Nuweveld East Wind Farm
Red Cap Nuweveld East (Pty) Ltd
Avifaunal assessment
October 2020
REPORT REVIEW & TRACKING
Document title Nuweveld East Wind Farm - Avifaunal Impact study (Scoping Phase) Client name Patrick Killick Aurecon Status Final -for client Issue date October 2020 Lead author Jon Smallie – SACNASP 400020/06
WildSkies Ecological Services (Pty) Ltd 36 Utrecht Avenue, East London, 5241 Jon Smallie E: [email protected] C: 082 444 8919 F: 086 615 5654
Regulation GNR 326 of 4 December 2014, as amended 7 April 2017, Appendix 6 Section of Report (a) details of the specialist who prepared the report; and the expertise of that specialist to Appendix 5 compile a specialist report including a curriculum vitae ; (b) a declaration that the specialist is independent in a form as may be specified by the Appendix 6 competent authority; (c) an indication of the scope of, and the purpose for which, the report was prepared; Section 1.1 & 2 .1 an indication of the quality and age of base data used for the specialist report; Section 3 a description of existing impacts on the site, cumulative impacts of the proposed development Section 3.8 and levels of acceptable change; (d) the duration, date and season of the site investigation and the relevance of the season to Section 2.5 to 2.7 the outcome of the assessment; (e) a description of the methodology adopted in preparing the report or carrying out the Section 2 specialised process inclusive of equipment and modelling used; (f) details of an assessment of the specific identified sensitivity of the site related to the Section 3.7 & proposed activity or activities and its associated structures and infrastructure, inclusive of a Section 4 site plan identifying site alternatives; (g) an identification of any areas to be avoided, including buffers; Section 3.7 (h) a map superimposing the activity including the associated structures and infrastructure on Section 3.7 the environmental sensitivities of the site including areas to be avoided, including buffers; (i) a description of any assumptions made and any uncertainties or gaps in knowledge; Section 2.11 (j) a description of the findings and potential implications of such findings on the impact of the Section 5 proposed activity, including identified alternatives on the environment, or activities; (k) any mitigation measures for inclusion in the EMPr; Section 5 (l) any conditions for inclusion in the environmental authorisation; Section 5 (m) any monitoring requirements for inclusion in the EMPr or environmental authorisation; Section 5 (n) a reasoned opinion— Section 7 i. as to whether the proposed activity, activities or portions thereof should be authorised; iA. Regarding the acceptability of the proposed activity or activities; and ii. if the opinion is that the proposed activity, activities or portions thereof should be authorised, any avoidance, management and mitigation measures that should be included in the EMPr or Environmental Authorization, and where applicable, the closure plan; (o) a summary and copies of any comments received during any consultation process and n/a to date where applicable all responses thereto; and (p) any other information requested by the competent authority n/a to date Where a government notice gazetted by the Minister provides for any protocol or minimum Government Notice information requirement to be applied to a specialist report, the requirements as indicated in No. 320 has been such notice will apply. gazetted, and a verification report has been produced and the assessment follows the avifaunal protocol (Appendix 4)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Red Cap Energy (Pty) Ltd (Red Cap) is proposing to develop up to three wind farms on a site in the Beaufort West Local Municipality, Central Karoo District Municipality, Western Cape. The wind farms are located approximately 65km north of Beaufort West and approximately 30km south of Loxton and are approximately 32 000 hectares in extent. The proposal also includes the development of an approximately ≤120km 132/400kV grid connection power line which will connect the proposed wind farms to the Eskom Droërivier Substation located south west of Beaufort West.
The project is comprised of four discreet applications (3 wind farms & 1 grid connection) all subject to the Scoping and EIA process in terms of the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA).
This report deals with the Nuweveld East Wind Farm application and reaches the following conclusions regarding the avifaunal community and potential impacts of the Nuweveld East Wind Farm:
» Of the birds present on the study area, we classified nine species as top most priority for this assessment. Four of these are judged to be at high risk before avoidance and mitigation. These are: Ludwig's Bustard; Martial Eagle, Verreaux’s Eagle and Jackal Buzzard. Three species are at moderate risk: Karoo Korhaan, African Rock Pipit and Pale Chanting Goshawk. Black Stork and Booted Eagle are at low risk. » The key avifaunal aspects on site requiring management are the presence of three Verreaux’s Eagle nests (only one active pair). » Crude turbine collision fatality rates were calculated for each species in order to estimate how many birds the proposed Nuweveld East Wind Farm might kill. This calculation is considered to be a worst case scenario and is fraught with assumptions. It is estimated that approximately 0.56 bird fatalities could be recorded at Nuweveld East Wind Farm per year across the 9 target bird species recorded flying on site to date (Table 9). This includes the following priority species: 0.20 Jackal Buzzards; 0.10 Ludwig’s Bustards; 0.10 Verreaux’s Eagles; 0.05 Karoo Korhaans; 0.05 Pale Chanting Goshawks; 0.03 Martial Eagle; 0.02 Booted Eagles; 0.01 Black Stork; and 0.01 Rock Kestrel. Comparatively, these fatality rates are very low, reflecting the low flight activity rates by these species on site to date. Two of the key species for the site (since nests exist near/on site) Verreaux’s Eagle and Martial Eagle have very low estimated fatality rates of 0.10 and 0.03 birds/year respectively.
Based on the data collected on site we make the following findings with respect to impact significance for avifauna, according to the formal impact assessment methods provided by Aurecon.
Impact Pre-mitigation Post-mitigation Nuweveld East Wind Farm Construction Phase Impact 1 – Habitat destruction Minor Minor Construction Phase Impact 2 - Disturbance Minor Minor Operational Phase Impact 1 – Disturbance Minor Minor Operational Phase Impact 2 – Displacement Minor Minor Operational Phase Impact 3 – Turbine collisions Moderate Moderate Operational Phase Impact 4 – Power line Collision & Electrocution Major Minor Decommissioning Phase Impact 1 – Disturbance Moderate Minor
Cumulative Impacts Construction Phase Impact 1 – Habitat destruction Moderate Moderate Construction Phase Impact 2 - Disturbance Moderate Minor Operational Phase Impact 1 – Disturbance Moderate Moderate Operational Phase Impact 2 – Displacement Moderate Moderate Operational Phase Impact 3 – Turbine collisions Moderate Moderate Operational Phase Impact 4 – Power line Collision & Electrocution Major Minor Decommissioning Phase Impact 1 – Disturbance Moderate Minor
Although extensive avoidance of impacts has already been applied on this project via a screening and constraints phase, we recommend the following additional mitigation measures be applied to manage and further reduce the significance of impacts on birds:
» The No-Go areas identified by this study should be adhered to. » A preconstruction avifaunal walk down should be conducted to confirm final layout and identify any sensitivities that may arise between the EIA and construction. » All construction activities should be strictly managed according to generally accepted environmental best practice standards, so as to avoid any unnecessary impact on the receiving environment. » A post construction inspection must be conducted by an avifaunal specialist to confirm that all aspects have been appropriately handled and in particular that road and hard stand verges do not entice raptors by providing additional substrate for raptor prey species. » Monitoring of the breeding status of Verreaux’s and Martial Eagles should be conducted in all breeding seasons post acceptance of the project as preferred bidder (to establish baseline) and including during and post construction. » Given that the impact of bird collision with turbines could occur once the wind farm is operational and require mitigation, we recommend strongly that an appropriate mitigation budget be provided for by the Applicant in accordance with the recommendations made in this report. » Internal power lines must be placed underground except where absolutely necessary, such as to cross drainage lines or get up steep/ extremely rocky slopes. Internal overheads power lines may not exceed a total of 7km in length. This excludes overhead lines that run next to existing power lines (22kV and up). An exception of up to 500m of internal overhead powerlines can be allowed through identified no-go areas if
approved by the specialist to, for example, allow a line to get up a steep slope. » Overhead conductors or earth wires should be fitted with an Eskom approved anti bird collision line marking device to make cables more visible to birds in flight and reduce the likelihood of collisions. » The Applicant has selected the double circuit 88/132kV monopole design over the standard 33kV monopole design as the former, while more costly, is safer from a bird electrocution perspective. The safety could be further improved through the addition of a bird perch (see Appendix 6) on each pole. Any deviation or exceptions from this configuration should be signed off by the avifaunal specialist and may affect the impact significance ratings. » The during construction and post construction monitoring programme outlined in Appendix 3 should be implemented according to the latest available version of the best practice guidelines at the time. The findings from operational phase monitoring should inform an adaptive management programme to mitigate any impacts on avifauna to acceptable levels. In particular, any Verreaux’s Eagle fatalities should be reported to Dr Megan Murgatroyd in order to close the feedback loop back to the VERA modelling performed for this site.
The cumulative impacts were assessed as mostly of Moderate (-) Significance. The mitigation recommended by our studies for each wind farm, will be sufficient (if implemented correctly) to reduce the cumulative impacts. The only pre-mitigation impact with Major (-) significance, the collision & electrocution on power lines, can be easily mitigated to Minor (-) significance. If any cumulative response is identified as necessary during operations, fortunately the three wind farms will all be managed by the same operator so a collective management response will be achievable.
Overall, our impression of the Nuweveld East Wind Farm avifaunal community is that it is not particularly unique or sensitive, with the exception of the identified eagle nests. Given that these nests have been afforded a significant amount of spatial protection (in line with current best practice), we believe that the significant risks to avifauna have largely been avoided. On this basis we find no impediment, from an avifaunal perspective, to withhold authorisation of the Nuweveld East Wind Farm. This finding is dependent on the implementation of the mitigation measures detailed in this report. These recommendations must be carried through into the EMPr and implementation thereof must be verified. The most important of these are related to the Verreaux’s Eagle nest no-go buffer.
Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 4 1. INTRODUCTION...... 10
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...... 11 1.2 BACKGROUND TO WIND ENERGY FACILITIES & BIRDS ...... 16 1.2.1 Collision of birds with turbine blades ...... 16 1.2.2 Loss or alteration of habitat during construction ...... 17 1.2.3. Disturbance of birds ...... 17 1.2.4. Displacement & barrier effects ...... 18 1.2.5. Associated infrastructure ...... 18 1.2.6. Mitigation ...... 18 1.2.7. Contextualising wind energy impacts on birds ...... 19 1.3 RELEVANT LEGISLATION & CONVENTIONS ...... 19 2. METHODOLOGY ...... 21
2.1 SCOPE OF WORKS ...... 21 2.2 TERMS OF REFERENCE ...... 21 2.3 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS SCREENING TOOL & PROCEDURES FOR THE ASSESSMENT & MINIMUM CRITERIA FOR REPORT ON IDENTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL THEMES ...... 23 2.4 GENERAL APPROACH ...... 23 2.5 DATA SOURCES CONSULTED FOR THIS STUDY ...... 24 2.6 EXPLANATION OF TERMINOLOGY USED ...... 25 2.7 BASELINE DATA COLLECTION ...... 25 2.7.1. Sample counts of small terrestrial species ...... 26 2.7.2. Counts of large terrestrial species & raptors ...... 26 2.7.3. Focal site surveys & monitoring ...... 26 2.7.4. Incidental observations ...... 26 2.7.4. Direct observation of bird flight on site ...... 26 2.7.5. Control site ...... 27 2.8 BIRD SPECIES RISK ASSESSMENT & PRIORITISATION ...... 28 2.9 AVIFAUNAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ...... 28 2.10 AVIFAUNAL SENSITIVITY MAPPING ...... 28 2.11 LIMITATIONS & ASSUMPTIONS ...... 29 3. BASELINE DESCRIPTION ...... 31
3.1 VEGETATION & HABITAT ...... 31 3.2 SOUTHERN AFRICAN BIRD ATLAS PROJECT DATA ...... 32 3.3 IMPORTANT BIRD & BIODIVERSITY AREA (IBA) DATA ...... 32 3.4 CO-ORDINATED AVIFAUNAL ROADCOUNT (CAR) DATA ...... 33 3.5 CO-ORDINATED WATERBIRD COUNT (CWAC) DATA ...... 34 3.6 PRE -CONSTRUCTION BIRD MONITORING DATA ...... 35 3.6.1 Small terrestrial bird species ...... 35 3.6.2 Large terrestrial species & raptors...... 36 3.6.3 Focal Site surveys ...... 36 3.6.4 Incidental Observations of target bird species ...... 37 3.6.5 Bird flight activity on site ...... 38 3.6.6 Estimating turbine collision fatality rates ...... 38 3.6.7 Spatial location of flight records ...... 47 3.7 SUMMARY OF SPECIES INFORMATION & ASSESSMENT OF RISK ...... 48 3.7.1. Ludwig’s Bustard ...... 52 3.7.2. Martial Eagle ...... 52 3.7.3. Verreaux’s Eagle ...... 53 3.7.4. Black Stork ...... 56 3.7.5. Karoo Korhaan ...... 57 3.7.6. African Rock Pipit ...... 57 3.7.7. Booted Eagle ...... 58 3.7.8. Jackal Buzzard ...... 58 3.7.9. Pale Chanting Goshawk ...... 59 3.8 AVIFAUNAL SENSITIVITY OF THE SITE ...... 59 3.9 EXISTING AVIFAUNAL -WIND ENERGY IMPACTS IN THE AREA ...... 65 4. CHANGES MADE FROM PRE-APPLICATION SCOPING LAYOUT TO SCOPING LAYOUT TO ADDRESS AVIFAUNAL ISSUES IDENTIFIED ...... 66 5. IDENTIFIED IMPACTS ...... 67 6. IMPACT ASSESSMENT ...... 68
6.1 CONSTRUCTION PHASE IMPACTS ...... 68 6.1.1. Construction Phase Impact 1 - Habitat destruction ...... 68 6.1.2. Construction Phase Impact 2 - Disturbance of birds during construction ...... 69 6.2 OPERATIONAL PHASE IMPACTS ...... 70 6.2.1. Operational Phase Impact 1 - Disturbance of birds during operations ...... 70 6.2.2. Operational Phase Impact 2 - Displacement of birds during operational phase ...... 71 6.2.3. Operational Phase Impact 3 - Turbine collision fatalities ...... 72 5.2.4. Operational Phase Impact 4 - Collision & electrocution on overhead power line and in substation/switching station 73 6.3 DECOMMISSIONING PHASE IMPACTS ...... 75 6.3.1 Decommissioning Phase Impact 1 – Disturbance of birds ...... 75 6.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ...... 76 Nuweveld East Wind Farm + two other Nuweveld Wind Farms + Nuweveld Grid Connection ...... 76 6.5 IMPACTS OF NO-GO ALTERNATIVE ...... 78 7. CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 79 8. REFERENCES ...... 82 APPENDIX 1. BIRD SPECIES RECORDED ON THE CONSOLIDATED NUWEVELD WIND FARMS SITE...... 88 APPENDIX 2. IMPACT ASSESSMENT CRITERIA (AURECON) ...... 92 APPENDIX 3. DURING & POST CONSTRUCTION BIRD MONITORING PROGRAMME ...... 94 APPENDIX 4. DEA SITE SCREENING TOOL ...... 96 APPENDIX 5. SPECIALIST CV ...... 100 APPENDIX 6. 33KV MONOPOLE STRUCTURE ...... 104 APPENDIX 7. VERREAUX’S EAGLE RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT...... 106
FIGURE 1. THE LOCATION OF THE NUWEVELD WIND FARMS SITE ...... 11 FIGURE 2. THE THREE NUWEVELD WIND FARMS ...... 12 FIGURE 3. THE NUWEVELD EAST WIND FARM LAYOUT CONSIDERED FOR THIS ASSESSMENT ...... 14 FIGURE 4. THE N1 BYPASS ROUTE AROUND BEAUFORT WEST ...... 15 FIGURE 5. THE LAYOUT OF THE PRE -CONSTRUCTION BIRD MONITORING ACTIVITIES ON THE NUWEVELD WIND FARMS SITE ...... 27 FIGURE 6. THE VEGETATION CLASSIFICATION FOR THE NUWEVELD EAST WIND FARM (M UCINA & RUTHERFORD , 2006)...... 31 FIGURE 7. TYPICAL MICRO -HABITATS AVAILABLE TO BIRDS IN THE NUWEVELD EAST WIND FARM STUDY AREA ...... 32 FIGURE 8. THE IBA, CAR & CWAC LOCATIONS ...... 33 FIGURE 9. PHOTOGRAPHS OF NESTS ...... 37 FIGURE 10. RECORDED TARGET BIRD SPECIES FLIGHT PATHS AT NUWEVELD EAST WIND FARM (ALL SPECIES , FULL YEAR )...... 47 FIGURE 11. INDIVIDUAL SPECIES FLIGHT PATHS AT NUWEVELD EAST WIND FARM (F ULL YEAR )...... 48 FIGURE 12. LOCATION OF VERREAUX ’S EAGLE NESTS IN AND AROUND KAROO NATIONAL PARK ...... 54 FIGURE 13. VERA MODEL OUTPUT AND RECORDED FLIGHT PATHS ...... 56 FIGURE 14. THE POSITION OF THE NUWEVELD WIND FARMS RELATIVE TO THE AVIAN WIND FARM SENSITIVITY MAP (R ETIEF ET AL , 2011) & IMPORTANT BIRD AREAS (M ARNEWICK ET AL 2015). (D ARKER COLOURS INDICATE HIGHER AVIFAUNAL SENSITIVITY) ...... 60 FIGURE 15. THE PROPOSED NUWEVELD EAST WIND FARM RELATIVE TO THE REDZ2 & TRANSMISSION CORRIDORS AREAS ...... 61 FIGURE 16. AVIFAUNAL SENSITIVITY MAP FOR NUWEVELD EAST WIND FARM - TURBINES ...... 63 FIGURE 17. AVIFAUNAL SENSITIVITY MAP FOR NUWEVELD EAST WIND FARM – ROADS & CABLES ...... 64 FIGURE 18. AVIFAUNAL SENSITIVITY MAP FOR NUWEVELD EAST WIND FARM – BUILDINGS ...... 64 FIGURE 19. AVIFAUNAL SENSITIVITY MAP FOR NUWEVELD EAST WIND FARM – WEF OVERHEAD LINES ...... 65
TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF THE DETAILED PROJECT COMPONENTS ...... 12 TABLE 2. CWAC DATA FROM SLANGFONTEIN DAM (WWW .CWAC .ADU .ORG .ZA ) ...... 34 TABLE 3. CWAC DATA FROM SPRINGFONTEIN DAM (WWW .CWAC .ADU .ORG .ZA ) ...... 34 TABLE 4. SMALL PASSERINE BIRD DATA FROM WALKED TRANSECTS FOR THE CONSOLIDATED NUWEVELD WIND FARMS SITE ...... 40 TABLE 5. LARGE TERRESTRIAL & RAPTOR SPECIES RECORDED ON THE DRIVE TRANSECTS AT THE CONSOLIDATED NUWEVELD WIND FARMS SITE ...... 42 TABLE 6. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FROM FOCAL SITES ...... 43 TABLE 7. SUMMARY OF INCIDENTAL OBSERVATIONS OF RELEVANT SPECIES ON THE CONSOLIDATED NUWEVELD WIND FARMS SITE ...... 44 TABLE 8. TARGET BIRD SPECIES RECORDED DURING VANTAGE POINT COUNTS AT THE CONSOLIDATED NUWEVELD WIND FARMS SITE ...... 45 TABLE 9. TARGET BIRD SPECIES PASSAGE RATES AND ESTIMATED TURBINE COLLISION FATALITIES AT THE NUWEVELD EAST WIND FARM SITE ...... 46 TABLE 10. FINAL PRIORITY SPECIES FOR THE CONSOLIDATED NUWEVELD WIND FARMS SITE . IN EACH CASE THE SPECIES SEASONAL PRESENCE AND A QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF RISK TO EACH SPECIES IS ALSO PRESENTED ...... 50 TABLE 11. POPULATION ESTIMATES FOR THE PRIORITY SPECIES IN THE STUDY AREA ...... 50 TABLE 12. SUMMARY OF LUDWIG ’S BUSTARD RECORDS ...... 52 TABLE 13. SUMMARY OF MARTIAL EAGLE RECORDS ...... 53 TABLE 14. SUMMARY OF VERREAUX ’S EAGLE RECORDS ...... 53 TABLE 15. SUMMARY OF BLACK STORK RECORDS ...... 57 TABLE 16. SUMMARY OF KAROO KORHAAN RECORDS ...... 57 TABLE 17. SUMMARY OF AFRICAN ROCK PIPIT RECORDS ...... 58 TABLE 18. SUMMARY OF BOOTED EAGLE RECORDS ...... 58 TABLE 19. SUMMARY OF JACKAL BUZZARD RECORDS ...... 58 TABLE 20. SUMMARY OF PALE CHANTING GOSHAWK RECORDS ...... 59 TABLE 21. SUMMARY OF FACTORS CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING AVIFAUNAL SENSITIVITY CLASSES ON SITE ...... 63 TABLE 22. ASSESSMENT OF DESTRUCTION OF BIRD HABITAT DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE ...... 68 TABLE 23. ASSESSMENT OF DISTURBANCE OF BIRDS DURING CONSTRUCTION ...... 69 TABLE 24. ASSESSMENT OF DISTURBANCE OF BIRDS DURING OPERATIONS...... 70 TABLE 25. ASSESSMENT OF DISPLACEMENT OF BIRDS DURING OPERATIONS ...... 71 TABLE 26. ASSESSMENT OF BIRD COLLISION WITH TURBINE BLADES DURING OPERATIONS ...... 73 TABLE 27. ASSESSMENT OF BIRD COLLISION & ELECTROCUTION ON OVERHEAD POWER LINES & IN SUBSTATION ...... 74 TABLE 28. ASSESSMENT OF BIRD DISTURBANCE DURING DECOMMISSIONING ...... 75
1. INTRODUCTION Red Cap Energy (Pty) Ltd (Red Cap) is proposing to develop up to three wind farms on a site in the Beaufort West Local Municipality, Central Karoo District Municipality, Western Cape. The wind farms are located approximately 65km north of Beaufort West and approximately 30km south of Loxton (Figure 1) and are approximately 32 000 hectares in extent. The proposal also includes the development of an approximately 120km 132/400kV grid connection power line which will connect the proposed wind farms to the Eskom Droërivier Substation located south west of Beaufort West. The project includes four discreet applications (3 wind farms & 1 grid connection) all subject to the Scoping and EIA process in terms of the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA).
Aurecon South Africa (Pty) Ltd, (hereafter referred to as Aurecon) has been appointed by Red Cap to undertake the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process for the Nuweveld Wind Farms and associated grid connection. Aurecons’ services are to ensure compliance with the relevant environmental legislation, and are to include applications to various Competent Authorities for environmental authorisations, licenses and permits. WildSkies Ecological Services (Pty) Ltd (hereafter WildSkies) has been appointed by Red Cap to conduct the necessary avifaunal studies (including pre-construction monitoring) for this process.
This specialist assessment has been produced as part of an iterative design process being undertaken for this project. As part of this process, various design and layout options have been considered, assessed and further refined to ensure adherence to the environmental and technical constraints present on site. Previous processes include a Screening Phase and a Pre-Application Scoping Phase which included the production and distribution of a Pre- application Scoping Report. Specialist recommendations made to further refine the design and layout of the project were included in the Pre-application Scoping Report. The refined design and layout that resulted from the Pre-App Scoping Phase, which has been further refined based on the outcomes of the Verreaux’s Eagle Risk Assessment (VERA) model, is what has been assessed in this report and the findings of this report will inform that outcomes of the Scoping Phase of this project.
For the wind farm, the screening process identified various sensitive features that should be avoided or if unavoidable, limit development to certain areas. The boundaries of the three wind farms (Figure 2) are shown below. This report assesses the Nuweveld East Wind Farm (for which the applicant is Red Cap Nuweveld East Pty Ltd) (Figure 3).
Figure 1. The location of the Nuweveld Wind Farms site.
1.1 Project description Up to three wind farms i.e. Nuweveld North Wind Farm (Nuweveld North), the Nuweveld East Wind Farm (Nuweveld East) and the Nuweveld West Wind Farm (Nuweveld West), are proposed to be developed within the ±32,000ha wind farms site (Figure 2). During the various stages of this assessment process (pre-app scoping, scoping, draft EIR final EIR) the layout and the boundaries (between the three wind farms) may change due to new environmental constraints/ opportunities that are identified.
Figure 2. The three Nuweveld Wind Farms.
The wind farm components will comprise, inter alia, of the following infrastructure types as per the specifications provided by Red Cap:
» Turbines » Internal WEF Overhead Powerlines » Roads, hardstands and Underground Cables » Buildings (incl. WEF substation and associated battery storage facility)
A detailed project component list (including relevant specifications) and footprint estimation for various infrastructure and support infrastructure is shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Summary of the detailed project components. Project Components Specifications & Footprint areas Estimated Combined Description Footprint (ha) Location Approximately 65km north of Beaufort West and approximately 30km south of Loxton along the R381. Land use of the site and surrounding properties comprise of low density livestock farming (grazing). Total Wind farm area is 10357ha Wind Turbines • 38 potential turbine locations assessed for approval but only up to a maximum of 35 wind turbines will be constructed. • No Turbines are located to the West of the R381. • Turbine envelope: o Rotor diameter: 120m to 190m (up to 95m blade / radius) o Hub height: 80m to 150m o Rotor top tip height: 140m to 245m (maximum based on 150m hub + 95m blade = 245m) o Rotor bottom tip height: minimum of 25 m (and not lower).
• Generation capacity: up to maximum of 8MW output per turbine • Nuweveld East has a targeted nameplate capacity of up to a maximum of 280MW. Turbine Foundations Each turbine will have a circular foundation with a diameter of up to 32m and this will be 4.5ha (permanent) placed alongside the 40m wide hardstand resulting in an area of about 40mx32m that will be permanently disturbed for the turbine foundation. Turbine Hardstands Each turbine will have a hardstand of 80m x 40m. 11.2ha (permanent) Cabling Turbines to be connected to on-site substation via 33kV cables. Cables to be laid 1.9ha (Temporary) underground in trenches mainly adjacent to roads or overhead via 33kV monopoles where burying is not possible due to technical, geological, environmental or topographical constraints. The length of the cabling that is not adjacent to the wind farm roads is 6.2km but of this about 4.6km is running along an existing road thus reducing the impact. The potential area impacted is recorded here for the off-road cables, and those sections that run along proposed wind farm roads are covered within the temporary road disturbance footprint, see below. Internal WEF 9.9km of 33kV overhead powerline with pylons of up to 20m high. The majority of this 3ha (permanent) overhead powerlines (7km) will be running next to the proposed Eskom grid connection ensuring the majority of the internal overhead line impacts are in the same corridor as the proposed grid connection. Site roads Permanent roads will be 6m wide and may require side drains on one or both sides. All ≤53-64ha (permanent)* roads may have underground cables running next to them. A 12m wide road corridor may ≤45ha (temporary)* be temporary impacted during construction and rehabilitated to 6m wide after construction. For Nuweveld East a total road network of about 75km is proposed and the area impacted is presented here. Of this 75km, a total of 14km is shared infrastructure with Nuweveld West Wind Farm. N1 Bypass Road A temporary bypass road is required on the N1 to avoid the town of Beaufort West with 6.8ha (temporary) the major Wind Farm components. The road will be up to 6m wide but a 12m wide road corridor may be temporary impacted during construction and rehabilitated once construction is complete. The length of the temporary road will be about 5.6km of which about 2.5km is along an existing track. Wind farm Wind farm will have a 150m x 75m substation yard which includes an Operation and 3.6ha (permanent) Substations and Maintenance (O&M) building, Substation building and a High Voltage Gantry as well as a battery facility 2.4 ha area for battery storage facility which may be adjacent or slightly removed from the substation depending on the local constraints. The substation and battery facility will be connected by an underground or overhead cable Operations and The O&M area will include all offices, stores, workshops, laydown area Building & Forms part of Substation maintenance (O&M) Substation building will be housed in the substation yard. yard area Security 20m 2 • Security gate and hut to be installed at entrance to site.
• No fencing around individual turbines, existing fencing shall remain around perimeter of properties.
• Temporary and permanent yard areas to be enclosed (with access control) with an up to 2.4m high fence. Temporary laydown, • 2.2ha (temporary) staging and yards Wind farm temporary construction areas: areas required for the o Temporary site camp/s areas: 20,000m2 construction / o Batching plant area of approximately 2,000m2 decommissioning o Each wind farm will have a bunded fuel & lubricants storage facility on site in fixed phase. tanks not exceeding 80m 3 (situated at the site camp).
• Individual turbine temporary laydown areas including crane boom laydown areas, blade laydown areas and other potential temporary areas will be up to a maximum of 17.5ha (temporary) 5000m2. Total disturbance footprint 74ha temporary and 87ha permanent*
*these areas represent more than will be impacted given the road values are based on all 38 turbines being constructed wherein reality only 35 turbines will be developed as part of this application.
Figure 3 shows the proposed scoping phase layout of the Nuweveld East Wind Farm considered for this assessment. It should be noted that this assessment considers 38 turbine positions but no more than 35 turbines will be developed for this wind farm. Figure 4 shows the temporary bypass road, which is shared infrastructure between the three wind farms and will be utilised during the construction phase to transport abnormal loads to the wind farms. R381 to Loxton
R381 to Beaufort West
Figure 3. The Nuweveld East Wind Farm layout considered for this assessment.
Figure 4. The N1 bypass route around Beaufort West. 1.2 Background to wind energy facilities & birds The first documented interaction between birds and wind farms was that of birds killed through collisions with turbines, dating back to the 1970s. Certain sites in particular, such as Altamont Pass – California, and Tarifa – Spain, killed many birds and focused attention on the issue. However as the research developed it appears that sites such as these are the exception rather than the rule, with most facilities causing much lower fatality rates (Kingsley & Whittam, 2005; Rydell et al 2012; Rydell et al , 2017; Ralston-Paton et al 2017). Impacts have so far proven to differ significantly between sites (Bose et al. 2018; Ralston-Paton et al. 2017; Thaxter et al . 2017).
With time it became apparent that there are actually four ways in which birds can be affected by wind farms: 1) collisions – which is a direct mortality factor; 2) habitat alteration or destruction (less direct); 3) disturbance – particularly whilst breeding; and 4) displacement/barrier effects (various authors including Rydell et al 2012; Rydell et al , 2017). Whilst the impacts of habitat alteration and disturbance are probably fairly similar to that associated with other forms of development, collision and displacement/barrier effects are unique to wind energy.
Associated infrastructure such as overhead power lines also have the potential to impact on birds. For example they pose a collision and possibly electrocution threat to certain bird species.
1.2.1 Collision of birds with turbine blades Without doubt the impact of bird collision with turbines has received the most attention to date amongst researchers, operators, conservationists, and the public (Dwyer et al. 2018; Bose et al. 2018; Thaxter et al. 2017; Vasiliakis et al. 2017, Ralston Paton et al . 2017).
It is important to understand that not all birds that fly through a wind farm at rotor height collide with blades. In fact avoidance rates for certain species have proven to be extremely high internationally. Avoidance rates have not been determined for South African species.
The two most common measures for collision fatality data used to date are, the number of birds killed per turbine per year, and number of birds killed per megawatt installed per year. Rydell et al (2012) reviewed studies from 31 wind farms in Europe and 28 in North America and found a range between 0 and 60 birds killed per turbine per year, with a median of 2.3. European average bird fatality rates were much higher at 6.5 birds per turbine per year compared to the 1.6 for North America. These figures include an adjustment for detection (the efficiency with which monitors detect carcasses in different conditions) and scavenger bias (the rate at which birds are removed by scavengers between searches). These are important biases which must be accounted for in any study of mortality.
Eagle turbine collision fatalities are particularly relevant to the Nuweveld site as described later in this report. Internationally, fatalities at wind farms have been reported for Golden Eagle (e.g. Smallwood 2013), White-tailed Sea Eagle (e.g. Hötker et al. 2006), Bald Eagle (Pagel et al. 2013) and White-bellied Sea Eagle (Smales & Muir 2005).
In South Africa, Ralston-Paton, Smallie, Pearson & Ramalho (2017) reviewed the results of operational phase bird monitoring at 8 wind farms ranging in size from 9 to 66 turbines and totalling 294 turbines (or 625MW). Hub height ranged from 80 to 115m (mean of 87.8m) and rotor diameter from 88 to 113m (mean of 102.4m). The estimated fatality rate at the wind farms (adjusted for detection rates and scavenger removal) ranged from 2.06 to 8.95 birds per turbine per year. The mean fatality rate was 4.1 birds per turbine per year. This places South Africa within the range of fatality rates that have been reported for North America and Europe.
The composition of the South African bird turbine collision fatalities by family group was as follows: Unknown 5%; Waterfowl 3%; Water birds other 2%; Cormorants & Darters 1%; Shorebirds, Lapwings and gulls 2%; Large terrestrial birds 2%; Gamebirds 4%; Flufftails & coots 2%; Songbirds 26%; Swifts, swallows & martins 12%; Pigeons & doves 2%; Barbets, mousebirds & cuckoo’s 1%; Ravens & crows 1%; Owls 1%; and Diurnal raptors 36%.
Threatened species killed by turbine collision included Verreaux’s Eagle Aquila verreauxii (5 - Vulnerable), Martial Eagle Polemaetus bellicosus (2 - Endangered), Black Harrier Circus maurus (5 - Endangered), and Blue Crane Anthropoides paradiseus (3 – Near-threatened). Although not Red Listed, a large number of Jackal Buzzard Buteo rufofuscus fatalities (24) were also reported.
Ralston-Paton et al’s review included the first year of operational monitoring at the first 8 facilities. At least one more year has elapsed at each of these facilities and additional facilities have come on line. Ralston-Paton (2019) presented an update of the findings in October 2019 at the Birds and Renewable Energy Forum. We have used these findings for this study where relevant, supplemented with our own knowledge of fatality findings at sites we have worked at.
1.2.2 Loss or alteration of habitat during construction During the construction of wind farms and associated infrastructure, some habitat destruction and alteration will take place. This happens with the construction of access roads, the clearing of servitudes and areas for turbine placements, and the levelling of substation yards (including associated battery storage facility), development of laydown areas and turbine bases. This removal of vegetation which provides habitat for avifauna and food sources may have an impact on birds breeding, foraging and roosting (Dwyer et al. 2018; Tarr et al. 2016). The area of land directly affected by a wind farm and associated infrastructure is often relatively small when compared with the extent of the site. Typically, actual habitat loss is between 2 and 5 % of the total development area (Drewitt & Langston 2006). As a result, in most cases habitat destruction or alteration in its simplest form (removal of natural vegetation) is unlikely to be of great significance for many bird species. However, fragmentation of habitat can be an important factor for some smaller bird species. Construction and operation of a wind farm results in an influx of human activity to areas often previously relatively uninhabited (Kuvlesky et al 2007), which is certainly the case at the Nuweveld Wind Farm site. This disturbance could cause certain birds to avoid the entire site, thereby losing a significant amount of habitat (Langston & Pullan, 2003). In addition to this, birds are aerial species, spending much of their time above the ground. It is therefore simplistic to view the amount of habitat destroyed as the terrestrial land area only.
Ralston-Paton et al (2017) did not review habitat destruction or alteration. From our own work to date, we have recorded a range of habitat destruction on 6 wind farms from 0.6 to 4% (mean of 2.4%) of the total site area (defined by a polygon drawn around the outermost turbines and other infrastructure) and 6.9 to 48.1ha (mean of 27.8ha) of aerial space.
1.2.3. Disturbance of birds Activities associated with construction of wind farms (including: heavy machinery, earth moving, vehicle and staff traffic) can disturb birds in the receiving environment (Dwyer et al , 2018; Tarr et al . 2016; Ledec et al. 2011). Disturbance effects can occur at differing levels and have variable levels of effect on bird species, depending on their sensitivity to disturbance and whether they are breeding or not. For smaller bird species, with smaller territories, disturbance may be absolute and the birds may be forced to move away and find alternative territories, with secondary impacts such as increased competition. For larger bird species, many of which are typically the subject of concern for wind farms, larger territories mean that they are less likely to be entirely displaced from their territory. For these birds, disturbance is probably likely to be significant only when breeding. Effects of disturbance during breeding could include loss of breeding productivity; temporary or permanent abandonment of breeding; or even abandonment of nest site.
Ralston-Paton et al (2017) found no conclusive evidence of disturbance of birds at the sites reviewed. It may be premature to draw this conclusion after only one year as effects are likely to vary with time (Stewart et al , 2007) and statistical analysis was not as in depth as desired. At this stage in the industry, a simplistic view of disturbance has been applied whereby the presence or absence of active breeding at breeding sites of key species is used as the basis for findings.
1.2.4. Displacement & barrier effects A barrier effect occurs when a wind energy facility acts as a barrier for birds in flight, which then avoid the obstacle and fly around it. This can reduce the collision risk, but will also increase the distance that the bird must fly. This has consequences for the birds’ energy balance. Obviously the scale of this effect can vary hugely and depends on the scale of the facility, the species territory and movement patterns and the species reaction. Displacement occurs when birds leave an area due to the disturbance or habitat destruction that has taken place there (Dwyer et al , 2018). Ralston-Paton et al (2017) reported that little conclusive evidence for displacement of any species was reported for the 8 wind farms in South Africa, although once again this is an early and possibly simplistic conclusion.
1.2.5. Associated infrastructure Infrastructure associated with wind energy facilities also has the potential to impact on birds, in some cases more than the turbines themselves. Overhead power lines pose a collision and possible electrocution threat to certain bird species (depending on the pole top configuration). Furthermore, the construction and maintenance of the power lines will result in some disturbance and habitat destruction. New access roads, substations (including associated battery storage facility) and offices constructed will also have a disturbance and habitat destruction impact.
Collision with power lines is one of the biggest single threats facing birds in southern Africa (van Rooyen 2004). Most heavily impacted upon are bustards, storks, cranes and various species of water birds (many of which occur in the Nuweveld area). These species are mostly heavy-bodied birds with limited manoeuvrability, which makes it difficult for them to take the necessary evasive action to avoid colliding with power lines (van Rooyen 2004, Anderson 2001). Unfortunately, many of the collision sensitive species are also considered threatened in southern Africa. The Red List species vulnerable to power line collisions are generally long living, slow reproducing species under natural conditions.
Electrocution refers to the scenario where a bird is perched or attempts to perch on the electrical structure and causes an electrical short circuit by physically bridging the air gap between live components and/or live and earthed components (van Rooyen 2004). The larger bird species (such as eagles) are most affected since they are most capable of bridging critical clearances on hardware.
Ralston-Paton et al (2017) did not review power line impacts at the 8 sites.
1.2.6. Mitigation Realistic possible mitigation measures for bird turbine collision include: increasing turbine visibility (for example through painting turbine blades; restriction of turbine operation during high risk periods; automated turbine shutdown on demand; human based turbine shutdown on demand; bird deterrents – both audible and visual; habitat management; habitat management; and offsets). Most of these suggested mitigation measures are largely untested. For any mitigation to be undertaken during operation, budget will need to be available. This report strongly recommends that the wind farm operator make provision for a mitigation contingency budget so that if issues are encountered during operation, the best-suited and proven mitigation at that point in time can be implemented. This is discussed further in Section 5.
Mitigation for habitat destruction consists typically of avoiding sensitive habitats during layout planning. A certain amount of habitat destruction is unavoidable.
For disturbance, mitigation takes the form of allowing sufficient spatial and temporal protection for breeding sites of sensitive species.
Mitigation of power line impacts is relatively well understood and effective, and is described in more detail later in this report.
The primary means of mitigating bird impacts therefore remains correct siting, both of the entire facility, and of the individual turbines themselves. This has already been done in detail with the Nuweveld Wind Farms during the screening phase in which detailed no go areas for avifauna were used in developing the layout being assessed. Whichever mitigation measures are identified as necessary, this should be informed by a thorough pre and post construction bird monitoring programme.
1.2.7. Contextualising wind energy impacts on birds Several authors have compared causes of mortality of birds (American Bird Conservancy, 2012; Sibley Guides, 2012; National Shooting Sports Foundation 2012; Drewitt & Langston 2008) in order to contextualise possible mortality at wind farms. In most of these studies, apart from habitat destruction which is the number one threat to birds (although not a direct mortality factor) the top killers are collision with building windows and cats. Overhead power lines rank fairly high up, and wind turbines only far lower down the ranking. These studies typically cite absolute number of deaths and rarely acknowledge the numerous biases in this data. For example a bird that collides with a high-rise building window falls to a pavement and is found by a passer-by, whereas a bird colliding with a wind turbine falls to the ground which is covered in vegetation and seldom passed by anyone. Other biases include: the number of windows; kilometres of power line; or cats which are available to cause the demise of a bird, compared to the number of wind turbines. Biases aside the most important short coming of these studies is a failure to recognise the difference in species affected by the different infrastructure. Species such as those of concern at wind farms, and particularly Red List species in South Africa are unlikely to frequent tall buildings or to be caught by cats. Since many of these bird species are already struggling to maintain sustainable populations, we should be striving to avoid all additional, new and preventable impacts on these species, and not permitting these impacts simply because they are smaller than those anthropogenic impacts already in existence.
1.3 Relevant legislation & conventions The legislation relevant to this specialist field and development include the following:
The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD): dedicated to promoting sustainable development. The Convention recognizes that biological diversity is about more than plants, animals and micro-organisms and their ecosystems – it is about people and our need for food security, medicines, fresh air and water, shelter, and a clean and healthy environment in which to live. It is an international convention signed by 150 leaders at the Rio 1992 Earth Summit. South Africa is a signatory to this convention and should therefore abide by its’ principles.
An important principle encompassed by the CBD is the precautionary principle which essentially states that where serious threats to the environment exist, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used a reason for delaying management of these risks. The burden of proof that the impact will not occur lies with the proponent of the activity posing the threat.
The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (also known as CMS or Bonn Convention): aims to conserve terrestrial, aquatic and avian migratory species throughout their range. It is an intergovernmental treaty, concluded under the aegis of the United Nations Environment Programme, concerned with the conservation of wildlife and habitats on a global scale. Since the Convention's entry into force, its membership has grown steadily to include 117 (as of 1 June 2012) Parties from Africa, Central and South America, Asia, Europe and Oceania. South Africa is a signatory to this convention.
The Agreement on the Conservation of African-Eurasian Migratory Water birds (AEWA): is the largest of its kind developed so far under the CMS. The AEWA covers 255 species of birds ecologically dependent on wetlands for at least part of their annual cycle, including many species of divers, grebes, pelicans, cormorants, herons, storks, rails, ibises, spoonbills, flamingos, ducks, swans, geese, cranes, waders, gulls, terns, tropic birds, auks, frigate birds and even the South African penguin. The agreement covers 119 countries and the European Union (EU) from Europe, parts of Asia and Canada, the Middle East and Africa.
The National Environmental Management – Biodiversity Act - Threatened or Protected Species list (TOPS) . Those TOPS species relevant to this study and occurring on site are shown in Appendix 1.
The Western Cape Nature Conservation Laws Amendment Act of 2000 protects all indigenous bird species, except for: mousebirds, crows, starling, queleas and a few others.
The Civil Aviation Authority has certain requirements regarding the visibility of wind turbines to aircraft. It is our understanding that these may preclude certain mitigation measures for bird collisions, such as the painting of turbine blades in different colours.
The National Environmental Management Act , No. 107 of 1998 (NEMA as amended): An Environmental Authorisation is required for Listed Activities in Regulations pursuant to NEMA The avifaunal assessment feeds into the Scoping and EIA process to inform whether the project can proceed or not.
The Cape Nature “ Requirements for development applications” (2016) are applicable . This study meets their requirements.
2. METHODOLOGY
2.1 Scope of works The scope of work for this avifaunal impact assessment for the Nuweveld East Wind Farm includes:
» Turbines. Worst-case scenario for turbine numbers for each wind farm (as per the latest layout) are (NB note that no more than 35 of these will be constructed per wind farm but as we do not know which ones these are until the end, the assessment is done as if all are to be constructed thus making the assessment a more precautionary/ conservative assessment): o North up to 37 turbines o East up to 38 turbines; and o West up to 38 turbines. » Internal WEF overhead powerlines » Roads, hardstands and underground cables » One on-site substation (including associated battery storage facility) for each wind farm » Ancillary facilities and infrastructure (including an Operations and Maintenance (O&M) centre buildings) which will be located on the area set aside for the on-site substation (the 150x75m area) » Temporary laydown, staging and yards areas required for the construction / decommissioning phases.
For the cumulative assessment, the avifaunal impact assessment also considers the ≤120km 132/400kV gridline connection to the Droërivier Substation.
2.2 Terms of reference Specialists shall undertake all necessary data collection and fieldwork necessary to assess the project and meet the requirements of Appendix 6 to the EIA Regulations (as amended) including, but not limited to:
» Project specific description for each Wind Farm, » A detailed baseline description of the receiving environment in and surrounding the site, including a description of key no go areas or features or other sensitive areas to be avoided. » A description of all methodology and processes used to source information, collect baseline data, generate models and the age or season when the data was collected. A description of any assumptions made and any uncertainties or gaps in knowledge. » A description of relevant legal matters, policies, standards and guidelines. » A list of potentially significant environmental impacts that may arise in the construction, operation and decommissioning phases of the project, including cumulative impacts » A detailed impact assessment of each impact including: » A pre-mitigation and post-mitigation impact assessment description which will be summarised using the supplied table. » A list of essential mitigation measures and management interventions » A cumulative impact assessment. The cumulative impact of all three wind farms should be assessed (and any other wind farms in 30km – of which there are presently none). » An assessment of the “No go” alternative. » A summary table of all the impacts must be included and must show the post-mitigation significance ratings. » Specialist to provide a discussion on the overall impact and a reasoned opinion as to whether the proposed activity or portions of the activity can be authorised. Provide additional recommendations regarding avoidance, management, or mitigation measures for consideration in a layout revision or inclusion into the EMPr (i.e. monitoring requirements). » Any other information the specialist believes to be important, including recommendations that should be included as conditions in the Environmental Authorisation.
The following tasks are required to ensure that EIA reports will allow the EAP to complete a Scoping and EIA Report that complies with the Regulations:
» A focussed and relevant description of all baseline characteristics and conditions of the receiving environment (e.g.: site and/or surrounding land uses including urban and agricultural areas as applicable) in relation to the Specialist’s field, based on all relevant available data, reports and maps, and information obtained from any field work investigations undertaken to date. » A detailed list and evaluation of the predicted impacts of the project on the receiving environment, or of the receiving environment on the project as per the Aurecon methodology, that uses the criteria of extent, duration and intensity to quantify the significance of the potential impact The evaluation of impacts should include: o A list of potentially significant direct, indirect and cumulative impacts relating to the construction, operation, and decommissioning phases o A pre-mitigation assessment of the listed impacts using the Aurecon methodology; o An assessment of the pre-mitigation No-Go option o A list of key recommendations and mitigations o A post-mitigation assessment of the listed impacts using the Aurecon methodology and o The description of the residual risks (post-mitigation impact significance) that will remain after implementation of proposed mitigations. » Provide recommendations to avoid negative impacts and where this will not be possible then provide feasible and practical mitigations, management and/or monitoring options required to reduce or manage negative impacts and or beneficiate positive impacts. » Where certain development components encroach into mapped No-Go areas, and are allowed in certain instances, the specialist must clearly state and list these exceptions. » Identify additional measures if possible to ensure that the project contributes towards sustainability goals and provides a positive contribution to the environment. » Where relevant, recommendations and instructions regarding additional authorisation, permitting or licensing procedures, or any other requirements pertaining to legislation and policies relevant to the Specialist’s field of interest. » Where more data or fieldwork is required (or ongoing)is needed, state this clearly in your report and that the findings/ assessment and information presented is preliminary information based on the information obtained to date and is subject to change as the data become available. » An outline of recommended measures to manage residual impacts (i.e. impacts that remain after optimisation of design and planning) for the construction, operational and decommissioning phases » Recommendation of a monitoring plan (only if required) for the relevant aspects associated with the respective specialist fields. » Specific conditions, in respect of the Specialist’s field, for inclusion in the Environmental Authorisation. » A reasoned opinion as to whether the proposed activity or portions of the activity may be authorised. » Include a table upfront in the Specialist Scoping Report listing the requirements of Appendix 6 of NEMA, and where this information is detailed in the specialist report. » Undertake a review of all new layout (should any changes occur) or project information emanating from the Scoping Phase of the project.
More detail on the aims of the specific data collection activities is provided below under the relevant sections.
2.3 Department of Environmental Affairs Screening Tool & Procedures for the assessment & minimum criteria for report on identified environmental themes As required, we consulted the DEA Screening tool for the Nuweveld Wind Farms site. The screening tool identified the Nuweveld site as Low sensitivity from an avifaunal perspective. Our own work disagrees with this, and we find the site to be of Low-Moderate sensitivity at a national scale. This is described in more detail in Appendix 4.
As per the Government Notice 320, gazetted on 20 March 2020, this project is subject to an avifaunal assessment protocol (since it is onshore wind of >20MW). This report adheres to the process and content requirements as outlined within the protocol. This has been shown in more detail with a checklist in Appendix 4. It should however be noted that this assessment does not need to be aligned with the protocol, since the DEA has indicated that irrespective of whether an EA application for a development has been submitted, if an assessment started before the protocols came into effect on 9 May 2020 the protocols are not applicable and the assessment should adhere to Appendix 6 of the EIA regulations. Since this assessment commenced in 2019, the study should comply with Appendix 6. However, this assessment is compliant to both Appendix 6 and the protocol.
2.4 General approach The general approach to this study was as follows:
» A preliminary raptor nest survey was conducted by Karoo Birding Safaris in November 2018 (under contract to Red Cap) (Karoo Birding Safaris, 2018). This was done by driving and walking as much of the cliff lines on site as possible, and interviewing landowners. » An initial pre-feasibility/pre-construction bird monitoring design and nest survey site visit was conducted by the specialist in March 2019. The nest survey was done by walking and driving as close to cliffs and other suitable nest substrate as possible and surveying it using 10x32 binoculars and a 20-60x spotting scope. Any identified nests were then visited to determine the species if this could not be done from a distance. The methods employed follow those described in Malan (2009). » Four seasons of pre-construction bird monitoring was initiated, with the first site visit taking place in May 2019 (autumn), the second in August 2019 (winter), the third in November 2019 (spring) and the fourth in January 2020 (summer). Each seasonal site visit consists of approximately 21 consecutive days on site by a team of four skilled observers, to record data on bird species and abundance on and near site. These seasonal site visits will cover: summer (when summer migrants are present); winter (when raptors breed and Blue Cranes flock); spring (when summer migrants are arriving on site and many species start to breed; and autumn (when summer migrants are leaving and many raptors are preparing to breed). We believe this sampling is sufficient to capture data representative of conditions on site. Pre-construction bird monitoring complies with both the general and Verreaux’s Eagle best practice guidelines. The detailed methods employed by this pre-construction monitoring are described in Section 2.7. » Additional specialist site visits were conducted during May and September 2019. » A helicopter flight was conducted over both the wind farm and grid connection route during May 2019. This was used to survey the site aerially and obtain a wider perspective of the landscape and relevant avifaunal aspects.
Note that pre-construction bird monitoring and all specialist field assessments have been designed to assess the full Nuweveld Wind Farms site (i.e. all three Nuweveld Wind Farms). This is an advantage when it comes to the assessment of each site on its own, as data has been collected for a larger area. Since birds are mobile this presents a far stronger assessment than would otherwise be the case. We have presented data for the consolidated Nuweveld Wind Farms site throughout this report but focused in on individual wind farm site specific findings where relevant.
2.5 Data sources consulted for this study Various existing data sources have been used in the design and implementation of this study, including the following:
» The pre-construction bird monitoring raw data and progress reports (Smallie, 2019). » The data captured by specialist site visits. » The Southern African Bird Atlas Project data (SABAP1 - Harrison et al , 1997) for the relevant quarter degree squares covering the site, and the Southern African Bird Atlas Project 2 data, available at the pentad level (http://sabap2.adu.org.za/v1/index.php)(accessed at www.mybirdpatch.adu.org.za)) » The conservation status of all relevant bird species was determined using Taylor et al (2015) & IUCN 2019. » The vegetation classification of South Africa (Mucina & Rutherford, 2006) was consulted in order to determine which vegetation types occur on site. » Aerial photography from the Surveyor General was used for planning purposes. » The ‘Avian Wind Farm Sensitivity Map: Criteria and procedures used (Retief et al, 2011, update 2014). » The Important Bird & Biodiversity Areas programme was consulted (Marnewick et al , 2015). The closest IBA is approximately 25km south of site, the Karoo National park IBA. Data from this site is described later in this report. » A review report entitled “Wind energy’s impacts on birds in South Africa: a preliminary review of the results of operational monitoring at the first wind farms of the Renewable Energy Independent Power Producer Procurement Programme Wind Farms in South Africa” (Ralston-Paton, Smallie, Pearson, & Ramalho, 2017) was consulted extensively. » Coordinated Avifaunal Road count data for the area (accessed at www.car.adu.org.za ) was consulted, but there are no routes close enough to the Nuweveld site to use (closest approximately 51km south). » Coordinated Wetland bird count data (CWAC) was consulted to obtain information on waterbird abundance in the area. » The “Best practice guidelines for assessing and monitoring the impact of wind energy facilities on birds in southern Africa” Unpublished guidelines by BirdLife South Africa & Endangered Wildlife Trust (Jenkins et al , 2015). » The “Verreaux’s Eagle and Wind Farms: Guidelines for Impact Assessment, monitoring and mitigation” (BirdLife South Africa, 2017) best practice guidelines were consulted and used in the design of our studies and management measures. » The Verreaux’s Eagle Risk Assessment (VERA) model was run for us by Dr Megan Murgatroyd and the outcomes are used in this report (FitzPatrick Institute of African Ornithology & HawkWatch International, 2020). » Comments provided by stakeholders and interested and affected parties. » At the outset of our studies, several landowners on the site told us about raptor nests and other avifaunal features important to this assessment. A neighbouring landowner also informed us of the location of a Secretarybird nest and two Verreaux’s Eagle nests on his property to the north-east of site (Mr R. Haw pers comm). These nests were approximately 3.4km, 15km and 11.5km respectively from the nearest proposed turbine and as such do not affect the project as these distances are larger than the standard recommended buffer sizes (Secretarybird - Ms M. Howes-Whitecross pers comm.; Verreaux’s Eagle –see elsewhere in this report). We also found a Martial Eagle nest off site to the north-east during studies for another project. This nest is also further than 6km (7.4km) from the nearest turbine and so does not affect this project. » Use (with their permission) was made of the Endangered Wildlife Trust reports on long term power line monitoring in the Karoo, the Central Incident Register mortality data, and the Electric Eagle research reports. » We asked the Karoo National Park management for information on large threatened bird species in and around the park, and were referred to the below report by Claassen, 2013. » A report entitled “The present status and breeding success of Verreaux's Eagles ( Aquila verreauxii ) in the Karoo National Park and surrounding areas” (2013) by Japie Claassen, Lucia Rodriques & Rob Davies was obtained from Japie Claassen was examined for information on eagles in the area. » The Nuweveld Wind Farms site falls partially in a Renewable Energy Development Zone 2 (As part of the second phase of the Strategic Environmental Assessment for Wind Energy – www.redz.csir.co.za ), and partially within one of the Transmission Grid Corridors.. » A transcript of an interview by ‘African Raptors’ with Dr Rob Davies, who did his PhD on the Verreaux’s Eagles in the Karoo National Park - http://www.africanraptors.org/the-verreauxs-eagle-an-interview-with-dr-rob- davies/ » Available published literature on wind energy – bird interactions . » The Endangered Wildlife Trust (the Birds of Prey Programme & Drylands Conservation Programme) were asked for comment & input on the project. At the time of writing no input had been received.
2.6 Explanation of terminology used The following terms are used in this study:
Red Listed – regionally The latest regional conservation status for the species as per Taylor et al, 2015 Red Listed – globally The latest global conservation status for the species as per IUCN (2019) Priority Species Priority species in this context are those that this study focuses on in more detail Endemic/near Southern African endemics as taken from BirdLife South Africa Checklist 2018 kV Kilovolt (1000 volts) EN Endangered VU Vulnerable NT Near-threatened LC Least concern
2.7 Baseline data collection The following sections describe the formal data collection activities on site. Figure 5 shows the layout of these monitoring activities on site and on the control site. The monitoring programme setup and initial screening (March & April 2019), first site visit (April 2019 - autumn), second site visit (August 2019 – winter), third site visit (November 2019 – spring), and fourth site visit (January 2020 – summer) have been completed. Data collection on site has been conducted by Karoo Birding Safaris (Mr Japie Claassen – director). 2.7.1. Sample counts of small terrestrial species Although not traditionally the focus of wind farm–bird studies and literature, small terrestrial birds are an important component of this programme. Due to the rarity of many of our threatened bird species, it is anticipated that statistically significant trends in abundance and density may be difficult to observe for these species. More common, similar species could provide early evidence for trends and point towards the need for more detailed future study. Given the large spatial scale of most wind farms, these smaller species may also be particularly vulnerable to displacement and habitat level effects. Sampling these species is aimed at establishing indices of abundance for small terrestrial birds in the study area. These counts should be done when conditions are optimal. In this case this means the times when birds are most active and vocal, i.e. early mornings. Twenty-four walked transects (WT) of approximately 1 kilometre length each were established on the Nuweveld site. These are each counted once on each site visit. For more details see Jenkins et al , 2015.
2.7.2. Counts of large terrestrial species & raptors This is a very similar data collection technique to that above, the aim being to establish indices of abundance for large terrestrial species and raptors. These species are relatively easily detected from a vehicle, hence vehicle based (VT) transects are conducted in order to determine the number of birds of relevant species in the study area. Detection of these large species is less dependent on their activity levels and calls, so these counts can be done later in the day. Six VTs were established on suitable roads in the area, ranging between 8.2 and 23.9km in length and totalling 81.3km. These transects are each counted twice on each site visit. For more detail on exact methods of conducting Vehicle transects see Jenkins et al (2015).
2.7.3. Focal site surveys & monitoring Seven Focal Sites (FS) were identified for this programme, all of them bird nests. As the monitoring programme progressed several other sites were added, and after rainfall, including several dams were added following rainfall. The location of these seven Focal Sites is shown in Figure 5.
2.7.4. Incidental observations This monitoring programme comprised a significant amount of field time on site by the observers. Much of this time was spent driving between the above activities. As such it is important to record any other relevant information whilst on site. All other incidental sightings of priority species (and particularly those suggestive of breeding or important feeding or roosting sites or flight paths) within the broader study area were carefully plotted and documented. Where patterns in these observations are identified additional focal site surveys were undertaken.
2.7.4. Direct observation of bird flight on site The aim of direct observation is to record bird flight activity on site. An understanding of this flight behaviour will help explain any future interactions between birds and the wind farm. Spatial patterns in bird flight movement may also be detected, which will allow for input into turbine placement and further optimisation of the layout. Direct observation was conducted through counts at 18 fixed vantage points (VP) in the study area (see Figure 5). These VPs provided coverage of a reasonable and representative proportion of the entire study area. VPs were identified using GIS (Geographic Information Systems), and then fine-tuned during the project setup, based on access and other information. Since these VPs aim at capturing both usage and behavioural data, they were positioned mostly on high ground to maximise visibility. The survey radius for VP counts was 2 kilometres (although large birds are sometimes recorded further). VP counts were conducted by two observers. Birds were recorded 360° around observers. Data should be collected during representative conditions, so the sessions were spread throughout the day, with each VP being counted over ‘early to mid-morning’, ‘mid-morning to early afternoon’, and ‘mid-afternoon to evening’. Each VP session was 4.5 hours long, which is believed to be towards the upper limit of observer concentration span, whilst also maximising duration of data capture relative to travel time to the Vantage Points. A total of 18hrs of observation was collected per vantage point in each season. A maximum of two VP sessions were conducted per day, to avoid observer fatigue compromising data quality. For more detail on exact criteria recorded for each flying bird observed, see Jenkins et al (2015).
Vantage Point 12 was deliberately located overlooking (not close enough to disturb) the Verreaux’s Eagle nest at Langkloof. Data collected at this vantage point was analysed separately from the rest as it is not representative.
One of the most important attributes of any bird flight event is its height above ground, since this will determine its risk of collision with turbine blades. Since it is possible that the turbine model (and hence the exact height of the rotor swept zone) could still change on this project, actual flight height was estimated rather than assigning flight height to broad bands (such as proposed by Jenkins et al 2015). This ‘raw’ data will allow flexibility in assigning to classes later on depending on final turbine specifications.
It is not practical to record all bird species flying by this method, the method focuses rather on the physically large species and particularly Red Listed or otherwise important species.
2.7.5. Control site A control site was monitored to the south-west of the Nuweveld Wind Farms site. Monitoring at this site consisted of: three Vantage Points; six Walked Transects; one Drive Transect; and two Focal Sites. Results from this control site are not reported in this study, but serve rather as a baseline information set against which impacts can be measured if the wind farm is built.
Figure 5. The layout of the pre-construction bird monitoring activities on the Nuweveld Wind Farms site. 2.8 Bird species risk assessment & prioritisation For the purposes of impact assessment it was necessary to focus in on which species are most important or vulnerable as it is not possible to effectively assess the risk to all 91 species observed on site in detail. In terms of identifying the priority species for this impact assessment the following steps were followed:
1. Identification of theoretical high risk species. This was done at the beginning of pre-construction bird monitoring through considering: Jordan & Smallie (2010) who summarise which taxonomic groups of birds have been found to be vulnerable to collision with wind turbines in the USA, UK, EU, Australia and Canada; Ralston-Paton, Smallie, Pearson & Ramalho (2017) who summarise experience with bird-turbine fatalities to date in South Africa; and the document entitled “Avian Wind Farm Sensitivity Map for South Africa: Criteria and procedures used” (Retief, Diamond, Anderson, Smit, Jenkins & Brooks, 2011, updated 2014) which classified all bird species theoretically in terms of their risk of interaction with wind energy; and the regional conservation status (Taylor et al , 2015). The identified priority species tend to all be physically large species because the direct mortality impact of wind farms (turbine collisions) is most important for these species and the regionally Red Listed bird species in the study area are almost all large species. This does not mean to say that impacts on smaller species are not important. However priority has been given to those species for which the implications of fatalities or other impacts are greater. Priority was also given to regionally and globally Red Listed or otherwise important species. 2. Identification of final priority bird species. This was done by examining the data collected at the Nuweveld Wind Farms site (Section 3.6) for all four seasons. Pre-construction monitoring on site confirmed which bird species actually use the site and to what extent. Some species have not been recorded at Nuweveld or have been recorded so seldom that they do not warrant priority species status. These include the Lesser Kestrel Falco naumanni ; Lanner Falcon Falco biarmicus ; Secretarybird Sagittarius serpentarius ; Kori Bustard Ardeotis kori ; and Blue Crane Anthropoides paradiseus .
2.9 Avifaunal Impact Assessment Each of the potential impacts of the proposed development was assessed according to a prescribed methodology and criteria presented in Appendix 2.
2.10 Avifaunal sensitivity mapping Avifaunal sensitivity mapping for Nuweveld East was conducted by identifying and describing the spatial constraints (No go areas, set back distances, buffer distances etc.). These informed the project design and layout. Constraints were allocated to one of following categories:
Legislated “no go” areas or setbacks and areas or features that are considered of such No Go significance that impacting them may be regarded as fatal flaw or strongly influence the project impact significance profile Areas or features that are considered to have a high sensitivity or where project infrastructure High would be highly constrained and should be avoided as far as possible. Infrastructure located in these areas are likely to drive up impact significance ratings and mitigations Medium Buffer areas and or areas that are deemed to be of medium sensitivity Low Areas of low sensitivity or constraints Neutral Unconstrained areas (left blank in mapping)
The features were mapped for the following infrastructure categories:
» Turbines » Roads, hardstands and Cables » Buildings » WEF Overhead lines
2.11 Limitations & assumptions Certain biases and challenges are inherent in the methods that have been employed to collect data in this programme. It is not possible to discuss all of them here, and some will only become evident with time and operational phase data, but the following are some of the key points:
» The presence of the observers on site is certain to have an effect on the birds itself. For example during walked transects, certain bird species will flush more easily than others (and therefore be detected), certain species may sit undetected, certain species may flee, and yet others may be inquisitive and approach the observers. Likewise with the vantage point counts, it is extremely unlikely that two observers sitting in position for hours at a time will have no effect on bird flight. Some species may avoid the vantage point position, because there are people there, and others may approach out of curiosity. In almost all data collection methods large bird species will be more easily detected, and their position in the landscape more easily estimated. This is particularly relevant at the vantage points where a large eagle may be visible several kilometres away, but a smaller kestrel perhaps only within 800 metres. A particularly important challenge is that of estimating the height at which birds fly above the ground. With no reference points against which to judge, it is exceptionally difficult and subjective. It is for this reason that the flight height data has been treated cautiously by this report, and much of the analysis conducted using flights of all height. With time, and data from multiple sites it will be possible to tease out these relationships and establish indices or measures of these biases.
» The questions that one can ask of the data collected by this programme are almost endless. Most of these questions however become far more informative once post construction data has been collected and effects can be observed. For this reason some of the analysis in this report is relatively crude. The raw data has however been collected and will be stored until such time as more detailed analysis is possible and necessary. This challenge is faced by all wind farm assessments.
» An overarching limitation is that since it is the early days for wind energy in South Africa we have multiple and often quite different goals for this monitoring. This means that this programme has not been as focused as it would possibly be for a project being developed a few years into the future, but rather to inform the taking of a responsible decision regarding project acceptability. Collecting diverse and substantial amounts of data is obviously an advantage on some levels, but perhaps may also dilute the focus.
» It is well known that over the last few years most of South Africa has experienced a drought period. As a result there is a risk that the data collected may not be perfectly typical of conditions in the area. Given that pre-construction bird monitoring for wind farms samples one year, and the wind farm will operate for at least 20 years (and may only be constructed five years from now), we will always face this challenge of greater variability in environmental conditions occurring during the project lifespan than during the impact assessment of the project. In general we would expect the abundance of certain bird species to decrease in drought periods, so the abundance data presented in this report should be considered a minimum.
» Spotting and identifying birds whilst walking is a significant challenge, particularly when only fleeting glimpses of birds are obtained. As such, there is variability between observers’ ability and hence the data obtained. The above data is therefore by necessity subjective to some extent. In order to control for this subjectivity, the same pairs of observers have been used for the full duration of the project, and it is hoped this can be maintained for the post construction phase. Despite this subjectivity, and a number of assumptions that line transects rely on (for more details see Bibby et al , 2000), this field method returns the greatest amount of data per unit effort (Bibby et al , 2000) and was therefore deemed appropriate for the purposes of this programme. Likewise, in an attempt to maximise the returns from available resources, the walked transects were located close to each Vantage Point. This systematic selection may result in some as yet unknown bias in the data but it has numerous logistical benefits.
» No thresholds for fatality rates for priority species have been established in South Africa to date. This means that impact assessments such as this one need to make subjective judgements on the acceptability of the estimated predicted fatalities for each species.
As described throughout the report there are also a number of aspects of this study which strengthen the assessment significantly, as follows:
» A much larger area than any one of the three wind farms has been monitored. This provides a stronger avifaunal data set than would have been the case if only one of the sites had been studied.
» Considerable extra effort has been applied towards identifying nesting sensitive species on and near site.
» In all instances a worst case scenario with respect to turbine numbers has been considered in order to take a precautionary approach.
3. BASELINE DESCRIPTION
3.1 Vegetation & habitat The Nuweveld East Wind Farm site is comprised predominantly of ‘Eastern Upper Karoo’ (Mucina & Rutherford, 2006). Smaller portions of ‘Upper Karoo Hardeveld’ also exist. A map of these vegetation types can be seen below in Figure 6. The relevance of this vegetation type description to avifauna is that the habitat on site is Namib-Karoo.
Effectively, a number of bird micro habitats are available to birds in the area including: man made dams; pans; drainage lines; wetlands; rocky ridges and cliffs; Fynbos; exotic trees; and Karoo plains (see Figure 7).
Figure 6. The vegetation classification for the Nuweveld East Wind Farm (Mucina & Rutherford, 2006).
Figure 7. Typical micro-habitats available to birds in the Nuweveld East Wind Farm study area.
3.2 Southern African Bird Atlas Project data Up to approximately 220 species were recorded in the broader area by the first and second Southern Africa Bird Atlas Projects (www.sabap2.adu.org.za). These birds were not necessarily recorded on the Nuweveld site itself but are an indication of which species could occur on site if conditions and habitats are right. Of the 220 species approximately 71 were classified in the top 200 at risk species by Retief et al (2014). Four species are regionally Endangered (Ludwig’s Bustard Neotis ludwigii , Black Harrier, Martial Eagle & Yellow-billed Stork Mycteria ibis ), five are Vulnerable, and 6 are Near-threatened. Two species (Ground Woodpecker Geocolaptes olivaceus & Curlew Sandpiper Calidris ferruginea ) are Least Concern regionally but Near-threatened globally (IUCN 2019). Six species are listed on the NEMA TOPS list. Twenty-five near endemics are included in these species.
3.3 Important Bird & Biodiversity Area (IBA) data The site does not fall within any IBAs (Marnewick et al , 2015). The closest IBA is approximately 25km south (Karoo National Park) (Figure 8). The Karoo National Park is in the semi-arid central Karoo and is approximately 90 000 hectares in size. The IBA contains the Nuweveld escarpment with peaks over 1900 m.a.s.l. and plains at 900m.a.s.l. The climate is one of extremes, with very hot summers and very cold winters, particularly on top of the escarpment. Average annual rainfall is 260mm p.a. Up to 231 bird species have been recorded in the IBA, which is extremely important for Namib-Karoo biome restricted species such as Black-headed Canary, Swee Waxbill Coccopygia melanotis , Cape Rockjumper, Protea Seedeater, Cape Siskin, Victorin’s Warbler and Hottentot Buttonquail. The plains are particularly good for Ludwig’s Bustard, Karoo Korhaan, Spike-heeled Lark, Karoo Lark, Grey-backed Sparrow-lark, Tractrac Chat, Karoo Chat, Karoo Eremomela, Rufous-eared Warbler, and Black-headed Canary. The riverine woodland along drainage lines holds Namaqua Warbler and other species. The cliffs hold Verreaux’s Eagle, Booted Eagle and Black Stork. IBA trigger species include: Martial Eagle, Blue Crane, Black Harrier, Secretarybird Sagittarius serpentarius , Kori Bustard Ardeotis kori and Ludwig’s Bustard. Regionally threatened species are Verreauxs’ Eagle, Lanner Falcon Falco biarmicus , Black Stork, Karoo Korhaan and African Rock Pipit. Biome-restricted species that are common in the IBA include Karoo Long-billed Lark, Karoo Chat, Namaqua Warbler, Pale-winged Starling, Black-headed Canary, Layard’s Tit-Babbler and the locally common Karoo Korhaan. Uncommon species in this category include Ludwig’s Bustard, Karoo Lark, Sclater’s Lark, Black-eared Sparrow-lark, Tractrac Chat, Sickle-winged Chat, Karoo Eremomela and Cinnamon-breasted Warbler.
The Beaufort West sewage works (within this IBA) is important for water birds particularly in dry times when little other surface water is present in the landscape. Greater Flamingo Phoenicopterus roseus , Lesser Flamingo Phoeniconaias minor , South African Shelduck Tadorna cana , and Cape Shoveler Anas smithii are regularly recorded here. Interestingly the town of Beaufort West itself is included in the IBA because there is a Lesser Kestrel Falco naumanni roost in trees in town.
Figure 8. The IBA, CAR & CWAC locations.
3.4 Co-ordinated Avifaunal Roadcount (CAR) data CAR counts are a census of birds (focussed on large terrestrial species) performed twice annually (in winter and summer) by volunteer birdwatchers. The purpose is to provide population data for use in science, especially conservation biology, by determining findings about the natural habitats and the birds that use them.
The closest CAR routes to the Nuweveld site are approximately 50km south, below the escarpment (Figure 8). We decided these data were too far from site to be of use. 3.5 Co-ordinated Waterbird Count (CWAC) data Coordinated Waterbird Counts (CWAC) consist of a programme of mid-summer and midwinter censuses at a large number of South African wetlands. The counts are conducted by citizen scientists at more than 400 wetlands around the country and provide a useful source of information on wetland bird species in South Africa. One CWAC site (Slangfontein Dam) (Figure 8) is 3km north of the Nuweveld site and the data is relevant. Although we could not determine how regularly it has been counted, we did obtain a species list ( www.cwac.adu.org.za) (Table 2 ). The Springfontein Dam is approximately 50km south of the proposed site, but has been more comprehensively counted over the years (Table 3). The species list from both these dams includes species to be expected at a dam in this area, at unremarkable abundances. Springfontein certainly has been home to higher abundances of species such as Pied Avocet, Red-knobbed Coot, Egyptian Goose and Black-necked Grebe.
Table 2. CWAC data from Slangfontein Dam ( www.cwac.adu.org.za ) Common name Taxonomic name Min Avg Max Duck, Yellow-billed Anas undulata 44 44 44 Goose, Egyptian Alopochen aegyptiacus 10 10 10 Greenshank, Common Tringa nebularia 8 8 8 Heron, Black-headed Ardea melanocephala 1 1 1 Heron, Grey Ardea cinerea 1 1 1 Ibis, African Sacred Threskiornis aethiopicus 10 10 10 Ibis, Hadeda Bostrychia hagedash 1 1 1 Lapwing, Blacksmith Vanellus armatus 9 9 9 Plover, Kittlitz's Charadrius pecuarius 15 15 15 Plover, Three-banded Charadrius tricollaris 3 3 3 Ruff, Ruff Philomachus pugnax 8 8 8 Sandpiper, Curlew Calidris ferruginea 14 14 14 Shelduck, South African Tadorna cana 11 11 11 Shoveler, Cape Anas smithii 2 2 2 Teal, Red-billed Anas erythrorhyncha 55 55 55 Wagtail, Cape Motacilla capensis 18 18 18
Table 3. CWAC data from Springfontein Dam ( www.cwac.adu.org.za ) Common name Taxonomic name Min Avg Max Avocet, Pied Recurvirostra avosetta 1 46.27 302 Coot, Red-knobbed Fulica cristata 1 32.69 144 Cormorant, Reed Phalacrocorax africanus 1 1.33 2 Cormorant, White-breasted Phalacrocorax carbo 3 16.67 33 Duck, Knob-billed Sarkidiornis melanotos 3 3 3 Duck, Yellow-billed Anas undulata 3 18.77 84 Egret, Cattle Bubulcus ibis 1 7.86 20 Flamingo, Greater Phoenicopterus ruber 2 8.4 12 Goose, Egyptian Alopochen aegyptiacus 2 44.38 122 Goose, Spur-winged Plectropterus gambensis 1 3.33 7 Grebe, Black-necked Podiceps nigricollis 1 26.86 153 Grebe, Little Tachybaptus ruficollis 1 12.33 24 Greenshank, Common Tringa nebularia 1 2.09 5 Gull, Grey-headed Larus cirrocephalus 2 31.33 89 Hamerkop, Hamerkop Scopus umbretta 1 2.2 5 Heron, Black-headed Ardea melanocephala 1 1.4 2 Heron, Grey Ardea cinerea 1 2.78 7 Ibis, African Sacred Threskiornis aethiopicus 1 5.67 15 Ibis, Glossy Plegadis falcinellus 2 2.5 3 Ibis, Hadeda Bostrychia hagedash 1 4.67 12 Lapwing, Blacksmith Vanellus armatus 5 37.5 107 Martin, Brown-throated Riparia paludicola 1 1 1 Plover, Chestnut-banded Charadrius pallidus 52 52 52 Plover, Kittlitz's Charadrius pecuarius 12 54.68 203 Plover, Three-banded Charadrius tricollaris 1 14.62 41 Pochard, Southern Netta erythrophthalma 3 7.17 14 Pratincole, Black-winged Glareola nordmanni 1 1 1 Ruff, Ruff Philomachus pugnax 1 52.23 216 Sandpiper, Common Actitis hypoleucos 1 1.25 2 Sandpiper, Curlew Calidris ferruginea 3 38.22 112 Sandpiper, Marsh Tringa stagnatilis 2 15.27 67 Shelduck, South African Tadorna cana 2 30.85 87 Shoveler, Cape Anas smithii 2 16.81 56 Spoonbill, African Platalea alba 1 3.46 13 Stilt, Black-winged Himantopus himantopus 1 30.95 122 Stint, Little Calidris minuta 25 182 687 Teal, Cape Anas capensis 2 15.32 65 Teal, Red-billed Anas erythrorhyncha 1 16.67 62 Tern, Whiskered Chlidonias hybrida 42 42 42 Tern, White-winged Chlidonias leucopterus 1 37.86 106 Unknown, Unknown N/A N/A 20 20 20 Wader, Unidentified N/A N/A 40 175 300 Wagtail, Cape Motacilla capensis 3 53.42 215
3.6 Pre-construction bird monitoring data
3.6.1 Small terrestrial bird species A total of 52 small bird species were recorded on the 24 Walked Transects conducted (Table 4) on the overall Nuweveld Wind Farms site. This includes 1 332 individual birds from 603 records. In autumn 36 species were recorded, summer 35, winter there were 34, and spring 27. Only one of these species is regionally or globally Red Listed, the African Rock Pipit Anthus crenatus (regionally Near-threatened – Taylor et al , 2015). This species is also a near-endemic. Thirteen of the 52 species are endemic or near-endemic to South Africa. Table 4 presents the number of birds, number of records, and number of birds per kilometre of transect for each species. The index of birds per kilometre is relatively crude. However, since this will be used primarily to compare the effects of the facility on these species post construction, this index is considered adequate at this stage. If more complex analysis is required during post construction monitoring in order to demonstrate effects, the raw data is available for this purpose.
The most abundant species on the overall Nuweveld Wind Farms site were not surprisingly all species already known to be common in the area, such as: Larklike Bunting Emberiza impetuani ; Karoo Chat Cercomela schlegelii; Rufous- eared Warbler Malcorus pectoralis; Large-billed Lark Galerida magnirostris; and Cape Canary Serinus canicollis .
The endemic and near-endemic species recorded were: Large-billed Lark; Black-headed Canary Crithagra alario ; Black-eared Sparrowlark Eremopterix australis ; Pied Starling Spreo bicolor ; Sickle-winged Chat Cercomela sinuate; Karoo Eremomela Eremomela gregalis ; Layard’s Titbabbler Parisoma layardi ; Grey-winged Francolin Scleroptila africanus ; Grey Tit Parus afer ; Karoo Prinia Prinia maculosa; African Rock Pipit; Fairy Flycatcher Stenostira scita; and Karoo Lark Calendulauda albescens. The latter three of these species were uncommon and recorded with less than 3 individuals each.
3.6.2 Large terrestrial species & raptors A total of 10 large terrestrial and raptor species were recorded across the 6 drive transects totalling 162.6 kilometres per season (or 650.4km for the year) on the overall Nuweveld Wind Farms site. This included 141 individual birds from 87 records. These data are shown in Table 5. In each case the species’ regional Red List status and endemism is shown. Four of the 7 species are regionally Red Listed: Ludwig’s Bustard Neotis ludwigii and Martial Eagle Polemaetus bellicosus (both Endangered); Verreaux’s Eagle Aquila verreauxii (Vulnerable); and Karoo Korhaan Eupodotis vigorsii (Near-threatened). Three species are endemic to the region: Jackal Buzzard Buteo rufofuscus , Grey-winged Francolin, and Ground Woodpecker Geocolaptes olivaceus (not a large terrestrial or raptor but included here since it was not recorded by other methods). The most abundant species recorded by this method to date is the Jackal Buzzard recorded in all seasons. The second most abundant species, Karoo Korhaan was also recorded in all seasons. Ludwig’s Bustard, third most abundant species was recorded only in autumn and winter.
3.6.3 Focal Site surveys Table 6 summarises the findings at the various Focal Sites. After the site received rainfall two farm dams were added as Focal Sites for the summer survey. Low numbers of typical water fowl species were recorded at these dams in summer, but water levels were dropping rapidly and the dams would likely soon be dry again. During winter one Verreaux’s Eagle nest was active with a chick on it, and one Pale Chanting Goshawk pair appeared to start breeding. A Martial Eagle nest was found on site during September 2019 (FS8). This nest did not appear to be active in terms of breeding, but one adult eagle was using it as home as evidenced by records of the adult close to nest, and prey remains and faeces below the nest and nearby trees. During summer the poplar tree this nest was built in was discovered to have fallen over, probably due to strong winds as there had been some serious storms with very high winds since the last site visit. Given this is the area the eagle appears to have nested in and used for a home for a while, and given the lack of suitable nesting sites in the broader area there is a good chance the bird will re-establish a nest in the surrounding trees. Thus it was decided to adopt the precautionary approach and to still assume that this is a potential Martial Eagle nesting site and thus to keep the 6km No-Go buffer enforced. Figure 9 shows photographs of most of the nests.
Figure 9. Photographs of nests. From top left to bottom right: FS1, FS2, FS3, FS6, FS6, FS7, FS7, FS8, FS8.
3.6.4 Incidental Observations of target bird species A total of 16 target bird species were recorded on the Nuweveld Wind Farms site as Incidental Observations, with a peak in species richness of 13 in summer, followed by 9 in winter, 8 in spring and 7 species in autumn (Table 7). The most abundant species recorded by this method was Jackal Buzzard, recorded in high frequency (single birds) in all seasons. Grey-winged Francolin was the second most frequently recorded species, followed by Karoo Korhaan. Ludwig’s Bustard was recorded in autumn, winter and summer in low numbers. Eight of the species recorded by this method are regionally Red Listed. These include two Endangered species (Martial Eagle & Ludwig’s Bustard); three Vulnerable species (Verreaux’s Eagle, Secretarybird, Lanner Falcon); and three Near-threatened species (Karoo Korhaan, Blue Crane & African Rock Pipit). Since these data are not the product of systematic data collection methods, it should be used cautiously and we do not discuss it any further here.
We have recorded a total of 114 bird species on site to date (considering all data collection methods), 81 in autumn, 85 in winter, 82 in spring and 102 in summer.
3.6.5 Bird flight activity on site For the following analysis, data from 17 of the 18 vantage points is used, the data from VP12 overlooking the Verreaux’s Eagle nest is excluded as it is not representative. Data from VP12 is discussed separately.
A total of 272 sessions of bird flight observation were completed, of 4.5 hours each, totalling 1 224 hours of observation at Vantage Points across the Nuweveld Wind Farms site in the four seasons. In total, 9 target bird species were recorded flying on the overall Nuweveld Wind Farms site during this observation. These data are shown in Table 8. Five of these nine species are regionally Red Listed (Taylor et al, 2015): Ludwig’s Bustard & Martial Eagle (Endangered); Verreaux’s Eagle & Black Stork (Vulnerable); and Karoo Korhaan (Near-threatened). One species is regionally endemic: Jackal Buzzard, also by far the most frequent flier.
The most frequently recorded flying species was Jackal Buzzard with 32 individual birds recorded across 31 records. These records were evenly split across the four seasons. The mean flight height above ground of all recorded Jackal Buzzard flights was 66.97m, well within the proposed rotor swept area (defined as 25-245m above ground for the purposes of this study). Ludwig’s Bustard was second most frequent flier, with 16 birds recorded across 8 records. The species was recorded flying in three seasons (autumn, winter & summer) at a mean height above ground of 48.13m (within rotor zone). Verreaux’s Eagle was the third most frequent flying species, with 16 birds from 11 records. This species flew at a mean height of 198.20m above ground, within the rotor swept zone. Karoo Korhaan was recorded flying 3 times (8 birds) only in autumn and winter at a mean height of 5.67m above ground, which is well below the rotor zone. Pale Chanting Goshawk Melierax canorus was recorded 8 times, 8 birds. The mean flight height was 14.25m, again below rotor height. Martial Eagle was recorded flying five times, in all cases single birds. These records were in spring and summer. The mean height above ground of these flights was 74.29m. Booted Eagle Hieraaetus pennatus was recorded 4 times (4 single birds) in winter and summer. The mean height above ground of these flights was 95m. Black Stork was recorded once in summer at a height of 100m above ground. Rock Kestrel was recorded flying once in summer at 60m above the ground.
Examination of the vantage point 12 (overlooking Verreaux’s Eagle nest) data alone shows that in that area eagles were recorded flying 40 times (56 birds) in 72 hours for a passage rate of 0.78birds/hr. This is an approximately 60 times higher passage rate than the remainder of the site (0.013birds/hr), demonstrating the higher collision risk for this species closer to nests. This and other nests have already been afforded a 3km circular no-go buffer for turbines.
3.6.6 Estimating turbine collision fatality rates Crude turbine collision fatality rates were calculated for each species in order to estimate how many birds the proposed Nuweveld East Wind Farm could kill once operational. This was based on the species’ passage rates (number of birds recorded flying per hour) recorded on site. Generally speaking we expect those species which fly more often to be more susceptible to turbine collision. In order to calculate crude passage rates for each species, we assumed that the 2km radius around vantage points was approximately equal to the maximum distance over which sightings were made, and that the coverage was approximately circular. This meant that at each vantage point an area of 12.57km² was sampled ( = ). Secondly, we assumed that the area of the wind farm directly presenting a collision risk is described by the area of each turbine’s rotor zone multiplied by the number of turbines. We assumed a turbine model of the maximum of 190m rotor diameter (see Section 1.1) or 95m radius and the current proposed layout of 38 turbines. This equates to a wind farm collision risk area of 1.077409km² (38 x 28 352.87m²). Thirdly, we assumed that the survey areas around each of the vantage points was a representative sample of the area in which built turbines will operate. Fourthly we assumed that species passage rates calculated from our four seasons of sampling can be reasonably extrapolated to annual passage rates (by multiplying hourly passage rates by 12 x 365 in the case of resident diurnal species (12 daylight hours) and 12 x 365 x 0.5 in the case of migrants (present in the study area for only 6 months). We also assumed a 98% avoidance rate for these birds, i.e. 2% of birds passing through the rotor zone would collide with blades (as recommended by Scottish Natural Heritage guidance for species for which no established avoidance rate is available, www.project-gpwind.eu). Finally, we used all recorded flights of all heights above ground for this analysis, since all flight represents some risk, particularly given that species flight behaviour may change once wind turbines are operational, and that estimation of bird height above ground is subjective.
We believe that the estimated fatality rates calculated represent a worst case scenario, for the following reasons: fatality rates were calculated based on the 38 turbines applied for rather than the 35 which will ultimately be built; flights of all heights above ground were included, whereas in reality some flights would be below or above rotor zone; no consideration is given to actual turbine locations relative to actual flight path positions (and extensive avoidance of collision risk has been applied in turbine siting already); and a relatively conservative avoidance rate of 98% was used. Although the calculations we have made are not a Collision Risk Model (CRM-Scottish Natural Heritage) some of the principles and assumptions made are similar. In South Africa, one of the main reasons CRM is not often used is that we have not established accurate species specific avoidance rates yet, and the model is very sensitive to these avoidance rates. For example if we used a 99% avoidance rate it would halve the estimated number of fatalities calculated as described below.
Our confidence in these estimates is therefore low, but the exercise is worthwhile nonetheless. Using the above described methods it is estimated that approximately 0.56 bird fatalities could be recorded at Nuweveld East Wind Farm per year across the 9 target bird species recorded flying on site to date (Table 9). This includes the following priority species: 0.20 Jackal Buzzards; 0.10 Ludwig’s Bustards; 0.10 Verreaux’s Eagles; 0.05 Karoo Korhaans; 0.05 Pale Chanting Goshawks; 0.03 Martial Eagle; 0.02 Booted Eagles; 0.01 Black Stork; and 0.01 Rock Kestrel. Comparatively, these fatality rates are very low, reflecting the low flight activity rates by these species on site to date. Two of the key species for the site (since nests exists near site) Verreaux’s Eagle and Martial Eagle have very low estimated fatality rates of 0.10 and 0.03 birds/year respectively.
Human caused fatalities of Red listed or otherwise threatened bird species are always cause for concern and should be avoided as far as possible. There are currently no established thresholds for acceptable impacts on bird species in South Africa. To establish these thresholds would require complex population modelling incorporating accurate information on many factors for each species (including population size, age specific fatality rates, breeding productivity etc). Such modelling and information is not available in South Africa at present. In the absence of this information we are forced to make a subjective finding as to the acceptability of the above estimated estimates (see Section 5.2 for our assessment). In our view the above fatality rates are of moderate significance for these species. In our view, regional populations of these bird species will not be driven towards extinction by these fatalities. It is however essential that all mitigation measures recommended in this report be accepted to ensure that these fatality rates are reduced where possible. It is also essential that an adaptive management approach be adopted, ensuring that the wind farm is prepared to adequately provision an avifaunal monitoring programme and respond timeously and effectively if unsustainable impacts are detected during the operation phase.
Table 4. Small passerine bird data from walked transects for the consolidated Nuweveld Wind Farms site.
Full year Autumn Winter Spring Summer
# species 52 36 34 27 35 Transect 100.8 25.2 25.2 25.2 25.2 length Birds Birds Birds Birds Birds Common name Taxonomic name Status Birds Rec per Birds Rec per Birds Rec per Birds Rec per Birds Rec per km km km km km All species 1332 603 43.37 357 175 14.17 515 176 10.95 207 118 8.21 253 134 10.04 Red List species 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 Endemic species 294 127 3 72 44 3 131 46 5 46 11 2 45 26 2
Lark-like Bunting Emberiza impetuani 320 72 3.17 79 15 3.13 216 40 8.57 13 11 0.52 12 6 0.48 Karoo Chat Cercomela schlegelii 80 64 0.79 15 14 0.60 23 17 0.91 27 21 1.07 15 12 0.60 Rufous-eared Warbler Malcorus pectoralis 75 52 0.74 20 16 0.79 17 11 0.67 24 14 0.95 14 11 0.56 Large-billed Lark Galerida magnirostris E 60 41 0.60 16 13 0.63 23 15 0.91 10 6 0.40 11 7 0.44 Cape Sparrow Passer melanurus 58 18 0.58 37 10 1.47 7 2 0.28 4 2 0.16 10 4 0.40 Spike-heeled Lark Chersomanes albofasciata 58 18 0.58 5 2 0.20 21 6 0.83 17 5 0.67 15 5 0.60 Karoo Long-billed Lark Certhilauda subcoronata 56 46 0.56 14 12 0.56 10 9 0.40 10 8 0.40 22 17 0.87 Black-headed Canary Crithagra alario NE 41 9 0.41 12 3 0.48 22 5 0.87 7 1 0.28 Black-eared Sparrowlark Eremopterix australis NE 37 3 0.37 7 2 0.28 30 1 1.19 Karoo Scrub Robin Cercotrichas coryphoeus 37 23 0.37 12 7 0.48 8 4 0.32 7 6 0.28 10 6 0.40 Cape Bunting Emberiza capensis 36 26 0.36 3 2 0.12 5 4 0.20 12 9 0.48 16 11 0.63 Pied Starling Spreo bicolor E 34 3 0.34 5 1 0.20 27 1 1.07 2 1 0.08 Sickle-winged Chat Cercomela sinuata NE 30 19 0.30 9 6 0.36 10 5 0.40 2 2 0.08 9 6 0.36 Karoo Eremomela Eremomela gregalis NE 28 8 0.28 8 3 0.32 17 4 0.67 3 1 0.12 White-throated Canary Crithagra albogularis 28 13 0.28 11 4 0.44 7 4 0.28 10 5 0.40 Layard's Tit-babbler Parisoma layardi NE 27 20 0.27 14 12 0.56 10 6 0.40 3 2 0.12 Speckled Pigeon Columba guinea 25 3 0.25 25 3 0.99 Bokmakierie Telophorus zeylonus 24 17 0.24 8 6 0.32 9 7 0.36 1 1 0.04 6 3 0.24 Karoo Korhaan Eupodotis vigorsii 24 9 0.24 6 3 0.24 14 4 0.56 4 2 0.16 Yellow Canary Crithagra flaviventris 23 7 0.23 15 5 0.60 8 2 0.32 White-necked Raven Corvus albicollis 22 11 0.22 11 5 0.44 4 2 0.16 4 2 0.16 3 2 0.12 Pale-winged Starling Onychognathus nabouroup 21 6 0.21 4 1 0.16 9 2 0.36 4 1 0.16 4 2 0.16 Ant-eating Chat Myrmecocichla formicivora 19 12 0.19 7 4 0.28 3 1 0.12 5 4 0.20 4 3 0.16 Mountain Wheatear Oenanthe monticola 17 14 0.17 4 3 0.16 3 2 0.12 5 5 0.20 5 4 0.20 Cape Penduline Tit Anthoscopus minutus 14 7 0.14 10 5 0.40 4 2 0.16 Grey-winged Francolin Scleroptila africanus E 14 7 0.14 2 1 0.08 6 3 0.24 6 3 0.24 Birds Birds Birds Birds Birds Common name Taxonomic name Status Birds Rec per Birds Rec per Birds Rec per Birds Rec per Birds Rec per km km km km km Yellow-bellied Eremomela Eremomela icteropygialis 13 10 0.13 8 5 0.32 1 1 0.04 2 2 0.08 2 2 0.08 Common Swift Apus apus 12 1 0.12 12 1 0.48 Grey Tit Parus afer NE 12 8 0.12 3 2 0.12 5 3 0.20 4 3 0.16 Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica 10 6 0.10 8 5 0.32 2 1 0.08 Grey-backed Cisticola Cisticola subruficapilla 10 7 0.10 9 6 0.36 1 1 0.04 Pied Crow Corvus albus 10 4 0.10 2 1 0.08 3 1 0.12 2 1 0.08 3 1 0.12 African Black Swift Apus barbatus 8 2 0.08 8 2 0.32 Laughing Dove Streptopelia senegalensis 7 4 0.07 3 2 0.12 4 2 0.16 Long-billed Pipit Anthus similis 6 4 0.06 3 2 0.12 1 1 0.04 2 1 0.08 Karoo Prinia Prinia maculosa NE 5 4 0.05 2 2 0.08 2 1 0.08 1 1 0.04 African Red-eyed Bulbul Pycnonotus nigricans 4 3 0.04 3 2 0.12 1 1 0.04 Dusky Sunbird Cinnyris fuscus 3 3 0.03 1 1 0.04 1 1 0.04 1 1 0.04 Acacia Pied Barbet Tricholaema leucomelas 2 1 0.02 2 1 0.08 African Rock Pipit Anthus crenatus NT, NE 2 2 0.02 2 2 0.08 Black-throated Canary Crithagra atrogularis 2 1 0.02 2 1 0.08 Fairy Flycatcher Stenostira scita E 2 2 0.02 1 1 0.04 1 1 0.04 Karoo Lark Calendulauda albescens E 2 1 0.02 2 1 0.08 Namaqua Sandgrouse Pterocles namaqua 2 1 0.02 2 1 0.08 Red-winged Starling Onychognathus morio 2 1 0.02 2 1 0.08 Southern Fiscal Lanius collaris 2 2 0.02 1 1 0.04 1 1 0.04 Cape Turtle Dove Streptopelia capicola 1 1 0.01 1 1 0.04 Chat Flycatcher Melaenornis infuscatus 1 1 0.01 1 1 0.04 Grey-backed Sparrowlark Eremopterix verticalis 1 1 0.01 1 1 0.04 Malachite Sunbird Nectarinia famosa 1 1 0.01 1 1 0.04 Sabota Lark Calendulauda sabota 1 1 0.01 1 1 0.04 Southern Masked-weaver Ploceus velatus 1 1 0.01 1 1 0.04 Three-banded Plover Charadrius tricollaris 1 1 0.01 1 1 0.04 White-backed Mousebird Colius colius 1 1 0.01 1 1 0.04
Table 5. Large terrestrial & raptor species recorded on the drive transects at the consolidated Nuweveld Wind Farms site.
Full year Autumn Winter Spring Summer
# species 10 6 7 9 7 Transect 650.4 162.6 162.6 162.6 162.6 length Common name Taxonomic name Status Birds Rec Birds Birds Rec Birds Birds Rec Birds Birds Rec Birds Birds Rec Birds /km /km /km /km /km Jackal Buzzard Buteo rufofuscus Near-endemic 33 27 0.05 9 8 0.06 5 4 0.03 11 7 0.07 8 8 0.05 Karoo Korhaan Eupodotis vigorsii NT 30 18 0.05 9 8 0.06 8 4 0.05 6 3 0.04 7 3 0.04 Ludwig's Bustard Neotis ludwigii EN 26 7 0.04 23 5 0.14 1 1 0.01 2 1 0.01 Grey-winged Francolin Scleroptila africana Endemic 12 4 0.02 2 2 0.01 10 2 0.06 Verreauxs' Eagle Aquila verreauxii VU 12 9 0.02 3 2 0.02 6 4 0.04 2 2 0.01 1 1 0.01 Pale Chanting Goshawk Melierax canorus 11 10 0.02 3 2 0.02 4 4 0.02 3 3 0.02 1 1 0.01 Rock Kestrel Falco rupicolus 6 4 0.01 2 1 0.01 4 3 0.02 Martial Eagle Polemaetus bellicosus EN 6 6 0.01 1 1 0.01 2 2 0.01 2 2 0.01 1 1 0.01 Ground Woodpecker Geocolaptes olivaceus Endemic 4 1 0.01 4 1 0.02 Steppe Buzzard Buteo buteo 1 1 0.00 1 1 0.01
Table 6. Summary of findings from Focal Sites. Focal Site type Autumn Winter Spring Summer site FS 1 Verreauxs' Eagle nest 2 adults seen repeatedly in territo- chick on nest Juvenile (flying) & 2 adults pre- 2 adults seen but no sign of juvenile ry sent in area FS 2 Verreauxs' Eagle nest no sign of eagles or use of nest no sign of eagles or use of nest no sign of eagles or use of nest no sign of eagles or use of nest FS 3 Verreauxs' Eagle nest no sign of eagles or use of nest no sign of eagles or use of nest no sign of eagles or use of nest no sign of eagles or use of nest FS 4 Pale Chanting Goshawk No Pale Chanting Goshawks seen in Adults in area but no breeding Adults & 1 juvenile in area Adults & 1 juvenile in area nest area yet FS 5 Pale Chanting Goshawk 2 adults seen close to nest Female on nest may be incubat- Adults & 1 juvenile in area Adults in area but not juvenile nest ing FS 6 Medium raptor nest no birds seen around nest no birds seen around nest no birds seen around nest no birds seen around nest, nest down (wind/baboons) FS 7 White-necked Raven, no birds seen around nest no birds seen around nest Verreaux's Eagle adult & juvenile 2 Verreaux's Eagle adults seen, 1 Mar- Hamerkop nests seen in area tial Eagle juvenile seen FS 8 Martial Eagle nest n/a n/a Adult & sub-adult seen in area Nest tree had fallen over likely due to strong wind during a storm FS9 Snydersfontein Dam n/a n/a n/a Egyptian Goose, African Sacred Ibis, African Spoonbill, Grey Heron, Hadeda Ibis, South African Shelduck FS10 Bultfontein Dam n/a n/a n/a African Black Duck , Egyptian Goose, Little Stint, Pied Avocet, South African Shelduck, Spur-winged Goose FS11 Pale Chanting Goshawk n/a n/a n/a Egyptian Goose breeding nest, taken over by Egyptian Goose
Table 7. Summary of Incidental Observations of relevant species on the consolidated Nuweveld Wind Farms site.
Full year Autumn Winter Spring Summer # species 16 7 9 8 13 Common name Taxonomic name Status Birds Records Birds Records Birds Records Birds Records Birds Records All species 152 103 37 23 32 21 29 19 54 40
Jackal Buzzard Buteo rufofuscus Near- 38 34 15 13 6 5 6 5 11 11 endemic Grey-winged Francolin Scleroptila africana 28 9 2 1 9 3 9 2 8 3 Karoo Korhaan Eupodotis vigorsii NT 22 12 11 5 7 5 4 2 Rock Kestrel Falco rupicolus 16 13 8 6 8 7 Ludwig's Bustard Neotis ludwigii EN 14 5 6 1 3 1 5 3 Pale Chanting Goshawk Melierax canorus 7 7 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 Verreauxs' Eagle Aquila verreauxii VU 6 6 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 African Rock Pipit Anthus crenatus NT 6 5 1 1 1 1 4 3 Martial Eagle Polemaetus bellicosus EN 4 4 1 1 1 1 2 2 Blue Crane Anthropoides paradiseus NT 4 2 4 2 Secretarybird Sagittarius serpentarius VU 2 1 2 1 Gabar Goshawk Micronisus gabar 1 1 1 1 Black-chested Snake Eagle Circaetus pectoralis 1 1 1 1 Lanner Falcon Falco biarmicus VU 1 1 1 1 Booted Eagle Hieraaetus pennatus 1 1 1 1 Steppe Buzzard Buteo buteo 1 1 1 1
Table 8. Target bird species recorded during vantage point counts at the consolidated Nuweveld Wind Farms site.
Full year Autumn Winter Spring Summer # species 9 5 6 4 8 # hours observa- 1224 306 306 306 306 tion Common name Taxonomic name Status Birds Rec Birds Birds Rec Birds Birds Rec Birds Birds Rec Birds Birds Rec Birds /hr /hr /hr /hr /hr All species 91 72 0.07 30 20 0.10 20 16 0.07 17 15 0.06 24 21 0.08
Jackal Buzzard Buteo rufofuscus Near-endemic 32 31 0.03 9 9 0.03 7 7 0.02 8 8 0.03 8 7 0.03 Ludwig's Bustard Neotis ludwigii EN 16 8 0.01 9 3 0.03 4 3 0.01 3 2 0.01 Verreaux's Eagle Aquila verreauxii VU 16 11 0.01 7 5 0.02 1 1 0.00 5 3 0.02 3 2 0.01 Karoo Korhaan Eupodotis vigorsii NT 8 3 0.01 3 1 0.01 5 2 0.02 Pale Chanting Goshawk Melierax canorus 8 8 0.01 2 2 0.01 2 2 0.01 1 1 0.00 3 3 0.01 Martial Eagle Polemaetus bellicosus EN 5 5 0.00 3 3 0.01 2 2 0.01 Booted Eagle Hieraatus pennatus 4 4 0.00 1 1 0.00 3 3 0.01 Black Stork Ciconia nigra VU 1 1 0.00 1 1 0.00 Rock Kestrel Falco rupicolus 1 1 0.00 1 1 0.00
Table 9. Target bird species passage rates and estimated turbine collision fatalities at the Nuweveld East Wind Farm site. Common name Scientific name Regional sta- Birds Birds/hr at Birds/yr Nuweveld Nuweveld tus VP at VP E Birds/yr E Ann. Fat. through rate (98% rotor avoidance) zone
All species 91 0.074 325.64 27.91 0.56
Jackal Buzzard Buteo rufofuscus Near-endemic 32 0.026 114.51 9.81 0.20 Ludwig's Bustard Neotis ludwigii EN 16 0.013 57.25 4.91 0.10 Verreaux's Eagle Aquila verreauxii VU 16 0.013 57.25 4.91 0.10 Karoo Korhaan Eupodotis vigorsii NT 8 0.007 28.63 2.45 0.05
Pale Chanting Goshawk Melierax canorus 8 0.007 28.63 2.45 0.05 Martial Eagle Polemaetus bellicosus EN 5 0.004 17.89 1.53 0.03
Booted Eagle Hieraatus pennatus 4 0.003 14.31 1.23 0.02 Black Stork Ciconia nigra VU 1 0.001 3.58 0.31 0.01
Rock Kestrel Falco rupicolus 1 0.001 3.58 0.31 0.01
3.6.7 Spatial location of flight records The spatial location of all target bird species flight records for Nuweveld East Wind Farm, for all four seasons, can be seen below in Figure 10. In general flight records are too sparse to show any spatial patterns other than at VP12 which overlooks a Verreaux’s Eagle nest. This nest is just off the Nuweveld East site to the west and has been protected with a 3km no-go buffer and the VERA model as described in Section 3.7.3 and used the High and Medium risk categories to identify no-go buffer areas for the Verreaux’s Eagle.
Figure 10. Recorded target bird species flight paths at Nuweveld East Wind Farm (all species, full year).
Figure 11 presents the fight paths for the 9 species individually. Only three flight records were made for Verreaux’s Eagle anywhere close to turbines on Nuweveld East. Most of the flight activity on site was Jackal Buzzard, particularly in the east of the site.
Figure 11. Individual species flight paths at Nuweveld East Wind Farm (Full year).
3.7 Summary of species information & assessment of risk Table 10 presents the seasonal presence of each species on the consolidated Nuweveld Wind Farms site and a qualitative assessment of the risk of each type of impact (pre-mitigation) occurring for each of the priority species if the proposed wind farm is built. This assessment has been made on the basis of the data collected on site during this programme, reported on in Section 3.6. The proposed facility could pose risk to avifauna in 5 main ways: collision with turbines; collision with or electrocution on power lines; habitat destruction during construction; disturbance during construction and operation; and displacement from the site once operational. Table 9 shows what is known about each priority species population size, and the potential significance of impacts on those populations. Human caused fatalities of Red listed or otherwise threatened bird species are always cause for concern and should be avoided as far as possible. The estimated fatalities we have predicted (Section 3.6) are therefore cause for some concern despite being low numbers. There are currently no established thresholds for acceptable impacts on bird species in South Africa. To establish these thresholds would require complex modelling incorporating accurate information on many factors for each species (including population size, age specific fatality rates, breeding productivity, etc). Such modelling and information is not available in South Africa at present. In the absence of this information we are forced to make a subjective finding as to the acceptability of the above estimated estimates.
In order to assess the importance of the fatality impacts for the relevant bird species it is necessary to estimate the population size within the study area for each species, the importance of this population, and its distribution in the study area relative to the proposed wind farms. This exercise is fraught with assumptions as no accurate source of population information is available for most relevant species.
A discussion of each species follows Table 11
Note: In this context, risk does not equal significance. Risk to a species as described in this section can be High, but if that species is not Red Listed it is possible that the significance of impacts on the species could ultimately be Moderate (see Section 5).
There are several species identified by our original screening that are no longer priority species based on our work on site to date. These include: Lanner Falcon Falco biarmicus ; Secretarybird Sagittarius serpentarius ; Kori Bustard Ardeotis kori ; and Blue Crane Anthropoides paradiseus . Lesser Kestrel has also not been recorded on site. Table 10. Final priority species for the consolidated Nuweveld Wind Farms site. In each case the species seasonal presence and a qualitative assessment of risk to each species is also presented. En- Taylor Nuweveld Power line Habitat TOPS IUCN dem- Turbine colli- Displace- Common name et al AU WI SP SU East Wind electr. & destr. Disturbance risk list 2019 ic sion risk ment risk 2015 Farms risk collision risk risk /near Ludwig’s Bustard EN VU EN √ √ √ High Moderate High Moderate Low Moderate Martial Eagle EN VU VU √ √ √ √ High High High Moderate High High Verreaux’s Eagle VU LC √ √ √ √ High High High Moderate High High Black Stork VU LC √ Low Low Moderate Low Low Low Karoo Korhaan NT LC √ √ √ √ Moderate Moderate High Moderate Moderate Moderate African Rock Pipit NT √ √ √ Moderate Low Low Moderate Moderate Moderate Booted Eagle √ √ √ Low Low Low Low Low Low Jackal Buzzard NE √ √ √ √ High High Low Low High Moderate Pale Chanting Goshawk √ √ √ √ Moderate Moderate Low Low High Low EN=Endangered; VU=Vulnerable; NT=Near-threatened; LC=Least Concern; P=Protected; E=Endemic; NE=Near-endemic. AU=Autumn; WI=Winter; SP=Spring; SU=Summer
Table 11. Population estimates for the priority species in the study area. Species Regional Regional popula- Regional Area of Estimated study area population (30km radius) Predicted fatality rate Significance of turbine collision status tion (Taylor et al Occupancy (Tay- fatalities at Nuweveld East Wind 2015) lor et al , 2015) Farm (km²)
Ludwig’s Bustard EN Approx 10 000 189 684 Study area represents 1.5% of AoO 0.10 birds/year Moderate adults (global) <50birds occasionally based on 10-15 on site, & availa- Approx. 0.5% of population at risk, ble habitat very low predicted annual fatalities Martial Eagle EN 800 adults, >5% of 272 647 Study area represents 1.19% of AoO 0.03 Moderate global range <8 birds (1 known nest + 1/2 young birds from previous Approx. 1% of regional population years, + possible 1 more nest somewhere) at risk, very low predicted annual fatalities Verreaux’s Eagle VU Approx 10 000 324 932 Study area represents 0.9% of AoO 0.1 0 birds/year Moderate adults Approx 40 eagles (15 pairs + young) Approx 0.4% of population at risk, very low predicted annual fatalities Karoo Korhaan NT Approx 250 000 166 000 Study area represents 1.7% of AoA 0.05 birds/year Low birds <200 birds based on site records & habitat Approx. 0.08% of population at risk, very low predicted annual fatalities Jackal Buzzard Least n/a n/a <100 birds (30 pairs + young birds) 0.20 birds/year Low concern, % of population unknown but likely Endemic to be low, very low predicted annual fatalities
50 user Booted Eagle < 100 000 birds <20 birds 0.02 birds/year Low (global) % of population unknown but likely to be low, very low predicted annual fatalities Pale Chanting Goshawk <100 birds (30 pairs + young birds) 0.05 birds/year Low % of population unknown but likely to be low, very low predicted annual fatalities 3.7.1. Ludwig’s Bustard The Ludwig’s Bustard is classified as Endangered by Taylor et al (2015). This physically large species is highly vulnerable to collision with overhead power lines (which leads us to believe it may be susceptible to collision with wind turbines), and is also likely to be affected by disturbance and habitat destruction. This species was listed as globally Endangered in 2010 because of potentially unsustainable power line collision mortality, exacerbated by the current lack of proven mitigation and the rapidly expanding power grid (Jenkins et al. 2011). Ludwig’s Bustard is a wide-ranging bird endemic to the south-western region of Africa (Hockey et al. 2005). Ludwig’s Bustards are both partially nomadic and migratory (Allan 1994, Shaw 2013, Shaw et al , 2015), with a large proportion of the population moving west in the winter months to the Succulent Karoo. In the arid and semi-arid Karoo environment, bustards are also thought to move in response to rainfall, so the presence and abundance of bustards in any one area are not predictable.
Ludwig’s Bustard was classified as the 14 th most at risk species in Retief’s classification (2011, species list updated in 2014). Allan and Anderson (2010) rated the Ludwig’s Bustard as the second most threatened (of 11 species), after the Denham’s Bustard. Ludwig’s Bustard is likely to be susceptible to four possible impacts: habitat destruction, disturbance, displacement and collision with turbine blades and power lines. Raab et al (2009) state that up until their publication at least no known instance of collision of Great Bustard Otis tarda with wind turbine exists (2009), probably because they fly too low.
Ralston Paton et al (2017) do not report any wind turbine collision fatalities for this species although it was noted that there are not many turbines operational in species range at that stage. In a recent update of their review work Ral- ston-Paton (2019) reports 2 Ludwig’s Bustard fatalities at operational wind turbines in SA. This demonstrates that the species is susceptible to turbine collision. We also consider our experience to date with another bustard species, which has more operational wind farms in it’s range, the Denham’s Bustard. At the operational Kouga Wind Farm, disturbance and displacement does not seem to have been significant (Strugnell 2016, 2017, Smallie 2018), since males are still displaying within 50 - 100m of operating turbines. To our knowledge only one turbine collision fatality has been recorded for this species at operational facilities to date at a wind farm in the Kouga area (Ralston-Paton et al 2017; pers obs).
We recorded Ludwig’s Bustard in three of the four seasons as summarised by Table 12.
Table 12. Summary of Ludwig’s Bustard records. Autumn Winter Spring Summer Vantage Points 3 records of 9 birds 3 records of 4 birds 2 records of 3 birds Drive Transects 0.14birds/km 0.01birds/km 0.01birds/km Incidental Observations 1 record of 6 birds 1 record of 3 birds 3 records of 5 birds Walked Transects n/a n/a n/a n/a
We believe that small influxes of Ludwig’s Bustards onto site could occur at times when conditions are right on site. This would result in temporary high risk of collision of the species with turbines. Based on the species’ conservation status, the importance of this site as habitat, and its susceptibility to collision with overhead power lines, we consider this species to be at High risk at this site.
3.7.2. Martial Eagle The Martial Eagle is classified as globally Vulnerable and regionally Endangered (Taylor et al 2015, IUCN 2017). Martial Eagle has proven susceptible to collision with wind turbines (Ralston-Paton, Smallie, Pearson & Ramalho, 2017; Ralston-Paton, 2019) particularly in close association with nests (MacEwan & Smallie, 2016; Simmons & Martins, 2016). This is a wide ranging species, which can best be protected from wind turbine collision risk close to its’ breeding sites. A breeding site exists on the Nuweveld Wind Farms site as described in Section 3.6.3.
The records made for this species are summarised in Table 13.
Table 13. Summary of Martial Eagle records. Autumn Winter Spring Summer Vantage Points 3 records of 3 birds 2 records of 2 birds Drive Transects 0. 01 birds/km 0.01birds/km 0.01birds/km 0.01birds/km Incidental Observations 1 record of 1 birds 1 record of 1 birds 2 records of 2 birds Walked Transects n/a n/a n/a n/a
This species’ presence in the broader area; location of a breeding site; conservation status; proven susceptibility to wind turbine collisions (and electrocution and collision on overhead power lines); are all factors which render it at high risk at a new wind farm in the area. We therefore judge the species to be at High risk at Nuweveld East. This risk will need to be mitigated by the implementation of a 6km radius circular No-Go buffer around the nest. This is described more in Section 3.8.
3.7.3. Verreaux’s Eagle The Verreaux’s Eagle has recently been up listed in regional conservation status to Vulnerable (Taylor et al, 2015) in recognition of the threats it is facing. It was ranked at 22 on the list developed by Retief et al (2011), but has been upgraded to 3 rd in the 2014 update of this list. This species tends to occupy remote mountainous areas largely unaffected by development (until the advent of wind energy in SA that is). A pair can typically use several alternate nests in different seasons, varying from a few metres to 2.5km apart (in Steyn, 1989). Approximately 400 – 2 000 pairs exist in the Western and Northern Cape (Hockey et al . 2005). These eagles can exist at quite high density compared to other eagle species, with some territories as small as 10km² in the Karoo (Davies, 2010 – www.africanraptors.org – work done on Nuweveld Escarpment) and 10.3km² in the Matopos in Zimbabwe (Steyn, 1989). Davies found a range of territory size from 10 to 50km², with an average size of 24km² in the Karoo of South Africa, and nests were approximately 2 kilometres apart on average.
On the Nuweveld Wind Farm site we have recorded one active and occupied Verreaux’s Eagle nest, with one alternate nest. We also recorded one unoccupied nest, which appears to have been built at some stage but then not used. There is one additional nest 4.2km south west of site on our control site.
Table 14 summarises our flight records for the species.
Table 14. Summary of Verreaux’s Eagle records. Autumn Winter Spring Summer Vantage Points 5 records of 7 birds 1 record of 1 bird 3 records of 5 birds 2 records of 3 birds Drive Transects 0.02birds/km 0.04birds/km 0.01birds/km 0.01birds/km Incidental Observations 1 record of 1 bird 3 record s of 3 birds 1 record of 1 bird 1 record of 1 birds Walked Transects n/a n/a n/a n/a
To obtain information on the population of Verreaux’s Eagles in the broader area we consulted a research report for 3 years of monitoring of Verreaux’s Eagle nests in and around the Karoo National Park (Claassen et al, 2013). This report presented findings from monitoring of approximately 24 nests in (18) and around (4) the park. Some of these nests were originally the subject of study by Dr Rob Davies. Breeding productivity over these three seasons was not very good, but the monitoring was not comprehensive due to road access and time constraints. At the easily accessible nests productivity was good, indicating that possibly the findings are biased due to poor access to many nests. If nests and territories cannot be viewed from close enough or often enough in a season breeding may be missed. Figure 12 shows the location of these nests. The proposed Nuweveld Wind Farm is approximately 20km north of the nest 1 in Figure 12. It appears that a high density of nests is present on and close to the escarpment, but this density decreases with increasing distance from the escarpment. This is probably due to the topography providing less suitable cliff habitat (nest substrate & habitat for favoured prey Rock Hyrax) in those areas. This does not mean that there is no cliff elsewhere, there certainly is, but it is more dispersed, resulting in nests being further apart.
The Nuweveld Wind Farm is situated far enough north of the escarpment to be out of the high density cliff (and eagle) area, and therefore in an area of lower sensitivity in our view.
This species is likely to be susceptible to four possible impacts: habitat destruction, disturbance, displacement and collision with turbine blades and power lines. Early observations on constructed wind farms under monitoring indicate that this species is susceptible to collision with turbines (pers. obs.; Ralston-Paton et al , 2017).
Figure 12. Location of Verreaux’s Eagle nests in and around Karoo National Park.
Comments received on the pre-application scoping avifaunal report from the Endangered Wildlife Trust recommend- ed that we use the Verreaux’s Eagle Risk Assessment (VERA) model to further assist in our assessment and manage- ment of the risk to this species from the proposed Nuweveld Wind Farms. In July 2020 RedCap contracted Dr Megan Murgatroyd (FitzPatrick Institute of African Ornithology & HawkWatch International) to run the VERA model for the Nuweveld Wind Farms site using known eagle nest positions (see Appendix 7). The model used the three active Verreaux’s Eagle nest site locations (1 on site & 2 off site) to predict the turbine collision risk on the proposed site. Eagle-turbine collision risk was classified into High, Medium and Low risk areas on the site as follows:
• High collision risk potential area: The high risk area is the area predicted to be most intensively used by ea- gles; for (previously-during model development) tracked eagles it incorporates 73% of the area used. 50% (7 of 14) of the known collisions (on operational wind farms in SA) have occurred in this area. Development of wind turbines should not occur in these areas .
• Medium collision risk potential: The medium risk area is also likely to be used by eagles; for tracked eagles it represents an additional 12% of the area used, thus protection of the high and medium risk areas can be ex- pected to offer protection to 85% of an eagle’s home range. 79% (11 of 14) of the known collisions have oc- curred in the medium and high risk areas combined. Development in this area should be avoided where pos- sible and only proceed with additional specialist input .
• Low collision risk potential: The low risk area (with ordinal risk predictions less 0.13) is the area predicted to be least used by eagles and development here poses the lowest risk to eagles within the 12km buffer. How- ever this area is not without risk, and three collisions have occurred at operational wind energy sites, within areas that would be predicted to be low risk.
The VERA model was run for the pre-application turbine layout 1 (i.e. the layout prior to that presented in this scoping report). The model output and recommendations were implemented for the project as follows:
High Risk zones. All proposed (pre-application layout) turbine positions (10 turbines: WTG 69, 102, 103, 104, 122, 123, 124, 125, 148, 156) in these areas were withdrawn. No turbines will be built in the High risk areas.
Medium risk zones. In these areas development should be avoided where possible and only proceed under further advice from specialist. We examined our vantage point flight path data collected over the 12 months of pre-construction bird monitoring on site in order to further investigate the likely risk in these areas. Figure 13 below shows the Verreaux’s Eagle flight path data collected on site during pre-construction bird monitoring. There is a remarkably good correlation between actual recorded Verreaux’s Eagle flight paths and VERA Model predicted High risk areas. Few flights were recorded in the Medium and Low risk areas identified by VERA. Monitoring on the Nuweveld Wind Farm site included 18 vantage points, each monitored for 72 hours over the twelve month period (18 hours x four seasons). During this 1 296 hours of observation, Verreaux’s Eagle was recorded flying 72 times (i.e. individual eagles). Approximately 66 (92%) of these flight records were within the High risk areas identified by VERA. Five flight paths (7%) fall in Medium risk areas and one flight path (1%) was recorded in a Low risk area. Since the VE4 nest approximately 4.2km off site to the south was included in the VERA model and is now relevant, we also considered our flight path data from the control site in that area. On the control site Verreaux’s Eagle was recorded 57 times in 216 hours of observation at three vantage points. All of these flights (100%) were within the High risk area predicted by VERA around the VE4 nest. Since survey effort was equal at each of the 18 main site and 3 control site vantage points, this strong pattern of flight activity cannot be attributed to differing vantage point locations or different survey effort.
1 This layout already incorporated the recommendation made within the pre-application avifaunal report to drop/relocate turbines that were present within the Martial Eagle nest buffer
Figure 13. VERA Model output and recorded flight paths.
Based on this information we concluded that the eagle collision risk at the 11 turbines in Medium risk areas is likely to be at an acceptable level. However in order to be precautionary the following steps were taken:
• Four of the 11 turbine positions on the outer edge of the Medium area (close to the transition to Low risk) will be built (WTG 72, 108, 109, 157). The closest of these turbines are 5.1km from a nest. The re- maining 7 turbines will not be built (WTG 128, 147, 149, 187, 70, 105, & 106).
Low risk areas. The turbine positions currently proposed within these areas can be used.
The above changes were made to the proposed pre-application phase turbine layout and the turbine layout presented in this scoping report is the result of those changes. All changes were discussed with Dr Murgatroyd, Endangered Wildlife Trust and BirdLife South Africa, all of whom confirmed their support for this approach. The current scoping phase turbine layout has therefore been confirmed to be acceptable by these parties.
Based on our data collected on site to date, we conclude that this species is at High risk if Nuweveld East Wind Farm is built. This risk has to some extent been avoided through the application of No-Go buffers and the VERA model as explained above.
3.7.4. Black Stork Black Stork is classified as Vulnerable regionally (Taylor et al , 2015), and Least Concern globally (IUCN, 2019). The regional population is estimated at less than 1 000 mature birds, and the global population at 24 000 – 44 000 mature birds (Taylor et al, 2015). The Black Stork is a solitary cliff nester normally closely associated with riverine areas as it is mainly piscivorous.
As far as we are aware, this species has not yet been recorded as a turbine fatality in South Africa (per sobs, Ralston- Paton et al, 2017, 2019).
We recorded a single bird flying on site during the summer survey (Table 15). We judge that the likelihood of this species occurring on the site itself regularly or for extended periods is low as aquatic habitats are very rare on site.
We conclude that this species is at Low risk at Nuweveld East Wind Farm.
Table 15. Summary of Black Stork records. Autumn Winter Spring Summer Vantage Points 1 record of 1 bird Drive Transects Incidental Observations Walked Transects n/a n/a n/a n/a
3.7.5. Karoo Korhaan Karoo Korhaan is classified as Near-threatened regionally (Taylor et al , 2015). This species is suspected to have undergone a reduction in population and range (Taylor et al, 2015).
Karoo Korhaan could be susceptible to five possible impacts: habitat destruction, disturbance, displacement and collision with turbine blades and power lines. This species was believed likely to be susceptible to wind turbine collisions, but to date no fatalities have been recorded to our knowledge (Ralston-Paton et al, 2017; pers obs), although fatalities have been recorded for other korhaans (Blue Eupodotis caerulescens, Southern Black Korhaan Afrotis afra ) elsewhere in the country outside of the Nuweveld area. This may indicate that as a group korhaans may be susceptible to turbine collision.
We have recorded this species consistently on site through both seasons, by most data collection methods as shown in Table 16.
We consider this species to be at Moderate risk on the Nuweveld East Wind Farm site.
Table 16. Summary of Karoo Korhaan records. Autumn Winter Spring Summer Vantage Points 1 record of 3 birds 2 records of 5 birds 1 record of 1 bird Drive Transects 0.06birds/km 0.05birds/km 0.04birds/km 0.04birds/km Incidental Observations 5 records of 11 birds 5 records of 7 birds 2 records of 4 birds Walked Transects 0.24birds/km 0.56birds/km 0.16birds/km
3.7.6. African Rock Pipit African Rock Pipit Anthus crenatus is Near-threatened regionally (Taylor et al , 2015) and Least Concern globally (IUCN 2019). It is endemic to South Africa and Lesotho and has a restricted range and low density within this range. Recent atlas data (SABAP2) indicate a possible contraction of range in recent decades.
This species could be susceptible to four possible impacts: habitat destruction, disturbance, displacement and collision with turbine blades. No turbine collision fatalities were reported for the species by Ralston-Paton et al (2017) although again there is limited overlap of turbines in this species range to date.
We have recorded this species incidentally in three of the four seasons at very low abundance and on walked transects in summer (Table 17). On a precautionary basis we judge the species to be at Moderate risk at this site.
Table 17. Summary of African Rock Pipit records. Autumn Winter Spring Summer Vantage Points n/a n/a n/a n/a Drive Transects n/a n/a n/a n/a Incidental Observations 1 record of 1 bird 1 record of 1 bird 3 records of 4 birds Walked Transects 0.08birds/km
3.7.7. Booted Eagle Booted Eagle is found throughout southern Africa, but is most common in the arid south-west. It is locally fairly common with a global population estimated at around 100 000 birds (Hockey et al , 2005). An estimated 700 breeding pairs exist in the Western, Northern and Eastern Cape (Hockey et al , 2005). This is an intra-African and Palearctic migrant, but there is also population more or less resident in South Africa, and breeding here. This species not Red Listed either regionally or globally.
The Booted Eagle has proven susceptible to turbine collision with a number of fatalities recorded to date (Ralston- Paton et al , 2017).
We have recorded the species flying four times on site (single birds) (Table 18). We conclude that this species is a Low risk at Nuweveld East.
Table 18. Summary of Booted Eagle records. Autumn Winter Spring Summer Vantage Points 1 record of 1 bird 3 records of 3 birds Drive Transects Incidental Observations 1 records of 1 bird Walked Transects n/a n/a n/a n/a
3.7.8. Jackal Buzzard The Jackal Buzzard Buteo rufofuscus is a fairly common species throughout South Africa and on this site. It is a generalist in terms of habitat, although does favour shorter vegetation. It hunts mostly in flight, meaning that a large proportion of its time is spent flying, and thereby at some risk of collision with vertical obstacles. Early observations on constructed wind farms under monitoring indicate that this species is highly susceptible to collision with turbines (pers obs; Ralston-Paton et al, 2017, 2019). Colin Fordham (Cape Nature) expressed similar findings during a pre- application meeting with the EAP and Applicant for the project, and indicated that the species seemed particularly prone to collisions.
We have recorded this species frequently by all methods, including flying on site (Table 19). It is likely that one or more nests are present in the broader area. We conclude that this species is at High risk at Nuweveld. Due to its relatively common status this anticipated risk does not carry as much significance as it would if the species were Red Listed. However concern is growing for this species based on the number being killed at operational wind farms in SA.
Table 19. Summary of Jackal Buzzard records. Autumn Winter Spring Summer Vantage Points 9 records of 9 birds 7 records of 7 birds 8 records of 8 birds 7 records of 8 birds Drive Transects 0.06birds/km 0.03birds/km 0.07birds/km 0.05birds/km Incidental Observations 13 records of 15 birds 5 records of 6 birds 5 records of 6 birds 11 records of 11 birds Walked Transects n/a n/a n/a n/a 3.7.9. Pale Chanting Goshawk Pale Chanting Goshawk is a small to medium sized raptor which can be quite common locally in certain arid parts of the country. It is usually found singly or in pairs, and hunts mainly from a perch. This species is not Red Listed regionally or globally. This species has been recorded as turbine fatality victim at operational wind farms elsewhere in SA (Ralston-Paton et al, 2017, 2019).
We have recorded the species regularly on site and found several nests. Four records of single flying birds were made during vantage point observations.
We conclude that this species will be at Moderate risk at Nuweveld East Wind Farm.
Table 20. Summary of Pale Chanting Goshawk records. Autumn Winter Spring Summer Vantage Points 2 records of 2 birds 2 records of 2 birds 1 record of 1 bird 3 records of 3 birds Drive Transects 0.02birds/km 0.02birds/km 0.02birds/km 0.01birds/km Incidental Observations 1 record of 1 bird 1 record of 1 bird 2 records of 2 birds 3 records of 3 birds Walked Transects n/a n/a n/a n/a
3.8 Avifaunal sensitivity of the site The “Avian Wind Farm Sensitivity map for South Africa (Retief et al, 2011) and the Important Bird & Biodiversity Areas programme data (IBBA - Marnewick et al , 2015) were consulted to determine the sensitivity of the Nuweveld Wind Farms site in national terms.
Figure 14 shows that the site falls in the lowest sensitivity category in terms of avifauna (darker colours indicate higher risk), although the scores were based on the first atlas project data as the second bird atlas data was inadequate at that point. For a full discussion on the methods used in producing this map see Retief et al (2011, 2014).
The site does not fall within any IBAs (Marnewick et al , 2015). The closest IBA is approximately 25km south (Karoo National Park). This IBA has already been described in Section 3.3.
Figure 14. The position of the Nuweveld Wind Farms relative to the Avian wind farm sensitivity map (Retief et al , 2011) & Important Bird Areas (Marnewick et al 2015). (Darker colours indicate higher avifaunal sensitivity)
We note that the Nuweveld East Wind Farm site falls in a Renewable Energy Development Zone 2 (As part of the second phase of the Strategic Environmental Assessment for Wind Energy – www.redz.csir.co.za ), namely REDZ11, as well as partially in one of the Transmission Grid corridors identified (Figure 15). The REDZ are areas that are being strategically identified for potential wind energy development in future. The additional REDZ is currently out for public comment, thereafter it will be gazetted, and while the draft REDZ have no formal standing at this time (do not incentivise project in the area), it does allude to possible future scenarios where further wind energy developments may be incentivised in the areas south of Nuweveld. We also could not yet find any publicly available information from the avifaunal specialist study for the project. The Nuweveld Wind Farm is not in one of the already gazetted REDZs 1.
Figure 15. The proposed Nuweveld East Wind Farm relative to the REDZ2 & Transmission Corridors areas.
The on-site avifaunal sensitivity was assessed during the screening phase, this assessment identified and considered sensitive habitats and nest locations. The study area habitats, features and nests informed the following map classes: No-Go, High, Medium, Low and Neutral sensitivity areas. In the case of avifauna, Medium, Low and Neutral were not mapped as the No-Go and High categories provided sufficient protection for the relevant features. A distinction was also made between: Turbines; Roads & Cables (underground); Buildings; and WEF Overhead lines and different sensitivity maps were produced for each type. It must be noted that the delineation of buffers with respect to avifaunal features is not an exact science. Birds are mobile and are able to fly and select habitat where they want to. In all cases then the buffer delineations are the best approximation based on industry standards and the specialist observations and experience.
To date, the most important avifaunal sensitivity features on site are eagle nest locations. Three Verreaux’s Eagle nests and one potential Martial Eagle nesting site are located on the overall Nuweveld Wind Farms site. In addition, a number of smaller non Red-listed bird species have nests on site (such as Jackal Buzzard & Pale Chanting Goshawk). Of these nests, two medium sized raptor nests and three Verreaux’s Eagle nests were close enough to the Nuweveld East site to impact the layout. These have been protected with appropriate spatial buffers.
Large eagles (such as the Verreaux’s and Martial are present at the Nuweveld site) are often protected against wind farm impacts elsewhere in the world, through the use of buffers. The aim of these buffer areas is to restrict the construction and operation of infrastructure (particularly turbines) within a certain distance of the nest site. It is believed that such restrictions reduce the construction phase disturbance risk to the birds (since noise, light and other forms of disturbance would be further away), reduce the operational phase displacement effects on the birds (since a large proportion of the birds’ territory remains unaltered), and reduce the risk of collision of birds with turbines, since most flight activity is believed to take place closest to the nest. Of these three impacts, the impact of disturbance is probably the easiest to mitigate by using a buffer approach. Without fully understanding the effects of disturbance on breeding eagles, it makes sense that the further the source of disturbance is from the eagles, the less the effect should be. In the case of displacement and collision it is more important to understand the eagles’ behaviour within their territories, since the importance of parts of their territory may not automatically diminish with distance from the nest. For example, a prime foraging area could exist several kilometres from the nest, whilst the area immediately around the nest holds less prey. Prey populations, in particular Rock Hyrax are also well known to be subject to local population fluctuations, so these resource areas may vary in time. The radius of eagle nest site buffers are typically determined by the measured or estimated core foraging ranges of the affected birds (Martinéz et al . 2010). In cases where this data does not exist, such as at Nuweveld, a theoretical buffer area may be imposed to provide protection for the birds.
In the case of the Verreaux’s Eagles a No-Go buffer size of 3km around nests is prescribed by the BirdLife South Africa best practice guidelines. This distance is based on research in the Western Cape by Murgatroyd et al (2016). These guidelines also prescribe a 1km buffer for the construction of other WEF infrastructure during breeding season. No buffer size is stipulated for power lines, so we have made our own judgement in this regard, namely 1km. This is based on our own specialist knowledge and the pre-cautionary principle. Should the routing of the internal powerline intersect a buffer/feature, the acceptability thereof will need to be evaluated by an avifaunal specialist on a case by case basis. In addition to the above circular nest buffer approach, we also ran the VERA model as described in Section 3.7.3 and used the High and Medium risk categories to identify no-go buffer areas for Verreaux’s Eagle
For Martial Eagle no guidelines exist yet and we have determined the buffer size using the best possible available literature on the species home range. To determine the size of the buffer we consulted the most recent and comprehensive tracking based study of Martial Eagle breeding ecology that we are aware of (Van Eeden et al, 2017). This study was conducted in the Kruger National Park and determined a mean (n=6) home range size of 108km² implying a home range radius of 6km if a circular home range is assumed. We have therefore placed a 6km radius circular buffer around the Martial Eagle nest – classified as No-Go for turbines. The Nuweveld East Wind Farm is not affected by this recommendation since the site falls outside the 6km buffer. However, this recommendation has bearing on the other two Nuweveld Wind Farms and therefore informs the outcomes of the cumulative impact assessment for this project.
We have summarised our findings regarding site sensitivities and constraints in Table 21 and Figures 16 to 19 presents these as maps for the various infrastructure types. It is clear from Figure 16 that no turbines are within the No-Go areas. The remainder of the infrastructure shown in Figure 17, 18, 19 is positioned outside of No-Go areas. An exception to the no-go areas is allowing up to 500m of internal overhead lines within these areas. The acceptability of routing the lines through these areas would need to be considered and authorised by an avifaunal specialist.
There are no avifaunal sensitivities in the N1 Bypass area. Although this bypass is inside the Important Bird Area, the area is highly disturbed and impacted already by urban activities. No sensitivity maps are presented for that area since there is nothing to show.
Table 21. Summary of factors considered in determining avifaunal sensitivity classes on site.
Turbines Roads & cables Buildings (incl WEF O/H lines (new only, exist- substation) ing may be used) No Go Nests: Martial Eagle Nests: Martial Nests: Martial Nests: Martial Eagle 1000m; Legislated “no go” areas 6000m; Verreaux’s Eagle - Eagle 1000m; Eagle 1000m; Verreaux’s Eagle 1000m; Medium or setbacks and areas or 3000m & VERA High & Me- Verreaux’s Eagle Verreaux’s Eagle Raptor 500m; Pale Chanting Gos- features that are consid- dium classes; Medium Rap- 1000m; Medium 1000m; Medium hawk 250m; ered of such significance tor 500m; Pale Chanting Raptor 300m; Raptor 300m; that impacting them may Goshawk 250m; Pale Chanting Pale Chanting Dams & Pans be regarded as fatal flaw Goshawk 200m; Goshawk 200m; Dams & pans 200m or strongly influence the Dams & pans project impact signifi- 200m An exception of up to 500m of cance profile internal overhead powerlines can Ridge setback go through identified no-go areas 245m (max height of tur- if approved by the specialist bine, 45 degree to ridge edge)
Figure 16. Avifaunal sensitivity map for Nuweveld East Wind Farm - Turbines.
Figure 17. Avifaunal sensitivity map for Nuweveld East Wind Farm – Roads & Cables.
Figure 18. Avifaunal sensitivity map for Nuweveld East Wind Farm – Buildings.
Figure 19. Avifaunal sensitivity map for Nuweveld East Wind Farm – WEF overhead lines
3.9 Existing avifaunal-wind energy impacts in the area There are currently no operational wind farms in the area of study. No wind energy related impacts on birds have occurred in this area to date. There are also very few existing overhead power lines in the area. One 22kV line runs from Beaufort West to Loxton, with a number of side lines to customers.
4. CHANGES MADE FROM PRE-APPLICATION SCOPING LAYOUT TO SCOPING LAYOUT TO ADDRESS AVIFAUNAL ISSUES IDENTIFIED
The avoidance of avifaunal risk at Nuweveld Wind Farms has been an iterative process resulting from ongoing communication between specialists, the Applicant and EAP. The degree to which mitigation or avoidance can make a material difference to avifaunal risk at a wind farm is higher earlier in the project. In the case of Nuweveld Wind Farms, most avifaunal risk avoidance has already been accepted and implemented by the Applicant though the screening and constraints phase and incorporated into the layout presented for assessment in this report. The various avoidance measures already applied are described here, in order to ensure the reader understands the mitigations already in effect:
» The adaptation of the first turbine layout to accommodate drainage lines, dams, cliffs and ridge edges. » The screening phase avifaunal input supplied to Aurecon in May 2019. » No-Go buffer areas around all sensitive species’ nests found on and near site. This includes 3 Verreaux’s Eagle nests (1 currently occupied, 1 alternate, 1 unoccupied). » The acceptance and implementation of the VERA Model output as described in Section 3.7.3.
The main changes made from pre-application scoping to scoping phase are to the wind farm boundaries and various turbine positions (including the service roads) have been removed and/or relocated, with the main reason being the presence of a Martial Eagle’s nest and associated buffer and the outcomes of the VERA modelling. Each wind facility will also have a battery storage facility. An iterative design process is being undertaken for this development.
The avifaunal sensitivity maps for the site are presented in Figures 15 to 18. The approach of iterative refinement of the layout before and during the impact assessment, as opposed to a more typical alternatives based assessment, goes some way to ensuring that the potentially major impacts are already avoided and key resources protected before the assessment gets underway. This leaves the project able to focus on the assessment and mitigation of the residual impacts as well as ongoing refinement of the layout as additional information becomes available through monitoring or stakeholder inputs. Thus the impact assessment that follows does not consider or comparatively assess any alternatives, other than the “no go”, as required by the NEMA.
5. IDENTIFIED IMPACTS With an understanding of the project and the project site, the following potentially significant impacts on avifaunal resources are identified:
Construction phase: − Habitat destruction – Avifaunal habitat is altered or destroyed when natural vegetation is cleared for infra- structure. − Disturbance – Breeding birds disturbed by human, vehicular & machinery activity on site, including noise and vibration. Breeding productivity reduced, or breeding fails or breeding site abandoned.
Operational Phase − Disturbance - Breeding birds disturbed by human, vehicular & machinery activity on site. Breeding productivity reduced, or breeding fails or breeding site abandoned. − Displacement - Birds displaced from the site thereby losing that area for their foraging, roosting, breeding etc − Turbine collisions - Birds collide with turbine blades and are killed or injured − Power line Collision & Electrocution - Birds in flight collide with overhead cables and are killed or injured. Birds perching on pylons are electrocuted and killed.
Decommissioning Phase − Disturbance - Breeding birds disturbed by human, vehicular & machinery activity on site, including noise and vibration. Breeding productivity reduced, or breeding fails or breeding site abandoned.
Cumulative impacts – All the impacts above are then considered from a cumulative perspective. There are no oth- er windfarms currently within a 30km radius of the project, except for the adjacent Nuweveld Wind Farms. The Cumulative impact assessment therefore assessed the combined impact of all three wind farms and the gridline combined.
The NEMA requires the consideration and assessment of feasible and reasonable alternatives in the EIA process. Alternatives can include: Location of the proposed activity; Type of activity; Layout alternatives; Technology alternatives; and No-Go alternative.
No alternatives, other than the No-Go alternative, have been assessed in this specialist report. However, through the extensive iterative process with input from all the specialists, various conceptual layouts for the wind farms have been proposed and refined to date (an approach agreed with the Competent Authority), but are not carried forward as they are not feasible from a technical or environmental perspective. The current layout is the one that has been assessed and it appears to be a feasible alternative. that with the proposed mitigation minimises the predicted negative impacts. The site and layouts considered and assessed in this report are therefore the preferred alternatives.
The No-Go option would result in no wind farm and associated infrastructure being built on site. As a result none of the impacts on birds described in Section 5 would take place. The significance of impacts of the No-Go option on avifauna would therefore be Negligible.
6. IMPACT ASSESSMENT Using the data and risk assessment for each species described in Section 3 as the basis, the potential impacts of the proposed Nuweveld East Wind Farm have been formally assessed and rated according to the criteria (supplied by Aurecon and shown in Appendix 3).
6.1 Construction Phase Impacts
6.1.1. Construction Phase Impact 1 - Habitat destruction Table 1 summarised the amount of natural habitat that will be altered and destroyed on the wind farm. Temporary areas are included, since these may not fully rehabilitate to their former state, and in order to consider the worst case scenario. At Nuweveld East Wind Farm, a total of approximately 161ha (74 temporary & 87 permanent) would be affected. The Nuweveld East Wind Farm site (as delineated by the site boundary shown in Figure 3 is approximately 10 538 hectares in size. This means that approximately 1.5% of the site’s ground surface area would be altered or destroyed. The temporary road bypass around Beaufort West is almost all on an existing road, and the new portion is in quite disturbed habitat, so we did not include it in the calculation of area lost as it is already severely degraded. We judge the impact of habitat destruction to be of Minor (-) significance.
Mitigation » A pre-construction avifaunal walk down should be conducted to confirm final layout and identify any sensitivities that may arise between the conclusion of the EIA process and the construction phase. » All construction activities should be strictly managed according to generally accepted environmental best practice standards, so as to avoid any unnecessary impact on the receiving environment. » All temporary disturbed areas should be rehabilitated according to the site’s rehabilitation plan, following construction.
Table 22. Assessment of destruction of bird habitat during the construction phase. Project phase Construction Impact Habitat destruction Description of Avifaunal habitat altered or destroyed when natural vegetation cleared for infrastructure impact Mitigatability Low Mitigation does not exist; or mitigation will slightly reduce the significance of im- pacts Potential mitiga- Avoidance already applied. Avifaunal walk through for final layout. General environmental best prac- tion tice standards at construction Assessment Without mitigation With mitiga- tion Nature Negative Negative Duration Permanent Impact may be permanent, or Permanent Impact may be permanent, or in in excess of 20 years excess of 20 years Extent Limited Limited to the site and its im- Limited Limited to the site and its im- mediate surroundings mediate surroundings Intensity Very low Natural and/ or social func- Very low Natural and/ or social functions tions and/ or processes are and/ or processes are slightly slightly altered altered Probability Almost certain It is most likely that the impact Almost certain It is most likely that the impact / Highly proba- will occur / Highly proba- will occur ble ble Confidence High Substantive supportive data High Substantive supportive data exists to verify the assessment exists to verify the assessment Reversibility High The affected environmental High The affected environmental will will be able to recover from be able to recover from the im- the impact pact
Resource irre- Low The resource is not damaged Low The resource is not damaged placeability irreparably or is not scarce irreparably or is not scarce
Significance Minor - negative Minor - negative Comment on sig- I am comfortable with the finding of Minor Significance both pre and post mitigation nificance Cumulative im- See Section 6.4 pacts
6.1.2. Construction Phase Impact 2 - Disturbance of birds during construction Pre-mitigation this impact is Minor significance, and it remains at Minor post mitigation significance.
Mitigation » An avifaunal walk down should be conducted to confirm final layout and identify any sensitivities that may arise between the conclusion of the EIA process and the construction phase. » Monitoring of breeding status of Martial and Verreaux’s Eagles should be conducted in all breeding seasons post acceptance of the project as preferred bidder prior to and during construction (to establish baseline). » All construction activities should be strictly managed according to generally accepted environmental best practice standards, so as to avoid any unnecessary impact on the receiving environment.
Table 23. Assessment of disturbance of birds during construction. Project phase Construction Impact Disturbance of birds Description of Breeding birds disturbed by human, vehicular & machinery activity on site, including noise and vibra- impact tion. Breeding productivity reduced, or breeding fails or breeding site abandoned. Mitigatability Medium Mitigation exists and will notably reduce significance of impacts Potential mitiga- Avoidance already applied earlier in project. Recommend monitoring of breeding status at these tion nests in all breeding seasons prior to and during construction, once project achieves preferred bid- der. Avifaunal walk through of final layout should confirm no new new sensitive species breeding sites. Assessment Without mitigation With mitiga- tion Nature Negative Negative Duration Short term impact will last between 1 and Short term impact will last between 1 and 5 5 years years Extent National Impacts felt at a national level National Impacts felt at a national level Intensity Very high Natural and/ or social func- Low Natural and/ or social functions tions and/ or processes are and/ or processes majorly altered are somewhat altered Probability Almost certain It is most likely that the impact Unlikely Has not happened yet but could / Highly proba- will occur happen once in the lifetime of ble the project, therefore there is a possibility that the impact will occur
Confidence Medium Determination is based on Medium Determination is based on common sense and general common sense and general knowledge knowledge Reversibility Low The affected environment will Low The affected environment will not be able to recover from not be able to recover from the the impact - permanently impact - permanently modified modified Resource irre- Medium The resource is damaged ir- Medium The resource is damaged irrepa- placeability reparably but is represented rably but is represented else- elsewhere where Significance Minor - negative Minor - nega- tive Comment on sig- I am comfortable with finding of minor negative significance pre-mitigation & post mitigation nificance Cumulative im- See Section 6.4 pacts
6.2 Operational Phase Impacts
6.2.1. Operational Phase Impact 1 - Disturbance of birds during operations The indications from operational wind farms are that this impact is of fairly low importance. For Nuweveld East we consider this impact to be of Minor negative significance.
Mitigation » None required.
Table 24. Assessment of disturbance of birds during operations. Project phase Operation Impact Disturbance of birds Description of Breeding birds disturbed by human, vehicular & machinery activity on site. Breeding productivity impact reduced, or breeding fails or breeding site abandoned. Mitigatability Low Mitigation does not exist; or mitigation will slightly reduce the significance of im- pacts Potential mitiga- Avoidance already applied. Several sensitive species breeding sites have been located. tion Assessment Without mitigation With mitiga- tion Nature Negative Negative Duration Permanent Impact may be permanent, or Permanent Impact may be permanent, or in in excess of 20 years excess of 20 years Extent National Impacts felt at a national level National Impacts felt at a national level Intensity Low Natural and/ or social func- Low Natural and/ or social functions tions and/ or processes and/ or processes are somewhat altered are somewhat altered Probability Unlikely Has not happened yet but Unlikely Has not happened yet but could could happen once in the life- happen once in the lifetime of time of the project, therefore the project, therefore there is a there is a possibility that the possibility that the impact will impact will occur occur Confidence Medium Determination is based on Medium Determination is based on common sense and general common sense and general knowledge knowledge Reversibility Low The affected environment will Low The affected environment will not be able to recover from not be able to recover from the the impact - permanently impact - permanently modified modified Resource irre- Medium The resource is damaged ir- Medium The resource is damaged irrepa- placeability reparably but is represented rably but is represented else- elsewhere where Significance Minor - nega- Minor - nega- tive tive Comment on sig- I am comfortable with the finding of Minor negative significance both pre and post mitigation nificance Cumulative im- See Section 6.4 pacts
6.2.2. Operational Phase Impact 2 - Displacement of birds during operational phase As for disturbance above, the indications from operational wind farms are that this impact may be of low importance. For Nuweveld East we consider this impact to be of Minor negative significance with the avoidance measures already implemented.
Mitigation » Monitoring of breeding status of Verreaux’s and Martial Eagles should be conducted in all breeding seasons as per the avifaunal operational monitoring programme.
Table 25. Assessment of displacement of birds during operations. Project phase Operation Impact Displacement of birds Description of Birds displaced from the site thereby losing that area for their foraging, roosting, breeding etc impact Mitigatability Low Mitigation does not exist; or mitigation will slightly reduce the significance of im- pacts Potential mitiga- Avoidance already applied. Monitoring of breeding status of Verreaux’s and Martial Eagles should be tion conducted in all breeding seasons as per the avifaunal operational monitoring programme
Assessment Without mitigation With mitiga- tion Nature Negative Negative Duration Permanent Impact may be permanent, or Permanent Impact may be permanent, or in in excess of 20 years excess of 20 years Extent Local Extending across the site and Local Extending across the site and to to nearby settlements nearby settlements Intensity Low Natural and/ or social func- Low Natural and/ or social functions tions and/ or processes and/ or processes are somewhat altered are somewhat altered Probability Unlikely Has not happened yet but Unlikely Has not happened yet but could could happen once in the life- happen once in the lifetime of time of the project, therefore the project, therefore there is a there is a possibility that the possibility that the impact will impact will occur occur Confidence Low Judgement is based on intui- Low Judgement is based on intuition tion Reversibility High The affected environmental High The affected environmental will will be able to recover from be able to recover from the im- the impact pact Resource irre- Medium The resource is damaged ir- Medium The resource is damaged irrepa- placeability reparably but is represented rably but is represented else- elsewhere where Significance Minor - nega- Minor - nega- tive tive Comment on sig- I am comfortable with the finding of Minor negative significance both pre and post mitigation nificance Cumulative im- See Section 6.4 pacts
6.2.3. Operational Phase Impact 3 - Turbine collision fatalities We have made our species population estimates as transparent as possible so that our assumptions are clear. Table 9 summarises this information for the priority bird species and presents the final estimated population sizes. The significance of turbine collision fatality impacts on this local population for the species overall is judged in each case. The significance is Moderate for three species: Ludwig’s Bustard; Martial Eagle; and Verreaux’s Eagle. We concluded that overall this impact will be of Moderate (-) significance. This is mostly a precautionary finding as the estimated fatality rates based on data collected on site are very low.
Mitigation » No turbines should be built in the no-go areas identified in this report. » A post construction inspection must be conducted by an avifaunal specialist to confirm that all aspects have been appropriately handled and in particular that road and hard stand verges do not provide additional substrate for raptor prey species » Given that the impact of bird collision with turbines could occur once the wind farm is operational and require mitigation, we recommend strongly that an appropriate mitigation budget be provided for by the Applicant. At this stage it is not possible to determine what mitigation may be appropriate, and in the time between writing this report and the mitigation need arising (likely several years) new mitigation methods may be developed. However if such a need arises and suitable mitigation is identified it cannot be argued by the wind farm operator that mitigation was not budgeted for. Mitigation could cost the operator either in the form of additional costs or lost productivity as a result of changes to turbine operations. We suggest proceeding as follows in terms of budgeting: o Operational Year 1: R 0.00 - no mitigation budget required as operational phase data would still need to be collected and impacts detected and measured. o Operational Year 1 & 2: – R500 000.00 per annum (subject to 6% escalation p.a. from 2019 to the relevant year) – likely to cover mitigation that is preliminary, research based or experimental in nature. o Operational Year 3 to 5: R 500 000.00 per annum (subject to 6% escalation p.a. from 2019 to the relevant year) for implementation of full mitigation o Operational Year 6 onwards: -unknown – to be determined by prior 5 years. o Any of the above budget not used in the relevant year must be kept aside and available up to and including Year 10. » It is also important that the Applicant be aware that mitigation measures may require the installation of equipment on turbines, or possibly the painting of blades. Potential technical and warrantee challenges should be noted where possible throughout the planning process so that they do not prevent the implementation of reasonable mitigation if required. » Post construction monitoring should inform an adaptive management programme to mitigate any identified impacts to acceptable levels . » We recommend that all turbines are searched every week once operational, but if for any reason a subset of turbines is prioritised these should include those identified as Medium sensitivity by the VERA model. » Any Verreaux’s Eagle fatalities should be reported to Dr Megan Murgatroyd to close the feedback loop on the VERA model run for the site .
Table 26. Assessment of bird collision with turbine blades during operations. Project phase Operation Impact Bird fatalities through collision with turbine blades Description of Birds collide with turbine blades and are killed or injured impact Mitigatability Low Mitigation does not exist; or mitigation will slightly reduce the significance of impacts Potential mitiga- Avoidance applied already. Provide mitigation contingency budget for operational phase as described tion in report above. Avifaunal walk down of final layout Assessment Without mitigation With mitiga- tion Nature Negative Negative Duration Permanent Impact may be permanent, or in Permanent Impact may be permanent, or in excess of 20 years excess of 20 years Extent National Impacts felt at a national level National Impacts felt at a national level Intensity High Natural and/ or social functions High Natural and/ or social functions and/ or processes are notably and/ or processes are notably altered altered Probability Likely The impact may occur Likely The impact may occur Confidence High Substantive supportive data High Substantive supportive data exists to verify the assessment exists to verify the assessment Reversibility Low The affected environment will Low The affected environment will not be able to recover from the not be able to recover from the impact - permanently modified impact - permanently modified Resource irre- Medium The resource is damaged irrepa- Medium The resource is damaged irrepa- placeability rably but is represented else- rably but is represented else- where where Significance Moderate - negative Moderate - negative Comment on sig- I am comfortable with the finding of Moderate negative significance both pre and post mitigation nificance Cumulative im- See Section 6.4 pacts
5.2.4. Operational Phase Impact 4 - Collision & electrocution on overhead power line and in substation/switching station A small section of the overhead line will be built alongside the internal roads, while the rest of the overhead lines will be built away from roads. The remainder of internal power line will be placed underground as buried cables. This situation is acceptable given the geological and topographical constraints identified on site for burying all power lines. This above ground power line does however result in this impact being of Major (-) significance pre-mitigation. Overhead power lines pose a collision risk to large terrestrial species such as bustards and korhaans in particular. Large eagles such as Verreaux’s and Martial are not particularly susceptible to power line collisions in our experience. In order to confirm this we obtained up to date power line fatality data from the Eskom-Endangered Wildlife Trust Eskom Strategic Partnership (Eskom-EWT, 2019). These data represent all reported bird fatalities on Eskom power lines in the Karoo (thousands of kilometres of power line) from 1996 to the present. During this twenty-three year period a total of 9 Verreaux’s Eagle and 3 Martial Eagle were reported killed through collision. By comparison two large terrestrial species Blue Crane and Ludwig’s Bustard had 161 and 89 fatalities respectively. We also consulted a long term monitoring report from the EWT on the systematic monitoring of sections of Eskom transmission lines (>132kv) near De Aar. The data collected by EWT include only one Verreaux’s Eagle fatality recorded between 2008 and 2016 on 109km of line, and no Martial Eagles recorded. This is in spite of a number of pairs of eagles nesting on these power lines. Given that this population of eagles lives and breeds permanently on the transmission line (making frequent entry and exit flights to nest and young birds learning to fly), this is a very low collision fatality rate for these eagles. Eagles are very susceptible to electrocution on pylons, particularly in a treeless landscape such as Nuweveld where they will certainly perch on pylons if available. The above Eskom-EWT data set has 22 electrocution fatalities for each of Verreaux’s and Martial Eagles due to bad pylon and conductor design. The significance of both these impacts can be reduced to Minor (-) significance through the application of the mitigation below.
Mitigation » Internal power line must be placed underground except where absolutely necessary such as to cross drainage lines or get up steep/ extremely rocky slopes. Internal overhead power lines may not exceed a total of 7km in length. This excludes overhead lines that will be run next to existing 22 kV or higher lines, where this impact is already present. An exception of up to 500m of internal overhead powerlines may go through identified no- go areas and this provision has been assumed within this assessment, but the specific case/s would be subject to specialist approval. » A pre-construction avifaunal walk down should be conducted to confirm final layout and identify any new sensitivities. » Overhead conductors or earth wires should be fitted with an Eskom approved anti bird collision line marking device to make cables more visible to birds in flight and reduce the likelihood of collisions. » The pole design currently proposed, i.e. monopole double circuit built to 88/132kV dimensions is significantly safer from an electrocution point of view than a standard 33kV structure that the Applicant could have opted to use but decided not to so as to reduce this potential impact. However, the safety could be further improved by using a bird perch at the very top of the pole (see Appendix 6). Any deviation from this planned structure must be signed off on by the avifaunal specialist and may change these findings.
Table 27. Assessment of bird collision & electrocution on overhead power lines & in substation Project phase Operation Impact Bird collision & electrocution on overhead power lines (& at sub- station ) Description of Birds in flight collide with overhead cables and are killed or injured. Birds perching on pylons are impact electrocuted and killed. Mitigatability High Mitigation exists and will considerably reduce the significance of impacts Potential mitiga- Avoidance by placing internal line underground except where absolutely unavoidable. Overhead tion conductors or earth wires fitted with anti bird collision line marking devices to make cables more visible to birds. Pylons built according to Eskom approved bird friendly design so that perching birds cannot bridge critical clearances. Avifaunal walk down of final layout Assessment Without mitigation With mitiga- tion Nature Negative Negative Duration Permanent Impact may be permanent, or Permanent Impact may be permanent, or in in excess of 20 years excess of 20 years Extent National Impacts felt at a national level National Impacts felt at a national level Intensity Very high Natural and/ or social func- Low Natural and/ or social functions tions and/ or processes are and/ or processes majorly altered are somewhat altered Probability Almost certain It is most likely that the impact Unlikely Has not happened yet but could / Highly proba- will occur happen once in the lifetime of ble the project, therefore there is a possibility that the impact will occur Confidence High Substantive supportive data High Substantive supportive data exists to verify the assessment exists to verify the assessment Reversibility Low The affected environment will Low The affected environment will not be able to recover from not be able to recover from the the impact - permanently impact - permanently modified modified Resource irre- Medium The resource is damaged ir- Medium The resource is damaged irrepa- placeability reparably but is represented rably but is represented else- elsewhere where Significance Major - nega- Minor - nega- tive tive Comment on sig- I am comfortable with the finding of Major negative significance pre-mitigation and minor negative nificance significance post mitigation. Any deviation from this planned structure must be signed off on by the avifaunal specialist and may change these findings. Cumulative im- See Section 6.4 pacts
6.3 Decommissioning Phase Impacts
6.3.1 Decommissioning Phase Impact 1 – Disturbance of birds This impact is of Moderate (-) significance pre-mitigation. The mitigation measures already recommended to protect the Verreaux’s Eagle nests and territory (No-Go buffer) will reduce the significance of this impact to Minor (-) negative significance.
Mitigation » Monitoring of breeding status of Martial and Verreaux’s Eagles should be conducted in the operations phase. This will allow us to judge the risk of decommissioning to birds when the time comes. » All decommissioning activities should be strictly managed according to generally accepted environmental best practice standards, so as to avoid any unnecessary impact on the receiving environment.
Table 28. Assessment of bird disturbance during decommissioning. Project phase Decommissioning Impact Disturbance of birds Description of Breeding birds disturbed by human, vehicular & machinery activity on site, including noise and vi- impact bration. Breeding productivity reduced, or breeding fails or breeding site abandoned. Mitigatability Medium Mitigation exists and will notably reduce significance of impacts Potential mitiga- Monitoring of important avifaunal features during the operational phase will allow the risk of de- tion commissioning to be judged and appropriate mitigation to be designed at that stage. Assessment Without mitigation With mitiga- tion Nature Negative Negative Duration Short term impact will last between 1 and Short term impact will last between 1 and 5 years 5 years Extent National Impacts felt at a national level National Impacts felt at a national level Intensity Very high Natural and/ or social func- Low Natural and/ or social func- tions and/ or processes are tions and/ or processes majorly altered are somewhat altered Probability Almost certain It is most likely that the impact Unlikely Has not happened yet but / Highly proba- will occur could happen once in the life- ble time of the project, therefore there is a possibility that the impact will occur Confidence Medium Determination is based on Medium Determination is based on common sense and general common sense and general knowledge knowledge Reversibility Low The affected environment will Low The affected environment will not be able to recover from not be able to recover from the impact - permanently the impact - permanently modified modified Resource irre- Medium The resource is damaged ir- Medium The resource is damaged ir- placeability reparably but is represented reparably but is represented elsewhere elsewhere Significance Moderate - negative Minor - nega- tive Comment on sig- I am comfortable with the finding of Moderate negative significance pre-mitigation & Minor negative nificance significance post mitigation Cumulative im- See Section 6.4 pacts
6.4 Cumulative Impacts A cumulative impact, in relation to an activity, means the past, current and reasonable foreseeable future impact of an activity, considered together with the impact of activities associated with that activity, that in itself may not be significant, but may be significant when added to the existing and reasonable foreseeable impacts eventuating from similar or diverse activities (as defined by NEMA EIA Reg 1).
The cumulative impacts of wind energy on avifauna in the Nuweveld area have been assessed according to the guidance in the DEA (DEAT (2004) Cumulative Effects Assessment, Integrated Environmental Management, Information Series 7, Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT), Pretoria); and the IFC guidelines (Good Practice Handbook - Cumulative Impact Assessment and Management: Guidance for the Private Sector in Emerging Markets”. Specifically, the steps to be undertaken in the cumulative impact assessment section of the study will be as follows:
1. Define and assess the impacts of the Nuweveld East Wind Farm project. 2. Identify and obtain details for all operational and authorised overhead power lines and wind farms (within 30km radius of Nuweveld Wind Farms). 3. Identify impacts of the proposed Nuweveld East Wind Farm which are also likely or already exist at the other projects. 4. Obtain reports and data for other projects. 5. As far as possible quantify the effect of all projects on key bird species local populations (will need to be defined and estimated). 6. Express the likely impacts associated with the Nuweveld East Wind Farm project as a proportion of the overall impacts on key species. 7. A reasoned overall opinion will be expressed on the suitability of the proposed development against the above background (i.e. whether the receiving environment can afford to accommodate additional similar impacts). This will include a cumulative impact assessment statement. 8. The decision making process with respect to the above will be clearly documented in the report.
There are no other wind farms planned, operational or authorised within a 30km radius of the proposed Nuweveld East Wind Farm. The impact of each of the three Nuweveld wind farms has therefore been considered cumulatively with the other two wind farms and the grid connection. For example, Nuweveld East will have an impact, but what would the cumulative impact of the development be should either two or three windfarms also be developed.
Nuweveld East Wind Farm + two other Nuweveld Wind Farms + Nuweveld Grid Connection
Construction phase impacts − Construction Phase Impact 1 - Destruction & alteration of habitat We have found (Section 6.1.1) that approximately 161ha of habitat will be transformed by the Nuweveld East Wind Farm. In our view this is relatively small amount of habitat transformation given the scale of the projects and amount of energy production. We concluded that habitat destruction at Nuweveld East Wind Farm is of Minor significance. If two more wind farms (of similar size) are built, this would triple the approximate area of habitat to be transformed to 481ha. The addition of the grid connection power line habitat destruction would increase this very slightly. Given that this amount of habitat destruction would be within a very large area (approximately 32 000ha for the wind farms, excluding the grid), we still consider this to be of minor (-) significance. However, the effect of large dispersed infrastructure projects such as wind farms on birds is likely to be far more complex through factors such as habitat fragmentation, disruption of territories and other factors. These effects have however proven extremely difficult to measure. In order to apply a cautious approach we conclude that the overall cumulative significance of habitat destruction in this area by wind farms is Moderate, and that the contribution by the Nuweveld East Wind Farm to this impact is Moderate.
− Construction Phase Impact 2 - Disturbance of birds during construction We conclude that the cumulative impact of disturbance of birds by wind farms in the Nuweveld area is of Moderate (-) significance and the contribution to this by the additional Nuweveld Wind Farms remains Moderate (-).
Operational Phase − Operational Phase Impact 1 – Disturbance of birds Section 6.2.1. concludes that this impact is of Minor significance. We judge that adding two more wind farms and grid connection would raise the significance to Moderate (-).
− Operational Phase Impact 2 - Displacement of birds from the site. We concluded in Section 6.2.2 that this impact will be of Minor negative significance. Adding two more similar size wind farms and the grid connection would increase the amount of displacement (if it occurs) and raise the significance to Moderate. The contribution to this by Nuweveld East Wind Farm is Moderate (-).
− Operational Phase Impact 3 - Direct mortality of birds through collision with turbines. Section 6.2.3 described the estimated turbine collision fatality rate for the Nuweveld East Wind Farm. The addition of two more wind farms and the grid would more than triple these fatality rates. Based on these figures we conclude that the cumulative turbine collision impact of wind farms on the priority bird species in the Nuweveld area is Moderate. The contribution by Nuweveld East Wind Farm to the cumulative impact is Moderate.
− Operational Phase Impact 4 – Collision & electrocution on overhead power lines The addition of two more wind farms and the grid would more than triple the fatality rates. We conclude that the cumulative collision and electrocution will be Major significance pre-mitigation, reduced to Minor post mitigation. The contribution by Nuweveld East Wind Farm to the cumulative impact is Moderate (-).
− Decommissioning Phase Impact 1 – Disturbance of birds This impact would remain at Moderate significance with the addition of two more wind farms and the grid.
Mitigation for cumulative impacts The cumulative impacts are mostly of Moderate Significance. The mitigation recommended by our studies for each wind farm, will be sufficient to reduce the cumulative impacts. The only impact with Major significance (collision & electrocution on power lines) can be easily mitigated to Minor significance. If any cumulative response is identified as necessary during operations, fortunately the three wind farms will all be managed by the same operator so a collective management response will be achievable.
6.5 Impacts of No-Go Alternative The No-Go option would result in no wind farm and associated infrastructure being built on site. As a result none of the impacts on birds described in Section 5 would take place. The significance of impacts of the No-Go option on avifauna would therefore be Negligible (-). On these grounds there is no need for a detailed assessment of this alternative.
7. CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS We make the following conclusions regarding the avifaunal community and potential impacts of the Nuweveld East Wind Farm:
» We classified nine species as top most priority for this assessment. Four of these are judged to be at high risk before avoidance and mitigation. These are: Ludwig's Bustard; Martial Eagle, Verreaux’s Eagle and Jackal Buzzard. Three species are at moderate risk: Karoo Korhaan, African Rock Pipit and Pale Chanting Goshawk. The Black Stork and Booted Eagle are deemed to be at low risk. » The key avifaunal aspects on site requiring management are the presence of three Verreaux’s Eagle nests (only one active pair) and a potential Martial Eagle nesting site. These are buffered in the sensitivity maps, where relevant. » Crude turbine collision fatality rates were calculated for each species in order to estimate how many birds the proposed Nuweveld East Wind Farm might kill. This calculation is considered to be a worst case scenario and is fraught with assumptions. It is estimated that approximately 0.56 bird fatalities could be recorded at Nuweveld East Wind Farm per year across the 9 target bird species recorded flying on site to date (Table 9). This includes the following priority species: 0.20 Jackal Buzzards; 0.10 Ludwig’s Bustards; 0.10 Verreaux’s Eagles; 0.05 Karoo Korhaans; 0.05 Pale Chanting Goshawks; 0.03 Martial Eagle; 0.02 Booted Eagles; 0.01 Black Stork; and 0.01 Rock Kestrel. Comparatively, these fatality rates are very low, reflecting the low flight activity rates by these species on site to date. Two of the key species for the site (since nests exist near/on site) Verreaux’s Eagle and Martial Eagle have very low estimated fatality rates of 0.10 and 0.03 birds/year respectively.
Based on the data collected on site we make the following findings with respect to impact significance for avifauna, according to the formal impact assessment methods provided by Aurecon.
Impact Pre-mitigation Post-mitigation Nuweveld East Wind Farm Construction Phase Impact 1 – Habitat destruction Minor Minor Construction Phase Impact 2 - Disturbance Minor Minor Operational Phase Impact 1 – Disturbance Minor Minor Operational Phase Impact 2 – Displacement Minor Minor Operational Phase Impact 3 – Turbine collisions Moderate Moderate Operational Phase Impact 4 – Power line Collision & Electrocution Major Minor Decommissioning Phase Impact 1 – Disturbance Moderate Minor
Cumulative Impacts Construction Phase Impact 1 – Habitat destruction Moderate Moderate Construction Phase Impact 2 - Disturbance Moderate Minor Operational Phase Impact 1 – Disturbance Moderate Moderate Operational Phase Impact 2 – Displacement Moderate Moderate Operational Phase Impact 3 – Turbine collisions Moderate Moderate Operational Phase Impact 4 – Power line Collision & Electrocution Major Minor Decommissioning Phase Impact 1 – Disturbance Moderate Minor
Although extensive avoidance of impacts has already been applied on this project via a screening and constraints phase, we recommend the following additional mitigation measures be applied to manage and further reduce the significance of impacts on birds:
» The No-Go areas identified by this study (which build on those identified in the screening phase) should be adhered to. » A pre-construction avifaunal walk down should be conducted to confirm final layout and identify any sensitivities that may arise between the conclusion of the EIA process and the construction phase. » All construction activities should be strictly managed according to generally accepted environmental best practice standards, so as to avoid any unnecessary impact on the receiving environment. » A post construction inspection must be conducted by an avifaunal specialist to confirm that all aspects have been appropriately handled and in particular that road and hard stand verges do not provide additional substrate for raptor prey species. » Monitoring of the breeding status of Verreaux’s and Martial Eagles should be conducted in all breeding seasons post acceptance of the project as preferred bidder (to establish baseline) prior to and during construction. » Given that the impact of bird collision with turbines could occur once the wind farm is operational and require mitigation, we recommend strongly that an appropriate mitigation budget be provided for by the Applicant. At this stage it is not possible to determine what mitigation may be appropriate, and in the time between writing this report and the mitigation need arising (likely several years) new mitigation methods may be developed. However if such a need arises and suitable mitigation is identified it cannot be argued by the wind farm operator that mitigation was not budgeted for. Mitigation could cost the operator either in the form of additional costs or lost productivity as a result of changes to turbine operations. We have suggested a budget for this aspect in this report. It is also important that the developer be aware that mitigation measures may require the installation of equipment on turbines, or possibly the painting of blades. Potential technical and warrantee challenges should be noted where possible throughout the planning process so that they do not prevent the implementation of reasonable mitigation if required . » Internal power line must be placed underground except where absolutely necessary such as to cross drainage lines or get up steep/ extremely rocky slopes. Internal overheads power lines may not exceed a total of 7km in length. This excludes overhead lines that run next to other 22 kV or higher lines. An exception of up to 500m of internal overhead powerlines can go through identified no-go areas if approved by the specialist to, for
example, allow a line to get up a steep slope. » An avifaunal walk down should be conducted to confirm final layout and identify any new sensitivities. » Overhead conductors or earth wires should be fitted with an Eskom approved anti bird collision line marking device to make cables more visible to birds in flight and reduce the likelihood of collisions. » The pole design currently proposed, i.e. monopole double circuit built to 88/132kV dimensions is significantly safer from an electrocution point of view than a standard 33kV structure that the Applicant could have opted to use but decided not to so as to reduce this potential impact. However, the safety could be improved by using a bird perch at the very top of the pole. Any deviation from this planned structure must be signed off on by the avifaunal specialist and may change these findings. » The during construction and post construction monitoring programme outlined in Appendix 3 should be implemented according to the latest available version of the best practice guidelines at the time. The findings from operational phase monitoring should inform an adaptive management programme to mitigate any impacts on avifauna to acceptable levels. In particular, any Verreaux’s Eagle fatalities should be reported to Dr Megan Murgatroyd in order to close the feedback loop back to the VERA modelling performed for this site. » The cumulative impacts are mostly of Moderate (-) Significance. The mitigation recommended by our studies for each wind farm, will be sufficient (if implemented correctly) to reduce the cumulative impacts. The only impact with Major significance (collision & electrocution on power lines) can be easily mitigated to Minor significance. If any cumulative response is identified as necessary during operations, fortunately the three wind farms will all be managed by the same operator so a collective management response will be achievable.
Overall, our impression of the Nuweveld East Wind Farm avifaunal community is that it is not particularly unique or sensitive, with the exception of the identified eagle nests. Given that these nests have been afforded a significant amount of spatial protection (in line with current best practice), we believe that the significant risks to avifauna have largely been avoided. On this basis we find no impediment, from an avifaunal perspective, to withhold authorisation of the Nuweveld East Wind Farm. This finding is dependent on the implementation of the mitigation measures detailed in this report. These recommendations must be carried through into the EMPr and implementation thereof must be verified. The most important of these are related to the Verreaux’s Eagle nest no-go buffer.
8. REFERENCES
Allan, D.G. & Anderson, M.D. 2010. Assessment of the threats faced by South African bustards. Unpublished BirdLife South Africa report.
Allan, D. G. 2003. Abundance sex ratio, breeding and habitat of Stanley’s Bustard Neotis denhami stanleyi in western South Africa. Durban Museum, Novit 28: 1-10.
Alonso, J. A., & Alonso, J. C. 1999. Collision of birds with overhead transmission lines in Spain. In: Ferrer M and Janss F E (eds), Birds and powerlines, Quercus, Madrid, pp57 - 82.
Anderson, M. D. 2001. The effectiveness of two different marking devices to reduce large terrestrial bird collisions with overhead electricity cables in the eastern Karoo, South Africa. Karoo Large Terrestrial Bird Powerline Project, Directorate Conservation & Environment (Northern Cape), Kimberley.
Barrios, L. & Rodriguez, A. 2004. Behavioral and environmental correlates of soaring-bird mortality at on-shore wind turbines. Journal of Applied Ecology 41: 72-81
Bevanger, K. 1994. Bird interactions with utility structures: collision and electrocution, causes and mitigating measures. Ibis 136: 412-425. 184
Bevanger, K. 1998. Biological and conservation aspects of bird mortality caused by electricity power lines: a review. Biological Conservation 86: 67-76.
Bevanger, K. 1999. Estimating bird mortality caused by collision and electrocution with power lines; a review of methodology. In: Ferrer, M. and Janss, G.F.E. (Eds.) Birds and Power Lines. Collision, Electrocution and Breeding: pag- es 29-56. Servicios Informativos Ambientales/Quercus, Madrid.
Barclay, R.M.R., Baerwald, E.F., Gruver, J.C. 2007. Variation in bat and bird fatalities at wind energy facilities: assessing the effects of rotor size and tower height. Canadian Journal of Zoology 85: 381-387
Bibby, C.J., Burgess, N.D., Hill, D.A., & Mustoe, S. 2000. Bird Census Techniques. Academic Press, London.
BirdLife South Africa. 2017. Verreaux’s Eagle and Wind Farms: Guidelines for Impact Assessment, monitoring and mit- igation. BirdLife South Africa Occasional Report Series.
Bose, A., Dürr, T., Klenke, R.A. and Henle, K. 2018. Collision sensitive niche profile of the worst affected bird-groups at wind turbine structures in the Federal State of Brandenburg, Germany. Scientific Reports 8: 3777
Boshoff, A.F. 1993. Density, breeding performance and stability of Martial Eagles Polemaetus bellicosus breeding on electricity pylons in the Nama-Karoo, South Africa. In Wilson RT (ed) Birds and the African Environment: Proc. Of the 8th Pan-Afr. Ornithol. Congr. Pp 95-504
Brooke, R.K. 1984. An assessment of rare, vulnerable and endangered South African breeding birds. In: Ledger, J. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Fifth Pan-African Ornithological Congress, Lilongwe 1980, pp. 567-576. Johannesburg: Southern African Ornithological Society.
Claassen, J., Rodriques, L., & Davies, R. 2013. The present status and breeding success of Verreaux's Eagles (Aquila verreauxii) in the Karoo National Park and surrounding areas. Unpublished research report.
Curry, R.C. & Kerlinger, P. 2000. Avian mitigation plan: Kenetech model wind turbines, Altamont Pass WRA, California, In: Proceedings of the National Avian-Wind Power Planning Meeting III, San Diego California, May 1998
Dahl, E.L., Bevanger, K., Nygard, T., Røskaft, E. & Stokke, B.G. 2012. Reduced breeding success in white-tailed eagles at Smøla windfarm, western Norway, is caused by mortality and displacement. Biological Conservation 145: 79–85.
Davies, R. A. G., and D. G. Allan. 1997. "Black eagle Aquila verreauxii." The atlas of southern African birds 1 175-177.
De Lucas, M., Janns, G.F.E., Whitfield, D.P., & Ferrer, M. 2008. Collision fatality of raptors in wind farms does not de- pend on raptor abundance. Journal of Applied Ecology 45: 1695-1703
Drewitt, A.L., & Langston, R.H.W. 2006. Assessig 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. An- nals of the New York Academy of Science 1134: 233-266
Dwyer, J.F., Landon, M.A. and Mojica, E.K. 2018. Impact of Renewable Energy Sources on Birds of Prey. In: Sarasola, J.H., Grande, J.M. and Negro, J.J. (eds). 2018. Birds of Prey Biology and conservation in the XXI century . p 303-321
Endangered Wildlife Trust – Eskom Strategic Partnership. 2019. Central Incident Register data for Karoo region.
Erickson, W.P., Johnson, G.D., Strickland, M.D., Kronner, K., & Bekker, P.S. 1999. Baseline avian use and behaviour at the CARES wind plant site, Klickitat county, Washington. Final Report. Prepared for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
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. National Wind Co-ordinating Committee Resource Document.
Erickson, W.P., Johnson, G.D., Strickland, M.D., Young, Good, R., Bourassa, M., & Bay, K. 2002. Synthesis and compari- son of baseline avian and bat use, raptor nesting and mortality from proposed and existing wind developments. Pre- pared for Bonneville Power Administration.
Everaert, J. 2003. Wind turbines and birds in Flanders: Preliminary study results and recommendations. Natuur. Orio- lus 69: 145-155
FitzPatrick Institute of African Ornithology & HawkWatch International, 2020. Verreaux’s Eagle Risk Assessment. Site: Nuweveld, Red Cap. Application date: 2020 July 27
Gargett, Valerie, and Peter J. Mundy. 1990. The black eagle: a study . Acorn Books.
Gill, J.P., Townsley, M. & Mudge, G.P. 1996. Review of the impact of wind farms and other aerial structures upon birds. Scottish Natural Heritage Review 21.
Grünkorn, T., Blew, J., Krüger, O., Potiek, A., Reichenbach,M., von Rönn, J., Timmermann, H., Weitekamp, S. and Nehls, G. 2017. A Large Scle, Multispecies Assessment of Avian Mortality Rates at Land-Based Wind Turbines in Northern Germany. Wind Energy and Wildlife Interactions- J. Koppel (ed).
Harrison, J.A., Allan, D.G., Underhill, L.G., Herremans, M., Tree, A.J., Parker, V & Brown, C.J. (eds). 1997. The atlas of southern African birds. Vol. 1&2. BirdLife South Africa, Johannesburg.
Hockey, P.A.R., Dean, W.R.J., Ryan, P.G. (Eds) 2005. Roberts – Birds of Southern Africa, VIIth ed. The Trustees of the John Voelcker Bird Book Fund, Cape Town.
Hötker, H., Thomsen, K.M. and Jeromin., H. 2006. Impacts on biodiversity of exploitation of renewable energy re- sources: the example of birds and bats- facts, gaps in knowledge, demands for further research, and ornithological guidelines for the development of renewable energy exploitation. Bergenhusen.
Howell, J.A. Noone, J. 1992. Examination of avian use and mortality at a US Windpower wind energy development site, Montezuma Hills, Solano County, California. Final report. Prepared for Solano County Department of Environ- mental Management, Fairfield, California.
Howell, J.A. 1995. Avian mortality at rotor sweep areas equivalents Altamont Pass and Montezuma Hills, California. Prepared for Kenetech Wind Power, San Francisco, California.
IFC. Good Practice Handbook - Cumulative Impact Assessment and Management: Guidance for the Private Sector in Emerging Markets”. International Finance Corporation.
IUCN 2019. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2.
Janss, G. 2000. Bird behaviour in and near a wind farm at Tarifa, Spain: Management considerations. In Proceedings of National Avian-Wind Power Planning Meeting III, San Diego California, May 1998
Jaroslow, B. 1979. A review of factors involved in bird-tower kills, and mitigation procedures. In G.A. Swanson (Tech co-ord). The Mitigation symposium. A national workshop on mitigation losses of Fish and Wildlife Habitats. US Forest Service General Technical Report. RM-65
Jenkins, A.R., Van Rooyen, C.S., Smallie, J., Harrison, J.A., Diamond, M., Smit-Robbinson, H.A. & Ralston, S. 2015. “Best practice guidelines for assessing and monitoring the impact of wind energy facilities on birds in southern Africa” Un- published guidelines
Jordan, M., & Smallie, J. 2010. A briefing document on best practice for pre-construction assessment of the impacts of onshore wind farms on birds. Endangered Wildlife Trust, Unpublished report.
Karoo Birding Safaris. 2018. Die Poort Wind Farm Site Scoping Report. Unpublished report submitted to RedCap.
Kingsley, A & Whittam, B. 2005. Wind turbines and birds – A background review for environmental assessment. Un- published report for Environment Canada/Canadian Wildlife Service.
Krijgsveld, K.L. Akershoek, K. , Schenk, F., Dijk, F., & Dirksen, S. 2009. Collision risk of birds with modern large wind turbines. Ardea 97: 357-366
Kuvlevsky, W.P., Brennan, L.A., Morrison, M.L., Boydston, K.K., Ballard, B.M. & Bryant, F.C. 2007. Wind energy devel- opment and wildlife conservation: challenges and opportunities. Journal of Wildlife Management 71: 2487-2498.
Ledec, G.C., Rapp, K. W. and Aiello, R. G. 2011. Greening the Wind: Environmental and Social Considerations for Wind Power Development in Latin America and Beyond. The World Bank ESMAP Report. 148 pp.
MacEwan, K., & Smallie, J. 2016. Jeffreys Bay Wind Farm Operational Bird and Bat Monitoring Year 2 Final Report. Unpublished report to Jeffreys Bay Wind Farm.
Marques, A.T., Batalha, H., Rodrigues, S., Costa, H., Pereira, M.J.R, Fonseca, C., Mascarenhas, M. and Bernardino. 2014. Understanding bird collisions at wind farms: An updated review on the causes and possible mitigation strate- gies. Biological Conservation 179: 40-52.
Madders, M. & Whitfield, D.P. 2006. Upland raptors and the assessment of wind farms impacts. Ibis 148: 43-56.
Malan, G. 2009. (ed) Raptor survey and monitoring: a field guide for African birds of prey. Briza.
Marnewick MD, Retief EF, Theron NT, Wright DR, Anderson TA. 2015. Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas of South Africa. Johannesburg: BirdLife South Africa.
Martinéz, J.E., Calco, J.F., Martinéz, J.A., Zuberogoitia, I., Cerezo, E., Manrique, J., Gómez, G.J., Nevado, J.C., Sánchez, M., Sánchez, R., Bayo, J. Pallarés, A., González, C., Gómez, J.M., Pérez, P. & Motos, J. 2010. Potential impact of wind farms on territories of large eagles in southeastern Spain. Biodiversity and Conservation 19: 3757-3767.
Masden EA, Fox AD, Furness RW, Bullman R and Haydon DT 2009. Cumulative impact assessments and bird/wind farm interactions: Developing a conceptual framework. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 30: 1-7.
May, R., Nygard, T., Lie Dahl, E., Reitan, O., & Bevanger, K. 2010. Collision risk in white-tailed eagles,Modelling kernel- based collision risk using satellite telemetry data in Smøla wind-power plant. NINA report 692.
McIsaac HP 2001. Raptor acuity and wind turbine blade conspicuity. Pp. 59-87. National Avian- Wind Power Planning Meeting IV, Proceedings. Prepared by Resolve, Inc., Washington DC.
Mucina, L., & Rutherford, C. 2006. The Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland, South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.
Pagel, J.E., Kritz, K.J., Millsap, B., Murphy, R.K., Kershner, E., and Covington, S. 2013. Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Mortalities at Wind Energy Facilities in the Contiguous United States. Journal of Raptor Research.
Murgatroyd, M., Avery, G., Underhill, L. & Amar, A. 2016b. Adaptability of a specialist predator: The effects of land use on diet diversification and breeding performance of Verreaux’s eagles. Journal of Avian Biology. 47:001-012.
Murgatroyd, M., Underhill, L., Rodrigues, L., & Amar, A. 2016a. The influence of agricultural transformation on the breeding performance of a top predator: Verreauxs’ Eagles in contrasting land use areas. Condor 118: 238-252.
Ralston-Paton, S., Smallie, J., Pearson, A., & Ramalho, R. 2017. Wind energy’s impacts on birds in South Africa: a pre- liminary review of the results of operational monitoring at the first wind farms of the Renewable Energy Independent Power Producer Procurement Programme Wind Farms in South Africa. BirdLife South Africa Occasional Report Series No. 2. BirdLife South Africa, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Ralston-Paton, S. & Camagu, N. 2019. Birds and Renewable Energy: Update for 2019. Unpublished presentation at the Birds & Renewable Energy Forum on 10 October 2019, Cape Town.
Retief, E, Anderson, M., Diamond, M., Smit, H., Jenkins, A. & Brooks, M. 2011/2014. Avian Wind Farm Sensitivity Map for South Africa: Criteria and Procedures used.
Richardson, W.J. 2000. Bird migration and wind turbines: Migration timing, flight behaviour and collision risk. In Pro- ceedings of the National Avian-wind Power Planning Meeting III, San Diego, California, May 1998.
Rydell, J., Engstrom, H., Hedenstrom, A., Larson, J.K., Petterrson, J.& Green, M. 2012. The effect of wind power on birds and bats – a synthesis. Unpublished report by the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. ISBN 978-91-620- 6511-9
Rydell, J., Ottvall, R., Petterrson, J. & Green, M. 2017. The effects of wind power on birds and bats – an updated syn- thesis report. Report by the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency.
Shaw, J.M. 2009. The End of the Line for South Africa’s National Bird? Modelling Power Line Collision Risk for the Blue Crane. Master of Science in Conservation Biology. Percy FitzPatrick Institute of African Ornithology
Shaw J, Jenkins AR and Ryan PG 2010a. Modelling power line collision risk in the Blue Crane Anthropoides paradiseus in South Africa. Ibis 152: 590-599.
Shaw J, Jenkins AR, Ryan PG and Smallie J. 2010b. A preliminary survey of avian mortality on power lines in the Over- berg, South Africa. Ostrich 81: 109-113.
Shaffer, J.A. and Buhl, D.A. 2015. Effects of wind-energy facilities on breeding grassland bird distributions. Conserva- tion Biology 00 1-13 DOI: 10.111/cobi.12569
Stewart, G.B., Pullin, A.S. & Coles, C.F. 2007. Poor evidence-base for assessment of windfarm impacts on birds. Envi- ronmental Conservation 34: 1-11.
Steyn, P. 1989. Birds of Prey of southern Africa. Creda Press Pty Ltd
Smales, I. & Muir, S. 2005. Modelled cumulative impacts on the Tasmanian Wedge-tailed Eagle of wind farms across the species range. Biosis Research Pty. Ltd (for Australian Department of the Environment and Heritage.
Smallie, J. 2015. Verreaux’s’ Eagle Aquila verreauxii wind turbine collision fatalities. Wildskies Ecological Services Short Note.
Smallie, J. 2019. Nuweveld Wind Farms Pre-construction Bird Monitoring Progress reports 1 and 2. Unpublished re- ports submitted to Red Cap.
Smallwood, K.S. & Thelander, C. 2008. Bird mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. Journal of Wildlife Management 72: 215-223.
Taylor, M. R, Peacock, F., & Wanless, R. 2015. The 2015 Eskom Red Data Book of Birds of South Africa, Lesotho & Swaziland.
Taylor, P.B., Navarro, R.A., Wren-Sargent, M., Harrison, J.A. & Kieswetter, S.L. 1999. Coordinated waterbird Counts in South Africa, 1992-1997 . Avian Demography Unit, Cape Town.
Tarboton. W. 1989. Breeding behavior of Denham’s Bustard. Bustard Studies 4: 160-165
Thelander, C.G., and Rugge, L. 2001. Examining relationships between bird risk behaviours and fatalities at the Alta- mont Wind Resource Area: a second years progress report In: Schwartz, S.S. (Ed), Proceedings of the National Avian – Wind Power Planning Meeting 4 Carmel, CA, May 16-17 2000.
Thaxter, C.B., Buchanan, G.M., Carr, J. Butchart, S.H.M., Newbold, T., Green, R.E., Tobias, J.A., Foden, W.B., O’Brien, S. and pearce-Higgins, J.W. 2017. Bird and bat species’global vulnerability to collision mortality at wind farms revealed through a trait-based assessment. Proc. R. Soc. B. 284: 20170829 van Eeden R, Whitfield DP, Botha A, Amar A (2017) Ranging behaviour and habitat preferences of the Martial Eagle: Implications for the conservation of a declining apex predator. PLoS ONE 12(3): e0173956. https://doi.org/ 10.1371/journal.pone.0173956
Van Rooyen , C.S. & Ledger, J.A. 1999. Birds and utility structures: Developments in southern Africa. Pp 205-230 in Ferrer, M. & G..F.M. Janns. (eds.) Birds and Power lines. Quercus, Madrid, Spain. 238pp.
Van Rooyen, C.S. 2004. The Management of Wildlife Interactions with overhead lines. In: The Fundamentals and prac- tice of Overhead Line Maintenance (132kV and above), pp217-245. Eskom Technology, Services International, Johan- nesburg 2004.
Vasilakis, D.P., Whitfield, D.P. and Vassiliki, K. 2017. A balanced solution to the cumulative threat of industrialized wind farm development on cinereous vultures (Aegypius monachus) in south-eastern Europe. PLoS ONE 12(2): e0172685. Doi: 10.371/journal.pone.0172685
Weir, R. D. 1976. Annotated bibliography of bird kills at manmade obstacles: a review of the state of the art and solu- tions. Canadian Wildlife Services, Ontario Region, Ottawa.
Young, D.J., Harrison, J.A., Navarro, R.A., Anderson, M.D., & Colahan, B.D. (eds) 2003. Big Birds on Farms: Mazda CAR Report 1993-2001. Avian Demography Unit. Cape Town.
Websites: www.sabap2.adu.org.za. The Second Southern African Bird Atlas Project. In progress. www.iucnredlist.org . www.abcbirds.org American Bird Conservancy www.sibleyguides.com Sibley Guides www.nssf.org National Shooting Sports Foundation www.project-gpwind.eu The Good Practice Wind project www.birdlife.org Birdlife International www.birdlife.org.za BirdLife South Africa www.iucnredlist.org . Accessed 2017 www.car.adu.org.za . CAR project www.africanraptors.org www.redz.csir.co.za www.cwac.adu.org.za www.car.adu.org.za APPENDIX 1. BIRD SPECIES RECORDED ON THE CONSOLIDATED NUWEVELD WIND FARMS SITE.
‘1’ denotes presence not abundance Taylor et al 2015 – most recent regional conservation status for species. IUCN 2019 – Global conservation status Endemic (E)/near endemic (NE)– whether the species is endemic or near endemic to South Africa. TOPS – National Environmental Management Act – Threatened or Protected Species List Retief et al 2014 – the species ranking in terms of turbine collision risk – as per Avian Wind Farm Sensitivity Map. Autumn, Winter etc – recorded in these seasons by preconstruction bird monitoring.
Common name Taxonomic name Taylor et al TOPS IUCN Endemic Retief et al Autumn Winter Spring Summer 2015 list 2019 2014 Ludwig's Bustard Neotis ludwigii EN VU EN 13 1 1 1 Martial Eagle Polemaetus bellicosus EN VU VU 4 1 1 1 1 Ground Woodpecker Geocolaptes olivaceus LC NT E 115 1 1 African Rock Pipit Anthus crenatus NT LC E 77 1 1 1 Karoo Korhaan Eupodotis vigorsii NT LC 51 1 1 1 1 Blue Crane Anthropoides paradiseus NT E VU E 11 1 Black Stork Ciconia nigra VU VU LC 8 1 1 Verreauxs' Eagle Aquila verreauxii VU LC 3 1 1 1 1 Lanner Falcon Falco biarmicus VU LC 23 1 Secretarybird Sagittarius serpentarius VU VU 12 1 Booted Eagle Aquila pennatus LC 55 1 1 1 Grey-winged Francolin Scleroptila africanus E 79 1 1 1 1 Pied Starling Spreo bicolor E 116 1 1 1 1 Karoo Lark Calendulauda albescens E 124 1 Large-billed Lark Galerida magnirostris E 125 1 1 1 1 Namaqua Warbler Phragmacia substriata E 128 1 1 Fairy Flycatcher Stenostira scita E 170 1 Cape White-eye Zosterops virens E 183 1 1 Southern Double-collared Sunbird Cinnyris chalybeus E 184 1 1 Black-eared Sparrowlark Eremopterix australis NE 108 1 1 Black-headed Canary Serinus alario NE 109 1 1 1 1 Cinnamon-breasted Warbler Euryptila subcinnamomea NE 145 1 1 1 1 Karoo Eremomela Eremomela gregalis NE 154 1 1 1 1 Layard's Tit-Babbler Parisoma layardi NE 155 1 1 1 1 Karoo Prinia Prinia maculosa NE 157 1 1 1 1 Sickle-winged Chat Cercomela sinuata NE 158 1 1 1 1 Grey Tit Parus afer NE 186 1 1 1 1 Groundscraper Thrush Psophocichla litsitsirupa NE 1
Jackal Buzzard Buteo rufofuscus 44 1 1 1 1 Black-chested Snake-Eagle Circaetus pectoralis 56 1 Steppe Buzzard Buteo vulpinus 69 1 1 Southern Pale Chanting Goshawk Melierax canorus 75 1 1 1 1 African Harrier-Hawk Polyboroides typus 83 1 Rufous-chested Sparrowhawk Accipiter rufiventris 102 1 1 Rock Kestrel Falco rupicolus 111 1 1 1 1 Namaqua Sandgrouse Pterocles namaqua 112 1 1 1 1 Lark-like Bunting Emberiza impetuani 126 1 1 1 1 Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica 127 1 1 Gabar Goshawk Melierax gabar 131 1 Three-banded Plover Charadrius tricollaris 140 1 1 1 1 Short-toed Rock-Thrush Monticola brevipes 143 1 1 Karoo Long-billed Lark Certhilauda subcoronata 148 1 1 1 1 Rufous-eared Warbler Malcorus pectoralis 149 1 1 1 1 Blacksmith Lapwing Vanellus armatus 159 1 1 1 1 Egyptian Goose Alopochen aegyptiaca 162 1 1 1 1 Capped Wheatear Oenanthe pileata 167 1 1 1 European Bee-eater Merops apiaster 172 1 Karoo Chat Cercomela schlegelii 177 1 1 1 1 Dusky Sunbird Cinnyris fuscus 199 1 1 1 1 Acacia Pied Barbet Tricholaema leucomelas 1 1 1 1 African Pipit Anthus cinnamomeus 1 1 1 1 African Red-eyed Bulbul Pycnonotus nigricans 1 1 1 1 Ant-eating Chat Myrmecocichla formicivora 1 1 1 1 Bokmakierie Telophorus zeylonus 1 1 1 1 Cape Bunting Emberiza capensis 1 1 1 1 Cape Crow Corvus capensis 1 1 1 1 Cape Penduline-Tit Anthoscopus minutus 1 1 1 1 Cape Robin-Chat Cossypha caffra 1 1 1 1 Cape Sparrow Passer melanurus 1 1 1 1 Cape Turtle-Dove Streptopelia capicola 1 1 1 1 Cape Wagtail Motacilla capensis 1 1 1 1 Chat Flycatcher Bradornis infuscatus 1 1 1 1 Chestnut-vented Tit-Babbler Parisoma subcaeruleum 1 1 1 1 Common Fiscal Lanius collaris 1 1 1 1 Crowned Lapwing Vanellus coronatus 1 1 1 1 Familiar Chat Cercomela familiaris 1 1 1 1 Grey-backed Cisticola Cisticola subruficapilla 1 1 1 1 Grey-backed Sparrowlark Eremopterix verticalis 1 1 1 1 Hadeda Ibis Bostrychia hagedash 1 1 1 1
House Sparrow Passer domesticus 1 1 1 1 Karoo Scrub-Robin Cercotrichas coryphoeus 1 1 1 1 Karoo Thrush Turdus smithi 1 1 1 1 Laughing Dove Streptopelia senegalensis 1 1 1 1 Long-billed Crombec Sylvietta rufescens 1 1 1 1
Long-billed Pipit Anthus similis 1 1 1 1 Malachite Sunbird Nectarinia famosa 1 1 1 1 Mountain Wheatear Oenanthe monticola 1 1 1 1 Namaqua Dove Oena capensis 1 1 1 1 Pale-winged Starling Onychognathus nabouroup 1 1 1 1 Pied Crow Corvus albus 1 1 1 1 Red-eyed Dove Streptopelia semitorquata 1 1 1 1 Red-faced Mousebird Urocolius indicus 1 1 1 1 Rock Martin Hirundo fuligula 1 1 1 1 Sabota Lark Calendulauda sabota 1 1 1 1 Southern Masked-Weaver Ploceus velatus 1 1 1 1 Spike-heeled Lark Chersomanes albofasciata 1 1 1 1 White-backed Mousebird Colius colius 1 1 1 1 White-necked Raven Corvus albicollis 1 1 1 1 White-throated Canary Crithagra albogularis 1 1 1 1 Yellow Canary Crithagra flaviventris 1 1 1 1 African Hoopoe Upupa africana 1 1 1 Black-throated Canary Crithagra atrogularis 1 1 1 Helmeted Guineafowl Numida meleagris 1 1 1 Red-winged Starling Onychognathus morio 1 1 1 South African Shelduck Tadorna cana 1 1 1 Speckled Pigeon Columba guinea 1 1 1 Yellow-bellied Eremomela Eremomela icteropygialis 1 1 1 African Spoonbill Platalea alba 1 1 Greater Striped Swallow Hirundo cucullata 1 1 Little Swift Apus affinis 1 1 Red-capped Lark Calandrella cinerea 1 1 Southern Red Bishop Euplectes orix 1 1 White-rumped Swift Apus caffer 1 1 African Black Swift Apus barbatus 1 African Sacred Ibis Threskiornis aethiopicus 1 Alpine Swift Tachymarptis melba 1 Black-winged Stilt Himantopus himantopus 1 Cape Teal Anas capensis 1 Common Greenshank Tringa nebularia 1 Common Swift Apus apus 1
Little Stint Calidris minuta 1 Pied Avocet Recurvirostra avosetta 1 Southern Grey-headed Sparrow Passer diffusus 1 Spur-winged Goose Plectropterus gambensis 1
APPENDIX 2. IMPACT ASSESSMENT CRITERIA (AURECON)
Methodology This section outlines the proposed method for assessing the significance of the potential environmental impacts. For each predicted impact, criteria are ascribed, and these include the intensity (size or degree scale), which also includes the type of impact, being either a positive or negative impact; the duration (temporal scale); and the extent (spatial scale), as well as the probability (likelihood). The methodology is quantitative, whereby professional judgement is used to identify a rating for each criteria based on a seven-point scale; and the significance is auto-generated using a spreadsheet through application of the calculations. Specialists can comment where they disagree with the auto- calculated impact significance rating.
Calculations For each predicted impact, certain criteria are applied to establish the likely significance of the impact, firstly in the case of no mitigation being applied and then with the most ef- fective mitigation measure(s) in place. These criteria include the intensity (size or degree scale), which also includes the type of impact, being either a positive or negative impact; the duration (temporal scale); and the extent (spatial scale). These numerical ratings are used in an equation whereby the con- sequence of the impact can be calculated. Consequence is calculated as follows: Consequence = type x (intensity + duration + extent)
Figure 1. Calculation of significance
Table 1. Assessment criteria for the evaluation of impacts Numerical Criteria Category Description Rating 1 Immediate Impact will self-remedy immediately 2 Brief Impact will not last longer than 1 year 3 Short term Impact will last between 1 and 5 years Duration 4 Medium term Impact will last between 5 and 10 years 5 Long term Impact will last between 10 and 15 years 6 On -going Impact will last between 15 and 20 years 7 Permanent Impact may be permanent, or in excess of 20 years 1 Very limited Limited to specific isolated parts of the site 2 Limited Limited to the site and its immediate surroundings 3 Local Extending across the site and to nearby settlements Extent 4 Municipal area Impacts felt at a municipal level 5 Regional Impacts felt at a regional level 6 National Impacts felt at a national level 7 International Impacts felt at an international level 1 Negligible Natural and/ or social functions and/ or processes are negligibly altered 2 Very low Natural and/ or social functions and/ or processes are slightly altered 3 Low Natural and/ or social functions and/ or processes are somewhat altered Intensity 4 Moderate Natural and/ or social functions and/ or processes are moderately altered 5 High Natural and/ or social functions and/ or processes are notably altered 6 Very high Natural and/ or social functions and/ or processes are majorly altered 7 Extremely high Natural and/ or social functions and/ or processes are severely altered Highly unlikely / 1 Expected never to happen None Conceivable, but only in extreme circumstances, and/or might occur for this 2 Rare / improbable project although this has rarely been known to result elsewhere Probability Has not happened yet but could happen once in the lifetime of the project, 3 Unlikely therefore there is a possibility that the impact will occur 4 Probable Has occurred here or elsewhere and could therefore occur 5 Likely The impact may occur Numerical Criteria Category Description Rating Almost certain / 6 It is most likely that the impact will occur Highly probable There are sound scientific reasons to expect that the impact will definitely oc- 7 Certain / Definite cur When assessing impacts, broader considerations are also taken into account. These include the level of confidence in the assessment rating; the reversibility of the impact; and the irreplaceability of the resource as set out below.
Table 2. Definition of confidence ratings Category Description Low Judgement is based on intuition Medium Determination is based on common sense and general knowledge High Substantive supportive data exists to verify the assessment
Table 3. Definition of reversibility ratings Category Description Low The affected environment will not be able to recover from the impact - permanently modified Medium The affected environment will only recover from the impact with significant intervention High The affected environmental will be able to recover from the impact
Table 4. Definition of irreplaceability ratings Category Description Low The resource is not damaged irreparably or is not scarce Medium The resource is damaged irreparably but is represented elsewhere High The resource is irreparably damaged and is not represented elsewhere
APPENDIX 3. DURING & POST CONSTRUCTION BIRD MONITORING PROGRAMME
The work done to date on the Nuweveld Wind Farms site has established a baseline understanding of the distribution, abundance and movement of key bird species on and near the site. However this is purely the ‘before’ baseline and aside from providing input into turbine micro-siting, it is not very informative until compared to post construction data. The following programme has therefore been developed to meet these needs. It is recommended that this programme be implemented by the Nuweveld East Wind Farm if constructed. The findings from operational phase monitoring should inform an adaptive management programme to mitigate any imnpacts on avifauna to acceptable levels. In particular, any Verreaux’s Eagle fatalities should be reported to Dr Megan Murgatroyd in order to close the feedback loop back to the VERA modelling performed for this site.
During construction monitoring It will be necessary to monitor the breeding status and productivity of the nesting raptors during all breeding seasons during construction. This can be done by a minimum of 3 specialist visits to the nest site per breeding season, or close enough to observe the birds without disturbing them. Detailed requirements as follows:
• Independent avifaunal specialist to make 3 visits to nest site in each breeding season (May to October) during construction. • Breeding status & productivity to be determined. • Any response by eagles to construction disturbance to be documented.
Operational phase monitoring The intention with operational phase bird monitoring is to repeat as closely as possible the methods and activities used to collect data pre-construction. This work will allow the assessment of the impacts of the proposed facility and the development of active and passive mitigation measures that can be implemented in the future where necessary. One very important additional component needs to be added, namely mortality estimates through carcass searches under turbines. The following programme has therefore been developed to meet these needs, and should start as soon as possible after the operation of the first phase of turbines (not later than 3 months):
Note that this framework is an interim draft. The most up to date version of the best practice guidelines (Jenkins et al 2015) should inform the programme design at the time.
Live bird monitoring Note that due to the construction of the wind farm and particularly new roads it may be necessary to update the lo- cation of the below monitoring activities from those used pre-construction. » The 24 walked transects of 1km each that have been done during pre-construction monitoring on the overall Nuweveld Wind Farms site should be continued. On Nuweveld East specifically at least 9 walked transects of 1km each should be done. » The 6 vehicle based road count routes on the overall Nuweveld Wind Farms should be continued, and con- ducted twice on each site visit. On Nuweveld East specifically at least two drive transects should be done. » The focal sites on the overall Nuweveld Wind Farms should be monitored. If any sensitive species are found breeding on site in future these nest sites should be defined as focal sites. » All other incidental sightings of priority species (and particularly those suggestive of breeding or important feeding or roosting sites or flight paths) within the broader study area should be carefully plotted and docu- mented. » The 18 Vantage Points already established on the overall site should be used to continue data collection post construction. The exact positioning of these may need to be refined based on the presence of new turbines and roads. A total of 18 hours of observation should be conducted at each vantage point on each site visit, re- sulting in a total of 72 hours direct observation per Vantage Point per year. At Nuweveld East, the exact number of Vantage Points should be determined once the layout is finalised. » The activities at the control site should be continued, i.e. 2 Vantage Points, 3 Walked Transects, 1 Vehicle Based transects, and Focal Sites.
Bird Fatality estimates
This is now an accepted component of the post construction monitoring program and the newest guidelines (Jenkins et al, 2015) will be used to design the monitoring program. It is important that in addition to searching for carcasses under turbines, an estimate of the detection (the success rate that monitors achieve in finding carcasses) and scav- enging rates (the rate at which carcasses are removed and hence not available for detection) is also obtained (Jenkins et al , 2015). Both of these aspects can be measured using a sample of carcasses of birds placed out in the field ran- domly. The rate at which these carcasses are detected and the rate at which they decay or are removed by scaven- gers should also be measured.
Fatality searches should be conducted as follows:
» The area surrounding the base of turbines should be searched (up to a radius equal to 75% of the maximum height of turbine) for collision victims. » All turbines on Nuweveld East Wind Farm should be searched at least once a week (Monday to Friday). If any prioritisation is given to a sub set of turbines, those identified as being in Medium sensitivity by the VERA model. » Any suspected collision casualty should be comprehensively documented (for more detail see Jenkins et al , 2015). » A team of carcass searchers will need to be employed and these carcass searchers will work on site every day searching the turbines for mortalities. » It is also important that associated infrastructure such as power lines and wind masts be searched for collision victims according to similar methods.
The most up to date version of the best practice guidelines (Jenkins et al , 2015) should inform the programme design at the time.
The above programme should be reported on quarterly to wind farm operator, who should submit these reports to the DEA and BirdLife South Africa. These report should include a comparison of actual measured fatality rates with those predicted by this study.
APPENDIX 4. DEA SITE SCREENING TOOL
Site verification report – Avian Theme Government Notice No. 320, dated 20 March 2020, includes the requirement that an Initial Site Sensitivity Verifica- tion Report must be produced for a development footprint. As per Part 1, Section 2.3, the outcome of the Initial Site Verification must be recorded in the form of a report that-
(a) Confirms or disputes the current use of the land and environmental sensitivity as identified by the national web based environmental screening tool; (b) Contains a motivation and evidence of either the verified or different use of the land and environmental sen- sitivity; (c) Is submitted together with the relevant reports prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Envi- ronmental Impact Assessment Regulations.
This report has been produced specifically to consider the avifauna theme and addresses the content requirements of (a) and (b) above. The report will be appended to the respective specialist study included in the Scoping and EIA Re- ports produced for the projects.
Site sensitivity based on the avian (wind) theme included in the Screening Tool and specialist assessment
Based on the DEA Screening Tool, the site contains areas of low sensitivity (Figure 1).
Figure 1. DEA Screening Tool outcome for the terrestrial biodiversity theme
Based on the above outcomes, the specialist disputes the environmental sensitivity identified on site. The findings of the dispute have been informed by data obtained as part of the on-going avifaunal monitoring occurring on site. A five day initial site visit in March 2019 and a further few days in May and September 2019 were conducted by the specialist. The primary aims of these site visits were to survey the site for large eagle breeding sites, and to design the pre-construction bird monitoring programme which started in May 2019. The site was visited again in September 2019. As much as possible of the site was covered by vehicle and on foot. A helicopter flight over the grid and WEF site was also conducted. Suitable nesting substrate (predominantly cliffs) were surveyed using a spotting scope and where necessary approached on foot.
In addition, 21 days in May and 21 days in August were spent on site by a team of 4 ornithologists to collect data.
At a macro or landscape level, the following factors were considered in assessing the sensitivity of the Nuweveld Wind Farms:
» Important Bird & Biodiversity Areas (IBBA’s – Marnewick et al 2015). The Karoo National Park IBBA is situated approximately 25km south of the closest proposed turbine position. » The “Avian Wind Farm Sensitivity Map” developed by Retief et al (2015). The outputs of this map are superim- posed on the proposed site boundary in Figure 4. The site is classified in the lowest of 5 categories of sensitivi- ty. The southern section of the grid connection route passes through some higher sensitivity areas. » Protected areas. The Karoo National Park is relevant but has been mapped above under the IBBA section.
Overall then the proposed WEF site is situated in an area of Low to Moderate sensitivity on a national scale.
On the WEF, the Verreaux’s Eagle is the key issue, with several confirmed nests. In the case of the WEF the no-go buffer size (3km) around nests is prescribed by the BirdLife South Africa best practice guidelines. These guidelines also prescribe a 1km buffer for the construction of other WEF infrastructure during breeding season. In addition, a Martial Eagle nest requires a 6km buffer. The various sensitivities associated with the site are shown in Figure 2 be- low.
Figure 2. Environmental sensitivity map produced by the avifaunal specialist
In conclusion, the DEA Screening Tool identified one sensitivity rating within the development footprint, namely, low. Although there is some overlap with the findings on site and the Screening Tool’s outcome, the development foot- print contains various sensitivities (very high (i.e. no-go), high, and low) that were identified following the undertaking of several site visits and spatial input considerations.
The environmental sensitivity input received from the avifaunal specialist will be taken forward and considered within the Scoping and EIA process and the impact to these areas assessed. Appropriate layout and development restrictions will be implemented within the development footprint to ensure that the impact to birds is deemed acceptable by the avifaunal specialist and Birdlife.
DEA Assessment Protocols – requirements checklist
General Avifaunal Specialist Assessment (ASA) required for all sensitivity categories √ (screening tool) ASA to be done by a SACNASP registered specialist √ (400020/06) Three phases: reconnaissance study, pre-application monitoring plan; Avifaunal √ Specialist Assessment Data collected over four seasons √ Data collected on preferred & control site √ Data captured on national bird monitoring database once operational na Reconnaissance study Desktop + 2 to 4 day inspection of preferred & control site √ Identify occurrence of target species √ Define study area/avifaunal impact zone √ Produce Pre-Application Avifaunal Monitoring Plan √ Pre-Application Avi- Map study area & characterise, including operational wind farms within 30km √ (none opera- faunal Monitoring Plan tional) Identify target species √ Describe monitoring interval, number, duration, location of points, aspects, √ equipment ASA – to include: Discuss bird abundance & movement on site √ Discuss presence of target species & their flight height √ Assess target species turbine collision fatality rates √ Identify bird routes & corridors √ Discuss displacement, where relevant √ Map very high sensitivity areas, where relevant √ In areas where operational wind farms exist within 30km conduct a cumulative √ impact assessment which includes a map & following: • Fatality rates for target species at wind farms within 10km na • Possible additional fatalities from the proposed wind farm √ • Discuss cumulative impacts of proposed wind farm on target species in region √ Where no operational wind farms exist within 10km – discuss possible cumulative √ impacts from the proposed wind farm Include a plan for post construction monitoring including: √ • Time frames & intervals, reporting requirements √ • Number of turbines & specific areas to monitor √ • Methods, extent of monitoring area, incl searcher efficiency & scav removal √ • Results of monitoring compared against expected fatality rates √ SACNASP registration number of specialist √ Signed statement of independence √ Description of study area √ Outcome of reconnaissance study & monitoring √ Map showing monitoring points for preferred & control site √ Discuss impact of proposed facility on birds based on monitoring findings √ Substantiated statement indicating acceptability & recommendation on approval √ or not Conditions to above statement √ Outcomes of post construction monitoring uploaded to national bird monitoring na database once operational Where required, mitigation & monitoring requirements for inclusion in EMPR √ Description of assumptions & uncertainties & gaps in knowledge & data √ Findings of Specialist Avifaunal Study incorporated into BA or EIA report & EMPr AURECON Signed copy of Avifaunal Specialist Assessment appended to BA or EIA AURECON
APPENDIX 5. SPECIALIST CV
JONATHAN JAMES SMALLIE WildSkies Ecological Services ( 2011/131435/07) Curriculum Vitae
BACKGROUND Date of birth: 20 October 1975 Qualifications: BSC – Agriculture (Hons) (completed 1998) University of Natal – Pietermaritzburg MSC – Environmental Science (completed 2011) University of Witwaterstrand Occupation: Specialist avifaunal consultant Profession registration: South African Council for Natural Scientific Professions
CONTACT DETAILS Cell number: 082 444 8919 Fax: 086 615 5654 Email: [email protected] Postal: 36 Utrecht Avenue, Bonnie Doon, East London, 5210 ID #: 7510205119085
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Strategic Assessments: East Cape Biodiversity Strategy & Action Plan – avifauna.
Renewable energy:
Post construction bird monitoring for wind energy facilities: Dassieklip (Caledon) –initiated in April 2014 (2yrs); Dorper Wind Farm (Molteno) – initiated in July 2014 (2yrs); Jef- freys Bay Wind Farm – initiated in August 2014 (4yrs); Kouga Wind Farm – started Feb 2015 (2yrs); Cookhouse West Wind Farm – started March 2015 (1yr); Grassridge Wind Farm – initiated in April 2015 (2yrs); Chaba Wind Farm – ini- tiated December 2015 (1yr); Amakhala Emoyeni 01 Wind Farm initiated August 2016 (2yrs); Gibson Bay Wind Farm – initiated March 2017 (2yrs); Nojoli Wind Farm initiated March 2017 (2yrs); Sere Wind Farm (2yrs).
Pre-construction bird monitoring & EIA for wind energy facilities: Golden Valley 1; Middleton; Dorper; Qumbu; Ncora; Nqamakhwe; Ndakana; Thomas River; Peddie; Mossel Bay; Hluhluwe; Richards Bay; Garob; Outeniqua; Castle; Wolf; Inyanda-Roodeplaat; Dassiesridge; Great Kei; Bayview; Gra- hamstown; Bakenskop; Umsobomvu; Stormberg; Zingesele; Oasis; Gunstfontein; Naumanii; Golden Valley Phase 2; Ngxwabangu; Hlobo; Woodstock; Scarlet Ibis; Albany; Golden Valley 1 2 nd monitoring; Umtathi Emoyeni; Pensulo Zambia; Unika 1 Zambia; Impofu; Nuweveld; Kleinsee wind energy facilities.
Screening studies for wind energy facilities: Tarkastad Wind Farm; Quanti Wind Farm; Ruitjies Wind Farm; Stutterheim Wind Farm; Molteno Wind Farm; Noupoort Wind Farm.
Avifaunal walk through for wind energy facilities: Garob Wind Farm; Golden Valley 1 wind farm; Nxuba Wind Farm.
Pre-construction bird monitoring and EIA for Solar energy facilities: Bonnievale Solar Energy Facility; Dealesville Solar Energy Facility; Rooipunt Solar Energy Facility; De Aar Solar Energy Facility; Noupoort Solar Energy Facility, Aggeneys Solar Energy Facility; Eskom Concentrated Solar Power Plant; Bronkhorstspruit Solar Photovoltaic Plant; De Aar Solar Energy Facility; Paulputs Solar Energy Facility; Kenhardt Solar Energy Facility; Wheatlands Solar Energy Facility; Nampower CSP project;
Other Electricity Generation: Port of Nqura Power Barge EIA; Tugela Hydro-Electric Scheme; Mmamabula West Coal Power Station (Botswana).
Electricity transmission & distribution: Overhead transmission power lines (>132 000 kilovolts): Oranjemund Gromis 220kv; Perseus Gamma 765kv; Aries Kronos 765kv; Aries Helios 765kv; Perseus Kronos 765kv; Helios Juno 765kv; Borutho Nzelele 400kv; Foskor Merensky 275kv; Kimberley Strengthening; Mercury Perseus 400kV; Eros Neptune Grassridge 400kV; Kudu Juno 400kV; Garona Aries 400kV; Perseus Hydra 765kV; Tabor Witkop 275kV; Tabor Spencer 400kV; Moropule Orapa 220kV (Botswana); Coega Electrification; Majuba Venus 765kV; Gam- ma Grassridge 765kV; Gourikwa Proteus 400KV; Koeberg Strengthening 400kV; Ariadne Eros 400kV; Hydra Gamma 765kV; Zizabona transmission – Botswana; Maphutha Witkop 400kv; Makala B 400kv; Aggeneis Paulputs 400kv; Northern Alignment 765kv; Kappa Omega 765kv; Isundu 400kv and Substation; Senakangwedi B Integration; Oran- jemund Gromis;
Overhead distribution power lines (<132 000 kilovolts): Kanoneiland 22KV; Hydra Gamma 765kV; Komani Manzana 132kV; Rockdale Middelburg 132kV; Irenedale 132 kV; Zandfontein 132kV; Venulu Makonde 132 kV; Spencer Makonde 132 kV; Dalkeith Jackal Creek 132kV; Glen Austin 88kV; Bulgerivier 132kV; Ottawa Tongaat 132kV; Disselfontein 132kV; Voorspoed Mine 132kV; Wonderfontein 132kV; Kabokweni Hlau Hlau 132kV; Hazyview Kiepersol 132kV; Mayfern Delta 132kV; VAAL Vresap 88kV; Arthursview Modderkuil 88kV; Orapa, AK6, Lethakane substations and 66kV lines (Botswana); Dagbreek Hermon 66kV; Uitkoms Majuba 88kV; Pilanesberg Spitskop 132kV; Qumbu PG Bison 132kV; Louis Trichardt Venetia 132kV; Rockdale Middel- burg Ferrochrome 132kV; New Continental Cement 132KV; Hillside 88kV; Marathon Delta 132kV; Malelane Boulder 132kV; Nondela Strengthening 132kV; Spitskop Northern Plats 132kV; West Acres Mataffin 132kV; Westgate Tarlton Kromdraai 132kV; Sappi Elliot Ugie 132kV; Melkhout Thyspunt 132kV; St Francis Bay 66kv; Etna Ennerdale 88kv; Kroonstad 66kv; Firham Platrand; Paradise Fondwe 132kv; Kraal Mafube 132kv; Loeriesfontein 132kv; Albany Mimosa 66kv; Zimanga 132kv; Grootpan Brakfontein; Mandini Mangethe; Valkfontein Substation; Sishen Saldanha; Corinth Mzongwana 132kv; Franklin Vlei 22kv; Simmerpan Strengthening; Ilanga Lethemba 132kv; Cuprum Burchell Mooid- raai 132; Oliphantskop Grassridge 132;
Risk Assessments on existing power lines: Hydra-Droerivier 1,2 & 3 400kV; Hydra-Poseidon 1,2 400kV; Butterworth Ncora 66kV; Nieu-Bethesda 22kV; Maclear 22kV (Joelshoek Valley Project); Wodehouse 22kV (Dordrecht district); Burgersdorp Aliwal North Jamestown 22kV; Cradock 22kV; Colesberg area 22kV; Loxton self build 11kV; Kanoneiland 22kV; Stutterheim Municipality 22kV; Ma- juba-Venus 400kV; Chivelston-Mersey 400kV; Marathon-Prairie 275kV; Delphi-Neptune 400kV; Ingagane – Bloukrans 275kV; Ingagane – Danskraal 275kV; Danskraal – Bloukrans 275kV
Avifaunal “walk through” (EMP’s): Kappa Omega 765kv; Rockdale Marble Hall 400kv ; Beta Delphi 400kV; Mercury Perseus 765kV; Perseus 765kV Substa- tion; Beta Turn 765kV in lines; Spencer Tabor 400kV line; Kabokweni Hlau Hlau 132kV; Mayfern Delta 132kV; Eros Mtata 400kV; Cennergi Grid connect 132kV; Melkhout Thyspunt 132kv; Imvubu Theta 400kv; Outeniqua Oudshoorn 132kv; Clocolan Ficksburg 88kv.
Strategic Environmental Assessments for Master Electrification Plans: Northern Johannesburg area; Southern KZN and Northern Eastern Cape; Northern Pretoria; Western Cape Peninsula
Other electrical infrastructure work Investigation into rotating Bird Flapper saga – Aberdeen 22kV; Special investigation into faulting on Ariadne-Eros 132kV; Special investigation into Bald Ibis faulting on Tutuka Pegasus 275kV; Special investigation into bird related faulting on 22kV Geluk Hendrina line; Special investigation into bird related faulting on Camden Chivelston 400kV line
Water sector: Umkhomazi Dam and associated tunnel and pipelines; Rosedale Waste Water Treatment Works; Lanseria Outfall Sewer; Lanseria Wastewater Treatment Works;
Wildlife airport hazards: Kigali International Airport – Rwanda; Port Elizabeth Airport – specialist study as part of the EIA for the proposed Madiba Bay Leisure Park; Manzini International Airport (Swaziland); Polokwane International Airport; Mafekeng In- ternational Airport; Lanseria Airport
Other sectors: Lizzard Point Golf Estate – Vaaldam; Lever Creek Estates housing development; East Cape Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan 2017; Cathedral Peak Road diversion; Dube Tradeport; East London Transnet Ports Authority Biodiversity Management Plan; Leazonia Feedlot; Carisbrooke Quarry; Senekal Sugar Development; Frankfort Paper Mill;
Employment positions held to date: o August 1999 to May 2004: Eastern Cape field officer for the South African Crane Working Group of the Endan- gered Wildlife Trust o May 2004 to November 2007: National Field officer for Eskom-EWT Strategic Partnership and Airports Company SA – EWT Strategic Partnership (both programmes of Endangered Wildlife Trust) o November 2007 to August 2011: Programme Manager – Wildlife & Energy Programme – Endangered Wildlife Trust o August 2011 to present: Independent avifaunal specialist – Director at WildSkies Ecological Sevices (Pty) Ltd
Relevant achievements: o Recipient of BirdLife South Africa’s Giant Eagle Owl in 2011 for outstanding contribution to bird conservation in SA o Founded and chaired for first two years – the Birds and Wind Energy Specialist Group (BAWESG) of the Endan- gered Wildlife Trust & BirdLife South Africa.
Conferences attended & presented at: o August 2019. Conference of Wind Energy and Wildlife, Stirlign, Scotland. o November 2018. Raptor Research Foundation. Skukuza, Soith Africa. o October 2017. Conference of Wind Energy and Wildlife, Estoril Portugal o May 2011. Conference of Wind Energy and Wildlife, Trondheim, Norway. o March 2011. Chair and facilitator at Endangered Wildlife Trust – Wildlife & Energy Programme – “2011 Wildlife & Energy Symposium”, Howick, SA o September 2010 – Raptor Research Foundation conference, Fort Collins, Colorado. Presented on the use of cam- era traps to investigate Cape Vulture roosting behaviour on transmission lines o May 2010 - Wind Power Africa 2010. Presented on wind energy and birds o October 2008. Session chair at Pan-African Ornithological Conference, Cape Town, South Africa o March 27 – 30 2006: International Conference on Overhead Lines, Design, Construction, Inspection & Mainte- nance, Fort Collins Colorado USA. Presented a paper entitled “Assessing the power line network in the Kwa-Zulu Natal Province of South Africa from a vulture interaction perspective”. o June 2005: IASTED Conference at Benalmadena, Spain – presented a paper entitled “Impact of bird streamers on quality of supply on transmission lines: a case study” o May 2005: International Bird Strike Committee 27th meeting – Athens, Greece. Presented a paper entitled Bird Strike Data analysis at SA airports 1999 to 2004. o 2003: Presented a talk on “Birds & Power lines” at the 2003 AGM of the Amalgamated Municipal Electrical Un- ions – in Stutterheim - Eastern Cape o September 2000: 5th World Conference on Birds of Prey in Seville, Spain.
Papers & publications: o Prinsen, H.A.M., J.J. Smallie, G.C. Boere, & N. Pires. (compilers), 2011. Guidelines on how to avoid or mitigate impacts of electricity power grids on migratory birds in the African-Eurasian Region. CMS Technical Series Num- ber XX. Bonn, Germany. o Prinsen, H.A.M., J.J. Smallie, G.C. Boere, & N. Pires. (compilers), 2011. Review of the conflict between migratory birds and electricity power grids in the African-Eurasian region. CMS Technical Series Number XX, Bonn, Germa- ny. o Jenkins, A.R., van Rooyen, C.S, Smallie, J.J, Harrison, J.A., Diamond, M.D., Smit-Robinson, H.A & Ralston, S. 2014. Best practice guidelines for avian monitoring and impact mitigation at proposed wind energy development sites in southern Africa o 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. o Jordan, M., & Smallie, J. 2010. A briefing document on best practice for pre-construction assessment of the im- pacts of onshore wind farms on birds. Endangered Wildlife Trust , Unpublished report o Smallie, J., & Virani, M.Z. 2010. A preliminary assessment of the potential risks from electrical infrastructure to large birds in Kenya. Scopus 30: p32-39 o Shaw, J.M., Jenkins, A.R., Ryan, P.G., & Smallie, J.J. 2010. A preliminary survey of avian mortality on power lines in the Overberg, South Africa. Ostrich 2010. 81 (2) p109-113 o Jenkins, A.R., Smallie, J.J., & Diamond, M. 2010. Avian collisions with power lines: a global review of causes and mitigation with a South African perspective. Bird Conservation International 2010. 20: 263-278. o Shaw, J.M., Jenkins, A.R., Ryan, P.G., & Smallie, J.J. 2010. Modelling power line collision risk for the Blue Crane Anthropoides paradiseus in South Africa. Ibis 2010 (152) p590-599. o Jenkins, A.R., Allan, D.G., & Smallie, J.J. 2009. Does electrification of the Lesotho Highlands pose a threat to that countries unique montane raptor fauna? Dubious evidence from surveys of three existing power lines. Gabar 20 (2). o Smallie, J.J., Diamond, M., & Jenkins, A.R. 2008. Lighting up the African continent – what does this mean for our birds? Pp 38-43. In Harebottle, D.M., Craig, A.J.F.K., Anderson, M.D., Rakotomanana, H., & Muchai. (eds). Pro- ceedings of the 12 th Pan-african Ornithological Congress. 2008. Cape Town. Animal Demography Unit. ISBN (978- 0-7992-2361-3) o Van Rooyen, C., & Smallie, J.J. 2006. The Eskom –EWT Strategic Partnership in South Africa: a brief summary. Na- ture & Faunae Vol 21: Issue 2, p25 o Smallie, J. & Froneman, A. 2005. Bird Strike data analysis at South African Airports 1999 to 2004. Proceedings of the 27th Conference of the International Bird Strike Committee, Athens Greece. o Smallie, J. & Van Rooyen, C. 2005. Impact of bird streamers on quality of supply on transmission lines: a case study. Proceedings of the Fifth IASTED International Conference on Power and Energy Systems, Benalmadena, Spain. o Smallie, J. & Van Rooyen, C. 2003. Risk assessment of bird interaction on the Hydra-Droërivier 1 and 2 400kV. Unpublished report to Eskom Transmission Group. Endangered Wildlife Trust. Johannesburg. South Africa o Van Rooyen, C. Jenkins, A. De Goede, J. & Smallie J. 2003. Environmentally acceptable ways to minimise the inci- dence of power outages associated with large raptor nests on Eskom pylons in the Karoo: Lessons learnt to date. Project number 9RE-00005 / R1127 Technology Services International. Johannesburg. South Africa o Smallie, J. J. & O'connor, T. G. (2000) Elephant utilization of Colophospermum mopane : possible benefits of hedg- ing. African Journal of Ecology 38 (4), 352-359.
Courses & training: o Successfully completed a 5 day course in High Voltage Regulations (modules 1 to 10) conducted by Eskom – Southern Region o Successfully completed training on, and obtained authorization for, live line installation of Bird Flappers
APPENDIX 6. 33KV MONOPOLE STRUCTURE
APPENDIX 7. VERREAUX’S EAGLE RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT.