PROPOSED BAYVIEW WIND FARM NEAR PORT ELIZABETH, EASTERN CAPE
ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
DEA Reference: 14/12/16/3/3/2/1055
PREPARED FOR:
Bayview Wind Power (Pty) Ltd Building 1 Country Club Estate, 21 Woodlands Drive, Woodmead, 2191.
PREPARED BY:
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 13 Stanley Street, Richmond Hill, Port Elizabeth, 6001
www.cesnet.co.za | www.eoh.co.za
JULY 2018
This Report should be cited as follows: EOH Coastal & Environmental Services, July 2018: Proposed Bayview Wind Farm near Port Elizabeth, Eastern Cape – Ecological Assessment, EOH CES, Port Elizabeth.
Ecological Assessment
REVISIONS TRACKING TABLE
REPORT TITLE: ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT: PROPOSED BAYVIEW WIND FARM NEAR PORT ELIZABETH, EASTERN CAPE.
REPORT VERSION: FINAL PROJECT NUMBER: P40700208
NAME RESPONSIBILITY DATE Mrs. K. Brent Report compilation May – July 2018 Ms. R. Evans GIS mapping July 2018
Dr. Greer Hawley Review and Quality control July 2018
Copyright © This document contains intellectual property and proprietary information that are protected by copyright in favour of EOH Coastal & Environmental Services (EOH CES). The document may therefore not be reproduced, used or distributed to any third party without the prior written consent of EOH CES. The document is prepared exclusively for submission to Bayview Wind Power (Pty) Ltd., and is subject to all confidentiality, copyright and trade secrets, rules intellectual property law and practices of South Africa. This report template has been prepared exclusively by K Brent (The EAP) with input from G. Hawley, and copying of any part of this document will require permission by the EAP or the applicant.
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services i | P a g e Ecological Assessment INFORMATION REQUIRED BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY
On 7 April 2017, the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations promulgated in terms of the National Environmental Management Act (Act no. 107 of 1998 as amended; NEMA) dated 8 December 2014 was amended. In terms of Appendix 6 of the EIA Regulations (as amended in 2017), a Specialist Report must contain all the information necessary for a proper understanding of the nature of issues identified, and must include–
(1) A specialist report prepared in terms of the NEMA EIA Regulations (as amended in 2017) must contain-
(a) Details of- Please refer to “Project team”
(i) The specialist who prepared the report; and
(ii) The expertise of that specialist to compile a specialist report including a curriculum vitae;
(b) A declaration that the specialist is independent in a form as may be specified by the competent authority; (c) An indication of the scope of, and the purpose for which, the Please refer to Chapter 1 report was prepared; (cA) An indication of the quality and age of the base data used Please refer to Chapter 2, 5 and 6 for the specialist report; (cB) A description of the existing impacts on the site, cumulative Please refer to Chapter 8 impacts of the proposed development and levels of acceptable change; (d) The duration, date and season of the site investigation and Please refer to Chapter 2 the relevance of the season to the outcome of the assessment; (e) A description of the methodology adopted in preparing the Please refer to Chapter 2 report or carrying out the specialised process inclusive of equipment and modelling used;
(f) Details of an assessment of a specific identified sensitivity of Please refer to Chapter 5 and 6 the site related to the proposed activity or activities and its associated structures and infrastructure inclusive of a site plan identifying alternatives; (g) An identification of any areas to be avoided, including Please refer to Chapter 5, 6 and 7 buffers; (h) A map superimposing the activity including the associated Please refer to Chapter 7 structures and infrastructure on the environmental sensitivities of the site including areas to be avoided, including buffers; (i) A description of any assumptions made and any uncertainties Please refer to Chapter 1 or gaps in knowledge; (j) A description of the findings and potential implications of Please refer to Chapter 8 such findings on the impact of the proposed activity or activities; (k) Any mitigation measures for inclusion in the EMPr; Please refer to Chapter 8
(I) Any conditions for inclusion in the environmental Please refer to Chapter 9 authorisation; (m) Any monitoring requirements for inclusion in the EMPr or Please refer to Chapter 8 environmental authorisation; (n) A reasoned opinion- Please refer to Chapter 9
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services ii | P a g e Ecological Assessment
(i) whether the proposed activity, activities or portions thereof should be authorised; and (iA) regarding the acceptability of the proposed activity or activities, and (ii) If the opinion is that the proposed activity, activities or portions thereof should be authorised, any avoidance, management and mitigation measures that should be included in the EMPr, and where applicable, the closure plan; (o) A description of any consultation process that was Please refer to Chapter 1 undertaken during the course of preparing the specialist report; (p) A summary and copies of any comments received during any Please refer to Chapter 1 consultation process and where applicable all responses thereto; and (q) Any other information requested by the competent Please refer to Chapter 9 authority. (2) Where a government notice gazetted by the minister provides for any protocol or minimum information requirement to be applied to a specialist report, the requirements as indicated in such notice will apply.
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services iii | P a g e Ecological Assessment THE PROJECT TEAM
In terms of Appendix 6 of the EIA Regulations (as amended in 2017) a specialist report must contain-
(a) Details of- (iii) The specialist who prepared the report; and (iv) The expertise of that specialist to compile a specialist report including a curriculum vitae;
(b) A declaration that the specialist is independent in a form as may be specified by the competent authority;
Details and expertise of the specialist team
Mrs Kim Brent Pri.Sci.Nat (Lead Author and Ecological specialist) Kim is a senior consultant with close to 8 years’ experience and is the second line Branch Manager in the Port Elizabeth Office. She is also registered with the South African Council for Natural Scientific Professional (SACNASP) as a Professional Environmental Scientist. She holds a BSc degree with majors in Botany and Geography as well as a BSc (Hons) degree in Botany focusing on Environmental Management and GIS systems; both from Nelson Mandela University (NMU). Her honours year focused on Environmental Impact Assessments, Environmental Management and Geographic Information Systems. Kim’s interests include Environmental Auditing, Scoping and Environmental Impact Assessments, Geographic information systems and Ecological Assessments. Kim’s is well versed in the environmental legislation such as NEMA, the EIA regulations, the National Water Act, the MPRDA, applicable Biodiversity legislation etc., as well as the local and provincial biodiversity spatial and planning tools for the Eastern, Western and Northern Cape Provinces. Kim has conducted a number of Prospecting Right Applications (in accordance with the MPRDA and NEMA), Basic Assessments and EIAs (in accordance with NEMA) in South Africa, and has been involved in a number of local mining projects within South Africa. Internationally, Kim assisted on various ESIAs and ESMPs such as the Syrah Resources ESHIA for a Graphite Mine in Balama, the Baobab Iron Ore Mining Development Project, Mozambique and the Enterprise Deposit, in Zambia. In addition, Kim has been the financial and technical manager on a large number of projects ranging from Basic Assessments, Section 24 (G)s, EIAs and ECO projects. Furthermore, Kim has conducted a number of Ecological and Wetland Impact Assessments, Alien Vegetation Management Plans and Rehabilitation and Re-vegetation Plans. Kim has recently completed the Rhodes University short course on Tools for Wetland Assessments as well as a training course on IWRM, the NWA, and Water Use Authorisations, focusing on WULAs and IWWMPs and is registered with the South African Association of Botanists.
Dr Greer Hawley Pri.Sci.Nat (Reviewer) Greer is a Principal Consultant, with over 10 years’ experience in the environmental industry. She has a BSc degree in Botany and Zoology and a BSc Honours in Botany from the University of Cape Town. She completed her PhD thesis (Microbiology) at Rhodes University. Greer has been involved in a number of diverse activities. The core academic focus has been directed in the field of taxonomy both in the plant and fungal kingdom. Greer's research ranges from studying fresh and marine algae, estuarine diatoms, Restio species classification in the fynbos and forest vegetation and fungal species identification and ecology. Greer's study of fungi have also contributed towards an understanding of soil ecology and "below ground" ecology. She is currently working on numerous impact assessments at the East London branch and has a number of publications behind her name. In addition, Greer has recently been the lead consultant in the updating of the ECBCP which will also be published and used as a fine scale biodiversity planning tool in the Eastern Cape. Greer is registered as a professional with the South African Council for Natural Scientific Professional (SACNASP).
A comprehensive CV of the lead specialists can be viewed in Appendix 1.
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services iv | P a g e Ecological Assessment SPECIALIST DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
Role on Study Declaration of independence Team Report Reviewer I, Greer Hawley, declare that, in terms of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998), as amended and the Amended Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2017; I act as the independent specialist in this application; I will perform the work relating to the application in an objective manner, even if this results in views and findings that are not favourable to the applicant; I declare that there are no circumstances that may compromise my objectivity in performing such work; I have expertise in conducting the specialist report relevant to this application, including knowledge of the Act, Regulations and any guidelines that have relevance to the proposed activity; I will comply with the Act, Regulations and all other applicable legislation; I have no, and will not engage in, conflicting interests in the undertaking of the activity; I undertake to disclose to the applicant and the competent authority all material information in my possession that reasonably has or may have the potential of influencing - any decision to be taken with respect to the application by the competent authority; and - the objectivity of any report, plan or document to be prepared by myself for submission to the competent authority; All the particulars furnished by me in this report are true and correct; and I realise that a false declaration is an offence in terms of regulation 48 and is punishable in terms of section 24F of the Act.
GREER HAWLEY NAME & SURNAME Report production I, Kim Brent, declare that, in terms of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998), as amended and the Amended Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2017; I act as the independent specialist in this application; I will perform the work relating to the application in an objective manner, even if this results in views and findings that are not favourable to the applicant; I declare that there are no circumstances that may compromise my objectivity in performing such work; I have expertise in conducting the specialist report relevant to this application, including knowledge of the Act, Regulations and any guidelines that have relevance to the proposed activity; I will comply with the Act, Regulations and all other applicable legislation; I have no, and will not engage in, conflicting interests in the undertaking of the activity; I undertake to disclose to the applicant and the competent authority all material information in my possession that reasonably has or may have the potential of influencing - any decision to be taken with respect to the application by the competent authority; and - the objectivity of any report, plan or document to be prepared by myself for submission to the competent authority; All the particulars furnished by me in this report are true and correct; and I realise that a false declaration is an offence in terms of regulation 48 and is punishable in terms of section 24F of the Act.
KIM BRENT NAME & SURNAME
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services v | P a g e Ecological Assessment TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Project overview and Locality ...... 1 1.2 Objectives and Terms of Reference ...... 3 1.3 Alternatives ...... 3 1.4 Public Participation ...... 6 1.5 Limitations and assumptions ...... 6 2 APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY ...... 7 2.1 Desktop Assessment ...... 7 2.2 Site Assessment ...... 7 2.2.1 Terrestrial habitat ...... 7 2.2.2 Wetland habitat ...... 9 2.3 Impact Assessment Methodology ...... 14 3 RELEVANT LEGISLATION ...... 18 3.1 Impact Assessment Methodology ...... 18 3.2 Species of Conservation Concern (SCC) ...... 27 4 DESCRIPTION OF THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT ...... 31 4.1 Climate ...... 31 4.2 Geology and Soils (Source: www.geoscience.org.za,AGIS) ...... 32 4.3 Topography ...... 35 4.4 Current land use ...... 35 4.5 Surface water features ...... 37 5 DESCRIPTION OF THE BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT ...... 40 5.1 Terrestrial environment ...... 40 5.1.1 South African Vegetation Map ...... 40 5.1.2 Subtropical Thicket Ecosystem Programme (STEP) ...... 43 5.1.3 Bioregional and Local classification - The Metropolitan Open Space System (NMB MOSS, 2009) – Gazetted in 2015 ...... 45 5.1.4 Sensitive Areas ...... 47 5.2 Fauna ...... 56 5.2.1 Amphibians & Reptiles ...... 56 5.2.2 Mammals (excluding bats) ...... 57 5.3 Desktop Sensitivity ...... 57 6 SITE SURVEY ...... 60 6.1 Terrestrial habitat ...... 60 6.1.1 Vegetation units ...... 60 6.1.2 Floristics ...... 63 6.2 Faunal species ...... 66 6.3 Wetland habitat ...... 68 7 BIODIVERSITY AND SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT ...... 70 7.1 Sensitivity analysis (Figure 7.1) ...... 70 8 IMPACT IDENTIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT ...... 72 8.1 Current impacts – No-Go scenario ...... 72 8.2 Planning and Design Phase ...... 72 8.3 Construction phase ...... 72 Issue 1: Loss of Vegetation communities ...... 72 Issue 2: Loss of Biodiversity ...... 75 Issue 3: Loss of Animal Diversity (excluding birds and bats) ...... 77 Issue 4: Disruption of Ecosystem Function and Process ...... 78 8.4 Operational Phase ...... 80 Issue 6: Disruption of Ecosystem Function and Process ...... 80 8.5 Decommissioning Phase ...... 81 8.6 Cumulative Impacts ...... 82 Issue 9: Loss of vegetation communities ...... 82 9 IMPACT STATEMENT, CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 86 9.1 Conclusions ...... 86 9.2 Current status ...... 86 9.3 Comparison of impacts ...... 88 9.4 Plant removal ...... 89
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services vi | P a g e Ecological Assessment 9.5 Invasion of alien species ...... 89 9.6 Conditions for the EMPr, EA and Monitoring ...... 89 9.7 Specialist opinion ...... 90 10 REFERENCES ...... 91 APPENDIX 1: CVS ...... 93 APPENDIX 2: PLANT SP LIST ...... 110
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1: Locality map illustrating the location of the study area...... 2 Figure 1.2: Cadastral map illustrating the EIA infrastructure layout...... 5 Figure 2.1: The HGM types for South African Inland wetlands (WRC Project No. K5/1408)...... 12 Figure 2.2: A cross-section through a wetland, indicating how the soil wetness and vegetation indicators change as one moves along a gradient of decreasing wetness, from the middle to the edge of the wetland (Adapted from DWAF, 2005)...... 14 Figure 3.1: IUCN Categories ranked according to status (Source: SANBI, 2016: http://redlist.sanbi.org/redcat.php) ...... 29 Figure 4.1: Graph indicating the mean rainfall and temperature data of the Port Elizabeth region (https://www.meteoblue.com/en/weather/forecast/modelclimate/port-elizabeth_south-africa_964420) . 32 Figure 4.2: Geology map illustrating the simple geology of the study area...... 34 Figure 4.3: Land cover classification of the proposed study area in relation to the surrounding area...... 36 Figure 4.4: Hydrological map illustrating surface water features within the study area as identified by NFEPA (2011-2014)...... 39 Figure 5.1: National Vegetation Map illustrating the vegetation type found within the study area...... 42 Figure 5.2: Regional Vegetation Map illustrating the vegetation type found within the study area as classified by STEP (2006)...... 44 Figure 5.3: Local Vegetation Map illustrating the vegetation type found within the study area as classified by NMBM MOSS (2009)...... 46 Figure 5.4: Terrestrial Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBA) as classified by ECBCP (2007)...... 49 Figure 5.5: Map illustrating the Terrestrial CBA and ESA classification of the study area as classified by NMB MOSS (2009)...... 52 Figure 5.6: Map illustrating the CEP classification of the study area as classified by NMB MOSS (2009). ... 53 Figure 5.7: Map illustrating the Protected Areas within close proximity to the study area...... 55 Figure 5.8: Desktop Sensitivity...... 59
LIST OF TABLES Table 1.1: Affected properties ...... 4 Table 2.1: Criteria used for the analysis of the sensitivity of the area ...... 8 Table 3.1: NEM:BA classes and explanations...... 27 Table 3.2: South African Red Data List Categories (SANBI, 2016) ...... 28 Table 5.1: Applicable STEP Land Use Management Guidelines ...... 43 Table 5:2: Approximate extent of vegetation classified by the NMB Bioregional Plan within each component and grid connection corridor alternatives that will be further assessed in the EIA (MOSS, 2009 as gazetted as part of the NMBM Bioregional Plan, 2015)...... 45 Table 5.3: Terrestrial Critical Biodiversity Areas and Biodiversity Land Management Classes as described by the Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan...... 50 Table 5.4: List of potential Reptile SCCs that may occur within the study area ...... 56 Table 5.5: List of potential mammal SCCs that may occur within the study area ...... 57 Table 6.1: The following protected species in particular were encountered on site: ...... 64 Table 6.2: Alien invasive species present on site as assessed by NEM:BA Alien and Invasive Species Regulations (published 1 August 2014) as well as by CARA (1983)...... 65 Table 6.3: NFEPA wetlands identified within the study area...... 68
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services vii | P a g e Ecological Assessment 1 INTRODUCTION
In terms of Appendix 6 of the EIA Regulations (as amended in 2017) a specialist report must contain-
(c) An indication of the scope of, and the purpose for which, the report was prepared; (i) A description of any assumptions made and any uncertainties or gaps in knowledge; (o) A description of any consultation process that was undertaken during the course of preparing the specialist report; (p) A summary and copies of any comments received during any consultation process and where applicable all responses thereto.
1.1 Project overview and Locality
Bayview Wind Power (Pty) Ltd. proposes the development of a wind farm on the outskirts of Port Elizabeth. The proposed Bayview Wind Farm will consist of a maximum of forty-three (43) wind turbines with an output capacity of between 2 MW and 4.5 MW per turbine. It should be noted that forty-seven (47) turbine locations were initially considered, and after consultation with various specialists the maximum number of turbines to be constructed has been reduced to forty-three (43). The total output of the proposed Bayview Wind Farm will be a maximum of 140 MW net generating capacity, which will be dependent on the number of turbines and their output capacity. Infrastructure required for the Bayview Wind Farm includes operational and maintenance buildings, internal roads, underground electrical cabling linking turbines, an on-site substation/ switching station, and an overhead line (132 kV) to an Eskom substation. Construction is anticipated to be between 24 and 30 months.
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services (EOH CES) has been appointed by the applicant to apply for an Environmental Authorisation for the above mentioned project, as required by the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998) (NEMA), as amended and the EIA Regulations (GNR. 982 of 2014, as amended in April 2017), by conducting a Scoping and EIA process and all related specialist assessments.
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 1 | P a g e Ecological Assessment
Figure 1.1: Locality map illustrating the location of the study area.
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 2 | P a g e Ecological Assessment 1.2 Objectives and Terms of Reference
The main objective of this report is to determine the status quo of the affected ecological environment as well as the potential impact that the proposed development and associated infrastructure may have on the vegetation and faunal habitats. In addition, the status quo of any likely wetlands needed to be assessed.
The following terms of reference were used for the objectives of this study: Describe the study area in terms of land cover and vegetation, likely fauna and habitat. Faunal considerations will include mammals, reptiles and amphibians but not avifauna or chiroptera. This aspect of the report will specifically include the identification of - o Areas of high biodiversity; o The presence of species of conservation concern, including sensitive, endemic and protected species; o The presence of areas sensitive to invasion by alien species; and o The presence of conservation areas and sensitive habitats where disturbance should be avoided or minimised. Derive Present Ecological State (PES) and Ecological Importance and Sensitivity (EIS) of affected watercourses / wetlands (using available desktop PES and EIS data); Review relevant legislation, policies, guidelines and standards; Assess the potential direct and indirect impacts resulting from the proposed development both on the footprint and the immediate surrounding area during construction and operation; Provide a detailed description of appropriate mitigation measures that can be adopted to reduce negative impacts for each phase of the project, where required; Review checklists of plant and animal groups identified in the region to date, highlighting sensitive species and the likely areas of distribution; and Identify the need for permitting.
1.3 Alternatives
Alternatives that were considered have been discussed in the EIA report. In terms of the ecological assessment, only one site (locality) alternative has been considered, which is currently the preferred alternative. A number of overhead powerline alternatives have been considered and four (4) turbine locations have been eliminated since the Scoping phase. Below is a summary of the alternatives to be considered for the EIA phase:
The turbine layout for the proposed Bayview Wind Farm (maximum of 43), as indicated in Figure 1.2, is the preferred layout alternative and it is the only layout alternative that will be assessed along with the no-go alternative in this report. In addition to the aforementioned infrastructure, the Bayview Wind Power intends to develop a 132 kV overhead grid connection powerline with a servitude of approximately 31 – 36m to an Eskom substation. Four (4) alternative powerline routes have been considered. The chosen alternative will be connected to the on-site substation/ switching station.
o Powerline Alternative 1 (the proponent’s preferred option) - A loop-in loop-out (LILO) on the Grassridge/Nooitgedacht 132 kV OHL, where the conductor from Bayview Wind Farm back to Grassridge Main Transmission Substation (MTS) may need to be restrung; o Powerline Alternative 2 - A new 132 kV OHL direct to Dedisa MTS; o Powerline Alternative 3 - A new 132 kV OHL direct to Grassridge MTS; o Powerline Alternative 4 – A new 132 kV OHL into the CDC IDZ Existing Corridor and into Dedisa MTS.
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 3 | P a g e Ecological Assessment A preliminary layout of the overhead lines (OHLs) was produced in the Scoping phase, which has subsequently been refined, after specialist and stakeholder input, to the current layout being assessed in the EIA phase. In addition to the main components of the wind farm (turbines and OHL), other ancillary infrastructure to be assessed include an O&M building, an on-site substation/ switching station, internal roads, underground electrical cabling linking turbines (to be placed along internal roads) and temporary construction infrastructure.
Table 1.1 below indicates the properties that could be affected by the four (4) powerline alternatives and the turbine locations. A detailed project description can be viewed in the Environmental Impact Assessment Report (EIAR). Various other alternatives such as technology alternatives etc. were considered and discussed in the EIAR.
Table 1.1: Affected properties AFFECTED PROPERTY SG CODE Oliphants Kop 201, Remaining Extent C07600000000020100000 Steins Valley 202, Portion 4 C07600000000020200004 Ebb and Vloed 230, Remaining Extent of Portion 8 C07600000000023000008 Oliphants Kop 201, Portion 1 C07600000000020100001 Grassridge 225, Remaining Extent C07600000000022500000 Remaining Extent of Coega Erf 246 C07600230000024600000 Remaining Extent of Coega Erf 248 C07600230000024800000 Coega Erf 329 C07600230000032900000 Uitenhage Farms 612 C07600000000061200000 Farm 717 C07600000000071700000 Remaining Extent of the Farm Grassridge 227 C07600000000022700000 Farm Grassridge 228 C07600000000022800000 Remaining Extent of the Farm Geluksdal 590 C07600000000059000000
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 4 | P a g e Ecological Assessment
Figure 1.2: Cadastral map illustrating the EIA infrastructure layout.
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 5 | P a g e Ecological Assessment 1.4 Public Participation
The Ecological Assessment was available for a thirty (30) day Public Review period, as part of the Public Participation Process (PPP) on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR), from the 20th of August 2018 until the 20th of September 2018. The comments, which were received, relating to the Ecological Assessment have been included in the Issues and Response Trail (IRT) in the Final EIR and, where necessary, responses were provided by the relevant specialist.
1.5 Limitations and assumptions
This report is based on currently available information and, as a result, the following limitations and assumptions are implicit:– 1. The report is based on a project description taken from design specifications for the proposed development provided to EOH CES by the engineers and town planners, which is likely to undergo a number of minor iterations and refinements before it can be regarded as final; 2. Even though the area was sampled, sampling is random and thus it is possible that additional species of conservation concern could be found during construction of the proposed development. 3. Sampling could only be conducted once-off. Consequently, seasonal changes that may occur in the vegetation type were not observed and some plant species may have gone undetected. However, the data collected is sufficient for the purposes of this project. 4. The Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan (NMBM) region is currently experiencing drought. This may result in an under-representation of certain components of the vegetation type, especially those species that were not flowering at the time (e.g. bulbous plants and grasses). 5. Ecological descriptions of the natural environment are based on limited fieldwork and available literature. 6. It should be emphasised that information, as presented in this document, only has reference to the study area as indicated on the accompanying maps. Therefore, this information cannot be applied to any other area without a detailed investigation being undertaken.
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 6 | P a g e Ecological Assessment 2 APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY
In terms of Appendix 6 of the EIA Regulations (as amended in 2017) a specialist report must contain-
(cA) An indication of the quality and age of the base data used for the specialist report; (d) The duration, date and season of the site investigation and the relevance of the season to the outcome of the assessment; (e) A description of the methodology adopted in preparing the report or carrying out the specialised process;
2.1 Desktop Assessment
The proposed study area and surrounds were described using a two-phased approach. Firstly, a desktop assessment of the study area was conducted in terms of current vegetation classifications and biodiversity programmes and plans. This included the consideration of:
The South African Vegetation Map (Mucina and Rutherford, 2006 - 2012); The Subtropical Thicket Ecosystem Programme (STEP, 2006); The Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation plan (ECBCP, 2007); National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (NEM:BA), 2004: List of Threatened Ecosystems (2011); The National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas (NFEPA) project (2011 - 2014); The Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Open Space System – NMB MOSS as gazetted in the NMBM Bioregional Plan (2015).
The quality and relevance of each of the above mentioned base datasets has been discussed in Chapter 4 and 5 of this report. Thereafter, a site visit was conducted in order to determine the actual ecological condition of the proposed site. Photographs were taken using a Nikon Coolpix AW100 camera. GIS maps were drawn using Quantum GIS (version 2.18.18 (Las Palmas)).
2.2 Site Assessment
A site visit was conducted on 5 and 6 October 2017 in order to assess the actual ecological state and current land-use in the area and to identify potential sensitive ecosystems and plant species within the project footprint and surrounds. This season was not chosen for a particular reason but largely based on availability of the specialist and safety team to assess the area. The findings of the site visit also served to inform the impact identification process of the proposed development on the terrestrial and wetland habitats (if any are present), and to assist in determining how significant these impacts would be.
2.2.1 Terrestrial habitat
During the site survey, selected sites which represented natural habitats were sampled for species richness and abundance and vegetation structure. A stratified random sampling approach was adopted, whereby initial assumptions were made about the diversity of vegetation from satellite imagery, existing vegetation maps and previous studies conducted in the area. Random sample points were then selected within each “desktop mapped vegetation type” and assessed. In this way, the time available was used much more efficiently than in random sampling, but there is a risk of bias and the eventual results may simply ‘prove’ the assumptions. The aim of this visit was to characterise and describe each vegetation community, as well as identify areas of high sensitivity and species of conservation concern.
Areas of high sensitivity as well as Species of Conservation Concern (SCC) have been identified as far as possible, either from existing records from the study area obtained from a literature review and/or from the site survey. The primary aim of this study was to identify whether areas of high sensitivity will be subject to significant impacts from the proposed activity. Aspects that would increase impact significance include:
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 7 | P a g e Ecological Assessment Presence of plant species of conservation concern. Vegetation types of conservation concern. Areas of high biodiversity. The presence of important process areas such as: o Ecological corridors o Water bodies (including wetlands & rivers) o Topographical features (especially steep and rocky slopes that provide niche habitats for both plants and animals)
i. Sensitivity assessment This section of the report explains the approach to determining the ecological sensitivity of the study area on a broad scale. The approach identifies zones of high, moderate and low sensitivity according to a system developed by EOH CES and used in numerous ecological assessments. It must be noted that the sensitivity zonings in this study are based solely on ecological characteristics and social and economic factors have not been taken into consideration. The sensitivity analysis described here is based on 10 criteria which are considered to be of importance in determining ecosystem and landscape sensitivity.
The sensitivity criteria described in Table 2.1 below were applied to the study area. The entire site was then categorised into zones of HIGH, MODERATE or LOW sensitivity. Although very simple, this method of analysis provides a good, yet conservative and precautionary assessment of the ecological sensitivity of the site.
Table 2.1: Criteria used for the analysis of the sensitivity of the area CRITERIA LOW SENSITIVITY MODERATE SENSITIVITY HIGH SENSITIVITY 1 5 10 1 Topography Level, or even Undulating; fairly steep Complex and uneven with slopes steep slopes 2 Vegetation - Extent Extensive Restricted to a particular Restricted to a specific or habitat type in the region/zone locality / site region 3 Conservation status Well conserved Not well conserved, Not conserved - has a high of flora or habitats independent of moderate conservation conservation value conservation value value 4 Species of None, although No endangered or One or more endangered conservation occasional regional vulnerable species, some and vulnerable species, or concern - Presence endemics indeterminate or rare more than 2 endemics or and number endemics rare species 5 Habitat Extensive areas of Reasonably extensive Limited areas of this fragmentation preferred habitat present areas of preferred habitat habitat, susceptible to leading to loss of elsewhere in region not elsewhere and habitat fragmentation viable populations susceptible to susceptible to fragmentation fragmentation 6 Biodiversity Low diversity, or species Moderate diversity, and High species diversity, contribution richness moderately high species complex plant and animal richness communities 7 Erosion potential or Very stable and an area Some possibility of erosion Large possibility of instability of the not subjected to erosion. or change due to episodic erosion, change to the site region events. or destruction due to climatic or other factors.
8 Rehabilitation Site is easily rehabilitated. There is some degree of Site is difficult to potential of the area difficulty in rehabilitation rehabilitate due to the or region of the site. terrain, type of habitat or species required to reintroduce. 9 Disturbance due to Site is very disturbed or There is some degree of The site is hardly or very
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 8 | P a g e Ecological Assessment
CRITERIA LOW SENSITIVITY MODERATE SENSITIVITY HIGH SENSITIVITY 1 5 10 human habitation or degraded. disturbance of the site. slightly impacted upon by other influences human disturbance. (Alien invasives) 10 Ecological function in Little or no ecological Low ecological function High ecological function. the landscape function. No corridors or associated with niche Portions or entire sections (corridor, niche niche habitats. habitats are present. of the site contains habitats) corridors or niche habitats. 11 Ecological services Low to no ecological Some ecosystems within Most of the site supports (flood attenuation, services provided. the site provide ecological infrastructure that deliver water filter, grazing, services. important ecological recreation, etc.) services.
2.2.2 Wetland habitat
“Wetland” is a name given to a variety of ecosystems ranging from rivers, springs, seeps and mires in upper catchments, to midland marshes, pans and floodplains, coastal lakes, mangrove swamps and estuaries at the bottom of a catchment. These ecosystems all share the common primary driver of water, and its prolonged presence is a fundamental determinant of soil characteristics, vegetation and animal life (DWAF, 2005).
The National Water Act (NWA, Act No. 36, 1998 as amended in 2013) defines wetlands as:
“Land which is transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface, or the land is periodically covered with shallow water, and which land in normal circumstances supports or would support vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated soil.”
Over recent years, as scientists have come to better understand wetland ecosystems, wetland definitions have changed. Thus wetlands are no longer only classified/defined based on its visible form, but also in terms of the function and value that any given wetland provides to the communities and the ecosystem as a whole. In addition to the NWA definition, a widely accepted definition includes the Ramsar Convention (2016) which defines a wetland as:
“Areas of marsh, fen, peatland or water, whether natural or artificial, permanent or temporary, with water that is static or flowing, fresh, brackish or salt, including areas of marine water the depth of which at low tide does not exceed six metres”.
The Ramsar definition differs slightly from the NWA definition in that the Ramsar definition encompasses all types of Inland Systems into the definition of a wetland, whereas water features such as rivers and open waterbodies are not classified as wetlands according to the NWA definition.
Wetlands must have one or more of the following characteristics to be classified as a wetland:
Hydromorphic soils: characteristic soils of prolonged saturation; Hydrophytes, at least occasionally: highly saturated plants; and High water table: a high water table that results in saturation at or near the surface, leading to anaerobic conditions developing in the top 50 cm of the soil.
Wetlands are formed by a combination of geology, hydrology and topography, which result in landforms within catchments that slow or obstruct the movement of water such that the soil becomes temporarily, seasonally or permanently waterlogged.
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 9 | P a g e Ecological Assessment 2.2.2.1 Wetland Importance
South Africa is a Contracting Party to the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands and has thus committed itself to the intergovernmental treaty, which provides the framework for the national protection of wetlands and the resources they could provide. The Ramsar Convention is the only global environmental treaty that deals with a particular ecosystem. The treaty was adopted in the Iranian city of Ramsar in 1971 and the Convention's member countries cover all geographic regions of the planet. Wetland conservation in South Africa is now driven by SANBI under the requirements of the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (NEM:BA, 10, 2004).
In natural capital terms, wetlands may be seen as a significant economic investment. This monetary value is rooted to the fact that the primary tasks of a wetland are to process water and regulate runoff. This is important as the South African economy is heavily dependent on water and yet the climatic variability of the country means that for the most part rainfall occurs as intermittent, high intensity storms. The inherent value of wetlands is that they protect and regulate this water source by acting like sponges, soaking up water during flood events and releasing it during dry periods (DWAF, 2005). By regulating water flows during floods, wetlands may reduce flood damage and help prevent soil erosion. As natural filters, wetlands help to purify water by trapping pollutants such as sediment, heavy metals and disease causing organisms.
The most common ecosystem services provided by wetlands (in general) are:
Improved water quality; Flood attenuation; Sediment trapping; Reduced number of water borne diseases; Herbal medicine; and/or Water storage.
These ecosystem services are provided at very little cost but with significant payback to the South African economy.
Despite being classified as the third most significant life support system on earth (IUCN, 1980), wetlands are some of the most threatened habitats in the world today. Breen and Begg (1989) reported that more than 50% of the wetland inventory in South Africa had disappeared. The main issues have been draining wetlands for crops and pastures, poorly managed burning and grazing resulting in headcut and donga erosion, planting alien invasive vegetation, mining, pollution and urban development; these have been significant as they alter the natural flow of water in wetlands and, as water is the driver of wetland formation, it follows that any changes would be damaging. A buffer around a wetland is usually recommended in order to protect the wetland from development in close proximity to it.
Aside from the negative impacts of construction in the vicinity of a watercourse or wetland, a major impact that needs to be considered should be the geotechnical competence of soil which is often waterlogged and prone to flooding. Wetland soils are usually high in clay and prone to wet and dry periods, allowing for expansion and contraction of soils. The wetland and watercourse buffers are therefore also important with regards to the demarcation of areas that are not suitable for construction due to the high soil moisture content and unstable soils. Developing solutions to these problems would be expensive and may not be sustainable in the long term.
2.2.2.2 Tools to define wetlands / watercourses
National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas (NFEPA, 2011-2014)
The NFEPA project provides strategic spatial priorities for conserving South Africa’s freshwater ecosystems and supports sustainable use of water resources. These priority areas are called Freshwater Ecosystem
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 10 | P a g e Ecological Assessment Priority Areas, or FEPAs. The system comprises a hierarchical classification process of defining a wetland based on the principles of the hydro-geomorphic (HGM) approach at higher levels, with structural features being included at the finer levels (SANBI, 2009). Wetland ecosystem types were used by the NFEPA project for representing natural examples of the diversity of wetland ecosystem types across South Africa. Wetlands of the same ecosystem type are expected to share similar functionality and ecological characteristics. The biodiversity conservation target for freshwater ecosystems in South Africa is 20%, which means that we should keep at least 20% of each wetland ecosystem type in a natural or near-natural condition. This serves to conserve many common species and communities, and the habitats in which they evolve. Information used to classify wetlands as FEPAs included:
Ramsar status; Known threatened frog and waterbird occurrences; and Expert knowledge on biodiversity importance.
For the purposes of this study Version 4 of the National Wetland Classification System (NWCS) was used as baseline information, as per SANBI’s BGIS interactive tool.
The NWCS uses hydrological and geomorphological traits to distinguish the direct factors that influence wetland function. This is presented as a six (6) tiered structure with four spatially nested primary levels that are applied in a hierarchical manner between different wetland types on the basis of these direct factors (SANBI, 2009). Level 1: Distinguishes between marine, estuarine and inland ecosystems based on the degree of connectivity the systems have with the ocean. Level 2: Categorises the regional wetland setting using a combination of biophysical attributes at the landscape level. Level 3: Assesses the topographical position of inland wetlands. Level 4: Concerns the hydrogeomorphic (HGM) units as defined as follows: o Landform - considering the shape and localised setting of the wetland; o Hydrological characteristics - nature of water movement into, through and out of the wetland; and o Hydrodynamics - the direction and strength of flow through the wetland.
The HGM unit is considered the focal point for NWCS as the upper levels mean to classify the broad bio- geographical context for grouping functional wetland units at the HGM level, whilst the lower levels provide more descriptive detail.
Important rivers are also classified according to the NFEPA project rivers maps. These rivers are considered FEPAs. FEPAs are an essential part of an equitable and sustainable water resource strategy, meaning that they need to stay in a good condition to manage and conserve freshwater ecosystems, and to protect water resources for human use. This means that the areas should be supported by good planning, decision- making and management to ensure that human use does not impact on the aquatic ecosystem. Wetland FEPAs were selected in this resource document based on significant specialist input that relates to information as diverse as crane breeding areas and protected frog habitats.
As wetlands are formed under the influence of geology, hydrology and topography, the climate, drainage and geomorphology of a particular area also needs to be taken into consideration. It is thus necessary to note these features when delineating a wetland.
Geology: Geology influences the formation of a wetland by geological obstructions such as erosion resistant rock or impervious material close to the ground surface, forcing groundwater to migrate to or onto the soil surface. Hydrology: The water transfer mechanisms such as source, movement and exit are important features of a wetland.
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 11 | P a g e Ecological Assessment Topography: The topography of the landscape influences the likelihood of whether a wetland will form and function as a wetland or not. For instance, under the right conditions wetlands may form in floodplains, valley bottoms, hillslopes, depressions and coastal flats.
A range of ‘hydro-geomorphic’ types can be defined by considering the abovementioned features. Six (6) HGM units are defined for South African inland wetlands, which have been modified from definitions developed by Brinson (1993), Kotze (1999) and Marneweck & Batchelor (2002) (Figure 2.1).
Figure 2.1: The HGM types for South African Inland wetlands (WRC Project No. K5/1408).
2.2.2.3 Tools to delineate wetlands
i. DWAF (2005) wetland delineation
The DWAF (2005) guidelines for “a practical field procedure for delineation of wetlands and riparian areas” are recommended in Gazette No. 19182, Notice No. 1091 of the National Water Act, 1998. This guideline explains the field indicators and methods for determining whether an area is a wetland or a riparian area, and how to find its boundaries. Although the primary driver of a wetland is water, due to its dynamic nature water is not a very useful parameter for identifying the outer boundary of a wetland. What is needed is a method of identifying the indirect indicators of prolonged saturation by water. This includes wetland plants (hydrophytes) and wetland (hydromorphic) soils. Their presence or absence provides
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 12 | P a g e Ecological Assessment information on the frequency and duration of saturation and is a satisfactory indicator to classify the area as a wetland (DWAF, 2005).
Wetland delineation involves the identification of three zones which are distinguished according to a changing frequency of saturation. These are the permanent, seasonal and temporary zone. The primary objective of wetland delineation is usually to define the outer edge of the temporary zone as it marks the boundary between the wetland and the adjacent terrestrial zone. There are four important indicators that are used to define the boundaries of a wetland. The most important one is the soil wetness or moisture indicator with terrain unit, soil form and vegetation acting as confirmation. The point where wetland indicators are not present is regarded as the edge of the wetland.
The permanently wet zone is characterised by dark grey, clay soil, caused by a lack of oxygen required for the oxidation of minerals such as iron in the soil. The seasonally wet zone is characterised by grey soils with lots of orange and black mottles. It is generally recommended that there should be a 100m buffer zone between the edge of the delineated temporary zone and any development. Important indicators of each zone are as follows:
Wetland vegetation In order to tolerate the anaerobic conditions of seasonal or permanent flooding, hydrophytes (water loving plants) have evolved a number of adaptations. Their presence can therefore indicate a moist soil habitat and thus provide a potential boundary of a wetland’s seasonally flooded or permanent flooded zones (Macfarlane et al., 2007).
o The temporary zone of a wetland will show mainly grasses, some woody species and some sedges. o The seasonal zone will begin to show more hydrophytic (or water loving) sedges with tall grasses (over 1m). o The permanent zone will be noticeable by emergent reeds and sedges, bulrushes or floating and submerged plants. Woody species will have adaptations for permanent wetness such as prop roots (Mangroves).
Wetland soils Low oxygen levels result in a reduced rate of organic matter decomposition within the soil, where sulphur tends to exist in its reduced form, hydrogen sulphide (H2S), noticeable by its tell-tale rotten-egg smell. These conditions also serve as a catalyst for the metals in the soil to become soluble and begin leaching (DWAF, 2005). The presence of metals produce rich colours of yellow, orange and reds.
o The temporary or seasonal zone of a wetland, where there is more seasonal flooding, produces mottling of colours, as the metals are still in the process of precipitating. These mottles occur within a grey matrix where the metals have already leached. o The permanent zone of a wetland, where there is more permanent flooding of the soil, produces leaching of metals, with soils remaining a grey (“gleyed”) colour. o It is recommended by DWAF (2005) that soils be sampled on the surface (0-10cm) and between 40 and 50cm.
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 13 | P a g e Ecological Assessment
Figure 2.2: A cross-section through a wetland, indicating how the soil wetness and vegetation indicators change as one moves along a gradient of decreasing wetness, from the middle to the edge of the wetland (Adapted from DWAF, 2005).
To successfully delineate wetland boundaries, particularly in seasonal or ephemeral systems, long-term monitoring of wetland inundation characteristics are required to establish the exact extent of any given system. However, wetland delineation monitoring is very time-consuming and expensive, and the methods used for the purposes of this study have been refined to include a reduced set of indicators that provide a satisfactory definition of the boundary of the wetland.
2.3 Impact Assessment Methodology
To ensure a direct comparison of impact assessment between various specialist studies, a standard impact rating scale has been developed and will be used to assess and quantify the identified impacts. This is necessary since impacts have a number of parameters that need to be assessed. Five factors need to be considered when assessing the significance of impacts, namely:
Relationship of the impact to temporal scales - the temporal scale defines the significance of the impact at various time scales, as an indication of the duration of the impact. Relationship of the impact to spatial scales - the spatial scale defines the physical extent of the impact. The severity of the impact - the severity/beneficial scale is used in order to scientifically evaluate how severe negative impacts would be, or how beneficial positive impacts would be on a particular affected system (for ecological impacts) or a particular affected party. The severity of impacts can be evaluated with and without mitigation in order to demonstrate how serious the impact is when nothing is done about it. The word ‘mitigation’ means not just ‘compensation’, but also the ideas of containment and remedy. For beneficial impacts, optimization means anything that can enhance the benefits. However, mitigation or optimization must be practical, technically feasible and economically viable. The likelihood of the impact occurring - the likelihood of impacts taking place as a result of project actions differs between potential impacts. There is no doubt that some impacts would occur (e.g. loss of vegetation), but other impacts are not as likely to occur (e.g. vehicle accident), and may or may not result from the proposed development. Although some impacts may have a severe effect, the likelihood of them occurring may affect their overall significance. Each criterion is ranked with scores assigned as presented in the tables below to determine the overall significance of an activity. The criterion is then considered in two categories, viz. effect of the activity and the likelihood of the impact. The total scores recorded for the effect and likelihood
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 14 | P a g e Ecological Assessment are then read off the matrix presented in the tables below, to determine the overall significance of the impact. The overall significance is either negative or positive.
The significance scale is an attempt to evaluate the importance of a particular impact. This evaluation needs to be undertaken in the relevant context, as an impact can either be ecological or social, or both. The evaluation of the significance of an impact relies heavily on the values of the person making the judgment. For this reason, impacts of a social nature need to reflect the values of the affected society.
Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts affect the significance ranking of an impact because the impact is taken in consideration of both onsite and offsite sources. For example, pollution making its way into a river from a development may be within acceptable national standards. Activities in the surrounding area may also create pollution which does not exceed these standards. However, if both onsite and offsite activities take place simultaneously, the total pollution level may exceed the standards. For this reason it is important to consider impacts in terms of their cumulative nature.
Seasonality Although seasonality is not considered in the ranking of the significance, it may influence the evaluation during various times of year. As seasonality will only influence certain impacts, it will only be considered for these, with management measures being imposed accordingly (i.e. dust suppression measures being implemented during the dry season).
Table 2.2. Significance Rating Table. Temporal Scale (The duration of the impact) Short term Less than 5 years (many construction phase impacts are of a short duration). Medium term Between 5 and 20 years. Long term Between 20 and 40 years (from a human perspective almost permanent). Permanent Over 40 years or resulting in a permanent and lasting change that will always be there. Spatial Scale (The area in which any impact will have an affect) Individual Impacts affect an individual. Localised Impacts affect a small area of a few hectares in extent. Often only a portion of the study area. Project Level Impacts affect the entire study area. Surrounding Areas Impacts that affect the area surrounding the development Municipal Impacts affect either the Local Municipality, or any towns within them. Regional Impacts affect the wider District Municipality or the province as a whole. National Impacts affect the entire country. International/Global Impacts affect other countries or have a global influence. Degree of Confidence or Certainty (The confidence with which one has predicted the significance of an impact) Definite More than 90% sure of a particular fact. Should have substantial supportive data. Probable Over 70% sure of a particular fact, or of the likelihood of that impact occurring. Possible Only over 40% sure of a particular fact, or of the likelihood of an impact occurring.
Unsure Less than 40% sure of a particular fact, or of the likelihood of an impact occurring.
Table 2.3 Impact Severity Rating. Impact severity (The severity of negative impacts or how beneficial positive impacts would be on a particular affected system or affected party)
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 15 | P a g e Ecological Assessment
Very severe Very beneficial An irreversible and permanent change to the affected A permanent and very substantial benefit to the system(s) or party(ies) which cannot be mitigated. For affected system(s) or party(ies), with no real alternative example the permanent loss of land. to achieving this benefit. For example the vast improvement of sewage effluent quality. Severe Beneficial Long term impacts on the affected system(s) or party(ies) A long term impact and substantial benefit to the that could be mitigated. However, this mitigation would be affected system(s) or party(ies). Alternative ways of difficult, expensive or time consuming, or some achieving this benefit would be difficult, expensive or combination of these. For example, the clearing of forest time consuming, or some combination of these. For vegetation. example an increase in the local economy. Moderately severe Moderately beneficial Medium to long term impacts on the affected system(s) or A medium to long term impact of real benefit to the party(ies), which could be mitigated. For example affected system(s) or party(ies). Other ways of constructing the sewage treatment facility where there was optimising the beneficial effects are equally difficult, vegetation with a low conservation value. expensive and time consuming (or some combination of these), as achieving them in this way. For example a ‘slight’ improvement in sewage effluent quality. Slight Slightly beneficial Medium or short term impacts on the affected system(s) or A short to medium term impact and negligible benefit party(ies). Mitigation is very easy, cheap, less time to the affected system(s) or party(ies). Other ways of consuming or not necessary. For example a temporary optimising the beneficial effects are easier, cheaper and fluctuation in the water table due to water abstraction. quicker, or some combination of these. No effect Don’t know/Can’t know The system(s) or party(ies) is not affected by the proposed In certain cases it may not be possible to determine the development. severity of an impact.
Table 2.4 Overall Significance Rating. OVERALL SIGNIFICANCE (THE COMBINATION OF ALL THE ABOVE CRITERIA AS AN OVERALL SIGNIFICANCE) VERY HIGH NEGATIVE VERY BENEFICIAL These impacts would be considered by society as constituting a major and usually permanent change to the (natural and/or social) environment, and usually result in severe or very severe effects, or beneficial or very beneficial effects. Example: The loss of a species would be viewed by informed society as being of VERY HIGH significance. Example: The establishment of a large amount of infrastructure in a rural area, which previously had very few services, would be regarded by the affected parties as resulting in benefits with VERY HIGH significance. HIGH NEGATIVE BENEFICIAL These impacts will usually result in long term effects on the social and/or natural environment. Impacts rated as HIGH will need to be considered by society as constituting an important and usually long term change to the (natural and/or social) environment. Society would probably view these impacts in a serious light. Example: The loss of a diverse vegetation type, which is fairly common elsewhere, would have a significance rating of HIGH over the long term, as the area could be rehabilitated. Example: The change to soil conditions will impact the natural system, and the impact on affected parties (such as people growing crops in the soil) would be HIGH. MODERATE NEGATIVE SOME BENEFITS These impacts will usually result in medium to long term effects on the social and/or natural environment. Impacts rated as MODERATE will need to be considered by society as constituting a fairly important and usually medium term change to the (natural and/or social) environment. These impacts are real but not substantial. Example: The loss of a sparse, open vegetation type of low diversity may be regarded as MODERATELY significant. LOW NEGATIVE FEW BENEFITS These impacts will usually result in medium to short term effects on the social and/or natural environment. Impacts rated as LOW will need to be considered by the public and/or the specialist as constituting a fairly unimportant and usually short term change to the (natural and/or social) environment. These impacts are not substantial and are likely to have little real effect. Example: The temporary changes in the water table of a wetland habitat, as these systems are adapted to fluctuating water levels. Example: The increased earning potential of people employed as a result of a development would only result in benefits of LOW significance to people who live some distance away. NO SIGNIFICANCE
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 16 | P a g e Ecological Assessment
There are no primary or secondary effects at all that are important to scientists or the public. Example: A change to the geology of a particular formation may be regarded as severe from a geological perspective, but is of NO significance in the overall context. DON’T KNOW In certain cases it may not be possible to determine the significance of an impact. For example, the primary or secondary impacts on the social or natural environment given the available information. Example: The effect of a particular development on people’s psychological perspective of the environment.
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 17 | P a g e Ecological Assessment 3 RELEVANT LEGISLATION
In terms of Appendix 6 of the EIA Regulations (as amended in 2017) a specialist report does not legally have to cover a review of the applicable legislation however this has been included to provide the reader with an overview of the legal requirements related to the Ecological environment.
3.1 Impact Assessment Methodology
Environmental legislation relevant to the proposed development is summarised below. Biodiversity Plans and Programmes are discussed in Chapter 4 where they are used to describe the desktop ecological conditions.
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 18 | P a g e Ecological Assessment
LEGISLATION/POLICY DESCRIPTION IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROPOSED ACTIVITY The Constitution (Act 108 The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa is the supreme law of the land. As a Obligation to ensure that the proposed activity will of 1996) result, all laws, including those pertaining to this Management Plan, must conform to not result in pollution and ecological degradation; the Constitution. The Bill of Rights - Chapter 2 of the Constitution, includes an and environmental right (Section 24) according to which, everyone has the right: Obligation to ensure that the proposed development is ecologically sustainable, while demonstrating a) To an environment that is not harmful to their health or well-being; and economic and social development. b) To have the environment protected for the benefit of present and future generations, through reasonable legislative and other measures that: i. Prevent pollution and ecological degradation; ii. Promote conservation; and iii. Secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources while promoting justifiable economic and social development. National Environmental Relevant Sections of the Act: Section 2, 23, 24, 24-1, 28-33 An application for Environmental Authorisation (as Management Act (NEMA) triggered by the Amended EIA Regulations) has been (Act 108 of 1998), and its Application of the NEMA principles (e.g. need to avoid or minimise impacts, submitted to the Competent Authority (i.e. DEA). subsequent amendments. use of the precautionary principle, polluter pays principle, etc.) In terms of Section 28, every person who causes; has Application of fair decision-making and conflict management procedures are caused, or may cause significant pollution or Amended NEMA EIA provided for in NEMA. degradation of the environment must take Regulations (GNR. 326) Application of the principles of Integrated Environmental Management and reasonable measures to prevent pollution or rectify (2017) the consideration, investigation and assessment of the potential impact of the damage caused – The undertaking of a specialist existing and planned activities on the environment; socio-economic study, in this case an Aquatic study in order to conditions; and the cultural heritage. identify potential impacts on the aquatic environment and to recommend mitigation measures NEMA introduces the duty of care concept, which is based on the policy of strict liability. to minimise these impacts, complies with Section 28 This duty of care extends to the prevention, control and rehabilitation of significant of NEMA. pollution and environmental degradation. It also dictates a duty of care to address This report complies with Appendix 6 of the emergency incidents of pollution. A failure to perform this duty of care may lead to Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations (GNR. criminal prosecution, and may lead to the prosecution of managers or directors of 982, as amended in 2017) as regulated by the companies for the conduct of the legal persons. National Environmental Management Act (Act 107 of 1998 and amended in 2014; NEMA), which cover the In addition NEMA introduced a new framework for environmental impact assessments, requirements of the content of a Specialist Report. the EIA Regulations (2014) which has recently been amended. The Amended EIA The developer must apply the NEMA principles, the Regulations (2017) aim to avoid detrimental environmental impacts through the fair decision-making and conflict management regulation of specific activities that cannot commence without prior environmental procedures that are provided for in NEMA. authorisation. Authorisation either requires a Basic Assessment or a Full Scoping and The developer must apply the principles of Integrated Environmental Impact Assessment, depending on the type of activity. These Environmental Management and consider, assessments specify mitigation and management guidelines to minimise negative investigate and assess the potential impact of existing environmental impacts and optimise positive impacts. and planned activities on the environment, socio-
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 19 | P a g e Ecological Assessment
economic conditions and the cultural heritage. National Environmental The National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (NEM:BA), No. 10 of 2004, An invasive species management, control and Management: Biodiversity aims to assist with the management and conservation of South Africa’s biological eradication plan for land/activities under their control Act (Act 10 of 2004), and diversity through the use of legislated planning tools. These planning tools include the should be developed, as part of their environmental its subsequent declaration of bioregions and the associated bioregional plans as well as other plans in accordance with section 11 of NEMA. amendments. mechanisms for managing and conserving biodiversity. Activities may not be carried out in threatened or The objectives of the Act include inter alia: protected ecosystems without first gaining Alien Invasive Species To provide for: authorisation for such activities. It should however be Regulations, 2014. The management and conservation of biological diversity within the Republic noted that no threatened or protected ecosystems as and of the components of such biological diversity; listed in NEM:BA have been identified within the The use of indigenous biological resources in a suitable manner; study area and thus this is not considered to be The fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from bio-prospecting of relevant to this project. genetic material derived from indigenous biological resources; and No protected species may be removed or damaged To give effect to ratified international agreements relating to biodiversity without a permit. which are binding on the Republic. To provide for co-operative governance in biodiversity management and conservation; and To provide for a South African National Biodiversity Institute to assist in achieving the objectives of the Act.
In addition to this, Sections 50-62 of the Act provide details relating to the protection of threatened or protected ecosystems and species, while Sections 63-77 of the Act provide details relating to alien and invasive species with the purpose of preventing their introduction and spread, managing, controlling and eradicating of alien and invasive species.
The NEM:BA Alien and Invasive Species List (Government Notice 599 of 2014) lists alien and invasive species that are regulated by the NEM:BA Alien and Invasive Species Regulations (Government Notice 98 of 2014). National Water Act (Act 36 The purpose of this Act (Section 2) is to ensure that the Nation’s water resources are Appropriate measures must be taken to prevent the of 1998) and it subsequent protected, used, developed, conserved and controlled in ways that take into account, pollution of water courses and other water resources. amendments. including: Riparian zones must be protected. (a) Promoting sustainable use of water Construction within a watercourse, within the (b) Protection of aquatic and associated ecosystems and their biological diversity Regulated area of a watercourse (100 m) and within a (c) Reducing and preventing pollution and degradation of water resources wetland or within the Regulated area of a wetland (500 m) will require a GA/WUA under section 21 (c) & (i) as Protection of Water Resources (Sections 12-20) set out in the National Water Act’s (Act 36 of 1998, as Provides details of measures intended to ensure the comprehensive protection of all amended), associated General Authorisation water resources, including the water reserve and water quality.
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 20 | P a g e Ecological Assessment
With respect to the establishment of water quality objectives, objectives may relate to Regulations related to Section 21 (c) and (i) (GNR. 905 (Section 13): of 2016 ) which will be issued by the Department of the presence and concentration of particular substances in the water Water and Sanitation (DWS). the characteristics and quality of the water resource and the in-stream and riparian habitat the characteristics and distribution of aquatic biota the regulation and prohibition of in-stream and land-based activities which may affect the quantity and quality of the water resources
Section 19 deals with Pollution Prevention (Part 4) The person (including a municipality) who owns, controls occupies or uses the land in question, is responsible for taking reasonable measures to prevent pollution of water resources. If such measures are not taken, the catchment management agency concerned, may itself do whatever is necessary to prevent the pollution or remedy its effects and recover all reasonable costs from the persons responsible for the pollution.
The ‘reasonable measures’ which have to be taken may include measures to: Cease, modify or control any act or process causing the pollution; Comply with any prescribed waste standard or management practice; Contain or prevent the movement of pollutants; Eliminate any source of the pollution; Remedy the effects of the pollution; and Remedy the effect of any disturbance to the bed and banks of a watercourse.
With respect to pollution of rivers, the following definition is relevant when considering the potential impacts of development on water resources. Pollution may be deemed to occur when the following are affected: the quality, pattern, timing, water level and assurance of instream flow; the water quality, including the physical, chemical and biological characteristics of the water; the character and condition of the in-stream and riparian habitat; the characteristics, condition and distribution of the aquatic biota.
The Act defines ‘instream habitat’ as including the physical structure of a watercourse and the associated vegetation in relation to the bed of the watercourse.
Riparian Ecosystems ‘Riparian habitat’ includes the physical structure and associated vegetation of the areas
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 21 | P a g e Ecological Assessment
associated with a watercourse which are commonly characterised by alluvial soils, and which are inundated or flooded to an extent and with a frequency sufficient to support vegetation of species and physical structure distinct from those of adjacent land areas. Section 21 deals with the Use of Water Section 21 (a-k) describes activities defined as a water use under the Act. These activities may only be undertaken subject to the application for, and issue of, a water use licence. National Forest Act (Act 84 The NFA provides the legal framework for the protection and sustainable use of South No forest or trees that form part of a forest or forest of 1998) and its Africa’s indigenous forests. Any area that has vegetation which is characterised by a association may be damaged or destroyed without a subsequent amendments. closed and contiguous canopy and under storey plant establishment is defined as a permit. ‘forest’ and as a result falls under the authority of the Department of Agriculture, Development that comes within 50 metres of forest Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF): Forestry sector. A clause in Chapter 3, Part 1 covers: must be closely monitored during the construction phase. Prohibition on destruction of trees in natural forests No protected tree species may be damaged or Section 7 (1) No person may cut, disturb, damage or destroy any indigenous living tree destroyed without a permit. in, or remove or receive any such tree from, a natural forest except in terms of (a) a A number of individual Sideroxylon inerme (Milkwood) licence issued under subsection (4) or section 23. trees have been identified to occur as scattered individuals within the study area, and is listed as Prohibition on destruction of protected trees protected in terms of the NFA. Section 15 (1) No person may cut, disturb, damage or destroy any protected tree or Should these trees be disturbed, permits from the possess, collect, remove, transport, export, purchase, sell, donate, or in any other Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries manner acquire or dispose of any protected tree or any product derived from a (DAFF) will be required. protected tree except under a licence or exemption granted by the Minister to an applicant and subject to such period and conditions as may be stipulated.
Effect of setting aside protected areas Section 10 (1) No person may cut, disturb, damage or destroy any forest produce in, or remove or receive any forest produce from, a protected area, except— (a) in terms of the rules made for the proper management of the area in terms of section 11(2)(b); (b) in the course of the management of the protected area by the responsible organ of State or person; (c) in terms of a right of servitude: (d) in terms of the authority of a licence granted under section 7(4) or 23; (e) in terms of an exemption under section 7(1)(b) or 24(6); or (f) in the case of a protected area on land outside a State forest, with the consent of the registered owner or by reason of another right which allows the person concerned to do so, subject to the prohibition in section 7(1). National Veld and Forest The National Veld and Forest Fire Act, No. 101 of 1998 (amended in 2001), aims to -
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 22 | P a g e Ecological Assessment
Fire Act (Act 101 of 1998), prevent and combat forest, veld and mountain fires throughout South Africa. This and its subsequent includes the regulation of the establishment, registration, functioning and duties of Fire amendments. Protection Associations (FPAs). FPAs manage all aspects of forest, veld and mountain fire prevention and firefighting.
The Eastern Cape is managed by the Eastern Cape Umbrella Fire Protection Association (ECUFPA) which was established in terms of the National Veld and Forest Fire Act No.101 of 1998 as an Umbrella Association to facilitate FPA participation in the management of fire and related risks within Eastern Cape.
The proposed Bayview Wind Farm falls under the Van Stadens FPA. Conservation of The control of alien invasive plant species is also controlled by the Conservation of An invasive species monitoring, control and eradication Agricultural Resources Act, Agricultural Resources Act, 1983 (Act No 43 of 1983) (CARA). Regulations 15 and 16 plan for land/activities under their control should be (Act 43 of 1983). under this Act, which relate to problem plants, were amended in March 2001. developed as part of the construction environmental plans in accordance with CARA. The purpose of this Act is to provide for control over the utilization of the natural 9 species identified within the study areas have been agricultural resources in order to promote the conservation of the soil, the water classified as either Category 1 or Category 2 invaders. sources and the vegetation and the combating of weeds and invader plants.
This is achieved by: Ensuring the production potential of land is maintained, Preventing and combating erosion, Preventing and combating weakening or destruction of the water sources, and Protecting vegetation and combating weeds and invader plants.
The Act provides a list of declared weeds and invader plants as well as indicators of bush encroachment.
In terms of weeds and invader plants:
A land user shall control any category 1 plant that occurs on any land or inland water surface. No person shall, except in or for purposes of a biological control reserve – o Establish, plant, maintain, multiply or propagate weeds and invader plants; o Import or sell propagating material of category weeds and invader plants; and o Acquire propagating material of weeds and invader plants.
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 23 | P a g e Ecological Assessment
Combating of category 1 plants (Section 15A) according to CARA (Act No 43 of 1983)
1) Category 1 plants may not occur on any land or inland water surface other than in biological control reserves. 2) A land user shall control any category 1 plants that occur on any land or inland water surface in contravention of the provisions of sub-regulation (1) by means of the methods prescribed in regulation 15E. 3) No person shall, except in or for purposes of a biological control reserve – a. Establish, plant, maintain, multiply or propagate category 1 plants; b. Import or sell propagating material of category 1 plants or any category 1 plants; c. Acquire propagating material of category 1 plants or any category 1 plants. (4) The executive officer may, on good cause shown in writing by the land user, grant written exemption from compliance with the requirements of sub- regulation (1) on such conditions as the executive officer may determine in each case.
Combating of category 2 plants (Section 15B) according to CARA (Act No 43 of 1983)
1) Category 2 plants may not occur on any land or inland water surface other than a demarcated area or a biological control reserve. a. The executive officer may on application in writing demarcate an area as an area where category 2 plants may occur, be established and be maintained. b. An area in respect of which a water use license for stream flow reduction activities has been issued in terms of section 36 of the National Water Act, 1998 (Act No. 36 of 1998) shall be deemed to be a demarcated area. 2) The executive officer shall demarcate an area for the occurrence, establishment and maintenance of category 2 plants only if: a. The category 2 plants in the area are cultivated under controlled circumstances; b. The land user concerned has been authorised to use water in terms of the National Water Act, 1998 (Act No. 36 of 1998); and c. The category 2 plants or products of category 2 plants in the area are demonstrated to primarily serve a commercial purpose, use as a woodlot, shelter belt, building material, animal fodder, soil stabilisation, medicinal or other beneficial function that the executive officer may approve; and d. All reasonable steps are taken to curtail the spreading of propagating material of the category 2 plants outside the demarcated areas.
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 24 | P a g e Ecological Assessment
3) When an area is demarcated for the occurrence, establishment and maintenance of category 2 plants the executive officer may impose such additional conditions as may reasonably be deemed necessary to keep the category 2 plants in the area in check. 4) No person shall sell propagating material of category 2 plants or any category 2 plants to another person unless such other person is a land user of a demarcated area or of a biological control reserve. 5) No person shall acquire propagating material of category 2 plants or any category 2 plants unless such material or such plants are intended for use in a demarcated area or in a biological control reserve. 6) Propagating material of category 2 plants or category 2 plants shall only be imported or sold in accordance with the provisions of the Plant Improvement Act, 1976 (Act No. 53 of 1976), the Agricultural Pests Act, 1983 (Act No. 36 of 1983) and the environment conservation regulations. 7) A land user shall control any category 2 plants that occur on any land or inland water surface in contravention of the provisions of sub-regulation (1) by means of the methods prescribed in regulation 15E. 8) Unless authorised thereto in terms of the National Water Act, 1998 (Act No. 36 of 1998), no land user shall allow category 2 plants to occur within 30 meters of the 1:50 year flood line of a river, stream, spring, natural channel in which water flows regularly or intermittently, lake, dam or wetland.
Combating of category 3 plants (Section 15C) according to CARA (Act No 43 of 1983)
1) Category 3 plants shall not occur on any land or inland water surface other than in a biological control reserve. 2) Subject to the provisions of sub-regulation (3), the provisions of sub- regulation (1) shall not apply in respect of category 3 plants already in existence at the time of the commencement of these regulations. 3) (a) No land user shall allow category 3 plants to occur within 30 meters of the 1:50 year flood line of a river, stream, spring, natural channel in which water flows regularly or intermittently, lake, dam or wetland. (b) The executive officer may impose such additional conditions as may reasonably be deemed necessary with regard to category 3 plants already in existence at the time of the commencement of these regulations. (c) A land user must take all reasonable steps to curtail the spreading of propagating material of category 3 plants. (d) The executive officer may, after consultation with the land user, issue a direction in terms of section 7 of the Act that category 3 plants in existence at
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 25 | P a g e Ecological Assessment
the time of the commencement of these regulations must be controlled by means of the measures prescribed in regulation 15F. 4) No person shall, except in or for purposes of a biological control reserve – a. plant, establish, maintain, multiply or propagate category 3 plants; b. import or sell propagating material of category 3 plants or any category 3 plants; c. acquire propagating material of category 3 plants or any category 3 plants. 5) The executive officer may, on good cause shown in writing by the land user, grant written exemption from compliance with one or more of the requirements of sub-regulations (1), (3) and (4) on such conditions as the executive officer may determine in each case.
The executive officer may, on good cause shown in writing by the land user, grant written exemption from compliance with one or more of the requirements of sub- regulations (1), (3), (5), (6), (8) and (9) on such conditions as the executive officer may determine in each case. National Environmental The purpose of this Act is to provide for the protection and conservation of ecologically Within 5 km of the proposed site is the Penhurst Rly Management: Protected viable areas representative of South Africa’s biological diversity and its natural State Reserve, the Tregathlyn Game Farm and the Areas Act (31 of 2004) and landscapes and seascapes. The objectives of this Act are- Addo Elephant National Park. its subsequent The proposed study area falls within the Greater amendments. To provide, within the framework of national legislation, including the Baviaans Priority Area. National Environmental Management Act, for the declaration and management of protected areas; To provide for co-operative governance in the declaration and management of protected areas; To effect a national system of protected areas in South Africa as part of a strategy to manage and conserve its biodiversity; To provide for a representative network of protected areas on state land, private land and communal land; To promote sustainable utilisation of protected areas for the benefit of people, in a manner that would preserve the ecological character of such areas; To promote participation of local communities in the management of protected areas, where appropriate; and To provide for the continued existence of South African National Parks.
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 26 | P a g e Ecological Assessment
3.2 Species of Conservation Concern (SCC)
National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (No. 10 of 2004) The National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (No. 10 of 2004), (NEM:BA) aims to establish national norms and standards for the management of biodiversity across all sectors and by different management authorities.
Chapter 4, Part 2 of the Biodiversity Act provides for listing of species as threatened or protected. If a species is listed as threatened, it must be further classified as critically endangered, endangered or vulnerable. The Act defines these classes as follows:
Table 3.1: NEM:BA classes and explanations Any indigenous species facing an extremely high risk of extinction in the Critically endangered species wild in the immediate future. Any indigenous species facing a high risk of extinction in the wild in the Endangered species near future, although it is not a critically endangered species. Any indigenous species facing an extremely high risk of extinction in the Vulnerable species wild in the medium-term future; although it is not a critically endangered species or an endangered species. Any species which is of such high conservation value or national importance that it requires national protection”. Species listed in this Protected species category will include, among others, species listed in terms of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).
Implications for the proposed development: o Any species identified during this site survey that are listed by this act will require permits prior to removal and prior to commencement of construction. o Permits will need to be acquired prior to construction activities for any protected species (PNCO or NEM:BA) that may be affected by the proposed development. o A total of 70+ species were identified to occur within the study area (please see species list in Appendix 2). None of these species are listed as protected in terms of NEM:BA.
Endangered and Protected Flora in the 1974 Provincial Nature Conservation Ordinance (PNCO): The Provincial Nature Conservation Ordinance (PNCO) protects the endangered and protected flora outside of protected areas. Species classified as Schedule 3 are endangered species. Species classified as schedule 4 are protected species. A permit is required for the removal or destruction of species on the PNCO list.
1976 List of Protected Trees (Government Gazette No. 9542 Schedule A) in the 1998 National Forest Act (NFA) as amended in November 2014: The National Forest Act, as amended in 2014, List of Protected Trees identifies a number of trees within South Africa that are protected and thus deemed SCCs. No person may cut, disturb, damage or destroy any protected tree or possess, collect, remove, transport, export, purchase, sell, donate or in any other manner acquire or dispose of any protected tree or any forest product derived from a protected tree, unless a permit has been acquired.
South African Red Data List The South African Red List of plants use the internationally recognised IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria to measure a species risk of extinction (Table 3.2). Since the Red List of South African plants are used widely for conservation practices throughout South Africa, this list has been utilised to identify species that are at low risk of extinction but of high conservation importance.
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 27 | P a g e Ecological Assessment
Table 3.2: South African Red Data List Categories (SANBI, 2016) A species is Extinct when there is no reasonable doubt that the last individual has died. Species should be classified as Extinct only once EXTINCT (EX) exhaustive surveys throughout the species' known range have failed to record an individual. A species is Extinct in the Wild when it is known to survive only in EXTINCT IN THE WILD (EW) cultivation or as a naturalized population (or populations) well outside the past range. A species is Regionally Extinct when it is extinct within the region REGIONALLY EXTINCT (RE) assessed (in this case South Africa), but wild populations can still be found in areas outside the region. Possibly Extinct is a special tag associated with the category Critically Endangered, indicating species that are highly likely to be extinct, but CRITICALLY ENDANGERED, the exhaustive surveys required for classifying the species as Extinct has POSSIBLY EXTINCT (CR PE) not yet been completed. A small chance remains that such species may still be rediscovered. A species is Critically Endangered when the best available evidence indicates that it meets at least one of the five IUCN criteria for Critically CRITICALLY ENDANGERED (CR) Endangered, indicating that the species is facing an extremely high risk of extinction. A species is Endangered when the best available evidence indicates that ENDANGERED (EN) it meets at least one of the five IUCN criteria for Endangered, indicating that the species is facing a very high risk of extinction. A species is Vulnerable when the best available evidence indicates that VULNERABLE (VU) it meets at least one of the five IUCN criteria for Vulnerable, indicating that the species is facing a high risk of extinction. A species is Near Threatened when available evidence indicates that it NEAR THREATENED (NT) nearly meets any of the IUCN criteria for Vulnerable, and is therefore likely to become at risk of extinction in the near future. A species is Critically Rare when it is known to occur at a single site, but is not exposed to any direct or plausible potential threat and does not CRITICALLY RARE otherwise qualify for a category of threat according to one of the five IUCN criteria. A species is Rare when it meets at least one of four South African criteria for rarity, but is not exposed to any direct or plausible potential threat and does not qualify for a category of threat according to one of the IUCN criteria. The four criteria are as follows: Restricted range: Extent of Occurrence (EOO) <500 km2, OR Habitat specialist: Species is restricted to a specialized RARE microhabitat so that it has a very small Area of Occupancy (AOO), typically smaller than 20 km2, OR Low densities of individuals: Species always occurs as single individuals or very small subpopulations (typically fewer than 50 mature individuals) scattered over a wide area, OR Small global population: Less than 10 000 mature individuals. A species is Declining when it does not meet or nearly meet any of the five IUCN criteria and does not qualify for Critically Endangered, RARE DECLINING Endangered, Vulnerable or Near Threatened, but there are threatening processes causing a continuing decline of the species. A species is Least Concern when it has been evaluated against the IUCN criteria and does not qualify for any of the above categories. Species LEAST CONCERN classified as Least Concern are considered at low risk of extinction. Widespread and abundant species are typically classified in this category. DATA DEFICIENT – INSUFFICIENT A species is DDD when there is inadequate information to make an INFORMATION (DDD) assessment of its risk of extinction, but the species is well defined.
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 28 | P a g e Ecological Assessment
Listing of species in this category indicates that more information is required and that future research could show that a threatened classification is appropriate. DATA DEFICIENT – A species is DDT when taxonomic problems hinder the distribution TAXONOMICALLY PROBLEMATIC range and habitat from being well defined, so that an assessment of risk (DDT) of extinction is not possible. A species is Not Evaluated when it has not been evaluated against the criteria. The national Red List of South African plants is a comprehensive assessment of all South African indigenous plants, and therefore all species are assessed and given a national Red List status. However, NOT EVALUATED (NE) some species included in Plants of southern Africa: an online checklist, are species that do not qualify for national listing because they are naturalized exotics, hybrids (natural or cultivated), or synonyms. These species are given the status Not Evaluated and the reasons why they have not been assessed are included in the assessment justification. Threatened species are species that are facing a high risk of extinction. THREATENED Any species classified in the IUCN categories Critically Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable is a threatened species. SCC are species that have a high conservation importance in terms of preserving South Africa's high floristic diversity and include not only
threatened species, but also those classified in the categories Extinct in SPECIES OF CONSERVATION the Wild (EW), Regionally Extinct (RE), Near Threatened (NT), Critically CONCERN (SCC) Rare, Rare, Declining and Data Deficient - Insufficient Information (DDD). Species not falling in the categories above but listed in: SENSITIVE SPECIES Appendix 1 or 2 of the Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). ENDEMIC SPECIES Species endemic to South Africa, and more specifically Eastern Cape
Figure 3.1: IUCN Categories ranked according to status (Source: SANBI, 2016: http://redlist.sanbi.org/redcat.php)
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 29 | P a g e Ecological Assessment
Implications for the proposed development: A total of nine (9) species observed on site are listed as protected in the Eastern Cape PNCO list, and none (0) on the NEM:BA list. One (1) protected tree species (Sideroxylon inerme) was recorded to occur as scattered individuals within the study area. Appendix 2 provides a comprehensive list of species observed and expected to be found within the study area. Due to the close proximity of the study area to surrounding areas where a number of Ecological Assessments has been conducted, it is likely that some species found within the immediate surrounding area are also present within the study area, particularly where vegetation is intact. The species list in Table 2 of Appendix 2, should also be used to supplement the species in the study area since the current survey was conducted in spring, where species may have been missed or identification was not possible due to the absence of identifying features (flowers, etc). Relevant permits/licences will have to be obtained prior to the removal of the Species of Conservation Concern listed in the relevant legislation of this section, should any of these be disturbed, damaged or destroyed. Of the protected species identified within the study area, majority of the species are classified as Least Concern species, while 1 Declining species have been observed within the study areas.
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 30 | P a g e Ecological Assessment
4 DESCRIPTION OF THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
In terms of Appendix 6 of the EIA Regulations (as amended in 2017) a specialist report must contain-
(f) Details of an assessment of a specific identified sensitivity of the site related to the proposed activity or activities and its associated structures and infrastructure inclusive of a site plan identifying alternatives; (g) An identification of any areas to be avoided, including buffers;
4.1 Climate
The Eastern Cape has a complex climate. There are wide variations in temperature, rainfall and wind patterns, mainly as a result of movements of air masses, altitude, mountain orientation and the proximity of the Indian Ocean.
The area is subject to strong winds from the west and west-south-west (41% combined frequency) all year round, and from the east (15%) from October through to March. These winds occur mainly throughout the day and may generate a significant amount of fugitive dust. Diurnal variations in the wind regime occur which are due to the influence of land-sea breeze circulation on the airflow of the region. The closest town to the proposed development, with available weather data, is Port Elizabeth. The study area is situated on the outskirts of Port Elizabeth. The wind regime for the Port Elizabeth area is dominated by westerly and north-westerly flow fields representing the pre-frontal conditions, and south-westerly flow fields representing the frontal conditions. The south-easterly and south-westerly wind flow (i.e. land breeze) increases during daytime conditions, while westerly and north-westerly wind flow regimes increases during the night (sea breeze).
The Köppen-Geiger climate classification is Cfb (Maritime temperate climates or Oceanic climates) – warm and temperate. Port Elizabeth has a bimodal rainfall pattern with an average of 624 mm annually, with peaks in spring and autumn. On average, October and November has the highest precipitation, with July having the least. The average daily temperature ranges from 24ºC (summer) to 12ºC (winter). February has the highest mean temperate (28°C), with June and July having the lowest (7°C) overnight average temperature. Exceptionally high temperatures may be experienced during berg wind conditions, which occur frequently during autumn and winter. Extreme temperatures also occur during summer, with little accompanying wind. Figure 4.1 indicates the mean rainfall and temperature data of the Port Elizabeth region.
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 31 | P a g e Ecological Assessment
Figure 4.1: Graph indicating the mean rainfall and temperature data of the Port Elizabeth region (https://www.meteoblue.com/en/weather/forecast/modelclimate/port-elizabeth_south-africa_964420)
4.2 Geology and Soils (Source: www.geoscience.org.za,AGIS)
The Bayview Wind Farm study area is underlain by the following main geological formations (Figure 4.2): Alexandria Formation: Calcareous sandstone, shelly limestone. Sundays River Formation: Greenish to grey mudstone and sandstone. Quaternary sediments
The Alexandria Formation generally consists of a basal conglomerate rich in oyster shells overlain by calcareous sandstones, shelly coquinas and thin conglomerates. The Alexandria Formation ranges from three to 13 m in thickness, with an average of 9 m to 10 m (Le Roux 1987b, Goedhart and Hattingh, 1997). It reaches its greatest thickness between the Swartkops and Sundays Rivers. The Sundays River Formation can be found up to thicknesses of 1 863 m (SACS, 1980). The lithology of the Sundays River Formation is generally described as greenish to grey mudstone and siltstone with minor sequences of sandstone and conglomerate (Lubke and De Moor, 1998). According to Shone (2006), the sandstones of the Sundays River Formation are “fine-to medium-grained and less porous and permeable than the sandstones of the Kirkwood Formation”. The Quaternary sediments within the proposed study area occur between the Swartkops River and Sundays River valleys and extend no further than 15 km inland from the coastline. Previously referred to as the Bluewater Bay Formation, these sediments consist of alluvial sheet gravel and sand which has been consolidated in calcrete and unconformably overlies the Alexandria Formation (Toerien, 1983).
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 32 | P a g e Ecological Assessment
The lithology of the study area is also characterized by coastal limestone, overlain by calcareous sands blown onshore. Calcrete thickness within the study area were found to range between 0.5 m and 2 m, with the highest grades of calcium carbonate being at or near the top of maturely developed calcrete horizons. The substrate below the calcrete varies from clayey calcrete through calcareous sandstone, containing layers of hard siliceous material to weathered shales and sandstones (UCT, 1996).
A relatively thin layer of topsoil exists, with an average depth of approximately 100mm to 200mm. In the south-eastern coastal region, sandy soils with variable depth and deep red sandy clay loams overlying limestone are common. The southern coastal belt is characterized by coastal sands, sandy soils, lime-containing lithosols and weakly developed soils on rock (CES, 2012). Soils associated with the Grassveld vegetation were found to be sandy and shallow with average depths between 2 cm and 8 cm. Soils associated with the location of the bushclumps were generally found to be deeper (average 24.7cm to ± 9.1cm) and appeared as lenses, i.e. accumulations in the depressions of the calcrete base. Previous studies on the Organic content of soils recorded bushclump soil to have a higher organic content (9.5%) than grassveld soils (7.5%), while the soil moisture analysis indicated similar moisture content (7.7%) for both bushclump and grassveld soils (Campbell et al., 1995).
Soils of the study area are classified as being weakly developed, usually shallow on hard or weathering rock, with or without intermittent diverse soils. Soils can be closely associated with Leptosols, Regosols, Calcisols and Durisols. The generalised soil pattern is classified as AC soils (A soil having only an A and a C horizon. Commonly, such soil formed in recent alluvium or on steep rocky slopes) which are generally red and yellow soils with low to medium base status (AGIS). Soils associated with the vegetation types present in the study area can be classified as red, loamy to clayey soils (Thicket vegetation) and shallow clay soils which are generally lime-rich (Bontveld vegetation) (Mucina and Rutherford, 2006). Outcrops of limestone which form part of the Nanaga formation, and calcareous paleo-dune fields of the Cenozoic Algoa Group are typically tied to the geological formations within the proposed study area.
Soils associated with the Grassveld vegetation were found to be sandy and shallow with average depths between 2 cm and 8 cm. Soils associated with the location of the bushclumps were generally found to be deeper (average 24.7cm to ± 9.1cm) and appeared as lenses, i.e. accumulations in the depressions of the calcrete base. Previous studies on the Organic content of soils recorded bushclump soil to have a higher organic content (9.5%) than grassveld soils (7.5%), while the soil moisture analysis indicated similar moisture content (7.7%) for both bushclump and grassveld soils (Campbell et al., 1995).
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 33 | P a g e Ecological Assessment
Figure 4.2: Geology map illustrating the simple geology of the study area.
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 34 | P a g e Ecological Assessment
4.3 Topography
The topography of the NMBM area can be described as a combination of flat, seaward sloping coastal plains averaging between 75 m above mean sea level, and high, mountain terrains in the north-western parts (Arcus GIBB, 2011).
The topography of the study area is characterised by undulating hills with altitudes ranging from approximately 70 meters above mean sea level (m.a.m.s.l) to about 173 m.a.m.s.l giving rise to relatively steep valleys, as well as plateaus and ridges with rocky outcrops.
4.4 Current land use
The affected properties are largely zoned as Agriculture. The current landuse includes agriculture in the form of livestock and game farming, vacant land and mining (Figure 4.3). Surrounding land uses include roads, open space / natural areas, PPC mining areas, agricultural land and game farming. Additional landuses include an existing operational Wind Energy Facility (WEF) (Grassridge Wind Farm) and proposed wind farms, namely the Scarlet Ibis WEF (private), Dassiesridge WEF, Motherwell (Grassdridge II) WEF and Ukomeleza (Grassridge II) WEF, to mention a few. Surrounding and other land use identified include “donut”, which can be defined as land uses that are also known as “natural areas/vacant land” or “no-man’s land”, which has not yet been developed and which is sometimes situated either between formal urban areas or on the outskirts of developed areas.
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 35 | P a g e Ecological Assessment
Figure 4.3: Land cover classification of the proposed study area in relation to the surrounding area.
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 36 | P a g e Ecological Assessment
4.5 Surface water features
The NFEPA programme provides strategic spatial priorities for conserving South Africa’s freshwater ecosystems and supports sustainable use of water resources. These priority areas are called Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas, or FEPAs. Wetland ecosystem types are used by NFEPA for representing natural examples of the diversity of wetland ecosystem types across South Africa. Wetlands of the same ecosystem type are expected to share similar functionality and ecological characteristics. Information used to classify FEPAs included:
• Representation of ecosystem types and flagship free-flowing rivers • Maintenance of water supply areas in areas with high water yield • Identification of connected ecosystems • Representation of threatened and near-threatened fish species and associated migration corridors • Preferential identification of FEPAs that overlapped with: o Any free-flowing river o Priority estuaries identified in the National Biodiversity Assessment 2011 o Existing protected areas and focus areas for protected area expansion identified in the National Protected Area Expansion Strategy.
No FEPA rivers are located within the study area. The Sundays River, a perennial river, is located approximately 1.2 km north of turbine 11, while the Coega River, a non-perennial river, is located approximately 2.2 km south of the closest powerline alternative.
A number of bench depression wetlands have been identified to occur within the affected property boundaries, however none of these will be directly affected by the Bayview Wind Farm and associated infrastructure (Figure 4.4). The Bayview Wind Farm turbines 23, 42 and 43, Substation alternative B, as well as a section of one of the powerline alternatives will occur within the 500 m regulated area of five (5) of the identified wetlands (Table 4.2). According to Nel et al., (2011), a bench depression is defined as “a landform with closed elevation contours that increases in depth from the perimeter to a central area of greatest depth, and within which water typically accumulates. Dominant water sources are precipitation, ground water discharge, interflow and (diffuse or concentrated) overland flow. Dominant hydrodynamics are (primarily seasonal) vertical fluctuations. Depressions may be flat-bottomed (in which case they are often referred to as ‘pans’) or round-bottomed (in which case they are often referred to as ‘basins’), and may have any combination of inlets and outlets or lack them completely”.
Table Error! No text of specified style in document.:1: NFEPA wetlands identified within the study area. WETLAND TYPE WETLAND CONDITION WETLAND VEGETATION AB: Natural or Good (% natural Natural Bench Depression Albany Thicket Bontveld cover is ≥ 75%) Natural Bench Depression C: Moderately modified (% natural Albany Thicket Bontveld cover 25 – 75%) Natural Bench Depression AB: Natural or Good (% natural Albany Thicket Bontveld cover is ≥ 75%) Natural Bench Depression AB: Natural or Good (% natural Albany Thicket Bontveld cover is ≥ 75%) Natural Bench Depression AB: Natural or Good (% natural Albany Thicket Bontveld cover is ≥ 75%)
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 37 | P a g e Ecological Assessment
All the wetlands that were encountered onsite have been transformed and cannot be deemed natural wetlands. In addition to the above, a number of non-perennial tributaries (drainage lines) of the Sundays River traverse the affected properties at various locations. Three (3) of the powerline route alternatives will traverse a non-perennial tributary of the Coega River, south of the Bayview Wind Farm’s main components.
Selected project activities therefore occur within the 500 m regulated area of wetlands and within the 100 m regulated area of a drainage line which falls within the mandate of the Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS). A Water Use Authorisation (WUA) Application process will be conducted at a later stage once the final placement of the infrastructure has been determined by DEA.
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 38 | P a g e Ecological Assessment
Figure 4.4: Hydrological map illustrating surface water features within the study area as identified by NFEPA (2011-2014).
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 39 | P a g e Ecological Assessment
5 DESCRIPTION OF THE BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
In terms of Appendix 6 of the Amended EIA Regulations (2017) a specialist report must contain-
(f) Details of an assessment of a specific identified sensitivity of the site related to the proposed activity or activities and its associated structures and infrastructure inclusive of a site plan identifying alternatives; (g) An identification of any areas to be avoided, including buffers;
5.1 Terrestrial environment
The study area falls within the Thicket biome. The Thicket biome occurs mostly within the Eastern Cape, and is one of the seven biomes found in South Africa (Knight and Cowling, 2003). Its distribution ranges down the coast, up the river valleys and into the dry mountainous areas of the South-west. Lubke (in Low and Rebelo,1998) describes the Thicket biome as a closed shrubland to low forest dominated by evergreen, sclerophyllous or succulent trees, shrubs and vines, where several of these species have stem spines. It is often dense, generally divided into strata and has little herbaceous cover. Some thicket types are referred to as “transitional thicket” due to them having similar floristic components with many other phytochoria (areas possessing a large number of endemic taxons) and occurring within almost all formal biomes (Low and Rebelo, 1998). Thicket vegetation contains a small number of endemic species, most of which are succulents of karoo origin such as Plakkies (Crassula spp.) and Sheep Fig (Delosperma spp.) (Low and Rebelo, 1998).
5.1.1 South African Vegetation Map
Mucina and Rutherford (2012) updated the South African vegetation map (SA VEGMAP) of 2006 as part of a South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) funded project “…in order to provide floristically based vegetation units of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland at a greater level of detail than had been available before.” The map was developed using a wealth of data from several contributors and resulted in the best national vegetation map to date, the last being that of Acocks, developed over 50 years ago. The map and accompanying book describe each vegetation type in detail, along with the most important species, including endemic species and those that are biogeographically important. Although the SA VEGMAP and accompanying shapefiles were updated in 2012, no progress was made to integrate the STEP vegetation map (see below) or any recent updates on the Thicket biome mapping and there falls short in terms of describing the Thicket vegetation types.
According to the SA VEGMAP, the historic vegetation of the study area is classified as mainly Coega Bontveld with smaller areas classified as Sundays Thicket (Figure 5.1).
Coega Bontveld Coega Bontveld occurs on moderately undulating plains where a mosaic of low thicket (2-3M) built mainly of bushclumps grows. Secondary open grassland occurs over wide stretches. This unit is often restricted to ‘islands’ in a matrix of typical valley thicket. The species present are a mixture of Fynbos, Grassland and Succulent Karoo elements. The conservation status of this vegetation type is classified as ‘Least Threatened’. The conservation target (percent of area) as set by the NSBA is 19%. A total of 10% of this vegetation unit is protected in the Greater Addo Elephant National Park. Some 4% of Coega Bontveld has been altered by cultivation and 2% by urbanisation. The majority of the Bayview Wind Farm components and large sections of the powerline alternatives will occur within this vegetation type.
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 40 | P a g e Ecological Assessment
However, it should be noted that the conservation status and significance of the Coega Bontveld has come under debate by various specialists and research scientists and is considered to be poorly protected. This is a result of its localised distribution in the Eastern Cape and due to the direct threat from mining activities in the area. Watson (2002) believes that development could push this vegetation type to near extinction unless it is properly managed.
Sundays Thicket This vegetation type occurs in the Eastern Cape Province and is characterised by undulating plains and low mountains and foothills covered with tall dense thicket. The Sundays Thicket is composed of a mosaic of predominantly spinescent species that include trees, shrubs and succulents. It is classified as ‘Least Threatened’ with a conservation target of 19%. Approximately 6% has been transformed by cultivation and urban development. One (1) turbine and small portions of the powerline alternatives are located within this vegetation type.
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 41 | P a g e Ecological Assessment
Figure 5.1: National Vegetation Map illustrating the vegetation type found within the study area.
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 42 | P a g e Ecological Assessment
5.1.2 Subtropical Thicket Ecosystem Programme (STEP)
The Subtropical Thicket Ecosystem Planning (STEP, 2006) Project aimed to identify priority areas that would ensure the long-term conservation of the subtropical thicket biome and to ensure that the conservation of this biome was considered in the policies and practices of the private and public sector that are responsible for land-use planning and the management of natural resources in the region (Pierce et al. 2005). STEP looked specifically at the Albany thicket biome and provided a finer scale map of the study area than the SA VEGMAP.
According to STEP, the study area is situated largely within the Grassridge Bontveld vegetation unit, with smaller portions of the affected areas being classified as Sundays Valley Thicket and Sundays Spekboom Thicket vegetation units (Figure 5.2).
Grassridge Bontveld is a valley thicket mosaic type consisting of small patches of Sundays Valley Thicket in a matrix of veld that consists of a combination of species that are characteristic of fynbos (Acmadenia obtusata, Euryops ericifolius), succulent karoo (Pteronia incana) and grassland (Themeda triandra, Eustachys paspaloides). This unit contains many highly localized endemics and is generally restricted to outcrops of limestone (Nanaga formation), often as ‘islands’ in a matrix of Valley Thicket. Several rare and localised endemic plant species occur here, such as Anginon rugosum, Bulbine inae, Euphorbia globosa, Lotononis micrantha and Rhombophyllum rhomboideum. This vegetation type is classified as ‘Currently Not Vulnerable’. Majority of the Wind Farm components and powerline will occur within this vegetation type.
Sundays Valley Thicket is a vegetation type dominated by Schotia afra and Euclea undulata while Euphorbia ledienii and Aloe africana are reliable indicator species of this vegetation type. This vegetation type is classified as ‘Currently not vulnerable’. One (1) turbine and small portions of the powerline alternatives are located within this vegetation type.
Land management recommendation according to STEP (2006) has been included in Table 5.1 below.
It should however be noted that the vegetation within the study area is surrounded by formal and informal development as well as agriculture and is fragmented from other intact vegetation by the existing N2, farm access roads and a services servitude.
Table 5.1: Applicable STEP Land Use Management Guidelines GENERAL RULE LAND USE MANAGEMENT (REACTIVE DECISIONS) Not Vulnerable Not Vulnerable land Proposed disturbance or developments should preferably take can withstand some place on portions which have already undergone disturbance or loss of area through impacts rather than on portions that are undisturbed or unspoilt disturbance or by impacts. development. In response to an application for a non-listed activity which will have severe or large-scale disturbance on a relatively undisturbed site (unspoilt by impacts), the Municipality should first seek the opinion of the relevant provincial authority. For a proposed “listed activity”, EIA authorisation is required by law.
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 43 | P a g e Ecological Assessment
Figure 5.2: Regional Vegetation Map illustrating the vegetation type found within the study area as classified by STEP (2006).
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 44 | P a g e Ecological Assessment
5.1.3 Bioregional and Local classification - The Metropolitan Open Space System (NMB MOSS, 2009) – Gazetted in 2015
The NMBM has implemented a systematic conservation assessment and plan to conserve a representative proportion of all biodiversity in the Municipality. To achieve this goal, a suite of Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBAs) and Critical Ecosystem Support Areas (CESAs) were identified. These areas, if safe guarded, will facilitate the long-term persistence of a representative portion of all biodiversity patterns, ecological processes and species of conservation concern (NMBM, 2009). This Conservation Plan was gazetted in March 2015 as part of the Metropolitan Bioregional Plan and is now widely used as the most recent and applicable fine scale conservation assessment in the NMBM.
The NMB MOSS (2009) identifies three vegetation types in the study area namely Grassridge Bontveld, Sundays Spekboom Thicket and Sundays Valley Thicket (Figure 5.3).
Grassridge Bontveld is a subtropical Valley Thicket habitat unit consisting of small clumps of Sundays Valley Thicket in a matrix of veld that consists of a combination of species that are characteristic of fynbos (Acmadenia obtusata, Euryops ericifolius), succulent karoo (Pteronia incana) and grassland (Themeda triandra, Eustachys paspaloides). This unit contains many highly localized endemics and is found on the Alexandria Formation. Approximately 90.9% of the intact vegetation remains. This vegetation type is classified as ‘Vulnerable’. Thirty-one (31) turbines and the majority of the powerline route alternatives are located within this vegetation unit.
Sundays Valley Thicket is a subtropical Valley Thicket habitat unit dominated by Boerboon (Schotia afra) and Gwarrie (Euclea undulata) trees. Suurnoors (Euphorbia ledienii) and the Uitenhage aalwyn (Aloe africana) are also reliable indicator species. This unit is generally present on red, loamy to clayey soils derived from the Sundays River and Kirkwood formations. Approximately 74.8% of the intact vegetation remains. This vegetation type is classified as ‘Vulnerable’. Five (5) turbines and a small portion of the linear infrastructure will affect this vegetation type.
Sundays Spekboom Thicket is a unit of Valley Thicket dominated by Spekboom (Portulacaria afra). Pappea capensis generally dominates the tree component while Suurnoors (Euphorbia ledienii) and wilde granaat (Rhigozum obovatum) are characteristically common. This vegetation unit is generally present on deep alluvial soils. Approximately 77.4% of the intact vegetation remains. This vegetation type is classified as ‘Vulnerable’. Six (6) turbines are located within this vegetation unit. The powerline alternatives will not affect this vegetation unit.
Table 5:2: Approximate extent of vegetation classified by the NMB Bioregional Plan within each component and grid connection corridor alternatives that will be further assessed in the EIA (MOSS, 2009 as gazetted as part of the NMBM Bioregional Plan, 2015). Grid connection Grassridge Sundays Valley Sundays Spekboom Further Assessment corridor Bontveld (%) Thicket (%) Thicket (%) in the EIA Main Components 70% 15% 15% YES Powerline Route Option YES 50% 50% 0% 1 (preferred) Powerline Route Option YES 70% 30% 0% 2 Powerline Route Option YES 100% 0% 0% 3 Powerline Route Option YES 80% 20% 0% 4
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 45 | P a g e Ecological Assessment
Figure 5.3: Local Vegetation Map illustrating the vegetation type found within the study area as classified by NMBM MOSS (2009).
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 46 | P a g e Ecological Assessment
5.1.4 Sensitive Areas
For the purposes of this section, sensitive areas are areas classified as Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBAs), Ecological Support Areas (ESAs), Ecological Process Areas (EPAs) and Protected Areas (PAs).
i. Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan (ECBCP, 2007)
The ECBCP (2007) is the first attempt at detailed, low-level conservation mapping for land-use planning purposes in the Eastern Cape Province. Specifically, the aims of the Plan were to map critical biodiversity areas through a systematic conservation planning process. The current biodiversity plan includes the mapping of priority aquatic features, land-use pressures, and critical biodiversity areas and develops guidelines for land and resource-use planning and decision-making. ECBCP, although mapped at a finer scale than the National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment (Driver et al., 2005) is still, for the large part, inaccurate and “coarse”. Therefore it is imperative that the status of the environment, for any proposed development MUST first be verified before the management recommendations associated with the ECBCP are considered (Berliner and Desmet, 2007). The ECBCP is currently under review however the most recent 2016/2017 datasets and report is not yet available to the public as it has not yet undergone the authority and public review phase.
The main outputs of the ECBCP are “critical biodiversity areas” or CBAs, which are allocated the following management categories:
1. CBA 1 = Maintain in a natural state 2. CBA 2 = Maintain in a near-natural state 3. CBA 3 = Other natural areas: Functional landscapes
The study area falls largely within a Terrestrial CBA 2 area, with smaller areas within a CBA 3 (Figure 5.4).
Terrestrial CBA 2 areas are defined by the following aspects:
Endangered vegetation types identified through the ECBCP systematic conservation assessment; Endangered vegetation types from STEP; Endangered forest patches in terms of the National Forest Assessment; All expert-mapped areas less than 25 000 ha in size (includes expert data from this project, STEP birds, SKEP, Wild Coast, Pondoland and marine studies); All other forest clusters (includes 500 m buffers); 1 km coastal buffer strip; Ecological corridors identified in other studies (e.g. from STEP, Wild Coast, Pondoland, WMA 12 SEA, etc.) and corridors mapped by experts; and Ecological corridors identified by the ECBCP using an integrated corridor design for the whole Province;
Terrestrial CBA 3 areas are defined by:
Vulnerable vegetation types identified through the ECBCP systematic conservation assessment Vulnerable vegetation types from STEP All remaining natural areas not included in the above CBA categories
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 47 | P a g e Ecological Assessment
The ECBCP (2007) also classifies various parcels of land into Land Management Classes broadly depending on their transformation status and ecological function. The ECBCP Land management classes’ for the study area is categorised as within a BLMC 2 – Near-natural landscape and BLMC 3 – Functional Landscapes. The recommended land use management for areas classified as such is described in Table 5.3 below.
The proposed Bayview Wind Farm and associated infrastructure is not in conflict with the ECBCP land use management recommendations, as the turbines and powerline will not change the function of the landscape nor permanently transform significant portions of it. The areas cleared for the grid connection will largely be confined to pylons and servitude clearance and should as far as practically possible be confined to degraded areas or areas already disturbed. The CBA 2 area delineated by ECBCP is somewhat inconsistent with the state of the environment, as some of the areas within the study area are degraded and transformed to the point where it cannot be maintained in a natural state.
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 48 | P a g e Ecological Assessment
Figure 5.4: Terrestrial Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBA) as classified by ECBCP (2007).
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 49 | P a g e Ecological Assessment
Table 5.3: Terrestrial Critical Biodiversity Areas and Biodiversity Land Management Classes as described by the Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan. CBA MAP CATEGORY CODE BLMC RECOMMENDED LAND USE OBJECTIVE PA1 Protected areas PA2 Maintain biodiversity in as natural state Natural BLMC 1 as possible. Manage for no biodiversity Terrestrial CBA 1 (not landscapes T1 loss. degraded)
Terrestrial CBA 1 T1 Maintain biodiversity in near natural (degraded) Near-natural state with minimal loss of ecosystem BLMC 2 T2 landscapes integrity. No transformation of natural Terrestrial CBA 2 C1 habitat should be permitted. C2 ONA T3 Manage for sustainable development, keeping natural habitat intact in Functional wetlands (including wetland buffers) and Other natural areas BLMC 3 ONA landscapes riparian zones. Environmental authorisations should support ecosystem integrity. Transformed Transformed areas TF BLMC 4 Manage for sustainable development. landscapes
ii. The Metropolitan Open Space System (NMB MOSS, 2009)
The NMB Bioregional Plan (2015), which is underpinned by the NMBM MOSS (2009) conservation assessment, defines a CBA area as areas which are, “Critically endangered habitats, ecological process areas, ecological corridors, habitats for species of conservation concern and some threatened ecosystems”. It is suggested that such areas should form part of the protected area system and that developments/activities that will result in further loss of these vegetation types is restricted. Even if degraded, rehabilitation or restoration should be the first option to recreate and maintain natural ecological processes in these areas. In addition, Vulnerable areas outside of CBAs must be managed for sustainable development. This means that some loss of natural habitat is allowed but this needs to be within the limits of cumulative impacts of the transformation threshold of the Ecosystem Status. The NMB Bioregional Plan recommends the following for developments within CBAs:
• “Developments should be limited to existing developed/degraded footprints, if present.” • “The installation of infrastructure in CBAs is not desirable and should only be considered if all alternative alignment and design options have been assessed and found to be non-viable. Under such conditions, a Basic Assessment should be undertaken, and if approved a comprehensive EMP must be developed and best-practice restoration efforts strictly implemented.”
The study area is partially situated within a CBA (one (1) turbine and some of the powerline alternatives), and a very small portion of the preferred powerline alternative corridor is situated within an Ecological Process Area (Figure 5.5).
In addition, powerline alternative 1 and powerline alternative 3 traverse the Coega Riverine Corridor and the Sundays Riverine Corridor respectively (Figure 5.6).
A river integrity assessment was conducted as part of the NMB Bioregional Plan conservation assessment, which rated the Coega River as not being intact (NMB MOSS, 2009). Approximately 37.9% of the river is lost due to anthropogenic activities including: drainage system alterations due
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 50 | P a g e Ecological Assessment to infrastructure development, bank modification, river canalisation, pollution caused by various surrounding sources such as runoff from urban areas, and sediment load resulting from erosion. Despite the river being in a poor condition, further transformation and development impacts may result in the collapse of a functional state, no longer able to support biotic or abiotic process and ultimately no longer able to provide important ecological services. The river may not be able to sustain any further disturbance. The Coega River will not directly be affected by the proposed Wind Farm and according to the river integrity assessment, the Coega River is one of the main rivers within the NMBM that cannot currently achieve the required biodiversity target as an intact riverine system.
The Sundays River is classified as being intact with approximately 14.8% of the river lost due to anthropogenic activities (NMB MOSS, 2009). The Sundays River will not directly be affected by the proposed Bayview Wind Farm.
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 51 | P a g e Ecological Assessment
Figure 5.5: Map illustrating the Terrestrial CBA and ESA classification of the study area as classified by NMB MOSS (2009).
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 52 | P a g e Ecological Assessment
Figure 5.6: Map illustrating the CEP classification of the study area as classified by NMB MOSS (2009).
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 53 | P a g e Ecological Assessment
iii. Protected Areas
A number of formally and informally protected areas surround the study area. Within 5 km of the proposed study area is the Penhurst Rly State Reserve, the Tregathlyn Game Farm and the Addo Elephant National Park. The study area is not within any area delineated as a National Protected Areas Expansion Strategy (NPAES) focus area. The activities associated with the Bayview Wind Farm that may indirectly impact on any of the protected areas have been included in the impacts chapter of this report.
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 54 | P a g e Ecological Assessment
Figure 5.7: Map illustrating the Protected Areas within close proximity to the study area.
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 55 | P a g e Ecological Assessment
5.2 Fauna
The study area is situated in the 3325DA Quarter Degree Square (QDS). Data from the Animal Demography Unit (ADU) was used to compile this section.
5.2.1 Amphibians & Reptiles
Amphibians and reptiles are well represented in sub-Saharan Africa. However, distribution patterns in southern Africa are uneven both in terms of species distribution and in population numbers (du Preez and Carruthers, 2009). Climate, centres of origin and range restrictions are the three main factors that determine species distribution. The eastern coast of South Africa has the highest amphibian diversity and endemicity while reptile diversity is generally highest in the north eastern extremes of South Africa and declines to the south and west (Alexander & Marais, 2010).
i. Amphibians
Amphibians are an important and often neglected component of terrestrial vertebrate faunas. Knowledge of amphibian species diversity in the study area is limited. However, according to the Animal Demographics Unit’s South African Frog Atlas Project (SAFAP) ten (10) frog species have been documented in the QDS that the study area falls in. Of these ten (10) species, none are listed as species of conservation concern or as a Schedule 1 species on the PNCO list. However, all frogs and toads are listed as Schedule 2 species on the PNCO list and will therefore require permits for their removal.
ii. Reptiles
The Eastern Cape is home to a hundred and thirty three (133) reptile species which include twenty one (21) snakes, twenty seven (27) lizards and eight (8) chelonians (tortoises and turtles). The majority of these are found in Mesic Succulent Thicket and riverine habitats.
According to the ADU historical records, 31 species of reptiles are likely to occur in the study area. Only one (1) Near Threatened species (Nucras taeniolata - Albany Sandveld Lizard) and one (1) Critically Endangered species (Bitis albanica- Albany adder) on the IUCN Red Data List are likely to be found in the study area (Table 5.4). The study area includes undulating landscapes, rocky limestone outcrops, and grasslands, all of which are suitable habitats for both species. The Albany Adder is only found on Coega Bontveld. All lizards and tortoises are listed as a Schedule 2 species on the PNCO list and will therefore require permits for their removal. An expert who holds a Competency Certificate to handle Dangerous and Venomous Reptiles should be contracted to remove any animals.
Table 5.4: List of potential Reptile SCCs that may occur within the study area RED LIST FAMILY SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME PNCO STATUS Colubridae Philothamnus semivariegatus Spotted Bush Snake - Schedule 2 South African Slug- Colubridae Duberria lutrix lutrix - Schedule 2 eater Colubridae Lamprophis aurora Aurora House Snake - Schedule 2 Lycodonomorphus rufulus Brown Water Snake Colubridae - Schedule 2
Colubridae Lycophidion capense capense Cape Wolf Snake - Schedule 2 Western Natal Colubridae Philothamnus natalensis occidentalis - Schedule 2 Green Snake Colubridae Prosymna sundevalli Sundevall's Shovel- - Schedule 2
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 56 | P a g e Ecological Assessment
snout Lacertidae Albany Sandveld Near Nucras taeniolata Schedule 2 Lizard Threatened Critically Viperidae Bitis albanica Albany Adder Schedule 2 Endangered
5.2.2 Mammals (excluding bats)
Large game makes up less than 15% of the mammal species in South Africa and a much smaller percentage in numbers and biomass. In developed and farming areas, this percentage is greatly reduced, with the vast majority of mammals present being small or medium-sized.
Eighty seven (87) mammal species are likely to occur within this QDS. The White tailed mouse (Mystromys albicaudatus) which has a distribution that coincides with the study area is listed as Endangered. Three species that may occur within the study area are listed on the NEM:BA list as protected namely the South African Hedgehog (Atelerix frontalis), Honey Badger (Mellivora capensis) and Cape Fox (Vulpes chama). Based on habitat availability it is likely that these species will occur on site (Stuart and Stuart, 2007). The conservation status of South African mammals has recently been re-assessed and a number of species have been downgraded, for example, the African wild cat (Felis silvestris), Aardvark (Orycteropus afer), Blue duiker (Philantomba monticola), and Honey Badger (Mellivora capensis) are no longer considered threatened. Sclater's Mouse Shrew and Schreibers Long-fingered bat are both listed as Near Threatened on the IUCN Red List and have distributions which coincide with the study area.
Table 5.5: List of potential mammal SCCs that may occur within the study area SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME IUCN NEM:BA PNCO Atelerix frontalis South African hedgehog - Protected Schedule 2
Mystromys albicaudatus White-tailed mouse EN - -
Mellivora capensis Honey Badger - Protected Schedule 2
Vulpes chama Cape Fox LC Protected -
Myosorex sclateri Sclater's Mouse Shrew NT
Miniopterus schreibersii Schreibers Long-fingered bat NT - Schedule 2
Panthera pardus Leopard NT Vulnerable Schedule 2
5.3 Desktop Sensitivity
Prior to the site survey a Desktop sensitivity map was drawn on GIS, by identifying areas of high, medium and low sensitivity based on the desktop classification of the study area (Figure 5.8). This was done using the Final Scoping Phase Layout.
Areas of low sensitivity, moderate sensitivity and high sensitivity include:
1. Protected areas; 2. Watercourses, tributaries and drainage lines; 3. Wetlands inclusive of a 100 m buffer; 4. Endangered Vegetation; 5. NMB Bioregional Plan CBAs 6. 500 m regulatory buffer of a wetland and the 50 m regulatory buffer of watercourses, tributaries and drainage lines;
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 57 | P a g e Ecological Assessment
7. Vulnerable vegetation; 8. ESA 1 areas that are not transformed; 9. Riverine corridors; 10. Other heavily impacted on vegetation; 11. All transformed areas such as roads, mining areas etc.
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 58 | P a g e Ecological Assessment
Figure 5.8: Desktop Sensitivity.
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 59 | P a g e Ecological Assessment 6 SITE SURVEY
6.1 Terrestrial habitat
6.1.1 Vegetation units
Two main vegetation units were identified to occur within the entire study area, namely the Bontveld and Thicket vegetation.
Bontveld vegetation occurs in various portions of the study area and powerline corridors. Bontveld was found to be in similar condition throughout the site, occurring as thicket bushclumps in a matrix of grassland vegetation. This vegetation type generally had a good vegetation cover, was in moderate condition and was dominated by grassland vegetation. Bontveld also showed signs of alien invasion where species such as Acacia cyclops and Opunita ficus indica were observed. In some areas, the Bontveld was found to be heavily impacted by game farming, over-grazing and other agricultural practices.
Watson (2002) distinguished four separate vegetation communities within the Grassridge Bontveld habitat unit, namely bushclumps, miniclumps, grassveld and succulent patches:
Bushclumps: The average clump size varies greatly with an average of 214 ± 127m2 and it ranges in height from 2-3 m tall, with Scutia myrtina and Hippobromus pauciflorus being indicative of bushclumps. Bushclumps are comprised of seventy four (74) species from thirty seven (37) families. Miniclumps: Miniclumps are distinguished (physiognomically and phytosociologically) from bushclumps and are considerably smaller (7±4m2). The miniclumps vary between 50 - 150 cm in height, with aloes usually being the tallest species. The presence of Rhus pallens is indicative of miniclumps, which is comprised of sixty three (63) species from thirty one (31) families. Grassveld: The grassveld within the Bontveld comprises forty three (43) species from eighteen (18) families, with Themeda triandra and Merxmeulera disticha indicative of Bontveld grassland. Succulent patches: The succulent patches occur over small areas (average of 4m2) with bare ground constituting over 50% of the total area. This vegetation type comprises 36 species from 22 families, with Lampranthus productus indicative of the succulent patches.
Watson (2002) stated that Bontveld differed from Thicket in that the Thicket flora was predominately of a Subtropical origin, while the Bontveld had a large proportion of widespread flora. Bontveld has an abundance of calcareous grassland and thicket bushclumps which have a species composition similar to that of the Mesic Succulent Thicket. However, the Calcareous Grasslands are very diverse with an abundance of graminoids, herbs and small shrubs. Dwarf shrubs usually include Nylandtia spinosa, Muraltia squarrosa, Acmadenia obtusata and common graminoids are Themeda triandra, Ficinia truncate with some herbs and succulents (CES, 2001). Where breaks in the calcareous substrate are evident, thicket vegetation is present, forming distinct bushclumps. Coega Bontveld Vegetation is classified to include these and the thicket bushclumps, which are about 2.5 m high and have about 90% cover. They consist mostly of spinescent shrubs and woody creepers with many succulents. Diversity is high and the characteristic woody species include Sideroxlyon inerme, Gymnosporia procumbens and Polygala myrtifolia. Succulent species such as Aloe africana, Aloe ferox, Euphorbia ledienii and Euphorbia grandidens also occur within this vegetation unit.
Numerous SCC occur in this vegetation type in the form of small succulents and geophytes, which are often well hidden under the larger plants and therefore inconspicuous. The vegetation assessment confirmed that the study area is characterised by a mosaic of thicket bushclumps and mini bushclumps interspersed with grassland and succulent patches. Each of these elements specific to the project site is described in further detail below.
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 60 | P a g e Ecological Assessment Thicket Bushclumps Thicket bushclumps were dominated by shrub species such as Euclea undulata and Schotia afra. Other shrub species observed includes Searsia lucida and Olea exasparata. Succulent species found to occur in bushclumps included Aloe africana and Aloe ferox.
Mini Bushclumps Mini bushclumps were characterised by small clumps of thicket species interspersed throughout the grassland and succulent patches. Dominant species were similar to that of the larger thicket Bushclumps and included species such as Schotia afra var. afra, Chrysanthemoides monilifera, Euclea undulata and Searsia species.
Grassland and Succulent patches A number of plant species were found to occur in the grassland and succulent patches; this vegetation was characterised by grass species such as Themeda triandra and Tenaxia disticha and low growing herbs and shrubs such as Acmadenia obtusata, Baleria pungens, Lobostemon trigonus, Helicrysum sp. and Felicia sp. This vegetation unit had a number of succulent species such as Crassula mucosa, Euphorbia stellata and Bergeranthus cf. addoensis which were generally found to occur in open rocky outcrop patches.
Thicket vegetation found within the entire study area is a typical combination of Sundays Thicket. Smaller portions of the study area supports Spekboom Thicket and in most of those areas, the vegetation was found to be fairly dense. The Thicket areas are characterised by small spinescent trees and shrubs, succulents and an understorey of graminoids (grass). The vegetation was generally in a moderate to low condition, with a number of SCC observed. Within various parts of the powerline corridors thicket vegetation was in pristine condition and inaccessible and dense, specifically near drainage areas and on steep slopes. However, in some areas thicket has already been impacted on by the development of linear activities such footpaths, roads, pylons and powerlines.
Sundays Thicket is currently impacted by various activities in the immediate study area (at some locations resembling Bontveld) including roads, an existing wind farm, vegetation clearing for grazing of domestic animals and the presence of alien invasive species. Within these disturbed areas the vegetation is not a solid impenetrable unit but occurs in fragments intercepted with grassland. In other more natural areas, this vegetation type is characterised by dense vegetation, dominated by Scotia afra var afra, Euclea undulata and various Searsia species. Succulent species such as Aloe species and Portulacaria afra are also common within this vegetation type. Common alien invasive species include Opuntia ficus-indica.
Although thicket in the study area has an important intrinsic biodiversity value and provides local ecological benefits and ecosystem goods and services (in the form of carbon sequestration, soil nutrient cycling and stability, soil stability and erosion control), it’s conservation significance on a broader scale is limited by the fact that it is fragmented from viable thicket corridors by existing access roads, service corridors, and ever increasing mining activities etc.
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 61 | P a g e Ecological Assessment
Plate 6.1: General view of the vegetation units within the study area.
Plate 6.2: Typical Thicket bushclumps observed within the study area.
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 62 | P a g e Ecological Assessment
Plate 6.3: Bontveld vegetation observed within the study area.
Plate 6.4: Existing disturbance and current land uses observed within the study area.
6.1.2 Floristics
i. Species of Conservation Concern (SCC)
Species of Conservation Concern (SCC) are species that have a high conservation importance in terms of preserving South Africa's high floristic diversity and include not only threatened species, but also those classified in the categories Extinct in the Wild (EW), Regionally Extinct (RE), Near Threatened (NT), Critically Rare, Rare, Declining and Data Deficient - Insufficient Information (DDD). Species classified as Least Concern have been assessed but are not considered SCC. The species list from the site survey was assessed against the South African Red Data List, the National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act (NEM:BA) list of protected species, DAFF’s list of protected tree species and the Eastern Cape PNCO.
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 63 | P a g e Ecological Assessment A total of nine (9) species are listed as protected in the Eastern Cape PNCO list, and none (0) on the NEM:BA list. One (1) protected tree species (Sideroxylon inerme) was recorded to occur as scattered individuals within the study area. Appendix 2 provides a comprehensive list of species observed and expected to be found within the study area. Due to the close proximity of the study area to surrounding areas where a number of Ecological Assessments have been conducted, it is likely that some species found within neighbouring sites are also present within the study area, particularly where vegetation is intact. The species list in Table 2 of Appendix 2, should also be used to supplement the species in the study area since the current survey was conducted in spring, where species may have been missed or identification was not possible due to the absence of identifying features (flowers, etc). It is thus recommended that when Search and Rescue (S&R) is conducted for the proposed development that the plant species list of flora found within the immediate area is also considered prior to S&R.
Table 6.1: The following protected species in particular were encountered on site: SCIENTIFIC NAME SANBI PNCO PROTECTED TREES
Aloe straita cf subsp. striata Schedule 4 Least Concern
Boophane disticha Declining Schedule 4 -
Carissa bispinosa Least Concern Schedule 4 -
Carpobrotus sp. Least Concern Schedule 4 -
Delosperma sp. - Schedule 4 -
Drosanthemum sp. Least Concern Schedule 4 -
Freesia corymbosa Least Concern Schedule 4 -
Pachypodium bispinosum Least Concern Schedule 4 -
Pachypodium succulentum Least Concern Schedule 4 -
Sideroxylon inerme subsp. inerme Least Concern - Protected
Plate 6.5: Protected species observed within the study area.
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 64 | P a g e Ecological Assessment ii. Alien species
The study area has scattered infestations of alien species and weeds. Alien species present on site and their category according to the NEM:BA Alien and Invasive Species Regulations (published 1 August 2014) as well as the Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act, 1983 (Act No 43 of 1983) (CARA ) are presented below (Table 6.2).
It should be noted that the CARA regulations for the legal obligations regarding alien invasive plants in South Africa have been superseded by the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act no. 10 of 2004) – Alien and Invasive Species (AIS) Regulations which was promulgated on 1 October 2014. However, CARA has not been repealed and is still included as a reference point to use in terms of the management of AIS where certain species may not be included in the NEM:BA AIS list.
Table 6.2: Alien invasive species present on site as assessed by NEM:BA Alien and Invasive Species Regulations (published 1 August 2014) as well as by CARA (1983). SCIENTIFIC NAME NEM:BA COMMENT CARA COMMENT Acacia cyclops Category 1b These species should be Category 2 Plants listed as removed from the area. Category 2 may be grown under Measures should be put in conditioned zones. place to control these It is recommended species that this species is removed from the An Alien Invasive Species site. Management Programme should be developed to control the listed 1b species. Acacia mearnsii Category 2 A permit is required to be Category 2 Ricinus communis L. Category 2 obtained to carry out any Category 2 var. communis activity in an area with Category 2 species. Thus appropriate measures should be employed for the removal of these species on the study area. Circium vulgare Category 1b These species should be Category 1 Plants listed as Datura ferox Category 1b removed from the area. Category 1 Category one must Nicotiana glauca Category 1b Category 1 be removed and Measures should be put in destroyed from the Opuntia aurantiaca Category 1b Category 1 place to control these site. Opuntia ficus-indica Category 1b species - Senna didymobotrya Category 1b Category 3 Plants listed as An Alien Invasive Species Category 3 are not Management Programme to occur on any land should be developed to or inland-surface control the listed 1b other than in a species. biological control reserve, thus this species must be removed from the site.
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 65 | P a g e Ecological Assessment
Plate 6.6: Alien species observed within the study area.
6.2 Faunal species
Faunal species observed within the study area include various bird species, Common Blesbuck, White Blesbuck, Blue Wildebeest, Eland, Zebra, Kudu, Ostrich (with chicks), Impala, Guinea Fowl, Grey Mongoose, White tailed Mongoose and Angulate tortoise (Plate 6.7). A number of mammal species are expected to occur in the study area due to the available suitable habitat, animal droppings observed (Plate 6.8) and the fact that some of the portions are being utilised as a game farm.
Plate 6.7: Some faunal species observed within the study area.
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 66 | P a g e Ecological Assessment
Plate 6.8: Some animal droppings observed within the study area.
In addition to the wild animals observed within the study area, livestock and other domestic animals were also observed within the study area, mainly near farm houses and farm worker cottages; these include goat, sheep, rabbits and geese.
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 67 | P a g e Ecological Assessment
Plate 6.9: Livestock and domestic animals observed within the study area.
6.3 Wetland habitat
A number of wetlands have been identified to occur within the affected property boundaries, however none of these will be directly affected by the Bayview Wind Farm and associated infrastructure. The Bayview Wind Farm turbines 23, 42 and 43, Substation alternative B, as well as a section of one of the powerline alternatives will occur within the 500 m regulated area of five (5) of the identified wetlands (Table 6.3).
Table 6.3: NFEPA wetlands identified within the study area. WETLAND TYPE WETLAND CONDITION WETLAND VEGETATION AB: Natural or Good (% natural Natural Bench Depression Albany Thicket Bontveld cover is ≥ 75%) C: Moderately modified (% natural Natural Bench Depression Albany Thicket Bontveld cover 25 – 75%) AB: Natural or Good (% natural Natural Bench Depression Albany Thicket Bontveld cover is ≥ 75%) AB: Natural or Good (% natural Natural Bench Depression Albany Thicket Bontveld cover is ≥ 75%) AB: Natural or Good (% natural Natural Bench Depression Albany Thicket Bontveld cover is ≥ 75%)
All of the desktop mapped wetlands are transformed as a result of grazing and agriculture. No natural wetlands have been encountered on site. In addition to the above, a number of non-perennial tributaries (drainage lines) of the Sundays River traverse the affected properties at various locations. Three (3) of the powerline route alternatives will traverse a non-perennial tributary of the Coega River, south of the
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 68 | P a g e Ecological Assessment Bayview Wind Farm’s main components. Vegetation of wetlands areas are sparse and consist mainly of low growing creepers while the remainder of the other wetlands have been grazed and are now fully transformed (Plate 6.10). The majority of the drainage lines were inaccessible and dense.
Selected project activities fall within the 500 m regulated area of wetlands and within the 100 m regulated area of a drainage line which falls within the mandate of the DWS. A Water Use Authorisation (WUA) Application process will be conducted at a later stage once the final placement of the infrastructure has been determined by DEA.
Plate 6.10: General view of some of the wetlands within the study area.
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 69 | P a g e Ecological Assessment 7 BIODIVERSITY AND SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT
In terms of Appendix 6 of the Amended EIA Regulations (2017) a specialist report must contain-
(f) Details of an assessment of a specific identified sensitivity of the site related to the proposed activity or activities and its associated structures and infrastructure inclusive of a site plan identifying alternatives; (g) An identification of any areas to be avoided, including buffers; (h) A map superimposing the activity including the associated structures and infrastructure on the environmental sensitivities of the site including areas to be avoided, including buffers;
7.1 Sensitivity analysis (Figure 7.1)
The sensitivity map was developed by identifying areas of high, medium and low sensitivity (Figure 7.1). The following was taken into consideration when rating sensitivity. Red text = High sensitivity, orange text = Moderate sensitivity and green text = Low sensitivity.
1. Watercourses, tributaries and drainage lines 2. Thicket clumps found within the Bontveld 3. Transformed wetlands, 500 m regulatory buffer of a wetland and the 100 m regulatory buffer of watercourses, tributaries and drainage lines 4. Intact to partially intact Thicket vegetation (precautionary area) 5. Bontveld vegetation - degraded to some extent 6. Riverine corridors 7. Other heavily impacted on vegetation 8. All transformed areas such as roads, mining areas etc.
Areas of low sensitivity include: Areas that are highly impacted by current land use and provide little value to the ecosystem; and Highly degraded areas that are unlikely to harbour any species of special concern such as footpaths, access roads and cleared areas (servitudes).
Areas of moderate sensitivity include: Areas that still provide some level of valuable contribution to biodiversity and ecosystem functioning despite being degraded such as intact Sundays Thicket vegetation; Wetlands identified (majority being transformed); Intact and degraded areas that still contain species of special concern, and All inaccessible areas of intact vegetation that could not be sampled.
Areas of high sensitivity include: Process areas such as rivers and streams that are important for ecosystem functioning, including surface and ground water as well as animal and plant dispersal; Areas that have a high species richness; Areas that are not significantly impacted, transformed or degraded by current land use; and Areas that contain the majority of species of special concern found in the area and may contain high numbers of globally important species, or comprise part of a globally important vegetation type.
The four grid connection corridor alternatives have similar sensitivity throughout, with all vegetation units occurring within parts of each corridor, and all four corridors containing some populations of SCC and dense intact thicket. Taking the corridor size, powerline length, servitude width and amount of pylons required for each corridor into account, corridor option 1 has a number of potential bushclumps and a large number of SCC, however, it is the shortest option which will require the least vegetation clearance. In addition, this area (powerline corridor option 1) was also more accessible with a larger number of existing tracks available compared to the other three corridor alternatives.
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 70 | P a g e Ecological Assessment
Figure 7.1: Site sensitivity (on completion of site survey)
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 71 | P a g e Ecological Assessment 8 IMPACT IDENTIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT
In terms of Appendix 6 of the NEMA EIA Regulations (2014) a specialist report must contain-
(cB) A description of the existing impacts on the site, cumulative impacts of the proposed development and levels of acceptable change; (j) A description of the findings and potential implications of such findings on the impact of the proposed activity or activities; (k) Any mitigation measures for inclusion in the EMPr;
The study that has been undertaken provides the necessary information to assess the impacts of the project on the vegetation and the flora at various spatial and temporal scales. At the spatial scale of the study area the impacts described below will not be considerable, but these need to be seen in the context of the study area as a whole or at a still larger spatial scale. The main issues identified with the existing impacts are discussed below for each phase of the project. Should the study area change, the impacts and associated mitigation measures will need to be revisited. Ecological impacts were identified during the Planning and Design, Construction, and Operation phases of the proposed Bayview Wind Farm and are described below. These include the consideration of direct, indirect and cumulative impacts that may occur.
8.1 Current impacts – No-Go scenario
To contextualise the potential impacts of the project’s activities and associated infrastructure, the existing impacts (or status quo) associated with current ecological conditions needs to be described in terms of vegetation patterns, structure and composition. This baseline or status quo should be used as the comparison against which project impacts are assessed. The main issues identified with the existing impacts are:
The current vegetation condition on site ranges from intact to transformed vegetation. Left unmitigated, it is likely that alien vegetation will continue to spread and displace indigenous vegetation. Degradation within some of the vegetated areas is evident and probably as a result of mining, grazing/browsing, agriculture, footpaths and disturbance created for access roads to the existing Grassridge Wind Farm nearby and roads for the quarry areas.
8.2 Planning and Design Phase
Activities associated with the design and pre-construction phase pertain to a feasibility assessment, which is done at a desktop level. In some cases (as in this case) site visits need to take place which was done on numerous occasions. In addition, the layout has undergone a number of iterations in order to avoid sensitive areas as much as practically possible. In terms of the grid connection corridor alternatives, these areas are extremely large (over exaggerated) and will allow for the movement of the powerline within the assessed corridor to suit the best environmental option without compromising the most feasible economic option.
8.3 Construction phase
This phase assesses the impacts associated with the construction of the proposed development.
Issue 1: Loss of Vegetation communities
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 72 | P a g e Ecological Assessment Natural plant communities are dynamic ecosystems that provide habitats that support all forms of life. Different types of plant communities (and habitats) exist within and around the study area. The current condition of the vegetation communities that will be affected by the proposed development varies from moderate to low, depending on the level of transformation caused by anthropogenic activities. The current impacts on each plant community are assessed below.
Impact 1a: Loss of Bontveld vegetation
Cause and Comment: Vegetation clearance for the proposed development and associated infrastructure such as linear infrastructure will result in a direct loss of Bontveld vegetation. Taking the maximum amount of turbines likely to be constructed within this vegetation unit, this equates to a total loss of 12 400 m2 (1.24 ha) of vegetation. The majority of the Bayview Wind Farm and associated components are located within Bontveld vegetation. In terms of the powerline alternatives, it should however be noted that the powerline will have a 31 - 36 m servitude and only small amounts of vegetation clearing will be required and this will only be restricted to where pylons have been placed. At this stage pylon locations are not yet available. Impacts on Coega Bontveld can be reduced by strategically placing infrastructure to avoid bushclumps (which has been done for the main Bayview Wind Farm components) and succulent patches which are the sensitive components of this vegetation type. For the grid connection powerline and servitude, effective measures must be taken to ensure that the impacts in these areas are reduced where feasible, and that project infrastructure such as pylons and powerlines are realigned to avoid the need to clear large bushclumps and succulent patches should the final placement be within these sensitive features.
Under the no-go option the overall impact would be moderate as there is already loss of indigenous vegetation in the area due to the presence of mining activities and an existing operational WEF and other infrastructure such as substations. Poor land management is also evident. Further loss and degradation of the vegetation is likely to occur as a result of the above.
Significance Statement: Effect Risk or Likelihood Overall Significance Temporal Scale Spatial Scale Severity of Impact Impact on the grassland component of Coega Bontveld
Without Mitigation Permanent Study Area Moderate Definite Moderate -
With Mitigation Permanent Localised Slight Definite Low -
No-Go Option Long term Study Area Moderate Probable Moderate -
Impact on bushclumps and succulent patches
Without Mitigation Permanent Study Area Severe Definite High -
With Mitigation Permanent Localised Moderate Definite Moderate -
No-Go Option Long term Study Area Slight Probable Low -
Mitigation Measures: A comprehensive S&R must be undertaken prior to vegetation clearance. SCCs should either be housed in an onsite nursery (or at the closest nursery) for use during rehabilitation or be relocated to suitable areas within the properties where vegetation clearance will not occur.
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 73 | P a g e Ecological Assessment If possible, the removal of Milkwood trees should be avoided, however, where not possible, applicable permits have to be obtained prior to vegetation clearance. Large populations of Aloes should be avoided. Areas with large populations of SCC (such as protected succulents) must be avoided as far as practically possible. A 10 m safe buffer should be placed around all bushclumps which should be deemed no-go areas. The clearance of vegetation at any given time should be kept to a minimum in order to reduce the possibility of soil erosion. Vegetation clearing and trampling should be avoided in areas demarcated as no-go areas. Temporary infrastructure such as the site camp, laydown areas and storage areas must be placed in areas already transformed. Employees must be prohibited from making fires on site and harvesting plants. All alien vegetation within the proposed development footprint should be removed from site and disposed of at a registered waste disposal site, or can be chipped for mulch or composted. Alien clearing must be conducted for the duration of construction and continuous monitoring of seedlings need to occur. Only indigenous species should be used for rehabilitation purposes. As far as practically be possible, existing roads needs to be utilised for access routes and powerlines. All species protected in terms of the PNCO and ToPS regulations will require permits from DEDEAT prior to their removal. Any protected trees that need to be removed will require a permit from DAFF.
Impact 1b: Loss of Thicket vegetation
Cause and Comment: Vegetation clearance for the proposed development will result in a direct loss of Thicket vegetation. This area, although intact in some parts, has been impacted by the invasion of alien species as well as by the disturbance of the current land use in the area where some of the vegetation has been removed as a result of other developments (mining etc.). Very few of the turbines (11 maximum) and very small portions of the linear infrastructure will result in the direct loss of this vegetation type. Taking the maximum number of turbines likely to be constructed within this vegetation unit, this equates to a total loss of 4 400 m2 (0.44 ha) of vegetation. In terms of the powerline alternatives, it should be noted that the powerline will have a 31 - 36 m servitude and only small amounts of vegetation clearing will be required and this will only be restricted to where pylons have been placed. At this stage pylon locations are not yet available. Where possible, infrastructure has been placed in/along existing roads/disturbed areas to keep vegetation clearance to a minimum.
Under the no-go option the overall impact would be minimal as there is already loss of indigenous vegetation in the area due to the presence of mining activities and existing infrastructure associated with a neighbouring operational wind farm. Further loss and degradation of the vegetation is likely to occur as a result of the above, however this will be very minimum.
Significance Statement: Effect Risk or Likelihood Overall Significance Temporal Scale Spatial Scale Severity of Impact
Without Mitigation Permanent Study Area Slight Definite Low -
With Mitigation Permanent Localised Slight Definite Low -
No-Go Option Long term Study Area Slight Probable Low -
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 74 | P a g e Ecological Assessment
Mitigation Measures: Refer to mitigation measures for Impact 1a above. All alien vegetation within the proposed development footprint should be removed from site and disposed of at a registered waste disposal site for the duration of construction and continuous monitoring of seedlings need to occur. Areas which are already disturbed should be utilised, such as areas with a low number of SCC and areas that are infested with alien invasive species. As far as practically be possible, existing roads need to be utilised for access routes and powerlines.
Impact 1c: Removal of Alien vegetation
Cause and Comment: The construction of the proposed development will result in the clearance of alien vegetation already present on portions of the study area. This will be a positive impact as alien invasive species will be removed and consequently this will also improve the condition of the existing indigenous vegetation as there will be less competition from alien invasive plants.
Under the no-go option the existing alien vegetation will continue to encroach the study area until it eventually replaces the indigenous vegetation and it is very likely that these will spread to the surrounding environment.
Significance Statement: Effect Risk or Overall
Temporal Scale Spatial Scale Severity of Impact Likelihood Significance Without Long term Study Area Slight beneficial Definite Low + Mitigation Moderate With Mitigation Long term Study area Definite Moderate + beneficial
No-Go Option Long term Study Area Moderate Definite Moderate -
Mitigation Measures: All alien vegetation within the proposed development footprint should be removed from site and disposed of at a registered waste disposal site for the duration of construction, and continuous monitoring of seedlings need to occur until construction is complete.
Issue 2: Loss of Biodiversity
The proposed development will result in the loss of biodiversity as vegetation cover and habitat is removed. The removal of the alien vegetation during clearing will have a positive impact on the remaining indigenous vegetation.
Impact 2a: Loss of Floral Biodiversity (in general)
Cause and comment:
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 75 | P a g e Ecological Assessment As mentioned above, construction activities will result in loss of plant biodiversity however, the removal of vegetation associated with the project is expected to be localised and confined to the project footprint - turbine sites and linear and associated infrastructure and pylons. Rehabilitation is anticipated to be relatively easy specifically for some species associated with the Bontveld vegetation, as natural colonisation and readily available seed banks will facilitate the process. Thicket vegetation does not restore as easily as some other vegetation types as it naturally regenerates very slowly after disturbance, unless additional measures are added such as planting of thicket vegetation.
Under the no-go option the loss of biodiversity will continue due to encroachment of alien species and disturbance by activities such as mining which impacts on the indigenous vegetation.
Impact 2b: Loss of Plant Species of Conservation Concern
Cause and Comment: A total of nine (9) species are listed as protected in the Eastern Cape PNCO list, and none (0) on the NEM:BA list. One (1) protected tree species (Sideroxylon inerme) was recorded to occur as scattered individuals within the study area. Appendix 2 provides a comprehensive list of species observed and expected to be found within the study area.
Due to the close proximity of the study area to surrounding areas where a number of Ecological Assessments has been conducted, it is likely that some species found within the immediate surrounding area are also present within the study area, particularly where vegetation is intact. The species list in Table 2 of Appendix 2, should also be used to supplement the species in the study area since the current survey was conducted in spring, where species may have been missed or identification was not possible due to the absence of identifying features (flowers, etc). It is thus recommended that when S&R is conducted for the proposed development that the plant species list of flora found within the immediate area is also considered prior to S&R.
The impacts at a larger spatial scale will only be important in the case of species that have a globally restricted range, or are otherwise in need of protection. In these cases development of any sort may significantly reduce the area of occupancy of the species. A reduction of the area of occupancy in turn may threaten the chances of survival for these plant species of concern. Given the location of this site and the likelihood of being able to place certain development components outside of areas containing SCCs (such as bushclumps), it is unlikely that the proposed development will result in the loss of pristine habitat availability and as a result SCC can possibly be avoided. However, due to the species richness and abundance of SCC within the study area, it is anticipated that not all SCC can be avoided.
Under the no-go option the area may lose some indigenous species as alien invasive species compete with the indigenous plant community and continuous disturbance can also negatively affect the species present in the area. In addition, there is already disturbance in the form of clearing in and around the study area for mining etc. and the further loss of SCC is probable.
Significance Statement: Effect Risk or Likelihood Overall Significance Temporal Scale Spatial Scale Severity of Impact
Without Mitigation Permanent Study Area Severe Definite High -
With Mitigation Permanent Localised Moderate Probable Moderate -
No-Go Option Long term Study Area Slight Probable Moderate -
Mitigation Measures:
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 76 | P a g e Ecological Assessment Refer to mitigation measures in impact 1 above. No development should occur in the bushclumps and succulent patches associated with the Bontveld as they have been identified as areas of high sensitivity. Prior to the construction of the proposed Wind Farm: o Each turbine site and the final location of the grid connection powerline must be groundtruthed and SCC identified and the correct permits acquired for their removal, should any be removed. o A S&R plan must be developed in order to identify and transplant SCC, some of these species will not transplant thus areas with these species should be avoided as far as possible and be left undisturbed. o Species of special concern must be marked/tagged prior to construction. During Construction of the proposed Wind Farm: o Employees must be prohibited from harvesting wild plants. o Fires must be prohibited. o Laydown areas must be rehabilitated once they are no longer required and an alien invasive management program implemented to ensure alien species do not invade these areas. o Construction activities must remain within the demarcated area. An ECO must be employed to ensure that the construction activities remain within the designated area and that no unauthorised activities occur. A S&R plan is recommended for species that are likely to have a high survival rate such as Aloe and Euphorbia species. The disturbed area must be rehabilitated with indigenous plant species and seedlings of alien vegetation must be removed on a continuous basis during the construction phase.
Issue 3: Loss of Animal Diversity (excluding birds and bats)
Impact 3a: Loss of Faunal SCCs
Cause and Comment: A few faunal species of conservation concern (SCC) occur within the study area. Disturbance during the construction phase may result in the displacement of various animal species due to loss of habitat, and an increase in traffic in the area could result in road fatalities for slow moving animals and affect SCC. An increase in noise could impact the breeding behaviour of some species. However, the construction period will be of short duration.
Under the no-go option the overall impact would be low negative, as the area would continue in its current state where disturbance by mining and other activities is already evident.
Significance Statement: Effect Risk or Likelihood Overall Significance Temporal Scale Spatial Scale Severity of Impact
Without Mitigation Permanent Study Area Severe Definite Moderate -
With Mitigation Permanent Localised Slight Unlikely Low -
No-Go Option Long term Study Area Slight Probable Low -
Mitigation and management: Clearing or damaging of intact areas should be avoided.
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 77 | P a g e Ecological Assessment Workers must also be educated on wildlife conservation and must not be allowed to trap or poach animals on site. The construction site must be monitored for animal traps and evidence of poaching. No unnecessary night driving on roads should be permitted and a speed limit (40km/h is recommended) implemented so that accidents are prevented. Abiotic habitats must be implemented, such as termite mounds which play an important ecological role such as providing shelter for reptiles.
Issue 4: Disruption of Ecosystem Function and Process
The habitats that exist in the study area, together with those of the surrounding area that are linked, form part of a functional ecosystem. An ecosystem provides more than simply a ‘home’ for a set of organisms, and is a functional system where biological and biophysical processes such as nutrient cycling, soil formation, reproduction, migration, competition, predation, succession, evolution and migration take place. Destruction or modification of habitats causes disruption of ecosystem function, and threatens the interplay of processes that ensure environmental health and the survival of individual species. This issue deals with a collection of complex ecological impacts that are almost impossible to predict with certainty, but which are nonetheless important.
Impact 4a: Fragmentation of vegetation and edge effects
Cause and Comment: Fragmentation is one of the most important impacts on ecosystems, especially when this creates breaks in previously continuous vegetation cover, causing a reduction in the gene pool and a decrease in species richness and diversity. This impact occurs when areas are cleared to build large developments or an area is invaded by alien invasive plant species. Fragmentation results in the isolation of functional ecosystems, and results in reduced biodiversity and reduced movement due to the absence of ecological corridors. Although the surrounding area already has large areas cleared for various developments this particular development may increase fragmentation within the immediate study area. Having said that, the vegetation on site is partially fragmented by the existing access roads, service corridors, mining etc. In areas where there is already evidence of fragmentation, the construction of the Wind Farm and linear infrastructure could result in the conditions becoming exacerbated.
As mentioned previously, the broader area in which the proposed development is located is currently showing signs of disturbance and is already fragmented, and this is likely to continue even without the proposed project going ahead.
Significance Statement: Effect Risk or Likelihood Overall Significance Temporal Scale Spatial Scale Severity of Impact
Without Mitigation Permanent Study Area Moderate Definite Moderate -
With Mitigation Long term Localised Slight Definite Low -
No-Go Option Long term Localised Slight Probable Low -
Mitigation Measures: See mitigation measures listed under impact 2 above.
Issue 5: Disturbance to surrounding biodiversity, wildlife and Fauna
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 78 | P a g e Ecological Assessment
Impact 5a: Dust as a result of wind erosion
Cause and Comment: The removal of vegetation during the construction phase may result in wind erosion of the exposed areas. This will result in the loss of important topsoil and may cause irreversible damage to the landscape if left unmitigated.
Under the no-go option other anthropogenic disturbances that has led to degraded land and bare soils is already evident and will continue. In addition, existing mining areas are already emitting dust due to the large open quarries being created.
Significance Statement: Effect Risk or Likelihood Overall Significance Temporal Scale Spatial Scale Severity of Impact
Without Mitigation Short term Study Area Moderate Definite Moderate -
With Mitigation Short term Localised Slight May occur Low -
No-Go Option Long term Study area Slight Definite Low -
Mitigation Measures: Construction activities such as digging of trenches that can result in excessive dust pollution should preferably cease during period of high winds. Exposed soil surfaces should be wet down where required to avoid dust emissions. Vehicles transporting construction material such as building sands should remain at a speed limit of 40km/h and if required cover their loads with a tarpaulin to avoid dust emissions. Limit the height of stockpiles to 1.5m. Newly cleared and exposed areas must be managed for dust and landscaped with indigenous vegetation to avoid soil erosion. Where necessary, temporary stabilization measures must be used until vegetation establishes.
Impact 5b: Noise
Cause and Comment: Noise pollution can depress local populations of sensitive faunal groups. Animals differ in the degree to which they tolerate such disturbance, and can be expected to have potentially negative and positive impacts on various faunal groups. For example, large breeding birds are sensitive to noise and increased noise and motor vibrations in the nearby streams may impact amphibian breeding choruses, but these impacts will be localised and many amphibian species are surprisingly tolerant of noise (Branch, pers. comm.). Noise pollution will occur during construction and mitigation measures outlined below will need to be applied.
Under the No-go option, there is currently noise in the form of the mining operations and an operating Wind Farm as well as Agricultural activities.
Significance statement:
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 79 | P a g e Ecological Assessment
Effect Risk or Likelihood Overall Significance Temporal Scale Spatial Scale Severity of Impact
Without Mitigation Short term Study Area Moderate Probable Low -
With Mitigation Short term Localised Slight May occur Low -
No-Go Option Long term Study area Slight Definite Low -
Mitigation and management: Noise mitigation is difficult, but reduction measures should be implemented in all sensitive areas (e.g. adjacent to wetlands and rivers) at sensitive times (e.g. at night), except under exceptional circumstances such as completing work that already commenced or when day time working hours were too windy. Machinery that generates noise must be regularly maintained in order to ensure that no unnecessary additional noise is produced. Equipment with lower sound levels should be selected where feasible. Vehicles associated with the construction of the proposed development, should only be allowed to drive on roads at night if there is an emergency.
8.4 Operational Phase
This phase assesses the impacts associated with the operational phase of the facility.
Issue 6: Disruption of Ecosystem Function and Process
Impact 6a: Invasion of alien plant species
Cause and Comment: The removal of existing vegetation creates ‘open’ habitats that will inevitably be colonised by pioneer plant species. While this is part of a natural process of regeneration, which would ultimately lead to the re- establishment of a secondary vegetation cover, it also favours the establishment of undesirable species in the area, such as Acacia spp., Opuntia spp., and weeds. These species colonise areas of disturbance and once established, they are typically very difficult to eradicate and can pose a threat to the ecosystem. The study area has a number of alien species present and the seedbank is therefore likely to contain seeds from these undesirable species.
Under the no-go option the existing alien vegetation will continue to encroach and it is very likely that these will spread to the surrounding environment.
Significance Statement: Effect Risk or Likelihood Overall Significance Temporal Scale Spatial Scale Severity of Impact
Without Mitigation Permanent Localised Severe Definite High -
With Mitigation Medium term Study Area Slight beneficial Probable Low +
No-Go Option Permanent Study Area Moderate Definite Moderate -
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 80 | P a g e Ecological Assessment Mitigation Measures: Implement an Alien Management Plan during the operational phase for the first 2 years after construction has been completed. Eradicate alien plants from the impacted area as they appear. Monitor the study area for any new growth of invasive plants (every 3 months for the life of the project). During the rehabilitation of the area, measures should be put in place to prevent accidental or unintended introduction of alien species from occurring. An Alien Invasive Control Programme must be implemented for the life of the project.
8.5 Decommissioning Phase
It is highly unlikely that the proposed development would be decommissioned in the short term, however once it has reached its end of life (20 - 25 years), the top structures (actual turbines) may either be removed or bought over by a private user. Foundations and access roads will not be removed.
Issue 7: Disturbance to surrounding biodiversity, wildlife and Fauna
Impact 7a: Noise and Dust
Cause and Comment: During decommissioning top structures may need to be removed. Vehicular movement, noise and habitat destruction will disturb animals in the study area.
Significance Statement: Effect Risk or Likelihood Overall Significance Temporal Scale Spatial Scale Severity of Impact
Without Mitigation Short term Localised Moderate Possible Moderate -
With Mitigation Short term Study Area Slight Possible Low -
Mitigation Measures: Restrict decommissioning activities to post-dawn and pre-dusk. Decommissioning of the turbines must be undertaken in the shortest time practical. Speed limits must be implemented and enforced - 30km/h is recommended.
Impact 7b: Poaching of wildlife
Cause and Comment: During decommissioning phase, disturbance of the study area by labourers will increase and this may lead to poaching of wild animals within the study area.
Significance Statement: Effect Risk or Likelihood Overall Significance Temporal Scale Spatial Scale Severity of Impact
Without Mitigation Short term Localised Moderate Possible Moderate -
With Mitigation Short term Study Area Slight Possible Low -
Mitigation Measures:
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 81 | P a g e Ecological Assessment Decommission employees must be transported to and from the site daily. No residence may be set up on site. An inspection of the immediate vegetation surrounding the turbine sites for evidence of snares must be undertaken.
Issue 8: Rehabilitation
Impact 8a: Inadequate Rehabilitation
Cause and Comment: Poor rehabilitation may result in limited re-vegetation and long-term ecological damage.
Significance Statement: Effect Risk or Likelihood Overall Significance Temporal Scale Spatial Scale Severity of Impact
Without Mitigation Short term Localised Moderate Probable Moderate -
With Mitigation Short term Study Area Slight Possible Low -
Mitigation Measures: A percentage of operational earnings should be set aside for the decommissioning phase, which must include costs for landscaping and re-vegetation of the whole development footprint. A Decommissioning Rehabilitation Plan must be developed and include primary objectives of rehabilitation and the latest acceptable methods for implementation.
8.6 Cumulative Impacts
Sadler (1996) defines cumulative impacts as the “the net result of environmental impact from a number of projects and activities”. The impact of the proposed Bayview Wind Farm may not be significant or be a serious threat to the environment, but a large number of projects in one area, or occurring in the same vegetation type may have significant impacts (DEAT, 2004). This section attempts to identify the cumulative impacts associated with Wind farm projects taking place in similar vegetation types in this area. Even though the possible extent of the cumulative impacts cannot be determined due to uncertainty around the number of projects that will be successful, it is still important to try and identify the negative and positive impacts which may arise in the long term and this includes assessing this project in conjunction with other Wind Farm projects.
Currently one wind farm is operational within the immediate area (approximately 8 - 10 km north of the Proposed Bayview Wind Farm). In addition, six (6) other wind farm projects have been approved (5 by DEA and 1 by the Provincial DEDEAT), also within the immediate area. The vegetation on all these sites is likely to be similar to that found within the study area (Figure 8.1). Based on this the following impacts have been identified:
Issue 9: Loss of vegetation communities
Impact 5a: Loss of Thicket and fragmentation
Cause and Comment: Only small amounts of this vegetation type (approximately 0.44 ha, listed as Vulnerable) will be impacted by the proposed Bayview Wind Farm, as seen above, this loss will not result in significant losses of the vegetation type but the cumulative impacts associated with this project and other wind farms in the area (e.g. the existing Grassridge Wind Farm, the proposed Scarlet Ibis Wind Farm, Ukomeleza Wind Farm,
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 82 | P a g e Ecological Assessment Dassiesridge Wind Farm, Sonop Wind Farm, Universal Wind Farm and Coega West Wind Farm) in the area must be assessed. However, in addition to the clearance required for the Bayview Wind Farm, it should be noted that areas of this vegetation type will need to be cleared for the grid connection powerline. The Sundays River Valley Biodiversity Sector Plan states that the removal of large area of this vegetation has been identified as one of the factors which may encourage global climate change due to the increase in CO2 input into the atmosphere. The Thicket vegetation acts as a carbon sink by fixing carbon in plants and storing it in the soil through the process of decomposition. Portulacaria afra (Spekboom) is a common species in the Thicket vegetation, and studies have shown it is able to store large quantities of carbon. This vegetation type has a wider distribution than the Bontveld vegetation and the cumulative impacts on this vegetation type are likely to be moderate.
Significance Statement: Effect Risk or Likelihood Overall Significance Temporal Scale Spatial Scale Severity of Impact
Without Mitigation Permanent Regional Moderate Definite Moderate -
With Mitigation Permanent Regional Slight Definite Low -
Mitigation Measures: All mitigation measures described above must be implemented to ensure that the impacts associated with this project are kept to a minimum to minimise the cumulative impacts.
Impact 9b: Overall loss of Bontveld and fragmentation
Cause and Comment: The proposed Bayview Wind Farm will impact largely on this vegetation type (clearance of 1.24 ha, listed as Vulnerable by the NMB Bioregional Plan, 2015), however Bontveld is already threatened by activities such as mining and other wind farms in the area. In conjunction with the surrounding developments in the wider area such as existing development and planned development within the Coega IDZ, it will cause the additional loss of vegetation communities through direct (clearing) impacts, and the loss of Species of Conservation Concern (Fauna and Flora) to the point where local extinctions in the area may be expected. There will also be a significant increased risk of invasion by alien species to the point where alien vegetation displaces entire sections of indigenous vegetation. Given the limited distribution of this vegetation type, the unmitigated cumulative impacts associated with the neighbouring existing Grassridge Wind Farm, PPC mine, mining for brick making and the proposed Wind Farms and other developments within Bontveld, will likely be high. However, since Bontveld is comprised of a mosaic of vegetation (bushclumps, succulent patches and grassland) mitigation measures that avoid areas of high sensitivity such as bushclumps and succulent patches, will reduce the impacts the Wind Farm and associated grid connection is likely to have on this unit and the sensitive areas associated with it.
Significance Statement: Effect Risk or Likelihood Overall Significance Temporal Scale Spatial Scale Severity of Impact
Without Mitigation Permanent Regional Severe Definite High -
With Mitigation Permanent Regional Moderate Probable Moderate -
Mitigation Measures: All mitigation measures described above must be implemented to ensure that the impacts associated with this project are kept to a minimum to minimise the cumulative impacts.
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 83 | P a g e Ecological Assessment Impact 9c: Loss of SCCs
Cause and Comment: The proposed project will have direct and indirect impacts on SCC found to occur within both vegetation types. SCC are species which need to be conserved as they are threatened by the loss of habitat, habitat fragmentation, harvesting or poaching etc. Anthropogenic activities are some of the causes which result in the above threats. The extent of the loss of SCC cannot be predicted and therefore a precautionary approach has been adopted. The cumulative impact associated with the direct loss of SSC and related habitats associated with the proposed Wind Farm and the surrounding Wind Farm/s nearby is likely to be moderate as layout changes can be made to avoid highly sensitive habitats where SCCs are abundant.
Significance Statement: Effect Risk or Likelihood Overall Significance Temporal Scale Spatial Scale Severity of Impact
Without Mitigation Permanent Regional Moderate Probable Moderate -
With Mitigation Permanent Regional Slight Unlikely Low -
Mitigation Measures: All mitigation measures described above must be implemented to ensure that the impacts associated with this project are kept to a minimum to minimise the cumulative impacts.
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 84 | P a g e Ecological Assessment
Figure 8.1: Cumulative Map illustrating other wind farms in the immediate area
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 85 | P a g e Ecological Assessment 9 IMPACT STATEMENT, CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS
In terms of Appendix 6 of the Amended EIA Regulations (2017) a specialist report must contain-
(I) Any conditions for inclusion in the environmental authorisation; (m) Any monitoring requirements for inclusion in the EMPr or environmental authorisation;
(n) A reasoned opinion- (i) Whether the proposed activity, activities or portions thereof should be authorised; and (iA) Regarding the acceptability of the proposed activity or activities, and (ii) If the opinion is that the proposed activity, activities or portions thereof should be authorised, any avoidance, management and mitigation measures that should be included in the EMPr, and where applicable, the closure plan;
(q) Any other information requested by the competent authority.
9.1 Conclusions
Bayview Wind Power (Pty) Ltd. proposes the development of a wind farm on the outskirts of Port Elizabeth. The proposed Bayview Wind Farm will consist of a maximum of forty-three (43) wind turbines with an output capacity of between 2 MW and 4.5 MW per turbine. It should be noted that forty-seven (47) turbine locations were initially considered, and after consultation with various specialists the maximum number of turbines to be constructed has been reduced to forty-three (43). The total output of the proposed Bayview Wind Farm will be a maximum of 140 MW net generating capacity, which will be dependent on the number of turbines and their output capacity. Infrastructure required for the Bayview Wind Farm includes operational and maintenance buildings, internal roads, underground electrical cabling linking turbines, an on-site substation/ switching station, and an overhead line (132 kV) to an Eskom substation. Construction is anticipated to be between 24 – 30 months.
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services (EOH CES) has been appointed by the applicant to apply for an Environmental Authorisation for the above mentioned project, as required by the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998) (NEMA), as amended and the EIA Regulations (GNR. 982 of 2014, as amended in April 2017), by conducting a Scoping and EIA process and all related specialist assessments.
Pre-mitigation, three construction / operational impacts and one cumulative impact of high significance was identified. These impacts and all other moderately rated impacts may be mitigated, reducing the significance to “Low”. Recommendations in chapter 8 in this report provide mitigation measures to reduce the severity of the impacts. Overall, it was determined that the identified ecological impacts associated with the proposed development can be affectively mitigated down to that of moderate or low significance.
9.2 Current status
Two main vegetation units were identified to occur within the entire study area, namely the Bontveld and Thicket vegetation.
Bontveld vegetation occurs in various portions of the study area and powerline corridors. Bontveld was found to be in similar condition throughout the site, occurring as thicket bushclumps in a matrix of grassland vegetation. This vegetation type generally had a good vegetation cover, was in moderate condition and was dominated by grassland vegetation. Bontveld also showed signs of alien invasion where species such as Acacia cyclops and Opunita ficus indica were observed. In some areas, the Bontveld was found to be heavily impacted by game farming, over-grazing and other agricultural practices.
Watson (2002) distinguished four separate vegetation communities within the Grassridge Bontveld habitat unit, namely bushclumps, miniclumps, grassveld and succulent patches (refer to Chapter 6).
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 86 | P a g e Ecological Assessment
Numerous SCC occur in this vegetation type in the form of small succulents and geophytes, which are often well hidden under the larger plants and therefore inconspicuous. The vegetation assessment confirmed that the study area is characterised by a mosaic of thicket bushclumps and mini bushclumps interspersed with grassland and succulent patches. Each of these elements specific to the project site is described in further detail below.
Thicket vegetation found within the entire study area is a typical combination of Sundays Thicket. Smaller portions of the study area houses Spekboom Thicket and in most of those areas, the vegetation was found to be fairly dense. The Thicket areas are characterised by small spinescent trees and shrubs, succulents and an understorey of graminoids (grass). The vegetation was generally in a moderate to low condition, with a number of SCC being found to occur. Within various parts of the powerline corridors thicket vegetation was in pristine condition and inaccessible and dense, specifically near drainage areas and on steep slopes. However, in some areas thicket has already been impacted on by the development of linear activities such footpaths, roads, pylons and powerlines.
Sundays Thicket is currently impacted by various activities in the immediate study area (at some locations resembling Bontveld) including roads, an existing wind farm, vegetation clearing for grazing of domestic animals and the presence of alien invasive species. Within these disturbed areas the vegetation is not a solid impenetrable unit but occurs in fragments intercepted with grassland. In other more natural areas, this vegetation type is characterised by dense vegetation, dominated by Scotia afra var afra, Euclea undulata and various Searsia species. Succulent species such as Aloe species and Portulacaria afra are also common within this vegetation type. Common alien invasive species include Opuntia ficus-indica.
Although thicket in the broader area has an important intrinsic biodiversity value and provides local ecological benefits and ecosystem goods and services (carbon sequestration, soil nutrient cycling and stability, soil stability and erosion control), it’s conservation significance on a broader scale is limited by the fact that it is fragmented from viable thicket corridors by existing access roads, service corridors, and ever increasing mining activities etc.
A total of nine (9) species are listed as protected in the Eastern Cape PNCO list, and none (0) on the NEM:BA list. One (1) protected tree species (Sideroxylon inerme) was recorded to occur as scattered individuals within the study area. Appendix 2 provides a comprehensive list of species observed and expected to be found within the study area. Due to the close proximity of the study area to surrounding areas where a number of Ecological Assessments has been conducted, it is likely that some species found within the immediate surrounding area are also present within the study area, particularly where vegetation is intact. The species list in Table 2 of Appendix 2, should also be used to supplement the species in the study area since the current survey was conducted in spring, where species may have been missed or identification was not possible due to the absence of identifying features (flowers, etc). It is thus recommended that when Search and Rescue (S&R) is conducted for the development that the plant species list of flora found within the immediate area is also considered prior to S&R.
The study area has scattered infestations of alien species and weeds. Alien species present on site and their category according to the NEM:BA Alien and Invasive Species Regulations (published 1 August 2014) as well as the Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act, 1983 (Act No 43 of 1983) (CARA ) are presented in Table 6.2.
Faunal species observed within the study area include various bird species, Common Blesbuck, White Blesbuck, Eland, Blue Wildebeest, Zebra, Kudu, Ostrich (with chicks), Impala, Guinea Fowl, Grey Mongoose, White tailed Mongoose and tortoise. A number of mammal species are expected to occur in the study area due to the available suitable habitat, animal droppings observed and the fact that some of the portions are being utilised as a game farm. In addition to the wild animals observed within the study area, livestock and other domestic animals were also observed within the study area, mainly near farm houses and farm worker cottages. These include goat, sheep, rabbits and geese.
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 87 | P a g e Ecological Assessment A number of bench depression wetlands have been identified to occur within the affected property boundaries by NFEPA (2014), however none of these will be directly affected by the Bayview Wind Farm and associated infrastructure. In addition, these wetlands were found to be severely degraded / transformed as a result of anthropogenic activities. The Bayview Wind Farm turbines 23, 42 and 43, Substation alternative B, as well as a section of one of the powerline route options will occur within the 500 m regulated area of five (5) of the identified wetlands.
In addition to the above, a number of non-perennial tributaries (drainage lines) of the Sundays River traverse the affected properties at various locations. Three (3) of the powerline route alternatives will traverse a non-perennial tributary of the Coega River, south of the Wind Farm’s main components. Vegetation of wetlands areas are sparse and consist mainly of low growing creepers while the remainder of the other wetlands have been grazed and is now fully transformed (Plate 6.10). Majority of the drainage lines encountered were mostly inaccessible and dense.
The study area thus occurs at various points within the 500 m regulated area of wetlands and within the 100 m regulated area of a drainage line which falls within the mandate of the DWS. A Water Use Authorisation (WUA) Application process will be conducted at a later stage once the final placement of the infrastructure has been determined by DEA.
It is also important to note that a permit to destroy, damage or transplant any White Milkwoods (Sideroxylon inerme) or other protected trees must be acquired from the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF), prior to commencement of construction. In addition should any other protected species in terms of TOPS or the PNCO require removal, the appropriate permits will need to be applied for from DEDEAT
9.3 Comparison of impacts
The impacts associated with the development with and without mitigation measures have been assessed (Chapter 8). It is expected that all of the impacts can be reduced with effective management of the site as well as rehabilitation after construction. It is essential that areas of high sensitivity are avoided. Alien invasive species should be managed effectively to prevent further impacts on the study area.
Table 9.1: Summary of impacts associated with the development pre and post mitigation. The no-go alternative has also been included for comparative purposes. WITHOUT IMPACTS WITH MITIGATION NO-GO MITIGATION CONSTRUCTION PHASE Loss of Bontveld vegetation - Moderate Low Moderate Grassland Loss of Bontveld – bushclumps and High Moderate Low sensitive vegetation Loss of Thicket vegetation Low Low Low Removal of Alien vegetation Low + Moderate + Moderate Loss of Floral SCC High Moderate Moderate Loss of Faunal SCC Moderate Low Low Fragmentation and edge effects Moderate Low Low Dust as a result of Wind erosion Moderate Low Low Noise Low Low Low OPERATIONAL PHASE Invasion of alien plant species High Low + Moderate DECOMISSIONING PHASE Noise and dust Moderate Low Poaching of wildlife Moderate Low Inadequate Rehabilitation Moderate Low
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 88 | P a g e Ecological Assessment
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Loss of Thicket and fragmentation Moderate Low Loss of Bontveld and fragmentation High Moderate Loss of SCC Moderate Low
9.4 Plant removal
It is recommended that a botanist/ecologist is on site to determine if any of the species of conservation concern or protected species occurs where the infrastructure is positioned. Before the clearing of the site is authorised, the appropriate permission must be obtained from the relevant department should any species of conservation concern need to be removed or replanted. These permits may be subject to certain conditions, for example allowing various nurseries to collect plants before vegetation clearance commences.
The plants can also be removed and placed in an area that will not be disturbed during the construction and operational phases. If a species is identified for relocation, individuals of the species will need to be located within the proposed site, before vegetation clearing commences, and carefully uprooted and removed by a skilled horticulturist or botanist. Prior to removal, however, suitable relocation areas need to be identified, either within the site or in other disturbed areas on the property.
It should be noted that many critical SCC are plants that will not be able to be successfully uprooted and replanted at all (Phillipson, 2002), or at best may have a low survival rate. In all cases the species will require very careful treatment to give them the best chances of survival, and specialist horticultural and botanical knowledge will be needed.
9.5 Invasion of alien species
Any form of disturbance to the natural vegetation provides a gateway for alien species to invade the site of disturbance. In this regard, it is recommended that a strict Alien management plan be implemented during the construction phase and throughout the life of the Wind Farm, to manage further encroachment and to ensure continued removal of alien species already present on site.
9.6 Conditions for the EMPr, EA and Monitoring
It is recommended that all mitigation measures as listed in Chapter 8 of this report be included in the Environmental Authorisation. In addition, the following conditions are to be included in the EMPr and as part of the Environmental Authorisation:
9.6.1 General Ecology
Existing roads, where possible, must be used to reduce the impact of the development on the ecology of the study area. Prohibit all employees from harvesting wild plants and trapping or poaching faunal species. Rehabilitate laydown areas immediately after they are no longer required. Prohibit open fires. An ECO must be employed to (amongst other things): o Demarcate areas for use during construction, and ensure that the construction activities remain within the designated area and that no unauthorised activities occur. o Monitor the site for animal traps and evidence of poaching. o Implement a speed limit (30-40km/h is recommended) and ensure that staff adhere to this. Permits must be obtained prior to construction from the relevant government departments for the following species.
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 89 | P a g e Ecological Assessment o Permits for Protected Trees such S. inerme will have to be obtained from DAFF o Permits for PNCO / NEM:BA or TOPS species will have to be obtained from DEDEAT Implement an Alien Invasive Management Plan/Protocol during the construction phase as well as operational phase to ensure alien species do not invade disturbed or cleared areas. A Rehabilitation Plan must be designed and implemented prior to construction activities commencing. A Search and Rescue Plan must be designed and implemented for SCC that can be moved successfully. An ecological and faunal walk-through (micro-siting) must be conducted prior to construction to identify species requiring permits for their removal, ensure that the infrastructure does not impact any areas of irreplaceable habitats. Clearance for maintenance roads for the Grid connection should be kept to a minimum and these pylons should be placed in close proximity to existing roads to reduce the need for additional roads.
9.7 Specialist opinion
In conclusion, it is clear from the summary (Table 9.1) that most of the negative impacts associated with the preferred alternative can be mitigated effectively. The ecological impacts of all the development phases related to the Bayview Wind Farm have been assessed and are considered to be ecologically acceptable (if all bushclumps and medium to large populations of SCC are avoided) and provided that the recommendations provided in Chapters 8 in this report are implemented.
The grid connection corridor alternatives have similar sensitivity throughout the vegetation units occurring within parts of these corridors and all four corridors containing populations of SCC and dense intact thicket. Taking the corridor size, powerline length, servitude width and amount of pylons required for each corridor into account, although corridor option 1 has a number of potential bushclumps and a large number of SCC enroute, it is the shortest option which will require least vegetation clearance and these areas may be avoided within the servitude such that pylons may be aligned to reduce impacts. In addition, this area was also better accessible with a larger number of existing tracks available compared to the other three corridor options. It should also be noted that only one powerline will be developed and not all four.
As it is possible to avoid or minimise clearing beneath the final powerline route, bushclumps and sensitive areas are thus protected as far as practically possible. Where possible and feasible, the powerline route should be placed within the corridor along existing tracks in order to reduce vegetation clearance required. There are no fatal flaws from an ecological perspective associated with the proposed development.
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 90 | P a g e Ecological Assessment 10 REFERENCES
Alexander, G. And Marais, J. 2010. A Guide to Reptiles of Southern Africa. Struik Nature, Cape Town. Animal Demography Unit, Department Of Zoology, University Of Cape Town. 2012. Summary Data Of The Frogs Of South Africa, Lesotho And Swaziland. Downloaded From: Http://Adu.Org.Za/Frog_Atlas.Php.
Animal Demography Unit (2018). Virtual Museum. Accessed at http://vmus.adu.org.za/?vm.
Berliner, D. and Desmet, P. 2007. Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Handbook. Department of Water Affairs and Forestry Project No 2005-012, King William’s Town.
Branch, W.R. 1998. Terrestrial reptiles and amphibians. In: A Field Guide to the Eastern Cape Coast, R. A. Lubke, F. W. Gess and M. N. Bruton (eds.), Grahamstown Centre for the Wildlife Soc. S. Afr., 251-264.
Branch,W.R. 2014. Personal Communication.
Cowling, R.M., Lombard, A.T., Rouget, M., Kerley, G.I.H., Wolf, T., Sims-Castley, R., Knight, A.T., Vlok, J.H., Pierce, S.M., BoshoV, A.F., Wilson, S.L., 2003. A conservation assessment for the Subtropical Thicket Biome. Terrestrial Ecology Research Unit Report No. 43, University of Port Elizabeth, South Africa. Available from: http://cpu.uwc.ac.za.
Cowling, R.M., Pressey, R.L., Rouget, M., Lombard, A.T. 2002. A conservation plan for a global biodiversity hotspot: the Cape Floristic Region, South Africa. Biological Conservation 112: 191–216.
Coetzee, P.S., Kerley, G.I.H., Campbell, E.E., de Ruyck, A., Wooldridge, T., Boshoff, A. and Bate, G. 1996. Zinc smelter environmental impact assessment: Flora and fauna baseline study for the Coega precinct. SAB Institute for Coastal Research, Port Elizabeth.
DEAT, 2004. Cumulative Effects Assessment, Integrated Environmental Management, Information Series 7, Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT), Pretoria.
Driver, A., Maze, K., Rouget, M., Lombard, A.T., Nel, J., Turpie, J.K., Cowling, R.M., Desmet, P., Goodman, P., Harris, J., Jonas, Z., Reyers, B., Sink, K., & Strauss, T. 2005. National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment 2004: Priorities for Biodiversity Conservation in South Africa. Strelitzia 17. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria. www.sanbi.org
Du Preez, L. And Carruthers, V. 2009. A Complete Guide To Frogs Of Southern Africa. Struik Nature, Cape Town
Holness, S.D. and Skowno, A.L. 2012. The Biodiversity Sector Plan for the Sunday’s River Valley Municipality. Supporting land-use planning and decision-making in Critical Biodiversity Areas and Ecological Support Areas for sustainable development. Addo Elephant National Park
IUCN, (1980). World Conservation strategy: Living resource conservation for sustainable development.
Knight, A.T. and Cowling, R.M. 2003. Conserving South Africa’s ‘Lost’ Biome: A Framework for Securing Effective Regional Conservation Planning in the Subtropical Thicket Biome. Terrestrial Ecology Research Unit Report No.44, University of Port Elizabeth, South Africa.
Edited by A. Barrie Low and A. (Tony) G. Rebelo from contributions by George J. Bredenkamp, J. Ed Granger, M. Timm Hoffman, Roy A. Lubke, Bruce Mckenzie, A. (Tony) Rebelo, & Noel van Rooyen (February 1998). Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland: A companion to the Vegetation Map of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Pretoria.
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 91 | P a g e Ecological Assessment Meyer-Milne, E. (unpublished -2014). Master’s Thesis titled: Bontveld Landscape Ecology: A Platform for Biodiversity Conservation and Resource Management in Eastern Cape Thicket Mosaics
Mucina, L. & Rutherford, M.C. (eds) 2006. The vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Strelitzia 19. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.
Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality (NMBM). 2009. Final Conservation Assessment and Plan for the Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality. SRK Consulting, Port Elizabeth.
Pierce, S.M.; Cowling, R.M.; Knight, A.T.; Lombard, A.T.; Rouget, M and Wolf, T. 2005. Systematic conservation planning products for land-use planning: Interpretation for implementation. Biological Conservation.125: 441- 458
Pierce, S. M. and Mader, A. D. 2006. The STEP Handbook. Integrating the natural environment into land use decisions at the municipal level: towards sustainable development. Centre for African Conservation Ecology (ACE). Report Number 47 (Second Edition). Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, South Africa.
Sadler (1996) Environmental Assessment in a Changing World: Evaluating practice to Improve Performance. International Study of the Effectiveness of Environmental Assessment Final Report. International Association for Impact Assessment and Canadian Environment Assessment Agency, Canada.
SANBI. 2017. Statistics: Red List of South African Plants version 2017.1. Downloaded from Redlist.sanbi.org.
Skowno, A.L. and Holness, S.D. 2012. SANParks Addo Mainstreaming Biodiversity Project - Mapping Component. Technical Report. Port Elizabeth.
South African Weather Bureau. 2014. http://www.saexplorer.co.za/south- africa/climate/uitenhage_climate.asp. Accessed: 10 January 2017
Stuart, C and Stuart, T. 2007. A field guide to the mammals of Southern Africa. Struik Nature, Cape Town.
Vromans, D.C., Maree, K.S., Holness, S.D. and Skowno, A.L. 2012. The Biodiversity Sector Plan for the Sundays River Valley Municipality.. Addo Elephant National Park Mainstreaming Biodiversity Project. South African National Parks. Port Elizabeth. South Africa. ISBN 978-0-620-54812-0
Watson, J.J. (2002) Bontveld ecosystem functioning, and rehabilitation after stripmining. Unpublished PhD. N.M.M.U. Port Elizabeth. 257 pp.
Watson, J. J. 2001. Bontveld ecosystem functioning and rehabilitation after strip mining. PhD Thesis, University of Port Elizabeth.
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 92 | P a g e Ecological Assessment APPENDIX 1: CVS
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 93 | P a g e Ecological Assessment
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 94 | P a g e Ecological Assessment
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 95 | P a g e Ecological Assessment
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 96 | P a g e Ecological Assessment
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 97 | P a g e Ecological Assessment
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 98 | P a g e Ecological Assessment
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 99 | P a g e Ecological Assessment
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 100 | P a g e Ecological Assessment
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 101 | P a g e Ecological Assessment
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 102 | P a g e Ecological Assessment
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 103 | P a g e Ecological Assessment
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 104 | P a g e Ecological Assessment
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 105 | P a g e Ecological Assessment
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 106 | P a g e Ecological Assessment
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 107 | P a g e Ecological Assessment
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 108 | P a g e Ecological Assessment
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 109 | P a g e Ecological Assessment APPENDIX 2: PLANT SP LIST
Table 2A: Species recorded to be found on site have been included in the list below. Those recorded in the Red data list, PNCO, IUCN and Protected Tree list has been classified according to each list and discussed below the table. FAMILY SPECIES NAME SANBI RED LIST IUCN PNCO NEMBA CARA PROTECTED TREES ACANTHACEAE Barleria obtusa Least Concern ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ AIZOACEAE Carpobrotus sp. ˗ ˗ Possibly ˗ ˗ ˗ Schedule 4 AIZOACEAE Delosperma sp. Least Concern Possibly Schedule 4 AIZOACEAE Drosanthemum sp. ˗ ˗ Possibly ˗ ˗ ˗ Schedule 4 AIZOACEAE Lampranthus spectabilis ˗ ˗ Schedule 4 ˗ ˗ ˗ AIZOACEAE Mesembryanthemum aitonis Least Concern ˗ ˗ ˗ AIZOACEAE Phyllobolus sp. ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ AIZOACEAE Trichodiadema bulbosum Least Concern ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ AMARILLYDACEAE Boophane disticha Least Concern ˗ Schedule 4 ˗ ˗ ˗ ANACARDIACEAE Searsia crenata Least Concern ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ ANACARDIACEAE Searsia glauca Least Concern ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ ANACARDIACEAE Searsia longispina Least Concern ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ APOCYNACEAE Carissa bispinosa Least Concern ˗ Schedule 4 ˗ ˗ ˗ APOCYNACEAE Pachypodium bispinosum Least Concern ˗ Schedule 4 ˗ ˗ ˗ APOCYNACEAE Pachypodium succulentum Least Concern ˗ Schedule 4 ˗ ˗ ˗ ASPHODELACEAE Aloe ferox Least Concern ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ ASPHODELACEAE Gasteria disticha Endangered ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ B1ab(ii,iii,v)+2ab(ii,iii,v) ASPHODELACEAE Aloe striata Least Concern Least Schedule 4 ˗ ˗ ˗ Concern ASPHODELACEAE Bulbine asphodeloides Least Concern ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ ASTERACEAE Cotula sericea Rare ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ ASTERACEAE Chrysanthemoides monilifera Least Concern ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ ASTERACEAE Chrysocoma ciliata Least Concern ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 110 | P a g e Ecological Assessment
ASTERACEAE Disparago ericoides Least Concern ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ ASTERACEAE Euryops ericifolius Least Concern ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ ASTERACEAE Felicia filifolia Least Concern ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ ASTERACEAE Felicia muricata Least Concern ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ ASTERACEAE Gazania rigida Least Concern ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ ASTERACEAE Osteospermum imbricatum Least Concern ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ ASTERACEAE Pteronia incana Least Concern ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ ASTERACEAE/ Senecio sp. ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ COMPOSITAE BIGNONIACEAE Rhigozum obovatum Least Concern ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ BORAGINACEAE Ehretia rigida Least Concern ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ BRASICCACEAE Cadaba aphylla Least Concern ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ BRASICCACEAE Heliophila sp. ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ CACTACEAE Opuntia sp. ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ CELASTRACEAE Gymnosporia capitata Least Concern ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ CELASTRACEAE Pterocelastrus tricuspidatus Least Concern ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ CONVOLVULACEAE Falkia repens Least Concern ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ CRASSULACEAE Cotyledon orbiculata Least Concern ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ CRASSULACEAE Crassula capitella Least Concern ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ CRASSULACEAE Crassula mesembryanthemoides Least Concern ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ CRASSULACEAE Crassula muscosa Least Concern ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ EBENACEAE Euclea undulata Least Concern ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ ELATINACEAE Bergia sp. Least Concern ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ ERICACEAE Erica sp. ˗ ˗ Schedule 4 ˗ ˗ ˗ EUPHORBIACEAE Clutia alaternoides Least Concern ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ EUPHORBIACEAE Euphorbia barnadii ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ EUPHORBIACEAE Euphorbia bubalina Least Concern ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ EUPHORBIACEAE Euphorbia caput-medusae Least Concern ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ EUPHORBIACEAE Euphorbia clavarioides Least Concern ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ EUPHORBIACEAE Euphorbia mauritanica Least Concern ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ EUPHORBIACEAE Euphorbia stellata Least Concern ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 111 | P a g e Ecological Assessment
GERANIACEAE Pelargonium sp. ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ HYACINTHACEAE Albuca batteniana Least Concern ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ HYACINTHACEAE Ledebouria ensifolia Least Concern ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ HYACINTHACEAE Massonia hirsuta Least Concern ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ IRIDACEAE Freesia corymbosa Least Concern Least Schedule 4 ˗ ˗ ˗ Concern LAMIACEAE Becium burchellianum Least Concern ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ MALVACEAE Grewia robusta Least Concern ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ MALVACEAE Grewia robusta Least Concern ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ MALVACEAE Hibiscus pusillus Least Concern ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ PORTULACACEAE Portulacaria afra Least Concern ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ RUSCACEAE Sansevieria hyacinthoides Least Concern ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ SANTALACEAE Osyris compressa Least Concern ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ SAPOTACEAE Sideroxylon inerme Least Concern ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ Protected SCROPHULARIACEAE Anastrabe integerrima Least Concern ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ SCROPHULARIACEAE Jamesbrittenia microphylla Least Concern ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ SOLANACEAE Lycium sp. ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ THYMELAEACEAE Passerina corymbosa Least Concern ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ ZYGOPHYLLACEAE Zygophyllum divaricatum Least Concern ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗ ˗
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 112 | P a g e Ecological Assessment Table 2B: Species likely to occur on site (due to other assessed areas within 5 km of the site) have been included in the list below. Those recorded in the Red data list, PNCO, IUCN and Protected Tree list has been classified according to each list and discussed below the table. FAMILY SCIENTIFIC NAME SANBI RED LIST IUCN PNCO NEMBA Protected Trees FABACEAE Acacia cyclops Not Evaluated - - - - RUTACEAE Acmadenia obtusata Least Concern - - - - ASPHODELACEAE Aloe africana Least Concern - Schedule 4 ASPHODELACEAE Aloe straita cf subsp. striata Least Concern - Schedule 4 ASPHODELACEAE Aloe ferox Least Concern - - - - ASPARAGACEAE Asparagus sp - - - - - ASPARAGACEAE Asparagus striatus Least Concern - - - - SALVADORACEAE Azima tetracantha Least Concern - - - - ACANTHACEAE Barleria pungens Least Concern - - - - AIZOACEAE Bergeranthus cf. addoensis Vulnerable - Schedule 4 - - AMARYLLIDACEAE Boophane disticha Declining - Schedule 4 - - APOCYNACEAE Carissa Bispinosa Least Concern - Schedule 4 - - AIZOACEAE Carpobrotus edulis Least Concern - Schedule 4 - - GENTIANACEAE Chironia baccifera Least Concern - - - - ASPARAGACEAE Chrysanthemoides monilifera Least Concern - - - - ASTERACEAE Chrysocoma ciliata Least Concern - - - - CRASSULACEAE Cotyledon orbiculata Least Concern - - - - CRASSULACEAE Crassula capitella subsp.capitella Least Concern - - - - CRASSULACEAE Crassula ericoides Least Concern - - - - CRASSULACEAE Crassula mesembryanthemoides Least Concern - - - - CRASSULACEAE Crassula mucosa Not evaluated - - - - Crassula obovate cf subsp dregeana Vulnerable - - - - CRASSULACEAE Crassula ovata Least Concern - - - - CRASSULACEAE Crassula perforata Least Concern - - - - ASTERACEAE Curio radicans Least Concern - - - - ARALIACEAE Cussonia spicata Least Concern - - - - POACEAE Cymbopogon marginatus Least Concern - - - -
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 113 | P a g e Ecological Assessment
POACEAE Cynodon dactylon Least Concern - - - - AIZOACEAE Delosperma algoense Data Deficient - Schedule 4 - - EBENACEAE Diospyros lycoides Least Concern - - - - AIZOACEAE Drosanthemum lique Least Concern - Schedule 4 - - ASTERACEAE Elytropappus rhinocerotis Least Concern - - - - POACEAE Eragrostis curvula Least Concern - - - - EBENACEAE Euclea undulata Least Concern - - - - EUPHORBIACEAE Euphorbia cf. burmannii Least Concern - - - - EUPHORBIACEAE Euphorbia clava Least Concern - - - - EUPHORBIACEAE Euphorbia globosa Endangered - Schedule 4 EUPHORBIACEAE Euphorbia ledienii Least Concern - - - - EUPHORBIACEAE Euphorbia meloformis Near Threatened - Schedule 4 Protected - EUPHORBIACEAE Euphorbia stellata Least Concern - - - - ASTERACEAE Euryops ericifolius Endangered - POACEAE Eustachys paspaloides Least Concern - - - - CYPERACEAE Ficinia truncata Least Concern - - - - ASPHODELACEAE Gasteria bicolor Least Concern - - - - ASTERACEAE Gazania krebsiana Least Concern - - - - MALVACEAE Grewia occidentalis var. occidentalis Least Concern - - - - MALVACEAE Grewia robusta Least Concern - - - - CELASTRACEAE Gymnosporia buxifolia Least Concern - - - - ASTERACEAE Helichrysum teretifolium Least Concern - - - - BRASSICACEAE Heliophila sp. - - - - -
MALVACEAE Hermannia sp - - - - - SAPINDACEAE Hippobromus pauciflorus Least Concern - - - - HYPOXIDACEAE Hypoxis zeyheri Least Concern FABACEAE Indigofera sp. - - - - - SCROPHULARIACEAE Jamesbrittenia microphylla Least Concern - - - - CRASSULACEAE Kalanchoe rotundifolia Least Concern - - - - AIZOACEAE Lampranthus sp. - - Potentially
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 114 | P a g e Ecological Assessment
Schedule 4 CELASTRACEAE Lauridia tetragona Least Concern - - - - HYACINTHACEAE Lachenalia sp. - - Schedule 4 - - BORAGINACEAE Lobostemon trigonus Least Concern - - - - SOLANACEAE Lycium horridum Least Concern - - - - ASTERACEAE Metalasia sp. - - - - - OLEACEAE Olea europaea subs. cuspidata Least Concern - - - - OLEACEAE Olea exasperata Least Concern - - - - CACTACEAE Opuntia ficus-indica Not Evaluated Data defficient - - - ASTERACEAE Osteospermum imbricatum Least Concern - - - -
SANTALACEAE Osyris compressa Least Concern - - - - APOCYNACEAE Pachypodium bispinosum Least Concern - Schedule 4 - - THYMELAEACEAE Passerina sp. - - - - - DIDIEREACEAE Portulacaria afra Least Concern - - - FABACEAE Psoralea cf repens Near Threatened Near Threatened CELASTRACEAE Pterocelastrus tricuspidatus Least Concern - - - - ASTERACEAE Pteronia incana Least Concern - - - - CELASTRACEAE Putterlickia pyracantha Least Concern - - - - ASTERACEAE Relhania cf. speciosa - - - - - AIZOACEAE Rhombophyllum rhomboideum Endangered - Schedule 4 AIZOACEAE Rushia sp. - - Schedule 4 - - RUSCACEAE Sansevieria hyacinthoides Least Concern - - - - APOCYNACEAE Sarcostemma viminale subsp. viminale Least Concern - Schedule 4 - - FABACEAE Schotia afra var afra Least Concern Least Concern - - - ANACARDIACEAE Searsia lucida Least Concern - - - - ANACARDIACEAE Searsia sp. - - - - - SCROPHULARIACEAE Selago cf corymbosa Least Concern - - - - ASTERACEAE Senecio radicans Least Concern - - - - ASTERACEAE Senecio sp. - - - - - SAPOTACEAE Sideroxylon inerme subsp. inerme Least Concern - - - Protected
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 115 | P a g e Ecological Assessment
POACEAE Tenaxia disticha Least Concern - - - - POACEAE Themeda triandra Least Concern - - - - SANTALACEAE Viscum obovatum Least Concern - - - -
EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 116 | P a g e