WOLF WIND ENERGY FACILITY
EASTERN CAPE
JUWI RENEWABLE ENERGIES (PTY) LTD
AVIFAUNAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (SCOPING PHASE)
OCTOBER 2013
Prepared by:
Prepared for:
Jon Smallie
Karen Versfeld
WildSkies Ecological Services
Aurecon
[email protected]
[email protected]
082 4448919
021 526 5737
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This study assesses the potential interactions between birds and the proposed Wolf Wind Energy Facility (WEF),
located between the towns of Kirkwood and Jansenville in the Eastern Cape. The proposed facility comprises an array
of up to 27 turbines and associated infrastructure such as roads, an overhead power line linking the facility to the
national grid, and an electrical substation.
The proposed development area is situated on top of a narrow ridge line which runs roughly east – west. Vegetation
consists primarily of Fynbos on the ridge top, although some grassy elements are also present, and thicket exists on the
slopes. An approximate total of 286 bird species could occur in the area, based on what has been recorded in the
relevant four quarter degree squares by the first bird atlas project (Harrison et al 1997), and in the relevant pentads by
the second atlas project (www.sabap2.adu.org.za). This is a relatively good diversity of species, reflecting the diversity
of habitats, including both mountains and low lying areas. In total approximately 14 of these species could be
considered threatened. A total of 61 bird species have been identified as being potentially susceptible to interaction
with the proposed facility. Of these species 24 target species have been identified. Target species are those species
requiring special conservation attention with respect to the proposed wind energy facility. juwi Renewable Energies
(Pty) Ltd. has initiated pre-construction bird monitoring on site in accordance with Jenkins et al (2012). Based on the
first spring pre-construction monitoring site visit, the most important of these species are probably the Blue Crane
Anthropoides paradiseus (although they frequent the low lying areas off site there is a chance of them flying over the
ridge between foraging areas), Black Harrier Circus maurus, Verreaux’s Eagle Aquila verreauxii, Jackal Buzzard Buteo
rufofuscus, Booted Eagle Aquila pennatus, Southern Pale Chanting Goshawk Melierax canorus, Common Buzzard Buteo
buteo, Martial Eagle Polemaetus bellicosus, Black Stork Ciconia nigra, Lesser Kestrel Falco naumanni, Secretarybird
Sagittarius serpentarius and Rock Kestrel Falco rupicolus. The EIA Phase will expand upon this.
The impacts of destruction of bird habitat, disturbance of birds, and displacement of birds from the site are all
anticipated to be of fairly low significance at this stage. This ridge is not as significant as surrounding ridges in terms of
uniqueness of habitat on the affected area. This finding could change based on pre-construction bird monitoring, and in
particular if any target species are found breeding on site. The impacts of collision with turbine blades, collision with
power lines, and electrocution on power lines are anticipated to be of medium significance at this stage. This finding
could also change during the EIA phase, depending on the data collected through pre-construction monitoring. The
power line impacts are relatively easily mitigated for, whilst mitigating for the impact of collision with turbine blades is
more challenging. Micro-siting of turbines and other infrastructure within the proposed site remains the foremost
means of mitigating this impact on birds. However the relatively thin ridge top leaves little opportunity to move refine
turbine positions. At this stage it is not possible to classify the site in terms of sensitivity other than to try to keep
infrastructure away from the northern and southern ridge edges. A spatial collision risk index will be developed based
on bird flight data collected and the results will be presented in the EIA phase. This index will allow the classification of
the site into different sensitivity classes.
The EIA Phase will investigate all of the above issues further and provide a more thorough assessment of the impacts.
SPECIALIST DETAILS
Professional registration
The Natural Scientific Professions Act of 2003 aims to “Provide for the establishment of the South African Council of
Natural Scientific Professions (SACNASP) and for the registration of professional, candidate and certified natural
scientists; and to provide for matters connected therewith.”
“Only a registered person may practice in a consulting capacity” – Natural Scientific Professions Act of 2003 (20(1)-pg
14)
Investigator:
Jon Smallie (Pri.Sci.Nat)
Qualification:
BSc (hons) Wildlife Science – University of Natal
Msc Env Sc – University of Witwatersrand
Affiliation:
South African Council for Natural Scientific Professions
Registration number:
400020/06
Fields of Expertise:
Ecological Science
Registration:
Professional Member
Professional experience
Jon Smallie has been involved in bird interactions with energy infrastructure for 14 years. During this time he has
completed impact assessments for at least 80 projects, at least fifteen of which involved wind energy generation. He is
a founding member of the Birds and Wind Energy Specialist Group. A full Curriculum Vitae can be supplied on request.
Declaration of Independence
The specialist investigator declares that:
»
We act as independent specialists for this project.
»
We consider ourselves bound by the rules and ethics of the South African Council for Natural Scientific Professions.
»
We do not have any personal or financial interest in the project except for financial compensation for specialist
investigations completed in a professional capacity as specified by the Environmental Impact Assessment
Regulations, 2006.
»
We will not be affected by the outcome of the environmental process, of which this report forms part of.
»
We do not have any influence over the decisions made by the governing authorities.
»
We do not object to or endorse the proposed developments, but aim to present facts and our best scientific and
professional opinion with regard to the impacts of the development.
»
We undertake to disclose to the relevant authorities any information that has or may have the potential to
influence its decision or the objectivity of any report, plan, or document required in terms of the Environmental
Impact Assessment Regulations, 2006.
Terms and Liabilities
»
This report is based on a short term investigation using the available information and data related to the site to be
affected. No long term investigation or monitoring was conducted.
»
The Precautionary Principle has been applied throughout this investigation.
»
Additional information may become known or available during a later stage of the process for which no allowance
could have been made at the time of this report.
»
The specialist investigator reserves the right to amend this report, recommendations and conclusions at any stage
should additional information become available.
»
Information, recommendations and conclusions in this report cannot be applied to any other area without proper
investigation.
»
This report, in its entirety or any portion thereof, may not be altered in any manner or form or for any purpose
without the specific and written consent of the specialist investigator as specified above.
»
Acceptance of this report, in any physical or digital form, serves to confirm acknowledgment of these terms and
liabilities.
Assessment philosophy
The specialist has 14 years of experience in bird conservation in South Africa, and is passionate about ensuring the
protection of our bird species, particularly outside of protected areas. He also has a sound knowledge of the different
forms of energy generation employed to date in SA, and the implications of these choices for our birds. This
assessment is therefore conducted with a pragmatic approach founded on the firm belief that in national terms,
renewable energy is a positive move for SA’s environment and birds in the longer term. This does not mean that
renewable energy projects should be exempt from thorough impact assessment or management, but rather that any
potential impacts be viewed against the broader implications of continuing on a fossil fuel based energy mix.
Signed on the 18 November 2013 by Jon Smallie in his capacity as specialist investigator.
1.
INTRODUCTION
juwi Renewable Energies (Pty) Ltd (hereafter juwi) plans to construct a wind energy facility named the Wolf Wind
Energy Facility in the Eastern Cape between Kirkwood and Jansenville. The facility will encompass an area of
approximately 6 902 hectares. There will also be associated infrastructure such as roads, an overhead power line
linking the facility to the national grid, and an electrical substation. Aurecon South Africa (Pty) Ltd (hereafter Aurecon)
was appointed to manage the environmental impact assessment studies for this development. Since a project of this
nature has the potential to impact on birds, WildSkies Ecological Services (Jon Smallie) was appointed by Aurecon to
conduct a specialist avifaunal assessment.
This scoping study investigates the potential impacts of the proposed facility on the birds of the area. Typically a wind
energy facility of this nature can be expected to impact on avifauna as follows: disturbance of birds; habitat destruction
during construction and maintenance of the facility and associated infrastructure; displacement of birds from the area,
or from flying over the area; collision of birds with turbine blades during operation; and collision and electrocution of
birds on associated electrical infrastructure. The likelihood and significance of each of these impacts will be
investigated further in this study.
The site is situated on top of a narrow ridge line which runs approximately east – west (the Kleinwinterhoekberge).
Vegetation on site consists primarily of Fynbos with grassy and some thicket elements. An approximate total of 286
bird species could occur in the broader area, based on what has been recorded in the relevant four quarter degree
squares by the first bird atlas project (Harrison et al 1997), and in the relevant pentads by the second atlas project
(www.sabap2.adu.org.za). This is a relatively good diversity of species, reflecting the diversity of habitats, including
ridges, thicket and Fynbos. In total approximately 14 of these species could be considered threatened (Barnes 2000;
IUCN, 2012).
juwi has initiated pre-construction bird monitoring on site in accordance with Jenkins et al (2012). WildSkies is
conducting this monitoring and the first site visit (spring 2013) has been completed. This pre-construction monitoring
will collect a significant amount of data on site and will allow a confident assessment of the impacts during the EIA
phase.
A scoping level site visit was conducted to the site early in September 2013.
2.
STUDY METHODOLOGY
2.1.
Terms of reference
The avifaunal specialist has conducted this assessment according to the typical terms of reference for a study of this
nature. These terms of reference can be added to or amended as this environmental assessment process unfolds. The
terms of reference are as follows:
»
To provide a description of the environment that may be affected by the activity and the manner in which the
environment may be affected by the proposed project.
»
To provide a description and evaluation of environmental issues and potential impacts (including direct, indirect
and cumulative impacts) that have been identified.
»
To provide a statement regarding the potential significance of the identified issues based on the evaluation of the
issues or impacts must be made.
»
To provide a comparative evaluation of any identified feasible alternatives must be made. If relevant the
nomination of a preferred alternative for consideration in the EIA Phase must also be made.
»
To identify any potentially significant impacts to be assessed with the EIA Phase
»
To provide details of the methodology to be adopted in assessing potentially significant impacts in the EIA Phase.
This should be detailed enough to include within the Plan of Study for EIA and must include a description of the
proposed method of assessing the potential environmental impacts associated with the project.
More recently, with the advent of pre-construction bird monitoring, it has become necessary for the scoping phase to
design and implement the monitoring programme. The monitoring methodology is contained in Appendix 3.
2.2.
Approach
This study followed the following steps:
»
An extensive review of available international literature pertaining to bird interactions with wind energy facilities
was undertaken in order to fully understand the issues involved and the current level of knowledge in this field.
This international knowledge was then adapted to local conditions and species as far as possible in order to identify
important or target species for this study.
»
The various data sets listed below, and the study area were examined to determine the likelihood of these relevant
species on or near the site.
»
The potential impacts of the proposed facility on these species were described and evaluated.
»
Sensitive areas within the proposed site, where the above impacts are likely to occur, were identified using various
GIS (Geographic Information System) layers, Google Earth and field work.
»
A field investigation was conducted to examine the site, and to design and set up the pre-construction bird
monitoring programme on site.
2.3.
Data sources used
The following data sources and reports were used in varying levels of detail for this study:
»
The Southern African Bird Atlas Project data (SABAP1 - Harrison et al, 1997) for the four quarter degree squares
considered relevant (3325AA, 3325AC, 3324BB, 3324BD). The Southern African Bird Atlas Project 2 (SABAP2) data
was also consulted at http://sabap2.adu.org.za/v1/index.php.
»
The Important Bird Areas report (IBA - Barnes 1998) was consulted to determine the location of the nearest IBA’s
and their importance for this study.
»
The Co-ordinated Avifaunal Roadcount project (CAR – Young et al, 2003) data was consulted to obtain relevant
data on large terrestrial bird report rates in the area where possible. Two routes, EP02 and EP04 pass about 5km
south of the proposed site. Information from these routes will be interrogated during the EIA phase.
»
The conservation status of all relevant bird species was determined using Barnes (2000), and the IUCN Red List
(2012)
»
The latest vegetation classification of South Africa (Mucina & Rutherford, 2006) was consulted in order to
determine which vegetation types occur on site.
»
Aerial photography and 1:50 000 topographic maps for the area, obtained from the Surveyor General.
»
The recent document “Avian Wind Farm Sensitivity Map for South Africa: Criteria and Procedures Used” by Retief,
Diamond, Anderson, Smit, Jenkins & Brooks (2011) was used for the species listing.
»
The “BirdLife South Africa/Endangered Wildlife Trust best practice guidelines for avian monitoring and impact
mitigation at proposed wind energy development sites in southern Africa (Jenkins, van Rooyen, Smallie, Harrison,
Diamond & Smit, 2012)” was used extensively to guide this project.
2.4.
Limitations & assumptions
This study relies heavily upon secondary data sources with regards to bird abundances such as the SABAP1 and SABAP2
(Harrison et al, 1997, www.sabap2.adu.org.za). Any inaccuracies in these sources of information could limit this study.
In particular, the SABAP1 data is now fairly old (Harrison et al, 1997), and the SABAP2 coverage is not yet that
comprehensive. This constraint will however be addressed in the EIA phase through the collection of a vast amount of
data on site during the pre-construction bird monitoring programme. Primary information on bird habitat was also
collected during the scoping site visit and is used directly in determining which species are likely to occur where on site.
The number of turbines to be constructed and the position of associated infrastructure has not yet been finalized, but
it is assumed that this information will be available in the EIA Phase. At this stage a sufficient range of scenarios has
been provided for assessment in terms of these aspects.
2.5
Relevant legislation
The legislation relevant to this specialist field and the proposed Wolf WEF development are as follows:
»
The Convention on Biological Diversity: dedicated to promoting sustainable development. The Convention
recognizes that biological diversity is about more than plants, animals and micro-organisms and their ecosystems –
it is about people and our need for food security, medicines, fresh air and water, shelter, and a clean and healthy
environment in which to live. It is an international convention signed by 150 leaders at the Rio 1992 Earth Summit.
South Africa is a signatory.
»
An important principle encompassed by the CBD is the precautionary principle which essentially states that where
serious threats to the environment exist, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used a reason for delaying
management of these risks. The burden of proof that the impact will not occur lies with the proponent of the
activity posing the threat.
»
The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (also known as CMS or Bonn
Convention) aims to conserve terrestrial, aquatic and avian migratory species throughout their range. It is an
intergovernmental treaty, concluded under the aegis of the United Nations Environment Programme, concerned
with the conservation of wildlife and habitats on a global scale. Since the Convention's entry into force, its
membership has grown steadily to include 117 (as of 1 June 2012) Parties from Africa, Central and South America,
Asia, Europe and Oceania. South Africa is a signatory.
»
The African-Eurasian Waterbird Agreement. The Agreement on the Conservation of African-Eurasian Migratory
Waterbirds (AEWA) is the largest of its kind developed so far under the CMS. The AEWA covers 255 species of birds
ecologically dependent on wetlands for at least part of their annual cycle, including many species of divers, grebes,
pelicans, cormorants, herons, storks, rails, ibises, spoonbills, flamingos, ducks, swans, geese, cranes, waders, gulls,
terns, tropic birds, auks, frigate birds and even the South African penguin. The agreement covers 119 countries and
the European Union (EU) from Europe, parts of Asia and Canada, the Middle East and Africa.
»
National Environmental Management – Biodiversity Act - Threatened Or Protected Species list (TOPS) – The
following target species for this study are on the list: Endangered - Blue Crane. Vulnerable - Kori Bustard; Ludwig’s
Bustard; Black Stork; Lesser Kestrel; Martial Eagle. Protected species - African Marsh Harrier.
»
Various sets of provincial conservation legislation are relevant to this study.
»
The Civil Aviation Authority’s regulations are relevant to the issue of lighting of wind energy facilities, and to
painting turbine blades, both of which are relevant to bird collisions with turbine blades.
A relevant guideline for this study is the Endangered Wildlife Trust – BirdLife South Africa “Best practice guidelines for
avian monitoring and impact mitigation at proposed wind energy development sites in southern Africa (Jenkins et al,
2012). These guidelines have been applied by the specialist in all respects for this project.
3.
BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY
3.1
Background to interactions between wind energy facilities and birds
The South African experience of wind energy generation is limited to date, with only 8 commercial scale wind turbines
having been constructed in the country at the time of writing. A monitoring programme at the Klipheuwel
demonstration facility (3 turbines) found two bird collisions equating to an estimated 1 bird/turbine/year fatality rate
(Kuyler, 2004). Doty & Martin (2013) monitored one turbine at Port Elizabeth (3 searches per week for 52 weeks) and
found one Little Swift Apus affinis collision victim over a period of a year. Much of what we know about the interaction
between birds and wind energy facilities is therefore learnt from international literature, mostly from the United
States, United Kingdom, and Europe. Unfortunately much of this literature is grey literature, and focuses on the impact
of collision. Two important sources used for the below discussion were a review by Rydell et al (2012) and assorted
information on the “Good Practice Wind” website at www.project-gpwind.eu.
The interaction between birds and wind farms first documented was that of birds killed through collisions with
turbines, dating back to the 1970’s (Rogers et al, 1977; Philips, 1979). Certain sites in particular, such as Altamont Pass
– California, and Tarifa – Spain, killed large numbers of birds and focused attention on the issue. However, it appears
that sites such as these are the exception rather than the rule, with most facilities causing low fatality rates (Kingsley &
Whittam, 2005). Expressed relative to other anthropogenic mortality factors, wind farms also cause relatively low
fatality rates (Erickson et al, 2001; Gill et al, 2006), although there are some inherent challenges in making these
comparisons as explained later in this report.
With time it has become apparent that there are actually three ways in which birds can be affected by wind farms:
collisions – which is a direct mortality factor; habitat alteration or destruction (less direct); and displacement and
barrier effects (various authors including Drewitt & Langston, 2008). Whilst the impact of habitat alteration is probably
fairly similar to that associated with other forms of development, the displacement and barrier effects are unique to
wind energy. It is not yet known whether it is the noise, visual, flicker or shadow effects that may disturb and displace
birds. Whatever the cause is, if birds are displaced from the site it is lost as habitat. Without doubt the impact of
collision has received the most attention to date amongst researchers, operators, conservationists, and the public.
3.1.1 Collision of birds with turbine blades
That birds collide with human developed infrastructure has been well documented over the years (for e.g. Drewitt &
Langston, 2008). Since the first birds were found under wind turbines it has more or less been assumed that the birds
collided with turbine blades because they did not see them. Much of the earlier work was therefore based on the
assumption that this was a visual problem. The logical consequence then was to develop mitigation measures that
made the turbines more visible to birds. It was suggested that the primary reason for birds failing to see turbine blades
was the phenomenon of motion smear or retinal blur (Hodos, 2002), whereby an identical image (such as the three
turbine blades) passing over the retina repeatedly and fast enough can actually become invisible. A suggested solution
to this was to paint one blade black so that the images would alternate between white and black thereby reducing the
likelihood of retinal blur. Although vision certainly has a lot to do with the collision, it has recently become apparent
that various other factors also play a part. In recent research on bird vision by Martin, 2011; Martin & Shaw, 2010,
suggest that birds may have reduced visual acuity in front of them when in flight, or in the case of vultures may even be
blind for a significant portion of their frontal vision. This would necessitate a different approach to mitigation than has
so far been the case.
Fatality rates
It is important to first understand the scale of this effect before delving into the details of factors influencing it. Not
surprisingly, as soon as dead birds were discovered at wind farms, researchers started to count them. With time the
need arose to standardise metrics across multiple sites, countries and continents. The two most common measures
used to date are number of birds killed per turbine per year, and number of birds killed per megawatt installed per
year. Rydell et al (2012) reviewed studies from 31 wind farms in Europe and 28 in North America and found a range
between 0 and 60 birds killed per turbine per year, with a median of 2.3. European average bird fatality rates were
much higher at 6.5 birds/turbine/year compared to the 1.6 for North America. These figures include adjustment for
detection (the efficiency with which monitors detect carcasses in different conditions) and scavenger bias (the rate at
which birds are removed by scavengers between searches). These are important biases which must be accounted for in
any study of mortality.
Cumulative effects
Even where fatality rates may appear low there should be adequate attention given to the situation. The cumulative
effects of several facilities on the same species could be considerable, particularly if these are sited in the same region
and impact on the same regional population of the species. Most long lived slow reproducing Red Listed species may
also not be able to sustain any additional mortality factors over and above existing factors.
Bird related factors affecting collision with turbines
Whilst all birds face some inherent risk of collision with wind turbines, certain groups are definitely more susceptible
(Jordan & Smallie, 2010; Rydell et al, 2012). Taxonomic groups most commonly affected include: Podicipediformes;
Pelicaniformes; Ciconiiformes; Anseriformes; Falconiformes; Charadriformes; Strigiformes; Caprimulgiformes;
Gruiformes; Galliformes; Psittaciformes; and Passeriformes (Jordan & Smallie, 2010). A number of factors (and various
combinations thereof) are believed to be important in determining a bird species susceptibility to collision, described
below:
Behavioural factors
The most important behavioural characteristic suggested so far as influencing collision risk is a birds reaction to the
presence of turbines (Rydell et al, 2012). Certain bird species have been observed to display avoidance behaviour from
a significant distance from turbines, thereby ensuring safety, whilst other species appear to be comfortable foraging in
amongst turbines. Birds also tend to fly lower during strong headwinds (Richardson, 2000) thereby increasing the risk
of collision since turbines are also functioning at a maximum in strong winds (Drewitt & Langston, 2008).
Raptor’s susceptibility to collision with turbines is difficult to explain given their apparent excellent eye sight and mostly
good maneuverability. It has been suggested that due to these two factors raptors do not avoid obstacles at a far
enough distance to ensure safety (in Rydell et al, 2012). Obstacles that are moving, such as the three blades of a
turbine, need to be avoided at further distances (or earlier) than stationary ones (Martin, 2011)
Morphological factors
Flight prowess and maneuverability have been suggested to be two of the primary morphological factors affecting bird
collisions with turbines (Barrios & Rodrigues, 2004; Drewitt & Langston, 2006). This is similar to other forms of collision
(such as power lines) where it is believed that large birds (and with high wing loading – the ratio of wing area to mass)
may be less able to adjust flight quickly when they perceive an obstacle (Jenkins et al, 2010; de Lucas et al, 2008).
Jenkins et al (2010) make a useful distinction between a birds’ ‘susceptibility’ to collision, and its ‘exposure’.
Susceptibility is determined by factors including: physical size; wing loading; maneuverability; speed of flight; height of
flight; open or closed habitat; aerial foraging; aerial displays; frequent flight at night or in low light; and narrow
binocular field of vision (Martin & Shaw, 2010). Exposure is determined by how often, far and for how long a bird flies,
and whether it flocks.
Seasonal factors
According to Drewitt & Langston (2008) bird collisions could be dependent on the season and weather. Raptor fatalities
in particular are clumped into certain seasons, perhaps when flight activity is higher due to courtship, nest building, and
provisioning of young.
Habituation
Although it has been suggested that birds will get accustomed to a wind energy facility with time and that they will
then avoid collisions, there is no evidence to support this (Rydell et al, 2012; de Lucas et al, 2008; Smallwood &
Thelander 2008, Bevanger et al, 2010). Likewise with age of bird, young birds do not seem to be disproportionately
affected.
Facility related factors affecting collisions with turbines
Turbine size
Several authors have found that taller turbines with longer blades (and hence larger rotor swept area) did not kill more
birds (e.g. Barclay et al, 2007). As turbine size increases fewer birds are killed when expressed per megawatt, since
fewer turbines are required in order to generate the same power.
Facility lighting
Although it has been suggested previously that lighting at turbines will increase the collision risk (seemingly on the
basis of recorded incidents of mass collisions of birds with other lit infrastructure – Erickson, 2001) there does not seem
to be any evidence to substantiate this (Rydell et al, 2012). It has also been suggested that if flashing or intermittent
light is used this may reduce the risk (Drewitt & Langston, 2008).
Size of facility or number of turbines
Rydell et al (2012) found that larger wind farms do not necessarily kill more birds per turbine. The absolute number of
birds killed by the facility will of course be greater for a larger facility if all other factors are equal. Of course larger
facilities would also have greater impacts through habitat destruction and displacement and barrier effects.
There appears to typically be an uneven distribution of collisions across the turbines on site, with 13% of the 5 000
turbines at Altamont Pass killing all Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos and Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis (Curry &
Kerlinger, 2000), and more than 50% of vulture casualties at Tarifa being on 15% of the turbines (Acha, 1997).
Spacing of turbines
Conflicting information exists on the effect of turbine spacing on collision risk, some authors suggesting that spaces
should be left for safe passage of birds (Drewitt & Langston, 2006; 2008), but the same authors also suggest that
perhaps birds should be discouraged from flying through a facility and should rather be encouraged to avoid the centre
of the facility. This would clearly result in a greater displacement effect on the species.
Site related factors affecting collision with turbines
Rydell et al (2012) conclude from their analysis that the most important factor determining collision risk is the location
of turbines relative to bird occurrence, and the surrounding environment. Collision frequency has so far been highest at
facilities near wetlands and the coast, and also on the top of ridges or areas with significant variation in topography.
Certain landscape features may also channel bird flight into flight paths that are used more frequently. In general, high
density of birds in an area will mean that the risk of collision is high although studies are conflicting in this regard
(Rydell et al, 2012). Several authors found that density and activity of birds near wind farms is related to collision risk
(Barrios & Rodrigues, 2004; Everaert & Kuijken, 2007; Stienen et al, 2008), whilst certain studies found that this is not
the case (de Lucas et al, 2008; Krijgsveld et al, 2009). It seems logical that for collision risk to be high, then usage of the
site must be high, either by large numbers of birds or few birds repeatedly. It is also clear that this is not the only factor
determining collision risk.
3.1.2 Loss or alteration of habitat during construction
The area of land directly affected by a wind farm and associated infrastructure is relatively small. As a result in most
cases, habitat destruction or alteration in its simplest form (removal of natural vegetation) is unlikely to be of much
significance Fragmentation of habitat can however be an important factor for some smaller bird species. Construction
and operation of a wind farm results in an influx of human activity, often to an area previously relatively uninhabited
(Kuvlesky et al 2007). This disturbance could cause certain birds to avoid the entire site, thereby losing a significant
amount of habitat effectively (Langston & Pullan, 2003). In addition to this, birds are aerial species, spending much of
their time above the ground. It is therefore simplistic to view the amount of habitat destroyed as the terrestrial land
area only. Loss of aerial habitat is discussed in more detail below under displacement and barrier effects.
3.1.3 Disturbance of birds and barrier effects (or displacement)
Disturbance effects can occur at differing levels and have variable levels of effect on bird species, depending on their
sensitivity to disturbance and whether they are breeding or not. For smaller bird species, with smaller territories,
disturbance may be absolute and the birds may be forced to move away and find alternative territories, with secondary
impacts such as increased competition. For larger bird species, many of which are typically the subject of concern for
wind farms, larger territories mean that they are less likely to be entirely displaced from their territory. For these birds,
disturbance is probably likely to be significant only when breeding.
A barrier effect or displacement occurs when a wind energy facility acts as a barrier for birds in flight, which then avoid
the obstacle and fly around it. This can reduce the collision risk, but will also increase the distance that the bird must
fly. This has consequences for the birds’ energy balance. Obviously the scale of this effect can vary hugely and depends
on the scale of the facility, the species territory and movement patterns and the species reaction.
3.1.4 Associated infrastructure
Infrastructure associated with wind energy facilities also has the potential to impact on birds, in some cases perhaps
more than the turbines themselves. Overhead power lines pose a collision and possibly an electrocution threat to
certain bird species. Furthermore, the construction and maintenance of the power lines will result in some disturbance
and habitat destruction. New access roads, substations and offices constructed will also have a disturbance and habitat
destruction impact. Collision with power lines is one of the biggest single threats facing birds in southern Africa (van
Rooyen 2004). Most heavily impacted upon are bustards, storks, cranes and various species of water birds. These
species are mostly heavy-bodied birds with limited maneuverability, which makes it difficult for them to take the
necessary evasive action to avoid colliding with power lines (van Rooyen 2004, Anderson 2001). Unfortunately, many of
the collision sensitive species are considered threatened in southern Africa. The Red Data species vulnerable to power
line collisions are generally long living, slow reproducing species under natural conditions. Electrocution refers to the
scenario where a bird is perched or attempts to perch on the electrical structure and causes an electrical short circuit
by physically bridging the air gap between live components and/or live and earthed components (van Rooyen 2004).
The larger bird species are most affected since they are most capable of bridging critical clearances on hardware.
3.1.5 Mitigation
Whilst bird mortalities have been comprehensively documented at numerous sites world-wide, very little has been
written about the potential methods of reducing the level of mortalities, perhaps because little mitigation has been
implemented post construction. Potential mitigation measures include: alternative turbine designs (such as vertical axis
turbines); painting turbine blades (tested only in laboratory conditions to date); anti perching devices; construction of
shielding pylons; curtailment of turbines during high risk periods; shutdown of certain high risk turbines; and altering
blade height to pose less risk within the birds’ preferred height strata. Most of these suggested mitigation measures
are either not tested, impractical or unlikely to be implemented by the operator post construction. The primary means
of mitigating bird impacts therefore remains correct siting, both of the entire facility, and of the individual turbines
themselves. Whichever mitigation measures are identified as necessary, this should be informed by a thorough pre and
post construction bird monitoring programme.
3.1.6 Contextualising wind energy impacts on birds
Several authors have compared causes of mortality of birds (American Bird Conservancy, 2012; Sibley Guides, 2012;
National Shooting Sports Foundation 2012; Drewitt & Langston 2008) in order to contextualise possible mortality at
wind farms. In most of these studies, apart from habitat destruction which is rated as the number one threat to birds
(although not a direct mortality factor) the top killers are collision with building windows and cats. Overhead power
lines rank fairly high up, and wind turbines only far lower down the ranking. These studies typically cite absolute
number of deaths and rarely acknowledge the numerous biases in this data. For example, a bird that collides with a
high rise building window falls to a pavement and is found by a passer-by, whereas a bird colliding with a wind turbine
falls to the ground which is covered in vegetation and which is seldom passed by anyone. Other biases include, the
number of windows, kilometres of power line, or cats which are available to cause the demise of a bird, compared to
the number of wind turbines. Biases aside the most important short coming of these studies is a failure to recognise
the difference in species affected by the different infrastructure. Species such as those of concern in South Africa are
unlikely to frequent tall buildings or to be caught by cats. Since many bird species are already struggling to maintain
sustainable populations, we should be striving to avoid all additional, new and preventable impacts on these species,
and not permitting these impacts simply because they are smaller than those already in existence.
3.2.
Description of the proposed wind energy facility
An area of approximately 6 902 hectares is being considered for the development of up to 27 turbines. Each turbine
will have a likely generating capacity of up to 3.5MW each, a hub height of up to 100 metres, and rotor diameter of up
to 112 metres. Foundations to support turbines will take up a total area of 1 600m² per turbine, including 26m² of
concrete at the centre. In addition, hard stands of 1 960m² per turbine will be required to support cranes during
construction. Infrastructure associated with the facility include: Cabling between the turbines, to be laid underground
where practical, which will connect to an onsite substation; an on-site substation to facilitate the connection between
the WEF and the electricity grid; a 132kV overhead power line to connect to the Wolf Substation; internal access roads
to each turbine (approximately 7m in width, plus 1m verge, plus above mentioned underground cabling) linking the
WEF and other infrastructure on the site; and a workshop area / office for control, maintenance and storage.
At this time there is no alternative site for consideration for the overall wind energy facility. Alternatives exist within
the site for the substation, turbine and power line positioning. Figure 1 below shows the location of the proposed site
for the Wolf Wind Energy Facility.
Figure 1. The location of the proposed Wolf Wind Energy Facility.
Figure 2. Detailed layout of the proposed Wolf Wind Energy Facility.
4.
DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
This proposed site is situated between the villages of Kirkwood and Jansenville in the Eastern Cape. The ridge on which
the site is placed is known as the “Kleinwinterhoekberge’. The broader area consists of a series of long parallel ridge
lines running east-west, with a limited amount of flatter ground lying in the valleys in between. The Wolf site itself is
situated on one of the smaller secondary ridge lines, with considerably less rock and cliff substrate than some of the
surrounding ridges. In this type of area we would expect raptors to be prevalent. On the low lying flat areas bustards
and cranes are abundant.
4.1.
Vegetation of the study area
Vegetation is one of the primary factors determining bird species distribution and abundance in an area. The following
description of the vegetation on the site focuses on the vegetation structure and not species composition. It is widely
accepted within ornithological circles that vegetation structure is more important in determining bird species diversity.
The classification of vegetation types is from Mucina & Rutherford (2006).
The site itself falls almost entirely within “Suurberg Quartzite Fynbos” (see Figure 3). This is interspersed with small
patches of “Suurberg Shale Fynbos”. Various other vegetation types exist to the north and south, including most
prominently “Groot Thicket” and “Sundays Thicket”. The main relevance of this information to avifauna is that the site
itself is composed predominantly of short Fynbos type veld, with some grassy components. On the western end of the
site some thicket exists on top of the ridge. This vegetation affects the species likely to occur on site, and is reflected in
the data in Table 1 which shows that most of the Red Listed bird species recorded by the Southern African Bird Atlas
Project (Harrison et al, 1997) in the area favour short open vegetation types such as these ones.
Figure 3. The vegetation composition of the Wolf Wind Energy Facility site (Mucina & Rutherford, 2006)
4.2.
Bird micro habitats
More detail is required in order to understand exactly where within the study area certain species will occur and how
suitable these areas are for the relevant species. The habitats available to birds at a small spatial scale are known as
micro habitats. These micro habitats are formed by a combination of factors such as vegetation, land use,
anthropogenic factors, topography and others. These micro habitats could be critically important in mapping the site in
terms of avifaunal sensitivity and ultimately siting the proposed turbines within the affected farms. The micro habitats
that the Red Listed species are most likely to use are shown in Table 1. The micro habitats identified on site include:
Fynbos; thicket, rocky ridges, small dams; and grassland. Examples of these are shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4. Examples of bird micro habitats available on the Wolf Wind Energy Facility site.
4.3.
Bird presence in the study area
The most reliable, and hence preferred, secondary (existing) data source for a study of this nature is the Southern
African Bird Atlas Project (SABAP1 - Harrison et al, 1997). This project recorded data on birds over at least a ten year
period, and as such represents bird distribution over significantly varying conditions. This data is therefore far more
representative than any other available at present. The Southern African Bird Atlas Project 2 (SABAP2) is striving to
provide a more recent data source, and has been used in tandem with the SABAP1 for this project. Appendix 2 lists all
the bird species recorded by both these atlas projects (obtained from www.mybirdpatch.adu.org.za). An approximate
total of 286 bird species could occur in the area, based on what has been recorded by these atlas projects. This does
not however necessarily mean that all of these species occur on the Wolf site itself. Table 1 shows only a subset of the
above species, comprising 61 species which are either Red Listed birds or common but believed to be susceptible to
interactions with the proposed facility. Also presented in Table 1 are the species’ preferred micro habitats, the
likelihood of each species actually occurring on or close to the proposed site, the relative importance of the site, and
the manner in which the species could interact with a wind energy facility in theory.
It is important to understand that in this case the proposed facility is planned for the top of a very narrow ridge which
differs significantly from the surrounding lower ground in the habitat it offers birds. In assessing the likelihood of
species using the site, only the ridge top itself has been considered. In some cases species were confirmed as occurring
on site during the initial site visit. In other cases a prediction is made on the likelihood of the species occurring on site
based on available habitats. Most of these species have at least a possibility of occurring on the site, but for most
species the site is not very important in terms of the national population of the species, i.e. this is not their core area.
Importantly, the species in Table 1 represent many of the broad groupings of bird species i.e. large terrestrial birds
(Blue Crane, bustards and korhaans), raptors (Verreaux’s Eagle, harriers), water associated species (ducks and teals),
small grassland/shrubland species (larks). Assessing the impacts on the species in Table 1 therefore potentially covers
impacts on other species from these groupings that were not recorded but may occur on the site. However, impacts on
non-Red Listed species that are believed to be relevant to this study are also considered. In particular, non-Red Listed
species groups such as raptors, owls, lapwings, waterfowl, and thick-knees. Swallows, swifts and martins will also be
relevant to this study due to the amount of time they spend in the air, which increases the chances of collisions. One
could argue that if non-Red Listed species are not considered adequately in impact assessment, they could make their
way onto the Red List with time. Whilst this is valid, it is believed that species already on the Red List should always be
given priority, and that if too many species are considered this may dilute the attention given to any the most
important species.
An indication of the impacts that each species could be susceptible to has also been provided in Table 1. For those
species not currently threatened, the impacts of disturbance, displacement and habitat destruction have not been
listed as these impacts are unlikely to be significant in the final analysis. On the contrary, for Red Listed species, these
three impacts are considered relevant.
Table 1. Red Listed and other important species recorded in the study area by the two southern African Bird Atlas Projects (SABAP1 – Harrison et al, 1997; and
SABAP2 – www.sabap2.adu.org.za) All species recorded by these projects can be viewed in Appendix 3.
Common name
Species
Bustard, Denham's
Barnes
2000
IUCN
2012
VU
NT
Preferred micro
habitat
Likelihood of occurring
on site
Relative
importance of
site for species
Karoo, woodland
Not on ridge itself but
in surrounding area
Possible
Karoo, grassland
Possible
Theoretical
interactions
with wind
energy
C, D, DI, HD
SABAP1
SABAP2
Neotis denhami
X
X
Bustard, Kori
Ardeotis kori
X
X
Bustard, Ludwig's
Neotis ludwigii
X
X
Buzzard, Jackal
Buteo rufofuscus
X
X
Generalist
Confirmed
Low on ridge
itself
Low on ridge
itself
Low on ridge
itself
Medium
X
Generalist
Probable
Low
C, D, DI, HD, E
VU
VU
EN
Arable land, grassland
C, D, DI, HD
C, D, DI, HD
C, D, DI, HD, E
Buzzard, Common
Buteo buteos
X
Coot, Red-knobbed
Fulica cristata
X
Open water
Unlikely on ridge itself
Low
C
Cormorant, Reed
Phalacrocorax africanus
X
Open water
Possible
Low
C, D , DI
Cormorant, White-breasted
Phalacrocorax carbo
X
Open water
Possible
Low
C, D, DI, E
Crane, Blue
Anthropoides paradiseus
X
X
Unlikely on ridge itself
Low
C, D, DI, HD
Crow, Cape
Corvus capensis
X
X
Grassland, Karoo,
dams
Generalist
Probable
Low
C
X
Generalist
Probable
Low
C
Open water
Possible
Low
C
Open water, riverine
Unlikely
Low
C
Open water
Unlikely
Low
C
X
Open water
Unlikely
Low
C
X
Open water
Unlikely
Low
C
Indigenous forest
Possible
Low
C, D, DI, HD, E
Mountains with cliffs
Confirmed
Medium
C, D, DI, HD, E
Generalist, natural
vegetation
Mountains and rocky
areas
Water, arable land,
wetland, cattle
Water, arable land,
wetland
Probable
C, D, DI, HD, E
Possible
Low – unless
breeding in area
Low to medium
unless breeding
Low
Possible
Low
C
Crow, Pied
Corvus albus
X
Darter, African
Anhinga rufa
X
Duck, African Black
Anas sparsa
X
Duck, Maccoa
Oxyura maccoa
X
Duck, White-faced
Dendrocygna viduata
Duck, Yellow-billed
Anas undulata
Eagle, African Crowned
Stephanoaetus coronatus
Eagle, Booted
Aquila pennatus
X
Eagle, Martial
Polemaetus bellicosus
X
Eagle, Verreaux's
Aquila verreauxii
X
X
Egret, Cattle
Bubulcus ibis
X
X
Egret, Little
Egretta garzetta
X
X
X
VU
VU
X
X
NT
NT
VU
NT
*
LC
Confirmed
C, D, DI, HD, E
C
Possible
Low unless
breeding
Low
C, D, DI, HD
Open water
Unlikely
Low
C, D, DI, HD, E
Open water
Unlikely
Low
C
Open water, arable
lands, wetlands
Open water, arable
lands, wetlands
Forest, alien trees
Possible
Low
C
Possible
Low
C
Unlikely
Low
C, HD, D
Woodland, thicket
Possible
Low
C, HD, D
Generalist
Confirmed
Low to medium
C, HD, D, DI
Confirmed
Low
C
X
Generalist, close to
water
Open water
Unlikely
Low
C
X
Close to water
Possible
Low
C
Grassland, Fynbos,
Karoo
Generalist
Confirmed
Low to medium
C, HD, DI , D
Confirmed
Low
C, HD, DI, D
Possible
Low
C
X
Generalist, close to
water
Open water
Unlikely
Low
C
X
X
Close to water
Possible
Low
C
X
X
Close to water
Possible
Low
C
Probable
Low
C
Falcon, Lanner
Falco biarmicus
X
X
Falcon, Peregrine
Falco peregrinus
Fish-Eagle, African
Haliaeetus vocifer
X
X
Flamingo, Greater
Phoenicopterus ruber
X
X
Goose, Egyptian
Alopochen aegyptiacus
X
X
Goose, Spur-winged
Plectropterus gambensis
X
X
Goshawk, African
Accipiter tachiro
X
X
Goshawk, Gabar
Goshawk, Southern Pale
Chanting
Melierax gabar
X
Melierax canorus
X
X
Guineafowl, Helmeted
Numida meleagris
X
X
Gull, Grey-headed
Larus cirrocephalus
X
Hamerkop
Scopus umbretta
X
Harrier, Black
Circus maurus
X
Harrier-Hawk, African
Polyboroides typus
X
X
Heron, Black-headed
Ardea melanocephala
X
X
Heron, Goliath
Ardea goliath
X
Heron, Grey
Ardea cinerea
Ibis, African Sacred
Threskiornis aethiopicus
X
NT
LC
Grassland, arable land
Possible
NT
LC
Grassland, cliffs
NT
NT
LC
VU
C. D. DI HD
Ibis, Hadeda
Bostrychia hagedash
X
X
Generalist
Kestrel, Greater
Falco rupicoloides
X
X
Shrubland, grassland
Possible
Low
C, HD, DI
Kestrel, Lesser
Falco naumanni
X
Shrubland, grassland
Possible
Low
C, HD, DI
Kestrel, Rock
Falco rupicolus
X
X
Generalist
Confirmed
Medium
C, HD, DI, D
Kite, Black-shouldered
Elanus caeruleus
X
X
Generalist
Highly likely
Low
C, HD, DI, D
Korhaan, Karoo
Eupodotis vigorsii
X
X
Karoo flats
Unlikely
Low
C, HD, D, DI
Korhaan, Southern Black
Afrotis afra
X
Karoo flats
Unlikely
Low
C, HD, D, DI
Raven, White-necked
Corvus albicollis
Rock-Thrush, Cape
Monticola rupestris
X
X
VU
LC
X
Generalist, cliffs
Probable
Medium
C, D, DI, HD, E
X
Rocky slopes, ridge
top
Confirmed
Medium
HD, DI, D
Sandgrouse, Namaqua
Pterocles namaqua
X
Unlikely
Low
C
Possible
Low
C, DI, HD
Possible
Low
C
Secretarybird
Sagittarius serpentarius
X
Shelduck, South African
Tadorna cana
X
X
Shoveler, Cape
Anas smithii
X
X
Open water
Possible
Low
C
Sparrowhawk, Black
Accipiter melanoleucus
X
Forests, alien trees
Unlikely
Low
C, HD, DI, D
Spurfowl, Red-necked
Pternistis afer
X
Riparian thicket
Unlikely on ridge top
Low
C
Stork, Black
Ciconia nigra
X
Riverine, cliff
Confirmed
C, HD, DI, D
Stork, White
Ciconia ciconia
X
Possible
Teal, Cape
Anas capensis
X
X
Karoo, wetland, dam,
arable land
Open water
Low to medium
if breeding
Low
Possible
Low
C
Teal, Red-billed
Anas erythrorhyncha
X
X
Open water
Possible
Low
C
X
Forest
Unlikely
Low
D, HD
Campethera notata
X
NT
VU
Arid shrubland
Open thicket,
grassland, shrubland
Open water
Woodpecker, Knysna
NT
LC
C, HD, DI, D
Those species highlighted are believed to be most likely to be at risk of impact from the project at this early stage.
V = Vulnerable, NT = Near-threatened, Bonn = Protected Internationally under the Bonn Convention on Migratory Species, LC = Least Concern, * This species has been
upgraded to VU in the currently underway update of Barnes 2000 (BirdLife South Africa 2013). It is likely that other species will also be upgraded in status but the
author is already aware of this one and this species is particularly relevant to this project. C = Collision with either turbines or power lines, E = electrocution on power
lines, D = disturbance, HD = habitat destruction, DI = displacement.
Target species for this study
Determining the target species for this study, i.e. the most important species to be considered for the impact
assessment, is a three step process. The above data represents the first step, i.e. which species occur or could occur in
the area at significant abundances, and the importance of the study area for those species. Secondly, the recent
document “A briefing document on best practice for pre-construction assessment of the impacts of onshore wind
farms on birds” (Jordan & Smallie, 2010) was consulted to determine which groups of species could possibly be
impacted on by wind farms. This document summarises which taxonomic groups of species have been found to be
vulnerable to collision with wind turbines in the USA, UK, EU, Australia and Canada. The taxonomic groups that have
been found to be vulnerable in two or more of these regions are as follows: Pelicaniformes (pelicans, gannets,
cormorants); Ciconiiformes (storks, herons, ibises, spoonbills); Anseriformes (swans, ducks, geese); Falconiformes
(birds of prey); Charadriiformes (gulls, terns, waders); Strigiformes (owls); Caprimulgiformes (nightjars); Gruiformes
(cranes, bustards, rails); Galliformes (pheasants, grouse, francolins); and Passeriformes (songbirds). The third step is to
consider the species conservation status or other reasons for protecting the species. This involved primarily consulting
the Red List bird species (Barnes 2000) as in Table 1.
In addition to the above sources of information, the recent document entitled “Avian Wind Farm Sensitivity Map for
South Africa: Criteria and procedures used” (Retief, Diamond, Anderson, Smit, Jenkins & Brooks, 2011) combined all
three above steps in order to identify sensitive areas of the country. The methods used by this project (Retief et al,
2011) were far more thorough and comprehensive than is possible during the scope of an EIA, and although the study
was not intended to identify species for consideration in EIA’s, it does serve as a useful resource, and in particular
includes assessment of non-Red Listed bird species. The current Wolf study has therefore used the various information
sources above to develop a preliminary target species list for the project.
The resultant list of ‘target species’ for this study is shown in Table 1 (shaded in grey). A total of 13 species have been
selected. At this stage the most important of these are anticipated to be the Booted Eagle, Verreaux’s and Martial
Eagles, Jackal Buzzard, Rock Kestrel and Black Harrier. Based on the pre-construction monitoring this list will be added
to and refined as necessary.
As discussed elsewhere in this report, the impact of most concern for these species is probably that of collision with
turbines. The proportion of flight time spent at turbine height (and hence at risk of collision) is not known for any of
these key bird species. This means that the exact risk of collisions of any of these species with the turbine blades once
operational is very difficult to assess. In judging the potential significance of this impact it is essential to understand the
flight characteristics of the species, i.e. how often and how high do the target species fly. This data is only obtained
through observation of the relevant area and species. Fortunately pre-construction bird monitoring is underway and
will provide the necessary data to make this assessment for the EIA phase report.
5.
ASSESSMENT OF THE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED FACILITY
The potential impacts of the proposed Wolf WEF and associated infrastructure are as follows. These impacts will be
formally assessed and rated according to the criteria (supplied by Aurecon and shown in Appendix 1) during the EIA
Phase.
5.1.
Wind energy facility
Destruction of bird habitat
Since this is a relatively small facility, situated on one of the smaller ridge lines in the area, the impact on bird habitat is
not anticipated to be of high significance. The EIA Phase will confirm whether this is the case, based on data collected
on site. If any target species are found breeding on or near the site this will alter this finding.
Disturbance of birds
This is unlikely to be of high significance for most species, unless they are found to be breeding on site. The likelihood
of target species breeding on site will be assessed during the EIA Phase based on the findings of pre-construction
monitoring.
Displacement of birds from the site and barrier effects
The likelihood of this impact being significant will be assessed during the EIA Phase and is related to the extent to
which the birds actually use and depend on the site.
Collision of birds with turbine blades
This impact is likely to affect species such as Booted Eagle, Verreaux’s Eagle, Martial Eagle, Black Harrier, Rock Kestrel,
Jackal Buzzard and others if they fly frequently enough on and across the site. Pre-construction bird monitoring on site
will collect data on the frequency and duration of flight by these and other species in order to make an informed
assessment of this risk during the EIA phase.
5.2.
Associated infrastructure
Collision and electrocution on overhead power lines
These two impacts are likely to be of high significance if not correctly mitigated. Fortunately this impact is relatively
easily mitigated, particularly in the case of electrocution. Selecting the correct routing for overhead lines will be an
important part of this mitigation. This report has identified sensitive areas on site that should be avoided by the power
line (Section 6.3), and this will be refined during the EIA Phase.
Destruction of habitat for construction of roads, substations, and other infrastructure
As with the main wind energy facility described above, these impacts are not anticipated to be of high significance at
this preliminary stage.
6.
SENSITIVITY MAPPING FOR THE PROPOSED SITE
Avifaunal sensitivity for a project of this nature may be viewed at several spatial levels as described below:
6.1
National and regional level
At the national level two bird conservation initiatives are particularly relevant to this exercise: the BirdLife South AfricaEndangered Wildlife Trust “Avian wind farm sensitivity map for South Africa” (Retief et al, 2011); and the Important
Bird Areas programme of BirdLife South Africa (Barnes, 1998).
The sensitivity map (Retief et al, 2011) consolidated multiple avifaunal spatial data sources for a list of priority species
in order to categorise pentads (9 x 9 kilometre grid cells – as shown in Figure 5) across South Africa according to their
risk of bird- wind farm interactions. The darker grid cells indicate higher risk and the lighter coloured cells indicate
lower risk. It is clear from Figure 5 that the proposed site is situated in an area of relatively low risk. It should be noted
that since the primary data sources used to develop this map were the SABAP1 and 2, the map is affected by how well
the areas of the country were covered by atlasing effort. It is therefore possible that areas of seemingly low sensitivity
are actually data deficient. Exercises such as this map will certainly be over ruled by actual data collected by preconstruction monitoring on site, but are useful to provide perspective at this stage.
Figure 5. The proposed Wolf Wind Energy Facility site (black polygon) relative to the Avian Wind Farm Sensitivity
Map (Retief et al, 2011). Dark colours indicate higher sensitivity or risk and light colours indicate lower sensitivity.
The closest Important Bird Area (SA093 Kouga Baviaans Complex) is situated approximately 45 kilometres south of the
proposed site and is unlikely to have any influence on this project.
Based on these two information sources it is concluded at this initial stage that the site is of low to medium sensitivity
at a regional scale.
6.2.
Local on- site level
At this stage it is possible only to identify the side slopes of the ridge as sensitive. The areas of steep relief are believed
to be preferred by various raptors, which find favourable air currents in these areas, allowing them to fly in an energy
efficient manner. It will be important to keep turbines as far back from the ridge edge on both sides as possible. In
order to identify further sensitive areas on site we will need to wait for flight data from all four seasons of monitoring,
to establish whether flight paths exist. At this stage there are no other identifiable differentiating factors on the ridge
top itself.
6.3
Power line grid connection
Three factors are considered important at this stage for the placement of the 132kV power line: avoiding any of the
small folds or gorges where it descends off the ridge (which it currently does – see Figure 2, the route is between
gorges currently); avoiding any surface water (which it currently seems to do); and following existing linear
infrastructure as far as possible. In order to achieve the last aspect it will be necessary to select power line route 1 in
Figure 2. It does not appear as if any dams exist along this route, although this will be confirmed during the EIA phase.
7.
PLAN OF STUDY FOR EIA PHASE
The proposed development could impact on birds predominantly through collision with turbines, and collision and
electrocution on associated power lines. The extent to which collision risk can be assessed is limited without data on
bird flight behaviour on site. This data is currently being collected through a pre-construction bird monitoring
programme on site. This data will enable an informed decision on the potential risk of collision of the target species.
The mitigation measures for the impacts of collision and electrocution on power lines are reasonably straight forward,
and will reduce these impacts to acceptable levels. Impact management for collision with turbines is however a lot
more challenging, as explained elsewhere in this report. One of the primary means of mitigating collision with turbines
is the correct placement of turbines, outside of known flight paths of target species. Data emanating from the preconstruction monitoring programme will be used during the EIA Phase for this turbine micro siting.
More specifically, the EIA Phase will conduct the following activities:
»
The data collected through pre-construction monitoring on site will be analysed and a final report produced that
will inform the EIA phase avifaunal report.
»
The micro habitats on site will be assessed for their suitability for the key species, and the contents of Table 1 will
be refined based on findings.
»
The sensitivity zones and suitable buffer zones will be identified, mapped and refined based on monitoring data.
»
The impacts identified in this scoping phase study will be assessed formally according to the supplied criteria.
»
Recommendations for the management of the above identified impacts will be made.
»
A recommendation will be made as to whether this project should proceed or not.
»
A framework for the required post construction bird monitoring will be presented.
8.
REFERENCES
Acocks, J.P.H. 1953. Veld types of South Africa. Memoirs of the Botanical Society of South Africa 28, pp 1-192.
Anderson, M.D. 2001. The effectiveness of two different marking devices to reduce large terrestrial bird collisions with
overhead electricity cables in the eastern Karoo, South Africa. Draft report to Eskom Resources and Strategy
Division. Johannesburg. South Africa.
Avian Literature Database – National Renewable Energy Laboratory – www.nrel.gov
Avian Powerline Interaction Committee (APLIC). 1994. Mitigating bird collisions with power lines: the state of the art in
1994. Edison Electric Institute. Washington DC.
Barnes, K.N. (ed.) 1998. The Important Bird Areas of southern Africa. BirdLife South Africa: Johannesburg.
Barnes, K.N. (ed.) 2000. The Eskom Red Data Book of Birds of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. BirdLife South
Africa, Johannesburg.
Erickson, W.P., Johnson, G.D., Strickland, M.D., Kronner, K., & Bekker, P.S. 1999. Baseline avian use and behaviour at
the CARES wind plant site, Klickitat county, Washington. Final Report. Prepared for the National Renewable
Energy Laboratory.
Erickson, W.P., Johnson, G.D., Strickland, M.D., Young, D.P., Sernka, K.J., Good, R.E. 2001. Avian collisions with wind
turbines: a summary of existing studies and comparison to other sources of avian collision mortality in the United
States. National Wind Co-ordinating Committee Resource Document.
Everaert, J. 2003. Wind turbines and birds in Flanders: Preliminary study results and recommendations. Natuur. Oriolus
69 (4): 145-155
Harrison, J.A., Allan, D.G., Underhill, L.G., Herremans, M., Tree, A.J., Parker, V & Brown, C.J. (eds). 1997. The atlas of
southern African birds. Vol. 1&2. BirdLife South Africa, Johannesburg.
Hockey, P.A.R., Dean, W.R.J., Ryan, P.G. (Eds) 2005. Roberts – Birds of Southern Africa, VIIth ed. The Trustees of the
John Voelcker Bird Book Fund, Cape Town.
Hodos, W. 2002. Minimization of motion smear: Reducing avian collisions with turbines. Unpublished subcontractor
report to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL/SR 500-33249
Howell, J.A. Noone, J. 1992. Examination of avian use and mortality at a US Windpower wind energy development site,
Montezuma Hills, Solano County, California. Final report. Prepared for Solano County Department of
Environmental Management, Fairfield, California.
Jaroslow, B. 1979. A review of factors involved in bird-tower kills, and mitigation procedures. In G.A. Swanson (Tech coord). The Mitigation symposium. A national workshop on mitigation losses of Fish and Wildlife Habitats. US Forest
Service General Technical Report. RM-65
Jenkins, A.R., van Rooyen, C.S, Smallie, J.J, Harrison, J, Diamond, M & Smit, H.A. 2012. Birdlife South Africa/Endangered
Wildlife Trust Best practice guidelines for avian monitoring and impact mitigation at proposed wind energy
development sites in southern Africa
Jordan, M., & Smallie, J. 2010. A briefing document on best practice for pre-construction assessment of the impacts of
onshore wind farms on birds. Endangered Wildlife Trust , Unpublished report.
Kingsley, A & Whittam, B. 2005. Wind turbines and birds – A background review for environmental assessment.
Unpublished report for Environment Canada/Canadina Wildlife Service.
Kuyler, E.J. 2004. The impact of the Eskom Wind Energy Demonstration Facility on local avifauna – Results from the
monitoring programme for the time period June 2003 to Jan 2004. Unpublished report to Eskom Peaking
Generation.
Low, A.B. & Robelo, A.G. (eds). 1996. Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Department of Environmental
Affairs and Tourism: Pretoria.
Mucina, L; Rutherford, C. 2006. The Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland, South African National
Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.
Retief, E, Anderson, M., Diamond, M., Smit, H., Jenkins, A. & Brooks, M. 2011. Avian Wind Farm Sensitivity Map for
South Africa: Criteria and Procedures used.
Rydell, J., Engstrom, H., Hedenstrom, A., Larson, J.K., Petterrson, J.& Green, M. 2012. The effect of wind power on birds
and bats – a synthesis. Unpublished report by the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. ISBN 978-91-6206511-9
Van Rooyen, C.S. 2004a. The Management of Wildlife Interactions with overhead lines. In The fundamentals and
practice of Overhead Line Maintenance (132kV and above), pp217-245. Eskom Technology, Services International,
Johannesburg.
Van Rooyen, C.S. 2004b. Investigations into vulture electrocutions on the Edwardsdam-Mareetsane 88kV feeder,
Unpublished report, Endangered Wildlife Trust, Johannesburg.
Weir, R. D. 1976. Annotated bibliography of bird kills at manmade obstacles: a review of the state of the art and
solutions. Canadian Wildlife Services, Ontario Region, Ottawa.
Young, D.J., Harrison, J.A., Navarro, R.A., Anderson, M.D., & Colahan, B.D. (Eds). 2003. Big Birds on Farms: Mazda CAR
report 1993-2001. Avian Demography Unit, Cape Town.
APPENDIX 1. METHOD OF ASSESSING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF POTENTIAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
This section outlines the proposed method for assessing the significance of the potential environmental impacts
outlined above. As indicated, these include both operational and construction phase impacts.
For each impact, the EXTENT (spatial scale), MAGNITUDE and DURATION (time scale) would be described. These
criteria would be used to ascertain the SIGNIFICANCE of the impact, firstly in the case of no mitigation and then with
the most effective mitigation measure(s) in place. The mitigation described in the EIAR would represent the full range
1
of plausible and pragmatic measures but does not necessarily imply that they would be implemented.
The tables on the following pages show the scale used to assess these variables, and defines each of the rating
categories.
Table 1: Assessment criteria for the evaluation of impacts
CRITERIA
Extent or spatial
influence of impact
CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION
Regional
Beyond a 10 km radius of the candidate site.
Local
Within a 10 km radius of the candidate site.
Site specific
On site or within 100 m of the candidate site.
High
Medium
Magnitude of impact (at
the indicated spatial
scale)
Low
Very Low
Zero
Natural and/ or social functions and/ or processes are
severely altered
Natural and/ or social functions and/ or processes are notably
altered
Natural and/ or social functions and/ or processes are slightly
altered
Natural and/ or social functions and/ or processes are
negligibly altered
Natural and/ or social functions and/ or processes remain
unaltered
Construction period
Up to 3 years
Short Term
Up to 5 years after construction
Medium Term
5-15 years after construction
Long Term
More than 15 years after construction
Duration of impact
The SIGNIFICANCE of an impact is derived by taking into account the temporal and spatial scales and magnitude. The
means of arriving at the different significance ratings is explained in Table 2.
Table 2: Definition of significance ratings
SIGNIFICANCE
RATINGS
High
LEVEL OF CRITERIA REQUIRED



High magnitude with a regional extent and long term duration
High magnitude with either a regional extent and medium term duration or a local extent
and long term duration
Medium magnitude with a regional extent and long term duration
Medium





Low




Very low
Neutral

High magnitude with a local extent and medium term duration
High magnitude with a regional extent and construction period or a site specific extent
and long term duration
High magnitude with either a local extent and construction period duration or a site
specific extent and medium term duration
Medium magnitude with any combination of extent and duration except site specific and
construction period or regional and long term
Low magnitude with a regional extent and long term duration
High magnitude with a site specific extent and construction period duration
Medium magnitude with a site specific extent and construction period duration
Low magnitude with any combination of extent and duration except site specific and
construction period or regional and long term
Very low magnitude with a regional extent and long term duration

Low magnitude with a site specific extent and construction period duration
Very low magnitude with any combination of extent and duration except regional and
long term

Zero magnitude with any combination of extent and duration
Once the significance of an impact has been determined, the PROBABILITY of this impact occurring as well as the
CONFIDENCE in the assessment of the impact, would be determined using the rating systems outlined in Table 3 and
Table 4 respectively. It is important to note that the significance of an impact should always be considered in concert
with the probability of that impact occurring. Lastly, the REVERSIBILITY of the impact is estimated using the rating
system outlined in Table 5.
Table 3: Definition of probability ratings
PROBABILITY
RATINGS
CRITERIA
Definite
Estimated greater than 95 % chance of the impact occurring.
Probable
Estimated 5 to 95 % chance of the impact occurring.
Unlikely
Estimated less than 5 % chance of the impact occurring.
Table 4: Definition of confidence ratings
CONFIDENCE RATINGS
Certain
Sure
Unsure
CRITERIA
Wealth of information on and sound understanding of the environmental factors potentially
influencing the impact.
Reasonable amount of useful information on and relatively sound understanding of the
environmental factors potentially influencing the impact.
Limited useful information on and understanding of the environmental factors potentially
influencing this impact.
Table 5: Definition of reversibility ratings
REVERSIBILITY
RATINGS
CRITERIA
Irreversible
The activity will lead to an impact that is in all practical terms permanent.
Reversible
The impact is reversible within 2 years after the cause or stress is removed.
APPENDIX 2. SOUTHERN AFRICAN BIRD ATLAS PROJECT 1 & 2 DATA FOR THE WOLF
WIND ENERGY FACILITY SITE
Roberts #
Common name
Species
622
Apalis, Bar-throated
Apalis thoracica
SABAP1
625
Apalis, Yellow-breasted
Apalis flavida
269
Avocet, Pied
Recurvirostra avosetta
X
X
432
Barbet, Acacia Pied
Tricholaema leucomelas
X
X
431
Barbet, Black-collared
Lybius torquatus
X
X
672
Batis, Cape
Batis capensis
X
X
673
Batis, Chinspot
Batis molitor
X
674
Batis, Pririt
Batis pririt
X
404
Bee-eater, European
Merops apiaster
X
808
Bishop, Southern Red
Euplectes orix
X
X
722
Bokmakierie, Bokmakierie
Telophorus zeylonus
X
X
709
Boubou, Southern
Laniarius ferrugineus
X
X
546
Brownbul, Terrestrial
Phyllastrephus terrestris
X
X
544
Bulbul, African Red-eyed
Pycnonotus nigricans
X
543
Bulbul, Cape
Pycnonotus capensis
X
X
873
Bunting, Cape
Emberiza capensis
X
X
872
Bunting, Cinnamon-breasted
Emberiza tahapisi
X
X
874
Bunting, Golden-breasted
Emberiza flaviventris
X
X
871
Bunting, Lark-like
Emberiza impetuani
X
X
717
Bush-Shrike, Olive
Telophorus olivaceus
X
X
219
Bustard, Denham's
Neotis denhami
X
X
217
Bustard, Kori
Ardeotis kori
X
X
218
Bustard, Ludwig's
Neotis ludwigii
X
X
152
Buzzard, Jackal
Buteo rufofuscus
X
X
154
Buzzard, Steppe
Buteo vulpinus
X
X
627
Camaroptera, Green-backed
Camaroptera brachyura
861
Canary, Black-headed
Serinus alario
X
X
860
Canary, Black-throated
Crithagra atrogularis
X
X
863
Canary, Brimstone
Crithagra sulphuratus
X
X
857
Canary, Cape
Serinus canicollis
X
X
865
Canary, White-throated
Crithagra albogularis
X
X
866
Canary, Yellow
Crithagra flaviventris
X
X
859
Canary, Yellow-fronted
Crithagra mozambicus
X
X
575
Chat, Anteating
Myrmecocichla formicivora
X
X
570
Chat, Familiar
Cercomela familiaris
X
X
566
Chat, Karoo
Cercomela schlegelii
X
572
Chat, Sickle-winged
Cercomela sinuata
X
X
SABAP2
X
X
X
X
X
631
Cisticola, Cloud
Cisticola textrix
X
630
Cisticola, Desert
Cisticola aridulus
X
X
638
Cisticola, Grey-backed
Cisticola subruficapilla
X
X
648
Cisticola, Lazy
Cisticola aberrans
X
X
646
Cisticola, Levaillant's
Cisticola tinniens
X
629
Cisticola, Zitting
Cisticola juncidis
X
573
Cliff-Chat, Mocking
Thamnolaea cinnamomeiventris
X
212
Coot, Red-knobbed
Fulica cristata
X
50
Cormorant, Reed
Phalacrocorax africanus
X
47
Cormorant, White-breasted
Phalacrocorax carbo
X
4131
Coucal, Burchell's
Centropus burchellii
X
356
Coucal, Burchells
Centropus burchelli
X
Coucal, White-browed
Centropus superciliosus
X
278
Courser, Double-banded
Rhinoptilus africanus
X
203
Crake, Black
Amaurornis flavirostris
X
216
Crane, Blue
Anthropoides paradiseus
X
X
621
Crombec, Long-billed
Sylvietta rufescens
X
X
523
Crow, Cape
Corvus capensis
X
X
522
Crow, Pied
Corvus albus
X
X
344
Cuckoo, Black
Cuculus clamosus
X
352
Cuckoo, Diderick
Chrysococcyx caprius
X
346
Cuckoo, Great Spotted
Clamator glandarius
X
348
Cuckoo, Jacobin
Clamator jacobinus
X
X
351
Cuckoo, Klaas's
Chrysococcyx klaas
X
X
52
Darter, African
Anhinga rufa
X
317
Dove, Laughing
Streptopelia senegalensis
X
X
318
Dove, Namaqua
Oena capensis
X
X
314
Dove, Red-eyed
Streptopelia semitorquata
X
X
940
Dove, Rock
Columba livia
X
X
319
Dove, Tambourine
Turtur tympanistria
X
517
Drongo, Fork-tailed
Dicrurus adsimilis
X
X
95
Duck, African Black
Anas sparsa
X
X
103
Duck, Maccoa
Oxyura maccoa
X
100
Duck, White-faced
Dendrocygna viduata
96
Duck, Yellow-billed
Anas undulata
143
Eagle, African Crowned
Stephanoaetus coronatus
139
Eagle, Booted
Aquila pennatus
X
142
Eagle, Martial
Polemaetus bellicosus
X
133
Eagle, Verreaux's
Aquila verreauxii
X
368
Eagle-Owl, Spotted
Bubo africanus
X
Egret, Cattle
Bubulcus ibis
X
1036
61
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
58
Egret, Great
Egretta alba
X
59
Egret, Little
Egretta garzetta
X
626
Eremomela, Karoo
Eremomela gregalis
X
600
Eremomela, Yellow-bellied
Eremomela icteropygialis
X
X
114
Falcon, Lanner
Falco biarmicus
X
X
113
Falcon, Peregrine
Falco peregrinus
820
Finch, Red-headed
Amadina erythrocephala
X
789
Finch, Scaly-feathered
Sporopipes squamifrons
X
833
Firefinch, African
Lagonosticta rubricata
X
X
837
Firefinch, Red-billed
Lagonosticta senegala
X
X
707
Fiscal, Common
Lanius collaris
X
X
149
Fish-Eagle, African
Haliaeetus vocifer
X
X
86
Flamingo, Greater
Phoenicopterus ruber
X
X
655
Flycatcher, African Dusky
Muscicapa adusta
X
663
Flycatcher, Chat
Bradornis infuscatus
X
678
Flycatcher, Fairy
Stenostira scita
X
X
665
Flycatcher, Fiscal
Sigelus silens
X
X
654
Flycatcher, Spotted
Muscicapa striata
X
X
89
Goose, Egyptian
Alopochen aegyptiacus
X
X
88
Goose, Spur-winged
Plectropterus gambensis
X
X
160
Goshawk, African
Accipiter tachiro
X
X
162
Goshawk, Gabar
Melierax gabar
X
165
Goshawk, Southern Pale Chanting
Melierax canorus
X
618
Grassbird, Cape
Sphenoeacus afer
X
5
Grebe, Black-necked
Podiceps nigricollis
X
4
Grebe, Great Crested
Podiceps cristatus
X
6
Grebe, Little
Tachybaptus ruficollis
X
X
551
Greenbul, Sombre
Andropadus importunus
X
X
263
Greenshank, Common
Tringa nebularia
X
192
Guineafowl, Helmeted
Numida meleagris
X
X
288
Gull, Grey-headed
Larus cirrocephalus
X
X
Hamerkop, Hamerkop
Scopus umbretta
X
X
169
Harrier, Black
Circus maurus
X
171
Harrier-Hawk, African
Polyboroides typus
X
X
55
Heron, Black-headed
Ardea melanocephala
X
X
56
Heron, Goliath
Ardea goliath
X
X
54
Heron, Grey
Ardea cinerea
X
X
62
72
X
X
Heron, Squacco
Ardeola ralloides
440
Honeyguide, Greater
Indicator indicator
X
442
Honeyguide, Lesser
Indicator minor
X
418
Hoopoe, African
Upupa africana
X
X
X
X
X
427
Hornbill, Crowned
Tockus alboterminatus
X
X
507
House-Martin, Common
Delichon urbicum
X
X
81
Ibis, African Sacred
Threskiornis aethiopicus
X
X
84
Ibis, Hadeda
Bostrychia hagedash
X
X
849
Indigobird, Dusky
Vidua funerea
X
X
122
Kestrel, Greater
Falco rupicoloides
X
X
125
Kestrel, Lesser
Falco naumanni
X
123
Kestrel, Rock
Falco rupicolus
X
X
402
Kingfisher, Brown-hooded
Halcyon albiventris
X
X
395
Kingfisher, Giant
Megaceryle maximus
X
X
397
Kingfisher, Malachite
Alcedo cristata
X
394
Kingfisher, Pied
Ceryle rudis
X
X
130
Kite, Black-shouldered
Elanus caeruleus
X
X
225
Korhaan, Black
Eupodotis afra
X
220
Korhaan, Karoo
Eupodotis vigorsii
X
Korhaan, Southern Black
Afrotis afra
245
Lapwing, Blacksmith
Vanellus armatus
X
X
242
Lapwing, Crowned
Vanellus coronatus
X
X
3550
Lark, Agulhas Clapper
Mirafra marjoriae
X
4123
Lark, Agulhas Long-billed
Certhilauda brevirostris
X
1037
Lark, Barlow's
Calendulauda barlowi
X
4124
Lark, Benguela Long-billed
Certhilauda benguelensis
X
4140
Lark, Cape Clapper
Mirafra apiata
X
4125
Lark, Cape Long-billed
Certhilauda curvirostris
X
Lark, Clapper
Mirafra apiata
X
1183
Lark, Eastern Clapper
Mirafra fasciolata
X
4126
Lark, Eastern Long-billed
Certhilauda semitorquata
X
4155
Lark, Karoo
Mirafra albescens
X
461
Lark, Karoo
Calendulauda albescens
X
4134
466
4127
X
X
X
X
Lark, Karoo Long-billed
Certhilauda subcoronata
X
463
Lark, Large-billed
Galerida magnirostris
X
475
Lark, Longbilled
Mirafra curvirostris
X
490
Lark, Pink-billed
Spizocorys conirostris
488
Lark, Red-capped
Calandrella cinerea
458
Lark, Rufous-naped
Mirafra africana
460
Lark, Sabota
Calendulauda sabota
X
X
474
Lark, Spike-heeled
Chersomanes albofasciata
X
X
703
Longclaw, Cape
Macronyx capensis
X
509
Martin, Brown-throated
Riparia paludicola
X
X
506
Martin, Rock
Hirundo fuligula
X
X
803
Masked-Weaver, Southern
Ploceus velatus
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
210
Moorhen, Common
Gallinula chloropus
X
392
Mousebird, Red-faced
Urocolius indicus
X
X
390
Mousebird, Speckled
Colius striatus
X
X
391
Mousebird, White-backed
Colius colius
X
X
637
Neddicky, Neddicky
Cisticola fulvicapilla
X
X
Night-Heron, Black-crowned
Nycticorax nycticorax
X
373
69
Nightjar, Fiery-necked
Caprimulgus pectoralis
X
X
521
Oriole, Black-headed
Oriolus larvatus
X
X
Ostrich, Common
Struthio camelus
X
X
682
Paradise-Flycatcher, African
Terpsiphone viridis
X
X
531
Penduline-Tit, Cape
Anthoscopus minutus
X
X
788
Petronia, Yellow-throated
Petronia superciliaris
X
X
311
Pigeon, Speckled
Columba guinea
X
X
692
Pipit, African
Anthus cinnamomeus
X
X
697
Pipit, African Rock
Anthus crenatus
X
X
695
Pipit, Buffy
Anthus vaalensis
X
693
Pipit, Long-billed
Anthus similis
X
694
Pipit, Plain-backed
Anthus leucophrys
X
233
Plover, Common Ringed
Charadrius hiaticula
X
237
Plover, Kittlitz's
Charadrius pecuarius
X
X
238
Plover, Three-banded
Charadrius tricollaris
X
X
1
X
650
Prinia, Black-chested
Prinia flavicans
X
1049
Prinia, Drakensberg
Prinia hypoxantha
X
4139
Prinia, Karoo
Prinia maculosa
X
651
Prinia, Spotted
Prinia hypoxantha
X
189
Quail, Common
Coturnix coturnix
X
X
805
Quelea, Red-billed
Quelea quelea
X
X
524
Raven, White-necked
Corvus albicollis
X
X
606
Reed-Warbler, African
Acrocephalus baeticatus
X
581
Robin-Chat, Cape
Cossypha caffra
X
X
559
Rock-Thrush, Cape
Monticola rupestris
X
X
412
Roller, European
Coracias garrulus
X
256
Ruff, Ruff
Philomachus pugnax
X
609
Rush-Warbler, Little
Bradypterus baboecala
X
307
Sandgrouse, Namaqua
Pterocles namaqua
X
258
Sandpiper, Common
Actitis hypoleucos
X
251
Sandpiper, Curlew
Calidris ferruginea
X
264
Sandpiper, Wood
Tringa glareola
X
583
Scrub-Robin, Karoo
Cercotrichas coryphoeus
X
X
588
Scrub-Robin, White-browed
Cercotrichas leucophrys
X
X
105
Secretarybird, Secretarybird
Sagittarius serpentarius
X
X
867
Seedeater, Streaky-headed
Crithagra gularis
X
X
90
Shelduck, South African
Tadorna cana
X
X
94
Shoveler, Cape
Anas smithii
X
X
708
Shrike, Red-backed
Lanius collurio
X
X
786
Sparrow, Cape
Passer melanurus
X
X
787
Sparrow, Greyheaded
Passer diffusus
X
784
Sparrow, House
Passer domesticus
X
3852
Sparrow, Northern Grey-headed
Passer griseus
X
4142
Sparrow, Southern Grey-headed
Passer diffusus
X
159
Sparrowhawk, Black
Accipiter melanoleucus
X
158
Sparrowhawk, Little
Accipiter minullus
X
485
Sparrowlark, Grey-backed
Eremopterix verticalis
X
Spoonbill, African
Platalea alba
X
188
Spurfowl, Red-necked
Pternistis afer
X
737
Starling, Cape Glossy
Lamprotornis nitens
X
X
733
Starling, Common
Sturnus vulgaris
X
X
744
Starling, Pale-winged
Onychognathus nabouroup
X
X
746
Starling, Pied
Spreo bicolor
X
X
745
Starling, Red-winged
Onychognathus morio
X
X
735
Starling, Wattled
Creatophora cinerea
X
X
270
Stilt, Black-winged
Himantopus himantopus
X
X
253
Stint, Little
Calidris minuta
X
576
Stonechat, African
Saxicola torquatus
X
79
Stork, Black
Ciconia nigra
X
80
Stork, White
Ciconia ciconia
X
76
Stork, Yellow-billed
Mycteria ibis
X
772
Sunbird, Amethyst
Chalcomitra amethystina
X
X
771
Sunbird, Collared
Hedydipna collaris
X
X
764
Sunbird, Dusky
Cinnyris fuscus
X
X
758
Sunbird, Greater Double-collared
Cinnyris afer
X
X
765
Sunbird, Grey
Cyanomitra veroxii
X
751
Sunbird, Malachite
Nectarinia famosa
X
753
Sunbird, Orange-breasted
Anthobaphes violacea
760
Sunbird, Southern Double-collared
Cinnyris chalybeus
X
X
493
Swallow, Barn
Hirundo rustica
X
X
502
Swallow, Greater Striped
Hirundo cucullata
X
X
503
Swallow, Lesser Striped
Hirundo abyssinica
X
X
498
Swallow, Pearl-breasted
Hirundo dimidiata
X
X
495
Swallow, White-throated
Hirundo albigularis
X
604
Swamp-Warbler, Lesser
Acrocephalus gracilirostris
X
380
Swift, African Black
Apus barbatus
X
85
X
X
X
X
X
X
386
Swift, Alpine
Tachymarptis melba
X
378
Swift, Common
Apus apus
X
385
Swift, Little
Apus affinis
X
X
383
Swift, White-rumped
Apus caffer
X
X
713
Tchagra, Southern
Tchagra tchagra
X
X
98
Teal, Cape
Anas capensis
X
X
97
Teal, Red-billed
Anas erythrorhyncha
X
X
290
Tern, Caspian
Sterna caspia
X
X
304
Tern, White-winged
Chlidonias leucopterus
X
275
Thick-knee, Spotted
Burhinus capensis
X
274
Thick-knee, Water
Burhinus vermiculatus
X
1104
Thrush, Karoo
Turdus smithi
X
1105
Thrush, Olive
Turdus olivaceus
X
553
Thrush, Olive
Turdus olivaceus
X
436
Tinkerbird, Red-fronted
Pogoniulus pusillus
X
X
525
Tit, Grey
Parus afer
X
X
527
Tit, Southern Black
Parus niger
X
X
658
Tit-Babbler, Chestnut-vented
Parisoma subcaeruleum
X
X
659
Tit-Babbler, Layard's
Parisoma layardi
X
X
316
Turtle-Dove, Cape
Streptopelia capicola
X
X
685
Wagtail, African Pied
Motacilla aguimp
X
686
Wagtail, Cape
Motacilla capensis
X
688
Wagtail, Mountain
Motacilla clara
X
653
Warbler, Namaqua
Phragmacia substriata
X
619
Warbler, Rufous-eared
Malcorus pectoralis
X
X
599
Warbler, Willow
Phylloscopus trochilus
X
X
843
Waxbill, Common
Estrilda astrild
X
X
825
Waxbill, Swee
Coccopygia melanotis
X
X
799
Weaver, Cape
Ploceus capensis
X
X
791
Weaver, Spectacled
Ploceus ocularis
X
X
568
Wheatear, Capped
Oenanthe pileata
X
X
564
Wheatear, Mountain
Oenanthe monticola
X
X
268
Whimbrel, Common
Numenius phaeopus
X
1172
White-eye, Cape
Zosterops virens
X
775
White-eye, Cape
Zosterops pallidus
X
White-eye, Orange River
Zosterops pallidus
X
846
Whydah, Pin-tailed
Vidua macroura
X
X
321
Wood-Dove, Emerald-spotted
Turtur chalcospilos
X
X
419
Wood-Hoopoe, Green
Phoeniculus purpureus
X
X
450
Woodpecker, Cardinal
Dendropicos fuscescens
X
X
445
Woodpecker, Ground
Geocolaptes olivaceus
X
1171
X
X
X
X
X
448
Woodpecker, Knysna
Campethera notata
X
X
452
Woodpecker, Olive
Dendropicos griseocephalus
X
X
453
Wryneck, Red-throated
Jynx ruficollis
X
APPENDIX 3. WOLF PRE-CONSTRUCTION BIRD MONITORING PROGRAMME
FRAMEWORK
Objectives
The objectives of pre-construction bird monitoring at the Wolf Wind Energy Facility are: to establish a bird baseline
before construction; to characterise bird movement on site; to gain a better understanding of these first two factors;
and to use all of this information to provide input into the EIA for the proposed facility. Since this industry is relatively
new in South Africa, and our understanding is therefore low, these are fairly broad goals to start off with. At a national
level, monitoring of birds at WEF’s in South Africa aims to develop an understanding of the interactions between birds
and WEF’s, and to develop means of mitigating impacts where necessary. This will ensure that the industry remains
sustainable into the future.
General approach
This programme will be implemented over a 4 season period in order to capture as much as possible of various forms of
variation in conditions on site. Capturing multiple years of variation would be preferable, but one full set of seasons is
considered an appropriate compromise, taking practical and resource constraints into account. One of the major forms
of variation is seasonal, therefore the four site visits have been planned to represent as far as possible the major
seasons on site, namely spring, summer, autumn, and winter. All data capture activities are conducted by a pair of
observers working together. There are a number of reasons for working in pairs, including the fact that much of the
data capture requires birds to be detected first and it is believed that two pairs of eyes and ears is far better than one. It
also ensures that even while data is being captured onto datasheets at least one pair of eyes and ears is still focused on
birds. The team is equipped with a suitable vehicle, binoculars, GPS (Global Positioning System), spotting scope,
clipboards and relevant maps and datasheets. All data is captured onto standard paper datasheets, and then captured
electronically into Microsoft Excel within 2 days of the completion of each site visit, to ensure that data is still fresh in
the observers’ minds when typed up.
Definition of the ‘inclusive impact zone’ (monitoring study area)
Due to their mobility, and the fact that one of the main possible impacts of the wind energy facility, that of bird
collision, occurs whilst birds are mobile, the zone within which bird activity is relevant to the WEF is potentially far
larger than the WEF itself. An important step in designing a monitoring programme is therefore defining this zone.
Ideally this zone would encompass the likely range of all bird species likely to be affected by the WEF. However in the
case of large birds of prey, and species such as bustards this could be tens of kilometres, and it is not considered
feasible to monitor all of this. In this case the zone has been delineated by buffering the turbines by approximately two
kilometres, although the flats to the north and south of the ridge have also been included as they are home to relevant
species and easily accessible.
Determination of monitoring effort
Two factors have so far been considered in determining the monitoring effort: the facility size (in hectares and turbine
number); and the avifaunal sensitivity of the site. In addition to the guidance offered in Jenkins et al (2012), members
of the Birds and Wind Energy Specialist Group (BAWESG) have informally arrived at a ‘best practice’ of 12 hours of
observation per vantage point per site visit. The current project will conform to this standard.
Sampling activities
Sample counts of small terrestrial species
Although not traditionally the focus of wind farm–bird studies and literature, small terrestrial birds are an important
component of this programme. Due to the rarity of many of our threatened bird species, it is anticipated that
statistically significant trends in abundance and density may be difficult to observe. More common, similar species
could provide early evidence for trends and point towards the need for more detailed future study. Given the large
spatial scale of WEF’s, these smaller species may also be particularly vulnerable to displacement and habitat level
effects. Sampling these species is aimed at establishing indices of abundance for small terrestrial birds in the study area.
These counts should be done when conditions are optimal. In this case this means the times when birds are most active
and vocal, i.e. early mornings. A total of 6 walked transects (WT) of approximately 1 kilometre each are conducted
starting at first light. These WT’s have been positioned to represent the bird micro habitats available. During these
transects, all bird species seen or heard, and their position relative to the transect line are recorded. For more detail on
exact methods of conducting Walked Transects see Jenkins et al (2012).
Counts of large terrestrial species and raptors
This is a very similar data collection technique to that above, the aim being to establish indices of abundance for large
terrestrial species and raptors. These species are relatively easily detected from a vehicle, hence vehicle based transects
(VT) are conducted in order to determine the number of birds of relevant species in the study area. Detection of these
large species is less dependent on their activity levels and calls, so these counts can be done later in the day. One
circular VT has been established on suitable roads surrounding the site, and a further short VT is situated on the ridge
itself where roads permit. For more detail on exact methods of conducting Vehicle Based transects see Jenkins et al
(2012).
Focal site surveys and monitoring
A total of 2 Focal Sites have been identified to date, although this could be added to in future. FS1 is the stay wires of
the wind measuring mast on site, which will be searched for any evidence of bird collisions. The second, FS2 is a large
dam on the flats close to Wolwefontein. This dam is home to various bird species, including Blue Cranes, which roost
there in the evenings.
In addition to the above, a significant amount of time will be spent on searching each small gorge on site for signs of
breeding eagles and other raptors.
Incidental observations
This monitoring programme comprises a significant amount of field time on site by the observers, much of it spent
driving between the above activities. As such it is important to record any other relevant information whilst on site. All
other incidental sightings of priority species (and particularly those suggestive of breeding or important feeding or
roosting sites or flight paths) within the broader study area will be carefully plotted and documented. Where patterns in
these observations are identified this may lead to additional focal site surveys in future.
The above efforts allow us to arrive at an estimate of the abundance or density of the relevant species on site. This will
allow the identification of any displacement and disturbance effects on these species post construction. However in
evaluating the likelihood of these species colliding with turbine blades, their abundance is not sufficient. We also need
to understand their flight behaviour. It is the flight behaviour which determines their exposure to collision risk. A bird
which seldom flies, or typically flies lower than blade height is at lower risk than a frequent flier that typically flies at
blade height. In order to gather baseline data on this aspect, direct observations of bird flight behaviour are required.
This is the most time consuming and possibly the most important activity to be conducted on site, and is elaborated on
below.
Direct observation of bird movements
The aim of direct observation is to record bird flight activity on site. An understanding of this flight behaviour will help
explain any future interactions between birds and the WEF. Spatial patterns in bird flight movement may also be
detected which will allow for input into turbine placement. Direct observation is conducted through counts at a number
of vantage points (VP) in the study area. A total of 3 VP’s have been identified, which provide coverage of a reasonable
and representative proportion of the entire study area (total coverage being unnecessary and impractical given
resource constraints). VP’s were identified using GIS (Geographic Information Systems), and then fine-tuned during the
project setup, based on access and other information. Since these VP’s aim at capturing both usage and behavioural
data, they have been positioned mostly on high ground to maximise visibility. The survey radius for VP counts is 2
kilometres. VP counts are conducted by two observers, seated at the VP and taking care not to make their presence so
obvious as to effect bird behaviour. Birds are normally recorded in a 360 degree arc in front of observers. Data should
be collected during representative conditions, so the sessions have been spread throughout the day, with each VP being
counted over ‘early to mid-morning’, ‘mid to late morning’, ‘early to mid-afternoon’, and ‘mid-afternoon to evening’.
Each session is 3 hours long, resulting in a total of 12 hours of observation being conducted at each vantage point on
each site visit. Three hours is believed to be towards the upper limit of observer concentration span, whilst also
maximising duration of data capture relative to travel time required in order to access the VP’s. A maximum of two VP
sessions are conducted per day, to avoid observer fatigue compromising data quality. For more detail on exact criteria
recorded for each flying bird observed, see Jenkins et al (2012).
One of the most important attributes of any bird flight event is its height above ground, since this will determine its risk
of collision with turbine blades. Since it is possible that the turbine model (and hence the exact height of the rotor
swept zone) could still change on this project, actual flight height is estimated rather than assigning flight height to
broad bands (such as proposed by Jenkins et al 2012). This ‘raw’ data will allow flexibility in assigning to classes later on
depending on final turbine specifications.
Control sites
A suitable control site has been identified to the south of the main Wolf site. Activities on the control site will consist of
1 Vantage Point, 1 Vehicle Based transect, and 3 Walked Transects.
Data management and analysis
Whilst on site, observers capture data onto paper datasheets. This is then captured electronically each night into
Microsoft Excel spread sheets. The spatial data – flight paths drawn on paper maps - is digitised by the specialist once
these hard copy datasheets are received. Electronic data is emailed to the specialist and hard copy data is couriered at
the end of the site visit. In this way, data is kept in both hard and soft copy version as a backup against any mishap.
Various techniques exist for the analysis of the data collected through this programme. Given the rate at which new
techniques and models are evolving the exact analysis methods will only be decided on completion of the full
programme and availability of a full set of data.