nuweveld grid connection - zutari.com
TRANSCRIPT
1
Nuweveld Grid
Connection
Red Cap Nuweveld North (Pty) Ltd
Avifaunal assessment
October 2020
2
REPORT REVIEW & TRACKING
Document title Nuweveld Grid Connection - Avifaunal Impact study
Client name Patrick Killick
Aurecon
Status Final -for client
Issue date October 2020
Lead author Jon Smallie – SACNASP 400020/06
WildSkies Ecological Services (Pty) Ltd
36 Utrecht Avenue, East London, 5241 Jon Smallie
C: 082 444 8919
F: 086 615 5654
3
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;
Appendix 4
(b) a declaration that the specialist is independent in a form as may be specified
by the competent authority;
Appendix 8
(c) an indication of the scope of, and the purpose for which, the report was
prepared;
Section 1.1 & 2.1
an indication of the quality and age of base data used for the specialist report; Section 3
a description of existing impacts on the site, cumulative impacts of the
proposed development and levels of acceptable change;
Section 3.10
(d) the duration, date and season of the site investigation and the relevance of
the season to the outcome of the assessment;
Section 2.5 to
2.7
(e) a description of the methodology adopted in preparing the report or
carrying out the specialised process inclusive of equipment and modelling used;
Section 2
(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;
Section 3.9
(g) an identification of any areas to be avoided, including buffers; Section 3.9
(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;
Section 3.9
(i) a description of any assumptions made and any uncertainties or gaps in
knowledge;
Section 2.11
(j) a description of the findings and potential implications of such findings on
the impact of the proposed activity, including identified alternatives on the
environment, or activities;
Section 5
(k) any mitigation measures for inclusion in the EMPr; Section 5
(l) any conditions for inclusion in the environmental authorisation; Section 5
(m) any monitoring requirements for inclusion in the EMPr or environmental
authorisation;
Section 5
(n) a reasoned opinion—
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;
Section 7
(o) a summary and copies of any comments received during any consultation
process and where applicable all responses thereto; and
n/a as yet
(p) any other information requested by the competent authority n/a as yet
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
4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Red Cap Nuweveld North (Pty) Ltd, a subsidiary of Red Cap Energy (Pty) Ltd (Red Cap) is proposing to
develop up to three wind farms on a site in the Beaufort West Local Municipality, Central Karoo District
Municipality, Western Cape. The wind farms are located approximately 65km north of Beaufort West
and approximately 30km south of Loxton (Figure 1). The proposal also includes the development of an
approximately 120km 132/400kV gridline which will connect the proposed wind farms to the existing
Eskom Droërivier Substation located south west of Beaufort West. The EAP has been appointed by Red
Cap to undertake the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process for these applications. WildSkies
Ecological Services (Pty) Ltd (hereafter WildSkies) has been appointed by Red Cap to conduct the
necessary avifaunal studies (including pre-construction monitoring) for this process. This report pertains
to the grid connection corridor application.
We draw the following conclusions regarding the avifaunal community and potential impacts of the
Nuweveld Grid connection:
» We classified six bird species as top most priority for this assessment. These are: Ludwig's
Bustard; Martial Eagle, Verreaux’s Eagle; African Rock Pipit; Black Stork and Karoo Korhaan. The
large terrestrial species such as bustards and korhaans are particularly at risk of collision with
overhead power lines. The raptors are at risk of electrocution, disturbance and risks associated
with nesting on power line pylons. All species are at risk of habitat destruction and disturbance.
» The primary means of mitigating risk to birds is to route the power line to avoid key sensitive
areas or features. To this end a number of key avifaunal aspects have been identified on site, in
particular eagle nests and some large water bodies close to Beaufort West. These have been
mapped as no-go areas (with a maximum of 1km line being allowed through these areas) when
considering the routing of the line within the corridor.
Based on the data collected on site we make the following findings with respect to impact significance
for avifauna, according to the formal impact assessment methodology and tables provided by the EAP.
Impact Pre-mitigation Post-mitigation
Nuweveld Grid Connection
Construction Phase Impact 1 – Habitat destruction Minor Minor
Construction Phase Impact 2 - Disturbance Moderate Minor
Operational Phase Impact 1 – Collision Major Minor-
Moderate1
1 Using the methodology the impact is rated as minor but the specialist has reasons to believe a moderate rating
is a truer indication of impact significance
5
Operational Phase Impact 2 – Electrocution Major (132kv) Minor
Operational Phase Impact 3 – Nesting Moderate (400kv) Negligible
Operational Phase Impact 4 – Electrical faulting Moderate (400kv) Negligible
Decommissioning Phase Impact 1 – Disturbance Minor Negligible
Cumulative Impacts
Construction Phase Impact 1 – Habitat destruction Minor Minor
Construction Phase Impact 2 - Disturbance Moderate Minor
Operational Phase Impact 1 – Collision Major Minor-Moderate
Operational Phase Impact 2 – Electrocution Major Minor
Operational Phase Impact 3 – Nesting Negligible Negligible
Operational Phase Impact 4 – Electrical faulting Moderate Negligible
Decommissioning Phase Impact 1 – Disturbance Moderate Negligible
The following table provides a comparative summary of impact significance rating between the 132kv
and 400kv options, and also presents the worst case scenario, which is the combination of worst case
impacts taken from both options and which is intended to inform a decision.
Impact 132 kV powerline 400 kV powerline WCS
Pre-
mitigation
Post-
mitigation
Pre-
mitigation
Post-
mitigation
Pre-
mitigation
Post-
mitigation
Construction
Phase Impact 1 –
Habitat destruction
Minor (-) Minor (-) Minor (-) Minor (-) Minor (-) Minor (-)
Construction
Phase Impact 2 -
Disturbance
Moderate
(-)
Minor (-) Moderate (-) Minor (-) Moderate
(-)
Minor (-)
Operational
Phase Impact 1 –
Collision
Major (-) Minor-
Moderate (-)
Major (-) Minor -
Moderate
(-)
Major (-) Minor (-)
Operational
Phase Impact 2 –
Electrocution
Major (-) Minor (-) Negligible (-) Negligible
(-)
Major (-) Minor (-)
Operational
Phase Impact 3 –
Nesting
Negligible
(-)
Negligible (-) Moderate (-) Negligible
(-)
Moderate
(-)
Negligible
(-)
Operational
Phase Impact 4 –
Electrical faulting
Negligible
(-)
Negligible (-) Moderate (-) Negligible
(-)
Moderate
(-)
Negligible
(-)
Decommissioning
Phase Impact 1 –
Disturbance
Minor Negligible (-) Minor (-) Negligible
(-)
Minor (-) Negligible
(-)
Although extensive avoidance of impacts has already been applied on this project via a pre-application
screening and constraints identification process that informed the current corridor alignment and shape,
6
we recommend the following additional mitigation measures be applied to manage and further reduce
the significance of impacts on birds:
» The mapped No-Go areas identified by this study should be adhered to. With the exception of
up to a 1km allowance of power line in identified no-go areas (subject to the approval of the
specialist and any additional mitigation that may be required).
» Where possible, use should be made of existing roads, and impacted areas for laydown areas.
» A new road the whole way up the escarpment should not be built, any towers in the escarpment
crossing should be accessed via tracks along the contour to limit vegetation clearance and
scarring of the landscape at this location.
» A pre-construction avifaunal walk down should be conducted to confirm final layout, identify
any sensitivities that may arise between the EIA and construction and make micro adjustments
to the layout and design to accommodate these.
» All construction activities should be strictly managed according to generally accepted
environmental best practice standards, so as to avoid any unnecessary impact on the receiving
environment.
» A post construction inspection must be conducted by an avifaunal specialist to confirm that all
aspects have been appropriately handled and all mitigation has been implemented correctly.
» Monitoring of the breeding status of Verreaux’s and Martial Eagles should be conducted in all
breeding seasons post acceptance of the project as preferred bidder (to establish baseline) and
including during and post construction.
» Earth wires on high risk sections of the power line should be fitted with the latest Eskom
approved anti bird collision line marking devices to make cables more visible to birds in flight
and reduce the likelihood of collisions. High risk sections of line should be identified by the pre-
construction avifaunal walk through. These devices must be maintained in working order for the
lifespan of the power line. Any devices that are found to have failed during the monitoring of the
line must be reported and replaced within three months. The project proponent should support
the Endangered Wildlife Trust research into Ludwig’s Bustard power line collision and mitigation
devices. Any new line marking devices proven effective for Ludwig’s Bustard by Eskom-EWT
research should be installed on the line as soon as possible if the existing devices are not proving
effective for this species.
» For the 132kV line, we recommend using the pylon design presented in this report (Figure 4) and
the Eskom Bird Perch on each pole top. If any other design is considered this will require sign off
from the avifaunal specialist and may change these ratings.
» The monitoring programme outlined in Appendix 3 should be implemented according to the
latest available version of the best practice guidelines at the time.
» There is a possibility that if the grid connection power line is 400kV, the steel lattice tower
structures could provide suitable nesting substrate for Martial Eagle (and other eagle species)
7
and that the species may start to breed on the pylon structures. Although this appears at face
value to be a positive impact for such birds, we don’t believe it is wise to enable them to live and
breed in such close proximity to the power line. For the 400kV option we thus recommend
prioritising the use of the cross rope suspension structures with self support 400kV pylons only
being used where it is not technically practical to use the cross rope suspension tower design
(such as at all points were a strain structure is required at bends, going up steep slopes, etc).
Over and above this “Bird Guards” (standard devices used by Eskom to stop birds perching on
their towers) must be installed on all the self support structures along the line. These bird guards
should be checked as part of the operational phase bird monitoring (Appendix 3) and if faulty
they should be replaced as soon as is practically possible but not later than within three months
given these will be high voltage live Eskom lines that make up part of the national grid.
» Decommissioning of a portion of the national gridline is unlikely, but should it occur, this should
be strictly managed according to generally accepted environmental best practice standards of
the time, so as to limit unnecessary impact on the receiving environment.
The cumulative impacts to avifauna are mostly of Moderate Significance. The mitigation measures
recommended for this power line will be sufficient to reduce the contribution of this power line to the
cumulative impacts of power lines on birds in the area. The only impact of Major significance, namely
the collision & electrocution on power lines, can be reduced to Minor significance through the mitigation
measures provided.
The cumulative impact of the proposed power line plus the three wind farms on birds will be slightly
higher since a larger area will be affected. These impacts can also be successfully mitigated by applying
the mitigation measures recommended in each of the four assessments (three wind farms plus power
line).
The impact assessment assesses the pre-mitigation and residual impacts of the project, should the worst
case scenario (WCS), in terms of infrastructure type, be developed within the corridor. The WCS
considers the impact significance of the development of the 132 kV and 400 kV power line, identifies
which may have the highest negative impact (pre and post mitigation), and presents this as the option
for approval. While the WCS impact is presented for approval, it should be noted that only one of the
power line options, either 132kV or 400kV, would be developed within the corridor. It is argued that if
the residual overall impact of the WCS is deemed acceptable after mitigation, then the development of
either a 132 kV or 400 kV power line within this corridor would be acceptable.
The most sensitive area of the corridor is where the power line must ascend the escarpment, west of De
Jagers Pass. If the optimal alignment for this area can be used, which avoids the identified no-go and
sensitive areas, and all other mitigation measures are implemented correctly, the residual impacts on
avifauna would be within acceptable levels for both the 400kV and the 132kV option and the application
8
as a whole. Under these circumstances we find no reason for the deciding authority to withhold approval
of this application on avifaunal grounds.
9
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................ 4
1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 12
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................................................. 13
1.2 BACKGROUND TO OVERHEAD POWER LINE BIRD INTERACTIONS .............................................................................. 17
1.2.1. Bird collision with overhead power lines ........................................................................................ 17
1.2.2. Habitat destruction during construction ........................................................................................ 22
1.2.3. Disturbance during construction .................................................................................................... 22
1.2.4. Electrocution of birds on tower structures ..................................................................................... 22
1.2.5. Nesting on power lines ................................................................................................................... 23
1.2.6. Electrical faulting due to birds ....................................................................................................... 24
1.3 RELEVANT LEGISLATION & CONVENTIONS .......................................................................................................... 24
2. METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................................ 26
2.1 SCOPE OF WORKS ........................................................................................................................................ 26
2.2 TERMS OF REFERENCE ................................................................................................................................... 26
2.3 GENERAL APPROACH .................................................................................................................................... 28
2.4 DATA SOURCES CONSULTED FOR THIS STUDY ...................................................................................................... 29
2.5 EXPLANATION OF TERMINOLOGY USED ............................................................................................................. 30
2.6 DESCRIPTION OF AVIFAUNAL BASELINE.............................................................................................................. 31
2.6.1. Avifaunal specialist site surveys ..................................................................................................... 31
2.6.2. Long term pre-construction bird monitoring .................................................................................. 31
2.7 BIRD SPECIES RISK ASSESSMENT & PRIORITISATION .............................................................................................. 34
2.8 AVIFAUNAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT.................................................................................................................... 34
2.9 AVIFAUNAL SENSITIVITY MAPPING ................................................................................................................... 35
2.10 LIMITATIONS & ASSUMPTIONS ........................................................................................................................ 35
3. BASELINE DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................................ 37
3.1 VEGETATION & HABITAT ................................................................................................................................ 37
3.2 SOUTHERN AFRICAN BIRD ATLAS PROJECT DATA ................................................................................................ 38
3.3 IMPORTANT BIRD & BIODIVERSITY AREA (IBA) DATA .......................................................................................... 39
3.4 CO-ORDINATED AVIFAUNAL ROADCOUNT (CAR) DATA ........................................................................................ 40
3.5 CO-ORDINATED WATERBIRD COUNT (CWAC) DATA ........................................................................................... 40
3.6 WESTERN CAPE BIODIVERSITY SPATIAL PLAN ..................................................................................................... 41
3.7 AVIFAUNAL SPECIALIST SHORT TERM SURVEY DATA .............................................................................................. 42
3.8 PRE-CONSTRUCTION BIRD MONITORING DATA .................................................................................................... 44
3.7.1. Direct observation of priority species flight ................................................................................... 44
3.7.2. Vehicle based transect ................................................................................................................... 45
3.7.3. Focal site surveys ........................................................................................................................... 46
3.7.4. Incidental observations .................................................................................................................. 46
3.9 SUMMARY OF BIRD SPECIES INFORMATION & ASSESSMENT OF RISK ........................................................................ 49
3.8.1. Large terrestrial bird species .......................................................................................................... 53
3.8.2. Raptors ........................................................................................................................................... 54
10
3.8.3. Small passerines ............................................................................................................................. 56
3.10 AVIFAUNAL SENSITIVITY OF THE SITE ................................................................................................................ 56
3.11 EXISTING AVIFAUNAL-POWER LINE IMPACTS IN THE AREA ...................................................................................... 59
4. CHANGES MADE FROM PRE-APPLICATION SCOPING CORRIDOR TO SCOPING CORRIDOR TO ADDRESS
AVIFAUNAL ISSUES IDENTIFIED .......................................................................................................................... 60
5. IDENTIFIED IMPACTS ................................................................................................................................. 61
6. IMPACT ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................................................... 63
6.1 CONSTRUCTION PHASE IMPACTS ..................................................................................................................... 63
6.1.1. Construction Phase Impact 1 - Habitat destruction ....................................................................... 63
6.1.2. Construction Phase Impact 2 - Disturbance of birds during construction ...................................... 65
6.2 OPERATIONAL PHASE IMPACTS ....................................................................................................................... 66
6.2.1. Operational Phase Impact 1 – Collision of birds with overhead power line .................................. 66
6.2.2. Operational Phase Impact 2 – Electrocution of birds on power line .............................................. 68
6.2.3. Bird nesting on pylons/towers ....................................................................................................... 70
6.2.4. Electrical faulting caused by birds .................................................................................................. 73
6.3 DECOMMISSIONING PHASE IMPACTS ............................................................................................................... 75
6.3.1 Decommissioning Phase Impact 1 – Disturbance of birds .................................................................. 75
6.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS .................................................................................................................................. 76
6.5 IMPACTS OF NO-GO ALTERNATIVE................................................................................................................... 79
7. CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................................... 80
8. REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................................. 84
APPENDIX 1. SUMMARY OF BIRD SPECIES DATA. ............................................................................................... 89
APPENDIX 2. IMPACT ASSESSMENT CRITERIA (AURECON) ................................................................................. 95
APPENDIX 3. OPERATIONAL PHASE BIRD MONITORING PROGRAMME ............................................................. 98
APPENDIX 4. SPECIALIST CV ............................................................................................................................... 99
APPENDIX 5. 132KV POWER LINE PYLON DESIGNS .......................................................................................... 105
APPENDIX 6. 400KV POWER LINE TOWER DESIGN. .......................................................................................... 114
FIGURE 1. THE GRID CORRIDOR. ....................................................................................................................................... 13
FIGURE 2. SUMMARY OF THE NUWEVELD GRID CONNECTION PROJECT COMPONENTS (FROM THE EAP). ....................................... 15
FIGURE 3. THE MAJORITY OF 400KV PYLONS WILL BE EITHER OF THE ABOVE DESIGNS, ‘CROSS ROPE SUSPENSION’ ON LEFT OR ‘SELF
SUPPORT’ ON RIGHT (FROM AURECON). .................................................................................................................... 16
FIGURE 4. THE DOUBLE CIRCUIT MONOPOLE PYLON STRUCTURE FOR THE 132KV LINE (FROM AURECON). ...................................... 16
FIGURE 5. SUMMARY OF KAROO LONG TERM MONITORING RESULTS (FROM SHAW ET AL, 2017). ................................................. 19
FIGURE 6. LARGE EAGLE NEST LOCATIONS ON THE HYDRA DROËRIVIER 400KV POWER LINE (RUNNING SOUTH WEST FROM DE AAR)
11
(JENKINS ET AL, 2007). ......................................................................................................................................... 20
FIGURE 7. THE LAYOUT OF PRE-CONSTRUCTION BIRD MONITORING ON SITE. ............................................................................. 33
FIGURE 8. THE LAYOUT OF THE DRIVE THROUGH ROUTE IN THE GRID CORRIDOR. ........................................................................ 34
FIGURE 9. THE VEGETATION CLASSIFICATION FOR THE NUWEVELD GRID CONNECTION CORRIDOR (MUCINA & RUTHERFORD, 2006). .. 37
FIGURE 10. TYPICAL MICRO-HABITATS AVAILABLE TO BIRDS IN THE NUWEVELD GRID CONNECTION CORRIDOR STUDY AREA. ............... 38
FIGURE 11. CAR, IBA, CWAC AND SEWAGE WORKS LOCATIONS RELATIVE TO THE GRID CONNECTION CORRIDOR. ........................... 40
FIGURE 12. THE CBA1 AREAS OF THE PROPOSED CORRIDOR. ................................................................................................. 41
FIGURE 13. PRIORITY BIRD NESTS ON SITE. ......................................................................................................................... 44
FIGURE 14. PRIORITY SPECIES FLIGHT PATHS. ...................................................................................................................... 45
FIGURE 15. LOCATION OF VERREAUX’S EAGLE NESTS IN AND AROUND KAROO NATIONAL PARK. ................................................... 55
FIGURE 16. THE PROPOSED NUWEVELD GRID CONNECTION CORRIDOR RELATIVE TO THE IBA, DRAFT REDZ2 AND TRANSMISSION
CORRIDORS AREAS. ............................................................................................................................................... 57
FIGURE 17. AVIFAUNAL SENSITIVITY MAP FOR NUWEVELD GRID CONNECTION CORRIDOR. .......................................................... 59
FIGURE 18. EXISTING OVERHEAD POWER LINE (RED LINES) IN THE STUDY AREA (MAP FROM AURECON). ......................................... 78
TABLE 1. DETAILED COMPONENTS OF THE GRID CONNECTION PROJECT. ................................................................................... 14
TABLE 2. SUMMARY BIRD FATALITY DATA FOR KAROO POWER LINES (ESKOM-EWT STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP – CENTRAL INCIDENT
REGISTER). .......................................................................................................................................................... 21
TABLE 3. GRID CORRIDOR NEST INVENTORY. ....................................................................................................................... 43
TABLE 4. SUMMARY VEHICLE TRANSECT DATA TO DATE. ......................................................................................................... 47
TABLE 5. SUMMARY OF FOCAL SITE FINDINGS TO DATE. ......................................................................................................... 47
TABLE 6. SUMMARY OF INCDENTAL OBSERVATIONS OF PRIORITY SPECIES TO DATE. ..................................................................... 48
TABLE 7. PRIORITY BIRD SPECIES FOR THE CONSOLIDATED NUWEVELD GRID CONNECTION CORRIDOR SITE. ..................................... 50
TABLE 8. SUMMARY OF THE FACTORS CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING AVIFAUNAL SENSITIVITIES & RESPECTIVE BUFFERS. ..................... 58
TABLE 9. ASSESSMENT OF DESTRUCTION OF BIRD HABITAT DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE. .................................................... 64
TABLE 10. ASSESSMENT OF DISTURBANCE OF BIRDS DURING CONSTRUCTION. ........................................................................... 65
TABLE 11. ASSESSMENT OF BIRD COLLISION ON OVERHEAD POWER LINES ................................................................................. 67
TABLE 12. ASSESSMENT OF BIRD ELECTROCUTION ON 132KV POWER LINE. .............................................................................. 69
TABLE 13. ASSESSMENT OF BIRD ELECTROCUTION ON 400KV LINE. ........................................................................................ 70
TABLE 14. ASSESSMENT OF BIRD NESTING ON 132KV LINE. ................................................................................................... 71
TABLE 15. ASSESSMENT OF BIRD NESTING ON 400KV LINE. ................................................................................................... 73
TABLE 16. ASSESSMENT OF ELECTRICAL FAULTING CAUSED BY BIRDS ON 400KV LINE. ................................................................. 74
TABLE 17. ASSESSMENT OF BIRD DISTURBANCE DURING DECOMMISSIONING. ............................................................................ 75
12
1. INTRODUCTION
Red Cap Nuweveld North (Pty) Ltd, a subsidiary of Red Cap Energy (Pty) Ltd (Red Cap) is proposing to
develop up to three wind farms on a site in the Beaufort West Local Municipality, Central Karoo District
Municipality, Western Cape. The wind farms are located approximately 65km north of Beaufort West
and approximately 30km south of Loxton (Figure 1). The site is approximately 32 000 hectares in extent.
The proposal also includes the development of an approximately 120km 132/400kV gridline within a
proposed grid corridor which will connect the proposed wind farms to the existing Eskom Droërivier
Substation located south west of Beaufort West. The project includes four discreet applications (3 wind
farms & 1 grid) all subject to the Scoping and EIA process in terms of the National Environmental
Management Act (NEMA).
Aurecon South Africa (Pty) Ltd, (hereafter referred to as the Environmental Assessment Practitioner
(EAP)) has been appointed by Red Cap to undertake the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process
for these applications. These services are to ensure compliance with the relevant environmental
legislation, and are to include applications to various Competent Authorities for environmental
authorisations, licenses and permits. WildSkies Ecological Services (Pty) Ltd (hereafter WildSkies) has
been appointed by Red Cap to conduct the necessary avifaunal studies (including pre-construction
monitoring) for this process.
An up to 120km long power line would evacuate electricity from the 132kV collector switching station
or 400kV collector substation at the Nuweveld East Wind Farm to the existing Eskom Droërivier
Substation located south-west of Beaufort West. The power line will be aligned within a grid corridor
(which is the subject of this assessment) which aligns generally with the De Jager’s Pass road (DR2311)
(but avoids the actual De Jager’s Pass and the road) and DR2317 (Figure 1). Three 132kV power lines will
be used to link up the three wind farms substations to a central collector switching station / substation.
These 132kV lines (and their associated switching stations situated next to each wind farm substation)
will be located on the wind farms but, following construction, will be ceded to Eskom and thus also
form part of the grid connection EIA.
Eskom may instruct the construction of a 400kV gridline rather than 132kV from the collector switching
sub-station, but will not make this decision now. Red Cap will thus apply for approval of both a 132kV
and a 400kV power line and associated infrastructure within the same authorised corridor (but only one
would be built). Should a 400kV configuration be required then the 132kV collector switching station
would be replaced with a 400kV collector substation to step up to 400kV before sending it to Droërivier.
The collector switching or substation would likely be housed next to the Nuweveld East wind farm’s
substation and negate the need for a separate switching station at the Nuweveld East wind farm
substation. The 132kV collector switching station would occupy 2.25ha (150x150m) as compared with
13
12ha (300x400m) area of the 400kV collector Substation.
This report deals with the Nuweveld Grid Connection application (for which the applicant is Red Cap
Nuweveld North (Pty) Ltd). The location of the corridor is shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1. The grid corridor.
1.1 Project description
The project will consist of the following components shown in Table 1 and Figure 2:
14
Table 1. Detailed components of the Grid Connection project.
Project
Components
Description
Specifications Approximate
Disturbance
areas (WCS)
Switching stations
(x3)
• Each wind farm will have a Switching Station yard of 150m x 75m lo-
cated next to the Wind Farm Substation. The Switching Station will
consist of a Switchgear building and High Voltage Gantry.
• The switching stations form part of the Gridline infrastructure and
will be handed to Eskom in the operations phase (i.e. becoming part
of the National Grid)
3.4ha
132kV collector
transmission lines
• Up to approximately ≤15km of overhead 132kV high voltage mono-
pole pylon powerline is required to link the switching stations (x3) to
the Collector switching station/substation. The pylon types that may
be used are described in further detail in Appendix 5 and Figure 4 and on average will be about 260m apart (estimate 65 pylons x 80m2=
0.5ha)
0.5ha
Collector
switching
station/substation
• 132kV scenario: 150m x 150m - 132kV collector switching station with
collector & switchgear building and High Voltage gantry (2.25ha)
• 400kV scenario: 300m x 400m – 400kV collector substation with col-
lector & switchgear building and High Voltage gantry (12ha)
12.0ha
132/400kV
Gridline • 132kV scenario: Up to approximately ≤105km of overhead 132kV
overhead powerline (440 x 80sqm = 3.5ha):
o the 132kV pylons types that may be used are depicted in Appendix
5
o Monopole spans, without stays, are on average 260m
o Triple pole (‘twin tern’) spans for valleys can be up to 800m
o Pylon type and span distance is determined by topography but the
majority will be the single monopole structures
• Up to approximately 105km of 400kV overhead powerline (estimate
290 pylons X 100sqm = 2.9ha):
o The lattice pylon types that may be used are depicted in Appendix
6 and Figure 3.
o Cross-rope suspension spans, with stays, are on average 400m
o Self-supporting suspension spans, without stays, are on average
400m
o Pylon type and span distance is determined by topography but the
majority will be the cross-rope suspension structures
3.5ha
Temporary
laydown, staging
and yards areas
and access
roads/tracks
required for the
construction /
decommissioning
phase
• Temporary laydown areas will be identified along the power line
route, with the main equipment and construction yards being based
in one of the surrounding towns or at the wind farm site camp &
laydown areas.
• Existing access roads and tracks (upgraded to ± 2-4m wide where
needed) will be used as far as possible and new access tracks would
be created where needed – these would be 2-4m wide (wider than
2m when side drains are needed or due to the topography).
5ha
56ha
Total disturbance footprint (WCS) 81ha
15
Figure 2. Summary of the Nuweveld Grid Connection project components (from the EAP).
16
Figure 3. The majority of 400kV pylons will be either of the above designs, ‘cross rope suspension’ on
left or ‘self support’ on right (from Aurecon).
Figure 4. The double circuit monopole pylon structure for the 132kV line (from Aurecon).
17
1.2 Background to overhead power line bird interactions
1.2.1. Bird collision with overhead power lines
Collision with power lines is a well-known conservation problem for many birds and for some species it
can be a significant source of mortality (Bevanger 1998, Erickson et al. 2005, Drewitt & Langston 2008,
Shaw et al. 2010, Jenkins et al. 2011). The reasons for collisions are complex, with each case involving a
variety of biological, topographical, meteorological and technical factors (Bevanger 1994). Although all
birds have the potential to be affected by collisions, those most heavily impacted are generally large,
flocking species which fly often, with waterfowl, gamebirds, cranes, bustards and storks usually among
the most frequently reported casualties (Bevanger 1998, Janss 2000, Jenkins et al. 2010). The large body
size of such species mean that they have limited manoeuvrability in the air and are less able to take
necessary evasive action to avoid colliding with power lines (Bevanger 1998).
In South Africa, incidentally discovered mortality incidents reported by Eskom staff, conservationists and
the general public are collated in the Central Incident Register, which is maintained by the Eskom-
Endangered Wildlife Trust Strategic Partnership (Eskom-EWT). These data, together with those from
more systematic power line surveys near De Aar (Anderson 2001), in the Overberg (Shaw et al. 2010)
and across the Karoo (Jenkins et al. 2011, Shaw 2013, Shaw et al, 2017) highlight the high levels of large
terrestrial bird mortality caused by existing power lines in this country. Particularly affected are Red-
listed birds including cranes, bustards, storks, Secretarybirds Sagittarius serpentarius, flamingos and
vultures, which are generally long-lived and slow to reproduce (Shaw 2013). These species have not
evolved to cope with high adult mortality, with the result that consistent mortality in this age group over
an extended period could seriously affect a population’s ability to sustain itself in the long or even
medium term. The cumulative effects of collisions together with other anthropogenic threats to these
species (e.g. habitat destruction, disturbance) are unknown over the long term.
Mitigating bird collisions with power lines typically involves the installation of line marking devices on
the cables in order to make them more visible to approaching birds. Worldwide, a variety of marking
devices are used, but very few have been adequately field-tested (Jenkins et al. 2010). Great uncertainty
remains about which are best, as they vary enormously in effectiveness between species and in different
conditions (van Rooyen & Ledger 1999, Anderson 2002). Generally though, marking seems to be fairly
effective, with a recent meta-analysis showing a 78% decrease in mortality rates on marked lines
(Barrientos et al. 2011). A more recent trial of line marking devices conducted by Shaw et al (2017) is
described later in this section.
While collisions generally occur in hot-spots (i.e. many collisions, sometimes of multiple species in small
areas) and are not spread evenly across the landscape, the factors describing these locations are still
18
very difficult to understand. Landscape level GIS studies on Blue Cranes and Ludwig’s Bustard Neotis
ludwigii in South Africa have failed to find useful contributory factors (Shaw et al. 2010, Shaw 2013).
Some locations are clearly high risk for resident birds with predictable movement patterns, such as lines
in close proximity to roosting dams for cranes.
A long term monitoring study conducted on sample sections of 400kV power line in the Karoo (near De
Aar) (Shaw et al, 2017) provides the most relevant data for our assessment at Nuweveld. The study was
conducted along three 400 kV transmission lines radiating from the Hydra substation. The landscape is
covered by gently-undulating plains dotted with inselbergs and dolerite hills. The primary land use is
livestock farming (mostly wool and mutton production), with a few landowners also stocking cattle and
game. The site falls within the Platberg-Karoo Conservancy, which is listed as an Important Bird Area due
to its contribution to the conservation of globally and regionally threatened large terrestrial birds and
raptors (Marnewick et al., 2015). These include the Blue Crane, Ludwig’s Bustard, Kori Bustard,
Secretarybird, Martial Eagle Polemaetus bellicosus, Blue Korhaan Eupodotis caerulescens, Black Harrier
Circus maurus, Denham’s Bustard Neotis denhamii, Black Stork Ciconia nigra, Lanner Falcon Falco
biarmicus, Tawny Eagle Aquila rapax, Karoo Korhaan Eupodotis vigorsii and Verreaux’s Eagle Aquila
verreauxii. The long-term monitoring site included 46 km of the Hydra-Poseidon 1 and 2 and 63 km of
the Droërivier-Hydra 1 and 2 400 kV transmission lines, totalling 109 km. Between May 2008 and January
2011 these two sections of line were surveyed approximately every three months. Overall, at least 32
species were recovered as collision victims (see Figure 5). In common with other power lines surveyed
for avian collisions in the Karoo (Shaw et al., 2017), Ludwig’s Bustard was the most heavily impacted
species at De Aar. The power lines were then marked with anti-collision line marking devices as a trial of
these devices. The marking devices showed a significant reduction in collisions of all the relevant species,
except for Ludwig’s Bustard. The Eskom-EWT Strategic Partnership is currently researching line marking
devices for this species specifically (Leeuwner pers comm).
The reason for this apparently low efficacy is likely to be a result of the visual capacity of bustards. A
recent South African study on Kori Bustards Ardeotis kori, Blue Cranes Anthropoides paradiseus and
White Storks Ciconia ciconia demonstrated that these birds have a narrow field of frontal vision, so when
in flight, head movements in the vertical plane (pitching the head to look downwards, perhaps to look
for other birds or foraging patches) will render the bird blind in the direction of travel and they will not
see the power line at all (Martin & Shaw 2010). Similar visual constraints were subsequently found in
Gyps vultures, including White-backed Vultures Gyps africanus (Martin et al. 2012). Development of
additional mitigation to draw the bird’s attention to the marked line (which must still be marked, because
the bird will see the markers if it is looking at the line) is a priority for future research for these groups
of birds.
19
Figure 5. Summary of Karoo long term monitoring results (from Shaw et al, 2017).
A number of Verreaux’s Eagle and one Martial Eagle nest exist in/close to the Nuweveld Grid Connection
corridor. This means that these birds may be at risk of collision with any new power lines constructed.
Our experience is that eagles have fairly low susceptibility to power line collision (based on our
experience working on and managing the Eskom –EWT Strategic Partnership between 1998 and 2011).
The data presented in Figure 5 largely confirm this, with only one Verreaux’s Eagle fatality recorded
between 2008 and 2016 on 109km of line, and no Martial Eagles recorded. We are aware from our
involvement on this monitoring project that a number of eagle nests are present on the transmission
lines monitored on this study. By way of example, the nest positions (as surveyed by Jenkins et al, 2007)
on one of the two sections of study power line (the other not having been surveyed by Jenkins et al) are
presented in Figure 6. At least 4 Verreaux’s Eagle, 4 Tawny Eagle and 1 Martial Eagle nest exist on this
section of line. Given that this population of eagles lives and breeds permanently on the transmission
line (making frequent entry and exit flights to nest and young birds learning to fly), this is a very low
20
collision fatality rate for these eagles. In order to further confirm this we obtained up to date power line
fatality data from the Eskom-Endangered Wildlife Trust Eskom Strategic Partnership (Eskom-EWT, 2019).
These data represent all reported bird fatalities on Eskom power lines in the Karoo (thousands of
kilometres of power line) from 1996 to the present. During this twenty-three year period a total of 9
Verreaux’s Eagle and 3 Martial Eagle were reported killed through collision with power lines. By
comparison two large terrestrial species Blue Crane and Ludwig’s Bustard had 161 and 89 fatalities
respectively.
Figure 6. Large eagle nest locations on the Hydra Droërivier 400kV power line (running south west from
De Aar) (Jenkins et al, 2007).
The section of line surveyed by Shaw et al shown in red polygon.
21
Table 2. Summary bird fatality data for Karoo power lines (Eskom-EWT Strategic Partnership – Central
Incident Register). Distribution Distribution Distribution Transmission Transmission
Species Collision Electrocution Unknown Collision Unknown Total
Blue Crane 134 27 161 Ludwig's Bustard 58 2 31 92
Kori Bustard 29 1 8 39
Verreaux’s Eagle 7 22 2 1 32
White Stork 24 1 1 4 30
Martial Eagle 1 22 1 2 26
Unknown Bustard 21 3 24
Pied Crow 3 16 3 1 23
White-backed Vulture 1 15 4 20 Spotted Eagle Owl 1 16 17
Secretarybird 10 6 16 Hadeda Ibis 1 11 12
Cape Griffon 2 6 1 1 10
Unknown Vulture 1 6 1 9
Helmeted Guineafowl 8 8
Greater Kestrel 5 2 7
Tawny Eagle 1 2 1 3 7
Blue Korhaan 6 6
Pale Chanting Goshawk 5 1 6
Cape Eagle Owl 5 5
African Fish Eagle 5 5
Egyptian Goose 1 1 3 5
Northern Black Korhaan 4 4 Spur-winged Goose 3 1 4
South African Shelduck 3 1 4 Jackal Buzzard 3 3
Black-headed Heron 1 2 3 Lappet-faced Vulture 3 3
Karoo Korhaan 2 1 3 Unknown Eagle 3 3
Yellow-billed Duck 2 2
Unknown Flamingo 2 2
Steppe Buzzard 1 1 2
Grey Heron 2 2
Unknown Crow 2 2
Lesser Kestrel 1 1 2
White-necked Raven 1 1
Cape Teal 1 1 Unknown Owl 1 1
Lesser Flamingo 1 1 Denham's Bustard 1 1
Greater Flamingo 1 1 Blacksmith Lapwing 1 1
Black Crow 1 1 Black-shouldered Kite 1 1
Black-breasted Snake Eagle 1 1
Verreaux's Eagle-owl 1 1
Unknown Duck 1 1
Southern Black Korhaan 1 1
Brown Snake Eagle 1 1
Lanner Falcon 1 1
African Sacred Ibis 1 1
Unknown Korhaan 1 1
22
1.2.2. Habitat destruction during construction
During the construction phase of power lines and switching/sub stations, a certain amount of habitat
destruction and alteration takes place on the site. This happens with the construction of access roads
along sections of the line, where existing roads are not available, the clearing of the pylon sites and any
associated infrastructure. The destruction or alteration of natural habitat may impact birds breeding,
foraging and roosting in close proximity to the site.
1.2.3. Disturbance during construction
Similarly, the above mentioned construction and maintenance activities impact on birds through
disturbance, particularly during breeding activities. The potential exists for the impact of disturbance to
influence a greater area than the site itself. This corridor has sections that are relatively un-disturbed by
other infrastructure, especially above the escarpment, but generally there are roads/ tracks criss crossing
most of the corridor. The corridor is more disturbed below the escarpment and closer to Beaufort West.
As described later in this report, there are several sensitive species breeding sites close to or within the
corridor being assessed. This means that without proper mitigation (the best being avoidance of these
areas) the impact of disturbance could be significant for this project.
1.2.4. Electrocution of birds on tower structures
Electrocution refers to the scenario whereby a bird bridges the gap between two phases or a phase and
an earthed component thereby causing an electrical short circuit. The larger bird species such as vultures
and eagles are particularly vulnerable to this impact, as obviously the larger the wingspan and other
dimensions of a bird, the greater the likelihood of it being able to bridge the gap between hardware. On
transmission lines such as a 400kV power line the impact of electrocutions is not possible due to the
large clearances between phases and/or phases and earthed structures. On the 132kV power line, if the
design is not correct, electrocution of large eagles could be possible. It is essential that the pylon design
is eagle friendly.
Eagles are very susceptible to electrocution on pylons, particularly in a treeless landscape such as
Nuweveld where they will certainly perch on pylons if available. The above Eskom-EWT data set records
22 electrocution fatalities for each of Verreaux’s and Martial Eagles. However electrocutions can be easily
mitigated through designing the pylons to have sufficient clearance between phases (i.e. individual lines)
and between phases and earthed components so that birds cannot bridge these gaps. The significance
of both these impacts (i.e. collisions and electrocutions) can be reduced to Minor (-) significance through
the application of the mitigations measures provided in this report.
23
1.2.5. Nesting on power lines
Raptors, large eagles, crows, Hadeda Ibises Bostrychia hagedash and Egyptian Geese Alopochen
aegyptiaca have learnt to nest on transmission towers, and this has allowed them to breed in areas of
the country where breeding would not previously have been possible due to limited nesting substrates
(van Rooyen & Ledger 1999; Jenkins et al 2007). This has probably resulted in a range expansion for some
of these species, and large eagles such as Tawny, Martial and Verreaux’s are now quite common
inhabitants of transmission towers in the Karoo. In August 2006 Jenkins et al (2007) surveyed
approximately 1 400 km of transmission line in the Karoo by helicopter. A total of 132 eagle nests were
identified, of three large eagle species (Martial Eagle, Verreaux’s Eagle, and Tawny Eagle). These nest
structures were thought to represent a minimum of 90 eagle pairs/territories, and of these 44 eagle pairs
were actively breeding at the time of the survey (nests contained either eggs or young, or showed
obvious signs of having recently contained large young ). An updated survey was conducted more
recently, but the report is not yet available.
Cape Vultures Gyps africanus and White-backed Vultures have also taken to roosting on power lines in
certain areas in large numbers, while Lappet-faced Vultures are known to use power lines as roosts,
especially in areas where large trees are scarce (J. Smallie pers. obs.).
At face value this appears a positive contribution that power lines can make to these species. However
the situation is more complex in that this is creating artificial nesting sites for birds that may not have
nested in such areas. This could be argued to upset the natural balance, or could be seen as helping
spread the range of the birds. Furthermore nesting on the tower places the adults and young at much
greater risk of collision with the overhead cables than would otherwise be the case (although as shown
above the number of incidents of collision do not seem significant). Due to the electrical faulting that
these birds can cause on transmission towers, Eskom also sometimes wishes to remove nests in order to
manage the risk of faulting, with negative effects for the birds if not correctly handled.
The aspect of bird nesting on the power lines is far more significant for the 400kV line option than the
132kV line as if the self supporting tower structure is used then more suitable nesting substrate is
provided by the 400kV structure. For the 400kV option we thus recommend the use of the cross rope
suspension structures with the self support 400kV pylons only being used were it is not technically
practical to use the cross rope suspension tower design (such as at all points were a strain structure is
required at bends, going up steep slopes etc).
If nests are found during the operation of the grid connection power line, case specific recommendations
will be developed in line with relevant legislation and Eskoms’ own nest management guidelines. It will
be important to try and avoid large eagles nesting on the power line too close to wind turbines (i.e. 6km)
as this will increase the risk of collision of these birds with turbines. As described in the wind farm
24
avifaunal impact assessments, several Verreaux’s Eagle and one Martial Eagle nest have already been
provided with No-Go buffers (3km & 6km respectively) for protection from turbines.
1.2.6. Electrical faulting due to birds
Birds are able to cause electrical faults on transmission power lines through their faeces and/or nest
material. Large birds perching above live conductors can cause flashovers when they produce long
continuous ‘streamers’ of excrement which bridges the critical air gap, or through build up of faeces on
insulators to the point where the insulation is compromised and a fault occurs. Material used to build
nests on towers can also intrude into the air gap and cause short circuits. With the presence of large
eagles in this study area, this interaction is a strong likelihood for the proposed 400kV power line if the
self supporting tower structures are used. It is less likely if the cross rope suspension tower is used since
there is no perching space directly above live hardware. We recommend elsewhere in this report that
the cross rope suspension structure be used, with self support only where it is not technically practical
to use the cross rope suspension tower design. Faulting is far less likely on the 132kV line.
1.3 Relevant legislation & conventions
The legislation relevant to this specialist field and development include the following:
The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD): dedicated to promoting sustainable development. The
Convention recognizes that biological diversity is about more than plants, animals and micro-organisms
and their ecosystems – it is about people and our need for food security, medicines, fresh air and water,
shelter, and a clean and healthy environment in which to live. It is an international convention signed by
150 leaders at the Rio 1992 Earth Summit. South Africa is a signatory to this convention and should
therefore abide by its’ principles.
An important principle encompassed by the CBD is the precautionary principle which essentially states
that where serious threats to the environment exist, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used a
reason for delaying management of these risks. The burden of proof that the impact will not occur lies
with the proponent of the activity posing the threat.
The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (also known as CMS or Bonn
Convention): aims to conserve terrestrial, aquatic and avian migratory species throughout their range. It
is an intergovernmental treaty, concluded under the aegis of the United Nations Environment
Programme, concerned with the conservation of wildlife and habitats on a global scale. Since the
Convention's entry into force, its membership has grown steadily to include 117 (as of 1 June 2012)
Parties from Africa, Central and South America, Asia, Europe and Oceania. South Africa is a signatory to
25
this convention.
The Agreement on the Conservation of African-Eurasian Migratory Water birds (AEWA): is the largest of
its kind developed so far under the CMS. The AEWA covers 255 species of birds ecologically dependent
on wetlands for at least part of their annual cycle, including many species of divers, grebes, pelicans,
cormorants, herons, storks, rails, ibises, spoonbills, flamingos, ducks, swans, geese, cranes, waders, gulls,
terns, tropic birds, auks, frigate birds and even the South African penguin. The agreement covers 119
countries and the European Union (EU) from Europe, parts of Asia and Canada, the Middle East and
Africa.
The National Environmental Management – Biodiversity Act - Threatened or Protected Species list (TOPS).
Those TOPS species relevant to this study and occurring on site are shown in Table 4.
The Western Cape Nature Conservation Laws Amendment Act of 2000 protects all indigenous bird
species, except for: mousebirds, crows, starling, queleas and a few others.
The National Environmental Management Act, No. 107 of 1998 (NEMA as amended): An Environmental
Authorisation is required for Listed Activities in Regulations pursuant to NEMA.
The Cape Nature “Requirements for development applications” (2016) are applicable. This study meets
these requirements.
26
2. METHODOLOGY
2.1 Scope of works
The scope of work for the scoping and preliminary impact assessment for the Nuweveld Grid Connection
includes the following:
» Monopole pylons for a 132kV gridline.
» Lattice pylons for a 400kV gridline.
» The 132kV overhead connector transmission lines that connect Nuweveld West and Nuweveld
North’s switching stations with the main collector switching/substation located on Nuweveld
East.
» Switching stations for each of the Nuweveld West and North wind farms (located next to each
wind farm substations), except for Nuweveld East which will most likely have the collector
switching/ substation.
» A 132kV collector switching station (for the 132kV grid line option) or the 400kV collector
substation for the 400kV grid option (both located on Nuweveld East).
» Temporary laydown, staging and yards areas and access roads/tracks required for the
construction / decommissioning phase.
2.2 Terms of reference
Specialists shall undertake all necessary data collection and fieldwork necessary to assess the project
and meet the requirements of Appendix 6 to the EIA Regulations (as amended) including, but not limited
to:
» Project specific description for the grid corridor and grid line options,
» A detailed baseline description of the receiving environment in and surrounding the site,
including a description of key no go areas or features or other sensitive areas to be avoided.
» A description of all methodology and processes used to source information, collect baseline data,
generate models and the age or season when the data was collected. A description of any
assumptions made and any uncertainties or gaps in knowledge.
» A description of relevant legal matters, policies, standards and guidelines.
» A list of potentially significant environmental impacts that may arise in the construction,
operation and decommissioning phases of the project, including cumulative impacts
» A detailed impact assessment of each impact including:
o A pre-mitigation and post-mitigation impact assessment description.
27
o A list of essential mitigation measures and management interventions
o A cumulative impact assessment. The cumulative impact of the new grid line and
existing power lines in the area must be considered.
o An assessment of the “No go” alternative.
» A summary table of all the impacts must be included and must show the post-mitigation
significance ratings.
» Specialist to provide a discussion on the overall impact and a reasoned opinion as to whether
the proposed activity or portions of the activity can be authorised. Provide additional
recommendations regarding avoidance, management, or mitigation measures for consideration
in a layout revision or inclusion into the EMPr (i.e. monitoring requirements).
» Any other information the specialist believes to be important, including recommendations that
should be included as conditions in the Environmental Authorisation.
The following tasks are required to ensure that EIA reports will allow the EAP to complete a Scoping and
EIA Report that complies with the Regulations:
» A focussed and relevant description of all baseline characteristics and conditions of the receiving
environment (e.g.: site and/or surrounding land uses including urban and agricultural areas as
applicable) in relation to the Specialist’s field, based on all relevant available data, reports and
maps, and information obtained from any field work investigations undertaken to date.
» A detailed list and evaluation of the predicted impacts of the project on the receiving
environment, or of the receiving environment on the project as per the EAP methodology, that
uses the criteria of extent, duration and intensity to quantify the significance of the potential
impact The evaluation of impacts should include:
o A list of potentially significant direct, indirect and cumulative impacts relating to the
construction, operation, and decommissioning phases
o A pre-mitigation assessment of the listed impacts using the EAP methodology (Pre-
mitigation – i.e. as per the layout and project description received);
o An assessment of the pre-mitigation No-Go alternative
o A list of key recommendations and mitigations
o A post-mitigation assessment of the listed impacts using the EAP methodology and
o The description of the residual risks (post-mitigation impact significance) that will
remain after implementation of proposed mitigations.
» Provide recommendations to avoid negative impacts and where this will not be possible then
provide feasible and practical mitigations, management and/or monitoring options required to
reduce or manage negative impacts and or beneficiate positive impacts.
» Where certain development components encroach into mapped No-Go areas, and are allowed
in certain instances, the specialist must clearly state and list these exceptions.
28
» Identify additional measures to ensure that the project contributes towards sustainability goals
and provides a positive contribution to the environment.
» Where relevant, recommendations and instructions regarding additional authorisation,
permitting or licensing procedures, or any other requirements pertaining to legislation and
policies relevant to the Specialist’s field of interest.
» Where more data or fieldwork is required (or ongoing) for your field, state this clearly in your
report and that the findings/ assessment and information presented in your report is
preliminary information based on the information obtained to date and subject to change.
» An outline of recommended measures to manage residual impacts (i.e. impacts that remain
after optimisation of design and planning) for the construction, operational and
decommissioning phases
» Recommendation of a monitoring plan (only if required) for the relevant aspects associated with
the respective specialist fields.
» Specific conditions, in respect of the Specialist’s field, for inclusion in the Environmental
Authorisation.
» A reasoned opinion as to whether the proposed activity or portions of the activity should be
authorised.
» Include a table upfront in the Specialist Scoping Report listing the requirements of Appendix 6
of NEMA, and where this information is detailed in the specialist report.
» Undertake a review of all new layout (should any changes occur) or project information
emanating from the Scoping Phase of the project.
More detail on the aims of the specific data collection activities is provided below under the relevant
sections.
2.3 General approach
The general approach to this study was as follows:
» An initial survey of the grid corridor was conducted during May 2019 to identify any immediately
obvious avifaunal constraints. This was both ground based and aerial (helicopter survey).
» A more detailed survey was done in September 2019. This was done by driving and walking as
much of the corridor as possible, and interviewing landowners.
» Four seasons of pre-construction bird monitoring were completed between October 2019 and
August 2020, with an emphasis on the De Jagers Pass area (the most sensitive section of the
route). Each seasonal site visit consists of 16 hours of vantage point observation, a drive transect,
species list compilation, nest surveys, and drive through of the full corridor. These seasonal site
29
visits covered: spring (when summer migrants arrive, and the end of eagle breeding season);
summer (when summer migrants are present); winter (when raptors breed and Blue Cranes
flock); and autumn (when summer migrants are leaving and many raptors are preparing to
breed). The detailed methods employed by this pre-construction monitoring are described in
Section 2.7. It should be noted that pre-construction bird monitoring is not mandatory for a
linear development such as a power line. We chose to do the monitoring to strengthen this
assessment further. It is not feasible to monitor the full length of the power line. We chose to
focus on the De Jagers Pass area since it is probably the most sensitive section of the route.
2.4 Data sources consulted for this study
Various existing data sources have been used in the design and implementation of this study, including
the following:
» The wind farm pre-construction bird monitoring raw data and progress reports (Smallie, 2019).
These provide general information on which bird species could occur on site, and are most
relevant to the northern end of the grid route.
» The data captured by specialist site visits.
» The Southern African Bird Atlas Project data (SABAP1 - Harrison et al, 1997) for the relevant
quarter degree squares covering the site, and the Southern African Bird Atlas Project 2 data,
available at the pentad level (http://sabap2.adu.org.za/v1/index.php)(accessedat
www.mybirdpatch.adu.org.za))
» The conservation status of all relevant bird species was determined using Taylor et al (2015) &
IUCN 2019.
» The vegetation classification of South Africa (Mucina & Rutherford, 2006) was consulted in order
to determine which vegetation types occur on site.
» Aerial photography from the Surveyor General was used for planning purposes.
» The Important Bird & Biodiversity Areas programme was consulted (Marnewick et al, 2015). The
closest IBA overlaps with the grid corridor in the south near Beaufort West. Data from this IBA is
described later in this report.
» Coordinated Avifaunal Road count data for the area (accessed at www.car.adu.org.za) was
consulted. The closest route (WB01) is approximately 15km west of the southern tip of the grid
corridor. Data from the CAR project is described in more detail later in this report.
» Coordinated Wetland bird count data (CWAC) was consulted to obtain information on water bird
abundance in the area. Three CWAC sites are relevant to the grid corridor. The Springfontein
Dam and Beaufort West Sewage works are in the corridor, and the Slangfontein Dam is
approximately 8km north of the northern tip of the corridor. Data from these sites is described
later in this report.
30
» Comments provided by stakeholders and interested and affected parties.
» During our studies two landowners on the site told us about Verreaux’s Eagle nests on their
properties.
» Endangered Wildlife Trust-Eskom Strategic Partnership - Research reports on long term power
line monitoring in the Karoo – which we have received and used for this report.
» Endangered Wildlife Trust-Eskom Strategic Partnership - Central Incident Register bird mortality
data for the relevant area.
» We asked the Karoo National Park management for information on large threatened bird species
in and around the park, and were referred to the below report by Claassen, 2013.
» A report entitled “The present status and breeding success of Verreaux's Eagles (Aquila
verreauxii) in the Karoo National Park and surrounding areas” (2013) by Japie Claassen, Lucia
Rodriques & Rob Davies was obtained from Japie Claassen was examined for information on
eagles in the area.
» The Nuweveld Grid Connection site falls partially in a draft Renewable Energy Development Zone
2 (As part of the second phase of the Strategic Environmental Assessment for Wind Energy –
www.redz.csir.co.za), and mostly within the Central strategic Transmission Line Corridor. This is
described later in this report.
» A transcript of an interview by ‘African Raptors’ with Dr Rob Davies, who did his PHD on the
Verreaux’s Eagles in the Karoo National Park - http://www.africanraptors.org/the-verreauxs-
eagle-an-interview-with-dr-rob-davies/
» Available published literature on power line – bird interactions.
» The Landmark Foundation was asked for data on avifauna monitoring from the land they are
managing just above de Jagers Pass but the request was denied.
» The first two seasons (spring & summer) of pre-construction monitoring of the grid corridor were
complete at the time of writing and these data have been used in this report.
2.5 Explanation of terminology used
The following terms are used in this study:
Red Listed – regionally The latest regional conservation status for the species as per Taylor et al, 2015
Red Listed – globally The latest global conservation status for the species as per IUCN (2019)
Priority Species Priority species in this context are those that this study focuses on in more detail
Endemic/near Southern African endemics as taken from BirdLife South Africa Checklist 2018
kV Kilovolt (1000 volts)
EN Endangered
VU Vulnerable
NT Near-threatened
31
LC Least concern
2.6 Description of avifaunal baseline
The following sections describe the monitoring data collection activities on site. Figure 7 shows the
layout of these monitoring activities on site.
2.6.1. Avifaunal specialist site surveys
Three specialist surveys (conducted by avifaunal specialist, differs from monitoring site visits described
in Section 2.3.) of the site were undertaken, in May (ground based & aerial) and September 2019 (ground
based). During the ground based surveys the following methods were employed:
» As much as possible of the grid corridor was driven and walked. This survey aimed to:
o Determine micro habitats available to avifauna on site
o Assess the importance of this habitat for Red Listed species
o Identify any particularly sensitive avifaunal receptors, such as areas where birds would
congregate for any reason, breeding sites, roost sites and others
o Specific attention was paid to large eagles and other cliff nesting species. All available
cliff substrate within the corridor (and within 3km of the corridor edge) was surveyed
for nests, using a combination of 20-60x spotting scope and 10 x 32 binoculars (the
methods described in Malan, 2006 were followed).
o A species list was maintained using Birdlasser.
The aerial survey provided an overview of the landscape and study area, and an opportunity to identify
important areas to visit on the ground.
2.6.2. Long term pre-construction bird monitoring
Four seasons of monitoring have been completed (spring – October 2019; summer - February 2020;
Autumn – June 2020; & winter – August 2020). Data collection on site has been conducted by Karoo
Birding Safaris (Mr Japie Claassen – director).
Direct observation of bird flight on site
The aim of direct observation is to record bird flight activity on site. An understanding of this flight
behaviour will help explain any future interactions between birds and the power line. Spatial patterns in
bird flight movement may also be detected, which will allow for input into power line placement. Direct
observation was conducted through counts at 2 fixed vantage points (VP) in the study area (see Figure
7). These VP’s provided coverage of the De Jagers Pass area, where the power line must traverse the
escarpment. 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
32
usage and behavioural data, they were positioned to maximise visibility. The survey radius for VP counts
is 2 kilometres (although large birds are sometimes recorded further). Birds were recorded 360° around
observers. Data should be collected during representative conditions, so the sessions were spread
throughout the day. Each VP session was 4 hours long, which is believed to be towards the upper limit
of observer concentration span, whilst also maximising duration of data capture relative to travel time
to the Vantage Points. A total of 8hrs of observation was collected per vantage point in each season. 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 (2015). It is not
practical to record all bird species flying by this method, it focuses rather on the physically large species
and particularly Red Listed or otherwise important species.
Counts of large terrestrial species & raptors
The aim of this data collection method is to establish indices of abundance for large terrestrial species
and raptors. These species are relatively easily detected from a vehicle, hence a vehicle based (VT)
transects were 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 VT was established on the main gravel road from Beaufort West to De
Jagers Pass. This transect is approximately 28km long and was counted once on each site visit (Figure 7).
For more detail on exact methods of conducting Vehicle transects see Jenkins et al (2015).
In addition to the above formal transect, the full grid corridor has been driven slowly in each season to
identify any key species and clues as to their breeding sites (Figure 8).
Focal site surveys & monitoring
Four nests and one alternate nest were identified as focal sites in this area. These nests are as follows:
» Focal Site 1 – Ribokkop Verreaux’s Eagle nest
» Focal Site 2 – Badshoek Verreaux’s Eagle nest
» Focal Site 3 – Badshoek Verreaux’s Eagle alternate nest
» Focal Site 4 – Suspected Verreaux’s Eagle nest
» Focal Site 5 – Medium size raptor nest
The location of these Focal Sites is shown in Figure 7.
Incidental observations
All other incidental sightings of priority species (and particularly those suggestive of breeding or
important feeding or roosting sites or flight paths) within the broader study area were carefully plotted
33
and documented. Where patterns in these observations were identified this led to additional focal site
surveys. A species list for the site was also maintained.
Figure 7. The layout of pre-construction bird monitoring on site.
34
Figure 8. The layout of the drive through route in the grid corridor.
2.7 Bird species risk assessment & prioritisation
In order to narrow down the focus of this impact assessment it was necessary to take some decisions on
which species are most important as it is not possible to effectively assess the risk to all 220 bird species
which could possibly occur on site in detail. To identify the priority species for this impact assessment
we considered a combination of theoretical knowledge on the susceptibility of the species to impacts of
power lines, and species presence/abundance/behavioural data from the actual site.
2.8 Avifaunal Impact Assessment
Each of the potential impacts of the proposed development were assessed according to a prescribed
methodology and criteria provided by The EAP and based on the ISO 14001 and World
Bank/International Finance Corporation (IFC) requirements, presented in Appendix 2.
35
2.9 Avifaunal sensitivity mapping
Avifaunal sensitivity mapping for the Nuweveld Grid Connection was conducted by identifying and de-
scribing the spatial constraints (No go areas, set back distances, buffer distances etc.). These informed
the project design and layout. Constraints were allocated to one of following categories:
No Go
Legislated “no go” areas or setbacks and areas or features that are considered of such
significance that impacting them may be regarded as fatal flaw or strongly influence the
project impact significance profile
High
Areas or features that are considered to have a high sensitivity or where project
infrastructure would be highly constrained and should be avoided as far as possible.
Infrastructure located in these areas are likely to drive up impact significance ratings and
mitigations
Medium Buffer areas and or areas that are deemed to be of medium sensitivity
Low Areas of low sensitivity or constraints
Neutral Unconstrained areas (left blank in mapping)
2.10 Limitations & assumptions
Certain biases and challenges are inherent in the methods that have been employed to collect data in
this programme. It is not possible to discuss all of them here, and some will only become evident with
time and operational phase data, but the following are some of the key points:
» The presence of the observers on site is certain to have an effect on the birds itself. For example
during walked transects, certain bird species will flush more easily than others (and therefore be
detected), certain species may sit undetected, certain species may flee, and yet others may be
inquisitive and approach the observers. Likewise with the vantage point counts, it is extremely
unlikely that two observers sitting in position for four hours at a time will have no effect on bird
flight. Some species may avoid the vantage point position, because there are people there, and
others may approach out of curiosity. In almost all data collection methods large bird species will
be more easily detected, and their position in the landscape more easily estimated. This is
particularly relevant at the vantage points where a large eagle may be visible several kilometres
away, but a smaller Rock Kestrel perhaps only within 800 metres. A particularly important
challenge is that of estimating the height at which birds fly above the ground. With no reference
points against which to judge, it is exceptionally difficult and subjective. It is for this reason that
the flight height data has been treated cautiously by this report, and much of the analysis
36
conducted using flights of all height. With time, and data from multiple sites it will be possible
to tease out these relationships and establish indices or measures of these biases.
» It is well known that over the last few years most of South Africa has experienced a drought
period. As a result there is a risk that the data collected may not be perfectly typical of conditions
in the area. Given that pre-construction bird monitoring samples one year, and the power line
will operate for at least 20 years (and may only be constructed five years from now), we will
always face this challenge of greater variability in environmental conditions occurring during the
project lifespan than during the impact assessment of the project. In general we would expect
the abundance of certain bird species to decrease in drought periods, so the abundance data
presented in this report should be considered a minimum.
» No thresholds for fatality rates for priority species have been established in South Africa to date.
This means that impact assessments, such as this one, must make professional judgements on
the acceptability of the estimated predicted fatalities for each species.
» Observations / monitoring can only be made from publicly accessible or private areas where
access has been consented to and areas that can be physically (within reason) accessed. Where
consent is withheld and / or access is considered unsafe or likely to result in conflict, inferences
will need to be made about the likely baseline conditions as determined from the sampling
similar surrounding areas.
37
3. BASELINE DESCRIPTION
3.1 Vegetation & habitat
The Nuweveld Grid Connection Corridor is comprised predominantly of ‘Eastern Upper Karoo’ and
‘Upper Karoo Hardeveld’ above the escarpment, and ‘Gamka Karoo’ and ‘Southern Karoo Riviere’ below
the escarpment (Mucina & Rutherford, 2006). A map of these vegetation types can be seen below in
Figure 9.
The relevance of this vegetation type description to avifauna is that the habitat on site is Namib-Karoo
effectively. A number of bird micro habitats are available to birds in the area including: man made dams;
drainage lines; wetlands; rocky ridges and cliffs; exotic trees; and Karoo plains (see Figure 10). In general
terms the open flat plains are important for large terrestrial species such as bustards and korhaans. The
rocky ridges and cliffs are important for raptors such as Verreaux’s Eagle. Dams are important for
waterfowl and as Blue Crane roosts. Streams and drainage lines offer a different micro habitat for
smaller bird species by virtue of the water and riparian vegetation, and are also often used as flight paths
by large species moving around the landscape.
Figure 9. The vegetation classification for the Nuweveld Grid Connection Corridor (Mucina &
Rutherford, 2006).
38
Figure 10. Typical micro-habitats available to birds in the Nuweveld Grid Connection Corridor study
area.
3.2 Southern African Bird Atlas Project data
Up to approximately 220 species were recorded in the broader area by the first and second Southern
Africa Bird Atlas Projects (www.sabap2.adu.org.za). These birds were not necessarily recorded on the
Nuweveld Grid Connection Corridor site itself but are an indication of which species could occur on site
if conditions and habitats are right. Of the 220 species four species are regionally Endangered (Ludwig’s
Bustard, Black Harrier, Martial Eagle & Yellow-billed Stork Mycteria ibis), five are Vulnerable, and 6 are
Near-threatened. Two species (Ground Woodpecker Geocolaptes olivaceus & Curlew Sandpiper Calidris
39
ferruginea) are Least Concern regionally but Near-threatened globally (IUCN 2019). Six species are listed
on the NEMA TOPS list. Twenty-five near endemics are included in these species.
These data are shown in Appendix 1.
3.3 Important Bird & Biodiversity Area (IBA) data
The Grid Connection Corridor overlaps slightly with an IBA (Marnewick et al, 2015) in the south around
Beaufort West (Karoo National Park IBA) (Figure 11). The Karoo National Park is in the semi-arid central
Karoo and is approximately 90 00 hectares in size. The IBA contains the Nuweveld escarpment with
peaks over 1900 m.a.s.l. and plains at 900m.a.s.l. The climate is one of extremes, with very hot summers
and very cold winters, particularly on top of the escarpment. Average annual rainfall is 260mm p.a. Up
to 231 bird species have been recorded in the IBA, which is extremely important for Namib-Karoo biome
restricted species such as Black-headed Canary, Swee Waxbill, Cape Rockjumper, Protea Seedeater, Cape
Siskin, Victorin’s Warbler and Hottentot Buttonquail. The plains are particularly good for Ludwig’s Bus-
tard, Karoo Korhaan, Spike-heeled Lark, Karoo Lark, Grey-backed Sparrow-lark, Tractrac Chat, Karoo Chat,
Karoo Eremomela, Rufous-eared Warbler, and Black-headed Canary. The riverine woodland along drain-
age lines holds Namaqua Warbler and other species. The cliffs hold Verreaux’s Eagle, Booted Eagle and
Black Stork. IBA trigger species include: Martial Eagle, Blue Crane, Black Harrier, Secretarybird, Kori Bus-
tard and Ludwig’s Bustard. Regionally threatened species are Verreauxs’ Eagle, Lanner Falcon, Black
Stork, Karoo Korhaan and African Rock Pipit. Biome-restricted species that are common in the IBA in-
clude Karoo Long-billed Lark, Karoo Chat, Namaqua Warbler, Pale-winged Starling, Black-headed Canary,
Layard’s Tit-Babbler and the locally common Karoo Korhaan. Uncommon species in this category include
Ludwig’s Bustard, Karoo Lark, Sclater’s Lark, Black-eared Sparrow-lark, Tractrac Chat, Sickle-winged Chat,
Karoo Eremomela and Cinnamon-breasted Warbler.
The Beaufort West sewage works (shown in Figure 11) is within the IBA and is important for water birds
particularly in dry times when little other surface water is present in the landscape. Greater Flamingo
Phoenicopterus roseus, Lesser Flamingo Phoeniconaias minor, South African Shelduck Tadorna cana, and
Cape Shoveler Anas smithii are regularly recorded here. Interestingly the town of Beaufort West itself
is included in the IBA because there is a Lesser Kestrel Falco naumanni roost in town.
40
Figure 11. CAR, IBA, CWAC and sewage works locations relative to the Grid Connection Corridor.
3.4 Co-ordinated Avifaunal Roadcount (CAR) data
CAR counts are a vehicle based census of birds (focussed on large terrestrial species) performed twice
annually (in winter and summer) by volunteer birdwatchers. The purpose is to provide population data
for use in science, especially conservation biology, by determining findings about the natural habitats
and the birds that use them.
The closest CAR routes to the Nuweveld Grid Connection Corridor are approximately 15km west of the
southern tip of the corridor (Figure 11). Given that this is similar habitat to the corridor area below De
Jagers Pass we consulted data from this CAR route (WB01). On this route over the years Karoo Korhaan
has been recorded at quite high abundance. Ludwig’s Bustard has been recorded at much lower
abundance and Kori Bustard only occasionally.
3.5 Co-ordinated Waterbird Count (CWAC) data
Coordinated Waterbird Counts (CWAC) consist of a programme of mid-summer and midwinter censuses
at a large number of South African wetlands. The counts are conducted by citizen scientists at more than
400 wetlands around the country and provide a useful source of information on wetland bird species in
41
South Africa.
Two CWAC sites (Springfontein Dam & Beaufort West Bird Sanctuary) are located in the corridor, and a
third (Slangfontein dam) is approximately 8km north of the corridor (Figure 11). We consulted data from
the two sites in the corridor but could not determine how regularly or recently they have been counted
(www.cwac.adu.org.za). The species lists for both sites includes species to be expected at a dam in this
area, at unremarkable abundances. At the Beaufort West Sewage Works key species for power lines
which have been recorded include: Greater Flamingo (maximum of 3 birds); Marabou Stork Leptoptilos
crumeniferus (maximum of 5); Black Stork (maximum 1). At Springfontein dam a maximum of 12 Greater
Flamingo have been recorded.
3.6 Western Cape Biodiversity Spatial Plan
The Western Cape Biodiversity Spatial Plan (Pool-Stanvliet et al, 2017) classifies two areas of the
proposed corridor as CBA1 (Figure 12). These are: the area surrounding De Jagers Pass; and the area
immediately east of the proposed wind farm boundary. The CBA1 areas are ‘areas in a natural condition
that are required to meet biodiversity targets, for species, ecosystems or ecological processes and
infrastructure’. Destruction of natural habitat in these areas should be kept to a minimum. In our view
the impact of the proposed power line on natural habitat will be relatively minimal.
Figure 12. The CBA1 areas of the proposed corridor.
42
3.7 Avifaunal specialist short term survey data
Our most important findings on site from specialist surveys (short once off surveys by specialist, as
opposed to longer term seasonal monitoring described in Section 3.7) with respect to the avifaunal
community are as follows:
» We recorded approximately 40 bird species on our surveys on site. These species are shown in
Appendix 1.
» We identified a number of Verreaux’s Eagle and other species nests in or close to the corridor. A
summary of these nests is presented in Table 2 and the nest locations are shown in Figure 13.
» It was not possible to survey thoroughly all existing power lines around Droërivier and Beaufort
West for eagle nests on pylons. We did consult the information from helicopter surveys from
Jenkins et al (2007) and confirmed that no eagle nests were found at that stage within 5km of
the Nuweveld Grid Connection Corridor. We recognise that this information is not very up to
date and we are aware that an update of this work is underway by the Endangered Wildlife Trust.
We have applied for the updated report, but it is not yet ready. This information will be included
in the EIA phase, should it become available in time. If eagle nests exist on existing power lines
close to where the new Nuweveld power line will be constructed, construction of the new power
line could disturb breeding at these nests. It will be important then to implement case specific
management actions to reduce the risk of disturbance. We recommend that a thorough survey
for such nests be done during the pre-construction avifaunal walk through.
43
Table 3. Grid Corridor nest inventory.
Nest name Species Protec-
tive
buffer
Badshoek VE Verreaux's Eagle 1000m
Badshoek VE Verreaux's Eagle 1000m
Dassiesfontein VE Verreaux's Eagle 1000m
Hazeldene VE Verreaux's Eagle 1000m
Multiple nests Hamerkop, White-necked Raven, possible Black Stork 1000m
Oshoekberg VE Verreaux's Eagle 1000m
Ribbokkop VE Verreaux's Eagle 1000m
Vaalkop VE Verreaux's Eagle 1000m
Hamerkop nest Hamerkop 500m
Paardeberg VE Verreaux's Eagle 1000m
Medium nest1 Jackal Buzzard/White-necked Raven 500m
Medium nest2 Jackal Buzzard/White-necked Raven 500m
Medium nest3 Jackal Buzzard/White-necked Raven 500m
Medium nest4 Jackal Buzzard/White-necked Raven 500m
Medium nest5 Jackal Buzzard/White-necked Raven 500m
Medium raptor 1 Jackal Buzzard/White-necked Raven 500m
Medium raptor 2 Jackal Buzzard/White-necked Raven 500m
PCG1 Pale-chanting Goshawk 250m
White-necked Raven nest2 White-necked Raven 250m
White-necked Raven nest White-necked Raven 250m
White-necked Raven nest x 3 White-necked Raven 250m
44
Figure 13. Priority bird nests on site.
3.8 Pre-construction bird monitoring data
3.7.1. Direct observation of priority species flight
During the 64 hours of vantage point observation to date (four seasons), 87 individual birds were seen
on 56 separate records, comprising 4 species. The most frequent flier was Verreaux’s Eagle, recorded 43
times for a total of 74 individual birds. Booted Eagle was recorded flying 10 times (10 birds). A single
record of 1 African Harrier Hawk Polyboroides typus was made in spring, and two records of Rock Kestrel
in summer and winter. The location of these flight paths is presented in Figure 14.
45
Figure 14. Priority species flight paths.
3.7.2. Vehicle based transect
Fifty-nine records of target bird species were made on the Vehicle Transect, totalling 74 individual birds
(Table 4). Nine species were recorded, the most abundant of which were Pale Chanting-Goshawk, Rock
Kestrel, and Karoo Korhaan. Four of the nine species are regionally Red Listed (Taylor et al, 2015): Martial
Eagle and Ludwig’s Bustard (Endangered); Ludwig’s Bustard (Vulnerable) and Karoo Korhaan (Near-
threatened).
The drive through of the grid corridor, although not a formal vehicle transect, yielded useful results.
Seven priority bird species were recorded as follows: Rock Kestrel; Ludwig’s Bustard; Jackal Buzzard:
Verreaux’s Eagle; Steppe Buzzard; Rufous-chested Sparrowhawk; and African Fish-Eagle. Confirmation
was also made that one of the ‘Medium’ nests identified in Figure 12 is an active Verreaux’s Eagle nest
which was used this past season. This nest is outside of the grid corridor, approximately 2km north of
the corridor at S-31.8598/E22.6243. Most importantly perhaps is the absence of high numbers of large
terrestrial species such as korhaans, bustards and cranes, which are particularly susceptible to power
line collisions, as described elsewhere in this report.
46
3.7.3. Focal site surveys
Four focal sites were monitored in this study area at De Jagers Pass. The findings are summarised in Table
5. At this stage only the Ribbokkop Verreaux’s Eagle breeding site can be confirmed to have produced a
young bird in the 2019 breeding season. The proposed grid corridor avoids this nest site by approximately
2.4km (to the outer edge of the corridor). No breeding appears to have taken place at these nests during
2020.
3.7.4. Incidental observations
Twenty-two incidental records were made comprising 31 individual birds and 10 species (Table 6). The
most abundant was Karoo Korhaan, followed by Pale Chanting-Goshawk. Five of the ten species are
regionally Red Listed (Taylor et al, 2015): Ludwig’s Bustard (Endangered); Verreaux’s Eagle (Vulnerable);
African Rock Pipit (Near-threatened); Blue Crane (Near-threatened); and Karoo Korhaan (Near-
threatened).
47
Table 4. Summary vehicle transect data to date.
Full year Spring Summer Autumn Winter
Length 172.8 57.6 57.6 57.6 57.6
Common name Taxonomic name Status Birds Rec Birds
/km Birds Rec
Birds
/km Birds Rec
Birds
/km Birds Rec
Birds
/km Birds Rec
Birds
/km
Karoo Korhaan Eupodotis vigorsii NT 15 7 0.09 2 1 0.03 6 3 0.10 3 1 0.05 4 2 0.07
Rock Kestrel Falco rupicolus 24 22 0.14 8 6 0.14 7 7 0.12 9 9 0.16
Black-winged Kite Elanus caeruleus 4 3 0.02 2 1 0.03 2 2 0.03
Pale Chanting Goshawk Melierax canorus 20 17 0.12 2 2 0.03 2 2 0.03 10 7 0.17 6 6 0.10
Common Buzzard Buteo buteo 3 2 0.02 3 2 0.05
Lanner Falcon Falco biarmicus VU 4 4 0.02 3 3 0.05 1 1 0.02
Ludwig's Bustard Neotis ludwigii EN 1 1 0.01 1 1 0.02
Jackal Buzzard Buteo rufofuscus 1 1 0.01 1 1 0.02
Martial Eagle Polemaetus bellicosus EN 1 1 0.01 1 1 0.02
Booted Eagle Hieraaetus perinatus 1 1 0.01 1 1 0.02
Table 5. Summary of focal site findings to date.
Focal site Name Spring Summer Autumn Winter
FS1 Ribbokkop Adults present no sign of chick/juvenile 2 adults & 1 juv seen in area 2 adults & I juv seen No breeding this year
FS2 Badshoek No birds seen, several nests, activity
unconfirmed 2 adults seen in area No birds seen in area No birds seen in area
FS3 Oshoekberg Adults present no sign of chick/juvenile No birds seen in area No birds seen in area No birds seen in area
FS4 Oshoekberg Med Species unconfirmed at this stage Species unconfirmed No birds seen in area No birds seen in area
48
Table 6. Summary of Incidental Observations of priority species to date.
Full year to date Spring Summer Autumn Winter
Common name Taxonomic name Sta-
tus Birds Rec Birds Rec Birds Rec Birds Rec Birds Rec
Pale Chanting-Goshawk Melierax canorus 5 3 1 1 4 2
Karoo Korhaan Eupodotis vigorsii NT 7 4 2 1 2 1 3 2
Rock Kestrel Falco rupicolus 4 3 1 1 3 2
Verreauxs' Eagle Aquila verreauxii VU 4 2 2 1 2 1
Blue Crane Anthropoides paradiseus NT 2 1 2 1
African Rock Pipit Anthus crenatus NT 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1
Booted Eagle Hieraaetus pennatus 2 2 1 1 1 1
Grey-winged Francolin Scleroptila afra 2 2 2 2
African Harrier-Hawk Polyboroides typus 1 1 1 1
Ludwig's Bustard Neotis ludwigii EN 1 1 1 1
49
3.9 Summary of bird species information & assessment of risk
Table 7 presents a list of the priority bird species for this assessment. These species were identified on
the basis of conservation status, susceptibility to impacts and presence on site. A qualitative assessment
is presented of the risk of each type of impact (pre-mitigation) occurring for each of the priority species
if the proposed grid connection is built. This assessment has been made on the basis of the data collected
on site during this programme, reported on in Sections 3.1 to 3.7. Birds could interact with the proposed
power line in 5 main ways: collision with power line; electrocution on pylons; habitat destruction during
construction; disturbance during construction; nesting; and electrical faulting. A discussion of the
priority species at High risk at this site follows Table 7.
Note: In this context, risk does not equal significance. Risk to a species as described in this section can
be High, but if that species is not Red Listed it is possible that the significance of impacts on the species
could ultimately be Moderate (see Section 5).
50
Table 7. Priority bird species for the consolidated Nuweveld Grid Connection Corridor site.
In each case the species presence on site and a qualitative assessment of risk to each species is also presented.
Common name Taxonomic name SAB
AP1
SAB
AP2
Status
(Re-
gional,
Global)
TOP
S
En-
dem
ic
Con-
firmed
on site
Habitat Possible im-
pacts
Risk
Bustard, Ludwig's Neotis ludwigii 1 1 EN, EN VU
1 Shrubland, arid savannah,
Fynbos
C, HD, D High
Pipit, African Rock Anthus crenatus 1 1 NT, LC
SLS 1 Rocky slopes HD, D High
Korhaan, Karoo Eupodotis vigorsii 1 1 NT, LC
1 Karoo shrubland C, HD, D High
Bustard, Kori Ardeotis kori 1 1 NT, NT VU
Open woodland, shrubland,
grassland
C, HD, D Moderate
Crane, Blue Anthropoides paradiseus
1 NT, VU EN
Grassland, wetland, culti-
vated land, dams
C, HD, D Moderate
Stork, Black Ciconia nigra 1 1 VU, LC VU
1 Mountainous, rivers, cliffs C, HD, D High
Eagle, Verreaux's Aquila verreauxii 1 1 VU, LC
1 Mountainous & rocky areas,
cliffs
C, HD, D, N, EF High
Falcon, Lanner Falco biarmicus 1 1 VU, LC
1 Open grassland or woodland
near nest substrate
C, HD, D, N Moderate
Secretarybird Sagittarius serpentarius 1 1 VU, VU
Open grassland, lands C, HD, D Moderate
Kestrel, Lesser Falco naumanni 1
VU
Open savanna, grassland,
lands
HD, D, R Moderate
Buzzard, Jackal Buteo rufofuscus 1 1
(*) 1 Generalist HD, D Moderate
Eagle, Booted Aquila pennatus 1 1
1 Mountainous country with
cliffs
HD, D Moderate
Buzzard, Steppe Buteo vulpinus 1 1
1 Open woodland, grassland C, HD, D Moderate
Goshawk, Pale Chanting Melierax canorus 1 1
1 Arid shrubland & open wood-
land
C, HD, D, N, EF Moderate
Harrier-Hawk, African Polyboroides typus 1 1
1 Wide range of woodlands HD, D Moderate
Kestrel, Rock Falco rupicolus 1 1
1 Wide diversity of habitats,
close to rocky areas for
breeding
HD, D Moderate
51
Hamerkop Scopus umbretta 1 1
1 Freshwater margins C, HD, D Moderate
Harrier, Black Circus maurus 1 1 EN, EN
(*)
Fynbos, shrubland, grassland,
cultivated lands
C, HD, D Low
Stork, Yellow-billed Mycteria ibis
1 EN, LC
Riverine & water body shore-
line
HD, D Low
Eagle, Martial Polemaetus bellicosus 1 1 EN, VU VU
1 Open woodland, shrubland HD, D High
Woodpecker, Ground Geocolaptes olivaceus 1 1 LC, NT
SLS
Boulder slopes, road cuttings HD, D Low
Sandpiper, Curlew Calidris ferruginea 1 1 LC, NT
Lagoons, estuaries, wetlands HD, D Low
Flamingo, Greater Phoenicopterus ruber 1 1 NT, LC
Open water bodies HD, D Moderate
Duck, Maccoa Oxyura maccoa
1 NT, VU
Deep inland waterbodies HD, D Low
White-eye, Cape Zosterops virens 1 1
(*) 1 All wooded habitats HD, D Low
Sparrowlark, Black-
eared
Eremopterix australis 1 1
(*) 1 Sparse shrubland & grassland HD, D Low
Canary, Black-headed Serinus alario 1 1
(*) 1 Arid-semi arid shrubland,
rocky slopes
HD, D Low
Lark, Cape Clapper Mirafra apiata 1 1
(*)
Shrubland & grassy Karoo HD, D Low
Lark, Karoo Calendulauda albescens 1 1
(*) 1 Karoo shrubland, arid Fynbos HD, D Low
Lark, Large-billed Galerida magnirostris 1 1
(*) 1 Sparse grassland, shrubland,
lands
HD, D Low
Warbler, Namaqua Phragmacia substriata 1 1
(*) 1 Streams, Phragmites/Typhus HD, D Low
Tchagra, Southern Tchagra tchagra 1 1
(*)
Coastal bush, thicket, Fynbos HD, D Low
Warbler, Cinnamon-
breasted
Euryptila subcinnamomea 1 1
(*)
Arid boulder strewn hillsides HD, D Low
Eremomela, Karoo Eremomela gregalis 1 1
(*)
Arid & semi-arid shrubland HD, D Low
Tit-babbler, Layard's Parisoma layardi 1 1
(*) 1 Arid/semi arid shrubland,
Fynbos, gardens
HD, D Low
Prinia, Karoo Prinia maculosa 1 1
(*) 1 Fynbos, coastal shrubland,
gardens, along drainage lines
HD, D Low
Chat, Sickle-winged Cercomela sinuata 1 1
(*)
Karoo shrubland, mountain
slopes, old lands
HD, D Low
Flycatcher, Fairy Stenostira scita 1 1
(*) 1 Drainage line woodland, gar-
dens
HD, D Low
Weaver, Cape Ploceus capensis 1 1
(*)
Grassland, Fynbos, thicket,
farmland
HD, D Low
52
Sunbird, Southern Dou-
ble-collared
Cinnyris chalybeus 1 1
(*) 1 Forest, Fynbos, shrubland,
gardens
HD, D Low
Tit, Grey Parus afer 1 1
(*) 1 Shrubland on rocky mountain
slopes
HD, D Low
Flycatcher, Fiscal Sigelus silens 1 1
(*) 1 Open woodland, gardens HD, D Low
Thrush, Karoo Turdus smithi 1 1
(*) 1 Riverine woodland, gardens HD, D Low
Francolin, Grey-winged Scleroptila africanus 1 1
SLS 1 Ridgetop montane grassland HD, D Low
Starling, Pied Spreo bicolor 1 1
SLS 1 Open grassland, shrubland HD, D Low
EN=Endangered; VU=Vulnerable; NT=Near-threatened; LC=Least Concern; P=Protected; *=Endemic; (*)=Near-endemic; SLS = endemic to South Africa Lesotho & Swaziland.
E=Electrocution; C=Collision; HD=Habitat Destruction; D=Disturbance; N= Nesting; EF=Electrical Faulting.
53
3.8.1. Large terrestrial bird species
Ludwig’s Bustard
The Ludwig’s Bustard is classified as regionally Endangered by Taylor et al (2015). This physically large
species is highly vulnerable to collision with overhead power lines and is also likely to be affected by
disturbance and habitat destruction. This species was listed as globally Endangered in 2010 because of
potentially unsustainable power line collision mortality, exacerbated by the current lack of proven
mitigation and the rapidly expanding power grid (Jenkins et al. 2011). Ludwig’s Bustard is a wide-ranging
bird endemic to the south-western region of Africa (Hockey et al. 2005). Ludwig’s Bustards are both
partially nomadic and migratory (Allan 1994, Shaw 2013, Shaw et al, 2017), with a large proportion of
the population moving west in the winter months to the Succulent Karoo. In the arid and semi-arid Karoo
environment, bustards are also thought to move in response to rainfall, so the presence and abundance
of bustards in any one area are not predictable.
We recorded Ludwig’s Bustard only on the flats between De Jagers Pass and Beaufort West, on our
vehicle transect, in a maximum group size of 3. We believe that small influxes of Ludwig’s Bustards onto
site could occur at times when conditions are right on site. This would result in temporary high risk of
collision of the species with the power line. Based on the species’ conservation status, the importance
of this site as habitat, and its susceptibility to collision with overhead power lines, we consider this
species to be at High risk at this site.
Black Stork
Black Stork is classified as Vulnerable regionally (Taylor et al, 2015), and Least Concern globally (IUCN,
2019). The regional population is estimated at less than 1000 mature birds, and the global population at
24 000 – 44 000 mature birds (Taylor et al, 2015). The Black Stork is a solitary cliff nester normally closely
associated with riverine areas as it is mainly piscivorous.
We recorded a single bird during the winter survey for the wind farm, and a pair of birds in September
2019, both records at Duikerkrans in the Grid Connection corridor. We judge that the likelihood of this
species occurring on the site itself regularly or for extended periods is medium as some aquatic habitats
are available throughout the corridor.
We conclude that this species is at High risk at the Nuweveld Grid Connection corridor site.
Karoo Korhaan
Karoo Korhaan is classified as Near-threatened regionally (Taylor et al, 2015). This species is suspected
to have undergone a reduction in population and range (Taylor et al, 2015). Karoo Korhaan could be
susceptible to three possible impacts: habitat destruction, disturbance, and collision with power lines.
We have recorded this species consistently on site, by most data collection methods, typically single birds
54
or in pairs.
We consider this species to be at High risk on the Nuweveld Grid Connection corridor site.
Although we have not recorded Kori Bustard or Secretarybird on either the grid connection or wind farm
sites, we do expect these species to occur on site at times. As with the other bustards this species is
highly susceptible to collision with power lines. Likewise with Blue Crane, we judge these species to be
at Moderate risk.
3.8.2. Raptors
Martial Eagle
The Martial Eagle is classified as globally Vulnerable and regionally Endangered (Taylor et al 2015, IUCN
2019). Martial Eagle has proven susceptible to electrocution on overhead power lines. This is a wide
ranging species, which can best be protected from impacts close to its’ breeding sites. A breeding site
exists on the Nuweveld Wind Farms site as described in the reports for the wind farm. This nest location
is relevant for the Grid Connection corridor, although approximately 2.5km west of the western
boundary of the grid corridor. We have recorded a single bird once on the Grid Connection corridor itself.
We believe it possible that the species could breed somewhere on the corridor, as it was not possible to
survey all potential tree nesting substrate.
This species’ presence in the broader area; location of a breeding site; conservation status; proven
susceptibility to electrocution on overhead power lines are all factors which render it at High risk at this
site.
Verreaux’s Eagle
The Verreaux’s Eagle has recently been up listed in regional conservation status to Vulnerable (Taylor et
al, 2015) in recognition of the threats it is facing. This species tends to occupy remote mountainous areas
largely unaffected by development (until the advent of wind energy in SA that is). A pair can typically use
several alternate nests in different seasons, varying from a few metres to 2.5km apart (in Steyn, 1989).
Approximately 400 – 2 000 pairs exist in the Western and Northern Cape (Hockey et al. 2005). These
eagles can exist at quite high density compared to other eagle species, with some territories as small as
10km² in the Karoo (Davies, 2010 – www.africanraptors.org – work done on Nuweveld Escarpment) and
10.3km² in the Matopos in Zimbabwe (Steyn, 1989). Davies found a range of territory size from 10 to
50km², with an average size of 24km² in the Karoo of South Africa, and nests were approximately 2
kilometres apart on average.
On the Nuweveld Grid Connection Corridor site we have recorded several nests as described in Section
3.6. Our vantage point monitoring also recorded the species flying on site multiple times, particularly
55
along the ‘De Jagers Pass escarpment’.
To obtain information on the population of Verreaux’s Eagles in the broader area we consulted a research
report for 3 years of monitoring of Verreaux’s Eagle nests in and around the Karoo National Park
(Claassen et al, 2013 – Figure 15). This report presented findings from monitoring of approximately 24
nests in (18) and around (4) the park. Some of these nests were originally the subject of study by Dr Rob
Davies. Breeding productivity over these three seasons was not very good, but the monitoring was not
comprehensive due to road access and time constraints. At the easily accessible nests productivity was
good, indicating that possibly the findings are biased due to poor access to many nests. If nests and
territories cannot be viewed from close enough or often enough in a season breeding may be missed.
Figure 13 shows the location of these nests. The closest of these nests (# 21 - Lemoenfontein) is
approximately 2.5km outside of the Grid Connection corridor.
Figure 15. Location of Verreaux’s Eagle nests in and around Karoo National Park.
This species is likely to be susceptible to four possible impacts: electrocution, collision, habitat
destruction, and disturbance.
Based on our data collected on site to date, we conclude that this species is at High risk pre-mitigation if
56
the Nuweveld Grid Connection is built.
3.8.3. Small passerines
African Rock Pipit
African Rock Pipit Anthus crenatus is Near-threatened regionally (Taylor et al, 2015) and Least Concern
globally (IUCN 2019). It is endemic to South Africa and Lesotho and has a restricted range and low density
within this range. Recent atlas data (SABAP2) indicate a possible contraction of range in recent decades.
This species could be susceptible to: habitat destruction; and disturbance.
We have recorded this species incidentally twice on site (a single bird in each case). As a precautionary
approach and assuming that the species occurs in higher abundance somewhere on site where we have
not yet sampled, we judge the species to be at Medium risk at this site.
3.10 Avifaunal sensitivity of the site
The Nuweveld Grid Connection corridor slightly intersects the Karoo National Park IBA (Marnewick et al,
2015) which extends up to and includes the town of Beaufort West. It must be noted that the section of
the IBA that is traversed by the grid alignment was included in the IBA mostly on the basis of Lesser
Kestrel roosting in trees in Beaufort West town. This IBA has been described in Section 3.3.
Although the SEA is not yet finalised, we note that the Nuweveld Grid Connection corridor site falls
almost completely within in a Renewable Energy Development Zone 2 (as part of the second phase of
the Strategic Environmental Assessment for Wind Energy – www.redz.csir.co.za) and the Central Strategic
Corridor that has been gazetted (Figure 16). The REDZs are areas identified for potential wind energy
development in future. As far as we understand these REDZ2 areas have not yet been comprehensively
studied by specialists and may still change. We also could not yet find any information available from
the avifaunal specialist study for the REDZ2. For the Transmission Grid Corridor SEA a high level avifaunal
assessment was undertaken by Van Rooyen and Froneman (2016). We consulted this report for
background information about the corridor, but it did not add anything substantial to this study.
57
Figure 16. The proposed Nuweveld Grid Connection corridor relative to the IBA, draft REDZ2 and
Transmission Corridors areas.
The on-site avifaunal sensitivity was assessed considering: sensitive habitats; and priority bird species
nest locations. The study area was classified into the following classes: No-Go, High, Medium, Low and
Neutral sensitivity areas. In the case of avifauna (at this stage of the assessment, may change in EIA
phase), High, Medium, Low and Neutral were not mapped as the No-Go category provided sufficient
protection for the relevant features.
The most important avifaunal sensitivity on site is bird nest locations. The nests that we have identified
in or within 1km of the Grid Connection corridor have been described in Section 3.6. Large eagles such
as the Verreaux’s and Martial present at the Nuweveld site are often protected against impacts such as
wind farms elsewhere in the world through the use of buffers. The aim of these buffer areas is to restrict
the construction of infrastructure within a certain distance of the nest site. It is believed that such
restrictions should reduce the construction phase disturbance risk to the birds (since noise, light and
other forms of disturbance would be further away), reduce the operational phase displacement effects
on the birds (since a large proportion of the birds’ territory remains unaltered), and reduce the risk of
collision of birds with obstacles, since most flight activity is believed to take place closest to the nest.
Since eagles are not particularly susceptible to collision with power lines (as opposed to wind turbines),
the buffers can be smaller, since they are focused more on disturbance of breeding, and collision of
58
young birds learning to fly. The radius of eagle nest site buffers is typically determined by the measured
or estimated core foraging ranges of the affected birds (Martinéz et al. 2010). In cases where this data
does not exist, such as at Nuweveld, a theoretical buffer area may be imposed to provide protection for
the birds. Large nests which are suspected or confirmed to be Verreaux’s Eagle nests, and a group of 3
nests at Duikerkrans (including the area where Black Stork was recorded) are buffered by 1000m.
Medium sized nests of unknown species (could be Jackal Buzzard, Booted Eagle or others) and a
Hamerkop nest were buffered with 500m. Smaller nests such as Pale Chanting Goshawk and White-
necked Raven were buffered by 250m. It is important to note that for the grid connection these buffers
are aimed primarily at reducing disturbance of breeding during construction and operations, and
specifically at reducing collision risk for young recently fledged birds learning to fly. This is somewhat
different from the aims of buffers for wind turbines.
We have also identified several large water bodies as being sensitive and requiring No-Go buffers. These
are located close to or within Beaufort West and include the Beaufort West Sewage Works, Springfontein
Dam and the Beaufort West Dam (1000m buffers).
In summary, the buffers implemented for the no-go and high sensitivity areas identified within or close
to the corridor are presented in Table 8 below. However, bird movement can vary depending on various
factors, such as topography, bird species, bird movement and the specific environmental conditions. The
delineation of buffer boundaries is therefore not an exact science and has been based on the avifaunal
specialist’s knowledge, experience on other projects and the pre-cautionary approach. Due to the length
of the line (up to 120km), the nature of the habitat/species distributions and other physical constraints,
there may be instances where the line intersects with the identified no-go areas. In such instances the
avifaunal specialist would need to evaluate the acceptability from a “limits of acceptable change”
perspective, however as a general allowance the developer may route up to 1km of the powerline
through identified no-go areas and remain within their limits of acceptable change. This assumes that it
is approved by the specialist and any additional mitigation measures are applied to the line in these areas,
should it be required.
Table 8. Summary of the factors considered in determining avifaunal sensitivities & respective buffers.
No-Go areas High Sensitivity areas
Identified nests & associated buffers Ridge setback: 245m
Beaufort West Dam
Springfontein Dam
Beaufort West Sewage Works
We have summarised our findings in Figure 17. Fortunately the Lesser Kestrel roosts in Beaufort West
are protected spatially by the exclusion of the town from the grid corridor.
59
Figure 17. Avifaunal sensitivity map for Nuweveld Grid Connection Corridor.
3.11 Existing avifaunal-power line impacts in the area
Close to the Droërivier Substation there are multiple existing power lines in the Grid Connection corridor.
However once the corridor leaves the Beaufort West vicinity, there is only one existing 22kV power line
in the corridor area of study, running from Beaufort West to the top of De Jagers Pass where it ends.
Sections of this 22kV power line have been retrofitted with red insulation on the pole top hardware,
which suggests that birds have been electrocuted here previously.
60
4. CHANGES MADE FROM PRE-APPLICATION SCOPING CORRIDOR TO
SCOPING CORRIDOR TO ADDRESS AVIFAUNAL ISSUES IDENTIFIED
This specialist assessment has been produced as part of an iterative design process being undertaken for
this project. As part of this process, various alignment options have been considered andrefined as
technical and environmental constraints have been identified.. Previous corridor layouts were produced
in the Screening Phase and a Pre-application Scoping Phase and was assessed in a Pre-application
Scoping Report that was released for public comment. Specialist recommendations and public inputs
have been considered and used to make refinements the corridor and the latest corridor (March 2020)
has been assessed in this report and the findings of this report will inform the outcomes of the Scoping
Phase of this project. Should new information, recommendations or inputs come to light, further
refinements to the corridor may take place.
A significant avifaunal risk avoidance measure implemented in the early screening phase of the project
was the screening out of a Molteno Pass and R381 route for the corridor. This resulted in the current
longer but less constrained route, serviced by the DR02311 (De Jager’s Pass) and DR02317. Significant
avifaunal risks were identified along the Molteno Pass route, in the form of Verreaux’s Eagle nests, and
the Karoo National Park (an IBA) and its screening out as an option serves to avoid potential greater
avifaunal impacts.
The avifaunal sensitivity map for the corridor is presented in Figure 17.
The approach of iterative refinement of the corridor before and during the impact assessment, as
opposed to an alternatives based assessment, goes some way to ensuring that the potentially major
impacts are avoided and key resources protected before the assessment gets underway. This leaves the
project able to focus on the assessment and mitigation of the residual impacts as well as ongoing
refinement of the corridor alignment as additional information becomes available through monitoring
or stakeholder inputs. Thus the impact assessment does not comparatively assess any alternatives, other
that the “no go”, as required by the NEMA, but the approach is supported.
61
5. IDENTIFIED IMPACTS
With an understanding of the project and the corridor, the following potentially significant impacts on
avifaunal resources are identified:
Construction phase:
− Habitat destruction – Natural habitat will be destroyed at the footprint of each tower or pylon, at
the laydown areas, at the collector switching/substation and at the switching stations. The con-
struction access road along the servitude will be a track, driven by vehicles, not a scraped and
gravelled road.
− Disturbance – During the construction of the various components of this grid connection project
birds will be subject to higher than normal traffic, noise and vibration. This all has the potential to
disturb them and impact on their daily activities. This impact is most relevant for breeding sensi-
tive species such as raptors.
Operational Phase
− Collision of birds with overhead power line - Large birds are at risk of collision with the overhead
power line once constructed. The species most at risk are the large terrestrial species, such as
bustards, korhaans, cranes and Secretarybird. These species frequent the flatter areas of the site
predominantly, so risk will be greatest in those areas. Based on our 20 years experience working
on bird-power line interactions and various data consulted in this report we do not expect eagles
to be at collision risk.
− Electrocution of birds on power line - Given the presence of large eagles in the study area, and
the almost complete lack of trees (natural perches) it is almost certain that birds will be electro-
cuted on the power line if not designed correctly.
− Bird nesting on pylons/towers - The largely treeless landscape means that few opportunities exist
for tree nesting bird species. Some of these species have learnt to nest on transmission towers
and will likely do so. These species include Verreaux’s and Martial Eagle, Lanner Falcon, Rock and
Greater Kestrel, Pale Chanting Goshawk, and crows. Although this allows these birds to breed
where they would otherwise have been unable to, it does place them at greater collision/electro-
cution risk which is not desirable.
− Electrical faulting caused by birds - Large eagles perching on towers may cause electrical faulting
through their faeces, as described earlier in this report. This is an impact on the continuity of
supply not the birds, as the birds are unharmed.
Decommissioning Phase
− Disturbance - During the decommissioning of the various components of this grid connection pro-
ject birds will be subject to higher than normal traffic, noise and vibration. This all has the potential
62
to disturb them and impact on their daily activities. This impact is most relevant for breeding sen-
sitive species such as raptors.
Cumulative impacts – All the impacts above are then considered from a cumulative perspective. In
addition, the cumulative impact relating to the proposed new gridline is considered alongside the
existing Eskom infrastructure in the area and the proposed three Nuweveld Wind Farms.
In line with the requirements of the NEMA, the No Go alternative will also be assessed. This assessment
indicates what impacts may occur to avifauna resources in the event the project does not proceed.
The NEMA requires the consideration and assessment of feasible and reasonable alternatives in the EIA
process. Alternatives can include: Location of the proposed activity; Type of activity; Layout alternatives;
Technology alternatives; and No-Go alternative.
Only the No-Go alternative has been assessed in this specialist report, although an alternative option up
the R381 was considered and screened out in an earlier phase. A Screening and constraints exercise and
a pre-scoping phase was undertaken in lead up to the current phase whereby specialists identified
possible sensitivities and these were used by the applicant to inform the shape and alignment of the
corridor. This will be an iterative approach, whereby the corridor is refined as new information or public
inputs become available, ensuring that the final corrido, avoids to the greatest degree possible the
sensitive features and areas but also provides sufficient space in which to determine a final power line
alignment. This iterative process leads to a refined or optimised outcome as opposed to an alternatives
approach which can identify the better of two or more alternatives but does not focus on the iterative
refinement of either. The corridor assessed in this report is therefore considered the preferred
alternative and the alternative corridor route was screened out on environmental grounds.
The No-Go alternative would result in no grid connection infrastructure being built on site. As a result
none of the impacts on birds described in Section 4 would take place. The significance of impacts of the
No-Go alternative on avifauna would therefore be Negligible.
63
6. IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Using the data and risk assessment for each species described in Section 3 as the basis, the potential
impacts of the proposed Nuweveld Grid Connection have been formally assessed and rated according to
the criteria (supplied by Aurecon and shown in Appendix 2).
6.1 Construction Phase Impacts
6.1.1. Construction Phase Impact 1 - Habitat destruction
Natural habitat will be destroyed at the footprint of each tower or pylon, at the laydown areas, at the
collector switching/substation and at the switching stations. The construction road along the servitude
will be a track, driven by vehicles, not a scraped and gravelled road. The impact of this road will be very
minor. Overall we assess the significance of this impact to be Minor. The above described habitat
destruction is inevitable, and apart from ensuring that this does not take place in the most sensitive
areas, it is difficult to mitigate below a certain level. The significance therefore remains at Minor post
mitigation. The impact is very slightly greater for a 400kV line than 132kV, just due to the tower
foundation sizes and larger laydown areas. This is however not sufficient to change the ratings.
Mitigation for 132kV or 400kV
» The identified No-Go areas should be avoided as far as possible (power line bisections with no
go areas must be approved and mitigated by the avifauna specialist on a case-by-case basis)
» Where possible use should be made of existing roads and impacted areas for laydown areas
» A new road the whole way up the escarpment should be avoided. Any towers in the steeper
escarpment zone should be constructed along the contour to the pylon location from the existing
roads (where available).
» A pre-construction avifaunal walk down should be conducted to confirm final layout and identify
any additional sensitivities that may arise between the EIA and construction (used to inform
micro-siting and minor adjustments in the final layout).
» All construction activities should be strictly managed according to generally accepted
environmental best practice standards, so as to avoid any unnecessary impact on the receiving
environment.
64
Table 9. Assessment of destruction of bird habitat during the construction phase.
Project phase Construction
Impact Habitat destruction
Description of im-
pact Avifaunal habitat altered or destroyed when natural vegetation cleared for infrastructure
Mitigatability Low Mitigation does not exist; or mitigation will slightly reduce the significance of
impacts
Potential mitigation
The identified No-Go areas should be avoided as far as possible (power line bisections with no
go areas must be approved and mitigated by the avifauna specialist on a case-by-case basis).
Where possible use should be made of existing roads and impacted areas for laydown areas. A
new road the whole way up the escarpment should be avoided. Any towers in the steeper es-
carpment zone should be constructed along the contour to the pylon location from the existing
roads (where available). A pre-construction avifaunal walk down should be conducted to con-
firm final layout and identify any additional sensitivities that may arise between the EIA and
construction (used to inform micro-siting and minor adjustments in the final layout). All con-
struction activities should be strictly managed according to generally accepted environmental
best practice standards, so as to avoid any unnecessary impact on the receiving environment.
Assessment Without mitigation With mitiga-
tion
Nature Negative Negative
Duration Permanent Impact may be permanent, or in ex-
cess of 20 years Permanent
Impact may be
permanent, or in
excess of 20 years
Extent Limited Limited to the site and its immedi-
ate surroundings Limited
Limited to the site
and its immediate
surroundings
Intensity Very low
Natural and/ or social functions
and/ or processes are slightly al-
tered
Very low
Natural and/ or so-cial functions and/
or processes are
slightly altered
Probability
Almost certain
/ Highly proba-
ble
It is most likely that the impact will
occur
Almost certain
/ Highly proba-
ble
It is most likely
that the impact
will occur
Confidence High Substantive supportive data exists
to verify the assessment High
Substantive sup-
portive data exists
to verify the as-
sessment
Reversibility High The affected environmental will be
able to recover from the impact High
The affected envi-
ronmental will be
able to recover
from the impact
Resource irreplacea-
bility Low
The resource is not damaged irrepa-
rably or is not scarce Low
The resource is not
damaged irrepara-
bly or is not scarce
Significance Minor - negative Minor - negative
Comment on signifi-
cance I am comfortable with the finding of Minor negative significance both pre and post mitigation
Cumulative impacts See Section 6.4
65
6.1.2. Construction Phase Impact 2 - Disturbance of birds during construction
During the construction of the various components of this grid connection project birds will be subject
to higher than normal traffic, noise and vibration. This all has the potential to disturb them and impact
on their daily activities. This impact is most relevant for breeding sensitive species such as raptors. We
judge the significance of this impact to be Moderate pre-mitigation. This can be mitigated to Minor
significance through the measures described below. The impact is very slightly greater for a 400kV line
than a 132kV line, just due to the larger collector substation, tower foundation sizes and larger laydown
areas. This is however not sufficient to change the significance rating, when compared to one another.
Mitigation
» A pre-construction avifaunal walk down should be conducted to confirm final layout and identify
and mitigate any sensitivities that may arise between the EIA and construction.
» The No-Go buffer areas should be adhered to. With the exception of up to 1km of the power line
that can go through identified no-go areas, where such is approved by the specialist and any
additional mitigation measures are applied in the final layout and EMPr.
» Monitoring of breeding status of Martial and Verreaux’s Eagles should be conducted in all
breeding seasons post acceptance of the project as preferred bidder (to establish baseline) and
including during and post construction.
» All construction activities should be strictly managed according to generally accepted
environmental best practice standards, so as to avoid any unnecessary impact on the receiving
environment.
Table 10. Assessment of disturbance of birds during construction.
Project phase Construction
Impact Disturbance of birds
Description of im-
pact
Breeding birds disturbed by human, vehicular & machinery activity on site, including noise and vibration. Breeding productivity reduced, or breeding fails or breeding site abandoned.
Mitigatability Medium Mitigation exists and will notably reduce significance of impacts
Potential mitigation
A pre-construction avifaunal walk down should be conducted to confirm final layout and
identify and mitigate any sensitivities that may arise between the EIA and construction. The
No-Go buffer areas should be adhered to. With the exception of up to 1km of the power line
that can go through identified no-go areas, where such is approved by the specialist and any
additional mitigation measures are applied in the final layout and EMPr. Monitoring of breed-
ing status of Martial and Verreaux’s Eagles should be conducted in all breeding seasons post
acceptance of the project as preferred bidder (to establish baseline) and including during and
post construction. All construction activities should be strictly managed according to gener-
ally accepted environmental best practice standards, so as to avoid any unnecessary impact
on the receiving environment.
Assessment Without mitigation With mitigation
Nature Negative Negative
Duration Short term impact will last between 1
and 5 years
Short
term
impact will last between 1 and 5
years
66
Extent Regional Impacts felt at a regional / provincial level
Regional Impacts felt at a regional / pro-vincial level
Intensity Very high
Natural and/ or social func-
tions and/ or processes are
majorly altered
Low
Natural and/ or social functions
and/ or processes are some-
what altered
Probability
Almost cer-
tain /
Highly probable
It is most likely that the im-
pact will occur Unlikely
Has not happened yet but could
happen once in the lifetime of
the project, therefore there is a
possibility that the impact will oc-
cur
Confidence Medium
Determination is based on
common sense and general
knowledge
Medium
Determination is based on com-
mon sense and general
knowledge
Reversibility Low
The affected environment will
not be able to recover from
the impact - permanently
modified
Low
The affected environment will
not be able to recover from the
impact - permanently modified
Resource irreplacea-
bility Medium
The resource is damaged ir-
reparably but is represented
elsewhere
Medium
The resource is damaged irrepa-
rably but is represented else-
where
Significance Moderate - negative Minor - negative
Comment on signifi-
cance
I am comfortable with finding of Moderate negative significance pre-mitigation & Minor neg-
ative post mitigation
Cumulative impacts See Section 6.4
6.2 Operational Phase Impacts
6.2.1. Operational Phase Impact 1 – Collision of birds with overhead power line
Large birds are at risk of collision with the overhead power line once constructed. The species most at
risk are the large terrestrial species, such as bustards, korhaans, cranes and Secretarybird. These species
frequent the flatter areas of the site predominantly, so risk will be greatest in those areas. Based on our
20 years experience working on bird-power line interactions and various data consulted in this report we
do not expect eagles to be at collision risk. We conclude that this impact will be of Major significance for
the susceptible species noted above. It is reduced to Minor to Moderate2 significance with mitigation.
There may be slightly more collision risk associated with a 400kV line due to two earth wires being
present (only 1 on 132kV), although more cables are also more visible so it may work the other way. In
any event this difference is not sufficient to change these ratings. Since national populations of nationally
Red Listed species are affected this impact will be at a national scale.
Mitigation
2 Using the methodology the impact is rated as minor but the specialist has reasons to believe moderate is a
truer indication of impact significance.
67
» Adhere to No-Go areas. With the exception of up to 1km of the power line that can go through
identified no-go areas if approved by the specialist and additional mitigation applied to the line
in these areas, should it be required.
» A pre-construction avifaunal walk down should be conducted and inform the final layout and
identify the high collision risk sections of line.
» Earth wires on high risk sections should be fitted with the most up to date (at construction)
available Eskom approved anti bird collision line marking device to make cables more visible to
birds in flight and reduce the likelihood of collisions.
» These devices must be maintained in working order for the lifespan of the power line. It is
understood that these are high voltage live lines forming part of Eskoms national grid and thus
any work on them has to follow Eskoms. Thus the timeframe from reporting a faulty device to
replacing it is set at no more than 3 months in recognition of the complexity.
» The project proponent should support the Endangered Wildlife Trust research into Ludwig’s
Bustard power line collision and mitigation devices. Any new line marking devices proven
effective for Ludwigs’ Bustard by the Eskom-EWT research should be installed on the line as soon
as possible if the existing devices are not proving effective.
Table 11. Assessment of bird collision on overhead power lines
Project phase Operation
Impact Collision of birds with earth wires
Description of im-
pact Birds in flight collide with earth wire
Mitigatability Medium Mitigation exists and will notably reduce significance of impacts
Potential mitigation
Adhere to No-Go areas. With the exception of up to 1km of the power line that can go
through identified no-go areas if approved by the specialist and additional mitigation
applied to the line in these areas, should it be required. A pre-construction avifaunal
walk down should be conducted and inform the final layout and identify the high colli-
sion risk sections of line. Earth wires on high risk sections should be fitted with the
most up to date (at construction) available Eskom approved anti bird collision line
marking device to make cables more visible to birds in flight and reduce the likelihood
of collisions. These devices must be maintained in working order for the lifespan of
the power line. It is understood that these are high voltage live lines forming part of
Eskoms national grid and thus any work on them has to follow Eskoms. Thus the
timeframe from reporting a faulty device to replacing it is set at no more than 3
months in recognition of the complexity
Assessment Without mitigation With mitigation
Nature Negative Negative
Duration On-going Impact will last between 15
and 20 years On-going
Impact will last be-
tween 15 and 20 years
Extent National Impacts felt at a national level National Impacts felt at a na-
tional level
Intensity Very high
Natural and/ or social func-
tions and/ or processes are
majorly altered
Low
Natural and/ or social
functions and/ or pro-
cesses are some-
what altered
68
Probability Certain /
definite
There are sound scientific rea-
sons to expect that the impact
will definitely occur
Unlikely
Has not happened yet but could happen once
in the lifetime of the
project, therefore
there is a possibility
that the impact will
occur
Confidence High Substantive supportive data
exists to verify the assessment Medium
Determination is
based on common
sense and general
knowledge
Reversibility Medium
The affected environment will
only recover from the impact
with significant intervention
Medium
The affected environ-
ment will only recover
from the impact with
significant interven-
tion
Resource irreplacea-
bility Medium
The resource is damaged ir-
reparably but is represented
elsewhere
Medium
The resource is dam-
aged irreparably but is
represented else-
where
Significance Major - negative Minor - negative
Comment on signifi-
cance
I am comfortable with the finding of Major negative significance for the pre-mitiga-
tion rating. The post mitigation significance should probably be elevated to Moderate
negative to reflect that proposed mitigation is not 100% effective. Several of the spe-
cies affected are endemic and near-endemic resulting in Extent being National
Cumulative impacts See Section 6.4
6.2.2. Operational Phase Impact 2 – Electrocution of birds on power line
Given the presence of large eagles in the study area, and the almost complete lack of trees (natural
perches) it is almost certain that birds will perch on the pylons / towers and will be vulnerable to
electrocution if not designed correctly. This impact is very different between 132kV and 400kV so we
have described them separately below.
Specific to 132kV
We judge that the significance of electrocution pre-mitigation is Major. The critical clearances on a 132kV
line can pose an electrocution risk if the design is not correct. This is easily mitigated to Minor
significance by using the correct design. Since national populations of nationally Red Listed species are
affected this impact will be at a national scale
Mitigation
» We recommend using the design presented in this report (Figure 4) and the Eskom Bird Perch
on each pole top. If any other design is considered this will require sign off from the avifaunal
specialist and may change the significance ratings reported here
69
Table 12. Assessment of bird electrocution on 132kV power line.
Project phase Operation
Impact Electrocution of birds perched on pylons/towers
Description of
impact
Birds electrocuted whilst perched on pylons through bridging the gap between live and
earthed or two live components
Mitigatability High Mitigation exists and will considerably reduce the significance of impacts
Potential mitiga-
tion
This is easily mitigated through using the correct pylon design for the 132kV line. The de-
sign presented in this report (Figure 4) must be used, with the Eskom Bird Perch on every
pole top. Any change to this design must be signed off by an avifaunal specialist and may
change these ratings
Assessment Without mitigation With mitigation
Nature Negative Negative
Duration Perma-
nent
Impact may be permanent, or
in excess of 20 years
Perma-
nent
Impact may be permanent, or
in excess of 20 years
Extent National Impacts felt at a national level National Impacts felt at a national level
Intensity Very high
Natural and/ or social func-
tions and/ or processes are
majorly altered
Low
Natural and/ or social func-
tions and/ or processes
are somewhat altered
Probability
Almost
certain /
Highly
probable
It is most likely that the impact
will occur Unlikely
Has not happened yet but
could happen once in the life-
time of the project, therefore
there is a possibility that the
impact will occur
Confidence High Substantive supportive data
exists to verify the assessment Low
Judgement is based on intui-
tion
Reversibility High
The affected environmental
will be able to recover from
the impact
High
The affected environmental
will be able to recover from
the impact
Resource irre-
placeability Medium
The resource is damaged ir-
reparably but is represented
elsewhere
Medium
The resource is damaged ir-
reparably but is represented
elsewhere
Significance Major - negative Minor - negative
Comment on sig-
nificance
I am comfortable with the finding of Major Significance pre mitigation & the reduction to
Minor post mitigation, as mitigation for this impact is absolute
Cumulative im-
pacts See Section 6.4
Specific to 400kV
The critical clearances on 400kV are large enough to be bird safe with any design. The significance of
electrocution on 400kV is Negligible. Since national populations of nationally Red Listed species are
affected this impact will be at a national scale
70
Table 13. Assessment of bird electrocution on 400kV line.
Project phase Operation
Impact Electrocution of birds perched on towers
Description of
impact
Birds electrocuted whilst perched on pylons through bridging the gap between live and
earthed or two live components
Mitigatability High Mitigation exists and will considerably reduce the significance of impacts
Potential miti-
gation
Not necessary, impact not possible on 400kV
Assessment Without mitigation With mitigation
Nature Negative Negative
Duration Permanent Impact may be permanent,
or in excess of 20 years
Permanent Impact may be permanent,
or in excess of 20 years
Extent National Impacts felt at a national
level
National Impacts felt at a national
level
Intensity Negligible Natural and/ or social func-
tions and/ or processes are
negligibly altered
Negligible Natural and/ or social func-
tions and/ or processes are
negligibly altered
Probability Highly un-
likely / none
Expected never to happen Highly un-
likely / none
Expected never to happen
Confidence High Substantive supportive data
exists to verify the assess-
ment
High Substantive supportive data
exists to verify the assess-
ment
Reversibility High The affected environmental
will be able to recover from
the impact
High The affected environmental
will be able to recover from
the impact
Resource irre-
placeability
Medium The resource is damaged ir-
reparably but is represented
elsewhere
Medium The resource is damaged ir-
reparably but is represented
elsewhere
Significance Negligible - negative Negligible - negative
Comment on
significance
I am comfortable with the finding of Negligible Significance both pre and post mitigation
Cumulative im-
pacts
See Section 6.4
6.2.3. Bird nesting on pylons/towers
The largely treeless landscape means that few opportunities exist for tree nesting bird species. Some of
these species have learnt to nest on transmission towers and will likely do so. These species include
Verreaux’s and Martial Eagle, Lanner Falcon, Rock and Greater Kestrel, Pale Chanting Goshawk, and
crows. Although this allows these birds to breed where they would otherwise have been unable to, it
does place them at greater risk which is not desirable. As has been noted previously in the report, bird
collisions on overhead lines from these type of raptors is not expected to be a significant issue, even
where they are nesting on the pylons. However the bigger issue would be if birds were nesting on the
pylons within the wind farm land or up to 6km from it due to the increased risk of turbine collisions this
would pose. The nesting substrate presented by a 132kV and a 400kV line differ significantly, so these
are dealt with separately below.
It must be noted that if the 400kV line option is used, it will extend up to the collector switching station
71
which will be situated in Nuweveld East Wind Farm. The 400kV structures would be in and next to
Nuweveld East turbines. From the collector substation onwards the lines running to the Nuweveld West
and North Wind Farms will be 132kV lines. Thus this potential impact would be for this last bit of the
400kV line within the wind farms and for 6km to the East of the first wind turbine along the line coming
into the wind farm from the west. This would result in about 10km of 400kV line being an issue.
Specific to 132kV
Nesting of the larger species described above is unlikely. Kestrels, Pale Chanting Goshawks and crows
could possibly nest on the pylons but these are not sensitive species. This impact is judged to be of
Negligible significance.
Table 14. Assessment of bird nesting on 132kV line.
Project phase Operation
Impact Bird nesting on power line
Description of
impact Birds nest on pylons/towers thereby at greater risk of collision/electrocution
Mitigatability Low Mitigation does not exist; or mitigation will slightly reduce the significance
of impacts
Potential mitiga-
tion Difficult to avoid on 132kV line and with smaller species but also unlikely to be significant
Assessment Without mitigation With mitigation
Nature Negative Negative
Duration Permanent Impact may be permanent,
or in excess of 20 years Permanent
Impact may be permanent,
or in excess of 20 years
Extent Limited Limited to the site and its
immediate surroundings Limited
Limited to the site and its
immediate surroundings
Intensity Negligible
Natural and/ or social func-
tions and/ or processes are
negligibly altered
Negligible
Natural and/ or social func-
tions and/ or processes are
negligibly altered
Probability Unlikely
Has not happened yet but
could happen once in the
lifetime of the project,
therefore there is a possibil-
ity that the impact will occur
Unlikely
Has not happened yet but
could happen once in the
lifetime of the project,
therefore there is a possibil-
ity that the impact will occur
Confidence High
Substantive supportive data
exists to verify the assess-
ment
High
Substantive supportive data
exists to verify the assess-
ment
Reversibility High
The affected environmental
will be able to recover from
the impact
High
The affected environmental
will be able to recover from
the impact
Resource irre-
placeability Low
The resource is not damaged
irreparably or is not scarce Low
The resource is not damaged
irreparably or is not scarce
Significance Negligible - negative Negligible - negative
Comment on sig-
nificance
I am comfortable with the finding of Negligible Significance for both the pre and post miti-
gation impact significance ratings
Cumulative im-
pacts See Section 6.4
72
Specific to 400kV
Nesting of the larger species is possible without mitigation on self supporting towers, which provide a
cross arm structure on which to nest. Nesting is far less likely on cross rope suspension towers which
provide no cross arm. If any self support towers are used on the power line these should be fitted with
bird guards to prevent birds nesting. This should be applied to the full length of the power line. We judge
this impact to be of Moderate significance pre-mitigation, but mitigated to Negligible significance.
Mitigation
» The cross rope suspension tower design (Figure 3) should be used. This provides less nesting
substrate. Only those towers absolutely necessary (due to technical reasons) should be
constructed on self support structures.
» “Bird Guards” (standard devices used by Eskom to stop birds perching on their towers) should
be installed on all the self supporting structures along the line. These bird guards should be
checked as part of the operational phase bird monitoring (Appendix 3) and if faulty they should
be replaced as soon as possible and within 3 months.
73
Table 15. Assessment of bird nesting on 400kV line.
Project phase Operation
Impact Bird nesting on power line
Description of
impact
Birds nest on pylons/towers thereby at greater risk of collision/electrocution
Mitigatability High Mitigation exists and will considerably reduce the significance of im-
pacts
Potential miti-
gation
Use the cross rope suspension tower design rather than self support. Install Eskom
Bird Guards on all self support towers along the line.
Assessment Without mitigation With miti-
gation
Nature Negative Negative
Duration Permanent Impact may be perma-
nent, or in excess of 20
years
Permanent Impact may be permanent,
or in excess of 20 years
Extent Limited Limited to the site and its
immediate surroundings
Limited Limited to the site and its
immediate surroundings
Intensity Moderate Natural and/ or social
functions and/ or pro-
cesses are moderately al-
tered
Very low Natural and/ or social func-
tions and/ or processes are
slightly altered
Probability Almost certain
/ Highly proba-
ble
It is most likely that the
impact will occur
Rare / im-
probable
Conceivable, but only in ex-
treme circumstances,
and/or might occur for this
project although this has
rarely been known to re-
sult elsewhere
Confidence High Substantive supportive
data exists to verify the
assessment
High Substantive supportive
data exists to verify the as-
sessment
Reversibility Medium The affected environ-
ment will only recover
from the impact with sig-
nificant intervention
High The affected environmen-
tal will be able to recover
from the impact
Resource irre-
placeability
Medium The resource is damaged
irreparably but is repre-
sented elsewhere
Medium The resource is damaged
irreparably but is repre-
sented elsewhere
Significance Moderate - negative Negligible - negative
Comment on
significance
I am comfortable with the finding of Moderate Significance before and Negligible signifi-
cance after mitigation
Cumulative im-
pacts
See Section 6.4
6.2.4. Electrical faulting caused by birds
Electrical faulting may occur on this proposed 400kV power line. Faulting is not typically recorded on
132kV lines.
Specific to 400kV
Large eagles perching on towers may cause electrical faulting through their faeces, as described earlier
in this report. This is an impact on the continuity of supply not the birds, as the birds are unharmed. We
74
judge the significance of this impact to be Moderate pre-mitigation.
Mitigation
» The cross rope suspension tower design (Figure 3) should be used. This provides less perching
substrate directly above live hardware. Self support towers should be used only where necessary
for technical reasons.
Table 16. Assessment of electrical faulting caused by birds on 400kV line.
Project phase Opera-
tion
Impact Electrical faulting caused by birds
Description of
impact
Birds perching on towers defecate thereby causing
electrical faults
Mitigatability High Mitigation exists and will considerably reduce the significance of impacts
Potential miti-
gation
Use the cross rope suspension tower (Figure 3) which provides less perching substrate di-
rectly above the live hardware. Self support towers should be used only where necessary
for technical reasons.
Assessment Without mitigation With
mitiga-
tion
Nature Negative Negative
Duration Perma-
nent
Impact may be permanent, or
in excess of 20 years
Perma-
nent
Impact may be permanent, or in ex-
cess of 20 years
Extent Regional Impacts felt at a regional /
provincial level
Regional Impacts felt at a regional / provin-
cial level
Intensity Moder-
ate
Natural and/ or social func-
tions and/ or processes are
moderately altered
Very low Natural and/ or social functions
and/ or processes are slightly al-
tered
Probability Likely The impact may occur Rare /
improba-
ble
Conceivable, but only in extreme
circumstances, and/or might occur
for this project although this has
rarely been known to result else-
where
Confidence High Substantive supportive data
exists to verify the assessment
High Substantive supportive data exists
to verify the assessment
Reversibility High The affected environmental
will be able to recover from
the impact
High The affected environmental will be
able to recover from the impact
Resource irre-
placeability
Low The resource is not damaged
irreparably or is not scarce
Low The resource is not damaged irrepa-
rably or is not scarce
Significance Moderate - negative Negligible - negative
Comment on
significance
I am comfortable with the rating of Moderate significance before mitigation and negligible
after.
Cumulative
impacts
See sec-
tion 6.4
75
6.3 Decommissioning Phase Impacts
6.3.1 Decommissioning Phase Impact 1 – Disturbance of birds
During the decommissioning of the various components of this grid connection project birds will be
subject to higher than normal traffic, noise and vibration. This all has the potential to disturb them and
impact on their daily activities. This impact is most relevant for breeding sensitive species such as raptors.
We judge the significance of this impact to be Minor pre-mitigation. This can be mitigated to Negligible
significance through the measures described below. The impact is very slightly greater for a 400kV line
than a 132kV line just due to the tower foundation sizes and larger laydown areas. This is however not
sufficient to change the ratings.
Mitigation
» Operational phase bird monitoring will allow us to design case specific mitigation measures for
decommissioning.
» All decommissioning activities should be strictly managed according to generally accepted
environmental best practice standards, so as to avoid any unnecessary impact on the receiving
environment.
Table 17. Assessment of bird disturbance during decommissioning.
Project phase Decommissioning
Impact Disturbance of birds
Description of
impact
Breeding birds disturbed by human, vehicular & machinery activity on site, including noise and vibration. Breeding productivity reduced, or breeding fails or breeding site aban-
doned.
Mitigatability High Mitigation exists and will considerably reduce the significance of impacts
Potential mitiga-
tion
Avoidance already applied earlier in project. Operational phase monitoring will identify
case specific mitigation measures in time for decommissioning
Assessment Without mitigation With mitigation
Nature Negative Negative
Duration Short term impact will last between 1
and 5 years Short term
impact will last between 1
and 5 years
Extent Limited Limited to the site and its
immediate surroundings Limited
Limited to the site and its
immediate surroundings
Intensity Low
Natural and/ or social func-
tions and/ or processes
are somewhat altered
Low
Natural and/ or social func-
tions and/ or processes
are somewhat altered
Probability
Almost cer-
tain / Highly
probable
It is most likely that the im-
pact will occur Unlikely
Has not happened yet but
could happen once in the
lifetime of the project,
therefore there is a possibil-
ity that the impact will occur
Confidence Medium
Determination is based on
common sense and general
knowledge
Medium
Determination is based on
common sense and general
knowledge
76
Reversibility High
The affected environmental
will be able to recover from
the impact
High
The affected environmental
will be able to recover from
the impact
Resource irre-
placeability Low
The resource is not damaged
irreparably or is not scarce Low
The resource is not damaged
irreparably or is not scarce
Significance Minor - negative Negligible - negative
Comment on sig-
nificance I am comfortable with rating of Minor negative before mitigation and Negligible after.
Cumulative im-
pacts See section 6.4
6.4 Cumulative Impacts
A cumulative impact, in relation to an activity, means the past, current and reasonable foreseeable future
impact of an activity, considered together with the impact of activities associated with that activity, that
in itself may not be significant, but may be significant when added to the existing and reasonable
foreseeable impacts eventuating from similar or diverse activities (as defined by NEMA EIA Reg 1).
The cumulative impacts of the grid on avifauna in the Nuweveld area have been assessed according to
the guidance in the DEA (DEAT (2004) Cumulative Effects Assessment, Integrated Environmental
Management, Information Series 7, Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT), Pretoria);
and the IFC guidelines (Good Practice Handbook - Cumulative Impact Assessment and Management:
Guidance for the Private Sector in Emerging Markets”. Specifically, the steps to be undertaken in the
cumulative impact assessment section of the study will be as follows:
1. Define and assess the impacts of the Nuweveld Grid Connection corridor project.
2. Identify and obtain details for all operational and authorised overhead power lines (within 30km
radius of Nuweveld Grid connection corridor).
3. Identify impacts of the proposed Nuweveld Grid connection which are also likely or already exist
at the other projects.
4. Obtain reports and data for other projects.
5. As far as possible quantify the effect of all projects on key bird species local populations (will
need to be defined and estimated).
6. Express the likely impacts associated with the Nuweveld Grid connection project as a proportion
of the overall impacts on key species.
7. A reasoned overall opinion will be expressed on the suitability of the proposed development
against the above background (i.e. whether the receiving environment can afford to
accommodate additional similar impacts). This will include a cumulative impact assessment
statement.
8. The decision making process with respect to the above will be clearly documented in the report.
77
Figure 18 shows the existing overhead power line in the study area. Once the Grid Connection corridor
leaves the vicinity of Beaufort West there is only one 22kV line which runs along the same route until
the top of De Jagers Pass. In the area immediately around Beaufort West multiple existing power lines
of different voltages exist due to the presence of Droërivier and other substations.
There is no meaningful difference between the cumulative impact of a 132kV line and a 400kV line so
the significance ratings are the same for both of them. We have summarised our findings with respect
to cumulative impacts in the table below: Since the proposed power line is the only power line of this
size in most of the study area, the impacts of the proposed line are in fact equal to the full cumulative
impact of power lines in the area. The reason for this is that in the more sensitive areas of the study area
(i.e. excluding the first few kilometres around the Droerivier Substation) there are almost no other power
lines. The contribution of the Nuweveld power line to the cumulative impacts of power lines on avifauna
in the area is therefore deemed to be High since it is almost the only contributing development in the
area.
Impact Pre-mitigation Post-mitigation
Construction Phase Impact 1 – Habitat destruction Minor Minor
Construction Phase Impact 2 - Disturbance Moderate Minor
Operational Phase Impact 1 – Collision Major Minor-Moderate Operational Phase Impact 2 – Electrocution Major Minor
Operational Phase Impact 3 – Nesting Negligible Negligible
Operational Phase Impact 4 – Electrical faulting Moderate Negligible
Decommissioning Phase Impact 1 – Disturbance Moderate Negligible
The cumulative impact of the proposed power line along with the three proposed wind farms was
assessed. Relative to the impact of the three wind farms, the impact of the proposed power line on birds
is relatively minor. Very little habitat destruction will take place, there will be little disturbance, and the
impacts of electrocution and collision can be mitigated to a large extent. The combined/cumulative
impact of the power line plus three wind farms is rated in the table below.
Impact Pre-mitigation Post-mitigation
Construction Phase Impact 1 – Habitat destruction Moderate Moderate
Construction Phase Impact 2 - Disturbance Moderate Minor
Operational Phase Impact 1 – Collision Major Minor-Moderate
Operational Phase Impact 2 – Electrocution Major Minor
Operational Phase Impact 3 – Nesting Negligible Negligible
Operational Phase Impact 4 – Electrical faulting Moderate Negligible
Decommissioning Phase Impact 1 – Disturbance Moderate Minor
78
Figure 18. Existing overhead power line (red lines) in the study area (map from Aurecon).
79
6.5 Impacts of No-Go Alternative
The No-Go alternative would result in no infrastructure being built on site. As a result none of the
predicted impacts on birds described in Section 5 would take place. The significance of impacts of the
No-Go alternative on avifauna would therefore be Negligible.
80
7. CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS
We draw the following conclusions regarding the avifaunal community and potential impacts of the
Nuweveld Grid connection:
» We classified six bird species as top most priority for this assessment. These are: Ludwig's
Bustard; Martial Eagle, Verreaux’s Eagle; African Rock Pipit; Black Stork and Karoo Korhaan. The
large terrestrial species such as bustards and korhaans are particularly at risk of collision with
overhead power lines. The raptors are at risk of electrocution, disturbance and risks associated
with nesting on power line pylons. All species are at risk of habitat destruction and disturbance.
» The primary means of mitigating risk to birds is to route the power line to avoid key sensitive
areas or features. To this end a number of key avifaunal aspects have been identified on site, in
particular eagle nests and some large water bodies close to Beaufort West. These have been
mapped as no-go areas (with a maximum of 1km line being allowed through these areas) when
considering the routing of the line within the corridor.
We make the following findings with respect to impact significance for avifauna, according to the formal
impact assessment methodology and tables provided by the EAP.
Impact Pre-mitigation Post-mitigation
Nuweveld Grid Connection
Construction Phase Impact 1 – Habitat destruction Minor Minor
Construction Phase Impact 2 - Disturbance Moderate Minor
Operational Phase Impact 1 – Collision Major Minor-
Moderate3
Operational Phase Impact 2 – Electrocution Major (132kv) Minor
Operational Phase Impact 3 – Nesting Moderate (400kv) Negligible
Operational Phase Impact 4 – Electrical faulting Moderate (400kv) Negligible
Decommissioning Phase Impact 1 – Disturbance Minor Negligible
Cumulative Impacts
Construction Phase Impact 1 – Habitat destruction Minor Minor
Construction Phase Impact 2 - Disturbance Moderate Minor
Operational Phase Impact 1 – Collision Major Minor-Moderate
Operational Phase Impact 2 – Electrocution Major Minor
Operational Phase Impact 3 – Nesting Negligible Negligible
Operational Phase Impact 4 – Electrical faulting Moderate Negligible
Decommissioning Phase Impact 1 – Disturbance Moderate Negligible
3 Using the methodology the impact is rated as minor but the specialist has reasons to believe a moderate rating
is a truer indication of impact significance
81
The following table provides a comparative summary of impact significance rating between the 132kv
and 400kv options, and also presents the worst case scenario, which is the combination of worst case
impacts taken from both options and which is intended inform a decision.
Impact 132 kV powerline 400 kV powerline WCS
Pre-
mitigation
Post-
mitigation
Pre-
mitigation
Post-
mitigation
Pre-
mitigation
Post-
mitigation
Construction
Phase Impact 1 –
Habitat
destruction
Minor (-) Minor (-) Minor (-) Minor (-) Minor (-) Minor (-)
Construction
Phase Impact 2 -
Disturbance
Moderate
(-)
Minor (-) Moderate (-) Minor (-) Moderate
(-)
Minor (-)
Operational
Phase Impact 1 –
Collision
Major (-) Minor-
Moderate (-)
Major (-) Minor -
Moderate
(-)
Major (-) Minor (-)
Operational
Phase Impact 2 –
Electrocution
Major (-) Minor (-) Negligible (-) Negligible
(-)
Major (-) Minor (-)
Operational
Phase Impact 3 –
Nesting
Negligible
(-)
Negligible (-) Moderate (-) Negligible
(-)
Moderate
(-)
Negligible
(-)
Operational
Phase Impact 4 –
Electrical faulting
Negligible
(-)
Negligible (-) Moderate (-) Negligible
(-)
Moderate
(-)
Negligible
(-)
Decommissioning
Phase Impact 1 –
Disturbance
Minor (-) Negligible (-) Minor (-) Negligible
(-)
Minor (-) Negligible
(-)
Although extensive avoidance of impacts has already been applied on this project via a pre-application
screening and constraints identification process that informed the current corridor alignment and shape,
we recommend the following additional mitigation measures to manage and further reduce the
significance of impacts on birds:
» The mapped No-Go areas identified by this study should be adhered to. With the exception of
up to a 1km allowance of power line in identified no-go areas (subject to the approval of the
specialist and any additional mitigation that may be required).
» Use should be made of existing roads, and impacted areas for laydown areas.
» A new road the whole way up the escarpment should not be built, any towers in the escarpment
crossing should be accessed via tracks along the contour to limit vegetation clearance and
scarring of the landscape at this location.
82
» A pre-construction avifaunal walk down should be conducted to confirm final layout, identify
any sensitivities that may arise between the EIA and construction and make micro adjustments
to the layout and design to accommodate these.
» All construction activities should be strictly managed according to generally accepted
environmental best practice standards, so as to avoid any unnecessary impact on the receiving
environment.
» A post construction inspection must be conducted by an avifaunal specialist to confirm that all
aspects have been appropriately handled and all mitigation has been implemented correctly.
» Monitoring of the breeding status of Verreaux’s and Martial Eagles should be conducted in all
breeding seasons post acceptance of the project as preferred bidder (to establish baseline) and
including during and post construction.
» Earth wires on high risk sections of the power line should be fitted with the latest Eskom
approved anti bird collision line marking devices to make cables more visible to birds in flight
and reduce the likelihood of collisions. High risk sections of line should be identified by the pre-
construction avifaunal walk through. These devices must be maintained in working order for the
lifespan of the power line. Any devices that are found to have failed during the monitoring of the
line must be reported and these must be replaced within three months The project proponent
should support the Endangered Wildlife Trust research into Ludwig’s Bustard power line collision
and mitigation devices. Any new line marking devices proven effective for Ludwig’s Bustard by
Eskom-EWT research should be installed on the line as soon as possible if the existing devices
are not proving effective for this species.
» For the 132kV line, we recommend using the pylon design presented in this report (Figure 4) and
the Eskom Bird Perch on each pole top. If any other design is considered this will require sign off
from the avifaunal specialist and may change these ratings.
» The monitoring programme outlined in Appendix 3 should be implemented according to the
latest available version of the best practice guidelines at the time.
» There is a possibility that if the grid connection power line is 400kV, the steel lattice tower
structures could provide suitable nesting substrate for Martial Eagle (and other eagle species)
and that the species may start to breed on the power lines. Although this appears at face value
to be a positive impact for such birds, we don’t believe it is wise to enable them to live and breed
in such close proximity to the power line. For the 400kV option we thus recommend prioritising
the use of the cross rope suspension structures with self support 400kV pylons only being used
where it is not technically practical to use the cross rope suspension tower design (such as at all
points were a strain structure is required at bends, going up steep slopes etc).
» “Bird Guards” (standard devices used by Eskom to stop birds perching on their towers) must be
installed on all the self support structures along the line. These bird guards should be checked
as part of the operational phase bird monitoring (Appendix 3) and if faulty they should be
83
replaced as soon as is practically possible but not later than within three months given these will
be high voltage live Eskom lines that make up part of the national grid.
» Decommissioning of a portion of the national gridline is unlikely, but should it occur, this should
be strictly managed according to generally accepted environmental best practice standards of
the time, so as to limit unnecessary impact on the receiving environment.
The cumulative impacts of power lines on birds in the area are equal to those of the proposed project
alone, since so little other overhead power line exists. The mitigation measures recommended for this
power line will be sufficient to reduce the cumulative impacts. The only impact of Major significance,
namely the collision & electrocution on power lines, can be mitigated to Minor significance through the
mitigation measures provided.
The cumulative impact of the proposed power line plus the three wind farms on birds will be slightly
higher since a larger area will be affected. These impacts can also be successfully mitigated by applying
the mitigation measures recommended in each of the four assessments (three wind farms plus power
line).
The impact assessment assesses the pre-mitigation and residual impacts of the project, should the worst
case scenario (WCS), in terms of infrastructure type, be developed within the corridor. The WCS
considers the impact significance of the development of the 132 kV and 400 kV power line, identifies
which may have the highest negative impact (pre and post mitigation), and presents this as the option
for approval. While the WCS impact is presented for approval, it should be noted that only one of the
power line options, either 132kV or 400kV, would be developed within the corridor. It is argued that if
the residual overall impact of the WCS is deemed acceptable after mitigation, then the development of
either a 132 kV or 400 kV power line within this corridor would be acceptable.
The most sensitive area of the corridor is where the power line must ascend the escarpment, west of De
Jagers Pass. If the optimal alignment for this area can be used, which avoids the identified no-go and
sensitive areas, and all other mitigation measures are implemented correctly, the residual impacts on
avifauna would be within acceptable levels for both the 400kV and the 132kV option and the application
as a whole. Under these circumstances we find no reason for the deciding authority to withhold approval
of this application on avifaunal grounds.
84
8. REFERENCES
Allan, D.G. & Anderson, M.D. 2010. Assessment of the threats faced by South African bustards.
Unpublished BirdLife South Africa report.
Allan, D. G. 2003. Abundance sex ratio, breeding and habitat of Stanley’s Bustard Neotis denhami stanleyi
in western South Africa. Durban Museum, Novit 28: 1-10.
Alonso, J. A., & Alonso, J. C. 1999. Collision of birds with overhead transmission lines in Spain. In: Ferrer
M and Janss F E (eds), Birds and powerlines, Quercus, Madrid, pp57 - 82.
Anderson, M. D. 2001. The effectiveness of two different marking devices to reduce large terrestrial bird
collisions with overhead electricity cables in the eastern Karoo, South Africa. Karoo Large Terrestrial Bird
Powerline Project, Directorate Conservation & Environment (Northern Cape), Kimberley.
Barrios, L. & Rodriguez, A. 2004. Behavioral and environmental correlates of soaring-bird mortality at on-
shore wind turbines. Journal of Applied Ecology 41: 72-81
Bevanger, K. 1994. Bird interactions with utility structures: collision and electrocution, causes and
mitigating measures. Ibis 136: 412-425. 184
Bevanger, K. 1998. Biological and conservation aspects of bird mortality caused by electricity power lines:
a review. Biological Conservation 86: 67-76.
Bevanger, K. 1999. Estimating bird mortality caused by collision and electrocution with power lines; a
review of methodology. In: Ferrer, M. and Janss, G.F.E. (Eds.) Birds and Power Lines. Collision,
Electrocution and Breeding: pages 29-56. Servicios Informativos Ambientales/Quercus, Madrid.
Bibby, C.J., Burgess, N.D., Hill, D.A., & Mustoe, S. 2000. Bird Census Techniques. Academic Press, London.
BirdLife South Africa. 2017. Verreaux’s Eagle and Wind Farms: Guidelines for Impact Assessment,
monitoring and mitigation. BirdLife South Africa Occasional Report Series.
Boshoff, A.F. 1993. Density, breeding performance and stability of Martial Eagles Polemaetus bellicosus
breeding on electricity pylons in the Nama-Karoo, South Africa. In Wilson RT (ed) Birds and the African
Environment: Proc. Of the 8th Pan-Afr. Ornithol. Congr. Pp 95-504
Brooke, R.K. 1984. An assessment of rare, vulnerable and endangered South African breeding birds. In:
Ledger, J. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Fifth Pan-African Ornithological Congress, Lilongwe 1980, pp. 567-
85
576. Johannesburg: Southern African Ornithological Society.
Claassen, J., Rodriques, L., & Davies, R. 2013. The present status and breeding success of Verreaux's
Eagles (Aquila verreauxii) in the Karoo National Park and surrounding areas. Unpublished research report.
Davies, R. A. G., and D. G. Allan. 1997. "Black eagle Aquila verreauxii." The atlas of southern African
birds 1 175-177.
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
Endangered Wildlife Trust-Eskom, 2019. Eskom-EWT Strategic Partnership Central Incident Register data
for the Karoo.
Erickson, W.P., Johnson, G.D., Strickland, M.D., Kronner, K., & Bekker, P.S. 1999. Baseline avian use and
behaviour at the CARES wind plant site, Klickitat county, Washington. Final Report. Prepared for the
National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
Erickson, W.P., Johnson, G.D., Strickland, M.D., Young, D.P., Sernka, K.J., Good, R.E. 2001. Avian collisions
with wind turbines: a summary of existing studies and comparison to other sources of avian collision
mortality in the United States. National Wind Co-ordinating Committee Resource Document.
Erickson, W.P., Johnson, G.D., Strickland, M.D., Young, Good, R., Bourassa, M., & Bay, K. 2002. Synthesis
and comparison of baseline avian and bat use, raptor nesting and mortality from proposed and existing
wind developments. Prepared for Bonneville Power Administration.
Gargett, Valerie, and Peter J. Mundy. 1990. The black eagle: a study. Acorn Books.
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.
IFC. Good Practice Handbook - Cumulative Impact Assessment and Management: Guidance for the
Private Sector in Emerging Markets”. International Finance Corporation.
IUCN 2019. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. <www.iucnredlist.org>.
86
Janss, G. 2000. Bird behaviour in and near a wind farm at Tarifa, Spain: Management considerations. In
Proceedings of National Avian-Wind Power Planning Meeting III, San Diego California, May 1998
Jaroslow, B. 1979. A review of factors involved in bird-tower kills, and mitigation procedures. In G.A.
Swanson (Tech co-ord). The Mitigation symposium. A national workshop on mitigation losses of Fish and
Wildlife Habitats. US Forest Service General Technical Report. RM-65
Jenkins, A.R., Shaw, J.M., Smallie, J.J., Gibbons, B., Visagie, R. and Ryan, P.G. 2011. Estimating the impacts
of power line collisions on Ludwig’s Bustards Neotis ludwigii. Bird Conservation International 21: 303 –
310.
Jenkins, A., De Goede, K, & Van Rooyen, C. 2007. Improving the products of the Eskom Electric Eagle
Project. Unpublished report to Eskom Research
Jenkins, A.R., Van Rooyen, C.S., Smallie, J., Harrison, J.A., Diamond, M., Smit-Robbinson, H.A. & Ralston,
S. 2015. “Best practice guidelines for assessing and monitoring the impact of wind energy facilities on
birds in southern Africa” Unpublished guidelines
Karoo Birding Safaris. 2018. Die Poort Wind Farm Site Scoping Report. Unpublished report submitted to
RedCap.
Leeuwner, L. 2019. Manager of Wildlife & Energy Programme, Endangered Wildlife Trust. Personal
communication.
Malan, G. 2009. (ed) Raptor survey and monitoring: a field guide for African birds of prey. Briza.
Marnewick MD, Retief EF, Theron NT, Wright DR, Anderson TA. 2015. Important Bird and Biodiversity
Areas of South Africa. Johannesburg: BirdLife South Africa.
Martin and Shaw
Martin
Martinéz, J.E., Calco, J.F., Martinéz, J.A., Zuberogoitia, I., Cerezo, E., Manrique, J., Gómez, G.J., Nevado,
J.C., Sánchez, M., Sánchez, R., Bayo, J. Pallarés, A., González, C., Gómez, J.M., Pérez, P. & Motos, J. 2010.
Potential impact of wind farms on territories of large eagles in southeastern Spain. Biodiversity and
Conservation 19: 3757-3767.
Mucina, L., & Rutherford, C. 2006. The Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland, South African
87
National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.
Pool-Stanvliet, R., Duffell-Canham, A., Pence, G. & Smart, R. 2017. The Western Cape Biodiversity Spatial
Plan Handbook. Stellenbosch: CapeNature.
Ralston-Paton, S., Smallie, J., Pearson, A., & Ramalho, R. 2017. Wind energy’s impacts on birds in South
Africa: a preliminary review of the results of operational monitoring at the first wind farms of the
Renewable Energy Independent Power Producer Procurement Programme Wind Farms in South Africa.
BirdLife South Africa Occasional Report Series No. 2. BirdLife South Africa, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Ralston-Paton, S. & Camagu, N. 2019. Birds and Renewable Energy: Update for 2019. Unpublished
presentation at the Birds & Renewable Energy Forum on 10 October 2019, Cape Town.
Shaw, J.M. 2009. The End of the Line for South Africa’s National Bird? Modelling Power Line Collision Risk
for the Blue Crane. Master of Science in Conservation Biology. Percy FitzPatrick Institute of African
Ornithology
Shaw J, Jenkins AR and Ryan PG 2010a. Modelling power line collision risk in the Blue Crane Anthropoides
paradiseus in South Africa. Ibis 152: 590-599.
Shaw J, Jenkins AR, Ryan PG and Smallie J. 2010b. A preliminary survey of avian mortality on power lines
in the Overberg, South Africa. Ostrich 81: 109-113.
Shaw, J.M. 2013. Power line collisions in the Karoo: Conserving Ludwig’s Bustard. PhD Thesis, University
of Cape Town, Cape Town.
Shaw, J. M, Pretorius, M.D., Gibbons, B., Mohale, O., Visagie, R., Leeuwner, J.L., & Ryan, P.G. 2017. The
effectiveness of line markers in reducing power line collisions of large terrestrial birds at De Aar, Northern
Cape. Unpublished report to Eskom Research.
Smallie, J. 2019. Nuweveld Wind Farms Pre-construction Bird Monitoring Progress reports 1 and 2.
Unpublished reports submitted to Red Cap.
Taylor, M. R, Peacock, F., & Wanless, R. 2015. The 2015 Eskom Red Data Book of Birds of South Africa,
Lesotho & Swaziland.
Taylor, P.B., Navarro, R.A., Wren-Sargent, M., Harrison, J.A. & Kieswetter, S.L. 1999. Coordinated water-
bird Counts in South Africa, 1992-1997. Avian Demography Unit, Cape Town.
88
Van Rooyen , C.S. & Ledger, J.A. 1999. Birds and utility structures: Developments in southern Africa. Pp
205-230 in Ferrer, M. & G..F.M. Janns. (eds.) Birds and Power lines. Quercus, Madrid, Spain. 238pp.
Van Rooyen, C.S. 2004. The Management of Wildlife Interactions with overhead lines. In: The
Fundamentals and practice of Overhead Line Maintenance (132kV and above), pp217-245. Eskom
Technology, Services International, Johannesburg 2004.
Young, D.J., Harrison, J.A., Navarro, R.A., Anderson, M.D., & Colahan, B.D. (eds) 2003. Big Birds on Farms:
Mazda CAR Report 1993-2001. Avian Demography Unit. Cape Town.
Websites:
www.sabap2.adu.org.za. The Second Southern African Bird Atlas Project. In progress.
www.iucnredlist.org.
www.abcbirds.org American Bird Conservancy
www.sibleyguides.com Sibley Guides
www.nssf.org National Shooting Sports Foundation
www.project-gpwind.eu The Good Practice Wind project
www.birdlife.org Birdlife International
www.birdlife.org.za BirdLife South Africa
www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 2019
www.car.adu.org.za. CAR project
www. cwac.adu.org.za CWAC project
www.redz.csir.co.za
www.africanraptors.org
89
APPENDIX 1. SUMMARY OF BIRD SPECIES DATA.
‘1’ denotes presence not abundance
Regional conservation status - Taylor et al 2015 – most recent regional conservation status for species.
Global conservation status - IUCN 2019
Endemic - SLS = South Africa, Lesotho, Swaziland; (*) = near endemic
TOPS – National Environmental Management Act – Threatened or Protected Species List
SABAP1 & SABAP2 – recorded by these Southern African Bird Atlas Projects
Site – recorded on site
Common name Taxonomic name SAB
AP1
SAB
AP2
Status
(Regional,
Global)
TOPS Endemic Retief
et al
2014
Spe-
cialist
site
visit
Site
Bustard, Ludwig's Neotis ludwigii 1 1 EN, EN VU
13
1
Harrier, Black Circus maurus 1 1 EN, EN
(*) 6
Stork, Yellow-billed Mycteria ibis
1 EN, LC
9
Eagle, Martial Polemaetus bellicosus 1 1 EN, VU VU
4 1
Woodpecker, Ground Geocolaptes olivaceus 1 1 LC, NT
SLS 115
Sandpiper, Curlew Calidris ferruginea 1 1 LC, NT
Pipit, African Rock Anthus crenatus 1 1 NT, LC
SLS 77
1
Flamingo, Greater Phoenicopterus ruber 1 1 NT, LC
27
Korhaan, Karoo Eupodotis vigorsii 1 1 NT, LC
51 1 1
Bustard, Kori Ardeotis kori 1 1 NT, NT VU
39
Crane, Blue Anthropoides paradi-
seus
1 NT, VU EN
11 1
Duck, Maccoa Oxyura maccoa
1 NT, VU
Stork, Black Ciconia nigra 1 1 VU, LC VU
8 1
Eagle, Verreaux's Aquila verreauxii 1 1 VU, LC
3 1 1
Falcon, Lanner Falco biarmicus 1 1 VU, LC
23
1
Secretarybird Sagittarius serpentarius 1 1 VU, VU
12
Kestrel, Lesser Falco naumanni 1
VU
64
White-eye, Cape Zosterops virens 1 1
(*) 183
1
Buzzard, Jackal Buteo rufofuscus 1 1
(*) 44 1 1
Sparrowlark, Black-eared Eremopterix australis 1 1
(*) 108
1
Canary, Black-headed Serinus alario 1 1
(*) 109
1
Lark, Cape Clapper Mirafra apiata 1 1
(*) 122
Lark, Karoo Calendulauda albescens 1 1
(*) 124
1
Lark, Large-billed Galerida magnirostris 1 1
(*) 125 1
Warbler, Namaqua Phragmacia substriata 1 1
(*) 128
1
Tchagra, Southern Tchagra tchagra 1 1
(*) 129
Warbler, Cinnamon-
breasted
Euryptila subcin-
namomea
1 1
(*) 145
Eremomela, Karoo Eremomela gregalis 1 1
(*) 154
Tit-babbler, Layard's Parisoma layardi 1 1
(*) 155
1
90
Prinia, Karoo Prinia maculosa 1 1
(*) 157
1
Chat, Sickle-winged Cercomela sinuata 1 1
(*) 158
1
Flycatcher, Fairy Stenostira scita 1 1
(*) 170
1
Weaver, Cape Ploceus capensis 1 1
(*) 182
Sunbird, Southern Dou-
ble-collared
Cinnyris chalybeus 1 1
(*) 184
1
Tit, Grey Parus afer 1 1
(*) 186
1
Flycatcher, Fiscal Sigelus silens 1 1
(*) 187
1
Thrush, Karoo Turdus smithi 1 1
(*)
1
Francolin, Grey-winged Scleroptila africanus 1 1
SLS 79
1
Starling, Pied Spreo bicolor 1 1
SLS 116 1 1
Fish-eagle, African Haliaeetus vocifer
1
29
Eagle, Booted Aquila pennatus 1 1
55
1
Stork, White Ciconia ciconia 1
61
Buzzard, Steppe Buteo vulpinus 1 1
69 1 1
Goshawk, Pale Chanting Melierax canorus 1 1
75 1 1
Harrier-Hawk, African Polyboroides typus 1 1
83
1
Kite, Black-shouldered Elanus caeruleus 1 1
94
1
Kestrel, Greater Falco rupicoloides 1 1
95
Sparrowhawk, Black Accipiter melanoleucus 1 1
101
Sparrowhawk, Rufous-
chested
Accipiter rufiventris 1
102
Kestrel, Rock Falco rupicolus 1 1
111 1 1
Sandgrouse, Namaqua Pterocles namaqua 1 1
112
1
Hamerkop Scopus umbretta 1 1
118 1
Bunting, Lark-like Emberiza impetuani 1 1
126
1
Goshawk, Gabar Melierax gabar 1 1
131
Spurfowl, Cape Pternistis capensis
1
133
Plover, Three-banded Charadrius tricollaris 1 1
140
Heron, Black-headed Ardea melanocephala 1 1
141
Lark, Karoo Long-billed Certhilauda subcoro-
nata
1 1
148 1 1
Warbler, Rufous-eared Malcorus pectoralis 1 1
149
1
Lapwing, Blacksmith Vanellus armatus 1 1
159 1 1
Goose, Egyptian Alopochen aegyptiacus 1 1
162
1
Wheatear, Capped Oenanthe pileata 1 1
167
Batis, Pririt Batis pririt 1 1
168
1
Chat, Tractrac Cercomela tractrac 1 1
171
1
Starling, Wattled Creatophora cinerea 1 1
173
Chat, Karoo Cercomela schlegelii 1 1
177
1
Swift, Horus Apus horus 1
180
Egret, Cattle Bubulcus ibis 1 1
189
Nightjar, Fiery-necked Caprimulgus pectoralis 1
193 1
Nightjar, Rufous-cheeked Caprimulgus rufigena 1 1
195
91
Sunbird, Dusky Cinnyris fuscus 1 1
199
1
Shrike, Lesser Grey Lanius minor 1
200
Apalis, Bar-throated Apalis thoracica 1
Avocet, Pied Recurvirostra avosetta 1 1
Barbet, Acacia Pied Tricholaema leucomelas 1 1
1 1
Bee-eater, European Merops apiaster 1 1
1
Bishop, Southern Red Euplectes orix 1 1
1
Bittern, Little Ixobrychus minutus 1
Bokmakierie Telophorus zeylonus 1 1
1 1
Bulbul, African Red-eyed Pycnonotus nigricans 1 1
1
Bunting, Cape Emberiza capensis 1 1
1 1
Bunting, Cinnamon-
breasted
Emberiza tahapisi 1
Canary, Black-throated Crithagra atrogularis
1
1
Canary, Cape Serinus canicollis 1 1
Canary, White-throated Crithagra albogularis 1 1
1 1
Canary, Yellow Crithagra flaviventris 1 1
1
Chat, Anteating Myrmecocichla for-
micivora
1 1
1 1
Chat, Familiar Cercomela familiaris 1 1
1
Cisticola, Desert Cisticola aridulus
1
Cisticola, Grey-backed Cisticola subruficapilla 1 1
1
Cisticola, Levaillant's Cisticola tinniens 1 1
Cisticola, Zitting Cisticola juncidis 1 1
Cliff-swallow, South Afri-
can
Hirundo spilodera 1 1
Coot, Red-knobbed Fulica cristata 1 1
Cormorant, Reed Phalacrocorax africanus 1 1
Cormorant, White-breasted
Phalacrocorax carbo 1 1
Courser, Double-banded Rhinoptilus africanus
1
Crombec, Long-billed Sylvietta rufescens 1 1
1
Crow, Cape Corvus capensis 1 1
1 1
Crow, Pied Corvus albus 1 1
1 1
Cuckoo, Diderick Chrysococcyx caprius 1 1
Cuckoo, Jacobin Clamator jacobinus 1
Darter, African Anhinga rufa
1
Dove, Laughing Streptopelia senega-
lensis
1 1
1 1
Dove, Namaqua Oena capensis 1 1
1
Dove, Red-eyed Streptopelia semitor-
quata
1 1
1 1
Dove, Rock Columba livia 1
Drongo, Fork-tailed Dicrurus adsimilis 1 1
Duck, African Black Anas sparsa 1 1
Duck, White-faced Dendrocygna viduata 1
92
Duck, Yellow-billed Anas undulata 1 1
Eagle-owl, Cape Bubo capensis 1 1
Eagle-owl, Spotted Bubo africanus 1 1
Egret, Little Egretta garzetta
1
Eremomela, Yellow-bel-
lied
Eremomela icteropygi-
alis
1 1
1
Finch, Red-headed Amadina erythroceph-
ala
1
Finch, Scaly-feathered Sporopipes squamifrons 1
1
Firefinch, Red-billed Lagonosticta senegala 1
Fiscal, Common (South-
ern)
Lanius collaris 1 1
1 1
Flycatcher, Chat Bradornis infuscatus 1 1
1 1
Flycatcher, Spotted Muscicapa striata 1 1
Goose, Spur-winged Plectropterus gamben-
sis
1 1
Grebe, Black-necked Podiceps nigricollis
1
Grebe, Great Crested Podiceps cristatus
1
Grebe, Little Tachybaptus ruficollis 1 1
Greenshank, Common Tringa nebularia 1 1
Guineafowl, Helmeted Numida meleagris 1 1
1 1
Heron, Grey Ardea cinerea 1 1
Heron, Purple Ardea purpurea 1
Honeyguide, Greater Indicator indicator 1
Honeyguide, Lesser Indicator minor 1
Hoopoe, African Upupa africana 1 1
1
Hornbill, Southern Yel-
low-billed
Tockus leucomelas
1
House-martin, Common Delichon urbicum 1 1
Ibis, African Sacred Threskiornis aethiopicus 1 1
Ibis, Glossy Plegadis falcinellus 1 1
Ibis, Hadeda Bostrychia hagedash 1 1
1
Kingfisher, Brown-hooded Halcyon albiventris 1 1
Kingfisher, Giant Megaceryle maximus 1 1
Kingfisher, Malachite Alcedo cristata 1 1
Kingfisher, Pied Ceryle rudis 1 1
Kite, Yellow-billed Milvus parasitus
1
Lapwing, Crowned Vanellus coronatus 1 1
1 1
Lark, Eastern Clapper Mirafra fasciolata 1 1
1
Lark, Red-capped Calandrella cinerea 1 1
Lark, Sabota Calendulauda sabota 1 1
1
Lark, Spike-heeled Chersomanes albofas-
ciata
1 1
1 1
Martin, Brown-throated Riparia paludicola 1 1
Martin, Rock Hirundo fuligula 1 1
1
Masked-weaver, South-
ern
Ploceus velatus 1 1
1
93
Moorhen, Common Gallinula chloropus 1 1
Mousebird, Red-faced Urocolius indicus 1 1
1 1
Mousebird, White-backed Colius colius 1 1
1
Neddicky Cisticola fulvicapilla
1
Night-Heron, Black-
crowned
Nycticorax nycticorax 1
Openbill, African Anastomus lamelligerus
1
Ostrich, Common Struthio camelus 1 1
Penduline-tit, Cape Anthoscopus minutus 1 1
1
Pigeon, Speckled Columba guinea 1 1
1 1
Pipit, African Anthus cinnamomeus 1 1
1
Pipit, Long-billed Anthus similis 1 1
1
Pipit, Plain-backed Anthus leucophrys 1 1
1
Plover, Kittlitz's Charadrius pecuarius 1 1
Pochard, Southern Netta erythrophthalma 1 1
Prinia, Spotted Prinia hypoxantha 1
Quail, Common Coturnix coturnix 1
Quelea, Red-billed Quelea quelea 1 1
1
Raven, White-necked Corvus albicollis 1 1
1 1
Reed-warbler, African Acrocephalus baetica-
tus
1 1
Robin-chat, Cape Cossypha caffra 1 1
1
Rock-thrush, Short-toed Monticola brevipes 1 1
Ruff Philomachus pugnax 1 1
Rush-warbler, Little Bradypterus baboecala 1
Sandpiper, Common Actitis hypoleucos 1 1
Sandpiper, Marsh Tringa stagnatilis 1 1
Sandpiper, Wood Tringa glareola 1 1
Scrub-robin, Karoo Cercotrichas
coryphoeus
1 1
1 1
Shelduck, South African Tadorna cana 1 1
1 1
Shoveler, Cape Anas smithii 1 1
Shrike, Red-backed Lanius collurio 1
Snipe, African Gallinago nigripennis
1
Sparrow, Cape Passer melanurus 1 1
1 1
Sparrow, Grey-headed Passer diffusus 1
Sparrow, House Passer domesticus 1 1
1
Sparrow, Northern Grey-headed
Passer griseus 1 1
Sparrow, Southern Grey-headed
Passer diffusus 1 1
Sparrowlark, Grey-backed Eremopterix verticalis 1 1
1
Spoonbill, African Platalea alba 1 1
1 1
Starling, Common Sturnus vulgaris 1 1
Starling, Pale-winged Onychognathus
nabouroup
1 1
1
94
Starling, Red-winged Onychognathus morio 1 1
1 1
Stilt, Black-winged Himantopus himan-
topus
1 1
1
Stint, Little Calidris minuta
1
Stonechat, African Saxicola torquatus 1 1
Sunbird, Malachite Nectarinia famosa 1 1
1
Swallow, Barn Hirundo rustica 1 1
1 1
Swallow, Greater Striped Hirundo cucullata 1 1
1
Swallow, White-throated Hirundo albigularis 1 1
Swamp-warbler, Lesser Acrocephalus graciliros-
tris
1 1
Swift, African Black Apus barbatus 1 1
Swift, Alpine Tachymarptis melba 1 1
1
Swift, Common Apus apus 1
1
Swift, Little Apus affinis 1 1
1
Swift, White-rumped Apus caffer 1 1
1
Teal, Cape Anas capensis 1 1
Teal, Red-billed Anas erythrorhyncha 1 1
Tern, White-winged Chlidonias leucopterus 1
Thick-knee, Spotted Burhinus capensis 1 1
Thrush, Olive Turdus olivaceus 1 1
Tit-babbler, Chestnut-
vented
Parisoma subcaeruleum 1 1
1
Turtle-dove, Cape Streptopelia capicola 1 1
1
Wagtail, Cape Motacilla capensis 1 1
1
Warbler, Willow Phylloscopus trochilus 1
Waxbill, Common Estrilda astrild 1 1
Wheatear, Mountain Oenanthe monticola 1 1
1 1
White-eye, Orange River Zosterops pallidus 1
Whydah, Pin-tailed Vidua macroura 1 1
1
Woodpecker, Cardinal Dendropicos fuscescens 1 1
95
APPENDIX 2. IMPACT ASSESSMENT CRITERIA (AURECON)
Methodology
This section outlines the proposed method for assessing the significance of the potential environmental
impacts. For each predicted impact, criteria are ascribed, and these include the intensity (size or degree
scale), which also includes the type of impact, being either a positive or negative impact; the duration
(temporal scale); and the extent (spatial scale), as well as the probability (likelihood). The methodology
is quantitative, whereby professional judgement is used to identify a rating for each criteria based on a
seven-point scale (Table 1); and the significance is auto-generated using a spreadsheet through
application of the calculations in Figure 1. Specialists can comment where they disagree with the auto-
calculated impact significance rating.
Figure 1. Calculation of significance
Table 1. Assessment criteria for the evaluation of impacts
Criteria Numeri-cal Rat-
ing Category Description
Dura-
tion
1 Immediate Impact will self-remedy immediately
2 Brief Impact will not last longer than 1 year
3 Short term Impact will last between 1 and 5 years
4 Medium term Impact will last between 5 and 10 years
5 Long term Impact will last between 10 and 15 years
6 On-going Impact will last between 15 and 20 years
7 Permanent Impact may be permanent, or in excess of 20 years
Extent
1 Very limited Limited to specific isolated parts of the site
2 Limited Limited to the site and its immediate surroundings
3 Local Extending across the site and to nearby settlements
4 Municipal
area Impacts felt at a municipal level
5 Regional Impacts felt at a regional level
Calculations
For each predicted impact, certain criteria are applied to establish the likely significance of the
impact, firstly in the case of no mitigation being applied and then with the most effective
mitigation measure(s) in place.
These criteria include the intensity (size or degree scale), which also includes the type of impact,
being either a positive or negative impact; the duration (temporal scale); and the extent (spatial
scale). These numerical ratings are used in an equation whereby the consequence of the impact
can be calculated. Consequence is calculated as follows:
96
Criteria Numeri-cal Rat-
ing Category Description
6 National Impacts felt at a national level
7 International Impacts felt at an international level
Inten-
sity
1 Negligible Natural and/ or social functions and/ or processes are negligi-
bly altered
2 Very low
Natural and/ or social functions and/ or processes are slightly
altered
3 Low Natural and/ or social functions and/ or processes are some-
what altered
4 Moderate Natural and/ or social functions and/ or processes are moder-
ately altered
5 High Natural and/ or social functions and/ or processes are notably
altered
6 Very high Natural and/ or social functions and/ or processes are majorly
altered
7 Extremely
high
Natural and/ or social functions and/ or processes are severely
altered
Proba-
bility
1 Highly un-
likely / None Expected never to happen
2 Rare / im-
probable
Conceivable, but only in extreme circumstances, and/or might
occur for this project although this has rarely been known to
result elsewhere
3 Unlikely
Has not happened yet but could happen once in the lifetime
of the project, therefore there is a possibility that the impact
will occur
4 Probable Has occurred here or elsewhere and could therefore occur
5 Likely The impact may occur
6
Almost cer-
tain / Highly
probable
It is most likely that the impact will occur
7 Certain / Defi-
nite
There are sound scientific reasons to expect that the impact
will definitely occur
When assessing impacts, broader considerations are also taken into account. These include the level of
confidence in the assessment rating; the reversibility of the impact; and the irreplaceability of the
resource as set out in Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4, respectively.
Table 2. Definition of confidence ratings
Category Description
Low Judgement is based on intuition
Medium Determination is based on common sense and general knowledge
High Substantive supportive data exists to verify the assessment
Table 3. Definition of reversibility ratings
97
Category Description
Low The affected environment will not be able to recover from the impact - perma-
nently modified
Medium The affected environment will only recover from the impact with significant inter-
vention
High The affected environmental will be able to recover from the impact
Table 4. Definition of irreplaceability ratings
Category Description
Low The resource is not damaged irreparably or is not scarce
Medium The resource is damaged irreparably but is represented elsewhere
High The resource is irreparably damaged and is not represented elsewhere
98
APPENDIX 3. OPERATIONAL PHASE BIRD MONITORING PROGRAMME
Operational phase monitoring
It is important to measure the impacts of the grid connection power line on birds once operational. We
recommend that the full line be patrolled at least four times per year for the first two years during the
operations phase. If any significant issues are detected lonmger term monitoring may be required.
During these surveys the following should be done:
» Full servitude as far as possible should be driven/ walked to survey for collison fatalities
» Towers/pylons should be inspected for nests. Any new nests within 6km of the turbines should
be reported immediately to an avifaunal specialist
» Eagle nests within corridor should be surveyed to determine breeding status
» Bird collision line marking devices should be inspected for any failures
In addition, all grid connection power line on the wind farm site itself and up to 6km from turbines should
be surveyed at least once per month as above (this could be easily undertaken by the bird and bat
monitoring teams that will be monitoring the turbines on the wind farms).
The wind farms will be conducting operational phase bird monitoring for a minimum of two years and
this power line monitoring should be included in that programme.
99
APPENDIX 4. SPECIALIST CV
JONATHAN JAMES SMALLIE
WildSkies Ecological Services (2011/131435/07)
Curriculum Vitae
BACKGROUND
Date of birth: 20 October 1975
Qualifications: BSC – Agriculture (Hons) (completed 1998)
University of Natal – Pietermaritzburg
MSC – Environmental Science (completed 2011)
University of Witwaterstrand
Occupation: Specialist avifaunal consultant
Profession registration: South African Council for Natural Scientific Professions
CONTACT DETAILS
Cell number: 082 444 8919
Fax: 086 615 5654
Email: [email protected]
Postal: 36 Utrecht Avenue, Bonnie Doon, East London, 5210
ID #: 7510205119085
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Strategic Assessments:
East Cape Biodiversity Strategy & Action Plan – avifauna.
Renewable energy:
Post construction bird monitoring for wind energy facilities:
Dassieklip (Caledon) –initiated in April 2014 (2yrs); Dorper Wind Farm (Molteno) – initiated in July 2014
(2yrs); Jeffreys Bay Wind Farm – initiated in August 2014 (4yrs); Kouga Wind Farm – started Feb 2015
(2yrs); Cookhouse West Wind Farm – started March 2015 (1yr); Grassridge Wind Farm – initiated in April
2015 (2yrs); Chaba Wind Farm – initiated December 2015 (1yr); Amakhala Emoyeni 01 Wind Farm
initiated August 2016 (2yrs); Gibson Bay Wind Farm – initiated March 2017 (2yrs); Nojoli Wind Farm
initiated March 2017 (2yrs); Sere Wind Farm (2yrs).
100
Pre-construction bird monitoring & EIA for wind energy facilities:
Golden Valley 1; Middleton; Dorper; Qumbu; Ncora; Nqamakhwe; Ndakana; Thomas River; Peddie;
Mossel Bay; Hluhluwe; Richards Bay; Garob; Outeniqua; Castle; Wolf; Inyanda-Roodeplaat; Dassiesridge;
Great Kei; Bayview; Grahamstown; Bakenskop; Umsobomvu; Stormberg; Zingesele; Oasis; Gunstfontein;
Naumanii; Golden Valley Phase 2; Ngxwabangu; Hlobo; Woodstock; Scarlet Ibis; Albany; Golden Valley 1
2nd monitoring; Umtathi Emoyeni; Pensulo Zambia; Unika 1 Zambia; Impofu; Nuweveld; Kleinsee wind
energy facilities.
Screening studies for wind energy facilities:
Tarkastad Wind Farm; Quanti Wind Farm; Ruitjies Wind Farm; Stutterheim Wind Farm; Molteno Wind
Farm; Noupoort Wind Farm.
Avifaunal walk through for wind energy facilities:
Garob Wind Farm; Golden Valley 1 wind farm; Nxuba Wind Farm.
Pre-construction bird monitoring and EIA for Solar energy facilities:
Bonnievale Solar Energy Facility; Dealesville Solar Energy Facility; Rooipunt Solar Energy Facility; De Aar
Solar Energy Facility; Noupoort Solar Energy Facility, Aggeneys Solar Energy Facility; Eskom Concentrated
Solar Power Plant; Bronkhorstspruit Solar Photovoltaic Plant; De Aar Solar Energy Facility; Paulputs Solar
Energy Facility; Kenhardt Solar Energy Facility; Wheatlands Solar Energy Facility; Nampower CSP project;
Other Electricity Generation:
Port of Nqura Power Barge EIA; Tugela Hydro-Electric Scheme; Mmamabula West Coal Power Station
(Botswana).
Electricity transmission & distribution:
Overhead transmission power lines (>132 000 kilovolts):
Oranjemund Gromis 220kv; Perseus Gamma 765kv; Aries Kronos 765kv; Aries Helios 765kv; Perseus
Kronos 765kv; Helios Juno 765kv; Borutho Nzelele 400kv; Foskor Merensky 275kv; Kimberley
Strengthening; Mercury Perseus 400kV; Eros Neptune Grassridge 400kV; Kudu Juno 400kV; Garona Aries
400kV; Perseus Hydra 765Kv; Tabor Witkop 275kV; Tabor Spencer 400kV; Moropule Orapa 220kV
(Botswana); Coega Electrification; Majuba Venus 765kV; Gamma Grassridge 765kV; Gourikwa Proteus
400KV; Koeberg Strengthening 400kV; Ariadne Eros 400kV; Hydra Gamma 765kV; Zizabona transmission
– Botswana; Maphutha Witkop 400kv; Makala B 400kv; Aggeneis Paulputs 400kv; Northern Alignment
765kv; Kappa Omega 765kv; Isundu 400kv and Substation; Senakangwedi B Integration; Oranjemund
Gromis;
Overhead distribution power lines (<132 000 kilovolts):
101
Kanoneiland 22KV; Hydra Gamma 765kV; Komani Manzana 132kV; Rockdale Middelburg 132kV;
Irenedale 132 kV; Zandfontein 132kV; Venulu Makonde 132 kV; Spencer Makonde 132 kV; Dalkeith Jackal
Creek 132Kv; Glen Austin 88kV; Bulgerivier 132kV; Ottawa Tongaat 132kV; Disselfontein 132kV;
Voorspoed Mine 132kV; Wonderfontein 132kV; Kabokweni Hlau Hlau 132kV; Hazyview Kiepersol 132kV;
Mayfern Delta 132kV; VAAL Vresap 88kV; Arthursview Modderkuil 88kV; Orapa, AK6, Lethakane
substations and 66kV lines (Botswana); Dagbreek Hermon 66kV; Uitkoms Majuba 88kV; Pilanesberg
Spitskop 132kV; Qumbu PG Bison 132kV; Louis Trichardt Venetia 132kV; Rockdale Middelburg
Ferrochrome 132kV; New Continental Cement 132KV; Hillside 88kV; Marathon Delta 132kV; Malelane
Boulder 132kV; Nondela Strengthening 132kV; Spitskop Northern Plats 132kV; West Acres Mataffin
132kV; Westgate Tarlton Kromdraai 132kV; Sappi Elliot Ugie 132kV; Melkhout Thyspunt 132kV; St Francis
Bay 66kv; Etna Ennerdale 88kv; Kroonstad 66kv; Firham Platrand; Paradise Fondwe 132kv; Kraal Mafube
132kv; Loeriesfontein 132kv; Albany Mimosa 66kv; Zimanga 132kv; Grootpan Brakfontein; Mandini
Mangethe; Valkfontein Substation; Sishen Saldanha; Corinth Mzongwana 132kv; Franklin Vlei 22kv;
Simmerpan Strengthening; Ilanga Lethemba 132kv; Cuprum Burchell Mooidraai 132; Oliphantskop
Grassridge 132;
Risk Assessments on existing power lines:
Hydra-Droërivier 1,2 & 3 400kV; Hydra-Poseidon 1,2 400kV; Butterworth Ncora 66kV; Nieu-Bethesda
22kV; Maclear 22kV (Joelshoek Valley Project); Wodehouse 22kV (Dordrecht district); Burgersdorp Aliwal
North Jamestown 22kV; Cradock 22kV; Colesberg area 22kV; Loxton self build 11kV; Kanoneiland 22kV;
Stutterheim Municipality 22kV; Majuba-Venus 400kV; Chivelston-Mersey 400kV; Marathon-Prairie
275kV; Delphi-Neptune 400kV; Ingagane – Bloukrans 275kV; Ingagane – Danskraal 275kV; Danskraal –
Bloukrans 275kV
Avifaunal “walk through” (EMP’s):
Kappa Omega 765kv; Rockdale Marble Hall 400kv; Beta Delphi 400kV; Mercury Perseus 765kV; Perseus
765kV Substation; Beta Turn 765kV in lines; Spencer Tabor 400kV line; Kabokweni Hlau Hlau 132kV;
Mayfern Delta 132Kv; Eros Mtata 400kV; Cennergi Grid connect 132kV; Melkhout Thyspunt 132kv;
Imvubu Theta 400kv; Outeniqua Oudshoorn 132kv; Clocolan Ficksburg 88kv.
Strategic Environmental Assessments for Master Electrification Plans:
Northern Johannesburg area; Southern KZN and Northern Eastern Cape; Northern Pretoria; Western
Cape Peninsula
Other electrical infrastructure work
Investigation into rotating Bird Flapper saga – Aberdeen 22Kv; Special investigation into faulting on
Ariadne-Eros 132kV; Special investigation into Bald Ibis faulting on Tutuka Pegasus 275kV; Special
investigation into bird related faulting on 22kV Geluk Hendrina line; Special investigation into bird related
faulting on Camden Chivelston 400kV line
102
Water sector:
Umkhomazi Dam and associated tunnel and pipelines; Rosedale Waste Water Treatment Works; Lanseria
Outfall Sewer; Lanseria Wastewater Treatment Works;
Wildlife airport hazards:
Kigali International Airport – Rwanda; Port Elizabeth Airport – specialist study as part of the EIA for the
proposed Madiba Bay Leisure Park; Manzini International Airport (Swaziland); Polokwane International
Airport; Mafekeng International Airport; Lanseria Airport
Other sectors:
Lizzard Point Golf Estate – Vaaldam; Lever Creek Estates housing development; East Cape Biodiversity
Strategy and Action Plan 2017; Cathedral Peak Road diversion; Dube Tradeport; East London Transnet
Ports Authority Biodiversity Management Plan; Leazonia Feedlot; Carisbrooke Quarry; Senekal Sugar
Development; Frankfort Paper Mill;
Employment positions held to date:
o August 1999 to May 2004: Eastern Cape field officer for the South African Crane Working Group of
the Endangered Wildlife Trust
o May 2004 to November 2007: National Field officer for Eskom-EWT Strategic Partnership and
Airports Company SA – EWT Strategic Partnership (both programmes of Endangered Wildlife Trust)
o November 2007 to August 2011: Programme Manager – Wildlife & Energy Programme –
Endangered Wildlife Trust
o August 2011 to present: Independent avifaunal specialist – Director at WildSkies Ecological
Sevices (Pty) Ltd
Relevant achievements:
o Recipient of BirdLife South Africa’s Giant Eagle Owl in 2011 for outstanding contribution to bird
conservation in SA
o Founded and chaired for first two years – the Birds and Wind Energy Specialist Group (BAWESG) of the Endangered Wildlife Trust & BirdLife South Africa.
Conferences attended & presented at:
o August 2019. Conference of Wind Energy and Wildlife, Stirlign, Scotland.
o November 2018. Raptor Research Foundation. Skukuza, Soith Africa. o October 2017. Conference of Wind Energy and Wildlife, Estoril Portugal
o May 2011. Conference of Wind Energy and Wildlife, Trondheim, Norway.
o March 2011. Chair and facilitator at Endangered Wildlife Trust – Wildlife & Energy Programme –
“2011 Wildlife & Energy Symposium”, Howick, SA
o September 2010 – Raptor Research Foundation conference, Fort Collins, Colorado. Presented on
the use of camera traps to investigate Cape Vulture roosting behaviour on transmission lines
103
o May 2010 - Wind Power Africa 2010. Presented on wind energy and birds
o October 2008. Session chair at Pan-African Ornithological Conference, Cape Town, South Africa
o March 27 – 30 2006: International Conference on Overhead Lines, Design, Construction, Inspection & Maintenance, Fort Collins Colorado USA. Presented a paper entitled “Assessing the power line
network in the Kwa-Zulu Natal Province of South Africa from a vulture interaction perspective”.
o June 2005: IASTED Conference at Benalmadena, Spain – presented a paper entitled “Impact of bird
streamers on quality of supply on transmission lines: a case study”
o May 2005: International Bird Strike Committee 27th meeting – Athens, Greece. Presented a paper
entitled Bird Strike Data analysis at SA airports 1999 to 2004.
o 2003: Presented a talk on “Birds & Power lines” at the 2003 AGM of the Amalgamated Municipal
Electrical Unions – in Stutterheim - Eastern Cape
o September 2000: 5th World Conference on Birds of Prey in Seville, Spain.
Papers & publications:
o Prinsen, H.A.M., J.J. Smallie, G.C. Boere, & N. Pires. (compilers), 2011. Guidelines on how to avoid or mitigate impacts of electricity power grids on migratory birds in the African-Eurasian Region. CMS
Technical Series Number XX. Bonn, Germany.
o Prinsen, H.A.M., J.J. Smallie, G.C. Boere, & N. Pires. (compilers), 2011. Review of the conflict
between migratory birds and electricity power grids in the African-Eurasian region. CMS Technical
Series Number XX, Bonn, Germany.
o Jenkins, A.R., van Rooyen, C.S, Smallie, J.J, Harrison, J.A., Diamond, M.D., Smit-Robinson, H.A &
Ralston, S. 2014. Best practice guidelines for avian monitoring and impact mitigation at proposed
wind energy development sites in southern Africa
o Jenkins, A.R., Shaw, J.M., Smallie, J.J., Gibbons, B., Visagie, R. & Ryan, P.G. 2011. Estimating the
impacts of power line collisions on Ludwig’s Bustards Neotis ludwigii. Bird Conservation International.
o Jordan, M., & Smallie, J. 2010. A briefing document on best practice for pre-construction assessment
of the impacts of onshore wind farms on birds. Endangered Wildlife Trust , Unpublished report
o Smallie, J., & Virani, M.Z. 2010. A preliminary assessment of the potential risks from electrical
infrastructure to large birds in Kenya. Scopus 30: p32-39
o Shaw, J.M., Jenkins, A.R., Ryan, P.G., & Smallie, J.J. 2010. A preliminary survey of avian mortality on
power lines in the Overberg, South Africa. Ostrich 2010. 81 (2) p109-113
o Jenkins, A.R., Smallie, J.J., & Diamond, M. 2010. Avian collisions with power lines: a global review of
causes and mitigation with a South African perspective. Bird Conservation International 2010. 20:
263-278.
o Shaw, J.M., Jenkins, A.R., Ryan, P.G., & Smallie, J.J. 2010. Modelling power line collision risk for the
Blue Crane Anthropoides paradiseus in South Africa. Ibis 2010 (152) p590-599.
o Jenkins, A.R., Allan, D.G., & Smallie, J.J. 2009. Does electrification of the Lesotho Highlands pose a
threat to that countries unique montane raptor fauna? Dubious evidence from surveys of three
existing power lines. Gabar 20 (2).
o Smallie, J.J., Diamond, M., & Jenkins, A.R. 2008. Lighting up the African continent – what does this
mean for our birds? Pp 38-43. In Harebottle, D.M., Craig, A.J.F.K., Anderson, M.D., Rakotomanana,
H., & Muchai. (eds). Proceedings of the 12th Pan-african Ornithological Congress. 2008. Cape Town.
Animal Demography Unit. ISBN (978-0-7992-2361-3)
o Van Rooyen, C., & Smallie, J.J. 2006. The Eskom –EWT Strategic Partnership in South Africa: a brief
summary. Nature & Faunae Vol 21: Issue 2, p25
o Smallie, J. & Froneman, A. 2005. Bird Strike data analysis at South African Airports 1999 to 2004.
Proceedings of the 27th Conference of the International Bird Strike Committee, Athens Greece.
104
o Smallie, J. & Van Rooyen, C. 2005. Impact of bird streamers on quality of supply on transmission
lines: a case study. Proceedings of the Fifth IASTED International Conference on Power and Energy
Systems, Benalmadena, Spain. o Smallie, J. & Van Rooyen, C. 2003. Risk assessment of bird interaction on the Hydra-Droërivier 1 and
2 400kV. Unpublished report to Eskom Transmission Group. Endangered Wildlife Trust.
Johannesburg. South Africa
o Van Rooyen, C. Jenkins, A. De Goede, J. & Smallie J. 2003. Environmentally acceptable ways to
minimise the incidence of power outages associated with large raptor nests on Eskom pylons in the
Karoo: Lessons learnt to date. Project number 9RE-00005 / R1127 Technology Services International.
Johannesburg. South Africa
o Smallie, J. J. & O'connor, T. G. (2000) Elephant utilization of Colophospermum mopane: possible
benefits of hedging. African Journal of Ecology 38 (4), 352-359.
Courses & training:
o Successfully completed a 5 day course in High Voltage Regulations (modules 1 to 10) conducted by
Eskom – Southern Region
o Successfully completed training on, and obtained authorization for, live line installation of Bird
Flappers
105
APPENDIX 5. 132KV POWER LINE PYLON DESIGNS
Tower Type Description and purpose Illustration
1. 132kV Intermedi-
ate Self-Sup-
porting Double
Circuit Mono-
pole.
Self-supporting galvanised steel Monopole Intermediate
or Suspension structure with no stays/anchors. The
monopole is designed to support a double electrical cir-
cuit with a twin conductor arrangement,
This structure will be used as intermediate structures be-
tween inline strain or angle strain points. This structure
will also be the most common structure used at an esti-
mated 60% to 80% of the total number of structures.
The structure is design to support the conductor weight
as well as the wind loading specifications.
Monopole Height: Between 26m and 32m.
Pole top diameter: 380mm to 450mm
Pole Base diameter: 1.2m to 1.5m
Front View of the tower with typical foundation size:
106
Tower Type Description and purpose Illustration
107
Tower Type Description and purpose Illustration
2. 132kV Inline or
Angle Strain
Self-Supporting
Double Circuit
Monopole.
Self-supporting galvanised steel Monopole Inline or An-
gle Strain structure with no stays/anchors. The monopole
is designed to support a double electrical circuit with a
twin conductor arrangement,
This structure will be used as the strain structure and will
be positioned at the angle points along the line or as an
inline position where a strain point is required due to the
ground elevation. The number of inline or angle strain
points estimated in the order of 20% to 40% of the total
number of structures.
The monopole is design to support the conductor ten-
sions associated with the conductor weight and span
lengths as well as the wind loading specifications.
Monopole Height: Between 26m and 32m.
Pole top diameter: 380mm to 450mm
Pole Base diameter: 1.8m to 2.5m
Front View of the tower:
108
Tower Type Description and purpose Illustration
3. 132kV Inline or
Angle Strain Guyed
Double Circuit
Monopole.
Galvanised steel Monopole Inline or Angle Strain struc-
ture with anchors/stays for additional structure support.
This monopole is similar to the self-supporting monopole
but with additional anchor support for conditions where
longer span lengths is required with higher conductor
tensions.
The monopole with anchors is design to support the con-
ductor tensions associated with the conductor weight
and longer span lengths.
Monopole Height: Between 26m and 32m.
Pole top diameter: 380mm to 450mm
Pole Base diameter: 1.8m to 2.5m
Anchors/Stays:
Depending on the angle strain point up to 4 x anchors.
Front View of the tower:
109
Tower Type Description and purpose Illustration
110
Tower Type Description and purpose Illustration
4 132kV
Suspension
Self-Supporting
Single Circuit
Monopole with
single
conductor.
Self-supporting galvanised steel Monopole Suspension
structure with no stays/anchors. The monopole is de-
signed to support a single electrical circuit with a single
conductor arrangement.
This structure will be used as an intermediate structure
between inline strain or angle strain points and if used
will only be used for the collector powerlines on the wind
farm sites between the collector switching/ substation
and the wind farm switching stations.
The structure is designed to support the conductor
weight as well as the wind loading specifications.
Monopole Height: Between 22m and 26m.
Pole top diameter: 230mm
Pole Base diameter: 650mm
The structure will be planted at the following depths:
Front View of the tower with typical foundation size:
22m 2.8m
24m 3.0m
26m 3.2m
111
Tower Type Description and purpose Illustration
5 132kV Inline or
Angle Strain
Self-Supporting
Single Circuit
Monopole with
single conductor
Self-supporting galvanised steel Monopole Inline or An-
gle Strain structure with no stays/anchors. The monopole
is designed to support a single electrical circuit with a
single conductor arrangement,
This structure will be used as a strain structure and will
be positioned at the angle points along the line or as an
inline position where a strain point is required due to the
ground elevation. If used this structure will only be used
for the collector powerlines on the wind farm sites be-
tween the collector switching/ substation and the wind
farm switching stations.
The monopole is designed to support the conductor ten-
sions associated with the conductor weight and span
lengths as well as the wind loading specifications.
Monopole Height: Between 24m and 26m.
Pole top diameter: 380mm
Pole Base diameter: 1m to 1.2m
The foundation will consists of a typical pad foundation
with bolts inside the concrete foundation.
Front View of the tower:
112
Tower Type Description and purpose Illustration
113
Tower Type Description and purpose Illustration
6 Triple pole struc-
ture.
2 x Single circuit
with Twin Tern
Conductor
For long spans (>350m to 500m) across valleys and riv-
ers.
Strain structure with three single monopoles per circuit.
5-9 stays per triple pole structure depending on angle
configuration.
Typical 18 to 16m in length.
In a double circuit configuration it will be a triple pole
structure per circuit place at 10m-15m apart
114
APPENDIX 6. 400KV POWER LINE TOWER DESIGN.
Tower Type Description and purpose Illustration
1. 400kV Intermedi-
ate or Suspen-
sion Tower.
Option 1:
Cross-Rope Sus-
pension Tower
The tower consists of two main lattice supports with a
steel cross rope between the tower tops. The two main
lattice supports are supported each with 2 x guyed an-
chors.
The structure is design to support the conductor weight
as well as the wind loading specifications.
The conductors are supported on insulators from the
steel cross rope support as illustrated below:
This tower type is for general use as an intermedi-
ate/suspension tower between angle strain points along
the alignment and it is also the preferred option due to
the smaller size and cost effectiveness.
This structure will also be the most common structure
used at an estimated 70% to 80% of the total number of
structures on the line.
Tower heights: 27m to 42 m
Front View of the tower:
Side View of the tower:
115
Tower Type Description and purpose Illustration
Option 1:
Cross-Rope Sus-
pension Tower
(Continue)
Tower width: 28m to 35m
Tower footprint: The footprint of the tower is determined
by the distances between the outer anchors supporting
the structure – in general the stays positioned 17m to
27m from the tower masts at an angle. This forms a
square with estimated distances as per the illustration.
Typical Foundation sizes:
1) Typical Tower mast foundation
2) Typical Anchor or Stay foundation
116
Tower Type Description and purpose Illustration
2. 400kV Intermedi-
ate or Suspen-
sion Tower.
Option 2:
The tower consists of a self-supporting lattice structure
design with 4 x tower legs. The insulators are supported
from a steel lattice cross-arm as indicated in the illustra-
tion.
Front View of the tower:
117
Self-Supporting
Suspension
Tower.
Option 2:
The tower is fully supported by the 4 x leg foundations
and do not have any guyed anchors. The structure in
general bulky, more visible but do have a smaller foot-
print than the cross-rope suspension tower and will only
be used where the footprint space is limited.
The structure is design to support the conductor weight
as well as the wind loading specifications.
118
Tower Type Description and purpose Illustration
Self-Supporting
Suspension
Tower.
(Continue)
Average Tower footprint size: The footprint of the tower
is determined by the distances between the outer legs
on the ground which are supporting the tower
Typical Tower Leg foundation size:
119
Tower Type Description and purpose Illustration
3. 400kV Inline and
Angle Strain Self-
Supporting
Tower
The tower consists of a self-supporting lattice structure
design with 4 x tower legs. The insulators are supported
from a steel lattice cross-arm as indicated below:
The tower is fully supported by the 4 x leg foundations
and do not have any guyed anchors.
Front View of the tower:
120
Tower Type Description and purpose Illustration
400kV Inline and
Angle Strain Self-
Supporting
Tower
(continue)
The structure is design to support the conductor tensions
associated with the conductor weight and span lengths
as well as the wind loading specifications.
Average Tower footprint size: The footprint of the tower
is determined by the distances between the outer legs
on the ground which are supporting the strain tower.
Typical Tower Leg foundation size:
121
Tower Type Description and purpose Illustration
122
Tower Type Description and purpose Illustration