Prepared for:
Juwi Renewable Energies (Pty) Ltd.
Hartebeest Wind Energy Facility
Avifaunal Specialist Impact Assessment Scoping Report
Scoping Report
August 2016
www.bioinsight.co.za
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This scoping report aims to provide a preliminary evaluation of the potential interactions between birds and the proposed Hartebeest Wind Energy Facility, situated about 4 km to the south east of Moorreesburg in the Western Cape Province of South Africa.
The project considers a layout with 40 turbines. The land main use is for cereal plantation, combined with some sheep and cattle grazing. Therefore, the natural habitats are highly transformed. Some tree stands appear scattered throughout the study area. Some hills covered with natural vegetation add some steep slopes to the otherwise gently undulated landscape. The highest altitudes are reached in a series of hills running in a northwest to southeast direction traversing the study area.
Up to 225 bird species can potentially occur within the Hartebeest WEF area and its immediate surrounds, based on the data sources consulted. Out of those, seventeen species are of special conservation concern including five “Endangered”, seven “Vulnerable” and five “Near-threatened” species (Taylor, Peacock & Wanless 2015).
From the list of potentially occurring species, 50 species were selected as sensitive (i.e. focal) species for the impact assessment process in Hartebeest WEF due to their conservation status, regional endemicity and sensitivity to wind development impacts.
A preliminary site visit confirmed the occurrence of twenty-eight sensitive species. Ten of these species are especially sensitive due to an unfavourable conservation status, i.e.: Greater Flamingo (Phoenicopterus roseus), Lesser Flamingo (Phoeniconaias minor), Secretarybird (Sagittarius serpentarius), Verreaux’s Eagle (Aquila Verreauxii), Martial Eagle (Polemaetus bellicosus), African Marsh Harrier (Circus ranivorus), Black Harrier (Circus maurus), Lanner Falcon (Falco biarmicus), Blue Crane (Anthropoides paradiseus) and Ludwig's Bustard (Neotis ludwigii). Therefore, these risk behaviours must be further evaluated informed by a pre- construction bird monitoring programme.
The proposed Hartebeest Wind Energy Facility may have potential negative impacts on the local bird community through: disturbance of birds and habitat destruction during construction and maintenance of the facility and associated infrastructure; displacement and/or exclusion of birds from the area; collision of birds with turbine blades during operation; and collision and electrocution of birds on associated electrical infrastructure. Impacts associated to habitat destruction and disturbance/exclusion effects are expected to be of low significance. Impacts caused by wind turbines operation and power line presence (i.e. fatalities) are expected at this stage to be of medium significance, mainly due to characteristics of the impact and consequences at the population level. Nonetheless more information must be gathered in order to provide an impact assessment with a higher degree of certainty.
The analysis of the sensitivity of the affected farm portions has determined that the general proposed area is of medium sensitivity regarding bird community, following the principle of the precautionary approach, with some specific features of high sensitivity and therefore no turbines are recommended to be placed in these high sensitivity areas.
It is important to note that this assessment was made based solely in a single visit to the site and therefore a full bird pre-construction monitoring programme must be implemented, following the Best practice guidelines for avian monitoring and impact mitigation at proposed wind energy development sites in southern Africa, and the information gathered should supply a solid background for a more detailed impact assessment.
Proposed Hartebeest wind energy facility – Avifaunal Impact Assessment Scoping Report 2/ 66
TECHNICAL TEAM
The technical team responsible for the avian impact scoping study is presented in the table below.
Technician Qualifications Role on project
Craig Campbell BSc Degree in Conservation Ecology Field surveys
MSc in Management and Conservation of Natural Resources Ricardo Branca Report compilation BSc in Biology
MSc in Ecology and Environmental management Joana Marques Report compilation BSc in Environmental Biology
PhD in Environmental studies Field surveys BSc Honours Degree in Biological Sciences Ricardo Ramalho Technical coordination Registered Professional Natural Scientist and supervision Zoological Sciences (400028/14)
Report compiled in August 2016 – Revision 03 as of 06th September 2016.
CITATION
Recommended citation when using this report as a reference: Bioinsight (2016). Hartebeest Wind Energy Facility – Scoping Avifaunal Impact Scoping Desktop Study. August 2016.
COPYRIGHT
This report was compiled for Juwi Renewable Energies (Pty) Ltd by Bioinsight (Pty) Ltd, who are the authors of this final document. The contents of this report, namely the methodologies and analysis, was developed by Bioinsight and are their intellectual property. These should not be reproduced or used by third parties without written consent.
Proposed Hartebeest wind energy facility – Avifaunal Impact Assessment Scoping Report 3/ 66
SPECIALIST DECLARATION
Professional registration
The Natural Scientific Professions Act of 2003 aims to “Provide for the establishment of the South African Council of Natural Scientific Professions (SACNASP) and for the registration of professional, candidate and certified natural scientists; and to provide for matters connected therewith.”
“Only a registered person may practice in a consulting capacity” – Natural Scientific Professions Act of 2003 (20(1)-page 14)
Specialist Investigator: Ricardo Ramalho (Pri.Sci.Nat)
Qualification: PhD in Environmental Sciences – University of Évora (Portugal)
BSc Honours Degree in Biological Sciences – Univ. of Coimbra (Portugal)
Affiliation: South African Council for Natural Scientific Professions
Registration number: 400028/14
Fields of Expertise: Zoological Science
Registration: Professional Member
Declaration of Independence
Bioinsight (Pty) Ltd and the Specialist Investigator declare that:
• We act as independent specialists for this project.
• We consider ourselves bound by the rules and ethics of the South African Council for Natural Scientific Professions.
• We do not have any personal or financial interest in the project except for financial compensation for specialist investigations completed in a professional capacity as specified by the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2006.
• We will not be affected by the outcome of the environmental process, of which this report forms part of.
• We do not have any influence over the decisions made by the governing authorities.
• We do not object to or endorse the proposed developments, but aim to present facts and our best scientific and professional opinion with regard to the impacts of the development.
• We undertake to disclose to the relevant authorities any information that has or may have the potential to influence its decision or the objectivity of any report, plan, or document required in terms of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2006.
Proposed Hartebeest wind energy facility – Avifaunal Impact Assessment Scoping Report 4/ 66
• Should we consider ourselves to be in conflict with any of the above declarations, we shall formally submit a Notice of Withdrawal to all relevant parties and formally register as an Interested and Affected Party.
Professional experience
Ricardo Ramalho has been involved in environmental impact assessment and ecological monitoring for more than 10 years. He has experience with bird and bat bird interactions with renewable projects, namely energy infrastructure for more than 6 years. During this period he has being involved in impact assessments and ecological monitoring for more than 60 projects, more than 35 of which involved onshore wind energy generation in South Africa. A full Curriculum Vitae can be supplied on request.
Terms and Liabilities
• This report is based on a short term investigation using the available information and data related to the site to be affected.
• The Precautionary Principle has been applied throughout this investigation.
• Additional information may become known or available during a later stage of the process for which no allowance could have been made at the time of this report.
• The Specialist Investigator reserves the right to amend this report, recommendations and conclusions at any stage should additional information become available.
• Information, recommendations and conclusions in this report cannot be applied to any other area without proper investigation.
• This report, in its entirety or any portion thereof, may not be altered in any manner or form or for any purpose without the specific and written consent of the Specialist Investigator as specified above.
• Acceptance of this report, in any physical or digital form, serves to confirm acknowledgment of these terms and liabilities.
Signed on the 26th August 2016 by Ricardo Manuel Oliveira Ramalho in his capacity as Specialist Investigator.
Proposed Hartebeest wind energy facility – Avifaunal Impact Assessment Scoping Report 5/ 66
INDEX PAGE
1. Introduction ...... 7 1.1. Summary of the EIA process ...... 7 1.2. Proposed Wind Energy Facility and study area ...... 7 1.3. Terms of reference and scope of work ...... 11 1.4. Legal Framework ...... 12 1.5. Report Structure ...... 14 2. Study Methodology ...... 15 2.1. Approach and data sources ...... 15 2.2. Reconnaissance visit ...... 17 2.3. Impact Evaluation ...... 20 2.4. Assumptions and limitations ...... 22 3. Description of the affected environment ...... 23 3.1. Bird micro-habitats ...... 23 3.2. Avifauna community within the development site ...... 25 3.3. Sensitivity mapping for the development site ...... 32 4. Impact Assessment of the proposed Hartebeest WEF ...... 35 4.1. Interactions between Wind Energy Facilities and Birds ...... 35 4.2. Impact Assessment ...... 37 5. Impact statement ...... 42 6. References ...... 43 7. Appendix ...... 46 7.1. Appendix I: List of bird species at the Hartebeest WEF site and surrounding area ...... 46 7.2. Appendix II: Bird monitoring programme ...... 59
Proposed Hartebeest wind energy facility – Avifaunal Impact Assessment Scoping Report 6/ 66
1. INTRODUCTION
This document presents the Avifauna Scoping Impact Assessment for the Hartebeest Wind Energy Facility (hereafter referred as Hartbeest WEF) proposed by Juwi Renewable Energies (Pty) Ltd. 1.1. Summary of the EIA process
This study is the first assessment on the potential impacts associated with the development of the Hartbeest WEF on the bird community present on site.
The study includes three main stages:
(i) literature review of bird and WEF interactions as well as bird species and habitats likely to occur within the study area;
(ii) site visit for the validation of the bird’s species (particularly species of conservation concern) and habitats present;
(iii) preliminary impact assessment and proposal of mitigation measures (when required). 1.2. Proposed Wind Energy Facility and study area
Hartebeest WEF is being proposed by Juwi Renewable Energies (Pty) Ltd for the installation of wind turbine generators. The project is located near the town of Moorreesburg in the Western Cape Province (Figure 1).
Figure 1 – Location and characteristics of the proposed Hartebeest WEF (source: Virtual Earth Street Imagery).
The WEF includes the proposed implementation of up to 40 turbines up to 120m hub height and a proposed rotor diameter of up to 136m. A preliminary 40 turbine layout is considered for the purpose of this assessment. The development comprises an area of approximately 3800 hectares in extent.
Proposed Hartebeest wind energy facility – Avifaunal Impact Assessment Scoping Report 7/ 66
General characterization
The site falls within the Fynbos biome, with the occurrence of just one main vegetation type (Mucina & Rutherford 2006) (Figure 2):
• Swartland Shale Renosterveld (Fynbos biome): associated to areas with undulating plains and valleys supporting low to moderately tall leptophyllous shrubland of varying canopy cover as well as low, open shrubland dominated by renosterbos (Mucina & Rutherford, 2006).
Figure 2 – Vegetation units present within the Hartebeest WEF and surrounding area according to Mucina & Rutherford, 2006.
Despite the vegetation with potential to occur, the area proposed for development is highly transformed and the natural vegetation is restricted to small pockets that resisted the severe transformation to agriculture and pasture land, which are restricted to the limits of some drainage areas and steep slopes. The area is, therefore, mainly characterised by transformed habitats, represented mainly by agricultural lands used for dry crops in rotation with sheep grazing.
The area has an undulating topography – from about 35m a.s.l. to 320m a.s.l. – reaching the highest points in the centre of the study area, on a series of hills running northwest to southeast. Fairly continuous renosterbos vegetation is found in along these features. The only major water course in the area is found approximately 12 km east of the site; the Berg River. It is believed that this distance is too far to have a direct influence in the bird activity in the area.
Thus the study area (Photograph 1) may be defined in five main types of habitats available for birds:
• Agricultural fields Highly seasonal, these transformed habitats, dominated by wheat in the area may attract seed eaters such as Blue Cranes after the harvesting and also foraging raptors during and immediately after ploughing. When the wheat is grown it gives an appropriate nesting shelter for some species such as the Blue Crane. Food and
Proposed Hartebeest wind energy facility – Avifaunal Impact Assessment Scoping Report 8/ 66
water supplements given to cattle and sheep may attract large number of birds, such as Egyptian and Spur- winged Geese and also Blue Cranes, storks, egrets or herons.
• Hills and mounts Raptors and other aerial species may find suitable currents for flight near these features, which may be used for undertaking regular movements across the site. These areas will usually present natural vegetation that may well serve as shelter for species raptors may prey upon. Therefore, it will favour the appearance of flying raptors along these areas and especially in the transitions to croplands. Other smaller bird species conditioned by the occurrence of natural vegetation may be found in as well.
• Wetlands and dams The site contains several small farm dams which, depending on its characteristics, may be important for some bird species. These features may condition the general composition of the communities of large birds, which may use them as stepping stones during their movements or as feeding or roosting areas, depending on water levels, availability of food, etc. These points may as well attract predatory birds trying to feed on the waterbirds.
• Exotic trees
Other micro-habitats within and immediately adjacent to the proposed site, which are important for a number of priority raptor species, are stands of trees. In the study area such trees are usually exotic ones, such as Eucalyptus which create attractive habitat for priority species such as Black Sparrowhawk, Yellow- billed Kite and Jackal Buzzard. These stands can also provide roosts and nesting sites for different species such as raptors, geese or ibises.
• Old quarry
There is an old quarry situated to the north of the proposed project area. The steep rocky faces of this feature could be used by certain raptor as well as swallows, swifts and martins as a nesting and/or roosting habitat.
A more detailed analysis of micro-habitats relevant for birds is shown in section 3.1.
Photograph 1 – General framework of the proposed Hartebeest wind energy facility site.
Proposed Hartebeest wind energy facility – Avifaunal Impact Assessment Scoping Report 9/ 66
Conservancy areas
The closest Important Bird Areas to the project are located between 30 and 50 km away and therefore it is not believed that the development could have direct effects on them. However, a brief description of them is presented below.
Four Important Bird Areas (IBA) are located in the vicinities of the WEF: the Cedarberg – Koue Bokkeveld Complex to the north-east, and the Boland Mountains to the south-east, both approximately 30km away from site and the West Coast National Park & Saldanha Bay Islands to the west and Berg River Estuary to the northwest; these two IBAs are situated approximately 50km away from site (Figure 3).
The Cedarberg – Koue Bokkevel Complex is a mountainous complex dividing the Olifants river valley and Tankwa-Doring river system. It presents an extremely diverse flora ranging from succulent Karoo to typical fynbos, going through xerophytic communities (BirdLife South Africa 2015a). The avifauna present in the area is mostly restricted-ranged and Biome-restricted species like Victorin’s Scrub-warbler (Bradypterus victorini), Cape Rock-jumper (Chaetops frenatus), Orange-breasted sunbird (Nectarinia violacea), Cape Sugarbird (Promerops cafer), Protea Canary (Serinus leucopterus) or the Cape Siskin (Serinus totta). The globally endangered Ludwig’s Bustard (Neotis ludwigii) is also found in the area.
Regarding Boland Mountains IBA, it is also a mountainous location which presents mesic mountain fynbos (BirdLife International 2016). It also presents similar restricted-range and Biome-restricted species as well as some globally threatened ones, such as; Black Harrier, Blue Crane (Anthropoides paradiseus).
The Berg River Estuary are situated at the Berg River mouth at Laaiplek and forms one of only four perennial estuaries on the arid west coast of southern Africa (BirdLife South Africa 2015b). Approximately 250 bird species have been recorded using the area, 120 of which are waterbirds. This important estuary presents important habitats such as mudflats and floodplain pans. The area supports colonies of African Black Oystercatcher (Haematopus moquini), Caspian Tern (Hydroprogne caspia), Greater Flamingo (Phonicopterus roseus), Lesser Flamingo (Phoeniconaias minor), Chesnut-banded Plover (Charadrius pallidus), Hartlaub’s Gull (Larus hartlaubii) and Great White Pellican (Pelecanus onocrotalus) among others. Raptors, such as the African Marsh Harrier (Circus ranivorus) or African Fish Eagle (Haliaeetus vocifer) breed in the area as well.
West Coast National Park and Saldanha Bay Island includes Langebaan Lagoon, the coastal zone holding Postberg Nature Reserve and several islands (BirdLife South Africa 2015c). The park supports important communities of waterbirds and is considered to be the most important wetland for waders in South Africa. Species such as: Grey Plover (Pluvialis squatarola), Curlew Sandpiper (Calidris ferruginea), Sanderling (Calidris alba), Red Knot (Calidris canutus), Ruddy Turnstone (Arenaria interpres), Chestnut-banded Plover (Charadrius pallidus), White-fronted Plover (Charadrius marginatus) and Kittlitz's Plover (Charadrius pecularius) are important components of such communities.
There are also other conservancy areas in the surrounding to the Hartebeest WEF, such as, the Cape West Coast Biosphere Reserve located 30km west to the site, the Winterhoek Mountain Catchment Area located 30km east, the Cape Winelands Biosphere Reserve located 33km south-east and the Sixteen Mile Beach Marine Protected Area located 64km west.
Proposed Hartebeest wind energy facility – Avifaunal Impact Assessment Scoping Report 10/ 66
Figure 3 – Location of the Hartebeest WEF in relation to the surrounding conservancy areas (background image source: Virtual Earth Street Map)
1.3. Terms of reference and scope of work
The following assessment was conducted according to the specialist terms of reference:
• Conduct a review of national and international specialised literature and experiences regarding birds and wind farms;
• Conduct a bibliographic review to determine the avifauna community present in the study area, describe the affected environment, identify species of special concern and assess potential negative impacts caused by the WEF;
• Map sensitive areas in and around the proposed WEF site;
• Where necessary, provide recommendations for relevant mitigation measures which will allow the reduction of negative impacts and the maximisation of the benefits associated with any identified positive impacts;
• This avifaunal impact desktop assessment report has integrated the results of a reconnaissance visit which will be included in the pre-construction bird monitoring programme and final avifauna Specialist Final Impact Assessment report for the proposed WEF, in addition to the available bibliographic information available. This pre-construction monitoring programme was undertaken according to the recommendations of the applicable “Best- Practice Guidelines for assessing and monitoring the impact of wind-energy facilities on birds in southern Africa – Second Edition” (Jenkins et al. 2012) covering a full year period.
The following assessment, bird specialist final impact assessment report, will be conducted according to the specialist terms of reference during the EIA phase:
Proposed Hartebeest wind energy facility – Avifaunal Impact Assessment Scoping Report 11/ 66
• The bird impact assessment report for the EIA phase will integrate the results of the 17 month pre- construction bird monitoring programme for the proposed WEF (implemented between May 2013 and September 2014), which will confirm the impacts identified during scoping. Refer to Appendix II for full details on the bird monitoring programme and the main objectives of this monitoring.
1.4. Legal Framework
The Hartebeest WEF is subject to the requirements of the National Environmental Management Act 104 of 1998. The EIA Regulations of June 2014 requires that an EIA process must be undertaken for the development of the proposed project. As part of the EIA process, specialist input has been sought from Bioinsight regarding an assessment of the potential impacts of the WEF on birds. In line with the principles of NEMA, impacts on the environment (and in this case birds specifically) must be determined and assessed, and recommendations made on how to avoid, as far as possible, mitigate and manage negative impacts on bird species caused by human-made infrastructures (e.g. wind turbines and associated infrastructures). In this context, the bird assessment considered the bird species which occur on the site and an assessment of potential impacts on birds, avoidance of impacts on birds (if possible), and where avoidance of impacts of the WEF on birds is not possible, mitigation measures have been proposed.
It is considered best practice for bird monitoring to be undertaken on WEF sites, striving for the reconciliation of wind energy and birds, aiming to evaluate and minimize any potential impacts. This can be achieved by fulfilling the requirements outlined by the “Best- Practice Guidelines for assessing and monitoring the impact of wind-energy facilities on birds in southern Africa – Second Edition” (Jenkins et al. 2012).
There are no permit requirements dealing specifically with birds in South Africa. However, legislation which applies to birds includes the following:
National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act 10 of 2004)
Sections 2, 56 and 97 are of specific reference. Section 97 considers the Threatened or Protected Species Regulations: The Act calls for the management and conservation of all biological diversity within South Africa.
The National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (Act 10 of 2004) (NEM:BA) provides for listing threatened or protected ecosystems, in one of four categories: critically endangered (CR), endangered (EN), vulnerable (VU) or protected.
NEM:BA also deals with endangered, threatened and otherwise controlled species, under the ToPS Regulations (Threatened or Protected Species Regulations). The Act provides for listing of species as threatened or protected, under one of the following categories:
• Critically Endangered: any indigenous species facing an extremely high risk of extinction in the wild in the immediate future.
• Endangered: any indigenous species facing a high risk of extinction in the wild in the near future, although it is not a critically endangered species.
• Vulnerable: any indigenous species facing an extremely high risk of extinction in the wild in the medium-term future; although it is not a critically endangered species or an endangered species.
Proposed Hartebeest wind energy facility – Avifaunal Impact Assessment Scoping Report 12/ 66
• Protected species: any species which is of such high conservation value or national importance that it requires national protection. Species listed in this category include, among others, species listed in terms of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).
A ToPS permit is required for any activities involving the removal or destruction of any ToPS-listed species.
Western Cape Nature Conservation Laws Amendment Act of 2000
Although the primary purpose of this Act is to provide for the amendment of various laws on nature conservation in order to transfer the administration of the provisions of those laws to the Western Cape Nature Conservation Board, it also deals with a number of other issues. Under this Act, lists of provincially protected and endangered fauna and flora are provided. A permit is required for any activities which involve endangered or protected flora and fauna.
IUCN Red List of Threatened Species
The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species ranks plants and animals according to threat levels and risk of extinction, thus providing an indication of biodiversity loss. This has become a key tool used by scientists and conservationists to determine which species are most urgently in need of conservation attention. In South Africa, a number of birds are listed on the IUCN Red List.
Convention on Biological Diversity
This Convention aims to protect and maintain biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components, and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits from the use of genetic resources. The Convention intends to enforce the concept of sustainable use of resources among decision-makers and that these are not infinite. It also offers decision-makers guidance based on the precautionary principle. South Africa is a Party of this convention since 1993.
Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS)
CMS is a treaty of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), which provides a global platform for the conservation and sustainable use of migratory animals and their habitats. South Africa is a Party State since 1991. CMS includes the States through which migratory animals pass (Range States), and establishes the legal foundation for internationally coordinated conservation measures throughout a migratory range. Besides establishing obligations for each State joining the Convention, CMS promotes concerted action among the Range States of many of these species.
The CMS has two Appendixes: Appendix I pertains to migratory species threatened with extinction and Appendix II that regards migratory species that need or would significantly benefit from international co- operation. CMS Parties strive towards strictly protecting these animals, conserving or restoring the places where they live, mitigating obstacles to migration and controlling other factors that might endanger them.
African-Eurasian Waterbird Agreement (AEWA)
The Agreement on the Conservation of African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbirds was established under the CMS and administered by the UNEP. It is an intergovernmental treaty focused on the conservation of
Proposed Hartebeest wind energy facility – Avifaunal Impact Assessment Scoping Report 13/ 66
migratory waterbirds and their habitats across their occurrence range. South Africa is a contracting party since 2002. The Agreement requires that the habitat of the species covered by the AEWA are in good quality for breeding, and therefore it is essential for the signatory countries to have concerted efforts in the conservation and management of these migratory populations. 1.5. Report Structure
This report content was organized in the following chapters:
• Section 1: Introduction – description of aims and scope of the study and technical team;
• Section 2: Study Methodology – description of methodology and impact assessment;
• Section 3: Description of the affected environment – presentation of the bird community within the study area and sensitivity mapping for the proposed site;
• Section 4: Impact assessment of the proposed facility – preliminary assessment of impacts in the proposed site and proposal of minimization and/or mitigation measure for the proposed site;
• Section 5: Impact Statement – conclusion regarding the main impacts caused by the proposed site;
• Section 6: References;
• Section 7: Appendices.
Proposed Hartebeest wind energy facility – Avifaunal Impact Assessment Scoping Report 14/ 66
2. STUDY METHODOLOGY 2.1. Approach and data sources
As a baseline for this impact assessment a desktop study was conducted to compile the most recent and accurate information available, in order to provide a better evaluation of all conditions present within the study area. Therefore, data sources (as detailed in Table 1) were consulted in order to assess the species likely to occur within the Hartebeest WEF area. The following steps were taken:
• Based on a desktop review and considering all literature references available (Table 1), a list of all bird species considered to potentially occur within, or in close proximity to the site was compiled.
• Literature references and bird specialists were consulted concerning any available information regarding possible migration routes, patterns of bird activity throughout the study area, presence of known breeding and roosting, or other type of information that could be relevant for the contextualization of the importance of the study area for birds occurring in South Africa, particularly, in the Western Cape.
• All species listed from the aforementioned process were assessed at a national level in terms of endemism, population trend, habitat preferences and conservation status.
• The vulnerability of these species in terms of the potential impacts from wind energy developments was evaluated using the Avian Wind Sensitivity Map (Retief et al. 2012). Other species not listed in the aforementioned document were also considered sensitive because of their abundance, flight characteristics, ecological role, population trend and conservation status.
• A short list of sensitive species, to which the assessment and monitoring programme should pay special attention to, was compiled based on the sensitive species identified in the previous steps.
• A desktop study, of all the available information such as topographical maps of South Africa, Google™ Earth imagery, and Geographical Information System software, was conducted for a preliminary evaluation of the area. A reconnaissance field visit was conducted from the 7th to the 11th of September 2014 to achieve an initial understanding of the study area characteristics.
• It is important to characterise the study area in terms of the vegetation and habitat present on site. The method used for vegetation classification is that developed by Mucina & Rutherford (2006). Even more important than the biomes are the vegetation units, which are shaped by various local factors. Bird density, abundance and movement are all determined largely by available vegetation. It is therefore essential to characterise the study area in these terms. Google Earth imagery and more importantly, field work, was used to identify the available micro-habitats on site.
Proposed Hartebeest wind energy facility – Avifaunal Impact Assessment Scoping Report 15/ 66
Table 1 – Data sources consulted for the evaluation of the avifauna present in the study area. The international references and guidelines used to support the methodological approach and results analysis are presented.
Type Title Bibliographic Reference Detail of information
South African Bird Atlas Project 2 (SABAP2) http://sabap2.adu.org.za/ Local
South African Bird Atlas Project 1 (SABAP1) (Harrison et al. 1997) Local
Avian Wind Farm Sensitivity Map for South Africa (Retief et al. 2012) Pentad (5 x 5 minutes)
Coordinated Avifauna Roadcounts (CAR) http://car.adu.org.za/ Local
Coordinated Waterbird Counts http://cwac.adu.org.za/ Local
Data sources The 2014 Eskom Red Data Book of Birds of South (Taylor, 2014) National level Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland 2014 Renewable Energy Application Mapping – Report (DEA 2016) National level version I Global List of Threatened Species (IUCN 2016) Global level
National level Guide to Access Avian Data for Environmental Impact (Retief 2015) Assessment Reports Methodological approach
Best- Practice Guidelines for assessing and National level monitoring the impact of wind-energy facilities on (Jenkins et al. 2012). birds in southern Africa – Second Edition Methodological approach
International level (European Commision Wind energy development and Natura 2000 2010) Methodological approach and analysis International level Good Practice Wind Project www.project-gpwind.eu/ Methodological approach and analysis International level Comprehensive Guide to Studying Wind (Strickland et al. 2011) Energy/Wildlife Interaction Methodological approach and analysis International level U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Land-Based Wind (USFWS 2012) Energy Guidelines Methodological approach and analysis Guidelines and other international references International level Directrices para la evaluación del impacto de los (Atienza et al. 2011) parques eólicos en aves y murciélagos Methodological approach and analysis International level Windfarm impacts on birds guidance www.snh.gov.uk/ Methodological approach and analysis
Definition of the different types of surrogate species
An evaluation of the potential impacts of the development was made in order to select the species that could be affected by it – i.e. sensitive species. These were identified by implementing a structured decision process (refer to Figure 4) in which several factors related to the species’ physiology and biology are considered, such as its; taxonomic order (Jordan & Smallie 2010), threatened status (Taylor, Peacock & Wanless 2015; IUCN 2016) ecological role (e.g. raptors are considered to be key elements of the ecosystems and particularly vulnerable to collision with wind turbines (Strickland et al. 2011), abundance (Hockey, Dean & Ryan 2005)
Proposed Hartebeest wind energy facility – Avifaunal Impact Assessment Scoping Report 16/ 66
and population trend (IUCN 2016). The sensitive species list also included priority species (Retief et al. 2012) updated in 20141.
The use of the analysis of sensitive species, will add valuable information on particular assessments, whether it would be cumulative effects, turbine micro sitting or post-construction Before-After Control-Impact.
Figure 4 - Decision process scheme used to define sensitive species. A species is sensitive when its characteristics are followed through the scheme and it ends in a red square.
2.2. Reconnaissance visit
The reconnaissance site visit considered in this scoping report was conducted between the 7th to the 11th of September 2014 and will form part of the bird pre-construction monitoring programme that was implemented at the Hartebeest WEF. Therefore, all the methodologies conducted for this assessment were in compliance with the “Best-Practice Guidelines for assessing and monitoring the impact of wind-energy facilities on birds in southern Africa – Second Edition” (Jenkins et al. 2012). The following methodologies were conducted (Figure 5):
• Linear walking transects to characterise the bird community (paying special attention to target small terrestrial species) occurring within the area of the Wind Energy Facility. All bird species seen or heard were recorded;
• Vantage points to determine the usage of the area by sensitive species as well as those who are sensitive to the impacts derived from wind energy facilities (with special emphasis on raptors and other large birds) within and in close proximity to the Wind Energy Facility. This aims to determine bird activity patterns and movements within the site and its immediate surroundings;
1 Priority species - Species listed in the Avian Wind Farm Sensitivity Map for South Africa (Retief et al. 2012). This list of species is considered a priority as it sets the basis for a common evaluation scheme in South Africa and therefore is believed that any species contained in these documents should be identified as a priority for conservation. The criteria used by Retief et al., 2012 were: species conservation concern - IUCN (2013) and The Eskom Red Data Book of Birds of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland (Taylor, Peacock & Wanless 2015) -, species endemism and species that might be sensitive to wind farms based on a bibliographic review and comparing to the groups affected in other parts of the world.
Proposed Hartebeest wind energy facility – Avifaunal Impact Assessment Scoping Report 17/ 66
• Priority species identification of breeding evidences to identify and monitor active nesting sites of sensitive species within the study area and its immediate surroundings;
• Water body search and monitoring to evaluate the species present, as well as their primary movements at main water bodies;
• Vehicle based transects within the WEF and throughout its surroundings, to register all important observations of the general bird community located in the vicinity of the site.
• Incidental observation. All observations made during the presence of field observers in the study area were recorded, mapped and considered in this report.
All of the aforementioned methodologies were implemented within the wind energy facility and its immediate surroundings. The methodologies implemented in this first reconnaissance visit were intended to provide a preliminary indication of the bird community, utilization of the proposed area and importance of the various habitats for the bird community.
A full pre-construction bird monitoring programme must be implemented at the Hartebeest WEF to inform the final avifaunal specialist impact assessment report. For more details on the experimental design proposed to be implemented refer to Section 7.2.
2.2.1. Sampling Period
A five-day reconnaissance visit to the Hartebeest WEF proposed development site was conducted from the 7th to the 11th of September 2014 in order to gain a better insight into the study area characteristics and potential presence of birds. Additionally, to the reconnaissance and characterization of the proposed development area, all the field methodologies referred in previous section were implemented within the proposed WEF area: Linear walking transects, vantage points, breeding evidences inspection, water body monitoring and incidental observations. 2.2.2. Linear Walking Transects
Eight linear transects were conducted within the Wind Energy Facility site and in the proximity each approximately 1000m in length (Figure 5). These covered all micro-habitats or biotopes2 relevant for the local bird community present on site. These transects were conducted once during the reconnaissance visit.
Each linear transect was conducted by expert bird observers team who slowly walked recording all bird contacts, both seen and heard. These contacts were recorded on both the left and right side of the progression line, with no distance limit between the observer and the birds (Buckland et al. 1993; Bibby et al. 2000). Sampling commenced shortly after sunrise and continue during the early morning (e.g. the first 3 hours
2 Biotope is an area of uniform environmental conditions providing a living place for a specific assemblage of plants and animals. Biotope is almost synonymous with the term habitat, but while the subject of a habitat is a species or a population, the subject of a biotope is a biological community.
Proposed Hartebeest wind energy facility – Avifaunal Impact Assessment Scoping Report 18/ 66
after sunrise), avoiding the warmer periods of the day when the birds may be less active/vocal and hence less conspicuous (Bibby et al. 2000).
After conducting transect sampling surveys of the overall bird community, the captured data was analysed in order to estimate the relative abundance/density of the bird community, as well as the average species richness of bird community.
2.2.3. Vantage Points
Four suitable vantage points were implemented at strategic locations in the Wind Energy Facility and in such a way as to allow for efficient visualization of the proposed area for the wind farm and its immediate surroundings (Figure 5).
Observations from each vantage point were conducted covering a 360º area3. For each observation the number of individuals and, whenever possible, the gender and age was recorded. Behavioural patterns observed were also recorded, including (i) type of flight - passage flight, soaring, display, territorial; (ii) flight height - below rotor height, rotor height, above the rotor height; and (iii) environmental variables (air temperature, wind speed and direction, occurrence of precipitation, cloud cover and visibility).
Data collected at vantage points is used to confirm species present in the area and their utilization of the area, as well as the estimation of any major risk behaviours, i.e. type of flight and flight height which will determine the collision risk with wind turbines.
2.2.4. Vehicle-Based Transects
One vehicle-based transects of approximately 37 km was conducted in the Wind Energy Facility and its immediate surroundings (Figure 5). The vehicle-based transects were conducted by two expert observers; one driving slowly and the other recording all contacts (seen and heard).
During the transect the total number of birds observed was counted, recorded and whenever possible mapped over topographic charts. The following parameters were recorded on a standard field sheet especially designed for this methodological approach: (i) bird species, gender and age (whenever possible); (ii) number of individuals; (iii) perpendicular distance from the road; (iv) bird activity observed and type of observation (acoustic/visual). Whenever pertinent, additional information will be collected in order to contribute to the detailed characterisation of the areas usage by the species.
3 During the pre-construction monitoring programme a minimum of 12 hours per season was conducted according to the “Best practice guidelines for avian monitoring and impact mitigation at proposed wind energy development sites in Southern Africa (Jenkins et al. 2012). – refer to section 7.2.
Proposed Hartebeest wind energy facility – Avifaunal Impact Assessment Scoping Report 19/ 66
2.2.5. Breeding and roosting evidences
The methodology implemented followed the general guidelines presented in the Second Edition of the Best Practice Guidelines for Bird Monitoring (Jenkins et al. 2012). The area of the WEF and its immediate surroundings was investigated for nesting and/or roosting locations of priority species. All the nesting and/or roosting locations identified during inspection was registered with a handheld GPS, after which the data was imported into an appropriate Geographical Information System. 2.2.6. Water body monitoring
The main water bodies within the study area and its immediate surroundings were identified, mapped and surveyed in order to determine their level of utilization by water birds. The methodological approach followed the prescribed protocol of the Coordinated Water bird Counts (Taylor et al. 1999).
Figure 5 – Location of the sampling points conducted during the reconnaissance site visit in September 2014 at Hartebeest WEF and surrounding area.
2.2.7. Bird micro-habitats mapping
The mapping of vegetation and other relevant features was performed by means of Google Earth Imagery and Geographic Information System software. These features were verified by the observers who conducted the reconnaissance field survey, while travelling by car across the extent of the WEF area. 2.3. Impact Evaluation
A preliminary evaluation of the potential impacts caused by the implementation of the Hartebeest WEF will be conducted based on extensive experience in environmental impacts assessment, baseline knowledge of the area and will reflect the criteria presented in Table 2. These criteria are in accordance with the DEAT EIA Guideline Document 5, on the assessment of impacts and alternatives (DEAT 2006), as well as reference to
Proposed Hartebeest wind energy facility – Avifaunal Impact Assessment Scoping Report 20/ 66
the description of the criteria used for the assessment of impacts as contained in the DEA&DP Specialist Guidelines Series (2005).
Table 2 – Criteria used for classification of the potential environmental impacts caused by Hartebeest WEF. Item Definition Value
Extent Extending only as far as the boundaries of the activity, limited to Local 1 the site and its immediate surroundings Regional Impact on the broader region 2 Will have an impact on a national scale or across international National 3 borders Duration
Short-term 0-5 years 1
Medium-term 5-15 years 2 >15 years, where the impact will cease after the operational life Long-term 3 of the activity Where mitigation, either by natural process or human Permanent intervention, will not occur in such a way or in such a time span 4 that the impact can be considered transient. Magnitude or Intensity -1 (Negative Impact) Where the receiving natural environment is negligibly affected or Low or where the impact is so low that remedial action is not required. 1 (Positive Impact) Where the affected environment is altered, but not severely and -2 (Negative Impact) Medium the impact can be mitigated successfully and natural functions or and processes can continue, albeit in a modified way. 2 (Positive Impact) Where natural functions or processes are substantially altered to -3 (Negative Impact) a very large degree. If a negative impact then this could lead to High or irreplaceable loss of biodiversity to the extent that natural 3 (Positive Impact) functions could temporarily or permanently cease. Probability Where the possibility of the impact materialising is very low, Improbable 1 either because of design or historic experience Probable Where there is a distinct possibility that the impact will occur 2
Highly Probable Where it is most likely that the impact will occur 3 Where the impact will undoubtedly occur, regardless of any Definite 4 prevention measures Significance (Extent*Duration*Magnitude/Intensity)*Probability
Where a potential impact will have a negligible effect on natural 0 to -40 (Negative Impact) Low environment and the effect on the decision is negligible. This will or not require special design considerations for the project 0 to 40 (Positive Impact) Where it would have, or there would be a moderate risk to -41 to -80 (Negative Impact) Medium natural environment and should influence the decision. The or
Proposed Hartebeest wind energy facility – Avifaunal Impact Assessment Scoping Report 21/ 66
Item Definition Value project will require modification or mitigation measures to be 41 to 80 (Positive Impact) included in the design Where it would have, or there would be a high risk of, a large -81 to -120 (Negative Impact) High effect on natural environment. These impacts should have a or major influence on decision making. 81 to 120 (Positive Impact) Where it would have, or there would be a high risk of, an irreversible negative impact on biodiversity and irreplaceable loss <-120 (Negative Impact) of natural capital that could result in the project being Very High or environmentally unacceptable, even with mitigation. >120 (Positive Impact) Alternatively, it could lead to a major positive effect. Impacts of this nature must be a central factor in decision making. Status of impact Whether the impact is positive (a benefit), negative (a cost) or neutral (status quo maintained) Degree of The degree of confidence in the predictions is based on the availability of information and confidence in specialist knowledge (e.g. low, medium or high) Predictions Mechanisms used to control, minimise and or eliminate negative impacts on the environment Mitigation and to enhance project benefits. Mitigation measures should be considered in terms of the following hierarchy: (1) avoidance, (2) minimisation, (3) restoration and (4) off-sets.
2.4. Assumptions and limitations
• The avifaunal assessment of such a study area will be dependent on the accuracy of both primary (data collection) and secondary data sources, such as those indicated in section 2.1.
• Any inaccuracies or lack of information in the bibliographic sources consulted could limit this study. In particular, the SABAP1 data is now fairly old (Harrison et al. 1997). To surpass this possible problem in the data used, the more recent and updated SABAP2 was consulted. However, the number of lists submitted for this area in the SABAP 2 is not yet adequate for the single use of this more recent data source. Therefore, both South African Bird Atlases (Project 1 and 2) were consulted in a complementary way. Species were considered as being possibly present within the study area if they occurred in any of the pentads, QDGS or wetland sites considered for analysis. Coordinate Avifauna Roadcount data was also requested for consideration in this study.
Proposed Hartebeest wind energy facility – Avifaunal Impact Assessment Scoping Report 22/ 66
3. DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3.1. Bird micro-habitats
Vegetation structure is a key determining factor in bird distribution and abundance. The description of the vegetation types occurring at the site uses the classification system adopted by the Atlas of Southern African Birds (Harrison et al. 1997). The criteria are used 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 proposed Hartebeest WEF site is located in an area associated just to one vegetation type and major biotope: the Fynbos biome. This biome is characteristic of higher altitudes and are present in the bottom and top of the mountains. The land main use is for cereal plantation, combined with some sheep and cattle grazing. Therefore, the natural habitats are highly transformed. Some tree stands appear scattered throughout the study area. Some hills covered with natural vegetation add some steep slopes to the otherwise gently undulated landscape. The highest altitudes are reached in a series of hills running in a northwest to southeast direction traversing the study area.
In terms of sensitive areas, the mentioned hills running northwest to southeast, covered by natural vegetation are defined as an important area for raptors which probably use the slopes for their movements as well as the intersection between natural vegetation and croplands for hunting. On the other hand, species such as the Black Harrier are highly dependent on natural vegetation patches, which are scarce in the Western Cape.
Water bodies
During the field visit and through analysis of the aerial imagery it was found that the site has some farm dams which are adequate to accommodate large bird species such as Cormorants, Grebes, Herons or Ibises which may use them as stepping stones during their movements or as feeding or roosting areas. These water bodies may as well attract predatory birds trying to feed on the waterbirds (Photograph 2).
Photograph 2 – Water body found in the Hartebeest WEF site with water during the reconnaissance visit conducted in September 2014.
Proposed Hartebeest wind energy facility – Avifaunal Impact Assessment Scoping Report 23/ 66
Natural vegetation and hills
The proposed development area is occupied in some parts by natural vegetation associated to hills. It has a homogenous and similar structure in all this areas, revealed by the constant presence of small scrubby vegetation (Photograph 3). Although the raptors listed as sensitive species do not necessarily roost or nest at the WEF site, they will forage in natural veld. Therefore, several sensitive species have potential to be present in the study area due to this type of vegetation including Booted Eagle Hieraaetus pennatus, Jackal Buzzard Buteo rufofuscus Black Harrier Circus maurus, Karoo Lark Calendulauda albescens and Large-billed Lark Galerida magnirostris.
Photograph 3 – Examples of areas of natural vegetation within the Hartebeest WEF proposed wind farm portions.
Buildings
Being the site mostly composed by agriculture and pasture land with some areas composed of natural vegetation, there are some man-made infrastructures. In this first visit to the site two houses were found and documented below (Photograph 4). These locations as well as others with similar characteristics that were undetected during this survey may be important for several bird species which use them for roosting and/or nesting, such as Spotted Eagle-Owl Bubo africanus, House Sparrow Passer domesticus.
Photograph 4 – Man-made infrastructures with suitable characteristics for roosting or nesting of several bird species.
Proposed Hartebeest wind energy facility – Avifaunal Impact Assessment Scoping Report 24/ 66
Trees
Other micro-habitats present within and in the area immediately adjacent to the proposed site, which are important for a number of bird species, are stands of trees. In the study area such trees are usually associated with water bodies with well-developed vegetation (Photograph 5).
These locations provide perching and roosting and/or nesting locations for raptor species as well as refugee for smaller passerine species (e.g. African Harrier-Hawk Polyboroides typus, Pied
Crow Corvus albus, among others). Photograph 5 – Scattered trees found in the middle of shrubland areas.
3.2. Avifauna community within the development site
3.2.1. Potential bird community
Considering all data sources referred previously (refer to section 2.1) 225 bird species are considered to have potential occurrence within the Hartebeest WEF site and/or its surrounding area (refer to Appendix I - Table 5). The bird community present may include up to 17 species of special conservation concern such as, for example: Black Stork Ciconia nigra and Verreauxs' Eagle Aquila verreauxii considered Vulnerable, Martial Eagle Polemaetus bellicosus, Black Harrier Circus maurus and Ludwig’s Bustard Neotis ludwigii considered Endangered and Greater Flamingo Phoenicopterus roseus and Maccoa Duck Oxyura maccoa classified as Near Threatened (Taylor, Peacock & Wanless 2015).
Two species confirmed at the site are endemic to South Africa, the Cape Long-billed Lark and the Cape Bulbul; 14 other species are near-endemic to South Africa and one species are endemic to South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland (BLSA 2014).
The bird community in the area is likely to be composed by several diurnal and nocturnal raptor species, bustard species, several waterbirds, as well as a diverse passerines and small birds.
A short list of species, considered to present a higher sensitivity to the impacts caused by wind energy facility developments, such as collision with the operational turbine blades, collision and electrocution on the associated infrastructure as well as loss of habitat and displacement is presented in Table 3. It includes 50 bird species, 24 of which are raptors (diurnal raptors, nocturnal raptors and falcons), 2 bustards, 15 waterbirds and “ciconids”, 1 crane and 8 passerine and small bird species. This list will be helpful in the next stages of the impact assessment procedure by focusing the impact evaluation in such species, considered as indicators, rather than in the extended full species list with species less prone to suffer negative impacts.
Proposed Hartebeest wind energy facility – Avifaunal Impact Assessment Scoping Report 25/ 66
Table 3 – List of sensitive species considered for the Hartebeest WEF site due to their conservation status, endemicity, population trend and general sensitivity to impacts caused by wind energy facility developments. Red List Conservation Status South Africa (RLCS SA) and Worldwide (RLCS WW): EN – Endangered; VU – Vulnerable; NT – Near threatened; LC – Least Concern; NA – Not Assessed (Taylor, Peacock & Wanless 2015; IUCN 2016). Phenology (IUCN 2016): R – Resident; BM – Breeding migrant; NBM – Non breeding migrant. Endemism (BLSA, 2014): * – Endemic. (*) – Nearly Endemic. SLS - endemic to South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Priority sp. (Retief et al. 2012)
Scientific Population Endemic Common Name Abundance CO WEF Name RLCS Trend SA SA RLCS Phenology occurrence Likelihood of Water bodies
Haliaeetus African Fish Eagle R LC - Stable Locally common - - - - Low vocifer Polyboroides African Harrier-Hawk R LC - Stable Locally common - X - - Confirmed typus Circus African Marsh Harrier R LC EN Decreasing Locally common - - X - Confirmed ranivorus Threskiornis African Sacred Ibis R LC - Decreasing Common - X X X Confirmed aethiopicus Gallinago Uncommon to African Snipe R LC - Unknown - - - - Low nigripennis locally common Black Harrier Circus maurus R VU EN Stable Uncommon (*) X X - Confirmed Accipiter Scarce to fairly Black Sparrowhawk R LC - Decreasing - - - - Low melanoleucus common Black Stork Ciconia nigra - LC VU Unknown Uncommon - - - - Low Black-eared Sparrow- Eremopterix R LC - Decreasing Locally common (*) - X - Confirmed lark australis Elanus Black-shouldered Kite R LC - Stable Common - X X - Confirmed caeruleus Anthropoides Blue Crane R VU NT Stable Locally common - X X X Confirmed paradiseus Hieraaetus Locally fairly Booted Eagle R LC - Decreasing - X X - Confirmed pennatus common Fairly common to Cape Clapper Lark Mirafra apiata R LC - Decreasing (*) X X - Confirmed common Phalacrocorax Common to locally Cape Cormorant R EN EN Decreasing - - - - Low capensis abundant Generally Cape Eagle-Owl Bubo capensis R LC - Stable - - - - Low common Certhilauda Cape Long-billed Lark R LC - Decreasing Locally common * X X - Confirmed curvirostris Rare to locally Cape Shoveler Anas smithii R LC - Increasing - - X X Confirmed abundant Caspian Tern Sterna caspia R LC VU Increasing Uncommon - - - - Low Common (Steppe) Buteo buteo 0 LC - Increasing 0 - X X - Confirmed Buzzard Common Swift Apus apus NBM LC - Decreasing Unknown - X - - Confirmed Coracias Relatively European Roller NBM NT NT Decreasing - - - - Low garrulus common Pelecanus Locally fairly Great White Pelican R LC VU Unknown - - - - Low onocrotalus common Phoenicopterus Greater Flamingo R LC NT Increasing Locally abundant - - - X Confirmed roseus Falco Greater Kestrel R LC - Stable Fairly common - X X - Confirmed rupicoloides
Proposed Hartebeest wind energy facility – Avifaunal Impact Assessment Scoping Report 26/ 66
Scientific Population Endemic Common Name Abundance CO WEF Name RLCS Trend SA SA RLCS Phenology occurrence Likelihood of Water bodies
Scleroptila Grey-winged Francolin R LC - Stable Common SLS - - - Low africana Scopus Hamerkop R LC - Stable Locally common - - - - Low umbretta Buteo Jackal Buzzard R LC - Stable Fairly common (*) X X X Confirmed rufofuscus Calendulauda Common to fairly Karoo Lark R LC - Decreasing (*) - - - Low albescens common Falco Lanner Falcon R LC VU Increasing Fairly common - X X - Confirmed biarmicus Galerida Fairly common to Large-billed Lark R LC - Increasing (*) X X - Confirmed magnirostris common Phoeniconaias Lesser Flamingo R NT NT Decreasing Locally abundant - - X X Confirmed minor Falco Lesser Kestrel NBM LC - Stable Locally common - - - - Low naumanni Ixobrychus Generally Little Bittern R LC - Decreasing - - - - Low minutus uncommon Sparse to locally Ludwig's Bustard Neotis ludwigii R EN EN Decreasing - X X - Confirmed common Oxyura Maccoa Duck R NT NT Decreasing Common - - - - Medium maccoa Polemaetus Martial Eagle R VU EN Decreasing Uncommon - X - - Confirmed bellicosus Pale Chanting Melierax Rare to locally R LC - Stable - - - - Low Goshawk canorus common Falco Peregrine Falcon R LC - Stable Uncommon - X X - Confirmed peregrinus Ardea Uncommon to Purple Heron R LC - Decreasing - - - - Low purpurea locally common Common to Rock Kestrel Falco rupicolus R NA - NA - X X - Confirmed uncommon Rufous-breasted Accipiter Scarce to fairly R LC - Increasing - - - - Low Sparrowhawk rufiventris common Sagittarius Locally fairly Secretarybird R VU VU Decreasing - X X - Confirmed serpentarius common Southern Black Uncommon to Afrotis afra R VU VU Decreasing * - - - Low Korhaan common Generally Spotted Eagle-Owl Bubo africanus R LC - Stable - X X - Confirmed common Aquila Locally fairly Verreauxs' Eagle R LC VU Stable - X X - Confirmed verreauxii common Generally Western Barn Owl Tyto alba R LC - Stable - - X - Confirmed common Pandion Generally Western Osprey NBM LC - Increasing - - - - Low haliaetus uncommon Common to White Stork Ciconia ciconia NBM LC - Increasing - - - - Low abundant Egretta Uncommon to Yellow-billed Egret R LC - Decreasing - - - - Low intermedia locally common Milvus Yellow-billed Kite BM NA - NA Common - X X X Confirmed aegyptius
Proposed Hartebeest wind energy facility – Avifaunal Impact Assessment Scoping Report 27/ 66
Raptor species
The raptor species are mostly associated with mountainous rocky areas with cliffs, where they may nest or use the hillsides for the created uplift draft currents. It is also likely that they will be observed using the natural vegetation areas to hunt or in some cases (such as Black Harrier per example) nest on the ground. Sensitive species included in this group are, for example, the Verreauxs' Eagle, Booted Eagle, Martial Eagle, Jackal Buzzard, Pale Chanting Goshawk, Black Harrier, African Harrier-Hawk, Rock Kestrel, Greater Kestrel and Spotted Eagle-Owl. There are two nests of Jackal Buzzard in the surrounding area of the proposed WEF area, being therefore likely that the species uses the site both as breeding and hunting grounds.
Bustard species
Bustard species with potential distribution in the area are mostly associated with semi-arid dwarf shrubland areas in Nama Karoo, succulent Karoo or savannahs. These include Ludwig’s Bustard and Southern Black Korhaan. The species are usually observed in plain areas, and therefore considering the plain to undulating landscape where Hartebeest WEF wind turbines are proposed, it’s likely that the species uses the area. Both species are regarded as potentially sensitive to impacts caused by wind energy facilities.
Waterbird and “Ciconid” species
Waterbirds were concentrated in a few water bodies located to the south and southeast of the study area. Both points are located at about 1km from the turbine layout. Despite these water bodies, geese (Egyptian and Spur-winged Goose) were detected in certain crop fields although most of the time not in very large numbers. Regarding ciconids (egrets, ibises and herons), they are most abundant in the northern section of the study area
Passerines and small bird species
The community of passerine and small bird potentially present on site is quite varied, including species present in shrubland, scrubs alongside streams and rivers, semi-arid areas and slopes. Most of the study area is composed by these vegetation types, being therefore likely that the passerine and small birds’ community forms different guilds in relation to each of these vegetation associations (e.g. biotopes). Species considered sensitive to wind energy facility impacts included in this group are the Grey-winged Francolin, Cape Clapper Lark, Karoo Lark and Common Swift.
Cranes
The Cranes, represented only by the Blue Crane, appear quite evenly distributed across the study area. Blue Cranes seem to stay in lower areas, probably foraging close to water courses where insects and sprouts are more abundant. In the northern section of the study area the species seem to be overall more abundant.
3.2.2. Confirmed bird community
Through all listed bird methodologies implemented 118 bird species were confirmed within the proposed Hartebeest WEF site and its surroundings (refer to Appendix I - Table 5). The initial site visit, conducted from the 7th to the 11th of September 2014, allowed for the identification of ten species of conservation concern using the area or its broader surroundings: Black Harrier classified as “Endangered”; Verreauxs’ Eagle
Proposed Hartebeest wind energy facility – Avifaunal Impact Assessment Scoping Report 28/ 66
considered “Vulnerable” and Greater Flamingo considered “Near Threatened” (Taylor, Peacock & Wanless 2015). These ten species should be considered as sensitive species (i.e. focal species) for further phases of the impact evaluation process. Besides these ten species, eighteen other sensitive species were identified in the study area, including the Cape Clapper Lark, African Harrier-Hawk, Rock Kestrel, Peregrine Falcon and Large-billed Lark.
The linear walked transects allowed for a preliminary characterization of the composition of the passerine and small bird community. The analysis of the data collected through the walked transects determined that the group with higher number of species in the Hartebeest WEF are the Waterbirds, however the Accipitrids are the group with higher number of sensitive species (Figure 6).
18 16 14 12 10 8 6
Number of species 4 2 0 Accipitrids Bustards Ciconids Cranes Crows Falcons Waterbirds
Sensitive spp Non-sensitive spp
Figure 6 - Main groups of bird species detected while conducting linear walked transects during the visit conducted in September 2014.
The area presented high activity levels during the field visit conducted. Several sensitive species were observed in the areas where wind turbines are proposed including the African Marsh Harrier, Blue Crane and Verreauxs’ Eagle.
Movements were observed at potential rotor swept height (above 50m height) of Black Harrier, Verreauxs’ Eagle, Blue Crane and Lanner Falcon species (Figure 7). These flights were either soaring or hunting flights. This type of flight is considered to present the higher collision risk since birds are likely to become distracted of their surrounding environment while hunting (refer to section 4.1.1 for further details on bird collision risk factors). Soaring flights are also of concern since birds are undertaking passive flight while using thermal rising air currents and therefore if an obstacle is placed in the way they may not be able to divert it timely.
Proposed Hartebeest wind energy facility – Avifaunal Impact Assessment Scoping Report 29/ 66
Figure 7 - Representation of the height of the sensitive and endangered bird species movements observed through all methodologies implemented during the reconnaissance visit conducted to the proposed Hartebeest WEF site in September 2014.
A total of 9 water bodies was surveyed (Figure 8). In general terms, all the water bodies presented rather low number of birds of non-sensitive species (other than Blue Cranes, this species was recorded in virtually all of them), with the exception of WBAD08. The average number of birds recorded in this water body was approximately 71, reaching 145 in one occasion. Greater Flamingos (6 ind.) and Cape Shoveler (10 ind.) were recorded in this water body.
A total of 13 Lesser Flamingos were observed in WBAD03, located about 800 metres east of WBAD08. However, this water body never gathered more birds than that.
Additionally, Misverstand Dam was visited. This relatively large dam is located in the Berg River, approximately 15km away from the site. No significant bird activity was observed during the visit, other than 2 Blue Cranes, abundant geese and a few darters and spoonbills. The locals informed that they do not receive important amounts of birds in the area, although Great White Pelicans and especially Blue Cranes are seen with some regularity. However, it does not seem to be an important gathering place and it is believed to be far enough from the site to not be directly affected.
In summary, the only water bodies considered important from an impact perspective are the ones surrounding the farm houses at Hartebeesfontein with particular relevance for WBAD08. The other three; WBAD07, 02 and 03 are considered to be as relevant as WBAD08, but they are close enough to consider them as part of the same complex and movements are likely to occur between them.
Regarding breeding evidences identification and monitoring, six raptor nests were identified in (NEAD01, NEAD02, NEAD03, NEAD04, NEAD05, NEAD06), in the Hartebeest WEF (Figure 8; Photograph 6). One location was confirmed as a nesting site for Jackal Buzzard (NEAD02) and the other one was most likely used by the
Proposed Hartebeest wind energy facility – Avifaunal Impact Assessment Scoping Report 30/ 66
same species but the reproduction was not confirmed (NEAD01). There were mating behaviours observed close to NEAD01. The rest of the locations were not confirmed to be utilized during the monitoring period and could not be associated to a particular species. It seems reasonable to assume they could be used by crows or kestrel species given its characteristics and locations.
Blue Crane pairs with juveniles were recorded on site, as well as juvenile Black Harrier, Lanner Falcon and an immature Martial Eagle. All these species are considered to have potential to breed in the broader study area, but it is considered unlikely that they do within 1 km radius from the turbine locations.
Photograph 6 – Aspect of the two potential nests identified in the reconnaissance visits conducted in September 2014.
Figure 8 - Location of the identified water bodies and potential nests in the surrounding area of the proposed Hartebeest Wind Energy Facility.
Proposed Hartebeest wind energy facility – Avifaunal Impact Assessment Scoping Report 31/ 66
3.3. Sensitivity mapping for the development site
In this section a preliminary analysis of the proposed Hartebeest WEF bird sensitivity is presented based on bibliographic resources (Large scale sensitivity) and the results of the reconnaissance visit and identification of main bird microhabitats (Small scale sensitivity). 3.3.1. Large scale sensitivity
Figure 9 below displays the location of Hartebeest WEF in relation to the Avian Wind Farm Sensitivity Map (Retief et al. 2012) compiled for South Africa. The darker grid cells represent higher sensitivity values while lighter coloured grid cells refer to less sensitivity. Regarding the proposed Hartebeest WEF site it is observed that the site is within medium and medium-high sensitivity grid cells (Retief et al. 2012).
In the following section an analysis of the sensitivity of the area at a finer scale is presented.
Figure 9 - Location of the proposed Hartebeest WEF in relation to Avian Wind Farm Sensitivity Map for South Africa (Retief et al. 2012) (background image: Virtual Earth Street Map Imagery).
3.3.2. Small scale sensitivity
Considering the bird micro-habitats identified in section 3.1 and the observations collected in the reconnaissance visit conducted from the 7th to the 11th of September 2014, sensitive areas were selected within and in the immediate surroundings of the proposed Hartebeest WEF (Figure 10). This is a preliminary analysis and does not dismiss the implementation of a full pre-construction bird monitoring programme in order to validate this analysis.
Proposed Hartebeest wind energy facility – Avifaunal Impact Assessment Scoping Report 32/ 66
In terms of general sensitivity for the avifauna community, the area defined for development is considered as a medium sensitivity location, presenting several issues that should be addressed in order to minimise a few more relevant impacts:
1. There is a varied community of raptors using the area, some of them of conservation concern, such as the Black Harrier or the Lanner Falcon. Also Verreaux’s Eagle and Martial Eagle were observed;
2. There is an important presence of Blue Cranes in the study area. Pairs with juveniles have been observed on site, which points towards the species breeding in the area.
In this section a zonation of the area in terms of different sensitivities of specific locations is presented. The zonation is made in relative terms and is not meant to compare to other sites, just within the one under study.
The following features are considered for the definition of sensitive areas (Figure 10):
• Areas of natural vegetation are restricted to hills and slopes, they are frequently used by raptors. Furthermore, they represent important habitat for sensitive, endangered species, such as the Black Harrier. These areas must be considered NO-GO and no turbines are to be sited in these areas.
• A 300m buffer around hills and slopes dominated by natural vegetation are considered as being of medium to high sensitivity and it is recommended that, if technically feasible no turbines should be sited within these areas. If not technically feasible then additional mitigation must be implemented.
• A 300m around water bodies, as these features may attract birds under certain conditions and are the only places were certain sensitive species such as Greater and Lesser Flamingos were observed. These areas must be avoided and are considered NO-GO areas.
• A 500m buffer around WBAD08, because it is the water body were the highest number of bird contacts were recorded and were the Greater Flamingos were observed must also be considered NO-GO and no turbines are to be sited in this area.
• 500m - 1000m around the active Jackal Buzzard nests identified. 500 metres around active raptors nests must be considered NO-GO areas and a buffer of 1000 meters around should be considered as of medium to high sensitivity and turbine placement should be avoided if technically feasible. If turbines are to be placed within the buffer from 500 meter to 1000 meters around these areas additional mitigation must be implemented.
Proposed Hartebeest wind energy facility – Avifaunal Impact Assessment Scoping Report 33/ 66
Figure 10 - Preliminary sensitivity mapping of the proposed Hartebeest WEF (background image: Virtual Earth Satellite Imagery).
Proposed Hartebeest wind energy facility – Avifaunal Impact Assessment Scoping Report 34/ 66
4. IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF THE PROPOSED HARTEBEEST WEF 4.1. Interactions between Wind Energy Facilities and Birds
Wind energy generation in South Africa have rapidly expanded over the last 5 years. More recently the wind energy facilities up until now under evaluation, or under construction have started their operational phase and the first results of the impacts caused are starting to become available through grey literature, and/or through oral presentations. Moreover, to date only a 1-year preliminary study, assessing birds and bird fatalities at south African wind farms, has been completed and published (Doty & Martin 2013). This study was undertaken at a pilot turbine installed in the Coega Industrial Development Zone, Port Elizabeth, Eastern Cape. Only one bird fatality was reported, i.e. a Little Swift (Apus affinis). More recent studies, resulting from operational phase monitoring programmes disclose a different reality, with a much higher number of fatalities. However, it is of note that the data available does not provide standardized data by wind turbine and/or MW produced, therefore comparisons are limited. Nonetheless the potential non-fatal impacts of wind turbines on South African on bird communities are still largely unknown (e.g. displacement and/or disturbance effects). Therefore, data collection and further investigation is needed and pre-construction as well as operational phase monitoring should be implemented to fill these gaps and promote the sustainability of wind energy developments in South Africa.
4.1.1. Collision with turbines
A number of factors influence the number of birds killed at wind energy facilities, such as bird related variables and site related variables. These are detailed below, as well as potentially affected bird species within the Hartebeest study area.
Bird related variables
Whilst all birds face some inherent risk of impact by wind turbines, there are definitely certain groups that are more at risk due to their flight behaviour or habitat preferences (Jordan & Smallie 2010). Jordan & Smallie (2010) summarized knowledge from the European Union, United Kingdom, United States, Canada and Australia to identify the following taxonomic groups as being affected most by wind energy facilities: Podicipediformes, Pelicaniformes, Ciconiiformes, Anseriformes, Falconiformes, Charadriformes, Strigiformes, Caprimulgiformes, Gruiformes, Galliformes, Psittaciformes, Passeriformes. In determining which species are likely to be at risk at wind energy facilities in South Africa, the above groups form a useful starting point. This review is supported by other studies which also suggest that game birds, waterfowl and shorebirds are potentially at risk, large soaring birds, and particularly raptors are frequent casualties, as are passerines, especially those with pronounced aerial displays (Erickson et al. 2001; Kerlinger & Dowdell 2003; Drewitt & Langston 2006, 2008).
Large birds with low manoeuvrability in flight are usually more prone to collide with wind turbines, but raptors and falcons, species that fly at rotor height and exhibit hunting behaviour are also very susceptible to
Proposed Hartebeest wind energy facility – Avifaunal Impact Assessment Scoping Report 35/ 66
collide with man-made structures (De Lucas, Janss & Ferrer 2008). Amongst fatalities found at wind energy facilities in South Africa, raptors and falcons were the most affected group reported so far, with approximately 45% of fatalities found. Passerines represented 30% of fatalities, while water-associated species and bustards corresponded to 6% and 5% of fatalities found, respectively (Ralston-Paton 2015).
Considering the above, raptors and falcons potentially present at the proposed Hartebeest WEF are regarded as the groups most susceptible to collision with wind turbines, especially since these species generally have smaller population sizes than passerine species and consequently have a higher conservation risk. Such species include the African Harrier-Hawk, Verreauxs’ Eagle, Rock Kestrel and Martial Eagle per example. These species were observed within the proposed WEF site and surrounding area, and particularly Verreauxs’ Eagle was observed at rotor swept height and with flight behaviours of risk.
Site variables
Landscape features can channel or funnel birds towards a certain area and in the case of raptors, influence their flight and foraging behaviour. Elevation, ridges and slopes are all important factors in determining the extent to which an area is used by birds in flight (Barrios & Rodríguez 2004; De Lucas, Janss & Ferrer 2008; Smallwood & Thelander 2008). High levels of prey will attract raptors, increasing the time spent hunting, and as a result reducing the time spent being observant of their surroundings. In addition, poor weather affects visibility meaning that during conditions of very thick fog, the collision risk is higher than normal. Very strong winds may also contribute to higher collision risk, since birds fly lower during headwinds, meaning that when the turbines are functioning at their maximum speed, birds are likely to be flying at their lowest, exponentially increasing collision risk.
The proposed Hartebeest WEF is located in an area with undulating topography, though there is a central section with some hills. These may reveal favourable to the formation of thermals and therefore soaring birds are likely to use the area to gain height through the rising hot air currents.
4.1.2. Habitat loss – destruction, disturbance and displacement
In spite of the limited destructive footprint of most wind energy facilities, some damage to the environment (more or less temporary) is always caused during the construction phase. This damage may be more or less significant whether it is coincident with sensitive/important areas for restricted range, endemic and/or threatened species. Therefore, construction and to a lesser extent on-going maintenance activities, are likely to cause some disturbance of birds in the general surrounds, and especially of shy and/or ground-nesting species resident in the area.
Mitigation of such effects requires that best-practice principles are rigorously applied, sites are selected to avoid the destruction of key habitats, and sources of disturbance of priority species must be kept to an absolute minimum.
Some studies have shown significant decreases in the numbers of certain birds in areas where wind energy facilities are operational as a direct result of the noise or movement of the turbines (Larsen & Guillemette 2007; Farfán et al. 2009), while others have shown decreases which may be attributed to a combination of collision casualties and avoidance or exclusion from the impact zone of the project (Stewart, Pullin & Coles 2007). Such displacement effects are probably more relevant in situations where wind energy facilities are
Proposed Hartebeest wind energy facility – Avifaunal Impact Assessment Scoping Report 36/ 66
built in natural habitat (Madders & Whitfield 2006; Pearce-Higgins et al. 2009) than in more modified environments such as farmland (Devereaux, Denny & Whittingham 2008).
The proposed Hartebeest WEF site is located in a natural landscape with agricultural use which may result in aggravated disturbance impacts for birds. Additionally, if wind turbines are placed within the hills with natural vegetation of the study area, terrain modifications are expected. Such modifications are likely to cause significant perturbations in the local bird community. 4.1.3. Cumulative impacts
Cumulative impacts of a development project may be defined as “impacts resulting from incremental actions from the project, by addition with other past, present or future impacts resulting from other actions/project reasonable predictable” (Walker & Johnston 1999). This assumes the knowledge of other projects or actions whose effects could be cumulative to the ones resulting from the project being assessed. Since it is not reasonably viable to consider in the analysis all the existing or proposed projects for a certain region the analysis should focus on (Masden et al. 2010):
• The projects known for the area and its surroundings and for which there’s information readily available;
• The projects mentioned above and that could be relevant in terms of the expected impacts, in relation to the project under assessment;
• Similar to the overall impact assessment analysis, on the sensitive species more relevant and/or susceptible to the expected impacts.
Even where fatality rates may appear low there should be adequate attention given to the situation. The cumulative effects of several facilities on the same species could be considerable, particularly if these are sited in the same region and impact on the same regional population of the species. In addition, most long lived slow reproducing Red List species may not be able to sustain any additional mortality factors over and above existing factors. Additionally, any displacement and disturbance will be exacerbated by the cumulative impacts of several wind energy facilities in the area, leading for many species to significant loss of feeding grounds and ultimately to fitness reduction. 4.2. Impact Assessment
Construction phase
During the construction phase several activities will occur which might result in negative impacts on the local bird community: e.g. the wind turbines platform construction and erection of the turbines, road construction, substation and power line construction, among other associated infrastructures.
The main impacts that are expected to result from the construction phase are likely to be habitat destruction from opening clearings for the working areas, construction of roads and landscape modifications and disturbance of birds due to the increase of people and vehicles in the area, high levels of noise and machinery movements (Table 4).
The study area is mostly occupied by agriculture and natural vegetation, characteristic of the Fynbos biome. Therefore, it is expected that this biotope will be negatively affected by the construction phase. Turbine placement will probably lead to the loss of a portion of hunting and feeding grounds, which could be
Proposed Hartebeest wind energy facility – Avifaunal Impact Assessment Scoping Report 37/ 66
detrimental small passerines, accipitrids, falcons and bustards. Nonetheless the areas required for the construction and implementation of the turbines platforms represent only a small percentage (<1%) of the total available area with these characteristics. In addition, habitats disturbed can be recovered to their pre- construction condition, if directed actions are implemented, once the construction activities cease. For these reasons the construction activities are considered to produce low significance impacts: local impact (only within the proposed Hartebeest WEF farm portions), short-term impact (only during the construction phase), medium intensity (due to the resilience and fast recovery of the intervention areas). However, if more than one wind energy facilities are built simultaneously in the area, cumulative impacts are expected to extend and the significance level will be higher, being considered a medium significance impact in that situation.
Despite its low significance, and in order not to increase the impact significance, it is recommended that the infrastructures placement is studied from an ecological point of view, in order to avoid its placement in areas sensitive for birds (refer to section 3.3.2). Additionally, existing accesses should be used as far as possible. The results of the pre-construction monitoring programme must inform further mitigation measures (if necessary) during this phase of the project.
Operational phase
It is during operational phase that the most significant negative potential impacts on bird communities may occur. The most negative and significant impacts caused by WEFs are mostly related with bird fatality due to collision with turbine blades or with overhead power lines (Table 4). The collision risk is not the same for all species and it varies according to the species’ habits and ecology. Certain bird habits, such as migration, high flight or nocturnal flight, hunting or foraging in mid-air, contribute to species susceptibility to collision (Retief et al. 2012).
Of the 225 bird species with possible occurrence in the study area, 17 are species with endangered conservation status (Taylor, Peacock & Wanless 2015) and 50 were selected as sensitive species, potentially sensitive to impacts caused by WEF operation (Table 3). Among these species several are raptor species, including Verreauxs’ Eagle, Rock Kestrel and African Harrier-Hawk, all species observed actively using the proposed Hartebeest WEF area. In addition it is important to note the existing records bustard species fatalities at overhead power lines elsewhere in South Africa (Shaw et al. 2010b; a; Jenkins et al. 2011; Shaw 2013). Therefore, it is considered that negative impacts from new power lines to be implemented in the area are likely to occur. These aspects should be investigated through a pre-construction monitoring programme.
In addition to the fatality risk it must also be considered that the presence of the turbines itself, as well as human and vehicles movements through the area (associated with maintenance movements) has potential to negatively affect the bird community, especially during sensitive seasons (i.e. breeding season). Though during the initial visit to the site no nests of sensitive species were identified this should be investigated with more visits to the site in the appropriate seasons (i.e. during the pre-construction monitoring programme).
Considering the available data and knowledge of the proposed wind facility area the negative impacts from the operational phase are considered as medium (regarding potential fatality risk) and low (considering disturbance impacts) significance at this stage.
Proposed Hartebeest wind energy facility – Avifaunal Impact Assessment Scoping Report 38/ 66
Decommissioning phase
During the decommissioning phase it is expected that the dismantling of wind turbines, associated infrastructure, and power lines, can lead to disturbance of bird community, in all ways similar to that resulting from the construction phase (Table 4).
The dismantling of the project will eventually contribute to the removal of all the implemented structures which would be a cause for negative impacts on the bird community and this may, therefore, be considered a positive impact.
Cumulative Impacts
The main known activities or projects, relevant for the cumulative impacts analysis, known in the broader area of the proposed Hartebeest WEF are mostly the presence of additional power lines and other proposed wind energy facilities. With present knowledge this is not considered likely therefore no additional cumulative impacts are foreseen due to the presence of additional power lines in the surrounding area of the site.
There are no other projects being developed in the immediate surroundings of the Hertebeest WEF; however, there are two projects in the same general area: one approximately 30 km to the east of 135 MW and another one 40 km to the west with a production of 65 MW (CSIR 2014).
The effects of these projects would add to the communities of the west area of the Western Cape and would affect similar species in similar contexts such as Blue Crane and Black Harrier. While the effects on the Blue Crane are still unknown, it is straight forward that a species with serious habitat loss concerns, as the Black Harrier would be negatively affected by the destruction of its scarce habitat at the regional level. Although wind energy facilities’ footprint is not intense the construction of roads and building platforms can affect significant portions of natural vegetation.
Proposed Hartebeest wind energy facility – Avifaunal Impact Assessment Scoping Report 39/ 66
Table 4 – Map of the preliminary Avifaunal Impact Assessment of the proposed Hartebeest WEF.
Magnitude Activity Impact on birds Extent Duration Probability Significance Status Confidence Mitigation or Intensity phase Project
Platform construction, road Avoidance of infrastructure placement, especially access, topography Habitat destruction turbines, in sensitive areas, in a layout planning 1 1 -2 4 -8 modifications and and Landscape Negative High phase. Minimisation of the affected area by the (Local) (Short-term) (Medium) (Definite) (Low) installation of wind modification activities of clearance and removal of vegetation
turbines as far as possible. Existing roads and infra- structures should be used in order to minimize landscape changes. If large portions of sensitive Construction of associated 1 1 -2 4 -8 Habitat destruction Negative High areas are affected, measures should be taken to infrastructures (Local) (Short-term) (Medium) (Definite) (Low) restore vegetation as soon as possible after construction is completed. Construction phase Avoid the presence of people and vehicles in the Noise and movements of 3 sensitive areas; whenever possible schedule Disturbance and/or 1 1 -2 -6 machinery and human (Highly Negative Medium activities in order not to cause disturbance during exclusion effects (Local) (Short-term) (Medium) (Low) presence associated Probable) the breeding season; lower the levels of noise whenever possible around the sensitive areas. Avoidance of turbines placement in sensitive areas for birds. It is recommended that any 3 overhead power lines should be constructed 2 4 -3 -72 Fatality (Highly Negative Medium underground within sensitive areas. If this is not (Regional) (Permanent) (High) (Medium) Probable) possible then any overhead power lines should have the shorter extension possible (also avoiding
sensitive areas) and be equipped with Bird Flight Operation of wind turbines Diverters (BFDs) or bird flappers. Structural design of the power line characteristics and poles should be considered in such a way to prevent 3 Disturbance and/or 1 3 -2 -18 electrocution. Any additional mitigation measures (Highly Negative Medium exclusion effects (Local) (Long-term) (Medium) (Low) should be adjusted to the bird community Probable) present within Kudusberg WEF and therefore Operational phase more information is necessary before presenting any further recommendations (i.e. a bird monitoring programme must be implemented Presence of overhead 3 2 4 -3 -72 during pre-construction phase). A bird power lines and met masts Fatality (Highly Negative Medium monitoring program should be implemented (Regional) (Permanent) (High) (Medium) guyed lines Probable) during operation in order to determine the actual impacts of the WEF on the bird community such
Proposed Hartebeest wind energy facility – Avifaunal Impact Assessment Scoping Report 40/ 66
Magnitude Activity Impact on birds Extent Duration Probability Significance Status Confidence Mitigation or Intensity phase Project
that additional recommendations for mitigation can be made if necessary. Avoidance of people and vehicles presence in the sensitive areas and scheduling of maintenance
Noise and human presence 3 Disturbance and/or 1 3 -2 -18 activities in such a way to avoid bird breeding associated with (Highly Negative Medium exclusion effects (Local) (Long-term) (Medium) (Low) seasons. A bird monitoring program should be phase maintenance activities Probable)
Operational implemented in order to determine the actual impacts of the WEF on the bird community. 3 Dismantling of turbines and Increase in habitat 1 1 2 6 Previous to the dismantlement of any power line (Highly Positive High associated infrastructure availability (Local) (Short-term) (Medium) (Low) these should be inspected to determine the Probable) utilization of poles by nesting bird species. No mitigation is considered necessary besides the Increase in habitat 1 1 2 2 4 precaution not to cause damage on the remaining Dismantling of power lines Positive High availability (Local) (Short-term) (Medium) (Probable) (Low) habitat of the WEF site.
Noise and movements of 3 Mitigation measures implemented should be
Decommissioning phase Disturbance and/or 1 1 -2 -6 machinery and human (Highly Negative Medium similar to those recommended for the exclusion effects (Local) (Short-term) (Medium) (Low) presence associated Probable) construction phase
Proposed Hartebeest wind energy facility – Avifaunal Impact Assessment Scoping Report 41/ 66
5. IMPACT STATEMENT
This study intends to provide a preliminary avifaunal impact assessment to determine the main impacts likely to affect the bird community present within the proposed Hartebeest WEF. The results of the data collected allowed to determine that the proposed Hartebeest WEF is located in a general medium sensitivity area for bird communities, with local features of high sensitivity, though it is relevant to gather more data during a pre- construction monitoring phase especially regarding the target species.
Impacts identified for the construction, operation and decommissioning phases of the project are expected to be generally of low importance, though fatality risk is considered to a medium sensitivity impact. Therefore, a pre-construction bird monitoring programme is recommended to be implemented in order to validate the predicted impacts and significance as well as proposed appropriate mitigation measures.
It is recommended that the sensitive areas identified for the bird community should be excluded from development. At this stage, if this measure is implemented the project is not considered to likely cause irreplaceable loss of biodiversity and should proceed for the next environmental impact stages, where the confirmation of the impacts identified at this preliminary phase is expected as well as the proposal of mitigation measures adjusted to the site’s specificities. At this stage, with the information available and to our best knowledge, there are no fatal flaws identified for the project apart from the higher sensitivity areas, identified in section 3.3.2, which should be excluded from development.
It is relevant to mention that this environmental assessment is based on a desktop based study and is informed by a reconnaissance visit to the site which was part of a 17 month long bird monitoring programme implemented on the study area from May 2013 to September 2014 (refer to Appendix II). It remains therefore necessary to consider the full pre-construction bird monitoring programme, covering all the relevant seasons for the avifauna community on the site, as recommended by the applicable Best-Practice Guidelines for assessing and monitoring the impact of wind-energy facilities on birds in southern Africa – Second Edition (Jenkins et al. 2012) providing therefore a solid baseline for the establishment of further assessments. Pre-, during- and post- construction monitoring will be very important to improve the understanding of the real impact caused by the WEF on local bird populations.
Proposed Hartebeest wind energy facility – Avifaunal Impact Assessment Scoping Report 42/ 66
6. REFERENCES
Atienza, J.C., Martín Fierro, I., Infante, O., Valls, J. & Domínguez, J. (2011) Directrices Para La Evaluación Del Impacto de Los Parques Eólicos En Aves Y Murciélagos (vérsion 3.0). Madrid.
Barnes, K.N. (ed). (2000) The Eskom Red Data Book of Birds of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. BirdLife South Africa, Johannesburg.
Barrios, L. & Rodríguez, A. (2004) Behavioural and environmental correlates of soaring-bird mortality at on- shore wind turbines. Journal of Applied Ecology, 41, 72–81.
Bibby, C.J., Burgess, N.D., Hill, D.A. & Mustoe, H. (2000) Bird Census Techniques. Academic Press, London.
BirdLife International. (2016) Boland Mountains, http://www.birdlife.org
BirdLife South Africa. (2015a) Cedarberg - Koue Bokkeveld Complex, http://www.birdlife.org.za/conservation/important-bird-areas/iba-directory/item/243-sa101- cedarberg-koue-bokkeveld-complex
BirdLife South Africa. (2015b) Important Bird Areas: Berg River Estuary, http://www.birdlife.org.za/conservation/important-bird-areas/iba-directory/item/246-sa104-berg- river-estuary
BirdLife South Africa. (2015c) West Coast National Park and Saldanha Bay Islands, http://www.birdlife.org.za/conservation/important-bird-areas/iba-directory/item/247-sa105-west- coast-national-park-and-saldanha-bay-islands
BLSA. (2014) BirdLife South Africa Checklist of Birds in South Africa 2013. , Excel Version 2.1.
Buckland, S.T., Anderson, D.R., Burnham, K.P. & Laake, J.L. (1993) Distance Sampling. Estimating Abundance of Biological Populations. Chapman and Hall, London.
DEA. (2016) Renewable Energy EIA Applications Map. First Quarter 2016, www.csir.co.za
Devereaux, C.L., Denny, M.J.H. & Whittingham, M.J. (2008) Minimal effects of wind turbines on the distribution of wintering farmland birds. Journal of Applied Ecology, 45, 1689–1694.
Doty, A. & Martin, A. (2013) Assessment of bat and avian mortality at a pilot wind turbine at Coega, Port Elizabeth, Eastern Cape, South Africa. New Zealand Journal of Zoology, 40, 75–80.
Drewitt, A.L. & Langston, R.H.W. (2006) Assessing the impacts of wind farms on birds. Ibis, 148, 29–42.
Drewitt, A.L. & Langston, R.H.W. (2008) Collision effects of wind-power generators and other obstacles on birds. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1134, 233–66.
Erickson, W.P., Johnson, G.D., Strickland, M.D., Young, D.P., Sernka, K.J. & Good, R.E. (2001) Avian Collisions with Wind Turbines: A Summary of Existing Studies and Comparison to Other Sources of Avian Collision Mortality in the United States.
European Commision. (2010) Wind Energy Developments and Natura 2000.
Farfán, M.A., Vargas, J.M., Duarte, J. & Real, R. (2009) What is the impact of wind farms on birds? A case study in southern Spain. Biodiversity and Conservation, 18, 3743–3758.
Harrison, J.A., Allan, D.G., Underhill, L.G., Herremans, M., Tree, A.J., Parker, V.. & Brown, C.J. (eds). (1997)
Proposed Hartebeest wind energy facility – Avifaunal Impact Assessment Scoping Report 43/ 66
The Atlas of Southern African Birds. BirdLife South Africa, Johannesburg.
Hockey, P.A.R., Dean, W.R.J. & Ryan, P.G. (eds). (2005) Roberts – Birds of Southern Africa. The Trustees of the John Voelcker Bird Book Fund, Cape Town.
IUCN. (2016) The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2015-4, http://www.iucnredlist.org
Jenkins, A.R., van Rooyen, C.S., Smallie, J.J., Harrison, J.A., Diamond, M., Smit-Robinson, H.A. & Ralston, S. (2012) Best- Practice Guidelines for Assessing and Monitoring the Impact of Wind-Energy Facilities on Birds in Southern Africa - Second Edition.
Jenkins, A.R., Shaw, J.M., Smallie, J.J., Gibbons, B., Visagie, R. & Ryan, P.G. (2011) Estimating the impacts of power line collisions on Ludwig’s Bustards Neotis ludwigii. Bird Conservation International, 21, 303– 310.
Jordan, M. & Smallie, J. (2010) A Briefing Document on Best Practice for Pre-Construction Assessment of the Impacts of Onshore Wind Farms on Birds.
Kerlinger, P. & Dowdell, J. (2003) Breeding Bird Survey for the Flat Rock Wind Power Project, Lewis County, New York.
Larsen, J.K. & Guillemette, M. (2007) Effects of wind turbines on flight behaviour of wintering common eiders: implications for habitat use and collision risk. Journal of Applied Ecology, 44, 516–522.
De Lucas, M., Janss, G.F.E. & Ferrer, M. (eds). (2008) Birds and Wind Farms: Risk Assessment and Mitigation. Quercus.
Madders, M. & Whitfield, D.P. (2006) Upland raptors and the assessment of wind farm impacts. Ibis, 148, 43–56.
Masden, E.A., Fox, A.D., Furness, R.W., Bullman, R. & Haydon, D.T. (2010) Cumulative impact assessments and bird/wind farm interactions: Developing a conceptual framework. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 30, 1–7.
Mucina, L. & Rutherford, M.C. (eds). (2006) The Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.
Pearce-Higgins, J.W., Stephen, L., Langston, R.H.W., Bainbridge, I.P. & Bullman, R. (2009) The distribution of breeding birds around upland wind farms. Journal of Applied Ecology, 1323–1331.
Pearson, A. (2012) Moorreesburg Wind Energy Facility. Avifaunal Impact Assessment. Scoping Study.
Ralston-Paton, S. (2015) What we have learned so far (post-construction monitoring at wind farms).
Retief, E. (2015) Guide to Access Avian Data for Environmental Impact Assessment Reports.
Retief, E.F., Diamond, M., Anderson, M.D., Smit, H.A., Jenkins, A., Brooks, M. & Simmons, R. (2012) Avian Wind Farm Sensitivity Map for South Africa. Criteria and Procedures Used.
Shaw, J.M. (2013) Power Line Collisions in the Karoo: Conserving Ludwig’s Bustard. University of Cape Town.
Shaw, J.M., Jenkins, A.R., Ryan, P.G. & Smallie, J.J. (2010a) A preliminary survey of avian mortality on power lines in the Overberg, South Africa. Ostrich, 81, 109–113.
Shaw, J.M., Jenkins, A.R., Smallie, J.J. & Ryan, P.G. (2010b) Modelling power-line collision risk for the Blue Crane Anthropoides paradiseus in South Africa. Ibis, 152, 590–599.
Proposed Hartebeest wind energy facility – Avifaunal Impact Assessment Scoping Report 44/ 66
Smallwood, K.S. & Thelander, C. (2008) Bird mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. Journal of Wildlife Management, 72, 215–223.
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.
Strickland, M.D., Arnett, E.B., Erickson, W.P., Johnson, D.H., Johnson, G.D., Morrison, M.L., Shaffer, J.A. & Warren-Hicks, W. (2011) Comprehensive Guide to Studying Wind Energy/Wildlife Interactions. Washington, D.C., USA.
Taylor, P.B., Navarro, R.A., Wren-Sargent, M., Harrison, J.A. & Kieswetter, S.L. (1999) TOTAL CWAC Report: Coordinated Waterbird Counts in South Africa, 1992-97. Cape Town.
Taylor, M.R., Peacock, F. & Wanless, R.M. (eds). (2015) The 2015 Eskom Red Data Book of Birds of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. BirdLife South Africa, Johannesburg, South Africa.
USFWS. (2012) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines. Arlington.
Walker, L.J. & Johnston, J. (1999) Guidelines for the Assessment of Indirect and Cumulative Impacts as Well as Impact Interactions. Luxembourg.
Young, D.J., Harrison, J.., Navarro, R.A., Anderson, M.A. & Colahan, B.D. (eds). (2003) Big Birds on Farms: Mazda CAR Report 1993-2001. Avian Demography Unit, Cape Town.
Proposed Hartebeest wind energy facility – Avifaunal Impact Assessment Scoping Report 45/ 66
7. APPENDIX 7.1. Appendix I: List of bird species at the Hartebeest WEF site and surrounding area
Table 5 – List of confirmed and potentially occurring bird species at the Hartebeest WEF site and surrounding area. Phenology (IUCN 2016): R – Resident; BM – Breeding migrant; NBM – Non breeding migrant. RLCS - IUCN Red List of Threatened Species Conservation Status (IUCN 2016) and SA RLCS - South Africa Red List Conservation Status (Taylor, Peacock & Wanless 2015): VU – Vulnerable, NT – Nearly Threatened, LC - Least concern; na – not evaluated; Population Trend (IUCN 2016). Endemism (BLSA, 2014): * – Endemic. (*) – Nearly Endemic. SLS - endemic to South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Priority sp. (Retief et al. 2012); Target sp. (Pearson 2012); Surround – the species was detected further than 1000 m away from turbine positions; WEF – the species was detected closer than 1000m from turbine positions; Water bodies – the species was detected only during water body monitoring; if a species does not appear in any of the previous three columns, it means it only appeared during desktop survey (Harrison et al. 1997; Taylor et al. 1999; Barnes 2000; Young et al. 2003; Hockey, Dean & Ryan 2005).
Population Endemic Order Full Name Scientific Name Abundance area WEF RLCS Trend SA SA RLCS Target sp. Phenology Priority sp. Surrounding Sensitive sp. Water bodies
PICIFORMES Acacia Pied Barbet Tricholaema leucomelas R LC - Increasing Fairly common - - - - - X - Porphyrio GRUIFORMES African (Purple) Swamphen R NR - NR Locally common ------madagascariensis ANSERIFORMES African Black Duck Anas sparsa R LC - Decreasing Fairly common ------
APODIFORMES African Black Swift Apus barbatus R LC - Stable Locally abundant ------
SULIFORMES African Darter Anhinga rufa R LC - Decreasing Fairly common ------X
ACCIPITRIFORMES African Fish Eagle Haliaeetus vocifer R LC - Stable Locally common - X X X - - - Scarce to locally ACCIPITRIFORMES African Goshawk Accipiter tachiro R LC - Decreasing ------common
ACCIPITRIFORMES African Harrier-Hawk Polyboroides typus R LC - Stable Locally common - - X X X - -
BUCEROTIFORMES African Hoopoe Upupa africana R NA - NA Fairly common ------
Proposed Hartebeest wind energy facility – Avifaunal Impact Assessment Scoping Report 46/ 66
Population Endemic Order Full Name Scientific Name Abundance area WEF RLCS Trend SA SA RLCS Target sp. Phenology Priority sp. Surrounding Sensitive sp. Water bodies
ACCIPITRIFORMES African Marsh Harrier Circus ranivorus R LC EN Decreasing Locally common - X X X - X -
Overall fairly COLUMBIFORMES African Olive Pigeon Columba arquatrix R LC - Decreasing common, locally ------very common
PASSERIFORMES African Paradise Flycatcher Terpsiphone viridis BM LC - Stable Common ------
PASSERIFORMES African Pipit Anthus cinnamomeus R NA - NA Common - - - - X X - Locally common to PASSERIFORMES African Quail-finch Ortygospiza fuscocrissa R NA - NA ------common Uncommon to GRUIFORMES African Rail Rallus caerulescens R LC - Unknown ------locally common PASSERIFORMES African Reed Warbler Acrocephalus baeticatus BM NA - NA Fairly common ------
PELECANIFORMES African Sacred Ibis Threskiornis aethiopicus R LC - Decreasing Common - - X X X X X
Uncommon to CHARADRIIFORMES African Snipe Gallinago nigripennis R LC - Unknown - - - X - - - locally common PELECANIFORMES African Spoonbill Platalea alba R LC - Stable Locally common - - - - - X X Common to fairly PASSERIFORMES African StoneChat Saxicola torquatus R LC - Stable - - - - X X - common APODIFORMES Alpine Swift Tachymarptis melba BM LC - Stable Generally common - - - - X X -
PASSERIFORMES Ant-eating Chat Myrmecocichla formicivora R LC - Stable Common - - - - X - -
PASSERIFORMES Banded Martin Riparia cincta BM LC - Increasing Uncommon - - - - X X X
Common to PASSERIFORMES Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica NBM LC - Decreasing - - - - X X - abundant PASSERIFORMES Bar-throated Apalis Apalis thoracica R LC - Stable Common ------
GRUIFORMES Black Crake Amaurornis flavirostra R LC - Unknown Common ------
Proposed Hartebeest wind energy facility – Avifaunal Impact Assessment Scoping Report 47/ 66
Population Endemic Order Full Name Scientific Name Abundance area WEF RLCS Trend SA SA RLCS Target sp. Phenology Priority sp. Surrounding Sensitive sp. Water bodies
ACCIPITRIFORMES Black Harrier Circus maurus R VU EN Stable Uncommon (*) X X X X X - Scarce to fairly ACCIPITRIFORMES Black Sparrowhawk Accipiter melanoleucus R LC - Decreasing - X X X - - - common CICONIIFORMES Black Stork Ciconia nigra - LC VU Unknown Uncommon - - X X - - -
PELECANIFORMES Black-crowned Night Heron Nycticorax nycticorax R LC - Decreasing Common ------
PASSERIFORMES Black-eared Sparrow-lark Eremopterix australis R LC - Decreasing Locally common (*) - - X - X -
PASSERIFORMES Black-headed Canary Serinus alario R LC - Stable Locally common (*) ------
PELECANIFORMES Black-headed Heron Ardea melanocephala R LC - Increasing Common - - - - X X X
Uncommon to PODICIPEDIFORMES Black-necked Grebe Podiceps nigricollis R LC - Unknown ------X locally common
ACCIPITRIFORMES Black-shouldered Kite Elanus caeruleus R LC - Stable Common - X X X X X -
CHARADRIIFORMES Blacksmith Lapwing Vanellus armatus R LC - Increasing Common - - - - X X X
CHARADRIIFORMES Black-winged Stilt Himantopus himantopus R LC - Increasing Common - - - - - X X
GRUIFORMES Blue Crane Anthropoides paradiseus R VU NT Stable Locally common - X X X X X X
PASSERIFORMES Bokmakierie Telophorus zeylonus R LC - Stable Common - - - - X X - Locally fairly ACCIPITRIFORMES Booted Eagle Hieraaetus pennatus R LC - Decreasing - - X X X X - common PASSERIFORMES Brimstone Canary Crithagra sulphurata R LC - Stable Fairly common - - - - X - -
PASSERIFORMES Brown-throated Martin Riparia paludicola R LC - Decreasing Locally common - - - - X X X Fairly common to CUCULIFORMES Burchell's Coucal Centropus burchellii R LC - Stable ------uncommon PASSERIFORMES Cape Batis Batis capensis R LC - Stable Locally common ------
Proposed Hartebeest wind energy facility – Avifaunal Impact Assessment Scoping Report 48/ 66
Population Endemic Order Full Name Scientific Name Abundance area WEF RLCS Trend SA SA RLCS Target sp. Phenology Priority sp. Surrounding Sensitive sp. Water bodies
Common to very PASSERIFORMES Cape Bulbul Pycnonotus capensis R LC - Stable * - - - - X - common Fairly common to PASSERIFORMES Cape Bunting Emberiza capensis R LC - Stable - - - - X X - common PASSERIFORMES Cape Canary Serinus canicollis R LC - Stable Locally common - - - - X X - Fairly common to PASSERIFORMES Cape Clapper Lark Mirafra apiata R LC - Decreasing (*) - - X X X - common Common to locally SULIFORMES Cape Cormorant Phalacrocorax capensis R EN EN Decreasing - - X X - - - abundant PASSERIFORMES Cape Crow Corvus capensis R LC - Increasing Common - - - - X X -
STRIGIFORMES Cape Eagle-Owl Bubo capensis R LC - Stable Generally common - - X X - - -
PASSERIFORMES Cape Grassbird Sphenoeacus afer R LC - Decreasing Locally common (*) - - - X X -
PASSERIFORMES Cape Long-billed Lark Certhilauda curvirostris R LC - Decreasing Locally common * - - X X X -
Locally common to PASSERIFORMES Cape Longclaw Macronyx capensis R LC - Stable - - - - X X - very common
PASSERIFORMES Cape Penduline-Tit Anthoscopus minutus R LC - Stable Common ------
PASSERIFORMES Cape Robin-Chat Cossypha caffra R LC - Stable Common - - - - X X - Fairly common to PASSERIFORMES Cape Rock Thrush Monticola rupestris R LC - Stable SLS ------locally common Rare to locally ANSERIFORMES Cape Shoveler Anas smithii R LC - Increasing - - - X - X X abundant PASSERIFORMES Cape Siskin Crithagra totta R LC - Stable Locally common * ------Common to very PASSERIFORMES Cape Sparrow Passer melanurus R LC - Stable - - - - X X - common Common to locally GALLIFORMES Cape Spurfowl Pternistis capensis R NA - NA (*) - - - X X - abundant
PASSERIFORMES Cape Sugarbird Promerops cafer R LC - Stable Locally common * ------
Proposed Hartebeest wind energy facility – Avifaunal Impact Assessment Scoping Report 49/ 66
Population Endemic Order Full Name Scientific Name Abundance area WEF RLCS Trend SA SA RLCS Target sp. Phenology Priority sp. Surrounding Sensitive sp. Water bodies
Uncommon to ANSERIFORMES Cape Teal Anas capensis R LC - Increasing - - - - - X X locally abundant Common to fairly COLUMBIFORMES Cape Turtle Dove Streptopelia capicola R LC - Increasing - - - - X X - common PASSERIFORMES Cape Wagtail Motacilla capensis R LC - Stable Common - - - - X X -
PASSERIFORMES Cape Weaver Ploceus capensis R LC - Stable Common (*) - - - X X - Common to very PASSERIFORMES Cape White-eye Zosterops capensis R LC - Unknown (*) ------common
PASSERIFORMES Capped Wheatear Oenanthe pileata R LC - Stable Generally common - - - - X X -
PICIFORMES Cardinal Woodpecker Dendropicos fuscescens R LC - Stable Common ------
CHARADRIIFORMES Caspian Tern Sterna caspia R LC VU Increasing Uncommon - - X X - - -
PASSERIFORMES Chat Flycatcher Bradornis infuscatus R LC - Stable Fairly common ------
PASSERIFORMES Chestnut-vented Tit-Babbler Sylvia subcaerulea R LC - Stable Common ------
PASSERIFORMES Cloud Cisticola Cisticola textrix R LC - Decreasing Locally common (*) - - - X X -
ACCIPITRIFORMES Common (Steppe) Buzzard Buteo buteo 0 LC - Increasing 0 - X - X X X -
CHARADRIIFORMES Common Greenshank Tringa nebularia 0 LC - Stable 0 ------
PASSERIFORMES Common House Martin Delichon urbicum NBM LC - Decreasing Locally common ------
GRUIFORMES Common Moorhen Gallinula chloropus R LC - Unknown Locally common ------
STRUTHIONIFORMES Common Ostrich Struthio camelus R LC - Decreasing Unknown ------
GALLIFORMES Common Quail Coturnix coturnix BM LC - Decreasing Very common - - - - X X -
CHARADRIIFORMES Common Ringed Plover Charadrius hiaticula NBM LC - Decreasing Locally common ------
CHARADRIIFORMES Common Sandpiper Actitis hypoleucos NBM LC - Decreasing Common ------
Proposed Hartebeest wind energy facility – Avifaunal Impact Assessment Scoping Report 50/ 66
Population Endemic Order Full Name Scientific Name Abundance area WEF RLCS Trend SA SA RLCS Target sp. Phenology Priority sp. Surrounding Sensitive sp. Water bodies
PASSERIFORMES Common Starling Sturnus vulgaris R LC - Unknown Common - - - - X X -
APODIFORMES Common Swift Apus apus NBM LC - Decreasing Unknown - - - X X - -
CHARADRIIFORMES Common Tern Sterna hirundo NBM LC - Decreasing Very common ------
PASSERIFORMES Common Waxbill Estrilda astrild R LC - Stable Common - - - - X - -
CHARADRIIFORMES Crowned Lapwing Vanellus coronatus R LC - Increasing Common - - - - X X -
CHARADRIIFORMES Curlew Sandpiper Calidris ferruginea NBM LC - Increasing Common ------
CUCULIFORMES Diederik Cuckoo Chrysococcyx caprius BM LC - Stable Common ------
Common to ANSERIFORMES Egyptian Goose Alopochen aegyptiaca R LC - Decreasing - - - - X X X abundant CORACIIFORMES European Bee-eater Merops apiaster NBM LC - Decreasing Common - - - - X X X Relatively CORACIIFORMES European Roller Coracias garrulus NBM NT NT Decreasing - - - X - - - common Locally common to PASSERIFORMES Fairy Flycatcher Stenostira scita R LC - Stable (*) ------abundant
PASSERIFORMES Familiar Chat Cercomela familiaris R LC - Stable Common - - - - X - -
CAPRIMULGIFORMES Fiery-necked Nightjar Caprimulgus pectoralis R LC - Stable Common ------
PASSERIFORMES Fiscal Flycatcher Sigelus silens R LC - Stable Common (*) - - - X X - Fairly common to CORACIIFORMES Giant Kingfisher Megaceryle maxima R LC - Decreasing ------uncommon PELECANIFORMES Glossy Ibis Plegadis falcinellus R LC - Decreasing Locally common - - - - X - -
PODICIPEDIFORMES Great Crested Grebe Podiceps cristatus R LC - Unknown Locally common ------Locally fairly PELECANIFORMES Great White Pelican Pelecanus onocrotalus R LC VU Unknown - X X X - - - common
Proposed Hartebeest wind energy facility – Avifaunal Impact Assessment Scoping Report 51/ 66
Population Endemic Order Full Name Scientific Name Abundance area WEF RLCS Trend SA SA RLCS Target sp. Phenology Priority sp. Surrounding Sensitive sp. Water bodies
PHOENICOPTERIFORMES Greater Flamingo Phoenicopterus roseus R LC NT Increasing Locally abundant - X X X - - X
PICIFORMES Greater Honeyguide Indicator indicator R LC - Increasing Uncommon ------
FALCONIFORMES Greater Kestrel Falco rupicoloides R LC - Stable Fairly common - - X X X X -
PASSERIFORMES Greater Striped Swallow Cecropis cucullata BM LC - Increasing Locally common - - - - X X -
PELECANIFORMES Grey Heron Ardea cinerea R LC - Unknown Locally common - - - - X X X
PASSERIFORMES Grey Tit Parus afer R LC - Stable Fairly common (*) - - - X - - Locally common to PASSERIFORMES Grey-backed Cisticola Cisticola subruficapilla R LC - Decreasing - - - - X X - very common
PASSERIFORMES Grey-backed Sparrow-lark Eremopterix verticalis R LC - Stable Locally abundant - - - - X X -
Chroicocephalus CHARADRIIFORMES Grey-headed Gull R LC - Stable Fairly common ------cirrocephalus GALLIFORMES Grey-winged Francolin Scleroptila africana R LC - Stable Common SLS - X X - - -
PICIFORMES Ground Woodpecker Geocolaptes olivaceus R LC - Stable Locally Common SLS ------
PELECANIFORMES Hadeda Ibis Bostrychia hagedash R LC - Increasing Common - - - - X X X
PELECANIFORMES Hamerkop Scopus umbretta R LC - Stable Locally common - - X X - - - Locally common to CHARADRIIFORMES Hartlaub's Gull Chroicocephalus hartlaubii R LC - Increasing ------abundant Locally common to GALLIFORMES Helmeted Guineafowl Numida meleagris R LC - Stable - - - - X X - abundant Uncommon to APODIFORMES Horus Swift Apus horus BM LC - Increasing ------locally common PASSERIFORMES House Sparrow Passer domesticus R LC - Decreasing Locally common - - - - - X -
ACCIPITRIFORMES Jackal Buzzard Buteo rufofuscus R LC - Stable Fairly common (*) X X X X X X
Proposed Hartebeest wind energy facility – Avifaunal Impact Assessment Scoping Report 52/ 66
Population Endemic Order Full Name Scientific Name Abundance area WEF RLCS Trend SA SA RLCS Target sp. Phenology Priority sp. Surrounding Sensitive sp. Water bodies
PASSERIFORMES Karoo Chat Cercomela schlegelii R LC - Stable Common - - - - X - - Common to fairly PASSERIFORMES Karoo Lark Calendulauda albescens R LC - Decreasing (*) - - X - - - common Common to locally PASSERIFORMES Karoo Prinia Prinia maculosa R LC - Decreasing (*) - - - X X - very common PASSERIFORMES Karoo Scrub Robin Erythropygia coryphoeus R LC - Stable Common - - - - X X -
PASSERIFORMES Karoo Thrush Turdus smithi 0 NA - NA 0 (*) ------
CHARADRIIFORMES Kelp Gull Larus dominicanus R LC - Increasing Common - - - - X - -
CHARADRIIFORMES Kittlitz’s Plover Charadrius pecuarius R LC - Unknown Locally common - - - - - X -
CUCULIFORMES Klaas's Cuckoo Chrysococcyx klaas R LC - Stable Fairly common ------
FALCONIFORMES Lanner Falcon Falco biarmicus R LC VU Increasing Fairly common - X X X X X - Fairly common to PASSERIFORMES Large-billed Lark Galerida magnirostris R LC - Increasing (*) - - X X X - common Common to very PASSERIFORMES Lark-like Bunting Emberiza impetuani R LC - Stable ------common COLUMBIFORMES Laughing Dove Streptopelia senegalensis R LC - Stable Common ------
PHOENICOPTERIFORMES Lesser Flamingo Phoeniconaias minor R NT NT Decreasing Locally abundant - - X X - X X
FALCONIFORMES Lesser Kestrel Falco naumanni NBM LC - Stable Locally common - X X X - - -
PASSERIFORMES Lesser Swamp Warbler Acrocephalus gracilirostris R LC - Stable Common ------
PASSERIFORMES Levaillant's Cisticola Cisticola tinniens R LC - Stable Locally common ------Generally PELECANIFORMES Little Bittern Ixobrychus minutus R LC - Decreasing - - - X - - - uncommon PELECANIFORMES Little Egret Egretta garzetta R LC - Increasing Fairly common ------Common to locally PODICIPEDIFORMES Little Grebe Tachybaptus ruficollis R LC - Decreasing ------X abundant PASSERIFORMES Little Rush Warbler Bradypterus baboecala R LC - Stable Common ------
Proposed Hartebeest wind energy facility – Avifaunal Impact Assessment Scoping Report 53/ 66
Population Endemic Order Full Name Scientific Name Abundance area WEF RLCS Trend SA SA RLCS Target sp. Phenology Priority sp. Surrounding Sensitive sp. Water bodies
CHARADRIIFORMES Little Stint Calidris minuta NBM LC - Decreasing Common ------
APODIFORMES Little Swift Apus affinis R LC - Increasing Common ------
PASSERIFORMES Long-billed crombec Sylvietta rufescens R LC - Stable Common ------
PASSERIFORMES Long-billed Pipit Anthus similis R LC - Stable Fairly common ------Sparse to locally OTIDIFORMES Ludwig's Bustard Neotis ludwigii R EN EN Decreasing - X X X X X - common ANSERIFORMES Maccoa Duck Oxyura maccoa R NT NT Decreasing Common - - - X - - - Common to locally CORACIIFORMES Malachite Kingfisher Alcedo cristata R LC - Stable ------abundant Common to locally PASSERIFORMES Malachite Sunbird Nectarinia famosa R LC - Stable - - - - - X - abundant Locally fairly ANSERIFORMES Mallard Anas platyrhynchos R LC - Decreasing ------common CHARADRIIFORMES Marsh Sandpiper Tringa stagnatilis 0 LC - Decreasing 0 ------
ACCIPITRIFORMES Martial Eagle Polemaetus bellicosus R VU EN Decreasing Uncommon - X X X X - -
PASSERIFORMES Mountain Wheatear Oenanthe monticola R LC - Stable Locally common - - - - X - - Fairly common to COLUMBIFORMES Namaqua Dove Oena capensis R LC - Increasing - - - - X X - comon PTEROCLIFORMES Namaqua Sandgrouse Pterocles namaqua R LC - Stable Common - - - - X X -
PASSERIFORMES Neddicky Cisticola fulvicapilla R LC - Stable Locally common - - - - X X -
PASSERIFORMES Olive Thrush Turdus olivaceus R LC - Unknown Generally common ------
PASSERIFORMES Orange River White-eye Zosterops pallidus 0 LC - Unknown 0 ------Rare to locally ACCIPITRIFORMES Pale Chanting Goshawk Melierax canorus R LC - Stable - - X X - - - common Sparse to locally PASSERIFORMES Pearl-breasted Swallow Hirundo dimidiata R LC - Stable ------common FALCONIFORMES Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus R LC - Stable Uncommon - - X X X X -
Proposed Hartebeest wind energy facility – Avifaunal Impact Assessment Scoping Report 54/ 66
Population Endemic Order Full Name Scientific Name Abundance area WEF RLCS Trend SA SA RLCS Target sp. Phenology Priority sp. Surrounding Sensitive sp. Water bodies
CHARADRIIFORMES Pied Avocet Recurvirostra avosetta R LC - Unknown Locally common - - - - - X - Common to PASSERIFORMES Pied crow Corvus albus R LC - Stable - - - - X X - abundant CORACIIFORMES Pied Kingfisher Ceryle rudis R LC - Unknown Locally common ------Locally common to PASSERIFORMES Pied Starling Lamprotornis bicolor R LC - Stable SLS - - - X X - abundant PASSERIFORMES Pin-tailed Whydah Vidua macroura R LC - Stable Common ------
PASSERIFORMES Plain-backed Pipit Anthus leucophrys R LC - Stable Locally common ------Uncommon to PELECANIFORMES Purple Heron Ardea purpurea R LC - Decreasing - - - X - - - locally common PASSERIFORMES Red-billed Quelea Quelea quelea R LC - Stable Very abundant - - - - X X -
ANSERIFORMES Red-billed Teal Anas erythrorhyncha R LC - Decreasing Very common - - - - - X X Common to locally PASSERIFORMES Red-capped Lark Calandrella cinerea R LC - Increasing - - - - X X - abundant GRUIFORMES Red-chested Flufftail Sarothrura rufa R LC - Decreasing Abundant to rare ------Fairly common to COLUMBIFORMES Red-eyed Dove Streptopelia semitorquata R LC - Increasing - - - - - X - common COLIIFORMES Red-faced Mousebird Urocolius indicus R LC - Unknown Locally common ------
GRUIFORMES Red-knobbed coot Fulica cristata R LC - Decreasing Common - - - - - X X
PASSERIFORMES Red-winged Starling Onychognathus morio R LC - Increasing Common ------
SULIFORMES Reed Cormorant Phalacrocorax africanus R LC - Decreasing Common - - - - - X X Abundant to COLUMBIFORMES Rock Dove Columba livia R LC - Decreasing ------uncommon Common to FALCONIFORMES Rock Kestrel Falco rupicolus R NA - NA - - - X X X - uncommon PASSERIFORMES Rock Martin Hirundo fuligula R LC - Stable Common - - - - X - -
CHARADRIIFORMES Ruddy Turnstone Arenaria interpres NBM LC - Decreasing Common ------
Proposed Hartebeest wind energy facility – Avifaunal Impact Assessment Scoping Report 55/ 66
Population Endemic Order Full Name Scientific Name Abundance area WEF RLCS Trend SA SA RLCS Target sp. Phenology Priority sp. Surrounding Sensitive sp. Water bodies
CHARADRIIFORMES Ruff Philomachus pugnax NBM LC - Decreasing Common ------Scarce to fairly ACCIPITRIFORMES Rufous-breasted Sparrowhawk Accipiter rufiventris R LC - Increasing - - X X - - - common PASSERIFORMES Rufous-eared Warbler Malcorus pectoralis R LC - Stable Common - - - - X - -
CHARADRIIFORMES Sandwich Tern Thalasseus sandvicensis 0 LC - Stable 0 ------Locally fairly ACCIPITRIFORMES Secretarybird Sagittarius serpentarius R VU VU Decreasing - X X X X X - common Uncommon to PASSERIFORMES Sickle-winged Chat Cercomela sinuata R LC - Stable (*) - - - X - - locally common ANSERIFORMES South African Shelduck Tadorna cana R LC - Increasing Common - - - - X X X
PASSERIFORMES Southern (Common) Fiscal Lanius collaris R LC - Increasing Generally common - - - - X X - Uncommon to OTIDIFORMES Southern Black Korhaan Afrotis afra R VU VU Decreasing * - X X - - - common PASSERIFORMES Southern Boubou Laniarius ferrugineus R LC - Stable Locally common ------Southern Double-collared PASSERIFORMES Cinnyris chalybeus R LC - Stable Common (*) - - - X X - Sunbird PASSERIFORMES Southern Masked Weaver Ploceus velatus R LC - Stable Common - - - - X X -
ANSERIFORMES Southern Pochard Netta erythrophthalma R LC - Decreasing Common ------Locally common to PASSERIFORMES Southern Red Bishop Euplectes orix R LC - Stable - - - - X X - abundant COLIIFORMES Speckled Mousebird Colius striatus R LC - Increasing Common ------
COLUMBIFORMES Speckled Pigeon Columba guinea R LC - Stable Common - - - - X X -
STRIGIFORMES Spotted Eagle-Owl Bubo africanus R LC - Stable Generally common - - X X X X -
PASSERIFORMES Spotted flycatcher Muscicapa striata NBM LC - Decreasing Common ------Fairly common to CHARADRIIFORMES Spotted Thick-knee Burhinus capensis R LC - Stable - - - - X X - uncommon Locally common to ANSERIFORMES Spur-winged Goose Plectropterus gambensis R LC - Increasing - - - - X X X very common
Proposed Hartebeest wind energy facility – Avifaunal Impact Assessment Scoping Report 56/ 66
Population Endemic Order Full Name Scientific Name Abundance area WEF RLCS Trend SA SA RLCS Target sp. Phenology Priority sp. Surrounding Sensitive sp. Water bodies
PELECANIFORMES Squacco Heron Ardeola ralloides R LC - Decreasing Locally common ------
PASSERIFORMES Streaky-headed Seedeater Crithagra gularis R LC - Stable Fairly Common ------
CHARADRIIFORMES Three-banded Plover Charadrius tricollaris R LC - Unknown Common - - - - - X X Locally fairly ACCIPITRIFORMES Verreauxs' Eagle Aquila verreauxii R LC VU Stable - - X X X X - common CHARADRIIFORMES Water Thick-knee Burhinus vermiculatus R LC - Unknown Locally common ------
PASSERIFORMES Wattled Starling Creatophora cinerea R LC - Stable Locally common - - - - - X -
STRIGIFORMES Western Barn Owl Tyto alba R LC - Stable Generally common - - - X - X -
PELECANIFORMES Western Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis R LC - Increasing Very common - - - - X X X Generally ACCIPITRIFORMES Western Osprey Pandion haliaetus NBM LC - Increasing - - X X - - - uncommon Locally fairly CHARADRIIFORMES Whiskered Tern Chlidonias hybrida R LC - Stable ------common Common to CICONIIFORMES White Stork Ciconia ciconia NBM LC - Increasing - X X X - - - abundant COLIIFORMES White-backed Mousebird Colius colius R LC - Increasing Locally common ------
SULIFORMES White-breasted Cormorant Phalacrocorax lucidus R LC - Increasing Common - - - - X X X
ANSERIFORMES White-faced Whistling Duck Dendrocygna viduata R LC - Increasing Common ------
PASSERIFORMES White-necked Raven Corvus albicollis R LC - Decreasing Locally common - - - - X - -
APODIFORMES White-rumped Swift Apus caffer BM LC - Increasing Very common - - - - X X X
PASSERIFORMES White-throated Canary Crithagra albogularis R LC - Stable Locally common - - - - X - -
PASSERIFORMES White-throated Swallow Hirundo albigularis BM LC - Increasing Locally common - - - - X X -
CHARADRIIFORMES White-winged Tern Chlidonias leucopterus NBM LC - Stable Common ------
PASSERIFORMES Willow Warbler Phylloscopus trochilus NBM LC - Decreasing Common ------
CHARADRIIFORMES Wood Sandpiper Tringa glareola 0 LC - Stable 0 ------
Proposed Hartebeest wind energy facility – Avifaunal Impact Assessment Scoping Report 57/ 66
Population Endemic Order Full Name Scientific Name Abundance area WEF RLCS Trend SA SA RLCS Target sp. Phenology Priority sp. Surrounding Sensitive sp. Water bodies
PASSERIFORMES Yellow Bishop Euplectes capensis R LC - Stable Fairly common - - - - X - -
PASSERIFORMES Yellow Canary Crithagra flaviventris R LC - Stable Common - - - - X X -
PASSERIFORMES Yellow-bellied Eremomela Eremomela icteropygialis R LC - Stable Fairly common ------
ANSERIFORMES Yellow-billed Duck Anas undulata R LC - Stable Common - - - - - X X Uncommon to PELECANIFORMES Yellow-billed Egret Egretta intermedia R LC - Decreasing - - - X - - - locally common ACCIPITRIFORMES Yellow-billed Kite Milvus aegyptius BM NA - NA Common - - - X X X X Common to very PASSERIFORMES Zitting Cisticola Cisticola juncidis R LC - Increasing - - - - X X - common
Proposed Hartebeest wind energy facility – Avifaunal Impact Assessment Scoping Report 58/ 66
7.2. Appendix II: Bird monitoring programme
The proposed methodology assumes, as a baseline, the minimum requirements of the applicable version of the Best-Practice Guidelines for assessing and monitoring the impact of wind-energy facilities on birds in southern Africa – Second Edition (Jenkins et al. 2012). Therefore, the methodologies to be implemented will follow the general guidelines presented in the Best Practice Guidelines for Bird Monitoring in South Africa, consider the international experience and standards for bird monitoring at wind farms and the site specificities.
OBJECTIVES
The primary aims of this monitoring programme are to assess the potential impacts, resulting from the construction and operation of the Hartebeest Wind Energy Facility, on the bird community within the study area. The main objectives of this monitoring program include:
i. Characterizing the avifauna community and its utilization of the proposed development site, focusing on the species more likely to be affected by the proposed project;
ii. Establishing the baseline scenario during the pre-construction phase - providing the information required to identify potential impacts and changes in the bird community occurring within the study area, as well as the eventual exclusion/displacement effect (avoidance of the wind facility area post- construction). This baseline scenario, considering a complete year of pre-construction monitoring, will be provided to be considered on the avifauna specialist report;
iii. Evaluating the potential changes that may arise in relation to how the target-species and overall bird community utilize the site;
iv. Documenting patterns of bird activity and movements within the site and its immediate surroundings, as well as to establish a pre-impact baseline scenario of bird utilization in the study area;
v. Estimating predicted collision risks for target-species;
vi. Identifying sensitive areas and proposing mitigation measures.
The results of the pre-construction monitoring programme will also be used to inform the final wind turbine layout and proposed mitigation measures/strategies for the subsequent phases of the project (construction and operation).
This proposed experimental design was prepared based on the existing literature and knowledge of the area. The following tasks will be implemented throughout the monitoring programme:
• Linear walking transects to characterise the bird community (paying special attention to target small terrestrial species) occurring within the area of the Wind Energy Facility – pre-construction (at least for one year prior to construction). All bird species seen or heard will be recorded;
• Vantage points and Vehicle based transects to determine and monitor the usage of the area by target species as well as those who are sensitive to the impacts derived from wind energy facilities (with special emphasis on raptors and other large birds) within and in close proximity to the Wind Energy Farm – pre-construction (covering at least four annual seasons before construction). This
Proposed Hartebeest wind energy facility – Avifaunal Impact Assessment Scoping Report 59/ 66
aims to determine bird activity patterns and movements within the site and its immediate surroundings;
• Priority species nest search and monitoring to identify and monitor active nesting sites of target- species within the study area and its immediate surroundings – pre-construction (continuous efforts will be directed to identify relevant water bodies throughout the year. Relevant nesting locations will be monitored at least twice per breeding season);
• Water body search and monitoring to evaluate the species present, as well as their primary movements at main water bodies – pre-construction (continuous efforts will be directed to identify relevant water bodies throughout the year. Relevant water bodies will be monitored at least once per season);
• Incidental observations to register all important observations located in the vicinity of the site.
All of the aforementioned methodologies will be implemented within the wind energy facility and its immediate surroundings. These methodologies will also be applied to a relatively similar control site4.
The experimental protocol will be directed toward the species considered sensitive to wind facility impacts, including the information collected during the scoping phase of the EIA for the Wind Energy Facility. The species targeted by the bird monitoring programme were based at this stage on those proposed in the Scoping report and may be adjusted at a later stage, if necessary, based on a more in-depth desktop study to be conducted, as well as the observations made during field surveys.
MONITORING PROTOCOLS
The bird monitoring programme will be implemented throughout the pre-construction phase of the Wind Energy Facility, for the establishment of a baseline scenario (covering at least four annual seasons before construction).
The implementation of similar monitoring protocols and sampling locations during subsequent phases of the project (e.g. construction phase and at least three years after the facility becomes operational) is very important. After referring to the established baseline scenario and implementing a Before-After-Control- Impact analysis, previously identified potential impacts can be validated and other unidentified impacts determined. If additional impacts are found, current proposed mitigation measures can be adequately adjusted, and if necessary, new and more appropriate ones may be proposed. This methodological approach will allow for the baseline results to be comparable throughout the entire monitoring programme of the wind energy facility.
4 A complex analysis of the vantage point data in relation to the distance from the wind turbines, will allow for the implementation of a BACI analysis in the subsequent phases of the project, without being necessary to conduct vantage points in a dedicated control area during the pre-construction monitoring phase.
Proposed Hartebeest wind energy facility – Avifaunal Impact Assessment Scoping Report 60/ 66
Linear Walking Transects
A systematic approach will be implemented in order to determine the overall bird community composition (focused on the small terrestrial birds) in the affected area. Analysis of these parameters will allow for the verification of the occurrence of spatial variations of the bird community present at the study site over time, by comparing the results from the Wind Energy Facility to a similar control area. Therefore, the main objectives of this methodology are:
• To identify potential changes in the bird community (sensitive small terrestrial birds/passerines) within the study site and the eventual exclusion/displacement effect (avoidance of the wind facility area post-construction);
• To identify sensitive areas and propose additional mitigation / compensation measures, if needed;
• To establish a baseline scenario for the monitoring of subsequent phases of the project.
Linear walking transects, of 1000 m each, will be conducted. They will cover the different habitats, micro- habitats or biotopes5relevant for the local bird community present on site and on a Control area.
Each linear transect will be conducted by an expert bird observer who will slowly walk recording all bird contacts, both seen and heard. These contacts will be recorded on both the left and right side of the progression line, with no distance limit between the observer and the birds (Buckland et al. 1993; Bibby et al. 2000). Sampling will commence shortly after sunrise and continue during the early morning (e.g the first 3 hours after sunrise), avoiding the warmer periods of the day when the birds may be less active/vocal and hence less conspicuous (Bibby et al. 2000).
Eight linear transects was established (considered to have similar biotopes/micro-habitats) (Figure 11).
Each linear transect will be conducted at least once per season for a full calendar year (4 different seasons), resulting in 4 surveys during a 12-month period for each transect. After conducting transect sampling surveys of the overall bird community, the captured data will be analysed in order to estimate the following population parameters:
• Relative Abundance/density of bird population/community;
• Average species richness of bird community.
Statistical analysis will be performed in order to test for possible differences in the bird community between seasons and sampling sites.
5 Biotope is an area of uniform environmental conditions providing a living place for a specific assemblage of plants and animals. Biotope is almost synonymous with the term habitat, but while the subject of a habitat is a species or a population, the subject of a biotope is a biological community.
Proposed Hartebeest wind energy facility – Avifaunal Impact Assessment Scoping Report 61/ 66
Vantage Points
The raptors and large bird monitoring will be implemented in order to evaluate the activity patterns of these birds in the Wind Energy Facility site and surrounding areas. By collecting this information, it will allow for the:
• Identification of potential changes in the bird community present within the wind farm and the eventual exclusion/displacement effect (avoidance of the wind facility area post-construction);
• Evaluation of potential changes that may arise in relation to how the target species and potentially sensitive overall bird community utilizes the site;
• Documentation of bird activity patterns and movements within the wind farm and its immediate surroundings, as well as the establishment of a pre-impact baseline scenario of bird utilization within the study area;
• Estimation of predicted collision risks for target and impact sensitive species;
• Identification of sensitive areas and the proposal of additional mitigation / compensation measures, if needed;
• Establishment of a baseline scenario for the monitoring of subsequent project phases.
Observations from each vantage point will be conducted for at least 12 hours per each season covering a 360º area. Each vantage point will be surveyed 3 times per day (at least once at each period of the day) during each season. All the impact sensitive species observed during this period will be recorded and their flight paths registered. For each observation the number of individuals and, whenever possible, the gender and age will also be recorded. Behavioural patterns observed will be recorded, including (i) type of flight - passage flight, soaring, display, territorial; (ii) flight height - below rotor height, rotor height, above the rotor height; and (iii) environmental variables (air temperature, wind speed and direction, occurrence of precipitation, cloud cover and visibility).
Four suitable vantage points are proposed at strategic locations in the Wind Energy Facility and in such a way as to allow for efficient visualization of the proposed area for the wind farm and its immediate surroundings (Figure 11; Table 6).
Table 6 – Coordinates of the vantage points conducted at Hartebeest wind energy facility (coordinate system: WGS84)
Vantage Point Longitude Latitude
VP1 18°43'23.91"E 33°10'8.00"S
VP2 18°42'8.68"E 33° 9'32.33"S
VP3 18°45'22.94"E 33°11'19.63"S
VP4 18°45'25.84"E 33°12'53.90"S
The following parameters, derived from data collected at vantage points, will be evaluated:
• Species detected - raptors and large birds;
Proposed Hartebeest wind energy facility – Avifaunal Impact Assessment Scoping Report 62/ 66
• Mapping of the intensity of usage of the study area by bird species (Activity Index);
• Mapping of the intensity of usage of the study area by flight type for the target species;
• Mapping of the Collision Hazard Index of the study area.
Vehicle-Based Transects
The implementation of vehicle-based transects will complement the aforementioned methodologies, providing further insight so as to better evaluate the activity patterns of raptors and large birds in the Wind Energy Facility and surrounding areas. Therefore, the purpose of this survey will be to provide a measure of abundance and richness of the observed species (large birds and raptors) and aid in the detection of species less prone to flying, such as bustards or to a lesser extent, cranes.
The vehicle-based transects will be conducted by two expert observers; one driving slowly and the other recording all contacts (seen and heard). During each transect the total number of birds observed will be counted, recorded and whenever possible mapped over military charts. The following parameters will be recorded on a standard field sheet especially designed for this methodological approach: (i) bird species, gender and age (whenever possible); (ii) number of individuals; (iii) perpendicular distance from the road; (iv) bird activity observed and type of observation (acoustic/visual). Whenever pertinent, additional information will be collected in order to contribute to the detailed characterisation of the areas usage by the species.
One vehicle-based transects will be conducted in the Wind Energy Facility and its immediate surroundings6 (Figure 11).
The vehicle-based transect will be surveyed at least twice per season for at least a full calendar year (4 different seasons) prior to construction (pre-construction phase), resulting in 8 surveys during a 12-month period for each transect.
The following parameters, derived from the vehicle-based transects, will be evaluated:
• Species detected - raptors and large birds;
• Mapping of the intensity of usage of the study area by target bird species.
Breeding evidence monitoring
This methodology is relevant for the evaluation of the area undergoing change, as a suitable area for species to exist without disturbance. Therefore, by monitoring the reproduction of target or sensitive species, a measure of impact can be obtained to see whether or not reproduction is possible. If not, this measure of
6 It is acknowledged that no vehicle transects are defined outside of the boundaries considered for the wind energy facility, however this area is the proposed area for turbine development, and not the actual area affected by the project. It is assumed that there will be areas not occupied by turbines, and those are referred to as immediate surroundings in this case. Incidental observations will be made during the observer’s movements along the site, to complement the information gathered by the systematic surveys.
Proposed Hartebeest wind energy facility – Avifaunal Impact Assessment Scoping Report 63/ 66
impact could be used to see if the decline in reproduction could be as a result of the Wind Energy Facility, or other species-based intrinsic factors. The main objectives of this methodology are:
• To identify the potential changes in the bird community present within the wind farm and the eventual exclusion/displacement effect (avoidance of the wind facility area post-construction);
• To evaluate potential changes in the way target-species and the overall bird community utilizes the study site;
• To identify sensitive areas and to propose additional mitigation / compensation measures if need be.
The methodology to be implemented will follow the general guidelines presented in the Second Edition of the Best Practice Guidelines for Bird Monitoring (Jenkins et al. 2012). The area of the Wind Energy Facility and its immediate surroundings will be investigated for nesting and/or roosting locations of priority species. All the nesting and/or roosting locations identified during inspection will be accurately registered with a handheld GPS, after which the data will be imported into an appropriate Geographical Information System.
Once detected, each known nesting location was monitored at least twice during the year, and as many times as needed to certify whether the reproduction took place or not and, if possible, to determine if it was successful.
The data collected from nest investigations and monitoring in the Wind Energy Facility will allow for the evaluation of the following parameters:
• Nesting locations;
• Number and species of breeding pairs;
• Productivity of breeding pairs.
Water body monitoring
The main objectives of this monitoring methodology are:
• To identify potential changes in the bird community occurring within the study site, as well as the eventual exclusion/displacement effect (avoidance of the wind facility area after construction);
• To evaluate potential changes in the way target-species and the overall bird community utilizes the study site;
• To document bird activity patterns and movements within the study area, as well as the establishment of a pre-impact baseline scenario of bird utilization within the study area;
• To identify sensitive areas and to propose additional mitigation / compensation measures if need be.
The main water bodies occurring within the study area and its immediate surroundings will be identified, mapped and surveyed in order to determine their level of utilization by water birds. The methodological approach will follow the prescribed protocol of the Coordinated Water bird Counts (Taylor et al. 1999).
Proposed Hartebeest wind energy facility – Avifaunal Impact Assessment Scoping Report 64/ 66
The main water bodies of the study area will first be identified by means of a desktop survey and then assessed when in the field (Figure 11). Other smaller and more temporary locations will be identified during field surveys.
The following parameters will be assessed, based on the information collected from the monitoring of water bodies:
• Estimation of the number and densities of water bird species that use these type of areas in the Wind Energy Facility and surrounding areas;
• Bird activity patterns and movements in sensitive areas.
Figure 11 - Sampling locations proposed for the Bird monitoring programme for the Hartebeest Wind Energy Facility.
Proposed Hartebeest wind energy facility – Avifaunal Impact Assessment Scoping Report 65/ 66