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, 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 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 , 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 , 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 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 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), University of Cape Town  1995 – BSc Hons, Cum Laude (Zoology) University of Natal  1996-1997- MSc, Cum Laude (Conservation Biology) University of Cape Town Employment History  2009 – Present – Sole Proprietor of Simon Todd Consulting, providing specialist ecological services for development and research.

Juno WEF - Ecological Scoping Study

5

 2007 Present – Senior Scientist (Associate) – Plant Conservation Unit, Department of Botany, University of Cape Town.  2004-2007 – Senior Scientist (Contract) – Plant Conservation Unit, Department of Botany, University of Cape Town  2000-2004 – Specialist Scientist (Contract ) - South African National Biodiversity Institute  1997 – 1999 – Research Scientist (Contract) – South African National Biodiversity Institute

A selection of recent work is as follows:

Strategic Environmental Assessments Co-Author. Chapter 7 - Biodiversity & Ecosystems - Shale Gas SEA. CSIR 2016. Co-Author. Chapter 1 Scenarios and Activities – Shale Gas SEA. CSIR 2016. Co-Author – Ecological Chapter – Wind and Solar SEA. CSIR 2014. Co-Author – Ecological Chapter – Eskom Grid Infrastructure SEA. CSIR 2015. Contributor – Ecological & Conservation components to SKA SEA. CSIR 2017.

Recent Specialist Ecological Studies in the Vicinity of the Current Site  Fauna Specialist Study for the proposed Eskom Kleinsee 300MW WEF. Savannah Environmental 2012.  Fauna and Flora Specialist Study for the Project Blue Wind and Solar Energy Facility, Near Kleinsee. Savannah Environmental 2012.  Fauna and Flora for the G7 Richtersveld Wind Farm. Environmental Resources Management 2011.  Preconstruction Walk-Through of the Juno-Gromis 400kV Power Line. Nsovo Environmental 2016.  Specialist Faunal Assessment of the West Coast Resources Mine Expansion. Myezo Environmental. 2016.  Fauna and Flora specialist Scoping & EIA Study for the Tormin Mineral Sands Inland and Coastal Mining expansion. SRK. 2016.

Juno WEF - Ecological Scoping Study

6

SPECIALIST DECLARATION

I, ..Simon Todd...... , as the appointed independent specialist, in terms of the 2014 EIA Regulations, hereby declare that I: . . I act as the independent specialist in this application; . I 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; . regard the information contained in this report as it relates to my specialist input/study to be true and correct, and do not have and will not have any financial interest in the undertaking of the activity, other than remuneration for work performed in terms of the NEMA, the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2014 and any specific environmental management Act; . 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 have no vested interest in the proposed activity proceeding; . 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; . I have ensured that information containing all relevant facts in respect of the specialist input/study was distributed or made available to interested and affected parties and the public and that participation by interested and affected parties was facilitated in such a manner that all interested and affected parties were provided with a reasonable opportunity to participate and to provide comments on the specialist input/study; . I have ensured that the comments of all interested and affected parties on the specialist input/study were considered, recorded and submitted to the competent authority in respect of the application; . all the particulars furnished by me in this specialist input/study are true and correct; and . I realise that a false declaration is an offence in terms of regulation 48 and is punishable in terms of section 24F of the Act.

Signature of the specialist: ______

Name of Specialist: ____Simon Todd______

Date: ____04 April 2018______

Juno WEF - Ecological Scoping Study

7

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

COMPLIANCE WITH THE APPENDIX 6 OF THE 2017 EIA REGULATIONS 3

SHORT CV/SUMMARY OF EXPERTISE – SIMON TODD 4

SPECIALIST DECLARATION 6

TABLE OF CONTENTS 7

LIST OF FIGURES 9

SPECIALIST FAUNA AND FLORA SCOPING STUDY 11

1. INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY 11

1.1. SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES 11

1.2. TERMS OF REFERENCE 11

1.3. APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY 12

1.4. ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS 14

1.5. SOURCE OF INFORMATION 15

1.6. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT ASPECTS RELEVANT TO ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS 16

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 16

2.1. VEGETATION TYPES 16

2.2. FINE-SCALE SITE DESCRIPTION 18

2.3. LISTED AND PROTECTED PLANT SPECIES 22

2.4. FAUNAL COMMUNITIES 23 2.4.1. MAMMALS 23 2.4.2. REPTILES 24 2.4.3. AMPHIBIANS 25

2.5. CONSERVATION PLANNING CONTEXT 26

2.6. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 29

2.7. SITE SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT 30

Juno WEF - Ecological Scoping Study

8

3. LEGISLATION AND PERMIT REQUIREMENTS 31

4. IDENTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS 33 CONSTRUCTION PHASE 34 OPERATIONAL PHASE 34 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 34

5. SCOPING-LEVEL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 34 5.1.1. CONSTRUCTION PHASE IMPACT 1. IMPACTS ON VEGETATION AND PLANT SPECIES OF CONSERVATION CONCERN34 5.1.2. CONSTRUCTION PHASE IMPACT 2. DIRECT AND INDIRECT FAUNAL IMPACTS 35 5.1.3. OPERATIONAL PHASE IMPACT 1. INCREASED SOIL EROSION 36 5.1.4. OPERATIONAL PHASE IMPACT 2. INCREASED ALIEN PLANT INVASION 36 5.1.5. OPERATIONAL PHASE IMPACT 3. OPERATIONAL IMPACTS ON FAUNA 37 5.1.6. OPERATIONAL PHASE IMPACT 4. IMPACTS ON CRITICAL BIODIVERSITY AREAS 38 5.1.7. CUMULATIVE IMPACT 1. CUMULATIVE HABITAT LOSS AND IMPACT ON BROAD -SCALE ECOLOGICAL PROCESSES39

6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 39

7. PLAN OF STUDY FOR THE EIA PHASE 40

8. REFERENCES 42

9. APPENDICES 43 9.1.1. APPENDIX 1. LIST OF 43 9.1.2. APPENDIX 2. LIST OF MAMMALS 50 9.1.3. APPENDIX 3. LIST OF REPTILES 52 9.1.4. APPENDIX 4. LIST OF AMPHIBIANS 54

Juno WEF - Ecological Scoping Study

9

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Vegetation map (Mucina and Rutherford 2006 and 2012 Powrie Update) of the Juno study area and surrounding area. 17

Figure 2. Typical Namaqualand Strandveld at the Juno site, dominated by Zygophyllum morgsana, Othonna cylindrica, Didelta carnosa, Euphorbia burmanii, Tetragonia fruticosa, africana-lutea, Eriocephalus racemose and capensis. 19

Figure 3. The area towards the central part of the Juno site that is characterised by more-finely textured soils with prominent heuweltjies. The vegetation is dominated by species such as Didelta carnosa, Zygophyllum morgsana, Othonna cylindrica, Euphorbia burmanii, E.caput- medusae, Tetragonia fruticosa, Justicia cuneata, Lycium cinereum, Tylecodon wallichii, T.paniculatus, Stoeberia utilis, Lebeckia sericea, Ruschia floribunda, Vanzijlia annulata, Chrysanthemoides incana, and Manochlamys albicans, Asparagus capensis, onobromoides and P.divaricata. 19

Figure 4. Previously transformed area showing reasonably good recovery of the annual and weedy component but lack of geophytes and long-lived perennial element. Recovery is partly facility by the strip agriculture used to limit wind erosion impacts which also allows for the persistence of longer-lived perennial species along the strips between the cleared areas. Common and

dominant species include Arctotheca calendula, Galenia africana, Galenia sarcophylla, pluvialis, Didelta carnosa, Euphorbia burmanii, Manochlamys albicans, Conicosia elongata, Trachyandra falcata, Lycium cinereum, Pteronia divaricata and Hermannia scordifolia. 20

Figure 5. Section of the Sandlaagte River before it widens towards the west, showing the rocky outcrops along the river and the taller woody vegetation along the river. Common species present include Zygophyllum morgsana, Othonna cylindrica, Didelta carnosa, Euphorbia burmanii, Tetragonia

fruticosa, Justicia cuneata, Lycium cinereum, Chrysanthemoides incana, Manochlamys albicans, Cissampelos capensis, Helichrysum tricostatum, H.hebelepis, Eriocephalus racemosa, Asparagus capensis, Pteronia divaricate. Larger woody shrubs include Rhus glauca, Gymnosporia buxifolia, Diospyros austroafricana, and Euclea racemosa. 21

Figure 6. Dunes near to the eastern corner of the site, in the area classified as Sand Fynbos. Dominant and typical species include Willdenowia incurvata, Thamnochortus bachmanii, Ehrharta villosa, Stipagrostis zeyheri, Wahlenbergia asparagoides, Ruschia extensa, R.caroli, Rhus dissecta, Anthospermum spathulatum, Nenax arenicola, Justicia cuneata, Wiborgia obcordata,

Gymnosporia buxifolia, Stoebe nervigera, Trichogyne repens, Othonna coronopifolia, Chrysanthemoides incana, and Clutia daphnoides. 22

Juno WEF - Ecological Scoping Study

10

Figure 7. Common small mammals trapped at the site include from top left, the Western Rock Elephant Shrew Elephantulus rupestris, Hairy-footed Gerbil Gerbilliscus paeba and Namaqua Rock Mouse Aethomys namaquensis. 24

Figure 8. Gronovi's Dwarf Burrowing Skink Scelotes gronovii (NT) was confirmed present at the site and is the most significant reptile observation from the site. 25 Figure 9. National Protected Areas Expansion Strategy focus areas for the Juno site. 27

Figure 10. Critical Biodiversity Areas map for the study area, showing that the majority of the site lies within an ESA 1 with some smaller areas of CBA in the south and east. 28

Figure 11. Map of other renewable energy developments in the wide area around the Juno site indicated in blue. 29

Figure 12. Draft sensitivity map for the study area, showing that the majority of the footprint of the development is in areas of moderate or low sensitivity. 30

Juno WEF - Ecological Scoping Study

11

SPECIALIST FAUNA AND FLORA SCOPING STUDY

1. INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY 1.1. Scope and Objectives

AMDA Developments has appointed Arcus Consulting to undertake the required environmental authorisation process for the proposed 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. A grid connection will also be required, but this will be authorised through an independent Basic Assessment process. 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.

The purpose of the Terrestrial Biodiversity Scoping Report is to describe and detail the ecological features of the proposed site; provide a preliminary assessment of the ecological sensitivity of the site and identify the likely impacts that may be associated with the development of the site as a wind energy facility. 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 ecological sensitivity map that presents the likely ecological constraints and opportunities for development at the site. The information and sensitivity map presented here provides an ecological baseline that can be used in the planning phase of the development to ensure that the potential negative ecological impacts associated with the development can be minimised. Furthermore, the study defines the terms of reference for the EIA phase of the project and outlines a plan of study for the EIA which will follow the Scoping Study.

1.2. Terms of Reference

The study includes the following activities:  a description of the environment that may be affected by a specific activity and the manner in which the environment may be affected by the proposed project;  a description and evaluation of environmental issues and potential impacts (including assessment of direct, indirect and cumulative impacts) that have been identified;  a statement regarding the potential significance of the identified issues based on the evaluation of the issues/impacts;  an indication of the methodology used in determining the significance of potential environmental impacts;  an assessment of the significance of direct indirect and cumulative impacts of the development;  a description and comparative assessment of all alternatives including cumulative impacts;

Juno WEF - Ecological Scoping Study

12

 recommendations regarding practical mitigation measures for potentially significant impacts, for inclusion in the Environmental Management Programme (EMPr);  an indication of the extent to which the issue could be addressed by the adoption of mitigation measures;  a description of any assumptions uncertainties and gaps in knowledge; and  an environmental impact statement which contains:  a summary of the key findings of the environmental impact assessment;  an assessment of the positive and negative implications of the proposed activity; and  a comparative assessment of the positive and negative implications of identified alternatives.

General Considerations for the study included the following:  Disclose any gaps in information (and limitations in the study) or assumptions made.  Identify recommendations for mitigation measures to minimise impacts.  Outline additional management guidelines.  Provide monitoring requirements, mitigation measures and recommendations in a table format as input into the EMPr for faunal or flora related issues.  The assessment of the potential impacts of the development and the recommended mitigation measures provided have been separated into the following project phases:  Planning and Construction  Operational  Decommissioning

1.3. Approach and Methodology

This assessment is conducted according to the 2014 EIA Regulations (Government Notice Regulation 982) in terms of the National Environmental Management Act (Act 107 of 1998) as amended (NEMA), as well as best-practice guidelines and principles for biodiversity assessment as outlined by Brownlie (2005) and De Villiers et al. (2005).

In terms of NEMA, this assessment demonstrates how the proponent intends to comply with the principles contained in Section 2 of NEMA, which amongst other things, indicates that environmental management should:  (In order of priority) aim to: avoid, minimise or remedy disturbance of ecosystems and loss of biodiversity;  Avoid degradation of the environment;  Avoid jeopardising ecosystem integrity;  Pursue the best practicable environmental option by means of integrated environmental management;  Protect the environment as the people’s common heritage;  Control and minimise environmental damage; and

Juno WEF - Ecological Scoping Study

13

 Pay specific attention to management and planning procedures pertaining to sensitive, vulnerable, highly dynamic or stressed ecosystems.

Furthermore, in terms of best practice guidelines as outlined by Brownlie (2005) and De Villiers et al. (2005), a precautionary and risk-averse approach should be adopted for projects which may result in substantial detrimental impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems, especially the irreversible loss of habitat and ecological functioning in threatened ecosystems or designated sensitive areas: i.e. Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBAs) (as identified by systematic conservation plans, Biodiversity Sector Plans or Bioregional Plans) and Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas.

In order to adhere to the above principles and best-practice guidelines, the following approach forms the basis for the study approach and assessment philosophy:  The study includes data searches, desktop studies, site walkovers / field survey of the property and baseline data collection, describing:  A description of the broad ecological characteristics of the site and its surrounds in terms of any mapped spatial components of ecological processes and/or patchiness, patch size, relative isolation of patches, connectivity, corridors, disturbance regimes, ecotones, buffering, viability, etc.

In terms of pattern, the following will be identified or described:

Community and ecosystem level  The main vegetation type, its aerial extent and interaction with neighbouring types, soils or topography;  Threatened or vulnerable ecosystems (cf. SA vegetation map/National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment, fine-scale systematic conservation plans, etc). Species level  Species of Conservation Concern (SCC) (giving location if possible using GPS)  The viability of an estimated population size of the RDB species that are present (including the degree of confidence in prediction based on availability of information and specialist knowledge, i.e. High=70-100% confident, Medium 40-70% confident, low 0-40% confident)  The likelihood of other RDB species, or species of conservation concern, occurring in the vicinity (include degree of confidence). Fauna  Describe and assess the terrestrial fauna present in the area that will be affected by the proposed development.  Conduct a faunal assessment that can be integrated into the ecological study.  Describe the existing impacts of current land use as they affect the fauna.  Clarify species of special concern (SSC) and that are known to be: o endemic to the region; o that are considered to be of conservational concern; o that are in commercial trade (CITES listed species); or

Juno WEF - Ecological Scoping Study

14

o are of cultural significance.  Provide monitoring requirements as input into the EMPr for faunal related issues.

Other pattern issues  Any significant landscape features or rare or important vegetation associations such as seasonal wetlands, alluvium, seeps, quartz patches or salt marshes in the vicinity.  The extent of alien plant cover of the site, and whether the infestation is the result of prior soil disturbance such as ploughing or quarrying (alien cover resulting from disturbance is generally more difficult to restore than infestation of undisturbed sites).  The condition of the site in terms of current or previous land uses.

In terms of process, the following will be identified and/or described:  The key ecological “drivers” of ecosystems on the site and in the vicinity, such as fire.  Any mapped spatial component of an ecological process that may occur at the site or in its vicinity (i.e. corridors such as watercourses, upland-lowland gradients, migration routes, coastal linkages or inland-trending dunes, and vegetation boundaries such as edaphic interfaces, upland-lowland interfaces or biome boundaries).  Any possible changes in key processes, e.g. increased fire frequency or drainage/artificial recharge of aquatic systems.  Furthermore, any further studies that may be required during or after the EIA process will be outlined.  All relevant legislation, permits and standards that would apply to the development will be identified.  The opportunities and constraints for development will be described and shown graphically on an aerial photograph, satellite image or map delineated at an appropriate level of spatial accuracy.

1.4. Assumptions and Limitations

The current report is based on the results of several site visits as well as a desktop study, which serves to reduce the limitations and assumptions required for the study. The site visits took place in the spring flowering seasons of 2016 and 2017, and while 2017 was a poor season, this is countered by the good conditions during sampling in 2016. As the site has been visited more than once during favourable periods for vegetation sampling, there are few limitations with regards to the vegetation sampling and the species lists obtained are considered reliable and comprehensive.

Many fauna are difficult to observe in the field and their potential presence at the site must be evaluated based on the literature and available databases. In many cases, these databases are not intended for fine-scale use and the reliability and adequacy of these data sources relies heavily on the extent to which the area has been sampled in the past. Many remote areas have not been well sampled with the result that the species lists derived for the area do not always adequately reflect the actual fauna and flora present at the site. In order to address this potential limitation, and better characterise the

Juno WEF - Ecological Scoping Study

15 faunal community at the site, small mammal trapping using Sherman live traps was conducted over five nights in 2017 within different habitats at the site. Pitfall trapping using eight 20l buckets buried to soil-surface level with 20cm x 8m diversion barriers to increase trapping rate were also used to trap reptiles and amphibians. Ten camera traps were also distributed across the site in October 2017 and retrieved in March 2018 and all images captured were processed and identified to species level. In addition, the consultant has worked extensively in the area, and information from nearby sites is used as and where appropriate.

1.5. Source of Information

Data sources from the literature consulted and used where necessary in the study includes the following: Vegetation:  Vegetation types and their were extracted from the South African National Vegetation Map (Mucina and Rutherford 2006 and 2012 update) as well as the National List of Threatened Ecosystems (2011), where relevant.  Information on plant and species recorded for the area was extracted from the new Plants of South (POSA) database hosted by the South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI). Data was extracted for a significantly larger area than the study area, but this is necessary to ensure a conservative approach as well as counter the fact that the site itself has not been well sampled in the past.  The IUCN conservation status of the species in the list was also extracted from the database and is based on the Threatened Species Programme, Red List of South African Plants (2017).

Habitats & Ecosystems:  Freshwater and wetland information was extracted from the National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas assessment, NFEPA (Nel et al. 2011).  Important protected areas expansion areas were extracted from the National Protected Areas Expansion Strategy (NPAES 2010)  The ecosystem status of the vegetation types within the study area were extracted from the 2016 WCBSP Ecosystem Threat Status layer available from the SANBI BGIS data portal.  Critical Biodiversity Areas in the study area were obtained from the 2017 Western Cape Biodiversity Spatial Plan for the Matzikama Municipality.

Fauna:  Lists of mammals, reptiles and amphibians which are likely to occur at the site were derived based on distribution records from the literature and the ADU databases http://vmus.adu.org.za.  Literature consulted includes Branch (1988) and Alexander and Marais (2007) for reptiles, Du Preez and Carruthers (2009) for amphibians, EWT & SANBI (2016) and Skinner and Chimimba (2005) for mammals.

Juno WEF - Ecological Scoping Study

16

 The faunal species lists provided are based on species which are known to occur in the broad geographical area, as well as a preliminary assessment of the availability and quality of suitable habitat at the site.  The conservation status of mammals is based on the IUCN Red List Categories (EWT/SANBI 2016), while reptiles are based on the South African Reptile Conservation Assessment (Bates et al. 2013) and amphibians on Minter et al. (2004) as well as the IUCN (2017).

1.6. Description of Project Aspects Relevant To Ecological Impacts

The project would be located on the remaining extent of Farm De Boom No. 273 which is 4682 ha in extent. The turbines would be 2.6 to 3.4 MW in output and in order to achieve the desired 140MW output, a total of between 39 and 59 turbines would be required. The total estimated footprint of the development is 87.6 ha, which would result from 4 ha of laydown areas, 23.6 ha from turbine foundations and hard stands and 60 ha from internal access roads which would be up to 50 km in total length. The basic components of the development that would require vegetation clearing or generate potential impacts include the following:

 A total of up to 50km of internal gravel surface access roads linking turbines, 6 - 12 m wide;  Each turbine would have a reinforced foundation of 20m x 20m & 1m deep, with an associated crane platform;  A concrete batching plant of 50m x 50m (0.25ha) - to be confirmed based on technical and economic feasibility;  Operations and maintenance building occupying an area of 1ha;  Temporary laydown and construction area of 1ha;  Temporary hardstand area for plant assembly of 15ha;  On-site 33 kV/132 kV substation (200 x 200m);

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 2.1. Vegetation Types

According to the 2012 update of the national vegetation map (Mucina & Rutherford 2006), there are three vegetation types within the study area, Namaqualand Strandveld which occupies the majority of the site; some Namaqualand Sand Fynbos in the southeast corner of the site (Figure 1) and a narrow strip of Cape Inland Salt Pans associated with the bed of the Sandlaagte River. The distribution and general characteristics of each vegetation is described below and although Mucina and Rutherford provide species lists of characteristic and dominant species associated with each, these are not repeated here as the actual species present at the site are described in the next section.

Namaqualand Strandveld occurs in the Northern and Western Cape Provinces from the southern Richtersveld as far south as Donkins Bay. Especially in the north of this unit it penetrates up to 40km inland and approaches the coast only near the river mouths of the Buffels, Swartlintjies, Spoeg, Bitter

Juno WEF - Ecological Scoping Study

17 and Groen Rivers. In the south of the unit it is variably narrow and approaches the coast more closely. It consists of flat to undulating coastal peneplain. The vegetation consists of a low species richness shrubland dominated by a plethora of erect and creeping succulent shrubs as well as woody shrubs and in wet years annuals are also abundant. It is associated with deep red or yellowish -red Aeolian dunes and deep sand overlying marine sediments and granite gneisses. The area is a combination of Ah, Ae, Af, Ai and Ag land types. Mucina and Rutherford list eight endemic species for this vegetation type. About 10% of this vegetation type has been lost mainly to coastal mining for heavy metals and it is not currently listed.

Figure 1. Vegetation map (Mucina and Rutherford 2006 and 2012 Powrie Update) of the Juno study area and surrounding area.

There is a narrow strip of Namaqualand Sand Fynbos mapped along the eastern boundary of the study area, which occurs on loose sands and low dunes present in this area. Namaqualand Sand

Juno WEF - Ecological Scoping Study

18

Fynbos is similar to but considered to be a more depauperate form of Leipoldtville Sand Fynbos, lacking most of the special species of the latter. It typically occurs on acid to neutral sands, often on windblown dunes and on the dune slacks. It is distributed in the Northern and Western Cape from the vicinity of the study area to Hondeklipbaai in the north, along the coastal plain. It occurs on Aeolian deep, loose, red sands overlying marine or other sediments. Land types are mainly Ah, Hb and Ai. It is usually a low to medium shrubland, often dominated by restios, with Proteaceae often present, usually in low numbers. Bulbs and annuals may be common, with succulents common only on dune slacks. It is not a fire driven system and often forms mosaics with various Strandveld types, and boundaries can be very diffuse.

The Cape Inland Salt Pans vegetation type is an azonal vegetation type occurs in the Western and to a lesser extent Eastern Cape Provinces, from Jakkalsrivier Valley between and Lambert’s Bay, Rocher Pan and other pans near (near ), Soutpan near , Rondevlei, Paardevlei, Noordhoek (all near Cape Town), salt vleis of the Agulhas Plain, Zoutpan and several other smaller salt pans in the Albertinia region (Zoutpan, Melkhoutfontein, Vogelvlei). The vegetation occurs in small depressions dominated by low succulent scrub composed of creeping chenopods and salt-tolerant herbs and grasses. This vegetation type is considered Least Threatened and 20% is statutorily conserved in the Agulhas and West Coast National Parks as we ll as in the Soetendalsvlei and Rocherpan Nature Reserves. However, as this ecosystem is associated with hydrological features and plays an important ecological role, it is considered sensitive to disturbance.

2.2. Fine-Scale Site Description

Although the Vegmap provides a broad overview of the vegetation of the area, at the site-scale it is not highly informative and does not provide an adequate description of the site. A number of different plant communities, habitats and vegetation types were recognised as present within the Juno WEF site, based on their species composition, structure and historical influences. The major units present are detailed and described below.

Namaqualand Strandveld

The Juno site is dominated by Namaqualand Strandveld which is relatively homogenous on account of the prevailing sandy substrate. There is however some variation within this unit, with the central part of the site occurring on more finely-textured soils with characteristic heuweltjies and relatively sparse vegetation cover defining this part of the site. The other parts of the site occur on more typical sandy soils with taller, generally more-dense strandveld present (Figure 2, Figure 3). The abundance of SCC within this habitat is relatively low and it is not considered highly sensitive.

Juno WEF - Ecological Scoping Study

19

Figure 2. Typical Namaqualand Strandveld at the Juno site, dominated by Zygophyllum morgsana, Othonna cylindrica, Didelta carnosa, Euphorbia burmanii, Tetragonia fruticosa, Salvia africana-lutea, Eriocephalus racemose and Asparagus capensis.

Figure 3. The area towards the central part of the Juno site that is characterised by more- finely textured soils with prominent heuweltjies. The vegetation is dominated by species such as Didelta carnosa, Zygophyllum morgsana, Othonna cylindrica, Euphorbia burmanii, E.caput- medusae, Tetragonia fruticosa, Justicia cuneata, Lycium cinereum, Tylecodon wallichii, T.paniculatus, Stoeberia utilis, Lebeckia sericea, Ruschia floribunda, Vanzijlia annulata,

Juno WEF - Ecological Scoping Study

20

Chrysanthemoides incana, and Manochlamys albicans, Asparagus capensis, Pteronia onobromoides and P.divaricata.

Old Lands/Transformed Areas

A significant proportion of the site consists of previously ploughed areas used for the dryland cropping. These areas do not appear to be used currently and significant recovery has occurred in some areas, but overall diversity of these areas is generally low compared to adjacent intact vegetation (Figure 4). These areas are considered to be low sensitivity and development within these areas would generate low impacts.

Figure 4. Previously transformed area showing reasonably good recovery of the annual and weedy component but lack of geophytes and long-lived perennial element. Recovery is partly facility by the strip agriculture used to limit wind erosion impacts which also allows for the persistence of longer -lived perennial species along the strips between the cleared areas. Common and dominant species include Arctotheca calendula, Galenia africana, Galenia sarcophylla, Dimorphotheca pluvialis, Didelta carnosa, Euphorbia burmanii, Manochlamys albicans, Conicosia elongata, Trachyandra falcata, Lycium cinereum, Pteronia divaricata and Hermannia scordifolia.

Sandlaagte River Valley

The southern part of the site is characterised by the presence of the Sandlaagte River (Figure 5), which is a paleo-channel of a once larger river system, which no longer flows and has largely been in-filled with sand. The rocky outcrops along the channel and along the southern bank of the valley are an important feature of the site and the wider area and represent habitat this is not widely available in the area and harbours a variety of plant and animal species that are not found elsewhere

Juno WEF - Ecological Scoping Study

21 at the site. It is clear from the field assessment that the vegetation of the river bed does not correspond with the Cape Inland Salt Pans vegetation unit ascribed by the Vegmap. However, this is as the site has not been sampled in the past and it was not clear from the imagery what the vegetation of this area represented. However, the field assessment clearly indicates that this area has been in-filled and no longer represents typical salt-pan vegetation, but rather draws elements from the surrounding Strandveld vegetation types.

Figure 5. Section of the Sandlaagte River before it widens towards the west, showing the rocky outcrops along the river and the taller woody vegetation along the river. Common species present include Zygophyllum morgsana, Othonna cylindrica, Didelta carnosa, Euphorbia burmanii, Tetragonia fruticosa, Justicia cuneata, Lycium cinereum, Chrysanthemoides incana, Manochlamys albicans, Cissampelos capensis, Helichrysum tricostatum, H.hebelepis, Eriocephalus racemosa, Asparagus capensis, Pteronia divaricate. Larger woody shrubs include Rhus glauca, Gymnosporia buxifolia, Diospyros austroafricana, and Euclea racemosa.

Sand Fynbos

The far eastern corner of the site is classified as Sand Fynbos and while there are dunes and deeper sandy soils present in this area (Figure 6), it can at best be considered a transitional area between Sand Fynbos and Strandveld. This area is considered more sensitive than the areas of Strandveld because of the transitional nature of the area, the dunes which are vulnerable to disturbance and the CBA status of the area. This area occupies a relatively small proportion of the site and would not be significantly affected under the current layout of the development.

Juno WEF - Ecological Scoping Study

22

Figure 6. Dunes near to the eastern corner of the site, in the area classified as Sand Fynbos. Dominant and typical species include Willdenowia incurvata, Thamnochortus bachmanii, Ehrharta villosa, Stipagrostis zeyheri, Wahlenbergia asparagoides, Ruschia extensa, R.caroli, Rhus dissecta, Anthospermum spathulatum, Nenax arenicola, Justicia cuneata, Wiborgia obcordata, Gymnosporia buxifolia, Stoebe nervigera, Trichogyne repens, Othonna coronopifolia, Chrysanthemoides incana, and Clutia daphnoides.

2.3. Listed and Protected Plant Species

The abundance of plant species of conservation concern in the broader area around the Juno site is relatively high. A total of 460 species have been recorded from the half degree 3118C, of which 48 are of conservation concern. Listed species confirmed present at the site include Calobota lotononoides (NT), Wahlenbergia asparagoides (VU), Babiana hirsuta (NT) and Muraltia obovata (VU). There are likely to be additional listed species present at the site as well which were not observed as some species are naturally rare or are only visible at specific times of the year. Although some species such as Muraltia obovata were widespread at the site, others such as Calobota lotononoides and Wahlenbergia asparagoides tended to be more restricted to certain substrates. The area along the Saandlaagte River and the deeper sands south of the river were areas of above average abundance of SCC and is one of the contributing factors to the higher sensitivity of these areas. Overall, there is likely to be some impact on SCC as a result of the development, but no local populations of SCC are likely to be compromised as a result of the development which generally avoids the areas of highest SCC abundance.

Juno WEF - Ecological Scoping Study

23

2.4. Faunal Communities

Mammals

The site lies within the distribution range of approximately 48 terrestrial mammals of which 27 can be confirmed present at the site. Species observed or captured (Figure 7) at the site include Steenbok Raphicerus campestris, Common Duiker Sulvicapra grimmia, Aardvark Orycteropus afer, Black-backed Jackal Canis mesomelas, Caracal Caracal caracal, African Wildcat Felis silvestris, Suricate Suricata suricatta, Small Spotted Genet Genetta genetta, Large Grey Mongoose Herpestes ichneumon, Yellow Mongoose Cynictis penicillata, Cape Gray Mongoose Galerella pulverulenta, Striped Polecat Ictonyx striatus, Bat-eared Fox Otocyon megalotis, Cape Fox Vulpes chama, Cape Gerbil Tatera afra, Striped Mouse Rhabdomys pumilio, Karoo Bush Rat Otomys unisulcatus, Porcupine Hystrix africaeaustralis, Cape Molerat Georychus capensis, Cape Dune Mole-rat Bathyergus suillus, Honey Badger Mellivora capensis and Cape Hare Lepus capensis, Western Rock Elephant Shrew Elephantulus rupestris, Hairy-footed Gerbil Gerbilliscus paeba, Namaqua Rock Mouse Aethomys namaquensis Rock Hyrax Procavia capensis and Lesser Dwarf Shrew Suncus varilla.

Listed species known from the broader area include the White-tailed Mouse Mystromys albicaudatus (EN) and Van Zyls’ Golden Mole Cryptochloris zyli (EN). The habitat at the site is not considered highly suitable for the White-tailed mouse and it is considered unlikely to be present. Van Zyls’ Golden Mole Cryptochloris zyli, is known from a handful of specimens collected at Compagniesdrift, which is located 40km south of the site as well as a single specimen from Groenriviermond some distance north of the site. Little is known about this species and it is possible that it occurs at the Juno Wind Farm site, but this is not considered to be highly likely as the occurrence of the species appears to be associated with very loose sands that do not occur across the majority of the Juno site. There are however some areas that appear to be potentially suitable, especially south of the Sandlaagte River and the dunes associated with the areas of Sand Fynbos in the far eastern corner of the site.

The major impact of development on most mammals would be habitat loss equivalent to the footprint of the facility. Particular areas of concern would be the high-lying ground along the southern margin of the site and the paleochannel of the Sandlaagte non -perennial river. Some species may be wary of the turbines or negatively affected by the noise generated and may avoid them to the greater degree. It is however unlikely that the local or regional populations of any species would be compromised by the development and long-term impacts on mammals are likely to be low to moderate after mitigation.

Juno WEF - Ecological Scoping Study

24

Figure 7. Common small mammals trapped at the site include from top left, the Western Rock Elephant Shrew Elephantulus rupestris, Hairy- footed Gerbil Gerbilliscus paeba and Namaqua Rock Mouse Aethomys namaquensis.

Reptiles

The site lies in or near the distribution range of as many as 58 reptile species. Based on distribution maps and habitat requirements, the composition of the reptile fauna is likely to comprise 3 tortoises, 18 , 26 lizards and skinks, 9 geckos and 1 chameleon. Although the majority of the site consists of sandy substrates there are some rocky outcrops along the Sandlaagte River which offer a different habitat to the rest of the site and which are of above average significance for reptiles at the site. This area is however outside of the proposed development footprint and the development would be restricted to the sandy habitats of the site. Commonly observed species within the site includes the Spotted Sand Lizard Pedioplanis lineoocellata, Knox's Desert Lizard Meroles knoxii, Variegated Skink Mabuya variegata, Girdled Lizard Ouroborus cataphractus, Bibron's Gecko Chondrodactylus bibronii and Chersina angulata.

Listed species known from the wider area includes the Large-scaled Girdled Lizard macropholis (NT), Gronovi's Dwarf Burrowing Skink Scelotes gronovii (NT), Kasner's Dwarf Burrowing Skink Scelotes kasneri (NT), Cape Sand Psammophis leightoni (VU) and Speckled Padloper Homopus signatus (VU). Gronovi's Dwarf Burrowing Skink is confirmed present at the site (Figure 8) and is endemic to the Western Cape, occurring from in the north to Robben Island in the south, and inland to Graafwater. This species is associated with sandy substrates and appears to be

Juno WEF - Ecological Scoping Study

25 fairly common within favourable habitat. The development would result in some habitat loss for this species and other listed species associated with sandy substrates such as Cordylus macropholis. Although it is highly likely that the Speckled Padloper is present at the site, it was not observed and would occur associated with the rocky outcrops in the south of the site which are not within the development footprint.

Figure 8. Gronovi's Dwarf Burrowing Skink Scelotes gronovii (NT) was confirmed present at the site and is the most significant reptile observation from the site.

The development would result in the loss of habitat for resident reptiles as well as disrupt the connectivity of the landscape to some extent. As with mammals, the southern boundary of the site with rocky outcrops associated with the non-perennial Sandlaagte River are the most important areas for reptiles at the site. However, as demonstrated by the presence of Gronovi's Dwarf Burrowing Skink, the sandy substrates also harbour species of significance. Overall, impacts of the development on reptiles are likely to be largely of local significance as the development footprint is relatively low and the affected habitat is widely available in the area.

Amphibians

Although 14 amphibian species are known from the broader area, only six species have been recorded from the half degree (3118C) which includes the site. The vicinity of the Sandlaagte River would be the most important area for frogs as this area may occasionally receive runoff, but in general, the abundance of frogs at the site would be low as there are no freshwater features present at the site that could be used by water-dependent species. Only species which are independent of water are likely to be present, including the Cape Sand Frog Tomopterna delalandii and Namaqua Rain Frog Breviceps namaquensis. Given the paucity of important amphibian habitats at the site and the low likely density of amphibians, a significant impact on frogs is not likely.

Juno WEF - Ecological Scoping Study

26

2.5. Conservation Planning Context

It is important to consider the conservation planning context of the site in some detail as there have been a number of changes and developments in the various spatial plans that have been developed at national and provincial level over the past few years. The site has been attributed different status under these plans and it is important to interrogate the different spatial layers and identify the most appropriate status for the site and the implications of this for the development potential of the site.

In terms of the 2010 NPAES, the majority of the site has been mapped as falling within the Knersvlakte Hantam Focus Area (Figure 9). According to the NPAES technical document, NPAES focus areas are “large, intact and unfragmented areas suitable for the creation or expansion of large protected areas.” These were identified at the national scale based on importance and urgency with the goals of meeting biodiversity thresholds for terrestrial or freshwater ecosystems; maintaining ecological processes or resilience to climate change. Development within NPAES Focus Areas is potentially undesirable because this may impact on future conservation options and prevent conservation targets for certain vegetation types being met. It is however important to note that these areas should “not be seen as future boundaries of protected areas, as in many cases only a portion of a particular focus area would be required to meet the protected area targets set in the NPAES”. Although it is not clear why the polygon which includes the site has been selected as a NPAES, this appears to be related to the presence of different vegetation types which are indicative of environmental gradien ts providing climate change resilence as well as the presence of Leipoldtville Sand Fynbos which is a listed ecosystem. However, the NPAES uses the 2006 VegMap as an input layer and the vegetation map of the study area has since been revised and extent of Leipoldtville Sand Fynbos in the 2012 VegMap revision has been reduced and it is no longer considered to occur within the site. As a result, some of the basis for the NPAES is no longer present and the site is currently mapped as being largely within the Namaqualand Strandveld vegetation type with a small extent of Namaqualand Sand Fynbos along the western margin of the site. Both of these vegetation types have extensive tracts outside of the site and the small extent of these areas within the site is not regionally significant. It is also important to note that the NPAES that includes the site is only 9100ha in extent and does not abut any other focus areas with the result that the potential for disruption of ecological processes is low.

The NPAES technical document makes it clear that the NPAES is “also not a replacement for finescale planning which may identify a range of different priority sites based on local requirements, constraints and opportunities”. In this regard, the Western Cape 2016 BSP, which makes use of the most recent landcover layer and systematic conservation planning information is of particular importance. Although, the Western Cape BSP does not represent protected area expansion areas in the same manner as the NPAES, it provides the ecosystem status of vegetation types as well as CBAs, which provide an indication of conservation priority. The Western Cape BSP for the study area is illustrated below in Figure 10 and indicates that the majority of the site falls within an Ecological Support Area. The most important feature of the 2016 BSP compared to the NPAES is the recognition that a large proportion of the site has been mapped as transformed. This agrees within the observations from the site which also identified extensive old croplands within the site. As the NPAES is meant to be based on “large, intact and unfragmented areas” the transformed nature of the site does not appear to have

Juno WEF - Ecological Scoping Study

27 been taken into account within the NPAES as the older landcover information for the site does not map the transformed areas. Consequently, with updated landcover it seems unlikely that the site would still be selected as an NPAES and considering the changes to the VegMap, there seems little basis for maintaining the NPAES status of the site and the Western Cape 2016 BSP is seen as the primary and most accurate conservation status reference for the site, although this is also considered to have some shortcomings which are detailed below.

Figure 9. National Protected Areas Expansion Strategy Focus Areas for the Juno site.

Under the 2016 Western Cape BSP, the majority of the Juno site lies within an Ecological Support Area, while the eastern corner of the site where the vegetation transitions towards Sand Fynbos and the Sandlaagte River are classified as CBA 1 (Figure 10). There is also a large extent of the site which is mapped as previously transformed, which is confirmed by the field assessment. In terms of the areas mapped as CBAs, the dunes in the eastern corner of the site are considere d more sensitive than the rest of the site and their CBA status is supported by the field assessment. However, the area

Juno WEF - Ecological Scoping Study

28 classified as CBA within the Sandlaagte River is under-mapped and the CBA should be more broadly conceptualised to include the adjacent slopes south of the river with the rocky outcrops as this represents a locally unique and diverse habitat for fauna and flora.

Figure 10. Critical Biodiversity Areas map for the study area, showing that the majority of the site lies within an ESA 1 with some smaller areas of CBA in the south and east.

In terms of the impact of the development on CBAs, these have been well avoided by the layout and no direct impact on the CBAs would occur. The majority of the footprint is within an ESA and while the ESA would experience some habitat loss, this would not be likely to impact the overall supporting function of the ESA and lead to cascading impacts on adjacent CBAs. As such, the impact of the development on the ecological functioning of the area is likely to be relatively low and no significant disruptions in ecological processes are likely to occur.

Juno WEF - Ecological Scoping Study

29

2.6. Cumulative Impacts

There are a number of the different proposed renewable energy facilities in the broad area around the Juno site (Figure 11). Notable projects include the Olifants River Settlement Wind Energy Facility near as well as the Proposed Inca 30MW Wind Energy Facility near to Vredendal. Currently the only preferred bidder or constructed facility in the area is the existing Eskom Sere 100MW wind farm 30km north of the site. The major agent of impact in the area to date has been transformation for agriculture although there is also some habitat loss along the coast as a result of diamond and heavy mineral mining. This has had a negative impact on the remaining extent of Sand Fynbos in the area and the further loss of intact Sand Fynbos would be considered undesirable. The contribution of the current project to habitat loss which is estimated at less than 100ha, would be restricted to the Namaqualand Strandveld vegetation type and is not considered highly significant given the availability of this vegetation unit in the area and the existing impacts at the site.

Figure 11. Map of other renewable energy developments in the wide area around the Juno site indicated in blue.

Juno WEF - Ecological Scoping Study

30

2.7. Site Sensitivity Assessment

Figure 12. Draft sensitivity map for the study area, showing that the majority of the footprint of the development is in areas of moderate or low sensitivity.

The draft sensitivity map for the study area is illustrated above in Figure 12. The majority of the site consists of intact Strandveld considered to be of moderate sensitivity. The abundance of plant and animal species in these areas is relatively low and development within these areas would generate moderate to low impacts. A significant proportion of the site has been disturbed for cropping in the past and while some areas have recovered to a significant degree, most areas have not recovered the full complement of species, especially of geophytes and longer-lived species. These areas are

Juno WEF - Ecological Scoping Study

31 considered generally low sensitivity and development within these areas would generate relatively low ecological impacts as they have reduced ecological value and functioning. The Sand Fynbos section in the far 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. Habitat loss in this area is considered undesirable and it is not considered suitable for wind farm development. The high-lying ground south of the Sandlaagte River is also 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.

3. LEGISLATION AND PERMIT REQUIREMENTS

A summary of the environmental legislation and permitting requirements that would be triggered by the development of the site is outlined below.

Under the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations Listing Notice 2 of 2014 as amended 07 April 2017 the following activities are likely to be triggered:

Activity 1: The development of facilities or infrastructure for the generation of electricity from a renewable resource where the electricity output is 20 megawatts or more, excluding where such development of facilities or infrastructure is for photovoltaic installations and occurs within an urban area.

Activity 15. The clearance of an area of 20 hectares or more of indigenous vegetation, excluding where such clearance of indigenous vegetation is required for- (i) the undertaking of a linear activity; or (ii) maintenance purposes undertaken in accordance with a maintenance management plan.

And, under Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations Listing Notice 3 of 2014:

Activity 4. The construction of a road wider than 4 metres with a reserve less than 13,5 metres. ii. Outside urban areas, in: (a) A protected area identified in terms of NEMPAA, excluding disturbed areas; (b) National Protected Area Expansion Strategy Focus areas; (c) Sensitive areas as identified in an environmental management framework as contemplated in chapter 5 of the Act and as adopted by the competent authority; (d) Sites or areas identified in terms of an International Convention; (e) Critical biodiversity areas as identified in systematic biodiversity plans adopted by the competent authority or in bioregional plans;

Juno WEF - Ecological Scoping Study

32

(f) Core areas in biosphere reserves; (g) Areas within 10 kilometres from national parks or world heritage sites or 5 kilometres from any other protected area identified in terms of NEMPAA or from the core areas of a biosphere reserve, excluding disturbed areas; or (h) Areas seawards of the development setback line or within 1 kilometre from the high -water mark of the sea if no such development setback line is determined;

Activity 12. The clearance of an area of 300 square metres or more of indigenous vegetation except where such clearance of indigenous vegetation is required for maintenance purposes undertaken in accordance with a maintenance management plan. g. Western Cape: i. Within any critically endangered or endangered ecosystem listed in terms of section 52 of the NEMBA or prior to the publication of such a list, within an area that has been identified as critically endangered in the National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment 2004; ii. Within critical biodiversity areas identified in bioregional plans; iii. Within the littoral active zone or 100 metres inland from high water mark of the sea or an estuary, whichever distance is the greater, excluding where such removal will occur behind the development setback line on erven in urban areas; or iv. On land, where, at the time of the coming into effect of this Notice or thereafter such land was zoned open space, conservation or had an equivalent zoning.

Activity 18. The widening of a road by more than 4 metres, or the lengthening of a road by more than 1 kilometre. g. Western Cape i. In an estuary;

ii. Outside urban areas: (aa) A protected area identified in terms of NEMPAA, excluding conservancies; (bb) National Protected Area Expansion Strategy Focus areas; (cc) Sensitive areas as identified in an environmental management framework as contemplated in chapter 5 of the Act and as adopted by the competent authority; (dd) Sites or areas identified in terms of an international convention; (ee) Critical biodiversity areas as identified in systematic biodiversity plans adopted by the competent authority or in bioregional plans; (ff) Core areas in biosphere reserves; (gg) Areas within 10 kilometres from national parks or world heritage sites or 5 kilometres from any other protected area identified in terms of NEMPAA or from the core area of a biosphere reserve;

Juno WEF - Ecological Scoping Study

33

(hh) Areas seawards of the development setback line or within 1 kilometre from the high-water mark of the sea if no such development setback line is determined; or (ii) Areas within a watercourse or wetland; or within 100 metres from the edge of a watercourse or wetland;

National Forests Act (No. 84 of 1998):

The National Forests Act provides for the protection of forests as well as specific tree species, quoting directly from the Act: “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, except under a licence or exemption granted by the Minister to an applicant and subject to such period and conditions as may be stipulated”.

However, no protected tree species have been observed at the site and given the relatively low extent of the site, it can be confirmed with some certainty that there are no protected tree species present.

Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act (Act 43 of 1983):

The Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act provides for the regulation of control over the utilisation of the natural agricultural resources in order to promote the conservation of soil, water and vegetation and provides for combating weeds and invader plant species. The Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act defines different categories of alien plants and those listed under Category 1 are prohibited and must be controlled while those listed under Category 2 must be grown within a demarcated area under permit. Category 3 plants includes ornamental plants that may no longer be planted but existing plants may remain provided that all reasonable steps are taken to prevent the spreading thereof, except within the floodline of water courses and wetlands.

The predominant alien of concern at the site is Acacia cyclops, which is listed as Category 1b.

4. IDENTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS

The development would result in the loss of approximately 80ha of currently intact habitat. This would impact plant species of conservation concern as well as impact fauna directly though mortality and indirectly through habitat loss. The following potential impacts are identified as possibly resulting from the development:  Impacts on vegetation and plant species of conservation concern  Direct and indirect faunal impacts  Increased erosion  Increased alien plant invasion  Impacts on Critical Biodiversity Areas and NPAES Focus Areas

Juno WEF - Ecological Scoping Study

34

 Cumulative impacts on habitat loss and broad-scale ecological processes

The potential impacts which will be assessed during the EIA phase of the assessment are outlined as follows:

Construction Phase . Impacts on vegetation and plant species of conservation concern . Direct and indirect faunal impacts

Operational Phase . Increased soil erosion . Increased alien plant invasion . Impacts on Fauna . Impacts on Critical Biodiversity Areas and NPAES Focus Areas

Cumulative impacts . Cumulative impacts on habitat loss and broad-scale ecological processes

5. SCOPING-LEVEL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

The scoping-level assessment of impacts and recommendation of mitigation measures to be applied to reduce impacts is detailed below. It is important to note that this is a Scoping Phase preliminary assessment and the final impact ratings and recommended mitigation actions would be affected by the final development footprint that will be provided by the developer for assessment in the EIA phase. The current assessment highlights the impacts of most concern and the primary mitigation strategies required to reduce impacts to acceptable levels.

Construction Phase Impact 1. Impacts on vegetation and plant species of conservation concern

Impact Phase: Construction

Potential impact description: Impacts on vegetation and plant SCC

The abundance of plant species of conservation concern at the site is relatively low, with few SCC present across the majority of the site. As a result, there is not a significant risk to the local populations of such species and the major impact is likely to result from the loss of currently intact vegetation more generally. The major impact would result from vegetation clearing for both the turbines with their associated hard stands as well as the access roads between turbines. Extent Duration Intensity Status Significance Probability Confidence Without L H M Negative M H H Mitigation With L H M Negative M M H Mitigation No. Once transformed, it would be very difficult to restore the Can the impact be reversed? previous diversity.

Juno WEF - Ecological Scoping Study

35

Will impact cause irreplaceable No. No species of high conservation concern or listed vegetation loss or resources? types would be affected by the development. Partly. While there is some scope for avoidance of sensitive Can impact be avoided, species and habitats, some vegetation loss is an inevitable managed or mitigated? consequence of development that cannot be avoided. Mitigation measures to reduce residual risk or enhance opportunities: - No development of turbines, roads of other infrastructure within high sensitivity and no-go areas. - Preconstruction walk-through of the development footprint to further refine the layout and reduce impacts on SCC through micro-siting of the turbines and access roads. - Impact to be addressed/ further Yes. This is a certain impact that will be assessed in the investigated and assessed in Impact EIA phase. Assessment Phase?

Construction Phase Impact 2. Direct and indirect faunal impacts Impact Phase: Construction

Potential impact description: Direct and indirect faunal impacts

The construction of the development will result in significant habitat loss, noise and disturbance on site. This will lead to direct and indirect disturbance of fauna. Some slow-moving or retiring species such as many reptiles would likely not be able to escape the construction machinery and would be killed. There are also several species present at the site which are vulnerable to poaching and there is a risk that these species may be targeted. This impact would be caused the presence and operation of construction machinery and personnel on the site. Extent Duration Intensity Status Significance Probability Confidence Without L L M Negative M H H Mitigation With L L M Negative M M H Mitigation Yes. Construction phase disturbance will be transient and Can the impact be reversed? associated with the construction phase only. Will impact cause irreplaceable No. No species of high conservation concern are likely to be loss or resources? compromised by the development. Partly. While there is some scope for avoidance of sensitive Can impact be avoided, habitats, some disturbance and habitat loss is an inevitable managed or mitigated? consequence of development that cannot be avoided. Mitigation measures to reduce residual risk or enhance opportunities: - Avoidance of identified areas of high fauna importance at the design stage. - Search and rescue for reptiles and other during construction, before areas are cleared. - Limiting access to the site and ensuring that construction staff and machinery remain within the demarcated construction areas during the construction phase. - Environmental induction for all staff and contractors on-site.

Impact to be addressed/ further Yes. This is a certain impact that will be assessed in the investigated and assessed in Impact EIA phase. Assessment Phase?

Juno WEF - Ecological Scoping Study

36

Operational Phase Impact 1. Increased Soil Erosion Impact Phase: Operation

Potential impact description: Increased soil erosion

The site has sandy soils that are vulnerable to erosion, especially in the face of the strong winds that the area experiences. Once mobilised, the sands can be very difficult to arrest as the moving sand smothers new vegetation as it goes. The primary impact would likely be from the access roads which may impact on areas where there is already a lot of sand movement or on areas that are currently well-vegetated and where there would be a high risk of wind erosion being initiated. Extent Duration Intensity Status Significance Probability Confidence Without L H M Negative M H H Mitigation With L L L Negative L L H Mitigation This impact will not occur if appropriate avoidance measures are Can the impact be reversed? put in place. Will impact cause irreplaceable No. If this impact is addressed, then no significant loss of loss or resources? resources will occur. Can impact be avoided, Yes, with the appropriate mitigation, this impact can be avoided. managed or mitigated? Mitigation measures to reduce residual risk or enhance opportunities: - Avoiding areas of high wind erosion vulnerability as much as possible. - Using net barriers, active rehabilitation and other measures during and after construction to minimise sand movement at the site. - Set up a long-term environmental monitoring plan for the site to ensure that erosion is controlled in the long-term.

Impact to be addressed/ further Yes. This is a highly likely impact that will be assessed in investigated and assessed in Impact the EIA phase. Assessment Phase?

Operational Phase Impact 2. Increased Alien Plant Invasion Impact Phase: Operation

Potential impact description: Increased alien plant invasion

There are already several alien species present on the site such as Acacia cyclops and disturbance created during construction would leave the site highly vulnerable to further alien plant invasion, especially along the access roads and other areas which receive additional run-off from the hardened surfaces of the development. Extent Duration Intensity Status Significance Probability Confidence Without L H M Negative M H H Mitigation With L L L Negative L L H Mitigation

Juno WEF - Ecological Scoping Study

37

This impact will not occur if appropriate avoidance measures are Can the impact be reversed? put in place. Will impact cause irreplaceable No. If this impact is addressed, then a significant loss of loss or resources? resources will not occur. Can impact be avoided, Yes, with the appropriate mitigation, this impact can be avoided. managed or mitigated? Mitigation measures to reduce residual risk or enhance opportunities: - Alien management plan to be implemented during the operational phase of the development, which makes provision for regular alien clearing and monitoring. - Rehabilitation of disturbed areas that are not regularly used after construction.

Impact to be addressed/ further Yes. This is a highly likely impact that will be assessed in investigated and assessed in Impact the EIA phase. Assessment Phase?

Operational Phase Impact 3. Operational Impacts on Fauna

Impact Phase: Construction

Potential impact description: Operational phase faunal impacts

Operational activities as well as the presence of the turbines and the noise they generate may deter some sensitive fauna from the area. In addition, the access roads may function to fragment the habitat for some fauna, which are either unable to unwilling to traverse open areas. Subterranean species such as Golden Moles and burrowing snakes and skinks are particularly vulnerable to this type of impact as they are unable to traverse the hardened roads or become very exposed to when doing so. This is a low-level continuous impact which could have significant cumulative impact on sensitive species. Extent Duration Intensity Status Significance Probability Confidence Without L H M Negative M H H Mitigation With L H L Negative L M H Mitigation No. Habitat loss and disturbance will persist for the lifetime of the Can the impact be reversed? facility. The habitat could be partly restored thereafter. Will impact cause irreplaceable No. No species of high conservation concern are likely to be loss or resources? compromised by the development. Can impact be avoided, No. The impacts results from the presence and operation of the managed or mitigated? facility and as such cannot be avoided. Mitigation measures to reduce residual risk or enhance opportunities: - Open space management plan for the development, which makes provision for favourable management of the facility and the surrounding area for fauna. - Limiting access to the site to staff and contractors only. - Appropriate design of roads and other infrastructure where appropriate to minimise faunal impacts and allow fauna to pass through or underneath these features. - No electrical fencing within 20cm of the ground as tortoises become stuck against such fences and are electrocuted to death.

Juno WEF - Ecological Scoping Study

38

Impact to be addressed/ further Yes. This is a highly likely impact that will be assessed in investigated and assessed in Impact the EIA phase. Assessment Phase?

Operational Phase Impact 4. Impacts on Critical Biodiversity Areas and NPAES Focus Areas

Impact Phase: Construction

Potential impact description: Impacts on Critical Biodiversity Areas and NPAES Focus Areas

Most of the site falls within an NPAES Focus Area, but as discussed in Section 2.5, this is not considered to be the most accurate conservation planning information for the site and the development is not considered to have a significant impact on NPAES Focus Areas, especially as the affected Namaqualand Strandveld vegetation type is very widely available along the West Coast and the there are no specific plant communities within the site that are not more widely available in the area. As such impacts on CBAs are seen as the primary impact on conservation planning infrastructure.

The majority of the development footprint is located within an area that is classified as an Ecological Support Area. The development will result in direct habitat loss equivalent to about 90ha within the ESA as well as potentially affect broad-scale ecological processes operating in the area. Impact on the ESA would result from the transformation of currently intact habitat as well as the presence and operation of the facility. The layout however makes total avoidance on the CBAs and there would be no direct impact on the CBAs of the area. As a result, the impact of the development on CBAs is likely to be low as some development within the ESA is not likely to impact the overall functioning of the area. Extent Duration Intensity Status Significance Probability Confidence Without L H M Negative M H H Mitigation With L H L Negative L M H Mitigation No. Habitat loss and disturbance will persist for the lifetime of the Can the impact be reversed? facility. The habitat could be partly restored thereafter. Will impact cause irreplaceable No. No species or habitats of high conservation concern are likely loss or resources? to be compromised by the development. Yes. Although the loss of habitat resulting from the development Can impact be avoided, cannot be avoided, this can be restricted to areas that are not managed or mitigated? CBAs. Mitigation measures to reduce residual risk or enhance opportunities: - Minimise the development footprint as far as possible, which includes locating temporary - use areas such as construction camps and lay-down areas in previously disturbed areas. - Avoid impact to restricted and specialised habitats such as pans, wetlands and dune fields.

Impact to be addressed/ further Yes. This is a highly likely impact that will be assessed in investigated and assessed in Impact the EIA phase. Assessment Phase?

Juno WEF - Ecological Scoping Study

39

Cumulative Impact 1. Cumulative habitat loss and impact on broad-scale ecological processes

Impact Phase: Construction

Potential impact description: Cumulative habitat loss and impact on broad-scale ecological processes

There are several other renewable energy developments in the wider area and along with the current development, these would contribute to cumulative impacts on habitat loss and fragmentation and negative impact broad-scale ecological processes such as dispersal and climate change resilience. However, the current levels of cumulative impact which can be attributed to wind farm development within the area is still low. Currently, the major impact in the area is from transformation for agriculture, which has had a significant impact on some vegetation in the area. The effected Namaqualand Strandveld vegetation type is however still relatively intact and is not considered to be under threat locally or more broadly. Extent Duration Intensity Status Significance Probability Confidence Without M H M Negative M H H Mitigation With L H L Negative L M H Mitigation No. Habitat loss and disturbance will persist for the lifetime of the Can the impact be reversed? facility. Will impact cause irreplaceable No. No species or habitats of high conservation concern are likely loss or resources? to be compromised by the development. Partly. Sensitive habitats can be avoided, but some contribution Can impact be avoided, to cumulative impact in the area is inevitable and cannot be fully managed or mitigated? avoided or mitigated. Mitigation measures to reduce residual risk or enhance opportunities: - Avoid impact to restricted and specialised habitats such as dunes or wetlands. - Ensure that there are no particular habitats affected within the various renewable energy development sites that are not more widely available or protected elsewhere in the area.

Impact to be addressed/ further Yes. This is a highly likely impact that will be assessed in investigated and assessed in Impact the EIA phase. Assessment Phase?

6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Although the Juno Wind Energy Facility development is in the Scoping Phase, the current study is based on several site visits and detailed field assessment, with the result that the results and sensitivity map presented here are based on detailed on-site information and as such have a degree of confidence. Consequently, there is little uncertainty with regards to the results of the current study and the conclusions reached are based on actual information collected at the site over two seasons. This information has been used to inform the current layout and ensure that potential impacts associated with the development can be reduced as far as possible at the planning stage.

The Juno WEF site is dominated largely by Namaqualand Strandveld except for the small area in the east of the site which is transitional with Sand Fynbos and the area along the Sandlaagte River which

Juno WEF - Ecological Scoping Study

40 has a small amount of riparian vegetation as well as vegetation associated with rocky outcrops. These smaller vegetation units are considered sensitive within the context of the site and not considered suitable for development. The remaining majority area of Namaqualand Strandveld is considered relatively low sensitivity and was observed to have a low abundance of plant species of concern.

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 may occur at the site, the site is not considered optimal habitat for either and a significant impact on either the White-tailed Mouse Mystromys albicaudatus (EN) and Van Zyls’ Golden Mole Cryptochloris zyli (EN) is considered unlikely. 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. However, a West-Coast endemic, Gronovi's Dwarf Burrowing Skink Scelotes gronovii (NT) is confirmed present at the site and represents the most significant reptile observation from the site. This species occurs from Doringbaai in the north to Robben Island in the south, and inland to Graafwater. The current development is located at the northern distribution limit of this species which does not appear to occur north of the Olifants River. 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.

The majority of the site is classified as an Ecological Support Area, apart from the dunes in the east and Sandlaagte River which are CBA 1. The development would not impact the CBAs as the footprint is restricted to the transformed areas and ESA. While the ESA would experience some habitat loss, this would not be likely to impact the overall supporting function of the ESA and lead to cascading impacts on adjacent CBAs. As such, the impact of the development on the ecological functioning of the area is likely to be relatively low and no significant disruptions in ecological processes are likely to occur.

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.

7. PLAN OF STUDY FOR THE EIA PHASE

As mentioned above, the current study is based on two seasons of assessment at the site and includes detailed fauna and flora surveys of the site. As such, the field-assessment component of the study is considered complete and the results obtained here are considered thorough and reliable. As such, the major tasks remaining going into the EIA phase are around assessing the final layout, assessing the cumulative impacts associated with the development in more detail and making the appropriate recommendations with regards to the most appropriate mitigation and avoidance measures to be included in the EMPr for the development.

Juno WEF - Ecological Scoping Study

41

Based on the results of the current study and the features of the site, the following activities and outputs are planned to inform the EIA phase of the development:

 Characterise the faunal communities at the site in greater detail. Camera traps have been deployed at the site and the information on faunal distribution and abundance at the site will be included in the EIA. This will be complemented with the information from the small mammal trapping and reptile surveys conducted, which have not been fully detailed here.

 Provide a more detailed assessment of cumulative impact associated with the development of the site. Including an assessment of the extent of habitat lost to wind energy development in the area to date and the likely future potential loss from the current as well as other proposed developments in the area.

 Evaluate, based on the site attributes and final layout of the development, what the most applicable mitigation measures to reduce the impact of the development on the site would be and if there are any areas where specific precautions or mitigation measures should be implemented.

 Assess the impacts identified above in light of the site-specific findings and the final layout for assessment in the EIA Phase to be provided by the developer.

Juno WEF - Ecological Scoping Study

42

8. REFERENCES

Alexander, G. & Marais, J. 2007. A Guide to the Reptiles of Southern Africa. Struik Nature, Cape Town. Branch W.R. 1998. Field guide to snakes and other reptiles of southern Africa. Struik, Cape Town. Bates, M.F., Branch, W.R., Bauer, A.M., Burger, M., Marais, J., Alexander, G.J. & de Villiers, M. S. 2013. Atlas and Red List of the Reptiles of , Lesotho and Swaziland. Strelitzia 32. SANBI, Pretoria. Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, 2007. National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act 10 of 2004): Publication of lists of Critically Endangered, Endangered, Vulnerable and Protected Species. Government Gazette, Republic of South Africa.

Du Preez, L. & Carruthers, V. 2009. A Complete Guide to the Frogs of Southern Africa. Struik Nature., Cape Town.

EWT & SANBI, 2016. Red List of Mammals of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. EWT, Johannesburg.

Minter LR, Burger M, Harrison JA, Braack HH, Bishop PJ & Kloepfer D (eds). 2004. Atlas and Red Data book of the frogs of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. SI/MAB Series no. 9. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Mucina L. & Rutherford M.C. (eds) 2006. The Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Strelitzia 19. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.

Nel, J.L., Murray, K.M., Maherry, A.M., Petersen, C.P., Roux, D.J., Driver, A., Hill, L., Van Deventer, H., Funke, N., Swartz, E.R., Smith-Adao, L.B., Mbona, N., Downsborough, L. and Nienaber, S. (2011). Technical Report for the National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas project. WRC Report No. K5/1801.

Oosthuysen, E. & Holness, S. 2016. Northern Cape Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBA) Map. https://cirrus.nmmu.ac.za/index.php/s/20fe43905396fca0025948bc0d3b514d. Northern Cape Department of Environment and Nature Conservation & Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University.

Skinner, J.D. & Chimimba, C.T. 2005. The mammals of the Southern African Subregion. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Juno WEF - Ecological Scoping Study

43

9. APPENDICES

Appendix 1. List of Plants List of plant species derived for the half degree square 3118C, from the SANBI POSA database.

Threat Threat Family Species Family Species status status Gethyllis ciliaris (Thunb.) Thunb. ORCHIDACEAE Holothrix grandiflora (Sond.) Rchb.f. DDD AMARYLLIDACEAE subsp. longituba (L.Bolus) DDT D.Müll.-Doblies Lotononis densa (Thunb.) Harv. subsp. FABACEAE DDT MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Drosanthemum fulleri L.Bolus DDT leucoclada (Schltr.) B.-E.van Wyk MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Lampranthus argillosus L.Bolus DDT SANTALACEAE Thesium urceolatum A.W.Hill DDT Capnophyllum leiocarpon (Sond.) Babiana brachystachys (Baker) APIACEAE Declining IRIDACEAE Declining Manning & Goldblatt G.J.Lewis Felicia josephinae J.C.Manning & APOCYNACEAE Quaqua pulchra (Bruyns) Plowes EN EN Goldblatt Tylecodon fragilis (R.A.Dyer) CRASSULACEAE Adromischus mammillaris (L.f.) Lem. EN CRASSULACEAE EN Toelken Pelargonium appendiculatum FABACEAE Otholobium incanum C.H.Stirt. EN GERANIACEAE EN (L.f.) Willd. Lampranthus amoenus (Salm- IRIDACEAE Romulea sinispinosensis M.P.de Vos EN MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE EN Dyck ex DC.) N.E.Br. Monilaria pisiformis (Haw.) MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Leipoldtia klaverensis L.Bolus EN MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE EN Schwantes Justicia cuneata Vahl subsp. PROTEACEAE Serruria fucifolia Salisb. ex Knight EN ACANTHACEAE LC cuneata Monechma spartioides (T.Anderson) ACANTHACEAE LC AIZOACEAE Aizoon paniculatum L. LC C.B.Clarke Galenia crystallina (Eckl. & Zeyh.) Tetragonia chenopodioides Eckl. AIZOACEAE LC AIZOACEAE LC Fenzl var. crystallina & Zeyh. emend. Fenzl AIZOACEAE Tetragonia fruticosa L. LC AIZOACEAE Tetragonia hirsuta L.f. LC Gethyllis britteniana Baker AMARYLLIDACEAE Brunsvigia bosmaniae F.M.Leight. LC AMARYLLIDACEAE LC subsp. britteniana AMARYLLIDACEAE Gethyllis lanuginosa Marloth LC AMARYLLIDACEAE Gethyllis linearis L.Bolus LC AMARYLLIDACEAE Hessea breviflora Herb. LC AMARYLLIDACEAE Strumaria truncata Jacq. LC Searsia incisa (L.f.) F.A.Barkley ANACARDIACEAE Searsia dissecta (Thunb.) Moffett LC ANACARDIACEAE LC var. incisa Chlorophytum undulatum (Jacq.) Dasispermum suffruticosum ANTHERICACEAE LC APIACEAE LC Oberm. (P.J.Bergius) B.L.Burtt Quaqua parviflora (Masson) APOCYNACEAE Microloma sagittatum (L.) R.Br. LC APOCYNACEAE LC Bruyns subsp. parviflora Asparagus alopecurus (Oberm.) Asparagus aethiopicus L. LC ASPARAGACEAE LC Malcomber & Sebsebe Asparagus capensis L. var. litoralis ASPARAGACEAE LC ASPARAGACEAE Asparagus declinatus L. LC Suess. & Karl Asparagus undulatus (L.f.) ASPARAGACEAE Asparagus retrofractus L. LC ASPARAGACEAE LC Thunb. ASPHODELACEAE Aloe perfoliata L. LC ASPHODELACEAE Bulbine diphylla Schltr. ex Poelln. LC Bulbine mesembryanthoides Haw. Bulbine praemorsa (Jacq.) ASPHODELACEAE LC ASPHODELACEAE LC subsp. mesembryanthoides Spreng. Haworthia arachnoidea (L.) ASPHODELACEAE Gasteria pillansii Kensit var. pillansii LC ASPHODELACEAE Duval var. namaquensis LC M.B.Bayer Trachyandra divaricata (Jacq.) ASPHODELACEAE Trachyandra ciliata (L.f.) Kunth LC ASPHODELACEAE LC Kunth Trachyandra involucrata (Baker) ASPHODELACEAE Trachyandra falcata (L.f.) Kunth LC ASPHODELACEAE LC Oberm. ASPHODELACEAE Trachyandra muricata (L.f.) Kunth LC ASTERACEAE Amellus microglossus DC. LC Arctotheca populifolia (P.J.Bergius) ASTERACEAE LC ASTERACEAE Arctotis auriculata Jacq. LC Norl. ASTERACEAE Arctotis fastuosa Jacq. LC ASTERACEAE Arctotis flaccida Jacq. LC ASTERACEAE Arctotis hirsuta (Harv.) Beauverd LC ASTERACEAE Arctotis leptorhiza DC. LC

Juno WEF - Ecological Scoping Study

44

ASTERACEAE Athanasia flexuosa Thunb. LC ASTERACEAE Athanasia pubescens (L.) L. LC Chrysanthemoides monilifera (L.) ASTERACEAE LC ASTERACEAE Chrysocoma ciliata L. LC Norl. subsp. pisifera (L.) Norl. Didelta carnosa (L.f.) Aiton var. ASTERACEAE Cotula coronopifolia L. LC ASTERACEAE LC carnosa Didelta carnosa (L.f.) Aiton var. ASTERACEAE LC ASTERACEAE Didelta spinosa (L.f.) Aiton LC tomentosa (Less.) Roessler ASTERACEAE Dimorphotheca pluvialis (L.) Moench LC ASTERACEAE Dimorphotheca sinuata DC. LC Eriocephalus racemosus L. var. affinis Felicia hyssopifolia (P.J.Bergius) ASTERACEAE LC ASTERACEAE LC (DC.) Harv. Nees subsp. glabra (DC.) Grau Felicia namaquana (Harv.) ASTERACEAE Felicia merxmuelleri Grau LC ASTERACEAE LC Merxm. ASTERACEAE Foveolina tenella (DC.) Källersjö LC ASTERACEAE Gnaphalium capense Hilliard LC Gnaphalium englerianum (O.Hoffm.) ASTERACEAE LC ASTERACEAE Helichrysum leontonyx DC. LC Hilliard & B.L.Burtt ASTERACEAE Helichrysum litorale Bolus LC ASTERACEAE Helichrysum micropoides DC. LC Helichrysum revolutum (Thunb.) ASTERACEAE Helichrysum moeserianum Thell. LC ASTERACEAE LC Less. ASTERACEAE Helichrysum simulans Harv. & Sond. LC ASTERACEAE Hoplophyllum spinosum DC. LC Monoculus monstrosus (Burm.f.) ASTERACEAE Leysera gnaphalodes (L.) L. LC ASTERACEAE LC B.Nord. Oedera squarrosa (L.) Anderb. & Oncosiphon grandiflorum ASTERACEAE LC ASTERACEAE LC K.Bremer (Thunb.) Källersjö Oncosiphon suffruticosum (L.) ASTERACEAE LC ASTERACEAE Osteospermum grandiflorum DC. LC Källersjö Osteospermum pinnatum (Thunb.) Othonna carnosa Less. var. ASTERACEAE LC ASTERACEAE LC Norl. var. pinnatum carnosa ASTERACEAE Othonna chromochaeta (DC.) Sch.Bip. LC ASTERACEAE Othonna cuneata DC. LC ASTERACEAE Othonna cylindrica (Lam.) DC. LC ASTERACEAE Othonna floribunda Schltr. LC ASTERACEAE Othonna lyrata DC. LC ASTERACEAE Othonna obtusiloba Harv. LC Pteronia divaricata (P.J.Bergius) ASTERACEAE Pteronia ciliata Thunb. LC ASTERACEAE LC Less. ASTERACEAE Pteronia glabrata L.f. LC ASTERACEAE Pteronia heterocarpa DC. LC ASTERACEAE Pteronia incana (Burm.) DC. LC ASTERACEAE Pteronia inflexa Thunb. ex L.f. LC ASTERACEAE Pteronia onobromoides DC. LC ASTERACEAE Thunb. LC Rhynchopsidium sessiliflorum ASTERACEAE Pteronia villosa L.f. LC ASTERACEAE LC (L.f.) DC. ASTERACEAE Senecio abruptus Thunb. LC ASTERACEAE Senecio piptocoma O.Hoffm. LC ASTERACEAE Senecio sarcoides C.Jeffrey LC ASTERACEAE Senecio tortuosus DC. LC Tripteris oppositifolia (Aiton) ASTERACEAE Stoebe nervigera (DC.) Sch.Bip. LC ASTERACEAE LC B.Nord. Ursinia chrysanthemoides (Less.) ASTERACEAE Tripteris sinuata DC. var. sinuata LC ASTERACEAE LC Harv. Heliophila juncea (P.J.Bergius) ASTERACEAE Ursinia speciosa DC. LC BRASSICACEAE LC Druce Berzelia abrotanoides (L.) BRASSICACEAE Heliophila pusilla L.f. var. pusilla LC BRUNIACEAE LC Brongn. CAMPANULACEAE Microcodon linearis (L.f.) H.Buek LC CAMPANULACEAE Wahlenbergia annularis A.DC. LC Wahlenbergia paniculata CAMPANULACEAE Wahlenbergia costata A.DC. LC CAMPANULACEAE LC (Thunb.) A.DC. Atriplex semibaccata R.Br. var. Atriplex vestita (Thunb.) Aellen CHENOPODIACEAE LC CHENOPODIACEAE LC appendiculata Aellen var. appendiculata Aellen Atriplex vestita (Thunb.) Aellen var. Manochlamys albicans (Aiton) CHENOPODIACEAE LC CHENOPODIACEAE LC inappendiculata Aellen Aellen CHENOPODIACEAE Salsola araneosa Botsch. LC CHENOPODIACEAE Salsola glabrescens Burtt Davy LC Sarcocornia natalensis (Bunge ex Sarcocornia perennis (Mill.) CHENOPODIACEAE LC CHENOPODIACEAE LC Ung.-Sternb.) A.J.Scott var. natalensis A.J.Scott var. perennis Sarcocornia pillansii (Moss) A.J.Scott Sarcocornia xerophila (Toelken) CHENOPODIACEAE LC CHENOPODIACEAE LC var. pillansii A.J.Scott CHENOPODIACEAE Suaeda fruticosa (L.) Forssk. LC CHENOPODIACEAE Suaeda inflata Aellen LC

Juno WEF - Ecological Scoping Study

45

Adromischus marianiae Adromischus marianiae (Marloth) CRASSULACEAE LC CRASSULACEAE (Marloth) A.Berger var. LC A.Berger var. immaculatus Uitewaal marianiae CRASSULACEAE Cotyledon papillaris L.f. LC CRASSULACEAE Crassula barklyi N.E.Br. LC Crassula brevifolia Harv. subsp. Crassula elegans Schönland & CRASSULACEAE LC CRASSULACEAE LC brevifolia Baker f. subsp. elegans Crassula expansa Dryand. subsp. Crassula expansa Dryand. subsp. CRASSULACEAE LC CRASSULACEAE LC expansa pyrifolia (Compton) Toelken CRASSULACEAE Crassula glomerata P.J.Bergius LC CRASSULACEAE Crassula hirtipes Harv. LC Crassula macowaniana Schönland & Crassula muscosa L. var. CRASSULACEAE LC CRASSULACEAE LC Baker f. muscosa Crassula nudicaulis L. var. herrei CRASSULACEAE LC CRASSULACEAE Crassula strigosa L. LC (Friedrich) Toelken Crassula tomentosa Thunb. var. CRASSULACEAE LC CRASSULACEAE Crassula umbellata Thunb. LC tomentosa Tylecodon grandiflorus (Burm.f.) Tylecodon pearsonii (Schönland) CRASSULACEAE LC CRASSULACEAE LC Toelken Toelken Tylecodon reticulatus (L.f.) Toelken CRASSULACEAE LC CUCURBITACEAE Kedrostis psammophylla Bruyns LC subsp. reticulatus CYPERACEAE Cyperus textilis Thunb. LC CYPERACEAE Ficinia argyropus Nees LC Ficinia nigrescens (Schrad.) CYPERACEAE Ficinia dunensis Levyns LC CYPERACEAE LC J.Raynal Isolepis cernua (Vahl) Roem. & Schult. Isolepis marginata (Thunb.) CYPERACEAE LC CYPERACEAE LC var. setiformis (Benth.) Muasya A.Dietr. CYPERACEAE Isolepis sepulcralis Steud. LC CYPERACEAE Isolepis trachysperma Nees LC CYTINACEAE Cytinus sanguineus (Thunb.) Fourc. LC EBENACEAE Diospyros glabra (L.) De Winter LC Euclea racemosa Murray subsp. Euclea tomentosa E.Mey. ex EBENACEAE LC EBENACEAE LC racemosa A.DC. EUPHORBIACEAE Euphorbia burmannii E.Mey. ex Boiss. LC EUPHORBIACEAE Euphorbia exilis L.C.Leach LC Calobota angustifolia (E.Mey.) Calobota cinerea (E.Mey.) FABACEAE LC FABACEAE LC Boatwr. & B.-E.van Wyk Boatwr. & B.-E.van Wyk Calobota spinescens (Harv.) Boatwr. FABACEAE LC FABACEAE Indigofera amoena Aiton LC & B.-E.van Wyk FABACEAE Indigofera exigua Eckl. & Zeyh. LC FABACEAE Indigofera frutescens L.f. LC FABACEAE Indigofera venusta Eckl. & Zeyh. LC FABACEAE Lessertia diffusa R.Br. LC FABACEAE Lessertia excisa DC. LC FABACEAE Lessertia prostata DC. LC Lotononis involucrata (P.J.Bergius) Benth. subsp. FABACEAE Lessertia rigida E.Mey. LC FABACEAE LC peduncularis (E.Mey.) B.-E.van Wyk Lotononis parviflora (P.J.Bergius) FABACEAE Lotononis leptoloba Bolus LC FABACEAE LC D.Dietr. Melolobium candicans (E.Mey.) FABACEAE Melolobium aethiopicum (L.) Druce LC FABACEAE LC Eckl. & Zeyh. Otholobium virgatum (Burm.f.) FABACEAE LC FABACEAE Sutherlandia frutescens (L.) R.Br. LC C.H.Stirt. Wiborgia obcordata (P.J.Bergius) FABACEAE LC FRANKENIACEAE Frankenia pulverulenta L. LC Thunb. Pelargonium capitatum (L.) FRANKENIACEAE Frankenia repens (P.J.Bergius) Fourc. LC GERANIACEAE LC L'Hér. Pelargonium carnosum (L.) L'Hér. GERANIACEAE LC GERANIACEAE Pelargonium crithmifolium Sm. LC subsp. carnosum GERANIACEAE Pelargonium echinatum Curtis LC GERANIACEAE Pelargonium fulgidum (L.) L'Hér. LC Pelargonium oenothera (L.f.) GERANIACEAE Pelargonium gibbosum (L.) L'Hér. LC GERANIACEAE LC Jacq. Pelargonium praemorsum Pelargonium polycephalum (E.Mey. GERANIACEAE LC GERANIACEAE (Andrews) F.Dietr. subsp. LC ex Harv.) R.Knuth praemorsum GERANIACEAE Pelargonium senecioides L'Hér. LC GERANIACEAE Sarcocaulon l'heritieri Sweet LC Albuca unifolia (Retz.) HYACINTHACEAE Albuca paradoxa Dinter LC HYACINTHACEAE LC J.C.Manning & Goldblatt Drimia virens (Schltr.) HYACINTHACEAE Albuca viscosa L.f. LC HYACINTHACEAE LC J.C.Manning & Goldblatt

Juno WEF - Ecological Scoping Study

46

HYACINTHACEAE Lachenalia patula Jacq. LC HYACINTHACEAE Lachenalia splendida Diels LC Lachenalia violacea Jacq. var. HYACINTHACEAE Lachenalia undulata Masson ex Baker LC HYACINTHACEAE LC violacea Babiana ambigua (Roem. & Schult.) Babiana grandiflora Goldblatt & IRIDACEAE LC IRIDACEAE LC G.J.Lewis J.C.Manning Chasmanthe floribunda (Salisb.) IRIDACEAE Babiana sinuata G.J.Lewis LC IRIDACEAE LC N.E.Br. IRIDACEAE Ferraria divaricata Sweet LC IRIDACEAE Ferraria ferrariola (Jacq.) Willd. LC Geissorhiza exscapa (Thunb.) IRIDACEAE Ferraria uncinata Sweet LC IRIDACEAE LC Goldblatt IRIDACEAE Gladiolus arcuatus Klatt LC IRIDACEAE Gladiolus carinatus Aiton LC Gladiolus caryophyllaceus (Burm.f.) IRIDACEAE LC IRIDACEAE Gladiolus equitans Thunb. LC Poir. IRIDACEAE Gladiolus orchidiflorus Andrews LC IRIDACEAE Gladiolus watermeyeri L.Bolus LC IRIDACEAE Hesperantha bachmannii Baker LC IRIDACEAE Hesperantha marlothii R.C.Foster LC IRIDACEAE Lapeirousia anceps (L.f.) Ker Gawl. LC IRIDACEAE Lapeirousia arenicola Schltr. LC Lapeirousia pyramidalis (Lam.) IRIDACEAE Lapeirousia jacquinii N.E.Br. LC IRIDACEAE LC Goldblatt subsp. pyramidalis IRIDACEAE Moraea falcifolia Klatt LC IRIDACEAE Moraea gawleri Spreng. LC IRIDACEAE Moraea macrocarpa Goldblatt LC IRIDACEAE Moraea miniata Andrews LC IRIDACEAE Moraea neglecta G.J.Lewis LC IRIDACEAE Moraea serpentina Baker LC IRIDACEAE Romulea schlechteri Bég. LC JUNCACEAE Juncus scabriusculus Kunth LC Ballota africana (L.) Benth. LC LAMIACEAE Salvia lanceolata Lam. LC Cryptocarya angustifolia E.Mey. ex LAURACEAE LC LORANTHACEAE Septulina glauca (Thunb.) Tiegh. LC Meisn. Hermannia amoena Dinter ex MALVACEAE Hermannia alnifolia L. LC MALVACEAE LC Friedr.-Holzh. Hermannia cordata (E.Mey. ex Hermannia cuneifolia Jacq. var. MALVACEAE LC MALVACEAE LC E.Phillips) De Winter cuneifolia Hermannia heterophylla (Cav.) MALVACEAE Hermannia desertorum Eckl. & Zeyh. LC MALVACEAE LC Thunb. MALVACEAE Hermannia multiflora Jacq. LC MALVACEAE Hermannia scordifolia Jacq. LC MALVACEAE Hermannia stipitata Pillans LC MALVACEAE Hermannia trifurca L. LC Amphibolia laevis (Aiton) MELIANTHACEAE Melianthus elongatus Wijnands LC MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE LC H.E.K.Hartmann Antimima amoena (Schwantes) Antimima watermeyeri (L.Bolus) MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE LC MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE LC H.E.K.Hartmann H.E.K.Hartmann MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Argyroderma fissum (Haw.) L.Bolus LC MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Aridaria brevicarpa L.Bolus LC Cephalophyllum loreum (L.) MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Cephalophyllum framesii L.Bolus LC MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE LC Schwantes Cephalophyllum tricolorum MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Cephalophyllum rigidum L.Bolus LC MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE LC (Haw.) Schwantes Cleretum papulosum (L.f.) L.Bolus Conicosia pugioniformis (L.) MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE LC MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE LC subsp. papulosum N.E.Br. subsp. pugioniformis Conophytum minutum (Haw.) N.E.Br. Conophytum uviforme (Haw.) MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE LC MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE LC var. nudum (Tischer) Boom N.E.Br. subsp. uviforme Dorotheanthus bellidiformis Dorotheanthus bellidiformis (Burm.f.) MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE LC MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE (Burm.f.) N.E.Br. subsp. LC N.E.Br. subsp. bellidiformis hestermalensis Ihlenf. & Struck Drosanthemum deciduum MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Drosanthemum curtophyllum L.Bolus LC MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE LC H.E.K.Hartmann & Bruckman Drosanthemum floribundum MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Drosanthemum diversifolium L.Bolus LC MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE LC (Haw.) Schwantes Drosanthemum hispidum (L.) MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE LC MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Drosanthemum leipoldtii L.Bolus LC Schwantes Drosanthemum luederitzii (Engl.) MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE LC MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Drosanthemum salicola L.Bolus LC Schwantes Jordaaniella cuprea (L.Bolus) Jordaaniella dubia (Haw.) MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE LC MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE LC H.E.K.Hartmann H.E.K.Hartmann Jordaaniella spongiosa (L.Bolus) Leipoldtia schultzei (Schltr. & MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE LC MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE LC H.E.K.Hartmann Diels) Friedrich

Juno WEF - Ecological Scoping Study

47

Malephora framesii (L.Bolus) MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Malephora crocea (Jacq.) Schwantes LC MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE LC H.Jacobsen & Schwantes Malephora purpureo-crocea (Haw.) Mesembryanthemum MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE LC MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE LC Schwantes guerichianum Pax Monilaria moniliformis (Thunb.) MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Mesembryanthemum nodiflorum L. LC MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE LC Ihlenf. & S.Jörg. Oscularia alba (L.Bolus) MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Oophytum oviforme (N.E.Br.) N.E.Br. LC MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE LC H.E.K.Hartmann Oscularia lunata (Willd.) Oscularia steenbergensis MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE LC MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE LC H.E.K.Hartmann (L.Bolus) H.E.K.Hartmann Phyllobolus spinuliferus (Haw.) MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Phyllobolus nitidus (Haw.) Gerbaulet LC MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE LC Gerbaulet Phyllobolus trichotomus (Thunb.) Psilocaulon articulatum (Thunb.) MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE LC MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE LC Gerbaulet N.E.Br. Psilocaulon junceum (Haw.) MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Psilocaulon dinteri (Engl.) Schwantes LC MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE LC Schwantes Psilocaulon salicornioides (Pax) MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE LC MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Ruschia leucosperma L.Bolus LC Schwantes Ruschia tumidula (Haw.) MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Ruschia subpaniculata L.Bolus LC MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE LC Schwantes Stoeberia frutescens (L.Bolus) Van Stoeberia utilis (L.Bolus) Van MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE LC MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE LC Jaarsv. Jaarsv. Coelanthum grandiflorum E.Mey. MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Vanzijlia annulata (A.Berger) L.Bolus LC MOLLUGINACEAE LC ex Fenzl Limeum africanum L. subsp. MOLLUGINACEAE Hypertelis angrae-pequenae Friedrich LC MOLLUGINACEAE LC africanum MOLLUGINACEAE Pharnaceum exiguum Adamson LC MOLLUGINACEAE Pharnaceum lanatum Bartl. LC Pharnaceum microphyllum L.f. MOLLUGINACEAE Pharnaceum lineare L.f. LC MOLLUGINACEAE LC var. microphyllum Grielum humifusum Thunb. var. NEURADACEAE Grielum grandiflorum (L.) Druce LC NEURADACEAE LC humifusum Olea europaea L. subsp. africana Ophioglossum polyphyllum OLEACEAE LC OPHIOGLOSSACEAE LC (Mill.) P.S.Green A.Braun var. polyphyllum ORCHIDACEAE Corycium crispum (Thunb.) Sw. LC ORCHIDACEAE Holothrix aspera (Lindl.) Rchb.f. LC OROBANCHACEAE Harveya pauciflora (Benth.) Hiern LC OROBANCHACEAE Hyobanche atropurpurea Bolus LC OXALIDACEAE Oxalis annae F.Bolus LC OXALIDACEAE Oxalis dregei Sond. LC Oxalis pulchella Jacq. var. glauca OXALIDACEAE Oxalis hirta L. var. hirta LC OXALIDACEAE LC T.M.Salter PLANTAGINACEAE Plantago cafra Decne. LC PLANTAGINACEAE Plantago lanceolata L. LC Limonium equisetinum (Boiss.) Limonium peregrinum PLUMBAGINACEAE LC PLUMBAGINACEAE LC R.A.Dyer (P.J.Bergius) R.A.Dyer Aristida congesta Roem. & Schult. POACEAE LC POACEAE Bromus pectinatus Thunb. LC subsp. congesta Chaetobromus involucratus (Schrad.) Cladoraphis cyperoides (Thunb.) POACEAE Nees subsp. dregeanus (Nees) LC POACEAE LC S.M.Phillips Verboom POACEAE Cladoraphis spinosa (L.f.) S.M.Phillips LC POACEAE Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers. LC Ehrharta brevifolia Schrad. var. Ehrharta brevifolia Schrad. var. POACEAE LC POACEAE LC brevifolia cuspidata Nees POACEAE Ehrharta calycina Sm. LC POACEAE Ehrharta delicatula Stapf LC Ehrharta rupestris Nees ex Trin. POACEAE LC POACEAE Ehrharta thunbergii Gibbs Russ. LC subsp. rupestris Eleusine coracana (L.) Gaertn. POACEAE Ehrharta triandra Nees ex Trin. LC POACEAE subsp. africana (Kenn.-O'Byrne) LC Hilu & de Wet Eragrostis trichophora Coss. & POACEAE Eragrostis curvula (Schrad.) Nees LC POACEAE LC Durieu POACEAE Odyssea paucinervis (Nees) Stapf LC POACEAE Panicum maximum Jacq. LC Schismus barbatus (Loefl. ex L.) POACEAE Panicum repens L. LC POACEAE LC Thell. Stipagrostis ciliata (Desf.) De POACEAE Setaria pumila (Poir.) Roem. & Schult. LC POACEAE Winter var. capensis (Trin. & LC Rupr.) De Winter

Juno WEF - Ecological Scoping Study

48

Stipagrostis zeyheri (Nees) De Stipagrostis namaquensis (Nees) De POACEAE LC POACEAE Winter subsp. macropus (Nees) LC Winter De Winter Tribolium pusillum (Nees) POACEAE Tribolium acutiflorum (Nees) Renvoize LC POACEAE LC H.P.Linder & Davidse POLYGALACEAE Polygala ephedroides Burch. LC POLYGONACEAE Rumex lanceolatus Thunb. LC Thamnochortus bachmannii PROTEACEAE Leucadendron pubescens R.Br. LC RESTIONACEAE LC Mast. Willdenowia glomerata (Thunb.) Cliffortia polygonifolia L. var. RESTIONACEAE LC ROSACEAE LC H.P.Linder polygonifolia Anthospermum spathulatum Spreng. Diosma ramosissima Bartl. & RUBIACEAE LC RUTACEAE LC subsp. spathulatum H.L.Wendl. Salix mucronata Thunb. subsp. SALICACEAE LC SANTALACEAE Thesium elatius Sond. LC mucronata SANTALACEAE Thesium nudicaule A.W.Hill LC SANTALACEAE Thesium pubescens A.DC. LC Chaenostoma caeruleum (L.f.) SANTALACEAE Thesium spinosum L.f. LC SCROPHULARIACEAE LC Kornhall SCROPHULARIACEAE Diascia pachyceras E.Mey. ex Benth. LC SCROPHULARIACEAE Diascia veronicoides Schltr. LC SCROPHULARIACEAE Dischisma clandestinum E.Mey. LC SCROPHULARIACEAE Hebenstretia cordata L. LC Manulea altissima L.f. subsp. SCROPHULARIACEAE Lyperia tristis (L.f.) Benth. LC SCROPHULARIACEAE LC longifolia (Benth.) Hilliard SCROPHULARIACEAE Manulea decipiens Hilliard LC SCROPHULARIACEAE Nemesia bicornis (L.) Pers. LC Nemesia cheiranthus E.Mey. ex SCROPHULARIACEAE LC SCROPHULARIACEAE Nemesia euryceras Schltr. LC Benth. Nemesia pulchella Schltr. ex SCROPHULARIACEAE Nemesia ligulata E.Mey. ex Benth. LC SCROPHULARIACEAE LC Hiern Phyllopodium phyllopodioides (Schltr.) SCROPHULARIACEAE LC SCROPHULARIACEAE Phyllopodium pumilum Benth. LC Hilliard Polycarena lilacina Hilliard var. SCROPHULARIACEAE LC SCROPHULARIACEAE Zaluzianskya affinis Hilliard LC difficilis Hilliard SCROPHULARIACEAE Zaluzianskya benthamiana Walp. LC SCROPHULARIACEAE Zaluzianskya villosa F.W.Schmidt LC SOLANACEAE Lycium amoenum Dammer LC SOLANACEAE Lycium horridum Thunb. LC SOLANACEAE Lycium oxycarpum Dunal LC SOLANACEAE Lycium tetrandrum Thunb. LC THYMELAEACEAE Struthiola leptantha Bolus LC THYMELAEACEAE Struthiola striata Lam. LC VISCACEAE Viscum capense L.f. LC ZYGOPHYLLACEAE Zygophyllum cordifolium L.f. LC ZYGOPHYLLACEAE Zygophyllum flexuosum Eckl. & Zeyh. LC ZYGOPHYLLACEAE Zygophyllum morgsana L. LC Foeniculum vulgare Mill. var. Not ZYGOPHYLLACEAE Zygophyllum retrofractum Thunb. LC APIACEAE vulgare Evaluated Asparagus exuvialis Burch. forma Not Not ASPARAGACEAE BRASSICACEAE Brassica tournefortii Gouan exuvialis Evaluated Evaluated Atriplex cinerea Poir. subsp. Not Not CARYOPHYLLACEAE Spergularia media (L.) C.Presl CHENOPODIACEAE bolusii (C.H.Wright) Aellen var. Evaluated Evaluated genuina Aellen Atriplex lindleyi Moq. subsp. inflata Not Bolboschoenus glaucus (Lam.) Not CHENOPODIACEAE CYPERACEAE (F.Muell.) Paul G.Wilson Evaluated S.G.Sm. x B. maritimus (L.) Palla Evaluated Not Not FABACEAE Medicago polymorpha L. FABACEAE Melilotus albus Medik. Evaluated Evaluated Not Not FABACEAE Melilotus indicus (L.) All. HYACINTHACEAE Albuca navicula U.Müll.-Doblies Evaluated Evaluated Not Not JUNCACEAE Juncus bufonius L. MYOPORACEAE Myoporum tenuifolium G.Forst. Evaluated Evaluated Limonium sinuatum (L.) Mill. subsp. Not Not PLUMBAGINACEAE POACEAE Bromus catharticus Vahl sinuatum Evaluated Evaluated Not Pennisetum setaceum (Forssk.) Not POACEAE Paspalum dilatatum Poir. POACEAE Evaluated Chiov. Evaluated Not Sphenopus divaricatus (Gouan) Not POACEAE Polypogon monspeliensis (L.) Desf. POACEAE Evaluated Rchb. Evaluated Not Not POLYGONACEAE Polygonum maritimum L. SOLANACEAE Nicotiana glauca Graham Evaluated Evaluated Gethyllis ciliaris (Thunb.) Thunb. AMARYLLIDACEAE NT APOCYNACEAE Ceropegia occidentalis R.A.Dyer NT subsp. ciliaris Stapelia paniculata Willd. subsp. Helichrysum marmarolepis APOCYNACEAE NT ASTERACEAE NT paniculata S.Moore

Juno WEF - Ecological Scoping Study

49

Calobota lotononoides (Schltr.) Babiana confusa (G.J.Lewis) FABACEAE NT IRIDACEAE NT Boatwr. & B.-E.van Wyk Goldblatt & J.C.Manning Babiana hirsuta (Lam.) Goldblatt & IRIDACEAE NT IRIDACEAE Ferraria foliosa G.J.Lewis NT J.C.Manning Jordaaniella uniflora (L.Bolus) Leucadendron teretifolium MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE NT PROTEACEAE NT H.E.K.Hartmann (Andrews) I.Williams Passerina filiformis L. subsp. SCROPHULARIACEAE Polycarena capensis (L.) Benth. NT THYMELAEACEAE glutinosa (Thoday) NT C.L.Bredenkamp & A.E.van Wyk Tylecodon tenuis (Toelken) ASTERACEAE Leucoptera subcarnosa B.Nord. Rare CRASSULACEAE Rare Bruyns Babiana teretifolia Goldblatt & IRIDACEAE Rare ASTERACEAE Othonna intermedia Compton Threatened J.C.Manning Tylecodon pygmaeus (W.F.Barker) Antimima komkansica (L.Bolus) CRASSULACEAE Threatened MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Threatened Toelken H.E.K.Hartmann Drosanthemum pulverulentum (Haw.) MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Threatened MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Ruschia langebaanensis L.Bolus Threatened Schwantes APOCYNACEAE Quaqua framesii (Pillans) Bruyns VU ASPHODELACEAE Bulbine haworthioides B.Nord. VU Leucoptera nodosa (Thunb.) ASPHODELACEAE Bulbine melanovaginata G.Will. VU ASTERACEAE VU B.Nord. Oedera silicicola (K.Bremer) Anderb. ASTERACEAE VU ASTERACEAE Othonna hallii B.Nord. VU & K.Bremer Wahlenbergia asparagoides CAMPANULACEAE VU EUPHORBIACEAE Euphorbia schoenlandii Pax VU (Adamson) Lammers HYACINTHACEAE Ornithogalum naviculum W.F.Barker VU IRIDACEAE Babiana lewisiana B.Nord. VU Lapeirousia simulans Goldblatt & Diplosoma luckhoffii (L.Bolus) IRIDACEAE VU MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE VU J.C.Manning Schwantes ex Ihlenf. Leucospermum rodolentum POLYGALACEAE Muraltia obovata DC. VU PROTEACEAE VU (Salisb. ex Knight) Rourke Chaenostoma multiramosum Dimorphotheca pinnata (Thunb.) Not SCROPHULARIACEAE VU ASTERACEAE (Hilliard) Kornhall Harv. Evaluated Babiana virescens Goldblatt & Not Moraea longipes Goldblatt & Not IRIDACEAE IRIDACEAE J.C.Manning Evaluated J.C.Manning Evaluated Antimima perforata (L.Bolus) Not Monelytrum luederitzianum Not MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE POACEAE H.E.K.Hartmann Evaluated Hack. Evaluated Jamesbrittenia canescens Not Not POLYGONACEAE Emex australis Steinh. SCROPHULARIACEAE (Benth.) Hilliard var. laevior Evaluated Evaluated (Dinter) Hilliard

Juno WEF - Ecological Scoping Study

50

Appendix 2. List of Mammals

List of Mammals know from the broad area around the Juno site, based on the MammalMap Database (http://vmus.adu.org.za). Species in Bold are those confirmed present at the site.

Red list No. Family Species Common name category records

Bathyergidae Bathyergus suillus Cape Dune Mole-rat Least Concern 4 Southern Af rican Bathyergidae Cryptomys hottentotus Least Concern 44 Mole-rat Bathyergidae Georychus capens is C ape Mole-rat Least Concern 1

Bovidae Antidorcas marsupialis Springbok Least Concern 3

Bovidae Oreotragus oreotragus Klipspringer Least Concern 4

Bovidae Raphicerus campestris Steenbok Least Concern 15

Bovidae Raphicerus melanotis Cape Grysbok Least Concern 3

Bovidae Sylvicapra grimmia Bush Duiker Least Concern 5

C anidae Canis mes omelas Blac k-backed Jackal Least Concern 3

C anidae Otocyon megalotis Bat-eared Fox Least Concern 20

Canidae Vulpes chama Cape Fox Least Concern 15

C ercopithecidae Papio urs inus C hacma Baboon Least Concern 4

Felidae Caracal caracal Caracal Least Concern 5

Felidae Felis nigripes Blac k-footed Cat Least Concern 1

Felidae Felis silvestris Wildcat Least Concern 4

Felidae Panthera pardus Leopard Least Concern 7 Spectacled African Gliridae Graphiurus ocularis Least Concern 1 Dormous e Herpestidae Atilax paludinosus Marsh Mongoose Least Concern 1

Herpestidae Cynictis penicillata Yellow Mongoose Least Concern 7 Cape Gray Herpestidae Herpestes pulverulentus Least Concern 7 Mongoose Herpestidae Suricata suricatta Meerkat Least Concern 11

Hyaenidae P roteles cristata Aardwolf Least Concern 2

Hystricidae Hystrix af ricaeaustralis Cape Porcupine Least Concern 9

Leporidae Lepus capensis Cape Hare Least Concern 3

Leporidae Lepus s axatilis Sc rub Hare Least Concern 2

Macroscelididae Elephantulus edwardii C ape Elephant Shrew Least Concern 5 Short-eared Macroscelididae Macroscelides proboscideus Least Concern 10 Elephant Shrew M uridae Acomys subspinosus C ape Spiny Mouse Least Concern 1 Namaqua Rock Muridae Aethomys namaquensis Least Concern 23 Mouse C ape Short-tailed M uridae Desmodillus auricularis Least Concern 11 Gerbil M uridae Gerbillis cus afra Cape Gerbil Least Concern 6 Paeba Hairy-f ooted Muridae Gerbilliscus paeba Least Concern 14 Gerbil Brus h-tailed Hairy- M uridae Gerbillis cus vallinus Least Concern 1 footed Gerbil Southern A frican M uridae Mus minutoides Least Concern 12 Pygmy Mouse

Juno WEF - Ecological Scoping Study

51

M uridae Myomys cus verreauxi V erreaux's Mouse Least Concern 3 Southern African Vlei M uridae Otomys irroratus Least Concern 2 Rat Muridae Otomys unisulcatus Karoo Bush Rat Least Concern 15

M uridae Parotomys brants ii Brants's Whistling Rat Least Concern 24 Littledale's Whistling N ear M uridae Parotomys littledalei 2 Rat T hreatened Xeric Four-striped Muridae Rhabdomys pumilio Least Concern 61 Grass Rat M us telidae Aonyx capens is A fric an Clawless O tter Least Concern 1

Mustelidae Ictonyx striatus Striped Polecat Least Concern 12

Mustelidae Mellivora capensis Honey Badger Least Concern 4 A frican Striped M us telidae Poecilogale albinucha Data deficient 1 Weas el Gray African Climbing N es omyidae Dendromus melanotis Least Concern 3 M ous e Large-eared African N es omyidae Malacothrix typica Least Concern 5 Desert Mouse A frican White-tailed N es omyidae Mys tromys albicaudatus E ndangered 4 Rat Orycteropodidae Orycteropus af er Aardvark Least Concern 5

Procaviidae P rocavia capensis Cape Rock Hyrax Least Concern 8

Reddis h-gray Musk Soric idae Crocidura cyanea Data Deficient 10 Shrew Greater Red Musk Soric idae Crocidura flaves cens Data Deficient 4 Shrew Soric idae Myos orex varius Forest Shrew Data Deficient 17

V iverridae Genetta genetta C ommon Genet Least Concern 3

Juno WEF - Ecological Scoping Study

52

Appendix 3. List of Reptiles List of Reptiles known from the vicinity of the Juno site, based on records from the ReptileMap database. Conservation status is from Bates et al. 2013.

No. Family Genus Species Subspecies Common name Red list category Area records C ommon Ground A gamidae Agama aculeata aculeata Least Concern 3 A gama 3118 Southern Rock A gamidae Agama atra Least Concern 2 3118C A gama Spiny Ground A gamidae Agama his pida Leas t C oncern 1 3118C A gama Western Dwarf C hamaeleonidae Bradypodion occidentale Least Concern 1 3118C C hameleon

C olubridae Das ypeltis s cabra Rhombic Egg-eater Least Concern 4 3118

C olubridae Dips ina multimaculata Dwarf Beaked Snake Least Concern 2 3118 C olubridae Dispholidus typus typus Booms lang Least Concern 1 3118C

C olubridae Teles copus beetzii Beetz's Tiger Snake Least Concern 2 3118

C ordylidae C ape Girdled Lizard Least Concern 1 3118 McLachlan's Girdled C ordylidae Cordylus mclachlani Least Concern 2 Lizard 3118

C ordylidae Hemicordylus capens is Graceful Crag Lizard Least Concern 9 3118 C ordylidae Karus as aurus polyzonus Karoo Girdled Lizard Least Concern 14 3118C

C ordylidae Namazonurus peers i P eers' Girdled Lizard Leas t C oncern 1 3118

E lapidae As pidelaps lubricus lubricus C oral Shield Cobra 1 3118

E lapidae Naja nigricincta woodi Black Spitting Cobra Least Concern 2 3118

E lapidae Naja nivea C ape Cobra Least Concern 2 3118

Gekkonidae Chondrodactylus bibronii Bibron's Gecko Least Concern 9 3118 C ederberg Pygmy Gekkonidae Goggia hexapora Least Concern 2 Gec ko 3118 Northern Striped Gekkonidae Goggia lineata Least Concern 5 3118C Pygmy Gecko Namaqua Pygmy Gekkonidae Goggia rupicola Least Concern 2 Gec ko 3118 Gekkonidae Pachydactylus aus teni A usten's Gecko Least Concern 4 3118C Southern Rough Gekkonidae Pachydactylus formos us Least Concern 11 Gec ko 3118 Gekkonidae Pachydactylus labialis Western Cape Gecko Least Concern 7 3118C

Gekkonidae Pachydactylus mariquensis Marico Gecko Least Concern 2 3118 Gekkonidae Pachydactylus weberi Weber's Gecko Least Concern 1 3118C

Gerrhosauridae Cordylos aurus subtessellatus Dwarf P lated Lizard Least Concern 4 3118 Lac ertidae Meroles knoxii Knox's Desert Lizard Least Concern 14 3118C Karoo Sandveld Lac ertidae Nucras livida Least Concern 3 3118C Lizard Western Sandveld Lac ertidae Nucras tes s ellata Least Concern 3 Lizard 3118

Lac ertidae Pedioplanis laticeps Karoo Sand Lizard Least Concern 1 3118 C ommon Sand Lac ertidae Pedioplanis lineoocellata pulchella Least Concern 5 Lizard 3118 Namaqua Sand Lac ertidae Pedioplanis namaquensis Least Concern 5 Lizard 3118 Boaedon capens is Brown House Snake Least Concern 1 3118C Spotted Harlequin Lamprophiidae Homoros elaps lacteus Least Concern 2 Snake 3118 Sundevall's Shovel- Lamprophiidae Pros ymna sundevallii Least Concern 3 s nout 3118 C ros s-marked Grass Lamprophiidae Ps ammophis crucifer Least Concern 1 3118C Snake Lamprophiidae Ps ammophis notostictus Karoo Sand Snake Least Concern 1 3118C

Lamprophiidae Ps ammophylax rhombeatus rhombeatus Spotted Grass Snake Least Concern 1 3118C

Juno WEF - Ecological Scoping Study

53

Lamprophiidae Ps ammophylax rhombeatus rhombeatus Spotted Grass Snake Least Concern 1 3118

Lamprophiidae Ps eudas pis cana M ole Snake Least Concern 1 3118 Slender Thread Leptotyphlopidae Namibiana gracilior Least Concern 1 3118C Snake Gray's Dwarf Legless Sc inc idae Acontias grayi Least Concern 2 3118C Skink C oastal Dwarf Sc inc idae Acontias litoralis Least Concern 6 3118C Legless Skink C ape Dwarf Sc inc idae Scelotes caffer Least Concern 2 3118C Burrowing Skink Gronovi's Dwarf Sc inc idae Scelotes gronovii Near Threatened 1 3118C Burrowing Skink Striped Dwarf Sc inc idae Scelotes s exlineatus Least Concern 1 3118C Burrowing Skink Sc inc idae Trachylepis capens is C ape Skink Least Concern 4 3118C Western Three- Sc inc idae Trachylepis occidentalis Least Concern 1 striped Skink 3118

Sc inc idae Trachylepis s ulcata s ulcata Western Rock Skink Least Concern 11 3118 Sc inc idae Trachylepis variegata V ariegated Skink Least Concern 13 3118C Southern Blind Sc inc idae Typhlosaurus caecus Least Concern 4 3118C Legless Skink Southern Blind Sc inc idae Typhlosaurus caecus Least Concern 4 Legless Skink 3118 Testudinidae Chers ina angulata A ngulate Tortoise Least Concern 9 3118C

Testudinidae Chers obius s ignatus Speckled Padloper V ulnerable 5 3118 Namaqua Tent Testudinidae Ps ammobates tentorius trimeni Least Concern 7 T ortoise 3118

V iperidae Bitis arietans arietans P uff A dder Least Concern 3 3118

Juno WEF - Ecological Scoping Study

54

Appendix 4. List of Amphibians List of Amphibians known from the vicinity of the Juno site, based on records from the FrogMap database. Conservation status is from Minter et al. 2004.

Red list Family Genus Species Subspecies Common name category

Brevicepitidae Breviceps namaquensis Namaqua Rain Frog Least Concern

Bufonidae Sclerophrys capens is Raucous Toad Least Concern Karoo Toad (subsp. Bufonidae Vandijkophrynus gariepensis gariepensis Least Concern gariepensis) P ipidae Xenopus laevis C ommon Platanna Least Concern

Pyxicephalidae Strongylopus grayii C licking Stream Frog Least Concern

Pyxicephalidae Tomopterna delalandii C ape Sand Frog Least Concern

Juno WEF - Ecological Scoping Study