Scoping report

Avian impacts at the proposed Juno Wind Energy

Facility, Strandfontein, Western Cape

Prepared for:

Prepared by:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This study reviews recent literature on wind energy impacts, gives a first indication of the priority bird species

on the proposed Juno wind farm, identifies potential impacts at the farm and the cumulative impacts around

the Juno Wind Energy Facility and simultaneously sets out a road map for a comprehensive EIA study to fully

quantify the expected impacts. The facility lies in the coastal area of Strandfontein, Western Cape. The

potential impacts are deemed to be: (i) habitat alteration by the facility and associated substation and

infrastructure; (ii) disturbance by construction and maintenance activities; (iii) possible displacement or

disturbance of priority species; and (iv) direct collision with turbine blades or the associated power line

network. Electrocution of avifauna may be a problem for larger species on the power lines.

The wind energy facility (WEF) is proposed on the Remaining Extent of Farm De Boom No. 273, covering

4682-ha, east of the west-coast town of Strandfontein. Here, we review the impact zone of the 47-km2 Juno

WEF proposed for the heavily farmed area in the Succulent Karoo biome, centred on S31°43'49" E

18°18'45.61". Data from the Southern African Bird Atlas Programme (SABAP2) indicates that the region

supports at least 131 bird species (about 14% of southern Africa’s total), including 6 threatened, red-listed,

species (4.5% of South Africa’s total). The avian groups of greatest conservation significance possibly

impacted by the turbines include (13) raptor species and collision-prone species (CPS) such as bustards. Site

visits allowed us to record species actually occurring on site despite their low occurrence in bird atlas records.

Endangered Black Harriers Circus maurus -occurred at low density while highly collision-prone Red Data

Ludwig’s Bustard Neotis ludwigii have the potential to occur at high densities after substantial rains The most

frequently recorded CPS include Black-shouldered Kite Elanus caerulescens, and Pale Chanting Goshawk

Melierax canorus that breed on site. The area falls within a medium-high bird risk area according to the

national risk- map of Birdlife South Africa, but outside the Important Bird Area encompassing the Olifants

River Mouth.

A full EIA study, as recommended by the Birds and Renewable Energy Specialist Group, (BARESG- Jenkins et

al. 2015) must include twelve months of field studies in the proposed wind site to record the numbers and

passage rates of all priority birds occurring, and a semi-quantitative assessment of the significance of the

impacts and cumulative impacts within 35 km of the proposed site.

Early mitigation measures to pre-empt possible issues of displacement, or impact to birds, of future turbines

include: (i) all power lines are marked with bird diverters and (ii) where existing lines occur, align the lines and

stagger the pylons to reduce possible collisions by the bustards; (iii) employing bird-friendly pylons that avoid

the possibility of electrocution by perching birds; (iv) avoiding construction of turbines away from areas that

hold concentrations of breeding raptors or bustards (especially the pans identified in this study) to reduce

displacement and the likelihood of impact. Each will reduce the threats to birds by the wind farm site.

The degree and significance of the impact will depend upon the relative abundance and movements of the

CPS through the wind farm. A Scoping study is designed to give a snapshot of the species likely to be

impacted on site and to map out a full 12-months pre-construction monitoring to generate detailed

assessments of all potential impacts. It will also provide passage rates of critical species, identify high risk

areas, assess cumulative impacts and better inform recommended mitigation, where necessary.

CONTENTS OF THE SPECIALIST REPORT – CHECKLIST

Regulation GNR 326 of 4 December 2014, as amended 7 April 2017, Appendix 6

Section of Report

(a) details of the specialist who prepared the report; and the expertise of that specialist to compile a specialist report including a curriculum vitae;

Page 4 (with www links)

(b) a declaration that the specialist is independent in a form as may be specified by the competent authority;

Page 3

(c) an indication of the scope of, and the purpose for which, the report was prepared;

Page 5

(cA) an indication of the quality and age of base data used for the specialist report; Page 5

(cB) a description of existing impacts on the site, cumulative impacts of the proposed development and levels of acceptable change;

Not applicable for a Scoping Report

(d) the duration, date and season of the site investigation and the relevance of the season to the outcome of the assessment;

Pages 5-6

(e) a description of the methodology adopted in preparing the report or carrying out the specialised process inclusive of equipment and modelling used;

Page 5-6

(f) details of an assessment of the specific identified sensitivity of the site related to the proposed activity or activities and its associated structures and infrastructure, inclusive of a site plan identifying site alternatives;

Pages 13-14

(g) an identification of any areas to be avoided, including buffers; Not applicable for a Scoping Report – too early in the process

(h) a map superimposing the activity including the associated structures and infrastructure on the environmental sensitivities of the site including areas to be avoided, including buffers;

Too early in the process – all data are not in

(i) a description of any assumptions made and any uncertainties or gaps in knowledge;

Page 6

(j) a description of the findings and potential implications of such findings on the impact of the proposed activity, including identified alternatives on the environment, or activities;

Page 7-15

(k) any mitigation measures for inclusion in the EMPr; Pages 16-21

(l) any conditions for inclusion in the environmental authorisation; Pages 16-21

(m) any monitoring requirements for inclusion in the EMPr or environmental authorisation;

Page 22

(n) a reasoned opinion— i. as to whether the proposed activity, activities or portions thereof should be authorised; iA. Regarding the acceptability of the proposed activity or activities; and ii. if the opinion is that the proposed activity, activities or portions thereof should be authorised, any avoidance, management and mitigation measures that should be included in the EMPr or Environmental Authorization, and where applicable, the closure plan;

To early Requires full 12 months of monitoring before recommendation can be made

(o) a summary and copies of any comments received during any consultation process and where applicable all responses thereto; and

N/A

(p) any other information requested by the competent authority Appendix

Where a government notice gazetted by the Minister provides for any protocol or minimum information requirement to be applied to a specialist report, the requirements as indicated in such notice will apply.

N/A

1. CONSULTANT’S DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

Dr Rob Simmons of Birds & Bats Unlimited is an independent consultant to AMDA Developments (Pty) Ltd. I

have no business, financial, personal or other interest in the activity, application or appeal in respect of which

I was appointed other than fair remuneration for work performed in connection with the activity, application

or appeal. There are no circumstances that compromise the objectivity of this specialist performing such

work.

2. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS OF SPECIALIST CONSULTANTS

Birds & Bats Unlimited Environmental Consultants (www.birds-and-bats-unlimited.com) were approached to

undertake the specialist avifaunal assessment for the pre-construction phase of the proposed Juno WEF. Dr

Rob Simmons is an ornithologist, with 30 years’ experience in avian research and impact assessment work.

He has published over 100 peer-reviewed papers and 2 books on birds and mammals (see

https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=Mjv8zisAAAAJ&view_op=list_works for details). About 64

projects and impact assessments over 23 habitats have been undertaken throughout Namibia, Lesotho,

Angola and South Africa. He also undertakes long-term research with his partner, Marlei Martins, on (i) the

effect of hub heights on fatalities at wind farms; (ii) why certain threatened species are so susceptible to

collision with turbines in South Africa; and (iii) innovative mitigation measures to reduce vulture deaths at

African wind farms and new methods to reduce bustard deaths along the transmission lines. He also

undertakes research on threatened species (raptors, flamingos and terns) their predators (cats) and ways of

increasing the efficiency of Vantage Point observations with graduate students at the FitzPatrick Institute and

Centre for Statistical Sciences, UCT. Further details at

http://www.fitzpatrick.uct.ac.za/fitz/staff/research/simmons

Marlei Martins, co-director of Birds & Bats Unlimited, has 8 years consultancy experience in avian wind and

solar farm impacts as well as environmental issues, and has been employed by several consultancy

companies throughout South Africa because of her expertise in this field. Details at

www.linkedin.com/in/marlei-martins-a0374a27/?trk=hp-identity-photo She has over twenty years of

experience in rehabilitation including penguins, raptors, elephants and baboons. She has published papers on

her observations including a new species of raptor to South Africa (http://www.birds-and-bats-

unlimited.com).

3. INTRODUCTION

AMDA Developments (Pty) Ltd have proposed a 140MW wind farm near the small town of Strandfontein on

the Western Cape coast. The 39 to 59 proposed turbines are of 80-130-m in hub-height with 55-65-m blade

lengths. The smaller turbines generate up to 2.5MW and the larger ones 3.63MW. This report is an initial

Scoping exercise by Birds & Bats Unlimited to review (through desk-top research and several site visits) the

bird species present from bird atlas records and three site visits (September, December 2017, March 2018).

The latter is to determine those avian species present on site and most at risk from collision, avoidance and

electrocution with the turbines or power line network. We will summarise the possible impacts and suggest

early solutions to mitigate them wherever feasible. In addition, we provide an overview of the habitats and

areas that may pose the greatest risk, such that turbine placement can be optimised.

4. TERMS OF REFERENCE

The terms of reference for the Scoping study were as follows:

Describe the existing avifaunal environment at the appropriate scale (local and regional).

Determine the importance and conservation value of the existing avian communities.

Determine and assess the potential avian impacts associated with the proposed development.

Map out a full EIA study that will elucidate the issues raised and quantify the mitigation measures

necessary to reduce impacts on the avian community

5. STUDY METHODOLOGY

5.1 Approach

This Scoping study included the following steps:

A review of available published and unpublished literature on bird interactions with wind energy

facilities (WEF) that summarise the issues and potential impacts involved, and the current level of

knowledge. Data sources were examined including bird atlas records on the avifauna of the area and

previous studies of bird interactions with wind energy facilities and electrical infrastructure associated

with them;

An annotated list of the avifauna likely to occur within the impact zone of the proposed WEF to be

compiled using a combination of the existing distributional data from published atlases and our

previous experience of the avifauna of the area;

A short-list of priority bird species (defined in terms of conservation status and collision-prone

vulnerability) which may be impacted by the proposed WEF was highlighted. These species were

considered as adequate surrogates for the local avifauna generally, and mitigation of impacts on these

species was considered likely to cover less sensitive bird species that may also be affected;

Three site visits were undertaken to the larger site from September 2017 to March 2018 to determine

which species actually occur in the wind farm and in which habitats. The precise turbine placements

were not available at the time of the field trip, so we undertook general walking, driving and Vantage

Point surveys to cover the entire area;

A summary of more likely and significant impacts of the WEF on the local avifauna will be drawn up.

a. Data sources used

The following data sources and reports were used in the compilation of this report:

Information on the biology (Hockey et al. 2005), distribution (Harrison et al. 1997) and conservation

status (Taylor et al. 2015) of southern African birds was consulted. Recent data from around the wind

farm area were extracted from the Southern African Bird Atlas Projects (SABAP), which were obtained

from the Animal Demography Unit website http://sabap2.adu.org.za/index.php for the relevant

quarter-degree square (SABAP 1) and the “pentads” of 5’ x 5’ from (SABAP 2: 3140_1810, 3140_1815,

3145_1815, 3145_1810). One pentad covers approximately 7-km x 8-km. From these pentad records

(n = 87 cards, accessed April 2018) we compiled a list of the avifauna likely to occur within an area of

about 224 km2 around the proposed wind farm. We combined these data, with our own visit to the

area from September 2017 to March 2018 and previous experience/knowledge of the local avifauna,

undertaken on trips made through this area over the last ten years;

Conservation status and endemicity of all species considered likely to occur in the area was

determined from the national Red-list for birds (Taylor et al. 2015), and the comprehensive summary

of southern African bird life-histories (Hockey et al. 2005);

The important bird areas (IBA) assessment for South Africa (Barnes 1998, Marnewick et al. 2015) were

also consulted to determine if any areas had been so designated;

The avian-wind Sensitivity Map of the Birds and Renewable Energy Specialist Group (BARESG) of South

Africa http://www.birdlife.org.za/conservation/birds-and-wind-energy/windmap/325-windmap was

used to characterise the general area around Strandfontein for national avian sensitivity. This gives an

overall sensitivity ranking for birds within each pentad based on numbers of Red Data birds, roosts,

nesting areas, wetland bird accumulations and other significant avian hot-spots in South Africa;

The list of the top 100 collision-prone species as designated by Birdlife South Africa was used to rank

those species recorded on site into those most sensitive to fatality (priority species) due to turbines

and power lines;

Relevant EIA reports and reviews of the potential impacts on birds at other WEFs in South Africa were

also assessed for birds both regionally (Simmons and Martins 2015) and nationally (Ralston-Paton et

al. 2017).

b. Limitations & assumptions

Inaccuracies in the above sources of information may bias the study. The SABAP1 data for this area is now 20-

years old (Harrison et al. 1997), and this area is relatively remote and seldom visited. However, a healthy set

of 87 atlas cards exists for the four pentads around the Juno WEF and these data form the basis for this study.

Some of our data comprise this SABAP data set from our site visits since October 2016 (Simmons and Martins

2016) allowing us an insight into the birds there. No surveys, however detailed, can give a full picture of all

species passing through an arid region, and such lists are statistically likely to miss the rarest species.

There are few operational wind energy facilities functioning in South Africa (totalling approximately 294

turbines), therefore few data exist on the environmental effects of wind facilities (Ralston-Paton et al. 2017).

However, numerous studies have emerged from such facilities internationally. General principles can be

gleaned from them, but care is required when adapting international knowledge and experience to uniquely

South African birds and conditions. Where possible, we have provided both local and international examples.

6. BACKGROUND

6.1 A brief review of interactions between wind farms and birds

The number of longer-term analyses of the effects of wind facilities on birds is increasing, but scientific

research in this field in southern Africa is still in its infancy. The best available information originates from a

meta-analysis of 53 studies from the United States (Loss et al. 2013), and from western Europe, where wind

power generation is well established (Gove et al. 2013).

Observed mortality caused by wind energy facilities is relatively low compared to other existing sources of

anthropogenic avian mortality on a per-structure basis (Crockford 1992, Colson & associates 1995, Gill et al.

1996, Erickson et al. 2001, Loss et al. 2013). Problems arise when the birds impacted by the wind energy

facilities are rare or highly threatened species, and, thus, species of concern.

6.1.1 Collisions with turbines

Collision rates

Wherever possible, measured collision rates should correct for (i) the proportion of actual casualties

that are detected by observers (searcher efficiency); and (ii) the rate at which carcasses are removed by

scavengers (scavenger removal rate – important in an African landscape). Cumulative effects over time,

especially when applied to large, long-lived, slow reproducing and/or threatened species (many of which

are collision-prone), may be of considerable conservation significance.

The most pertinent results include:

Loss et al. (2013) estimated that 5.25 (95% Cl: 3.15-7.35) birds are killed per turbine per year

across the contiguous United States from a meta-analysis of 53 studies ( corrected for searcher

efficiency and scavenger rates)

A peak in California was due to high fatalities at Altamont pass – a migration corridor – where

casualty of >1000 raptors, and nearly 3000 birds killed in turbine collisions annually (Smallwood

& Thelander 2008) or 2-4 mortalities per MW per year.

13% of the >5000 turbines at Altamont Pass, California, were responsible for all Golden Eagle

Aquila chrysaetos and Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis collisions (Curry & Kerlinger 2000).

Similar figures are known from Jeffreys Bay, South Africa where 22% of the turbines at one

farm caused 68% of all fatalities (Simmons and Martins 2017a).

In the Straits of Gibraltar, southern Spain, about 0.04-0.08 birds are killed/turbine/year (Janss

2000a, de Lucas et al. 2008), with relatively high collision rates for threatened Griffon Vultures

Gyps fulvus, of particular concern.

A review of South African fatalities over two years at eight of the first operational wind farms in

South Africa indicates that about 4.1 birds per turbine per year are killed

Causes of collision

Multiple factors influence the number of birds killed at wind energy facilities. These can be classified

into three broad groupings: (i) avian variables, (ii) location variables, and (iii) facility-related variables.

Two studies have shown a direct relationship between the abundance of birds in an area and the

number of collisions (Everaert 2003, Smallwood et al 2009), thus logically the more birds flying through

an array of turbines, the higher the chances of a collision. The identity of such species is also important

as birds such as raptors and vultures are more vulnerable than others to collision with turbines (Drewitt

& Langston 2006, 2008, de Lucas et al. 2008, Ralston-Paton et al. 2017). Species-specific variation in

behaviour, such as foraging, commuting or courting, also affect susceptibility to collision (Barrios &

Rodríguez 2004, Smallwood et al. 2009). There may also be seasonal and temporal differences in

behaviour, for example breeding males displaying may be particularly at risk (Simmons 2011).

Landscape features often channel birds towards a certain area, and, in the case of raptors, influence

their flight and foraging behaviour. Ridges and steep slopes are important factors in determining the

extent to which an area is used by gliding and soaring birds (Barrios & Rodríguez 2004, Katzner et al.

2012). High densities of prey will attract raptors, increasing the time spent hunting, and as a result

reducing the time spent being vigilant. Poor weather affects visibility. Birds fly lower during strong

headwinds (Hanowski & Hawrot 2000, Richardson 2000), so when the turbines are functioning at their

maximum speed, birds are likely to be flying at their lowest, exponentially increasing collision risk

(Drewitt & Langston 2006, 2008).

Larger WEFs, with more turbines, are statistically more likely to incur significant numbers of bird

casualties (Kingsley & Whittam 2005), and turbine size may be proportional to collision risk, with taller

turbines associated with higher mortality rates (de Lucas et al. 2009, Loss et al. 2013). This may arise

because taller towers have longer blades and doubling the blade length quadruples the blade swept

area that a bird may impact. It may arise from eagle species flying at higher altitudes and, thus,

intersecting the higher blade swept heights (Katzner et al. 2012). Adding in South African data to that

from the USA indicates that statistically, taller turbines increase the chances of higher fatality (Simmons

et al. 2017b).

With newer technology, fewer, large turbines are needed to generate the same amount of power, which

may result in no nett increase in the number collisions per Megawatt of power produced (Erickson et al.

2001, F Cervantes unpubl data).

Illumination of turbines and other infrastructure often increases collision risk (Winkelman 1995,

Erickson et al. 2001), either because birds moving long distances at night navigate using stars – and

mistake lights for stars (Kemper 1964) – or because lights attract insects, which in turn attract birds.

Changing constant lighting to intermittent lighting has been shown to reduce nocturnal collision rates

(Richardson 2000, APLIC 1994, Jaroslow 1979, Weir 1976) and changing flood-lighting from white to red

(or green) can affect an 80% reduction in mortality rates (Weir 1976).

Spacing between turbines at a wind facility can also affect the number of collisions. Some authors have

suggested that paths need to be left between turbines so that birds can move through them.

Alternatively, where certain turbines are known to kill more birds they can, temporarily, be taken out of

service

Collision prone birds

Collision prone birds are generally either (i) large species and/or species with high ratios of body weight

to wing surface area, and low manoeuvrability (cranes, bustards, vultures, waterfowl, falcons); (ii)

species that fly at high speeds (gamebirds, pigeons and sandgrouse, swifts, falcons); (iii) species that are

distracted in flight – predators or species with aerial displays (many raptors, aerial insectivores, some

open-country passerines); (iv) species that habitually fly in low light conditions; and (v) species with

narrow fields of forward binocular vision (Drewitt & Langston 2006, 2008, Martin et al. 2012).

Mitigating collision risk

A direct way to reduce the risk of collision with turbine blades is to render the blades more

conspicuous. Blade conspicuousness is compromised by a phenomenon known as ‘motion smear’ or

retinal blur, in which rapidly moving objects become less visible the closer they are to the eye (McIsaac

2001, Hodos 2002).

Laboratory-based studies of visual acuity in raptors determined that (i) visual acuity appears superior

when objects are viewed at a distance, suggesting that the birds may view nearby objects with one

visual field and objects further away with another. This has been addressed by patterning the blade

surface to maximizes the time between successive stimulations of the same retinal region; the easiest,

cost-effective method is a single black blade in an array of white blades (McIsaac 2001, Hodos 2002).

Tests at wind farms on the island Smøla, Norway where eagles are regular victims show that birds

fatalities with one black-painted blade among three reduced bird fatalities by 71%, and more

importantly, fatalities of White-tailed Eagles Haliaetus albicilla were reduced by 100%. While South

African CAA regulations currently disallow such marking, Birds & Bats Unlimited and Birdlife SA have, in-

principle, been given approval by South African CAA authorities to do so.

6.1.2 Habitat loss – destruction, disturbance and displacement

While the final footprint of most wind energy facilities (WEF) is likely to be relatively small, the

construction phase of development incurs relatively extensive, if temporary, damage or permanent

destruction of habitat. This may be of lasting significance in cases where WEF sites coincide with critical

areas for restricted range, endemic and/or threatened species. Similarly, construction, is likely to cause

disturbance to birds especially of shy and/or ground-nesting species resident in the area. Mitigation

requires best-practice principles to be applied – sites are selected to avoid the destruction of key

habitats, and construction and final footprints, as well as the disturbance of key species, must be kept to

an absolute minimum.

Displacement effects are probably more relevant in situations where wind facilities are built in natural

habitat (Pearce-Higgins et al. 2009, Madders & Whitfield 2006) than in more modified environments

such as farmland (Devereaux et al. 2008).

6.1.3 Impacts of associated infrastructure

The construction and maintenance of substations, power lines, servitudes and roadways causes

temporary and permanent, habitat destruction and disturbance. New overhead power lines also pose a

collision and possibly an electrocution threat to certain species (Van Rooyen 2004a, Lehman et al. 2007,

Jenkins et al. 2010).

Habitat destruction during construction and maintenance of power lines and substations

Some habitat destruction and alteration inevitably takes place during the construction of power lines,

substations and associated roadways. These activities have an impact on birds breeding, foraging and

roosting in or close to the servitude (King & Byers 2002).

Collision with power lines

Power lines and wind turbines pose equal collision risks to birds, affecting the same suite of collision

prone species (Bevanger 1994, 1995, 1998, Janss 2000b, Anderson 2001, van Rooyen 2004a, Drewitt &

Langston 2008, Jenkins et al. 2010). Mitigation requires the careful selection of low impact alignments

for new power lines relative to bird movements. Where this is unavoidable the use of static or dynamic

marking devices to make lines (especially earth wires) more conspicuous are needed. Many remain

untested in terms of reducing collisions, and tests in the Karoo show only partial reductions in fatalities

for cranes but no effect for bustards (C Hoogstadt pers comm). Burying power lines within a wind farm

also reduces impacts and is typical practice in South Africa and elsewhere

A new mitigation, that of staggered pylons, suggested in Namibia by John Pallett exploits the well-

known finding that fewer deaths of bustards occur around the pylon towers (~ 10%) than mid-span

(~45%). If two lines can be run in parallel, then the tower of one line should be aligned with the mid-

span of the adjacent line. This has the potential to reduce bustard fatalities by 45% and will be tested in

Namibia over 350 km (RE Simmons and J Pallett unpubl data).

Electrocution on power lines

Avian electrocutions occur when a bird attempts to perch and causes a short-circuit by physically

bridging the air gap between live components or live/earthed components (van Rooyen 2004b, Lehman

et al. 2007). Electrocution risk is strongly influenced by the voltage and design of the power lines

erected - increasing where air gaps are relatively small on low voltage lines. They mainly affect larger

species, such as vultures, eagles and storks, This can be mitigated by bird-safe structures (with critical air

gaps >2 m), the physical exclusion of birds from high risk areas of live infrastructure, and insulation of

such areas (van Rooyen 2004b, Lehman et al. 2007).

6.2 Description of the proposed wind energy facility

The information available on the size and capacity of the WEF at the Juno site is that between 39 and 59

turbines will be sited across the areas allocated for the project as illustrated in Figure 1. The tower hub

heights are proposed to be 80 to 130-m at hub height with a blade length of between 55 and 65-m. The farm

will generate up to 140MW of power and link to the present grid system via a route to Vredendal. The

existing network of tracks within the development site will need to be upgraded, and additional internal

access roads will connect the turbine arrays.

Figure 1: The proposed areas of the extended Juno Wind Energy Facility (red polygon) near Strandfontein, as laid out by

AMDA Developments (Pty) Ltd in 2017. The green polygon in the south is the first phase of the Juno wind farm.

7. DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

7.1 Vegetation of the study area

The study area occurs at the north-west end of the

Succulent Karoo biome (Mucina and Rutherford 2006,

p264), and is officially designated as Namaqualand

Strandveld. It is dominated by species-rich shrubland of

erect and creeping succulents underlain by Quaternary

aeolian red and yellow sands.

7.2 Avian microhabitats

Bird habitat in the region consists of fairly uniform

vegetation type of coastal shrubs (Photo 1) and succulent

plants. The vegetation includes flowering shrubs and

endemic plants such as Lampranthus and Tylocodon species. There are a few alien trees on site (e.g.

Eucalyptus) and several farm reservoirs, wind mills and natural pans that were dry and unvegetated in our

summer trip (Photo 2).

Photo 2: One of several pans on the north-eastern border of the De Boom farm. These remained dry and uninhabited by

birds during our surveys but are likely to support bustards and wetland species if rains flood them in winter. We

recommend avoiding these pans for development.

Few grasses are found, making the lark species diversity rather slim. No Eskom transmission lines or pylons

are found within the extended site, reducing the likelihood of larger raptors using the pylons as nesting sites.

The tallest man-made structure on site is the 80-m wind-mast.

8. BIRD COMMUNITIES ON THE JUNO WIND FARM

8.1 Bird Species and habitats found in the Juno area

We used the most recent data available from the SABAP2 bird atlas of the Avian Demography Unit

downloaded from http://sabap2.adu.org.za/map_interactive.php. This bird species list is based on 87 full

protocol cards submitted from 2008 to 2018. Since this is inclusive of records from our visits it represents a

comprehensive list on-site record. This not only allows a “reporting rate” to be generated (a guide to how

likely each species is to occur in the area) but it allows us to determine, the likelihood of occurrence of

sensitive species such as the red-listed bustards and birds of prey.

8.2 National bird sensitivity for the study area

The Juno wind farm lies in an area of medium-high avian sensitivity according to Birdlife South Africa’s avian

sensitivity map (Figure 2). This indicates that priority species are likely to occur there, and mitigations will

probably be necessary. The proposed farm lies just outside the Olifants River Estuary Important Bird Area

(IBA: Marnewick et al. 2015). This area holds numerous wading birds, as well as breeding Black Harriers (RE

Simmons unpubl data) and wetland species including flamingos and pelicans. It is unlikely that all of these

species will fly inland over the proposed farm, but this must be determined during the 12-months of pre-

construction monitoring.

Figure 2: The Juno WEF site in relation to the national bird sensitivity map of Birdlife South Africa. Light squares depict low-bird

sensitivity (score ~50-100) and darker squares higher bird sensitivity (scores 800-1000). The Juno WEF site lies in an area of medium to

high bird sensitivity (scored 589 and 808). For details see: http://www.birdlife.org.za/conservation/terrestrial-bird-

conservation/birds-and-renewable-energy/wind-farm-map The closest Important Bird Area (IBA) at the Olifants River Estuary is shown

in green.

Priority species likely in the area

According to SABAP2 records, incorporating our own on-site records, species richness around the study area

is 131 species. This represents about 14% of all species recorded in Southern Africa. Among these were 16

highly collision-prone (within the top 100 most collision-prone species in southern Africa). Six of these species

are threatened red-listed species in South Africa (Taylor et al. 2015). These species are, in order of

susceptibility to collision: Verreaux’s Eagle, Martial Eagle, Black Harrier, Ludwig’s Bustard, White Pelican,

Secretarybird (Table 1).

Table 1. All (16) collision-prone species in the top 100 of Birdlife South Africa’s listing including the red data birds (in red)

recorded in bird atlas data (2008-2018) in the proposed Juno WEF.

* a measure of the frequency of occurrence (No. of times recorded/total number of atlas cards).

** Ranking on Birdlife South Africa’s listing of the top 100 collision-prone species (Ralston-Paton et al. 2017). a In three site visits (5 d each) this species was seen twice in 15 days field work = 13% reporting rate.

The listing above shows that 16 species of priority birds are potentially likely in the wind farm. Of these, the

6 red data species are of most concern and the 12-months monitoring programme (below) will highlight

these species. The Reporting Rate, a measure of the likelihood of occurrence, indicates that Martial Eagles,

Black Harriers and pelicans are the most likely red-data species to occur on site (Table 1). Nevertheless, they

occur at low frequencies, typically below 10%. Among the other priority species, the Pale Chanting Goshawk

and the Southern Black Korhaan are the most likely to occur on site.

The bustards are of concern given their highly nomadic nature in relation to rainfall (Shaw 2013). Despite

atlas data suggesting a low frequency of occurrence, two observations suggest they can be very abundant

Susceptibility to:

Common name Scientific name Red-list status Reporting

Rate*

Collision Rank**

Disturbance

Verreaux’s Eagle Aquila verreauxii Vulnerable 2.3% 2 Moderate

Martial Eagle Polemaetus bellicosus Endangered 2/15 = 13%a 5 High

Black Harrier Circus maurus Endangered 9.2% 6 High

White Pelican Pelecanus onocrotalus Vulnerable 9.2% 8 Moderate

Ludwig’s Bustard Neotis ludwigii Endangered 6.9% 10 Moderate

Secretarybird Saggitarius serpentarius Vulnerable 6.9% 12 Moderate

African Fish Eagle Haliaetus vocifer Not threatened 1.2% 27 moderate

Southern Black Korhaan Afrotis afra Not threatened 29.9% 35 Low

Jackal Buzzard Buteo rufofuscus Not threatened 16.1% 42 Low

Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus Not threatened 2.3% 45 moderate

Booted Eagle Aquila pennatus Not threatened 5.8% 55 Low

Lesser Kestrel Falco naumanni Not threatened 4.6% 62 low

Pale Chanting Goshawk Melierax canorus Not threatened 44.8% 73 Low

Black-shouldered Kite Elanus caerulescens Not threatened 17.2% 96 Low

Greater Kestrel Falco rupicoloides Not threatened 11.5% 97 low

Spotted Eagle Owl Bubo africanus Not threatened 1.2% 100 low

on site: (i) farther north in similar habitat in 2013-2014 groups (including breeding pairs) of up to 15

Ludwig’s Bustards occurred shortly after winter rains; (ii) in September 2017, over 350 bustards were

recorded in the site at a Passage Rate of 2.95 bustards/h. Thus, these species must be given special

attention, particularly along the existing and proposed power lines.

8.3 Which species are most at risk?

A recent review of avian fatalities at turbines in South Africa has been compiled by Birdlife South Africa

(Ralston-Paton et al. 2017). Their review of fatalities at six wind farms over a year indicates that the most

commonly killed species are the raptors, with several Red Data species high on the list of fatalities (Table 2).

Table 2: Summary of all avian fatalities at six wind farms in South Africa from 2014–2016. From Birdlife

South Africa (Ralston-Paton et al. 2017).

Wind farms Turbines Months

monitored

Avian

fatalities

Adjusted mortality rate*

6 46,9,41,40,60,32 69 309 4.11 birds/ turbine/year

Main groups Proportion of all avian fatalities Ranking

Raptors (small-medium) 33% 1

Raptors (eagles) 3% 6

Others/unknown 16% 2

Swifts, swallow and martins 14% 3

Passerine (small perching birds) 14% 3

Waders and wetland birds 10% 5

The Birdlife South Africa summary (Table 2) indicates that in 69 months, 309 birds were reported killed by

228 turbines in South Africa. That is, 0.24 birds/turbine/year. Adjusted for birds missed by observers and

scavenged, the calculated mortality rate rose to 4.11 birds/turbine/year. That is a medium-high rate

compared with global averages of 5.25 birds/turbine/year (Loss et al. 2013). Per Mega-Watt the average

fatality rate is ~2.32 birds/MW/yr for South African wind farms (Ralston-Paton et al. 2017).

By trophic level most South African fatalities were raptors (36%). Among these, 33% were small-medium

raptors (particularly Amur Falcons Falco amurensis and Jackal Buzzards Buteo rufofuscus). However, these

also include five large eagles and three harriers. Of the latter, Black Harriers Circus maurus and Verreaux’s

Eagles Aquila verreauxii are likely to pass through the Juno area (Table 1) and are susceptible to collisions

with turbines, especially breeding males provisioning females and chicks (Simmons and Martins 2017, J.

Smallie pers comm).

Bustards also appear to be particularly vulnerable to collision due to blind spots in their forward vision due

to skull morphology (Martin and Shaw 2010). Collision-prone species such as bustards and cranes,

therefore, simply do not see obstacles in front of them, and collide especially with overhead lines (Jenkins

et al. 2010, Shaw et al. 2010). The collision proneness (see Table 2) is also based on reports from various

wind farms in California and Norway where species such as eagles and other large raptors are killed or

displaced on a regular basis by turbines similar to those proposed here.

In summary, the proposed Juno wind farm lies in an area of medium-high avian sensitivity suggesting

mitigations will be necessary. 131 avian species are likely to occur over the wind farm. Among these are 16

priority species, comprising mainly raptors, that are prone to collision due to their heavy wing-loading

(eagles) or skull morphology (bustards and cranes). Of these, six species are Red-listed including the

bustards (1 species), raptors (4 species) and wetland species (1 species). These species will require special

mitigation if they occur with high frequency over the proposed wind farm site. There are 8 other raptor

species that are not red-listed (Table 1) including falcons (3 species), eagles (2 species), buzzards (1 species),

kites (1 species), and chanting goshawk (1 species) that are collision-prone.

9. PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS

A suite of 13 raptors, one species of bustard, one korhaan and one wetland species were identified

as potentially at risk given their presence in the area and their vulnerability to collision;

The probability that they will be affected by the proposed wind energy facility is insufficiently known

at present – it is dependent upon their use of the area and the numbers present;

Preliminary assessment from three site visits to the full area recorded only 5 collision-prone species

on or near the site: red data Ludwig’s Bustards (in large numbers), and Martial Eagle, as well as

Southern Black Korhaan, resident Jackal Buzzards and Booted Eagles (Simmons and Martins 2016).

This frequency of birds is not unexpected given the generally poor rainfall. Other collision-prone

species are expected with once the 12-months of pre-construction work is undertaken;

A preliminary list of possible mitigations at the start of this project would include: (i) turbines should

avoid hill tops and ridges (because raptors use updrafts there), or (ii) above the rocky outcrops in the

southern sections of the farm (where eagles hunt their prey), or (iii) near the pans in the northern

sections where wetland species and bustards may occur when flooded. Further monitoring will give

better data on the use of different areas of the wind farm by these and other birds; this will allow us

to refine the generic mitigation measures detailed here;

Overhead power lines from the wind farm and the potential impact on birds can be reduced by

running new lines parallel to existing lines and staggering the pylons and adding bird diverters to all

new (and preferably all existing) lines;

Where possible all internal power lines within the wind farm should be buried underground;

Bird-friendly configurations for the power line connections and insulators should also be employed

to reduce the risk of electrocution for larger species.

Impact Phase: Construction

Potential impact description: Disturbance through construction of a building works depot, turbines themselves, roads, and associated human activity, noise of construction.

Birds are easily disturbed by human presence, vehicle traffic and the effect of noise. Some studies suggest that construction-disturbance of birds is greater than operational disturbance (Pearce-Higgins et al. 2009). This is particularly so with breeding birds who require safe areas and no disturbance before they invest in the subsequent generation. Larger species tend to be more sensitive to human presence than smaller species with smaller territories. Disturbance therefore is likely to influence all of the collision-prone species listed in Table 1

Several red data birds occur that are ground nesting species. The bustards and the Black Harrier both fall into this

category and human presence is especially likely to negatively affect these species. Tree-nesting species (e.g. Jackal Buzzards) are less prone to disturbance during construction. With no mitigation birds moving into the site after rains to breed are likely to move away with excessive disturbance such as noise, human presence or high-volume vehicle traffic.

Severity Extent Duration Consequence Status Significance Probability Confidence

Without Mitigation

Medium Medium Medium High Negative High for ground-nesting species.

Medium Medium

With Mitigation

Medium Medium Low Medium Negative Medium for ground nesters.

Medium-low Medium

Can the impact be reversed?

Yes. Construction sites can avoid the high-risk areas and the breeding periods which are generally August – December. Breeding birds are likely to return once construction is complete.

Will impact cause irreplaceable loss or resources?

No, the disturbance is likely to last for the duration of the construction (1-2 years?) and some birds will return to the area to breed. Bustards for example are known to breed within wind farm sites in the E Cape. Black Harriers are also known to breed within wind farm sites

Can impact be avoided, managed or mitigated?

Impacts can be minimized and largely avoided if areas where sensitive collision-prone species occur are themselves buffered. New roads will need to avoid such areas, and construction work should be minimized at times when red data species are breeding or congregating (bustards form leks shortly after arriving with the rains). Nest cannot be moved so its important to identify all areas where the red data species congregate or breed, and avoid them.

Mitigation measures to reduce residual risk or enhance opportunities:

- Excessive noise (after hours, near known sensitive sites) should be avoided

- Sensitive areas identified in the full EIA phase should be buffered (recommended buffer is 500 m)

- Bustard lekking areas should be buffered by 500 m for all roads and turbine positions.

- Pans are often congregation areas for wetland species or terrestrial birds that come to drink. We recommend no construction around these pans and suggest a buffer

Impact to be addressed/ further investigated and assessed in Impact Assessment Phase?

Yes, this is essential in identifying sensitive areas. This can only be finalised when all data are in (all records for all months) because of the sensitivity of gathering data in the rainy season.

Impact Phase: Operational (Displacement)

Potential impact description: Displacement of priority species

One main impact of wind farms is the long-term displacement of species that naturally occurred. Birds move away either because the turbines and presence of vehicles disturbs them, or kills their mates, or makes their breeding success lower and they move to more successful breeding sites. This reduces the overall breeding density of species such as harriers (Wilson et al. 2017) and other smaller species move away (Pearce-Higgins et al. 2012).

Severity Extent Duration Consequence Status Significance Probability Confidence

Without Mitigation

Low Low Medium Low Negative Medium Medium Medium

With Mitigation

Low Low Medium Low Neutral Medium Medium Medium

Can the impact be reversed?

Yes with careful planning displacement can be avoided by allowing corridors between turbines, and avoiding disturbing or killing priority species (pairs that are unsuccessful are more likely to move away.

Will impact cause irreplaceable loss or resources?

Probably, yes. Global research tends to show that birds do slowly move away from wind farms and the areas is lost to certain species (Pearce-Higgins et al. 2009, Wilson et al. 2017)

Can impact be avoided, managed or mitigated?

Displacement can be avoided by allowing corridors between turbines. But few mitigations seem tried and tested. In some cases, it is however, better to have birds displaced because it may reduce the chance of those species being killed by the wind farm.

Mitigation measures to reduce residual risk or enhance opportunities:

- Providing corridors between turbine strings to allow flyways for birds to traverse the wind farm

Impact to be addressed/ further investigated and assessed in Impact Assessment Phase?

Yes, Displacement can be assessed by recording the presence of birds on the wind farm and a control site. In the operational phase the density of birds on the wind farm and the control site can then be compared – with and without turbines. This allows a direct test of the idea of which species are displaced.

Impact Phase: Operation (direct mortality)

Potential impact description: Direct impact and death of priority species

The third main impact of wind farms is the direct impact of birds being killed. Birds move away either because the turbines and presence of vehicles disturbs them, or kills their mates, or makes their breeding success lower and they move to more successful breeding sites. This reduces the overall breeding density of species such as harriers (Wilson et al. 2017) and other smaller species move away (Pearce-Higgins et al. 2012).

Severity Extent Duration Intensity Status Significance Probability Confidence

Without Mitigation

Medium Low Medium Medium Negative High High Medium

With Mitigation

Medium Low Medium Medium Negative Medium Medium Medium

Can the impact be reversed?

Yes, with careful planning displacement can be avoided by allowing corridors between turbines

Will impact cause irreplaceable loss or resources?

Probably, yes. Global research tends to show that birds do slowly drift away from wind farms and the area is lost to certain species.

Can impact be avoided, managed or mitigated?

Mortality can be avoided by three main methods: (i) placing turbines outside areas identified as high risk during the pre-construction phase. This is the single most important mitigation measure. (ii) in high-volume areas, shutting down problem turbines at particular times or season, (iii) for turbines found to kill mor4e than 1 red data priority species per year, painting a single blade of each turbine black, to enhance visibility. This was successfully undertaken by Stokke et al. (2017) to reduce eagle mortality in Norway (above).

Mitigation measures to reduce residual risk or enhance opportunities:

- Providing corridors between turbine strings to allow flyways for birds to traverse the wind farm

Impact to be addressed/ further investigated and assessed in Impact Assessment Phase?

Yes, Mortality can be directly gauged with weekly carcass searches within 80 m radius of each turbine over a minimum of 12 months but preferably longer. This allows the identification of those species most at risk to be recorded and problem turbines to be identified and mitigation to be enacted at them.

10. PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENT OF CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Cumulative impacts are defined as “Impacts that result from incremental changes caused by either past,

present or reasonably foreseeable actions together with the project” (Hyder, 1999, in Masden et al.

2010). Thus, in this context, cumulative impacts are those that will impact the general avian

communities in and around the Juno wind farm development, mainly by other wind farms and

associated infrastructure. This will happen via the same factors identified here viz: collision, avoidance

and displacement. Therefore, the number of wind farms within 35 km of the Juno development, is a first

step and secondly, we need to estimate their impact on avifauna.

There are nine proposed and seven approved wind (and solar) farms between 6 MW and 100MW within

35 km of Juno (Table 3). Given the general assumption that footprint size (or length) and bird impacts

are linearly related to impacts on priority birds, a starting point for calculating cumulative impacts is to

determine:

the number of bird displaced per unit area, by habitat destruction, or disturbed or displaced by

human activity; (no data available)

the number of birds killed by collision with the structures on site in relation to the power output,

in MW; (the average number from first estimates in South Africa is ~2.32 birds/MW (Ralston-

Paton et al. 2017));

the number of birds killed by collision by power lines leading away from the site; (in Dec 2017 our

7 km survey found 2.82 bustards and korhaans killed/km of 400 kV line in the Juno area :

Simmons and Martins unpubl data). This is a high figure due to influxes and typically bustard

fatalities number 1.0 birds/km/yr (Shaw 2015).

We can estimate the post-construction avian mortality from the data above on fatalities from the power

output of the wind farm and the length of power line as follows:

(i) mortality rate of birds per megawatt averages ~2.32 bird fatalities per MW x 188.5 MW from

Table 3) = 437 birds/yr killed by the surrounding wind farms.

(ii) Avian mortality estimates from a South African ground-mounted Photo-voltaic solar plant in the

Northern Cape estimated 4.53 fatalities/MW/yr (Visser 2016). At 4.53 birds/MW/yr x 50 MW

(Table 3) = 226 bird/yr killed by the surrounding solar farms

(iii) The proposed power line to export the renewable energy to Vredendal is 10-17 km. Other power

lines from all other facilities total 93.3 km (data from kmz of all other facilities and Eskom

infrastructure). With up to 2.8 bustards/korhaans killed 93.3 km of power lines may kill 93 x 2.8 =

260 bustards/yr on the proposed power lines from all other facilities < 35 km.

The cumulative impact is therefore far from negligible and all of these wind and solar farms require

mitigation, as do the power lines exporting energy to the substation at Vredendal.

Table 3: List of all renewable energy projects within 35 km of the Juno Wind farm and their potential

power capacity in MW/yr.

The total estimated annual fatality rate from all (i) wind farms, (ii) solar farms and (iii) power lines within 35

km is estimated at (i) 437+ (ii) 226 + (iii) 260 = 923 birds/year. The proportion of red data birds in this total

(from data in Ralston-Paton et al. 2017) would be ~5.5% or about 51 threatened birds/year (mainly raptors

and bustards).

Distance Project Name Applicant WEF/Solar MW Status EAP

11.3 km Inca Vredendal Wind Energy Facility On The Farm 293 Groot Draaihoek Near Vredendal

INCA Vredendal WEF 30MW Approved Savannah Environmental (Pty) Ltd

13.3 km Inca Vredendal Wind Energy Facility Near Vredenda

INCA Vredendal WEF 52.5 MW Approved Savannah Environmental (Pty) Ltd

14.73km Olifants River Settlement WEF

South African Renewable Green Energy Pty Ltd

WEF 0 MW Withdrawn/ Lapsed

Savannah Environmental (Pty) Ltd

18.1 km Matzikama Solar Park on Portion 414 of the Farm Vredendal No. 292

INCA Vredendal PV 30 MW Approved Savannah Environmental (Pty) Ltd

20.8 km Matzikama Solar Park on Portion 414 of the Farm Vredendal No. 292, Vredendal

Solaire PV 10MW Approved Dudley Janeke

23.8 km Romano 10MW PV facility on Portion 334 of Farm 292 Vredendal

Romano Sustainable Solutions

PV 10MW Approved Terramanzi Environmental Consulting (Pty) Ltd

25.9 km Klawer Wind Klawer Wind Power

WEF 6MW Approved ERM/Savannah Environmental (Pty) Ltd

31.1 km Keren Energy Solar Plant: Klawer,

Not known PV 0 MW Withdrawn/ Lapsed

EnviroAfrica Environmental Consultants (Pty) Ltd

32.0 km Sere Eskom WEF 100 MW Approved Savannah Environmental (Pty) Ltd

9 renewable energy facilities 6 developers

5 WEFS (188.5 MW) 4 PVs (50 MW) totals from the 7 farms approved

Impact Phase: Cumulative Impacts

Potential cumulative impact description: Displacement and direct mortality of priority species

Displacement and direct mortality reduces the overall breeding density of species such as harriers (Wilson et al. 2017) while other smaller species move away (Pearce-Higgins et al. 2012). Most birds killed in South Africa are raptors (36%) and 5.5% of all species are red-listed (Ralston-Paton et al. 2017). From calculations above, the estimated number of red data birds killed by all wind farms, solar farms and power lines within 35 km of Juno is estimated at 51.

Severity Extent Duration Consequence Status Significance Probability Confidence

Without Mitigation

Medium High Medium High Negative High High Medium

With Mitigation

Medium Medium Medium Medium Negative Medium Medium Medium

Can the impacts be reversed? Yes with careful planning and mitigation, displacement and direct mortality can be avoided at all wind and solar farms in the area.

Will impact cause irreplaceable loss or resources?

Probably, yes. Global research tends to show that birds do slowly move away from wind farms and the areas is lost to certain species (Pearce-Higgins et al. 2009, Wilson et al. 2017). An estimated 50 threatened birds may die at the combined number of wind or solar farms and associated power lines.

Can impact be avoided, managed or mitigated?

Yes they can, but all wind farms need to actively enact mitigations and the recommended mitigations need to be enforced by the DEA or an independent body like Birdlife South Africa.

Operational wind farms that are killing birds need in depth studies and carcass searchers to determine what is being killed and where. Once problem turbines are identified mitigations (black-blade and shut-down on demand) can be tested at these turbines.

Mitigation measures to reduce residual risk or enhance opportunities:

- Providing corridors between turbine strings to allow flyways for birds to traverse the wind farm

- If birds continue to be displaced or killed then areas outside the wind farms involved can be managed to attract the birds away, and the habitat on the farms can be manipulated to reduce its attractiveness, especially to raptors and bustards.

Impact to be addressed/ further investigated and assessed in Impact Assessment Phase?

Yes, Displacement can be assessed by recording the presence of birds on the wind farms and their control sites. In the operational phase the density of birds on the wind farms and control sites can then be compared – with and without turbines. This allows a direct test of the idea of which species are displaced.

Each operational wind farm should be surveyed for a minimum of 24 months to determine if they are killing excessive numbers of red data birds. Black-blade mitigation, as the most cost-effective and tested method, should be implemented at those farms exceeding a threshold of threatened species being killed.

Figure 3: All (9) renewable energy applications within 35 km (yellow circle) of the Juno wind farm. Existing power

lines to these facilities are also shown as green, red or blue lines.

11. CONCLUSIONS AND PLAN OF STUDY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

This Scoping report has identified the following species that require further assessment of the local

population: 16 highly collision-prone species including six red data species (Ludwig’s Bustard, White

Pelican, Black Harrier, Verreaux’s Eagle, Martial Eagle and Secretarybird) that will occur or pass through

the site. Other species that feature prominently in fatality records from South African wind farms (e.g.

Jackal Buzzards) are also likely to be impacted and all may require mitigation depending on their

frequency of occurrence and spatial use of the proposed site.

Pans in the north-east of the site will also require close study as they are likely to attract wetland species

at times of flooding and should be avoided for development.

All collision-prone species will require further study over a 12-month period of pre-construction

monitoring covering all seasons to record their occurrence and use of the proposed wind energy facility.

This is essential in reducing the possible threats to them. Issues related to the collision and electrocution

of birds should be investigated in more detail during the full EIA phase. In particular, the significance of

bird collisions with the turbines will be assessed to determine whether the risk warrants mitigation such

as no-go areas for turbine placement. This will be assessed mainly in terms of (i) the actual abundance of

priority bird species in the area, and (ii) the distribution of relevant microhabitats and food resources.

Thus, the EIA pre-construction phase that will follow the BARESG guidelines (Jenkins et al. 2015) will

include:

(i) sample surveys of large terrestrial species, raptors and endemic passerines within the study area to

determine the relative importance of local populations of these key taxa;

(ii) estimates of the extent and direction of possible movements of these species within/through the

anticipated impact zone of the wind energy facility, in relation to the distribution of available

resources – e.g. nesting or roosting sites (especially existing power lines) and foraging areas;

(iii) estimates of the heights at which each collision-prone species fly through the area to determine

the risk of collision;

(iv) identification of the least sensitive/lowest risk areas to locate wind turbines within the broader

study area, in terms of (i) and (ii) above;

(v) four field site visits, covering all seasons, incorporating at least 12 hours per vantage point for each

area, covering a maximum of 2km view sheds per VP;

(vi) A quantified assessment of the Significance (S) of the impacts to the birds in relation to the

Magnitude (M), Extent (E), Duration (D) and Probability of Occurrence (P), where S = (M + E + D)P

The results will include a more detailed assessment of all impacts, recommended mitigation measures

where necessary (particularly regarding the siting of turbines) and, perhaps most importantly, a

comprehensive, long-term programme for monitoring actual impacts from pre- to post-construction

phases of the development. This will improve our understanding of the long-term effects of wind energy

developments on South African avifauna.

12. REFERENCES

Acha, A. 1997. Negative impact of wind generators on the Eurasian Griffon Gyps fulvus in Tarifa, Spain. Vulture News

38:10-18

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 Powerline Interaction Committee (APLIC). 1994. Mitigating bird collisions with power lines: the state of the

art in 1994. Edison Electric Institute. Washington DC.

Barclay, R.M.R, Baerwald, E.F. & Gruver, J.C. 2007. Variation in bat and bird fatalities at wind energy facilities:

assessing the effects of rotor size and tower height. Canadian Journal of Zoology 85: 381-387.

Barrios, L. & Rodríguez, A. 2004. Behavioural and environmental correlates of soaring-bird mortality at on-shore

wind turbines. Journal of Applied Ecology 41: 72-81.

Barnes, K.N. (ed.) 1998. The Important Bird Areas of southern Africa. BirdLife South Africa, Johannesburg.

Bevanger, K. 1994. Bird interactions with utility structures: collision and electrocution, causes and mitigating

measures. Ibis 136: 412-425.

Bevanger, K. 1995. Estimates and population consequences of Tetraonid mortality caused by collisions with high

tension power lines in Norway. Journal of Applied Ecology 32: 745-753.

Bevanger, K. 1998. Biological and conservation aspects of bird mortality caused by electric power lines. Biological

Conservation 86: 67-76.

Colson & associates. 1995. Avian interaction with wind energy facilities: a summary. Prepared for the American

Wind Energy Association. Washington DC.

Crockford, N.J. 1992. A review of the possible impacts of wind farms on birds and other wildlife. Joint Nature

Conservation Committee. JNCC Report number 27. Peterborough, United Kingdom.

Curry, R.C., & Kerlinger, P. 2000. Avian mitigation plan: Kenetech model wind turbines, Altamont Pass WRA,

California. In: Proceedings of the National Avian-Wind Power Planning Meeting III, San Diego California, May 1998.

De Lucas, M., Janss, G.F.E., Whitfield, D.P. & Ferrer, M. 2008. Collision fatality of raptors in wind farms does not

depend on raptor abundance. Journal of Applied Ecology 45: 1695-1703.

Devereaux, C/L., Denny, M.J.H. & Whittingham, M.J. 2008. Minimal effects of wind turbines on the distribution of

wintering farmland birds. Journal of Applied Ecology 45: 1689-1694.

Drewitt, A.L. & Langston, R.H.W. 2006. Assessing the impacts of wind farms on birds. Ibis 148: 29-42.

Drewitt, A.L. & Langston, R.H.W. 2008. Collision effects of wind-power generators and other obstacles on birds.

Annals of the New York Academy of Science 1134: 233-266.

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: 145-155.

Gill, J.P., Townsley, M. & Mudge, G.P. 1996. Review of the impact of wind farms and other aerial structures upon

birds. Scottish Natural Heritage Review 21.

Hanowski, J.M., & Hawrot, R.Y. 2000. Avian issues in development of wind energy in western Minnesota. In

Proceedings of the National Avian-Wind Power Planning Meeting III, San Diego California, May 1998.

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. 1995. Avian mortality at rotor sweep areas equivalents Altamont Pass and Montezuma Hills, California.

Prepared for Kenetech Wind Power, San Francisco, California.

Janss, G. 2000a. Bird behaviour in and near a wind farm at Tarifa, Spain: Management considerations. In:

Proceedings of National Avian-Wind Power Planning Meeting III, San Diego California, May 1998.

Janss, G.F.E. 2000b. Avian mortality from power lines: a morphologic approach of a species-specific mortality.

Biological Conservation 95: 353-359.

Jaroslow, B. 1979. A review of factors involved in bird-tower kills, and mitigation procedures. In: G.A. Swanson (Tech

co-ord). The Mitigation symposium. A national workshop on mitigation losses of Fish and Wildlife Habitats. US

Forest Service General Technical Report. RM-65.

Jenkins, A.R. van Rooyen CS, Smallie, JJ Harrison JA, Diamond M, Smit-Robinson HA, Ralston-Paton S. 2015 . Best

Practice Guidelines for assessing and monitoring the impact of wind energy facilities on birds in southern Africa

(Second revision, 2015). Birdlife South Africa. Johannesburg.

Jenkins, A.R., Smallie, J.J. & Diamond, M. 2010. Avian collisions with power lines: a global review of causes and

mitigation with a South African perspective. Bird Conservation International 20: 263 – 278.

Katzner TE, Brandes D, Miller T, Lanzone M, Maisonneuve C,Tremblay JA, Mulvihill R,. Merovich GT. 2012.

Topography drives migratory flight altitude of golden eagles: implications for on-shore wind energy development.

Journal of Applied Ecology 49: 1178–1186

Kemper, C.A. 1964. A tower for TV: 30 000 dead birds. Audubon Magazine 66: 86-90.

Kerlinger, P. & Dowdell, J. 2003. Breeding bird survey for the Flat Rock wind power project, Lewis County, New

York. Prepared for Atlantic Renewable Energy Corporation.

King, D.I. & Byers, B.E. 2002. An evaluation of powerline rights-of-way as habitat for early-successional shrubland

birds. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30: 868-874.

Kingsley, A. & Whittam, B. 2005. Wind turbines and birds – A background review for environmental assessment.

Unpublished report for Environment Canada/Canadina Wildlife Service.

Küyler, 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.

Kuvlevsky, W.P. Jnr, Brennan, L.A., Morrison, M.L., Boydston, K.K., Ballard, B.M. & Bryant, F.C. 2007. Wind energy

development and wildlife conservation: challenges and opportunities. Journal of Wildlife Management 71: 2487-

2498.

Larsen, J.K. & Guillemette, M. 2007. Effects of wind turbines on flight behaviour of wintering common eiders:

implications for habitat use and collision risk. Journal of Applied Ecology 44: 516-522.

Lehman, R.N., Kennedy, P.L. & Savidge, J.A. 2007. The state of the art in raptor electrocution research: a global

review. Biological Conservation 136: 159-174.

Loss SR, Will T, Marra PP. 2013. Estimates of bird collision mortality at wind facilities in the contiguous United

States. Biological Conservation 168: 201-209.

Madders, M. & Whitfield, D.P. 2006. Upland raptors and the assessment of wind farms impacts. Ibis 148: 43-56.

Marnewick MD, Retief EF, Theron NT, Wright DR, Anderson TA. 2015. Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas of

South Africa. Johannesburg: BirdLife South Africa.

Martin GR, Portugal SJ, Murn CP. 2012. Visual fields, foraging and collision vulnerability in Gyps vultures. Ibis

(2012), 154, 626–631

McIsaac, H.P. 2001. Raptor acuity and wind turbine blade conspicuity. Pp. 59-87. National Avian-Wind Power

Planning Meeting IV, Proceedings. Prepared by Resolve, Inc., Washington DC.

Mucina. L. & Rutherford, M.C. (Eds) 2006. The vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Strelitzia 19.

South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.

National Wind Co-ordinating Committee. 2004. Wind turbine interactions with birds and bats: A summary of

research results and remaining questions. Fact Sheet Second Edition.

Pearce-Higgins, J.W., Stephen, L., Langston, R.H.W., Bainbridge, I.P. & Bullman, R. 2009. The distribution of

breeding birds around upland wind farms. Journal of Applied Ecology, Ecology, 46, 1323–1331.

Pearce-Higgins JW, Stephen Douse A, Langston, R.H.W. 2012. Greater impacts of wind farms on bird populations

during construction than subsequent operation: results of a multi-site and multi-species analysis. Journal of Applied

Ecology, 49:386-394

Ralston-Paton S, Smallie J, Pearson A, Ramalho R. 2017. Wind energy’s impacts on birds in South Africa. Birdlife

South Africa Occasional papers. Johannesburg.

Richardson, W.J. 2000. Bird migration and wind turbines: Migration timing, flight behaviour and collision risk. In

Proceedings of the National Avian-wind Power Planning Meeting III, San Diego, California, May 1998.

Shaw, J., Jenkins, A.R. Smallie J & Ryan, P.G. 2010. Modelling collision risk for the Blue Crane Anthropoides

paradiseus. Ibis 152: 590-599.

Simmons RE, Martins M. 2017a. The Jeffreys Bay Wind farm and its influence on Black Harriers and Martial Eagles,

2016. Unpublished report to Globeleq. Birds & Bats Unlimited, Cape Town.

Simmons RE, Cervantes-Peralta F, Erni B, Martins M. 2017b. Increased hub height and avian fatalities - statistical

inference from the USA and South Africa. Unpubl report, Birds & Bats Unlimited. Cape Town.

Simmons RE, Martins M. 2016. First Interim Report Pre-construction monitoring of bird populations: Juno WEF

Facility, Strandfontein, Western Cape 16th to 21st October 2016. Birds and Bats Unlimited Cape Town.

Simmons RE. 2011. Greater Kestrel survives impact with powerlines. Ostrich 82: 75-76.

Simmons RE, Martins M (unpubl data). Power line victims Auro-Juno line 17 December 2017. Birds & Bats

Unlimited, Cape Town

Simmons RE, Retief, K. van Beuningen D. 2011. Blade runner: Jackal Buzzards and other birds in a wind farm

environment. Gabar

Stewart, G.B., Pullin, A.S. & Coles, C.F. 2007. Poor evidence-base for assessment of wind farm impacts on birds.

Environmental Conservation 34: 1-11.

Smallwood, K.S. & Thelander, C. 2008. Bird mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. Journal

of Wildlife Management 72: 215-223.

Smallwood, K.S., Rugge, L. & Morrison, M.L. 2009. Influence of behavior on bird mortality in wind energy

developments. Journal of Wildlife Management 73: 1082-1098.

Stokke BG, May R, Falkdalen U, Sæther SA, Åström J, Hamre Ø, Nygård T. 2017. Visual mitigation measures to

reduce bird collisions – experimental tests at the Smøla wind-power plant, Norway. Norwegian Institute for Nature

Research, Oslo.

Van Rooyen, C. 2001. Bird Impact Assessment Study – Eskom Wind Energy Demonstration Facility, Western Cape

South Africa. Prepared for Eskom Enterprises, TSI Division.

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.

Visser E. 2016. The impact of South Africa’s largest photovoltaic solar energy facility on birds in the Northern Cape,

South Africa. MSc thesis. University of Cape Town.

Weir, R. D. 1976. Annotated bibliography of bird kills at man-made obstacles: a review of the state of the art and

solutions. Canadian Wildlife Services, Ontario Region, Ottawa.

Wilson, MW Fernández-Bellon D, Irwin S, O’Halloran J. 2017. Hen Harrier Circus cyaneus population trends in

relation to wind farms. Bird Study 64: 20–29.

Winkelman, J.E. 1995. Bird/wind turbine investigations in Europe. In Proceedings of the National Avian- wind Power

Planning Meeting 1994.

26 April 2018; 1st revised 14 May 2018; 2nd revision, 22 May 2018

Dr R.E. Simmons / M Martins

Birds & Bats Unlimited

rob.simmons@uct.ac.za | www.birds-and-bats-unlimited.com

13. APPENDIX 1: A summary of all avian species recorded in the Juno/Strandfontein area from 87 bird

atlas cards submitted to SABAP2 (for the pentads 3140_1810, 3140_1815, 3145_1815, and

3145_1810), from 2008 to April 2018. These include our own field records from our site visits. Red

data species are shown in red.

Juno WEF site and surrounds Full protocol N= 87 atlas cards

Rep Rate (%) N = (Note: all coastal wetland species such as

Avocet, Pied 27.59 24 cormorants and waders have been omitted)

Barbet, Acacia Pied 1.15 1

Bee-eater, European 3.45 3

Bishop, Southern Red 10.34 9

Bokmakierie, Bokmakierie 66.67 58

Bulbul, African Red-eyed 3.45 3

Bulbul, Cape 14.94 13

Bunting, Cape 39.08 34

Bunting, Lark-like 6.9 6

Bustard, Ludwig's 6.9 6

Buzzard, Jackal 16.09 14

Canary, Black-headed 1.15 1

Canary, Cape 4.6 4

Canary, White-throated 21.84 19

Canary, Yellow 45.98 40

Chat, Ant-eating 37.93 33

Chat, Familiar 31.03 27

Chat, Karoo 4.6 4

Chat, Sickle-winged 1.15 1

Chat, Tractrac 1.15 1

Cisticola, Grey-backed 45.98 40

Cisticola, Levaillant's 17.24 15

Coot, Red-knobbed 12.64 11

Cormorant, Bank 8.05 7

Crombec, Long-billed 8.05 7

Crow, Cape 4.6 4

Crow, Pied 73.56 64

Dove, Laughing 28.74 25

Dove, Namaqua 20.69 18

Dove, Red-eyed 8.05 7

Dove, Rock 14.94 13

Duck, Yellow-billed 20.69 18

Eagle, Booted 5.75 5

Eagle, Martial 25% not seen by SABAP

Eagle, Verreaux's 2.3 2

Eagle-owl, Spotted 1.15 1

Egret, Cattle 4.6 4

Egret, Little 35.63 31

Eremomela, Yellow-bellied 3.45 3

Falcon, Peregrine 2.3 2

Fiscal, Common (Southern) 43.68 38

Fish-eagle, African 1.15 1

Flycatcher, Chat 27.59 24

Flycatcher, Fiscal 5.75 5

Francolin, Grey-winged 1.15 1

Gannet, Cape 4.6 4

Goose, Egyptian 28.74 25

Goose, Spur-winged 3.45 3

Goshawk, Southern Pale Chanting 44.83 39

Grebe, Little 8.05 7

Gull, Kelp 63.22 55

Harrier, Black 9.2 8

Heron, Black-headed 22.99 20

Heron, Grey 35.63 31

Hoopoe, African 1.15 1

Ibis, African Sacred 37.93 33

Ibis, Glossy 11.49 10

Ibis, Hadeda 28.74 25

Kestrel, Greater 11.49 10

Kestrel, Lesser 4.6 4

Kestrel, Rock 52.87 46

Kite, Black-shouldered 17.24 15

Korhaan, Southern Black 29.89 26

Lapwing, Blacksmith 24.14 21

Lapwing, Crowned 12.64 11

Lark, Cape Clapper 12.64 11

Lark, Cape Long-billed 29.89 26

Lark, Karoo 29.89 26

Lark, Karoo Long-billed 13.79 12

Lark, Large-billed 28.74 25

Lark, Red-capped 8.05 7

Lark, Spike-heeled 5.75 5

Martin, Banded 1.15 1

Martin, Brown-throated 27.59 24

Martin, Rock 51.72 45

Masked-weaver, Southern 13.79 12

Moorhen, Common 1.15 1

Mousebird, Red-faced 3.45 3

Mousebird, White-backed 11.49 10

Ostrich, Common 1.15 1

Pelican, Great White 9.2 8

Penduline-tit, Cape 20.69 18

Pigeon, Speckled 72.41 63

Pipit, African 3.45 3

Prinia, Karoo 68.97 60

Quail, Common 2.3 2

Raven, White-necked 8.05 7

Robin-chat, Cape 4.6 4

Rush-warbler, Little 1.15 1

Sandgrouse, Namaqua 11.49 10

Scrub-robin, Karoo 63.22 55

Secretarybird, 6.9 6

Shelduck, South African 28.74 25

Shoveler, Cape 13.79 12

Snipe, African 1.15 1

Sparrow, Cape 78.16 68

Sparrow, House 35.63 31

Sparrow, Southern Grey-headed 1.15 1

Sparrowlark, Grey-backed 1.15 1

Spurfowl, Cape 24.14 21

Starling, Common 47.13 41

Starling, Pied 59.77 52

Starling, Red-winged 9.2 8

Starling, Wattled 1.15 1

Stonechat, African 36.78 32

Sunbird, Dusky 3.45 3

Sunbird, Malachite 13.79 12

Sunbird, Southern Double-collared 45.98 40

Swallow, Barn 24.14 21

Swallow, Greater Striped 8.05 7

Swallow, White-throated 3.45 3

Swift, African Black 1.15 1

Swift, Alpine 12.64 11

Swift, Little 39.08 34

Swift, White-rumped 4.6 4

Thick-knee, Spotted 11.49 10

Thrush, Karoo 8.05 7

Tit, Grey 32.18 28

Tit-babbler, Chestnut-vented 12.64 11

Tit-babbler, Layard's 9.2 8

Turtle-dove, Cape 18.39 16

Wagtail, Cape 63.22 55

Warbler, Namaqua 3.45 3

Warbler, Rufous-eared 20.69 18

Waxbill, Common 5.75 5

Weaver, Cape 43.68 38

Wheatear, Capped 43.68 38

Wheatear, Mountain 11.49 10

White-eye, Cape 3.45 3

Whydah, Pin-tailed 5.75 5

Woodpecker, Ground 1.15 1

Summary: 131 species

16 Collision-prone species, including 6 Red data species (includes Martial Eagle, not seen during SABAP)

APPENDIX 2: Details of specialist and declaration

DETAILS OF SPECIALIST AND DECLARATION OF INTEREST

File Reference Number: NEAS

Reference Number: Date Received:

(For official use only) 12/12/20/ or 12/9/11/L DEA/EIA

Application for integrated environmental authorisation and waste management licence in terms of the- (1) National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998), as amended

and the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2014; and (2) National Environmental Management Act: Waste Act, 2008 (Act No. 59 of 2008) and

Government Notice 921, 2013

PROJECT TITLE

Juno Wind Farm: Avian Impact Assessment (Amda Developments)

Specialist: Contact

person: Postal

address: Postal

code: Telephone: E-mail: Professional affiliation(s) (if any)

Project Consultant:

Contact person: Postal

address: Postal code:

Telephone: E-mail:

Birds & Bats Unlimited Environmental Consultants Dr Rob Simmons 109 Circle Rd, Table View, Cape Town 7441 Cell:

Fax: 0827 800 133

Rob.Simmons@uct.ac.za Honourary Research Associate, University of Cape Town

Honourary Research Associate, Zoological Society of London

Birds and Renewable Energy Specialist Group – Ex Officio

As above Cell:

Fax:

4.2 The specialist appointed in terms of the Regulations_

I, Dr R.E. Simmons Declares that:

General declaration:

I act as the independent specialist in this application; I will perform the work relating to the application in an objective manner, even if this results in views and findings that are not favourable to the applicant;

I declare that there are no circumstances that may compromise my objectivity in performing such work; I have expertise in conducting the specialist report relevant to this application, including knowledge of the Act,

Regulations and any guidelines that have relevance to the proposed activity; I will comply with the Act, Regulations and all other applicable legislation;

I have no, and will not engage in, conflicting interests in the undertaking of the activity;

I undertake to disclose to the applicant and the competent authority all material information in my possession that reasonably has or may have the potential of influencing - any decision to be taken with respect to the application by the competent authority; and - the objectivity of any report, plan or document to be prepared by myself for submission to the competent authority;

all the particulars furnished by me in this form are true and correct; and I realise that a false declaration is an offence in terms of regulation 48 and is punishable in terms of section 24F of the Act.

Signature of the specialist:

Birds & Bats Unlimited Environmental Consultants Birds-and-bats-unlimited.com

Name of company (if applicable):

24 April 2018

Date: