0.17

Black Sparrowhawk 2 0.33 0.52 0.21

Blue Crane 364 60.67 59.33 24.22

Grey-winged francolin 4 0.67 1.03 0.42

Jackal Buzzard 8 1.33 1.75 0.71

Peregrine Falcon 2 0.33 0.52 0.21

Rufous-chested sparrowhawk 1 0.17 0.41 0.17

Steppe Buzzard 2 0.33 0.82 0.33

Grand Total: 386 64.33 58.33 23.81

Point Counts Non-Priority species Total Mean StDev StErr

African Hoopoe 1 0.17 0.41 0.17

African Pipit 115 19.17 8.40 3.43

African Quailfinch 1 0.17 0.41 0.17

African Sacred ibis 1 0.17 0.41 0.17

African Spoonbill 1 0.17 0.41 0.17

African Stonechat 44 7.33 4.08 1.67

Barn Swallow 3 0.50 1.22 0.50

Bar-throated Apalis 3 0.50 0.55 0.22

Black-headed heron 1 0.17 0.41 0.17

Blacksmith lapwing 2 0.33 0.82 0.33

Bokmakierie 45 7.50 2.43 0.99

Brimstone canary 1 0.17 0.41 0.17

Cape Batis 6 1.00 1.10 0.45

Cape Bulbul 8 1.33 1.21 0.49

Cape Bunting 15 2.50 2.07 0.85

Cape Canary 287 47.83 36.02 14.70

Cape Clapper lark 7 1.17 1.60 0.65

Cape Crow 58 9.67 4.18 1.71

Cape Grassbird 5 0.83 0.75 0.31

Cape Longclaw 2 0.33 0.52 0.21

Cape Robin-chat 27 4.50 1.87 0.76

Cape Sparrow 257 42.83 15.63 6.38

Cape spurfowl 16 2.67 3.50 1.43

Cape Turtle-dove 52 8.67 7.39 3.02

Cape Wagtail 87 14.50 6.47 2.64

Cape Weaver 65 10.83 11.16 4.56

Cape White-eye 11 1.83 1.60 0.65


55

Capped Wheatear 55 9.17 2.48 1.01

Cloud cisticola 9 1.50 1.64 0.67

Common Fiscal 15 2.50 1.38 0.56

Common Starling 243 40.50 33.75 13.78

Common Waxbill 5 0.83 1.60 0.65

Crowned Lapwing 15 2.50 2.88 1.18

Egyptian Goose 196 32.67 22.70 9.27

Familiar Chat 19 3.17 0.75 0.31

Fiscal flycatcher 24 4.00 4.34 1.77

Fork-tailed Drongo 9 1.50 1.22 0.50

Greater Striped Swallow 20 3.33 4.27 1.74

Grey Heron 1 0.17 0.41 0.17

Grey-backed Cisticola 30 5.00 3.52 1.44

Hadeda Ibis 25 4.17 5.04 2.06

Helmeted Guineafowl 816 136.00 109.85 44.85

House Sparrow 28 4.67 8.64 3.53

Karoo Prinia 36 6.00 2.10 0.86

Karoo Scrub-robin 19 3.17 2.64 1.08

Large-billed Lark 100 16.67 4.68 1.91

Levaillant's Cisticola 6 1.00 1.10 0.45

Little Swift 2 0.33 0.82 0.33

Long-billed pipit 1 0.17 0.41 0.17

Malachite Sunbird 36 6.00 2.53 1.03

Namaqua Dove 10 1.67 2.07 0.84

Pied Crow 36 6.00 6.54 2.67

Pied Starling 18 3.00 4.29 1.75

Plain-backed pipit 1 0.17 0.41 0.17

Red-capped Lark 412 68.67 11.04 4.51

Red-eyed Dove 8 1.33 1.03 0.42

Red-winged starling 2 0.33 0.82 0.33

Reed cormorant 2 0.33 0.82 0.33

South African Shelduck 20 3.33 4.13 1.69

Southern Double-collared Sunbird 22 3.67 3.08 1.26

Southern grey-headed Sparrow 5 0.83 0.98 0.40

Southern Masked-weaver 54 9.00 11.35 4.63

Southern Red bishop 99 16.50 17.28 7.06

Speckled mousebird 2 0.33 0.82 0.33

Speckled Pigeon 81 13.50 11.22 4.58

Spur-winged Goose 114 19.00 9.12 3.72

White-necked Raven 40 6.67 3.20 1.31

White-throated Swallow 4 0.67 1.03 0.42

Yellow Bishop 25 4.17 10.21 4.17

Yellow Canary 53 8.83 8.89 3.63

Yellow-billed Kite 1 0.17 0.41 0.17

Zitting cisticola 7 1.17 1.94 0.79

Grand Total: 3847 641.17 167.46 68.37


56

7 REFERENCES 1 www.cbd.int

2 www.cms.int

3 Jenkins A R; Van Rooyen C S; Smallie J J; Anderson M D & Smit H A. 2011. Best practice

guidelines for avian monitoring and impact mitigation at proposed wind energy development sites in southern Africa. Endangered Wildlife Trust and Birdlife South Africa. 4 Retief, E.F., Diamond, M., Anderson M.D., Jenkins, A., Brooks, M., Simmons, R. & H.A. Smit. 2012.

Avian Wind Farm Sensitivity Map for South Africa: Criteria and Procedures Used. Birdlife South Africa and Endangered Wildlife Trust. Johannesburg. 5 Southern African Bird Atlas Project 2. http://sabap2.adu.org.za.

6 Young, D.J. Harrison, J.A. Navarro, R.A. Anderson, M.D. & B.D. Colahan (ed). 2003. Big Birds on

Farms: Mazda CAR Report 1993 – 2001. Avian Demography Unit. University of Cape Town. 7 Young, D.J. 2008. Coordinated Avifaunal Roadcounts. Newsletter 25. Animal Demography Unit.

University of Cape Town. 8 Young, D.J. 2009a. Coordinated Avifaunal Roadcounts. Newsletter 26. Animal Demography Unit.

University of Cape Town. 9 Young, D.J. 2009b. Coordinated Avifaunal Roadcounts. Newsletter 27. Animal Demography Unit.

University of Cape Town. 10

Young, D.J. 2010a. Coordinated Avifaunal Roadcounts. Newsletter 28. Animal Demography Unit. University of Cape Town. 11

Young, D.J. 2010b. Coordinated Avifaunal Roadcounts. Newsletter 29. Animal Demography Unit. University of Cape Town. 12

Young, D.J. 2011a. Coordinated Avifaunal Roadcounts. Newsletter 30. Animal Demography Unit. University of Cape Town. 13

Young, D.J. 2011b. Coordinated Avifaunal Roadcounts. Newsletter 31. Animal Demography Unit. University of Cape Town. 14

Hockey P.A.R., Dean W.R.J., and Ryan P.G. 2005. Robert’s Birds of Southern Africa, seventh edition. Trustees of the John Voelcker Bird Book Fund, Cape Town. 15

Harrison, J.A., Drewitt, D.G., Underhill, L.G., Herremans, M., Tree, A.J., Parker, V & Brown, C.J. (eds). 1997. The atlas of southern African birds. Vol. 1&2. BirdLife South Africa, Johannesburg. 16

Barnes, K.N. (ed.) 2000. The Eskom Red Data Book of Birds of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. BirdLife South Africa, Johannesburg. 17

Drewitt, A.L. & Langston, R.H.W. 2006. Assessing the impacts of wind farms on birds. Ibis 148, 29-42. 18

Pedersen, M.B. & Poulsen, E. 1991. Impact of a 90 m/2MW wind turbine on birds. Avian responses to the implementation of the Tjaereborg wind turbine at the Danish Wadden Sea. Danske Vildtunderogelser Haefte 47. Rønde, Denmark: Danmarks Miljøundersøgelser. 19

Kruckenberg, H. & Jaene, J. 1999. Zum Einfluss eines Windparks auf die Verteilung weidender Bläßgänse im Rheiderland (Landkreis Leer, Niedersachsen). Natur Landsch. 74: 420–427.

http://www.cbd.int/

http://www.cms.int/


57

20

Larsen, J.K. & Madsen, J. 2000. Effects of wind turbines and other physical elements on field utilization by pink-footed geese (Anser brachyrhynchus): A landscape perspective. Landscape Ecol. 15: 755–764. 21

Langgemach, T. 2008. Memorandum of Understanding for the Middle-European population of the Great Bustard, German National Report 2008. Landesumweltamt Brandenburg (Brandenburg State Office for Environment). 22

Raab, R., Julius, E., Spakovszky, P. & Nagy, S. 2009. Guidelines for best practice on mitigating impacts of infrastructure development and afforestation on the Great Bustard. Prepared for the Memorandum of Understanding on the conservation and management of the Middle-European population of the Great Bustard under the Convention on Migratory species (CMS). Birdlife International. European Dvision. 23

Leddy, K.L., Higgins, K.F. & Naugle, D.E. 1999. Effects of wind turbines on upland nesting birds in conservation reserve program grasslands. Wilson Bulletin 111: 100-104. 24

Pearce-Higgins J.W, Stephen L, Langston R.H.W, Bainbridge, I.P.& R Bullman. The distribution of breeding birds around upland wind farms. Journal of Applied Ecology 2009, 46, 1323–1331 25

Whitfield, D.P. & Madders, M. 2006. A review of the impacts of wind farms on hen harriers Circus

cyaneus and an estimation of collision avoidance rates. Natural Research Information Note 1

(revised). Natural Research Ltd, Banchory, UK.

26 Langston, R.H.W. & Pullan, J.D. 2003. Wind farms and birds: an analysis of the effects of wind

farms on birds, and guidance on environmental assessment criteria and site selection issues. Report written by Birdlife International on behalf of the Bern Convention. Council Europe Report T-PVS/Inf 27

Altamont Pass Avian Monitoring Team. 2008. Bird Fatality Study at Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area October 2005 – September 2007. Draft Report prepared for the Almeda County Scientific Review Committee. 28

Stewart, G.B., Coles, C.F. & Pullin, A.S. 2004. Effects of Wind Turbines on Bird Abundance. Systematic Review no. 4. Birmingham, UK: Centre for Evidence-based Conservation. 29

Pearce-Higgins, J.W., Stephen, L., Douse, A., & Langston, R.H.W. 2012. Greater impacts on bird populations during construction than subsequent operation: result of multi-site and multi-species analysis. Journal of Applied Ecology 2012, 49, 396-394. 30

Madders, M. & Whitfield, D. P. 2006. Upland raptors and the assessment of wind farm impacts. Ibis (2006), 148, 43 – 56. 31

Anon. (a) 2003. Wind Energy – The Facts. Volume 4: Environment. The European Wind Energy Association (EWEA), and the European Commission’s Directorate General for Transport and Energy (DG TREN). pp182-184. (www.ewea.org/documents/). 32

Anon. (b) 2000. National Wind Co-ordinating Committee – Avian Collisions with Turbines: A summary of existing studies and comparisons to other sources of avian collision mortality in the United States. www.awea.org. 33

Thelander, C.G & Smallwood K.S. 2007. The Altamount Pass Wind Resource Area’s effects on birds: A case history. In: In: De Lucas M, Janss G.F.E. & Ferrer M (eds). Birds and Wind Farms: Risk Assessment and Mitigation. Quercus, Madrid. 34

Barrios, L. & Rodriguez, A. 2004. Behavioural and environmental correlates of soaring-bird mortality at on-shore wind turbines. J. Appl. Ecol. 41: 72–81. 35

Carette, M., Zapata-Sanchez, J.A., Benitez, R.J., Lobon, M. & Donazar, J.A. (In press) Large scale risk-assessment of wind farms on population viability of a globally endangered long-lived raptor. Biol. Cons. (2009), doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2009.07.027.

http://www.ewea.org/documents/

http://www.awea.org/


58

36

Jenkins, A.R., Smallie, J.J. & Diamond, M. 2010. Avian collisions with power lines: a global review of causes and mitigation with a South African perspective. Bird Conservation International 20: 263-278. 37

Camiña, A. 2012. Email communication on 12 April 2012 to the author by Alvaro Camiña, Spanish ornithologist with 8 years’ experience in avifaunal monitoring at wind farms in Spain. 38

De Lucas, M., Janss, G.F.E., Whitfield, D.P. & Ferrer, M. 2008. Collision fatality of raptors in wind farms does not depend on raptor abundance. Journal of Applied Ecology 45, 1695 – 1703. 39

Smallwood, S. 2011. Personal communication at Bird and Wind Energy Information Week. 3-7 October 2011. Darling, South Africa. Smallwood is the head of the Scientific Review Committee of Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area and is based in California 40

Stewart, G.B., Pullin, A.S. & Coles, C.F. 2007. Poor evidence-base for assessment of windfarm impacts on birds. Environmental Conservation. 34, 1-11. 41

Everaert, J., Devos, K. & Kuijken, E. 2001. Windtrubines en vogels in Vlaanderen: Voorlopige Onderzoeksresultaten En Buitenlandse Bevindingen [Wind Turbines and Birds in Flanders (Belgium): Preliminary Study Results in a European Context]. Instituut Voor Natuurbehoud. Report R.2002.03. Brussels B.76pp. Brussels, Belgium: Institut voor Natuurbehoud. 42

Howell, J.A. & DiDonato, J.E. 1991. Assessment of avian use and mortality related to wind turbine operations: Altamont Pass, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, California, September 1988 Through August 1989. Final report prepared for Kenentech Windpower. 43

Orloff, S. & Flannery, A. 1992. Wind turbine effects on avian activity, habitat use and mortality in Altamont Pass and Solano County Wind Resource Areas, 1989–91. California. Energy Commission. 44

Hunt, W.G., Jackman, R.E., Hunt, T.L., Driscoll, D.E. & Culp, L. 1999. A Population Study of Golden Eagles in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area: Population Trend Analysis 1994–97. Report to National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Subcontract XAT-6-16459–01. Santa Cruz: University of California. 45

Hunt, W.G. 2001. Continuing studies of golden eagles at Altamont Pass. Proceedings of the National Avian-Wind Power Planning Meeting IV. 46

Johnson G. D., Strickland M. D., Erickson W. P. & Young D.P. 2007. Use of data to develop mitigation measures for wind power development impacts on birds. In: De Lucas M, Janss G.F.E. & Ferrer M (eds). Birds and Wind Farms: Risk Assessment and Mitigation. Quercus, Madrid. 47

Cochran, W.W. & Graber, R.R. 1958. Attraction of nocturnal migranst by lights on a television tower. Wislon Bulletin 70(4): 378-380. 48

Herbert, A.D. 1970. Spatial disorientation in birds. Wilson bulletin 82(4):400-419. 49

Weir, R.D. 1976. Annotated bibliography of bird kills at man-made obstacle: a review of the state of art and solution. Canadian Wildlife Services, Ontario Region. Ottawa. 50

Crockford, N.J. 1992. A review of possible impacts of wind farms on birds and other wildlife. Joint Nature Conservation Committee. JNCC Report No. 27. Peterborough, Unite Kingdom. 51

Avian Powerline Interation Committee (APLIC). 1994. Mitigating bird collisions with power lines: the state of the art in 1994. Edison Electric Institute. Washington DC. 52

Jaroslow, B. 1979. A review of factors involved in bird-tower kills, and mitigate procedures. In: G.A. Swanson, G.A. (Tech. coord.), The mitigation symposium; a national workshop on mitigation losses of fish and wildlife habitats, pp. 469-473. U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report RM-65.


59

53

EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute). 1985. MOD-2 wind turbine field experience in Solano County, California. Report No. AP-4239. Preapred by PG&E, San Ramon, California. 54

Ugoretz, S. 2001. Avian mortalities at tall structures. In: Proceedings of the National Avian Wind Power Planning Meeting IV pp. 165-166. National Wind Coordinating Committee. Washington DC. 55

Johnson, G.D., Strickland, M.D., Erickson, W.P., Sheperd, M.F. & Sheperd D. A. 2000. Avian Monitoring Studies at the Buffalo Ridge, Minnesota Wind Resource Area: Results of a four-year study. Technical Report prepared for Northern States Power Company, Minneapolis, MN 262pp. 56

Civil Aviation Regulations. 1997. Part 139.01.33 of the civil aviation regulations, 1997, to the Aviation Act, 1962 (Act 74 of 1962). 57

Jessie Walton, bird monitor at Langhoogte Fram, as conveyed to het by local farmer Ross Philip. 58 Ledger, J.A. & Annegarn H.J. 1981. Electrocution Hazards to the Cape Vulture (Gyps coprotheres) in South Africa. Biological Conservation 20:15-24. 59 Ledger, J. 1983. Guidelines for Dealing with Bird Problems of Transmission Lines and Towers.

Escom Test and Research Division Technical Note TRR/N83/005. 60 Ledger, J.A. 1984. Engineering Solutions to the problem of Vulture Electrocutions on Electricity

Towers. The Certificated Engineer. 57:92-95. 61 Hobbs, J.C.A. & Ledger J.A. 1986a. The Environmental Impact of Linear Developments; Power

lines and Avifauna. Third International Conference on Environmental Quality and Ecosystem Stability. Israel, June 1986. 62 Hobbs, J.C.A. & Ledger J.A. 1986b. Power lines, Birdlife and the Golden Mean. Fauna and Flora

44:23-27. 63 Ledger, J.A., J.C.A. Hobbs & Smith T.V. 1992. Avian Interactions with Utility Structures: Southern

African Experiences. Proceedings of the International Workshop on Avian Interactions with Utility Structures, Miami, Florida, 13-15 September 1992. Electric Power Research Institute. 64 Verdoorn, G.H. 1996. Mortality of Cape Griffons Gyps coprotheres and African Whitebacked Vultures Pseudogyps africanus on 88kV and 132kV power lines in Western Transvaal, South Africa, and mitigation measures to prevent future problems. 2

nd International Conference on Raptors: 2-5

October 1996. Urbino, Italy. 65 Kruger, R. & Van Rooyen, C.S. 1998. Evaluating the risk that existing power lines pose to large raptors by using risk assessment methodology: the Molopo Case Study. 5

th World Conference on

Birds of Prey and Owls: 4 - 8 August 1998. Midrand, South Africa. 66 Van Rooyen, C.S. 1998. Raptor mortality on power lines in South Africa. 5

th World Conference on

Birds of Prey and Owls: 4 - 8 August 1998. Midrand, South Africa. 67

Kruger, R. 1999. Towards solving raptor electrocutions on Eskom Distribution Structures in South Africa. M. Phil. Mini-thesis. University of the Orange Free State. Bloemfontein. South Africa. 68 Van Rooyen, C.S. 1999. An overview of the Eskom - EWT Strategic Partnership in South Africa. EPRI Workshop on Avian Interactions with Utility Structures 2-3 December 1999, Charleston, South Carolina. 69 Van Rooyen, C.S. 2000. An overview of Vulture Electrocutions in South Africa. Vulture News 43: 5-22. Vulture Study Group, Johannesburg, South Africa. 70 Van Rooyen, C.S. 2007. Eskom-EWT Strategic Partnership: Progress Report April-September 2007. Endangered Wildlife Trust, Johannesburg.


60

71 Van Rooyen, C.S. 2004. The Management of Wildlife Interactions with overhead lines. In: The Fundamentals and practice of Overhead Line Maintenance (132kV and above), pp217-245. Eskom Technology, Services International, Johannesburg 2004. 72

Anderson, M.D. 2001. The effectiveness of two different marking devices to reduce large terrestrial bird collisions with overhead electricity cables in the eastern Karoo, South Africa. Draft report to Eskom Resources and Strategy Division. Johannesburg. South Africa. 73 Shaw, J.M. 2009. The End of the Line for South Africa's National Bird? Modelling power line

collision risk for the Blue Crane. Unpublished MSc Thesis. Percy FitzPatrick Institute of African Ornithology University of Cape Town. 74 Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC). 1994. Mitigating Bird Collisions with Power Lines:

The State of the Art in 1994. Edison Electric Institute. Washington D.C. 75

Martin, G., Shaw, J., Smallie J. & Diamond, M. 2010. Bird’s eye view – How birds see is key to avoiding power line collisions. Eskom Research Report. Report Nr: RES/RR/09/31613. 76

Alonso, J.A. & Alonso, C.A. 1999. Mitigation of bird collisions with transmission lines through groundwire marking. In: Birds and Power Lines Eds: M. Ferrer & G. F. E. Janss, Quercus, Madrid. 77

Koops, F.B.J. & De Jong, J. 1982. Vermindering van draadslachtoffers door markering van hoogspanningsleidingen in de omgeving van Heerenveen. Electrotechniek 60 (12): 641 – 646. 78

Beaulaurier, D.L. 1981. Mitigation of bird collisions with transmission lines. Bonneville Power Administration. U.S. Dept. of Energy. 79

Barrientos, R., Alonso J.C., Ponce, C. & Palacin, C. 2011.Meta-Analysis Of The Effectiveness Of Marked Wire In Reducing Avian Collisions With Power Lines. Conservation Biology. Volume 24 Issue 5. 80

Fox, A.D., Desholm, M., Kahlert, J., Christensen, T.K. & Krag Petersen, I.B. 2006. Information needs to support environmental impact assessments of the effects of European marine offshore wind farms on birds. In Wind, Fire and Water: Renewable Energy and Birds. Ibis 148 (Suppl. 1): 129–144. 81

Thelander, C.G., Smallwood, K.S. & Rugge, L. 2003. Bird Risk Behaviours and Fatalities at the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Colorado. 82

Scottish Natural History. 2005. Cumulative effects of wind farms – Version 2 revised 13.04.05. Guidance Note. http://www.snh.org.uk/pdfs/strategy/cumulativeeffectsonwindfarms.pdf.

Date post:	12-Oct-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

Chris van Rooyen Consulting - GIBBprojects.gibb.co.za/Portals/3/projects/201204 SAGIT...

Documents