Osmaniye Bahce Wind Farm ESIA Report

Zorlu Plaza, 34310 Avclar ISTANBUL / TURKIYE Tel: + 90 (212) 456-2300 Fax: +90 (212) 422-0099
www.zorlu.com.tr
ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE BAHCE WINDFARM PROJECT (135 MW) (FINAL)
Dokay Engineering and Consultancy Ltd. Ovecler 4. Cadde No: 140/A 06460 Dikmen / Ankara -Turkey Tel: +90 (312) 475-7131 Fax: +90 (312) 475-7130 www.dokay.info.tr
JANUARY 2009 ANKARA TURKEY
2/48
ROTOR ELEKTRIK URETIM A.S. (ZORLU ENERGY GROUP)
ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR BAHCE WINDFARM PROJECT (135 MW)
JANUARY 2009
REVISION LOG
REVIZYON LOGU
Rev. No. Tarih Date Rapor Tanm Final ESIA Report Report Description Hazrlayan Compiled by Kontrol Eden Reviewed by Onaylayan Approved by Tufan Huyuk (Environmental Eng.) Cenk Toplar (Biologist) Burcu Savas (Sociologist, M.Sc.) Prof. Dr. Yusuf Gemici (Ecologist) Gunal Ozenirler (Env. Eng., M.Sc.) Prof. Dr. Coskun Yurteri Revised Final ESIA Report 4 December 02, 2008 Januar 02, 2009 5
Osmaniye Bahce Wind Farm (135 MW) Project Environmental and Social Impact Assessment
January 2009
3/48
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1. OPERATIONAL CONTEXT............................................................................................ 6

1.1. 1.2. PURPOSE AND NEED ................................................................................................................................ 6 NATIONAL LEGISLATION AND IFC PSS .................................................................................................. 8
2.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................... 12

2.1. 2.2. 2.3. 2.4. PROJECT AREA ...................................................................................................................................... 12 TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT ........................................................................................... 12 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS ................................................................................ 15 ALTERNATIVES OF THE PROJECT ........................................................................................................... 17
3.
DESCRIPTION OF THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENT................................................... 19

3.1. 3.2. 3.3. 3.4. 3.5. 3.6. 3.7. 3.8. CLIMATIC CONDITIONS ......................................................................................................................... 19 GEOMORPHOLOGY AND GEOLOGY ........................................................................................................ 20 SURFACE WATER AND GROUNDWATER QUALITY ................................................................................. 21 LANDSCAPE ........................................................................................................................................... 21 ECOLOGY AND BIOTIC RESOURCES ....................................................................................................... 22 AIR QUALITY ........................................................................................................................................ 29 NOISE .................................................................................................................................................... 29 SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS AND CULTURAL HERITAGE ................................................................... 29
4.
DESCRIPTION AND ASSESSMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED OPERATION ........................................................................................... 35
IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................................ 35 IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH OPERATION, CLOSURE AND DECOMMISSIONING ...................................... 43 COMPARISON OF IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH ALTERNATIVES ............................................................. 46
January 2009
4.1. 4.2. 4.3.
4/48
4.4.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH PROJECT AND OTHER PLANNED OR EXISTING DEVELOPMENTS IN THE AREA ............................................................................................................... 47
5.
DESCRIPTION OF MITIGATING MEASURES AND/OR MEASURES TO ENHANCE ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS (ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN)............. 48 OUTLINE OF ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PLAN.............................................. 49
6.
6.1. 6.2.
CONSTRUCTION PHASE.......................................................................................................................... 49 OPERATIONAL PHASE ............................................................................................................................ 49
January 2009
5/48
ABBREVIATIONS Aatm CO2 COD dBA DOKAY EIA EMP EMRA ESIA EUAS GFR GHG GIS GW GWh IFC Leq Lw Lp MW NOx PCDP PDoEF PIF Project PM PS ROTOR SOx SSW TEIAS ToR YEK Atmospheric Attenuation Carbon dioxide Chemical Oxygen Demand A-weighted deciBell Dokay Engineering and Consultancy Ltd. Environmental Impact Assessment Environmental Management Plan Energy Market Regulatory Authority Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Electricity Generation Inc. Gross Fertility Rate Greenhouse Gas Emissions Geographical Information System Groundwater Gigawatt hour International Finance Corporation Equivalent Noise Level Sound Power Level Sound Pressure Level Megawatt Nitrogen oxides Public Consultation and Disclosure Plan Provincial Directorate of Environment and Forestry Project Introduction File Osmaniye Bahce Wind Farm Project Particulate Matter Performance Standards Rotor Elektrik Uretim A.S. Sulfur oxides South-Southwest Turkish Electricity Transmission Authority Terms of Reference Renewable Energy Source
January 2009
6/48
1.
OPERATIONAL CONTEXT
1.1. Purpose and Need ROTOR Elektrik Uretim Ltd. (ROTOR), a wind farm developer and a subsidiary of Zorlu Energy Group, is planning to construct and operate a 135 MW wind farm (Project) in Bahce District of Osmaniye Province in south Turkey. The location map is given in Figure 1-1.
Project Site
Figure 1-1 Location Map of the Osmaniye Bahce Wind Farm Project.
Osmaniye Bahce Wind Farm (135 MW) Project Environmental and Social Impact Assessment January 2009
7/48
The Project comprises the followings: Construction and operation of 54 turbines with an installed capacity of 2,5 MW each; Construction and operation of 7 km overhead transmission line to the nearest unit of the national interconnected transmission grid; and Construction of an approach road to the site.
The Project is expected to commence operation in the first half of 2009; and will double the wind energy capacity of Turkey, which currently stands at 147 MW. The Project is listed in Appendix-II of the Turkish Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulation, and thus subject to preparation of a Project Introduction File (PIF).1 The PIF2 of the Project was prepared and submitted to the Osmaniye Provincial Directorate of Environment and Forestry (PDoEF) previously. Upon examining this PIF, the Osmaniye PDoEF issued an EIA Not Required certificate for the Project in March 2008. On the other hand, ROTOR is planning to obtain a loan for the Project from international lenders (including the International Finance Corporation, IFC). In this regard, ROTOR has decided to prepare an Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) report to meet the requirements of such lenders as the IFC. As a potential financer, the IFC wants to be sure that: Elements of the investment program meet both national requirements as well as IFC Performance Standards (PSs) presented in Section 1.2 of this Chapter; Project will not lead to significant adverse environmental impacts including cumulative ones in accordance with the PSs of the IFC; Project will include all necessary mitigation measures to minimize any adverse change in health, safety and environment (HSE) and socio-economic conditions; and An appropriate Public Consultation and Disclosure Plan (PCDP) will be prepared and implemented in line with the PSs of the IFC, ensuring that all reasonable public opinions are adequately considered prior to the development consent.
In this context, DOKAY Engineering and Consultancy Ltd. (DOKAY) has been contracted for the preparation of a bankable ESIA Report. The ESIA Report is based on the format provided in Annex-1 of the Terms of Reference (ToR) provided by the IFC. The ESIA has also been performed to ensure adherence to the EU Enviromental Acquis, notably the EIA European Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended by Directives 97/11/EC and 2003/35/EC and the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC as well as Natura 2000 Sites.
The latest version of the EIA Regulation came into effect on July 17, 2008 (Official Gazette numbered 26939). However, the status of the Project was exactly the same in the previous version of the EIA Regulation.
PIF reports were formerly (and sometimes commonly) known as Preliminary EIA reports.
January 2009
8/48
1.2. National Legislation and IFC PSs 1.2.1. National Legislation The main pieces of national legislation which affects the Project and hence the ESIA works in various different ways can be listed as: Law on Utilization of Renewable Energy Sources; Law on Forestry; and Law on Environment.
Brief information regarding these pieces of legislation is given in the subsequent paragraphs. Law on Utilization of Renewable Energy Sources The full name of this Law (Act #5346) is Law on Utilization of Renewable Energy Sources for the Purpose of Generating Electrical Energy, and it was published in the Official Gazette dated May 10, 2007 and numbered 24335. This Law encompasses the procedures and principles for the conservation of renewable energy resource areas, certification of the energy generated from these sources and the utilization of these sources. The main purposes of this Law can be listed as follows: To expand the utilization of renewable energy resources for generating electrical energy; To benefit from these resources in a secure, economic and qualified manner; To increase the diversification of energy resources; To reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, to minimize waste products, and hence to protect the environment; and To develop the related manufacturing industries for realizing these objectives.
Article 5 of this Law states that a legal person holding a generation license shall be awarded a Renewable Energy Source Certificate (YEK Certificate) by the Energy Market Regulatory Authority (EMRA). Thus, the electrical energy generated from renewable energy sources will be identified and monitored in both domestic and international markets. According to the Article 7, investments on energy generation facilities within the framework of this Law shall be eligible for incentives, based on a resolution determined by the Council of Ministers. Article 8 of the Law states that, in case any real estate under the private ownership of the Forest Administration or Treasury, or under the discretion and disposal of the State is used for the purpose of generating electrical energy from renewable energy resources, the Ministry of Environment and Forestry (MoEF) or the Ministry of Finance (MoF) provides permission for the use of the land for the plant, access roads and the energy transmission
9/48
line up to the grid connection point. Those power plants, access roads and energy transmission lines up to the grid connection point which shall be commissioned by the end of 2011 shall be entitled to benefit from a 85% discount in fees regarding permit, lease, easement and usage rights during the first ten years of operation. Further, various fees for tree plantation revenues shall not be collected from renewable energy investments. Law on Forestry Law on Forestry (Act #6831) was published in the Official Gazette dated September 8, 1956 and numbered 9402. Various issues stipulated by this Law are important for the Project, since the project area is within forestry lands owned by the State. The Law states that the forest lands of the State, excluding those within tourism areas and centers, can be used by real persons and legal entities for installations which are for public benefit after obtaining the necessary permits from the MoEF and appropriate amounts of payments are made. The period of such a permit cannot exceed 49 years. All kinds of buildings and facilities other than the ones built by the State become the property of the State at the end of the permission period without any reservation. Law on Environment This Law (Act # 2872) was published in the Official Gazette dated August 11, 1983 and numbered 18132. There exist a series of regulations and other legislation which will regulate the environmental performance of the Project. These pieces of legislation are listed in the Environmental Management Plan, presented as Appendix-A of the current ESIA Report. The Law on Environment is currently being revised and the new Law will come into effect in near future. However, it is highly likely that the EIA Regulation will continue its significance in terms of project acceptability in general. In Turkey, any project subject to the EIA Regulation (Official Gazette dated July 17, 2008 and numbered 26939) can neither be started, nor any incentives can be granted prior to a definite decision is taken by the MoEF or by the Governor in charge. Projects subjected to the EIA Regulation are categorized by means of lists given in Annex-I and Annex-II of the Regulation. Annex-I provides the list of projects for which EIA is mandatory and Annex-II provides the list of projects for which a PIF must be prepared. The Osmaniye Bahce Wind Farm Project is within the context of Annex-II. Hence, a PIF was prepared. This PIF was approved by the Osmaniye PDoEF. With this approval, the EIA process of the Project was completed. According to Article 17 of the EIA Regulation (both the most recent version as well as the one before), the construction of the Project should commence within five years after the receipt of the EIA Not Required certificate. Otherwise, the EIA process should be restarted.
10/48
1.2.2. IFC PSs and Guidelines IFC applies Performance Standards (PSs) to manage social and environmental risks and impacts and to enhance development opportunities in its private sector financing in its member countries eligible for financing. The Performance Standards may also be applied by other financial institutions electing to apply them to projects in emerging markets. The objectives of the IFC Performance Standards are as follows: To identify and assess social and environment impacts, both adverse and beneficial, in the area of influence of the Project; To avoid, or where avoidance is not possible, minimize, mitigate, or compensate for adverse impacts on workers, affected communities, and the environment; To ensure that affected communities are appropriately engaged on issues that could potentially affect them; and To promote improved social and environmental performance of companies through the effective use of management systems.
In general, an investment funded by IFC has to meet the following PSs throughout the construction and operation phases of the project: PS1: Social and Environmental Assessment and Management System; PS2: Labor and Working Conditions; PS3: Pollution Prevention and Abatement; PS4: Community Health, Safety and Security; PS5: Land Acquisition and Involuntary Resettlement; PS6: Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Natural Resource Management; PS7: Indigenous Peoples; and PS8: Cultural Heritage.
For the specific case of the Osmaniye Bahce Wind farm Project, a due diligence study was carried out in order to determine which of the above PSs are of significance for the Project. This due diligence study was carried out by experts from IFC; ROTOR and DOKAY in early June 2008 and the results of this study was posted in the official IFC website in the environmental and social summary of the Project. In this context, since all the land used for the wind farm and its associated transmission lines are mostly located on state-owned lands (mainly owned by the Forestry Administration), except any pylon location (i.e., two according to the current planning) that may be on private lands to be expropriated by TEIAS will occur. Therefore, PS5 is included for the Project. The forestry land to be taken by the Project is an afforestation area. Hence, the area does not include natural habitats and ecologically sensitive areas. As a result of the site investigations and the survey of the pertinent literature and records, it was concluded that the
11/48
Project Site and the proposed transmission corridor do not contain any protected flora or fauna species, and are not directly located on bird migration pathways, but these areas are at a relatively close distance to the migration paths (see Section 4.2.4). Due to the close proximity to bird migration paths, it was considered to include PS6 for this specific Project. There are no indigenous groups or individuals present in the Project Site. Further, as documented in the PIF, there are no significant cultural heritage assets in the area. Under these circumstances PS7 and PS8 were excluded for this specific Project. In this context, the potential environmental and social impacts of the Osmaniye Bahce Wind Farm Project should be managed in a manner consistent with the following PSs of the IFC: PS1: Social and Environmental Assessment and Management Systems; PS2: Labor and Working Conditions; PS3: Pollution Prevention and Abatement; PS4: Community, Health Safety and Security; PS5: Land Acquisition and Involuntary Resettlement; and PS6: Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Natural Resource Management.
The IFC documents of April 30, 2007 titled as Environmental, Health, and Safety Guidelines for Wind Energy and Environmental, Health and Safety Guidelines for Electric Power Transmission and Distribution have been utilized as the main technical reference during the preparation of the present ESIA Report.
January 2009
12/48
2. 2.1.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Area
The Project is located on Gokcedag Mountain in between Bahce and Hasanbeyli district centers of the Osmaniye Province in the Eastern Mediterranean Region of Turkey (see Figure 1-1). District Centre of Bahce is the nearest major settlement within a few kilometers to the Project Site. A general view of Bahce is given in Figure 2-1. Other settlements near the Project Area are Gokmustafali and Savranli villages.
Figure 2-1. General View of the Bahce District Centre from the Project Site.
2.2.
Technical Description of the Project
The Project consists of 54 wind turbines with a power capacity of 2.5 MW each, providing a total installed capacity of 135 MW and an expected annual electricity generation of 512 GWh. Distribution of turbines on the Project Site can be seen in Figure 2-2. The turbines will be provided by GE Energy, and will be installed and operated by ROTOR. The wind turbines are of 85 m hub height and 100 m rotor diameter (see Figure 2-3). The plant will be connected to the national grid through the Bahce Substation via a 7-km long power transmission line of 154 kVA.
January 2009
13/48
Gokmustafali Village
Figure 2-2. Distribution of Wind Turbine Locales over the Topographical Map (produced from 1:25.000 scaled map and each square is 1x1 km )
14/48
Sources: http://www.vermontwindpolicy.org/ Figure 2-3. Typical View of a Wind Turbine with Explanation of its Parts.
Construction phase of the Project started in July 2008. Partial commissioning of the power plant will be in January 2009 with six turbines being put into operation per month. Commissioning of the power plant will be completed in August 2009. Project life time is 20 years. The Osmaniye Bahce Wind Farm Project will significantly increase Turkeys wind generation capacity and will be the countrys largest wind farm built up to date. It will contribute to
15/48
addressing the Turkish power deficit and increase the countrys power generation from clean renewable sources while supporting the rapidly growing national economy. Once the Project gets into its operational phase, it will: Increase Turkeys electricity output from wind energy; Displace carbon emissions, reducing pollution and contribute to the effort to reduce global warming; By size and nature of the transaction, influence Turkeys ability to attract foreign investment in the renewable energy sector and position Turkey as an alternative emerging market destination for wind power investments; and Contribute to the development of merchant power operations and private sector investment in Turkeys energy sector.
2.3. Environmental and Socioeconomic Impacts At regional to global scales, the effects of wind energy on the environment often are considered to be positive, through the production of renewable energy and the potential displacement of mining activities, air pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions associated with nonrenewable energy sources. In this respect, taking place of fossil fuel power generation, the Osmaniye Bahce Wind Farm Project will have a positive impact on the reduction of especially CO2 which is a greenhouse gas, SOx and NOx as well as particulate matter (PM) emissions in global aspect. After the initial site visit on June 10, 2008 and the kick-off meeting on June 11, 2008 with the participation of IFC, ROTOR and DOKAY, the main areas of concern to be considered in the ESIA study were listed as, (i) environmental (e.g., potential impacts on birds) and social impacts that might be associated with the construction and operation phases of the Project (including wind farm and transmission lines as well as access road construction); (ii) short description of on-going and future public consultation activities, (iii) cumulative impacts of the proposed Project together with its extension phases of 50 MW and 60 MW, and (iv) preparation of a proper Environmental Management Plan (EMP). In Chapter 4, detailed assessment of potential impacts at the construction and operational phases is presented. A list of potential impacts related to the different activities of the Osmaniye Bahce Wind Farm Project are given in the following paragraphs: Environmental Impacts Potential impacts of the construction activities of the Project are listed under the following topics and their detailed evaluation is discussed in Section 4.1: Impacts on Air Quality; Impacts on Water Quality;
January 2009
16/48
Impacts on Habitats; Excavated Material; Noise and Vibration; Impacts on Local Activities and Traffic; and Occupational Health and Safety.
The important impacts for the operational phase of the Project can be listed as follows: Visual impacts; Light and illumination issues; Noise impacts; Disturbance to species; Impacts on habitats; and Impacts on water quality.
Socio-economic impacts The Project will: Create employment opportunities in the area where the project is located during both its construction and operation phases; Enable the transfer of knowledge as turbine supplier will train site employees in the installation, operation and maintenance of the wind turbines; Contribute to local and regional economy since the cables, transformers, construction equipment, and subcontractors are to be procured locally; Diversify the sources of electricity generation and support Turkey in meeting its growing energy demands; Reduce the dependence on foreign sources of energy thereby strengthening Turkeys energy security and self sufficiency; Assist Turkey in accelerating the commercialization of grid-connected renewable energy technologies and markets in the country; and Not require any land acquisition since approximately 6 km of the transmission line right of way crosses the forestry area and about 1 km pass through state-owned lands other than forest areas. If any pylon along the transmission line will be located on private lands as a result of final planning, the expropriation of the land will be carried out by the grid authority Turkish Electricity Transmission Authority (TEIAS) since the transmission line belongs to TEIAS. The expropriation plan is first made for the foundation of the pylons and is submitted to EMRA. EMRA takes a quick expropriation decree and expropriates the land for the grid authority.
January 2009
17/48
2.4. Alternatives of the Project Site Selection The Project Site has been selected as a result of wind measurements carried out for a period of four years in the area when ROTOR was not owned by Zorlu Energy Group. In other words, the Project Site was selected by the original developers of the Project based on measuring masts erected at various locations witin the site. The area is also marked on the Wind Map of Turkey developed by Electricity Generation Inc. (EUAS). Furthermore, this area is known by the local people as a region having good winds throughout the year. The original developers of the Project were informed by the villagers that the area is very windy. Therefore, wind masts were erected and wind measurements were started. The results of wind measurements confirmed that the area possesses good wind; and hence, the site has been selected. Connection to the national transmission line grid was also favorable, since there was a substation nearby with available connection capacity. Regarding the transmission lines, TEIAS determines the final route for the connection, based on the preliminary routing design made by another consultant of the ROTOR, to the substation. TEIAS Routing Department considers the environmental sensitive areas, if any, on the route while choosing the locations for pylons. TEIAS is the authority for the approval of the route selection and connection to the national grid. In addition, the local EIA requirements were fulfilled and the resultant EIA is not required decision of the Provincial Directorate of Osmaniye Environment and Forestry is also a proof of site selection in terms of environmental and social aspects in the local environmental legislation (avoiding protected areas, parks and major bird migration corridors during the site selection process). EPDK has determined the coordinates of the area and issued the electricity generation license to ROTOR. Then, Zorlu Energy Group has bought ROTOR when the feasibility study was completed. Afterwards, ROTOR has made an agreement with the General Directorate of Forestry to use the site as a wind farm area for a period of 49 years. Technological Alternatives Thermal power and hydropower are the two conventional technologies for energy generation that can be considered as alternatives to wind power. Thermal power plants can be installed in any location irrespective of location of fuel deposit and quality of fuel to be utilized in the power plant may vary. However, thermal power plants are potential contributors to greenhouse gas emissions. Control of air pollution in a thermal power plant is a serious issue and must be accomplished by professionals. Thus, it requires additional cost and responsibility in the operational phase of the plant.
January 2009
18/48
Hydropower, on the other hand, is a renewable source of energy. However, since hydroelectric power plants can only be established on rivers, wind power and hydro power may not always be considered as two alternatives for a specific location. Hydroelectric power plants generally require large areas as reservoir and they may cause microclimate impact on local climatic conditions. They may also have impact on aquatic life through limiting the natural flow in river beds at the downstream of dams or regulators. Finally, since wind power does not utilize fossil fuel, it does not contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. The wind power plants are also easy to be installed and they require low operational cost. The fact that the wind farms do not hinder agricultural activities is another advantage of the wind power.
January 2009
19/48
3.
DESCRIPTION OF THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENT
As the ESIA consultant of ROTOR, DOKAY has carried out a series of site visits and desktop studies in order to gather the necessary information for the ESIA Report. Table 3-1 shows the participants, dates and remarks related to the site visits.
Table 3-1. Information on the Site Visits. Expert Date June 2008 July 2008 Cenk Toplar Expert, Ecologist July 2008 Remark Together with ROTOR representatives and IFC experts for the initial site visit (i.e., classified as Phase-I Due Diligence by IFC) Together with DOKAY experts as field supervisor. Rapid ecological survey including assessment of migratory and local bird species.* Interview with headmen of villages in the vicinity of the Project Area to gather information on socioeconomic characteristics and to have public opinion about the proposed project together with its potential extensions.
Mr. Gunal Ozenirler, Project Manager, Env. Eng., M.Sc.
Ms. Burcu Savas, Expert, Sociologist and Demographer
July 2008
* Data gathered by Mr. Toplar were assessed by Prof. Dr. Yusuf Gemici and the relevant sections of the ESIA report were review and improved by Prof. Gemici.
DOKAY has participated in a stakeholder meeting held in the District Centre of Bahce in the context of carbon credit certification procedure in order to have the first-hand knowledge about public opinion for the Project. As the local people do not have any objection for the proposed development due to the environmental-friendly nature of the project, especially in terms of the surrounding community (e.g., minimum or no impact on local traffic and local income generating activities as well as no emission during operation), the social impact assessment was kept as short as possible in this ESIA Report. 3.1. Climatic Conditions
The Mediterranean climate prevails in the region where the Project Site is located. Therefore, in general, summers are hot and dry, and winters are warm and rainy. On the other hand, this climate pattern can change at locales where the elevation is higher compared to the District Centre of Bahce (665 m). Thus, at the elevation of the Project Site (i.e., ranging from 1,000 m to 1,700 m), relatively severe weather conditions (snow and ice formation) may prevail in winter. Minimum and maximum daily average temperatures are about 3C and 18C. Average annual precipitation is about 850 mm (PIF, 2008). In the Environmental Status Report (2007) prepared by the PDoEF in Osmaniye, the strongest wind speed recorded in the Province is 23.8 m/sec and stronger winds are mostly observed in the months of November, December and January. Number of stormy days of the Province is 11 and number of days with strong winds is 98. The prevailing wind direction of
20/48
the Province is from south-southwest. According to the meteorological measurements (including wind and temperature) conducted at the Project Site during the feasibility studies, annual average temperatures ranges in between 9C and 14C and annual average wind speed is 9.3 m/sec. 3.2. Geomorphology and Geology
Wind turbines of the Project will be located on a hilly area with an elevation ranging from 1,046 m to 1,707 m (see Figure 2-2 for topographical map and locations of turbines). A plateau is situated at the north of the hill where settlements are located. At the District Centre of Bahce, there exist alluvial formations due to the existing rivers running through Bahce. On the other hand, geological formations at hills surrounding the District Centre are generally clayey-schist and serpentines where the turbines of the Project will be erected. This statement is also supported with the results of geotechnical survey conducted at the Project Site. In particular, geotechnical surveys were focused on the specific locations of the turbines since the data on geological formations and stability at these locations are important for the safety of turbine foundations. According to results of drillings up to c. 30 m, the geological formations crossed in the site are sandstone, silt clayey and clay stone. Regarding the surface of the Project site, it should be noted that due to the severe erosion in the area based on stepe slopes there exist no high quality soil available for agricultural activities. The area is used for afforestation in order to prevent soil erosion as much as possible. In order to present the general soil quality in the Province, as can be seen in Figure 3-1, the most of the Province area is covered by agricultural lands having Soil Capability Class-VII. The Project Site is of Class VII and there is no agricultural area in the Project site.
VIII 3%
I 17%
II 7% III 6%
VII 55%
VI 7%
V 0%
IV 5%
II
III
IV
VI
VII
VIII
Figure 3-1. Percentage Distribution of Soil Capability Classes.
January 2009
21/48
3.3.
Surface Water and Groundwater Quality
There is no running surface water at the location of the Project Site. There are some seasonal creeks which might have running water only in the wet seasons. The construction of the Project shall not hinder the flow of any of these waterways. Drainage systems are being built alongside the access roads so that any water flow after the rainy seasons could safely run to their natural beds, without destroying the roads. The foundations of the turbines shall have a depth of around 3 m, not deep enough to destroy any groundwater (GW) resource. Drilling at the turbine locations was carried out to a depth of around 30 m, in order to be sure that there are no water reservoirs under the turbine foundations. No aquifer has been observed up to 30 m. This means that at the hilltops where the turbines are located, the Project will not be a concern in terms of alteration of GW flow pattern and also, GW will not pose any impact on the stability of turbine foundations. 3.4. Landscape
High hills along the mountain ranges dominate the landscape of the region covering the Project Site. There are meadow lands and communities of oak trees on the hills (see Figure 3-2). On the other hand, as there is no special habitat which needs to be protected in the area, there are no natural parks and natural monuments within or nearby the Project Site. Furthermore, there are no landscape elements of particular importance to be stated in the vicinity of the Project Site.
Figure 3-2. Landscape of the Project Area (View from the area of T40 and T41).
January 2009
22/48
3.5.
Ecology and Biotic Resources
In this section of the report, ecological characteristics of the region and the Project Site as well as its vicinity are presented. Ecological data was obtained via desktop and field surveys of DOKAY Project Team. In the context of the desktop studies, information provided in the existing Turkish PIF was also used together with the main literature sources given below: Biodiversity Hotspots identified by the Conservation International3 Global 200 identified by the World Wide Fund for Nature 4
Biodiversity Hotspots are biologically rich areas that are under the greatest threat of destruction and represent a variety of global ecosystems, identified on the basis of three criteria: i) the number of species present, ii) the number of endemic species in an ecosystem and iii) the degree of threat faced. The Project Site is located in Mediterranean Basin, which surrounds the Mediterranean Sea. The basin's location at the intersection of two major landmasses, Eurasia and Africa, has contributed to its high diversity (see Figure 3-3).
Project Area
Figure 3-3. Mediterranean Basin Biodiversity Hotspot.
Global 200 ecoregions are based on selection criteria such as species richness, levels of endemism, taxonomic uniqueness, unusual evolutionary phenomena, and global rarity of major habitat types. In terms of Global 200 ecoregions and habitat, the Project Area is mostly a typical Southern Anatolian mountain conifer and deciduous forests which is represented as
3
4
http://www.conservation.org/xp/CIWEB/ http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/where_we_work/ecoregions/ecoregion_list/index.cfm
January 2009
23/48
PA1220 in Figure 3-4. Situated primarily in Turkey, this is an extremely mountainous ecoregion. It is delineated in Turkey by the high mountains of Southern Anatolia. Due in large part to the influence of the Irano-Turanian phytogeographic realm (Davis 1971), this ecoregion is rich in herbaceous plants and has a high proportion (>30 %) of endemic species, the most in any Mediterranean region. Coniferous, deciduous and alpine forests are the main vegetation formations. Deciduous forests are concentrated in the Amanos Mountains in the eastern part of the ecoregion. This is mainly due to the locally high precipitation rate (c.1,000 mm) which results from the fact that these mountains lie at right angles to the humid onshore winds.
Project Area
Figure 3-4. Global 200 Ecoregions.
One of the main features of this ecoregion is its high level of endemism in large parts of high rocky mountains with deep carstic valleys and the influence of the Irano-Turanian phytogeographic realm in the northern areas (Davis, 1971). The Project Site is not in a Global 200 Ecoregion or national park or any other protected area. The Amanos Mountains is important in terms of migration route for birds rounding the northeast corner of the Mediterranean on their journey between wintering grounds in Africa and breeding grounds in Eastern Europe. However, the Project Site is not on a specific migration route. The migration routes are passing at about 20 km away from the west and the north of the Project Site. Location of the Project Site and the Amanos Mountains Range can be seen in Figure 3-5.
January 2009
24/48
Figure 3-5. Important Nature Areas (Source: Nature Association (Doga Dernegi), 2006)
January 2009
25/48
Flora Species One of the most important characteristics of Amanos Mountains in terms of vegetal cover is the similarity of characteristics of high locations to the characteristics of Eastern Blacksea and the similarity of moderately elevated locations to the Blacksea coasts of the Balkans. Especially, the forests located at the western side of mountains, include relict tree groups of species such as oriental beech (Fagus orientalis), hornbeam (Carpinus orientalis), common yew (Taxus baccata), Ilex colchica, Euxinic lime (Tilia argentea), common box (Buxus sempervirens) which represent the elements of Euxinin and Euro-Siberian phytogeographic realm. Dense oriental beech groups are present at the height of 900 m 1,850 m. At the western sides of the mountains, kermes oak (Quercus coccifera) groups are observed as dominant specie. Mediterranean forests start after 350 m height and extend up to 1,900 m. Between the height of 200 and 750 m, Calabrian pine (Pinus brutia) forests are common. Turkey oak (Quercus cerris) forests start at 600 m height and extend up to 900 m. Blackpine (Pinus nigra ssp. pallasiana) forests are mostly observed between 1,000 and 1,500 m height and form mixed forests with deciduous trees (see Figure 3-6).
Figure 3-6. Mixed Forests with Deciduous Trees at the Project Area.
Along the sides of beech and oak forests, between 1,000 m and 1,700 m elevations, Galanthus fosteri, Sternbergia fischeriana, Anthriscus lamprocarpa, Aristolochia billardieri, Achillea biebersteinii, Centaurea aggregata subsp. aggregata, Echinops viscosus subsp. viscosus, Pilosella hoppeana subsp. pilisquama, Scorzonera kotschyi, Serratula cerinthifolia, Tanacetum aucheri, Saponaria glutinosa, Carex divulsa subsp. divulsa, Euphorbia macroclada, Astragalus andrachneifolius, Salvia viridis, Scutellaria diffusa, Sideritis
January 2009
26/48
perfoliata, Stachys diversifolia, Thymus kotschyanus var. glabrescens, Allium affine are the common herbaceous plants. In conclusion, impacts on flora species are expected to be only on the area where construction activities will take place. It should be noted that these impacts are limited with the areas where the towes will be erected and roads are constructed. Also, since there is no endangered species, the impacts will not cause any loss of flora species. There will not be any impacts on flora species during operational phase. Fauna Species As stated before, the Amanos Mountains are internationally important due to their presence along a migration route of especially the raptorials. Hence, they include variety of bird species. During migration season, white stork (Ciconia ciconia), black stork (Ciconia nigra), great white pelican (Pelacanus onocrotalus), eurasian spoonbill (Platalea leucorodia), common crane (Grus grus), greater white-fronted goose (Anser albifrons), greylag goose (Anser anser), common buzzard (Buteo buteo), european honey-buzzard (Pernis apivorus), black kite (Milvus migrans), egyptian vulture (Neophron percnopterus), western marsh-harrier (Circus aeruginosus), levant sparrowhawk (Accipiter brevipes), lesser spotted eagle (Aquila pomarina), short-toed Snake-eagle (Circaetus gallicus), greater spotted eagle (Aquila clanga), booted eagle (Hieraaetus pennatus) ve steppe eagle (Aquila nipalensis) are the species observed at the region. Moreover, krueper's nuthatch (Sitta krueperi), european roller (Coracias garrulus) and cinereous bunting (Emberiza cineracea) species which are being reproduced at the region are classified as near threatened in International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) 2008 Red List. Moreover, Egyptian vulture (Neophron percnopterus) is an endangered species in accordance with the same list (see Table 3-2). As mentioned before, this mountainous region is also rich in wildlife, largely because the difficult terrain has reduced opportunities for human impact. Brown bear (Ursus arctos), grey wolf (Canis lupus), lynx (Lynx lynx), wild boar (Sus scrofa), red fox (Vulpes vulpes) and caracal (Caracal caracal) are the main carnivores of interest. Wild goat (Capra aegagrus), Western Roe Deer (Capreolus capreolus) and fallow deer (Dama dama) are important herbivorous species found in Amanos Mountains. As a result of desktop studies and field surveys of DOKAY Project Team, it was found out that in the region covering not only the Project site and its vicinity but also boundaries of Bahce and Hasanbeyli districts, there exist 80 taxons including different reptiles, birds and mammal species. All fauna taxons are widespread and do not inhabit the Project Site. In particular, it should be noted that the area does not have any importance as an IBA and a habitat of migratory and local birds as supported by the findings of literature survey. Thus, it is not expected to have any impacts on fauna species due to on-going and future activities of the Project during its construction and operational phases. However, an ornithological report, given in Appendix-??, was prepared.
January 2009
27/46
Table 3-2. Bird Species of the Region and Their Evaluation.

SCIENTIFIC NAME Accipiter brevipes Apus affinis Aquila chrysaetos Aquila pomarina Caprimulgus europaeus Ciconia ciconia Ciconia nigra Circaetus gallicus Coracias garrulus Dendrocopus medius Dendrocopus syriacus Emberiza caesia Emberiza cineracea Emberiza hortulana Falco peregrinus Grus grus Halcyon smyrnensis Hieraaetus pennatus Hieraaetus fasciatus Hippolais olivetorum Lanius collurio Lanius minor Lanius nubicus Lullula arborea Milvus migrans Neophron percnopterus Pelacanus onocrotalus Sitta krueperi Sylvia rueppelli COMMON NAME Levant Sparrowhawk Little Swift Golden Eagle Lesser Spotted Eagle Eurasian Nightjar White Stork Black Stork Short-toed Eagle European Roller Middle Spotted Woodpecker Syrian Woodpecker Cretzschmar's Bunting Cinereous Bunting Ortolan Bunting Peregrine Falcon Common Crane White-throated Kingfisher Booted Eagle Bonelli's Eagle Olive-tree Warbler Red-backed Shrike Lesser Grey Shrike Masked Shrike Wood Lark Black Kite Egyptian Vulture Great White Pelican Krueper's Nuthatch Rueppell's Warbler IUCN VU LC LC LC LC LC LC LC NT LC LC LC VU LC LC EN LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC VU EN LC LC BERN Appendix II Appendix II Appendix II Appendix II Appendix II Appendix II Appendix II Appendix II Appendix II Appendix II Appendix II Appendix II Appendix II Appendix II Appendix II Appendix II Appendix II Appendix II Appendix II Appendix II Appendix II Appendix II Appendix II Appendix II Appendix II Appendix II Appendix II Appendix II Appendix II CHC 2008-2009 Appendix I Appendix I Appendix I Appendix I Appendix I Appendix I Appendix I Appendix I Appendix I Appendix I Appendix I Appendix I Appendix I Appendix I Appendix I Appendix I Appendix I Appendix I Appendix I Appendix I Appendix I Appendix I Appendix I Appendix I Appendix I Appendix I Appendix I Appendix I Appendix I POPULATION 2.950 Individual (Migration) 40-50 Couple (Reproduction) Endemic (Reproduction) 11.000 Individual (Migration) Present (Reproduction) 20.000-103.000 Individual (Migration) 2.086-3.303 Individual (Migration) 443-728 Individual (Migration) Present (Reproduction) Present (Reproduction) Present (Reproduction) Present (Reproduction) Present (Reproduction) Endemic (Reproduction) Present (Reproduction) 3.000-4.000 Individual (Migration) 3 Couple (Reproduction) 588 Individual (Migration) Present (Reproduction) Present (Reproduction) Present (Reproduction) Present (Reproduction) Present (Reproduction) Present (Reproduction) Present (Migration) Present (Reproduction) 6.203 Individual (Migration) Abundant (Reproduction) Present (Reproduction)
Note: There are two endangered (EN) bird species in the region (Amanos Mountains). These species are migratory birds which follow main migration routes which do not pass over the Project site. BERN CONVENTION APPENDX II (Strictly Protected Fauna Species) CHC 2008 - 2009: Central Hunting Commission Decision which is annually announced in Turkey and species in Appendix-I of the Decision stands for species of which hunting is strictly forbidden. Source: Doga Dernegi Publications, Important Bird Areas of Turkey, 2006. Osmaniye Bahce Wind Farm (135 MW) Project Environmental and Social Impact Assessment January 2009
28/46
Protected Areas This sub-section presents the protected areas in relation to the locale of the Project Site and their importance. At 33 km southwest of the Project Site, Osmaniye Zorkun Highland Wildlife Reproduction Area is situated. This site covers an area of 3,869 ha and is important in terms of Roe Deer (Capreolus capreolus) species. Karatepe Aslantas National Park is located at 35 km northwest of the Project Area. Covering 7,715 ha area, the site is declared as National Park in 1958. These two areas will not be affected from the Project considering the distance to the site and characteristics of the Project. Figure 3-7 shows the protected areas around the Project Site.
Project Area
NATIONAL PARK WILDLIFE REPRODUCTION AREA
Figure 3-7. Map of Protected Areas (Source: Doga Dernegi, 2007).

29/48
3.6.
Air Quality
Industrial activity is not considerably dense in Bahce. There are only minor repair and maintenance workshops and some small scale industrial establishment manufacturing variety of goods. Therefore, all the industrial establishments in the region have the Class B emission license which indicates that there is no major source of air pollution due to industrial activities (Osmaniye Governorship, 2007). Considering the fact that there is no large-scale heavy industry in the region, the ambient air quality is not expected to be poor in the region. Furthermore, it is not needed to carry out an air quality monitoring survey at the Project Site since the Project will not cause any air emission during its operational phases. And, fugitive dust emissions will be temporary and controlled with conventional measures (e.g., water spraying on the roads) taken against dust, and hence, no dust measurements for the background were conducted. 3.7. Noise
Since the Project Site is located in a rural area, the background noise level is low. In fact, this statement is supported by the results of spot noise measurements which were conducted in day time by DOKAY in the vicinity of the Project Site and in particular at the nearest house of Gokmustafali Village to the site as a sensitive receptor. The background equivalent noise level (Leq) has been measured within the range of 45-55 dBA. It can be also noted that one of the major source to have noise levels of 55 dBA at the Village is the traffic noise coming from the Adana-Gaziantep highway passing at less than 1 km to the south of the Village. 3.8. 3.8.1. Socioeconomic Conditions and Cultural Heritage Osmaniye Province
Osmaniye is a province in the Mediterranean Region of Turkey. Formerly a district of Adana Province, Osmaniye became a province in 1996. Osmaniye has six districts (namely, Bahce, Duzici, Hasanbeyli, Kadirli, Sumbas and Toprakkale) and 168 villages. Population growth rate has been decreasing in Osmaniye since the 2000s. While the population of the province was 458.782 as depicted by 2000 Population Census, it decreased down to 452.880 according to the Address Based Population Registration System (ABPRS) of year 2007. The annual population growth rate of Osmaniye between 2000-2007 is calculated as 13.7. On the other hand, the same figure for the period 1990-2000 was 17.8. According to the ABPRS, both male and female populations have almost an equal share in the total population (males 49.8%, females 50.2%). The Province has a young population with a median age around 22.
30/48
The majority of population lives in urban areas (71%), and the overall population density in the province is 145. 80% of the population is Osmaniye-born residents. The places of birth for the remaining 20% are respectively Kahramanmaras and Adana. The labour force participation rate for the population aged over 125 is 48% according to the 2000 Population Census. This figure is lower than the average for Turkey (55.2%). Moreover, the labour force participation rate significantly varies on the basis of sex. While male labour force participation rate is 62%, the rate for females is 34%. Osmaniye is surrounded by mountains and its interactions with the neighboring provinces have been limited because of this situation. Due to this fact, Osmaniye has become economically dependent on Adana Province. The economy of the Province largely relies on agriculture, but the development of the agricultural infrastructure has been rather insufficient. The majority of the working population (60%) is employed in agriculture, animal husbandry, forestry, fishing and hunting works. Industry and service sectors are not much developed. There are some repair and maintenance establishments and small-scale automobile spare parts manufacturing facilities. Unemployment is a major problem in Osmaniye. Unemployment rate in the Province is 14.9% according to the 2000 Population Census which is significantly above the country average (6.5%). The main reasons for unemployment are generally stated as lack of investments due to infrastructural problems as well as the presence of unskilled labour force. The literacy rate6 across the Province is 86% which significantly varies according to sex. The literacy rates for males and females are 93% and 79%, respectively. While 14% of the population is illiterate, 23.4% are literate without any school completion, 35.9% have received primary education, 8.3% have received secondary education, 14.5% are high school graduates and 3.9% have received graduate and post-graduate education. The numbers of primary, high schools and vocational high schools in Osmaniye are 328, 17 and 15, respectively. The high percent of young population as well as exposure to migration from nearby provinces and districts has lead to a growing demand in educational services. Although there have been some improvements in the number of educational facilities and personnel, the number of students per teacher in high schools is still higher than the averages for the Mediterranean Region and Turkey.
5 6
Persons who are either currently working or seeking employment For the population above age 6.
January 2009
31/48
The fertility level of the Province is higher than the country average. The general fertility rate (GFR)7 by 2007 is 69 while the same figure for Turkey is 57. There has been a uniform increase in fertility pattern of the Province since 2003 (GFR 50)8. As far as the health services are concerned, the personnel resource in Osmaniye is rather insufficient to meet the demand of the Project. According to the figures of year 2000, the number of patients per doctor (2,589) is significantly higher than the averages for the Mediterranean region (1,235) and Turkey (907). There are three state hospitals, 243 health centers and six dispensaries in Osmaniye. This indicates that there is a definite need for doctors and healthcare facilities in the Province. 3.8.2. Bahce District
Bahce is located at 32 km distance to the province center of Osmaniye. With a surface area of 180 km2, it is one of the smallest villages of Osmaniye. Apart from the district center, there are 15 villages within the borders of the district. With a median age of 26, Bahceli has older population structure compared to other districts. The population of the district has not grown much over the years since it is located in a mountainous area. According to the 2000 Population Census, the total population of the district is 26.398. 57% of this population resides in district center and 43% reside in villages. The population density in the district is 153. The literacy rate in the district is higher than the average for the Province (92%). There are nine primary schools and five high schools. The majority of the working population is engaged in agricultural activities (49.5%). Nevertheless, due to its undulating structure, agricultural lands are scarce and the soil capability is rather low (see Figure 3-1). Due to these reasons, agricultural production in the district is significantly low. The proximity to developed trade centers such as Adana, Gaziantep and Osmaniye has hindered the development of the district in terms of industry and trade as well as social functions. The most important source for trade is the 15 service areas located on the highway. Currently, there are not any socio-cultural facilities established in the district such as cinemas, theatres, festivals and local newspapers. Due to its undulating structure and dispersed settlements, the district has been experiencing significant infrastructural problems. On the other hand, there is a considerable potential in terms of utilization as a mountain pasture.
7 8
Measures the number of births per 1,000 women aged 15 to 49. www.osmsaglik.gov.tr (Official web site of Osmaniye Provincial Directorate of Health)
January 2009
32/48
3.8.3.
Project Site
The settlements that might be most affected from the Project Site are Gokmustafali Village9 (see Figure 3-8) and Savranl Village.
Figure 3-8. General View of Gokmustafali Village.
Within the scope of the field survey carried out on July 25, 2008, those villages have also been visited and headman (Mukhtar) interviews were conducted as part of the preliminary social impact assessment study (see Figures 3-9 and 3-10).
Figure 3-9. Interview with Mukhtar of Savranli Village and Visit to the Village.
Less than 1 km
January 2009
33/48
Figure 3-10. Interview with Mukhtar of Gokmustafali Village during Lunch at the Site.
The questionnaires included questions on basic socio-economic variables as well as questions for the assessment of information and concerns about wind farms (see AppendixB). Information on the basic socio-economic indicators regarding the surveyed villages are presented below in Table 3-3.
Table 3-3. Results of Headman Questionnaire Surveys.
Name of Village Name of Headman Murat Yuksel Mehmet Ramazan Karadam # of Households Average Household Size 4 Average Educational Attainment High school # of Education Facilities None
(1)
Population
# of Health Care Facilities None

(1)
Gokmustafali
462
117 70 (winter) 100 (summer)
Savranli
(1)
270
High school
None
(1)
None
(1)
Located in Bahce District (3 km distance)
Table 3-3. (continued).

Name of Village Major Source of Income Pensions Agriculture and animal husbandry for selfsubsistence Pensions Agriculture and animal husbandry for selfsubsistence Average Monthly Income per Household Water Supply Usage of Electricity Sewage System
# of Animals
Gokmustafali
< min. wage
Cattle (40) Sheep (20) Poultry (1500) Cattle (100) Sheep (250) Goats (150) Poultry (200)
Spring
Electricity network
No network
Savranli
500 YTL
Spring
Electricity network
No network
Gokmustafal Village (population of 462) is more populated than Savranli Village (population of 270). There are almost 117 households in Gokmustafali Village and the household number increases upto 100 in Savranli Village during summer months. The villages tend to be more populated during the summer months since they serve as a mountain pasture for those
34/48
village residents living in nearby districts or provinces. Average household size is reported as four by both villages. There are not any educational and healthcare facilities in both villages and people go to the nearest district center (Bahce) to obtain these services. The average educational attainment in the village is high school graduation. In both villages, retired population comprises the majority of the community. The major source of income is retirement pensions since these people are not currently engaged in any other works. Although agriculture and animal husbandry are practiced in both villages, they are performed mainly for self needs rather than economical concerns The mean age for both village populations is around 40 which means that young population are residing outside basicly for education and work purposes. In terms of infrastructure, both villages have electricity networks. Meanwhile, there is not any sewage system in the villages and septic tanks are being used. The major concern reported for both villages is water shortage which is recently a common problem in Turkey. Both villages utilize spring water and village communities are anxious about resource scarcity. Hence, the interviewees have reported that execution of drilling works for new water resources would be one of the major favors that would be made for themselves. The headmen of the two villages have reported that they have never heard of the concept renewable energy. While one of them has had no idea about wind farms until this Project, the other stated that he has been familiar to wind farms from TV. The potential impacts associated with wind farms as raised by the headmen were vibration and electromagnetic problems. It was mentioned to the headmen that no such impacts are expected in this project since the settlements are located at a safe distance in terms of such potential impacts. In terms of benefits, one of the interviewees stated about lesser environmental pollution. Both headmen stated that the region was not located on a bird migration route. During the field survey, both villages were observed to be positive towards the Project. It seems that the Project Staff has managed to establish strong and friendly relations with the neighboring communities. The Project seems to have proven successful in ensuring that as much effort as possible will be made for maximizing community benefits. 3.8.4. Cultural Heritage
Regarding the cultural heritage in the Project Site, it should be noted that the Project Site does not pose any problem with respect to historical and cultural assets. The officials from the Museum Directorate of the Osmaniye Province have surveyed the site within the process for the preparation of the PIF and no such assets have been identified within the Project Site.
35/48
4.
DESCRIPTION AND ASSESSMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED OPERATION
In this chapter of the ESIA Report, assessment of potential environmental impacts of the Project is presented. The Project was considered as an integrated one together with its transmission lines extending for about 7 km to the Bahce Substation. Environmental impacts of the Project will be examined in two phases; i) construction and ii) operation. 4.1. Impacts Associated with Construction
In general, construction activities for wind energy projects typically include the followings: land clearing for site preparation and access routes; excavation, blasting (if needed) and filling; transportation of supply materials and fuels; construction of foundations involving excavations and concrete works; operating cranes for unloading and installation of equipment; and commissioning of new equipment.
Figure 4-1 shows typical construction activities and installation of turbines in wind power projects. Environmental issues associated with the construction activities may include, among others, noise and vibration, soil erosion, and threats to biodiversity, including habitat alteration and impacts to wildlife. Due to the typically remote location of wind energy conversion facilities, the transport of equipment and materials during construction may present logistical challenges. Since this is the case in the Osmaniye Bahce Wind Farm Project, the camp location was selected close to the Project Site and constructions of access roads (in fact, widening of the existing village and forest roads) were already started in order to ease the logistical challenges. Site visits were performed by DOKAY both before and during the construction works related to access roads and site preparation at the tower locales. Site managers of ROTOR and Construction Contractor were visited at the site and DOKAY field team members (one environmental engineer, one sociologist and one biologist) were informed by them (see Figure 4-2). Potential impacts of the construction activities of the Project will be assessed under the following subtitles which were determined based on IFC guidelines: Impacts on Air Quality; Impacts on Water Quality; Impacts on Habitats; Excavated Material; Noise and Vibration; Impacts on Local Activities and Traffic; and Occupational Health and Safety.
January 2009
36/48
Source: ROTOR Presentation for the Stakeholder Meeting on June 19, 2008.
Figure 4-1. Typical Construction Activities and Installation of Turbines in Wind Power Projects.
January 2009
37/48
Figure 4-2. Site Visit together with the Construction Contractor.
4.1.1.
Impacts on Air Quality
Potential impacts on air quality may include mainly the followings: dust formation due to excavation for site preparation and hauling of excavated material from the site for disposal; air pollutant emissions from construction heavy machineries and vehicles used in the site.
Dust may result due to transportation on unpaved roads and transportation of material without covering the top of truck. These impacts will be controlled by watering roads under dry, warm and windy weather conditions. These mitigation measures have already been taken at the site as observed by the DOKAY field team (see Figure 4-3). Loading and unloading material with sluing can be another factor stimulating dust emission.
Figure 4-3. Water Spraying on the Access Roads against Dust Formation.
38/48
Machinery and vehicle emissions are minimised applying good practice such as proper maintenance and restrictions on idling at the site. In this respect, it can be concluded that vehicle emissions do not cause any significant impact on ambient air quality. Exhaustemissions of vehicles will be monitored in accordance with the Bulletin (#2003/9) of the MoEF on Exhaust Gases of Motor Vehicles and Regulation on Control of Exhaust Gases of Vehicles in the Road Traffic (issued in the Official Gazette numbered 25868 and dated May 08, 2005). 4.1.2. Impacts on Water Quality
Potential impacts on water quality may occur during wet seasons due to the erosion of excavated material stored in steep slopes which may reach to nearby surface water bodies such as seasonal creeks in the Project Area and cause temporary increase in turbidity. Therefore, necessary mitigation measures will be taken in order to prevent the flow of excavated materials into nearby seasonal creeks. In this respect, excavated material generated during on-going construction works were used as fill material for road construction in the Project Site. Domestic wastewater generated by the construction staff will be discharged into the sewer system of Bahce District since the camp site is located within the boundaries of Bahce Municipality and its sewer has been already connected to the existing wastewater collection infrastructure of the District Centre. In case of a need to construct another camp site at the Project Area, then septic tanks will be built in accordance with the pertinent legislation and will be emptied by sewer trucks of the Bahce Municipality. There will be no direct discharge of wastewater to any receiving water body. There is also a possibility of oil leakage from the machineries and its spill into a receiving water body. This will be prevented by proper and regular implementation of maintenance procedures for construction machineries and vehicles. Besides, construction contractor should have a capacity of emergency response in case of such a spill at the site before it reaches to a nearby creek. 4.1.3. Impacts on Habitats
The Project Site does not possess any feature of a habitat for threatened species. Furthermore, due to excessive grazing in the Project Area, the population densities of the elements of endemic plant species are less. Due to all these findings and short duration of construction activities, it is not expected to have irreversible impacts on the existing habitats at the site during construction. Furthermore, the revenue earned from leases to Rotor by the Forestry Authorities exceeds the revenue from the forested land. Therefore, the Project will improve and increase forestry in other areas as an indirect result.
39/48
Additionally, the transmission line to be erected in the context of the Project will not cause a permanent habitat alteration since the vegetation cover under the lines will recover to a certain extent which will not pose any risk to the operation as well. 4.1.4. Excavated Material
First of all, required amount of excavated materials will be stored in the construction site for further use in construction activities. According to interview of DOKAY Field Team with the Construction Contractor, the remaining part of excavated material are being transported and stored in storage sites which were identified by the Regional Directorate of Forestry. The top soils stripped prior to construction are stored in a separate place to be used for landscaping for the switchyard facilities after construction activities are finished. Total amount of excavated material to be generated during the construction of turbines, transmission lines and switchyard facilities are presented in Table 4-1. The total volume of 36,817 m3 excavated material is equal to 58,907 tons.
Table 4-1. Estimated Total Amount of Excavated Material. Project Components Turbines (54 towers) Transmission Line Pilons (25 pieces) Switchyard Total Excavation Area and Depth (m) (18 m x 18 m) x 2 m (2 m x 2 m) x 3 m x (4 legs) (25 m x 25 m) x 1 m Total Amount of Excavated Material 3 (m ) 34,992 1,200 625 36,817
4.1.5.
Noise and Vibration
There might be only temporary disturbance to local people due to utilization of heavy machinery in close distance to the Gokmustafali Village. Noise and vibration may be more problematic when carrying out construction activities in the nighttime with permission of the local authorities. Machinery which need repair may cause higher noise levels and hence, proper and regular maintenance is important and shall be performed accordingly. In the context of the Turkish PIF preparation, the construction noise levels were calculated based on the following formula: LWT LW LWT = 10 Log ( 10Lwi/10) = Sound power level of each source (dB) = Total sound power level (dB)
In the same study, the noise level distribution along the distance from the source was also calculated using the formula given below:
40/48
LPT A LPT Q r
= LWT + 10 Log (Q/A) = 4r2 = Total sound pressure at a distance of r (dBA) = Reflection Factor (spherical distribution, Q =2) = Distance from the noise source (m)
In the noise distribution an important factor is atmospheric attenaution and it has been considered in this calculation based on the Formula below: Aatm Aatm f r = 7,4 x 10-8 x f2 x r / = Atmospheric attenuation (dBA) = Frequency of sound (taken as 3,500 Hz for construction machineries) = Distance from the noise source (m) = Relative humidity of atmosphere (77%)
A scenario where all vehicles given in Table 4-2 are operating at the same time was taken into account for the calculation of total noise levels at r distances. These noise levels at r distances were calculated using all above stated formulas and results are presented with respect to different r values in Table 4-3.
Table 4-2. Machineries and Their Sound Power Levels. Machineries Truck Excavator Concrete Mixer Loader Number 2 2 2 2 Sound Power Levels(dBA) 85 110 115 120
Table 4-3. Noise Level at Receptors at a Distance of r from the Source. r (m) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 150 200 250 Truck (dBA) 57,02 51,00 47,48 44,98 43,04 41,46 40,12 38,96 37,94 37,02 33,50 31,00 29,06 Concrete Mixer (dBA) 87,02 81,00 77,48 74,98 73,04 71,46 70,12 68,96 67,94 67,02 63,50 61,00 59,06 Excavator (dBA) 77,02 71,00 67,48 64,98 63,04 61,46 60,12 58,96 57,94 57,02 53,50 51,00 49,06 Loader (dBA) 82,02 76,00 72,48 69,98 68,04 66,46 65,12 63,96 62,94 62,02 58,50 56,00 54,06 Leq (dBA) 88,54 82,52 79,00 76,50 74,56 72,97 71,64 70,48 69,45 68,54 65,02 62,52 60,58 Aatm (dBA) 0,14 0,28 0,42 0,56 0,70 0,84 0,98 1,12 1,26 1,39 2,09 2,79 3,49 LT (dBA) 88,40 82,24 78,58 75,94 73,86 72,14 70,66 69,36 68,20 67,14 62,92 59,73 57,09
January 2009
41/48
As can be seen in Table 4-3, at a distance of 70 to 80 m, the noise level decreases below 70 dBA which is a limit value not to be exceeded at the nearest receptor according to Turkish Regulation on Environmental Noise Assessment and Control (Official Gazette numbered 26809 and dated March 07, 2008). During daytime construction activities, within 300 m noise level will be lower than the limits given in guidelines of IFC presented in Table 4-4. As there is no residential area within this distance, it complies with those IFC limits.
Table 4-4 Noise Level Guidelines of IFC. Receptor Residential, institutional, educational Industrial, commercial
Source: IFC, 2007
One-hour LAeq (dBA) Daytime (07:00-22:00) 55 70 Nighttime (22:00-07:00) 45 70
4.1.6.
Waste Management
Domestic solid waste are being produced by construction staff, and being collected and transported to the disposal site shown by the Municipality of Bahce. In the construction site, there will be no environmental impact arising from uncontrolled domestic solid waste. Waste management regarding the regular collection of domestic solid wastes (using bins and trucks for disposal) at the site was also observed during the site visit of the DOKAY Field Team (see Figure 4-4). Any kind of hazardous waste (empty paint or lubricating oil cans, waste oil generated during maintenance of heavy vehicles, waste batteries or accumulators from different construction equipment, solvents) will be collected by a company certified by the MoEF and removed in a proper way (i.e., at a certified facility such as Izaydas of Turkey).
Figure 4-4. Domestic Solid Waste Collection Bins Placed at Different Locations of Construction Site.
42/48
4.1.7.
Impacts on Local Activities and Traffic
The Project Site is being used for grazing by herders from Gokmustafali Village. ROTOR is not limiting and will not limit access to grazing fields (see Figure 4-5). Thus, no displacement of herders is predicted. Furthermore, regarding the potential impacts of the construction activities, increase in local traffic can be seen. In this respect, ROTOR prefers to deploy the equipment to the site from the main road close to the District Centre of Bahce instead of passing through the District Centre of Hasanbeyli where traffic load may cause accidents. Due to the fact that the trucks deploying equipment to be installed and construction material will not pass through any settlement within the proposed project area, it is not expected to have impact on local people. However, during the transpotation of the turbines to the project area, Regional Traffic Directorate will be informed about the transport route and other details, and mitigation measures including warning signs, escort vehicles, etc will be taken.
Figure 4-5. Sheeps grazing in the Project Area.
4.1.8.
Occupational Health and Safety
Due to the fact that there might be injuries or fatalities as a result of falls from height (during tower erection and line assembly) and/or use of heavy construction machineries, pertinent Turkish legislation (e.g., Regulation on Occupational Health and Safety) will be followed up in addition to the requirements of PS2 (Labor and Working Conditions) of IFC. In this way, it is aimed to minimize such risks on worker health and safety. DOKAY Field Team had a meeting with Construction Contractor and ROTOR Site Manager on the site on July 25, 2008. During the meeting, it was learned that in the contract of Construction Contractor, it is clearly stated to comply with relevant rules and regulations for the occupational health and safety as well as environment during construction works. In this manner, there is a separate section named as "Quality, Health, Safety and Environment" in
43/48
the Contract with the Contractor. Figures 4-6 shows what has been made in terms of workers and public health at the construction site. Furthermore, ROTOR has already employed an HSE site manager who will follow up the commitments in the Turkish PIF and English ESIA Report. The HSE site manager of ROTOR is experienced in national and international HSE rules and regulations as he has worked in the HSE departments of international companies working in Turkey. 4.2. Impacts Associated with Operation, Closure and Decommissioning
The important impacts for the operational phase of the Project can be listed as follows in accordance with environmental issues, specific to the operation of wind energy projects and facilities, stated in the IFC Environmental, Health and Safety Guidelines for Wind Energy: Visual impacts; Light and illumination issues; Noise impacts; Disturbance to species; Impacts on habitats; and Impacts on water quality.
Figure 4-6. Workers and Public Health Measures Implemented at the Site.
44/48
4.2.1.
Visual Impacts
Depending on the location and local public perception, a wind farm may have an impact on visual resources. Visual impacts associated with wind energy projects typically concern the turbines themselves (e.g. color, height, and number of turbines) and impacts relating to their interaction with the character of the surrounding landscape. This was raised as a question in DOKAYs questionnaire presented in Appendix-C and in the form distributed to local people during stakeholder meeting in Bahce for carbon certification procedure. It was found that there were no such perception or hesitation on local people about the visual disturbance of wind towers and turbines and even there were positive reactions such as suggestion of platforms to watch the towers. DOKAY has carried out a visual impact assessment study using Geographical Information System (GIS) tools in order to portray how the turbines will be seen from the nearby sensitive receptors (e.g., District Centre of Bahce and Gokmustafali Village). This assessment was made based on the worst case scenario where the existing vegetation cover (i.e., trees) may serve as a visual screen in between the turbines and the receptors (see Appendix-C). Thus, in reality, the potential impacts will be less considering the vegetation cover. In addition to the turbines, infrastructures such as access roads to be widened in the forest lands and power transmission lines might be considered to have visual impacts. As the transmission line route will be in parallel to an existing line connected to the existing Bahce Substation, it will not have additional visual impacts. 4.2.2. Light and Illumination Issues
The rotating blades of a wind turbine may cause a stroboscope effect (influencing brain directly). This effect is caused by shadow flickers occurring with high frequency. The GE turbines to be installed in the context of the Project will work on lower rotational speed. This is an impact mitigation measure taken at the source against the shadow flicker. According to the most of the literature sources, effect of the shadow flicker is felt within a radius of c. 500 m. Since the nearest house is at a distance of c. 1 km, there is no concern on this topic for the proposed wind farm. 4.2.3. Noise Impacts
In the context of the PIF preparation during the EIA procedure required by the Turkish authorities, mathematical modeling was made in order to estimate the noise level, generated by the turbines, reaching to the nearest receptor. As a result of the study it was found out that the Turkish noise limit values (Leq) for day time and night time (i.e., 60 and 50 dBA, respectively) are complied with. It is expected that there will be no aerodynamic noise beyond 300 m from the wind turbines, and hence, there will be no impacts on the nearest community since Gokmustafali Village is about 1 km away from the Project Site. It should
January 2009
45/48
also be noted that mechanical noise from wind turbines will be kept as minimum as possible by means of insulation at the gearbox and the generator of each wind turbine. 4.2.4. Disturbance to Species
In general, blades of wind turbines may disturb or be fatal for birds. Since the site of the Osmaniye Bahce Wind Farm Project is not located on a path for migrating birds, no significant impact is expected. Also, considering the local birds, there are singing birds which fly at relatively lower heights and the rotors of the turbines do not pose any threat on them. On the other hand, to be on the safe side and to monitor the migratory birds, an ornithological survey will be carried out (in spring and/or fall seasons when migration takes place) by internationally known ornithological experts. It should be noted that DOKAY field team observed a few individuals of white storks during their initial site survey in early June 2008. 4.2.5. Habitat Alteration
There is no significant contribution of wind power projects, in general, to habitat alteration. However, since the Project is an integrated one covering transmission lines (c. 7 km) to be connected to the Bahce Substation, habitat alteration has been assessed during the field works of DOKAY Project Team. In addition, at some locales in the Project Site, there are constructions of access roads in addition to the existing forest roads which are also being widened. These additional roads may also cause habitat fragmentation. However, since their length is relatively shorter, there will be possibilities for the passage of fauna species from one side to the other. Regarding the impacts of transmission lines, they will not cause a permanent habitat alteration since the vegetation cover under the lines will recover to a certain extent which will not pose any risk to the operation as well. It should also be mentioned that the Project Site does not possess any special habitat for wildlife and is away from protected areas which were expressed in Section 3.5 of this ESIA Report. 4.2.6. Impacts on Water and Soil Quality
Since the wind turbines are equipped with oil absorption and collection systems to prevent leaking, no contamination of surface or groundwater or soil from lubricating oils is expected during the operational phase of the Project. Furthermore, the foundations of the turbines shall have a depth of c.3 m that is not deep enough to destroy any groundwater resource. As a result of the drilling works conducted in the context of the geotechnical works at all the turbine locations, there is no groundwater to the depth of around 30 m. Therefore, there is no possibility of groundwater flow blockage or alteration due to the foundations of turbines. On the other hand, considering that there will be a total of 40 km new road construction (i.e., 20 km for new roads and 20 km for widening of the existing forest access roads) in the context of the Project. The new road construction may cause an impact on surface infiltration rates of
46/48
water due to the change on the surface runoff coefficient which will lead less infiltarion of water and hence less groundwater accumulation. However, compared to the overall area where the turbines are going to be installed, the area to be occupied by new roads (less than 1/100 in terms of area size) will not be a major issue in terms of groundwater impacts. With a proper waste management, solid wastes, hazardous wastes and wastewaters to be generated during operational phase can be controlled and managed in order not to have any impacts on soil, surface water and groundwater resources. 4.3. 4.3.1. Comparison of Impacts Associated with Alternatives Construction Phase
Alternatives considered in the construction phase are mainly related to the placement of the turbines, selection of access roads to the site, location of camp site. ROTOR has considered the environmental aspects while giving decision on these issues. In this respect, the followings are the assessment of these alternatives in relation to the construction phase: Turbines are places in two main rows among which the distance is kept as 500 m not to disturb the wind pattern in the area; Total length of the access roads were kept as minimum as possible and the main access road to the site was routed from Bahce instead of Hasanbeyli since the road had to pass through Hasanbeyli and cause risk to public health due to increase in local traffic. The camp site for construction was chosen at a location close to the District Centre of Bahce where the necessary infrastructure for electricity and water supply as well as wastewater discharge are available. In this manner, possible impacts on wildlife due to construction activities for a camp in the Project Site were avoided. Foot prints of the turbines were kept as minimum as possible in order not to cause permanent land take on larger forest areas. Operational Phase
4.3.2.
Selection of turbines is important for less noise and avoidance of bird strikes as well as prevention of shadow flicker impacts. Thus, ROTOR has chosen GE Turbines with low rotational speed. It should be also noted that mechanical noise from wind turbines will be kept as minimum as possible by means of insulation at the gearbox and the generator of each wind turbine. Depending on ecological monitoring for bird species (migratory and local ones), if needed, additional measures (e.g., changes in operational methods such as lowering the rotational speed of the rotors) can be taken during the operation
January 2009
47/48
4.4.
Cumulative Impacts Associated with Project and Other Planned or Existing Developments in the Area
In addition to the Project, ROTOR is planning to erect two more wind farms in Bahce which will have installed power capacities of 50 MW and 60 MW. Therefore, in this subsection of the ESIA Report, it is intended to assess the cumulative impacts of these two additional phases together with the on-going Project. On the other hand, there should be separate ESIA works to be conducted for these two additional wind farms of 50 MM and 60 MW in order to find out site specific baseline and project specific impacts on the baseline conditions as well as corresponding mitigation measures. These two additional wind farms will be erected at an area that is 5 km to the north of the site of the Project with an installed power capacity of 135 MW. These additional wind farms will be realized following the completion of the 135 MW wind farm. Therefore, there will not be overlapping of construction activities and hence, cumulative impacts are not expected during the construction phases. On the other hand, operational phases will overlap and the expected cumulative operational impacts might be considered as i) noise and ii) visual impacts. Since the distance in between the Project and the other two proposed farms is too long to have overlapping of noise distribution from each farm assuming that the noise will be less than limit values at a distance of 300 m. In short, due to the remarkable distances between the additional two wind farms and the one with installed power capacity of 135 MW, it is not expected to have overlapping noise levels reaching sensitive receptors in the area. Regarding the cumulative visual impacts, it is not possible to make an assessment at this phase since the locations of turbines are not determined at the moment. Thus, it is recommended to do visual impact assessment for the Project and the additional two wind farms during the ESIA works to be conducted for these additional wind farms.
January 2009
48/48
5.
DESCRIPTION OF MITIGATING MEASURES AND/OR MEASURES TO ENHANCE ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS (ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN)
The Osmaniye Bahce Wind Farm Project is classified as a Category-B project according to IFCs Environmental and Social Review Procedure since a limited number of environmental and social impacts may result which can be avoided or mitigated by adhering to generally recognized performance standards, guidelines or design criteria. The Project impacts are inherently positive as the project will generate energy from a renewable resource. As the Project, including the wind farm and 7-km transmission line is located on state-owned land allocated mostly for forest plantation; socioeconomic impacts associated with land acquisition do not arise. Similarly, as the forest is a plantation one under regular planting and harvesting, there is existing activity and human presence in the area. In addition as the Project will use existing forestry roads, it has minimal impacts on any local fauna or timber resources as its physical footprint is relatively small. There is strong local support for the Project amongst local community and regional and national environmental NGOs. Under these circumstances, the necessary mitigating measures for the environmental impacts of the Project are outlined in the Environmental Management Plan (EMP) presented in Appendix-A. This EMP covers the topics, given below, which are the typical headings of an EMP requested by international lenders including the IFC: Identification of responsible parties involved in the implementation of the Project; Description of the Project; Legal framework; A rehabilitation plan which describes the environmental impacts that may arise as a result of the Project activities and proposes pertinent mitigating measures; A monitoring plan; Institutional arrangements; and Stakeholder consultation.
As can be seen from the above stated topics, the EMP is a stand-alone document which can be improved based on the progress in the Project and incorporated into any other document that might be provided to a construction contractor for the site implementation. At the present, ROTOR has prepared and included an HSE plan, in the contract with the construction contractor, including a limited assessment of environmental impacts and recommendations on good practice for waste management. This is being implemented on the site by the contractor as stated in Chapter 4. The EMP presented in Appendix-A of the ESIA Report will be also provided to the contractor to improve the mitigation measures that are being implemented.
January 2009
49/48
6.
OUTLINE OF ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PLAN
Environmental Monitoring Plan is also included within the EMP presented in Appendix-A of this ESIA Report. The environmental monitoring activities are determined for two different phases of the Project, namely those of construction and operation. The plan includes the parameters to be monitored and determines the roles and responsibilities of the parties involved in the realization of the Project. 6.1. Construction Phase
During the construction phase, quality of water (pH, COD, Suspended Solids, Oil-Grease) and air (PM10), waste management practices and noise levels (Leq) at the nearest receptor (Gokmustafali Village) will be monitored by the construction contractor (or an environmental consultant, certified by the MoEF to carry out environmental monitoring works, to be contracted by the construction contractor) and the results will be compared to limit values stipulated in Turkish Legislation as well as the values in the IFC Guidelines. The construction contractor will prepare a report on monitoring studies according to the following program: Weekly Progress Reports (including environmental problems occurred during that week and precautions taken) Monthly Environmental Monitoring Reports in which environmental performance of the Project is evaluated according to the ESIA commitments. Operational Phase
6.2.
In the operational phase of the Project, relatively less environmental impacts (operational noise) are expected compared to the construction period. Thus, only quarterly environmental audits and reporting to be focused on noise (Leq measurements in Gokmustafali Village) and ecology (e.g., bird survey might be needed in operation phase depending on the results of initial survey to be conducted in construction phase in the upcoming bird migration season in Spring 2009 at the earliest in order to see whether the project site is really away from the bird migration paths as expected) will be carried out by an environmental consultant. In addition, it is also recommended to carry out social survey prior to the operational phases in order to determine the needs of the local society and to develop social responsibility projects. Findings of the rapid social survey, conducted in the ESIA works and presented in Section 3.8 can be a starting point. Furthermore, in the operational phase of the Project, there should be a routine social monitoring to follow up the development of the social responsibility projects and to record and resolve any complaint about the operations of the Osmaniye Bahce Wind Farm Project. A grievance mechanism including logging of concerns to be raised by local community and follow up of the issue by site manager of Rotor is already being implemented at the site in order to address such concerns. This is a typical procedure which is followed by Zorlu Energy Group in all their projects.
50/48
REFERENCES

Davis P.H., Flora of Turkey and the East Aegean islands, Vol. 2. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1971. Doga Dernegi, Important Bird Areas of Turkey, Doga Publications, 2006. International Finance Corporation (IFC), Environmental, Health and Safety Guidelines WIND ENERGY, 2007. Osmaniye Governorship, Provincial Directorate of Environment and Forestry, Osmaniye Environmental Status Report (in Turkish). 2007. ROTOR Elektrik Uretim A.S., Project Introduction File (PIF) of the 135 MW Osmaniye Wind Farm Project (in Turkish), 2008. ROTOR Elektrik Uretim A.S. Voluntary Emission Reduction Project Project Idea Note, July 2008. www.conservation.org www.ifc.org www.panda.org www.vermontwindpolicy.org
January 2009

Osmaniye Bahce Wind Farm ESIA Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Osmaniye Bahce Wind Farm ESIA Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Osmaniye Bahce Wind Farm ESIA Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Zorlu Plaza, 34310 Avclar ISTANBUL / TURKIYE Tel: + 90 (212) 456-2300 Fax: +90 (212) 422-0099

JANUARY 2009 ANKARA TURKEY

ROTOR ELEKTRIK URETIM A.S. (ZORLU ENERGY GROUP)

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1. OPERATIONAL CONTEXT............................................................................................ 6

PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................... 12

DESCRIPTION OF THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENT................................................... 19

4.1. 4.2. 4.3.

CONSTRUCTION PHASE.......................................................................................................................... 49 OPERATIONAL PHASE ............................................................................................................................ 49

PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Area

Technical Description of the Project

DESCRIPTION OF THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

Mr. Gunal Ozenirler, Project Manager, Env. Eng., M.Sc.

Ms. Burcu Savas, Expert, Sociologist and Demographer

Figure 3-1. Percentage Distribution of Soil Capability Classes.

Surface Water and Groundwater Quality

Ecology and Biotic Resources

Figure 3-3. Mediterranean Basin Biodiversity Hotspot.

Figure 3-4. Global 200 Ecoregions.

Table 3-2. Bird Species of the Region and Their Evaluation.

NATIONAL PARK WILDLIFE REPRODUCTION AREA

Figure 3-7. Map of Protected Areas (Source: Doga Dernegi, 2007).

Figure 3-8. General View of Gokmustafali Village.

# of Health Care Facilities None

117 70 (winter) 100 (summer)

Located in Bahce District (3 km distance)

Table 3-3. (continued).

< min. wage

DESCRIPTION AND ASSESSMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED OPERATION

Figure 4-2. Site Visit together with the Construction Contractor.

Impacts on Air Quality

Noise and Vibration

One-hour LAeq (dBA) Daytime (07:00-22:00) 55 70 Nighttime (22:00-07:00) 45 70

Impacts on Local Activities and Traffic

Figure 4-5. Sheeps grazing in the Project Area.

Occupational Health and Safety

OUTLINE OF ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PLAN

You might also like