Fauna and Flora Specialist Ecological Study
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Fauna and Flora Specialist Ecological Study Scoping and Environmental Impact Assessment for the Proposed Development of the 140 MW Juno Wind Energy Facility near Strandfontein, Western Cape Province: SCOPING REPORT Prepared for Arcus Consulting [email protected] April 2018 I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AMDA Developments is proposing to develop the Juno Wind Farm located near to Strandfontein on the West Coast of the Western Cape Province. It is anticipated that the Juno Wind Farm will have an output capacity of up to 140MW from up to 59 turbines. The development is currently in the Scoping Phase and Arcus Consulting has appointed 3Foxes Biodiversity Solutions to provide a specialist terrestrial biodiversity Scoping Study of the development site as part of the EIA process. Several site visits as well as a desktop review of the available ecological information for the area was conducted in order to identify and characterise the ecological features of the site. This information is used to derive a draft sensitivity map for the site that can be used to inform the layout before going into the EIA phase. The likely impacts associated with the development are identified and a preliminary assessment provided. In addition, the study identifies a plan of study for the EIA phase. The site falls largely within the Namaqualand Strandveld vegetation type with a small extent of Namaqualand Sand Fynbos in the east of the site. Both of these vegetation types are currently listed as Least Threatened. There are however some fine-scale habitats at the site that are considered locally significant including some rocky outcrops and riparian vegetation located along the Sandlaagte River. In terms of fauna, the site has a relatively diverse mammal and reptile assemblage but a relatively poor amphibian community on account of the absence of any natural standing water sources at the site. Although two listed mammal species, the White-tailed Mouse Mystromys albicaudatus (EN) and Van Zyls’ Golden Mole Cryptochloris zyli (EN) are known from the area, they are considered unlikely to be present at the site. In terms of reptiles, the rocky areas along the Sandlaagte River are identified as being the most important areas for reptiles at the site due to the increased habitat diversity and refuge options that this area provides. Gron ovi's Dwarf Burrowing Skink Scelotes gronovii (NT), a West-Coast endemic, is confirmed present at the site and represents the most significant reptile observation from the site. The loss of less than 100ha of habitat at the site, not all of which is currently intact, would not be likely to significantly impact the local or regional population of this species. A large part of the site falls within an NPAES Focus Area, but the information on which this is based is considered to be outdated and the 2016 Western Cape BSP is considered to represent the most appropriate conservation planning context for the site. Under the 2016 BSP, the majority of the site is classified as an Ecological Support Area, apart from the dunes in the east and Sandla agte River which are CBA 1. Under the draft layout provided for assessment, the development would not impact the CBAs as the footprint is restricted to the transformed areas and intact areas which are classified as ESA. While the ESA would experience some habitat loss, this would not be likely to impact the overall supporting function of the ESA or lead to cascading impacts on adjacent CBAs. The ecological sensitivity map developed for the site indicates that the majority of intact Strandveld areas are considered medium sensitivity and considered suitable for development. The areas that Juno WEF - Ecological Scoping Study II have been previously disturbed for cropping are considered generally low sensitivity and development within these areas would generate low ecological impacts. The Sand Fynbos area in the east of the site is considered to be high sensitivity on account to the scarcity of this habitat at the site as well as the greater threat status of the Sand Fynbos compared to the adjacent areas of Strandveld. The high-lying ground south of the Sandlaagte River is considered to be High sensitivity due to the vulnerability of this area to disturbance and the confirmed presence of several plant species of conservation concern. The Sandlaagte River and its immediate environment, including the adjacent rocky outcrops are considered to be Very High sensitivity and should be treated as a no-go area. Under the provisional scoping layout provided, the development avoids the areas of high sensitivity and there are no turbines in areas considered to be unacceptable for development. This avoidance has been informed by the ecological considerations at the site and is an important planning-stage mitigation measure that serves to significantly reduce the potential impact of the development. Based on the scoping-phase layout, the impacts associated with the development of the Juno WEF are likely to be of moderate to low significance after mitigation and there are no fatal flaws or high post-mitigation impacts associated with the development. As such there are no terrestrial ecological reasons for the development not to proceed to the EIA phase. Juno WEF - Ecological Scoping Study III COMPLIANCE WITH APPENDIX 6 OF THE 2017 EIA REGULATIONS Requirements of Appendix 6 – GN R326 EIA Regulations 7 April 2017 Addressed in the Specialist Report 1. (1) A specialist report prepared in terms of these Regulations must contain- a) details of- i. the specialist who prepared the report; and I 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 III specified by the competent authority; c) an indication of the scope of, and the purpose for which, the report was 12 prepared; (cA) an indication of the quality and age of base data used for the specialist report; 15 (cB) a description of existing impacts on the site, cumulative impacts of 29 the proposed development and levels of acceptable change; d) the date and season of the site investigation and the relevance of the 14 season to the outcome of the assessment; e) a description of the methodology adopted in preparing the report or carrying out the specialised process inclusive of equipment and 14-15 modelling used; f) details of an assessment of the specific identified sensitivity of the site related to the proposed activity or activities and its associated 30-31 structures and infrastructure, inclusive of a site plan identifying site alternatives; g) an identification of any areas to be avoided, including buffers; 30-31 h) a map superimposing the activity including the associated structures and infrastructure on the environmental sensitivities of the site 30-31 including areas to be avoided, including buffers; i) a description of any assumptions made and any uncertainties or gaps 14-15 in knowledge; j) a description of the findings and potential implications of such findings 33-39 on the impact of the proposed activity or activities; k) any mitigation measures for inclusion in the EMPr; 33-39 l) any conditions for inclusion in the environmental authorisation; 33-39 m) any monitoring requirements for inclusion in the EMPr or environmental 33-39 authorisation; n) a reasoned opinion- i. whether the proposed activity, activities or portions thereof should be authorised; (iA) regarding the acceptability of the proposed activity or activities and 39-40 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 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; and q) any other information requested by the competent 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. Juno WEF - Ecological Scoping Study 4 Short CV/Summary of Expertise – Simon Todd Simon Todd is Director and principal scientist at 3Foxes Biodiversity Solutions and has over 20 years of experience in biodiversity measurement, management and assessment. He has provided specialist ecological input on more than 200 different developments distributed widely across the country, but with a focus on the three Cape provinces. This includes input on the Wind and Solar SEA (REDZ) as well as the Eskom Grid Infrastructure (EGI) SEA and Karoo Shale Gas SEA. He is on the National Vegetation Map Committee as representative of the Nama and Succulent Karoo Biomes. Simon Todd is a recognised ecological expert and is a past chairman and current deputy chair of the Arid-Zone Ecology Forum. He is registered with the South African Council for Natural Scientific Professions (No. 400425/11). Skills & Primary Competencies Research & description of ecological patterns & processes in Nama Karoo, Succulent Karoo, Thicket, Arid Grassland, Fynbos and Savannah Ecosystems. Ecological Impacts of land use on biodiversity Vegetation surveys & degradation assessment & mapping Long-term vegetation monitoring Faunal surveys & assessment. GIS & remote sensing Tertiary Education: 1992-1994 – BSc (Botany & Zoology),