Chris van Rooyen Consulting
Environmental Impact Assessment for the Establishment of the Wolseley Wind Farm, Western Cape Province
Add Graphic Add Graphic
Environmental Impact Report
AVIFAUNAL SPECIALIST STUDY
Prepared Add by: ChrisGraphic van Rooyen Add Graphic
Prepared for: Arcus GIBB Pty Ltd
On behalf of: Chris van Rooyen Consulting
Date: October 2012
Chris van Rooyen Consulting
26 October 2012
DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
I, Chris van Rooyen as duly authorised representative of Chris van Rooyen Consulting, hereby confirm my independence (as well as that of Chris van Rooyen Consulting) as a specialist and declare that neither I nor Chris van Rooyen Consulting have any interest, be it business, financial, personal or other, in any proposed activity, application or appeal in respect of which Arcus GIBB was appointed as environmental assessment practitioner in terms of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998), other than fair remuneration for worked performed, specifically in connection with the Environmental Impact Assessment for the proposed Wolseley Wind Farm, Western Cape. I further declare that I am confident in the results of the studies undertaken and conclusions drawn as a result of it – within the limitations as are described in my attached report.
______Full Name: Chris van Rooyen Title / Position: Director Qualification(s): BA LLB Experience (years/ months): 16 years
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The proposed development is for the construction of a wind farm located in the Upper Breede River Valley between the town of Wolseley (approximately 9 km north) and Worcester (approximately 27 km southeast), in the Western Cape province. The R43 road, which connects Wolseley and Worcester, crosses the western portion of the site. A 400 kV Eskom power line runs from west to east across the valley.
The project will include:
Approximately 25-35 wind turbines; Access roads to the site, and to individual turbines, as well as temporary laydown areas; A temporary construction camp.
The principal areas of concern as far as birds are concerned are:
Displacement due to disturbance; Displacement due to habitat loss in the footprint of the wind farm; and Mortality due to collision with the wind turbines.
This is a relatively small wind farm site, with limited intrinsic avian biodiversity value. It does not contain any unique habitats or landscape features, nor does it affect any known, major avian fly-ways. Information gathered to date indicates that the priority species are likely to be predominantly soaring species, mostly raptors (8 out of 9 priority species), although this statement may need to be revised based on subsequent monitoring. Despite the highly transformed state of the habitat, 8 raptor priority species have been recorded to date, indicating that the landscape is not without value for priority species. Implementation of the required mitigation measures should reduce construction and de- commissioning phase impacts to Low-medium, and operational phase impacts to Low. No “no-go” areas have been identified which influences the current turbine lay-out (as at 26 October 2012), but should specific focal points be identified in the course of future monitoring (e.g. priority species nests), this might require the implementation of no-go buffer zones.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PROPOSED WOLSELEY WIND FARM, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
CONTENTS
Chapter Description Page
1 DETAILS OF SPECIALIST AND EXPERTISE 1
2 INTRODUCTION 2
2.1 Background 2
2.2 Legislative and Policy Context 2-2
2.3 Scope and limitations 2-3
2.4 Assessment Methodology 2-3
2.5 Description of any assumptions made, uncertainties or gaps in knowledge 1
3 DESCRIPTION OF AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3
3.1 General Study Area 3
3.2 Wolseley Wind Farm Site 4 3.2.1 Avifauna 4 3.2.2 Relevant bird habitat 5 Cultivation 6 Old lands and pastures 6 Stands of alien trees 6 Dams 6 Slopes 7 3.2.3 Priority species use of bird habitat 7 3.2.4 Associated Infrastructure 7
4 IMPACTS IDENTIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT 9
4.1 Introduction 9
4.2 Identification of Impacts 9 4.2.1 Construction phase 9 (a) Impact 1: Displacement due to disturbance 9 4.2.2 Operational phase 11 (a) Impact 1: Impact 1: Displacement due to disturbance 11 (b) Impact 2: Mortalities due to collisions with the turbines 12
Wolseley Wind Farm Date: October 2012 Avifaunal Specialist Report
(c) Impact 3: Mortality of the priority species on the associate power line network (electrocutions and collisions) 18 (d) Impact 4: Displacement of priority species through habitat transformation 18 4.2.3 Decommissioning phase 18 (a) Impact 1: Displacement due to disturbance 18 4.2.4 Cumulative Impacts 18
4.3 Potential Mitigation Measures 19
4.4 Impact Assessment Methodology 20
4.5 Impact Assessment – Proposed Development 23 4.5.1 Construction phase 23 4.5.2 Operational phase 23 4.5.3 Decommissioning Phase 24
4.6 Impact Assessment - Alternatives 24 4.6.1 No Go Option 24 4.6.2 Alternative site locations 24
5 MONITORING PROGRAMME 25
6 CONCLUSION 26
7 REFERENCES 39
Wolseley Wind Farm Date: October 2012 Avifaunal Specialist Report
TABLES
Table 1: Priority species recorded to date during transect surveys and vantage point counts at the proposed Wolseley Wind Farm
FIGURES
Figure 1: Location of proposed wind farm, with turbine lay-out as at 12 September 2013. Figure 2: The survey transect (purple line), VPs and focal point superimposed on the proposed turbine lay-out as at 26 October 2012. Figure 3: Protected areas (green shaded) and IBAs (green outline) in relation to the proposed wind farm (yellow outline). Figure 4: Bird habitat in the survey area. Figure 5: Breakdown of priority species flights (all flight heights). Time is hours: minutes: seconds. Figure 6: Breakdown of priority species flights (all flight heights) per flight class. Time is hours: minutes: seconds Figure 7: Distribution of medium height flights of priority species over the study area.
APPENDICES
Appendix 1 Bird habitats Appendix 2: Species list for Wolseley Wind Farm Appendix 3 Priority species Appendix 4: Results of transects surveys
ABBREVIATIONS
NEMA National Environmental Management Act (Act 107 of 1998) EIA Environmental Impact Assessment CBD Convention on Biological Diversity EWT Endangered Wildlife Trust BLSA Birdlife South Africa SAWEA South African Wind Energy Association VP Vantage point CAR Avifaunal Road Counts QDGC Quarter Degree Grid Cell IBA Important Bird Area CFR Cape Floristic Region SABAP1 Atlas of Southern African Birds SABAP2 South African Bird Atlas Project 2
Wolseley Wind Farm Date: October 2012 Avifaunal Specialist Report
1 DETAILS OF SPECIALIST AND EXPERTISE
Chris van Rooyen has 16 years’ experience in the management of avifaunal interactions with industrial infrastructure. He was head of the Eskom-Endangered Wildlife Trust Strategic Partnership from 1996 to 2007, which has received international acclaim as a model of co- operative management between industry and natural resource conservation. He is an acknowledged global expert in this field and has worked in South Africa, Namibia, Botswana, Lesotho, New Zealand, Texas, New Mexico and Florida. Chris also has extensive project management experience and has received several management awards for his work in the Eskom-EWT Strategic Partnership. He is the author of 15 academic papers (some with co-authors), co-author of two book chapters and several research reports. To date he has been involved as ornithological consultant in numerous power line construction projects, wind generation projects and risk assessments on existing power lines and power stations. Chris also works outside the electricity industry and has completed a wide range of bird impact assessment studies associated with various residential and industrial developments. Chris left the services of the Endangered Wildlife Trust in November 2007 and has since operated as a free-lance ornithological consultant.
1 Wolseley Wind Farm Date: October 2012 Avifaunal Specialist Report
2 INTRODUCTION
2.1 Background
The proposed development is for the construction of a wind farm located in the Upper Breede River Valley between the town of Wolseley (approximately 9 km north) and Worcester (approximately 27 km southeast) (see Figure 1 below), in the Western Cape province. The R43 road, which connects Wolseley and Worcester, bisects the western portion of the site. A 400 kV Eskom power line runs from west to east across the valley.
The project will include:
Approximately 25-35 wind turbines (hub height approximately 90m and blade length approximately 55m) with permanent red marker lights; 6 m wide access roads to the site and turbines (to be determined once the position of the turbines is established); Temporary laydown areas during construction; and A temporary construction camp.
At present it is anticipated that no new fencing will be required and that there will be no need for the construction of a new substation, as the Romansrivier substation is located on the proposed wind farm site. No new transmission line servitudes are therefore required. The wind farm will be connected to the substation via underground cables. It is anticipated that the wind farm will be decommissioned after 20 years.
Chapter 5 of the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) (Act 107 of 1998) requires that an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is conducted for the proposed development. Arcus GIBB was appointed by the proponent as the independent impact assessment consultants to manage the EIA process. They in turn appointed Chris van Rooyen Consulting to investigate the potential impacts that the proposed facility could have on birds.
2 Wolseley Wind Farm Date: October 2012 Avifaunal Specialist Report
Figure 1: Location of proposed wind farm, with turbine lay-out as at 26 October 2012 1 Wolseley Wind Farm Date: October 2012 Avifaunal Specialist Report
2.2 Legislative and Policy Context
From an international perspective, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is applicable. The overall objective of the CBD is the “…conservation of biological diversity, [and] the sustainable use of its components and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits …”1. The CBD aims to effect international cooperation in the conservation of biological diversity and to promote the sustainable use of living natural resources worldwide. Cooperation in ensuring the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity is attended to in southern Africa, with all relevant role- players. International meetings are held to incorporate traditional knowledge into the implementation of the CBD and related aspects of biodiversity. The Convention also aims to bring about sharing of the benefits arising from the utilisation of natural resources. The White Paper on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of South Africa's Biodiversity (July 1997) implements this at a national level, through the use of applicable resources in the tourism industry; community participation (including industry and business) in biodiversity management; and integration of conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity into all sectors, including industry.
The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals is also applicable2. This Convention, commonly referred to as the Bonn Convention, (after the German city where it was concluded in 1979), came into force in 1983. This Convention’s goal is to provide conservation for migratory terrestrial, marine and avian species throughout their entire range. This is very important, because failure to conserve these species at any particular stage of their life cycle could adversely affect any conservation efforts elsewhere. The fundamental principle of the Bonn Convention, therefore, is that the Parties to the Bonn Convention acknowledge the importance of migratory species being conserved and of Range States agreeing to take action to this end whenever possible and appropriate, paying special attention to those migratory species whose conservation status is unfavourable, and individually, or in co-operation taking appropriate and necessary steps to conserve such species and their habitat. Parties acknowledge the need to take action to avoid any migratory species becoming endangered. South Africa acceded to this convention in 1991.
The most important guidance document from an avifaunal impact perspective that is currently applicable to wind energy development is the “Best practice guidelines for avian monitoring and impact mitigation at proposed wind energy development sites in southern Africa” (Jenkins et al 2011)3. This document was published by the Endangered Wildlife Trust (EWT) and Birdlife South Africa (BLSA) on 31 March 2011. This protocol prescribes a pre-construction period that stretches over a minimum of 12 months and includes all major periods of bird usage in that period, as well as a post-construction component. This document is not legally binding on developers, but has the full support of the South African Wind Energy Association (SAWEA).
2-2 Wolseley Wind Farm Date: October 2012 Avifaunal Specialist Report
2.3 Scope and limitations
The scope of the avifaunal assessment report comprises the assessment of the avifaunal impacts associated with the construction and operation of the proposed plant and the provision of appropriate mitigation measures to reduce such potential impacts.
This report is therefore centred on the following specific terms of reference:
Description of the receiving environment (habitat) from an avifaunal perspective; Identification of priority avifauna that might be impacted by the proposed facility; Identification of potential impacts on priority avifauna; The assessment of the potential impacts; and The provision of the mitigation measures to reduce the impacts.
2.4 Assessment Methodology
The primary source of information on bird occurrence, densities, flight patterns and habitat at the development site is a monitoring programme that commenced in July 2012, and will continue for four seasons. The objective of the pre-construction programme is to gather baseline data on bird usage of the site. Up to the present (October 2012), data have been gathered in the following sampling periods:
Winter: July 2012
The specific objectives of the monitoring programme are to record the following:
The abundance and diversity of birds at the turbine site; and Flight patterns of priority species at the turbine site.
Monitoring at the turbine site is conducted in the following manner:
A transect was identified totalling 8.33 km within the proposed turbine area. This is referred to in the report as the “survey area”, and comprises a 750m buffer on both sides of the transect. Two observers travelling slowly (± 10km/h) in a vehicle records all priority species on both sides of the transect. The observers stop at regular intervals (every 500 m) to scan the environment with binoculars. The transect is counted three times per sampling session (see also 2.5 Assumptions and Limitations). In addition, point counts are conducted every 500 m, where all non-priority species are recorded for a 5 minute period. The following variables are recorded: o Species; o Number of birds; o Date; o Start time and end time; o Distance from transect or point (0-50 m, 50-100 m, >100 m); o Wind direction; o Wind strength (calm; moderate; strong); 2-3 Wolseley Wind Farm Date: October 2012 Avifaunal Specialist Report
o Weather (sunny; cloudy; partly cloudy; rain; mist); o Temperature (cold; mild; warm; hot); o Behaviour (flushed; flying-display; perched; perched-calling; perched-hunting; flying-foraging; flying-commute; foraging on the ground); and o Co-ordinates (priority species only).
Four vantage points (VPs) were selected from which the majority of the proposed turbine area can be observed (the “VP area”), to record the flight altitude and patterns of priority species. A total of 12 hours of observations per vantage point per season is conducted. The following variables are recorded: o Species; o Number of birds; o Date; o Start time and end time; o Wind direction; o Wind strength ( Beaufort scale 1-7 ); o Weather (sunny; cloudy; partly cloudy; rain; mist); o Temperature (cold; mild; warm; hot); o Flight altitude (high i.e >150 m; medium i.e. 35 -150 m; low i.e. <35 m); o Flight mode (soar; flap; glide ; kite; hover); and o Flight duration (in 15 second-intervals).
For transect monitoring and data analysis purposes, priority species were identified using the BLSA list of priority species for wind farms (Retief et al 2012)4. In addition to the transects and VPs, all incidental sightings of priority species are also recorded and plotted on a map of the site. Potential focal points for bird activity (e.g. priority species nests and/or wetlands on the site) are also monitored by visiting and counting the birds once a season. Currently there is one focal point, a large wetland, at the site. See Figure 2 for a map of the study area, indicating the transects, VPs, focal points and the proposed turbine lay-out as at 26 October 2012.
2-4 Wolseley Wind Farm Date: October 2012 Avifaunal Specialist Report
Figure 2: The survey transect (purple line), VPs and focal point superimposed on the proposed turbine lay-out as at 26 October 2012. 1 Wolseley Wind Farm Date: October 2012 Avifaunal Specialist Report
The following information sources were also consulted for this report, as background information:
Bird distribution data of the Southern African Bird Atlas Project 2 (SABAP2)5 was obtained from the Animal Demography Unit of the University of Cape Town, as a means to ascertain which species occur in the broader study area. A data set was obtained for the QDGCs (quarter degree grid cells) within which the development will take place, namely 3319AC and 3319CA. A QDGC corresponds to the area shown on a 1:50 000 map (15' x 15') and is approximately 27 km long (north-south) and 23 km wide (east-west). Additional information on large terrestrial avifauna and habitat use was obtained from the Coordinated Avifaunal Roadcounts (CAR) project of the Animal Demography Unit (ADU) of the University of Cape Town (Young et al 20036; 20087; 2009a8; 2009b9; 2010a10; 2010b11). The conservation status of all bird species occurring in the aforementioned QDGCs was determined with the use of the Eskom Red Data Book of Birds of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland (Barnes 2000) and the most recent and comprehensive summary of southern African bird biology “Roberts VII”(Hockey et al. 2005)12. A classification of the vegetation types in the QDGC from an avifaunal perspective was obtained from Southern African Bird Atlas Project 1 (Harrison et al 199713). Detailed satellite imagery from Google Earth (imagery date 18 January 2012) was used in order to view the study area on a landscape level and to help identify bird habitat on the ground. Information on the micro habitat level was obtained before the monitoring commenced through site visits by the author in March 2012 and June 2012, when the monitoring transects and VP points were defined. An attempt was made to investigate the total study area as far as was practically possible, and to visit potentially sensitive areas identified from the Google Earth imagery. General background information on biodiversity in the Witzenberg and Breede Valley municipalities was obtained from the biodiversity sector plan 2010 for the Witzenberg, Breede Valley and Langeberg Municipalities (Maree & Vromans 201014). Information on Important Bird Areas (IBAs) was obtained from The Important Bird Areas of southern Africa report (Barnes 199815).
2.5 Description of any assumptions made, uncertainties or gaps in knowledge
The basic assumption made in this study is that the sources of information used are reliable. However, it must be noted that there are certain limitations:
It is inevitable that observations at vantage points will be biased towards those species that are more visible (i.e. larger species), and flights that are closer to the observer. It must therefore be accepted that the chances of a bird being missed increases with the distance from the observer. This means that information on flight paths gathered during vantage point watches must be interpreted within that context. The spatial distribution of priority species that were recorded during transect counts and as incidental sightings may be biased towards the transects and roads in the study area. This should therefore not be viewed as being representative of the actual spatial distribution of the birds, but serve merely as 1 Wolseley Wind Farm Date: October 2012 Avifaunal Specialist Report
an indication of where the birds could be found, in what numbers and in what habitat. The analyses of the data in this report should be viewed as descriptive and preliminary. The final pre-construction report will include an in depth statistical analyses of the final (four seasons) dataset. No comprehensive studies, and published, peer-reviewed scientific papers, are available on the impacts wind farms have on birds in South Africa. It is therefore inevitable that, because of the lack of any research on this topic in South Africa, heavy reliance had to be placed on professional judgment. Given the lack of research on the topic in South Africa, the precautionary principle was applied throughout. The World Charter for Nature, which was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1982, was the first international endorsement of the precautionary principle. The principle was implemented in an international treaty as early as the 1987 Montreal Protocol and, among other international treaties and declarations, is reflected in the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. Principle 15 of the 1992 Rio Declaration states that: “in order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall be not used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”
2 Wolseley Wind Farm Date: October 2012 Avifaunal Specialist Report
3 DESCRIPTION OF AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
The description of the study area is divided into a general description and a site specific description. Descriptions are focused on those aspects that are likely to be relevant to birds.
3.1 General Study Area
The proposed wind farm site is located close to the town of Wolseley, in the Upper Breede River Valley, in the Witzenberg Municipality of the Western Cape Province. The Witzenberg Municipality lies within an internationally acclaimed biodiversity hotspot, namely, the Cape Floristic Region (CFR). The CFR extends from Nieuwoudtville southwards to Cape Town and eastwards to Grahamstown. This area contains about 9000 plant species, of which over 6000 are endemic to the region. It also has high animal diversity including both vertebrates and invertebrates and is especially rich in lizard, amphibian and insect species. Furthermore, the CFR is also a priority area for freshwater fish endemic to the region (Maree & Vromans 2010).
The site is located between several protected areas, and the extreme northern section of the Eastern False Bay Mountains Important Bird Area (IBA)(see Figure 3)(Barnes 1998). This IBA is located at the western extremity of the Cape fold belt and encompasses a continuous chain of mountains consisting of several State Forests, Mountain Catchment Areas and Nature Reserves. The IBA runs north from the Kogelberg State Forest for 120km to the Kluitjieskraal State Forest southwest of Tulbagh. The northern section of the IBA, which is located near the proposed development, comprises mostly the Hawequas State Forest and the Kluitjieskraal State Forest. The northern portion of the Hawequas State Forest holds the Limiet and northern Slanghoek mountain ranges. The topography of the whole Hawequas region is rugged and highly variable with the Wit, Elandspad, Molenaars and Smalblaar rivers and their associated tributaries creating steep cliffs, gorges and deeply incised valleys. Farther north, within the Elandskloof and Waterfal ranges west of Wolseley, the Kluitjieskraal State Forest forms the northern portion of the IBA; these ranges are smaller and less rugged than their southern counterparts, and they fade into rolling hills at their northern extremity. These mountains drain numerous streams that supply water for agriculture in the Swartland District. The Romansrivier runs just north and west of the site.
During winter, prevailing northwest and southwest winds bring rains associated with subantarctic cold fronts. Although microclimates significantly affect local rainfall, in general the lower slopes receive approximately 800mm per year while upper slopes and high peaks receive approximately 3 300mm per year. Snow and mist occur each winter. The region suffers from summer drought where heat, evaporation and lack of rain can be extreme. Temperatures are moderate and range between -5°C minimum in winter to 35°C in summer. The annual average minimum and maximum temperatures are 11°C and 24°C. The mesic mountain fynbos which occurs on the mountain slopes of the Cape fold belt is dominated by a multitude of communities, with the primary constituents being Proteaceae, Erticaceae and Restionaceae (Barnes 1998).
3 Wolseley Wind Farm Date: October 2012 Avifaunal Specialist Report
Figure 3: Protected areas (green shaded) and IBAs (green outline) in relation to the proposed wind farm (yellow outline).
3.2 Wolseley Wind Farm Site
3.2.1 Avifauna
It is estimated that at least 194 bird species could potentially occur at the site (see Appendix 2). Of the birds potentially occurring at the site, 29 are classified as priority species for wind farm sites (Retief et al 2012) (see Appendix 3). To date, 72 species have been identified through transect surveys as part of the pre-construction monitoring programme, of which five were priority species (see Appendix 4). Eight priority species were recorded during vantage point counts (see Figure 5). Table 1 below lists the priority species recorded to date:
Table 1: Priority species recorded to date during transect surveys and vantage point counts at the proposed Wolseley Wind Farm
Common name Scientific name African Fish-Eagle Haliaeetus vocifer African Harrier-Hawk Polyboroides typus Black-Shouldered Kite Elanus caeruleus Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus Jackal Buzzard Buteo rufofuscus Black Harrier Circus maurus Martial Eagle Polemaetus bellicosus Blue Crane Anthropoides paradiseus Rufous-chested Sparrowhawk Accipiter rufiventris
4 Wolseley Wind Farm Date: October 2012 Avifaunal Specialist Report
The priority species potentially occurring at the site can be broadly classified in five groupings namely large terrestrial species, soaring species, waterbirds, small birds and nocturnal species (see Appendix 3):
Large terrestrial species: Medium to large birds that spend most of the time foraging on the ground. They do not fly often and then generally short distances at low to medium altitude, usually powered flight. Some species undertake longer distance flights at higher altitudes, when commuting between foraging and roosting areas. At the wind farm site, cranes, bustards, francolins and korhaans are included in this category. Soaring species: Species that spend a significant time on the wing in a variety of flight modes including soaring, kiting, hovering and gliding at medium to high altitudes. At the wind farm site, these are mostly raptors, storks and possibly pelicans. Blue Crane soaring flights are also included in this category. Waterbirds: These are species that are generally associated with aquatic habitats. Flight is generally direct and powered, but in some species (pelicans) are also consummate soarers. At the wind farm site, these could potentially comprise ducks, waders, pelicans, terns and flamingos. Small birds: At the wind farms site these are mainly several species of passerines. These species generally spend most of the time on the ground or calling from perches. Nocturnal species: The site may potentially contain at least two species of owl. Flight is usually direct, powered flight interspersed with short glides.
3.2.2 Relevant bird habitat
Scrub
It is widely accepted that vegetation structure is more critical in determining bird habitat, than the actual plant species composition (Harrison et al 1997). The description of vegetation presented in this report therefore concentrates on factors relevant to the bird species present, and is not an exhaustive list of plant species present. The description of the vegetation types occurring in the study area follows that of the Atlas of Southern African Birds 1 (SABAP1) (Harrison et al 1997). The criteria used by the SABAP1 authors to amalgamate botanically defined vegetation units, or to keep them separate were (1) the existence of clear differences in vegetation structure, likely to be relevant to birds, and (2) the results of published community studies on bird/vegetation associations. The natural vegetation in the QDGCs where the proposed wind facility is located is classified as fynbos vegetation (Harrison et al 1997) and consists of low scrub.
Fynbos is dominated by low shrubs and can be divided into two categories, fynbos proper and renosterveld. Despite having a high diversity of plant species, fynbos and renosterveld has a relatively low diversity of bird species. The remaining natural fynbos on the survey area is largely restricted to the eastern part directly adjoining the slopes on the foothills of the Waaihoek Mountains. Priority species that could potentially occur in natural vegetation on the site are Black Harrier Circus maurus, Denham’s Bustard Neotis denhami, Secretarybird Sagittarius serpentarius Martial Eagle Polemaetus bellicosus, African Marsh-Harrier Circus ranivorus, Black- shouldered Kite Elanus caeruleus, Booted Eagle Aquila pennatus, Forest Buzzard Buteo trizonatus, Grey-winged Francolin Scleroptila africanus, Jackal Buzzard Buteo rufofuscus, Lanner Falcon Falco biarmicus, Southern Black Korhaan Afrotis afra, Spotted Eagle-Owl Bubo africanus, Steppe buzzard Buteo vulpinus and Victorin’s
5 Wolseley Wind Farm Date: October 2012 Avifaunal Specialist Report
Warbler Cryptillas victorini. The mountain peaks and associated cliffs adjoining the site could be used by Verreaux’s Eagle Aquila verreauxii, Cape Eagle Owl Bubo capensis, Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus and Cape Rock-jumper Chaetops frenatus. The high altitude mountain associated species are unlikely to occur regularly at the site, but could from time to time stray into the site.
Cultivation
A large part of the site is under cultivation, consisting mainly of vineyards, orchards and a few cereal crops. The cultivated lands constitute a radical transformation of the natural vegetation and attract large quantities of certain non-priority species, but the priority species are less likely to be attracted to this habitat.
Old lands and pastures
A significant part of the site consists of old lands and a few pastures. The old lands resemble grassland, with varying levels of shrub infestation. Structurally, the pastures resemble very short grassland. Priority species that could utilise this habitat on occasion are Black Harrier, Black-shouldered Kite, Denham’s Bustard, Jackal Buzzard, Lanner Falcon, Secretarybird, Spotted Eagle-Owl, Steppe Buzzard, Black Sparrowhawk Accipiter melanoleucus, Blue Crane Anthropoides paradiseus, Lesser Kestrel Falco naumanni, Rufous-chested Sparrowhawk Accipiter rufiventris and White Stork Ciconia ciconia.
Stands of alien trees
The site contains several stands of alien trees, mainly Eucalyptus and stands of pine, which act as wind breaks. The alien trees converge to form dense stands along some drainage lines and along some of the slopes on the eastern side of the survey area. Species that could use this habitat are Black-shouldered Kite, Jackal Buzzard, Spotted Eagle-Owl, Steppe Buzzard, Black Sparrowhawk, Lesser Kestrel, Rufous- chested Sparrowhawk, Forest Buzzard, African Fish-Eagle Haliaeetus vocifer and African Harrier-Hawk Polyboroides typus.
Dams
There are several man-made dams on the site. These dams differ in their suitability to avifauna, but most have shallow sloping sides and therefore seem potentially suitable to a variety of species that forage in shallow water. Priority species that could be attracted to these waterbodies are African Fish-Eagle, White Stork, Caspian Tern Sterna caspia, Great White Pelican Pelecanus onocrotalus and Greater Flamingo Phoenicopterus ruber.
Farm yards
The survey area contains several farm buildings and associated gardens and lawns, some with large trees. Few priority species are likely to be attracted specifically to farm yards, but Black Sparrowhawk and Rufous-chested Sparrowhawk may occasionally hunt small birds converging on farm yards. Spotted Eagle-Owl may also be attracted to farm yards and farm buildings.
6 Wolseley Wind Farm Date: October 2012 Avifaunal Specialist Report
Slopes
The survey area contains a few fynbos covered slopes in the eastern section. Outside the survey area these become progressively steeper and eventually give way to the steep cliffs, gorges and deeply incised valleys of the Waaihoek Mountains outside the boundaries of the site. Soaring species may use particular topographic features for lift e.g. example, absence of thermals on cold, overcast days may force larger, soaring species (e.g. Martial Eagle, Secretarybird and White Stork) to use slopes for lift. Gentle slopes may also pose a bigger risk than steep slopes for large soaring species, as updrafts from gentle slopes are weaker than those from steeper slopes.
Figure 5 shows the habitat composition in the survey area. Appendix 1 contains photographic records of the avifaunal habitat at the site.
3.2.3 Priority species use of bird habitat
Of the 29 priority species that may occur at the proposed site, 6 may be attracted to dams. The combined species priority score (Retief et al 2012) of these six species constitute 19% of the combined species priority score for all the potential priority species. None of the priority species are likely to be specifically attracted to cultivated areas at the site. Three species might be attracted to farm yards; the combined species priority score for these species constitute 7% of the combined score of all the potential priority species. A total of 10 species may be attracted to stands of alien trees. The combined species priority score of these ten species constitute 30% of the combined species priority score for all the priority species. Thirteen priority species could be attracted to old lands and pastures. The combined species priority score of these thirteen species constitute 41% of the combined species priority score for all the priority species. Lastly, 19 priority species are likely to found in scrub. The combined species priority score of these thirteen species constitute 69% of the combined species priority score for all the priority species. Based on the preceding analysis, it follows that the bird habitat at the site can be classified as follows from most sensitive to least sensitive:
scrub (including slopes) → old lands and pastures → stands of alien trees → dams → farm yards → cultivation.
All five priority species recorded at the site thus far during pre-construction transect surveys are raptors. The five species are African Fish-Eagle, African Harrier-Hawk, Black-shouldered Kite, Jackal Buzzard and Peregrine Falcon. Of these, two species, namely Peregrine Falcon and African Fish-Eagle, was actually perched within the survey area, in scrub and alien trees. The other species were commuting over the site.
3.2.4 Associated Infrastructure
The description of the study area for the wind farm site is also applicable to the associated infrastructure (access roads, temporary construction camp, turbine foundations and lay-down areas). At this stage, no overhead lines are planned for the site; the connection between the wind farm and the grid will happen via underground cabling to the Romansrivier substation, which is situated on the site.
7 Wolseley Wind Farm Date: October 2012 Avifaunal Specialist Report
Scrub Agriculture Slopes Farm yards
Old lands
Alien trees
Dams
Figure 4: Bird habitat in the survey area. 8 Wolseley Wind Farm Date: October 2012 Avifaunal Specialist Report
4 IMPACTS IDENTIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT
4.1 Introduction
The effects of a wind farm on birds are highly variable and depend on a wide range of factors including the specification of the development, the topography of the surrounding land, the habitats affected and the number and species of birds present. With so many variables involved, the impacts of each wind farm must be assessed individually. Each of these potential effects can interact, either increasing the overall impact on birds or, in some cases, reducing a particular impact (for example where habitat loss causes a reduction in birds using an area which might then reduce the risk of collision). In general, the principal areas of concern are:
Mortality due to collision with the wind turbines; Displacement due to disturbance; Displacement due to habitat loss in the footprint of the wind farm; and Mortalities due to collision with associated power line infrastructure.
See Appendix 3 for a list of priority species and the manner in which they could potentially be impacted.
4.2 Identification of Impacts
It is important to note that the identification and assessment of the impacts is based on the environment as it was currently recorded at the site. Unforeseen long term changes to variables that may affect the avifauna (e.g. land-use and climate) cannot be considered at this stage. This should be covered by long term post-construction monitoring programmes.
4.2.1 Construction phase
(a) Impact 1: Displacement due to disturbance
The displacement of birds from areas within and surrounding wind farms due to visual intrusion and disturbance effectively can amount to habitat loss. Displacement may occur during both the construction and operational phases of wind farms, and may be caused by the presence of the turbines themselves through visual, noise and vibration impacts, or as a result of vehicle and personnel movements related to site construction and maintenance. The scale and degree of disturbance will vary according to site- and species-specific factors and must be assessed on a site-by-site basis (Drewitt & Langston 200616).
Unfortunately, few studies of displacement due to disturbance are conclusive, often because of the lack of before-and-after and control-impact (BACI) assessments. Onshore, disturbance distances (in other words the distance from wind farms up to which birds are absent or less abundant than expected) up to 800 m (including zero) have been recorded for wintering waterfowl (Pedersen & Poulsen 199117 as cited by Drewitt & Langston 2006), though 600 m is widely accepted as the maximum reliably recorded distance (Drewitt & Langston 2006). The variability of displacement distances is illustrated by one study which found lower post-construction densities of
9 Date: October 2012 Wolseley Wind Farm Avifaunal Specialist Report
feeding European White-fronted Geese Anser albifrons within 600 m of the turbines at a wind farm in Rheiderland, Germany (Kruckenberg & Jaene 199918 as cited by Drewitt & Langston 2006), while another showed displacement of Pink-footed Geese Anser brachyrhynchus up to only 100–200 m from turbines at a wind farm in Denmark (Larsen & Madsen 200019 as cited by Drewitt & Langston 2006). Very little published literature is available on the impact of wind farms on bustards, but the little that is available seems to indicate that displacement between 600 - 1000m may occur in the case of the Great Bustard Otis tarda, a species of comparable size and behaviour to the Denham’s Bustard (Langgemach 200820; Wurm & Kollar as quoted by Raab et al 200921).
Studies of breeding birds are also largely inconclusive or suggest lower disturbance distances, though this apparent lack of effect may be due to the high site fidelity and long life-span of the breeding species studied. This might mean that the true impacts of disturbance on breeding birds will only be evident in the longer term, when new recruits replace existing breeding birds. Few studies have considered the possibility of displacement for short-lived passerines (such as larks), although Leddy et al (199922) found increased densities of breeding grassland passerines with increased distance from wind turbines, and higher densities in the reference area than within 80 m of the turbines, indicating that displacement did occur at least in this case. The consequences of displacement for breeding productivity and survival are crucial to whether or not there is likely to be a significant impact on population size. A recent comparative study of nine wind farms in Scotland (Pearce-Higgens et al 200923) found unequivocal evidence of displacement: Seven of the 12 species studied exhibited significantly lower frequencies of occurrence close to the turbines, after accounting for habitat variation, with equivocal evidence of turbine avoidance in a further two. No species were more likely to occur close to the turbines. Levels of turbine avoidance suggest breeding bird densities may be reduced within a 500-m buffer of the turbines by 15–53%, with Common Buzzard Buteo buteo, Hen Harrier Circus cyaneus, Golden Plover Pluvialis apricaria, Snipe Gallinago gallinago, Curlew Numenius arquata and Wheatear Oenanthe oenanthe most affected. At least eight studies of Hen Harrier displacement effects have been conducted, using several study designs, in USA and continental Europe. Only one study documented good evidence of displacement and it was reasonable to conclude that although further studies are highly desirable, if displacement of foraging occurs then it will likely be limited to within 100 m of wind turbines if it occurs at all. In keeping with most other studies of raptor displacement, therefore, it appears that foraging Hen Harriers have a low sensitivity to disturbance at operational wind farms. Displacement impacts on nest site selection are more poorly studied, and preliminary results from Scotland and Northern Ireland indicate that birds will nest 200 – 300 m from turbines (Whitfield & Madders 200624).
Studies show that the scale of disturbance caused by wind farms varies greatly. This variation is likely to depend on a wide range of factors including seasonal and diurnal patterns of use by birds, location with respect to important habitats, availability of alternative habitats and perhaps also turbine and wind farm specifications. Behavioural responses vary not only between different species, but between individuals of the same species, depending on such factors as stage of life cycle (wintering, moulting, breeding), flock size and degree of habituation. The possibility that wintering birds in particular might habituate to the presence of turbines has been raised (Langston & Pullin 200325), though it is acknowledged that there is little evidence and few studies of long enough duration to show this, and at least one study has found that habituation may not happen (Altamont Pass Avian Monitoring Team 200826). A systematic review of the effects of wind turbines on bird abundance has shown that increasing time since operations commenced resulted in greater declines in bird abundance (Stewart et al. 200427 as cited by Drewitt & Langston 2006). This
10 Date: October 2012 Wolseley Wind Farm Avifaunal Specialist Report
evidence that impacts are likely to persist or worsen with time suggests that habituation is unlikely, at least in some cases (Drewitt & Langston 2006, Altamont Pass Avian Monitoring Team 2008).
The effect of birds altering their migration flyways or local flight paths to avoid a wind farm is also a form of displacement. This effect is of concern because of the possibility of increased energy expenditure when birds have to fly further, as a result of avoiding a large array of turbines, and the potential disruption of linkages between distant feeding, roosting, moulting and breeding areas otherwise unaffected by the wind farm. The effect depends on species, type of bird movement, flight height, distance to turbines, the layout and operational status of turbines, time of day and wind force and direction, and can be highly variable, ranging from a slight 'check' in flight direction, height or speed, through to significant diversions which may reduce the numbers of birds using areas beyond the wind farm (Drewitt & Langston 2006).
A review of the literature suggests that none of the barrier effects identified so far have significant impacts on populations (Drewitt & Langston 2006). However, there are circumstances where the barrier effect might lead indirectly to population level impacts; for example where a wind farm effectively blocks a regularly used flight line between nesting and foraging areas, or where several wind farms interact cumulatively to create an extensive barrier which could lead to diversions of many tens of kilometres, thereby incurring increased energy costs.
In a recent study, monitoring data from wind farms located on unenclosed upland habitats in the United Kingdom were collated to test whether breeding densities of upland birds were reduced as a result of wind farm construction or during wind farm operation. Red Grouse Lagopus lagopus scoticus, Snipe Gallinago gallinago and Curlew Numenius arquata densities all declined on wind farms during construction. Red Grouse densities recovered after construction, but Snipe and Curlew densities did not. Post-construction Curlew densities on wind farms were also significantly lower than reference sites. Conversely, densities of Skylark Alauda arvensis and Stonechat Saxicola torquata increased on wind farms during construction. There was little evidence for consistent post-construction population declines in any species, suggesting that wind farm construction can have greater impacts upon birds than wind farm operation (Pierce-Higgens et al 201228).
All the priority species that have been recorded to date at the proposed wind farm site are raptors. As far as raptors are concerned, the chances of displacement during the construction phase are likely to be higher than during the operational phase, due to the increased activity at the site. However, this impact is likely to be temporary. Generally speaking, raptors are fairly tolerant of wind farms, and continue to use the area for foraging (Madders & Whitfield 200629). Of the 29 priority species potentially occurring at the site, only two are highly susceptible to displacement, namely Denham’s Bustard Neotis denhamii and Secretarybird Sagittarius serpentarius. Both species have a low likelihood of occurring at the site. Based on the data gathered so far (transect and focal point surveys), no relocation of planned turbines are required at this stage. It must be noted that on-going monitoring may change this finding as new information comes to light.
4.2.2 Operational phase
(a) Impact 1: Displacement due to disturbance
See the discussion above under Construction Phase.
11 Date: October 2012 Wolseley Wind Farm Avifaunal Specialist Report
(b) Impact 2: Mortalities due to collisions with the turbines
Internationally, it is widely accepted that bird mortalities from collisions with wind turbines contribute a relatively small proportion of the total mortality from all causes. The US National Wind Coordinating Committee (NWCC) conducted a comparison of wind farm bird mortality with that caused by other man-made structures in the USA (Anon. (b) 200030). The NWCC did not conduct its own study, but analysed all of the research done to date on various causes of avian mortality, including commercial wind farm turbines. It reports that "data collected outside California indicate an average of 1.83 avian fatalities per turbine (for all species combined), and 0.006 raptor fatalities per turbine per year. Based on current projections of 3,500 operational wind turbines in the US by the end of 2001, excluding California, the total annual mortality was estimated at approximately 6,400 bird fatalities per year for all species combined". The NWCC report states that its intent is to "put avian mortality associated with windpower development into perspective with other significant sources of avian collision mortality across the United States". It further reports that: "Based on current estimates, windplant related avian collision fatalities probably represent from 0.01% to 0.02% (i.e. 1 out of every 5,000 to 10,000) of the annual avian collision fatalities in the United States". That is, commercial wind turbines cause the direct deaths of only 0.01% to 0.02% of all of the birds killed by collisions with man-made structures and activities in the USA.
Also in the USA, a Western EcoSystems Technology Inc. study found a range of between 100 million to 1 billion bird fatalities due to collisions with artificial structures such as vehicles, buildings and windows, power lines and communication towers, in comparison to 33,000 fatalities attributed to wind turbines. The study (see Anon. (a) 200331) reports that “windplant-related avian collision fatalities probably represent from 0.01% to 0.02% (i.e. one out of every 5,000 to 10,000 avian fatalities) of the annual avian collision fatalities in the United States, while some may perceive this level of mortality as small, all efforts to reduce avian mortality are important”. A Finnish study reported 10 bird fatalities from turbines, and 820,000 birds killed annually from colliding with other structures such as buildings, electricity pylons and lines, telephone and television masts, lighthouses and floodlights (Anon. (a) 2003). Many of the studies of buildings, communication towers, and powerlines were conducted in response to known or perceived problems with avian collisions, and therefore may not be representative of all structures in the United States. As a consequence, using averages of these estimates to project total avian fatalities in the U.S. would be biased high. The estimates provided for the sources of avian mortality listed above, except wind generation facilities, are based on subjective models and are very speculative.
The majority of studies on collisions caused by wind turbines have recorded relatively low mortality levels (Madders & Whitfield 2006). This is perhaps largely a reflection of the fact that many of the studied wind farms are located away from large concentrations of birds. It is also important to note that many records are based only on finding corpses, with no correction for corpses that are overlooked or removed by scavengers (Drewitt & Langston, 2006). Relatively high collision mortality rates have been recorded at several large, poorly-sited wind farms in areas where large concentrations of birds are present (including Important Bird Areas (IBAs)), especially among migrating birds, large raptors or other large soaring species, e.g. in the Altamont Pass in California, USA (Thelander & Smallwood 200732), and in Tarifa and Navarra in Spain (Barrios & Rodrigues 200433). In these cases actual deaths resulting from collision are high, notably of Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos and Eurasian Griffon Gyps fulvus, respectively.
12 Date: October 2012 Wolseley Wind Farm Avifaunal Specialist Report
In a study in Spain, it was found that the distribution of collisions with wind turbines was clearly associated with the frequencies at which soaring birds flew close to rotating blades (Barrios & Rodriguez 2004). Patterns of risky flights and mortality included a temporal component (deaths concentrated in some seasons), a spatial component (deaths aggregated in space), a taxonomic component (a few species suffered most losses), and a migration component (resident populations were more vulnerable). Clearly, the risk is likely to be greater on or near areas regularly used by large numbers of feeding or roosting birds, or on migratory flyways or local flight paths, especially where these are intercepted by the turbines. Risk also changes with weather conditions, with evidence from some studies showing that more birds collide with structures when visibility is poor due to fog or rain, although this effect may to some extent be offset by lower levels of flight activity in such conditions (Madders & Whitfield 2005). Strong headwinds also affect collision rates and migrating birds in particular tend to fly lower when flying into the wind (Drewitt & Langston 2006). The same applies for Blue Cranes flying between roosting and foraging areas (pers. obs.).
Accepting that many wind farms may only cause low levels of mortality, even these levels of additional mortality may be significant for long-lived species with low productivity and slow maturation rates, especially when rarer species of conservation concern are affected (e.g. Denham’s Bustard, Blue Crane and Black Harrier). In such cases there could be significant effects at the population level (locally, regionally or, in the case of rare and restricted species, nationally), particularly in situations where cumulative mortality takes place as a result of multiple installations (Carette et. al. 200934).
Large birds with poor manoeuvrability (such as cranes, korhaans, bustards and Secretarybirds) are generally at greater risk of collision with structures (Jenkins et al 201035), and species that habitually fly at dawn and dusk or at night are perhaps less likely to detect and avoid turbines (e.g. cranes arriving at a roost site after sunset, or flamingos flying at night). Collision risk may also vary for a particular species, depending on age, behaviour and stage of annual cycle (Drewitt & Langston 2006). While the flight characteristics of cranes, flamingos and bustards make them obvious candidates for collisions with power lines (Jenkins et al 2010), it is noted that these classes of birds (unlike raptors) do not feature prominently in literature as wind turbine collision victims. It may be that they avoid wind farms entirely, resulting in lower collision risks. A Spanish database of over 7000 recorded turbine collisions contains no Great Bustards Otis tarda (A. Camiña pers. comm36). The same seems to be the case in Austria (Raab et al 2009). However, this can only be verified through on-site post-construction monitoring.
The precise location of a wind farm site can be critical. Soaring species may use particular topographic features for lift (Barrios & Rodriguez 2004; De Lucas et al 200837) or such features can result in large numbers of birds being funnelled through an area of turbines (Drewitt & Langston 2006). For example, absence of thermals on cold, overcast days may force larger, soaring species (e.g. Martial Eagle and Secretarybird) to use slopes for lift, which may increase their exposure to turbines. Gentle slopes may also pose a bigger risk than steep slopes for large soaring species, as updrafts from gentle slopes are weaker than those from steeper slopes, so turbines situated on the tops of gentle slopes should pose a bigger risk to these birds than those situated atop steep slopes (De Lucas et al 2008). Birds also lower their flight height in some locations, for example when following the coastline or crossing a ridge (Smallwood pers.comm38), which might place them at greater risk of collision with rotors.
13 Date: October 2012 Wolseley Wind Farm Avifaunal Specialist Report
The size and alignment of turbines and rotor speed are likely to influence collision risk; however, physical structure is probably only significant in combination with other factors, especially wind speed, with moderate winds resulting in the highest risk (Barrios & Rodriguez 2004; Stewart et. al. 200739) as there is less lift for birds to clear the turbines. Lattice towers are generally regarded as more dangerous than tubular towers because many raptors use them for perching and occasionally for nesting; however Barrios & Rodriguez (2004) found tower structure to have no effect on mortality, and that mortality may be directly related to abundance for certain species (e.g. Common Kestrel Falco tinnunculus). De Lucas et. al. (2008) found that turbine height and higher elevations may heighten the risk (taller/higher = higher risk), but that abundance was not directly related to collision risk, at least for Eurasian Griffon Vulture Gyps fulvus.
A review of the available literature indicates that, where collisions have been recorded, the rates per turbine are highly variable with averages ranging from 0.01 to 23 bird collisions annually (the highest figure is the value, following correction for scavenger removal, for a coastal site in Belgium and relates to gulls, terns and ducks among other species) (Drewitt & Langston 2006). Although providing a helpful and standardised indication of collision rates, average rates per turbine must be viewed with some caution as they are often cited without variance and can mask significantly higher (or lower) rates for individual turbines or groups of turbines (Everaert et. al. 200140 as cited by Drewitt & Langston 2006).
Some of the highest mortality levels have been for raptors in the Altamont Pass in California (Howell & DiDonato 199141, Orloff & Flannery 199242 as cited by Drewitt & Langston 2006) and at Tarifa and Navarre in Spain (Barrios & Rodriguez unpublished data as cited by Drewitt & Langston 2006). These cases are of particular concern because they affect relatively rare and long-lived species such as Griffon Vulture Gyps fulvus and Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos that have low reproductive rates and are vulnerable to additive mortality. Golden Eagles congregate in Altamont Pass to feed on super-abundant prey which supports very high densities of breeding birds. In the Spanish cases, extensive wind farms were built in topographical bottlenecks where large numbers of migrating and local birds fly through a relatively confined area due to the nature of the surrounding landscape, for example through mountain passes, or use rising winds to gain lift over ridges (Barrios & Rodriguez 2004). Although the average numbers of annual fatalities per turbine (ranging from 0.02 to 0.15 collisions/turbine) were generally low in the Altamont Pass and at Tarifa, overall collision rates were high because of the large numbers of turbines involved (over 7 000 in the case of Altamont). At Navarre, corrected annual estimates ranging from 3.6 to 64.3 mortalities/turbine were obtained for birds and bats (unpublished data). Thus, a minimum of 75 Golden Eagles are killed annually in Altamont and over 400 Griffon Vultures are estimated (following the application of correction factors) to have collided with turbines at Navarre. Work on Golden Eagles in the Altamont Pass indicated that the population was declining in this area thought to be due, at least in part, to collision mortality (Hunt et. al. 199943, Hunt 200144 as cited by Drewitt & Langston 2006).
The effects of night-time illumination in increasing the risk of collisions with the turbines has not been adequately tested, and the results of studies are contradictory (Johnson et al 200745). Studies involving lighted objects or towers indicate that lights may attract birds, rather than disorient or repel them, resulting in collision mortality (Cochran & Graber 195846; Herbert 197047; Weir 197648; Crockford 199249; APLIC 199450; Johnson et al 2007). This is mostly a problem for nocturnal migrants (primarily passerines) during poor visibility conditions. Different colour lights vary in their attractiveness to birds and their effect on orientation. Several studies have shown that intermittent lights have less of an effect on birds than constant lights, with reduced
14 Date: October 2012 Wolseley Wind Farm Avifaunal Specialist Report
rates of mortality (Weir 1976; Jaroslow 197951; EPRI 198552; APLIC 1994). In addition, some studies suggest that replacing white lights with red lights may reduce mortality by up to 80%. This may be due to the change in light intensity rather than the change in wavelength (Weir 1976). However, Ugoretz (200153) suggest that birds are more sensitive to red lights and may be attracted to them. Quickly flashing white strobe lights appear to be less attractive. The issue is however far from settled - a study at Buffalo Ridge, Minnesota, where most of the collision fatalities were classified as nocturnal migrants, found little difference between lighted and unlighted turbines (Johnson et al 200054).The consensus among researchers is to avoid lighting the turbines if possible, but that is against civil aviation regulations (Civil Aviation Regulations 199755). Lighting may also indirectly contribute to avian collision risks in that it may attract insects which in turn attract nocturnal bird activity.
A total of 48 hours of vantage point (VP) watches (12 hours per vantage point per season) has been completed to date at the proposed Wolseley Wind Farm site in order to record flight patterns and altitudes of priority species (see Figure 2 for the location of the VPs). In the sampling period (winter), priority species were recorded flying over the VP area for a total of 37 minutes and 30 seconds. A total of 103 individual birds were recorded. Of these, 32 birds flew at low altitude (below rotor height), 34 flew at medium altitude (i.e. approximately within rotor height) and 38 flew at high altitude (above rotor height). The passage rate for recorded flights of priority species over the VP area (all heights) was 2.14 birds/hour. For medium altitude flights only, the passage rate was 0.7 birds/hour.
Figures 5 – 6 below provide a breakdown of priority species flight behaviour recorded to date.
Figure 5: Breakdown of priority species flights (all flight heights). Time is hours: minutes: seconds.
15 Date: October 2012 Wolseley Wind Farm Avifaunal Specialist Report
Figure 6: Breakdown of priority species flights (all flight heights) per flight class. Time is hours: minutes: seconds
The data collected for priority species for the VP counts in the one sampling period to date provide some preliminary pointers for the following:
Soaring species spent more time flying at medium height over the turbine area than the other class of species. This is to be expected as the other classes of species generally spend less time in the air; Based purely on the amount of time spent at medium height over the turbine area recorded to date, Jackal Buzzard and African Fish-Eagle are most at risk of collision with the turbines.
The conclusions above must be viewed as preliminary, as another three sampling periods are yet to be completed. The final dataset will be subjected to rigorous statistical analysis to test the representativeness of the data i.e. can it be regarded as a true reflection of the likely flight behaviour. In addition, the potential association between priority species flight behaviour and a range of environmental factors will be tested statistically.
In order to form a picture of the spatial distribution of priority species flights over the turbine area, a distribution map of medium height flights recorded to date was prepared. This was done by overlaying a 100 m x 100 m grid over the survey area. Each grid square was then given a weighting score taking into account the duration of individual flight lines and the number of individual birds crossing the square (see Figure 7 for the map of medium altitude flights of priority species recorded during the sampling period).
16 Date: October 2012 Wolseley Wind Farm Avifaunal Specialist Report
Figure 7: Distribution of medium height flights of priority species over the study area.
Flight patterns of priority species at medium height recorded to date indicate areas where flight activity was more concentrated during the monitoring periods. Based on data gathered to date, regular, predictable flight routes are not a characteristic of the site (at least not in the periods when monitoring happened). Based on the flight information gathered to date, no specific need for turbines to be relocated have
17 Date: October 2012 Wolseley Wind Farm Avifaunal Specialist Report
emerged. It must be noted clearly though that it is too early to make any final recommendations with regard to lay-out of turbines; this can only be done once the sampling has been completed over four seasons.
(c) Impact 3: Mortality of the priority species on the associate power line network (electrocutions and collisions)
All the electricity connections will be underground, with no overhead power lines required. This impact is therefore not expected to happen.
(d) Impact 4: Displacement of priority species through habitat transformation
The scale of direct habitat loss resulting from the construction of a wind farm and associated infrastructure depends on the size of the project but, generally speaking, is likely to be small per turbine base. Typically, actual habitat loss amounts to 2–5% of the total development area (Fox et al. 200656 as cited by Drewitt & Langston 2006), though effects could be more widespread where developments interfere with hydrological patterns or flows on wetland or peatland sites (unpublished data). Some changes could also be beneficial. For example, habitat changes following the development of the Altamont Pass wind farm in California led to increased mammal prey availability for some species of raptor (for example through greater availability of burrows for Pocket Gophers Thomomys bottae around turbine bases), though this may also have increased collision risk (Thelander et al. 200357 as cited by Drewitt & Langston 2006).
The impact of habitat transformation on avifauna at the Wolseley Wind Farm is not regarded to be minimal relative to other impacts, due to the small footprint and the extensive habitat transformation that has already taken place at the site.
4.2.3 Decommissioning phase
Decommissioning is expected after 20 years. The assumption is made that this entails the dismantling of the wind farm and the restoration of the status quo. It is difficult to make projections 20 years into the future, as avifaunal distribution patterns and densities are dynamic, and linked to a variety of environmental variables, which may change in the next two decades (e.g. land-use and climate). Predicting impacts is therefore based on the assumption that the environment will remain broadly similar to what it is currently, which may of course be incorrect.
(a) Impact 1: Displacement due to disturbance
The impacts associated with the dismantling of the wind farm are likely to be broadly similar to the construction phase, namely the potential displacement of priority species due to the construction activities (see the discussion under 4.2.1 above). This should be a temporary impact, and depending on the species involved, re- colonisation of the site in the short to medium term is a likely scenario.
4.2.4 Cumulative Impacts
The assessment of cumulative effects on birds is a complex and specialised process, and a high degree of uncertainty can be introduced at a number of stages (SNH 200558). Broadly, there are five stages:
Define the species to be considered Consider the limits or ’search area’ of the study
18 Date: October 2012 Wolseley Wind Farm Avifaunal Specialist Report
Decide the methods to be employed Review the findings of existing studies Draw conclusions on cumulative effects within the study area
Target species will usually be:
species considered of high conservation importance; and/or species considered to be vulnerable to wind farms by virtue of their behaviour or ecology
A cumulative assessment can apply at a number of levels, for example:
an individual pair, or birds occupying a single breeding site; a regional or local population a national population
Assessing cumulative effects on a national population would require widespread consideration of wind farm developments nationally, and this would normally be too onerous a task to expect of the developer in one proposal which on its own is unlikely to have more than a marginal effect. Therefore, assessment of impacts on national populations is best undertaken by appropriate agencies in the context of strategic planning, and should not be required in the context of assessing a single proposal. Assessing cumulative effects on birds involves the same methods as those to assess effects on an individual proposal. Where available, use should be made of any post-construction monitoring studies on any existing development, which can reduce the uncertainty in any conclusions. Cumulative assessments require more information than individual assessments, and may require relevant authorities and developers to share data and monitoring studies which otherwise might be considered as commercial-in-confidence. Given the competitive climate in the renewable energy sector in South Africa, getting developers to share data remains a huge challenge.
It is impossible to say at this stage what the cumulative impact of all the proposed wind developments will be on birds, firstly because there is no baseline as yet to measure it against, secondly because the extent of actual impacts will only become known once a few wind farms are developed, and thirdly because the number of wind farms to be developed remains uncertain. It is therefore imperative that pre- construction and post-construction monitoring are implemented at all the new proposed sites, in accordance with the latest Best practice guidelines for avian monitoring and impact mitigation at proposed wind energy development sites in southern Africa (Jenkins et al 2011). This will provide the data necessary to improve the assessment of the cumulative impact of wind development on priority species (provided developers are prepared to share data).
4.3 Potential Mitigation Measures
The following management actions are proposed to minimise the impact of displacement on priority species (see also section 4.5 below):
The baseline monitoring of priority species abundance should continue as planned in order to gather additional data for the remainder of the seasons. This will assist in the formulation of the final recommendations. The additional data will
19 Date: October 2012 Wolseley Wind Farm Avifaunal Specialist Report
also contribute towards the further refinement of the sensitivity map and the micro-siting of the turbines; e.g. if priority species focal points are discovered through further monitoring this may require the implementation of buffer zones. Post-construction monitoring should be implemented to assess the impact of displacement, particularly on priority species. Initially, a 12 month period of post- construction monitoring should be implemented, using the same protocol as is currently implemented. Thereafter, the frequency for further monitoring will be informed by the results of the initial 12-month period. Once the wind farm is operational, very little practical mitigation is possible other than to restrict access to the remainder of the property. Maintenance personnel and vehicles must be strictly supervised in order to ensure that no unnecessary trespassing takes place in areas which are not associated with the maintenance activities.
The following management actions are recommended to reduce the risk of collisions to priority species:
The baseline monitoring of flight activity should continue as planned in order to gather additional data for the remainder of the seasons. Once the monitoring has been completed, the dataset must be analysed in order to establish the statistical significance of potential trends that have been identified so far (e.g. the influence of wind direction and wind strength). This will assist in the formulation of the final recommendations. The additional data will also contribute towards the further refinement of the sensitivity map and the micro-siting of the turbines; Once the turbines have been constructed, post-construction monitoring as per the latest version of the Best practice guidelines for avian monitoring and impact mitigation at proposed wind energy development sites in southern Africa (Jenkins et al 2011) should be implemented to assess actual collision rates. If actual collision rates indicate high mortality levels, the following mitigation measures should be considered:
o halting operation of specific turbines during peak flight periods (e.g. when collisions are linked to specific environmental conditions), or reducing rotor speed, to reduce the risk of collision mortality
4.4 Impact Assessment Methodology
Impacts are described and then evaluated in terms of the criteria given below.
Criteria Rating Scales Notes Positive This is an evaluation of the type of effect the construction, operation and management of the proposed development Nature Negative would have on the affected environment. Would it be positive, Neutral negative or neutral?
Low Site-specific, affects only the development footprint Extent Local (limited to the site and its immediate surroundings, This refers to the spatial scale at which the impact Medium including the surrounding towns and settlements within a 10 will occur. km radius); High Regional (beyond a 10 km radius) to national
20 Date: October 2012 Wolseley Wind Farm Avifaunal Specialist Report
Criteria Rating Scales Notes Low Short-term: 0-5 years, typically impacts that are quickly reversible within the construction phase of the project Duration Medium Medium-term, 6-10 years, reversible over time
High Long-term, 10-60 years, and continue for the operational life span of the development Where the impact affects the environment in such a way that Low natural, cultural and social functions and processes are Intensity minimally affected This is a relative evaluation within the context of Where the affected environment is altered but natural, all the activities and the other impacts within the cultural and social functions and processes continue albeit in framework of the project. Does the activity destroy Medium a modified way; and valued, important, sensitive or the impacted environment, alter its functioning, or vulnerable systems or communities are negatively affected render it slightly altered? The specialist studies Where natural, cultural or social functions and processes are must attempt to quantify the magnitude of the altered to the extent that the impact will temporarily or impacts and outline the rationale used. High permanently cease; and valued, important, sensitive or vulnerable systems or communities are substantially affected. Low Impacted natural, cultural or social functions and processes will return to their pre-impacted state within the short-term. Degree of Irreversibility Impacted natural, cultural or social functions and processes This considers the ability of the impacted Medium will return to their pre-impacted state within the medium to environment to return to its pre-impacted state long term. once the cause of the impact has been removed. Impacted natural, cultural or social functions and processes High will never return to their pre-impacted state.
Potential for impact on irreplaceable Low No irreplaceable resources will be impacted. resources This refers to the potential for an environmental Medium Resources that will be impacted can be replaced, with effort. resource to be replaced, should it be impacted. A resource could possibly be replaced by natural processes (e.g. by natural colonisation from surrounding areas), through artificial means (e.g. by reseeding disturbed areas or replanting rescued species) or by providing a substitute resource, in certain cases. In natural systems, providing substitute resources is usually not There is no potential for replacing a particular vulnerable High possible, but in social systems substitutes are resource that will be impacted. often possible (e.g. by constructing new social facilities for those that are lost). Should it not be possible to replace a resource, the resource is essentially irreplaceable e.g. red data species that are restricted to a particular site or habitat of very limited extent. A combination of any of the following Intensity, duration, extent and impact on irreplaceable resources are all rated low Intensity, duration and extent are rated low but impact on Low irreplaceable resources is rated medium to high Intensity is low and up to two of the other criteria are rated medium Intensity is medium and all three other criteria are rated low Consequence Intensity is medium and one other criteria is rated high, The consequence of the potential impacts is a with the remainder being rated low summation of above criteria, namely the extent, Intensity is low and at least two other criteria are rated duration, intensity and impact on irreplaceable medium or higher resources. Medium Intensity is rated medium and at least two of the other criteria are rated medium or higher Intensity is high and at least two other criteria are medium or higher Intensity is rated low, but irreplaceability and duration are rated high Intensity and impact on irreplaceable resources are rated High high, with any combination of extent and duration Intensity is rated high, with all of the other criteria being
21 Date: October 2012 Wolseley Wind Farm Avifaunal Specialist Report
Criteria Rating Scales Notes rated medium or higher Probability The probability of the impact actually occurring, Improbable. It is highly unlikely or less than 50 % likely that Low based on professional experience of the specialist an impact will occur. with environments of a similar nature to the site and/or with similar projects. It is important to distinguish between probability of the impact occurring and probability that the activity causing a potential impact will occur. Distinct possibility. It is between 50 and 70 % certain that the Medium Probability is defined as the probability of the impact will occur. impact occurring, not as the probability of the activities that may result in the impact. The fact that an activity will occur does not necessarily imply that an impact will occur. For instance, the fact that a road will be built does not necessarily imply that it will impact on a wetland. If the road is Most likely. It is more than 75 % certain that the impact will properly routed to avoid the wetland, the impact High may not occur at all, or the probability of the occur or it is definite that the impact will occur. impact will be low, even though it is certain that the activity will occur. Significance Low consequence and low probability Low Low consequence and medium probability Impact significance is defined to be a combination Low consequence and high probability of the consequence (as described below) and probability of the impact occurring. The relationship between consequence and probability Low to medium Low consequence and high probability highlights that the risk (or impact significance) Medium consequence and low probability must be evaluated in terms of the seriousness (consequence) of the impact, weighted by the probability of the impact actually occurring. The following analogy provides an illustration of the relationship between consequence and probability. The use of a vehicle may result in an Medium consequence and low probability accident (an impact) with multiple fatalities, not Medium consequence and medium probability only for the driver of the vehicle, but also for Medium Medium consequence and high probability passengers and other road users. There are High consequence and low probability certain mitigation measures (e.g. the use of seatbelts, adhering to speed limits, airbags, anti- lock braking, etc.) that may reduce the consequence or probability or both. The probability of the impact is low enough that millions of vehicle users are prepared to accept the risk of driving a vehicle on a daily basis. Similarly, the consequence of an aircraft crashing is very high, but the risk is low enough that thousands of passengers happily accept this risk Medium to high High consequence and medium probability to travel by air on a daily basis.
In simple terms, if the consequence and probability of an impact is high, then the impact will have a high significance. The significance defines the level to which the impact will influence the proposed development and/or environment. It determines whether mitigation measures need to High High consequence and high probability be identified and implemented and whether the impact is important for decision-making. Degree of confidence in predictions Specialists are required to provide an indication of the degree of confidence (low, medium or high) Low that there is in the predictions made for each Medium impact, based on the available information and their level of knowledge and expertise. Degree of High confidence is not taken into account in the determination of consequence or probability.
22 Date: October 2012 Wolseley Wind Farm Avifaunal Specialist Report
4.5 Impact Assessment – Proposed Development
The assessment of each impact is discussed and presented in tabular format as shown below for both “pre” and “post” mitigation. The different phases (Construction, Operation, and Decommissioning) are treated separately:
4.5.1 Construction phase
Impact
Extent
Nature
eversibility
Intensity
Duration
Impact on on Impact
Probability
Resources
Confidence
Significance
Irr
Irreplaceable Consequence Impact 1: Displacement of priority species due to construction activities Impact Description: Displacement of priority species may occur during the construction phase of wind farms, and may be caused by the noise and movement associated with the construction activities.
Without Negative Local Low High Medium Low Medium High Medium High Mitigation Mitigation Description: Restrict the construction activities to the footprint area. Do not allow any access to the remainder of the properties. With Negative Local Low Medium Medium Low Low High Low- Medium Mitigation Medium Cumulative Impact: Unknown
4.5.2 Operational phase
Impact
Extent
Nature
eversibility
Intensity
Duration
Impact on on Impact
Probability
Resources
Confidence
Significance
Irr
Irreplaceable Consequence Impact 1: Displacement of priority species due to operational activities Impact Description: Displacement of priority species (assuming these will be mostly raptors) may occur during the operational phase of wind farms, and may be caused by the noise and movement associated with the operational activities. Without Negative Local Medium Low Low Low Low Medium Low Medium Mitigation The baseline monitoring of priority species abundance should continue as planned in order to gather additional data for the remainder of the seasons. This will assist in the formulation of the final recommendations. The additional data will also contribute towards the further refinement of the sensitivity map and the micro-siting of the turbines; e.g. if priority species focal points are discovered through further monitoring this may require the implementation of buffer zones.
. Post-construction monitoring should be implemented to assess the impact of displacement, particularly on priority species. Initially, a 12 month period of post-construction monitoring should be implemented, using the same protocol as is currently implemented. Thereafter, the frequency for further monitoring will be informed by the results of the initial 12- month period.
. Once the wind farm is operational, very little practical mitigation is possible other than to restrict access to the remainder of the property. Maintenance personnel and vehicles must be strictly supervised in order to ensure that no unnecessary trespassing takes place in areas which are not associated with the maintenance activities.
With Negative Local Medium Low Low Low Low Medium Low Medium Mitigation Cumulative Impact: Unknown
23 Date: October 2012 Wolseley Wind Farm Avifaunal Specialist Report
Impact 2: Collisions with the turbines Impact Description: Mortalities due to collisions with the turbines
Without Negative Medium High Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Low Mitigation The baseline monitoring of flight activity should continue as planned in order to gather additional data for the remainder of the seasons. Once the monitoring has been completed, the dataset must be analysed in order to establish the statistical significance of potential trends that have been identified so far (e.g. the influence of wind direction and wind strength). This will assist in the formulation of the final recommendations. The additional data will also contribute towards the further refinement of the sensitivity map and the micro-siting of the turbines; Once the turbines have been constructed, post-construction monitoring as per the latest version of the Best practice guidelines for avian monitoring and impact mitigation at proposed wind energy development sites in southern Africa (Jenkins et al 2011) should be implemented to assess actual collision rates. If actual collision rates indicate high mortality levels, the following mitigation measures will have to be considered:
o halting operation of specific turbines during peak flight periods (e.g. when collisions are linked to specific environmental conditions), or reducing rotor speed, to reduce the risk of collision mortality
With Negative Medium High Low Medium Medium Medium Low Low Low Mitigation Cumulative Impact: Unknown
4.5.3 Decommissioning Phase
Impact
Extent
Nature
Intensity
Duration
Impact on on Impact
Probability
Resources
Confidence
Reversibility Significance
Irreplaceable Consequence Impact 1: Displacement of priority species due to de-commissioning activities Impact Description: Displacement of priority species may occur during the de-commissioning phase of wind farms, and may be caused by the noise and movement associated with the de-commissioning activities.
Without Negative Local Low High Medium Low Medium High Medium High Mitigation Mitigation Description: Restrict the de-commissioning activities to the footprint area. Do not allow any access to the remainder of the properties. With Negative Local Low Medium Medium Low Low High Low- Medium Mitigation Medium Cumulative Impact: Unknown
4.6 Impact Assessment - Alternatives
4.6.1 No Go Option
In the case of the no-go option, the status quo as it currently stands will be preserved as far as avifauna is concerned.
4.6.2 Alternative site locations
Currently there are no alternative site locations.
24 Date: October 2012 Wolseley Wind Farm Avifaunal Specialist Report
5 MONITORING PROGRAMME
The current pre-construction programme must be completed (see 2.4 Assessment Methodology). The results of the programme should be used to inform the micro- siting of the turbines. The expected completion date of the pre-construction programme is autumn 2013. An appropriate post-construction monitoring programme will be compiled, which will be informed by the results of the pre-construction programme.
The primary aims of post-construction monitoring are to (Jenkins et al 2012):
Estimate the numbers/densities of birds regularly present or resident within the broader impact area of the operational wind farm. Document patterns of bird movements in the vicinity of the operational wind farm. Compare these data with baseline figures and hence quantify the impacts of displacement and/or collision mortality. Quantify and qualify bird collisions with the turbine arrays, as well as additional mortality associated with power lines and other ancillary infrastructure. Mitigate impacts of the development by informing on-going management of the wind farm.
The details of the post-construction programme will only be finalised once the pre- construction monitoring has been completed. If need be, monitoring during construction phase will be conducted at specific focal points.
25 Date: October 2012 Wolseley Wind Farm Avifaunal Specialist Report
6 CONCLUSION
This is a relatively small wind farm site, with limited intrinsic avian biodiversity value. It does not contain any unique habitats or landscape features, nor does it affect any known, major avian fly-ways. Information gathered to date indicates that the priority species are likely to be predominantly soaring species, mostly raptors (8 out of 9 priority species), although this statement may need to be revised based on subsequent monitoring. Despite the highly transformed state of the habitat, 8 raptor priority species have been recorded to date, indicating that the landscape is not without value for priority species. Implementation of the required mitigation measures should reduce construction and de-commissioning phase impacts to Low-medium, and operational phase impacts to Low. No “no-go” areas have been identified which influences the current turbine lay-out (as at 26 October 2012), but should specific focal points be identified in the course of future monitoring (e.g. priority species nests), this might require the implementation of no-go buffer zones.
26 Date: October 2012 Wolseley Wind Farm Avifaunal Specialist Report
APPENDIX 1 BIRD HABITATS
Figure 1: Typical mosaic of habitats at the site, showing grape cultivation, old lands, stands of alien trees and fynbos covered slopes.
Figure 2: A dam
27 Date: October 2012 Wolseley Wind Farm Avifaunal Specialist Report
Figure 3: Old lands and a stand of alien trees
Figure 4: Fynbos covered slopes
28 Date: October 2012 Wolseley Wind Farm Avifaunal Specialist Report
Figure 5: Alien infestation along a drainage line
Figure 6: Pastures
29 Date: October 2012 Wolseley Wind Farm Avifaunal Specialist Report
Appendix 2: Species list for Wolseley Wind Farm Conservation status (Barnes Species Scientific name 2000) Acacia Pied Barbet Tricholaema leucomelas African Black Duck Anas sparsa African Black Swift Apus barbatus African Darter Anhinga rufa African Dusky Flycatcher Muscicapa adusta African Fish-Eagle Haliaeetus vocifer African Goshawk Accipiter tachiro African Harrier-Hawk Polyboroides typus African Hoopoe Upupa africana African Marsh-Harrier Circus ranivorus Vulnerable African Olive-Pigeon Columba arquatrix African Paradise-Flycatcher Terpsiphone viridis African Pipit Anthus cinnamomeus African Quailfinch Ortygospiza atricollis African Reed-Warbler Acrocephalus baeticatus African Sacred Ibis Threskiornis aethiopicus African Snipe Gallinago nigripennis African Spoonbill Platalea alba African Stonechat Saxicola torquatus Alpine Swift Tachymarptis melba Banded Martin Riparia cincta Barn Owl Tyto alba Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica Bar-throated Apalis Apalis thoracica Black Crake Amaurornis flavirostris Near Black Harrier Circus maurus threatened Psalidoprocne Black Saw-wing holomelaena Black Sparrowhawk Accipiter melanoleucus Black-crowned Night-Heron Nycticorax nycticorax Black-headed Heron Ardea melanocephala Black-necked Grebe Podiceps nigricollis Black-shouldered Kite Elanus caeruleus Blacksmith Lapwing Vanellus armatus Black-winged Stilt Himantopus himantopus Near Blue Crane Anthropoides paradiseus threatened Bokmakierie Telophorus zeylonus Booted Eagle Aquila pennatus
30 Date: October 2012 Wolseley Wind Farm Avifaunal Specialist Report
Brimstone Canary Crithagra sulphuratus Brown-throated Martin Riparia paludicola Burchell's Coucal Centropus burchellii Cape Batis Batis capensis Cape Bulbul Pycnonotus capensis Cape Bunting Emberiza capensis Cape Canary Serinus canicollis Cape Clapper Lark Mirafra apiata Cape Crow Corvus capensis Cape Eagle-Owl Bubo capensis Cape Grassbird Sphenoeacus afer Cape Longclaw Macronyx capensis Cape Robin-Chat Cossypha caffra Cape Rock-jumper Chaetops frenatus Cape Rock-Thrush Monticola rupestris Cape Shoveler Anas smithii Cape Siskin Crithagra totta Cape Sparrow Passer melanurus Cape Spurfowl Pternistis capensis Cape Sugarbird Promerops cafer Cape Teal Anas capensis Cape Turtle-Dove Streptopelia capicola Cape Wagtail Motacilla capensis Cape Weaver Ploceus capensis Cape White-eye Zosterops virens Capped Wheatear Oenanthe pileata Cardinal Woodpecker Dendropicos fuscescens Near Caspian Tern Sterna caspia threatened Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis Cloud Cisticola Cisticola textrix Common Fiscal Lanius collaris Common House-Martin Delichon urbicum Common Moorhen Gallinula chloropus Common Quail Coturnix coturnix Common Sandpiper Actitis hypoleucos Common Starling Sturnus vulgaris Common Waxbill Estrilda astrild Crowned Lapwing Vanellus coronatus Denham's Bustard Neotis denhami Vulnerable Diderick Cuckoo Chrysococcyx caprius Egyptian Goose Alopochen aegyptiacus European Bee-eater Merops apiaster Fairy Flycatcher Stenostira scita Familiar Chat Cercomela familiaris
31 Date: October 2012 Wolseley Wind Farm Avifaunal Specialist Report
Fiery-necked Nightjar Caprimulgus pectoralis Fiscal Flycatcher Sigelus silens Forest Buzzard Buteo trizonatus Forest Canary Crithagra scotops Fork-tailed Drongo Dicrurus adsimilis Freckled Nightjar Caprimulgus tristigma Giant Kingfisher Megaceryle maximus Glossy Ibis Plegadis falcinellus Goliath Heron Ardea goliath Great Crested Grebe Podiceps cristatus Great Egret Egretta alba Near Great White Pelican Pelecanus onocrotalus threatened Near Greater Flamingo Phoenicopterus ruber threatened Greater Honeyguide Indicator indicator Greater Striped Swallow Hirundo cucullata Grey Heron Ardea cinerea Grey-backed Cisticola Cisticola subruficapilla
Grey -winged Francolin Scleroptila africanus Ground Woodpecker Geocolaptes olivaceus Hadeda Ibis Bostrychia hagedash Hamerkop Scopus umbretta Helmeted Guineafowl Numida meleagris Hottentot Teal Anas hottentota House Sparrow Passer domesticus Jackal Buzzard Buteo rufofuscus Kittlitz's Plover Charadrius pecuarius Klaas's Cuckoo Chrysococcyx klaas Near Lanner Falcon Falco biarmicus threatened Laughing Dove Streptopelia senegalensis Lesser Honeyguide Indicator minor Lesser Kestrel Falco naumanni Vulnerable Lesser Swamp-Warbler Acrocephalus gracilirostris Levaillant's Cisticola Cisticola tinniens Little Bittern Ixobrychus minutus Little Egret Egretta garzetta Little Grebe Tachybaptus ruficollis Little Rush-Warbler Bradypterus baboecala Little Swift Apus affinis Long-billed Pipit Anthus similis Maccoa Duck Oxyura maccoa Malachite Kingfisher Alcedo cristata
32 Date: October 2012 Wolseley Wind Farm Avifaunal Specialist Report
Malachite Sunbird Nectarinia famosa Mallard Duck Anas platyrhynchos Martial Eagle Polemaetus bellicosus Vulnerable Mountain Wheatear Oenanthe monticola Namaqua Dove Oena capensis Neddicky Cisticola fulvicapilla Olive Thrush Turdus olivaceus
Orange -breasted Sunbird Anthobaphes violacea Pearl-breasted Swallow Hirundo dimidiata Near Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus threatened Pied Avocet Recurvirostra avosetta Pied Crow Corvus albus Pied Kingfisher Ceryle rudis Pied Starling Spreo bicolor Pin-tailed Whydah Vidua macroura Plain-backed Pipit Anthus leucophrys Protea Seedeater Crithagra leucopterus Purple Heron Ardea purpurea
Red -billed Teal Anas erythrorhyncha Red-capped Lark Calandrella cinerea Red-chested Cuckoo Cuculus solitarius Red-eyed Dove Streptopelia semitorquata Red-faced Mousebird Urocolius indicus Red-knobbed Coot Fulica cristata Red-winged Starling Onychognathus morio Reed Cormorant Phalacrocorax africanus Rock Dove Columba livia Rock Kestrel Falco rupicolus Rock Martin Hirundo fuligula Rufous-chested Sparrowhawk Accipiter rufiventris Near Secretarybird Sagittarius serpentarius threatened Sombre Greenbul Andropadus importunus South African Shelduck Tadorna cana Southern Black Korhaan Afrotis afra Southern Boubou Laniarius ferrugineus Southern Double-collared Sunbird Cinnyris chalybeus Southern Grey-headed Sparrow Passer diffusus Southern Masked-Weaver Ploceus velatus Southern Pochard Netta erythrophthalma Southern Red Bishop Euplectes orix
33 Date: October 2012 Wolseley Wind Farm Avifaunal Specialist Report
Speckled Mousebird Colius striatus Speckled Pigeon Columba guinea Spotted Eagle-Owl Bubo africanus Spotted Thick-knee Burhinus capensis Spur-winged Goose Plectropterus gambensis Steppe Buzzard Buteo vulpinus Streaky-headed Seedeater Crithagra gularis Swee Waxbill Coccopygia melanotis Three-banded Plover Charadrius tricollaris Verreaux's Eagle Aquila verreauxii Victorin's Warbler Cryptillas victorini Water Thick-knee Burhinus vermiculatus Whiskered Tern Chlidonias hybrida White Stork Ciconia ciconia White-backed Duck Thalassornis leuconotus White-breasted Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo White-faced Duck Dendrocygna viduata White-necked Raven Corvus albicollis White-rumped Swift Apus caffer White-throated Canary Crithagra albogularis White-throated Swallow Hirundo albigularis Willow Warbler Phylloscopus trochilus Yellow Bishop Euplectes capensis Yellow Canary Crithagra flaviventris Yellow-billed Duck Anas undulata Yellow-billed Egret Egretta intermedia Yellow-billed Kite Milvus aegyptius Zitting Cisticola Cisticola juncidis
34 Date: October 2012 Wolseley Wind Farm Avifaunal Specialist Report
APPENDIX 3 PRIORITY SPECIES Habitat Impact Class Priority Old Score lands Stands Likelihood (Retief and of Small of et al Priority species Scrub pastures aliens Cultivation Dams Farm yard Displacement Collision Terrestrial Waterbird Soarer bird Nocturnal occurrence 2012) African Fish- Eagle x x x x x Recorded 290
African Harrier-Hawk x x x Recorded 190
African Marsh- Harrier x x x Low 300 Black Harrier x x x x Recorded 325 Black Sparrowhawk x x x x x Medium 170 Black- shouldered Kite x x x x x Recorded 174
Blue Crane x x x x x Recorded 320
Booted Eagle x x x High 230 Cape Eagle- Owl x x x Medium 250 Cape Rock- jumper x x Low 200
Caspian Tern x x x Low 220 Denham's Bustard x x x x x Low 300
Forest Buzzard x x x x Medium 170
35 Date: October 2012 Wolseley Wind Farm Avifaunal Specialist Report
Great White Pelican x x x x Low 310 Greater Flamingo x x x Low 290
Grey-winged Francolin x x High 190
Jackal Buzzard x x x x x Recorded 250
Lanner Falcon x x x x High 280
Lesser Kestrel x x x x High 284
Martial Eagle x x x Recorded 330 Peregrine Falcon x x x Recorded 290 Rufous- chested Sparrowhawk x x x x x Recorded 170 Secretarybird x x x x x x Low 320 Southern Black Korhaan x x x Medium 200 Spotted Eagle- Owl x x x x x x High 170 Steppe Buzzard x x x x x High 210 Verreauxs' Eagle x x x Low 290 Victorin's Warbler x x High 170
White Stork x x x x Medium 220
36 Date: October 2012 Wolseley Wind Farm Avifaunal Specialist Report
APPENDIX 4: RESULTS OF TRANSECTS SURVEYS
Species composition All Species 72 Priority Species 5 Non-Priority Species 67
Number of replications 3 Total count Wi1 Wi2 Wi3 Total Mean StDev Drive transects 4 1 0 5 1.67 2.08 Point counts 281 387 325 993 331.00 53.25
Drive transects Priority Spp Wi1 Wi2 Wi3 Total Mean StDev African Fish-Eagle 1 0 0 1 0.33 0.58 African Harrier-Hawk 0 1 0 1 0.33 0.58 Black-shouldered Kite 1 0 0 1 0.33 0.58 Jackal Buzzard 1 0 0 1 0.33 0.58 Peregrine Falcon 1 0 0 1 0.33 0.58 Grand Total: 4 1 0 5 1.67 2.08
Point Counts Non-Priority species Wi1 Wi2 Wi3 Total Mean StDev Acacia Pied Barbet 0 1 0 1 0.33 0.58 African Pipit 6 5 3 14 4.67 1.53 African Quailfinch 0 0 2 2 0.67 1.15 African Stonechat 3 2 2 7 2.33 0.58 Black Crake 0 0 1 1 0.33 0.58 Black-headed Heron 0 2 0 2 0.67 1.15 Blacksmith lapwing 0 0 10 10 3.33 5.77 Bokmakierie 16 11 12 39 13.00 2.65 Brown-throated Martin 7 1 4 12 4.00 3.00 Cape Batis 0 1 0 1 0.33 0.58 Cape Bulbul 1 0 0 1 0.33 0.58 Cape Canary 19 36 16 71 23.67 10.79 Cape Clapper Lark 1 0 5 6 2.00 2.65 Cape Grassbird 5 3 4 12 4.00 1.00 Cape Longclaw 4 4 3 11 3.67 0.58 Cape Robin-chat 6 5 8 19 6.33 1.53 Cape Siskin 2 0 8 10 3.33 4.16 Cape Sparrow 4 3 17 24 8.00 7.81 Cape Spurfowl 10 16 9 35 11.67 3.79 Cape Turtle-dove 7 15 9 31 10.33 4.16 Cape Wagtail 6 9 3 18 6.00 3.00 Cape Weaver 7 4 7 18 6.00 1.73 Cape White-eye 3 2 5 10 3.33 1.53 Cattle Egret 28 94 39 161 53.67 35.36 Cloud Cisticola 4 1 2 7 2.33 1.53 Common Fiscal 8 12 12 32 10.67 2.31 Common Quail 1 1 0 2 0.67 0.58
37 Date: October 2012 Wolseley Wind Farm Avifaunal Specialist Report
Common Starling 5 21 8 34 11.33 8.50 Common Waxbill 2 0 0 2 0.67 1.15 Crowned Lapwing 0 1 2 3 1.00 1.00 Egyptian Goose 1 13 1 15 5.00 6.93 Fiscal Flycatcher 1 0 4 5 1.67 2.08 Fork-tailed Drongo 0 1 0 1 0.33 0.58 Grey Heron 0 1 0 1 0.33 0.58 Grey-backed Cisticola 8 9 6 23 7.67 1.53 Hadeda Ibis 10 14 12 36 12.00 2.00 Helmeted Guineafowl 3 0 26 29 9.67 14.22 Karoo Prinia 18 15 14 47 15.67 2.08 Karoo Scrub-robin 0 1 4 5 1.67 2.08 Large-billed Lark 2 4 4 10 3.33 1.15 Lesser Swamp-Warbler 1 0 0 1 0.33 0.58 Levaillant's Cisticola 5 4 10 19 6.33 3.21 Little Grebe 1 0 0 1 0.33 0.58 Little Rush-warbler 1 0 1 2 0.67 0.58 Long-billed Crombec 0 1 0 1 0.33 0.58 Malachite Sunbird 10 6 11 27 9.00 2.65 Namaqua dove 0 1 0 1 0.33 0.58 Neddicky 0 1 0 1 0.33 0.58 Red-capped Lark 1 5 5 11 3.67 2.31 Red-eyed Dove 8 1 5 14 4.67 3.51 Red-faced Mousebird 0 18 5 23 7.67 9.29 Red-knobbed Coot 0 1 0 1 0.33 0.58 Reed Cormorant 0 5 0 5 1.67 2.89 Rock Kestrel 0 0 3 3 1.00 1.73 Rock Martin 3 0 0 3 1.00 1.73 Southern Double-collared Sunbird 4 1 1 6 2.00 1.73 Southern Grey-headed Sparrow 2 4 0 6 2.00 2.00 Southern Red Bishop 35 23 5 63 21.00 15.10 Speckled Mousebird 4 0 0 4 1.33 2.31 Spur-winged Goose 0 1 0 1 0.33 0.58 Streaky-headed Seedeater 3 0 6 9 3.00 3.00 Swee Waxbill 2 0 0 2 0.67 1.15 White-necked raven 0 0 4 4 1.33 2.31 Yellow Bishop 1 0 0 1 0.33 0.58 Yellow canary 0 1 1 2 0.67 0.58 Yellow-billed duck 0 3 0 3 1.00 1.73 Zitting Cisticola 2 3 6 11 3.67 2.08 Grand Total: 281 387 325 993 331.00 53.25
38 Date: October 2012 Wolseley Wind Farm Avifaunal Specialist Report
7 REFERENCES
1 www.cbd.int
2 www.cms.int
3 Jenkins A R; Van Rooyen C S; Smallie J J; Anderson M D & Smit H A. 2011. Best practice guidelines for avian monitoring and impact mitigation at proposed wind energy development sites in southern Africa. Endangered Wildlife Trust and Birdlife South Africa.
4 Retief, E.F., Diamond, M., Anderson M.D., Jenkins, A., Brooks, M., Simmons, R. & H.A. Smit. 2012. Avian Wind Farm Sensitivity Map for South Africa: Criteria and Procedures Used. Birdlife South Africa and Endangered Wildlife Trust. Johannesburg.
5 Southern African Bird Atlas Project 2. http://sabap2.adu.org.za.
6 Young, D.J. Harrison, J.A. Navarro, R.A. Anderson, M.D. & B.D. Colahan (ed). 2003. Big Birds on Farms: Mazda CAR Report 1993 – 2001. Avian Demography Unit. University of Cape Town.
7 Young, D.J. 2008. Coordinated Avifaunal Roadcounts. Newsletter 25. Animal Demography Unit. University of Cape Town.
8 Young, D.J. 2009a. Coordinated Avifaunal Roadcounts. Newsletter 26. Animal Demography Unit. University of Cape Town.
9 Young, D.J. 2009b. Coordinated Avifaunal Roadcounts. Newsletter 27. Animal Demography Unit. University of Cape Town.
10 Young, D.J. 2010a. Coordinated Avifaunal Roadcounts. Newsletter 28. Animal Demography Unit. University of Cape Town.
11 Young, D.J. 2010b. Coordinated Avifaunal Roadcounts. Newsletter 29. Animal Demography Unit. University of Cape Town.
12 Hockey P.A.R., Dean W.R.J., and Ryan P.G. 2005. Robert’s Birds of Southern Africa, seventh edition. Trustees of the John Voelcker Bird Book Fund, Cape Town.
13 Harrison, J.A., Drewitt, D.G., Underhill, L.G., Herremans, M., Tree, A.J., Parker, V & Brown, C.J. (eds). 1997. The atlas of southern African birds. Vol. 1&2. BirdLife South Africa, Johannesburg.
14 Maree, K & Vromans D. 2010. The biodiversity sector plan 2010 for the Witzenberg, Breede Valley and Langeberg Municipalities. Cape Action for People and the Environment (CAPE).
15 Barnes, K.N. (ed.) 2000. The Eskom Red Data Book of Birds of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. BirdLife South Africa, Johannesburg.
16 Drewitt, A.L. & Langston, R.H.W. 2006. Assessing the impacts of wind farms on birds. Ibis 148, 29- 42.
17 Pedersen, M.B. & Poulsen, E. 1991. Impact of a 90 m/2MW wind turbine on birds. Avian responses to the implementation of the Tjaereborg wind turbine at the Danish Wadden Sea. Danske Vildtunderogelser Haefte 47. Rønde, Denmark: Danmarks Miljøundersøgelser.
18 Kruckenberg, H. & Jaene, J. 1999. Zum Einfluss eines Windparks auf die Verteilung weidender Bläßgänse im Rheiderland (Landkreis Leer, Niedersachsen). Natur Landsch. 74: 420–427.
19 Larsen, J.K. & Madsen, J. 2000. Effects of wind turbines and other physical elements on field utilization by pink-footed geese (Anser brachyrhynchus): A landscape perspective. Landscape Ecol. 15: 755–764.
39 Date: October 2012 Wolseley Wind Farm Avifaunal Specialist Report
20 Langgemach, T. 2008. Memorandum of Understanding for the Middle-European population of the Great Bustard, German National Report 2008. Landesumweltamt Brandenburg (Brandenburg State Office for Environment).
21 Raab, R., Julius, E., Spakovszky, P. & Nagy, S. 2009. Guidelines for best practice on mitigating impacts of infrastructure development and afforestation on the Great Bustard. Prepared for the Memorandum of Understanding on the conservation and management of the Middle-European population of the Great Bustard under the Convention on Migratory species (CMS). Birdlife International. European Dvision.
22 Leddy, K.L., Higgins, K.F. & Naugle, D.E. 1999. Effects of wind turbines on upland nesting birds in conservation reserve program grasslands. Wilson Bulletin 111: 100-104. 23 Pearce-Higgins J.W, Stephen L, Langston R.H.W, Bainbridge, I.P.& R Bullman. The distribution of breeding birds around upland wind farms. Journal of Applied Ecology 2009, 46, 1323–1331
24 Whitfield, D.P. & Madders, M. 2006. A review of the impacts of wind farms on hen harriers Circus cyaneus and an estimation of collision avoidance rates. Natural Research Information Note 1 (revised). Natural Research Ltd, Banchory, UK.
25 Langston, R.H.W. & Pullan, J.D. 2003. Wind farms and birds: an analysis of the effects of wind farms on birds, and guidance on environmental assessment criteria and site selection issues. Report written by Birdlife International on behalf of the Bern Convention. Council Europe Report T-PVS/Inf
26 Altamont Pass Avian Monitoring Team. 2008. Bird Fatality Study at Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area October 2005 – September 2007. Draft Report prepared for the Almeda County Scientific Review Committee.
27 Stewart, G.B., Coles, C.F. & Pullin, A.S. 2004. Effects of Wind Turbines on Bird Abundance. Systematic Review no. 4. Birmingham, UK: Centre for Evidence-based Conservation.
28 Pearce-Higgins, J.W., Stephen, L., Douse, A., & Langston, R.H.W. 2012. Greater impacts on bird populations during construction than subsequent operation: result of multi-site and multi-species analysis. Journal of Applied Ecology 2012, 49, 396-394.
29 Madders, M. & Whitfield, D. P. 2006. Upland raptors and the assessment of wind farm impacts. Ibis (2006), 148, 43 – 56.
30 Anon. (a) 2003. Wind Energy – The Facts. Volume 4: Environment. The European Wind Energy Association (EWEA), and the European Commission’s Directorate General for Transport and Energy (DG TREN). pp182-184. (www.ewea.org/documents/).
31 Anon. (b) 2000. National Wind Co-ordinating Committee – Avian Collisions with Turbines: A summary of existing studies and comparisons to other sources of avian collision mortality in the United States. www.awea.org.
32 Thelander, C.G & Smallwood K.S. 2007. The Altamount Pass Wind Resource Area’s effects on birds: A case history. In: In: De Lucas M, Janss G.F.E. & Ferrer M (eds). Birds and Wind Farms: Risk Assessment and Mitigation. Quercus, Madrid.
33 Barrios, L. & Rodriguez, A. 2004. Behavioural and environmental correlates of soaring-bird mortality at on-shore wind turbines. J. Appl. Ecol. 41: 72–81.
34 Carette, M., Zapata-Sanchez, J.A., Benitez, R.J., Lobon, M. & Donazar, J.A. (In press) Large scale risk-assessment of wind farms on population viability of a globally endangered long-lived raptor. Biol. Cons. (2009), doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2009.07.027.
35 Jenkins, A.R., Smallie, J.J. & Diamond, M. 2010. Avian collisions with power lines: a global review of causes and mitigation with a South African perspective. Bird Conservation International 20: 263-278.
40 Date: October 2012 Wolseley Wind Farm Avifaunal Specialist Report
36 Camiña, A. 2012. Email communication on 12 April 2012 to the author by Alvaro Camiña, Spanish ornithologist with 8 years’ experience in avifaunal monitoring at wind farms in Spain.
37 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.
38 Smallwood, S. 2011. Personal communication at Bird and Wind Energy Information Week. 3-7 October 2011. Darling, South Africa. Smallwood is the head of the Scientific Review Committee of Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area and is based in California
39 Stewart, G.B., Pullin, A.S. & Coles, C.F. 2007. Poor evidence-base for assessment of windfarm impacts on birds. Environmental Conservation. 34, 1-11.
40 Everaert, J., Devos, K. & Kuijken, E. 2001. Windtrubines en vogels in Vlaanderen: Voorlopige Onderzoeksresultaten En Buitenlandse Bevindingen [Wind Turbines and Birds in Flanders (Belgium): Preliminary Study Results in a European Context]. Instituut Voor Natuurbehoud. Report R.2002.03. Brussels B.76pp. Brussels, Belgium: Institut voor Natuurbehoud.
41 Howell, J.A. & DiDonato, J.E. 1991. Assessment of avian use and mortality related to wind turbine operations: Altamont Pass, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, California, September 1988 Through August 1989. Final report prepared for Kenentech Windpower.
42 Orloff, S. & Flannery, A. 1992. Wind turbine effects on avian activity, habitat use and mortality in Altamont Pass and Solano County Wind Resource Areas, 1989–91. California. Energy Commission.
43 Hunt, W.G., Jackman, R.E., Hunt, T.L., Driscoll, D.E. & Culp, L. 1999. A Population Study of Golden Eagles in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area: Population Trend Analysis 1994–97. Report to National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Subcontract XAT-6-16459–01. Santa Cruz: University of California.
44 Hunt, W.G. 2001. Continuing studies of golden eagles at Altamont Pass. Proceedings of the National Avian-Wind Power Planning Meeting IV.
45 Johnson G. D., Strickland M. D., Erickson W. P. & Young D.P. 2007. Use of data to develop mitigation measures for wind power development impacts on birds. In: De Lucas M, Janss G.F.E. & Ferrer M (eds). Birds and Wind Farms: Risk Assessment and Mitigation. Quercus, Madrid.
46 Cochran, W.W. & Graber, R.R. 1958. Attraction of nocturnal migranst by lights on a television tower. Wislon Bulletin 70(4): 378-380.
47 Herbert, A.D. 1970. Spatial disorientation in birds. Wilson bulletin 82(4):400-419.
48 Weir, R.D. 1976. Annotated bibliography of bird kills at man-made obstacle: a review of the state of art and solution. Canadian Wildlife Services, Ontario Region. Ottawa.
49 Crockford, N.J. 1992. A review of possible impacts of wind farms on birds and other wildlife. Joint Nature Conservation Committee. JNCC Report No. 27. Peterborough, Unite Kingdom.
50 Avian Powerline Interation Committee (APLIC). 1994. Mitigating bird collisions with power lines: the state of the art in 1994. Edison Electric Institute. Washington DC.
51 Jaroslow, B. 1979. A review of factors involved in bird-tower kills, and mitigate procedures. In: G.A. Swanson, G.A. (Tech. coord.), The mitigation symposium; a national workshop on mitigation losses of fish and wildlife habitats, pp. 469-473. U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report RM-65.
52 EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute). 1985. MOD-2 wind turbine field experience in Solano County, California. Report No. AP-4239. Preapred by PG&E, San Ramon, California.
41 Date: October 2012 Wolseley Wind Farm Avifaunal Specialist Report
53 Ugoretz, S. 2001. Avian mortalities at tall structures. In: Proceedings of the National Avian Wind Power Planning Meeting IV pp. 165-166. National Wind Coordinating Committee. Washington DC.
54 Johnson, G.D., Strickland, M.D., Erickson, W.P., Sheperd, M.F. & Sheperd D. A. 2000. Avian Monitoring Studies at the Buffalo Ridge, Minnesota Wind Resource Area: Results of a four-year study. Technical Report prepared for Northern States Power Company, Minneapolis, MN 262pp.
55 Civil Aviation Regulations. 1997. Part 139.01.33 of the civil aviation regulations, 1997, to the Aviation Act, 1962 (Act 74 of 1962).
56 Fox, A.D., Desholm, M., Kahlert, J., Christensen, T.K. & Krag Petersen, I.B. 2006. Information needs to support environmental impact assessments of the effects of European marine offshore wind farms on birds. In Wind, Fire and Water: Renewable Energy and Birds. Ibis 148 (Suppl. 1): 129–144.
57 Thelander, C.G., Smallwood, K.S. & Rugge, L. 2003. Bird Risk Behaviours and Fatalities at the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Colorado.
58 Scottish Natural History. 2005. Cumulative effects of wind farms – Version 2 revised 13.04.05. Guidance Note. http://www.snh.org.uk/pdfs/strategy/cumulativeeffectsonwindfarms.pdf.
42 Date: October 2012 Wolseley Wind Farm Avifaunal Specialist Report