Proposed Wind Energy Facility and associated infrastructure for Waaihoek Energy Facility, near Utrecht in KwaZulu- Natal

Transcription

1 Proposed Wind Energy Facility and associated infrastructure for Waaihoek Energy Facility, near Utrecht in KwaZulu- Natal Bird Impact Assessment Report August 2014 Page 1

2 Chris van Rooyen Chris has seventeen years experience in the management of wildlife interactions with electricity infrastructure. He was head of the Eskom-Endangered Wildlife Trust (EWT) Strategic Partnership from 1996 to 2007, which has received international acclaim as a model of co-operative management between industry and natural resource conservation. He is an acknowledged global expert in this field and has worked in South Africa, Namibia, Botswana, Lesotho, New Zealand, Texas, New Mexico and Florida. Chris also has extensive project management experience and has received several management awards from Eskom for his work in the Eskom-EWT Strategic Partnership. He is the author of 15 academic papers (some with co-authors), co-author of two book chapters and several research reports. He has been involved as ornithological consultant in more than 100 power line and 25 wind generation projects. Chris is also co-author of the Best Practice for Avian Monitoring and Impact Mitigation at Wind Development Sites in Southern Africa, which is currently accepted as the industry standard. Chris also works outside the electricity industry and had done a wide range of bird impact assessment studies associated with various residential and industrial developments. Albert Froneman (Pr.Sci.Nat) Albert has an M. Sc. in Conservation Biology from the University of Cape Town, and started his career in the natural sciences as a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) specialist at Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR). He is a registered Professional Natural Scientist in the field of zoological science with the South African Council of Natural Scientific Professionals (SACNASP). In 1998, he joined the Endangered Wildlife Trust where he headed up the Airports Company South Africa EWT Strategic Partnership, a position he held until he resigned in 2008 to work as a private ornithological consultant. Albert s specialist field is the management of wildlife, especially bird related hazards at airports. His expertise is recognized internationally; in 2005 he was elected as Vice Chairman of the International Bird Strike Committee. Since 2010, Albert has worked closely with Chris van Rooyen in developing a protocol for pre-construction monitoring at wind energy facilities, and he is currently jointly coordinating pre-construction monitoring programmes at 11 wind farm facilities. Albert also works outside the electricity industry and had done a wide range of bird impact assessment studies associated with various residential and industrial developments. Nico Laubscher Nico holds a D.Sc. from the University of Potchefstroom and was head of the Statistics Division, National Research Institute for Mathematical Sciences of the CSIR from He retired in 1989 as head of the Centre for Statistical Consultation at the University of Stellenbosch. Nico held several offices, including President of the South African Statistical Association, and editor of the South African Page 2

3 Statistical Journal. Nico has 56 years experience in statistical analysis and data science applications, including specialisation in model building with massive data sets, designing of experiments for process improvement and analysis of data so obtained, and statistical process control. He also has published peer reviewed papers in several leading statistical journals, including Annals of Mathematical Statistics, American Statistical Journal, Technometrics and The American Statistician. He currently operates as a private statistical consultant to industry and academia. Page 3

4 DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE I, Chris van Rooyen as duly authorised representative of Chris van Rooyen Consulting, and working under the supervision of and in association with Albert Froneman (SACNASP Zoological Science Registration number /09) as stipulated by the Natural Scientific Professions Act 27 of 2003, hereby confirm my independence (as well as that of Chris van Rooyen Consulting) as a specialist and declare that neither I nor Chris van Rooyen Consulting have any interest, be it business, financial, personal or other, in any proposed activity, application or appeal in respect of which Aurecon was appointed as environmental assessment practitioner in terms of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998), other than fair remuneration for work performed, specifically in connection with the Environmental Impact Assessment for the Waaihoek Wind Energy Facility. Full Name: Chris van Rooyen Title / Position: Director Page 4

5 Executive summary INTRODUCTION South Africa Mainstream Renewable Power Developments (Pty) Ltd. (Mainstream) is proposing to develop a Wind Energy Facility (WEF) south-east of Utrecht in the Emadlangeni Local Municipality, KwaZulu-Natal Province. The WEF will host a maximum of 93 wind turbines, each generating between megawatts (MW) of power, with a total combined potential power output of approximately 160MW. The proposed Waaihoek WEF is situated approximately 20km east of the town of Utrecht, north of the R34 between Utrecht and Vryheid. A new power line, either with 88kV or 275kV capacity, will be constructed between the existing Bloedrivier Substation and the Waaihoek WEF internal substation. The 88kV line might be a double-circuit line (i.e. each tower supports six conductors). Three overhead power line corridor alternatives are proposed to transmit the electricity from the WEF to the Eskom Bloedrivier substation. In addition, the option of utilising an abandoned 88kV power line servitude to the south of the site and connecting directly into the existing 88kV line running parallel to the R34 is also being considered. Chris van Rooyen Consulting was contracted by Coastal and Environmental Services (CES), the Environmental Assessment Practitioner who is conducting the Environmental Impact Assessment, to investigate the potential impacts that the facility could have on avifauna. This avifaunal impact assessment study is based primarily on four seasons avifaunal monitoring which was completed at the site during the course of AVIFAUNA IN THE STUDY AREA The majority of the proposed turbine area is located in an Important Bird Area (IBA), namely the Grasslands Important Bird and Biodiversity Area (SA125). The proposed 132kV power line alternatives for the grid connection are largely located just outside the IBA. A total of 92 species were recorded at the study area (i.e. the turbine area and control area) from all data sources (drive transects, walk transects, VP watches, focal point counts and incidental sightings), of which 26 are priority species. POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON AVIFAUNA Collisions with the turbines Page 5

6 In general, moderate to high flight activity was recorded during the vantage point (VP) watches, with an overall passage rate for priority species over the VP observation area (all flight heights) of 1.34 birds/hour. White Stork, a Palearctic summer migrant, emerged with the highest potential collision risk score, with a risk score of which is 3.8 times higher than the average risk score of for priority species. The recorded flight activity does not show any specific spatial pattern and that correlates with the observed random foraging patterns of the species on the grassy plateau where the turbine site is located. Most of the flight activity at rotor height was soaring flights, and most of the flight activity below rotor height was flapping, i.e. short, low altitude flights between foraging areas. It should be noted that the risk scores do not incorporate species specific avoidance behaviour; therefore the high risk score for White Stork may not actually translate into fatalities. Although concern has been raised about the potential for White Stork mortality on wind turbines (Gerdzikov et al 2014) the species has so far not featured prominently in literature on wind farm mortalities (Gove et al 2013). Steppe Buzzard, a Palearctic summer migrant, and Jackal Buzzard emerged with closely matched collision risk scores in second and third place behind White Stork, with respective risk scores of (2.48 times higher than the average for priority species) and (twice as high as the average for priority species). The spatial distribution of the mostly soaring flights of both species show some concentration along the escarpment, which is to be expected from such highly aerial species, given the orographic lift potential along the escarpment. Southern Bald Ibis and Amur Falcon emerged with closely matched risk scores in fourth and fifth place with respective risk scores of (1.5 times higher than the average for priority species) and (1.37 times higher than the average for priority species). Southern Bald Ibis flight activity was limited, with the higher than average risk score largely due to the relatively high number of birds in several flights. Amur Falcon flight activity was very high, but mostly below rotor height. However, the situation would need to be monitored closely, as the species is clearly attracted to the grassy plateau where the turbines will be situated. Flight activity was concentrated in summer (it is only present during the austral summer) with a mid-morning peak (between 10h00 and 11h00). The rest of the priority species that were recorded during VP watches (Denham s Bustard, Blue Crane, African Harrier-Hawk, Black-shouldered Kite, Lanner Falcon, White-bellied Korhaan and Secretarybird) recorded below average risk scores due to low flight activity. Page 6

7 Displacement due to disturbance Both the turbine and control areas support a high diversity and abundance of grassland avifauna, which is to be expected since the site is located in the Grasslands Important Bird and Biodiversity Area. Natural grassland is the most important habitat at the both sites and supports at least 26 priority species, which occurs widespread all over the site. Based on the spatial distribution of priority species sightings, all of the grassland on the site is important, and no specific area can be singled out as being of higher or lesser importance. Based on numbers and diversity recorded during transect surveys, the turbine and control sites are generally similar as far as priority species are concerned, although there are also notable differences e.g. both Blue Crane and Grey Crowned Crane are more abundant at the control site, while Buff-streaked Chat is more common at the turbine site. Overall though, the two areas are comparable from an avifaunal habitat perspective. It is difficult to make predictions with regard to potential displacement of priority species, due to lack of precedents. It can however be stated with reasonable confidence that the majority of priority species (except possibly the passerines) are likely to show reduced numbers during the construction phase, due to disturbance related to construction activities. Of the priority species recorded at the site, White-bellied Korhaan and Denham s Bustard are potentially the most susceptible to permanent displacement, but it may turn out not to be the case. No evidence of any bustard display sites (leks) was found during any of the surveys. Displacement due to habitat change and loss All the priority species could potentially be affected by displacement due to habitat change and loss. However, due to the small footprint, displacement linked to direct destruction of grassland habitat is not likely to be a major impact. It is however impossible to say at this stage what the effect of the fragmentation of the habitat by the road network will be on priority species, except that larger, sensitive species (e.g. Denham s Bustard, White-bellied Korhaan and Secretarybird) are likely to be more directly affected by it. Smaller species with smaller home ranges are more able to persist in small pockets of suitable habitat. Mortality on electricity transmission line Collisions with the earthwire of the proposed power line are the most significant potential impact. Page 7

8 Species that could most likely potentially be affected by power line collisions are large terrestrial species namely Blue Crane, Grey Crowned Crane, Secretarybird, Black Stork, White Stork, Denham s Bustard, White-bellied Korhaan, Southern Bald Ibis and Southern Ground Hornbill. PROPOSED MITIGATION Collisions with the turbines From a potential collision perspective no relocation of turbine positions is required. Formal monitoring should be resumed once the turbines have been constructed, as per the most recent edition of the best practice guidelines (Jenkins et al. 2011). The exact scope and nature of the post-construction monitoring will be informed on an ongoing basis by the result of the monitoring through a process of adaptive management. The purpose of this would be (a) to establish if and to what extent displacement of priority species has occurred through the altering of flight patterns post-construction, and (b) to search for carcasses at turbines. As an absolute minimum, post-construction monitoring should be undertaken for the first two (preferably three) years of operation, and then repeated again in year 5, and again every five years thereafter. The exact scope and nature of the post-construction monitoring will be informed on an ongoing basis by the result of the monitoring through a process of adaptive management. The environmental management plan should provide for the on-going inputs of a suitable experienced ornithological consultant to oversee the post-construction monitoring and assist with the on-going management of bird impacts that may emerge as the post-construction monitoring programme progresses. Depending on the results of the carcass searches, a range of mitigation measures will have to be considered if mortality levels turn out to be significant, including selective curtailment of problem turbines during high risk periods. If turbines are to be lit at night, lighting should be kept to a minimum and should preferably not be white light. Flashing strobe-like lights should be used where possible (provided this complies with Civil Aviation Authority regulations). Lighting of the wind farm (for example security lights) should be kept to a minimum. Lights should be directed downwards (provided this complies with Civil Aviation Authority regulations). Displacement due to disturbance From a potential disturbance perspective no relocation of turbine positions is currently required. Page 8

9 Potential disturbance caused by the noise and movement of the turbines cannot really be mitigated, but the fact that the turbines are spaced far apart (>500m) may help to reduce the impact. Habituation might also happen over time. Vehicle and pedestrian access to the site should be controlled and restricted to access roads to prevent unnecessary disturbance of priority species. Formal monitoring should be resumed once the turbines have been constructed, as per the most recent edition of the best practice guidelines (Jenkins et al. 2011). The purpose of this would be to establish if displacement of priority species has occurred and to what extent. The exact time when post-construction monitoring should commence, will depend on the construction schedule, and will be agreed upon with the site operator once these timelines have been finalised. As an absolute minimum, post-construction monitoring should be undertaken for the first two (preferably three) years of operation, and then repeated again in year 5, and again every five years thereafter. The exact scope and nature of the post-construction monitoring will be informed on an ongoing basis by the result of the monitoring through a process of adaptive management. Mortality on electricity transmission line Once the final alignment has been determined, a walk-through exercise should be conducted by the avifaunal specialist to demarcate sections of the power line where anti-collision devices should be fitted. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The proposed wind farm will constitute a potential impact on grassland avifauna, especially as far as potential displacement due to fragmentation of the grassland habitat is concerned. However, if the habitat is carefully managed to conserve the grassland for the benefit of the birds, many species (and biodiversity in general) will benefit in the longer term through the protection of their specialised grassland habitat. If this could be achieved, e.g. through some form of a biodiversity stewardship programme involving the wind farm operator and the landowners, the wind farm should only constitute a moderate cumulative impact. CONCLUSION With 92 recorded bird species of which 26 are priority species, the proposed Waaihoek WEF is situated in an area of high avifaunal abundance and diversity. This is to be expected since the site is located within the Grasslands Important Bird and Biodiversity Area (SA125). However this does not automatically translate into a significant potential impact on avifauna. As far as potential collisions are concerned, the pre-construction monitoring at the site revealed low to moderate flight activity for priority species, except Amur Falcon, but the latter was recorded mostly below rotor level. White Stork emerged as the priority species with the largest potential for Page 9

10 collisions, but the species has so far not featured prominently in literature on wind farm mortalities, indicating a high avoidance rate. All in all, with the application of the mitigation measures proposed in this report, it should be possible to reduce the envisaged potential impacts to an overall low level of significance. Page 10

11 INDEX 1. INTRODUCTION General background Terms of reference Sources of information Assumptions DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Natural environment Modified environment AVIFAUNA IN THE STUDY AREA Transect counts Vantage point watches Focal points POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON AVIFAUNA Collision mortality on wind turbines Displacement due to disturbance Displacement due to habitat change and loss Mortality on electricity transmission line ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS ON AVIFAUNA: METHODOLOGY ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS ON AVIFAUNA: SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENTS AND PROPOSED MITIGATION CUMULATIVE IMPACTS CONCLUSION REFERENCES Page 11

12 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 General background South Africa Mainstream Renewable Power Developments (Pty) Ltd. (Mainstream) is proposing to develop a Wind Energy Facility (WEF) south-east of Utrecht in the Emadlangeni Local Municipality, KwaZulu-Natal Province. The WEF will host a maximum of 93 wind turbines, each generating between megawatts (MW) of power, with a total combined potential power output of approximately 160MW. The proposed Waaihoek WEF is situated approximately 20km east of the town of Utrecht, north of the R34 between Utrecht and Vryheid (Figure 1). A new power line, either with 88kV or 275kV capacity, will be constructed between the existing Bloedrivier Substation and the Waaihoek WEF internal substation. The 88kV line might be a double-circuit line (i.e. each tower supports six conductors). Three overhead power line corridor alternatives are proposed to transmit the electricity from the WEF to the Eskom Bloedrivier substation. In addition, the option of utilising an abandoned 88kV power line servitude to the south of the site and connecting directly into the existing 88kV line running parallel to the R34 is also being considered (Figure 2). Chris van Rooyen Consulting was contracted by Coastal and Environmental Services (CES), the Environmental Assessment Practitioner who is conducting the Environmental Impact Assessment, to investigate the potential impacts that the facility could have on avifauna. This avifaunal impact assessment study is based primarily on four seasons avifaunal monitoring which was completed at the site during the course of See Figures 1 3 for maps of the proposed WEF and the locality of the study area. Page 12

13 Figure 1: The location of the proposed Namies wind facility in the Northern Cape (Source: CES) Figure 2: Locality of the proposed WEF and transmission line route (Source: CES) Page 13

14 Figure 3: Proposed layout of the potential 93 turbines as at 06 August 2014, and the area taken up by a block of nine pentads (see 1.3 below) around the development. 1.2 Terms of reference The terms of reference for this report are the following: Describe the affected environment from an avifaunal perspective; Discuss gaps in baseline data and other limitations; List and describe the expected impacts; Assess and evaluate the potential impacts; and Recommend mitigation measures to reduce the impact of the expected impacts. 1.3 Sources of information The following information sources were consulted in order to conduct this study: Bird distribution data of the South African Bird Atlas 2 (SABAP 2) was obtained from the Animal Demography Unit of the University of Cape Town, as a means to ascertain which species occurs within the broader area i.e. within a block consisting of nine pentad grid cells surrounding the proposed WEF. A pentad grid cell covers 5 minutes of latitude by 5 minutes of longitude (5' 5'). Each pentad is approximately Page 14

15 8 7.6 km. From 2007 to date, a total of 46 full protocol cards (i.e. 46 surveys lasting a minimum of two hours each) have been completed for this area (see Figure 3). The national threatened status of all priority species was determined with the use of the most recent edition of the Red Data Book of Birds of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland (Taylor 2014), and the latest authoritative summary of southern African bird biology (Hockey et al. 2005). The global threatened status of all priority species was determined by consulting the latest (2014.1) IUCN Red List of Threatened Species ( A classification of the vegetation types in the relevant QDGCs was obtained from the Atlas of Southern African Birds 1 (SABAP1) and the National Vegetation Map compiled by the South African National Biodiversity Institute (Mucina & Rutherford 2006). The Important Bird Areas of Southern Africa was consulted for information on relevant Important Bird Areas (IBAs) ( Satellite imagery from Google Earth was used in order to view the broader area on a landscape level and to help identify bird habitat on the ground. Information on the micro habitat level was obtained through a site visit by one of the authors on 7-10 October 2013, and the subsequent pre-construction monitoring programme which was conducted between October 2013 and July One of the affected landowners, Mr. Rob Stannard (Waterloo Farm) was interviewed with regard to birds occurring on the properties as well as agricultural practices in the district. The primary source of information on avifaunal diversity, abundance and flight patterns at the site were the results of the pre-construction programme. Monitoring was done at the turbine site and at a control site. The methods of data capturing were walk transect counts, drive transect counts, focal point monitoring, vantage point counts and incidental sightings. The pre-construction monitoring protocol was designed in accordance with the Best practice guidelines for avian monitoring and impact mitigation at proposed wind energy development sites in southern Africa (Jenkins et al. 2011) which was published by the Endangered Wildlife Trust (EWT) and BirdLife South Africa (BLSA) in March 2011, and subsequently revised in August 2011 and July 2012 (see APPENDIX A for a detailed explanation of the monitoring methods). 1.4 Assumptions This study made the basic assumption that the sources of information used are reliable. However, the following must be noted: Page 15

16 To date, no comprehensive studies (other than a few environmental impact reports), and no peer-reviewed scientific papers, are available on the impacts wind farms have on birds in South Africa. The precautionary principle was therefore applied throughout. The World Charter for Nature, which was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1982, was the first international endorsement of the precautionary principle ( The principle was implemented in an international treaty as early as the 1987 Montreal Protocol and, among other international treaties and declarations, is reflected in the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. Principle 15 of the 1992 Rio Declaration states that: in order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall be not used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation. Even in the international arena predicted mortality rates are often significantly off the mark, indicating that this is still a fledgling science in many respects, even in developed countries like Spain with an established wind industry (Ferrer et al. 2012). 2. DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 2.1 Natural environment The turbine site and proposed grid connection fall entirely within the Grassland biome (Harrison et al. 1997; Mucina & Rutherford 2006). The turbine site is located primarily in Wakkerstroom Montane Grassland, which comprises predominantly short montane grasslands on the plateaus and the relatively flat areas, with short forest and Leucosidea thickets occurring along steep, mostly east-facing slopes and drainage areas. A few proposed turbines positions below the plateau are located in KwaZulu- Natal Highland Thornveld, which is found on hilly undulating landscapes and broad valleys supporting tall tussock grassland usually dominated by Hyperrhenia hirta, with occasional savannoid woodlands with scattered Acacia sieberiana and small pockets of Acacia karroo and Acacia nilotica. The proposed power line alternatives and three potential turbine positions are located in Income Sandy Grassland in the plains below the plateau, which consist of low, tussock-dominated sourveld forming a mosaic with wooded grasslands dominated by Acacia sieberiana and other Vachellia species (Mucina & Rutherford 2006). Contained within the turbine site and the power line study area (defined as a 2km zone around the various proposed alignments) are also several small wetland areas as well as a large wetland, Blood River Vlei, the latter which is situated approximately 6.2km from the closest proposed turbine position, and at its closest point about 600m from one of the proposed power line alignments. These wetlands are classified as Eastern Temperate Freshwater Wetlands which support zoned systems of Page 16

17 aquatic and hygrophilous vegetation in temporarily flooded grassland and along the slow flowing Blood (Ncome) River and its tributaries (Mucina & Rutherford 2006). A small area of Northern KwaZulu-Natal Shrubland, which occurs on small dolerite koppies and steeper slopes of ridges with spare grass cover and typical occurrence of scattered shrubland pockets, is situated near Blood River substation (Mucina & Rutherford 2006). The majority of the proposed turbine area is located in an Important Bird Area (IBA), namely the Grasslands Important Bird and Biodiversity Area (SA125). The proposed 132kV power line alternatives for the grid connection is largely located just outside the IBA (see Figure 4). The IBA (a proposed but not yet declared biosphere reserve) comprises a vast area (c ha) and is centred on the towns of Volksrust and Wakkerstroom. It comprises some 800 private farms, several municipalities, conservancies, Biodiversity Stewardship Protected Environments and a considerable amount of State-owned land. The area comprises gentle rolling hills on the South African plateau ( m above means sea levelthat are broken regularly by parts of the Mpumalanga Drakensberg escarpment. The IBA covers several catchments and holds many perennial rivers and wetlands. It holds several wetlands of international importance, including the aforementioned Blood River Vlei. Several other small important wetlands are scattered throughout the IBA. The area receives summer rainfall, averaging between 635 and mm p.a. depending on topography; the upper limit being reached on the escarpment. The terrestrial vegetation matrix is dominated by some of the finest rolling grasslands remaining in South Africa. Of the terrestrial birds, most of South Africa's threatened and endemic grassland species have their core populations centred on the IBA. An estimated 85% of the Rudd's Lark Heteromirafra ruddi global population is thought to occur within the IBA. Although this lark ranges throughout the IBA, it is highly localised within open, moderately to heavily grazed level grassland, without forb invasion. Rudd's Lark prefers hill tops or plateaus where it favours trampled areas. Botha's Lark Spizocorys fringillaris, which also occurs within the IBA, is highly localised within Amersfoort Highveld Clay Grassland on black clays or dolerite soils where it favours short, dense, natural grassland on plateaus and upper hill slopes, avoiding rocky areas, taller grass in bottomlands, vleis, croplands and planted pastures. Within the IBA, Botha's Lark is more common in the Wielspruit catchment and around the settlement of Perdekop. The Yellow-breasted Pipit favours mid-altitude, well-developed lightly grazed or ungrazed grassland. The largest Southern Bald Ibis breeding colonies in the world occur within the IBA. Large numbers also forage and roost throughout the area. Blue Crane, Denham's Bustard, White-bellied Korhaan, Short-tailed Pipit Anthus brachyurus and Black-winged Lapwing are widespread at low densities. Black-winged Pratincole Glareola nordmanni and White Stork occasionally occur in very large numbers during the austral Page 17

18 summer. On exposed outcrops and rocky slopes at higher altitudes African Rock Pipit Anthus crenatus, Ground Woodpecker Geocolaptes olivaceus, Buff-streaked Chat and Sentinel Rock Thrush are common. Gurney's Sugarbird is found around proteoid woodland on the escarpment, and Black Stork Ciconia nigra breed on steep cliffs. Occasionally, Cape Vulture Gyps coprotheres, Martial Eagle, Lesser Kestrel, Black Harrier Circus maurus and Pallid Harrier Circus macrourus are found at low densities within the area ( SA125 Figure 4: The location of the proposed turbine site and grid connection relative to the Grasslands Important Bird and Biodiversity Area (SA125) (green areas). SABAP1 recognises six primary vegetation divisions within South Africa from an avifaunal perspective, namely (1) Fynbos (2) Succulent Karoo (3) Nama Karoo (4) Grassland (5) Savanna and (6) Forest (Harrison et al. 1997). The criteria used by the authors to amalgamate botanically defined vegetation units, or to keep them separate were (1) the existence of clear differences in vegetation structure, likely to be relevant to birds, and (2) the results of published community studies on bird/vegetation associations. It is important to note that no new vegetation unit boundaries were created, with use being made only of previously published data. Using this classification system, the natural vegetation in the turbine area and the power line study area is classified as a mixture of sour grassland and mixed grassland. The dominant plants in the grassland biome are grass species, with geophytes and herbs also well represented. Grasslands are maintained mainly by a combination of the following factors: relatively high summer rainfall; frequent fires; Page 18

19 frost and grazing. These factors preclude the growth of trees and shrubs. Sour grassland generally occurs in the higher rainfall areas on leached soils. Mixed grassland is a combination or a transition between sour grassland and sweet grassland, the latter being generally found in the lower rainfall areas - vegetation is taller and sparser, and nutrients are retained in the leaves during winter (Harrison et al. 1997). 2.2 Modified environment Whilst the distribution and abundance of the bird species in the proposed development areas are mostly associated with natural vegetation, as this comprises virtually all the habitat, it is also necessary to examine external modifications to the environment that may have relevance for birds. The following avifaunal-relevant habitat modifications were identified within the proposed turbine area and power line study area: Agriculture: The turbine area contains a few small agricultural fields (maize and Eragrostis pastures). Below the escarpment, along the various power line alternatives, there are extensive areas of maize and pastures. Alien trees: The turbine area contains several clumps of invasive Australian Black Wattle Acacia mearnsii, Eucalyptus and pine species. Along the various power line alignments, there are also pockets of alien trees. Dams: There several impoundments in the study area, both within the turbine area and also below the escarpment along the various power line alternatives. APPENDIX B provides a photographic record of the habitat in the turbine area and in the power line study area. A map indicating the vegetation types is shown in Figure 5. Page 19

20 Figure 5: Vegetation types in the turbine area and along the various power line alignments. 3. AVIFAUNA IN THE STUDY AREA A total of 92 species were recorded at the study area (i.e. the turbine area and control area) from all data sources (drive transects, walk transects, VP watches, focal point counts and incidental sightings), of which 26 are priority species. See Table 3-1 for a list of al priority species that were recorded, as well as those that could potentially occur at the site. Table 3 2 lists all species recorded in the study area during the pre-construction surveys. 3.1 Transect counts The transects were surveyed 12 times, three times per season. A total of 2038 individual birds were recorded during transect counts at the turbine site, of which 651 were priority species and 1657 were non-priority species, belonging to 74 species (17 priority species and 57 non-priority species). At the control site, a total of 1203 birds were recorded during transect counts, of which 378 were priority species and 1087 non-priority species, belonging to 53 species (14 priority species and 39 non-priority species). An Index of Kilometric Abundance (IKA = birds/km) was calculated for each priority species, and also for all priority species combined. This was done separately for drive Page 20

21 transects and walk transects. Figures 6 and 7 shows the relative abundance of priority species recorded during the pre-construction monitoring through drive and walk transects. Figure 6: Priority species recorded at the turbine and control site through drive transect surveys Figure 7: Priority species recorded at the turbine and control site through walk transect surveys Page 21

22 3.1.1 Overall species composition Both the turbine and control areas support a high diversity and abundance of avifauna, which is to be expected in this area. Based on numbers and diversity recorded during transect surveys, the turbine and control sites are generally similar as far as priority species are concerned, although there are also notable differences e.g. both Blue Crane and Grey Crowned Crane are more abundant at the control site, while Buff-streaked Chat is more common at the turbine site. The difference in species abundance between the turbine and control site might be partially due to subtle habitat differences linked to the percentage of seasonally flooded areas and rocky outcrops within each survey area. The control site has more areas of seasonally flooded grassland, which may account for the larger number of cranes, especially Grey Crowned Cranes, while the turbine site is rockier and at a higher altitude, resulting in more suitable habitat for Buff-streaked Chat. Overall though, the two areas are comparable from an avifaunal habitat perspective Abundance Drive transects The abundance of priority species at the turbine site is also generally high, with 1.66 birds/km recorded on drive transects, and 1.12 birds/km at the control site. Blackwinged Lapwing (recorded in spring and summer) was the most frequently recorded priority species during drive transects at both the turbine site and the control site, followed by White Stork (recorded in summer). Buff-streaked Chat was the third most recorded species at the turbine site (recorded all seasons), followed by Blue Crane (recorded all seasons except winter). Next most commonly recorded at the turbine site were White-bellied Korhaan (recorded in all seasons), Secretarybird (recorded in all seasons) and Steppe Buzzard (recorded in summer and autumn). At the control site, Blue Crane (recorded all seasons except winter) was the third most recorded species, followed by Steppe Buzzard (recorded in spring and summer), Southern Bald Ibis (recorded in spring) and Grey Crowned Crane (recorded in autumn) (see Figures 8 and 9). Walk transects For walk transects the abundances of priority species are similarly high, the IKAs for priority species are 7.23 birds/km and birds/km for the turbine site and control sites respectively. Black-winged Lapwing (recorded in all seasons) was the most frequently recorded priority species during walk transects at both the turbine site and the control site, followed by Buff-streaked Chat (recorded in all seasons) at the turbine site and Blue Crane (recorded in all seasons) at the control site. White Stork was the third most recorded species at the turbine site (recorded in summer), followed by White-bellied Korhaan (recorded in all seasons), Southern Bald Ibis (recorded spring and winter) and Blue Crane (recorded in spring and summer) in Page 22

23 very similar numbers. At the control site, White Stork (recorded in summer) and Grey Crowned Crane (recorded in all seasons except spring) were the third most recorded species, followed by Denham s Bustard (recorded in summer and autumn) and White-bellied Korhaan (recorded in summer)(see Figures 8 and 9). Figure 8: Seasonal breakdown of priority species recorded at the turbine site through drive and walk transect surveys Figure 9: Seasonal breakdown of priority species recorded at the control site through drive and walk transect surveys Page 23

24 As can be seen from figures 8 and 9 above, most activity was recorded during summer and spring. The actual count summaries are attached as APPENDIX C Spatial distribution of transect records and incidental sightings Figure 10 below indicates the spatial distribution of priority species recorded during transect counts and incidental sightings, in the turbine and control areas. Page 24

25 Figure 10: Spatial distribution of sightings of priority species (includes incidental sightings). Page 25

26 Table 3-1 below lists all the priority species that could potentially occur at the site and the potential impact on the respective species by the development infrastructure. Species actually recorded during pre-construction surveys are shaded. The following abbreviations and acronyms are used: VU NT EN SAE Ct Cp Dd Vulnerable Near threatened Endangered Southern African endemic or near endemic Collisions with turbines Collisions with power line Displacement through disturbance Table 3-2 lists all the species recorded during the pre-construction surveys. Page 26

27 Table 3-1: Priority species (Retief et al. 2012) potentially occurring at the site. Name Scientific name Regional threatened status (Taylor 2014) Global threatened status (IUCN 2014) BLSA/EWT Priority rating (on scale of ) Terrestrial Soaring Likelihood of occurrence Potential impact Martial Eagle Polemaetus bellicosus EN NT 330 x Confirmed (incidental). Might visit the turbine site occasionally, might also be attracted to alien trees. Ct, Dd African Harrier- Hawk Polyboroides typus Least concern Least concern 190 x Confirmed. Might visit the turbine site occasionally, might also be attracted to alien trees. Ct, Dd Page 27

28 Name Scientific name Regional threatened status (Taylor 2014) Global threatened status (IUCN 2014) BLSA/EWT Priority rating (on scale of ) Terrestrial Soaring Likelihood of occurrence Potential impact Secretarybird Sagittarius serpentarius VU VU 320 x x Confirmed. Recorded regularly foraging on the ground in grassland areas. Ct, Cp, Dd, Amur Falcon Falco amurensis Least concern Least concern 210 x Confirmed. Large numbers foraging on the wing in the grassland areas during summer. Ct Lanner Falcon Falco biarmicus VU Least concern 280 x Confirmed. Might visit the turbine site occasionally, might also be attracted to alien trees and cliffs along the escarpment. Ct Black Sparrowhawk Accipiter melanoleucus Least concern Least concern 170 x Confirmed (incidental). Might visit the turbine site occasionally, might also be attracted to alien trees. Ct, Dd Page 28

29 Name Scientific name Regional threatened status (Taylor 2014) Global threatened status (IUCN 2014) BLSA/EWT Priority rating (on scale of ) Terrestrial Soaring Likelihood of occurrence Potential impact Spotted Eagle-Owl Bubo africanus Least concern Least concern 170 Nocturnal raptor but flight more like terrestrial species Confirmed (incidental). May be attracted to alien trees. Ct Jackal Buzzard Buteo rufofuscus SAE Least concern 250 x Confirmed. Recorded regularly foraging over the turbine area and soaring along the escarpment line. Could be attracted to alien trees and cliffs along the escarpment. Ct Steppe Buzzard Buteo vulpinus Least concern Least concern 210 x Confirmed. Recorded regularly foraging over the turbine area. Could be attracted to alien trees. Ct Black Stork Ciconia nigra VU Least concern 310 x Confirmed. Could be attracted to the cliffs along the escarpment and wetlands. Ct, Cp Page 29

30 Name Scientific name Regional threatened status (Taylor 2014) Global threatened status (IUCN 2014) BLSA/EWT Priority rating (on scale of ) Terrestrial Soaring Likelihood of occurrence Potential impact Black-shouldered Kite Elanus caeruleus Least concern Least concern 174 x Confirmed. Recorded occasionally foraging over the turbine area. Could be attracted to alien trees. Likely to be attracted to the power line for perching. Ct Black-winged Lapwing Vanellus melanopterus Least concern Least concern 184 x Confirmed. Occurs commonly on the turbine site. Ct Blue Crane Anthropoides paradiseus NT SAE VU 320 x x Confirmed. Recorded fairly regularly foraging on the turbine site in grassland. Ct, Cp, Dd Buff-streaked Chat Oenanthe bifasciata Least concern SAE Least concern 185 x Confirmed. Occurs commonly on the turbine site, especially in rocky areas. Dd Page 30

31 Name Scientific name Regional threatened status (Taylor 2014) Global threatened status (IUCN 2014) BLSA/EWT Priority rating (on scale of ) Terrestrial Soaring Likelihood of occurrence Potential impact Denham s Bustard Neotis denhamii VU NT 300 x Confirmed. Recorded sparsely but regularly at the turbine site in grassland. Ct, Cp, Dd Grey Crowned Crane Balearica regulorum EN EN 294 x x Confirmed. Recorded sparsely at the turbine site foraging in grassland. Flocks also recorded at wetlands below the escarpment. Ct, Cp, Dd Grey-winged Francolin Scleroptila africanus Least concern Least concern 190 x Confirmed. Recorded sparsely at the turbine site. Dd Pallid Harrier Circus macrourus NT NT 260 x Confirmed. One record from the control site. Might occur sporadically in grassland. Ct Page 31

32 Name Scientific name Regional threatened status (Taylor 2014) Global threatened status (IUCN 2014) BLSA/EWT Priority rating (on scale of ) Terrestrial Soaring Likelihood of occurrence Potential impact Rufous-chested Sparrowhawk Accipiter rufiventris Least threatened Least threatened 170 x Confirmed. Might visit the turbine site occasionally, might also be attracted to alien trees. Ct Southern Bald Ibis Geronticus calvus VU VU 330 x Confirmed. Recorded fairly regularly at the turbine site foraging in grassland. Breeding site recorded on the cliffs directly below the turbine site and approximately 4.3km from the site. Ct, Cp White Stork Ciconia ciconia Least threatened Least threatened 220 x x Confirmed. Recorded fairly regularly foraging on the turbine site in grassland. Ct, Cp Page 32

33 Name Scientific name Regional threatened status (Taylor 2014) Global threatened status (IUCN 2014) BLSA/EWT Priority rating (on scale of ) Terrestrial Soaring Likelihood of occurrence Potential impact White-bellied Korhaan Eupodotis senegalensis VU Least concern 270 x Confirmed. Recorded fairly commonly in the turbine area in grassland. Ct, Cp,Dd Yellow-breasted Pipit Anthus chloris SAE VU VU 245 x Confirmed. Single incidental record from the turbine site. Dd Red-footed Falcon Falco vespertinus NT NT 174 x Confirmed. Single incidental record from the turbine site. Ct Southern Ground- Hornbill Bucorvus leadbeateri VU EN 290 x Confirmed. Single incidental record from the turbine site. Ct, Dd Page 33

34 Name Scientific name Regional threatened status (Taylor 2014) Global threatened status (IUCN 2014) BLSA/EWT Priority rating (on scale of ) Terrestrial Soaring Likelihood of occurrence Potential impact Black Harrier Circus maurus VU EN 325 x Not recorded. Reporting rate of 27% in 6 pentads around the study area. Could be encountered in grassland. Ct, Page 34

35 Table 3-2: List of all species recorded during pre-construction surveys. Priority Species Scientific Name Turbine Control VP Incidentals Focal points African Harrier-Hawk Polyboroides typus * * * Amur Falcon Falco amurensis * * * * * Black Sparrowhawk Accipiter melanoleucus Black Stork Ciconia nigra * Black-shouldered Kite Elanus caeruleus * * * Black-winged Lapwing Blue Crane Buff-streaked Chat Vanellus melanopterus Anthropoides paradiseus Oenanthe bifasciata * * * * * * * * * * * Denham's Bustard Neotis denhami * * * * Grey Crowned Crane Grey-winged Francolin Balearica regulorum Scleroptila africanus * * * * * Jackal Buzzard Buteo rufofuscus * * * * * Lanner Falcon Falco biarmicus * * Pallid Harrier Circus macrourus * Rufous-chested Sparrowhawk Secretarybird Accipiter rufiventris Sagittarius serpentarius * * * * * * * Southern Bald Ibis Geronticus calvus * * * * * Spotted Eagle-Owl Bubo africanus * Steppe Buzzard Buteo vulpinus * * * * White Stork Ciconia ciconia * * * * White-bellied Korhaan Eupodotis senegalensis * * * * * Yellow-breasted Pipit Anthus chloris * Martial Eagle Polemaetus bellicosus African Marsh-Harrier Circus ranivorus * Red-footed Falcon Falco vespertinus * Southern Ground Hornbill Bucorvus leadbeateri * * * Total: * Non-Priority Species Turbine Control African Black Duck Anas sparsa * African Hoopoe Upupa africana * * African Pipit Anthus cinnamomeus * * Page 35

36 African Quailfinch African Stonechat Anteating Chat Ortygospiza atricollis Saxicola torquatus Myrmecocichla formicivora * * * * * * Banded Martin Riparia cincta * * Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica * * Black-collared Barbet Lybius torquatus * Black-headed Heron Ardea melanocephala Black-headed Oriole Oriolus larvatus * * Bokmakierie Telophorus * * zeylonus Cape Bunting Emberiza * capensis Cape Canary Serinus canicollis * * Cape Crow Corvus capensis * * Cape Grassbird Sphenoeacus afer * Cape Longclaw Macronyx * * capensis Cape Robin-Chat Cossypha caffra * Cape Turtle-Dove Streptopelia capicola * * * Cape Wagtail Motacilla * * capensis Cape Weaver Ploceus capensis * Cape White-eye Zosterops capensis * Cloud Cisticola Cisticola textrix * Common Fiscal Lanius collaris * * Common Quail Coturnix coturnix * Crowned Lapwing Dark-capped Bulbul Drakensberg Prinia Eastern Long-billed Lark Egyptian Goose Vanellus coronatus Pycnonotus tricolor Prinia hypoxantha Certhilauda semitorquata Alopochen aegyptiaca * * * * * * * Fork-tailed Drongo Dicrurus adsimilis * * Greater Honeyguide Indicator * indicator Greater Striped Swallow Hirundo cucullata * * Hadeda Ibis Bostrychia hagedash * * Hamerkop Scopus umbretta * Levaillant's Cisticola Cisticola tinniens * Long-billed Pipit Anthus similis * * Page 36

37 Long-tailed Widowbird Euplectes progne * * Malachite Sunbird Mountain Wheatear Pale-crowned Cisticola Nectarinia famosa Oenanthe monticola Cisticola cinnamomeus Pied Crow Corvus albus * * * * * Pied Starling Spreo bicolor * Plain-backed Pipit Anthus * leucophrys Red-capped Lark Calandrella * * cinerea Red-chested Cuckoo Cuculus solitarius * * Red-eyed Dove Streptopelia semitorquata Red-faced Mousebird Urocolius indicus * Red-throated Wryneck Jynx ruficollis * Rock Kestrel Falco rupicolus * * Rock Martin Hirundo fuligula * Rufous-naped Lark Mirafra africana * South African Cliff- Swallow Southern Boubou Southern Doublecollared Sunbird * Hirundo spilodera * Laniarius ferrugineus Cinnyris chalybeus Speckled Pigeon Columba guinea * Spike-heeled Lark Spur-winged Goose Chersomanes albofasciata Plectropterus gambensis Streaky-headed Crithagra gularis * Seedeater Swainson's Spurfowl Pternistis swainsonii Temminck's Courser Cursorius * temminckii Wailing Cisticola Cisticola lais * * * * * * Wing-snapping Cisticola Cisticola ayresii * * Yellow-billed Duck Anas undulata * Zitting Cisticola Cisticola juncidis * * Total: Grand Total * * Page 37

38 3.2 Vantage point watches Thirteen priority species were recorded during vantage point (VP) watches. A total of 378 hours of vantage point watches (12 hours per season per vantage point in autumn, winter and spring, and 18 hours per vantage point in summer) was completed in order to record flight patterns of priority species at the site. In the four seasonal sampling periods, priority species were recorded flying over the VP area for a total of 9 hours, 44 minutes and 48 seconds. A total of 235 individual flights were recorded, containing a minimum of 1 bird up to a maximum of 28 birds per flight. Of these, 10 (4.2%) flights were at high altitude (above rotor height), 44 (18.7%) were at medium altitude (i.e. approximately within rotor height) and 182 (77.4%) were at a low altitude (below rotor height). The passage rate for priority species over the VP area (all flight heights) was 1.34 birds/hour 1. See Figure 11 below for the duration of flights within the VP area for each species, at each height class 2. For purposes of flight analyses, priority species recorded during VP watches at the site were classified in two classes: Terrestrial species: Birds that spend most of the time foraging on the ground. They do not fly often and then generally short distances at low to medium altitude, usually powered flight. Some larger species undertake longer distance flights at higher altitudes, when commuting between foraging and roosting areas. At the wind farm site, korhaans, bustards, ibises, cranes, secretarybirds, lapwings and storks were included in this category 3. Soaring species: Species that spend a significant time on the wing in a variety of flight modes including soaring, kiting, hovering and gliding at medium to high altitudes. At the wind farm site, the raptor species that were recorded during VP watches were included in this class. 1 For calculating the passage rate, a distinction was drawn between passages and flights. A passage may consist of several flights e.g. every time a bird changes height or mode of flight; this was recorded as an individual flight, although it still forms part of the same passage. 2 Flight duration was calculated by multiplying the flight time with the number of individuals in the flight e.g. if the flight time was 30 seconds and it contained two individuals, the flight duration was 30 seconds x 2 = 60 seconds. 3 For purposes of flight analysis, cranes, storks, secretarybirds and ibises were classified as either terrestrial or soaring, depending on the nature of the recorded flight activity. Page 38

39 Figure 11: Flight duration and heights recorded for priority species (Y axis = hours: minutes: seconds). Duration (hours: minutes: seconds) of flights indicated on the bars Site specific collision risk rating A site specific collisions risk rating for each priority species recorded during VP watches was calculated to give an indication of the likelihood of an individual of the specific species to collide with the turbines at this site. This was calculated taking into account the following factors: The duration of medium height flights; the susceptibility to collisions, based on morphology (size) and behaviour (soaring, predatory, ranging behaviour, flocking behaviour, night flying, aerial display and habitat preference) using the ratings for priority species in the Avian Wind Farm Sensitivity Map of South Africa (Retief et al. 2012); and the number of planned turbines. This was done in order to gain some understanding of which species are likely to be most at risk of collision. The formula used is as follows 4 : Duration of medium height flights in decimal hours x collision susceptibility calculated as the sum of morphology and behaviour ratings x number of planned turbines It is important to note that the formula does not incorporate avoidance behaviour. This may differ between species and may have a significant impact on the size of the risk associated with a specific species. It is generally assumed that 95-98% of birds will successfully avoid the turbines (SNH 2010). It is also important to note that there is not necessarily a direct correlation between time spent at rotor height, and the likelihood of collision. Page 39

40 The results are displayed in Table 3-4 and Figure 12 below. Table 3-4: Site specific collision risk rating for all priority species recorded during VP watches. Species Duration of flights (hr) Collision rating # turbines Risk rating Black-winged Lapwing White-bellied Korhaan Denham's Bustard Secretarybird Blue Crane Black-shouldered Kite African Harrier-Hawk Lanner Falcon Amur Falcon Southern Bald Ibis Jackal Buzzard Steppe Buzzard White Stork Average Average: Figure 12: Site specific collision risk rating for priority species. Page 40

41 3.2.2 Sample size and representativeness of flight data As the data are gathered watch period by watch period an improved estimate of the average number of birds that occur in the area will be achieved. As more data are gathered the more accurate the estimate will become. The issue is to determine if the updated average count begins to stabilise towards the end (or better still, before the end) of the survey (and thus the conclusion that a representative sample has been achieved). To achieve this, the average number of flights (as well as for individual birds) is computed from all preceding data as the data become available in consecutive watch periods (day after day and from the different vantage points). These updated averages are expected to vary to a large extent in the initial stages of sampling and to stabilise as more data come in. Since the counts vary (in principle) substantially over the seasons (especially for individual counts) the updated averages are determined separately for each season 5. Figure 13 plots these updated averages for soaring birds (the number of flights as well as a count of the total number of individual birds). Figure 14 does the same for terrestrial birds. 10 Waaihoek - Soaring Birds: consecutively updated flight and individual averages per 2h observation period Flights Updated Average Individuals Updated Average 2 0 Spring 2013 Summer 2014 Autumn 2014 Winter 2014 Sampling period: 11 Oct Jul 2014 Figure 13: Soaring birds: updated average for Flight and Individual counts. 5 In the summer observation period only, three-hour VP watches instead of the usual two-hour VP watches were conducted. In order to make seasonal comparisons possible, flights that were recorded in the third hour of a summer VP watch period were omitted from the sample. Page 41

42 Figure 13 shows that the updated averages stabilise well towards the end of Spring, Autumn and Winter and seems to have a stabilising trend towards the end of Summer. 4.0 Waaihoek - Terrestrial Birds: consecutively updated flight and individual averages per 2h observation period Flights Updated Average Individuals Updated Average Spring 2013 Summer 2014 Autumn 2014 Winter 2014 Sampling period: 11 Oct Jul 2014 Figure 14: Terrestrial birds: updated average for Flight and Individual counts. Figure 14 confirms that the updated averages for terrestrial birds stabilise well towards the end for all four seasons. Also in this way it becomes visually clear that the survey has gathered sufficient information to be able to say, also for terrestrial birds, that the data represent the true situation fairly well. An estimate of the average number of terrestrial birds (flights or individuals) is not likely to be improved by further sampling. When the updated averages are computed not separately for each season but continuously over all consecutive watch periods over all four seasons, the picture becomes much clearer as shown in Figure 15. This is done for individual counts only. Figure 15 shows how the updated average counts stabilise towards the end of a year of counts over consecutive seasons. It becomes even clearer when the small scale on the vertical axis is noted. It is not expected that further sampling will succeed in changing the estimated average number of individual birds in the survey areas. Page 42

43 3.0 Waaihoek - Individual Soaring / Terrestrial birds Updated average per 2h watch period over all seasons 2.5 Updated average count Soaring Individuals Terrestrial Individuals 0.0 Spring 2013 Summer 2014 Autumn 2014 Winter Watch period number Figure 15: Soaring and Terrestrial birds: updated average for Individual counts. There is another way to consider if the sample size is sufficient for the intended purpose namely to estimate the average number of birds with acceptable precision. The standard deviations given in Tables 2 5 of APPENDIX D are measures of the variability that exists in the counts observed. To achieve a computation for sample size we consider the variabilities for soaring individuals only. The technical question is: how many watch periods (n) must be sampled in order to be 95% certain of obtaining an estimate of the mean that is within a precision of d units (counts) from the true mean value, i.e. to say with 95% certainty that the true mean count per observation period lies in an interval of xd where x is the sample estimate of the true mean value. A practical approximation to an appropriate sample size for this requirement may be obtained from the formula: (1) / 2 n (s* t (n1) / d), 2 t (n 1) where / 2 is the upper a/2 = 2.5% point of Student s t distribution with n 1 degrees of freedom (n the sample size) and s is an estimate of the true standard deviation of the counts (Zar 2010). Page 43

44 The summer counts for soaring individuals, with an average of 3.64 and standard deviation of 6.95, are meaningfully different from those of the other three seasons. Thus at first the summer statistics are considered separately. If a value of d = 2.2 is considered to be adequate precision for the summer counts, then, by applying formula (1) with s = 6.95 (see Table 3), a sample size of n 43 will achieve this. The n = 42 that were used during the survey is sufficiently close to that required by formula (1). Of course, the formula is quite sensitive to the choice of d but a value of d = 2.2 seem reasonable considering the confidence interval for the summer count in Table 3. If the standard deviation for all groups (i.e. over all seasons) of s = 3.82 is used in formula 1, then even if a precision as small as d = 1 is required, the sample size turns out to be n > 63. This is well achieved with the 168 watch periods in the survey. When the terrestrial birds (individual counts) are considered, Table 5 shows s = 3.7 and if d = 1 is required, formula (1) shows the minimum sample size to be n = 59. This is also well within the value used in the survey. All told we may conclude that the sample sizes used during the survey would provide information sufficient to characterise the average flight activity of birds in the survey area during the survey periods with reasonable certainty. The use of formula (1) is dependent on certain assumptions (e.g. normality of the counts distribution) that are perhaps not met. However, it provides some indication of the validity of the estimates based on the achieved sample sizes. In conclusion it can thus be stated that the computations and the way the data were exhibited in the tables and graphs in this report (see APPENDIX D) show that the survey may be taken to be statistically representative of the flight activity of soaring and terrestrial priority species in the area that was surveyed and that more data would not succeed d in improving the estimates for the period of survey in a substantial way. See APPENDIX D for a detailed explanation of the statistical methods Spatial distribution of flight activity Flight maps were prepared, indicating the spatial distribution of passages containing medium height flights of priority species flights observed from the seven vantage points (see Figures below). This was done by overlaying a 100m x 100m grid over the survey area. Each grid cell was then given a weighting score taking into account the duration and distance of individual flight lines through a grid cell and the number of individual birds associated with each flight crossing the grid cell. It is important to interpret these maps bearing in mind the amount of time that each species spent at medium height e.g. the High category on the map for Amur Falcon is not equivalent to the High category on the map for White Stork, as the flight Page 44

45 duration of medium height flights for Amur Falcon is much less than the medium height flight duration for White Stork. Figure 16: Concentration of medium height flights for White Stork. Figure 17: Concentration of medium height flights for Steppe Buzzard. Page 45

46 Figure18: Concentration of medium height flights for Jackal Buzzard Figure 19: Concentration of medium height flights for Southern Bald Ibis Page 46

47 Figure 20: Concentration of medium height flights for Amur Falcon 3.3 Focal points A total of four potential focal points of bird activity were identified on the turbine and control sites and monitored seasonally. A total of 27 hours and 10 minutes were spent doing focal point observations. The focal points were as follows: Ctrl FP1: Wetland near the control site (observed for 6 hours 45 minutes). No significant observations of priority species were recorded at this point. Turbine FP 1: Wetland on the turbine site (observed for 8 hours 25 minutes). Secretarybird, White-bellied Korhaan, Amur Falcon, White Stork and Southern Bald Ibis were observed foraging in the wetland and adjacent grassland. These species are generally associated with grassland habitat. Ctrl FP2: Southern Bald Ibis breeding area (observed for 5 hours 30 minutes). The colony was active in spring 2013 (three nests) and a total 9 adult birds were counted, but no activity was observed in subsequent seasons. Turbine FP 2.1 and 2.2: Southern Bald Ibis roosting area (observed for 6 hours 30 minutes). Four adults and two juveniles were counted in summer Page 47

48 Figure 20: Focal points in the study area 4. POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON AVIFAUNA The effects of a wind farm on birds are highly variable and depend on a wide range of factors including the specification of the development, the topography of the surrounding land, the habitats affected and the number and species of birds present. With so many variables involved, the impacts of each wind farm must be assessed individually. The principal areas of concern with regard to effects on birds are listed below. Each of these potential effects can interact with each other, either increasing the overall impact on birds or, in some cases, reducing a particular impact (for example where habitat loss or displacement causes a reduction in birds using an area which might then reduce the risk of collision): Collision mortality on the wind turbines; Collision with the proposed power line; Displacement due to disturbance; and Displacement due to habitat change and loss. It is important to note that the assessment is made on the status quo as it is currently on site. The possible change in land use in the broader development area is not taken into account because the extent and nature of future developments are unknown at this stage. It is however highly unlikely that the land use will change in the foreseeable future. Page 48

49 4.1 Collision mortality on wind turbines Internationally, it was until recently widely accepted that bird mortalities from collisions with wind turbines contribute a relatively small proportion of the total mortality from all causes. A Finnish study reported 10 bird fatalities from turbines, and 820,000 birds killed annually from colliding with other structures such as buildings, electricity pylons and lines, telephone and television masts, lighthouses and floodlights (EWEA 2003). Erikson et al. (2001) conducted a comparative study on behalf of the National Wind Power Coordinating Committee (NWCC) on the causes of human-made avian mortality in the USA. They reviewed reports indicating the following estimated annual avian collision mortality in the United States: Vehicles: 60 million - 80 million Buildings and Windows: 98 million million Powerlines: tens of thousands million Communication Towers: 4 million - 50 million Wind Generation Facilities: 10,000-40,000. In a subsequent paper, Erickson et al. (2005) estimated annual deaths of 20,000 37,000 birds, including 933 raptors, at the 6,374 MW of wind energy capacity that had been installed in the United States by the end of However, in a recent paper, Smallwood (2013) points out that estimates of bird fatalities at wind turbines across the USA may be an underestimation. Estimates are often made at wind-energy projects to assess impacts by comparing them with other fatality estimates. Many fatality estimates have been made across North America, but they have varied greatly in field and analytical methods, monitoring duration, and in the size and height of the wind turbines monitored for fatalities, and few benefited from scientific peer review. To improve comparability among estimates, he reviewed available reports of fatality monitoring at wind-energy projects throughout North America, and applied a common estimator and 3 adjustment factors to data collected from these reports. To adjust fatality estimates for proportions of carcasses not found during routine monitoring, he used national averages from hundreds of carcass placement trials intended to characterize scavenger removal and searcher detection rates, and he relied on patterns of carcass distance from wind turbines to develop an adjustment for variation in maximum search radius around wind turbines mounted on various tower heights. He estimated 573,000 bird fatalities/year (including 83,000 raptor fatalities) at 51,630 megawatt (MW) of installed wind- Page 49

50 energy capacity in the United States in His fatality rate estimate was 20 times greater than Erickson et al. s estimate for all birds and 89 times greater for raptors, even though the installed capacity of wind energy increased only 8.1-fold from 2003 to His increased estimates were likely due to improved estimation methods and many more wind-energy projects having been monitored and found to cause higher fatality rates than averaged by Erickson et al. (2001, 2005). The fact that the majority of studies on collisions caused by wind turbines have recorded relatively low mortality levels (Madders & Whitfield 2006) might also be a reflection of the fact that many of the studied wind farms are located away from large concentrations of birds. It is also important to note that many records are based only on finding corpses, with no correction for corpses that are overlooked or removed by scavengers (Drewitt & Langston in Ibis 2006). Despite the general trend of low mortality reflected in the majority of studies, relatively high collision mortality rates have been recorded at several large, poorly sited wind farms in areas where large concentrations of birds are present. This is especially the case among migrating birds, large raptors or other large soaring species, e.g. in the Altamont Pass in California, USA, and in Tarifa and Navarra in Spain. In these cases actual deaths resulting from collision are high, notably of Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos and Eurasian Griffon Gyps fulvus, respectively. In a study in Spain, it was found that the distribution of collisions with wind turbines was clearly associated with the frequencies at which soaring birds flew close to rotating blades (Barrios & Rodriguez 2004). Patterns of risky flights and mortality included a temporal component (deaths concentrated in some seasons), a spatial component (deaths aggregated in space), a taxonomic component (a few species suffered most losses), and a migration component (resident populations were more vulnerable). It is generally accepted that the risk is likely to be greater on or near areas regularly used by large numbers of feeding or roosting birds, or on migratory flyways or local flight paths, especially where these are intercepted by the turbines (however, recent analyses of mortality at wind farms in Spain challenges this proposition (Ferrer et al. 2012), see discussion further down). Risk also changes with weather conditions, with evidence from some studies showing that more birds collide with structures when visibility is poor due to fog or rain, although this effect may to some extent be offset by lower levels of flight activity in such conditions (Madders & Whitfield 2006). Strong headwinds also affect collision rates and migrating birds in particular tend to fly lower when flying into the wind (Drewitt & Langston 2006). Accepting that many wind farms may only cause low levels of mortality, even these levels of additional mortality may be significant for long-lived species with low Page 50

51 productivity and slow maturation rates (e.g. Blue Crane, Martial Eagle and Secretarybird), especially when rarer species of conservation concern are affected. In such cases there could be significant effects at the population level (locally, regionally or, in the case of rare and restricted species, nationally), particularly in situations where cumulative mortality takes place as a result of multiple installations (Carette et al. 2009). Large birds with poor manoeuvrability (such as korhaans, bustards and Secretarybirds) are in general at greater risk of collision with structures, and species that habitually fly at dawn and dusk or at night are perhaps less likely to detect and avoid turbines (e.g. cranes and Ludwig s Bustards (Shaw 2013) arriving at a roost site after sunset, or flamingos flying at night). Collision risk may also vary for a particular species, depending on age, behaviour and stage of annual cycle (Drewitt & Langston 2006). While the flight characteristics of cranes, flamingos and bustards make them obvious candidates for collisions with power lines, it is noted that these bird families (unlike raptors) do not feature prominently in literature as wind turbine collision victims. It may be that they have high evasion ability, resulting in lower collision risks, or even avoid wind farms generally (see the discussion on Displacement in section 4.2 below). For reasons that are not entirely clear, indications are that bustards are not prone to wind turbine collisions a Spanish database of over 7000 recorded turbine collisions contains no Great Bustards Otis tarda (A. Camiña 2012a). The same lack of mortality was also reported from Austria (Raab et al. 2009). Whether this holds true for local bustard species, particularly the Denham s Bustard in this instance, can only be verified through on-site postconstruction monitoring. The precise location of a wind farm site can be critical. Soaring species may use particular topographic features for lift (Barrios & Rodriguez 2004; De Lucas et al. 2008) or such features can result in large numbers of birds being funnelled through an area of turbines (Drewitt & Langston 2006). For example, absence of thermals on cold, overcast days may force larger, soaring species (e.g. Martial Eagle and Secretarybird) to use slopes for lift, which may increase their exposure to turbines. Birds also lower their flight height in some locations, for example when following the coastline or crossing a ridge, which might place them at greater risk of collision with rotors. A recent study confirmed that the probability of bird collisions with turbines depends on species behaviour and topographical factors, and not only on local abundance. Consequently, certain locations of wind turbines could be very dangerous for birds even where there is a relatively low density of birds crossing the area, whereas other locations would be relatively risk free even with higher densities of birds. If relevant factors affecting the frequency of collisions with turbine rotor blades are operating at the individual turbine scale, and not at the entire wind farm scale, Page 51

52 ideally investigations should be conducted at the level of individual proposed turbines (Ferrer et al. 2012). The size and alignment of turbines and rotor speed are likely to influence collision risk; however, physical structure is probably only significant in combination with other factors, especially wind speed, with gentle winds resulting in the highest risk (Barrios & Rodriguez 2004; Stewart et al. 2007). Lattice towers are generally regarded as more dangerous than tubular towers because many raptors use them for perching and occasionally for nesting; however Barrios & Rodriguez (2004) found tower structure to have no effect on mortality, and that mortality may be directly related to abundance for certain species (e.g. Common Kestrel Falco tinnunculus). De Lucas et al. (2008) found that turbine height and higher elevations may heighten the risk (taller/higher = higher risk), but that abundance was not directly related to collision risk, at least for Eurasian Griffon Vulture Gyps fulvus. On the other hand, Smallwood (2013) found an inverse relationship between fatality and turbine size for raptors as a group. A review of the available literature indicates that, where collisions have been recorded, the rates per turbine are highly variable with averages ranging from 0.01 to 23 bird collisions annually (the highest figure is the value, following correction for scavenger removal, for a coastal site in Belgium and relates to gulls, terns and ducks among other species) (Drewitt & Langston 2006). Although providing a helpful and standardised indication of collision rates, average rates per turbine must be viewed with some caution as they are often cited without variance and can mask significantly higher rates for individual turbines or groups of turbines (Everaert et al as cited by Drewitt & Langston 2006). Some of the highest mortality levels have been for raptors in the Altamont Pass in California (Howell & DiDonato 1991, Orloff & Flannery 1992 as cited by Drewitt & Langston 2006) and at Tarifa and Navarre in Spain (Barrios & Rodriguez unpublished data as cited by Drewitt & Langston 2006). These cases are of particular concern because they affect relatively rare and long-lived species such as Griffon Vulture Gyps fulvus and Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos that have low reproductive rates and are vulnerable to additive mortality. Golden Eagles congregate in Altamont Pass to feed on super-abundant prey which supports very high densities of breeding birds. In the Spanish cases, extensive wind farms were built in topographical bottlenecks where large numbers of migrating and local birds fly through a relatively confined area due to the nature of the surrounding landscape, for example through mountain passes, or use rising winds to gain lift over ridges (Barrios & Rodriguez 2004). Although the average numbers of annual fatalities per turbine (ranging from 0.02 to Page 52

53 0.15 collisions/turbine) were generally low in the Altamont Pass and at Tarifa, overall collision rates were high because of the large numbers of turbines involved (over in the case of Altamont). At Navarre, corrected annual estimates ranging from 3.6 to 64.3 mortalities/turbine were obtained for birds and bats (unpublished data). Thus, a minimum of 75 Golden Eagles are killed annually in Altamont and over 400 Griffon Vultures are estimated (following the application of correction factors) to have collided with turbines at Navarre. Work on Golden Eagles in the Altamont Pass indicated that the population was declining in this area thought to be due, at least in part, to collision mortality (Hunt et al. 1999, Hunt 2001 as cited by Drewitt & Langston 2006). The effects of night-time illumination has not been adequately tested, and the results of studies are contradictory (Johnson et al. 2007). Studies involving lighted objects or towers indicate that lights may attract birds, rather than disorient or repel them, resulting in collision mortality (Johnson et al. 2007). This is mostly a problem for nocturnal migrants (primarily passerines) during poor visibility conditions. Different colour lights vary in their attractiveness to birds and their effect on orientation. Several studies have shown that intermittent lights have less of an effect on birds than constant lights, with reduced rates of mortality. In addition, some studies suggest that replacing white lights with red coloured lights may reduce mortality by up to 80%. This may be due to the change in light intensity rather than the change in wavelength (Johnson et al. 2007). However, Ugoretz (2001) suggest that birds are more sensitive to red lights and may be attracted to them. Quickly flashing white strobe lights appear to be less attractive. The issue is however far from settled - a study at Buffalo Ridge, Minnesota, where most of the collision fatalities were classified as nocturnal migrants, found little difference between lighted and unlighted turbines (Johnson et al. 2000).The consensus among researchers is to avoid lighting the turbines if possible, but that might contradict civil aviation regulations (Civil Aviation Regulations 1997). Waaihoek WEF In general, moderate to high flight activity was recorded during the vantage point (VP) watches, with an overall passage rate for priority species over the VP observation area (all flight heights) of 1.34 birds/hour. White Stork, a Palearctic summer migrant, emerged with the highest potential collision risk score, with a risk score of 48.24which is 3.8 times higher than the average risk score of for priority species. The recorded flight activity does not show any specific spatial pattern and that correlates with the observed random foraging patterns of the species on the grassy plateau where the turbine site is located. Most of the flight activity at rotor height was soaring flights, and Page 53

54 most of the flight activity below rotor height was flapping, i.e. short, low altitude flights between foraging areas. Steppe Buzzard, a Palearctic summer migrant, and Jackal Buzzard emerged with closely matched collision risk scores in second and third place behind White Stork, with respective risk scores of (2.48 times higher than the average for priority species) and (twice as high as the average for priority species). The spatial distribution of the mostly soaring flights show some concentration along the escarpment, which is to be expected from such highly aerial species, given the orographic lift potential along the escarpment. It should be noted that the risk scores do not incorporate species specific avoidance behaviour; therefore the high risk score for White Stork may not actually translate into fatalities. Although concern has been raised about the potential for White Stork mortality on wind turbines (Gerdzikov et al 2014) the species has so far not featured prominently in literature on wind farm mortalities (see e.g. Gove et al 2013). Southern Bald Ibis and Amur Falcon emerged with closely matched risk scores in fourth and fifth place with respective risk scores of (1.5 times higher than the average for priority species) and (1.37 times higher than the average for priority species). o Southern Bald Ibis flight activity was limited, with the higher than average risk score largely due to the relatively high number of birds in several flights. o Amur Falcon flight activity was very high, but mostly below rotor height (see Figure 11). However, the situation would need to be monitored closely, as the species is clearly attracted to the grassy plateau where the turbines will be situated. Flight activity was concentrated in summer (it is only present during the austral summer) with a mid-morning peak (between 10h00 and 11h00). The rest of the priority species that were recorded during VP watches (Denham s Bustard, Blue Crane, African Harrier-Hawk, Black-shouldered Kite, Lanner Falcon, White-bellied Korhaan and Secretarybird) recorded below average risk scores due to low flight activity. From a potential collision perspective no relocation of turbine positions is currently required. 4.2 Displacement due to disturbance The displacement of birds from areas within and surrounding wind farms due to visual intrusion and disturbance in effect can amount to habitat loss. Displacement may occur during both the construction and operational phases of wind farms, and may be Page 54

55 caused by the presence of the turbines themselves through visual, noise and vibration impacts, or as a result of vehicle and personnel movements related to site maintenance. The scale and degree of disturbance will vary according to site- and species-specific factors and must be assessed on a site-by-site basis (Drewitt & Langston 2006). Unfortunately, few studies of displacement due to disturbance are conclusive, often because of the lack of before-and-after and control-impact (BACI) assessments. Onshore, disturbance distances (in other words the distance from wind farms up to which birds are absent or less abundant than expected) of up to 800 m (including zero) have been recorded for wintering waterfowl (Pedersen & Poulsen 1991 as cited by Drewitt & Langston 2006), though 600 m is widely accepted as the maximum reliably recorded distance (Drewitt & Langston 2006). The variability of displacement distances is illustrated by one study which found lower post-construction densities of feeding European White-fronted Geese Anser albifrons within 600 m of the turbines at a wind farm in Rheiderland, Germany (Kruckenberg & Jaene 1999 as cited by Drewitt & Langston 2006), while another showed displacement of Pink-footed Geese Anser brachyrhynchus up to only m from turbines at a wind farm in Denmark (Larsen & Madsen 2000 as cited by Drewitt & Langston 2006). Indications are that Great Bustard Otis tarda (a species related to the Denham s Bustard) could be displaced by wind farms up to one kilometre from the facility (Langgemach 2008). Studies of breeding birds are also largely inconclusive or suggest lower disturbance distances, though this apparent lack of effect may be due to the high site fidelity and long life-span of the breeding species studied. This might mean that the true impacts of disturbance on breeding birds will only be evident in the longer term, when new recruits replace existing breeding birds. Few studies have considered the possibility of displacement for short-lived passerines (such as larks), although Leddy et al. (1999) found increased densities of breeding grassland passerines with increased distance from wind turbines, and higher densities in the reference area than within 80 m of the turbines, indicating that displacement did occur at least in this case. The consequences of displacement for breeding productivity and survival are crucial to whether or not there is likely to be a significant impact on population size. A comparative study of nine wind farms in Scotland (Pearce-Higgens et al. 2009) found unequivocal evidence of displacement: Seven of the 12 species studied exhibited significantly lower frequencies of occurrence close to the turbines, after accounting for habitat variation, with equivocal evidence of turbine avoidance in a further two. No species were more likely to occur close to the turbines. Levels of turbine avoidance suggest breeding bird densities may be reduced within a 500m buffer of the turbines by 15 53%, with Common Buzzard Buteo buteo, Hen Harrier Circus Page 55

56 cyaneus, Golden Plover Pluvialis apricaria, Snipe Gallinago gallinago, Curlew Numenius arquata and Wheatear Oenanthe oenanthe most affected. In a follow-up study, monitoring data from wind farms located on unenclosed upland habitats in the United Kingdom were collated to test whether breeding densities of upland birds were reduced as a result of wind farm construction or during wind farm operation. Red Grouse Lagopus lagopus scoticus, Snipe Gallinago gallinago and Curlew Numenius arquata densities all declined on wind farms during construction. Red Grouse densities recovered after construction, but Snipe and Curlew densities did not. Post-construction Curlew densities on wind farms were also significantly lower than reference sites. Conversely, densities of Skylark Alauda arvensis and Stonechat Saxicola torquata increased on wind farms during construction. There was little evidence for consistent post-construction population declines in any species, suggesting that wind farm construction can have greater impacts upon birds than wind farm operation (Pierce-Higgens et al. 2012). Studies show that the scale of disturbance caused by wind farms varies greatly. This variation is likely to depend on a wide range of factors including seasonal and diurnal patterns of use by birds, location with respect to important habitats, availability of alternative habitats and perhaps also turbine and wind farm specifications. Behavioural responses vary not only between different species, but between individuals of the same species, depending on such factors as stage of life cycle (wintering, moulting, breeding), flock size and degree of habituation. The possibility that wintering birds in particular might habituate to the presence of turbines has been raised (Langston & Pullan 2003), though it is acknowledged that there is little evidence and few studies of long enough duration to show this, and at least one study has found that habituation may not occur (Altamont Pass Avian Monitoring Team 2008). A systematic review of the effects of wind turbines on bird abundance has shown that increasing time since operation resulted in greater declines in bird abundance (Stewart et al as cited by Drewitt & Langston 2006). This evidence that impacts are likely to persist or worsen with time suggests that habituation is unlikely, at least in some cases (Drewitt & Langston 2006, Altamont Pass Avian Monitoring Team 2008). The effect of birds altering their migration flyways or local flight paths to avoid a wind farm is also a form of displacement. This effect is of concern because of the possibility of increased energy expenditure when birds have to fly further, as a result of avoiding a large array of turbines, and the potential disruption of linkages between distant feeding, roosting, moulting and breeding areas otherwise unaffected by the wind farm. The effect depends on species, type of bird movement, flight height, distance to turbines, the layout and operational status of turbines, time of day and Page 56

57 wind force and direction, and can be highly variable, ranging from a slight 'check' in flight direction, height or speed, through to significant diversions which may reduce the numbers of birds using areas beyond the wind farm (Drewitt & Langston 2006). A review of the literature suggests that none of the barrier effects identified so far have significant impacts on populations (Drewitt & Langston 2006). However, there are circumstances where the barrier effect might lead indirectly to population level impacts; for example where a wind farm effectively blocks a regularly used flight line between nesting and foraging areas, or where several wind farms interact cumulatively to create an extensive barrier which could lead to diversions of many tens of kilometres, thereby incurring increased energy costs. There is a dearth of literature on the displacement effect of wind farm developments on key species assemblages in the study area, particularly larks and bustards. As mentioned above, indications are that Great Bustard could be displaced by wind farms up to one kilometre from the facility (Langgemach 2008). An Austrian study found displacement for Great Bustards up to 600m (Wurm & Kollar as quoted by Raab et al. 2009). However, there is also evidence to the contrary; information on Great Bustard received from Spain points to the possibility of continued use of leks at operational wind farms (Camiña 2012b). Waaihoek WEF Both the turbine and control areas support a high diversity and abundance of grassland avifauna, which is to be expected since the site is located in the Grasslands Important Bird and Biodiversity Area. Natural grassland is the most important habitat at the both sites and supports at least 26 priority species, which occurs widespread all over the site. Based on the spatial distribution of priority species sightings, all of the grassland on the site is important, and no specific area can be singled out as being of higher or lesser importance. Based on numbers and diversity recorded during transect surveys, the turbine and control sites are generally similar as far as priority species are concerned, although there are also notable differences e.g. both Blue Crane and Grey Crowned Crane are more abundant at the control site, while Buff-streaked Chat is more common at the turbine site. The difference in species abundance between the turbine and control site might be partially due to subtle habitat differences linked to the percentage of seasonally flooded areas and rocky outcrops within each survey area. The control site has more areas of seasonally flooded grassland, which may account for the larger number of cranes, especially Grey Crowned Cranes, while the turbine site is more rocky, resulting in more suitable habitat for Buff-streaked Chat. Overall though, the two areas are comparable from an avifaunal habitat perspective. Page 57

58 It is difficult to make predictions with regard to potential displacement of priority species, due to lack of precedents. It can however be stated with reasonable confidence that the majority of priority species (except possibly the passerines) are likely to show reduced numbers during the construction phase, due to disturbance related to construction activities. Of the priority species recorded at the site, White-bellied Korhaan and Denham s Bustard are potentially the most susceptible to permanent displacement, but it may turn out not to be the case (see Camiña 2012b). No evidence of any bustard display sites (leks) was found during any of the surveys. From a potential displacement perspective no relocation of turbine positions is required. 4.3 Displacement due to habitat change and loss The scale of permanent habitat loss resulting from the construction of a wind farm and associated infrastructure depends on the size of the project but, in general it, is likely to be small per turbine base. Typically, actual habitat loss amounts to 2 5% of the total development area (Fox et al as cited by Drewitt & Langston 2006), though effects could be more widespread where developments interfere with hydrological patterns or flows on wetland or peatland sites (unpublished data). Some changes could also be beneficial. For example, habitat changes following the development of the Altamont Pass wind farm in California led to increased mammal prey availability for some species of raptor (for example through greater availability of burrows for Pocket Gophers Thomomys bottae around turbine bases), though this may also have increased collision risk (Thelander et al as cited by Drewitt & Langston 2006). However, the results of habitat transformation may be more subtle, whereas the actual footprint of the wind farm may be small in absolute terms, the effects of the habitat fragmentation brought about by the associated infrastructure (e.g. power lines and roads) may be more significant. Sometimes Great Bustard can be seen close to or under power lines, but a study done in Spain (Lane et al as cited by Raab et al. 2009) indicates that the total observation of Great Bustard flocks were significantly higher further from power lines than at control points. Shaw (2013) found that Ludwig s Bustard generally avoid the immediate proximity of roads within a 500m buffer. This means that power lines and roads also cause loss and fragmentation of the habitat used by the population in addition to the potential direct mortality. The physical encroachment increases the disturbance and barrier effects that contribute to the overall habitat fragmentation effect of the infrastructure (Raab et al. 2010). It has been shown that fragmentation of natural grassland in Mpumalanga (in that case by afforestation) has had a detrimental impact on the Page 58

59 densities and diversity of grassland species (Alan et al. 1997), and that is likely to be true for fragmentation of grassland anywhere in the grassland biome. Waaihoek WEF All the priority species could potentially be affected by displacement due to habitat change and loss. However, due to the small footprint, displacement linked to direct destruction of grassland habitat is not likely to be a major impact. It is however impossible to say at this stage what the effect of the fragmentation of the habitat by the road network will be on priority species, except that larger, sensitive species (e.g. Denham s Bustard, White-bellied Korhaan and Secretarybird) are likely to be more directly affected by it. Smaller species with smaller home ranges are more able to persist in small pockets of suitable habitat (Harrison et al. 1997). 4.4 Mortality on electricity transmission line Because of their size and prominence, electrical infrastructures constitute an important interface between wildlife and man. Negative interactions between wildlife and electricity structures take many forms, but two common problems in southern Africa are electrocution of birds (and other animals) and birds colliding with power lines (Ledger & Annegarn 1981; Ledger 1983; Ledger 1984; Hobbs & Ledger 1986a; Hobbs & Ledger 1986b; Ledger et.al. 1992; Verdoorn 1996; Kruger & Van Rooyen 1998; Van Rooyen 1998; Kruger 1999; Van Rooyen 1999; Van Rooyen 2000; Jenkins et al 2010; Shaw 2013). Electrocutions are not envisaged to be a problem on the proposed electricity grid connection. Collisions, on the other hand, could be a significant problem. Collisions probably kill far more birds annually in southern Africa than electrocutions (Van Rooyen 2007). Most heavily impacted upon are bustards, storks, cranes and various species of water birds. 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 considered threatened in southern Africa - of the 2369 avian mortalities on distribution lines recorded incidentally by the EWT since August 1996 and October 2007, 1512 (63.8%) were Red Data species (Van Rooyen 2007). Power line collisions are generally accepted as a key threat to bustards (Raab et al. 2009; Raab et al. 2010; Jenkins & Smallie 2009; Barrientos et al. 2012, Shaw 2013). In a recent study, carcass surveys were performed under high voltage transmission Page 59

60 power lines in the Karoo for two years, and low voltage distribution lines for one year (Shaw 2013). Ludwig s Bustard was the most common collision victim (69% of carcasses), with bustards generally comprising 87% of mortalities recovered. Total annual mortality was estimated at 41% of the Ludwig s Bustard population, with Kori Bustards Ardeotis kori also dying in large numbers (at least 14% of the South African population killed in the Karoo alone). Karoo Korhaan was also recorded, but to a much lesser extent than Ludwig s Bustard. The reasons for the relatively low collision risk of this species probably include their smaller size (and hence greater agility in flight) as well as their more sedentary lifestyles, as local birds are familiar with their territory and are less likely to collide with power lines (Shaw 2013). Despite doubts about the efficacy of line marking to reduce the collision risk for bustards (Jenkins et al. 2010; Martin et al. 2010), there are numerous studies which prove that marking a line with PVC spiral type Bird Flight Diverters (BFDs) generally reduce mortality rates (e.g. Barrientos et al. 2011; Jenkins et al. 2010; Alonso & Alonso 1999; Koops & De Jong 1982), also to some extent for bustards (Barrientos et al. 2012). Beaulaurier (1981) summarised the results of 17 studies that involved the marking of earth wires and found an average reduction in mortality of 45%. A fairly recent study (Barrientos et al. 2011) reviewed the results of 15 wire marking experiments in which transmission or distribution wires were marked to examine the effectiveness of flight diverters in reducing bird mortality. The presence of flight diverters was associated with a decrease in bird collisions. At unmarked lines, there were 0.21 deaths/1000 birds (n = 339,830) that flew among lines or over lines. At marked lines, the mortality rate was 78% lower (n = 1,060,746). Koops and De Jong (1982) found that the spacing of the BFDs were critical in reducing the mortality rates - mortality rates are reduced up to 86% with a spacing of 5 metres, whereas using the same devices at 10 metre intervals only reduces the mortality by 57%. Barrientos et al. (2012) found that larger BFDs were more effective in reducing Great Bustard collisions than smaller ones. Line markers should be as large as possible, and highly contrasting with the background. Colour is probably less important as during the day the background will be brighter than the obstacle with the reverse true at lower light levels (e.g. at twilight, or during overcast conditions). Black and white interspersed patterns are likely to maximise the probability of detection (Martin et al. 2010). Waaihoek WEF Species that could most likely potentially be affected by power line collisions are large terrestrial species namely Blue Crane, Grey Crowned Crane, Secretarybird, Black Stork, White Stork, Denham s Bustard, White-bellied Korhaan, Southern Bald Ibis and Southern Ground Hornbill. Page 60

61 4.4.1 Selecting a preferred alignment One of the objectives of this study is to arrive at a preferred alignment for the proposed power line in terms of impacts on power line sensitive Red Data avifauna. The following factors were considered to arrive at a preferred alignment for the proposed transmission line, primarily using high resolution Google Earth imagery as the main source of data, supplemented with on the ground spot checks of habitat along the various proposed alternatives: Wetlands and dams: Wetlands and dams are often draw cards for waterbirds in general, and wetlands (e.g. Blood River Vlei) are of particular importance for Grey Crowned Cranes, and may also be used by Blue Cranes to roost in. The presence of wetlands and dams is an indicator of a higher collision and habitat destruction risk. Rivers: The study area contains a number of drainage lines e.g. the Blood (Ncome) River. These drainage lines are obviously important for birds and many waterbirds occur along these drainage lines. Drainage lines are therefore an indication of a higher collision risk. Transmission lines: There are strong arguments for the proposition that placing a new line next to an existing line reduces the risk of collisions to birds. The reasons for that are two-fold, namely it creates a more visible obstacle to birds and the resident birds, particularly breeding adults, which are accustomed to an obstacle in that geographic location and have learnt to avoid it (APLIC 1994; Sundar & Choudhury 2005). Other transmission lines running parallel to the proposed alignments were therefore treated as a risk reducing factor. Roads: These were taken as an indication of human activity and particularly vehicle and pedestrian traffic. It was assumed that the birds will avoid the immediate vicinity of larger roads due to the presence of vehicle traffic and pedestrians, and the general habitat degradation and disturbance associated with roads (small farm tracks were discounted). Towns and industrial activity: These are obvious centres of human activity and are generally avoided by large power line sensitive species. The presence of towns, settlements and industrial activity is therefore a risk reducing factor. Grassland: The large terrestrial power line sensitive species such as Blue Crane, Grey Crowned Crane and Denham s Bustard favour grassland habitat in Page 61

62 contrast to agricultural landscapes (Young 2003). Natural grassland was therefore treated as having a higher collision and displacement risk. Agriculture. Areas of commercial agriculture (pastures and maize) were taken as a risk reducing factor, as these areas are generally less utilised from an avifaunal biodiversity perspective, particularly as far as power line sensitive Red Data species are concerned (Young 2003). However, Red Data species such as Blue Crane, Grey Crowned Crane and Southern Bald Ibis utilise this habitat on occasion. The factors mentioned above were incorporated into a formula to arrive at a risk rating for each alignment. The formula was designed as follows: Aquatic habitat (wetlands, dams and drainage lines): The length of alignment running within approximately 100m or closer of a dam, wetland or drainage line was measured. The distance, of which the proposed alignments are running parallel to existing roads approximately within a 200m buffer zone on each side of the road was measured separately for grassland, agriculture, and aquatic habitat. The length of line running within 200m or closer of settlements/industrial activity was measured. The distance, of which the proposed alignments are running within a 70m zone on each side of existing transmission lines, was measured separately for each grassland, agriculture, and aquatic habitat. The length of alignment running across grassland was measured. The length of alignment running across agriculture was measured. Table 4-1: The results of the measurements for each option (km). Factor Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Aquatic habitat Aquatic habitat + road Aquatic habitat + TX line Grassland Grassland + road Grassland + TX line Agriculture Agriculture + road Page 62

63 Agriculture + TX line Suburban/industrial Obviously all these factors do not have an equal impact on the size of the risk, therefore a weighting was assigned to each factor, based on the author s professional judgment on how important the factor is within the total equation, taking into account the avifaunal characteristics of the study area. The following weights were assigned: Page 63

64 Table 4-2: Weights assigned to risk factors Factor Weighting Aquatic habitat 9 Aquatic habitat + road 5 Aquatic habitat + TX line 6 Grassland 10 Grassland + road 6 Grassland + TX line 7 Agriculture 5 Agriculture + road 3 Agriculture + TX line 4 Suburban/industrial 0 The final risk score for a factor was calculated as follows: measurements/counts x weighting. The final risk rating for an alignment was calculated as the sum of the risk scores of the individual factors 100. Table 4-3: The final scores for the respective alignments Factor Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Aquatic habitat Aquatic habitat + road Aquatic habitat + TX line Grassland Grassland + road Grassland + TX line Agriculture Agriculture + road Agriculture + TX line Suburban/industrial Rating From the analysis above, the alternative 1 emerged as the preferred alternative from a bird impact assessment perspective. Page 64

65 Figure 21: Alternatives for the proposed grid connection. The Mainstream route is existing 88kV servitude. 5. ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS ON AVIFAUNA: METHODOLOGY Four factors were considered when assessing the significance of impacts, namely: Relationship of the impact to temporal scales - the temporal scale defines the significance of the impact at various time scales, as an indication of the duration of the impact. Relationship of the impact to spatial scales - the spatial scale defines the physical extent of the impact. The likelihood/probability of the impacts occurring - the likelihood of impacts taking place as a result of project actions differs between potential impacts. There is no doubt that some impacts would occur (e.g. loss of vegetation), but other impacts are not as likely to occur (e.g. vehicle accident), and may or may not result from the proposed development. Although some impacts may have a severe effect, the likelihood of them occurring may affect their overall significance. The severity of the impact - the severity/beneficial scale is used in order to scientifically evaluate how severe negative impacts would be, or how beneficial positive impacts would be on a particular affected system (for ecological impacts) or a particular affected party. Page 65

66 The environmental significance scale is an attempt to evaluate the importance of a particular impact and relies heavily on the professional judgment of the specialist. Negative impacts that are ranked as being of VERY HIGH and HIGH significance are investigated further to determine how the impact can be minimised or what alternative activities or mitigation measures can be implemented. For impacts identified as having a negative impact of MODERATE significance, it is standard practice to investigate alternate activities and/or mitigation measures. The most effective and practical mitigations measures are proposed. For impacts ranked as LOW significance, no investigations or alternatives are considered. Possible management measures are investigated to ensure that the impacts remain of low significance. Table 5-1: Criteria used to determine the significance of an impact Temporal Scale (The duration of the impact) Short term Less than 5 years (many construction phase impacts are of a short duration). Medium term Long term Between 5 and 20 years. Between 20 and 40 years (from a human perspective almost permanent). Permanent Over 40 years or resulting in a permanent and lasting change that will always be there. Spatial Scale (The area in which any impact will have an effect) Individual Impacts affect an individual. Localised Project Level Surrounding Areas Municipal Regional National International/Global Will definitely occur Impacts affect a small area of a few hectares in extent. Often only a portion of the project area. Impacts affect the entire project area. Impacts that affect the area surrounding the development Impacts affect either the Local Municipality, or any towns within them. Impacts affect the wider district municipality or the province as a whole. Impacts affect the entire country. Impacts affect other countries or have a global influence. Impacts will definitely occur. Degree of Confidence or Certainty (The confidence with which one has predicted the significance of an impact) Page 66

67 Definite Probable Possible Unsure More than 90% sure of a particular fact. Should have substantial supportive data. Over 70% sure of a particular fact, or of the likelihood of that impact occurring. Only over 40% sure of a particular fact, or of the likelihood of an impact occurring. Less than 40% sure of a particular fact, or of the likelihood of an impact occurring. Table 5-2: Severity rating scale Impact severity (The severity of negative impacts, or how beneficial positive impacts would be on a particular affected system or affected party) Very severe An irreversible and permanent change to the affected system(s) or parties which cannot be mitigated. For example the permanent loss of land. Severe Long term impacts on the affected system(s) or parties that could be mitigated. However, this mitigation would be difficult, expensive or time consuming, or some combination of these. For example, the clearing of forest vegetation. Very beneficial A permanent and very substantial benefit to the affected system(s) or parties, with no real alternative to achieving this benefit. For example the vast improvement of sewage effluent quality Beneficial A long term impact and substantial benefit to the affected system(s) or parties. Alternative ways of achieving this benefit would be difficult, expensive or time consuming, or some combination of these. For example an increase in the local economy. Moderate severe Medium to long term impacts on the affected system(s) or parties, which could be mitigated. For example constructing the sewage treatment facility where there was vegetation with a low conservation value. Moderate beneficial A medium to long term impact of real benefit to the affected system(s) or parties. Other ways of optimising the beneficial effects are equally difficult, expensive and time consuming (or some combination of these), as achieving them in this way. For example a slight improvement in sewage Page 67

68 effluent quality. Slight Medium or short term impacts on the affected system(s) or parties. Mitigation is very easy, cheap, less time consuming or not necessary. For example a temporary fluctuation in the water table due to water abstraction. No effect The system(s) or parties are not affected by the proposed development. Slightly beneficial A short to medium term impact and negligible benefit to the affected system(s) or parties. Other ways of optimising the beneficial effects are easier, cheaper and quicker, or some combination of these. Don t know/can t know In certain cases it may not be possible to determine the severity of an impact. Table 5-3: The rating of overall significance Overall Significance (The combination of all the above criteria as an overall significance) Very High Negative Very Beneficial These impacts would be considered by society as constituting a major and usually permanent change to the (natural and/or social) environment, and usually result in severe or very severe effects, or beneficial or very beneficial effects. Example: The loss of a species would be viewed by informed society as being of VERY HIGH significance. Example: The establishment of a large amount of infrastructure in a rural area, which previously had very few services, would be regarded by the affected parties as resulting in benefits with VERY HIGH significance. High Negative Beneficial These impacts will usually result in long term effects on the social and/or natural environment. Impacts rated as HIGH will need to be considered by society as constituting an important and usually long term change to the (natural and/or social) environment. Society would probably view these impacts in a serious light. Example: The loss of a diverse vegetation type, which is fairly common elsewhere, would have a significance rating of HIGH over the long term, as the area could be rehabilitated. Example: The change to soil conditions will impact the natural system, and the impact on affected parties (such as people growing crops in the soil) would be HIGH. Moderate Negative Some Benefits These impacts will usually result in medium to long term effects on the social and/or natural environment. Impacts rated as MODERATE will need to be considered by society as constituting a fairly important and usually medium term change to the (natural and/or social) environment. These impacts are real but not substantial. Example: The loss of a sparse, open vegetation type of low diversity may be regarded as MODERATELY significant. Low Negative Few Benefits These impacts will usually result in medium to short term effects on the social and/or natural environment. Impacts rated as LOW will need to be considered by the public and/or the specialist as Page 68

69 constituting a fairly unimportant and usually short term change to the (natural and/or social) environment. These impacts are not substantial and are likely to have little real effect. Example: The temporary changes in the water table of a wetland habitat, as these systems are adapted to fluctuating water levels. Example: The increased earning potential of people employed as a result of a development would only result in benefits of LOW significance to people who live some distance away. No Significance There are no primary or secondary effects at all that are important to scientists or the public. Example: A change to the geology of a particular formation may be regarded as severe from a geological perspective, but is of NO significance in the overall context. Don t Know In certain cases it may not be possible to determine the significance of an impact. For example, the primary or secondary impacts on the social or natural environment given the available information. Example: The effect of a particular development on people s psychological perspective of the environment. 6. ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS ON AVIFAUNA: SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENTS AND PROPOSED MITIGATION All the impacts were rated according to the criteria above and a significance statement was compiled for each potential impact. Page 69

70 CONSTRUCTION PHASE Table 5-4: Turbine site: Displacement of priority species through disturbance Description Of Impacts Issue: Avifauna The displacement of priority avifauna through the disturbance during construction activities Temp oral scale (Dura tion) Short term Spatial Scale Project level Certainty Scale/ Likelihood Probable Severity/ Beneficial Scale Moderately severe Significance Pre- Mitigation MODERATE NEGATIVE Mitigation Measures Construction activity should be restricted to the immediate footprint of the infrastructure, and in particular to the proposed road network. Access to the remainder of the site should be strictly controlled to prevent unnecessary disturbance of priority species. Significance Post- Mitigation LOW NEGATIVE Page 70

71 Table 5-5: Turbine site: Displacement of priority species through habitat destruction Description Of Impacts Issue: Avifauna The displacement of priority avifauna through habitat destruction Temporal scale (Duration) Long term Spatial Scale Project level Certainty Scale/ Likelihood Possible Severity/ Beneficial Scale Moderately severe Significance Pre- Mitigation MODERATE NEGATIVE Mitigation Measures Removal of natural vegetation must be restricted to a minimum. Vegetation must be rehabilitated to its former state where possible after construction. Significance Post- Mitigation LOW NEGATIVE Construction of new roads should only be considered if existing roads cannot be upgraded. Page 71

72 Table 5-6: Power line: Displacement of priority species through disturbance and habitat destruction Description Of Impacts Issue: Avifauna The displacement of priority avifauna through the disturbance during construction activities Temporal scale (Duration) Short term Spatial Scale Project level Certainty Scale/ Likelihood Severity/ Beneficial Scale Significance Pre- Mitigation Possible Slight LOW NEGATIVE Mitigation Measures Construction activity should be restricted to the immediate footprint of the infrastructure, and in particular to the power line servitude. Access to the remainder of the site should Significance Post-Mitigation LOW NEGATIVE be strictly controlled to prevent unnecessary disturbance of priority species. Page 72

73 OPERATIONAL PHASE Table 5-7: Turbine site: Displacement of priority species through disturbance Description Of Impacts Issue: Avifauna The displacement of priority avifauna through disturbance during operational activities Temporal scale (Duration) Long term Spatial Scale Project scale Certainty Scale/ Likelihood Possible Severity/ Beneficial Scale Moderately severe Significance Pre- Mitigation MODERATE NEGATIVE Mitigation Measures Potential disturbance caused by the noise and movement of the turbines cannot really be mitigated, but the fact that the turbines are spaced far apart (>500m) may help to reduce the Significance Post- Mitigation LOW NEGATIVE impact. Habituation might also happen over time. Vehicle and pedestrian access to the site should be controlled and restricted to access roads to prevent unnecessary disturbance of priority species. Formal monitoring should be resumed once the turbines have been constructed, as per the most recent edition of the best practice guidelines (Jenkins et al. 2011). The purpose of this would be to establish if displacement of priority species has occurred and to what extent. The Page 73

74 Description Of Impacts Temporal scale (Duration) Spatial Scale Certainty Scale/ Likelihood Severity/ Beneficial Scale Significance Pre- Mitigation Mitigation Measures exact time when post-construction Significance Post- Mitigation monitoring should commence, will depend on the construction schedule, and will be agreed upon with the site operator once these timelines have been finalised. As an absolute minimum, postconstruction monitoring should be undertaken for the first two (preferably three) years of operation, and then repeated again in year 5, and again every five years thereafter. The exact scope and nature of the postconstruction monitoring will be informed on an ongoing basis by the result of the monitoring through a process of adaptive management. Page 74

75 Table 5-8: Turbine site: Mortality of priority species through collision with the turbines Description Of Impacts Issue: Avifauna Mortality of priority avifauna through collisions with the turbines Temporal scale (Duration) Long term Spatial Scale Internationa l due to presence of Palearctic migrants Certainty Scale/ Likelihood Probable Severity/ Beneficial Scale Moderately severe Significance Pre- Mitigation MODERATE NEGATIVE Mitigation Measures Formal monitoring should be resumed once the turbines have been constructed, as per the most recent edition of the best practice guidelines (Jenkins et al. 2011). The exact scope and nature of the post-construction monitoring will be informed on an Significance Post- Mitigation LOW NEGATIVE ongoing basis by the result of the monitoring through a process of adaptive management. The purpose of this would be (a) to establish if and to what extent displacement of priority species has occurred through the altering of flight patterns postconstruction, and (b) to search for carcasses at turbines. As an absolute minimum, postconstruction monitoring should be undertaken for the first two (preferably three) years of operation, and then repeated again in year 5, and again every five years thereafter. The Page 75

76 Description Of Impacts Temporal scale (Duration) Spatial Scale Certainty Scale/ Likelihood Severity/ Beneficial Scale Significance Pre- Mitigation Mitigation Measures exact scope and nature of the post- Significance Post- Mitigation construction monitoring will be informed on an ongoing basis by the result of the monitoring through a process of adaptive management. The environmental management plan should provide for the on-going inputs of a suitable experienced ornithological consultant to oversee the post-construction monitoring and assist with the on-going management of bird impacts that may emerge as the post-construction monitoring programme progresses. Depending on the results of the carcass searches, a range of mitigation measures will have to be considered if mortality levels turn out to be significant, including selective curtailment of problem turbines during high risk periods. If turbines are to be lit at night, lighting should be kept to a minimum and should preferably not be white light. Page 76

77 Description Of Impacts Temporal scale (Duration) Spatial Scale Certainty Scale/ Likelihood Severity/ Beneficial Scale Significance Pre- Mitigation Mitigation Measures Flashing strobe-like lights should be Significance Post- Mitigation used where possible (provided this complies with Civil Aviation Authority regulations). Lighting of the wind farm (for example security lights) should be kept to a minimum. Lights should be directed downwards (provided this complies with Civil Aviation Authority regulations). Table 5-9: Power line: Mortality of priority species through collision with the earthwire Description Of Impacts Issue: Avifauna Mortality of priority avifauna through collisions with the earthwire Temporal scale (Duration) Long term Spatial Scale International due to presence of Palearctic migrants Certainty Scale/ Likelihood Probable Severity/ Beneficial Scale Moderately severe Significance Pre- Mitigation HIGH NEGATIVE Mitigation Measures Once the final alignment has been determined, a walk-through exercise should be conducted by the avifaunal specialist to demarcate sections of the power line where anti-collision devices Significance Post- Mitigation MODERATE NEGATIVE should be fitted. Page 77

78 DE-COMMISIONING PHASE Table 5-10: Turbine site: Displacement of priority species through disturbance Description Of Impacts Issue: Avifauna The displacement of priority avifauna through the disturbance during dismantling activities Temp oral scale (Dura tion) Short term Spatial Scale Project level Certainty Scale/ Likelihood Probable Severity/ Beneficial Scale Moderately severe Significance Pre- Mitigation MODERATE NEGATIVE Mitigation Measures Dismantling activity should be restricted to the immediate footprint of the infrastructure, and in particular to the proposed road network. Access to the remainder of the site should be strictly controlled to prevent unnecessary disturbance of priority species. Significance Post- Mitigation LOW NEGATIVE Page 78

79 Table 5-11: Power line: Displacement of priority species through disturbance Description Of Impacts Issue: Avifauna The displacement of priority avifauna through the disturbance during dismantling activities Temporal scale (Duration) Short term Spatial Scale Project level Certainty Scale/ Likelihood Severity/ Beneficial Scale Significance Pre- Mitigation Possible Slight LOW NEGATIVE Mitigation Measures Dismantling activity should be restricted to the immediate footprint of the infrastructure, and in particular to the power line servitude. Access to the remainder of the site should Significance Post-Mitigation LOW NEGATIVE be strictly controlled to prevent unnecessary disturbance of priority species. Page 79

80 7. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Currently there is no agreed method for determining significant adverse cumulative impacts on ornithological receptors, although clearly a more strategic approach should be followed than is currently the case (Jenkins et al. 2011). The Scottish Natural Heritage (2005) guidance on cumulative effects of wind farms on birds recommends a five-stage process to aid in the ornithological assessment: Define the species/habitat to be considered; Consider the limits or search area of the study; Decide the methods to be employed; Review the findings of existing studies; and Draw conclusions of cumulative effects within the study area. Unfortunately, due to the early stage of wind energy development in South Africa, it is impossible to predict with any confidence at this stage what the cumulative impact of all the proposed wind developments in the grassland biome will be on birds. Firstly there is no baseline to measure it against, secondly the extent of actual impacts will only become known once a few wind farms are developed, and thirdly there is no way of knowing at this stage how many wind farms will actually be developed in the medium term. It is therefore imperative that pre- and post-construction monitoring are implemented at all the new proposed sites, in accordance with the latest Best practice guidelines for avian monitoring and impact mitigation at proposed wind energy development sites in southern Africa (Jenkins et al. 2011), and that the results of the various studies are made available for research purposes. This should in time provide the data necessary to improve the assessment of the cumulative impact of wind development on priority species (/ The Grasslands Important Bird and Biodiversity Area (SA125), within which the majority of the turbine area is located, is undoubtedly one of the most important biodiversity areas in Africa. Despite 'proposed biosphere reserve' status, this area is severely threatened and it faces some monumental conservation problems. Current negative impacts are mining, afforestation, wetland degradation, accidental and targeted poisoning of cranes and increased acid rain from local power station sulphur emissions. In particular wetlands within the IBA face several threats. The construction of dams floods these ecosystems, turning them into sterile stretches of open water; ecosystem processes are also disrupted downstream. Drainage by canals detrimentally impacts wetlands. Overgrazing and burning of marshy areas in winter leads to temporary damage, with accelerated run-off, soil erosion and the formation of dongas. Several priority avifauna species are affected dramatically by this wetland degradation (/ Page 80

81 For many threatened grassland species, effective conservation is not about establishing reserves, but about ensuring that deleterious land-use practices are minimised or prevented. Much of South Africa's remaining natural grassland is used for stock production. Under natural conditions, burning and grazing would have driven the functioning of these grasslands. Although domestic stock has replaced most of the wild ungulates, and humans control fire regimes, the processes remain unchanged. Grassland birds can and do continue to survive, and occasionally thrive, where extensive stock farming is practised. The mosaic created by varying stocking rates, and hence grazing pressure, and varying burning regimes, provides areas of suitable habitat for a wide spectrum of species. To prevent habitat loss in grasslands, management practices should attempt to emulate the natural burning and grazing regime (/ The proposed wind farm will constitute a potential impact on grassland avifauna, especially as far as potential displacement due to fragmentation of the grassland habitat is concerned. However, if the habitat is carefully managed to conserve the grassland for the benefit of the birds, many species (and biodiversity in general) will benefit in the longer term through the protection of their specialised grassland habitat. If this could be achieved, e.g. through some form of a biodiversity stewardship programme involving the wind farm operator and the landowners, the wind farm should only constitute a moderate cumulative impact. 8. CONCLUSION With 92 recorded bird species of which 26 are priority species, the proposed Waaihoek WEF is situated in an area of high avifaunal abundance and diversity. This is to be expected since the site is located within the Grasslands Important Bird and Biodiversity Area (SA125). However this does not automatically translate into a significant potential impact on avifauna. As far as potential collisions are concerned, the pre-construction monitoring at the site revealed low flight activity for priority species, except Amur Falcon, but the latter was recorded mostly below rotor level. White Stork emerged as the priority species with the largest potential for collisions, but the species has so far not featured prominently in literature on wind farm mortalities, indicating a high avoidance rate. All in all, with the application of the mitigation measures proposed in this report, it should be possible to reduce the envisaged potential impacts to an overall low level of significance. Page 81

82 9. REFERENCES Alan, G.A., Harrison J.A., Navarro, R.A., Van Wilgen, B.E. & M.W. Thompson The impact of afforrestation on bird populations in Mpumalanga Province, South Africa Insights from Bird Atlas Data. Biological Conservation 79 (1997) Alonso, J.A. & Alonso, C.A Mitigation of bird collisions with transmission lines through groundwire marking. In: Birds and Power Lines Eds: M. Ferrer & G. F. E. Janss, Quercus, Madrid. Altamont Pass Avian Monitoring Team Bird Fatality Study at Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area October 2005 September Draft Report prepared for the Almeda County Scientific Review Committee. Anderson, M.D The effectiveness of two different marking devices to reduce large terrestrial bird collisions with overhead electricity cables in the eastern Karoo, South Africa. Draft report to Eskom Resources and Strategy Division. Johannesburg. South Africa. AVIAN POWER LINE INTERACTION COMMITTEE (APLIC) Mitigating Bird Collisions with Power Lines: The State of the Art in Edison Electric Institute. Washington D.C. Barrientos R, Ponce C, Palacın C, Martín CA, Martín B, et al Wire marking results in a small but significant reduction in avian mortality at power lines: A BACI Designed Study. PLoS ONE 7(3): e doi: /journal.pone Barrientos, R., Alonso, J.C., Ponce, C., Palacín, C Meta-Analysis of the effectiveness of marked wire in reducing avian collisions with power lines. Conservation Biology 25: Barrios, L. & Rodríguez, A Behavioural and environmental correlates of soaringbird mortality at on-shore wind turbines. Journal of Applied Ecology. Volume 41. Issue 1. pp Beaulaurier, D.L Mitigation of bird collisions with transmission lines. Bonneville Power Administration. U.S. Dept. of Energy. Camiña, A. 2012a. communication on 12 April 2012 to the author by Alvaro Camiña, Spanish ornithologist with 8 years experience in avifaunal monitoring at wind farms in Spain. Camiña, A. 2012b. communication on 17 November 2012 to the author by Alvaro Camiña, Spanish ornithologist with 8 years experience in avifaunal monitoring at wind farms in Spain. Carette, M., Zapata-Sanchez, J.A., Benitez, R.J., Lobon, M. & Donazar, J.A. (In press) Large scale risk-assessment of wind farms on population viability of a globally endangered long-lived raptor. Biol. Cons. (2009), doi: /j.biocon Civil Aviation Regulations Part of the civil aviation regulations, 1997, to the Aviation Act, 1962 (Act 74 of 1962). De Lucas, M., Janss, G.F.E., Whitfield, D.P. & Ferrer, M Collision fatality of raptors in wind farms does not depend on raptor abundance. Journal of Applied Ecology 45, Page 82

83 Drewitt, A.L. & Langston, R.H.W Assessing the impacts of wind farms on birds. Ibis 148, Erickson, W. P., G. D. Johnson, and D. P. Young, Jr A summary and comparison of bird mortality form anthropogenic causes with an emphasis on collisions. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-GTR-191, Albany, California, USA. Erickson, W. P., G. D. Johnson, M. D. Strickland, D. P. Young, Jr., K. J. Sernka, and R. E. Good Avian collisions with wind turbines: a summary of existing studies and comparisons to other sources of avian collision mortality in the United States. National Wind Coordinating Committee, c/o RESOLVE, Washington, D.C., USA. Everaert, J., Devos, K. & Kuijken, E Windturbines en vogels in Vlaanderen: Voorlopige Onderzoeksresultaten En Buitenlandse Bevindingen [Wind Turbines and Birds in Flanders (Belgium): Preliminary Study Results in a European Context]. Instituut Voor Natuurbehoud. Report R Brussels B.76pp. Brussels, Belgium: Institut voor Natuurbehoud. EWEA Wind Energy The Facts. Volume 4: Environment. The European Wind Energy Association (EWEA), and the European Commission s Directorate General for Transport and Energy (DG TREN). pp ( Ferrer, M., De Lucas, M., Janss, G.F.E., Casado, E., Munoz, A.R., Bechard, M.J., Calabuig,C.P Weak relationship between risk assessment studies and recorded mortality on wind farms. Journal of Applied Ecology. 49. p Fox, A.D., Desholm, M., Kahlert, J., Christensen, T.K. & Krag Petersen, I.B Information needs to support environmental impact assessments of the effects of European marine offshore wind farms on birds. In Wind, Fire and Water: Renewable Energy and Birds. Ibis 148 (Suppl. 1): Gerdzhikov, G., Iliev, M., Nikolov S.C., Study on the White Stork (Ciconia ciconia) Autumn Migration, Northeastern Bulgaria. Acta Zoologica Bulgarica Acta Zool. Bulg., 66 (2), 2014: Gove, B., Langston, Rhw., Mccluskie, A., Pullan, Jd. & Scrase, I Wind Farms And Birds: An Updated Analysis Of The Effects Of Wind Farms On Birds, And Best Practice Guidance On Integrated Planning And Impact Assessment. Report prepared by BirdLife International on behalf of the Bern Convention. Harrison, J.A., Drewitt, D.G., Underhill, L.G., Herremans, M., Tree, A.J., Parker, V & Brown, C.J. (eds) The atlas of southern African birds. Vol. 1&2. BirdLife South Africa, Johannesburg. Hobbs, J.C.A. & Ledger J.A. 1986a. The Environmental Impact of Linear Developments; Power lines and Avifauna. Third International Conference on Environmental Quality and Ecosystem Stability. Israel, June Hobbs, J.C.A. & Ledger J.A. 1986b. Power lines, Birdlife and the Golden Mean. Fauna and Flora 44: Hockey, P.A.R., Dean, W.R.J, and Ryan, P.G Robert s Birds of Southern Africa, seventh edition. Trustees of the John Voelcker Bird Book Fund, Cape Town. Howell, J.A. & DiDonato, J.E Assessment of avian use and mortality related to wind turbine operations: Altamont Pass, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, Page 83

84 California, September 1988 Through August Final report prepared for Kenentech Windpower. Hunt, W.G Continuing studies of golden eagles at Altamont Pass. Proceedings of the National Avian-Wind Power Planning Meeting IV. Hunt, W.G., Jackman, R.E., Hunt, T.L., Driscoll, D.E. & Culp, L A Population Study of Golden Eagles in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area: Population Trend Analysis Report to National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Subcontract XAT Santa Cruz: University of California. Jenkins A R; Van Rooyen C S; Smallie J J; Anderson M D & Smit H A Best practice guidelines for avian monitoring and impact mitigation at proposed wind energy development sites in southern Africa. Endangered Wildlife Trust and Birdlife South Africa. Jenkins, A. & Smallie, J Terminal velocity: the end of the line for Ludwig s Bustard? Africa Birds and Birding. Vol 14, No 2. Jenkins, A.R., Smallie, J.J. & Diamond, M Avian collisions with power lines: a global review of causes and mitigation with a South African perspective. Bird Conservation International 20: Johnson, G.D., Strickland, M.D., Erickson, W.P. & Young, D.P Use of data to develop mitigation measures for wind power impact on birds. In: De Lucas, M., Janss, G.F.E., & Ferrer, M eds: Birds and Wind Farms Risk Assessment and Mitigation. Quercus, Madrid. Johnson, G.D., Strickland, M.D., Erickson, W.P., Sheperd, M.F. & Sheperd D. A Avian Monitoring Studies at the Buffalo Ridge, Minnesota Wind Resource Area: Results of a four-year study. Technical Report prepared for Northern States Power Company, Minneapolis, MN 262pp. Koops, F.B.J. & De Jong, J Vermindering van draadslachtoffers door markering van hoogspanningsleidingen in de omgeving van Heerenveen. Electrotechniek 60 (12): Kruckenberg, H. & Jaene, J Zum Einfluss eines Windparks auf die Verteilung weidender Bläßgänse im Rheiderland (Landkreis Leer, Niedersachsen). Natur Landsch. 74: Kruger, R. & Van Rooyen, C.S Evaluating the risk that existing power lines pose to large raptors by using risk assessment methodology: the Molopo Case Study. 5 th World Conference on Birds of Prey and Owls: 4-8 August Midrand, South Africa. Kruger, R Towards solving raptor electrocutions on Eskom Distribution Structures in South Africa. M. Phil. Mini-thesis. University of the Orange Free State. Bloemfontein. South Africa. Langgemach, T Memorandum of Understanding for the Middle-European population of the Great Bustard, German National Report Landesumweltamt Brandenburg (Brandenburg State Office for Environment). Langston, R.H.W. & Pullan, J.D Wind farms and birds: an analysis of the effects of wind farms on birds, and guidance on environmental assessment criteria and site Page 84

85 selection issues. Report written by Birdlife International on behalf of the Bern Convention. Council Europe Report T-PVS/Inf Larsen, J.K. & Madsen, J Effects of wind turbines and other physical elements on field utilization by pink-footed geese (Anser brachyrhynchus): A landscape perspective. Landscape Ecol. 15: Leddy, K.L., Higgins, K.F., Naugle, D.E., Effects of wind turbines on upland nesting birds in conservation reserve program grasslands. Wilson Bulletin 11, Ledger, J Guidelines for Dealing with Bird Problems of Transmission Lines and Towers. Escom Test and Research Division Technical Note TRR/N83/005. Ledger, J.A. & Annegarn H.J Electrocution Hazards to the Cape Vulture (Gyps coprotheres) in South Africa. Biological Conservation 20: Ledger, J.A Engineering Solutions to the problem of Vulture Electrocutions on Electricity Towers. The Certificated Engineer. 57: Ledger, J.A., J.C.A. Hobbs & Smith T.V Avian Interactions with Utility Structures: Southern African Experiences. Proceedings of the International Workshop on Avian Interactions with Utility Structures, Miami, Florida, September Electric Power Research Institute. Madders, M & Whitfield, D.P. Upland raptors and the assessment of wind farm impacts Ibis. Volume 148, Issue Supplement s1. pp Martin, G., Shaw, J., Smallie J. & Diamond, M Bird s eye view How birds see is key to avoiding power line collisions. Eskom Research Report. Report Nr: RES/RR/09/ Mucina. L. & Rutherford, M.C. (Eds) The vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Strelitzia 19. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria. Orloff, S. & Flannery, A Wind turbine effects on avian activity, habitat use and mortality in Altamont Pass and Solano County Wind Resource Areas, California. Energy Commission. Pearce-Higgins J.W, Stephen L, Langston R.H.W, Bainbridge, I.P.& R Bullman. The distribution of breeding birds around upland wind farms. Journal of Applied Ecology 2009, 46, Pearce-Higgins, J.W., Stephen, L., Douse, A., & Langston, R.H.W. Greater impacts on bird populations during construction than subsequent operation: result of multi-site and multi-species analysis. Journal of Applied Ecology 2012, 49, Pedersen, M.B. & Poulsen, E Impact of a 90 m/2mw wind turbine on birds. Avian responses to the implementation of the Tjaereborg wind turbine at the Danish Wadden Sea. Danske Vildtunderogelser Haefte 47. Rønde, Denmark: Danmarks Miljøundersøgelser. Raab, R., Julius, E., Spakovszky, P. & Nagy, S Guidelines for best practice on mitigating impacts of infrastructure development and afforestation on the Great Bustard. Prepared for the Memorandum of Understanding on the conservation and management of the Middle-European population of the Great Bustard under the Convention on Migratory species (CMS). Birdlife International. European Dvision. Page 85

86 Raab, R., Spakovszky, P., Julius, E., Schütz, C. & Schulze, C Effects of powerlines on flight behaviour of the West-Pannonian Great Bustard Otis tarda population. Bird Conservation International. Birdlife International. Retief E.F., Diamond M, Anderson M.D., Smit, H.A., Jenkins, A & M. Brooks Avian Wind Farm Sensitivity Map. Birdlife South Africahttp:// Scottish Natural Heritage (2005, revised 2010) Survey methods for use in assessing the impacts of onshore windfarms on bird communities. SNH Guidance. SNH, Battleby. Scottish Natural Heritage Use of Avoidance Rates in the SNH Wind Farm Collision Risk Model. SNH Avoidance Rate Information & Guidance Note. Shaw, J.M Power line collisions in the Karoo: Conserving Ludwig s Bustard. Unpublished PhD thesis. Percy FitzPatrick Institute of African Ornithology, Department of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Science University of Cape Town May Smallwood, K. S. (2013), Comparing bird and bat fatality-rate estimates among North American wind-energy projects. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 37: doi: /wsb.260. South African Bird Atlas Project 2. Accessed on 10 August Van NiekerkStannard, WR. Personal communication to the author by Mr Wilhelm van NiekerkRob Stannard, owner of the farm PoortjiesWaterloo Farm, May October Stewart, G.B., Coles, C.F. & Pullin, A.S Effects of Wind Turbines on Bird Abundance. Systematic Review no. 4. Birmingham, UK: Centre for Evidence-based Conservation. Stewart, G.B., Pullin, A.S. & Coles, C.F Poor evidence-base for assessment of windfarm impacts on birds. Environmental Conservation. 34, Thelander, C.G., Smallwood, K.S. & Rugge, L Bird Risk Behaviours and Fatalities at the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Colorado. Ugoretz, S Avian mortalities at tall structures. In: Proceedings of the National Avian Wind Power Planning Meeting IV pp National Wind Coordinating Committee. Washington DC. Van Rooyen, C.S Raptor mortality on power lines in South Africa. 5 th World Conference on Birds of Prey and Owls: 4-8 August Midrand, South Africa. Van Rooyen, C.S An overview of the Eskom - EWT Strategic Partnership in South Africa. EPRI Workshop on Avian Interactions with Utility Structures 2-3 December 1999, Charleston, South Carolina. Van Rooyen, C.S An overview of Vulture Electrocutions in South Africa. Vulture News 43: Vulture Study Group, Johannesburg, South Africa. Van Rooyen, C.S The Management of Wildlife Interactions with overhead lines. In: The Fundamentals and practice of Overhead Line Maintenance (132kV and above), pp Eskom Technology, Services International, Johannesburg Van Rooyen, C.S Eskom-EWT Strategic Partnership: Progress Report April- September Endangered Wildlife Trust, Johannesburg. Page 86

87 Verdoorn, G.H Mortality of Cape Griffons Gyps coprotheres and African Whitebacked Vultures Pseudogyps africanus on 88kV and 132kV power lines in Western Transvaal, South Africa, and mitigation measures to prevent future problems. 2 nd International Conference on Raptors: 2-5 October Urbino, Italy. Young, D.J. Harrison, J.A. Navarro, R.A. Anderson, M.D. & B.D. Colahan (ed) Big Birds on Farms. Mazda CAR Report, (Avian Demography Unit. University of Cape Town). Zar, J.H., Biostatistical Analysis (5th ed.), Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River: NJ Page 87

88 APPENDIX A Avifaunal pre-construction monitoring at the proposed Waaihoek Wind Energy Facility: Overview of methodology Page 88

89 1. Introduction The pre-construction monitoring protocol was designed in accordance with the Best practice guidelines for avian monitoring and impact mitigation at proposed wind energy development sites in southern Africa (Jenkins et al. 2011) which was published by the Endangered Wildlife Trust (EWT) and BirdLife South Africa (BLSA) in March 2011, and subsequently revised in August 2011 and July Objectives The objectives of the avifaunal pre-construction monitoring programme were as follows: To establish which species regularly occur at the development site; To gather baseline data on the diversity of avifauna and specifically abundance of priority species within the development area to measure potential displacement due to the construction and operation of the wind farm. This is primarily done through transect surveys (see 4.1 below). To record flight behaviour of priority species to assess the risk of potential mortality due to collision with the turbines. This is primarily done through vantage point counts (see 4.2 below). 3. Assumptions and limitations The basic assumption is that the sources of information used are reliable enough to allow for meaningful interpretation. However, it must be noted that there are certain limitations: It is inevitable that observations at vantage points are biased towards those species that are more visible (i.e. larger species), and flights that are closer to the observer. It must therefore be accepted that both the accuracy and frequency of observations decrease with distance from the observer. It should also be noted that the survey method i.e. an observer using binoculars is inherently not very accurate when it comes to judging flight height, therefore flight height should be seen as an approximation only. The best practice guidelines state that monitoring data should be collected over at least a 12 month period (at both WEF and control sites), and include sample counts representative of the full spectrum of prevailing environmental conditions likely to occur on each site in a year. Whereas the sampling periods in this study aim to be broadly representative of seasonal environmental conditions which prevailed during the monitoring period, it must be borne in mind that environmental conditions may vary Page 89

90 significantly on an annual basis. Furthermore, it is not always realistically possible to schedule monitoring to coincide with the full spectrum of environmental conditions, due to practical constraints. In circumstances where there is uncertainty and the precautionary principle may be relevant, evidence, expert opinion, best practice guidance and professional judgment were applied. For purposes of monitoring, priority species were defined as species included on the list of priority species of the Avian Wind Farm Sensitivity Map of South Africa compiled by Birdlife South Africa (Retief et al. 2012). 4. Methods Data were gathered in four sampling seasons at the turbine site and a control site. The seasonal windows are defined as follows: Spring: Mid-August to Mid November. Summer: Mid - November to Mid - March. Autumn: Mid - March to Mid-May Winter: Mid-May to Mid-August Monitoring was implemented during the following periods: Spring: October 2013 Summer: 25 January - 07 February 2014 Autumn: April 2014 Winter: 30 June 12 July Transects and vantage points The monitoring protocol for the site is designed according to the latest version (2012) of Jenkins A R; Van Rooyen C S; Smallie J J; Anderson M D & Smit H A Best practice guidelines for avian monitoring and impact mitigation at proposed wind energy development sites in southern Africa. Endangered Wildlife Trust and Birdlife South Africa. The monitoring was conducted at the proposed turbine site and a control site by two field monitors. Monitoring was conducted in the following manner: One drive transect was identified totalling 15.3km on the turbine site and one drive transect in the control site with a total length of 8.61km. Page 90

91 Two observers travelling slowly (± 10km/h) in a vehicle recorded all priority species on both sides of the transect. The observers stopped at regular intervals (every 500 m) to scan the environment with binoculars. Transects were counted three times per seasonal sampling session. In addition, four walk transects of 1km each were identified at the turbine site, and two at the control site. All birds were recorded during walk transects, not only priority species. The following variables were recorded: o Species; o Number of birds; o Date; o Start time and end time; o Distance from transect (0-50 m, m, >100 m); o Wind direction; o Wind strength (calm; moderate; strong); o Weather (sunny; cloudy; partly cloudy; rain; mist); o Temperature (cold; mild; warm; hot); o Behaviour (flushed; flying-display; perched; perched-calling; perched-hunting; flying-foraging; flying-commute; foraging on the ground); and o Co-ordinates (priority species only). Seven vantage points (VPs) were selected from which the majority of the proposed turbine area can be observed (the VP area ), to record the flight altitude and patterns of priority species. The following variables were recorded for each flight: o Species; o Number of birds; o Date; o Start time and end time; o Wind direction; o Wind strength (estimated Beaufort scale 1-7 ); o Weather (sunny; cloudy; partly cloudy; rain; mist); o Temperature (cold; mild; warm; hot); o Flight altitude (high i.e. >190 m; medium i.e m; low i.e. <40 m); o Flight mode (soar; flap; glide ; kite; hover); and o Flight time (in 15 second-intervals). The aim with drive transects is primarily to record large priority species (i.e. raptors and large terrestrial species), while walk transects are primarily aimed at recording small passerines. The objective of the transect monitoring is to gather baseline data on the use of the site by birds in order to measure potential displacement by the wind farm activities. The objective of vantage point counts is to measure the potential collision risk with the turbines. Priority species were identified using the January 2012 BLSA list of priority species for wind farms. The aim with drive transects is primarily to record large priority species (i.e. raptors and large terrestrial species), while walk transects are primarily aimed at recording small passerines. The objective of the transect monitoring is to gather baseline data on the use of the site by birds in Page 91

92 order to measure potential displacement by the wind farm activities. The objective of vantage point counts is to measure the potential collision risk with the turbines. Priority species were identified using the January 2012 BLSA list of priority species for wind farms. 4.2 Focal points A total of four potential focal points of bird activity were identified on the turbine and control sites and monitored seasonally. A total of 27 hours and 10 minutes were spent doing focal point observations. The focal points were as follows: Ctrl FP1: Wetland near the control site (observed for 6 hours 45 minutes). Turbine FP 1: Wetland on the turbine site (observed for 8 hours 25 minutes). Ctrl FP2: Southern Bald Ibis breeding area (observed for 5 hours 30 minutes. Turbine FP 2.1 and 2.2: Southern Bald Ibis roosting area (observed for 6 hours 30 minutes). Figure 1 shows the location of the VPs, transects, focal points and proposed 93 turbine lay-out. Figure 1: Turbine and control sites indicating the turbine site drive transects (red lines), turbine vantage points (VPs) (red placemarks), walk transects (green lines), turbine positions (circles) and focal points (green placemarks). Page 92

93 APPENDIX B: BIRD HABITAT Figure1: A typical example of Wakkerstroom Montane Grassland on the turbine site. Figure 2: An example of KwaZulu-Natal Highland Thornveld just below the escarpment. Page 93

94 Figure 3: An example of Ncome Sandy Grassland along one of the power line alternatives. Figure 4: The wetland at focal FP1. Page 94

95 Figure 5: A farm dam near the start of the turbine drive transect. Figure 6: Alien trees on the turbine site. Page 95

96 Figure 6: Pastures on the turbine site. Figure 7: Maize fields along the proposed power line alternatives. Page 96