WOLF WIND ENERGY FACILITY

Transcription

1 WOLF WIND ENERGY FACILITY EASTERN CAPE JUWI RENEWABLE ENERGIES (PTY) LTD AVIFAUNAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (SCOPING PHASE) OCTOBER 2013 Prepared by: Prepared for: Jon Smallie Karen Versfeld WildSkies Ecological Services Aurecon

2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This study assesses the potential interactions between birds and the proposed Wolf Wind Energy Facility (WEF), located between the towns of Kirkwood and Jansenville in the Eastern Cape. The proposed facility comprises an array of up to 27 turbines and associated infrastructure such as roads, an overhead power line linking the facility to the national grid, and an electrical substation. The proposed development area is situated on top of a narrow ridge line which runs roughly east west. Vegetation consists primarily of Fynbos on the ridge top, although some grassy elements are also present, and thicket exists on the slopes. An approximate total of 286 bird species could occur in the area, based on what has been recorded in the relevant four quarter degree squares by the first bird atlas project (Harrison et al 1997), and in the relevant pentads by the second atlas project ( This is a relatively good diversity of species, reflecting the diversity of habitats, including both mountains and low lying areas. In total approximately 14 of these species could be considered threatened. A total of 61 bird species have been identified as being potentially susceptible to interaction with the proposed facility. Of these species 24 target species have been identified. Target species are those species requiring special conservation attention with respect to the proposed wind energy facility. juwi Renewable Energies (Pty) Ltd. has initiated pre-construction bird monitoring on site in accordance with Jenkins et al (2012). Based on the first spring pre-construction monitoring site visit, the most important of these species are probably the Blue Crane Anthropoides paradiseus (although they frequent the low lying areas off site there is a chance of them flying over the ridge between foraging areas), Black Harrier Circus maurus, Verreaux s Eagle Aquila verreauxii, Jackal Buzzard Buteo rufofuscus, Booted Eagle Aquila pennatus, Southern Pale Chanting Goshawk Melierax canorus, Common Buzzard Buteo buteo, Martial Eagle Polemaetus bellicosus, Black Stork Ciconia nigra, Lesser Kestrel Falco naumanni, Secretarybird Sagittarius serpentarius and Rock Kestrel Falco rupicolus. The EIA Phase will expand upon this. The impacts of destruction of bird habitat, disturbance of birds, and displacement of birds from the site are all anticipated to be of fairly low significance at this stage. This ridge is not as significant as surrounding ridges in terms of uniqueness of habitat on the affected area. This finding could change based on pre-construction bird monitoring, and in particular if any target species are found breeding on site. The impacts of collision with turbine blades, collision with power lines, and electrocution on power lines are anticipated to be of medium significance at this stage. This finding could also change during the EIA phase, depending on the data collected through pre-construction monitoring. The power line impacts are relatively easily mitigated for, whilst mitigating for the impact of collision with turbine blades is more challenging. Micro-siting of turbines and other infrastructure within the proposed site remains the foremost means of mitigating this impact on birds. However the relatively thin ridge top leaves little opportunity to move refine turbine positions. At this stage it is not possible to classify the site in terms of sensitivity other than to try to keep infrastructure away from the northern and southern ridge edges. A spatial collision risk index will be developed based on bird flight data collected and the results will be presented in the EIA phase. This index will allow the classification of the site into different sensitivity classes. The EIA Phase will investigate all of the above issues further and provide a more thorough assessment of the impacts.

3 SPECIALIST DETAILS Professional registration The Natural Scientific Professions Act of 2003 aims to Provide for the establishment of the South African Council of Natural Scientific Professions (SACNASP) and for the registration of professional, candidate and certified natural scientists; and to provide for matters connected therewith. Only a registered person may practice in a consulting capacity Natural Scientific Professions Act of 2003 (20(1)-pg 14) Investigator: Jon Smallie (Pri.Sci.Nat) Qualification: BSc (hons) Wildlife Science University of Natal Msc Env Sc University of Witwatersrand Affiliation: South African Council for Natural Scientific Professions Registration number: /06 Fields of Expertise: Ecological Science Registration: Professional Member Professional experience Jon Smallie has been involved in bird interactions with energy infrastructure for 14 years. During this time he has completed impact assessments for at least 80 projects, at least fifteen of which involved wind energy generation. He is a founding member of the Birds and Wind Energy Specialist Group. A full Curriculum Vitae can be supplied on request. Declaration of Independence The specialist investigator declares that:» We act as independent specialists for this project.» We consider ourselves bound by the rules and ethics of the South African Council for Natural Scientific Professions.» We do not have any personal or financial interest in the project except for financial compensation for specialist investigations completed in a professional capacity as specified by the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2006.» We will not be affected by the outcome of the environmental process, of which this report forms part of.» We do not have any influence over the decisions made by the governing authorities.» We do not object to or endorse the proposed developments, but aim to present facts and our best scientific and professional opinion with regard to the impacts of the development.

4 » We undertake to disclose to the relevant authorities any information that has or may have the potential to influence its decision or the objectivity of any report, plan, or document required in terms of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, Terms and Liabilities» This report is based on a short term investigation using the available information and data related to the site to be affected. No long term investigation or monitoring was conducted.» The Precautionary Principle has been applied throughout this investigation.» Additional information may become known or available during a later stage of the process for which no allowance could have been made at the time of this report.» The specialist investigator reserves the right to amend this report, recommendations and conclusions at any stage should additional information become available.» Information, recommendations and conclusions in this report cannot be applied to any other area without proper investigation.» This report, in its entirety or any portion thereof, may not be altered in any manner or form or for any purpose without the specific and written consent of the specialist investigator as specified above.» Acceptance of this report, in any physical or digital form, serves to confirm acknowledgment of these terms and liabilities. Assessment philosophy The specialist has 14 years of experience in bird conservation in South Africa, and is passionate about ensuring the protection of our bird species, particularly outside of protected areas. He also has a sound knowledge of the different forms of energy generation employed to date in SA, and the implications of these choices for our birds. This assessment is therefore conducted with a pragmatic approach founded on the firm belief that in national terms, renewable energy is a positive move for SA s environment and birds in the longer term. This does not mean that renewable energy projects should be exempt from thorough impact assessment or management, but rather that any potential impacts be viewed against the broader implications of continuing on a fossil fuel based energy mix. Signed on the 18 November 2013 by Jon Smallie in his capacity as specialist investigator.

5 1. INTRODUCTION juwi Renewable Energies (Pty) Ltd (hereafter juwi) plans to construct a wind energy facility named the Wolf Wind Energy Facility in the Eastern Cape between Kirkwood and Jansenville. The facility will encompass an area of approximately hectares. There will also be associated infrastructure such as roads, an overhead power line linking the facility to the national grid, and an electrical substation. Aurecon South Africa (Pty) Ltd (hereafter Aurecon) was appointed to manage the environmental impact assessment studies for this development. Since a project of this nature has the potential to impact on birds, WildSkies Ecological Services (Jon Smallie) was appointed by Aurecon to conduct a specialist avifaunal assessment. This scoping study investigates the potential impacts of the proposed facility on the birds of the area. Typically a wind energy facility of this nature can be expected to impact on avifauna as follows: disturbance of birds; habitat destruction during construction and maintenance of the facility and associated infrastructure; displacement of birds from the area, or from flying over the area; collision of birds with turbine blades during operation; and collision and electrocution of birds on associated electrical infrastructure. The likelihood and significance of each of these impacts will be investigated further in this study. The site is situated on top of a narrow ridge line which runs approximately east west (the Kleinwinterhoekberge). Vegetation on site consists primarily of Fynbos with grassy and some thicket elements. An approximate total of 286 bird species could occur in the broader area, based on what has been recorded in the relevant four quarter degree squares by the first bird atlas project (Harrison et al 1997), and in the relevant pentads by the second atlas project ( This is a relatively good diversity of species, reflecting the diversity of habitats, including ridges, thicket and Fynbos. In total approximately 14 of these species could be considered threatened (Barnes 2000; IUCN, 2012). juwi has initiated pre-construction bird monitoring on site in accordance with Jenkins et al (2012). WildSkies is conducting this monitoring and the first site visit (spring 2013) has been completed. This pre-construction monitoring will collect a significant amount of data on site and will allow a confident assessment of the impacts during the EIA phase. A scoping level site visit was conducted to the site early in September 2013.

6 2. STUDY METHODOLOGY 2.1. Terms of reference The avifaunal specialist has conducted this assessment according to the typical terms of reference for a study of this nature. These terms of reference can be added to or amended as this environmental assessment process unfolds. The terms of reference are as follows:» To provide a description of the environment that may be affected by the activity and the manner in which the environment may be affected by the proposed project.» To provide a description and evaluation of environmental issues and potential impacts (including direct, indirect and cumulative impacts) that have been identified.» To provide a statement regarding the potential significance of the identified issues based on the evaluation of the issues or impacts must be made.» To provide a comparative evaluation of any identified feasible alternatives must be made. If relevant the nomination of a preferred alternative for consideration in the EIA Phase must also be made.» To identify any potentially significant impacts to be assessed with the EIA Phase» To provide details of the methodology to be adopted in assessing potentially significant impacts in the EIA Phase. This should be detailed enough to include within the Plan of Study for EIA and must include a description of the proposed method of assessing the potential environmental impacts associated with the project. More recently, with the advent of pre-construction bird monitoring, it has become necessary for the scoping phase to design and implement the monitoring programme. The monitoring methodology is contained in Appendix Approach This study followed the following steps:» An extensive review of available international literature pertaining to bird interactions with wind energy facilities was undertaken in order to fully understand the issues involved and the current level of knowledge in this field. This international knowledge was then adapted to local conditions and species as far as possible in order to identify important or target species for this study.» The various data sets listed below, and the study area were examined to determine the likelihood of these relevant species on or near the site.» The potential impacts of the proposed facility on these species were described and evaluated.» Sensitive areas within the proposed site, where the above impacts are likely to occur, were identified using various GIS (Geographic Information System) layers, Google Earth and field work.» A field investigation was conducted to examine the site, and to design and set up the pre-construction bird monitoring programme on site.

7 2.3. Data sources used The following data sources and reports were used in varying levels of detail for this study:» The Southern African Bird Atlas Project data (SABAP1 - Harrison et al, 1997) for the four quarter degree squares considered relevant (3325AA, 3325AC, 3324BB, 3324BD). The Southern African Bird Atlas Project 2 (SABAP2) data was also consulted at The Important Bird Areas report (IBA - Barnes 1998) was consulted to determine the location of the nearest IBA s and their importance for this study.» The Co-ordinated Avifaunal Roadcount project (CAR Young et al, 2003) data was consulted to obtain relevant data on large terrestrial bird report rates in the area where possible. Two routes, EP02 and EP04 pass about 5km south of the proposed site. Information from these routes will be interrogated during the EIA phase.» The conservation status of all relevant bird species was determined using Barnes (2000), and the IUCN Red List (2012)» The latest vegetation classification of South Africa (Mucina & Rutherford, 2006) was consulted in order to determine which vegetation types occur on site.» Aerial photography and 1: topographic maps for the area, obtained from the Surveyor General.» The recent document Avian Wind Farm Sensitivity Map for South Africa: Criteria and Procedures Used by Retief, Diamond, Anderson, Smit, Jenkins & Brooks (2011) was used for the species listing.» The BirdLife South Africa/Endangered Wildlife Trust best practice guidelines for avian monitoring and impact mitigation at proposed wind energy development sites in southern Africa (Jenkins, van Rooyen, Smallie, Harrison, Diamond & Smit, 2012) was used extensively to guide this project Limitations & assumptions This study relies heavily upon secondary data sources with regards to bird abundances such as the SABAP1 and SABAP2 (Harrison et al, 1997, Any inaccuracies in these sources of information could limit this study. In particular, the SABAP1 data is now fairly old (Harrison et al, 1997), and the SABAP2 coverage is not yet that comprehensive. This constraint will however be addressed in the EIA phase through the collection of a vast amount of data on site during the pre-construction bird monitoring programme. Primary information on bird habitat was also collected during the scoping site visit and is used directly in determining which species are likely to occur where on site. The number of turbines to be constructed and the position of associated infrastructure has not yet been finalized, but it is assumed that this information will be available in the EIA Phase. At this stage a sufficient range of scenarios has been provided for assessment in terms of these aspects.

8 2.5 Relevant legislation The legislation relevant to this specialist field and the proposed Wolf WEF development are as follows:» The Convention on Biological Diversity: 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.» 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.» The African-Eurasian Waterbird Agreement. The Agreement on the Conservation of African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbirds (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.» National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act - Threatened Or Protected Species list (TOPS) The following target species for this study are on the list: Endangered - Blue Crane. Vulnerable - Kori Bustard; Ludwig s Bustard; Black Stork; Lesser Kestrel; Martial Eagle. Protected species - African Marsh Harrier.» Various sets of provincial conservation legislation are relevant to this study.» The Civil Aviation Authority s regulations are relevant to the issue of lighting of wind energy facilities, and to painting turbine blades, both of which are relevant to bird collisions with turbine blades. A relevant guideline for this study is the Endangered Wildlife Trust BirdLife South Africa Best practice guidelines for avian monitoring and impact mitigation at proposed wind energy development sites in southern Africa (Jenkins et al, 2012). These guidelines have been applied by the specialist in all respects for this project.

9 3. BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY 3.1 Background to interactions between wind energy facilities and birds The South African experience of wind energy generation is limited to date, with only 8 commercial scale wind turbines having been constructed in the country at the time of writing. A monitoring programme at the Klipheuwel demonstration facility (3 turbines) found two bird collisions equating to an estimated 1 bird/turbine/year fatality rate (Kuyler, 2004). Doty & Martin (2013) monitored one turbine at Port Elizabeth (3 searches per week for 52 weeks) and found one Little Swift Apus affinis collision victim over a period of a year. Much of what we know about the interaction between birds and wind energy facilities is therefore learnt from international literature, mostly from the United States, United Kingdom, and Europe. Unfortunately much of this literature is grey literature, and focuses on the impact of collision. Two important sources used for the below discussion were a review by Rydell et al (2012) and assorted information on the Good Practice Wind website at The interaction between birds and wind farms first documented was that of birds killed through collisions with turbines, dating back to the 1970 s (Rogers et al, 1977; Philips, 1979). Certain sites in particular, such as Altamont Pass California, and Tarifa Spain, killed large numbers of birds and focused attention on the issue. However, it appears that sites such as these are the exception rather than the rule, with most facilities causing low fatality rates (Kingsley & Whittam, 2005). Expressed relative to other anthropogenic mortality factors, wind farms also cause relatively low fatality rates (Erickson et al, 2001; Gill et al, 2006), although there are some inherent challenges in making these comparisons as explained later in this report. With time it has become apparent that there are actually three ways in which birds can be affected by wind farms: collisions which is a direct mortality factor; habitat alteration or destruction (less direct); and displacement and barrier effects (various authors including Drewitt & Langston, 2008). Whilst the impact of habitat alteration is probably fairly similar to that associated with other forms of development, the displacement and barrier effects are unique to wind energy. It is not yet known whether it is the noise, visual, flicker or shadow effects that may disturb and displace birds. Whatever the cause is, if birds are displaced from the site it is lost as habitat. Without doubt the impact of collision has received the most attention to date amongst researchers, operators, conservationists, and the public Collision of birds with turbine blades That birds collide with human developed infrastructure has been well documented over the years (for e.g. Drewitt & Langston, 2008). Since the first birds were found under wind turbines it has more or less been assumed that the birds collided with turbine blades because they did not see them. Much of the earlier work was therefore based on the assumption that this was a visual problem. The logical consequence then was to develop mitigation measures that made the turbines more visible to birds. It was suggested that the primary reason for birds failing to see turbine blades was the phenomenon of motion smear or retinal blur (Hodos, 2002), whereby an identical image (such as the three

10 turbine blades) passing over the retina repeatedly and fast enough can actually become invisible. A suggested solution to this was to paint one blade black so that the images would alternate between white and black thereby reducing the likelihood of retinal blur. Although vision certainly has a lot to do with the collision, it has recently become apparent that various other factors also play a part. In recent research on bird vision by Martin, 2011; Martin & Shaw, 2010, suggest that birds may have reduced visual acuity in front of them when in flight, or in the case of vultures may even be blind for a significant portion of their frontal vision. This would necessitate a different approach to mitigation than has so far been the case. Fatality rates It is important to first understand the scale of this effect before delving into the details of factors influencing it. Not surprisingly, as soon as dead birds were discovered at wind farms, researchers started to count them. With time the need arose to standardise metrics across multiple sites, countries and continents. The two most common measures used to date are 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/turbine/year compared to the 1.6 for North America. These figures include 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. Cumulative effects Even where fatality rates may appear low there should be adequate attention given to the situation. The cumulative effects of several facilities on the same species could be considerable, particularly if these are sited in the same region and impact on the same regional population of the species. Most long lived slow reproducing Red Listed species may also not be able to sustain any additional mortality factors over and above existing factors. Bird related factors affecting collision with turbines Whilst all birds face some inherent risk of collision with wind turbines, certain groups are definitely more susceptible (Jordan & Smallie, 2010; Rydell et al, 2012). Taxonomic groups most commonly affected include: Podicipediformes; Pelicaniformes; Ciconiiformes; Anseriformes; Falconiformes; Charadriformes; Strigiformes; Caprimulgiformes; Gruiformes; Galliformes; Psittaciformes; and Passeriformes (Jordan & Smallie, 2010). A number of factors (and various combinations thereof) are believed to be important in determining a bird species susceptibility to collision, described below: Behavioural factors The most important behavioural characteristic suggested so far as influencing collision risk is a birds reaction to the presence of turbines (Rydell et al, 2012). Certain bird species have been observed to display avoidance behaviour from a significant distance from turbines, thereby ensuring safety, whilst other species appear to be comfortable foraging in amongst turbines. Birds also tend to fly lower during strong headwinds (Richardson, 2000) thereby increasing the risk of collision since turbines are also functioning at a maximum in strong winds (Drewitt & Langston, 2008).

11 Raptor s susceptibility to collision with turbines is difficult to explain given their apparent excellent eye sight and mostly good maneuverability. It has been suggested that due to these two factors raptors do not avoid obstacles at a far enough distance to ensure safety (in Rydell et al, 2012). Obstacles that are moving, such as the three blades of a turbine, need to be avoided at further distances (or earlier) than stationary ones (Martin, 2011) Morphological factors Flight prowess and maneuverability have been suggested to be two of the primary morphological factors affecting bird collisions with turbines (Barrios & Rodrigues, 2004; Drewitt & Langston, 2006). This is similar to other forms of collision (such as power lines) where it is believed that large birds (and with high wing loading the ratio of wing area to mass) may be less able to adjust flight quickly when they perceive an obstacle (Jenkins et al, 2010; de Lucas et al, 2008). Jenkins et al (2010) make a useful distinction between a birds susceptibility to collision, and its exposure. Susceptibility is determined by factors including: physical size; wing loading; maneuverability; speed of flight; height of flight; open or closed habitat; aerial foraging; aerial displays; frequent flight at night or in low light; and narrow binocular field of vision (Martin & Shaw, 2010). Exposure is determined by how often, far and for how long a bird flies, and whether it flocks. Seasonal factors According to Drewitt & Langston (2008) bird collisions could be dependent on the season and weather. Raptor fatalities in particular are clumped into certain seasons, perhaps when flight activity is higher due to courtship, nest building, and provisioning of young. Habituation Although it has been suggested that birds will get accustomed to a wind energy facility with time and that they will then avoid collisions, there is no evidence to support this (Rydell et al, 2012; de Lucas et al, 2008; Smallwood & Thelander 2008, Bevanger et al, 2010). Likewise with age of bird, young birds do not seem to be disproportionately affected. Facility related factors affecting collisions with turbines Turbine size Several authors have found that taller turbines with longer blades (and hence larger rotor swept area) did not kill more birds (e.g. Barclay et al, 2007). As turbine size increases fewer birds are killed when expressed per megawatt, since fewer turbines are required in order to generate the same power. Facility lighting Although it has been suggested previously that lighting at turbines will increase the collision risk (seemingly on the basis of recorded incidents of mass collisions of birds with other lit infrastructure Erickson, 2001) there does not seem to be any evidence to substantiate this (Rydell et al, 2012). It has also been suggested that if flashing or intermittent light is used this may reduce the risk (Drewitt & Langston, 2008). Size of facility or number of turbines

12 Rydell et al (2012) found that larger wind farms do not necessarily kill more birds per turbine. The absolute number of birds killed by the facility will of course be greater for a larger facility if all other factors are equal. Of course larger facilities would also have greater impacts through habitat destruction and displacement and barrier effects. There appears to typically be an uneven distribution of collisions across the turbines on site, with 13% of the turbines at Altamont Pass killing all Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos and Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis (Curry & Kerlinger, 2000), and more than 50% of vulture casualties at Tarifa being on 15% of the turbines (Acha, 1997). Spacing of turbines Conflicting information exists on the effect of turbine spacing on collision risk, some authors suggesting that spaces should be left for safe passage of birds (Drewitt & Langston, 2006; 2008), but the same authors also suggest that perhaps birds should be discouraged from flying through a facility and should rather be encouraged to avoid the centre of the facility. This would clearly result in a greater displacement effect on the species. Site related factors affecting collision with turbines Rydell et al (2012) conclude from their analysis that the most important factor determining collision risk is the location of turbines relative to bird occurrence, and the surrounding environment. Collision frequency has so far been highest at facilities near wetlands and the coast, and also on the top of ridges or areas with significant variation in topography. Certain landscape features may also channel bird flight into flight paths that are used more frequently. In general, high density of birds in an area will mean that the risk of collision is high although studies are conflicting in this regard (Rydell et al, 2012). Several authors found that density and activity of birds near wind farms is related to collision risk (Barrios & Rodrigues, 2004; Everaert & Kuijken, 2007; Stienen et al, 2008), whilst certain studies found that this is not the case (de Lucas et al, 2008; Krijgsveld et al, 2009). It seems logical that for collision risk to be high, then usage of the site must be high, either by large numbers of birds or few birds repeatedly. It is also clear that this is not the only factor determining collision risk Loss or alteration of habitat during construction The area of land directly affected by a wind farm and associated infrastructure is relatively small. As a result in most cases, habitat destruction or alteration in its simplest form (removal of natural vegetation) is unlikely to be of much significance Fragmentation of habitat can however be an important factor for some smaller bird species. Construction and operation of a wind farm results in an influx of human activity, often to an area previously relatively uninhabited (Kuvlesky et al 2007). This disturbance could cause certain birds to avoid the entire site, thereby losing a significant amount of habitat effectively (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. Loss of aerial habitat is discussed in more detail below under displacement and barrier effects Disturbance of birds and barrier effects (or displacement)

13 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. A barrier effect or displacement 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 Associated infrastructure Infrastructure associated with wind energy facilities also has the potential to impact on birds, in some cases perhaps more than the turbines themselves. Overhead power lines pose a collision and possibly an electrocution threat to certain bird species. Furthermore, the construction and maintenance of the power lines will result in some disturbance and habitat destruction. New access roads, substations 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. These species are mostly heavy-bodied birds with limited maneuverability, 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 considered threatened in southern Africa. The Red Data 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 are most affected since they are most capable of bridging critical clearances on hardware Mitigation Whilst bird mortalities have been comprehensively documented at numerous sites world-wide, very little has been written about the potential methods of reducing the level of mortalities, perhaps because little mitigation has been implemented post construction. Potential mitigation measures include: alternative turbine designs (such as vertical axis turbines); painting turbine blades (tested only in laboratory conditions to date); anti perching devices; construction of shielding pylons; curtailment of turbines during high risk periods; shutdown of certain high risk turbines; and altering blade height to pose less risk within the birds preferred height strata. Most of these suggested mitigation measures are either not tested, impractical or unlikely to be implemented by the operator post construction. The primary means

14 of mitigating bird impacts therefore remains correct siting, both of the entire facility, and of the individual turbines themselves. Whichever mitigation measures are identified as necessary, this should be informed by a thorough pre and post construction bird monitoring programme 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 rated as 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 which is 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 in South Africa are unlikely to frequent tall buildings or to be caught by cats. Since many 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 already in existence Description of the proposed wind energy facility An area of approximately hectares is being considered for the development of up to 27 turbines. Each turbine will have a likely generating capacity of up to 3.5MW each, a hub height of up to 100 metres, and rotor diameter of up to 112 metres. Foundations to support turbines will take up a total area of 1 600m² per turbine, including 26m² of concrete at the centre. In addition, hard stands of 1 960m² per turbine will be required to support cranes during construction. Infrastructure associated with the facility include: Cabling between the turbines, to be laid underground where practical, which will connect to an onsite substation; an on-site substation to facilitate the connection between the WEF and the electricity grid; a 132kV overhead power line to connect to the Wolf Substation; internal access roads to each turbine (approximately 7m in width, plus 1m verge, plus above mentioned underground cabling) linking the WEF and other infrastructure on the site; and a workshop area / office for control, maintenance and storage. At this time there is no alternative site for consideration for the overall wind energy facility. Alternatives exist within the site for the substation, turbine and power line positioning. Figure 1 below shows the location of the proposed site for the Wolf Wind Energy Facility.

15 Figure 1. The location of the proposed Wolf Wind Energy Facility.

16 Figure 2. Detailed layout of the proposed Wolf Wind Energy Facility.

17 4. DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT This proposed site is situated between the villages of Kirkwood and Jansenville in the Eastern Cape. The ridge on which the site is placed is known as the Kleinwinterhoekberge. The broader area consists of a series of long parallel ridge lines running east-west, with a limited amount of flatter ground lying in the valleys in between. The Wolf site itself is situated on one of the smaller secondary ridge lines, with considerably less rock and cliff substrate than some of the surrounding ridges. In this type of area we would expect raptors to be prevalent. On the low lying flat areas bustards and cranes are abundant Vegetation of the study area Vegetation is one of the primary factors determining bird species distribution and abundance in an area. The following description of the vegetation on the site focuses on the vegetation structure and not species composition. It is widely accepted within ornithological circles that vegetation structure is more important in determining bird species diversity. The classification of vegetation types is from Mucina & Rutherford (2006). The site itself falls almost entirely within Suurberg Quartzite Fynbos (see Figure 3). This is interspersed with small patches of Suurberg Shale Fynbos. Various other vegetation types exist to the north and south, including most prominently Groot Thicket and Sundays Thicket. The main relevance of this information to avifauna is that the site itself is composed predominantly of short Fynbos type veld, with some grassy components. On the western end of the site some thicket exists on top of the ridge. This vegetation affects the species likely to occur on site, and is reflected in the data in Table 1 which shows that most of the Red Listed bird species recorded by the Southern African Bird Atlas Project (Harrison et al, 1997) in the area favour short open vegetation types such as these ones.

18 Figure 3. The vegetation composition of the Wolf Wind Energy Facility site (Mucina & Rutherford, 2006) 4.2. Bird micro habitats More detail is required in order to understand exactly where within the study area certain species will occur and how suitable these areas are for the relevant species. The habitats available to birds at a small spatial scale are known as micro habitats. These micro habitats are formed by a combination of factors such as vegetation, land use, anthropogenic factors, topography and others. These micro habitats could be critically important in mapping the site in terms of avifaunal sensitivity and ultimately siting the proposed turbines within the affected farms. The micro habitats that the Red Listed species are most likely to use are shown in Table 1. The micro habitats identified on site include: Fynbos; thicket, rocky ridges, small dams; and grassland. Examples of these are shown in Figure 4.

19 Figure 4. Examples of bird micro habitats available on the Wolf Wind Energy Facility site.

20 4.3. Bird presence in the study area The most reliable, and hence preferred, secondary (existing) data source for a study of this nature is the Southern African Bird Atlas Project (SABAP1 - Harrison et al, 1997). This project recorded data on birds over at least a ten year period, and as such represents bird distribution over significantly varying conditions. This data is therefore far more representative than any other available at present. The Southern African Bird Atlas Project 2 (SABAP2) is striving to provide a more recent data source, and has been used in tandem with the SABAP1 for this project. Appendix 2 lists all the bird species recorded by both these atlas projects (obtained from An approximate total of 286 bird species could occur in the area, based on what has been recorded by these atlas projects. This does not however necessarily mean that all of these species occur on the Wolf site itself. Table 1 shows only a subset of the above species, comprising 61 species which are either Red Listed birds or common but believed to be susceptible to interactions with the proposed facility. Also presented in Table 1 are the species preferred micro habitats, the likelihood of each species actually occurring on or close to the proposed site, the relative importance of the site, and the manner in which the species could interact with a wind energy facility in theory. It is important to understand that in this case the proposed facility is planned for the top of a very narrow ridge which differs significantly from the surrounding lower ground in the habitat it offers birds. In assessing the likelihood of species using the site, only the ridge top itself has been considered. In some cases species were confirmed as occurring on site during the initial site visit. In other cases a prediction is made on the likelihood of the species occurring on site based on available habitats. Most of these species have at least a possibility of occurring on the site, but for most species the site is not very important in terms of the national population of the species, i.e. this is not their core area. Importantly, the species in Table 1 represent many of the broad groupings of bird species i.e. large terrestrial birds (Blue Crane, bustards and korhaans), raptors (Verreaux s Eagle, harriers), water associated species (ducks and teals), small grassland/shrubland species (larks). Assessing the impacts on the species in Table 1 therefore potentially covers impacts on other species from these groupings that were not recorded but may occur on the site. However, impacts on non-red Listed species that are believed to be relevant to this study are also considered. In particular, non-red Listed species groups such as raptors, owls, lapwings, waterfowl, and thick-knees. Swallows, swifts and martins will also be relevant to this study due to the amount of time they spend in the air, which increases the chances of collisions. One could argue that if non-red Listed species are not considered adequately in impact assessment, they could make their way onto the Red List with time. Whilst this is valid, it is believed that species already on the Red List should always be given priority, and that if too many species are considered this may dilute the attention given to any the most important species. An indication of the impacts that each species could be susceptible to has also been provided in Table 1. For those species not currently threatened, the impacts of disturbance, displacement and habitat destruction have not been listed as these impacts are unlikely to be significant in the final analysis. On the contrary, for Red Listed species, these three impacts are considered relevant.

21 Table 1. Red Listed and other important species recorded in the study area by the two southern African Bird Atlas Projects (SABAP1 Harrison et al, 1997; and SABAP2 All species recorded by these projects can be viewed in Appendix 3. Barnes 2000 IUCN 2012 Preferred micro habitat Likelihood of occurring on site Relative importance of site for species Theoretical interactions with wind energy C, D, DI, HD Common name Species SABAP1 SABAP2 Bustard, Denham's Neotis denhami X X VU NT Arable land, grassland Not on ridge itself but Low on ridge in surrounding area itself Bustard, Kori Ardeotis kori X X VU Karoo, woodland Possible Low on ridge C, D, DI, HD itself Bustard, Ludwig's Neotis ludwigii X X VU EN Karoo, grassland Possible Low on ridge C, D, DI, HD itself Buzzard, Jackal Buteo rufofuscus X X Generalist Confirmed Medium C, D, DI, HD, E Buzzard, Common Buteo buteos X X Generalist Probable Low C, D, DI, HD, E Coot, Red-knobbed Fulica cristata X Open water Unlikely on ridge itself Low C Cormorant, Reed Phalacrocorax africanus X Open water Possible Low C, D, DI Cormorant, White-breasted Phalacrocorax carbo X Open water Possible Low C, D, DI, E VU VU Grassland, Karoo, Unlikely on ridge itself Low C, D, DI, HD Crane, Blue Anthropoides paradiseus X X dams Crow, Cape Corvus capensis X X Generalist Probable Low C Crow, Pied Corvus albus X X Generalist Probable Low C Darter, African Anhinga rufa X Open water Possible Low C Duck, African Black Anas sparsa X X Open water, riverine Unlikely Low C Duck, Maccoa Oxyura maccoa X Open water Unlikely Low C Duck, White-faced Dendrocygna viduata X Open water Unlikely Low C Duck, Yellow-billed Anas undulata X X Open water Unlikely Low C Eagle, African Crowned Stephanoaetus coronatus X NT NT Indigenous forest Possible Low C, D, DI, HD, E Eagle, Booted Aquila pennatus X Mountains with cliffs Confirmed Medium C, D, DI, HD, E Eagle, Martial Polemaetus bellicosus X Eagle, Verreaux's Aquila verreauxii X X Egret, Cattle Bubulcus ibis X X Egret, Little Egretta garzetta X X VU NT Generalist, natural vegetation * LC Mountains and rocky areas Water, arable land, wetland, cattle Water, arable land, wetland Probable Low unless breeding in area C, D, DI, HD, E Confirmed Low to medium C, D, DI, HD, E unless breeding Possible Low C Possible Low C

22 NT LC Grassland, arable land Possible Low unless C. D. DI HD Falcon, Lanner Falco biarmicus X X breeding Falcon, Peregrine Falco peregrinus X NT LC Grassland, cliffs Possible Low C, D, DI, HD Fish-Eagle, African Haliaeetus vocifer X X Open water Unlikely Low C, D, DI, HD, E Flamingo, Greater Phoenicopterus ruber X X NT LC Open water Unlikely Low C Goose, Egyptian Alopochen aegyptiacus X X Open water, arable Possible Low C lands, wetlands Goose, Spur-winged Plectropterus gambensis X X Open water, arable Possible Low C lands, wetlands Goshawk, African Accipiter tachiro X X Forest, alien trees Unlikely Low C, HD, D Goshawk, Gabar Melierax gabar X Woodland, thicket Possible Low C, HD, D Goshawk, Southern Pale Generalist Confirmed Low to medium C, HD, D, DI Melierax canorus X X Chanting Generalist, close to Confirmed Low C Guineafowl, Helmeted Numida meleagris X X water Gull, Grey-headed Larus cirrocephalus X X Open water Unlikely Low C Hamerkop Scopus umbretta X X Close to water Possible Low C NT VU Grassland, Fynbos, Confirmed Low to medium C, HD, DI, D Harrier, Black Circus maurus X Karoo Harrier-Hawk, African Polyboroides typus X X Generalist Confirmed Low C, HD, DI, D Generalist, close to Possible Low C Heron, Black-headed Ardea melanocephala X X water Heron, Goliath Ardea goliath X X Open water Unlikely Low C Heron, Grey Ardea cinerea X X Close to water Possible Low C Ibis, African Sacred Threskiornis aethiopicus X X Close to water Possible Low C Ibis, Hadeda Bostrychia hagedash X X Generalist Probable Low C Kestrel, Greater Falco rupicoloides X X Shrubland, grassland Possible Low C, HD, DI Kestrel, Lesser Falco naumanni X VU LC Shrubland, grassland Possible Low C, HD, DI Kestrel, Rock Falco rupicolus X X Generalist Confirmed Medium C, HD, DI, D Kite, Black-shouldered Elanus caeruleus X X Generalist Highly likely Low C, HD, DI, D Korhaan, Karoo Eupodotis vigorsii X X Karoo flats Unlikely Low C, HD, D, DI Korhaan, Southern Black Afrotis afra X Karoo flats Unlikely Low C, HD, D, DI Raven, White-necked Corvus albicollis X X Generalist, cliffs Probable Medium C, D, DI, HD, E Rock-Thrush, Cape Monticola rupestris X X Rocky slopes, ridge top Confirmed Medium HD, DI, D

23 Sandgrouse, Namaqua Pterocles namaqua X Arid shrubland Unlikely Low C NT VU Open thicket, Possible Low C, DI, HD Secretarybird Sagittarius serpentarius X grassland, shrubland Shelduck, South African Tadorna cana X X Open water Possible Low C Shoveler, Cape Anas smithii X X Open water Possible Low C Sparrowhawk, Black Accipiter melanoleucus X Forests, alien trees Unlikely Low C, HD, DI, D Spurfowl, Red-necked Pternistis afer X Riparian thicket Unlikely on ridge top Low C Stork, Black Ciconia nigra X NT LC Riverine, cliff Confirmed Low to medium C, HD, DI, D if breeding Stork, White Ciconia ciconia X Karoo, wetland, dam, Possible Low C, HD, DI, D arable land Teal, Cape Anas capensis X X Open water Possible Low C Teal, Red-billed Anas erythrorhyncha X X Open water Possible Low C Woodpecker, Knysna Campethera notata X X Forest Unlikely Low D, HD Those species highlighted are believed to be most likely to be at risk of impact from the project at this early stage. V = Vulnerable, NT = Near-threatened, Bonn = Protected Internationally under the Bonn Convention on Migratory Species, LC = Least Concern, * This species has been upgraded to VU in the currently underway update of Barnes 2000 (BirdLife South Africa 2013). It is likely that other species will also be upgraded in status but the author is already aware of this one and this species is particularly relevant to this project. C = Collision with either turbines or power lines, E = electrocution on power lines, D = disturbance, HD = habitat destruction, DI = displacement.

24 Target species for this study Determining the target species for this study, i.e. the most important species to be considered for the impact assessment, is a three step process. The above data represents the first step, i.e. which species occur or could occur in the area at significant abundances, and the importance of the study area for those species. Secondly, the recent document A briefing document on best practice for pre-construction assessment of the impacts of onshore wind farms on birds (Jordan & Smallie, 2010) was consulted to determine which groups of species could possibly be impacted on by wind farms. This document summarises which taxonomic groups of species have been found to be vulnerable to collision with wind turbines in the USA, UK, EU, Australia and Canada. The taxonomic groups that have been found to be vulnerable in two or more of these regions are as follows: Pelicaniformes (pelicans, gannets, cormorants); Ciconiiformes (storks, herons, ibises, spoonbills); Anseriformes (swans, ducks, geese); Falconiformes (birds of prey); Charadriiformes (gulls, terns, waders); Strigiformes (owls); Caprimulgiformes (nightjars); Gruiformes (cranes, bustards, rails); Galliformes (pheasants, grouse, francolins); and Passeriformes (songbirds). The third step is to consider the species conservation status or other reasons for protecting the species. This involved primarily consulting the Red List bird species (Barnes 2000) as in Table 1. In addition to the above sources of information, the recent document entitled Avian Wind Farm Sensitivity Map for South Africa: Criteria and procedures used (Retief, Diamond, Anderson, Smit, Jenkins & Brooks, 2011) combined all three above steps in order to identify sensitive areas of the country. The methods used by this project (Retief et al, 2011) were far more thorough and comprehensive than is possible during the scope of an EIA, and although the study was not intended to identify species for consideration in EIA s, it does serve as a useful resource, and in particular includes assessment of non-red Listed bird species. The current Wolf study has therefore used the various information sources above to develop a preliminary target species list for the project. The resultant list of target species for this study is shown in Table 1 (shaded in grey). A total of 13 species have been selected. At this stage the most important of these are anticipated to be the Booted Eagle, Verreaux s and Martial Eagles, Jackal Buzzard, Rock Kestrel and Black Harrier. Based on the pre-construction monitoring this list will be added to and refined as necessary. As discussed elsewhere in this report, the impact of most concern for these species is probably that of collision with turbines. The proportion of flight time spent at turbine height (and hence at risk of collision) is not known for any of these key bird species. This means that the exact risk of collisions of any of these species with the turbine blades once operational is very difficult to assess. In judging the potential significance of this impact it is essential to understand the flight characteristics of the species, i.e. how often and how high do the target species fly. This data is only obtained through observation of the relevant area and species. Fortunately pre-construction bird monitoring is underway and will provide the necessary data to make this assessment for the EIA phase report.

25 5. ASSESSMENT OF THE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED FACILITY The potential impacts of the proposed Wolf WEF and associated infrastructure are as follows. These impacts will be formally assessed and rated according to the criteria (supplied by Aurecon and shown in Appendix 1) during the EIA Phase Wind energy facility Destruction of bird habitat Since this is a relatively small facility, situated on one of the smaller ridge lines in the area, the impact on bird habitat is not anticipated to be of high significance. The EIA Phase will confirm whether this is the case, based on data collected on site. If any target species are found breeding on or near the site this will alter this finding. Disturbance of birds This is unlikely to be of high significance for most species, unless they are found to be breeding on site. The likelihood of target species breeding on site will be assessed during the EIA Phase based on the findings of pre-construction monitoring. Displacement of birds from the site and barrier effects The likelihood of this impact being significant will be assessed during the EIA Phase and is related to the extent to which the birds actually use and depend on the site. Collision of birds with turbine blades This impact is likely to affect species such as Booted Eagle, Verreaux s Eagle, Martial Eagle, Black Harrier, Rock Kestrel, Jackal Buzzard and others if they fly frequently enough on and across the site. Pre-construction bird monitoring on site will collect data on the frequency and duration of flight by these and other species in order to make an informed assessment of this risk during the EIA phase.

26 5.2. Associated infrastructure Collision and electrocution on overhead power lines These two impacts are likely to be of high significance if not correctly mitigated. Fortunately this impact is relatively easily mitigated, particularly in the case of electrocution. Selecting the correct routing for overhead lines will be an important part of this mitigation. This report has identified sensitive areas on site that should be avoided by the power line (Section 6.3), and this will be refined during the EIA Phase. Destruction of habitat for construction of roads, substations, and other infrastructure As with the main wind energy facility described above, these impacts are not anticipated to be of high significance at this preliminary stage.

27 6. SENSITIVITY MAPPING FOR THE PROPOSED SITE Avifaunal sensitivity for a project of this nature may be viewed at several spatial levels as described below: 6.1 National and regional level At the national level two bird conservation initiatives are particularly relevant to this exercise: the BirdLife South Africa- Endangered Wildlife Trust Avian wind farm sensitivity map for South Africa (Retief et al, 2011); and the Important Bird Areas programme of BirdLife South Africa (Barnes, 1998). The sensitivity map (Retief et al, 2011) consolidated multiple avifaunal spatial data sources for a list of priority species in order to categorise pentads (9 x 9 kilometre grid cells as shown in Figure 5) across South Africa according to their risk of bird- wind farm interactions. The darker grid cells indicate higher risk and the lighter coloured cells indicate lower risk. It is clear from Figure 5 that the proposed site is situated in an area of relatively low risk. It should be noted that since the primary data sources used to develop this map were the SABAP1 and 2, the map is affected by how well the areas of the country were covered by atlasing effort. It is therefore possible that areas of seemingly low sensitivity are actually data deficient. Exercises such as this map will certainly be over ruled by actual data collected by preconstruction monitoring on site, but are useful to provide perspective at this stage. Figure 5. The proposed Wolf Wind Energy Facility site (black polygon) relative to the Avian Wind Farm Sensitivity Map (Retief et al, 2011). Dark colours indicate higher sensitivity or risk and light colours indicate lower sensitivity.