FINAL PRE-CONSTRUCTION MONITORING REPORT AND AVIFAUNAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE PAULPUTS WIND ENERGY FACILITY, NORTHERN CAPE PROVINCE

On behalf of

PAULPUTS WIND ENERGY FACILITY (RF) (PTY) LTD

June 2019

Prepared By:

Arcus Consultancy Services South Africa (Pty) Limited

Office 220 Cube Workspace Icon Building Cnr Long Street and Hans Strijdom Avenue Cape Town 8001

T +27 (0) 21 412 1529 l E [email protected] W www.arcusconsulting.co.za

Registered in South Africa No. 2015/416206/07

Final Bird Monitoring and Impact Assessment Report Paulputs Wind Energy Facility

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 4 1.1 Purpose and Aims ...... 4 1.2 The WEF Site and Project Description ...... 4

2 TERMS OF REFERENCE ...... 5

3 METHODOLOGY ...... 5 3.1 Defining the Baseline ...... 5 3.2 Sources of Information ...... 6 3.3 Limitations and Assumptions ...... 6 3.4 Pre-construction Bird Monitoring Survey Design ...... 6 3.4.1 Vantage Points ...... 8 3.4.2 Walked Transects ...... 8 3.4.3 Driven Transects ...... 8 3.4.4 Focal Sites ...... 8 3.4.5 Incidental Observations ...... 8 3.5 Specialist Nest Survey ...... 9 3.6 Identification of Potential Impacts ...... 9 3.7 Impact Assessment Methodology ...... 9 3.8 Determination of Avian Sensitivity and No-Go Areas ...... 10 3.8.1 Avifaunal Flight Sensitivity ...... 10 3.8.2 Avifaunal feature Buffers ...... 11

4 POLICY AND LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT ...... 11 4.1 The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), 1993 ...... 11 4.2 The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS or Bonn Convention), 1983 ...... 11 4.2.1 The Agreement on the Conservation of African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbirds (AEWA), 1999 ...... 12 4.3 National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act No. 10 of 2004) – Threatened or Protected Species List (TOPS)...... 12 4.4 Northern Cape Nature Conservation Act, 2009 (Act No. 9 of 2009) ...... 12 4.5 The Civil Aviation Authority Regulations, 2011 ...... 12 4.6 The Equator Principles (EPs) III, 2013 ...... 12

5 BASELINE AVIFAUNAL ENVIRONMENT ...... 12 5.1 Co-ordinated Avifaunal Road Counts (CAR) ...... 12 5.2 Co-ordinated Waterbird Counts (CWAC) ...... 13

Arcus Consultancy Services South Africa (Pty) Ltd Paulputs WEF (RF) (Pty) Ltd June 2019 Page i Final Bird Monitoring and Impact Assessment Report Paulputs Wind Energy Facility

5.3 Important Bird Areas...... 13 5.4 Southern African Bird Atlas Project 1 ...... 13 5.5 Southern African Bird Atlas Project 2 ...... 14 5.6 Bird Microhabitats ...... 15 5.7 Paulputs WEF Pre-construction Monitoring ...... 16 5.7.1 Vantage Points ...... 16 5.7.2 Walked Transects ...... 18 5.7.3 Driven Transects ...... 18 5.7.4 Focal Sites ...... 19 5.7.5 Nest Survey ...... 19 5.7.6 Incidental Observations ...... 20 5.7.7 Species Summary and Discussion ...... 20

6 IDENTIFICATION OF IMPACTS, IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION MEASURES ...... 22 6.1 Background to Interactions between Wind Energy Facilities, Power Lines and Birds ...... 22 6.2 Construction Phase Impacts ...... 23 6.2.1 Habitat Destruction ...... 23 6.2.2 Disturbance and Displacement ...... 24 6.3 Operational Phase Impacts ...... 24 6.3.1 Disturbance and Displacement ...... 24 6.3.2 Collisions with Wind Turbines ...... 26

7 REFERENCES...... 32

APPENDIX A: SPECIES LIST ...... 36

APPENDIX B: IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY...... 40

APPENDIX C: SPECIALISTS CV AND DECLARATION OF INDEPENDANCE ...... 403

Figure List:

Figure 1: Site and Survey Locations Figure 2: 12 month Pre-construction Monitoring Results Figure 3: Avifaunal Sensitivity Map

Arcus Consultancy Services South Africa (Pty) Ltd Paulputs WEF (RF) (Pty) Ltd June 2019 Page ii Final Bird Monitoring and Impact Assessment Report Paulputs Wind Energy Facility

CONTENTS OF THE SPECIALIST REPORT - CHECKLIST

Regulation GNR 326 of 4 December 2014, as amended 7 April Section of Report 2017, Appendix 6

(a) details of the specialist who prepared the report; and the expertise of Appendix C that specialist to compile a specialist report including a curriculum vitae; (b) a declaration that the specialist is independent in a form as may be Appendix C specified by the competent authority; (c) an indication of the scope of, and the purpose for which, the report was Section 1.1 prepared; Section 2 (cA) an indication of the quality and age of base data used for the Section 3.2 and 3.4 specialist report; (cB) a description of existing impacts on the site, cumulative impacts of the Section 6 proposed development and levels of acceptable change; (d) the duration, date and season of the site investigation and the Section 3.4 relevance of the season to the outcome of the assessment; (e) a description of the methodology adopted in preparing the report or Section 3 carrying out the specialised process inclusive of equipment and modelling used; (f) details of an assessment of the specific identified sensitivity of the site Section 6 related to the proposed activity or activities and its associated structures Figure 3 and infrastructure, inclusive of a site plan identifying site alternatives; (g) an identification of any areas to be avoided, including buffers; Figure 3 (h) a map superimposing the activity including the associated structures Figure 3 and infrastructure on the environmental sensitivities of the site including areas to be avoided, including buffers; (i) a description of any assumptions made and any uncertainties or gaps in Section 3.3 knowledge; (j) a description of the findings and potential implications of such findings Sections 6 and 7 on the impact of the proposed activity, including identified alternatives on the environment, or activities; (k) any mitigation measures for inclusion in the EMPr; Section 6 (l) any conditions for inclusion in the environmental authorisation; Section 7 (m) any monitoring requirements for inclusion in the EMPr or Sections 6 and 7 environmental authorisation; (n) a reasoned opinion— Section 7 i. as to whether the proposed activity, activities or portions thereof should be authorised; iA. Regarding the acceptability of the proposed activity or activities; and ii. if the opinion is that the proposed activity, activities or portions thereof should be authorised, any avoidance, management and mitigation measures that should be included in the EMPr or Environmental Authorization, and where applicable, the closure plan; (o) a summary and copies of any comments received during any N/A consultation process and where applicable all responses thereto; and (p) any other information requested by the competent authority N/A Where a government notice gazetted by the Minister provides for any N/A protocol or minimum information requirement to be applied to a specialist report, the requirements as indicated in such notice will apply.

Arcus Consultancy Services South Africa (Pty) Ltd Paulputs WEF (RF) (Pty) Ltd June 2019 Page iii Final Bird Monitoring and Impact Assessment Report Paulputs Wind Energy Facility

1 INTRODUCTION Paulputs Wind Energy Facility (RF) (Pty) Ltd (‘the Applicant’) is proposing to develop the Paulputs Wind Energy Facility (WEF), at a site approximately 50 km east of Pofadder in the Northern Cape Province. The Applicant appointed Arcus to conduct the 12 month pre-construction bird monitoring study at the Paulputs WEF site, including reporting for inclusion into an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process. A pre-construction monitoring programme according to best practice guidelines has been conducted. Four seasonal surveys and a specialist nest survey were completed, the results of which informed this avifaunal impact assessment.

1.1 Purpose and Aims The purpose and aims of this report are to provide: • A confirmation of the terms of reference adopted for the avifaunal study; • Description of the monitoring programme conducted; • Main findings of the monitoring surveys undertaken; • A description of the avifaunal status quo (i.e. the avifaunal baseline), including a description of avifaunal microhabitats available on site; and • A description of potential predicted impacts to avifauna as well as significance rating and impact assessment, cumulative impact assessment and potential mitigations.

1.2 The WEF Site and Project Description The proposed WEF site is approximately 11 813 hectares (Figure 1) in extent with a developable area of less than 10 000 hectares, and lies within the Kai !Garib Local Municipality in the ZF Mgcawu District Municipality and the Khâi-Ma Local Municipality in the Namakwa District Municipality. The site falls entirely within the Bushmanland Arid Grassland vegetation type. The topography of the site is uniformly flat with small scattered rocky outcrops. The National Road N14 runs through the site from the southwest to the northeast. The predominant land use on the site is low intensity sheep grazing. The actual footprint of the infrastructure will be approximately 2 % of the developable area. The proposed Paulputs WEF will consist of up to 75 turbines with a generation capacity of between 3 and 6 MW. The turbines will have a maximum hub height of 140 m, a maximum blade length of 90 m and a rotor diameter of up to 180 m. The turbines will have a maximum tip height of 230 m. Three 132 kV substation locations are being applied for and each will cover approximately 4 hectares for a maximum total substation footprint of 12 hectares. The permanent laydown area and the temporary construction laydown area will both be approximately 1 hectare each. The substation complex with substation, operations and maintenance compound with parking and laydown areas will be 200 m x 200 m. An estimated 80 km of internal roads (6 - 12 m wide) will be required. A 15 - 25 km 132 kV grid connection will be required to connect the selected substation to the national grid. There are three corridor options to connect to the grid, one tying in to an existing 132 kV line north of the site, and two connecting to the Paulputs substation (one of which goes via the proposed collector substation). A fourth over-head power line corridor is proposed within the site to connect the various on-site substation options (Figure 3). All corridor options are being applied for. Both monopole and lattice structures are being considered.

Arcus Consultancy Services South Africa (Pty) Ltd Paulputs WEF (RF) (Pty) Ltd June 2019 Page 4 Final Bird Monitoring and Impact Assessment Report Paulputs Wind Energy Facility

2 TERMS OF REFERENCE The following terms of reference were utilised for the preparation of this report: • Provide summarised results from the full 12 month bird pre-construction monitoring programme; • Describe the proposed development site baseline with regard to avifauna for the study area, focussing on the characteristics which may be impacted upon by the proposed development during construction, operation and decommissioning; • Describe the sensitivity of the baseline environment with regard to avifauna specifically with regard to the conservation status of species; • Identify the Regional Red Data and priority species present and potentially present on the project site; • Identify the nature of potential impacts (positive and negative, including cumulative impacts if relevant) of the proposed development on avifauna during construction and operation; • Conduct a significance rating and impact assessment of identified impacts; • Identify mitigation or enhancement measures to minimise impacts to avifauna or deliver enhancement from the proposed project; and • Identify information gaps and limitations; This specialist report complies with Appendix 6 of the EIA Regulations 2014, as amended.

3 METHODOLOGY The approach to the study followed that which was required by the Best Practice Guidelines applicable at the time of the surveys (Jenkins et al. 2015) (‘the guidelines’) and those of the National Environment Management Act, 1998 (Act No 107 of 1998), as amended and the EIA Regulations (GNR 326 of 4 December 2014, as amended 7 April 2017). The following terminology is used: • Priority species = all species occurring on the Birdlife South Africa (BLSA) and Endangered Wildlife Trust (EWT) Avian Sensitivity Map priority species list (Retief et al. 2014). This list consists of 107 species with a priority score of 170 or more, and most likely to be affected negatively by WEFs. The priority score was determined by BLSA and EWT after considering various factors including bird families most impacted upon by WEFs, physical size, species behaviour, endemism, range size and conservation status; • Red Data species: Species whose regional conservation status is listed as Near- Threatened, Vulnerable, Endangered or Critically Endangered in the Eskom Red Data Book of Birds of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland (Taylor et al. 2015); • Endemic or Near-endemic: Endemic or near endemic (i.e. ~70% or more of population in RSA) to South Africa (not southern Africa as in field guides) or endemic to South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Taken from BirdLife South Africa Checklist of Birds in South Africa, 2014.

3.1 Defining the Baseline The baseline avifauna environment for the WEF site was defined utilising a desk-based study and informed by four seasons of on-site pre-construction bird monitoring conducted to date. This information was examined to determine the potential location and abundance of avifauna which may be sensitive to development, and to understand their conservation status and sensitivity.

Arcus Consultancy Services South Africa (Pty) Ltd Paulputs WEF (RF) (Pty) Ltd June 2019 Page 5 Final Bird Monitoring and Impact Assessment Report Paulputs Wind Energy Facility

3.2 Sources of Information • Bird distribution data of the Southern African Bird Atlas Project (SABAP-1) (Harrison et al. 1997) and Southern African Bird Atlas Project 2 (SABAP-2) obtained from the Avian Demography Unit of the University of Cape Town (Brooks 2017); • Co-ordinated Avifaunal Road Count (CAR) project (Taylor et. al. 1999) • Co-ordinated Water-bird Count (CWAC) project (Taylor et. al. 1999); • The Important Bird Areas of southern Africa (IBA) project (Marnewick, et al., 2015); • Publically available satellite imagery; • The Eskom Red Data Book of Birds of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland (Taylor et al. 2015); • Results of four seasonal surveys (autumn, winter, spring and summer) conducted for the pre-construction avifaunal monitoring programme for Paulputs WEF. • A summary of post-construction results from eight operational wind farms in South Africa published by Birdlife SA (Ralston Paton et al. 2017); • Specialist Avifaunal Assessment for the Proposed Pofadder Solar Thermal Plant, Northern cape (BLSA 2010) • Birds Impact Review Proposed Amendment to the Environmental Authorisation for the Namies Wind farm, near Aggeneys in the Northern Cape (14/12/16/3/3/2/550/AM1). (Chris van Rooyen Consulting 2018); • Paulputs Solar Energy Facility Initial Avifaunal Assessment (Smallie 2017) • Avifauna Baseline and Impact Assessment report for the proposed construction of Paulputs CSP project near Pofadder, Northern Cape Province (Hudson, 2016) • Publically available peer reviewed literature on the effects of wind energy developments on birds.

3.3 Limitations and Assumptions • The SABAP-1 data covers the period 1986 – 1997. Bird distribution patterns fluctuate continuously according to availability of food and nesting substrate. (For a full discussion of potential inaccuracies in SABAP data, see Harrison et al. 1997); • There is still limited information available on the environmental effects of wind energy facilities in South Africa. Only a summary of the results of post-construction monitoring from eight wind farms in South Africa is available (Ralston Paton et al. 2017). Estimates of impacts are therefore also based on knowledge gained internationally, which should be applied with caution to local species and conditions; and • While sampling effort was conducted as recommended in the guidelines, to achieve statistically powerful results it would need to be increased beyond practical possibilities. The data was therefore interpreted using a precautionary approach.

3.4 Pre-construction Bird Monitoring Survey Design The survey design and method has been developed by Arcus to be in line with the guidelines. Consideration and implementation of these guidelines is a requirement of the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) for assessment of proposed WEFs. Based on the avifaunal specialist’s experience on operational WEFs in South Africa and the information gathered during the high level site screening/feasibility study conducted by Arcus, a number of important species which may have the potential to be impacted upon, may be present on or around the project site. These include, but are not limited to the following: Martial Eagle, Booted Eagle, Black-chested Snake Eagle, Pale Chanting Goshawk, Spotted Eagle-Owl, Lanner Falcon, Greater Kestrel, Rock Kestrel, Karoo Korhaan, Northern Black Korhaan, Double-banded Courser, Kori Bustard, Ludwig’s

Arcus Consultancy Services South Africa (Pty) Ltd Paulputs WEF (RF) (Pty) Ltd June 2019 Page 6 Final Bird Monitoring and Impact Assessment Report Paulputs Wind Energy Facility

Bustard, Red Lark and Sclater’s Lark. The potential presence of these species was considered in the design of the survey as detailed below. BirdLife South Africa (BLSA) released species specific Verreaux’s Eagle Guidelines (VE Guidelines) (BLSA, 2017). These were considered in the design of the monitoring programme. The VE guidelines become applicable “where a wind farm is proposed within potentially important Verreaux’s Eagle habitat”. It was the specialist’s opinion based the results of the pre-feasibility desktop study and current information1, that the proposed site had a small chance of meeting this criterion, and the survey effort was sufficient. To obtain data for accurate ‘before-after’ comparison the monitoring programme included data collection in a control area approximately 6 km from the WEF site boundary, and where no future plans for renewable energy development are known. Monitoring of the WEF site and the control site will be conducted on a total of four sampling trips over a 12-month period, to be representative of the seasonal variation in environmental conditions occurring in the area. In addition a dedicated nest survey, focussing on searching for eagle nests on suitable cliffs and powerline pylons on and around the project site was conducted in July 2018. Prior to the first (autumn) survey, the avifaunal specialist visited the WEF site and surrounding areas from 4 – 5 April 2018 for the ‘site set up’ to confirm survey locations and effort. This visit confirmed that the locations and methods (as described below) were accessible and suitable. Following this the seasonal surveys were conducted as presented in Table 1. Table 1: Seasonal Survey Dates Survey Dates

Autumn 6 – 11 May 2018 Winter 7 – 12 August 2018 Spring 30 October – 4 November 2018 Summer 8 – 13 January 2019

The surveys included vantage point surveys, walked transects, driven transects, focal site surveys and incidental observations2. The following definitions apply: • Target species: those particular bird species that are to be recorded by a specific survey method. Target species per survey method: . Vantage Point (VP) Surveys: all raptors; all large (non-passerine) priority species; all waterfowl (e.g. ducks and geese); . Walked Transects (WT): all birds; . Driven Transects (DT): all raptors; all large (non-passerine) priority species; . Incidental Observations: all raptors; all large (non-passerine) priority species; and . Focal Sites (FS): all species associated, utilising or interacting at/with the focal site. The target species per method were recorded using the following methods, as described in more detail below.

1 During the four seasonal surveys no Verreaux’s Eagle were recorded flying during Vantage Point observations, on Walked Transects or Driven Transects. One incidental record of a pair of Verreaux’s Eagle south of the WEF site boundary was made. 2 Incidental observations were also recorded on the 4th and 5th of May 2018 during the site set up.

Arcus Consultancy Services South Africa (Pty) Ltd Paulputs WEF (RF) (Pty) Ltd June 2019 Page 7 Final Bird Monitoring and Impact Assessment Report Paulputs Wind Energy Facility

3.4.1 Vantage Points Five vantage points were surveyed on the WEF site, and one on the control site (CVP) (Figure 1). Taking into account accessibility, the location of the VPs was designed to maximise coverage of the site, focussing on the area’s most likely to be developed. Due to the flat topography, high visibility and expected low activity on the site, single observers surveyed each VP. Observers monitored a viewshed of 360 degrees with a radius of 2 km. These viewsheds were the focus of observation, however if target species were noted beyond these (or if a species being recorded flew out of the viewshed but was still visible), they would also be recorded. For each flight of a target species the flight path was recorded on a large scale map along with data on the number/species of bird(s) and type of flight, flight duration and flight height. Flight heights were recorded through five height bands: 1: 0-30 m; 2: 30-100 m; 3: 100-170 m; 4: 170-250 m and 5: >250 m. VPs were monitored for 12 hours each per season. VP monitoring was conducted in 3 hour sessions, and to prevent observer fatigue and ensure data collection across multiple days and time periods, a maximum of 6 hours per day of VP observation was conducted, with two different VPs surveyed each day per observer, when possible.

3.4.2 Walked Transects To sample abundances and species richness of small terrestrial species, three walked transects of 1 km each in length were established on the project site and one on the control site (Figure 1). All transects were surveyed twice during each seasonal survey. One observer walked between the start and end points of the transects whilst recording all birds seen or heard up to 150 m on either side of the transect. Beyond 150 m, only priority species were noted and were recorded as incidental sightings. The location of the conducted walked transects are presented in Figure 1.

3.4.3 Driven Transects To sample abundances of large terrestrial birds and raptors, two driven transect routes were conducted twice per season within and around the project site (DT1 and DT2) and one transect was conducted twice per season at the control site (CDT). Their locations are presented in Figure 1. Target species were recorded by driving slowly (+- 25 km/h) with all windows open, and stopping occasionally to listen and scan the surrounding environment. When a target species was located, a GPS co-ordinate was recorded along with the distance and direction from the vehicle to the observed bird and additional information such as weather conditions and habitat type.

3.4.4 Focal Sites Focal Sites (FS) may include cliff-lines, quarry faces, power lines, and stands of large trees, nest sites, dams, water points, marshes and wetlands. Additional focal sites may be added to the monitoring programme, as and when they are discovered. During the first (autumn survey) four focal sites were identified on the project site and one on the control site, and each was surveyed twice (for 15 minutes per survey) during the three seasonal surveys. In addition a Verreaux’s Eagle nest was located outside of the WEF site, and this was surveyed once during the winter survey, spring and summer survey. The locations of the focal sites are shown in Figure 1.

3.4.5 Incidental Observations All other incidental sightings of priority species on the WEF site, control site and within the broader area were recorded and geo-referenced, along with additional relevant information such as weather and habitat type.

Arcus Consultancy Services South Africa (Pty) Ltd Paulputs WEF (RF) (Pty) Ltd June 2019 Page 8 Final Bird Monitoring and Impact Assessment Report Paulputs Wind Energy Facility

3.5 Specialist Nest Survey A dedicated raptor nest survey was conducted by the avifaunal specialist and a senior observer from 17 – 19 July 2018. All potential cliff nest habitat, as well as existing Eskom powerlines within a 10 km radius of the proposed development were surveyed for potential raptor nests. Access to the southern side of the ridge known as “Tafelberg” was not possible during this period due to the landowner being unable to give access. The survey of this section was added to the winter survey that was conducted three weeks later in August 2018.

3.6 Identification of Potential Impacts After collation of the baseline data from the source of information listed above the potential impacts of the project were identified, for both the construction and operational phases. The key potential impact types on avifauna from WEFs and associated infrastructure are: • Collision with turbines; • Electrocution; • Collision with power lines; • Disturbance and displacement; • Disruption of bird movements; and • Habitat destruction.

3.7 Impact Assessment Methodology Each of the potential impacts identified above, on the baseline environment presented in Section 5, is assessed in Section 6 using the methodology provided by the Environmental Assessment Practitioner (Appendix B). For each impact, the significance was determined by identifying extent, duration, intensity, probability of occurrence, reversibility of the impact and irreplaceability of resource loss, in the absence of any mitigation (‘without mitigation’). Mitigation measures were identified and the significance was re-rated, assuming the effective implementation of the mitigation (‘with mitigation’). The assessment ‘without mitigation’ assumes the worst case scenario in which all proposed 75 turbines are constructed. The assessment ‘with mitigation’ assumes that all turbines are constructed outside of avifaunal no-go areas (Figure 3) identified and all additional mitigations described in the Section 6 are also adequately implemented. The specialists’ confidence in the accuracy of the rating is also given. Cumulative impacts were assessed as the incremental impact of the proposed activity on the baseline presented in Section 5, when added to the impacts of other past, present or reasonably foreseeable future activities in a 50 km radius. Proposed or approved developments within 50 km of the site boundary were identified using the DEA’s latest available spatial layer of renewable energy applications (Q1_2019), and included 13 solar projects for consideration in the cumulative assessments (Table 2). It is unlikely that all these projects will be built and therefore our assessment assumed that up to 9 of these projects would be built (including the three in operation). Table 2: Projects included in the Cumulative Assessment Current status of Development Applicant Technology Capacity EIA/development

Solar CSP KaXu Solar One In operation NA 100 MW trough Solar CSP !Xina Solar One In operation Na 100 MW trough

Arcus Consultancy Services South Africa (Pty) Ltd Paulputs WEF (RF) (Pty) Ltd June 2019 Page 9 Final Bird Monitoring and Impact Assessment Report Paulputs Wind Energy Facility

Current status of Development Applicant Technology Capacity EIA/development

Khoi-Sun Approved To review Solar PV 75 MW Konkoonsies SEF In operation NA Solar 20 MW Construction Konkoonsies II SEF NA Solar 75 MW underway Scuitdrift Solar Skuitdrift SEF Approved Solar PV 10 MW Project (Pty) Ltd Southern Cross SEF EIA underway To review Solar PV 20 MW Abengoa Solar Paulputs CSP Approved Power South CSP Tower 200 MW Africa Pty Ltd Tutwa SEF In process NA Solar PV 20 MW Site 1 Limarco 77 Pty (Konkoonsies) and Approved Solar PV 9.7 MW Ltd Site 2 (Kleinzwart) Padrooi Approved To review Solar PV 19 MW South African Solar project on Mainstream Farm 209 (Poortje) Renewable and Portions 1 and Approved Solar Unknown Power 2 Of Farm 212 Developments (Namies South) (Pty) Ltd juwi Renewable Paulputs PV1, PV2 Approved Energies (Pty) Solar PV 300 MW and PV3 Ltd

Any publically available specialist, EIA or BA reports were obtained and reviewed in terms of avifaunal impacts, and included in the cumulative assessment.

3.8 Determination of Avian Sensitivity and No-Go Areas

3.8.1 Avifaunal Flight Sensitivity Avifaunal Flight Sensitivity Zones are designated based on observed flight activity during four seasonal surveys of avifaunal monitoring on the WEF site. Observed flight sensitivity is determined by creating a Grid Cell Sensitivity Score (GCSS), falling within either a Low, Medium, High or very High classification for a 200 m x 200 m grid covering the WEF site. The GCSS is derived by analysing the following characteristics of all mapped priority species and raptors flight lines passing through each grid cell: • Priority species score and the number of individuals associated with each flight line; • Risk height factor, which considered if the flight was within the Rotor Swept Height; • The duration of the flight; and • The length of the flight. These factors are considered in the following equation to determine a Flight Section Sensitivity Score (FSSS), for each section of flight within a grid cell. The GCSS is the sum of these flight sections within the grid cell, giving a sensitivity score specific to the cell. FSSS = PSS x N x (X/Y x D) x (P+1) Where: • PSS is the Priority Species Score (Retief et al. 2011, updated 2014). • N is the number of birds that are associated with the flight line.

Arcus Consultancy Services South Africa (Pty) Ltd Paulputs WEF (RF) (Pty) Ltd June 2019 Page 10 Final Bird Monitoring and Impact Assessment Report Paulputs Wind Energy Facility

• X is the length of the flight line section that is within a particular Grid Square. • Y is the length of the whole flight line. • D is the duration of the whole flight. • P is the proportion of the flight line at Risk Height. Grid cells within the WEF site boundary without a GCSS do not have any recorded priority species flights passing through from the monitoring survey, either because no species were recorded, or they were beyond the viewsheds covered by VP watches. The resultant GCSS scores are categorised into Flight Sensitivity Zones as follows: Low (<10,000); Medium (10,000 - 45,000); High (45,000 - 100,000); and very High (>100,000). Four seasons of monitoring recorded a very low number of flights. As a result the entire site was assigned a GCSS score of Low Flight Sensitivity

3.8.2 Avifaunal Feature Buffers Landscape features such as ridges, cultivated fields, rivers and wetlands are generally known to be utilised by sensitive species and have high avifaunal sensitivity. The high avifaunal sensitivity features that were identified at the Paulputs WEF includes wetlands, dams and rivers. A 200 m buffer surrounding these features are considered high avifaunal sensitivity. Three types of raptor nests were identified and buffered according to the sensitivity of the species to collisions and standard best practise: • Verreaux’s Eagle (3 km) • Pale Chanting Goshawk (500 m) • Greater Kestrel Nest (500 m)

4 POLICY AND LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT The legislation relevant to this specialist field and the proposed project is as follows:

4.1 The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), 1993 A multilateral treaty for the international conservation of biodiversity, the sustainable use of its components and fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from natural resources. The convention prescribes that signatories identify components of biological diversity important or conservation and monitor these components in light of any activities that have been identified which are likely to have adverse impacts on biodiversity. The CBD is based on the precautionary principle which states that where there is a threat of significant reduction or loss of biological diversity, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to avoid or minimize such a threat and that in the absence of scientific consensus the burden of proof that the action or policy is not harmful falls on those proposing or taking the action.

4.2 The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS or Bonn Convention), 1983 An intergovernmental treaty, concluded under the aegis of the United Nations Environment Programme, concerned with the conservation of wildlife and habitats on a global scale. The fundamental principles listed in Article II of this treaty state that signatories acknowledge the importance of migratory species being conserved and agree to take action to this end "whenever possible and appropriate", "paying special attention to migratory species the conservation status of which is unfavourable and taking individually or in cooperation appropriate and necessary steps to conserve such species and their habitat”.

Arcus Consultancy Services South Africa (Pty) Ltd Paulputs WEF (RF) (Pty) Ltd June 2019 Page 11 Final Bird Monitoring and Impact Assessment Report Paulputs Wind Energy Facility

4.2.1 The Agreement on the Conservation of African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbirds (AEWA), 1999 An intergovernmental treaty developed under the framework of the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS), concerned the coordinated conservation and management of migratory waterbirds throughout their entire migratory range. Signatories of the Agreement have expressed their commitment to work towards the conservation and sustainable management of migratory waterbirds, paying special attention to endangered species as well as to those with an unfavourable conservation status.

4.3 National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act No. 10 of 2004) – Threatened or Protected Species List (TOPS) Amendments to the TOPS Regulations and species list were published on 31 March 2015 in Government Gazette No. 38600 and Notice 256 of 2015. The amended species list excluded all species threatened by habitat destruction and which are not affected by other restricted activities, but included the following potentially relevant target species for this study: Endangered – Martial Eagle, Ludwig’s Bustard; Protected – Kori Bustard

4.4 Northern Cape Nature Conservation Act, 2009 (Act No. 9 of 2009) Developed to protect both animal and plant species within the province which warrant protection. These may be species which are under threat or which are already considered to be endangered. The provincial environmental authorities are responsible for the issuing of permits in terms of this legislation.

4.5 The Civil Aviation Authority Regulations, 2011 These are relevant to the issue of lighting of wind energy facilities, and to painting turbine blades, both of which are relevant to bird collisions with turbine blades.

4.6 The Equator Principles (EPs) III, 2013 The principles applicable to the project are likely to include: • Principle 2: Environmental and Social Assessment; • Principle 3: Applicable Environmental and Social Standards; • Principle 4: Environmental and Social Management System and Equator Principles Action Plan; • Principle 8: Covenants. These principles, among various requirements, include a requirement for an assessment process (e.g. EIA process), an Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP) to be prepared by the client to address issues raised in the Assessment process and incorporate actions required to comply with the applicable standards, and the appointment of an independent environmental expert to verify monitoring information.

5 BASELINE AVIFAUNAL ENVIRONMENT

5.1 Co-ordinated Avifaunal Road Counts (CAR) There are no CAR routes on the WEF site or within 400 km of the WEF site, and therefore data from this source is not considered relevant to this study.

Arcus Consultancy Services South Africa (Pty) Ltd Paulputs WEF (RF) (Pty) Ltd June 2019 Page 12 Final Bird Monitoring and Impact Assessment Report Paulputs Wind Energy Facility

5.2 Co-ordinated Waterbird Counts (CWAC) There are no CWAC sites within 190 km of the proposed WEF site, and therefore data from this source is not considered relevant to this study.

5.3 Important Bird Areas The proposed WEF site is not situated within an IBA. However, the Mattheus-Gat Conservation Area (Global IBA) borders the proposed development site to the south west. A red dune system runs through the centre of the IBA, orientated from north-west to south-east. Small quartzite hills and gneiss-granitic inselbergs form islands of rocky habitat in a sea of red sand. This IBA is one of a few sites protecting the globally threatened Red Lark, which inhabits the red sand dunes and sandy plains with a mixed grassy dwarf shrub cover, and the near-threatened Sclater’s Lark, which occurs erratically on gravel plains. The site potentially supports 16 of the 23 Namib-Karoo biome-restricted assemblage species and a host of other arid-zone birds. It is seasonally important for nomadic larks, such as Stark's Lark, and sparrow-larks, which are abundant after good rains. The number of known species for this IBA is 142. It appears that the Red Lark population has declined in this IBA. Globally threatened species that occur in the IBA are Red Lark, Sclater's Lark, Kori Bustard, Ludwig's Bustard and Black Harrier. Karoo Korhaan also occurs in the IBA which is regionally threatened. Biome-restricted species include Stark's Lark, Karoo Long-billed Lark, Black-eared Sparrow-lark, Tractrac Chat, Sickle-winged Chat, Karoo Chat, Layard's Tit-Babbler, Karoo Eremomela, Cinnamon- breasted Warbler, Namaqua Warbler, Sociable Weaver, Pale-winged Starling and Black- headed Canary. Besides these trigger species, Martial Eagle, Secretarybird, Verreaux’s Eagle, Booted Eagle, Black-chested Snake Eagle, Cape Eagle-Owl and Spotted Eagle-Owl are present.3 The proposed development site does not contain the red dune and sandy plains habitat suitable for Red Lark, and Red Lark has not been recorded in SABAP1 or SABAP2 data (see below), or during four seasons of pre-construction monitoring on the WEF site. Therefore an impact on this species by the proposed development is unlikely. Likewise Sclater’s Lark has not been recorded during pre-construction monitoring or by SABAP2. It was however recorded during SABAP1 for the larger quarter degree square. The proposed WEF is however more likely to impact on priority species listed in the IBA that are possibly at least occasionally present on the proposed development site, such as Kori Bustard, Ludwig’s Bustard, Black Harrier, Martial Eagle, Secretarybird, Verreaux’s Eagle, Booted Eagle, Black-chested Eagle, Cape Eagle-Owl and Spotted Eagle-Owl.

5.4 Southern African Bird Atlas Project 1 The SABAP1 data (Harrison et al. 1997) was collected over an 11 year period between 1986 and 1997 and remains the best long term data set on bird distribution and abundance available in South Africa at present. This data was collected in quarter degree squares, with the WEF and grid connection site situated in squares 2918DC, 2819DD, 2919BA and 2919BB. Table 1 indicates the reporting rate for all regional red data species, raptors and priority species recorded by the SABAP1 data within these squares, as well as giving a total number of species recorded in each square which varied from 43 to 66. The SABAP1 project recorded a total of 18 priority species and raptors (Table 1).

3 http://www.birdlife.org.za/conservation/important-bird-areas/iba-directory/item/175-sa034-mattheus-gat-conservation-area

Arcus Consultancy Services South Africa (Pty) Ltd Paulputs WEF (RF) (Pty) Ltd June 2019 Page 13 Final Bird Monitoring and Impact Assessment Report Paulputs Wind Energy Facility

Table 3: Raptors and Priority Species Recorded by SABAP1 in the Quarter Degree Squares covering the Project Site (Harrison et al. 1997)

Regional Report rate (%) *** Species Red Data Status** 2819DC 2819DD 2919BA 2919BB

Total species 49 57 66 43

Number of cards submitted 8 9 10 6

Secretarybird* VU - - 10 - Verreaux’s Eagle* VU - - 10 - Martial Eagle* EN - - 10 - Black-chested Snake Eagle* - - 10 - Black Harrier* EN - - 10 - Lanner Falcon* VU - - 40 - Pale Chanting Goshawk* - 50 44 50 - Rock Kestrel - 13 22 10 33 Greater Kestrel* - 25 22 40 - Pygmy Falcon - 13 11 - - Kori Bustard* NT - - 20 - Ludwig’s Bustard* EN 13 11 40 33 Karoo Korhaan* NT 13 22 20 50 Black Korhaan (Pre-split)* - 25 22 10 100 Double-banded Courser* - - 10 17 Spotted Eagle Owl* 25 11 10 17 Sclater’s Lark* NT - 11 - 17 Red Lark* VU - - 10 * Priority species (Retief et al. 2014). ** CR = Critically Endangered; EN = Endangered; V = Vulnerable; NT = Near-threatened. *** Report rates are essentially percentages of the number of times a species was recorded in the square, divided by the number of times that square was counted. It is important to note that these species were recorded in the entire quarter degree square in each case and may not actually have been recorded on the proposed WEF site or along the grid connection alternatives.

5.5 Southern African Bird Atlas Project 2 This project is part of an ongoing study by the Animal Demography Unit (ADU), a research unit based at the University of Cape Town (UCT). SABAP2 data was examined for the three out of six pentads covering the site for which data exists. These were pentads 2855_1940, 2945_1720, 2945_1725, 2950_1715, 2950_1720 and 2950_1720. Pentads are roughly 8 km x 8 km squares, and are smaller than the squares used in SABAP1. A total of 4 full protocol cards have been submitted for these three pentads, in addition to 10 ad hoc protocol cards and 63 incidental records. This represents a very low counting effort and low amount of data for this area, and the data should be interpreted with caution. A total of 59 species have been recorded, including four Red Data species, six priority species and three near-endemic species. These are presented in Table 2.

Arcus Consultancy Services South Africa (Pty) Ltd Paulputs WEF (RF) (Pty) Ltd June 2019 Page 14 Final Bird Monitoring and Impact Assessment Report Paulputs Wind Energy Facility

Table 4: Raptors, Priority and Endemic Species recorded in the SAPAP2 Pentad Squares covering the Project Site Species Regional Red Endemic or Priority Score Reporting Data Status near-endemic Rate (%)

Bustard, Ludwig’s Endangered 320 Incidental Falcon, Lanner Vulnerable 300 Incidental Bustard, Kori Near-threatened 260 Incidental Korhaan, Karoo Near-threatened 240 50 Goshawk, Pale Chanting 200 25 Korhaan, Northern Black 180 50 Chat, Sickle-winged x 25 Flycatcher, Fiscal x 25 Lark, Black-eared Sparrow- x 25 Falcon, Pygmy 25

5.6 Bird Microhabitats In order to determine which bird species are more likely to occur on the proposed project site, it is important to understand the habitats available to birds at a smaller spatial scale, i.e. micro habitats. Micro habitats are shaped by factors other than vegetation, such as topography, land use, food sources and man-made factors. The WEF site has a low diversity of available bird micro habitats, with generally similar vegetation found throughout. The entire site falls within the Bushmanland Arid Grassland vegetation type. There are no wetlands or rivers of any importance for birds on the site. The following bird micro habitats have been identified to date: arid grassland; drainage lines; rocky outcrops; powerlines, livestock water points; stands of alien trees and farmsteads. The majority of the site consists of arid grassland, interspersed with few bushes and small trees. This micro habitat hosts a variety of passerines such as larks, sparrow-larks, chats, pipits, cisticolas, finches, warblers, sandgrouse, and also terrestrial priority species such as Karoo Korhaan and Northern Black Korhaan. The few trees in the landscape are largely restricted to drainage lines and can host doves, Acacia Pied Barbet, tit-babblers, sunbirds, robin-chats, prinias and other passerines. They may also occasionally be used as perch sites or nest sites for raptors such as Greater Kestrel and Pale Chanting Goshawk. Rocky outcrops are frequented by rock hyrax (“dassies”) which are a favoured food source of Verreaux’s Eagle, and potentially preyed upon by other raptors, even though this was not observed. Rocky outcrop micro habitats may also be utilised by warblers, buntings, wheatears, chats and other passerines. Powerlines provide nesting habitat for corvids, kestrels, and sociable weaver, whose large communal nests are in turn utilised by Pygmy Falcon. They potentially also provide nesting habitat for raptors such as Lanner Falcon, Greater Kestrel and Martial Eagle. Farmsteads and feeding kraals and watering points are mainly frequented by a large variety of small passerines but can also provide important habitat for smaller raptors and their rodent prey. Alien trees such as blue gums, mostly found around farmsteads, can be utilised as roosting and nesting sites by raptors, corvids and passerines. Farm dwelling

Arcus Consultancy Services South Africa (Pty) Ltd Paulputs WEF (RF) (Pty) Ltd June 2019 Page 15 Final Bird Monitoring and Impact Assessment Report Paulputs Wind Energy Facility

such as barns may be frequented by Speckled Pigeon, sparrows, swallows and Western Barn Owl.

5.7 Paulputs WEF Pre-construction Monitoring

5.7.1 Vantage Points Across all four seasonal surveys a total of 24 target species flights by 29 birds of 8 positively identified target species were recorded on the WEF site during 240 hours of VP surveys (Table 5). This equates to an average passage rate of 0.1 flights and 0.12 birds recorded per hour of VP surveys. Of these flights only four were at risk height (above 30 m and below 250 m), which equals an average passage rate of 0.02, a very low number in the specialist’s experience. Two of the recorded target species have a Red Data status of Endangered (Ludwig’s Bustard and Martial Eagle). Two recorded target species are listed as Near-threatened (Karoo Korhaan and Kori Bustard). In autumn a total of 14 flights by 16 birds of 4 positively identified species were recorded on the WEF during 60 hours of VP watches. Two of these flights were at risk height (Northern Black Korhaan), which equals a passage rate of 0.03. In winter a total of 3 flights by 5 birds of two species (Karoo Korhaan and Greater Kestrel) were recorded during 60 hours of surveys. Only one of these (Greater Kestrel at VP4) was at risk height. In spring, during 60 hours of VP observation on the WEF site, only a single flight path was recorded (by a pair of Karoo Korhaan at VP2), and this flight path was below risk height. In summer a total of six flights by single birds were recorded on the WEF site. Only one of these (Martial Eagle at VP5) was at risk height. Two flights were by the same Martial Eagle, but below risk height, as the Martial Eagle had landed and was flying from perch to perch. The remaining three flights were by Pale Chanting Goshawk (one flight at VP2) and Greater Kestrel (two flights at VP5), all below risk height. Figure 2 displays the flight lines of all recorded VP target species flights. At the control site activity was also very low with flights only having been recorded in autumn. The four flights recorded were all by Northern Black Korhaan and below risk height. As this species is territorial all flights were possibly by the same male individual.

Arcus Consultancy Services South Africa (Pty) Ltd Paulputs WEF (RF) (Pty) Ltd June 2019 Page 16 Final Bird Monitoring and Impact Assessment Report Paulputs Wind Energy Facility

Table 5: Flight Path Target Species at the WEF site Red List Total Estimated Flights with Total Flight Birds per Species Total no. Status no. of minimum a portion at Duration in hour of Species Priority of birds (Taylor et al. Flight number RSH (% at Seconds observation Score recorded* 2015) paths individuals RSH)

Double-banded Courser 190 - 1 1 1 0 60 0.004 442 Greater Kestrel 174 - 4 5 2 1 0.021 Karoo Korhaan 240 NT 3 6 2 0 278 0.025 Kori Bustard 260 NT 1 1 1 0 240 0.004 Ludwig’s Bustard 320 EN 3 4 2 0 940 0.017 Martial Eagle 350 EN 3 3 1 1 513 0.013 Northern Black Korhaan 180 - 6 6 2 2 193 0.025 Pale Chanting Goshawk 200 - 1 1 1 0 10 0.004 Unidentified Raptor - - 3 3 1 0 102 0.013 Total 24 29 13 4 (16.7%) 1973 0.12

*Some flight paths (recorded as a single flight) may have included multiple birds i.e. a flock. As separate flights may have included the same individual bird/s, this figure should not be seen as an indication of abundance or population size, but rather an indication of activity of a particular species.

Arcus Consultancy Services South Africa (Pty) Ltd Paulputs WEF (RF) (Pty) Ltd June 2019 Page 17 Final Bird Monitoring and Impact Assessment Report Paulputs Wind Energy Facility

5.7.2 Walked Transects The diversity of species on the WEF site recorded during walked transects was uniformly relatively low with 27, 25 and 26 species recorded on the three respective walked transects WT1, WT2 and WT3 (Table 6). This is likely due to the relatively uniform dry and sparsely vegetated habitat across the site. A total of 44 species were recorded on the WEF site, with the most abundant species being Grey-backed Sparrow-lark, Namaqua Sandgrouse and Spike-heeled Lark, which occurred on all three transects. The most frequently recorded species were Spike-heeled Lark, Namaqua Sandgrouse and Lark-like Bunting. No Priority Species or Red Data species not recorded on vantage point surveys were recorded on walked transects. On the control site species diversity was slightly higher, with nine species occurring that did not occur on any of the WEF site transects. These were Pririt Batis, Cape Robin-chat, White-backed Mousebird, Karoo Scrub-robin, Brown-throated Martin, Pink-billed Lark, African Red-eyed Bulbul, White-throated Canary, and Rufous-eared Warbler. Most of these additional species are associated with bushes, shrubs and small trees in semi-arid woodland and riverine habitats, which do not occur on the WEF site. Table 6: Walk Transect Results

Non-Priority, Frequently Priority Species (P), Red Data

Recorded and/or Abundant. Species (Status), Important (I)

Transect Name Name Transect (n=replications) Observations Total of (Number Birds) Individual Species Total Recorded

Spike-heeled Lark, Namaqua WT1 Northern Black Korhaan (P), Sandgrouse, Lark-like Bunting, 72 (150) 27 (n=8) Double-banded Courser (P) Grey-backed Sparrow-lark, Large- billed Lark Grey-backed Sparrow-lark, WT2 Greater Kestrel (P), Northern Namaqua Sandgrouse, Black-eared 86 (546) 25 Black Korhaan (P), Karoo Korhaan Sparrow-lark, Sociable Weaver, (n=8) (P, NT) Lark-like Bunting, Spike-heeled Lark, Stark’s Lark

WT3 Greater Kestrel (P), Northern Namaqua Sandgrouse, Grey- 79 (220) 26 Black Korhaan (P), Karoo Korhaan backed Sparrow-lark, Spike-heeled (n=8) (P, NT), Sclater’s Lark (NT) Lark, Lark-like Bunting

237 Total 41 (916)

Namaqua Sandgrouse, Grey- backed Sparrow-lark, Spike-heeled CWT 167 Karoo Korhaan (P, NT), Northern 36 lark, Cape Turtle Dove, Lark-like (481) Black Korhaan (P) (n=8) Bunting, Speckled Pigeon, Sociable Weaver

5.7.3 Driven Transects A total of four target species were recorded on two driven transects on the WEF site during four seasons of monitoring (n=16). One of the recorded species is listed as Endangered (Ludwig’s Bustard), one as Vulnerable (Lanner Falcon), and one as Near- threatened (Karoo Korhaan). Overall, 18 observations of 21 birds were made with Northern Black Korhaan being the most frequently recorded species (14 observations). As

Arcus Consultancy Services South Africa (Pty) Ltd Paulputs WEF (RF) (Pty) Ltd June 2019 Page 18 Final Bird Monitoring and Impact Assessment Report Paulputs Wind Energy Facility

this is a territorial species it is likely that the same individual was recorded repeatedly, and this number is an indicator of presence rather than of abundance. This represents a very low density of large terrestrial species on the WEF site in the specialist’s experience. On the control transect (n=8) a total of four target species were recorded as well. Three of these were the same species as on the WEF (Northern Black Korhaan, Ludwig’s Bustard and Karoo Korhaan), with the exception being Greater Kestrel being recorded instead of Lanner Falcon. Overall 17 observations of 29 birds were made, with Northern Black Korhaan being the most frequently recorded species with 13 observations of 21 birds. As above, it is likely that the same pair or individual were recorded repeatedly. The locations of incidental and drive transect target species records are shown in Figure 2.

5.7.4 Focal Sites A total of 44 species were recorded at Focal Sites, including the priority species Verreaux’s Eagle (Vulnerable), Northern Black Korhaan, Ludwig’s Bustard (Endangered), Karoo Korhaan (Near-threatened) and Greater Kestrel (Near-threatened). Of these Greater Kestrel, Karoo Korhaan, Northern Black Korhaan and Ludwig’s Bustard were recorded at Focal Sites on the WEF. Verreaux’s Eagle was only recorded at its nest site approximately 1.8 km outside of the WEF site boundary and >3 km from the nearest proposed turbine. A Verreaux’s Eagle pair with a chick was recorded at the nest site in winter, and the pair was again recorded with the juvenile present in spring, confirming successful breeding by this pair in 2018 The birds were not recorded at the nest site in summer. This species may occasionally over fly the WEF site, however there is more suitable foraging habitat near the nest site, and in a westerly direction from the nest site, away from the WEF.

5.7.5 Nest Survey A total of three active raptor nests were found on the WEF site (Table 7): two Greater Kestrel nests located on a powerline running parallel to the N14, and a Pale Chanting Goshawk nest located in a tree with an adult present. An active Pygmy Falcon nest was located on the control site in a Sociable Weaver colony. An active Verreaux’s Eagle nest was found approximately 1.8 km south-west of the site boundary with a chick and pair present. A Martial Eagle nest was located on a powerline approximately 12 km from the WEF site. No recent signs of activity were found but a bird was present at the nest in May 2017 (Smallie 2017). Table 7: Nest Survey Results Nest Species Latitude Longitude Nest Location Comment

Pied Crow nest on Active with pair Greater Kestrel -28.94527 19.75460 telephone pole on WEF present Pied Crow nest on Active with pair Greater Kestrel -28.91885 19.78020 telephone pole on WEF present Acacia tree on WEF Active with adult Pale Chanting Goshawk -28.93920 19.67388 present Sociable Weaver nest on Signs of recent Pygmy Falcon -28.90932 19.85694 Quiver Tree on Control Site activity High voltage powerline No signs of Martial Eagle -28.90948 19.54830 pylon 12 km from WEF recent activity Cliff 1.8 km south west of Verreaux’s Eagle -28.97643 19.65967 Active with chick site boundary

Arcus Consultancy Services South Africa (Pty) Ltd Paulputs WEF (RF) (Pty) Ltd June 2019 Page 19 Final Bird Monitoring and Impact Assessment Report Paulputs Wind Energy Facility

5.7.6 Incidental Observations A total of nine target species were recorded incidentally during four seasons of monitoring (Table 8). This included four Red Data listed species. Cape Eagle Owl and Pygmy Falcon were the only species not recorded during other survey methods. One incidental record of Verreaux’s Eagle was made, but the bird was seen flying outside of the WEF site boundary, towards the Verreaux’s Eagle nest site. The locations of incidental and drive transect target species records are shown in Figure 2. Table 8: Incidentally Recorded Target Species Species Priority Score Red Data Status

Cape Eagle Owl 250 - Double-banded Courser 204 - Greater Kestrel 174 - Karoo Korhaan 240 Near-threatened Ludwig’s Bustard 320 Endangered Martial Eagle 350 Endangered Northern Black Korhaan 180 Pygmy Falcon - Verreaux’s Eagle 360 Vulnerable

5.7.7 Species Summary and Discussion A total of 73 species were recorded across all survey methods during four seasonal surveys on the WEF and Control sites. This is a relatively low diversity of species compared with many other WEF sites in South Africa in the experience of the specialists. Of the species recorded, 63 were recorded on or near the WEF site, and six of these were Red data species: Karoo Korhaan (Near-threatened), Ludwig’s Bustard (Endangered), Verreaux’s Eagle (Vulnerable), Lanner Falcon (Vulnerable), Martial Eagle (Endangered) and Sclater’s Lark (Near-threatened). A total of 11 priority species were recorded on the WEF site (Appendix A). Ludwig’s Bustard is the species of most concern occurring on the WEF site, as it is an endangered species, and was present in three of four seasons, albeit in low density. Ludwig’s Bustard is particularly prone to collisions with powerlines (Shaw et al. 2017). As of October 2018 (BLSA, 2018) only one mortality of this species had been recorded at a WEF in South Africa (although the information considered was not clear whether it was due to turbine collision or not). The global population of Ludwig’s Bustard is in decline, largely due to extensive and increasing power network in its region causing unsustainably high mortality rates (Jenkins et al. 2011). Martial Eagle was only recorded once on the WEF site during VP watches, however it is generally uncommon outside of major game reserves and protected areas in South Africa. It is Red Data listed as Endangered and large declines have been detected over the past 20 years (Amar & Cloete 2017), with reporting rates dropping by 60%, relatively uniformly across South Africa. The population in the Eastern, Western and Northern Cape was estimated at approximately 100-150 birds (<1 bird / 5000 km2) (Hockey et al. 2005). Its average breeding territory in north-east South Africa is 130-150 km2 and at least 280 km2 in the Nama Karoo and Namibia (Hockey et al. 2005) while inter-nest distances in the central Karoo average about 15 km (Boshoff 1993; Machange et al. 2005) and 12 km in Kruger National Park (Tarboton & Allan 1984). Home ranges of tagged individuals in Kruger National Park average 108 km2 (van Eaden et al. 2017). These large territories

Arcus Consultancy Services South Africa (Pty) Ltd Paulputs WEF (RF) (Pty) Ltd June 2019 Page 20 Final Bird Monitoring and Impact Assessment Report Paulputs Wind Energy Facility

show that this is a wide ranging species. It is also important to note that this species is monogamous and the pair bond is often maintained over several years, regularly re-using and breeding at the same nest site. A known nest site is located on a high voltage powerline pylon approximately 12 km from the WEF site boundary and it is likely that the recorded bird was from that nest. Therefore the WEF site is likely to be located at the edge of that pair’s territory boundary. Martial Eagle has suffered four known mortalities through collisions with wind turbines in South Africa to date (BLSA 2018.) and is therefore a species of concern. However, the low incidence of occurrence recorded on the WEF site, together with the distance to the nest, make it less likely that this species will suffer mortalities. The presence of solar facilities planned and operational near it’s nest site may however pose an additional risk, as the birds are likely to be required to increase their foraging efforts and range due lack of foraging habitat within their original territory. Construction of additional pylons in the area around the project site may provide additional nesting substrate for this species. Possible impacts on this species will need to be closely monitored during operational monitoring, with an adaptive management strategy in place should negative impacts be observed. Verreaux’s’ Eagles was recorded once incidentally near the WEF site, and at its nest site 1.8 km from the proposed development site boundary and > 3 km from the nearest proposed turbine position. This species is territorial and their territories surround their nest sites, but their nests are not necessarily in the centre of their territory (Gargett 1990). The WEF site does not hold any suitable nesting habitat (i.e. cliffs). Nests are usually built on cliffs and ledges (Gargett 1990), although they have been recorded nesting on power lines and occasionally in trees or on telephone poles (pers. obs.). Verreaux’s Eagle are predominantly found in mountainous, rocky habitat (Davies & Allan 1997), and the regional population (i.e. for South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland) has been estimated to be between 3 500 and 3 750 mature individuals, but confidence in these figures is low (Taylor et al. 2015). Verreaux’s’ Eagle is an apex predator which plays an important ecological role. While no suitable cliff-nest habitat is on or near the WEF site, some suitable foraging habitat is potentially present on the WEF site, despite no observations having been made of Verreaux’s Eagle on the WEF site during 240 hours of vantage point monitoring. Prey species such as Dassies have however been observed on site, therefore it is possible that the birds occasionally utilise the site for foraging. Therefore a pre-cautionary 3 km buffer surrounding the nest site is required in which no turbines may be placed. Ten additional species were recorded on the Control site that were not recorded on the WEF site, including one priority species (Kori Bustard – Near-threatened). Most of these additional species are aerial foraging birds or associated with shrubby riverine or woodland habitats. The control site had some of this type of habitat, with a dry wooded sparsely wooded dry drainage line running through it, in addition to the open and sparsely vegetated habitat, interspersed with rocky outcrops, that dominates the WEF site. It should be noted that a number of species listed as endangered regionally, or near endemic (i.e. ~70% or more of population in South Africa) were recorded on the WEF site. These area: Martial Eagle, Ludwig’s Bustard (both endangered) as well as Black- eared Sparrowlark, Large-billed Lark, Karoo Prinia and Sclater’s Lark (all near-endemic). The WEF site may potentially represent critical habitat (CH) for one or more of these species according to the critical habitat assessment (CHA) criteria presented in guidance note 64 of the International Finance Corporation (IFC) Performance Standard 6 (PS6). It is recommended that should the project progress to financial close and potential funding is sought from the IFC, the project should be subjected to a full CHA (for all taxa and

4 Guidance Note 6. Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Management of Living Natural Resources. November 15, 2018.

Arcus Consultancy Services South Africa (Pty) Ltd Paulputs WEF (RF) (Pty) Ltd June 2019 Page 21 Final Bird Monitoring and Impact Assessment Report Paulputs Wind Energy Facility

species), and these bird species should be considered in such a CHA. Without having conducted a detailed CHA process, it is however the specialists’ opinion that the project is highly unlikely to result in a CH determination for any of these species.

5.7.8 WEF Site Sensitivity Four seasons of monitoring recorded a very low number of flights. As a result the entire site was assigned a GCSS score of Low Flight Sensitivity. Areas within 200m of a NFEPA wetland or river were designated high avifaunal sensitivity. Areas surrounding nests were identified as high sensitivity areas as follows: • Verreaux’s Eagle (3 km) • Pale Chanting Goshawk (500 m) • Greater Kestrel Nest (500 m) The site sensitivity is presented in Figure 3.

6 IDENTIFICATION OF IMPACTS, IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION MEASURES

6.1 Background to Interactions between Wind Energy Facilities, Power Lines and Birds South Africa has experienced an increase in the number of wind energy developments (both in terms of applications and those that are operational) in the past years, but still lacks some information about the effects that these developments have on certain aspects of the environment. In South Africa, while post-construction monitoring is being conducted on the majority of operational sites, publicly available data and information of operational results is limited and restricted to information supplied to BirdLife SA and made available by them to the public in the form of a report (Ralston Paton et al. 2017), and public presentations (BLSA 2017, 2018). International experience, and results from South Africa have shown that birds can be impacted negatively by wind farms and that the severity of these impacts can differ drastically from site to site (Bose et al. 2018; Grünkorn et al. 2017; Ralston-Paton et al. 2017; Thaxter et al. 2017). Overall, it appears that severe impacts, such as the high mortality numbers of Golden Eagle observed at Altamont Pass in California (Hunt et al. 1998; Orloff & Flannery 1992) seem to be the exception rather than the rule, with the majority of facilities recording relatively low mortalities (Watson et al. 2018, Strickland et al. 2011; de Lucas et al. 2008; Erickson et al. 2001). The effects of one poorly placed facility, or some poorly sited turbines within a facility, can however affect the population of certain species at a regional, national or even global level (Bellebaum et al. 2013; Dahl et al. 2012; Carrete 2009). Hence, it is important to assess the impacts of wind energy facilities, and to base this assessment on a thorough investigation of the local avifauna prior to construction, which is being done for the proposed development. To date diurnal raptors have been the most impacted group (BLSA 2018), making up 35% of recorded fatalities at wind farms in South Africa, followed by songbirds with 27%. The main impacts of wind energy facilities and their associated infrastructure have been identified as (a) displacement through disturbance and habitat destruction and (b) mortality through collisions with turbines and/or powerlines and (c) electrocution on live power infrastructure (Rydell et al., 2017; Drewitt & Langston 2006; Hotker et al. 2006; Percival 2005; van Rooyen 2004).

Arcus Consultancy Services South Africa (Pty) Ltd Paulputs WEF (RF) (Pty) Ltd June 2019 Page 22 Final Bird Monitoring and Impact Assessment Report Paulputs Wind Energy Facility

6.2 Construction Phase Impacts

6.2.1 Habitat Destruction During the construction of the WEF and grid connection infrastructure, some habitat destruction and alteration will take place. This happens with the construction of access roads, the clearing of servitudes and areas for tower/pylon placements, and the levelling of substation yards, development of laydown areas and turbine bases. The removal of vegetation which provides habitat for avifauna and food sources may have an impact on birds breeding, foraging and roosting (Dwyer et al. 2018; Tarr et al. 2016). This habitat destruction is a direct impact that is restricted to the site. If no mitigation (rehabilitation) occurs the impact can be permanent. 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 (Drewitt & Langston 2006) of a WEF. Impact Phase: Construction Potential impact description: Habitat Destruction Extent Duration Intensity Status Significance Probability Confidence Without L H L Negative M L H Mitigation With L M L Negative L L H Mitigation Can the impact be reversed? Partially with rehabilitation Will impact cause irreplaceable loss No or resources? Can impact be avoided, managed or Yes mitigated? Mitigation measures to reduce residual risk or enhance opportunities: - High traffic areas and buildings such as offices, batching plants, storage areas etc. must be situated in areas that are already disturbed, if available; - Existing roads and farm tracks must be used where possible; - The minimum footprint area possible of infrastructure must be used, including road widths and lengths; - Highly sensitive zones and no-go areas (e.g. nesting areas) must be cordoned off, clearly marked and avoided unless absolutely necessary; - No off-road driving; - Prior to construction, the avifaunal specialist must conduct a site walkthrough, covering the final road and power line routes as well as the final turbine positions, to identify any nests/breeding activity of sensitive species, as well as any additional sensitive habitats within which construction activities need to be excluded and/or the schedules adjusted; - Following construction, rehabilitation of all areas disturbed (e.g. temporary access tracks and laydown areas) must be undertaken and to this end a habitat restoration plan is to be developed by a specialist and included within the EMPr; - Due to the presence on the WEFR site of some species listed as endangered regionally, or near endemic it is recommended that the project should be subjected to a full CHA (for all taxa and species), and these bird species should be considered in such a CHA;

Residual impact Yes, but acceptable (low significance) with mitigation

The significance of the impact is rated as Medium prior to the application of mitigation measures, and as Low following mitigation.

Arcus Consultancy Services South Africa (Pty) Ltd Paulputs WEF (RF) (Pty) Ltd June 2019 Page 23 Final Bird Monitoring and Impact Assessment Report Paulputs Wind Energy Facility

6.2.2 Disturbance and Displacement Disturbances and noise from staff and construction activities can impact on certain sensitive species particularly whilst feeding and breeding, resulting in effective habitat loss through a perceived increase in predation risk (Dwyer et al. 2018; Frid & Dill 2002; Percival 2005). There are various potentially sensitive species occurring on the WEF site including Northern Black Korhaan, Karoo Korhaan, Greater Kestrel and Pale Chanting Goshawk. Disturbance can cause these species to be displaced, either temporarily (i.e. for some period during the construction activity) or permanently (i.e. they do not return), into less suitable habitat which may reduce their ability to survive and reproduce. Disturbance of priority raptor species at nest sites, may result in failed breeding attempts. Due to the generally low occurrence of priority species on the site the probability of this impact occurring is considered low. Impact Phase: Construction Potential impact description: Disturbance and Displacement Extent Duration Intensity Status Significance Probability Confidence Without M L M Negative M L M Mitigation With L L L Negative L L M Mitigation Can the impact be reversed? Yes Will impact cause irreplaceable loss No or resources? Can impact be avoided, managed or Yes mitigated? Mitigation measures to reduce residual risk or enhance opportunities: - A site specific EMPr must be implemented, which gives appropriate and detailed description of how construction activities must be conducted. All contractors are to adhere to the EMPr and should apply good environmental practice during construction; - Prior to construction, the avifaunal specialist must conduct a site walkthrough, covering the final road and power line routes as well as the final turbine positions, to identify any nests/breeding/roosting activity of sensitive species, as well as any additional sensitive habitats. The results must inform the final construction schedule, including abbreviating construction time, scheduling activities around avian breeding and/or movement schedules, and lowering levels of associated noise; - During Construction, if any of the Priority Species or Red Data species identified in this report are observed to be roosting and/or breeding in the vicinity (within 500 m of the power line), the Avifaunal Specialist is to be contacted immediately for further instruction, while a ‘no go’ buffer of 300 m is to be instituted around the nest site until the specialist has given further instructions; - No nests are to be disturbed or moved; - Sensitive zones and no-go areas are to be designated by the specialist (e.g. nesting sites) and must be clearly marked, cordoned off and avoided unless absolutely necessary; - Environmental Control Officers to oversee activities and ensure that the EMPr is implemented and enforced. Residual impact Yes, but acceptable (low significance) with mitigation

The significance of the impact is rated as Medium prior to the application of mitigation measures, and as Low following mitigation.

6.3 Operational Phase Impacts

6.3.1 Disturbance and Displacement Disturbance and displacement by operational activities such as power line and turbine maintenance, fencing, and noise can lead to birds avoiding the area for feeding or

Arcus Consultancy Services South Africa (Pty) Ltd Paulputs WEF (RF) (Pty) Ltd June 2019 Page 24 Final Bird Monitoring and Impact Assessment Report Paulputs Wind Energy Facility

breeding, and effectively leading to habitat loss and a potential reduction in breeding success (Tarr et al. 2016; Ledec et al. 2011; Percival 2005; Larsen & Madsen 2000). Small songbirds have been known to have been displaced from operational turbines which cause disturbance through noise, vibrations and shadow-flicker (Rydell et al. 2017). Disturbance distances (the distance from wind farms up to which birds are absent or less abundant than expected) can vary between species and also within species with alternative habitat availability (Drewitt & Langston 2006). Some international studies of various species have recorded disturbance distances of 80 m, 100 m, 200 m and 300 m (Shaffer & Buhl 2015; Larsen & Madsen 2000) from turbine positions, but distances of 400 m (Reichenbach & Steinborn 2006), 600 m (Kruckenberg & Jaehne 1999) and up to 800 m have been recorded (Drewitt & Langston 2006). Leddy et al. (1999) 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. A comparative study of nine wind farms in Scotland (Pearce-Higgins et al. 2009) found seven of the 12 species studied exhibited significantly lower frequencies of occurrence close to the turbines, after accounting for habitat variation, with evidence of turbine avoidance in a further two. No species were more likely to occur close to the turbines. Raptors are generally fairly tolerant of wind farms, and continue to use the area for foraging (Ralston Paton et al. 2017; Thelander et al. 2003, Madders & Whitfield 2006), and may not be affected by displacement, however this increases their collision risk. In South Africa the results available thus far have shown little evidence that displacement and disturbance of priority species has occurred (Ralston Paton et al. 2017). However, due to the limited number of operational wind farms in South Africa and short monitoring efforts, the precautionary principle should be applied, and disturbance and displacement must still be regarded as a potential impact. It is expected that some species potentially occurring on the WEF site will be susceptible to disturbance and displacement, for example smaller passerines such as larks, warblers, flycatchers and chats, as well as large terrestrial Red Data species such as Karoo Korhaan and Ludwig’s Bustard. Priority species nesting on the project site (including on new infrastructure e.g. powerline pylons) may be disturbed during routine maintenance. Impact Phase: Operational Potential impact description: Disturbance and Displacement Extent Duration Intensity Status Significance Probability Confidence Without M M M Negative M M M Mitigation With L M L Negative L L M Mitigation Can the impact be reversed? Yes Will impact cause irreplaceable loss No or resources? Can impact be avoided, managed or Yes mitigated? Mitigation measures to reduce residual risk or enhance opportunities: - A site specific EMPr must be implemented, which gives appropriate and detailed description of how operational and maintenance activities must be conducted to reduce unnecessary disturbance. All contractors are to adhere to the EMPr and should apply good environmental practice during all operations. - The on-site WEF manager (or a suitably appointed Environmental Manager) must be trained by an avifaunal specialist to identify the potential priority species and Red Data species as well as the signs that indicate possibly breeding by these species. If a priority species or Red Data species is found to be

Arcus Consultancy Services South Africa (Pty) Ltd Paulputs WEF (RF) (Pty) Ltd June 2019 Page 25 Final Bird Monitoring and Impact Assessment Report Paulputs Wind Energy Facility

breeding (e.g. a nest site is located) on the operational Wind Farm, the nest/breeding site must not be disturbed and an avifaunal specialist must be contacted for further instruction; - Operational phase bird monitoring, in line with applicable guidelines, must be implemented and must include monitoring of all raptor nest sites for breeding success; - No turbines are to be placed in no-go areas identified through pre-construction monitoring and thereafter, while associated infrastructure should be avoided where possible in these areas. Residual impact Yes, but the significance of this impact is expected to be low with mitigation.

The significance of the impact is rated as Medium prior to the application of mitigation measures, and as Low following mitigation.

6.3.2 Collisions with Wind Turbines WEFs can cause bird mortalities through the collision of birds with moving turbine blades (Bose et al. 2018, Dwyer et al. 2018, Thaxter et al. 2017; Vasiliakis et al. 2017, Marquez et al. 2014, Ralston Paton et al. 2017). A number of factors influence the number of birds impacted by collision, including: • Number of birds in the vicinity of the WEF; • The species of birds present and their flying patterns and behaviour; • The topography of the site; and • The design of the development including the turbine layout, height and size of the rotor swept area. It is important to understand that not all birds that fly through the WEF at heights swept by rotors automatically collide with blades. In fact avoidance rates for certain species have proven to be extremely high. In a radar study of the movement of ducks and geese in the vicinity of an off-shore wind facility in Denmark, less than 1% of bird flights were close enough to the turbines to be at risk, and it was clear that the birds avoided the turbines effectively (Desholm and Kahlert 2005). 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 carcasses, with no correction for carcasses that were overlooked or removed by scavengers (Marquez et al. 2014; 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 IBAs), especially among migrating birds, large raptors or other large soaring species, e.g. in the Altamont Pass in California, USA (Smallwood & Thelander 2008), and in Tarifa and Navarra in Spain (Barrios & Rodrigues 2004). Although large birds with poor manoeuvrability (such as cranes, korhaans, and bustards) are generally at greater risk of collision with structures (Jenkins et al. 2015), it is noted that these classes of birds (unlike raptors) do not feature prominently in literature as wind turbine collision victims. It may be that they avoid wind farms, resulting in lower collision risks, or that they are not distracted and focussed on hunting and searching the ground while flying, as is the case for raptors. A minimum of 827 birds of 128 species from 46 families have been killed by turbines in South Africa to date (BLSA 2018). Ralston Paton et al. (2017) found that mortality estimates for eight studied wind farms in South Africa ranged from 2.1 to 8.6 birds per turbine per year, which is within range of average estimates from Europe (6.5) and North America (1.6) (Rydell et al. 2012). Diurnal raptors and songbirds are the groups most affected by collisions in South Africa to date. Thirteen Red Data species (Taylor et al. 2015) have been affected, including fatalities of six Verreaux’s’ Eagle (Vulnerable), five Lanner Falcon (Vulnerable), four Martial Eagle (Endangered), and one Ludwig’s Bustard

Arcus Consultancy Services South Africa (Pty) Ltd Paulputs WEF (RF) (Pty) Ltd June 2019 Page 26 Final Bird Monitoring and Impact Assessment Report Paulputs Wind Energy Facility

(Endangered), all of which have been confirmed as occurring on site. Black Harrier (Endangered), Secretarybird Notably, a large number of the not red listed but endemic Jackal Buzzard (63) have been killed (Ralston Paton et al. 2017), as well as a number of Rock Kestrel (33) and passerines such as Bokmakierie (21), White-rumped Swift (21) and Red-capped Lark (24). Some of these fatalities were unexpected as they occurred in areas not identified as sensitive during pre-construction monitoring. Therefore it is important to consider that collisions may not necessarily occur where predicted, and that they can occur away from areas perceived to be preferred use areas. On the other hand, no fatalities have been reported to date for several species predicted to be susceptible to collisions. Due to these uncertainties a pre-cautionary approach was adapted in the assessment of the impact of collisions with turbines. The most effective mitigation for collision impacts currently available is wind farm placement, as well as specific turbine placement within a WEF to avoid high use areas. Such recommendations have been made. While not yet tested in South Africa, deterrent devices and shut-down on demand strategies have been implemented internationally. Foss et al. (2017) found monochromatic LEDs that specifically target avian photoreceptors could provide a useful tool to divert raptors from hazardous situations, while in Scotland trials are underway by Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) using laser beams to deter Sea Eagles from feeding on lambs5. Tome et al. (2017) found that a Radar Assisted Shutdown on Demand (RASOD) system at the Barão de São João wind farm in Portugal’s Sagres region resulted in zero mortality of soaring birds over five consecutive autumn migratory seasons. While such strategy should not be relied upon completely (also considering that they are used internationally during migration events), they should not be discounted and may well hold valuable application in South Africa. Impact Phase: Operational Potential impact description: Collisions with Wind Turbines Due to the very low activity of collision prone species recorded at the Paulputs WEF the probability of this impact occurring is low. With mitigations the duration of the impact can be restricted to the lifetime of the facility (medium). Extent Duration Intensity Status Significance Probability Confidence Without L H H Negative M L M Mitigation With L M H Negative L L M Mitigation Can the impact be reversed? No Will impact cause irreplaceable loss No or resources? Can impact be avoided, managed or Yes mitigated? Mitigation measures to reduce residual risk or enhance opportunities: - Turbines must not be constructed within any High Sensitivity Zones - Develop and implement a carcass search programme for birds during the first two years of operation, in line with the applicable (i.e. at the start of operations at the wind farm) South African monitoring guidelines; - Develop and implement a 24 month post-construction bird activity monitoring program that mirrors the pre-construction monitoring surveys completed by Arcus and is in line with the applicable South African post-construction monitoring guidelines. This program must include thorough and ongoing nest

5 http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-42578354

Arcus Consultancy Services South Africa (Pty) Ltd Paulputs WEF (RF) (Pty) Ltd June 2019 Page 27 Final Bird Monitoring and Impact Assessment Report Paulputs Wind Energy Facility

searches and nest monitoring; - Frequent and regular review of operational phase monitoring data (activity and carcass) and results by an avifaunal specialist. This review should also establish the requirement for continued monitoring studies (activity and carcass) throughout the operational and decommissioning phases of the development; - The above reviews should strive to identify sensitive locations at the development including turbines and areas of increased collisions with power lines that may require additional mitigation. If unacceptable impacts are observed (in the opinion of the bird specialist and independent review), the specialist should conduct a literature review specific to the impact (e.g. collision and/or electrocution) and provide updated and relevant mitigation options to be implemented. As a starting point for the review of possible mitigations, the following may need to be considered: o Assess the suitability of using deterrent devices (e.g. DT Bird and ultrasonic/ radar/ electromagnetic deterrents for bats) to reduce collision risk. o Identify options to modify turbine operation (e.g. temporary curtailment or shutdown on demand) to reduce collision risk if absolutely necessary and other methods have not had the desired results. Residual risk A residual risk of mortality through collisions remains, however with appropriate mitigations measures detailed above the significance of this risk is expected to be low.

The significance of the impact is rated as Medium prior to the application of mitigation measures, and as Low following mitigation.

6.3.3 Collisions with Power Lines Collisions with power lines are a well-documented threat to birds in southern Africa (Shaw et al. 2018 & 2010, van Rooyen 2004). In addition to their grid connection line to the national grid, wind energy facilities may have overhead lines between turbine strings and substations that pose an additional collision threat. Collisions with overhead power lines occur when a flying bird does not see the cables, or is unable to take effective evasive action, and is killed by the impact or impact with the ground. Especially heavy- bodied birds such as bustards, cranes and waterbirds, with limited manoeuvrability are susceptible to this impact (van Rooyen 2004). Many of the collision and electrocution sensitive species are also considered threatened in southern Africa. The Red Data (Taylor et al. 2015) species vulnerable to power line collisions are generally long-living, slow- reproducing species. Some require very specific conditions for breeding, resulting in very few successful breeding attempts, or breeding might be restricted to very small areas. These species have not evolved to cope with high adult mortality, with the results that consistent high adult mortality over an extensive period could have a serious effect on a population’s ability to sustain itself in the long or even medium term. Species that may be particularly affected on the proposed development site include Ludwig’s Bustard, Kori Bustard, Karoo Korhaan and Northern Black Korhaan. Ludwig’s Bustard and Kori bustard are known to be particularly prone to collision (Shaw et al. 2018, pers. comm. R. Simmons, J. Smallie, M. Martins and BARESG, Shaw et al. 2010). For Ludwig’s Bustard, the threat of collisions with high-voltage transmission lines (>132kV has been found to be higher than for low voltage distribution lines (≤132kV), however the expanse of smaller lines in South Africa may contribute a greater total impact. Collisions have also been shown to be less likely near roads, therefore any new lines should be placed along roads wherever possible (Shaw et al. 2018). Martial Eagle has also been documented as colliding with transmission and distribution lines, and while these incidences occur much less frequent than for bustards and korhaans, the impact on this endangered, slow- breeding species’ population may be of significance (Shaw et al. 2018). Impact Phase: Operational Potential impact description: Collisions with Power Lines Extent Duration Intensity Status Significance Probability Confidence

Arcus Consultancy Services South Africa (Pty) Ltd Paulputs WEF (RF) (Pty) Ltd June 2019 Page 28 Final Bird Monitoring and Impact Assessment Report Paulputs Wind Energy Facility

Without L H H Negative H H H Mitigation With L H H Negative M L M Mitigation Can the impact be reversed? No Will impact cause irreplaceable loss No or resources? Can impact be avoided, managed or Yes mitigated? Mitigation measures to reduce residual risk or enhance opportunities: - Place all power lines connecting the turbines with each other and the on-site substation underground, unless technically impossible; - Place new overhead power lines adjacent to existing power lines or linear infrastructure where possible (e.g. roads and fence lines); - The shortest possible grid connection route is the preferred alternative, unless it runs along existing infrastructure, in which case a longer route is deemed acceptable if it is constructed in such way that the pylons of the new grid connection are ‘staggered’ and fall between the pylons of the existing lines as far as possible; - Attach appropriate marking devices [Bird Flight Diverters (BFDs)] on all spans of all new overhead power lines to increase visibility; - BFDs must be maintained and replaced where necessary, for the life span of the project and any collision incidents be reported to the Endangered Wildlife Trust (EWT). Prior to construction, an avifaunal specialist must be consulted to provide recommendations regarding the most appropriate (and latest available technology) device to be used. The specialist should also conduct a pre-construction walk-though of the final approved power line routes, once the pylon positions have been pegged, to determine which (if any) spans may require specialised marking with nocturnal solar powered LED devices; - Develop and implement a carcass search programme for birds during the first two years of operation, in line with the South African monitoring guidelines (Jenkins et al. 2015). This program must include monitoring of any overhead power lines, including the new grid connection line. Residual impact There will be a residual impact which is potentially of medium negative significance with the implementation of mitigation measures

The significance of the impact is rated as High prior to the application of mitigation measures, and as Medium following mitigation.

6.3.4 Electrocution Electrocution of birds from electrical infrastructure including overhead lines is an important and well documented cause of bird mortality, especially for raptors and storks (APLIC 1994; van Rooyen and Ledger 1999). Electrocution may also occur within newly constructed substations. Electrocution refers to the scenario where a bird is perched or attempts to perch on the electrical structure and causes an electrical short circuit by physically bridging the air gap between live components and/or live and earthed components (van Rooyen 2004). With regard to the grid connection infrastructure, overhead power line infrastructure with a capacity of 132 kV or more does not generally pose a risk of electrocution due to the large size of the clearances between the electrical infrastructure components. Electrocutions are therefore more likely for larger species whose wingspan is able to bridge the gap such as eagles or storks. A few large birds (such as Verreaux’s Eagle and Martial Eagle), susceptible to electrocution (particularly in the absence of safe and mitigated structures) occur in the area. Electrocution is also possible on electrical infrastructure within the substation particularly for species such as crows and owls.

Arcus Consultancy Services South Africa (Pty) Ltd Paulputs WEF (RF) (Pty) Ltd June 2019 Page 29 Final Bird Monitoring and Impact Assessment Report Paulputs Wind Energy Facility

Impact Phase: Operational Potential impact description: Electrocution Extent Duration Intensity Status Significance Probability Confidence Without L H M Negative M M H Mitigation With L H M Negative L L H Mitigation Can the impact be reversed? No Will impact cause irreplaceable loss No or resources? Can impact be avoided, managed or Yes mitigated? Mitigation measures to reduce residual risk or enhance opportunities: - Place new power lines connecting the turbines with each other and the on-site substation underground unless technically impossible; - Any new overhead power lines must be of a design that minimizes electrocution risk by using adequately insulated ‘bird friendly’ structures, with clearances between live components of 1.8 m or greater and which provides a safe bird perch. A replica or ‘mock up’ of the exact pole structures (including bend point structures), or at least a 3D model simulation that specifically shows how the jumpers will be placed and insulated, must be examined and approved by the bird specialist in consultation with EWT. Residual impact There is a potential residual impact of low significance with mitigation.

The significance of the impact is rated as Medium prior to the application of mitigation measures, and as Low following mitigation.

6.3.5 Disruption of Local Bird Movement Patterns Wind energy facilities may form a physical barrier to movement of birds across the landscape, this may alter migration routes and increase distances travelled and energy expenditure or block movement to important areas such as ephemeral wetlands or prey sources altogether. This potential impact is not yet well understood, is likely to be more significant as a cumulative impact with surrounding developments, is difficult to measure and assess, and therefore mitigation measures are difficult to identify. Some mitigation may be possible by avoiding turbine placement in obvious flyways and making turbines more visible through lighting, but this will not change the significance of this impact. As flight activity recorded to date is very low for the Paulputs site and there are no waterbodies or obvious flyways this impact is expected to be very unlikely. Impact Phase: Operational Potential impact description: Disruption of Local Bird Movement Patterns Extent Duration Intensity Status Significance Probability Confidence Without M M L Negative L L H Mitigation With M M L Negative L L H Mitigation Can the impact be reversed? Yes Will impact cause irreplaceable loss No or resources? Can impact be avoided, managed or Yes mitigated?

Arcus Consultancy Services South Africa (Pty) Ltd Paulputs WEF (RF) (Pty) Ltd June 2019 Page 30 Final Bird Monitoring and Impact Assessment Report Paulputs Wind Energy Facility

Mitigation measures to reduce residual risk or enhance opportunities: - Turbines must not be constructed within any high sensitivity zones identified through pre-construction monitoring and impact assessment; - The lowest feasible number of turbines should be constructed for the required MW output. Therefore, fewer larger (i.e with a higher MW output) turbine models should be favoured where possible. - Lighting on turbines to be of an intermittent and coloured nature rather than constant white light to reduce the possible impact on the movement patterns of nocturnal migratory species. Residual impact A potential residual impact of low significance is possible.

The significance of the impact is rated as Low prior to the application of mitigation measures, and as Low following mitigation.

6.4 Cumulative impacts There are no planned or existing wind farms within 35 km of the proposed Paulputs WEF. Two existing CSP trough plants are in operation (KaXu Solar One and !Xina Solar One) as well as one operational solar PV and another being preferred bidder. No operational monitoring data are available for any of the operational facilities. One 200 MW CSP tower plant has been approved which poses a particular threat to birds, as they incinerate when flying too close to the heated collection tower. While some birds may collide with the CSP troughs mistaking them for a surface water, collisions for this technology are generally unlikely. The main cumulative threat to birds in the area is expected to be from habitat loss and powerline collisions, as each of the proposed facilities will require a grid connection to the Paulputs substation. This impact is only partially mitigatable, and only if all new overhead powerlines are fitted with BFD markers and are of a bird friendly design as detailed above. The cumulative impact of habitat loss to certain local species, in particular Martial Eagle may become a potentially significant impact to note, due to the large footprints of the planned and constructed solar facilities. The contribution of the proposed Paulputs WEF to this is impact is however minor, as a wind energy facilities footprint only occupies 2 – 5% of the actual site. A knock-on effect of this may be an increased risk of collision, particularly by Martial Eagle, as habitat near the Martial Eagle nest becomes unavailable (due to possible construction of PV facilities) for eagles to utilise, and this could potentially increase their foraging effort on the WEF site. Impact Phase: Cumulative Potential impact description: Cumulative impacts on Birds Extent Duration Intensity Status Significance Probability Confidence Without H M H Negative H M M Mitigation With H M H Negative M M M Mitigation Can the impact be reversed? Yes Will impact cause irreplaceable loss No or resources? Can impact be avoided, managed or Yes mitigated? Mitigation measures to reduce residual risk or enhance opportunities: - All mitigation measures listed above and recommended for other projects must be adhered to. - The applicant and/or operational project company should proactively collaborate with other renewable energy operators in the area. Operational monitoring data must be shared with Birdlife SA

Arcus Consultancy Services South Africa (Pty) Ltd Paulputs WEF (RF) (Pty) Ltd June 2019 Page 31 Final Bird Monitoring and Impact Assessment Report Paulputs Wind Energy Facility

Residual impact A residual impact of medium negative significance is likely, as the cumulative impact is difficult to mitigate.

7 CONCLUSION AND IMPACT STATEMENT Activity and abundance of priority species and red data species were found to be very low to low on the proposed Paulputs development site. The diversity of these species recorded was also low. Abundances and diversity of small passerines was found to be low as well. Verreaux’s Eagle were confirmed breeding 1.8 km outside of the WEF site boundary and > 3 km from the nearest proposed turbine, however the species was not recorded flying on site. The WEF site does not contain any important Verreaux’s Eagle habitat, even though they may traverse the site or forage there occasionally. A 3 km buffer was implemented surrounding the nest site, in which no turbines may be placed. Compared to other WEF sites flight activity of priority species was the lowest recorded on any WEF that the specialists have worked on or are aware of. Therefore the WEF site itself appears to be well suited for wind energy development from an avifaunal perspective. The associated grid connection however does have the potential to negatively impact certain species, particularly Ludwig’s Bustard, as discussed above. This impact is partially mitigatable and considered acceptable when all mitigations stated above have been applied. The shortest grid connection alternative is the preferred alternative from an avifaunal perspective, and therefore using Substation Option A, together with the grid connection connecting to the existing 132 kV line is preferred. However, all options are acceptable, if correctly mitigated. The proposed layout was found to be acceptable as no turbines are proposed in areas of high avifaunal sensitivity. The remainder of the site is considered to be of low avifaunal sensitivity. All mitigation measures listed above must be included in the EMPr as a condition of the EA. From an avifaunal perspective, the project is acceptable and can be authorised.

8 REFERENCES Amar A & Cloete D 2017. Quantifying the decline of the Martial Eagle Polomaetus bellicosus in South Africa. Bird Conservation International, page 1 of 12. Birdlife International, 2017 doi:10.1017/S0959270917000314 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. Barrios, L. & Rodriguez, A. 2004. Behavioural and environmental correlates of soaring- bird mortality at on-shore wind turbines. Journal of Applied Ecology 41: 72–81 Bellebaum, J., Korner-Nievergelt, F., Dürr, T. & Mammen, U. 2013. Wind turbine fatalities approach a level of concern in a raptor population. Journal for Nature Conservation 21: 394–400. BLSA 2010. Specialist Avifaunal Assessment for the Proposed Pofadder Solar Thermal Plant, Northern Cape. Report for savannah Environmental on behalf of Kaxu CSP South Africa (Pty) Ltd

BLSA 2017. Wind energy and birds in South Africa: Turbine collision fatalities during the first two years of operational monitoring. Presentation to the Birds and Renewable Energy Forum, 28 September 2017. BirdLife South Africa

Arcus Consultancy Services South Africa (Pty) Ltd Paulputs WEF (RF) (Pty) Ltd June 2019 Page 32 Final Bird Monitoring and Impact Assessment Report Paulputs Wind Energy Facility

BLSA 2018. Summary of operational phase monitoring and wind farms: results and lessons. Presentation to the Birds and Renewable Energy Forum, October 2018. BirdLife South Africa Bose, A., Dürr, T., Klenke, R.A. and Henle, K. 2018. Collision sensitive niche profile of the worst affected bird-groups at wind turbine structures in the Federal State of Brandenburg, Germany. Scientific Reports 8: 3777 Bose, A., Dürr, T., Klenke, R.A. and Henle, K. 2018. Collision sensitive niche profile of the worst affected bird-groups at wind turbine structures in the Federal State of Brandenburg, Germany. Scientific Reports 8: 3777 Boshoff, A.F. 1993. Density, active performance and stability of Martial Eagles Polemaetus bellicosus active on electricity pylons in the Nama-Karoo, South Africa. In: Wilson, R.T. (Ed.). Proceedings of the Eighth Pan-African Ornithological Congress. Musee Royal de 1’Afrique Centrale, Tervuren. pp 95-104. Carrete, M., Sanchez-Zapata, J.A, Benitez, J.R., Lobon, M., Donazar, J.A. 2009. Large scale risk-assessment of wind-farms on population viability of a globally endangered long- lived raptor. Biological Conservation 142: 2954-2961. Dahl, E.L., Bevanger, K., Nyg_ard, T., Røskaft, E. & Stokke, B.G. 2012. Reduced breeding success in white-tailed eagles at Smøla windfarm, western Norway, is caused by mortality and displacement. Biological Conservation 145: 79–85. Davies, R. A. G., and D. G. Allan. 1997. "Black eagle Aquila verreauxii." The atlas of southern African birds 1 175-177. 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. Desholm, M. and Kahlert, J. 2005. Avian collision risk at an offshore wind farm. Available online: http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/1/3/296.full Drewitt, A.L. & Langston, R.H.W. 2006. Assessing the impacts of wind farms on birds. Ibis 148: 29-42. Dwyer JF, Landon MA and Mojica EK. 2018. Impact of Renewable Energy Sources on Birds of Prey. In: Sarasola, J.H., Grande, J.M. and Negro, J.J. (eds). 2018. Birds of Prey Biology and conservation in the XXI century. p 303-321 Erickson WP, Johnson GD, Strickland MD, Young DP Jr, Sernka KJ & Good RE. 2001. Avian Collisions with Wind Turbines: A Summary of Existing Studies and Comparisons to Other Sources of Avian Collision Mortality in the United States. National Wind Coordinating Committee Resource Document. 62 pp. Frid A & Dill LM. 2002. Human-caused disturbance stimuli as a form of predation risk. Conservation Ecology 6: 11 Gargett V & Mundy P. 1990. The black eagle: a study. Acorn Books. Grünkorn T, Blew J, Krüger O, Potiek A, Reichenbach M, von Rönn J, Timmermann, H, Weitekamp S. and Nehls G. 2017. A Large Scale, Multispecies Assessment of Avian Mortality Rates at Land-Based Wind Turbines in Northern Germany. Wind Energy and Wildlife Interactions- J. Koppel (ed). Hockey PAR, Dean WRJ, Ryan PG. (eds) 2005. Roberts Birds of Southern Africa, VII edition. The trustees of the John Voelcker Bird Book Fund, Cape Town. Hötker H, Thomsen, KM & Jeromin H. 2006. Impacts on biodiversity of explotation of renewable energy resources: the example of birds and bats- facts, gaps in knowledge,

Arcus Consultancy Services South Africa (Pty) Ltd Paulputs WEF (RF) (Pty) Ltd June 2019 Page 33 Final Bird Monitoring and Impact Assessment Report Paulputs Wind Energy Facility

demands for further research, and ornithological guidelines for the development of renewable energy exploitation. Bergenhusen. Hunt, WG, Jackman R, Hunt TL, Driscoll DE. & Culp, L. 1998. A population study of golden eagles in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area: population trend analysis 1994– 1997. Report to National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Subcontract XAT-6-16459-01. Predatory Bird Research Group, University of California, Santa Cruz, USA Jenkins AR, Shaw JM, Smallie JJ, Gibbons B, Visagie R & Ryan PG. 2011. Estimating the impacts of power line collisions on Ludwig’s Bustards Neotis ludwigii. Bird Conservation International, 21:303-310. Jenkins, A.R., van Rooyen, C.S., Smallie, J.J., Harrison, J.A., Diamond, M., Smit-Robinson, H.A. Ralston, S. 2015. Bird and Wind-Energy Best-Practice Guidelines. Best-Practice Guidelines for assessing and monitoring the impact of wind-energy facilities on birds in southern Africa. Third Edition (previous versions 2011 and 2012). BirdLife South Africa and Endangered Wildlife Trust, Johannesburg, South Africa. 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 Ecology 15: 755–764 Ledec, G.C., Rapp, K. W. and Aiello, R. G. 2011. Greening the Wind: Environmental and Social Considerations for Wind Power Development in Latin America and Beyond. The World Bank ESMAP Report. 148 pp. Machange RW, Jenkins AR & Navarro RA. 2005. Eagles as indicators of ecosystem health: Is the distribution of Martial Eagle nests in the Karoo, South Africa, influenced by variations in land-use and rangeland quality? Journal of Arid Environments 63: 223-243. Madders, M. & Whitfield, D.P. 2006. Upland raptors and the assessment of wind farm impacts. Ibis 148: 43-56. Marques AT, Batalha H, Rodrigues S, Costa H, Pereira MJR, Fonseca C, Mascarenhas M and Bernardino. 2014. Understanding bird collisions at wind farms: An updated review on the causes and possible mitigation strategies. Biological Conservation 179: 40-52. Marnewick, M.D., Retief E.F., Theron N.T., Wright D.R., Anderson T.A. 2015. Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas of South Africa. Johannesburg: Birdlife South Africa. Orloff S. & Flannery A. 1992. Wind turbine effects on avian activity, habitat use and mortality in Altamont Pass and Solano County Wind Resource Areas. Report to the Planning Departments of Alameda, Contra Costa and Solano Counties and the California Energy Commission, Grant No. 990-89-003 to BioSystems Analysis, Inc., Tiburon, CA. Percival, S. 2005. Birds and windfarms: what are the real issues? British Birds 98: 194- 204. Ralston Paton, S., Smallie J., Pearson A., and Ramalho R. 2017. Wind energy’s impacts on birds in South Africa: A preliminary review of the results of operational monitoring at the first wind farms of the Renewable Energy Independent Power Producer Procurement Programme in South Africa. BirdLife South Africa Occasional Report Series No. 2. BirdLife South Africa, Johannesburg, South Africa Rydell, J., Engstrom, H., Hedenstrom, A., Larson, J.K., Petterrson, J. & Green, M. 2012. The effect of wind power on birds and bats – a synthesis. Unpublished report by the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. Shaw J, Reid T, Shutgens MG, Jenkins AR & Ryan PG. 2018. High power line collision mortality of threatened bustards at a regional scale in the Karoo, South Africa. Ibis 160: 431-446 doi:10.1111/ibi.12553

Arcus Consultancy Services South Africa (Pty) Ltd Paulputs WEF (RF) (Pty) Ltd June 2019 Page 34 Final Bird Monitoring and Impact Assessment Report Paulputs Wind Energy Facility

Smallie J. 2017. Paulputs Solar Energy Facility Initial Avifaunal Assessment. Wildskies Ecological Services Report for juwi renewable Energies (Pty) Ltd. Smallwood KS & Thelander C. 2008. Bird Mortality in the Altamount Pass Wind Resource Area, California. Management & Conservation. doi: 10.2193/2007-032 Strickland, M.D., Arnett, E.B., Erickson, W.P., Johnson, D.H., Johnson, G.D., Morrison, M.L., Shaffer, J.A. and Warren-Hicks, W. 2011. Comprehensive Guide to Studying Wind Energy/Wildlife Interactions. Prepared for the National Wind Coordinating Collaborative, Washington, D.C., USA. Tarboton WR & Allan DG. 1984. The status and conservation of birds of prey in the Transvaal. Pretoria: Transvaal Museum Tarr NM, Rubino MJ, Costanza JK, Mckerrow AJ, Collazo JA & Abt RC. 2016. Projected gains and losses of wildlife habitat from bioenergy-indcued landscape change. GCB Bioneregy, doi: 10.1111/gcbb.12383 Taylor MR (ed.) 2015. The Eskom Red Data Book of Birds of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Birdlife South Africa, Johannesburg. Thaxter CB, Buchanan GM, Carr J, Butchart SHM, Newbold T, Green RE, Tobias JA, Foden, WB, O’Brien S, and Pearce-Higgins JW. 2017. Bird and bat species’ global vulnerability to collision mortality at wind farms revealed through a trait-based assessment. Proc. R. Soc. B. 284: 20170829 Thelander CG, Smallwood KS, & Rugge L. 2003. Bird risk behaviors and fatalities at the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado, USA. van Eaden R, Whitfield DP, Botha A, Amar A. 2017. Ranging behaviour and habitat preferences of the Martial Eagle: Implications for the conservation of a declining apex predator. PLoS ONE 12(3): e0173956. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0173956 van Rooyen, C.S. and Ledger, J.A. 1999. Birds and utility structures: Developments in southern Africa. Ferrer, M. & G.. FM Janns. (eds.) Birds and Power lines. Quercus: Madrid, Spain, pp.205-230. van Rooyen, CS 2004. The Management of Wildlife Interactions with over-headlines. In The fundamentals and practice of Over-head Line Maintenance (132 kV and above), pp 217-245. Eskom Technology, Services International, Johannesburg. Vasilakis, D.P., Whitfield, D.P. and Vassiliki, K. 2017. A balanced solution to the cumulative threat of industrialized wind farm development on cinereous vultures (Aegypius monachus) in south-eastern Europe. PLoS ONE 12(2): e0172685. Doi: 10.371/journal.pone.0172685 Watson RT, Kolar PS, Ferrer M, Nygård T, Johnston N, Grainger Hunt W., Smit-Robinson, HA, Farmer CJ, Huso M and Katzner TE. 2018. Raptor Interactions with Wind Energy: Case Studies From Around The World. Journal of Raptor Research 52: 1-18

Arcus Consultancy Services South Africa (Pty) Ltd Paulputs WEF (RF) (Pty) Ltd June 2019 Page 35 2185000 2190000 2195000 2200000 2205000 2210000 2215000

Site Boundary Driven Transect -3360000 -3360000 .! Focal Site ^_ Vantage Point Walked Transect

CFS CVP^_.!

^_ CDT VP1 CWT WT1 .! FS3 !. FS4

-3365000 ^_ -3365000 VP2

^_ FS2 .! VP3 WT3 DT1 WT2 ^_VP4 -3370000 -3370000

.! FS1

Nest .! ^_VP5DT2 -3375000 -3375000

1:100 000Scale @ A3

#NORTH 0 2 4km

Produced By: JA Ref: 2940-REP-015

Checked By: SC Date: 02/Jul/2019

Site and Survey Locations

-3380000 -3380000 Figure 1

Paulputs WEF Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Bird Final EIA Report 2185000 2190000 2195000 2200000 2205000 2210000 2215000 C:\Users\Jonathan Aronson\Documents\ArcGIS\Packages\2940 Paulputs_02E81DB2-78E7-4816-BDAB-5998CB85B2AA\p20\2940 Paulputs.aprx\2940-REP-015 Fig 1 Site and Survey Location 2190000 2200000 2210000 -3360000 -3360000

Site Boundary ^_ Vantage Point Double-banded Courser Flight

^_CVP Greater Kestrel Flight Karoo Korhaan Flight ^_ Kori Bustard Flight VP1 Ludwig's Bustard Flight Martial Eagle Flight ^_ VP2 Northern Black Korhaan Flight Pale Chanting Goshawk Flight Unidentified Kestrel Flight Double-banded Courser Sighting Northern Black Korhaan Sighting ^_ Karoo Korhaan Sighting VP3 Ludwig's Bustard Sighting ^_ Greater Kestrel Sighting

-3370000 VP4 -3370000 Lanner Falcon Sighting Cape Eagle Owl Sighting Martial Eagle Sighting Pygmy Falcon Sighting ^_ Verreaux's Eagle Sighting VP5

1:80 000 Scale @ A3

#NORTH 0 1,5 3km

Produced By: JA Ref: 2940-REP-016

Checked By: SC Date: 03/Jul/2019

12 month Pre-construction Monitoring Results Figure 2

Paulputs WEF Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Bird Final EIA Report 2190000 2200000 2210000 S:\GIS\Projects\2940 Paulputs\2940 Paulputs Birds.aprx\2940-REP-016 Fig 2 12 Month Pre-construction Monitoring Results 2180000 2190000 2200000

Site Boundary ! Proposed Turbine S" Substation Compound Option A S" Substation Compound Option B S" Substation Compound Option C -3360000 -3360000 Greater Kestrel nest (active) Pale Chanting Goshawk nest (active) ! Verreaux's Eagle nest (active) T40 Grid Connection Corridors ! T39 OHPL Connecting Substation T38 ! ! Options A, B, C T37 ! T36 Option A ! T35 ! Option B T34 ! T33 T32 Option C ! T30 ! T31 T75 T29 ! ! ! ! No Go Buffers for Turbines Only, Other T28 ! Infrastructure Permitted T26 T27 ! T25 ! T74 ! T24 ! Greater Kestrel Nest Buffer T22 T23 ! T73 ! ! T21 ! (500m) T20 ! ! T72 S" T71 ! Pale Chanting Goshawk Nest T19 ! ! T70 Buffer (500m) T17 T18 ! T15 ! ! T16 ! ! T69 S" T68 ! Aquatic Buffer (200m) T13 T14 ! T67 ! ! ! Verreaux's Eagle Nest Buffer T66 T12 ! (3km)

-3370000 T10 ! T11 -3370000 ! ! T9 T63 T64 T65 ! ! T62 ! ! ! T8 T61 T7 ! T60 ! ! ! T6 T5 S" ! ! T59 T57 ! T58 T56 ! ! T3 T4 T54 ! T55 ! ! ! ! ! T53 ! T2 T52 ! ! T51 T50 T1 ! ! 1:90 000 Scale @ A3 ! T49 ! T48 #NORTH 0 2 4km T46 T47 ! ! ! T44 T45 ! T43 ! Produced By: JA Ref: 2940-REP-017 ! T42 ! Checked By: SC Date: 15/Jul/2019 T41 ! Avifaunal Sensitivity Map Figure 3

Paulputs WEF Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Bird Final EIA Report 2180000 2190000 2200000 S:\GIS\Projects\2940 Paulputs\2940 Paulputs Birds.aprx\2940-REP-017 Fig 3 Avifaunal Sensitivity Map Final Bird Monitoring and Impact Assessment Report Paulputs Wind Energy Facility

APPENDIX A: SPECIES LIST

Red Data Endemic Status Priority S1 S1 S2 S2 S3 S3 S4 S4 Alphabetical Name Scientific Name or near- (Regional, Species WEF Control WEF control WEF Control WEF Control endemic Global) score

Bunting, Lark-like Emberiza impetuani x x x x x x x x Crow, Pied Corvus albus x x x x x x x x Dove, Cape Turtle Streptopelia capicola x x x x x x x x Dove, Namaqua Oena capensis x x x x x x x x Korhaan, Northern Black Afrotis afraoides 180 x x x x x x x x Pigeon, Speckled Columba guinea x x x x x x x x Sandgrouse, Namaqua Pterocles namaqua x x x x x x x x Sunbird, Dusky Cinnyris fuscus x x x x x x x x Tit-Babbler, Chestnut- Sylvia subcaerulea x x x x x x x x vented Weaver, Sociable Philetairus socius x x x x x x x x Batis, Pririt Batis pririt x x x x x x x Tricholaema Barbet, Acacia Pied x x x x x x x leucomelas Myrmecocichla Chat, Ant-eating x x x x x x x formicivora Flycatcher, Chat Bradornis infuscatus x x x x x x x Korhaan, Karoo Eupodotis vigorsii NT, LC 240 x x x x x x x Calendulauda Lark, Fawn-coloured x x x x x x x africanoides Lark, Grey-backed Sparrow Eremopterix verticalis x x x x x x x Chersomanes Lark, Spike-heeled x x x x x x x albofasciata

Arcus Consultancy Services South Africa (Pty) Ltd Paulputs WEF (RF) (Pty) Ltd June 2019 Page 36 Final Bird Monitoring and Impact Assessment Report Paulputs Wind Energy Facility

Red Data Endemic Status Priority S1 S1 S2 S2 S3 S3 S4 S4 Alphabetical Name Scientific Name or near- (Regional, Species WEF Control WEF control WEF Control WEF Control endemic Global) score

Lark, Stark’s Spizocorys starki x x x x x x x Sparrow, Cape Passer melanurus x x x x x x x Warbler, Rufous-eared Malcorus pectoralis x x x x x x x Wheatear, Capped Oenanthe pileata x x x x x x Lark, Black-eared Sparrow- Eremopterix australis (*) x x x x x Bokmakierie Telophorus zeylonus x x x x x x Bustard, Ludwig’s Neotis ludwigii EN, EN 320 x x x x x x Bulbul, African Red-eyed Pycnonotus nigricans x x x x x Kestrel, Greater Falco rupicoloides 174 x x x x Lark, Large-billed Galerida magnirostris (*) x x x x Prinia, Black-chested Prinia flavicans x x x x x Robin-chat, Cape Cossypha caffra x x x x Tit, Ashy Parus cinerascens x x x Fiscal, Southern Lanius collaris x x (Common) Lark, Eastern Clapper Mirafra fasciolata x x Certhilauda Lark, Karoo Long-billed x x subcoronata Canary, White-throated Crithagra albogularis x Amadina Finch, Red-headed x erythrocephala Lark, Pink-billed Spizocorys conirostris x Martin, Brown-throated Riparia paludicola x Mousebird, White-backed Colius colius x

Arcus Consultancy Services South Africa (Pty) Ltd Paulputs WEF (RF) (Pty) Ltd June 2019 Page 37 Final Bird Monitoring and Impact Assessment Report Paulputs Wind Energy Facility

Red Data Endemic Status Priority S1 S1 S2 S2 S3 S3 S4 S4 Alphabetical Name Scientific Name or near- (Regional, Species WEF Control WEF control WEF Control WEF Control endemic Global) score

Cercotrichas Robin, Karoo Scrub x coryphoeus Sparrow-weaver, White- Plocepasser mahali x browed Bunting, Cape Emberiza capensis x x x x Onychognathus Starling, Pale-winged x x x x nabouroup Wheatear, Mountain Oenanthe monticola x x x x Chat, Karoo Cercomela schlegelii x x x Martin, Rock Hirundo fuligula x x x x x x Courser, Double-banded Rhinoptilus africanus 204 x x x Goose, Egyptian Alopochen aegyptiaca x x x Plover, Three-banded Charadrius tricollaris x x x Bishop, Southern Red Euplectes orix x x Chat, Familiar Cercomela familiaris x x Cisticola, Grey-backed Cisticola subruficapilla x x Prinia, Karoo Prinia maculosa (*) x x Wagtail, Cape Motacilla capensis x x Eagle, Verreaux's Aquila verreauxii VU, LC 360 x Falcon, Lanner Falco biarmicus VU, LC 300 x x Eagle, Martial Polemaetus bellicosus EN, VU 350 x x Goshawk, Pale Chanting Melierax canorus 200 x x Bustard, Kori Ardeotis kori NT, NT 260 x x Canary, Yellow Crithagra flaviventris x

Arcus Consultancy Services South Africa (Pty) Ltd Paulputs WEF (RF) (Pty) Ltd June 2019 Page 38 Final Bird Monitoring and Impact Assessment Report Paulputs Wind Energy Facility

Red Data Endemic Status Priority S1 S1 S2 S2 S3 S3 S4 S4 Alphabetical Name Scientific Name or near- (Regional, Species WEF Control WEF control WEF Control WEF Control endemic Global) score

Chat, Tractrac Cercomela tractrac x Streptopelia Dove, Red-eyed x semitorquata Eremomela Eremomela, Yellow-bellied x icteropygialis Lark, Sabota Calendulauda sabota x Lark, Sclater’s Spizocorys sclateri NT, NT 240 (*) x Robin, Kalahari Scrub Cercotrichas paena x Crow, Cape Corvus capensis x Streptopelia Dove, Laughing x senegalensis Polihierax Falcon, Pygmy x semitorquatus Sporopipes Finch, Scaly-feathered x squamifrons Mousebird, Red-faced Urocolius indicus x Owl, Cape Eagle- Bubo capensis 250 x Thick-knee, Water Burhinus vermiculatus x

Arcus Consultancy Services South Africa (Pty) Ltd Paulputs WEF (RF) (Pty) Ltd June 2019 Page 39 Final Bird Monitoring and Impact Assessment Report Paulputs Wind Energy Facility

APPENDIX B: IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY SIGNIFICANCE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS The significance of environmental aspects can be determined and ranked by considering the criteria presented in Table 1. In some cases it may be necessary to undertake the impact assessment to determine whether a particular aspect is significant. Therefore, a fair degree of iteration is unavoidable during the assessment process.

Table 1 – Criteria used to determine the significance of environmental aspects

Significance Negative Aspects Positive Aspects Ranking H Will always/often exceed legislation or standards. Compliance with all legislation and standards. (High) Has characteristics that could cause significant Has characteristics that could cause significant negative impacts. positive impacts. M Has characteristics that could cause negative Has characteristics that could cause positive (Moderate) impacts. impacts. L Will never exceed legislation or standards. Will always comply with all legislation and (Low) standards. Unlikely to cause significant negative impacts. Unlikely to cause significant positive impacts. SIGNIFICANCE OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Where significant environmental aspects are present (“high” or “moderate”), significant environmental impacts may result. The significance of the impacts associated with the significant aspects can be determined by considering the risk: Significance of Environmental Impact (Risk) = Probability x Consequence The consequence of impacts can be described by considering the severity, spatial extent and duration of the impact. Severity of Impacts Table 2 presents the ranking criteria that can used to determine the severity of impacts on the bio- physical and socio-economic environment. Table 3 provides additional ranking criteria for determining the severity of negative impacts on the bio-physical environment.

Table 2 – Criteria for ranking the Severity of environmental impacts

Type of Negative Positive Criteria H- M- L- L+ M+ H+ Qualitative Substantial Moderate Minor Minor Moderate Substantial deterioration. deterioration. deterioration. improvement. improvement. improvement Death, illness Discomfort. Nuisance or . or injury. minor irritation. Quantitative Measurable deterioration. Change not measurable i.e. will Measurable improvement. remain within current range. Recommended Recommended Recommended level will never be Will be within or better than level will level will violated. recommended level. often be occasionally violated. be violated. Community Vigorous Widespread Sporadic complaints. No observed Favourable Response community complaints. reaction. publicity action.

Arcus Consultancy Services South Africa (Pty) Ltd Paulputs WEF (RF) (Pty) Ltd June 2019 Page 40 Final Bird Monitoring and Impact Assessment Report Paulputs Wind Energy Facility

Table 3 – Criteria for ranking the Severity of negative impacts on the bio-physical environment

Ranking Criteria Environment Low (L-) Medium (M-) High (H-) Soils and land Minor deterioration in land Partial loss of land capability. Complete loss of land capability capability. Soil alteration resulting in a capability. Soil alteration resulting in a moderate negative impact on Soil alteration resulting in a low negative impact on one of one of the other environments high negative impact on one of the other environments (e.g. (e.g. ecology). the other environments (e.g. ecology). ecology). Ecology Disturbance of areas that are Disturbance of areas that have Disturbance of areas that are (Plant and degraded, have little some conservation value or are pristine, have conservation animal life) conservation value or are of some potential use to value or are an important unimportant to humans as a humans. resource to humans. resource. Minor change in species variety Complete change in species Destruction of rare or or prevalence. variety or prevalence. endangered species. Surface and Quality deterioration resulting Quality deterioration resulting Quality deterioration resulting Groundwater in a low negative impact on one in a moderate negative impact in a high negative impact on of the other environments on one of the other one of the other environments (ecology, community health environments (ecology, (ecology, community health etc.) community health etc.). etc.).

Spatial Extent and Duration of Impacts The duration and spatial scale of impacts can be ranked using the following criteria:

Table 4 – Ranking the Duration and Spatial Scale of impacts

Ranking Criteria L M H Duration Quickly reversible Less Reversible over time Permanent than the project life Life of the project Beyond closure Short-term Medium-term Long-term Spatial Scale Localised Fairly widespread Widespread Within site boundary Beyond site boundary Far beyond site boundary Site Local Regional/national

Where the severity of an impact varies with distance, the severity should be determined at the point of compliance or the point at which sensitive receptors will be encountered. This position corresponds to the spatial extent of the impact.

Consequence of Impacts Having ranked the severity, duration and spatial extent, the overall consequence of impacts can be determined using the following qualitative guidelines:

Arcus Consultancy Services South Africa (Pty) Ltd Paulputs WEF (RF) (Pty) Ltd June 2019 Page 41 Final Bird Monitoring and Impact Assessment Report Paulputs Wind Energy Facility

Table 5 – Ranking the Consequence of an impact SEVERITY = L

Long-term H

Medium-term M MEDIUM

DURATION Short-term L LOW SEVERITY = M

Long-term H HIGH

Medium-term M MEDIUM

DURATION Short-term L LOW SEVERITY = H

Long-term H

Medium-term M HIGH

DURATION Short-term L MEDIUM L M H Localised Fairly widespread Widespread Within site boundary Beyond site boundary Far beyond site boundary Site Local Regional/national SPATIAL SCALE

To use Table 5, firstly go to one of the three “layers” based on the severity ranking obtained from Table 2 and/ or Table 3. Thereafter determine the consequence ranking by locating the intersection of the appropriate duration and spatial scale rankings.

Overall Significance of Impacts Combining the consequence of the impact and the probability of occurrence, as shown by Table 6, provides the overall significance (risk) of impacts.

Table 6 – Ranking the Overall Significance of impacts Definite H MEDIUM HIGH Continuous Possible M MEDIUM Frequent Unlikely L LOW MEDIUM PROBABILITY Seldom L M H CONSEQUENCE (from Table 5)

Arcus Consultancy Services South Africa (Pty) Ltd Paulputs WEF (RF) (Pty) Ltd June 2019 Page 42 Final Bird Monitoring and Impact Assessment Report Paulputs Wind Energy Facility

APPENDIX C: SPECIALISTS CV AND DECLARATION OF INDEPENDANCE

Arcus Consultancy Services South Africa (Pty) Ltd Paulputs WEF (RF) (Pty) Ltd June 2019 Page 43 CURRICULUM VITAE Andrew Pearson Pr.Sci.Nat Senior Ecology Specialist (Avifauna) Email: [email protected] Tel: +27 (0) 21 412 1529

Specialisms  Avifauna Impact Assessment  Ecology  Pre-construction Avifauna Monitoring  Construction Phase and Operational Phase Avifauna Monitoring  Survey Design and Management  Project Management Summary of Andrew is an Avifauna Specialist with over eleven years of environmental management Experience experience and has worked as an avifaunal specialist for the past eight years. Andrew has gained a strong level of experience in avifauna assessments across a multitude of sectors, including various powerline assessments and walk-downs. To date, Andrew has provided avifaunal specialist services on over 50 solar, power line and wind farm projects in Southern Africa. Andrew provides specialist input into the design of projects and environmental management plans, assesses environmental due diligence and compliance with international environmental policies (World Bank, IFC, Equator Principles) and peer reviews avifaunal specialist reports. Andrew holds a four-year BSc degree in Conservation Ecology from the University of Stellenbosch, is a professional natural scientist registered with SACNASP, and is a selected member of the Birds and Renewable Energy Specialist Group (BARESG). Professional January 2014 to Present - Avifauna Specialist, Arcus Consultancy Services Ltd: History  Specialist Bird Impact Assessment Studies for energy infrastructure;  Design of high quality bird surveys in line with applicable guidance and legal requirements;  Avifaunal and environmental due diligence and feasibility studies;  Design and implementation of operational carcass search programme including the training and management of locally based observers; and  Specialist raptor nest surveys. March 2011 to December 2013 - Environmental Impact Assessment & Avifaunal Specialist, Endangered Wildlife Trust  Specialist Bird Impact Assessment Studies for energy infrastructure;  Extensive work in the Wind Energy Sector, often in partnership with Eskom, to reduce possible impacts on birds and bats;  12 month Bird Monitoring on WEF sites - compilation of monitoring protocol, recruitment, management and co-ordination of observers, on-site bird observation and compilation of final monitoring reports; and  Presentations and Environmental Training. January 2008 to March 2011 - Group Environmental Manager, Basil Read (Pty) Ltd  Environmental management of roads and civil construction projects;  Implementation and certification of an ISO 14001:2004 Environmental Management System;  Group Internal Environmental Audits;  Compilation of EMPs and Environmental site inspections;  Environmental Awareness Training; and  Compilation of Group Carbon Footprint. February 2006 to January 2008 - Game Ranger and Walking Guide, CC Africa (now &BEYOND), Phinda Private Game Reserve  Game drives and walks in a Big 5 reserve;  Hosting guests and sharing environmental and wildlife knowledge; and  Environmental management, waste management.

Arcus Consultancy Services South Africa (Pty) Limited Registered in South Africa No. 2015/416206/07 CURRICULUM VITAE

Qualifications and  University of Stellenbosch, 2005. Professional Bachelor of Science: Conservation Ecology. Interests  August 2010 - Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (HIRA) Course, IRCA Global.  April 2010 - SAMTRAC, NOSA, East Rand Office.  April 2009 - Green Star Accredited Professional Exam, (GBCSA), PROMETRIC.  May 2008 - Environmental Auditing: ISO 14001:2004, Lead Auditors’ Course (SAACTA approved), Centre for Environmental Management at North West University (NWU), Potchestroom.  February 2008 - Environmental Law for Managers, Centre for Environmental Management at NWU.  February 2008 - Implementing Environmental Management Systems - ISO 14001:2004, Centre for Environmental Management at NWU.  August 2007 - Bird Identification Course, Lawson’s Birding Academy, Intensive training in Makuleke, Kruger National Park. Professional  South African Council for Natural Scientific Professions (SACNASP), “Ecological Science”. Membership Professional Natural Scientist (Pr. Sci. Nat.), Reg. no 400423/11.

Recent  Windaba 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018; Solar Indaba 2013; Africa Utility Week Conferences and 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019. Seminars  IAIA SA National Conference 2011, 2013 and 2016.  March 2011 Endangered Wildlife Trust (EWT) Wildlife and Energy Symposium.

Additional Skills  Liaison with farmers including fluency in Afrikaans.  ArcGIS, Google GEO Tools and Google Earth.  Computer Skills: Office 2013 including Microsoft Word, Excel, Outlook and PowerPoint.  Field work skills involving various sampling methods, data capturing & analysis.  Excellent knowledge of fauna (especially birds) and flora.  4x4 driving skills. Project  Due Diligence Experience Due Diligence of bird work conducted at the Kangnas WEF (ERM); Due Diligence of Bird Work conducted at the Excelsior WEF (ERM); Due Diligence of Bird Work conducted at the Golden Valley WEF (ERM); Due Diligence of Bird Work at the Roggeveld Wind Farm (IBIS Consulting).

 Peer Review Peer Review of Operational Monitoring at the Jeffreys Bay Wind Farm (Globeleq South Africa Management Services (Pty) Ltd); Review and design mitigation strategies for birds at the Kinangop Wind Park, Kenya (African Infrastructure Investment Managers); Review of Bird Specialists reports for the Boulders WEF.

 Feasibility Studies Highlands WEF Feasibility, Feasibility for a WEF site near Indwe, Feasibility for a WEF site near Sutterheim, Feasibility for a WEF site near Aberdeen, Feasibility for a WEF site near Poffadder, Feasibility for a WEF site near Putsonderwater, Feasibility for a WEF site near Kenhardt, Feasibility for a WEF site near DeAar (all WKN Windcurrent SA (Pty) Ltd); Prieska WEF Bird Feasibility; Langeberg WEF Bird Feasibility (both juwi Renewable Energies (Pty) Ltd).

 Pre-Construction Monitoring and/or Impact Assessment (including amendments) - Wind Energy Facility (WEF) Projects: Kouga WEF; Aberdeen WEF; Hidden Valley WEF (i.e Great Karoo WEF, Soetwater WEF); Middleton WEF; Springfontein WEF, Moorreesburg WEF; Grassridge WEF; Grassridge II WEF; Ukomeleza WEF; Chaba WEF; Waainek WEF; Vryheid WEF; Kouga Western Cluster WEF; Hopefield WEF; Spitskop East WEF; Spitskop West WEF; DNA Elliot WEF;

Arcus Consultancy Services South Africa (Pty) Limited Registered in South Africa No. 2015/416206/07 CURRICULUM VITAE

Confidential WEF near Elliot; Umsinde Emoyeni WEF; Komsberg East WEF; Komsberg West WEF; Gouda WEF; ZEN WEF; Sonop WEF; Universal WEF; Confidential WEF near Touws River; Kap Vley WEF; Highlands WEF; Putsonderwater WEF; Haga Haga WEF; Gemini WEF; Suurplaat WEF; Klipfontein WEF; and Molteno WEF.

 Operational Monitoring - WEF Projects: Hopefield WEF; Gouda WEF; Aurora West Coast 1 WEF.

 Impact Assessment - Powerline Projects: St Francis Bay Kouga 66kV; Ncwane Okuku 88kV; Vulcan Ekangala 132kV; Merapi Everest 400kV; Mathibestad Majaneng 132kV; Majaneng Themba Main-Babelegi 132kV; Ngoma Pandamatenga 400kV (ZIZABONA Phase 2); Estancia Thuli 132kV; Estancia Zamokuhle 132kV; Gumeni Bosloop 132kV; Mbumbu Tsakani 132kV; Normandie Heyshope 132kV; Mookodi Integration Project; Wildebees Bethal 132kV; Zaaifontein Mathondwane 88kV; Hlabisa Nongoma 88kV; Mandeni Gingindlovu 132kV; Tabor Nzhelele 400kV; Leksand St James 88kV; Emondlo St James 88kV; Randfontein Mine 132kV; Droogfontein CSP 132kV; Mtubatuba St Lucia 132kV; Ndumo Gezisa 132kV; Ermelo Uitkoms 88kV; TCTA Spring Grove 88kV; Springfontein 132kV.

 Pre-construction Monitoring and/or Impact Assessment - Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) Plants and Solar Photovoltaic (PV) Plants: Humansrus 100MW CSP; Arriesfontein 100MW CSP; Arriesfontein 225MW PV; Eenzaamheid PV; Vaal Dam PV; Mokopole PV; Kalkaar CSP and PV; Droogfontein PV; Bokpoort II CSP; Metsimatala CSP; Redstone CSP Solar PV Extension; Robben Island PV Plant.

 Other: Expansion of Hendrina Power Station Ash Disposal Facilities; Expansion of Majuba Power Station Ash Disposal Facilities; Expansion of Tutuka Power Station Ash Disposal Facilities; Eskom Distribution Cedarville Upgrade; Eskom Limpopo Operating Unit (LOU) Head Office, Polokwane; and Trekoskraal Housing Development.

Arcus Consultancy Services South Africa (Pty) Limited Registered in South Africa No. 2015/416206/07

Impact Assessments - Environmental Management Programs - Compliance Monitoring - Process Review

ANJA ISABEL ALBERTYN neé Terörde, in Germany 1977 RSA permanent resident

CURRICULUM VITAE

Ornithologist and Environmental Consultant and with ten years of experience in the environmental consulting field, including four years conducting EIAs & Basic Assessments, and seven years of avifaunal specialist studies. SACNASP Registered Professional Natural Scientist (Ecological Science) (400037/16) with eight scientific publications on avian ecology to date. Selected member of the Birds and Renewable Energy Specialist Group (BARESG).

Key Skills

• Ornithology, Specialist Avifaunal Impact Assessments, Avifaunal Monitoring and Avifaunal Feasibility Studies • Scoping & EIA Process; BA process; Public Participation Facilitation; Environmental Management Programs; Amendment applications; Environmental Audits • Project Management & Reporting; Financial Control; • GIS Mapping and Analysis (ArcGIS Pro, ArcMap, QGIS).

Professional Experience

2019 - Environmental Assessment Practitioner and Avifaunal Specialist present Holland & Associates Environmental Consultants, Tokai • EAP, Project Manager, PPP Facilitator and GIS • Avifaunal Specialist studies

2017- Avifauna Specialist & Environmental Assessment Practitioner 2019 Arcus Consultancy Services South Africa, Cape Town • EAP, Project Manager, PPP Facilitator and GIS Technician on applications for EA for large-scale windfarms and infrastructure; • Avifaunal Specialist on renewable energy projects, avifaunal feasibility studies and due diligence projects; • GIS mapping and analysis.

2013 - Ecology Consultant (Avifauna) 2017 Arcus Consultancy Services South Africa, Cape Town • Avifaunal Consultant on renewable energy projects; • Assistant EAP & GIS Technician on eight large-scale wind energy facility applications.

P O Box 31108, Tokai, 7966, South Africa Mobile 076 265 8933~ Fax 086 653 1765 ~ e-mail: [email protected] Web: www.hollandandassociates.net 2

2011 - Avifaunal Monitoring Services 2013 Self-employed, Cape Town • 12 month pre-construction bird monitoring on 4 large scale wind energy projects; • Sub-consultant for several avifaunal specialists.

2011 - Project Manager and UX Designer (part-time) 2013 the binary family, Cape Town / Berlin • Designed and project managed creation of Simply Sudoku app for iPhone and iPad, Apple App of the week July 2013 featured in 150 countries, 80% 5* ratings; 2009 - Consultant 2011 Anchor Environmental Consultants, Tokai • Large-scale ballast water treatment efficacy testing at Port of Cape Town and at sea with complex lab work and machinery; maintained live fish, plankton and invertebrate collections; supervision of two lab assistants; • Statistical analysis and reporting; quality control.

2005 - Director & Co-founder 2008 Fishriver Horse Safaris, Port Alfred • Operated successful horse trail business with 33 horses on local game reserve and working holiday programme for foreign students and travellers. • In charge of all marketing, administration and financials.

2002 - Assistant Camp Manager 2003 Mashatu Game Reserve, Tuli Block, Botswana • Relief manager for Camp Manager, Food & Beverages Manager, Administration Manager and Housekeeping Manager.

1999 - Wildlife Research Assistant 2002 Centre for Wildlife Management, Pretoria / Mashatu Game Reserve, Botswana • Elephant research field assistance and data entry; • Designed MS Access database for elephant population study.

Academic Qualifications

• Department of Environmental Science, Rhodes University, 2015: Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment Procedure Short Course (Highly competent)

• Percy FitzPatrick Institute, University of Cape Town, 2006-2009: Zoology (Ornithology), Master of Science

• Rhodes University, 2005-2006: Zoology, Bachelor of Science (Honours)

• University of South Africa, 2002 – 2004: Zoology & Botany, Bachelor of Science (cum laude)

• Heinrich-Heine Universität, Düsseldorf, Germany, 1999 – 2002 Biology, Vordiplom

------P O Box 31108, Tokai, 7966, South Africa Mobile 076 265 8933 ~ Fax 086 653 1765 ~ e-mail: [email protected] Web: www.hollandandassociates.net

3

PROJECT EXPERIENCE

Pre-construction Avifaunal Monitoring and Avifaunal Impact Assessments for Wind Energy Facilities:

• Paulputs WEF, Northern Cape (WKN- Windcurrent); • Highlands WEF, Eastern Cape (WKN- Windcurrent); • Confidential WEF, Northern Cape (WKN- Windcurrent); • Confidential WEF, Northern Cape (WKN- Windcurrent); • Confidential WEF, Eastern Cape (WKN-Windcurrent); • Confidential WEF, Eastern Cape (WKN- Windcurrent); • Kap Vley WEF, Northern Cape (juwi); • Kolkies WEF, Western Cape (Mainstream); • Karee WEF, Western Cape (Mainstream); • Komsberg East WEF, Western Cape (ACED); • Komsberg West WEF, Western Cape (ACED); • Grassridge II WEF (Innowind); • Confidential WEF, Eastern Cape (Rainmaker); • Confidental WEF, Eastern Cape (Ventusa); • Koingnaas WEF, Northern Cape (Savannah), • Richtersveld WE, Northern Cape (G7); • Namakwaland WEF Northern Cape (G7); • Springbok WEF, Northern Cape (DJ Consultants)

Post-construction Avifaunal Monitoring for Wind Energy Facilities:

• West Coast 1 WEF, Western Cape (Aurora) • Hopfield WEF, Western Cape (Umoya); • Gouda WEF, Western Cape (Blue Falcon).

Pre-construction Avifaunal monitoring at Solar Energy Facilities:

• Bokpoort Solar Farm, Northern Cape (Golder); • Metsimatala CSP Facility, Northern Cape (EnviroWorks).

Avifaunal Studies:

• Avifaunal Impact Assessment 132 kV Mbumbu-Tsakani Powerline (Royal Haskoning DHV) • Avifaunal Walkthrough, Robben Island PV, Western Cape (Sola Future Energy); • Avifaunal Feasibility Assessment, Confidential WEF, Western Cape (ACED); • Avifaunal Feasibility Assessment, Confidential WEF, Eastern Cape (WKN Windcurrent); • Avifaunal Feasibility Assessment, Confidential WEF, Eastern Cape (WKN Windcurrent); • Avifaunal Feasibility Assessment, Confidential WEF, Eastern Cape (WKN Windcurrent); • Avifaunal Feasibility Assessment, Confidential WEF, Northern Cape (WKN Windcurrent) • Avifaunal Feasibility Assessment, Confidential WEF, Northern Cape (WKN Windcurrent) ------P O Box 31108, Tokai, 7966, South Africa Mobile 076 265 8933 ~ Fax 086 653 1765 ~ e-mail: [email protected] Web: www.hollandandassociates.net

4

• Canal Walk Wetlands Avifauna Study, Cape Town (Sun International); • Review and mitigation strategy design for birds at the Kinangob Wind Park, Kenya (African Infrastructure Investment Managers)

Environmental Impact Assessment Practitioner:

• Highlands North WEF, Eastern Cape (WKN- Windcurrent). • Highlands Central WEF, Eastern Cape (WKN- Windcurrent). • Highlands South, Eastern Cape (WKN-Windcurrent); • Phezukomoya WEF, Northern and Eastern Cape (Innowind); • San Kraal WEF, Northern and Eastern Cape (Innowind); • Kolkies WEF, Western Cape (Mainstream); • Karee WEF, Western Cape (Mainstream); • Komsberg East WEF, Western Cape (ACED); • Komsberg West WEF, Western Cape (ACED); • Umsinde Emoyeni Phase 1 WEF, Western Cape (Windlab); • Umsinde Emoyeni Phase 2 WEF, Western Cape (Windlab); • Umsinde Emoyeni Phase 1 Grid, Western Cape (Windlab); • Umsinde Emoyeni Phase 2 Grid, Western Cape (Windlab);

Scientific Publications & Conferences

Cowley, PD, Terörde, AI & Whitfield, AK. 2018. Birds as major predators of fishes in a small estuary: does this influence the nursery area concept for estuary-associated fish species? African Zoology 52: 147-154 Maree, BA, Cowley, PD, Naesje, TF Childs, A-R, Terörde, AI & Thorstad, EB. 2016. Influence of prey abundance and abiotic factors on the long-term home-range and movement dynamics of spotted grunter Pomadasys commersonnii in an intermittently open estuary. African Journal of Marine Science 2016: 1-10 Terörde, AI & Turpie, JK. 2013. Influence of habitat structure and mouth dynamics on avifauna of intermittently-open estuaries: A study of four small South African estuaries. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 125: 10-19 Terörde, AI & Turpie, JK. 2012. Use of a small, intermittently-open estuary by waterbirds: a case study of the East Kleinemonde Estuary, Eastern Cape, South Africa. African Journal of Aquatic Science 37: 183-190 Terörde, AI, Clark, B. Hutchings, K. Orr, K. 2011. Ballast water management technology testing. South African Marine Science Symposium 2011. Turpie, JK. Clark, B.M., Bornman, T, Cowley, PD & Terörde, AI. 2009. Integrated Ecological-Economic Modeling as an Estuarine Management Tool: A Case Study of the East Kleinemonde Estuary. Volume II: Model Construction, Evaluation and User Manual. WRC Report No. 1679/2/08 Terörde, AI & Turpie, JK. 2008. Appendix K. Specialist Report: Birds. In: van Niekerk, L., Bate, G.C. & Whitfield, A.K. (eds). East Kleinemonde Estuary Reserve determination study: Technical report. Department of Water Affairs & Forestry, Pretoria.

------P O Box 31108, Tokai, 7966, South Africa Mobile 076 265 8933 ~ Fax 086 653 1765 ~ e-mail: [email protected] Web: www.hollandandassociates.net

5

Whitfield, AK, Adams, JB, Bate, GC, Bezuidenhout, K, Bornman, TG, Cowley, PD, Froneman, PW, Gama, PT, James, NC, Mackenzie, B, Riddin, T, Snow, GC, Strydom, NA, Taljaard, S, Terörde, AI, Theron, AK, Turpie, JK, van Niekerk, L, Vorwerk, PD & Wooldridge, T.H. 2008. A multidisciplinary study of a small, intermittently open South African estuary, with particular emphasis on the influence of mouth state on the ecology of the system. African Journal of Marine Science 30: 453-474 Terörde, AI & Turpie, JK. 2008. Use of a small, intermittently-open estuary by waterbirds: a case study of the East Kleinemonde estuary, Eastern Cape, South Africa. South African Marine Science Symposium 2008. (Awarded best student oral presentation) Terörde, AI & Turpie, JK. 2007. Birds. In: Whitfield AK, Bate GC (eds). A Review of Information on Temporarily Open/closed Estuaries in the Warm and Cool Temperate Biogeographic Regions of South Africa, with Particular Emphasis on the Influence of River Flow on these Systems. WRC Report No. 1581/1/07.

------P O Box 31108, Tokai, 7966, South Africa Mobile 076 265 8933 ~ Fax 086 653 1765 ~ e-mail: [email protected] Web: www.hollandandassociates.net